CNN Poll After Obama Socialized Health Care Speech: Sample Heavily Weighted Towards Democrats

I'll bet there are many libs out there, mostly newsreaders from NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post and New York Times, who are going to be touting this CNN poll that says Obama's Health Care Reform popularity gained 14 points after last night's speech.

But at least CNN has the integrity to admit that it was weighted heavily towards Democrats:

The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.

Clearly, this poll does not reflect America as a whole.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

CNN Poll: Double-Digit Post-Speech Jump For Obama Plan
CNN
September 10, 2009

Colin Powell Criticizes Obama Agenda

Well, I'm finally back from vacation with the family. Had a really nice time and the fireworks in Ocean City, MD were really good.

First, let me say "Congratulations" to all those principled Conservatives from Minnesoata who decided to stay home rather than get out the vote last November. I hope the next six years are everything you dreamt of.

But, let's look forward, not back. Colin Powell has finally seen the light concerning Barack Obama. Apparently, the retired General is now wondering whether or not voting for color of skin rather than actual issues was such a good idea.

From the Washington Times:

Colin Powell, one of President Obama's most prominent Republican supporters, expressed concern Friday that the president's ambitious blitz of costly initiatives may be enlarging the size of government and the federal debt too much. "I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them," Mr. Powell said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN's John King, released by the network Friday morning.

Well, those of us who were not blinded by a "Messiah complex" knew this to be true last year.

More:

"And we can't pay for it all," said Mr. Powell, who was the first African-American to serve as secretary of state, under former President George W. Bush. ... Mr. Powell's comments represent the growing concern that began with hard-line fiscal conservatives but is now spreading to moderates about the rate of government spending and debt under President Obama, and the long-term impact on the country's fiscal sustainability and national security. The national debt stands currently at $11.5 trillion and the deficit for the current fiscal year is projected to be close to $2 trillion. Mr. Powell expressed alarm at "budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars" and "a huge, huge national debt that, if we don't pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for it."

Welcome aboard, General Powell! It's good to see that you have finally realized what most of us have known all along!

This is what happens when people vote from their emotions rather than their rationality. They get the exact opposite of what they were expecting.

BTW, look for the Obama administration to throw General Powell under the bus soon.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Powell Airs Doubts On Obama Agenda
Jon Ward
The Washington Times
July 3, 2009

Obama Tax Plan Will Not Create Jobs; Will Most Likely Destroy Jobs

Before anyone tries to dismiss this as some sort of right-wing propaganda, understand that this story comes from the leftist-leaning CNN.

In response to Obama's claims that his increase of taxes on multi-national corporations will somehow create new jobs, Jeanne Sahadi, a CNNMoney.com senior writer, has this:

Will it work? Tax policy experts and corporate lobbyists are dubious. They say that his proposals, if implemented, could raise revenue for the government but are not likely to spark an increase in U.S. jobs. Among the changes Obama wants is to require U.S.-based multinationals to defer taking deductions on expenses related to their foreign operations until they bring back the profits to the United States and pay U.S. income tax on them.

The money that the Obama administration wants to tax away is the same money that these corporations use to create jobs. If the government confiscates that money, no jobs will be created and in many cases, currently existing jobs that were created with that money will be lost.

More:

But U.S. tax policy is not the only factor a company weighs in deciding whether to invest beyond the borders. For instance, companies go abroad primarily to sell products abroad, said Rosanne Altshuler, co-director of the Tax Policy Center. In 2006, she noted, only 10.5% of sales of U.S. controlled foreign subsidiaries were sent back to the United States. "And there are a lot of advantages to having the production close to the place of final sale," Altshuler said. One is lower transportation costs. Indeed, total manufacturing cost is the most compelling reason to move operations abroad, and countries actively woo companies with tax holidays and other incentives, said Sang Kim, a partner in international tax practice of the global law firm DLA Piper.

In other words, companies and corporations will always move to where they can get the best deal and maximize their profits. If Obama is allowed to go through with this tax increase, American corporations will simply move their operations somewhere outside of the United States where their profits can be realized without the government coming in and taking a large portion of them.

