GOP "Bear Trap"

After the historic Nov. 2nd 2010 Election, where the GOP took 60+ seats in the House and 6, maybe 7 seats in the Senate, their was a huge Bear Trap set for the GOP.

According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 27-30, 2010. the Question asked was "Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today:

The economy, jobs 52%
The federal budget deficit 8%
Education 8%
Health care 8%
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 8%
Illegal immigration 8%
Terrorism 4%
Energy and environmental policies 4%

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell laid out the GOP plan for the Country. Repeal Heathcare (8%), that's the Bait for The Bear Trap. Now this trap is not covered with Leaves or brush, it's out in the open. The American people and even people in the GOP are saying work on The economy and jobs (52%) or The Bear Trap (The American people) will slam shut on the GOP in 2012.

Check all the polls, ask your friends, watch your favorite political TV shows. They all say the same, It's The economy and jobs. At this point in time the American people are concerned more about paying for groceries tomorrow and bills at the end of the month then Repeal Heathcare or making Obama a one-term president. Does Mitch McConnell and GOP think that we are going to wait 2 more years? Are you Kidding!

Be warned Washington, you don't run this country, WE THE PEOPLE run this country. If you don't get together, get jobs and improve this economy, their will be another wave hitting Washington with Obama riding on top all the way to the White House.

California GOP candidate blames Obama health care bill for "skyrocketing" health costs

"Taxpayer-funded benefits to illegals" in California are "a skyrocketing cost under Obamacare."
Steve Poizner on Saturday, April 10th, 2010 in a campaign commercial

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, http://politifact.com/ Click here for Full Story.

Steve Poizner is the state insurance commissioner of California and a Republican candidate for governor.

One ad, aired by Poizner beginning in April, argues that "like Schwarzenegger," Whitman "will continue taxpayer-funded benefits to illegals. A skyrocketing cost under Obamacare."

The federal bill expands Medicaid eligibility to all Americans earning up to 133 percent of the poverty line. "This will lead to more illegal immigrants enrolling, because California provides a version of Medicaid to illegal immigrants,"

But it's wrong to assume that illegal immigrants will qualify for full-blown Medicaid in California. In fact, the only entitlement they get from Medicaid is emergency care in hospitals, which is already mandatory under federal law and was not changed by the newly passed health care bill. These limited benefits are available to any illegal immigrant who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid were it not for their immigration status. (Illegal immigrants can also qualify for Medicaid benefits for long-term care, but it's not an entitlement -- coverage is provided only to the extent that legislators and the governor agree to fund the program, and there's no federal match.)

Right now, emergency care for illegal immigrants in California is paid by the state and local government. To the extent that more illegal immigrants will now qualify for California's version of Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal) and use emergency hospital services, the only difference will be a shift of payment responsibility from one state or local account to another. (Whether the federal government will continue to pick up part of the cost for treating illegal immigrants using Medi-Cal -- as the federal government does today -- is unclear, given the new bill's language.)

The new federal law specifically prevents illegal immigrants from benefitting, and most of the additional indirect costs that might be expected from expanding the Medicaid rolls are already being paid in California by different state or local government accounts. For these reasons, the phrase "a skyrocketing cost under Obamacare" is a gross exaggeration.

So Steve Poizner --- Are you Kidding?

Michael Savage says Kagan is a Marxist

Elena Kagan is "a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."
Michael Savage on Monday, May 10th, 2010 in his website

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, http://politifact.com/ Click here for Full Story.

Michael Savage is a conservative radio commentator, and host of  "The Michael Savage Show," which is syndicated in over 300 U.S. markets. He is also the author of 25 books, including four New York Times bestsellers.

"Now the empty skirts in the media are saying that she doesn't have much of a 'paper trail' that would reveal her views on issues," said conservative radio commentator Michael Savage, "but her senior thesis at Princeton was entitled, 'To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933.' She's a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."

The question is not whether Kagan wrote the paper. It's available to anyone who's willing to pay the Princeton University Library $54.60 to read it.

The question is whether the thesis reveals Kagan to be "a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."

Insight into why Kagan selected that topic is in the acknowledgements at the start of the paper, where she wrote, "Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."

The rest of the paper is an examination of why the socialist party never took off. Kagan focused on the socialist party in New York City as a microcosm of the national movement, and sought to answer the central question, "What caused the strange death of socialism in New York City?"

And, she concludes, "The socialists' failure to maintain their momentum grew from their failure ever to achieve internal harmony."

Yet there's nothing in her record that suggests she's a Marxist, as Savage claimed. Yes, she wrote a paper about socialism in college. But she never said in the thesis that she subscribed to the political ideas of socialism. In fact, she mostly adopts the dispassionate tone of a historian. And there's certainly nothing in the public record to suggest she has since become one. Writing a history thesis about socialism doesn't amount to endorsing it.

So once again, we have a political commentator attacking someone as a "Marxist" with absolutely no evidence to back it up. That's not just false, it's irresponsibly.


So Michael Savage --- Are you Kidding?

Schultz claims that Landrieu got $1.8 million in BP PAC and employee contributions

"Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu received almost $1.8 million from BP over the last decade."
Ed Schultz on Wednesday, May 5th, 2010 in a broadcast of the Ed Show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Ed Schultz is the host of the Ed Show on MSNBC

Here's what Ed Schultz, the liberal host of MSNBC's Ed Show, had to say about her share of the money:

"Americans are getting a real education on what the color of oil is," Schultz said on the May 5, 2010, episode of his show. "It's green. It's real green. It's big money and influence. Just so you know what's coming down, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu received almost $1.8 million from BP over the last decade."

