Anatomy of an Occupation

Miki, I think you, like Robin of Berkeley, are shifting, and will soon see the light!

As for me,  I somehow snapped out of my leftist trance a few years ago, and, since then, have realized that everything that I thought was wrong.  I thank my lucky stars every day that I finally saw the light.

By Robin of Berkeley

If you're wondering whether I was at Occupy Berkeley on October 15, the answer is no.  I didn't have to attend; every day around here is Occupy Berkeley.

Because every moment of every day, I am surrounded by people who believe the insanity spewed by the occupants of Occupy.  When I listened to the well-crafted video produced by three intrepid, Bay Area tea partiers at Occupy Oakland,  none of what I heard surprised me.  I thought, "Just another day in Berkeley or Oakland.

Around here almost everyone thinks like these Marxist spewing militants.  While in your neck of the woods random strangers may comment, "Nice day if it doesn't rain," around here the words would be, "Nice day for a revolution."

While the video didn't shock me, it did disturb.  What troubled me wasn't just how widespread is the diatribe, but that up until a few, short years ago, I believed all of it.   Before Obama came on the scene, I could have been interviewed, mumbling and bumbling, just like those other frothing-at-the-mouth leftists.

I would also have parroted the Third-World loving party line.  I too would have angrily  and self-righteously proclaimed that the US was the root of all evil in the world. 

To me, capitalism was bad, communism good (which I discovered after watching the handsome Warren Beatty in the sweeping thriller, Reds).  I envied Cuba, home of the finest health care system in the world (thank you, Michael Moore).  And I, like our current occupiers, ranted and raved about the racist, patriarchal, capitalist system with its millionaire fat cats (which I learned from reading books by those millionaire fat cats, Noam Chomsky, Al Franken, Gloria Steinem and the late Howard Zinn.)

I believed all of this despite the now glaring inconsistencies in my argument. For one, I (like most leftists) had mutual funds that invested in the horrible corporations.  While I was never flush with money, I wouldn't have minded being so.  And just like those demonic capitalists, I got a kick out of procuring a big-ticket item, such as a car with that wonderful new car smell.

So how did I fall so deeply into the progressive chimera?  Given that I am (I hope) an intelligent person, with the potential to see the light, why did I drink the Kool-Aid for so long?  In the service of shedding some light on our current occupiers, I offer the following observations:

Monkey see, monkey do:  Leftists follow the leader. Since most progressives believe the anti-capitalist nonsense, the majority will follow in lock step.  In liberal areas, there is groupthink -- cult-like behavior, where people must chant the same old tired mantras.  To step out of line will undoubtedly bring social condemnation and shunning.

Indoctrination: While I thought I was an independent thinker, it never occurred to me to look outside the moveon.org box.  All of my media was leftist; the so-called independent bookstores (the ones that celebrate "Banned Books Week") ban conservative books.  So while Noam Chomsky is always welcome to give a book reading, Ann Coulter would never be invited within 50 miles of here.

The programming is particularly acute in the schools.  In Berkeley, we have Malcolm X Elementary School and Malcolm X Park.  Just to make sure that the kiddies get the message to emulate Mr. X,  public school students (and all city employees) get  Malcolm X's birthday off (same with Indigenous People's Day, aka Columbus Day, and International Women's Day). 

While most areas aren't so extreme, there are hard-core activists all over this nation's school systems with union jobs for life.  It's not a coincidence that Bill Ayers is a tenured professor of education; he knew the power of brainwashing kids when knee-high. With youth and their parents subscribing to the Party Line, it's not difficult to lead the progressive sheep to slaughter.

Of course, leftists are badly misguided about what a revolution actually entails.  They weren't told, for instance, that Che Guevara, whose handsome face is emblazoned on their fashionable t-shirts, was actually a psychotic killer.  Che got such a thrill from watching executions that he had a picture window installed in his office, and had the butchery conducted below.

And then there's another historical fact that eludes our gullible revolutionaries.  After a revolution, the activists and militants themselves often get offed.  Of course this would be the case; why would the regime want troublemakers and insurrectionaries in the populace?

