Hannity's Conservative Victory: More than 20 falsehoods, smears, and distortions
On Page 155 of Conservative Victory, Sean Hannity claims that conservatives "have the best weapon at hand to combat [liberals'] efforts: the truth." According to a Media Matters for America review, Hannity appeared to leave that "weapon" at home, as his new book is riddled with numerous falsehoods, smears, and distortions. Below are more than 20 of them:
1. Hannity trots out "socialized," nationalized health care falsehoods
2. Hannity pals around with falsehood that Obama and Ayers are "close"
3. Hannity: Dunn, Bloom are "entranced" by Mao
4. "XXX-rated reading list": Hannity continues smear campaign against Jennings
6. Hannity pushes dubious claim that Koh might apply "sharia law in American courts"
7. Hannity distortion: Johnsen believes "that pregnancy can be comparable to involuntary servitude"
9. Hannity falsely claims Reid pushed provision for "unrepealable" Medicare board
10. Hannity falsely claims Independent Medicare Advisory Board is a "death panel"
11. Hannity falsely suggests Obama is alone in using saved jobs metric
12. Hannity falsely claims health care legislation funds abortion
13. Hannity accuses Obama of slander for true statements about Afghanistan
15. Falsehood: Obama opposed protecting "babies that survived late-term abortions"
16. Hannity distortion: DOJ "dismissed" Black Panther voter intimidation case
17. Hannity baselessly claims Obama is sending "SEIU thugs" to "physically attack" tea partiers
18. Hannity claims tea party messages are "positive" -- then cites tea party leader who used n-word
20. Hannity forwards false claim that Obama has never said "Islamic extremism"
21. More Hannity smears: Marxist, Manchurian candidate, attacks on Michelle Obama
1. Hannity trots out "socialized," nationalized health care falsehoods
Hannity repeatedly claims that Obama pushed "socialized" and "nationalize[d]" health care. For instance:
Only months into his presidency, he had so infuriated average Americans that a series of Tea Party protests emerged across the nation, attended by everyday people who were outraged and horrified by Obama's every decision: his reckless federal spending, his seizure of control of private industry, his cap-and-trade legislation, and his obsessive quest to nationalize one-sixth of the American economy through socialized health care. [Page 4]
[...]
Rather than responding to the real fear that his debt explosion struck in the heart of most Americans, he brazenly turned a deaf ear and pressed forward with his hugely unpopular question to nationalize our health care, proving he was anything but a president of the people. [Page 6]
[...]
As a leftist to his core, Barack Obama has been salivating over socialized medicine for years. It's the perfect policy vehicle for socialists who want to ensure that government's tentacles will spread into all aspects of our society. [Page 94]
Democrats' health care reform isn't socialized health care. The Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis that "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services" and explained that Democratic health care reform proposals do not "fit this description. While these policies would provide additional public resources to help the uninsured pay for coverage and would increase the pooling of risks in insurance markets, none would overturn the dominant role of private insurance and private providers in America's health care system." The analysis also noted, "Similar rhetoric was used to defeat national health care reform proposals in the 1990s and, with less success, to argue against the creation of Medicare in the 1960s."
Obama has not proposed socialized medicine, single payer, or nationalized health care. As PolitiFact.com noted in a March 5, 2009, post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured," and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors." And during a March 26, 2009, online town hall, Obama explicitly rejected the notion of implementing a health care system "the way European countries do or Canada does," explaining that what "we should do is to build on the [employer-based] system that we have."
2. Hannity pals around with falsehood that Obama and Ayers are "close"
From Page 36 of Conservative Victory:
Obama laughably downplays William Ayers -- a close associate with whom he served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago and who hosted an event at his home launching Obama's state senate run -- as just a guy in the neighborhood, a harmless Chicago college professor.
NY Times: Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close." The New York Times reported on October 4, 2008, that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "
FactCheck.org: Obama and Ayers were "never very close." In an October 10, 2008, article, FactCheck.org wrote of the 2008 presidential campaign: "What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign's attempts to sway voters -- in ads and on the stump -- with false and misleading statements about the relationship [between Obama and Ayers], which was never very close.
McClatchy: "There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to [Obama's] campaign." McClatchy reported on October 9, 2008, that "Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign." [accessed via Nexis]
AP: "[T]here is no evidence that they ever palled around." Reporting on then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's claim that Obama sees America as so imperfect "that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," the Associated Press reported on October 5, 2008, that "there is no evidence they [Obama and Ayers] have palled around," and "it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts."
3. Hannity: Dunn, Bloom are "entranced" by Mao
From Page 50 of Conservative Victory:
[Senior counselor for manufacturing policy Ron] Bloom said that he and his colleagues recognize that "this is largely about power" -- and, shockingly, that "we kind of agree with Mao [Zedong] that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun." That's right, Obama's manufacturing czar kind-of agrees with Red China's Chairman Mao, the tyrant responsible for murdering tens of millions of his own people during peacetime for not toeing the party line. How comforting is that?
ANITA DUNN
And the same wonderful Chinese dictator has entranced another of Obama's radical darlings -- Obama's short-lived White House communications director Anita Dunn, who regards Mao as among her favorite philosophers. Obama is nothing if not consistent.
But numerous conservatives have similarly approvingly cited Mao and other brutal communists' tactics, rhetoric. Hannity is referencing a video in which Dunn cited two of her "favorite political philosophers," Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, during a speech to high school graduates. However, Dunn offered no endorsement of Mao's ideology or actions -- rather, she spoke of Mao and Mother Teresa as two of her favorite "political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how good you are internally." Numerous conservatives, including Newt Gingrich (who is approvingly cited in Hannity's book), Ralph Reed, Barry Goldwater's "alter ego" Stephen C. Shadegg and John McCain, have approvingly cited the tactics of Mao, Vladimir Lenin, and the Viet Cong, stated that they had used those tactics in their political work, or have otherwise highlighted their philosophies.
4. "XXX-rated reading list": Hannity continues smear campaign against Jennings
Hannity continues his smear campaign against Department of Education official Kevin Jennings by claiming that an organization he founded pushed an "XXX-rated reading list" for "children." From Page 53 of Conservative Victory:
To give you an idea of the mentality of GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network], which Jennings founded, one report on the Gateway Pundit blog offers a detailed account of the XXX-rated reading list the organization recommends for children -- complete with extensive, sexually explicit quotations from many of the books. The site quotes a report from Breitbart.tv that "book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren't merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between preschoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air."
GLSEN: "We recommend that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability." In describing its BookLink section, GLSEN states in red type: "All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content. However, some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes. We recommend that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability. The editorial and customer reviews listed at Amazon.com often provide information on mature content."
Attacks on Jennings over book list are frequently marked by distortions. As Media Matters has documented, conservative attacks on Jennings over GLSEN's book list are repeatedly marked by distortions.
