Right-wing spin machine skewers health reform law

How Mainstream Media Spread The GOP's False Harry Reid Cancer Story

OLIVER WILLIS/Media Matters For America

Mainstream media outlets echoed a deceptive framing, created by the conservative media and amplified by House Republicans, of comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), leaving the false impression that he dismissed the plight of cancer-stricken patients denied care by the government shutdown.

Reid Pushed For Full Government Funding Over Piecemeal Legislation

House Republicans Adopt Piecemeal Strategy Of Funding Only Some Government Agencies, Including National Institutes Of Health. From The Washington Times:

House Republicans plan to keep trying their new piecemeal approach to solving the shutdown, setting up yet another round of votes Wednesday on bills that would fund veterans affairs and national parks -- and adding new bills to fund the National Institutes of Health and to pay the National Guard and the military reserves.

But the White House budget office said President Obama "strongly opposes" those bills and would veto them if they were to reach his desk. [Washington Times, 10/2/13]

Reid Responds: "Why Would We Want" To Pit Groups Against Each Other For Funding? During an October 2 Senate press conference, Reid decried the idea that legislators should "pick and choose" which parts of the government should be funded, reiterating his desire for legislation to fully fund the federal government without strings attached. After a reporter followed up by asking, "if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?" Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) interjected, asking"why pit one against the other?" Reid then chimed in, "why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own." From the press conference:

DANA BASH (CNN): You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that -- (off mic) -- given what you said, would you at least pass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political games as Republicans are?

SEN. REID: Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did it here, and he did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer. And it's this. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government's going to be funded? It's obvious what's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow.

What this is all about is "Obamacare." They are obsessed. I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know what other word I can use. They are obsessed with this "Obamacare" thing. As has been pointed on the floor the last few days, they did the same thing on Social Security. They did the same thing on Medicare. Now they're doing it on this.

It's working now, and it'll continue to work, and people will love it even more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

HARRY REID: Listen (INAUDIBLE) what do --

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why do they -- why -- why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- they have a few problems of their own. [Senate Press Conference, 10/2/13, via Nexis]

Reid: "Why Would We Have" Speaker Boehner "Cherry Pick What Stays Open And What Should Be Closed?" Reid later elaborated on the exchange. From an October 2 article in The Hill:

Later, in an interview with The Bill Press Show, Reid elaborated on the exchange.

"The whole answer is this -- why would we want to have the House of Representatives, John Boehner, cherry pick what stays open and what should be closed?" he said. "Listen, I gave a speech on the floor talking about the babies, 30 babies, little kids who are not going to have clinical trials. Of course I care about that. I have 16 of my own grandchildren and five of my own children."

Reid said that there are other agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that are just as important to fund and that he's working to get everything back online.

"What I told Dana Bash, who is a fine reporter, is that we care about all of these things," he continued. "We care about our state parks; we care about our veterans, but we can't fall into the trap ... of Cruz-led Republicans. That is this ... we'll cherry pick ... and finally at the end, everything will be open except for ObamaCare." [The Hill, 10/2/13]

Conservatives Distorted Reid's Comments

Free Beacon Deceptively Edits Transcript, Claims Reid Asked Why Democrats "Would Want To Fund The National Institutes Of Health To 'Help One Child Who Has Cancer.'" In reporting on the exchange, The Washington Free Beacon deceptively removed Schumer's interjection, suggesting that Sen. Reid was directly responding to Bash's question. From an October 2 post on The Washington Free Beacon:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) asked why Senate Democrats would want to fund the National Institutes of Health to "help one child who has cancer" Wednesday when asked that question by CNN reporter Dana Bash.[Washington Free Beacon, 10/2/13]

House Republicans Amplify False Framing And Edited Transcript. The website of House Speaker John Boehner published a post titled "Top Senate Democrat on Helping Kids With Cancer: 'Why Would We Want To Do That?.'" The post featured the following deceptively edited transcript:

CNN: "If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do that?"

Sen. Reid: "Why would we want to do that?" [Speaker.House.Gov, 10/2/13]

Some Media Adopt GOP's False Framing Of Reid's Comments...

CNN's Carol Costello: "What Harry Reid Said Was Awful." On the October 3 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Carol Costello aired video of the exchange and had the following remarks:

COSTELLO: Okay so Jason I'll start with you. So, the Democrats aren't they being a little hypocritical here because they passed a resolution to pay servicemembers?

JASON JOHNSON, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think so, look the whole point is that -

COSTELLO: But what Harry Reid said was awful.

JOHNSON: I'll never defend Harry Reid for anything. [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 10/3/13]

CBS' Nancy Cordes: Reid's Response To Funding Cancer Research "Was 'Why Would I Do That?'" From the October 2 edition of CBS Evening News With Scott Pelley:

CORDES: Senate Democrats say the only funding they'll agree to is a bill that funds the full government, no strings attached. In fact, Scott, today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked if he would be open to funding cancer research for kids only and his response was, "Why would I do that?" [CBS, CBS Evening News, 10/2/13, via Media Matters]

... While Other Media Outlets Explain Reid Is Being Taken Out Of Context

NY Times: Contrary To GOP Claims, Reid Was "Ineloquently Making A Point About The Need To Fund The Entire Government." From an October 3 New York Times article:

