Tag Archives: covert liberal activists

AP Headline: Keeping 2011-2012 Income Tax Rates the Same Is ‘Big New Tax Law’

Did you know that the “big new tax law” signed by President Obama yesterday “will save taxpayers, on average, about $3,000 next year,” and that it will have “tax breaks for being married, having children, paying for child care, going to college or investing in securities”? Don't spend that extra $3,000 yet, because it mostly won't be there. With the only major exception being the 2-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, and of course barring new legislation the next Congress may take on, the tax laws for the next two years will essentially be the same as they have been since 2003, when Congress lowered marginal income, capital gain, and dividend income tax rates. This lack of major change didn't stop the Ministry of Propaganda — er, the Associated Press — and reporter Stephen Ohlemacher from calling the new legislation “the most significant new tax law in a decade,” when there's almost nothing “new” about it, or from trumpeting how much certain American families will “save” as a result. Here are a few paragraphs from Ohlemacher's report : read more

Read more from the original source:
AP Headline: Keeping 2011-2012 Income Tax Rates the Same Is ‘Big New Tax Law’

Bloomberg News ‘Follows the Money,’ But Only in Direction of Death Tax Opponents

There's little point in “following the money” if you only follow it in one direction. And too often, journalists only follow the money to the right, leaving shady financial dealings from the left unexposed. That's exactly what Bloomberg News reporter Ryan Donmoyer did in a recent article on the death tax provisions of President Obama's tax deal with congressional Republicans. As the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney noticed , Donmoyer dutifully noted the indirect financial stake in the death tax debate of a conservative group that opposes the tax, but ignored a similar conflict on the parts of some of the tax's proponents. read more

See the original post here:
Bloomberg News ‘Follows the Money,’ But Only in Direction of Death Tax Opponents

At NYT, Kate Zernike’s Clueless Advice to GOP Candidates: ‘Enlist (Tea Partiers), but Avoid Speeches on the Constitution’

It’s almost tempting to just run a few paragraphs of Kate Zernike’s latest item in the New York Times and simply have folks take their rips, but a bit of background would be helpful. Zernike (pictured at right) is the Times reporter who seems to have made it her mission to somehow singlehandedly discredit what may when all is said and done come to be seen as the most significant grass-roots movement in America in a long, long time. Earlier today, Clay Waters at NewsBusters reviewed Zernike’s new book, “Boiling Mad — Inside Tea Party America,” noted that she “evinces little sympathy or feel for conservative concerns,” and is intent on “finding racism everywhere she looks in Tea Party land.” In a late March post (at NewsBusters ; BizzyBlog ), I noted a Zernike item (“With No Jobs, Plenty of Time for Tea Party”) which cynically questioned “whether the movement can survive an improvement in the economy, with people trading protest signs for paychecks.” This is the same Kate Zernike  Andrew Breitbart memorably called “a despicable human being” after she claimed to have found racism that really didn’t exist at CPAC in February. With that background, the paragraphs that follow from Kate’s latest calamity won’t surprise anyone too much, but they will as usual disappoint if you’re foolishly expecting anything resembling fair treatment (bold as mine): So you’re a Republican candidate and you want to take advantage of the Tea Party energy that jolted once-sleepy primaries. But you aren’t sure whether that means you have to take a stand against masturbation or urge your supporters to gather their bayonets — tactics that seem to have worked for a few Tea Party candidates so far. You’re not certain most Americans share the Tea Party enthusiasm for repealing the 17th Amendment (or even know that it established direct election of United States senators by popular vote). You don’t have Sarah Palin’s phone number. Not to worry. There’s no doubt that the Tea Party is a double-edged sword: a New York Times/CBS poll last week found that while most Americans had not formed a view of the Tea Party, the percentage of independent voters who view it negatively had increased. But the Tea Party has brought a swell of new participants to the political process, and historical and economic trends are working in favor of the party out of power — that would be you, G.O.P. The trick is to take advantage of the Tea Party passion and stay away from its extremes. Celebrate the genius of the Constitution, but don’t get into the particulars. Tea Party activists, Republican moderates and independent handicappers all agree that the road for Republican candidates is to talk about the debt and concerns about the new health care legislation — areas where Tea Party sentiment is more aligned with the views of most Americans. … Tea Party activists — and their candidates — pose a problem when they move the discussion into a broader one about the role of government. “You see these rallies and the signs are all about the Constitution,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political report. “They want it to be about these big ideological ideas, when I don’t think most voters think that way. It’s very clear that what’s best for the election is to make it about Obama, Pelosi, health care, the deficit.” Rothenberg is about as “nonpartisan” as Larry Sabato , i.e., give me a break. He also doesn’t get it if he really thinks that enough voters to matter aren’t worried about the Constitution and how its limits on Executive Branch perogatives are being ignored. You’ll note that Zernike didn’t quote a bona fide Tea Party member about her novel suggestion to “not get into the particulars” of the Constitution. Zernike? The arrogant condescension continues. Remember in November. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the original post:
At NYT, Kate Zernike’s Clueless Advice to GOP Candidates: ‘Enlist (Tea Partiers), but Avoid Speeches on the Constitution’

