Occupy Plans Mass Laughter At World Leaders

Remember the scene in the 1976 film “Network” when newsman Howard Beale — played by actor Peter Finch — encourages his viewers to open their windows and exclaim “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore” in response to the constant barrage of bad news? Adbusters, the publication that could be credited with planting the seeds of Occupy Wall Street, is asking people around the world to do something similar on May 18.

In a recent article, the publication concedes that the Federal government’s decision to relocate the G8 summit of powerful world leaders from Chicago to the Presidential compound at Camp David represents government leaders’ fear of the angry masses.

The article says: “Wow! Looks like the specter of 50,000 occupiers ready to swarm with a list of demands has turned the climactic Showdown in Chicago into a humiliating G8 Backdown. Bravo! Splitting the G8 and NATO summits was a deft move… but now we’ve got a major tactical rethink on our hands.”

Adbusters says that protesters must now decide whether they should “follow Mao’s advice (‘when the enemy retreats, we pursue’) or Sun Tzu’s (‘Do not pursue an enemy who simulates flight’)? “ There have reportedly been discussions within the movement of both organizing protests in Chicago and trying to get near Camp David to disrupt the summit.

Comparing the Administration of Barack Obama to regimes toppled elsewhere in the world over the past year, the article calls for people to simply laugh at the White House and G8 en masse on May 18:

When Ben Ali first attacked then tried to hide from his people, he was toppled. When Mubarak refused to negotiate and tried to beat his people back into line, he was deposed. Now the White House and the G8 are repeating the mistakes of last year’s autocrats … first they try to scare us with tough talk of repressive anti-Occupy ordinances, crowd suppression technologies and paramilitary policing, then they make a hasty retreat to the safety of Camp David.

The world’s leaders flee from us … so what do we do? Maybe we just laugh at them?

On May 18, the day the G8 leaders meet in Camp David, why don’t we, the people of the world have a #LAUGHRIOT. Let roars of laughter rise up from towns and cities everywhere at the spectacle of the world’s leaders trying to crisis manage the economy from behind closed doors and razor wire fences.

Laughter is one of the most powerful tactical weapons of memewar … it signals supremacy and loss of fear. So let’s pull off the greatest comedy of howling flash mobs, riotous street parties and hysterical pranks the world has ever seen. May 18 could be a monumental tipping point… an ahahaha! moment when the people of the world have a collective epiphany, and from that point on start thinking differently about how the world should be governed.

Jammers, whatever we do this Spring, let’s float like butterflies and sting like bees! Let’s bend the G8 and NATO to our will with shock tactics and audacious culture jams that capture the imagination of the world. We may be far closer to a Global Spring than any of us has so far dared to imagine …

for the wild,

Culture Jammers HQ

Obama The Race Huckster

The racist flames licking at the political discourse in the Trayvon Martin shooting needed no fanning, but President Barack Obama fanned them anyway when he waded in and claimed: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Perhaps his racist white half was saying all blacks look alike to him. After all, his grandmother, according to Obama, “once confessed her fear of black men who passed her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made [Obama] cringe.” Or perhaps, it was just another rush to judgment, much like when he waded into the Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident and claimed police in Cambridge, Mass., “acted stupidly.”

Make no mistake. Neither Obama nor his fellow race hucksters Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson care one wit about justice or Martin. If they did, they wouldn’t have convicted George Zimmerman without first knowing the facts. But the facts aren’t interesting unless they promote a certain narrative.

Now the facts are beginning to trickle out. Far from the media’s initial portrayal of Martin as an innocent, hoodie-wearing candy snacker, Martin’s Twitter account — his handle was NO_LIMIT_NIGGA — reveals he was probably a promiscuous, dope-smoking thug who had been suspended from school and caught with a  burglary tool and a bag of women’s jewelry, and who may have recently attacked a bus driver.

