A No Jobs Bill And Occupy Wall St. Since We Don't Occupy Working

Unlike most of the media I've taken my time and let things play out for awhile before taking on President Obama's no-jobs bill and the Socialize Wall St. protests. Before we get into that I'd just like to say I'm glad Gaddafi is dead but, like Egypt, maybe we should pay closer attention to whose going to be in charge now. Egypt is in many ways worse now than when Mubarak was in office and the peace with Israel he at least maintained is all but shattered. If Libya ends up following the same path then you can expect the media to do what it's done with Egypt, ignore the story. Think about it, have you heard much about Egypt since Mubarak's fall on the news? Maybe you should start wondering why. Enough about that now let's move on.

I'm going to focus on two things here. One is the bogus so called jobs bill Obama is trying to fear-monger us into passing. The other is the Occupy Wall St. protests that have broken out over the last few weeks. I'm also going to show you an example of how typically well-meaning but misinformed Liberals are falling for the misrepresentations of the protesters.

Let's start with the so called jobs bill. I'd like to start with the name and give you an example of how names can be deceiving. Just because it's called a jobs bill doesn't mean it'll do squat for jobs, just because it's a stimulus bill doesn't mean it'll stimulate anything, and just because it's a health care bill doesn't mean it'll fix problems within the health care system. The devil is always in the details and that's why the bills are so often made into difficult to understand, multi-thousand page messes sold to us under the pretext that if we don't pass it there will be all kinds of catastrophe.

What if I proposed a bill called the Care For The Homeless and End Homelessness Now Act. Sounds great doesn't it? I'd get to demonize anyone who criticized this bill as not having any compassion for the homeless and would make sure that it was some 2,000 page mess that nobody could understand. What if you found out that on page 1575, section 7, sub-section 3, line 6-Aa it said that the plan included shooting homeless people in the head and disposing of the bodies to get them off of the streets? Well, the bill would take care of the homeless wouldn't it? However, all of a sudden it doesn't look so good despite the feel good name I gave it. This is the king of scrutiny we need to start giving all of these so called jobs bills regardless of the feel good name associated with it.

President Obama is giving us the same old BS he gave us when he pushed for the stimulus bill. We'll have to fire teachers, there won't be any cops, we'll have no firefighters, more will fall into poverty, etc. Keep in mind these are the same people who called Bush a fear monger over terrorism related issues. Aren't they playing the same game with all of these catastrophic scenarios being presented regarding what will happen if we don't pass the bills they ask for? How is it any different? You may believe that Bush did this with the issue of terrorism and that's fine if it's your opinion, but doesn't Obama seem to use that tactic with everything? Whether it's health care, jobs, education, or any other aspect of our economy in general. Despite 3 years of absolute failure with regard to economics, (who saw that coming), all of a sudden you're expected to think that this magic Obama fix is just what we need.

Take Joe Bidens warning about rapes and murders increasing without the jobs bill, (talk about fear-mongering).

"Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise. All crime will continue to rise." - Joe Biden

Let's take this quote seriously for a moment because there is truth here but you have to know how to analyze it. It's true that in times of recession and depression crime increases. It's natural to understand that as people become more hopeless and desperate many turn to crime. You've probably heard the story of famous robbers Bonnie and Clyde who robbed banks during the depression and were eventually gunned down by police in May of 1934.

During the early years of the Great Depression after the crash of 1929 the banks were in trouble as you'd probably expect. If a bank was robbed in the early 1930's it pretty much meant the collapse of the bank. Protection from bank failure gave rise to the FDIC in the wake of such problems. The FDIC didn't really take effect until after the robberies of Bonnie and Clyde and because of that banks that got robbed were pretty much screwed at the time. As a result so too were the people whose money was invested in that bank. Perhaps the Wall Street protesters who aren't full blown Socialists and Communists might want to remember that in the wake of their calls to collapse the system.

Now back to Biden's comments. If you want to deter crime it's no surprise that having a capable police force is important. An even bigger deterrent though is stability within ones own life. If you have a job, can pay you're bills, and live at least a somewhat comfortable middle class-esque life then the chances of you turning to crime are fairly low.

