Bizarre mind-control techniques at Wall St. protests

Comments about the live stream of the Wall Street protests on the Occupy Cleveland Facebook page:

Decbaal Occupy Chattanooga Viatos Why does the crowd repeated everything a speaker says?

Ally Burge because megaphones are not permitted, the crowd repeats what the speaker says when they pause so that everyone gets the message..its called something, i just cant remember right now

#OccupyCleveland They are using The Peoples Voice.

Decbaal Occupy Chattanooga Viatos Ahh I see its just sometimes hard to understand anyome when they do that

Barbara Waters - It worked fine on Wall St. I think it might depend on the size of the crowd as well.

************************************************

Here's the live stream:

Watch live streaming video from globalrevolution at livestream.com

If there's no "People's Voice" happening right now or the stream is off line, you can see an example of the bizarre practice here:

I have an African Gray parrot that can say around 70 different words and phrases. King Kong really has no idea what he's saying, although he will occasionally say the right word in the right context because he has learned some cues. For example, when the dog starts getting hyper he will say, "Drop it!" or "To-beeee!!"


These people at the Wall Street protests aren't much different than King Kong. They are merely parroting talking points and catch phrases they've heard and repeated over and over and over again. This explains why the majority of them cannot cannot coherently explain why they are there or what exactly they are protesting, beyond parroting those catch phrases.


By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that these people are using Facebook, which had a first half revenue of $1.6 billion in 2011? Why aren't they protesting at the Facebook HQ (a monument to greed if I ever saw one)?

Shamelessly begging Rubio to run. Why shouldn’t we?

The other night on Red Eye (my occasional guilty pleasure), during a discussion about whether or not Chris Christie would get into the presidential race, someone asked a question to the effect of,  "Who else is there?" Host Greg Gutfeld threw out (as sort of an afterthought), "Marco Rubio?" There was a pause in the banter and then everyone moved on.


I nodded my head in agreement and then I thought, "Why can't we, as conservatives, shamelessly beg a candidate to run?" If the RINOs and GOP establishment can drool all over themselves over Chris Christie and turn Christie Watch 2011 into a 24-hour Reality TV event, why shouldn't we do the same and demand a candidate that we really want?


While I realize that some are happy with the slate of Republican candidates, many are not. I am not.  Romney has never governed as a conservative and he has a long history of championing causes better aligned with the Democratic Party. Johnson and Paul are Libertarians and belong in that party, not the GOP. I'm very concerned that Perry cannot recover and regain the turf he lost in recent debates. I'm even more concerned that he is not up to the rhetorical challenges of a modern-day campaign. Cain's lack of a clear foreign policy nearly disqualifies him in my mind (although ABO still applies). Bachmann has had serious, almost unrecoverable gaffes in recent weeks and everyone tells me that Santorum will not be the nominee.


Which leaves our party and the conservative movement longing for...someone else.  We need someone who is both an ideological conservative and who can beat Obama. In other words, someone who can effectively articulate conservatism - and mean it.  At the same time, the nominee must have some crossover appeal and be a magnet for money.


Nearly every conservative I know thinks Marco Rubio (R-FL) could be that candidate - but not this time around. It's too soon for him to peak. I disagree about the time frame. First, we don't have time to wait around while either Obama or a RINO plunges our country toward the abyss. Yes,  Rubio is young; he hasn't paid his dues by becoming an entrenched 20-year Patriarch of the Senate. But who really wants that? If Rubio hunkers down in the senate for 8 years before running for president, one of two things will happen. He will either become the kind of crony establishment Republican we all despise, or he will hold to his conservative values and be marginalized by his colleagues in the senate and the GOP leadership. Neither of those scenarios is a path to the 2020 presidential nomination. (Will we even have a country in 2020?)


