Irony in Politics

An ironic twist (or two) in American politics is emerging as the 2012 Presidential election campaign proceeds. One is the ongoing campaign for re-election by the current occupant. Aside from making a few speeches and playing golf, Mr. Obama's Presidency is remarkable only for the number of gala parties and expensive fund-raising events attended by the Obamas. It may reasonably be supposed that Mr. Obama's interests, aside from partying and vacationing, lie primarily in campaigning; doing the work of the President is evidently too tedious and bothersome, but campaigning is fun.

There is, however, a much larger, and much more ironic, trend beginning to be visible in the political scene. A little reflection on the differences between the ACORN-initiated Occupy movement and the Tea Party may be helpful. These groups reflect fundamentally different and opposing philosophies. And while Occupy isn't part of the Democrat party, most of the Occupiers will end up voting Democrat, just as the Tea Party isn't part of the Republican party, and many of the Tea Partiers seem to end up voting Republican.

Occupy professes no clear goals, and in fact, the organizers claim that they don't want to set goals. In spite of that, they have made one thing abundantly clear; they have seen the glittering promise of socialism, and they want that. Socialism promises money (fairness and equity, they call it), and they want it; the government has money, businesses have money, wealthy individuals have money, and they want it. Socialist theory tells them they are entitled to it, and they want it.

The Occupy people know how to get it, too; well, not themselves, but the theory of socialism promises that if they simply turn over all power and responsibility to the government, the minions of government will spare no effort in their complete devotion to the welfare of the people. All the Occupiers have to do is trust (and re-elect) Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their ACORN appointees and bureaucrats. If they do that, then a benign and loving government will rain down love, world peace, harmony (and wealth) on them. Never mind the collapse of socialist Russia and the Eastern bloc, the crisis and incipient crash of the Western European nations which adopted socialist practices after WWII, and the economic crisis in the U.S. brought on by a headlong rush to socialism here, belatedly following the footsteps of Europe into debt and disaster; nothing can penetrate the clouded minds of the Occupiers in their lemming rush.

The Tea Party movement grew up from a grassroots resistance to the massive deficit spending of the Obama Stimulus and the government power grab embodied in the Obamacare healthcare takeover. Liberal media pundits decry the Tea Party, claiming that it is a puppet organization funded by that conservative bogeyman, the Koch brothers. Conservatives know that is deliberate misdirection by liberals. The Tea Party wants to direct the government back towards its American roots, and has fairly well defined goals; limited government with less spending, lower taxation, less regulation, deficit reduction, trimmed entitlement programs, and stopping illegal immigration by securing the border as the Constitution requires. Yet the Tea Party seems to have lost track of what they are trying to do.

Take a look at the GOP primary race. Mitt Romney has stuttered along consistently, but he is by no means a Tea Party man. Michele Bachmann had garnered initial support, reasonably enough. Elected on a Tea Party platform, a Constitutional lawyer and mother of five, who espouses and votes consistently for Tea Party principles. No dirt in her past, but, (oh no!) her husband counsels homosexuals on how they may leave that lifestyle (and conservatives don't believe in this?) So Rick Perry threw his hat into the ring; he looked "electable" and the conservatives ran to his camp, only to find that Gov. Perry really supports illegal immigration, even though securing the border from invasion is an affirmative Constitutional duty of the Federal Government. Time to look elsewhere; maybe Herman Cain? Good credentials, he even has a plan. But as soon as he rises in the polls, the liberal media (which conservatives claim not to believe, and shouldn't, but do) trumpets allegations of sexual infidelity, without even bothering about proof or substantiation, and off the conservative crowd runs. To Newt. Now, Gingrich is hardly a Tea Party conservative; he makes global warming ads with Pelosi, works for GOP candidates who run against Tea Party candidates (remember Scozzafava?,)  and has more baggage than a traveling luggage salesman, but he looks "electable." For the moment.

That's the irony. The Occupiers sit in their dirty, mostly illegal little camps, chanting "gimme, gimme, gimme," all day long, and they might win. Meanwhile, the Tea Party is careening like a pinball from one contender to another, seeking an "electable" candidate. The Tea Party needs to slow down and take a look at its goals. After all, if "electability" is the main criteria, maybe (tongue in cheek, here) the GOP should draft Hillary Clinton. She's pretty popular with moderates, and even Democrats, and the Establishment GOP could work with her - most of them aren't going to get worked up about all these "moral" issues that seem to bother the GOP base, which in large part is found in the Tea Party.

