Our #1 story The 99% Lie relates how the OWS movement is trying to portray themselves at the 99% united against the top 1%. It’s class warfare at it worst. Our second story has an audio from Howard Stern as his people interview the OWS crowd. #3 has statistics defining who the OWS protesters are. Far from representing the 99% of Americans who aren’t wealthy, they represent more the 20% of Americans who see themselves as liberals. We find in story #4 that theft seems to be a problem in New York with the OWS camp. #5 looks at how hope and change turns to hate and envy. It appears there are only certain rich people we should hate. Wolfe Blitzer tells us in our #6 story that the Democrats should be very concerned with the numbers he’s seeing. #7 talks about the loss of hope on the left as Obama’s presidency appears more and more to be a disaster from their perspective. Story 8 tells of how the media seems to have turned on Obama and how this year he’s getting a lot of negative press. #9 details how despite having spent almost 16 trillion dollars on poverty, the poverty rate is as bad as it’s ever been. Finally, #10 brings good news to conservatives as Fracking has gotten a clean bill of health.
1. The 99% Lie
…EVERY RADICAL LEFTIST SINCE MARX HAS CLAIMED TO REPRESENT THE REAL PEOPLE. Not even the trust-fund kids on Wall Street believe the 99% Lie. But Obama has now officially adopted it -- after stirring up the mobs via Axelrod's astroturfing rabble rousing.
OBAMA IS THEREFORE PUSHING THE DEMOCRATS OFF A CLIFF. Democrats running for election in moderately conservative America will have two unpalatable choices: RENOUNCE OBAMA AND POSSIBLY WIN, OR AGREE WITH OBAMA AND LOSE. If Obama stays the course, and he seems incapable of doing anything else, he will certainly split the Democrats for a generation to come.
Obama is a Leninist Marxist, a Third World Socialist. His ideology comes first, last and forever. Being part black comes far down the list of Obama's priorities, which is one reason why he does not care about black unemployment today.
Obama did not have to resort of mobs and the threat of riots --- the first US President ever to do so in American history. BUT HE DID, AND THAT WILL MEAN HIS INEVITABLE DEFEAT, AS GEORGE WILL HAS WRITTEN IN THE WASHINGTON POST….
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/the_99_lie.html
When the left accuses the TEA Party of being racists what they really mean is that it is racists to see through Obama and realize that he is a radical Marxist.
2. Howard Stern Shows Idiocy Of #OccupyWallStreet Protesters
Listening to this is really discouraging. It’s like a left wing version of Jay Walking. You listen and you wonder how these people survive.
3. Who is OWS?
….Our research shows clearly that THE MOVEMENT DOESN'T REPRESENT UNEMPLOYED AMERICA AND IS NOT IDEOLOGICALLY DIVERSE. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that BELIEVES IN RADICAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND, IN SOME INSTANCES, VIOLENCE. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.
The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).
AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF DEMONSTRATORS SUPPORTED BARACK OBAMA IN 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and ONLY 48% SAY THEY WILL VOTE TO RE-ELECT HIM IN 2012, WHILE AT LEAST A QUARTER WON'T VOTE….
What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is A DEEP COMMITMENT TO LEFT-WING POLICIES: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.
SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT SAY THAT GOVERNMENT HAS A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO GUARANTEE ALL CITIZENS ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, A COLLEGE EDUCATION, AND A SECURE RETIREMENT—no matter the cost. …
OWS is not a main street phenomenon, but rather a far left gathering. Democrats embracing it will actually diminish their appeal to the center and this may in fact become the anti-TEA Party for its effect on the coming election.
4. OWS: They Aren’t Only Radicals, There Are a Lot Of Thieves As Well
It’s a den of thieves!
OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTERS SAID YESTERDAY THAT PACKS OF BRAZEN CROOKS WITHIN THEIR RANKS HAVE BEEN ROBBING THEIR FELLOW DEMONSTRATORS BLIND, MAKING OFF WITH PRICEY CAMERAS, PHONES AND LAPTOPS -- AND EVEN A HEFTY BUNDLE OF DONATED CASH AND FOOD.
