Media conservatives have responded with a torrent of unhinged rhetoric to an Arizona judge's ruling that blocked parts of the state's immigration law from taking effect. For example, Rush Limbaugh suggested the ruling would prevent the state from defending itself from an "invasion," and Jeffrey Kuhner suggested Arizona should consider secession.

Right wing's rhetoric on immigration ruling includes talk of "invasion" and secession

Limbaugh suggests judge's decision prevents Arizona from "defend[ing] itself from an invasion." Responding to Judge Susan Bolton's July 28 decision to block parts of the Arizona immigration law from taking effect, Limbaugh said: "I guess the judge is saying it's not in the public interest for Arizona to try to defend itself from an invasion. I don't know how you look at this with any sort of common sense and come to the ruling this woman came to." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/28/10]

Limbaugh predicts that "Muslim terrorists" will "have a field day in Arizona." On the same show, Limbaugh also stated that "we now have a situation where the federal government, through the executive branch and this court, is saying that state and local law enforcement is essentially barred from inquiring into the legal status of individuals who are stopped incidental to other potential violations. That's the net effect." Limbaugh went on to say: "Muslim terrorists are going to have a field day in Arizona. You cannot ask them where they're from. You cannot even act like we know where they're from. You cannot ask them for their papers. We can ask you for yours. Not them." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/28/10]

Wash. Times' Kuhner asks, "Should Arizona secede?" In a July 29 column headlined "Should Arizona secede?" The Washington Times' Jeffrey Kuhner stated that the ruling "is unilaterally disarming the people of Arizona in the face of a dangerous enemy" and that "leftist judges -- elitist activists in black robes -- override democratic legitimacy." Kuhner warned that the United States is in danger of becoming a "socialist superstate" and claimed, "The choice is becoming starkly apparent: devolution or dissolution." Kuhner's column was promoted by the Fox Nation.

Hannity, Doocy suggest federal government "won't protect" Arizona residents. In an interview with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, Sean Hannity stated on the July 28 edition of his Fox News show, "Is it a fair interpretation in your mind -- today's court ruling -- to say that it appears that the federal government won't protect American citizens, won't enforce the law, and also, on the other hand, now the state of Arizona, that you can't do it either?" Similarly, on the July 29 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy asked, "If the feds won't protect the people and Governor Brewer can't protect her citizens, what are the people of Arizona supposed to do?"

Beck suggests that ruling is suicidal. In a discussion with Kris Kobach, a law professor and Republican candidate for Kansas Secretary of State who helped write Arizona's immigration law, Glenn Beck stated that with the judge's ruling, "you have a suicide pact with the Constitution now for states":

KOBACH: But the Supreme Court has held for centuries, and it's clear that our Constitution requires, that if Congress is going to push the states off the field, it has to be an act of Congress and it has to be an unmistakable statement by Congress that the states are no longer welcome. But what the Obama adm --

BECK: But wait, they're not no longer welcome in this. I think the Congress has been clear. They're not welcome in this. However, they're not doing the job. And so you have a self -- you have a suicide pact with the Constitution now for states. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/29/10]

Savage: "The judge is a criminal who should be put in jail." Radio host Michael Savage responded to the ruling by calling Bolton a "criminal," adding that "[i]n a sane country, she'd be arrested."

SAVAGE: She's a criminal, in essence. In essence, the judge is a criminal. I mean, you want to add it up? Men died for the sanctity of the ballot box. So, if someone interferes with the ballot box and says you can't vote or your vote is nullified, that's tampering. She's a criminal. In a sane country, she'd be arrested. What do you want me to say here? The judge is a criminal who should be put in jail. In a sane country, any judge who said, "You know what? You may have voted, but drop dead. I'm bigger than you. Your vote doesn't count" -- that's a criminal. [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 7/28/10]

Seth Motel is an intern at Media Matters for America.

On Fox & Friends, Fox Business' Stuart Varney argued that it is "inaccurate" to attribute the recession to President Bush and claimed that "President Obama's policies have not fixed that ongoing recession." In reality, Obama's policies have created growth in the GDP and the Dow Jones Industrial Average, while turning around the increases in joblessness that began under Bush.

Varney: "President Bush fixed the financial panic," while the "economy fell off a cliff on President Obama's watch"  

From the July 30 edition of Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: We're all wondering why hasn't the president created more jobs? Well, you know the White House says it's President Bush's fault. Joe Biden said that just yesterday. Listen.  

BIDEN [video clip]: There's never enough until we restore the eight million jobs lost in the Bush recession. Until that happens, it doesn't matter. I mean, it matters, but it's not enough.  

DOOCY: Did he say the Bush recession? Stuart Varney is laughing off camera and he is now on camera to tell us what's going on here. OK, so now, forget about just blaming Bush. Now Mr. Bush has got a recession named after him.  

VARNEY: Let me get my line in here. The president is on a summer recovery tour. The vice president seems to be on a summer comic relief tour. He says it's Bush's recession, harking back two years ago. I think that's inaccurate. President Bush fixed the financial panic. The economy fell off a cliff on President Obama's watch, and President Obama's policies have not fixed that ongoing recession.

NBER: Recession began in December 2007, more than a year before Obama's presidency began 

NBER: Economic activity began to decline in December 2007. The National Bureau of Economic Research announced on December 1, 2008, that based on "economy-wide measures of economic activity," including domestic production and employment, the recession began in December 2007.

Economic indicators show the economy has dramatically improved under the Obama administration 

Real GDP has greatly increased during Obama's presidency. As the graph (taken from Bureau of Economic Analysis data) below indicates, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) tumbled in the last two quarters of Bush's presidency and the first two quarters of Obama's. It has increased steadily through the last four quarters:

After steadily increasing in 2008, new jobless numbers have dropped significantly in the time since Obama took office. As data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show, new jobless numbers increased in seven of the last eight months of Bush's term, from just under 200,000 jobs lost June of 2008 to around 800,000 lost in January 2009. The data show that in the time since President Obama took office, new jobless claims have significantly decreased, and, beginning in November 2009, there has been a net increase in employment. From a BLS news release on the June 2010 jobs report:

 

After falling "off a cliff" in October 2008, the stock market rebounded following the passage of Obama's stimulus plan. In the fall of 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) nosedived, dropping 2937.25 points in just two weeks (September 26 to October 10). The Dow continued its downward trend through March 6, 2009, when it bottomed out at 6626.94 points, two weeks after President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Since then, the DJI has steadily increased, gaining 26.6 percent in the time since Obama took office, and 33.5 percent since the stimulus was enacted (as of 11:21 am ET on July 30).

 

Economists: government's response to the recession "probably averted ... Great Depression 2.0"

Moody's study shows government's policy response to the recession "probably averted ... Great Depression 2.0." A recent study by Alan Blinder, the president of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, and Mark Zandi, the co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, simulated the "macroeconomic effects of the government's total policy response" to the recent economic downturn and found that while "TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed's quantitative easing" was "substantially more powerful than" the fiscal stimulus, "the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls."

Wall Street Journal: 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)."

Bush admin disagreed with Doocy's claim that "saved or created jobs" metric "does not exist"

Doocy and Varney: You "can't prove" that the stimulus saved or created jobs because that "metric does not exist." From the July 30 edition of Fox & Friends:

VARNEY: There's a lot of things that the vice president has come out with which really do offer a little comic relief. Three million jobs saved or created because of the stimulus plan.

DOOCY: Which is a metric that does not exist.

VARNEY: You can't prove that. You can laugh at it, but you can't prove it. "The stimulus plan is working better than anyone had hoped for." Really? I mean, come on.

DOOCY: Yeah, can we vote on that? Well, Stuart, if you -- just imagine, if you were in the White House, what are you gonna do? Are you gonna say "Yeah, we're sorry that we're stinking up the place when it comes to job creation. Oh, let's blame the last guy."

VARNEY: You have got to defend the policies which you put in place. So you go back to the last guy and say it's his fault, and we're cleaning up the mess.

Bush Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman: "[R]ural development programs have saved or created more than 500,000 jobs." On June 24, 2004, then-Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman stated: "We have estimated that our rural development programs have saved or created more than 500,000 jobs just since the Bush Administration took office in January of 2001." [Accessed via the Nexis database]

Veneman's replacement Mike Johanns: "[E]conomic development in rural areas ... will help save or create more than 1,800 jobs." According to a March 24, 2005, Agriculture Department news release, Mike Johanns -- who replaced Veneman as Agriculture secretary -- stated: "These funds are part of the Bush Administration's ongoing efforts to spur economic development in rural areas and will help save or create more than 1,800 jobs."

Agriculture Undersecretary Thomas C. Dorr "announced the award of $19.75 million to create or retain jobs." According to a May 7, 2007, Agriculture Department news release, then-Agriculture Undersecretary Thomas C. Dorr stated:

Agriculture Under Secretary Thomas C. Dorr today announced the award of $19.75 million to create or retain jobs at rural businesses.

"These funds will help support local economic development agencies, finance infrastructure improvements, establish low-interest revolving loan funds, and help jurisdictions implement regional business and community development plans," Dorr said. "The funding announced today is expected to save or create more than 2,300 jobs in 20 states."

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh regularly tout their supposed accuracy and often claim their critics never prove them wrong. Fittingly, this in itself is a complete falsehood. Limbaugh and Beck are wrong for a living, but have been rewarded for their perpetual wrongness by assuming the role of the two most important cogs in the conservative media.

Every day, the conservative noise machine -- Fox News, Beck, Limbaugh, and other prominent conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers -- hurl false accusations with the hopes of damaging the Obama administration, Democrats, and progressives politically. Make no mistake: this is the primary motivation for the majority of the stories they promote. Pesky things like "facts" and "reality" are, at best, a trivial concern.

Often, these attacks are baseless, easily debunked, and laughably absurd -- yet conservative media outlets rarely (if ever) offer corrections when they are proven wrong. Instead they either double down on their attacks or simply ignore that they were wrong in the first place and move on to the next overhyped bit of nonsense.

While it may seem like a minor story in the grand scheme of things, one example from this week perfectly exemplifies the utter lack of journalistic standards endemic to conservative media.

Early this week, conservatives were in their usual panic mode over what they claimed was evidence that the Obama administration "backed" or "preferred" the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the terrorist better known as the Lockerbie bomber. As we pointed out, reports -- often the same reports these conservatives were linking to in order to make their arguments -- indicated that the administration wanted Megrahi to "remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime."

Fox News twisted reality to claim that the "U.S. Backed Freedom, Not Prison, for Bomber." Matt Drudge splashed a huge headline across his website announcing that the "White House Backed Release Of Lockerbie Bomber." Pam Geller -- whose deranged rantings have earned her frequent appearances on Fox News and bylines on Andrew Breitbart's "Big" websites, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and the American Thinker -- called for a "special investigation" and a "charge of treason" for Obama.

Rush Limbaugh -- while bragging, as he often does, that he was "executing assigned host duties flawlessly" with "zero mistakes" --claimed that Obama "backed the release" of the Lockerbie bomber because he wanted to "make nice with the Muslim world."

Late Monday, when the State Department released the administration's correspondence with the Scottish Ministry of Justice, it confirmed in unambiguous terms that the administration was "not prepared to support Megrahi's release on compassionate release or bail," and that "it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imprisoned for the entirety of his sentence." They stipulated if he were to be released, he should remain in Scotland rather than risk him receiving an "extremely inappropriate" "welcoming reception" upon being transferred to Libya.

So, after this story completely fell apart, did conservative media figures correct the record and let their readers/listeners/viewers know that the administration did not "support" or "prefer" the release of the Lockerbie bomber?

Of course not.

Conservative blogger Jim Hoft -- whose ongoing popularity and influence in conservative media says a lot about their complete indifference to accuracy and credibility -- linked to the letter and proclaimed that the administration "preferred" his release. This was akin to pointing at the ground and saying "this is the sky."

Fox Nation, almost 48 hours after the story had completely fallen apart, still had the following headline and image on their front page:

And you can be sure that in a few months, whenever Sean Hannity or anyone else in the noise machine decides to twist a news story to claim that the Obama administration is "weak on terror," they'll point to the time the administration supposedly "preferred the release of the Lockerbie bomber" in order to buttress their point.

It's a perpetual dishonesty machine.

If this were an isolated incident, perhaps it would be possible to (partially) excuse conservative media outlets for their shameless performance "covering" this story. But as we detailed this week, the right-wing media routinely promote fake stories (for example, the epic freak-out over the imaginary Obama proposal to "ban sport fishing.")

For another good example of how the perpetual dishonesty machine works, have a look at this segment from Tuesday's Fox & Friends. In it, Glenn Beck, Steve Doocy, and Peter Johnson Jr. seized on reports of the U.K. supposedly "admit[ting] its socialized health care is a mess" in order to attack health care reform. They rehashed some old favorites from conservatives' misinformation campaign about health care reform, claiming that we "modeled" reform on the British system and fear mongered about imaginary "death panels." Neither of these attacks were true when they appeared last year, they weren't true this week, and they won't be true the next time Fox's hosts bring them up. 

This pattern is undeniable, and at this point is just expected behavior for the conservative media. The larger problem is that "mainstream" outlets still frequently treat garbage from conservative media figures as newsworthy, and ombudsmen at major newspapers like The Washington Post regularly chastise their colleagues for not seizing on conservative nonsense faster.

It says a lot about the state of the media when Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and other prominent media conservatives can be caught pushing a blatantly false story, offer no correction, and have their behavior met with a collective shrug. Conservative media outlets retain their unfortunate power and influence over the public discourse because they are able to lie largely without consequence.

They did it all this week, they did it all last week, and they'll do it again next week.

Dishonest damage control: Shirley Sherrod edition

Though conservative media outlets mostly avoid accountability for their shameless dishonesty, occasionally, one of their overhyped "scandals" blows up in such epic fashion that they are forced to publicly defend themselves. Fittingly, their defenses often rest on provable falsehoods.

In the wake of Shirley Sherrod's firing and (attempted) rehiring, Fox News, Andrew Breitbart, and conservative media figures have transitioned into damage control mode, a large, shameful part of which entails attacking Sherrod as a radical Marxist race-baiter.

While Breitbart (whom Sherrod announced plans to sue this week) deserves a hefty dose of criticism for revealing yet again that he is a dishonest hack, it's worth taking a closer look at Fox News' role in this story. 