I don’t know exactly what happened that night, so I’m not ready to blame Zimmerman or Martin. But there are enough agencies investigating it now that I’m sure the truth will eventually come out. I just hope it happens before the New Black Panther Party is able to pay out its $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s carcass.

Obama is not interested in justice. If he were, he’d tamp down the vitriol, denounce the talk of bounties and encourage the justice system to run its course. On average, 30 homicides with a gun occur in the United States each day. Almost two-thirds of them are either black on black or black on white. If Obama were interested in justice, he might say something about those.

No, Obama is interested only in ginning up his base and diverting your attention. After all, there’s an election coming up. And even if the mainstream media have to come up with a new ethnic group for Zimmerman — white Hispanic — this one fits the correct narrative. (I wonder when the MSM is going to refer to Obama by his true ethnicity: white black?)

And keeping attention focused on the Martin/Zimmerman affair keeps the people’s attention focused on an ancillary issue rather than important ones. Those would be issues like Obamacare before the U.S. Supreme Court, crony capitalism benefiting bankrupt green energy companies, rising gas prices and the EPA’s latest power grab that will put onerous and costly regulations on new coal-fired electrical plants, drive up the cost of electricity and put more people out of work.

Michigan Makes Felons Of Hog Farmers

Michigan lawmakers have their sights set on pigs, literally.

According to NaturalNews, Michigan is days away from issuing an Invasive Species Order (ISO) put in place by the State’s Department of Natural Resources which would allow law enforcement to kill hogs on family farms based on how they look. By April 1, farmers must destroy heritage, or “wild,” breeds of swine or they will be violating the law. State officials will conduct raids of farms where they believe farmers have failed to follow the order and shoot the animals themselves; the farmers will then face felony charges.

The 2010 ISO states: “Possession of the following live species, including a hybrid or genetic variation of the species, an egg or offspring of the species or of a hybrid or genetically engineered variant, is prohibited; . . . . (b) Wild boar, wild hog, wild swine, feral pig, feral hog, feral swine, Old world swine, razorback, eurasian wild boar, Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus). This subsection does not and is not intended to affect sus domestica involved in domestic hog production. [3, § 40.4]”

According to the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the law is simply a ploy to bow to special interests such as Michigan Pork Producers Association by making it difficult for local farmers to raise hogs.

Mark Baker, owner of a family farm in rural Michigan that may be shut down as a result of the order explains the destructive nature of the order in the video below:

 

Welfare Killed The Little Red Hen

The yoke that is the welfare state has thoroughly infected America. If voters re-elect President Barack Obama, he will brainwash all Americans into thinking they are entitled to government handouts. Most Americans don’t understand that independent people are losing their way as the President crusades to build his Nanny Nation — a country so transformed that even the oral traditions that were taught for generations have been eradicated.

To be fair, it is not all Obama’s fault. In my lifetime, the United States has been moving away from its ideals of hard work, self-sacrifice and personal responsibility.

Bedtime Stories Our Children Never Hear

Some of you may remember “The Little Red Hen,” the bedtime story of an industrious chicken that lived with an indolent cat, a lazy dog and a mouse that behaved like a sloth.

I can still remember the story from half a century ago. My dad always had a glimmer in his eye, sitting at the head of the dinner table and telling us kids the fable of the cat that slept, the dog that napped and the mouse that snoozed. They only survived, said my dad, because the Little Red Hen worked so very hard.

One day, while busy in the garden, the Little Red Hen found some seeds of wheat. The hen asked her friends the following:

“Who will plant this wheat?”

“Who will cut this wheat?”

“Who will grind this wheat into flour?”

“Who will make a cake from the fine flour?”

To each question, her friends replied: “Not I.”

Finally, the Little Red Hen asked, “Who will help me eat this cake?” The cat, the dog and the mouse all shouted: “I will.”

“No, you won’t,” replied the Little Red Hen, “for I alone did all the work, so I alone will eat the cake.”