Read on:

"Even if all this passes, will it create factories in the United States? Absolutely not," Kim said. Some say Obama's plan won't create jobs because tax policy has a limited influence on jobs. "Employment is determined by overall demand for goods and services, not by targeted tax and spending provisions," Eric Toder, a fellow at the liberal Urban Institute and former assistant secretary of tax analysis for the Treasury Department, wrote in the Tax Policy Center's blog Tax Vox.

Exactly. Those factories will end up somewhere else and provide employment for some other coutry.

If I had a choice between a 30% corporate tax in the United States and a 12% corporate tax in Ireland, I'd be setting up shop in Ireland right now.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Will Obama Tax Plan Really Save Jobs?
Jeanne Sahadi
CNN
May 6, 2009

Some Quick Thoughts On The Tax Day Tea Parties

I've been looking at the news and comparing the ways each network covered the Tax Day Tea Parties. Of course, left-leaning news outlets said every possible negative thing they could have said about the demonstrations, even things that were not true. It is those untrue items I wish to discuss here.

Item #1: The claim that Fox News orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events around the nation for a ratings boost.

The truth: Fox News simply covered the events, they did not orchestrate them. They presented the story in a fair, objective manner and were about the only network to do so. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all parroted the same lines over and over as if they were reading some talking points that someone handed to them.



Item #2: The claim that Rush Limbaugh orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events arouind the nation.

The truth: Rush may be the most popular talk radio host in the world right now, but I do not remember him ever putting forth one single idea or plan one little detail of any of those demonstrations. In fact, I don't even recall his name being mentioned at any of the 800 events.



Item #3: The claim that the rich orchestrated these Tea Parties in an effort to justify their own greed.

The truth: Well, I don't remember seeing very many rich people on the television or Internet news coverage of the Tea Parties. In fact, I saw mainstream Joe and Jane Average Americans. I saw parents with children. I saw small business owners. If there were any rich people in those crowds, they blended in quite nicely.



So, why am I bringing all of this up? Because these Tea Parties are not the end. There will be more demonstrations against the excesses of the current leftist-controlled federal government as time goes on. As Congress passes more "intolerable acts" and Barack Obama signs them into law, people will become more and more angry and demand that the government finally listen to them.

Now, far from trying to correct the above misconceptions, I actually want to see Old Media and groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org coninue to spread those lies. Why? Because it is a major advantage for our side if they do so.

As long as Old Media is assigning responsibility to the wrong crowd, the people who really did organize and mobilize these Tea Parties will be free to continue their planning and organizing unhindered and unfettered by distractions. They will be free to plan and organize new Freedom demonstrations for the coming 4th of July. Further, the more that the left attacks Fox, Rush and others, the more that the organizers and planners will know how big of an impact they really made.

So, to all the hate-mongers over on the left, please, continue shouting that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz put these things together. The more you convince yourselves of that, the more you will leave the real planners and organizers alone to plan and organize more. It is the best thing you can do for our side.

84rules

Who Pays Taxes And How Much?

Here is an interesting article that comes, not from Fox News or Town Hall or NewsMax, but from CNN. Thus, no one can claim that the following is coming from any right-leaning website:

The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office. Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes. The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.

And for those of you who have been screaming and stamping your feet claiming Obama would provide tax relief to 90% of taxpayers:

A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000. But once the various tax breaks to which they're entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low. The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.

Let me repeat the italicized line for emphasis:

43% of tax units will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.

Remember, this is CNN coming out with this information, not any bastion of Conservatism or a Conservative think-tank.

So, how can Obama provide tax relief to 90% of taxpayers when only 57% actually pay anything in taxes?

You can read the complete article on-line here:

Who Pays Taxes And How Much?
Jeanne Sahadi
CNN
April 15, 2009

CNN's Campbell Brown On the Double Standard Being Applied To Sarah Palin And The New York Times Won't Name ACORN

Every now and then, even the leftist news organizations allow some nuggets of truth to slip through. I'm certain the producers at CNN are not thrilled with this, but Campbell Brown had something to say about all the attention that Sarah Palin's wardrobe was getting.