This is important because it shows that jobs are a good deterrent to crime as is a healthy economy. This again must make you wonder why Obama has spent the last 3 years only pretending to care about jobs and he's proving that by trying to sell this new jobs bill exactly as he tried to sell the last one called stimulus.

The truth of the matter though is that President Obama has absolutely no interest in creating jobs and he never did. His supporters will of course call me crazy for insisting that and say I'm wrong so I'll have to go a bit more into detail than that. That leads us to the protesters involved in Occupy Wall St.

Obama hates capitalism, that much is pretty obvious. The problem is that when the economy is good it's hard to get people to rise up against it. This is why, despite the clear signs of looming recession from the day Obama took office he's made few, if any, historically right moves on turning this recession around. From bailouts, started by Bush, then massively continued by Obama, to focusing on health care, to emphasizing spending money rather than making money. Almost every move Obama has made has been designed to prolong the recession rather than reversing it. The question is why?

Occupy Wall St. is why. We hear the cries about how capitalism has failed but the truth is that America hasn't acted capitalist in quite some time. Capitalist countries don't bail out bad business. Capitalist countries don't focus on growing government employment rather than private sector employment. After all, the government doesn't have money, it only takes and spends money. Every government paycheck comes from money taken out of private sector paychecks.

Obama needed people to believe capitalism is a failure and that explains most of his economic actions since taking office despite the obvious proof that it's condemned more people to poverty and government dependence than ever before. The fact that more people rely on food stamps than ever before throughout the history of the program is a good example of this.

I'd like to show you something. It's a debate I had with a friend of mine who is a die-hard liberal and supports the protests. I've edited only bits and pieces for the sake of privacy etc. but this is very telling about how misguided some people have become.

"The cops have been attacking these people clubbing them and if you haven't noticed they have been peaceful from the very start what they are doing represents how a free society functions and its directly related to our constitution. When the government infringes upon individual rights it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it. The fact that right wing media like fox news is attacking this so much while supporting the tea party is so revealing of corporate dominance in our society and is a reminder why this has become so big because we're sick and tired of the nonsense.

This isn't collapsing America, America has been collapsing since ever since Reagan granted corporations with the rights of people literally taking the rights from people and giving them to business instead to ensure that the private sector is protected and the hell with everyone (including you) who makes it all possible. This is about what America has turned into in the last 30 years and America has been collapsing because government has been owned by people like Soros and Sachs so this isn't about collapsing America its about saving it you think its just some stupid radical stoner movement no these are people of all walks of life with genuine concern and its true patriotism these people care about the country, they care about the citizens and they want to put an end to the political gangsterism and these are things you care about too, Ive heard you mention all these things lobbyists, bonus' for executives and for the (*name edited out) while regular workers wages stagnate and yet your so brainwashed by business propaganda like from (*name edited) that you shoot yourself in the foot your against the general population and support a tiny fraction of the population of which you will most likely never be a part of.

Makes no sense Brandon, you gotta re read your history and from the point of view other than those who have unlimited wealth and power over you. These movements aren't about destroying all of wallstreet or doing away with capitalism completely its about enabling the decision making process to be of the people. Isn't that what a free society is supposed to be;of the people by the people and for the people, you know that's not what it currently is and if that's what you really think than that's just silly of you.

If you knew your history you would know whats happened to our politics in the last 30 years is exactly what Thomas Jefferson warned about and is in fact his worst nightmare that has come true. I'm absolutely thrilled that this is happening I hoped that it would happen within my lifetime and now its happening just within weeks and globally.. amazing. Its reminiscent of the movements in the 60 in which our culture was significantly civilized and improved thanks to activists. If you disagree with that then you admittedly taking sides with the racists who opposed civil rights, you take sides with the chauvinism that opposed feminism, the greed that opposed better working conditions for workers and so on.

