Category Archives: CNN

Unemployment rate April 6, 2013, March jobs report, CNN Money report decent, Labor force participation rate hits historic lows, Half million less in labor force

Unemployment rate April 6, 2013, March jobs report, CNN Money report decent, Labor force participation rate hits historic lows, Half million less in labor force

“With a 63.7% labor force participation, “conditions in the labor market are considerably worse than indicated” in July’s report”…economist Joshua Shapiro, WSJ August 3, 2012

“Since the Democrats took control of both houses of congress in January 2007, the number of people who could only find part time work has gone up 215 percent”…Citizen Wells

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

The US Labor Department, BLS, reported the “unemployment rate” for March, yesterday, April 5, 2013. The stated unemployment rate fell .1 percent.

However, the bigger story is why the unemployment rate fell. People dropping out of the work force in record numbers as well as workers who could only find or were subjected to part time work.

The Labor Force Participation Rate, which fell .2 percent in March, dropped to record lows .

CNN Money cane out with decent reporting of the employment situation. They painted a fairly accurate picture. They neither blamed this on the fuzzy “recession”, as so many in the media have done, i.e. George Bush, or tied it to Barack Obama, which they should have.

From CNN Money April 5, 2013.
“Unemployment rate falls for all the wrong reasons”

“What seemed like good news in Friday’s jobs report was a little less than that — the unemployment rate fell, but not because more people found work.

Instead, the rate was lower because the Labor Department estimated that there are nearly half a million fewer people in the labor force — the group that includes people with a job or looking for one.

In the department’s survey, 206,000 fewer people said they had a job than in the previous month, even though a separate survey of employers in the March jobs report showed 88,000 jobs were added.

In addition, 290,000 fewer people were counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work. That drop in those seeking jobs was the reason the unemployment rate fell to 7.6%, the lowest since December 2008.

The participation rate, which counts both those with jobs and those looking for work, fell to the lowest rate since 1979, when far fewer women were in the U.S. labor force. For men age 25 and older, March was the lowest participation on record.

Related: Workers over 50 are the “new unemployables”

Some of the downward trend in the participation rate in recent years is due to more baby boomers reaching retirement age, along with the longer life span of those who are retired. The greater the percentage of the population that is retired, the lower the participation rate.

Related: Am I too old to be hired?

The difficulty for younger workers finding jobs is also a factor, as more young adults unable to find work return to school to try to improve their prospects. The participation rate for those age 16 to 24 was near a 50-year low.

Related: Young adults drop out of the job market

But the downturn in March can’t be blamed on demographic factors, according to Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist with the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. She points out that the participation rate of “prime-age” workers, age 25 to 54, also fell to match the lowest reading since 1984.”

“It’s the lack of job opportunities — the lack of demand for workers — that is keeping these workers from working or seeking work, not other factors,” she said.

Shierholz said estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show there are 3.9 million workers who should be in the labor force but are not because of the weakness in the job market. Counting them as unemployed would take the unemployment rate up to 9.8%.

“The unemployment rate is currently hugely underestimating the amount of slack in the labor market,” she said.”

Listen here:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/05/news/economy/unemployment-rate/

This is a pretty good report except for a couple of important items.

First, blaming baby boomers retiring for part of the drop. The Washington Post tried to do this and were caught here.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics January 2012.

Monthly Labor Review, Employment Outlook 2012 – 2012.

“In contrast to the factors exerting downward pressure on labor force participation rates, at least two factors have been responsible for strengthening the rates, although not enough to offset the factors pulling them down:

The labor force participation rate of the 55-years-and-older age group has increased considerably since 1996. In 2000, the rate was 32.4 percent; a decade later, in 2010, it had risen significantly, to 40.2 percent. (See table 3.) BLS projects that the labor force participation rate of those 55 years and older will reach 43.0 percent in 2020. The continued gradual increase in the labor force participation rate of this age group, multiplied by the sheer number of baby boomers in the group, is expected to partially compensate for the multiple other factors pushing the rate to lower levels and is expected to keep it from declining even further in the future.”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/washington-post-misrepresents-labor-force-participation-rate-unemployment-rate-blamed-on-baby-boomers-selective-quoting-post-receives-4-orwells/

Second, let’s lay the blame where it belongs, ignoring for a moment what took place with the Democrats controlling congress in 2007 – 2010.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was 66.1 percent when Obama took office.

It dropped to 63.6 percent in March.

That is a 2.5 percent drop since Obama took the White House in January 2009!

