Saturday, October 29, 2011

Capitalists Rebellion Prediction for #OWS Coming True?

Not that we here at the Mothership like tooting our own horns... Let's just say paying attention to detail has it's advantages.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

OWS coup takes place in LA?


Around 8 p.m. on Wednesday night, the 300 people who have been occupying the lawn of Los Angeles City Hall for the past three weeks split themselves into two hostile camps.

Occupy LA’s decision-making body, the General Assembly, has been responsible for conducting the encampment’s business. As in most other cities, the participating members handle everything from ensuring the nightly meeting take place to doing financial research on Los Angeles-based bankers to cleaning up the trash. But on Wednesday, a large group of dissenters decided to occupy the General Assembly’s usual outdoor meeting space and assert themselves as the new regime. One man, standing at the center of the swirling and increasingly unruly crowd, yelled into a megaphone, “You don’t represent us anymore! We’re taking over! We’re the People’s Forum!” Rumblings of dissent and palpable animosity had been mounting in the camp throughout the afternoon. Informal meetings were held around the clock to hotly debate an issue that had factionalized the camp: weed

THE AWL: The Night Occupy Los Angeles Tore Itself In Two by Natasha Vargas-Cooper

Really? What a shock! Just because you have been taken advantage of doesn’t mean you have the right idea to fix it.

Greed has no fix.

Greed and amorality are human nature.

The Glass Steagall Act, first broken apart by J Carter when he decided the protection placed on the banks - preventing far more chancy loans in geographically, statistically proven areas, known as REDLINING, should NEVER have been touched.

The too big to fail institutions, each and every one, needs to be broken apart. Commissions based on financial products which takes years to be paid out, such as mortgage securities, must take that long to pay out commissions, thus vesting the sales people in sound transactions, and SOUND PRODUCTS.

It’s actually NOT rocket science.

OWS is DESTRUCTIVE. OWS has no clear objective. OWS is being euchred by the very forces who were charged with safeguarding the public in order to get elected again, UNTOUCHED.

The sooner these people are swept away, and in the northeast this appears now to be a divine intervention sometime tonight, the better for the nation.

This is the object of OWS:

(via suicideblonde)
Reblogged from Natasha VC
Source natashavc

The end of American migration, and how the "1%" can help

By TigerHawk at 10/29/2011 07:45:00 AM

There was a big story yesterday, but most of the blogosphere, caught up in shaping the narrative around the Occupy activists, ignored it. Too bad, because it is much more important.

The Census Bureau reported that American mobility -- the condition of people moving around this vast and beautiful land of ours in search of new opportunity -- has stopped like a car door slamming, and is at its lowest level since World War II. The reason given is that Americans are "locked in place," confined by houses they cannot sell -- or will not sell because they do not want to recognize losses that they have already incurred -- and young people are living with their parents.

Any reasonably large employer knows how bad this has become -- we are no longer really a national labor market, because so many otherwise excellent recruits cannot afford to relocate because they cannot sell their houses. The new American immobility is not only bad for our restless national spirit, it is terrible for GDP, and it needs to be fixed.

Separately, Mitt Romney drew rare praise from the Wall Street Journal for speaking the truth about housing and foreclosures.
Campaigning last week in Nevada, the epicenter of the housing bust, Mr. Romney was asked by the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board what he would do about housing and foreclosures. His reply:

"One is, don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up. Let it turn around and come back up. The Obama Administration has slow-walked the foreclosure processes that have long existed, and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang."

Romney is right -- the country will not really recover until housing transactions start to clear at something akin to a natural price. This is easier said than done for many reasons. Many homeowners heard some number for their house's value back in 2006 and thought of their equity as savings, and now feel they have to hang on until they recover their paper profits. Others bought at those levels and will lose most or all of their down payment when they sell. Still others could sell if they could reduce the outstanding debt, but it is no longer a simple matter to negotiate with one's mortgagee.

There is, however, a solution that might increase the velocity in the American housing market, restore the geographic mobility that is arguably our greatest cultural patrimony, and appeal to both Democrats and Republicans.

The Official TigerHawk housing proposal is this: Allow housing losses realized between 2011 and 2015 to be deductible against ordinary income with no limits (or some really high limit) in any tax year through 2021. What about sellers who cannot use the tax deduction (perhaps because it overwhelms their income, or they are part of the 47%)? Allow them to sell those losses, for cash, to individuals, to partnerships of individuals (the pooling of purchasers would create a more efficient market for the losses), and any corporation that hires and relocates the seller.

So, for example, if Joe Doakes, who used to earn $120,000 a year and is now unemployed and therefore earning nothing, bought his house for $800,000 in 2006 and sells it in 2011 for $550,000, his loss is the greater of $250,000 or (if the mortgage exceeds the proceeds) the sum of his down payment and any deficiency he pays the mortgagee. Under the Official TigerHawk proposal, Joe would be able to sell his (say) $250,000 loss to some affluent fellow (or, more likely, a pool of affluent fellows). If Richie Rich pays income taxes at, say, a state and federal marginal rate of 40%, Richie is probably willing to pay 35% -- or around $87,000 -- for Joe's loss. That gets Richie a 14% virtually risk-free return if he uses that loss in the next year, which is a pretty investment in any market. Indeed, if other alternatives suck enough and there is enough demand from One Percenters, prices paid for losses might rise to within a couple of points of the typical marginal rate.

Of course, Joe still eats a loss, as he should, but he gets cash now to help with buying his new (and presumably much cheaper) house across the country where he can actually get a job.

The further advantage of this idea is that it moves money around without the need for a single additional federal bureaucrat. Existing IRS form designers could come up with a fairly straightforward "1099-M" that Richie (or the partnership that he has an interest in) would issue to Joe, thereby tracking both the deduction and the payment.

Of course, liberals will hate this idea because it is a "tax cut for the rich" instead of a subsidy that can be handed out to specific voters by Democrats. That may mean that it needs to be paired with tax increases on the "rich" as part of a broader deficit deal. While that would irritate Republicans, the structural beauty of the scheme is that tax rate increases on the One Percenters would increase the value of the tax deduction, and therefore the cash paid to Joe, who really needs it, all while it eases the blow of the tax increase.

Finally, unlike the tax shelters of old, it does not subsidize economically stupid new construction and therefore does not sew the seeds of the next bubble and crash. Rather, it spreads (and, yes, partially socializes) the losses of the current crash organically, without any need for fraught decisions from banks, politicians, or federal agencies.

Release the hounds in the comments, and pass the post along if you like the idea.

The Hate Speech Bugaboo

Saturday, October 29, 2011

This is an unbelievably ridiculous piece, from Erna Paris, at Toronto's Globe and Mail, "There *are* limits to free expression."

And from the comments:

Hate speech is less prevalent in Canada today because Canadians don't like it and don't want it, not because of any law. Canada is not a more fragile place than in 1990; it's a much, much stronger and more tolerant place. The bizarre fear-mongering in this opinion piece is not only logically incoherent, it's completely unjustifiable.

Via Scaramouche.

Posted by Donald Douglas at 6:00 AM

Bill Whittle's Afterburner: 'How to Steal Power'

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Via Instapundit:

Description: Bill Whittle gives liberal America a lesson in the US Constitution. From the General Welfare clause to the Commerce Clause, Bill Whittle tells you how progressives misconstrue the Constitution to authorize unlimited government power. Have liberals like Obama destroyed the social compact? Find out.

How junk science is done: Start with a bogus model and fiddle with the parameters until you get the desired answer

Global warming: Middle East's vital wet winters are disappearing -

The team estimates that average precipitation from November through April in the region between 1971 and 2010 fell 6.8 percent below the average from 1902 to 1970.

The team began the hunt for causes.
...The team began using computer models to assess the effect of this ocean warming on the Mediterranean's winter precipitation.

The team found that warming all the oceans by a uniform 0.5 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit) would dry out the eastern Mediterranean.

But the oceans haven't warmed uniformly. The greatest warming has come to tropical oceans. So the team focused next on warming the tropical oceans uniformly in their virtual world. The team got a Mediterranean-wide drying and a wetter northern Europe.

Still, neither of these experiments produced the strong positive North Atlantic Oscillation-like signal with enhanced drying to the south and heavier precipitation to the north.

But by adding another 0.5 degrees C to the Indian Ocean alone, model produced the strong north-south differences in precipitation associated with a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation.


