Category Archives: Media bias

The liberal/progressive imperative: Government must do something . . .

“PRINCETON, NJ — Nearly four in five Americans in June, 78%, disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, marking the 45th consecutive month that more than two-thirds of Americans have given Congress the thumbs down. Americans’ high level of disapproval is less about what Congress is doing than about what it isn’t doing: putting aside partisan bickering and getting things done.”

From the Center:

The Gallup findings illustrate the influence of the mainstream media and progressives/liberals in convincing Americans that the federal government must constantly “do something” or the country is doomed. The poll finds that 49% of respondents agree that Congress is “not compromising” and “not getting things done.”

Yet the poll respondents haven’t a clue as to what that “something” is that Congress should do. Not one issue mentioned by poll respondents achieves more than 6% agreement of those polled as being an issue Congress should do something about!

For liberals/progressives, government failure always requires the same solution: Spend . . .

From the Center:

Rahm Emanuel reminded us early in the Obama Administration that Democrats never let a “crisis go to waste . . . it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Government by continuing crisis, whether fact-based or by press release, is the Democrats preferred political strategy. The activists and their mainstream media allies demand that the government “do something!” When that “something” fails we are told that “it would have been worse” and we now must “do more.”

For Democrats, doing something about governmental failures invariably means spending and hiring more publicly paid employees.

Sen. Chuck Schumer is never at a loss for new hiring and spending ideas to “do something” about a failure of previous bad ideas. In December 2011 he called for training and appointing TSA advocates to be available to passengers who feel they are being harassed at airport checkpoints.

NYC Mayoral candidate (and, sadly, former Comptroller) Bill Thompson offers a similar proposal to the politically troublesome issue of NYC school administrators dealing with the suspension from school of unruly or dangerous students. Thompson’s solution? Hire “safety agents” to spare administrators the responsibility of making decisions as to which students should or should not be suspended.

The Center suspects that when the “safety agents” solution inevitably fails, an enterprising Democrat will suggest hiring “safety agents reviewers” to “do something” about the problem.

Unfortunately, Sen. Rubio, in pushing his Amnesty Bill, is playing the “do something” canard to convince Americans that “legalization” of illegal immigrants must come before border security because “you have to do something with the people who are here illegally so we know who they are.”

Sorry, Sen. Rubio. We don’t have to “do something” about illegal immigrants other than enforce the existing law.

Liberals and their reliance on “studies” . . .

From the Center for the Center:

Democrats invariably support their legal and public policy proposals and positions by citing “studies” emanating from academia or democrat “think tanks.” These often counterintuitive studies are offered as received scientific wisdom from our self-proclaimed intellectual betters.

This practice flourished with the Progressive legislative movement of the early 20th century. Its legal aspect is observed in the “social briefs” pioneered by progressive activist lawyer Louis Brandeis. The reason for the democrat reliance upon social science “studies” is clear: Progressive (liberal) policies usually conflict with common sense, human nature and real world experience . . .

A flat tax would greatly reduce the political chicanery of the IRS but is at odds with the Democrats “targeted” strategy. . .

From the Center for the Center:

A national flat tax to replace the hopelessly corrupt current system of federal taxation will never happen. It conflicts with the Democrats long-time political strategy.

It’s really very simple. Legislation and tax policies which provide benefits to all citizens yield fewer votes, political contributions and favors to Democrats than “targeted” proposals. The Democrat guiding principle is to divide us into groups, and then to threaten punishment to certain groups while offering rewards to others.

Despite Obama’s incessant bleating about “fairness,” unequal treatment of both groups and individuals is essential to Democrat electoral success. Envy and anger the key to Obama’s hope and change.

Umm. Because he’s a liberal and married to Angelina Jolie . . .

Daily Mail review of World War Z:

“But it is horrifyingly feeble when it comes to characterisation. Brad Pitt’s hero lacks personality. All we know is that he loves his family, but no one has given him or his relations any exceptional qualities.

A key fault is that we never find out why the powers-that-be at the United Nations think so highly of Pitt. He’s resourceful, but he doesn’t seem particularly brave, bright or knowledgeable. It is a central weakness of the film that, without any particular expertise, he solves the mystery of how to fight the zombies before anyone else. It’s as though no one except him is paying attention.”


Darn those coincidences! Wife of Former IRS Commisioner who targeted Tea Party is Program Director for group trying to shut down Tea Party . . .

Former IRS chief Doug Shulman’s wife works with a liberal lobbying group, Public Campaign, where she is the senior program advisor. Public Campaign is an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.”

The goal of Public Campaign is to target political groups like the conservative non-profits at issue in the IRS scandal. The Campaign says it “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”

CEO of Public Campaign Nick Nyhart has offered words of support for the IRS’ targeting: “There are legitimate questions to be asked about political groups that are hiding behind a 501(c)4 status. It’s unfortunate a few bad apples at the IRS will make it harder for those questions to be asked without claims of bias.”

Public Campaign gets its cash from labor unions like AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and Move On.

Change: US Dept of Justice warns that “inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media” can lead to federal prosecution . . .

“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” will be held from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd.

Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.

“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are” . . .

Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.

Holder’s “I am not a crook” defense . . .

Obama svengali David Axelrod on MSNBC:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Do you think Eric Holder should resign?

DAVID AXELROD: Absolutely not . . . He was carrying out his responsibilities, Joe . . . It’s a matter Joe of, this is what the law permits, and how do we go about this in the right way moving forward based on these experiences. I don’t think what Eric Holder did was against the– this notion that somehow he had criminal intent.

Bloomberg’s “prepared” response to alleged “ricin” letter is strange . . .

From the Center for the Center: Why would Bloomberg, if he believes a “gun nut” threatened him with the “ricin” letter, potentially endanger himself, his family and others with an immediate “prepared” statement about gun control? Recent “letter threats” have turned out not to be as they first appeared . . . Could it be to get gun control back in the news for a megalomaniac mayor who is increasingly irrelevant . . .


“Law enforcement sources paraphrased the letters’ message as saying, “This is a taste of what’s to come if you come to take my gun.”

[Bloomberg]: “In terms of why they’ve done it, I don’t know. The letter was obviously referred to our anti-gun efforts but there’s 12,000 people who are going to get killed this year with guns and 19,000 are going to commit suicide with guns and we’re not gonna walk away from those efforts,” Bloomberg said.

Racial “bullying” story doesn’t add up . . .

Albany NY Times-Union:

“The Albany school district inappropriately handled a race-bullying incident by removing the victim from the school instead of her harassers, the U.S. Department of Education has found.

The eighth-grade honors student, who is biracial, was repeatedly harassed by white classmates at Hackett Middle School in March 2012 . . . The students who bullied the girl mockingly donned Ku Klux Klan hoods, asked how much her parents had paid to adopt her and compared her skin color to theirs in Spanish class comparison exercises, the document also states . . .

The girl’s mother, Joan Curcio, said her daughter is biracial and had been teased about her race — by white and black students — while she was at Hackett.

The district is now required by the U.S. Department of Education to send an offer of counseling to every black child who attended Hackett Middle School in the 2011-2012 school year and complained about racial harassment.

The students who participated in the alleged bullying did not receive any discipline, and denied that they wore KKK hoods, even though school officials determined they participated in other harassment.” [This sentence makes no logical point]