Schools regularly teach books that contain sexually explicit material. Many classic novels include sexually explicit material. The American Library Association notes on its website that many of the top 100 novels of the 20th century have been the subject of objections over issues such as "sexual references," "sexually explicit passages," "rape," "masturbation," "bestiality," "explicit sex scenes," and "trashy sex." These titles include books regularly taught in schools, such as Catcher in the Rye, The Color Purple, Beloved, Lord of the Flies, 1984, Of Mice and Men, Brave New World, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Rabbit, Run. In a December 11, 2009, statement, Martin Garnar, chair of the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee, said: "Though Jennings' and GLSEN's critics claim to be upholding American morals and values by condemning the GLSEN book list, they are actually undermining the values of tolerance, free inquiry, and self-determination that inform and sustain our democratic way of life in the United States."
5. Hannity repeats "Lie of the Year" nominee: Holdren supports "compulsory sterilization and even sometimes abortion"
From Page 56 of Conservative Victory:
Obama's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), or "science czar," is John Holdren, another leftist with beliefs outside the American mainstream. In his writings, Holdren seems to approve of and recommend compulsory sterilization and even sometimes abortion, in furtherance of a government population control program.
PolitiFact: Holdren does not support compulsory sterilization or forced abortion. After Glenn Beck offered a similar allegation based on an environmental sciences book Holdren co-authored more than 30 years ago, PolitiFact concluded that "the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions." PolitiFact nominated the smear, which Hannity has repeated on his Fox News show, as one of its "Lies of the Year."
6. Hannity pushes dubious claim that Koh might apply "sharia law in American courts"
From Page 60 of Conservative Victory:
Equally troubling is [State Department legal adviser Harold] Koh's attitude toward the application of Muslim sharia law in American courts. In a 2007 speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich, Connecticut, he said that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."
Hannity has repeatedly advanced the dubious claim on his Fox News show. The claim originated in March 2007, when National Review Online blogger Carol Innone posted a letter from New York lawyer Steven J. Stein, who claimed to have heard Koh suggest that Sharia law could be applied in the United States during a Yale University alumni event Stein attended.
Koh and event organizer have refuted claim. The claim has been denied by Koh himself during Senate testimony, Koh's spokesman, and Robin Reeves Zorthian, the organizer of the Yale University alumni event at which Koh supposedly made the Sharia law remarks. Zorthian said that claims about Koh are "totally fictitious and inaccurate" and "never did Koh state or suggest that other forms of law should govern ... the American legal system."
Koh has denounced Iran for imposing strict Sharia law. University of California-Davis law professor Anupam Chander wrote in an April 2, 2009, blog post that "[i]n the 71 articles penned by Harold Koh that appear in the Westlaw law review database, there is but one article that mentions Sharia," and in that article, Koh "denounces the government of Iran for 'impos[ing] a strict form of Sharia law that denies basic rights to women and minorities.' " Slate senior editor and legal reporter Dahlia Lithwick similarly wrote that "Koh in all his academic articles and many public statements has never said anything to suggest some dogged fealty to Sharia."
7. Hannity distortion: Johnsen believes "that pregnancy can be comparable to involuntary servitude"
From Page 60 of Conservative Victory:
Obama appointed Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel despite her radical views -- including that pregnancy can be comparable to involuntary servitude.
PolitiFact: Johnsen compared "forced pregnancy" to involuntary servitude. From a March 24, 2009, PolitiFact article:
The Republicans are referring to a 1989 brief in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, a case that tested whether states could prohibit abortions in public health institutions. Johnsen was then legal director of the National Abortion Rights Action League, one of 77 organizations to sign the brief.
Footnote 23, part of the brief that Johnsen said in a Senate hearing that she wrote, said the following: "While a woman might choose to bear children gladly and voluntarily, statutes that curtail her abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon."
So Johnsen compared "forced pregnancy" -- not motherhood -- to involuntary servitude.
After we asked the Republican Conference about the claim, staffer Ericka Andersen acknowledged it was wrong. "You are correct that the post was written inaccurately," she told us in an e-mail. She corrected the post to say Johnsen "equated forced pregnancy with 'involuntary servitude.'"
Kudos to the conference for acknowledging the error. But we still find the original claim False.
8. Hannity falsely claims Democrats are "allocating monies" to ACORN to "ensure their own reelection"
From Page 65 of Conservative Victory:
Congress, under Obama's Democrats, is not just passively ceding its powers to the executive branch in areas it shouldn't. In concert with Obama, it too is stealing power from the people. Congressmen are deliberately ignoring their own rules (such as Al Franken cutting off Republican senators speaking in opposition to Obama's agenda); they're voting on legislation when not only have they not read it, but it hasn't even been written; they're spending trillions of dollars we don't have and can't possibly acquire; they're allocating monies to corrupt groups like ACORN to ensure their own reelection rather than for any legitimate legislative purpose; and they're doing all this in defiance of the will of the people.
Obama and Democrats have not been "allocating monies" to ACORN. Hannity offers no evidence or footnote to support his claim about ACORN. However, Hannity falsely claimed on his February 19 Fox News show that Obama's budget "is going to give [ACORN] $3 billion." In fact, Obama's budget contains no language specific to ACORN. In previous years, Republicans have repeatedly claimed that Democrats were going to "give" ACORN millions or billions of dollars when, in fact, the various legislations they reference don't contain any language mentioning ACORN. In September 2009, Hannity falsely claimed that ACORN is "on schedule to get eight and a half trillion dollars of stimulus money."
9. Hannity falsely claims Reid pushed provision for "unrepealable" Medicare board
Hannity: Reid "aims to make the bill's proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) unrepealable." From Page 65 of Conservative Victory:
But among the Democrats' many shameless attempts to seize power away from the people, the granddaddy of them all is contained in the Senate health-care bill. Unbeknownst to many, that bill contains an amendment, inserted by Majority Leader Harry Reid, that aims to make the bill's proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) unrepealable. The amendment would change certain Senate rules to prohibit future Congresses from repealing the IMAB (which some refer to as a death panel). But current Senate rules require sixty-seven votes for a rule change. The Democrats, who had already changed the rule with their sixty-vote (not sixty-seven-vote) majority, claimed they weren't changing the rule, just changing a "procedure." But their intentions were clear: Obama's Senate was not only trying to make their provision for death panels unrepealable -- violating our first principles of popular sovereignty at their core -- but in the process they were also violating their own rules through semantic deception.
FactCheck.org: IMAB is repealable. In a January 15 article, when asked if the IMAB "can't be repealed" if enacted into law, FactCheck.org replied: "No ... that could be repealed by a vote of three-fifths of the Senate."
