MRC's Baker on Romney Video: 'And The Inaccuracy Is?' Topic: Media Research Center
You know what passes for "research" at the Media Research Center. It has produced yet another example.
Eager to defend Mitt Romney from his nasty attack on Obama supporters as freeloaders who don't pay taxes, Brent Baker repeated that summary of Romney's remarks in his Sept. 17 NewsBusters post, then asked: "And the inaccuracy is?"
Well, gee, Mr. Baker, you're the MRC's vice president for research and publications. Can we presume that you would research if there are any actual inaccuracies in Romney's claim before you drop a glib, snide statement like that?
Apparently, we can't.
As numerous websites that, unlike Baker and the MRC, actually are capable of reseraching basic facts point out, it's absurd -- and utterly false -- to portray every one of the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes as deadbeats and freeloaders or even Obama supporters, as Romney did.
Only 18 percent of tax filers did not have to pay either income tax or payroll taxes.
Nearly all of the people who did not pay either type of tax were elderly – 10.3 percent of total tax filers - or had incomes less than $20,000 – 6.9 percent.
But it's not just low-income people who get out of paying income taxes. About 1 percent of the top 1 percent of income earners, those making about $533,000 or more, did not pay income taxes. That's roughly 13,000 tax filers.
Of the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax, two-thirds pay federal payroll tax. Most of them aren’t making a lot of money; a couple with two children has to earn less than $26,400 to pay no income tax. Altogether, only a tenth of Americans pay no federal tax, and most who pay neither income nor payroll tax are retirees.
According to 2011 data from the Tax Policy Center, more than half of the filing units not paying income taxes are those with incomes less than $16,812 per year. Nearly a third - 29.2 percent - of those paying no income taxes are tax filers earning between $16,812 and $33,542, and 12.8 percent are those with incomes between $33,542 and $59,486. In other words, the poor are least likely to pay federal income taxes, but many middle-class families are also exempt. Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes.
Overall, according to the Tax Policy Center, "of the 38 million tax units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor."
According to one analysis, only the very broadest definition of Americans "who are dependent upon government" yields a number approaching 47 percent.
If Romney is including anyone who receives Social Security and Medicare – both considered an earned entitlement since Americans pay for them – the percentage of Americans receiving money from the government hits 37 percent.
It’s safe to say that most of the 46.4 percent referred to by Romney are in the lower income brackets. According to the most recent Gallup polls of registered voters, 37 percent of those making less than $36,000 a year indicate they plan to vote for Romney. Moreover, as we noted earlier, a sizable chunk of 46.4 percenters are retirees, and among those 65 and older, Romney leads Obama by nine points, 52 percent to 43 percent. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters between Sept. 10 and 16, 40 percent of those making less than $20,000 said they plan to vote for Romney; 50 percent of those making between $20,000 and $40,000 said they supported Romney. The Pew Research Center similarly found in its latest poll that 32 percent of those making less than $30,000 and 42 percent of those making between $30,000 and $50,000 support Romney — as do a plurality of seniors.
Baker seems to believe that the MRC's name has changed to the Media Snark Center. That's probably just as well -- Baker and his subordinates substituted actual research for lazy partisan attacks a long time ago.
Newsmax Still Shilling for Ed Klein's Obama-Bashing Book Topic: Newsmax
Remember last week, when Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy coyly noted that "Obama critics" have been pushing Edward Klein's highly dubious anti-Obama book "The Amateur," without mentioning that among those "Obama critics" is Newsmax?
They're not done touting it -- Newsmax is still plugging the thing in a Sept. 17 article, with the echo-chamber hook of Rush Limbaugh touting it:
Klein, a former editor of the New York Times Magazine and a senior editor at Newsweek, is the celebrated author of numerous New York Times best-selling books, and has made regular appearances on shows like NBC's "Today" program.
But that was before he decided to run counter to the liberal establishment and reveal the "insider" truth about Obama − a course that has made him persona non grata as far as the mainstream media are concerned.
There are stunning allegations in "The Amateur" − including Rev. Wright's claim an Obama ally offered him a $150,000 bribe to shut up and not talk about what he knows about the president.
As Rush Limbaugh stated, "Klein's got this on tape" − a recorded interview with Wright that simply can't be ignored.