When I was a child, The Little Red Hen was a big hit at our house. But when I told the fable to my own children, they just didn’t seem to get it.

“Why wouldn’t the hen share, Daddy?” asked my little girl.

“Because she did all the work,” I replied.

“But my teacher tells us we are supposed to share,” she said.

“Sharing is good,” I told her, “but you can’t be lazy. You have to share in the work too.”

A puzzled look spread over her face. I remember being a bit exasperated, and I asked: “Don’t you read stories like ‘The Little Red Hen’ at school?”

“Not really,” she said. “Most of the stories we read are about helping each other.”

I realized that the values held sacred by my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were not even contemplated by my children or most of their generation.

Obama is accelerating America’s welfare revolution. He is finishing what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt started when he introduced the New Deal 80 years ago. Three generations later, there are fewer Little Red Hens and far too many cats, dogs and mice.

I fear that the welfare creed has become so ingrained in our culture that America will probably never extricate itself from its growing socialist grip. That may have been FDR’s intention from the start.

Roosevelt bragged: “… no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

But FDR only engineered the welfare state. Its grand developer was President Lyndon B. Johnson. His “War On Poverty” and his plan for a Great Society have built a welfare system second to none.

An American Thinker article addressed the issue:

As it stands now, Obama appears headed toward an economic legacy that may very well surpass Jimmy Carter in its level of failure.

We have seen under this president an expanding number of citizens who are partially or wholly dependent on the government for their very livelihood, as the data show that the U.S. has become an ever-growing welfare state under Obama.

Government dependence, which is defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is at a staggering 47%, its highest level in American history, while 21 million households are reliant on food stamps.  In fact, government spending on food stamps in 2010 ($68 billion) was double what it was in 2007, with the 2011 figure likely to be even higher.

As the graph below shows, government welfare payments have soared over the past 42 years, from a few billion dollars to $800 billion. If the trend continues, payments will exceed $1 trillion dollars per year. Add in defense and national security spending and immediately the Federal government is spending almost $2 trillion each year. This cannot continue, yet it seems almost impossible to stop until people believe that they need to be industrious, that they should not depend on government to help them make their way.

My dad told me other stories when I was growing up: hard-luck stories about what he and his generation faced during the Great Depression. He graduated from college with a degree in geology in 1930. Yet it took him 12 years to do anything but menial jobs. He worked selling vacuum cleaners and he sold life insurance door to door. He even worked in a slaughter house. The government didn’t help him. Quite frankly, if the help had been offered, I doubt he would have taken it. He didn’t have much time for government, either in getting things from it or paying toward it.

The grandchildren of those who went through the Great Depression don’t think this way. Liberals, from those in the education system to those in the entertainment industry, have convinced most young people that government should do more to make society better. They want to reward the cat, the dog and the mouse while making the Little Red Hen pay for it.

The problem is the Little Red Hens are getting tired of carrying the load for everyone else. Until we wake up to this fact, we will be faced with continued social and economic crises, and the standard of living will fall for all of us.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

The Devils We Know

Let me warn you right now: If the idea of President Barack Hussein Obama continuing his occupation of the Oval Office past next January will ruin your day, click through to the Personal Liberty Digest’s™ cheerfully presented tips on health and finance. They’re entirely worthwhile expert opinions and what’s more—they’re free.

Meanwhile, those of you who continue perusing this piece must confront this premise: barring a miraculous removal of Republican heads from Republican posteriors, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is going to win the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Extremely well-capitalized (as opposed to well-versed, well-prepared or well-vetted), Romney will then set about introducing his Vice Presidential nominee to the Nation while engaging Obama in combat. But I fear Romney will be unable to reassure voters who are increasingly hungry for respite from the unrelenting disaster which is the Obama Presidency. In an effort to counter Obama’s far-flung big-state liberalism, the GOP has selected as its standard-bearer a big state liberal; albeit a less awkwardly gangly one with better hair.

