Posts Tagged ‘George Soros’

Obama to Stand Down On Military Pay and Benefits

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

Forgetting Them Again

My son-in-law is getting set for deployment to Afghanistan. His departure is imminent, and while I am proud of the young man’s continuing service to this country, this being his second deployment, I am startled by the manner in which the current administration treats all our soldiers.  The truth is that the Obama administration doesn’t even like the military, and except for instances in which they can be used as a campaign prop, they haven’t any regard for the men and women who volunteer to serve this nation.  One Obama-friendly group has come out with its proposal for trimming military pay and benefits, and it’s shocking to realize how little regard they have for our service-members based on what they’re advocating.  The Center for American Progress, a completely maniacal left-wing cohort of Obama’s, largely funded by George Soros, has actually suggested that our government should cut the pay and benefits of soldiers dramatically.  It’s disgusting.  It’s despicable.  It’s another example of how the left doesn’t understand or appreciate our military men and women, but if Obama is re-elected, it’s probably the blueprint for what will happen.  It’s time to consider the disastrous consequences of another presidential stand-down.

They’ve actually proposed cutting military retirement, and they’ve also proposed changing the rules for when one can begin drawing a military retirement.  Rather than commencing retirement benefits upon retirement, the madcaps at the Center for American Progress are pushing the notion that benefits shouldn’t commence until 60.  I want those of you who haven’t served in the military to think about this very carefully.  If a young man or woman serves twenty years in the military, on average, it’s not like working in the civilian world for two decades.  The abuses of one’s body, the toll it takes on one’s family, and the miserable conditions under which two decades of life are conducted is something for which there are no direct analogs in the civilian world.  One person I know, a police officer, who works hard and is dedicated to public safety, likened his profession to the military, and I stopped and corrected him.  There is a vast difference, and it comes down to this: Our service-members live under martial authority.  It’s not like being a cop, much as I respect so many in that profession.

Let’s be blunt about it: If you are a police officer, and you arrive at a scene, and your Sergeant or Lieutenant tells you to carry out some ludicrous order that puts you in danger, you can refuse.  The worst thing that can happen to you is that you will be fired.  In garrison, or on the battlefield, a soldier really has no such discretion, because failing to follow orders can get you dead.  You see, in the military, there really isn’t room for such discretion, and those who volunteer to serve have set aside the ordinary right to refuse all of us in the civilian world enjoy, in favor of the mission set forth by their commanders, but since they do not get to pick the term of their enlistments according to who is in command at the time, either nationally or locally, they simply must comply.

To get capable, smart, qualified people to do the jobs we ask our service-members to do in peacetime at their miserable rate of pay is hard enough, but multiplied and magnified by the rigors of war-fighting, and a simple existence under martial authority, we need to offer an enticement.  That’s why we offer at least somewhat enticing retirement benefits, but this is also why the left, despite all their previous anti-draft protesting, is very much pro-conscription:  They wish to be able to force people to serve in these conditions.  Imposing the pay and benefits cuts that CAP proposes would assure that the United States would either impose a draft to fulfill its defense needs, or simply cease to defend the nation.  Either is acceptable to leftists, but in truth, they’d like to have both.

Remember, if a young person 17-21 volunteers for military service, assuming they carry out a twenty year career, that means they will return to the civilian world in their late thirties or early forties, and despite the propaganda to the contrary, most will be effectively starting over.  You see, very few specialties in the military actually translate directly to civilian uses.  Working on artillery pieces doesn’t really translate to working on Fords.  Some of the underlying skill-sets may, but the truth is that it’s not a simple transition in most cases.  There aren’t really many positions for infantrymen in the civilian world.  Therefore, you have a group of people transitioning into a civilian workforce who may well have delayed their higher education, and otherwise set aside those developments in order to protect us.  Then, having completed two decades, they exit the military into a civilian workforce where they may be at significant disadvantage.  There is discrimination against veterans in many cases, and they step into this world precisely in what ought to have been their peak earning years.   The Center for American Progress thinks we should delay their retirement benefits until they’re sixty.  The truth is, we should pay them upon retirement because it’s the ethical thing to do in helping them catch up, and in order to thank them for their honorable service.