The transcript from Wednesday's Election Center:

CAMPBELL BROWN: ...[F]irst, as we do every night, we’re cutting through the bull -- a lot of sniping and a lot of stories today about Sarah Palin’s clothes. Politico.com reports that the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothes, hair, and makeup for Palin on the campaign trail. Now, these are not your tax dollars. This is money given by Republican donors to the RNC. But the report questions whether it's legal to use campaign cash for quote,’personal use.’ My issue: there is an incredible double standard here, and we're ignoring a very simple reality. Women are judged based on their appearance far, far more than men. This is a statement of fact. There has been plenty of talk and plenty written about Sarah Palin’s jackets, her hair, her looks. Sound familiar? There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton’s looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama’s $1,500 suits or John McCain’s $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison. Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men, and look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer e-mail complaining about it, a lot of e-mail, seriously. When Wolf Blitzer wears a not-so-great tie, how much e-mail do you think he gets? My point is, for women, unfortunately, appearance is part of the job. If Wolf or Anderson shows up on the air without makeup, do you think you would even notice? I show up on the air without makeup, trust me, you’ll notice. This doesn't just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue, and it’s for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for hair, clothes, and makeup. It is part of the job. Now, you may think that’s an awful lot of money to spend on clothes, hair, and makeup, or you may complain, as some have, it’s hypocritical to sell yourself as a small-town hockey mom when you’re wearing designer clothes. That's fine. Just don't ignore the fact that there is a double standard here and personally, I think, in this campaign, with so much at stake, this is a peripheral issue. I myself have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience, never her appearance. Let’s keep the focus on what really matters here.

This is absolutely true. I have never seen a man running for public office put under the scrutiny that Sarah Palin has been put under simply because she is a woman.

CNN’s Campbell Brown Rips ‘Double Standard’ on Palin Clothing Issue
Matthew Balan
NewsBusters.org
October 23, 2008

---

And how about the New York Times? They can't even bring themselves to name the voter-fraud group ACORN in the headline of a story about voter fraud.

From Ed Laskey at the American Thinker:

So now the Times has to own up to the fact that its dismissive attitude towards criticism of ACORN was wrong. Why does The Times refer to a "Group"; by now, its readers are surely familiar with the "group's" name: ACORN. Will the Times own up to the fact that it was also wrong regarding the extent of the ties between Barack Obama and ACORN, which it also dismissed as so much piffle? The fact that the campaign funneled over $800,000 dollars to a corrupt group that has engaged in massive voter fraud, that illegally used get out the vote efforts for partisan purposes, that Barack Obama had ACORN as a client, that Barack Obama trained ACORN (though his campaign peddled the deceptive line that he was not ever a "hired" as a trainer. True-he thought so highly of the group he trained them for free).

Lasky also notes that nearly one in three registrations by ACORN were outright frauds and asks why anyone would not worry about it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

New York Times Can't Bring Itself To Name ACORN In Its Headline On Voter Fraud Story
Ed Lasky
American Thinker
October 24, 2008

But Children Are Off-Limits! And A Fake Republican Used At The Democrat Convention

I clearly remember Barack Obama saying that the children of political figures were off-limits. Apparently, his surrogates on the Internet and in Old Media don't give a damn what he says since they are still ripping into Bristol Palin and her mother, Sarah.

However, I have heard damned little of this story about Hunter Biden from Old Media, who should have been reporting it the moment Obama named Joe Biden as his running mate.

From the Washington Post:

A son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show. The Democratic vice presidential candidate's son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, assert instead that their former partner defrauded them by misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry and recommending that they hire a lawyer with felony convictions. The legal actions have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, and they focus on Hunter and James Biden's involvement in Paradigm Companies LLC, a hedge fund group. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist, briefly served as president of the firm. A lawsuit filed by their former partner Anthony Lotito Jr. asserts in court papers that the deal was crafted to get Hunter Biden out of lobbying because his father was concerned about the impact it would have on his bid for the White House. Biden was running for the Democratic nomination at the time the suit was filed.

You can access that story on-line here:

Biden's Son, Brother Named in Two Suits
The Washington Post
August 24, 2008

So, Hunter Biden, age 38, may be involved in something criminal and the left-leaning press doesn't care. But when Bristol Palin, age 17, does something that makes her human everyone on the left goes crazy.

What Chutzpuh!