Yesterday I re-watched Sen. Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library (see below). I was inspired all over again and had a big lump in my throat. (I'm not generally a lumpy throat kind of gal). His defense of the free-enterprise system and American exceptionalism draw such a sharp contrast to Obama's mantra that the men seem to belong to a different species altogether. Rubio's story of his Cuban exile parents and grandparents is the polar opposite of Obama's immigrant family story. While Obama and his family found reasons to blame and disparage America, Rubio's family was in awe of the opportunity here and taught their children to work hard out of gratitude for the blessings of liberty.




In addition to (obviously) being able to appeal to Hispanic voters, Rubio is uniquely positionedto be the game-changer in the Social Security debate. Here's what he said at the Reagan Library:

"Now, I personally believe that you cannot make changes to these programs for the people that are currently in them right now. My mother just – well she gets mad when I say this. She is in her eighth decade of life and she is on both of these programs. I can’t ask my mom to go out and get another job. She paid into the system. But the truth is that Social Security and Medicare, as important as they are, cannot look for me how they look for her. 

"My generation must fully accept, the sooner the better, that if we want there to be a Social Security and a Medicare when we retire, and if we want America as we know it to continue when we retire, then we must accept and begin to make changes to those programs now, for us... 

"...These changes will not be easy....It will be hard. It will actually really call upon a specific generation of Americans, those of us, like myself, decades away from retirement, to assume certain realities -– that we will continue to pay into and fund for a system that we will never fully access -– that we are prepared to do whatever it takes in our lives and in our generation so that our parents and grandparents can enjoy the fruits of their labor and so that our children and our grandchildren can inherit the fullness of America’s promise. 

"But you see, every generation of Americans has been called to do their part to ensure that the American promise continues. We’re not alone; we’re not unique; we’re not the only ones. In fact, I would argue to you that we have it pretty good.
"And yet I think it’s fully appropriate that those of us raised in Ronald Reagan’s America are actually the ones who are being asked to stand up and respond to the issues of the day. For we, perhaps better than any other people who have ever lived in this nation, should understand how special and unique America truly is."

Rubio, who was in 4th grade when Reagan became president, can make the argument that he will leave Social Security untouched for his mother, but will call on his generation to "take one for the country." It's a tantalizing, iconic image and perhaps the only way we win this debate and reform these programs.  Seniors will go for it and young people will as well, because (not to be cynical or anything...) it won't make a hill of beans of difference in their lives right now other than to make them feel good about helping their country.


Rubio has also proven that he's able to appeal to a wide variety of voters. He trounced both Charlie Crist (RINO-turned-I) and Democrat Kendrick Meek in the 3-way Senate race in 2010, receiving nearly half of the votes cast in the swing-state election.
Rubio raised $24 million for that race and has $500K remaining. If he were to jump in the race tomorrow, I suspect the big spenders who have been holding back would begin throwing money at him.


He's been on the national scene for the last two years and is at the top of his game. He has a national following including 245,000 Facebook fans and 50,000 Twitter followers. Impressive numbers for a U.S senator. Just for the sake of comparison, my senator, Rob Portman (R-OH) has 27,000/8,000 Facebook/Twitter followers respectively.


One other factoid/trend I'd like to throw out: If 2008 showed us anything, it demonstrated that the country has no appetite (shallow that it may be) for candidates who are grumpy old men. As many have noted, part of Herman Cain's appeal is his positive attitude and outlook.  In 2010, in addition to young, earnest enthusiastic Senator Rubio, we found conservatives like Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem, and Rand Paul are the new face of the GOP, replacing the overweight white guy with big hair.


In Ohio, a 32-year old Iraq war veteran and state representative ran for State Treasurer. In a stunner, Josh Mandel beat the incumbent and raked in 2 million votes, making him the top vote-getter in the entire state. Governor John Kasich only pulled in 1.8 million votes. What State Treasurer does that?


My point is that this is the conservative trend in the country. People will put their money and efforts behind an ideological conservative with a solid record, even if the record is not that long. In Ohio, it's possible Mandel will be our next Senator. He will likely challenge Sherrod Brown and he will likely win. Mandel has already raise over $2 million and hasn't even officially announced he's running.


