November 3, 2011

Don’t teach standard English to foreign language students, linguist urges

The guy below is off his head. He is right that English is used in many nations in a way that diverges from standard English — but have you ever tried to understand (say) Indian English? It can get close to impossible. I have even seen signs up outside shops in Bombay saying “Indian English only spoken here”. The Indians themselves know the difficulties concerned. If the aim is to communicate with other English-speakers, standard English must be taught, despite small differences between British and American usage.

The very idea of there being a standard English will no doubt arouse great huffing and puffing from the guy below but if there is no such thing, how come these comments written in Australia will be completely understood in the USA, the UK, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand — places literally worlds apart?

Update: I suppose that the “linguist” below MAY simply have been speaking about the accent that is taught, though it does not appear so. Accents CAN indeed be a problem. A Northern English person who visited a shop in the South and asked for “booblegoom” (where “oo” is pronounced as in “look”), could well be not understood at all — even if all he wanted was bubble gum.

But in practice that problem rarely arises. Most English learners outside Britain itself learn a generic version of American English pronunciation

People learning the English language around the world should not adopt the ‘Queen’s English’, a linguist said today.

Dr Mario Saraceni, of the University of Portsmouth, called on native English speakers to ‘give up their claim to be the guardians of the purest form of the language’.

He argued that the ways it has been used and changed by millions of people around the world are equally valid.

Writing in the latest issue of the journal Changing English, he suggests the way English is taught to non-native speakers, but whose mother tongue is English, needs a dramatic change. He said: ‘It’s important the psychological umbilical cord linking English to its arbitrary centre in England is cut. ‘The English are not the only legitimate owners of the language.

‘English is the most dominant language on the planet and though it is spoken widely in the western world, westerners are in the minority of English language speakers.

‘For many around the world, the ability to speak English has become as important as knowing how to use a computer. ‘But the myth of the idealised native speaker needs to be abandoned. ‘How it is spoken by others should not be seen as second best.’

Dr Saraceni, of the School of Languages and Area Studies, said it was time English language teachers abroad took down posters of double-decker buses and Parliament Square from their classrooms and taught English in a purely local context.

He said: ‘Critics might feel uncomfortable with what they see as a laissez-faire attitude but language use is not about getting closer to the ‘home’ of English, and it is not about bowing deferentially and self-consciously to the so-called superiority of the inner circle of the UK, US, Australia and New Zealand.

According to Dr Saraceni, the widely-held view that English has spread around the world from its original birthplace in England can be challenged.

He said: ‘The idea seems natural and unquestionable, but if you examine it closer it is patently untrue. ‘It is impossible to identify any point in history or geography where the English language started – one can talk only of phases of development.

‘The origins of English are not to be found in the idea of it spreading from the centre to the periphery, but in multiple, simultaneous origins. ‘The concept of a single version of any language is always questionable.’

Dr Saraceni said that English had been ‘reincarnated’ throughout the world, including in Malaysia, India, China and Nigeria, and therefore England should not be seen as the linguistic ‘garden of Eden’ where the language was pure and perfect.

The de-Anglicisation of English needs to take place primarily in classrooms and the ‘whole mystique of the native speaker and mother tongue should be quietly dropped from the linguist’s set of myths about the language’, he said.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Email This

Posted by JonJayRay at 10:00 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Uncategorized

Trackback URL:

Ricin “terror plot”: Four in Ga. accused of planning “militia” attacks

This will give Leftists a horn but will probably go the way of the Hutaree Militia case: A government setup. The Hutaree case is so poor that the Feds keep postponing a trial — hoping for a plea bargain, no doubt

Four men in Georgia intended to use an online novel as a script for a real-life wave of terror and assassination using explosives and the lethal toxin ricin, according to court documents.

Federal agents raided their north Georgia homes Tuesday and arrested them on charges of conspiring to plan the attacks.

Frederick Thomas, 73; Dan Roberts, 67; Ray Adams, 65; and Samuel Crump, 68, are scheduled to appear in court Wednesday. Relatives of two of the men said the charges were baseless.

Court documents accused the men of trying to obtain an explosive device and a silencer to carry out targeted attacks on government buildings and employees. Two of the men are also accused of trying to seek out a formula to produce ricin, a biological toxin that can be lethal in small doses.

Thomas’ wife, Charlotte, told The Associated Press that the charges were “baloney.” “He spent 30 years in the U.S. Navy. He would not do anything against his country,” she said. “He loves his country.”

Thomas, who is portrayed as the ringleader, talked of modeling the actions on the online novel “Absolved,” which involves small groups of citizens attacking U.S. officials, according to court documents. It was written by former Alabama militia leader Mike Vanderboegh, who wrote on his blog Wednesday that his book was fiction and said he was skeptical a “pretty geriatric” militia could carry out the attacks the men were accused of planning.

Adams also arranged to buy what they thought was an explosive device and a silencer from an undercover agent. The men were arrested days after a lab test confirmed they had trace amounts of ricin in their possession, authorities said.

“While many are focused on the threat posed by international violent extremists, this case demonstrates that we must also remain vigilant in protecting our country from citizens within our own borders who threaten our safety and security,” said U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates.

Federal investigators have monitored the group since at least March 17, when a confidential source recorded a meeting of the fringe group at Thomas’ two-story house in Cleveland, a small town in the mountains of north Georgia. Thomas boasted of making a “bucket list” of government employees, politicians, businessman and media members that he felt needed to be “taken out.”

It’s not clear from the court documents exactly how the men obtained the trace amounts of ricin. [planted by the Feds?]

Thomas’ wife said her husband was a Navy veteran, while Roberts’ wife Margaret said her husband retired from the sign business and lives on pensions. She said FBI agents showed up Tuesday with a search warrant and went through her home, handcuffing her and taking a computer and other items.

“He’s never been in trouble with the law. He’s not anti-government,” she said. “He would never hurt anybody.”

