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.

(NY Times) In what the federal authorities on Thursday called one of the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized the Web site Megaupload and charged seven people connected with it with running an international enterprise based on Internet piracy.

Megaupload, one of the most popular so-called locker services on the Internet, allowed users to anonymously transfer large files like movies and music. Media companies have long accused it of abetting copyright infringement on a vast scale. In a grand jury indictment, Megaupload is accused of causing $500 million in damages to copyright owners and of making $175 million through selling ads and premium subscriptions.

Four of the seven people, including the site’s founder, Kim Dotcom (born Kim Schmitz), have been arrested in New Zealand, the authorities said; the three others remain at large. Each of the seven people — who the indictment said were members of a criminal group it called “Mega Conspiracy” — is charged with five counts of copyright infringement and conspiracy. The charges could result in more than 20 years in prison.

So, we apparently have laws that allow Government to shut down rogue websites which exist solely to share material, much of which is copyrighted. What would SOPA and PIPA do extra? And that is the concern of opponents of the S&P bills. S&P is a vast overreach by government, which would give a bloated, faceless, and unelected bureaucracy the power to police the Internet. Where would one go if they nailed your website for an explanation and relief?

Meanwhile, Anonymous went on a “revenge spree” and took down the websites of the FBI, every domain associated with the DoJ, RIAA, MPAA, EMI, the US Copyright office, and Universal Music, among others. On one hand, this seems extreme: Megaupload was, in fact, stealing content, denying the copyright holders the residuals for their intellectual property, and making tons of money themselves. How would they feel if they wrote a popular song and were denied earnings due to being shared?

On the other hand, via Scared Monkeys, consider

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which defends free speech and digital rights online, said in a statement that, “This kind of application of international criminal procedures to Internet policy issues sets a terrifying precedent. If the United States can seize a Dutch citizen in New Zealand over a copyright claim, what is next?”

Meanwhile, Cracked writer Soren Bowie points out the only argument in favor of SOPA/PIPA . Read carefully.

Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act, and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Well, that’s a pretty good response, eh? Then it gets kinda weasely

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.

But, what is lawful? There are competing laws that make excerpts legal or not. Every-time you read an excerpt here, at Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, The Other McCain, The Lonely Conservative, Weasel Zippers, and so on, we are breaking copyright law. Same with some videos. But, we are also covered by Fair Use law.

Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity.

OK, that’s a little better, but, is the White House saying that US law should be extended to cover things outside of the US? With respect, that’s kinda what SOPA and PIPA say, too.

Anyhow, the White House does definitively come out against DNS blocking, which was a major issue of concern with the legislation. Tina Korbe points out that Reddit plans a 12 hour blackout in protest of the legislation, and further goes on to say

To clarify, it’s not like the White House promised to veto or anything. Instead, the administration has said it will “not support parts of” SOPA and PIPA, which, technically, is not quite the same as “opposing” the bills. It could be the White House just wants to stay out of a fight that pits liberals (Hollywood, etc.) against liberals (Google, etc.). Nevertheless, it’s still helpful that the president doesn’t want to push very hard for SOPA and PIPA — because you can bet opponents will continue to push against them.

Any little bit helps in the fight against legislation which gives way to much power to the Central Government and its unelected and persistent bureaucrats.

Meanwhile

(The Hill) House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said early Saturday morning that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised him the House will not vote on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) unless there is consensus on the bill.

Well, it’s a start, and could mean that the legislation gets shelved permanently. Now the ball’s in Harry Reid’s court. He plans on a Senate vote in the next two weeks. I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear that he has postponed any vote within the next few days.

Huffington Post points out that “The Motion Picture Association of America Inc. (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have each released a response to the White House’s position on SOPA and PIPA.” All are in support of the current legislation.

But, as a DUmmy points out, let’s not forget that Obama was against NDAA and it’s indefinite detention provisions right up till he signed it.

