Archive for the ‘Anti-Capitalists’ Category

Barack Obama: Natural Born Enemy

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

I don’t wish to get into the whole notion of so-called “birther” conspiracy theories about the legal eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States.  It’s no longer relevant, one way or the other, inasmuch as he is now in office, and will remain in office through the end of his term, or even a second one if re-elected.  I don’t have documentation in my hands to show anything other than that which he claims, but I really don’t care about that argument.  Instead, I contend that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because his philosophy, his ideals, and his policy directives have demonstrated with clarity his enmity to America.  That he is a natural born citizen may very well be true, but the reasoning behind the framers’ inclusion of this simple phrase still apply.  If ever there was an instance in which a person might be operating within the letter of the law, while well outside its “spirit,” it must be the presidency of Barack Obama.

Constitutional requirements for a President are simply these, set forth in Article II, section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The reason for the inclusion of the citizenship requirement was simple enough to understand:  It was intended to prevent the election of a President who would respect the laws, loyalties, sympathies, and traditions of a foreign polity that would lending that office to subversion or outright usurpation.  That was the basic motive for the inclusion of this specific qualification.  I am now here to state with unflinching resolve that whether Obama is eligible within the specific legal requirements makes no factual difference because within the spirit of these requirements, and the motives the founders expressed in setting them forth, Barack Obama has demonstrated a clear contempt for the laws and traditions of the United States and her people, and has further demonstrated loyalties to and sympathies with foreign ideas about law, and traditions outside the founding framework Americans have known and understood since these requirements were laid down.  People like to become exercised about the “seriousness of the charges.”   These are my allegations, and they couldn’t be more serious.  Unlike the others we’ve seen of late, for these charges, there is substantial evidence.

Barack Obama is not fulfilling his oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.  Another important section of the constitution sets forth the President’s oath of office, and it is legally binding upon him.  The eighth clause of Article II, section 1 states:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Has President Obama been faithfully executing his office?  Has he been preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution? I do not believe it is possible to conclude he is carrying into force his mandated role, but instead using the authorities of his office to undermine that which he is sworn to protect, as he issues executive orders instructing the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to avoid charging and prosecuting some classes of persons who have entered the United States illegally.  On its face, this demonstrates loyalties and sympathies to foreigners.

President Obama has instructed regulatory agents of the United States to ignore the rulings of federal judges, in contravention of all legal traditions.  The President of the United States is neither a dictator, nor a law unto himself.  When he ignores or instructs agents of his administration to ignore the rulings of duly appointed judges and courts, he imperils the rule of law upon which our system depends.  What else can be the meaning of ignoring the ruling of a court to cease and desist in enforcement of a ban on offshore drilling?

When the President of the United States offers that he will use every perversion of law, and every available circumvention of the legal process to advance his agenda outside the bounds of the constitution, daring the American people to oppose him, he is challenging the very basic-most order he is sworn to maintain as the critical foundation of our civil society.  In operating in this manner, he declares open warfare against the civil society we have maintained despite some rather unscrupulous characters over the long course of our history.  Obama abhors the civil society, and his every action drips with the venom of his contempt.

Barack Obama conspires with other foreign influences to disrupt and dispirit the American people, their economy, and the liberties that make the success of either possible.  George Soros is not an American, and his statements over time demonstrate his open enmity to the United States.  In meeting with Soros, taking his funding, and coordinating policies with Soros’ own “Open Society Institute,” Barack Obama is inviting and even soliciting subversion, while acting himself as a foreign usurper.

Let us not shield our eyes from the truth any longer:  Barack Obama is acting in contempt of his oath.  His oath was not to the United Nations.  It was not to the Muslim Brotherhood.  It was not to George Soros or ACORN or any of the other myriad groups he openly serves.  His oath was supposed to have been to uphold our constitution, but perhaps it was foreshadowing when Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t manage to get it right the first time around.