More HERE

Email This

Posted by JonJayRay at 9:57 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Uncategorized

Trackback URL:

UN: “If You Don’t Believe In Tackling Climate Change (Hoax), You’re Immoral And Hate Those In Poverty”

Yet another breathless report from the United Nations (which is going to be holding it’s latest conference in the lovely vacation spot of Durban, S.A., at the end of the month, of which Anthony Watts writes “I’m not sure what it celebrates, perhaps they are celebrating being given prepaid tickets and receiving a salary plus a per diem to fly halfway round the world to a lovely remote spot to listen to people talk about wasting fossil fuel.”), and discussed in the NY Times, which kills lots of trees to distribute a print paper, and uses lots of electricity to publish it, including on the Internet. Apparently, Climate Change Imperils Global Prosperity, UN Warms

A new report from the United Nations Development Program warns that if drastic measures are not taken to prepare nations for the impacts of climate change, the economic progress of the world’s developing countries could stall or even be reversed by 2050.

Who knew there was actually some economic progress in all the ~~3rd world shitholes~~ developing countries? I thought they were just given lots of money by the producer countries, which the dictators and military juntas used on themselves.

This year’s annual report, approaches the issue of climate change and environmental degradation from the standpoint of economic development and the eradication of poverty,. “Even if someone’s a climate skeptic, this report says, ‘Put that aside for a second,’ ” said William Orme, a spokesman for the United Nations agency. “If you believe in something like a moral commitment to the global community and in getting people out of poverty, we must address these environmental problems.”

Go that? If you don’t set aside your climate reality beliefs, you’re immoral and a big meanie. Hey, you know what causes serious environmental “degradation”? Glaciers marching down from the poles. Of course, what the UN calls “degradation” is simply what has been going on over the past 4.5 billion years. Every once in a while, I wonder if the Alarmists will right a book which claims the climate started in 1900. They turn into Flat Earthers when it comes to a changing climate. Which has actually be stagnant over the past 13-15 years.

Now, when it comes to real pollution, I’m with them. Real air and water pollution, poor sanitation standards (hey, does that make Zuccotti Park a 3rd world shithole?), deforestation, and, yes, sulfur dioxide from coal fired energy plants, among others, are real problems. Of course, many in the developing countries (which never develop anything but brutal militaries, seemingly) would probably trade a bit of environmental damage for stable and readily available “dirty” power.

The problem is that the report, like so much of the Alarmist rhetoric, folds real environmental concerns under the banner of anthropogenic global warming, natch “climate change.” I’ve said before, this is one of my biggest pet peeves with the Alarmist movement (along with the alarmists failing to practice what they preach, and wanting Everyone Else to pony up money). There are real environmental problems, and we should address them on their own. I’ve preached this before, so I shan’t bore you again.

Next June, a United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development will convene in Rio de Janeiro to explore ways of averting future environmental devastation and fixing the messes that exist now.

Must be nice taking fossil fueled flights to yet another beautiful vacation spot in order to rail against people using fossil fuels.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 9:01 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under AGW hyposterics, Collapsing Science, Global Warming, IPCC, News, UN

Trackback URL:

Oakland’s Liberal Mayor Sends In Police Against Liberal Occupiers

I’m not sure what Oakland mayor Jean Quan was thinking. The protesters were completely peaceful

(MSNBC) Police in riot gear clashed with protesters in Oakland in the early morning hours on Thursday, firing tear gas to disperse demonstrators lingering in the streets after a day of mostly peaceful rallies against economic inequality and police brutality.

The clash and standoff came only hours after protesters shut down the Port of Oakland late Wednesday.

The confrontation, which erupted after midnight, appeared aimed at preventing the protesters from expanding their foothold in the streets around a public plaza that has become a hub for demonstrations in the northern California city.

More than 200 officers, some of them ferried in aboard buses, lined up shoulder to shoulder and donned gas masks, then declared the crowd to be an unlawful assembly and fired volleys of tear gas as protesters turned and ran.

Heck, all they were doing was gathering peaceably…..except for that shutting down the Port of Oakland thing. Was there any reason for such a heavy handed response? Well, the accompanying photo at MSNBC should give you a clue, with an Occupier standing on something that looks turned over waving a flag in front of a bonfire in the street.

The nearly 5-hour protest at the port, the nation’s fifth-busiest shipping port, was intended to highlight a daylong “general strike” in the city, which prompted solidarity rallies in New York, Los Angeles and other cities across the nation. Some had marched from the city’s downtown, while others had been bused to the port.

There’s that commie word “solidarity” again. But, consider, they shut down a port where mostly blue collar workers were just attempting to put in a days work and earn some money to take care of themselves and their families. The Occupiers made that rather difficult.

The crowd disrupted port operations by overwhelming the area with people and blocking exits with chain-link fencing and illegally parked vehicles. The demonstrators also erected fences to block main streets to the port. No trucks were allowed into or out of the area.

Doesn’t sound particularly peaceable to me. And by not allowing trucks out, the Occutards were harming people with small businesses, who needed those products. And harming the truck drivers, who do not get paid if they aren’t delivering. So much for caring about the “99%.”

Prior to marching on the port, protesters had blocked the downtown intersection of 14th street and Broadway, where the a former Marine turned peace activist Scott Olsen was wounded on the night of October 25.

These are your folks, Obama and Pelosi: do you still stand by them? Will you call for them to keep it peaceful and stop violating the law?

As protesters left the area on foot some stopped to burn money, others bickered, and one burned an American flag.

Zachary RunningWolf, a well-known Bay Area activist, said he burned the flag “to start an educated discussion among us.”

Well, he got a discussion, one which the Oakland PD won. What better way to get people on to your side than by burning the flag of your country?

What’s missing from the article is the actual damage caused by the Occupiers. Michelle Malkin has many pictures and descriptions of the violence and destruction from the Democrat voting Occupiers, including

A big mob dressed in black is roaming around the streets. They’ve sprayed graffiti on the walls of businesses.

Wells Fargo windows have also been reportedly smashed.

Chase Bank vandalized.

Still supporting this movement, liberals? Another question is, will this be the catalyst for the nationwide violence and destruction we have all be expecting?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:22 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Democrats, Liberal World, News

Trackback URL:

November 2, 2011

Obama’s Regulations So Far Cost Us $84.8 Billion And Climbing Weekly

-By Warner Todd Huston

There is a lot of talk about the high cost of regulations (in fact, a lot of talk from me about them). But how do you put a number on that cost? Well Sam Batkins of the American Action Forum has been keeping a running tab not only on the high cost of the regulations themselves but also the man hours it takes Americans to implement them and the cost is staggering.

