Tag Archives: Occupy Wall Street


You cannot tune into political commentary without hearing about the divided Republican Party. Republicans admit it and Democrats use it against the Republicans. Fellow Republicans admit the party is divided and are hoping that its members will re-united before the November 2016 presidential election and elect a Republican president. The Democrats are using this so-called divided Republican Party to get more votes for Democrat candidates.

Is a divided Republican Party all that bad?

In the past, I have authored several blog posts illustrating the differences between Democrats and Republicans. In review, Republicans believe that items/issues should be handled in the private sector or the lowest level of government possible; whereas, Democrats believe in a stronger more centralized government. Republicans and Democrats – What’s the Difference

Is a divided Republican Party so bad?

Yes, the Republican Party has it’s disagreements. Smart people generally do.

Republicans frequently use the term, “government over-reach” to indicate areas in which the federal government has taken control over individual freedoms and areas once controlled by states or the private sector. Don’t you think that it would be natural for individual Republicans to disagree on what may constitute “government over-reach?”

Just the other day I had a brief online discussion with a person who was very “anti-Obama” and while he didn’t indicate that he was a Republican, I think he probably is. This person, however, is a proponent of the president’s new overtime directive whereby certain salaried professionals, those making $47,000 or less, must be paid overtime by employers when they work more than 40 hours per week. I think this directive is “the plague” and will be a giant leap in destroying corporate America. This gentleman and I, both Republicans, disagreed.

The abortion issue was another issue in which Republicans were quite divided on, especially in the eighties and nineties. Many, many discussions ensued over abortion and still do today. However, with modern technology indicating that an embryo takes on many human characteristics immediately upon fertilization, the dialog of pro-choice versus pro-life is not as lively because many Republicans have converted from pro-choice to pro-life.

Democrats, on the other hand, simply and without apparent consideration, fall in lockstep with anything  the Democrat party leaders (the president, congressmen, and other party officials) declare. If it includes growing the government, raising taxes, especially on the rich, and deviating from any traditional moral behavior, the Democrats all fall in lockstep. There maybe one or two so-called conservative Democrats still left in Congress; Democrats like former Georgia Senator, Zell Miller, but for the most part these Democrats are a dying breed. Many such as Alabama Senator, Richard Shelby, have switched to the Republican Party; while many have passed away.

In addition to the fellow who felt that Obama’s overtime ruling was a good thing, I’ve had many discussions with Republicans on healthcare, the environment, abortion, gambling, taxation, affirmative action, LGBT rights, etc. A number of these Republicans have disagreed with me on many of these issues.  Also, there are many Republicans out there who will tell you that they are fiscal conservatives, but social liberals. This is common among many gay and minority professionals here in the south.

Republicans are not always going to agree with their presidents either. There were a few things where I differed from Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. That’s because I think, I reason, I research, and I’m my own person, a unique individual.

Democrats/liberals/progressives will continue to shed a negative light on a so-called divided Republican Party and claim that Democrats are always united. Sometimes I wonder just how many Democrats actually agree with everything Barak Obama has done as president. There are those Democrats who do and readily admit to worshiping him.  I call those folks “Obama zombies.” Do other Democrats really feel that we need to immediately eliminate the use of fossil fuels and flip over to the more expensive and less “green energy?” Are they okay with the demonization of the nation’s law enforcement? Do they feel that the actions of the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter organizations in their protests are a good thing? Are they also okay with destroying a person’s life just because he or she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman? I say we’ll never know the answer to these questions because many Democrats sit silent on these matters refusing to respond to questions. And when forced to respond, they become shrill and start hurling their usual bogus accusations at Republicans.



Liberals have been defining racism to suit their needs of the moment for years now. If they don’t like something a conservative does and they can’t coin a phrase for why they don’t like what the conservative did, they simply call it racism. The main stream media, of course, never calls them on it.

On November 30, the website thinkprogress.com published an article entitled, “You are More Than 7 Times as Likely to be Killed by a Right-Wing Extremist than by Muslim Terrorists”. I don’t know how author, Ian Millhiser, determined the 7 times, but what difference does it make. Liberals don’t need to tell the truth or explain themselves. Of course, the recent shooting in a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs by an old eccentric white man was illustrated.