Seriously, the Tea Party needs to look at the candidates and find the one with Tea Party goals - and work to get that person elected. "Electability" is getting enough votes, and the Tea Party has proven it can deliver honest votes if it chooses to.

This election isn't up to the Democrats, Obama isn't that popular. And it really isn't up to the Establishment GOP - they are perfectly content avoiding responsibility and being Number Two.

It's up to the Tea Party to lose, or win, this election.

Heavier Trucks, or Outsourced Jobs?

There is a movement, led by a group euphemistically called "Coalition for TransportationProductivity," to push legislators to increase the weight limits of trucks allowed on U.S. highways. 

This coalition includes over 100 major shippers such as Tyson Foods and Hershey Co., and a number of the major truck lines that ship nationwide, such as Con-way and U.S. Express. These shippers want to raise weight limits of trucks that travel in the U.S. from the current 80,000 lb. limit to a 97,000 lb. limit, and they suggest there a number of reasons to do so. One is that the current weight limit is often reached before the trailer is filled. Another is that fewer trucks would be required to move the same tonnage. Third, modern containers weigh 97,000 lbs, and the new weight limit would avoid transshipment to smaller, 80,000 lb trucks.

Those aren't necessarily bad reasons, but they probably obscure the real reasons. One, of course, is the cost of personnel. Corporations are engaged in a constant effort to reduce the number of employees; fewer trucks means fewer drivers, and, although businesses always tout on-the-job training opportunities, corporations do everything possible to avoid the cost of training employees.

The second, and more important reason, is hinted at in a quote from Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), "With the Panama Canal being deepened, these larger cargo ships coming in are going to be carrying containers that weigh 97,000 pounds." Coming in where? Ports in Panama or Mexico? That opens the door for Mexican trucks into the U.S. Mexican trucks are already heavier - up to 171,000 lbs, so a 97,000 lb limit is no big deal for them.

But Mexican trucks have other advantages for corporate shippers. Mexico doesn't do safety inspections, doesn't require driver logbooks or out of service (rest) time for drivers, Mexico doesn't take trucks out of service for defective equipment. According to one source, 36 percent of trucks entering the U.S. from Mexico were placed out-of-service by U.S. inspectors for serious safety defects. 

All of safety compliance costs shippers money, and that gives the companies that can avoid those costs a competitve advantage, especially against small-business shippers and owner-operators that can't. It may be that a weight limit increase is justified, but it shouldn't be a wedge to let shippers outsource trucking jobs south of the border.

This may seem like a small issue, but every truck on U.S. roads should comply with U.S. laws. While a heavier 97,000 lb truck might not be dangerous in itself, a defective 97,000 lb truck with an exhausted driver is a recipe for disaster which shouldn't be allowed on American roads, and any legislative change should be certain to ensure the legal compliance of any truck in or entering the U.S.

Professionalism in media.

Where can you find professionalism in media these days? Russia, it seems.

On November 14, a Russian newscaster, while reading on live television a story mentioning President Obama, appeared to give a gesture of disrespect (the raised middle finger, or "the bird"). The Russian TV network, REN TV, issued a statement noting that such behavior was "a gross violation of on-air discipline and unprofessionalism." The newscaster claimed she didn't even know she was actually on the air at the time, but nonetheless the newscaster was fired.

Meanwhile, in America. Michelle Bachmann appears on "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon." (Presidential candidates have to associate with all sorts while campaigning.) Fallon's band leader picked out what he felt was an appropriate "walk-on" or intro song for a female GOP candidate - a song which featured the refrain "lyin' ass bitch." It wasn't by accident, and the Fallon's band knew they were on the air. It is difficult to imagine a more sexist or demeaning song choice.

Jimmy Fallon later apologized for the song. After the incident garnered national attention on Foxnews, and after a call for an apology by Democrat Representative Nita Lowey, NBC's VP for late night programming, Doug Vaughan, sent a letter ofapology noting that Fallon's band had been "severely reprimanded." For their part, Fallon's band said the song choice was "tongue-in-cheek," but they don't appear to be apologizing. Nor do they appear to have been fired, either.

Is America going to have to bring in the Russian media to cover the Presidential campaigns in place of America's mainstream media to have professional, balanced and unbiased coverage?