After my Red Eye revelation, I decided to write this diary, thinking there were probably others who felt the same way. I started writing it Wednesday night, but put it aside and went to bed. I flipped on the radio early Thursday afternoon to Rush asking essentially the same question. Why shouldn't Rubio run? He said, "Rubio would walk away with the election." He would "win in a walkover."  Heh. If nothing, Rubio getting in the race would make Karl Rove, et al curl up in the fetal position and suck their thumbs.


If you haven't watched Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library, take a look (and reminisce about some of Reagan's great speeches). Rubio strikes the same chords. Transcript here.

UPDATE: Ohio's stalled voter ID law- vote on Tuesday 10/4

UPDATE: The OH Senate will consider this bill on Tues., 10/4

In March the Ohio House passed HB 159, which introduced reasonable reforms to secure Ohio's election process, one of which was to require a photo ID in order to vote in person. Parts of the bill were passed into law in June. However,  the GOP-controlled senate and Republican Secretary of State, Jon Husted, balked at the photo ID requirement and it's been held up in the senate ever since.  It is finally scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, 9/27 as Sub. HB 159.

After the Republicans took over the House, the Senate, every statewide office and the Governor's office in 2010 and enacted bold reforms, the Senate Republicans have had the wind knocked out of their sails by the Democrats' ballot measure aimed at repealing Gov. Kasich's union reforms and their threat to do the same with election reforms and the new redistricting map.  They don't seem to have the stomach for another fight and, ignoring those who swept them into office, it's likely they'll take a pass on the photo-ID requirement. Senate President Tom Niehaus (R-New Richmond) has said he expects the photo-ID provision to be removed from the bill.

Currently, Ohio law allows a voter to cast a ballot if they are in possession of anything from a driver's licence to a cable TV bill. There is no way for the poll worker to prove that the person in possession of the cable TV bill is actually the registered voter.  Sec. of State Husted can't imagine a scenario where someone would try to game this system:

"I believe that if you have a government-issued check, a utility bill in your name with your address on it, that no one made that up. They didn’t call AEP and establish utilities in their name to commit voter fraud."

To his credit, Husted has backed reforms in early and absentee voting, which will curb some of the abuses we saw in 2008. But his stubborn refusal to support the common-sense photo ID bill is baffling.  Here's what the new law would require:

When an elector appears in a polling place to vote, the elector shall announce to the precinct election officials the elector's full name and current address and provide proof of the elector's identity in the form of a photo identification or a non-photo state identification.

(2) If an elector does not have or is unable to provide to the precinct election officials any of the forms of identification required under division (A)(1) of this section, the elector may cast a provisional ballot under section 3505.181 of the Revised Code and do either of the following:

(a) Appear at the office of the board of elections not later than the close of the polls on the day of the election and provide the identification required under division (A)(1) of this section; or

(b) Write the elector's social security number, driver's license number, or state identification card number on the provisional ballot envelope, which number shall be verified by the board of elections with the bureau of motor vehicles.

 It's not complicated. If a registered voter shows up without photo ID, he will still be permitted to cast a provisional ballot if he writes his social security number, driver's license number, or state ID number on the provisional ballot.

Note that no photo ID is required to vote absentee and anyone can vote absentee in Ohio for any reason.  

