Legal Reality Newsletter – Who is behind the Occupiers?Posted: October 14, 2011 | |
14 October A.D. 2011
The main focus of the article forwarded is this question: Just who is behind the Occupiers?
The insightful position presented by Limbaugh isn’t included in that article, so it’s included, here.
Here’s the webpage from which comes the segment below, which is the last part of that page.
RUSH: Now, there’s something interesting, too, about the protests. We’ve talked to you before, last week, week before that, I think, about this group, this magazine called Adbusters. You know, Adbusters is also very much involved in the Occupy Wall Street Now movement. And David Brooks, you know, a clock is right twice a day. David Brooks has a column in the New York Times today with an interesting implication. He writes that the impetus for Occupy Wall Street was sparked by Adbusters magazine.
Now, Adbusters magazine, you may not have heard of them, but within certain circles Adbusters magazine is known for quite a lot and one of the things that they did that stands out was an essay in 2004 entitled “Why Won’t They Say They Are Jewish?” David Brooks says that that 2004 essay in Adbusters outed influential Jews as a tiny elite with a nefarious grip on America. The old Jewish power brokers, the movies, the bankers, that stereotype, that conspiracy theory. (interruption) Well, not just the neocons. This was an attack on — neocons included in it — but this was an attack on all Jews, this was an anti-Semitic bunch. And some people no doubt are gonna think that Brooks is on to something here. These people are running around saying “I’m the 99%.” These signs I just shared with you in the first half hour of these people writing, “I am the 99%” is how each of them ends. That’s the last line in each of these signs, or messages, that these people are writing. But they are touting themselves as the 99%.
Now, some people think the 99%’s also the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation because that group also calls themselves the 99ers, but the 99% versus the 1% is another angle that the group is talking about here, and Wall Street and bankers, those two terms have been anti-Semitic code for Jews in this country for a long time. Occupier, Occupy Wall Street Now. I’ve often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate. There’s a lot of interesting stuff here. Occupy Wall Street Now, 99%, that leaves 1%, roughly the percentage of Jews in the population, too. And Wall Street and bankers have been anti-Semitic code for Jews in this country going back quite a while.
Now, what’s happening here is that the Democrats… This is where Brooks may be on to something. It’s too early to tell. But the Democrats are embracing this group of people. They are embracing them big time. The Democrats — Jan Schakowsky in Illinois, members of Congress — cannot help themselves. They are embracing this group and encourages this group. Celebrities are showing up now. Kanye West shows up with Russell Simmons, and he was wearing his big gold chains, and he hung around for a while. He did a perp walk, signed some autographs and had to get out of there because he was mobbed by these people. But this Adbusters bunch has a history of anti-Semitism, proud anti-Semitism. (interruption) The article about Jewish “neocons” was just one of their pieces, Snerdley, that you mentioned here, along those lines.
And a lot of people, a lot of people like to think that Wall Street’s all made up of Jewish people. We’re the ones that mentioned this last week. We’re the first to tell you that Adbusters was deeply involved in this. I wouldn’t be surprised if Brooks got the idea from this program. I’m gonna do a content search and I’m gonna go back and I’m gonna get the exact thing I said about Adbusters last week or the week before, whenever it was ’cause now people are starting to pick up on this. So here’s the point: If this group is being organized and paid for by a bunch of anti-Semites and the Democrat Party goes overboard in embracing this group of people, then this could be problem for the Democrat coalition, not to mention the fact that they could unleash a bunch of anti-Jewish racism down there if they’re not careful with this, ’cause there’s much more going on here than you just see at the surface.
This is not just the unions showing up or Craigslist or other people. This is Adbusters offering to pay these people to show up: $350 to $650 a week. Well, that’s Working Families Party doing that, the Working Families Party which is an offshoot of ACORN. So, look, you have a protest manufactured, no doubt orchestrated out of the White House. This is what the left does for a living. So you have all kinds of people now folding themselves into this, trying to take credit for it, be instrumental in its movement and its direction and its purpose. And it is not gonna be hard for this thing to get outta hand. I’m talking about politically for the Democrats. This is gonna end up being a tiger by the tail they’re not gonna be able to control if they’re not careful.
