The right-wing media is attacking Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf for saying that opposition to the Park51 project creates "danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security," by claiming, among other things, that Rauf's comments amounted to "threaten[ing] America." But Rauf's comments echo those of national security experts, such as Gen. David Petraeus, who have warned of the security implications of anti-Muslim protests.

Rauf warned of possible backlash to perception "that Islam is under attack"

Rauf warned of "the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security." On the September 8 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Rauf warned of the dangers of perceived anti-Islam sentiment in the United States, especially pertaining to opposition to his Park51 project. From Larry King Live:

RAUF: Yes, indeed. Because the United States, we are the only global superpower today. What happens here has enormous impact over the rest of the world. People all over the Muslim world admire America, love America, take America as an example in many, many respects. And the status of Muslims in America and how American Muslims speak to these issues and how America engages with its Muslim community has global ramifications.

[...]

RAUF: I am extremely concerned about sensitivity. But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world.

O'BRIEN: But isn't that also saying you're less concerned about the voices of opposition here?

RAUF: And if we do -- no, no, no, no. I'm sorry, I don't mean it that way. I meant it, the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security, to the national security of our troops.

I have a niece who works in the Army and served in Iraq. The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

[...]

O'BRIEN: Then why is it hard to back up and say, and now that we've done it, let's undo it, let's just say we won't. Let's pick another spot that's been offered?

RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation--

O'BRIEN: What's the risk? When you say "national security," what's the risk?

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa. We have to turn this around.

Right-wing media distort Rauf's comments to claim his words are a "veiled threat"

Carlson: Rauf "says move forward with the mosque near ground zero or we could face certain violence here?" On the September 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson teased an upcoming segment on Rauf's Larry King appearance by saying "the imam behind the Park 51 finally speaking out. ... He says move forward with the mosque near ground zero, or we could face certain violence here?"

Ingraham: "It's a veiled threat. Sounded like that to me." Later on Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham said "the way he said" that there could be negative implications to moving the mosque, "I found it to be chilling." Carlson asked Ingraham, "Is that a threat, Laura? Is that a threat?" Ingraham responded, "It's a veiled threat. Sounded like that to me. I mean, he's obviously seeing what he's seeing in the Middle East, which I think that should be the conversation," and said Rauf's "attitude last night, I think, it frankly stoked more tensions, and he's the opposite of a bridge builder on this particular issue."

Malkin: "I don't think it's any mistake that he used the word explode." Later on Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade played a clip from Rauf's interview and said, "It's unbelievable that he would come to that conclusion. That to me is clearly a threat." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin responded:

MALKIN: No doubt about it. But it's not unbelievable. It's completely expected, and I don't think it's any mistake that he used the word explode. In so many of these cases over the years, predating and postdating September 11, we've seen the practice of many of these members of the religion of perpetual outrage. And they'll use any excuse to explode, whether it's the drawing of some cartoons of Mohammed or in the Middle East, everything from holding beauty pageants to building KFCs in their neighborhoods. It's always an excuse to explode. And this is the point -- this is the point of the opponents of the ground zero mosque. It's not just about the mosque. It's about this threat that hangs over Western civilization like a Damoclean sword at all times for all reasons. 

Co-host Gretchen Carlson responded by asking Malkin: "That's what I was thinking when I was seeing this, and I hate to be cynical about it, but could it be -- could it be, if you were really cynical, that they're testing the waters, that they deliberately want to put a mosque that close to Ground Zero and then when they know there is some sort of outrage, then they claim what he claimed last night, that watch out, if you don't put it here, you're going to be attacked?" Malkin replied: "Well, yeah. I don't think that's cynicism, Gretchen. I think that's an informed conclusion, and it's certainly based on past behavior of Islamic imperialists and provocateurs who know what they're doing. I think -- we're headed towards the ninth anniversary of 9-11, and it's about time people become informed about what their true intentions are."

Geller: "Ground Zero Supremacist Imam Rauf Threatens America." In a September 9 Atlas Shrugs post, titled "Ground Zero Supremacist Imam Rauf Threatens America," Pam Geller wrote "Fresh off his US taxpayer funded [fund raising] tour of the Middle East, Imam Rauf held command over the mainstream media. He rolled out with his unchallenged oped piece in this morning's NY Times ("We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House"), and followed it up with his not so veiled threats against America on Larry King...He said again that if he knew ahead of time the controversy this would create, he wouldn't have made the plans to build the center at the currently planned site. Liar. He loves it. Rauf's contempt for us oozes from his every enlarged pore."

Gateway Pundit: "Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Issues Threat: If You Don't Build It 'They Will Attack.'" In a September 9 Gateway Pundit post, titled "Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Issues Threat: If You Don't build It 'They Will Attack,'" Jim Hoft wrote that "Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf issued a threat to America in his interview with CNN this week. The radical imam warned that if America did not get down on its knees and allow the victory mosque to be built on the bones of dead Americans that...'They will attack'" (emphasis in original).

Fox Nation: "Imam Threatens U.S., Says If Mosque Moves, Terror Will 'Explode.'" The Fox Nation linked to an ABC News article on Rauf's interview under the headline "Imam Threatens U.S., Says If Mosque Moves, Terror Will 'Explode.'" From the Fox Nation:

 

Fox hosts 9-11 firefighter to attack Rauf as "a tax-evading, terrorist sympathizing, Armani wearing slumlord" who is "try[ing] to extort America" and "wants to build a Tower of Triumph on the graveyard of my friends." On the September 9 broadcast of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Bill Hemmer hosted Tim Brown -- a former New York City firefighter who participated in the response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- to respond to Rauf's comments. Brown accused Rauf of "try[ing] to extort America" in his remarks. Brown went on to reference Rauf's recent State Department-sponsored trip abroad and said, "We just paid to fly him around the world to gin up the Muslim world ... so that he could come back and threaten us." Rauf was a participant in a State Department program focused on outreach with the Muslim world, a program he began participating in under President Bush. Brown went on to call Rauf "a tax-evading, terrorist sympathizing, Armani wearing, slumlord, who partners with criminals and wants to build a tower of triumph on the graveyard of my friends."

But experts agree that protests against Park51 are aiding extremists

NPR:  "Some experts worry the controversy plays into the hands of extremists." On the August 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, host Linda Wertheimer noted that "some experts worry the controversy plays into the hands of extremists." NPR correspondent Dina Temple-Raston noted that "in password-protected forums run by extremists, there's a different view. All this controversy is welcomed. Extremists and radical clerics, including one who has become a kind of bug light of sorts, attracting young American jihadis, have posted a stream of 'I told you so' messages. They've long claimed that Islam is under attack by the West. The violent reaction to the center, they say, now proves it." NPR played clips of national security experts, including Evan F. Kohlmann of Flashpoint Global Partners who noted that "this unfortunately is playing right into their hands, and as such, they're encouraging it. With glee." And Brian Fishman, Counterterrorism Research Fellow at the New America Foundation noted that "some of the anti-Islamic tone that has been going on around the country in connection with the mosque debate feeds into this notion that people like Anwar al-Awlaki can take advantage of."

Haass: World watching "to see whether Muslims in America have rights, have opportunities that Muslims in lots of other countries don't." During the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former adviser to Colin Powell, stated that "this has now become an international issue" and part of "the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world":

HAASS: The anti-American aspect of this -- this has now become an international issue. One of the great ironies is the people doing this mosque, this community center, want to develop an American version of Islam that competes around the world with the Wahhabi -- with the Saudi intolerant version of Islam. So this issue now is being watched around the world to prove or to see whether Muslims in America have rights, have opportunities that Muslims in lots of other countries don't. 

So this has actually become an important aspect of our battle for the hearts and minds. It's no longer just a New York issue, it's no longer just a national issue. This has something really to do with the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world and whether there can be an American version of Islam that is more open and tolerant.

NSN policy analyst James Lamond: Attacking Islamic center is "counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts." In a July 30 article, James Lamond, a policy expert for the progressive National Security Network, condemned Newt Gingrich's statements about Islam and against the Islamic cultural center as "counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts. First at a strategic level, it plays into al Qaeda's framework that the West is at war with Islam." Lamond wrote:

But the frame that Gingrich is promoting is not only un-American and counter to our values, it is also counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts. First, at a strategic level, it plays into al Qaeda's framework that the West is at war with Islam. As Malcolm Nance, a former military intelligence officer and author of An End to al-Qaeda, recently told the American Prospect's Adam Serwer: "When you frame it as a fight against Islam and Islamic fundamentalism ... you're almost encouraging Osama bin Laden's line of thinking. He loves this idea that this is seen as a clash between Islam and the West; he wants that, he thrives on that." 

At another level, this fear mongering and overreaction serves to diminish America's resilience, an important component of America's counterterrorism strategy. The National Security Strategy says that resilience is, "the ability to adapt to changing conditions and prepare for, withstand, and rapidly recover from disruption." There are many facets of this approach, from a resilient infrastructure to a resilience economy. However an important part is also a resilient society that does not abandon its core values as soon as they're challenged. Yet a decade after 9/11 Gingrich is ready to give up on America's strength and resiliency. In addition, Stephen Flynn, president of the Center for National Policy, who has been the leader for years on promoting resilience, says that there is also a deterrent value to resilience saying that, "if an adversary believes that Americans are well-prepared to prevent, withstand, and rapidly recover from acts of terrorism, the appeal of engaging in such acts would be diminished." Basically, by his hysteria, Gingrich is feeding into al Qaeda's goal of promoting a hysterical reaction.

Amr and Singer: "The world constantly watches to see whether we actually live up to our ideals." In a 2008 paper, Hady Amr, foreign policy fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings and director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, and Peter Singer, senior fellow and director of Brookings' 21st Century Defense Initiative, wrote that "a zero-tolerance stand against anti-Muslim statements and bias" is necessary "to be able to inspire the Muslim world to support our vision of 'liberty and justice for all' in the world":

There are six broad principles that should guide our strategy to improve U.S. security through winning the war of ideas and broadening and deepening relationships between U.S. citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad. These overarching principles include:

Confronting who we are. Harkening back to the civil rights era and the Cold War, unless we take a zero-tolerance stand against anti-Muslim statements and bias both in government and among our political elite, we risk being cast as undertaking a "war on Islam" instead of a "war on terror." America must clearly confront its civil liberty concerns at home--and in our military campaigns--if we are to be able to inspire the Muslim world to support our vision of "liberty and justice for all" in the world.

[...]

In an age of globalized technology and communication, the world is watching to see if we live up to our ideals of civil liberties and constitutional values, and is waiting to see if we stamp out anti-Muslim bigotry at home. A series of anti-Muslim statements made by various policymakers and close Administration supporters have undercut President Bush's post 9/11 message that Islam was not to blame for the attacks. Even though media in the Middle East give extensive coverage to these sorts of statements, the Administration has usually failed to condemn them or separate itself from the speakers. Bigotry in our midst is not just distasteful; in the age of globalization, it directly undermines our security. We live in an era where the world constantly watches to see whether we actually live up to our ideals. At a time when many in the world expect the worst of us, such positions only support the enemy's propaganda and recruiting efforts. Efforts on this front alone will determine if we have the moral authority to build multi-government coalitions and can inspire other countries to follow suit.

Former Bush administration officials warned of the dangers of Park51's opposition

Gerson: Solidarity with non-radical Muslims is "a matter of national interest." In an August 16 Washington Post column, former Bush official Michael Gerson wrote that "[p]undits have every right to raise questions about the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero," but added that "inclusive rhetoric toward Islam" is "a matter of national interest." Gerson questioned how "our cause [is] served by treating the construction of a non-radical mosque in Lower Manhattan as the functional equivalent of defiling a grave":

An inclusive rhetoric toward Islam is sometimes dismissed as mere political correctness. Having spent some time crafting such rhetoric for a president, I can attest that it is actually a matter of national interest. It is appropriate -- in my view, required -- for a president to draw a clear line between "us" and "them" in the global conflict with Muslim militants. I wish Obama would do it with more vigor. But it matters greatly where that line is drawn. The militants hope, above all else, to provoke conflict between the West and Islam -- to graft their totalitarian political manias onto a broader movement of Muslim solidarity. America hopes to draw a line that isolates the politically violent and those who tolerate political violence -- creating solidarity with Muslim opponents and victims of radicalism.

How precisely is our cause served by treating the construction of a non-radical mosque in Lower Manhattan as the functional equivalent of defiling a grave? It assumes a civilizational conflict instead of defusing it. Symbolism is indeed important in the war against terrorism. But a mosque that rejects radicalism is not a symbol of the enemy's victory; it is a prerequisite for our own.

[...]

There are many reasons to criticize Obama's late, vacillating response to the Manhattan mosque, and perhaps even to criticize this particular mosque. But those who want a president to assert that any mosque would defile the neighborhood near Ground Zero are asking him to undermine the war on terrorism. A war on Islam would make a war on terrorism impossible.

Former Bush official Armitage discussing mosque: Terrorists are winning "when we change our own ideals." On the August 9 edition of The Charlie Rose Show (accessed via Nexis), former Bush deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage responded to the question, "We should put [the mosque] there and be confident about it?" by saying: "My own view is don't let the terrorists win. When we change our own ideals and our own principles, they're winning, we're not." From The Charlie Rose Show:

ROSE: There is this also. What are the biggest challenges to America today?

ARMITAGE: The first and biggest challenge is to regain our confidence as a nation.

ROSE: Our confidence?

ARMITAGE: Our confidence.

ROSE: In ourselves?

ARMITAGE: Yes. I'm tired of running around being scared of my shadow, having time spent talking about 14th Amendments by pandering politicians who on the one hand say they want to be strict constructionists of the Constitution and on the other hand want to throw out amendments which have been pored over by the courts and I think validated over the years.

So I think getting our confidence back as a nation. I might say this also extends to the controversy over the mosque in the 9/11 site.

CHARLIE ROSE: We should put it there and be confident about it?

ARMITAGE: My own view is don't let the terrorists win. When we change our own ideals and our own principles, they're winning, we're not. So that's the most difficult thing. 

Former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon: Anti-Muslim rhetoric surrounding cultural center is "reinforcing Al Qaeda's message we are at war with Muslims." On the August 16 edition of Morning Joe, GOP strategist and former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon stated that the inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the the cultural center is "stunning, and it is so contrary to our country's principles." He later said that the anti-Muslim rhetoric is "reinforcing Al Qaeda's message we are at war with Muslims."

Top military, law enforcement and administration officials have made similar comments when discussing other anti-Muslim protests

Odierno: Planned Koran burning on 9-11 "feeds right into what" the extremists "want." On the September 8 broadcast of NBC News' Today, Gen. Raymond Odierno, former commander of US forces in Iraq, discussed plans by a Christian pastor to host "International Burn a Koran Day" on the anniversary of 9-11. Odierno said: "Most Muslims are very moderate, and what you have is you have extremists. And what this does is this feeds right into what they want. What -- they feed off of hate and fear, and they will use this to generate more hate. And what that will turn into is potentially more violence against U.S. troops." He added: "I think there'll be some backlash, and I think you've started to see some already. And I worry that it'll turn into violence against our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, other places as well. ... It's extremists who try to gain from this, and they use it to recruit, they use it to create hatred, because everything -- what they've built is built on hatred of what we do here in the U.S." 

Petraeus: Quran-burning would "inflame public opinion and incite violence." In an email to The Associated Press, Gen. David Petraeus responded to plans to hold a Quran book-burning by noting "Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

Clinton: "The fact is, it will have potentially great harm for our troops." In a September 8 interview with Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Hass, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that "General Petraeus made the very powerful point that as seemingly, you know, small a group of people doing this, the fact is that it will have potentially great harm for our troops."

Right-wing media omitted essential context from recent remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to falsely claim that she attacked President Obama's economic policies when she said, "I think that our rising debt levels poses a national security threat," and also to speculate that Clinton is planning to challenge Obama in 2012. In fact, Clinton's full remarks clearly condemned the policies of the Bush administration -- not Obama.

Clinton's national security remarks -- in context -- clearly condemn Bush spending policies

Clinton: "[I]t is fair to say that ... we fought two wars without paying for them, and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either, and that has been a very deadly combination to fiscal sanity and responsibility." During a September 8 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton stated that the "rising debt levels poses a national security threat" and criticized President Bush's deficit spending (emphasis added):

CLINTON: I think that our rising debt levels poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally. I mean, it is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny but to, you know, have the leverage that comes from this enormously effective economic engine that has powered American values and interests over so many years.

So I don't think we have a choice. It's a question of how we -- how we decide to deal with this debt and deficit. I mean, you know, it is -- we don't need to go back and sort of re-litigate how we got to where we are, but it is fair to say that, you know, we fought two wars without paying for them, and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either. And that has been a very deadly combination to fiscal sanity and responsibility.

So the challenge is how we get out of it by making the right decisions, not the wrong decisions. I mean, there's a lot of wrong things we could do that would further undermine our strength. I mean, it is going to be very difficult for those decisions.

NYDN: "Clinton took a veiled shot at Republicans...for running up a national debt" that was harmful to U.S. interests. The New York Daily News reported on Clinton's statement and noted that in her remarks about the national debt she "took a veiled shot at Republicans on Wednesday for running up a national debt that she said was a drag on U.S. influence overseas."

Right-wing media omit context to falsely claim Clinton attacked Obama, speculate she is planning 2012 run

Fox News uses deceptive video editing to concoct Clinton/Obama schism. On the September 8 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly aired a clip of Clinton's remarks but omitted the portion in which Clinton criticized Bush's spending policies. She and guest Monica Crowley then baselessly speculated about whether Clinton, in Kelly's words, is "coasting along in this role of secretary of state, watching President Obama take all the hits on the economy, maybe a tweak here or there about how his policies are undermining not just our national economy, but our international security, which she does have to worry about, and then what, she emerges in a couple of years to say, 'I told you so.' " Kelly teased the segment by asking, "Did Hillary Clinton just effectively declare her candidacy for president of the United States?"

Fox Nation: "Hillary takes Swipe at Obamanomics?" Linking to video of Clinton's remarks, Fox Nation asked, "Hillary Takes Swipe at Obamanomics?" From Fox Nation:

Fox & Friends: "She's clearly talking about President Obama." On the September 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson teased a segment on Clinton's comments by asking, "Why is she taking a swing at President Obama?" Later in the show, co-hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Carlson all agreed with guest Meghan McCain that Clinton was "clearly talking about President Obama." From Fox & Friends:

CLINTON [video clip]: Our rising debt levels poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally.

DOOCY: Wait a minute, it sounds like she's taking a swing at her own boss.

McCAIN: Yeah, I mean, I think everyone thinks this is surprising. I'm glad that she is, sort of, feels the way I feel. Is she running for 2012? I have no idea. I don't know if this is necessarily an indicator.

KILMEADE: Well, I will say this. If you look at the GDP, in relation to debt, President Obama has added more to the debt then everyone from George Washington combined up to Ronald Reagan. So, if she's concerned about the debt -- and she's really talking about President Obama.

McCAIN: Yeah. She's clearly talking about President Obama. And I agree that it is a national security threat, so Hillary Clinton and I agree on something.

Morris: Clinton's comments are "the first shot in the Democratic primary of 2012." On the September 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Dick Morris claimed that Clinton's comments were "no accident at all" and "the first shot in the Democratic primary of 2012":

BILL O'REILLY (host): That comes one day -- one day after Barack Obama announces a $500 billion stimulus spending bill that would ratchet up the debt even further. Accident?

MORRIS: No, no accident at all. It's -- nothing she does is an accident about that. This, I believe, is the opening side shot, the first shot in the Democratic primary of 2012. That's not to say it's certain that she'll run. It's to say she's moving in that direction. If Obama gets massacred, yet on Election Day, which I think his people will. I think it's going to be the biggest rout you can imagine. And if that sends his poll numbers cascading downwards, then I think there will, in fact, be a spontaneous grassroots Democratic demand for new leadership.

WorldNetDaily: "Dissension In The Ranks: Cabinet member hits alarm over Obama's colossal debt." In a September 8 article titled, "Dissension In The Ranks: Cabinet member hits alarm over Obama's colossal debt," WorldNetDaily's Jerome Corsi distorted Clinton's comments even while noting that Clinton was blaming Bush for the current deficit problem (emphasis added):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. military joint command are now both on record that rising levels of U.S. national debt pose a national security threat.

The message to the commander-in-chief now from both the secretary of state and the U.S. joint military command appears to have been delivered loud and clear -- continuing U.S. federal budget deficits measured in the trillions of dollars makes Americans less safe to threats posed by foreign enemies.

[...]

In an apparent effort to blame President George W. Bush for the federal budget deficit problem, Clinton said, "I mean, you know, it is -- we don't need to go back and sort of re-litigate how we got to where we are, but it is fair to say that, you know, we fought two wars without paying for them, and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either."