In touting Klein's mainstream-media credentials, Newsmax is careful to mention that he hasn't been part of that for a good couple decades -- his Times stint ended in 1987.
Noel Sheppard Laughably Claims It's 'Misinformation' That Fox News Stokes Islamophobia Topic: NewsBusters
How much of a right-wing hack is NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard? He's in complete denial about the anti-Muslim bias of Fox News.
Sheppard uses a Sept. 12 post to attack a Salon article for daring to point out the obvious about Fox's anti-Muslim bias. Sheppard declared the Salon article's headline that Fox has "stoked Islamophobia" to be "truly absurd," adding that the article is "stocked with misinformation about America's leading cable news channel."
But at no point does Sheppard make any effort to disprove the Islamophobia claims -- instead, he tries to attack the messenger:
What was the author's proof? A poll by the left-leaning Brookings Institution.
Lean next gave some examples of Fox's supposed anti-Muslim bias featuring Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer, before citing work done by George Soros's shills at Media Matters and Think Progress.
I bet you knew that was coming.
Yes, we did -- we knew that Sheppard would have nothing with which to respond to the article but lazy ad hominem attacks. At no point does Sheppard prove anything in the Salon article wrong regarding Fox's Islamophobia, giving him no basis whatsoever to assert that the article contains "misinformation."
Sheppard went on to claim that Salon wasn't "concerned about checking the facts" regarding a claim that Fox News chief Roger Ailes has a large security detail and an office with blast-resistent windows. But all Sheppard does is note that Ailes has denied the claim, not that the claim was disproven. And the Fox News statement Sheppard obtains simply echoes Ailes' denial.
Aaron Klein Anonymous Source Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 14 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein keeps up his long tradition of citing impossible-to-verify anonymous sources, this time citing an "Egyptian security official" to claim that "there is information about large-scale infiltration by al-Qaida and its affiliated Jihadia Salafiya groups within the Libyan security apparatus."
Klein frequently cited anonymous Egyptian officials when he was acting as a mouthpiece for soon-to-be-ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak last year. Then, as now, Klein provided no explanation of why anyone should trust what his anonymous sources have to say.
MRC's Graham Weirdly Concerned 'SNL' Getting New Obama Impersonator Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham, in a Sept. 12 NewsBusters post, doesn't take the news that "Saturday Night Live" "is dumping its Caucasian Obama impersonator and going with a fully black Obama," Jay Pharoah, very well. Graham adds: "Obama is half-black, so is Pharoah more authentically Obama-like?"
Graham seems not to have considered that perhaps Pharoah is a better Obama impersonator than the previous one, Fred Armisen. As Slate's David Haglund notes: "Armisen mostly captured Obama’s nerdy side," but "Pharoah may highlight the president’s well documented swagger." Slate's Alisha Harris adds that Pharoah is "clearly an upgrade—not simply because he’s black, but because he has a better feel for the Commander in Chief’s intonations and tics than Armisen ever showed." Harris adds, "Pharoah is a more formidable impressionist than Armisen, and he may continue to make the role his own."
Time adds: "Aurally speaking, the new Comedian in Chief nailed it — in the episode’s opening scene, he perfectly matched Obama’s cadence, intonation and verbal tics."
Nobody else, it seems, has an issue with the "SNL" switch. Why does Graham?
Lately I’ve been thinking about Sandra Fluke and wondering what it is about her that I so dislike, above and beyond the obvious. It occurs to me that Sandra Fluke represents the worst of modern American womanhood.
I mean, here’s a woman who is reasonably attractive and presumably intelligent. She has a lot going for her – or could have, if she applied her natural gifts toward anything decent.
Instead, she has sunk to the lowest common denominator and is trying to drag other women down with her. I mean, c’mon … you want the government to pay for your birth control? Since when is it the government’s business to fund what goes on in your bedroom? Why can’t you simply keep your knees together? Or, barring that, why not collect aluminum cans from the side of the road to pay for your hobbies?
Accuracy in Media (AIM), the nation’s first and foremost media watchdog, announced that it will hold a major conference later this month to focus on significant issues concerning the Obama administration that have largely been misreported, underreported or ignored by the mainstream press. AIM has put together a compelling program of leading authors and journalists, experts and analysts, and well known political figures.
