Lawlessness of Occupy Wall Street

Want to know what the Occupy Wall Street protesters are up to? (Click here for the full article.)

"What is true is that on October 18, pollster Doug Schoen (a Democrat!) discovered that a full 31% of Occupiers were willing to commit violence in pursuit of their agenda, whatever that is. As a response to this startling and frightening admission, the MSM either outright ignored or dismissed it. What you’ll see below proves that at least when it comes to their willingness to break the law, the Occupiers are keeping their word.

The list is in no particular order. Like the Occupiers themselves, it’s unruly, disorganized, messy and not focused solely on the nation’s media centers. The movement is spreading across America and bringing with it their outrageous and appalling behavior.

1. NY: 10/1/2011 — Police Arrest More Than 700 Protesters on Brooklyn Bridge
2. Madison, WI: 10-27-2011 — Madison Occupiers Lose Permit Due to Public Masturbation
3. Phoenix: 10/28/2011 — Flier at Occupy Phoenix Asks, “When Should You Shoot a Cop?”
4. NY: 10/18/2011 — Thieves Preying on Fellow Protesters
5. NY: 10/9/2011 — Stinking up Wall Street: Protesters Accused of Living in Filth as Shocking Pictures Show One Demonstrator Defecating on a POLICE CAR
6. NY: 10/7/2011 — Occupiers Rush Police … More
7. Cleveland: 10/18/2011 — ‘Occupy Cleveland’ Protester Alleges She Was Raped
8. NY: 10/10/2011 — ‘Increasingly Debauched’: Are Sex, Drugs & Poor Sanitation Eclipsing Occupy Wall Street?
9. Seattle: 10/18/2011 — Man Accused of Exposing Self to Children Arrested
10. 10/12/2011 — Iran Supports ‘Occupy Wall Street’
11. Portland: 10/16/2011 – #OccupyPortland Protester Desecrates Memorial To U.S. War Dead
12. Portland: 10/15/2011 — #OccupyPortland Protesters Sing “F*** The USA”
13. Chicago: 10/17/2011 — COMMUNIST LEADER Cheered at Occupy Chicago
14. 10/15/2011 — American Nazi Party Endorses Occupy Wall Street‘s ’Courage,‘ Tells Members to Support Protests and Fight ’Judeo-Capitalist Banksters’
15. Boston: 10/14/2011 — Coast Guard member spit on near Occupy Boston tents
16. Boston: 10/11/2011 — Boston Police Arrest Over 100 from Occupy Boston
17. New York: 10/11/2011 — “You Can Have Sex with Animals.”
18. New York: 10/15/2011 — Harassing Police with Accusations of Phony Injuries
19. New York: 10/9/2011 — ‘Occupy Wallstreet’ Protesters Steal from Local Businesses
20. New York: 10/25/2011 — Three Men Threatened to Kill 24-Year-Old Occupy Wall Street Protester for Reporting Rape
21. Baltimore: 10/18/2011 — #OccupyBaltimore Discourages Sexual Assault Victims from Contacting Police
22. Portland: 10/27/2011 — Occupy Portland’s Attempt At Wealth Redistribution Ends In Theft
23. Los Angeles: 10/14/2011 – Anti-Semitic Protester at Occupy Wall Street
24. 10/27/2011 — A Death Threat From an Occupy Wall Street Protester
25. 10/27/2011 – Anti-Semitic Tweet From Occupier or Sympathizer
26. Boston: 10/20/2011 — Occupy Boston Doesn’t Want Police Involved in Rape
27. New York: 10/5/2011: Anti-Semitic Occupier Screams About Jews, Israel
28. New York: 10/4/2011 — Occupier Taunts Jewish Man
29. Boston: 10/2011 — Occupiers Block Street
30. New York: 10/2011 — Occupier Tries to Steal Police Officer’s Gun
31. New York: 10/27/2011 — Occupiers Block Traffic, Get Arrested
32. Oakland: 10/27/2011 — Occupiers Throw Garbage at Police
33. Oakland: 10/19/2011 — Abusive #OccupyOakland Protesters Ban Media from Tent City
34. Eugene, OR: 10/19/2011 — Occupiers Displace Farmers’ Market Threatening Hundreds of Jobs
35. Portland, OR: 10/18/2011 — Capitalist Offering Jobs at Occupy Portland Finds Few Takers
36. NY: 10/20/2011 — #OccupyWallStreet Threatens Businesses, Patrons
37. NY: 10/14/2011 — Violence Breaks Out During #OccupyWallStreet March Toward Stock Exchange
38. NY: 10/14/2011 — Protesters March On Wall Street, Scuffle With Cops
39. Oakland: 10/19/2011 — #OccupyOakland Protesters Threaten Reporter
40. Oakland: 10/26/2011 — Occupiers Scuffle with Police
41. Oakland: 10/24/2011 — Protesters Storm, Vandalize, Shut Down Chase Bank
42. Dayton, OH: 10/22/2011 — Protester: ‘F*ck The Military, F*ck Your Flag, And F*ck The Police’
43. Chicago: 10/14/2011 — Protesters’ Message At #OccupyChicago Rally: ‘Destroy Israel’
44. NY: 10/23/2011 — #OccupyWallStreet Supporter Rants Against Israel, Jews
