Liberal, "Occupy Wall Street" Protesters Are Hurting NYC Economy

Protesters Accused of Hurting NYC Economy: MyFoxNY.com

MyFoxny.com:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday accused the Wall Street demonstrators of trying to cripple New York City's economy.


"What they're trying to do is take the jobs away from people working in this city," the mayor declared in his harshest criticism of the three-week-old protest that has caught the attention of the nation.


"They're trying to take away the tax base we have because none of this is good for tourism."


Although he expressed sympathy for "some of their complaints," Bloomberg warned that addressing them has to be accomplished "without hurting people and making the problem worse."


"If the jobs they are trying to get rid of in this city -- the people that work in finance, which is a big part of our economy -- we're not going to have any money to pay our municipal employees or clean the blocks or anything else."


The mayor's comments came in response to a caller to his WOR Radio show who asked what the city intended to do about the protest headquarters in Zuccotti Park, which is near her apartment and where hundreds of people are camped out.


"What about my rights to use the park?" asked the caller, named Marsha.


"This is a little bit of greenery that we reclaimed after Sept. 11. It's not usable. There is a general sense of incivility down there. But worst of all are the drums and the shouting. I know they've agreed to stop the drumming. Last night they were drumming until 10:45. Someone did a little practice drumming this morning at 7:50."


"We couldn't agree more," replied the mayor.


"We are trying to deal with this in a way that doesn't make the problem grow and protects everybody's rights."


He hinted that the city is hoping the protest peters out on its own.


"I think we let some of this -- not play out, isn't quite the right word, but let them express themselves," said Bloomberg.


President Barack Obama on Thursday defended the protesters, saying they expressed "the frustrations that the American people feel. People are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works."

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell Lectures Herman Cain On Fighting For Civil Rights, Service In Military

One thing about Herman Cain that I don't like is how he can look brilliant one day and utterly stupid the next. I mean, did he not do any research on what a condescending prick Lawrence O'Donnell is? Did he have no clue that a rapidly leftist station like MSNBC would not treat him fairly? Was he or his team of handlers not aware of how much the mostly-white and liberal MSNBC anchors love to race-bait? Cain just looked so unprepared here and frankly O'Donnell played him for a fool no matter how much of an ass he is:

White MSNBC commentator and admitted socialist Lawrence O’Donnell doesn’t think Herman Cain did enough to enhance civil rights and support the Vietnam War.


On “The Last Word” Thursday night, an “offended” O’Donnell accused GOP frontrunner Herman Cain of shirking his duty on both counts.


Quoting from Cain’s book, O’Donnell read, “The civil rights movement was a few years in front of me. I was too young to participate when they first started the freedom rides and the sit-ins. So on a day-to-day basis, it didn’t have an impact. I just kept going to school, doing what I was supposed to do, and stayed out of trouble. I didn’t go downtown and try to participate in sit-ins. Counter to our real feelings we decided to avoid trouble by moving to the back of the bus when the driver told us to. Dad always said, ‘stay out of trouble,’ and we did.”


“Where,” an accusatory O’Donnell asked, “do you think black people would be sitting on the bus today if Rosa Parks had followed your father’s advice?”


Cain explained he was too young to participate, but said had he been in Rosa Parks’ situation, he would have handled himself differently. Also, Cain blasted O’Donnell for taking his book out of context.


Later in the broadcast, O’Donnell took his prosecutorial tone to Cain over his service in the Vietnam War. Cain told O’Donnell he served his country as a civilian, and even offered himself up for the draft. However, the U.S. Navy had told him they would have preferred him in the civilian role, he explained.


That, it seems, wasn’t good enough for O’Donnell.


“I am offended on behalf of all the veterans of the Vietnam War who joined, Mr. Cain,” O’Donnell said. “The veterans who did not wait to be drafted like John Kerry, who joined — they didn’t sit there and wait to find out what their draft board was going to do. They had the courage to join and to go and fight that war. What prevented you from joining, and what gives you the feeling that, after having made that choice, you should be the commander in chief?”