It is in consideration of the character of his execution of office that we discover that Obama is unfit, and by virtue of his aims, intentions, and policies, is morally ineligible to the office of President of the United States.  You are free to go on about his legal status and legal eligibility if you like, because for the moment, this is still a free country, but I do not expect that to gain much purchase at the polling places around the country next November.  The question isn’t whether he is eligible under law, but whether he had ever been eligible in spirit, or even within the spirit of the requirement as our founders had intended.  Whatever his citizenship, Barack Obama is not American inside.  It is his foreign polity and his alien sensibilities that make him ineligible to that office, but more, it is his practiced enmity to America that makes his continuance in office a moral absurdity. His loyalties to foreign concepts of governance make of him an heir to Nikita Khrushchev who promised “We will bury you.”  His every policy is bent toward that purpose.

That the media conceals this from you, and the wider audience of Americans is no surprise, because many of them are openly treasonous even in times of war.  That some among us permit themselves to be led astray about the intentions and designs of this man begins to speak to their moral character.  The evidence is manifest.  Barack Obama’s every action as president evinces a contempt for the US Constitution and the due processes of law, and civil society thereunder established.  We can ill afford to permit him another term, and we should begin to ask, before it is too late, that he be removed from office by Congress with all due dispatch.  We ought to demand it.

Not long after writing this, I ran into an audio clip from Mark Levin’s show on Wednesday.  It’s from his opening monologue.  In many ways, he expresses the same disgust with the current lawless administration:


http://markamerica65.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/levin11092011opening.mp3<strong>|</strong>bg=0x0000ff|righticon=0xff0000

You can listen to the remainder of this and other episodes of the Mark Levin Show HERE.

Occupy Protests Unsafe for Women

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011

Occupy Wall Street Unsafe for Women

The Occupiers have a serious problem, and it’s cropping up nationwide, and even internationally.  From reports gathered around the country, the Occupy movement is seeing a wave of sexual assaults among their own numbers, and finally, after being hushed by the organizers, the word is getting out.  There is a general sense that the Occupy protest sites are unsafe for women particularly, but in general, for anybody of any description.  Combined with the escalating violence we’ve witnessed over the last week or so, isn’t it time we begin to get a handle on all of this?  Of course, it’s not getting the mainstream coverage it should, and as BigGovernment.com revealed last week, there’s a good reason:  Some of the reporters covering this story are involved in the organization.  Cozy?  You bet!  The problem is that when it comes to the reporting on this allegedly “organic” protest, the media still isn’t telling you who is behind this, or what is going on at the protest sites.

In Baltimore, one woman says she was raped, and she begs for the event to be shut down.  The unidentified woman told Fox 45 WBFF that she was raped, and she said that nobody from the protest movement would help her.  It’s a sad story, but it’s becoming increasingly common at the Occupy rallies.  BigGovernment.com has the video.

On the international front, Occupy Ottawa(Canada) is having similar problems.  You can watch a video clip about complaints over sexual assaults at their rally:

Back in New York, at Zuccotti Park, some Occupiers are talking openly about the problem, but they’re trying to shift blame onto police.  They claim the police are intentionally ignoring problems of this sort, while directing homeless people to join the Occupiers in Zuccotti Park.  I find the claim laughable, because what this woman actually tells us is that the problem is real:

Brandon Darby, writing for BigGovernment, posted an article on the danger to women at the Occupy rallies.

It’s a zoo, and as long as public officials like Mayor Bloomberg continue to turn a blind eye to what is going on, I expect conditions to worsen at these rallies.  It’s time to send the Occupiers home, and it’s time for the police to step in and vigorously pursue the people committing serious crimes in the movement.  The Occupiers seem willing to shelter the criminals, and they make a good deal of noise about their “security committees,” but all they are really accomplishing by not bringing reports to the police is to aid and abet the felonious among their number.  For some of these people, it’s time to Occupy Jail.

Occu-Pests Vote to “Liberate Oakland”

Monday, October 31st, 2011

What Democracy Looks Like?

In the latest story of the bizarre sense of  inflated self-importance of so-called Occupiers, these loons in Oakland have actually voted for a proposal that would seem to instigate a complete shutdown of the city.  Of course, I realize this is California, so I suppose it’s possible they could make this happen, but  I want to know from these totalitarians: On whose authority? In whose name?  By what right do you claim to have the authority to shut down the city of Oakland in order to carry out your protest?  They are planning this action for November 2nd.  I think it’s clear that these people are prone to violence, prone to dictatorial demands, and clearly a mob of Bolshevik ne’er-do-wells who have designs on overthrowing our nation.