Fox News' Bill Hemmer uncritically repeated House Republican leader John Boehner's statement that he would repeal or block funding for health care reform before it "'bankrupts' the country." Hemmer ignored multiple Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports stating that health care reform will actually reduce the federal deficit.

Fox uncritically quotes Boehner falsely claiming health care reform would "bankrupt" U.S.

From the September 9 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

HEMMER: Also, the man hoping to be the next house speaker vowing to kill the health care reform law. House minority leader John Boehner telling a newspaper in Cincinnati saying he will repeal or block funding for the new law before it "bankrupts" the country, his words from yesterday.

CBO: Health care reform reduces the federal deficit

CBO in March: Health care reform law will reduce deficit by $143 billion over next ten years, and by more in second decade.  The CBO determined in March that the two health care bills signed into law that month "would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period." The CBO also estimates a further reduction in the second decade after enactment "with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP."

In June, CBO reiterated that health care reform reduces the deficit. The June 30 CBO long-term budget outlook stated that if the health care reform law is implemented as written, it will "increase projected revenues, particularly in the 2030s and beyond, thus slowing the accumulation of debt considerably." The CBO also noted in a footnote of its June outlook that although the law will increase federal spending on health care in the next two decades, it will also "reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years."

In August, CBO "confirm[ed]" its findings. In an August 24 letter to Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), CBO director Doug Elmendorf wrote:

First, we can confirm the estimate of the overall impact on the federal budget of the major health care legislation enacted in March. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) will produce $143 billion in net budgetary savings over the 2010-2019 period.1 That figure includes $124 billion in net savings for the health and revenue provisions of both laws and $19 billion in net savings for the education provisions of the Reconciliation Act.

As the nation prepares to mark the ninth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, numerous media figures have propagated anti-Muslim rhetoric, often smearing Muslims as "terrorists," "jihadists," and "extremists," and dismissing Islam altogether as a "militant" and "anti-Semitic" faith.

Media display anti-Muslim bigotry in recent weeks

Geller: "[A]nti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam." In a September 8 blog post, Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller quoted Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's statement that "[t]he very word 'islam' comes from a word cognate to shalom, which means peace in Hebrew." Geller wrote: "Considering that Islamic anti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam. This is particularly disgusting. Talk about giving us the middle finger."

Peretz questions whether Muslims "are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment." In a September 4 New Republic column, editor-in-chief Martin Peretz wrote that an "intense epidemic of slaughter [in the Islamic world] has been going on for nearly a decade and a half ... without protest, without anything. And it has been going for decades and centuries before that." Peretz then asked, "Why do not Muslims raise their voices against these at once planned and random killings all over the Islamic world?" He continued:

But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

Buchanan: "[A] Western nation that opens its doors to mass migration from the Islamic world is taking a grave risk with its unity and identity." In an August 24 column, Pat Buchanan defended prejudice against Muslims by stating that while there are millions of "decent, peace-loving Muslims," "one would have to be obtuse not to understand that a Western nation that opens its doors to mass migration from the Islamic world is taking a grave risk with its unity and identity." Buchanan further stated:

This is not an argument for war with Islam, but for recognition that "East is East and West is West" and America cannot absorb and assimilate all the creeds of mankind without ceasing to be who we are.

Prejudice is prejudgment. And if prejudgment is rooted in the history and traditions of a people, and what life has taught us, it is a shield that protects. Only a fool would reject the inherited wisdom of his kind because it fails to comport with the ideology of the moment.

Franklin Graham: "True Islam" can't be practiced in U.S. because "you cannot beat your wife, you cannot do honor killing." On the August 19 broadcast of CNN's John King USA, Franklin Graham repeated his frequent attacks on Islam, claiming: "Remember, true Islam cannot be practiced here in this country. You cannot beat your wife. You cannot do honor killing if you think your daughter has misbehaved. You cannot kill her. And they're protected by the laws of this country. We're not under Sharia law. We're under the Constitution of the United States. And so we're protected."

Buchanan: Islam "is a militant faith." In an August 17 column about Obama's comments on the proposed Islamic center in New York, Buchanan wrote: "Islam is a rising faith, the largest on earth, with 1.5 billion adherents. It is a militant faith that believes it will one day encompass all mankind." He further claimed:

Where it has become the dominant faith, it has been intolerant of rivals, especially Christianity, the faith of the Crusaders.

By no means are all or most Muslims fanatics of the Osama bin Laden variety, but many are uncompromising in their belief that, once their faith becomes the majority faith in a community or society, Muslims should write the rules and Muslims should make the laws.

And if Americans believe that Islam is consistent with pluralism, ecumenism and a belief in the equality of all religions and all lifestyles, we are headed for what the Chinese call "interesting times."

Gingrich compares Islamic center to Nazis erecting sign near Holocaust museum, Japanese site near Pearl Harbor. On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Newt Gingrich said: "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."

Nugent: "The mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." In an August 19 Washington Times op-ed attacking Park51, Ted Nugent wrote that "[t]he mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." Nugent repeatedly referred to Islam as a "voodoo religion" and concluded, "If additional American blood is spilled in the Big Apple, the politicians who supported this mosque will be as guilty as the Muslim voodoo kooks who love death and destruction in the name of Allah."

Cal Thomas repeatedly suggests Park51 would be a terrorist front. In an August 3 column, conservative commentator Cal Thomas wrote: "Ask yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as 'tolerance,' which is being used against us?" In a July 21 post on The Washington Post's On Faith blog, Thomas wrote:

A mosque near Ground Zero is not about tolerance, but triumphalism. It isn't about honoring the dead, but celebrating their deaths.

[...]

Don't we know why our enemies desire a beachhead in America? They wish to launch new terror attacks and forcibly convert Americans to their way of thinking and believing. What will we gain by allowing this to happen?

Morris: Park 51 will be used to "train and recruit Sharia law advocates who become terrorists." On the August 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dick Morris cited a study that he claimed said "80 percent of the mosques ... teach Sharia law as the main event." Morris later claimed that Park 51 will be used to "study and promote and train and recruit Sharia law advocates, which, who become terrorists." In his August 18 column, Morris wrote, "The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be -- as many mosques throughout the nation are -- a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center." Morris also stated, "There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west."

Morris: "[T]hese Sharia mosques ... have become the command center for terrorists," and Park51 "would be, too." On the August 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion of Park51, Morris claimed that "these Sharia mosques ... have become the command centers for terrorists," adding, "so this one would be, too."

Bolling: Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds." On the August 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Eric Bolling claimed that Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds."

Kilmeade: "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." During the discussion with Bolling on the August 19 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said of Park51, "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." A terrorist cell in Hamburg, Germany -- whose members would later become the 9-11 hijackers -- is believed to be the origin of the 9-11 plot.

Limbaugh suggests Park51 would be a "recruiting tool for domestic extremists." On the August 3 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that if the Guantanamo Bay detention center "is a recruiting tool for foreign extremists, what about a World Trade Center mosque being a recruiting tool for domestic extremists?"

Fox guest suggests Islamic cultural center is intended to "trumpet" Muslim conquest. On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, guest Jeanine Pirro -- former Republican candidate for New York state attorney general -- said, "I think the whole idea of the mosque is outrageous, and if you're a student of history, you know that mosques are often built to trumpet their victories."

Beck asks, "[A]fter you've killed 3,000 people, you're going to now build your mosque?" On his August 18 radio show, Glenn Beck said of Park51: "You look for things that are uniting, I'm sorry, but the Cordoba Project is not uniting. If you wanted to unite people, you don't spit in their face. You don't spit in their face. On the 10th anniversary, after you've killed 3,000 people, you're going to now build your mosque on there, really?" Beck has repeatedly falsely claimed that Park51 was scheduled to open on September 11, 2011. He has also referred to the Islamic center as "the 9-11 mosque" and has wondered if it is "a possibility" that Park51's location is about "inoculation."

Limbaugh calls Islamic center "a victory monument at Ground Zero." On August 17, Limbaugh called Park51 "a victory monument at Ground Zero, which is what this mosque is." He added: "The real question is why do people who don't like this country want that mosque there? What is so important about having it there?"

Palin calls Park 51 a "stab in the heart" for Americans and a "slap" to 9-11 victims. During the August 16 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin claimed that it was "an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location. It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9-11." Palin later said, "[T]his is a slap to those innocent victims who were murdered that day on 9-11."

Hoft dubs Park 51 the "Ground Zero Victory Mosque." In an August 16 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft touted Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's criticism of Obama's comments about Park 51 and described the Islamic community center as the "Ground Zero Victory Mosque."

Washington Times: "If the mosque is constructed, the terrorists win." In an August 19 editorial, The Washington Times stated of the planned Islamic community center in New York City: "The Ground Zero Mosque is not healing a rift but deepening a wound. If the mosque is constructed, the terrorists win."

Geller absurdly compared NYC Islamic cultural center to building a KKK "shrine" near black Alabama church. On the August 11 edition of Fox & Friends, Geller absurdly compared building an Islamic cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York to building a Ku Klux Klan "shrine" near a black church in Alabama.

Hemmer: Park51 could be "the first stop for a radical jihadist who comes to America who wants to go pray." On the September 7 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer said of Park51, "It could also be the first stop for a radical jihadist who comes to America who wants to go pray."

Boortz: Park51 "being built to commemorate a great victory over the United States on 9-11." During the August 31 edition of Fox & Friends, right-wing radio host Neil Boortz claimed that Park51 is "being built to commemorate a great victory over the United States on 9-11."

Urbanski: "Would it be inflammatory to call the mosque a 'murder mosque' if it's there on Ground Zero?" On the August 27 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, guest host Doug Urbanski asked, "Would it be inflammatory to call the mosque a 'murder mosque' if it's there on Ground Zero?"

Limbaugh compares campaign against Park51 to Cold War: "We're now fighting the mosqueovites." On his August 25 radio show, Limbaugh compared the right-wing campaign against Park51 to the Cold War, claiming, "We're now fighting the mosqueovites."

Gaffney: Protesters holding signs with "Shariah" written in "dripping, blood-red ink" is "informed opposition" to Park51. In an August 26 Washington Times op-ed, Frank Gaffney wrote that protesters at a recent rally against the planned Islamic community center in Manhattan "had come together ... in informed opposition to the impetus behind that mosque: Shariah." Gaffney added: "In fact, throughout the crowd could be seen signs with just the word 'Shariah' lettered in dripping, blood-red ink."

Media conservatives, led by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, are comparing a Florida church's plans to burn Qurans on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks to plans to build an Islamic community center in Manhattan.

Florida church plans to burn Islamic and Jewish religious texts

AP: Christian minister "vowed" to "burn copies of the Quran to protest the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." A September 8 Associated Press article reported, "A Christian minister vowed Tuesday to go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Quran to protest the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks despite warnings from the White House and the top U.S. general in Afghanistan that doing so would endanger American troops overseas." AP continued:

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center said he understands the government's concerns, but plans to go forward with the burning this Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the attacks.

He left the door open to change his mind, saying he is still praying about his decision, which was condemned Tuesday by an interfaith coalition that met in Washington to respond to a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry.

Gen. David Petraeus warned in an e-mail to The Associated Press that "images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan - and around the world - to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley echoed that, calling the plan to burn copies of the Quran "un-American" and saying it does not represent the views of most people in the U.S.

Miami Herald: Pastor "also plans to burn copies of the Talmud, a sacred Jewish text." A September 5 Miami Herald article reported that the Gainesville Dove World Outreach Center also plans to burn copies of the Talmud.

Right wing compares burning Qurans to building a community center

Beck: "It's just like the Ground Zero mosque plan." In a September 6 blog post to his website The Blaze, Glenn Beck wrote:

I'm on vacation and trying to unplug but the news can make that hard. I just read the story about the Florida church planning to burn copies of the Koran.

What is wrong with us?  It's just like the Ground Zero mosque plan.   Does this church have the right?  Yes.  Should they?  No.  And not because of the potential backlash or violence. Simply because it is wrong.

Palin: Quran burning "is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero." In a September 8 post to her Facebook account, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin wrote:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don't feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don't need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn't that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?

Barnes: "[T]his is similar in one way to the Ground Zero mosque." On the September 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox news contributor and Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes criticized plans to burn the Quran, and claimed that "Islamophobia" was "not sweeping America." Barnes further claimed:

But look, this is similar in one way to the Ground Zero mosque, the mosque that is planned to be built on the fringe of Ground Zero. And that is, it is what Sarah Palin called an unnecessary provocation. And this is a provocation, and that's what General Petraeus is worried about.

Beck guest host Glover: "[T]his burning the Quran issue is very similar to building the mosque on ground zero." During the September 8 edition of The Glenn Beck Program, guest host Dave Glover said that the debate over whether it was appropriate to burn copies of the Quran was "about wise choices" and that "this burning of the Quran issue is very similar to the building of the mosque on ground zero." Glover further claimed, "Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should."

Bolling and Geller agree: "The sensitivity issue" of Islamic community center and burning Qurans is "the same." During the September 7 edition of Fox Business' Money Rocks, host Eric Bolling claimed, "The sensitivity issue seems to be the key here for the mosque. Is it not the same issue with the Quran burning on Saturday?" He then asked, "So therefore, if you don't want them to burn the Quran on Saturday, why wouldn't Muslims -- moderate Muslims -- simply say, 'Hey, it's too sensitive an area downtown; move the mosque?'" Guest Pamela Geller, who has helped lead the push against the Islamic community center, said that the two were "the exact same issue." Geller also said that "the burning of books is wrong."

Boehner lumps in "Pastor Jones" with "those who want to build the mosque." During the September 8 edition of ABC News' Good Morning America, host George Stephanopoulos asked House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) about Jones' plans to burn copies of the Quran. Boehner invoked the Islamic Community Center in Manhattan in his response: "Well, to Pastor Jones and those who want to build the mosque: Just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do."

Fox News is attacking President Obama's decision to attend a 9-11 memorial at the Pentagon rather than the World Trade Center site. However, former President George W. Bush routinely did not visit ground zero on past anniversaries of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and Vice President Joe Biden is attending a memorial at the World Trade Center site, like Vice President Dick Cheney did on the second anniversary.

Fox attacks President Obama for not appearing at ground zero on 9-11 anniversary 

Fox Nation: "Pres. Obama Not Attending 9/11 Ceremony at Ground Zero." Fox Nation linked to an Agence France-Presse article about Obama's upcoming appearance at the Pentagon under the voted in favor of the legislation. Nineteen Republican senators voted against the bill. The House voted to agree to the Senate amendments on March 31, by a 275-149 vote. Twenty-six Republican House members voted in favor of the bill.

Bush frequently called on Americans to volunteer on 9-11. Bush, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, cited the spirit of 9-11 and announced that he was creating the USA Freedom Corps, a national service organization. He [[, and]] called "for every American to commit at least two years, 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and your nation." According to a USA Freedom Corps press release, on the first anniversary of 9-11, Bush said, "Many ask, 'What can I do to help in our fight?' And the answer is simple. All of us can become a September the 11th volunteer by making a commitment to service in our own communities." According to a September 8, 2008, Corporation for National and Community Service press release, "President Bush today renewed the call he made in the wake of the 9-11 attacks for every American to give 4,000 hours or two years of their lives in service to others."

Faced with the prospect of the top two income tax rates returning to where they were in 2000, conservative media have accused Democrats of engaging in "class warfare" to attack the "so-called rich." Economists have said that extending the Bush tax cuts for top earners -- which would reportedly cost $700 billion over ten years -- would do little to stimulate the economy; moreover, households making more than $250,000 will still pay less in taxes under Obama's plan than if all of the tax cuts were allowed to expire as Republicans originally scheduled them to do.

Economists say extending tax cuts for the wealthy would increase deficit while doing little to stimulate the economy

GOP Congress, Bush mandated that the tax cuts would expire after 2010. With the exception of changes to the estate tax, the 2001 tax bill states: "All provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply ... to taxable, plan, or limitation years beginning after December 31, 2010." The 2001 tax bill passed the House and Senate with near-unanimous Republican support. The 2003 tax bill -- which also passed both article, The Washington Post reported: "By terminating the tax cuts at the end of 2010, negotiators were able to avoid some tough decisions. Since they could now distribute the same amount of money over nine years rather than 10 years, they effectively boosted the size of the tax cut while at the same time hiding its true cost." The Post reported in a May 24, 2003, article that "by 'sunsetting' all the tax cuts well before the bill's official 2013 expiration date, congressional tax writers took a measure that otherwise would have cost the Treasury more than $800 billion over the next decade and crammed it into a $350 billion price tag that could garner just enough support to pass the Senate. Democrats and Republicans alike predict that future Congresses and administrations will not let the tax cuts expire."

Obama wants to extend all of the lowered rates except for the top two. As The New York Times reported on August 10, Obama proposes "to extend the tax cuts for individuals with less than $200,000 in annual taxable income and couples with less than $250,000 -- about 98 percent of American households." The Times further noted:

If the president gets his way, in 2011 the top two income tax rates -- now 33 percent and 35 percent -- would revert to the levels before the Bush administration, 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. But the four lower rates would remain 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 28 percent. For some taxpayers earning up to $250,000, the top marginal rate would remain 33 percent.

Extending all tax cuts for upper-earners would reportedly cost $700 billion over ten years. The Washington Post reported that an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that a "Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year." The New York Times further reported that the 10-year cost of extending the tax cuts for the upper-income earners would be "about $700 billion."

Economists: Extending the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy is poor stimulus. Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center wrote that "higher income households are more likely to bank the cash than spend it. As a result, tax cuts for these high-earners will do relatively little to boost the economy in the short run." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also stated that as stimulus, allowing only the top tax cuts to expire "would be more cost-effective" than extending all of the cuts "because the higher-income households that would be excluded would probably save a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income." Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman also said of extending the tax cuts for the wealthy: "it's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy."

Top earners would still gain from tax cuts

Wealthy taxpayers would still have lower taxes under Obama plan than if all the cuts expired as scheduled. The Times further reported that according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis, taxpayers with income over $250,000 would have a higher top tax rate, but would still benefit from the other "four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income." For instance, "Filers with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700 compared with pre-2001 rates, according to the data from the tax analysts. But that compares with roughly $17,500 if the top Bush tax rates were maintained."

A tax calculator provided by National Public Radio demonstrates that if all the tax cuts were extended, a married couple earning $300,000 would pay $734 dollars less than under Obama's plan, a difference that represents 0.2 percent of the household's income. By contrast, if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire as scheduled, the household would pay $8,534 more than under Obama's plan. A said of Obama's decision against extending the tax cuts, "I'm wondering how much of this is legitimate economic planning, that the president truly believes this, or even, you know, Peter Orszag truly believes it, and how much of it is political in the sense trying to create almost political warfare, trying to divide the upper 2 percent from the rest of the population." She also said that eliminating the tax cuts for the top 2 percent is "almost a class warfare political weapon." Carlson responded:

CARLSON: Well, it's very flatly and plainly a question of class warfare. I mean, look, I'm hardly defending rich people. I'm not a rich person, unfortunately, though I aspire to that. They pay for everything in this country. The top 10 percent pays more than half of federal taxes. You take out rich people, and the country doesn't run. That's just a fact. That's not defense of a class or a social system, those are [...] numbers you can't debate.

Krauthammer: The "idea is class warfare." On the September 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, responding to a question on whether Obama would "veto in a recession the extension of all the current tax rates for the next year," Charles Krauthammer said, "I think he will because that's all he's got. He can't argue his economic policies have succeeded. That's not anything anybody would believe. What the idea is class warfare. The Republicans are in favor of the rich and we are in favor of the middle class. That's all they have and they're going to stick to it." 

IBD: Pelosi, Reid, and Democratic majorities in Congress "are locked into their class warfare ideology." In an August 12 editorial, Investor's Business Daily stated: "Unfortunately, President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic majorities in Congress are locked into their class warfare ideology. Allowing the job creators of the U.S. economy to keep their lowered tax rates would mean letting them keep close to $36 billion of their own money in 2011, and the party's base cannot stomach such thoughts."

WSJ blogger: Prepare for "more sad, divisive class warfare led by your president. In an August 11 Wall Street Journal blog post, Evan Newmark wrote that "After alienating most white Americans ... President Obama and his White House gang are launching a fresh 'pitchfork and torches' assault on Republicans and America's 'rich.' " Commenting on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's statement that tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire, Newmark wrote, "This is the dry language you'd expect from a career bureaucrat. But beneath his arch tone is real class war demagoguery." He later stated that the Obama administration understands that by "jacking taxes on America's 2 million 'rich' " it will be difficult to "put them in the spending mood" and added, "and that's why it's back to class warfare."

NRO post: The "progressives' class-warfare gambit may backfire disastrously this November." In an August 10 National Review Online post headlined "The Class-Warfare Gambit," Michael G. Franc, vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, claimed that Democrats are "plan[ning]" to "soak only the top-earning households in America" when the Bush tax cuts expire on January 1, 2011. He further wrote that "the politics of 'taxing the rich' may turn out to be more complex than Democratic strategists first envisioned. Indeed, the progressives' class-warfare gambit may backfire disastrously this November."