---

And speaking of that, what about Barney Smith, the so-called "life-long Republican" who spoke at the Democrat Convention in Denver? Well, read this from Prosper Group Think:

You may remember Barney Smith from Fairmount, Indiana. He spoke at the Democrat National Convention Thursday night and was one of the people who introduced Barack Obama. He will be remembered for the line "I want a president who cares more about Barney Smith than they do about Smith Barney." A great well-written line that many people remember. On Thursday night in Denver, when he introduced Barack Obama, he claimed to be a "lifelong" Republican. But it looks like the Democrats lied about his affiliation, or at minimum never took the time to check him out. ... Barney Smith's voter registration is clear. It shows that for the last 12 years he has voted in 3 primary elections. In 1996 he voted Democrat, in 2006 he voted Republican, and in 2008 he voted Democrat. He may well have had Republican leanings, and how he voted in general elections is, of course, confidential. But would you say that voting in one Republican primary in the last 12 years would qualify a person to be a "lifelong" Republican?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Democrats Use A Fake Republican From Grant County To Introduce Barack Obama
Prosper Group Think
September 2, 2008

You can access Mr. Smtih's public voting record here:

Voting Record

Hardly what any rationally thinking person would call a "life-long Republican." All of this is very reminiscent of CNN's stacking of the audience during the Republican Primary Debates:

CNN's Dishonesty During GOP YouTube Debate
84rules
December 1, 2007

More CNN YouTube Plants Being Uncovered
84rules
December 1, 2007

Nothing like some blog posts to remind people of recent history.

CNN's Glenn Beck: Your Gas Money For A Flat Screen?

I was watching Glenn last night when he had Rudy Giuliani on talking about the current oil crisis. Yes, I said "crisis" because that is what we are in. When the price of a barrel of oil has gone up so dramatically in the space of a year and a half, I'd say we are in a crisis.

Mayor Giuliani has the right ideas about what to do. Drill, drill, drill. There is no other solution. Right now, the Democrat controlled Congress seems to want to do nothing but wait and watch gas prices go higher, our economy sink lower and then sit back, enjoy their perks and privilidges while pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction.

Glenn Beck has a few words to say about that. In fact, it is clear that drilling at home and producing domestically is the only rational solution. The alternative is to wreck our economy and turn the U.S. to chaos. But what about the standard stock arguments from the greens? What do those arguments really mean and are they even valid? From CNN:

"It's not going to help for another 10 years!" Here's the thing. America is a long-term plan for me. I don't know where these people plan to be in 10 years, but I plan to be here. This is, of course, the same argument heard around President Clinton's veto of ANWR drilling in 1995. Among other things, if we had started drilling ANWR then, oil would be already flowing. At its peak, ANWR could supply 1.45 million barrels per day, enough to tell Hugo Chavez and all his Venezuelan oil to shove it (with a little change left over). Of course, Clinton didn't have Chavez to deal with back then. If only he were thinking 10 years into the future.

And this:

"We can't drill ourselves out of this problem!" Maybe not solely, or forever, but it sure can help. With new technology, who knows what we can do over time? The government estimates that the outer continental shelf alone has 76 billion barrels of oil that are recoverable, and that's just with today's technology. To put that number into perspective, it's equal to every barrel of oil that we'd import from everywhere outside of North America for 31 years at our current pace. But instead of developing these resources, we throw up endless roadblocks. If you don't think that pumping more of our own oil would affect prices, ask yourself what would happen if we did the opposite. What if we announced today that we were turning all of our existing pumps off?

More:

"What about the environment?" This may surprise those who think I'm the pre-eminent murderer of the Earth, but the only real argument against owning our own oil destiny is an environmental one. Under this theory: High gas prices equal less gas usage, which equals a saved planet. Thomas Friedman, in a recent column, laid it out in an honest fashion: "Now that [gas] is $4 a gallon, the government should at least keep it there, since it is really having the right effect." He went on to describe Chrysler's promotion that guarantees cheaper gas as "the moral equivalent of tobacco companies offering discounted cigarettes to teenagers." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, apparently agrees, saying that coal and oil are making us sick along with "ruining our country" and "ruining our world." If you believe such nonsense, then it's perfectly rational to ignore our ample energy resources. (It's not rational to combine that with complaints about high gas prices, sorry Harry Reid.) For the rest of us, while visions of the Exxon Valdez may dance through your head, the National Academy of Sciences found that the offshore industry is among the safest industrial activities in the United States. And please, next time you hear someone complaining about environmental risks of drilling at home, remember this from a 2003 speech from the director of the US Minerals Management Services: "Imports present an environmental risk of spills about 13 times greater than domestic production" and "natural seeps account for 150-175 times more oil in the ocean than outer continental shelf oil and gas operations." NATURAL SEEPS? Now we know who the real polluter is -- that evil wench -- Mother Nature.

