MediaMatters: Fox News' Double Standard For Right-Wing Cop Killers

This story on MediaMatters kinda puts things into perspective. Why are white cop killers presented differently by the media (Fox News) than black cop killers, yet both are just as heinous? is it for political reasons?

ERIC BOEHLERT 

The politicization surrounding the killing of two New York Police Department officers over the weekend was amazingly swift. Fox News led the right-wing media charge, immediately claiming Democratic elected officials were somehow responsible for the gun rampage, which began in Baltimore when Ismaaiyl Brinsley allegedly shot his ex-girlfriend, and extended to Brooklyn when the mentally troubled shooter assassinated two police officers, before killing himself on a city subway platform. 

On Fox, hosts and guests were sure who was to blame for the tragedy; not the gunman necessarily, but political and community leaders like President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Mayor Bill de Blasio and MSNBC's Al Sharpton. Why? Because the men, to varying degrees, have spoken out about the troubled relationship between law enforcement and the black community, and raised concerns about two recent high-profile cases, Michael Brown and Eric Garner, in which unarmed black men were killed, and police officers responsible were not indicted.

Against that backdrop of civil protest, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik told Fox News, "I personally feel that Mayor de Blasio, Sharpton and others like them, they actually have blood on their hands."

"Let's talk about the president as well," responded Fox's Jeanine Pirro, suggesting Obama and Mayor de Blasio were to blame. "The two of them have undoubtedly created racial tensions that worsens, not betters the situation for law enforcement."

Appearing on Fox News, former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani insisted the message from recent Obama "propaganda" was that "everybody should hate the cops." (No such Obama "propaganda" actually exists.)

The coverage of the Brooklyn killings on Fox News has leaned heavily on assigning a larger cultural and political blame. Yet in stark contrast, as Media Matters has documented, Fox News has routinely paid very little attention to breaking news stories that feature right-wing, or anti-government, gunmen who target law enforcement officials as a way to deliver their warped political messages.

And critically, when they have touched on those deadly attacks, Fox talkers have stressed that it's not fair to blame politics. Note that in 2013, after racist skinhead Michael Page started killing worshipers at an Oak Creek, WI., Sikh temple, and then murdered a police officer, Fox's Andrea Tantaros stressed that the killing spree was an isolated event that didn't have any larger implications. "How do you stop a lunatic?" she asked. "This is not a political issue."

At Fox, that has been the pattern: These kind of deadly right-wing attacks are treated as isolated incidents that are mostly void of politics. Instead, the perpetrators are portrayed as lone gunmen (and women) who do not represent any cultural or political movement.
On a September night this year, 31-year-old marksman Eric Frein was allegedly laying in wait outside the Blooming Grove police barracks in northeastern Pennsylvania, preparing to assassinate state troopers. That night, state police officer Bryon Dickson was shot and killed as he walked towards his patrol car.

He "made statements about wanting to kill law enforcement officers and to commit mass acts of murder," state police commissioner Frank Noonan warned the public at the time. Another official noted the shooter has a "longstanding grudge against law enforcement and government in general" dating back to at least 2006.

"He was obviously a big critic of the federal government," a man name Jack told CNN. "No indications of really any malice towards law enforcement in particular. Mostly--most of his aggression was towards the federal government."

In the two weeks after the shooting, as a massive manhunt unfolded in the mountains of Pennsylvania, Fox programs mentioned Frein's name in just six reports, according to Nexis transcripts. One of the reports mentioned Frein's hatred of law enforcement, but none mentioned Frein's vocal anti-government leanings.

When Frein was finally captured in late October, Fox News covered the stories a handful of times. Again, there was no emphasis on his possible anti-government motivations and why the "survivalist" set out to assassinate law enforcement officers.

Another police assassination attack unfolded in June. Claiming to be acting under the bloody "banner of Liberty and Truth," Jerad Miller and his wife Amanda entered a restaurant Las Vegas executed two local policemen while they at lunch.

As bullets flew, one of the shooters reportedly shouted that the "revolution" had begun. The killers then stripped the officers of their weapons and ammunition and badges, and covered them with cloth that featured the "Don't tread on me" Gadsden flag, which has recently been adopted as a symbol of the tea party movement.