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

On Wednesday morning the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake posted an infographic that was a perfect example of how one can use a graphic chart to influence the public in subtle ways, ways that we of the center right better start employing in our own efforts if we want to win over the public.

Blake’s post, “Why People Hate Congress,” fits in well with President Obama’s class warfare rhetoric as employed in his campaign to set different economic classes against each other in a desperate and cynically populist bid to get reelected next year. There is little of substance to Blake’s post other than to fan the flames of the sort of hatred that he wants to see grow in order to aid Obama in 2012.

The Post’s Blake also ended up having to pull the graphic off his The Fix blog post because it simply did not illustrate what he claimed it did in his story — but that is another issue that we’ll deal with at the end of this report.

Blake begins his piece asking, “Want to know why Americans hate Congress?” He then goes on to claim it is in part because our elected representatives in Washington D.C. are members of the eeeevil rich.

The fact that members of Congress are getting richer (and 57 members come from the top 1 percent, according to USA Today) confirms what Americans suspect about the people who are running this country: that they don’t empathize with normal people.

Of course, with a dispassionate application of logic, having a few dollars more than the next guy does not ipso facto make the richer guy so out of touch that he cannot empathize with anyone in a lower salary range. Only those filled with hate make this assumption. Empathy has nothing to do with class, money, or politics. It has to do with one’s character.

Further there are plenty of members of Congress with the character to understand and have empathy with others. Then there are some that don’t. People are people, rich or poor.

It is also telling that even Blake admits that Congress has always been filled with “the rich.” The founders were not groveling in poverty, after all. It often takes a person that has achieved a certain place in society to become elected. I mean, should they be elected, how can anyone expect “the poor” or even the lower middle class to afford to fund homes both in D.C. and back in their district? Who can afford to leave their family and business if half the year off more to fly off the D.C. to attend to government business? And with the costs of elections and the Byzantine election laws these days causing many candidates to self fund, it will only be natural that “the rich” end up being our representatives in Congress.

But special attention has to be paid to the graphic Blake used to illustrate his story. And what a masterwork of subtlety it is. Blake claimed that the illustration made by a well-known hate-the-rich researcher from California showed in graphic form the distribution of wealth among both chambers of Congress. The graphic depicts the “top 1%” and the “next 9%” in the color red. Then it uses blue to show the “following 10%” and the “bottom 80%.” Notice what is going on? That’s right, this graphic uses the color red to depict the eeevil rich. And what is the color red in politics these days? None other than the color the Old Media has assigned to the Republican Party.

This graphic is a great illustration of the way the left influences the emotions of the viewer toward their positions. George Scoville puts it perfectly in his post about this graphic.

If you don’t make your living thinking strategically about political communications, this might not have jumped out at you. But this is a very clever and very deceptive messaging tactic. If Democrats… are going to use this type of tactic, then Republicans and pro-liberty advocacy organizations need to take a page from this playbook quickly. We certainly can’t rely on the media to apply the kind of scrutiny that pulls back the curtain for casual political observers.

Exactly right. We on the right don’t think of this type of messaging often enough.

Then there is the rest of this story. In truth, the graphic that Blake claimed illustrated the riches of Congress directly, in fact did not. It actually meant to illustrate the wealth distribution of all Americans as a percentage of Congress.

A little later on Wednesday morning, Aaron Blake removed the graphic and issued this mea culpa:

This post initially used a chart that included data that we and others misunderstood. It did not reflect the wealth of Congress, but instead the wealth of the country, described according to numbers of seats in Congress. The Fix regrets the error.

Ooops. I guess the facts were “too good to check for the good folks at the Washington Post.”

But wait. Don’t get upset at Mr. Blake too quickly. After all, this graphic stirred the liberal heart. A quick glance makes viewers imagine that it is showing the number of eeevil Republicans compared to the nice, poor Democrats in Congress. In fact, that is precisely the emotion that the graphic is intended to evoke. So, we can fault Mr. Blake for not looking close enough at the graphic to discern its statistical facts, but we cannot fault him for having instantly grasped the subliminal message it was intended to relay. The fact is, the graphic works beautifully.