45. NY: 10/22/2011 — #Occupy Kid: ‘Burn Wall Street, Burn!’
46. NY: 10/21/2011 — New Yorkers Fed Up With Noisy, Defecating Protesters
47. Oakland: 10/21/2011 — Occupy Oakland Evicted After Reports Of Crime And Intimidation
48. Oakland: 10/19/2011 — #OccupyOakland Out of Control: Rats, Graffiti, Vandalism, Sexual Harassment, Public Sex and Urination
49. Chicago: 10/26/2011 — Occupiers Under Investigation by FBI for Links to Terrorism
50. Cleveland: 10/29/2011 — Rape Reported at Occupy Cleveland
51. Dallas: 10/24/2011 — Police Investigating Possible Sexual Assault Of Teen At Occupy Dallas
52. Bloomington, IN: 10/26/2011 — Man Claims Occupy Bloomington Protesters Drugged, Handcuffed Him
53. NY: 10/10/2011 — Sex, Drugs and Hiding from the Law at Wall Street Protests
54. Glasgow: 10/26/2011 — Woman Gang-Raped
55. Boston: 10/23/2011 — Occupy Boston Protesters Arrested For Dealing Heroin – With 6 Year-Old in Tent
56. Portland: 10/16/2011 — Sex Offender Registers Occupy Portland Camp as Address
57. Denver: 10/15/2011 — Occupy Denver Demonstrator Accused of Groping TV Photographer
58. Lawrence, KS: 10/25/2011 — Sexual Assault Reported at Occupy Camp
59. Minneapolis, MN: Bricks, Rocks, ‘Riot Supplies’ Discovered by Police
60. Phoenix, AZ: 10/27/2011 — Neo-Nazis Patrol “Occupy Phoenix” With AR-15′s
61. Chicago: 10/26/2011 — Occupy Chicago Invades City Hall
62. 10/26/2011 — ACORN, Occupy Email Talks About Assault on Banks
63. 10/26/2011 — OccupyWallStreet Strategy for Reports of Violence Against Cops
64. Chicago: 10/26/2011 — Unrepentant Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers Wows Occupiers
65. Chicago: 10/25/2011 — Ayers Coaches #OccupyChicago, Callsg for School ‘Occupations’
66. 10/26/2011/ — Occupy Protests Have Jewish Leaders Concerned
67. Wash DC: 10/27/2011 — OccupyDC Leftists Provoke Police – Hang Flag on Top of DC Statue
68. Albuquerque, NM: 10/26/2011 — Occupy Squatters Riot With Police
69. San Diego: 10/25/2011 — Flag Used as Chew Toy by Occupier’s Dog
70. Oakland: 10/25/2011 — Occupiers Throw Bottles at Police
71. NY: 10/27/2011 — Occupy Wall Street Protesters: Rush Limbaugh Is Bigger Threat Than Al-Qaeda
72. 10/27/2011 — Occupy Wall Street Launching First Nationwide General Strike in America Since 1946
73. NY: 10/28/2011 — Fox 5 News Reporter Assaulted at OWS
74. 10/28/2001 — Total Occupy Arrests Made Thus Far: 2750
75. Nashville: 10/28/2011 — 30 Arrests Made at Wall St. Protest
76. NY: 10/20/2011 — Former Marine Tries to Taunt Police into Violence
77. NY: 1023/2011 — Islamist Group Joins with Occupy Wall Street
78. Los Angeles: 10/13/2011 — Roundup of Overt Occupy anti-Semitism
79. NY: 10/12/2011 — There are No Anti-Semites at Occupy Wall Street. Except for This Guy
80. Missoula, MT: 10/20/2011 — Drunk 11-Year-Old At Occupy Missoula, Adult Arrested
81. Oakland: 10/28/2011 — Bounty Out On Police Officer?
82. Manchester, NH: 10/28/2011 — Woman charged with pimping teen recruited at Occupy NH rally
83. San Diego: 10/28/2011 — 40 Occupiers arrested
84. Boston: 10/24/2011 — Occupy Boston Vandalism of Banks
85. Boston: 10/25/2011 — Store Owner Suffers 4 Break Ins Since Occupy Boston Began
86. Portland: 10/28/2011 — Portland Police: Buckets of Excrement Scattered Around #OccupyPortland Camp
87. Seattle: 10/20/2011 — Two Possible Occupiers Charged With Assault
88. Seattle: 10/18/2011 — Armed Felon Arrested at Occupy Seattle
89. Seattle: 10/18/2011 — A Tent Fight and (At Least) One Arrest at Occupy Seattle
90. Seattle: 10/17/2011 — Over 50 Cops Clear Westlake Occupation, Make Eight Arrests
91. Seattle: 10/13/2011 — Cops Arrest Several Occupy Protesters
92. Seattle: 10/13/2011 — Chanting Protesters Surround Police After Officers Arrest Two
93. Denver: 10/29/2011 — Protesters Clash with Police at OWS Denver
94. Austin: 10/13/2011 — Occupy Austin protesters arrested for blocking cleaning Crews
95. Calgary, CN: 10/28/2011 — Occupiers do $40,000 in Property Damage
96. Cincinnati, OH: 10/21/2011 — 23 Arrested, Remains of protests fill two dumpsters
97. Sacramento: 10/19/2011 — 9 arrested in ‘Occupy Sacramento’ protest
98. Sacramento: 10/13/2011 — Four More Occupy Sacramento Demonstrators Arrested
99. Austin, TX: 10/22/2011 — Man Arrested After Knife Incident at Occupy Austin Camp
100. Nashville: 10/29/2011 — Tenn. Protesters Arrested For 2nd Straight Night"

