There were approximately 2.4 million fewer Americans working in June 2011 than there were when President Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus bill on Feb. 17, 2009, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
According to the BLS, there were approximately 141.68 million people counted as “employed” in America back in February 2009. By June of 2011, that number had fallen to approximately 139.33 million, yielding a net reduction in jobs of approximately 2.4 million.
But Cover is cherry-picking numbers to make Obama look bad. He ignores that at the depth of the recession in October 2009, the total number of employed according to BLS was 138.27 million. That means the number of people employed in June is up more than a million people since October 2009.
Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Cover to explain why he flip-flopped from reporting that campaign videos President Obama filmed inside the White House were not illegal to asserting that they were.
WND Still Lying To Its Readers That Nobody's Defending Obama Birth Certificate Topic: WorldNetDaily
A July 9 WorldNetDaily article goes to absurdly dishonest means to discredit anyone -- like WND -- who claims that nobody has come forward to defend President Obama's long-form birth certificate:
On the Obamaconspiracy site, forum participants blasted those who want information about Obama's qualifications.
"The people who have expertise and used it objectively to look at the document have found no signs of tampering," wrote one, although there was no citation to support it.
Another, however, raised some concerns about the adequacy of the certificate.
"I have looked at the evidence … All experts unanimously agree that it is fake. This was not even a good forgery."
WND doesn't explain that the Obama Conspiracy website is an anti-birther site. Not only doesn't WND link to the site in general, it doesn't even link to the post in which those comments were made.
If you looked for that specific comment in the post, you would find that it was written by "Dr. Conspiracy," who runs the website. WND's claim that there "no citation to support" his comment since Obama Conspiracy has posted at least two analyses of the certificate's PDF file -- one of them conducted by "Dr. Conspiracy" himself. Anyone with any familiarity with the Obama Conspracy website -- as WND appears to demonstrate -- would know that.
As for the other comment cited by WND that "All experts unanimously agree that it is fake," "Dr. Conspiracy" directly responds to it in a later comment:
Brian Leffler: ALL experts unanimously agree that it is fake.
But of course that statement is false. The most technically competent person to have looked at the PDF file found no signs of tampering whatever:
So when you say ALL experts, you just show your own lack of information. Now if somebody had fooled me like that, tricking me into embarrassing myself saying that “ALL” experts agree when in fact it’s not even close, I would seek out that person and buffet them about the head.
I have not seen any expert that demonstrates any expertise in his field saying that the White House long form PDF has been tampered with. I’ve seen a lot of hand waving, a lot of claims of expertise and ZERO science. It’s not a matter of quantity, but of quality, and not one certified document examiner has said there’s evidence of tampering.
WND curiously didn't mention this response.
WND is either so lazy that it can't be bothered to read the entire comment thread or lift a finger to poke around elsewhere in the website -- or it's deliberately hiding the truth from its readers for fear of undermining its birther crusade. We'll go with the latter, since WND is already on record as lying about the purported lack of document defenders.
Michael Reagan Likens Gays to Serial Killers Topic: Newsmax
Singling out a segment of the population for specific inclusion in school studies programs on the basis of their sexual preferences elevates what — rightly or wrongly — many see as a form of sexual perversion, to a civil right.
The bill, SB 48, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual, and so-called transgendered people as well as those with physical or mental disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays.
Unless I'm badly mistaken, what the legislature has done is to classify sexual preference as a form of disability, meaning that those who adopt the lifestyle are mentally or physically disabled though no fault of their own. Somehow I seriously doubt that gays or cross-dressers will appreciate being classified as disabled as a result of their sexual orientation or preferences.
This is just another example of the tendency of legislators sticking their noses into the personal lives of the citizenry.
It will prove instructive to see how the state's lawmakers go about the job of implementing this absurd legislation. Will they, for example, rule that textbooks must describe what the state classifies as acceptable behavior? Or exactly how?
Should the state require textbooks used in its schools to provide play-by-play descriptions of the behavior they sanction? Just where does this stop? Should not the "contributions" of convicted thieves be celebrated? Or those of serial killers? Or embezzlers?