The Cool Factor:   Obama was elected, in part, because he was viewed as cool (though most of us on the right saw him not as cool, but cold).  Being a leftist/revolutionary/radical type is viewed as hip and trendy.  Simply consult your thesaurus to see the negative words associated with being a "conservative" versus a "liberal."  And aren't we a society enamored by anything and anyone who is considered cool?

Alienation and the Search for Meaning:  People of all ages, but particularly youth, have an inherent need to find meaning.  With spirituality shunned, people look to the secular religion of progressivism to fill the existential void.  By fighting against "The Man," capitalism, and America, the radicals believe that they are good people who live lives of value in an otherwise nihilistic world.

An increasing number of people feel alienated in this culture.  They are Americans, yet are told that America is bad.  They may have a hunger for God, and yet turn away because believers are mocked. 

This sense of alienation from God and country compels many people to look to political movements for their raison d'etre .  Being leftists offers the lost souls a sense of belonging and identity.

60s Fever:   There's a hunger to relive the 60s, even though the Hollywood, sanitized version didn't exactly happen.  I've heard young people bemoan the fact that they were too young to enjoy San Francisco, adorned with flowers in their hair. 

Of course, the Bay Area in the 60s was besieged by drug overdoses, rapes, the gangster Black Panthers, and radical terrorist bombings.  But given that the Baby Boomers wax rhapsodic about the good-old days, both grey haired and youth take to the streets to relive a reality that never happened.

Delusion:  The radicals misunderstand the nature of reality.  They believe that life should be fair, that hierarchy and differences among people shouldn't exist.  It is a form of delusion to embrace utopia and perfection in this human realm.

But, again, this secular society has trashed religion and deconstructed history, the realms of which would explain the way life works.  Instead, people on the left live in a fantasy world;  and they go ballistic on opponents because truth threatens their dreamworld. 

Control:  Occupying the streets allows participants to feel good about themselves, noble, as though they are saving the world.  In contrast, it's a buzz kill to realize how little control one has over this life.  To feel insignificant, like a little cog in the wheel, is depressing.  How much more exciting to elevate oneself into the role of some revolutionary involved in a movement to radically transform America. 

Generation Me:  Scores of studies show the same thing: that today's youth are more narcissistic than ever before.  While previous generations of the l8 to 24-year-old crowd prioritized family and meaning, today's young want six figures and they want it now.  They have been raised to feel special and entitled, particularly those in supposedly disenfranchised groups (which, incidentally, is most of the American population).  And if they have to take some of your hard earned dough to live the good life, no problemo.

Greed:  Despite the leftists' lofty claims about fairness, isn't socialism all about greed, about coveting thy neighbor's house?  Can't the essence of progressive politics be distilled to this: wanting money, money, and more money?

While those on the left profess to be anti-capitalists, they are the real capitalists.  They are so preoccupied with capital, and envious of those who have it, that they want it through any means necessarily.   Even billionaire Warren Buffet must be less obsessed with cash and the things it can buy than these love-of-money leftists.

The Need for a Scapegoat:  Human beings know instinctively that there is both good and evil in the world.  But the moral relativism inherent in liberal education tells people that everyone is good.  When people are robbed of the knowledge of good and evil, they will create scapegoats.

Of course, Obama, Pelosi, and the left are masters at pointing fingers rightward, and insinuating that conservatives are racist/Nazi-like subhumans.  Whenever there's a lunatic out of control somewhere in the world, the left impugns conservatives.  It's no wonder that there's such anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and anti-conservative vitriol all over the airwaves.  Not surprisingly, a mob mentality ensues, with angry, violent, and demonic mobs taking to the streets. 

****

As for me,  I somehow snapped out of my leftist trance a few years ago, and, since then, have realized that everything that I thought (and I mean everything) was wrong.  I thank my lucky stars every day that I finally saw the light.

But will others wake up as well...will people get a grip and get a clue?  Will they realize that while imperfect, capitalist America is the best around -- which is why so many people are desperate to become citizens here?

