The Left Wing’s Anti-Left Conspiracy

First Michael Moore and now Naomi Wolf are speculating that the recent crack-downs on OWS were … are you sitting down? … coordinated by Obama. Citing a single unnamed source (actually, citing the same source twice through two different bloggers, so that she can claim confirmation), she alleges that DHS has coordinated the crackdowns. The sinister right-wing Obama Administration did this because OWS was threatening politicians’ ability to make money from campaign donations.

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

Wait a minute. Only one side is choosing violence? What about those who tried to disrupt a conference held by the eevil Koch brothers? Or those who turned on food vendors when they stopped giving them free stuff? Or the allegations of rape and sexual assault? That’s just what I remember off the top of my head. That’s not to mention the tradition that OWS has inherited from previous violence in Seattle.

Now the government’s response has been more organized. And while I think some of it has gone too far, organized violence is the government’s job. Leftists like are Wolf are wont to forget this. They forget that the healthcare mandates and taxes and regulations that they so love are, ultimately, enforced by the threat of violence.

And this is the first threat against the Congressional money train? Give me a break. The entire Iraq War protest was centered around “no blood for oil”, the idea that Congress and the President were invading Iraq for huge oil company profits. The last time the “get money out of politics” crowd go their way, we got McCain-Feingold. It was passed without violence and it was completely effective in decreasing the power of special interests to … stop that laughing back there. The protesters do want to overturn Citizens United and eliminate corporate personhood (even though, as Bainbridge points out, corporate personhood is a good thing if you believe in regulation). But the likelihood of that happening is pretty close to zero.

Further deconstruction of Wolf’s idiocy can be found here and here. The most that can be said is that the small number of cities had crackdowns after asking the protesters to leave multiple times and these crackdowns may have involved some consultations with experts, including maybe some at DHS. That’s about it. The evidence of a national coordinated campaign simply does not exist.

Look, I’ve said multiple times I’m somewhat sympathetic to OWS. But let’s be honest. They are not complaining, as Wolf speculates, about some obscure provision affecting corporations in Delaware. The most common hue and cry is for a bailout of their student debt. I’m sure what few private interests remain in the student loan market would love for the government to pay off loans in full.

And I drew fire last week for objecting to some of the violent tactics used by police. But how desperate to you have to be to believe that this was the idea of Barack Obama and a bunch of liberal Democrat mayors?

Of course, a complete lack of either evidence or logic has never been a problem for Wolf (or Moore, for that matter). It’s usually just proof that we need to dig deeper!

UC Davis Spraying

Video here:

Story here. What do you think? I can’t help but think that these kind of responses only provoke more protests. As far as I can tell, the UC Davis occupy encampment was unsightly but not dangerous. Spray them and they’re martyrs. Ignore them and they’re spoiled college students living in tents to demonstrate …. something.

Inequality gap got bigger under… Obama?

Yup, you heard that right. In fact, it is even more damning because, well read for yourself:

In his weekend radio address, President Obama decried that “over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier.” Although he was trying to leverage the Occupy Wall Street movement, the income gap has been a longstanding concern of his.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama said, “The project of the next president is figuring out how do you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth that George Bush has been so enamored with.”

But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama. What’s more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

Frankly, when you understand what the leftist politicians definition of “social justice” really translates into – they pick who wins and who loses – it comes as no surprise that their friends & donors, the ones pushing whatever idiotic things the left tells us are the must have of the future, end up getting enormous amount of wealth transferred from the US tax payers to them.

Solyndra was just an obvious example of what the left’s “social justice” politics does: it throws other people’s money at bad things, enriching those that cozy up to the leftists. There is a reason that companies like GE and money bundlers like that Kaiser fella behind Solyndra love leftist big government types.

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush’s eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama’s first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it’s climbed 5.7% since he took office.

Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.

Want to know what else has grown disproportionally during the Obama years? The misery index. The dollar is worth shit, US debt is up $5 trillion in a short 3 years, people sucking at the government’s teat are at a record high, and those looking for something paid by other people now don’t even feel shame when they demand more and are called on it. But the LSM isn’t going to report that. Not when the guy in the WH has a (D) next to his name, and certainly not when they rigged the candidate coverage during that election to get him there.

To the extent that income inequality is a problem, it’s not clear what can be done to resolve it. Among the contributing factors:

Here is a hint: income inequality isn’t a problem. Admit that we are not all equal and work from that. We are never ever, all going to cross the finish line at the same time because human nature makes that impossible. Some people think that shit like this is what should determine income, while others, the ones with the income, actually feel work – and yes, work that doesn’t involve manual labor is work and not ignoble as you Marxists fuckwads want to pretend it is – makes the difference. The later are right. The former are envious and greedy. How much wealth is enough? None of you fucking business. Espeically when it is crooks in government trying in an obscene way to dictate that. Class warfare sucks ass.

Making Indolence Profitable

The good news is that it appears all that yammering done by the OWS crowd on the evils of capitalism, is just that, yammering, and when the rubber meets the road, they understand the value a buck as much anybody, whew, I was worried there for a while.

The 99%, no, not this guy:

but those Che wearing Mao quoting souls actually braving the elements (hey, it beats working for a living), have come up with an idea that could put a little scratch in their pockets:

Occupy Wall Street is looking to make its mark — on everything from tote bags to t-shirts.

The Occupy Wall Street movement applied for the trademark to its name on Oct. 24, filing for the use of the mark on its website, in periodicals and newsletters, and on clothing and bags

Hawking T shirts and tote bags, is there anything more capitalistic then that?

What’s that old saying ,”If you can’t beat then, join them”?, depending on the profitability of this new venture, some of these guys just might graduate to the 1%, then they could be the enemy.

Once this idea grows roots and the OWS stores are as ubiquitous as Starbucks, you think if I went inside and bought a bunch of crap on my new OWS credit card, then, in keeping with the spirit of debt forgiveness (one of their big platforms) I tell them ,”Hey guys, I’m with you, credit cards are extensions of the power banks have over us, they keep us down and impoverished, debt forgiveness for all”, then stiffed them on my bill, I’m sure they would understand. Power to the people.