This is absurd and ridiculous. Here we have candidate Mitt Romney doing his best Barack Obama imitation, but Ron Paul won’t take the slightest swipe at him in a debate? I’m sorry, but this sort of class-warfare rhetoric has no business in a Republican nomination fight, and to hear this from the mouth of Romney tells me all I really need to know. He doesn’t want the 1% to get the same charitable deductions and home mortgage deductions as “middle-class” Americans? I have a question for Governor Romney, who is unwilling to make the logical or moral argument for keeping one’s wealth:
Why not, Mitt? Why are you ashamed of your wealth? Why are you afraid to claim a right to your property and wealth? Why does greater wealth imply a lesser claim to it? This is bizarre and absurd, and it’s another reason the Republican party should never nominate this self-defeating fool. He’s already ceding the argument to Barack Obama. If he’s willing to go this far now, what will he do if he gets the nomination? Grovel? Will he openly apologize for his personal fortune? Will he apologize for the fortunes of others? This man doesn’t deserve to keep his own wealth, because he doesn’t know how to logically defend it against jackals.
It’s impossible to argue with a straight face that there’s any real similarities between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, and yet that is the contention of some who allege that both are protest movements aimed at reform. If that’s the extent of their similarity, those who claim this as the basis for a relationship between the two are stuck in superficial characteristic that permit one to claim that an orange and a basketball are nearly the same. The Tea Party is predicated on the idea that the best government is that which governs least, while the Occupiers, to the degree you can discern any central agenda, are concerned only with tearing portions of the private sector down.
It doesn’t take a genius to see the dissimilarities far outweigh superficial observations, yet this is the argument you get from leftist shills. Other superficial differences include that the majority of both groups is Caucasian, and male, but in demographic terms, this is the end of similarities. The Tea Party folks are somewhat older, and somewhat more settled in life, and have already engaged in productive activities for most of their lives, while it seems Occupiers seem to be those who haven’t quite yet figured out what they want to be when they finish growing up. If that seems a bit condescending, I will confess that I’m caught, but only because that is my own observation.
The key distinction between the two groups stems from this: The Tea Party has a generic ideological and philosophical basis that its numbers understand, whereas the Occupiers seem to have a scatter-shot approach to issues, and if you examine any of them in isolation from the others, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to learn anything about the beliefs of the group, except perhaps that they all think they deserve something, somehow provided by others. They want their student loans forgiven, or they want banks closed down, or they want capitalism brought to heel under the boot of statism. They abhor globalization, but simultaneously say they’re in favor of free trade. They say they want opportunities, but they have squandered many by their own admissions.
In short, while it’s quite easy to make out what the Tea Party wants, it’s no so easy to understand anything about the Occupiers’ demands, because theirs are a moving target, and they seem to modify them daily. They have no electoral agenda, except perhaps that they generically favor Obama, but none of them can tell you why with any sort of conviction. In all, I find it odd that anybody would take serious such a comparison, until you understand how thoroughly the Occupiers failed. They were ginned up to be the left’s answer to the Tea Party, but as the record shows, their behavior in public and private spaces brought them no shortage of negative coverage. It’s so bad that they don’t even bother pretending there is a degree of moral superiority as occurred at the outset, but instead seek to improve their position by the comparison, attaching themselves to Tea Party by way of false claims of similar purpose.
Of course, now that they’ve seen how badly they’ve been received by the American people, a number of Occupiers are now, belatedly joining in on the anti-Obama bandwagon. As Yahoo reported, Obama has brought the two groups together, but only because increasingly, both are now opposing him. Even in this, however, they’re not really together, as the demands of Occupiers seems to be for the President to move even further left. Clearly, that’s not a message the Tea Party will endorse. It’s simply not true to say that the two groups are similar, and even the Yahoo article goes on to admit that this is the case. Still, it’s interesting to watch the purveyors of leftwing propaganda try to paint the Occupy Wall Street movement as a younger, grungier Tea Party, but until its members learn how to find jobs and pay their own bills, never mind bath, it’s going to remain a hard sell.
It’s ridiculous. This is nothing but another sorry attempt to create civil unrest to the degree that the feds will have an excuse to become involved. This is all being directed from the White House or its surrogates anyway, so there shouldn’t be any surprise. Isn’t Oakland the home turf to one Van Jones? Yes, I think so, and I believe he was the one who told us that those at the bottom needed to rise up so that those at the top could clamp down, or something to that effect. In any case, the Occupiers are rioting in Oakland again, and this time there was tear gas and more than othree hundred arrests. Apparently, the scum burned a flag they stole from City Hall, so automatically, we can identify them as lefties, because only they and the Jihadists really go in for that sort of thing. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s an occupier.
This collection of mind-numbed dolts who fancy themselves some sort of latter-day French revolutionaries forgot their guillotine, but more than that, with their improvised shields, I think we should be up-front about their intentions. You don’t cobble together shields or armor for a peaceful protest march, so let’s just knock off the pretense. These dim-witted useful idiots still don’t understand that they’re going to be the sacrificial lambs, the patsies, in Obama’s move on freedom. These morons think there is still something to discuss, but what they don’t understand is that most of the country would love to see them get busted up badly, and at this point, there are those in power who would love a good excuse for a crackdown. These brainless drones of the left will be the immediate object of that crackdown.