Checking that figure against data from OpenSecrets.org, a website that tracks campaign contributions. Between 2000 and 2009, BP employees and the company's political action committee contributed $25,200 to Landrieu. And since Landrieu was elected to Congress in 1996, BP employees and the company's political action committee have given her a total of $28,200. (So far, Landrieu hasn't received any money from the company's workers or PAC in 2010, so we excluded that year from our analysis.)

Schultz issued his own correction on May 12.

"In recent days we have been reporting on this program on two different occasions that Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana had taken $1.8 million from BP," he said. "I want to come off the top tonight and correct that number. It is $752,000... I want all of you to know our apologies from me, Ed Schultz, on this. I don‘t like getting my numbers wrong."

But Schultz did get the numbers wrong - again.

Landrieu has received $752,744 from all the oil and gas industry's political action committees and employees -- not just BP -- during her entire career. Schultz initially said that Landrieu had received $1.8 million from BP in the last decade, so his "correction" is wrong.

Schultz repeatedly claimed that Landrieu had made $1.8 million from BP employees and PAC in campaign contributions over the last decade. We found that she's only made $25,200 from them in that period of time. That's a huge difference. Schultz eventually issued a correction, saying that Landrieu's only gotten $752,000. But Landrieu has received about that much during her entire career from the entire oil and gas industry, not just BP's political action committee and employees.

So Ed Schultz --- Are you Kidding?

Landrieu says Louisiana doesn't get "one single penny" from offshore drilling

Louisiana gets "not one single penny" from Gulf Coast offshore oil revenues.
Mary Landrieu on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 in an interview with MSNBC's Ed Schultz

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Mary Landrieu is a Democratic U.S. Senator from Louisiana.

Landrieu, who has often been an advocate for the energy industry in the Senate, told the liberal talk show host,Ed Schultz, "I can promise you, no one's going to let the industry skid. We're going to make BP pay. And, I might say, and you know because you've heard me say this before, when will America realize that the Gulf Coast states need revenue-sharing? Do you know how much money the federal treasury gets from this industry every year? An average of $5 billion. Do you know how much money Louisiana gets? Not one single penny."

It's a bit complicated, but the truth is the state makes millions. Here's the breakdown:

• For the first 3 miles out from the shoreline, Louisiana -- like other states -- gets to keep 100 percent of any royalties produced by oil and gas drilling. In the most recent year available, 2008, this amounted to $275 million.

• Between 3 and 6 miles from the shoreline -- a federally owned band formally known as the 8(g) area -- the federal government sends 27 percent of the royalties to Louisiana. The reasoning is that federal drilling in this area sucks out some of the oil from deposits that span the 3-mile dividing line between state and federal ownership, so these payments are meant to compensate for the lost revenue to states. In 2009, they totaled $22 million and they're estimated to be $32 million this year.

• Beyond 6 miles from the shoreline is considered federal territory. For new drilling projects, states get a 37.5 percent share directly to their treasuries and an additional 12.5 percent for state land and water conservation fund projects. The 37.5 percent figure alone amounted to $6.3 million for Louisiana's treasury in 2009, with additional estimated amounts of $558,000 in 2010 and $476,000 in 2011.

The grand total that Louisiana receives in a typical year is difficult to compute because of big variations in oil prices and other factors, but it's safe in saying it's in the tens of millions of dollars every year, and depending on how you slice the numbers, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. Either way, it's not accurate to say that Louisiana received "not one single penny," as Landrieu did.


So Mary Landrieu --- Are you Kidding?

Reid claims O'Connor had no previous judicial experience

On Sandra Day O'Connor: "I think one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience" before she joined the Supreme Court.
Harry Reid on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 in a speech on the Senate floor

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Harry Reid is the Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate and a Democrat from Nevada

"One of my favorite Supreme Court Justices in recent years has been Sandra Day O’Connor, not because she’s a Republican, but because she was a good judge. I think one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience," Reid said on May 11, 2010.

O'Connor, who retired from the court 2005, also had a variety of jobs, serving as Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California, and as an Arizona state senator.

In 1975, O'Connor was elected a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, where she served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, according to her biography on the U.S. Supreme Court Web site. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated O'Connor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

So, O'Connor had six years of judicial experience before she was nominated for a seat on the highest court.

So Harry Reid --- Are you Kidding?

Sanders says U.S. doubles every other country in per capita health spending

"We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth."
Bernie Sanders on Wednesday, August 19th, 2009 in an appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Bernie Sanders is a Senator from Vermont who is an independent but who caucuses with Democrats.

On the Aug. 19, 2009, Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Sanders responded to a question about corporate interests' role in the health care reform debate by saying, "We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth. And there is a reason why the insurance companies, year after year, make huge profits and pay their CEOs tens and tens of millions of dollars in compensation salaries. And the reason for that is that these guys exert enormous influence over the political process in Washington."

Using statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group that represents 30 wealthier, industrialized countries, most of them in Europe and North America. In 2007, the OECD said that the United States spent $7,290 per capita on health care, ranking it first among the 30 countries studied. Five other nations spent more than $3,645 per capita, the point at which the United States no longer doubles their spending. The highest is the Netherlands at $4,417. The other four were Austria, Canada, Norway and Switzerland.