Armstrong Williams: "As if the race baiting by the White House weren't enough, it's now in full-throated class warfare." In an August 8 Washington Times "analysis/opinion" piece, after correctly observing that "the tax rate cuts that President George W. Bush and the Republican led-Congress pushed through in 2001 are set to expire" on January 1, 2011, conservative political commentator Armstrong Williams claimed that the Obama administration is "pondering tax increases" and accused the Obama administration of "full-throated class warfare, pitting this faceless rich no one seems to know against the poor, who seem to be on every corner in President Obama's mind."

LVRJ: "Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric and desire to expand the regulatory state only exacerbates" uncertainty on hiring. In an August 8 editorial, the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote: "Indeed, many employers remain reluctant to expand -- perhaps either still smarting from the hit of the 2008 economic meltdown or worried about the direction this president has taken the economy. With the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, thousands of business owners and potential entrepreneurs face an uncertain future. Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric and desire to expand the regulatory state only exacerbates the problem."

IBD: The "so-called progressive left ... has used class warfare to divide us." In an August 6 editorial, Investor's Business Daily wrote:

Instead of slashing spending, as common sense and economic reality would dictate, some want to let Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. Those cuts were responsible for the economy's recovery from the triple whammy of the 1999-2000 stock market meltdown, the Y2K debacle and the 2001 recession.

At the same time, Americans will be hit with a blizzard of new regulations and higher taxes from this year's health-care and financial reform laws. That could sink the economy again.

The regulatory and tax siege has sent America's entrepreneurial, job and wealth-creating class reeling. The so-called progressive left now in charge of government has used class warfare to divide us -- always blaming the "rich" (anyone who earns more than $200,000), entrepreneurs and businesses for not doing enough.

Hannity: What "do you say to Democrats who play the class warfare card" and are willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire? During a July 30 interview with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) on his Fox News show, Hannity said of the Bush tax cuts:

HANNITY: Yes, look, it's going to be interesting because the president obviously wants them to expire, especially for the wealthy. What do you say to democrats who play the class warfare card and say, no we'll just let them expire for, quote, "the wealthiest Americans," those who are making over $200,000 or more which by the way the top ten percent pay over 70 percent of the income taxes in this country. Why would you argue that's a bad idea?

Doocy: Democrats want to raise taxes on "those evil, successful people," "the so-called rich." On the July 27 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that Democrats say "those evil, successful people at the top 3 or 4 or 5 percent -- the so-called rich Americans -- we're going to continue to tax them at a higher rate." Doocy continued by suggesting that when you're talking about these "so-called rich Americans," "you're not talking about Donald Trump or a member of the Rockefeller family. You're talking about a lot of people who own and operate America's small businesses."

Thompson: Obama is "going to base this tax cut on rich versus poor." During a July 27 interview by Sean Hannity, former Senator Fred Thompson asserted: "People are not as susceptible to having their envy played upon as this administration thinks. They think that if they can do something, even if it hurts the economy, that's going to take something away from a group that they're not a part of, the 2 or 3 percent, the way they like to put it, that that will go over well politically and they can win that, you know. Rich versus poor." He added that the president is "going to base this tax argument on rich versus poor. Going to give everybody -- everybody in America a tax cut, in effect, or let the tax cuts remain for them, except just two or three percent of the people. That just happens to be a third of our consumers and produce most of our jobs."

Dick Morris, purporting to be an expert on the deficit from working in the Clinton White House, attacked President Obama for proposing to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, claiming that "is just a method of increasing the deficit." In fact, extending tax cuts actually adds to the deficit.

Morris' economic FAIL: Letting tax cuts expire will increase the deficit 

Morris: Letting Bush tax cuts for wealthy to expire is "just a method of increasing the deficit." On the September 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Morris argued that not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent in America "is just a method of increasing the deficit, increasing the debt." Morris contrasted Obama's position with that of former President Bill Clinton, who "understood that the solution to the recession was to cut the deficit."

In reality, extending the tax cuts will increase the deficit 

CBO estimates extending the Bush tax cuts for wealthiest Americans would cost $700 billion. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) budget:    

CBO scores "[d]effering the scheduled increases in tax rates" as the lowest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," CBO stated:

[P]olicies that would temporarily increase the after-tax income of people with relatively high income, such as an across-the-board reduction in income taxes or an increase in the exemption amount for the AMT, would have smaller effects [than other options] because such tax cuts would probably not affect the recipients' spending significantly.  

The report further stated that "a permanent extension [of the Bush tax cuts] would entail large revenue losses after the recovery is over."

According to a table in the report, CBO estimated that reducing income taxes in 2011 would have the  least stimulative effect of the policy options considered. 

Since President Obama took office, right-wing media figures have opposed every major package proposed to stimulate the economy, despite support from a consensus of economists and economic analysts. Recent opposition has included Obama's newly proposed infrastructure plan, the extension of unemployment insurance, aid to states, and food stamps, all of which have been shown to stimulate the economy.

Conservatives oppose the infrastructure plan 

Drudge: "Obama Addicted to Stimulus" On September 6, Matt Drudge op-ed, Krugman wrote:

One main reason there aren't enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That's why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly -- while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months.

CBO scores "increasing aid to the unemployed" as the highest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated:

Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.

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



Elmendorf: Policies such as unemployment insurance "have a significant impact on GDP." In January 2009, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified:

Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.

A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved. The nonbusiness tax cuts in H.R. 1 would reduce revenues much more in calendar year 2010 than in calendar year 2009 because much of the reduction in taxes would be realized by households when they filed their returns in 2010.

Zandi estimated that extending unemployment insurance benefits provides significant stimulus. In his July 24, 2008, House testimony, Zandi rated "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck," defined as "One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending." "Extending UI Benefits" was the second-highest of 13 policy options, behind "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps." The Economic Policy Institute created the following graphic based on Zandi's figures:



Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy." From an April 16 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities document:

Temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits score high in "bang-for-the-buck" calculations of their economic impact as stimulus. The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy. As a result of such policies, local businesses are less apt to lay off workers and cut back on orders from their suppliers during a downturn; and in the early stages of a recovery, they are more apt to hire additional workers and step up their orders. Policymakers have always ended these emergency UI benefits once a strong and sustainable economic recovery is underway.

Joseph Stiglitz: Stimulus "should begin by strengthening the unemployment insurance system." In a January 23, 2008, op-ed, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote that "America's economy is headed for a major slowdown" and that "[t]he country needs stimulus." Proceeding to describe the "optimal package," Stiglitz recommended: "We should begin by strengthening the unemployment insurance system, because money received by the unemployed would be spent immediately."

Blinder: "Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of stimulus we know." On July 2, NPR reported that former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve and Clinton economic adviser Alan Blinder "supports the effort to extend expiring unemployment benefits." NPR quoted Blinder as saying: "Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of stimulus we know."

Martire: Stimulus from unemployment benefits "greater than any other fiscal action government can take." In a June 30 piece in the State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois, Center for Tax and Budget Accountability executive director Ralph Martire wrote:

As for the contention that extending UI encourages people to avoid finding jobs so they can stay on the public dole -- well, it's just plain goofy. In May 2010, the private sector created only 41,000 jobs. That's 72,000 less than what's needed to keep up with the demand generated by natural work-force growth, much less creating the positions needed for the unemployed to find work. No one's thumbing a nose at getting hired to live in luxury eating government cheese -- there simply are no private sector jobs available.

Perhaps the hawks have forgotten that consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's economy. The best consumers are low- and middle-income folks, who don't earn enough to save, so they spend their paychecks. That is, when they have paychecks. See, if they've lost their jobs and the private sector isn't creating jobs and the feds cut off unemployment benefits, their ability to spend drops to, well, nil. Which is why the amount of private sector economic activity stimulated by unemployment benefits is greater than any other fiscal action government can take. In fact, dollar-for-dollar, it's five times more stimulative than the Bush tax cuts.

Sure, the long-term deficit has to be dealt with -- but honestly and responsibly. Short-term, deficit spending -- particularly on things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing assistance and the like -- is creating jobs and saving the U.S. economy from disaster.

EPI's Mishel explains why unemployment insurance is "such good stimulus." In a June 10 hearing before the House Ways and Means Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, the Economic Policy Institute's Lawrence Mishel testifed:

As I have explained, the only real option for increasing economic activity and consumer demand for goods and services is federal government intervention in the economy, specifically through more deficit spending. The safety net programs are a vital part of this picture.

[...]

The reason extending unemployment insurance is such good stimulus is that it gets money to people who are the most likely to have depleted their savings and thus tend to have no choice but to quickly spend essentially every dollar they receive on necessities found in their local economy. In other words, virtually every dollar spent on extending unemployment insurance benefits goes directly, and immediately, toward the purchase of local goods and services, providing an extremely efficient demand boost. Not only is extending and expanding UI benefits the right thing to do for the people hurt most by this economic downturn, it is also excellent economic policy.

CEPR's Schmitt: Unemployment insurance helps "sustain a community." In an April 28 article, McClatchy Newspapers reported:

And allowing workers to fall off the unemployment insurance rolls can have negative ripple effects, said John Schmitt, senior economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

"It hits individuals hard, but it also hits their communities, and more broadly the country," Schmitt said. "Having unemployment insurance benefits can help sustain a community through a very difficult time."

Conservatives opposed aid package to schools and states

NYP's McMahon: " 'Rescue' plan to sink New York." In an August 6 New York Post column, E.J. McMahon declared the $26 billion aid package to states and school districts to be "[m]ore stimulus poison." He claimed that the "the result" of the package "will be even more spending that New York taxpayers can't possibly sustain."

NYP attacked plan by falsely suggesting it would increase the deficit. An August 12 New York Post editorial misleadingly claimed that CBO said the recently passed state aid bill "will bloat the deficit another $13 billion over 10 years, using 'pay as you go' accounting." However, that figure excludes much of the savings used to pay for the bill, and CBO said that when accounting for these savings, the measure reduces deficits by around $1.4 billion over 10 years.

Hoft: "Nancy Pelosi's Cash for Democrat Reelection Program." In a August 10 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft dubbed the aid package "Nancy Pelosi's Cash for Democrat Reelection Program" and highlighted GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann's dubious claim that the money would "allow public employee unions to run ads against the GOP in the upcoming election on the taxpayers' dime." Hoft declared this to be "outrageous."

Malkin: Pelosi "deserves a swift rap on the knuckles for hiding underneath the desk of the American schoolteacher." In an August 11 column, Michelle Malkin attacked the aid package as an example of "fiscal recklessness." From her column:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deserves a swift rap on the knuckles for hiding underneath the desk of the American schoolteacher. In a cynical ploy to evade accountability for the Democrats' continued fiscal recklessness, Pelosi accused opponents of the $26 billion public employee union bailout bill of "demeaning" teachers -- and nurses, police officers and firefighters.

Beck: State aid is "trapping your state into making sure that they cannot tighten their belt." On the August 11 broadcast of Beck's radio show, he asserted that the aid package is "trapping your state into making sure that they cannot tighten their belt." He added that they're "putting cement in front of the exit doors" and that the assistance will lead to a "global system." Beck also falsely suggested that the assistance package would add to the deficit and spoke in a drawl and got down on his knees to attack this package.

Economists stress the stimuluative effects of state aid

Zandi: State aid boosts GDP by $1.36 for every dollar spent. In testimony given on July 24, 2008, before the House Committee on Small Business, Zandi noted that "General Aid to State Governments" would boost real GDP by $1.36 for every dollar spent. Zandi also testified to the benefits of providing aid to state governments, specifically in the form of expanding Medicaid funds:

Another economically potent stimulus is aid to financially-pressed state governments. This could take the form of general aid or a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate, to help ease the costs of health coverage. Such help appears unlikely in the current stimulus plan, but this could quickly change in coming weeks if the economy's problems grow more severe and widespread as the legislation is being fashioned.

Fiscal problems have already developed in half the nation's states. Tax revenue growth has slowed sharply with flagging retail sales and corporate profits. Income tax receipts are also sure to suffer as the job market weakens. California and Florida are under the most financial pressure, but states as far-flung as Arizona, Minnesota, and Maryland are also struggling.

As most state governments are required by their constitutions to quickly eliminate their deficits, most are already drawing up plans to cut funding for programs ranging from health care to education and cutting grants to local government. Local governments are having their own financial problems; most rely on property-tax revenues, which are slumping with house prices. Cuts in state and local government outlays are sure to become a substantial drag on the economy later this year and into 2009.

The following table accompanied Zandi's testimony:



Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: State aid "would constitute one of the most effective uses of" federal dollars. In a March report, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) economists Iris J. Lav, Nicholas Johnson and Elizabeth McNichol concluded:

State fiscal assistance under ARRA will end or largely be exhausted by the end of calendar year 2010. Unfortunately, big state deficits are expected to continue through state fiscal year 2012 -- that is, for another 18 months or so after 2010 ends. If states do not receive additional federal assistance beyond the scheduled expiration of such aid, they will be forced to institute further deep budget cuts and/or substantial tax increases. Such actions would place a drag on the U.S. economy, impeding the recovery and costing many jobs. Such measures also could cause serious hardship for many families and individuals that have lost their jobs and are relying on Medicaid and other key state services to make it through this unusually painful economic downturn.

For both economic and other reasons, the provision of some additional fiscal relief, so that such relief is extended or phased down after 2010 rather than ending abruptly at that point, would be highly desirable. It would constitute one of the most effective uses of additional dollars to boost the weak economy and preserve or create jobs.

EPI: State aid "can help prevent" further economic downturn." In a January 11, 2008 report, the Economic Policy Institute noted:

During times of recession, state budgets are hit particularly hard. Reductions in tax receipts and cyclical increases in state spending put pressure on budgets -- and since most states have balanced budget requirements, they are forced to either reduce spending or increase taxes in times of decreased economic activity. These actions perversely add to economic troubles by decreasing the total demand for goods and services, and thus intensify a recession. As such, direct federal assistance to states can help prevent these outcomes and stimulate the economy. In the last recession, Congress provided $20 billion in aid to the states, split between general revenue sharing and a temporary increase in the federal match for Medicaid. The same kind of assistance should be provided to the states once again, with $30 billion split equally between a general block grant and an increase in the Medicaid match.

Conservatives opposed increased funding for food stamps

O'Reilly: "[I]ncreased food stamps" have "nothing to do with stimulating the economy." On the January 28, 2009, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "increased food stamps" have "nothing to do with stimulating the economy." Earlier in the day on his radio show, O'Reilly similarly claimed that "enhanced food stamps" in the bill are "not gonna help the economy at all. That will not help the economy one bit." He added: "In fact, in the entitlement realm, just giving people money who are poor is about $250 billion. Some of that money will be spent. Some of it, like food stamps, you know, it's not gonna help the economy."

CNN's Brown falsely claimed that "food stamps, unemployment benefits not likely to stimulate the economy." On the January 27, 2009, edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, host Campbell Brown asserted: "Food stamps, unemployment benefits not likely to stimulate the economy because these are the people who are in the most dire straits spending the bare minimum." Brown added: "So the stimulus part comes from the big spending package that we're going to talk about." CNN's chief business correspondent Ali Velshi responded: "Right. And, you know, maybe the $500 or $1,000 you get per family. But you're absolutely right. There are some of these things that are more about recovery than stimulus. The administration likes to call it a recovery bill. If you're giving food stamps and you're giving unemployment benefits, that's not stimulus; that's simply helping people out who are in a lot of trouble."

Economists widely acknowledge stimulative nature of food stamps

Elmendorf: "Nutrition assistance" would "have a significant impact on GDP." In January 27, 2009, written testimony before the House Budget Committee, Elmendorf stated that "[t]ransfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would ... have a significant impact on GDP." He added: "Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut."

Zandi: "[E]xtending food stamps are the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump." In his July 24, 2008, written testimony before the House Committee on Small Business, Zandi stated that "extending food stamps are [sic] the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump." Zandi further explained: "People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients." Zandi included with his testimony a table stating that a "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps" had the highest "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck" of any other potential stimulus provision he analyzed, providing a $1.73 increase in real GDP for every dollar spent.

Conservatives opposed the stimulus

Since its passage, right-wing media have falsely claimed the package failed. Right-wing media figures and outlets frequently promote the false claims that the stimulus "didn't work" and "has not created jobs."

Conservatives opposed stimulus at the time of passage. Before and during passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on February 13, 2009, right-wing media figures expressed opposition the bill, by, among other things, falsely claiming that billions would go to ACORN, inflating the job creation costs, misrepresenting CBO estimates, falsely comparing it to previous unsuccessful Japanese economic policies, falsely claiming that stimulus money would go to undocumented workers, falsely claiming corporate tax rate cuts would be more effective than the stimulus, and claiming the recession would end on its own.  

Economists say the stimulus supported recovery

Economists say the stimulus helped economic recovery. Most fiscal analysts and economists agree that the stimulus has boosted GDP and reduced unemployment. For example, a report released in August by CBO estimated that the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points, and the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated that "the ARRA has raised the level of GDP as of the second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent." Additionally, multiple surveys of economists have found that a majority believe that the stimulus has helped.

Andrew Napolitano smeared the Obama administration as being "in tight" with the New Black Panther Party, citing the myth that the Obama Justice Department would not prosecute a party member for "[i]ntimidating voters with a weapon." In fact, the decision to not pursue criminal charges was made by the Bush DOJ, and the Obama administration won an injunction against the party member who carried a weapon.

Napolitano: Obama admin. would not "prosecute" NBPP members

Napolitano: "Why wouldn't the federal government prosecute" NBPP? During the September 7 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Napolitano played a video clip of New Black Panther Party members at a Philadelphia polling station in 2008 while saying:

So, intimidating voters is obviously is a crime. Intimidating voters with a weapon is even more of a crime. Intimidating voters with a weapon because of the color of their skin is obviously a federal crime. You saw that tape. Why wouldn't the federal government prosecute those? What other radical groups are in tight with this administration?

Decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by Bush DOJ, not Obama

Bush DOJ, not Obama, made decision not to pursue criminal charges. Before President Bush left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. In May 14 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but did "file a civil action on January 7th, 2009." From Perez's testimony:

PEREZ: Moving to the matter at hand, the events occurred on November 4th, 2008. The Department became aware of these events on Election Day and decided to conduct further inquiry.

After reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.

Obama DOJ actually obtained judgment against individual carrying weapon at polling place

May 2009: DOJ obtained default judgment against Shabazz for carrying weapon outside polling station. On May 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against King Samir Shabazz. Perez stated in his May 14 testimony that the Justice Department had obtained "sufficient evidence to sustain the charge" of voter intimidation against Shabazz, identified by Perez as "the defendant who had the nightstick," and that "the default judgment was sought and obtained as it related to him." Perez also testified:

PEREZ: Based on the careful review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence collected supported the allegations in the complaint against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Department, therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from otherwise violating Section 11(b).

The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the constitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms.

Fox News regularly uses Fox Business host Stuart Varney as their primary analyst of business and economic news. However, Varney has frequently advocated for Republican electoral victories and has described himself as "very clearly partisan."

Varney: "I'm very clearly partisan"

Varney: "I'm very partisan, I'm very clearly partisan." On June 10, Fox & Friends hosted Varney to discuss the unemployment rate and programs to stimulate job growth. In the segment, Varney praised President Reagan for cutting taxes which supposedly "set off a growth of prosperity for a generation," and criticized President Obama for not following the same tack. Varney followed up his comments by stating "I'm very partisan. I'm very clearly partisan."

Varney: Republican electoral victories are the "only hope" for the economy

Varney: "You've got to have the Republicans sweep in November ... that's the only hope" for the economy. On the August 25 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Varney claimed that in order to improve the economy, America "must change course" by electing Republicans:

INGRAHAM: You know, keep hands off. But lives touched. So they keep changing the goal posts, moving the goal posts to try to, again, make people feel like things are better. But there's not a spin for this. You can't spin your way out of this. You need to change course. What they're doing is wrong.

VARNEY: Yes, you must change course. I think that the change of course that we require first and foremost is a political change of course. You've got to have the Republican sweep in November so that you can then increase some confidence in private enterprise that we're going to start to expand, that we're going to start to just get this economy moving. It's a political change at first. Translates into economic change down the road. That's the only hope.

Varney calls for a "change in Congress" to "shift direction" of economic policy. On the June 4 edition of Fox & Friends, Varney agreed  w ith host Steve Doocy that a "change in Congress" is necessary to avoid tax increases. Varney also stated that we've "got to shift direction of our overall economic policy at the federal level" and that the "answer" to our economic trouble "is politics." 

