A Washington Times editorial misleadingly cropped Lawrence Summers' comments on funding universal health care to falsely suggest that Summers is advocating for cutting health care expenditures "by almost 30 percent" using "cost-effectiveness" regulations.
The Washington Times advanced a Fox News report that 17 percent of guns recovered in Mexico have been traced back to the U.S. However, FactCheck.org has reported that Fox News' 17 percent figure is a "myth."
The Washington Times reported that the recent DHS report on right-wing extremism "set off a firestorm of protest from veterans groups," but ignored the statement from the Veterans of Foreign Wars' national commander, who stated that "[t]he report proves that DHS is doing its job."
A Washington Times editorial stated that congressional Democrats will "go after the guns of law-abiding Americans." The editorial echoed the rhetoric of other media conservatives who have warned that President Obama or congressional Democrats intend to confiscate guns.
During and following President Obama's recent trip to Europe and the Middle East, which included a meeting of the G-20 and the NATO summit, conservative media figures and outlets have accused Obama of turning the trip into an "apology tour."
The Washington Times characterized President Obama's war funding request as "the same type of supplemental war spending [he] opposed" during the Bush administration, ignoring the fact that Obama said he opposed certain supplemental spending bills in 2007 because they did not contain a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
The Washington Times falsely claimed in an editorial that President Obama "reneged" on campaign promises to eliminate earmarks and increase defense spending. In fact, Obama did not promise to eliminate earmarks, and he did propose a budget increasing defense spending.
Following the release of President Obama's proposal for the fiscal year 2010 budget, media figures and outlets have promoted a number of myths and falsehoods related to the proposal.
Numerous media outlets and personalities have claimed or suggested that given the size of the current and projected U.S. federal debt, the Obama administration's health-care reform proposal is untenable, but did not address the administration's argument that health-care reform is essential to the long-term economic health of the country.
A Washington Times editorial labeled Rick Wagoner's departure from GM as "unprecedented." At no point did the editorial mention that the government has required AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to replace their CEOs as a condition of receiving government funds.
Despite the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real and is negatively affecting the planet, the media have repeatedly provided a platform for critics who argue that the Earth is in a period of "cooling" or that the issue of global warming does not need to be addressed.
A Washington Times article reported GOP criticism of Democrats over the AIG bonus issue and quoted a Republican strategist asserting: "This is not something [Democrats] can point to George Bush. ... They own the issue of giving bonuses to the AIG executives." But the article did not note that $53 million in AIG bonuses that the article mentioned were reportedly paid out under the Bush administration, or that a Bush-appointed special inspector general for TARP has stated that the Bush Treasury Department knew about the AIG bonus contracts and did not insist on their abrogation as a condition of AIG's receiving bailout money.
From Frank Gaffney's March 17 Washington Times column:
President Obama on Friday reiterated for the umpteenth time his determination to develop a "new relationship" with the Muslim world. On this occasion, the audience were the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that, in so doing, he will be embracing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization dedicated to promoting the theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah and that has the self-described mission of "destroying Western civilization from within."
As part of Mr. Obama's "Respect Islam" campaign, he will travel to Turkey in early April. While there, he will not only pay tribute to an Islamist government that has systematically wrested every institution from the secular tradition of Kemal Ataturk and put the country squarely on the path to Islamification. He will also participate in something called the "Alliance of Civilizations."
The Washington Times reprinted part of a National Review Online column that claimed that former Guantánamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohammed is "the al Qaeda jihadist who was planning to carry out mass-murder attacks in American cities, who is now free and clear to live and plot in Londonistan." However, the Times did not note that the Justice Department withdrew charges against Mohammed of plotting to commit terrorist attacks and subsequently transferred Mohammed to the U.K.
From Charles Krauthammer's March 13 Washington Post column, titled "Obama's 'Science' Fiction":
I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.
On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of "science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.
From Cal Thomas' March 13 Washington Times column, titled "Journey to Destruction":
What will constrain science? The president says it will be up to the National Institutes of Health to come up with "guidelines" for the use of embryonic stem cells. He specifically came out against creating embryos for the purpose of human cloning. But the question is this, if there are to be no moral, ethical or religious restraints on the initial experiments, why should anyone expect them to be invoked later? One can only be a virgin once. After a moral or ethical line has been erased, it is nearly impossible to redraw it.
At the extreme, unrestrained science has the capacity to produce a Josef Mengele. The Third Reich "scientist" and doctor was given the green light to do whatever he wished with Jews, twins, the physically deformed, the mentally challenged - all in the name of "science" and progress. We are repulsed by the horrors he created in his "scientific" laboratory, to which many of the German people turned a blind eye, mostly because they had been conditioned to do so by nonstop propaganda, which convinced them that some lives were less valuable than others.
We have been warned by history, in novels like Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and on TV news, of what can happen when government operates outside a moral code established to protect us from its penchant to be excessive. Unfortunately, government in recent years has sometimes engaged in a type of moral freelancing, embracing a mushy morality in order to serve purposes that are sometimes immoral.
Removing restraints on stem cell research is another step on a journey leading us to a distant somewhere. Does anyone know the destination? Do enough people care that it might just be leading us not only to the destruction of more pre-born human life, but also ultimately to our own end?