Fox originally defended their journalistic integrity by unequivocally stating that they did not cover the story prior to Sherrod's resignation. Among the Fox personalities making this argument were Dana Perino, Steve Doocy, Glenn Beck, and James Rosen. As we pointed out repeatedly, Fox News did cover the story prior to her resignation on both FoxNews.com and FoxNation.com, and Bill O'Reilly taped his segment calling for Sherrod's resignation before she stepped down.

Fox News VP Michael Clemente eventually conceded to Politico that Fox had covered the story online before Sherrod resigned, which he blamed on a "breakdown in the system." Give me a break -- Fox should not get a pass on this one. How low a bar has Fox set in terms of journalistic responsibility that they think a legitimate defense for their behavior is saying "well, only two of our websites and our top-rated TV host planned to run with this story before we got the facts straight, so we mostly did a good job." Really?

The fact that Sherrod happened to resign before O'Reilly's segment aired has absolutely no bearing on the lack of journalisticresponsibility inherent in O'Reilly's segment in the first place. And Fox's online coverage of the story, coupled with their past transgressions, seem to indicate not that there was a "breakdown in the system," but that the "system" doesn't even exist.

Glenn Beck's dangerous game

On July 18, an apparently deranged ex-convict named Byron Williams packed his truck with guns and allegedly set out to kill employees at both the ACLU and the Tides Foundation in the hopes that his actions would "start a revolution." Williams' mother indicated that her son was angry because of his unemployment and "what's happening to our country." According to her, Williams watched television news and was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items." Sound familiar?

While the ACLU has long been a bogeyman for conservatives, the Tides Foundation is far more obscure and hasn't earned nearly as much attention from the right-wing media. There is, however, one media figure who has made the little-known Tides Foundation a focal point of his attacks: Fox News' Glenn Beck.

As we detailed, Beck has repeatedly demonized the Tides Foundation on his Fox News program - referencing the organization at least thirty times by our count. Beck often includes Tides in his bizarre conspiracy theories, and has referred to them as a "shady organization" that is a "major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the left" and wants to "warp your children's brains."

In the wake of the attempted attack, Beck has stood by his attacks on Tides, going so far as to brag about "turning the light of day" on Tides while also pointing to their inclusion on his blackboard as "the first time that I really realized its success."

Beck's denial of any responsibility for this incident is complicated by his almost-daily use of overtly violent rhetoric. Among many, many other examples, Beck has:

• Suggested Obama is pushing America toward civil war and deliberately "trying to destroy the country."
• Capped two weeks of violent fear mongering about progressives by warning that when their attempts at a "soft revolution" fail, eventually progressives "just start shooting people."
• Said the "people around the president" support "armed insurrection" and "bombing."
• Repeatedly insinuated that the Obama administration will kill him.
• Used a quote from Jefferson to launch into a warning about coming "rivers of blood."
• Compared himself to "Israeli Nazi hunters" and announced that "to the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter."
• Included in his advice to Liberty University grads that they should "shoot to kill," and that graduates "have a responsibility" tospeak out, or "blood...will be on our hands."
• Informed viewers that the "world is on edge" and said that "those who survive" will "stand in the truth" and "listen."
• Said that some progressive groups don't have "a problem with blood in the streets."

And just today, Beck claimed the present day will seem like good times "when we're behind barbed wire and just eating rock soup."

Despite the fact that he routinely suggests progressives are going to kill or imprison his viewers and listeners, Beck tries to thread the needle by urging his followers not to resort to violence.

As Media Matters' Matt McLaughlin asked this week, what does it say about Beck's rhetoric and his audience that he feels it necessary to tell his followers not to kill people?

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Media Matters' Ben Dimiero

Fox & Friends misled on a Department of Homeland Security memo on immigration reform, falsely claiming it "appears to show the White House has an amnesty plan," which they plan to implement by "going around Congress." The hosts continued to mislead even after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed that the administration "doesn't support amnesty" and intended to deal with immigration "through Congress"; Fox & Friends also failed to mention that the DHS memo itself recommended against deferred action, saying it would be "controversial, not to mention expensive."

Gibbs informs Fox & Friends that the White House does not support amnesty

Camerota introduces Gibbs by claiming the White House "appears to have...an amnesty plan"; Doocy asks if WH plans to "get around Congress by using discretionary authority." On the July 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, guest host Alisyn Camerota introduced White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs by claiming, "There's a new memo out this morning that appears to show the White House has an amnesty plan." Camerota said to Gibbs: "There's a new poll out this week by the Arizona Republic that shows 62% of Arizonians actually believe in letting illegal immigrants stay in the state if they have a job and no criminal record. Is that the type of amnesty that the White House supports?" Co-host Steve Doocy asked Gibbs if the Obama administration "is exploring the way to get around congress by using discretionary authority to allow people who are in the country illegally to stay in the country."

Gibbs confirms that the administration "doesn't support amnesty." During the interview, Gibbs stated "The White House doesn't support amnesty." From Fox & Friends:

GIBBS: The White House doesn't support amnesty and I think people who support comprehensive immigration reform don't support amnesty either. What we need to do is again, figure out how we're going to secure our borders. Deal with those that are here. But do it in a comprehensive way and do it at a federal level because as frustrated as Arizonians are and we understand that, we can't have a patchwork of immigration laws throughout each of the 50 states. 

Gibbs: "This administration believes that the only way to deal with immigration is to do it comprehensively," not by using "discretionary authority." During the interview, Gibbs confirmed that Obama was not planning on using "discretionary authority," saying the "administration believes that the only way to deal with immigration is to do it comprehensively," and "with Democrats and Republicans working together." From Fox & Friends:

GIBBS: This administration believes that the only way to deal with immigration is to do it comprehensively. To do it through congress with Democrats and Republicans working together. We've done it before with members like John McCain. Members like Lindsey Graham, working with Democrats like Barack Obama when he was in the U.S. Senate. We can do that again. We can solve this problem once and for all. We can deal with securing our borders as the president has talked about moving 1,200 national guardsmen to secure the borders and I think we can deal with this comprehensively if we'll all just take a step back to deal with the problem. 

Undaunted, Fox & Friends continued to mislead about "a back door amnesty plan" following Gibbs' interview

Briggs: The memo "appears to show the White House has a back door amnesty plan." Later in the show, guest host Dave Briggs again misled on the administration's position, claiming, "There is a new memo out this morning that appears to show the White House has a back door amnesty plan."

Doocy ignores Gibbs' response to continue claiming the White House could "do an end around congress." After airing Gibbs' response that "the White House doesn't support amnesty," Doocy continued to speculate that they "could effectively do an end around congress. Because if they're going to go through Congress for some sort of amnesty or, Robert Gibbs would not use the word amnesty, or some sort of a track to citizenship for the 10, 11, 12, 25 million illegals in this country, that would be an end around from Congress."

Briggs: "The right is saying this is a way to buy off the votes to get the Hispanics and illegals voting in these midterm elections." Briggs continued to speculate that the administration is considering amnesty, claiming, "Nobody wants to use the word amnesty. Nobody on either side of the aisle and the right is saying this is a way to buy off those votes to get the Hispanics and get even some illegals voting in these midterm elections in November. So that's the political spin."

Fox's chyrons go from noting "WH 'doesn't support amnesty'" to discussing "administration's amnesty plan" in a matter of seconds. During the segment on the "Administration's amnesty plan," Fox & Friends ran the following contradictory on-screen graphics:

Fox & Friends ignores that the DHS memo recommends against deferred action

DHS memo: Deferred action "would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive." In the Department of Homeland Security memo that Fox is referencing, deferred action, defined as "an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time," is recommended against. The memo states:

While it is theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals, doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive.

[...]

Rather than making deferred action widely available to hundreds of thousands and as a non-legislative version of "amnesty", [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] could tailor the use of this discretionary option for particular groups such as individuals who would be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act.

Fox News' Alisyn Camerota compared the number of "deaths along the U.S. border" to the number of "soldiers killed in Iraq" to falsely suggest that Judge Susan Bolton's decision to block parts of Arizona's new immigration law put "people in danger." In fact, crime rates in border states have declined in recent years and are at their lowest levels in decades.

Fox: "[M]ore deaths" on border means AZ ruling may "leave people in danger"

Camerota: "There have been more deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border than soldiers killed in Iraq, so does the judge's decision to block parts of Arizona's law leave people in danger?" On the July 30 edition of Fox & Friends, Camerota teased a discussion about a federal judge's recent decision to block the controversial portions of the Arizona immigration law by stating, "There have been more deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border than soldiers killed in Iraq." The ensuing segment did not include any discussion of this claim.

According to Justice Dept., crime rates in border states are at their lowest levels in decades

Crime rates in Arizona at lowest point in decades. According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the violent crime rate in Arizona has been declining since 2006 and in 2008 -- the most recent year for which data are available -- was at its lowest level since 1973. Likewise, the property crime rate in Arizona has declined sharply since 2002 and in 2008 was at its lowest point since 1966. The drop in crime rates coincided with a dramatic increase in Arizona's undocumented immigrant population. The Arizona Republic reported: "Between January 2000 and January 2008, Arizona's undocumented population grew 70 percent, according to the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] report. Nationally, it grew 37 percent."

Crime rates in other border states also have dropped in recent years. The BJS data further show that violent crime rates and property crime rates in California, New Mexico, and Texas dropped in recent years, and in 2008 were at their lowest levels in decades.

• In California, the violent crime rate dropped to 503.8 in 2008, the lowest level since 1970; the property crime rate dropped to 2,940.3, the lowest level since 1960 -- the earliest year for which BJS provides data.

• In New Mexico, the violent crime rate dropped to 655.6 in 2008, the lowest level since 1987; the property crime rate dropped to 3,817.4, the lowest since 1968.

• In Texas, the violent crime rate dropped to 508.0 in 2008, the lowest level since 1984; the property crime rate dropped to 3,987.0, the lowest since 1973.

Cato's Griswold: "[I]t is a smear to blame low-skilled immigrant workers from Latin America for creating a crime problem in Arizona." In an April 27 post, Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, wrote that "Arizona's harsh new law against illegal immigration is being justified in part as a measure to combat crime" and that "drug-related violence along the border is a real problem." But, Griswold continued, "it is a smear to blame low-skilled immigrant workers from Latin America for creating a crime problem in Arizona." From Griswold's post:

Arizona's harsh new law against illegal immigration is being justified in part as a measure to combat crime. The murder of an Arizona rancher in March, allegedly by somebody in the country without documentation, galvanized support for the bill.

The death of the rancher was a tragedy, and drug-related violence along the border is a real problem, but it is a smear to blame low-skilled immigrant workers from Latin America for creating a crime problem in Arizona.

The crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades. In the past decade, as the number of illegal immigrants in the state grew rapidly, the violent crime rate dropped by 23 percent, the property crime rate by 28 percent.

Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente has now admitted that a "breakdown" allowed Foxnews.com to run a story about Shirley Sherrod's comments before she resigned. Prior to this statement, a barrage of Fox personalities aggressively pushed the claim that Fox had not run with the story before Sherrod's resignation.

Clemente admits a "breakdown" led FoxNews.com to cover Sherrod video prior to resignation

Clemente: A "breakdown" led to FoxNews.com covering Sherrod story prematurely. As Media Matters previously reported, FoxNews.com ran an article headlined "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer," before the USDA announced Sherrod's resignation on July 19. On July 28, Clemente told Politico that that story was "a mistake" and that "There was a breakdown in the system and it is being addressed." Politico added: "The breakdown occurred following Fox's afternoon news meeting that day, when Clemente, according to The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz offered the following advice: 'Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right.' Clemente said he gave the advice in the meeting, not in a memo to staff, and his guidance clearly did not make it down to the reporter and producers who put the story on FoxNews.com." 

Prior to Clemente's admission, Fox aggressively claimed it did not cover the story prior to Sherrod's resignation

Perino: "The timeline of all of this is really important. Before the news even broke, she had resigned." On the July 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Dana Perino asserted that Fox did not cover the story until Sherrod resigned, saying "The timeline of all of this is really important. Before the news even broke, she had resigned." Perino added that "I think we should all look before we leap, and nobody likes a double standard."

Doocy: "Fox News did not do the story until after she had already resigned." During the same program Doocy asserted that it is "such an important point" that Fox did not cover the story before she resigned, adding:

DOOCY: Yesterday, the NAACP came out and they said that we are now apologizing to her and they say they were snookered by Fox News and Andrew Breitbart but as Dana mentioned, there's a timeline problem. Fox News did not do the story until after she had already resigned. So she was pressured by the Department of Agriculture to quit, she quit, and then we did the story. So for anybody to say that Fox News pressured her out, that is simply a lie. 

Doocy misleadingly claims "Fox News Channel did not touch this story until she had actually quit." On the July 22 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy misleadingly claimed that Fox News Channel had not reported on the controversy until after Sherrod had resigned, but did not acknowledge the network's coverage on its website:

DOOCY: [T]here have been a lot of criticisms leveled at Fox News. Fox News Channel did not touch this story until she had actually quit. I mean, Fox News -- some of the commentators started doing this story after she had resigned. It was the White House, it was the NAACP, that drummed her out. 

Rosen: It's a "myth" that "Fox News was somehow a catalyzing agent in this." On the July 22 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, correspondent James Rosen misleadingly asserted that it's a "myth, the idea that Fox News was somehow a catalyzing agent in this when in fact Miss Sherrod had resigned long before the first segments on this channel started to run about this story." Rosen did not address Fox's online coverage of the story.

Beck: "The first Fox report came after she had already resigned." On the July 22 edition of his Fox show, Glenn Beck asserted that "The first Fox report came after she had already resigned. How did Fox dupe the White House into firing her when we hadn't aired it?"

A piece in National Review claimed that Elena Kagan is anti-small business because as solicitor general, she filed a Supreme Court brief arguing that the Court should throw out a case brought by a business. But Kagan's alleged anti-small business argument was first made by the Bush Justice Department, and legal experts say Kagan's solicitor general briefs are not necessarily proof of her personal views.

National Review piece: Kagan confirmation could "harm" small businesses

John Berlau in National Review: Kagan could mean "great harm" for small businesses based on her work as SG. In a July 29 piece for National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's John Berlau argued that Kagan would be an anti-small business Supreme Court justice. His claims centered on arguments Kagan made as solicitor general in one case, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Berlau claimed that in that case, Kagan "effectively argued that small businesses that object to a particular law or regulation as unconstitutional should be held hostage to the administrative-review process of the agency responsible for enforcing that law or regulation."