Varney is "optimistic about the economy going forward" if the "Republicans win big in November." On the September 2 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, following Varney's prediction that if the recovery continues at its current rate it will be "years before we drop below 8 percent unemployment," Varney claimed that he was nevertheless "optimistic about the economy going forward" if the "Republicans win big in November." Varney claimed that Republican victories would lead to "certainty on regulation, certainty on taxes" as well as a "return to the - to some degree of confidence" that the economy "will expand."

Varney: "I'm going to be very political; if the Republicans swept in November ... I think that would really turn around the whole confidence factor in the American economy." On August 27, Varney appeared as a guest on Fox News Radio's Kilmeade & Friends where he responded to a caller's question about the economy by saying that he was "going to be very political," adding that he was "hoping" America would "change politics" through a Republican sweep in the 2010 elections:

If the Republicans swept in November -- if they did that -- I think that would really turn around the whole confidence factor in the American economy because we might get a chance at turning course economically. Away from government, more towards private enterprise, more towards private individual. Remember, there's $2 trillion held by big companies in America, held in banks. It's not being put to work in the economy because there's no confidence in a robust recovery. Change politics, and I think you might turn the corner on confidence. And that's what I'm hoping, [caller].

Varney: "Your 401(k) could do well" if Scott Brown wins. On the January 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Varney claimed that if Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown won his election, "it sends an enormous message -- a very powerful message -- to the Democrats in Congress and to the White House that, hey, we don't like your domestic economic policy. Reverse course." Varney also stated that "investors would love that" and that "your 401(k) could do well because of that."

Varney: "If we don't change course in November of 2010 we are surely headed for a real crash." On the July 6 edition of Hannity, Varney referred to the upcoming election as "the most important election since the presidential election of 1980" and argued that "[i]f we don't change course in November of 2010 we are surely headed for a real crash."

Varney: "If you want to pile on the debt, vote Democrat." While guest-hosting the September 3 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto, after claiming that the "1994 Republican sweep of Congress" caused tax revenues to go up, Varney told his guest that "if you want to pile on the debt, vote Democrat."

Varney: Obama and Congress are "essentially socialist," policies are "un-American"

Varney: Obama and Congress are "essentially socialist." On the July 14 edition of The Fred Thompson Show, Varney said that though he was "reluctant to say it," he thought that "this president and this Congress and this administration is essentially socialist." Varney continued by claiming that "they really want to make a fundamental shift in the way America works" and are "not capitalists at heart."

Varney: "You're asking me, is [Obama] a socialist, and the answer is: He sure looks like one." On the February 25 edition of Fox & Friends, Varney was asked by co-host Brian Kilmeade whether Obama "had a right to be defensive" about being called a socialist by his critics. Varney responded by claiming that Obama had "nationalized industries from cars, to housing, to student loans, and maybe health care. He has demonized profitable industries from oil to banks. He's expanded the role of government and vastly expanded the workforce of the government. He's redistributed wealth and income. Those are all the hallmarks of a very left-of-center administration." Varney continued by stating: "You're asking me, is [Obama] a socialist? And the answer is: He sure looks like one."

Varney calls Obama's economic polices "socialism" and "un-American." On the September 3 edition of Hannity, Varney claimed that "[w]e've had an 18-month experiment with American socialism" and that "we do not like it, we want to reverse it." He also claimed that the economic policies enacted in the past 18 months were "un-American."

Varney says Obama admin prefers "failed European socialism" to "restor[ing] America's middle class to prosperity." On the July 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Varney claimed that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is "bedrock Obama policy of redistributing the wealth." Varney further alleged that "the Obama administration thinks it's better to reshape America along the lines of failed European socialism than it is to restore America's middle class to prosperity."

Varney accused Obama of creating an "un-American, almost anti-American mentality." On the March 29 edition of Hannity, Varney claimed that President Obama is "creating an un-American, almost anti-American mentality":

He's creating an un-American, almost anti-American mentality, a mentality of something for nothing: You have a right to a house, a right to a job, a right to medicine, a right to health care. You do not. This society doesn't confer those rights upon you. You have a right to compete for housing, for a job, for health care, fair enough. But it's that entitlement mentality that's just like Europe.

Varney claims Obama "is going to demonize you if you make a profit ... for being competitive and aggressive." On the July 13 edition of Hannity, Varney claimed that as a small business owner you small business owners "know full well" that under Obama's economic policies "your taxes are going up. You know perfectly well that the regulatory climate is going to be really awful. You know full well that this president is going to demonize you if you make a profit, demonize you for being competitive and aggressive."

Fox's Varney to caller who suggests Obama is intentionally destroying the economy: "You are so right." On the July 9 edition of Kilmeade & Friends, Varney responded to a caller who suggested that Obama was intentionally destroying the economy by saying "Oh, man, you are so right":

CALLER: All right, Stuart, if someone wanted to destroy the American economy and ensure that there would be no growth and it would be stagnated for generations to come, wouldn't you do exactly what Obama's doing to it?

VARNEY: Jack, oh, man, you are so right. I hate to agree with you, but you, sir, are right. We're heading towards disaster here. The brick wall is ahead of us.

KILMEADE: But I will fight him on this. I don't think it's intentional. I believe he believes in what he's doing, I don't think he's doing it to destroy the country.

VARNEY: He wants to reshape America in the wrong way.

Varney: Violent G-20 protesters are putting "what President Obama has been saying" into practice. On the June 28 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Varney claimed that the protesters who demonstrated at the G-20 summit were "radical environmentalists" who are "looking at what President Obama's been saying about the demonization of business and putting it into practice."

Varney: Obama's call for BP escrow account is "Hugo Chavez-like." On the June 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Varney called the BP escrow account to cover expenses from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill "Hugo Chavez-like" because the government was "seizing private assets and just sticking them into the control of politicians."

Varney claimed that the federal government has "demonized" and "looted" BP. On the June 16 edition of Glenn Beck, Varney complained that the government has "successfully demonized and now looted BP." Varney continued his accusations against the Obama administration, claiming that they will use the escrow fund to "send" to "their political buddies."

Varney says BP escrow account to compensate Gulf residents will be "political slush fund." On the June 15 edition of Hannity, Varney referred to the BP escrow fund as a "political slush fund":

VARNEY: He's going to force BP to put, what, $20 billion into this fund. Now legally, constitutionally, you can't do that. He's got to get BP to agree to put that money in.

DANA PERINO (Fox News contributor): Which they have -- which they've already said they would do.

VARNEY: They'd probably do it.

HANNITY: Yes.

VARNEY: But he's going to tell them, "You've got to do it, and you've got to restore the entire Gulf." Now you've just set up a very large -- I'm going to call it a political slush fund -- $20 billion under the control of politicians appointed by the White House? What are they going to do with that money? Where is it going to go?

Fox News' Varney: Obama administration will "coerce or force us all into buying the small cars that it insists Detroit puts out." On the March 31, 2009, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Varney claimed that following the governmental action, General Motors is "now an Obama company" and "will be run according to political criteria." Varney then stated that the Obama administration's policies will "coerce or force us all into buying the small cars that it insists Detroit puts out."

Fox News has forwarded Sheriff Joe Arpaio's claim that he is cooperating with a Department of Justice investigation into charges of racial profiling, and that the investigation is politically motivated. However, Arpaio's own lawyer has reportedly acknowledged that they have not fully cooperated, and the inquiry began during the Bush administration. 

DOJ files suit against Arpaio for not fully complying with investigation

On September 2, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County, Arizona, the county's Sheriff's Office, and its sheriff, Joe Arpaio, over the defendants' alleged "refusal to cooperate with reasonable requests for information" in the DOJ's investigation of "alleged national origin discrimination" in Maricopa County. According to the complaint, the "preliminary inquiry" into whether Arpaio's department has discriminated on the basis of national origin in its police practices and jail procedures began in June 2008, under the Bush administration. The "investigation" was announced in March 2009.

Fox News whitewashes Arpaio's refusal to fully cooperate with the investigation

York on Your World: Arpaio and his lawyers "maintain that they have cooperated fully and they've given the Justice Department everything." Your World with Neil Cavuto guest host Stuart Varney hosted the Washington Examiner's Byron York on September 3 to discuss the lawsuit filed against Sheriff Arapaio. York stated that Arpaio and his lawyers "maintain that they have cooperated fully and they've given the Justice Department everything."

Cavuto hosts Arpaio to claim "[W]e've been cooperating recently ... What else can we do?" Sheriff Arpaio appeared as a guest on the September 2 edition ofYour World with Neil Cavuto. On the program, Arpaio claimed that the lawsuit is politically motivated and that it came as a surprise because his lawyers had been "cooperating recently" with the Justice Department. Arpaio also suggested that the DOJ had planned the suit despite his office's cooperation "to embarrass me and embarrass the people of Arizona." Cavuto did not push back against this statement, instead immediately changing the topic to the movie Machete and stating, "This must not be an easy time for you, Sheriff."

Ingraham forwards claim that the lawsuit "is really nothing more than an attempt by Washington to intimidate anyone who is on the side of enforcing" immigration laws. Filling in for Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham introduced the premise of the DOJ's lawsuit, then quipped, "Funny, since the Feds don't believe illegals should be forced to provide documents to the police to prove they're here legally as we saw in their lawsuit earlier this summer against Arizona." When her guest, Susan Church, an immigration attorney, stated that Arpaio had refused "for 15 months to provide documents that he's legally required to hand over to the federal government," Ingraham responded:

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, I think what his office has said, Susan, is that, you know, this allegation against him is really nothing more than an attempt by Washington to intimidate anyone who is on the side of enforcing these laws. And your comments about the sweep are frankly not born out by any evidence in the public domain. This is circumstantial, hearsay evidence that you're floating on FOX to tar this man's reputation.

He has a right to pull people over who he believes with probable cause are violating the law. At that point, his argument is that, well, they check immigration status as he was allowed to do when he was allowed to do it. Okay? That's what his argument is. 

Arpaio reportedly not cooperating "to the extent requested by the investigators"

Arpaio's attorney reportedly told DOJ to "Drop dead" on some document requests. The Arizona Republic reported on August 5 that Arpaio's office said it will not cooperate with the entirety of the DOJ investigation because it believes it has no obligation to do so:

[Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas] Perez released a letter to Arpaio on Tuesday that threatened the Sheriff's Office with a lawsuit if Arpaio's agency failed to cooperate with the investigation into allegations that Arpaio's deputies have a "pattern and practice" of targeting Hispanic residents because of their race.

The Thursday afternoon reply by Arpaio's attorney, Robert Driscoll, stresses that the Sheriff's Office has cooperated with the investigation in the portion that deals with discrimination in county jails. The sheriff's refusal to cooperate is tied only to a portion of the investigation looking into the patterns and practices of deputies on the street.

"The record's pretty clear that they set (the investigation) up as two distinct things, and on ... the jail stuff, we've cooperated," Driscoll said. "With respect to the other stuff, we've said 'Drop dead', essentially, because they've never said what they want."

AZ Republic: "Arpaio's team believes the investigation into jail conditions is the only piece of the investigation with which the Sheriff's Office is obligated to cooperate." The Republic reported on August 14 that the Justice Department investigation into Arpaio's office is examining both police practices on the street and county jail practices. The report further stated that "Arpaio's team believes the investigation into jail conditions is the only piece of the investigation with which the Sheriff's Office is obligated to cooperate":

When the Justice Department announced its civil-rights probe in March 2009, it came with a letter indicating there were actually two investigations taking place: one dealing with access to services for county jail inmates who don't speak English well, the other dealing with racial profiling on the street.

The parties involved still cannot agree on which parts of the civil-rights investigation concern conditions in the jails and which deal with the street-level enforcement. The work of sheriff's deputies has led to claims of racial profiling when Arpaio conducts immigration-enforcement operations.

The cooperation comes thanks to a federal law that allows federal investigators access to records and facilities for organizations that receive federal funding. The risk of not complying is that federal funding could be taken away.

The Sheriff's Office believes that section of law, known as Title VI, applies only to the investigation into jail conditions.

"The issue I raised is: To what extent does the Title VI investigation overlap with the police-practices investigation?" asked Robert Driscoll, an Arpaio attorney. "We're willing to cooperate with a legitimate Title VI investigation."

County administrators believe Arpaio's refusal to cooperate with any aspect of the Justice Department's investigation could put the county at an increased risk of losing federal funding - and put Maricopa County taxpayers at risk.

This week's letter exchange marks the most recent round of note passing among attorneys for the county, Arpaio and the Justice Department.

Earlier this month, Perez sent Arpaio a letter saying his department could sue the Sheriff's Office if Arpaio refuses to turn over documents related to the investigation. Arpaio's attorney responded days later saying that the Sheriff's Office is cooperating with the jail investigation, as it is obligated to do, and reiterated the agency's refusal to cooperate with the street-enforcement investigation.

Arpaio's attorney reportedly "agreed to cooperate but not to the extent requested by investigators." The Republic reported on September 3 that "Attorneys for the Sheriff's Office repeatedly have said they were cooperating with the civil-rights probe but set conditions on the breadth of documents they would release and when." The article further reported that in a letter sent to the Department of Justice last week, Robert Driscoll, an attorney for Arpaio, "agreed to cooperate but not to the extent requested by the investigators." From the September 3 article:

Attorneys for the Sheriff's Office repeatedly have said they were cooperating with the civil-rights probe but set conditions on the breadth of documents they would release and when. Last week, a sheriff's attorney said in a letter to the Justice Department that he had not agreed to their deadlines.

On Thursday, federal officials made good on their threat to sue. Justice Department officials could not point to a case within the past 30 years in which they had to sue a law-enforcement department to provide access to information.

Dennis Burke, U.S. attorney for Arizona, said that Arpaio's behavior is "self-serving" and pointed out that the Sheriff's Office is legally obligated to provide access to records and facilities because the office receives federal money.

[...]

The complaint details the back-and-forth discussions between the Sheriff's Office and the Justice Department, culminating in Driscoll's letter last week. In that letter, he agreed to cooperate but not to the extent requested by the investigators.

Driscoll had met with Justice Department officials just days earlier. In a memo of that meeting, a chief in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division detailed the records that must be produced and asked to tour six jails and interview staff about a range of issues, including intake and booking procedures, and language and interpretation services. Investigators also requested documents related to arrests dating to January 2008.

The attorney asked the Justice Department to be more specific about what it wanted and indicated he would not make a Sept. 10 deadline.

Burke said Driscoll's response triggered the lawsuit. "The letter contradicts what they said in the meeting," he said.

NY Times: DOJ "issued 51 requests for documents, most of which Sheriff Arpaio's department ignored." The New York Times reported on September 2:

The Justice Department issued 51 requests for documents, most of which Sheriff Arpaio's department ignored, as well as asking for tours of department facilities and interviews with commanders, staff members and inmates.

Sheriff Arpaio, who has denied that he engages in racial profiling, has remained defiant of the government's investigation. His lawyers have repeatedly refused to provide the documents sought by the Justice Department or provide unfettered access to its facilities.

DOJ complaint outlines timeline of document requests. According to the complaint, the Justice Department issued 51 requests for documents on March 25, 2009, and Arpaio's office provided only some of the documents before stating that it would not cooperate with the investigation. The complaint states that Arpaio's office then offered "limited cooperation" and produced a document in June 2010 that was "fully responsive to only two of the fifty-one requests." On August 24, DOJ met with Arpaio's office and then "clarified and narrowed the scope of the two document requests as to which MCSO [Maricopa County Sheriff's Office] had requested clarification." According to the complaint, Arpaio's office responded with an August 27 letter stating that it would not fully cooperate with the investigation.

Since President Obama's election, Fox personalities have expressed opposition to or called for the repeal of virtually every progressive achievement of the 20th century, including Social Security, Medicare, the Americans with Disabilities Act, portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

17th Amendment

16th Amendment

Americans with Disabilities Act

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Nuclear arms control

Abortion rights

Labor unions

Department of Education

Unemployment insurance

Environmental Protection Agency

Progressive taxation

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

Social Security is a federal social insurance program funded through payroll taxes that provides benefits to the elderly and disabled and their survivors. It was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935. Medicare and Medicaid were established by the Social Security Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. They provide health insurance to the elderly and the poor. All three programs have been defended by progressives and opposed by conservatives for decades.

Beck: Social Security and Medicare "represent socialism and should have never been created." On the January 27 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck said:

Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should have never been created in the first place? Oh, gosh, Democrats, this is a scary question. Another trap. You know what? It's only scary if you don't know who you are or what you believe in.

I'm an American. I read. I believe in the Constitution. And, of course, Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should have never been created. Since FDR and his progressive buddies started Social Security, not our Founding Fathers, that should be fairly obvious to people.

Beck's "Plan": Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are "going away." On the April 12 edition of his Fox News program, promoting the next day's show about his "Plan" for entitlement spending, Beck said: "Tomorrow, we're going to roll up our sleeves and begin. We're going to cut health care. Right now, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are 40 percent of our budget. They're going away. It's going to be ugly, a lot of crying, but America needs a cure."

Tucker Carlson: "Unfortunately" Republicans won't "state unequivocally" they "want to do away with" Medicare and "most" Social Security. On the April 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity (accessed from the Nexis database), Fox News contributor Bob Beckel asked Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson, "Why don't you just state unequivocally that you want to do away with Medicare, which is what the Republicans want to do, and do away with most Social Security?" Carlson replied, "Unfortunately, they don't. Unfortunately, they don't. Unfortunately, most Republicans in positions of elected authority are unwilling to -- are unwilling to look right in the camera and say, 'We're going to have to pull back on entitlements.' "

Bolling is glad the young will have to work rather than rely on the "Ponzi scheme" of Social Security. On the July 24 edition of Fox News' Bulls & Bears, Fox Business host Eric Bolling said that "it's good" that a poll indicates that many young adults don't expect to receive Social Security -- which he called a "Ponzi scheme" -- because "they realize that they're not going to be able to suck at the teat of the nanny state too much longer, get off their butt, work, put some money away, and not have to rely on a system that's going to fold probably by the time they collect a check." On the August 14, 2009, edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, Bolling said "they should rename it the Madoff Social Security system."

Hannity relentlessly pushes false claim that Social Security and Medicare are "bankrupt." Since January 1, Sean Hannity has falsely claimed that Social Security is "bankrupt" or will shortly become bankrupt at least ten times, and falsely claimed Medicare is "bankrupt" or on the verge of bankruptcy at least 11 times. In fact, according to the 2010 report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, Social Security is estimated to pay out full benefits "by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084." The report likewise says of Medicare, "The projected date of HI [Hospital Insurance] Trust Fund exhaustion is 2029 ... at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 85 percent of HI costs. The share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues is projected to decline slowly to 76 percent in 2045 and then to rise slowly, reaching 89 percent in 2084."

17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment provides for the direct election of U.S. Senators, rather than their selection by state legislators. It was passed by Congress with the support of progressives and submitted to the states in 1912 under President William Howard Taft. It was ratified under President Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Recently, tea party activists and Republican members of Congress have called for its repeal.

Napolitano: "I would repeal the 17th Amendment." In an interview with Reason magazine published April 8, Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano was asked what he considered "the single most important reform." He replied, "I would repeal the 17th Amendment," which he called "unconstitutional" because it "abolished bicameralism." He added that the amendment "was an assault, an invasion on the infrastructure of constitutional government."

Huckabee: 17th Amendment "one of the dumbest things we ever did." On the October 16, 2009, edition of Fox News Radio's Brian & The Judge, Fox News host Mike Huckabee said that Republicans should consider calling for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, then said that we should "talk about -- this is one of those things that senators would never agree, but one of the dumbest things we ever did in this country was the 17th Amendment." He added:

The original Constitution and the way we operated for the first 120 years of our existence, senators were appointed by state legislators to represent the broader interests of the states to make sure the federal government didn't take too much power into itself. And most people don't even remember that. But we have had an increasing problem of too much centralization of federal power at the expense of local and state governments -- the antithesis of our Constitution -- because we've put all this power in the popular election of senators and representatives.

Beck: Wilson "supported" amendment, "when I see Woodrow Wilson, I immediately know -- bad thing!" On the June 11 edition of his Fox News show, Beck said of the 17th Amendment, "Like all bad things it started in 1913, Woodrow Wilson yet again. He supported this. Immediately now, when I see Woodrow Wilson, I immediately know -- bad thing! You can be quite certain that something is not going to have a good outcome if Woodrow Wilson was involved." He also commented that "Thomas Jefferson warned about" direct representation, and said that that absent the 17th Amendment, "Obama's health care bill would have never seen the light of day. A lot of things that they do in Washington would never have seen the light of day. Why? Because it wouldn't in the interest of your state." Beck later added that "it's taken them over 200 years to remove all those roadblocks, but they're almost done. Maybe it's time to put a few of them back."

16th Amendment

The 16th Amendment allows Congress to collect income taxes. It was passed by Congress and submitted to the states in 1909 and ratified in 1913, both under President Taft. Republican congressmen have called for the amendment's repeal.