Mr. Reid's tendency to speak without inhibition or filter has created no shortage of complications and may have so alienated Republicans that they see no incentive to work with him. On Wednesday, Republican press offices, including Mr. Boehner's, and Tea Party groups circulated remarks from Mr. Reid in which he appeared to be dismissive of cancer-stricken children. (In fact, he was ineloquently making a point about the need to fund the entire government, not just parts that Republicans have selected for special appropriations bills as a way to ameliorate the effects of the shutdown.) [NY Times, 10/3/13]

Politico's Byers: "Even If You Got Rid Of Sen. Schumer's Remark, You'd Still Run Into A Little Thing Called 'Context.'"From an October 2 blog post by Politico's Dylan Byers:

I can't imagine the intellectual leaps and bounds you'd have to go through to arrive at the conclusion that Sen. Reid doesn't care about cancer patients. Even if you got rid of Sen. Schumer's remark, you'd still run into a little thing called "context." After getting rid of context, you'd probably run into the inconvenient fact that Sen. Reid's wife was diagnosed with breast cancer just two years ago.

...

The problem with separating quotes from context is that the effort usually comes back to bite you. Before you know it, you end up being depicted as someone who has to invent controversy because you're no longer capable of debating on substance. [Politico, 10/2/13]

The Atlantic: "It's Clear That Reid Was Responding To The Point Brought Up By Schumer." From an October 2 article inThe Atlantic:

In the video, it's clear that Reid was responding to the point brought up by Schumer -- why fund kids with cancer, while ignoring, say, other vulnerable kids, or other populations impacted by the shutdown? Why choose? This has been the Democrats' stock response to variations on this question, usually from Republicans on the House floor. But Reid's answer, with a testy tone and a follow-up insult to a reporters' intelligence, caught on. [The Atlantic, 10/2/13]

Right-Wing Media Still Can't Find An Example Of Obama Apologizing For America

 by Adam Shah/Media Matters

Almost since President Obama took office, the right-wing media have made the ridiculous claim that Obama goes around the world apologizing for America. And now they are at it again. On his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh claimed that when he visited Japan in 2009, Obama "wanted ... to apologize for dropping the bomb on Niros -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Limbaugh based his comments on an Investor's Business Daily editorial claiming that a cable released by Wikileaks revealed that Obama had "plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs."

But the Wikileaks cable cited by Limbaugh and IBD shows nothing of the sort. The cable, if authentic, describes a 2009 meeting between U.S. ambassador to Japan John V. Roos and Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka to discuss Obama's then-upcoming visit to Japan. The cable describes the idea of "Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II" as a "non-starter."

But as ABC News' Jake Tapper has noted: "The cable does not state that the idea was from the U.S. Rather, Roos writes that Yabunaka thought that following President Obama's call earlier that year for a world free of nuclear weapons, anti-nuclear groups would speculate as to whether he would visit Hiroshima."

Tapper also reported that a "senior White House official asserts to ABC News that there was never any plan for the president to apologize for Hiroshima."

Here's the relevant text of the Wikileaks cable:

On the President's upcoming visit to Japan in November, he recommended keeping the program relatively simple and centered around the Tokyo metropolitan area, adding that it would be premature to include a visit to Hiroshima.

[...]

--------------------------------------------- ------

POTUS VISIT TO JAPAN: TOO EARLY FOR HIROSHIMA VISIT

--------------------------------------------- ------

¶5.  (C) VFM Yabunaka pointed out that the Japanese public will have high expectations toward President Obama's visit to Japan in November, as the President enjoys an historic level of popularity among the Japanese people.  Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation.  He underscored, however, that both governments must temper the public's expectations on such issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a "non-starter."  While a simple visit to Hiroshima without fanfare is sufficiently symbolic to convey the right message, it is premature to include such program in the November visit.  Yabunaka recommended that the visit in November center mostly in Tokyo, with calls on the Emperor and Prime Minister, as well as some form of public program, such as speeches, an engagement at a university, or a town hall-like meeting with local residents.  Highlighting the busy political calendar in the coming weeks, including the election of the new Prime Minister, launching of the new Cabinet, and the Prime Minister's participation in the UN General Assembly and the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit, Yabunaka noted that both sides should begin working quickly on the President's November visit.  The Ambassador conveyed an

TOKYO 00002033  003.2 OF 003

informal invitation for the new Prime Minister to attend the Pittsburgh Summit, adding that an official invitation will follow once the Prime Minister is elected.

To sum up, Obama has been in office more than two years and eight months. It's an article of faith for the right-wing media that Obama traverses the globe apologizing for America. But they have yet to come up with a single example of such an apology that stands up to scrutiny.

Right-Wing Media Downplay Default Risks By Accusing Obama Of "Threatening" Social Security Benefits

From Media Matters:

Media conservatives are accusing the Obama administration of "threatening" Social Security benefits after the president observed in an interview that he could not guarantee that benefits could be paid if the debt limit were not increased. Economic experts agree that failure to increase the debt limit would force the federal government to prioritize its legal obligations and strain its ability to pay Social Security benefits.

EMBED

After Obama Warned That Social Security Benefit Payments Could Be Missed If The Debt Ceiling Is Not Raised ...

Obama: "I Cannot Guarantee That Those [Social Security] Checks Go Out On August 3 If We Haven't Resolved This Issue." From the July 12 edition of CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley:

PELLEY: Can you tell the folks at home that no matter what happens, the Social Security checks are gonna go out on August the third? There are about $20 billion worth of Social Security checks that have to go out the day after the government is supposedly gonna go into default?

