I am now a contributor to Daily Caller. In my latest article, I discuss my most recent appearance on RT, and the amazing number of comments I received from probable OWS supporters. What they have to say to me, about me and about what they want to do to me is, in a word, shocking….but one wonders if those words are also not surprising.
OWS supporters are doing a poor job of convincing me that they’re not anti-Semites
In a Wednesday appearance on the Russia Today television network, I discussed the violent confrontations between police officers and Occupy Wall Street protesters earlier this week in Oakland, California. I made it clear that I don’t condone police brutality. In fact, I am vehemently opposed to an oppressive police state. I also explained that though I disagree with the protesters’ radical agenda, I agree that cronyism is a real problem. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers on Wall Street, Main Street or any other street.
The segment lasted for the better part of 20 minutes. I had a spirited but friendly back-and-forth with my fellow panelist, OWS supporter Charlie McGrath. We agreed that there is no such thing as “too big to fail.” We agreed that violent rhetoric won’t help Occupy Wall Street get its message across (I still question what OWS’s message is, but certainly large-scale skirmishes with Occupiers hurling paint at police punctuated by tear gas being used on the protesters won’t make the message any clearer.) McGrath and I also agreed that it was strange that the show’s host kept showing clips of Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello at OWS rallies and asking us to comment on what he was saying.
Despite all these areas of agreement, the OWS-supporting viewers weren’t satisfied. In fact, many were furious. While a few supported my being on the show, the majority focused on my contention that many Occupiers are anti-Semites. Note: I have not edited the below comments from the Russia Today YouTube channel.
One commenter, “largegrainofsalt,” asserted that the fact that the protesters have observed Jewish holidays proves that they aren’t anti-Semitic:
tony wasn’t just an ass, he was demonstrably wrong. the protests are not in any way anti-semetic. several of the larger protest held events for a jewish holiday recently.
His comment was surrounded by others that undermine his thesis:
Tony Katz? What kind of surname is Katz? Another Jew-Zionist pig!!!!! This should speak volumes of what his message and hidden intent is: to protect the criminal dirt-bag jew element who have been ruining the world for decades. — waddietwo
Speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, President Barack Obama continued the meme that he started over a month ago when he opined that America is getting”soft.” At a $5,000 per ticket event, the President Obama stated:
President Obama’s objective wasn’t to inspire but rather to discourage, dishearten and dispirit. But, in the end, he underscored the meme that has been the hallmark of his presidency – it’s not me, it’s you….and I’m the answer.
I’ve summed up Obama’s views on foreign policy , the “Obama Doctrine”, as “What I want, when I want, where I want, how I want – Nobody does it better than I.” In his talk in front of the crowd in San Francisco, he proved the Doctrine can be applied to domestic policy as well (which is, to say, it doesn’t matter what he’s talking about, the Obama Doctrine is all about him!) Obama wants to paint the picture that America has gone soft, America has lost its edge. That America, and Americans, are incapable. But, if we listen to Obama, if we do what Obama says, if we live up to the standards Obama sets for us (Obamacare, the Democrat-defeated jobs bill, cap and trade), America will be better.
It is no wonder that Obama’s poll numbers are so low. Americans, with the exception of hard-core ideologues and some attendees at Occupy Wall Street, aren’t buying what Obama is selling. Not his Doctrine, nor his negative view of the American people. At this point, Obama is incapable of inspiration. With 9+% unemployment, a U-6 over 16%, a misery index of over 12% and the states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia up for grabs in 2012, it’s looking like President Obama is also incapable of re-election.
This is my latest article on BigPeace.com. While the left called FOX News and others scare-mongers for discussing the Libyan draft constitution (and its adherence to Sharia law,) it turns out that the truth was starting everyone in the face since August.