I’m not predicting it. (interruption) What’s the exit strategy? When they get tired. When they get tired, you know, when the free drugs run out, when the free tobacco rubs out, when the free sex runs out, when they get bored they’ll move on to something else. Or when the organizers say, “Okay, enough” and the word gets spread. But right now there’s — that’s not gonna end any time soon. This is just now getting energized, and the media reporting on this is just now getting up to speed in a way that the organizers hope that it would be. So it’s gonna be going on for a while. And Bloomberg said, “Hey, as long as you don’t break the law you’re welcome to stay here as long as you want.” Of course they’re breaking the law and nobody’s enforcing it. You let a Tea Partier defecate on the hood of a cop car and you see if you can go three minutes without hearing about it.
RUSH: Here’s what I said on this program October 5th, so it was basically six days ago: “Now, the idea of Wall Street protests, this bunch — the idea for doing the Occupy Wall Street protest — was started by Canadians. It’s the brainchild of a Canadian anti-consumerist magazine called Adbusters which registered the domain name OccupyWallStreet.org back in June. [emphasis and color added]. Now, among other things this bunch, Adbusters, the “anti-consumerist” magazine, has a long histoire of anti-Semitism. So in their corrupt and perverted minds Jewish money traders, Jewish bankers on Wall Street, why, it’s a natural target. So you have a group in Canada, largely steeped in anti-Semitism, providing the idea for this.” Who was it that arranged for protestors to go to the homes and the front lawns of AIG executives to protest their bonuses?
Who is it that has websites that organize all of this? Now we know it’s the same exact people, the so-called Working Families Party, are one of the groups paying these protestors — the same people that organized the terrorizing of those AIG execs in their homes. So that’s what’s going on here. There is nothing spontaneous about this at all. It’s purely political, and it’s being run by a bunch of anti-Semites, and you have Democrats — totally oblivious to that — running around embracing this. It’s a fuse that’s been lit, and who knows if it’s gonna go all the way down to the bomb and blow up. We’ll do what we can here to see that the fuse doesn’t get extinguished. There has been some violence. There’s violence everywhere. There has been debauchery every. There’s destruction of private property, 700 arrests, of course.
Yeah, I was wearing my Nostradamus hat yesterday, predicted all this. Adbusters? I would be surprised if Brooks got this idea from me. Where else is Brooks gonna learn that? Where else is anybody gonna learn that? Anyway, that’s of minor concern. You have Kanye West, a guy who earns over $30 million a year — which is peanuts, he still, he earns $30 million a year, and still he’s out there protesting Wall Street “greed.” (interruption) No, I said “peanuts,” Snerdley, just to irritate people. I mean, the protestors have been attacking the police, but we never hear about any of that. There’s nothing peaceful about this — and I would say of these 99% people, the percentage of ’em that actually know anything, know what’s going on, who are competent or cognizant, would stun you how low. This is a bunch of hangers on. You put an ad out there $350 to $650 a week to come down there and maybe get sex and drugs? I mean there’s all kinds of groping of women going on; they’re being paid for it. Come down and get some free smack and get paid for it! Come down and get some free dope and be paid for it.
Marxist? Maybe. Anti-semetic? Maybe. Paid protestors? Definitely. Thing is, where it’s not all that clear who’s doing what, those with the microphones and printing presses can blame whomever, as is expedient at the time, in order to garner whatever political hay may be possible to harvest from it. “Do it and blame the political enemy” wasn’t a new idea when Hitler applied it Some things never change.
Legal implications? — That system which tolerates/allows/encourages the use of “funny money” is Anti-God, Anti-Liberty, and Anti-America. Those who use (and/or benefit from the use of) “funny money” to protest the “funny money” system (and its management staff, i.e., those who profit (most) from the “funny money” system) are, at best, internally confused.
Whether Marxism, or some other flavor of communism, or fascism, or “socialism,” or any other religion or economic policy that relies on “funny money” CANNOT apply in America, much less advance, without the commercial consent of those who voluntarily subject themselves to such. Those who are complaining, here, have the freedom of choice, which they’ve exercised and have apparently “enjoyed” the “benefits” of such choice, and they are, very literally, complaining about the consequences of the choices they’ve been allowed to make.