Six days earlier, the shooters had posted a manifesto on Facebook where he announced "we must prepare for war." Jerad Miller, who traveled to Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch this spring to join the militia protests against the federal government, declared: "To stop this oppression, I fear, can only be accomplished with bloodshed." ...  Continue Reading 

Go Vote...

The Right's Marriage Traditionalism



by Rob Tornoe via Media Matters



Media Myth That Cutting Taxes Boosts Revenue Revived For 2012

Media Matters has a terrific post about the myth that tax cuts generate revenues and that bigger tax cuts generate larger revenues.

Media Matters shows how these claims are debunked by not only by those on the Left, like Paul Krugman but also by those on the Right, who actually proposed the claim and sold it to Ronald Reagan and George w. Bush.

Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was the first chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that a 10 percent tax cut would in fact reduce tax revenue -- but only by 3 to 5 percent.

"It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much," he said. [The New York Times, 3/26/08]


Read ... Here

This post I think ties in nicely with the last post from NJPP about what our tax dollars actually pay for.

Right-Wing Blogosphere Downplays Conservative Judge's Opinion Upholding Health Care Reform Law

If government can mandate auto insurance, homeowners insurance, flood insurance....Then it only makes sense that government can mandate health insurance. I believe that the Sixth Circuit Court and Judge Jeffery Sutton got it right.

From MediaMatters.org
July 01, 2011

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act, many right-wing bloggers criticized the decision or downplayed its significance. But one of the judges who voted to uphold the statute was Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of President George W. Bush who was such a proponent of states' rights during his legal career that he once proclaimed that he became involved in states' rights issues because "I really believe in this federalism stuff."

By A 2-1 Vote, The Sixth Circuit Upholds The Constitutionality Of The Individual Mandate. In Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the Sixth Circuit held by a vote of 2 to 1 that the provision of the Affordable Care Act mandating that individuals purchase health insurance does not violate the Constitution. The majority consisted of Sixth Circuit judges Boyce Martin and Jeffrey Sutton. District Judge James Graham, acting as a Sixth Circuit judge in this case, dissented. [Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 6/29/11]

Read more HERE

Doesn't Anyone Remember Christine Whitman?

In a CountyFair blog post on the website MediaMatters.org, blogger Jamison Foser asks a simple question " Doesn't Anyone Remember Christine Whitman? "

It's a great read and analogy of what transpired in the early 1990's when young Republican Governors were swept into office and faced huge budget deficits after Bill Clinton became President and what is happening today.

"A young Democrat is elected President on a theme of hope and change, does some of the things he was elected to do, Republicans howl and win control of Congress in a landslide mid-term election, and the media becomes infatuated with a new crop of Republican governors who are trying to dramatically reconfigure state budgets.

"That's a reasonable summary of the current state of affairs, but it also describes the first few years of Bill Clinton's presidency. But it isn't the similarity that's striking: After all, there's a reason the phrase "history has a way of repeating itself" exists. Or, perhaps more appropriately: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." See, what's really striking about the current situation is how few reporters seem to remember what happened in the 1990s.

Most notably, the past few weeks have seen massive media attention paid to state budget deficits, and attempts by Republican governors like Chris Christie to blame out-of-control pension obligations for those deficits (even as they pursue deficit-increasing tax cuts..."

Foser goes on to talk about how NJ Governor Christie Whitman cut taxes and raided the state pension fund in order to close New Jersey's budget gap even though many critics warned that the State Pension system would see significant shortfall 15-20 years down the road, which of course is what is happening to be now!

"Whitman was one of those star Republican governors of the early 1990s. Like so many other Republican governors who win media attention for innovative approaches, she made her name through the not-so-innovative strategy of cutting taxes. Since she had to offset those tax cuts in order to balance New Jersey's budget, she reduced payments into the state's pension system. And that, as the New York Times noted last August, "contributed to the growth of the unfunded liability" that is now widely blamed for New Jersey's budget shortfall."

He went on to state that none of this should have come as a surprise to anyone because "when Whitman was defunding the pension system in order to cut taxes, there were warnings that this is exactly what would happen. Here, for example, is a September 5, 1994 Washington Post article:

"The first thing Christine Todd Whitman did upon taking office as governor of New Jersey in January was to cut the state's income tax. Then in July, as she signed into law her first state budget, the Republican cut taxes again while simultaneously closing the huge deficit left by her predecessor.