Berlau's piece -- headlined "Elena Kagan's War on Small Business: Solicitor General Kagan urged against letting a small firm challenge a regulatory agency in court. Would a Justice Kagan do the same?" -- said: "While Congress is claiming it wants to help small business, confirming Kagan could mean great harm to business owners crippled by costly regulation."

Kagan's alleged anti-small business argument was first made by the Bush Justice Department

Kagan's alleged anti-small business argument was first made by the Bush Justice Department. The Kagan brief Berlau attacked argued that the Supreme Court should dismiss Free Enterprise Fund because the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia "lacked jurisdiction because petitioners failed to exhaust the exclusive statutory review procedures." But the Bush administration Justice Department made the same argument in lower court proceedings in the same case. From the 2008 decision in the lower court:

The Board and the United States contend, as a threshold matter, that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Fund failed to exhaust the Act's statutory review procedures. The Act permits a person "aggrieved by a final order of the Commission" or a person "adversely affected by a rule of the Commission" to obtain review in the court of appeals.

The case involved a challenge to a section of the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a law that received wide bipartisan support. The case involved a constitutional challenge to the method for selecting members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an entity created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a law written to respond to the accounting scandals involving Enron and other corporations. The final version of the law passed the House by a vote of 423-3 and the Senate by a vote of 99-0 and was signed by then-President Bush.

Legal experts: SG briefs aren't necessarily proof of Kagan's personal views

Legal experts say that Kagan's personal legal views can't be inferred from her actions as solicitor general. Pamela Harris, the head of Georgetown University's Supreme Court Institute, has said, "I don't think you can read almost anything" into the personal views of a solicitor general based on her representation of the United States. Lincoln Caplan, an expert on solicitors general, told The Washington Post, "It's a mistake to assume that every argument an SG makes on behalf of the government reflects her personal legal philosophy."

Kagan stated during her SG confirmation hearings that she will represent the U.S. government rather than follow her personal views. In response to written questions submitted by senators as part of the confirmation process for Kagan's nomination as solicitor general, Kagan stated: "I am fully convinced that I could represent all of these interests with vigor, even when they conflict with my own opinions."

Kagan's duty as SG is to make every reasonable argument to defend federal laws and actions. It is the role of the solicitor general to defend federal laws and actions, as long as there is a reasonable basis for them -- indeed, Sen. Orrin Hatch noted that at Kagan's solicitor general hearing, she "properly affirmed that the Solicitor General must make every reasonable argument defending the constitutionality of federal statutes."

NR piece also misrepresented Kagan's testimony about environmental lawsuits

Berlau claimed Kagan "appeared sympathetic" to environmentalists during her confirmation hearings, but would "shut the courthouse door" on small business owners. Berlau wrote in his July 29 National Review piece:

In her confirmation hearings this summer, Kagan appeared sympathetic to a broad definition of injury when it comes to standing for activists filing environmental lawsuits. In response to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, she told the Judiciary Committee on June 29 that an injury sufficient for standing "can be of many different kinds. It can be economic injury, but it can also be a kind of injury that you get when the environment is degraded and you can't use the parks in the way you would have wanted to use the parks."

But for Americans who spend their time building businesses as well as going to parks, Kagan would apparently try to shut the courthouse door.

In fact, Kagan's statement about environmental lawsuits echoes Supreme Court precedent. In 2000 in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, the Supreme Court held by a 7-2 vote that the following injuries were enough to establish standing: Wanting to fish, camp, swim, and picnic in or near a river without it being smelly and polluted; wanting to picnic, walk, birdwatch and wade in that river; and having a lower property level because of pollution. From the opinion:

Focusing properly on injury to the plaintiff, the District Court found that FOE had demonstrated sufficient injury to establish standing. App. in No. 97--1246 (CA4), pp. 207--208 (Tr. of Hearing 39--40 (June 30, 1993)). For example, FOE member Kenneth Lee Curtis averred in affidavits that he lived a half-mile from Laidlaw's facility; that he occasionally drove over the North Tyger River, and that it looked and smelled polluted; and that he would like to fish, camp, swim, and picnic in and near the river between 3 and 15 miles downstream from the facility, as he did when he was a teenager, but would not do so because he was concerned that the water was polluted by Laidlaw's discharges. Record, Doc. No. 71 (Exhs. 41, 42). Curtis reaffirmed these statements in extensive deposition testimony. For example, he testified that he would like to fish in the river at a specific spot he used as a boy, but that he would not do so now because of his concerns about Laidlaw's discharges. Ibid. (Exh. 43, at 52--53; Exh. 44, at 33).

Other members presented evidence to similar effect. CLEAN member Angela Patterson attested that she lived two miles from the facility; that before Laidlaw operated the facility, she picnicked, walked, birdwatched, and waded in and along the North Tyger River because of the natural beauty of the area; that she no longer engaged in these activities in or near the river because she was concerned about harmful effects from discharged pollutants; and that she and her husband would like to purchase a home near the river but did not intend to do so, in part because of Laidlaw's discharges. Record, Doc. No. 21 (Exh. 10). CLEAN member Judy Pruitt averred that she lived one-quarter mile from Laidlaw's facility and would like to fish, hike, and picnic along the North Tyger River, but has refrained from those activities because of the discharges. Ibid. (Exh. 7). FOE member Linda Moore attested that she lived 20 miles from Roebuck, and would use the North Tyger River south of Roebuck and the land surrounding it for recreational purposes were she not concerned that the water contained harmful pollutants. Record, Doc. No. 71 (Exhs. 45, 46). In her deposition, Moore testified at length that she would hike, picnic, camp, swim, boat, and drive near or in the river were it not for her concerns about illegal discharges. Ibid. (Exh. 48, at 29, 36--37, 62--63, 72). CLEAN member Gail Lee attested that her home, which is near Laidlaw's facility, had a lower value than similar homes located further from the facility, and that she believed the pollutant discharges accounted for some of the discrepancy. Record, Doc. No. 21 (Exh. 9). Sierra Club member Norman Sharp averred that he had canoed approximately 40 miles downstream of the Laidlaw facility and would like to canoe in the North Tyger River closer to Laidlaw's discharge point, but did not do so because he was concerned that the water contained harmful pollutants. Ibid. (Exh. 8).

These sworn statements, as the District Court determined, adequately documented injury in fact. We have held that environmental plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact when they aver that they use the affected area and are persons "for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened" by the challenged activity. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735 (1972). See also Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S., at 562--563 ("Of course, the desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purposes of standing.").

Glenn Beck has denied being "responsible" for a planned attack on the leaders of the Tides Foundation, a nonprofit organization Beck has repeatedly demonized. Beck has said that he "stand[s] by each one" of his attacks on the group and lauded his coverage of the organization.

CA shooter targeted Tides, wanted "to start a revolution"

CA gunman wanted to "start a revolution" by "killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation." On July 18, Byron Williams, a convicted felon, engaged in a shootout with police after being pulled over on I-580 in California. Williams was heavily armed, wearing body armor and wielding "a high-powered hunting rifle, a pistol and a shotgun." After being taken into custody, Williams reportedly told investigators that "his intention was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU."

Gunman's mother: Williams watched TV news, was upset with "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items." Following her son's arrest, Williams' mother told the San Francisco Chronicle that her son was angry about "what's happening to our country." The Chronicle reported that Williams "watched the news on television" and that his mother stated that he was upset with "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items."

Beck tipped the scale of Tides coverage before Williams' attempted attack

In virtually the only cable or network TV coverage of Tides, Beck mentioned the group 29 times on his Fox News show. As Media Matters has detailed, a LexisNexis search reveals that the Tides Foundation has been mentioned 29 times on Fox News' Glenn Beck in the time between the show's premiere and Williams' attempted rampage. In contrast, the Tides Foundation has not been mentioned once on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or PBS in the same timeframe.

Beck called Tides a "shady organization" and accused it of "indoctrination," "warp[ing] your children's brains." In his coverage of Tides, Beck has repeatedly implicated the organization in his conspiracy theories, linking it to George Soros, the Apollo Alliance, the Joyce Foundation, and the Weather Underground. Beck has referred to the group as a "shady organization" [May 11] and claimed it is "a major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the left" [May 21, 2009]. Beck frequently airs a video produced by Tides, which he refers to as an "indoctrination video...shown in schools all across America to warp you children's brains and make sure they know how evil capitalism is" [June 21].

Beck denies being "responsible" for planned attack, lauds his coverage of Tides

Beck mocks idea that "I am now responsible for terrorist attacks." On the July 29 edition of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck discussed the thwarted rampage in California and decried criticism of his coverage the Tides Foundation, claiming that his critics "are now imaging me as a terrorist and a racist." Co-host Pat Gray called the charges "unbelievable" while Beck stated in disbelief: "So I expose the Tides Foundation and show you what it is, and I am now responsible for terrorist attacks."

Beck: "I stand by each one" of my attacks on Tides Foundation. Beck continued on to defend his attacks against Tides, saying of his accusations of the group "being anti-capitalist, far-left radicals and indoctrinating children" that "I stand by each one of those." Beck also said it was "obscene" that "[t]here are no records of any other talk show mentioning the Tides Foundation" and that "I am the only one that has mentioned the Tides Foundation."

Beck producer Stu Burguiere calls accusations "liberal spin." On the fourth hour of Beck's July 27 radio show, available only to "Insider Extreme" subscribers, Beck's executive producer Stu Burguiere defended Beck against claims appearing on "liberal blogs" suggesting he inspired the actions of Williams, Burguiere called such the accusations "really pathetic" and stated that "just because some idiot goes and does something, you can't blame -- you cannot blame the host of a program who's talked about that organization."

Beck: Putting Tides Foundation on blackboard was "the first time that I really realized its success." On July 28, in a special podcast titled "Fundamental Transformation" for paying subscribers to his website, Beck called his chalkboard "the real star of the show." Beck then stated that "the first time I really realized its success: Tides Foundation and ACORN."

Beck brags about "turning the light of day" on Tides Foundation. On the July 26 edition of his radio show, Beck bragged that "everyone told us that we couldn't" explain what Tides was but that "the reason why the blackboard really became what the blackboard is" was because of his coverage of the group. Beck aired criticism of his coverage of the Tides Foundation from Color of Change's James Rucker and claimed Rucker was saying that Beck is "a danger because no one knew what Tides was until the blackboard. Meaning, that they need the cover of darkness. They must silence people that turn the light of day on to these organizations."

Beck continues to include Tides in his conspiracy theories since thwarted attack

Beck: "Why wouldn't you want us talking about Tides?" On the July 25 edition of his Fox News show, Beck responded to Rucker's criticism of his Tides coverage by asking, "why wouldn't you want us talking about Tides?" Beck went on to ask, "Why would you hide it" if Tides were simply "helping people" and "working for social justice."

Beck links Tides to Weather Underground in plot to redistribute wealth. On the July 28 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck attempted to tie the Tides Foundation to the Weather Underground. Beck read a portion of the Weather Underground's "manifesto." He then commented, "Now, when I first read this, I thought, boy, where have I seen this before? And then, it dawned on me. George Soros funded the Tides Foundation, which funded the "Story of Stuff," which is now shown, most likely, in your child's school." From Glenn Beck:

BECK: We stopped at -- there's no property rights, because the ignorant masses -- you know, the bigots or the stupid -- they like the free market. They have some stuff.

And what the ignorant masses don't understand -- by the way, that's you, you're clinging to your silly traditions and your God and your guns -- the truth is: your wealth really isn't your wealth. In the truly progressive society, in this society that they wanted, wealth belongs to the world.

Quote, "The relative affluence existing in the United States is directly dependent upon the labor and the natural resources of the Vietnamese -- remember this is written in the 1960s -- the Angolans, and the Bolivians and the rest of the peoples of the third world. All the of the United Airlines, Astrojets, all of the Holiday Inns, all of the Hertz's automobiles, your television set, your you're your wardrobe already belong, to a large degree, to the people of the rest of the world."

Now, when I first read this, I thought, boy, where have I seen this before? And then, it dawned on me. George Soros funded the Tides Foundation, which funded the "Story of Stuff," which is now shown, most likely, in your child's school. Watch.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE [video clip]: Then, along came the corporation. Now, the reason the corporation looks bigger than the government is that the corporation is bigger than the government. Of the 100 largest economies on earth now, 51 are corporations. And as the corporation has grown in size and power, we've seen a little change in the government where they're a little more concerned in making sure everything's working out for those guys than for us.

BECK: If you're familiar with this, we've played this before. It shows how we have gone and raped the rest of the world, so our stuff isn't ours.

Yes, it is all of this capitalist greed that is causing all of the problems on the entire planet. It is our system and it is set up to make sure that it stays that way -- and the Weather Underground talk about, it's going to stay that way by force.

Beck has a history of promoting violent rhetoric

Beck pours gasoline on "average American," asks, "President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire?" On his television show, Beck claimed to be imitating Obama while pouring liquid from a gasoline can -- which he later stated was water -- on an actor portraying the "average American." Beck said during his demonstration: "President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire? ... We didn't vote to lose the republic."[Fox News' Glenn Beck, 4/9/09]

Beck portrays Obama, Democrats as vampires, suggests "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers." On his March 30, 2009, Fox News show, Beck aired a graphic portraying Obama and Democrats as vampires and said: "The government is full of vampires, and they are trying to suck the lifeblood out of the economy." Beck then suggested "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers." Beck returned to that imagery on his January 19 radio show, warning listeners that progressives are "vampires" who now have a "taste of blood" and are "gonna start getting more and more violent."

Beck talks about "put[ting] poison" in Pelosi's wine. In 2009, Beck's Fox News show featured a segment in which Beck said the following to a woman wearing a mask of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

BECK: So, Speaker Pelosi, I just wanted to -- you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those eyes not work? There you -- I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink it. Drink it.

I really just wanted to thank you for having me over here to wine country. You know, to be invited, I thought I had to be a major Democratic donor or a longtime friend of yours, which I'm not.