Great Cartoon From NationalReview.com

Perry Should Not Bow Out of Debates

Here's my article from Examiner.com:

Governor Perry is apparently re-thinking his debate strategy. His campaign is saying that it is not possible for a candidate to attend every debate given the demanding debate schedule.  However, it is more likely that the campaign is considering how poorly Perry has performed at these events.

Perry has lost significant support in the polls after a string of bad debates.  His performances have been at times inarticulate, disengaged, and combative.  One of the larger gaffes was during the Orlando debate where he famously told audience members that they “don’t have a heart” if they don’t support in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.  The most recent debate in Las Vegas was very contentious, especially between him and Governor Romney.  Perry went on the attack, disregarded the rules, and cut into Romney on a number of issues.  While Perry supporters were grateful that he was more engaged than in past debates, many gave his performance mixed reviews and so far the poll numbers have not reflected a boost as a result of the debate.

If Perry decides not to participate in some of the future debates, he likely will be criticized for running from the problem.  Perry has gotten good at saying that Americans “don’t want the slickest debater.”  However, the fact is that the GOP wants a nominee that can go toe-to-toe with President Obama, which means this person does, in fact, have to be a very slick debater.   As the GOP makes its decision about who will go up against Obama, the ability to debate him on a national stage in a compelling way that will win over the electorate is absolutely one of the criteria for the GOP nominee, if not the primary one.

 

Perry, instead of refusing to participate in the debates, needs to get really good really quickly.  If bad debate performances have brought his poll numbers down in the GOP primary where most conservatives agree with a lot of his platform, consider what a poor debate performance would do nationally against Obama?
The GOP simply cannot afford to put a weak spokesman up as its nominee.  Despite Perry’s strong, conservative record, in this day and age, the ability to articulate the tenants of conservatism and sell the American people on its merits is a prime requirement for the GOP nominee.  And, this nominee should be able to do that on any stage against any opponent. 

Obama Drops Class Warfare Rhetoric Long Enough To Mingle With Hollywood Elite

The arrogance of Obama is mind-numbing.  He travels around the country telling people that if the GOP doesn’t agree with his tax hike (which he is falsely calling a jobs plan) that it means the GOP want dirty air and water. Biden is saying rapes and murders will increase.  Obama is accusing the GOP of siding with the fat-cats who own corporate jets. 

However, Obama finds time to mingle with Hollywood elite as he campaigns for a second term.

Here’s the story.

We need to do whatever it takes to get him out of office next year!

Weird Herman Cain Ad

Okay, this is just a little creepy:



When Cain was asked about this ad, he said that he trusts his chief of staff to make decisions and he doesn't have time to review everything.  He also said that he believes in letting everyone be themselves and this was his chief of staff being himself.  This is kind of a weird comment given that ads are about his public image, so he should care.

It is clear that Cain doesn't have the same type of talent working for him that, say, Perry has.  He'll need to vastly improve his message as soon as possible given that the primaries are coming up and it is TV ad season.

Disappointed In Occupy Dallas

Occupy Dallas, up until the past week or so, seemed to be different from the other Occupy Insert Cities. People were gathered together and fighting for...um...still not sure but they were passionate. But unlike the other cities, Occupy Dallas did not seem to have the violence component. Until now. In the past week, members of Occupy Dallas have stormed a Wal-Mart, barricaded a bank, and now there are sexual assault allegations. By their fruits ye shall know them, brothers and sisters. What are the fruits of the Occupy movement?

Those who make outrageous claims that it is similar to the Tea Party movement, take a look a the fruits of the Tea Party: increased awareness of the Constitution, more conservatives elected into office, energizing of a conservative base, and reminding elected leaders of their promises. A bit different than the chaos and destruction of the Occupy movement.

