Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party Cartoons Collection

Finally decided to collect them, because of first cartoon following via Networked Blogs via AoSHQ:

By Michael Ramirez:

Related:

Via AoSHQ, via Doug Ross, from The Jawa Report:

Via excellent daily newsletter The Transom (sign up FREE here), from AoSHQ:

In just the first eleven days of October, ABC, CBS and NBC flooded their morning and evening newscasts with a whopping 33 full stories or interview segments on the protesters. This was a far cry from the greeting the Tea Party received from the Big Three as that conservative protest movement was initially ignored (only 13 total stories in all of 2009) and then reviled.

UPDATE: They’re socialists. Read more at AoSHQ which opines:

The media found the one or two racists in the Tea Party and made them the face of the movement; meanwhile, it finds the one or two people who are not avowedly Marxist and makes them the standard-bearer.

Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that “Occupy Wall Street” should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years. – WINGLESS, BLOODSUCKING AND PARASITIC: MEET THE FLEA PARTY!

And what a contrast from the We are the 99% losers. Take a look:

Above from We are the 53%.

Above from GetaDamnJobYouHippie.org.

Above from Recording Artist Ava Aston’s Blog.

And the reality is Barack Obama is the 1%:

After all, who is the biggest recipient of Wall St money?

Above: Evil Corporations Get Unwitting Support at Wall Street Protests

From Michelle Malkin here and here.

Though a few representatives of minority groups have appeared among the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters in New York City, photos and videos of the left-wing mini-throngs indicate they suffer from a serious lack of diversity. And the protesters themselves told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that they are conscious of the issue, if not the inconsistency it demonstrates. A 40-photo Washington Post slideshow showing hundreds of angry protesters in New York and other cities includes no more than 15 clearly identifiable minority protesters, and just six African-Americans. The rest of the protesters shown are white, and most are male. In 26 photos from San Francisco and Chicago gatherings posted on OccupyTogether.org, only one person from a minority group is clearly visible, and it’s unclear whether he is a protester or a bystander. Minority groups are similarly underrepresented in photos and videos posted on OccupyWallSt.org, the self-described “unofficial de facto online resource for the ongoing protests happening on Wall Street.”

Compare against:

Above:

Above: Compare Garbage After Tea Party Vs. Obama Inauguration

The Tea Party is supposedly less popular than #OWS. But that’s because the Tea Party has concrete policy goals, many of which are controversial — the American public likes spending money it doesn’t have — and has fought tooth-and-nail for these agenda items for two years.

What has #OWS fought for, so far? Time Magazine presents their agenda as a gauzy populist reform movement which — incidentally — could also be used to describe the Tea Party. The Tea Party, of course, despises the crony not-capitalist system, too. (Where OWS and the Tea Party differ, of course, is on which alternative model to pursue. For the Tea Party, it’s genuine capitalism; for OWS, it’s socialism.)

- Time’s Poll Claiming #OWS is Popular Stacks The Deck

Via Gateway Pundit:

For the Record… More Blacks Supported Tea Party Movement Than Support #Occupy Movement

Today the Washington Post reported that African Americans, who are 12.6 percent of the U.S. population, make up only 1.6 percent of Occupy Wall Street.

It’s too bad the Occupy Movement couldn’t be like the tea party.

An April 2010 Gallup poll found that 6% of tea party support came from non-hispanic blacks.

Via AoSHQ:

But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.

Tea Party Ideology More Popular for Americans Than Occupy Wall Street:

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,031 American adults, 51 per cent of respondents say they are angrier about the amount of money that the government spends, and how high taxes, the national debt and the federal budget deficit currently are.

Two-in-five Americans (40%) are angrier about social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of commercial interests and lobbyists on the U.S. government.

The notion that government is overspending and taxes are too high—which has been the main message of the Tea Party movement—resonated in all areas of the country, and is particularly popular among Republicans (79%). Conversely, the proportion of respondents who are angry about economic inequality—as expressed in several Occupy Wall Street rallies—is highest among Democrats (58%).

And compare the Occupy mob against volunteer troops“

the troops would not complain to the cameras even if there were any left in the war zones documenting their struggles. They aren’t whiners. They may be the same general age as the Occupy Wall Street gang, but they occupy a very different, less frivolous world.

…

Our troops likely don’t give any thought at all to these spoiled adolescents. But if they did, they might suggest that if these Occupy Wall Street losers really wanted to fight injustice and build a better world, they would get a haircut, head to a recruiting station and occupy a pair of combat boots.

Who is Violent – Left or Right? (310++ Cases) – Occupy Wall Street and other places from no. 315 onwards.

Tea Party Crasher FAILs

In Search of People of Colour (at: 9/12 Rally)

Name That Party! MSM Almost Always Omits Mention Democrat Party Affiliation of Convicted Politicians

Presidential Double Standards: Bush and Obama Given Different Treatment on Same Issues

Comparing US and Malaysian Current Politics

Obnoxious Hollywood Liberals, And How They Can Afford Their Destructive Royal Lifestyles (But Their Fans Can’t)

Excerpts from National Review (which as a whole is actually focusing on how Marie Antoinette is very unfairly smeared as having said “Let them eat cake”):

Marie-Antoinette Goes to Hollywood
by Jonah Goldberg
Life in LaLa Land.

…

I got to thinking about all of this when I stumbled on an article explaining that Jennifer Lopez won’t allow anyone to photograph her elbows.

Stick with me.

I’ve long been of the opinion that celebrities, specifically movie stars, behave and, more importantly, think like old European royalty. Before I get into that, some tidbits.

The article detailed some of the typical demands that Hollywood “Divas” make on their staffs and producers. The phenomenon was hardly new to me, but this piece offers some nice additions for my file. Mariah Carey has an assistant whose only job is to hand her towels. Also, wherever Mariah goes, her courtesans must first remove posters of rival “divas,” lest they offend her delicate sensibilities: Thou shalt have no divas before me!

Incidentally, if you read your supermarket tabloids you’d know that Carey is now in some sort of psychiatric rehab clinic — the modern equivalent of a fainting couch or royal baths, I suppose.

It goes on: Kim Basinger is “allergic” to the sun and requires an assistant to carry an umbrella to protect her on the off chance she might be exposed to dangerous solar radiation. John Travolta has a staff of 12 assistants, including a personal chef. Sylvester Stallone once refused to continue with an interview until his hotel room was painted a more “likable” peach. Mike Myers (whom I like) almost quit the filming of Wayne’s World because he didn’t have any margarine for his bagel. Sean Penn made an assistant swim the dangerous and polluted currents of New York’s East River just to bring him a cigarette.

And then there is the increasingly commonplace demand from numerous stars that no one be allowed to look them in the eye uninvited. For example, only members of Jennifer Lopez’s “double-digit entourage” are permitted to gaze into the windows of her soul. Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise, and of course Barbra Streisand are just a handful of the folks who think they’re on the same plateau as Japanese Emperors, Turkish Pashas, and Medieval Kings.

There’s also all the stuff in my files about people like Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, and countless others who require full time aromatherapists, masseuses, acupuncturists, etc., etc. Or people like Alec Baldwin, who demands scripts be written out fö-net-tick-ally bee-kauz hee’z 2 stoopid 2 reed wurds that R speld fun-nee. Okay, I’m making that last one up, but it’s a reasonable assumption.

…

I think it goes directly to the fact that they live the lives they do. Their cultural liberalism is derived largely from the fact that they can afford their bad habits. If they want to ditch their wives or husbands, they can afford to pay them off. When Catharine Zeta-Jones married Michael Douglas, her lawyers demanded and got a $5 million dollar “straying fee” in the highly probable circumstance that he, as a “recovering sex addict,” might get the Jones for someone else’s Zeta (for more on this see my article “Just like Ozzie and Harriet“).