10. Hannity falsely claims Independent Medicare Advisory Board is a "death panel"
From Page 65 of Conservative Victory:
But among the Democrats' many shameless attempts to seize power away from the people, the granddaddy of them all is contained in the Senate health-care bill. Unbeknownst to many, that bill contains an amendment, inserted by Majority Leader Harry Reid, that aims to make the bill's proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) unrepealable. The amendment would change certain Senate rules to prohibit future Congresses from repealing the IMAB (which some refer to as a death panel). But current Senate rules require sixty-seven votes for a rule change. The Democrats, who had already changed the rule with their sixty-vote (not sixty-seven-vote) majority, claimed they weren't changing the rule, just changing a "procedure." But their intentions were clear: Obama's Senate was not only trying to make their provision for death panels unrepealable -- violating our first principles of popular sovereignty at their core -- but in the process they were also violating their own rules through semantic deception.
Independent Medicare Advisory Board is specifically prohibited from rationing health care or modifying benefits. According to the legislation, when the "projected per capita growth rate under Medicare" exceeds "the target growth rate for that year," the board is required to "develop and submit" to Congress a "proposal containing recommendations to reduce the Medicare per capita growth rate to the extent required by this section." But the legislation explicitly states that the board may not include recommendations to "ration health care," "restrict benefits," or "modify eligibility criteria." From Section 3403 of the Senate health care bill:
(ii) The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.
The Congressional Budget Office found that the advisory board provision "would place a number of limitations on the actions available to the board, including a prohibition against modifying eligibility or benefits."
FactCheck.org: The "Medicare Board is no 'death panel.' " From FactCheck.org's January 15 article:
Footnote: Despite a few lingering claims to the contrary, the Medicare Board is no "death panel." The bill explicitly states that its cost-saving proposals:
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: ...shall not include any recommendation to ration heatlh care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums...increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.
11. Hannity falsely suggests Obama is alone in using saved jobs metric
From Page 82 of Conservative Victory:
When Obama was unveiling his economic plans, he assured us that, because of his intervention, unemployment would not rise above 8 percent, and that it should "save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010" -- as if "saving" jobs were a measurable statistic. (It's revealing that the mainstream media, as in-the-tank for Obama as they are, still allow him to get away with such a bogus ruse.)
Bush administration also made claims about jobs "saved or created." During the Bush administration, the Department of Agriculture repeatedly stated that its economic initiatives had "saved or created" a specific number of jobs, or would in the future.
CBO also uses saved metric. As Media Matters has noted, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also used the saved jobs metric when discussing the impact of the stimulus bill.
12. Hannity falsely claims health care legislation funds abortion
Hannity: Democrats are "enabling the federal funding of abortion in the health-care bills." From Pages 100 and 153 of Conservative Victory:
As for Obama's claim that federal funds wouldn't be used for abortion, the truth is that every attempt by congressmen to add language prohibiting the practice was defeated by Obama's Democrats. The bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve included major taxpayer funding of abortion and, some said, opened the door for the administration to force insurance companies to pay for abortion.
[...]
But he is doing everything he can to advance the cause of abortion -- not choice, but unqualified abortion on demand -- including deceitfully supporting and enabling the federal funding of abortion in the health-care bills that have circulated through Congress in the past year.
Senate bill forbids use of federal subsidies for abortion services except in cases allowed by the Hyde amendment. The health care reform bill passed by the Senate states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the federal subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services." Public funding is currently banned by the Hyde amendment for all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.
Fox's Cavuto: No provisions for federal funding of abortions. While Fox News has repeatedly forwarded the false abortion claims, host Neil Cavuto admitted on March 27 that "we don't see any provision there where federal monies go directly to fund abortions."
PolitiFact: No federal funding. PolitiFact wrote that the "Senate bill states very clearly that public funding through tax credits and government subsidies for elective abortion services offered in the exchange is prohibited. But more than that, the bill sets up a mechanism to ensure that abortion services offered in the exchange are paid entirely from patient premiums, premiums paid by people who have chosen a private plan that covers abortion."
13. Hannity accuses Obama of slander for true statements about Afghanistan
From Page 109 of Conservative Victory:
Obama appeared obsessed with the slanderous notion that the only thing the American military was doing under George W. Bush was murdering innocent people in Afghanistan. "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
Hannity is referencing a remark from Obama from August 13, 2007, which he and other conservatives repeatedly distorted during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Then-Bush Defense Secretary Gates apologized for civilian deaths from airstrikes. Defense Secretary Robert Gates apologized for deaths resulting from coalition airstrikes, saying in a September 17, 2008, statement: "I offer all Afghans my sincere condolences and personal regrets for the recent loss of innocent life as a result of coalition airstrikes. While no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder. I have asked for a detailed briefing this afternoon about our close air support as well as our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations."
Media reports confirm that airstrikes have resulted in "killing civilians." Despite Hannity's assertion that it is "slanderous" to discuss civilian casualties in Afghanistan, accounts of resulting civilian casualties from U.S. airstrikes in the country have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" the day after Obama's remark: "Western forces have been killing [Afghan] civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents."
14. Hannity criticizes Obama for referring to the "Islamic Republic of Iran" -- just as Hannity and Fox have
From Page 121 of Conservative Victory:
Obama has shown his true foreign policy colors in his dealings with Iran. In his "Nowruz" (New Year's) greeting to the leaders of Iran, he referred to the country several times as "the Islamic Republic of Iran," which validated the standing of the theocratic leaders while offering a kick in the gut to the majority of Iranian people, who oppose them.
Hannity: "Islamic Republic of Iran." From an August 30, 2006, segment (retrieved from Nexis) on Hannity & Colmes: [emphasis added]
HANNITY: In the midst of the western world's nuclear standoff with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the U.S. State Department has granted former Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami, a visa to come to this country next week.
Now, Khatami is planning to attend the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations meetings as well as other speaking events in the United States, and at taxpayer expense, his security will be overseen by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
And tonight, there are even reports that former President Carter is interested in meeting with Khatami during his visit. In a contact to the State Department, they told us, quote, "We are an open society, tolerant of diverse viewpoints. And after careful deliberation, we've determined that issuing Mr. Khatami a limited visa, and allowing Mr. Khatami to present his views directly to the American people will demonstrate to Iran that the United States upholds its commitment to freedom and democracy."
Fox reporters refer to the "Islamic Republic of Iran." For instance (emphasis added):
- Reporter Lauren Green on February 12: "In the Islamic Republic of Iran, politics and religion are one. But experts are warning that the Islamic apocalyptic figure called 'The Twelfth Imam' maybe fueling Iran's obsession for nuclear weapons."
- Reporter Amy Kellogg on August 5, 2009 (retrieved from Nexis): "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for a second term as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the parliament, but it was not a packed house. Dozens of members chose to stay away. The security presence on the streets was as heavy as it's been since the June election, according to an eyewitness." Kellogg's biography states: "In recent years, Kellogg has had extraordinary access to the Islamic Republic of Iran."