This is what her supporters call the Whitman miracle, the fiscal accomplishment that has sent her stock soaring among New Jersey's voters and transformed her on the national scene from a political unknown into one of the Republican Party's newest stars.
…

But the key to the Whitman miracle lies neither in her political philosophy nor in her spending cuts, but rather in the fine print of her budget. Contained there is a series of arcane fiscal changes that some experts say amount to this: Christine Todd Whitman has balanced New Jersey's books and paid for her tax cut by quietly diverting more than $1 billion from the state's pension fund.

Whitman calls what she did a "reform" of the pension system that puts it on a more "sound actuarial footing." Others are less charitable. The one thing that even the actuarial consultants hired by the Whitman administration agree on, however, is that the chief effect of the changes will be to shift billions of dollars in pension obligations onto New Jersey taxpayers 15 to 20 years from now."

"At best, this represents a gamble that the state's economy in the early part of the next century will be stronger than it is today and better able to shoulder pension responsibilities. At worst, according to fiscal experts, Whitman's move represents politics at its most cynical.

In recent years financially strapped governments around the country -- including Washington, D.C., and New York state -- have raided their pension funds for cash, gambling that when the bills come due their local economies will be in a better position to pay them.
…

"The New Jersey pension system was highly rated in terms of its fiscal integrity," said [Henry] Raimondo of the Eagleton Institute. "Now that's compromised. She has effectively slowed down" the amount of "money going into the system, and in around 2010 the liability to New Jersey taxpayers is going to grow dramatically."

Foser concluded his post by adding:

"Let's review: A Republican governor of New Jersey reduced payments to the state pension system so she could cut taxes. Critics warned doing so would cause significant budget shortfalls in 2010. 2010 rolled around, and -- surprise! -- so did budget shortfalls. And now those shortfalls are used by New Jersey's current Republican governor (along with many in the media) to justify cutting pensions (while again cutting taxes.)

Basically, conservatives have staged an end-run around having a public debate over cutting pensions in order to pay for tax cuts. Rather than making the argument that tax cuts are more important than pensions, they just went ahead and cut taxes, raiding the pension system in the process, then waited 15 years for predictable -- and predicted -- deficits, which they now point to as evidence that the pension system is unsustainably generous. And they've done it with the help of countless news organizations that fall for this shell game."

You really need to read the full post, it's fascinating how history has once again repeated itself.

You can read it >>> here

Chuck Todd: Media Has "Created This Drama That [Obama's] Struggling To Get [Health Reform] Done"

Despite clear progress, media declare health care reform nearing "life support"

Media Matters -

Despite passage of health care reform bills in House and Senate committees and the endorsement by major medical organizations of congressional Democrats' reform efforts, numerous television pundits have suggested that President Obama's health care plan is in serious jeopardy.

As The Washington Post observed in a July 20 article: "Cable news programs repeatedly declare the president's health care program is teetering or embattled despite a week in which [President] Obama's proposals were endorsed by the doctor and nurses associations and committees in both legislative chambers passed major bills." Indeed, despite passage of health care reform bills by the House Ways and Means Committee, House Education and Labor Committee, and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and endorsements of congressional Democrats' reform efforts by the American Medical Association and American Nurses Association, numerous television pundits have suggested in recent days that Obama's health care plan is in serious jeopardy.

Orszag Sets The Record Straight "No Rationing Of Health Care"

Fox News' Chris Wallace asked OMB Director Peter Orszag this morning if the administration will be "rationing" health care by establishing a commission of doctors and medical experts to oversee medical practices. Orszag, thankfully, called this a "canard" and pointed to the status quo.

"The fact of the matter is, right now, politicians and insurance companies are making decisions," Orszag explained. "We're saying, we want doctors to be making decisions."

Wallace said once these physicians start "making decisions," they'll be in the business of telling consumers which medical treatments they can and cannot have. So, Orszag turned the question around: "Do you think that politicians are currently rationing care? Or insurance companies are currently rationing care? There are no set of decisions that this commission would have that is not currently resting with either members of Congress or insurance companies."
- The Washington Monthly, Steve Benen

Hannity falsely claimed CBO "say[s]" economic recovery plan is "not a stimulus bill"

From Media Matters-

Discussing the economic recovery bill, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that the Congressional Budget Office "say[s] it's not a stimulus bill." However, in analyzing the House and Senate versions of the bill, the CBO stated it expects that either version "would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years."