I’m not going to touch the part about active military pay, lest I launch into a stream of profanities over CAP’s proposals, but I think it’s time we understand, all of us, that when we ask young men and women to serve, we’re asking that they do so in our stead.  How much is that worth?  As my son-in-law prepares to fly to a distant and God-forsaken land, to help a people who may not want it, and to defend them against their own, knowing that most deaths in that country are the result of our alleged allies turning on our people, I can’t help but reflect on my own military service, and all the things I saw.  I wonder if the day will ever come when the American people will universally understand what it is we ask of these young people, and whether there will ever be a time when the left is willing to pay the costs of maintaining the defenses of the liberties they so blissfully enjoy in brutally indifferent ignorance.  If Barack Obama is re-elected, the undue suffering of our men and women in uniform will increase dramatically.  As I prepare to see my son-in-law depart on another deployment, we must take care of affairs here at home.  We must prevent this.

What’s Happening to Fox News?

Sunday, February 12th, 2012

Who's Pulling the Levers?

Many of you have complained of late about a noticeable shift in Fox News, not only in its coverage of various political events, but also in its staffing. More and more, they are adding to their paid Fox News contributors with people who are in some way linked to the radical left. People have wondered aloud what could be driving this shift, and while we probably won’t ever know it with certainty, I’d like to call to your attention what could be the basis for a quid pro quo that would offer at least one explanation for it.  In the months leading up to the revelations about the phone-hacking scandal at New of the World, another Murdoch news outlet in the UK, we saw the first signals of a change on Fox News, and of course, there have been rumblings of potential investigations and prosecutions here by our own Department of Justice.  If Murdoch and Ailes have anything to fear from these scandals here in the US, then it wouldn’t be inconceivable that the corrupt Department of Justice under Eric Holder and Barack Obama could use it as the potential stick to lash Fox News into political compliance.

One of my favorite talkshow hosts, Tammy Bruce, likes to talk about how her listener-supported show and site are advertising-free, and that one of the benefits is that she doesn’t have to put up with the demand of what she calls “Gestapos” who would tell her what kind of content she must or must not have in order to continue her show.  It’s rather harder for somebody to take from you the independence of thought on which your success is based if they have no leverage to do so.  In that scenario, you’re not worried any longer about advertisers threatening to yank their support.  Of course, you could theoretically annoy all of your listeners but that’s not likely if their support was built as much on the character of your ideas as on your personal style and presentation of them, because not many people radically transform their beliefs over night.

The reason I make mention of this is because as a large commercial outlet that makes it money from advertising, and as a corporation operating primarily in the United States, Fox News is subject to all of the laws that the federal government might apply to it.  As a subsidiary of NewsCorp, Fox News is subject to political tampering not only by threats of legal action against it directly, but also by virtue of legal threats against the parent company.  This would mean that whomever held the prosecutorial sword would be able to exert some influence simply by rattling it a bit.  In this case, we’re talking about the most politicized Department of Justice since, well, ever…  I have no doubt that the crowd of Chicago thugs in the White House would happily apply pressure to derive the kind of coverage they seek from Fox News.  The question then becomes: Are Murdoch and Ailes worried enough about potential legal matters to be man-handled in such a manner?

Obviously, I don’t have the answer to that question, but what I do know is this:  Within Obama’s first year as President, pressure of some sort, whether commercial, legal, political, or otherwise seems to have been brought on Fox News and Fox Business.  I say this because two things have now happened of which you and I are uncomfortably aware:  The lineups at Fox have been changed dramatically, including now the dropping of Glenn Beck, Eric Bolling, and Andrew Napolitano from the line-ups on the two networks.  Arguably, these are the three most conservative or libertarian hosts on either of the networks with the possible exception of John Stossel, but his is only a weekly show.  It would be hard to claim, for instance, that Beck was removed as a business decision, because his was still the highest-rated news show on cable in that time-slot when he parted company from Fox News.  Beck has effectively said that there was some sort of pressure involved.  Soros has been waging a public war on Fox News through Media Matters for America, and other shill outfits, but if he could somehow get an “in” at the network, he might be in a better position to change it.