***A bit of advice to my Occupy neighbors: Just remember, groups make more rash and liberal decisions than most people would individually. If you are not mindful, you could really cause damage that cannot be undone. Please be wise and if you must protest, be non-violent in your displays.***

Governor Perry Attempts To Breath Life Back Into His Campaign

Here is my latest article from Examiner.com:

Governor Rick Perry today made two major moves that he hopes will strengthen his campaign and help put him back into front-runner status.  First, he announced today more details on his long-awaited tax plan.  Second, he has added several senior advisors to his campaign personnel.

Perry’s campaign communicated a few days ago that he was going to propose a flat tax and today, in an article for the Wall Street Journal, he provided some more details promising to roll out the entire plan next week. In his plan which he calls the “Cut, Cap, and Grow” plan, Perry proposes a 20% flat tax for individuals.  The plan “preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.”  His plan would also reduce the corporate tax rate to 20% and “encourage the swift repatriation of some of the $1.4 trillion estimated to be parked overseas by temporarily lowering the rate to 5.25%.”  He also would “transition to a ‘territorial tax system’ – as seen in Hong Kong and France, for example – that only taxes in-country income.”  Perry’s plan additionally removes taxes on Social Security benefits, eliminates the tax on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, and ends the death tax.  Read more about his tax plan here.

Also, news surfaced today that Perry’s campaign will have some major shake-ups.  “Joe Allbaugh, who ran George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, will become a ‘senior adviser’ to Perry.”  Six other “nationally-known” consultants are also joining the campaign: “Tony Fabrizio, a pollster and former strategist for 1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole, and Fred Maas, who has worked on the campaigns of Dole, John McCain and others, will also take ‘senior advisor’ titles,..Stanton Anderson, who has managed Republican conventions and served as counsel to the Reagan Bush campaign in 1980, will become the Perry campaign’s congressional liason...Also joining the campaign are Curt Anderson, a former strategist for Steve Forges and the Republican National Committee; Jim Innocenzi, founding partner of Sandler-Innocenzi, a GOP television advertising firm; and Nelson Warfield, who served in the Reagan White House and served as Dole’s national press secretary in 1996.”  Read more on this here.

Perry’s campaign has come under fire over the past few weeks as he has slipped in the polls.  Many observers have noted the lack of national experience of his staff.  So, this may be the needed boost that supporters have been looking for.

What I Am Looking For In The Next President Of The United States

I have been spending a great deal of time lately thinking about who the next president should be. What are the qualities I want for someone who represents me and my values? This is what I came up with. I am looking for someone who/who is:

• Dedicated to the promotion of pro-life principles. This applies not just to the birth of a person but also the death.
• Willing to stand up for the family and sanctity of marriage. 
• Invested in lowering the tax burden on Americans.
• Recognizes that free market enterprise is what has led to American successes. Governmental control has not.
• Believes in American Exceptionalism.
• Upholds the Constitution of the United States and acknowledges the principles this nation was founded on.
• Supports religious freedom.
• Ardent in defending the life, rights, and freedoms of Americans.
• Recognizes that all humans have natural rights that God has bestowed.
• Able to manage foreign affairs and strengthen relationships.
• Knowledgeable of US and world history and policies.
• Collaborative with other governmental figures.
• Ethical in personal and professional dealings. Yes, this matters.
• Aware that the illegal immigration issue in the US is not as cut and dry as it may appear and able to approach it with sensitivity but decisiveness. 
• Wise enough to bring in a team of intelligent, dedicated people who can support his/her ideals and stand for this great nation.
• Prayerful. I know that when 9/11 occurred, President Bush hit his knees and prayed. It means something to me that a president have the recognition that there is a higher power from whom he or she should seek guidance.

Of course, with this said, s/he also needs to be able to beat Obama in a race for the White House. This is who I am looking for and the yardstick I am holding up to every candidate. I am not sure that the kind of person who can beat President Obama and adhere to the above principles is in this race. With that said, ANYONE who gets the Republican nomination, can beat Obama, and have even a portion of these qualities will most likely get my vote.

Guest Blogger Series: Should We Raise Taxes?

The following was written by guest blogger Marc Mallette whose blog is basicconservative.com:

The Historical Record

During a recent debate with some friends, I was presented with a very intelligent challenge:

How do you explain the 1990s — as a fluke due to the internet boom? Weren’t there more regulations and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations then? Can you really just say “but that was a different time!”
I don’t understand the logic behind saying that IF we raise taxes back to that level everyone will suffer. Data that shows this has historically been true may exist, but I’m just not aware of it. Please let me know if there is anything except what you consider common sense telling you that’s the case.

This led me on a fascinating flurry of research about the modern history of taxes in the U.S. But before we dive in to that, there’s a direct response on the issue of regulations.

Regulations

The question refers to both taxes and regulations in the 90s. There’s no question that both will have an impact on the business environment (see also: Why Government Decisions Matter).

