May 192017
 

Harvard Study Proves Trump Was Right About Negative Media Coverage

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

The Mainstream Media isn’t even pretending to be objective anymore. Fox news at 52% negative and 48% positive… sounds almost balanced in their reporting. They still lean negative though.

From Heat Street:

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.

 
 

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Trump Agrees He Was Not Ready To Be President

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Trump Agrees He Was Not Ready To Be President
Apr 282017
 

The Washington Post’s headline is that “Trump now agrees with the majority of Americans: He wasn’t ready to be president” even though Trump does not say anything like that in the article!!!

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Trump Agrees He Was Not Ready To Be President

Donald Trump spent a great portion of 2016 insisting that being president would be easy — at least for him. HuffPost compiled a number of examples of him dismissing the problems that accompany the job as being easily dispatched. Building a wall on the border with Mexico is easy. Beating Hillary Clinton would be easy. Renegotiating the Iran deal would be easy. Paying down the national debt would be easy. Acting presidential? Easy.

To a reporter from Reuters this week, though, Trump had a slightly different assessment of the presidency.

“I love my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life,” Trump said. “I thought it would be easier. I thought it was more of a … I’m a details-oriented person. I think you’d say that, but I do miss my old life. I like to work so that’s not a problem but this is actually more work.”

It wasn’t the first time that Trump copped to the job being trickier than he anticipated. In November, NBC News reported that Trump had told former House speaker Newt Gingrich that “This is really a bigger job than I thought.” (Gingrich’s response? “…good. He should think that.”) Then there are individual issues. “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated,” he said at one point. At another, he revealed that it took a conversation with the president of China to realize that the situation on the Korean peninsula was “not so easy.”

There’s an element of surprise in Trump’s comments, a hint of bafflement that having responsibility for the welfare of 320 million people entwined in a global economy and international relationships might end up being trickier than running a real estate and branding shop from midtown Manhattan. One group that probably wasn’t surprised that Trump wasn’t prepared? The majority of Americans.

At no point over the course of the 2016 campaign did a majority of Americans think that Trump was qualified for the job of the presidency. Polling from The Post and ABC News shows that views of Trump as unqualified dominated throughout the campaign. The only group that consistently viewed him as qualified to hold the position were the working-class white voters that constituted the core of his support from early in his candidacy.

Read more of this very fake news…

 
 
 

Global Warming Causing Melting Arctic Ice

 Political  Comments Off on Global Warming Causing Melting Arctic Ice
Apr 172017
 

Radical change in climatic conditions is melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife.

Global Warming Causing Melting Arctic Ice

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.


I must apologize.

I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 94 years ago.

Global Warming? 1922

This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence?

That article in turn was based on information relayed by the American consul in Norway to the U.S. State Department in October 1922 and published in the Monthly Weather Review:
mwr-050-11-0589a

 

 
via

The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

 Political  Comments Off on The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump
Apr 022017
 
The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

THE PATTERN:

1) Trump makes a claim.

2) The Mainstream Media declare him crazy.

3) Things happen that prove Trump was right

4) The Mainstream Media yells RUSSIA!

 

 

CIA Paid $600 Million To The Washington Post To Publish Trump Disinformation

 Political  Comments Off on CIA Paid $600 Million To The Washington Post To Publish Trump Disinformation
Mar 022017
 
Washington Post owner, Jeff Bezos, was awarded a $600 million federal contract by the Obama CIA to publish disinformation about Donald Trump.

CIA Paid $600 Million To The Washington Post To Publish Trump Disinformation

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was tasked with undermining the President Trump via ‘leaked’ CIA documents given to him when he first took over at The Washington Post.

When writing the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, one area of speech the Founders were specifically interested in protecting was that of a free press. They saw the press as a sort of fourth branch of government, one that would keep the “checks and balances” of the other three branches honest.

However, over time the same press that was given protection has eroded into a propaganda machine driven by money and political agendas of those who own the media outlets. They have crawled into bed with the very entities they are to keep in “check” and bust out if corrupted.

As such is the Mainstream Media today and one the American people no longer trust, and rightfully so given what is being exposed in recent years.