Sadly, I doubt it.  I think that the indoctrination is way too far gone.  Further, we have a President who will stop at nothing to keep the masses in an enraged, hypnotic trance.

The best we can do is to dislodge the militants from the streets and restore order.  But more than this: we need to expel the number one militant, the one with the secret cabal of Czars and obvious disdain for the Constitution. 

Because the biggest danger isn't Occupy Chicago or Occupy Wall Street -- it's Obama himself.  What we're seeing is:  "Occupy The White House." 

Our greatest peril isn't the mobs on the streets of Manhattan;  it's having a President who thinks he's  above the law.  It's having our head of state support violent insurrections here and abroad.

The United States doesn't need any more occupations;  what we need is a new occupant in the White House.  And hopefully, prayerfully, we will have a new one come next November.

Young Occutards Got Suckered

These young Occutards ought to admit they made a mistake, and that they were suckered into voting for false hope in 2008.

---------

Speaking of the people who were suckered into voting this Marxist into the White House … look no further than your local Occupy Whatever protest.  These are primarily the people who put Barack Obama in the White House.  They are young, they are ignorant, and in 2008 they simply didn't know any better.  They got caught up in the excitement of this "sort of a God."  A 21 year old Occupier in New York by the name of Daniel Rosenfeld says that "the general vibe in Zuccotti Park fills him not only with sixties nostalgia but a reminder of the hopefulness that he and his classmates shared back in 2008," according to the Huffington Post.  Rosenfeld says, "Everyone was so happy and hopeful and it really felt like youth and minorities and groups that don't normally vote and whose voices aren't normally heard were finally recognized."

 Your voices were finally recognized alright.  Look where that has gotten us!  Almost 70% of voters under the age of 30 voted for Obama.  Even with the current economy, 48% of young voters under 30 still approve of Barack Obama.  That is one of the highest approval ratings of any voting group and well above the general population approval rating of 41%.

 This article in the American Spectator "Generation 'Why?'" accurately points out: "Rather than see government policy as the reason for the financial meltdown and insipid economic growth, young people are taking to the streets to protest the capitalist system that provides their iPods and designer jeans."

 The reason they are not protesting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is because to do that would mean that these kids .. who have always been told how wonderful they are .. would have to admit that they made a mistake.  They would have to take responsibility, and you know how much they must loathe the concept of personal responsibility.  So instead of blaming themselves for putting an incompetent Marxist hack in the White House, or instead of protesting the hack himself, they find a scapegoat: Wall Street.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/oct/26/young-occutards-got-suckered/

Did you know Feds will temporarily cut off all Tv and Radio broadcasts on nov. 9?

Check the LOG!

If you have ever wondered about the government's ability to control the civilian airwaves, you will have your answer on November 9th.

On that day, federal authorities are going to shut off all television and radio communications simultaneously at 2:00PM EST to complete the first ever test of the national Emergency Alert System (EAS). [We anticipate that the test will last approximately 3 minutes.  While state and local EAS messages are limited to 2 minutes, there is no time limit for national EAS alerts. To evaluate whether the system properly interprets the national message code in the national EAS test, the message duration must be longer than two minutes.]

This isn't a wild conspiracy theory. The upcoming test is posted on the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau website.

Only the President has the authority to activate EAS at the national level, and he has delegated that authority to the Director of FEMA.  The test will be conducted jointly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through  FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS).

In essence, the authority to seize control of all television and civilian communication has been asserted by the executive branch and handed to a government agency.

The EAS has been around since 1994. Its precursor, the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS), started back in 1963.  Television and radio broadcasters, satellite radio and satellite television providers,  cable television and wireline video providers are all involved in the system.

So this begs the question: is the first ever national EAS test really a big deal?

Probably not. At least, not yet.

But there are some troubling factors all coming together right now that could conceivably trigger a real usage of the EAS system in the not too distant future.  A European financial collapse could bring down U.S. markets. What is now the "Occupy" movement could lead to widespread civil unrest. And there are ominous signs that radical groups such as Anonymous will attempt something major on November 5th- Guy Fawke's day.