By opposing this movement which is similar you are siding with the very same fascists that opposed the cultural revolution of the 60s and if so you certainly should never try and champion someone like Martin Luther King because that would be completely hypocritical this is Martin Luther Kings struggle his dream never came true but it could now. I would hope that people would want to tell their children someday that they were on the side of those who made America a more free society."

These are the kinds of debates I get into with Liberals all the time and I'd like to point out that this is a friend of mine whom I actually get along with very well. We just obviously see the world through very different ideological lenses. The truth is that there are many on the left who see things very similarly, but they are being used by those with much more nefarious purposes. The radicals are using people who think in this way to achieve an agenda far more dangerous to America than most realize. He went on to say that he meant Paulson, not Soros. He also added:

"Oh yeah I forgot .. a couple days ago a cop drove into a guy with a motorbike.. I just think its incredible that (name edited) and others are making these people out to be savages while the police are being unnecessarily brutal and theres no outrage about that."

I began my reply with this.

"Actually soros is more accurate, George Soros made over 7 billion dollars last year, why aren't they protesting him? Because he funds much of these movements. He's also using his hedge funds to try and collapse the system which will leave him rich and the rest of us poor. GE paid no taxes under Obama, why aren't they protesting GE?"

And ended with this: (*I left out only some of the beginning again because of names):

"Van Jones and others behind this movement openly talk about hating the cops and supported cop killers back in the 60's as they do now, remember the compassion for Tookie Williams? Of course not. What's happening is the protesters are antagonizing the cops, unlike the tea parties, and forcing a reaction from the cops. Then the edited video of only the cops actions are filmed and spread over the Internet in order to gain undeserved sympathy for the rowdy protesters. The Constitution grants the freedom to peaceful protests. Pay attention to the capital letters here.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You have the right to peacefully assemble, but you don't have the right to turn parks into sewers, (which is true of the wall st protests), you don't have the right to disrupt non-protesters right to live in peace, which is true of anyone who lives there. You don't have the right to antagonize police and block roads etc because the Constitution itself notes that protests must be peaceable. Protests like the Wall St. ones turn into riots because of those who don't understand that the right to protest also includes the need to maintain order and peace and that responsibility falls on the protester, when they fail in that responsibility then it is the responsibility of the cops to maintain order, don't forget that. The police are being set up by those in this protest who aren't peaceful and people like you are falling for it.

You say that America started collapsing when Reagan blah blah but this is again and as usual false. Corporate lobbying is where corporations really started controlling individual politicians and therefore began getting favor within the law and that's true of both sides. Do you know when Lobbying started? Probably not so I'll tell you, it was under Liberal hero FDR in the 30's and FDR started using certain aspects of the new deal government bureaus to benefit political allies. This was done using things like the WPA to benefit unions. The problem is that you don't learn things like that in school anymore because you're too busy learning falsehoods about big bad evil Reagan.

Your thoughts about corporate political gangsterism aren't unfounded but the problem rests in what you support not what I support. The problem is that you believe that all businesses are bad and that everyone on wall st is bad, or that nobody who created something and became rich deserves to keep their money. Logically that argument can't be true. There are workers on wall st, many in fact, that aren't corrupt. There are many businesses that aren't corrupt, you are condemning many who aren't guilty for the actions of a few, how is that liberal? What about due process, do liberals no longer believe in the right to a fair trial?

If you believe a business is bad or a Wall St. investor is guilty of something then why aren't there trials. Why haven't people like you who want the rich to "pay their fair share" called for an investigation into GE by Obama for paying nothing in taxes this year? There is video of actual antisemitic rhetoric against jews from the wall st protesters, where's the outrage from the left?

The tea parties were called racist by folks like you even thought there was absolutely no video evidence to back it up. (*name edited), like it or not, has actually showed racism in the wall st protests and yet you proudly support the movement. Let's say that there was a racist at the tea parties, why was it ok for the left to condemn the entire movement as a racist movement, like Janine Gerofolo did, because of the unproven actions of the few. Under that rational wouldn't I be justified in calling everyone in this protest a racist because of the actual racist video I've seen. If not, then Liberals are hypocrites, if yes then they are racist, you can decide.