Discussing the economic recovery bill during the February 2 broadcast of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "say[s] it's not a stimulus bill." However, in analyzing the House version of the bill, H.R. 1, and the proposed Senate version, the CBO stated that it expects the measures to "have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years." Additionally, as Media Matters for America documented, in his January 27 testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said that H.R. 1 would "provide massive fiscal stimulus that includes a combination of government spending increases and revenue reductions." Elmendorf further stated: "In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years."

Hannity also suggested that the CBO, in addition to Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein, has stated that money spent "in 2010, 2011, 2012" would be ineffective as economic stimulus, asserting that "[w]hat they're telling us" is "the infrastructure spending and real spending in this bill comes out in 2010, 2011, 2012. How does that -- how do you label that a stimulus plan?

" But as Media Matters has noted, economists, including Elmendorf, have said that fiscal stimulus in 2010 or later would be effective in the current economic situation, in which economic output is projected to remain below its potential long after the technical beginning of the recovery. In his January 27 testimony, Elmendorf stated that, unlike in ordinary "periods of economic weakness" that "are fairly short-lived," "CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate."

MilitaryTimes.com article claiming poll respondents are "[w]ary about Obama" did not note poll was based on voluntary responses

Media Matters - In a December 29 MilitaryTimes.com article headlined "2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama," staff writer Brendan McGarry reported: "When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey." McGarry further reported that "[t]he responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole," but he did not mention that according to a separate MilitaryTimes.com article, the poll was based on voluntary responses by subscribers to Army Times Publishing Co. newspapers rather than a random statistical sample of service members, and that therefore no margin of error can be calculated for the poll. A report on the poll on the January 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends also omitted this information, as did the Chicago Sun-Times' website, which posted excerpts of McGarry's article.

Read the full story >>>Here

Whisper campaign persists despite election

Politico.com's Andy Barr has written a great article about the persistent whispers about Barack Obama's birth certificate and whether or not he meets the qualifications to be President. 

He addresses the various groups and individuals that are attempting to have Obama's election as president over-turned by the Supreme Court, by showing how these people are motivated by their ultra right-wing views and how their claims have been debunked by the facts.

..."I think there are just a lot of people who just want to believe it," said Paul Waldman, who has studied the conspiracy theories over Obama's citizenship for Media Matters.

Waldman said that like with the claims that the Clintons killed White House Counsel Vince Foster, a certain segment of the population will continue to believe Obama won on illegitimate grounds no matter how often the claim is disproved.

"When something gets refuted there a certain number of people that just won't believe it," he said. "If they are predisposed to believe it, refuting it will have no impact."

For those who believe the story, Obama's electoral victory is a constitutional and legal crisis of epic proportions that is not being given its fair due in the press or in the courts."... 

Limbaugh: Obama Is Of ‘Arab-African’ Descent

On his radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is “Arab.” “He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa,” Limbaugh claimed.

Limbaugh repeated the lie. While attempting to deny that race may play a role in the presidential campaign, Limbaugh read portions of a Philadelphia Daily News article by Dave Davies. Limbaugh inaccurately quoted Davies’s article, inserting the word “Arab” into a description of Obama’s ethnicity.

Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story

After last nights rousing and historic address in front of the Democratic National Convention in which Hillary Clinton gave her support to Barack Obama, Eric Boehlert has a an enlightening column over at Media Matters today.

For weeks now political pundits and the media have been questioning Clinton's motives for allowing her name to be placed into nomination for the presidency tonight. They have claimed that this is all a ploy by the Clinton's to promote disharmony among rank and file Democrats and to somehow steal the spotlight and nomination away from Obama.

This is simply not true.

In his column, Boehlert puts into historical perspective last night speech by Hillary Clinton and what it means to the Democrats to have her name be placed into nomination. The Clinton critics all seem to forget their convention history when it comes to Hillary.

