But, Obama is not giving up on forcing his views on American’s, reducing their freedom (via Hot Air)

(ABC News) President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.

Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.

“It is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes as we do, and the vast majority of the American women should have access to birth control,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said pointing out that 15 percent of women use birth control for medical issues. “It’s medicine, and women deserve their medicine.”

Yet, they do have access to contraception, regardless of whether their health insurance offers it or not. They can get a prescription from a doctor and pick up birth control pills. No one is stopping them. They can go down to the local pharmacy and buy condoms! Amazing, eh? And easy! They’re even available at grocery stores and small places like 7/11, WaWa, Kangaroo, and so on. By this same argument the Democrats are making, every plan should include, say, laser eye surgery. For free. No co-pays. Yet, most don’t even include a small discount. Government is not mandating. But, 1 in 4 American’s will need some sort of corrective eye implements by age 40.

“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”

As Allahpundit wrote Anyone want to field that question from ObamaCare supporter Kirsten Gillibrand? What about the Central Government’s power to decide? But, neither is deciding whether or not to use contraception, they are deciding whether it is in the health insurance plans. Government is mandating over the specific religious objections of Catholics, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, along with the liberals own talking points about a “separation of Church and State.”

This is not a bug, though, nor a by-product. This is intentional. When you dig into ObamaCare, you see that one of the main points is to make sure private sector employers who offer health insurance drop their coverages. Central government would much rather have the private sector pay the $2,000 fine to the Central Government, rather than pay the $6-12 thousand per year per employee they are paying now, with the employees then joining the government health insurance exchange. With each company that ends up dropping their offers, the Democrats can demonize them and says “look how mean private sector companies are!”

If just one employee obtains insurance through the exchange, their company is responsible for paying the fine for every employee. In retail, there can be, roughly, 25% of the employees being part-time. Some companies offer insurance for them, but, none take it, because it is much more expensive. Some do not even offer to part time. Companies will not take the chance that just one obtains insurance through the exchange. They will drop their plans. And that’s beside the notion that the fine is cheaper than the out-lays.

Let’s not forget this from the other day

“Unless this rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences or drop health care coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” according to a letter from Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

“Drop health care coverage.” That’s the point. But, why Obama would want to pick this fight in a presidential election year is strange. Perhaps he thinks that no matter how shabbily he treats Catholics, they’ll still vote for him. Democrats treat lots of voter blocks poorly, and, yes, they are dumb enough to vote Democrats. Will this time be different? Perhaps Obama was trying to change the narrative, which is that he is incompetent, has no clue how to deal with the economy, and is against creating private sector jobs. Move the conversation away from Keystone XL, Solyndra and other failed “green” companies, the waste of Stimulus, and Fast and Furious. Or, perhaps, he just doesn’t know better, and made a whopper of a mistake in green lighting this agenda.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Rick Santorum could be headed for a big day in today’s contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Missouri looks like a probable win for Santorum. He’s at 45% there to 32% for Mitt Romney and 19% for Paul. Minnesota provides an opportunity for a win as well. Currently he has a small advantage with 33% to 24% for Romney, 22% for Newt Gingrich, and 20% for Ron Paul. And Santorum should get a second place finish in Colorado, where Romney appears to be the likely winner. The standings there are Romney at 37%, Santorum at 27%, Gingrich at 21%, and Paul at 13%.

Santorum’s personal popularity is the main reason for his sudden reemergence as a relevant player in the GOP race. In all 3 of these states his favorability is over 70%- 74/17 in Minnesota, 72/17 in Missouri, and 71/19 in Colorado. He’s far better liked than his main opponents- Romney’s favorability is 47-60% in those states and Gingrich’s is 47-48%. While Romney and Gingrich have hammered each other in recents weeks Santorum’s been largely left alone and he’s benefiting from that now.

There are three groups Santorum’s winning in all three of these states: Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and those describing themselves as ‘very conservative.’

He is also coming out of the shadows with more than jabs. He is coming with convincing arguments that can stick:

“Gov. Romney is dead wrong on the issue of the day and he should not be the nominee of the party,” Santorum said in a hotel ballroom across the street from the hospital, adding the issue of health care is “central to our country, central to this race specifically why Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”…
“The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”…
Santorum said the two plans have similar levels, using terms like “gold, silver, and bronze,” and in possibly his most aggressive attack he said they both use “government panels to dictate quality and cost containment,” and for the second day in a row brought up the controversial term “death panels.”
The candidate told the crowd the vulnerable could be at risk under the administration’s plan and are at risk under Romney’s plan because the government could “ultimately decide to ration care.”