At the same time as this all began, we saw that a number of contributors were brought to Fox News who reflected a much more left-leaning bias, including Jehmu Greene, and Sally Kohn, among others.  Greene is a preposterous leftist whose rage is at times barely-restrained as she hurls her defenses of leftists around.  Kohn is inexcusable, because she worked for the Soros-funded Center for Community Change.  These are just two of a growing number of leftist trolls, just one step from Occupiers, now being picked up by Fox News as they ditch people like Andrew Napolitano?  I’m afraid that given all of this, I have to conclude that something is happening, and I doubt it’s a business decision so much as one born of some sort of behind-the-scenes politics.  The left wouldn’t want Fox News to go away if they thought they could convert it to their side, and slowly but surely, this seems to be the direction of the the network.  While all of this remains supposition, I can’t help but worry a bit about  it because so many center-left people have thought that Fox News was a “conservative” network, but in truth it was merely balanced with a slightly right-wing dialogue that would be more amenable to the establishment wing of the GOP.

With conservative and libertarian elements slowly being removed, and rabid lefties being slid into place, one must wonder what is going on, and with all the saber-rattling over at the Obama-Holder DoJ, I think we may have reason to worry. If the leftists have found a way to effectively exert control over Fox News, there’s a real danger that we conservatives may have lost the only television outlet of mildly center-right news we’ve ever had.  Many have wondered about the open Romney-pushing going on at that network, and most have assumed it originates with establishment Republicans, but given some of the recent pronouncements of George Soros, one might think again.

New Gingrich Ad Goes Viral

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Soros-Approved?

This one is pretty rough, and while there is one point about which some will quibble, because the clip depicts Romney during his gubernatorial run, and he has since allegedly changed his position on the issue of abortion, the truth is that the remainder of the ad is extraordinarily effective, even if you discount Romney’s change on the one issue. The rest is damning enough on its own:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAkKl3Y8xmQ]

Update: ‘Americans Elect’ Hack Doug Schoen on Hannity

Friday, January 13th, 2012

Doug Schoen - Deal With the Devil?

You may remember my earlier coverage of this group, going back to late September, but I think it’s time to become more watchful still.  The organization “Americans Elect” is intent upon influencing this election by putting a candidate on the ballot in all fifty states, who will be selected by an Internet-based process, but will ultimately come down to the decision of the directors of the group.  In other words, they’re putting on the farcical show of making it look democratic, but in fact, what the final selection of the candidate will be the choice of management.  On Thursday night’s Hannity show on FoxNews Channel, Doug Schoen, one of the prime movers and shakers for the group defended the effort, as Hannity and his other two guests, Mike Gallagher, and Amilya Antonetti joined in condemning the actions of Americans Elect as just one more front acting to divide the anti-Obama vote and thus give Obama a victory in November.  Here’s video of the exchange:

[youtube=http://youtu.be/7IoPED91s-U]

What remains astonishing about this group is how little coverage it is getting, despite its nationwide effort to get on the ballot in all fifty states.  It’s run by close associates of George Soros, and anybody who doesn’t see the Soros signature of mischief in this hasn’t been paying attention.  One of the most disturbing things about the group has been the fact that it legally changed its form in order to avoid disclosure laws that would have given people a better sense of who is funding them.  Frankly, I have no interest in any group that won’t tell me where their money originates.  Be wary when you see this group, and if you hear friends talking about it, you might wish to caution them as well. There’s something rotten here, and it’s beginning to stink mightily.

Ron Paul: Soros Puppet?

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012

Dynamic Duo?

I don’t know how seriously to take this, but there are certain facts that seem unavoidable.  FrontPage Magazine is carrying a story alleging that Ron Paul may effectively have permitted himself to become a tool for George Soros’ agenda.  This all goes back to a July 2010 effort in which Ron Paul and Barney Frank jointly rolled out their Sustainable Defense Task Force.  This plan promised to cut more than $1 trillion in defense spending, scrapping carriers, and all sorts of current assets in our combined defense.  The panel was stacked with Soros-affiliated members, 9 of 14 members having direct links.  That Ron Paul actually took part in this, lending his name to this “bi-partisan effort” should tell you a bit about how he’s willing to lend his name to certain causes, but the troubling part is that he doesn’t seem to have noticed, or didn’t care that the panel was rigged with members of Soros-funded groups.