The one-day event, ObamaNation: A Day of Truth, will be held on September 21st from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE in Washington, D.C. If you are unable to attend in person, the conference will be webcast live and archived for later viewing.
Just one little hitch: Several of the "Day of Truth" speakers aren't exactly known for their record of truth-telling, or are best known for their derangement level of hatred for Obama. For instance:
Edward Klein -- His anti-Obama book, "The Amateur," is filled with "lazy research, bad writing, bizarre generalizations ("Political wives have always found something to complain about") and gossip forwarded by anonymous sources -- exactly what you should expect from an Ed Klein book."
Andrew McCarthy -- Devoted an entire chapter of his book "The Grand Jihad" to peddling the discredited claim that Obama, during a 2006 visit to Kenya, campaigned for presidential candidate Raila Odinga. The rest of his book invokes numerous smears, myths, and falsehoods to portray Obama as an "Islamist."
Jack Cashill -- The anti-Obama conspiracist got busted peddling a bogus claim that Obama was airbrushed into a picture of his grandparents (in fact, someone crudely Photoshopped him out and falsely presented that as the original despite the fact that Obama's knee was still visible in the doctored image). His book "Deconstructing Obama" -- in which he attempts to prove that Bill Ayers wrote Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" -- has been described as "a peek into the right-wing's dank, dark ideological sub-basement."
In the press release, AIM chairman Don Irvine declared: “What the public needs now more than anything is the unvarnished truth about the media’s misreporting, the facts about President Obama’s history, his record and his qualifications to continue leading this country,. ... This is the reason why we have decided to ramp up our efforts to educate and inform the American people during the last couple of months of this crucial presidential campaign.”
The public may need the truth during this election season, but AIM's motley collection of Obama-obsessed fraudsters and conspiracy-mongers aren't the ones who will be providing it.
Pat Boone begins his Sept. 14 WorldNetDaily column with a lie:
Wait a minute! Don’t jump to conclusions … this isn’t a “hit piece,” a partisan political screed. This is a reasoned, rational, objective comparison of three protean figures who experienced heady, exhilarating success, only to crash and burn when the foundation on which they built that success could not support or sustain it.
Boone does indeed prove himself to be a liar yet again, spewing his hate in declaring that Obama is worse than Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff combined:
But Mr. Obama came to the presidency with absolutely no experience in the qualities demanded of the office. He never ran a business of any kind, and has no grasp of finance, let alone our giant, complex economy. Personally, I doubt he could successfully run a 7/11 or Starbucks. That takes a sense of budget, cost accounting and stocking what customers want and will buy. No businessman can decide what the customer must buy and what he must pay for it. That’s what our founders called “taxation without representation.”
That concept brought on our American Revolution. We wouldn’t stand for it then. And we’ve got to reject it now.
Look objectively at what’s happened. This White House team has taken over two of our Big Three automakers, big banks and our whole health-care system, saddling you and me and our descendants with bankruptcy, squandering trillions of paper dollars that are just that – paper – with no substance to give them value. Billions have been spent on hopeless energy boondoggles like Solyndra, created by a big Obama donor.
And for the last four years, while flying all over the country in Air Force One attending, at last count, over 120 major fundraisers for his re-election campaign, he has snake-charmed the Congress into piling over $6 trillion of unpayable debt on American taxpayers, now and into the foreseeable future. Added to the previous debt, that’s over $50,000 of liability for every man, woman and child in the country. If re-elected, he intends to significantly add to that burden!
Move over, Ponzi and Madoff – Mr. Obama has made you look like amateurs.
Uh, yeah. Pat Boone is a big fat liar. How does reconcile telling blatant lies in public with the God he claims to beleive in?
MRC's Double Standard on Blood on People's Hands Topic: Capital Research Center
Matt Hadro huffed in a Sept. 13 Media Research Center item: "Terrorists murdered an American ambassador in cold blood, and yet CNN shamelessly implied on Thursday that the makers of an anti-Islam movie might have blood on their very hands."
Of course, just a few weeks ago, the MRC was essentially asking that very same question of the Southern Law Poverty Center in the wake of the shooting at the Family Research Council
If you'll recall, MRC chief Brent Bozell used his Aug. 17 column to declare that the SPLC's designation "is obviously now causing real harm" -- despite the fact that nobody, including FRC leader Tony Perkins, has identified any direct link between the SPLC calling the FRC a hate group and the shooting.