Big Peace Outhinks Think Progress, Sen. McCain on Libya, Sharia
At the end of August, the great minds at Think Progress were horrified at the prospect that Libya, if Gadhafi lost power, would end up being an Islamist nation utilizing Sharia Law as the foundation for its political and legal system. More to the point, Think Progress was feigning horror at those on the political right who referenced a blog from The Heritage Foundation that highlighted a draft constitution, and made the case for this possibility. From the blog: (emphasis mine)
Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.
But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).”Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.
Think Progress thought this was such a good way to go after the political right (in attempt to demonize them as scare-mongers and anti-Muslim) that they made a video attacking FOX News reporting the draft constitution, and highlighting Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the voice of reason:
The clip involves numerous interviews on FOX programs, where McCain spends time praising the interim government, including a statement that these are people “…he knows well.” In one segment during an interview with Steve Doocy on FOX AND FRIENDS, McCain sounded very sure about the situation with the Constitution in Libya:
Doocy: They can be talking about Sharia Law as the basis of their new constitution, and so what we might wind up with over there is something closer to a radical islamic government. And that’s not what we want.
McCain: Well, first of all, that’s not going to happen, and this business
Doocy: I hope you’re right.
McCain: about a constitution, I mean Sharia Law. They made a statement last March where they specifically stated that it is their mission that the rights of women and the equality of women are insured.
Two days after the Heritage blog came out, BigPeace.com contributor Clare Lopez stated: (emphasis mine)
By dealing preferentially with the Muslim Brotherhood and other shariah-adherents in both Egypt and Syria, U.S. leadership is enabling the substitution of secular tyranny with Islamic tyranny in both places. If the U.S. does the same thing in Libya and fails to provide strong, visible support to the genuine democrats, liberals, and reformers that do still exist in Libya, the outcome there will not be the one dreamy-eyed groupies of the Arab Spring envisioned, butanother new regime, founded on Islamic law, that is hostile to American interests and those of our remaining friends and allies
Islamic sharia law will prevail in Libya and any existing laws that contradict this will be repealed, National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Monday. ”As an Islamic country, we have adopted Sharia as the principal law….As an example is the law on divorce and marriage … This law is contrary to Sharia and it has been scrapped.”
For those keeping score: +1 for FOX News, +1 for BigPeace.com, -1 for Sen. McCain, -1 for Think Progress. The big losers, however, are the people of Libya who will now go from bad to unthinkably worse. -2 for President Obama, for leading from behind, and, as Lopez described, for failing to provide the “strong, visible support” needed to bring about a better result for the Libyans, and the world.
Here is my latest piece on TownHall.com, discussing the inability to compare the Tea Party and OWS. One movement – the Tea Party – has a vision and values. One movement – OWS – has no vision, no values and is not a movement at all.
Tea Party and OWS — No Comparison
Steve Annear has an article on Metro.US about the new safety team circulating the Tent City Square, a.k.a. Occupy Boston, a satellite of the original Occupy Wall Street. According to Annear, a team of eight people – armed with neon vests and walkie-talkies – patrol the make-shift town to keep the “residents” safe.
Why is this necessary? According to the article:
On the heels of an incident last Sunday night, when a heroin addict allegedly pulled a knife on protesters and urinated on a tent….One guard donning a neon vest, who declined to give his name, said they are trying to keep the peace by “rounding up junkies and trying to kick them out,” adding that the so-called junkies have continually been a problem.
I have organized, hosted and spoken at Tea Party events around the country, and we never – ever! – have had to organize a safety team. Tea Party participants, who’ve gathered in cities and towns all across the country, have never had to worry about their safety from within the movement – – only from without. (see: SEIU) Never once has there been a report of a “heroin addict” urinating on tents….then again, there have been no tents! After each event, Tea Partiers return to their families, work/job search, school, etc. Heroin addicts don’t seem to be attracted to the Tea Party. And we make sure to have our rallies near public restrooms (usually associated with the properly-permitted spaces) or provide port-o-potties.