Cain left it at “a difference of opinion,” and asked O’Donnell if they could discuss other issues.

RELATED: Lawrence O’Donnell’s Racially Charged Attacks A Political Gift To Herman Cain

Obama Approval Rating At Alltime Low: 38%

DailyCaller.com:

As President Barack Obama struggles to pass his jobs bill and unemployment remains stagnant at 9.1 percent, the president’s approval rating has dropped again, tying the all-time low measured during his presidency, according to Gallup’s daily tracking poll.


Just 38 percent of Americans said they approved of the president’s job performance from October 4 to October 6, the lowest number Obama has seen.


The president’s approval ratings have hovered consistently around 40 percent since this summer, when he saw successively lower and lower numbers, hitting a new low multiple times.


The last time Obama’s approval ratings were recorded at this level was August 28, in the aftermath of the fight over the debt ceiling and Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the United States’ credit rating.


Obama’s approval rating has also hit all time lows by other polls’ measurements. A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday found Obama with a 41 percent approval rating for the month, the lowest they have ever measured.


The poll was conducted through telephone interviews with approximately 1,500 people, and has a margin of error of plus or minus three points.

Herman Cain to Occupy Wall Street Protesters: If You're Not Rich 'Blame Yourself'

Speaking truth to utter nonsense, it's what makes Herman Cain so popular these days:

Unemployed Wall Street protesters only have themselves to blame for lacking a job, so says Herman Cain.


The Republican presidential candidate insisted that the demonstrations were being "orchestrated" to help President Obama.


"I don't have the facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration," Cain told the Wall Street Journal.


The Tea Party favorite then argued that the plight of the unemployed was their own fault.


"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed," the ex-Godfather's Pizza CEO declared.


The fiery remarks come as protest organizers plan for their biggest demonstrations yet -- at least 2,000 people are expected to gather in lower Manhattan Wednesday.


Last week, 700 protesters who spilled onto the streets near the Brooklyn Bridge were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct.

Bill O’Reilly Debates Atheist Author: Judeo-Christian Belief Is A Reality ‘On Which This Country Is Founded’

Mediaite.com:

On Wednesday night’s The Factor, host Bill O’Reilly spoke with atheist author Richard Dawkins about his latest work, The Magic of Reality, which is “partially aimed at children,” as O’Reilly described it.


During their conversation, O’Reilly summarized the book’s aim as encouraging its readers to focus on science (which the host applauded) at the expense of God and religion — an assessment with which Dawkins took issue. “No, this is a book about science,” said Dawkins. “It doesn’t talk about God.” O’Reilly wasn’t buying it. “It mocks God,” he said. “I looked at it.” But Dawkins insisted that the book includes no mockery of the sort.


Later on in the discussion, however, O’Reilly gleefully shouted “A-ha!” when Dawkins referred to, in this instance, Christianity as a myth on par with Aztec or Egyptian mythology and belief. O’Reilly responded by calling Judeo-Christian belief not a myth but a reality “on which our country is based” — an idea that Dawkins seemed to find entirely absurd.


O’Reilly then brought up the idea that the worst regimes in history were “atheistic,” pointing to dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. “That has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not,” Dawkins insisted, adding that he didn’t want to enter into a “shouting match” over who is “more evil.” “Are we shouting?” asked a rather amused-looking O’Reilly.

Sarah Palin Announces That She Won't Be Running For President

She won't admit it publicly, but I'm sure that enough people in her inner circle told her that wouldn't stand a chance against Barack Obama. Funny too how she waited till the day after Chris Christie announced he wasn't running either to announce this:

Sarah Palin will not run for president in the next election cycle, according to multiple reports.


"After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for president of the United States," said Palin in a statement on her decision." As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order."