As they spoil for a fight in what is likely to be Obama’s version of the burning of the Reichstag, these tent-dwelling morons are creating a dangerous situation. I hope the local authorities contend with this before the feds get involved, but as it turns out, the feds may soon have operational control over Oakland PD due to a previous ruling against it. That will be a recipe for full chaos. Perfect.
As if we hadn’t already known it, one of Obama’s college cohorts has come forward to say that Barack Obama had indeed been a radical, full-bore communist. While none of this may be particularly surprising to those of us who have paid attention to Obama’s development as a presidential candidate going at least as far back as his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, I suspect the average American may not have the slightest idea just how thoroughly radical their President’s credentials really are. This owes to the media that has covered for him, rather than covering him, both in looking at his history and in examining his friends and associations. Having watched this administration in action for nearly three years, more Americans are realizing something is wrong with President Obama’s view of the country, of values, and of the world in which we live. What John Drew offers is a bit of insight into the nature of Barack Obama’s real beliefs and intentions.
Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?
Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”
“Reactionary?” That’s typical Marxist lingo, but as some have offered, he was younger then, and of course he might have been a good deal more radical in his youth than as he matured. What is the evidence that this has been the case? After all, among his first round of appointments were a crowd of Marxists and communists that would have made “Uncle Joe” proud. Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Samantha Powers(Sunstein’s wife) come immediately to mind, but there are many more. As Van Jones admitted publicly, you have to “drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends.”
I’m certain that this bunch of Alinskyite radicals has done precisely that, and Obama most of all. As I explained in examining Obama’s pro-socialism speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, this president believes the left-wing propaganda. One bit of information that has turned up since that speech is that the Weather Underground had its own newspaper back in the 1970s, called Osawatomie. No kidding. If you visit the site where this is detailed, you’ll find that much of the jargon and lingo of Obama’s 2008 campaign and his presidency is repeated here. The point? He’s a true believer, a man committed on principle to destroying the United States as we have known it. The key to understanding this is what Drew actually said about his commitment: He believes an “old-style communist revolution” is a possibility in the US. Consider that statement, and all it implies, and then remember that Bill Ayers was among those who were planning just such a revolution, and as early as the 1970s, were imagining how to kill off the estimated 25 million people who would not peaceably submit.
I submit to you that if it was your intention to have an old-style communist revolution, if you could capture ruling power by any means, you would be able to wreak havoc on any nation, its economy, and its people, and the reason to do so would be to splinter the civil society into warring factions, or to exploit such factions as may already have existed, and magnify them. Any nation is ripe for revolution when its people are sufficiently primed, and dissatisfaction is the best way to prime them. Obama’s policies are surely driving greater dissatisfaction as the prices of food and fuel skyrocket, the value of the dollar plummets, and real unemployment is at greater than 16%, and by some calculations, substantially higher. The nature of statist revolutions requires calamity, catastrophe, and emergencies, under the auspices of which governments extend their control.
When writing his memoirs, Herbert Hoover characterized collectivist revolutionaries’ actions this way:
“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of “Emergency”. It was a tactic of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini… The invasion of New Deal Collectivism was introduced by this same Trojan horse.” – Hoover’s Memoirs: The Great Depression 1929-1941
What Hoover identified is the ultimate methodology upon which collectivist demagogues naturally rely: The emergency. Under emergencies, whether actual or fictional, governments rely upon the extraordinary power to suspend liberties and natural rights, and to otherwise violate laws it is ordinarily sworn to uphold. Barack Obama is setting us up for just such an event. What do you suppose is the purpose of the Occupiers? Their role is to make the American people call upon their government for aid. These poor useful idiots, most of them, are too blind to see that they will be the first people sacrificed in the name of such an emergency.
It’s time to face the full horrors of what Obama’s presidency holds in store. Most of us are accustomed to believing that “it couldn’t happen here,” but the truth is that it is happening here. It’s time we put a stop to it, and defeating Obama in 2012 is just the start.
Twice in the last week, nations that had once been slaves of the Soviet Union honored Ronald Reagan with statues. As a statue of Reagan was being defaced in our own capital, first in Hungary, more recently in Poland, and now in Georgia, “the Gipper” is still remembered as the man whose vigilance and willingness to call evil by its name caused the Soviet Union to wither and die of its own grotesque weight. He’s cited as the man whose firm stance against the “evil empire” brought the USSR to its end, and with it, the nearly half-century long Cold War. How stunning it is that while his statue isn’t safe in this country even in his home state, across the region of Europe that had once lived under the tyrannical iron fist of the Soviet Union, he’s afforded more honor and reverence than he receives in some quarters here at home. None can convince me that this irony isn’t symbolic of the disease that afflicts our nation. When a man whose efforts liberated millions and whose policies lifted a nation to the pinnacle of its success at home and abroad cannot find respect he deserves at home, it’s time to question the culture that permits such an absurdity to endure.