The Millionaire roadshow

If you have followed the news recently, you have heard about the group that calls itself "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength" testifying before Congress recently. They claim to be bona fide millionaires, and we have to take their word for that. They are asking, they say, for abolition of the Bush tax cuts, and for higher marginal rates on high-income earners. Certainly sounds patriotic, doesn't it? Obviously, these "patriotic millionaires" want to see the national deficit reduced, they care about their country with all their heart, and they have come to ask Congress to come together to do the right thing, the "real" thing. That is, make sure everyone pays their fair share as defined by the Democrats, because Democrats care (unlike those nasty, cold-hearted Republicans.) That's what these "patriotic millionaires" want.

Or do they?

Perhaps they really have pure hearts and compassionate souls, as they are portrayed. Maybe - maybe not.  A reporter from the Daily Caller met with some of them and gave them the opportunity to voluntarily donate their own actual cash money to pay down the debt.  Not one of them donated even so much as One Dollar, although one must be fair and assume perhaps they already donate on their tax returns and they're just too modest to say so.  Several of them complained that such donations would have no real effect on the deficit, and perhaps that also is true - a Thousand Dollars, or even a Million Dollars doesn't do much to reduce a now $15 Trillion Dollar debt.   It's also laughably irrelevant, as any middle-income earner knows, since the IRS will be knocking on your door to collect what you owe, however little it may be, if at tax time you choose not to "donate."

It is much more likely that the answer is found elsewhere. In a PBS interview, one member of the group, Garrett Greuner, explained that, "I have built up a number of companies myself, and I have been a venture capitalist now for almost 20 years.... And I can say, for myself, that not a single one of those investments, not one was ever impacted by marginal tax rates."

The interviewer asked Greuner about the small business owners, "Then why do we hear that so often from small -- the millionaire class, which includes many small businesses, we hear, why do we hear that tax rates do have an impact on whether they start their business, whether they hire that one extra person?

GARRETT GRUENER: I think it's -- frankly, I think it's a myth."

Ask your tax preparer about this, because it is important.  Investment income, Gruener's income, is likely to be taxed at lower capital gains rates of 15%. Generally, the higher marginal tax rates of 35% apply to earned income, which is what small business owners have. 

In other words, Gruener is delighted to have marginal tax rates raised, because it appears he doesn't pay them. Investment income is taxed only at 15%, untouched by marginal tax rates, he's happy to have Congress raise those. He is telling Congress to raise taxes - on his competitors, the small business owners who DO pay them. It seems to be sheer self-interest motivating this Millionaire roadshow. Do you suppose Mr. Gruener and his merry band of Patriots would feel as patriotically motivated to have investment income taxed at earned income rates?

This movement seems to follow the lead of Warren Buffett.   Mr. Buffett, it appears, helped design the TARP program for Mr. Obama. Under the rules shaped by Buffet, and adopted by Geithner, Mr. Buffett appears to have made huge profits. You can read about it in Peter Schweitzer's book, Throw Them All Out.

It appears these millionaires may merely be doing what liberals do best: compassionately taxing and spending other people's money.

Stimulated, Obama style.

Evidence continues to mount that the Obama political machine used the Department of Energy loan program as a thinly veiled political payback for Obama campaign donors. One commentator has suggested that 75% of the loans went to companies owned or invested in by individuals who coincidentally made large donations or bundled donations amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Obama election campaign.

The Republicans in Congress are trying to investigate these loans. However, the Obama White House keeps stalling, missing response deadlines and releasing documents late Friday night, when there is little or no press coverage. The White House is also saying the document requests are excessive, or that the documents the White House has chosen to release so far show that politics were not involved in the loan process.

In fact the documents show no such thing.  At least one document indicates, for example, that the Administration was not only aware of Solyndra's troubles, but apparently asked that Solyndra's employee layoff not be announced until November 3, which was the day after the election occurred. It also appears that the Solyndra loan was unusually structured to ensure that the investors (Obama's donors, remember) were protected in the event of failure, rather than the lenders (that's you, the taxpayers.) And Solyndra's executives refused under the Fifth Amendment to testify about the loan funds, on the grounds that to do so might incriminate them.

Right now, the extent of Obama Administration involvement and the extent of political influence in the granting of these loans to Obama donors is not clear, but then, nothing about the inner workings of this "most transparent" administration has been open to public view. With many in the media providing cover, the Administration's conduct goes unreported and uninvestigated. Hopefully, Congressional investigators can get past Administration roadblocks and find the truth about these loans.

Can you see Russia from there?