As we've noted, Bozell and the MRC were eager to portray the FRC shooting as "liberal violence," while rushing to distance Scott Roeder, murderer of abortion doctor George Tiller, from the mainstream anti-abortion community, even though he had connections to pioneering anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, connections accused FRC shooter Floyd Corkins does not apparently have to the SPLC.
WND's Klein Dishonestly Attacks Obama Over Libya Violence Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein begins a Sept. 13 WorldNetDaily article by asking, "Is the U.S. supporting the very Islamic groups now attacking the country’s diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt?" The answer is no, but Klein never actually comes out and says that.
Klein notes that "some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya, but then slips into his dishonest guilt-by-association mode, claiming that "the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Muammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups" and that "the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army." Klein even rehashes a previous allegation that a "senior Syrian source" -- Klein loves his unverifiable, anonymous sources -- says "hardcore mujahedeen" are taking part in the Syrian resistance.
At no point does Klein prove that the U.S. is "supporting" Ansar al-Shariah or even that Ansar al-Shariah was a part of the rebel opposition in Libya.
In other words, it's just more dishonest reporting from Klein, who's more interested in trying to destroy President Obama than telling the truth.
CNS Presents Right-Wing Talking Points As 'News' Topic: CNSNews.com
Matt Cover writes in a Sept. 14 CNSNews.com "news" article: "Average retail gasoline prices have more than doubled under President Obama, according to government statistics, rising from $1.84 per gallon to $3.85 per gallon."
If Cover sounds like he's merely regurgitating right-wing talking points, that's because he is.
As it so happens, a group called the American Energy Alliance is currently running an ad making that exact same claim, with the tag line, "Tell Obama we can’t afford his failing energy policies." The American Energy Allianceis a group funded by oil industry executive, specifically the Koch brothers.
As befits a propagandist doing the work if the oil lobby -- which CNS loves to do -- Cover fails to present all of the relevant facts regarding the price difference. As the Consumer Energy Report points out:
In the summer of 2008 — Bush’s last year in office — gasoline prices climbed above $4/gallon for nine straight weeks on the back of oil prices that reached nearly $150/barrel. But those prices were unsustainable in the short term, and unsurprisingly, they collapsed. By the end of the year, oil prices had retreated into the $30′s, and gasoline had fallen back to $1.71/gallon.
But those low prices represented an overcorrection. I noted at the time that I didn’t believe prices would stay at those levels for very long, and by the time Obama was inaugurated gasoline prices had already climbed by $0.20/gallon over the three weeks before his inauguration. Gasoline prices would continue to climb as oil prices recovered.
So the claim of gasoline prices doubling under Obama is technically correct, but irrelevant because the reason it happened was that he came into office near the bottom of a price overcorrection. Blaming Obama for the price rise would be like blaming him for cases of lung cancer that were detected during his term.
There are substantive discussions to be had about President Obama’s energy policies, and how they will impact the U.S. in coming years. Blaming him for high gasoline prices are not part of that substantive discussion.
Blaming Obama, of course, is exactly what Cover is doing. Is it because he's a lazy reporter or because he's working as a right-wing propagandist?
As I read about President Obama’s decision to visit the storm-ravaged area almost a full week after Isaac hit, I was forced to asked myself if we had elected an empathy-free president. This question comes to mind only because of a history of other empathy-free actions made throughout Obama’s political career.
-- Burgess Owens, Sept. 4 WorldNetDaily column
Finally, it occurs to me that Obama and Biden have created so many truly hostile divisions between people, divisions that have frayed or destroyed countless relationships between friends and family members, that probably not since the 1860s has so much raw animosity existed in this country.
Let history note that while Lincoln’s Civil War at least helped forge a stronger Union; a weaker, divided America is the inevitable result of Obama’s Uncivil War.
As these words are being written, the Democrats in Charlotte are reportedly planning to move Obama’s Thursday night speech from an outdoors arena (capacity 74,000) to an indoor arena (capacity 20,000) while praying nature gets angry enough to blame it on the weather. Apparently the “barroom ticket giveaways” to beef up the crowd didn’t work, even though they favored the obese.
