By now everyone has seen this propaganda piece put out by the NRA claiming that the Obama girls have armed guards at their school. There's only one problem: That claim isn't true. Shame, shame, NRA, for living in such a deep silo you actually relied on a Breitbart.com report without any fact checking.
"[The] school Obama's daughters attend has 11 armed guards," the longer ad's narrator says, citing an article from Breitbart.com.
But a fact-check by the Washington Post found that not to be the case. The Postcalled the school, Sidwell Friends, where Obama's daughters attend and asked if the school had armed guards. The school responded that none of their 11 security members carry any firearms.
But where did the myth of armed guards at Obama's school come from?
A quick search found that the first post about it came from the Weekly Standard's blog. A post by Daniel Halper said that the school — attended by both Obama's and David Gregory's children — had 11 armed guards on staff, citing the 11 members of the security team. The error by the site presuming the security at the Quaker school was armed led to the NRA's two incorrect ads.
Well, yes, it led to them. But the NRA cited an article at Breitbart.com in their longer propaganda piece. Here's the screenshot:
But moreover, Americans aren't choosing divided government. Politicians are making sure that we have no other choice by gerrymandering:
Based on ThinkProgress’ review of all ballots counted so far, 53,952,240 votes were cast for a Democratic candidate for the House and only 53,402,643 were cast for a Republican — meaning that Democratic votes exceed Republican votes by more than half a million.[..]
The actual partisan breakdown of the 113th Congress will be very different, however. Currently, Republicans enjoy a 233-192 advantage over Democrats, with 10 seats remaining undecided. That means that, in a year when Republicans earned less than half the popular vote, they will control a little under 54 percent of the House even if Democrats run the table on the undecided seats. There is a simple explanation for how this happened: Republicans won several key state legislatures and governors’ mansions in the election cycle before redistricting, and they gerrymandered those states within an inch of their lives.
The sad truth is that the Republicans have ensured that they will have a majority in Congress for many years. But not because Americans want it. They'll have it because they make the rules they play by and change it for their convenience.
Author and "vlogbrother" John Green breaks it down:
Every time RMoney's tax-cut and federal-deficit plan is brought up by himself or his surrogates, you hear the line about five to six studies being done that prove their numbers are correct. In David's post on Video Cafe, Paul Ryan matter-of-factly states that Congress ran his numbers along with five other studies and they categorically prove his numbers are awesome.
Wallace: Let's assume the math doesn't add up.
Ryan: First of all I've run the numbers, I've run them in Congress, they do. We've got about five other studies that show you can do it this way.
Haven't you wondered what studies the GOP's been talking about? And remember, a study isn't a blog post at, say, the WSJ's op-ed page -- in this case, it's usually an economist taking their time and looking at all the facts as they are and then scoring them. That's how its been framed by Mittens, the Granny Killer and the rest of the GOP, so why would you even bother to check, right?
Josh Barro at Bloomberg News did and wound up calling them out for lyin' about the numbers, which in turn made Team RMoney very cranky.
Josh Barro claims to be able to show what the Obama campaign has struggled to prove -- namely, that Governor Mitt Romney’s tax plan doesn’t add up. Barro rests his case on the Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income report for 2009, claiming to apply Governor Romney’s plan to those statistics and coming to the conclusion that his plan, as currently constituted, cannot work.There’s just one problem; Barro isn’t the first person to analyze Governor Romney’s tax plan using IRS data from 2009.
In fact, Harvey Rosen, the John L. Weinberg Professor of economics and business policy at Princeton University and a public finance expert, also based his analysis on the same data but came to the opposite conclusion. Governor Romney’s tax plan works and the math adds up.In fact, no fewer than six independent studies have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan. Rather than wasting time trying to discredit the proposals of the Republican nominee, perhaps Mr. Barro and other journalists should investigate President Obama’s tax reform package. Or, more accurately, his lack of one.Jonathan BurksDeputy Policy DirectorRomney for President
And when Joseph Smith's commandos are caught lyin' bout the numbers, they make sure to throw in the word 'independent' to make their studies claim seem more realistic. Barro responds and completely eviscerates them:
The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as "analyses," since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I'm not hating -- I blog for a living -- but I don't generally describe my posts as "studies."