This wasn’t Paul’s only joint effort with Barney Frank, teaming up with the disgraced(and now retiring) Massachusetts Congressman in an effort to legalize pot.  Whatever else you may think of Ron Paul, I doubt he’s the sort that would knowingly lend himself to what many would consider a treasonous effort to reduce the United States’ defense capabilities, if he knew that was in fact what he had been doing.  The problem is that on the matters of foreign policy, Dr. Paul has seemed incredibly naive, and his fervor for reducing defense expenditures may occasionally lead him onto very shaky ground in the alliances he forges in the political realm.  I will not go as far as Daniel Greenfield in concluding that he might be knowingly involved in what clearly seems to be a Soros plot, but even if he didn’t know, didn’t he have a responsibility to find out?

In this sense, it’s one of the troubling aspects of Dr. Paul’s career that he will occasionally forge alliances in pursuit of an end without consideration of the character or motives of those with whom he is forging those alliances.  As the article points out, a Soros-funded organization, AAEI(Americans Against Escalation in Iraq) ran an ad in the last election cycle praising Ron Paul.  That Paul didn’t disclaim association with that group doesn’t speak well of him.  By now, somebody who’s been in Washington DC as long as Dr. Paul should be able to recognize a set-up of this sort fairly readily, and the fact that he lent his name to the effort is troubling, because he either did so without knowing it was a set-up, or because he didn’t care.  Either way, it’s one more reason Ron Paul probably shouldn’t be considered as presidential material:  We can’t afford a president who will lend his name to efforts that are effectively Soros-driven operations to undermine the defensive posture of the United States.

Note: Page 2 of the linked article by Daniel Greenfield at FrontPageMag.com contains some of the more damning allegations.

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.

Occu-Pests Don’t Speak For Me

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

Do They Speak for You?

I am tired of the notion that these people speak for the 99% of us who are not billionaires.  I’ve grown frustrated listening to their complaints, offered with feeble-minded attacks on wealth, money, and the general notion of capitalism.  There’s a problem with those who lead these Occupy efforts:  They don’t give a damn about this country, its people, or any of the things about which they pretend to care.  Instead, what interests them is cultural rape.  They intend to change this country without your consent, in its laws, in its culture, and in its economics.   The leaders of the OWS movement are simply predators, and while they claim that violence is against their principles, they incite it, they provoke it, and they use the poor misguided folk who are following them to act as their buffer.  BusinessInsider published an interesting piece on the larger aims of the Occupy movement, and I’m afraid the American people have no idea about how thoroughly these people have developed their designs on America.  They’re going to attempt to re-write your Constitution, while you sleep, and as you watch the latest news on the silly stories of the day.

They imagine themselves as a modern-day version of the framers of our current Constitution, laboring in secret to present us with a new Constitution, in order to save us from ourselves.  Let me state emphatically that if they manage to carry off this coup d’etats, I will oppose them, and violently, if need be.  Let me throw down a marker now, so that all may know my position:  If the Occupiers, their leaders and benefactors succeed in trying to foist on the great mass of the American people some foreign system of government, which it now seems is their clear intent, I will be among the counter-revolutionaries who they will be forced to kill.  Write it down.  Bookmark it.  I will not surrender to these people, because in the main, they do not have my consent, and they do not speak for me.  Ninety-nine percent?  My ass!