Every Friday Batkins reviews that week’s new regulatory onslaught, makes his calculations and thus far Obama’s regulatory juggernaut is costing Americans $84.8 billion bucks. But that isn’t the last of what it will cost Americans. In order to implement these regulations, to make sure business and individuals are following the rules, it will cost Americans 88.2 million annual man hours to do the paperwork, file the reports, and follow the Internet-based reporting procedures in order to satisfy the rules.

Imagine this burden of worker’s time wasted just to make sure we follow regulations! It is obscene.

This cost is not a gradually increasing number either. It is one spinning wildly higher almost every week. For instance, just between October 21 and the 28th the costs of regulation went from $81.3 billion to $84.8 billion. Not an insignificant jump, to be sure.

Dozens of these new regulations weighing down our nation and stifling our economy are coming out every single week.

Here are just a few of Batkins’ entries in the last several weeks:

Oct. 24-28: Administrative agencies proposed 69 rules and implemented 59 final rules.
Oct. 17-21: Administrative agencies proposed 58 rules and implemented 67 final rules.
Oct. 1-14: Administrative agencies proposed 63 rules and implemented 62 final rules.
Oct. 3-6: Administrative agencies proposed 59 rules and implemented 62 final rules.

That is 250 new rules forced on America just in October alone. This is happening each and every month, folks.

Now, imagine you are a company manufacturing something, anything. You are faced with combing through over 250 new regulations every month to see what affects your company and what doesn’t. Then you have to hire people and maintain salaries for people not to take care of your customers, not to make sure your products are well manufactured, not to improve relations between you and your employees, but to file paper work with government bureaucrats. Not to mention the bevy of lawyers you have to hire to safeguard your interests if you make a mistake in implementing those regulations.

No wonder no one wants to start a new business these days.

You’ll also find that these government bureaucrats will not help you implement these new rules, too. Why? Because they are not there to help you. They are there to penalize you if you violate the rules. After all, if they make a mistake it might make them look bad. They’d rather you be the one to look bad. It’s safer for the bureaucrat!

Worse, if you do make even a tiny mistake in filings or in your understanding of what these regulations mean for your company those bureaucrats will gleefully swoop down on you like you are public enemy number one. They will happily shut you down causing all your employees to lose their income and you to lose your customers.

Worse yet, you may have followed the rules to the nth degree but you might find that one government agency disagrees with another in how to follow those rules and you’ll still find yourself cast as an outlaw in the eyes of the government. Even after a monumental effort to satisfy the regulations you can still easily find yourself in Dutch with the government.

Is it any wonder that American businesses are fleeing to other countries?

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 3:22 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Communism, Dept of Labor, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, News, Politics As Usual, Property Rights, Taxes, Union Mafias/Thugs, anti-Liberty/Freedom, government waste, liberalism, public employee unions

Trackback URL:

Let the Children Vote? What Lunacy From Think Progress?

-By Warner Todd Huston

Matt Yglesias of Think Progress apparently feels it’s a good idea for kids to vote in U.S. elections. No, not just 18-year-old kids. All kids regardless of age. It is ideas impossible to take seriously like this that makes one wonder why liberals are ever listened to about anything by anyone.

I have to say, though, that it’s funny that Matt brought up this let-kids-vote idea because I was just talking about repealing the 26th Amendment and making the voting age start at 21 again. Funny we were both thinking about kids voting, eh?

Now, despite their undeserved reputation as peacemongers, liberals love a good fight. At least, they love to cause others to fight, anyway. They love to see the non-religious fight the religious, they love to see the relativists attacking patriots, but most especially they love to see the young hating their elders. They do all this by breaking people into balkanized enclaves where their politics of personal destruction can be most effective. And one of their chief weapons is to attempt to destroy social norms and substitute their own, cockeyed view of how things should be.

Certainly not every social norm is a great idea. But not every idea needs changing simply because there is “another way” to do things. The problem with liberals is that they have an absurd bias toward “new” loving it simply for the fact that it’s new. They begin all discussions with the base assumptions both of their own brilliance and their elder’s stupidity. There is no thought put into their positions but if it seems “new” to them, why, it must be better than that tired “old” idea.

This idea of kids voting is one of those exercises in logic-free thinking.

Here is Yglesias’ post:

…ally Kohn writes about a campaign in Lowell, Massachusetts to let seventeen year-olds vote in local elections. More power to them, but I say let any American citizen vote in any American election he or she wants to.

Objections to this usually take the form of imagining a highly disciplined party of seven year-olds reliably delivering bloc votes to whichever candidate credibly promises endless kindergarten. If you think for five minutes about the practical problems of political organizing, and then for five minutes more about the practical problems of getting kids to do anything I think you’ll see quickly that this is a misguided worry. Realistically, voter turnout in the United States is not particularly high to begin with. Older teens and twentysomethings are already disproportionately unlikely to vote. If we extended the vote to more children, my guess is that relatively few of them would exercise it. But those who did would come from an unusually dedicated and informed sub-set of American teenagers. Meanwhile, if seven year-olds somehow do manage to organize themselves into an effective political lobby, I say more power to them.

I am not sure who Yglesias is talking to that thinks preventing kids from voting would stop a “highly disciplined party of seven year-olds” from hijacking an election, but that isn’t the form that objections to kids voting takes. The objections to kids voting is that they don’t have enough information in their heads — and absolutely cannot have — upon which to make an informed vote.

One of the oldest quotes about what we have here in our U.S. system is ascribed to Ben Franklin who was asked what the founders had given us as he was leaving the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He said it was a republic if we could keep it.

He said this meaning that we can only keep our system working properly if we, the people, keep ourselves informed about current events and then make an informed vote grounded in the principles upon which the founders had based our system. That takes maturity and a certain breadth of knowledge. This is something children are not mentally equipped to have gained. Not only does it take maturity to understand these concepts it takes time to have taken all that information in.

I know this will probably make liberal’s head spin right off their shoulders, but as First Corinthians, 13:11 notes, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.”

Few other quotes are as germane to this issue as that.

Additionally, Yglesias seems to imagine voter turnout should somehow be a deciding factor in why kids should or shouldn’t vote, too. He seems to think that because voter turnout is not all that high, kids voting wouldn’t be a big deal. This is just ridiculous. Should we be designing our system based on low turnout of the very voters that we need to shore up that system? That hardly makes sense.

