Category Archives: CNN

San Diego TV station reported “most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work”, CNN cancels report

San Diego TV station reported “most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work”, CNN cancels report

We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work,…KUSI TV San Diego

“Some have suggested that barrier is immoral. Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside but because they love the people on the inside. The only thing that is immoral is the politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.”…President Trump border wall speech

“CNN, at the forefront of fake news.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Zero Hedge.

“CNN Cancels On San Diego TV Station After They Report Border Wall Works

A local San Diego television station said on Thursday that CNN invited them to provide a “local view” of the existing wall at the US-Mexico border, only to cancel after past reports from the station showed that the wall is an effective method of combating illegal immigration.

“Thursday morning, CNN called the KUSI Newsroom asking if one of our reporters could give them a local view of the debate surrounding the border wall and government shutdown,” begins a report by local San Diego station KUSI.

“KUSI offered our own Dan Plante, who has reported dozens of times on the border, including one story from 2016 that was retweeted by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and posted on DrudgeReport.com,” the report continues.

We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work,” it concludes. “We have continuously been told by Border Patrol Agents that the barrier along the Southern border helps prevent illegal entries, drugs, and weapons from entering the United States, and the numbers prove it.””

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-11/cnn-cancels-san-diego-tv-station-after-they-report-border-wall-works

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Advertisements

Trump Russian ties fake news report reported by BuzzFeed and CNN exposed by NY Times, “unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources”, “dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer hired by Mr. Trump’s political opponents”

Trump Russian ties fake news report reported by BuzzFeed and CNN exposed by NY Times, “unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources”, “dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer hired by Mr. Trump’s political opponents”

“Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “leak” into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?”…Donald Trump

“Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false—we can say that the Russian government is not the source,”…Julian Assange

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the NY Times January 10, 2017.

“BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Stirring Debate

BuzzFeed News became the center of a swirling debate over journalistic ethics on Tuesday after its decision to publish a 35-page document carrying explosive, but unverified, allegations about ties between the Russian government and President-elect Donald J. Trump.

The document, a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer hired by Mr. Trump’s political opponents, had been circulating among high-ranking politicians and some journalists since the fall. Intelligence officials recently presented a two-page summary of the allegations to Mr. Trump and President Obama, CNN reported on Tuesday.

But CNN declined to include the specific allegations contained in the dossier — such as collusion between Mr. Trump’s team and Russian operatives — saying that its journalists could not independently verify them.

Roughly an hour later, BuzzFeed, in a break from typical journalistic practice, posted the document that fully detailed the unverified allegations to which CNN had alluded.

“BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government,” BuzzFeed wrote.

Ben Smith, BuzzFeed’s editor in chief, declined to comment beyond the article, which carried the bylines of three BuzzFeed reporters. But in a memo to his staff, Mr. Smith offered a further explanation about why the site had published the document.

“Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers,” Mr. Smith wrote. “We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media.

“Publishing this document was not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice,” Mr. Smith added. “But publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017.”

The reports by CNN and Buzzfeed sent other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, scrambling to publish their own articles, some of which included generalized descriptions of the unverified allegations about Mr. Trump. By late Tuesday, though, only BuzzFeed had published the full document.

BuzzFeed’s decision, besides its immediate political ramifications for a president-elect who is to be inaugurated in 10 days, was sure to accelerate a roiling debate about the role and credibility of the traditional media in today’s frenetic, polarized information age.

Of particular interest was the use of unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources, a practice that fueled some of the so-called fake news — false rumors passed off as legitimate journalism — that proliferated during the presidential election.”

“In a brief interview in the Times newsroom on Tuesday evening, Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, said the paper would not publish the document because the allegations were “totally unsubstantiated.”

“We, like others, investigated the allegations and haven’t corroborated them, and we felt we’re not in the business of publishing things we can’t stand by,” Mr. Baquet said.”

Read more:

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

CNN criticizes Trump for bombing statement and edits it out for Hillary, Responses to New York City attacks, Hillary Clinton no energy no animation blank expression barely standing up, 2 stories media bias and Hillary health

CNN criticizes Trump for bombing statement and edits it out for Hillary, Responses to New York City attacks, Hillary Clinton no energy no animation blank expression barely standing up, 2 stories media bias and Hillary health

“#CNN says #Hillary team in 2008 never raised #birther issue. #SidBlumenthal, long-time #HRC buddy, told me in person #Obama born in #kenya”…James Asher, Twitter

“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″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

CNNs interview and video of Hillary Clinton on her campaign plane Saturday night provides at least 2 stories.

From the Daily Caller September 18, 2016.

“CNN Edits Hillary’s Response To NYC Attack, Removes The Word ‘Bombing’”

“CNN edited the opening sentence of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s response to Saturday’s explosion in New York City, removing her use of the word “bombing” to describe the attack.

When Clinton came out to address the press on her campaign plane late Saturday, she opened her brief remarks by saying “I’ve been briefed about bombings in New York and New Jersey, and the attacks in Minnesota.”

But when CNN aired Clinton’s response, and posted it on Twitter, they removed Clinton’s first sentence, and instead began on her second, which emphasized support for first responders.

At the time of Clinton’s response, some in the media, including CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond, were criticizing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for allegedly jumping the gun by calling the attack a bombing before it was explicitly confirmed by authorities. In fact, Clinton’s first question from the press was on that exact topic, with a reporter asking what she thought about Trump “immediately” calling the attacks a bombing. Perhaps because she’d just use the word herself, Clinton punted on the question and avoided attacking Trump directly.”

Read more:

CNN Edits Hillary’s Response To NYC Attack, Removes The Word ‘Bombing’

Unedited video:

From Citizen Wells commenter MargieO.

“Did anybody see the video of Hillary speaking Saturday night on her plane? She was asked by the fawning press people about the bombing in NYC and she could barely keep her eyes open to spew a few meaningless words. No energy, no animation, blank expression, barely standing up. Somebody thought she looked stoned, but I think her Parkinson’s medication ran out of oomph. It was too late to give her any more, so they should have just wiped her down and put her in the barn for the night. The woman is sick.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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.”

https://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.”

https://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″

https://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.