Several bloggers are now getting behind Santorum and the momentum has arrived for it to be his turn. He should watch out. So far he has been fairly safe from the Romney attack machine the liberal media because they thought he had no chance. That is all about to change soon. I’m not sure he has what it takes or if he is the best choice, but I do think we will see a game changer tonight.

Meanwhile, I think Gingrich is truly and passionately planning to stay in and hopes for a Southern sweep later on. Don’t count him out yet either. Also, Mitt Romney is definitely not a foregone conclusion as the nominee.

There has been a lot of lament by the far left in America that the Tea Party has somehow driven the Republican Party to conservative extremes. This, however, is untrue. The truth is, the American public has been trending toward conservative views for more than a decade before the Tea Party even came about.

According to Gallup, for the last three years more Americans have self-proclaimed themselves as conservatives than have claimed the moniker of moderate.

Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

But think about this for a minute. This means that fully 75% of America is more conservative than the Democrat Party, a party that decades ago stopped being a party of centrism becoming instead a European-like, liberal party.

Gallup’s several decades of polling finds that “moderates” have been in slow decline since 1992 with Americans calling themselves “liberal” now only measuring at 21 percent. With this we see a nation that is not just center-right as many political pundits have for years claimed, but is actually trending conservative.

As to the Republican Party, it is dominated by conservatives by 71 percent, a number that has grown by nine percent since the year 2000. So it is no wonder that Republican politics has edged toward conservative ideas, its base is getting more conservative.

This all seems to bode ill for the sort of far left policies that President Obama and his comrades dearly love. In fact, one can see the progression of conservatism in America in many areas. Twenty years ago, for instance, liberals were full-throated in their criticism of the Second Amendment and aimed to ban not just handguns but all firearms. Today, with every state but one now offering some iteration of law authorizing concealed carry, anti-gun ideas are the last things Democrat politicians talk about openly. Abortion is also an issue that has trended toward the conservative point of view, though not nearly so quickly as gun issues.

Spending is also an issue that is trending toward conservative ideals. For the first time in well over 100 years the discussion in Congress is how to actually cut spending instead of merely how much to limit the growth of spending and voters are quite high on fiscal responsibility. Look at Wisconsin, for instance. 100 years ago, Wisconsin led the country in left-wing progressivism yet last year Wisconsin was among the first states in the union to vote in a Governor one of whose main promises was to scale back the undue power of government employee unions.

Certainly the country hasn’t gone far enough to the right to suit conservatives — just as the country was not far enough left in the 60s and 70s to suit liberals — but without question the United States has been drifting to the right for several decades.

So, conservatives, don’t feel self-conscious about being a conservative. After all, you are in the majority.

The Daily Caller posted an Op Ed calling on Rush Limbaugh to save the GOP by offering a clinching endorsement of one of the non-Romney candidates. The writer was full of reasons and praise for the most listened-to radio talker, but for all the importuning, Rush will never back a primary candidate. The truth is, there just isn’t anything in it for him.

The writer, Yates Walker, says that short of some action by Rush, Romney will be the GOP nominee. Romney’s big money and ubiquitous support among the ignoratti of the GOP elites will be too much for any candidate to overcome unless Rush plays the wild card, he says.

Walker fears that if Rush doesn’t speak, it will all be over.

If Rush doesn’t make a move, recent history will repeat itself. Romney’s multimillion-dollar ad buys and the mainstream media will destroy Rick Santorum before the end of January. Though he is an excellent conservative candidate and could beat Obama in 2012, Rick will be called “unelectable” by so many pundits over the next three weeks that it will become conventional wisdom. The conservative vote will split between Santorum, Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman. Ron Paul will take his customary 12-20%. And Romney’s quarter of the GOP vote will be good enough to win … unless Mr. Limbaugh decides to intervene.

Walker goes on to say that Rush has been “toying” with crushing Mitt for months and that Rush must be “chomping at the bit” to do so.

“On several levels, Rush wants to,” Walker writes. He says Rush wants “to stand up for conservatives and conservatism, to punish the GOP establishment, to avoid a McCain 2008 redux and to have fun. Good reasons, all.”

With all the gushing praise of Limbaugh one has a sneaking suspicion that Walker was as much making a bid to be mentioned on Rush’s well-listened to show as making a serious proposal.