With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

John von Neumann


Saturday, October 29, 2011

"And I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place..."


Now let's get this right: The mouthpiece of the ideology of modern day slavery - called "Liberalism" (a.k.a. "Socialism") dares call heroic Freedom Fighter Herman Cain, an American of mostly African ancestry - a "House Nigger" for "daring" to be "Black and Patriot!"

Quite honestly, this blogger is damn sick and tired of the subhuman filth on the Left name calling good black men and women in crude racist code language,"Niggers," because they stand with the majority of their fellow Americans on the front lines of freedom!


Blacks and whites, especially in the South, served together in the Revolutionary War as Patriot brothers in the republican rebellion against King George III and American Tories.

The Republican Party under Lincoln liberated the slaves from the Southern Confederacy.

The Republican Party always opposed segregation and was responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended it.


The party of the Left - the DemoRATS - were the party of slavery. Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy, was a former DemoRAT and slave master U.S. Senator from Mississippi.

Segregation began in 1876 when the Union occupation ended and political power in the South returned to DemoRAT control. The few blacks who could still vote supported the "Party of Mr. Lincoln" and liberty.

The DemoRAT Party became socialist during the administration of white racist pig Woodrow Wilson who believed KKK propaganda like "Birth of a Nation" was "History written in lightening."

In the 1930s most blacks begin voting for "The New Deal FDR Plantation" and in the 1960s were finally allowed to sit on the back of the DemoRat bus in the House of Representatives with the white socialists sitting in control of the Senate and driving the vehicle.

The has come, fellow Patriots and stalwart Republicans, to attack in hard, honest and factual language - the hate speech from the filthy and degenerate Leftist pigs who control our government and major institutions - with righteous anger and the verbal mailed fist!



The French Socialist Party is in many ways the most archaic in Europe

Saturday, October 29, 2011

posted by Erik @ 13:16

"The French like to think they are better than other Europeans at resisting Americanization"
writes Christine Ockrent in the International Herald Tribune as she discusses France's main opposition party.
So don’t tell the Socialists they have given in, first by holding France’s first-ever party primaries, and second by embracing the mantra of their newly anointed champion, François Hollande, about reviving the “French Dream.” In contrast to the American Dream (whatever has happened to it), we’ve not heard much about a French one. In France individualism and self-improvement are supposed to be sacrificed for the common good on the altar of “la République.”

In any case, Hollande has every right to savor a personal victory few people bet on last summer, and to hear the change in the way people talk of him. Gone is the unfocused, indecisive, inexperienced party bureaucrat. The 57-year-old member of the National Assembly from central France is now hailed as “a true statesman” by former Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who never gave him a government post. To some of his former rivals, now eager to gather under his banner, Hollande is a “born leader,” a pragmatist clever enough to bury the ideological party platform they prepared in deference to the imperatives of the current crisis.

Europe has a long tradition of alternating conservative and left-wing governments. France has been doing that since the 1980s, which makes it more difficult for either side to blame the other for a huge increase in the national debt or unemployment.

Still, the French Socialist Party is in many ways the most archaic in Europe — riddled with Marxist-tainted platitudes, reluctant to adjust to the more mainstream social-democrat stance adopted long ago in Britain and elsewhere on the Continent. So it is worth noting that Hollande’s team now calls him “a true social-democrat” — something that not long ago was almost an insult in the official party lexicon.

This stance explains in part his victory over the official party leader, Martine Aubry, the mayor of Lille and a member of governments under François Mitterrand and Jospin. Hard working, stubborn, possessed of an acid tongue, but warm with the few she trusts, the woman who implemented the 35-hour work week is the daughter of Jacques Delors, the former president of the European Commission who opted out of the French presidential contest in 1995, to the despair of the pragmatic left. Hollande, clever, agile and humorous, has long posed as the political heir to Delors — the spiritual son against the true daughter.

Hollande and Aubry have always disliked each other intensely. Their fight for the nomination was both brutal and constrained — Aubry more on the left, doctrinaire side of the party, Hollande more to the center, smooth, cautious, conciliatory, calling constantly for party unity.

His campaign for the primaries was a good indication of the course he will follow to try to reach the Elysée Palace. Thinner than before, his hair dyed dark, with custom-tailored suits and new spectacles, Hollande imitates Mitterrand, copying his gestures, even his rhetoric, as if to revive memories of gentler economic and social conditions. From the start, he has been pleading for a “normal” presidency, far from Nicolas Sarkozy’s frenzied and chaotic performance. He thus appeals to a kind of French conservatism which has more to do with style than politics, a longing to be comforted rather than challenged.

The socialist candidate seems to have caught the mood of a nation more anxious than most about globalization, torn between universalism and provincialism, plagued with economic frailties that no government has been brave enough to confront. Even if their country is not the worst off in Europe, opinion surveys show that the French are the most pessimistic about the future, and consume the most anti-depressants.

What will be Hollande’s platform? To win the primaries, he never went far from his party’s mantra — create jobs without increasing public debt, foster economic growth, take money from the rich and regulate the banks, retire at 60 as if there were no demographic and financial constraints (although he was more cautious on that score than his competitors). But the gravity of the economic crisis is bound to have a sobering effect on the campaign. Hollande is a pragmatist. That is why he is such a dangerous adversary for Sarkozy, who will have to be making difficult decisions right up to the spring election.

The conservatives at first sneered at the Socialist primaries, then quarrelled over the need to do the same. In the end, Sarkozy has let the opposition monopolize the discussion, and blame the crisis all on him. In the meantime, scandals have stained his entourage; his party leaders keep bickering; his rating in public opinion polls is lower than ever, and he appears to have been rejected by many of those he seduced four years ago, including traditional conservatives.

Were the election held today, polls show that Hollande would win by a 10 percent margin — and that’s without a clear program. There are still six months to go. Sarkozy is a formidable campaigner, but he has a difficult uphill battle to fight.

Fannie Mae's James Johnson Turns Up in Another Green-Tech Scandal

Surprise! Another Obama bundler benefits from “green-tech” subsidies

posted at 4:05 pm
on October 28, 2011
by Ed Morrissey

Well, surprise isn’t really the correct word in this case. A better phrase would be, “To no one’s great shock …” On the heels of the Solyndra fiasco and the Fisker grant that created jobs in Finland, the Washington Post discovers that a “major fundraiser” for Barack Obama — and a member of his 2008 campaign team — ended up benefiting from $50 million in taxpayer-backed green-tech loans:

An investment firm whose vice chairman has been an adviser and fundraiser for President Obama saw one of its portfolio companies win approval this year for $50 million in loans from the administration’s clean-energy loan program.

Washington-based Perseus says its affiliation with James A. Johnson, a major fundraiser for Obama’s campaign, played no role in persuading the Energy Department to award the loan to Vehicle Production Group, a Miami start-up that is manufacturing wheelchair-accessible cars and taxis.

Johnson wasn’t just some faceless contributor to Obama’s campaign, either. As Hot Air readers might recall, Johnson played a major role in the campaign:

Johnson headed Obama’s vice presidential selection committee in 2008 and is the former chairman of housing mortgage giant Fannie Mae. He was listed as a campaign fundraising bundler for Obama in the 2008 race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and committed to raising $200,000 to $500,000 for the upcoming presidential race. …

Johnson had supported Obama as a young senator and, later, was briefly part of a three-member team leading his vice presidential search committee. But Johnson resigned in June 2008 amid revelations that he had received $7 million in deeply discounted mortgage loans from the chief executive of Countrywide, a company that had helped fuel the rise of subprime home mortgages. He said the controversy was a distraction for Obama’s campaign.

Johnson has personally donated $55,400 to Obama’s two presidential campaigns, federal donation records show, including a $35,800 check listed on Aug. 29 to Obama’s reelection effort. Pearl donated $1,500 to Obama’s campaign in 2008.

Perseus denies that Johnson had anything to do with its loan, but then again, George Kaiser denied he had anything to do with getting Solyndra its loan, too. How coincidental would it be that two men who raise money for Obama also managed to make money from Obama through subsidies at the Department of Energy?

On the other hand, Jonathan Alter argues that Obama’s tenure has been remarkably … scandal-free:

President Barack Obama goes into the 2012 with a weak economy that may doom his reelection. But he has one asset that hasn’t received much attention: He’s honest. …

Although it’s possible that the Solyndra LLC story will become a classic feeding frenzy, don’t bet on it. Providing $535 million in loan guarantees to a solar-panel maker that goes bankrupt was dumb, but so far not criminal or even unethical on the part of the administration. These kinds of stories are unlikely to derail Obama in 2012. If he loses, it will be because of the economy — period.