These are the sort of tactics the left employs, folks. We’d best become hip to them fast.

When Howard Dean became a surprise front runner in the Democrat primary of 2004 doing so on the basis of a strong Internet-based campaign effort, tongues began to wag that the Internet might replace old fashioned retail politics. This time ’round Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich served to get people to question the old way of organizing a campaign.

But this week we’ve seen in Virginia why these airy claims of the Internet’s new dominance is a bit chimerical. We see that old fashioned, boots on the ground politics is still the best method to election.

By all methods of measure, Texas Governor Rick Perry is still a strong candidate in the 2012 GOP Primary race. He sometimes comes in second, third or fourth in polls, but is still considered a top contender for the nomination. Yet as the time came to file his petition signatures in Virginia, it turned out his campaign could not collect enough to get his name on the ballot. So, a reputed front running candidate for the nomination, Rick Perry, will not even appear on the Virginia primary ballot.

Perry isn’t the only one. Neither Bachmann, Huntsman, nor Santorum had the organization in the Commonwealth to gather enough signatures to make the ballot. Further, it was thought Newt Gingrich barely had enough to make it but as the final tally was made he didn’t have enough to make the ballot, either. And Newt is a resident of Virginia!

In the end, as the file date came and went only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul ended up clearly succeeding in turning in enough signatures to make the ballot.

So, what happened here? It all comes down to retail politics. Both Romney and Paul had the organizations with enough people right there in Virginia to pass around their candidate’s petitions and gather the requisite number of signatures. The others simply did not have the campaign staff or enough support in individual workers ready to hit the streets for them that Romney and Paul had.

This shows that the Internet really isn’t enough. It shows that organization still reigns supreme in the primary process. After all, if one can’t even get his name on a ballot, how does one take the next step toward becoming the nominee?

Since the beginning of this primary race there were only three candidates with a ground game. Mitt Romney who spent the last four years creating his organization, Ron Paul whose absurdly young army of acolytes will do anything for him — and which Paul spent six years assembling — and the first major candidate to quit the effort, Tim Pawlenty.

All the rest have been flying by the seat of their pants with little money and fewer numbers in their state-to-state organizations. They’ve been relying on good showings in the many debates — which has been a bigger factor than it has in the past, admittedly — and the Internet to make their dent.

Clearly it hasn’t been enough for the lower tier, however. Regardless of their suitability for the nomination, only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have the ground game to appear on every state’s primary ballots. It’s the old fashioned game of retail politics that has made the difference for them. Both spent years and tons of cash to make that happen, too.

Fair or not, until there is some major change in our primary system the ground game will make all the difference.

On Monday morning a story whipped through the liberal blogosphere (and unfortunately one generally conservative news source) that had the left gleefully attacking the Tea Party Movement. They were thrilled, you see, to find a Tea Partier advocating for the assassination of President Obama and his entire family. Only they didn’t. Find such a Tea Partier, I mean.

Keith DeHavelle outlined this great example of how the left wing blogs glommed onto this story of an idiot that wrote on his Facebook page that Obama and his family should be assassinated and then assigned it to a “Tea Party darling” when in truth neither the nut in question nor any part of the story itself is connected in any way to a Tea Party group or Tea Party sentiment.

The story began when unsuccessful candidate for the Carson, California City Council, Jules Manson, decided it would be a great idea to post on his Facebook Page all about his hope that Obama and his family would be assassinated.

.

In an acute example of how erudite this Jules Manson is, he wrote, “Assassinate the f—ing n—er and his monkey children.”

I hope this ignoramus realizes he just committed a federal crime.

Anyway, it wasn’t long before this guy’s Facebook account was canceled and pulled off the web for its hate-speak. Rightly so, too.

But as the morning rolled on the left-wing blogs went nuts defining this guy variously as a “Tea Party Darling,” a libertarian supporter of Ron Paul, along with other labels. Unfortunately, they seemed to have a little trouble taking the time to find out about the real facts about this guy before posting.