Most Americans remember Reagan fondly, even some of his opponents at the time. He was an optimistic leader who thought that the efforts of the people, and their simple values ought to prevail upon their leaders to provide the liberty that has been America’s great promise. His memory is truly cherished among the great body of the American people, but to doctrinaire leftists, both his political success and his philosophical foundations are occasions for disdain and discontent. The left simply hates Ronald Reagan. The simple truth is that he offered a thorough refutation of leftist ideology. He didn’t need a ten-dollar vocabulary, and it didn’t matter to the American people that he was in his seventies throughout his presidency. He told it like it was, and still is today.
I find comfort in the fact that while freedom is withering in the US at the hands of Reagan’s opponents, in the eyes of a majority of the American people, he’s still supremely popular. As his detractors hurl insults at him, in Eastern Europe, leaders whose nations were freed by his efforts are remembering him with statues, and saying plainly what the left has spent two decades trying to pretend hadn’t been so: Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. Others deserve some credit, but theirs were ancillary roles. Only Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II deserve any mention among western leaders along with Reagan. Let’s consider what others have said recently. From Tbilisi, Georgia:
In Tbilisi
Georgia’s pro-Western president has unveiled a monument to Ronald Reagan in the capital of the ex-Soviet state praising the 40th U.S. president for “destroying the Soviet Empire.”
Mikhail Saakashvili, whose government has for years had tense relations with Russia, also lambasted Moscow’s attempts to “restore” the Soviet Union by creating an economic bloc with other ex-Soviet nations.
He said Wednesday that the bronze statue that depicts Reagan sitting on a bench “deserves a place in the heart of Tbilisi, the heart of Georgia.”
In Warsaw, Poland, Lech Walesa:
In Warsaw
“Let us bow before Ronald Reagan for the fact that our generation was able to bring an end to the great divisions and conflicts of the world,” Mr Walesa said in a ceremony in the heart of the Polish capital Warsaw.
“What happened seemed impossible or unthinkable. The older generations still remember,” the Nobel Peace laureate said.
“In Poland, we had more than 200,000 Soviet soldiers. Across Europe, there were more than a million, as well as nuclear weapons. Major changes without a nuclear conflict seemed unlikely,” he added.
In Budapest, Hungary:
In Budapest
Prime Minister Viktor Orban and former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped unveil the statue Wednesday.
Reagan was remembered for the aid and encouragement he gave Hungary and other former Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe to gain back their freedom.
Reagan “changed the world and created a new world for Central Europe,” Orban said at the unveiling ceremony. “He tore down the walls which were erected in the path of freedom in the name of distorted and sick ideologies.”
In Newport Beach, CA
This is simply astonishing. While the people who had lived under the oppressive Soviet boot understand and remember what they have gained, too many in this country have spent the intervening years lying about the nature of the Soviet Union and the philosophy on which it had been based, and little is taught in our schools that would explain the importance that an honest retelling of history demands. Look at the “Occupiers,” our modern day iteration of the Bolsheviks. Their historical understanding is so frightfully narrow, and their philosophical underpinnings so atrociously bankrupt, they believe, with the crude indolence of club-wielding children that the are some sort of “freedom-fighters” while they agitate on behalf of ideas refuted before many of their births. They tell themselves they aren’t anti-capitalists, as if some sort of self-delusion will prohibit to the rest of us the view of what they’re really preaching.
I don’t think they have any idea what it is for which they now agitate, and as history repeats as the Occu-pests cry out for the United Soviet States of America, I cannot imagine a more fitting spectacle than to see that while these misguided brats rant about the inequities of the markets, they nevertheless don’t realize that what they’re demanding will only make things infinitely worse. Perhaps it is better that statues of Ronald Reagan are erected and unveiled in Eastern Europe, because at least there, it seems the people will have some reason to remember the reasons for which his memory is honored. These Occupiers don’t have a clue, but thankfully we have conservatives and the Tea Party who can yet teach them.
In an interesting development sure to finally put the lie to the notion that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street crowds are similar, one Tea Party group has decided enough is enough with all the “Occupy” nonsense, and is planning to support stores by encouraging the public to shop like crazy on Friday in opposition to the “Occupy Black Friday” boycott aimed at publicly traded retail outlets. The Occu-pests don’t want you to buy from corporate America, but the truth is that they’re actually trying to stall economic recovery in order to foment revolution. It’s a maniacal plan, but it tells you a good deal about the motives of the two groups. The Occupiers want to use the economy for political purposes, and they wish to make it worse rather than better. Meanwhile, the Tea Party, largely a conservative-minded, guided by a generally pro-capitalist philosophy, is trying to help the economy recover.
One of these groups is concerned with the economic hardships the American people are enduring under Obama, while the other intends to make things worse in order to inflame the situation and further empower Obama. If it wasn’t clear to you before, it certainly should be after this debacle. According to the cynical politics of Washington DC, the Tea Party should be trying to make the economy worse in order to hurt Obama at the polls next year, but that’s not what drives the Tea Party. Instead, they are sincere Americans who want to create a rising tide that will lift all boats. The Tea Party is not a destructive organization, but is instead made up of Americans who believe in creating wealth because they understand that to create jobs, you must create wealth, and you must aggregate capital. The Tea Party wants the country to rise, and to do that, people must engage in commerce. The group Liberate Philadelphia/Liberate America put out a statement on their BUYcott. From their statement:
“At a time when our economy is most fragile and ratings agencies are talking about another downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, it’s completely irresponsible for Occupy Wall Street to attempt to bring the U.S. economy to a halt on the busiest shopping day of the year,” says Liberate organizer, John Sullivan, spokesman for the Cherry Hill Area Tea Party.