Amber Lyon CNN Obama Administration pays for CNN content, Fake stories, Unfriendly stories deleted, Nick Robertson Egypt report suppressed, George Orwell 1984

Amber Lyon CNN Obama Administration pays for CNN content, Fake stories, Unfriendly stories deleted, Nick Robertson Egypt report suppressed, George Orwell 1984

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially not insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent.”… Adolf Hitler

“As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in it’s stead. This process of continuation alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs–to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to be correct; nor was any item of news, or expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to be on record.”…George Orwell, “1984″

We warned you early in 2008.

From Citizen Wells June 4, 2008.

“Reverend James Manning has a new video out today, Tuesday, June 3, 2008.”

“He also says to boycott the CNN Network until Januray 2, 2009. He says to boycott CNN for the biased, Godless and tyrantical way they swayed public opinion against Hillary.”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/reverend-manning-obama-hillary-clinton-democrat-party-votes-stolen-cnn-boycott-obama-evidence/

George Orwell warned you in “1984.”

Communist News Network.

From the Obama Hustle February 16, 2013.

“Breaking News – The Obama Administration pays for CNN content”

“Within this Canadian video report you will find footage of a CNN story on Egypt and Mohammed Al Zawahiri. It was produced by well-known CNN Journalist Nick Robertson. The entire video is excellent, but the pertinent aspect is at the 1:30 mark.

In the previous thread I asked two central questions. The Second Question was:

Why would CNN [or CNNi] refuse to air the Nick Robertson report with Muhammed Al Zawahiri (brother of Ayman Al Zawahiri) that clearly shows the Egyptian uprising was 100% in response to his call for protests for release of the Blind sheik on 9-11.? Why would the “most trusted name in news“, hide the report showing the truth, and instead allow the false narrative to be sold, by them, to the American electorate?

Amber Lyon provides the answer(s).

CNN never aired the Nick Robertson report in Egypt because it completely contradicted the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton State Department, Egyptian assertions. In short, it proved they were lying – BIG TIME. The refusal to air the real reasoning for the Egyptian Embassy assault was intentional protection ofPresident Obama specifically orchestrated by the CNN News group. Specific, intentional, lying.

Apparently they have a history of this no-one knew about. UNTIL NOW.

undefined

Amber Lyon is an award-winning journalist who worked for CNN.

She says she was ordered to report fake stories, delete unfriendly stories adverse to the Obama administration (like the Nick Robertson report), and construct stories in specific manners while working for the left-wing network.

CNN is paid by foreign and domestic Government agencies for specific content.

Let me repeat that.

CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays for CNN content.”

Read more:

http://theobamahustle.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/breaking-news-the-obama-administration-pays-for-cnn-content/

Huffington Post: A paid arm of the Obama Campaign.

From Citizen Wells May 25, 2010.

“In 2008, the Obama Campaign used a great deal of money from undocumented donors, a legion of paid bloggers, internet thugs and a complicit press to spin their Orwellian lies. The Obama Campaign paid The Huffington Post $ 55,354 in 2008. That of course is what was reported to the FEC and  is the tip of the iceberg. I have heard Obama refer to The Huffington Post on several occasions. The last time was the last straw. The Citizen Wells blog has written about The Huffington Post acting as an arm of the Obama camp to smear opposition to Obama. You can expect more.

Listen to the following Obama speech, if you can stomach it. He mentions The Huffington Post at around 1 minute 57 seconds. The speech is cleverly (in the wicked sense) written. It mixes truths, half truths and lies.”

“Why does The Huffington Post do the bidding of the Obama camp?

Here is one of the reasons.

Remember, the monetary payments below are only from Obama For America and those reported to the FEC. Based on the services provided by The Huffington Post to the Obama camp, the actual total paid should be significantly higher.”

DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE

OBAMA FOR AMERICA

2008 year end

Huffingtonpost.com   55,354.00

2009 third quarter

Huffingtonpost.com    5,000.00″

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/huffington-post-obama-obama-campaign-paid-huffington-post-55354-in-2008-money-in-2008-government-controls-now/

Rush Limbaugh declares Romney winner of debate, Facts not lies win presidential debates, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley lies being discussed

Rush Limbaugh declares Romney winner of debate, Facts not lies win presidential debates, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley lies being discussed

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”…Candy Crowley

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

From Rush Limbaugh October 17, 2012.

RUSH:  I’m seriously amazed.  I really am, ladies and gentlemen, seriously amazed at the uniformity of thought and opinion across the spectrum on the debate last night.  I must tell you, in all honesty, my view of what happened last night is not even close to what I’m hearing on Fox News, on MSNBC, on CNN, in the New York Times and the Washington Post.  Well, actually, you know, some of the newspaper editorials are closer to the way I saw this last night than some of the people on television.

Let me start out by stating something patently obvious.  Maybe put it to you in the form of a question.  Addressing one of the things that I have detected that people on our side are most concerned about, outside of Candy Crowley, which we’ll deal with here in just a second.  Libya.  Romney had a big opening.  He didn’t close it.  He didn’t secure it.  He could have said, “What are you talking about, terror attack?  You blamed a video for two weeks.”  He didn’t say that.