Huckabee: "I think we ought to talk about repealing the 16th Amendment." On the October 16, 2009, edition of Fox News Radio's Brian & The Judge, Huckabee said, "I think we ought to talk about repealing the 16th Amendment, which authorizes the IRS."

Napolitano has repeatedly called for "floating" a constitutional amendment that "abolishes the 16th Amendment." On the April 28, 2009, edition of Glenn Beck (accessed from Nexis), Napolitano said, "How about floating a constitutional amendment amongst the states? Let's rescind the 16th Amendment. That's the income tax. If 25, 30 states start thinking about it and talking about it seriously, the Congress will take note because they will be scared to death it will starve them out of existence. And they won't be able to regulate progressively or retrogressively how we live." Likewise, on the May 6, 2009, edition of The Glenn Beck Program, asked by Beck about "this solution that you and I have talked about on a constitutional amendment, or a threat of a constitutional amendment," Napolitano said:

If two-thirds of the states ask the Congress to call a constitutional convention to consider the adoption of this amendment, which I'll describe in a moment, as it gets closer and closer to the two-thirds necessary and Congress would be required to call the convention, you'll see some reaction on the part of congress to attempt to placate the states that want to call this. Now, the constitutional amendment is a simple one. It simply abolishes the 16th Amendment and states affirmatively that Congress shall have no power to tax the personal incomes of individual persons. If that were enacted, it would starve the federal government back into the original footprint that the founders intended for it. But as it gets closer to enactment, Congress will have to do something for fear that it might be enacted.

Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), originally sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and then-Representative Tony Coehlo (D-CA) and signed by President George H.W. Bush, "prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental activities." Recently, it has been attacked by conservative pundits and candidates. 

Stossel: "well-intentioned" ADA "unleashed a landslide of lawsuits," "requires that people be treated unequally." In his September 1 column, Stossel attacked the ADA, saying that it "requires that people be treated unequally" by requiring employers to accommodate disabled employees. He added:

The law has also unleashed a landslide of lawsuits by "professional litigants" who file a hundred suits at a time. Disabled people visit businesses to look for violations, but instead of simply asking that a violation be corrected, they partner with lawyers who (legally) extort settlement money from the businesses.

Stossel: ADA is "doing the disabled more harm than good." On the September 2 edition of Fox & Friends, Stossel said that the ADA is "doing the disabled more harm than good." Stossel said that "all these laws mean well," but that "these laws always have unintended consequences, and often they are worse than the good that the law was supposed to do."

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- signed by President Lyndon Johnson and opposed by then-Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater -- "prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal."

Stossel calls for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act. On the May 20 edition of Fox News' America Live, Stossel said that "it's time now to repeal" the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination by private businesses, "because private business ought to get to discriminate."

Stossel repeatedly defended his advocacy for a right to discriminate. Stossel reiterated his call to eliminate the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act in two FoxBusiness.com blog posts, on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, and in his syndicated column.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Johnson after he "issued a call for a strong voting rights law," outlawed a number of discriminatory voting practices, including requiring literacy tests as a prerequisite for voting.

Briggs: Enforcement of Voting Rights Act "not a proper use of funds." During the August 31 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Dave Briggs claimed that the Department of Justice "is demanding" that election officials in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, "print ballots in Spanish," and said, "The cost, again, $500,000 estimated, for what some say is 6,000 voters, which does sound like not a proper use of funds." He then asked a guest, "But, beyond that, I mean, do you think this is something that is absolutely required, is necessary, in our country?" According to media reports, at issue is a provision of federal law originally enacted in the Voting Rights Act explicitly protecting the right to vote of Puerto Rican voters educated in U.S. schools regardless of their ability to understand English.

Nuclear arms control

For decades, presidents of both parties negotiated and signed treaties with the Soviet Union (later Russia) to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both nations. President Ronald Reagan, who signed the START I treaty, repeatedly stated that his "ultimate goal" was the "total elimination of nuclear weapons." More recently, conservatives have panned President Obama's new START treaty, which would further reduce nuclear arsenals, and even questioned the importance of nuclear reductions in the first place.

Hannity: "We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons," "we can never return to a world" without them. In Sean Hannity's 2010 book, Conservative Victory, Hannity writes:

[W]e must be committed to retaining our position as the world's greatest superpower, by maintaining the world's strongest military and supporting our troops on and off the battlefield. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons and must persist in perfecting our strategic missile defenses. [Page 222]

He also writes:

Conservatives, on the other hand, recognize that we live in a dangerous world, and that the world will always be dangerous because human beings are fallen. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle; the world has changed; much as we would like, we can never return to a world without nuclear weapons. [Page 209]

Abortion rights

In the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, and in the second and third trimesters under certain circumstances. Since then, progressives have traditionally argued in favor of the decision and the right it preserved, while conservatives have opposed it.

Napolitano compared Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott case. On the April 28, 2009, edition of Glenn Beck, Napolitano said:

Dred Scott is a slave who was taken to a free state, Illinois, and while there, sues for his freedom. The case goes up and down, up and down. It finally goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could have said slavery is lawful. The Supreme Court could have said all human beings are free and he's free.

Instead it said, blacks are not persons and therefore don't have the right to bring lawsuits. This horrific determination by a court that a class of human beings are denied personhood -- fast forward a hundred years -- is the same logic the Supreme Court used in Roe versus Wade -- babies in the wombs are not persons.

Hannity calls for "protecting the lives of the innocent unborn" by "striving for the appointment of Constitution-respecting judges." In Conservative Victory, Hannity writes:

I certainly can't, in good conscience, make a raw political calculation about protecting the lives of the innocent unborn as casually as if we were talking about a no-smoking ban in a restaurant. We must continue to press for restrictions on abortion (such as parental notification) while striving for the appointment of Constitution-respecting judges and continuing our nonpolitical efforts to persuade Americans of the horrors and immorality of abortion. [Page 152]

Ingraham: "49 million babies have been aborted since Roe versus Wade. Five abortion doctors. It's all killing and it's all terrible." On the June 4, 2009, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, contributor Laura Ingraham said (accessed from Nexis):

[W]hen you talk about the issue of abortion, and someone killing an abortion doctor, that allows you to create sympathy for the entire abortion movement. And 60,000 dead as you pointed out by the hands of George Tiller. Five abortion doctors have been killed since Roe versus Wade. Five.

Now it's horrible, but 49 million babies have been aborted since Roe versus Wade. Five abortion doctors. It's all killing and it's all terrible. 

O'Reilly repeatedly called Dr. Tiller "the baby killer." On numerous instances in 2009, Bill O'Reilly referred to Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer." After Tiller's murder, O'Reilly repeatedly falsely claimed that he had only "reported" anti-abortion groups referring to Tiller in that fashion.

Labor unions

In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act "to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices." Labor unions have long been part of the progressive coalition, while conservatives have worked to limit their right to bargain collectively.

Regular Fox segment: "Unions: Can America Afford Them?" Fox News and Fox Business regularly run segments titled, "Unions: Can America Afford Them?"

Varney: Unions are "the antithesis of freedom," "fortunately" private sector unions "have retreated," but public sector unions are still a "problem." On the September 4 edition of Fox Business' Freedom Watch, asked by Napolitano for his "observations from your native country in England" about whether "unions help or hurt the average worker," Varney replied: "Unions were a disaster for the British economy. They are the antithesis of freedom. They impose rigid workplace rules that have no place in a modern economy." Later, Varney commented: "Fortunately, unions have retreated in the private sector. It is in the public sector where they rule, and that is the nature of some of our problems." He added that "taxpayers" and "the concept of freedom and liberty" "suffer" from the existence of unions.

Kristol: "Thank God most of the workforce isn't unionized." On the October 18, 2009, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, contributor Bill Kristol declared: "Thank God most of the workforce isn't unionized."

Beck says unions have "raped" police and fire fighters. On the August 4 edition of his radio program, Glenn Beck said of unions: "Look what they've done to the police and firemen. They've raped these guys. Along with politicians. Along with politicians -- raped them. The bravest among us." Beck went on to ask, "What, do you think the politicians are not in bed with the unions?"

Beck blames unions for woes of local governments and industries. On the February 25 edition of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck blamed unions for the financial woes of local governments, the auto industry, airlines, schools, the steel industry, and the textile industry. He continued: "Mr. President, until you get the unions out of this business, I don't think we have anything to talk about."

Beck regularly attacks union members as "thugs." On numerous occasions on both his Fox News and radio programs, Beck has referred to union members as "thugs" or "enforcers."

Carlson blames cost of living in NYC on "union pensions" and "raising taxes" for "schools." On the August 5 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asserted that the cost of living in New York City, California, and Honolulu is "so expensive" "because of union pensions; because of raising costs for other things; for raising taxes along the way for schools." Carlson concluded: "If you go back in history and look at who incorporated a lot of that, maybe the blame comes right back to the same party. Or maybe it doesn't."

Cavuto tells union spokesman: "You politely do your Tony Soprano thing, albeit in your little sweater vest there." During the January 11 edition of Your World, Stewart Acuff of the Utility Workers Union of America appeared to discuss union leader opposition to a tax on health care plans backed by President Obama. Host Neil Cavuto told Acuff: "You politely do your Tony Soprano thing, albeit in your little sweater vest there, 'cause you're such a decent guy, but you're saying 'Mr. President, may I remind you that you are sitting in this room because of us.' Which is a very nice way of saying, 'Tread slowly, big guy.' "

Cavuto likened unions to Hurricane Earl on a "collision course on our towns." During the September 2 edition of Your World, Cavuto compared unions to Hurricane Earl, saying, "The monster and the mess. Your World on top of Earl's collision course with our coast and what could be unions' collision course with our towns." Cavuto added: "And get ready for Earl's wallop and, to hear some state and local governments tell it, unions' direct hit on their wallet."

Department of Education

The Department of Education was established by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 and serves to "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." Conservatives have long called for the Department's dissolution.

Beck's "Plan": "[A]bolish the Department of Education." On the April 14 edition of his Fox News show, while detailing his "Plan" for the U.S. budget, Beck said: "We need to get control of our schools back to the parents, back to the states. The best way to do this is to abolish the Department of Education. We certainly don't need to be giving them more money. The federal government should only be responsible for the things that the states cannot do."

Unemployment insurance

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act, signed by President Roosevelt in 1939, together with the Social Security Act of 1935, established the modern U.S. system of unemployment insurance, in which employers pay payroll taxes to the federal and state governments which are used by the states to finance benefits to those who become unemployed through no fault of their own. Conservatives have often attacked the system of unemployment insurance as well as those who receive unemployment benefits.

Varney seizes on claim that "unemployment would be at 6.8 percent, not the 9.5 percent," if Congress hadn't "extended unemployment benefits." On the August 31 edition of Fox & Friends, Varney cited a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Harvard economics professor and Hoover Institute senior fellow Robert Barro to claim that, in Varney's words, "If we had not extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks from the standard 26 weeks, [Barro] says, unemployment would be at 6.8 percent, not the 9.5 percent." According to Varney, Barro argued that "you extend benefits like this, and it discourages people from going out to look for work especially, you know, the start of the benefit period, because it's nearly two years." Barro's theory and similar claims -- that extending unemployment benefits in the current recession provide a disincentive for people to find work -- have been widely disputed by experts. 

Kilmeade: "Maybe" eliminating "unemployment benefits will get people to sober up" and get jobs. On the July 15 edition of Fox & Friends, referencing Senate Republicans who had blocked extending unemployment benefits, co-host Brian Kilmeade told Partnership Staffing Inc. CEO Bill Auchmoody that "maybe" the elimination of "unemployment benefits will get people to sober up and take some of your offers."

Hannity falsely suggested Fed said unemployment benefit extension increased ranks of those without jobs. On the February 22 edition of his show, Hannity claimed that the economic recovery act "actually raised unemployment," citing minutes from a January Federal Reserve meeting to falsely suggest that the extension of unemployment benefits in the recovery act increased the number of people who don't have jobs. In fact, the Federal Reserve minutes Hannity cited actually stated that the provision had the effect of raising the measured unemployment rate because people who lost their jobs sought to remain in the workforce in order to receive benefits rather than leaving the workforce and being counted as "discouraged workers" instead of "unemployed."

Bolling: Unemployment benefits are about "allowing someone to stay out of work for longer." On the February 11 edition of Your World, Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute explained to guest host Bolling how unemployment benefits provide economic stimulus and create jobs. Bolling replied, "Had you told me that some of the tax credits, or the payroll tax holidays were a good thing, I probably would have agreed with you, but when you tell me that another entitlement program -- allowing someone to stay out of work for longer -- and you tell me that's a job creator, I'm just going to have to disagree with you."

Beck: Unemployed workers who don't take low-paying jobs have "sold their soul" to the government." On the August 12 edition of his radio show, Beck said that "you now have people who are on unemployment, but they wont' take another job," purportedly because they pay less than unemployment benefits. Beck said that those people "have sold their soul to the government, they have sold their pride."

Beck on "some" protesting expiration of unemployment benefits: "I bet you'd be ashamed to call them Americans." On the August 16 edition of his Fox News show, Beck discussed a protest of "99ers," people whose unemployment insurance benefits have run out after 99 weeks. Beck said:

The 99ers. These people, some of which I -- frankly, I bet you'd be ashamed to call them Americans. They think that 99 weeks on unemployment benefits just aren't enough. Last week, they went out to Wall Street and they protested. Ninety-niner Connie Kaplan asked, "Are you going to tell us, Mr. President and Congress, that our lives are not worth saving?"

Connie, here's an idea. I'll save your life. Don't spend your remaining money on travel to get to a protest. Go out and get a job. You may not want the job. Work at McDonald's. Work two jobs.

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 under President Richard Nixon and works to "protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends." Its work has long been opposed by conservatives.

Gingrich: EPA "needs to be replaced." In his 2010 book, To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Fox contributor Newt Gingrich writes: "The EPA has become an engine of undemocratic bureaucracy filled with people who seek to impose their fanatical views on an unwilling American population. The EPA and its entire regulation-litigation, Washington-centered, command-and-control bureaucracy needs to be replaced." (Page 151)

Gingrich does not explain in the book what he proposes to replace the EPA with. Asked that question during a May 17 interview on Fox News Sunday, Gingrich did not answer directly, instead saying:

Well, first of all, in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, you have a -- you have a bureaucracy which is self- selected of people who believe they have the right to make the most amazing micro-management judgments around the whole country.

And if you look at the degree to which they now issue rules, believe they can regulate the entire carbon economy -- and again, you want to talk about socialism. How about having a government agency of unelected people who decide they can literally rewrite the entire economy based on carbon?

And I think it's very hard to reform an agency which has spent two generations recruiting people who are more and more anti-business, more and more anti-commercial activity, and who represent a value system that's very hard to deal with.

Progressive taxation

Liberals traditionally support progressive taxation, in which those with less income are taxed at a lower rate than those with higher incomes. Conservatives have opposed that system of taxation in favor of "flat taxes" in which everyone pays the same tax rate.

Beck lashed out at "protected poor" taking tax money from the rich. On the January 12 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck used pie as a prop to show how the "protected poor" in the "bottom 50 percent pays only 3 percent of everything that we spend" while the "evil rich people" in the top one percent of income earners pay much more:

Here's the pie. This represents all of the money that we have in the federal government, all the taxes that are paid. Well, let's see who isn't paying their fair share. You decide. Is it the top 1 percent? This is the entire budget, all of our revenue, all of our revenue. How much do the top 1 percent pay?

Only -- only about this much. That's it. Only -- it's gonna be -- if I can get underneath here, and it's going to be yummy. Only about this much. That's the top 1 percent. Oh, I hate those evil rich people! When will they pay their fair share? This again is 1 percent. OK?

Now, how about the top 2 percent to the top 10 percent? OK? So, this would include the 1 percent here and the rest of them in the top 10 percent. That would be -- let's see -- that would be about here. We have from 2 percent to 10 percent, they're paying -- hmm, doesn't the pie look yummy now? I want some, seriously. OK, so that's -- this is the top 10 percent. So, I got to put 10 people in the pie. That's 10 people.

Now, we've got now 71 percent of the pie. The top 50 percent of pie- eaters account for -- now, this is the rest of the top 50 percent -- and that's going to be these people. Got it? We got to put 50 people to pay for that piece of pie. One, nine, fifty.

This represents the bottom 50 percent. They pay -- do I have any more? Yes. They pay the bottom 3 percent. OK? So, don't you hate this one guy? Oh, my gosh, he's just not paying enough. Got it? He's paying 40 percent.

Now, the top -- the bottom 3 percent I have to -- I have to let you know, the bottom 50 percent, that 3 percent, they pay -- the bottom 50 percent pays only 3 percent of everything that we spend. The rest of it is put in a protected poor pie place. They got their own pie, never even touched. In fact, from time to time -- it's so great -- from time to time, we just whip people up in such a frenzy where we're like, "I hate those people. Give them some pie!" Every year, we just give them some of the more -- yeah, we just give it to them, because we hate the top 1 percent. We just take more of their pie and we put it in the protected zone now.

Nobody, nobody could get in the protected zone. No! Don't take the poor pie. It's these people that we hate. These people are good. Got it?

Hannity repeatedly makes false complaint that "half of Americans ... don't pay taxes." Sean Hannity has complained over and over that "50 percent of American households no longer pay taxes," using the purported fact to ask, "What does that mean for America if you have a voting electorate that's not paying any taxes?" In fact, while 47 percent of U.S. households will reportedly pay no federal income tax in fiscal 2010, as the Associated Press noted, "[t]he vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property."

The right-wing media responded to Obama's new six-year jobs plan by rehashing the tired falsehood that the 2009 stimulus "failed." In fact, the stimulus has been estimated by both the White House and independent analysts to have increased employment by about 2 million jobs relative to a baseline estimate of what jobs levels would have been without the stimulus.

Right-wing media: Obama's new jobs plan is the "same failed and expensive Keynesianism that he tried in February 2009"

Morrissey: Obama's jobs plan "same failed and expensive Keynesianism that he tried in February 2009." In a September 6 Hot Air post, right-wing blogger Ed Morrissey falsely claimed that the stimulus bill of 2009 was a "failed policy" while discussing Obama's new jobs proposal:

 What happens when over a hundred billion dollars in borrowed cash gets plunged into infrastructure spending and it fails to kick-start the economy?  According to this administration, spend another $50 billion on the same failed policy. Barack Obama will unveil his new economic stimulus plan in Wisconsin today, while Russ Feingold looks for a place to hide:

[...]

In this election cycle, pork may be all Democrats can use as an argument for re-election.  They certainly larded the first stimulus bill with plenty of home-town pork, and with $50 billion more in borrowed cash, don't expect them to be shy the second time around.

However, don't expect it to work, either.  The original Porkulus had $105 billion in so-called "infrastructure investments," and none of it produced any economic growth.  Transportation accounted for $48 billion; energy infrastructure and R&D got the same amount of money.  Housing got $10 billion.  Front loaded or not, the money got allocated and borrowed, and we're back to flatlining economic growth just eighteen months later -- only now we have a lot more debt on top of the other problems we had.

[...]

Update: Commenter PattyJ wonders if anyone actually saw "infrastructure" being built from the original Porkulus.  Sure, I did; I did a couple of driving trips through Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Missouri over the past year and saw plenty of ARRA signs on road construction projects.  One local project closed an important freeway interchange for two months when it didn't even have surface issues to repair.  Most of them were just accelerated wish-list projects that were not needed and didn't produce any lasting jobs at all.  That was certainly the case for that remodeled interchange.

Krauthammer on Obama's six-year economic plan: "[E]ven Lenin had the modesty to stop at five." On the September 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer remarked on Obama's six-year plan that "even Lenin had the modesty to stop at five." From Special Report:

KRAUTHAMMER: This is a classic example of an administration acting for the appearance of activity. It doesn't have a clue what to do. It just threw a half a trillion dollars on the first stimulus. As we saw earlier in the show, almost 60% of Americans think it did absolutely nothing. And they have no ideas. The economy is still in a ditch, so they come up with a mini version of this, which will be throwing $50 billion, it will not leave a trace unlike the interstate highway system, TVA, or the Hoover Dam, which were real infrastructure ideas. This will not leave, absolutely nothing will be left behind. And it is going to be a very temporary fix.

I like the way the president announces we hear this is going to be a six-year plan. Even Lenin had the modesty to stop at five.

Varney on stimulus plan: "It hasn't worked." On the September 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Stuart Varney again falsely claims that the 2009 stimulus "hasn't worked." Varney declared that Obama's infrastructure investment plan is "a stimulus for the unions," and he later added:

VARNEY: You had stimulus plan number one, a great big one,18 months ago. Now you got stimulus plan number two. It's all about government spending. Take it from this group, spend it on that group, and it hasn't worked. The public knows. It's alienated individuals.

Independent and private analysts agree stimulus significantly raised employment over what would have happened otherwise

CEA: ARRA raised employment "by between 2.2 and 2.8 million." In its third quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA] of 2009, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the first quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.2 and 2.8 million. These estimates are similar to those of other analysts, and are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2009:Q4."