15. Falsehood: Obama opposed protecting "babies that survived late-term abortions"
From Page 152-153 of Conservative Victory:
They are adamantly, militantly pro-abortion, to the point where even the very leader of their party, Barack Obama, as an Illinois senator in 2002, spoke out and voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions.
As Obama and other opponents noted, criminal code already prevented killing of children. In attacking Obama, Hannity joined other conservatives in misleadingly referencing Obama's opposition in the Illinois legislature to legislation that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Opponents of the bill noted that the legislation was unnecessary, as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and said that the bill posed a threat to abortion rights. When tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment -- the alleged incident that inspired the "Born Alive Act" -- the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of existing Illinois law. The Obama presidential campaign subsequently cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois."
Media figures declare this attack against Obama to be "misleading" and "unfair." The legislation became an issue during the 2008 presidential campaign when Palin attacked Obama by claiming that Obama believes a "child being born alive" should "not receive medical help to save that child's life." Time's Michael Scherer said Palin's attacks were "misleading" while The Washington Post "fact checker" Michael Dobbs wrote that it was "unfair to accuse Obama of supporting the withdrawal of medical treatment from babies."
16. Hannity distortion: DOJ "dismissed" Black Panther voter intimidation case
From Page 184 of Conservative Victory:
They [Democrats] control a corrupt Justice Department whose attorney general has racialized the poll-watching process, and who dismissed a voter intimidation case against his Black Panther friends.
DOJ actually "sought and obtained" "maximum penalty" against one of the individuals. The Bush administration made the decision to file a civil complaint instead of criminal charges against Black Panther members who were accused of "brandish[ing] a deadly weapon" outside of a polling station in Philadelphia, and the Obama administration did not drop the civil case. Rather, the Justice Department "sought and obtained" the "maximum penalty" against one of the two individuals. On December 3, 2009, Department of Justice assistant attorney general Tom Perez testified that "[t]he case was not dismissed" and that the attorneys who reviewed the case "made the determination that, based on the law of the Third Circuit, that the case against the person who wielded the stick, that we should indeed seek the maximum penalty, and that maximum penalty was sought and obtained, and the case against the other defendant should be dismissed, and the case against the national party should also be dismissed."
17. Hannity baselessly claims Obama is sending "SEIU thugs" to "physically attack" tea partiers
From Page 193 of Conservative Victory:
[The Tea Party movement] is truly a grassroots movement, not the artificially contrived, conspiratorial "Astroturf movement" the administration has painted. The only thing artificial anywhere near the Tea Party protests were the counterprotests Obama staged, sending in his SEIU thugs to shout down, bully, intimidate, and physically attack the Tea Party patriots.
Hannity offers no evidence for claim. Hannity offered no evidence that Obama was "sending in" people to "physically attack" members of the tea party movement. Hannity's accusation echoes an August 2009 distortion Andrew Breitbart made in which he claimed that "union thugs were directed by the White House to go to" town hall meetings "and 'punch back twice as hard.' " In fact, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina reportedly used the expressions to which Breitbart referred while speaking to Senate Democrats -- not to any union groups -- and there is no indication it was anything other than a metaphorical explanation of how the White House plans to respond to political attacks against Senate Democrats. Glenn Beck has similarly called SEIU "thugs" in smearing the union for purported violence.
18. Hannity claims tea party messages are "positive" -- then cites tea party leader who used n-word
Hannity: Lion's share of tea party ideas is "positive." While discussing the tea party movement, Hannity writes that the "lion's share of the ideas coming out of the Tea Party protests are indeed positive, but they lack any kind of organizational unity." In the next paragraph, Hannity positively cites Dale Robertson for challenging "Republicans in name only":
The lion's share of the ideas coming out of the Tea Party protests are indeed positive, but they lack any kind of organization unity -- which is inevitable in such a decentralized, grassroots movement. We also see, within the movement, a good amount of single-issue advocacy -- the kind of passionate activism that can have the power to ignite a movement, but cannot on its own sustain a new "revolution" unless it's consolidated into a unified vision.
The Tea Party protests will continue, as I believe they should. They have been an indispensable catalyst to energize our troops to fight back. They have done more than that as well, supporting, for example, constitutionally conservative candidates against RINOs -- Republicans in name only -- such as helping to oust Florida's Republican Party chairman. "We are turning our guns on anyone who doesn't support constitutionally conservative candidates," said Dale Robertson, who helped start the Tea Party movement two years ago. [Pages 193-194]
Hannity's tea party leader was reportedly kicked out of tea party event for carrying sign with racial slur. The Washington Independent's David Weigel reported on January 4 that "Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo -- taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston -- in which he holds a sign reading 'Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.' " Weigel also reported that "Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign." Weigel included the following picture:
19. Does Hannity believe Nancy Reagan stands for a "culture of death" because she supports stem cell research?
Hannity: Democrats stand for a "culture of death" because they support embryonic stem cell research. From Page 195 of Conservative Victory:
Obama and his party stand for America's economic bankruptcy, virtual surrender in the war on terror, and a culture of death, from abortion to embryonic stem cell research to health-care rationing tantamount to death panels.
Nancy Reagan supports embryonic stem cell research. From a March 2009 statement:
I'm very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them, and to do all they can to fulfill the promise that stem cell research offers. Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases -- and soon. As I've said before, time is short, and life is precious.
Hannity's fifth chapter is titled, "Why I'm a Reagan Conservative."
Dozens of Republicans voted for embryonic stem cell research under Bush. In January 2007, 37 House Republicans joined Democrats in voting for legislation -- later vetoed by President Bush -- that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cells. In the Senate, 17 Republicans joined the Democrats.
20. Hannity forwards false claim that Obama has never said "Islamic extremism"
From Page 208 of Conservative Victory:
On my radio show, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani told me and my audience that he was troubled by Obama's refusal to identify the enemy as broader than Al Qaeda, which Rudy says is only one component of the Islamic extremist enemy we face. "He has yet to use the term 'Islamic extremism,' " Rudy pointed out, which brings into serious question his competence and fitness as a leader.
Obama discusses "Islamic extremism" on CNN. From the July 13, 2008, edition of CNN's Fareed Zakaria: GPS:
ZAKARIA: Do you believe, when looking at the world today, that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century?
OBAMA: I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious identities, and the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face.
I don't think it's the only threat that we face.
ZAKARIA: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia ... the largest Muslim country in the world?
OBAMA: Well, it was interesting. When I lived in Indonesia -- this would be '67, '68, late '60s, early '70s -- Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.
But around the world, there was no -- there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions, like rule of law.