Now we know in the event of a major crisis, the American people will be told with one voice, at the same time, about an emergency.

All thats left to determine is who will have control of the EAS when that day comes, and what their message will be.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-you-know-feds-will-temporarily-cut-off-all-tv-and-radio-broadcasts-on-nov-9/

We Can't Wait Either

This was hilarious, I was really rolling on the floor laughing out loud:

This "We Can't Wait" business cuts two ways..
We can't wait to --
- Repeal Obamacare,
- Repeal Dodd Frank financial overhaul bill,
- Cut spending and balance the budget,
- End Democrat Party money laundering schemes,
- Get all facts on Holder's Fast and Furious gunrunning operation,
- Reign in the EPA,
- Cut taxes on job creators,
- Make the radical leftist failed pres a one termer,
- For voter ID laws in all 57 states,
- For Joe Biden to make another speech,
- and we really ca'tn wait for the Occupy Wall Street protesters to bathe and get the stench of urine off of themselves.

 

http://dailyrushbo.com/obama-we-cant-wait-limbaugh-lists-all-the-things-we-cant-wait-for-either-like-obamacare/

   

Occupy Math Class

via Are We Lumberjacks? by lumberjack on 10/17/11

There. Now it's fun again.

Robin Hood vs. the Occupiers

The original Robin Hood tales of the Middle Ages celebrated a renegade who rose up against property rights violations and taxation abuses. His archenemies were not private traders or bankers, but the local government tax collector, the Sheriff of Nottingham and the power-grabbing ruler, Prince John. Robin Hood, in other words, was far more tea party than flea party.

In any case, if the Occupiers insist on celebrating outright theft from the haves in the name of the have-nots, perhaps they should stop complaining about the pickpockets and looters infesting their camps. Live by "social justice" nursery rhymes. Die by "social justice" crimes.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/10/21/robin-hood-vs-the-occupiers/

Harry Reid: ‘Private Sector Jobs are Doing Just Fine; It’s the Public Sector...

Another blatant lie from a leading Democrat, but then, most of what the Democrats say is bunch of blatant lies and malarkey!

Despite the facts – as well as the fact that the public sector is only able to exist through the presence of a prosperous, employed private sector to fund it – Washington Democrats continue to peddle the myths that public sector employment is hurting worse than private sector – a blatant lie based on the data provided by the government itself – and that the job of a union dues-paying teacher is more important to the nation than any form of private sector employment.

 

 

 

 

Harry Reid: 'Private Sector Jobs are Doing Just Fine; It's the Public Sector Jobs Where We've Lost Huge Numbers'

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty crunches some numbers in this post on the topic.

Via Adam Bitely, that direct quote can be seen in the video below:

For context, here's Sen. Reid's (D-NV) statement from the Senate floor today:

"The massive layoffs we've had in America today-of course they're rooted in the last administration-and it's very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. It's the public sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation's all about. And it's unfortunate my friend the Republican Leader is complaining about that. I would also note that my friend said the House passed another bill. Well, they pass lots of bills, but they rarely go anyplace."

Here's a fact that Reid should look over before he opens his mouth again. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, government workers have the lowest unemployment rate of any industry or class recorded, at 4.7%, while the national unemployment rate is 9.1% – nearly twice that of public sector workers.

Further, I seem to recall – contrary to Reid's assertion that the private sector is "doing just fine" but that public sector employment funding has been overlooked – an almost $1 Trillion ($1,000,000,000,000.00) "stimulus" bill being passed and signed into law early in the Obama administration whose major purpose was to fund "shovel-ready" public-sector jobs and to "save essential government services." Now, Harry Reid is telling us that the public sector needs another fiscal shot in the arm, while Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE) is telling audiences that a failure to pass another stimulus bill to follow the first, utterly failed one will lead to mass rape and murder of…somebody.