Sanders would have been on completely firm ground had he simply said, "We spend more per capita on health care than any other nation on Earth." But instead he said "twice as much."

So Bernie Sanders --- Are you Kidding?

Brewer says Arizona immigration law rewrite 'lays to rest' worries about racial profiling

Late changes to the Arizona immigration law "lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling."
Jan Brewer on Friday, April 30th, 2010 in a news release

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Jan Brewer, a Republican, is the governor of Arizona.

The new version of the law says: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

The prior version had said that an official "may not solely consider race" in such circumstances.

The change appears to limit the scope of the law. The previous wording left open the possibility that race could be used as a factor -- just not the sole factor -- in deciding to stop someone.

The Arizona law, even in its revised version, sets up a clash of constitutional principles that could be fought over in the courts for years to come. Indeed, the law almost demands court involvement by expressly authorizing police to consider race “to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution" -- something that is far from nailed down.

For defendants who feel they were stopped unfairly due to racial profiling, it may be virtually impossible to show, at least for many months if not several years" that the police made their decision illegally on racial or ethnic grounds.

The late changes do bolster Brewer's contention that the law prohibits racial profiling. But our legal experts say that it is far from the done deal that she suggests. There are simply too many legal loose ends to be settled in court to be able to say that the late changes to the law will "lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling," as Brewer put it.


So Jan Brewer --- Are you Kidding?

Hayworth says he's forced John McCain to drop amnesty for illegal immigrants

"Up until two weeks ago, John McCain was a leading proponent of amnesty. Now with me challenging him, suddenly he has changed."
J.D. Hayworth on Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 in an interview on the Fox Business Network

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

J.D. Hayworth is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and host of a conservative talk radio show. He is running for the Senate against Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary.

Back in 2007, McCain made waves by pushing an immigration reform bill that would have created a pathway to citizenship for those in the U.S. illegally. Such a plan has been unpopular with many Republicans, who frequently criticize it for providing "amnesty" to illegal aliens.

McCain was long against the idea of sending National Guard troops to the border. In 2001, he told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly that it was a bad idea because troops are not trained for the job. He solidified his change of heart on March 26, 2009, when he posted a statement on his Web site that said, given violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, "I support sending National Guard troops to assist with securing our southern border and stemming the flow of violence spilling over into the United States."

He reiterated that stance during a field hearing in Phoenix on Monday, April 20, 2009. And exactly a year later, McCain joined with fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl to introduce a 10-point plan to secure the border. The proposal includes sending 3,000 National Guard troops to the border, but says nothing about a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

McCain was once a vocal proponent of a pathway to citizenship. And for years, he rejected the idea of sending more National Guard troops to the border. But during the 2008 campaign, he started to shift his stance on the issue, saying that securing the border was his first priority. We found that he's maintained that stance since 2008, most recently with a new plan that would send 3,000 National Guard troops to the border. All the while, McCain has never fully backed away from further immigration reform.

There is nothing to substantiate Hayworth's claim that, "Up until two weeks ago, John McCain was a leading proponent of amnesty. Now with me challenging him, suddenly he has changed." And his campaign could point to no solid evidence to back him up. In fact, McCain started favoring border security over a pathway to citizenship years ago, long before Hayworth was a contender.

So J.D. Hayworth --- Are you Kidding?

Issa says oil royalties trail only taxes in generating revenue for the federal government

Royalties for oil and other energy sources are the "second-largest revenue source to the federal government after the IRS."
Darrell Issa on Tuesday, May 4th, 2010 in an interview with Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Darrell Issa is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California.

In a May 4, 2010, interview with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., suggested that there may be a conflict of interest between the government's reliance on revenue from oil leases and its need to be a tough regulator. He focused on the Minerals Management Service, an office within the Interior Department that handles royalties, rents and other revenues from oil, natural gas and coal on federal land or in federal waters.

First, let's look at how much money MMS brings in.

For the most recent year -- 2009 -- MMS says it received $7.6 billion in combined royalties for oil, natural gas and coal, plus roughly $2.3 billion more in other revenues, for a total of $9.9 billion.

Here are a number of revenue sources collected by agencies other than IRS that seemed to qualify:

• Deposit of earnings from the Federal Reserve System (deposited by the Fed): $34.3 billion

• Alcohol and tobacco taxes (collected by the Treasury Deptartment's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Bureau): $22.7 billion

• Customs duties (collected by Customs and Border Protection): $21.3 billion

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. insurance premiums and recoveries (collected by the FDIC): $20.5 billion

• Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund (collected by the Commerce Department): $16.7 billion

• Energy sales by the Tennessee Valley Authority (collected by TVA): $11.1 billion

This would rank MMS no higher than eighth among entities generating revenue for the government.



So Darrell Issa --- Are you Kidding?

Bloggers claim photo shows millions at "tea party" protest

Photo of "tea party" protests shows crowd sprawling from Capitol to Washington Monument
Bloggers on Saturday, September 12th, 2009 in conservative blogs

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

So supporters of September 12th “tea party” protests against President Barack Obama were quick to highlight their big turnout. To bolster countless claims on blogs and Facebook, many posted a photograph that showed a gargantuan crowd sprawling from Capitol Hill down the National Mall to the Washington Monument.