Mychal Massie's full-blown case of Obama Derangement Syndrome seems to be getting worse. Massie howled in his July 5 WorldNetDaily column:
Democratic pollster Pat Caddell was less than gracious when he said: Obama is not "a true Democrat." Caddell is right; he isn't a true Democrat, he is a true Marxist – and that's what Caddell was dancing around, but actually saying. He is transpicuously dishonest and untruthful to the point of needing professional help. I am of the opinion that all politicians are liars, but even using that low standard, he makes Anthony Weiner look like less of a liar. He is an increasingly unstable, despotic narcissist, and that is becoming more apparent with every national speech he gives. It's important to again note that after each national speech the criticism from liberals becomes more pronounced.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, Massie is just as deranged. Here's one expanded tweet:
bho is dangerous as poisonous pit viper as corrupt and dishonest as judas iscariot himself - he is hateful he is common n he is determined 2 have his own way - he is also increasingly unstable - as I watch him come under the weight of his actions trying 2 force his agendas/policies thru it becomes increasingly apparent that he that we r looking at a man who is beyond redemption n worthy of rebuke - it is not just for the sake of the nation we must drive him out - it is for the sake of all we hold just
"I watched America's limp-wrist mack-daddy fairy princess in pink panties hip-hop his way to the teleprompter for his press conference. The I muted the sound, and watched it in closed captioning - because, the sound of his voice makes me sick to my stomach. His comments were more closely identified to that bodily function, which can be as either a noun or a verb and is accompanied by micturation - only in his case it comes out of his mouth and ears - and properly explains why his eyes are brown." (Read the rest of "I cannot lie, obama makes me sick" at http://mychal-massie.com)
NewsBusters' Sheppard Ignores Economic Chaos Resulting From Failure to Raise Debt Limit Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard writes in a July 5 NewsBusters post:
If you believe every word uttered by hysterical news anchors and political commentators lately, you would think the world ends August 2nd if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
Not only isn't this true, it's another indication of the press's total ignorance about our nation's budget and/or their willingness to lie to the American people in order to get taxes raised.
[...]
Consider that last August, we brought in $164 billion in receipts. As it should be equal to or greater than that this year, we will easily afford the roughly $35 billion of interest expense without raising the debt ceiling.
Our monthly Social Security and Medicare outlays in May were $51 billion. Assuming they're close to the same in August, we'd still be left with $78 billion to pay military members, and a variety of other things.
Will we have enough to meet all of our obligations?
Certainly not. Like what's happened in the past, many government employees and contractors would be given IOUs.
BUT, unlike what the Obama-loving media are telling people, we won't have to default on our debt, we won't have to forego payments to America's seniors, and we won't have to hold back the salaries of our military members in the field.
But Sheppard, in suggesting that there would be no consequences to handing out IOUs to people or to not paying, has chosen to ignore the consequences of doing so even if interest payments on the debt and other obligations continue to be paid. As Media Matters details:
Those IOUs Sheppard would so blithely hand out would come as part of an immediate 44 percent decrease in government spending -- a number that constitutes 10 percent of GDP.
A Standard & Poor's expert states that such a contraction of federal spending "would have a very sharp negative fiscal impulse to the economy, and that would be disruptive."
The global rating agency Fitch Ratings states that "Widespread and prolonged delay to suppliers of goods and services, including salary payments to federal employees, would damage perceptions of US sovereign creditworthiness," adding "extensive payment delays on other obligations would confirm that the US government was in severe financial distress and that a failure to make payments on rated Treasury securities (bills, notes and bonds) was potentially imminent. If it had not already done so, in such circumstances Fitch would place its sovereign rating of the US on RWN [Rating Watch Negative]."
Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker said that the last time the U.S. delayed making some payments, interest rates went up, meaning that interest on the debt would become more costly.
Banking firm UBS points out that not only would there be a likely "sharp increase in interest rates" from failure to raise the debt ceiling, it would also keep the U.S. from paying interest on Treasury bills that have matured, an issue because investors are less likely to roll over their T-bills under such unstable conditions.