I have spent the past two Monday evenings at my county Board of Elections, training to be a poll worker and a Presiding Judge for the upcoming election. Doing so has giving me an insider's view of the Ohio voting process. These people run a very tight ship. There is redundancy built into nearly every step of the election process to assure there is no cheating or fraud.  Here are a few examples:

• There is a locked metal transfer case that contains supplies to be used in each precinct on election day. The Presiding Judge is instructed to break the lock on the case in the presence of other poll workers and check off the supplies on the "chain of custody sheet." 
• When setting up the voting machines (which have two locks and only one key for each lock) a Democrat and a Republican must be present and participate in the set-up. 
• If there is a problem with a voting machine a Democrat and a Republican poll worker will assist in resolving problems with the machines.
• There is a plastic lock on the voting machines that must be cut in the presence of a Democrat and Republican poll worker.
• If a ballot needs to be canceled on the electronic voting machine both a Democrat and a Republican poll worker must cancel the ballot together. 
• When a voter arrives to cast a ballot, their name must be checked against the list of registered voters in the precinct. If their name does not appear on the list they must cast a provisional ballot and provide proof to the Board of Elections that they are eligible to vote. 
• When returning the supplies (including the memory cards from the voting machines) to the Board of Elections on election night, a member of the opposite party must ride with the Presiding Judge to the Board of Elections. 

As you can see, there are layers and layers of security, oversight, and redundancy in place to assure voters that Ohio's elections are fair and secure. 

Except when it comes to voter identification. Showing a utility bill does not prove that the person attempting to vote is who they say they are. It just proves that they are in possession of the bill or bank statement. That is not proof of identity. It's not difficult to imagine dozens of ways people could fraudulently vote in Ohio as the law currently stands.  Say your grandmother doesn't feel like heading out in the bad weather on election day. Another family member could just take a utility bill and vote for grandma. It would be quite easy for family members to trade places. 

More troubling would be someone with access to large quantities of utility bills who decided to cross-reference those with voter registration rolls.  Has it ever happened? We have no way of knowing. Detractors of this bill say that there is no evidence that there is a problem with voter fraud in Ohio (well, except for this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this).

But lack of evidence of only evidence that there is a lack of evidence. We do know that there is a gaping hole in the security and credibility our our voting process in Ohio.  We have no way to know who is voting unless legislators pass a photo ID requirement. 

Republicans should not fall prey to the hysterical protestations of the Democrats crying foul and threatening another tiresome referendum. Nearly everyone who votes in Ohio already has a photo ID. The leftist Advancement Project estimates that 887,000 Ohioans don't have the ID's, but the number of registered voters without ID's who actually show up on election day is likely far lower (see my blog post on this issue). 

And for those who actually don't have a photo ID and who do actually vote, the legislation says that the state will provide a free photo ID for anyone who does not have one. 

I'd like to point out that the requirements to apply for food stamps in Ohio are far more burdensome. The applicant must show up at the local County Jobs and Family Services office and provide:

• Proof of citizenship, or an alien registration card
• Proof of all income
• Social Security Card
• Birth Certificate
• Proof of housing (rent/mortgage) costs
• Proof of utility costs
• Proof of medical costs if aged 60 or older, or if disabled
• Proof of disability (if applicable)
• Proof of child support (if applicable)

If you are in Ohio, call Senate President Tom Niehaus and your state senators on Tuesday and tell them we need a photo ID requirement to assure our elections are secure and credible. Please share this on your social networks and remind them who elected them and who will support them in their next election. The Democrats collecting signatures and draining their war chests sure aren't going to vote for them. 

Crosspost: Redstate

Mitt Romney on Abortion

Here's Mitt Romney on abortion in 2002 in a gubernatorial debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien:

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts's pro-choice laws and with regards to this issue of age of consent it is currently 18-years old. If one wants to have an abortion younger than that, one must have the permission of one parent and if a parent doesn't go along one can go to a judge or justice and get that permission. And so far, in Massachusetts history when a young woman has gone to a judge, not one single time has there been a denial of that permission. And so I am in favor of retaining or current law which is the age of consent remaining at 18 and I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." 

Romney vehemently denied that he had accepted the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life in his 1994 senate race against Ted Kennedy. According to Romney, the group endorsed him without his knowledge and he would not own that endorsement (though O'Brien claimed his campaign spokesperson confirmed the endorsement). She quoted Ted Kennedy who said of Romney,

"He's not pro-choice, he's not anti-choice, he's multiple choice."

