Category Archives: Political polemics

OCCUPY WALL STREET, GRASS ROOTS OR ORGANIZED FROM THE START?

Both sides of the media are reporting that the movement known as Occupy Wall Street is a serendipitous event, something that just sprung up naturally from a garden of discontent.  But did it?

On September 17, 2011 a few students sat on the sidewalk in lower Manhattan and called their little protest group Days of Rage (DoR).  Supposedly this was the genesis of the larger movement now known as Occupy Wall Street (OWS).  If OWS was a spontaneous outgrowth from DoR how do you account for the fact that occupywallst.org was registered as a website domain on July 14, 2011, a full two months prior to the first day of the Wall St Days of Rage sit in ?

OWS appears to be a well planned fully orchestrated program in response to the Tea Party.  Make no mistake, OWS is a national operation.  Just days into the launch at the Brooklyn Bridge nearly 900 local community organizations from Florida to the State of Washington are up and running with event dates and websites.

.

Locations of OWS operations

A long list of supporters was posted on the website at www.occupywallst.org on Oct 4th but the page appears to have been taken down.  The SEIU and a NY Local of the American Federation of Teachers were among a list of ten to 15 unions.  MoveOn.org was one of the well known names on the longer list of advocacy groups behind the movement.

OWS is developing as a mirror image of the Tea Party, well dressed non-violent, heavily middle class and united behind a cause.  The Tea Party argues for less intrusive government and for getting federal spending under control.  The Tea Party is a force moving the country to the right.  OWS demonstrates against the rich, against the banks and against the financial foundations of capitalism.  OWS is a force that would move the country to the left.  At this nascent stage they appear to have a great deal of popular support, particularly from the middle class.

Socialist leaders have long known that a large and satisfied middle class is the greatest obstacle to gaining control in a democratic nation as prosperous as the U.S.  As long as the middle class is content with their status they will reject the appropriation and redistribution of their assets that socialism requires, supposedly for the common good.  One answer is force, i.e. violent revolution.  The other, and far better answer, is to foment unrest, build anger to the point where there is widespread dissatisfaction within the middle class.  And then present free markets as the cause and socialism as the cure.  The voters will do the rest.

Anger requires a target.  The rich, the banks and Wall Street suit the bill perfectly.  The rich are a defenseless minority that engender very little sympathy.  All that’s needed is a strong community organizer to set them up as the target, someone with some clout, someone with a bully pulpit.  Enter stage left – Barack Obama.

Saul Alinsky taught that socialism’s path to power is like a three act play.

Act I is join the crowd, gain respect, gain acceptance and legitimacy.
Barack Obama has done that.

Act II is the development of anger and the spreading of discontent to enroll as many supporters as possible for Act III.
By intent or not, Barack Obama is doing that.

Act III is the final wresting of control of the government from the establishment.
Barack Obama won’t be doing that, but it’s not for lack of trying.

There is no way to know the President’s real goal, but if it is the establishment of a socialist state he’s doing everything just right; and that includes Occupy Wall Street.

WHAT FREE MARKETS? NOT HERE.

When Sen. Dick Durbin stood up in the Senate chamber and told the American public not to do business with a bank he didn’t like, he threatened the free market system.  When the President of the United States confirmed and added to the senator’s condemnation, the free market system ceased to exist.

Free is free.  Half free is not free.  What we have is coercive capitalism, a form of fascism where private ownership of the means of production of goods and services is allowed, but where management is not free to follow the dictates of the market.  This, along with crony capitalism has been described by some as the new face of socialism in America.

John Hinderaker at Power Line has written an excellent piece that begins “Nice Bank You Have Here…, a shame if anything should happen to it… The Democrats took gangster government to a new level today…”  It’s an excellent post and falls into the category of required reading.  Don’t miss it.


Socialist leaders have long realized the challenge of establishing the Marxist form of socialism in a democracy like the United States is an insurmountable one.  A strong and prosperous middle class would never willingly accept a government that would appropriate ownership of private enterprise.  The alternatives are to employ force with a violent revolution (a very bad choice) or to allow private ownership but control it.

Control comes in many forms.  Durbin-Obama coercion is just one of them.  Other means of control include appointing czars to oversee various industries, misuse of executive orders, outright flaunting of established law and the passing of bills that are vague, thereby leaving the specifics to be set by the whims of the bureaucracy as dictated from above.  Go along get along becomes a near necessity.  Those who do more than go along, get along even better.  From Solyndra to GE, this is the new face of socialism in America.