AP: ‘Famed Flight Attendant … Captured the Nation’s Imagination’

The Essential Global News Network’s fascination with Steven Slater continues. Mr. Slater (picture at right is from his Facebook page) is the JetBlue flight attendant who reportedly “grabbed the plane’s intercom and made an expletive-laced speech, grabbed a beer from the galley, opened the door and slid down the emergency evacuation chute.” Slater was charged with “criminal mischief and reckless endangerment.” Three weeks ago (covered at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), Associated Press writer Samantha Gross rhapsodized over how Slater’s actions had fulfilled “a working man’s fantasy … rekindled memories of workers’ liberation … (and) sparked wistful excitement among workers who have long fantasized of choosing pride over pay.” Before getting to the AP’s latest sympathetic piece, let’s take a look at something originally associated with a magazine report about Slater that is not currently present in that story. In a Google Web search on “Steven Slater” (not in quotes), here is the sixth result returned: Really? But when you go to the referenced People Magazine article , the statement cited in the result isn’t there, nor, as best I can tell, is it in the readers’ comments. Perhaps the statement was never written, but I doubt it, as the Internet has a funny way of leaving tracks. A search on the exact sentence involved (“On his Facebook and MySpace pages, he boasted about flying high and taking a five year break from the skies” — entered with quotes) returned 15 items (Google’s header says it’s 130, but it’s really 15, before adding “similar items”). Was everyone who noted this, especially this link , which appears to have captured People’s RSS feed, just making it up? With that little nugget as background, here is selected text from an unbylined AP story early this morning reporting that Slater will not be getting his job back (bolds are mine): Sometimes there’s no going back. JetBlue Airways says that there will be no second exits for famed flight attendant Steven Slater – who captured the nation’s imagination with his profanity-laced loudspeaker tirade and jump down a plane’s emergency chute, beer in hand. Spokeswoman Jenny Dervin said Saturday that Slater is no longer employed by the airline. She said the airline won’t release further details out of respect for Slater’s privacy. Slater’s lawyer had said he loved flying and wanted to return to work, and Slater’s folk-hero status among tens of thousands of online fans had led some of them to urge the airline to keep him on. The airline said at the time of the incident last month that Slater was suspended pending an investigation. It told employees in a memo that press coverage was not taking into account how much harm can be caused by emergency slides, which are deployed with a potentially deadly amount of force. The former flight attendant still has to navigate the criminal justice system. Given how sympathetic the wire service has been to his plight, and assuming he avoids jail, I have a perfect suggestion for who should be Slater’s next employer. He apparently won’t have to worry about whether he has a supportive environment. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Go here to read the rest:
AP: ‘Famed Flight Attendant … Captured the Nation’s Imagination’

Sub-19 and Sub-5: Big Three Nets’ Drew Under 19 Million Last Week; CBS, at Under 5 Mil, Ties All-Time Low

They’ll have all sorts of excuses (but only if asked) about why it happened: It’s because they had a lot of guest anchors last week, it was hot, summer vacation season is still on (though lots of kids around in Greater Cincinnati were already back in school by last Wednesday), cable is killing us, blah-blah, etc., etc. But the Big Three networks won’t be able to avoid the fact that their ongoing decline reached a painful low last week of 18.82 million average viewers. Here is the graphic that appeared this morning at ABC’s lipstick-on-a-pig blog post : I don’t know whether that’s an all-time low, but Kevin Allocca at Media Bistro, who hadn’t posted the full numbers as of the time of this post, has noted that one of those networks indeed scraped bottom last week: ‘CBS Evening News’ Ties All-Time Low The network newscast ratings for last week are in and “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” tied its all-time low in total viewers with an average of 4.89 million tuning in during the five days. The low was set last June, when ABC also hit its own low. (Ratings records date back to the 1991-’92 season.) It’s not unreasonable to believe that the Perky Ms. Couric’s pathetic performance might have more than a little to do with her compulsion to lecture us . Here is how the overall numbers compare to those from one and two years ago: Week of August 18, 2008 — 21.44 million Week of August 17, 2009 — 19.76 million Week of August 16, 2010 — 18.82 million This past week was down 4.8% from a year ago, and almost 14% from two years ago. NBC’s audience, which was a whisker shy of 9 million two years ago, has fallen 17.5%. Gee, do you think that might have something to do with Brian Williams’s open contempt for the Tea Party Movement? Though the comparison isn’t apples to apples because the 2010 numbers are for a summertime week, the nets’ average audience during calendar 2005 was about 27 million . There’s little doubt their 5-year decline is in the neighborhood of 20, and possibly much more. The U.S. population grew by about 4% during that five-year period. As Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds might say, though usually in a more positive vein: ” Faster, please .” Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Continued here:
Sub-19 and Sub-5: Big Three Nets’ Drew Under 19 Million Last Week; CBS, at Under 5 Mil, Ties All-Time Low