Via Michelle Malkin, here's a graph from the Mercatus Center's Veronique de Rugy showing just what Obama and Reid's last attempt to implement their version of economic reform has wrought on employment across the board in America:

Here's a video from the Senate Republicans, juxtaposing Reid's statement with financial reporters declaring the private sector to be stuck in a rut of unemployment and growing financial strain:

Additionally, recent Census Bureau figures show that the top median household income in America is now…in Washington, DC. That obviously includes contractors, consultants, and the K Street lobbyists who keep flowing in and out of the Obama administration's revolving door of ultimate government insiders, but it also boasts the highest percentage of government employees to total population in the nation. According to Bloomberg:

The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046. … . The unemployment rate in the Washington metro area in August was 6.1 percent, compared with 10 percent in San Jose, according to Labor Department figures.

Despite these simple facts – as well as the fact that the public sector is only able to exist through the presence of a prosperous, employed private sector to fund it – Washington Democrats continue to peddle the myths that public sector employment is hurting worse than private sector – a blatant lie based on the data provided by the government itself – and that the job of a union dues-paying teacher is more important to the nation than any form of private sector employment.

Herman Cain nailed Meet the Press

 Here's the transcript and video.

ADDED: I thought David Gregory really lost his cool early on, as he was questioning Cain about 9-9-9. If you watch the video, you can see he's agitated and grimacing in a way that really lacks the usual polished journalist quality. To excerpt the transcript bits that hint of this attitude:

The reality of the plan is that some people pay more, some people pay less.... You're saying [prices] actually go down?... This isn't about behavior, Mr. Cain, this is about whether you pay--if you don't pay taxes now, and you now have income tax and a sales tax, you pay more in taxes.... Mr. Cain, we talked to independent analysts ourselves.... We're not just reading newspaper clips here...  They tell us, they've looked at this, based on what's available of the plan, and it's incontrovertible.

Gregory's experts are incontrovertible? What kind of a question is that? How does Cain deal with this barrage of disbelief from Gregory? He stands his ground and explains his program:

Some people will pay more, but most people would pay less is my argument.... Who will pay more?  The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods....

This discussion got me thinking about the positive side of switching to sales tax. With a progressive income tax, the political process sets different percentages for different income levels, so, for example, the majority can vote jack up the taxes on other people — "the rich" — and those other people can work on extracting various exemptions and credits and so forth in an elaborate, inscrutable government system. With a sales tax, you control what you pay through your shopping decisions. Every time you forgo a purchase or buy used goods — and isn't that good for the environment? — you pay no tax. And every time you choose smaller amounts or cheaper goods, you pay less tax. Now, you have various needs that you have to meet, but you have far more control, and you aren't at the mercy of the ever-ongoing machinations of the political process.

My point is: After the debate last week, I was thinking about the negative aspects of the sales tax, but as he was talking about it on "Meet the Press" today, I felt open-minded about the potential benefits. And that was while Gregory was going for the jugular.

MORE: Gregory asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement: "Do you empathize, as the president does, with the message of those Wall Street protesters?" Gregory invites him to express empathy, a concept Obama has actively promoted (which Gregory prompts us to recall). Cain homes in on the premise that there is a message and proceeds right to criticism of Obama:

What is their message?  That's what's unclear.  If that message is, "Let's punish the rich," I don't empathize with that message.  They should be protesting the White House.  The White House has basically enacted failed economic policies.  The White House and the Democrats have spent $1 trillion that did not work.  Now the president wants to pass another $450 billion. They have their frustrations directed at the wrong group.  That's what I'm saying. 

Nice clarity and brevity and excellent sharp perception of the opportunity in the question asked.

AND: Gregory confronted him with an extreme statement he made back in February: "The objective of the liberals is to destroy this country" and followed up with a pointed "You think liberals actually seek to do that, that that's their mission, to destroy the economy?"

Cain stood his ground: "It is their mission.  Because they do not believe in a stronger America, in my opinion. Yes."

Gregory let it go at that and moved on to another one of Cain's presumably insufficiently thoughtful statements: "You've also said that stupid people are ruining America.... Who exactly are you talking about?"