You think that collapsing capitalism will return power to the people. How can you honestly believe that? You are promoting giving all of the power to left wing politicians. Do you honestly think that giving all of the power you say corporations have to a handful of politicians will be better. You say that I support those who have all of this power over me but again this isn't true. Corporations don't control me but why is it that I'm calling for letting bad businesses fail and it's the left that was supporting bailing them out. No Liberal, including you, have been able to answer that. I say let bad businesses fail and good businesses will pick up the slack, you support bailing them out and keeping them closely tied to political favors through those who bailed them out. I'm not on the side of corporate corruption, you are.

You're also right about it being reminiscent of the 60's because it's many of the same radicals behind the movement that were calling for communism in the 60's like Francis Fox Piven, Van Jones, and Cornel West. They are perverting the message of Martin Luther King and it's sad that you're falling for that. I set the message straight about Martin Luther King but apparently you need a refresher. Martin Luther King wanted people to be given an equal chance, not equal possessions. Taking from someone who has actually honestly earned everything they have, like Bill Gates, and giving it to people who've done nothing but think they expect it isn't a message of equal opportunity, it's a message of oppression. Half of the country pay no income tax and the rich pay most of it. That's a fact ignored by those on your side laughably calling for equality.

At the same time it's the left wing socialist policies of Obama that have pushed millions more into poverty, as always happens with socialism if you'd actually study accurate history. Twist facts all you want if it makes you feel better but the facts are undebatable. Under Ronald Reagan millions came out of poverty and under Obama millions have fallen into it.

Have you heard about Florida's drug testing? The left was against this as well. Florida passed a law that says if you want to get welfare etc. you have to pass drug tests. I hope you think this makes sense as I do. Why should we pay for druggies to live for free thus giving them more money for drugs? HALF OF THE PEOPLE REFUSED TO SHOW UP FOR THE DRUG TESTS AND WELFARE THEREFORE WAS REDUCED BY HALF. This further proves something Conservatives have been saying forever to be true.

Liberals always claim to support civil rights, who opposed the rights of women to vote? Liberal Woodrow Wilson, Republican Theodore Roosevelt supported them. Who opposed the civil rights act of 1957 that would have given rights to blacks before the movement of Martin Luther King? Liberal LBJ who filibustered it in the Senate even though that history is ignored and he's instead given a pass because of the civil rights act of 1964.

Who supported the Nazi movement in the 20's? College campuses and other liberal groups including socialist and racist groups like unions and the KKK, (also started by Democrats by the way).

Who supported the oppressive Ayatollah Khomeni in the Iranian revolution of 1979 leading the the oppressive regime currently in power there? Socialist and Communist groups, which is why the regime currently supports this wall st protest because they also want to collapse America. The Nazi's in Egypt support occupy Wall St. The communist Chinese support occupy wall st, Vladimir Putin of Russia supports occupy wall st, the Iranian regime supports occupy wall st. That's all the evidence I need not to. Be a useful pawn with your refusal to face the facts if you insist but you're right that one day we will have to explain to our children where we stood and why. I'll know where I stood and why. I'll be proud of my answer and show them where I stood. Are you really sure you'll be able to say the same?

Fun as always."

For the record, my figure about half in Florida failed to show up is incorrect, however, it was 1,600 out of about 8,600, which is still a very good reason to support the drug testing for welfare.

As for other facts, Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912 and again in 1916, women didn't receive the right to vote until 1920.

As far as the Civil Rights Act of 1957, you may not even know such a thing existed but you should read this. Especially this part:

The Democratic Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, which was at the time made up of anti-civil rights and pro-civil rights members. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee led by Senator James Eastland, an anti-civil rights senator from Mississippi. Eastland changed and altered the bill almost beyond recognition after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from the civil rights advocates for passing the bill while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for "killing the bill.

Funny what you can learn when you study accurate history, huh?

Pro Nazi rallies in the U.S. in the 30's?!! Yes. Remember, Hitler himself called the Nazi Party the "National Socialist" they were socialists, not conservatives, take that historians.