Toward the end to the debate his opponent, who was accusing him of not being pro-choice enough, while Romney kept insisting he was the every bit as pro-choice as she was, finally said, 

"You don't have a record, it's one of waffling." 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Romney proves he is a masterful and convincing debater. He uses the same bullying and avoidance techniques he used against Rick Perry in the recent GOP debates. I'm certainly convinced that in this debate he's pro-abortion and would "defend a woman's right to choose." After all, the 2002 gubernatorial election was riding on it. 


Of course, Romney has since changed his position on abortion and will now just as convincingly argue for the pro-life position and any other conservative position that will win him this election. Again, he's a masterful debater. 


But that's what's troubling. With so many "waffles" and flip-flops on major policy issues - major conservative policy issues - how do we know when Romney is debating for sport to win an election and when he is debating out of heartfelt conviction? If we're seeing the former in these debates and this is merely a contest to be won, on election day Zorro will drop his mask and we'll find out if we get Romney 1.0, Romney 2.0, or some morph of the two. I fear it will be something really bad like that new Coke. (If you're under 30 you'll have to click on the link you understand the dated cultural reference.) Beware the backlash. 

National Debt Road Trip

How do the Obama deficits compare with past presidents? And how did the national debt get so big anyway. This video tries to answer those questions by looking at the debt as a road trip and seeing how fast different administrations have been traveling.

Buckle your seat belt! I don't think this would even be allowed on the Autobahn.

Sherrod Brown's wife quits Plain Dealer after covering Josh Mandel campaign even

Today the Cleveland Plain Dealer announced  the resignation of Connie Schultz, wife of Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).  Schultz had come under fire recently for attending a Tea Party rally near Cleveland at which her husband's likely opponent in 2012, Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, was a featured speaker.  Schultz was spotted videotaping Mandel's speech, but she conspicuously neglected to mention in her article that Mandel was even at the rally. (Read the details in my previous diary).

Once news about Schultz's covert-op became known, the Pulitzer prize winning journalist and 18-year veteran of the Plain Dealer issued a  breathless apology, claiming that she never thought for a minute she was doing anything wrong and just "felt sick about it" and had learned her lesson.

Of course, the real issue was whether or not she was engaging in campaign activities at the behest of or on the tab of the Plain Dealer, the largest newspaper in Ohio.  If so, this would be this would be too obvious even for the mainstream media.  They still like to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
And so we have Ms. Schultz's resignation:

"In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that my independence, professionally and personally, is possible only if I'm no longer writing for the newspaper that covers my husband's senate race on a daily basis. It's time for me to move on."

This begs a couple questions:

1.  It took four years into her husband's term to realize she is not an unbiased columnist when her husband is a sitting senator? 
2. Has this still not become "painfully clear" to the executives and editorial board of the Plain Dealer? Why did they let this go on for four years?

I would also like to know who else on the Plain Dealer staff is conducting campaign activities while being paid by the Plain Dealer.  If they are conducting research for campaigns while they are preforming their duties as reporters/columnists/etc., it needs to be listed as "in kind" donations on campaign finance reports. Perhaps Secretary of State Jon Husted should start asking some questions and poking around in Sherrod Brown's campaign finance reports.


UPDATE: The Plain Dealer added some commentary to Schultz's resignation letter at 3:32 PM:

"Schultz had written for the newspaper for nearly 18 years. She is married to Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, who will seek re-election to the U.S. Senate next year. Conservatives have criticized Schultz and The Plain Dealer, saying that she used her column to support her husband's political career.
Both Schultz and the leadership of the newspaper have maintained that her words are her own, and pointed out that she began writing about workers' rights and other liberal causes long before she married Brown in 2004.
Schultz took a leave of absence in 2006 when Brown first ran for the Senate."

Her editor, Debra Adams Simmons added:

"Her steadfast commitment to social and economic justice, her advocacy on behalf of women and her courageous efforts to speak truth to power highlight a distinguished career. Although Connie is moving on, hers will continue to be an important voice for the region."