The majority of people do not know Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post and is now the sole owner with no editorial board or ethical review committees to oversee the actions of Bezos as a publisher, much less the courage to stand against the new “boss.”

It begs to question: How is Bezos connected to questionable intelligence leaks in recent months?

What does he have to do with the sudden disruption of web services that kept millions from accessing whistle blowing website, WikiLeaks, during its explosive releases of state department cables?

Cables containing inside information revealing corruption within American politics linked to former secretary of state, and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.

The majority of Americans do not know ‘leaked” CIA documents to undermine a new president and administration were leaked through the Washington Post first and after Bezos took the helm of “America’s newspaper.”

Much worse and even more suspicious is the majority of the people have not been informed that Bezos landed a $600 million federal contract and by who? The CIA.

The “deal” is for a computing cloud developed by Amazon Web Services (AWS). It also just happens AWS services all 17 agencies within the US intelligence community.

An unholy alliance in which Bezos stands to gain many more millions by pacifying and working with the CIA through his publication The Washington Post. “Leaks” and “information” Bezos will publish without question, without proper verification and journalistic sourcing.

The CIA will now have its own propaganda publication to do whatever it likes in misinforming and manipulating the American people and the voters.

Vital information intentionally withheld from the American people, as Bezos uses the Post to forge pocket lining government contracts while promoting his own personal political agenda.

Is this lack of reporting of the Bezos/CIA partnership by the MSM the result of massive incompetency? Or a very well-organized cover up within the MSM inner circle of four or five elitists who now own six companies that control over 90 percent of MSM outlets?

The same outlets which through diverse company divisions own every television station and newspaper in this country with the exception of very small, weekly community publications and certain Christian networks. Even many of those community weeklies have been scooped up by larger publication divisions.

Are we connecting the dots at each cross-section of intertwining strings holding together this corrupt spider web? A vast interlocking network designed to lure and trap average American citizens into its carefully woven web of manipulation and deceit.

The Washington Post is the most widely known and respected news outlet in the world, reaching more people than any other publication including the NY Times. It has always been the standard in which journalistic ethics are established and adhered to by other publications. It sets the example to be followed by the everyday journalists out there on the beat trying to do their jobs.

By utilizing the internet and social media, the Post has literally millions of subscribers and followers reading and watching online video on a daily basis. It is the media center of the nation’s capital and the eye of the DC political belt.

Control the Washington Post and you control the message; the MSM and the “agenda.”

“The Post is unquestionably the political paper of record in the United States, and how it covers governance sets the agenda for the balance of the news media,” journalism scholar Robert W. McChesney revealed to Altenet.org /a> in a December investigative article.

“Citizens need to know about this conflict of interest in the columns of the Post itself,” he added.

In the same article, a statement released by the Public Institute of Advocacy quoted McChesney as saying:

“If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation — say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government — the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.”

If this alliance between the CIA and Bezos isn’t illegal, then it is certainly unethical and displays a huge conflict of interest while also exposing the corruption existing within the MSM. The main sources of news and information Americans sought and believed, until the rise of alternative media outlets.

Alternative sources of information the MSM bash and attempt daily to discredit as “fake news,” when “fake,” misleading and sometimes right out lies being spread across social media come out of the MSM and pseudo extremist left-wing sites erected simply to misinform and confuse the American voter.

George Soros “Media Matters” machine
Soros Media

Soros Funds A Lot Of These Media Sources

Many Facebook pages and websites that have “popped” up over the past several years whose resources and money are being funded by George Soros’s well oiled “Media Matters” machine. Just one of many “nonprofit” organizations extending from his Open Society Foundation.

Soros also has imbedded ties to many MSM outlets including The New York Times, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC and here it is again, the Washington Post. Readers are urgently encouraged to research Soros, his history and his worldwide organizations.

Altnet also writes, “Amazon’s offer wasn’t the low bid, but it won the CIA contract anyway by offering advanced high-tech ‘cloud’ infrastructure.”

So how is at a time government should be pinching pennies due to the increasing national debt, the CIA passed over lower bidders for the contracted services?