Further, we should not be allowing an abomination to exist simply because only a few instances of it will take place! That would be like saying we should allow theft because most people don’t do it.

One of the things many of the founders thought about voting was that anyone who is not vested in the system would not cast an informed vote. This is why in the beginning only taxpayers of high station and landowners were given the right to vote. It was thought that if you didn’t have a stake in the system you’d be prone to voting for other’s benefit instead of your own.

In this light, kids are not vested in anything. They don’t have jobs, they pay no taxes, and few votes they’d make would have an impact on them directly. Why should we expect a logical, thought-out vote from someone that has neither the mental capacity nor any direct interest in that vote?

But Yglesias’ biggest mistake is this: “But those [children] who did [bother to vote] would come from an unusually dedicated and informed sub-set of American teenagers.”

What an absurd thing to say. Why does coming out to vote automatically mean said voters are “unusually dedicated and informed”? What if their school just gave them extra credit to go vote and they were instructed how to vote by some left-wing teacher somewhere? How is a fully programmed vote an informed one?

Granted many votes of adults are wholly uninformed. But at least adults have the mental capacity and the years of life in to have learned about and grasped the full importance of their votes whether they bother to apply themselves to that education or not. Kids just don’t have the mental capacity or the time to do this even if they want to.

So I am sorry, Matt, but being “unusually dedicated” to go vote does not mean the voter is necessarily informed well enough about the issues and our system to make a logical, informed vote. Union members are “unusually dedicated” but usually they are only so dedicated because their union bosses told them to or they’ll lose favor with the union and, therefore, lose money or their job. That doesn’t mean the actual votes cast by union members are either informed or good for anyone but greedy union bosses!

The Democrats in the pre-civil war south were “unusually dedicated” to voting in order to keep slavery and the slavocracy in power. We know what a terrible idea that was, right?

Dedication or motivation to go vote does not ipso facto mean said vote is an informed or good vote. Period.

But, see, to Yglesias, because the idea of kids voting is new, why that makes it good and right.

This man’s total lack of logic is simply stunning. His little idea isn’t just an exercise in theorizing. He displays such a lack of critical thinking that he makes of himself a silly person. It seems to confirm that being part of “Think Progress” means that the “thinking” part is optional.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:53 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Child Exploitation, Communist Front groups, Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Liberal World, News, Stupidity, Voter/Election Fraud, liberalism, progressivism

Trackback URL:

House GOP Will Subpoena Illegal Immigration Data From DHS

Solyndra, Fast and Furious, now illegal immigration. The House GOP are busy little bees

(Washington Times) House Republicans are moving to subpoena a list of all immigrants whom the Obama administration has flagged under its secure communities program but failed to arrest for deportation, after the Homeland Security Department missed a congressionally imposed deadline to produce the information this week.

The Obama administration failing to be transparent and provide the requested information? Shocking!

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, said he wants the data so he can see who is among the 300,000 people the administration has deemed too low a priority to detain under new deportation guidelines. He has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday for the immigration subcommittee to vote to authorize the subpoena.

“Why would DHS want to keep this information from the committee?” Mr. Smith will say at the meeting, according to an advance copy of his statement. “If there is nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they provide Congress with these documents? Are administration officials concerned that the requested information will show that illegal and criminal immigrants intentionally released by ICE have gone on to commit more crimes?”

The very fact that an Executive Office department is failing to deport people who are in the United States against the law should, really, be enough to remove those in charge, which, yes, includes Mr. Obama. They are charged with upholding the Constitution and laws of the USA. The oath of office does not give them latitude to pick and choose which laws they will uphold.

While the Homeland Security Department has set records for total deportations, it has shifted its emphasis away from rank-and-file illegal immigrants and toward those with serious criminal records or repeat immigration-law violators. Of the nearly 400,000 people deported in fiscal year 2011, 216,000 had criminal records.

As a result of the shift, though, illegal immigrants who are working or going to school in the U.S. and not running afoul of other criminal laws are under less of a threat of deportation.

You do, in fact, have to give Obama credit for increasing the deportation rates, and, yes, going after the companies that hire them. All very quietly done, so as not to annoy his open borders base. But, illegal is illegal: if Los Federales know where an illegal is, that person should be deported, criminal record or no criminal record. They broke the law.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:07 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Amnesty/Immigration reform, Barack Obama, Border Control/Homeland Security, Congress, Constitution, Crime, DHS, Fast and Furious/ Gunrunner, Fed Immigration Law, GOP, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, House, ICE, Illegal Aliens/Immigration, National Security, News, Republicans, Solyndra, liberalism, transparency/accountability

Trackback URL:

Good News! Occupiers Cause 21 People to Lose Their Jobs

But, remember, the Occutards are in it for the 99% of people who aren’t super duper rich and able to influence people like, oh, say, Barack Obama, into scratching their backs after donating money to campaigns which the candidates, like, say, Barack Obama, solicit

(CBS NY) The Occupy Wall Street movement, which says its goals include improving the economic lot for 99 percent of Americans, may have some explaining to do to some cafe workers now out of a job.

Mark Epstein, owner of the Milk Street Cafe at 40 Wall Street, just let 21 employees go.

The reason? The barricades police have set up throughout Wall Street as a consequence of the ongoing demonstration.

Before the Occupiers started their little “we’re entitled” smelly fest, the business was doing awesome. It was in a great location, with no real competition. Now, because of all the barricades, there isn’t enough traffic to sustain what was a fast growing business. The cafe is also now closing at 3pm instead of 9pm.

“I think this is an issue of both Occupy Wall Street and the city officials. There’s protest and how you react to protest,” Epstein said. “If the barriers do not come down, I do not see how we can survive. This has got to become like America again. You have to be free to walk around.”

“Everybody should understand the consequences of their actions,” he said.