Who is compelled to participate in anything “wall street” is doing?
Who is compelled to use “funny money?”
Who is compelled to participate in a system that uses only “funny money?”
Greed will never be (completely) conquered this side of the Kingdom. But, a place to start to curb the current abuses is to stop playing the “funny money” game. Once the worthless-ness of “paper” is the norm, the use of that which keeps “big government” and “big banking” “in charge,” right now, will end.
For example, it’s because there’s a “funny money” system in place that there’s also an “income tax” system in place. The “income tax” hasn’t been a revenue source for quite some time now. So, what’s its purpose? Management of the amount of “money” in circulation. “Funny money” is loaned into existence. When the loan is paid, that amount of “funny money” ceases to exist, legally speaking. In between the origin and completion of that loan transaction, “funny money” exists in circulation. Picture a bath tub. The loans are the water faucets bring water into the tub. “Income tax” is just one of the drains (in the bottom and along the sides). The “money” in circulation has to be a minimum amount and it can’t (beneficially) exceed a certain maximum amount. Too little “money” in the tub, and commerce grinds to a halt. Too much “money” in the tub, and things become worth less. There’s a happy medium range in there, and managing that is quite the task. The management tools include all these myriads of “taxes” and “fines” and “forfeitures” and the like (this author includes the price of gas as a drain), which are the drains that moderate the “money” supply in the tub.
“Wall street” controls the “value” of paper.
Thus, an effective protest is the use of an honest system of weights and measures. The use of “funny money” (paper) is a vote for more of the same that we’ve got right now. Thus, legally speaking, whoever is truly behind (as in financing) that activity, they are truly confused, as are the ones being paid in “funny money” “dollars” (paper) to protest “wall street” (which controls the “value” of paper).
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe : firstname.lastname@example.org
——– Original Message ——–
|Subject:||Obama’s Red October Uprising|
|Date:||Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:01:24 -0700|
|To:||CCW On-Target! <email@example.com>|
Subscribe to Alexander’s Essays in The Patriot Post: click here.Alexander’s Essay – October 13, 2011
Obama’s Red October Uprising
The Resurgence of the American Socialist Movement
By now, you’re aware that the seeds of socialist dissent are being sown across our great nation, mostly within the fetid soil of urban centers, where cadres of activists coalesce under the aegis of “Occupy [fill in the blank].” It would be difficult to avoid the fanfare, given the amount ofLeftmedia coverage (read: promotion) that these protests receive.
According to my colleague Brent Bozell at Media Research Center, the protests were the subject of “more broadcast network stories in the first nine days than the Tea Party drew in the first nine months.”
Typical of the adoring coverage was this missive from ABC’s Diane Sawyer, who claimed the occupiers “have spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries — every continent but Antarctica.” (Seriously, this drama queen actually said “more than a thousand countries.”)
In stark ideological contrast to the Tea Party Movement, which seeks to restore Liberty and Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution, the socialist “Flea Party” movement occupying city blocks across our nation is composed of the latest generation of useful idiots and debauched opportunists.
Conservative political observers have uniformly written off these protests because they’re populated by the usual suspects — a mix of leftist protagonists supported by Ivy League ignorati, collegiate lemmings, paid union thugs, the socially disenfranchised, and a handful of unwitting poor folks. Though these protestors exhibit limited “intellectual occupancy,” I would caution that underestimating the threat to Liberty that these Occupier protests pose is a serious error. Reputable polling firms find that more than 35 percent of likely voters support the protests.
Just who is behind the Occupiers?
Here’s the short answer: Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist bourgeoisie.
As our editors have comprehensively revealed through the pages of The Patriot Post, from the time Obama first emerged on the national political scene in 2004, to the rise of his present-day regime, Team Obama has crafted a perilous national security crisis bent on “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” by imploding free enterprise and replacing it with Democratic Socialism.