Aside from Walker’s mistake of phraseology — *it is “champing at the bit,” not “chomping” — Walker assumes of Limbaugh far too much power. Walker also makes the mistake of not seeing that there is no upside for Rush backing a primary candidate. There are, though, plenty of downsides.

First of all we should note that Limbaugh’s reputation was not built on being a kingmaker. He’s never been that at all. So, picking a primary candidate this time ’round would be out of character.

That aside there really isn’t anything a primary pick would do for the big guy. Let’s put it this way, if Limbaugh butts into the primaries and picks a candidate that can’t ultimately beat Romney, then tongues will wag that Rush has lost his influence. This would damage his reputation.

So what if Rush picks the non-Romney and he actually beats Mitt in the Primary? Then Rush will be on the hook to make sure that said candidate beats Obama. But if Obama wins, Rush instantly becomes the guy that destroyed both the GOP and the country by picking the candidate that couldn’t beat Obama.

The negatives to his career far outweigh the positives as far as Rush should be concerned. The perils to his career and his reputation are simply too great.

We do have a lower tier example of the dangers of picking a primary candidate in the person of another radio talker: Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt went out of his mind for Mitt in 2008. He backed him to the wall and lost all sense of objectivity in the doing. No Mitt misstep was too great or too small for Hewitt to vociferously deny its importance. Hewitt even wrote a book about Romney titled, “A Mormon in the White House.”

But in the final count Romney was crushed by John McCain and Hewitt became both a sellout and a schlub at the same time to many listeners. He ended up looking pretty foolish and this time around Hewitt is avoiding making any early picks. Hewitt proved that radio talkers put their reputations and careers in jeopardy if they back a candidate in the primaries.

Therefore, you’ll never see Limbaugh picking a primary candidate.

*I have since heard from Mr. Walker and he said that he isn’t the one that made it “chomping.” He told me the editors at the Daily Caller altered it to “chomping.”

Like nearly every conservative in America today I am unimpressed by the current crop of GOP nominees for president and feel they all have major flaws — especially the two frontrunners Newt and Romney, both of whom have major deficits as far as staunch conservatives are concerned. But at this point I’ve come to realize that I don’t think I care which one of them is nominated. In fact, I think the White House is not where we should be focusing our intensity in 2012.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn’t vote for whichever GOP nominee wins the game show plaudits. We should absolutely pick one of them and then we all, conservatives and Republicans alike, should vote for him (or her).

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the White House is less important than people are saying it is. Instead, we need a two-point focus for 2012 that doesn’t include the White House. We don’t need 999 points. Just two. 1). Gaining control of Congress and 2). turning Obama out. The identity and purity of our presidential nominee is the last thing we should be worried about at this point. It is a bit late for that anyway.

Let me assure you that I don’t have a favorite in this GOP race. And I have three real dislikes: Romney, Huntsman, and Ron Paul. This article is no stealth shilling for any particular candidate. I really do have big problems with all of them. But, again, I don’t think it matters which of them we pick if we focus on the two points I note above.

First of all, any of the GOP candidates (yes even the cranky uncle of the GOP, Ron Paul) would be better than Obama. But that goes without saying because I am a conservative that votes Republican. No surprise there, really.

But there are reasons besides blind partisanship that any of the GOP nominees is better than Obama. In fact, it can really be boiled down to but one issue that makes getting rid of Obama imperative: the courts. He has been thoroughly destructive to this country with his judicial picks.

Aside from the courts, of course, Obama has been a very destructive president in many ways — another reason to be rid of him. He’s presided over the continued destruction of our business sector and our economy, we all understand. But there’s more.

Obama has already turned his power to regulate into a tool of Big Labor and United Nations-styled socialism. He’s unleashed his extremist appointees and given them the freedom to push every anti-business, anti-worker, anti-American idea they can possibly get through.

There’s more.

Obama has also created all sorts of extra-constitutional czars and “advisory” committees, the President has issued a slew of dangerous executive orders, and he’s made all sorts of horrible moves in foreign policy. But all this can be quickly negated by a new president — quickly in terms relative to how Washington works, anyway. An active new president could make headway to reverse these Obamanations almost immediately. None of these changes, as bad as they are, have the misfortune of being irrevocably permanent.

But there is great danger that another four years of Obama will create, one that cannot be easily reversed. Obama has been steadily placing radical judges on benches throughout this land. His nominees tend to be abortion activists (not just abortion supporters, but out-and-out activists), Big Labor dupes, anti-Second Amendment activists, and the like. Many are so radical that even Democrats haven’t been able to convince themselves to vote them in.

