• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The "Occupy" Movement

This may be the real point behind the OWS movement getting wall to wall coverage:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/top-media-outlets-ignore-subpoena-of-entire-top-tier-of-obama-administration?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Big media outlets ignore subpoena of entire top tier of Obama Administration

Add a comment
Anthony Martin, Conservative Examiner
October 15, 2011 - Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates.

Perhaps the biggest story in the political world since the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton in the 1990s, although the Senate refused to remove him from office, is the fact that this week a subpoena from the House was issued to the entire top tier of the Obama Administration. Yet as of today the big media outlets--ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post--have ignored the story entirely. And if they did mention it in passing, it was buried on a back page or relegated to an inconspicuous web page while never seeing the light of day on the air. Only Fox gave the story top billing.

Regarding the news blackout of the subpoena, one astute observer had this to say:

As evidence, ladies and gentlemen of the jury of history, I present the undisputed fact that on the evening news shows of NBC, ABC and CBS this week not one -- NOT ONE -- mentioned the unprecedented subpoena by a Congressional committee of information regarding the entire top echelon of the Justice Department in the Gunwalker Scandal.

Had this scandal involved John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration, does anyone doubt that the story would have led the nightly half-hour "puppet theater"? Or, that it wouldn't have been covered like a blanket by all news departments from the moment the blood of Brian Terry dried in the desert sands of Rio Rico?

Big media complicity in the news blackout is a heavy indictment against modern journalism in America today.

In a stunningly insightful piece at Sipsy Street Irregulars today, citizen investigative journalist Mike Vanderboegh writes that when history records the dreadful events leading to the Project Gunwalker scandal, and its subsequent cover-up, the mainstream media will not be treated kindly. In fact, they will be the subject of ridicule and scorn for their complicity in the scandal, giving aid to the Administration's attempt to hide its illegal activity and cover-ups by either refusing to report it or by slanting its reporting to imply that the key players at the top did no wrong. 

The only exception to this stinging indictment against the mainstream media has been reporter Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News. Attkisson's has been a lone voice, an oasis of investigative integrity in a desert of journalistic malpractice within the hallowed halls of what was once the epitome of tenacious gum-shoe reporting, the foundation of which was laid by Edward R. Murrow, Marvin and Bernard Kalb, Douglas Edwards, and Walter Cronkite.

However, the vacuum of serious investigative journalism created by the mainstream media's abdication of its responsibility has been filled by the 'alternative media,' such as bloggers, free-lance writers, and columnists for lesser-known media outlets.

In the case of the Gunwalker scandal, had it not been for National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, and investigative reporter Mike Vanderboegh, this story would have never been brought to the forefront of public attention. These astute and tenacious journalists set onto the trail that led to their breaking the Gunwalker story all the way back in December of 2010. Shortly thereafter this writer began to hammer away at the Administration, seeking answers concerning the scandal. At about the same time, writers such as Kurt Hofmann and Dave Workman, both of whom write at The Examiner, did the same thing.

Thus, unlike the Watergate scandal during which the Washington Post and investigative reporters Woodward and Bernstein made sure that the Nixon fiasco stayed at the top of the news heap for months until Nixon was driven from office, this story--which is infinitely worse and much more widespread than Watergate--has been the work of alternative media journalists. And the mainstream media have been dragged kicking and screaming into it due to their dogged determination to bury any story that places Obama or any member of his Administration in a negative light.

The pressure, however, has been building to the point to where it is nearly impossible for the media moguls to continue to bury the Gunwalker story. Even now, with the historic events that have occurred this week, there is much more to come that will stun even the most seasoned political observers.

Waiting in the wings, in the shadows, are numerous figures who know the score and who are ready to tell all they know.

Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere. 

Continue reading on Examiner.com Big media outlets ignore subpoena of entire top tier of Obama Administration - National Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/top-media-outlets-ignore-subpoena-of-entire-top-tier-of-obama-administration?CID=examiner_alerts_article#ixzz1avKYCIoQ
 
Since I am in Pet, I don't get SUN TV, but CTV News is entirely clueless about the OWS movement in Canada; the reporters are in the camps standing in front of CUPE signs and saying (with a straight face) that the movement is "spontanious" and "leaderless".