Are any of you not going to vote for Mitt Romney because he didn’t have something to say at a crucial moment that you wanted him to say?  Is somebody gonna vote for Barack Obama that wasn’t going to because Mitt Romney didn’t say, “You were talking about a video for two weeks.”  No, of course not.  There weren’t any votes lost by Romney last night, and there weren’t any votes gained by Obama.  Seriously.  So the whole notion I’m hearing of scoring this thing on points, this isn’t a college debate where you lose for technique according to some scoring system.  This was an entirely different dynamic, and it’s one that Obama came nowhere near overcoming.  The problem that he had going in is not one that he got anywhere near solving.

My friends, I want you to know something here.  I’m not speaking with preferences guiding my comments, and I’m not speaking with hope or false promises.  I’m shooting you straight as best I can.  I watched this debate last night and I saw another halting, choppy, staccato-speaking Barack Obama, wandering aimlessly, speaking in theory, speaking in faculty lounge lizard theoretical non-reality.  I saw cliche after cliche.  I heard liberal cliche after cliche.

The first question was some college kid who wants to know about a job and Obama talks to him about manufacturing jobs?  This kid isn’t going to college to learn how to weld.  He’s not going to college to find a manufacturing job. And Obama answers his question that way?  Through most of this debate I was thinking, here’s Romney, Mr. Smooth, he is in total command of the facts.  He is once again totally decimating Obama’s economic performance.  Obama, in his closing remarks, was reduced to sounding like me, when everybody knows he doesn’t believe a word of what he said.  He doesn’t believe in rugged individualism.  He doesn’t believe in self-reliance.  He doesn’t believe in any of those things.

Why doesn’t that matter when people start scoring these debates?  They look at these debates and they score some system that’s foreign to me.  Style points or any number of odd things that are irrelevant in a presidential campaign.  But I didn’t see Barack Obama dazzling anybody with a defense of his record.  I didn’t hear Barack Obama talk about his great plans for the future.  I heard Barack Obama even at one point say “when I was president” as though it’s in the past tense.  I saw a nervous, staccato speaking, choppy. In fact, everybody talks about how Romney got a raw deal from Candy Crowley, and he did, but it is what it is.

There was a point in that debate last night — Kathryn and I are sitting there watching it — and I was so stunned by what I saw that I hit the pause on the DVR.  And I said, “Do you realize what we just saw here?”  And what it was was a full-fledged destruction of the Obama record by Mitt Romney.  Every stat you could want.  Household income falling, unemployment up, the number of people out of the workforce, the number of jobs lost since Obama took office, the number of people totally out of work, 23 million.  Every economic statistic that detailed the crumbling aspects of this regime.  And Candy Crowley — on second thought, maybe she did him a favor — did not let Obama respond.  She didn’t make Romney stop prematurely, he finished, and then she went on to the next question.

Now that I think about it now, and now that we know what we know, there’s no question she was trying to save Obama by making sure he didn’t have to deal with that.  But the bottom line is, for everybody who thinks that Romney had a minor screw up here because he didn’t point out that Obama had been saying it’s a video for two weeks, Obama did not have a syllable to say in refutation, in disagreement with Romney’s sterling recitation of his failures.  There wasn’t one retort. There wasn’t one reply to it. There wasn’t one accusation that Romney had said anything that wasn’t true.

In fact, today, the day after, the only people who are accused of saying things that are not true are Barack Obama and Candy Crowley, not Mitt Romney.  I kid you not.  That’s the debate I saw.  I once again saw an Obama who looked uncomfortable and unprepared and full of, “Eh, uh, eh, uh.”  I didn’t see Mr. Smooth. I didn’t see Mr. In Command of Facts. I didn’t see anybody who was eager to defend his performance and his record.  Folks, I’m gonna apologize to you because I simply do not have a recollection or an analysis of what I saw last night that is anywhere close to what I’ve seen — and I haven’t seen it all — to what I saw on television last night. ”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/17/my_debate_analysis_defies_the_uniformity_of_thought_that_pervades_virtually_all_media

Candy Crowley bias aids Obama lies, Romney succeeds despite Crowley’s efforts to select questions fact check Libya terror statement and cut off Romney, Crowley awarded 5 Orwells

Candy Crowley bias aids Obama lies, Romney succeeds despite Crowley’s efforts to select questions fact check Libya terror statement and cut off Romney, Crowley awarded 5 Orwells

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”…Candy Crowley

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984”

This is a teachable moment. Candy Crowley’s performance in the Obama Romney debate last night was predictable. She has a history of liberal slant, she is a member of the mainstream media and she works for CNN.