Let’s take a look at their proposal as posted on their website, shall we:

We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.

We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.

All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.

While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.

The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.

Bear in mind that they actually voted on this.  They actually claim the right to shut down a City of four-hundred thousand people on the basis of a vote among 1607 people, some of who are undoubtedly not residents of Oakland.  If you wonder about the legitimacy of their claims to being the “99%,” you’ve just had it answered:  They are able to count votes in their pathetic crowd, and yet they are unable to recognize that they are not even 1% of the town in which they’re rallying.  This is really disturbing, not because their math skills seem flawed, but because of what it indicates about their mind-set:  They are willing to interfere with the lives and livelihoods of 400,000 fellow citizens on their say-so.   Who elected them?  Who appointed them?

Nobody.

This is what “Democracy” looks like?

Looks more like a mob trying to justify its actions by pretending to act democratically.

Here’s a video on youtube of their vote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfT3dx7SGm8

These are dictatorial thugs who believe they have the right to impose such things on an entire city of people, most of whom signify their disagreement by their absence. I certainly hope that the authorities there, famously liberal, remember that this crowd of ne’er-do-wells do not speak for the citizenry of Oakland.  This is just one more bit of evidence to show you who these people are, and what they believe.  When they run around chanting “we are the 99%,” you can know with certainty what they must know too:  They’re lying.

Questions For Occupiers: Do You Believe Michael Moore?

Saturday, October 29th, 2011

Occupying More than His Fair Share

I have a hard time understanding how anybody believes Michael Moore.  After sitting through three of his documentaries, including Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Capitalism: A Love Story, I don’t know why anybody really takes him very seriously.  His pushing of real conspiracy theories over 9/11 really do challenge all credulity, and I say this knowing not all my readers will agree.  Nevertheless, Moore appeared in Oakland to rally the Occupy crowd on Friday.  According to reports from the scene, the Moore was mobbed.  For me, this raises two questions of some importance:  Did none of them notice Moore is part of the one percent they claim to oppose?  If they believe Michael Moore, is there any point in talking to the Occupiers?  My answers to both questions may surprise you, but then again, perhaps not.

I doubt that the Occupiers really have any sense of what constitutes the “one percenters” they claim are the problem, but more importantly, I think they conveniently issue a political pass to those among the so-called one percent willing to kiss their feet and claim solidarity with them.  It’s a basic symptom of an ideological self-contradiction that permits them to ignore this dichotomy between their stated complaints and their acceptance of radical leftists who happen also to be rich. Roseanne Barr?  Rich, yes, but on their side?  You bet.  Susan Sarandon? Oh yes, mightily rich, but they don’t seem to want to eat her.  Michael Moore? Well, he’s “down for the cause” or whichever trendy saying they’re using these days.  George Soros?  Ah, well, now you see, they feel some unease about Mr. Soros, which is probably the reason why despite funding almost all of the organizations involved in this Marxist Mosh-Pit, he has stayed well away.  The Occupiers really don’t like having to explain away their Soros connections, their Tides Foundation connections, their Adbuster affiliations, or anything else to do with Mr. Soros.  This may be too big a contradiction even for them to talk out of existence, so instead, they simply ignore it and claim they have nothing whatever to do with Soros.

Since these people believe in Michael Moore, I suspect that for those of the type to do so, there isn’t much point in talking.  Frankly, it’s my conclusion that Moore’s dishonesty is perhaps best exhibited in Bowling for Columbine.  This anti-gun, anti-right screed is nothing short of ludicrous in its proposals and in its reporting.  When a person can tell you they support the man who produced such a piece of “work,” you know almost reflexively that you’re not going to be able to reason with them in any meaningful way.  The way in which Chuck Heston was treated and portrayed by dishonest editing is one of the greatest bits of personal assassination ever committed to film, never mind submitted to the world as a “documentary.”  If you’ve not seen these ridiculous propaganda pieces, I’d urge you to do so if for no other reason than opposition research.  Debunking them should provide you an opportunity to learn just who some of the members of Occupy really are, and what they are prone to believe.