So who's expressing "total ignorance about our nation's budget" here? Looks like Sheppard is.
President Obama quietly has been funding the notorious radical group ACORN, his former employer and legal client, possibly in violation of federal law, according to a new report.
Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development gave a $79,819 grant to a Florida office of the largest branch of the ACORN tree, the massive conglomerate known as ACORN Housing Corp, or AHC. The grant, awarded in March, was recently discovered by the nonpartisan watchdog group Judicial Watch.
False. First, as Media Matters points out, ACORN no longer exists, having filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last November, so it is in no position to receive funding of any kind.
Second, WND deliberately gets the name of the group receiving money wrong. As WND itself notes later in the article, "ACORN Housing filed papers last year legally changing its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America, or AHCOA." So WND is lying to its readers by introducing AHCOA only as ACORN Housing Corp.
While WND goes on to state that "HUD considers AHCOA to be completely separate from ACORN," it failed to report that the Government Accountability Office has also determined that AHCOA "is not an affiliate, subsidiary, or allied organization of ACORN."
WND went on to claim that "a September 2010 report from HUD's inspector general found that the group may have concealed fraud by destroying or failing to produce records. The report said the group charged the government salary costs for employees after they were terminated and that ACORN may have corruptly funneled taxpayer dollars to its affiliates and engaged in money laundering." But WND curiously didn't report that the report also said that AHCOA states it has "completed many of the corrective measures suggested by the OIG," adding, "We commend AHCOA’s efforts to bring its operations into compliance with Federal requirements and its willingness to resolve the issues identified in the report."
WND also gave ACORN-hater Matthew Vadum plenty of space to rant about how much he hates ACORN while ignoring the fact that ACORN no longer exists -- thus undermining the entire premise of his rant.
CNS' Jeffrey Walks Back Kagan 'Investigation' Claim Topic: CNSNews.com
In a July 6 CNSNews.com article, Terry Jeffrey had claimed that "the House Judiciary Committee is launching an inquiry to probe the involvement that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan had in 'health care legislation or litigation' when she was serving as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general." It turns out that's false, and Jeffrey has been forced to correct it.
An new editor's note at the top of the article reads:
As originally posted, this story used the word “investigation” in three places to describe what the House Judiciary Committee was initiating with Chairman Lamar Smith’s letter to the attorney general which is cited in this report. In those three places, the word “investigation” has been changed to “inquiry.” The committee requested a correction of the story, saying Smith’s letter asking for four categories of documents from the Justice Department as well as “witness interviews” is a “request for additional information” and not the beginning of a “formal investigation.” “The Committee has contacted the Justice Department for additional information, but we have not launched a formal investigation at this time,” a Judiciary Committee aide told CNSNews.com in an emailed statement.
Jeffrey, meanwhile, devotes a separate July 8 article to an expansion of the editor's note.
Of course, in neither article does Jeffrey demonstrate any interest in inquring if the House Judiciary Committee will investigate an apparent conflict of interest on health care reform regarding Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife has been involved in activism against the law. Jeffrey has long refused to report on this.
WND Thinks Obama Is A Decepticon Topic: WorldNetDaily
Drew Zahn writes in his WorldNetDaily review of "Transformers: Dark of the Moon":
As for the film's more significant worldview messages, there's very little depth beyond a few, throwaway lines about "believing in yourself" and the shameless objectification of the lead actress's physical assets.
But if you stick with me, we'll have a little fun at Obama's expense.
[...]
For starters, Witwicky receives a medal in the film from the president. And while the twenty-something Sam is literally gaga for Obama, reverently showing off his medal as though it represents great status, every other character who sees it … is simply not impressed.
Even more fun, however, is the coincidental likening of Obama to Decepticon leader Megatron.
At the opening of the film, the leader of the Autobots explains that on their planet, the Autobots fought for freedom, while the Decepticons fought for tyranny. Since no one could plausibly argue Obama is fighting for greater freedom, but a case could be made his policies are pushing us toward a more tyrannical federal government … clue No. 1, Obama is a Decepticon.