Note how many liberal buzz words and phrases the editor from the Plain Dealer managed to pack into one sentence: "social and economic justice," "advocacy on behalf of women," and "speak truth to power."

Tells you all you need to know about the editorial perspective of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Is Perry's DREAM Act more awful than Romneycare?

At this point it's becoming clearer that it's a two-person race. Whatever "forces" control this process are shoving Perry and Romney to the top of the pack and barring any major upsets, we will choose between the two of them.

The professional pundits and establishment Republicans are telling us the important question is which candidate can attract Independents and conservative Democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). That strategy failed miserably in 2008 and we have even less reason to believe it will work in 2012.

Among other things, those of us who care about what a candidate believes and how he would actually govern the country must consider the important question of whether we hate Perry's version of the DREAM Act more than we hate Romney's version of Obamacare.

First, I have to give props (or "propes" if you say it with a Texan accent) to Gov. Perry for not backing down from his policy and his convictions on immigration. Whether you agree with him or not, you must admit he's a straight shooter who does not waffle.

Contrast this to Gov. Romney's ever evolving excuses for his MA healthcare plan. He's loved it, he's hated it. It was a good idea gone bad when the legislature got its hands on it. It's a state's rights issue. Pick a day, pick an excuse. But don't worry, he's going to repeal Obamacare. Or for sure, he's going to give states waivers.

Clearly, Perry's policy to grant in-state tuition rates to children of illegal aliens is extremely unpopular with the Tea Party and with the conservative base. Although hardly the equivalent of full-blown amnesty, many see it as the nose of the camel under the amnesty tent.

That said, it's worth remembering that our revered President Reagan signed an amnesty bill, which granted amnesty to 3 million an unknown number of illegal aliens in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It was far more radical than anything Perry has done or has proposed.

Both Romney's Romneycare plan and Perry's cracking the door to amnesty are state programs. Neither has proposed imposing these on the entire nation. But they do give us insights into their governing style and moral philosophies which are important indicators.

In Massachusetts, every resident of the state was forced to purchase health insurance, whether they wanted it or not. In Texas, taxpayers were forced to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants. On my personal liberty scale, I'd feel more violated by the Romneycare. YMMV (your mileage may vary).

As a Christian and a conservative, I confess that I am personally conflicted about the immigration issue. I understand the arguments. I know we mustsecure the border as the first order of business. I know that we must enforce E-verify and let's have a robust guest worker program with tamper-proof ID's.

But the fact remains that we have millions of people here illegally. They're not going to just disappear once the border is secure. Something is going to have to be done with them. Republicans and conservatives just sound silly when we give the trite answer that they can just go home and try again later. We all know that is not going to happen.

I don't have a problem sending home adult men and women who have broken our laws to come to this country. But in my soul, I wrestle with how to act justly toward the children of those lawbreakers. They did not cross the border illegally. They just had the misfortune of being born to a criminal and I can't seem to justify punishing them for the sins of their parents.

Not the stock Tea Party/conservative answer, I know. But I suspect there are many others who wrestle with this issue and are also conflicted. It's not a settled matter in their hearts.

For me, and for others who have endeavored to come to terms with this, Perry's defense of in-state tuition for children born to illegal aliens doesn't seem excessively far off the conservative reservation. I don't hate the idea as much as I hate the idea of Romneycare.

And lets be honest. Politically, pragmatically, having a slightly softer position toward the children born to illegal aliens may appeal to minorities, Independents and those enigmatic "conservative" Democrats. It does allow Perry to steal an arrow from Romney's centrist quiver.

Perry isn't my candidate yet, but his position on in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens is not a deal-breaker for me.

On the other hand, Romneycare is one of several serious deal-breaker issues Romney has dragged with him into this race. I would vote for him in a race against Obama, but he's not someone I could enthusiastically support or campaign for.

crosspost