Media Matters

The right-wing media closed out 2011 by attacking the Girl Scouts of America for, in the words of Glenn Beck website The Blaze, publishing a book that "refers young readers to Media Matters for America as one of the primary sources for debunking lies and deceit." Fox News led the charge, devoting more than 15 minutes over two days and three programs to the GSA's "liberal ideology," including its purported ties to Planned Parenthood.

Beck Website: "Girl Scouts Book Refers Readers To Liberal Group Media Matters"

The Blaze: Media Matters Reference Is "A Form Of Misinformation, Bias -- Potentially Even Indoctrination." On December 27, Glenn Beck website The Blaze reported:

In 2010, the Girl Scouts of the USA published a book called "MEdia." The publication, designed for girls in grades six through eight, is a guide that apparently offers insight into how young people should process and understand the media messages surrounding them.

Considering the pervasive nature of popular media, this seems like a viable tool. However, there's a problem -- the book refers young readers to Media Matters for America as one of the primary sources for debunking lies and deceit. [...]

The Blaze called the Girl Scouts on Dec. 13 to ask about the book. Spokesperson Michelle Tompkins seemed very familiar with the controversy over the inclusion of Media Matters and said that the organization is re-printing the book this month.

During a follow-up call, Tompkins pledged to answer some e-mail questions we sent over. These particular questions sought answers about how Media Matters came to be placed in the book, who wrote the page that the reference appears on and what group, if any, will replace Media Matters once the new publications are released. To date, we have received no response despite a follow-up voicemail and e-mails.

This story was originally brought to us by Christy Volanski, a concerned parent and a former Girl Scouts leader. Her daughter, Sydney, a 15-year-old who served as a Girl Scout for eight years, left the organization in 2010 after she found that it embraces some controversial stances. Now, Sydney co-edits "Speak Now: Girl Scouts Website," which provides plenty of other examples of what some may see as liberal bias.

Perhaps the Girl Scouts staffers were too busy to respond to us, but considering the fact that the Media Matters reference is, in itself, a form of misinformation, bias -- potentially even indoctrination -- we assumed that the book would no longer be on the market. But we were wrong. [TheBlaze.com, 12/27/11]

Fox News Trumpets Story, Highlights MMFA's "Agenda" To "Destroy Fox News"

Fox & Friends Hosts Attack Media Matters' "Agenda"; Criticize GSA For "Steering Kids The Wrong Way," Alleged "Liberal Bias." In a December 28 segment, Fox & Friends hosts criticized GSA for giving "bad information" by not directing girls to a "non-partisan, objective group," and suggested the Scouts have a "liberal bias" because "the Girl Scouts printed materials refer girls to planned important hood and other pro-abortion groups":

ALISYN CAMEROTA (CO-HOST): The controversial part is they direct girls to Media Matters. Well Media Matters is the group that you've probably heard about on this program that is not nonpartisan. In fact they have an agenda and one of their stated agendas is to destroy Fox News. So the fact that the Girl Scouts are being directed in this guide to sort through the media to Media Matters is very curious because there are nonpartisan, objective groups that also do fact checking that they could have been directed to instead of Media Matters. 

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): Right, and it is curious they would direct people, young kids to Media Matters, which is funded in part by George Soros, and you know his history. The publication The Blaze which is also a blog contacted the Girl Scouts and said, "Did you know you are sending kids over to Media Matters which is a lefty blog out there?" And they go, "yeah, we know. And by the way, we are going to reprint the book." Well, will that be in the new book? That blog, the Blaze, has not heard an answer whether or not that bad information about a site that is clearly with an agenda is going to be in the new book because it's steering kids the wrong way. [...]

DOOCY: And this came to the attention of some people because a 15-year-old Girl Scout had been doing some research and she realized there were a number of different agenda items that she felt that showed a liberal bias to the Girl Scouts. And so she started her own blog, and one of the things on her thing, according to her, is did you know the girl scouts printed materials, refer girls to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups? So in the course of doing her research, she found the Media Matters thing and the rest is history. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/28/11]

Fox & Friends Hosts Say It Is "Laughable" To Call Media Matters "Fair," Attack GSA's "Lefty Point Of View." From a second December 28 Fox & Friends segment:

CLAYTON MORRIS (CO-HOST): The book is called "MEdia" and it's handed out to those group of girls from I think the sixth grade up to eighth grade age range and it sends them to Media Matters, the website Media Matters, to get more information about lies, they say, or distortions that may be out there in the Media. Turns out, we know one of the most recent campaigns was going after Fox News Channel. It's also money coming from George Soros and others. So the notion that this is a--

DOOCY: Fair.

MORRIS: Nonpartisan or fair group is laughable. 

DOOCY: Absolutely. I mean, it's fair if you're on the left and perhaps that is perhaps the two authors who wrote this particular book have a lefty point of view and maybe they do. But then for them to say, "hey, girls out there, if you want to know what's real, go to this lefty web site," that's just crazy. There is a story out there that apparently 15-year-old girl last year dropped out of the Girl Scouts because she looked at some of the policies and realized that in her estimation, the Girl Scouts in some ways embrace a lefty point of view, a liberal bias. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/28/11]

For more Fox attacks on Media Matters, click here.

Right-Wing Blogosphere Pick Up Attacks, Promotes Girl Scout Cookie Boycott

CNN Contributor And Big Journalism Editor Loesch Criticizes "Ongoing Moral Decline" Of GSA, Suggests Cookie Boycott. In a December 28 post, Loesch embedded a Fox & Friends segment and stated:

Think twice before buying Girl Scout cookies next year. Fox and Friends discussed how the Girl Scouts of America is now promoting Media Matters, in addition to its affiliation with Planned Parenthood (more). [...]

By promoting Media Matters for America as a credible website, the Girl Scouts are endorsing the site's unethical practices and stances.

The ongoing moral decline of the Girl Scouts has caused an exodus within its ranks and a decline in its formerly popular cookie sales. The absence of such a group has sparked the creation of others to take its place, most notable among them: the American Heritage Girls and the Frontier Girls.

Next year, when the green sashes come by your home and ask you to buy cookies to help support their organization, know why your answer will be "no, thanks." [BigJournalism.com, 12/28/11]

Jawa Report: "I Guess I've Bought My Last Box Of Thin Mints." On December 29, Jawa Report reported:

A publication for the Girl Scouts of the USA is promoting the blatantly biased website 'Media Matters' as a source to clear up media disinformation. For those who aren't familiar with 'Media Matters,' the website dedicates all it's resources to misinforming the public about conservative media, especially Fox News.

I guess I've bought my last box of Thin Mints. [The Jawa Report, 12/29/11]

Ace of Spades Highlights "Odd Inclusion" Of Media Matters By GSA. On December 28, Ace of Spades' Ace wrote:

Girl Scouts Now Promoting Media Matters As Reliable Site To Clear Up "Misinformation"

The long march through the institutions.

Media Matters? Honestly?

In 2010, the Girl Scouts of the USA published a book called "MEdia." The publication, designed for girls in grades six through eight, is a guide that apparently offers insight into how young people should process and understand the media messages surrounding them.

And if you read something that strikes you as dubious, don't just accept it uncritically; make sure you check out an unbiased, straight-shooting source. [...]

The Girl Scouts are aware of this odd inclusion, but are apparently re-printing the book for further distribution -- Media Matters still cited as a legitimate source. [Ace of Spades, 12/28/11, emphasis original]

GSA Announces They Will Remove MMFA Reference In Face Of "Controversy"

Girl Scouts Statement: "Upcoming Reprints" Of Book "Will Not Include Links To Media Matters." On December 28, right-wing website The Daily Caller reported:

In a statement to The Daily Caller, Girl Scouts of the USA confirmed on Wednesday that its literature will no longer refer scouts to Media Matters For America as a source of information to balance bias in news reporting.

"Girl Scouts constantly reviews our materials based on feedback and suggestions we receive from our members and we update our materials on a regular basis," said the statement. "As a result of this process, upcoming reprints of journeys materials will not include links to Media Matters."

The book in question, titled "MEdia," currently advises Girl Scouts that "Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org) gets the word out about media misinformation." [Daily Caller, 12/28/11]

Fox News Doubles Down With Nearly 12 Minutes Attacking GSA's "Liberal Ideology"

Fox & Friends Hosts "Former Girl Scout" To Attack Media Matters Reference As Example Of "Liberal Ideology" Of Girl Scouts. During the December 29 edition of Fox & Friends, the hosts interviewed Sydney Volansky, the former Girl Scout and co-editor of the website Speak Now: Girl Scouts referenced in The Blaze:

DOOCY: I understand your family and some other families started noticing kind of what you would feel is a liberal agenda in the national Girl Scouts organization, and when you saw that book, it was suggesting if you want to know what's really going on in the media, go to Media Matters, which is clearly a left blog, you said that's just not going to stand, right?

VOLANSKY: Yes. My sister and I started a website to help inform families of the more leftward leanings of Girl Scouts because they promise to be neutral politically and about certain social issues, but when you examine the women they promote and the websites and books that they refer girls to, there is a clear liberal ideology, like with the Media Matters site. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/29/11]

Fox & Friends Amplifies Volansky's Attacks On GSA's Alleged "Lack Of Neutrality," "Real Motives," Ties To Planned Parenthood. From the Fox & Friends interview with Volansky:

CAMEROTA: And you were a Girl Scout for eight years, you were a proud Girl Scout.  You say it was a huge part of your life. But then because you started seeing these incidents of lack of neutrality you started the website called speaknowgirlscouts.com. What are you trying to accomplish with that?

VOLANSKY: With Speak Now: girl scouts, we are just trying to spread awareness to families because we were so deceived for eight years we were in Girl Scouts. We didn't realize that Girl Scouts was promoting such a liberal ideology.  And so we really just want to help families to understand Girl Scouts' real motives and what they are really promoting. 

DOOCY: In particular at the national level, we've got a sound bite from 2004, the woman who runs the Girl Scouts, Kathy Cloninger, and here she talks about a special relationship between the national Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. 

CLONINGER (VIDEO CLIP): We have relationships with our church communities, with YWCAs and with Planned Parenthood organizations across the country to bring information-based sex education programs to girls. 

DOOCY: One of our producers was told that she made a misstatement back then and that there is no relationship between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. Do you believe that to be true?

VOLANSKY: I don't believe that is true. For one thing that statement has never been formally retracted. So that kind of makes you wonder why she doesn't just say, "Oh, I made a mistake, let me retract that" instead of just having everyone else says it but she never comes out with that, so that's one thing. But also, you look at the sites they are promoting, they send girls to abortion-advocacy websites which will in turn send them to Planned Parenthood, and several years ago they actually had a direct link where they were sending girls directly to Planned Parenthood in a badge called "On Your Own." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/29/11]

Fox & Friends Re-airs Portion Of Volansky Interview, Says She's Exposing "Liberal Agenda" Of GSA. In a second December 29 segment, after re-airing a portion of the Volansky interview, Doocy said:

She got out of the Scouts a while back and then she's been compiling a list of what looks like the liberal agenda of the national Girl Scouts and that's when they found the Media Matters thing. When asked about why is Media Matters, which is clearly a lefty blog, George Soros-funded, left-leaning agenda wise blog, supposed to be the arbiter of media items, a spokesperson for the Girl Scouts of America said, "Girl Scouts constantly reviews our materials based on feedback and suggestions we receive from our members and we update our materials on a regular basis. As a result of the process, upcoming reprints of journeys" - that's the  name of the publication - "the materials will not include links to Media Matters." However, our young former Scout did say that despite the fact that the Girl Scouts say we're not going to have that, she had friends go out and try to get that book and as it turns out, Media Matters is still in the book, although the Girl Scouts have promised to remove it from future publications. 

Doocy also again highlighted GSA's supposed relationship with Planned Parenthood. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/29/11]

The Five Hosts Call Girl Scouts Book "Indoctrination," Say Media Matters Is A "Biased Left Wing Liberal Rag." From a discussion of the GSA book on the December 29 edition of The Five:

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: This is improper, it's indoctrination. It's ridiculous. I don't know what's going on with them. They are trying to pollute minds of young girls. And I'm glad they've been called out on it.

ANDREA TANTAROS: What's Media Matters?

GUILFOYLE: Irrelevant.

TANTAROS: I've never heard of them. [...]

ERIC BOLLING: I have a son but I wouldn't want my daughter to be learning about where to go for media training and media correctness to Media Matters, one of the most biased left wing liberal rags on the planet. So, maybe they should have vetted it a little bit better before they put the manual up - -

TANTAROS: I never heard of them. I don't even know what they are.

GREG GUTFELD: You know, I think this is all part of a merit badge for social justice. Have you seen that? No? All right. Well, if Media Matters had a cookie - I was thinking if Media Matters had a cookie, it would be called bitter nut. 

BOLLING: And if they had a drink, it would be called Kool-Aid. [Fox News, The Five, 12/29/11]

Wallace Highlights Report On Special Report. From the December 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report:

CHRIS WALLACE (GUEST HOST): The Girl Scouts say they will no longer recommend the liberal website Media Matters as a good source for fact checking suspected media bias. The Scouts book "MEdia" includes a section called "Consider the Source" devoted to news and urban legends. Quote, "Media Matters for America gets the world out about media misinformation." But industry blog Mediaite says Media Matters has a, quote, "far left bent that is both transparent and indisputable." [Fox News, Special Report, 12/29/11]

Since President Obama took office, right-wing media have argued that his foreign policy is making the United States less safe and is bent on attacking Israel. Those attacks have continued in 2011, even as the Obama administration has overseen the death of Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki, repeatedly supported Israel, and been praised by Israeli leaders.

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Making The U.S. Less Safe

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama's Actions In Libya Were Incoherent And Dangerous For Israel

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Anti-Israel And His Administration Is Anti-Semitic

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama's Speech On Israeli-Palestinian Peace Based On '67 Borders With Agreed Swaps Condoned "Potential Genocide"

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Supporting "Intifada" Against Israel By Restating U.S. Policy Regarding Settlements

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Making The U.S. Less Safe

Since Obama Took Office, Right-Wing Media Have Repeatedly Suggested That He Is Weak On Terror And Not Serious About Defending America From Terrorism Threats.

• Fox News' Bill Sammon: In Not Using The Word "Terrorism" Or Any Of Its Variants, Obama Showed "He Has Taken Us Off A War Footing As A Nation."  [Email from Bill Sammon, 2/6/10]
• Sean Hannity: "Obama Is Weak. He's An Appeaser." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/3/10, via Media Matters]
• Brian Kilmeade Falsely Accused Obama Of Neglecting Fight Against Terrorism. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/4/10, via Media Matters]
• Scheuer On Obama: "When It Comes To Defending America ... He's Generally Pretty Quiet." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 12/1/10, via Media Matters]

In 2011, The Right-Wing Media Continued To Claim That Obama Is Making The Country Less Safe.

• Glenn Beck: "We're On A Suicide Mission Here As A Nation." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 3/31/11, via Media Matters]

• Charles Krauthammer: Obama Has "Made War On The War On Terror."  [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 4/12/11, via Media Matters]

• Fox & Friends Asked If "WH Policies" Will Make It "Tougher" To "Catch A Terrorist."

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/9/11, via Media Matters]

• Fox's Camerota: "Al-Qaeda's Number Two [Is] Now Dead, But Does That Mean That America Is Any Safer?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/30/11, via Media Matters]

REALITY: Obama Administration Oversaw The Killing Of Osama Bin Laden And Other Terrorist Leaders

[The New York Times, 5/2/11]

Obama Authorized The Operation That Resulted In The Death Of Osama Bin Laden. Following the killing of Osama bin Laden, The Washington Post reported that the "surgical" special forces operation that resulted in the terrorist leader's death was authorized by President Obama on Friday, April 29 after months of intelligence gathering, and was carried out early the following Monday morning (local time) as a small force of elite American troops descended on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. According to the Post, the U.S. "did not share any intelligence with foreign governments, including Pakistan's." From a May 2 Post article:

Osama bin Laden, the long-hunted al-Qaeda leader and chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, was killed by U.S. forces Sunday in what officials described as a surgical raid on his luxury hideout in Pakistan.

In a rare Sunday night address from the East Room of the White House, President Obama said a small team of U.S. personnel attacked a compound Sunday in Pakistan's Abbottabad Valley, where bin Laden had been hiding since at least last summer. During a firefight, the U.S. team killed bin Laden, 54, and took custody of his body in what Obama called "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al-Qaeda."

The killing of the terrorism mastermind who had eluded U.S. forces for nearly a decade drew a spontaneous, cheering crowd outside the White House gates and at New York's Ground Zero, the site of al-Qaeda's 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

"We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies," a somber Obama said in his nine-minute statement that aired live on television worldwide. "We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to families who have lost loved ones to al-Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done."

Bin Laden's killing will provide a clear moment of victory for Obama at a time of deep political turmoil overseas that is upending long-standing U.S. policy in much of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East.

It also comes nearly 10 years after bin Laden orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, when al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked three passenger jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and crashed a fourth jet in rural Shanksville, Pa.

"Today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people," Obama said. "The cause of securing our country is not complete, but tonight we are once again reminded that America can do whatever it is we set our mind to. That is the story of our history."

The discovery that bin Laden had been hiding in a well-populated part of Pakistan, rather than a remote location, raised new questions about the extent to which Pakistan is cooperating with the United States in combating terrorism.

U.S. forces flew to bin Laden's hideout in helicopters about 1 a.m. Monday (late Sunday afternoon in Washington). Bin Laden was shot in the head after he and his guards resisted the U.S. attackers, the Associated Press reported. U.S. personnel identified him by facial recognition.

            [...]

National security adviser Thomas E. Donilon prepared the formal orders and convened senior national security officials that afternoon to plan for the operation. The United States did not share any intelligence with foreign governments, including Pakistan's, and only a "very small number" of people within the U.S. government knew about it, one official said.

Throughout the afternoon Sunday, Obama met with senior officials in the Situation Room for briefings on the operation. At 3:50 p.m., Obama learned that bin Laden was tentatively identified, and the president remained "actively involved in all facets of the operation, " a senior administration official said. [The Washington Post, 5/2/11]

• The Operation Was In Accordance With What Then-Candidate Obama Said He Would Do If Elected President. In an August 1, 2007 speech delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., Obama, who was then seeking the Democratic nomination for president, said he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from that country's government. ABC News reported at the time:

On August 1, 2007, a young Democratic presidential candidate -- criticized by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for being "irresponsible and frankly naïve" on foreign policy matters -- surprised many of his supporters by pledging to conduct military operations in Pakistan with or without that country's permission.

"I understand that President (Pervez)Musharraf has his own challenges," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said of the man who was then president of Pakistan, "but let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

[...]

At the time, Obama's speech, delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., seemed an attempt by the young senator to ramp up his campaign to the next phase, where he hoped to be seen as a president who would pursue a muscular foreign policy and protect the United States from terrorist attack. [ABCNews.com, 5/2/11]

Obama Ordered Drone Strike That Killed Anwar Al-Awlaki, An American-Born Al Qaeda Leader. Reuters reported on September 30:

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen on Friday by a U.S. drone strike is the culmination of two years of extensive U.S. efforts to track down the American-born member of al Qaeda and put him out of action.

Awlaki, identified by U.S. intelligence as "chief of external operations" for al Qaeda's Yemen branch and a Web-savvy propagandist for the Islamist cause, was killed in an attack by missiles fired from multiple CIA drones in a remote Yemeni town, U.S. officials said.

Among three other people killed in the attack, a U.S. official said, was Samir Khan, another American who turned to militancy and served as editor of "Inspire," a glossy magazine used as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The Yemen-based group is deemed by U.S. officials to be one of al Qaeda's most dangerous offshoots.

A U.S. official described the other two people killed in the attack as "unidentified associates" of Awlaki and Khan.

President Barack Obama hailed the Awlaki strike as "another significant milestone" in efforts to defeat al Qaeda and proof that it and its allies will find no safe haven. "The death of Awlaki is a major blow to al Qaeda's most active operational affiliate," Obama said. [Reuters, 9/30/11]

Under Obama, FBI And DEA Agents Foiled Alleged Iranian Plot To Assassinate Saudi Ambassador To The U.S. ABC News reported on October 11:

FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States" tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.

The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an announcement today that the plan was "conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran" by a faction of the government and called it a "flagrant" violation of U.S. and international law.

"The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," Holder said.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said the arrest of a suspect in the plot shows the U.S. will "bring the full weight of [the] law to bear on those responsible" and that "any attempts on American soil will not be tolerated." [ABCNews.com, 10/11/11]

Numerous Other Terrorist Leaders Have Been Killed During Obama's Presidency. In a September 30 blog post, ABC's Jake Tapper compiled a list of senior terrorist leaders killed during Obama's presidency. From Tapper's post:

Earlier this month officials confirmed that al Qaeda's chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan.

In August, 'Atiyah 'Abd al-Rahman,  the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed.

In June, one of the group's most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri,  was killed in Pakistan. In Yemen that same month, AQAP senior operatives Ammar al-Wa'ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed. In Somalia, Al-Qa'ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed.

Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest of Younis al-Mauritani  in Quetta.

Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud was killed in Pakistan.

In September of that month, Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top was killed in Indonesia, and AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan was killed in Somalia.

Then in December 2009 in Pakistan, al Qaeda operational commanders Saleh al-Somali and 'Abdallah Sa'id were killed.

In February 2010, in Pakistan,  Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar was captured; Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani was killed; and Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar was killed.

In March 2010, al Qaeda operative Hussein al-Yemeni was killed in Pakistan, while senior Jemayah Islamiya operative Dulmatin -- accused of being the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali bombings -- was killed during a raid in Indonesia.

In April 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq leaders Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.

In May, al Qaeda's number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri was killed.

In June 2010 in Pakistan, al Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi was killed. [Political Punch, 9/30/11, via ABCNews.com]

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama's Actions In Libya Were Incoherent And Dangerous For Israel Right-Wing Media Criticize Obama's Actions In Libya

• The Weekly Standard On Obama's Decision To Seek A UN Security Council Resolution On Libya: "This Is Not So Much A Feeble Response As A Non-Response." [The Weekly Standard, 2/23/11]
• The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol: Obama Administration Is "Dithering" On Libya. [The Weekly Standard, 2/25/11]
• Karl Rove: Obama Is "Dithering" On Libya And "As A Result America Has Looked Weak." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 2/28/11, via Media Matters]
• Fox News Anchor Jon Scott: "If I Were President Obama, I Would Unilaterally" Enforce Libya No-Fly Zone.  [Fox News, Happening Now, 2/28/11, via Media Matters]
• AEI's Steven Hayward: "I'm Not Sure I Ever Thought I'd See the Day That The United Nations ... Would Look Tougher Than The President Of The United States." [National Review Online, 3/17/11]
• NRO's James Carafano: "If U.S. Officials Had Moved To Stop The Fighting" Before The U.N. Resolution Passed "They Would Have Done So When Tripoli Was On The Ropes."  [National Review Online, 3/18/11]
• Dick Morris And Eileen McGann: "Does [Obama] Understand That He Could Have Stopped The Bloodshed In Libya By Declaring A No Fly Zone Three Weeks Ago?" [DickMorris.com, 3/18/11]
• Beck: "If I Would Have Told You A Year Ago That France Would Lead" On Libya Intervention, "Would You Have Believed That?" [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/18/11, via Media Matters]
• Beck Predicted That Action In Libya "Would Sweep, Destabilize, And Drag Us All Down." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/18/11, via Media Matters]
• Big Peace: Obama Is "Wasting Precious Time, Costing Civilian Lives, And Complicating The Task."  [Big Peace, 3/21/11]
• Ralph Peters: "You Really Can't Do War Part Way, Just Like You Can't Get A Little Bit Pregnant." [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 3/21/11, via Media Matters]
• David Asman: "There's No Respect For An Administration That Fears Taking The Lead." [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 3/21/11, via Media Matters]
• Hannity: "There Was A Great Reluctance By The President To Even Get On Board." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/21/11, via Nexis]
• Oliver North: Obama "Does Not Really Know What He Wants To Do." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/21/11, via Nexis]
• American Spectator: "Obama's Doctrine Of Multilateralism Is A Profession Of Weakness To All The Terror-Sponsoring Nations" And "Is Provoking Our Enemies To Action."  [American Spectator, 3/21/11]
• Big Peace: Obama "Waited Far Too Long," Allowing "The French, The French, To Become The Boosters Of Liberty In Our Place."  [Big Peace, 3/21/11]
• Peter Johnson, Jr.: "We Have To See Whether This Becomes President Obama's Iraq."  [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/21/11, via Media Matters; CNN.com, 3/21/11]

Right-Wing Media Suggest Obama's Libya Policy May Set The Stage For Military Attack On Israel

• Frank Gaffney: "The Gadhafi Precedent: Could Attack On Libya Set The Stage For Action Against Israel?"  [The Washington Times, 3/21/11]
• Fox Nation: "Op-Ed: Could Attack On Libya Set State For Action Against Israel?" Fox Nation highlighted and linked to Gaffney's column under the headline: "Op-Ed: Could Attack on Libya Set Stage for Action Against Israel?." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 3/22/11]

• WorldNetDaily: "American Military Targeting Israel?" [WorldNetDaily, 3/22/11]
• Beck: Obama Administration's "Responsibility To Protect" Doctrine Invoked With Regard To Libya Could Be Used Against Israel.  [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/29/11, via Media Matters]

REALITY: With U.S., NATO Support, Libyans Overthrew Gadhafi       

Wash. Post: Libyan Rebels Captured, Killed Gadhafi Following "Unprecedented NATO Air Campaign." The Washington Post reported on October 20:

Former Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed Thursday after being seized in a sewage tunnel in his home town -- the final triumph for pro-democracy fighters who have struggled for eight months to take control of the country.

Gaddafi's death came on a day of intense military activity in Sirte, the last loyalist holdout in Libya, where his supporters had fended off better-armed revolutionaries for weeks. Before his capture, a U.S. drone and French fighter jets fired on a large, disorganized convoy leaving the city that he appears to have been in. It was not clear whether the airstrikes hit Gaddafi's vehicles, NATO officials said.

Gaddafi was shot in the head during an exchange of gunfire between his supporters and revolutionaries as he was being whisked away from the tunnel in a truck, according to Mahmoud Jibril, the interim prime minister. But cellphone videos played on Arab-language TV stations showed an already bloodied and dazed Gaddafi being escorted to the truck, raising questions about exactly when he was hit. One of Gaddafi's sons, Mutassim, and his army chief of staff were also killed, officials said.

The taking of Sirte and Gaddafi's death marked the climax of a war that was backed by an unprecedented NATO air campaign aimed at protecting civilians. Thursday's events clear the way for the appointment of a temporary government that is to steer the country toward elections.

[...]

Fighters on the ground told Reuters that Gaddafi and a handful of his men appeared to run from their convoy after the NATO bombing and take shelter in two drainage pipes.

"At first we fired at them with antiaircraft guns, but it was no use," Salem Bakeer said while being feted by his comrades near the road. "Then we went in on foot."

The prime minister said Gaddafi was discovered with a group of supporters in a sewage pipe in Sirte, armed with a pistol and wearing pants and a long-underwear shirt -- a far cry from his famously flamboyant outfits. He did not resist arrest.

As Gaddafi was being walked to a truck, however, he was shot in the right arm in an exchange of gunfire between his supporters and revolutionaries, Jibril said.

The truck then got caught in crossfire as it headed toward a hospital, and Gaddafi was shot in the head, Jibril said.

"That was the deadly shot," he said in an interview. The former leader died shortly thereafter, he said.

But cellphone videos showed Gaddafi being loaded on a truck, blood spattered on his face and chest, suggesting he was wounded before boarding the truck.

"We got you!" revolutionaries in camouflage yelled as they crowded around the wounded former leader. [The Washington Post, 10/20/11]

NY Times: The U.S. "Remained The Backbone Of ... NATO Offensive[s]" In Libya. The New York Times reported on October 21:

Even as Washington put a European mask of command on the operation -- an effort described as "leading from behind" -- shortages in allied intelligence-gathering aircraft, aerial refueling tankers and precision-guidance kits for bombs proved the United States remained the backbone of any NATO offensive.

To be fair, while the fighting has dragged on longer than anticipated, the death on Thursday of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, gave senior Obama administration officials an opportunity to trumpet the new American way of war to a nation weary of ground combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[...]

For command bunkers in Tripoli as well as Colonel Qaddafi's final hide-out in Surt, NATO increasingly relied on American Predator drones that fly high overhead for hundreds of hours, chronicling the "pattern of life" below until allied commanders feel confident the site is a legitimate target. On Thursday, for instance, a Predator helped to guide a French warplane to attack Colonel Qaddafi's convoy as it tried to flee Surt. (NATO said Thursday it did not know Colonel Qaddafi was in the convoy then.)

Ditto with refueling tankers: The United States had to provide most refueling aircraft.

Likewise with the GPS packages, which turn gravity bombs into precision-guided weapons to hit their targets while minimizing civilian casualties. While alliance officers say no missions were delayed or canceled due to shortages of precision-guided munitions, there was a scramble to borrow from American and other stockpiles for NATO aircraft.

For the record, non-American alliance and partner aircraft flew 75 percent of all sorties of the war. And non-American alliance warships carried out 100 percent of the missions to enforce the arms embargo at sea.

[...]