But it turns out the photo is more than 10 years old, apparently taken during a 1997 Promise Keepers rally.

Estimates about the crowd spread quickly through the conservative blogosphere. Many writers, including author Michelle Malkin, pegged the number of people between 1 million and 2 million. Those reports were largely based on information from people in the crowd.

There’s another problem with the photograph: It doesn’t include the National Museum of the American Indian, a building located at the corner of Fourth Street and Independence Avenue that opened on Sept. 14, 2004. (Looking at the photograph, the building should be in the upper right hand corner of the National Mall, next to the Air and Space Museum.) That means the picture was taken before the museum opened exactly five years ago. So clearly the photo doesn’t show the “tea party” crowd from the Sept. 12 protest.

Also worth noting are the cranes in front of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. The last time cranes were in front was in the 1990s when the IMAX theater was being built.

It appears that the photo was actually taken in 1997 at a rally for Promise Keepers, a group for Christian men. According to the group’s Web site, nearly 1 million people attended the event. Photos of the Oct. 4, 1997, event that were posted on
various Web sites in 2003, 2008 and earlier this year show either the same picture or a similar photo that has identical tents and what appear to be TV screens in the same locations.

Conservative bloggers who originally posted the picture have backed down.

So Bloggers --- Are you Kidding?

Republican Mike Pence says Obama cut budget for illegal immigration effort

"This administration and this Congress have been systematically cutting funding to border security since the Democrats took control."
Mike Pence on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010 in an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press'

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Mike Pence is a Republican Congressman from Indiana.

"Here's the numbers," Pence said. "Fiscal 2007, the last year Republicans wrote a budget, $1.2 billion for border security and fencing. By 2010 that was cut to $800 million ... I mean, the Democrats have cut three-quarters of a trillion out of this,
and the president wants to go to 50 percent of the level that Republicans spent on border security. We have got to take border security seriously."

Pence toggles between two statistics here, spending on border security and a subset of that, spending on border fencing.

The fact is, between 2007 and now, while spending on border fencing has gone down, overall spending on border security has increased.

Now for the REAL numbers.

In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. As Pence noted, that was the last year of full Republican control. After that, while George W. Bush remained in the presidency, Congress was controlled by Democrats. But discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 budget calls for a slight decrease in discretionary spending on border security, but even at the proposed level of $9.8 billion, that's a 55 percent increase between 2007 and 2011.

Pence said "this administration and this Congress have been systematically cutting funding to border security since the Democrats took control," that's wrong. Funding for fencing is down, but funding for border security is up. In fact, discretionary spending on border security is up 55 percent between 2007 and 2011, even with a small proposed cut in 2011.


So Mike Pence --- Are you Kidding?

Bill Maher says "Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years."

"Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years."
Bill Maher on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010 in an interview on ABC News' 'This Week'

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Bill Maher is a comedian and host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.

Conservative columnist George Will challenged Maher about Brazil. "Could you just explain to me in what sense has Brazil got off oil?"

"I believe they did," Maher said. "I believe in the 70's they had a program to use sugarcane ethanol, and I believe that is what fuels their country."

"I think they still burn a lot of oil and have a lot of offshore (drilling)," Will said.

Brazil does produce a lot of sugarcane ethanol, as Maher said.

"Brazil is one of the largest producers of ethanol in the world and is the largest exporter of the fuel," according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But in 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world's countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day. In first place was the United States at 19.5 million barrels per day, followed by China, Japan, India, Russia, and Germany, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Brazil also produces a lot of oil through drilling near its coasts. In recent years, Brazil's state-controlled energy company Petrobras announced a major new find of oil in some of the deepest waters where exploration is conducted, some 7,000 feet below in the Atlantic Ocean.

Maher was likely remembering Brazil's aggresive efforts to promote ethanol, But Maher said, "Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years." Actually, Brazil still consumes a great deal of oil. It's also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration.

So Bill Maher --- Are you Kidding?

Maddow says Bush never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency

"President Bush never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency."
Rachel Maddow on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 in "The Rachel Maddow" show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Maddow hosts MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," as well as a radio show of the same name on Air America.

Conservative critics and some independent pundits have said that President Obama is guilty of freezing out a legitimate news network because he doesn't like its coverage.

If that's the case, then President George W. Bush did it, too, said liberal talk show host Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. She said the Bush administration frequently excluded liberal columnists and talk show hosts from meetings Bush held with conservative media.

"Would it surprise you to learn that President Bush never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency? Not one in eight years?" she said.

There were at least three interviews that Bush gave the New York Times .

• On June 5, 2001, New York Times reporter Frank Bruni had what he described as Bush's first "one-on-one interview" since Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties and threw control of the Senate to the Democrats. "We're looking at a different landscape, but still on the same continent," Bush said. "The same votes. The members haven't changed."

• On Aug 26, 2004, Bush gave a half-hour interview to the New York Times as he campaigned through New Mexico. Bush told the newspaper that he did not believe Sen. John Kerry lied about his war record, as some groups alleged during the campaign.

• On Jan. 27, 2005, a week after he started his second term, Bush spoke with New York Times reporters for 40 minutes, discussing troop levels in Iraq and domestic issues such as gay adoption, abortion and Social Security.

Checking Maddow's statement that President Bush "never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency." That's not the case.