CBO estimates job impact of between 1.2 and 2.7 million. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in February that as of the fourth quarter of 2009, "ARRA added between 1.0 million and 2.1 million to the number of workers employed in the United States." The CEA report stated that CBO estimates that as of the first quarter of 2010, the Recovery Act raised employment by between 1.2 and 2.7 million.

IHS/Global Insight estimates job impact of 1.7 million. PolitiFact.com stated on February 17 that "[u]sing updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved by the first quarter of 2010." The CEA report also cites this estimate from IHS/Global Insight.

Moody's economy.com estimates job impact of 1.9 million. The PolitiFact post further stated that "[u]sing updated estimates provided to PolitiFact ... Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved" by the first quarter of 2010. The CEA report also cited this estimate from Moody's economy.com.

Macroeconomic Advisers estimates job impact of 1.5 million. The CEA report stated that Macroeconomic Advisers estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 1.46 million as of the first quarter of 2010, citing an analysis provided to CEA.

Administration's estimate of stimulus job impact calculated from "the no-stimulus baseline." In a January 9, 2009, report on the job impact of a "prototypical" stimulus package "in the range that the President-Elect has discussed," Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein estimated that a stimulus package would raise employment by between "3.3 to 4.1 million jobs" by the end of 2010. The report clearly notes that this estimate is calculated "relative to the no-stimulus baseline."

As he attempts to rebrand himself as a spiritual leader, Glenn Beck has surrounded himself with religious and secular figures who share a fervent opposition to the "homosexual agenda."

David Barton
James Dobson
Randy Forbes 
Maggie Gallagher
Jim Garlow
John Hagee
Terence Henry
Alveda King
Richard Land
Daniel Lapin
Patrick Lee
Richard Lee
Miles McPherson
Chuck Norris
Sarah Palin
James Robison
Charles Stanley

David Barton

David Barton, founder and president of WallBuilders, spoke at Beck's August 27 event, "Divine Destiny." He also led the August 16 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, one of a series of recorded prayers posted online in the days leading up to Beck's rally.

Opposing military service by gay men and lesbians, Barton argued that homosexuality "was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss." In a 2001 article posted to the WallBuilders website, Barton argued that "there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military." Barton wrote that "General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military." He further stated that "Based on the statutes, legal commentaries, and the writings of prominent military leaders, it is clear that any idea of homosexuals serving in the military was considered with repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for differing interpretations. The thought of lifting this proscription is a modern phenomenon, and would have brought disbelief, disdain, and condemnation from those who established our Armed Forces." After explaining why "the military [should] be concerned with a person's morality," Barton discussed why "homosexuality [should] concern a society:"

Why Should Homosexuality Concern a Society? 

Public discussions concerning homosexuality are a purely recent phenomenon; it was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss. Consider, for example, the legal works of James Wilson, a signer both of the Declaration and the Constitution and appointed by President Washington as an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson was responsible for laying much of the foundation of American Jurisprudence and was co-author of America's first legal commentaries on the Constitution. Even though state law books of the day addressed sodomy, when Wilson came to it in his legal writings, he was too disgusted with it even to mention it.

[...]

In view of the arguments listed by historical and legal sources, there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military. The Founders instituted this ban with a clear understanding of the damaging effects of this behavior on the military. This ban has remained official policy for over 200 years and one would be hard-pressed to perceive the need for altering a policy which has contributed to making America the world's foremost military power.

Barton reportedly spoke at event to promote gay-marriage amendment. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on November 11, 2005, (accessed via Nexis) that Barton was among the speakers at an event designed to promote a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage:

 At the end of a day of presentations from leading state and national social conservatives, participants were asked to sign a five-point pledge to pray for the proposed constitutional amendment, preach "on God's plan for marriage," collect petitions, register voters and distribute information on the amendment effort.

 [...]

The pastors' summit was organized by the Minnesota Family Council in the belief that "the only thing that stands in the way of legalization of same-sex marriage in Minnesota is the church," said Chuck Darrell, of the council's Minnesota for Marriage project.

Attendees heard speakers who described how pastors have spearheaded marriage amendment drives in states from Oregon to Maine, offered tips for churches to get active without forfeiting tax-exempt status and recounted the history of religious leaders engaging in the American political culture.

David Barton of the Texas-based group Wallbuilders said the Bible condemns not only homosexuality but also capital-gains taxes, progressive income taxes, estate taxes and minimum-wage laws.

State Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, the Legislature's chief proponent of the proposed amendment, led one session on its uncertain status in Minnesota, while her husband, Christian therapist Marcus Bachmann, led another on "the truth of the homosexual lifestyle."

Barton's group published election guide claiming Obama "supports curriculum that promotes homosexuality. WallBuilders published a voting guide in 2008 claiming that Obama supports "Homosexual Education," i.e. "curriculum that promotes homosexuality," and did not "refuse to support gay pride celebrations."

James Dobson

Beck identified James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, as one of the figures who played a key role in helping him gather other religious figures to start his Black Robe Regiment.

Dobson endorsed a sermon blaming "lesbian sex" for the "wrath of abandonment" by God, which could result in destruction of a U.S. city. On the June 4, 2007, edition of his radio show, Dobson broadcast and endorsed a sermon by John McArthur, which announced that "You know a society has been abandoned by God when it celebrates lesbian sex," and that as a result of America's abandonment, "God would be just" in destroying a U.S. city. During his introduction to the sermon, Dobson stated: "I happen to agree with what John MacArthur was saying on this day, and I want to thank him and his team and Woodman Valley Chapel for allowing us to share this message."

Dobson predicted that same-sex marriage would lead to "group marriage," incest, bestiality. On the October 7, 2005, edition of his radio show, Dobson predicted that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey." Dobson called this vision of the future "more or less a prophecy," though, he stressed, not a "divine prophecy, but a prediction." He said that his specific examples, as well as "anything allegedly linked to civil rights," will be "doable, and the legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed" if same-sex marriage is legalized.

Dobson claimed homosexuality results when a child doesn't "reattach to his father" emotionally. On the November 22, 2006, edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Dobson offered the following explanation for what causes homosexuality: "[I]t has to do with an identity crisis that occurs too early to remember it, where a boy is born with an attachment to his mother and she is everything to him for about 18 months, and between 18 months and five years, he needs to detach from her and to reattach to his father. It's a very important developmental task and if his dad is gone or abusive or disinterested or maybe there's just not a good fit there. What's he going to do? He remains bonded to his mother."

Dobson joined Medved in warning about the homosexual "subtext" in children's film Happy Feet. During the December 11, 2006, edition of Dobson's radio show, guest Michael Medved claimed that the children's film Happy Feet, an animated film about penguins living in Antarctica, contains a "subtext, as there so often is, about homosexuality." Dobson then questioned whether the filmmakers are "getting at the idea that homosexuality is genetic."

Calling for a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage, Dobson wrote that the "homosexual activist movement ... is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family." In his September 2003 newsletter headlined "Marriage on the Ropes," which is still available on Focus on the Family's South African Randy Forbes (R-VA) led a prayer during "Divine Destiny."

Forbes cosponsored the "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would amend the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of a man and a woman." Forbes cosponsored proposed constitutional amendments in both the 111th Congress and the 110th Congress that would define marriage as only "the union of a man and a woman." From the bills' text:

Section 1. This article may be cited as the 'Marriage Protection Amendment'.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Forbes on banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation: "Eventually if we chip away at enough of our values we'll lose our foundation." In a November 8, 2007, Washington Times article (accessed via Nexis) on the House passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, the paper reported that "[s]ome conservative lawmakers also say extending special rights to homosexuals could harm protections granted to married couples." It then quoted Forbes as saying that "[t]his country's great because of the ideals of our Founding Fathers, but eventually if we chip away at enough of our values we'll lose our foundation."

Maggie Gallagher

Maggie Gallagher is a member of Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment.

Gallagher is a professional anti-gay activist. Gallagher is the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and is the founder and chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Both groups are virulently opposed to the "threat to marriage" they claim is posed by same-sex marriage. Under Gallagher's leadership, NOM spent nearly $2 million in support of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

Gallagher: Polygamy is "better" than same-sex marriage, "winning the gay-marriage debate" comparable to the fall of Communism, losing that debate "means losing American civilization." In a July 14, 2003, National Review column, Gallagher claimed that "[p]olygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better," because "[a]t least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children." Gallagher went on to argue that there has not been a "culture that has survived without a reasonably functional marriage system" and that losing the debate over gay marriage "means losing American civilization." She also likened the battle over gay marriage to the battle against communism, stating that "[w]inning the gay-marriage debate may be hard, but to those of us who witnessed the fall of Communism, despair is inexcusable and irresponsible."

Gallagher supports constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In her March 3, 2004, testimony before the Senate's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, Gallagher expressed her support for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage. Gallagher concluded that "when we lose the ideal" of a marriage between a man and a woman, "the likelihood of deprivation, poverty and suffering for children dramatically increase." She also criticized the argument that discriminating against same-sex couples is akin to discriminating against interracial couples, claiming that "[t]he race analogy implies that people who believe that children need mothers and fathers are the legal and moral equivalents of racists," and stated that "[l]aws banning interracial marriage had nothing to do with the purposes of marriage. They were about keeping two different races separate so that one race could continue to oppress the other. Marriage, by contrast, is about bringing two different sexes together."

Gallagher opposes same-sex marriage, claiming "[i]t's wrong for government to base a policy on a lie about human nature." In a April 9 speech at Franciscan University, Gallagher expressed her opposition to same-sex marriage, stating that "marriage is the union of a man and a woman because children need a mom and a dad." She also contended that "[i]t's wrong for government to base a policy on a lie about human nature." Gallagher included "[t[he same-sex marriage battle" as a "part of a larger crisis in marriage" that she had been combating for 20 years.

Gallagher suggested same-sex marriage would set the legal precedent for polygamy. In a May 20, 2008 op-ed, Gallagher alleged that California's decision to allow same-sex marriage set the precedent for polygamy. Gallagher claimed that "the California court grounded same-sex marriage in a larger human right to form families of choice and to have the government sanction all family forms as having equal dignity" and asked: "Polygamy anyone?" Gallagher also attacked California's ruling, claiming that "Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims who see marriage as the union of husband and wife, and view sexual activity as best confined to marriage so defined, are in the exact position as racists under California law."

Gallagher suggested same-sex marriage will redefine "infidelity" and "monogamy." In a June 17, 2008, op-ed, Gallagher suggested that gay marriage would lead to a redefinition of "infidelity" and "monogamy" in our culture:

Oddly, at the moment of its greatest apparent victory, the consequences of gay marriage are becoming ever more clear.

As the gay marriage movement becomes more confident of inevitable victory, it is also becoming more open and explicit about what gay marriage will mean for the rest of us. 

For example, redefining "infidelity." Back in the '90s, when Andrew Sullivan first suggested gay couples had a thing or two to teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual fidelity, public reaction was so negative that he recanted (and to this day he gets mad if you even mention he said it!).

But from the new-won confidence of his legally recognized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Eric Erbelding is quite comfortable explaining to The New York Times: "Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical." Eric says most married gay couples he knows are "for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way."

For the most part ... except for the casual three-way?

Try explaining that one to your wife.

But hey, if the word "marriage" can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like "monogamy" or "fidelity"?

Gallagher: "Many gay married couples reject 'heteronormative' assumptions about marriage." In another June 17, 2008, article, this time for National Review Online, Gallagher claimed that "many gay married couples reject 'heteronormative' assumptions about marriage." She again cited Andrew Sullivan and Eric Erbelding's comments about fidelity and monogamy and also cited those of David Benkof, "a gay columnist who gave up sex with men when he adopted a Torah-observant lifestyle" who criticized the "[p]roblematic kinds of relationships that are 'commonly found in the LGBT community but virtually unheard of among opposite-sex couples.'" Gallagher also claimed that polygamy could be the "next natural step" of same-sex marriage and that "if fidelity in marriage is culturally optional ... the case for monogamy will surely be weakened as well." 

Jim Garlow

Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, led the August 19 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer.

Garlow: "We need to repent of those that would try to destroy marriage." Leading the August 19 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, Garlow discussed what it means to "restore honor." Garlow proceeded to attack abortion, euthanasia, government debt, and same-sex marriage:

It means that we have to move back to integrity. We have to move back to embracing moral values -- God-given, biblical values. And so as a nation, we need to repent of certain things -- the repenting of 50 million babies being killed in the womb. We need to repent of a debt that 535 people in Washington, D.C., along with an executive officer, would run our nation in such severe debt that they would literally involved themselves in robbery and debt of future generations. They would be taking property, in effect, from those yet unborn. That's immoral. That's a Biblical issue.

We need to repent of those that would try to destroy marriage, the definition of marriage, and redefine it so that little children -- little boys and little girls -- would have two daddies and two mommies. In other words, 100 percent of those families would lack either a mommy or a daddy, the most bedrock institution in all of history.

During Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, Garlow plugged website which opposes same-sex marriage. During his morning prayer, Pastor Garlow plugged the website Prayandact.com several times. The "About" section of the website lists "three foundational principles of justice and the common good," including the "sacredness of marriage as the covenantal union of husband and wife." The website "call[s] on all faithful Christians to join us in the fight to ... protect and revitalize marriage." In addition to Garlow, Black Robe Regiment members James Robison and Richard Land are listed on "The People" section of PrayandAct.com.

Garlow "founded and led" group of pastors that campaigned for California's Proposition 8. According to his bio, Garlow "founded and led the California Pastors Rapid Response Team, a group of several thousand pastors that was committed to preserving the traditional, natural definition of marriage as being one man, one woman, which recently experienced a victorious campaign with Proposition 8 receiving over 7 million votes, 52.3% of the vote." Proposition 8, passed in 2008, amended the California state constitution to provide that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Garlow: Same-sex marriage will lead to churches being "forced to hire active homosexuals," pastors "imprisoned" for preaching against "homosexual acts." In an August 6 statement responding to a federal court overturning Proposition 8, Garlow wrote: 

The day will come -- not immediately, but eventually -- unless this foolishness is ended -- when churches will be forced to hire active homosexuals. Pastors will be forced to perform gay marriages, or their churches will lose their 501(c)3 status, and consequently, in many cases, they'll lose their church buildings. Like [Swedish] Pastor Ake Green, pastors will be fined and imprisoned for advocating a biblical view of homosexual acts.

Although critics scoff at this suggestion, they most certainly don't seem too concerned about the thought of it happening. They suffer from a severe case of political amnesia, forgetting that there was a day -- not so long ago -- when the radical homosexual agenda was satisfied with "civil unions" and "domestic partnership" saying, "we will never ask for the word 'marriage.' " Only the most historically inattentive could fail to note these continual gradations.

Garlow reportedly encouraged his followers by telling the story of a pastor who told him same-sex marriage would unleash "a spirit worse than radical Islam." On October 2, 2008, Sandhya Bathija of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State listened in on a conference call organized by Concerned Women of America in which Garlow spoke with participants about campaigning for Proposition 8. According to Bathija, Garlow offered the following encouragement to the callers:

"When I find myself up past the midnight hour," he said, "asking 'why am I doing this?' I think of the conversation that took place in Cairo, Egypt, between an Egyptian Christian pastor who has been severely persecuted by Islam and a man named Lou Engle" (Engle is the theocracy-minded founder of The Call, a fundamentalist youth movement, who is leading a 40-day fast to pass Proposition 8.)

"When Lou was in Cairo, Egypt," Garlow continued, "this pastor said to him, as a pastor that suffers at the hands of radical Islam, he said, 'The eyes of the world are on California. We're watching California and the vote on marriage. Because if you fail there to stop it, if you fail to stop it, what will be unleashed across the world will be a spirit worse than radical Islam.' "

John Hagee

John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, spoke at "Divine Destiny."

Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was God's response to the city hosting a gay pride parade. On the September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air, Hagee said:

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

Hagee said the coming Antichrist will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual." On March 16, 2003, Hagee reportedly gave a sermon in which he warned of the coming Antichrist, which he described as a seductive figure with "fierce features," as well as "a blasphemer and a homosexual."

Terence Henry

Father Terence Henry, president of Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, led the August 26 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer.

Henry: People "who do not honor or acknowledge God" want to "redefine the institution of marriage." Leading the August 26 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, Henry invoked the people in our country that "do not honor or acknowledge God." He said, "They want to exercise control over life at its very beginning through abortion, and the power to end lives if they deem them no longer useful, through euthanasia. They want to redefine the institution of marriage, as revealed by God in the Book of Genesis. They, in effect, want to substitute themselves for God, which is the Original Sin." During the prayer, he also compared Beck to Paul Revere.

Franciscan University reportedly bans "groups that promote homosexuality." According to a March 7, 2008, report in The New York Sun, a guide of conservative Catholic schools lists Franciscan University as one of several Catholic colleges that "often require several courses in Catholic theology and ban co-educational housing, as well as groups that promote homosexuality."

Franciscan University offers courses that refer to homosexuality as "deviant behavior" that "beset" the "inalienable rights and duties of parents." Franciscan University's 2010-2011 undergraduate course catalog lists courses titled "Deviant Behavior" and "Human Life Studies II: Life Issues and the Family" that include the study of homosexuality as a "deviant behavior" and a "social force" besetting the family:

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.

[...]

HUMAN LIFE STUDIES II: LIFE ISSUES AND THE FAMILY explores the social, historical, political, and ethical dimensions of the family and the inalienable rights and duties of parents, which are beset today by such social forces as divorce, homosexuality, radical feminism, population control, eugenics, and State control of the family. An appreciation of the family and the duties and rights of parents is central to respect for the dignity of human life.

Alveda King

Alveda King, niece of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., spoke at Beck's August 28 event at the Lincoln Memorial.

At Beck's "non-political" event, King spoke out against same-sex marriage. Despite Beck's repeated insistence that the event would be non-political, King used her speech to warn that the "procreative foundation of marriage is being threatened," and listing that as one of the reasons "America is nearly bankrupt."

King compared same-sex marriage to "genocide." At an August 7 National Organization for Marriage Rally in Atlanta, King said: "It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman. I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to be extinct and none of us wants to be. We don't want genocide, we don't want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage."

King reportedly told Coretta Scott King her support for abortion rights and gay rights would bring "curses on your house and your people." On August 27, Salon reported of Alveda King: "In 1994, she released a letter condemning Coretta Scott King's support for abortion and gay rights, saying it would bring 'curses on your house and your people ... cursing, vexation, rebuke in all that you put your hand to, sickness will come to you and your house, your bloodline will be cut off.'"

King: Repealing DOMA would "unleash a storm of sexual immorality." In a column published November 17, 2008, by LifeSiteNews.com, King wrote: "Add to this Mr. Obama's unprecedented support for homosexual rights and anti-procreative marriage legislation, which includes his promise to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and which would unleash a storm of sexual immorality such as America has never seen: then we can see which way the wind is blowing."

King: Obama's purported "support of gay marriage" is "anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." In a August 15, 2008, Townhall column, Floyd and Mary Beth Brown quoted King as saying, "Senator Obama's answer to the ills of society, of higher government spending, weaker national defense, continued tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and support of gay marriage, are diametrically opposed to everything African Americans truly believe and an anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."

Richard Land

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is a member of Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment.

Land expressed his desire to instruct his parishioners to vote against candidates who support same-sex marriage. During an interview with Media Matters' Joe Strupp, Land said he planned to boost voter involvement in his church and guide parishioners to use their voting rights to influence government decisions. As Strupp reported:

Land also said he planned to boost voter involvement and guide parishioners to use their voting rights to influence government decisions on many issues.

"Energizing all of our members to register to vote, to be informed as to where the country stands on issues and leave it to them to connect the dots," Land said. "I will do my best to make sure they know what the bible says about the sanctity of human life, marriage and the notion of man."

Asked to be more specific on which issues he would discuss with parishioners with regard to voting, he cited abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide and out-of-wedlock births.

"I think gay marriage is an oxymoron," Land said. "Marriage is between a man and a woman."

Land's group filed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8. On August 16, CNSNews.com reported:

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the judge's finding was disturbing, but predictable -- his denomination had filed a "friend of the Court" to challenge the finding even before the decision was issued.

"We filed an amicus brief case in this case because we had already heard that this was out there, and that the people who were making the appeal to overturn Proposition 8 were going to say that the religious beliefs of Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics and other groups 'create an animus' and were 'the products of centuries of hate,'" Land said.

The biblical position on homosexuality isn't "hate speech," he said.

"The confession of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, which states what the Bible says about the family and about marriage - those are not the products of centuries of hate or animus toward homosexuals. They are adherence to the revealed teachings of the Creator of the universe -- God Almighty. These are religious affirmations of revealed truth," Land said.

