Occupy Wall Street vs The Tea Party For Idiots (Or the MSM, But I Repeat Myself)

Two weeks ago, I responded to the Mainstream Media's labeling of the Occupy Wall Street protests the Left-Wing version of the Tea Party. Apparently the reasons given to prove that comparison false were too vague for the media to understand because they continue to  make that comparison.  So to be helpful to the people in the "fourth estate," I have created sort of a "difference between the Occupy Wall Street Protests, and the Tea Party Movement' for idiots and the Mainstream Media ( I guess that is redundant). It follows below:

• There was never a turd left on a Police Car during a Tea Party but there was during an Occupy Wall Street protest. 

Occupy Wall Street Protesters also defaced this Police Car:

• After Tea Party Rallies many people commented about how the protesters left the area cleaner than how they found it. This is what Occupy Wall Street looks like:

• No one at a Tea Party Rally ever defaced the Stars and Stripes, the same can't be said of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

• Tea Party protesters never sent an email to politicians suggesting that it was time to kill any group of Americans, but the  Occupy Wall Street protests did.

• Tea Party Protesters never made Anti-Semitic statements that Jews Control the media and Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street Has.

Note to the Mainstream Media: Please do not confuse Occupy Wall Street with Media Matters For America who have made similar Anti-Semitic statements.

Occupy Wall Street Also has an Anti-Israel component, something that was never seen at the Tea Party protests.

•  Sadly no one in the Tea Party movement has ever been paid to attend a rally. But Some of the Occupy people get paid.

 Note: I have also never gotten money from the Koch Brothers per the claim by the Daily Kos types, maybe they don't have my correct email.

•   The Tea Party Movement Doesn't have the Support of this guy, (but shhhhh we don't want it).

• And finally, when the Tea Party started it had no support from any party, Democrat or Republican. In fact the GOP establishment is still not comfortable with the Tea Party.  Occupy Wall Street was immediately embraced by the Democratic Party Leadership, such as Nancy Pelosi

and even President Obama.

In the end the difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party is very similar to the difference between the President and his progressive supporters and Conservative Americans.  Just like Occupy Wall Street, the progressives believe that American Institutions need to be defaced and torn down, maybe the progressives don't attack police cars, but they attack our freedoms.

Conservatives believe that tapping the drive of the American people is the best way to clean up our problems.  For example they believe that the best way to clean up the economy is to make it easier for Americans to run their own businesses. On they other hand, both the progressives and the Occupy Wall Street Protesters believe that it is Government's Job to clean up their mess.

Conservatives and the Tea Party both believe in American exceptionalism, we would never travel the world apologizing for America the way President Obama did, and we would never deface representations of that exceptionalism such as "Old Glory" the way the Occupy Wall Street movement did.

Antisemitism is big in the Occupy Wall Street Protests, just as it was during the progressive Anti-War Protests during the Bush Administration and  progressive Media Matters ever since. I have been to only a few Tea Party protests, have even worn a yarmulke and was never confronted with hatred against Jews or any other minority.  The Occupy Wall Street Movement also has anti-Israel elements, no surprise as the President who has embraced them is the most anti-Israel President we have ever had.

It is also interesting that leading Democrats have embraced the Occupy Wall Street protests.  The Tea Party Movement's loyalty is to the American constitution and fiscal responsibility. While some of the hundreds of Tea Party groups across the country have endorsed candidates the deciding factor was not whether they were the party of the elephant or the mule, it is the candidate's support of the movement's agenda; returning the government to the Constitution and the freedoms which it guarantees, and to restore our "federal bank account to solvency.  We do not hate individuals who are rich or poor, we simply hate government policy which erodes the greatness of this one-of-a kind republic.  Which is something the mainstream media is either too biased or too dense to understand.

Warming Scientists On Suicide Watch?-The Global Sea Level is Shrinking

One of the big threats from the global warming moonbat types is that a rise in temperature will melt the polar ice caps causing the oceans to rise, with the cataclysmic result of skyscrapers being under water.  And boy oh boy, if you think that the commute into Manhattan is bad now....just wait.