Even so, the president’s Teflon is intriguing. How did we end up in such a scandal-less state?

Perhaps Alter is thinking in terms of personal scandal. It’s true that Obama has done nothing to dent his reputation as a good family man while President, but it’s equally true that only one President in the past nine have had a personal-scandal problem while in the White House. In fact, since JFK’s peccadilloes came to light years after his death, one might have to go all the way back to Harding for any hint of personal scandal in the Oval Office. Saying that one has been able to clear the Bill Clinton bar is practically the definition of damning with faint praise.

However, Obama’s administration has hit at least two major scandals, and yes, Solyndra is one of them. Despite ABC’s excellent reporting on the story, Alter never even mentions George Kaiser or his fundraising on Obama’s behalf, or the curious and almost certainly illegal DoE decision to subordinate taxpayers in Kaiser’s favor, guaranteeing a total loss for taxpayers in the bankruptcy. Alter also conveniently ignores Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in a dead Border Patrol agent and hundreds of victims in Mexico, a scandal that already has connections to the White House. In fact, his essay never mentions guns, the ATF, or anything connected to OF&F.

It’s easy to declare a politician scandal free when refusing to pay attention. Unfortunately for Obama, actual news outlets have begun looking at the connections between Obama’s green-tech subsidies and political cronies, and the media is starting to take a closer look at OF&F as well.

Take this quiz about the big oil companies!

We've all heard the battle cry of the Left when it comes to Big Oil: Close all of the tax loopholes and end all of the tax breaks!

What you most likely have not heard from the Left is any outrage over some of the largess that's been offered by the federal government under President Obama to some failing alternative energy companies.

Some loans, like the one to Solyndra, that appear to be some kind of quid pro quo for the success of collecting Obama campaign contributions.

In any event, once you get past the Democrat talking points about the oil industry and take a look under the hood, some of what you learn may be a surprise.

Big oil company quiz!

1. ExxonMobil produces 2 million barrels of oil per day of worldwide. In addition to its own production, Exxon also purchases crude oil at the market rate for its global refining network. How much oil does Exxon buy every day at the prevailing market rate?

a. 500,000 barrels

b. 1 million barrels

c. 3 million barrels

d. 5 million barrels

2. Local, state and federal gasoline taxes average roughly 49 cents per gallon nationally, and are as high as 67 cents per gallon in California and New York. What amount of profit does ExxonMobil earn per gallon of gasoline sold?

a. 65 cents per gallon

b. 45 cents per gallon

c. 25 cents per gallon

d. 8 cents per gallon

3. More than 75% of ExxonMobil’s operating earnings come from outside the United States. What percent of ExxonMobil's workforce is based in the United States?

a. 20%

b. 40%

c. 60%

d. 80%

4. ExxonMobil is the world’s largest publicly traded oil company. What percent of the world’s oil reserves does it actually control?

a. Less than 1 percent

b. 2 percent

c. 5 percent

d. 10 percent

5. What percent of the world's oil reserves does America's "Big Oil" companies control?

a. 3 percent

b. 6 percent

c. 12 percent

d. 18 percent

6. In the first half of 2011, ExxonMobil paid $6.7 billion in tax expenses in the U.S. What were ExxonMobil's operating earnings for that period?

a. $20 billion

b. $7 billion

c. $5.5 billion

d. $3.5 billion

Find the answers here.

H/T Carpe Diem

Subscribe to The Political Commentator HERE (for free of course) and join the author on social media!

Disturbing: Profiles in “Occupy” violence (language warning) #OWS

Posted by: ST on October 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm

A few links:

—- Occupy San Diego’s Own Lefty Media to Police: You’re a F***ing Joke!

Dan Gainor writes of this:

Occupiers claim they are ‘press,’ and bully, threaten and intimidate police.


Here are a few highlights of the liberal press’s love for police:

Cries of ”police state” and ”shame, shame, shame” when the police won’t do what the two protesters want;

Harassing one officer about his daughter who is allegedly taught by the daughter of a protester, asking, ”Do you care about your daughter” and screaming, ”you look like you are about to cry.” When the officer arrested a protester who asked to be arrested, the duo threaten to show that video to the officer’s daughter.

The woman threatens the officers by shouting, ”You will be exposed,” another implied threat going back to the docs-ing attack.

Another nearby protester’s comment about one police officer: ”F*ck him!”

Such New Toney-goodness, eh?

—– Ed Morrissey files this extremely disturbing report about a flier given out at Occupy Phoenix, which the Arizona Dept. of Safety is aware of:

Flier at Occupy Phoenix asks, “When should you shoot a cop?”

Here’s a link to the flier.

—– Last but not least, Ed Driscoll points to an interview with an Occupy Oakland protester that did not go the way MSDNC’s pro-Occupy host Lawrence O’Donnell wanted it to when the protester admitted that it was protesters, not the Oakland PD, who hit the cops first when riots broke out a few days ago. Must-see video included.

—– Oh, here’s a bonus for you: @Occupy_Police mentioned on their Twitter page this morning that their site had been hacked by a “rogue hacker.” I found it amusing that they’d call the hacker a “rogue” since the Occupy movement and Anon globalist hackers have allied themselves together in their fight against “THE MAN” and accordingly believe it’s ok to hack into police websites, etc, in response to any perceived wrong. I inquired to @OccupyPolice this afternoon:

Presumably since y’all are allied w Anons, you’re ok w/ being hacked yourselves by outsiders? #TasteOfYourOwnMedicine

I mean, after all – if’s ok for Anons to hack sites in response to alleged wrongs using their sick form of “vigilante justice”, it’s ok for outsiders to hack into Anon-affiliated websites, right?

With all that being said, I’m sure the Vigilant-Against-Radical-Protesters-National-MSM will be all over these stories of Occupiers advocating intimidation and violence, including this one of a Fox 5 NY reporter being threatened with a knife attack by an OWS supporter (video included), in 3, 2 …

Related Reading:
Occupy Madison Loses Permit Because Protesters were “Publicly Masturbating”

Update – 6:49 PM: Oh my – #OccupyMiami Hangs Banker in Effigy

OccupyWallSt Crowd Flys Paper Airplanes Into Bank Skyscraper

Saturday, October 29, 2011
Obama & Democrat Endorsed OccupyWallSt Crowd Flys Paper Airplanes Into Bank Skyscraper -- 10 Years After 9/11

Someone with National Review took video of the Occupy Wall Street squatters doing a mass flying of paper airplanes into the skyscraper where Citibank resides.

When reminded that it was 10 years after 9/11, the riff raff said they didn't mind the was more bothered by littering (h/t Sister Toldjah).

This is what happens when a Regime led by a community organizer turns 9/11 into a Day of National Service, and a compliant lapdog media refers to the terrorist attack as a "tragedy" instead.

I'm sure most of the fleabaggers spent the last 10 years saying we deserved 9/11, so no wonder they weren't bothered.

MSNBC's Karen Finney on Herman Cain: "he is a black man that knows his place" (video)

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Can't they give the race card a rest for a few days? Don't Democrats and liberals have anything other than class warfare and race-baiting in their arsenal?

Via YouTube :
"Very seriously, and this is a little harsh, but one of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel OK, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he is giving that base a free pass and I think they like him because they think he is a black man that knows his place. And I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me."

MSNBC's Karen Finney on Herman Cain

Posted by Bluegrass Pundit at 9:30 AM

COP: Some thoughts to ponder-"Free Stuff"

Saturday, October 29, 2011

The folks who are getting the free stuff, don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff

Because the folks who are paying for the free stuff, Can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff,


The folks who are paying for the free stuff, want the free stuff to stop.and the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
Now... The people who are forcing the people who Pay for the free stuff, have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff, that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff,
are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff,
have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff, by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff, and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012.

Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.


"A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"

Author Unknown-and thanks to that person

Posted by GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon
at 3:53 PM

Woman Charged with Pimping Teen Recruited at Occupy NH Rally

Posted by Aurelius
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Just like the Tea Party, right? Right?:
A city woman is accused of pimping a 16-year-old girl she met in Victory Park during the Occupy NH demonstrations.