MR. CAIN:  People who are uninformed.  People who will not look at an alternate idea.  People who are so dug in with partisanship and partisan politics.  Open-mindedness is what's going to save this country.  The reason that my message is appealing is because it's simple and people can understand it.  You know, a good idea transcends party politics...

Somehow, the next question on Gregory's list was: "Is race a factor in this campaign?" Obviously, Cain's answer is going to be no. I'm more interested in why Gregory jumped from "stupid people" to race. Gregory next displays the new Newsweek cover, which calls Cain "the Anti-Obama," and starts to put together a question: "You've actually talked a bit about race, though, and you've created a contrast between yourself and your experience as an African-American, a term you don't like, by the way."

So suddenly the topic is the terminology of race: African-American or black American, which Cain prefers. Gregory asks why. Cain says:

Because my roots go back through slavery in this country.  Yes, they came from Africa, but the roots of my heritage are in the United States of America.  So I consider myself a black American.

That's a very rich statement. Slavery is a heritage. But Gregory goes for the implicit distinction between Cain and Obama: "So you draw some distinction between yourself and your experiences as a black man in America and the experience of President Obama."

Cain says:

Absolutely.  I came from very humble beginnings.  My mother was a maid, my father was a barber and janitor and a chauffeur.  We, we had to, we had to learn--do things the old-fashioned way.  We had to work for it.  I--my parents never saw themselves as a victim, so I didn't learn how to be a victim.  I didn't have anything given to me.  I had to work very hard in order to be able to go to school and work my way through school....

Notice how simply and vividly he struck a chord — the classic black American experience — and made it resonate for anyone who works for living. There is a quality of nobility, that fits with the idea of heritage. Gregory is at a complete loss, I think, to do anything with this:

MR. GREGORY:  You actually said President Obama's outside the mainstream.  So you're making a different, more of a social cultural background distinction between you and the president.

MR. CAIN:  More experiential.  Look at his experiences vs. my experiences. It was more at a contrast of experiential differences than anything else.

MR. GREGORY:  Let's talk about foreign policy...

YET MORE: I liked the way, when asked to name his model for the ideal Supreme Court justice, he focused on Clarence Thomas:

I believe that Justice Clarence Thomas, despite all of the attacks that he gets from the left, he basically rules and makes his decisions, in my opinion, based upon the Constitution and solid legal thinking. Justice Clarence Thomas is one of my models.

MR. GREGORY: Has he been targeted unfairly, you think?

MR. CAIN: I think he has been targeted unfairly.

Gregory declines to follow up about what the unfairness was. He moves on to the topic of Cain's wife Gloria, who's been invisible so far. He gave a lovely explanation:

My wife and I, we have a family life, and she is maintaining the calmness and the tranquility of that family life so, when I do get a day off of the campaign trail, I can go home and enjoy my family.

She's his wife, not America's wife. Home is a refuge. That's a good traditionalist message.

Posted by Ann Althouse at 1:11 PM

Is Anyone Dumb Enough to Believe that Obama Supports the 99%?

 

 

Is Anyone Dumb Enough to Believe that Obama Supports the 99%?

via (title unknown) by George Washington on 10/17/11

Obama is pretending that he supports the 99%.

But Obama has raised more from Wall Street than anyone else. He is bought and paid for.

Mr. Obama has appointed the very Wall Street insiders who helped cause the financial crisis to top posts. See this and this.

He thinks that high unemployment is a good thing.

Obama – just like the other pimps in D.C. – has institutionalized fraud as an official (if unspoken) party platform.

Americans want our liberties restored, our troops brought home, and the Fed reined in. But Obama has implemented plans for war throughout the Middle East crafted by the Neoconservatives a decade (or more) ago, and gotten us into 7 (oops …8) wars, attacked our liberties even more than Bush and allowed the Fed to dramatically expand its powers.

Americans didn't want bailouts, but Obama helped to facilitate trillions in direct and hidden bailouts.

Obama doesn't support the 99%. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

As Yves Smith notes:

A saying I learned in Caracas: "A politician is someone who gets in front of a mob and tries to call it a parade."