So, while the Occupiers are of many guises their common thread is a storm-trooper adherence to Obama’s Marxist agenda.
The mob movement was organized by “Occupy Wall Street,” a front for the Marxist General Assembly movement, whose communications director, Brian Phillips, clearly articulated the organization’s primary objective “to overthrow the government.”
That goal has been echoed in the last two weeks from coast to coast, as affirmed by an Occupy LA leader, who proclaimed that nonviolence is not an option: “[T]he bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class. Long live revolution! Long live socialism!”
Their populist national slogan, “99 percenters v. 1 percenters,” implies that the American people are 99-to-1 in favor of forcibly redistributing the possessions of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to the other 99 percent.
This slogan, and its underlying message, is being promoted by William Ayers, the former Weather Underground radical. Ayers issued a “collective statement” for the Occupiers concluding “that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.”
As you may recall, Ayers is a close friend and former neighbor of Obama back in Barack’s “community organizer” days in the fashionable Hyde Park section of Chicago. It was Ayers who hosted, in his own home, the first fundraiser for Obama’s successful 1996 Illinois State Senate campaign, thus launching BO’s political career.
This latest rash of socialist protests has crafted its classist message around the revolution-tested politics of disparity, under the leadership of old-school radicals like Ayers.
They are building on Obama’s classist theme of “asking people who have benefited the most over the last decade to share in the sacrifice.” Of the current 99-percenter protests, Obama concludes, “I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel.”
Obama’s DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a bit more candid: “The protests are symbolic of the frustration that middle class folks and working people feel. … We understand their frustration, we applaud their activism and hopefully they’re going to help get the Republicans in Washington’s attention so we shift the Republicans’ focus from just Barack Obama’s job, to everyone’s job.”
Nancy Pelosi added, “The message of the protesters is a message for the establishment everyplace. No longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street. … God bless them for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”
Obama’s “Red October” uprising takes its inspiration from the 1917 Social Democratic Labour Party protests in Russia, which gave rise to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Then, as now, the economy was in serious decline. Then, as now, Bolshevik revolutionaries were young, some 85 percent of them under age 30. Then, as now, they issued decrees giving rise to “the most militant and class-conscious” protests.
When their protests had grown to sufficient strength, the Socialist Democrats concluded, “an armed uprising is inevitable, and that the time for it is fully ripe.”
It was a brief and bloody revolution, and at its conclusion, the protestors implemented policies that mirror proposals advocated by SDLP of today, the Occupiers: All real property was seized and redistributed, companies and factories were nationalized, all private wealth was confiscated by the state, Church properties were seized, and debts were repudiated.
Fast-forward about 100 years to the “99 percenters v. 1 percenters.”
Today, almost 35 percent of Americans aredependent upon government subsidies, and 40 percent of Americans pay noincome tax and thus have no stake in the cost of government. Consequently, most are predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others’ incomes rather than work for their own. Further, if theSupreme Court rules that ObamaCare comports with the so-called “living constitution” rather than strikes it down based upon Rule of Law, by 2013 the number of Americans who depend on the largess of the central government will swell to well over 50 percent.
Combine the dependent ranks, the sprouting seeds of socialist unrest and the grim reality that the American economy is at serious risk of collapsing altogether under the Obama “debt bomb“, and we have all the ingredients for an even bigger Red October uprising today and just before the election of 2012.
Should Barack Hussein Obama be re-elected in 2012, a prospect that, admittedly, seems rather inconceivable today, it would create the proverbial “perfect storm” to finish transforming the national landscape from one characterized by Liberty to one smothered by tyranny.
America is a great nation with a resilient economy and political system, but it is only kept so to the extent that the American people uphold the principles and values upon which that greatness is founded. However, for those who remain complacent in the belief that Liberty is self-perpetuating, that the question of transition of power by bullets rather than ballots is archaic, I remind you that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. Of such complacency, Samuel Adams wrote, “If ye love wealth better than Liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
(To submit reader comments click here.)
Policy and Analysis
(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)
The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2011 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
You have received this email because you are subscribed to The Patriot Post. To manage your subscription or to unsubscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us/manage/ and log in with your email address.