Obama is dominated by billionaire vermin such as George Soros and Warren Buffett. If he was any more beholden to the union thugs, Richard Trumka would be the Secretary of Labor. And his ties to Wall Street banksters like Goldman Sachs are stitched tighter than a pop singer’s hair extensions. Meanwhile, the names on Romney’s best friends list might be different, but they were all dressed by the same tailor.

In 2008, a majority of American voters swallowed the empty, race-baiting hype surrounding a little-known but reasonably polished-seeming Senator from Illinois. Following a campaign long on nonspecific catchphrases and overt support from the corporate media, Obama stepped into the Oval Office and immediately set about rearranging the national furniture. By 2010, the same American voters, fully aware of the spectacular mistake they made in electing Obama, set about correcting that mistake at the polls. And ideologically welded to Obama, Democrats from Capitol Hill to small-town mayors’ offices packed up their family photos, raided the supply closet for one last box of toner cartridges and headed home. Even the Democrats who managed to keep their paws on their offices had to fight tooth and nail to do it.

In 2008, the Republicans offered Senator John McCain in retort to the insult which is Obama. Despite slight mitigation in the form of Governor Sarah Palin’s presence on the ticket, the Republicans failed to offer anything more than Obama-lite, and the electorate responded with the same lack of enthusiasm the Republicans displayed in choosing McCain in the first place. By 2010, the GOP seemed to have developed an understanding of the disdain Americans show toward those who threaten liberty in the name of some twisted and/or stupid concept of the greater good. Unfortunately, the lesson clearly didn’t stick.

Indeed, when one factors in no fewer than four highly questionable primary or caucus outcomes, the Republican establishment is showing signs of not only forgetting what they learned at electoral politics class, but cribbing from the Democrats’ textbooks. Behind Romney in an increasingly suspect Republican race for the nomination lurks the unsettling Rick Santorum (“Republicans, I think to our credit, have sort of morphed away from the Goldwater idea that really government just needs to be smaller..”) and the unpalatable Newt Gingrich. Congressman Ron Paul, who is clearly the only candidate remaining who considers the preservation of true Constitutional liberties a matter of absolute honor, has been shut out of the spotlight thanks to a political establishment which—from the White House to Speaker John Boehner’s office—hopes that if they wish upon a star, he’ll go away. Short of that, they’ll behave like ACORN volunteers “community organizing” their desired outcome.

The odds of Paul surviving through a brokered convention are worse than the odds of MSNBC hiring a primetime mouthpiece who isn’t struggling with a serious personality disorder. And a third-party run would simply relegate Paul to the role of Ross Perot, version 2.0. Simply put: Mitt Romney is probably going to win the nomination; and he will probably select a running mate who is almost as exciting as one of those annoying precinct captains who thinks voting at the convention is the coolest thing he or she has done since that time they got their picture taken with the showgirls in Las Vegas. For those of you who have ever attended a major Republican gathering, you know precisely to whom I’m referring: the guy with campaign buttons dating back to Ford/Dole ’76 tacked to his lapel.

Therefore, I feel compelled to make a remark which may well shock you even more than my earlier prediction that Obama will likely be reelected this fall: so be it. If the Republican Party is content to react to Barack Obama’s almost virtually criminal arrogance by offering a more telegenic version of—well—Barack Obama, then they deserve to lose my vote… for starters. It’s entirely possible that the Republican establishment risks political oblivion in nominating a candidate who only edges Obama in the hair and wardrobe departments. Perhaps that’s a fate they’ve earned.

Conservatives have repeatedly been forced to hold their noses and cast ballots for candidates who are only marginally better than the shrieking liberals whom they oppose. As a result of our own excessive flexibility, we have unwittingly played a part in allowing an incremental shift in the Republican Party away from its conservative roots and toward the sort of monster-government espoused by the Democrats and their hordes of dependent minions.

