Archive for the ‘Squatters’ Category

Nation of Islam to Provide Security for Occupy Atlanta?

Friday, November 4th, 2011

Occupy Atlanta: Not So Much?

Just when you thought it couldn’t be any more ludicrous, it turns out that some within the Occupy Atlanta crowd have said that the radical racist organiation Nation of Islam will be providing security for their intended re-occupation of Woodruff Park.  This may yet turn ugly, as Occupy Atlanta protesters were rousted from the park on October 26th by police, and are now planning a return to the park on Saturday.  Whether the Nation of Islam will be involved is anybody’s guess, as CBSLocal Atlanta reports that the Occupiers are denying the Nation of Islam will be involved, while some members of the organization say it’s going to happen:

“I think that will make a huge difference,” protester David Smith added to the Midtown Patch on the matter.

This is the last thing we need to have added to this freak-show.  The Nation of Islam has a history of violence and intimidation, and it can’t possibly improve conditions to have their presence as a “security force” for protesters.  If indeed the Nation of Islam shows up, the potential for violence will jump too.  All of the leftist and anarchist forces are aligning, and it has all the earmarks of collusion.

This entire movement is intended to intimidate, disrupt, and cause chaos, and slowly but surely, it’s succeeding.  In related news, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said today that Obama owns the Occupy movement, and that “this will be the millstone around Barack Obama’s neck.”  If he’s right, and I suspect he may be, there is going to be an all-out effort to deflect any criticism on this basis by this White House.  The problem will be that President Obama has been too close to this all along, and his surrogates have been involved in it directly.  Combined with the facts of his own radical past, the President is going to have a hard time distancing himself from all of this.  Maybe he has no intention of so doing.

 

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.

Sexual Assault Being Hushed By Occupiers?

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

Cold Prevails; Occupy Gets Too Cozy for Comfort

The New York Post is reporting that another sexual assault has occurred in the Occupy Wall Street tent city in Zuccotti Park.  You can read the story at the post, but what I find curious about the situation isn’t that another sexual assault has happened, but instead, the odd reaction of the victim, and of the Occupiers.  It suggests that something really ugly is going on in the OWS movement, and I think it is related to the story from yesterday from Joel Pollak at Breitbart about the media strategy of Occupy Wall Street.  They’re trying to make negative news related to their protest disappear, and in this case, it sounds as though the victim has been told to shut up about it.

This is another stark reminder of a different revolution, nearly a century ago, when women were told to shut up about rapes that happened among revolutionaries.  The Bolsheviks also insisted that women “take one for the team,” and not discredit their revolution by complaining about rape.  Could this be a sign that OWS really has regressed to the state of a century-old repressive reflex in the name of propaganda? Looking at the statements from the victim, it seems so.

From the post article:

A sex fiend barged into a woman’s tent and sexually assaulted her at around 6 a.m., said protesters, who chased him from the park.

“Pervert! Pervert! Get the f–k out!” said vigilante Occupiers, who never bothered to call the cops.

“They were shining flashlights in his face and yelling at him to leave,” said a woman who called herself Leslie, but refused to give her real name.

She said that weeks earlier another woman was raped.

“We don’t tell anyone,” she said. “We handle it internally. I said too much already.”

“Handle it internally?”  How can they “handle it internally?” These people aren’t a law unto themselves.  More, in saying “internally,” it’s an admission that the assault was carried out by another Occupier.  This wasn’t some rogue interloper who targeted an Occupier, but a fellow Occupier who carried on his assault.

Ladies and gentlemen, if nothing else tells you about the nature of Occupy Wall Street, this should be the thing that grabs your attention.  In order to minimize negative media coverage, this poor victim of a sexual assault is being asked to shut up for the sake of the movement.  That’s sick.  There’s something very unhealthy about any movement that seeks to silence victims within its own ranks in order to stave off negative publicity.  The Occupiers wish to be thought of as relatively harmless, in the same vein of the Tea Party, but I can guarantee you that no such perpetrator would be given cover by a Tea Party organization.

That’s the most amazing thing, because while there will be no police report, and no official pursuit or prosecution of the perpetrator, he will likely go free, able to pursue other women on the streets of New York, victimizing others because the OWS organization has promised this one victim that they will “handle it internally.”  Everybody who realizes what this means about the nature of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and how they are willing to close ranks around a sexual predator in order to preserve some notion of their purity is a sign that OWS is a diseased movement. I realize that one predator doesn’t define the movement, but permitting themselves to be associated with a movement that hushes sexual assault victims in order to avoid negative publicity is sick, and serious and thoughtful OWS members should flee this movement if they’re serious about individual liberties. It’s clear that if this is the operational direction of OWS, no civilized people should endorse it.

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.