It’s small wonder that they could be led to believe that all their problems lay at the feet of big business and Wall Street, but most particularly, those evil bankers.  Simplistic arguments of that sort always appeal to those who are most easily conned by the Michael Moores of the world.  It’s simple:  You create some bogeyman, assign them all the blame, find some mechanism by which to throttle them, and call it a day.  Nice, simple, and without effort, particularly intellectual, but nevertheless wrong.  I can’t help but feel a little sympathy for them as they come along with all their excuses for believing Michael Moore while hating Peter Schiff.  It’s an astonishing demonstration of who they are, what they believe, and whether it is even fruitful to hold a discussion with them.  The answer is firmly “no.”  When you ask them: “How is it that you have occupied a private park for nearly two months,” their answer is likely to be something absurd and naive.  None of them at the so-called “organic” level can tell you, and they’re not generally curious enough to care.  That should be your first clue.

Barack Obama Led Occupation in Chicago in 1988?

Saturday, October 29th, 2011

 

Obama: Community Occupier

According to Joel Pollak, at BigGovernment.com, Barack Obama’s roots as a community organizer lead back to a time when he would have been leading the Occupy movement, and indeed took part in Occupation-style protests against banks.  Ladies and gentlemen, we must come to understand not only what is driving the Occupy movement but who is controlling the wheel. Back in 1988, Obama was part of the organizing force behind such protests in Chicago, but now, more than two decades later, he’s the President of the United States, and others are now fulfilling that role.  As Pollak reports in a separate article, it is now people like Lisa Fithian who act in the role once played by Barack Obama.  It seems that while organizers have changed, the  tactics in use are much the same.

This shouldn’t be particularly stunning to the readers of this blog, but what should shock you  is the unrelenting dishonesty inherent in the coverage that seems so incomplete among the so-called mainstream media.  There is a tendency to cover all of this up, and as Breitbart reported earlier in the week, there are elements within the Occupy movement who are simultaneously covering the event(s) while helping to organize them, putting a whole new meaning to the term “embedded journalists.”

There is nothing organic or “grass-roots” about this movement. It’s almost entirely a top-down endeavor being organized and led by people who have long and well-documented ties to the worst elements of Anti-American  and Anti-Capitalist sentiments, with delusions of revolutionary grandeur.  As Biggovernment.com further reports, the leftists directing this thing have a media strategy too, particularly for when dealing with news reports of violence among protesters. In a posting titled “What to do When the Media Says a Protester Attacked a  Cop,” the following advice is given:

  • 1) Challenge the assumption that the violent protester(s) are actually Occupy Wall Street protesters.
    The media move fast, they don’t believe it is their job to know who started the violence, just that it started. If someone looks like an Occupy Wall Street protester, they are an OWS protester, even if they are an editor from the Right Wing publication American Spectator who is at the protest specifically to discredit the movement.
  • 2) Scour all the footage and photos you can find of the instigators of the violence at the protest.
  • 3) Crowd-source the images and ask for help identifying them.
  • 4) Write a post about it on a blog with info on the person(s) and their background. 
  • 5) Contact the media and point out who that protest was started by.

Of course, this is an after-the-fact strategy, and says nothing of their role in any violence, and in fact attempts to disclaim it.  Any such mob action is going to have dire consequences, and these organizers know it.  Are there provocateurs?  Almost certainly.  The problem is that the provocateurs merely represent another faction of the operation at large.

Lastly, in what seems to be a good way to cap off this article, with more amazing coverage from Joel Pollak, it seems that some elements in the occupy movement are now taking to using human shields, just like Hamas.  In the same manner that other terrorist groups use the young, the old, and the infirm as human shields, apparently, this practice is picking up steam among the violent segment of the Occupy movement.

Honestly, I think those who have unwittingly been sucked into going along with this movement on the basis of an anti-crony-capitalism stance should reconsider.  They’re being used by radical and dangerous elements that do not intend any sort of reform, but instead are attempting to foment actual revolution. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: It’s time for the rank-and-file Occupy Wall Street folks to realize they’re being used, but worse, they’re being set up.  When this gets ugly, and it’s growing increasingly unstable daily, they’re likely to find themselves hung out to dry.