Later in the film, a human accomplice of the Decepticons proclaims, "You have to be on the side of progress if you want to be part of history": Hmmm, "progress," progressive, … yep, clue No. 2 Obama is a Decepticon.
The same accomplice also declares, "We all work for the Decepticons now." Given Obama's record government spending, attempted takeovers in the banking, auto and health industries and an ever-increasing percentage of the population working in the public sector … yep, clue No. 3 Obama is a Decepticon.
Finally, a reporter over at MSNBC recently got in a lot of trouble for turning aside after listening to Obama speak, when he thought the microphones were off, and calling Obama "kind of a dick."
In the film, the Decepticon's human accomplice listens to Megatron give yet another self-aggrandizing speech, turns aside where the Decpticons can't hear and pronounces of his robot leader, "What a dick!"
As I was already joking with myself about the idea of the Decepticons being like Obama, when I heard the same crude word used to describe the same, condescending, self-centered attitude … I just about fell out of my chair laughing! What are the odds of the film so paralleling real life?
In the end, the MSNBC host Mark Halperin got suspended for the insult. The human accomplice in "Dark of the Moon" doesn't fare any better.
If WND is willing to believe this about Obama, no wonder it's clinging to the birther conspiracy.
MRC Loves Conservatives' Insults Hurled At NY Times Editor Topic: Media Research Center
In a July 6 MRC TimesWatch post, Clay Waters reveled in the insults heaped upon New York Times editor Bill Keller in a recent letters section, touting how "The latest edition of the New York Times’ Sunday magazine gave conservatives a rare opportunity to repurpose Times Executive Editor Bill Keller as a pinata" in reaction to a Keller column about Sarah Palin.
Is it really "media criticism" to take such pleasure in seeing people insulted? Waters and the MRC seem to think so.
WND's Klein Can't Stop Misleading About Group's Statements on Muslim Brotherhood Topic: WorldNetDaily
Earlier this year, we detailed how WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein deliberately cherry-picked a report on Egypt by the International Crisis Group in order to portray it as overly sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. Klein asserted that the ICG report called for the Egypian government "to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood" but failed to note that it also pointed out that "serious questions linger" about whether the Muslim Brotherood can "make a credible case that they embrace the rules of democratic politics, including the principles of citizenship, rotation of power and multiparty political life," particularly "concerning the role of women and the place of religious minorities, neither of whom, for example, the Muslim Brothers believe should be eligible for the presidency."
Six months later, Klein is doing the exact same misleading cherry-picking. From a July 7 WND article:
In a June 2008 report entitled "Egypt's Muslim Brothers Confrontation or Integration," Soros' ICG urges the Egyptian regime to allow the group to participate in political life.
The report dismisses Egypt's longstanding government crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood as "dangerously short-sighted."
The ICG report called on Mubarak's regime to "pave the way for the regularization of the Muslim Brothers' participation in political life," including by allowing for the "establishment of a political party with religious reference."
The ICG specifically stressed allowing the Brotherhood to serve as an Islamist party several times in its 2008 report.
Again, Klein failed to note that the ICG made numerous requests of the Muslim Brotherhood. From the ICG report:
To the Society of Muslim Brothers:
4. Engage in a dialogue with members of the government, opposition and civil society, notably by:
(a) approaching officials and reform-minded NDP members to discuss conditions necessary for the Society’s peaceful political integration;
(b) engaging with secular opposition parties and movements to form a consensus on how the Society can best be integrated as well as wider issues of political reform;
(c) engaging with representatives of the Christian community in a frank dialogue on sectarian relations and the Society’s stance toward religious minorities;
(d) supporting comprehensive political reform clearly, as opposed to a bilateral arrangement between the Society and the regime; and
(e) ensuring that consensus positions on these issues are formed within the Society in a democratic manner to avoid contradictory approaches by members.