Justina Jensen, 23, of 341 Hanover St., is charged with felony prostitution. Police allege Jensen met a teen at the local protest, which is an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, and used the Internet to arrange a first liaison for the girl with a man who turned out to be an undercover police officer.

Police said the teen's mother called them Thursday about noon to say her daughter was missing and that her photograph had been posted on a website advertising adult party entertainment.

Court documents show the mother told police she and a friend had used the website to negotiate a deal for the friend to pay for sex with the teen.

Investigators looked at the website and found the girl's photo posted there, along with pictures of three other women, in an advertisement offering men to “come and have fun with four beautiful ladies” in Manchester.

Justina Jensen






Our Generation Is Destroying Middle Class Producers

Saturday, October 29, 2011

The Obama Socialist game is an old one. A game played time and again by Communists. Blame the rich for all problems and use the mobs (moochers) to revolt and disrupt, all the while claiming to be fighting for the middle class. Of course the "rich" doesn't include the "ruling elite". That would be people like George Soros, Algore, and cronies from companies like GE and Goldman Sachs. They readily join up with the Socialists in their quest for money, but mostly power.

The aim is to transfer absolute power to the ruling class while destroying the middle class by transferring their assets to the moochers.

Examples? Health care for one. The worst fears about Obamacare are now being realized in a decision on Monday by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MPAC) established by the law to supervise $500 billion in Medicare cuts (while Dems claim they will not touch Medicare). MPAC, whose decisions have the force of law, has voted to impose drastic pay cuts on all doctors under Medicare and, by extension, under Medicaid (which tends to follow suit). Obama's ruling board is passing down edicts that Specialists will have their Medicare (Obamacare) fees cut by 50% over the next ten years. General practitioners will take a 33% cut. Why? This is one way to pay for insurance for moochers (the poor uninsured). The largest cuts (25%) will come in the first three years. Obviously at least two things will happen, both bad. First, fewer bright people will become doctors. Secondly, the specialists (like oncologists and cardiologists) will quit treating Medicare (Obamacare) patients. The rich will continue to pay for their services, right? So who will be without specialized treatment? The middle class, of course. The moochers gain at the expense of the middle class.

What else? Education is being put through the same type drill. Mooching students who qualify by meeting government regulations are getting student loans up to $200,000 in many cases. Universities are dramatically raising their tuitions and fees because of these generous government loans. Students will be given up to 20 years to make token payments, and then all is forgiven. They are only required to make minimum payments during that period meaning the taxpayer will pay for most of the loans. So the Universities get paid in full in the first 4-5 years. The taxpayer (mostly middle class) pays the bill over the same period while receiving no financial assistance and having to pay the inflated college prices for their own children. The moocher spreads token payments over 20 years and then the balance is written off by the government. How large is the problem today? One trillion dollars is outstanding, one third of the nation’s total budget this year.

Remember the good old days when a middle class family's primary objective was to work hard, save money, and put their children through college. The Socialists are doing everything possible to convert broken families to moochers.

If health care and education are not personal enough, how about housing? Most experts agree the world's financial crisis is primarily the result of what they call a "housing bubble". We are told by Obama and his "occupiers", who are street mobs, that Wall Street greed was the problem. Many in the middle class have found that their home values have collapsed to the point that they owe more the current value of their homes. Why did this happen? Moochers were given "hot deals" to buy homes that they could not afford. Low interest rates with adjustable mortgages for the "sub-prime" buyer with plenty of homes to pick from since builders were enjoying low interest rates and readily available loans as well. The government assured bankers they were behind them with guarantees from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack (both of which went broke, were bailed out, and will never pay taxpayers back). Mobs would march on banks if they weren't responding to pressure from the government to make the loans. The banks unloaded the mortgages as best they could (who wouldn't?), and of course the bubble popped as they always do when you defy basic market principles. Obama's current solution is to spend another $35 Billion of taxpayer's money to FORCE banks (again) to refinance these bad loans to buy time and votes. Again the middle class (producers) suffer through an awful economy as moochers benefit with taxpayer funded bailouts.

If these schemes are too convoluted to follow let's take one that is a little more blatant. President Obama cheered Friday a federal judge who approved a $1.2 billion government settlement with black farmers who claim they were cheated out of loans and other assistance from the Agriculture Department over many years. Congress approved this payout one year ago. It comes on top of the initial payment of $1 billion paid to 16,000 black farmers. The second round was created to help those who missed the filing deadline on the first payment. Our leader made the following comment, "This agreement will provide overdue relief and justice to African American farmers, and bring us closer to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on." This scam comes right out of the pockets of the middle class who worked for their money and paid their taxes. All in the name of freedom and justice. Are you kidding me?

If these farmers were "cheated" who is going to be prosecuted and sent to jail? You know the answer. Not a soul because this is a scam that white, timid politically correct folks willl not challenge. Somehow taxpayers think this $2.2 Billion is not their money. They seem to think that it comes from someone else.

Who knows how many other scams will come from the Obama administration between now and 2012. Or imagine if the electorate gives him another four years after that. Here are four examples of Obama taking money from the hard working middle class taxpayer and giving it to the moocher who believes they have rights to free healthcare, free college educations, government assisted home ownership, and government handouts for being black. Every one of these programs was paid for with money that this government and nation does not have. It is a debt that our innocent children must pay.

While I truly believe the World War II vets were our best generation, I am equally convinced that the generation that followed and governs today is our WORST. I am sad to say that is my generation.

Think about it,

Please donate to the “Jonathan Alter Obama Scandal Education Fund”

Posted by William A. Jacobson
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 10:26am

Never has there been a love as true or as blind as media Obamalove, as evidenced by adoring puff piece written by Jonathan Alter for Bloomberg News, Obama Miracle is White House Free of Scandal:

President Barack Obama goes into the 2012 with a weak economy that may doom his reelection. But he has one asset that hasn’t received much attention: He’s honest.

The sight of Texas Governor Rick Perry tumbling out of the clown car recently as a “birther” (or at least a birther-enabler) is a sign of weakness, not just for the Perry campaign but for the whole Republican effort to tarnish the president’s character.

Although it’s possible that the Solyndra LLC story will become a classic feeding frenzy, don’t bet on it. Providing $535 million in loan guarantees to a solar-panel maker that goes bankrupt was dumb, but so far not criminal or even unethical on the part of the administration. These kinds of stories are unlikely to derail Obama in 2012. If he loses, it will be because of the economy — period.

Solyndra not a scandal? In what universe is that true?

Even the professional left is having none of this nonsense, from emptywheel at Firedoglake, The Scandal Is that Jonathan Alter Doesn’t See the Scandal:

This Administration has smothered what was left of rule of law. And yet Alter can’t find a scandal?…

And part of Alter’s problem is his adoption of Brendan Nyhan’s definition of scandal: the reference to something as a scandal by a WaPo reporter on that rag’s front page.

Indeed, it’s all how the mainstream media defines scandal. And the MSM has decided to define scandal to exclude anything which could harm Obama’s chances of reelection.

Let’s educate Alter on the scandals of the Obama administration. I’ll start:

Solyndra – how is it not a scandal when a big Obama campaign donor receives special treatment to bilk the country of half-a-billion dollars?

Fast and Furious – guns missing, border patrol agent dead, Mexican gangs well-armed, and an Attorney General who is incompetent at best, misleading at worst.

Nixonian control of press access to fundraisers.

Obamacare – possibly the most deceptive law ever passed, so much so that one of its key cost-saving tools turns out to be too costly to implement.

The disregard of judicial orders as to Gulf oil leases and the near shutdown of new production.

And it goes on and on. Please contribute to the Jonathan Alter Obama Scandal Education Fund, in the comments.

Friday, October 28, 2011

It Begins… #Occupy Squatters Hang Effigy of Banker From Telephone Wire

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, October 27, 2011, 11:14 PM

They can’t help it.
For an encore, the radical far left #Occupy squatters are hanging effigies of bankers from phone lines.
What thugs.

The Daily Mail reported, via FOX Nation:

Drivers in Miami today were likely doing double takes on Wednesday as they passed what looked like a banker hanging by a noose from a telephone wire alongside a Florida highway.

To accompany his Occupy Wall Street-themed mural, the international graffiti artist known by his street name Above, took his message a step further by adding the rather life-like hanging dummy to his display.

The mannequin is dressed in a black suit with a white collared shirt and red tie.