SEVENTEEN TIMES AND WHADDAYA GET? NO JOBS BILL SUPPORT, AND DEEPER IN DEBT

Seventeen times in his post Labor Day speech the President said “Pass this jobs bill now” or words to that effect.  Problem one – there was no jobs bill.  There was just a speech.

A bill was presented a week later.  It was introduced in the Republican controlled House by a Republican, Rep. John B. Larson (R CT).  The bill was introduced in the Democratic controlled Senate by Sen. Harry Reid (D NV).  There are 193 Democrats in the House.  Not a single one has stepped forward to add his name as a co-sponsor of the bill.  There are 51 Democrats in the Senate.  Not a single one has stepped forward to add his name as a co-sponsor of the bill.  Barack Obama has lost the support of his party.

WALL STREET, BEDLAM on the BRIDGE

Wall Street Days of Rage has mushroomed into Occupy Wall Street.  Today it’s not enough just to demonstrate, you must also give the event a name.  And don’t forget to bring the fun stuff.  After all, it’s more about the Coors than it is about the Cause.

One wonders how many of the Occupy Wall Street crowd took the day off from work to occupy the bridge. Work?  Did I just hear someone laugh?  How much would you bet on the chance that their unemployment rate is a hefty multiple of the rate for Tea Party demonstrators?  Work is about contribution; the motto here is distribution not contribution.  And what was the point of shutting down the Brooklyn Bridge?  One demonstrator said she thought they were welcomed by the police.

What brought the Wall Streeters out?  And why now?  Santelli’s Rant inspired the Tea Party.  It’s Obama’s Rant that inspired the Wall Street attack.  Santelli’s outburst was serendipitous, a one time event.  Obama’s rants, on the other hand, are well planned out and repeated again and again in prepared speeches.

Saul Alinsky’s prime rule for radicals is strategy number thirteen, “Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”.  The President chose a perennial favorite for a target, Wall Street.  He freezes it by staying on point, hammering away, hammering away.  He personalizes it with “fat cat” and “corporate jet” remarks and polarizes it with a constant stream of agitation from the presidential bully pulpit.  It’s one thing he does very well.

As an agitator, the man is a genius.  As a president, he is a disgrace.

WASHINGTON D.C. vs. THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA

The United States is suing one of its united states for enforcing laws that United States law requires be enforced.  Got it? Yesterday, author Katie Pavlich began a story in Townhall with this:

Earlier today, I had the privilege of sitting down with National Sheriff of the Year Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu to discuss his reaction to Operation Fast and Furious and his ongoing fight against ruthless drug cartels. After our conversation, it became clear the Obama Administration is fighting him with lawsuits and by arming the very cartels he and his deputies are trying to combat in the Arizona desert.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu is fighting what he describes as the most ruthless criminals in North America, on American soil in Southern Arizona. In his county, cartels use look-out posts, or “spotters,” to detect and move around law enforcement, and shootouts with cartels members are a normal occurrence.

Katie’s headline asks “but Whose Side is Obama On?”  We have the answer and it’s not pleasant.  Play the video.


Pavlich also points out that the U.S. government paid — correction — you and I paid for many of the guns in the hands of the drug cartel.  Read about it here.

(Hat tip to Denis for the video)

GALLUP – RECORD 81% DISSATISFIED WITH CURRENT GOVERNMENT


Results of a Gallup poll released today show that a “record-high 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed…”.

What can we infer from that?  First, a large number of people who voted for Obama are sorely disappointed.  That’s the price they paid, the price we all paid, for their not doing their homework.  Admittedly, it was a task that required some self study, not one easily resolved by watching the evening news and reading an occasional newspaper.  However, when a candidate for President of the United States launches his political career from the home of a virulent unrepentant anti-American terrorist and takes as his beloved mentor and spiritual leader a black liberation theologist like Jeremiah Wright, doesn’t that call for doing some homework before voting for him?

Secondly, can we infer that the President has little chance of winning a second term?  No we cannot.  We might if the election were to be this November rather than the next.  A year and a month are like an eternity in politics.  Community organizers know how to work up a crowd and this community organizer was very good at his job.  His tools are class warfare, stoking envy, channeling rage, appealing to liberal guilt and of course, race.  His techniques are covered in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. 

That is a formidable arsenal.  Barack Obama wants what he sincerely thinks is best for his own people and for his vision of a better America.  He is a deeply dedicated man.  The President is a powerful fundraiser and a strong campaigner.  Never discount such a person.

 

FREEMAN IS LOOKING THROUGH RACE COLORED GLASSES

Black actor Morgan Freeman had this exchange on the Piers Morgan show: (click here for the video)

FREEMAN: Mitch McConnell. Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What’s, what does that, what underlines that? “Screw the country. We’re going to whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.”