5. Finalise and amend the Society’s political program, in particular by:
(a) altering its position on the role of women and non-Muslims in public life;
(b) continuing to seek input from a wide range of its members as well as non-members; and
(c) clarifying relations between the Society and a future related political party.
Such shoddy, deliberately misleading reporting inspires no confidence whatsoever that anything Klein writes for WND can be trusted.
AIM-WND-Loudon Attack on Panetta Was Ignored; Now It's Discredited Topic: Accuracy in Media
We've previously detailed how Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid teamed with foreigner Trevor Loudon, in an attempt to derail Leon Panetta's nomination as defense secretary, purportedly had a "close and personal relationship with a member of the Communist Party." WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein also regurgitated the claims by the foreigner Loudon. We also pointed out that AIM's and WND's attacks were ignored, as evidenced by Panetta being unanimously confirmed by the Senate as defense secretary.
It turns out there was another reason the accusations by the foreigner Loudon and his American agents were so roundly ignored: they had no basis in reality.
Media Matters details how what Loudon and crew portrayed as a "close and personal relationship with a member of the Communist Party," Hugh DeLacy, was nothing more than a congressman responding to a constituent. Kincaid's claim that "Panetta promised DeLacy several apparently sensitive documents" is, again, nothing but typical constitutent correspondence.
Loudon, Kincaid, and Klein inflated the DeLacy-Panetta correspondence well beyond its significance -- thus falsely smearing Panetta. Don't expect any apologies, though; we're still waiting for Kincaid to admit that we were correct about the death penalty provisions in Uganda's proposed anti-gay legislation, or that he was wrong to defend Bruce Ivins, ultimately proven to have mailed several anthrax-laden letters shortly after 9/11 that killed several people.
Why Won't Farah Report Existence of People Who Don't Think Birth Certificate Is Fake? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in his July 7 WorldNetDaily column:
Now that so many highly qualified graphics experts – seven by my count – have weighed in unequivocally in pronouncing Barack Obama's "long-form birth certificate" as an outright fraud, it's time to issue a challenge to other highly qualified experts to explain why they're wrong.
Isn't it curious that not a single media outlet has quoted even one such expert to proclaim the document valid?
[...]
Now, I can't say there are no experts out there who can explain the anomalies and contradictions that the seven experts say make it impossible for the White House document to be valid. But I can say they haven't been forthcoming.
So I am hereby issuing a challenge to them: Come forward and explain what the seven experts proclaiming Obama's birth certificate fraudulent are missing. Explain these anomalies in a way the American public can understand. Allay our fears that the biggest hoax in American political history is being perpetrated on us all by this White House.
[...]
Why are no other experts coming forward to answer the very public indictments of this document by highly qualified people?
Isn't the absence of evidence of authenticity in fact an indictment of a complacent, lapdog media with no interest in pursuing truth if it reflects poorly on Obama?
For heaven's sake, where are Obama's experts to explain what seven distinguished experts say cannot be explained away?
Farah is lying to you. At least two experts have come forward to "explain what seven distinguished experts say cannot be explained away": "Dr. Conspiracy" at the Obama Conspiracy blog, and computer expert John Woodman.
Thus, Farah's fallacious premise is utterly destroyed. The real question is why WND has hidden analyses that contradict its presumption that the birth certificate is fake from its readers. Then again, Jerome Corsi did promise during WND's Esquire lawsuit dog-and-pony show to try and discredit "Dr. Conspiracy" while downplaying his debunking of WND's so-called "experts."
Of course, that's not the way real journalism works. But Farah, Corsi and WND are interested only in information aimed at destroying President Obama, no matter how bogus and no much they discredit themselves in their Javert-esque pursuit.
If Farah and Corsi cared about the truth, they would ave reported on Dr. Conspiracy and Woodman by now. But they don't, so they haven't.
UPDATE: Here's a third defense of the long-form birth certificate that Farah and Corsi have chosen to ignore, from Neal Krawetz. Thanks, L.C., for the tip.