MR. OBAMA: Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans' checks, these are folks on disability, and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month.

PELLEY: Can you guarantee, as president, those checks will go out on August the third?

MR. OBAMA: I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it. [CBS News, CBS Evening News, 7/12/11, via CBSNews.com]

... The Right-Wing Media Accused Obama Of Threatening Seniors

Fox Nation: "Obama Threatens To Withhold Social Security Checks From Seniors And Vets."Fox Nation linked to Obama's comments to CBS with the following headline:

[Fox Nation, 7/12/11]

Drudge: "Obama Threatens To Hold Up Social Security Checks." The Drudge Report linked to Obama's comments to CBS with the following headline:

[Drudge Report, 7/12/11]

Breitbart TV: "Obama To Hold Senior And Vets Benefits Hostage For Tax Increases." Andrew Breitbart's website Breitbart.tv embedded the CBS video with the following headline:

[Breitbart.tv, 7/12/11]

Hannity: Obama Is "Resorting To Desperate Scare Tactics" And "Trying To Scare Seniors."Discussing the comments on Social Security payments, Sean Hannity accused Obama of "resorting to desperate scare tactics" and "trying to frighten the American people into supporting a deal." He also said:

HANNITY: First of all, first the president tried class warfare, corporate jets. It's right out of the old handbook. These are different times. Now he's trying to scare seniors, because that is absolutely, positively false what he said. [Fox News, Hannity, 7/12/11]

Krauthammer: "If [The President] Wants To Threaten Social Security, He Can Do That." On the July 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer claimed that Obama "holds the upper hand." He continued:

KRAUTHAMMER: He holds it for two reasons. He controls who will get the checks on August 3 and who won't. And if he wants to threaten Social Security, he can do that. Whether he has to actually withhold those checks or not is a moot point. As long as he threatens it, it will scare the hell out of any Republican anywhere. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 7/12/11]

Asman: "Today, The President Made A Threat" About Social Security. On the July 12 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, host David Asman said of Obama's comments on Social Security payments:

ASMAN: Kicking off tonight, today, the president made a threat. But his threat was really an admission that his whole big government program has failed. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 7/12/11]

But Economic Experts Agree That Social Security Benefits Are At Risk

Harvard Economist Frankel: Choosing Not To Pay Certain Bills "Would Mean Failing To Honor Legal Obligations" Including Social Security. Jeffrey Frankel, a Harvard economist who serves on the National Bureau of Economic Research, criticized claims that "come August 3, the federal government could retain its top credit rating if it continued to service its debt by ceasing payment on its other bills." According to Frankel:

But this would mean failing to honor legal obligations that have already been incurred (paying suppliers for paper clips that have already been bought, paying soldiers their wages for last month's service, sending social security recipients their checks, etc.).  This is like observing that the cliff is not a 90 degree drop-off, but only 110 degrees.   It doesn't matter: the car would still go crashing into the ocean far below.   The government's credit would still be downgraded and global investors would still demand higher interest rates to hold US treasuries, probably on a long-term basis. [Jeff Frankels Weblog, 7/11/11]

Former Treasury Official Powell: Efforts To "Prioritize" Legal Obligations Would Strain Ability To Pay Social Security Benefits. Jerome H. Powell, a Treasury Department undersecretary during the George H.W. Bush administration, wrote in a Politico op-ed:

The United States has never prioritized or failed to pay any obligation when due during a debt limit impasse. Despite the institutional risks and the lack of clear legal authority, we assume that Treasury will attempt to prioritize payments in a last-ditch effort to avoid default.

Federal Government Operations: For Aug. 3-31, 2011, we project inflows of $172 billion and bills due of $306 billion -- a shortfall of $134 billion. As an illustration, Treasury would exhaust all inflows just by paying six major items: interest, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance and defense vendors. Without cutting from these six, there would be no money for entire departments such as Justice, Labor and Commerce among many others, or for veterans' benefits, IRS refunds, military active duty pay, federal salaries and benefits, special education, Pell Grants for college students or food and rent payments for the poor. An overnight 44 percent cut in spending would slash many popular and essential programs. [Politico, 6/29/11]

Right-Wing Media's Deranged Attack: Obama "Sided With Terrorists"

From Media Matters:

Right-Wing media unleashed a crazed onslaught after President Obama's speech on the Middle East, outrageously asserting that Obama "sided with terrorists" by saying that the 1967 borders should guide negotiations over the formation of a Palestinian state. But this position is nothing new, and American Jewish groups praised today's speech.

Right-Wing Flip Out And Tie Obama To Terrorists

CNN's Dana Loesch: Obama "Sided With Terrorists". During her KFTK radio show, CNN contributor Dana Loesch claimed that in his Middle East speech Obama  "sided with terrorists" and "people who believe that Israel doesn't have the right to exist." [KFTK, The Dana Show, 5/19/2011]

Limbaugh: Obama Urged Israel To "Destroy Itself" And "Submit Its People To Potential Genocide." Rush Limbaugh said of Obama's speech: "What kind of President urges a country to destroy itself and submit its people to potential genocide?" [Premiere Radio Networks, Rush Limbaugh Program, 5/19/2011]

Gateway Pundit: "Obama Proposed Today Giving Half Of Jerusalem...To Hamas-Fatah Terrorist Alliance." From Jim Hoft's May 19 post to his blog:

"Let's be clear.
Obama today proposed giving half of Jerusalem, the Wailing Wall, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, The holiest Christian Church in the world, The Church of the Holy Sepulchreto Hamas-Fatah terrorist alliance." [Gateway Pundit, 5/19/2011]

Right-Wing Blog, Ace of Spades: Obama Is "Endorsing The Terrorists' Key Demand. From a May 19 Ace of Spades blog post:

"Obama pretty much announced that he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders-- thus endorsing the terrorists' key demand without requiring any substantive concessions on their part." [Ace of Spades, 5/19/2011]

Sean Hannity: Obama Supports Radicals. Following the speech, Sean Hannity posted the following tweet linking Obama to "radicals":

But Obama's Position On The 1967 Borders Is "Nothing New"

Jeffrey Goldberg: "1967 Borders...Has Been The Basic Idea For At Least 12 Years". Jeffery Goldberg wrote of the speech under the headline, "Nothing New in the Idea That '67 Borders Should Guide Peace Talks." Goldberg added: "This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what's the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn't think that the 1967 border won't serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?" In a subsequent update, he added:

UPDATE: Here is what Hillary Clinton said in 2009: "We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." [The Atlantic,5/19/2011]

And Jewish Organizations Commended Obama For His Speech

American Jewish Committee "Praised President Obama's Call Today." The American Jewish Committee issued a statement praising Obama's comments, specifically citing the president's comments on a "two-state solution":

"President Obama has sternly warned the Palestinians, and the international community, to stop this senseless drive to try to achieve a state without any negotiated agreement with Israel," said AJC Executive Director David Harris.

 "The parameters of a two-state solution are just as clear today as they were when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas walked away from the peace talks last September," said Harris. "The Palestinians must return now to close the deal." [American Jewish Committee, 5/19/11]

 ADL: "We Support The President's Vision Of A Negotiated Israeli-Palestinian Settlement." The Anti-Defamation League also praised Obama's speech, stating:

We welcome President Obama's compelling speech on the priorities for American policy in the Middle East. We applaud his strong outlining of the principles which motivate that policy, including supporting the universal rights of free speech, equality and religious freedom, opposing the use of force and political repression, and promoting political and economic reforms. These are a reflection of American values and promote American interests.

[...]

We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel. [Anti-Defamation League,5/19/11]

Right-Wing Media Hype Conspiracies About Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate

From Media Matters:

Right-wing media have responded to the release of President Obama's original Hawaii birth certificate by embracing conspiracy theories that the document is fake or has been altered.

Right-Wing Media Hype Conspiracy Theories About Obama's Original Birth Certificate

Bolling: "[G]reen Border" On Birth Certificate "Had To Be Photoshopped In." On the April 27 edition of Fox Business' Follow the Money, host Eric Bolling displayed an enlarged version of Obama's birth certificate and stated that a "green border" on the document "had to be Photoshopped in." His guest, Pam Geller, responded by stating, in part, "Well, this whole border is suspect." From Follow the Money:

BOLLING: I need to know this. You see this fold. This has clearly been photocopied from a book. You see that? It kind of folds back to, like, almost like a binding of a book. And then for some reason, there's a green border around it that had to be Photoshopped in. Trying to figure out why they would do that.

GELLER: Well, this whole border is suspect. I mean, if you're taking a scan of something, it would, to your point, it would be white. Why is this the color of the same --

BOLLING: Note this - note this, you guys, April 25, 2011 -- two days ago -- is when this was requested from the state registrar, Alvin Onaka. So we'll keep our eye on it. We'll keep digging. Hey, listen. It may or may not be, but certainly opens up the can of worms that there are at least questions for it.

OK, Pam. Hang on. Let me bring in the rest of our all-star panel. On the left, we have Fox News contributor Tamara Holder; on the right, Dr. Ablow rejoins us, along with Fox News contributor Monica Crowley.

I'm looking at you over there, Tamara. I'm looking at you smirking a little bit. What's wrong? I mean, at least it's certainly -- you have to ask the question, has this been Photoshopped? [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 4/27/11]

Bolling, Geller Conspiracy-Monger About Doctor Who Gave Birth To Obama. From Follow the Money:

BOLLING: Very quickly, Pamela, this doctor right here, the guy who signed it four days after the birth. He passed away, but his wife today, TMZ had his wife saying I had no idea.

She didn't know about it. His son said I had no idea. It came as a complete shock to him as well. If you gave birth to the president of the United States, don't you think your family would know about it?

GELLER: Maybe he doesn't know about it, either. I mean, I think it's very telling that for three years he didn't release it. There's a big question there. We have to say why -- why didn't he release it after three years? [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 4/27/11]

Geller: "This Is Actually Not A Birth Certificate." Also on Follow the Money, Geller claimed that the document the White House released on April 27 is "a certification of a live birth. This is actually not a birth certificate." From Follow the Money:

BOLLING: Pamela, were any of these notation on here - I don't know if our camera can get it in too close --- you can see some of these numbers that are clearly written in handwriting on the side. We don't know what they are. Trying to figure out a zero, a two there, an X up over here, a one up here. Were they on the short form?

