Occupy Wall Street Is A Menace,Prepare For Violence

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown,FloydReports.com

Prepare for violence. We remember this crowd.

The year was 1999 and the anarchists descended on Seattle to stop a meeting of the
World Trade Organization (WTO). We lived there at the time.

Floyd was working as a host at Hot Talk 570 KVI,located in downtown near the
“peaceful protests”of the meeting of WTO ministers. Seattle was excited because
it was an opportunity to show the new high tech Seattle of the 1990′s that
replaced the industrial Seattle of the 1970′s. The City was on the world’s
stage.

Early pictures of the protests reminded us of what you see currently camped
in Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park. And as in the fall of 1999,the media is there to
catalogue the strange beliefs of those involved.

The Seattle protests were called a peaceful group of human rights
leaders,students,environmental groups,religious leaders,labor rights
activists’etc.,wanting fairer trade with less exploitation. Sounds like the
group down on Wall Street.

Liberal political leaders of the late 90′s were giving encouragement to the
protesters in a fashion similar to the current leaders Nancy Pelosi,Al Gore,and
Barack Obama are carrying water for the current park-based protesters.

But there is a darker side to these crowds as there was to the Seattle crowds
in 1999,and that is why we are predicting violence to break out soon if it hasn’t when
you read this….

Read
more
.

I do not like this Uncle Sam,

I do not like this Uncle Sam,

I do not like his health care scam.

I do not like these dirty crooks,or how they lie and cook the books.

I do not like when Congress steals,

I do not like their secret deals.

I do not like this speaker Nan ,

I do not like this ‘YES, WE CAN’.
I do not like this spending spree—

I’m smart, I know that nothing’s free.

I do not like your smug replies,

when I complain about your lies.

I do not like this change and hope.

I do not like it. nope, nope, nope!

Go green – recycle Congress in 2012!

Green Pigs Don’t Fly

Green Pigs Don’t Fly

By Jeffrey
Folks

Reportedly, Obama’s jobs speech will focus on
infrastructure spending, and much of that spending will undoubtedly be tied to
the creation of “green jobs.”  The problem is, what he has already spent has not
created jobs.  According to the Heritage Foundation, it may well have
cost
jobs
.  It has, however, enriched some of his wealthiest political
contributors.  And that seems to be the real motive behind the president’s
infrastructure spending.  Not green jobs, but green pork.

That appears to be the case with Obama’s $535-million
loan guarantees to Solyndra Inc.  During a 2010 visit to Solyndra’s plant in
Fremont, California, Obama insisted that the solar panel company would create
“one thousand long-term jobs.”  Solyndra has since declared bankruptcy, and it
seems unlikely that the taxpayer will recover any of the $535 million in
loans.

The half-billion that Obama threw away on Solyndra is
only a small part of $60 billion earmarked for alternative energy in Obama’s
2009 stimulus bill, and that $60 billion is only a fraction of the $100 billion
that Energy Secretary Stephen Chu envisions “investing” in alternative energy.
Solyndra is not the only green jobs company to receive stimulus funding —
hundreds of them did.  And dozens of them have gone bankrupt already, including
Evergreen Solar, taking billions of taxpayer money with them.

The GAO’s Franklin Rusco has raised questions
about the transparency and rigor of the approval process for the Solyndra loan
guarantees.  It has been suggested that the White House took a special interest
in Solyndra during the loan guarantee application process, monitoring the
process, and perhaps communicating with officials in charge.

That should be a question for congressional
investigations, and thankfully the investigations have begun.  The House
Committee on Energy and Commerce is seeking White House documents regarding
Obama’s role in obtaining the loan guarantees for Solyndra.  So far, the White
House has stonewalled, refusing to supply the requested
documents.

Reportedly, Solyndra CEO Christian M. Gronet, who
received ten
million
stock options on the same day the $535-million loan
guarantee was approved, donated to “Friends of Barbara Boxer” in 2009/2010.
According to other reports, Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a
prominent Obama campaign contributor and bundler, was a major Solyndra investor
as well.  It is an open question as to whether political contributions from
Solyndra executives and investors influenced the administration’s decision to
back the loans.

The latest green power company to receive federal loan
guarantees is SoloPower Inc., which just this month revived a $197-million loan
guarantee to build a solar film factory in Oregon.  The initial phase of the
project, funded with the help of the federal loans, along with $40 million in
loans and tax credits from the state of Oregon, is expected to create
170
new jobs
,
according to company projections.  By my calculation, that is $1.4 million per
job — not exactly a bargain for taxpayers who will then also have to pay higher
fuel bills as a result of green energy mandates.