Just like the tea party?

Revealed: Obama’s Health Care Law Penalizes Married Couples

October 27th, 2011
Posted By Pat Dollard.

Fox News:

A new wrinkle has surfaced in the implementation of the federal health care law that critics argue will impose a significant penalty on women and marriage.

The law includes generous subsidies for the uninsured so they can afford to buy coverage in the new insurance exchanges that are part of the legislation.

But several analysts told Congress Thursday the nature of the subsidies has an odd effect.

“The way this bill is structured, there are disincentives for women to marry and disincentives for women to work,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. “And for a bill that’s supposed to make Americans healthier, these disincentives are truly startling.”

Critics say that beginning in 2014, Americans will find it more advantageous to stay single than marry because it will be easier to afford health coverage.

Why? The new law provides generous subsidies for those without insurance so they can buy it on the new exchanges, but the subsidies are tied to one’s income level and there’s the rub.

The income measure for subsidy purposes are not based on individuals but rather on families. And that creates a perverse incentive.

“Two singles would each be able to earn $43,000 and still receive help to purchase health insurance, but if they got married and combined their earnings to $86,000, they would be far above the limit,” Furchtgott-Roth explained.

So those with that much income as a couple would lose the government subsidies and be on their own for thousands of dollars in health coverage.

What's your definition of the American Idea?

Mike Brownfield
October 27, 2011 at 9:57 am

What is the American idea? That all depends on whom you ask. According to President Barack Obama, it’s the notion that the federal government is the answer to America’s problems, and that through its intervention–by sheer force of spending–it can create a brighter future for all Americans.

There’s a different view, though, that has again found its voice in the past year. It’s the idea that America is at its best when its people are allowed to be free and produce, not thanks to the government or even in spite of it, but on their own merit and initiative. Yesterday, those two competing visions were on display–the former delivered in Denver by President Obama, and the latter in Washington at The Heritage Foundation by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI).

In Colorado, President Obama announced his latest plan to stimulate the economy–a student loan giveaway paid for by the taxpayers. The President declared that, “When I wake up every single morning, what I’m thinking about is how do we create an America in which you have opportunity, in which anybody can make it if they try, no matter what they look like, no matter where they come from, no matter what race, what creed, what faith.” And, a few breaths later, he said that there’s only one way, only one force, that can achieve that outcome–the federal government:

So the truth is the only way we can attack our economic challenges on the scale that’s necessary — the only way we can put hundreds of thousands of people, millions of people, back to work is if Congress is willing to cooperate with the executive branch and we are able to do some bold action — like passing the jobs bill. That’s what we need.

In an auditorium in Washington, Ryan offered a different vision of the American Idea, and it’s one that celebrates freedom and prosperity, individual achievement and opportunity:

The American Idea belongs to all of us — inherited from our nation’s Founders, preserved by the countless sacrifices of our veterans, and advanced by visionary leaders, past and present.

What makes America exceptional — what gives life to the American Idea — is our dedication to the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, giving us equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that means opportunity.

Ryan said that it is in times like these, when America is struggling with unemployment and businesses are closing, that the American Idea is in jeopardy, that “America’s commitment to equality of opportunity is called into question.” Unfortunately, he explained, President Obama is responding to these challenges by giving in to the temptation of exploiting fear and envy by embracing petty and trivial rhetoric, avoiding making tough decisions on spending and the debt, and by attempting to score cheap political points instead of building consensus:

Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment.

This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country — corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless.

Ryan points to the President’s policy decisions as evidence of damaging class warfare: higher taxes on the “rich” to pay for more failed stimulus spending; the EPA’s punishment of disfavored yet commercially competitive sources of energy, while doling out cash to politically favored alternatives; the National Labor Relations Board threatening hundreds of jobs by suing a company for politically motivated reasons; and granting Obamacare waivers to politically connected firms and unions, all while the rest of America wonders whether they will lose their health care coverage.

All of this, Ryan says, points America toward a future where equality of outcome is favored over equality of opportunity, and where “a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society.”

In the House, Ryan has helped lead Congress to pursue a series of policies that promote an American Idea far different than the President’s. It involves spending within our means, reforming the tax code, and enacting meaningful entitlement reforms. Meanwhile, he points out, it has been more than 900 days since the President’s party has passed a budget in the Senate. Yet still we hear the steady drumbeat from the White House calling for more taxes and spending–none of which has mustered support within either chamber in Congress.

While the President crosses the country, America is at a crossroads. Should it head toward bigger government in the fruitless pursuit of equal outcomes or restrain government so that equal opportunity can flourish? For the sake of the American Idea that the Founders envisioned, let’s hope our leaders make the right choice.

Watch the full video and read the full text of Ryan’s speech at

Occupy Portland's Website Occupied, $20K Goes Missing

Looks like some troublemakers are redistributing the wealth. Definitely going to be some down twinkles for that.

Savor the irony.
Organizers of Occupy Portland say they fear as much as $20,000 donated to the group through a PayPal account has disappeared.

They also say the group's finance committee has hijacked the demonstration's Internet domain name and filed for incorporation against the wishes of the group's decision-making body.

The demonstrator who filed the papers with the state said she did so to protect the protest, and she has received death threats as a result.
Theft, hacking and death threats. All in a day's work for these chumps.
The rift arose before members of the movement joined labor union supporters Wednesday to march through downtown Portland during rush hour. The peaceful rally drew about 1,000 people, but caused few traffic disruptions as protesters repeated their mantra: "We are the 99 percent!"

Half a dozen speakers praised the occupation and urged the group to keep fighting. Marchers included children and dogs, babies in strollers and people on bikes.
Are dogs, babies and people on bikes considered marchers?
The harmony of the gathering contrasted to a flare-up within the local movement.

Earlier in the day, Jordan LeDoux, who works for the media, communications, public relations and web team of the protest, said that since 8 p.m. Tuesday, Occupy Portland has not been able to get into its own Internet page,

LeDoux said a member of the finance committee apparently took control of the website.
Posted by JammieWearingFool at 11:08 AM

Meet the Wizard Behind the Curtain of Occupy Wall Street

Morgen on October 27, 2011 at 7:09 am

Elizabeth Warren was quoted earlier this week aligning herself with Occupy Wall Street, stating that she “created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do”. While there may be an incidental nexus between Warren’s longstanding criticism of the financial services industry, and the focus of the OWS protests, her claim is simply not true. There is a wizard behind the curtain of OWS, but it is not Elizabeth Warren. Because OWS is not about reforming the banking industry reform, consumer rights, or even taxing the 1%. Nor is it about re-electing Obama, or other Democrats. No – it’s implicit objective is much more sinister, and its lineage traces back to someone far more radical. He is a professor named David Graeber. He is an anarchist. And he is trying to destroy America.

I was skeptical at first myself. With so much media attention focused on OWS, surely if the movement’s roots could be traced this directly to one individual, and one ideology, someone would have already done so. I remained skeptical even after reading Graeber himself describe – in convincing detail – the critical leadership role he played in organizing the movement’s launch.

But then I read something else Graeber wrote that convinced me that not only was he telling the truth about his role as an organizer, but that his contribution to OWS likely extends much deeper. In an article entitled “The New Anarchists”, Graeber neatly outlined what is clearly the intellectual foundation for the OWS movement. And most striking of all, he wrote this in 2002:

The very notion of direct action, with its rejection of a politics which appeals to governments to modify their behaviour, in favour of physical intervention against state power in a form that itself prefigures an alternative—all of this emerges directly from the libertarian tradition. Anarchism is the heart of the movement, its soul; the source of most of what’s new and hopeful about it…

However you choose to trace their origins, these new tactics are perfectly in accord with the general anarchistic inspiration of the movement, which is less about seizing state power than about exposing, delegitimizing and dismantling mechanisms of rule while winning ever-larger spaces of autonomy from it…

A constant complaint about the globalization movement in the progressive press is that, while tactically brilliant, it lacks any central theme or coherent ideology. (This seems to be the left equivalent of the corporate media’s claims that we are a bunch of dumb kids touting a bundle of completely unrelated causes—free Mumia, dump the debt, save the old-growth forests.) Another line of attack is that the movement is plagued by a generic opposition to all forms of structure or organization…”[T]his is a movement about reinventing democracy. It is not opposed to organization. It is about creating new forms of organization. It is not lacking in ideology. Those new forms of organization are its ideology. It is about creating and enacting horizontal networks instead of top-down structures like states, parties or corporations; networks based on principles of decentralized, non-hierarchical consensus democracy. Ultimately, it aspires to be much more than that, because ultimately it aspires to reinvent daily life as whole…

Observe that these excerpted passages describe all of the defining characteristics of the OWS movement:
A steadfast refusal by the movement to put forward any demands.
The continuous occupation of physical space by movement protesters.
Criticism that the movement consists largely of young people without any apparent goals.
A focus on propagating a new process for consensus-based, decision making.