For all the talk that no American combat troops were deployed in Libya, ground forces were required to topple the government. But they were Libyan rebel forces, and they required ample assistance and advising from outside powers. [The New York Times, 10/21/11]

There Have Been No UN Security Council Resolutions Authorizing Force In Israel. [UN.org, accessed 12/12/11]

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Anti-Israel And His Administration Is Anti-Semitic

• Beck: Members Of The Obama Administration Are "Openly Deliver[ing]" "Out-Of-Line Anti-Semitic Comments." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/31/11, via Media Matters]
• Rush Limbaugh: Obama Has A "Real Problem With Israel, But He Can't Say It." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/5/11, via Media Matters]
• Limbaugh: Obama Urged Israel To "Destroy Itself" And "Submit Its People To Potential Genocide." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
• WND's Larry Klayman: Religious Freedom Is "Under Attack By Our 'Muslim' President And His Fellow Anti-Semites."  [WorldNetDaily, 5/21/11]
• WSJ's Bret Stephens Called Obama "An Anti-Israel President." [The Wall Street Journal, 5/24/11]
• Beck: Obama Administration "Embraces" Anti-Israeli, Anti-Semitic, And Anti-American "Bigotry." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/6/11, via Media Matters]
• Bolton: Obama's Policies Are "The Most Anti-Israel Of Any President Since The Creation Of The State Of Israel." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/22/11, via Media Matters]
• Fox's Linda Chavez: The Obama Administration "Is The Most Anti-Israel Administration" In Israel's History. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/9/11, via Media Matters]
• Pamela Geller Blamed Obama For "Jew-Haters" In His Administration And Claimed He Has "Judeophobia." [Atlas Shrugs, 12/3/11]
• Kristol: Obama Is "Acting To Weaken The Security Of The State Of Israel." [The Weekly Standard, 12/3/11]
• American Thinker: "You Can't Be Pro-Obama And Pro-Israel." [American Thinker, 12/4/11]

REALITY: Obama Has Stood By Israel And Lobbied Against Palestinian Statehood At The UN

[WhiteHouse.gov, 9/21/11]

Obama Declared His Opposition To Palestinian Statehood Bid At The UN

Obama: "Peace Will Not Come Through Statements And Resolutions At The U.N." The New York Times reported on September 21:

President Obama declared his opposition to the Palestinian Authority's bid for statehood through the Security Council on Wednesday, throwing the weight of the United States directly in the path of the Arab democracy movement even as he hailed what he called the democratic aspirations that have taken hold throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

"Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N.," Mr. Obama said, in an address before world leaders at the General Assembly. "If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now."

Instead, Mr. Obama said, the international community should keep pushing Israelis and Palestinians toward talks on the four intractable issues that have vexed peace negotiations since 1979: borders of a Palestinian state, security for Israel, the status of Palestinian refugees and the fate of Jerusalem, which both sides claim for their capital.

[...]

But, he said, Palestinians must make peace with Israel before gaining statehood themselves. Israelis and Palestinians, he said, have grievances and the United Nations must be an arbiter.

"This body, founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide; dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every person, must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis," he said. "We will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down together, to listen to each other and to understand each other's hopes and fears. That is the project to which America is committed, and that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come."

Several times as Mr. Obama spoke, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in the audience, put his forehead in his hand. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the speech a "badge of honor." [The New York Times, 9/21/11]

• The UN Did Not Hold A Vote On Palestinian Statehood Due To A Lack Of Support. [The Guardian, 11/11/11]

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Has Repeatedly Praised Obama

Netanyahu On Obama's Opposition To A Unilaterally-Declared Palestinian State: "I Think This Is A Badge Of Honor And I Want To Thank You For Wearing That Badge Of Honor." From a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

I want to thank you, Mr. President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations. We both agree this is the only way to achieve peace. We both agree that Palestinians and the Israelis should sit down together and negotiate an agreement of mutual recognition and security. I think this is the only way to get to a stable and durable peace. You've also made it clear that the Palestinians deserve a state, but it's a state that has to make that peace with Israel, and therefore their attempt to shortcut this process, not negotiate peace -- that attempt to get state membership in the United Nations will not succeed. I think the Palestinians want to achieve a state in the international community, but they're not prepared yet to give peace to Israel in return.

[...]

I think that standing your ground, taking this position of principle, which is also, I think, the right position to achieve peace -- I think this is a badge of honor and I want to thank you for wearing that badge of honor, and also to express my hope that others will follow your example, Mr. President. So I want to thank you. [Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 9/21/11]

Netanyahu  "Offered A Special Thank You" To Obama For Helping To Free Israelis Detained In Cairo. From a Jerusalem Post article:

Israel will continue to adhere to the peace treaty with Egypt, which serves the interest of both countries, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Saturday night, at the end of a dramatic 24-hours during which an Egyptian mob laid siege to Israel's embassy in Cairo.

All of Israel's emissaries to Cairo -- including six security guards who were holed up behind a metal door in the embassy and extracted by Egyptian commandos -- returned to Israel on Saturday, with the exception of one diplomat who will remain to represent Israel in the Egyptian capital.

Netanyahu, in a televised announcement on Saturday night, offered a special thank you to US President Barack Obama who "said he would do everything he could" to extricate the six security guards, "and did."

"He used all the means and influence of the US, which are significant, and I think we owe him a special thank you. This testifies to the strong alliance between Israel and the US. This alliance is critical, especially during these days of great storms buffeting the Middle East," the prime minister said. [Jerusalem Post, 9/11/11]

Netanyahu "Expressed His Deep Appreciation" For U.S. Funding For Missile Defense System For Israel. From an April 18 Agence France-Presse article:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 18 thanked U.S. President Barack Obama for helping fund a missile defense system protecting the Jewish state from Palestinian rockets, the White House said.

Netanyahu "expressed his deep appreciation for U.S. funding for the 'Iron Dome' rocket and mortar defense system, which he noted has successfully intercepted several rockets aimed at Israeli communities," the White House said in a readout of the phone call. [Agence France-Presse, 4/18/11, via DefenseNews.com]

Former Israeli Prime Minister And Current Defense Minister Ehud Barak: "I Can Hardly Remember A Better Period Of ... American Support" For Israel Than "Right Now." From the August 3 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:

VAN SUSTEREN: What's sort of the general opinion now of the Obama administration, especially in light of the fact that the president has said that they'd like to see it go back to the pre-1967 borders and with the two states? And I know that that was not well-received among many people, but as the sort of -- I know that we're good friends, our countries are good friends, but are Israelis disenchanted a little bit with the Obama administration?

BARAK: No, our countries are good friends, and I'm the minister of defense, I can tell you that I can hardly remember -- I was in uniform for decades -- I can hardly remember a better period of both support -- American support and backing and Israel cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now. And it's true that not all the Israelis are living happily with the positions of the administration, but I should tell you honestly that the president didn't say that Israel should go back to the borders of '67. He made it very clear that he thinks the Palestinians deserve a state of their own. We also believe in two states, Israel side by side, secure Israel side by side with a demilitarized Palestinian state that will basically have the same area that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip had before '67 with certain swaps, with understanding of the changes, transformation on the ground. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 8/3/11, via Media Matters]

A Majority Of Jewish Israelis Have A Favorable View Of Obama

Brookings: "A Majority (54%) Of Israeli Jews Polled In 2011 Expressed A Favorable View Of [Obama]." A "2011 Public Opinion Poll of Jewish and Arab Citizens of Israel" by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy found that a "majority" of Israeli Jews support Obama:

Key Findings: Poll Results Among Jewish Israelis

Attitudes toward the United States

• In contrast with 2010, when majorities of Israeli Jews expressed unfavorable views of President Obama, a majority (54%) of Israeli Jews polled in 2011 expressed a favorable view of the U.S. President while 39% expressed negative views. [Brookings, 12/1/11]

For more information about the relentless, baseless right-wing claims that Obama does not support Israel, please click here.

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama's Speech On Israeli-Palestinian Peace Based On '67 Borders With Agreed Swaps Condoned "Potential Genocide"

Obama: "We Believe The Borders Of Israel And Palestine Should Be Based On The 1967 Lines With Mutually Agreed Swaps." From Obama's May 19 speech on the Middle East and North Africa:

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won't make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/19/11]

CNN's Dana Loesch On Obama's Citation Of 1967 Borders: Obama "Sided With Terrorists." [KFTK, The Dana Show, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: Obama Urged Israel To "Destroy Itself" And "Submit Its People To Potential Genocide." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Gateway Pundit: Obama "Proposed Giving Half Of Jerusalem ... To Hamas-Fatah Terrorist Alliance." [Gateway Pundit, 5/19/11]

Ace of Spades: Obama Is "'Endorsing The Terrorists' Key Demand." [Ace of Spades, 5/19/11]

Beck: Obama's Policy On Israel Ends With "The Destruction Of Israel" And "The Western Way Of Life." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Beck: Obama Wants To "Destabilize Israel Even More."  [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 5/23/11, via Media Matters]

Geller: Obama's Middle East Policy Is "Obama's Final Solution." [Atlas Shrugs, 5/19/11]

Krauthammer: Obama Is "Tearing Up Bush-Era Agreements." [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Hannity: Obama Has Thrown Israel Under "A Bus Full Of Suicide Bombers." [Fox News, Hannity, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Morris: If Israel's Security "Is An Important Factor In Your Life, You Have No Business Supporting Barack Obama." [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Morris: Obama Is Asking Israel "To Commit Suicide." Later on the same program, Morris claimed that Obama is "literally" asking Israel "to commit suicide." [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

REALITY: Obama's Statement On 1967 Borders Is In Line With Views Of Former U.S. And Israeli Leaders

Former Israeli PM Olmert: Israelis Must "Return To The Core Of The Territory That Is The State of Israel Prior To 1967." In November 2008, on the 13th anniversary of the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- who was assassinated in 1995 by an Orthodox Jew reportedly opposed to the Mideast peace process Rabin was intent on brokering -- then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated: "We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then." From Haaretz:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took advantage of yesterday's special Knesset marking the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to call for territorial withdrawals in all disputed areas and to denounce violence on the part of Jewish settlers.

"We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then," he said.

[...]

Olmert also said that, "Every government will need to tell the truth, which unfortunately will require us to tear out many parts of the homeland in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights." Addressing the settlers, he said: "You, too, will have do carry out a moral reckoning and reach a decision." [Haaretz, 11/11/08]

George W. Bush: "Any Peace Agreement ... Will Require Mutually Agreed Adjustments To The Armistice Lines Of 1949 To Reflect Current Realities." From a 2008 statement by Bush while visiting Jerusalem:

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue. [Bush White House archives, 1/10/08]

• "1949 Armistice Line" Is Another Way Of Referring To Pre-1967 Borders. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine as the "1949-1967 Armistice Lines." [Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed 5/19/11]

For more information about how Obama's statement on the 1967 borders is in line with past U.S. remarks on Israel, click here.

RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Supporting "Intifada" Against Israel By Restating U.S. Policy Regarding Settlements

Obama Administration Repeatedly Calls On Israel To Halt New Settlement Construction. The Obama administration has repeatedly called on Israel to halt construction of new settlements in the West Bank. The Obama administration has argued that the continued construction is antithetical to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestine. [ABC News, 3/10/10; Associated Press, 3/15/11, via SFGate.com]

Fox Nation On Obama Administration's Criticism Of Settlement Construction: Obama "Slaps Israel Again." From the Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 3/14/11]

Geller On Obama Administration's Opposition To Settlement Construction: "Call to End Obama's Intifada." [Atlas Shrugs, 3/16/10]

Jawa Report Headline On Obama Administration Opposition To Settlement Building: "The Obama Intifada." [Jawa Report, 3/16/10]

CNS News Column On Criticism Of Settlement Construction: "This Is The Obama Intifada." [CNS News, 3/17/10, via Media Matters]

REALITY: The U.S. Has A Long-Standing Policy Of Opposing New Israeli Settlements

In 2005, Condoleezza Rice Stated That Israeli Settlement Plan Was "At Odds With American Policy." In a March 2005 interview with the Los Angeles Times, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that Israel's plan to expand its settlements in the West Bank at the time was "at odds with American policy." From the Times:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Israel in unusually sharp terms Thursday, warning that its plans to expand an Israeli West Bank settlement was "at odds with American policy" and could threaten progress toward peace with the Palestinians at a critical moment.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Rice said Israeli explanations of plans to add 3,500 housing units to the Maale Adumim settlement east of Jerusalem were "not really a satisfactory response." [Los Angeles Times, 3/25/05]

President Bush: Israel Must "Get Rid Of Unauthorized Settlements." Before a three-day visit to Israel in January 2008, then-President Bush stated that he expected Israel to "get rid of unauthorized settlements":

Q Unauthorized settlement, it is something which -- an issue which is between the United States and Israel for a long time.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we expect them to honor their commitments. The Israeli government has said that they're going to get rid of unauthorized settlements, and that's what we expect. That's what we've been told.

Q Not before you come, you know.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that will be on the -- that will, of course, be an agenda item. But Prime Minister -- both Prime Ministers with whom I have worked understand our position. Both have agreed, by the way, of unauthorized settlements. [Bush White House archives,1/2/08]

Bush's Ambassador To Israel: "Every U.S. Administration Since 1967 Has Argued Strongly Against Israeli Settlement Activity." In an essay published in Middle East Policy, Princeton Middle Eastern Policy Studies professor Daniel Kurtzer, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Bush, wrote: "Every U.S. administration since 1967 has argued strongly against Israeli settlement activity." [Middle East Policy, accessed on 12/8/11]

Few right-wing media outlets suffer more from Obama Derangement Syndrome than The Washington Times. Media Matters takes a look back at the Times' most outlandish, bizarre, and inflammatory attacks on President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama of 2011.

OSAMA BIN LADEN'S DEATH

Wash. Times: Bin Laden "Outmaneuvered" Obama With Taped Message. In a May 19 editorial, The Washington Times wrote that Osama bin Laden "outmaneuvered" President Obama, writing that bin Laden's "final taped message was an eerie refutation of President Obama's major Middle East policy address. Even in death, bin Laden launched a surprise attack with impeccable timing." The Times further claimed that the words of bin Laden's taped message "could easily have tracked across Mr. Obama's teleprompter." [The Washington Times,

[Twitter, 

[The Washington Times, 9/8/11, via Media Matters]

Washington Times: Obama Policies "Bringing America To The Brink Of Third World Inferiority." In an April 15 editorial, The Washington Times wrote that Obama's "policies have secured America's status as part of the declining world." The Times further wrote: "[T]he president's answer to economic crisis is to heap on more debt. It's this crippling tax-and-spend Obama creed that's bringing America to the brink of Third World inferiority." [The Washington Times, 4/15/11, via Media Matters]

Kuhner Called For Obama's Impeachment Over Libya Policy. In a March 24 column, Kuhner called for Obama's impeachment over his handling of Libya, writing that "[t]he Libyan war is part of a pattern of Mr. Obama's unethical and criminal behavior" and that "[i]f Republicans and conservatives are serious about restoring constitutional government, they will demand that Mr. Obama be impeached." Kuhner further wrote that Obama is a "socialist thug" who "has betrayed his country, his constitutional oath of office and his duty as commander in chief." [The Washington Times, 3/24/11, via Media Matters]

Times Called Obama A "Bigot" And Restrictions On Handgun Magazines "Pointless." In a March 1 editorial, The Washington Times stated that "restrictions on things like the size of handgun magazines" are "pointless." The Times also wrote that President Obama is "a bigoted man who derisively describes small-town America as a place where people 'cling to guns.'" [The Washington Times, 3/1/11, via Media Matters]

Times Declared DOMA Decision Part Of Obama's "Strategy To Force The Radical Homosexual Agenda On America." In a February 23 editorial, The Washington Times wrote that the Department of Justice's decision to no longer defend portions of the Defense of Marriage Act "is the next step of President Obama's strategy to force the radical homosexual agenda on America against the will of the people and Congress." [The Washington Times, 2/23/11, via Media Matters]

Nugent: "It's Hard To Argue" That Obama Isn't "Out To Destroy America." In a February 8 column, Ted Nugent wrote that "there are some Americans who think Mr. Obama is out to destroy America or at to least [sic] reduce the country to the equivalent of a Third World country." He then added, "Sadly, it's hard to argue with the flow of evidence." [The Washington Times, 2/8/11, via Media Matters]

Kuhner: Obama Is A "Machiavellian Socialist" And A "Radical Leftist Who Seeks To Dismantle Capitalism." In his January 27 column, Kuhner wrote that Obama is a "Machiavellian socialist" and a "radical leftist who seeks to dismantle capitalism and the achievements of the Reagan revolution." [The Washington Times, 1/27/11, via Media Matters]

TUCSON SHOOTING

Kuhner: Obama's Tucson Memorial Address "Was A Surreal Spectacle In Narcissistic Self-Congratulation" That "Dishonored The Victims." In a January 13 column titled, "Obama's Tucson degradation," Kuhner wrote that Obama was "cynically exploiting the tragic shooting in Tucson for political gain" and that his memorial address "was a surreal spectacle in narcissistic self-congratulation" that "dishonored the victims" of the shootings. Kuhner further wrote that the shooting victims were "doubly degraded by a narcissistic president who used their suffering as political fodder." [The Washington Times, 1/13/11, via Media Matters]

In 2011, as President Obama and congressional Democrats pushed for increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, Fox ramped up its defense of the rich while accusing Obama of attempting to incite a class war. Along the way, Fox relentlessly attacked poor and unemployed Americans, union workers who fought back against attempts by Republicans to strip their right to collectively bargain, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has been highlighting increasing income inequality in America. Here, Media Matters looks back at Fox's year of class warfare.

"We Should Be Supporting" The "Mega-Wealthy": Fox Fiercely Defended The Rich

Throughout 2011, Fox figures obsessively defended the wealthy against any possible tax increases proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats -- even claiming that the rich should pay less in taxes while the poor should pay more. Some Fox figures claimed that "most Americans say" that "patriotism is paying less taxes," while others claimed that those making $200,000 a year are not rich and that increasing their taxes would be unfair.

Laura Ingraham Complained That Raising The Tax Rate For The Wealthy Is "Demoniz[ing] The Rich." On the April 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham referred to a plan to raise the taxes of the wealthiest Americans as a plan that "demoni[zes] the rich." [Fox News, Fox & Friends,

John Stossel: People Affected By Government Shutdown "Shouldn't Be Getting Those Handouts Anyway." On the April 6 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, while talking about a possible government shutdown, Fox Business host John Stossel claimed that "most of us" wouldn't notice a shutdown and that those "who would notice shouldn't be getting those handouts anyway." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto,

MINIMUM WAGE

Fox Guest Peter Schiff: "One Of The Most Anti-Poor People Rules Is The Minimum Wage." On the September 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade hosted author and businessman Peter Schiff, who claimed that minimum wage rules negatively affect employment for young and poor people. [Fox News, Fox & Friends,

Neil Cavuto: "More than Half Of American Households ... Do Not Pay Any Taxes At All." During the July 27 broadcast of Your World, host Neil Cavuto claimed that "the rich already pay a lot in taxes" and said that "more than half of American households ... do not pay any taxes at all." He then asked, "Is that fair?" [Fox News, Your World,

Jonathan Hoenig: "Unions Have Destroyed Every Company In Which They've Been Intimately Involved." On the November 12 edition of Fox News' Cashin' In, Hoenig claimed, "Unions have destroyed every company in which they've been involved." [Fox News, Cashin' In,

Bolling Wore A Tinfoil Hat While Mocking Occupy Wall Street Protesters. During the October 14 broadcast of Fox News' The Five, Bolling donned a tin foil hat and held a misspelled sign reading, "Ocupy The Five," to mock Occupy Wall Street protesters. Co-host Andrea Tantaros added that the Occupy Wall Street protesters needed signs like Bolling's because "they haven't brushed their teeth in weeks. How else do they communicate?" [Fox News, The Five,

Doocy: "The President Is Talking About Raising Taxes, And, You Know, Effectively Class Warfare." On the September 19 broadcast of Fox & Friends, Doocy claimed that Obama's deficit reduction plan was "effectively class warfare." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/19/11, via Media Matters]

Sean Hannity: Obama "Could Not Help But Resort To Using The Same Kind Of Class Warfare" In His Speech On Jobs Bill. During the September 12 broadcast of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said of Obama's speech about his jobs plan: "And, as usual, the president could not help but resort to using the same kind of class warfare and false choices that we've gotten used to over the past two-and-a-half years." [Fox News, Hannity, 9/12/11, via Media Matters]

Bolling: "Class Warfare" Is "Emanating Out Of The White House." During the August 22 edition of The Five, co-host Eric Bolling said to fellow panelist Dana Perino: "All right, Dana, what about the class warfare that seems to be, I don't know, emanating out of the White House? Is it only the White House, or is it the right, too?" [Fox News, The Five, 8/22/11]

Doocy Called Obama's Deficit Reduction Tour The "Soak The Rich Tour." On the April 18 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy reacted to reports that Obama would travel to Nevada and California to promote his deficit reduction plan by saying, "Rather than the deficit reduction tour, call it the 'Soak the Rich Tour.' " [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/18/11]

Johnson: Obama's "Clear Strategy" Is "Divide And Conquer" With "Class Warfare." On the September 20 edition of Fox & Friends, Peter Johnson Jr. said that Obama's deficit-reduction plan, which included increasing taxes on the wealthy, was evidence of Obama's "clear strategy" to "divide and conquer" and "anger the middle ... of America" with "class warfare." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/20/11, via Media Matters]

Molly Line Declared Obama "Wants To Use The Rich To Fix His Spending Problem." On the July 18 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Molly Line claimed that Obama "wants to use the rich to fix his spending problem." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/18/11, via Media Matters]

For more, see:

Trump: "Class Warfare" Is "Probably The Only Way [Obama] Thinks He Can Get Elected"

Sarah Palin: Obama Is Using Occupy Movement To "Perpetuate" Class Warfare

Morris Decides: Obama "Spends His Full Time Attacking People That Provide Jobs" And His Government Is "At War" With Employers

Broken Record: Doocy Again Complains Taxing The Wealthy Is "Class Warfare"

Fox's Camerota On Obama Tax Plan: "Is The White House Inciting Class Warfare?"

Broken Record: Doocy Calls Obama's Jobs Bill "Class Warfare ... One Of Those Soak The Rich Things"

Doocy: Obama Is "Conducting What Is Clearly Class Warfare" In Calling For Balanced Approach To Lowering Debt

Since President Obama took office, the right-wing media have engaged in a smear campaign against Obama administration officials as well as people Obama has nominated for spots in the judiciary. This witch hunt has continued unabated in 2011.

White House Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan

Commerce Secretary John Bryson

Federal Judge Susan Carney

Federal Judge James Graves

White House Staffer Jonathan Greenblatt

Federal Judicial Nominee Caitlin Halligan

Attorney General Eric Holder

Former Education Department Official Kevin Jennings

Council Of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger

Judicial Nominee Goodwin Liu

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

White House Foreign Policy Adviser Samantha Power

National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon

White House Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan

Beck Outrageously Claimed Brennan Had Uttered "Anti-Semitic" Comments. On the March 31 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck attacked John Brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, for using the term "Al Quds," calling the comment "anti-Semitic." From Glenn Beck:

BECK: The one statement, beyond president Obama telling the U.N. that he doesn't accept the legitimacy of the settlements -- it's the statement that comes one after another from members of his own administration. They openly deliver blatantly insensitive and highly out of line anti-Semitic comments. Like this one. Here you are going to see somebody using the Arabic term for Jerusalem which kind of means to the Arab world that Jerusalem doesn't exist. Here he is.

BRENNAN: In all my travels the city I have come to love most is Al Quds -- Jerusalem.

BECK: Al Quds, that's a slam to anybody who is Jewish and lives in Israel. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/31/11, via Media Matters]

But "Al Quds" Is The Arabic Word for Jerusalem. A page on Bar-Ilan University's website states, "According to the historian Moshe Gil the current Arabic name for Jerusalem -- Al Quds, similar to the Hebrew HaQadosh -- 'the Holy' began being commonly used in the 11th century and even appears in Jewish documents found in the Cairo Geniza." [Bar-Ilan University, accessed 12/7/11]

And Other Political Figures Have Referred To Jerusalem As "Al Quds," Including A Former Reagan Official. Marshall J. Breger, whose Jewish Policy Center biography says he was "special assistant to President Reagan and his liaison to the Jewish Community," wrote in the May/June 2010 issue of Moment magazine:

You will never get to peace without some kind of compromise on Jerusalem: Jerusalem is both a nationalist issue for Israelis and Palestinians and a religious issue for Jews and Muslims. If we refuse to work out a way to allow Muslims a place in Al Quds, we expand the conflict beyond the Palestinians to all Muslims and we ensure religious conflict with Islam for generations. And don't be so sure that the Christian world will remain quiet on this subject. [Moment, May/June 2010]

Brennan Still Serves As An Adviser To Obama. [WhoRunsGov.com, accessed 12/22/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against John Brennan, click here.

Commerce Secretary John Bryson

Right-Wing Media Attacked John Bryson, Calling Him A "Global Warming Fanatic." From a May 31 entry by Doug Powers on Michelle Malkin's website, headlined "Of Course: Obama's Commerce Department Nominee is a Global Warming Fanatic":

Because designing an economy around the assumption that we're all about to die from man-made global warming is working out so well for commerce in Spain, let's keep the ball rolling in the United States:

(CNSNews.com) - John Bryson, nominated by President Barack Obama today to head the Department of Commerce, once said it was "incredibly important" that the United States pass cap and trade legislation and that America needed to become a global leader in combating man-made global warming.

"I regard it as incredibly important that the United States comes forth in this year with federal climate change legislation as a foundation for moving ahead," Bryson told the U.N. International Energy Conference in late August 2009. "I think we in the U.S. have an obligation to assist in significant ways in providing leadership in this community of nations that you represent and addressing energy and climate change."

[...]

Bryson, a co-founder of the liberal environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council, was most recently a member of the United Nations' Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change, a panel of scientific and industry experts tasked with providing advice on combating global warming. [MichelleMalkin.com, 5/31/11]

And An "Eco-Terrorist." From the June 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

ERIC BOLLING: Mr. Obama has a green agenda. No question about it. Steven Chu is green -- he's the energy secretary -- Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, also very green, permitoriums and whatnot. The new guy -- this is very important -- the guy that Obama nominated on Tuesday for the Commerce Secretary job, his name is John Bryson. There are those of us who watch this stuff carefully, you can almost call him an eco-terrorist. He is --

KILMEADE: What?

BOLLING: He is so pro-green. This -- the point is, all these secretary -- these cabinet positions are held by very, very green agenda environmentalists. It's scary. And by the way, our gas prices go up. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/2/11, via Media Matters]

In Fact, Bryson Was Chairman And CEO Of Edison International. The New York Times reported:

Trained as a lawyer, Bryson helped co-found the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1970 and headed California state commissions governing utilities and water during Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) first administration. Bryson retired as chairman and CEO of Edison International, the parent company of electric utility Southern California Edison, in 2008 after 18 years. [The New York Times, 6/1/11]

Bryson Also Sat On The Boards Of Major Corporations. The New York Times reported:

Bryson, a graduate of Yale Law School, sits on the board of directors of Boeing, Walt Disney Co., Coda Automotive Inc., the California Endowment and the W.M. Keck Foundation. He is chairman of the board of the Public Policy Institute of California and of the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California's Board of Overseers.

Bryson is also a senior adviser to asset management firm KKR, a trustee of the California Institute of Technology, co-chairman of the Pacific Council on International Policy and an adviser to Deutsche Bank Americas. [The New York Times, 6/1/11]

And Had The Support Of The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce. The New York Times reported:

But another familiar opponent of many Obama administration policies, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue, sounded a more conciliatory note.

"With his extensive knowledge of the private sector and years of experience successfully running a major company, we hope Mr. Bryson will be a strong voice for American business," he said. [The New York Times, 6/1/11]

The Senate Confirmed Bryson By An Overwhelming Margin. The Senate confirmed Bryson's nomination by a vote of 74-26. [Senate roll call vote no. 176, 10/20/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against John Bryson, click here.

Federal Judge Susan Carney

The Washington Times Labeled Carney A "Radical." On March 21, The Washington Times attacked Carney and other judicial nominees in an editorial headlined "Obama's injudicious nominees" and sub-headlined "Radical choices for federal judgeships deserve close Senate scrutiny." [The Washington Times, 3/21/11]  

Carney Was Overwhelmingly Confirmed By The Senate. The Senate confirmed Carney to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by a vote of 71-28. [Senate roll call vote no. 71, 5/17/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Susan Carney, click here.

Federal Judge James Graves

Right-Wing Media Attacked James Graves For Having A "Record Of Racial Double Standards" In Handling Judicial Ethics Cases. In a February 3 Pajamas Media post titled "Obama Renominates Judge with Record of Racial Double Standards," right-wing commentator Hans von Spakovsky accused Graves of engaging in racism in favor of African Americans in his judicial decision-making. From Spakovsky's post:

Graves' votes in three different disciplinary cases involving Mississippi judges show that he looks at alleged misconduct differently depending on the race of the perpetrator. While Graves strongly condemns racist and other discriminatory attitudes and language by white judges, he tolerates and finds acceptable the very same type of distasteful and sordid attitudes and language by a black judge. He apparently believes that while the First Amendment protects black judges, it has its limits when it comes to white judges. [Pajamas Media, 2/3/11]

But Graves Pointed Out That The Cases Cited By His Critics Were Governed By Different Supreme Court Precedents And Therefore Resulted In Different Outcomes. From Graves' response to written questions submitted by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL):

Judge Osborne was a candidate for judicial election and his speech was clearly protected under Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 794, 122 S. Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002).  Neither Judge Boland nor Judge Wilkerson was a candidate for judicial election at the time their remarks were made. [Media Matters, 2/4/11]

And Graves Had Strong Backing From Both Of Mississippi's Republican Senators, And "Received Widespread Support" From The Judiciary Committee. In a February 3 press release, Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MI)  and Thad Cochran (R-MI) recommended Graves be confirmed to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. From the press release: 

With concurrence from U.S. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the Senate Judiciary Committee today recommended the confirmation of Justice James Graves of Mississippi to be a Circuit Court Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

[...]