Click on the headline to read Eric Boehlert's column

Myths and falsehoods regarding Obama's votes on "born alive" bills

Media Matters
Fri, Aug 22, 2008

In reporting on abortion-rights opponents' criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. For example, on the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

Other myths and falsehoods that the media have promoted include the following:

MYTH: IL attorney general's letter contradicts Obama's explanation for opposing the legislation

Media figures have misrepresented findings by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the office of Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan to claim that Obama's assertion that Illinois law already "mandate[d] lifesaving measures for premature babies" was false. But the attorney general's letter in no way undermines Obama's statement. Moreover, tasked by the state attorney general with investigating allegations that fetuses surviving abortions at an Illinois hospital were not receiving medical care, the IDPH reportedly said, consistent with Obama's statement, that had the allegations proved true, the alleged conduct would have been illegal.

In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso writes that a July 2000 letter from Ryan's office refutes Obama's statement. The letter was a response to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. Under Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote, in part:

On December 6, 1999, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[...]

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims; IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law.

In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " From Zorn's 2004 blog post:

As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.

Why?

"Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously."

Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."

Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.

In other words, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's explanation: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original]. But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time.

Myth: Jill Stanek is a credible source for media outlets to cite

In addition to Freddoso, several media outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, The New York Sun and The Hill have quoted or cited criticism of Obama by Stanek over his opposition to bills to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility. These facts include her suggestion that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions; her support of billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili and displays a large skeleton and aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful"; and her citation of a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening." Media Matters has laid out several of these statements by Stanek.

MYTH: A 2003 bill Obama voted against in committee would have had same effect as 2002 federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which even abortion-rights advocates did not oppose

Media figures including Freddoso and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund have reported that the 2003 bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law that Obama voted against was identical in its language to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA), which Obama has said he would have supported. In reporting what they have characterized as an inconsistency in Obama's position, these media figures have advanced the false suggestion that the bills would have had the same effect. In fact, although both bills included language providing that the bills would not impinge on Roe v. Wade, Obama and abortion-rights advocates noted that Illinois law, unlike federal law at the time, includes statutory provisions specifically regulating abortion. Abortion-rights advocates said that in order for the Illinois bill to avoid restricting abortion rights in any way, it would also have to make explicit reference to Illinois law and make clear that it would not affect access to abortion under Illinois law.

In an August 15 Wall Street Journal column, Fund wrote that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) supported the federal BAIPA and later added: "But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it."

Similarly, in an August 13 National Review Online article, Freddoso wrote that "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his [Obama's] position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born." He continued: "But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired."

But abortion-rights advocates in Illinois opposed the 2003 state bill because, they said, the language of the federal bill in Illinois would not sufficiently protect abortion rights in Illinois. Specifically, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has said:

Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant.

The group goes on to explain that that this affected the 2003 state legislation that Obama opposed:

On March 12, 2003 both bills [in a 2003 state package] were posted for consideration in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee which was chaired by Senator Barack Obama. The bills' sponsor, Senator Rick Winkel first presented SB 1082. He requested that an amendment be adopted to the bill which would change it to mirror the federal legislation passed in 2002. The amendment was adopted in a procedural move called "leave for attendance roll call" which is a courtesy that is afforded to bill sponsors in order to move committee hearings along in a timely fashion. Despite the fact that the bill then contained the same language as the federal law, it remained problematic because it still amended Illinois statutes regulating abortion, and it still was part of a package that included SB 1083. Senator Winkel presented SB 1082 to the committee and it failed on a vote of six members voting no (including Senator Obama) and four members voting yes. Chairman Obama asked Senator Winkel if he wished to present SB 1083. He declined. Senator Winkel did not present the bill because, due to the failure of SB 1082, SB 1083 lacked a definition of a "live born" fetus and, thus, was structurally flawed. SB 1082 and SB 1083 were not considered again that session.

Planned Parenthood states of the 2005 "compromise" bill that included legislative language making clear that the bill did not affect state abortion or medical practice law: "The enactment of HB 984 did not negatively impact access to abortion services in Illinois and medical care for pregnant women remains protected."

From Fund's column:

It turns out that while in the Illinois legislature, he [Obama] voted against a bill that would have defined a fully born baby who survived an abortion as a "person." The concept isn't that controversial even among liberal Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the Senate's leading pro-choice champion, urged her fellow Democrats to vote for a federal version of the same concept back in 2001, saying such a provision did not impinge on the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The Born Alive Infants bill eventually passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 0.