And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. And what's interesting is, you can see some correlation between the economic crash during the Asian financial crisis, where about a third of Indonesia's GDP was wiped out, and the acceleration of these Islamic extremist forces.
It isn't to say that there is a direct correlation, but what is absolutely true is that there has been a shift in Islam that I believe is connected to the failures of governments and the failures of the West to work with many of these countries, in order to make sure that opportunities are there, that there's bottom-up economic growth.
You know, the way we have to approach, I think, this problem of Islamic extremism ... is we have to hunt down those who would resort to violence to move their agenda, their ideology forward. We should be going after al Qaeda and those networks fiercely and effectively.
But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.
And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues.
Gibbs discusses "Islamic extremism." From the September 10, 2009, White House press briefing:
Q Well, let me ask it this way. President Bush used to say repeatedly, "America is a nation at war." He did so on 9/11, but other occasions during the year. My impression is that since taking office, President Obama has purposely tried to turn down the heat on the rhetoric.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think we've certainly cut down on the use of the phrase, but, again, our focus is on getting the policy right. I don't -- I think the President spends part of each of his day in meetings about and thinking about the men and women that we have in Iraq and Afghanistan and that are through -- stationed throughout the world to protect our freedom and to address Islamic extremism. And that takes up part of his day and is something that -- the sacrifice which he's thankful for and I think all of us are thankful for each and every day. Regardless of how it's phrased, he's mindful of the effort of so many on our behalf.
21. More Hannity smears: Marxist, Manchurian candidate, attacks on Michelle Obama
In addition to regularly botching facts, Hannity makes outlandish statements about President Obama, Michelle Obama, and liberals:
Obama may be a "red diaper baby." From the section, "A Red Diaper Baby" on Page 33:
If Obama's socialist ideas seem alien to those of us who were raised on American capitalist values, it may come as no surprise that they have deep roots in his upbringing. Unlike nearly any other American politician, Barack Obama spent his formative years in a land where communism was no abstract principle, but a cause that had recently led to a bloody civil war: Indonesia. The media has devoted little effort to inquiring into the impact these formative years had on his political education. But what we know about his background raises troubling, unresolved questions.
Some have speculated that Obama may have been a "red diaper baby," the child of communist-leaning parents. Certainly his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was an iconoclast and a radical thinker; one classmate called her a "fellow traveler."
Hannity smears Michelle Obama. From Pages 38-39:
But it's been suggested that one of Obama's voluntary relationships is more revealing of his radicalism, anti-Americanism, and anti-capitalism than all of the others: his choice of marital partner. The columnist known as Spengler, writing for the Asia Times, quoted Alexandre Dumas: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In Obama's case, wrote Spengler, there have been two principal women in his life: his late mother and "his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America."
"Marxist" Obama "couldn't be more of a Manchurian candidate." From Page 40:
In addition to media cover, Obama has another thing going for him: The truth about him and his inner circle is stranger than fiction. He couldn't be more of a Manchurian candidate if he were auditioning for the role in the movie. This stuff is just too bizarre for most Americans to process: an actual Marxist in the White House who has surrounded himself with like-minded miscreants.
Obama dreams of America as a "full-blown socialist state." From Page 71:
Nor would his economic plan bring about the types of change he promised: "change that will grow the economy, expand our middle-class, and keep the American dream alive for all those men and women who have believed in this journey from the day it began."
What could have been more Orwellian? Obama had no intention of keeping the American dream alive -- unless by "American dream" you mean the dream of American leftist radicals to turn this national into a full-blown socialist state.
Liberalism "may be even worse" than terrorism. From Page 198:
The American people have been jolted into realizing that our precious freedom is not guaranteed. There will always be forces committed to taking it away. Today we face a new array of such forces, both externally and internally. I contend that the internal threat of liberalism may be even worse than the external threat of terrorism -- for the terrorists have no prayer against us unless the liberals pave their way.
Obama will leave our children "in poverty and slavery." From Page 208:
I might add that liberals have little credibility in criticizing the compassion of conservatives when you consider that Obama's policies are guaranteed to bankrupt our nation and leave our children and grandchildren in poverty and slavery.
Which means... just after he bocomes a LIBERAL.
And, given how utterly, mindnumbingly stupid the man is...
-------------------------------------------------------
That would be: NEVER!
That lame story was already attempted on this website and quickly taken down once the truth was discovered.
http://biggovernment.com/falliance/2010/03/19/freedom-alliance-responds-to-allegations-against-sean-hannity/
Here's some IRS info about this "charity."
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/03/22/more-revealed-on-the-hannity-%e2%80%93-freedom-alliance-scandal/
Note the "He said ... only gave out...."
That becomes,
"Freedom Alliance actually spent...."
MMFA's very own weasel.
Ditto the humor at Breitbart--source of debunkment.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/44518
Quick question- do you give, say, ACORN, the same benefit of the doubt? Just asking.
I bet you argue about the color of the sky. Seriously?
ACORN - NO!
You mean the actual charity can't be counted on to be an honest broker of the truth about their actions if their actions were shady?
You mean that we'd demand to hear that same clarifying info that clears them from these accusations from some independent group that doesn't have a personal stake in this effort?
I swear, you guys are looney.
Once again, it devolves into "looney" talk.
In a conference call, CREW said its investigation indicates that Hannity and Freedom Alliance have "spent much more money on fund-raising and mailing" than on actual donations. CREW also alleges that Freedom Alliance has misled contributors about the sums they've given directly to the fund through concerts and other donations.
The government watchdog's investigation found that Freedom Concerts held in 2009 in Texas and Nevada grossed $621,792 and $520,840, respectively. If every concert grossed a low-end estimate of $500,000, the 18 concerts since 2003 would have brought in a cool $9 million. However, on its tax forms, Freedom Alliance claims to have only given $2.5 million to the scholarship fund since 2003. (CREW estimates that the group could not have given more than $2.1 million during this period.) CREW also found that the ticket price for at least one concert included a $4 "fee" that went to the Alliance as a donation and not to the scholarship fund.
CREW has also filed a second complaint with the Internal Revenue Service arguing that North's Freedom Alliance has violated its status as a 501(c
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/36006
One thing further, in agreement with congero. Remember this is Oliver North we are talking about, who committed numerous felonies while selling arms to the Iranian Ayatollahs and giving the money to the Contra anti-Sandinista front guerillas--a front for the US.
North escaped jail by testifying before congress but never gave up his bosses, Ronald Reagan et al. He won his freedom through the work of the ACLU, a favorite whipping boy of his conservative friends.
The point is, North is a felon who should not be trusted with other people's money. He's a perfect example of someone who believes his own law trumps any other law. While Hannity does not need to embezzle from a charity, North could use the money.