"Today's approval by the Judiciary Committee is welcome news," Wicker said.  "However, any further delays to Justice Graves' nomination are unacceptable. Justice Graves has been thoroughly considered for this important position, and he has received widespread support." [Wicker.Senate.gov, 2/3/11]

Graves Was Confirmed By The Senate Via Voice Vote. In February, the Senate confirmed Graves to a seat on the Fifth Circuit without even conducting a roll call vote. [Congressional Record, page S670, 2/14/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks on Graves, click here and here.

White House Staffer Jonathan Greenblatt

Right-Wing Media Attacked Greenblatt For "Moonlighting" As Director Of The Aspen Institute While Discharging Duties As White House Chief Of Social Innovation And Civic Participation Council. In a September 22 WorldNetDaily post titled "New Obama czar moonlighting for whom?" Aaron Klein wrote:

The newly appointed chief of President Obama's Social Innovation and Civic Participation Council doubles as the director of a social justice group funded by George Soros.

The organization, the Aspen Institute, works closely with Soros and even was reportedly used by the billionaire in a failed attempt to engineer the defeat of President Bush in the 2004 elections.

Jonathan Greenblatt was appointed the new head of Obama's Social Innovation Unit earlier this month. [WorldNetDaily, 9/22/11]

In Fact, Greenblatt Resigned From The Aspen Institute In Order To Serve In The White House. From a White House waiver:

Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order 13490, I hereby waive the requirements of Paragraph 2 of the Ethics Pledge of Mr. Jonathan Greenblatt solely with respect to his former employer, the Aspen Institute. [WhiteHouse.gov, 9/14/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Jonathan Greenblatt, click here.

Federal Judicial Nominee Caitlin Halligan

Right-Wing Media Attacked Halligan As A "Radical Choice." In a March 21 editorial, The Washington Times declared Halligan, as well as two other Obama judicial nominees, to be "radical choices for federal judgeships." [The Washington Times, 3/21/11]

And Claimed That Her Record Strongly Suggests That She's "Hard Left On A Broad Array Of Issues." National Review Online blogger Ed Whelan wrote in a January 31 blog post: "On initial review, Halligan's record strongly suggests that she's hard Left on a broad array of issues." [National Review Online, 1/31/11]

But Halligan Has Support From Lawyers Across The Political Spectrum. Halligan's supporters include:

• Lawyers Who Clerked For Conservative Supreme Court Justices. [Letter from Halligan's Supreme Court co-clerks, 2/28/11, via JudgingTheEnvironment.org]
• An Attorney Nominated By President George W. Bush To The D.C. Circuit. [Letter from 21 attorneys,3/4/11, via JudgingTheEnvironment.org]
• Numerous Law Enforcement Personnel. [JudgingTheEnvironment.org, accessed 12/2/11]

And Halligan's Critics Have Relied On Distorting Her Views On Gun Rights, Military Detentions, And Diversity In Education. Halligan's opponents resorted to shenanigans such as suggesting that the positions Halligan took while representing a client were actually Halligan's personal views. [Media Matters, 12/2/11]

Following The Right-Wing Media Smear Campaign, Senate Republicans Filibustered Halligan's Nomination. On a near-party line vote, Senate Republicans filibustered Halligan's nomination. However, her nomination remains pending on the Senate floor. [Senate roll call vote no. 222, 12/6/11]

 For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Caitlin Halligan, click here.

Attorney General Eric Holder

The Right-Wing Media Have Used The Controversy Surrounding The ATF Operation Fast And Furious To Launch A Series Of Attacks Against Attorney General Eric Holder. The attacks included the false claim that Holder acknowledged that he was aware of the operation during a 2009 speech he delivered:
 

• Big Government: "Eric Holder Feigns Ignorance Of Operation 'Fast And Furious' Now, But He Bragged Of Overseeing Its Implementation In 2009." [BigGovernment.com, 7/8/11]
• IBD Editorial: "Holder's 'I Know Nothing' Imitation Of TV's Sgt. Schultz Has Evaporated With The Discovery Of An April 2, 2009, Speech." [Investor's Business Daily, 7/8/11]
• Wash. Examiner's Hollingsworth: Holder's Congressional Testimony That He Only Recently Learned About Fast And Furious "Appears To Be Refuted By His Own Words."  [The Washington Examiner, 7/9/11]

But Operation Fast And Furious Was Not Initiated Until Fall 2009 -- Months After The Speech The Right-Wing Media Cited. From a June 14, 2011, "joint staff report" prepared for House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA):

In the fall of 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) developed a risky new strategy to combat gun trafficking along the Southwest Border. The new strategy directed federal law enforcement to shift its focus away from seizing firearms from criminals as soon as possible -- and to focus instead on identifying members of trafficking networks. [Joint Staff Report on The Department Of Justice's Operation Fast And Furious: Accounts Of ATF Agents, 6/14/11]

Fox News Has Devoted A Disproportionate Amount Of Evening Coverage To Perjury Investigation Calls Directed At Eric Holder. From a Media Matters report:

[Media Matters, 10/7/11]

Right-Wing Website The Daily Caller Has Instigated Calls For Holder's Resignation, Soliciting The Opinions Of Republican Members Of Congress. [Media Matters, 10/28/11]

Holder Is Still The Attorney General. [Justice.gov, accessed 12/22/11]

 For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Eric Holder, click here, here, and here.

Former Education Department Official Kevin Jennings

Right-Wing Media Revived Debunked Smears Against Kevin Jennings, Calling Him The "Porn-Pushing Safe School Czar." From a May 23 Gateway Pundit post:

In March 2000 the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) organization of Massachusetts held its 10 Year Anniversary GLSEN/Boston conference at Tufts University. This conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money. During the 2000 conference, workshop leaders led a "youth only, ages 14-21″ session that offered lessons in "fisting" a dangerous sexual practice. During the same workshop an activist asked 14 year-old students, "Spit or swallow?... Is it rude?" The unbelievable audio clip is posted here.

[...]

Barack Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" was the keynote speaker at the GLSEN/Boston Conference at Tufts University in 2000. High school students at the conference learned about fisting and watersports from the GLSEN activists. Jennings is seen here holding the conference program. (Via Mass Resistance)

Unfortunately for GLSEN, undercover journalists with Mass Resistance recorded these outrageous sessions at Tufts University. The audio was later leaked to a local radio station. This created such an uproar that GLSEN leaders were forced to apologize for their disgusting behavior.

[...]

Mass Resistance reported today that Kevin Jennings would step down as Safe School's czar in July.
Good. [Gateway Pundit, 5/23/11]

In Fact, Jennings Criticized The Content Of The Workshop. On May 18, 2000, the Boston Herald reported that GLSEN "agreed yesterday that three workshop leaders crossed a line with raunchy content directed at students as young as 14 years old." In the article, Jennings, who was the executive director of GLSEN at the time, was quoted saying, "We need to make our expectations and guidelines to outside facilitators much more clear because we are surprised and troubled by some of the accounts we've heard." From the Herald:

"Like the Parents Rights Coalition and the Department of Education, GLSEN is also troubled by some of the content that came up during this workshop," said Kevin Jennings, national executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

He said people who run workshops in the future will get clearer guidelines, though Jennings said the network's annual conference at Tufts University should not be judged on the 30-student seminar "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class."

"We need to make our expectations and guidelines to outside facilitators much more clear," said Jennings. "Because we are surprised and troubled by some of the accounts we've heard." [Boston Herald, 5/18/2000, accessed via Nexis]

And The Seminar's Organizers Were Fired Or Resigned As A Result. According to a May 20, 2000, Boston Herald article, of the three state Department of Education employees or contractors who led the seminar, one was fired, one resigned, and one had his contract canceled, as a result of the discussion. From the Boston Herald:

"One presenter at the workshop was fired and a second resigned. In explaining his actions yesterday, [then-Massachusetts state education czar David P.] Driscoll said the sessions 'went too far' with explicit discussions about sexual techniques. Driscoll said he had canceled the contract of a third presenter at the March workshop, which included frank talk about how to use a condom and how to perform oral sex." [Media Matters, 12/7/09]

The Years-Long Smear Campaign Against Jennings "Completely Failed." When Jennings left his position at the Department of Education on his own terms after two years on the job, he had a message to the people who had tried to destroy him: "I'd like you to know that you completely failed." Jennings detailed the support he had from his bosses and the policy successes he had during his time in the federal government. [Media Matters, 6/17/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Kevin Jennings, click here, here, and here.

Council Of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger

Fox Attacked Council Of Economic Advisers Chair Alan Krueger For Supposedly Voicing Support For A Value Added Tax. From an August 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

STUART VARNEY (Fox Business host): Thank heavens. The new economic adviser is Alan Krueger. He's an academic. He likes --

SEAN HANNITY (host): Another one?

VARNEY: Yet another one. We didn't learn the first time, or the second --

HANNITY: Another genius who's going to lead us into economic turmoil.

VARNEY: He likes the VAT, the value added tax, a consumption tax.

HANNITY: Wait a minute, on top of. Not to replace.

VARNEY: On top of -- on top of income taxes.

[...]

VARNEY: The game-changer, which would really change things --

HANNITY: What would it be?

VARNEY: Tax reform. Lower tax rates, bring in more money. He'll never do it.

HANNITY: Well, wait a minute, this guy wants a value added tax -- wait a minute, value-added tax, which is the FairTax, as we call it, right? My buddy Neal Boortz wrote a book on the FairTax, value-added tax.

VARNEY: But that's in place of, it's not going to be in place of.

HANNITY: But wait a minute, in place of -- no, but they want to add a new tax, a national sales tax on top of --

VARNEY: Five percent to bring in $500 billion a year to spend on their social programs. [Fox News, Hannity, 8/29/11, via Media Matters]

CNS: Krueger "Has Supported" And "Called For" A Value Added Tax. From CNSNews.com:

President Barack Obama's nominee to chair the President's Council of Economic Advisors has supported a European-style consumption tax that taxes every stage of production for a good or service, a policy generally called a Value Added Tax, or VAT.

Alan Krueger, a Princeton University economist, called for the Value Added Tax in a commentary for the New York Times in January 2009. The White House, however, has said that President Obama would not consider such a tax. [CNSNews.com, 8/29/11]

But Krueger Wrote That VAT Proposal Was Only A "Suggestion For Serious Discussion," Not "Sure It Is The Best Way To Go." In a January 12, 2009, post on The New York Times' Economix blog, Krueger wrote:

Here is a suggestion to address both the short-run and long-run problems. I pose it only as a suggestion for serious discussion; I'm not sure it is the best way to go. But here goes: Why not pass a 5 percent consumption tax to take effect two years from now? There are many different ways to implement a consumption tax, but for simplicity think about a national sales tax.

[...]

This analysis only scratches the surface. As I said, I propose the idea only for discussion at this stage, but it is worth considering. What do you think? [Economix, The New York Times, 1/12/09]

And Suggested If Budget Picture Improves, "Income Taxes Or Corporate Taxes Could Be Reduced And The Revenue Replaced By The Consumption Tax." From Krueger's New York Times blog post:

The main downside of this proposal is that taxes reduce economic activity. But the government must make critical trade-offs, and a consumption tax could be the most efficient means to raise revenue to finance essential government functions. Over time, if the budget picture improved, income taxes or corporate taxes could be reduced and the revenue replaced by the consumption tax. [Economix, The New York Times, 1/12/09]

The Senate Confirmed Krueger Without Any Dissenting Votes. On November 3, the Senate confirmed Krueger by unanimous consent. [Congressional Record page S7141, 11/3/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Alan Krueger, click here.

Judicial Nominee Goodwin Liu

Right-Wing Media Smeared Goodwin Liu As A "Radical Judicial Activist." In a May 17 post to her website, Michelle Malkin criticized then-University of California-Berkley Law Professor Goodwin Liu, who Obama had nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Malkin wrote: "Liu's chronic amnesia and recklessly injudicious smearing of Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito are bad enough. But his expedient metamorphosis from radical judicial activist to cut-and-run cypheris is baldly disqualifying." Malkin went on to urge readers to call their senators and oppose the nomination: "Burn up those Senate phone lines...every call counts." [MichelleMalkin.com, 5/17/11]

National Review Online's Whelan Bashed Conservative Legal Scholars In A Desperate Attempt To Paint Liu As An Extremist. In a March 2 National Review Online post, Ed Whelan criticized conservative legal scholars, including former Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr, in order to paint Liu as an extremist. [Media Matters, 3/2/11]

But Liu Had Broad Support From Conservatives. A wide array of conservative legal scholars supported Liu, including the following:

• Former Federal Judge Ken Starr: Liu Has "The Ability To Follow The Facts And The Law To Their Logical Conclusion Whatever The Political Valence May Be." [Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/9/10]
• Author Of The Infamous "Torure Memos" John Yoo: "[H]e's Not Someone A Republican President Would Pick, But For A Democratic Nominee, He's A Very Good Choice." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/9/10]
• Goldwater Institute Director Clint Bolick "Strongly Support[ed]" Liu. [Letter to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), 1/10/10]
• Fox News Host Megyn Kelly: Liu's "Qualifications Are Unassailable." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 3/11/10, via Media Matters]

And A Former Ethics Attorney For The Bush White House Exposed The "Series Of Myths" From Liu's Conservative Media Critics. Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, exposed a series of myths propagated by Whelan about Liu's record, stating:

Now, you can believe the top experts in the areas of Liu's scholarship and prominent conservatives such as Ken Starr and Clint Bolick -- or you can believe National Review Online's Ed Whelan. I know where I would put my marbles. As discussed below, Whelan's anti-Liu repository invents a series of myths about Liu with no basis in reality. [The Huffington Post, 3/2/11]

Following The Right-Wing Media's Smear Campaign, Senate Republicans Filibustered Liu's Nomination. In a near-party line vote, Senate Republicans filibustered Liu's nomination in May. Liu subsequently withdrew from consideration and was appointed by California Governor Jerry Brown to the California Supreme Court. [Senate roll call vote, no. 74, 5/19/11; The Los Angeles Times, 9/1/11]

 For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Goodwin Liu, click here and here.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

Right-Wing Media Smeared Leon Panetta As A Secret Communist Due To Correspondence With Hugh DeLacy. In a column by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, Kincaid asserts that Panetta had "a close and personal relationship with a member of the Communist Party by the name of Hugh DeLacy, whose record included meeting with communist espionage agents." Other right-wing media figures such as columnists Diana West and Frank Gaffney also highlighted these claims. [Accuracy in Media, 6/14/11; The Washington Examiner, 6/18/11; The Washington Times, 6/21/11]

But The Claims Were Based On Smoke And Mirrors. The letters Panetta wrote to DeLacy were all written on official letterhead and were all policy-related responses to DeLacy. None of the correspondence was personal. And indeed, one of the letters shows Panetta disagreeing with DeLacy on how a labor dispute should be treated. [Media Matters, 7/7/11]

Every Single Member Of The Senate Voted To Confirm Panetta. [Senate vote no. 93, 6/21/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Leon Panetta, click here.

White House Foreign Policy Adviser Samantha Power

Right-Wing Media Smeared Samantha Power As An "Enemy" Of Israel For Comments She Made In 2002. In a March 29 editorial, The Washington Times claimed: "Samantha Power, senior director of multilateral affairs on the National Security Council and one of the architects of the war in Libya, is a decided enemy of the Jewish state." The Times then quoted Power's comments from a 2002 interview:

In a 2002 interview, she counseled a massive intervention in Israel to protect Palestinians: "What will have to be a mammoth protection force ... a meaningful military presence because, it seems to me at this stage, and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just major human-rights abuses which we're seeing there, but is that you, you have to go in as if you're serious." [The Washington Times, 3/29/11]

But Power's Quotation Was Taken Out Of Context; In Fact, She Said "Meaningful Military Presence" May Be Needed To Stop A Move Toward Genocide By "One Party Or Another." The comments cited by The Washington Times come from an undated 2002 edition of Conversations With History, a program produced by the University of California-Berkeley Institute of International Studies. Power was answering the following question:

HARRY KREISLER (host): Let me give you a thought experiment here, without asking you to address the Palestine-Israel problem: Let's say you were an adviser to the president of the United States. How would, in response to current events, would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least one party or another be looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

POWER: Well, I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem, and I actually think in the Palestine-Israeli situation, there's an abundance of information, and what we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there. What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line in sort of helping the situation. And putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import. It may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- literally billions of dollars not in servicing Israelis', you know, military, but actually in investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support, I think, what will have to be a mammoth protection force. Not of the old, you know, Srebrenica kind or the Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence, because it seems to me at this stage -- and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just, you know, major human rights abuses, which we're seeing there. But -- is that you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.

And unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. I mean, it's a terrible thing to do; it's fundamentally undemocratic. But sadly, you know -- we don't just have a democracy here either. We have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide, you know, our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. And there, it's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people, and by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called "Sharafat." I mean, I do think in that sense, there's -- that both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible, and unfortunately, it does require external intervention which, very much like the Rwanda scenario -- that thought experiment, of "if we had intervened early" -- any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism, but we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are just becoming ever more pronounced. [Conversations With History, UC-Berkeley Institute of International Studies via YouTube, accessed 12/8/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Samantha Power, click here.

National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon

Right-Wing Media Claimed The NLRB Boeing Hearing "Is Not A Fair Hearing," Because The Person Suing Them And The Judge "Have The Same Boss," The NLRB. Right-wing media figures demonized Lafe Solomon for bringing a case alleging that Boeing had violated the rights of unionized workers. For instance, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano suggested that Boeing could not get a fair hearing with Solomon involved. From the June 14 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight:

CHRIS COTTER (guest host): One more thing on the NLRB before we get to Wisconsin. The process moving forward now. This hearing is essentially useless because it moves up the chain at the NLRB and the top of the NLRB can basically rule it a different way anyways, and if Boeing loses this case, which they most likely will, they'll sue. On what grounds will they sue?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: They will sue on the grounds that they didn't get a fair hearing. Why didn't they get a fair hearing? Because the person suing them, the NLRB, and the person hearing the lawsuit, the administrative judge, have the same boss -- it's called the NLRB. This is not a fair hearing like one sees in a movie, or on television or even in real-life federal courts where you have a truly neutral judge. This is not a neutral judge.

COTTER: So they stand a good chance of winning in court then, in an appeals court afterwards.

NAPOLITANO: They do. They do and the appellate court can overturn the NLRB if it finds the NLRB abused its discretion, misapplied the law, or violated the Constitution. [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 6/14/11]

Other Right-Wing Media Figures Went On The Attack Against Solomon For His Complaint Against Boeing And Other Matters. These right-wing media figures included Charles Krauthammer, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Hans von Spakovsky, Andrew Breitbart, and Fox News' Eric Bolling, Keith Ablow, and Juliet Huddy. [Media Matters, 9/2/11, 6/22/11, 6/16/11, 5/28/11, 5/11/11]

Solomon Has Been A Career Civil Servant At The NLRB. Before being named acting NLRB General Counsel by President Obama in 2010, Solomon spent nearly 30 years as a National Labor Relations Board member, working in both the General Counsel's office and as a staff member for various board members. [NLRB.gov, accessed 12/16/11]

Five Of The Ten NLRB Members For Whom Solomon Worked Were Republicans. According to the NLRB's website, half of the NLRB board members Solomon has worked for were Republicans, including Donald Dotson, Robert Hunter, John Higgins, James Stephens, and John Raudabaugh. [NLRB.gov, accessed 12/13/11]

Legal Experts Said That If True, The Allegations Against Boeing Would Be A "Classic" Case Of Illegal Conduct Under Federal Labor Laws. [Media Matters, 5/14/11]

Solomon Remains As NLRB Acting General Counsel. Obama named Solomon as acting general counsel in 2010 and subsequently nominated him to the position in January 2011. The Senate has not yet vote on Solomon's nomination. [NLRB.gov, accessed 12/19/11, WhiteHouse.gov, 1/5/11, Senate.gov, accessed 12/19/11]

For more information detailing right-wing media attacks against Lafe Solomon, click here and here.

Fox host Eric Bolling frequently allows his programs to degenerate into gun-related antics. In the last month alone, he has repeatedly urged guests to brandish firearms on-air, defended a gun club that allows families to take pictures with Santa and assault weapons, posed with a sign depicting a handgun and the phrase, "Obama's War On Christmas," and on at least seven occasions referenced taking his 13-year-old shooting.

Bolling's Guests Pull Out "Fantastic" And "Concealable" Guns On-Air

Bolling: "Tell Me About What You Brought, You Brought A Couple Of Guns With You." On the December 21 edition of Fox Business' Follow The Money, Bolling began a discussion of concealed carry laws by saying to Rich Wyatt, Gunsmoke gun shop owner and subject of of Discovery Channel's American Guns, "Tell me about what you brought, you brought a couple of guns with you, didn't you?" Wyatt pulled out a gun, saying, "you know, I brought a Colt 1911 .45," which he then cocked on-air. He then pulled out a second gun, which he described as "another little five-shot .38 revolver here, this is Smith and Wesson." He described the second handgun as "a great gun for anybody to carry" because it is "concealable." 

Later in the segment, radio host Lars Larson brandished his own pistol on-air, saying "don't leave home without it." Bolling responded by laughing. 

[Fox News, Follow The Money, 12/21/11]

Bolling: "Hold It Up. Hold It Up. I've Got To See That Gun." On the December 16 edition of Follow The Money, Bolling hosted Rich Wyatt and his wife Renee to discuss gun sales. During the segment, Bolling repeatedly urged his guests to pull out their guns [[and brandish them]] for the camera. From Follow The Money: 

BOLLING: You brought a couple of guns with you. Any of the guns that we pointed out earlier?

RICH WYATT: Yeah, we've got the 1911 pistol, this is a Colt, and that's the pistol that one of your guys says he's got. Of course, that makes him a good guy because anybody who is a good guy would carry that 1911 pistol.

RENEE WYATT: It's a great pistol.

BOLLING: I like that gun. Tell me about that gun.

RICH WYATT: It's a hundred years old this year which is fantastic. It's, you know, it's been around for a while, it's got some history. In all of our military conflicts --

BOLLING: Hold it up. Hold it up. I've got to see that gun. Hold it up when you talk -- there you go.

RENEE WYATT: We all carry that.

RICH WYATT: In all of our military conflicts, this is the gun that people carry. And we even made a pink one on the show, because my wife talked me into it. I don't care a pink one, but some people said maybe I should.

RENEE WYATT: Sometimes he carries it.

BOLLING: OK. What about the -- they want to know what does that say about the gentleman who carries that gun?

RICH WYATT: Well, I guess he's pretty confident in his manlihood.

RENEE WYATT: It's a great gun and women carry it, too, so don't let that fool you.

BOLLING: All right. All right. Do you have any other guns with you, by any chance?

RICH WYATT: Renee's got a .38, somebody down there had a .38 [unintelligible] -- a .38 revolver.

BOLLING: Well, let me see that. Hold that one up. Hold that one up, Renee. I want to see that gun. Now --

RENEE WYATT: That's a small gun that I carry all the time. You can put it in your purse or wear it on your ankle.

RICH WYATT: The important gun is the gun you have with you. It doesn't matter what gun you have at home, it's what gun you've got on your side that makes a difference when you're talking about your self defense.

BOLLING: Man, I love shooting guns. We do -- they do that just about every weekend. So, tell us that gun sales are strong right now, right?

[Fox News, Follow The Money, 12/16/11]

Bolling Encourages Gun Shop Manager To Hawk His Wares On-Air. On the December 5 edition of his Fox Business show, Bolling discussed gun sales figures with Tom Hitzor, general manager of MC Sports in Springfield, MO, who was on location in the stores gun department. Bolling repeatedly asked Hitzor to display the guns they sell and discuss price information, including for assault weapons. From Follow The Money:

TOM HITZOR, GENERAL MANAGER, MC SPORTS: We saw just an array of everything. And it was - our sales were up overall for black Friday. There is only one thing. We sold a lot of hobby guns that the most of the gun rifles and all the World War I and World War II rifles are bestsellers, hunting rifles and then some handguns that are for home protections. So, we have a couple of the regular shotgun. We carry all the top brands. So, it was really everything. So, one of the more rare guns, don't sell as many of these but it is something that a lot of people what to see.

BOLLING: What is it? What is it? What's the rare gun? Tell me about it.

HITZOR: This is Romanian. It's basically an AK-47. We don't keep too many in stock, don't sell too many of them. But it is one that's catches eye.

BOLLING: How much?

HITZOR: This one is at 479 and 459.

BOLLING: OK. Go ahead. Keep going.

HITZOR: And then we have a handgun that is one of our best sellers, mostly the target guns, just a 22 but this shows an array of everything that we do have. And nobody was looking for any one thing.

[...]

BOLLING: Any specific ammunition going hot? I mean, I was surprised -- my friends, again he started this range in suburb of New Jersey. Tell me the prices for ammunitions. You had no idea. Ammunition is not cheap. Is it?

HITZOR: No, it is not. It is definitely not. And people are always trying to find a good deal but you -- you will find it the same everywhere.

BOLLING: Well, give us a sense how much it is of box for the 45 caliber round?

HITZOR: I got to say, roughly around 20 or $25 a box.

BOLLING: Right. Right. That's exactly what we were paying. We pay $27 for a box of 45 caliber rounds. And man, there's a huge (inaudible). So, ammos sales are up. Guns sales are up. Do think this is an aberration year? Are you guys, expecting this to go on?

HITZOR: I could not even tell you. We definitely had this big kick and from last Friday year that took a big jump but we sell pretty consistently all the time. I don't know if it will continue we will see.

BOLLING: Alright. Tom, you got a nine millimeter there? You can hold it up?

HITZOR: I do. I don't have it all there. They are going to be right over here to my right down here.

BOLLING: Hold up sell some things. You have 45 caliber, there?

HITZOR: This is just the 22-caliber pro.

BOLLING: 22?

HITZOR: We just got all the couple of them here. This is a 22.

[Fox News, Follow The Money, 12/5/11, accessed from Nexis]

Bolling Defends Gun Club Where Families Take Pictures With Santa, Assault Weapons

Bolling: "I Can't Believe" Andrea Tantaros Is Criticizing The Pictures Of Families, Santa, And Guns. On the November 29 edition of Fox News' The Five, Bolling repeatedly criticized conservative commentator Andrea Tantaros for Criticizing a Scottsdale, Arizona, gun club where families can get their pictures taken with Santa Claus and assault weapons. From The Five:

TANTAROS: All right. When you think of Christmas, you think of reindeer and elves and snow and Christmas trees. When you think of Santa, do you think of machine guns?

Well, they do in Scottsdale, Arizona, where you can get your picture taken at the Scottsdale gun club with not just Santa, but, yes, AK-47s and your entire family.

Now, this idea is getting a lot of controversy. Greg is giving it's a thumbs-up. But I will tell you, one of the pictures we couldn't run showed a family with guns. And I'm very pro-gun. But --

BOLLING: What do you mean you can't run it?

BECKEL: Those are bazookas.

TANTAROS: We can run the one picture, in the picture on the screen.

BOLLING: So what?

TANTAROS: They're posing with the cameras, because they have children in them.

BOLLING: So what.

TANTAROS: There's little kids, and one husband has the gun pointed at his wife's head and she's laughing.

BOLLING: I can't believe you're saying this.

BECKEL: Eric --

BOLLING: I'm shocked you're saying this.

BECKEL: Listen --

TANTAROS: Hold on. You should not be joking about guns with little kids and pointing them at your wife's head. 

[Fox News, The Five, 11/29/11, from Nexis]

Bolling Poses In Santa Hat With Sign Depicting Gun, Phrase "Obama's War On Christmas."

Bolling Defends Sign From Criticism: "Gun Does Not Equal Violence." On the November 30 edition of The Five, Bolling criticized the purported attacks on Christmas while wearing a Santa hat and sitting next to a Christmas tree featuring a sign depicting a handgun and the phrase, "Obama's War On Christmas." During the segment, he has this exchange with liberal commentator Bob Beckel:

BOLLING: By the way, it's not, Bob, it's not an X-M-A-S tree, it's a Christmas tree, with C-H-R-I -- Keep Christ in Christmas. Thank you.

BECKEL: Excuse me. Well you've got a gun on a Christmas tree. I should keep Christ in Christmas? Good. Why don't you keep the NRA --

BOLLING: What's that got to do with it? Bob, again, just because gun does not equal violence. Stop it.

BECKEL: Why don't you go buy everybody a gun? Just to make it happy. Make yourself happy.

[Fox News, The Five, 11/30/11] 

Bolling Can't Stop Talking About Taking His Son Shooting

Bolling Has Mentioned Trips To Range With His Son At Least Seven Times This Month. On the November 21 edition of Follow The Money, Bolling said:

Gun sales are up, Wisconsin's governor, Scott Walker made it easier to get concealed carry permit and sales have shot up in that state as much as 25 percent. So, I did a little celebrating with my son, Eric Chase at the RTSP shooting range in Randolph Township, New Jersey. Take a listen to what democracy sounds like.

Since then, Bolling has discussed taking his son to the shooting range on the November 24 edition of The Five and the November 29, November 30, December 5, December 16, and December 19 editions of Follow the Money. He has also repeatedly aired video of his son shooting at the range.

Teasing a segment with Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Fox News' Bill Hemmer described Ohio as "one of the few states to see a drop in unemployment" and asked, "So what are they doing right?" In fact, the unemployment rate fell in 43 states in November.