Meanwhile, the Occupiers now intend to punish the economy. They are focusing on Malls and also on Corporations, claiming to make a distinction between small businesses and publicly traded firms, but the problem with this argument is two-fold: First, many of the shops and stores in any mall are small businesses. Second, corporations provide jobs to millions of Americans. What sort of lame-brain pretends otherwise? Black Friday often causes those retailers to spend more money on employees, hiring seasonal workers, and paying additional overtime to current employees, almost all of which is converted into spending in the economy. Particularly at this time of year, anything that boosts employment and wages in the private sector can only be considered a positive thing, unless you’re a ne’er-do-well Occu-Pest or leftist, and these anti-capitalists (despite their disingenuous claims to the contrary) are intentionally setting out to wreck the biggest shopping day of the year.
There’s no doubt that we have a serious problem in the economy, and on Wall Street, but most of that problem originates from Government’s tinkering in the free market, and from grotesque cronyism. If the Occupiers want to make a real difference, they’d Boycott Obama. They’d help the Tea Party Occupy the White House. Unfortunately, they’re not that kind of movement, and their intentions are clearly anti-free market, anti-capitalist, and anti-liberty. I agree with the Tea Party organizers who wish to have a BUYcott tomorrow: Let us elevate ourselves without the government. If the government and their shills in the media intend to flat-line this economy, and they’ve cooked up the Occu-pests to help, I say we oppose them. I’m not ordinarily the sort to go Black Friday shopping, but tomorrow I will, because I believe in the free market, and I’m going to damned-well engage in it irrespective of, and in spite of the Occupiers, Obama, and all their miserable cronies.
The left wing media is doing its level best to portray the Occupy Wall Street movement as being the younger version of the Tea Party. Their assertion rests on the notion that the OWS folk are “really all about the same things.” This is a lie. The two groups have nothing in common; not in tactics, conduct, mindset or intentions. The truth is revealed by the fact that the Democrat Party couldn’t wait to denounce the Tea Party, but they can’t wait to embrace the Occupiers. Had even a handful of Tea Party folks behaved in a manner akin to what we’ve seen from the Occupiers, the media would have spent even more time defaming them. Remember the lies: “The Tea Party is a bunch of angry, old white people motivated by racism who hate the government.” These had been the basic talking points in media. Oddly, there is no media caricature of the Occupiers, although one has developed among Americans without media assistance: “Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of anti-capitalist ne’er-do-wells, revolutionaries, and they are dominated by antisemitic and leftist thugs.” The American people see the difference even if the media deny it.
The Tea Party arose out of a frustration with runaway government spending under the one-party domination of the Democrats, who in 2009 found themselves in control of all branches of government. The Tea Party consists of people from all walks of life who are indeed a bit more mature on average than the Occupiers. It shows in their conduct as well as in their stated goals. Their intention has been to elect people who will respect the constitution and its limitations on government. Their rallies have been entirely peaceful, and police have never had to arrest them. They filed for and received permits, they observed local ordinances, and they otherwise conducted themselves in a manner aimed at avoiding becoming an inconvenience to the communities in which they were protesting. When their events completed, they picked up the grounds, and they left every venue cleaner than they found it. Their organizers generally had made accommodations for sanitary purposes available, and there was no trail of filth left in their wake. When their protests and rallies were concluded, they went peacefully back to their lives as Americans. While many of them have serious disagreements with the cronyism in Washington DC that spreads its tentacles into the private sector, they nevertheless believe in the American Republic as established, and the great boon to humanity that is capitalism. They have been self-funded, self-organized, and self-directed. Let’s be clear: The Tea Party is a real political organization, if a bit diffuse, but nevertheless aimed at actual political change, and they’ve had some substantial success.
Contrast this with the Occupiers who are younger on average, have no electoral goals to speak of, and instead seem to be vague in their ideas about what it is they are after. There is a mix of ideologies present, but the main body is decidedly leftist, and decidedly anti-capitalist. The only part of the constitution they seem to value is the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and peaceful assembly, while they test the legal limits of those rights at every turn. They seem not to have noticed that somebody is funding their activities, and that those food deliveries are coming from somewhere. They seem not to realize that they’re being directed and organized by people who aren’t present, and never will be. In their encampments, there have been rapes, beatings, stabbings, shootings, widespread drug use, every possible form of public lewdness, and a general disrespect for law, private property, and the communities in which they have taken up their occupations.
Their ideology is so vague on its surface that all you can discern is that they’re unhappy about something, and it seems to arise from a sort of general hatred of big businesses, banks, and their executives, but they can’t tell you anything about which they’re upset in concrete terms. Instead, they whine about millionaires and billionaires while some people of that precise description send them lunch. They don’t have a goal, but their leadership is going to give them one: Anarchy and revolution. The Occupy Wall Street movement has been nothing but a sham and a front for anti-American, anti-Capitalist, anti-freedom Marxists, and these poor dolts, most of them educated since the fall of the Soviet Union, don’t have any clue what that really means. If they have any interest in elections, they haven’t indicated it. I have seen no talk of electing “Occupiers to Congress.” They’re not capable of that.