“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.
“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”…
Hmmm, I don’t remember this happening at TEA party rallies.
5. When Hope and Change becomes Hate and Envy
President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have led increasingly successful efforts to pit Americans against one another through the politics of hate and envy. Attacking CEO salaries, the president — last year during his Midwest tour — said, "I DO THINK AT A CERTAIN POINT YOU'VE MADE ENOUGH MONEY."
Let's look at CEO salaries, but before doing so, let's look at other salary disparities between those at the bottom and those at the top. ACCORDING TO FORBES' CELEBRITY 100 LIST FOR 2010, OPRAH WINFREY EARNED $290 MILLION. EVEN IF HER MAKEUP PERSON OR CAMERAMAN EARNED $100,000, SHE EARNED THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE THAN THAT. Is that fair? Among other celebrities earning hundreds or thousands of times more than the people who work with them are Tyler Perry ($130 million), Jerry Bruckheimer ($113 million), Lady Gaga ($90 million) and Howard Stern ($76 million). According to Forbes, the top 10 celebrities, excluding athletes, earned an average salary of a little more than $100 million in 2010.
ACCORDING TO SURVEY OF CEO COMPENSATION (NOVEMBER 2010), GREGORY MAFFEI, CEO OF LIBERTY MEDIA, EARNED $87 MILLION, Oracle's Lawrence Ellison ($68 million) and rounding out the top 10 CEOs was McKesson's John Hammergren, earning $24 million. It turns out that the TOP 10 CEOS HAVE AN AVERAGE SALARY OF $43 MILLION, WHICH PALES IN COMPARISON WITH AMERICA'S TOP 10 CELEBRITIES, WHO EARN AN AVERAGE SALARY OF $100 MILLION.
When you recognize that celebrities earn salaries that are some multiples of CEO salaries, you have to ask: WHY IS IT THAT RICH CEOS ARE DEMONIZED AND NOT CELEBRITIES? A clue might be found if you asked: Who's doing the demonizing?...
Who is doing the demonizing? The left of course and which side of the political spectrum are most celebrities on? The left of course.
6. Poll Numbers Should Alarm Democrats
THERE ARE SOME NUMBERS IN OUR NEW CNN-ORC INTERNATIONAL POLL THAT SHOULD SERIOUSLY WORRY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.
Republicans are right now a lot more enthusiastic about voting in the next election than Democrats. Some 64% OF REPUBLICANS SAY THEY ARE EXTREMELY OR VERY ENTHUSIASTIC COMPARED TO ONLY 43% OF DEMOCRATS.
There were similar numbers in the 2010 mid-term elections and we know how well the Republicans did in Congress, including re-taking the majority in the House.
There were similar numbers in the 2010 mid-term elections and we know how well the Republicans did in Congress, including re-taking the majority in the House.
Democrats, by contrast, were much more enthusiastic in 2006 and 2008, and that certainly showed in the elections then.
But for the president, there may be an even more alarming number.
AMONG ALL VOTERS, 59% THINK THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES WILL FAIL COMPARED TO ONLY 36% WHO SAY THEY WILL SUCCEED.
IN 2010, 47% THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT’S POLICIES WOULD FAIL. AND BACK IN 2009, ONLY 32% THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT’S POLICIES WOULD FAIL.
You see the trend, and it’s not good for the president’s re-election prospects…
http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/17/blitzers-blog-poll-numbers-bad-for-obamas-reelection-prospects/?hpt=hp_bn3
A second term for Obama would be like the definition of the second marriage, that is, the triumph of Hope (and Change) over experience.