Newsmax's Rehabilitation of Fossella Rolls On Topic: Newsmax
We'vedetailed how disgraced former Republican Rep. Vito Fossella has been the benificiary of Newsmax's career-rehabilitation skills. The latest effort in that endeavor is a July 5 Moneynews article quoting Fossella attacking President Obama.
Forrest Jones and Ashley Martella identify Fossella as a "former GOP Congressman" but, needless to say, they don't mention how he got to that status: He left office in disgrace after a DUI arrest led to the revelation that Fossella had a mistress in Washington and fathered a child with her.
Corsi's Latest 'Expert' So Good He Won't Tell You Who He Is Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jerome Corsi's latest so-called "expert" to claim to have proof that President Obama's long-form birth certificate is afraid to go public. Corsi, though, is more than happy to explain that away.
In a July 5 WorldNetDaily article, Corsi claims that his source is "a high-level programmer for a state government" who "spoke on condition his name not be used, fearing he might lose his job." Corsi added: "He asserted that revealing his name is not necessary, because the analysis is self-evident."
Well, not exactly. The so-called "expert's" analysis is based on an examination of the PDF of the long-form certificate as it appears in Adobe Illustrator. But as we've noted, the PDF was not created in Illustrator -- it was created in a program called Mac OS X Quartz PDFContext -- so examining it in Illustrator is of very limited value, if not completely worthless.
If we had made such a fundmental error, we wouldn't want our name publicly known either.
If gays, lesbians and transsexuals are really "our brothers and sisters," why aren't polygamists and polyandrists also our brothers and sisters?
And if so, why did Obama fail to mention "our brothers and sisters" who are dedicated to multiple marriages?
Is there any medical evidence in existence that indicates polygamists and polyandrists have anything at all resembling the HIV/AIDS and syphilis rates of our nation's promiscuous homosexuals – so many of whom have died of AIDS and syphilis?
Moreover, if the president believes that gays, lesbians and transsexuals are "our brothers and sisters," why does he not also believe that "our brothers and sisters" include not only polygamists, but exhibitionists, the incestuous, coprophiliacs, necrophiliacs, urophiliacs and zoophiliacs (those who have sex with animals who are unable – or unwilling – to run away)?
None of these additional sexual orientations has the huge rate of HIV/AIDS and syphilis, which deadly diseases are distributed so widely by the nation's large number of sexually profligate homosexuals.
Their continued deadly-disease spreading was surely aided and abetted by Mr. Obama's announcement that they (with no distinction between the sexually profligate and other homosexuals) are "our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers."
Such presidential pandering to deadly-disease spreaders is surely a despicable means of trying to attract votes by an incumbent who will apparently do anything to try to win re-election.
I don't happen to think that homosexuals are bad people, although I do wish they hadn't managed to confiscate a perfectly fine word, gay, which strikes me as an inappropriate moniker for a group that includes so many drama queens. I've never suggested they're evil. Feeling as I do about having an appointment with a proctologist – trepidation bordering on stupefaction – I confess that I find their sex lives extremely bizarre. But, I hasten to add, I know that some people, including my wife, regard my love of baseball as a sure sign of derangement.
What I do find annoying about a great many homosexuals is their insistence on identifying themselves solely on the basis of their sexual activities. To be fair, I have an equal intolerance with heterosexual men whose identity seems to be totally wrapped up in their sexual activities and whose conversation consists of bragging about their conquests. It just strikes me as adolescent.
As you may have noticed, I have made several references to sexual activity – which is something that all the propagandists gloss over. Although gays populate movies and TV shows to such a degree that you would think that they represent 25 percent of the population, rather than their actual 2.5 percent, they are nearly always depicted as asexual human beings. They are cute, they are cuddly, they're amusing neighbors and loyal chums, but they're not sexual human beings. Their mascot is Nathan Lane. What Hollywood and the media would have us believe is that they are nothing more or less than teddy bears who have somehow mastered speech.
As for gay-pride parades, I can hardly imagine anything goofier. What is it exactly that they're so proud of? That their sexual activity will never lead to the birth of a baby, but only, tragically on occasion, to a dreadful disease?