Worse was the incorrect description by the New York Daily News — usually a conservative news source — that called Manson “A rabid Tea Party wannabe politician.”

The truth of what Manson “is,” however, is a bit different.

It turns out that Manson explained quite clearly on his own webpage that he does not identify with either of the two main national parties.

I am a mechanical engineer working usually within aerospace and defense industry. For a long time I switched between the two parties but found they were not representing the best interest of the general public. I believe honoring the constitution, a contract between the government and the governed, is key in a free democracy. I recently became a member of the Libertarian Party because they mirror many of my views. Such views include smaller government, less taxation, representation for the people, a free market system which allows small business to prosper, and individual liberties and rights. This means I am a constitutional conservative for reforms to return representation back to the public where it belongs. At the city level, such as Carson, this can be done by banning all campaign financing and requiring each candidate to fund their own campaign. This is key to restoring democracy. I believe this can and must be done.

There is also nothing on any of his various webpages and blog posts that identified him as a Tea Partier.

The best coverage of this seems to come from a left-winger blog called Angry Black Lady Chronicles. Left-wing or no, the poster there did a good job tracking down all the particulars of the story and comes to the proper conclusion that this nutcase, Manson, has no connection whatever with the Tea Party movement. As DeHavelle notes, Manson has statements showing him to be anti-Tea Party, even. Not only that but Manson was the editor of SupportAtheism.com. So, he’s not religious, either. This guy seems to be quite far from the Tea Party movement.

Sadly, what we see here are all sorts of bloggers and news sources leaping to a story, labeling a kook, but not taking the time to get down to the truth before hitting that post now button. We saw this when that criminal, mental case shot Gabrielle Giffords, as well. That shooter was labeled a Tea Partier even before anyone even knew his name. How one can claim they know a person’s entire history before they even know a name… well, that one was never explained to me.

While this particular bad actor’s name was known ahead of time, too many leapt to their keyboards to lay claims as to what he “was” and was not before any of them bothered to learn anything about him. That is bad form no matter who does it.

(NBC Bay Area) It could require Internet providers to monitor customers’ traffic and block websites suspected of copyright infringement.

I’d recommend reading that entire article, and this one, and even watching the video at ZDNet (it’s about 20 minutes long). Who is behind it?

(ZDnet) I want you to remember these names: Lamar Smith, Joe Baca, Howard Berman, Marsha Blackburn, Mary Bono Mack, John Carter, Steven Chabot, John Conyers, Jim Cooper, Elton Gallegly, Robert Goodlatte, Tim Holden, Peter King, John Larson, Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman, Lee Terry, Melvin Watt, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, John Barrow, Steve Scalise, Ben Luján, Judy Chu, William Owens, Karen Bass, Ted Deutch, Ben Quayle, Tim Griffin, Dennis Ross, Alan Nunnelee, Thomas Marino, and Mark Amodei.

These congress-critters are the sponsors of the completely unacceptable Stop Online Piracy Act, otherwise known as SOPA. If SOPA manages to pass (and the Internet is effectively gutted), these are the people to blame.

The sad part is that these people are representing the entertainment industry’s interest for chump change. According to a report by the Knight-Batten Award-winning nonprofit MAPLight, the 32 sponsors of the bill received just under $2 million in campaign contributions from the movie, music, and TV entertainment industries.

Those are the people, representative of both Parties, who are playing with fire, and have managed to unite Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, progressives, Democrats, and Republicans in trying to stop this horrendous bit of legislation. The committee vote has been postponed

(CBS News) A controversial measure aimed at stopping online privacy that critics contend would kill the Internet as we know it hit a minor snag on Friday, when a key backer delayed a vote on the measure until next week.

Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, decided against holding a committee vote that had been expected on Friday. The panel later scheduled a vote for Wednesday, December 21.