During a radio interview on the "Mark Levin Show" after the news broke, Palin was asked if she's considering running for president as an independent candidate. In response to the question she said, "I would assume that a third party would just guarantee Obama's reelection, and that's the last thing the Republican party can afford. So the consideration for a third party is not there, no."


News of Palin's decision comes after months of speculation swirling around Palin's political ambitions. The former governor made headlines by embarking on a bus tour of the eastern United States in May. More recently, she captured attention with an appearance in Iowa that coincided with the Ames Straw Poll -- a table-setter for next year's Iowa caucuses.


"My decision is based upon a review of what common sense conservatives and independents have accomplished, especially over the last year," Palin explained. "I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office -- from the nation’s governors to congressional seats and the presidency."


The former governor added, "Know that by working together we can bring this country back -- and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it." On the "Mark Levin Show" she elaborated, "Not being a candidate really you're unshackled and you're allowed to be even more active."


The announcement from Palin comes just days after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signaled that he will not pursue the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Despite recent buzz on the possibility a contender could make a late entry into the race, the GOP primary field appears to be solidifying.

House GOP Accuses Eric Holder Of Misleading Congress

NYTimes.com:

Republicans on Tuesday sought to intensify political pressure on Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. over a disputed investigation into a gun trafficking network based in Phoenix, accusing him of misleading Congress.


Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to President Obama asking him to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Holder committed perjury in testimony about the investigation, known as Operation Fast and Furious, at a hearing in May.


Mr. Holder testified that he had only recently heard about the matter. But Mr. Smith pointed to two newly disclosed documents suggesting that the attorney general may have encountered references to Fast and Furious the previous year. He contends that the documents raise “significant questions about the truthfulness” of the testimony.


Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said Mr. Holder’s testimony “was consistent and truthful.” She said his answer in May meant that he had only become “aware of the questionable tactics employed in the Fast and Furious operation in early 2011 when A.T.F. agents first raised them publicly.”


In the investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed suspected low-level straw buyers for the gun trafficking network to purchase and transport guns. Their hope was that by watching them — rather than moving quickly to seize the guns — they would identify higher-level organizers for the network, which was funneling weapons to a Mexican drug cartel.


The bureau lost track of hundreds of the guns. Some turned up in Mexico, and two more were found in December at the scene where a Border Patrol agent was killed.


Republicans in Congress have vowed to find out if high-level department officials sanctioned the tactics.

Liberal Media Sets The Race Card Trap And Herman Cain Falls Right Into It

One of the oldest tricks in the book is to divide and conquer your enemies by getting them to fight amongst each other and Herman Cain fell right into the trap the liberal media laid out for him:

This certainly seemed like a gift in the middle of a tough campaign, but as Jazz wrote yesterday, the Post’s story had a lot of holes in it — starting with the problem that they didn’t even find the rock in question, and that Perry’s family didn’t own or name the ranch, but in fact found the name offensive enough to cover with paint and flip over. Instead of waiting for more information, though, Cain accepted the premise of the Post’s article, which raised the ire of some conservatives, if my Twitter feed yesterday was any indication.


The Boss Emeritus provides some needed context to the Post’s attack:


The Post interviewed dozens of people. The New York Timesfollowed up with another crack investigation of hazy memories of bygone days.


They’ve given “stoning” a whole new meaning.


Has Perry actually used the racial epithet himself — you know, like the late, former KKK leader Robert Byrd did as recently as 2001?


Did Perry condescendingly refer to a black politician as “articulate and bright and clean” like Biden did when he described Barack Obama in 2007?


Did Perry racially stereotype Hispanics for political gain or refer offensively to President Obama’s “light skin” and “lack of a Negro dialect” like Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid did just last year?


No.