Or take Madonna. It’s an understatement to say Madonna was a champion of cultural libertinism. Early in her career, she taught 12-year-old girls to embrace their “sexuality,” and to throw off all those bourgeois hang-ups about sex, marriage, heterosexuality, whatever. Basically, she was a peripatetic evangelist of sluttiness. But when it came time to settle down and have a husband and kids, she could, quite simply, afford to. The question is what happened to the lower-middle-class girls from Jersey City who took her advice?

Sure, it’s easy for Madonna to ridicule the Catholic Church and tutor girls about getting kinky-dirty with complete strangers. Currently on tour, Madonna has a 400-person entourage. She recently explained to the Sunday Mirror, “I don’t have any problems with [diapers], because I have never changed one.” Tell that to the thirty-year-old single mom who works as a hairdresser, and who had great fun one night as a teenager following Madonna’s example.

I don’t mean to get all judgy here, and besides, that’s not a word. But if there’s a single factor which best explains why Hollywood stars loved Clinton, endorse sexual licentiousness, and denounce religious conservatism, it is that they can afford, socially and economically, to live like moral reprobates. They have the money to pay for the inconveniences, and they have the glamour (and the peers) that makes it impossible for them to be shunned.

…

Movie stars are the only self-made rich people who, as a group, can be relied upon to endorse socialist economics. “You can do both [capitalism and socialism] and I think Cuba might prove that,” Chevy Chase declared a year or two ago.

There are a lot of factors to explain this. Unlike businessmen or inventors, actors value their emotions above all things. So if you “feel” that poor people should have more, it must be so. If you “feel” that conservatives are Nazis, it must be so. And, since most stars must know, at some fundamental level, that they don’t deserve the money they earn, all the usual guilt complexes of liberalism must be especially acute.

But the most relevant factor, I think, is the arrogance of simple ignorance. Barbra Streisand said to Larry King in 1995, “[D]oes it make sense to you . . . the things that they’re proposing, to give tax cuts to the rich, to give tax cuts to me? I don’t need them.” Perhaps — but Barbra Streisand can also auction her soiled bathroom linens for more than a thousand dollars (as she did at an auction a few years ago). The economic realities for a Hollywood star are so distorted as to be as unrecognizable as those of Monarchist France. Can you imagine a CEO halting a merger because there’s no margarine for his bagel? The outraged stockholders would make the French mob look like a bunch of toddlers with Nerf bats. So it’s no surprise that people like Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand think “fixing” the country’s policies is simply a matter of demanding they be fixed. When Melanie Griffith was asked, by the thankfully defunct George Magazine, what she would do if she were president, she responded that the first thing she’d do is pass a law saying “no one should make more than $1 billion a year.” See, it’s just that easy.

Then there are the renowned bleeding hearts — like Streisand, Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell — who care about poor and working people, so long as they aren’t working for them. Famed for being nasty, demanding, and often vicious bosses, these liberals find an emotional connection with abstract people like “the poor” or “the blacks.” They argue that life should be easy, better, and even sexually adventurous for these abstractions, precisely because they can imagine themselves walking in their shoes. But when it’s real people — people with real problems, people with names, hell, people who swim the East River for their cigarettes, or look at their feet when the boss enters the room — they change their tune. Suddenly, it’s not Barbra’s problem. Sure, let them eat cake, but I’ll be damned if I pay for it out of my own pocket.

When Sharon Stone attended a “policy conference” with Bill Clinton a few years ago, Barbra Streisand was reportedly scandalized: “What does Sharon Stone know about policy?” shrieked the jealous and infatuated diva. This raises a better question: What does Ms. Streisand — perhaps the most famous “great princess” in Hollywood today — know about policy? My guess is, probably as much as Marie-Therese did. But that won’t stop Babs from declaring, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche,” whenever she gets the chance.

Via Verum Serum via AoSHQ.