"It is quite clear that God condemns same-sex relations as particularly abhorrent. And if that is indeed the case, and we believe it is, it is an act of love towards those who are engaged in such relationships to tell them that they are violating the most sacred laws of God," he said. "It would be indifference -- or worse -- to not tell them."

Land called for a constitutional amendment "defining marriage as being between one man and one woman." In an August 4 statement reacting to the ruling that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Land said:

"If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they're going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges.

"Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It's called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California -- if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat -- then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Land called decision of CA Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage "incredible judicial arrogance." On the August 16 broadcast of his radio show, Land called the California Supreme Court's 2008 decision to allow same-sex marriage, and the implementation of that decision, a case of "incredible judicial arrogance," and mocked the court for having found "some previously undiscovered constitutional right for people of the same sex to get married to each other."

Daniel Lapin

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of the American Alliance of Jews and Christians, spoke at "Divine Destiny" and led the August 17 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer. Lapin is also a member of Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment.

Lapin claimed that "in time," "homosexual behavior does indeed threaten the durability of a society." In a May 9, 2005, column co-written with Rev. Ken Hutcherson, Lapin responded to criticism of his position on homosexuality. He and Hutcherson said that "homosexual behavior does indeed threaten the durability of a society -- maybe not immediately, but in time." They further stated that "[b]y the time the perils of homosexual marriage become obvious, it might well be too late" because "[i]t is hard, if not impossible, to think of a society for which rampant homosexuality was not a symptom of impending extinction."

Lapin compared a gay pride event in Jerusalem to "the Nazis marching in Skokie." In an April 6, 2005, article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Lapin was quoted saying his initial reaction to hearing about a 10-day Jerusalem World Pride festival was "that it was déjà vu ... This was the Nazis marching in Skokie." Lapin was referring to an incident in 1977 when the National Socialist Party of America -- an American neo-Nazi group -- attempted to stage a march in Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that was home to a large population of Holocaust survivors. Lapin claimed that he was "not saying that the homosexuals are Nazis," but that "there is such a thing as deliberate provocation. To hold the march in Jerusalem, which is certainly the center of biblical civilization -- and this is the same Bible that tells us that homosexuality is immoral -- is a provocation."

Lapin referred to the decision to support defining marriage as only between a man and a woman as choosing "life over death." In a column for United Press International (accessed via Nexis), Rabbi Lapin lamented the fact that Americans were ignoring a Senate vote against a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only "the union of a man and a woman." Lapin suggested to "those who ignore the public debate on homosexual marriage and to those who feel it is irrelevant in their lives and to those who advertise their tolerance by singing 'live-and-let-live,' " that "the time has come to choose continuity over change. The time has come to choose heaven over earth, and yes, life over death."

Lapin praised Schlessinger for opposing "the radical project of gay activists ... to eliminate religious values from public life." In a May 30, 2000, press release, came under fire for controversial remarks on homosexuality. He continued by praising the fact that Schlessinger "opposes the radical project of gay activists, and the secular Left in general, to eliminate religious values from public life." Lapin also criticized Procter & Gamble for withdrawing as a sponsor of Schlessinger's show for being an "example of how often ideology trumps business judgment. P&G has always marketed its products to families. Very few homosexuals buy Pampers."

Lapin: Same-sex marriage "has the potential to cause significant damage to the essence of our society." In a statement on the Vermont Supreme Court's decision to grant marital benefits to same-sex partners, Patrick Lee, a professor of bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville, spoke at "Divine Destiny."

At Beck's "non-political" 8-27 event, Lee denounced same-sex marriage. Despite Beck's repeated insistence that the event would be non-political, Lee stated during "Divine Destiny" that marriage "is not up to our choice, rather marriage has an objective nature, and we as a community must respect the true nature of marriage."

Lee: The argument that that "same-sex unions are marriages ... harms children and families" is "sound." In a July 1, 2008, article for The Monist, Lee wrote that he agreed with the argument made by professor Margaret Somerville that allowing the "political community [to] declare that (some) same-sex unions are marriages ... harms children and families," saying that "Margaret Somerville's argument is sound," and adding that same-sex couples who raise children are not married, just as hetrosexual couples who choose not to raise children are not married:

Should the political community declare that (some) same-sex unions are marriages? Margaret A. Somerville has ably argued that it should not, that doing so harms children and families. Adele Mercier vehemently disagrees, describing Professor Somerville's argument as "contorted," "circular," based on "inert premises;" accusing her of multiple confusions, and of harboring "hidden (or at least unacknowledged) motives."

I argue, on the contrary, that Margaret Somerville's argument is sound, the confusions attributed to her by Professor Mercier are not actually in her argument, and so we need not speculate about Professor Somerville's motives. Her motives are likely just what they appear to be, and what I hope are Professor Mercier's too, namely, a lively concern for families and married life, and for the legitimate rights and well-being of everyone affected by what the political community affirms in its laws regulating marriage.

The argument advanced by Margaret Somerville is essentially this. In every society we find the following type of relationship: an inherently procreative relationship between men and women, that includes a commitment to share their lives with each other, and if children come to be, to rear those children together. That such a community does exist in every society is indisputable. Of course, other relationships are sometimes called by the word 'marriage', but these are different types of relationship. For example, men and women may cohabit and view children as merely an optional extra or as burdens to be avoided. Or two or more individuals may form a friendship for the sake of raising children--for example two sisters, or several celibate religious men or women. But neither of these relationships should be described as marriages. Finally, two people of the same sex may perform sexual acts on each other, may have a friendship, and also be dedicated to raising children together. But this also is not the same type of community as marriage; for in this arrangement, the sexual relationship is unrelated to the purpose of raising children.

Lee: "If the state declares same-sex unions equivalent to marriage, it obscures the nature of marriage ... Doing that will almost certainly further weaken the institution of marriage." In the same article, Lee wrote:

A second reason why the political community should protect and promote genuine marriage is this: where this institution is strong, people's sexual passions and energies--which are frequently difficult to control, and can lead to self-centeredness and exploitation--are channeled toward an intelligible good. It is not that the sexual impulse must be repressed; rather, it needs to be directed to a genuine good.And the intelligible goods it realizes and promotes are marriage itself and families built on the foundation of marriage. In a good marriage one's sexual desires and actions are integrated into one's commitment to one's family and spouse. If the state declares same-sex unions equivalent to marriage, it obscures the nature of marriage--a community that transcends romantic affections. In effect, it will send themessage that marriage is centrally about the romantic attachment andsexual relationship of adults to (or among) each other rather than about a relationship which by its nature is oriented to and suited forbecoming family. Doing that will almost certainly further weaken theinstitution of marriage.

Lee: Legalizing same-sex marriage would "inevitably send" fathers the message "that their role is despensable." In the same article (later portions accessed via Nexis), Lee wrote:

Ideally, then, the child should be raised by his or her own loving and responsible biological parents. In a society that respects, promotes, and protects genuine marriage, this will happen much more frequently than in a society which in effect falsely tells fathers that their role is dispensable--a message that redefining marriage to include same-sex unions would inevitably send. For, since most same-sex couples have no intention of raising children, and since a same-sex union is not especially suited for that--in contrast to genuine marriage--to declare same-sex unions marriages would affirm that marriage is essentially concerned only with sexual or romantic relationships between adults, rather than a community structured by its orientation to becoming family. This would affirm, as Professor Somerville points out, that marriage is a mere social construct rather than a natural institution antedating the legal pronouncements of the state. Moreover, there would then be no principled reason why marriage should be long-lasting, or only between two people, these requirements being logical consequences of marriage's orientation to children.

Richard Lee 

Richard Lee, founding pastor of First Redeemer Church in Atlanta, is a member of Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment.

Lee launched petition campaign in support of Sen. Sam Nunn's opposition to "lift[ing] the ban on military service for homosexuals." According to an April 3, 1993, article in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution (accessed via Nexis), Lee placed ads in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution and the New York Times "encouraging people to sign petitions supporting Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in his opposition to President Clinton's announced intention to lift the ban on military service for homosexuals." Lee also reportedly "said he does not support a possible compromise on the issue ... that would simply eliminate questions about sexual orientation from military enlistment documents." Additionally, the article quoted Lee encouraging Nunn "to remain strong in his original statements that homosexuals have no place in the military."

Lee: "Preserving the traditional family is vital to the future of any great nation." In his June 2009, article on the "Seven Principles of the Judeo-Christian Ethic," Lee wrote:

The biblical view of marriage and family is the basis of our society and serves as the backbone of a healthy social order. The clear plan of God involves a man and a woman producing children within the institution of marriage. Since the joining together of Adam and Eve, marriage has been defined as a holy union between one man and one woman, and out of that union comes children born into a loving home with a father and a mother to nurture them and teach them how to become healthy, productive and responsible citizens.

When God's definition of "marriage" and "family" are no longer respected, these institutions become meaningless. World history has proven over and again that preserving the traditional family is vital to the future of any great nation.

Miles McPherson

Miles McPherson, pastor of The Rock Church in San Diego, spoke at "Divine Destiny."

McPherson linked homosexuality and pedophilia, called on congregation to "protect the children" from the "homosexual agenda." As blogger and author Alvin McEwen noted, McPherson wrote a May 30, 2004, weekly message on his church's website entitled "Sodom and Gomorrah, A City Inflamed," in which he advanced false claims about a purported connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. As McEwen reported, the post has since been removed from McPherson's site, but is still available from the Internet Archive (PDF version). From the message:

Even in today's society there are absolute moral laws in practice; rape and murder are universally condemned as wrong, yet there is an agenda being pushed on us that says homosexuality is normal and natural and right.

Consequences of a Homosexual Lifestyle

God's Word tells us differently and He provides us of the evidence that homosexuality is not natural or normal. There are physiological repercussions from homosexual behavior; male homosexuals are 430 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual, while heterosexuals have a 1-in-750,000 chance of contracting the virus responsible for HIV, a male homosexual has a 1-in-165 chance of getting HIV. A 20 year old gay male has a 30% chance of either dying or contracting AIDS before the age of 30. They are also 23 times more likely to get other sexually transmitted diseases than a heterosexual.

There are also moral repercussions stemming from homosexual behavior as evidenced by the fact that one third of all sexual crimes against children are committed by homosexuals even though they are representative of only one percent of the population. Pedophilia has even been called central to the gay lifestyle. The agenda of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is to lower the age of consent so that sex with children will be legal.

Emotionally people suffer from homosexuality. Gays are five times more likely to commit suicide than a straight person. They are suffering depression because of God's judgment and their alienation from Him. So God not only tells us what is right and wrong but that by continually doing what is wrong there will be consequences and this is all evident to us so we have no excuse in suppressing the truth.

McPherson's post also called on his congregation to take action against the "homosexual agenda":

• The righteous pray for God's intervention. We need to at the very least protect the children with our prayers and actions. Talk to your schools, your churches and your congressmen about your opposition to the homosexual agenda.
• The righteous provide for security, like Lot who would not allow the angels to sleep outside and counseled them to leave the next morning.
• The righteous point out sin and the coming judgment. This leads to the righteous being called judgmental because people do not like to be told they are wrong.

The righteous response by God will be that He will warn us as he did with Abraham. He will save the righteous as He did with Lot and finally He will stop the spread of sin through judgment, as He did with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God's grace is the only thing that protects us from suffering the penalty for our sins which is death.

McPherson: "Satan uses the marriage issue to attack the image of God." As blogger Jeremy Hooper noted, on June 9, 2008, McPherson wrote of same-sex marriage: "This isn't a political or cultural battle; it's a spiritual battle being fought right before your eyes. This issue is so much bigger than either side realizes. As Satan uses the marriage issue to attack the image of God, I urge you to pray for our state." The post has since been removed from McPherson's site, but is still viewable on the Internet Archive (PDF version).

McPherson reportedly "campaigned in support of Proposition 8." Los Angeles Times reported that McPherson "campaigned in support of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California."

Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris, a syndicated columnist, spoke at "Divine Destiny."

Norris: "we should ... adamantly oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools." From Norris' March 25, 2008, column:

Lastly, I was appalled when I read the American Family Association report that on Friday, April 25, several thousand schools across the nation will be observing a "Day of Silence," or DOS, which is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. (DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group - the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.)

Is encouraging or teaching about homosexuality what our forefathers expected for the public education they founded? Even the most liberal among them opposed it. For example, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia, in which he proposed that the penalty for sexual deviance should be unique corporal punishment. Jefferson's views were indeed representative of early America.

"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least" (Bill 64, 1779). Can you imagine a statesman proposing such a law today?

While I'm not of course espousing such treatment, I do believe that we should equally and adamantly oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools through textbooks or a so-called "Day of Silence."

Norris said supporters of CA marriage amendment were "following 5,000 years of human history," defending "honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage." From Norris' November 17, 2008, column on Proposition 8:

The truth is that the great majority of Prop 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the beliefs of every major people group and religion - that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of their rights - they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

Norris defended Boy Scouts over anti-gay policy. From Norris' June 28 column: 

New York is not the only city in which the BSA is feeling some backlash. Since 1928, the BSA in Philadelphia has been housed in a government building rent-free. The city of Philadelphia decided to revoke this special housing-provision privilege because, officials said, BSA's national policy banning gays violates the city's nondiscrimination policies. (On Wednesday, a Philadelphia jury ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, meaning they will not be evicted from their home or forced to pay rent, at least for now.)

One 1991 BSA position statement states: "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts."

Wouldn't you think with all of the cultural hot water the BSA are in, in our courts and in the public square, that the honorary president of the BSA might defend their First Amendment rights to assemble and believe as they have for 100 years?

[...]

President Obama became the honorary president of the BSA in March of 2009, and the White House didn't even mention it. And ever since, any discussion or interactions with the BSA have been "don't ask, don't tell." And how could they, since the president would then have to publicly acknowledge that, as honorary president of BSA, he affirmed the Scout Oath, belief and policies, which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership, and "avowed" homosexuals from leadership roles?

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin spoke at Beck's August 28 event at the Lincoln Memorial.

Palin opposed extending benefits to same-sex couples. In a 2007 interview with Newsweek, Palin expressed her opposition to granting same-sex couples benefits that married couples receive:

In an August 2007 interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said she had upheld such benefits (angering fellow conservatives) but only because the state Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to deny them:

NEWSWEEK : And do you have a position on that? Would you like to see it? Do you care?

PALIN: I would vote to further define the definition of marriage as it pertains to benefits even--yes, I would.

NEWSWEEK: That is, not extend benefits to same-sex couples?

PALIN: Correct. And if it took an amendment to our constitution, I would go there ...

Palin: "I wish" there were a federal amendment baring same-sex marriage becase "I don't support gay marriage." In an interview with CBN's David Brody, Palin stated that she had "voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman." She continued by expressing her support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, stating: "I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage."

Palin refered to homosexuality as a "choice." In an interview with CBS's Katie Couric on September 30, 2008, Palin responded to media reports about whether the Wasilla Bible Church had "sponsored a conference where gays could be made straight through prayer." Palin claimed that "the media gets it wrong" and that she didn't "know what prayers are worthy of being prayed." Palin further elaborated on the issue of homosexuality stating: "I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships." Palin continued to explain that a gay friend of hers "happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made" to be gay.

James Robison

James Robison, founder of LIFE Outreach International ministry, led the August 25 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer. Beck also cited Robison as a founding member of Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment.

Robison referred to homosexuality as "detrimental to society." A May 25, 2003, article on Robison in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram quoted the pastor responding to criticism of his views on homosexuality by saying, "Don't call me homophobic. Don't put some fascist title on me because I believe your lifestyle is detrimental to society. ... But now you can practice your lifestyle."

Robison warns of coming "self-destruct[ion]": "if we can just keep getting more of our men to have sex with more men, we won't have to worry about babies being born." On the December 2, 2004, edition of NPR's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross aired a clip from the documentary With God on Our Side: George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right, in which Robison warned of self-destruction caused by men having sex with men, among other things:

GROSS: Let's hear another archival clip from With God on Our Side. This is evangelist James Robison.

ROBISON [audio clip]: Mr. Lincoln said, "We may very well self-destruct." You don't have to look too long to see the possibility of it today. After all, if we can just keep getting more of our men to have sex with more men, we won't have to worry about babies being born. And if we can just get more women to get out there in the marketplace and start acting like men, and if we can just get other women to look at motherhood as though it is some dread terminal illness, if we can just get society so drunk and so drugged, if ever anybody does get pregnant, then we can abort the baby! That's where we are!

Charles Stanley

Charles Stanley, senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, led the August 27 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer.

Stanley: "[N]othing is happy or gay about the destructive behavior of homosexuality." In his book Landmines in the Path of the Believer: Avoiding the Hidden Dangers, Stanley sermon about the "rising tide" of socialism in our country, Stanley purported to enumerate the various pieces of evidence of a "war" on Jesus and Christianity taking place in the U.S. He highlighted removing "God's word concerning marriage" and said that "a home is not two men married together, or two women married together, it is a husband and a wife.":

And then, of course, one other thing at this point as far as this tide is concerned, is we've decided to remove God's word concerning marriage. The very foundation of a nation is its homes. And a home is not two men married together or two women married together, it is a husband and a wife.

The Bible is crystal clear. So you see, if you want to have a society that is rampant with wickedness, you have to get rid of the word of God. So we've decided or trying to decide, some people are, that we do not want the Biblical view of marriage.

Following Fox News' lead, conservative media outlets celebrated Labor Day by attacking labor unions, often smearing them as "socialist" and violent.

Conservatives attack unions as "socialist" "thugs" on Labor Day

Beck guest host Thompson: "Happy socialism day!" During the September 6 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, substitute host Doc Thompson opened the show by saying "Happy socialism day!" He continued:

Today is America's yearly tribute to that great political system known as socialism. Oh there are going to be those who are going to pretend today is to honor workers, honor the people who labor, we're just giving a little tribute to them. But it's really a day that honors labor unions.

Breitbart.tv posts "Labor Day Special" videos, which depict union members as "thugs." On Labor Day, Andrew Breitbart's website Breitbart.tv posted several anti-union videos with the title "Labor Day Special." Several of the videos depict union members as "thugs" who engage in acts of violence or intimidation against those with which they disagree.

Big Government claims organized labor "embrace[s] socialist ideals" and calls for Congress to "abolish 'Labor Day.'" In a Labor Day post on Breitbart's Big Government website, Kyle Olson argued that " 'Labor Day' ought to be abolished and replaced with a celebration of the American Worker" because "[t]he reality is, unionized workers are no longer the ones driving America's prosperity." Olson also wrote:

Big Labor is bankrupting government -- and we should continue honoring that?

Perhaps even worse, today's labor leaders are downright hostile to America's exceptionalism and worse yet, embrace socialist ideals.

AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka is calling for a global financial tax -- driving us down the path of one world government.

Former SEIU heavy Andy Stern was fond of invoking Karl Marx' calling for "workers of the world" to "unite."

These are not out fathers' and grandfathers' labor unions and they do not deserve our admiration.

Malkin column highlights "Big Labor's legacy of violence." Malkin marked the occasion with a column and blog post on "Big Labor's legacy of violence," in which she highlighted alleged past incidents of violence at union protests to smear unions as being filled with and lead by violent thugs. She posted a picture of President Barack Obama and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka with the caption "Thugs-in-chief" and concluded her column by declaring that the "bloody consequences of compulsory unionism cannot be ignored." From her September 3 blog post:

Fox News also attacked unions in the run-up to Labor Day

As Media Matters documented, numerous Fox News personalities bullied organized labor in the days leading up to Labor Day. For instance:

• Beck: "I think the unions are like Biff," the bully from Back to the Future. During the September 2 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck said, "You know what I think of some of the unions? I actually think of Back to the Future. I think the unions are like Biff." Beck showed a clip featuring Biff Tannen, the bully in the film, and added, "But in the end, once you really realize who they are and you're not afraid anymore, it always turns out exactly the same way for the bully every time." Beck then showed a clip of Biff working for the man he originally bullied.

• Malkin accused unions of embezzlement, violence, and corruption. During the September 2 edition of Fox News' America Live, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin accused labor leaders of "embezzlement," "violence," and "corruption."

• Varney: There will be "[t]wo more union outrage stories to bring to you in our next half-hour." During the September 2 edition of Fox Business Network's Varney & Co., guest Joseph Caruso criticized a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would allow more shareholders of public companies to use proxy votes to nominate board members. Caruso claimed that unions would use the rule to "wreak havoc" by nominating labor-friendly board members. In response, Fox Business' Charles Payne suggested, "So, this will be used more as a tool of intimidation than anything else." In a subsequent tease, Varney said, "Two more union outrage stories to bring to you in our next half-hour."

• Cavuto likened unions to Hurricane Earl on a "collision course on our towns." During the September 2 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto compared unions to Hurricane Earl, saying, "The monster and the mess. Your World on top of Earl's collision course with our coast and what could be unions' collision course with our towns." Cavuto added: "And get ready for Earl's wallop and, to hear some state and local governments tell it, unions' direct hit on their wallet."