The Rachel Maddow Show was going off a Los Angeles Times blog post that was based on Stolberg's comments. The blog post was incorrectly headlined, "Nine years later the N.Y. Times still awaits its Bush interview."


So Rachel Maddow --- Are you Kidding?

Rush Limbaugh says Alaska's Prince William Sound is now pristine

Alaska's Prince William Sound "is pristine now."
Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 in his radio program

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

With 200,000 gallons of oil a day spewing from an exploded oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, forming a slick the size of West Virginia and threatening the coastline of Louisiana, radio pundit Rush Limbaugh said there's no need to panic, that "the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It's natural."

And to prove his point, Limbaugh pointed to the restoration of Alaska's Prince William Sound, which was devastated by an oil spill from the Exxon Valdez 21 years ago. "They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth," Limbaugh said on his April 29, 2010, radio show. "The place is pristine now."

The Trustee Council, formed by the Alaska government to oversee the restoration of the injured ecosystem, concluded the oil is decreasing at a rate of 0 to 4 percent a year, and "at this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely."

Despite outward appearance, 21 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, Prince William Sound is not pristine. You may not be able to see it, but scientists and anyone willing to turn over rocks with a shovel attest to the fact that thousands of gallons of oil remain buried in some beaches, and the oil continues to adversely affect the environment.


So Rush Limbaugh --- Are you Kidding?

O'Reilly says no one on Fox raised issue of jail time for not paying health coverage penalties

"We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it."
Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday, April 13th, 2010 in a segment on the Fox News show The O'Reilly Factor

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.


The provision made into the bill passed by the Senate in December 2009, and also into the final version of the law that was passed by both chambers and signed by President Barack Obama included the following: "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

Now let's analyze O'Reilly's specific statement.

It turns out that several Fox shows did mention the possibility of jail time. Here are some examples:

• Paul Gigot, host of the Journal Editorial Reports, Oct. 3, 2009

"Democrats want to require you to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. But they don't want you to call it a tax. Under the Baucus bill, the so-called individual mandate would require everyone to buy health insurance or pay as much as a $1,900 fee. If you don't pay up, the IRS could punish you with a $25,000 fine or a year in jail."

• Andrew Napolitano, guest-hosting the Glenn Beck Program, Nov. 10, 2009

"For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need or cannot afford. If you don't purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don't do so when they tell you to do it, if you don't buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail."

• Glenn Beck, on his Fox show, Nov. 12, 2009

"But if you don't play by their new rules on health care -- oh, here's a new little twist. Have you heard this? You're going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail."

Later in the show, Beck said, "And oh, yes, the potential jail time. If you don't have health insurance? Jail time. You heard Nancy Pelosi defend that portion of the bill just a few minutes ago. There has got to be some way to force everybody to have health care, right? It is jail."

So we found at least three cases in which hosts or guests brought up the possibility of people being jailed for not having health insurance.

O'Reilly said definitively that "nobody's ever said it" on the network, but also said that his staff had researched the question. So we are left to conclude that either his staff muffed its research or that O'Reilly trying to pull a fast one.


So Bill O'Reilly --- Are you Kidding?

E-mail claims 'In God We Trust' removed from dollar coins

On the new dollar coins, "'In God We Trust' is gone!"
Chain e-mail on Friday, February 5th, 2010 in a message circulated to many people

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

The e-mail has the standard ingredients of an Internet falsehood -- sloppy punctuation, an abundance of exclamation points, a plausible story ("I received one from the Post Office as change and I asked for a dollar bill instead"), a request to spread the e-mail far and wide ("Please send to all on your mailing list!!!") and screaming capital letters ("'IN GOD WE TRUST' IS GONE!!!") .

The people forwarding the e-mail included some snarky comments such as "Don't know anything about this, but it does not surprise me. Typical of todays government."

Each year the U.S. Mint releases new coins to honor four U.S. presidents in the order that they served. (For 2010, Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan and Lincoln are featured.) The law that authorized the coins called for the U.S. president to be on the front, the Statue of Liberty on the back, and, on the edge of the coin, the year of minting and the inscriptions "E Pluribus Unum" and "In God We Trust."

The law changed in 2007 and specified that "In God We Trust" appear on the front of the coin (the "heads" side) rather than the edge. That took effect with coins minted in 2009, starting with the release of the coin honoring President William Harrison. The U.S. Mint Web site says all of the subsequent coins will follow this design.

In God We Trust" also appears on the front of the Native American and Sacagawea dollars. Since 2009, all of the coins in the presidential series have had "In God We Trust" inscribed on the front.

Are you Kidding?

McCain's ultimate maverick move, denial

"I never considered myself a maverick."
John McCain on Saturday, April 3rd, 2010 in a comment on Newsweek magazine's Web site

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

He said he was a maverick so many times I don't have enough webspace to show them all. So here are 7 instances found:

• “If you want real reform and you want change, send a team of mavericks." -- campaign appearance in Colorado Springs, Colo., Sept. 6, 2008

• "And what 'maverick' really means, what this team of mavericks really means is we understand who we work for. We don't work for the party, and we don't work for a special interest, and we don't work for ourselves. We'll work for you and the American people." --campaign appearance in Lancaster, Pa., Sept. 9, 2008

• "Stand by, because change is coming. And real change is coming to Washington, D.C. And we're going to shake things up. And you've got a team of mavericks, a team of mavericks." -- campaign appearance in Lebanon, Ohio, Sept. 9, 2008

• "Can I just mention one other thing? You know there's now this going around that there's differences between myself and Sarah Palin. We're very close. We're both mavericks." -- interview with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity, Oct. 28, 2008

• "When two mavericks join up, we don't agree on everything, but that is a lot of fun." -- campaign appearance in Hershey, Pa., Oct. 28, 2008

• "We get along fine. Sarah is a maverick. I'm a maverick. No one expected us to agree on everything." -- interview with CNN's Larry King, Oct. 30, 2008

And finally:

• Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him -- book by John McCain and Mark Salter, published 2003


So John McCain --- Are you Kidding?