GELLER: Look, this is a certification of live birth. When I left the hospital, I left with a birth certificate. I'm sorry, I didn't bring with it me, but it looked very much like Donald Trump's. It's a little piece of paper, you've got the nurse -- you know what I'm talking about? Certificate - you know, birth certificate. This is a certification of a live birth. This is actually not a birth certificate. [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 4/27/11]

Geller Promotes "Layering" Conspiracy Theory, Asks, "[W]hy Release Such An Obvious Forgery?" In an April 27 blog post, Geller promoted a conspiracy theory claiming that Obama's birth certificate "has been cobbled together" in Photoshop. Geller wrote, "And so the question is, why release such an obvious forgery?" From Geller's post, titled, "Layering: Obama's New COLB raises more questions than it answers":

Today, Obama released another copy of his COLB (certification of live birth) -- more here. It looks like another exhaustive digital forensic examination is in order.

And so the question is, why release such an obvious forgery?

Over at Free Republic:

I thought there was something wrong with my computer when I tried to import the .gov's PDF file into Photoshop. But now that I see what you got when you put it in Word, it's the same thing that Photoshop does to it when I import it! It's DEFINITELY a Layered image that has been cobbled together!

Now, why would only the signatures (and just a partial of Stanley Ann Dunham's) come up? It certainly looks as if someone took Obama's Birth Certificate and then cut&pasted it together! [Atlas Shrugs, 4/27/11]

Drudge Promotes Article On Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones' Site Claiming Birth Certificate Is A "Forgery." On April 28, under the headline, "Is it real?" the Drudge Report linked to a story on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' website that claimed the birth certificate released by the White House is a "forgery." From the Drudge Report:

[Drudge Report, 4/28/11; InfoWars.com, 4/28/11]

Hoft Pushes Conspiracy Theory From "Photoshop Expert" That Birth Certificate Is "Such An Obvious Fake." In an April 27 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft touted a conspiracy theory from "Photoshop expert and author of more than 17 books on computer graphics Mara Z." declaring Obama's birth certificate "such an obvious fake." [Gateway Pundit, 4/27/11]

Conservative NRO "Dismissed" "Layering" Conspiracy Theory

NRO: "We Looked Into" PDF Layers Theory And "Dismissed It." In an April 27 post on the conservative National Review Online, Nathan Goulding wrote about the "layer" theory -- which was advanced by Geller and Hoft -- and wrote:

We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That's correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they're being called, aren't layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They're not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

What's plausible is that somewhere along the way -- from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) -- these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What's not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama's birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It's likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let's leave it at that. [NRO, 4/27/11]

In Addition, Doctor Listed On Obama's Birth Certificate Died Years Before Obama Became Famous

Right-Wing Claims That Family Of Obama's Birth Doc Should Have Known He Delivered Obama Undermined By Fact That Doctor Died In 2003. Contrary to Bolling's suggestion that it was odd that the family of Obama's birth doctor didn't know that he had delivered the president, the doctor in question died in 2003, when Obama was a little-known state senator from Illinois. [Media Matters,4/28/11]

Right-Wing Media Trivialize, Dismiss Potential Effects Of A Government Shutdown

From Media Matters:

Right-wing media have recently trivialized or dismissed the potential effects of a federal government shutdown. However, a shutdown could disrupt the economy and many businesses, cause hundreds of thousands of workers to be furloughed, and disrupt numerous public services.

Right-Wing Media Trivialize, Dismiss Potential Effects Of A Shutdown

Wash. Times: If The Government Shuts Down, "Washington Residents And Commuters With Private-Sector Jobs Will Enjoy A Smooth, Traffic-Free Ride In To Work Monday Morning." In an April 7 editorial, The Washington Times wrote that the estimated 800,000 workers who would be furloughed because of a shutdown "will have no choice but to enjoy some time off." The Times further wrote that "Washington residents and commuters with private-sector jobs will enjoy a smooth, traffic-free ride in to work Monday morning." From the Times:

Mostly, this shutdown will affect 800,000 bureaucrats whose jobs aren't related to the safety, security and proper functioning of the government. They will have no choice but to enjoy some time off. Federal workers' unions ensured that conscientious employees would never be allowed to work on a voluntary basis during a shutdown. Ethics rules also prevent most from taking a temporary job in the meantime. The District Department of Employment Services, which handles unemployment claims, promised to announce by Friday afternoon details about how nonessential federal workers might obtain unemployment benefits during the shutdown. Washington residents and commuters with private-sector jobs will enjoy a smooth, traffic-free ride in to work Monday morning.

[...]

It's unfortunate that tourists in the nation's capital won't be able to visit the White House as long as President Obama holds out against trimming a paltry $61 billion from the 2011 budget. It's not clear how many of the affected museum and park visitors would be interested in paying their $6,100 share of the disputed funds to keep things open. Perhaps a shutdown will help some Americans realize that Big Government doesn't come cheaply. More importantly, they may realize that doing without a handful of nonessential services may be a better idea than continuing to add to a near $14.3 trillion debt. [The Washington Times,4/7/11]

IBD: Shutdown Could Be "Enlightening ... People Will Start Catching On That The Country Can Do Without [Bureaucracy]." In an April 7 editorial, Investor's Business Daily wrote that "[a]n indefinite ceasing of nonessential federal activities can be an enlightening event for the public." IBD further wrote: "Let enough time pass without these bloated bureaucracies engaging in their daily waste of the hard-earned money of others and people will start catching on that the country can do without them -- do better without them, in fact." From IBD:

An indefinite ceasing of nonessential federal activities can be an enlightening event for the public. As Fox News' John Stossel pointed out this week, most Americans won't notice that the departments of labor, commerce and agriculture aren't there anymore -- and, as Stossel quipped, "those who would notice shouldn't be getting those handouts anyway."

