Who is this Roberts guy? Did they pick him up off the sidewalk back when Zucotti Park was still a hobo heaven, shower up him, shave him, slap a suit on him and stick him behind the camera? Check out this ostentatious display of bias.
Who is this Roberts guy? Did they pick him up off the sidewalk back when Zucotti Park was still a hobo heaven, shower up him, shave him, slap a suit on him and stick him behind the camera? Check out this ostentatious display of bias.
Type “Occupy anti-capitalist” into Google News and you’ll see a bunch of European news outlets returning results. You’ll have to search harder for instances of US papers referring to US occupiers as anti-capitalist. It happens, but rarely.
Here’s a sample of headlines and culled descriptions from papers in England, Scotland, France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia and Denmark. Notice that these are news stories not opinion pieces:
By contrast, US papers have rarely applied the term anti-capitalist to the protests, even when the term has appeared in print it is often frowned upon by the author.
Big Journalism has learned that the Occupy Washington DC movement is working with well-known media members to craft its demands and messaging while these media members report on the movement. Someone has made the emails from the Occupy Wall Street email distro public and searchable. The names in the list are a veritable who’s who in media.
Journolist 2.0 includes well known names such as MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi who both are actively participating; involvement from other listers such as Bill Moyers and Glenn Greenwald plus well-known radicals like Noam Chomsky, remains unclear. The list also includes a number of radical organizers, such as Kevin Zeese.
In these emails we see MSNBC’s Ratigan, hawking his book in the footnotes, instructing occupiers on how properly to present their demands and messages while simultaneously appearing on television reporting “objectively” on the story (when he’s not taking part in the protests himself as content.)
Oh, but he was speaking figuratively. Of course. Dig the #newtone.
I’m curious as to how Feingold plans to validate his freshman Marxism 101 accusation that billionaires got their wealth by stealing from the poor.
The Wall Street Journal in 2007 published a study which showed that the vast majority of the American wealthy are nouveau riche as their wealth is, on average, less than 13 years-old. Contrary to Feingold’s hysteria, these new wealthy are self-made entrepreneurs, not robber barons. They earned their money through commerce. Such success used to be celebrated as evidence that the American Dream still existed, that you too can start from nothing and make it anywhere in America so long as you have the will and persistence. What you put into it is what you get out of it. Since the breakdown of the American psyche by Marxist-loving liberals, the American Dream is now something of which successful Americans should be ashamed. How dare Americans who work hard reap any reward from their work! They should pay their fair share!
Except they do. They pay theirs, yours, and everyone else’s. Analysis of tax data shows that the top 5% pay 58% of all federal income taxes in the United States, while the bottom 50% pay less than three percent.
Union thug Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. demonstrated why a union stereotype exists just moments ago when he introduced President Obama at an address in Detroit with a threat of violence:
Uh oh. Obama says he’s “proud” of Hoffa:
” … we got to keep an eye on the battle we face, the war on workers, and you see it everywhere, it is the tea party. There’s only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is that we like a good fight. And you know what? They got a war? They got a war with us? And there’s only gonna be one winner, it’s gonna be the workers of Michigan, of America, we’re gonna win that war!
President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march! Let’s take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong!”
Color of Change, the group founded by admitted Marxist and 9/11 truther Van Jones, is chest-thumping all over Twitter essentially saying that they, not Dylan Ratigan, run “The Dylan Ratigan Show.” Writing on Daily Kos, Color of Change’s James Rucker says [emphasis Kos]:
As you may know, ColorOfChange members led the charge to ensure that Breitbart’s credibility and image weren’t sanitized by ABC News or the Huffington Post. After we saw Breitbart on Ratigan’s show, with Ratigan seemingly praising Breitbart as “smart” and a “sharp shooter who gets results,” we were deeply concerned.
When I spoke with Ratigan, he explained what he was trying to do. He quickly agreed that Breitbart was a race-baiter, dishonest, and undeserving of credibility — without question. And he frankly hadn’t thought about the legitimizing effect that having Breitbart on his show — without clearly labeling him as the race-baiter and deceiver he is — would have.
Moving forward, Ratigan said that if he deals with Breitbart at all in the future, it will be with the explicit disclaimer that Breibart is someone who deceives and race-baits. Ratigan recognizes and respects the argument that there’s a problem with giving Breitbart a mainstream platform, and he’s committed to making sure that his show is not used to lend Breitbart the appearance of legitimacy and credibility.
When I reached out to leadership at MSNBC, they were also receptive to our concerns — here’s what Jeremy Gaines, a spokesperson for MSNBC submitted to me when going on the record:
James, I understand and appreciate your concerns. Our goal is to ensure that our network has a high standard of integrity and that guests whose integrity or credibility may be in question are presented as such. You might notice that the next time Breitbart appeared on our network, the following day, Martin Bashir held Breitbart’s feet to the fire and engaged in a line of questioning that brought to light the specific issues of Breitbart’s integrity and credibility which I understand to be your concern.
They claimed to have “thrown the rightwing bloggosphere [sic] into a tizzy” with their dog-and-pony show announcement of “infiltrating the tea parties” on April 15th. Problem: pretending that you’re Harriet the Spy and infiltrating tea parties only works if you’re covert about it, otherwise, you’re just showing up.
WHO WE ARE, Crash The Tea Party style, is a lesson in Marxism 101: “A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself “The Tea Party.”