Are there enough intelligent, informed and concerned Americans left out there to discern the truth? Obama lied again and Candy Crowley helped him.

From the Washington Times October 17, 2012.

“Another debate, another debacle for America’s media.

In the runup to the second presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley declared that she would not just be a “fly on the wall” as she played the tiny role of moderator, that she would step in whenever she chose to say, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”

And boy did she, cutting off Republican Mitt Romney repeatedly and often throwing the floor to President Obama with an open “let me give the president a chance here.”

More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called “undecided” voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama — Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her).

She even chose this question, directed to both men: “I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”

Ms. Crowley, who called Mr. Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate a “ticket death wish,” asserted her unilateral power at the outset, telling the audience before the cameras went on that she planned to “give the debate direction and ensure the candidates give answers to the questions.”

After both candidates answered Question One, she blurted: “Let me get a more immediate answer” — whatever that means. But when Mr. Romney sought to correct falsehoods told by the president, she cut him off: “We have all these folks here.” In the end, Mr. Obama would get 9 percent more time.

At Question Two, Mr. Obama, asked by Mr. Romney how much he had cut federal oil permits, took over the floor — with Ms. Crowley’s silent approval. “Here’s what happened,” he said as he filibustered for a full minute. Mr. Romney sought to get the last word — as the president had the question before — but the moderator shut him down: “It’ doesn’t quite work like that.”

When Mr. Romney sought to counter Mr. Obama’s assertion after Question Three, Ms. Crowley again cut him off: “Before we get into a vast array….” she said before asking a completely different question.

The next question was pure Obama — workplace inequality (the president mention at every stop his Lily Ledbetter legislation). But the query gave him the platform to demand Americans pay for contraception for all women, saying the governor “feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.”

For the record, Mr. Obama spoke for two minutes, then Mr. Romney, then Mr. Obama again. Ms. Crowley then rushed into the next question.

When the immigration question came up, both candidates gave their answers. Then the moderator once again butted in, ordering Mr. Romney to “speak to the idea of self-deportation.”

By then, Mr. Romney had had enough, and talked over her demands. “No, let — let — let me go back and speak to the points the president made and — and — and let’s get them correct.”

At the next question, the moderator lost all control. “Candy,” Mr. Obama said. “Hold on.” “Mr. President,” the governor said, “I’m still speaking.” They mixed it up for a bit, then Ms. Crowley said: “Sit down, Mr. Romney.”

The most shocking exchange took place on the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others dead.

Mr. Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying.”

Mr. Obama made no defense. “Please proceed, governor.”

“I want to make sure,” Mr. Romney said. “Get the transcript,” the president said. Then Ms. Crowley jumped in to do her own fact-check, on the spot. “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”

The truth is, he didn’t. The day after the attack, he said only this: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” It took another two weeks before the White House would label the attack an act of terror.

The Obama people, of course, loved it — having blamed Mr. Obama’s dismal performance in the first debate on poor moderating.

“He’s back,” said Team O spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who lauded Ms. Crowley for her fact checking.

But then she caught herself and quickly added: “He was never really gone, but he’s back.””

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/curl-crowley-skews-hard-obama-disastrous-debate/?page=all#pagebreak

For her Orwellian efforts to prop up Obama, Candy Crowley is awarded 5 Orwells.

Obama Romney debate moderator Candy Crowley liberal bias, Crowley selects audience questions , Crowley will not follow rules, Biased history

Obama Romney debate moderator Candy Crowley liberal bias, Crowley selects audience questions , Crowley will not follow rules, Biased history

“I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.”…CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”…George Washington

***  Update Oct. 17, 2012, 8:35 AM  ***

Candy Crowley did not disappoint us. She performed as her history and associations predicted. More on this later today.

From Media Research Center October 16, 2012.

“MRC Study: By 2-to-1 Margin, Journalists Favor Liberal Questions at Town Hall Debates”

“Tonight’s town hall-style presidential debate will ostensibly feature questions from undecided voters, but the evening’s agenda will really be decided by the moderator, as CNN’s Candy Crowley will select which of the more than roughly 80 voters in the room will actually get a chance to talk to the candidates.

Reviewing the five previous town hall debates, the journalist-moderators have tended to skew the agenda of these so-called citizen forums to the liberal side of the spectrum, but not always. In 2004, ABC’s Charles Gibson selected a balanced menu of questions, with questions from the left matching those from the right.

But Gibson is the lone exception. The other journalists who have moderated these forums — ABC’s Carole Simpson in 1992, PBS’s Jim Lehrer in 1996 and 2000, and NBC’s Tom Brokaw in 2008 — all favored liberal agenda questions as they chose which of the undecided voters would actually participate in the debate.