Some very profound words of wisdon in their. Domestic production is the way to go until the day comes when we do build cars, freight trains and ships that run on pixie dust and unicorn whiskers. But those technologies are years into the future, if they are even possible at all. Solar power, wind power and ethanol could only supply us a fraction of what we need. Right now, domestic production would supply us all that we need.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Commentary: Your Gas Money For A Flat Screen?
Glenn Beck
CNN.com
July 3, 2008

CNN Helps Scott McClellan Deliberately Mislead Readers About Valerie Plame Leak

Okay, here is one of the clearest cases of a major media outlet deliberately skewing the news in order to push an agenda rather than reporting the complete story.

It's no secret the Scott McClellan was in front of Congress today testifying about his recent book. He kept his words conveniently vague so that if it comes up in the future, he won't be charged with perjury. But let's look at what he said, as reported by CNN:

McClellan also also said he could not rule out that Cheney had ordered his former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to leak Plame Wilson's identity. A later investigation showed that Libby, in fact, had been involved in the leaking of the CIA operative's name. The FBI and a federal grand jury later investigated the leaking of Plame Wilson's identity. No one was convicted for the actual leak, but Libby was later convicted of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice in 2007. ... "I do not think the president had any knowledge" of the revelation of Plame Wilson's identity, McClellan said. "In terms of the vice president, I do not know."

Now, those of us who followed this story in detail and know the ins-and-outs of the case can see that something is missing from CNN's report: the identity of the original leaker who revealed Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. That person is former State Department official Dick Armitage. You'll notice that Armitage is not mentioned once in the whole CNN narrative.

You see, revealing the truth of Dick Armitage as the leak who "outed" Valerie Plame would make Scott McClellan look like, at best, the fool he is and at worst, a perjurer.

Anyone care to guess why CNN would deliberately leave out that most important detail?

Perhaps we should let CNN answer that, if they have enough integrity to answer the question.

And here is yet another example of McClellan being a fool or perjurer:

"I do not know whether a crime was committed by any of the administration officials who revealed Valerie Plame's identity to reporters," he said. "Nor do I know if there was an attempt by any person or persons to engage in a cover-up during the investigation. I do know that it was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised the effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons."

Except that Valerie Plame was not "covert" at the time that Dick Armitage leaked her name to Robert Novak and Fitzgerald even said so in public statements during his investigation. Again, another blatant omission on the part of CNN. McClellan clearly isn't getting anything right, yet for whatever reason, CNN is trying to portray him as if he were yielding some sort of new revelations.

You can access CNN's grossly misleading story on-line here:

McClellan: Cheney Should Testify About CIA Leak
CNN.com
June 20, 2008

Mexican Rigs In Violation, More CNN Embarrassment And The Truth About Alternative Energy

It's been awhile since Mexican rigs started to come rumbling across the Southwest border. But many of our fears are being realized. The Independent Drivers Association, a trucking advocacy group, has documented hundreds of safety violations on Mexican rigs running on American highways.

From World Net Daily:

"The Department of Transportation is allowing Mexican long-haul rigs to operate in the United States without requiring U.S. rules and regulations to be enforced," Rick Craig, the director of regulatory affairs for the group, told WND in a telephone interview yesterday. "The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is providing exemptions from U.S. safety rules that the FMCSA claim are covered in a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Mexico," Craig continued. "It's a clear double standard," he said. "Mexican truck safety regulations are being accepted by the FMCSA as equivalent to U.S. rules, even though the FMCSA refuses to provide any real detail about how or why the decision was made." The association has filed a lawsuit against the DOT and FMCSA in San Francisco, challenging that the Mexican trucks the government is allowing into the U.S. under the DOT demonstration project are unsafe when tested by U.S. safety rules and regulations.