Movies are another “poll substitute.” There are anti-Obama movies, and the problem is they’re pretty hard to get into. The most important is Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America.” Here are moviegoers paying to see a movie that is well-heralded as an anti-Obama film. In Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or mullah-run Iran, you wouldn’t have the freedom to see such a movie. We haven’t lost most of our basic freedoms yet. You can go see “2016: Obama’s America.” You may, however, have a hard time getting in. No Obama-goons stopping you. Just too many other Americans who’ve heard all about it and want to see the film, too.
Attention all Republicans who are obsessed with civility: There are genuinely bad people in this world! By bad people, I’m referring to those mean-spirited souls whose intentions are to inflict as much pain as possible on those they perceive to be their enemies.
Which brings me to Barack Obama and “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” The record is all too clear that the Master of the Forked Tongue is a very bad guy – a serpent who has no qualms about feigning patriotism, feigning respect for American troops, feigning a belief in capitalism and, above all, feigning love for America – all while keeping his focus on carrying out the collectivist dreams of his father.
The reason the pocket stick works is simple physics. The pocket stick can’t feel pain. It’s harder than the bones of your hand. It focuses the force of your blow into a small point, which is the tip of the stick. Thrust into the back of someone’s hand, it can break the bones of that hand. Jabbed into a face or neck, it can do painful, even seriously debilitating injury. Even using it to hammer away at an attacker’s arms, legs, or chest will drive many assailants back. It is a simple-to-use, easy-to-acquire, effortless-to-carry self-defense tool.
You need one. Get one. Buy one. Make one. Acquire a pocket stick in any way possible, or buy a small aluminum-bodied flashlight and learn to use it in the same way. You can’t afford not to, and there’s only one reason for that: Barack Obama stands a very good chance of being re-elected. When he does, he’ll make it that much harder for you to own a gun. He’ll go that much further to make self-defense illegal. He’ll demonstrate that much more contempt for you as a free citizen. To Obama and the Democrats, who are spending most of this week lying baldly to the American people in their wretched convention to re-coronate President Zero, you are a slave. You’re an idiot prole who has no rights and keeps no earnings except what the Democrats, in their generosity, permit you.
Let us say it honestly: Democrats loathe self-defense. They despise any assertion by the individual that his or her life has value. To the Democrats, all money and all people – the latter is much more significant than the former – belong to the government. This is why it is so important when spindly Barack Obama or bug-eyed Nancy Pelosi sneer at the concept of individual effort building individual success. This is why it matters when hypocrite and Klingon Michelle Obama presumes to dictate what you can eat while shoving junk food into her face
The 1,500 passengers who boarded the Titanic in April of 1912 did not willingly sail into an iceberg, but the voters who buy tickets to Obama’s Titanic 2.0 do not have the excuse of ignorance. The warnings of fiscal catastrophe are unmistakable, yet all we have heard speaker after speaker in Charlotte this past week is – party on!
Over the last four years, I have catalogued hundreds of reasons Barack Obama is a disaster for this country.
I mean it quite literally when I say that another four years of Obama will result in the fall of the USA as we have known it since it became a true, functioning nation with a working government 223 years ago.
While his claimed right to assassinate individuals, including American citizens, at will is certainly troubling, as are the large purchases of ammunition by the federal agencies that report to him, I don’t see any signs in either Obama’s speeches or his behavior to indicate that he intends to impose a socialist tyranny on the United States if he is re-elected. Second terms tend to be relatively uneventful and are predominantly driven by the attempts of the administration to survive the scandals that result from previously unknown actions committed during the previous term. And certainly, given the disengagement of the president and the incompetence of his officials, we can expect more revelations of the “Fast & Furious” variety.
Remember, this is a man whose formative years were spent smoking pot on the beach in the Choom Gang. Obama may be surrounded by people who want to change the world, but for all that he likes the idea of playing messiah, bearing a cross is far too much work for a man of his relaxed inclinations.
I also got a kick out of Obama’s giving himself an “incomplete” when asked to grade his administration. When I was at UCLA, I only knew two guys who received “incompletes” at the end of a semester. In one case, the kid had come down with mononucleosis just before the finals. The other time, a friend of mine, an orthodox Jew, couldn’t take a couple of tests because they conflicted with Rosh Hashanah. So, my question to Barack is: What’s your excuse? Do you have mono or are you Jewish?