The bottom line: if history is a reliable guide, Mitt Romney has twice the chance of facing a hostile liberal question Tuesday night as Barack Obama has of facing a question based on a conservative agenda, as the record shows a 2-to-1 tilt to the left in past town hall debates.

The Media Research Center has examined the agenda of every town hall debate since the format debuted 20 years ago. In the 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot debate in Richmond, we scored eight audience questions as straightforward requests for information, four liberal questions, and no conservative questions. One participant that year described the election as about choosing a father who would take care of citizens, whom he referred to as “children.”

The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?

Four years later, we tallied ten questions as straightforward, five as conveying a liberal agenda, and three as conservative. That year, one voter asked Bill Clinton whether he had “plans to expand the Family Leave Act,” while another insisted during a discussion of health care that “the private sector is a problem.”

In 2000, moderator Jim Lehrer favored liberal questions by an 8-to-2 margin over conservative questions. Examples from that debate: One voter asked George W. Bush and Al Gore: “Would you be open to the ideal of a national health care plan for everybody?” while another targeted Bush:

We’d like to know why you object to the Brady handgun bill, if you do object to it. Because in a recent TV ad, it showed that the [NRA] says if you are elected that they will be working out of your office…actually, that kind of bothers me.

In 2004, anchor Charles Gibson picked an ideologically balanced set of questions: eight from the left/pro-Kerry, eight from the right/pro-Bush and two ambiguous/neutral. From the left, one voter lectured then-President Bush about the “intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation,” while another complained about the Patriot Act “which takes away checks on law enforcement and weakens American citizens’ rights and freedoms….Why are my rights being watered down?”

But balancing the night, Gibson also showcased a voter who posed this tough question to John Kerry: “You’ve stated your concern for the rising cost of health care, yet you chose a vice presidential candidate who has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals. How do you reconcile this with the voters?”

Another voter aimed at Kerry’s cynical use of stem cell research to paint Republicans as anti-science. “Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn’t it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?”

In 2008, NBC’s Tom Brokaw selected a dozen questions from citizens — three from the left, none from the right, and nine that were neutral/informational. The Obama-McCain town hall debate took place at the height of the financial panic that year, and one voter demanded to know “What’s the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people [retirees and workers] out of the economic ruin?”

Another voter wanted to see a flurry of legislation to create “green jobs,” telling John McCain: “We saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know, what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?”

As the Gibson example shows, a moderator has it within their power to ensure an ideologically balanced discussion of the issues — to serve all of the potential voters who might be watching. It’s up to Crowley to determine whether the candidates will face equally tough questioning, or whether the liberal Barack Obama will face a friendlier agenda than Mitt Romney.”

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/mrc-study-2-1-margin-journalists-favor-liberal-questions-town-hall-debates

Candy Crowley has stated she will not abide by the rules.

From Politico October 16, 2012.

“In an interview with CNN this afternoon, Candy Crowley reiterated that, like past town-hall debate moderators, she intends to do more than just hold the microphone at tonight’s debate in Hempstead, N.Y. — an intention that has caused concern for both campaigns.

“They will call on ‘Alice,’ and ‘Alice’ will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there’s time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it,” Crowley said. “So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there’s the time to go, ‘But Alice asked oranges? What’s the answer to that?” Or, ‘Well, you say this, but what about that?'”

(Also on POLITICO: 5 things to watch at the debate)

Crowley’s vision of her role at tonight’s debate is in keeping with past town hall debates, but it would defy the expectations agreed to by both campaigns in the co-signed memorandum of understanding, obtained and released yesterday by Time’s Mark Halperin. From section 7, part (c), sub-part (iv) (italics mine):

7. Additional Rules Apllicable to the October 16 Debate…

(c) With respect to all questions…

(iv) The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.

There is hardly any gray area here. Crowley is expected to do nothing except to acknowledge questioners, enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments. Many people — especially journalists — would and have objected to that, but that’s the agreement. ”

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-promises-to-defy-debate-contract-138596.html

Candy Crowley’s history.

From News Busters August 15, 2012.

“Affirmative-action lovers were thrilled that CNN’s Candy Crowley would be the first female to moderate a presidential debate since Carole Simpson’s sneering turn in 1992. Crowley deserves the opportunity after being in the field of political news for decades, and is the closest thing the current crop of moderators has to a Tim Russert type in being able to question firmly both sides of the aisle.

However, Crowley still fits within the CNN media-elite mold of liberalism, and not just with her unfortunate channeling of “some Republicans” on Saturday who anonymously felt the Paul Ryan pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.” Below are a list of some of Crowley’s more liberal moments on the CNN airwaves:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
“Usually you kind of give the President a pass on leaking confidential stuff.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on Obama’s self-promoting national security leaks, June 10, 2012 State of the Union.