PIERS MORGAN: But is that necessarily a racist thing?

FREEMAN: It is a racist thing.

PIERS MORGAN: Is it not Republicans, wouldn’t that say that about any Democrat president?

FREEMAN: No…

Early in his presidency, Barack Obama promised his stimulus bill would bring down unemployment.  He warned unemployment could rise as high as 8% if his bill did not pass Congress.  It passed quickly and easily.  Unemployment soared to over 9% and is still there.  Particularly hard hit are black Americans with rates over 20% in some districts.

Obama promised the first thing he would do is close Gitmo.  Gitmo is still open.  He promised to bring all of our troops home quickly from Iraq.  Troops are still there.

Obama promised unprecedented openness in government.  He said he would open the doors wide for CSPAN to cover debates on every important issue and then he shut them out of coverage on the health care bill.  We got less openness, not more.  Obama promised he would require every bill presented to him to be published on the internet for 5 days of public comment before signing it.  And then even Senators and Congressmen weren’t given copies of the bill, if they were Republicans, until 3 days before they had to vote on it.

When Barack Obama assumed office the country was dangerously in debt.  Instead of proposing steps to bring the debt down to safe levels, he campaigned incessantly for dramatic increases in spending to the point where our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in history.

Obama submitted a budget that was so out of line with realities that not even one single Democrat would vote for it.

He has alienated our friends, coddled our enemies and pointed out our shortcomings in speech after speech made abroad.  Black Caucus members have recently expressed their dissatisfaction with the President.

Mr. Freeman, don’t you suppose, just suppose, that some people might object to Obama’s presidency, not because of his color, but because of what he has done?

CHUCK SCHUMER FOR PRESIDENT

The Democrat’s dilemma – go in 2012 with an apparent loser or give up the race card and draft Hillary.  The race card is pretty well played out.  It’s gone from an Ace to a Ten, or maybe a Jack at best.  Drafting Hillary would be the Democrat’s best chance, but what if Hillary declines to run?  Who is up next?  Chuck Schumer.

Sen. Schumer can bring in all of those NY State electoral votes.  He has the stridency that appeals to the party base and the NY sophistication which appeals to the party elites.  Whoever runs, it is beginning to look like it is not going to be Barack Obama.  The man has been a disaster for the economy, has dealt a crushing blow to blacks and has been a great disappointment to socialists who thought their day had finally come.

A day is like a year in politics.  But party strategists must make their decision now.  And now it looks like the Democratic candidate will be a sacrificial lamb.  Hillary isn’t the type to volunteer for a slaughter.  If not Schumer, then who, Al Sharpton?  (That was a joke).  How about Al Gore?  He won once before.

OBAMA’S FAVORITE SON

WARREN WINS THE COAT OF MANY COLORS

As folks who speak in the vernacular would say, this photo ‘got to me’.   I met Warren Buffet only once.  It was in Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. The occasion was a luncheon at the offices of the New York Society of Securities Analysts where I was a member at the time. Perhaps my reaction is just a personal one due to a sensitivity heightened by the timing, so close to 911.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an award bestowed by the President of the United States and is the highest award of honor given to a civilian.  It recognizes those individuals who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

Warren Buffet is a man of integrity and good will.  Lenin called such well intended people who supported his reign “useful idiots”.  I find it grating to see our President grant such a high honor to someone best known  as a political advocate for one of the President’s controversial political positions.

I suppose there was no other choice. We do not have a Medal of Useful Idiocy, although a medal for cowardice was actually proposed a couple of years ago. It was to be called the Medal of Courageous Restraint. Click the link to see what we wrote about it. It was a good post.

YJCMTSU  (You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up)

FAKE ECONOMIST SEES ONLY SHAME IN 911. IT’S KRUGMAN OF COURSE

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...

Image via Wikipedia

Paul Krugman couldn’t bring himself to say one single decent thing about one single human being in his New York Times column on the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy.  Thousands of real heroes, 2.977 victims, every one innocent, a solemn day of remembrance and this Nobel Prize winner cannot put his ideology aside to say one word in honor of the dead.  He uses the day only to vent his anger.  Hate consumes a man’s soul.

Forgive me for my immodesty, but I ask you to compare what this high school graduate wrote in the post below to what the New York Times just published by a Princeton professor with a PHD.  Now tell me, if you were the publisher of the world’s paper of record, which writer would you hire and which one would you fire? Would you go with the PHD or the common man?