http://www.wikio.com/search=Noel Sheppard Wikio - Noel Sheppard http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=63164463 Noel Sheppard. Update II: I forgot about my old buddy Thers at Whiskey Fire who, as tough as it may seem, not only stooped to a new low in defaming Helms, but did so with pride (serious vulgarity alert!). He... Sun, 06 Jul 2008 07:50:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=63164463 2008-07-06T07:50:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=63082726 Glacial calving is evident of EXPANDING glaciers.Otherwise they would be retreating up the valleys away from the oceans edge. DUH! NEWSBUSTERS NYT: Maybe Greenland Isn't Melting After All By Noel Sheppard | July 3, 2008 - 16:10 ET EXCERPT: For years, climate alarmists in the media have loved showing video footage of Greenland glaciers slipping into the ocean in order to evoke feelings of global warming gloom and doom in the citizenry. On Friday, the journal Science is publishing a seventeen year study of Greenland's ice sheet that flatly contradicts all such hysterical reports and claims. In fact, the paper concludes that such melting is a normal summertime event, and that when looked at over a longer period of time, there has been little change in the ice sheets in this region, and even possibly a slowing in glacial movement. Imagine that. Somewhat surprisingly, the New York Times' Andrew C. Revkin appears to be the first to report some of the findings (emphasis added): MORE HERE Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:40:46 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=63082726 no_email@example.com (sunsettommy) 2008-07-05T03:40:46Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=62852966 Sen. Obama, you’re unelectable (and an illegitimate candidate) garychapelhill, Obama learns from Bush, free speech edition, The Confluence, July 2, 2008. Obama’s work claim, FactCheck.org, July 2, 2008. “Fast Eddie” Obama Flips Again On Free Trade, Gateway Pundit, July 2, 2008. Lisa Renee, Obama announces another plan he can’t do without Congress, Liberal Common Sense, July 2, 2008. As Goes [...] Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:42:18 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=62852966 2008-07-03T08:42:18Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=62413751 Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters asks, "Can a publisher, editor, and owner of magazines be any more biased than proudly admitting on national television that he's contributed to Barack Obama's campaign?"While you ponder, consider that on Sunday, the publisher and editor... Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:55:56 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=62413751 2008-06-30T03:55:56Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=62103675 Here are some of the highlights of a blogger conference call on energy policy: House GOP Policy Chief Rep.Thad McCotter: GOP POSITION: American production, common sense conservation & free market innovation. Democrat position: litigation, conservation. John Shimkus: “This energy package doesn’t produce an ounce of new energy in any of the 3 bills.” Rep. Shimkus said that Democrats [...] Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:06:20 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=62103675 2008-06-26T22:06:20Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=61092909 At Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard has a post about Tom Wolfe’s appearance on the Charlie Rose show; Wolfe’s comments about the Rathergate scandal are great: Tom Wolfe: Rather, 60 Minutes ‘Idiots’ for Airing Bush National Guard Story . CHARLIE ROSE: You are at the stage in your fourth decade where people want you to give one last great lecture. I know you do them too. So if you were giving one last lecture about journalism. TOM WOLFE: About journalism. CHARLIE ROSE: Not just about finance but about journalism, what would you say because you`ve seen so much of it? TOM WOLFE: I think what I would say is today as newspapers are declining rapidly, they`re losing money. I would just point out that all news today comes from the newspapers. All of it. Television has never initiated a successful story in its life. When they have a big story it`s always wrong. They had something about Israelis and atomic bombs. Absolutely wrong. They have George Bush being criticized in some letter — The so- called Dan Rather ... CHARLIE ROSE: About George Bush`s... How he got into the National Guard. TOM WOLFE: Right. Idiots. They should have looked at the piece of paper. Obviously not written by a typewriter. Indeed. Very obviously. Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:29:42 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=61092909 2008-06-18T16:29:42Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60933468 Noel Sheppard NRO As oil prices head through the roof, and gasoline jumps over $4 a gallon, Americans feeling the pinch at the pump should recognize that the wealthiest nation on the planet has nothing but itself to blame for the third in a series of energy crises that began when Richard Nixon was still in office. Having largely ignored the previous two shots across the bow — the first coming in 1973 when OPEC decided to ban sales of oil to nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the second in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution in Iran — the U.S. seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the past. Shamefully, we are once again in the position of wondering just how high energy prices can go, and at what cost to our economy. Despite 35 years of empty rhetoric from politicians bemoaning U.S. dependence on foreign oil, legislatively enacted environmental barriers have actually resulted in a 25-percent decline in domestic production since the first ’70s energy crisis — while our usage has increased 20 percent. Regardless of one’s ideological proclivities, it seems logical that you can’t reduce foreign-oil dependence by cutting production at the same time that demand is rising. Despite how obvious this seems, one of our nation’s two major political parties stubbornly continues to ignore that logic. What should make Americans on both sides of the aisle even more ashamed is that before the first energy crisis, the United States produced 11.428 million barrels of oil per day. This represented 66 percent of the 17.308 million barrels we consumed that year. Compare that to 2007, when America produced 8.481 million barrels per day, or only 41 percent of the 20.7 million barrels consumed. Such is the result of the so-called energy policies of seven White Houses and 17 Congresses controlled by both Democrats and Republicans. Yet, today’s politicians — mostly on the left side of the aisle, of course — have the gall to place all the blame for rising energy prices on increased demand from expanding economies like China and India. At least those countries are participating in exploration efforts to expand their own supplies. China’s oil production has almost doubled since 1980, while India’s has grown by an astounding 375 percent. At the same time, U.S. production has declined by 22 percent. We sure do know how to respond to energy crises in this country, don’t we? Closer to home, our neighbors also ramped up oil production. To the south, Mexico has seen its crude output jump 64 percent since 1980, while Canada’s increased 85 percent. Did I mention that our production declined by 22 percent in the same period? Putting this in its proper perspective, if America had responded to the second energy crisis by increasing oil production only at the average rate of our North American neighbors, we’d currently be supplying ourselves with 18.86 million barrels of crude per day, or 91 percent of our usage. Think oil would be $135 a barrel if that were the case? Of course, this argument always shifts to questions of where additional production could come from. Assuming there was no environmental/political element, the logical and exceedingly obvious answer is currently being proffered by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future: Drill Here, Drill Now, and Pay Less. As the former Speaker said to Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly last Thursday: [O]pen up the coast to drilling. And open up the Rocky Mountains for shale oil. We have in the Rocky Mountains three times the amount of oil that the Saudis have, three times the amount of the entire Saudi reserve in the Rocky Mountains. The Brazilians are now energy independent in terms of oil, because they found two huge reserves in the Atlantic ocean. It’s currently illegal for Americans to go on American territory in the Atlantic, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific, northern Alaska. It’s illegal for us right now to go after the Rocky Mountain shale oil. Gingrich was right on the money, for according to an April 2006 study done for the Library of Congress: Oil shale is prevalent in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The resource potential of these shales is estimated to be the equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in place. . . . In comparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proved reserves of 267 billion barrels. Something the former Speaker didn’t mention was the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which according to a report just published by the Energy Information Administration in May, has the potential of producing as much as 1.45 million barrels of oil per day. Predictably, the liberal counter-argument is that such production is years out, and won’t solve today’s supply problems. Such thinking ignores the speculative component to energy prices, and how much today’s bullish consensus about oil is based on the expectation that American production will continue to decline as it has for going on four decades. With that in mind, anything Congress did today that indicated a change in philosophy concerning U.S. oil production would send shockwaves throughout commodities exchanges across the globe. Just how much of an impact could such a change in policy have? Well, one of the factors involved in prices being determined on futures exchanges is the current disincentive for oil producers to sell their product today rather than months from now, a condition called “contango.” As of Friday, the New York Mercantile Exchange price for July delivery was $134.86. By comparison, the November contract closed at $136.04, giving producers $1.16 more to hold their product an additional four months. Commodities experts for years have claimed this contango acts to restrain the immediately available supply as oil companies opt to sell their product more expensively in the future rather than at today’s prices. A change in U.S. policy that would clearly result in more supply in the future could act to depress all of the contracts