It’s good of Epstein to not blame it all on the Occupiers. Of course, without their unhinged, juvenile protest aimed at the wrong people (it should be aimed at government), there would be no need for the police presence, much of which is to certainly protect the morons from crime. And the public from being annoyed by the Occupiers.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:20 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Law Enforcement, Liberal World, Marxism, Mobocracy, News, Occupy Wall Street, Property Rights, Rent-A-Mob, Socialism, Taxes, class warfare, liberalism, social parasites

Trackback URL:

November 1, 2011

Vanity Fair Compares Herman Cain to ‘Sociopathic’ Movie Character

-By Warner Todd Huston

Juli Weiner of Vanity Fair may have thought she was being “clever” with her Nov. 1 blog post, but instead she looks by turns blindly partisan, foolish, ignorant of facts, childish, and lacking even a tiny bit of knowledge about men’s headwear when she compared Herman Cain to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff as well as the character Daniel Plainview from the movie There Will Be Blood. All because they each wear a hat!

It is the weakest of hooks upon which to hang a hat, but the fact that there are photos of the three folks in question wearing a hat seems to be enough for Weiner to go off half cocked somehow imagining they all have something in common.

Here is her prosaic post in its less than worthy entirety:

The critically reviled performance artist known as Herman Cain has recently been photographed wearing a funereal, wide-brimmed black hat in the wake of his sexual harassment-scandal. Jack Abramoff, a corrupt lobbyist and federal-criminal pal of former Republican House majority leader Tom DeLay, wore a similar hat for a 2006 court date. Sociopathic There Will Be Blood protagonist Daniel Plainview prefers a slightly more fashionable, Mountie-esque version.

These three men have more than just a hat stolen from a Lego man in common: Abramoff is the founder of several overpriced Washington, D.C., restaurants; Cain is the former C.E.O. of the execrable pizza chain Godfather’s; and Plainview’s well-known milkshake catchphrase remains popular on T-shirts to this day.

You have to read something by Paul Krugman to get so much that isn’t so jammed in but two tiny paragraphs!

Firstly, Cain is not “reviled.” In fact he’s leading in the polls all across the country right now.

Secondly, Cain has been wearing that same hat for almost a decade. There are photos of him wearing that hat years ago at Tea Party events all across the country so it is nothing “recent” at all.

Thirdly — to show her lack of knowledge about haberdashery — Cain’s hat is simply a cowboy hat and has nothing to do with a funeral. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of cowboy hats being associated with funerals!

Fourth, the hat that Jack Abramoff wore was a proper fedora, not a cowboy hat so Jack’s isn’t “similar” to Cain’s.

Fifth, the Plainview hat in the movie is nothing at all like either Abramoff’s or Cain’s. But his photo was only picked so this hack could include a “sociopath” in with Abramoff and Cain in order to link them both to a murderer.

Lastly, if her second paragraph was meant as humor, her idiotic food link so tenuously applied to the three was empty of mirth.

Sadly, the only reason for this was to smear Herman Cain with a substance free link to a sociopathic killer — and a fictional one I might add. It was also just an excuse to call names. In these few words she called Cain a sexual harasser with no proof of same, called his work “execrable,” called him “reviled,” linked him to both a sociopath and a convicted criminal, and liked him to funerals!

All because he wore a hat!

This Weiner should be ashamed of herself for this stupidity. And wasn’t Vanity Fair supposed to be “intellectual” fare? Certainly Vanity Fair should also find shame in such empty name-calling.

(Screen shot of the Weiner piece in case Vanity Fair removes it can be seen HERE)

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 4:14 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Bald-face lies, Elections, Fraud/misrepresentation, Herman Cain, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Polls, Stupidity, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Atheists Lie And Do So On a Billboard!

-By Warner Todd Huston

Talk about making a mistake everyone can see! Atheists in California have done a disservice to their own crusade to spread atheism by launching a new billboard campaign that ascribes a false quote to Thomas Jefferson. That’s right, they’ve essentially become liars for atheism.

In Costa Mesa, California a group of atheists calling themselves Backyard Skeptics have unveiled a billboard to sell atheism to the general public that features a quote they claim came from Thomas Jefferson, the Third President of the United States.

“I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature,” the billboard “quotes” the president as having said. “It is founded on fables and mythology,” this quote concludes.

That would be a stinging rebuke of Christianity, indeed… were it true. Unfortunately for this little atheist group it seems that their quote is a fake quote the group found on the Internet and assumed was real.

The atheist group thought the quote came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a “Dr. Woods.” But there is one little problem. Jefferson scholars cannot find such a letter. The Jefferson Library confirms that no such letter exists. The library also notes that no such phrase or any combination thereof exists in any of Jefferson’s extensive collection of papers.

The atheist group, seems to shrug off their embarrassing mistake, though, telling reporters that they will look into it later. Worse, they told the Orange Register that even if the quote was fake it really represented Jefferson’s views anyway. Where have we heard “fake but accurate” before?

As the Jefferson library notes, it’s a bit hard to believe that Jefferson saw no “redeeming features” in Christianity since he spent months cutting and pasting and rearranging the Christian Bible to his own liking! If there was nothing worth the effort in there he had a funny way of showing it.

But talk about true believers, these atheists. They’ll let neither logic nor the word of all the scholars in the world that Jefferson never uttered their favorite quote deter them that he somehow despised Christianity anyway!

Sadly, Jon Cassidy, writer for the Orange Register, was also bamboozled by another atheist lie about Jefferson in his piece. He furthered the lie that Jefferson “was a Deist.”

Jefferson was a Deist, who believed in a hands-off creator, not a Christian, but he adored the humanistic aspects of Jesus’ teachings, according to the library. A library report cites his letter to William Short of Oct. 31, 1819, in which he called the teachings of Jesus the “outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.”

This Jefferson-the-Deist business is has been a lie told by atheists for at least a generation. In fact, it is a calumny visited on most of our founders. It is also not true.

Never in his life did Jefferson call himself a Deist. He called himself a Unitarian (what we might call a Unitarian Universalist today). He did not call himself a Deist. Why should we call him something he never called himself?

Additionally, while many modern atheists and half-informed hobbyists in things historical imagine that all or even many of the founders were “Deists,” the truth is that almost none of them were — at least not by their own admission. Washington wasn’t. Hamilton wasn’t. John Adams sure wasn’t. Neither was Madison or Monroe.

It is absolutely true that a large portion of our most famous founders had a great amount of disdain for organized religion and/or the priesthood. After all, students of history that they were, the founders knew that religious orders and churches were involved in some of the worst massacres in human history. Not only that but such monstrous actions were within recent memory of the founder’s era. It’s only natural that they were suspicious of organized religion.