Considering the devastation that has ravaged the housing sector in the past several years, the disappearance of the Department of Housing and Urban Development should be cheered by the millions of Americans who had their lives turned upside down by intrusive housing policies largely set in motion by Clinton HUD secretary, now New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Let enough time pass without these bloated bureaucracies engaging in their daily waste of the hard-earned money of others and people will start catching on that the country can do without them -- do better without them, in fact. [Investor's Business Daily, 4/7/11]

Carlson: "The Public Needs To Be Let In On A Little Secret: We Can Survive" A Government Shutdown. On the March 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson noted some services that would be affected by a government shutdown and stated: "They've done a study to show that the public needs to be let in on a little secret: We can survive when the government shuts down for a short period of time. We can survive." She continued: "And that, I think, would raise a lot of questions about whether or not there's bloating in the federal government." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/2/11]

Doocy: Shutdown Could Make Americans Realize "They Don't Really Need That Gigantic A Mechanism." Later on the March 2 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) that "some Democrats worry that if there was a shutdown that barely affected the everyday lives of a lot of people, that would reinforce your argument on the conservative side that a lot of government is wasteful, and they don't really need that gigantic a mechanism." [Fox & Friends, 3/2/11]

Varney And Crowley Insist Voters Would Love A Government Shutdown. From the February 17 edition of Fox Business Network's Varney & Co.:

STUARY VARNEY (host): I'm sorry, I've got one more point, and I must raise it. The conventional wisdom is that if you shut the government down like Newt Gingrich did back in the 90s, you lose politically. I'm saying that's nonsense. I think you could shut the government down right now and voters would love you.

MONICA CROWLEY (Fox News contributor): I think the American people would like to see the government shut down at least temporarily. And you know my evidence for this? November's election. November's election came around, voters gave Republicans control of the House, bigger numbers in the U.S. Senate. Why? They want gridlock, they want our politicians to stop "helping us." Stop doing things, stop spending. [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 2/17/11]

But A Shutdown Could Hurt Many Businesses And Workers

NYT: "The Federal Government Is, After All, A Very Big Business, And Temporarily Pulling The Plug Would Disrupt Many Other Businesses." In an April 7 article, The New York Times wrote that "[e]conomists are divided as to how much the shutdown would rattle the economy" but also noted that "[t]he federal government is, after all, a very big business, and temporarily pulling the plug would disrupt many other businesses." From the Times:

It's not just an estimated 800,000 federal employees who would feel the financial pinch of a government shutdown.

Among the people anxiously waiting to hear if Congress can reach a budget deal are front desk clerks at the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite National Park, manufacturing executives whose companies supply goods to federal agencies, bank loan officers who make mortgages guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration and Wall Street analysts who depend on a steady flow of government data.

The federal government is, after all, a very big business, and temporarily pulling the plug would disrupt many other businesses. [The New York Times, 4/7/11]

NYT: "At The National Parks, Many Of The Hotels And Restaurants Are Operated By Private Concerns That Will Most Likely Suspend Some Workers If The Parks Are Closed." The Timesfurther reported on April 7:

At the national parks, many of the hotels and restaurants are operated by private concerns that will most likely suspend some workers if the parks are closed. Without their weekly paychecks, those employees could tighten their belts, causing further fallout for grocery stores or other retailers who may see sales slow.

In Yosemite, for example, Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts operates four hotels with 972 rooms and 13 restaurants. A company spokeswoman, Lisa Cesaro, said that if the shutdown continued beyond the weekend, all lodging and food operations would close, and workers would be forced to take vacation time or unpaid leave, right as peak season was starting. [The New York Times, 4/7/11]

NYT: "[S]hutdown Could Also Make It Harder For Lower-Income Families To Get Mortgage Loans." The Times further reported:

The shutdown could also make it harder for lower-income families to get mortgage loans because the Federal Housing Administration would suspend its guarantee program. The F.H.A. guaranteed about 21 percent of new mortgage loans in 2010, federal data shows.

Shaun Donovan, the housing secretary, said on Thursday that he feared some lenders would stop making new F.H.A. loans, or prevent closings by reneging on loan approvals. "This is the worst time that we could introduce that uncertainty into this fragile housing market," Mr. Donovan told a Senate subcommittee.

Lenders do not need to obtain guarantees at the time a loan is made. Wells Fargo and Bank of America, by far the biggest F.H.A. lenders, said that they would continue to make the loans and simply wait to obtain guarantees -- at least as long as the shutdown remained fairly brief. But JPMorgan Chase said that it would not make new F.H.A. loans during a shutdown, although it emphasized that loans already approved would not be affected. [The New York Times, 4/7/11]

Wash. Post: If Furloughed Workers Don't Receive Back Pay, Economists Say Damage Of Shutdown "Would Be Compounded As Many Families Pulled Back On Spending." The Washington Post reported on April 6:

The economic effects of a government shutdown could be significant in the Washington region and nationally if the impasse continues for several weeks, some economists said.