“Let me talk to you a little about the swing state of Virginia, and I want to show our viewers your unemployment rate which has basically stayed two to three points below the national unemployment rate. It’s a success story really. Okay? You like this. I understand that. But, but, even as you embrace it as a Republican governor, does it not make it difficult for Mitt Romney, who has the same problem in other swing states, to come in and say, ‘The economy is terrible and, you know, you need to elect a new president?’ Because Virginia is doing very well under President Obama. – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, June 3, 2012 State of the Union.

“Do you have a problem with being inclusive, because most people do look at Republicans going ‘They’re a conservative bunch of white guys who want to protect Big Oil.’ And now you’re even hearing Republicans saying, ‘It’s not big enough. We haven’t opened up the tent door.’” – CNN’s Candy Crowley touting an Arnold Schwarzenegger op-ed to Newt Gingrich, May 6, 2012 State of the Union.

“We have a poll where the majority of Americans said you all need to compromise on this debt ceiling, you all need to raise the debt ceiling, and it out to be — the deal ought to include a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. You are opposed to both raising the debt ceiling and that kind of compromise. So doesn’t that put you outside the mainstream?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Rep. Michele Bachmann, August 14, 2011 State of the Union.

“There’s that term, ‘penny wise and pound foolish.’ Would you worry that, by cutting off those services, people…would have sicker babies, or certain people…wouldn’t have HIV testing…and that would just cost us more?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley questioning Rep. Steve King on Planned Parenthood subsidies while guest-hosting The Situation Room on February 18, 2011.

“So let’s get down to the basic question, who’s going to get hurt in this budget?…So you have said in an editorial you wrote that the budget is an expression of our values and aspirations. So if I look at this what we call discretionary spending, things we don’t have to spend on, you want to cut back community development block programs. That creates jobs in communities; it helps them with infrastructure, that kind of thing. Home heating assistance; education, as you just mentioned. You’re also going to do — the Great Lakes Restoration Fund Initiative is getting a pretty healthy cut in what they get from the feds, eight states involved, in trying to keep the Great Lakes economically viable. What does that say about our values and aspirations?: – CNN’s Candy Crowley pressing Obama budget director Jack Lew from the left on State of the Union, February 13, 2011.

“It’s probably less of a phony issue than a passe issue. This might have had some resonance had he done it early on, and he had a whole, you know, springtime to begin to, you know, chip away. The problem is, that the economy just came down on him.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley after the third presidential debate raised the issue of Obama’s friendship with radical Sixties bomber Bill Ayers, October 15, 2008.

“If you raised more than a quarter billion dollars in the primary season, would you limit yourself to $85 million in the fall campaign? Duh!” – CNN’s Candy Crowley’s spin when Obama decided to break his promise to abide by campaign spending limits to accept public financing, June 19, 2008.

“I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008.”

Read more:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/08/15/cnns-moderator-candy-crowley-political-news-pro-still-liberal-media-elit

I will be commenting live on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/citizenwells

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

“I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.”…George Washington

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

Anyone paying attention for years should be aware of the bias from CNN and Candy Crowley. Yesterday at Citizen Wells, the bias in favor of the LGBT community at Hofstra University was revealed.

“A cursory examination of the Hofstra University website reveals what can only be described as an inordinate emphasis on gay issues.

For example. On the first page of the scholarship opportunities we find:

“LGBT Activism Scholarship

In 2002, Hofstra University established an unprecedented scholarship program for students engaged in service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The program is designed to demonstrate Hofstra’s commitment to equality and support for LGBT individuals. The program also includes the Hofstra Law School Fellowships for Advocacy for the Equality of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, as well as the Mildred Elizabeth McGinnis Endowed scholarship for students in the humanities.”

“School of Law Scholarships”

“LGBT Rights Fellowship – The Law School supports a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Fellowship for students interested in pursuing advocacy work on behalf of these communities.”

LGBT Studies.

“LGBT Studies focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, their history and culture, considering sexualities and genders as identities, social statuses, categories of knowledge, and as lenses that help us to frame how we understand our world. A central core of courses is complemented by interdisciplinary courses taught across campus or by specialized syllabi for students taking a course that could lend itself to LGBT studies. Currently, a minor in LGBT Studies is available as part of the Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/HCLAS/LGBT/index_LGBT.cfm

And last but not least.

“LGBT STUDIES PROGRAM, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY

and

HOFSTRA CULTURAL CENTER
present
a conference

Queer Rhetoric
The 6th Annual LGBT Studies Conference

Friday and Saturday, March 16-17, 2012
Queer Rhetoric is a relatively new field situated at the intersection of LGBT Studies, Queer Theory, Rhetoric and Cultural Studies. In short, Queer Rhetoric seeks to uncover the symbolic and performative strategies whereby queer identities have been and continue to be constructed in different times and places. Scholars working in this field locate the heteronormative occlusion of queer voices within a given cultural and social context and describe how queer voices develop a battery of technologies that offer a means of resistant expression. This conference will be the first ever devoted entirely to the subject of Queer Rhetoric. For more information click here.