Wait, you mean Romney did use a blog post from the op-ed page of the WSJ and claimed it was a study proving the validity of his tax plan? Heavens to Betsy. You can read the whole post here, because he takes apart all the studies err, I mean, bogus information that is being supplied for Team RMoney/Granny Killer.
Paul Ryan finally had enough time to go through the math of the Romney tax plan during the vice-presidential debate. He didn't use it. Ryan filibustered instead. About the most specific he got was citing "six studies" he said vindicate the plan's mathematical plausibility.
Except they don't...read on
Basically, the propaganda being used to defend Romney only proves that his numbers don't work. It all raises a last question: Where is his own study? You know, the one that they used to verify their plan?
Finally, I would note one item that the Romney campaign does not cite in support of its tax plan: Any analysis actually prepared for the campaign in preparation for announcing the plan in February. You would expect that, in advance of announcing a tax plan, the campaign would commission an analysis to make sure that all of its planks can coexist. Releasing that analysis now would be to the campaign's advantage, helping them put down claims like mine that their math doesn't add up.
Why don't they release that analysis? My guess is because the analysis doesn't exist, and the 20 percent rate cut figure was plucked out of thin air for political reasons without regard to whether it was feasible.
Please, where is Romney's analysis? President Obama and Democrats have argued that Romney will have to raise taxes on the middle class to cut into the deficit and lower taxes for the rich, they are right. In the next debate it would be wise for Obama to ask Romney to explain away his lyin' 'independent studies' claims. There was a time when smirks and gestures weren't the most important part of debate, so let's get back to the facts, please.
Oops! This slipup by Mike Huckabee accidentally reveals the truth about our favorite non-news channel. In this clip, he declares that the nation would think Barack Obama was doing just fine if it weren't for Fox News. Boy howdy, I'll bet he feels like a weight has lifted from his shoulders after that confession.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) had an oops moment on his radio show Monday, and this one’s going to leave a mark.Speaking about America’s media landscape in general, Huckabee suggested that without Fox News acting as a counterweight to “mainstream media,” most Americans “will assume that Obama really is just doing a great job and he just can’t get those crazy Republicans to help him out.”
Why yes, Pastor Huckabee. That happens to be the truth, right there, falling out of your mouth without so much as a second thought. Not only that, but without Fox News, our population would be smarter, more well-informed, and less prone to extreme, ridiculous thoughts about birth certificates and such.
When I first saw this image on Facebook, I wasn't sure how on earth Fox News could have killed someone's mother. And then I read the message that went with the photo. Tracy Knauss posted it on his Facebook page along with a message which said in part:
I know this personally. FOX News killed my precious mother, Hallie. She watched FOX religiously. And when she fell ten days before she died, she refused to go to the doctor because, "I don't want Obamacare to get all of my information! she declared, recalling the warnings from FOX News "anchors." She was emphatic. She was not going to consort with the muslim enemy. As she made out her will she told her lawyer, "I don't want any of my money going to the Muslim Brotherhood!" And her last protestation dealt with "Obama's death panels." Mother died just days later. I hold FOX News responsible for my mother's death.
Hallie Jean Mayes Knauss Culpepper passed away on February 16, 2012. Ten days earlier, she had fallen, but as Knauss says, refused to see a doctor. Her obituary notes that she was a "lifelong, dyed-in-the-wool Republican" who at one time had also been a business owner (TECO Products, now Griffin Products).
And it seems, she got her news from Fox. It's not hard to understand where she got the idea that "Obamacare" had death panels. Just three days before Mrs. Culpepper's death, they were stillcalling them death panels. Republicans have been working hard (with the cooperation of some turncoat Democrats) to repeal that board, which is really the last best hope we have for keeping Medicare out of the crosshairs of budget hawks.