By the way, I put poison in your -- no, I -- I look forward to all the policy discussions that we're supposed to have -- you know, on health care, energy reform, and the economy. [Glenn Beck, 8/6/09]

Beck: "To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter." Telling his listeners that they "are going to learn so much on Friday," Beck compared himself to "Israeli Nazi hunters" and commented: "I'm going to find these big progressives and, to the day I die, I'm going to be a progressive hunter." He added:

BECK: I'm going to find these people that have done this to our -- you know, to our country, and expose them. I don't care where -- I don't care if they're in nursing homes. I'm going to expose what they have done and make sure that the people understand, because our Constitution, our republic -- if it survives -- it will only survive because the people are waking up and through the grace of God, because we are that close to losing our republic. [The Glenn Beck Program, 1/20/10]

Beck: "Grab a torch." Asserting that politicians are addicted to spending, Beck stated: "When do we ever run those who are bankrupting our country and literally stealing our children's future out of town? Grab a torch." [Glenn Beck, 1/6/10]

Beck suggests Obama is "trying to destroy the country" and is pushing America toward civil war. While discussing the ongoing controversy over Arizona's immigration law, Beck told his listeners that "we are being pushed" toward civil war and that Obama is "trying to destroy the country." [The Glenn Beck Program, 5/19/10]

Beck's advice to Liberty grads: "Shoot to kill." During his May 15 commencement speech at Liberty University, Beck told graduates that they "have a responsibility" to speak out, or "blood ... will be on our hands." His advice for graduates (as well as his daughter) included "shoot to kill."

Quoting Jefferson, Beck warns about "rivers of blood." On his Fox News show, Beck quoted a letter by Thomas Jefferson warning " 'if they lose freedom' -- he's speaking of us, future generations -- 'if they lose freedom, there will be rivers of blood.' " Beck continued in his own words, "Boy, I hope that's not true, but I can tell you there will be rivers of blood if we don't have values and principles." [Glenn Beck, 5/14/10]

Beck: "I fear a Reichstag moment, a -- God forbid -- another 9-11, something that will turn this machine on." During an interview with Newsmax.com in which he discussed opposition to Obama's Federal Communications Commission policies, Beck said: "I fear an event. I fear a Reichstag moment, a -- God forbid -- another 9-11, something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced. God help us all.'' [Newsmax.com, 10/7/09]

Beck speaks for one-third of the nation: "[Y]ou will have to shoot me in the forehead before you take away my gun" and "before I acquiesce and be silent." Beck has warned "ACORN, GE, Obama, SEIU" that "you are awakening a sleeping giant, and I have nothing to do with it" and that "America is waking up. You know the American Revolution took place with 12 percent of the population? Twelve. Are you telling me there is not 30 percent of this population that you will have to shoot me in the forehead before I let somebody into my house to tell me how to raise my children; you will have to shoot me in the forehead before you take away my gun; you will have to shoot me in the forehead before I acquiesce and be silent." Beck further stated:

BECK: They cannot move on these things, because they are building a machine that will crush the entrepreneurial sprit and the freedom that our Founding Fathers designed. This machine, whatever it is they are building, will crush it. Do not let them build another piece.

So while I turn away, I want to make sure that I have at least 10 million eyes watching -- watching every single move they are making.

[...]

We know why they're doing what they're doing. You need to do what you need to do, and as long as that is peaceful, we will save our country. [The Glenn Beck Program, 7/30/09]

Beck: "This game is for keeps"; "[Y]ou can shoot me in the head ... but there will be 10 others that line up." Asking his audience to "pray for protection," Beck claimed that "the most powerful people on the planet on the left" were "not going to go away easy" because "[t]his game is for keeps. This is who controls the United States of America and its destiny." He went on to state, "Just pray for protection, please." [The Glenn Beck Program, 9/8/09]

Later in the same program, Beck said:

BECK: You can try to put the lid on this group of people, but you will never silence us. You will never -- you can shoot me in the head, you can shoot the next guy in the head, but there will be 10 others that line up. And it may not happen today, it may not happen next week, but freedom will be restored in this land. Period. And no matter what you want to call it, it is a totalitarian state that you're headed towards. [The Glenn Beck Program, 9/8/09]

Beck: "There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America." Beck has claimed that "there is a revolution, and they think they can get away with it quietly," adding: "At this point, gang, I'm not sure, they may be able to because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they're dealing against; most of America does not yet. Most of America doesn't have a clue as to what's going on. There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the way it is done, it has been done through the -- the guise of an election, but they lied to us the entire time." He also said, "And they're gonna say, 'we did it democratically,' and they are going to grab power every way they can. And God help us in an emergency." [The Glenn Beck Program, 8/31/09]

Beck suggests that progressives support "armed insurrection." After President Obama signed health care reform legislation into law, Beck suggested that progressives support "armed insurrection" and asked, "Why would the president take up immigration right away, after he's just punched you in the face with health care?" [Glenn Beck, 3/23/10]

Beck suggests Pelosi and Obama support "pick[ing] up a gun" to advance "revolution." During the same edition of his Fox News show, Beck said that "violence is the wrong way to go," but asked his viewers: "You'd pick up a gun? Have you ever thought of that?" He then pointed to several pictures, including images of Obama and Pelosi, and stated: "These people have. Because possibly, maybe the question should be asked, maybe they're tired of evolution, and maybe they are waiting for revolution." Beck also said: "Haven't we just been spanked? Hasn't most of the country -- doesn't most of the country feel like they've been spanked over health care? You bet. I do, you do. A lot of people do." [Glenn Beck, 3/23/10]

Beck suggests Obama administration may kill him. Also on that same edition of his Fox News program, Beck said: "For those of you in the administration, who are coming after me ... remember, you've broken three [of the 10 Commandments], let's not make it four; thou shalt not kill." [Glenn Beck, 3/23/10]

Ranting that gov't under Nixon "wasn't as corrupt as it is now," Beck suggests Obama admin might kill "10 percent" of population. On his Fox News show, Beck warned that "anarchists, Marxists, communists, revolutionaries, Maoists" have to "eliminate 10 percent of the U.S. population" in order to "gain control." They couldn't achieve such a goal when Richard Nixon was president, Beck stated, but the government under Nixon "wasn't as corrupt as it is now." [Glenn Beck, 6/10/10]

Beck: "The army ... of the extreme left is gathering" and they are saying "cops are bad, kill the cops." On his radio show, Beck discussed riots in Oakland, stating: "The army, if you will, of the extreme left is gathering, and they are coming to the conclusion of cops are bad, kill the cops, they're the oppressors. It's all the 1960s, you know, pig stuff." [The Glenn Beck Program, 7/12/10]

Following Judge Susan Bolton's decision to block the controversial portions of the Arizona immigration law, conservative media have claimed that Arizona passed the law because the federal government is refusing to enforce immigration law and secure the border, but this rhetoric -- which directly echoes that of Republican politicians -- bears no relation to the facts. Data show federal enforcement efforts are up and illegal immigration is down.  

Conservative media echo Gov. Brewer's claim that federal government is not enforcing immigration laws

Brewer: "We have now been told" that "they're just not going to enforce their laws." On the July 28 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity (accessed via Nexis), Arizona governor Jan Brewer said of the preliminary injunction, "We now have been told by a federal judge and by the federal government that they're just not going to enforce their laws. And they're not going to allow Arizona to help them enforce their laws."

Hannity: "[T]he president is not doing his job in securing the border." On the July 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity hosted NPR correspondent Juan Williams to discuss border security (accessed via Nexis):

HANNITY: People are not respecting our laws in sovereignty. It's impacting states like Arizona, Texas, California, and others, and the president is not doing his job in securing the border.

WILLIAMS: In other words, all these people who are hiring the gardeners, the nannies --

HANNITY: Close the border. This is not an issue. Close the border. Secure the border.

Lowry: Obama administration refuses to "take the federal law seriously." Rich Lowry stated on the July 28 edition of Fox News' America Live: "This is the brilliance of the Arizona law, though. It has smoked out the federal government's position. The Obama administration is saying we cannot be forced to enforce the laws as they are on the books. The Obama administration is saying the Arizona law pre-empts the whole legal scheme because it actually takes the federal law seriously and we refuse to do that. Please do not bother to call us up if you find an illegal alien in Arizona because we're too busy. That is an outrageous position."

Dobbs: AZ passed law because "federal government refuses to carry out its responsibility." On the July 29 edition of Fox News'America's Newsroom, guest Lou Dobbs said that the Arizona law passed because the "federal government refuses to carry out its responsitibility. From America's Newsroom:

DOBBS: If states cannot maintain law and order within their own jurisdictions while the federal government refuses to carry out its responsibility - one of the most laughable aspects of this was the Department of Homeland Security yesterday, their spokesman talking about this validates the responsibility of the federal government for enforcement of immigration law. It is precisely their failure to enforce and to carry out now, by the own acknowledgement, their responsibility for enforcement that led to this measure being passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer in the first place.

Carlson: "[I]nstead of really focusing on securing the border, they decided to sue the state of Arizona." On the July 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said "To me this puts the onus, of course, back on the Obama administration and the federal government because now instead of really focusing on securing the border, they decided to sue the state of Arizona. Well now that they actually won on these major points, now the American people are going to say, all right, so now you do something about it."

Fox & Friends mocks DOJ statement that border security efforts are "unprecedented." Fox & Friends later discussed the Department of Justice's response to the ruling, in which the DOJ stated that the administration "has dedicated unprecedented resources to that effort." Fox & Friends expressed skepticism of this and asked viewers, "Do you agree with that? Let us know. ...Have they dedicated unprecedented resources to that effort of securing the border?" From Fox & Friends:

CARLSON: Part of the Department of Justice statement after they won this ruling, they said this, "This administration takes its responsibility to secure our borders seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to that effort."

DOOCY: Oh, thank goodness.

CARLSON: Do you agree with that? Let us know. Do you agree with what the Department of Justice said? Have they dedicated unprecedented resources to that effort of securing the border?

BOLLING: Is that a number, unprecedented?

CARLSON: Well we've heard unprecedented a lot from this administration, but once again -

DOOCY: Gretchen, if they say - if they're saying it. It's got to be true. It's got to be true.

Facts on immigration enforcement, border security expose rhetoric as disingenuous and misleading

There are currently more Border Patrol agents "than ever before in the history of this country." PolitiFact has noted that Obama has been "increasing the number of border patrol officers." Indeed, in a July 22 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Michael Fisher, Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, stated, "Currently we have over 20,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide, more than ever before in the history of the country." A Customs and Border Protection document states that the 2010 budget included $19.4 million for 123 new Border Patrol agents and support staff. The Obama administration's 2011 budget states, "An increase of $44.8M is requested to fund 318 Custom and Border Protection Officers FTEs [Full-Time Equivalent] within the Office of Field Operations and 71 support FTEs for CBP." From the Arizona Republic:

Spending on immigration enforcement higher under Obama than Bush. Budget data from the Department of Homeland Security compiled by America's Voice, which advocates for comprehensive immigration reform, show that the budgets for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement increased under Obama:

Obama admin. significantly expanded Border Enforcement Security Task Forces. Politico reported on May 6 that "[u]nder the Southwest Border Initiative, the Obama administration has doubled agents assigned to the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces." According to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), these teams "incorporate personnel from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other key federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies" to "collaborate and share information to fulfill the overarching goal: to interrupt the flow of cash, weapons and ammunition that fuel the illicit trade of the drug cartels."

ICE official: "There has been a lot of action" on enforcement in the last few years. James Dinkins, director of the Office of Investigations at ICE stated in a July 22 Congressional hearing: "This committee and - and the federal government have given ICE a lot of resources. And just this last year we've sent 160 additional agents to the southwest border alone, so we have done great. We've been receiving funding for border enforcement security task forces, BEST task forces. Ten of those are on the southern border, so there has been a lot of action in the last - the last few years, absolutely."

Bush DHS official: "By any measure it is now much more difficult to enter the United States illegally." Stewart Verdery, former DHS Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy from 2003-2005, wrote in a June report that "many of the enforcement benchmarks set out by the Senate during the last CIR [comprehensive immigration reform] debate have been met, and several additional enforcement programs have been implemented above and beyond the Senate mandates of the 2007 CIR bill. By any measure it is now more difficult to enter the United States illegally." Verdery outlined the improvements that have been made in border enforcement in recent years and stated:

DHS has requested, and Congress has provided, large and increasing budgets for immigration enforcement programs since 2005 on a bipartisan basis that includes both the Bush and Obama administrations and Republican- and Democratic controlled Congresses. The department has spent billions on enforcement while making great strides in gaining control over our borders and bringing integrity to our immigration system.

Obama admin. increased number of intelligence analysts on border. Politico stated that the Obama administration "tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the southwest border" and "sent in new canine teams." The Department of Homeland Security announced these increases in March 2009.

Obama admin. began screening "100 percent of southbound rail shipments." Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 27, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stated that "for the first time ever, the Border Patrol is screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for cartel-related contraband. This practice augments the longstanding practice of screening 100 percent of northbound rail shipments."

Seizures of contraband increased under Obama administration. In her April 27 Senate testimony, Napolitano stated:

Since March 2009, CBP and ICE have seized $85.7 million in illicit cash along the Southwest border, an increase of 14 percent over the same period during the previous year. This includes more than $29.7 million in illicit cash seized heading southbound into Mexico -- a 39 percent increase over the same period during the previous year.

During the same period, CPB and ICE together seized 1,425 illegal firearms, which represent a 29 percent rise over the same period in the previous year. At the same time, CBP and ICE seized 1.65 million kilograms of drugs along the Southwest border, an overall increase of 15 percent.

Additionally, the San Diego DHS Maritime Unified Command -- comprised of U.S. Coast Guard, CBP, ICE and other law enforcement partners -- saw a more than six-fold increase in maritime drug interdictions in the Pacific waters extending from the Southwest border. The Command seized more than 26,000 kilograms of drugs in fiscal year 2009, compared to 4,029 kilograms seized in fiscal year 2008.

NY Times: ICE "has levied a record $3 million in civil fines" "on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants." The New York Times reported on July 9, "Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures." The Times article stated:

Employers say the audits reach more companies than the work-site roundups of the administration of President George W. Bush. The audits force businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant on the payroll-- not just those who happened to be on duty at the time of a raid -- and make it much harder to hire other unauthorized workers as replacements.

The Washington Post also reported that "[t]he pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush's final year in office." From the Washington Post:

Wash. Post: "Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants." The Washington Post reported on July 26 that "the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants" and "The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007."

The number of unauthorized immigrants removed from the U.S. by ICE excluding voluntary returns also hit a record high in fiscal year 2009, according to DHS:

Number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has declined. CBS News reported on February 11, "The Department of Homeland Security reported that illegal immigrant population dropped to 10.8 million in 2009 compared to 11.6 million in 2008. It was the second consecutive annual decline and the largest in at least three decades." CBS also reported that officials credited the recession and "unprecedented resources" that have been committed to immigration enforcement for the decline. From DHS:

WSJ: Data shows trend of decreasing attempts to cross border illegally. The Wall Street Journal reported in November 2009 that "[t]he number of people caught illegally entering the U.S. dropped by more than 23% during the past year, continuing a longer trend, federal data shows" and that "Border apprehensions have fallen nearly 67% decline since fiscal year 2000, when the border patrol made 1,675,438 arrests." The Journal further reported:

The government and independent experts say there is a strong correlation between apprehensions and the number of people attempting to cross the border, especially with the sharp increase in enforcement in recent years.