But we simply cannot pretend that this country was not founded by thousands of extremely devoted Christians. Even if a few of our most well known founders were somehow secret Deists, not many of their peers and co-founders nor their supporters back in their home states were anything but sincere believers.

After all, religion was one of the first things that our founders strived to protect! Remember that whole “freedom of religion” thing?

Perhaps two leading founders at one time claimed themselves Deism for themselves, but that is all I’ve ever run across.

When he was a young man Ben Franklin once wrote that he was a Deist. But he was hardly a “regular” Deist — if there is such a thing. When he was young, Franklin thought perhaps every universe had its own god but that perhaps they did not involve themselves too much in their own little realms. Not very orthodox Deism, that.

The other was Governor K. Morris, the man responsible for helping write the Constitution of the United States. According to a book on Morris written by Richard Brookheiser, Morris claimed Deism for himself.

The problem is that many historians ascribe Deism to our founders (even Morris was publicly an Episcopalian) based on those historian’s interpretations of the founder’s views. These claims based on historian’s feelings then get passed down from one generation to the next as “fact” even though it is not based in fact. Certainly it may be true that our founders harbored Deist ideas and it may be true that they feared a political backlash in a nation filled with Christians for saying so out loud, but if they didn’t call themselves Deists, how can we? The fact is, even in their private papers almost none of them accepted Deism as their own.

In all the years of reading on the founders I’ve done I’ve never seen any other founders calling themselves Deists. If someone out there has proof otherwise I’d love to hear it. But please don’t send me to a website. Remember what Abe Lincoln said: “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” In fact, don’t even take my word for all this. Look it up yourself. If you can find words written by a founder claiming Deism for themselves, please let me see it.

But let’s not take the revisionism by decades of historians with an agenda as “fact.”

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 3:50 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Bald-face lies, Bigotry, Christianity, Church And State, Founding Fathers, Fraud/misrepresentation, History, News, Propaganda, Revisionism, Secular Humanism, religion

Trackback URL:

Illinois Government’s War Against Religious Child Services Continues

-By Warner Todd Huston

BERJAYA Earlier this year the State of Illinois moved to force religious-based children’s services to break their religious principles and give children in their charge to homosexual couples. Organizations such as Catholic Charities have been told by the state that they either break their religious principles or face being shut down by the state. So, pursuant to that agenda, the state has determined that all children currently in the hands of religious adoption agencies need to be removed immediately.

Representing Catholic Charities of three Illinois Roman Catholic Dioceses, the Thomas Moore Society filed an emergency motion to prevent the state from removing all the children in its care. Unfortunately, an Illinois appellate court refused to overturn the trial court’s decision to remove the children during the appeal process in which lawyers are now engaged. (Filings here and here.)

Still, other motions made in the emergency motion were granted. Thomas Moore informs that the matter “is now on an expedited schedule for briefing in the Appellate Court.” The fate of the children remains unknown at this point.

So what was so bad that the State of Illinois felt it necessary to take all children away from religious-based organizations? Have there been cases of abuse? Perhaps children’s services from religious-based groups have been rated lowly? Have adopting parents complained?

None of the above. In fact, there is no substantive reason at all for this attack on religious-based children’s services in the Land of Lincoln. Well, no reason except for a left-wing, pro-homosexual political agenda, that is.

You see, the state received precisely one complaint about Catholic Charities. It was from an activist homosexual who complained that the religious-based adoption agencies in the state would not willingly give children up to homosexual couples.

If there has been before such draconian actions taken by government based on a single, hazy, non-substantive complaint — one that did not entail any abuse of children — I’ve never heard tell of it. But here we have such a case. The complaint of one activist pushing the homosexual agenda was enough for the state to decide to force all religious children’s services to either break religious principles and give children to homosexual couples, or face being shut down by the iron fist of the state.

This overt attack on religious-based children’s services hits with interesting timing, too. This month the Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Services gave Catholic Charities its highest rating for children’s services. Catholic Charities received a Level 1 compliance score and was ranked as one of the best foster care providers in the state.

So on one hand, one state agency says that the services Catholic Charities provided to the State’s most vulnerable children is top notch, yet on the other hand another state agency (the Attorney General’s office) says that Catholic Charities is so bad it must be shut down.

It just goes to show that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (a Chicago Democrat) has a political agenda and doesn’t really care what’s good for the homeless children of Illinois.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 3:30 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Activist Judges, Authoritarianism, Bigotry, Child Exploitation, Christian/religious persecution, Corrupting morals of minors, Democrats, Gov.Censorship, Government corruption, Government hostility towards religion, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, HHS, Homosexual Agenda, Homosexual Fascism, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Judicial Tyranny, Moral Relativism, Nanny State, News, Parenting, Political Correctness, Political prostitution, Political terrorism, Secular Humanism, Social Engineering, State Government, Where's the ACLU, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, paternalism

Trackback URL:

Obama’s “Snitch” Policy Threat to US

By Sharon Sebastian — www.DarwinsRacists.com

Before Barack Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect Americans from enemies foreign and domestic, early warnings were pinging about like signals off a cell tower. Predictions: 1.) The economy would nosedive and 2.) America would have a renewed military presence in Africa before the end of Obama’s first term. What was not foreseen was the Obama administration’s fixation on “snitching.” They are for it. Obama brazenly initiated his report-on-your-neighbor, big brother initiative via a White House run “snitch website” called “flag.”

Detecting the distinctively foul objective of creating an Obama enemies list, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) took to the Senate floor to accuse Obama of attempting to shut down political opposition. Cornyn also sent Obama a letter demanding to know the intent of the White House’s snitch site where Obamatrons could routinely rat-out their neighbors who disagreed with Obama’s policies. Main targets were those in opposition to Obamacare, the socialist medical overhaul that will wreck the American economy for decades if implemented. In the face of fascist-laden, unspoken threats of reprisal, red-blooded patriots from across the nation emailed the snitch site and turned themselves in as overt acts of defiance.

Yet, Obama tried it again. With sliding ratings and talk from neighborhoods to water coolers about his failed policies and socialist agendas eroding his base, “snitching” was resurrected. Snitches are now directed to “Attack Watch.” The Obama campaign essentially put Americans on notice: Written criticism or verbally attacking Obama under your 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech is an affront to the regime and could get you reported. Again, patriots across the land mocked the site by reporting “themselves” in further defiance of the site’s intended intimidation and implied retribution.