Obama didn't expand offshore drilling, Boehner says

"Obama did not open new lands to offshore drilling – all of these areas were already open for drilling once Congress and President Bush lifted the moratorium in 2008. Instead, President Obama yesterday announced what areas he would CLOSE to offshore drilling."
John Boehner on Monday, April 5th, 2010 in a news release posted on his website.

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio is the leader of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Here are the basics of Obama's plan, which lasts from 2012 through 2017:

• The coasts of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and part of Florida's eastern seaboard will be open to "exploration, study and potential development."
• The northern coast of Alaska in the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas will also be open to study and potential development.
• The Bristol Bay area off of the southern coast of Alaska in the North Aleutian Basin is now protected by a presidential memorandum until 2017.

March 31, when Obama announced that he would be allowing new drilling. Looking at his plan -- and the proposal Bush put on the dockets right before he left office -- it's clear that Obama decided to move forward on some parts of the Bush proposal, including drilling in the Atlantic, but scrap other parts, such as drilling in the Northeast and in Bristol Bay.

There is some truth to Boehner's assertion that Obama hasn't opened new areas to drilling given the Bush proposal that was already on the books. But he overlooked the patch of ocean in the eastern Gulf that was not part of Bush's plan and is in Obama's proposal. On his second point, Boehner is also on less than solid ground. Indeed, Bristol Bay -- which likely would have been leased for drilling under the Bush administration -- is closed to drilling, at least until 2017. But other areas not included in Obama's current five-year drilling plan, such as areas in the Pacific, are not technically closed; they're just unavailable for the time being.

So John Boehner --- Are you Kidding?

Schumer claims no one questioned that Sotomayor was out of the mainstream

"No one questioned that she (Judge Sotomayor) was out of the mainstream."
Charles Schumer on Sunday, April 11th, 2010 in ABC's "This Week"

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Charles Schumer is a Democrat senator from New York.

Direct your attention to a July 13, 2009, AP story under the headline, "Sessions: Sonia Sotomayor 'out of mainstream.'"

That's Sessions as in Sen. Jeff Sessions, the leading Judiciary Committee Republican. The AP wrote that just hours before Sotomayor's initial confirmation hearing, Sessions charged that Sotomayor is "out of the mainstream" of legal thinking and has a very activist judicial profile.

• In a press release issued Aug. 5, 2009, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., took issue with Sotomayor's ruling in a gun case, saying, it "shows an alarming hostility to law-abiding gun owners across the country. That is a view that is certainly out of the mainstream in this nation."

• In a press release issued Aug. 6, 2009, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said that at her confirmation hearing Sotomayor attempted to distance herself from several statements "and explain them away, most likely recognizing that they were controversial and out of the mainstream. However, in my mind, she was not very successful."

• In a statement released on Aug. 4, 2009, Grassley said Sotomayor "openly questioned whether 'ignoring our differences as women, men, or even people of color...we do a disservice both to the law and society.' This is yet another example of an out of the mainstream judicial philosophy."

• A June 29, 2009, story in Roll Call noted that talking points prepared for House and Senate Republicans urged members to make the case that Sotomayor's written statements, rulings and speeches "show an out of the mainstream view of the role of a judge."

Perhaps Schumer meant "hardly anyone" claimed Sotomayor was out of the mainstream. But Schumer's absolute claim that "no one questioned that she was out of the mainstream" isn't accurate. "Out of the mainstream" is a subjective term, but the fact is that a number of Republican senators used that exact phrase. Schumer's statement is False.

So Charles Schumer --- Are you Kidding?

Beck says labor leader is most frequent White House visitor

Labor union president Andy Stern is "the most frequent visitor" at the White House.
Glenn Beck on Thursday, December 3rd, 2009 in his Fox News Channel show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

When the White House released its first batch of visitor logs on Oct. 30, 2009, as part of a pledge to bring more transparency to the White House, Stern's name did indeed appear 22 times, more than anyone else listed.

But that's not the whole story.

Stern led the pack for the first data release, which covered visits from Jan. 20, 2009 to July 31, 2009. But he was surpassed by several other individuals in the second release, which updates the data through Aug. 31, 2009 (and which was made public more than a week before Beck aired his comment).

Among those who visited more frequently than Stern, according to the combination of the two logs, were Lewis (Lee) Sachs, counselor to Treasury Secetary Timothy Geithner, with 92 visits; associate attorney general Tom Perrelli, with 49; Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski with 47; Spencer Overton, principal deputy assistant attorney general, with 38; and Health and Human Services office of health reform director Jeanne Lambrew, with 27. (Stern visited twice more during the period covered by the second batch of data, giving him a total of 24 visits.)