The answer tracks back to the infamous blocking of the WikiLeaks website by Bezos’s company Amazon Web Services (AWS), a service Bezos personally and publicly brags is the most advanced and best high-tech “cloud” infrastructure on the market.

“WikiLeaks was booted from Amazon’s webhosting service AWS. So, at the height of public interest in what WikiLeaks was publishing, readers were unable to access the WikiLeaks website,” reported watchdog group Fair in 2013.

So why did AWS give WikiLeaks the boot? Most likely at the bequest of the CIA, whom Bezos has been doing business with since 2013 when the $600 million contract was awarded to AWS. Bezos also has close ties to the Clintons and backed Hillary in her failed run for the presidency, both in the 2008 primary campaign and in 2016 as the Democrat nominee.

Bezos also publicly voices open contempt for President Trump, and his policies. He recently was behind the Washington challenge to Trump’s 90-day immigration ban and threatened suit himself in an email to his employees, as was reported on this site.

Bezos, without any reference to stock holders input or lack of agreement, said he will put the full resources at Amazon to defeat the policy and implied his mission of taking down President Trump.

The Political Assassination Of General Flynn
michael flynn

Bezos led the charge against General Flynn using his solely owned Washington Post.

It was Bezos’s Washington Post that first leaked documents and led the charge to discredit Trump’s national security advisor cabinet pick. General Michael Flynn was forced to resign due to the unverified information touted in the “leaks.” Flynn was cleared by the FBI of any wrongdoing in those leaks. But the damage was already done.

In recent days, it has been revealed the CIA has full intention of attempting a coup to remove Trump from office, even though “The Donald” was democratically elected by American voters in a free election.

And it appears in the CIA is in conspiracy with Bezos’s plan to use the Washington Post to achieve a mutual goal: to disrupt and destroy President Trump and his administration. A goal that has no regard or concern for national security or the safety and well-being of American citizens.

Any impact on the average citizen, including possible loss of life by terrorist attacks is considered “collateral damage.”

In an exchange of tweets on Feb. 15, John Schindler, former NSA analyst and national security columnist for the Observer answered a question asking what he thought was going on at the NSA right now. Schneider responded, citing a friend in the intelligence community reference to Trump:


Which begs a bigger question than the unethical alliance between the CIA, Bezos and his Washington Post:

Could Trump be impeached? Of is he in danger of befalling the same fate as President Kennedy? Being a previous “anti-establishment” president, Kennedy sought to disengage from the Vietnam conflict and dissolve the Federal Reserve, but was assassinated.

Actions that directly impacted the CIA and wealthy elitists.

 
 
By Donna Kay at Conservative Daily Post.

Obama’s Treatment Of The Mainstream Media

 Political  Comments Off on Obama’s Treatment Of The Mainstream Media
Feb 252017
 

Remember when Obama framed the Mainstream Media as the opposition party?

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Obama's Treatment Of The Mainstream Media

Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Her comments are only the latest in the volatile exchange between the administration and the top-rated network, which is owned by the News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Last month, Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News, and David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Obama, met for coffee in New York, in what Politico, which last week broke that news, labeled a “Fox summit.”

While neither party has said what was discussed, some have speculated that a truce, or at least an adjustment in tone, was at issue. (Mr. Ailes and Mr. Obama reportedly reached a temporary accord after a meeting in mid-2008.) But shots are still being fired, which animates the idea that both sides see benefits in the feud.

Fox seems to relish the controversy.

“Instead of governing, the White House continues to be in campaign mode, and Fox News is the target of their attack mentality,” Michael Clemente, the channel’s senior vice president for news, said in a statement on Sunday. “Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues that voters are worried about.”

Source…

Or how about the time, back in 2008, when OBAMA Kicked reporters off his plane because their papers had endorsed John McCain?

OBAMA Kicked reporters off his plane
 

Jan 172017
 
After The WaPost’s Latest Shot, It’s Time To Call “Fake News” By Its Real Name “Weaponized Journalism”

It's Time To Call ‘Fake News’ By Its Real Name ‘Weaponized Journalism’

A Washington Post fake news article misrepresenting the “firing” of the head of the DC National Guard makes clear mainstream media has now weaponized the news.