Before coming to SoloPower, CEO Tim Harris was a
successful executive at Seagate Technology, where he is credited with setting up
an operation creating 15,000 jobs.  Those jobs were not in America, however;
they were in Malaysia, the same country where First Solar, another major
recipient of Obama loan guarantees, has located most of its new
jobs.

In fact, Obama’s green energy stimulus has done more
for job-creation in Malaysia and China than it will ever do in the U.S.  Under
Obama’s massive loan guarantee program, the American taxpayer has footed a
$60-billion bill largely for Asian job creation.

Ironically — or perversely — the president is doing
everything possible to kill off the one industry that is producing jobs that
cannot be exported to Asia.  America possesses vast new reserves of oil and gas
that can be developed only with American labor.  If only the administration
would rescind unnecessary regulation, those jobs would double virtually
overnight.  Not only that, but federal and state royalty collections would
double as well, and the U.S. trade balance would stabilize as less oil and gas
was imported.  But so far, the president continues to press for more taxes on
conventional energy companies.  And never at any time has it occurred to him
that it might be in the national interest to support energy independence by
making it easier for American energy companies to drill right here in
America.

The White House continues to insist that the $60
billion in alternative energy funding, along with tens of billions approved in
other legislation, was a wise “investment.”  Most real investors,
having lost billions on alternative energy, would shy away from solar and wind
projects.  But Obama continues to throw money away.  In September alone, the
president approved an additional $622 million in loan guarantees for solar
companies.  Even Democrats like Senator Jeff Bingaman admit
that Obama’s loan guarantees “have not worked.”  Yet Bingaman himself introduced
a bill to fund a “clean-energy bank” to make more loans to the same kind of
companies.  Apparently, Bingaman’s logic is, “It doesn’t work, so let’s do it
again.”

That seems to be the rationale for Obama’s latest
green jobs initiative.  Bingaman is asking for $10 billion for his clean-energy
bank.  I’m sure Obama will top that by a couple hundred billion.  That funding,
if approved, will disappear into the pockets of Democratic Party supporters,
just as surely as it has in the past, though much of it will be passed along to
Democratic candidates in the 2012 elections.  If that sounds like “pay to play,”
you can draw your own conclusions.

After all, the guiding principle behind Obama’s green
jobs initiative all along has been how much it will contribute to his own
reelection.  The fantasy of green jobs presented him with a unique opportunity
to please environmentalist supporters while at the same time rewarding wealthy
contributors who also happen to be investors and executives in alternative
energy companies.

It is unlikely that Obama will ever desert this
winning combination, even as his scandalous relationship with one bankrupt
company after another comes to light.  No matter how many billions end up being
wasted, the president will continue to insist, as did an official at the
Department of Energy just last week, that the green jobs program “is on pace to
create thousands of jobs.”  Already Obama has spent as much as $10 million each
for the thousands of green jobs, he claims to have created.  Is there no limit,
and no shame?

Actually, there is not.  Because more important than
actual green jobs is green pork.  Obama is relying on green pork, along with
union pork and trial lawyer pork, to get him reelected.  Green jobs are at the
heart of his domestic agenda because green pork results in donations to the
Democratic Party.  Whether it results in any jobs, to say nothing of “long-term”
jobs, is irrelevant.  It’s his own job that Obama is focused on
saving.

Jeffrey Folks is author of many
books and articles on American culture, most recently
Heartland of the
Imagination

(2011).

Biden At AFL-CIO Rally: “You Are The Only Folks Keeping The Barbarians From the Gates”

Biden At AFL-CIO Rally: “You Are The Only
Folks Keeping The Barbarians From the Gates” (Video)

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/09/biden-at-afl-cio-rally-you-are-only.html

The
opposition is called “son of a bitches” at one Labor rally and “barbarians” at
another rally. Here’s an angry Joe Biden at the AFL-CIO rally in Cincinnati just
a short time ago

Putin says U.S. is “parasite” on global economy

Putin says U.S. is “parasite” on global economy

Photo
5:45pm EDT

By Maria Tsvetkova

LAKE SELIGER, Russia (Reuters) – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States Monday of living beyond its means “like a parasite” on the global economy and said dollar dominance was a threat to the financial markets.

“They are living beyond their means and shifting a part of the weight of their problems to the world economy,” Putin told the pro-Kremlin youth group Nashi while touring its lakeside summer camp some five hours drive north of Moscow.