7. When Hope is Gone
In Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men, the author interviews John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, who analyzes the difference between his former boss and Barack Obama. "Clinton has an ability to synthesize competing positions, to command the room and arrive at ingenious versions of the middle ground, that's often invisible to others," Podesta said. Whereas OBAMA "DRAWS PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONE, BUT HE DOES IT SUBTLY, CHALLENGING THEM WITH HIS OPENNESS AND HIS COMMITMENT TO CHANGE. He ends up making them rise to the occasion. He doesn't just synthesize and sell a solution. He finds opportunities in the larger body of players to create circumstances where change can happen. He's creating a space where solutions can happen."…
…As a result, OBAMA ENTERED OFFICE WITH A MANDATE THAT HAD CIVIL LIBERTARIANS AND PROGRESSIVES AS HOPEFUL AS THEY'D EVER DARED TO BE. But having created a space where change could happen, he proceeded to adopt most policies of his predecessor, so much that Dick Cheney, thought by progressives to be one of the most radical national security officials in U.S. history, ultimately began praising him. RATHER THAN REVERSE THE EXCESSES OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM, OBAMA HAS NORMALIZED MOST OF THEM, a course that has made the Bush/Cheney approach into the bipartisan consensus, a normalized part of the governing establishment in Washington, D.C.
FOR OPPONENTS OF BUSH/CHENEYISM, THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY HAS BEEN A DISASTER..
…As a result, OBAMA ENTERED OFFICE WITH A MANDATE THAT HAD CIVIL LIBERTARIANS AND PROGRESSIVES AS HOPEFUL AS THEY'D EVER DARED TO BE. But having created a space where change could happen, he proceeded to adopt most policies of his predecessor, so much that Dick Cheney, thought by progressives to be one of the most radical national security officials in U.S. history, ultimately began praising him. RATHER THAN REVERSE THE EXCESSES OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM, OBAMA HAS NORMALIZED MOST OF THEM, a course that has made the Bush/Cheney approach into the bipartisan consensus, a normalized part of the governing establishment in Washington, D.C.
FOR OPPONENTS OF BUSH/CHENEYISM, THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY HAS BEEN A DISASTER..
This helps to explain the results of the poll above. No wonder the Democrats are not nearly as enthusiastic as the Republicans are to vote.
8. Obama’s coverage Changes
Poor President Obama.
After years of free rides, a new study indicates he's finally coming out on the short end of the media stick.
The PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM OF THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER has completed a massive compilation and evaluation of campaign news stories published daily by more than 11,500 news outlets and thousands of blogs between May 2 and Oct. 9. Using techie and computer stuff, the study evaluated the coverage on the basis of negative, positive or neutral.
Somehow, despite all the conventional conservative wisdom to the contrary, OBAMA CAME OUT WITH BY FAR THE MOST NEGATIVE COVERAGE. It was relentlessly bad, the ongoing study says, better than four-to-one negative. IN NOT ONE OF THE 23 WEEKS COVERED DID OBAMA'S PRESS COVERAGE EXCEED 10% POSITIVE….
An interesting article which gives you the breakdown of positive vs negative stories by candidate, but contrary to 2008 Obama is faring the worst of any candidate.
9. Poverty in America
…No doubt President Johnson and those who supported the War on Poverty believed this action would eliminate poverty. BUT DESPITE SPENDING ALMOST $16 TRILLION SINCE DECLARING WAR ON POVERTY — WHICH IS MORE THAN THE NATIONAL DEBT THAT HAS ACCUMULATED THROUGHOUT OUR 235-YEAR HISTORY — WELFARE PROGRAMS HAVE FAILED TO REDUCE POVERTY.
And SPENDING FOR THESE PROGRAMS IS PROJECTED TO COST TAXPAYERS $10.3 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE. President Barack Obama’s FY 2011 budget request, for example, INCREASED TOTAL WELFARE SPENDING TO $953 BILLION, A 42 PERCENT INCREASE OVER WELFARE SPENDING IN FY 2008.
Even if welfare programs were working, given the current budget and debt crises, this kind of spending cannot be sustained; it will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue unreformed.
A lesson we never seem to learn is that throwing money at a problem rarely fixes it. Think stimulus 2009. President Obama’s advisors told us that if we passed the $767 billion stimulus bill, that ultimately cost taxpayers $862 billion, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent and the economy would get a big boost. Guess what?