Another complication is that the first batch of data -- covering the period from Jan. 20, 2009, to July 31, 2009, which found Stern in the lead -- is not a complete accounting of White House visits during that period. It only includes data for visitors whose names were first requested by the public. If no one requested a specific name, that name would not appear in the database. So there's no way of knowing whether Stern actually had the most visits for that period; he simply had the most of anyone whose name was requested by the public. (All records dated after Sept. 15, 2009, will be released, the White House says, with exceptions for issues of national security, personal safety and a few other caveats.)

So, while Beck did pass along a widely reported finding as he made his point about Stern, the data it was based on was incomplete and out of date by the time of his show, and ultimately the conclusion he drew was incorrect.

So Glenn Beck --- Are you Kidding?

Bush's tax cuts biggest contributor to the budget deficit

Bush's tax cuts for high earners "have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit."
Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, January 8th, 2009 in during a news conference

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Tax cuts for rich not biggest deficit factor

The Tax Policy Center calculated what share of the federal tax changes each income bracket gained from the Bush tax cuts. The top 5 percent of earners (those making about $225,000 or more) received 30.5 percent of the tax benefits in 2008, according to their analysis. But conversely, the bottom 95 percent of tax payers got 70 percent. Zoom out from the top 5 percent to the top 20 percent, and their share is 47.8 percent. Critics of the Bush tax cuts can call that disproportionate, but it's still less than half and therefore not "the biggest."

All of this indicates that Pelosi is mistaken. Although the wealthy did get big benefits from the Bush tax cuts, their benefits did not outweigh those of everyone else put together.

Certainly tax cuts for high earners have increased the deficit. Pelosi might have made a more convincing case if she had said high earners received a disproportionate benefit from the Bush tax cuts.

But Pelosi said tax cuts for "the high end" were the "biggest" contributor to the federal deficit. Looking at the numbers from a bunch of different angles and found no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy are larger than those of everyone else combined. In fact, all the numbers we looked at showed that tax cuts for middle and lower incomes represent a bigger slice of the overall revenue pie. The evidence directly contradicts her.


So Nancy Pelosi --- Are you Kidding?

Howard Dean says U.S. is only democracy without universal health care

"Every other democracy in the world has a health care system that covers everybody, and we don't."
Howard Dean on Sunday, September 13th, 2009 in remarks on NBC's Meet the Press

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Howard Dean was chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The former governor of Vermont ran for president in 2004

It is true that most, if not all, industrialized democracies in Western Europe have systems that experts consider universal coverage, as do wealthier countries such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. But other democracies fall short, according to international statistics.

While dozens of countries are classified as democracies, Examine a few that are large and have been politically stable in recent years.

India. In the cities, and especially for families with means, the medical care ranks among the best in the world. But hundreds of millions of Indians are desperately poor, and about three-quarters live in rural villages. For these Indians, health care is sporadic and substandard.

Mexico. The United States' southern neighbor has a constitution that guarantees universal health care, and observers credit the Mexican government with launching Seguro Popular, a federal program that targets the uninsured. For better-off Mexicans, health insurance and facilities are similar to what is found in richer nations. But in practice, the Mexican system falls short of universal coverage.

Turkey. The other OECD nation besides the United States to fall short of full coverage is Turkey. The most recent statistics, from 2003, show that 67.2 percent of Turks were covered. A 2008 report by the U.S. Library of Congress found that "the rural population is poorly served by the health care system" and that "workers in Turkey’s large informal economic sector generally lack health coverage."

A spokeswoman said that the former governor "simply misspoke. He meant to say, as he has for years, that every other industrialized democracy" has universal coverage. If Dean had said that, he'd probably be right. But on Meet the Press , he didn't.

So Howard Dean --- Are you Kidding?

Mitch McConnell says financial regulation is bailout of Wall Street

New financial regulation "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks."
Mitch McConnell on Wednesday, April 14th, 2010 in a press conference

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Bank bailouts not in bill, but liquidation is

The financial regulations under consideration in the Senate do a number of things: The government receives additional authority to regulate over-the-counter derivatives and hedge funds. A new consumer protection agency within the Federal Reserve will regulate financial products. And the bill creates a process for federal authorities to dissolve financial institutions that are teetering on collapse.

It's that last item that got McConnell's attention. He said the bill was "taking that experience in the fall of 2008 and institutionalizing it, setting up in perpetuity the potential for additional taxpayer bailouts of large institutions."

If a "systematically significant" firm is teetering on collapse, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Federal Reserve would have to agree to liquidate the firm, using a special fund created with payments from the largest financial firms. The FDIC "shall impose assessments on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets being assessed at a higher rate," according to the legislation.

It clearly states that the intention is to liquidate failing companies, not bail them out. To do that, it creates a fund with contributions from financial firms, not from taxpayer funds. There is not any element of the bill that expressly permits ongoing, "endless" outlays from the federal treasury. McConnell is using seriously overheated rhetoric. Nothing in the bill "guarantees" future bailouts of Wall Street banks.

So Mitch McConnell --- Are you Kidding?

Alleged Obama birth certificate from Kenya is a hoax

Birthers have obtained a copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.
Orly Taitz on Sunday, August 2nd, 2009 in an attachment to a lawsuit

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Orly Taitz is a lawyer, dentist and real estate agent based out of California who has filed several lawsuits on behalf of so-called "birthers," people who question whether President Obama was born in Hawaii and is eligible to serve as president.