“They are living like parasites off the global economy and their monopoly of the dollar,” Putin said at the open-air meeting with admiring young Russians in what looked like early campaigning before parliamentary and presidential polls.

US President Barack Obama earlier announced a last-ditch deal to cut about $2.4 trillion from the U.S. deficit over a decade, avoid a crushing debt default and stave off the risk that the nation’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded.

The deal initially soothed anxieties and led Russian stocks to jump to three-month highs, but jitters remained over the possibility of a credit downgrade.

“Thank god,” Putin said, “that they had enough common sense and responsibility to make a balanced decision.”

But Putin, who has often criticized the United States’ foreign exchange policy, noted that Russia holds a large amount of U.S. bonds and treasuries.

“If over there (in America) there is a systemic malfunction,

this will affect everyone,” Putin told the young Russians.

“Countries like Russia and China hold a significant part of their reserves in American securities … There should be other reserve currencies.”

U.S.-Russian ties soured during Putin’s 2000-2008 presidency but have warmed significantly since his protégé and successor President Dmitry Medvedev responded to Obama’s stated desire for a “reset” in bilateral relations.

EARLY CAMPAIGNING?

Casually dressed in khaki trousers and a striped white shirt, Putin flew by helicopter to the tented camp as part of a string of appearances that are being closely watched in the run-up to the elections.

He did not say whether he plans a return to the Kremlin or will stand aside for Medvedev, his partner in Russia’s leadership tandem, to run for a second term.

But young people crowding round Putin, caught up in the campaigning spirit created by huge portraits of Putin hung from trees, were not shy about saying who they wanted as president.

“Russia’s next president will be small, bald and look like Putin,” 17-year-old Ilya Mzokov joked with reporters. Asked why Medvedev was not paying a visit to the summer camp, he said: “Only serious people come here.”

Youngsters chanted Putin’s name and applauded his remarks as he strolled round the camp, where US-style business seminars, extreme sports and political mudslinging were among the topics on offer.

Putin, whose macho image appeals to many Russians, briefly swung himself up the first half of a climbing wall, filmed by a gaggle of state television cameras.

Nashi, which means “Our People,” was created by the Kremlin to counter popular dissent after youth activism helped topple a pro-Moscow government in Ukraine’s 2005 Orange revolution.

The group has worked to spread a personality cult around Putin and regularly campaigns against Kremlin critics.

Opinion polls show Putin, still widely viewed as the country’s paramount leader, retains near 70 percent approval.

But his United Russia party is trying to reverse a slide in popularity before December parliamentary polls, hoping to use a strong showing there to help Putin in the March 2012 presidential vote.

(Writing by Alissa de Carbonnel; editing by Tim Pearce)

© Thomson Reuters 2011. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or visit: www.reutersreprints.com.

Obama Admin Wants to Widen Government’s Gay Indoctrination

Obama Admin Wants to Widen Government’s Gay
Indoctrination

June 17th, 2011

Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times

U.S. Department of Agriculture activists want to impose their intense brand
of homosexual sensitivity training government-wide. If accepted by the Obama
administration, that move could mean more
sessions for military service members
already undergoing
gay-sensitivity indoctrination
.

Critics fear additional gay-oriented training would be an unnecessary added
burden for combat troops and encourage some to leave.

USDA officials have asked the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which
oversees all federal worker policies, to impose its gay-awareness programs on
all federal departments, according to an internal newsletter…

The push for the training is coming from Agriculture Secretary Thomas J.
Vilsack, former Democratic governor of Iowa. He has launched a department-wide
“Cultural Transformation” that includes the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
[LGBT] Special Emphasis Program.”

The USDA’s senior training coordinator, Bill Scaggs, has developed a
sensitivity program far more extensive than the Pentagon’s training for the
anticipated lifting of the ban on open homosexuals in the ranks…

The Agriculture Department described its program in an internal newsletter,
“My USDA: A Progress Report for Employees on USDA’s Cultural
Transformation”…

The newsletter adds: “Future collaborations with OPM are planned, with the
ultimate goal of having LGBT Special Emphasis Programs across the federal
government”…

Mr. Scaggs‘ briefing for USDA employees is titled “Including Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity in Diversity”…

One slide on gender
identity
states: “Individuals are conscious of [sexual identify] between the
ages of 18 months and 3 years. Most people develop a gender
identity
that matches their biological sex. For some, gender
identity is different from biological sex (transsexuals)
.”

On attempts to change someone from gay to straight, the briefing says:
“Usually doesn’t work and may even be harmful. Can produce feelings of
depression, hopelessness, shame and anxiety. Some people become suicidal”…

The briefing defines “heterosexism” as an
” ‘ism’ like sexism or racism where one is considered better than others.” It
gives as examples the ban on
gays
serving openly in the military
and laws
that define marriage
as a union
between one man and one woman
.

Read
more
.

The Hate Speech Inquisition

Lead Story

The Hate Speech Inquisition

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 19, 2011 08:36 AM


Tucson massacre + Red Queen politics = Hate Speech Inquisition.

I noticed a new game the blamestream media is playing this week. It’s the same game they played with Sarah Palin last week: Blame the victim. After a slew of Democrat leaders issued open threats against talk radio, conservative radio hosts rose up to defend themselves. And now, the BSM is deriding those who work in talk radio for inserting themselves into the Tucson massacre story and for having a “persecution complex.”  No, really.

This week’s column also spotlights the repeated attempts by Red Queen open-borders radicals to insert themselves into the Tucson shooting rampage that had no more to do with illegal immigration than it did with talk radio.

On a related note: The worst sheriff in America is still mugging for the cameras.

***

The Hate Speech Inquisition
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

There isn’t a shred of evidence that deranged Tucson massacre suspect Jared Loughner ever listened to talk radio or cared about illegal immigration. Indeed, after 300 exhaustive interviews, the feds “remain stumped” about his motives, according to Tuesday’s Washington Post. But that hasn’t stopped a coalition of power-grabbing politicians, progressive activists and open-borders lobbyists from plying their quack cure for the American body politic: government-sponsored speech suppression.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting rampage, Democratic leaders mused openly about reintroducing the Orwellian “Fairness Doctrine” – a legislative sledgehammer targeting conservative viewpoints on public airwaves. New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter assailed the Federal Communications Commission for failing to police broadcast content and vowed to “look into” more aggressive language monitoring. Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey blamed “incendiary rhetoric” for triggering “unstable individuals to take violent action.” In his own manifesto calling for resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, Democratic Rep. James Clyburn pressed public officials to “rethink parameters on free speech.”

This week’s fashionable new media meme is to deride talk radio hosts for taking these speech-squelching threats seriously. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jay Bookman sneered at the “persecution complex” of conservative broadcasters who reacted to Slaughter and company. Politico’s Keach Hagey dismissed concerns about the Democrats’ chilling campaign against right-leaning media outlets and knocked conservative talkers’ “defensive posture.” (Sound familiar? This is the same tactic they used against Sarah Palin and all those on the right falsely accused of being accessories to the Tucson massacre: Attack ‘em. Attack ‘em for responding. Accuse the smear victims of playing the victim card. Repeat.)

Make no mistake: The Hate Speech Inquisition is real. And it’s being fought on all fronts. Last week, using the non-radio-inspired Tucson massacre as fuel, the National Hispanic Media Coalition called on the FCC to gather evidence for the left’s preconceived conclusion that conservative talk radio “hate speech” causes violence. It’s Red Queen science — sentence first, research validation later.

The head of the NHMC is Alex Nogales, who has filed more than 50 petitions to deny broadcast licenses and has led anti-corporate crusades to “force” broadcast stations across the country “to hire Latino reporters and anchors” and adopt “diversity initiatives.” Grabbing the Tucson shooting limelight, Nogales told Broadcasting and Cable magazine last week:

“We can’t stand there with our arms crossed and make like there isn’t a reason why this is happening. … We started this dialog(ue) in the last immigration debate four years ago. We could see that it was just out of control. It started with just an issue of immigration, then every pundit on radio and TV who wanted an audience started talking about it and started using the worst of language, and now it has spilled out into mainstream.”

Loughner’s wild Internet rants and creepy campus meltdowns clearly demonstrate that crazy doesn’t need a motive. But progressive censors need their bogeymen, and Nogales isn’t about to give them up for reality’s sake. The NHMC first filed a petition in October 2009 demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration. The petition followed on National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia’s call for media outlets to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

Nogales’ group is part of a larger “media justice” coalition dedicated to curtailing and redistributing conservatives’ political speech under the guise of diversity and decency. As left-wing philanthropists at the Media Justice Fund put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” But, hey, we better just ignore these communications control freaks lest we be accused of suffering a “persecution complex.”

The Praetorian Guards of civility keep telling us that “words matter.” Threats should be taken seriously, they insist. Except, of course, when those words and threats are uttered by those hell-bent on regulating their opponents’ discourse out of existence.