Throwing $16 trillion at poverty has not ended poverty; in fact, poverty has grown. And evidence strongly suggests that EFFORTS TO END IT HAVE ACTUALLY HURT MANY OF THE PEOPLE IT WAS INTENDED TO HELP. A recent report by the Heritage Foundation notes that “POVERTY IN AMERICA IS OVERWHELMINGLY LINKED TO THE ABSENCE OF FATHERS AND A LACK OF WORK, but welfare payments have had the destructive effects of eroding marriage and the work ethic in low-income communities. ...WHEN THE WAR ON POVERTY BEGAN, 7 PERCENT OF CHILDREN WERE BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK; TODAY, THE FIGURE IS OVER 40 PERCENT.”
Poverty will never be completely eliminated, but we can reduce it substantially if we stop punishing marriage, foster job creation and stop rewarding people for not working. Continuing to throw money at it will not solve the problem.
http://bdtonline.com/columns/x350485855/Despite-trillions-in-welfare-spending-poverty-increases-in-America
I’m reminded of the old joke where a man tells his doctor, “When I lift my arm above my head it hurts.” And the Doctor says as the solution to the problem, “Don’t do that.” It appears the remedy the left has to poverty is not only NOT working, but making it worse.
10. Fracking Gets a Clean Bill of Health
Back in April, anti-drilling Chicken Littles gleefully cackled and clucked about a massive “blowout” at a Pennsylvania natural-gas well and SPECULATED THAT “THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF FRACK FLUID” WERE POISONING WATER WELLS AND CONTAMINATING A TRIBUTARY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, which flows into Chesapeake Bay. The Maryland attorney general threatened to sue the drilling company, with New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, chiming in.
Well, there must be plenty of rejoicing over saved salamanders now that A REPORT HAS FOUND “NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT” FROM THE LUTHER TOWNSHIP, PA, GAS-WELL MALFUNCTION, which accidentally released well fluids.
The 179-page report, which was PREPARED BY SAIC, A FIRM THAT SPECIALIZES IN WORKING WITH GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, CONTAINS EXTENSIVE WATER-SAMPLING AND OTHER DATA COLLECTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. It shows no lasting effect on the environment as a result of a surface release of well fluids from Chesapeake Energy’s “Atgas” well site.
Chesapeake funded the study, which was conducted according to DEP protocols and accepted by the agency and presents the large set of data and technical tables. Based on the information gathered during the first two weeks after the incident, the review has produced several important conclusions. Most important: THE DISCHARGE OF WELL FLUID FROM THE EVENT CAUSED ONLY MINIMAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. The impacts that did occur were localized, of short duration and confined to surface waters surrounding the site. There was NO HARM TO A NEARBY UNNAMED TRIBUTARY OR ITS WATERSHED AND THE TOWANDA CREEK, AND THERE WAS NO EFFECT NOTED ABOUT NEARBY OR REGIONAL WATER WELLS.
This accident was among the most serious that can happen during the completion of an onshore shale-gas well. YET NOBODY WAS INJURED, THE PUBLIC WAS NEVER IN DANGER, AND THERE WAS NO LASTING IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, as the analysis shows…..
The anti-fossil fuels cabal was counting on fracking being poison to the natural gas industry. With fracking unlocking previously unattainable natural gas, America’s energy future is bright even as solar, wind and other “renewable” energy sources struggle to be even remotely competitive. This in fact reminds me of the lefts’ argument against vaccinations and genetically modified foods. It makes sense only to extremists.
The concept of psychological projection supposedly comes from Sigmund Freud, but it just as well could have come from Fox News, The RNC, or any member of the tea party "movement." Throughout the first two years of the Republican Party's re-branding of its fringe base as the "tea party," there have been hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of racism among its ranks. No one has said that the movement, itself, is a racist one; however, no matter how many examples of racist signs and/or statements made by tea partiers, the consistent meme from the right has been that there is no racism, whatsoever, in the tea party movement.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-compares-occupy-wall-st-to-tea-party-i-understand-the-frustrations/