And yet when there was a hint of scandal with ACORN, you guys turned the allegations against them into absolute truth even though there was no wrong doing found with the actual organization. Dude, you really need to reflect on what your thinking before you actually say it and make yourself look like a fool.
Hannity and North have always presented themselves as uber patriots, which is a major turn-off. Most real heros eshew self-righteousness.
Now it appears they're liars and hypocrites about their charity as well.
I'm betting that's one more thing that you and Hannity have in common.
Of course he has not. Well, he probably has, but he was not able to understand the concept. Have you never read any of BJ's posts? This is nothing but a small tiny pebble in the overwhelmingly impressive landscape that is BJ's utter ignorance.
With that said, I'd like to know how you make the statement, "These ding-a-lings haven't even read Sean's book." I'd also like to know how you expect to be taken seriously when you put yourself on a first name basis with a guy you obviously hold in high esteem. It makes your posts both questionable and sort of creepy.
How is number 1 a falsehood? Obama specifically said he would only sign HCR legislation that included a public option. He didn't. He is therefore a liar.
Prove it . .
Unfortunately, it takes people of that caliber on BOTH sides of the aisle to produce bipartisanship and only one side seems to understand that "Give me everything I want and to hell with anything else" is NOT compromise.
He was saying it MUST have that, as in any good solution to this problem MUST have that.
Why didn't you read the text? So you could call the President a liar?
An "insurance exchange" is not a public option and is not single payer.
"Obama specifically said he would only sign HCR legislation that included a public option."
Well, that is not what the quote you supplied says. So, are you now admitting that you can construe meanings out of statements even when those statements do not say exactly what you take them to mean? Or does this only apply to people OTHER than Glenn Beck?
In my opinion, the idea is to make private insurance fail altogether. In that event, the government will be in a position to impose the "public option", which basically will allow the government to go into the insurance business and drive all other insurers out and become the only insurer.
My conclusion: He "indirectly" signed HCR legislation that includes a public option. (And you're right about the liar part).
1. If insurance companies can't deny anyone coverage or pre-existing conditions, the cost to cover those people have to be paid by someone. You know the company isn't going to eat the cost, so it goes to those who ARE paying for their insurance.
2. If you now have the ability to only buy insurance when you get sick, then why pay for years when you may only need it for a few months, years later?
3. How will insurance companies survive if they only get money after someone is sick? They will never turn a profit and eventually go bankrupt. Enter the government.
2. You don't only need health insurance or a doctor when you get sick. Do you only see a doctor when you are ill? How ill do you have to get before you go see a doctor? Are you really unable to grasp this simple concept?
3. The insurance companies are now gonna go bankrupt because the government is forcing more customers into their system and subsidizing the costs? You are truly ill-informed.
If the goal is to have the insurance companies fail, shouldn't there be a mechanism in place when that happens?
Learn to read and understand.
BTW, how WAS Florida? I heard there was some trouble down at the ridiculously STUPID Becktacle with people getting their cars towed. Must have been a little embarrassing.
What? You're gonna claim he's a liar because it's technically health insurance and not health care? Or that it's technically socialization and not nationalization? Fine. Whatever. Call him a liar all you want if it makes you feel better. Just remember that Obama is just another lying politician like all the others and I've proven it here.
this syas all I need to say twerp.:
Democrats' health care reform isn't socialized health care. The Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis that "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services" and explained that Democratic health care reform proposals do not "fit this description. While these policies would provide additional public resources to help the uninsured pay for coverage and would increase the pooling of risks in insurance markets, none would overturn the dominant role of private insurance and private providers in America's health care system." The analysis also noted, "Similar rhetoric was used to defeat national health care reform proposals in the 1990s and, with less success, to argue against the creation of Medicare in the 1960s."
Obama has not proposed socialized medicine, single payer, or nationalized health care. As PolitiFact.com noted in a March 5, 2009, post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured," and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors." And during a March 26, 2009, online town hall, Obama explicitly rejected the notion of implementing a health care system "the way European countries do or Canada does," explaining that what "we should do is to build on the [employer-based] system that we have."
The source is from the above article.
1. Socialism is the public (read government) ownership of the means of production (in this case health insurance).
2. A public option is a government-run health insurance company.
3. A public option is therefore a form of socialized health insurance.
Obama has not proposed socialized medicine, single payer, or nationalized health care. As PolitiFact.com noted in a March 5, 2009, post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured," and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors." And during a March 26, 2009, online town hall, Obama explicitly rejected the notion of implementing a health care system "the way European countries do or Canada does," explaining that what "we should do is to build on the [employer-based] system that we have."
What can't you read? Your definitions have nothing to do with what with what was being proposed. I Like the squirmy little worm line though,but it more aptly applies to you and your confused thinking if thats what you can can what you do. Hint: Your definitions don't apply.
1.Leaves are green.
2.Dollars are green.
3.Therefore money is made out of leaves.
You fail logic forever.
in #1 Hannity claims repeatedly Obama wants to nationalize and socialize our health care system.
A public option which Obama did promise in his campaign is really regulatory competition for the health care INSURANCE industry.
In the end he didn't get the public option through congress, but he did sign a bill that takes a few small steps toward reforming health care insurance.
Obama never suggested or talked about, or campaigned on, or promised, or even suggested nationalizing health care. It has always been about insurance reform. Frankly it's about time we had more regulation and oversight in some of our other large industries. Too bad big corporate donations to politicians are the best investment one can make in this economy.
And that's true. He never said it MUST have those things or he wouldn't sign it.
That's your misinterpretation.
You might have had a point re; his support of the public option.
But then you have to lie...
The link you provided states it was from comments made by the pres. after he was elected - the date of the story was July 2009.
Until you bring eveidence of him ACTUALLY campaigning in the way you claim, it will be assumed you are a liar.
The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) make available the National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover more of the least well-off among us; and (6) allow state flexibility for state health reform plans.
(2) make available the National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly;
My quote from the article suports your point 2.
As PolitiFact.com noted in a March 5, 2009, post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured," and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors." And during a March 26, 2009, online town hall, Obama explicitly rejected the notion of implementing a health care system "the way European countries do or Canada does," explaining that what "we should do is to build on the [employer-based] system that we have."
I can play this game all day you right wing kooks.
Says the guy yesterday who said he didn't listen to Beck's views on religion yet showed up in force on every social justice thread.
Says the guy who won't define the term Marxist, yet hurls it around when it suits him.
Says the guy who doesn't care if Beck takes a quote out of context to fully distort its meaning (Wallis and Marxism), and won't debate when that is pointed out.
I wouldn't be insulting anyone's intelligence, Mag.
I also defined what I thought one school of thought on Marxism was in a thread when you asked constantly, but never answered your own question. You obviously have no concept of socialism if you think the public option is socialism. Government has to control ALL of something if that thing is socialist, not just a part of it.