Do you want your family to be on the same road as one of these unsafe Mexican rigs? I don't either.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Hundreds Of Safety Violations Documented For Mexican Rigs
Jerome R. Corsi
WorldNetDaily.com
December 5, 2007

---

Apparently, CNN is still trying to lie it's way out of the GOP YouTube Debate scandal. CNN Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman was talking with Howard Kurtz about this recently. Here is a part of the transcript from NewsBusters.org:

HOWARD KURTZ, host: David Bohrman, you said you didn't know -- that no one at CNN knew that General Kerr was on these Hillary Clinton advisory boards. Shouldn't you have tried harder to find out by using an online Google search? DAVID BOHRMAN, CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Well, we did a Google search. I mean, we went through 5,000 questions and narrowed it down and narrowed it down. And there were an awful lot of gay in the military questions. The one from the general was striking, but the first thing we said once we saw this question was, is this guy for real? Let's check him out. We did a Google search. And, you know, if you Google him today you'll find all the Hillary Clinton references. Back then what we discovered is he's for real. He was a real brigadier general. He had -- he had a real career, and he was now active in gay and lesbian issues.

Tim Graham, the author of the NewsBusters article, notes that a Clinton campaign document that was over six months old would have showed up on a Google search if CNN had actually done one.

More:

KURTZ: Right. But in the vetting process, no one ever asked him, "Are you affiliated with any presidential candidate?" BOHRMAN: Right. But here's why we stopped. Here's why we stopped making sure that he was a real general and making sure that he hadn't contributed to a campaign. His question was great. All right? You have a group of Republican candidates that have some difference of opinion on this topic. You have a true war hero in John McCain. You have Mitt Romney, who's on record as saying, I live for the day when gays and lesbians can serve openly, and a question coming from a general was extremely powerful, regardless...

You read that right. CNN stopped the vetting process because "His question was great."

No integrity over at CNN. None at all.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

CNN's Bohrman: Unrepentant About Stupid YouTube Debate Tricks
Tim Graham
NewsBusters.org
December 4, 2007

---

What is the reality behind alternative energy? Roy Innis looks at that question in his most recent column. Let's jump right into it:

Over half of our electricity comes from coal. Gas and nuclear generate 36% of our electricity. Barely 1% comes from wind and solar. Coal-generated power typically costs less per kilowatt hour than alternatives – leaving families with more money for food, housing, transportation and healthcare. By 2020, the United States will need 100,000 megawatts of new electricity, say EIA, industry and utility company analysts. Unreliable wind power simply cannot meet these demands. Wind farms require subsidies and vast stretches of land. To meet New York City’s electricity needs alone would require blanketing the entire state of Connecticut with towering turbines, according to Rockefeller University Professor Jesse Ausubel. They kill raptors and other birds, and must be backed up by expensive coal or gas power plants that mostly sit idle – but kick in whenever the wind dies down, so factories, schools, offices and homes don’t shut down.

And this:

For three decades, US demand for natural gas has outpaced production. In fact, gas prices have tripled since 1998, to $13 per thousand cubic feet today, and every $1 increase costs US consumers an additional $22 billion a year. With Congress and states locking up more gas prospects every year, this trend is likely to continue – further driving up prices and forcing us to import increasing amounts of expensive liquefied natural gas, often from less than friendly nations. We simply cannot afford to halt the construction of new coal-fired power plants, though some are trying to do exactly that. Chesapeake Energy Corp. masterminded and bankrolled anti-coal initiatives in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. The scheme was intended to drive up the price of natural gas, and thus profits, by making coal less available and more expensive – with little regard for poor families. As Kansas discovered after its environmental chief blocked a proposed new coal generator, coal projects also come with transmission lines to carry intermittent wind-generated electricity and more reliable coal-generated power. Wind farms typically do not. Now a dozen Kansas wind projects are also on hold. Former Clinton Administration environment staffer Katy McGinty engineered the lockup of 7 billion tons of low sulfur Utah coal, worth $1 trillion. Current and proposed air and water quality rules would make it even more difficult and expensive to provide adequate coal-fired electricity. But the facts support more coal use, not less.

Just something to think about.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Truth About "Alternative Energy"
Roy Innis
TownHall.com
Decmeber 5, 2007

More CNN YouTube Plants Being Uncovered And Glenn Beck At #1

You have to wonder if CNN was just completely ignorant, or completely stupid as to how they handled the GOP YouTube Primary Debate. Those are the two choices and there is no third option.