• Carlson: How much of the cost of a Chevy Volt is "because you have to pay the unions so much money?" During a discussion of the Chevy Volt on the September 2 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked, "How much of that money ... is because you have to pay the unions so much money?"

• Beck: Labor hero is "indoctrinating children." During the September 1 edition of his Fox News show, Beck accused Dolores Huerta, an 80-year-old labor activist who co-founded the United Farm Workers with César Chávez, of "indoctrinating our children" because she spoke at a high school. Beck also criticized the Labor Department for spending money on what he called a "catchy tune" that included Labor Secretary Hilda Solis saying, "You work hard, and you have the right to be paid fairly," and, "[I]t is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn."

In June, Fox News figures downplayed job growth numbers by pointing out that many of the jobs created were temporary census positions. Now, those same Fox figures are hyping net job losses over the summer while ignoring that the losses are largely explained by the conclusion of those same temporary census positions.

Net job losses explained by conclusion of hundreds of thousands of census jobs

BLS: Census 2010 employment peaked at 564,000 in May, dropped to 82,000 in August. In its September press release on the U.S. employment situation, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) stated, "Over the month, government employment fell by 121,000, largely reflecting the loss of 114,000 temporary workers hired for Census 2010. The number of temporary Census 2010 workers peaked in May at 564,000 but has declined to 82,000 in August."

Net job losses highlighted by Fox figures are explained by conclusion of those temporary census jobs they previously used to downplay job growth. Fox News figures have pointed to the loss of 283,000 net jobs during the summer months to suggest that the Obama administration's "recovery summer" was, in the words of Chris Wallace, "an economic and political bust." But those net job losses are more than explained by the hundreds of thousands of temporary census jobs which concluded during the summer - temporary census jobs those same Fox News figures previously highlighted in downplaying May's large net jobs increases.

Chris Wallace

THEN: Wallace on May jobs figures: "431,000 jobs were added," but many "were government census hires, and those are, of course, temporary." On the June 6 edition of Fox News Sunday (accessed via Nexis), host Chis Wallace said, "And here's why the stock market took such a dim view of the job numbers in May. Let's put it up on the screen. Four hundred -- yes, 431,000 jobs were added, but only 41,000 of those were private sector employment. All the rest were government census hires, and those are, of course, temporary."

NOW: Wallace: "[O]ver the summer, the economy lost 283,000 jobs."On the September 5 edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace began an interview with Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine by saying, in part, "[O]ver the summer, the economy lost 283,000 jobs. ... Wasn't 'recovery summer' an economic and political bust?" In response, Kaine said, "After nearly 20 months in a row of private-sector job loss, we've gained jobs in the private sector now eight months in a row. There was some net losses over the summer because the census phased out."

NOW: After being told about "eight months of growth in terms of job creation," Wallace repeats "283,000 jobs" talking point. During a panel discussion later on Fox News Sunday, Fox News political contributor Juan Williams said, "When you hear from President Obama, as we did yesterday in his radio-Internet address, he says, 'Look, we've had eight months of growth in terms of job creation.' In fact, the numbers would have been better this last report -- " At this point, Wallace interrupted and said, "Private job creation. But total job creation -- the economy lost 283,000 jobs in 'recovery summer.' "

NOW: Wallace: "[I]n what the White House was billing as the summer of recovery, a total of 283,000 jobs were lost." Guest-hosting the September 3 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier (accessed via Nexis), Wallace said, "So the August job numbers came out today, and unemployment, the total unemployment number rose from 9.5 to 9.6 percent. Steve [Hayes], let's take a look at the internal numbers, which are more alarming. The economy lost 54,000 jobs in August along with the revised numbers of 54,000 in July and 175,000 in June. So Steve, in what the White House was billing as the summer of recovery, a total of 283,000 jobs were lost."

Stuart Varney

THEN: Varney on May jobs figures: "[A]ll these new jobs created, the vast majority were temporary government census workers." On the June 4 edition of America's Newsroom, Stuart Varney said, "[T]his is an extremely disappointing unemployment report. Yes, the unemployment rate went down to 9.7 percent -- got it -- but the fact that of all these new jobs created, the vast majority were temporary government Census workers, which will be gone by the late summer -- that is very bad news indeed because after spending a trillion dollars on stimulus, we only have tens of -- just a few ten thousand -- basically it's 20,000 new private sector jobs. Very disappointing."

NOW: Varney on summer job losses: "Summer's up, so where is that recovery?" On the September 4 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto, guest host Varney said, "A recovery summer? One hundred and seventy-five thousand jobs lost in June; 54,000 lost in July; another 54,000 lost in August -- well, summer's up, so where is that recovery?" He continued, "Eight hundred and fourteen billion dollars in stimulus and still no jobs? Another 54,000 lost just last month. Yet, the president says he has no regrets, continuing his push today for another $30 billion in tax breaks for small businesses." During the segment, an on-screen graphic used the "283,000 jobs lost" figure:

Fred Barnes

THEN: Barnes on May jobs figures: "[I]t will get worse next month when many of these census workers are let go." On the June 4 edition of Special Report (accessed via Nexis), Fox News political contributor Fred Barnes said, "[T]he unemployment numbers today were horrible. Only 10 percent were private jobs in the job growth, and a good number of those were probably from the clean up down in the Gulf of Mexico and so are not permanent jobs. Everyone knew that was a setback and it will get worse next month when many of these census workers are let go."

NOW: Barnes: "[T]he so-called summer of recovery will probably wind up with net loss of jobs." On the August 30 edition of Special Report (accessed via Nexis), Barnes said, "And the ultimate embarrassment may be, and I think this will happen, the so-called summer of recovery will probably wind up with net loss of jobs in June, July, and August, a net loss of jobs in the Obama administration so-called summer of recovery."

Talking point about "283,000 jobs" lost in "recovery summer" apparently originated on Drudge Report

Drudge: "Economy LOST 283,000 jobs during 'Recovery Summer' months..." At 8:35 a.m. ET on September 3, text was posted at the top of the Drudge Report that read "Economy LOST 283,000 jobs during the 'Recovery Summer' months..." The text was later linked to a Bureau of Labor Statistics press release, and that headline and several related headlines were featured at the top of the sitethroughout the day:

Gateway Pundit: "The Obama economy lost 283,000 jobs in last three months." Shortly after the figure appeared on the Drudge Report,frequently incorrect Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft posted an entry headlined "Obama's Disastrous Jobs Record Makes George W. Bush Look Godlike." Hoft included a screenshot of the Drudge Report and wrote, "So much for that Recovery Summer... The Obama economylost 283,000 jobs in last three months."

Wallace uses talking point on Special Report. Later that evening, on the September 3 edition of Special Report (accessed via Nexis), Wallace said to Hayes, "[I]n what the White House was billing as the summer of recovery, a total of 283,000 jobs were lost."

On the September 5 editions of CBS's Face the Nation and ABC's This Week, economic experts noted that the initial stimulus package was too small and that the resultant slow economic recovery demanded further stimulus. Media largely ignored progressive economists' statements during the stimulus debate that the package was too small, and have since promoted the falsehood that the stimulus failed.

Economic experts take to Sunday shows and call for more stimulus

Krugman: "Back in January '09... a number of us said, 'This is not commensurate with the scale of the crisis.'" On This Week, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman noted that many economists raised concerns that the stimulus might not be large enough when it was first proposed. Krugman said, "Back in January '09, when Obama was first announcing his plans, a number of us said this is not commensurate with the scale of the crisis." Krugman later added, "What we need is more demand."

Tyson: "We need targeted policies for jobs and right now, the deficit is not the issue." On Face the Nation, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Laura Tyson said: "I think we're in a situation where we're bumping along at a slow rate [of economic growth]. There's a lot of down side risk. I think all of us agree here we need targeted policies for jobs and right now, the deficit is not the major issue. The major issue, slow economy, lack of jobs, 24 million people are still looking for full-time work. We really have to get our priorities right and focus on targeted job creation policies."

Morgenson: "The stimulus was not big enough... we need something instant." On Face the Nation, New York Times assistant business and financial editor Gretchen Morgenson, who received the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for coverage of Wall Street, said: "The stimulus was not big enough. Because you would have seen far greater recovery. The unemployment numbers would be better, I think, if you had, if we wanted to think the stimulus was enough. But again I think that it has to be targeted. I think that what Laura, the point she made earlier is a good one. That is, let's go for things that will have a more immediate impact like, say, a payroll tax cut holiday or a payroll tax holiday. We need something instant, something a little bit quicker."

Zandi: "[A]dditional help" for the recovery "would be prudent." When asked by guest host Harry Smith about the possible need for a second stimulus, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics and a former economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, answered:

Well, we are talking about other stimulus, right? I mean, an R&D tax credit, payroll tax holiday, job tax credit. All these things are different forms of stimulus. In fact, the federal government has provided a couple hundred billions dollars in additional stimulus beyond the recovery act stimulus that we put in place a year-and-a-half ago. So, we are doing that. In my view the recovery needs some more help. It would be prudent, I think, to provide some additional help through some of the things that we're talking about.

Tyson advocates for increased infrastructure spending. When asked by Smith about the possible need for larger stimulus spending, Tyson said:

I believe that we should look at infrastructure because we know before the recession, before the great recession, we know that we were vastly under-spending on the nation's infrastructure. You can sort of, therefore, start with the notion: infrastructure spending is terrific in two ways. It creates demand right away when you go out and get the project started and get the workers started. It also creates the ability to grow and be productive in the future.

Zandi, Tyson: A payroll tax holiday for new hires would stimulate economy. On Face the Nation, Tyson and Zandi agreed that a payroll tax holiday for firms making new hires, reportedly under consideration by the administration, would have an immediate stimulating economic effect:

SMITH: Mark, let me start with you. Among the two very important ideas that are being talked about this week that the president is suspected to be addressing on Wednesday is this idea of suspending a payroll tax. How much of a boost can that provide? And is it enough to help speed the recovery as the president suggests?

ZANDI: I think if we suspend the payroll tax for businesses that go out and hire additional workers, expand the job tax credit that is in place today, I think that could be effective and be helpful in the next six, 12 months when the recovery really needs it. I think that would be a boost to the economy.

SMITH: Laura Tyson, how do you feel about it?

TYSON: I think that's correct. I think that we already have in place the credit. The credit could be extended into a partial payroll tax holiday. I think the issue is really gonna be for new hires. All new hires. And then what the size of the firm should be. This is an area I which is really worthy of serious discussion and with the possibility of some action.

Media rarely raised economists' warnings that stimulus was too small during debate

A Media Matters review of the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs from January 25, 2009, through February 15, 2009 found that of the 59 broadcasts that addressed the economic stimulus package and debate in Congress during the three-week period leading up to and immediately following its passage, only three of those broadcasts included discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it might not be.

While right-wing media claim stimulus failed, analysts agree it significantly boosted GDP, employment

Since its passage, right-wing media have falsely claimed the package failed. Right-wing media figures and outlets frequently promote the false claims that the stimulus "didn't work" and "has not created jobs."

CBO: Unemployment would be as much as 1.8 percentage points higher without the stimulus. A report released in August by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points. Thus, had the stimulus not been passed, the unemployment rate could currently be as high as 11.4 percent, compared to the actual rate of 9.6 percent. The CBO estimates that the stimulus increased the number of employed people by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.

CEA: Recovery act raised GDP by at least 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 2010. In its fourth quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated that "the ARRA has raised the level of GDP as of the second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent."

Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised GDP. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing the GDP. Included in these figures is the estimate by the nonpartisan CBO, which estimated that the stimulus raised GDP "by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent." CEA included the following chart in its report:

CEA: Recovery act has raised employment "by between 2.5 and 3.6 million." In its fourth quarterly report on the ARRA, the CEA stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the second quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million. These estimates are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2010:Q1."

Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised employment. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing employment:

Economists say stimulus helped economic recovery

WSJ: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."

ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."

NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."

USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today reported on January 25:

President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.

Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.

Fox News figures have attacked labor unions in the days leading up to Labor Day, a national holiday originally created to honor the victories of the labor movement and the achievements of American workers.

Fox News figures assail organized labor

Beck: "I think the unions are like Biff," the bully from Back to the Future. During the September 2 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck said, "You know what I think of some of the unions? I actually think of Back to the Future. I think the unions are like Biff." Beck showed a clip featuring Biff Tannen, the bully in the film, and added, "But in the end, once you really realize who they are and you're not afraid anymore, it always turns out exactly the same way for the bully every time." Beck then showed a clip of Biff working for the man he originally bullied.

Malkin accused unions of embezzlement, violence, and corruption. During the September 2 edition of Fox News' America Live, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin accused labor leaders of "embezzlement," "violence," and "corruption."

Varney: There will be "[t]wo more union outrage stories to bring to you in our next half-hour." During the September 2 edition of Fox Business Network's Varney & Co., guest Joseph Caruso criticized a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would allow more shareholders of public companies to use proxy votes to nominate board members. Caruso claimed that unions would use the rule to "wreak havoc" by nominating labor-friendly board members. In response, Fox Business' Charles Payne suggested, "So, this will be used more as a tool of intimidation than anything else." In a subsequent tease, Varney said, "Two more union outrage stories to bring to you in our next half-hour."

Cavuto likened unions to Hurricane Earl on a "collision course on our towns." During the September 2 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto compared unions to Hurricane Earl, saying, "The monster and the mess. Your World on top of Earl's collision course with our coast and what could be unions' collision course with our towns." Cavuto added: "And get ready for Earl's wallop and, to hear some state and local governments tell it, unions' direct hit on their wallet."

Carlson: How much of the cost of a Chevy Volt is "because you have to pay the unions so much money?" During a discussion of the Chevy Volt on the September 2 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked, "How much of that money ... is because you have to pay the unions so much money?"

Beck: Labor hero is "indoctrinating children." During the September 1 edition of his Fox News show, Beck accused Dolores Huerta, an 80-year-old labor activist who co-founded the United Farm Workers with César Chávez, of "indoctrinating our children" because she spoke at a high school. Beck also criticized the Labor Department for spending money on what he called a "catchy tune" that included Labor Secretary Hilda Solis saying, "You work hard, and you have the right to be paid fairly," and, "[I]t is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn."

Labor Day honors the progress of the labor movement

DOL: Labor Day is "a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers." According to the U.S. Department of Labor's "History of Labor Day," Labor Day "is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country."

Glenn Beck has a three-hour radio show, a one-hour television show, regular guest slots on Fox News and Fox Business, and a subscription website. Still, he doesn't have enough hours in the day for some of the "stories that matter most."

"I hired some journalists because there are stories I don't have enough broadcast hours in a day to cover them and somebody has got to cover them," Beck told viewers on September 1 while discussing his new online media site, The Blaze.

Anyone remotely familiar with Beck knows he's notoriously thin-skinned, resulting in copious amounts of time defending himself and his brand. So it's little surprise that the topic most important to Glenn Beck's The Blaze is Glenn Beck.

Within several days after launching, some of the site's stories include such page-scrollers as "NY Times Columnist on Beck: 'I Underestimated the Man,'" "Columnist: Sharpton, Not Beck, Distorts MLK's Legacy," and "Slideshow: Newspaper Coverage of 8/28."

If Beck confines his website to "Glenn is great" stories, then there's ultimately no harm, no foul. But in an "exclusive" press release -- or what Mediaite refers to as an "article" -- about the site, Beck said he envisions The Blaze as having "reporting, insightful opinions and engaging videos about the stories that matter most ... I look forward to keeping [editor] Scott [Baker] and his team busy by sending countless ideas at 3am every morning." (So far, "insight" and "reporting" have been lacking.)

As Media Matters has documented, the conservative web has tried its hand at "reporting, insightful opinions, and engaging videos" -- and done it badly.

Exhibit A comes in the form of Andrew Breitbart, who -- in the words of Shep Smith -- runs a "widely discredited website" that posts "inaccurate" and "edited" videos. Breitbart, of course, was widely criticized for posting misleading videos about ACORN, and then came back for an encore by posting another deceptive tape, this time wrongly accusing former USDA official Shirley Sherrod of racism. Those two incidents are the most high-profile of a long rap sheet against Breitbart.

How does Glenn Beck feel about Andrew Breitbart? You don't have to read between any lines to see that Beck views him as an inspiration -- one of the "great journalists of our time" and a future chapter in history books:

• "You [Andrew Breitbart] are in instrumental in changing America. I think the history books will - I mean, assuming that our side wins - the history book will reflect your service to the country." (February 12, Fox News)
• "Thank goodness, BigGovernment.com and Andrew Breitbart are always watching, as are we." (December 7, 2009, Fox News)
• "You know where the great journalists of our time are? Andrew Breitbart. I was just thinking when I was listening to this, I mean this Andrew. You are the only one -- you were the only one, besides watchdogs, that were really aggressively working behind the scenes with us on Van Jones." (September 10, radio)
• "Andrew Breitbart brought this to my attention. He called me the other day. And I wanted to bring it to your attention - the National People's Action group. This action group - this is yet another community organizing group that makes ACORN look like a Sunday morning, you know, knitting clutch." (May 4, Fox News)
• "Well, Andrew Breitbart from Breitbart.com brought this video to my attention, and I've got to show it to you. We'll show it all tomorrow. But this is SEIU's president Andy Stern on the real motives of the unions." (March 2, Fox News)

As Media Matters has documented, Beck has frequently turned to Breitbart for stories and inspiration. Indeed, Beck was perhaps the media figure most responsible for pushing the ACORN story into the mainstream.

So when it came to launching his own site, Beck turned to one of Breitbart's top lieutenants, Scott Baker, who co-founded Breitbart.tv and served as vice president for business development at Breitbart.com. Under Baker, Breitbart.tv launched a litany of false and misleading videos and stories against progressives, such as smearing Department of Education staffer Kevin Jennings and posting a doctored video falsely claiming community organizers were "praying" to Obama.

Breitbart also hired Pam Key who, as Terry Krepel noted, is the activist behind the Breitbart-promoted operation Naked Emperor News. Key's videos are notorious for attacking the Obama administration while omitting necessary context (a la Breitbart).

After the Sherrod fiasco blew up in Breitbart's face, MSNBC.com's First Read blog wrote, "you would have thought that all of us in the ACTUAL news business would have learned this lesson about Andrew Breitbart and his protégés: They're not out for the truth; they're out for scalps."

Similarly, if Glenn Beck's track record on television and radio isn't enough to disqualify his new website as anything other than a dubious exercise in new media, surely his Breitbart-infused vision of "great" new media journalism is.

Dick Morris: Fox News' traveling GOP salesman

Fox News "political analyst" Dick Morris is a busy man. According to The Hill, Morris plans "to campaign for some 40 Republican congressional candidates in 2010."

Last month, for instance, Morris hit the campaign trail for Ohio congressional candidates Bill Johnson, Bob Gibbs, and Tom Ganley. The event reportedly featured a 5 p.m. "private reception and roundtable discussion with Morris, costing $2,400 a person. The cost also includes a photo with Morris and an autographed copy of his latest book, '2010: Take Back America.' It costs $500 a person for a private reception, photo and book signing at 5:45 p.m."

Morris also headlined a fundraiser for congressional candidate Scott Tipton, costing a minimum of $50 per person, with a "special VIP reception" at $500 per person.

None of the GOP fundraising and advocacy would be possible -- or even relevant -- if not for one important party: Fox News.

Consider, for instance, how Morris' appearance at an event for West Virginia congressional candidate David McKinley was described this week at the very top of a local TV station's 6 p.m. newscast:

"A Fox News commentator is here in the mid-Ohio valley for a local candidate."

The station then aired video of McKinley explaining why he brought in Morris: "I think people that have followed Fox News and get a lot of their news that way, maybe this is something that they can relate to. But this man has a national voice that understands this economy."

Indeed, throughout events across the country, Morris is often sold by touting his Fox News affiliation.

Morris' off-air boosterism is only compounded by the fact that he continues it on-air. Recently, Morris suggested that viewers donate to the anti-Harry Reid group Americans for New Leadership -- a group for which Morris is currently fundraising and helping with ad strategy. In February, the Republican Federal Committee of Pennsylvania paid Morris $10,000 for speaking at its 2010 Lincoln Day Dinner. Following the payment, Morris repeatedly appeared on Fox News to discuss Pennsylvania politics and shill for Pennsylvania Republicans and causes. And Morris appeared on Fox News twice to tout then-Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum -- after hosting a pricey fundraiser for him. In none of the previously mentioned incidents did Morris disclose his ties.

Still, Fox News doesn't appear to care about any of Morris' GOP activism despite the fact that he's one of the channel's most frequent on-air commentators. According to a Nexis search of available Fox News programs -- this typically excludes Fox & Friends and daytime programming -- Morris has appeared on Fox News a whopping 110 times in the past year.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Media Matters research fellow Eric Hananoki.