David Aguilar, the border-patrol chief, says the newest data show U.S. investments in personnel, equipment and technology are creating a strong deterrent. "We have the right mix at the right places and in the right time," he says.

[...]

Economists say the souring U.S. jobs market is a driving force behind the decline in illegal crossings. The U.S. unemployment rate last month passed 10% for the first time since the early 1980s. Fewer jobs -- especially in trades such as construction, where migrant workers fare well -- mean fewer people are willing to risk a journey that has become more perilous and more expensive, experts say.

From the Wall Street Journal:

ABC analysis: Reality on border doesn't match "political rhetoric" about border "mayhem." On May 20, ABC News reported that, "while several violent high-profile incidents in the Tucson, Arizona, sector have gained national attention and colored political rhetoric, an ABC News analysis of immigration and crime data, combined with interviews with law enforcement officials, shows something very different -- that violence and crime on the U.S. side of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico are generally on the decline."

LA Times: Obama admin. "has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and on deportations." The Los Angeles Times reported on June 15 that Obama "agree[d] to dispatch 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and to seek an extra $500 million for border enforcement. That came after 18 months in which the Obama administration has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and deportations of illegal immigrants, all in an effort to build support for a comprehensive immigration plan."

Pima County sheriff: "The border has never been more secure." The Arizona Republic reported on May 2 that Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, stated: "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."

Republican AZ sheriff: "[W]e keep the pressure on because ... the window of opportunity will close." The Republic further reported that "Even Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, among the most strident critics of federal enforcement, concedes that notions of cartel mayhem are exaggerated." The article stated:

In fact, according to the Border Patrol, Krentz is the only American murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in at least a decade within the agency's Tucson sector, the busiest smuggling route among the Border Patrol's nine coverage regions along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Still, Dever said, the slaying proved useful to southern Arizonans who are sick of smugglers and immigrants tramping through their lands.

"The interest just elevated. And we keep the pressure on because next week something else is going to happen, and the window of opportunity will close," Dever said.

AP: "The US-Mexico border is more fortified now than it was even five years ago." A June 23 Associated Press article noted: "You wouldn't know it from the public debate, but the U.S.-Mexico border is more fortified now than it was even five years ago. Far more agents patrol it, more fences, barriers and technology protect it and taxpayers are spending billions more to reinforce it."

Richard Stana of Government Accountability Office: "[I]t's not accurate that nothing has been done." Testifying before Congress about a GAO report that makes recommendations for improvements to ICE human smuggling investigations, Richard Stana noted, "The government has put countless billions of dollars into border enforcement - you know, more people, fencing, cameras, sensors and so on. ... And of course, being from the GAO, were always looking for opportunities to do things better, and there are opportunities to do things better. But it's not accurate that nothing has been done." (accessed via Nexis)

Immigration policy experts agree that border security ultimately requires broader reform of immigration laws

Immigration policy expert: Comprehensive reform "will make the border more manageable." The Arizona Republic reported: "Susan Ginsburg, senior policy adviser for an international nonprofit known as Borderpol, which works to make international borders safer, said it is a mistake to require border control as a prerequisite for changing U.S. policies because the existing system created a broken border in the first place. 'Comprehensive immigration reform will help because it will make the border more manageable,' she said."

National Immigration Forum: "We must have comprehensive reform in order to see continued improvement in the control of our borders." The National Immigration Forum states in a document that "[w]e have achieved about as much control of our border as possible without solving the core problem ... We must have comprehensive immigration reform in order to see continued improvement in the control of our borders." The document further states that the problem of illegal immigration "is the product of today's demand for worker and family visas clashing with an immigration system that has not been updated in 20 years."

Cato's Griswold: Controlling the border requires "allow[ing] more workers to enter the United States legally." Dan Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies, wrote on April 29 that the current immigration system "created the conditions for an underground labor market, complete with smuggling and day-labor operations" and that "[i]f we want to 'get control' of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform":

Requiring successful enforcement of the current immigration laws before they can be changed is a non sequitur. It's like saying, in 1932, that we can't repeal the nationwide prohibition on alcohol consumption until we've drastically reduced the number of moonshine stills and bootleggers. But Prohibition itself created the conditions for the rise of those underground enterprises, and the repeal of Prohibition was necessary before the government could "get control" of its unintended consequences.

Illegal immigration is the Prohibition debate of our day. By essentially barring the legal entry of low-skilled immigrant workers, our own government has created the conditions for an underground labor market, complete with smuggling and day-labor operations. As long as the government maintains this prohibition, illegal immigration will be widespread, and the cost of reducing it, in tax dollars and compromised civil liberties, will be enormous.

[...]

If we want to "get control" of our border with Mexico, the smartest thing we could do would be to allow more workers to enter the United States legally under the umbrella of comprehensive immigration reform. Then we could focus our enforcement resources on a much smaller number of people who for whatever reason are still operating outside the law.

Republicans previously acknowledged that border security requires comprehensive reform of immigration system

Sen. Lindsey Graham: "If all you did was try to secure the border, then that's a false sense of security." From a May 24, 2006, press conference:

GRAHAM: Everybody would benefit if we could solve this problem.

Here's what I've learned from people back in South Carolina, a pretty conservative state. Border security is important, but they know by itself it's a false sense of security.

If all you did was try to secure the border, then that's a false sense of security, because illegal immigration is about employment. So you've got to control employment.

And 35 percent of the people who are illegal immigrants didn't cross the border, they came through visa overstays.

So the American people accept a comprehensive solution. The Senate is going to pass one. The president supports one. I think we can get some House members understanding that it has to be comprehensive. [accessed via Nexis]

McCain: Border security "will not alone ensure our control of immigration." In a June 4, 2007, speech, Sen. John McCain stated that border security measures "will not alone ensure our control of immigration or enable us to know the identity, whereabouts and purposes of the millions of undocumented workers who are in our country now." McCain added that people will come over the border "as long as the job market in our growing economy offers opportunities to immigrants" and said of the undocumented immigrants already in the United States: "Getting these people to declare themselves and prove they have come here for a job, pose no security threat and have no criminal record beyond entering the country illegally will enable our security and law enforcement officials to concentrate their resources on those who have come here to threaten our way of life rather than embrace it." McCain has since changed his position to advocate for a border security-first approach.

Bush: "You cannot fully enforce the border" without fixing overly strict limits on legal immigration. On June 1, 2007, President Bush spoke in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal and stated that providing more channels for legal entry "makes it more likely the border will be enforced":

BUSH: But I would remind people that you cannot fully enforce the border so long as people are trying to sneak into this country to do jobs Americans aren't doing. You can try, but doesn't it make sense to help the Border Patrol do their job by saying, "If you're going to come and do a job, there is a legal way to do it so you don't have to sneak across in the first place?"

If you're interested in border security, you've got to recognize that giving people a chance to come and work here on a temporary basis makes it more likely the border will be enforced.

Alberto Gonzales: "I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally." During a July 18, 2006, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, "Obviously, border security is very, very important, but I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally." From the hearing [accessed via Nexis]:

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: More importantly, the president believes very strongly in comprehensive immigration reform. Obviously, border security is very, very important, but I don't think you can have effective border security unless you're also taking into account those that are here in this country illegally. You need to know who they are, where they're at and why they're here.

And so I think this is a problem that will only get worse over time. We need to deal with it, I think, at once. I think the American people expect the Congress and the president to deal with it at once. We know it's a tough issue, but that's what we're here to do, is try to deal with these tough issues

Following her decision to place an injunction on certain parts of Arizona's immigration law, right-wing media have attacked Judge Susan Bolton by suggesting she is a partisan who was "bought by" the Obama administration. However, Judge Bolton, a registered Independent, is widely respected, and has recently been praised by Arizona Republicans Gov. Jan Brewer and Sen. Jon Kyl -- who recommended her nomination to then-Pres. Bill Clinton in 2000.

Right-wing media attacks and attempts to discredit Judge Bolton

RedState: There is anger "about Federal Judge Susan Bolton's willingness to be bought by Obama and the Holder DoJ." In a July 28 RedState post, blogger David Poff wrote, "I know there is a great deal of anger and frustration out there... amongst the 70% of you who are racists that believe immigration laws should be enforced... about Federal Judge Susan Bolton's willingness to be bought by Obama and the Holder DoJ." Poff also referred to Bolton as "this so-called federal judge."

National Review: Bolton was "determined ... to follow the Obama administration's political strategy." In a July 28 National Review Online blog, Heather Mac Donald claimed Bolton's ruling "maintain[ed] the Obama administration's carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens." Mac Donald also claimed that "so determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration's political strategy regarding the law's putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated."

Gingrich: "If anybody in Arizona is hurt during this intervening period, I think the judge in many ways is responsible." On the July 29 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich claimed Bolton "in many ways is responsible" if "anyone in Arizona gets hurt during this intervening period." From Fox & Friends:

CARLSON: You have the administration, speaker, but now you've got this Judge Bolton who has stepped in front of this moving train. And she has effectively stopped a lot of the parts of it from going into effect at midnight. Some of the parts in effect, other parts not. How much responsibility does she bear for what happens down there going forward? 

GINGRICH: She should bear a great deal of responsibility and if anybody in Arizona is hurt during this intervening period, I think that judge in many ways is responsible. The people of Arizona with a freely elected legislature and freely elected governor were trying to solve a problem the federal government had created and now you have a federal judge stepping in, blocking the people of Arizona in their own freely elected institutions from trying to protect themselves. It's fundamentally wrong.

Fox Nation: "Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Ariz. Immigration Law." The Fox Nation suggested that Bolton was partisan, by posting a FoxNews.com article under the headline "Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Ariz. Immigration Law." From The Fox Nation:

Drudge suggests partisanship with headline "Clinton appointee made ruling." On July 29, Drudge linked to an AP article on Bolton's ruling with the headline "Clinton appointee made ruling..." From the Drudge Report:

But Arizona conservatives, including Gov. Brewer, have praised Judge Bolton

Gov. Brewer: Bolton is "so well informed" and has a "very, very good grasp of" the issues involved. On the July 22 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Susteren, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said she was "very, very confident of Judge Bolton. She seems to have a very, very good grasp of the issues":

VAN SUSTEREN: As you listened to the argument from the lawyer representing the United States, did you begin to worry about whether or not that your statute would stand? 

BREWER: No. I feel very, very confident even more so now that we have been there and had the presentation. It was very well done and I'm very, very confident of Judge Bolton. She seems to have a very, very good grasp of the issues. I thought that it went very, very well. I feel very confident.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did the judge grill the lawyers on both sides? 

BREWER: She did. She asked them questions. And of course some of the testimony from the earlier morning testimony kind of bled through to the afternoon testimony so it didn't have to be repeated again. But yes she did. She asked questions and tried to get them to qualify some of the issues. She was so well informed and had such a great grasp of what she was dealing with that it just gave you a really good sense of confidence.

Kyl: "People should know that Judge Bolton is a highly competent, very well respected judge." On the July 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called Bolton "highly competent" and "very well respected," adding, "however she rules on this, I'll certainly respect her decision." From America's Newsroom:

HEMMER: What's your expectation from this judge?

KYL: Well first of all, people should know that Judge Bolton is a highly competent, very well respected judge, and however she rules on this, I'll certainly respect her decision. ' 

My guess is that she will parse the law, that is to say, she will perhaps extract certain portions of it that she thinks might be problematic and might enjoin the operations of those portions calling for additional briefing from the parties, perhaps, but that the biggest part of the law, I don't think she will enjoin, and that's essentially the part that says if a police officer stops someone in the normal course of his responsibilities for like a traffic ticket, for example, and then has reasonable cause to believe after that stop, that the individual is not here in the country lawfully, he may - or he should further inquire into their status. ... It's my opinion she will not enjoin that portion of the law.

Bolton nominated by Clinton at the recommendation of Kyl. Bolton was nominated to the United States Disctrict Court by President Clinton on Kyl's recommendation. Kyl reportedly said during her confirmation hearing, "There is one person in our state who's a real expert on this in the judiciary, and that's Judge Bolton ... And because of her expertise and fairness, all of the contending interests from Arizona have been willing to place their concerns before her to be resolved."

Arizona Daily Star: Bolton is a "registered independent." In a July 21 article, the Arizona Daily Star reported that "Judge Susan Bolton is a registered independent in Maricopa County. She was appointed to the federal court on Oct. 20, 2000, as an independent. She was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton on the recommendation of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl." The article further notes:

The federal judge who will be ruling on whether to block Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect is known as a thorough, efficient, intelligent and fair jurist.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has earned that reputation during nearly a decade on the federal bench in Arizona and 11 years before that as a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County.

"I don't think that either party could ask for a better judge," said Dave Cole a law professor at the Phoenix School of Law and former Maricopa County Superior Court judge. "She is very deliberative, very reflective, runs a very tight ship in the courtroom. Very detached, objective, good at applying the law."

[...]

The consensus among members of the legal community interviewed for this story is that she's the right person to have making such an important decision.

Fox hosts are falsely claiming that a provision in the financial reform legislation gives a "complete pass" to the Securities and Exchange Commission from complying with the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, the provision reportedly only protects proprietary information gathered from regulated firms during the course of examinations or investigations, which mirrors exemptions that exist for bank regulators.

Fox fabricates "complete pass" for SEC FOIA requests

Beck: "Now the SEC doesn't have to answer any questions from anybody? What?" On the July 28 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck claimed that financial reform included "a nice little treat for the SEC." Beck claimed, "Reports and other information provided to the SEC, or any other self-regulatory organization, will be excluded from the scope of Freedom of Information Act." After reading from an SEC statement, Beck asked, "How in the world did we arrive here, America?" He later claimed he had a "theory" about "where we're headed next," and said, "Now the SEC doesn't have to answer any questions from anybody? What?"

Asman: SEC "no longer has to comply with the Freedom of Information Act when requests are made for information." During the July 28 edition of Fox Business' Bulls & Bears, host David Asman stated that "financial reform" included "a little-noticed provision" under which the "Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with the Freedom of Information Act when requests are made for information." Fox Business' Elizabeth MacDonald repeatedly noted that "what we're talking about here" is the release of information related to "active ongoing investigations. They can't disclose [that] information." However, Fox Business' Adam Shapiro insisted that MacDonald was wrong, stating, "No, that's not what we're talking about," and "It's a simple issue of nope, not going to comply."