If CNN was completely ignorant, then they really didn't know that several of the "undecided" voters posing questions to the field of GOP candidates were actually plants from the Democrats' various campaigns because the staff at CNN was too dumb/lazy/incompetent to research and expose them as such. (Bloggers and other New Media institutions got to the truth within mere minutes of the plants appearing in the debate.)

If CNN was completely stupid, then they did know that those "undecided" voters were plants but chose to try and hide that fact in the hopes that you and I wouldn't be sharp enough to catch it. (I saw something wrong from having watched only fifteen minutes of the debate.)

Well, we've found more two "undecided" voters who were plants in the debate.

From Michelle Malkin:

Surprise: Muslim YouTube Questioner Was Former CAIR Intern
Michelle Malkin
MichelleMalkin.com
November 29, 2007

From Ray Robinson over at the American Thinker:

Another questioner named Mark Strauss of Iowa asked Ron Paul to run as an Independent. Wasn't it a little bit of a tip off to CNN producers that Strauss is not interested in Republican issues when his question was nothing more than an encouragement for a candidate to leave the party? But clearly, CNN likes the idea of a Republican candidate taking Republican voters to the Independent block for the general election. In case you missed it, Nader did this to Gore and Gore lost. Perot did it to Bush, Sr. and Bush lost. Wonder what CNN might have had in mind by promoting this idea at the debate and selecting it out of thousands of questions that actually would have mattered to Republicans? Strauss was not randomly chosen as CNN presented a previous video of his at the Democrats' debate. There is a history between him and CNN. So the "we did not know" defense shouldn't play here any more than it does in the case of Gen. Kerr who had been on CNN previously.

In fact, Strauss has his own website where he wrote (very poorly) the following:

In October 2006, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts came to my door in Iowa, yes, at my house. He was there walking up and down the street with Robby Smith campaigning with him. Man, did he pick the wrong door. What is the Governor of MA doing in IA, with a young rookie running for state house? He is a Republican first-American second...hopefully not our next "decider". ... Mitt asked me what I woud [sic] do in Iraq. I proceeded to explain how we need to get not only the effected nations in the region involved, but strike meaningful discussion and secure true resilution [sic] with the world thru the U.N.. Mitt laughed and called the U.N. a joke. This is the man that wants to be President. Don't we already have a decider in office that considers the other world leaders a joke? I then said "I have no use for you, get off my property", and I closed the door. This guy cannot be elected into office in 08.

Clearly, Strauss was not "undecided" and CNN either knew it, or ignored it. One or the other. But they had knowledge of it.

You can access Mr. Robinson's complete article on-line here:

CNN/YouTube Questioner Kicked Romney 'Off My Property'
Ray Robinson
The American Thinker
November 30, 2007

As a result of all this, CNN should be banned from ever hosting a debate ever again.

From Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters:

In the greatest of ironies, after Democrats refused to participate in debates sponsored by Fox News due to its supposed partiality, CNN has now shown itself in back-to-back debates to be as biased as biased can be. After either participating in or allowing the planting of campaign operatives at November 15's Democrat presidential debate in Las Vegas, it has now become apparent that similar stocking of audience questioners occurred in Wednesday's Republican debate. ... Regardless of whether or not CNN is specifically involved, as this is now the second consecutive incident of such behavior at a debate sponsored by this network, has it now abused the public trust enough to not be allowed to sponsor any more debates in this election cycle?

As I said, either stupid or ignorant. Take your pick.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Should CNN Be Allowed To Host Any More Debates?
Noel Sheppard
NewsBusters.org
November 29, 2007

---

Glenn Beck has a new book out entitled An Inconvenient Book. Catchy, eh? But the title is not what I'm interested in here. I am interested in the book's rank on the New York Times Bestseller list. It is #1.

So, you may ask, what of it? Well, NewsMax made a very interesting observation about Beck's book and the previous #1, I Am America (And So Can You) by leftist liberal Stephen Colbert. You see, Colbert had all sorts of publicity, interviews and book reviews with Old Media in order to get his book to #1. Beck had none of that, but still went to #1. What does that say about the differences between Old Media and New Media?