But if this is not convincing enough, the article goes on to describe this process is more detail. See if this sounds familiar.

Over the past decade, activists in North America have been putting enormous creative energy into reinventing their groups’ own internal processes, to create viable models of what functioning direct democracy could actually look like. In this we’ve drawn particularly, as I’ve noted, on examples from outside the Western tradition, which almost invariably rely on some process of consensus finding, rather than majority vote. The result is a rich and growing panoply of organizational instruments—spokescouncils, affinity groups, facilitation tools, break-outs, fishbowls, blocking concerns, vibe-watchers and so on—all aimed at creating forms of democratic process that allow initiatives to rise from below and attain maximum effective solidarity, without stifling dissenting voices, creating leadership positions or compelling anyone to do anything which they have not freely agreed to do.

The basic idea of consensus process is that, rather than voting, you try to come up with proposals acceptable to everyone—or at least, not highly objectionable to anyone: first state the proposal, then ask for ‘concerns’ and try to address them. Often, at this point, people in the group will propose ‘friendly amendments’ to add to the original proposal, or otherwise alter it, to ensure concerns are addressed. Then, finally, when you call for consensus, you ask if anyone wishes to ‘block’ or ‘stand aside’. Standing aside is just saying, ‘I would not myself be willing to take part in this action, but I wouldn’t stop anyone else from doing it’. Blocking is a way of saying ‘I think this violates the fundamental principles or purposes of being in the group’. It functions as a veto: any one person can kill a proposal completely by blocking it—although there are ways to challenge whether a block is genuinely principled.

This is the Occupy Wall Street movement in a nutshell, in all its glorious simplicity. It’s not a ragtag group of disillusioned young people, lacking in coherent leadership or direction. It’s a movement spawned from a very specific school of anti-capitalistic thought (anarchism), planned and orchestrated by its most committed adherents, including David Graeber. But towards what end?

Graeber himself provides an answer, from 2007:

The organization of mass actions themselves — festivals of resistance, as they are often called — can be considered pragmatic experiments in whether it is indeed possible to institutionalize the experience of liberation, the giddy realignment of imaginative powers, everything that is most powerful in the experience of a successful spontaneous insurrection. Or if not to institutionalize it, perhaps, to produce it on call. The effect for those involved is as if everything were happening in reverse. A revolutionary uprising begins with battles in the streets, and if successful, proceeds to outpourings of popular effervescence and festivity. There follows the sober business of creating new institutions, councils, decision-making processes, and ultimately the reinvention of everyday life. Such at least is the ideal, and certainly there have been moments in human history where something like that has begun to happen — much though, again, such spontaneous creations always seems to end being subsumed within some new form of violent bureaucracy. However, as I’ve noted, this is more or less inevitable since bureaucracy, however much it serves as the immediate organizer of situations of power and structural blindness, does not create them. Mainly, it simply evolves to manage them.

This is one reason direct action proceeds in the opposite direction. Probably a majority of the participants are drawn from subcultures that are all about reinventing everyday life. Even if not, actions begin with the creation of new forms of collective decision-making: councils, assemblies, the endless attention to ‘process’ — and uses those forms to plan the street actions and popular festivities. The result is, usually, a dramatic confrontation with armed representatives of the state. While most organizers would be delighted to see things escalate to a popular insurrection, and something like that does occasionally happen, most would not expect these to mark any kind of permanent breaks in reality. They serve more as something almost along the lines of momentary advertisements — or better, foretastes, experiences of visionary inspiration — for a much slower, painstaking struggle of creating alternative institutions.

A “revolution in reverse” Graeber calls this, and while he is realistic in his assessment that a full-fledged revolution is unlikely to be forthcoming anytime soon, his other writings make perfectly clear what sort of “permanent break in reality” he is aiming for:

Medium-Term Goals: destroy the “Washington Consensus” around neoliberalism, block all new trade pacts, delegitimize and ultimately shut down institutions like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank; disseminate
new models of direct democracy.

Long-Term Goals: (at least for the more radical elements) smash the state and destroy capitalism.

This seems pretty consistent with the bulk of the messages emanating from Zucotti Park, and also explains why so many socialists and other radical leftists are attracted to these protests. They share the same proximate goals with the anarchists, if not the same long-term vision. It’s an alliance of convenience, against capitalism.

But is David Graeber really the mastermind behind it all? On one hand, anarchist movements by definition tend to be non-hierarchical, and as Graeber himself acknowledged, the original idea came from Adbusters with initial support from the Anonymous movement (which is itself anarchist). But based on Graeber’s own account, it seems he had an awful lot to do with the initial orchestration of the movement in New York. And it is interesting to say the least that the movement’s core principles and techniques correspond so closely with an article he wrote over a decade ago defining the “new anarchists”.

Ultimately it does not matter much anyway because regardless of Graeber’s exact role, what is clear is that this is an anarchist movement through and through. Conceived and executed by people whose long term goal is the destruction of global capitalism…and America. Obviously this is not a goal shared by most of the 99% of Americans the movement claims to represent, and support for these protests would be close to non-existent if the public was made aware of its actual roots. However, it seems mayors and police chiefs around the country recognize anarchists when they see them, and are beginning to shut down the occupied encampments, if not the protests themselves. But maybe if OWS lasts long enough the media will eventually get around to reporting how the movement originated. Because the wizard behind the curtain is actually hiding in plain sight.

Well-Funded, Nicely-Fed OWSers Won't Share Food With The Homeless

October 27, 2011

Lessons of social evolution, part 8: Sharing of resources only works within a small group with some natural connection (such as familial bond) or other emotional/personal fondness for each other. Sharing of resources generally only works for a brief period of time -- the natural resentment towards Takers can only be briefly suppressed -- and usually during special occasions (such as communal feasts).

Being expected to share with individuals outside of one's kin group quickly produces resentment, and soon after, a codification of the principle of private property, which is, of course, the right to exclude others from the use of one's property as one deems fit.

A shorter form of this rule: People like visitors and/or strangers with their hands full, not with their hands out.

Everyday is Learning Day for OWS.
The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

Yeah, what right do the homeless and prisoners have to represent themselves as society's downtrodden. Impostors! They're not oppressed like the college graduates with too much debt from pricey private colleges!
For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

Amazing... they don't want to share their own stuff with people they don't have any particular common bonds with. And they're resentful of Other people coming in and acting like they have the right to take their stuff.
To show they mean business, the kitchen staff refused to serve any food for two hours yesterday in order to meet with organizers to air their grievances, sources said.


The Assembly announced the three-day menu crackdown announced earlier in the day -- insisting everybody would be fed something during that period.

Some protesters threatened that the high-end meals could be cut off completely if the vagrants and criminals don’t disperse.

If these damn vagrants and criminals don't remove themselves from the public park we are illegally occupying, ooh, we will get so mad!
Unhappiness with their unwelcome guests was apparent throughout the day.

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

This movement of the masses seems to toss around words like "derelicts" rather casually.

I (and you) think all of these layabouts are derelicts and losers.

But note within their little society, they themselves set up a hierarchy "those who belong" and "losers and derelicts we wish to exclude."

Do they not get that that's what they are to us?

Oh, remember how the left used to criticize the right for telling Tall Tales of professional homeless people who are really just scamming the system?
Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.

I like this quote:
“We’re not going to let some members of this community destroy the whole movement,” a volunteer said.

My thoughts exactly.

Making this all the more interesting is the fact that the "In-Group" here -- the OWS protesters -- are largely white, while the Out-Group they seek to exclude are largely not.

At this pace, in a week they'll have full-on Jim Crow Laws, and then begin making arguments that "these rules help both Those People and us too, because different socio-ethnic groups really shouldn't mingle. That would produce a mongrelized, debased movement, after all."

Wartime Contracting Panel Seals Records for Next 20 Years

Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Established by Congress to investigate and expose government waste, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan has decided to not reveal its volumes of materials to the public for another two decades.