This prompted Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast to write that the biggest loser of the ranch flap is likely to be Cain, and not Perry (via The Week):


And it is instructive, is it not, that no other candidate jumped on this revelation? Think about the conversations that must have gone on in Mitt Romney’s camp, or in Rick Santorum’s. I bet they weren’t even very long conversations. It’s a charge that emanates from the liberal media, and the last thing in the world, and I mean the very last thing, a candidate chasing Republican primary votes wants to do is sound like that. It’s a dead certainty that we won’t hear another peep about this story from them.


As for Cain, one wonders what synapse snapped into action there. He has been reliably on message on such matters, saying things like (as he said even yesterday) two thirds of black Americans are victims of “brainwashing” against conservatism. I guess he just doesn’t know his steam-locomotive history. But he said what he said, and now he’s going to have to prove to these people, just as he was gaining a little momentum, that he isn’t morphing into Al Sharpton.


As for Perry himself, he seems unlikely to be hurt very much. One supposes it is possible that some group of GOP panjandrums will send up a smoke signal, gather in lower Manhattan, and decide that this is another sign that Perry isn’t the man to put forward next November. If he’d been coming off three dominant debate performances and was still running away with it, he could wrap himself in the highest possible dudgeon and try to chop the Post to pieces for the amusement of a salivating base constituency. But since he’s on the downswing for now, he needs to play defense, which is what his camp did yesterday. This charge may make some conservatives feel that Perry is a tad embarrassing. But how many will it personally offend? Let’s face it, based on the evidence of the last debate, the GOP base thinks Perry isn’t racially insensitive enough, giving $100,000 college-education discounts to all those illegal brown children.


I don’t find it at all surprising that Cain, who grew up in poverty and oppressive state-backed racism, would have an immediate and emotional reaction to this story. It seems almost churlish to scold him for calling it “insensitive,” a rather mild criticism considering the nature of the term. The other candidates in the GOP race for the nomination don’t have a history with this term as Cain does and could approach it more coolly, perhaps, while looking at the greater strategy of avoiding the potential backfire when the story came apart.


That said, the media has quite a track record of highlighting tenuous connections to racism when it comes to Republicans while, pardon the pun, whitewashing it when it comes to Democrats. Conservatives who were angry with Perry over his harsh reaction to criticism of his state-based tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants might tend to rally around him after watching a national media outlet accuse him falsely of perpetuating an ugly term that Perry himself said “has no place in the modern world.” They’re not likely to look kindly on those who bolster the case of the media, regardless of the context of life experience from which the reaction originates. That’s why it’s always best when these media “exposés” arise to withhold judgment until all of the facts are on the table.

Obama Campaign To Borrow From George W. Bush ‘04 Playbook

Figures:

The last time an incumbent president faced re-election, George W. Bush exploited social and national security issues to offset his economic vulnerabilities.


Over the next year, President Obama will try the same thing.


Circumstances have changed drastically since 2004. America’s economic woes stand to dominate the 2012 dialogue no matter what — probably to Mr. Obama’s detriment.


Yet in important electoral battlegrounds, Mr. Obama’s strategists intend to use abortion, gay rights, the environment and successes in the fight against Al Qaeda to counter economic attacks and drive a wedge between Republicans and swing voters.


The Democratic shift from defense to offense on those issues stems from evolving public attitudes, intensifying Republican conservatism and the raid that killed
Osama bin Laden on Mr. Obama’s orders. The perilous state of the American economy undercuts the president’s assertions that he prevented something worse.


The result: over the weekend, Mr. Obama accused his Republican challengers of displaying a “kind of smallness” by not denouncing a debate audience that booed a gay soldier. He used the incident to question their readiness to become commander in chief.


Days earlier at a California fund-raiser, Mr. Obama cast his re-election bid as an appeal to “people of like mind, people who believe in a big and generous and a tolerant and ambitious and fact-based America.”