While it’s true that tax rates were higher then, that’s not quite the case for regulations. As I pointed out to my friend, the principal achievements of this administration have been huge regulatory increases–the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, the CARD act. The EPA this year has had to roll back its own implementation of new CO2 emissions rules because, by their own estimation, they would have to hire 230,000 workers to enforce them. Rather than admitting the new regulations are absurd, they simply decided to wait until 2016 to do it. ^[1] The FDA recently announced that it is reinterpreting a 1994 law in such a way that will add millions to the cost of doing business for an entire industry–possibly putting smaller companies out of the market. ^{[2] [3]}

This is a drastic change in direction compared to, really, any administration in the past 30 years. Even Clinton was caught up in a decades-long deregulatory wave (see Gramm-Leach-Bliley). ^[4] So yes, it’s clear in hindsight that the successes of the 90s were partially due to the tech bubble, but also due to the general reduction in government interference in the economy that started under Reagan and continued until the last couple of years, where we’ve experienced a major about-face.

Taxes

This brings us to the other half of the challenge, the question of taxes. If taxes were higher in the 90s and things were okay, what’s the harm in raising them back to those levels now? Why won’t we still be okay?

 Plot of top bracket from U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates for 1913 to 2009

Here’s what I found. Income taxes have only gone up a handful of times in the past century, and for various reasons. There’s a spike for WWI, one at the outset of the Great Depression, another halfway through the Great Depression, then two more in generally healthy times–the 1945/51 range and the 1991/93 range. ^[5]
At least on the surface, small tax increases during healthy economic times don’t seem to hurt the overall economy too much (the late 40s and the early 90s). And a temporary tax hike to pay for WWI apparently did no lasting damage.  Let’s look closer at some of those big swings.

Everybody is familiar with the Great Depression. Less familiar is the post-WWI recession of 1920-1921. Despite its lack of popular recognition today, the recession that began in 1920 was rough. Various estimates of unemployment agree that there was a rise from 3% or less to as high as 8.7-11.7% at the peak. Industrial production fell 30%. Stock prices as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 47%. ^[6]

The government’s response was summed up in an article by Thomas E. Woods, Jr:

Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.” By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923. ^[7]

Did we all catch that? This downturn was as severe as what we saw in 2007, as severe as the beginning of the Great Depression. Yet in less than two years, production had returned and unemployment was below 3%.

There was another market correction at the end of that decade. Industrial production fell. In 1930, unemployment was approaching 9% again, and this time, the government intervened. Immediately, major new tariffs were instituted to protect American jobs (sound familiar?). In 1932, taxes went up on everyone, falling largely on the top earners–top marginal rate went from 25% to 63%, the estate tax was doubled, and corporate taxes went up slightly (sound familiar?). Through the rest of the decade, taxes were raised again every year or two. The appalling lack of recovery after 6 years led to another large tax increase on the wealthy in 1935–raising the top rate from 63% to 79%. The stagnant economy responded by dipping back into recession though 1937 and 1938. ^{[8] [9] [10]}

Throughout the decade, unemployment stayed close to 15%–peaking much higher, around 25% in 1933. Despite massive government intervention and hiring, this depression simply would not end the way others did before and since.

Let me try to bring this all together. We have the following situations:

• Raising taxes and more government involvement during good times: little immediate economic damage (late 40s, early 90s).
• Cutting taxes and less government involvement during recession: quickly ending recessions (1920, see also early 80s and 2000-2001).
• Raising taxes and more government involvement during recession: longer, deeper recessions (30′s).

Today, we have a choice. We see the effects already of 3-4 years of intervention since the first problems started in 2007. The lack of recovery is turning into a full-on double-dip recession right now. The President is currently asking for higher taxes and more intervention–the same policies that turned a situation like this one into the Great Depression.

I’ve presented the historical record on two general directions the government has tried. Our choice is, do we want to take a whole decade to get back to prosperity, like in 1930? Or do we want to take only a year to get back to prosperity, like in 1920?

---

[1] http://mediamatters.org/research/201109270014  Media Matters’ take on this is, “No, the EPA is not hiring 230,000 workers.” However, even in their own story, they can’t present any evidence that goes any farther than saying, “The EPA’s new rule would require 230,000 workers to enforce, but now they say they’re waiting until 2016 to do it.”
[2] http://thegormleyfiles.blogspot.com/2011/09/fdas-plan-to-cripple-health-food.html
[3] http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/topics/new-dietary-ingredients.aspx
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act For the record, I’m not intending in this article to argue the relative merits of GLB or Glass-Steagall. I’m not comfortable with anything being truly too big to fail, but there’s interesting arguments on both sides of that issue. This is just to point out that Clinton’s record during the 90s is not exactly an island of Big Government surrounded by Bushes–he was deregulating too.
[5] I’m using the top marginal income tax rate for simplicity, but corporate and capital gains taxes generally followed the same curve: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/ The capital gains tax conspicuously breaks ranks throughout the 70s, and is raised in the late 80s as well, though offset that time by dramatic income tax cuts.
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321
[7] http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b
[8] http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=2991697306G10020&contributor=Nathan+Lewis
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression
[10] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

Perry And Romney Attack Each Other With Scathing Ads

Below are 2 videos put out by the Perry campaign and 2 put out by the Romney campaign.  These videos are evidence of how nasty this election cycle has become.  The question is, are they fair?  I've always believed that showing distinctions between you and your competitor is fair, but these seem to be much more mean-spirited than that:

Rubio Grills Geithner - Must-See Video

This is a fantastic video of rising GOP star Senator Rubio as he grills Treasury Secretary Geithner on Obama's lame jobs plan:

Now That's A Debate! Thoughts On Tonight's CNN Debate

Here's my article from Examiner.com

Wow!  For anyone who hasn't been following these debates, this was the one to see!  The candidates were all behaving as though this was a make-it-or-break-it debate.  This was more contentious and personal than any of the debates so far. 