The OWS movement is so fun to report on because it is so full of contradictions, but as Ayn Rand says; "the nature of reality does not allow contradictions", there is really only one way for this to end. (See Chicago 1968 for the preview):

Two articles here

http://thevimh.blogspot.com/2011/10/president-goldman-sachs.html

President Goldman Sachs
A special word of thanks to Instapundit for the six (so far!) times he's linked this post from 2008:

Goldman Sachs Loves Obama

That post in 2008 was based on the reporting of Sharyl Attkisson (now of Fast and Furious reporting fame) detailing how Obama was raking in more money from Wall Street, especially Goldman Sachs, than was John McCain. And it was where this logo was birthed:

The point being now -- if Occupy Wall Street was a genuine grassroots movement genuinely outraged by the idea that banksters own the government, then they would be marching on the Obama White House.

You can see all the President Goldman Sachs posts by Instapundit here.

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/10/13/harbinger/?print=1

Harbinger
Posted By Richard Fernandez On October 13, 2011 @ 11:32 am In Uncategorized | Comments Disabled

Jesse Jackson Jr [1]. shares his thoughts on how to fix the economic crisis, solve the jobs problem, end state government deficits, and save the republic:

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”

What could go wrong?

[2]
Although Jackson’s idea of basically sending checks to individuals, states, and cities is interesting, the most notable aspect of Jackson’s proposal is the underlying notion that the federal government can simply create the money to employ everyone and everything by printing it. Only moderately more fascinating is his theory that the president has some overarching authority against which neither the states nor Congress can “rebel.” Both notions are two sides of the same coin.

While many people would dismiss Jesse Jackson Jr. as a crackpot, he apparently takes himself seriously. So do the “Occupy” protesters, many of whom are seriously talking about taking down the system and creating revolutionary change with a straight face. Statism has now found a voice. After lurking in the shadows, bookroom discussions, and cafes for years it is once again out in the public view, proud and loud.

Jackson and Occupy have articulated the antithesis of the Tea Party call to end big government. In the Occupy and Jackson world, the crisis now justifies extraordinary government measures to enforce “fairness” and mandate employment by any means necessary. By contrast the Tea Party believes in reducing the size of Washington and returning the power of decision to the states. Someone is in “rebellion,” the only question is who.

In the ideological arena at least, the questions are set. Limited government vs. unlimited government. Lower taxes vs. state ownership of the means of production. Choose only one and make sure all your answers are clear and legible on the sheet. While neither ideology is likely to triumph completely over party machineries which are (almost thankfully) focused on grasping at spoils, the contrast between these two world views will provide the backdrop for the electoral struggles of 2012.


Voters have watched for months to see to what extent Tea Party ideas would recast the GOP. The answer now seems to be: to some extent. Similarly, the political battle over the president’s jobs bill will indicate how far to the Left the crisis can push the Democrats. That question is still unanswered.

But the likelihood is now that instead of a contest between a Bill Clinton-like candidate against a Repubican Mitt Romney-like candidate in 2012, it will feature a face off between Obama and a Republican candidate with at least some Tea Party like features. The issue will be put. And while no resolution can be expected in 2012 itself, such a face off would mean a redrawing of the intellectual lines for some time to come. The significance of Jesse Jackson Jr.’s ideas is not that they are on the agenda, but that they may one day be. They are a preview of how the confrontation lines may be drawn.

Now the question is: what is the way out?

Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99 [3]
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $3.99, print $9.99 [4]
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5 [5]

(Thumbnail on PJM homepage via Shutterstock.com [6])

Article printed from Belmont Club: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/10/13/harbinger/

URLs in this post:

[1] Jesse Jackson Jr: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/12/jackson-obama-should-declare-a-national-emergency-add-jobs-with-extra-constitutional-action/
[2] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LEwP0UeMpo
[3] Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B005MH19XI/wwwfallbackbe-20
[4] No Way In at Amazon Kindle $3.99, print $9.99: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1453892818/wwwfallbackbe-20
[5] Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5: http://wretchard.com/tipjar.html
[6] Shutterstock.com: http://www.shutterstock.com/
 
SOoooo..how long until this "protest" in Canada goes violent.?  Anyone.????
 
MGalantine said:
My parents saved up for a good decade or so and invested in an RESP for my education- Wasn't easy, considering in this time they went through a complete bankruptcy and couldn't afford things like a basic computer and whatnot. Yet they somehow saved $40k. However, their caveat on me getting this money for education was that I had to spend it on a degree that would allow me to live without worrying about my financial situation like they did theirs. So no liberal arts, no journalism or political science. It was either:

a) Study for a Bachelor's of Engineering
b) Study for an eventual career as a Doctor
c) Pay my own way through University

I ended up going with option a. By the end of my Bachelor's $32000 Tuition + $4000 Books will have been paid- I will graduate debt-free, be in a satisfactory amount of demand, and I'll have enough to live comfortably and help support my parents. Does it suck? Yep. I have four midterms, two assignments, and project proposals to do in the next five days. My roommates are playing Gears of War 3 for the third day in a row.

