From the November 14 edition of FoxNews.com's FoxNews.com Live:
Loading the player reg...
Citing Virginia's $500 million budget surplus, Washington Examiner columnist Cal Thomas claimed that the federal government should "emulate" Virginia Governor McDonnell's fiscal policies. In fact, under McDonnell, the state of Virginia received more than $2.7 billion in funds through the federal Recovery Act, and even The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that Virginia used "budget tricks to make the surplus appear larger than it really is."
Following the July 22 attack on Norway's Utoya Island by Anders Breivik, right-wing personalities have begun to advocate for more lenient gun laws, claiming that "if somebody did [have a gun], they might have been able to take this crazy guy out before he did all of this damage." In fact, Norway, despite having stricter laws on handgun ownership than the United States, has a much lower rate of deaths related to gun homicides.
In a July 11 Washington Examiner column titled, "Obama, Democrats make war on the sucessful," conservative columnist Cal Thomas attacked President Obama and liberal Democrats for "class warfare," and wrote that Obama "seems determined to punish and discourage success and the hard work, risk-taking and values by which one must live in order to attain it." From the Examiner:
This president, more than any other in my lifetime, seems determined to punish and discourage success and the hard work, risk-taking and values by which one must live in order to attain it.
He blasts people who fly on private planes, though he flies on Air Force One, the ultimate private plane, which taxpayers pay for. He doesn't like yachts, or specifically the people who can afford to buy them. And yet the people who make the private planes and yachts have jobs precisely because others have achieved a level of success that enables them to afford such luxury.
Recall during the administration of President George H.W. Bush when congressional Democrats persuaded Bush to sign a bill increasing the luxury tax on yachts in exchange for a promise -- later broken -- to reduce spending.
The result was fewer people bought yachts, boat builders were laid off and Congress later repealed the tax hike. Don't liberal Democrats ever learn economic principles, or does their class warfare trump all else?
Wealth is a sign of achievement, a reward for risks taken. And being poor is not a crime, unless those in poverty refuse to strive to overcome it.
That's the message this president should be broadcasting, not one that trashes success and promotes class division and envy of the successful.
From FoxNews.com's "Behind the Breaks" video of the July 2 edition of Fox News' Fox News Watch:
Loading the player reg...
In a June 13 op-ed in The Washington Examiner, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas claimed that "Palin, along with Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.," get a lot of media attention because they "represent everything the liberal media hate: They are attractive women who are married to the same men they started with." He went on to write: "In Palin's case, she and her husband have a Down syndrome child, which she refused to abort. Right there you have enough to offend pro-choice feminists, who treat abortion as a sacrament."
From the op-ed:
ABC News, which, in partnership with the Daily Beast website, offered breathless updates of the email dump, lumped Palin in with Donald Trump as a "sideshow." If she's a sideshow, why are they paying her the kind of attention normally reserved for a main attraction?
The answer is that Palin, along with Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who is considering a presidential run, represent everything the liberal media hate: They are attractive women who are married to the same men they started with. They think big government is the problem, not the solution to our problems. They are pro-life and, gasp, believe in God.
In Palin's case, she and her husband have a Down syndrome child, which she refused to abort. Right there you have enough to offend pro-choice feminists, who treat abortion as a sacrament and appear to have no problem with eliminating the "defective," as was the case with their patron "saint," Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.
The big media, rather than being honest brokers in the process of selecting the next president, see themselves as players. Many regard themselves as kingmakers, or in Palin's case, "queen destroyers." Increasing numbers of the public regard their arrogance with disdain.
In the year leading up to and following the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the right-wing media engaged in a campaign to spread fear about what could happen if health care reform passed. One year after the health care reform was signed into law, Media Matters looks back at the most egregious attempts by the right-wing media to scare the American public into opposing the legislation.
During its prime-time lineup tonight, Fox News -- the chief production facility in the "industry of Obama-bashing" -- gave a mystifying level of attention to remarks critical of U.S. actions in Libya by Nation Of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
To begin the "opinion" portion of Fox's lineup, Glenn Beck spent an inordinate amount of time on Farrakhan's comments:
On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly cited Farrakhan's remarks as evidence of the left's displeasure with Obama's actions in Libya:
On Hannity, guest Cal Thomas openly wondered if Farrakhan's reference to Obama as "brother" was as "a racial brother or is it a religious brother?":
Right-wing media figures have a long history of using Farrakhan and other controversial figures in attempts to smear the president. For the record, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremist groups in America, has criticized the Nation of Islam "and the deeply racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay rhetoric of its leaders, including top minister Louis Farrakhan," which have "earned the NOI a prominent position in the ranks of organized hate."