 

Fighting Among Themselves: Squatters Occupying Wall Street

Friday, October 28th, 2011

Squatting On Wall Street

It seems that at least some of those who are Squatters Occupying Wall Street(That’s SOWS) are intent upon provoking fights, and utilizing violence.  As USAToday is now reporting, there are elements within the greater body of protesters in Zuccotti Park who have made some parts of the park so dangerous that some among their own number won’t venture there.  That’s a stunning development, and it may indicate that either the protest is breaking down and losing momentum, or that there are now more dangerous elements operating with the specific intention of causing violence, or exploiting the environment for criminal activities.  Earlier today, FDNY removed generators and lantern fuel, along with other items that might pose a public hazard.  It may be that the cold air is magnifying the poor conditions, and contributing to the divisions among the sub-groups.  There are certainly those with a vested interest in creating the outbreak of violence, and they have every intention of provoking it.

In related news, Glenn Beck has made an episode of his GBTV available for free on his website, exposing the truth about the squatters On Wall Street.  You might want to check it out, as it runs two hours in its full length.  The Arizone Counter-Terrorism Information Center has posted a bulletin because they discovered posters at Occupy Phoenix telling protesters to kill anybody who violates their rights, and it’s titled: “When should you shoot a cop?”  This makes it clear that these people are not all peace-loving protesters as they have claimed and advertised.  Instead, as I suggested earlier, there is an element trying to agitate and provoke violent confrontations between protesters and police. As The Blaze has discovered, the author seems to be a leftist named Larken Rose.  He’s another agitator intent on creating violence as the pretense for greater mob actions.

At the same time, other signs of division among the squatters of Occupy Boston are showing, as they have removed two members of the finance committee for improper expenditures of an undisclosed nature.  Sadly, the case of injured former Marine Scott Olsen, injured during a skirmish with police in Oakland earlier this week, is now being used as a tool to try to engage other Marines to the Occupy cause.  Posters claiming to be Marines are reacting badly, but I wonder how genuine their outrage would be if they realized the true nature of the man whose cause they are championing.

This is turning into a three-ring circus, with clearly divided segments of the Occupy crowd seeking distinct ends.  There are the hard-core leftists who are organizing the movement, funded by Soros and his various henchmen and sub-groups; there are the mass of useful idiot leftists who are the borderline anarchists spoiling for a fight; there are the other Americans of a more libertarian sort who have permitted themselves to be pulled in on the side of the worst elements.  One might feel some sympathy for the last group, but the truth is that we must realize that this is the goal of the organizers, and it is this group who will bear the brunt of the worst violence that will erupt.  The military is being actively infiltrated by gang elements, but now also by leftists.  The idea is simple: If they can capture control of the military, they have their army for violence against the civilian population, including civil authorities like the police.

Lastly, it’s fitting that I’ve decided to label these protesters as SOWS, because  the behavior they’ve been engaging in at Occupy Madison certainly is that of pigs.  Apparently, they’ve at least temporarily been denied an extension due to public masturbation.  Yes, that’s right: Public masturbation. Hotel guests from across the street complained of this behavior in full view of the public. We knew these people were uncivilized, but this is pathetic.  Nobody will be permitted to complain if the SOWS are hereafter called “jag-offs.”

Ladies and gentlemen, we should acknowledge that these people are doing things the Tea Party never did, and that they have seditious goals and objectives that most Americans cannot and should not endorse.  In short, they represent a fringe element intent on overthrowing our Constitution.  These SOWS must be opposed, and their benefactors and leaders must be exposed.

Protester Says Collapsing American Government Will Be Necessary

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

What Democracy Looks Like

This professional idiot from Chicago is serious.  Meanwhile, I get comments from his fellow idiots who say the Occupy movement isn’t anti-capitalist.  Yes, sure.  We believe that.  Do these squatters think we’re not paying any attention to what they’re doing and saying?  Do they think we are as clueless as they pretend to be about who is funding all of this?  Please. Don’t insult my intelligence.  These are radical Marxists, and if you find a few poor dolts among them who aren’t, they have no clue to what they’ve attached their support.  This guy with his laundry list of social program demands is just a communist agitator.   Yet we’re told they’re not anti-capitalist?  Let’s be honest about it:  These people want America to end as you had known it, or as your grandparents had known it.  They do not speak for me.  All of them should read this: The Morality of Money

H/T to the Blaze for finding this video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0085M-1cUA]