Journolisters’ Plot to Stifle 2008 Rev. Wright Coverage Merely Latest Example of Establishment Media Coordination

Earlier this morning, NB’s Tim Graham put up an excellent post on the Daily Caller’s revelations that members of the Journolist listserv group “Plotted to Bury the Jeremiah Wright Story in 2008.” Though perhaps more blatant, the Journolist effort is not the first example of acknowledged coordination on the part of key members of the establishment press. In fact, an arguably more influential example of media coordination was exposed during the summer of 2005. At the time, it was known to have gone back well over a decade. It could still be active. The arrangement’s exposure seems to have been inadvertent. It was noted in what came across as a bit of a puff piece in Editor & Publisher. The item has long since been archived, but I excerpted key paragraphs from it at my own blog in July 2005: When The New York Times on July 16 broke the story of a 2003 State Department memo that had become a key element in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, the paper scored a major exclusive. But when The Washington Post hit newsstands that very same Saturday, it had its own version of the same story. It even credited the Times for the same-day scoop. Welcome to life under the Washington Post-New York Times swap. As part of a secret arrangement formed more than 10 years ago, the Post and Times send each other copies of their next day’s front pages every night. The formal sharing began as a courtesy between Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former Times Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld in the early 1990s and has continued ever since. “It seemed logical, because for years we would always try to get a copy of each other’s papers as soon as they came out,” Downie tells E&P. “It made sense to both of us to make it simpler for everybody.” Lelyveld, who left the Times in 2001, declined comment. Mark Tapscott, who is now at the Washington Examiner but had his own blog at the time, noted that : In any other industry, this would be called “collusion” and the Times and Post editorial pages would be in high dudgeon, demanding anti-trust investigations by the Department of Justice. Imagine market-rigging companies in another industry “defending” their collusive practices in court by saying, “Your honor, it was simpler for everybody.”  Tapscott also reasonably wondered whether the cooperative arrangement went further. Given the lack of shame, absence of ethics, and the intensely agenda-driven nature of the Journolist campaign to stifle the legitimate debate about the relevance of Jeremiah Wright’s two-decade relationship with Barack Obama as his pastor, it’s reasonable to wonder if arrangements such as “the WaPo-NYT swap” remain onging, and, at this point, who else might be involved. Cross-posted in longer form at BizzyBlog.com .

Go here to read the rest:
Journolisters’ Plot to Stifle 2008 Rev. Wright Coverage Merely Latest Example of Establishment Media Coordination

MSNBC Host Calls Leftist Advocacy Group Co-Founded By Obama ‘Non-Partisan’

ROTF, laughing my Demos off . . . Barack Obama is president.  Oil is gushing in the gulf.  America was eliminated from the World Cup.  Looking for a laugh break? Try this: MSNBC has described DEMOS as “non-partisan.”  OK, I hadn’t heard of them, either.  But their web site just happens to mention that Barack Obama is “a founding Board member of Demos.” But that didn’t stop Chris Hayes of the lefty Nation mag, on MSNBC this evening subbing for Ed Schultz, from, yes, describing DEMOS as “non-partisan” in introducing the group’s Washington, DC director, Heather McGhee.  And who is Heather?  From the DEMOS site: “previously, she was the Deputy Policy Director, Domestic and Economic Policy, for the John Edwards for President 2008 campaign.” View video here . Predictably, McGhee spoke in favor of the Dems’ financial regulation bill.  Her argument included this pro-Obama gem: “People understand that we’ve now got someone in Washington watching out for the consumer,” etc.  Don’t you sleep better at night knowing Barack Obama’s in the White House? Poking around the DEMOS web site, we find this  description of the group’s “four overarching goals”:     *  a more equitable economy with widely shared prosperity and opportunity;     * a vibrant and inclusive democracy with high levels of voting and civic engagement;     * an empowered public sector that works for the common good;     * and responsible U.S. engagement in an interdependent world. Shall we translate?: income redistribution, lax voting enforcement, bigger government, weaker defense. Yup, sure sounds non-partisan to me! Note: My first instinct was to Google “DEMOS” + “Soros,” and while I can’t independently verify it for the time being, sure enough I got some hits, as here , listing the group as being funded by the far-left’s biggest financier.