After three years of work, the commission officially shut down last week, having concluded that the U.S. misspent between $31 billion and $60 billion in contracting for services in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But it won’t allow its records to be opened for public review at the National Archives until 2031, because some of the documents contain “sensitive information,” according to one official.

Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, told The Wall Street Journal that the 20-year term “seems like a long period of time, particularly for a commission whose whole purpose is to improve accountability and expose waste.”

Michelle Obama to hold fund-raiser at Enron trader’s mansion

October 27, 2011 by Don Surber

John D. Arnold, whom the New York Times described as “a former star trader at Enron who is now an energy hedge fund billionaire,” will host a fund-raiser at his mansion in Houston for Michelle Obama on Tuesday. John Arnold was one of the top bundlers for President Obama, raising $176,400 in the 2008 campaign. He has donated $114,900 personally to Democratic candidates and the party in recent years, including $28,500 to Obama’s victory campaign, according to Federal Elections Commission records.

Tickets start at $10,000 and the campaign will collect contributions up to the legal maximum of $35,800 for the appearance by Missus Obama.

After Enron collapsed (the Bush administration successfully prosecuted its president, Ken Lay on 10 counts of securities fraud and related charges) John Arnold founded Centaurus Advisors, LLC, is a Houston-based hedge fund that specializes in trading energy products. He used his final bonus from the bankrupted Enron to start the company. He has received salary and bonuses as high as $1 billion in a single year. His fortune is estimated at $4 billion. His company now owns 10% of National Coal Corporation.

The Houston Federation of Teachers is protesting the visit. Not because of the Enron connection.

Not because he is a hedge fund trader.

Not because he is one of “the 1%.”

The union protests against his funding of an effort to convert pension plans for government workers in California to a 401-k style plan. His profession rakes in billions every year in fees for managing 401-k portfolios. Arnold and his wife set up the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility to push this cause. In August, spokeswoman Meredith Simonton told Bloomberg: “Our attention to pension reform is not California-specific. We chose to get involved there because there are people who are engaged and choosing to illuminate the problems and address possible solutions.”

Gayle Fallon, president of the Houston Federation of Teachers, told the Houston Chronicle that the plan advocated by John Arnold is “very frightening for teachers.”

She also told the Houston Chronicle: “My people supported Obama big-time in 2008. This is not helping.”

She also told the newspaper: “We need street action that will make Wisconsin look like a picnic.”

That referred to the takeover of Wisconsin’s state capitol in February by teacher and other government unions.

Pretty much this is the trifecta of hypocrisy for President Obama: a hedge-fund billionaire who owns 10% of a coal company. I would love to see how Occupy Wall Street rationalizes supporting Obama after this.

Dems Dodge Questions On Discriminatory Union PLAs For DNC Convention

Posted by LaborUnionReport
Thursday, October 27th at 11:45PM EDT

In February, when North Carolina was awarded the Democratic National Convention over forced-union states, we alerted you to the devil in the details of the DNC having its convention in a predominantly union-free state. At issue is something traditionally known as Project Labor Agreements that give work to unionized employers and, as well, discriminate against union-free workers. Now, that devil appears to be rearing its ugly head and Democrat mayor Anthony Foxx, who is running from Republican challenger Scott Stone, appears unwilling to give Charlotte residents a straight answer on how much work will go to unionized workers.

Since North Carolina is a Right-to-Work state (which means workers are not required to join or pay unions), unions have not plagued the state like those in the North (see Ohio, for reference). However, it also means that there may not be enough qualified union members in the state to cover the DNC work which, with Charlotte’s mayoral election up for grabs on November 8th, is raising all kinds of questions—including whether or not DNC convention planners plan on bringing union workers in from out of state.

Here is the source of the controversy:

The host committee must also establish a labor agreement within the next two months and organizers to hire union labor for tasks related to providing, services goods and materials.

And from the Master Agreement [in PDF]:

17.1. Use of union labor. To the extent permitted by law, to the extent, if any,such labor is available in the region, and except as otherwise expressly agreed by the DNCC, all services, goods, equipment, supplies and materials to be provided or procured by the Host Committee hereunder shall be performed or supplied by firms covered by current union collective bargaining agreements with the unions which have jurisdiction for the work or services to be performed.

17.2. Labor agreement. The Host Committee agrees that it will, within sixty (60) days of the date of this Agreement, conclude and execute with unions of potential jurisdiction in the Charlotte metropolitan area, an agreement obligating the Host Committee to utilize firms employing or contracting with members of those unions to the maximum extent feasible and obligating the unions to refrain from supporting, participating in or sanctioning any strike, sympathy strike, walkout, work stoppage or other labor action that would interfere with or delay work necessary to put on the Convention, or engage in handbilling or picketing (including, but not limited to, informational picketing) at the Convention Facilities.

As was noted back in February, “what the contract does not address specifically—which leaves the door wide open—is this: If there are not enough unionized companies (with enough union laborers) to fulfill the work, can the unions send in union members from other states and take the work? Short answer: It certainly appears that way.”

On Tuesday, Democrat convention CEO Steve Kerrrigan awarded $7 million worth of convention work to three firms (tow of which are based outside of North Carolina), and evaded the union-only question.

Convention CEO Steve Kerrigan said the contracts also would “maximize union labor.” But he declined to say to what extent union workers are expected to participate.

Scott Stone, the Republican candidate for Mayor of Charlotte has even called on the DNC Host Committee to release the PLAs that vendors are forced to sign.

“The contracts have been awarded and the DNC and Mayor Foxx cannot continue to put off these important questions about the extent to which organized labor will be used for the convention,” said Stone. “We understand that the DNC is going to use union labor and we think it only fair that they be transparent about how much union labor they will use.”

This issue may be causing some heartburn at the top of the DNC. If the DNC and Charlotte’s Democrat mayor can dodge answering the questions of whether unions will take Charlotte work, or whether Charlotte workers will be required to join unions in order to do the convention work until after the mayor’s race is settled on November 8th, they can avoid a potentially very damaging embarrassment.

On the other hand, if they answer the question and, in fact, Charlotte’s workers are pushed aside or forced to join a union under the PLA, and it costs Anthony Foxx his job, the DNC would have an awkward time hosting a convention in a city where the Republican mayor has vowed to put Charlotte residents first.

Perhaps Charlotte residents are beginning to learn: If you do a deal with the devil, you’re bound to get burned.

The White Aborigines of the Post-Racial Left

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

If you thought that political correctness was insane in the United States, take a long plane trip over to Melbourne, Australia, where Andrew Bolt, a columnist at the Herald Sun, has been sanctioned by a judge of the Federal Court of Australia for "insulting, humiliating and offending" that group known
as "fair-skinned Aboriginal people".

Who might you wonder are these "fair-skinned Aboriginal people"? They are said to come from the Hiberian isle, the plains of Alba, the cities of Albion, the Teutonic forests and even the Hebraic tribes. They boast many fascinating arts and crafts, such as writing dissertations on the structural thematics of metaphor in aboriginal music and receiving aboriginal scholarships to compensate for all the suffering inflicted upon them by the European settlers.

The Federal Court decision creates a new protected class of people, "fair-skinned aboriginals", which is to say white people pretending to be black people are now protected by anti-discrimination laws from pesky newspaper columnists pointing out that they happen to have blond hair, German last names and no amount of kitschy native clothing and beads will change that.

As the decision put it: "The members of the group referred to are fair skinned Aboriginal persons who, by a combination of descent, self-identification and communal recognition are, and are recognised as, Aboriginal persons." Which is a complex way of saying, "aim for the stars, push all the limits and if you want to be an Aborigine, there's nothing stopping you so long as you can claim a great-grandsire or dam who might have been aboriginal or just really tan."

None of this foolishness would matter much in a society where people are judged by the content of their character, not by how many papers they can write on the cultural appropriation of the didgeridoo, but it matters quite a bit when society and government are set up to pay off a debt of guilty to a bunch of people because they were the first bunch of settlers, and they were the second bunch of settlers, and then members from the second bunch of settlers show up demanding to be cut in because even though they need to slather themselves in suntan lotion at the beach, they have decided to identify themselves as aborigines.

It's an even bigger problem when anti-discrimination laws are wielded by the melanin challenged tribe to suppress free speech and silence anyone who points this out.