Cavuto: SEC "gets a complete pass." During the July 28 edition of Fox News' Your World, Neil Cavuto claimed that "the SEC gets a complete pass" from complying with FOIA under financial regulatory reform. Guest and Fox News host Mike Huckabee added, "It's absurd. This is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is a government of the government, by the government, and for the government."

Fox Biz's Adam Shapiro: SEC "essentially" has "a pass on Freedom of Information Act requests." During the July 28 edition of Fox Business' Countdown to the Closing Bell, host Adam Shapiro claimed that "the new financial regulatory law" contained a provision that "essentially gives the Securities and Exchange Commission a pass on Freedom of Information Act requests." He continued, "In other words, the commission can now just blanket say 'no' if you, a citizen of the United States, file an FOIA requesting documents." Shapiro also claimed that the "new law, the financial regulatory reform law, now allows the SEC to absolutely say, 'Don't bother us. Go away.' "

Varney and Shapiro: "According to this new rule, you cannot file a Freedom of Information Act and find out what [the SEC] did wrong." During the July 28 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Company, host Stuart Varney asked Shapiro, "[I]f the SEC has messed up, you cannot file -- according to this new rule -- you cannot file a Freedom of Information Act and find out what they did wrong?" Shaprio responded, "Bingo. You can file it, and they can say, 'Sorry. Not complying.' "

Malkin: "[T]he 'financial reform' bill...exempts the SEC from FOIA requests. The transparency farce continues." In a July 28 post on her website, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin seized on Fox Business' false reporting to claim that "The story from Fox Business on how the 'financial reform' bill championed by Obama exempts the SEC from FOIA requests. The transparency farce continues." Malkin claimed this story was further evidence "of the Democrats' reign of darkness."

Provision reportedly limited to proprietary information and mirrors exemptions for bank regulators

Reuters: Lawmakers "gave the SEC a privacy mandate similar to bank regulators," but it "still has to comply with requests for other types of information requested under" FOIA. A July 28 Reuters article reported, "New financial reform legislation exempts U.S. securities regulators from having to turn over to the media information it gathers from financial institutions in its expanded supervisory role, but does not limit the disclosure of other agency data." Reuters further reported:

As part of that, lawmakers also gave the SEC a privacy mandate similar to bank regulators, who do not have to disclose the results of examinations of specific firms.

The SEC still has to comply with requests for other types of information requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The new provision applies to information obtained through examinations or derived from that information," said SEC spokesman John Nester in a statement.

Wash. Post's Goldfarb: Provision "only concerns documents obtained through examinations of broker-dealers and investment advisers." In a July 28 WashingtonPost.com blog post, Zach Goldfarb wrote that "it may not be time to take up arms over the latest charge by Fox Business News that 'the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public" under the new financial regulation law.'" Goldfarb further wrote:

While, as Fox notes, the law exempts the SEC from disclosing records derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities," this only concerns documents obtained through examinations of broker-dealers and investment advisers -- periodic or targeted reviews of financial firms.

People and organizations can still use FOIA to obtain a range of SEC information, such as inspector general reports; communications with Congress and the business community; and officials' calendar, salary and conflict-of-interest information.

Information from investigations into potential wrongdoing has never been obtainable through FOIA.

John Nester, SEC spokesman, said:

"We are expanding our examination program's surveillance and risk assessment efforts in order to provide more sophisticated and effective Wall Street oversight. The success of these efforts depends on our ability to obtain documents and other information from brokers, investment advisers and other registrants. The new legislation makes certain that we can obtain documents from registrants for risk assessment and surveillance under similar conditions that already exist by law for our examinations. Because registrants insist on confidential treatment of their documents, this new provision also removes an opportunity for brokers, investment advisers and other registrants to refuse to cooperate with our examination document requests."

So, consider this. If the SEC's exam team decides to take a look at a hedge fund's records, it may need to contact the hedge fund's broker for data on trades. That data could be subject to FOIA under the old law, and the broker, fearful that the private data would become public, might refuse to hand over the data.

Under the new law, such data is not subject to FOIA. The SEC hopes that, since it will be seeking data and documents from a broad range of financial players, it won't face resistance from firms concerned that their data might leak to the public through FOIA.

Over the past two weeks, Fox News has frequently defended the wealthy and derided the poor. Fox News figures have criticized the extension of unemployment benefits and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the "so-called rich," all while accusing Democrats of using "class warfare rhetoric."

Fox's "controversial question" suggests disenfranchising Americans supposedly "not paying taxes"

Doocy: Should the "47 percent of Americans not paying taxes" be allowed to vote? Teasing an upcoming segment on the July 28 hypothesized that the "half who pays nothing" in taxes could "vote for higher taxes for the other half who pays everything." Bolling then suggested that when the percentage of people not paying income taxes "hit[s] 50 percent, isn't that the all-clear for whoever's not paying tax to vote for whoever's in office who got them to the point where they weren't paying tax?" Varney responded that this is "the road we're heading down," and claimed that America is "looking like Europe," and is headed toward "an age of ever higher taxes. A permanently high tax rate voted in by the people who do not pay."

Fox: The economy needs tax cuts for the rich

Hume: "When's the last time one of these poor people offered you a job?" On the July 25 disputed the claim that those who make over $250,000 are rich. Doocy suggested that "what they consider rich," in Washington, D.C., is "not necessarily part of the real world," and that a couple in New York could make that much but "are not rich." From the show:

DOOCY: First of all, you know, they talk about soaking the rich, and they're going to -- tax hikes for the rich. What do they consider rich in Washington DC? Because what they consider rich, not necessarily part of the real world.

VARNEY: I guess it's that $250,000 a year cut off that the president has always mentioned. If you're above that, you're taxes go up. If you're below that, he will never raise taxes on you. I guess he makes the cut off point at $250,000.

DOOCY: But you know, living in the New York City area, there are firemen who have wives that are in the teachers' union and they make about that much, and they are not rich.

VARNEY: No they're not.

According to Census Bureau data, the median household income in New York City was $48,631 in 2007.

Extending unemployment benefits helps people who need to "sober up" and get jobs

Kilmeade: "Maybe" not extending "unemployment benefits will get people to sober up" and get jobs. On July 15, Fox & Friends hosted the CEO of Partnership Staffing Inc., Bill Auchmoody, who edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Fox News contributor John Stossel and asked "what does the government owe unemployed Americans?" O'Reilly began the discussion by claiming that up until FDR launched his New Deal, "if you were unemployed, you were hosed unless somebody would be charitable towards you, as most Americans were. You know, towns took care of themselves." O'Reilly then claimed that "[n]ow, we have a philosophy that the government owes people."

MacCallum on extending unemployment benefits: "Is that necessary?" On the July 20 edition of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, guest host Martha MacCallum teased an upcoming segment on unemployment benefits by claiming that "as we all know, we are drowning in debt right now as a country. And it looks like we're drowning and it's getting deeper out there. Congress is close to extending unemployment benefits even further now. Is that necessary? And can we afford to pay for it?" In the following segment, MacCallum asked whether extending benefits to the unemployed would be "pil[ing] more debt on all of our backs and our children's backs." Later, guest Liz McDonald suggested that "John F. Kennedy said it best" when he said that "the best form of welfare is a solid-paying job."

Fox: Democrats are hyping class warfare

Beck: "Class warfare, anyone?" On the July 22 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck launched an attack on the Obama White House, claiming that it is "following huge parts" of a plan "laid out over 30 years ago" by the Weather Underground. Beck suggested that the Obama administration is attempting a "fundamental transformation of our society," the first aspect of which is "a united front against imperialism for a new democracy built on a joint dictatorship of the working class and the poor." Beck then states, "Class warfare,anyone?"

Hannity: Is "a ton of class warfare rhetoric" going to be "all we see" from Democrats? On the July 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity and guest Newt Gingrich discussed President Obama's recent statement on extending unemployment benefits. Hannity criticized Obama for "referring to the GOP as being the party of the rich," while Gingrich claimed that Obama "seems to have a really unusual desire to divide the country and a really deep need to blame somebody else for his own failures, and as a result, you get this kind of Rose Garden comment." Hannity then suggested that "for the next 106 days we can expect a ton of class-warfare rhetoric, demagoguery as you just pointed out, and demonization, et cetera, character assassination, maybe some supportive groups playing the race card because they can't run on their record? That's what's the next 106 days are going to be like? This is going to be all we see?"

Thompson: Obama is "going to base this tax cut on rich versus poor." During a July 27 interview with Sean Hannity,Fred Thompson asserted that: "People are not as susceptible to -- to having their envy played upon as this administration thinks. They think that if they can -- 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."

Varney: The administration is going to engage in "class warfare." On the July 20 edition of Hannity, Varney said that because the president "cannot point to [his] record and say it was a success," he's going to "change the subject and engage in class warfare."

Continuing their long history of engaging in race-baiting attacks against President Obama, right-wing media figures have accused Obama, his administration, and the progressive movement of trying to start a "race war" in order to divide the public and "seize absolute power."

Right-wing media claim that Obama is trying to foment a "race war"

Breitbart: "Can Dems again falsely manufacture non-existent race war for November -- or are people's eyes finally wide open to this MSM-aided ploy?" In a July 28 Twitter post, Andrew Breitbart wrote:

Beck warns his audience: "They want a race war ... and our government is going to stand by and let them do it." On the July 12 broadcast of his Premiere Radio Networks show, Glenn Beck warned his audience that the "left" wants "a race war ... and our government is going to stand by and let them do it."  

Beck says progressives "need anger in the streets" and "they need a race war or any kind of war pulling each other apart." During the July 16 edition of his television show, Beck stated that progressives "need anger in the streets" and "they need a race war or any kind of war pulling each other apart." He then said, "Divided we will fall. They know it."

Beck: "They must have the race riot. ... It is the Balkan plan. They are making us into the Balkans." On the July 19 edition of his radio show, Beck told his listeners: "They must have the race riot. They must have the races pitted against each other. They're pitting us against each other in every step of the way. It is the Balkan plan. They are making us into the Balkans."

Flashback: Savage says, "I fear that Obama will stir up a race war ... in order to seize absolute power." On the October 8, 2008, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, after airing a clip of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Michael Savage asserted: "I fear that Obama will stir up a race war. You want to ask me what I fear? I think Obama will empower the racists in this country and stir up a race war in order to seize absolute power." Savage later said: "I want you to call this show and tell me what you fear about Barack Hussein Obama as president."

Right-wing media routinely engage in race-baiting attacks against Obama

Media conservatives repeatedly attack Obama and his administration as "racist." Since July 28, 2009, when Glenn Beck called President Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," right-wing media figures have routinely called Obama and members of his administration "racist." During the March 9 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity defended Beck's statement, questioning whether Beck had said anything "over the top." Rush Limbaugh echoed these remarks when, after citing a campaign video in which Obama discussed voter turnout, including among minorities and women, he said, "This is the regime at its racist best." Discussing the phony New Black Panthers scandal, radio host Jay Severin said Obama is "demonstrably a racist." Right-wing media figures have also labeled Obama administration officials -- including Eric Holder and other members of the Department of Justice -- "racist," accusing them of blatant reverse discrimination and of having "allowed and even encouraged race-based enforcement as either tacit or open policy."

Right-wing media level a wide variety of racially charged attacks against Obama. In addition to blatantly calling Obama a "racist," conservative media figures have engaged in other race-baiting attacks and have fired off a litany of vituperative allegations against the president. On the July 6 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that "If Obama weren't black he'd be a tour guide in Honolulu." During the same edition of his show, Limbaugh claimed that Obama "wouldn't have been voted president if he weren't black." Beck continued his race-based fearmongering by warning that Obama's agenda is driven by "reparations" and a desire to "settle old racial scores." On Fox News, radio host Laura Ingraham said the Obama administration has "set back race relations in this country perhaps a generation." 

Neil Cavuto falsely claimed that Judge Susan Bolton "went beyond" the issue of the constitutionality of Arizona's immigration law when she stated that there's "a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens." In fact, as Bolton noted, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that singled out non-citizens for "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance."

Cavuto criticizes judge for examining whether non-citizens will be subject to wrongful arrest

Cavuto: Judge "went beyond whether this was a state versus federal issue to touching on a potential racial one." From Cavuto's interview of Sen. John McCain on the July 28 edition of Fox News' Your World:

CAVUTO: She went beyond what some legal scholars say was the intent and the issue here over constitutionality, if it's state versus federal rights. She said, and I quote here, "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new law." So again, she went beyond whether this was a state versus federal issue to touching on a potential racial one.

Supreme Court has struck down state law that subjected non-citizens to special "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance"

Judge Bolton explained that the Supreme Court cautions against states "imposing burdens on lawfully-present aliens." In her opinion in United States v. Arizona, which found that portions of Arizona's controversial immigration law were likely unconstitutional, Bolton repeatedly relied on the Supreme Court case of Hines v. Davidowitz. As Bolton said, in 1941, the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Alien Registration Act in Hines under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, finding that federal law pre-empted the state law. From Bolton's opinion:

Finding a state law related to alien registration to be preempted, the Supreme Court in Hines observed that Congress "manifested a purpose to [regulate immigration] in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national . . . system[] and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." [alterations in the original]

Supreme Court in Hines: State law that is overly burdensome on "law-abiding aliens" is pre-empted by federal law. From the Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Hines v. Davidovich:

Having the constitutional authority so to do, [Congress] has provided a standard for alien registration in a single integrated and all-embracing system in order to obtain the information deemed to be desirable in connection with aliens. When it made this addition to its uniform naturalization and immigration laws, it plainly manifested a purpose to do so in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national registration system, and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance that might not only affect our international relations, but might also generate the very disloyalty which the law has intended guarding against. Under these circumstances, the Pennsylvania Act cannot be enforced. Accordingly, the judgment below is

Affirmed.

Bolton identified several ways in which lawfully present non-citizens could be detained under Arizona's law. In her opinion, Bolton also pointed out that the federal government had described several categories of lawfully present non-U.S. citizens who would not have sufficient "readily available documentation" to satisfy Arizona law enforcement that they are legally present in the country. Those categories include people from visa-waiver countries, people who have applied for asylum but have not had their cases heard, and people who applied for protection from domestic abusers under the Violence Against Women Act.