Hit the phones, people. Their numbers are available at Congress Merge. You can also stop by their offices (peacefully) if you are in their districts or in D.C. Call your own Critters, tell them this is a Bad Idea.

SOPA would give the Justice Department the power to shut down so-called “rogue” offshore web sites that sell pirated materials on the Internet, including music, movies and pharmaceuticals. The major Hollywood studios and media organizations, support the legislation. If the bill makes it through the committee, it would still have to pass the full House of Representatives and the Senate before it would go to President Obama’s desk.

As written, it’s not simply offshore websites, it would hit domestic sites as well. The question is “would they?” Under the terms, a Hollywood studio could ask the DOJ to shut down Youtube if a user uploaded copyrighted material. I have several videos which could get Youtube shut down, including a snippet from A Charlie Brown Christmas (I was the first to upload anything from the show, back to the old and shut down MSN Soapbox. Yeah, me!) That is the unintended consequences of SOPA.

In fact, simply by posting the above excerpts, I could get my site, Right Wing News, and Stop The ACLU (because of the cross-posts. You’re welcome, John and Jay) shut down. Too many in Congress think they Know Better Than Anyone Else, but, take their legislation too far. And, as Tina Korbe points out

As this Cynical Brit who has introduced hundreds of thousands of viewers to the dangers of SOPA put it, the way to beat piraters is to provide better service than they do — to make it a better consumer experience to legally view or use copyrighted material than to illegally view or use copyrighted material.

She states that SOPA is not about piracy: it’s about censorship. And she’s right.

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

(Real Clear Politics) “Layoffs too often became permanent, not part of the business cycle. And these changes didn’t just affect blue collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the internet,” President Obama said at a campaign event in Kansas.

Jobs have always been replaced as technology moved forward. The milk man had to learn a new job. So did the guys who drove the horse drawn coal delivery carts. So did that nasally lady who answered your phone call and transferred it to SYcamore-4-3319, rather than it being automatically done as it is nowadays. You can find numerous examples of this happening over time. And all as part of the “business cycle”, showing that Obama has absolutely no clue as to how business works.

The whole speech itself was one huge class warfare speech, given by a guy who is himself a 1%er, and refuses to pay more in taxes and do his “fair share”.

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

There was once a famous liberal congressman from New York who reminded his opponents that they could have their own opinions but not their own facts. This, of course, was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the few respectable liberals of his or any other day. But, for the most part, the left operates on pushing the lie until it is accepted as “fact” whether it is true or not. And the leftist blog Crooks and Liars pulled a doozie this week.

Apparently the guffaw inducing leftist blog thinks that the Occupy protests have been completely peaceful despite the hundreds of arrests, the rapes, the property destruction, theft, and other various act of lawbreaking! No, they are not joking.

C&L, blogger John Amato centered his risible claim upon the video of the “bedlam” that occurred at a recent college football game that saw the Oklahoma State University Cowboys beat the University of Oklahoma Sooners. As the game ended, OSU fans flooded the field to celebrate. Unfortunately, in their exuberance to tear down the goal posts upwards to twelve fans were hurt.

Amato called this a “riot.”

“Some reports called it as terrifying as a natural disaster,” Amato luridly began. “Thousands of crazed fans rushed onto the field. It’s a typical response at many college football games, but this one caused massive injuries to people participating in the rioting.”

Rioting? It was hardly a “riot.” It wasn’t anything to excuse, mind you, but to call it a riot is hyperventilating at its worst.

I have to thank Tina Korbe who brought this to my attention at her HotAir blog. Now, I don’t bother much with lefty blogs. After all, who needs lefty blogs when the Old Media fills that bill so excruciatingly? Usually I only hit the lefty blogs when I want to see the left’s reaction to a particularly hot story, so this one I missed. But Korbe was at that game and she has a first hand account of the “riot.”

Now, it just so happens that I was in Stillwater, Okla., for this game — and I’d characterize the atmosphere afterward as anything but violent. Jubilant, ecstatic, buoyant, sure. But violent? Not so much. Nevertheless, it’s incumbent upon me to say — and, honestly, I’m very happy to say it — that injuries caused by excessive celebration after a football game are unnecessary, inexcusable and regrettable.