Hemmer Asks What Ohio Is "Doing Right" On Jobs  

Hemmer: Ohio Is "One Of The Few States To See A Drop In Unemployment." From Fox News' America's Newsroom:

HEMMER: One of the few states to see a drop in unemployment -- not a big drop but a drop nonetheless -- the great state of Ohio. So what are they doing right? We'll talk to the governor, John Kasich, about that. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 12/22/11]

In Fact, Most States Have Seen Economic Growth, Lower Unemployment In Recent Months  

AP: "Unemployment Rates Fell In 43 States In November, The Most Number Of States To Report Such Declines In Eight Years." From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON -- Unemployment rates fell in 43 states in November, the most number of states to report such declines in eight years.

The falling state rates reflect the brightening jobs picture nationally. The U.S. unemployment rate fell sharply in November to 8.6 percent, the lowest since March 2009. The economy has generated 100,000 or more jobs five months in a row -- the first time that's happened since 2006, before the Great Recession.

Only three states reported higher unemployment rates in November, the Labor Department said Tuesday. Four states showed no change.

Nevada for the 18th straight month had the highest state unemployment rate: 13 percent. It was followed by California at 11.3 percent. North Dakota again enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate: 3.4 percent. It was followed by Nebraska at 4.1 percent and South Dakota at 4.3 percent.

The biggest decline in the unemployment rate in November compared with October was in Michigan. Its rate dropped by 0.8 percentage point to 9.8 percent, from 10.6 percent in October. [Associated Press, 12/20/11]

Fed Data Shows Economic Growth Has Been Widespread. From the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's coincident indexes for November 2011, which combine four state-level indicators -- nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index -- to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic:

 

[Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 12/22/11]

On Fox & Friends, Fox Legal Analyst Peter Johnson Jr., promoted regulations requiring voters to provide I.D. when voting and suggested that "people who are not allowed to vote" or who "vote twice" has been a problem in election years. However, a photo I.D. requirement would effectively disenfranchise some Americans and voter fraud is not a significant problem.

Johnson Jr. Advocates For Restrictive I.D. Laws To Limit "People Who Are Not Allowed To Vote" Or Who "Vote Twice"

Johnson Jr.: "If You're Registered To Vote, Then There Should Be Proof Of Registration." During the December 22 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox legal analyst, Peter Johnson Jr., promoted making people show I.D. at polling places, a measure he suggested would resolve the problem of people voting "who are not allowed to vote" and the problem of people "vot[ing] twice." From the broadcast:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Okay. So do voter I.D. laws discriminate against minorities? According to a poll, 22 percent believe they do. 69 percent of you believe they do not.

JOHNSON: Yeah, you know, we have -- in 31 states, there is voting I.D. requirements. Fifteen or 16 of those states have a photo requirement and in 16 other states now, there is pending legislation to impose an I.D. Now, when you go to the -- people go to the bank or someplace else and you want to cash a check, do you use I.D.?

DOOCY: You can't check -- you can't do it without it.

JOHNSON: Yeah. Did -- when you entered the building today, did you use I.D.?

DOOCY: Uh, Yeah.

JOHNSON: Ok, When you get on an airplane, do you use I.D.?

DOOCY: Many, many times.

JOHNSON: How about Amtrak, do you use I.D. sometimes?

DOOCY: They do ask for I.D.

JOHNSON: Once in a while. What's the big problem?

DOOCY: We do it all the time.

JOHNSON: If you're a registered voter, then there should be proof of registration. And so to listen to this. And we hear it every election cycle, saying oh, no. The Republicans are trying to suppress your vote. They don't want you to vote. Well, it should be prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats across the country should not want people who are not allowed to vote to vote or to vote twice. That should be the law. It shouldn't be a political hot potato. It's really simple.

DOOCY: Right

JOHNSON: Say yeah, I'm Peter Johnson, I'm entitled to vote, here is my voter registration card. Here is my passport or here is driver's license or state I.D. yeah, I'd like to vote. Thank you very much. Not a big deal. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/22/11, emphasis added]

Voter I.D. Laws Have Kept Many Eligible Voters -- Including The Elderly, Racial Minorities And Nuns -- From Voting

LA Times: Indiana Voter ID Law "Ke[pt] Nuns, Students From Polls. The Los Angeles Times reported in a May 7, 2008 article: "A dozen nuns and an unknown number of students were turned away from polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana's stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court." From the LA Times article, headlined "ID law keeps nuns, students from polls":

A dozen nuns and an unknown number of students were turned away from polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana's stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nuns, all residents of a retirement home at Saint Mary's Convent near Notre Dame University, were denied ballots by a fellow sister and poll worker because the women, in their 80s and 90s, did not have valid Indiana photo ID cards.

Though state officials reported no significant problems, advocates monitoring polling places said there was occasional confusion.

"We were at one polling place for a few hours and picked up three or four different stories of people being turned away," said Gary Kalman of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington. "I don't have numbers about how widespread it is."

"It's the law, and it makes it hard," said Sister Julie McGuire, who was working at the polling place and had to explain to the nuns that they could not vote. "Some don't understand why."

Indiana requires voters who come to the polls show a photo ID issued by the state or the federal government. The law was pressed by Republicans citing voter fraud and opposed by Democrats and the ACLU, who argued that it would disenfranchise voters. [Los Angeles Times, 5/7/08]

Brennan Center For Justice Estimates "More Than Five Million Voters Could Be Affected By The New Laws." New York University's Brennan Center for Justice issued a report estimating that newly enacted restrictions on voting, including implementing photo ID laws, "could make it significantly harder for more than 5 million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012."  From the Brennan Center for Justice:

 1.  3.2 million voters affected by new photo ID laws. New photo ID laws for voting will be in effect for the 2012 election in five states (Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin), which have a combined citizen voting age population of just under 29 million. 3.2 million (11 percent) of those potential voters do not have state-issued photo ID. Rhode Island voters are excluded from this count, because Rhode Island's new law's requirements are significantly less onerous than those in the other states.

2.  240,000 additional citizens and potential voters affected by new proof of citizenship laws. New proof of citizenship laws will be in effect in three states (Alabama, Kansas, Ten­nessee), two of which will also have new photo ID laws. Assuming conservatively that those without proof of citizenship overlap substantially with those without state-issued photo ID, we excluded those two states. The citizen voting age population in the remaining state (Ala­bama) is 3.43 million; 240,000 (7 percent) of those potential voters do not have documentary proof of citizenship.

3.  202,000 voters registered in 2008 through voter registration drives that have now been made extremely difficult or impossible under new laws. Two states (Florida and Texas) passed laws restricting voter registration drives, causing all or most of those drives to stop. In 2008, 2.13 million voters registered in Florida and, very conservatively, at least 8.24 percent or 176,000 of them did so through drives. At least 501,000 voters registered in Texas, and at least 5.13 percent or 26,000 of them did so via drives.

4.   60,000 voters registered in 2008 through Election Day voter registration where it has now been repealed. Maine abolished Election Day registration. In 2008, 60,000 Maine citi­zens registered and voted on Election Day.

5.   One to two million voters who voted in 2008 on days eliminated under new laws rolling back early voting. The early voting period was cut by half or more in three states (Florida, Georgia and Ohio). In 2008, nearly 8 million Americans voted early in these states. An esti­mated 1 to 2 million voted on days eliminated by these new laws. 

6.   At least 100,000 disenfranchised citizens who might have regained voting rights by 2012. Two states (Florida and Iowa) made it substantially more difficult or impossible for people with past felony convictions to get their voting rights restored. Up to one million people in Florida could have benefited from the prior practice; based on the rates of restoration in Florida under the prior policy, 100,000 citizens likely would have gotten their rights restored by 2012. Other voting restrictions passed this year that are not included in this estimate. [Voting Law Changes In 2012, Brennan Center for Justice, October 2011; Brennan Center for Justice, 10/3/11]

NY Times: In One Indiana County, 32 "Voters Had Their Ballots Thrown Out" Because Of Voter ID Laws. From a January 7, 2008, New York Times article:

After Ms. [Valerie] Williams grabbed her cane that day and walked into the polling station in the lobby of her retirement home to vote, as she has done in at least the last two elections, she was barred from doing so.

The election officials at the polling place, whom she had known for years, told her she could not cast a regular ballot. They said the forms of identification she had always used -- a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it and an expired Indiana driver's license -- were no longer valid under the voter ID law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card.

"Of course I threw a fit," said Ms. Williams, 61, who was made to cast a provisional ballot instead, which, according to voting records, was never counted. Ms. Williams -- who has difficulty walking -- said she was not able to get a ride to the voting office to prove her identity within 10 days as required under the law, and her ballot was discarded.

[...]

A brief filed with the Supreme Court by the Marion County Board of Elections, the state's largest voting jurisdiction

and a defendant in the case, said Ms. Williams -- who is a black Republican -- and 31 other voters had to cast provisional ballots because they showed up at the polls without the state-required ID, which can include a driver's license, a passport, a state-issued ID or some other government-issued photo identification. Because they also failed to appear later at county offices with the identification required to validate their identities, all of these voters had their ballots thrown out, records show. In interviews, many of these voters said they could not find transportation or could not afford the IDs.

[...]

Mary-Jo Criswell, 71, who -- like Ms. Williams -- an Indiana voter cited in the case before the Supreme Court, had her vote thrown out in November after she was told the identification she had used in previous elections -- a bank card with a photograph, a utility bill and a phone bill -- no longer sufficed. [The New York Times, 1/7/08]

And 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 6/14/11]

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 6/14/11]

For more on how voter fraud is "not overwhelming" SEE HERE, SEE HERE and SEE HERE.

On the December 21 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney, who has repeatedly promoted tax cuts for the wealthy, claimed he was "not so sure" a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut would create jobs. In fact, economists agree that an extension of the payroll tax cut would boost employment and help the economy, while the cuts supported by Varney would not have a positive impact on revenues or the economy.

Varney Suggests The Payroll Tax Extension Would Not Create Jobs

Varney: "Does [An Extension Of The Payroll Tax] Create Jobs?" During the December 21 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney questioned the idea that a year extension of the payroll tax cut creates jobs, ultimately concluding he "[wasn't] so sure." From the broadcast:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): What we've got here is a big difference of opinion. Stuart Varney joins us right now live. It's very clear they're both standing their ground.

VARNEY: Wait a second, that's all politics.

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): Yes, of course.

VARNEY: If you just put politics completely aside just for one moment, OK, and it's very hard to do. Put the politics aside and look at this policy. Is this a good policy for the American people? Is this good for the economy? Does it create jobs?

DOOCY: The two month payroll tax cut.

CARLSON: Thank you. Thank you for finally asking that question!

VARNEY: OK. Here's the question. If you extend the payroll tax holiday and you increase jobless benefits, that costs a quarter of a trillion dollars. OK? No politics here. That's just pure money. A quarter of a trillion dollars.

DOOCY: Taken from where? Social Security.

VARNEY: Taken from mostly Social Security and the general fund of tax revenue. You partly pay for this with? A tax. A fee on mortgages and refi[nancing]. Is this good policy?

DOOCY: You know what I am wondering--

VARNEY: Costs a quarter trillion. Do you create new jobs and you pay for it by taxing mortgages? I'm not so sure.

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): You have an interesting -- that's one part of the debate is does it even work? Do we need it? I guess most of Congress does because everybody agrees in Congress that we need it.

[...]

VARNEY: The payroll tax holiday extension essentially removes about $110 billion next year from the Social Security Trust Fund. It takes -- from Social Security revenues, that's what I should say. $110 Billion taken away from Social Security. Is that good for Social Security? Is that good for retirees? Is that good for the AARP? Where are they? Good question, I don't know.

CARLSON: And it flies in the face of the entire debate that we've been having for the last year about our national debt.

 VARNEY: Right.

CARLSON: I mean, we're just talking about how do we try to cut billions of dollars because our debt has reached 15 trillion and now, this is pure politics in my mind. This is why both sides are calling for what I believe to be the new normal where people aren't going to pay payroll tax. They're just not going to pay it. Like high gas prices. New normal. [Fox News Channel, Fox & Friends, 12/21/11]

In Fact, Economists Agree, An Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut Would Boost Employment And The Economy

Frank: "Perhaps The Most Promising" Policy To Reduce Unemployment "Is A Payroll Tax Holiday." In a June 25 New York Times op-ed, Robert Frank, economics professor at Cornell University, wrote:

If the economy could generate jobs at the median wage for even half of these people, national income would grow by more than 10 times the total interest cost of the 2011 deficit (which was less than $40 billion). So anyone who says that reducing the deficit is more urgent than reducing unemployment is saying, in effect, that we should burn hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods and services in a national bonfire.

We ought to be tackling both problems at once. But in today's fractious political climate, many promising dual-purpose remedies -- like infrastructure investments that would generate large and rapid returns -- are called unthinkable, in the false belief that they would impoverish our grandchildren. Yet there are other ways to attack unemployment that could garner bipartisan support.

Perhaps the most promising is a payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax was originally meant to pay for Social Security, and in recent years, employees and employers have each contributed 6.2 percent of total salary -- with no additional levies on salaries beyond $106,800. Congress should both declare an immediate payroll tax holiday for employees and exempt employers from making contributions for newly hired workers -- and keep both provisions in effect until the end of next year. [The New York Times, 6/25/11]

Seidman: "To Boost Private Sector Spending And Jobs," Congress Should Implement An "Immediate Suspension Of The Entire Employee Payroll Tax." In a July 17 op-ed in Delaware's News Journal, University of Delaware economics professor Laurence Seidman wrote:

To boost private sector spending and jobs, any budget deal negotiated by the president and Congress should contain an immediate suspension of the entire employee payroll tax through 2012.

Why? Because leaving more money in people's paychecks will cause them to spend more, and in response to their spending, private sector employers will expand production and create private sector jobs. Without this stimulus to the private sector, the economy is likely to fall back into a deep recession.

[...]

According to the simulations, if the suspension begins promptly, then in the fourth quarter of 2012 the unemployment rate would be 1 percentage point lower than it would have been without the temporary employee payroll tax suspension. [News Journal, 7/17/11, accessed via Nexis]

Tyson: Jobs Plan Should Include "At The Very Least" An Extension Of "The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut For Employees." In a September 6 post on the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, University of California, Berkeley professor and former Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Laura Tyson wrote:

The labor market is suffering from two problems: first, an immediate jobs gap, primarily the result of the collapse in demand after the 2008 financial crisis, and second, a long-term gap in rewarding jobs for American workers, primarily the result of skill-biased technological change and global competition.

The jobs gap requires additional fiscal measures to increase private spending and promote job creation. At the very least, the temporary payroll tax cut for employees enacted at the end of 2010 should be extended and a temporary payroll tax cut for employers that increase their payrolls or a tax credit for new hires should be introduced. [The New York Times, 9/6/11]

For more on the benefits of an extension of the payroll tax cut SEE HERE.

Varney Has A History Of Promoting Tax Cuts For The Wealthy, Claiming They Raise Revenue

Varney: "How Do You Grow The Economy? In My Opinion, Tax Reform. Lower Rates, Fewer Deductions, More Revenue To The Treasury." During the November 22 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Varney claimed lower tax rates lead to more revenue. From the broadcast:

KILMEADE: So, let's talk about the downgrade. I'm only kidding. Let's do this. How about this: The New York Times postulates that maybe this is going to work out good because in 2013, the Bush tax cuts go away, and the 1.2 trillion in cuts, it'll get us on the negative term when it comes to the deficit, and a lot of people don't really care that much about defense, and they're willing to take these cuts and this increase in taxes.

VARNEY: If you think that the way to tackle our debt problem is to raise taxes and cut the military, OK, I suppose this is a good thing. If you think that that will have a good outcome for our debt and our economy, yeah, OK, The Times has a point. I think the exact opposite. The way to fix the debt problem is not with higher taxes and cutting the military, it's to grow the economy. How do you grow the economy? In my opinion, tax reform. Lower rates, fewer deductions, more revenue to the Treasury. Better economy. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/22/11, via Media Matters]

Varney: "History Shows That You Get More Money To The Treasury By Lowering Tax Rates Than By Raising Tax Rates." From the June 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

VARNEY: When you tax at 70 percent -- if you go back to the Carter years, and so that people who are supposedly wealthy lose 70 cents on every dollar they make above a certain level -- you do that and, you actually take in less money in total taxes than if you have the rate all the way down at 35 percent, where it is now.

In other words, the academic left, like Robert Reich, they want to get back to the Carter years -- very high tax rates on the rich -- because they want to -- they think they are going to pull in a ton of money to pay for Medicare and Medicaid and social services. They are wrong. History shows that you get more money to the Treasury by lowering tax rates than by raising tax rates.

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): How? I mean, because on its face, you would think, well, how does that happen?

VARNEY: Because lower tax rates -- the money comes out of the woodwork. The rich stop hiding it all over the place; they stop sending it overseas. They're quite prepared to pay 28 percent or 30 percent or whatever it is. They're prepared to pay that low rate. And that stimulates the economy, so the economy grows, and tax revenues grow as the economy grows. That's the basic math here. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/17/11, via Media Matters]

Varney: "Historically...When You Lower Rates On The Rich, You Actually Bring More Money To The Treasury." From the August 3, 2010, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

VARNEY: Historically, it shows that when you raise [tax] rates, you actually bring in over the long term less money to the Treasury and the reverse is true as well. When you lower rates on the rich, you actually bring in more money to the treasury. What President Obama is doing, he's playing politics. I hate to say playing politics but this is a political issue. The very core of President Obama's administration is raise taxes on the rich, redistribute the wealth. That's what's -- that's what he's all about on January 1. Not economics. It's politics.  [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/3/10, via Media Matters]

Varney: Tax Cuts Caused "A Gigantic Increase In Revenues To The Federal Treasury." From the July 27, 2010 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

VARNEY: The United States economy took off after Newt Gingrich swept Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate in 1994 and the economy was certain of a cap on spending. It was at that point that we achieved enormous rates of growth, after the Republicans in 1994.

If you really want to go back and be historically accurate, look at the tax cuts under John F. Kennedy, under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They cut tax rates, and very soon after, there was a gigantic increase in revenues to the federal treasury, reducing deficits. That's historically accurate. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 7/27/10, via Media Matters]

In Fact, Economists -- Including Bush Advisers -- Reject Claim That Tax Cuts In The Past Have Increased Revenue

EPI: Bush Tax Cuts "Added $2.6 Trillion To The Public Debt Over 2001-10." In a September 26 article, Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) wrote:

A spending-cuts-only approach is regressive in that it forces the brunt of deficit reduction on the backs of poor and working families while ignoring a prime culprit of the budget deficit: the expensive, ineffective, and unfair Bush-era tax cuts. These top-heavy tax cuts added $2.6 trillion to the public debt over 2001-10 and will add $3.8 trillion to deficits over the next decade if fully continued. [EPI, 9/26/11]

Bartlett: Revenue Has Been Historically Low Because "Taxes Were Cut In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006." In a July 26 New York Times blog post, Bruce Bartlett, former policy adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, wrote:

In a previous post, I noted that federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product were at their lowest level in generations. The Congressional Budget Office expects revenue to be just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year; the last year it was lower was 1950, when revenue amounted to 14.4 percent of G.D.P.

But revenue has been below 15 percent of G.D.P. since 2009, and the last time we had three years in a row when revenue as a share of G.D.P. was that low was 1941 to 1943.

Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.

The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.

[...]

According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion. [The New York Times, 7/26/11]

Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts, "Revenues Are Permanently Reduced Relative To What They Would Otherwise Have Been." In a July 2010, post on his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that "the revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend." He added, "This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been." [The New York Times, 7/15/10]

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible." Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), wrote on his blog on July 2, 2007:

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

[...]

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the [sic] same thing. [Greg Mankiw, 7/2/07]

Former Bush Economic Adviser Samwick: "Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues." In a January 2007 blog post titled "New Year's Plea," Andrew Samwick, former chief economist for George W. Bush's Council on Economic Advisers, wrote:

You [in the Bush administration] are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one. [Vox Baby, 1/3/07]

For more on how lower taxes do not bring more revenue to the Treasury, SEE HERE, SEE HERE, and SEE HERE.

Varney Also Attacked The Earned Income Tax Credit, Another Tax Policy Designed To Benefit Low- And Middle-Class Workers 

Varney On The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): It's A "Cash Welfare Scheme." From the June 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

VARNEY: Whenever you've got a cash welfare system you are going to have people gaming that system. What you have not got on the screen is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is by far the biggest cash -- I'm going to call it a welfare scheme. That is known as the most corrupt government program. Billions of your dollars going out there when they should not be going out there; same with the Supplemental Security Income program. It really is a scandal. At a point where we are running out of money, running a massive deficit, and Social Security itself is in trouble. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/15/11, via Media Matters]

Varney: EITC "A Form Of Welfare, Income Redistribution." During the May 19 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co., Varney claimed that along other social programs like food stamps, unemployment insurance and Medicaid, the EITC was "a form of income welfare redistribution." [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

• In fact, According To The Non-Partisan Brookings Institute "The EITC Has Proved To Be Remarkably Successful In Reducing Poverty. In a February 2006 report titled "The Earned Income Tax Credit At Age 30: What We Know," Brookings researcher Steve Holt asserted, "the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has become a robust and largely successful component of American labor and antipoverty policy." Additionally, Holt asserted:

The EITC has proved remarkably successful in reducing poverty. In 2003, the EITC lifted 4.4 million people in low-income, working families out of poverty, more than one-half of them children. Today, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other social program or category of programs. Without it, the poverty rate among children would be 25 percent higher (Greenstein 2005). The Council of Economic Advisers (1998) found that more than one-half of the decline in child poverty between 1993 and 1997 could be explained by changes in taxes, and most important was the EITC. Another study found that from 1995 through 1999, the EITC reduced the overall poverty rate by 1.5 percentage points, even though only about one-third of poor households qualify for the credit (Hoffman and Seidman 2003). The total poverty gap -- the aggregate difference between poor families' resources and the poverty threshold -- for families with children would have been 20 percent higher in 1999 without the EITC (Ziliak 2004).[Brookings Institute, February 2006]

For More On Varney's Partisan Economic Analysis SEE HERE.

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that "for the first three years of [Obama's] administration, many people would argue that he was all about raising taxes." In fact, Obama has lowered taxes repeatedly; he called for many tax cuts before becoming president as part of his economic plan; and more than half the cost of the jobs bill he proposed this year came from tax cuts.

Carlson Claims "Many People Would Argue" That Obama Has Been "All About Raising Taxes"

Carlson: "For The First Three Years Of [Obama's] Administration, Many People Would Argue That He Was All About Raising Taxes." On the December 21 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Carlson discussed the payroll tax cut extension with guest and conservative radio host Neal Boortz. During the interview, Boortz mocked the idea that Obama could "now [be] cast as the tax cutter." Carlson replied, "Because for the first three years of his administration, many people would argue that he was all about raising taxes." From the broadcast:

CARLSON: Moving forward, President Obama is going to be able to capitalize on this.

BOORTZ: Sure, they pass a two-month extension and they leave town. They're off Christmas shopping right now, the Republicans look hapless, and it'll probably go through January, who knows? And can you believe this? Barack Obama is now cast as the tax cutter? I mean, that's like me being a hair model. This -- this doesn't work!

CARLSON: Because for the first three years of his administration, many people would argue that he was all about raising taxes.

BOORTZ: Anybody that's been paying attention would argue that. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/21/11]

But Obama Has Passed Billions Of Dollars In Tax Cuts STIMULUS

NYT: Final Stimulus Bill Included "$282 Billion In Tax Relief" Of "$789 Billion Stimulus." From a February 11, 2009, New York Times article:

House and Senate leaders on Wednesday struck a deal on a $789 billion economic stimulus bill after little more than 24 hours of rapid-fire negotiations with the Obama administration, clearing the way for final Congressional action later this week.

[...]

The final bill includes $507 billion in spending programs and $282 billion in tax relief, including a scaled-back version of Mr. Obama's middle-class tax cut proposal, which would give credits of up to $400 for individuals and $800 for families within certain income limits. It will also provide a one-time payment of $250 to recipients of Social Security and government disability support. [The New York Times, 2/12/09]

Recovery.Gov: Over $300 Billion Has Been Spent On Tax Cuts Since Act Was Passed. According to Recovery.gov, the website for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, over $300 billion has been spent on tax benefits under the bill. The majority of that money, $275.9 billion, was spent on individual tax credits, tax incentives for businesses, and a tax cut for working families called Making Work Pay:

[Recovery.gov, accessed 12/21/11]

HIRE ACT

CBS: HIRE Act Included "$17.5 Billion In Tax Cuts, Business Credits And Subsidies For State And Local Construction Bonds." From a March 18, 2010, CBS article about a jobs bill called the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act:

President Obama today signed into law a $17.5 billion jobs bill that he said will spur hiring and help small business owners.

In signing the bill, called the HIRE Act, the president said that while government can't be the only solution to address lagging employment in the wake of the recession, it can serve to "promote a strong, dynamic private sector" that can drive job creation.

The bill includes $17.5 billion in tax cuts, business credits and subsidies for state and local construction bonds, and moves $20 billion into the highway trust fund for spending on highway and transit programs. It exempts businesses that hire unemployed workers from paying the payroll security tax through December of 2010. [CBS, 3/18/10]

SMALL BUSINESS JOBS ACT

Small Business Jobs Act Included Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts. In September 2010, Obama signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which included eight new small business tax cuts. From the White House website:

Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments: Under the Recovery Act, 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments this year were excluded from taxes. The Small Business Jobs Act temporarily puts in place for the rest of 2010 a provision called for by the President - elimination of all capital gains taxes on these investments if held for five years.

[...]

Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses' Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments: The bill increases for 2010 and 2011 the amount of investments that businesses would be eligible to immediately write off to $500,000, while raising the level of investments at which the write-off phases out to $2 million. Prior to the passage of the bill, the expensing limit would have been $250,000 this year, and only $25,000 next year.

[...]

Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation: The bill extends - as the President proposed in his budget - a Recovery Act provision for 50 percent "bonus depreciation" through 2010, providing 2 million businesses, large and small, with the ability to make new investments today and know they can receive a tax cut for this year by accelerating the rate at which they deduct capital expenditures.

A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed: The bill allows 2 million self-employed to know that on their taxes for this year, they can get a deduction for the cost of health insurance for themselves and their family members in calculating their self-employment taxes. This provision is estimated to provide over $1.9 billion in tax cuts for these entrepreneurs.

Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions: The bill changes rules so that the use of cell phones can be deducted without burdensome extra documentation - making it easier for virtually every small business in America to receive deductions that they are entitled to, beginning on their taxes for this year.

An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs' Start-Up Expenses: The bill temporarily increases the amount of start-up expenditures entrepreneurs can deduct from their taxes for this year from $5,000 to $10,000 (with a phase-out threshold of $60,000 in expenditures), offering an immediate incentive for someone with a new business idea to invest in starting up a new small business today.

A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits: The bill would allow certain small businesses to "carry back" their general business credits to offset five years of taxes - providing them with a break on their taxes for this year - while also allowing these credits to offset the Alternative Minimum Tax, reducing taxes for these small businesses.

Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business: The bill would change, beginning this year, the penalty for failing to report certain tax transactions from a fixed dollar amount - which was criticized for imposing a disproportionately large penalty on small businesses in certain circumstances - to a percentage of the tax benefits from the transaction. [Whitehouse.gov, 9/27/10, emphasis original]

PAYROLL TAX CUT FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

Treasury Dept.: Obama's Payroll Tax Cuts Included Cuts Designed To Spur Economic Growth And Job Creation. From a November 30 study released by the United States Department of the Treasury:

The bipartisan Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 included several specific tax cuts and initiatives designed to spur economic growth and job creation. One important component of the Act was a reduction in the employee Social Security tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of the first $106,800 of taxable wages received in 2011. On December 17, 2010, President Obama signed this Act into law. The payroll tax cut is providing substantial benefits to working families and the economy throughout 2011. Some of the highlights are:

$109 billion in overall tax relief: The payroll tax cut is providing an estimated $108.6 billion in tax relief throughout 2011 to working Americans.

Tax cut for 159 million workers: The payroll tax rate cut has resulted in an estimated 158.9 million working Americans receiving larger paychecks in 2011.

A tax cut of about $1,000 for a typical family: For a family with wages or salaries of $50,000 per year, about the median household income, the payroll tax cut equals $1,000.

No effect on Social Security solvency: The legislation provided that the Social Security Trust Fund be made whole by transfers from the General Fund. Thus, the reduction in Social Security taxes paid by employees had no effect on the Social Security Trust Fund and no effect on individuals' current or future Social Security benefits. [Treasury.gov, 11/30/11]

Obama Called For Tax Cuts Before Taking Office As Part Of His Economic Plan

As President-Elect, Obama Called For Tax Credits For Small Businesses And Companies That Expand U.S. Employment As Well As Tax Breaks For Working Families. As President-Elect, Obama called for a number of tax breaks that ultimately became law as part of the stimulus bill. From a page about the "Obama-Biden Plan" for the economy on Change.gov, the website for the President-Elect:

The Obama-Biden Plan

Our country faces its most serious economic crisis since the great depression. Working families, who saw their incomes decline by $2,000 in the economic "expansion" from 2000 to 2007, now face even deeper income losses. Retirement savings accounts have lost $2 trillion. Markets have fallen 40% in less than a year. Millions of homeowners who played by the rules can't meet their mortgage payments and face foreclosure as the value of their homes have plummeted. With credit markets nearly frozen, businesses large and small cannot access the credit they need to meet payroll and create jobs.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden have a plan to revitalize the economy.

[...]

A New American Jobs Tax Credit: Obama and Biden will provide a new temporary tax credit to companies that add jobs here in the United States. During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired. For example, if a company that currently has 10 U.S. employees increases its domestic full time employment to 20 employees, this company would get a $30,000 tax credit -- enough to offset the entire added payroll tax costs to the company for the first $50,000 of income for the new employees. The tax credit will benefit all companies creating net new jobs, even those struggling to make a profit.