CNS' Starr Touts Flawed Study To Bash Federal Regulation Topic: CNSNews.com
In a Sept. 10 CNSNews.com article, Penny Starr asserts that "the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011." She adds:
Randy Johnson, senior vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, distributed a handout of a Congressional Research Service analysis of a 2008 study commissioned by the Small Business Administration that estimated the annual compliance price for all federal regulations at $1.7 trillion that year.
In fact, that study has been criticized for flawed methodology and cherry-picked data. the Economic Policy Institute said the study "should not be used either as a valid measure of the costs of regulation or as a guide for policy."
Further, as media Matters points out, the Office of Management and Budget has found that the benefits of regulations significantly outweigh their costs.
WND's Farah: People Want Anti-Gay Therapy, So Why Ban It? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah devotes his Sept. 13 WorldNetDaily column to ranting about a proposed California law banning anti-gay "reparative" therapy for minors. After lamenting that "minor homosexuals who aren’t happy about their lifestyle" will no longer be able "to seek psychological help to change," Farah serves up the most peculiar defense of "reparative" therapy:
Democrat State Sen. Ted Lieu explained that ex-gay therapy “really is junk science.”
It was only a generation ago that, under political pressure, the American Psychological Association changed its classification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
“The entire house of medicine has rejected this phony and sham therapy,” said Lieu.
Yet, if that were true, there would be no need to ban its practice. If there weren’t a market for the therapy, why would legislation banning it be necessary? If there weren’t practitioners making a living serving those who willingly seek out such therapy, what would be the point of a prohibition?
Farah doesn't say anything about ex-gay therapy being effective. And he certainly doesn't mention that the founder of "reparative" therapy, Dr. Robert Spitzer, has recanted a study he conducted that claimed the therapy works.
Also: Lots of things are ineffective yet popular. Government tries to ban the harmful ones.
Which leads us to Farah geting flip about the demonstrated harmfulness of "reparative" therapy:
Lieu also says such therapy can cause guilt, shame and, in some cases, suicide. Really? So now anything that causes guilt or shame about one’s sexual practices should be outlawed? And isn’t it true that the suicide rate for open, practicing homosexuals is much higher than for the general population? I wonder what the suicide rate will be among those who want to leave the homosexual lifestyle but can’t get professional help to do so. Have Lieu and the Democrat-dominated California Legislature thought that one through? Or are some lives just more important than others?
Well, Farah certainly feels that the lives of homosexuals are less important than those of heterosexuals.Is that the way for a self-professed Christian to behave?
Notice that Farah can't actually list any examples of people who have been harmed, let alone committed suicide, becuase they "want to leave the homosexual lifestyle but can’t get professional help to do so." Meanwhile, the list of people psychologically damaged by "ex-gay therapy" is growing.
Finally, it's funny that Farah thinks that "minor homosexuals who aren’t happy about their lifestyle" should be able to seek therapy on their own. After all, he presumably doesn't approve of a pregnant teenage girl seeking an abortion without parental consent.
Graham doesn't explain why someone who accused the president of the United States of sympathizing with the embassy attackers should be exempt from being questioned about it. Instead, he freaks out about a pair of reporters figuring out how to ask a question of Romney, which Graham potrays as collusion. Dave Weigel explains what really happened:
Reporters covering Romney had no idea whether he'd take one, two, or twenty questions. They had no idea who he'd call on -- they'd certainly endured pressers where foreign reporters wasted time with existential questions.* And so, at best, what we're hearing are two members of one reporting team figuring out how to phrase something. At worst, we're hearing two reporters from different organizations figuring out the best way to ask a question they both want to lob, anyway.
But really, it's about Graham and the MRC trying to protect Romney from the so-called "liberal media" to ease his path to victory. And Graham will say stupid things like this in public to distract from that fact.
Interestingly, the NewsBusters post by Ken Shepherd promoting Graham's appearance makes no mention of his "waterboarding" statement, but it did highlight his attempt at Agnew-esque alliteration with his reference to a "pathetic pack of politicizers."