Keynote Addresses will be given by:
Erik Gunderson
University of Toronto, Canada
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Symposium Scholar
The Reluctant Queerness of Ancient Rhetoric

and

Chuck E. Morris III
Boston College
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Conference Scholar
My Old Kentucky Homo: Abraham LIncoln is Here,
Queer, and Wants to Recruit You”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/obama-romney-debate-october-16-2012-hofstra-university-hempstead-ny-town-meeting-format-moderator-candy-crowley-cnn-hofstra-not-neutral-site/

Gallup is selecting the town hall meeting audience from undecided voters. Most of you are aware of the controversies surrounding polling methodologies and in many cases the skewing of results with an unrealistic representation of Democrats in the numbers. Recently Gallup changed it’s methodology midstream in the election cycle to the benefit of Obama.

From The Hill October 11, 2012.

“Obama approval rating gets a boost after Gallup tweaks its polling methodology”
“President Obama’s job approval rating spiked this month, according to Gallup’s daily tracking survey, but the jump may be the result of a shift in the polling outlet’s survey methodology.

Since late 2011, President Obama has held steady at just under 50 percent saying they approved of the job he was doing and just under 50 percent saying they disapproved.

Earlier this month, the trend line moved in favor of the president, and on Thursday it sat at 53 percent positive and 42 negative — a greater job approval rating than Obama enjoyed after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

However, this movement may have been provoked by a change in the pollster’s methodology, without which the president may have seen no change in job approval.

“As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures,” Gallup CEO Frank Newport wrote on Wednesday.

Gallup increased the proportion of cellphones in its tracking survey from 40 percent, and now splits its calls to cellphones and land lines evenly. Newport defended the switch, saying it was an attempt to “stay consistent with changes in the communication behavior and habits of those we are interviewing.”

“Gallup switched primarily to telephone interviewing a few decades ago based on the increased penetration of phones in American households and the increased costs of going into Americans’ homes for in-person interviewing,” Newport wrote. “Now we know, based on government statistics (and what we observe around us), that Americans are shifting rapidly from reliance on landline phones to mobile devices.”

Still, the timing of the change — one month out from the presidential election — has some on the right exasperated.

“What I can say is that it’s problematic to alter one’s methodological approach to polling elections just five weeks before the biggest election in a generation,”writes Jay Cost, polling analyst for the conservative Weekly Standard. “In fact, I think this is a highly inopportune time to make such a change; do it in the summer of 2012 or the winter of 2013, but for goodness sake not the fall of 2012!”

The controversy will likely be fuel for those conservatives who claimed polls from earlier in the cycle were skewed in favor of Democrats.

The Romney campaign and other Republicans said polls showing Obama with a significant lead over their candidate were inaccurate.”

Read more:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/261485-obama-gets-a-boost-after-gallup-tweaks-polling-methodology

It appears to me on the surface that using a higher percentage of cell phones could include more young people.

From Gallup.

“How does Gallup polling work?

Gallup polls aim to represent the opinions of a sample of people representing the same opinions that would be obtained if it were possible to interview everyone in a given country.

The majority of Gallup surveys in the U.S. are based on interviews conducted by landline and cellular telephones. Generally, Gallup refers to the target audience as “national adults,” representing all adults, aged 18 and older, living in United States.

The findings from Gallup’s U.S. surveys are based on the organization’s standard national telephone samples, consisting of directory-assisted random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone samples using a proportionate, stratified sampling design. A computer randomly generates the phone numbers Gallup calls from all working phone exchanges (the first three numbers of your local phone number) and not-listed phone numbers; thus, Gallup is as likely to call unlisted phone numbers as listed phone numbers.

Within each contacted household reached via landline, an interview is sought with an adult 18 years of age or older living in the household who has had the most recent birthday. (This is a method pollsters commonly use to make a random selection within households without having to ask the respondent to provide a complete roster of adults living in the household.) Gallup does not use the same respondent selection procedure when making calls to cell phones because they are typically associated with one individual rather than shared among several members of a household.

When respondents to be interviewed are selected at random, every adult has an equal probability of falling into the sample. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, either a traditional stand-alone poll or one night’s interviewing from Gallup’s Daily tracking, is 1,000 national adults with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Gallup’s Daily tracking process now allows Gallup analysts to aggregate larger groups of interviews for more detailed subgroup analysis. But the accuracy of the estimates derived only marginally improves with larger sample sizes.