Raise the small business investment expensing limit to $250,000 through the end of 2009: Obama and Biden will give small businesses an additional incentive to make investments and start creating jobs again by providing temporary business tax incentives through 2009. The February 2008 stimulus bill increased maximum Section 179 expenses to $250,000 but this expires in December 2008. This provision will encourage all firms to pursue investment in the coming months, but will particularly benefit small firms which generally have smaller amounts of annual property purchases and so choose to expense the cost of their acquired property.

Zero capital gains rate for investment in small businesses: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that we need to encourage investment in small businesses to help create jobs and turn our economy around. That's why they will eliminate all capital gains taxes on investments made in small and start-up businesses. They also want to cut taxes for the small businesses that create jobs but are struggling with restricted access to credit on top of skyrocketing health care and energy costs.

[...]

A tax cut for 95 percent of workers and their families -- plus seniors: Barack Obama and Joe Biden propose a permanent tax cut of $500 for workers and $1,000 for families. A first round of these tax credits could be mailed out quickly by the IRS based on tax returns already filed for tax year 2007. In addition, Obama and Biden would extend these expedited tax credits to senior citizens who are retired as a down payment on his plan to eliminate taxes for all seniors making up to $50,000. [Change.gov, accessed 12/21/11, emphasis original]

More Than Half Of Obama's Jobs Act Was Tax Cuts For Employees And Employers

Washington Post: Obama's Jobs Bill Was "Composed Slightly More Of Tax Cuts Than New Spending." In a September 8 article about Obama's proposed American Jobs Act, The Washington Post noted that the plan, which Congress did not pass, was "composed slightly more of tax cuts than new spending." The article also included the following graphics:

[The Washington Post, 9/8/11]

Washington Post: "$175 Billion" Of The Plan "Is An Extension Of And 50 Percent Increase In A Payroll Tax Cut." The Post article noted, "The centerpiece of Obama's plan, at a cost of $175 billion, is an extension of and 50 percent increase in a payroll tax cut that is set to expire at the end of the year." [The Washington Post, 9/8/11]

Washington Post: "Obama's Jobs Act Also Includes A $70 Billion Proposal To Offer Tax Cuts To Small Businesses That Hire New Workers." The Post article also noted, "Obama's jobs act also includes a $70 billion proposal to offer tax cuts to small businesses that hire new workers, and $62 billion in unemployment insurance." [The Washington Post, 9/8/11]

This was a banner year in the right-wing media's campaign to belittle working Americans. In the early part of the year, media conservatives promoted anti-union laws in Wisconsin and Ohio, transitioned to attacking the National Labor Relations Board, and spent the entirety of the year demonizing union workers, low-income Americans, and the unemployed.

Right-Wing Media React To WI Protests Over Collective Bargaining: Insults, False Attacks, Misinformation 

Media Conservatives Set Sights On National Labor Relations Board: "Just Get Rid Of The Thing"

Right-Wing Media Viciously Denigrate Union Workers, The Poor, And The Unemployed

Right-Wing Media React To WI Protests Over Collective Bargaining: Insults, False Attacks, Misinformation Fox & Friends Falsely Claimed "Violent" WI Protesters "Attack[ed]" Grothman

Kilmeade: Protesters Got "Restless And, Dare I Say, Violent." On the March 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade introduced a segment on a Republican Wisconsin lawmaker, Sen. Glenn Grothman, being heckled by a chanting crowd of protesters by falsely claiming the protesters were "getting restless and, dare I say, violent."  Co-host Steve Doocy claimed that, "If you put yourself in [Grothman's] shoes...it's absolutely scary." Doocy later claimed, "When you look at that and all the incivility there, you realize that to these people, elections have no consequence, mean nothing." During the segment, the on-screen graphics repeatedly referred to the "angry" protesters as "violent" or "attack[ing]" Grothman. From Fox & Friends:

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/17/11]

Napolitano Calls Wisconsin Protests "Union Temper Tantrums." On the February 17 edition his Fox Business show Freedom Watch, host Andrew Napolitano said, "This is the second day in a row union temper tantrums have ... deprived Wisconsin kids of their education." [Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 2/17/11]

Beck Sees "The Beginning Of The American Insurrection" In Wisconsin Protests. On the March 17 edition of his radio program, Beck claimed that the protesters were "calling for Egypt-style protests on the street." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 2/21/11]

Kelly Claims There Is "Quite A Gap" Between "Salaries Of Public And Private Sector Employees" In WI. During the February 21 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly followed live coverage of the ongoing protests at the statehouse in Madison by saying, "A closer look at the salaries of public and private sector employees in Wisconsin reveals quite a gap." A graphic showing "average annual pay" in Wisconsin in 2009 was then aired:

After reading the graphic, Kelly said: "What a difference. It used to be if you went to work for the state government, you would make less, but it was worth it, because you would have good benefits, good health care, nice fat pension, that kind of thing. So your salary would be lower. You can see from that full-screen we just showed you, that graphic, that that's no longer the case." [Fox News, America Live, 2/17/11]

Huckabee: "Public Union Workers [Make] 30 Percent Better Wages [And] 70 Percent Better Benefits Than Their Private Sector Counterparts." Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee claimed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to end collective bargaining power for public sector unions is important because "he's having to balance the budget." As evidence, Huckabee falsely claimed public union workers make "30 percent better wages" and "70 percent better benefits than their private sector counterparts." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/10/11]

The EPI report also included a graphic showing the average compensation for public and private sector employees in Wisconsin by education:

The February 18, 2011, EPI post accompanying this graphic stated:

The campaign against state and local workers is often justified with claims that they are privileged relative to their private-sector peers or have somehow been cushioned from the effects of the recent recession and slow recovery. These claims are clearly false.

In Wisconsin, which has become a focal point in this debate, public servants already take a pretty hefty pay cut just for the opportunity to serve their communities (Keefe 2010).  The figure below shows that when comparing the total compensation (which includes non-wage benefits such as health care and pensions) of workers with similar education, public-sector workers consistently make less than their private-sector peers.  Workers with a bachelor's degree or more--which constitute nearly 60% of the state and local workforce in Wisconsin--are compensated between $20,000 less (if they just have a bachelor's degree) to over $82,000 a year less (if they have a professional degree, such as in law or medicine). [EPI, 2/18/11]

Fox Falsely Blamed Public Unions For WI Budget Shortfall

Kilmeade States That WI Faces Budget Shortfall Of "Over $100 Million" And That Walker Wants To "Close That Gap" By "Revisit[ing] The Public Employee Deals." Brian Kilmeade stated:

Wisconsin is a state like many states in this country that has a bit of a budget deficit, the tune of over $100 million. So one way in which new Gov. Scott Walker wants to close that gap is to go revisit the public employee deals, government worker deals that have been cut between union workers and the state government. So, why not put that forward? Why not have them pay into their pensions? Why not have them pay into their retirement health care, because we, together, have to balance the budget, and the people have spoken out in November. They want Republicans to do the cutting. And that was the easy part. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Still, the compensation of Wisconsin's government workers ranks below the national average for non-federal public employees and has increased only slightly since 2000.

[...]

The analysis included full and part-time workers and did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience. In an earlier job-to-job comparison, USA TODAY found that state and local government workers make about the same salary as those in the private sector but get more generous benefits. [USA Today, Economic Policy Institute says the analysis is misleading because it doesn't reflect factors such as education that result in higher pay for public employees. [USA Today, 3/01/11]

CEPR's Baker: USA Today Analysis Did Not Account For "Education, Experience Or Other Factors That Typically Affect Pay." Economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research said of the USA Today study:

USA Today ran an article highlighting a difference in pay between government workers and private sector workers in Wisconsin and 40 other states. The methodology used in the article simply takes average compensation per worker without adjusting for their education, experience or other factors that typically affect pay. (Most people expect a cardiologist with 25 years of experience to earn more than a 20-year old counter person at McDonalds.)

[...]

Analyses that do control for education, experience and other factors in ways that are standard within economics consistently find that public sector workers receive somewhat lower compensation than comparable workers in the private sector. [CEPR's Beat the Press, 3/01/11]

EPI: OH Public Workers Earn Less Than Private Sector Workers

EPI's Keefe: Public Employees In Ohio "Earn Lower Wages Than Comparable Private Sector Employees."  Economist Jeffrey Keefe of the Economic Policy Institute wrote:

The research shows, however, that state and local government employees in Ohio are not overpaid. (When we refer to public employees, we are referring to state and local employees, not federal workers.) Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that employees of state and local governments earn lower wages than comparable private sector employees. Average annual wages and salaries of full-time state and local public employees in Ohio are 5.9% lower than those of comparable private sector employees. However, some full-time public employees work fewer hours on average, particularly college-educated employees. When annual hours worked are factored in, full-time state and local employees earn 3.3% less in wages and salaries than similar private sector workers. Looking at total compensation (wages and nonwage benefits) Ohio public employees annually earn 6% less than comparable private sector employees and 3.5% less on an hourly basis than comparable private sector employees. [Economic Policy Institute, 2/10/11]

Jeffrey Keefe's report included the following chart:

[Economic Policy Institute, 2/10/11]

Right-Wing Media Used Wildly Inflated Cleanup Estimate To Bash Wisconsin Protesters

Fox, The Blaze Use Wildly Inflated Cleanup Estimate To Bash Wisconsin Protesters. Fox Nation, Fox & Friends Saturday, and Glenn Beck's The Blaze gave an estimate of $7.5 million for the costs of cleaning up after the protesters. In fact, the AP reported that the restoration of the state Capitol's marble would be "very limited." [Media Matters, 3/5/11]

Media Conservatives Set Sights On National Labor Relations Board: "Just Get Rid Of The Thing" Media Figures Called For Elimination Of NLRB

Reason's Cavanaugh: "The NLRB Needs To Be Abolished." From Fox Business' Freedom Watch:

NAPOLITANO: Can the president state, with a straight face, that America is open for business when Boeing spends $1 billion on a new plant that's the size of 11 football fields in South Carolina and the NLRB won't let them go there?

TIM CAVANAUGH (columnist, Reason magazine): Absolutely not. I mean, just ask the people of South Carolina how the NLRB is smoothing the rocky path of Congress. The NLRB needs to be abolished. We need a time machine to go back to 1935 and make sure it doesn't get built in the first place. The government needs to take no role in unionization or in management. [Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 6/24/11]

Fox's Eric Bolling On NLRB: "Get Rid Of Them. They're Anti-Business. The Union, The Goonion Model Business Model Is Broken." From Fox News' Bulls & Bears:

BRENDA BUTTNER (host): Senate Republicans coming to the rescue of right-to-work states, and Boeing's fight to build a plant in one of those states. They're pushing a new bill banning the government's labor board from telling businesses where they can and can't do business. But Eric, you say it's time to put the labor board out of business.

BOLLING: That's right Brenda. Get rid of them. They're anti-business. The union, the goonion business model is broken. Boeing spent $2 billion, created a thousand new jobs, and tried to do that in South Carolina. The NLRB came in and said, "No, you can't do that." [Fox News, Bulls & Bears, 5/14/11]

Fox's David Asman On "Eliminat[ing]" The NLRB: "What A Wonderful Idea. Just Get Rid Of The Thing." From Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:

ASMAN: Now here`s an idea that caught our attention -- eliminate the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB. South Carolina Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy says there are plenty of laws already that make the NLRB redundant. Congressmen Gowdy joins me now. Congressman, What a wonderful idea. Just get rid of the thing. What does the NLRB do that the laws on the books don`t do? [Fox Business, 9/7/11]

Right-Wing Claimed NLRB Was Punishing Boeing For Trying To Locate In A Right-To-Work State, Hire Nonunion Labor

Washington Times Editorial Calls Boeing Case "Outrageous" And A "Misuse Of Administrative Power To Punish Right-To-Work States." From an editorial in The Washington Times:

House Republicans are fighting back against President Obama's misuse of administrative power to punish right-to-work states. On Tuesday, Rep. Tim Scott introduced legislation to protect a Boeing 787 Dreamliner production plant in his South Carolina district from the outrageous complaint filed by pro-union thugs at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The agency wants to force the airline manufacturer to close up operations in Charleston and move the jobs to Puget Sound, where the labor bosses reign, because setting up in South Carolina was allegedly an example of "unfair labor practices." [The Washington Times, 5/25/11]

Fox's Juliet Huddy: "The NLRB Is Suing Because The Jobs Are Nonunion," And NLRB's Action Is "Unprecedented." On the September 2 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, guest co-host Juliet Huddy claimed that the NLRB's complaint against Boeing was the result of planned Boeing jobs in South Carolina being "nonunion." Huddy also stated that the NLRB's complaint against Boeing is "unprecedented." From the broadcast:

JULIET HUDDY: South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has some strong words for President Obama. She calls him, quote, "cowardly" for not speaking about the union fight to stop Boeing from opening its new plant in South Carolina. Haley also called on the president to address the National Labor Relations Board's unprecedented lawsuit in his upcoming jobs speech. The NLRB is suing because the jobs are nonunion. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/2/11]

Wallace: NLRB "Went After Boeing For Wanting to Build A Plant In Right-To-Work South Carolina." From the broadcast:

CHRIS WALLACE (guest host): Rich Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, announcing Big Labor's new plan to push its candidates and causes in the 2012 election.

We're back now with our panel. So, Mara [Liasson], the Obama administration has taken a really strong pro-union tilt in recent weeks and months. The National Labor Relations Board, with its Democratic Obama-appointed majority, went after Boeing for wanting to build a plant in right-to-work South Carolina. Now the NLRB says employers must post notices of workers' rights in all workplaces -- their rights to organize -- even though there hasn't been any case. They're really deciding it on their own. [Fox News, Special Report, 8/31/11, via Media Matters]

Kilmeade: "It Seems Anti-American To Think [Boeing] Can't" Open A Plant In South Carolina "For Whatever Reason." On the June 21 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade interviewed Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) about the NLRB's case against Boeing. After airing video of Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) saying that "Boeing is not above the law" and should not receive "preferred treatment," Kilmeade said: "Above the law? If Boeing wants to expand and go to South Carolina for whatever reason, it doesn't -- it seems anti-American to think they can't." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/21/11, via Media Matters]

Hugh Hewitt On Boeing Case: "Obama May Have Ordered The Attack On Bin Laden, But He Has Also Ordered An Attack On American Manufacturing And Defense." From a May 8 Washington Examiner op-ed by right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt:

As Americans toast SEAL Team 6 and its Army pilots and vast support network, the GOP's would-be nominees should be pointing to the Pentagon that ordered and produced the tools used in the mission, and defending its budget as the president tries to find deep cuts there that will spare his favored constituencies painful reductions in government largess.

Part of that argument ought to be a vigorous defense of Boeing, now in the cross hairs of the president's Alinskyite appointees at the National Labor Relations Board.

[...]

Obama's attack on Boeing's decision to create great jobs in a red state, even when the manufacturer is one of America's great defense contractors, is a huge issue that needs to be used by GOP candidates up and down the ticket to define the president and his agenda.

Obama may have ordered the attack on bin Laden, but he has also ordered an attack on American manufacturing and defense, and especially on the freedom of businesses to build and expand where they want to. [The Washington Examiner, 5/8/11]

Asman On NLRB Complaint: "We Used To Laugh At This Kind Of Soviet Economic Planning When We Saw It Happen Elsewhere. But Now The NLRB Wants To Force-Feed It To Us Right Here." From the June 20 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:

DAVID ASMAN (host): When private lawyers start making management decision for private companies, we are in deep trouble. And that is just what the NLRB is trying to do with Boeing. NLRB general counsel wants a court order requiring Boeing to close shop in South Carolina and build a new factory in the state of Washington. They then want to force Boeing to build 787s at the Washington facility - exact number of which to be determined not by Boeing, but by the lawyers at the NLRB. Now we used to laugh at this kind of Soviet economic planning when we saw it happen elsewhere. But now the NLRB wants to force-feed it to us right here, right in the midst of a dangerously weak economy. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 6/20/11, via Media Matters]

WSJ Editorial: "The NLRB Sued [Boeing] In April To Prevent It From Building A New Plant In South Carolina." From a July 28 editorial in The Wall Street Journal:

Teenagers in the 1960s listened to Beatles records backwards in search of hidden meanings -- a trick akin to the task of deciphering President Obama's statements on the battle between Boeing and the National Labor Relations Board. Since the NLRB sued the airplane company in April to prevent it from building a new plant in South Carolina, Mr. Obama's position has alternated between silent and incomprehensible.

[...]

The NLRB's campaign against Boeing has captured political attention -- and created business anxiety -- because it is a government attempt to restrict the free movement of capital. It attempts to punish workers merely because their states passed right-to-work laws. [The Wall Street Journal, 7/28/11]

Bolling: NLRB Is "Saying You Can't Hire Workers At A Lower Wage In South Carolina. You Need To Hire In Washington State Where We Can Get Our Grimy Little ... Hands On You And Raise Your Wage." From the May 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, guest-hosted by Eric Bolling:

ERIC BOLLING: The  world's largest aerospace company wants to start production at a new $2 billion manufacturing plant in South Carolina this July. That plant would create more than a thousand jobs, but the government's National Labor Relations Board is trying to stop Boeing because this new plant would be in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, instead of in Washington state, where labor rights are the law of the land. So here's a company who's trying to create jobs but is getting a roadblock from the White House.

[...]

BOLLING: Why does the NLRB have an opinion about Boeing opening a new plant in South Carolina?

MAYOR VIRG BERNERO (D-Lansing, MI): The NLRB has an opinion --

BOLLING: They already have a plant in Washington state.

BERNERO: The NLRB as an opinion and a role in how workers are treated. And I want to live in a country where workers have rights and can choose to form a union if they wish. You know, I don't wake up in the morning and say WWPD, What Would Putin Do? I want to live in a country where people have rights and people have freedom of association.

BOLLING: Virg, does the NLRB have a right to tell Boeing how much profit it can make?

BERNERO: Well, of course not. But the point is --

BOLLING: Well that's what they're doing. They're saying you can't hire workers at a lower wage in South Carolina. You need to hire in Washington state where we can get our grimy little [unintelligible] hands on you and raise your wage.

BERNERO: I don't think that's what they are saying. I think what they're saying is that workers have rights. And I think they have made a legal finding of fact that workers are being punished for their union activities. And I want to live in a country where people have the right to belong to union without fear of reprisal. Now, maybe that is not the America you envision. But that's the America I want to live in. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 5/10/11]

Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer: The National Labor Relations Board Is "Stacked With Democrats" And "Retaliating Against" Boeing For "Choosing Right-To-Work South Carolina." From Krauthammer's Washington Post column:

But Democratic fealty to unions does not stop there. Boeing has just completed a production facility in South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner. The National Labor Relations Board, stacked with Democrats -- including one former union lawyer considered so partisan that he required a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him -- is trying to get the plant declared illegal. Why? Because by choosing right-to-work South Carolina, Boeing is accused of retaliating against its unionized Washington state workers for previous strikes.

[...]

Moreover, the idea that a company in a unionized state can thus be prohibited from expanding into right-to-work states by a partisan regulatory body is quite insane. It violates the fundamental principle in a free-market economy that companies can move and build in response to market conditions, rather than administrative fiat. It jeopardizes the economic recovery, not only targeting America's single largest exporter in its attempt to compete with Airbus for a huge global market, but also threatening any other company that might think of expanding in any way displeasing to unions and their NLRB patrons. [The Washington Post, 6/16/11]

Case Was Based On Allegation Of Unlawful Retaliation By Boeing Against Employees For Lawful Activity -- Not Union Status Of SC

National Labor Relations Act Gives Employees "The Right To ... Join Labor Organizations" And "Engage In Other Concerted Activities." From Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (codified as Section 157 of Title 29 of the U.S. Code):

Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158 (a)(3) of this title. [29 U.S.C. § 157, accessed 5/10/11, via Law.Cornell.edu]

National Labor Relations Act Forbids Employer Actions That "Interfere With, Restrain, Or Coerce Employees In The Exercise" Of Right To Form Unions And Engage In Concerted Activities. From Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act:

It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer --

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title;

[...]

(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. [29 U.S.C. § 158, accessed 5/10/11, via Law.Cornell.edu]

NLRB General Counsel's Office Complaint Alleges Boeing "Threatened Or Impliedly Threatened" Workers That They "Would Lose Additional Work In The Event Of Future Strikes." From the complaint against Boeing filed by the NLRB General counsel's office:

On or about the dates and by the manner noted below, Respondent [Boeing] made coercive statements to its employees that it would remove or had removed work from the Unit because employees had struck and Respondent threatened or impliedly threatened that the Unit would lose additional work in the event of future strikes. [The Boeing Company NLRB general counsel's office complaint, 4/20/11]

Complaint Alleges Boeing CEO Said He Was Moving "787 Dreamliner Work To South Carolina Due To 'Strikes Happening Every Three To Four Years' " In Washington State. From the complaint:

[Boeing president, chairman, and CEO, Jim McNerney] made an extended statement regarding "diversifying [Respondent's] labor pool and labor relationship," and moving the 787 Dreamliner work to South Carolina due to "strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound." [The Boeing Company NLRB general counsel's office complaint, 4/20/11]

Complaint Alleges Boeing VP Said Company Relocated Production To South Carolina "Because Of Past Unit Strikes, And Threatened The Loss Of Future Unit Work Opportunities Because Of Such Strikes." From the complaint:

[Boeing executive vice president Jim Albaugh] stated that Respondent decided to locate its 787 Dreamliner second line in South Carolina because of past Unit strikes, and threatened the loss of future Unit work opportunities because of such strikes. [The Boeing Company NLRB general counsel's office complaint, 4/20/11]

Complaint Alleges Boeing Decided To Transfer 787 Production To SC Because Washington State Employees "Engag[ed] In ... Lawful Strikes." From paragraph 7 of the complaint:

(a) In or about October 2009, on a date better known to Respondent, but no later than October 28, 2009, Respondent decided to transfer its second 787 Dreamliner production line of 3 planes per month from the Unit to its non-union site in North Charleston, South Carolina.

(b) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 7(a) because the Unit employees assisted and/or supported the Union by, inter alia, engaging in the protected, concerted activity of lawful strikes and to discourage these and/or other employees from engaging in these or other union and/or protected, concerted activities.

(c) Respondent's conduct described above in paragraph 7(a), combined with the conduct described above in Paragraph 6, is also inherently destructive of the rights guaranteed employees by § 7 of the Act. [The Boeing Company NLRB general counsel's office complaint, 4/20/11]

Complaint Specifically Says Boeing Is Free To Make "Non-Discriminatory Decisions" About "Where Work Will Be Performed." The complaint asks that the 787 production line that was moved to South Carolina allegedly for the illegal purposes of punishing Washington state workers for going on strike be moved back to Washington state. However, the complaint adds that it "does not seek to prohibit [Boeing]" from having work performed in South Carolina or anywhere else as long as Boeing does not violate labor laws in making such decisions. From paragraph 13 of the complaint:

(a) As part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 7 and 8, the Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to have the Unit operate its second line of 787 Dreamliner aircraft assembly production in the State of Washington, utilizing supply lines maintained by the Unit in the Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, area facilities.

(b) Other than as set forth in paragraph 13(a) above, the relief requested by the Acting General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent from making non-discriminatory decisions with respect to where work will be performed, including non-discriminatory decisions with respect to work at its North Charleston, South Carolina, facility. [The Boeing Company NLRB general counsel's office complaint, 4/20/11]

Conservatives Say Obama Used NLRB For Cronyism And "Political Retribution"...

Napolitano On NLRB's Complaint: "Does This Mean The President Has An Enemies List? And That Boeing Is On It?" On the May 12 broadcast of Fox Business' Freedom Watch, host Andrew Napolitano asked if the NLRB complaint against Boeing "means the president has an enemies list? And that Boeing is on it?" From the broadcast:

NAPOLITANO: Tonight on the docket, all the president's enemies. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board sanctioned the giant Boeing Corporation for building a new factory in South Carolina. Wait a minute, I thought creating jobs was a good thing? Well the NLRB is mad at Boeing because South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That means that new Boeing employees of that plant cannot be forced to join a labor union. If this factory were to be built in Washington state, near Boeing's other plants, all the employees would be required, by Washington state law, to be part of a labor union, whether they wanted to be in one or not.

Remember, labor unions are a big reason why Barack Obama was elected president of the United States in 2008. This sounds a lot like political payback to those unions for all that support. And does this mean the president has an enemies list? And that Boeing is on it for defying the president's pro-union agenda? [Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 5/12/11, via Media Matters]

Krauthammer: Obama Is "Paying Off The Unions" Which "Is More Important [To Him] Than A Healthy Export Economy." From Fox News' Special Report:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (syndicated columnist): It's a way that [Obama] wants to govern left without appearing to govern left.

[...]

KRAUTHAMMER: It's a way to go under and around the legislative system, which I think is in and of itself a travesty that three appointees backed by the union supporters are telling a huge industry where and where it cannot build a factory. This is a president who said he wants to double exports in the next 5 years, which is extremely important to any American economy, and here he is supporting, by his silence, the regulation of where the biggest exporter in our country, the Boeing company, wants to reduce its cost by building in South Carolina so it can compete with Airbus and he's undermining this, and of course, paying off the unions to him is more important than a healthy export economy. [Fox News' Special Report, 6/14/11]

Fox "Straight News" Anchor Bill Hemmer And Contributor Dana Perino Suggests Boeing Case Shows Obama Administration Is "Using Its Power For Political Retribution." From the May 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

BILL HEMMER: Is the White House using its power for political retribution? Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and others, raising that question. They say the government is trying to block a move that would allow aerospace giant Boeing to create hundreds of new jobs if not thousands of new jobs in the Republican-rich state of South Carolina. Listen here.

SEN. RAND PAUL [video clip]: Mr. President, do you have an enemies list? Is this decision based on the fact that South Carolina appears to be a Republican state, has two Republican senators? Is this decision based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state? Are they on your enemies list?

HEMMER: Well, Dana Perino is here to answer that, former White House press secretary for former President Bush. How you doing Dana, good morning to you.

DANA PERINO:  Great, thanks for having me.

HEMMER: What do you make of that? Let's go with the big picture.

PERINO: I think that South Carolina has a point. Because would this -- had Boeing been thinking about putting this plant in North Carolina, which is a swing state, do you think for a second that this would have happened? I don't. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/11/11] 

Fox's Perino: "There's No Legal Reason" For NLRB To Bring Case Against Boeing, Administration Is Just "Rewarding Their Friends". From the May 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

PERINO: What the NLRB is saying is that you can't expand unless you do it in like Washington state, where you have other employees. Nobody in Washington state was going to lose their jobs if they add a new job in South Carolina. President Obama, what they're doing through Craig Becker, who recess appointed at the NLRB -- so not confirmed by the Senate -- is rewarding friends. So I don't know so much if they have an enemies list, but they certainly are rewarding their friends.

[...]

HEMMER: What do you mean "reward friends?"

PERINO: Well, by -- you look at a mosaic of things. For example, the unions did not want for Boeing to be allowed to build this new plant in South Carolina. There's no legal reason. I think this was really unprecedented for this to not happen. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/11/11] 

Breitbart And Bolling Agree That Boeing Case Amounts To "Thuggery." From a May 6 segment on Bolling's Fox Business show, Follow the Money, featuring Andrew Breitbart:

BOLLING: Boeing built a new aircraft plant in South Carolina and hired a thousand new non-union workers there, but the union lovers on the NLRB, National Labor Relations Board, are suing Boeing. They say, we want our piece of that pie.

[...]

BOLLING: So is the NLRB-President Obama love affair going to take down the free market project? Andrew, I've heard you say it. You've said you don't like thuggery. Isn't this an example of union thuggery?

BREITBART: Yeah. No. I didn't know that much about unions before this presidency. But what I have seen, the only people that we know who have gone to the White House hundreds of times are Richard Trumka and Andy Stern. This is a presidency that's being run by proxy by way of the unions. And it's thuggery. It's happening in battles that you see in terms of people versus people in Wisconsin, the thuggery against the Tea Party up there. I was attacked in Searchlight, Nevada by the IBEW Local 357. The Tea Party Express bus was hit by eggs as they were passing by. I'm looking at this type of thing. It's anti-capitalism. It's anti-capitalism. The idea that these people can't move their companies where they want to. And I swear, it is President Trumka. When it comes to the fiscal policies of this country, the unions are leading the charge. [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 5/6/11, via Media Matters]

...And Have Said That The NLRB's Case Is A Radical And "Unprecedented" Intrusion Into Private Business

Keith Ablow: The NLRB Boeing Case "Is The End Of Freedom In America." During the June 14 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, Fox's Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and member of Fox News' "Medical A-Team" said of the Boeing case: "[Unions] are defending their turf. That is what unions do. They want to line their pockets, they want to represent their members often to the exclusion of looking at, again, reality. You have to have a business in order to employ anyone." Ablow later added: "This is the end of freedom. This is the end of freedom in America." When Fox News contributor Alan Colmes responded that Ablow's statements were "outrageous scare statements" and "crazy," Ablow responded: "They are not crazy at all." [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 6/14/11]

Charles Payne: Boeing Case Is "War On Business Type Of Agenda." Earlier in the episode, Cavuto hosted Fox Business contributor Charles Payne to discuss the economy. Payne characterized the complaint against Boeing as "anti-business, war on business sort of agenda." Directly following Payne, Cavuto hosted GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain who stated: "Neil, what's at stake is a direct assault on the free market system. What the National Labor Relations Board is doing is absolutely an attack on free enterprise and that's exactly what we don't need." Cavuto failed to correct or question either Payne or Cain on their interpretation of the NLRB Boeing case. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 6/14/11]

Washington Times Editorial: Communist Leon Trotsky "Would No Doubt Cheer Obama's NLRB." From The Washington Times:

The [NLRB] sued Boeing for opening a factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. Boeing's main plant is in Washington, a state where employees have no choice but to join unions. It's also where the International Association of Machinists has struck Boeing five times in 30 years, most recently in 2008. That strike cost Boeing $2 billion and prompted longtime customers like Virgin Airways chief Richard Branson to make plans to take his business elsewhere. With the new plant, 1,000 jobs were created in South Carolina, but no union jobs in Washington were lost.