Attempts to snuff out political dissent have a long history. Obama’s propensity for it puts him in an unsavory club of notorious politicians turned tyrants who cast fear into their opposition and ran their nation by edict or currently, in Obama’s case, by executive order. Politician-turned-tyrant occurs when the people allow the usurpation of power to go unchecked. Obama’s radical abuse of the U.S. Constitution and overriding of the legislative authority of Congress would have our founding fathers boldly decrying a tyranny in the making. Snitching coupled with President Obama wanting his own militia, as well-funded and as powerful as the U.S. military, must give all Americans pause. Weakening America’s military is a standing Socialist goal. The coup d’état is that the Obama militia and U.S. military would report to the same Commander-in-Chief. Prediction #3: Action to establish a presidential/civilian militia will be fast-tracked — should Obama and a majority of his Progressive Democrat Party be reelected in 2012.

In tandem with #3, is Prediction #4 for 2012. Informed minds know that John Kennedy entered the Vietnam War with advisors, a pattern Obama now repeats in Africa. The U.S. military can be weakened or bled-out of funding and personnel in areas of the world such as Africa, where no security threat to the U.S. currently exists. If reelected, Obama’s expansion into Africa is imminent. Having American troops in the region makes Africa a magnet for America’s enemies.

Political leaders turned tyrants, that are armed with civilian militias and legions of snitches used to subdue dissent from the people, fill the history books with names like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others who began as benign Socialist or Marxist politicians. It is history that exposes or demands comparisons with Obama’s policies. Those tyrants started with civilian militias loyal to them and not the citizenry. Snitching or informing was first encouraged and then government mandated. For some, snitching on their neighbor meant survival for themselves and their families — for a while. In the book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, pages 54-56, there is a telling account by Russian Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the brutal results of “snitching” that denied the Soviet citizenry’s’ right to criticize its government.

Prediction #5: The mainstream media will continue to ignore such threats until they realize that their rights to freedom of the press have also been overrun by government edict. Historically, it is the fate of all journalists in Socialist countries worldwide. Snitching is an equal opportunity offender. Though the Black community faces ostracizing by other Blacks if they speak negatively about the destructive policies of the first Black President, many have rejected what they call un-American activities and an assault on freedom and have also turned themselves in to “Attack Watch” in defiance and defense of their Constitutional freedoms.

A government that asks its citizens to snitch on one another cannot itself be trusted. Snitching is about controlling the opposition and eventually the entire populace. The end result is that a penalty is levied whether through suppression of speech or oppression of a people. It is divisive and ultimately dangerous, especially in the hands of leaders with delusions of grandeur or narcissistic personality disorders. Snitching is the worm that decays and weakens a society in preparation for the rot of Socialism and tyranny. Why is it again, that Obama wants Americans to snitch?

Email This

Posted by Sharon at 3:11 pm | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-free speech, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Bill Of Rights, Communism, Communist Front groups, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Despotism, Domestic Enemies, Economy, Elections, Fascism, Gov.Censorship, Government corruption, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Healthcare, History, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic Prostitution, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, MSM Deathwatch, Marxism, National Security, News, Obamacare, Sedition, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Treason, U.S. Constitution, anti-Liberty/Freedom, class warfare, government media, government waste, liberalism, military, paternalism, transparency/accountability

Trackback URL:

Alter: Obama is ‘Honest’ and ‘Free of Scandal’

-By Warner Todd Huston

When does a columnist write something so utterly absurd that his credibility is forever damaged? I am not sure how to answer that in general terms, but I think at least one journalist answered the question for his own, now thoroughly destroyed veracity. Jonathan Alter of Bloomberg has written one of the most ridiculous, least reality-based assessments yet of the short White House tenure of Barack Obama.

Alter put on his strongest rose-colored glasses and penned an uproarious piece headlined, “The Obama Miracle, a White House Free of Scandal.”

In his Bloomberg piece Alter claimed that Obama is “honest” and falsely asserted that his White House has been “free of scandal.” In fact, some of the incidents that Alter himself notes, and immediately dismisses, carry at least a whiff of scandal — if not untruthfulness.

Naturally, Alter ignores far more than he reports on Obama scandals but he also misses the biggest reason why Obama seems to him to have a scandal free presidency. The Media refuses to call anything Obama does a scandal!

After all, if you have a guy that wantonly lies, that double deals, that hides facts, that also allows subordinates to lie and that fellow is allowed to just get away with it without repercussion from journalists, I guess that makes for a “scandal free” guy, eh?

Alter’s first attempt to give succor to Obama’s failing presidency comes with a baseless swipe at “the whole” Republican Party.

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

This is a false premise. It assumes that “the whole” Republican Party is using birtherism to “tarnish the president’s character.” This is a flat out untruth. Only a small portion of the center right polity in America has any interest in Obama’s birth certificate. Alter’s attempt to make the whole of the GOP into birthers is simply baseless.

Next, Alter dismisses the Solyndra scandal as meaningless. I guess if you don’t think it’s a touch scandalous when you have millions upon millions of tax dollars going into the pockets of buddies who turn around and go bankrupt almost immediately, well, what can you say to that?

Next Alter dismisses both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s tax evasion and Obama’s firing of Ag. Dept. official Shirley Sherrod without knowing what she really did. Then Alter makes the silly claim that Obama’s stimulus spending was free of any waste or abuse — the latter claim is laughable on its face. Have you ever heard of a government spending program that had no waste at all?

Just this week, for instance, it was discovered that so-called stimulus money went to fund federal healthy eating advertisements instead of actually going to stimulate the economy as Obama claimed it was for.

Is that not waste or fraud?

Alter then admits that we might be missing some scandals because of failure of the Old Media to uncover them. While Alter does seem to acknowledge that the Old Media might be ignoring real scandals — ones he is unaware of — he absurdly ascribes that failure to newsroom budget cuts and the demise of the Office of Independent Counsel (a ready source of scandal for lazy reporters past). He doesn’t even bother wondering if it might be reporter’s ideology that prevents the reportage of Obama scandals.