After Gallup collects and processes survey data, each respondent is assigned a weight so that the demographic characteristics of the total weighted sample of respondents match the latest estimates of the demographic characteristics of the adult population available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, educational attainment, and region.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Cold Case Commander Mike Zullo interview, June 13, 2012, Media Fox CNN Soledad O’Brien O’Reilly, 5 Orwells awarded for Owellian reporting

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Cold Case Commander Mike Zullo interview, June 13, 2012, Media Fox CNN Soledad O’Brien O’Reilly, 5 Orwells awarded for Owellian reporting

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in it’s stead. This process of continuation alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs–to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to be correct; nor was any item of news, or expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to be on record.”…George Orwell, “1984″ 

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

The results of the Sheriff Joe Arpaio Hawaii and other locations investigation of Obama’s birth certificate, Selective Service Application and other records will be presented soon. Mike Zullo, Cold Case Commander, was recently interviewed. This is one of the best video presentations that I have encountered.

The usual Orwellian mouthpieces for the Obama Administration were exposed and a few others written about here.

Real journalist Lou Dobbs contrasted with Big Brother spokesman Bill O’Reilly.

I questioned the Jana Winter Fox story about Jean-Claude Tremblay the Adobe-certified expert before I discovered he repudiated Winter’s version.

From Citizen Wells April 30, 2011.

“I am a computer and business systems expert. Of the many aspects of computer systems and data I was involved in, I worked for a software company in the early 1980′s that dealt with OCR software and readers. I provided my analysis of the document placed on WhiteHouse.gov yesterday.

“When you view the document placed on WhiteHouse.gov remember it was computer generated. It is not an image file of a complete original birth certificate. It is a composite of data entered into a database(s) in the Hawaii computer systems. The data is as good as the source and the procedures and personnel who controlled the entry and maintained the integrity. From a legal standpoint it proves, if authenticated as having come from the state of Hawaii, that Obama is a US Citizen. It does not prove that he is a natural born citizen.””

“The article heading is at least misleading or an outright lie.

“Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Legit”

  • Jean-Claude Tremblay ia a Adobe-certified expert. He only addressed the issue of document manipulation.
  • No mention was made of whether or not Tremblay was a birth certificate expert.
  • Tremblay has not been given access to an original birth certificate.
  • Tremblay did not say that the document was an authenticate presentation of Obama’s original birth certificate.

Why does the article contain these statements?

“Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Legit”

“But a leading software expert says there’s no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong.”

A disturbing trend has developed at Fox. Bill O’Reilly misled the American people for several years by stating that he had done research and that Obama was born in Hawaii. We recently got confirmation that he relied on the birth announcements. Now Jana Winter misrepresents what the Adobe software expert has said.

Did Fox make a deal with the devil?”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/jana-winter-and-fox-intentionally-misleading-americans-obama-birth-certificate-analysis-ocr-software-data-integrity-vs-character-translation/

Remember John Woodman?

From Citizen Wells September 2, 2011.

“Mr. Woodman spends much of his efforts trying to debunk the layers and anomalies pointed out by others. He may be correct about some of his assertions. His explanation for most of this is a software program. By doing so, he is in fact proving that the image is not a photostatic copy.

He further compares the image to that of certified copies for the Nordyke twins. He states that they are from the same type of forms. However, the biggest difference between the 2 images is that the Nordyke twins certificates have a stamped seal and verbage that states:

“This certifies that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file.”

The WhiteHouse.com image has the following:

“I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of health.”  Alvin T. Onaki, Ph.D.

Abstract: “The term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers to an abbreviated history of an official record.””

“From commenter Pete:

“Citizen Wells,
No expert can verify an internet document as legitimate, but you can declare it a fraud. Hawaiian law states that public display of private records removes the Hawaiian obligation to protect them. Simply put, if Obama displays his Birth Certificate copy on the internet or on a Federal Government website, he has no right to privacy.

Here are undisputed facts:
1. The Federal Government, via the Executive Branch, has published a Document they claim is Obama’s Hawaiian BC. Not disputed.
2. There is no legal chain of Custody for the document published by the White House.
3. The DoH (Department of Health) in Hawaii REFUSED a legal subpeona to review the Document by experts in person after pre-arrangements had been made.””

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/john-woodman-book-is-barack-obamas-birth-certificate-a-fraud-citizen-wells-analysis-and-review-another-messenger-shooter-woodmans-motivation/

To the mainstream media, to CNN, To Fox News, to Soledad O’Brien, to Bill O’Reilly, to Wolf Blitzer, et al. You are awarded 5 Orwells for your Orwellian behaviour in propping up the Obama Administration and attacking anyone who challenges Obama.

Thanks to commenter Ron.

God bless Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

God bless Lou Dobbs.