The NLRB calls that decision "an unfair labor practice" that violates the National Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court, however, said in its 1981 First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB decision that the NLRA "limited the mandate or duty to bargain" of unionized firms "to matters of 'wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.'" The court also held that Congress had no expectation that the elected union representative at First National would become "an equal partner in the running of the business enterprise." Firms must be able "to reach decisions without fear of later evaluations labeling its conduct an unfair labor practice," the court concluded.

Obama's NLRB doesn't give a hoot what the Supreme Court ruled. Not only is the NLRB standing firm in its Boeing suit, but the leaked memo, which was obtained by the Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky and James Sherk, also shows that the board seeks to elevate union officials to equal partners with executives in corporate boardrooms of all unionized firms.

[...]

Soviet Communist Party theoretician Leon Trotsky wrote this in 1931: "The workers need control not for platonic purposes, but in order to exert practical influence upon the production and commercial operations of the employers. ... In a developed form, workers' control thus implies a sort of economic dual power in the factory." Were Trotsky still around, he would no doubt cheer Obama's NLRB. [Washington Examiner, 5/17/11]

WSJ's Moore On NLRB Complaint: "We've Never Seen Anything Like That Before ... In The History Of This Country." From Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: In response to a controversial move by the government telling Boeing where it can and cannot create jobs, a legislative bomb: 34 Republican senators signing on to the Job Protection Act. It's a piece of legislation designed to make sure the government doesn't get into this type of business of telling businesses where to do business.

[...]

MOORE: What's really unprecedented, I would say, about this National Labor Relations Board decision is that they're basically telling a company, an American company, you have to stay in the state that you're in. You can't move your facility. And by the way, in this case, in Boeing's case, this is not even an existing facility; it's a new plant that they want to build. The NLRB is basically saying, you know what, you cannot build it in South Carolina. You have to remain in Washington. We've never seen anything like that before that I know of in the history of this country. [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 5/13/11]

Moore And Laffer: The NLRB Complaint Marks "The First Time A Federal Agency Has Intervened To Tell An American Company Where It Can And Cannot Operate A Plant." From a May 13 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal co-authored by Moore and economist Arthur Laffer:

The NLRB's action, which Boeing will challenge at a hearing next month, is a big deal. It's the first time a federal agency has intervened to tell an American company where it can and cannot operate a plant within the U.S. It lays the foundation of a regulatory wall with one express purpose: to prevent the direct competition of right-to-work states with union-shop states. Why, as South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley recently asked on these pages, should Washington have any more right to these jobs than South Carolina?

A recent New York Times editorial justified the NLRB decision by arguing that unions are suffering from "the flight of companies to 'Right-to-Work' states where workers cannot be required to join a union." That's for sure, and quite an admission. We've been observing that migration pattern for years, but liberals have denied it's actually happening -- until now. [The Wall Street Journal, 5/13/11]

George Will: NLRB Complaint Interpreted Statute "Perversely, [And] Disregarded Almost Half A Century Of NLRB And Supreme Court Rulings." From George Will's May 13 Washington Post column:

This summer, the huge Boeing assembly plant here will begin producing 787 Dreamliners -- up to three a month, priced at $185 million apiece. It will, unless the National Labor Relations Board, controlled by Democrats and encouraged by Barack Obama's reverberating silence, gets its way.

Last month -- 17 months after Boeing announced plans to build here and with the $2 billion plant nearing completion -- the NLRB, collaborating with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), charged that Boeing's decision violated the rights of its unionized workers in Washington state, where some Dreamliners are assembled and still will be even after the plant here is operational. The NLRB has read a 76-year-old statute (the 1935 Wagner Act) perversely, disregarded almost half a century of NLRB and Supreme Court rulings, and patently misrepresented statements by Boeing officials.

South Carolina is one of 22 -- so far -- right-to-work states, where workers cannot be compelled to join a union. When in September 2009, Boeing's South Carolina workers -- fuselage sections of 787s already are built here -- voted to end their representation by IAM, the union did not accuse Boeing of pre-vote misbehavior. Now, however, the NLRB seeks to establish the principle that moving businesses to such states from non-right-to-work states constitutes prima facie evidence of "unfair labor practices," including intimidation and coercion of labor. This principle would be a powerful incentive for new companies to locate only in right-to-work states. [The Washington Post, 5/13/11]

Limbaugh Uses NLRB Case to Argue That "There's A Private Sector War Going On." From Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: By the way, Ford just announced that they're building a billion-dollar plant in India. And can you blame them? If they wanted to build a plant in South Carolina, the Obama regime would sue them. Because it's a nonunion state. Look what happened to Boeing. Don't tell me there's not a private sector war going on. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/7/11]

But Experts Say Allegations, If True, Represented A "Classic" Case Of Labor Law Violations

Labor Law Professor Brudney: "Relocating Work Away From A Plant Because Of Too Much Lawful Union Activity Would Be A Classic Violation" Of Federal Labor Laws. In a telephone interview with Media Matters, James J. Brudney, the Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, said: "Relocating work away from a plant because of too much lawful union activity would be a classic violation of 8(a)(3)" of the National Labor Relations Act, which makes it illegal for employers "to discriminat[e] in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization." [Phone interview with Media Matters, 5/11/11]

Labor And Employment Law Professor Fisk: If NLRB General Counsel's Complaint Is True, This Is An "Absolutely Standard Violation" Of Federal Labor Laws. In a telephone interview with Media Matters, University of California-Irvine Chancellor's Professor of Law Catherine Fisk said that if the NLRB general counsel's complaint is true, this is an "absolutely standard violation of Section 8(a)(1) [of the National Labor Relations Act], which has been in the statute since 1935 and prohibits retaliation against employees for protected activities" such as forming a union, engaging in collective bargaining, and striking. Fisk also said that she saw "nothing controversial" about the complaint. [Phone interview with Media Matters, 5/11/11]

Fisk: Company Violates Federal Labor Laws If It Relocates Work For Purposes Of "Seeking To Stop Workers From Engaging In Unionizing, Collective Bargaining, And Striking." Fisk also said that the case against Boeing is "all about whether the company was retaliating for the workers' decision to unionize" or engage in another protected activity like striking. She said, "It is permissible for an employer to move work to find lower wages," but it violates labor laws if they do it for the purpose of "seeking to stop workers from engaging in unionizing, collective bargaining, and striking." [Phone interview with Media Matters, 5/11/11]

Labor Law Professor Secunda: Complaint Against Boeing Shows The NLRB Is "Carrying Out Its Congressionally Mandated Mission To Protect The Right Of Workers To Engage In Concerted Activity." From a Seattle Times editorial by Marquette University Law School associate professor Paul Secunda:

The National Labor Relations Act gives workers the unequivocal right to engage in concerted activity -- including the right to strike. Boeing stated publicly that it was moving production away from Washington because its workers there previously went on strike and could go on strike again in the future.

Such comments amount to an admission from the company that it was intentionally retaliating against employees and trying to limit their rights -- a clear affront to the law that the NLRB is charged with enforcing.

At the end of the day, what we are seeing is the agency carrying out its congressionally mandated mission to protect the right of workers to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. The agency is simply enforcing the law, providing balance and fairness for workers and businesses alike. [The Seattle Times, 4/29/11, via Media Matters]

Labor Law Professor Hirsch: Boeing Allegations Involve A "Relatively Straightforward Case Of An Employer Punishing Workers For Striking." From a post on the Workplace Prof Blog by University of Tennessee College of Law associate professor Jeffrey Hirsch:

I've been surprised at how much attention is getting paid to the NLRB General Counsel's complaint against Boeing. Based on what I've seen, the conservative uproar to what, based on the allegations is a relatively straightforward case of an employer punishing workers for striking (with admittedly large potential economic impacts), is way out of proportion. But this editorial from the Wall Street Journal (subscription required, but if you Google the title, you can find it free) and the legislation it describes, has now entered the bizzaro stage.

As for the editorial, even taking into account the normal tenor one would expect from a WSJ editorial, I honestly don't ever remember seeing any piece of writing with so many inaccuracies. For instance, there's the title, which states that there is a Board ruling (it's just a GC complaint); the description of the remedy to shut down production in South Carolina (the GC doesn't seek that, it would just require Boeing to maintain production in Washington; and the argument that the complaint requires employers to stay in non-right-to-work states (I don't even know where to begin). Two minutes with a fact-checker would've had these cut, although that would've undermined the purpose of the editorial and its support for the legislation. [Workplace Prof Blog, 5/4/11, via Media Matters]

And The Case Was Brought By NLRB's General Counsel, Who Has Worked For Republicans And Democrats

Complaint Against Boeing Was Brought On Behalf Of The NLRB Acting General Counsel, Who Is "Independent From The [NLRB]." The complaint against Boeing was brought by a National Labor Relations Board regional director on behalf of "the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board." As stated on the NLRB website, "The General Counsel, appointed by the President to a 4-year term, is independent from the Board." [The Boeing Company NLRB general counsel's office complaint, 4/20/11] [NLRB.gov, accessed 5/19/11]

NLRB's Acting General Counsel Solomon Has Been A Career Civil Servant At The NLRB. Before being named acting NLRB general counsel by President Obama in 2010, Lafe Solomon spent nearly 30 years as a National Labor Relations Board member, working in both the general counsel's office and as a staff member for various board members. From the NLRB's website:

Lafe Solomon, a career NLRB attorney, was named Acting General Counsel by President Obama as of June 21, 2010. The Agency's top investigative and prosecutorial position, the General Counsel has supervisory authority over all Regional Offices and guides policy on issuing complaints, seeking injunctions, and enforcing the Board's decisions.

Mr. Solomon began his Agency career as a field examiner in Seattle in 1972. After taking a break to pursue a law degree, he returned as an attorney in the Office of Appeals. He transferred to the Appellate Court Branch in 1979. Two years later, he left the General Counsel side of the Agency to join the staff of former Board Member Don Zimmerman. He went on to work for another nine Board Members, including Donald Dotson, Robert Hunter, John Higgins, James Stephens, Mary Cracraft, John Raudabaugh, William Gould, Sarah Fox and Wilma Liebman. [NLRB.gov, accessed 6/16/11, via Media Matters]

Five Of The Ten NLRB Members For Whom Solomon Worked Were Republicans. According to the NLRB's website, half of the NLRB board members Lafe Solomon has worked for were Republicans, including Donald Dotson, Robert Hunter, John Higgins, James Stephens, and John Raudabaugh. [NLRB.gov, accessed 6/16/11]

NLRB Issued Proposal To Modernize Union Elections; Conservatives Attacked It As Trying To Establish "Quickie Elections"

NRO's Kirsanow: "NLRB's Proposed Rules Would Implement 'Quickie Elections." Former NLRB member Peter Kirsanow wrote in a post on the National Review Online blog The Corner:

In a nutshell, the NLRB's proposed rules would implement "quickie elections," a process that would allow unions to organize a workplace as easily as they could have had the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as "card check") passed.

[...]

Yet the "quickie election" rules proposed by the NLRB will shorten the time frame to a mere 10-20 days. Make absolutely no mistake: That's not enough time for even the largest and most sophisticated employers to counter what the union has been telling employees while organizing them for the last 6-8 months. The union win rate will far exceed 68 percent. [National Review Online, The Corner, 6/21/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Guest Hanretty: "This Would Absolutely Allow Unions To Do Instant Organizing." On Happening Now, former National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Karen Hanretty said:

HANRETTY: You know, this would absolutely allow unions to do instant organizing. So, in other words, they could take months of preparation to organize and hold a vote without the employer even knowing, without the employer even having the opportunity to wage their own campaign. [Fox News, Happening Now, 6/22/11, via Media Matters]

WSJ Editorial: NLRB "Delivered A Plan For 'Quickie' Union Elections Designed To Make Organizing Easier." From a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "The Union 'Quickie' ":

When Big Labor failed to persuade even a Democratic Congress to pass "card check" legislation, it turned to Plan B: the National Labor Relations Board, which yesterday delivered a plan for "quickie" union elections designed to make organizing easier. [The Wall Street Journal, 6/22/11, via Media Matters]

Heritage Foundation Analyst At NRO: "The NLRB's Proposed Snap Elections" Are "Another Case Of The Obama Administration Putting Unions Ahead Of Workers." In a post on The Corner, Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst James Sherk wrote:

The NLRB's proposed snap elections, which Peter Kirsanow described here yesterday, are another case of the Obama administration putting unions ahead of workers. Unionization has plummeted in the private sector because very few workers want to join. Unions want to reverse that trend by denying employees an informed choice. [National Review Online, 6/22/11, via Media Matters]

In Fact, Proposal Would Establish No Time Frame For Elections

CAP's Madland: Rule Doesn't Specify Time Frame, Addresses "Roadblocks That Commonly Are Thrown Up When The NLRB Attempts To Set Up An Election." David Madland, director of the Center for American Progress' American Worker Project, wrote:

The proposed rule announced today by the National Labor Relations Board to create a standard process for union elections is an important step toward giving workers a fairer way to choose whether to form a union. The rule would reform an election process that far too often resembles Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown's foot just as he begins his kick, with scheduled elections frequently delayed or canceled and workers left flat on their backs.

This common sense proposal would standardize an inconsistent election process. The NLRB is correct when it says the proposed rule would "reduce unnecessary litigation, streamline pre- and post-election procedures, and facilitate the use of electronic communications and document filing." The proposed rule does not specify a specific time frame for elections, but rather recommends a number of changes that would help put an end to delay tactics used by employers or unions, creating a more level playing field, ensuring stability and fairness for all parties, and reducing confrontation in the workplace.

[...]

The proposed rule would address the roadblocks that commonly are thrown up when the NLRB attempts to set up an election. There is currently no limit on employers' or unions' ability to demand a pre-election hearing on most any issue, including the eligibility of employees to vote, or the scope of the bargaining unit, which can be used to delay an election. Many of these issues could be resolved after voting, and others are manufactured for purposes of delay and don't need to be resolved at all, ever. As former NLRB General Counsel Fred Feinstein explains, "The problem has been that a party in any election case has the ability to undermine the expression of employee free choice by manipulating Board procedures to create delay." [AmericanProgress.org, 6/21/11]

NLRB: New Rules Would Eliminate A Review Process That "Almost Never Result In A Stay Of The Election." From the NLRB's "fact sheet" on the proposed changes:

Current procedures:

Elections routinely are delayed 25-30 days to allow parties to seek Board review of Regional Director rulings even though such requests are rarely filed, even more rarely granted, and almost never result in a stay of the election.

Proposed procedures:

The pre-election request for review would be eliminated, along with the unnecessary delay. [NLRB.gov, accessed 6/22/11]

NLRB: Current Rules Encourage "Pre-Election Litigation" Over Issues That "Ultimately May Not Need To Be Resolved." From the NLRB fact sheet:

Current procedures:

Encourages pre-election litigation over voter-eligibility issues that need not be resolved in order to determine if an election is necessary and that may not affect the outcome of the election and thus ultimately may not need to be resolved.

Proposed procedures:

The parties could choose not to raise such issues at the pre-election hearing but rather via the challenge procedure during the election. Litigation of eligibility issues raised by the parties involving less than 20 per cent of the bargaining unit would be deferred until after the election. [NLRB.gov, accessed 6/22/11]

NLRB: New Rules Would Require Parties To State Their Positions At Outset Of Hearings. From the NLRB fact sheet:

Current procedures:

In contrast to federal court rules, the board's current procedures have no mechanism for quickly identifying what issues are in dispute to avoid wasteful litigation and encourage agreements.

Proposed procedures:

The parties would be required to state their positions no later than the start of the hearing, before any other evidence is accepted. The proposed amendments would ensure that hearings are limited to issues resolving genuine disputes. [NLRB.gov, accessed 6/22/11]

Conservative Media Said Unions Already Win A Majority Of Elections...

Wash. Examiner: "Apparently, The Big Labor Bosses Aren't Satisfied With Winning More Than 60 Percent Of Workplace Representation Elections In Recent Years." From a Washington Examiner editorial:

The new workplace representation election rules are needed to "remove unnecessary barriers to the fair and expeditious resolution of questions concerning representation," according to the NLRB. Unions want the NLRB to severely limit or kill management's ability to oppose unionization before representation elections and to expose abusive campaign practices by union thugs after workers vote. Apparently, the Big Labor bosses aren't satisfied with winning more than 60 percent of workplace representation elections in recent years. [The Washington Examiner, 6/22/11]

NRO's Kirsanow: In Recent Years, Unions Have Won "Approximately 68 Percent Of Elections." Kirsanow wrote in a post on The Corner:

Indeed, in 2009 and 2010 unions won approximately 68 percent of elections (this does not include the number of petitions withdrawn by unions). [National Review Online, The Corner, 6/21/11]

...But Because Of The Old Election Rules, Many Union Petitions Never Make It To The Election Stage

Labor Journal Article: 35 Percent Of Union Drives Never Reach An Election. Writing in Industrial & Labor Relations Review, MIT doctoral candidate John-Paul Ferguson found that between 1999 and 2004, about 35 percent of cases in which an election petition was filed -- meaning organizers collected enough signatures to trigger the election process -- did not result in an election ultimately being held. From a chart published with his article:

[Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol. 62, No. 1, article 1]

Right-Wing Media Viciously Denigrate Union Workers, The Poor, And The Unemployed Union Workers

Fox's Gretchen Carlson Wonders: "Are Union Teachers Brainwashing Kids?" Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson teased a segment by saying, "Are union teachers brainwashing kids with lessons in collective bargaining? Well, coming up, the man who says he has proof Big Labor is disguising liberal propaganda as homework." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/5/11, via Media Matters]

Stossel: Non-Union Fox Employees "Seem Happier," While Union Members Are "Grouchy At Work." Fox Business host John Stossel asserted that unions "improve the standard of life for union leaders, but most make it worse for everyone else," and that unions "undermine character by crushing individualism." Stossel added that the non-union studio crew at Fox News "seem happier because they can help out, they make suggestions, they're part of a life," while union members are "grouchy at work." [Fox Business, Stossel, 12/1/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Regular Jonathan Hoenig: "Unions Have Destroyed Every Company In Which They've Been Intimately Involved." Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "Unions have destroyed every company in which they've been intimately involved." Later, Hoenig held up an Apple iPad and asked, "Could [AFL-CIO president] Richard Trumka honestly come up with this? Absolutely not." [Fox News, Cashin' In, 11/12/11, via Media Matters]

Right-Wing Media Hype Study Suggesting Public School Teachers Are Overpaid. Right-wing media have hyped a study published by conservative groups American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation that claims "public-school teachers are not underpaid in wages by private-sector standards, and they may even be overpaid." But many other studies have shown that public school teachers are paid relatively less than comparable workers, that their wages have been declining for decades, that U.S. teachers are paid less than their counterparts in most other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and that low teacher pay hurts recruitment and retention. [Media Matters,11/4/11]

Stossel Guest Ben Chavis On Teachers Unions: "I Do Prefer The Klan Over These Union Guys." On Fox Business' Stossel, controversial education activist Ben Chavis said of teachers unions: "I do prefer the Klan over these union guys because -- you know why? I know where I stand with those guy. These guys, they lie to you, they say, 'We're about the kids, all we want to do is help the kids.' They don't care about the kids." [Fox Business, Stossel, 10/20/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Varney Demonizes UAW's "Sweetheart Deal" With GM By Telling Half The Story. Fox Business host Stuart Varney claimed that the United Auto Workers received a "sweetheart deal" from General Motors, largely because the deal includes a $5,000 signing bonus for every worker. But Varney didn't mention that the signing bonus reportedly takes the place of cost-of-living wage increases in the deal or that the deal will reopen a Tennessee assembly plant and reduce GM's overall labor costs during the lifetime of the contract. [Fox News, America Live, 9/19/11, via Media Matters]

Coulter: Hoffa Represents "Useless" Workers Like "Kindergarten Teachers" Instead Of "Men Who Have Actual Jobs." Right-wing author Ann Coulter said that Teamsters Union president James Hoffa used to represent "truck drivers and pipe fitters. Now he's representing public school teachers, kindergarten teachers, cafeteria workers, fighting for every last bit of their government pension. What a pathetic downfall." Coulter added, "That is evidence of the decline of the nation that he's not even representing men how have actual jobs. He's representing a bunch of useless public-sector workers." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/7/11, via Media Matters]

George Will Enlists In Campaign To Repeal 20th Century With Defense Of Lochner. In his Washington Post column, Will argued that the Supreme Court "correctly decided Lochner v. New York" -- a 1905 Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York State law regulating maximum hours for bakery workers, a decision that was essentially nullified in 1936 -- and that the opinion remains "relevant to current arguments." [The Washington Post, 9/6/11; Media Matters, 9/8/11]

Fox's Huddy Asks, "Are Teachers Unions Ruining Your Kids' Education?" Fox News' Juliet Huddy teased a segment by asking, "Are teachers unions ruining your kids' education? Our next guest says yes." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/25/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Business' Kneale: "My Short Editorial: Unions Bad, Business Good." Fox Business senior correspondent Dennis Kneale said, "I'll just sum up by saying my short editorial: Unions bad, business good." [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 8/12/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Bolling: Cheating Scandal Is "An Example Of Teachers Getting Too Big For Their Britches. You Gotta Break The Unions." Discussing reports that some Georgia schools had artificially raised test scores in order to meet targets, Bolling said that the scandal was "an example of teachers getting too big for their britches. You gotta break the unions." [Fox News, The Five, 7/22/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Johnson: "We Understand The Value Of Unions," But They're "Begin[ning] To Destroy A Country." Fox News contributor Peter Johnson Jr. said: "We understand the value of unions. They've done some great things over time. But when they begin to destroy a country ... we're staggered by the numbers. We can't afford what they're asking for." Johnson then advised unions to "pull back a little bit, let the others get. Let us all live. It's not all about unions. It's about all of us." [Fox News, Hannity, 6/20/11, via Media Matters]

Right-Wing Media Repeat Discredited Claims Of Union Workers Refusing To Plow Streets After Blizzard. Right-wing media, led by the New York Post, repeated unsubstantiated allegations that New York union sanitation workers deliberately failed to plow streets after a blizzard in order to protest department budget cuts. In fact, a city investigation found no evidence to support the claim. [The New York Times, 6/4/11; Media Matters, 6/7/11]

Doocy And Kilmeade Blame Unions For Jobs Moving Overseas Where "Cheaper Labor Is." In discussing why manufacturing jobs are leaving the United States for overseas, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy said that "people would say that's where cheaper labor is." Co-host Brian Kilmeade added, "Without unions." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/18/11, via Media Matters]

Beck Fearmongers About Unions: "You Are Going To Be Under Threat To Lose Your Job, Lose Your Pensions, Lose Everything." On his now-canceled Fox News show, Glenn Beck said: "You are going to have powerful unions, you are going to have thugs. You are going to be under threat to lose your job, lose your pensions, lose everything for what you say and what you do. And they're not going to mess around." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/27/11, via Media Matters]

Wallace: If Union Is "Part Of The Problem" Of Sleeping Air Traffic Controllers, "Why Have Them Be Part Of The Solution"? Discussing incidents of air traffic controllers sleeping on the job, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood: "If the union -- and as we pointed out, that these compressed schedules to get long weekends off -- if the union is part of the problem, why have them be part of the solution?" [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 4/17/11, via Media Matters]

Fox News Uses Anniversary Of Martin Luther King's Slaying To Misrepresent King's Views On Unions. Fox News hosts Glenn Beck and Neil Cavuto attacked unions who cited Martin Luther King Jr.'s support for labor rights on the anniversary of his assassination. In fact, King was shot while in Memphis to support striking municipal workers, and that was just one example of King's support for organized labor. [Media Matters, 4/5/11]

Fox Doesn't Need To Understand Retiree Health Program To Call It A Union "Payoff." Commenting on a program created by the Affordable Care Act, Fox News' Clayton Morris falsely suggested that only states and unions received funds from the program, and Mike Huckabee called it a "political payoff" to unions. In fact, private businesses are also benefitting from the program, which temporarily helps employers provide health benefits for retirees who do not yet qualify for Medicare. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Saturday, 4/2/11, via Media Matters]

Beck: "I Believe" It "Is Not Illegal" To Commit Terrorism "If You Are A Union." Discussing remarks made by union organizer Stephen Lerner that he claimed constituted "economic terrorism," Beck said on his radio show that Lerner can "get away" with making remarks because "I believe you cannot charge him with anything because it is not illegal to do those things if you are a union." Beck later said that "you could make the case that this isn't domestic terrorism, this is union organizing, that's all this is. If you get caught, you need the umbrella of and protection of unions." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 3/23/11, via Media Matters]

Bolling Calls For NFL To "Crush Collective Bargaining." Bolling wrote on his Twitter account: "Wisc Gov Walker does what the NFL should do... crush collective bargaining..." [Eric Bolling, Twitter, 3/11/11]

Limbaugh's Anti-Union Rant: Obama "Would Love" For Me To Be Known Only As "Media Employee No. 2534 At G-Schedule 4-B." In a lengthy rant against unions, Limbaugh said that under unions, "you cease being an individual" and "you end up as an employee number, which, believe me, I think is what this regime would like. I mean, Obama would love for me to be Media Employee No. 2,534 At G-Schedule 4-B, and have that be as much known about me as possible, and anybody else. Faceless, personality-less, just a bunch of cogs in a wheel, with the people running the show getting the spoils." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/4/11, via Media Matters]

Hypocritical Fox News Millionaires Attack "Six Figure" Union Salaries. In their ongoing attempt to smear unions, Fox News hosts and contributors have frequently criticized the annual salaries of union workers and union bosses. Yet most of these Fox News critics and their colleagues make several million dollars a year, while attacking union members for making considerably less. [Media Matters, 3/4/11]

Limbaugh: "Public Sector Teachers Unions Are Organized Against Us And The Children." Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show that public teachers unions are organized "against us, the taxpayers" and "when it comes to their fight against merit pay and firing incompetent teachers, they are organized against the children." Limbaugh later repeated, "The public sector teachers unions are organized against us and the children." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/11, via Media Matters]

Special Report Segment On Unions Featured Only Union Foes, No Supporters. A segment by correspondent Jim Angle on Fox News' Special Report on Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the controversy over his plan to heavily restrict the bargaining rights of unionized state employees featured clips of Walker and union critic James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation, but no union supporters were quoted. [Fox News, Special Report, 2/28/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Asks If Teaching Labor History Is "Pro-Union Propaganda." Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson said it "may startle you" to know that in Wisconsin, teachers are required to teach the history of the labor movement. On-screen text during the segment read, "Pro-Union Propaganda?" [fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/25/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh Attacked Union Workers As "Freeloaders" As Compared To "Real Working Non-Unionized People." On the February 17 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh called union workers "freeloaders" and contrasted them with "real working non-unionized people." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/17/11, via Media Matters]

Beck: "Powerful Unions Led By Communists" Want To "End The Western Way Of Life As You And I Understand It." Beck said: "What does the Young Communist League have to do with the UAW or the steelworkers? Progressive, socialist, Marxist groups, religious groups, green groups, communist, powerful unions led by communists, SEIU, AFL-CIO. Radical groups like La Raza -- what did all of these groups -- what were they all working together for? Well, in one way or another, they want to end the Western way of life as you and I understand it. They may disagree on exactly what the new way of life will be." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 2/7/11, via Media Matters]

Right-Wing Media Use Cropped Video To Vilify NEA. Right-wing media figures including Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh used a cropped portion of a July 2009 speech by Bob Chanin, former general counsel of the National Education Association, to suggest Chanin admitted that the union does not "care about the children." In fact, the full context of Chanin's remarks show that this was a blatant distortion of his message. [Media Matters, 2/25/11]

Bolling: "We Don't Need Unions Anymore." Bolling asserted that "the union model is broken. ... It was great in the '30s and '40s when there were sweatshops and, you know, 8-year-olds making sweaters. That's not where we are anymore. We don't need unions anymore. The union model is broken, bust. Get rid of it." [Fox News, Bulls & Bears, 1/15/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Varney Asks If California Union Workers Will Protest With "Violence In The Streets." Discussing state budget problems in California, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said, "What we're talking about is really dramatic cuts in all kinds of services. When those same kind of cuts were imposed in Europe, you had violence in the streets. Now, do you think it will come to that in California, because the unions are sure to mount some pretty nasty protests about what you think is likely to happen?" [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 1/5/11, via Media Matters]

Low-Income Americans

Limbaugh On Bill To Provide Diapers To Low-Income Parents: "This Is ... Indoctrination." Discussing a proposed bill that would provide free diapers to low-income parents, Limbaugh said, "This is taking indoctrination to steps I never dreamed of. Indoctrinate babies early and often in daycare, and you get them in daycare by promising free diapers." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/21/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Charles Payne Explains Poverty: After Thanksgiving People "Take Their Welfare Checks And Bum-Rush" Walmart. On the October 3 edition of Hannity, Payne said: "After everyone's eaten their Thanksgiving meal, right, go to Walmart at midnight. You're going to see why a lot of people don't have money. They're going to take their welfare checks and bum-rush the security guard, knock him down, and give away all their money." [Fox News, Hannity, 10/3/11, via Media Matters]

Schiff: "One Of The Most Anti-Poor People Rules Is The Minimum Wage." Author and businessman Peter Schiff claimed on Fox & Friends that "one of the most anti-poor people rules is the minimum wage. It keeps people poor," adding, "And people that have no skills, it's not just worth it to hire them." In fact, studies have shown that the minimum wage has little to no effect on youth or adult unemployment rates. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/21/11; Media Matters, 8/22/11]