From Bolton's opinion:

The United States further asserts that there are numerous categories of lawfully-present aliens "who will not have readily available documentation to demonstrate that fact," including foreign visitors from Visa Waiver Program countries, individuals who have applied for asylum but not yet received an adjudication, people with temporary protected status, U and T non-immigrant visa applicants, or people who have self-petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. (Id. at 26-27.)

[...]

Legal residents will certainly be swept up by this requirement, particularly when the impacts of the provisions pressuring law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws are considered. See A.R.S. § 11-1051(A), (H). Certain categories of people with transitional status and foreign visitors from countries that are part of the Visa Waiver Program will not have readily available documentation of their authorization to remain in the United States, thus potentially subjecting them to arrest or detention, in addition to the burden of "the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." Hines, 312 U.S. at 74. In Hines, the Supreme Court emphasized the important federal responsibility to maintain international relationships, for the protection of American citizens abroad as well as to ensure uniform national foreign policy. Id. at 62-66; see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 700 (2001) ("We recognize . . . the Nation's need to 'speak with one voice' in immigration matters."). The United States asserts, and the Court agrees, that "the federal government has long rejected a system by which aliens' papers are routinely demanded and checked." (Pl.'s Mot. at 26.)11 The Court finds that this requirement imposes an unacceptable burden on lawfully-present aliens.

In the section of her decision Cavuto quoted, Bolton also relied on statements by Justice Alito. In the specific section in which Bolton stated that "there is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens," Bolton was discussing the constitutionality of a section of the Arizona bill that provides that "an officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that 'the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.' "

To back up her finding that this section would create a "substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens," Bolton quoted Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's statement that the question of "whether a conviction for a particular offense will make an alien removable is often quite complex." From Bolton's opinion:

Under any interpretation of the revision to A.R.S. § 13-3883, it requires an officer to determine whether an alien's public offense makes the alien removable from the United States, a task of considerable complexity that falls under the exclusive authority of the federal government. Justice Alito has commented that

providing advice on whether a conviction for a particular offense will make an alien removable is often quite complex. "Most crimes affecting immigration status are not specifically mentioned by the [Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)], but instead fall under a broad category of crimes such as crimes involving moral turpitude or aggravated felonies." M. Garcia & L. Eig, CRS Report for Congress, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity (Sept. 20, 2006) (summary) (emphasis in original). As has been widely acknowledged, determining whether a particular crime is an "aggravated felony" or a "crime involving moral turpitude [(CIMT)]" is not an easy task.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1488 (2010) (Alito, J., concurring) (some citations omitted).

[...]

Considering the substantial complexity in determining whether a particular public offense makes an alien removable from the United States and the fact that this determination is ultimately made by federal judges, there is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5). By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a "distinct, unusual and extraordinary" burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose. Hines, 312 U.S. at 65-66. The Court thus finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5), created by Section 6 of S.B. 1070, is preempted by federal law.

After trumpeting GOP activist J. Christian Adams' fabricated New Black Panthers Party story, Fox News is now reporting his false claim the Department of Justice is "ignoring" a military voting law by allegedly "encourag[ing]" states to use waivers to bypass the law. In fact, the waiver process is built into the law, and Adams offered no specific evidence to support his claim that DOJ is "encourag[ing]" states to use those waivers.

From a July 28 FoxNews.com posted when Eversole testified in front of the House Subcommittee on Elections in March 2009, Eversole worked in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division from September 2005 until December 2007. He was hired white paper for the RNLA criticizing Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's handling of military ballots in the 2008 election. The paper notes that Eversole "is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association," but there is no current reference to him on the RNLA website.

Eversole has written articles for conservative websites. Among the articles he has recently written:

• In a June 2009 Pajamas Media article, Eversole accused the Obama administration of ignoring "the anti-Semitic and racial intolerance espoused by the New Black Panther Party" and of giving it a "free pass."

• Eversole suggested in an April 2009 Weekly Standard article that there was "evidence of wholesale disenfranchisement" in the 2008 Minnesota Senate election because of alleged irregularities in military ballots

• Eversole co-wrote a Heritage Foundation article with fellow former Bush DOJ employee Hans von Spakovsky -- who has promoted the phony New Black Panthers story and defended Adams -- on "re-enfranchising" military voters.

Fox News heavily promoted phony New Black Panthers scandal

Fox has hyped "scandal" with hours of coverage. On July 16, Media Matters for America reported that Six Fox News shows have discussed the phony New Black Panthers scandal during a total of 95 segments since Megyn Kelly's June 30 interview hyping Adams's unsubstantiated accusations. In all, these Fox shows devoted more than eight hours of airtime to discussing the New Black Panthers.

Thernstrom: "This doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration." In a July 16 Politico article, Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican who serves as vice chair of the Civil Rights Commission and is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized the Republican-dominated Civil Rights Commission's investigation of the Justice Department's actions in the New Black Panthers case. Politico quoted Thernstrom as saying: "This doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration. ... My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring [attorney general] Eric Holder down and really damage the president.

Bipartisan agreement: New Black Panthers case is a fabrication. Numerous media and political figures, including Fox News contributors and Republicans, have dismissed the Fox-hyped phony scandal surrounding the New Black Panthers Party.

Promoting their "Stop Kagan" scam, which asks readers to send WorldNetDaily $24.95 in order to mail personalized letters opposing Elena Kagan to all 100 senators, WorldNetDaily repeated numerous myths and falsehoods about Kagan including Larry Klayman's ridiculous charges that Kagan violated her ethical duties and possibly criminal statutes through her work on "partial-birth abortion" bills.

WND again promotes "Stop Kagan" scam

Farah promotes $24.95 "Stop Kagan" letter-generating campaign as "a phenomenal bargain." A July 27 WorldNetDaily article repeatedly promoted WND editor Joseph Farah's "Stop Kagan Campaign," which "delivers personalized, individually addressed, anti-Kagan letters to all 100 U.S. senators by FedEx for only $24.95."  The article reported that Farah, who is "orchestrating" the effort, "is asking all of his constituents" to join his campaign, which Farah touts as a "phenomenal bargain." Farah also claimed his campaign "makes it easy for you to sound off on this historically bad nomination. It's a small investment. And I am convinced that if enough Americans take advantage of it, Kagan will be stopped -- even by this Senate." WND has been promoting Farah's campaign for over a month.

However, email can be sent to senators for free. In fact, individuals can send letters to senators via email, which is virtually cost-free.

Additionally, U.S. Senate recommends directing questions and comments to "the senators from your state." Moreover, the U.S. Senate recommends that "[a]ll questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the senators from your state" -- as opposed to all 100 U.S. Senators. According to the Senate website:

You can contact your senators by writing an e-mail or a letter, by calling, or by visiting.  All questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the senators from your state. Please be aware that as a matter of professional courtesy, many senators will acknowledge, but not respond to, a message from another senator's constituent.

WND touts Klayman's ridiculous charge that Kagan should be disbarred and prosecuted

WND promotes Klayman's charges that Kagan should be "disbarred" and "possibly subjected to criminal prosecution" for "alter[ing] an official scientific report" regarding "partial-birth abortion." According to a July 27 WorldNetDaily article, headlined "Papers prepped to disbar Elena Kagan: 'She should not be a justice when she's defrauded the Supreme Court'":

One of Washington D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join - and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution - for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.

As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations are already asking the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.

In her confirmation hearings, Kagan defended the amendment, saying, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."

Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement, and court records show the statement was passed off on the Supreme Court as official scientific opinion, even though the ACOG's panel of scientists never approved Kagan's wording.

Klayman told WND he believes Kagan's behind-the-scenes work constitutes "conspiracy to defraud the Supreme Court," and he intends to take the evidence that has been compiled by the pro-life groups to file a complaint before the clerk's office of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have Kagan disbarred as a practicing lawyer in front of the Supreme Court.

But Klayman said he isn't stopping there.

"Then I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation and possibly prosecution of obstruction of justice," he told WND, "because it was reasonably foreseeable that her altering that [ACOG] report would ultimately be used in court proceedings, including but not limited to the Supreme Court."

Klayman concludes, "Elena Kagan should not be a justice of the Supreme Court when she's defrauded the Supreme Court. In fact, she shouldn't even be allowed to practice in front of the Supreme Court under these circumstances."

In fact, the claim that Kagan manipulated medical science on "partial-birth" abortion issue is false. Klayman's claim that -- as reported by WND -- Kagan "altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion" is not true. In fact, Kagan did not ask the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to change its medical findings, and ACOG did not do so. In addition, according to sworn testimony by a member of the ACOG task force that studied "partial-birth abortion," the task force itself determined that there were some situations in which an intact D&X -- the so-called "partial-birth abortion" procedure -- would be "clearly the best choice" to preserve the health of a pregnant woman.

Legal expert Goldstein concluded that complaints that Kagan manipulated medical science are meritless. WND asserted that "Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement." In fact, the suggestion that analyses are unanimous in concluding that Kagan changed the meaning of what ACOG said is false. For instance, while anti-abortion rights advocates have made that argument, Supreme Court expert and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein has debunked that charge:

The ACOG task force concluded that there were particular cases in which Intact D & X was the best available procedure for the mother's health.  It reached that conclusion in October 1996, before Kagan's involvement in December 1996.  The district court in Carhart found as a matter of fact that the task force reached that conclusion, relying on the sworn testimony of the task force's representative, as well as the task force's report.  ACOG confirmed the chronology in its briefing in Carhart.  Kagan's sworn testimony at her confirmation hearing is to the same effect.

There is no contrary evidence.  And (as Kagan pointed out in her hearing testimony) the strong claim is on its face almost implausible, so it would need strong evidence to support it.

WND repeats falsehoods that Kagan is "against the U.S. military" and "banned" military recruiters

WND editor Farah claimed "a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military" and that Kagan "banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus." In the July 27 WND article, WND editor Farah claimed, "We will continue to put every member on notice --  Republicans and Democrats -- that a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military." Farah also labeled Kagan a "radical antimilitary" "zealot" and said: "This woman, as president of her university, banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus... Just contemplate rewarding that kind of vehemently anti-American action with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan must be stopped."

In fact, Kagan did not "ban" military recruiters. As Media Matters has documented, throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Indeed, the number of Harvard Law School students recruited by the military did not decrease during Kagan's tenure as dean. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters and during her confirmation hearing for solicitor general in 2009, Kagan pledged to defend the Solomon Amendment.

Kagan's support for the military is well-established. Kagan has repeatedly praised the military -- describing it as the "noblest of all professions" -- even while opposing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and military veterans at Harvard Law have affirmed Kagan's support for the military.

WND repeats falsehood that Kagan's natural rights comments are controversial

WND: "According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of 'natural rights.' " The July 27 WND article also reported:

According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of "natural rights."

"In all my years of observing Washington, I don't think I've ever been more stunned and disappointed by the testimony of a Supreme Court nominee than I was with Elena Kagan," said Farah. "This is someone, who, from her own testimony, doesn't believe in the Declaration of Independence, which we just celebrated and commemorated for the 234th time in our nation's history. This is someone who claims she doesn't have a view about 'natural rights' - those that real Americans believe are unalienable and God-given."

However, Kagan's noncontroversial comments on natural rights echo those of Justice Thomas. Kagan's statement during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing that she would rely on the Constitution and laws rather than natural rights is completely noncontroversial, and indeed, her comments echo what Justice Clarence Thomas said during his own confirmation hearing when he rejected the idea of using "natural law in constitutional adjudication." From Thomas' hearing:

As I indicated, I believe, or attempted to allude to in my confirmation to the Court of Appeals, I don't see a role for the use of natural law in constitutional adjudication. My interest in exploring natural law and natural rights was purely in the context of political theory. I was interested in that. There were debates that I had with individuals, and I pursued that on a part-time basis. I was an agency chairman.

A few minutes ago, RedState.com managing editor and CNN contributor Erick Erickson tweeted that "Growing evidence points to the U.S. government causing the BP oil spill":

Erickson is referring to an article published yesterday by the Center for Public Integrity with the headline, "Haphazard Firefighting Might Have Sunk BP Oil Rig." The article - which was flagged by Matt Drudge earlier this morning - was authored by our old friend John Solomon and Aaron Mehta.

Solomon and Mehta report that the Coast Guard is "investigating whether the chaotic spraying of tons of salt water by private boats contributed to sinking the ill-fated oil rig" and believe that their response "may have broken the service's own rules by failing to ensure a firefighting expert supervised the half-dozen private boats that answered the Deepwater Horizon's distress call to fight the blaze."

In typical Solomon fashion, the article waits until its 52nd paragraph to point out that experts say the rig would have sunk regardless of the Coast Guard's efforts:

Experts agreed that salt water can affect the balance of an offshore rig, but disagreed whether it mattered in the case of the Deepwater Horizon after such a severe explosion.

Benton Baugh, president of the oil engineering and manufacturing firm Radoil Inc., said it is possible that the seals that protect the rig's buoyancy chambers failed, allowing massive amounts of seawater used on the fire to penetrate them.

"I and others have speculated that the access to the buoyancy chambers was compromised, potentially by heat, and the fire boats simply flooded the buoyancy chambers and caused the rig to sink," he told the Center .

Paul Bommer, a 25-year veteran of the oil industry and now a senior lecturer at the University of Texas , thinks the rig was doomed by the fire, regardless of how well or poorly the firefighting was coordinated.

"I do not believe anyone thought they could put the fire out with foam or water -- it was too big and too hot," Bommer said. "Without putting the fire out -- which was impossible -- there was no way to save this vessel ."

Bommer says the fire "simply melted away enough of the structure and support systems" on the rig, causing the buoyancy system to fail . But, he adds, that is only true as long as the rig was connected to the riser and the well.

"If the emergency disconnect had worked or had the riser burned through at the surface [of the rig] and disconnected, the fire would have gone out," possibly saving the ship.

Would the oil spill have been as catastrophic as it was if the rig did not sink? Baugh says it is "possible," pointing out that "It is sure that for as long as the vessel was floating the spill was greatly minimized; it is possible that it could still be floating and there would have been only minimal pollution."

"The riser is near neutrally buoyant with flotation except for the top telescopic joint, so this could have been possible," he concludes.

But now Solomon has his Drudge link and the right-wing has some new catnip to play with.

Media outlets have run with the false claim that President Obama's upcoming interview on The View will mark the first time a sitting president has appeared on a daytime talk show, when in fact, President Bush appeared on Dr. Phil in 2004. Right-wing media have seized on this false claim and his appearance in general to attack Obama's "priorities."