Like the biased left-winger he is, he also blames Fox News for apparently inventing partisan political commentary. I guess he’s never seen ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, or MSNBC, for that matter.

There ends Alter’s “analysis.” We are left wondering why Alter didn’t mention the fact that Obama’s close personal friend and Attorney General Eric Holder is stonewalling Congress over Obama’s arming of Mexican narco-terrorists with his Operation Fast and Furious, a program that has so far killed at least two American officials and hundreds of Mexicans. As long as we are on Eric Holder, why doesn’t Alter think it is a scandal that Obama decided not to prosecute the criminals of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation when they stood in front of polling places in 2008 brandishing weapons at white voters?

One also wonders how Obama can be considered “honest” when he said if you like your doctor, you could keep him when his plan clearly means to eliminate everyone’s private insurance policies? How can Obama still be “honest” when he said he wanted to end private insurance, then claimed he never said it? Why is Obama not dishonest for pretending he wants to make energy costs affordable when he fully intended to make the cost of electricity “necessarily skyrocket“?

We are also left wondering why Alter missed Obama’s recent lie that he’s fulfilled “60% of his campaign promises,” when even a left-wing newspaper says it’s closer to 39%. Then there is his lie that he wouldn’t hire lobbyists for his administration when he’s hired dozens of them.

But I guess it’s hard for Alter to hear of scandals when he is standing there with his fingers in his ears screaming “la, la, la, la” at the top of his lungs. But his fawning, slavish devotion to Obama the “honest” President “free of scandal” is not much different than the fawning from the rest of his Old Media comrades.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:48 pm | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Bald-face lies, Barack Obama, Congress, DoJ, Energy, Fox News, Fraud/misrepresentation, GOP, Government corruption, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic Prostitution, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Obamacare, Propaganda, Republicans, Stupidity, Taxes, Voter/Election Fraud, corporatism, economic stimulus, government media, government waste, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Occupiers “Flocking” to STD Testing Clinics

Hey, just like after TEA Party rallies!

(NY Post) It’s the Autumn of Love!

Occupy Wall Street protesters are flocking to nearby health clinics for STD and HIV testing after getting their freak on in ’60s-style hookups with crusty strangers, sources told The Post yesterday.

“Last week was free love,” said a medical professional at a clinic located a short walk from Zuccotti Park, referring to the number of people who organizers have referred for sexually transmitted disease testing.

A volunteer at the park admitted concern among protesters about STDs.

“We give directions to clinics if people ask for information regarding STDs,” said the volunteer, who identified himself only as “Captain” and added that pregnancy tests are also a hot item.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with consenting adults getting their groove on. One does have to wonder why so many of these Lefties have the need to get tested, though. I guess they forgot to pay attention in all the sex ed. classes they force on children.

However, the Occupiers better not call out the people who gave them the diseases, because it might hurt their feelings (Via Jammie Wearing Fool)

Protesters in Zuccotti Park may be free spirits, but they’ve decided they need some rules all the same.

And if you dare break them – you’re out. (snip)

The list includes rules against stealing, sexual harassment and hurting others – including their feelings. The group also put a ban on fuel, weapons or drugs in the park.

Yeah, good luck with that. Funny how the Occupiers are creating an over-bearing government-like institution in Zuccotti Park, in control of the lives of everyone there. Reminds me of…..fascism.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:24 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Communist Front groups, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Fascism, Liberal World, Mobocracy, News, Occupy Wall Street, Rent-A-Mob, Socialism, Stupidity, liberalism, social parasites

Trackback URL:

I Declare Politico’s Attack on Herman Cain Racist

Obviously, the big news Sunday night through Monday was the very old sexual harassment charges against Herman Cain while I was away visiting with the parents. It’s sent the media, including some on the right, into a frenzy, even going so far as saying Cain’s campaign is over. It all begs the question: who leaked it? Some say it came from a GOP contender, others from a Democrat group. Perhaps it was simply The Politico, who launched the exclusive, digging into Cain’s past, something that was barely done regarding Obama’s past. Consider what we know of Obama: he was born in Hawaii, moved overseas, went to some colleges, and was a community organizer. No details on his school records, nothing published by him at the Harvard Review, and virtually no one remembers him at school.

Anyhow, the Politico continues its attack today, and I declare it complete racism. Pretty sad that The Politico is hitting a Black man with the charges

Herman Cain’s presidential campaign enters Tuesday facing a full-blown political crisis, now that the Republican White House hopeful has struggled for more than 24 hours to respond to allegations of sexual harassment dating to his time as president of the National Restaurant Association.

Since POLITICO published a story Sunday night revealing that the NRA had reached financial settlements with two women who accused Cain of inappropriate behavior, Cain and his spokesmen have offered a shifting and inconclusive series of responses.

Remember the good old days when a person was considered innocent till proven guilty? But, this is presidential politics, and any smear will be thrown out there. Hey, remember back a while ago when “it was just sex” was the phrase of the day? If only The Politico (and other news outlets) would spend as much time investigating the Obama administration on such things such as Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and others. Someone should remind them that the reason they were provided with a specific exclusion in the Bill Of Rights was so that they could publish the doings of Government without fear of reprisal.

The result is that a story that would have been damaging to Cain under any circumstances now threatens to derail his campaign permanently as the former trade association chief’s honesty comes into question.

Except, Cain gave excellent answers to Greta Van Susteren, and has vehemently denied the allegation. What concerns me is the squishiness of some Republicans, who will attempt to do what they always seem to do when an issue like this comes out: declare the candidate dead, and try and force them out before the details are all out. The best example was Larry Craig: the minute the information came out, there was a call for Craig to resign, before the details were fully present. And it was a simple misdemeanor regarding….sex, if the allegations were true. Democrats would never throw someone overboard at the drop of a hat. You have tax cheats like Charlie Rangel and Timothy Geithner still around and in position. They re-elected William “Cold Cash” Jefferson even though he was pretty much busted.

Will Cain suffer for this? Perhaps a tiny bit. But Conservatives should finally stick together, and realize that many sexual harassment suits are settled quickly before trial to make them go away, even when there is not harassment. I predict this will make Cain even more popular, as people look at this hatchet job using completely anonymous sources as a way to take down Herman Cain, a strong Conservative Black man, and the Left just can’t allow that.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.