TSA: US Dept of Tyranny

House Bill Would Criminalize Satire of TSA

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
October 14, 2011

This parody may soon be illegal.

On September 22, 2011, H.R. 3011 was introduced in the House. It is entitled the "Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011" and it contains some curious language.

Two thirds of the way through the ponderous bill, in Sec. 295, we find the following:

Whoever, except with the written permission of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security (or the Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service for issues involving the Federal Air Marshal Service), knowingly uses the words 'Transportation Security Administration', 'United States Transportation Security Administration', 'Federal Air Marshal Service', 'United States Federal Air Marshal Service', 'Federal Air Marshals', the initials 'T.S.A.', 'F.A.M.S.', 'F.A.M.', or any colorable imitation of such words or initials, or the likeness of a Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service badge, logo, or insignia on any item of apparel, in connection with any advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet, software, or other publication, or with any play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a matter that is reasonably calculated to convey the impression that the wearer of the item of apparel is acting pursuant to the legal authority of the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service, or to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet, software, or other publication, or such play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service .(Emphasis added.)

In other words, if you print a t-shirt or produce a publication with a TSA logo, the government may soon be able to arrest and prosecute you.

The language states that it would be illegal to "convey the impression" that you are representing the TSA, but this interpretation would likely be left to federal prosecutors.

In the past, satire was protected under the First Amendment, but it may soon be illegal to poke fun at the TSA or use its logo or even utter its name. Notice there is no exception in the above language for parody.

Political satire is as old as the Greeks and the Bible. But it may now become a punishable crime if this legislation is enacted.

The TSA and the Justice Department are obviously serious about making sure we don't criticize their Gestapo operation. Since they began irradiating citizens with naked body scanners and shoving their hands down the pants of old ladies and grade school kids, public outrage has reached a crescendo.

Ready For A Washing! - Occupy Wall Street Crowd

Is Matt Drudge Is Trying To Make A Point Here?

I love Drudge Report.

Sometimes I wonder if everyone fully appreciates Matt Drudge's editorial sense of humor.

UPDATE I: Welcome Instapundit readers!

UPDATE II: Image updated to include the full context. Heh.

usatoday

A tax increase generates less revenue than expected?  Wow!  I'm shocked!  Are you shocked?  

What would Vince Lombardi do?

Vince Lombardi only respected all-in efforts and single-minded focus on winning. Some of his "winner" quotes :

• Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing.
• If winning isn't important, why do they keep score?
• Winners never quit and quitters never win.
• The dictionary is the only place where success comes before work.
• Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence.
• People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or the problems of modern society.

So, what would Vince Lombardi do?

The ignorance of the masses – Soviet flag at OccupyPhiladelphia

The ignorance of the masses – Soviet flag at #OccupyPhiladelphia

Posted by William A. Jacobson    Monday, October 10, 2011 at 9:00am

We've seen this before, at the celebration of Obama's victory in 2008, where students unfurled the Soviet flag in celebration. I chalked that up to profound historical ignorance, much like the chic wearing of Che Guevara and Mao t-shirts.

The carrying of the Soviet flag at the Occupy Philadelphia protest, by contrast, more likely was knowing, but still ignorant.

It was an insult to the tens of millions who perished under Stalin and who suffered under communist rule; carrying the flag in Philadelphia, the birthplace of liberty, was particularly ironic.  (Video here, h/t @FormerDeminTX)

FACT CHECK: Obama claims miss some evidence

When Obama's state-run AP turns on him, you know he's in trouble...

FACT CHECK: Obama claims miss some evidence
 Email this Story

Oct 7, 4:17 AM (ET)

By JIM KUHNHENN

(AP) President Barack Obama smiles during his news conference in the East Room of the White House in... Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Are President Barack Obama's ideas for job creation really bipartisan as he claims? Not when the means for paying for them are put in the equation.

The president dodged various facts and and left some evidence in the dust in his latest challenge to Republicans to get behind his jobs program or offer a real alternative.