Let’s just take his latest nominee for the DC Court of Appeals for example. Caitlin Halligan, a close associate of the disgraced Eliot Spitzer in New York, is an extremist anti-Second Amendment activist. If she gets on the bench she will take every opportunity she can to damage the Constitution.

A past example is his attempt to put a radical racemongering ACLU member on the bench in California. Obama’s attempt to place Edward Chen on the bench succeeded, unfortunately.

Let us not forget that the Supreme Court of the United States is already in a delicate balance tipped only barely in favor of conservatives. It is easy to see that with the ages of the current oldest members of the court, the next presidential term will see perhaps as many as three chances to replace retiring justices.

As conservatives we must put our desire for a pure conservative president in second place to the pursuit for the next nominees for the US Supreme Court. The fact is, if Obama gets a chance to put more judges on the bench, especially on the SCOTUS, he will be able to damage this country for decades to come.

I can hear just what you are saying at this point. But Warner, you are saying, if we don’t get a pure conservative president we will still get bad judicial picks, won’t we? If we get an abortion lover like Romney (Or is he? Do you believe his miraculous conversion? I don’t) we’ll still get squishes as judges, won’t we?

I’m hearin’ ya, friends, I’m hearin’ ya.

That is why we desperately need to focus on point two: taking the entire Congress under GOP control. And not just GOP control but conservative GOP control. We have the House now, certainly, but we need to make that control stronger. But more importantly we need to take control of the Senate. Both houses of Congress need to be under GOP control and we need to put conservatives in there to do the controlling.

This is the thing, folks. We need to have the most conservative Congress that we can get. A conservative Congress, you see, will drag the squishy Romney, the unpredictable Newt, the isolationist Paul, or any of the others along behind them whether those folks want to go or not. You see, if we have a more conservative Senate, a president will understand that soft, moderate or leans-left judicial nominees will not be acceptable. A conservative Congress — if we as voters force them to toe the line and get active — will force a president to be more conservative despite his inclinations.

As far as judicial nominees go, even if we do get soft nominees that lean conservative only 70% of the time we will have justices that at least act like Americans! If Obama gets another four years he’ll continue to put people on the bench that despise this country. And these people serve for life, don’t forget, so they will be there to continue destroying this country for decades.

This is something we must work hard to prevent. It is imperative that we deny Obama and his extremist, under-the-table agenda from continuing.

It isn’t a happy predicament to be forced to settle for a less conservative president, to be sure. But that is where we are whether we like it or not. Better than we start to realize where the important matters are located and it ain’t in the presidential election as far as GOP nominees is concerned.

It’s too late in some states, but these folks want you to write her in. If that is where your heart leads you, then go for it. Why not?

Ron Fournier of the National Journal has committed the same mistake in political analysis that far too many others on both sides of the aisle make. He thinks, like many do, that there is somehow more “polarization” in Washington today than ever. Like all the others, he’s wrong. There isn’t any more than there’s ever been.

He then leaps to the claim that the political system is “broken.” It really isn’t.

Fournier goes on to make an even more egregious mistake assuming that this “polarization” will cause the rise of a third party.

All of this, he and others seem to think, is a result of the increased distance between Republicans and Democrats which, in turn, has caused our system to go off track. It is the extremist theory of the American political system, the idea that the far left and the far right (and by that people in the Old Media like Fournier only mean the far right) have caused Washington to self-destruct.

This puts the locus of the problem in the wrong place. In fact, the increased left/right divide is a symptom, not a cause of our political troubles. The cause is that government has stolen so much power unto itself and the stakes are so much higher than they’ve ever been that the intensity of the political fight has taken grown to new heights. High stakes causes high tension, to be sure.

The fact is we’ve always had as much “polarization” in politics as we do now. Anyone that knows the hate and vitriol that was a driving force during the 1800 election, or the days when Andrew Jackson was president understands the viciousness that inundated our politics. The hate that Lincoln faced later was another example. Well, examples are legion.

The thing is, politics wasn’t so all consuming and important to the common American in those past days of vitriol. Americans could have a good brawl about politics, but move on. They did as often end up hating their neighbors simply because they were of the other party as we see today. The reason for that is that government now invades every last little minute of our lives. Government has stolen far too much power unto itself and the passions are much more consequential.

So, the solution isn’t to “fix” our system or the parties. The solution is also not to create a third party.

In fact, there is no third way that could arise. The GOP has already taken on the small government mantle — though it has been uneven in its practice — and the leftist Democrats have already become the European-styled, non-traditionally American, big government side of the fight. There is no consequential position a third party could take.