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/3/11

Kagan, Thomas Targeted In Hopes Of Swaying Supreme Court's Health Care Ruling

Health Care, Other Hot Issues Promise A Landmark High Court Term

The Radio-Controlled Airplane Jihad 

Why The Federal Deficit Is So Large 

Hugo Chavez: The Networks' Favorite Dictator

Chinese One-Child Policy To Be Focus Of Congressional Hearing

Barack Obama: 'Incredible Champion' Of Gay Rights

Andy Rooney Recognized Media's Liberalism And Espoused It Himself

The Obama Presidency: By The Numbers

The Coming Post-Obama Renaissance

After Anwar Al-Awlaki Killing Dick Cheney Wants Obama Administration To Apologize

Oh sure, the apology is never coming, but you gotta love Cheney calling out Barry for the hypocrite that he is:

On CNN’s State of the Union today, former vice president Dick Cheney went out of his way to praise the drone strikes that took out a top al-Qaeda member, but asked for the Obama administration to apologize for their previous criticisms of the Bush administration’s “overreaction” to the international terrorism threat.


Host Candy Crowley asked the former vice president what he thought of the recent military strike that took out Anwar al-Awlaki. Cheney praised it as a good strategy and an effective use of the drone technology, but immediately used the opportunity to point out that the Bush administration adopted similar strategies in fighting the war on terror. Cheney found this ironic because of the Obama administration’s past comments accusing their predecessors of being too aggressive.


“I’m waiting for… the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for, quote, ‘overreacting’ to the events of 9/11. They, in effect, said we had walked away from our ideals, taking a policy contrary to our ideals. We had enhanced interrogation techniques, they clearly had moved in the direction of taking robust action if they feel it’s justified. In this case, I think it was, but I think they need to go back and reconsider what the president said when he was in Cairo.”


Crowley asked Cheney if he had absolutely no problem with an American citizen (Awlaki) being taken out overseas instead of being subjected to due process and the U.S. legal system. Cheney countered that such an action would have to be approved by the Justice Department, and in this particular case it was.

Lawrence O’Donnell Panel: Chris Christie Must Diet If He Wants To Run For President

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As smug, cocky and elitist as it sounds coming from the mouths of liberals, they're all right. If he really wants to be President Chris Christie needs to lose the weight:

Now that it appears the media is finally over the hill on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 2012 speculation, the focus on the governor has shifted to what would happen if he actually ran, and naturally the “is Chris Christie too fat?” question emerges front and center. On last night’s Last Word, Lawrence O’Donnell asked his panel– campaign strategist Ed Rollins and columnist Jonathan Alter– what the odds were of Christie making a presidential bid with his figure intact. The consensus? Expect a diet if a campaign was on the horizon.


O’Donnell noted that, should Christie have a legitimate interest in running in 2012, he had a bit of a problem on his hands: “he would have to tell the lie that he is ready to be president or explain why he was lying when he said [he wasn't ready].” Should he jump that hurdle, however, he still had a serious image problem. Showing his panel an ad former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine aired accusing Christie of “throwing his weight around,” O’Donnell wondered whether that line of attack could be useful in a presidential run, and while that particular ad was unsuccessful, the panel did consider weight an issue.


Rollins, who had run the 2008 Mike Huckabee campaign, noted that “my last advice to my friend Mike Huckabee, who lost 100 pounds [before the election, was] he needs to lose forty pounds.” He added that Mississippi governor Haley Barbour had lost 35 pounds while considering a presidential run also, and that it was entirely common for contenders to do so. Alter agreed that it was important because of the rigor of a presidential campaign. “It’s a distance event; it’s a marathon.” He predicted that, should Christie run, he would “announce that he’s going on some sort of diet– like Oprah’s diet,” that would turn into something of an event to work in his favor.


As for his semi-moderate positions on things like gun control, the panel agreed that they were dangerous positions to take in a primary like the one Republicans are currently in. That said, Alter found the positions somewhat inevitable to find in a blue state Republican: “to survive in the Northeast as a Republican,” he argued, “you have to be fairly progressive on social issues.”