As for some of the others:

Here's some good old fashioned Nazi support for Occupy Wall St. Check it out.

"It has been pointed out to me that many protesters are non-white and/or “communists.” Well my answer to that is: “WHO CARES?!” They are against the same evil, corrupted, degenerate capitalist elitists that WE are against! Instead of screaming, “6 million more!” The pro-white movementites should be JOINING this Occupy movement and supporting it!"

What about China? Here.

"When Occupy Wall Street first happened, the Chinese government perceived this movement as a big victory for communism over capitalism," said Wen Yunchao, a prominent Chinese blogger based in Hong Kong

Russia also likes the Occupy Wall St movement because it helps make Communism appear to be a more mainstream ideology. Good job protestors.

Then we, of course, have Iran. The Ayatollah Khomeni supports Occupy Wall St. because it symbolizes bringing down the U.S. even if many mainstream Liberals deny that to be true.

I suppose I've said enough. Feel free to look up the racist comments from the protests on youtube if you want and remember what was said about the tea party movement. At least Nancy Pelosi isn't crying anymore. Of course she cried claiming there was violence when there wasn't any. Now there actually is violence and she's cool with it.

Believe me if you want but I've said enough. Line up with the sheeple and ignore the truth if it makes you feel better. I've done my part to show the truth, it's up to you to accept it. Watch out though, word on the street is that I'm a dangerous right winger. If the weapon you fear is the truth then I'm glad to be criticized by those who don't even realize how dangerous what they are trying to accomplish truly is. Thanks for sticking around until the end, see you next time.

Read more...

Another Debate

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry suck and Republicans would be fools to listen to the media and nominate either one of these sucky candidates. Now that you're paying attention let's get into the first issue on the agenda today, the last debate for the Republicans on October 18 in Nevada.

Of course as usual a good chunk of the debate focused on attacking Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan. The reasons for this is obvious, it's simple and whether or not you support the plan one thing that's obvious is that most people understand it because of it's simplicity. Understanding the plan is one of the biggest reasons why it's so supported. After all, do you really understand Romney's 59 point plan or the tens of thousands of pages that currently make up our existing tax code?

Also, as usual Mitt Romney took a good deal of heat regarding his support of Romneycare in Massachusetts. Romney pointed out a statistic that I think most people are misunderstanding the significance of. Romney stated, "3 to 1 in Mass like the plan". Now, why is that significant? First of all I don't believe that's accurate but if it is then we can't forget that Mass is also nearly 3 to 1 Democrat to Republican. Congratulations Mitt, Democrats in Massachusetts love the big government plan you enacted here. The 3 to 1 statistic you champion should be a red flag to Republicans that you shouldn't be the nominee for the party. We'll see if Republicans realize that in the end, the recent rise of Herman Cain gives a glimmer of hope that Republicans are paying attention to who seems like the better candidate as opposed to who looks the most presidential.

Gingrich also nailed Romney with some facts about his big government plan here in Mass but Romney then hit back with Newt and the Heritage foundation's previous support of mandates during the Hillarycare debate back in the 90's. While it's no surprise at this point that Newt and Herman Cain are the dream ticket for me personally that criticism deserves to be looked at. However, one thing I find fascinating about criticism of Newt Gingrich is that it all stems from things that happened over 10 years ago.

All of Newt's actions in the last 10 years and throughout most of his lengthy career are positive and his knowledge and debate skill stands second to none. Sarah Palin after the debate also stated that she'd like to see Newt get the nomination because of how embarrassing for Obama a debate would be. It's also worth mentioning that Newt has challenged Obama to the "Lincoln-Douglas standard" of seven, 3 hour debates with no moderator. Obama would be a fool to accept that challenge as Newt would destroy Obama with history and facts but unfortunately he may not have to because Newt faces such an uphill climb in the run for the nomination. One positive thing though is Herman Cain's rise. Herman Cain said in a previous debate as a hypothetical that Newt would be his pick for vice so if Herman Cain manages to secure the nomination against the mainstream media's wishes then the ticket I support could also become a reality and we can say bye bye Biden and Obama. I'd just like to repeat that Perry and Romney suck.