Here's how everyone did:

Cain – He got attacked by all other candidates with the very first question which focused on the 9-9-9 plan.  He was well-spoken. However, he needs to be more specific about why his plan doesn’t raise taxes.  He definitely took a hit tonight.  But, the best cheering of the night was when he repeated that “if you aren’t rich, it is your own fault” which is a comment he made to the Occupy Wall Street protestors last week.   It will be interesting to see how the polls respond after tonight.

Romney - Very feisty.  Very articulate.  Very personal.  He actually said to Perry that Perry has had a few "tough debates."  That's a low blow.  However, Romney defended himself very well.  Also, it was clear that he had a friendly audience.

Perry – Good showing.  The best so far.  Though, he clearly came out with 2 messages: Romney hired illegals and energy independence will create jobs.  Had he been this feisty in all of the debates, his poll numbers would definitely be higher.  The question is, is this enough?

Gingrich – Always great, always articulate.  He has some great lines.  I was surprised that he didn’t jump in more.  It seemed like he didn’t get as much time as everyone else.

Paul – I was ready to say that he had a great debate until he brought up Reagan. He is very consistent and made a better case than I’ve ever heard him make before about foreign policy.  However, he always goes a little too far, and he did that again tonight. 

Santorum – He came to play.  This is clearly a last-ditch effort to show that he belongs there.  He attacked almost everyone on stage at different times.  He is trying to make the case that he is the clear conservative.  And, he did a great job bringing the focus to families. 

Bachmann – Good showing.  She did a great job getting in there and having a say.  I don’t think she really helped herself very much, though.  She doesn’t bring anything special to the race that someone else doesn’t already have. 

Anderson Cooper – This is the best debate we’ve had so far.  Kudos to him for letting the candidates duke it out as they wanted instead of cutting them off.  Also, great idea to not have a bell when time is up.  And, the questions seemed fair and not clearly slanted.  He also did a great job of letting everyone have a fair number of questions.

CNN – This debate is much better than the last one with Wolf Blitzer.  Great job!

President And Communists Agree On Occupy Wall Street

Just to clarify, the President of the United States is throwing his support, along with the communist, socialist, and Nazi parties, behind Occupy Wall Street??? Just to clarify, when we are talking about communism, we are talking about a system of beliefs held dear to the enemies of America. This is a system where the power lies with the government and not with the people. The president and these parties see eye to eye, it appears. Just as a reminder in history:

"A free people cannot afford to forget the evils of Communism. We cannot allow the atrocities of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro to fade into the background of history. We must not forget the trail of blood and tears this utopian deception has left behind:

• When the Bolsheviks murdered their way into power...
• When Lenin destroyed hundreds of thousands of Cossacks...
• When the Kremlin starved more than six million in Ukraine...
• When Mao murdered tens of millions of Chinese peasants during his "Great Leap Forward"...
• When Ho Chi Minh sent 850,000 Vietnamese to their graves in "education camps"...
• When Castro buried dissenters in the infamous Isle of Pines...
• When the student voices of freedom were silenced at Tiananmen Square..."

Now, I am not saying that the protesters are communists or Nazis. I think they are a bit naive, but if you are part of an organization that gets the support from terroristic and evil entities, it should make you wonder.

From another perspective, do you think these statements that Obama has made help to support the brave men and women police officers who are trying to protect the city? Do you think this has made their jobs any easier?

So what to do? How do you show your outrage??

ELECT A NEW PRESIDENT INTO THE WHITE HOUSE!!! 

Tents Erected In Occupy Dallas

The Occupy Dallas protests seem to be fundamentally different than many of the other protests. First of all, many people have jobs. This is a nighttime and weekend protest. Sure, there are some people who are there throughout the day, but many of the people seem to be employed. Secondly, they did not immediately commit to a long-term stay. It took a few days for the tents to come out. Thirdly, to my knowledge, the relationship with the protesters and police has been civil, even friendly at times. It seems as though the Dallas Police Department has gone out of their way to help keep things non-violent.

I heard they were changing places so we'll have to see. These were taken yesterday.