Defying any sense of journalistic integrity and loyalty to the truth, the Washington Post did it again — publishing Fake News for clicks — which had the desired effect of worldwide outrage to suit a tightly-defined political agenda.

This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.

We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.

On Friday, WaPo published an article claiming President-elect Donald Trump fired Washington, D.C., National Guard Major General Errol R. Schwartz — just in time for the inauguration — and that he would be forced to leave his post as soon as the president takes the oath of office.

But that isn’t true.

“My troops will be on the street,” Schwartz told the Post. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He added he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”

WaPo’s erroneous reporting included a statement from D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who lamented, “It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment.”

“I’m a soldier,” the Post quoted Schwartz. “I’m a presidential appointee, therefore the president has the power to remove me.”

But WaPo left out a number of critical points — and horrendously slanted the rest — about this “firing” of the head of the D.C. National Guard.

That D.C. position — unlike the equivalent for states — is appointed by the president, not by the Pentagon, as the Post suggested, nor by any branch of the military. Also, the article glaringly omitted any statement from the Trump transition team, an inexcusable offense, considering it later emerged Schwartz had been offered to keep his position through the end of Inauguration Day — it was Schwartz who turned down the offer, preferring instead to vacate the role at 12 noon, when Trump will be sworn in.

Of course, the blatant misinformation presented by the Post seemed so juicy, countless corporate outlets parroted the claim. Thus this Fake News rippled around the planet earning the scorn of millions who believed Trump must have lost all sensibility for firing a man who had diligently performed his duties since his appointment to the post by former President George W. Bush — during a potentially dangerous event.

This also spawned a number of rumors — with raucous protests planned for Inauguration Day, and the week before, why would the incoming president fire the man in charge of security? Isn’t this a preposterous decision on Trump’s part? What is Trump thinking?

Like previous viral stories — at this point, one would be hard-pressed to deem them ‘news articles’ — the Washington Post published faulty information and subsequently began backtracking.

Notably, in each case, after erroneous information went viral worldwide, edits after publication go largely unnoticed by most of the populace. While retractions and post-publication editor’s notes sometimes appear on WaPo’s articles they are orders of magnitude less popular than the original story and, in this instance, the firing of Schwartz story has only been appended in content — no editor’s note yet graces the top or bottom of the article. (The original version can be found here.)

Any news organization actually practicing journalism would tell you this is egregiously irresponsible.

Except, it’s beginning to appear the Washington Post publishes misinformation and Fake News intentionally — knowing any subsequent disputation of its claims won’t gather as much steam as the original publication.

A distinct reason exists why this would be the case — Brandolini’s law.

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it,” Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant, keenly observed in 2013 — the Post knows this, and has been manipulating public perception exactly this way.

It was, after all, the Washington Post who initiated the altogether ironic war on Fake News — first turning from journalistic duty in the publication of several items blaming disinformation for the downfall of, well, nearly everything.

WaPo published an ‘article’ about supposed blacklist of over 200 outlets a nascent and seemingly prepubescent website, PropOrNot, had decided were Russian propagandists — linked either directly to the Russian government or had haplessly joined the effort by reporting Fake News during the election.

Literally nothing in that Post article was true. None of the claims were backed by evidence, no research or investigation had been performed, nothing. WaPo just printed the claims of PropOrNot and inserted plausible deniability by failing to link to the list or site. A subsequent retraction at the top of the page was akin to plugging a crack in a dam that’s already burst — damage to many reputable and award-winning outlets listed had already been done.

Previously:
RED ALERT: Head Of DC National Guard Removed From Command During Inauguration

 

Source… Claire Bernish  at The Free Thought Project

Jan 142017
 
Head of D.C. National Guard to be removed from post in middle of inauguration

Head Of DC National Guard Removed From Command During Inauguration

What are they planning?

The Army general who heads the D.C. National Guard and has an integral part in overseeing the inauguration will be removed from command effective at 12:01 p.m. Jan. 20, just as Donald Trump is sworn in as president.