Anyway, the other day I went home and visited my mom- Not surprisingly she wasn't too sympathetic about the plight of those protesting. Over the years, I've tended to agree. I'm in class 28 hours a week, doing about 28 hours of school work outside, I'm the Vice President of a Student Association, I want to add the reserves to my life, and I still have a ridiculous amount of free time. I tend to get pissed off when people with 10 hour weeks complain about not having enough time to complete their studies, or when perennially broke students take their latest student loan straight to the nearest LCBO or kegger and then complain about how "the man" makes tuition so high.

I wish every university degree came with a side of common sense as a requirement for graduation. Then again I'm sure someone would protest that.
citizen_cane.gif


Well-said.
 
Alas a haven of rational thought.

The day I turned 18 I went to the bank and opened a Tax Free Savings Investment Account, I read the Intelligent Investor and learned the value of saving+Investing. Most kids who turn of age, rush to the LCBO and buy whatever, or go clubbing and spend 40-60 dollars in one night, then complain the next day of a hangover. I don't plan on anyone giving me a free lunch, not now and not ever.

I plan on getting a degree in Engineering, because of the job prospects for it. I'm not going to waste my time getting a degree in philosophy, then complain I have to work at Mc Donald's, cause theres no jobs...

If I couldn't find work I'd be more than willing to work for less than minimum wage, instead of demanding 20$ minimum wage across the board (which would cause more unemployment).

Personally, my political views are far different than what we have here in Canada, but I'm not gonna waste my time with a sign, I'm just gonna get a good job and work my way to prosperity, not demand it because I don't have it.
 
I have been reading about and watching/listen to report of the "Occupy" movements (I don't think it's one, monolithic 'thing,' yet) with careful albeit not rapt attention. A few observations:

1. Inequality, growing inequality, is both real and problematical;

2. The "children" (my, personal view of them - from being 35-50 years older than most of them) express "frustration" and "disillusionment" with a system which they cannot fathom;

3. What the children see is that there are a very few, very, very rich people - some of whom appear to gain great wealth for little effort - and there are many, many people who do not have enough. "Enough" is not just sufficient to keep body and soul together, a roof over one's head, adequate clothes and some recreation; "enough" means more than that, it appears, to me again, that it means a higher level of comfort and pleasure that with which the traditional "working class" might be content;

(Parenthetically, I do not detect any real concern for the "poor." The "Occupiers" appear, to me, most concerned with the relative decline of the middle class - the class to which they belong. Really poor people do not, because they cannot, afford the time or the money march and stream live video at the same time.)

occupy-poli-str_1331090cl-8.jpg

Niko Salassidis chants as he streams a live video of the Occupy Toronto protest in Toronto, Ont. October 16, 2011. Protesters have set up camp at Saint James Park near Toronto's financial district.
(Michelle Siu for Globe and Mail)


4. So, what do these "frustrated" and "disillusioned" and, I repeat, inchoate bands of children do? They 'mobilize,' something they can do well because they are skilled social media users and they have the absolute luxury of free time, and then they 'demonstrate;'

5. We get some ideas of what they are against. Thus far I have no idea, not from "Occupy Wall Street," or "Occupy Bay Street" or "Occupy __[insert street name here]__," what they are demonstrating for;

6. I am tempted to look back, before I was born, to the early days of the Great Depression. People 'demonstrated' then, too - about the essential unfairness of the disasters which had befallen them. But we society knew what they wanted: charity;

Hunger_march.jpg

Hunger march, Edmonton, 1932

7. But in the "dirty thirties" most people (as many as 63% of non farm workers, 75% of all workers) took whatever jobs they could find - two jobs when necessary;

(Parenthetically, again, I can cite known family history - my parents both graduated from university about the time the Great Depression was getting started. They had debts - there were no student loans but family members (both families) had chipped in ($10.00 here, $20.00 there) to finance the last year or so of study and that all had to be repaid. At the same time the good, high paying, professional jobs to which they had looked forward were gone. They had to take more than one lower paying job and live more frugally while they survived, gained experience, paid debts and so on. Maybe attitudes have changed.)

8. So what is the problem? Is it the 1%/99% myth? (Look it up for yourselves, please, you are not bloody helpless - if you were you would be out "occupying" some public park.) Or is it that the Great Recession is so much harder on people than the Great Depression? Or, perhaps, is it that the "children" are too lazy to work and too nervous to steal?