further out thereby encouraging producers to cash in at today’s prices rather than gamble there’ll be higher down the road. If this actually reversed the contango to a “backwardation” — when futures prices for further-out contracts are less than the nearest contract — all oil producers around the world might feel more compelled to raise their output in order to take advantage of today’s high prices. Yet, maybe more important, as investment bubbles are a function of emotion and momentum, anything that acted to limit the upside of oil prices could cause the bubble to burst in a wave of panic selling as every hedge fund manager and trader on the planet ran for the exits at the same time. When this happened in March 2000 after NASDAQ’s historic 18-month, 250-percent increase, that index declined by an astounding 40 percent in the next few weeks. Just imagine what a sudden $50 drop in oil, with a commensurate $1.60 decline in gas prices, could do to an economy that appears teetering on recession. And, this could be a conservative estimate of how much prices would decline. Given the leverage involved in commodities as opposed to stocks — oil traders need to put up as little as seven percent of the cost of a futures contract instead of the 50 percent required for equities — the precipitous drop that comes once this bubble bursts could be far greater in magnitude than what happened in the few weeks following NASDAQ’s peak. The question of course is whether this is indeed what most members of Congress want. Consider how many elected officials and presidential candidates have advocated higher oil prices as both a means of curbing demand and encouraging the use of alternative fuels. As National Review’s Jim Geraghty pointed out Wednesday, this seems to be Barack Obama’s view: Apparently, Obama doesn’t object to $4 a gallon gas per se, just to how rapidly the price increased. Most Americans hate it and want gas prices to go down as rapidly as possible. Obama wants to “help people to make the adjustment” to “new circumstances.” Geraghty was commenting about the following statement made by Obama on CNBC Tuesday: CNBC’s John Harwood: So could the (high) oil prices help us? Barack Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers. Conspicuously absent from the discussion was anything about increasing domestic oil production. Instead, Obama’s answer was consistent with left-leaning thinking for decades: we need to take steps to help people adjust to higher energy prices rather than the economically beneficial alternative of just producing more. Considering the capitalist foundation of our country, isn’t this a tremendously hypocritical point of view? Why has one political party for nearly four decades viewed energy crises through the narrow prism of learning to adjust to higher prices and declining resources, as opposed to aggressively finding and producing more of what the country and the economy needs? Such questions seem particularly relevant given how this same party views hunger in our nation and throughout the world. The answer isn’t for those that have less to make an adjustment and adapt to their impoverished condition. “Adjust to having less” is certainly not the Left’s prescription for Americans lacking health insurance. Democrats want government to increase the supply of food and medical care to those deemed financially incapable of providing for themselves. Why doesn’t the same hold true for energy? Does the Left just presume that food and medicine are both human necessities government is required to assist the citizenry in obtaining, while energy is a luxury item people can learn to do without? Curiously, when it pertains to less developed nations than ours, this answer appears to be “No,” for it seems obvious to Democrats — including presidential nominee Obama! — that countries like China and India require an ever-expanding supply of oil in order to meet the needs of their people. What makes the Left in this country think this is no longer true for America? — Noel Sheppard is the associate editor of the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters. . Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:17:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60933468 2008-06-17T14:17:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60578405 *House GOP Leader: FCC Proposing Government Takeover of Broadcast Media* By Noel Sheppard (http://newsbusters.org/bios/noel-sheppard.html) | June 13, 2008 - 13:36 ET House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)... Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:16:59 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60578405 2008-06-13T23:16:59Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60489851 ….. But I Don’t Have Any Time For: Reaction to this news, given his obsession with steering as much business as possible to China while he was in charge at Home Depot, regardless of the underlying economics: “What did Bob Nardelli know and when did he know it'” Sports fauxtography in the Washington Post (HT Instapundit). Original [...] Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:15:49 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60489851 2008-06-13T13:15:49Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60438747 As Noel Sheppard notes at NewsBusters , in case you missed it, the Supreme Court Thursday bestowed Constitutional rights to terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay and the broadcast evening news programs predictably - quickly saw this decision as "a stinging defeat for the Bush administration that could prove tremendously embarrassing to the president." Needless to say, Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer, lawyer, and radio talk show host, is to say the least, mad as hell, and stated earlier in the day that reporters making such statements "are lying through they're teeth. They are propagandists, spewing the talking points of the enemy." And in light of the spirited "defense" of ABC by a commenter here on a post that, although the key source of the info is anonymous, nonetheless models the overwhelming bias of ABC in favor of America's enemy, here's a well-sourced story on the very same ABC reporter : The broadcast network evening newscasts gave as much emphasis Thursday night to the biting dissent as the majority opinion in the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees, but told the story through the prism of the Bush administration getting rebuked by the decision characterized as "historic" and "landmark" -- with ABC's Martha Raddatz ominously warning "it could be very embarrassing for the administration." CBS avoided any label for the majority while tagging the dissenters as "conservative" and only NBC noted how some of those already released have committed atrocities. Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:27:37 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60438747 2008-06-13T04:27:37Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60387707 One favorite NewsBusters trope is to cherry-pick a generally obscure pro-Republican, andi-Democratic factoid and dare the "liberal media" to report it -- while, of course, itself engaging in the double standard of refusing to note corresponding factoids that make Democrats look good/Republicans look bad. Noel Sheppard -- who did this very thing a few days ago -- does it again in a June 11 post , this time about a Democratic senator who won't endorse Obama (but will still vote for him). But lookie here : At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator. Do you think that Sheppard or any other MRC employee will make note of this? Highly unlikely (though a commenter on Sheppard's post does). Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:03:38 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60387707 2008-06-12T18:03:38Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60263237 Noel Sheppard asked in a June 8 NewsBusters post : "Will Media Report Anti-Semitic Article at Obama's Website?" The more important question: Will Sheppard report anti-Semitic comments at John McCain's website? (Not to mention derogatory slurs on Obama and Hillary Clinton.) I think we know what the answer to the latter question is. Sheppard, by the way, has a long history of engaging in double standards . Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:22:33 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60263237 2008-06-11T18:22:33Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60103431 From http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/100608Warming.htm Could Global Warming Obsessed Media Ever Consider CO2's Benefits? Noel Sheppard News Busters Tuesday, June 10, 2008 With summer looming, and the nation experiencing its first heatwave of 2008, it certainly isn't surprising our global warming obsessed media have resumed the spread of climate hysteria as reported by my colleague Jeff Poor just a few hours ago. Yet, given their willingness the past few months to discuss ethanol's connection to higher food prices, is it too much to ask for these same press outlets to offer a little balance by presenting the benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels along with the mythical costs? Take for example Lawrence Solomon's truly astounding article published at Canada's Financial Post Saturday entitled "In Praise of CO2" (emphasis added throughout): Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began. GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere -- the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe's production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries. (Article continues below) Hadn't heard about this? Well, why would you, for the other side of the supposedly horrific greenhouse aspect of increasing carbon dioxide levels is how plants are just loving it: [O]ver a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass -- almost 110 million square kilometres -- enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year. Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century." Interesting wouldn't you agree, and something that real journalists would inform the public of along with the as yet unproven downside of rising CO2 levels...assuming, of course, that real journalists hadn't gone the way of the dodo years ago. Maybe some more carbon dioxide will bring them back...hmmmmm. A blog with relevant information for the world. Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:57:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=60103431 2008-06-10T13:57:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59969302 A June 8 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard claimed that "supposedly impartial press members have been sycophantically gushing over the 'fist bump' he and his wife shared that evening just prior to his victory speech"; the headline claimed that this alleged fixation showed that the media is "Obama-fixated and out of touch." Of course, NewsBusters demonstrated its own fixation over it through two additional posts: one by Kyle Drennen and the other by Ken Shepherd , who asserted without evidence that Time magazine was displaying "Obama boosterism" by doing an article on the "brief history of the fist bump." But there's one fist-bump media reference the boys at NewsBusters have not seen fit to mention: Fox News host E.D. Hill's claim that the fist bump might be "a terrorist fist jab." Why is that? Because of the MRC's close relationship with Fox News? Or because Sheppard, et al, agree with (or at least condone) Hill's sentiment? We may never know. Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:45:20 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59969302 2008-06-09T19:45:20Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59917291 A June 7 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard cited "a number of serious gaffes and misstatements by Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama that his adoring fans in the media are diligently keeping from the American people," concluding, "Can you imagine the attention that would be given to such gaffes if made by Sen. McCain?" The logical conclusion, then, is that if John McCain made such gaffes, Sheppard would be all over them, making sure that the public knew about them, right? Wrong. Following McCain's erroneous claim that Iran was training Al Qaeda -- a claim McCain made repeatedly -- Sheppard used an April 5 NewsBusters post to denounce the networks for drawing attention to it, claming that McCain had merely "misspoken" and had "acknowledg[ed] that he had misspoken concerning this matter," and that the only purporse in pointing this out was to "discredit those of a sitting member of the Senate" because the media is "always looking to bash on Republicans regardless of the source." (Brent Baker similarly complained that this was reported at all.) Sheppard also railed against Keith Olbermann for having "quoted al Qaeda's second in command Ayman al-Zawahiri" to contradict McCain, adding, "Honestly, the good folks at General Electric and NBC must be so proud when their employees cite Public Enemy #2 to discredit Americans." Funny, Sheppard hasn't said a thing about WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein doing pretty much the exact same thing . Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:17:02 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59917291 2008-06-09T13:17:02Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59931683 SHOCKING SURPRISE? 70% of Americans Believe Reporters Try to Help Their Candidates Win By Noel Sheppard | June 8, 2008 - 15:52 ET Although the results of a new poll may not be surprising to NewsBusters readers, it is nonetheless shocking to actually see it in print: 68 percent of Americans " believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win ." Even more predictable given how obvious it's been, a majority of respondents also felt Barack Obama has gotten the best press coverage so far during the campaign. Such are the findings of a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey just announced moments ago (emphasis added throughout): Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win . The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers . As for who they're in the tank for: Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far . Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment. And, respondents seem very concerned about how such bias will impact the upcoming elections: Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain . Twenty-four percent (24%) are optimistic enough to believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage. Even Democrats tend to believe their candidate will receive better treatment—27% of those in Obama’s party believe most reporters will try to help him win while only 16% believe they will help McCain . A plurality of Democrats—34%--believe most reporters will be unbiased. Among unaffiliated voters, 44% believe reporters will try to help Obama and 14% believe they will try to help McCain . Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans expect Obama to receive preferential treatment while only 8% believe reporters will try to help McCain. Press members around the country should be ashamed of these findings...assuming humility is something such folks possess. ***** —Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:38:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59931683 2008-06-09T04:38:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59855850 "Obama's catch-phrase is 'Change you can believe in.' Maybe it's time to start asking who Obama has in mind when he says 'you.'" Meanwhile, Noel Sheppard asks--and I think he already knows the answer as well as you and I... Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:27:01 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59855850 2008-06-09T01:27:01Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59833412 Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard: “Republicans face more scrutiny on race than Democrats.” Me: “Yes!” In the language of law enforcement, you round up the usual suspects. Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:03:21 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Noel+Sheppard?rinfoid=59833412 owillis@gmail.com (Oliver Willis) 2008-06-08T19:03:21Z