In a humorous slip of the tongue, Mr. Obama, attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit referred to the meetings "here in Asia."  Of course, what is funny about it is that the summit is being held in, and he is in, Hawaii. Most of us Americans think of Hawaii as part of the United States. And, of course, it's a normal and natural thing for people to make a slip of the tongue, stretch an analogy, forget something under pressure, and the like.

Obviously, that's true for some people, but not all. After all, it's not as if he was running for President of these 57 (as Obama counts them) states. Or at least not as a Republican candidate, anyway - as a Democrat, all will be forgiven by the media.

Rick Perry forgot the name of a government agency in the pressure of a debate, so clearly he is not Presidential material. News stories popped up everywhere about that slip-up, and down go his ratings. The Media declares him "not viable" and stops talking about him to ensure that he becomes not viable.

The Left likes Romney or Gingrich, so they get the favorable coverage.

It's a reminder of how the media covered the last Presidential election cycle. McCain was a "maverick" Republican most voters wouldn't get excited about, but he chose a conservative VP candidate Republican voters did get excited about. So the media went hunting. When that Alaskan VP candidate said you could almost see Russia from her home, the Left went nuts, excoriating her for her ignorance. However, an Anderson Cooper reporter investigated, and found that you actually can see Russia from an Alaskan island - the reporter went on to note dismissively that even though Ms. Palin was right, it was really Palin's domestic policy that was wrong. So even a Republican candidate who is correct is "wrong."

Obama is incorrect in referring to Hawaii as "Asia." It won't matter, the media won't care. It does make you wonder, though. Mr. President, can you see Russia from there?

America's Economic troubles and Socialism

A Washington Times article titled, "China mocks U.S. political model," (part four) suggests that Chinese leaders in both the political and business sectors watching the economic troubles in Washington and Europe are concluding that their political model is proving superior to the democratic political models used in the Western countries. 

In most media conversations, including this Times article, the U.S. is portrayed as being bogged down in partisan politics, gridlocking the government and preventing the implementation of meaningful and effective solutions to America's problems. Many, both inside and outside the U.S., have bought this myth. And it is a myth. Partisan political bickering is not the actual problem, it is merely a symptom of a cultural clash taking place in America. There are two groups with fundamentally opposed and incompatible ideologies at war in America. Everybody knows who these are - the liberals fighting for Quadrant III communist-style socialism, and conservatives battling to keep Quadrant I American freedom. The liberals have taken leadership of the Democrat party and are bringing their populist constituents along with Pied Piper promises; the conservatives are the constituency of the GOP and find themselves trying to push the reluctant, money-centric GOP leadership to acknowledge their moral and social concerns.

It is not a war of guns and bombs; it is not guerilla warfare in the streets; it is not wholesale massacres and mass graves. That these things are not occurring proves that the American system does work, not that it does not, as such things are the hallmarks of typical socialist revolutions.

Those in the East would do well not to become smug, however. It is true that the European Union and the U.S. are having a time of economic trouble, but the trends which caused that trouble, and which caused the prosperity in the East, would be worth some thought.

The countries in the Eurozone are widely acknowledged as having come to enlightenment and moved dramatically toward socialism in the post-WWII era. They have created vast entitlement states, huge bureaucracies and burdensome regulatory structures. While moving in this direction, they have become less productive and borrowed every bit of money they could find to pay their bloated rolls of entitlement payees and bureaucracy. The free ride is over, and the socialist experiment is creaking and collapsing under the strain.

What direction did the U.S. move? As the peaceniks and hippies of the 'Sixties came into leadership in the 'Eighties, America followed Europe and pushed more and more rapidly away from Quadrant I, toward socialism. Entitlement programs mushroomed, government bloated, regulation exploded, America's debt grew exponentially. All of these factors ignited skyrocketing business costs, so businesses moved out of America.

American business owners found it easy to take advantage of low-cost labor provided by the poverty-ridden workers in the East. In America, just as in those Eastern nations, this created a class of very wealthy business owners while driving down wages for the vast majority of people. Socialism, which touts equal wealth distribution, seems to actually do a very poor job.