So what is the solution? Return to our small government roots. Get government out of our lives to the best degree possible. Eliminating regulations, slashing government agencies, firing government employees, this is the answer. We need to make government like it once was, less involved in our everyday lives.

Do that and you’ll see politics returned to the sport that Americans can find some interest in every other year but other wise aren’t as passionately interested in. Then you’ll see the “polarization” take on a much less troublesome aspect in our lives.

William “Bill” Randall is running for Congress out of the North Carolina 13th. Randall, an African American, experienced what must be called a hate crime in the left’s vernacular. His campaign sign had racist graffiti spray painted on it including the letters “KKK.”

Now, usually this is the sort of story that the Old Media goes wild over. It is proof that racism is alive in America, as far as they are concerned. It is proof that Tea Partiers, and conservative whites are eeeevil. This is usually the kind of story that would go national. Yet the media has delivered a collective yawn to the defacement of Randall’s sign.

Why? Because Bill Randall is not the liberal candidate in his election. He is the conservative Republican!

The Old Media doesn’t care if so-called hate crimes are perpetrated against Republicans. They only care if they are committed against folks on their own, far left, Democrat side of the aisle.

The Randall campaign even made a little parody video about the incident.

Randall is running as the GOP nominee for the 13th District and will face incumbent Democrat Brad Miller in November. Here is his website: www.randallforcongress.com. Make a donation to his campaign, won’t you?

If you’d like some idea of Mr. Randall’s stance on some of the issues, here is a questionnaire he responded to in April.

Also, here is an entry about Randall on Katy’s Conservative Corner that features a Randall ad.

In her exclusive interview with Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D, AZ), ABCs Diane Sawyer began with a retrospective of the terrible crime committed against the Congresswoman by a mentally disturbed, a-political gunman. But true to her left-wing agenda, Sawyer could not resist illicitly linking Tea Party activists, anti-Obamacare sentiment, and even Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to what was perpetrated against Rep. Giffords on that terrible day.

Yes, even though these calumnies against conservatives and Sarah Palin have been thoroughly discredited, Sawyer links them anyway to the shocking crime that took the lives of six people, injured others, and delivered a debilitating head wound to Representative Giffords.

It was only hours after the shooting occurred on January 8, 2011, that left-wing activists, purported journalists, and Democrat operatives alike began blaming the shooting of Rep. Giffords on “Tea Party hate” and the “violent rhetoric of the right.”

The false narrative was picked up by nearly every Old Media outlet and disgorged from their talking points sheets over and over again. It was days before everyone learned that the killer, one Jared Lee Loughner, had been stalking Giffords for several years before the Tea Party, Obamacare or Sarah Palin became national news.

In fact, killer Loughner was not interested in politics at all. He was just a sick-minded, lunatic that had a crazy infatuation with Rep. Giffords.

The media ultimately stopped bandying about its discredited theory that the shooting was spurred by conservatives, the Tea Party and Gov. Palin, but no apologies were ever uttered by the spinmeisters in the press.

At least we thought that the discredited theory that the Giffords shooting was the fault of conservatives had disappeared. Now, with Sawyer’s new interview, we are once again treated to scenes of Tea Partiers unhappy at townhall meetings in the days before the shooting. We also get a brief scene of Gov. Palin addressing a crowd. So, once more we are visited with the lie that conservatives are at fault for Giffords shooting. Sawyer didn’t say so directly, of course. She’s too slick for that. But by showing Tea Partiers, conservatives, and Palin and painting them as a hostile force against Giffords, Sawyer was obviously linking them to the crime. Sawyer slyly floated irate conservatives as the reason the “atmosphere” of the days before her shooting was so filled with portent of the dangers to come.

Only it’s all a lie. The Tea Party, the dislike the nation has for Obamacare (which is still extant, by the way), and the political activism of Governor Sarah Palin had precisely nothing to do with Giffords’ shooting. Giffords was in Jared Lee Loughner’s gunsights regardless of the political situation in the country in the days leading up to his crime.

In fact, it is more sensible to blame Obama and Democrats for the enflamed political environment then and now. Such levels of vitriol didn’t exist until Obama and Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress. Dispensing with our proper legislative process, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and President Obama pushed through a bill that was not actually even written, a bill we had to “pass to know what is in it.” In fact, it is a bill that still has high unfavorables that run across party lines.