You said you didn't listen to Beck on religion, yet, when religion was the thread topic regarding social justice, you made post after post after post. Are you saying you were guessing, without listening to Beck, his meaning in that case?
"Let me first say that I'm not a big religious guy so I generally ignore everything Beck says about religion. With that aside he IS absolutely correct about the debt problem."
How can you argue Beck's point when you "generally ignore" him?
Rebuting your arguments are really not that difficult. Debate 101. You see you set up your premise on false basis then proceed to argue from said premise and wonder why people laugh at you. The public optioon the way it was being set up and as I showed you from the article above was not a government takeover. Your argument and presentation of Obama quotes saying he was for some form of the public option is not proof of socialism it's showing he was for a public option and for the umpteenth time this is what he said:
As PolitiFact.com noted in a March 5, 2009, post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured," and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors." And during a March 26, 2009, online town hall, Obama explicitly rejected the notion of implementing a health care system "the way European countries do or Canada does," explaining that what "we should do is to build on the [employer-based] system that we have."
lol.
Here is video proof that he in fact did campaigned on the public optional. For the Keith Olberman show no less!!
But of course you preferred to lie about what you originally posted.
But that's not at all how you posted it originally...
Oh, this will be fun. So President Obama, during the campaign, didn't say:
Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.
What is that then? Is that not campaigning on a public option?
Look, why can't you just do what highlighter did and provide proof. When you post soemthing which contradicts what you are claiming, one wonders. And given the con propensity for lying in these threads, it's a safe assumption, when someone posts soemthing as you did, they are lying.
He was saying that a GOOD bill would have those things, MUST have those things. He signed a bill that was less than perfect. He never said he would only sign a perfect bill.
What the -? OK. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, Mag. You were just incredibly ill-informed. Yet again. I don't think you are a liar. I just think, as you admit in this case, you usually do not know what you are talking about. Stop getting your facts from Glenn Beck and you might have to stop saying you're not a liar, you just had not idea what you were talking about. Cause that attempt to qualify yourself as ignorant rather than dishonest was painful to read.
What you are describing would mean that President Obama has the powers of a dictator, but he doesn't. The President cannot introduce legislation into Congress, although he can get a member of his party in Congress to introduce a bill on his behalf. Our government has operated the same way since 1789, and neither the lawmakers in Congress nor the president has the power to change the basic structure of the Constitution, except by amending it. Amending the Constitution would require Congressional and state action.
Although President Obama has been called a tyrant and has been imbued by some with the label of dictator he is neither. To be a tyrant, a politician has to seize control of a government by force. This is usually done with the assistance of the military. This didn't happen. Obama won the election in 2008. President Obama is not a dictator because the power to write bills, sign them into law, and decide the constitutionality of laws are not all invested in one branch of the government, and this is in line with the Constitution.
The Constitution is based on the thinking/writings of Enlightenment philosophers such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, Beccaria, Locke, etc. The Constitution is based on the concept of a social contract that exists between a government and its' people. In order for the Constitution to become the law of the land, 9 of the 13 states had to ratify it. The Bill of Rights was not a part of the original text of the Constitution, and the original Bill of Rights actually had 12 amendments.
Calling President Obama a "liar" seems to make you almost giddy with glee. Why is that?
How man other Presidents have compromised on a campaign promise? And how many other Presidents who compromised on a campaign promise did YOU call a lair?
Saint Ronnie?
When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all of nothing and the wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible battering average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it." Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise(in his own words)...
BHO howver takes it to another level. Most everyone excedes the speed limit by 5-10mph on the highway. You can drive by a state trooper at 5 over the limit and you will not be ticketed.
IT is accepted just as it is accepted that politicians fudge. However, BHO takes it to a whole new limit. If I drive 70 in a 65 zone, I am indeed speeding. BHO is driving 250 in a 65 zone. His defense is that I am speeding as well. Yes, I am speeding by doing 70, but it is a matter of degree.
All politicians lie just as I often do 70 in a 65 zone. BHO lies like someone going 250 in a 65 zone. As I said it is a matter of degree.
He takes his lying to such a severe extreme it can not be compared to ordinary campaign misrepresentations.
Also what about the proof you had that showed from the US Customs office that Obamas birth certificate couldn't be used to acquire a passport.
He takes his lying to such a severe extreme it can not be compared to ordinary campaign misrepresentations. BJ FAN
You never cease to impress me with how silly and immature you can be. You do nothing BUT lie and distort in every post and say things I know you don't repeat anywhere other than anonomously on an open blog. Hehe. The funny little scared clown,
hiding behind the smile.
Also what about the proof you had that showed from the US Customs office that Obamas birth certificate couldn't be used to acquire a passport. - congero
That is BJ's definition of going 5 miles over the speed limit. What he was really saying is, I don't care if I or people I like lie only if I can catch someone I dislike in a lie. What is fantastic is reading the roundabout MPH argument he uses to justify the nonsense bouncing around in his own brain.
Still looking for those experts on Obama's book BJ?
Still looking for any shred of proof that Obama should not have been able to receive a passport?
Let us know when you find something...anything.
So you can accept Regan lying, Plain lying, Bachmann lying (which she does on a regular basis), Jindal lying, DeMint lying, and Mitt lying, but President Obama lies differently?
So WHAT is the point of this baseless sh*t you posted?
MagCynic called President Obama a liar(standard operating procedure from the teabagging loonies), like President Obama was the first President who compromised on something he wanted. And instead of accepting the words of Saint Ronnie AND FDR, acknowledging that politicians compromising does not mean they lied, you post more dribble on how much you hate President Obama.
Get some new material, or give it a rest, your act is OLD!
And that doesn't change the fact that you HAVE been caught at several other lies that have been repeatedly pointed out to YOU, and YOU have been ignoring THOSE things, dork.
So, considering that you're much more guilty here of lying and distortion than she'll ever be, you're being an incredible hypocrite on top of being a liar!!!
However I have a huge problem with people lying and stating that I said things that I never said. She knows I never said them - and I am going to keep calling her out on this until she admits I never said them.
__________
I have never been called on other lies. I misstated that I hate Obama, and I retracted this because I do not hate people I do not know. I hate what he is doing to my country, but I have never met the man.
I forgot that I said this. I misspoke and retraced my statement. I admitted I was wrong - why can bntix do the same?
YOU LIED!
It has nothing do to with Obama's stance on a public option. Can't you read?
Are you for getting rid of Social Security and Medicare/aid as well?
You guys do realize all these state programs and what not are fine. I have no problems with those. It's when you get to the national level that problems start happening.
Why do you hate the military, the post office and the National Guard?
Did you have student loans? If so, who gave them to you?
Are you against Social Security, Medicare, etc?
No student Loans I’m in the military I don’t need them.