See the original post:
MSNBC Host Calls Leftist Advocacy Group Co-Founded By Obama ‘Non-Partisan’

CNN’s Yellin Cites Her Own Liberal Harvard Days in Defense of Kagan

On Tuesday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Jessica Yellin harkened back to her college days at Harvard as she defended Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan against charges by conservatives that she is anti-military: “When I was at Harvard, a full decade before she was dean of the law school, there was already institutional opposition to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’….it steeps the whole university.” Yellin, actually, was a key left-wing student agitator during her time at the university, as she revealed in several interviews with The Crimson, the student newspaper at Harvard. She was labeled a ” prominent feminist activist in her own right ” in a June 10, 1993 profile of Sheila Allen , her first-year roommate and self-proclaimed “dyke of the Class of ’93.” The then-student certainly earned this label, as she helped resurrect Harvard-Radcliffe Students for Choice after a “relatively inactive period,” was a women’s studies major, and, in an April 10, 1992 interview , bemoaned how Harvard was apparently opposed to her feminist agenda: “For people interested in women’s issues or gender studies, this is an overtly hostile environmen t.” In a May 1, 1992 article , Yellin expressed how the acquittal of the four police officers involved in the controversial Rodney King arrest was ” the most blatant evidence of the indelible racism… in this country .” Anchor Rick Sanchez brought on the correspondent just after the top of the 4 pm Eastern hour as the nominee continued her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committe. Sanchez first referenced how Senator Jeff Sessions was “grilling Kagan about banning military recruiters from an on-campus recruiting facility when she was Harvard Law dean.”  He then asked the correspondent, “Is it fair, based, Jessica, on what happened at Harvard, to charge, as Sessions seems to be saying- or alluding to or suggesting- that Elena Kagan has a bias against the military?” Yellin defended  Kagan from the very beginning and immediately cited her time at the Ivy League school: YELLIN: I think that’s apples and oranges, Rick, because, when I was at Harvard, a full decade before she was dean of the law school, there was already institutional opposition to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ It was alive and well . So, beginning in 1979, when Harvard instituted this no-discrimination policy, there were people in ROTC- the Reserve Officers Training Corps- who could not train and drill on campus because, initially- a holdover from Vietnam- it continued because of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ That was a decade before she was there. Then, when General Colin Powell was invited to speak at graduation in 1993, there were massive protests over ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ I can’t emphasize enough how this- it steeps the whole university . She was continuing with prevailing beliefs on campus, and this whole debate feels very out of context for someone who was at Harvard, because- to suggest this didn’t predate her- saying that’s a left-wing talking point is like arguing that reality is a left-wing talking point. The correspondent does have a personal memory of the 1993 commencement, as she graduated from Harvard that year. The Clinton administration had introduced the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy just months earlier, shortly after coming to office. Later, the CNN correspondent excused Kagan’s open opposition to military recruiters on the Harvard Law campus as merely a manifestation of the left-wing environment at most “elite” institutions of higher learning: SANCHEZ: She was there in 2003. YELLIN: Yeah. SANCHEZ: Isn’t this about the same time, though, that there was a lot of questions? Michael Moore had this movie that came out about that time [Fahrenheit 9/11], as I recall, where a big part of his movie was questioning whether recruiters had a right to go out there and get people to join the military, and that they were, maybe, not being all that honest with them. I mean, if you put it in the context of that time frame, there were a lot of questions being raised about recruiting by the left. YELLIN: There have been since the Vietnam era, when some of these organizations were kicked off of these elite campuses then. I mean, there are a number of colleges that have resisted allowing military recruitment. But that’s hardly unique to Elena Kagan or to Harvard. It might be- you know, some on the right have argued that that’s the culture of elite universities, that are- you know, anti-military in some way. I don’t buy that. I think that there’s a tension there, but this is- the fundamental point here is that it’s in no way special to her , and there were 24 faculties that joined in the lawsuit against this policy of requiring these military recruiters. Hers wasn’t even one of them. So she wasn’t even leading the charge on this.

Go here to read the rest:
CNN’s Yellin Cites Her Own Liberal Harvard Days in Defense of Kagan