The glib leftists in the media now tell us: “Well, both groups are anti-establishment.” Really? Which establishment? The Tea Party is against the political establishment in Washington DC, the unofficial institution that has corrupted the US Constitution. They’re against a DC establishment that spends their money like water. They’re against the Republican establishment, that too often dominates that party with its interests. The Occupiers oppose a different establishment: The establishments of private property as expressed in corporations, profits, earnings, and business. In short, the establishment that the Occupiers oppose is the establishment created by the US Constitution. Neither can they redistribute wealth nearly so well as they would like, nor can they steal by law so easily as long as the establishment of the civil society and the rule of law remain in place. The establishment their leadership hopes to undo is the that bulwark of law that our founders erected. The establishment the Tea Party opposes is the corruption of government and capitalism intended to destroy the Constitution.
Following the aims of the Occupiers would lead us to overthrow the US Constitution. Following the goals of the Tea Party would permit us to uphold and defend it and even to restore it. This is no small distinction, and it’s key to the left’s endless propaganda in favor of the Occupiers: They want an end to this country as you have known it, and they are working diligently to bring it about. The Occupiers have almost nothing in common with the Tea Party except in the most superficial sense: They’re both protest movements, and they both oppose some establishment, but the character of their protests and the nature of the establishments against which they rally are very nearly perfectly and diametrically opposed. They couldn’t be more different. After spending the last three years hammering the Tea Party, you might now ask why the media is trying to link the Occupiers to them. The answer is simple: They’ve done their polling research and found that the American people have more positive regard for the Tea Party, but have very rapidly realized the Occupy Wall Street movement is nonsense. They’re also trying to create a false equivalence for another purpose: To make the two interchangeable in the minds of Americans. Thankfully, the vast bulk of the American people are not that stupid, and that notion simply will not sell. The American people have seen the difference. It’s too late to pretend otherwise.
Brace yourselves: Today is the day the Occupy Wall Street movement intends to shut down New York. They plan to shut down Wall Street, and they plan to shut down the subways. While they claim to be non-violent, yesterday an Occupier was arrested after threatening violence using Molotov cocktails against Macy’s, and saying that they would burn the city down. This man proclaimed: “We’re gonna burn New York City to the [expletive] ground.” The video below actually led to the man’s arrest yesterday evening. This gives some indication of what at least some of the protesters intend, but organizers still insist they are non-violent. This video strongly suggests otherwise:
This isn’t a joke. These misguided people are being used as a base for socialist agitation, and they’re putting up the anarchist front to carry out the violence. New Yorkers should be prepared to seek refuge against violence, and find alternate means of transportation. Also, with all of this chaos, it’s the perfect opportunity for terrorists of another sort to strike. People really should remain vigilant in this environment, because there will be any number of participants who wish to incite a riot, and there will be any number of other elements who will wish to use such riots as cover.
All of this demonstrates clearly why Mayor Michael Bloomberg should be tossed by the electorate. Anybody who has the reins of power in such a vast city, and yet fails to responsibly confront this sort of anarchical movement for most of two months really has no business in that position. Of course, Bloomberg is a billionaire tool, so it’s really not surprising. Let’s just hope that this doesn’t get out of hand, and the violence that some protesters are threatening never materializes.
One must wonder if their intention to block access to subways isn’t an attempt to incite violence. I could easily understand how somebody blocking my path to my timely arrival at my job, particularly in these woeful economic conditions, could easily cause me to lose my composure if somebody were preventing me from access to transportation. There will be those who see this as a threat to their jobs, and thus their families and their financial lives. That’s the intention of the Occupiers with this move, and it’s almost certain to cause serious trouble.
As I said, they claim “non-violence,” but their actions are designed to provoke it. It’s been clear what would happen when these poor fools outlived their usefulness to their masters as a mostly peaceful camp-in. It’s that time. Be careful out there.
The Obama Administration’s Bureau of Labors Statistics published the October unemployment numbers on Friday, and to the somewhat uninformed, the numbers might seem improved, if not wonderful. Unemployment fell to 9.0%, down a tenth of one point from the previous month, and 80,000 jobs were created. Good news, right? Not so fast. When our economy is limping along, we create at least 250,000 jobs per month, but when the economy is really running well, we should expect to see job creation numbers in the range of one-half million per month. More, examining the unemployment numbers closely, you realize that something is wrong: They’re adjusting the size of our overall workforce downward, so that mathematically, it must look better in each successive statistical period. The BLS did a gross adjustment at the end of last year, and they’ve been tweaking it all along. What they’re doing essentially eliminates the long-term unemployed from the workforce, assuming they have retired or otherwise no longer seek employment. If you’ve been unemployed for any significant period of time, they’re simply not going to count you any longer.
What you need to understand is that in order to make it appear as though the overall employment picture is improving, this administration is pushing the BLS to make things look less dire than they are in fact. One way to combat the dis-information is to refer people to John Williams’ excellent Shadow Government Statistics (shadowstats.com) website. To receive all of his reports, there is a substantial fee, but what he provides for free is educational and important for people who generally follow the headlines, but seldom delve into the details.