Millhiser indicates that terrorism perpetrated by Muslims receives a disproportionate amount of attention from politicians and reports, the reality is that right-wing extremists pose a much greater threat to people in the United States than terrorists connected to ISIS or similar organizations. Millhiser goes on to site an explanation in the New York Times by UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer to the effect that Islam-Inspired terror attacks accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13-1/2 years. Meanwhile, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11 causing a total of 254 fatalities.

The conclusions of Kurzman and Schanzer, according to the article, were unveiled in the New York Times in June, 2015. Notice how they cut their count off just after 9/11.

To his credit, Millhiser provided a link to the opinion piece by Kurzman and Schanzer. According to the opinion piece, Kurzman and Schanzer conducted a survey of 382 law enforcement agencies and 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorists’ threats in their jurisdiction. 39% listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorists, and only 3 % identified the treat from Muslim extremists as severe, as compared with 7% for anti-government and other forms of extremism.

I’m a bit confused here, but I’m a conservative. Kurzman and Schanzer initially indicate that 74% of the 382 law enforcement agencies surveyed said anti-government extremism. Then in the last sentence, they indicated that it’s 7%. I’m going to assume that the “7%” is a typo and go with the 74%.

In addition to the alleged typo, Kurzman and Schanzer are separating out Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists and what they call Muslim extremists. I think these two groups should be lumped together for a total of 42%. Also, anti-government extremism is grouped with other forms of extremism. Other forms of extremism is not defined. Had Kurzman and Schanzer included the fatalities of 9/11, the numbers would be way different. And wait! I just found something else, 74, 39, and 3 don’t add up to 100; they add up to 116.

So, you have these right-wing extremist groups that commit acts of violence in the United States. These groups are here, they’re ours, and we have to deal with them. But this is no reason to discount Islamic terrorism; especially after the Paris attacks. Furthermore, ISIS has indicated that they are coming after us and will attack on American soil.

Millhiser’s article also features a black and white photo, taken at night, of Klansmen marching single file through the streets of Swainsboro, Georgia in 1948. This photo is definitely creepy, but it has no bearing to the second decade of the twenty-first century. The Ku Klux Klan is a criminal organization and a march like the one depicted in the photo would not be allowed in this day and age.

The Klan photo and the statistics cited appear to be designed to lead a low information voter to the conclusion that the threat of attack by Muslim terrorists, whether acting alone or on behalf of Al Qaeda, ISIS, or any other organized Muslim group, may not be the serious threat that the conservatives and Fox News says that it is. Thus, we should be more afraid of white men.

An attorney, who just happened to be black, once told me that blacks generally don’t go into public places and start shooting. Whites are more likely to do that. She also said that blacks are more likely to kill commit “one on one” crimes. And over the years, I’ve noticed that to be true. It’s also been my observation, however, that liberals do more collective demonstrating/rioting. While they appear to be overcome by hatred, they destroy property and disrupt peoples’ lives. Examples include the Occupy Wall Street movement and the more recent demonstrations over the Michael Brown and Freddy Gray shootings. They also don’t hesitate to destroy anyone who doesn’t tow their political line. This was obvious when a clerk in Cleveland, Ohio and an Obama supporter, exposed the many skeletons that “Joe the Plumber” had in his closet. Another prime example of liberals attempting to destroy those who don’t agree with them includes the excessive fine that was levied on a Christian business for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. For additional thought, consider all the individuals that have been forced to resign from their jobs, ending their livelihood, because they failed to tow the liberal line.

Liberals love to deceive and I love to tear articles like Millhiser’s apart. Thankfully, finding liberal articles where they are trying to convince low information voters with lies and skewed information is not hard to do.



There’s a new liberal Facebook page out there: Occupy Healthcare. I haven’t checked to see if there is a real website by that name, but at this point it doesn’t really matter. The initial “occupy” was the Occupy Wall Street movement in which fringe liberals set up camps in various cities and proceeded to destroy property and commit other acts of debauchery. While it was fringe liberals that were involved, mainstream liberals were sympathetic to their cause. But just let a Tea Party rally take place where a sign or two was in poor taste, and all liberals sent stark raving mad calling those who participated and/or advocated the Tea Party’s efforts anything and everything.