But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it.

From Freddoso's article:

Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born.

But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama's work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee -- against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.

MYTH: Obama voted "present" on IL bill to avoid being the only senator to vote "no"

In The Obama Nation, Corsi falsely asserted that on March 30, 2001, Obama voted "present" on a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 that opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights because he didn't want to be the only state senator to vote against the bill. In fact, according to the transcript of the Senate's proceedings on the bill that day -- which Corsi himself cited -- the roll call for the vote was 34 voting aye, 6 voting no, and 12 voting present.

In The Obama Nation, Corsi wrote:

Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present." [Page 238]. [citing "State of Illinois, 92nd General Assembly, Regular Session, Senate Transcript, 20th Legislative Day, March 30, 2001, at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf pp. 86-87"]

Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, has reportedly said that Obama's "present" votes on "born alive" bills were part of a legislative strategy.

MYTH: Obama argued that protections for "a nine-month old fetus" would essentially "forbid abortions from taking place"

In his book, Corsi also falsely claimed that during the debate on the March 30, 2001, bill, "Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place" [Page 238]. In fact, Obama was not describing a "nine-month-old fetus," but rather specifically referring to "a previable fetus," asserting that defining it as a "person" under the law would "essentially bar abortions."

Fox News' Sean Hannity uncritically echoed Corsi's false claim on the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show.

—E.H.H., A.H.S., & R.S.K.

Limbaugh: Obama's nomination "goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy"

Here is yet another example of how Rush Limbaugh and the Republican right must make race an issue to scare people into voting for John McCain over Barak Obama. When it is not possible to win an election on issues or ideas, the right wing smear campaign needs appeal to the lowest common denominator of an individuals character to get their messages heard.

On the August 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that "it is striking how unqualified [Sen. Barack] Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat [sic] Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them. It's the reverse of it. They've, they've ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it." Limbaugh added: "It's perfect affirmative action. And because of all this guilt and the historic nature of things, nobody had the guts to say, well, wait a minute, do we really want to do this?"



Click on the headline to see the actual transcript of Limbaugh's conversation with the caller courtesy of Media Matters

Discussing Obama, Limbaugh suggests Dems, media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child"

Where have we heard this type of racial rhetoric before, can anyone tell me? I guess because Limbaugh is the voice of the conservative right he gets a pass because he didn't actually call Obama the "N" word, but he might as well have after these remarks

On the August 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted of attacks by Sen. John McCain against Sen. Barack Obama: "[S]ee, there are Democrats -- the drive-bys" -- a term Limbaugh uses to denote the national media -- "are just so upset with these so-called 'ferocious attacks.' These have been benign. Even the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad was funny. It was benign." He later added: "It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right, It's not fair. He's such a victim."

Limbaugh previously claimed that "nobody criticizes [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton]. ... Well, you might say, 'No, Michelle Obama and Mrs. [Elizabeth] Edwards are out there criticizing her,' but, see, I finally figured this one out, too. You can't hit the girl. You just -- you can't hit the girl." He continued: "And for [former Democratic presidential candidate John] Edwards and Obama to go out there and criticize Hillary would -- she would -- she plays the victim better than anybody does, and she could make real hay out of that. So they've got their wives out there ripping her."

From the August 20 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Quickly, L.A. Times poll: "More striking, however, is the drop in Obama's favorable rating. Obama's favorable rating has slid from 59 percent to 48 percent since June. At the same time his negative rating has risen from 27 to 35 percent. The bulk of that shift stems from Republicans souring on Obama amid ferocious attacks on the Democrat by McCain and his allies." That's it -- see, there are Democrats -- the drive-bys are just so upset with these so-called "ferocious attacks." These have been benign. Even the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad was funny. It was benign.

Obama's patriotism is not being attacked in an ad. McCain's just out there saying he's putting his own personal political ambition ahead of the country's. It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right. It's not fair. He's such a victim.

Thanks Media Matters

Corsi: Critics of Obama might be "put ... in jail" if he's president

It is amazing what comes out of Jerome Corsi's mouth during an interview on C-Span this weekend. It's not bad enough that he has written a book that is basically a work of fiction, but now he says that Obama will jail anyone that disagrees with him if elected president!

Media denounce Corsi's anti-Obama book