The Right State

What is happening over at Google? After receiving a tip from my brother, I googled the word “failure” and came up with some of the usual stuff, Failure Magazine, the movie ‘Failure to Launch,’ heart failure and others. But the very first entry is concerning our President. Michael Moore is listed number 4. I don’t understand that either.

George W. Bush

Biography of the 43rd President of the United States. www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

What does his White House biography have to do with failure? I don’t know what determines how different items are listed, but this looks mighty suspicious to me. Does anyone know?

Update: A reader directed me to this website by Google which tells how certain people have manipulated the system by a practice called googlebombing.  Now I know.

Tags: President Bush, Bias, Culture by Chuck
1 Comment »

It is looking more and more like former Marine and Congressman John Murtha is either a liar or a much too eager opportunist.

A sergeant who examined the scene hours after Marines killed two dozen Iraqis in Haditha last year said the shootings appeared to be an appropriate response to a coordinated insurgent attack, according to a sworn statement obtained by The Washington Post. (snip)

But Laughner said the scenes of the slayings appeared to match the version of events the Marine squad provided that day and did not seem especially out of the ordinary, according to a transcript of Laughner’s interview with military investigators in March.

What do you have to say now, Mr. Murtha?  If the Congressman wasn’t so pathetic, he would be embarrassing.

Hat tip: BlackFive 

Tags: Democrats, War by Chuck
No Comments »

There are some things that defy all explanation, other than a misleading survey. Take the new survey CNN just released which states that only 43% of the American people believe the US is safer now than before 9/11. This is just idiotic. Of course we are safer, the military forces of the United States has taken out two countries that sponsored terrorism: Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 9/11, there has not been one terrorist attack which has been carried out against this country.

There is a troubling aspect to this poll and that is CNN is providing the data in a very misleading way. While it is true that 43% think the US is safer than before 9/11, it far outpaces the other responses. 32% say we are as safe while 25% say the US is less safe. Taken together this poll would show that 75% of the American people believe we are at least as safe. The CNN headline could have just as easily said, “Only 25% of Americans believe they are less safe now than before 9/11.” But then that would not have been newsworthy, at least to them.

Compare the answer of 43% with the question which asks respondents if they are worried about the US being attacked in the next few weeks. 54% said yes. Although a whopping 65% do not believe they or someone in their family would be a victim of terrorism. Its like asking some of these people if going to New York’s Central Park was safe and lets for the sake of argument lets believe most say no. When asked if they or their family felt safe in Central Park, they would answer, yes. Just bringing up the idea of a terrorist attack scares people, but not to the point where they worry about their own safety.

Why the dichotomy? In reality most people do not think the US is in danger. In fact they rarely think about terrorism until a pollster calls.

Additionally 55% said the war in Iraq has made them less safe. What this poll shows is that the American people are being misled by the Mainstream Media. The constant carping on how the US is in danger because of the war in Iraq has tilted the numbers. Otherwise the numbers do not match up with the people who say they or their families are not in danger.

Consider another poll by CNN. This one asks if they think Osama bin Laden is planning another attack against the US? M at Unhack the Brain calls polls like those by CNN, stupid.

Poll: Most think bin Laden planning another U.S. attack

… why stupid? It is a self-fulfilling prophecy in disguise. It is more a measure of how well the media is spreading the scare of an attack than anything which predicts an attack. It is manipulative because most people are not thinking of an attack by bin Laden until the poll shows up. It is stupid because what the public thinks in terms of whether bin Laden is planning one has nothing to do with whether he is planning one. Indeed, it can be presumed that he always is planning another attack! BTW, the following (IMHO) is inaccurate as most in the headline:

source: … Seventy-four percent of the 1,033 adult Americans polled said they believe an attack is being planned, according to the poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation on behalf of CNN.

… 74% is a large percentage, but is not most. 95% could be called most!

CNN is a joke. For years I have called them the Clinton News Network. (I don’t know where I heard this first, so I can’t give credit) Obviously CNN has an agenda, destroy this President. When the President’s poll numbers start dropping, they produce one poll after another which have the effect of driving down his numbers. When they poll people about the war or their safety, excessive polling drives down numbers.

I don’t believe most fear for their safety until a pollster starts asking questions designed to produce a desired response. A doctor once told me, “Whatever you do, do not scratch your nose.” My nose had not itched in years until he said don’t scratch it. Then it itched like crazy. Many of these polls have the same response, forcing people to think about something they would not normally have thought about. And most do not think they are in danger from terrorism, that is until they are asked.

Either way, CNN owes the American people an apology for pretending to be a real news network. Their biased news coverage is one reason their viewership has fallen so drastically in the last few years. This poll says one thing about CNN, expect more of the same.