Korbe’s account aside, it is easy to see that the fans on the field were not there to destroy the place. Save tearing down the goal posts, as stupid a tradition as there ever was, the fans were just happy not overly destructive. This was hardly the sort of riots we’ve seen in years past when pro basketball teams have won the big game.

Regardless Amato seriously tried to compare the “riot” at the football game to the “peaceful” OWS protests. He lamented that OWSers were treated to pepper spray and had the evil police pushing them around. Those poor OWSers were treated to a “Stasi-type response” by the man… man. Why, those kindly OWSers were just “sleeping in tents,” ya know? What could be more peaceful?

Amato then went on to decry the money that it cost “to medically transport and treat severely wounded people and clean up after this violent outburst.”

All this arm waving and foaming at the mouth is a perfect example of the great lie, a misdirection used to distract people into accepting that his underlying premise was fact. However, in truth it is the OWS “movement” that has cost cities across this land — and therefore you and I as taxpayers — millions of dollars in police overtime, repairs to destroyed public property, and streets and san clean up crews that had to dispose of the OWSers bodily fluids left in bottles all over these “protests.”

Worse, the act of injudicious jubilation at the football game was nothing compared to the nearly 400 criminal acts perpetrated by OWSers at their anarchic “protests.” And this does not include the breaking of the many thousands of small laws — like permit requirements, vagrancy laws, and rules meant to keep protests orderly and safe for both protesters and passersbye. In fact, every single OWS protest has broken these laws. None of them got permits, none of them observed any of the laws and ordinances passed by the cities in which they gathered.

This is quite unlike the Tea Party movement that was forced to hold to every single tiny little law on the books to be “allowed” to hold their protests over the last two years. Further this is unlike the Tea Partiers that had no arrests, no destruction of private property, no rapes, no… well, nothing like the criminal activity perpetrated by the Occupiers.

Yet, C&L’s Amato pushed the big lie that the OWS events have been entirely free of arrests, free of criminal activity, perfectly peaceful. Amato is employing the left’s favorite game. Tell the lie long enough and scream it loud enough that people start to believe it. That is the goal, at any rate.

A whack nut Occupy Wall Street sympathizer in South Carolina was a bit miffed when Governor Nikki Haley “allowed” the police to begin arresting the dregs at Occupy Columbia. In fact, he was so mad that he took to his Facebook account and threatened to murder the Governor.

So much for the Occupy-Whatevers being wedded to “non-violence,” eh?

KLTV Channel 7 News in Jacksonville, Texas has the story…

When 26-year-old Nathan Shafer heard about the arrests of 19 Occupy Columbia members outside the State House last Wednesday, he did what lots of people do when they get angry — he vented about it on the Internet. He saw Gov. Haley’s Facebook post about the arrests and Haley’s comment that she “appreciate[s] freedom of speech,” and that’s when authorities say Shafer crossed the line.

“I hope someone murders you before I do,” Shafer said he commented on the post. “How’s that for freedom of speech?”

Shafer claims that he was “just joking” and that he was only exercising his right to “free speech.” I guess threatening to kill people is just a joke to Occupy-Whatevers.

As the newser notes a man earlier this year made similar threats toward President Obama but was not convicted of any wrongdoing.

Just add this creep’s threats to the mounting toll of violence and hatred seen from the Occupy-Whatevers. All I can say is that it is such a shame that Democrats and the Old Media are pretending that the OWSers are “non-violent” and are somehow “the left’s Tea Party movement.” Neither are true as the Tea Party never indulged any of the hatred and violence seen by these disgusting OWSers.

The fact is the two groups are not in the least way similar save that both were protesting things. The Tea Partiers are law-abiding, serious, practical, and useful. The OWSers are dangerous, criminal, pointless, and narcissistic.

(H/T Verum Serum)