Good News, Mr. Buffett: GOP Bill Would Allow Donations To The IRS

See my most recent article from Examiner.com:

Mr. Buffett, if you want to pay more taxes, the Republicans are going to make it easier for you do so.  Fox News is reporting that Senator John Thune has crafted legislation that will allow anyone who wants to offer a donation to the IRS will be able to when filing taxes starting next year.  According to the Fox News story, Thune said, “If individuals like Warren Buffett or President Obama are inclined to donate their own personal money toward paying down the federal government’s debt, they ought to have the right to do so voluntarily.  This bill would make it easier for those wealthy individuals who feel they are currently under-taxed to pay more to the U.S.Treasury above and beyond their current obligations, without raising taxes on America’s job creators.”

This is a brilliant idea and a great way to let Mr. Buffett and other notable wealthy liberals put their money where their mouth is.  Given the multiple calls for raising taxes on the wealthy, these benefactors to society should be first in line to submit funding for the government programs they hold so near and dear.

In fact, all of Hollywood should also be lining up to pay “their fair share.”  Let’s see, between Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, Roseanne Barr, and the multitude of other wealthy liberals, the United States should be well on its way to economic recovery. 

I suggest that the GOP submit another bill to Congress authorizing wealthy liberals to sponsor a bridge.  President Obama has been travelling around the country giving speeches at bridges claiming that the United States has a crumbly infrastructure that needs to be corrected or people could die (he really should visit Russia or India sometime to see what a bad infrastructure looks like).  So, my suggestion is that he implement a program called, “Save the Bridges.”  An individual could donate the cost of fixing the bridge, including the cost of labor.  This would add jobs and allow wealthy liberals the opportunity to clear their conscious of their apparent guilt for having so much money.

The sad truth is that we would learn very soon that these liberals are not meaning that their money should be taxed more.  They are actually only interested in increasing taxes for executives (you know, evil bankers and the like).  Mr. Buffett, as an executive, is very much standing with the wrong crowd on this one.  And, if he truly feels that he pays too small of a tax burden, this new GOP bill gives him a chance to rectify that.

Thank You, Sean Hannity!

Don't you just love Sean Hannity?  He doesn't always get as much attention as, say, Rush Limbaugh, but he really does bring quality to the airwaves each day.  I love Rush Limbaugh, don't get me wrong, but I'm also grateful Hannity is out there doing what he is doing. 

I don't get to listen every day (my job really cuts into my radio-listening time!), but I try to fit it in when I can.  I was listening the other day while he allowed two callers on at the same time and both were begging him to make a decision about who the GOP nominee should be.  They wanted him to endorse someone thinking it would help the GOP base rally around one person (some of us die-hard conservatives are getting a little nervous that the conservative vote is split between so many candidates).  During that conversation, Hannity said that he is working hard to make sure his audience has access to all of the candidates as often as possible.  He allows them generous airtime.  And, he believes it would be a disservice for him to endorse one candidate so early in the race, especially given the fact that once he does that, the other candidates wouldn't want to be on his show and then his audience wouldn't have the same access to them.

This is a thoughtful approach and very much appreciated.  I wish that some of the candidates would take more advantage of the opportunity.  For instance, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry could both benefit from some more airtime.  Perry, especially, needs a less divisive venue to make his case, and would probably win over more of his base if he would appear more often on Hannity.

As for Hannity, I don't know when or why he started saying "let not your heart be troubled," but I think it is a beautiful sentiment and evidence of the quality human being that he is.  Thanks to Sean and his crew for all of the their great work!

Occupy Wall Street Cartoon From NationalReview.com

Pretty Please, Can We See Gingrich Debate Obama?

See my most recent article from Examiner.com:

At this point in time, it is unlikely that Former Speaker Newt Gingrich will win the GOP nomination, though it could happen.  However, I think every Republican would love to see an Obama-Gingrich debate.  Gingrich has said that if he gets the nomination, he will challenge President Obama to multiple Lincoln-Douglas type debates.  President Obama would obviously never accept such an invitation.  However, even a traditional debate between the two of them would be a marvelous thing to behold.

Think about the inevitable question on how to fix the economy.  Obama would say, “I inherited the economy from Bush and then the Republicans kept me from making any progress.”  Newt Gingrich would wipe the floor with that one-dimensional, oft-repeated response.  He would probably go into his new Contract with America and then discuss the philosophical differences between him and Obama all the while finding a humorous way to remind everyone that Obama took a car that already veered off the road and drove it off a cliff.  He would do it with such eloquence and wit that Obama wouldn’t know what hit him.  What a great debate that would be!

Another match-up that would be fascinating to see is Obama vs. Herman Cain.  Herman Cain is a talented orator with a strong business background.  He would trounce Obama. I would love to see them discuss Obama’s favorite topic – the disparity between the rich and poor.  Can you imagine Herman Cain’s straight-talk (such as “if you are poor, it is your own fault”) up against Obama’s class warfare language (“the rich need to pay their fair share”)?

Conservatives need to continue to look for the candidate that will be able to make the strongest case against Obama.  On top of being an important factor in choosing the best candidate, it will also make for some very entertaining television!