From NewsMax:

Radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck’s new book has soared to the number one spot on the New York Times bestseller list — despite the fact it has been totally ignored by the mainstream press. Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9. The book is already the No. 1 best-seller among all books on Amazon.com. Before Beck’s book hit the top of the Times’ list, Stephen Colbert’s “I Am America (And So Can You)” had been the leader in the Hardcover Nonfiction category for six weeks. But unlike Beck, the liberal Colbert enjoyed considerable attention from the mainstream press. His book was reviewed by, or he was interviewed by, the Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, Entertainment Weekly, “Good Morning America,” “Meet the Press,” and David Letterman.

That is a serious question. What does this say about the differences between Old Media and New Media?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Glenn Beck Hits No. 1 On New York Times List
NewsMax.com
November 29, 2007

CNN's Dishonesty During GOP YouTube Debate

Okay. I saw about fifteen minutes of the GOP YouTube debate last night on Headline News. Fortunately, the programming switched over to Nancy Grace shortly thereafter but it would not have mattered. I was getting ready to turn it off anyway. Not because of what the candidates were saying, but because of how CNN was treating the candidates in general and how biased CNN was in it's coverage.

I happened to catch the part about gays in the military and was stunned by what I saw. The one guy that was responding admitted that he was a U.S. Army retiree and was gay. I thought, "How convenient is that?" Pretty convenient as it turns out.

CNN also had a live panel of "Registered Republicans" that were participating in a tracking poll during the debate. The CNN newsreader covering the panel just happened to pick one woman "at random" and asked who she would vote for. The woman responded, "John Edwards." At that point, the gay guy became too convenient and it was clear that this woman on the panel was also planted there by CNN.

There is no way a true Republican would choose a liberal like John Edwards over the entire field of GOP candidates. Further, if John Edwards were to their taste, the field of Dem candidates would certainly be more palatable than any in the GOP field. The woman was definitely a plant.

But about that gay guy.

Check this out from NewsBusters:

Like Rudy and Romney going after each other over immigration last night at the GOP debate, MSNBC was taking some jabs at rival CNN this morning on the issue of the gay questioner who turned out to be a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign. "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that no one at CNN was aware of retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr's involvement with the Clinton campaign. JOE SCARBOROUGH: This is twice now in a couple of weeks that CNN has been ensnarled in a Clinton controversy. Before with James Carville sitting there giving his opinions despite the fact that he's contributed to Hillary Clinton, obviously worked for Bill Clinton, he sent out letters saying we really need to fight hard for Hillary Clinton. They didn't even mention it. And again, the damndest thing. And last night, not only do they have this guy delivering a YouTube video, they also had him there sitting in the audience, they had a shot with him [more than a shot. Anderson Cooper asked whether he was satisifed with the answers he had received and grilled Romney over his answer. Kerr himself made an extended comment from the floor]. It's Bill Bennett [who was a CNN post-debate panelist], it is up to Bill Bennett to explain to CNN, and don't tell me that CNN didn't know, that some people at CNN did not know, that he was part of the Clinton campaign. Don't lie to me. Maybe Anderson Cooper didn't know, but somebody at CNN that put this guy in the video knew that.

Somehow, I knew my suspiscions from last night were correct. It was too convenient.

CNN needs to acquire some integrity and admit that they are in reality pro-Dem and anti-Republican. At least then, they won't look like such complete idiots when they pull a ridiculous, irresponsible stunt like this.

You can access the NewsBusters article on-line here:

Scarborough: 'Total Crap' CNN Didn't Know Gay Questioner Is Hillary Campaigner
Mark Finkelstein
NewsBusters.org
November 29, 2007

The Washington Times has this:

Clinton Plant Infiltrates CNN Debate
The Washington Times
November 28, 2007

It is yet another reason why fewer rationally thinking people trust Old Media anymore.

---

And Michelle Malkin has more about the plants at the debate:

Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist Keith H. Kerr Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” = John Edwards supporter “Journey”

How many others could there be? Maybe CNN would like to come forward and admit to engineering this whole farce, that is if they learned anything at all from Dan Ra^ther's fakery.

You can access Michelle's complete article (with photographic evidence) on-line here:

Digging Out More CNN/YouTube Plants
Michelle Malkin
MichelleMalkin.com
November 29, 2007

Be sure to check back at Michelle's site for updates. I'm sure more plants will come to light.