That Giffords’ shooting is not the Democrat’s fault should go without saying. The enflamed political environment had nothing at all to do with the crime committed that January morning. Democrats aren’t at fault for it. Certainly, neither are Tea Partiers, conservatives, anti-Obamacare activists, or Governor Sarah Palin.

The report is not without its nearly tear inducing moments, though. It is heartwarming to see Rep. Giffords on the road to recovery. It is wonderful to see her speaking clearly, even if she is sometimes reaching for the right words. Sadly Diane Sawyer sullies these wonderful moments by bringing into her report a partisan, left-wing bias against conservatives. But despite Diane Sawyer’s gauche effort to smear America’s conservatives by pushing discredited talking points, Giffords’ pluck and determination shines brightly through the smear job anyway. That is a triumph.

Over this past weekend several hundred conservative bloggers, writers, political operatives, and Tea Patiers got together in Denver, Colorado to attend a conference aimed toward helping these activists be more effective in their efforts. But conservative activism wasn’t the only theme on the schedule when the event was crashed by denizens of Occupy Denver who came to protest. What they came to protest was a tad unclear, but isn’t that just of a piece with the whole Occupy “movement”?

The event, Blogcon 2011, was organized by Freedom Works and featured seminars on Website SEO, use of Youtube and Facebook, information on which candidates Freedom Works is supporting in the upcoming GOP primaries, panels of bloggers telling their story, and the like.

What it wasn’t was attended by Washington’s policy makers or catering to the rich and famous! The folks at these events are most assuredly not members of the so-called one percent. They are work-a-day folks that just happen to be interested in conservative ideas. Essentially the participants at Blogcon 2011 were similar to the Occunuts that invaded their event in that they are all citizen activists.

But that didn’t stop the Occupiers from attacking Blogcon 2011 hopeful of disrupting the event. Two separate times Occupiers came to Blogcon to yell their empty slogans, chant their prosaic chants, ply their “mic check” silliness, call names, threaten violence, and in general act like children.

Small handful of Occupy protesters disrupt conservative conference

To further make light of their cause, the erstwhile denizens of Occupy Denver elected a dog to be their leader. That the Occupiers “elected” a three-year-old border collie named Shelby seems to prove how silly their whole business is.

As usual, when they invaded the conservative conference their main complaint seemed to be that Blogcon was funded by “the Koch Brothers.” In fact, some of these clueless protesters had been told that the famous libertarian moneymen were to appear at the event. The Kochs were not there, of course, and never were going to be.

In fact, the Koch Brothers have nothing at all to do with the event, its hosts or participants. Freedom Works, the event organizer, is not Koch funded and neither were any of the bloggers and activists there. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good Occupy chant, eh?

Besides worrying over the Koch Brothers — and a corresponding disinterest in George Soros who funds their side — other subjects that the Occupiers were concerned about was making all drugs legal, that rich people should have their money confiscated by the federal government, and a smattering of other odd topics like ushering in communism in America and other standard, left-wing tropes.

One fellow was wearing a Soviet helmet with a hammer and sickle on it but his friend insisted that just because he was wearing the symbol of the defunct communist nation that this didn’t mean he was supporting communism. I countered asking him if a white guy was holding a Confederate Battle Flag if he was supporting slavery? For a few seconds he stumbled around with his answer, realizing he’d seem a hypocrite if he said the CS flag was just about slavery as would be a leftist’s first response, he then mumbled something about history and walked away.

In any case, it was a mish mash of issues with no central focus all hurled at a bunch of conservative bloggers that don’t control the very issues that the protesters wanted to change. There was no coherent point to this Occupy invasion.

But let me relay a story that proves that even these Occupy protesters don’t have a clue. At a recent AFP event in Washington D.C. the eeeevil David Koch of the dreaded Koch Brothers walked right past the protesters as he exited the venue and they didn’t even know who he was even as he walked among them. This incident proves that these people really have no clue and are just mouthing talking points handed to them by their controllers.

But the disjointed message of Occupy Denver is not an outlier. All of the Occupy camps are like Denver; confused, vague, misinformed, and based solely on feelings. Is it any wonder that these things have devolved from initial non-violent activism to criminal activity and violence? There is no central theme to keep Occupiers on track and working toward a goal. The devolution into chaos that we’ve seen from the Occupiers seems to be the only logical outcome, doesn’t it?

+++++++

One of the funniest things that happened between the Occupiers and the conservative bloggers is when Javier Manjarres of The Shark Tank Blog commandeered the Occupier’s bullhorn and turned the tables on them. The video is hilarious.

All Hail Shelby, grand exulted leader of Occupy Denver