The impact would depend on the closure's duration and on whether furloughed federal employees were eventually paid for their time out of work, as they were after the last shutdown, 15 years ago. If the estimated 800,000 workers did not receive back pay, the damage would be compounded as many families pulled back on spending, economists said. [The Washington Post, 4/6/11]

Wash. Post: "[T]here Is No Guarantee That Furloughed Workers Will Receive Back Pay." ThePost reported on April 6:

The 1995-96 shutdown appears to have had immediate but short-lived effects. An index of Washington's economic health maintained by the Center for Regional Analysis fell from 100 to 94. It came right back up after the shutdown, however, when government workers returned to work and received back pay.

This time, there is no guarantee that furloughed workers will receive back pay.

There are about 370,000 federal employees in the Washington area, though it is not known how many of them would be furloughed.

"I don't think the chances of federal workers' reimbursement are very high right now," said Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), who scheduled an emergency town meeting for Thursday in Alexandria. "This is different from what it was in '95. Then I thought it was the worst it was ever going to get. Many of those in the [Republican] majority have no intention of reimbursing workers." [The Washington Post, 4/6/11]

Economists: Prolonged Shutdown Could Have "Meaningful" Effect On Economy

Zandi: Economic Effect Of Prolonged Shutdown "Would Be Meaningful." On March 2, Politicoreported:

"If it is a short government shutdown on par with 1995, the fallout would probably be modest," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "There will be some economic impact, but it would be quickly made up down the road. But if it were more than a couple of weeks -- if it dragged on for a month -- that would be meaningful, especially in terms of sentiment. People are still very much on edge right now." [Politico, 3/2/11]

Wash. Post: If Shutdown Is Prolonged, "It Will Have Negative Consequences On The Economy And Not All Of The Losses Will Be Recovered." In the April 6 Post article, Stephen Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis, stated that if the shutdown is "shorter than a week, the economic impact is no worse than a snowstorm," but "[i]f it lasts longer, it will have negative consequences on the economy and not all of the losses will be recovered." [The Washington Post, 4/6/11]

AEI's Swagel: Shutdown "Would Be A Disruption That I Think Would Set Back Our Recovery."In a February 28 ABC News article, Phillip Swagel, former assistant Treasury secretary and now a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that a shutdown "would be a disruption that I think would set back our recovery." From the ABC News article:

But a government shutdown could hurt consumer confidence and further roil already volatile financial markets. Some experts say it could even set back economic recovery, especially if prolonged.

[...]

The financial and economic impact is likely to be much greater. Stock markets could take a hit, and people are likely to tighten their pocketbooks even further amid increased anxiety.

A shutdown "would matter tremendously but not for the reason of people not getting back their checks issued," said Phillip Swagel, former assistant Treasury secretary and now a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "It impacts consumer spending, business investment. If there's no confidence, people will stop spending, businesses will stop hiring. We have an economy that's fine but it's still pretty fragile. It would be a disruption that I think would set back our recovery."

Consumer confidence is important because it shows how much faith Americans have in their government.

"It would just show Americans that our government isn't really equipped to come to agreements and really handle the challenges facing the country," Swagel added. [ABC News, 2/28/11]

Goldman Sachs Report: "A Shutdown Lasting More Than A Week Could Be Meaningful." ABC News further reported that a recent Goldman Sachs report "estimated that while the potential for a shutdown does not present a major risk, for each week the federal government is closed, federal spending would reduce by around $8 billion, and could reduce real GDP growth by as much as 0.8 percentage point at an annualized rate in the quarter it occurred." The Goldman Sachs report further stated that a "shutdown lasting more than a week could be meaningful." [ABC News, 2/28/11, 2/23/11]

Bloomberg: "The Housing Market Could Be Hampered Even Further By A Shutdown."Bloomberg Businessweek reported that "[t]he housing market could be hampered even further by a shutdown" and noted that in 1995-96, "the government closed the Federal Housing Administration, which insures mortgages, delaying 10,000 home loans that totaled $800 million." From Bloomberg Businessweek:

The housing market could be hampered even further by a shutdown. In 1995 and 1996, the government closed the Federal Housing Administration, which insures mortgages, delaying 10,000 home loans that totaled $800 million.

The FHA's importance has grown significantly since private mortgage insurers were slammed in the subprime mortgage crisis. The FHA insured about 13 percent of the value of single-family home purchases in the past year, double its market share during the 1995 fiscal year. An FHA spokesman declined to comment on how a shutdown would affect the agency. [Bloomberg Businessweek, 2/24/11]

OMB: 1995-96 Shutdowns Cost Economy About $1.4 Billion. On February 22, Slate reported that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated that the 1995-1996 government shutdowns -- which lasted for a combined 27 days -- "cost the economy about $1.4 billion." [Slate, 2/22/11]

Shutdown Could Disrupt Some Social Security, Tax Services

Shutdown Could Cause Some Delays In Social Security Payments. As U.S. News noted: "If the government shuts down, Social Security payments would probably still go out, but there could be delays and new claims may be not be processed. In the 1995 government shutdown, Social Security eventually recalled more employees to help with the backlog of new applications as the stoppage dragged on." [U.S. News and World Report, 2/25/11]

U.S. News: "If The IRS Is Forced To Scale Down To A Skeleton Crew, Tax Refunds Could Be Delayed." U.S. News further reported:

Unlike the 1995 shutdown, this standoff is happening just as Americans are beginning to file their tax returns. If the IRS is forced to scale down to a skeleton crew, tax refunds could be delayed, and the IRS won't be able to help if filers need advice. But just because the IRS is stalled doesn't mean that you won't face a penalty if you fail to file before the April 18 deadline. [U.S. News and World Report, 2/25/11]

Additionally, Washington, D.C., "Would Be Hit Hard" By A Shutdown

Wash. Post: D.C. "Would Be Hit Hard," "Face $1.5 Million To $5.5 Million In Losses Per Week."The Washington Post reported that Washington, D.C., "considered in a shutdown to be a federal agency, would face $1.5 million to $5.5 million in losses per week." The Post further detailed other potential effects of a shutdown for D.C. residents:

The shutdown will begin on Saturday morning if no budget agreement is reached.