The entire discussion is a dangerous one because it shows the incentivization of victimhood. If members of the "privileged majority" choose to pass themselves off as members of the "oppressed minority", then doesn't that imply the roles have been reversed?

There were plenty of biracial people who tried to pass themselves off as white in the 19th and early 20th centuries, because there was an advantage to doing so. These days they usually go the other way and it's not an unreasonable thing to do. Why not pick the identity that offers special advantages over the one that offers guilt.

The aboriginal absurdity has its counterpart in the States where mass immigration after the Civil War brought huge numbers of immigrants of all races who are stuck in a system of guilt that they had nothing to do with. The final surreal twist in the tale was when the country elected a man whose only American ancestors were white and who had no African-American roots whatsoever in order to atone for its racial history.

Aboriginal issues play much less of a role in the United States, where few people really ask how many of the professional Indians are actually Indians, until like Ward Churchill, they become a little too annoying.

Churchill incidentally has variously claimed to be one-eighth Creek and one-sixteenth Cherokee, one-sixteenth Creek and Cherokee and three-sixteenths Cherokee. It's easy to tell you have a racial problem when you need a scientific calculator to figure out your own racial identity.

While a Rocky Mountain News investigation found no evidence of Indian ancestors and no known tribe, besides the Ivory Towarian people has agreed to claim him for their own, to which the Chancellor of Colorado University, which gave him tenure as a "special opportunity position", said that "it has always been university policy that a person's race or ethnicity is self-proving."

Anyone who insists loudly enough that they are an Indian, wears their hair in braids and protests against Columbus Day is now an Indian. Or an Aborigine. Or any damn thing they want to be.

Jews have their own aborigines, like Rachel Cowan, one of the Rabbis for Hamas and a Unitarian from Wellesley. But while you can convert to Judaism, you cannot convert to "Aboriginalism" or "Cherokeeism", that is unless you buy some beads, wear your hair slicked back and accuse as many people of racism as possible.

The idea of racial purity was a dead letter in Western society until the left brought it back to life by granting special privileges on a racial basis. Combine that with a post-racial society where no one wants to define what race is and interracial marriage isn't unusual, and you come away with a bizarre
cocktail of "fair-skinned aborigines" who insist on privileges through self-identification with a race.

If the legacy of racial prejudice is immutable because it is racial, and must be offset with special benefits, then the "fair-skinned aborigine" receives the best of both worlds, gaining the privileges of both races. Free to be white and black when convenient, a prism whose light particles are resolved in a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Political Correctness. They are of every race and no race at all.

Martin Luther King did not have a dream that everyone who wants to be black, can claim to be black, just like Bill Clinton, who was our first president of colorless color because he played the sax and felt the pain of black people. Then he became our former racist president once his wife was running against a man who had a better claim on being black because he was anywhere between one half and one quarter black. At this rate you need to start doing quadratic equations to figure out if we've reached the arc of social justice.

The Clinton experience should be instructive to fair-skinned aborigines everywhere. The left has a very bad habit of hijacking other people's identities and cultures for their own purpose, but those people get tired of it sooner or later. Just ask all the former fair-skinned members of the NAACP. Silencing a fellow white columnist using racial discrimination laws isn't too difficult, but silencing the actual aborigines who want blackfella, not whitefella, representation won't be nearly as easy.

Racial and ethnic identity is most meaningful when it is internal and least meaningful when it is external. Like all identities its essence is in the transmission to those who carry it forward. But modern society insists on the deconstruction of all identities as arbitrary constructs and the external assertion of those random arbitrary identities that are internally inconsistent.

Identity is no longer familiar, it is one more letter in a Scrabble bag that you can assemble into any word you like. Identifying with victim cultures is encouraged, identifying with privileged cultures is discouraged. There are no objective rules to any of it-- the assertion alone is all that is needed.

Post-racial identity says that Herman Cain is not a real black man, but Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are. If an aboriginal came forward to support Bolt's columns, then he would be considered less "aboriginal" than the "fair-skinned aborigines". If identity depends on external assertion, then politically correct activism is all that it takes to become a member of any race.

Accordingly leftists are the only true people of color, because they identify with the oppression of every race, and rightists are the only true whites, because they are all privileged rich people driving limos and flying corporate jets to pollution conferences while dropping cigars on native burial grounds.

If this sounds at all fanciful, consider that I receive several emails every week insisting that I write in contradiction to Jewish values, even though they can only articulate and practice these "values" in the terminology of the left and through the organizations of the left. But if you spend enough time wearing your hair in braids and chanting that Columbus is a mass murderer, then you are an Indian even if your genetic line looks a lot like General Custer's. And if you spend enough time insisting that the left's program represents the essence of Jewish values, then that assertion become identity.

In a postmodern world where truth is irrelevant and facts are worthless, all arguments are personal arguments.Your identity is your ticket to ride. All else is privilege. The fair-skinned aborigine steps forward, drops the black ticket in the slot, smirks smugly and takes the roller coaster all the way to the top.

Bolt's article which got him into trouble was headlined, "White is the New Black", but that's not strictly accurate. "Left is the New Black" would have been more to the point. The left has politicized racial identity by equating race with political affiliation, and now it's doing away with race entirely.

You don't need to be black to be "black". You just gotta be left.

U.S. Government Seeks to Create Website Ban List

Written by Raven Clabough
Thursday, 27 October 2011 16:23

The United States House of Representatives recently introduced a “rogue websites” bill that has managed to attract bipartisan support even though it would force Internet Service Providers to create a list of banned websites and prevent users of those websites from accessing their sites. The list is all too similar to the “ban lists” that are found in China. reports: “US lawmakers introduced a bill on Wednesday that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites accused of piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of counterfeit goods.”

Entitled the Stop Online Piracy Act, the bill reads:

A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address.

It is the House version of a bill that was introduced in the United States Senate earlier this year called the Theft of Intellectual Property Act or Protect IP Act.

While the touted focus of the bill is on foreign websites, it may just as easily be applied to all .com domains.

The very language of the bill indicates it is trying to empower the federal government to ban websites.

According to journalist Paul Joseph Watson, “The only difference between this system and the draconian measures currently in place in countries like Iran, China and North Korea, is that the ISP’s would be mandated to enforce the ban list, rather than the websites being blocked via a centralized government hub.”

The Center for Democracy and Technology issued a statement indicating that the House version of the bill “includes the most controversial parts of the Senate’s Protect IP Act, but radically expands the scope.” It adds, “Any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs.”

“Internet Service Providers would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior,” the CDT said. “Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rightsholders allege hasn’t done enough to police infringement.”

The proposal is not much different than the Internet kill switch proposed by United States Senator Joe Leiberman, who said during an appearance on CNN, “Right now in China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”

Lieberman has moved to shut down websites like Amazon and Wikileaks without a court order.

Likewise, the Department of Homeland Security has seized a number of websites just for linking to copyrighted material, even as that material wasn’t hosted on the website itself. Responding to this, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called the government’s actions “Blunt instruments that cause unacceptable collateral damage to free speech rights.”

Once again, the federal government is being given permission to act in violation of individual rights just based on an accusation of something believed to be unlawful, without legal process.

The newest proposal to acquire the ability to ban websites should not come as too much of a shock, as the government has already taken the authority to demand that websites remove information and videos that contain too much “government criticism.” Google admits that there has been a 70 percent increase in the number of requests by the federal government to take down certain information.

“In the US, Google received 757 takedown requests across its sites and services, up 70 per cent from the second half of last year,” reports technology website“US authorities also called for the removal of 113 videos from YouTube, including several documenting alleged police brutality which Google refused to take down.”

In Google’s newly released transparency report, it reveals that the number of “user data requests” by United States authorities has increased by 29 percent over the course of the last reporting period. In the case of the removal of a YouTube video, for example, the reason listed was “government criticism,” and no content for the video was indicated or explained. Other videos have been ordered to be taken down that pertain to police brutality on the grounds of defamation.

Sadly, the number of items requested by the United States government to be removed actually surpasses that of that number requested to be removed by authorities in China.

Meanwhile, Verisign, the global authority over .com domain names, has already demanded the power to destroy any website deemed “abusive” when a government orders it to be done, even if it is so ordered without court order and without any oversight.

“The company said today it wants to be able to enforce the “denial, cancellation or transfer of any registration” in any of a laundry list of scenarios where a domain is deemed to be “abusive,” reports the UK Register.