There is only one problem with this scenario,  Mother Nature isn't being cooperative.  The latest data shows sea level falling during the past year. Of course one year does not make a trend, but the data makes sense of you look at the past century of data.

It is true that sea level has risen during the 20th century and probably well before that.  Scientists estimate that sea level has increased by 7 inches during the 2oth century.

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science.  Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What's even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006.  Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. To "fudge" the data they didn't agree with, the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of  what was actually happening--decelerating.

Now, new data has been released from NASA comparing the summer of 2011 to that of 2010.

The global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer, according to NASA scientists, in sharp contrast to the gradual rise the ocean has experienced in recent years.

The change stems from two strong weather cycles over the Pacific Ocean — El Niño and La Niña — which shifted precipitation patterns, according to scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The two cycles brought heavy rains to Brazil and Amazon, along with drought to the southern United States.

Climate scientist Josh Willis, who also works at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, warned that this water will eventually return to the ocean, and the long-term trend of rising sea levels will continue.

But it will continue to slow down unless the insist on adding their little .3 millimeter fudge.

“What this show is the impact La Niña and El Niño can have on global rainfall,” he said in an interview, adding scientists need to get a better sense of ice sheet dynamics before they can offer a more precise estimate of future sea level rise. “We really have a lot left to understand before we can do better.”

I would agree with that, they have lots to understand, including whether man-made global warming is real or not. Another thing they need to understand is that computer  models are nice, but they are based on biased assumptions.  There is nothing like sticking your finger out the window (or using satellite data) and trying to determine what the real numbers are.

Then again they don't want to do that, because every time they look at the real numbers it proves their computer models wrong.

Liberal Pollster Declares Obama's Re-election in Trouble

Liberal polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) is sounding the alarm, Barack Obama is in trouble. 

“There’s a very good chance Barack Obama would lose if he had to stand for reelection today,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “This is his worst poll standing in a long time and he really needs the economy to start turning around.”

Overall Obama's by a 48%-46% margin voters disapprove of the President's performance, but that is probably the best set of numbers in the study.  More Democrats are unhappy with the President's performance (16%), than Republicans who approve of him (10%).  I guess that means 10% of GOP voters have had no access to any media during the past two and a half years. The number that should be be most disturbing to the Obama-fans is the independent voters who disapprove of him by a margin of 49%-44%.

Now put those numbers in the context of this Jim Geraghty report which analyzed PPP and found some conflicts of interest, lack of transparency and Democratic-skewed methodology. In other words things could be even worse than the Daily Kos contractor, PPP is reporting.

PPP is also reporting that Mitt Romney has pulled into a tie with the President at 45%.

He leads the President by 9 points with independents at 46-37. And he earns more crossover support, getting 13% of the Democratic vote while only 8% of Republicans are behind Obama.

The other candidates are far behind Romney, but that is probably due to a lack of recognition rather than an understanding/disagreement with their policy.

Gallup is also showing a drop in support for Obama, the three-day rolling average of presidential approval reflected that Obama's approval dropped to 42%, to put that into perspective one month ago that approval rating was at 49%.

Since it is a three day average, and the first day a drop has been detected,  tomorrow's Gallup numbers for Obama may be even worse.

Rasmussen's three-day average reflects a similar drop with the President's disapproval at 54% vs 44% approval.

What is forcing Obama's numbers down? That could be best answered with the now-famous phrase, "Its the economy stupid!" and Americans are not very optimistic about the future:

Twenty-one percent (21%) of Likely U.S. Voters now say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, July 17. This matches the lowest level measured of Obama’s presidency and is also the lowest finding in nearly three months of weekly tracking.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters say the country is heading down the wrong track, the highest level of pessimism measured since mid-April. This finding has ranged from 57% to 72% since January 2009.

Certainly these numbers show that Americans are growing frustrated with Barack Obama's brand of change and if the election were held today he would be in severe trouble.  But the election won't be held today or for another year and a half, a lot can happen in that time period.