Courtesy of ShadowStats.com
The chart at left is from his site, through the month of October, 2011. There are three lines on the chart, and it is important to understand what they represent. Once you understand what they mean, it’s astonishing to realize just how dishonest our government has become in reporting statistical data on matters of inflation and unemployment. The red line (U3) represents the official statistic provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The gray line represents a broader measure(U6) that includes short-term discouraged workers, and underemployed workers who have taken lower-paying, usually part-time work to have any job at all.
The blue line (SGS Alternate) is the most realistic number on the chart, because it reflects the real situation, and doesn’t attempt to write down the size of the total workforce as is done by the BLS. In 1994, the Bureau of Labor Statistics officially defined long-term discouraged workers out of existence, and with the labor force tinkering the BLS has been doing, all of this presents a rosier picture than exists in fact. Real unemployment now stands at over 22%. Ladies and gentlemen, that rivals the unemployment seen in the worst days of the Great Depression. We are at an unprecedented level of unemployment among men, African-Americans and teenagers/students. This is a disaster, and it is largely the result of a president who seems intent upon making it worse, in my view to radicalize more of our population, making revolutionary sentiment more prevalent. This is all adding to a highly destabilized country, and as the chart makes plain, it’s only growing worse.
When the shills for the Obama administration tell you that we’re in a recovery, and the economy is on the mend, you already suspect it is dishonest, because you don’t see any improvements. Now you know why you feel that way, and it’s not merely a “gut feeling” or “intuition.” It’s simple fact: As this government lies to you about the state of the economy, they intend to run for re-election and use this crisis of their own manufacture to prod the uninformed folks along in their direction. What do you think is the real meaning of the Occupy protests? Why do you think the Soros/Obama crowd is funding and supporting these protests? They need an army of radicals to carry out their Marxist designs, and this is part of their long-tended strategy to accomplish that goal. “Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is the old lament, and now you know why the last of these can be so dangerous.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
When a former Marine, Scott Olsen, was injured during a police response at Occupy Oakland, a number of people were upset, including other veterans. The problem with this is that in so doing, we are assigning this guy supposed credibility and virtue on the basis of his prior service to our nation. Being a veteran myself, I know that there are all sorts of people in the service, and not all of them are so deserving of our presumptions about their personal virtues. I think it’s becoming clear that Olsen may not have been the oh-so-virtuous veteran who the media and their darlings in OWS have been trying to portray him to have been. Rather than being a case of his being dishonored, it seems clear to me that he dishonored the US Marine Corps.
Instead of being an heroic Marine, it turns out that he’s the founder of the website IHateTheMarineCorps.com, where he posted the following:
Screen Capture of cached site Owned by Scott Olsen
Keywords: screw the maqrine corps, i hate the marine corps, how to get out of the marines early, veerp anyone, fart mesuring unit, actual honesty mediafire marines, what is the njp punishment for insubordination
It seems unlikely that he was much of a Marine with this attitude. It’s being reported by WeaselZippers.com that he is a hero among the Moveon.org crowd. Why am I not surprised? I don’t think talking this way reflects well on his service. It can’t be that somebody who hates the Marine Corps as much as this guy professes could possibly be a good Marine. I think veterans should be concerned when a veteran is given the presumption of credibility and honor when in truth, the veteran in question isn’t up to the standards others have met, and worst of all, defames the institution in which s/he served. It’s easier to understand, given this attitude, how this guy could have come to be injured. Apparently, he didn’t like following lawful orders. That’s not the kind of Marine I knew when I was in uniform. They would have been embarrassed to have been associated with a guy like this.
In 2010, the Marines issued Olsen an “administrative discharge.” Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marines spokesman based in Quantico, Va., declined to discuss Olsen’s discharge, but said his departure could have been for anything from a medical condition to a punitive measure.
Editor’s note: We millions of veterans know well the meaning of a less-than-honorable discharge, and veterans who complete their service with honor are generally proud to have done so. I am.
Update #2: From a Commenter The claim is that Olsen may not have registered the domain Ihatethemarinecorps.com I remain skeptical because the domain was registered in 2009, and to have somebody registering such a domain fraudulently in 2009 in order to “smear Olsen” in 2011 after an event nobody could have predicted seems implausible on its face. I will await further facts before drawing conclusions on this aspect of the story.
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
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”.
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.
It’s time for you to grasp reality. Not your morality, nor mine, but objective reality. It’s time to cast off the childish wishing that your putative leaders have been pushing. It’s time for you to recognize that there are no free lunches, no free money, and that there can be no Utopia on this Earth. For once, I’m asking you to do what your leaders will not: I’m asking you to think. I’m asking you to consider the real meaning of what they’ve been telling you and what they really intend. Because I believe you have been misled, some of you rank-and-file occupiers, I want to give you the tool you need to understand the concept of money in a way you may have never understood it before. You already have minds, which is the most important tool humans possess, but it’s time to put it to work as you have never done before. Euro Pacific Capital CEO Peter Schiff tried to tell you, but instead of listening to what he was saying, you tried to shout him down. He was offering you the most valuable information in the last two hundred years of human history, and you ignored him, or shouted at him without recognizing the great value he was providing you, for free. I intend to offer you the same knowledge in a different form.