Fake grassroots? Racists? A lesson in Marxism 101? It’s elementary enough that I’m further intrigued.
Their Twitter stream is rife with the sharp, lip-smacking sounds of liberal plebeians sucking up to government media elites:
@KeithOlbermann I love your work! Hope you like mine too: www.crashtheteaparty.org
about 8 hours ago via web
So, I am on the Tea Party Express bus traveling to our next rally in Omaha, Neb., when the faces of black democrats Maxine Waters and Charley Rangel appear on TV on the Fox News channel. Both were saying racism was at the core of the Tea Party protester’s disagreement with President Obama. Please excuse my crudeness, but I wanted to puke.
These two race exploiters are calling the Tea Party protesters racist. Meanwhile, I am a black performer/activist traveling on my third national Tea Party Express tour. We just finished our rally in North Platte, Neb. Two white families asked me to hold their newborn babies and pose for pictures. Excited white grandparents who are fans of my articles and music asked me to pose for pictures with them and their grand kids. Numerous white patriots shook my hand with tears in their eyes thanked me for what I was doing for our country. A white woman who said she was 86 years old gave me a big hug in thanks for my efforts. (more…)
In part one, we revealed there are only two kinds of government when you strip away all the smoke and mirrors. Big Government (BG) or Limited Government (LG). Or as we will see in this chapter, “top down” or “bottom up.” The choice you make determines if you support freedom or slavery. Today we’re going to talk about why in more detail.
To start, I need to say that this chapter explores the role of religion as a tool of statecraft. It’s going to discuss how rulers use religion to get what they want. It is not a comment on the merits of any religion, just on how it’s been used.
The earliest form of government is the tribe. The tribe had a chief of some kind who made all the big decisions. The tribe went out and gathered resources and the chief got the pick of the spoils. This system was expanded as civilization grew into villages, towns and cities. There was one person at the top, a ruler. Below them was his support group, a court. And they were the major beneficiaries of whatever wealth the society created. Everyone below them got diminishing returns. This system is still in use today in varying forms. It’s called a top down system. BG systems are all top down no matter how they try to spin it.

In order to motivate the people to agree to this arrangement, the rulers used soldiers to impose their will. But even an army isn’t enough to keep people in line. These rulers needed them to perform well, to be focused on producing goods to benefit the state. So they used the earliest form of ideology: religion. (more…)
James O’Keefe still gets my vote for investigative journalist of the year. Teaming with Hannah Giles to expose illegal and immoral tactics deep in the ACORN shakedown operation was brilliant. Now, O’Keefe has one-upped himself with his exposure of an MSM drowning in its own leftist ideology.
American journalists once cheered for those among their own who were brave enough to risk jail in the quest of exposing corruption and malfeasance. Yet when O’Keefe and his band of whippersnapper journalists went undercover, disguised as telephone repairmen in the hopes of exposing Senator Landrieu’s denying her own constituents phone access to her, the MSM fell all over themselves denouncing the young men.
Rush to judgment? No. It was a stampede.

From MSNBC, CBS, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Talking Points Memo and others came shrill, utterly false headlines about “attempted bugging” and the “new Watergate,” which are now being corrected or retracted with but a faint whisper. MSM “journalists” in high-and-mighty places haven’t had this much egg on their faces since their coffee-klatch therapy sessions over the misunderstood, “non-jihadist” Ft. Hood terror attack.
Bravo Mr. O’Keefe, honey! (more…)
Howard Zinn, the progressive Marxist historian, has died at the age of 87. Some choice quotes:
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
We need to decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the politicians or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children.
In war, good guys always become bad guys.
Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals the fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such as world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.
Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.
Your thoughts?