9. Two things about which we can be certain: the children are very media savvy and the media is, comme d'habitude, easily fed/led.

 
From what I can see....no government/organization/etc. can possibly satisfy them.....they want their entitlements now, with no down payment, no debt, without  any effort.....and the supposed rich should be the ones paying for it, cause....they got more....
 
The protestors want their student loans paid off for them by the government.More importantly is the link between the protest movement and the democrat party.They are Obama's foot soldiers.One can only wonder what happens next. They go away or they attempt a revolution. This protest movement has both the support of the communist party and the nazi party.Odd bedfellows.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/oct/9/picket-communists-hijacking-occupy-wall-street-mov/

http://news.yahoo.com/red-white-angry-communist-nazi-parties-endorse-occupy-044626630.html
 
Holy crap,.....I'm certainly no fan of President Obama [ how about the proper respect Tomahawk 6?], some people make me laugh how they are falling over each other to blame everything on him.
 
Sure thing Bruce.Next time I mention President Obama I will include his title. You must have been in stitches the last couple of years when President Obama blamed everything on President Bush. ;)
 
E.R. Campbell said:
A problem (The problem?) for the inchoate left is that they cannot express the problem much less the solution, in clear, simple terms. Reagan could and did; he offered:

1. Stop, then lower the growth of government spending;
2. Reduce marginal income tax rates;
3. Reduce regulation; and
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

People could understand, after a fashion, and support that; even those who could not really grasp the implications understood that Reagan had a plan and they got behind him.

I might, did, as I recall, argue with both 3. and part of 4. But that didn't mean that I didn't want Reagan to succeed.

Reagan stopped and lowered government spending?! Maybe that was his pitch, but that certainly did not happen on his watch.
 
MGalantine said:
IRONY: The guy protesting the decline of the middle class while carrying a Macbook Pro in an environment where it it likely to be damaged.

A Macbook Pro costs between 1250 and 2500 before tax...

Hey, want to buy this strawman from me? Really cheap!
 
Redeye said:
Reagan stopped and lowered government spending?! Maybe that was his pitch, but that certainly did not happen on his watch.


usgs_line.php

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1902_2015USp_F0xF0fF0sF0l


It looks to me as though federal spending growth slowed, stopped and actually declined from 1980, when Reagan was elected, to 1989, when he left office.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
It looks to me as though federal spending growth slowed, stopped and actually declined from 1980, when Reagan was elected, to 1989, when he left office.

That is total spending expressed as a % of GDP not spending expressed in dollars.  Try using $Billions as the Y axis instead.

usgs_line.php
 
DBA said:
That is total spending expressed as a % of GDP not spending expressed in dollars.  Try using $Billions as the Y axis instead.

usgs_line.php


Yeah, but I don't like dollars unless they are appropriately deflated. It's like horrid games we used to play in NDHQ with "current year" vs "budget year" dollars and the government's tame inflation rate vs. the real inflation rates for e.g. aeropsace.
 
For the most part, these "occupiers" appear to be upper middle class persons with good educations etc:

Much like the Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof - Get my drift?

The poor are too busy working and earning a living to take part in this.

Just my  :2c:  indexed for my inflated ego ;)
 
Well, I'd never be one to assume there's much intelligence to be found at Pajamas Media, but this is a treat.

The idiocy... well, it's mindblowing:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/17/bizarre-neo-swastika-reminiscent-of-the-great-dictator-used-as-power-symbol-by-ows-leaders/

The "symbol"? It's the pound sign - used to make hashtags on Twitter. That's all.
 
Redeye said:
Hey, want to buy this strawman from me? Really cheap!

I'm not sure whether it's a 'straw man' or not. I, like most, am having trouble dicerning exactly what their agenda and focus is. Right now, I'm getting a sense of entitlement from the movement. They want, whatever, but are not prepared on their part to do much but complain to get it. So, perhaps, if this fellow's beef is poverty and not being able to make ends meet, maybe the fact that he's got a $2500 laptop doesn't make a lot of sense to most. Hardly a straw man on that point. It would be akin to welfare people tapping away on twitter and facebook with their iPhones and Blackberrys that they cannot feed themselves on the money they receive for nothing.

I just don't know. We can't do much if they don't define their demands. For most, I think, it's just the flavour of the day to participate and feel like their doing something. Even if they don't know exactly why they are.

I might be totally off base, but that's the way it's appearing to me. However, I will admit, I'm not getting too excited about it.

:2c:
 
Back
Top