Six months to one year ago, I began seeing Facebook posts from a Facebook page called “Occupy Democrats.” Most of what I was seeing on my news feed was photographs depicting alleged facts that were not facts, but gross misrepresentations. Most, I could pick apart with very little research. This annoyed my liberal Facebook friends. Maybe they should have done a little research before sharing the post.

I’ve just seen a post from a new liberal Facebook page called Occupy Healthcare. The first photo from Occupy Healthcare that appeared on my newsfeed stated the following: They talk about this Great Recession as if it fell out of the sky, like, “Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?” It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. It was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can’t afford that. And now all of a sudden, these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created.” VP Joe Biden.

This was said by Vice President Joe Biden about 2012 Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan. Let’s take the “low hanging fruit” first. The Democrats were actively pushing a prescription drug plan. Wasn’t Al Gore’s mother-in-law having to eat dog food in order to pay for her prescription drugs? Democrats, you demanded it and accused those who were against it as haters of the elderly. You lost on that one. Let’s move on.

You are also griping about Congressman Ryan voting to put two wars on a credit card. Have you forgotten 9/11/2001? Are you suggesting that we not go after those who attacked us? Maybe we should have been more diplomatic in finding out why radical Islam hates us so much and do what we can to appease them. Yeah, right! If it were up to you liberals, we’d be under Sharia law at this very moment.

Then there was the Iraq war. You claimed Bush lied, people died. Well, former President Bill Clinton left office advocating regime change in Iraq. Have you liberals forgotten about that? Congress and the Bush administration had access to the same intelligence that indicated Saddam Hussein did possess weapons of mass destruction. President Bush went to Congress to get approval before invading Iraq. Again, liberals, have you forgotten about that? I suggest you do a little research, but you won’t. You’ll continue to spew your venomous lies knowing the liberal media has your back.

Tax cuts for the wealthy? OH PULEAZE! Every time a Republican proposes a tax cut for those who pay taxes, it’s a tax cut for the wealthy. I get so tired of hearing this old rhetoric. Tax cuts are for those who actually pay taxes, but you liberals seem to think that everyone who lives and breathes within the boundaries of the United States of America should receive some sort of financial benefit.

As for adding to the national debt, the current President has added more to the national debt than all past presidents combined. Yes, President Bush, to my consternation did add to the national debt, but not hear as much as your guy, Obama.

Moving right along, last week, a website, joeforamerican.com posted an article entitled: Greatest Hoax of the 21st Century! 98% Scientists do not Believe in Man-Made Climate Change! On website, there is a little image that says, “Joe the Plumber.” Remember Joe, the Plumber! Liberals, in liberal fashion hate him because he had the audacity to ask presidential candidate, Barak Obama, a difficult question regarding candidate Obama’s position on re-distribution of wealth. Following Joe’s questioning of candidate, Obama, Joe the plumber, who did have some skeletons in his closet was exposed by a city clerk in Cleveland who was a supporter of Obama and a contributor to his campaign.

After I posted this article on Facebook, a liberal disparaged the article, which quoted factual statistics, because the site may have been somehow related to someone they hate, Joe the Plumber.

Okay, liberals. You continually indicated that you’re champions of the working man, the middle class, and the low income earners. Shouldn’t you at least read this article? If indeed man-made climate change is a hoax, you should be glad. You should back away from your goal of snatching us off of inexpensive, reliable fossil fuels and putting us in a world where we are totally dependent upon your green energy which is costly and unreliable.

Yes, we should continue our research into alternate forms of energy with a goal that what we define as green energy will be reliable and cost effective in the future. But to refuse to acknowledge different opinions about man-made climate change, and your avocation of the immediate elimination of fossil fuels which benefit middle and lower income individuals is proving that you liberals are bigoted and look down your noses at the poor and the middle class.

So, preach your big government and your desire to controls us peons because we’re too stupid to make our own decisions about our own lives. But don’t ever tell us that you’re champions of the lower and middle income Americans. I’m poised to rip you to shreds should you dare try.