From the March 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Loading the player reg...
Did syndicated columnist Cal Thomas plagiarize sections of a New York Times story for his latest column?
Thomas, who admits he drew information from the story for his work, stopped short of admitting plagiarism. But he said late today through his syndication outlet that he should have cited the Times as a source.
Meanwhile, at least one newspaper editor who regularly runs Thomas' column spiked the piece and said he may not run Thomas' column again.
"If it were my decision, I would not run him anymore. I think he is a hypocrite," said Carroll Wilson, managing editor of the Temple Daily Telegram in Temple, Texas, which has run Thomas' column for four years. "It is not my decision to make, it is my publisher, who is out sick today. I am going to discuss it with her."
Contacted by Media Matters earlier today, Thomas said: "It's ludicrous, I know a lot of people are out to, they would love to bring down conservatives, but come on. I think most people would say I have an exemplary record."
Wilson said he had planned to run the February 23 column in today's paper, but held off after noticing parts of it looked similar to a February 16 Times story by Binyamin Applebaum on the government value of life.
The Thomas column has so far run in several other papers, including the Washington Examiner and the Miami Herald.
From the February 5 edition of Fox News' Fox News Watch:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Loading the player reg...
Cal Thomas is not happy about liberals and their belief in a judiciary and representative democracy and stuff:
To some on the left, though, the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but is to be interpreted by judges and politicians. … The Constitution, according to liberal thinking, was written at a time when people -- including some of its signers -- owned slaves and so we moderns must interpret and regularly update it, like computer software.
Thomas says this like it's a bad thing. Does he seriously disagree that a document that allowed slaves (and counted them as three-fifths of a person) might need to be updated from time to time? No, of course not; he's just ranting about liberals for the sake of ranting about liberals. How can I be so sure? Because just three paragraphs later, Thomas writes:
It is a given that the courts interpret the Constitution for a modern age. The Founders could not have anticipated what the America of 2011 would look like. They set down certain principles that could guide us into the future.
So, basically, after blasting liberals for thinking "we moderns" and "judges" need to interpret the constitution and apply it to modern times, Thomas says courts need to interpret the constitution for a modern age. Never mind!
Thomas also rips into liberals for inconsistently citing the bible:
These "interpretationists" are like people who appeal to biblical authority when it appears to support their earthly agenda ("turn the other cheek" means unilateral disarmament; numerous verses about helping the poor mandates government welfare), but ignore it when it offends secular pursuits (abortion, homosexuality, income redistribution, capital punishment).
I've yet to encounter the person who "appeal[s] to biblical authority when it appears to support their earthly agenda" but doesn't ignore it when it's inconvenient. And I doubt very much that Thomas passes his own test of consistency. We know he frequently appeals to biblical authority -- does that mean he's on board with everything in the bible, including putting adulterers to death? Or is he guilty of hypocrisy in criticizing liberals for taking an a la carte approach to the bible?
The Washington Post knows "death panels" are a right-wing lie, dreamed up to falsely demonize health care reform and Democrats, even if it means scaring the elderly away from their doctors' office. And yet the Post sometimes can't bring itself to actually say any of that. That may seem like an odd aversion to the truth for a newspaper, but it probably doesn't surprise regular readers of the Post.
And so it offends (but does not surprise) that, despite knowing that Sarah Palin was lying when she conjured up the image of government "death panels," the Post runs this noxious misinformation from Cal Thomas:
That battle will be accompanied by the continuing political conflict between social conservatives and the Obama administration over same-sex "marriage," and "death panels" as part of "advance directives" being promulgated Dr. Donald Berwick, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services. Dr. Berwick is a known admirer of Britain's National Health Service and an advocate of rationed care, a term he doesn't use, but in an Orwellian manner would produce the same results with government deciding who gets to live and who is allowed to die based on a formula established by government.
The Washington Post not only prints Thomas' health care lies -- and vicious anti-Muslim bigotry -- it promotes him as a "distinguished" panelist who is part of an "intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation." I'd hate to see what they consider uninformed and disrespectful.