Fox's Stuart Varney On Low-Income Americans: "Many Of Them Have Things -- What They Lack Is The Richness Of Spirit." During the August 25 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co. at Night, host Stuart Varney hyped a Heritage Foundation study showing that many Americans in poverty own appliances, saying: "The image we have of poor people as starving and living in squalor really is not accurate. Many of them have things -- what they lack is the richness of spirit. That's my opinion." [Fox Business, Varney & Co. at Night, 8/25/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Guest On Program Providing Free Cell Phones To The Unemployed To Aid In Job Search: "They're Not Looking For Work. If They Were, They Would Be Working." During a segment on the August 3 edition of America Live about a program that provides free cell phones to the poor, guest host Shannon Bream introduced the segment by calling the program "a controversial call" as the on-screen text asked whether "free cell phones" should be a "civil right." While one of Bream's guests, Gary Carter, explained the program, the other guest, "federal tax practitioner and small businessman" David Selig, responded by calling the program a "shakedown," saying that government is "extorting" companies, and opined that the people receiving the phones "don't deserve something free on the taxpayer's nickel." (In fact, universal service has been a basic tenet of federal policy since the Communications Act of 1934.) The segment concluded with Carter laying out the benefits of the program and why it is worthwhile, using the example of a low-income man who was unemployed having access to a phone through the program so that potential employers could contact him as he searched for work. Selig interrupted him: "They're not looking for work. If they were, they would be working." [Fox News, America Live, 8/3/11, via Media Matters]

Sowell Attacks "The Left" For Using Poor People As "Human Shields." Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell wrote: " 'The poor' are the human shields behind whom advocates of ever-bigger spending for ever-bigger government advance toward their goal." Sowell added, "If government programs were confined to people who were genuinely poor in some meaningful sense, that would shrink the welfare state to a fraction of its current size. The left would lose its human shields." [Washington Examiner, 8/2/11]

Limbaugh Derides People Who Rely On Social Safety Net, Suggests They're Taking A "Vacation." Limbaugh asserted that "the safety net has become a hammock," adding that "our safety net's become a vacation destination." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/17/11, via Media Matters]

Tax-Cut Crusader Varney Thinks Tax Cut For The Poor Is A "Welfare Scheme" Stuart Varney complained about the "8 million" poverty-stricken seniors and disabled people receiving benefits to help pay for basic necessities, then attacked the Earned Income Tax Credit: "I'm going to call it a welfare scheme." In fact, the EITC is a tax credit available to working low-income individuals and families, not a subsidy program like many traditional welfare programs. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/15/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Business Pitted The "Takers" Of "Government Handouts" Against The "Makers." After a National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded that social safety net programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, were highly effective at keeping people out of poverty, Fox Business launched a week-long series pitting the "takers" of "government handouts" against the "makers" in the economy. [Media Matters, 5/24/11]

Fox Business Scolded Poor People For Not Being Ashamed Of Their Poverty. During the May 19 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co., host Stuart Varney attacked anti-poverty programs as evidence that the U.S. now has an "entitlement mentality." Fox commentator Charles Payne then scolded people in poverty for not being "embarrassed" about needing public assistance:

PAYNE: Krystal [Ball], there's no doubt that these are good programs. I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren't embarrassed by it. People aren't ashamed by it. In other words, the there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on it for more than two years. I think that's what Stu is trying to say, is that, when the president says Wall Street is at fault, so, you are entitled to get anything that you want from the government, because it's not really your fault. No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it's someone else's fault. So food stamps, unemployment, all of this stuff, is something that they probably earned in some indirect way. [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Limbaugh: "Do You Know Any Low-Income People Who Want To Get A Better Job? ... Do They Even Want To Work?" On the April 21 edition of his radio show, host Rush Limbaugh said, "Do you know any low-income people who want to get a better job? ... Do they even want to work?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/21/11, via Media Matters]

Unemployed Americans

Fox Nation Considers Obama "Reduced" By Spending Time With "Unemployed Union Workers." An October 12 Fox Nation post highlighted an Associated Press story about President Obama sharing a beer with unemployed construction workers in Florida. But unlike the AP headline, Fox Nation declared that Obama was "Reduced to Holding Beer Summits with Unemployed Union Workers," suggesting that sharing a beer with a group of American workers would somehow be beneath the President. [Fox Nation, 10/12/11; Media Matters, 10/12/11]

Limbaugh: It's "Good In Most Ways" That States Are Cutting Unemployment Because It Will "Force People To Try To Go Find Work." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that it "ultimately is good in most ways" that some states are cutting the amount of time people can receive unemployment benefits "because it's going to finally force people to try to go find work." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/23/11, via Media Matters]

Ben Stein Asserts That "A Lot Of" Unemployed "Would Not Prefer To Go To Work." On Fox News' Cavuto On Business, Ben Stein claimed that he "talked to social workers who are talking to people who are on unemployment or on welfare. And unfortunately, a lot of those people have become habituated to not working and just getting a handout, and they would not prefer to go to work." [Fox News, Cavuto On Business, 4/30/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Business' Payne And Cotter Disparage Unemployment Insurance Recipients. Fox Business reporter Chris Cotter noted that some retail business were hiring, adding, "What everybody says is, 'That's retail, man. That's beneath me.' Is it beneath you to take you to take welfare? What's beneath welfare? There are jobs out there." Fox News contributor Charles Payne responded, "There are jobs out there, which is why a lot of people are upset with the 99ers who believe they're entitled to certain jobs." [Fox Business' Varney & Co., 2/23/11, via Media Matters]

Right-wing media, especially Fox News, have a long history of attacking healthy eating and exercise while promoting unhealthy habits such as eating fast food or using too much salt, or getting Botox and going tanning. If getting healthy is one of your goals for 2012, here's why you shouldn't trust any advice from the right-wing media.

Don't Make Kids' Food Healthier!

Happy Meals: Right-Wing Media Attacked McDonald's For Healthier Kids' Meals. Following McDonald's decision to offer "more nutritionally-balanced" Happy Meals and First Lady Michelle Obama's praise of the decision, the right-wing media attacked McDonald's for supposedly bending to the will of the "fat police" and making Happy Meals "less happy." Co-host Steve Doocy said on Fox News' Fox & Friends that "there's about to be no more happy in [kids'] Happy Meals," and conservative pundit Michelle Malkin held an "unhappy meal" Photoshop contest on her blog, writing, "I'm running out to Sonic before [sic] right now before they get their grubby Nanny State hands on my cheesy tots and cherry limeade." [Media Matters,

• In Fact, The FDA Was "Ask[ing] A Panel Of Experts" To Advise On Possible "Warning Labels On Food" With Artificial Coloring. In fact, the New York Times article to which Fox Nation linked said that "the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems like hyperactivity in some children." The FDA panel ultimately rejected the idea that warning labels would be necessary on foods containing such artificial dyes. [Media Matters,
  • In Fact, "Junk Food" Tax Came From A New York Times Op-Ed. In fact, while Carlson did not explain where the "junk food" tax numbers came from, the "tax[es]" featured in the graphic appeared to have come from a New York Times op-ed, not a government proposal. [Media Matters, 7/26/11]

  Fox & Friends Mocked NYC Health Dept. For Issuing Health Guidelines. On the April 4 edition of Fox & Friends, the co-hosts responded to a story that the New York City Health Department issued health guidelines for its workers, which included banning deep-fried foods from being served at work events, by mocking the decision and referring to the department as the "food police." Doocy listed some of the rules and asked, "How crazy is that?" while Kilmeade said, "Can you imagine being suspended because of three chocolate glazed donuts? Sorry honey, I've been furloughed -- too many calories." Carlson admitted: "I mean, they're saying -- they're saying that they're doing this because they have to practice what they preach, and you can just imagine that if we found out that they were serving nothing but cake at the Health Department, we'd be talking about it the next morning. So maybe they're -- I mean, I don't know. It's so crazy." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/4/11, via Media Matters]

Some right-wing media figures have rushed to embrace Newt Gingrich's plan to impeach judges, subpoena them to testify before Congress, and abolish federal courts with which he disagrees. However, as even most conservatives have noted, this plan is "dangerous" to checks and balances and almost certainly unconstitutional.

Gingrich Proposal: Subpoena, Arrest, Impeach Federal Judges

Gingrich Position Paper Calls For Impeaching Judges When They Get Out Of Line. In a position paper on Newt Gingrich's campaign website, Gingrich explained his plan to "[r]estore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated Constitutional powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution." This plan called for Congress and the President to work together to impeach and remove federal judges who they feel "refused to adhere to the legislative limitations on jurisdiction." [Newt.org, 10/7/11]

Gingrich Position Paper Suggests That Congress Should Abolish Federal Courts When It Disagrees With Their Decisions. From the position paper on Gingrich's website:

A good place to start correcting federal judges is in Texas. This past June, a federal district court judge in West Texas issued an extraordinary judicial order that threatened local school officials with going to jail if they failed to censor the content of a student's speech at a high school graduation ceremony.  Such oppressive and tyrannical behavior from a sitting federal judge is not constitutional and has no place in America. Congress would be well within its power to impeach and remove this federal judge from office, or failing that, work with the President to abolish his judgeship.

[...]

The Constitution vests Congress with the power to create and abolish all federal courts, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court. Congress even has the power, as Congressman Steve King of Iowa frequently notes, to "reduce the Supreme Court to nothing more than Chief Justice Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle." During the administration of Thomas Jefferson, the legislative and executive branches worked together to abolish over half of all federal judgeships(18 of 35). While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances, those who care about the rule of law can be relied upon to consider whatever constitutionally permissibly tools they can find to fight federal judges and courts exceeding their powers.  It is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary.  Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited in most circumstances to check and balance the judiciary. [Newt.org, 10/7/11]

Gingrich Has Proposed That Congress "Subpoena Federal Judges" When They Did Not Like Their Decisions. From an article in the ABA Journal:

On national security issues, Gingrich said at a Values Voters Summit on Friday, he saw no reason to obey some U.S. Supreme Court rulings, report CBS News and the Atlantic. "I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on issues of national security," Gingrich said.

Gingrich also told the summit and Face the Nation on Sunday that Congress could subpoena federal judges and ask them to explain their decisions. Gingrich thought the subpoenas could have "a sobering effect" on judges' assessment of their powers.

He also had another proposal for chastising judges. The Atlantic has Gingrich's quote: "Congress has the power to limit the appeals, as I mentioned earlier. Congress can cut budgets. Congress can say: 'All right, in the future, the 9th Circuit can meet, but it will have no clerks. By the way, we aren't going to pay the electric bill for two years. And since you seem to be--since you seem to be rendering justice in the dark, you don't seem to need your law library, either.' " [ABA Journal, 10/12/11]

• Gingrich Subsequently Said If Judges Did Not Comply With Subpoenas They Could Be Arrested. [CBS News, 12/18/11]

Limbaugh And Fox's Doocy Have Touted Gingrich's Proposals

Doocy: Gingrich Was "Historical," "Accurate," And "Brilliant" When "Talking About Out-Of-Control Judges And The Courts." During the December 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said:

DOOCY: And when it comes to Newt Gingrich, while he was tamer, I'll tell you, when he was talking about out-of-control judges and the courts, he was historical, he was accurate, he was brilliant. The crowd there in Sioux City really ate it up. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/16/11]

Limbaugh Hyped Gingrich's Plan To Impeach Judges, Abolish Courts.  During the December 16 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh lauded Gingrich's defense of his proposals for judges during the December 15 Fox News debate. He classified Gingrich's statements as one of "Newt's Best Debate Moments":

LIMBAUGH: Another Newt moment was this. Megyn Kelly: She handled the legal questions last night. "Speaker Gingrich, you have proposed a plan to subpoena judges to testify before Congress about controversial decisions that they make. In certain cases you advocate impeaching judges or abolishing the courts altogether. Two conservative former attorneys general have criticized your plan saying it alters the checks and balances of the three branches of government and they used words like 'dangerous, outrageous, totally irresponsible.'  Are they wrong?"

GINGRICH (audio clip):  The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful -- and I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people. There's an entire paper at Newt.org. I've been working on this project since 2002 when the Ninth Circuit court said that "one nation under God" is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance, and I decided: If you had judges who are so radically anti-American that they thought "one nation under God" was wrong, they shouldn't be on the court.

LIMBAUGH:  That also brought people out of their seats last night. There were a lot of moments like that, and it was an uplifting debate throughout the whole time. The attitude, mood of the whole night was productive and good. You know, people don't understand the courts, the separation of powers in Congress. Congress can do anything they want with their -- Congress can totally redistrict the United -- who set up the court system, do you think? Do you think that Oliver Wendell Holmes sat down one day and said, "You know what? This is going be the Ninth Circuit, and over here is going be the DC Circuit. Over here is going be the Fourth Circuit." 

That is not how it happened. Congress did it. If Congress wanted to split the Ninth Circus -- make it smaller, make fewer people subject to it -- they could. If they had the votes, if the president goes along with it. It's -- the Founding Fathers really did not want an imperial judiciary. They did not want what we've got. They did not want judges and bureaucrats writing law. The people are not represented when that starts happening. There is no representative republic. The Founding Fathers had no intention that the final word on law or anything else be nine people wearing robes. That was not the intent. It's where we have evolved -- in fact, not just with legal issues. How many political issues now end up at the court and whatever the Supreme Court verdict is is the final word and authority on a political issue like abortion? 

Sorry, that was not the intent. Judges can be impeached. Now, it is a bit radical to bring 'em in and start making them explain their decisions. It's tempting. Some, but I -- that -- well, Alcee Hastings. You can impeach them.  Then they run for Congress after that. But there is a way of dealing with this. Most people, particularly people who are under 50, peripheral knowledge of the court system and the Constitution have grown up believing that what happens when a judge bangs a gavel is it. That's it. There's nowhere else you can go. Once you have gone to the last court that'll hear your case, that's it. That was never intended, particularly when it comes to legal issues. But with the left, politicizing all the judgeships as they can and putting unelectable people on courts, that's where it all started transforming. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/16/11; RushLimbaugh.com, 12/16/11]

But Legal Experts Call Gingrich's Plan A Terrible Idea

Group Aimed At Keeping The Judiciary Fair And Impartial: "Gingrich's Proposal ... Clashes Violently With The Founders' Intentions." From a report on Republican presidential candidates' plans for the courts by the Justice at Stake campaign, an organization dedicated to keeping "state and federal courts fair and impartial":

Gingrich's proposal to eliminate judgeships for political reasons also clashes violently with the Founders' intentions. In August 1787, the Constitutional Convention considered a plan to allow Congress to oust judges for reasons other than misbehavior in office. The proposal was rejected by seven states, and favored by only one. Participants in the convention included Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. [Justice at Stake campaign, 10/24/11]

Law Professor Raskin: Gingrich's Proposal Says That "Racist Governors ... Were Right In Thinking That [Brown v. Board of Education] Was Nothing More Than A Suggestion." From a Huffington Post article by law professor and Democratic Maryland state Sen. Jamin Raskin:

The campaign paper on the judiciary that Gingrich boasted of last week is a scary protracted critique of the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). This was a critical desegregation case from Arkansas reaffirming Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the Court's power under Marbury v. Madison (1803) to declare what the law is for the nation. In what must be seen as a shameless and shameful bid for attention in the Southern states, Gingrich is now effectively saying that racist Governors like Orval Faubus and George Wallace were right in thinking that Brown's historic ruling was nothing more than a suggestion. He is attacking the decision that struck down, once and for all, the doctrines of "interposition" and "nullification" under which racists have rallied since before the Civil War.

When Gingrich was asked last week about the Bush administration Attorneys General attacking his judicial positions, he said he would ask them "first of all, have they studied Jefferson, who in 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges? Eighteen out of 35 were abolished." The following conversation followed:

KELLY: Something that was highly criticized.

GINGRICH: Not by anybody in power in 1802.

Well, Newt, first of all, the repeal of the Judiciary Act in 1802 got rid of 16 judgeships, not 18, and, second, it was enormously controversial. For example, the Washington Federalist wrote: "The fatal bill is passed. Our Constitution is no more." The New York Post described this non-controversial bill as "the death wound of our glorious Constitution." Third, had he been around then, Gingrich would have certainly been on the other side wailing about attacks on the judges because all of the plutocrats and reactionaries rallied around the courts at that point. [Huffington Post, 12/19/11]

Even Conservatives Have Labeled Gingrich's Plan "Dangerous" And "Unconstitutional"

Michael Mukasey Says Gingrich's Plan For Judiciary Is "Outrageous," "Dishonest," "Ridiculous," "Irresponsible," And "Dangerous." Former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey, told Fox News' Megyn Kelly on America Live that Gingrich's plan is "off-the-wall" and would "reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle." From the show:

MEGYN KELLY: Now let's talk about his idea. He wants to, among other things, subpoena judges who issue decisions that he doesn't like.

MICHAEL MUKASEY: For judicial oversight hearings, as he calls them.

KELLY: What -- how does that strike you?

MUKASEY: Outrageous

Kelly: How so?

MUKASEY: Because there's no basis. The only basis on which Congress can subpoena people is to consider legislation. To subpoeana judges so as to beat them up about their decisions has only a -- if they're going to say that has to do with legislation that they might propose, that's completely dishonest.

[...]

KELLY: But what about the most controversial courts and Gingrich's plan to eliminate them? He wants to see the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entirely abolished. Your thoughts on that?

MUKASEY: Ridiculous. The fact is that the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court [sic: Congress] to establish lower federal courts. Presumably, it can undo lower federal courts. But to say that you're going to undo an entire court simply because you don't like some of their decisions when there are thousands of cases before that court is totally irresponsible.

KELLY: But you know, a lot of people don't like, in particular, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They think it's issued some crazy rulings, it issued, as Newt Gingrich has pointed out many times, the opinion striking down "under God" in the pledge, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court, but a lot of people think "yeah, I don't like that Ninth Circuit, let's get rid of it" -- to those viewers who are feeling that way, explain why you think that's outrageous and dangerous.

MUKASEY: It's outrageous because it essentially does away with the notion that when courts decide cases, the proper way to have them reviewed is to go to a higher court. It's dangerous because even from the standpoint of the people who put it forward, because you have no guarantee that you have a permanent majority. The minority now can be the majority tomorrow and can do the same thing to the courts that they don't like.

[...]

MUKASEY: It would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle. [Fox News, America Live, 12/15/11]

Alberto Gonzales Says Gingrich's Judicial Plan Is "Troubling" And He "Would Not Support" Gingrich's Efforts. Former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, told Megyn Kelly that Gingrich's plan is "troubling" because having "a strong and independent Judiciary" is key to protecting the rule of law that makes our country great. From the show:

ALBERTO GONZALES: I think that we have a great government, a great country because it's built upon a foundation of the rule of law. And one of the things that makes it great and the fact -- the rule of law is protected is by having a strong and independent judiciary. And the notion or the specter of bringing judges before the Congress like a school child being brought before the principal, to me, is a little bit troubling. I believe a strong and independent judiciary doesn't mean that the judiciary is above scrutiny, that it's above criticism for the work that it does. But I cannot support and would not support efforts that would appear to be intimidation or retaliation against judges. [Fox News, America Live, 12/15/11]

National Review Online's Whelan Calls Gingrich's Proposal "Awful." In a series of five blog posts on "Gingrich's Awful Proposal to Abolish Judgeships," Ed Whelan and Matthew Franck say Gingrich's proposal is "constitutionally unsound and politically foolish." From Whelan's first post in the series:

In last night's debate among Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich defended his proposal to oust bad judges from office by statutorily abolishing the judicial offices they occupy. In a series of posts, Matt Franck and I will explain why we believe that this particular proposal of Gingrich's is constitutionally unsound and politically foolish. (Matt and I may have somewhat different thinking on the underlying issues, so the views expressed by one of us should not necessarily be imputed to the other.) [National Review Online, 12/16/11]

National Review Online's Franck Says Gingrich's Plan Constitutes "Cheating On The Constitution's Rules." From a post by Franck:

But Gingrich's proposal doesn't match its supposed precedent.  He doesn't simply want to restore a status quo ante (for motives pure or partisan) by abolishing a court we don't need.  He apparently wants to abolish it and then recreate it in some fashion, with new vacancies.  That's cheating on the Constitution's rules for the removal of judges one doesn't like.  If the problem is the judge (not the court), then the Constitution provides for impeachment.  That's difficult, both procedurally and in terms of the standards to be applied to justify removal.  But it's difficult for a reason.  I have often said that judicial independence is something we could stand to have a lot less of.  But there are right ways and wrong ways to bring activist judges to heel.  This is a very badly wrong way. [National Review Online, 12/16/11]

Bush-Appointed Former Federal Judge Says "The Constitution Is Pretty Clear That Neither Side Can Eliminate Judges Because They Disagree With Their Decisions." From a Washington Post article quoting Michael W. McConnell, who was appointed by President George W. Bush to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and resigned to become a law professor:

Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University and a former federal appeals judge appointed by Bush, also observed that conservative audiences "should not be cheering" and "are misled" if they believe Gingrich's proposal is in their interest at a time when Republicans are looking to the Supreme Court to declare President Obama's health-care law unconstitutional.

"You would think that this would be a time when they would be defending the independence of the judiciary, not attacking it," he said. "You can't have it both ways. It can't be that when conservative Republicans object to the courts, they have the right to replace judges, and when liberal Democrats disapprove of the courts, they don't. And the constitution is pretty clear that neither side can eliminate judges because they disagree with their decisions." [The Washington Post, 12/17/11]

Fox News figures have repeatedly complained about the Senate's two-month extension of the payroll tax cuts, saying that the tax cuts should have been extended for a full year. But Fox News figures themselves have repeatedly attacked the tax cut extension, falsely claiming it won't promote job growth.

Fox Figures Call For One-Year Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut

Carlson: "The Big Stink Here Is The Timeline On This." On the December 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, the co-hosts discussed the Senate version of the payroll tax cut extension, which would extend the current tax cut for another two months. As co-host Steve Doocy said, "The House is supposed to vote on it tonight ... It is expected that [the House Republicans] will probably kill it." Co-host Gretchen Carlson later said, "The big stink here is the timeline on this. So this current form only extends the payroll tax cut for two months, and what some of the House Republicans are saying is, 'Let's not continue to kick the can down the road, let's make it a year.'" Guest host and country singer Larry Gatlin then said: "Right. Don't you think that's really big of them to do it for two whole months?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/19/11]

Perino: "I Think Most Reasonable People Wanted A One-Year" Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut. Later in the broadcast, co-host Steve Doocy summarized the Senate's action on the payroll tax holiday by saying, "Looked like the Senate passed that bipartisan bill to extend the payroll tax cut for two whole months!" He then summarized Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) recent remarks on Meet the Press by claiming Boehner had said: "Come on, Mr. President, two months? We ought to do a year." Carlson later acknowledged that Obama did want the tax cut extended for a year. The co-hosts and guest Dana Perino repeatedly called for a one-year extension rather than the short-term deal that was passed, but Perino also called for broader tax reform:

DOOCY: And it sounds like the House is going to kill that, the Senate-passed bill, tonight.

PERINO: Right so, let's see. Two months is like - half of that is the president's vacation [it]self that he's about to take in Hawaii, which I'll get some heat for, but it's not good policy either because if your expression is -- if your policy is that the payroll tax cut helps get money into the economy and helps people -- give them more certainty so they can plan ahead, the year-long tax cut makes a lot more sense because if this -- if we do this two months from now, it is just going to get boiled down into the presidential politics.

DOOCY: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Well, the president wanted a year. I mean, let's be fair. He probably doesn't love this --

PERINO: Yeah, he should want a year.

CARLSON: This two --

PERINO: But now he's supporting the two-month deal because [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid it's said that's the only thing they can get done in the Senate.

CARLSON: But what does it say about [Sen.] Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? Because McConnell supported this two-month thing, and now the leader of the House, John Boehner, Speaker of the House, saying no can do.

PERINO: McConnell also wanted the one year. I think most reasonable people wanted a one year. When Reid said the only thing they could get done was a two [month] to avoid a tax increase and make sure people had that certainty, but also the other thing that McConnell and Boehner did was add something I thought was very smart, which was the [Keystone] XL pipeline.

[...]

PERINO: I do think that this will all work out. I think that the payroll tax cut will be extended, probably for the year, and then this will be able to move forward. What we really need, if that question is better asked on a bigger picture level, which is we can't have this nickel and dime type of tax reform -- that a leader that wants to actually change things in America would say, let's do something quite dramatic, either a flat tax or a fair tax, do something bigger rather than a two-month extension on a payroll tax cut which will not make a difference in the economy at all. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/19/11]

Fox Previously Attacked Payroll Tax Cut As "Far Too Small" And Claimed It Didn't Create Jobs ...

Perino Claims Keystone Pipeline Would Be "Much More Beneficial" For Job Growth "Than A Temporary Payroll Tax Cut." Previously, on the December 8 edition of Fox News' The Five, Perino, a co-host of the show, dismissed the economic and job benefits of a "temporary payroll tax cut":

DANA PERINO (co-host): I think though that the Republicans were pretty smart in tying the payroll tax cut to the pipeline, and the reason is the pipeline would be 20,000 jobs plus others for that middle-class blue collar worker, much more beneficial than a temporary payroll tax cut, of which the American Enterprise Institute Alex Brill says only 22 percent of people actually spend that money.

[...]

PERINO: Can we hear the sound bite? Can we hear the sound bite? Because a lot of people do know about the pipeline, and we're going to make sure even more of them do now.

OBAMA [video clip]: Here's what I know. However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline, they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.

PERINO: So for the next year, who benefits from a delay in the payroll -- in the XL pipeline? It is white collar lawyers, PR folks, the communicators, and the bureaucrats. It doesn't help the middle-class workers that he said he wanted to help the other day.

BOB BECKEL (co-host): Of course it does.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (co-host): All the wrong people are going to benefit from it. That's the problem. Why not create some jobs and be for it? [Fox News, The Five, 12/8/11, via Media Matters]

Payne Calls Payroll Tax Cut "Far Too Small" And Instead Hypes Tax Holiday For Foreign Profits. On the December 2 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jenna Lee asked her guest, Fox Business host Charles Payne, "Will a payroll tax cut extension be key to bringing ... Americans back into the labor force? Is that incentive enough, or will that do enough to the economy to help create jobs moving ahead in the next year?" Payne replied, "No, no, it's far too small." He later said:

PAYNE: It's interesting that this payroll tax thing is the number one issue in Washington right now, because if we're talking about tax cuts, why stop there? Why not give all hardworking Americans, and forget about what economic class they're in, a tax cut? Why not give businesses a tax cut? ... How about letting American businesses bring money back from overseas? There's almost $2 trillion sitting overseas, offshore. If they were to lower taxes, a lot of that money would come back. [Fox News, Happening Now, 12/2/11, via Media Matters]

For the truth about tax holidays for foreign profits, SEE HERE.

Carlson Downplayed Employment Impact Of Payroll Tax Holiday While Claiming She's Spoken To "Tons" Of Economists On The Subject. During an interview with White House press secretary Jay Carney on the September 8 edition of Fox & Friends, Carlson downplayed the employment impact of a payroll tax holiday, claiming that "[w]e've already had that," and "I see dismal [job] numbers." From the show:

CARLSON: We'll see if Congress does rally around the president based on what he says tonight. But let me ask you this. Why go before the joint session of Congress if you're going to say stuff that the American public has already heard time and time again in 10 to 12 speeches before? Why say I'm going to go on vacation for a month, and then I'm going to come back and give this grandiose speech --

CARNEY: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait -

CARLSON: -- if it's going to be the same exact thing that they've already heard?

CARNEY: Gretchen, I'm not sure what -- whose talking points you're reading here, Gretchen --

CARLSON: So please tell me what new thing is the American public going to hear today. What new thing will the American public hear tonight from your boss?

CARNEY: The American people will hear a lot of new ideas. I want to correct you. The folks who went on a month-long vacation weren't the president, it was the Congress. Secondly, the American people will hear a lot of new and innovative ideas that they haven't heard before. They will also hear very common-sense, sensible ideas like a payroll tax cut for every working American that has tradition --

CARLSON: We've already had that. That's not new.

CARNEY: Oh, and is that a bad thing?

CARLSON: No. Well, did it create jobs?

CARNEY: I'm sorry, is that a bad thing because it creates jobs? And it grows --

CARLSON: Did it create jobs?

CARNEY: Absolutely.

CARLSON: When I look at the June job report and the July job report and the August job report, I see dismal numbers.

CARNEY: Gretchen, I'm not sure if you've talked to any economists, but there is not an economist --

CARLSON: Tons.

CARNEY: -- whose Ph.D. is worth the paper it's printed on who does not agree that when you cut the payroll tax, it has a direct impact on economic growth and job creation. If you're asking me if there were other headwinds that affected this economy, like the tsunami in Japan, like the Arab uprising that affected oil prices and the situation in Europe, that's absolutely the case. But cutting taxes, I used to think --

CARLSON: Yeah, Mr. Carney, with all due respect, we've heard all of those excuses before. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/8/11, via Media Matters]

... But Economists Agree That Cutting Payroll Tax Cut Has A Positive Impact On Employment And Economy

Frank: "Perhaps The Most Promising" Policy To Reduce Unemployment "Is A Payroll Tax Holiday." In a June 25 New York Times op-ed, Robert Frank, economics professor at Cornell University, wrote:

If the economy could generate jobs at the median wage for even half of these people, national income would grow by more than 10 times the total interest cost of the 2011 deficit (which was less than $40 billion). So anyone who says that reducing the deficit is more urgent than reducing unemployment is saying, in effect, that we should burn hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods and services in a national bonfire.