I believe that part of the problem in the situation with Schiff was that a sort of mob mentality took over, and people simply couldn’t hear what he was saying because the emotional mood of the crowd wouldn’t permit them to hear it or acknowledge it, let alone contemplate or understand it. In order to give you a second chance, when no crowd is gathered, and you’re alone with your thoughts, I’ve posted a page that contains a timeless book excerpt with which your teachers and professors should have made you familiar, but chose instead to conceal from many or even most of you. If you’ve never read it before, please do so now and consider its full meaning. Even at this late date, we still have a chance to save this country, but salvation will not come on the streets of New York. Instead, it will be born of great minds and a firm understanding of the morality of money. <<< Read it. Save your life while it’s still possible.
Once you understand that, you’ll understand why the protests in which you are now participating on Wall Street and around the country are actually statements against the world you so desperately need. You won’t get what you want through this OWS movement, and what you must discover is that your adversaries aren’t so much on Wall Street as they are on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC. You’re being used, and if you permit them, they will quite literally use you to death. It’s their modus operandi, and if they weren’t so interested in concealing that from you for what should become increasingly obvious reasons, you’d know that they’re planning to serve you up like chum for sharks. You needn’t go out that way. There is an alternative, but if you are to avoid what your alleged “leaders” and those who fund them have in store, you’re going to need to realize the facts. This is your chance. You won’t get many more.
The Occu-Pests are beginning to realize that while they’ve been camped out in Zuccotti Park, and elsewhere around the country, they’ve merely provided a distraction from other news that has permitted banking to go on as usual. As I reported here over the week-end, the actions of Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan should have caught the attention of anybody concerned about the continuing threat of a US debt crisis, but everyone is distracted with Gaddafi’s death, and several other over-hyped issues, including the Occu-Pests. The problem is that the Occu-Pests are mostly Marxists, being organized by people friendly to the administration that is actually carrying out the very policies the Occupiers seem to oppose.
What they haven’t figured out, yet, is that they are being used as a distraction. The longer they sit in their tents and march in the various venues around the country, they’re being made into the bad guys because they truly are a nuisance, and some lesser proportion of their number are prone to violent acts and vile behaviors. In short, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. Each day they remain on station, they are decreasing their impact and merely giving cover to bad government policies.
Last Friday, on Rolling Stone, one of these Occu-Pests laments that “Washington still doesn’t get it.” I’ve got news for the poor fool: Washington “Gets it” quite well, but you, on the other hand, do not. Washington understands very well that the longer you occupy Wall Street, the more cover they will have. At the end of his article, Matt Taibbi posits this:
“If anyone thought OWS has already done its job, and Washington has gotten the message already, think again. They’re not going to change until the protesters force them to change, it seems.”
This is maniacally self-aggrandizing, and it’s also delusional. “Force?” Does Matt Taibbi really believe that they can “force them to change?” They number in the hands-full of thousands, but even a mass march of perhaps a million or more Tea Party types was unable to “force them to change.” Or is Mr. Taibbi admitting of a willingness to use actual violence? If he is, he has even less grounding in reality than I had suspected. There is a simple fact that Mr. Taibbi doesn’t understand, but he eventually will, one way or the other: The protesters at OWS are being used. Their numbers are insignificant to anything but a publicity stunt, a photo op, and a distraction. This sort of protest will have no effect against the greater will of the American people. The very people who have helped to create the OWS movement have been using them as cover for their own agenda right along, but the OWS folk have been too naive to realize it. George Soros, who is indirectly behind much of this, must be laughing at the harrumphing going on among the OWS folks about their lack of impact. They’re having exactly the impact they were supposed to have: While they protest, Soros and his pals are looting the future of this country and the OWS people shriek at Wall Street.
It’s sad in one sense while fitting in another that as they protest for notions none of them seem too firmly to grasp, they’re being played by the very people who have organized them there. They still believe they’re an organic protest, but it’s laughable to suggest, and besides, to the degree there is any real grass-roots activism, it is being steered by those who have stage-managed this entire side-show. Now here’s the real problem they face, these poor Occu-pests: The day is quickly approaching when they will have out-lived their usefulness, if it hasn’t happened already, and then the people who helped organize them are going to make examples of them in the name of “maintaining order.” Watch and see what happens. If these poor fools stick around very long, the powers who brought them forth will use agent provocateurs to instigate violence, and it will be made to look like the Pests themselves initiated it. George Soros reportedly met with Police Commissioner Ray Kelly in New York, so it’s possible that the hammer is about to fall on the hapless Occu-Pests. I’m not certain that this isn’t part of what caused the riot Tuesday night at Occupy Oakland. I think the natives are getting restless, and the provocateurs are pushing things. This is how they will create the spectacle in which the Occu-Pests will be sacrificed. It’s sad to think that these poor knuckleheads have been so thoroughly duped by their leadership, but there you have it. There’s a reason they’re known as “useful idiots.”