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like for you to consider what the Occupy movement really has in mind.  This isn’t about the typical complaints, and it isn’t merely about some bankers, some tax rate, or some scheme for  redistributing your wealth.  It’s much more insidious than that, and you need to know that when the poor schmucks who follow the lead of this manufactured movement wind up looking stupid on television, it’s not because the movement has no firm goals, as we all first thought, but because the rank-and-file Occu-Pest doesn’t know what those goals actually are.  In order to understand what it is that they’re going to attempt, you must first understand some history, and I’d beg of my readers to educate themselves with a sense of urgency.  The leadership of this movement is trying to create a bit of theater, in mimicry of a historical event, and you must understand its importance if you’re to have any hope of confronting them.  You in the Tea Party had better pay close attention, because many of you will already know this history, but I am going to show you how they intend to use the weight of history against you and your beloved Constitution. If you wish to know how they are going to attack you, you must know that the past is prologue.  You must know that none of this is really new, but the manner in which it will be done is novel.  Finally, I think we can begin to see what they intend, and for once, I think you ought to know it so that you can do something constructive in opposition.

First, I would like you to acquaint yourselves with the Committees of Correspondence.  These were shadow governments that our founders formed in order to confront the British empire.  These committees were used to oppose the British and essentially superseded the colonial legislatures.  This was the method by which we eventually arrived at the pre-revolutionary state that would lead to the Declaration of Independence and our ultimate separation from the British. It is important to understand that those who are leading the Occupy movement are attempting to carry out something similar, although their desired ends are much different.  They intend to use a seemingly democratic movement to undermine freedom via the state, and they intend a quiet take-over.  Many have referenced their intentions, but it’s clear that most don’t quite understand.

The first thing necessary to their movement is the claim to legitimacy.  This is the meaning of all of this “99%” garbage they’re throwing around.  The truth is, they don’t speak for one percent of one percent of one percent of Americans.  Nevertheless, this will be their claim, and they will try to establish the providence of that claim through the use of media.  As we’ve seen, many in the media are in bed with the Occupy movement, and in at least one case Breitbart has uncovered, they are the media.  Don’tbe surprised when you find that they are now going to claim to be of you, by you, and for you, the American people.  Last week, I reported to you their plan for a national assembly, and now here’s their plan for creating this illusion:

1. The Occupy Wall Street movement, through the local general assembly, should elect an executive committee comprised of 11 people or some other odd number of people that is manageable for meetings. Ideally this committee should represent each city in the U.S. that is being occupied.

2. The executive committee will then attend to local issues such as obtaining permits, paying for public sanitation and dealing with the media. More important, the executive committee shall plan and organize the election of the 870 delegates to a National General Assembly between now and July 4, 2012.

3. As stated in the 99% declaration, each of the 435 congressional districts will form an election committee to prepare ballots and invite citizens in those districts to run as delegates to a National General Assembly in Philadelphia beginning on July 4, 2012 and convening until October 2012.

4. Each of the 435 congressional districts will elect one man and one woman to attend the National General Assembly. The vote will be by direct democratic ballot regardless of voter registration status as long as the voter has reached the age of 18 and is a US citizen. This is not a sexist provision. Women are dramatically under-represented in politics even though they comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population.

5. The executive committee will act as a central point to solve problems, raise money to pay for the expenses of the election of the National General Assembly and make sure all 870 delegates are elected prior to the meeting on July 4th.

6. The executive committee would also arrange a venue in Philadelphia to accommodate the delegates attending the National General Assembly where the declaration of values, petition of grievances and platform would be proposed, debated, voted on and approved. The delegates would also elect a chair from their own ranks to run the meetings of the congress and break any tie votes. We will also need the expertise of a gifted parliamentarian to keep the meetings moving smoothly and efficiently.

7. The final declaration, platform and petition of grievances, after being voted upon by the 870 delegates to the National General Assembly would be formally presented by the 870 delegates to all three branches of government and all candidates running for federal public office in November 2012. Thus, the delegates would meet from July 4, 2012 to sometime in early to late October 2012.

8. The delegates to the National General Assembly would then vote on a time period, presently suggested as one year, to give the newly elected government in November an opportunity to redress the petition of grievances. This is our right as a People under the First Amendment.

9. If the government fails to redress the petition of grievances and drastically change the path this country is on, the delegates will demand the resignation and recall of all members of congress, the president and even the Supreme Court and call for new elections by, of and for the PEOPLE with 99 days of the resignation demand.