We ought to be tackling both problems at once. But in today's fractious political climate, many promising dual-purpose remedies -- like infrastructure investments that would generate large and rapid returns -- are called unthinkable, in the false belief that they would impoverish our grandchildren. Yet there are other ways to attack unemployment that could garner bipartisan support.

Perhaps the most promising is a payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax was originally meant to pay for Social Security, and in recent years, employees and employers have each contributed 6.2 percent of total salary -- with no additional levies on salaries beyond $106,800. Congress should both declare an immediate payroll tax holiday for employees and exempt employers from making contributions for newly hired workers -- and keep both provisions in effect until the end of next year. [The New York Times, 6/25/11]

Seidman: "To Boost Private Sector Spending And Jobs," Congress Should Implement An "Immediate Suspension Of The Entire Employee Payroll Tax." In a July 17 op-ed in Delaware's News Journal, University of Delaware economics professor Laurence Seidman wrote:

To boost private sector spending and jobs, any budget deal negotiated by the president and Congress should contain an immediate suspension of the entire employee payroll tax through 2012.

Why? Because leaving more money in people's paychecks will cause them to spend more, and in response to their spending, private sector employers will expand production and create private sector jobs. Without this stimulus to the private sector, the economy is likely to fall back into a deep recession.

[...]

According to the simulations, if the suspension begins promptly, then in the fourth quarter of 2012 the unemployment rate would be 1 percentage point lower than it would have been without the temporary employee payroll tax suspension. [News Journal, 7/17/11, accessed via Nexis]

Tyson: Jobs Plan Should Include "At The Very Least" An Extension Of "The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut For Employees." In a September 6 post on the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, University of California Berkeley professor and former Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Laura Tyson wrote:

The labor market is suffering from two problems: first, an immediate jobs gap, primarily the result of the collapse in demand after the 2008 financial crisis, and second, a long-term gap in rewarding jobs for American workers, primarily the result of skill-biased technological change and global competition.

The jobs gap requires additional fiscal measures to increase private spending and promote job creation. At the very least, the temporary payroll tax cut for employees enacted at the end of 2010 should be extended and a temporary payroll tax cut for employers that increase their payrolls or a tax credit for new hires should be introduced. [The New York Times, 9/6/11]

CBPP: "Failure ... To Extend The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut" Would Remove "Needed Support From The Still-Weak Economy." In a September 7 post, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote, "Failure by Congress to extend the temporary payroll tax cut enacted last December would reduce all paychecks starting on January 1, withdrawing needed support from the still-weak economy." From CBPP:

Failure by Congress to extend the temporary payroll tax cut enacted last December would reduce all paychecks starting on January 1, withdrawing needed support from the still-weak economy.  The measure, part of the tax cut-unemployment insurance deal between President Obama and Republican leaders, reduces the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax, boosting workers' take-home pay by an estimated $120 billion in 2011.  The tax cut is worth $934 to the average worker.

[...]

By extending the payroll tax cut -- and the provision of additional weeks of unemployment benefits to workers who have exhausted their 26 weeks of state-funded UI benefits without finding a job -- policymakers can avoid increasing the risk of renewed recession.  But they should do more to reduce the probability of a double-dip recession and increase the probability of a sustainable recovery that generates sufficient jobs to shrink the massive jobs deficit.  While a discussion of various steps needed to shore up the economy is beyond the scope of this paper, in the payroll tax arena, policymakers should consider strengthening the payroll tax reduction as part of a larger set of economic measures. [CBPP, 9/7/11]

For more economists' and experts' statements on how the payroll tax cut would help job and economic growth, SEE HERE.

In 1994 Rush Limbaugh declared, "There is no global warming going on," adding that scientists "admit" they "may need 20 years more data to prove it." Since then, Limbaugh has managed to shield his brain from 18 years of mounting evidence that humans are changing the climate. "Science has made enormous inroads in understanding climate change and its causes," according to the National Research Council's latest report assessing the state of climate science. "There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities," the report said.

Limbaugh, whose radio show reportedly reaches roughly 14 million people per week, remains the most prominent and cocksure denier of human-induced climate change in the news industry. His unyielding belief that the world's earth scientists are perpetrating a "hoax" has led him to some interesting places this year, from declaring that the heat index is "manufactured by the government," to accusing NASA of sabotaging its own research satellite, to announcing that the National Academy of Sciences has "lost all credibility." Given his large following, Limbaugh's extreme and misguided position may well have influenced the Republican presidential primary by discouraging candidates from speaking about the threats posed by global warming. Indeed, Limbaugh made this litmus test explicit, saying "bye, bye, nomination" after Mitt Romney acknowledged the human contribution to climate change. For all this, on top of his typically bombastic distortions and obfuscations of climate science, Limbaugh wins the distinction of 2011 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.

"Hoax": Rush Limbaugh's Intractable Climate Change Denial

Limbaugh: Global Warming "Is A Hoax ... I Get Blue In The Face Repeating This Over And Over Again." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Al Gore wrote in his blog, "Good for Mitt Romney. Though we've long passed the point where weak lip service is enough on the climate crisis while other Republicans are running from the truth, Mitt Romney is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party." There you go. So has been Romney endorsed by Algore on his stance on global warming, which is a hoax. There is no "settled science," as I get blue in the face repeating this over and over again. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/16/11]

Limbaugh: "I Don't Need Scientific Proof" To Know It's A Lie. From the March 8 edition of Limbaugh's radio show:

LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax? 'Cause of who's behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: If there ever is scientific proof -- and see, I don't need scientific proof because to me the people who are promoting manmade global warming are a bunch of frauds. They are liberals, they lie. It's not a generalization. It is an undeniable truth of life. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/8/11]

Limbaugh: The National Academy Of Sciences Has "Lost All Credibility" Because Climate Change Is "Bogus." Responding to a caller who had questioned Mitt Romney about his stance on climate change at a New Hampshire debate, Limbaugh said that NAS had "lost all credibility" and that scientists "basically made it all up" at the University of East Anglia:

CALLER: I specifically quoted from a 2010 National Academy of Sciences report. I have two quotes here; the first is, they concluded -- and by the way, the National Academy of Sciences, as you know, is considered the Supreme Court of science in this country. It was founded in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln and it is charged with giving the Congress unbiased scientific information. Now their conclusion was quote "a strong credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.

LIMBAUGH: Then they've lost all credibility, it's a bogus claim.

[...]

CALLER: I don't know where you're getting the hoax from, sir. I mean, I'm looking at -

LIMBAUGH: Well it's called the University of East Anglia at Anglian -- the Hadley Climate Center where they basically made it all up, pure and simple. It's a hoax, there's nothing true about it. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/8/11]

• Multiple investigations have cleared the scientists at the University of East Anglia of falsifying data. [Media Matters, 8/8/11]

Limbaugh: "Anything To Do With ... Climate Change Is Now An Official Scam." On August 30, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: And in fact all it is is a giant slush fund -- one slush fund after another, federal taxpayer dollars going to Democrat candidates, supporters, donors, what have you, under the guise of creating a new industry, "green jobs," weatherizing homes, protecting the environment, saving the climate. It's a huge, huge scam. Anything to do with energy and the environment that involves manmade global warming, climate change is now an official scam. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/30/11]

Limbaugh: The Science "Is Fraudulent And Is A Hoax." On November 10, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Despite proof now, despite evidence that global warming is a political issue, not a science issue, and that the science aspect of it is fraudulent and is a hoax, we have a story here from the French News Agency: "The World Has Five Years Now to Avoid Severe Warming."  That's from the International Energy Agency. 

[...]

The LA Times said it, and others have said that there's no warming. It's all over the place here. But they won't let this die. It's a political issue and it's an international left-wing hoax, this whole notion of manmade global warming climate change. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/10/11]

Limbaugh: Global Warming "Is A Religion ...There Is No Evidence." Discussing a government initiative to recognize schools that make efforts toward environmental sustainability, Limbaugh said on May 17:

LIMBAUGH: The plan is for the U.S. Department of Education, the EPA, and the Council for Environmental Quality to develop the criteria this spring and summer and to issue the call for applications early in the fall. All based on a hoax. All based on a fraud. All based on global warming, which by the way, is a religion. It's proponents cannot prove it. Belief in global warming requires faith because there is no evidence. There is no evidence of manmade destructive climate change, global warming, what have you. The evidence that we have suggests that the whole thing has been a hoax and a fraud. And yet, the left marches on, not educating but indoctrinating. And so now schools will be indoctrinating children to be good environmental citizens, which means wards of the state. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/17/11]

Limbaugh: God Would Not Create Humans "In Such A Way That We Would Destroy ... Our Own Planet And Environment." From the February 2 edition of Limbaugh's radio show:

LIMBAUGH: When you have a bunch of bureaucrats with the power guiding them that says greenhouse gases constitute a danger to the public health and welfare, there's no limits on them. I mean, when you're fighting danger, when you're fighting elements harmful to the public health and welfare, you can define anything you want however you need in order to exercise unchecked federal power. Martial law based on a hoax is one way of putting it. Now a greenhouse gas - one of them is what you exhale. Carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas, you exhale it and somehow we've gotten to the point where that is destroying the planet.

I happen to believe in God. I believe in a loving, brilliant - I know that this - there is no way, I don't want to sound simpleton here, but there is not - it is not possible that we would be created by a creator in such a way that we would destroy by virtue of our created existence our own planet and environment. It just doesn't compute and yet that's what these people are trying to tell us. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/2/11]

"I Live In Realville": Limbaugh's Climate Conspiracy Theories

Limbaugh: "A Majority Of People Have Been Paid To Say That Man Is Causing The Climate To Warm Up." On June 22, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: See, and these are the smart people, and there isn't any science in the global warming these people believe in. Folks, if there were science, I'd be a believer. I do not have my head buried in the sand. I'm not an ostrich. I live in Realville. I'm the mayor. I'm the town council president. I'm the police chief. There aren't a whole lot of people that live in Literalville, but I do. And manmade global warming is not science. It's a consensus. It's a guess. It's a good guess. It's a best guess. It's a vote. And a majority of people have been paid to say that man is causing the climate to warm up. And that's why there's global warming, that enough people have been paid to say so. "You can't say that, Mr. Limbaugh, you are attacking the integrity of decent --" well, they've been paid. Their entire lifestyles, their standard of living depends on their grants that they get to conduct the studies, and they only get the money if they come up with the right result. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/22/11]

Limbaugh: The Heat Index Is "Manufactured By The Government." During the July heat wave that impacted half of the U.S., Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: They're playing games with us on this heat wave, again.  Even Drudge - Drudge getting sucked in here, gonna be 116 in Washington. No, it's not.  It's gonna be like a hundred.  Maybe 99.  The heat index, manufactured by the government, to tell you what it feels like when you add the humidity in there, 116.  When's the last time the heat index was reported as an actual temperature?  It hasn't been, but it looks like they're trying to get away with doing that now. 116.  Drudge is just linking to other people reporting it, he's not saying it, I don't want you to misunderstand, but he's linking to stories which say 116 degrees in Washington.  No.  It's what, a hundred, 97, 99?  It's gonna top out at 102, 103, it does this every year.  We have this -- there's a heat dome over half the country, the Midwest, it's moving east.  And it happens every summer.  Every summer.  If we want to cool things off, please, Al Gore, schedule a global warming conference wherever -- in Washington, go there.  You want that 116 to get normal, it will, within an hour of Gore announcing that he's going, another ten degrees off when he shows up, plus hail and rain and maybe some high winds to really cool people off.  That's all that has to happen. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/20/11]

• Meteorologists debunked Limbaugh's claims that the heat index is not a legitimate scientific measure. [Washington Post, 7/21/11]

Limbaugh: People Believe In Global Warming Because Air Conditioners Make It Seem Hotter Outside. During the July heat wave, Limbaugh theorized that people believe global warming is real because air conditioning has lowered "the baseline you're using for comparison":

LIMBAUGH: I have a theory about global warming and why people think it's real. Go back 30, 40 years when there was much less air conditioning in the country. When you didn't have air conditioning and you left the house, it may in fact have gotten a little cooler out there, because sometimes houses become hot boxes. Especially if you're on the second or third floor of a house in the summertime and all you've got is open windows and maybe a window fan. Or you have some servant standing there fanning you with a piece of paper. When you walked outside, no big deal, it's still hot as hell. Now, 30, 40 years later, all this air conditioning, and it's a huge difference when you go outside. When you go outside now, my golly, is it hot. Oh. Global warming! It's all about the baseline you're using for comparison. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/26/11]

• An alternate theory: temperature measurements. [NASA, 4/18/11]

Limbaugh Speculated That NASA Intentionally Crashed Satellite To Preserve Global Warming "Hoax." Conceding that his theory was a "stretch," Limbaugh speculated on March 4 that NASA intentionally crashed a climate research satellite so that there would not be "any officially collected data which will contradict" the global warming "hoax":

LIMBAUGH: Now, I'm not a conspiracy buff here. The satellite -- the earlier one that ended up in the Pacific was called the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, it crashed on take-off almost exactly two years ago to the day. It was up there studying various aspects of global warming. We know global warming is a hoax, and we know that elements of NASA have been part of it. And we know that the regime runs NASA. We know that the regime has shut down the shuttle -- no more manned space flights, we know that the regime was going to turn NASA itself over to Muslim outreach. We know that the regime is dead-set on people believing that humanity is destroying the planet via climate change, global warming, or what have you. And we know that the regime is hell-bent on getting rid of fossil fuels. We know that the regime is hell-bent on creating this so far nonexistent green energy technology. We know that the regime owns manufacturing an automobile manufacturing plant manufacturing an electric car called the Volt, marketed by Chevrolet. The regime owns all of this. We also know, thanks to leaked emails from the Hadley Climate Center at the University of East Anglia, that all this is a hoax, or at best a fraud -- man-made global warming.

So, two satellites, two years apart, to the day, same kind of rocket, kerplunk -- Pacific Ocean. Why waste this money that could have gone to the poor, and to women and minorities? $424 million -- do you realize it's in the Southern Pacific now? Look at all the people it could have fed. Look at all the subprime mortgages it could have financed, look at all the affordable housing it could've bought, look at all the Chevy Volts they could've given away to people under the guise of sales. So at least, at least there will not be officially collected data by these two satellites because they don't exist, they're in the ocean. At least there will not be any officially collected data which would contradict the facts -- that is that there is no man-made global warming going on. In fact, there might not be any warming, period, going on. So that's my limited theory and it's probably a stretch. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/4/11]

Limbaugh doubled down on his conspiracy theory about the satellite on March 8:

LIMBAUGH: Now we got two satellites, two years to the day, same problem, failing -- fails to open. Satellites, instead of being in orbit are now at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean near Antarctica. You know what they were up there to do? You know what they were up there to study? They were up there to study whether or not there are naturally occurring events that might cause climate change. Well, now, they can't find whether or not there are naturally occurring things, meaning also they were there to investigate whether there is a manmade component to climate change. Well, can't find that out now. Well, who benefits? Now I don't want to go getting off into conspiracy stuff here, but two satellites, two years to the date apart, both end up in the same spot? Who benefits?

You look at -- one of my old axioms, always follow the money. One of the reasons that there is this big, never ending manmade push -- or push for manmade global warming is 'cause that's who gets the money. When the grant money comes around, if you believe manmade global warming, you get your share of it. Well, the last thing that bunch needs is scientific proof that man has nothing to do with it. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/8/11]

Limbaugh: Media Are Reporting The Weather To "Advance A Political Agenda Of Liberalism." Discussing the July heat wave, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Did you know, ladies and gentlemen, almost no temperature records were broken in last week's "record-breaking heat"? It is remotely possible because what we got in news reporting last week was a bunch of untruths, was a bunch of lies. "Record breaking," quote, unquote, "US Heat Wave Breaks Records at Less Than 0.4% of All Stations Reporting Last Week." I was in Boston. In Boston the heat index was reported to be 110, 112. They weren't even bothering to report the temperature. I found it. The temperature in Boston on Saturday (or maybe it was Friday) hit 102 -- one degree short of the record, which -- do you know when the record of 103 was? 1926!

So the point is, there is almost nothing true in mainstream, Drive-By Media. Everything being reported today is to advance a political agenda of liberalism. Because, of course, "Record-breaking heat may last for weeks! Giant dome over two-thirds of country! No relief in sight! People stealing copper, people stealing air conditioners. It's never been seen!" All of it lies. Well, the crime reporting probably wasn't lies, but the temperature? All of it was lies so that on-air doofus TV meteorologists could dutifully follow up with global warming, and, "How about those deniers?" Media myth debunked: Almost no temperature records broken last week. Live it, love it, dig it. Whatever it takes. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/25/11]

• In fact thousands of records were broken that July, which was not the same as "every year." [Media Matters, 7/26/11]

"Bye, Bye": Limbaugh's Climate Denial Litmus Test

Limbaugh: "It's Certainly Not The Kind Of Thing Any Serious Political Candidate Ought To Believe In." From the June 10 edition of Limbaugh's show:

LIMBAUGH: You know, folks, belief in manmade global warming is a lot like believing in Santa Claus. It's fun. It's fun to believe in it for a while when you're a kid, when you're a child, but it's a costly myth to continue believing in as you grow older. And it's certainly not the kind of thing any serious political candidate ought to believe in. Now, I continue to be struck by just how imprisoned the so-called informed and educated smart people among us are. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/10/11]

Limbaugh On Romney's Global Warming Comments: "Bye, Bye, Nomination." From the June 7 edition of Limbaugh's show:

MITT ROMNEY (audio clip): I believe the world is getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer -- and -- and number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don't know how much our contribution is to that 'cause I know there's been -- there have been periods of -- of greater heat and -- and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that, and so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing.

LIMBAUGH: Bye, bye, nomination. Bye, bye nomination. Another one down. We're in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of manmade global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates who want to buy into it. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/7/11]

• UPI reported that Romney shifted his framing of global warming science following Limbaugh's comments. Romney subsequently said, "Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that but I think that it is. I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans. What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to." [UPI, 10/28/11]

Limbaugh Suggested His "Bye, Bye Nomination" Comment Hurt Romney's Candidacy. From the December 8 edition of Limbaugh's show:

LIMBAUGH: "Bye, bye nomination." I said it June 7th, and it is, it looks like it's just fading away out there. And you want to know? Some of you may remember this. After I said, "Bye, bye, nomination," one of the talking heads in the media -- one of the talking heads in the media said, "Thanks to Rush Limbaugh, all of these Republican candidates are terrified now of reaching out to mainstream voters."

[...]

Mainstream voters believe in hoaxes! Mainstream voters believe the lies, and so we've got to appeal to the mainstream by telling 'em we believe the lies! And now "Limbaugh is gumming up the works," and "Limbaugh is making our guys afraid to reach out to mainstream voters." These are Republicans talking! They don't want your vote!

Well, they want it, but they don't want it to matter. They don't want your vote putting anybody over the top. They don't want your vote being the difference in who wins or loses. They want your vote. But they want our people to win with these independents and moderates, and so you go out and you tell the candidate to say, "Oh, yeah, there's global warming, and you know what? I think humans are causing it." Right, go out and try to take an issue away from Obama? You wanna -- you think you're gonna get liberal moderate votes simply by telling people -- it's idiocy! [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/12/11]

Limbaugh Lashed Out At Gingrich: "No! ... There Isn't Any Global Warming." From the November 9 edition of Limbaugh's show:

NEWT GINGRICH (audio clip): I actually don't know whether global warming is occurring.  The vast majority of the National Academy of Science says it is; a minority says it is not.  Science is not actually voted on; science is a function of truth.

LIMBAUGH:  Newt, Newt, Newt, Newt.  No! 

GINGRICH (audio clip):  What I do know is that -- that if you look at exactly what's said in that ad, finding innovative new ways of getting cleaner energy ought to be something most Americans feel pretty comfortable with.

LIMBAUGH:  See, this is what happens.  He just went five sentences too far.  There isn't any global warming.  I mean, even the NASA people, they're now trying to explain why the cooling is taking place, and they're trying to come up with all kinds of lies and escape-hatch reasons why there isn't any warming, it's some temporary thing.  There is no global warming.  It's getting colder.  The charts, the data, it all proves it.  And so to say that conservatives need to be in the middle of the debate over the environment, we need to be in the middle of killing -- it is nothing more than a left-wing political weapon aimed at growing government, limiting freedom, raising taxes by blaming people for causing climate destruction, and the way you make 'em pay for it, save the planet, is to raise their taxes. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/09/11]

Limbaugh: Chris Christie Must Make Steps Toward Denying Global Warming "If He Has Any Hope Of Getting Primary" Votes. On the May 26 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: The last line of the Daily Caller piece: "Christie, however, has said he still believes in global warming but is skeptical that it is entirely manmade." That's another step. Ever so few but nevertheless steps that Governor Christie is making in a direction certainly he has to go if he has any hope of getting primary voters to vote for him. [5/26/11]

Limbaugh: "Frustrating" That Rick Perry Has "Some Reluctance" To Say Manmade Global Warming Isn't Real. On the September 8 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh discussed the Republican debate hosted by NBC News and Politico and stated:

LIMBAUGH: Look, okay, how did Perry bear up under the target?  Romney clearly came away unscathed last night.  Perry was not unscathed.  Perry had problems with the climate change thing.  It was very frustrating to me.  This is a hoax! You got this guy Huntsman out there spreading a bunch of garbage that 98% of all scientists agree that manmade global warming is taking place? It's a hoax! It's bogus.  And Perry knows it, and there was some reluctance to say so. I'm not expecting him to say it's a hoax, but there was clearly some reluctance here to say what he really thinks about it that answer, which came at the end of the debate.  [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/8/11]

Limbaugh: "Do You Realize That Romney Believes In Manmade Global Warming? ... Now, I Happen To Know It's A Hoax." On the October 12 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Do you realize that Romney believes in manmade global warming?  As governor of Massachusetts he took positions and endorsed policies that would promote the whole concept of manmade global warming.  Now, I happen to know it's a hoax.  I happen to know that there's no such thing as manmade global warming, not as an explanation for climate change.  And that's just one thing.  Sorry, folks, I see a great opportunity here.  We have a liberal socialist president who is as discredited as one is ever going to be.  We have circumstances that are dire.  The country needs to be turned around if we're gonna preserve.

You know what?  I could check out.  I really could.  I don't need to work anymore.  I could get rid of a lot of grief, I could get rid of a lot of distractions, just punt.  But it matters too much to me.  When I see these yokels marching down on Wall Street, the so-called future of the country, I get scared.  I know they're small in number, but I know that there a lot of people that think like that, they've been educated this way.  They're gonna have to be beaten, defeated.  And everybody who is responsible for them thinking what they think is going to have to be dealt with at some point if this is gonna be turned around, the 80 years of the slow creep of socialism in this country.  And the answer to it is not pabulum. [10/12/11] 

"We Win": Limbaugh's Climate Disinformation Machine

Limbaugh Took "Credit" For Public Misconception About "Climategate." Stating "We win," Limbaugh celebrated a Rasmussen Reports poll finding that a majority of Americans believe "some scientists" have likely "falsified research data" to support "their own theories and beliefs about global warming":

LIMBAUGH: "While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say that some scientists are falsifying data to support their own beliefs."  I'm going to raise my hand and I'm going to take credit. This has been one of my pet peeve issues for as long as I've had this show.

[...]

And 69% of the American people now say it's likely scientists have been lying about their own research. We win. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/4/11]

• Following the 2009 release of hacked emails from a climate research center in the UK, Limbaugh had claimed that the documents showed "a lot of evidence of substantial fraud," adding: "Now we've got the hoax fully exposed." He continues to make this claim even after multiple investigations found no falsification of data. [Media Matters, 8/8/11]

Limbaugh Pushed Flawed Climate Study That Led To Resignation Of Journal Editor. Limbaugh pushed a study by his "official climatologist" Dr. Roy Spencer, claiming Spencer "proved, with actual NASA science data from their satellites, that all these computer models are bogus." In fact, Spencer conceded that his study did not prove any such thing, and MIT's Kerry Emanuel said "there is nothing in the paper that casts in doubt what the IPCC models are telling us." The editor of the journal that published the study later resigned after concluding that it should "not have been published." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/4/11; Media Matters, 8/1/11, 9/2/11]

Limbaugh Distorted Research To Claim "The Earth Is Facing A Mini-Ice Age." On the June 16 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said "the earth is facing a mini-ice age within ten years due to a rare drop in sunspot activity":

LIMBAUGH: Guess what? The earth is facing a mini-ice age within ten years due to a rare drop in sunspot activity, and yet Al Gore has just endorsed Mitt Romney. Well, he didn't endorse him, but he's praised Mitt Romney for his stance on manmade global warming. Sunspots expected to disappear for years, maybe decades after 2020, and that could cause a mini-ice age. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/16/11]

• In fact, the authors of the study said that changes in solar activity "could counter 'global warming' somewhat," but that they "are NOT predicting a mini-ice age." [Media Matters, 6/15/11]

Limbaugh Misrepresented Climate Study To Say "We Ought To Start Burning Coal Left And Right." On the July 6 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh discussed a study indicating that the increase in sun-blocking sulfur emissions from Chinese coal use partially offset the warming effect of rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Limbaugh responded by completely misrepresenting what the greenhouse effect is:

LIMBAUGH: This is truly hilarious. A scientist set out to prove the global warming skeptics at Fox wrong, which, by the way, is the epitome of bad science. That's not how you do science is to go prove somebody else wrong. Anyway, he wanted to find an explanation for the lack of any global warming over the last ten years, so he blames China's burning of coal because that prevents the sun's rays from reaching the earth, which is exactly what they used to call the greenhouse effect, which is what they used to call global warming.

So I don't know how to accept this. The very culprit is now being cited as the savior, or the explanation for why there hasn't been any warming. So by this guy's study and reason, we ought to start burning coal left and right if indeed there's global warming going on. We ought to throw away this green energy crap right now and just go all coal, all the time. More hilarious, the study claims that temperatures rose in the seventies after nations started to take action to curb sulfur emissions. So the real culprits to blame for global warming are the environmentalists who made us cut back on our use of coal. That's what we have to conclude here. (laughing) China's coal burning stopped global warming. How many of you, seriously, ask yourself, how many of you heard for years now that coal leads to global warming? Now the temperatures didn't rise, they didn't go up out there for ten years, and they panicked, and experts at Fox were saying, "See, there's no global warming," so this yuckety-yuck had to go into action -- get into action to try figure out the explanation. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/6/11]

• Limbaugh failed to note that sulfur emissions have severe health effects, which is why they were regulated in the first place. [Media Matters, 7/5/11]

Limbaugh Lashed Out At Coca-Cola For Perpetuating "The Polar Bear Hoax." On the October 31 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: Coca-Cola, by the way, it's so sad, it's so sad, but it's great for my tea company.  Well, they're changing their packaging.  They're going to white cans.  They've aligned with the World Wildlife Fund.  They're gonna repackage Coke over the holiday season to go to white cans featuring an image of a mother polar bear and her cubs on the side.  They're gonna try to sell Coke and Diet Coke on the basis that we're killing polar bears.  Kid you not.  Kid you not.  Each purchase of a white Coca-Cola can supports false testimony on global warming perpetration of the myth about endangered polar bears.  It's a hoax and they are raising money for a hoax through the holidays by way of the sale of Coke products in white polar bear cans. Who got to 'em?  You know -- I'm thinking nobody woulda had to get to 'em. 

There are plenty of stupid people in this country, in fact, running corporations and working, and they look out there and think, "Okay, the rest of the stupid people think that the polar bears are dying. So I want to sell Coke, so I'll market to the stupid people.  I'll market to people who believe Al Gore.  I'll change the marketing of my company and my product and I'll just aim for the lowest stupid common denominator I can find. I'll do it with the polar bear hoax." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/31/11]

• In fact, extensive research establishes the threat posted to polar bears by climate change due to rapid changes to their sea ice habitats. [Media Matters, 8/2/11]

Limbaugh Confused Ozone Hole And Global Warming. On the October 3 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh criticized a FDA rule phasing out asthma inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer. But Limbaugh mistakenly claimed that global warming was the reason behind the rule:

LIMBAUGH: On Jan. 1, a new federal rule meant to make the air cleaner is going to make it much harder for millions of Americans to breathe. The Food and Drug Administration is waging war on asthma inhalers because they emit trace amounts of greenhouse gases.

Global warming, climate change. It's a hoax! It's a fraud! Does the EPA care? No. This is the regime. It's power. They haven't even acknowledged that it's a hoax. They continue to create policies to deal with global warming, climate change, greenhouse gases. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/3/11]

• The plans to phase out the inhalers were finalized during the Bush administration and are part of the U.S.'s actions to comply with the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer that was signed by Ronald Reagan. [Media Matters, 9/23/11] [The American Presidency Project, 4/5/88]

Limbaugh Claimed "NASA Documents" Warn Us To "Adopt Lunatic Global Warming Policies" To Avoid Alien Invasion. Limbaugh falsely claimed in August that "NASA documents" were warning that aliens "will invade us to wipe us out, to prevent us from destroying our climate." A caller later corrected Limbaugh.

LIMBAUGH: Basically you have here a crackpot leftist scientist with influence in NASA coming in the form of an actual NASA employee producing actual NASA documents warning that if we don't adopt lunatic global warming policies of Al Gore's, space aliens will invade us to wipe us out, to prevent us from destroying our climate! Here's a quote from the story. Folks, this is in the UK Guardian. This story is presented with all the sincerity of any news story that you might find on the front page of any newspaper any day of the week. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/29/11]

• In fact, the paper, which asked whether contact with extraterrestrial intelligence "would benefit or harm humanity," was not NASA research or produced with NASA support. Shawn Domagal-Goldman, a co-author on the paper, said he is "a lowly postdoc" at NASA and "this paper had nothing to do with my work there." [Media Matters, 8/19/11]