GOP 2012: Time For Some Candidates To Drop Out

See my most recent article on Examiner.com:

It is time for some of the GOP contenders for president to drop out.  It is in the best interest of the Republican Party that they remove themselves from the race and start to support those that have a chance of winning. The bottom line is that regardless of how good a debater he is, Former Governor Mitt Romney has not captured the hearts of conservatives.  Like it or not, he is not their first choice.  Those that oppose Romney will rally around the best conservative non-Romney, which is why Herman Cain is surging in the polls now that Governor Rick Perry’s campaign has taken a dive.  There are plenty of votes for the non-Romney conservative.  Add together all of the support for Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann - and Romney gets trampled. 

While each conservative candidate would be a massive improvement on the current White House occupant, the base needs to start to rally around a smaller number of candidates so that it can get closer to making a choice for the anti-Romney candidate.  Bachmann, for instance, has not proven that she can stay in the top tier.  Santorum is a strong conservative, but his numbers are not good enough to make him a viable contender.  Time for both Bachmann and Santorum to go.  Obviously, Governor Huntsman needs to drop out (and really never should have joined in the first place).  He is adding no value in any way.    Most of his supporters will probably go to Romney as the next most moderate candidate.  But, since Huntsman has so few supporters, it will be irrelevant.  Everyone else deserves to stay at least for now. 

Will Santorum, Bachmann, and Huntsman drop out soon?  Hopefully.  Not until the GOP has less contenders to choose from will they get closer to picking their anti-Romney candidate.

Day Seven And Occupy Dallas Still Has No Specific Goals

Here is my article from Examiner.com

It is nice to see that locally, the Occupy Dallas participants have not behaved as badly as their counterparts in New York City. There have not been any arrests, nor has anyone defecated on a police car.  However, after living in downtown Dallas for a week, we still do not know what they want.

Their website states:  The main issue is protesting Corporate Greed and their control of the Government.  It’s about Restoring Democracy to The People, about us taking back control. 
This really does not clarify anything.  When I visited them over the weekend, I was told that they would be there until the system is changed.  When I inquired for more specifics about what that means, there was no answer.  And now, almost a week later, their goals have not gotten any more specific.

Meanwhile, they are still asking for donations.  Specifically, their site asks for: tarps, waterproof storage boxes, locks, locking cabinets, coffee makers, filters & grinds, hairnets, a dolly, sand bags, walkie-talkies, and the list goes on.  These folks are planning on being around for a while.  And, given the more mild Dallas winters, they will probably outlast some of their East Coast counterparts.

Who wants to tell them that all of the things they are asking for were made by capitalists?

Funny Political Cartoons

From USNews.com:

Christie Endorses Romney

Chris Christie, just a week after officially bowing out of the 2012 Presidential race (for the 115th time), endorses Former Governor Mitt Romney. Many feel this is the final shot in the arm that Romney needs to move ahead and stay ahead. Unfortunately for Romney, there are many in the conservative movement that still feel his policies are too liberal. Christie's endorsement only solidifies that for many.

Thoughts On New Hampshire Debate

Okay, you probably know if you read this blog at all that I've been wanting to see Perry do well in the debate tonight because I agree with his politics and believe he is the most electable conservative.  So, did he win the debate tonight?  Nope, not even close.  It is clear that his handlers told him to be much more careful tonight so as to not stick his foot in his mouth.  He watched his numbers fall over the past couple of weeks and read all of the commentary and got nervous.  And, a nervous debater is not a good debater.

Who did win?  I would say Newt Gingrich.  He did a great job of expressing his positive message while also articulating conservative principles.  I think Rick Santorum did a great job, also.  In fact, he had one of the best answers of the night stating that the underlying problem with this country is the decay of the family.  Ron Paul did well. (That's right, I can say nice things about Ron Paul).  This is really his arena.  He always does well when discussing economic policy. 

Bachmann was very competent and looked the most presidential she has looked in any of the debates so far.  Huntsman also attended the debate.  The problem is, no one cares about anything that he says.

What about the two leaders coming into this debate, Cain and Romney?  Cain did not do as well as he has in the past.  His economic plan was questioned for the first time.  And, he faltered on a few questions.  However, a bad debate for Cain is still the type of debate I'd like to see come from Perry.  So, overall, I don't think too much damage was done to Cain and it was a solid performance.

What about Romney?  Well, he is, of course, a very good debater.  I think if you liked Romney going in, you probably still like him.  Though, the biggest concern of the night is that he did not unilaterally say he wouldn't support TARP, and he argued with the moderator about the definition of hypothetical.  For people on the line about Romney, hearing him struggle to answer the question about TARP is not good.  But, he again showed that he would be a great debater against Obama.

Overall, this debate format had promise, but was not nearly as interesting as past debates.  The questions were boring, though I did like that the candidates could ask each other questions.  What I'd like to see in the future is the candidates having a true discussion.  Just asking a question and then not being able to follow-up with the person that answered really is pointless.