In contrast, nations like China (although they would never admit it) have moved from hard-line Communist Socialism towards a neo-Fascist, Quadrant IV style that is at least profit-permitting, and have seen their fortunes increase as they have moved right. They are, however, still socialist. And that is why their crowing is premature. To be truly prosperous, these nations must create and permit what America had before the 1960's - a well-educated and self-motivated, self-disciplined electorate capable of understanding and participating in the progress of the nation. America no longer has that, as its educational leadership provides an education which has dropped from the world's best to rank near the bottom worldwide.  The American middle class was built out of the Puritan ethic of Godliness, loyalty not to the nation right-or-wrong, but to American ideals, and unselfish hard work for the betterment of both themselves and their country.

The Eastern nations are not creating self-sustaining economies; socialist economies have proven to have no ability or provision for that. Building vast "ghost" cities (as discussed here, and worth seeing) that few citizens can afford to live in, just to fabricate an artificial GDP, merely fosters an illusion of prosperity. The nations of the East are not creating a counterpart to the American middle class, but are merely flying high on America's huge deficit spending binge. That illusion of prosperity will burst when the American middle-class is exhausted, as the underpaid workers of the socialist countries which provided the cheap labor to facilitate that spending binge will not suddenly become prosperous consumers.

There are plenty of obvious lessons to be learned here. Nations moving into socialism and away from an engaged, moral citizenry also move away from prosperity. Nations moving away from socialism can move toward long-term prosperity, but at present they are just living on the American bubble. They are not moving toward real prosperity, because as with all socialists, they deny or refuse to see that capitalism and democracy only worked because of that Puritan ethic. No political system can create that ethic, and absent that ethic, corruption and self-interest prevents prosperity. Whether politicians and ideologues can learn these lessons remains to be seen.

GPS, Big Brother, and the economies of scale

The Supreme Court is considering a case, U.S. v. Jones, 10 - 1259, which has all the implications of Orwell's 1984. Police conducted surveillance on the defendant through the use of a GPS device placed on his automobile, and the issue is whether warrantless surveillance is permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and to what extent.

The government is arguing, predictably enough, that GPS surveillance is always permissible, since the same results could be obtained by an officer or team of officers conducting visual surveillance. In other words, if you are in public, anything you do is by definition not private.

It's an argument which is misleading by virtue of oversimplification. The fact that you are in a public place as part of going about your business does not lay bare all your business to the public. Think about it - if you go to your bank, does a policeman have the right to intercept you on the public sidewalk and demand account numbers, balance information, passwords? Of course not, and that's one reason why the argument is invalid. Just as the availability of simple and easy electronic surveillance does not give carte blanche to the government to conduct warrentless electronic searches, the fact that a person is in public incident to conducting business should not give license for warrantless tracking of an individual's whereabouts. Police can and should get a warrant if they have legal cause.

There is another consideration which should give the Court pause.

Electronic surveillance is inherently a low-cost method of tracking an individual. Turn on the GPS, and a computer keeps track of the individual for you. Furthermore, economies of scale will apply here. Most newer cars have some form of built-in GPS, and many individuals have services like GM's Onstar which keep track of their cars; all the government has to do is interface its computers and it can get real-time updates on all those cars. The government's costs to conduct surveillance, per individual, go down as the number of people under electronic surveillance goes up. And it can do this with your cellphones, too. Wecome Big Brother.

While the same information is obtained by visual surveillance, the same criteria for conducting surveillance do not apply. It is expensive to deploy officers for surveillance. If visual surveillance is to be conducted, there must be a strong reason to justify that use of officers, and the expenditure of time and money. It is this justification process which protects the individual from thoughtless and baseless surveillance.

Razing Cain

The left is working hard on a new project as Herman Cain's poll numbers are rising up to eclipse those of their preferred GOP Presidential candidate, 2012's John McCain, also known as Mitt Romney.

You see, the liberal Left understands two things the muddle-headed (or "proud to be Number Two") Establishment GOP "thinkers" cannot seem to comprehend. First, liberals are not going to vote for Romney. It absolutely is not going to happen. Sure, he is a left-leaning candidate, but the left already has a lock on left-leaning candidates; Obama, a communist organizer for most of his professional career, obviously has solid left-wing credentials, and if his aren't far left enough, there's always Hillary. Second, moderates will vote for any candidate they "feel good" about, conservatives are going to look at the candidate's conservative credentials. Conservatives won't get excited about a left-leaning candidate like Romney.  Not all of them will stay home, but some of them will, and that will cost the GOP seats in the Senate and the House, and other races, because Romney has no coattails.  So it is important to the Left to keep the GOP conservatives unhappy and the "bow and scrape" subservient Establishment GOP on top.