President Bush appeared on Dr. Phil in 2004

In 2004, Bush appeared on daytime talk show Dr. Phil. In 2004, President Bush and his wife appeared on Phil McGraw's daytime talk show, Dr. Phil. The Washington Post reported on September 29, 2004, that "[w]ith 'Family First' the title of McGraw's most recent book, he has promised both candidates the questions would be limited to family-oriented topics" and noted that the segment would air during the afternoon hours.

Media falsely claim Obama will be first sitting president to appear on daytime talk show

ABCNews.com: "Obama will become the first sitting U.S. president to visit a daytime TV talk show." Following an announcement from ABC, ABCNews.com reported that "President Obama will become the first sitting U.S. president to visit a daytime TV talk show when he tapes an interview Wednesday with ABC's 'The View.' "

Several other media outlets uncritically run with ABC's false claim. Following ABC's reporting, article, CNSNews.com stated that Obama "will not speak in-person before the [Boy Scouts] group on Wednesday at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, as part of the organization's 100th anniversary celebration. However, the president is sending a videotaped message to the scouts for Wednesday, the same day he will be in Manhattan to tape an appearance for ABC TV's talk show 'The View.' " CNSNews further stated that "ABC said it would be 'the first time in history a sitting United States president has visited a daytime talk show.' " The article also reported that past presidents--including conservative hero Ronald Reagan--did not address a Boy Scouts jamboree in person, that Obama would be addressing the Boy Scouts via a taped message, and that the Boy Scouts just visited the Oval Office two weeks ago.  

Hoft: Obama "skip[ping]" Boy Scout Jamboree to appear on The View. In a July 26 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft wrote: "Barack Obama will skip the Boy Scout 100 year Anniversary Jamboree... Instead he will travel to New York City to appear on 'The View.' " Hoft also linked to the CNSNews article.

Fox Nation asks, "Did Pres. Obama Diss Boy Scouts' 100th Anniversary for 'The View'?" The Fox Nation linked to the CNSNews article under the headline, "Did Pres. Obama Diss Boy Scouts' 100th Anniversary for 'The View'?" From the Fox Nation:




Drudge attacks Obama's "priorities" over View appearance. From the Drudge Report:




NewsBusters: "Obama Snubs Boy Scouts' 100th Anniversary in Favor of 'The View.' " On July 27, NewsBusters republished the CNSNews article under the headline, "Obama Snubs Boy Scouts' 100th Anniversary in Favor of 'The View.' "

Beck accuses Obama of snubbing Scouts for The View. On the July 27 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck stated: "I think it's a great day that the day that the president is -- that the Arizona law goes in effect -- he can't make it for the Boy Scout Jamboree all week because he's busy, but he can make it for the gals at The View."

Baier: "Despite making the historic visit to The View," Obama will miss the Boy Scouts Jamboree. On the July 27 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier stated, "Despite making the historic visit to The View, President Obama will miss out on another historic occasion -- the Boy Scouts Jamboree, marking the group's 100th anniversary." Baier later stated that "[t]he White House denied the TV appearance on The View was the reason for missing the Jamboree, saying Democratic fundraisers prevented the president from attending."

Ingraham attacks Obama as "disconnected from the core of the country," cites appearance on The View. On the July 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham said that Obama "appears disconnected from the core of the country." As evidence of this, Ingraham cited Obama's appearance on The View, stating that "unfortunately, Obama will not be speaking live" at the Scouts Jamboree because he's "traveling to the Big Apple to squeeze between Joy Behar and Sherri Shepherd on The View" and attending a fundraiser. Ingraham later stated that Obama is "pandering to the entertainment elites," which "diminishes the office."

S.E. Cupp: "[T]he so-called leader of the free world thinks the best use of his time is to yuk it up with Whoopi Goldberg." In a July 28 New York Daily News column, conservative commentator S.E. Cupp wrote: "Thursday marks either a momentous occasion worthy of celebration or the end of civilization as we know it. For the first time in history, a sitting United States President will appear on a daytime talk show when Barack Obama joins the ladies of 'The View' for what promises to be some rigorous policy talk -- or a gabfest that will embarrass both daytime television (if that's possible) and the office of the President." Cupp later stated:

We are still fighting two increasingly trying wars overseas, witnessing terrifying new levels of creativity from would-be terrorists (underwear bombs, etc.), mopping up a greasy mess in the Gulf of Mexico and trying to right an economy that seems insistent on remaining off the rails. And the so-called leader of the free world thinks the best use of his time is to yuk it up with Whoopi Goldberg.

Hot Air's Morrissey: "[I]t's not like he had anything better to do, or as though he disappointed a large group of community-minded American children." In a July 28 Hot Air post, Ed Morrissey attacked Obama's "[p]riorities," stating of Obama's appearance on The View, "Well, it's not like he had anything better to do, or as though he disappointed a large group of community-minded American children, or anything." Morrissey also posted a cartoon by Investors Business Daily's Michael Ramirez attacking Obama over his TV appearance and linked to the CNSNews article.

Hannity and Fox & Friends hosted Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller to promote her book and attack President Obama and Islam. Fox made no mention of her history of outrageous, inflammatory, and false anti-Muslim and anti-Obama comments.

Fox hosts Geller to attack Obama and Islam, promote her book, and raise money for her extremist group

Geller: "All the evidence points to Obama's anti-Semitic associations." Appearing as a member of the "Great American Panel" on the June 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity,  Geller headlined a November 9, 2009, post "Obama Goes Full On Nazi: Subject: "Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News."

Geller: " 'Kick a Jew' days ... are part of this growing evil Evil unleashed with an anti-semite in the White House." In a December 14, 2009, post, Geller wrote:

It's as if the floodgates of hell have been thrown open. The moratorium on the holocaust is officially over and all the savages are free to incite, hate and destroy. Clearly those "Kick a Jew" days discussed here and here in schools are part of this growing evil Evil [sic] unleashed with an anti-semite in the White House.

Geller: "Obama is bringing his jihad to Illinois." In a December 15, 2009, post on Atlas Shrugs entitled, "Muslim Tries to Light a Bomb on DC to Denver Aircraft," Pamela Geller wrote, "NBC is reporting that a muslim [sic] passenger attempted to light an explosive device on board an aircraft from Washington to Denver, sources tell NBC News -- this on the day that Obama said jihad and Islamic terrorism does not exist (neither does his birth certificate)." The NBC report to which she linked -- a "breaking news" Twitter feed -- said only that "a passenger attempted to light an explosive device on board an aircraft from Washington to Denver, sources tell NBC News." The post made no mention of the passenger's religion. Geller called the passenger "[t]he jihadi committing this act of Islamic terror." Before Geller updated her post to reflect new information, she wrote: "Fighter jets were scrambled to bring the plane down. G-d only knows what would have happened if the the [sic] air marshals on board hadn't tackled him..."

Geller falsely claimed Farrakhan, Ayers and Wright visited White House. In a Marcy 26 post, Geller wrote:

There are consequential, disturbing revelations to be found when flipping through the visitors list at the White House. Bill Ayers is there no less than three times, Louis Farrakhan at least once, but there is also a separate visit for his family, and the infamous hater Jeremiah Wright is there at least five times (four times under Jeremy, one under Jeremiah)

She added, "These are terrorists, inciters to genocide, America haters, the underbelly of an ugly America -- and they are in the House." In fact, the New York Times reported back in October 2009 that the White House said "visitors by the names of William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright were not the same two men who stirred controversy for Mr. Obama in his campaign." In January, White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen stated that the "Louis Farrakhan" in the list is not the well-known individual with that name.

Geller absurdly claimed Obama administration wearing purple as sign of solidarity with SEIU. In a March 26 post titled, "Flying the gangsta colors at the White House: SEIU, The color purple," Geller wrote (emphasis in the original), "Yes, it seems this can no longer be written off as pure coincidence. The color purple is the fighting color of this administration. It is painfully clear who and what is running the show. Historically the color purple has signified royalty which, ironically, is exactly how the power mad pres thinks of himself. But this is SEIU, all the way. The Chicago way."  As evidence, Geller claimed Obama wore a purple tie when he signed the health care law.  But in other photos and videos, the tie appears to be a grey-ish blue. Geller also posted a photo of Democratic lawmakers who she said were wearing "purple ties," but they are clearly blue. And she claimed that Robert Gibbs and Andy Stern wore "matching purple bracelets." However Gibbs had explained in a March 15 tweet that he was wearing the bracelet in support of a family friend who "is bravely fighting cancer."

Geller baselessly claimed Obama may have visited Louis Farrakhan when he went to Chicago for Memorial Day. In a My 30 post, Geller wrote: "How did the President of the United States spend his Memorial day weekend? Honoring the glorious dead by laying a wreath at Arlington cemetery?? Not a chance. It is unclear, but he may have pow-wowed with race baiter, Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan, a frequent visitor to the White House." However, Geller provides no information that suggests Obama met with Farrakhan. She noted that Obama attended a dinner at the home of Marty Nesbitt, which is near the home of Farrakhan, and that the press pool reportedly clashed with some of Farrakhan's men, concluding, "The whole story stinks. Did Obama see Farrakhan or not?"

Geller calls Obama "the Muslim president." Geller's blog contains 267 posts tagged, "Muslim in the White House?" In a June 2, 2009, post, Geller called Obama "The Muslim president." Calling it a "critical issue," Geller wrote in January 2008 that "Obama went to a madrassa in Jakarta," that "he practiced Islam" and that "if Obama makes it to the big house, Israel is screwed. Finished." On May 30, 2009, Geller wrote that with his Cairo speech, Obama "proved everything I said to be true." In fact, CNN debunked the "madrassa" falsehood back in January 2007 and as Newsweek stated, "Barack Obama has never been Muslim and never practiced Islam."

Media bring Geller into the mainstream, telling nation she is a credible source

MSNBC, NBC, CNN, and Fox News give Geller national platform to attack Islam. As Media Matters has noted, numerous mainstream media outlets have recently hosted Geller to discuss the controversy surrounding an Islamic community center and mosque set to be built blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City. During her appearances, Geller asserted that the Islamic center is a "kick in the head" and "stab ... in the eye" of Americans, suggested it is intended as a "triumphal mosque" on "conquered lands," and speculated that it could be "tied to jihad or terror" without providing any evidence.

On July 28, 2009, Glenn Beck called President Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." While Beck has reportedly lost more than 100 advertisers since he made those comments, right-wing media figures now routinely call Obama or members of his administration "racist."

Advertisers drop Beck's show

At least 100 advertisers have reportedly dropped Beck's Fox News show. At least 100 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Beck's Fox News program since he called Obama a "racist."

Right-wing media now routinely call Obama "racist"

Beck distorts Obama's comments to accuse him of "racism." On the June 14 editions of his radio and television shows, Beck misrepresented comments Obama made during a 1995 interview to claim Obama did not want to meet with BP CEO Tony Hayward because he is a "white CEO" and that those comments were "code language" that "sounds like racism," "stereotyping," and "profiling." However, as Obama's full comments make clear, he was actually discussing personal responsibility on the part of both blacks and whites.

Limbaugh calls Obama administration a "racist" "regime" During the April 26 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh discussed Arizona's controversial immigration law and claimed that "not everybody thinks that civil rights are the end-all and be-all of every single issue." Limbaugh then cited a campaign video in which Obama discussed voter turnout, including among minorities and women, in 2010. Limbaugh then said, "This is the regime at its racist best.

Limbaugh calls Obama "the most-racial president" During the July 22 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "So we're supposed to have a post-racial president. Instead, Barack Obama is the most-racial president."

Breitbart, Asman agree Obama is "defending racism" in New Black Panthers case, which is "virtually the same" as being racist. On the July 6 edition of Fox Business Network's America's Nightly Scoreboard, Andrew Breitbart agreed with host David Asman, who stated that while it "may or may not be true" that Obama is a racist, "in letting the Black Panthers off," Obama "is defending racists," which is "virtually the same."

Discussing New Black Panthers case, Severin rants about Obama being "demonstrably a racist" During the June 30 edition of his radio show, Jay Severin discussed the New Black Panthers and claimed that "as long as Barack Obama is president, there is a complete double standard, and a lot of it is based on race" and that "Barack Obama is a racist." Severin added, "Barack Obama is -- the president of the United States is demonstrably a racist."

Hannity defends Beck's statement that Obama is "a racist" During the March 9 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity questioned whether Beck had said anything "over the top." Democratic strategist Penny Lee cited Beck's statement that Obama was racist. Hannity responded, "But wait a minute. Wait. Hang on a second. When the president hangs out with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, I'm -- can one conclude that there are issues with the president -- black liberation theology?"

Blogger Pamela Geller called Obama racist. A March 23 post on Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugged blogged was headlined "Racist Obama will not be photographed with Jewish prime minister of Israel."

Right-wing media call administration officials "racist"

Limbaugh accuses Eric Holder, DOJ of racism During the July 21 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh discussed the "amazing story of Shirley Sherrod," asking, "If we're going to fire Shirley Sherrod on the basis of racism, then why the hell does Eric Holder still have a job?" Limbaugh later claimed that Holder "has ignored the voting and civil rights of white people in Philadelphia all because the perpetrators of the voter intimidation, the New Black Panther Party, were black."

RedState.com accuses "African American Attorney General" Holder of "blatant reverse discrimination." In a July 7 RedState.com post on the New Black Panthers case, Dave Poff wrote:

It's impossible to believe that President Obama and his Administration actually buys in to this idea that we have moved beyond race and into a new generation of a color blind society, when you consider the blatant reverse discrimination his Attorney General (yes, his African American Attorney General) Eric Holder has been pursuing in the name of leveling the playing field in matters of Justice. Holder, it would seem, is still judging people by the color of their skin. [emphasis in original]

Gingrich: Holder "should certainly resign over the racism inherent in the Black Panther case." On the July 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Newt Gingrich said Holder "should certainly resign over the racism inherent in the Black Panther case."

Wash. Times: "[I]t is only under the Obama administration that top appointees have allowed and even encouraged race-based enforcement as either tacit or open policy." In a July 6 editorial headlined "Black Panther case: Racism rules," The Washington Times parroted the discredited claims of former DOJ attorney and right-wing activist J. Christian Adams that the Justice Department "announced that civil rights laws would not be enforced to protect white voters," which the Times wrote was proof that the Obama administration has " allowed and even encouraged race-based enforcement as either tacit or open policy."