10. There will NEVER be any call for violence by the delegates even if the government refuses to redress the grievances and new elections are called for by the delegates. Nor will any delegate agree to take any money, job promise, or gifts from corporations, unions or any other private source. Any money donated or raised by the executive committee may only be used for publicizing the vote, the National General Assembly, and for travel expenses and accommodation at the National General Assembly ONLY. All books and records will be published openly online so that everyone may see how much money is raised and how the money is spent each month. There will be no money allowed to “purchase” delegate votes as we have in the current government. No corporate “sponsorship”.

(H/T Business Insider.com)

This is a continuing attempt to make all of this look organic, but more importantly, to legitimize it and to pretend that they speak with authority for the ninety-nine percent they claim to comprise.  In effect, they are trying to create the appearance of an analog to the 1770s and the Committees of Correspondence.  Of course, the next part of their plan is even more insidious, and it is to replace the US Constitution by methods not unlike those employed to replace the Articles of Confederation, except that they will have nothing like the support among the American people that supported revising our Articles of Confederation.  Back when it was first suggested that our first form of government (Articles of Confederation) be revised, that’s what the delegates had been tasked to do.  Instead, they crafted an entirely new constitution and presented it for ratification.  In some contexts, this might have been considered a treason, except that any such claims have been made moot by the subsequent ratification and adoption of our Constitution. Most Americans forget that George Washington was our first president under this current constitution, but that he was not the first President of the United States.  Under the Articles of Confederation, that was the presiding member of Congress, who happened to have been Samuel Huntington (March 1, 1781 – July 9, 1781.)  Most people don’t know this because they aren’t taught it, along with so much else in our precious history.

Once you realize what Soros and the others who are driving this intend, it becomes obvious what their methodology will be: They intend to speak on your behalf, and to trump up a movement to convince those in government that they are speaking on your behalf.  There’s only one way to prevent this, and you should fight against it with full resolve. Confront them by telling your representatives in Washington DC that the Occu-pests don’t speak for you.  Confront them by telling the media, loudly and often, that the Occupiers don’t speak for us.  They’re trying to capture the legitimacy born of their 99% claim, but you and I know they don’t speak for anything like the 99% they claim.  It simply doesn’t exist.  There is no overwhelming desire on the part of the American people to replace or radically amend the United States Constitution. I will consider all such radical propositions as they are: Acts of treason.  Also, be aware that this other phony movement, Americans Elect, exists to try to change the way we elect Presidents.  It’s full of Soros shills too, and as I’ve reported before, I cannot trust anyone or anything related to the aims of that man or the multitude of organizations he funds and backs and manipulates.

This movement is being manipulated for one ultimate purpose:  To destroy and replace the US Constitution.  There is nothing else but that goal.  I consider the people leading these Occupiers as fomenting insurrection, while actively plotting treason.  I realize many of the rank-and-file Occupiers don’t understand this, however there will come a point at which they will begin to endanger the Republic, and in their mindless, unthinking support of this Marxist movement, they are assisting to destroy the United States.  In the sense specifically, they don’t speak for me.  They don’t speak for ninety-nine percent, or anything near that number.  They are the loud and vociferous cacophony of ne’er-do-wells who have in largest measure contributed to our current state of presumptive decline.

Ladies and gentlemen, these people and their leadership do not speak for me.  They do not speak for anybody I know personally.  I don’t know any person who actually supports them.  I don’t know a soul who thinks we should ditch our Constitution, never mind by the dictates of some Marxist cabal of Soros flacks.  I don’t know one person, anywhere in my extended circle of friends and family who actually believes in anything the Occupiers are espousing.  None.  Maybe you do, but I’d like to know from my readers:  Do they speak for you?  Do they?  Is George Soros acting on your behalf?  Somehow I doubt it, but rather than make any assumptions, as the Occu-Pests have done, I’m not willing to speak for others.  If the Occupiers don’t speak for you, you should let your government, and the media, and every person you can find to tell them that fact.

They don’t speak for me, and I’d rather die than submit to the mobocracy they envision.