I am no longer willing to select the lesser of two evils on Election Day. I will acknowledge that casting a third party ballot carries an inherent gamble: the reelection of Barack Obama. But given the Republicans’ intransigence in moving toward the true conservatism demanded by the people, they have hardly earned the right to replace him. Presuming we can survive four more years of “the madness of King Barack,” another four years of Democrats in the White House might finally wake us all up to the fact that we can do much, much better.

-Ben Crystal

Cancer Woes Are Many

If we obey our doctor without question, we could have huge additional unnecessary risk.

“Tests” are a very big part of conventional medicine these days, and many of them have risk. Who cares? It’s the profit that’s important, and hospitals demand the income.

There is danger in biopsies, CT scans and all tests connected with radiation. I believe sincerely that, by far, most of these tests are worthless. But what are the very first words out of your doctor’s mouth? “Let’s do some tests.”

It is high income for hospitals.

FTC Proposes New Privacy Regulation

Americans concerned that corporations are tracking them online and violating their Internet privacy may find some relief in a new Federal Trade Commission report pledging that consumers will have a “Do Not Track” option by the end of the year.

The FTC takes the White House “privacy bill of rights” that was released last month a step further by ensuring consumers will be informed by companies what type of online tracking they are subject to and will be given an option to opt out, according to The Washington Post.

“Although some companies have excellent privacy and data securities practices, industry as a whole must do better,” the report states.

In the report, the FTC also calls for Congress to pass legislation to provide consumers access to the online marketing data that companies store about them.

The agency emphasized heavily on mobile Internet devices in the report as well, saying that there should be regulations regarding corporate use of an individual’s location data, which can be obtained from the devices.

Obama Brags About ‘Flexibility’ If Reelected

Some conservatives have expressed concerns that a second term for President Barack Obama means a chance for the President, who will no longer face reelection, to force radical, unpopular “change” upon the United States. A statement the President made on Monday may fuel those concerns.

Unaware that they were being filmed, Obama was caught by television camera confidently telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that once he wins reelection, he will have the “flexibility” to make a deal on ballistic missile defense in Europe, according to Daily Mail.

In part of the exchange, Obama urged Moscow to give him space until after the November ballot. Medvedev said he would relay the President’s message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The conversation reportedly went as follows:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”

Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

The conversation was focused only around an American missile defense system being put together in Europe that is unpopular with Russia as the country’s leaders believe it may be used to target their homeland.

In response to questions about the exchange, the White House responded by saying that the President simply meant that because both countries were in the midst of an election year, he didn’t believe there would be a breakthrough regarding the system.

Obama’s remarks, however, may beg the question for people worried about him having a second term: What other issues will the President have more “flexibility” to tackle once he no longer has to worry about angering voters?

Political Pundit Maddow Takes On Perpetual War

MSNBC political pundit Rachel Maddow, promoting her new book, “Drift,” on Meet the Press Sunday, echoed the sentiments of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul as she discussed the United States’ state of perpetual war.

Maddow said the United States is engaged in a continual war, the effects of which most Americans do not feel. This comes at a high moral cost to the country. The result, she believes, is that the civilian population feels that the military is not engaged in protecting the country, but the government’s interests.

“It’s been bothering me for a very long time, this idea that we’ve made a series of changes over time, over the course of my lifetime, I think, that in all cases have made it easier, have made it a little friction, given us less friction, toward using war,” Maddow said. “Less political friction, less public… discomfort with it, in a way that we have gone to war so frequently and felt it so much less. It bothers me emotionally, and so I wanted to treat it in a long-form way so I could really lay out the case.”

The pundit said that the military has become isolated from the political process, which has resulted in the creation of a runaway “military superstructure” in the Nation. By making it easy to go to war without angering Americans, Maddow contends, the war for profit machine in the United States has been allowed to grow out of control because Americans have become desensitized to the horrors of war.

An excerpt from Maddow’s book can be read here.