Dallas police are investigating whether there was a sexual assault of a 14yo girl in the encampment of Occupy Dallas behind City Hall. It was only a matter of time before these sorts of cases cropped up, as these Occu-Pest encampments are loaded with degenerates of every description. These same people think they should be able to live without reference to cause and effect, so this sort of incident isn’t really surprising. I don’t understand why the Mayors in these cities don’t start to crack down on this, as it seems the ridiculous behavior is becoming, well, more ridiculous. One protester actually said this in an interview with CBS Dallas:
“We’ll find out what the truth is and if that’s her story, that she was having sex with older men in the park, I guess we really need to watch the age group that’s coming in here and get control of that,” protestor Rich Coffman said.
I have a better idea: Let’s not permit sex there at all. Is this a protest or an orgy? It shouldn’t be possible that an adult of any description goes to a public place and sets out to have sex with anybody, be they an adult or a minor. Of course, everybody is pretending they thought she was 19yo. As it turns out, she may be a runaway. Add to this that these people are conducting themselves in this fashion publicly, and I think it’s time to begin enforcing the laws, don’t you? From the article:
Occupy Dallas organizers said they’ll implement a 10 p.m. curfew and check the identification of anyone seen walking the grounds after that time.
That’s just nifty! We should all be relieved that this organization of misfits is now going to “police themselves.” Hint: If these were responsible people, they wouldn’t be camped out behind City Hall.
Remember when Barack Obama was on the campaign trail in 2010, and told supporters it would be hand-to-hand combat if Congress changed hands? Now with the Soros/Obama-backed Occu-Pests becoming more violent by the day, we should begin to assess the President’s culpability. This is stunning considering that in early 2011, after the shooting in Arizona that seriously wounded Representative Giffords, the President urged that we turn down the rhetoric. Has he? No. He and his cohorts on the extreme left are still pushing the rhetoric of violence, although more frequently by shaded implications. back in September, when James Hoffa Jr. was introducing Obama, the rhetoric was nothing but violent. Barack Obama declined to distance himself from Hoffa’s remarks in any way. His reliance on surrogates for the violent rhetoric shouldn’t get him off the hook for his support of its ends.
The truth is that Obama wants and needs violence to carry out his destruction. It’s the normal progression of leftists everywhere to begin with strikes and protest marches and end in violence and revolution. History offers us no shortage of examples of this principle, and yet Obama unabashedly continues this trend. I don’t care whether this man is legally qualified to sit in the office of the President of the United States or not. His enmity toward this country disqualifies him on a moral basis. His reliance on this sort of rhetoric, either directly or through surrogates, merely serves to embolden the Occupy Wall Street crowd in escalating their violence.
Monday, we’re being reminded just how out-of-control Obama really is as he seeks to circumvent Congress on his way to implementing parts of his “Jobs Bill” via alleged regulatory authority. This is just another indication of how thoroughly willing Barack Obama is to ignore the Constitution and make things up as he goes in favor of “spreading the wealth” but more particularly, destroying the United States via so-called “fundamental change.” He’s reckless, dangerous, and increasingly, treasonous. This level of activities outside the bounds of his constitutional authority is something upon which Congress must act. Of course, with Democrats controlling the Senate, it’s not likely we will get results there, but it’s damned-well time to try.
These are not the behaviors of a man who is intent upon upholding his oath of office, and for this reason, Barack Obama must go. Our country will not recover and it will not heal from the grievous wounds he’s inflicted by his policy and his advocacy. Whether the Congress removes him, he resigns, or he is simply defeated in the Presidential election of 2012, Barack Obama must leave the presidency, and the sooner the better.
The New York Post is reporting that all is not happy at Occu-Pest Central down at Zuccotti Park, in New York. It seems the Occupy Finance Committee (don’t you love their use of “committee” just like full-fledged communists) has a war-chest of some $500K and Occu-Pests want some of that wealth spread around to compensate them for losses of equipment, particularly drums, due to vandalism. Every protest movement needs a finance scandal, and now the Occu-Pests have one, complete with angry drummers. It was only a matter of time, but the stunning part is how naive these people really are about the ways of the world and the facts of the ideology they claim to hold as their ideal.
One angry Occu-Pest told the New York Post:
“F–k Finance. I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction and demands to see the movement’s books. We need to know how much money we really have and where it’s going,” said a frustrated Bryan Smith, 45, who joined OWS in Lower Manhattan nearly three weeks ago from Los Angeles, where he works in TV production.
Of all the complaints cited in the New York Post article, none provided me more entertainment than this:
“The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request — so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items — and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?” Smith fumed, even as he cajoled the passing crowd for more cash.
This sad spectacle of a Marxist demanding money, and then angry about bureaucracy is absolutely revelatory of how disconnected these people are from history and reality. Note to Mr. Bryan Smith:
You are agitating for a change in form of government and an elimination of the private sector, and you want less bureaucracy? Who do you think is going to be running your life if you have your way? My bet is that you won’t be beating a drum for a living at a protest rally. Really, grow up and face the reality: That demand for paperwork is what you’re ultimately demanding from the universe at large in this entire enterprise. Don’t be unhappy now that you’re getting your first taste of it. Wait until your Finance Committee is answering to a Central Committee that in turn answers to some sort of Politburo. That’s where your wishes are taking you, pal. Don’t shrink in revulsion from the sight of the monster you’ve helped to create. Revel in it. This is the future, the hope, and the change for which you’ve been protesting.