The head of the District of Columbia National Guard has been ordered to step down immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

Maj. Gen. Errol Schwartz will be stepping down at 12:01 p.m. on Jan. 20, just after Trump is sworn in, Maj. Byron Coward, a guard spokesman said.

Schwartz, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, told The Washington Post in an interview “the timing is very unusual” but that he’s following orders.

Unlike the commanders of state-level National Guard units, the head of the District’s National Guard serves at the pleasure of the president. At the time Schwartz departs, he will be in the midst of commanding thousands of Guard troops from the District and around the country who are providing support for the inauguration.

“My troops will be on the street,” he said in an interview, according to the paper. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He went on to say that he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”

Phil Mendelson, the D.C. Council chairman, criticized the move.

“It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment,” Mendelson told The Post. He added that Schwartz’s sudden departure will be a long-term loss for the District. “He’s been really very good at working with the community, and my impression was that he was good for the Guard.”

The Post reported that there have been contradictory stories about the behind-the-scenes developments leading to the decision. A person close to the Trump transition team reportedly said transition officials wanted to keep him, but the Army pushed for a replacement. Schwartz reportedly said the orders came in an email from the Pentagon. He will be replaced by a brigadier general at 12:01 p.m.

Source…

This is highly unusual!

Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz may be a good guy who will properly respond to insurrection and shut down a criminal anti Trump DC riot by paid Soros/Clinton agitators.

His replacement may let it grow to a disaster.

UPDATE:
From Gateway Pundit:

FAKE NEWS: WaPo Did Not Tell Whole Story on DC National Guard Chief’s Resignation

Now This…
The Trump administration told FOX News of Friday the story is a crock.

Schwartz was offered to stay on his post until after the Inauguration but decided to quit during the ceremony and then he ran to the press to complain.

According to FOX,

“The Trump Transition team reportedly offered to let him keep his job until the ceremonies were over. Maj. Gen Schwartz refused. It appears he would rather argue his would rather argue his case though in the press.”

WOW!

 

Fox News Ad Draws Protests

 Amusing  Comments Off on Fox News Ad Draws Protests
Sep 212009
 

It’s funny how the “State Run Media” responds immediately to Fox’s ad but virtually ignored or dismissed the stories about the Town Halls, 9/12 Washington DC protest and ACORN.


A provocative full-page newspaper ad from Fox News drew heated reactions from its rivals today and one demand that The Washington Post apologize for running it.

Over photos of protesters gathering for an “anti-tax” rally in Washington last Saturday, the ad asked: “How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss This Story?”

The problem with the ad is that the other networks indeed covered the protest, which — like similar demonstrations across the country — were heavily promoted by Fox, especially talk show host Glenn Beck.

The ad appeared Friday in the Wall Street Journal and New York Post, both owned by Fox’s parent company, and in The Washington Post.

ABC spokesman Jeffrey Schneider described the ad as “outrageous and false.” NBC spokeswoman Lauren Kapp said that “the facts . . . prove it wrong.” CNN spokeswoman Edie Emery called the ad “blatantly false.”

Fox News provided more coverage than other news outlets in the run-up to what Beck branded the “9/12” protests, but the other networks hardly ignored the story. ABC, for instance, covered it Saturday and Sunday on “Good Morning America” and Sunday on “World News,” along with extensive reports by ABC Radio and the network’s Web site. NBC covered it Saturday on “Nightly News” and the next morning on “Today.” CBS covered it on the “Evening News.” CNN covered the Saturday protests during the 10 a.m., 11 a.m., 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. hours, as well as on other programs afterward. Correspondents such as NBC’s Tom Costello, ABC’s Kate Snow and CBS’s Nancy Cordes were involved in the coverage.

Fox’s view is that the ad refers to the other networks’ missing the larger story, not failing to cover the demonstration itself — although the photos suggest that the headline refers to the protest.

Read more…


The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End

 Amusing  Comments Off on The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End
Jul 142009
 

My favorite line of this op-ed by Sarah Palin: “The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.”


There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

Source…