Speaking of Perry let's focus on him for a second. His presidential prospects are all but over because of his immigration stances. To be fair most presidents suck when it comes to securing the border because they are so afraid of backlash within the Latino vote. In fact, I used to have a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker on my bumper until a speech where Bush pretty much stated that he'd do nothing about the border and immigration. Newsmax magazine reported a few years back that Bush's "virtual fence" of sensors etc. was all but a complete failure and that's what Perry seems to be pushing for more of. The problem is getting more dangerous as the various gangs and even terrorist organizations now realize that planes aren't our weakness, our political correctness and failures on our own border are.

On immigration Rick Perry claimed that a fence was impossible because it would take, "10 - 15 years and 30 billion dollars". Of all people it was then Michelle Bachmann who pointed out that benefits, incarceration, etc. for illegals currently cost much more than that. That was one aspect of why Perry called for more technology but as I said before so far that hasn't worked.

Here's another point about immigration and while it hits Perry more than most other candidates the point you are about to read you've probably never seen before. Think of this since the politicians from both sides won't get you to.

We've been told for years that we need illegals here to do the jobs Americans won't do, right? If that's the case then why do we push so hard for educating illegals and giving them breaks on getting into college, as Perry has done in Texas with in-state tuition? Wouldn't giving illegals a college education then qualify them for the jobs Americans would do? Think about that one and good luck ever getting a politician who supports illegal immigration, (or is soft on it), to answer that question.

There was a question asked about "anchor babies" and the 14th amendment of the Constitutions:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14 - section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Herman Cain and Rick Perry deflected the answers to this question and began talking about jobs instead. Here's the answer that should be given and that I would give, politicians are too afraid to say this.

The 14th amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. At that time, there was no food stamps, no medicaid, no welfare, no in-state tuition. Anchor babies are a problem in this country. The 14th amendment was never intended to draw illegals to get pregnant and run across the border to have a baby, (not to mention that all hospital care related to that birth will be paid for by taxpayers), just so that baby can be a U.S. citizen and you can then stay and collect benefits. This should stop and we wouldn't have to repeal the entire 14th amendment just propose a simple new amendment to change only the first sentence of the 14th amendment to this:

"All persons born to United States citizens or naturalized citizens in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Of course, this will never be done or even proposed but it'd be interesting to see the amount of support it would gain. That said my thoughts of the candidates haven't changed due to this recent debate.

Romney and Perry still suck and can't be trusted to maintain a Conservative message and policies.

Santorum is pretty good on social issues but unelectable and likely not good enough in debates to really take Obama to the cleaners. Also his refusal to take a serious look at cuts we could do within the military that would eliminate waste and not harm national security doesn't match reality.

Ron Paul's foreign policy views, while much of it does face reality, his support of cutting aid to Israel and other true allies and isolationist foreign policy make him typically unelectable within the Republican Party.

John Huntsman jr. and Gary Johnson....wait, who? Yeah, exactly, forget about them.

Michelle Bachmann is a fantastic congresswoman and is very likable among Conservatives but I'm sorry she lacks the experience and knowledge to be president, (It's nothing personal but it's the truth).

Herman Cain is great and the only reason that I'd rather see him as vice president instead of president is because of his lack of foreign policy experience. That could be learned throughout a term or two as VP thus making him ready for the top slot after serving as VP.

Newt Gingrich is clearly my pick for President. His knowledge of history and foreign policy issues are the only reason I'd prefer him to Cain at the top of the ticket. Republicans should wake up and make Gingrich/Cain the ticket. This would not only make the defeat of Obama and Biden, (you know a debate between Cain and Biden would be fun to watch but Cain would have to put some emphasis on researching foreign policy issues more), all but certain but the debate between Gingrich and Obama would show just how ignorant Obama truly is about damn near everything.

I was going to add my thoughts about the Obama non-jobs spending bill and the occupy Wall St. socialist protests but because of length and switching issues I've instead to turn those into another blog post that will be up shortly. No later than tomorrow.

Read more...