Tags: Terrorism, Bias by Chuck
No Comments »

Is there any wonder MSNBC is at the very bottom of the rankings of the cable news networks, especially when there are still anchors like extreme liberal Chris Matthews on?  I do not watch any MSNBC programs, but I ran across the text of an interview Van Taylor had with Chris Matthews and Paul Hackett.  Taylor is currently trying to unseat Democrat Chet Edwards from Waco, Texas in US Congress TX-17.  The liberal bloggers are saying Taylor was out of his league.  After reading the text, I disagree.  Taylor was on message, was knowledgeable, and held his own even when he was rudely interrupted by both Matthews and Hackett.  The MSNBC anchors came across as biased, rude, shallow, ill-informed, and extremely partisan.

Matthews starts off the program with a short dialog, wrong of course, but I include it to show how far to the left Matthews and his program has turned.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR:  You know a Republican is in a political state of mind when he starts talking about the Democrat Party, Democrat Party.  Those are fighting words meant to tick off the Democrats, stir up Republicans.  Two weeks before Labor Day, the country‘s top Republican wants a tussle.  He wants to fight any Democrat who takes on his Iraq policy.  You talking to me?  I‘m never leaving Iraq.  Let‘s play HARDBALL.

Good evening I‘m Chris Matthews and welcome to HARDBALL.  At his press conference Monday, President Bush drew a partisan line in the sand on the war in Iraq, saying that withdrawing troops would be a disaster with this dire warning.

Huh?  How is saying withdrawing troops would be a disaster drawing a partisan line?  If you’re the great Chris Matthews, you don’t need to explain yourself.

Then they show a video clip with MSNBC correspondent David Shuster who gets his facts all messed up.

BUSH:  Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

SHUSTER:  The problem is that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.

BUSH:  What did Iraq have to do with what?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH:  Nothing except for its part of—and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.

SHUSTER:  But before the war, President Bush himself suggested Iraq was involved.

No, President Bush never said that.  Osama bin Laden said he attacked the US because we had troops in Saudi Arabia.  We had troops in the Saudi Kingdom because of Saddam Hussein.  Shuster is being incredibly deceitful.  He twisted around Bush’s words to make his own point.  No wonder people do not trust MSNBC.

Chris Matthews bias shines through when he introduces Van Taylor as a Congressional Candidate while Paul Hackett is introduced as an IRAQ WAR VETERAN.  Van Taylor is also an Iraq War veteran, so why wasn’t he introduced the same way?  Maybe Hackett should have been introduced as ‘Paul Hackett, Failed Congressional Candidate.’  The point is, MSNBC is trying to make a point by influencing their viewers.

This is a typical statement by Paul Hackett.

HACKETT:  Chris, if I may interject—if I may interject, Chris, Van obviously doesn‘t understand the war on terror.  Where is Osama bin Laden?  Where is the 6‘2” white robe-dressed, left-handed Arab who is walking around in Pakistan or Afghanistan?  That was the war against those who attacked us on our soil.

War on terror?  I mean, that‘s a ridiculous soundbite.  Terror, as you know, Van, is a military strategy.  It‘s not a philosophy.  You are not going to defeat a strategy.  You are going to defeat a philosophy.  And if you want to defeat it, you have to address what compels those people to sacrifice their lives and kill innocent women and children.

No wonder Hackett lost his Congressional election in Ohio.  This is the liberal mantra, we just have to understand what it is that offends these people.  That way we can stop doing it and they will not attack us anymore.  What rubbish.

After reading the whole transcript, Chris Matthews and Paul Hackett come across as shallow, hide your head in the sand, cut-and-run Democrats.  As Matthews was saying goodbye to Hackett, he fawns all over him, telling Paul he needs to run for office again.  Chris just tells Van goodbye.  MSNBC’s low ratings are well deserved.  The behavior of Chris Matthews has ensured it.

Van Taylor came across as knowledgeable.  A review of just a couple of statements by Van Taylor will illustrate this fact.

TAYLOR:  Al Qaeda is trying to foment an insurgency in Iraq.  We have got to secure our country against terrorists and they are attacking us right now, U.S. forces are risking their lives fighting al Qaeda terrorists that seek to destroy our country and our way of life.  We have got to do whatever it takes to finish the job in Iraq and make sure that we give a secure country to our children.

TAYLOR:  OK, we have got to win the war on terror.  Al Qaeda is a vicious terrorist organization.  They are seeking to destroy our way of life.  They have come to this country.  They have attacked us.  They are attacking U.S. forces in Iraq.  They have attacked U.S. forces around the world.  They‘ve got to be dealt with.  You cannot put your head in the sand.  You cannot walk away.

Van Taylor is a guy who understands the problems with Iraq and knows what is at stake, our security and our freedoms.  We definitely need to be supporting Van Taylor over Chet Edwards in the Congressional election, the stakes are too high to make a mistake now.

Tags: President Bush, Democrats, Bias, Iraq, Politics, War by Chuck
No Comments »