The District would be hit hard.

The city, considered in a shutdown to be a federal agency, would face $1.5 million to $5.5 million in losses per week.

Along with trash collection, most parking enforcement would be suspended, and D.C. libraries and Department of Motor Vehicles offices would be closed.

Street sweeping would be suspended for the duration of a shutdown, city officials said. Trash pickup could resume, because federal shutdown laws permit government services that deal with property and public safety, they said. But that wouldn't happen for at least a week.

"That'll be a treat, won't it?" Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) remarked sarcastically about possible piles of trash around the city.

He said he thinks the potential shutdown is more evidence of the unfair treatment of the District by Congress.

"This is a concrete example of what it means to be treated like a second-class citizen," he said.

Public and charter schools would remain open, but the University of the District of Columbia would close.

Police, firefighters and emergency medical technicians would remain on duty. The Board of Elections and Ethics would maintain its staff to prepare for the April 26 special election. [The Washington Post, 4/7/11]

Greater Washington Board Of Trade Official: "This Is Coming At A Terrible Time, When The Economic Recovery Is Still Fragile." From an April 6 Washington Post article:

About 11 percent of the Washington area workforce is employed by the U.S. government, according to the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and about a third of the region's economy is dependent on it.

In a survey of businesses by the Greater Washington Board of Trade, about 71 percent of respondents said they were concerned or very concerned about a federal government shutdown.

"This is coming at a terrible time, when the economic recovery is still fragile," said Matt Erskine, senior vice president at the Greater Washington Board of Trade. [The Washington Post, 4/6/11]

1995-96 Shutdowns Affected Thousands Of Workers, Disrupted Numerous Services

Thousands Of Federal Workers Were Furloughed. Slate reported on February 22: "In the first shutdown, 800,000 workers stopped heading into the office. In the second, about 284,000 stayed at home, with an additional 475,000 working on 'non-pay status.'" U.S. News and World Report noted that while Congress later voted to "pay back federal employees for the time they were furloughed ... [i]t's not clear, in the current political environment, whether lawmakers would make the same decision." [Slate,2/22/11; U.S. News and World Report, 2/25/11]

Bloomberg: Shutdowns Caused "11 States And The District Of Columbia To Stop Providing Unemployment Benefits." Noting the effects of the 1995-96 shutdowns, Bloomberg reported that "[a] shortage of federal funds eventually led 11 states and the District of Columbia to stop providing unemployment benefits when they couldn't or wouldn't fill the gap with their own funds." From Bloomberg Businessweek:

A shortage of federal funds eventually led 11 states and the District of Columbia to stop providing unemployment benefits when they couldn't or wouldn't fill the gap with their own funds. Other benefits were slowed or stopped entirely: Veterans stopped receiving some payments, including insurance death claims and checks for education provided by the GI Bill. Delays hit recipients of federal welfare programs and adoption-assistance services, along with children in foster care and in the Head Start early childhood program. The Bureau of Indian Affairs closed, cutting off assistance payments to 53,000 people, while about 25,000 American Indians also stopped receiving checks for oil and gas royalties. [Bloomberg Businessweek, 2/24/11]

OMB Outlines Effects Of 1995-96 Shutdown On Public Services. In a February 18 report, OMB detailed effects that the 1995-96 shutdowns had on the public, which included disruptions in health, recreations, and veterans services:

• Health. New patients were not accepted into clinical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinical center; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ceased disease surveillance; hotline calls to NIH concerning diseases were not answered; and toxic waste clean-up work at 609 sites reportedly stopped and resulted in 2,400 Superfund workers being sent home.

• Law Enforcement and Public Safety. Delays occurred in the processing of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives applications by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; work on more than 3,500 bankruptcy cases reportedly was suspended; cancellation of the recruitment and testing of federal law enforcement officials reportedly occurred, including the hiring of 400 border patrol agents; and delinquent child-support cases were delayed.

• Parks, Museums, and Monuments. Closure of 368 National Park Service sites (loss of 7 million visitors) reportedly occurred, with loss of tourism revenues to local communities; and closure of national museums and monuments (reportedly with an estimated loss of 2 million visitors) occurred.

• Visas and Passports. Approximately 20,000-30,000 applications by foreigners for visas reportedly went unprocessed each day; 200,000 U.S. applications for passports reportedly went unprocessed; and U.S. tourist industries and airlines reportedly sustained millions of dollars in losses

• American Veterans. Multiple services were curtailed, ranging from health and welfare to finance and travel.

• Federal Contractors. Of $18 billion in Washington, DC, area contracts, $3.7 billion (over 20%) reportedly were affected adversely by the funding lapse; the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was unable to issue a new standard for lights and lamps that was scheduled to be effective January 1, 1996, possibly resulting in delayed product delivery and lost sales; and employees of federal contractors reportedly were furloughed without pay. [OMB, 2/18/11]