Yes and Yes Ill happily opt out of both programs as long as you stop taxing me for them!
I never said there shouldn’t be some regulation over utilities.
I was responding to the absurdity that few, except the rich, would be able to afford to have electricity in their homes without these regulations.
Apparently you agree since you said without these regulations there would only be thousands without electricity.
I never said there shouldn’t be some regulation over utilities.
I was responding to the absurdity that few, except the rich, would be able to afford to have electricity in their homes without these regulations.
Apparently you agree since you said without these regulations there would only be thousands without electricity.
I understand how you think that health care reform is socialization when, in fact, it is regulation but; I realize you feel the way you do due to your narrow viewpoint.
You would think that an insurance exchange would play well with capatlists, since it will foster competition but; obviously we seem to be ignoring that.
And remember, the Police and Fire Departments were "socialized" a LONG TIME ago, and we seem to be doing just fine. So what would be so wrong with creating an American version of Britan's NHS? THEY seem to love it, at least every Brit that I have spoken to does. Same with the Canadians I speak to.
You still haven't answered my question, I see.
Probably because they limited the article to the first 20. I haven't looked at the book yet, but having heard Hannity over the past 5 years, I have no doubt just about everything is a lie. In fact, think I'll claim the Fox exemption, and state that there are 1,000 lies in his book, whether or not it is true.
"Socialized" medicine, by comparison, would be the VHA, which owns the hospitals and pays the doctors. You should actually read the article before you comment.
We can now add a fourth lie to the well known adage,"The three biggest lies are the check is in the mail, I love you, and I won't c*** in your mouth." Now here's a new one about obamacare and transparency in government ............
The lies will be continuous and the list of great lies enlarged........ at least until November 2010.
Speaking truth to/about progressive power with a shout out to all the maintenance workers in the congress building who have to do the nasty work of cleaning up those backrooms where all sorts of filth flowed during the 'open' debate on obamacare.
You whine too much.
The fact is Obama took a bite out of the insurance industry, and they've been ripping us off for years. You conservatives don't care about anything except your Wall Street profits and the American people gave you the boot.
You're right about the C-span comment. The President explained his failure to do this and took full responsibility. What's done is done. The difference here is that we have a man who takes responsibility for his shortcomings on one hand and on the other we have a multitude of people like Hannity who would rather eat a steaming pile of sh!t then admit being wrong.
The worst part about this whole thing is the reality that you and people like you, along with your masters on Fox and talk radio are married to the hope that the situation in this nation worsens. Even though people will figure out there are no such things as "death panels" you are in the position to HOPE that there really are. Even though this bill is going to provide assurances to parents in this country that their children will be covered, you have to HOPE that kids are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Even though this bill will eliniate 50% of the donut hole our seniors are forced to pay, you have to HOPE that things get worse for old people.
Quite frankly, you guys are so pitiful that you have to actively HOPE that your own personal situation gets worse. Why? So you can be right about your political policy arguments? It is truly a peculiar position you and others are in right now. Come November, people are going to realize that there simply aren't any "death panels." People are going to like having their kids covered no matter what. Sick people and their families are going to like the fact that insurance companies won't simply turn off the faucet once a person really needs health care. Seniors are going to enjoy the financial relief this bill provides. People are going to benefit from this package. Sadly, you have to hope they don't.
After the Medicare bill passed in 65' opponents figured out they lost and hoped for the best. Eerily enough, you guys on the right now seem to love socialized medicine via Medicare ( you pretend to want to protect it every chance you get....you do realize Medicare is out and out Socialized Medicine, right?). Heck, after Reagan passed his ruinous tax cuts in 82' Tip O'Neill called him up and congratulated him and pledged to work with the administration and openly said that he hoped the country would benefit. Unfortunatley in today's climate, after historic legislation passes in which millions upon millions of people will get relief, YOU AND YOUR ILK HAVE THE AUDACITY TO HOPE THAT THINGS GET WORSE, HARDER, AND UNBEARABLE FOR YOUR FELLOW AMERICAN. Hannity and his ilk are poor excuses for American citizens.
You, on the other hand, show frequent intent to deceive.
You have a very long way to go.
He's an uneducated moron.
I believe Hannity gave Beck a strong challenge.
This News is no revelation but I find it incredibly disturbing that he is never held accountable for the lies he tell.
This is no book, this is a smear campaign design to force Republicans into taking a more drastic approach to dealing with the President.
It offends Sean that a black man is in the oval office and he want him out, in the worse way.
Glen Beck is just a moron.
Glen Beck is just a moron."
There is such a thing as compassionate conservative. beck however is'nt a moron, he is a lunitic, a very wealthy loon.
It's like when somone is accused of list of crimes, among them jaywalking, and the person's defenders argue about the veracity of the jaywalking charge but none of the other, more serious charges.
WOW!!!!
They really are reaching for straws, aren't they? That statement just reeks of desperation.
Come on, November! And we've still got a good 7 months for the GOP to sink even lower to the point of burying themselves in scary-scary-SCARY rhetoric. I can't wait!
Don't they ever wonder what will happen when they run out of Boogeymen?
It falleth like abrasive laced water.
There's always the cannibal option.
Fallouts over who's the most bestest conservative.
Don't conservatives ever wonder how their media heroes like Hannity can endlessly attack, smear, and demonize every democrat as though they were the devil incarnate, while at the same time defend every republican as a holy American hero of flawless character, even when they do the same things?
Don't conservatives ever see the fallacy of blaming the most economically underpowered and underprivileged for causing all out economic problems, while at the same time absolving the the wealthiest and most influential of any possible connection to the problems?
Hannity and Steele -- show us your birth certificates.
and I still want to see Half-Governor Palin's high school diploma.
LOL....you people would believe ANYTHING from this site.
Did it take a dozen reporters to come up with this list like the Palin book?
These "falsehoods" are minor. There's a ton of facts in the book, evidently.
MMFA=FAIL
Aside from that, MMFA has years worth of Hannity's lies and distortions archived on their website for everyone to look at. And they don't inject opinion, they back it up with links and sources for you to check out! If you question MMFA, then surely you also need to question the links and sources they provide because we don't do opinion here my friend, we back things up with facts.
The way his audience hung on every word he said and applauded at the most absurd comments and lies REALLY upset me.
Fox has taken "free speech" to an entirely different level. If there isn't a new lawsuit against Fox everyday, there should be. They need to be legally challenged, as much as possible, and if I were a lawyer, or rich, I would spend each minute of my spare time seeking for ways to pursue their agenda through the court system.
I'm beyond believing that intentional lying and misleading, entwined with extreme violent rhetoric can be considered "free speech."
There's a difference between "speech" and cult-like persuasion and incitement of physical violence against select targets.
If ANYTHING, they need to be legally pursued to change their "news" moniker to something more appropriate.