Brutally Honest

Jay-Z: No "official commitment to monetarily support the movement"

Just make money off it.

Occupy Jay-Z:

Jay-Z is releasing a new line of T-shirts in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement Friday via his Rocawear clothing label, but he doesn't plan to share any of the profits with the protesters.

The rapper was recently seen wearing one of the shirts, which tweaks the phrase "Occupy Wall Street" by crossing out the "W" and adding an "S" to make it read "Occupy All Streets."
The protests, which started Sept. 17 in New York, have since spread to Los Angeles and other cities as demonstrators protest corporate greed and corruption.

The Business Insider noted the "irony" in that Jay-Z has no intention to distribute any of the proceeds to protestors.

A Rocawear spokesperson told the publication: "The 'Occupy All Streets' T-shirt was created in support of the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement. Rocawear strongly encourages all forms of constructive expression, whether it be artistic, political or social. 'Occupy All Streets' is our way of reminding people that there is change to be made everywhere, not just on Wall Street. At this time we have not made an official commitment to monetarily support the movement."

Couldn't script it any better could we?

Wonder how many protesters will end up wearing them?

A day in the life of an Occupy protester

By Locutisprime

This video speaks for itself in my opinion (adult language at end... you've been warned)

Oh the irony

The OWS crowd, big time believers in the redistribution of wealth, are upset that some amongst them are taking that belief to heart:

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

Crafty cat burglars sneaked into the makeshift kitchen at Zuccotti Park overnight and swiped as much as $2,500 in donated greenbacks from right under the noses of volunteers who’d fallen asleep after a long day whipping up meals for the hundreds of hungry protesters, the volunteers said.

“The worst thing is there’s people sleeping in the kitchen when they come, and they don’t even know about it! There are some really smart and sneaky thieves here,” Terrie said.

“I had umbrellas stolen, a fold-up bed I brought because my back is bad -- they took that, too!”

Security volunteer Harry Wyman, 22, of Brooklyn was furious about the thievery -- and vowed to get tough with the predatory perps.

“I’m not getting paid, but I’m not gonna stand for it. Why people got to come here and do stupid stuff? All it does is make people not wanna come here anymore,” Wyman fumed.

So those who believe in the theory of redistribution aren't too crazy about the application of that belief.

Ha!

Friggin' idiots.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Mixed messages

How's that hope thang working out for ya?

The ever wise and poignantly witty Gerard Vanderleun is taking us back to a MoveOn.Org campaign ad worth revisiting:

Has hope happened to you yet?

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Guy besmirches the faith of believers while believing Obama will win in a landslide in 2012

The guy is Frank Schaeffer, staunch critic of conservative Christians; son of Francis Schaeffer, the evangelical leader and some say founder of the Christian Right political movement; and staunch supporter of Barack Hussein Obama.  

Listen as he ridicules the faith of some while confidently engaging in the belief that Obama will not only win in 2012 but by a landslide:

An Irony one couldn't make up

By Chuckels aka XtnYoda

The following is just too ... ridiculous ... to pass up posting.

Iran is hosting an "anti-terrorism" conference?

TEHRAN – High-ranking officials from 60 countries, including the main victims of terrorism, gathered in Tehran to attend the International Conference on Global Fight against Terrorism, which opened at the Summit Conference Hall yesterday and closes today.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Iraqi President Jalal Talebani Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, and Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir attended the first day of the conference.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at the conference, in which he proposed that a secretariat should be established in an effort to coordinate counter-terrorism activities.

He said that the secretariat would make efforts to offer a single definition of terrorism, explore it roots, propose practical ways to campaign against terrorism, mobilize global support for counter-terrorism campaign, and reform colonialist and discriminatory mechanisms prevailing in the world so they incline toward justice.

In addition, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon sent a message to the conference, which was read out by UN representative Muhammad Rafiuddin Shah.

In his message, Ban thanked the Islamic Republic of Iran for organizing the conference and said that all countries in the world shoulder a responsibility for campaigning against terrorism.

He also expressed hope that the conference would achieve its objectives.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Iraqi President Jalal Talebani, Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, and Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir delivered speeches at the conference.

In his speech, Karzai stated that Muslim countries have been the main victims of terrorism, and therefore should unite in their struggle against terrorism.

Now really, how demented can the thinking be in 60 nations? And Muslim countries have been the main victims of terrorism? Maybe it's because Islam is the main sponsor and endorser of terrorism?

Should that give you a clue Mr. Karzai? Oh wait ... I see ... it is really Zionist Israel's fault that Muslims are killing other Muslims in Muslim countries ... so get rid of Israel and ... presto-chango ... no more Muslims killing other Muslims!

Brilliant idea.

Women paying a steep price for feminism

A very steep price:

Mara Hvistendahl is worried about girls. Not in any political, moral or cultural sense but as an existential matter. She is right to be. In China, India and numerous other countries (both developing and developed), there are many more men than women, the result of systematic campaigns against baby girls. In "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl reports on this gender imbalance: what it is, how it came to be and what it means for the future.

In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that's as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.

Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.

What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion. If the male number in the sex ratio is above 106, it means that couples are having abortions when they find out the mother is carrying a girl. By Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.

...

But oddly enough, Ms. Hvistendahl notes, it is usually a country's rich, not its poor, who lead the way in choosing against girls. "Sex selection typically starts with the urban, well-educated stratum of society," she writes. "Elites are the first to gain access to a new technology, whether MRI scanners, smart phones—or ultrasound machines." The behavior of elites then filters down until it becomes part of the broader culture. Even more unexpectedly, the decision to abort baby girls is usually made by women—either by the mother or, sometimes, the mother-in-law.

It would seem that women need to advance the cause of women by protecting themselves from... themselves.

More proof of feminism's moral corruptness.

Any bets as to how quickly this will be swept under the rug?  It simply doesn't fit the meme. 

The crisis in Wisconsin brings up some interesting comparisons

By Locutisprime.

In the past two days, I have had the occasion to read many editorials and op/ed pieces concerning the debacle in Wisconsin. Accompanying many of these, are reader submitted comments. Many of which decry the actions of the Wisconsin governor and laud the wishes and dreams of someone like FDR to once again appear to salve the savage beast of the public's social anxieties. So just what would the great leader of the New Deal have to say about contemporary events in Wisconsin and other states where collective bargaining has all but hobbled these state budgets?

 
Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: “Meticulous attention,” the president insisted in 1937, “should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” The reason? F.D.R. believed that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Source

The new "Gipper"

By Locutisprime.

There seem to be a lot of comparisons of late, between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Throwbacks to a better time and wishful thinking on the part of the left, combined with their belief that they obviously believe they can confuse the people and blur the lines between a truly great American president and heretofore, the worst president this nation has ever suffered.

But when Obama begins to refer to himself as the "Gipper" and does so completely out of context, that in my opinion demonstrates just how low and out of touch this administration really is as it concerns both history and the people.

I would say shame on you Mr. President, but you obviously have no shame.