Alleged Obama birth certificate from Kenya is a hoax

Steve Eddy of California, did a Google image search and came across a similar-looking birth certificate posted on a genealogy Web site by a South Australia man named David Jeffrey Bomford. Eddy put it side-by-side with the Obama one. Same format. Same book and page number in the birth registry. Some of the officials' last names were even the same.

Val Edyvean, Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages for South Australia said this:

"It appears that a South Australian loaded an image of his own birth certificate onto a family history website and that the format was used by others to 'create' a document which purported to be a Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama. As the South Australian man has now removed this image, and the date of his birth is in the period of certificates which are restricted from public access, I do not intend to add to speculation by commenting on details of either that certificate or any aspects of it."

The purported Kenyan birth certificate posted by Taitz is a fake.

So Orly Taitz --- Are you Kidding?

Joe Biden says every Senate decision now requires 60 votes

"As long as I have served . . . This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators."
Joe Biden on Sunday, January 17th, 2010 in a fundraiser in Florida

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Biden says every Senate decision now requires 60 votes

Senate History.

In 1917, new rules allowed Senate leadership to end debate so long as it had support from two-thirds of the Senate. In 1975, the Senate reduced that to three-fifths, or 60 of the current 100 senators. With only 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster, the majority party would simply file cloture motions -- the technical term to set up a vote to stop debate.

The minority can unify and oppose a cloture motion, effectively stalling a bill. And the majority, knowing it has no chance of winning on a vote, can file a cloture motion and then blame the opposition for holding things up.

Biden won his Senate seat in 1973, just two years before the Senate adopted its new cloture rules, and served until Jan. 15, 2009, shortly before he was sworn in as vice president.

Biden said "every single solitary decision has required 60 senators," which is an exaggeration. In 2009, for example, there were 397 roll call votes. According to the Senate Historian's office, only 39 of them were cloture votes. Indeed, we found plenty of major bills that did not require 60 votes to start or end debate, including a bill meant to give more children health insurance and a bill to prevent mortgage foreclosures. Furthermore, the Senate frequently passes noncontroversial bills unanimously, so there are countless pieces of legislation such as post office namings and resolutions that don't require 60 votes. If Biden had said every "major" decision requires 60 votes, he would have been on more solid ground.

So Joe Biden --- Are you Kidding?

Sarah Palin falsely claims Barack Obama runs a 'death panel'

Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
Sarah Palin on Friday, August 7th, 2009 in a message posted on Facebook

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Sarah Palin falsely claims Barack Obama runs a 'death panel'

There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care. The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure.

Palin also may have also jumped to conclusions about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for "worthiness." Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others.

In fact, the House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.

She said that the Democratic plan will ration care and "my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." Palin's statement sounds more like a science fiction movie than part of an actual bill before Congress.

So Sarah Palin --- Are you Kidding?


Thanks to Politifact

Obama claims America is one of the largest Muslim countries

"If you actually took the number of Muslims [sic] Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
Barack Obama on Monday, June 1st, 2009 in interview with Canal Plus Television

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.


Obama claims America is one of the largest Muslim countries

By the numbers from the CIA Online World Factbook, a highly regarded government source for global statistics. It's updated twice a month, and we're relying on the latest version. By the World Factbook's count, Muslims in the United States make up about 0.6 percent of the population. That's around 1.8 million.

Coming in first is Indonesia, More than 240 million people live there, and 86.1 percent of the population identifies as Muslim. That means that about 206 million Indonesians are of the Islamic faith.

No. 2 on the list is Pakistan, where 95 percent of the roughly 176 million people identify as Muslim. That means about 167 million residents are of the Islamic faith. India, Bangladesh and Turkey come in next at 156 million, 129 million and 76 million, respectively.

Moving down the list, Morocco takes 10th place with 34 million Muslim residents, and Syria comes in at number 20, with about 18 million Muslims. The No. 60 slot goes to Serbia, home to 236,138 Muslims.

So, of the 60 most populous Muslim states, the United States ranks 58th. If we rely instead on NationMaster.com, which pegs the Muslim population at 6 million, the United States is 37th out of 60. And if we go with 8 million, as the Islamic Information Center estimates, the United States comes in at 29 on the list.

Obama dramatically overreaches by saying the United States would be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.

Ranking 58 out of the world's 60 most populous Muslim nations would not be one of the largest Muslim countries. Indeed, by even the most generous estimate we found of 8 million, the United States still ranks 29 out of 60.

So Barack Obama --- Are you Kidding?


Thanks to Politifact, CIA Online World Factbook, NationMaster.com and Islamic Information Center.

Michelle Bachmann claims Constitution only requires you to answer how many people are in your household

Michele Bachmann says the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home."
Michele Bachmann on Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 in a Washington Times interview

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Here's what the Constitution actually says:

"Representation and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers ... the actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."

So the Constitution itself does not contain any requirement, as Bachmann claims.

We draw your attention to the last clause, "in such a manner as they shall by law direct." The "they" in that sentence refers to members of Congress. They write laws about the content of the Census and require that people answer the questions.

What's more, a law passed by Congress requires people to answer "any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any Census" from the U.S. Census.

Bachmann is not only wrong here, she is engaging in fearmongering that encourages people to break the law. And in doing so, she's falsely telling people that the Constitution would support them.

So Michele Bachmann --- Are you Kidding?