To understand the practical effect of these two items, it's important to recall that the Left describes the views of many in media, as well. In the major broadcast networks, 88percent of employees donated to Obama's 2008 campaign.  At the same time, self-identified, in-your-face liberals outnumber conservatives in media by a ratio of three-to-one.

In view of the foregoing, the Left's latest project becomes easier to understand. The best name for that project is "Razing Cain." This is a process called "Borking," and it's similar to the massive effort taken to discredit Palin in the public eye; scour the records, talk to friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. Dig up dirt; parade it in public. If there isn't any real dirt, make accusations. Anonymous accusations and innuendoes are the best. Demand "answers" and write lots of op-ed pieces about the "lack of forthrightness" in the candidate while ignoring any issues with the nature of the accusations or accusers.

The National Restaurant Association, where Cain was CEO at the time of the alleged events, has said Cain denied the allegations at the time, didn't know about the settlement, and the Association has agreed to waive confidentiality to allow the complaints to be examined; suddenly, the accuser's lawyer says the accuser "values her privacy" and "is choosing not to discuss" the allegations publicly.  If the public cannot even know the nature of the allegations, all that is left is innuendo.

That is what Cain is facing. Vague anonymous accusations and innuendoes by unnamed accusers about events which might not have happened. It's impossible to answer such things, and the media should know it. Responsible journalists would not even report such things without sources and verification, but responsible journalism is absent here. These same folks aren't concerned that the public can't even see Obama's school transcripts or papers, or that it took years to obtain a mere copy of a birth certificate.

The media folks are even engaging in racist attacks against Cain, referring to him as a "black man who knows his place."  And when they are called on it, they write disingenuous columns defending it, like the outlandish piece written by CNN's Martin, titled "Cain foolish to blame race."  Don't bother reading it if you don't like wading in, well, you know. This same bunch, from Obama on down, was always playing the race card about anyone who objected to Obama's policies.

Herman Cain told us to expect a "high-tech lynching." And this is what it looks like. While the media is working hard to portray "razing Cain" as a legitimate journalistic exercise, it's a lynching, and they know it - and they're proud of it.

Officially Lawless

The American people have seen a plethora of examples of the Federal Government going rogue in the last couple of years, particularly the Executive branch under the Obama Administration. Obama has made it plain that he intends to "go around" Congress and act by executive fiat. And there have been plenty of Agencies going rogue. One example is so-called "net neutrality," which Congress declined to authorize, and the FCC unilaterally pursued by bureaucratic fiat instead. Another example is Obama's unilateral declaration of a moratorium on oil rigs operating and drilling in the Gulf, after Obama sat on his hands and did nothing to help fight the Gulf oil spill; after a Federal Court ordered the moratorium lifted, the policy changed from outright denial of permits due to the drilling moratorium to a policy of "review," which indefinitely "delayed" their issuance.

The lawless actions of the Federal Government have moved to the next step now, however. A Federal Judge in Tennessee, Aleta Trauger, a Clinton nominee, has issued a Temporary Restraining Order preventing Tennessee State Officers from arresting Occupy protesters in Nashville's Legislative Plaza. Tennessee had attempted to institute rules regarding the use of the Plaza and bring some order to the Occupy protests by requiring permits and setting limits to occupancy.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/us/tennessee-occupy-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

There are many examples of State (government) hostility to the Tea Party, where many regulatory barriers and burdens were employed to limit, if not prevent, the protests by setting regulatory barriers so high as to be impossible to meet. Tea Partiers were charged permit fees for daily occupancy, required to provide insurance coverage, provide security, and provide sanitation and clean-up services. Occupy has mostly been given a pass by the State on these same regulations; there are numerous reported instances of criminal activity at Occupy sites, and the Occupy protesters won't leave their sites even to allow sanitation and clean-up.

The media displays a shameless double-standard between coverage of the Tea Party, vilifying the participants as riotous, racist, bigoted, hillbilly wing-nuts, when none of those characteristics are displayed, as opposed to coverage of the Occupy movement, which is glorified as intelligent, clear-eyed, and well-planned, when likewise, none of those characteristics are displayed. The ACLU, self-proclaimed guardian of citizen's rights, and which represents the Occupy movement in this case, was notably silent on the issue of protecting political speech rights of the Tea Party from government interference. This shameless double-standard is also displayed in Judge Trauger's decision. The decision just gives official sanction and approval to the lawless protests of the left-wing, government-friendly Occupy movement.