A look at some of the claims in his fast-paced news conference and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: "If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they're opposed, and what would they do."

THE FACTS: While Republicans might not be campaigning on their opposition to Obama's plan, they've hardly kept their objections a secret.

In a memorandum to House Republicans Sept. 16, House Speaker John Boehner and members of the GOP leadership said they could find common ground with Obama on the extension of certain business tax breaks, waiving a payment withholding provision for federal contractors, incentives for hiring veterans, and job training measures in connection with unemployment insurance.

They objected to new spending on public works programs, suggesting instead that Congress and the president work out those priorities in a highway spending bill. And they raised concerns about Obama's payroll tax cuts for workers and small businesses, arguing that the benefits of a one-year tax cut would be short-lived. The memo also pointed out that reducing payroll taxes, which pay for Social Security, temporarily forces Social Security to tap the government's general fund. And it opposed additional spending to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and other public workers.

---__

OBAMA: "Every idea that we've put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike."

THE FACTS: Obama proposes to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes, something traditionally opposed by Republicans and, in the form Obama proposed it, even some Democrats. Senate Democrats were so allergic to Obama's approach, which relied largely on limiting deductions that can be taken by individuals making over $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000, that they're eliminating it and replacing it with a new tax on millionaires.

In claiming bipartisan support for the components of his proposal, the president appears to be referring just to what the plan would do, not how it's paid for, but that's a crucial distinction he doesn't make.

Some of tax-cutting proposals offered by Obama have received significant Republican support in the past. But some of the new spending he proposes has received only nominal Republican backing. Evidence of bipartisanship provided by the White House includes legislation last year that provided $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. It won the support of only two Republican senators - Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine and among the most moderate Republicans in Congress. Another example cited by the White House was his proposal last year to offer tax breaks to businesses that hire new workers - it passed the House 217-201 with six Republican votes.

---_

OBAMA: "The answer we're getting right now is: Well, we're going to roll back all these Obama regulations... Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?"

THE FACTS: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses. It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations. The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: "Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion."

---_

OBAMA: "We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates, in some cases, than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job."

THE FACTS: True, "in some cases" wealthy people can exploit loopholes to make their tax rate lower than for people of middle or low income. In recent rhetoric, Obama had suggested it was commonplace for rich people to pay lower rates than others, a claim not supported by IRS statistics. But on Thursday, Obama accurately stated that it only happens sometimes.

In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the IRS. Yet that was less than 1 percent of returns with incomes above $1 million. On average, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes; those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid 9.9 percent; those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid 6.3 percent. The White House argues that when payroll taxes - paid only on the first $106,800 of wages - are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires.

---

OBAMA: "China has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the United States. .... And currency manipulation is one example of it, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. And that makes their exports cheaper and that makes our exports to them more expensive."

THE FACTS: While Obama complained about China's efforts to keeps its currency undervalued to gain trade advantages, his administration has repeatedly refused to brand China as a currency manipulator in a report that the Treasury Department is required to send to Congress twice a year.

Such a designation would trigger negotiations between the two countries and could ultimately lead to U.S. trade sanctions against China.

The administration has been reluctant to brand China a currency manipulator, as have past administrations, because the United States depends on China to buy U.S. Treasury securities to help finance America's budget deficits. China owns $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, making it the largest foreign holder of Treasury debt.

---_

Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Martin Crutsinger and Calvin Woodward contributed to this report. 

#OccupyWhiteHouse2012

#OccupyWhiteHouse2012 – The hashtag for the rest of us

Posted by William A. Jacobson    Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 12:47pm

The silent majority.

The ones who pay the bills, and the taxes, and the tuitions, and the pensions, and the benefits, for the people who falsely claim to be the 99%.

The ones who did not graduate from the school of perpetual expectations and handouts.

The ones who falsely have been called terrorists and extremists and racists because they dared to object to trying the same socialist policies here that have failed everywhere they have been tried before.

The ones who showed up at the polls in 2010.

The ones who will show up at the polls in 2012:

#OccupyWhiteHouse2012

Via The Right Scoop: