Posts Tagged ‘Occupy Wall Street’

From Robert Shrum at Dailybeast:

daily beast outright unsafe 121219

So those two guns are “outright unsafe”?

I also keep reading the argument that those evil black rifles only are made to kill huge numbers of people.  So why do the police have them?

There’s never an adequate answer, other than the idea that the state magically empowers someone with a badge to have superhuman judgement skills… something anti-gunners never agree with when cops are busy doing things they don’t like.  They’re always calling cops “pigs” who are abusive racist thugs in their worldview… yet for some reason they want the police to have an exclusive monopoly on force.

To shoot down another stupid argument of theirs, saying that the Constitution only applies to weapons of the time, is invalid because the objective was to put the citizen on equal footing with the state.  By actual Constitutional measure, either the citizen should have access to all modern military small arms, or the military should also be limited to muskets.

Update: Liberty Blitzkrieg has a good piece on how to spot further gun control hypocrisy.

These people are not interested in easing violence; these folks want to disarm the public before the mathematically inevitable economic collapse occurs (see my article “Slaves are Always Disarmed”).  While many of these folks claims publicly that there is an “economic recovery” and happy days are just over the horizon, they know better and privately want to get all their ducks in a row before the final and horrific collapse occurs.  This is why the surveillance state is making such aggressive strides at the moment.  It is also why there is a panic to remove firearms from the public.

The other way to spot a hypocrite is to see whether they ever speak out about other acts of violence, or if they only open their mouths when it comes to gun incidents.  I see this attitude all over the “fake left” landscape. If someone you know, or someone in the media never decries American drones strikes that kill children regularly in the forgotten parts of the globe, yet jumps at every gun incident like it is the end of the world, that person has an agenda. That person hates guns, not necessarily violence.  They do not have a clear head in this argument.

Consider the violence associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement and how that was (not) reported versus a black guy (whose face was edited for TV so they could say he was a racist white man) who peacefully carried an AR to a protest.

AZ-gun-man black dude obama protest


Occupy Movement In 2010 Words

Posted: August 15, 2012 by ShortTimer in Economic freedom, Government, Leftists

From around the internet:

This pretty much applies to all of the left.  But the guy with the Obama sticker getting death paneled by IPAB in an office years down the road doesn’t make pictures quite as clear.

Blogger Ringo, who we’ve linked to here before, has a really neat series of photos from the Occupy LA May Day protest/parade.  Some were rather telling, as the communists supporting Shining Path terrorists and such were in full display, as well as people like this:

Which leads to the question “what round for occupy zombie?”

But then there was this interesting one, of an old useful idiot spreading some communist garbage in print:

They aren’t the young useful idiots, but the old.  But what’s really interesting is the actual story there.  From the “Worker’s Vanguard“:

Trayvon Martin Case: Black Oppression and Gun Laws in America

No to Gun Control! Down With Racist Vigilantism!

Communists against gun control, you say?  Well, this is where things get interesting, as the broken clock is right once a day:

Upholding the right to armed self-defense, Marxists oppose gun control laws, which are a means to enforce a monopoly of violence in the hands of the capitalist state. Gun control leaves guns in the hands of cops, criminals, vigilantes and Klansmen. Gun control kills, and it kills black people in particular.

In the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, the most democratic period for black people in America’s history, many recalcitrant Southern state governments tried to outlaw possession of firearms by blacks. In response, the federal Freedmen’s Bureau widely distributed circulars that read in part, “All men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep arms to defend their homes, families, or themselves.”

The Northern bourgeoisie, acting on its class interests, went on to make peace with the Southern planters, and blacks were forced into backbreaking labor on the land as sharecroppers and tenant farmers. Following the end of Union Army occupation of the South during Reconstruction, naked white-supremacist rule was restored. Jim Crow segregation was enforced by police-state repression, supplemented by the extralegal terror of the Ku Klux Klan. As race-terror swept the South in the late 19th century, anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells wrote:

“The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.

“The lesson this teaches and which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

—quoted in Southern Horrors and Other Writings: The Anti-Lynching Campaign of Ida B. Wells, 1892-1900 (Jacqueline J. Royster, ed. [1997])

Black self-defense has historically been met with frenzied state repression. The earliest 20th-century gun control laws were passed in states like South Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi as a way to disarm blacks in the face of KKK terror.

Well, it’s right about the racist roots of gun control, though the “Northern bourgeoisie, acting on its class interests” is the kind of simplified stupid you’d expect from communists justifying everything with their grand theory of “I want your stuff and I’ll kill you to get it!”

Now, the interesting part is that when the communists, who are busy telling themselves they’re for the black oppressed proletariat protecting themselves from the white imperialist pig-dogs, start to look at laws that actually protect self-defense, then the laws are suddenly racist.

“Stand Your Ground”: License to Kill

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law eliminated the historic requirement that in order to claim self-defense, a person facing deadly force must first try to remove himself, if feasible, before himself using such force. Passed in 2005 amid a campaign to “get tough on crime”—code for targeting black people—the law is an open invitation to just the kind of racist vigilante violence that killed Trayvon Martin.

Now, this is where modern liberalism/leftism and communism coincide.  Because the communists believe that oppressed black proletariat should be forced by law to run from their violent murderous pig-dog capitalist oppressors, even though they should violently defend themselves against their oppressors.  Oh, wait, they claim that if don’t have a duty to retreat, you’re now sanctioning oppression of the proletariat.  Except for that whole thing where you have to be attacked first.  But it’s racist to defend yourself… except black people should defend themselves against white people based on color, which isn’t racist.  Communist logic.

Over 20 state governments, centered on the states of the slaveholders’ Confederacy, have passed such laws, with bipartisan support. In doing so, they certainly did not have black self-defense in mind. A case in point occurred in 2005 in Georgia, a “Stand Your Ground” state. John McNeil, a black man, was rushed in front of his home by a white man who had been threatening his family with a knife. McNeil fired a warning shot but his assailant continued toward him. McNeil fired again and killed him. Initially, he was not charged in the killing. But prosecutors went after him a year later, and now McNeil is serving a life sentence.

See what they did there?  “Certainly did not” – well, they probably didn’t.  Because lawmakers probably passed the law with citizens in mind, not colors of citizens in mind.

Georgia went after McNeil, Florida’s legislators clearly intended to protect white people (or brown people with white surnames) from prosecution.  In McNeil’s case, his assailant had a knife on his person and was going for him, but even (in a piece demonizing stand-your-ground) says:

McNeil jumped out of the car and fired a warning shot at the ground insisting that Epp back off. Instead of retreating, Epp charged at McNeil while reaching for his pocket, so McNeil fired again, this time fatally striking Epp in the head. (Epp was found to have a folding knife in his pocket, although it was shut.)

This is another reason why you don’t fire warning shots.  The “warning shot” to the would-be assailant then means the assailant’s in fear for his life, and a situation that would be cut-and-dried becomes a mess.  As with many cases where the public doesn’t know all the information and we don’t know all the details of the situation, there’s probably a lot more to the story.  Of course, painting it as “bad white guy” (which he was) attacks “good black guy” (which he also seems to be) helps to miss the actual series of events.  You now have a dead guy who threatened the shooter, but at the time he was shot, he wasn’t making a deadly force movement with a knife in his pocket, and only started drawing it (if he did at all) after being shot at (warning shot).  Suddenly, things are different.  Now the would-be-assailant is the victim of being shot at, and it’s a mess.

The NRA did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Still, Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP State Conference, argues, “The NRA would be screaming about the injustice of his conviction if John had been white and shot a black assailant that came at him on his property armed with a knife.” (McNeil grew up in North Carolina, where the local NAACP chapter, led by Barber, was the first to pick up on his case in Georgia.) (ST- Note that knife he was “armed with” was in his pocket.  No movement indicating deadly force, no reasonable man believes he’s in fear for his life if someone has a knife, folded, in his pocket.  Changes things, doesn’t it?)

Barber was clear that the NAACP remains firmly against stand your ground laws because “they give cover to those who may engage in racial profiling and racialized violence,” adding that “There is a history and legacy of discriminatory application of the law” that continues to this day. “African-Americans are caught in curious position. On one hand, we fight against stand your ground laws, but once the laws are on the books they aren’t applied to us.”

There might be a reason for some of that.  The NAACP is firmly against self-defense laws because they’re leftists.  If they cared about black people, they’d be pushing for further self-defense laws (famously Condoleeza Rice’s father defended the family from KKK Night Riders by going on armed patrols); and if the NAACP thinks those laws don’t apply, they could try supporting the law.  Heck, even the communists get self-defense half-right.

The NRA’s job isn’t to insert itself into every gun case in the country, believe it or not.  The NRA didn’t run down to back up Zimmerman, but have stated they want to see all the facts.  Why defend someone whose gun use might be indefensible?  The law is just, whether Zimmerman or McNeil followed the law is up to a jury.  What happened is up to the court to figure out.

And back to the communists:

In Florida and other states, possessing firearms is illegal for minors as well as for adults who have been convicted on drug charges or were, as youths, judged delinquent on such charges. Under racist U.S. “law and order,” these categories are overwhelmingly applicable to black people. Since he was under 18, Trayvon Martin had no legal right to be carrying a firearm, and thus no right to use one in self-defense. If he had been armed during his encounter with George Zimmerman, he might be alive today. But in this racist society, his survival may also have been a ticket to prison and possibly death row.

So limiting possession of firearms by criminals is racist?  Communist logic.

There’s an argument to be made that criminals who’ve served their time should have all their rights restored, but that’s usually viewed with a pretty skeptical eye based on recidivism; and isn’t based on race, but on the question of what criminals have done and likelihood they will do again versus does serving their time mean they’re now free men again.

There’s plenty of precedent for minors using firearms in self defense.  As to minors carrying firearms, well, it’s interesting that you can’t drink or own a handgun or carry under 21, but you can vote and serve in the military at 18.  That Martin couldn’t carry wasn’t due to his race, it was due to his age.  There’s an argument against that as well, but it isn’t race-based.  Years ago, children were taught to be responsible with firearms rather than fear and hate them, and it wasn’t an issue.  (See the email about schools in 1960 vs schools in 2000s for a quick comparison.)

There’s also this:

It reminds us that the reason we have a jury system, and look at things on a case by case basis, is indeed that each case is different (though there are many that are similar).

It’s interesting that groups like the International Communist League that writes the Worker’s Vanguard and the NAACP would both be against self-defense laws, while simultaneously claiming that they are oppressed.  Who’s to protect the oppressed?  The state, as controlled by the ICL or NAACP, or whatever other leftist-statist group there is.

Leaving citizens to their own ends, trusting them with their own defense, leaving people to be, goes against their chosen utopias that they wish to engineer through force of law.  Gun control is control.  Under the ICL, it’s a tool to manufacture a fantasy worker’s paradise (which has killed over 94 million so far), under the NAACP, it’s to manufacture a world where Colored People are Advanced, according to their own title.

Armed individuals don’t need state protection.  They don’t need state redistribution.  Independent individuals don’t need state guidance, they don’t need racial or economic “justice”, they don’t need someone else to tell them how to live and how to live safely.  They certainly don’t need someone claiming their case justifies the social upheaval and revolutions that some political group is calling for.

Gun control is control.  It’s a tool of the state, whether the racist institutions of the 1800s to 1950s that oppress non-whites, or a tool of the racist and/or statist institutions of the 21st century that seek to make everyone a victim by blaming whites (and hispanics that suddenly become white, or blacks who are ignored).

Gun rights elevate and defend every citizen.

Gun rights are A Human Right.

Austrian Part 1 and Part 2.

Originally posted on by user “Austrian”.  Note that in part 1, he’s in the US.  By 2 and 3, he’s moved to Switzerland, and explained the economic reasons why.  His guide to understanding Occupy came out later, and I misplaced or lost the link.  Searching for Austrian there comes back with a lot more Glocks and STG58s than posts on economics.

Posted: 11/13/2011 9:26:11 PM

So back in September I clearly had enough wine to pen one of my raving missives, as I woke up the next morning and discovered this post over my signature: Reasons Why I Sympathize With Occupy Wall Street

I’m pretty sure it was me, because I remember collecting the photos, but that’s not important right now. What is important, at least to me, is trying to find a reasonable answer to the question:

What the fuck are these people doing?

As I pointed out in my last time-waster on “Occupy” there never was much hope of any real political “victory”, out of the movement. That would pre-suppose a defined goal. Or a defined leader. Or a defined… well… anything. But it surprises me the degree to which Occupy [This] has turned into a frightening, dangerous defeat for just about everyone concerned. When you add it all up there’s more than enough Fail to fill everyone’s quota for the next decade and a half (or one Obama term). And in this I mean even beyond the obvious observation that many Occupys have turned violent. As of this writing I think we were on three fatalities at various Occupys nationwide. Two of which were from gunshot wounds, one of which seems to have been the result of a fight over a bag of drugs.

So as a finance dork, I spent some time thinking about what Occupy means. If the United States is in for a full blown Marxist revolution, I should probably try to see that coming a little earlier than, say, Czar Nicholas II. Right?

So, for what it is worth, I pondered things for a while and came up with some trite and useless observations. Given that no one else will listen to me anymore, not even “The Girl,” I am doing the natural thing: sharing them with ARFCOM.

So shut the door. Sit back. Get some hard liquor. Turn on the text-to-speech feature (I sound best with the Victoria personality on OS X) while I present:

Austrian’s Guide to Understanding Occupy [Catchy Noun Here]

The first step in understanding the causes behind the slit trench that is the Occupy movement is to understand that while everyone is busy making the analysis complicated, there is a single insidious factor that runs though the entire sordid mess:


This is both simpler and not as simplistic as it sounds. Critically, I did not say “jealousy,” as the two are often confused. A treatment of their distinctions could consume an Austrian-sized post in itself, so for now let us just distinguish envy (the resentful emotion involving the desire to possess or to deny to others what one does not, have) from jealousy (the fearful emotion involving the desire not to lose what one does already have).

This is a critical component of the so-called “anti-elitism” that has been bubbling up in Western culture for a couple of decades, and now seems to be boiling over in Zuccotti Park.

But it’s easy to pick a tag line and use it over a wide swath of degenerate behavior. One has to back this claim up and explain why it is helpful to the analysis. In this case, we have to go back quite a ways. Not quite to the Johnson Administration, but close.

Having run our way-back-machine through sufficient prior years we find that the individual most responsible for Occupy Your Street is one Gale Cincotta.

Gale Cincotta was a mother of six and one of the first “community organizers.” She hailed from Austin and Oak Park, Illinois, just outside of Chicago, and was an unlikely political activist until, in the 1960s, she cut her political teeth fighting school overcrowding. But the straight-from-the-bottle vodka drinking, profanity slinging housewife (she was often called “a star pupil of the Saul Alinsky hell-raising school of community organizing”) quickly scouted bigger game: banks and mortgage lenders.

Her New York Times obituary called her “plain spoken,” which in Grey Lady Speak apparently translates to “the woman who once nailed a rat to a Cook County Alderman’s door and pioneered the tactic of dumping dozens of protestors on the front lawn of bank CEOs suburban homes Sunday morning at 8am.”

Today we marvel at the pure insidious evil of the EPA giving grants and other funding to groups that then turn around and sue the EPA and settle out “consent decrees” for regulations and rulings that never would see the light of day in a transparent political process. But this particular tactic is not new. Cincotta shamelessly used regional offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to attack its sister department the Federal Housing Administration as far back as the 1970s.

The lobby group she founded in 1972, the National People’s Action group, proceeded to push for various pieces of lending legislation. They are still active today, a decade after Cincotta’s death. See if any of their goals sound familiar to you:

Society should be organized on the basis of mutual responsibility, cooperation, and community self-determination achieved through political and economic democracy.
NPA fights for policies that:
Take back our power to use the government as our tool to promote the common good, correct the injustices of the past, and redistribute resources equitably and sustainably.
Democratize the market to put people above profits.
Enforce fundamental human rights standards that prevent exploitation of people and the environment.
Take action to ensure racial, gender, economic, and immigrant justice in all social and economic systems.

Right on, man!

Whatever they sound like today, they sounded good to both Gerald Ford and then Jimmy Carter in the 70s. Ford signed the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (which required banks to publish zip-code and geographic statistics on their lending) in 1975 mostly as a result of the NPAs in-your-facism. Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 with a lot less resistance, and Gale Cincotta was standing right next to him for the photo op when the ink hit the parchment.

As you might expect, today the NPA seems to mirror a lot of the mainstream media coverage of Occupys. At the moment their website includes a “Wins for the 99%” section and a blurb for their “Make Wall Street Pay” campaign. But I digress.

The Community Reinvestment Act takes a lot of flack from conservatives and provokes aggressive knee-jerk defenses from progressives when critiqued. Most people you hear mention the Act, however, have no idea what it says or does. Let’s fix that for you:

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act isn’t particularly offensive. Even libertarians may grudgingly agree that one of government’s uses is as a clearing house for data so that consumers or voters or citizens can make informed choices. True, requiring banks to make line-by-line disclosures that tend to expose their strategies to competitors is a bit heavy handed, but the basic premise of sunshine as a disinfectant was a good one. This is particularly true when one wants to enforce socially unpopular norms that fall short of illegal conduct. The natural response to anti-social behavior that falls short of outright illegality is generally ridicule and social banishment. Don’t like a bank’s policies? Take out your deposits. Don’t like the membership rules of a private club? Don’t join. But unlike the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Community Reinvestment Act went much further.

As is the habit of Congress in passing legislation, a finding as to the need for the law is defined. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act outlined this one:

The Congress finds that some depository institutions have sometimes contributed to the decline of certain geographic areas by their failure pursuant to their chartering responsibilities to provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions.

One must remember that urban decay of the time was severe. One must also remember the source of that urban decay: Government housing policy which amounted to an absurd price-discrimination regulation. Specifically, at the time the maximum amount anyone could pay in rent for public housing (at the time all projects were government built and run) was 25% of his or her income. This, of course, meant that anyone in the growing middle class would be better off using the same rent for more expensive private housing. Housing that was increasingly in the suburbs as “white flight” took hold. In addition, because projects were government developed, built and run, it was generally already poor and blighted areas that were selected for public housing sites. Our good friend “eminent domain” became to see renewed use in this period and eventually became an entrenched bit of government policy. Finally, increasingly progressive local housing authorities stopped screening applicants. At all. For anything.

Let’s just stop for a moment and think about that. So regulators and legislators enact policies that concentrate low-income housing in already blighted areas. Then they mandate a sliding pay-scale that assures that no one of even moderate means will have any cause to live in these areas once they rise even a little in income. This is because the law causes rent payments to rise for tenants who see income improvements. Then they cease screening applicants in any fashion. And after applying all these screws they turn around and claim:

…that some depository institutions have sometimes contributed to the decline of certain geographic areas by their failure pursuant to their chartering responsibilities to provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions….

Of course, what was being attacked here was the practice of “redlining,” or blocking out entire neighborhoods and reducing or halting all lending in that area.

Redlining sounds a bit harsh doesn’t it? Sure, a bank should be able to pick its clients, but mortgage-nuking an entire Zip Code is pretty extreme, no? Well, even if you don’t quite think so, you can see why it would send progressives absolutely screaming into the darkness with rage. Here’s the thing:

Redlining was invented by the Government in the first place.


And no, not by Nixon’s FHA. (Good guess). It was a New Deal agency that came up with the idea. Yeah, you heard me. The progressive hero FDR.

The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (an FDR invention) started by publishing “residential security maps” which were later used by the Federal Housing Administration and picked up by private lenders.

Here’s one for Philly

At this point, lots of progressives make noise about rampant discrimination that was already an endemic part of the private lending market. And, of course, this was true. An unmarried couple was probably shit out of luck in 1968. So was a single mother. So was a black man. But when your regulator or the agency most responsible for your policy burden publishes, updates and promotes such a document, how do you ignore it? I mean, what are you going to tell the shareholders when you lose your shirt lending to a neighborhood the FHA tells you is dangerous for collateral recovery? How do you not get sued? Let me show you how:

Cincotta up and rams the Community Reinvestment Act down everyone’s throat which says:

“Hey banks! See these areas that government policies have assured will have awful property values for decades? And which are subject to policies that push out anyone who starts to make a little money, assuring that gentrification will probably never lift the area out of slum status? And which concentrates tenants in an environment where the government is the undiscerning landlord of last resort? And which your own regulator has warned you comprises a dangerous security / collateral risk? Yeah well, fuck you, you’re lending here. What? Higher interest rates? Nope. Congress sez: ‘provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions,’ and that’s part of your ‘chartering responsibilities’ you know. Look, says so right here. What’s ‘reasonable’? Who’s ‘qualified’? What is ‘adequate home financing’? Oh, believe me, you’ll find out. About 60 seconds after we dump 75 people on your front lawn.”

(Everyone should read: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs at this point. I’ll wait).

Done? Great. (Good read eh?)

It may seem that we’ve come quite a bit afield of Occupy, but, in fact, we’re smack dab in the middle of it. You see, the Cincotta and the Community Reinvestment Act (and a host of legislation that followed) began the wholesale “Drunken Relative” trend of social justice in the Untied States. Allow me to explain:

Certainly, everyone has that one relative, a Father, an Uncle, a crazy Aunt (since this is ARFCOM you probably ARE that one relative), seen most often on family holiday get togethers… Thanksgiving, Christmas, the anniversary of the passing of a particularly hated Mother-in-Law… whatever. They start with the egg nog and before you know it, they have transformed into one of those belligerent, loud and angry drunks, irritated that Cousin Cindy won’t give them “just one little kiss.” And it takes until they’ve careened around the table twice, groped Cousin Cindy four times, knocked over a pair of chairs and one centerpiece, spilled three drinks, including one on the new carpet for everyone to act to stop the madness by… just looking away with an embarrassed grimace and hoping the problem will just go away on its own once it gets cold enough outside.

You wimps.

Don’t think the belligerent drunks don’t know it either. Sure, perhaps not in a form they can articulate into words (or slurs), but they know it. They depend on it. Your acquiescence. Your indulgence. They are manipulating your inability to act. They are using your fear of being the asshole who finally says something. You, my friends, are enablers.

And behind the blackouts, the explosions of profanity and rage (and vomit), underneath the broken dishes, appliances, windows and the frayed nerves, is our old friend:


Envy that “everything comes so easy to you.” Envy that you “have a beautiful home.” That you “are so lucky.” That you “have everything a woman could want.” That “you have a REAL job.” And, since that’s not enough, Uncle Bob “Jack Daniels” Smith is seething with the desire to fuck it all up for you, screaming metaphorically with every visit:

“You might have a nice house, a beautiful wife, and polite kids, boy-o, but one night a year, I’m going to inflict pain on you and there’s nothing you can do about it, and your kids will see that life’s not so fucking easy, and your wife will know you’re really powerless, because if you don’t invite me, or if you kick me out, or call the police like last year, the guilt will haunt you for months, and everyone will see you for the callous, greedy republican you really are Mr. civilized family man!”

But there’s a difference we haven’t yet accounted for. In this case, we were the ones who introduced Bob to his bookie and the pleasures of Tequila in the first place.

Let’s face it, the Baby Boomers completely hosed the rest of us. Literally. No, not you, random Baby Boomer who is reading this. Not you personally. You, Baby Boomers. You the collective and aging electorate. Again, not you, Boomer. Them. The Boomers. They have spent every dime of their own money and now, like some sort of Jurassic parasite, they’ve spent everything the X generation has, and are in the process of pillaging what’s left of the savings bonds grandpa left to the Millennials and using the coupons as collateral for payday loans. No one has the courage to stand up to them because they vote, damn it. Like hotcakes.

Seriously. Even while the United States conducts two rather serious foreign adventures, entitlement spending is twice military spending today. Paying for the mortgage on the Miami condo along with all the diabetes supplies, hip replacement surgeries, Depends, Rascal scooters, bath tubs with doors, LifeCall and Centrum Silver Boomers are going to be scarfing down in a few years time will consume all tax revenue, every single dime, by 2049 (and that’s the bullshit figure from the CBO too). That’s just to keep treading water (assuming the rest of the planet doesn’t get tired of lending to those old farts any time soon).

It’s actually even worse than that.

If you calculate the present value of unfunded liabilities just in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, you come up with over $100 trillion. That’s not a typo. That’s the figure you would need to contribute to pay all this stuff off and it is in ADDITION to the payroll tax.

At the same time realize that the sum of all private wealth in the United States is something like $59 trillion in 2011 (sez the Fed anyhow) and you realize that some asshole (and it was a boomer, I can tell you for sure) promised the boomers all your payroll tax until you die (but in the next 15 years), AND the total sum of all the wealth in the country. TWICE.

But here’s the thing. All the while that it has been sucking down every thin dime and borrowing 3 pennies besides, society has been telling the nimrods now searching for lice combs “You better study hard and get into college, or you are going to end up serving french fries to your friends. Try this: ‘Would you like that in a pump? Or a loafer?'” Of course, what society MEANT was: “Better get productive soon because you already owe me $2 for every dollar you will ever earn and, damn it, how am I going to play golf with the guys if I can’t get my titanium hip replacement surgery and pay for my 30something girlfriend’s tits when Viagra has gotten so damn expensive?”

But even that’s not all.

Somewhere along the line someone decided that, even though they needed these kids to slave away like some Dickensian version of Dr. Douglas “Doogie” Howser, M.D., (oh, and by the way, did we tell you we are moving in to your place?) they would instead encourage them to pursue a Women’s Studies degree in graduate school and join the Peace Corps. Seriously?

What the fuck are you standing around for?
You need to work another 193.5 hours this week to pay the vig.

It’s the sort of insane hypocrisy that prompts Michelle Obama (who graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School to go immediately on to Sidley Austin, one of the preeminent law firms in the country) to tell the graduating class of George Washington University:

You’ve watched unimaginable devastation and suffering in the aftermath of a tsunami; a hurricane; an earthquake. You’ve felt the wrath of a recession that’s changed your towns and even your families. Now, that’s a whole lot to bear for any generation. So, no one would have blamed you had you chosen to hunker down and turn inward; if you had simply focused on making sure that your own lives were secure. But so many of you have done the exact opposite. Instead, you’ve dived in. You’ve reached out. You have volunteered and applied to organizations like Teach for America and the Peace Corps in record numbers. In fact, this year is the second year in a row that GW led universities of this size in the number of undergraduate alumni serving in the Peace Corps. (Applause.)

Go be an idealist honey. And then come home and start cracking to pay pay pay me.

And really, hasn’t society completely defrauded the X generation and the Millennials in other ways?

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was promised flying cars, damnit. Seriously. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? What was that, 1923? The Man With the Golden Gun had a fucking AMC PACER that sprouted wings and flew away for the love of all things innovative! (Ok, I think it was actually a Matador, but one pile of rusty excrement looks pretty much the same to me as another nowadays). Hello? Blade Runner? That takes place in 2019, people. Better get cracking on that! (We’re looking at YOU, General Motors. NASA is government subsidized too but I actually see them put stuff in SPACE every once in a while. Ok, well, not recently, but you get the idea). And Space 1999? Want to guess what year that took place in? They had a base on the MOON for crying out loud. With whooshing cylinder subway transports. Vertical take off and landing space eagles. SPACE EAGLES people.

What a rip off.

But here’s the thing. Just because you got gypped, doesn’t necessarily lead to Envy, and doesn’t necessarily mean you act on that by fucking up dinner for everyone else. And this is where we have Cincotta to thank. See, because even though the West is filled with representative democracies, where the means to express yourself is though free and fair elections or putting your capital somewhere else, it’s now ok for a small minority with a idea to legislate “fairness” to “promote awareness” by disrupting the lives of everyone around, stopping traffic, banging a paint bucket for 12 hours a day and conducting probing activist attacks on every productive establishment you can march to until you find one that causes more grief than the rest and eventually it is easier to just buy you off than to keep earplugs in all day shouting “WHAT? WHAT?” at your girlfriend like you are the parents of a 3 year old again.

I would love to meet the spineless sea cucumbers posing as bank executives at First National Bank of Chicago, Harris Bank and Northern Trust that first settled with Cincotta and her extortioners for $185 million back in 1970whateveritwas. That was it. The first negotiation with the terrorists. We’re all still paying for it.

But still, what no one seems to be talking about is that the authorities (and that word sounds sort of like a joke in this context now doesn’t it really?) have quite literally ceded public order to these people, ceded their very municipal sovereignty to enable Uncle Bob “Jack Daniels” Smith to shit on the family station wagon. And all to avoid causing “a scene.”

The real irony is if the Occupiers tried this anywhere but in the middle of the most developed, advanced societal infrastructure in the modern world they would all have been dead of dysentery weeks ago. It’s precisely the great success of capitalism (and the free riding they are doing on the local police department) that keeps them alive and (mostly) healthy. Lice, TB, Zuccotti Lung? That’s small change for the kind of squalor and mano-a-mano predation a tent city of this kind in Mexico would result in. And Mexico is in the damn G20! In a way its pathetic. With all that infrastructure their ideal society is still are slowly devolving into a third world rape camp. Too many “Social Justice” majors running the railroad, I guess. The kind that think requiring a 90% supermajority is giving a voice to “everyone.”


But there’s no end in sight. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. For years the West has told everyone they are special, that all the children are above average, that everyone is entitled to 8% equity returns. Always. (Sue if you don’t get them). That asset values will always go up (except for oil, power, and insulin and food… but maybe we’ll make an exception for Sugar, because ADM asked so nicely, and corn cause you know… well… Iowa). That it is your cosmic right to build on a Florida shoreline, and to pay no more in Hurricane insurance than customers in Alaska. In short, that you are owed, and that you respond to Envy by making it impossible for anyone else to enjoy life until you are granted your “fair share” by the justice fairy.

Occupy is a pack of envious children. This is why their target is the 1% (hey, folks, that guy you once heard about who is $1 below the “poverty line” in the United States? He’s in the top 8% for global income. You THINK you want fair, but trust me, you don’t. The average annual income for a person on the planet earth is $850 a year. You want unfair. Seriously. “Fair” will make Zuccotti Park look like a Trump Hotel. Ok, bad example).

But, like Uncle Bob, so long as no one does anything before he collapses on the new oriental rug in a pool of his own vomit and urine, he’ll keep coming back every year.

My advice to Bloomberg is: stop enabling the drunk. Send him home and don’t invite him back.

My advice to Occupy is: Refuse to pay the Boomers $100 trillion. You do this by shutting the fuck up, going home, getting to work and electing a fiscally responsible legislature with the stones to tell everyone that the entitlement party is over. (Good luck with that after all the Blue you’ve stuffed in the ballot boxes- no rehab center will even take you anymore, Bob, but that’s not really my problem, is it?)

But I doubt anyone will take my advice. At least not until Uncle Bob starts stealing the family silver, or accidentally kills the family golden retriever. Short a dead Natalee Holloway, or some other pretty, white co-ed, it’s just not worth the scene to clean things up. But that means you’re asking for trouble.

It pays to remember that one of Cincotta’s biggest crowd pleasers was always the line “They’ve got it. Let’s go get it.” The mob always loves the taste of meat once it gets hungry enough.

Via Jawa Report:

Vandals from Occupy St. Louis vandalized historic park buildings and statues:

The statue is called “The Naked Truth” and was made back in 1914.

St. Louis Today has the story.

The discussion page at St. Louis Today is rather interesting:

There’s a big problem with all this, beyond the Marxist call for violence.  It’s basically that the entire concept of class warfare requires people to buy into a class system that is itself an artificial construct.

While there are people who do, Americans, in general, view socio-economic class as variable and fluctuating, which, in the US, it is.  You can go from an orphan to a multibillionaire by hard work (or at least by ripping off Xerox).  You aren’t born into a class as a caste, and you are free to move up or down depending on your own decisions, determinant on hard work, luck, and the vicissitudes of life.  Maybe you’ll be born into money and squander it.  Maybe you’ll be born poor and work your way up to a gigantic media empire.  Maybe you’ll be born with a little and through a lifetime of work, end up with a lot more than you started with.  Maybe you’ll live for the day and live a full life without material possessions or wealth because it’s not your concern.  Whatever the case may be, you’re free to live your own life.

With the exception of government, there really isn’t anyone oppressing you.  “The rich” have no more rights than you do in a republic that is a nation of laws (though they may have more expensive lawyers, and an exception is made for progressive-types that use the government as a tool to control the citizen “for their own good” and try to turn a republic into a nation of men instead of laws).  But realistically, the guy making $200K per year isn’t oppressing the guy making $25K per year.  The guy making $25K per year is subsidized with his EIC based on the $200K guy’s taxes.  The guy making $200M per year is employing the guy making $200K, and the $200M and $200K guys are employing the guy making $25K, and providing him with goods and services that make his $25K go further.  Everyone benefits.

The Occupy crowd claiming to be the “99%” seem to forget that to 99% of the world, you (if you’re reading this) are “the rich”.

I would happily swap every entitled snot-nosed Occupy protester on a 1 for 1 basis with Indian garbage picking “untouchable caste” children.  The kids above, if given the resources and advantages of the self-titled 99%, would make something of their lives rather than whine that someone else owes them something simply for existing.

Those kids know that if they’re making $50 a year, that’s not at someone else’s expense, and the guy making $50M a year doesn’t make it at their expense.  They know that the people who work hard, even in sweatshops, are making a bit more, but their lives are improving, and they know that the employees there are just selling their labor in order to benefit themselves.  They could be using that same work to pick through trash or try to subsistence farm or poach.  They know that handouts are given to them as a means of charity by individuals who care, not by a government that equalizes misery – taking from one poor man to give to another, while the rich bureaucrat justifies his own wealth as necessary so he can “do good”.  These kids know that those who do better produce more for others, which leads to benefits for those who are further down the ladder, and up the ladder.  In a direct (but sad) way, the better the garbage the next guy up the ladder makes, the better things they kids find; the harder the trash-picker works, the better things he finds through his efforts (though luck plays a role).  In less sad way, the guy who does better can hire them for something, or can fund a charity, or can fund philanthropic schooling or aid for them.

They don’t demand the blood of the rich or destroy public property declaring “class war” because they don’t have enough to get by.  They work hard to make sure they get by, and every chance they get, they try to improve their lives, even if only slightly.

They do not write on computers that “the rich elite” must be targeted with “vandalism and violence”.  They do not destroy public buildings and statues (unless maybe stealing something to sell for food to live).

Who in that child’s eyes is the good person?  The one who works hard to earn their living, provide for their family, provide for others if they choose, or even just solely to selfishly provide for themselves (which invariably results in buying and selling goods from others – which benefits everyone); or is it the person who is handed everything and then throws a tantrum demanding more?  Those kids understand the natural law, and they understand how labor relates to value – they understand it on a primal level that the Occupy protestors are woefully ignorant of.

The 1% Tip

Posted: February 29, 2012 by ShortTimer in "Civility", Leftists, lies, Progressives and Left

HotAir brings you up to date:

The story was too good to be true.  A wealthy banker runs up a three-figure bill, only tips 1% (!), and writes a note to the server to “get a real job” as a parting insult.  CNN, Huffington Post, and other media outlets ran with the story of the arrogant banker and his miserly recompense to the help.  There was only one thing wrong — it really was too good to be true.

Video at HotAir.

The infamous photo, from the now-defunct blog “Future Ex-Banker”:

Except it was completely fabricated.

From Huffpo’s “correction”:

Photo Purportedly Showing Banker’s 1% Lunch Bill Tip ‘Altered And Exaggerated’ [UPDATED]

CORRECTION:On Monday evening, True Food Kitchen in Newport Beach released an official statement based on their investigation (described below in Update I) into the authenticity of the purported receipt showing a 1% tip. The restaurant’s statement reveals that their hard receipt copies do not, in fact, match the photo (shown below) that was initially posted on (since taken down). Scroll down for the complete statement from True Food Kitchen.

What would you take from that?  Altered and exaggerated?  Would you take it to mean there was a 20% tip, a bill of $33.54, and the whole thing was fabricated?  Well that’d be the actual facts here.

The restaurant told CBS2/KCAL9 that they have been receiving hundreds of phone calls and e-mails from people outraged over the reported story. They have confirmed that the receipt was changed and that the original receipt lists the meal as just over $30, with a 20 percent tip and no message aimed at the waitress.

From Laist:

Well, it was fun while it lasted, but apparently the notorious “1% tipper” was all made up.

That first part of the sentence really is the problem here.  Lies are “fun” while they last.  Lies are “fun” because we don’t need facts to back up our claims.  Lies are “fun” because we can smear people with them – and they don’t get to say anything about it.  Lies are “fun”.

From the comments below:

zombiebobTop 100

even if it was a partial set-up ( I don’t believe that personnaly, dude is just trying to save his ass, as is the restaurant, don’t want to piss off our overlords, that would be VERY bad for business), just like w Dan Rather and the Bush debacle… there is still a truth to it: Bush WAS a draft Dodging piece of shit, and the 1% are still for the most part obnoxious scum buckets.


… proof? Oh wait, you don’t need that because there is “still a truth to it” which you define based on something other than truth.

Sigh … at least you found a use for all of those post-modern literature courses you took …

At least there’s a rebuttal to it.  But the mentality pervades:

Ezra HorneTop 50

The thing is, it’s hard to say that this wasn’t made up by a banker to make people less sympathetic to the uprising of the working class that is brewing.

Remember, these people are VERY smart and are VERY frightened that people are waking up to the abuses of the “job creators” to borrow a term from the GOP.


Actually, it’s easy:  this wasn’t made up by a banker to make people less sympathetic to the working class uprising.

Look out!  Behind you!  It’s a conspiracy!

Ezra HorneTop 50

I’m just saying, it hardly proves either side is responsible, it’s an isolated incident.  We really don’t know.


Therefore, it must be an evil banker.  This is clearly a clever banker out to slander the 99%, who have been fine upstanding citizens throughout all of the Occupy protests, and since the person who would most benefit from this slander would be the leftist OWS movement, of course when they are found out and their blog suddenly vanishes, it must be the other side that did it in an attempt to slander them.  Caught in the act, blame the other side, claiming they did it and you didn’t.

From the Consumerist:

February 27, 2012 9:14 PM

Restaurant could easily have faked the “real” one so the banker wouldn’t sue them.

February 27, 2012 9:34 PM

This is just the 1% trying to cover up for one of there idiots. Don’t be fooled.

February 28, 2012 10:28 AM

Bullshit, I don’t believe the restaurant for a second. They just don’t want bad press.

Now, normally just quoting a bunch of idiot leftist’s comments seems like a waste of time.  But it’s actually kind of a barometer of what these people are thinking and what they’re willing to say, attaching it to their screenname for all posterity.

One poster did go out and generate rebuttals to the other commenters, worth reading for the original leftist vitriol and rebuttals:

10,000 Hours
February 28, 2012 1:08 PM

Time to call people out on yesterday’s vitriol:

MMD: “But, for me, this photo works quite well as a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the conservative/libertarian/tea party mentality that we should stop taxing the “job creators”. Wealth does *not* trickle down.” —> Now that its proven a hoax, is this a symbol of everything that’s wrong with agenda-driven lefties who believe and promote lies?

MMD, again: “It may be inconvenient for you to admit this, but this photo doesn’t help conservative causes much.” —> So now that this photo is a fake, how does this help liberal causes?

OnePumpChump: “I think it’s safe to say that THIS banker is a conservative.” —> Now that its shown to be a fake, and the actual tip was above 20%, is it still safe to say this guy is a conservative? If not, why not? And is it ‘safe to say’ the hoax was done by a lefty, and therefore all lefties will lie as long as it helps their cause?

Cat has been freebasing Folgers Crystals: “There is no “class warfare”. That’s impossible when the “upper class” has no class” —> Is forging receipts to continue class warfare considered a “classy” thing to do?

zantafio: “well why oh why blacking out the name of that douchebag? Come on let’s publicly shame that a$$. Oh and if waitressing is not a “real job” then I guess bars and restaurants would do perfectly fine with no waiters.” —> Will you get behind publicly shaming the people behind this hoax, or should they not come forward because the “overall message” still rings true?

nocturnaljames: “This person does have a real job, providing a valuable service. On the other hand, the banker doesn’t have a real job, doesn’t create anything, just destroys lives.” —> Would you consider forging a fake receipt in order to increase hatred against other Americans solely because they make more money than you “creative” or “destructive”?

marc6065: “I have a ‘real job” it is beating the shit out snobby asshats like this jackoff. Let me know where he is , he is past due for his “tuneup”!!!” —> Does your job description for “Internet Tough Guy” include beating up asshats who fake receipts in order to lie about other Americans?

ancientone567: “I would actually love to beat the shit out of this guy to within 1 inch of his life and I am not a violent person. Then I would give him a “TIP” and tell him to try to keep breathing, through the blood, if he wants to live.” —> Now that ‘this guy’ probably doesn’t exist and whoever actually signed the bill gave a 20%+ tip, who will you beat up as “Co-Internet Tough Guy”? The hoaxer? A random banker?

Sisterfunkhaus: “They should ban the customer from the restaurant. That is disgusting. It seems almost like sociopathic behavior to treat someone that way.” —> Is it sociopathic behavior to hate the 1% so much that you have to resort to forging a receipt to “prove” how evil they are? Is it sociopathic to pass this along as 100% true without any bit of skepticism?

Again, the comments are worth noting because they go to mindset.  They go to people who are willing to believe any lie without substantiation.  When caught in a lie, they accuse the other side of setting the lie up, therefore making it still correct in their own minds.

Remember this guy:

Which prompted the whining heard round the Occupy Protests?

In the spirit of declaring that events happen in a vacuum, this was triumphed by the left as police brutality.  Of course, when you see the backstory, that changes:

The campus police arrest individuals who have been warned many times that their occupation (campout) is on private property, and that they are to be removed if they don’t get up and go themselves.  At around 7:05, the rest of the protesters have locked arms around the police, and shout “if you let them go, we will let you leave”.  At about 7:30, an officer speaks to each of the sprayees beforehand, warning them of the consequences if they do not move.  By around the 8 minute mark, they’re simply chanting “let them go” and completely surround the police.  At 8:45, the chant “from Davis to Greece, fuck the police” starts.  Around 12:15, the students start yelling “don’t shoot the children”, which they are demonstrating themselves to be.  After the spraying (around 12:30), the students “are willing to give the police a brief moment of peace” to leave “with their weapons” and give the police permission to leave.

Of course, they also state, in interviews with leftist media that “if they wanted to clear the path, they would have to go through us”:

It actually makes this funnier.

Though other options are pretty good on lefty protesters, too.