There is a difference in the participants, because there is a difference in the cause. The Tea Party is based on what I call “The Four Basics” – – The Constitution, Capitalism, Fiscal Responsibility and Smaller Government. In a broader sense, it is based on shared ideals for the country. The Tea Party advocates smaller, leaner, more pragmatic government; equality of opportunity. We do, all of us in the Tea Party, “…hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
People are made equal. What they do with their lives is up to them! The Occupiers are promoting anti-Semitism, the return of the guillotine (while “maybe” a joke at first, many think it is a good idea, and that I should be under it!), a hodge-podge of hate, vitriol and false truths.
The people of OWS don’t look to the future, to a better America, to a free and prosperous people unencumbered by government overreach to pursue their dreams, wants and desires. OWS is long removed from its proposed (legitimate?) objective – exposing and objecting to the federal government picking winners and losers on Wall Street and the too-close relationship often engaged between – and is now focused on, well, nothing. They are promoting Communism, a failed system of failed people predicated on a impossible, inchoate proposition that all people can be forced into equality.
The Tea Party promotes a better future, based on the prodigy of our Founding Fathers. OWS promotes lies, based on the abject failure of the Marxist thesis. Their once (potentially?) worthwhile message has been, unfortunately, hijacked by proud socialists and Marxists, the Democratic party, the unions, and a smattering of Hollywood – the latter three all hoping that OWS can be the Left’s version of the Tea Party, thus giving them something positive to look to in this upcoming election season.
The article continued, with one of the “guards” explaining the situation:
“People wander in here high and drunk and try and get in tents…You’re always going to have drunk a—holes, wherever you go,” he said. “The safety team is pretty efficient. It’s not like this is a junkie haven.”
The reality is, you don’t have drunk “a—holes” wherever you go. It actually depends on where you go. The Tea Party went towards a more prosperous America, rooted in the Constitution that allows people to live to the moment of their happiness. OWS went towards “eat the rich,” urinating on tents, threatening reporters, blaming the Jews and sexual harassment.
This morning, I awoke to see that Twitter was all a-flutter with its latest trending topic – JUSTIN IS OUR EVERYTHING. Don’t complain about the all-caps, that’s the way it was written. Justin, of course, is Justin Bieber, the pop star sensation that has spawned million of fans all around the world. For this latest generation of pre-teens and teens (and the silent groups of so-called grown ups who hum “Baby” to themselves at odd times throughout the day!) Justin is, to them, The Beatles. The adoration is unbelievable (or, un-BIEB-able!)
Certainly, it’s ok to like Bieber’s music. It’s ok for pre-teen girls to find him cute. It’s ok for Bieber to make millions of dollars from people who like his music or think he’s cute.
But what if we replaced “Justin” with “Jesus?” Would the person who posted (as it is trending on Twitter) JESUS IS OUR EVERYTHING be told that his or her post is inflammatory? If written on a notebook brought to school, would they invite charges of being offensive? How many secularists would put the poster of such a Tweet to ridicule?
One of the great things about social media, and platforms like Twitter, is that they show us what the nation (the world) is thinking. It is a fascinating wide-angle lens on our culture. There is nothing wrong with liking Justin Bieber. Nothing wrong with loving the music. Nothing wrong with being a mega-fan. But what is it saying about our culture when stating that a musician is everything is good, but stating Jesus is everything would bring condemnation, ridicule or attack?
After watching the GOP debate in Las Vegas, only one thing is for sure – Mitt Romney is fallible. Everything else is up in the air. So, here now is my ranking of the winners and losers in this debate. Trust me, I know that half of you will disagree, half of you will agree and the other half will do both. Here it goes:1 – Newt Gingrich. Now, Michelle Malkinmay unfollow me on Twitter after this ranking (I really hope she doesn’t, I’m a huge fan!), but Gingrich’s superior performance in tonight’s debate is undeniable. He kept the focus on Obama. He refused to participate in the in-fighting. He scored points on all the issues – Latinos in the US, nuclear waste, Obamacare. Yes, he took a hit from Romney about his one-time support for an individual mandate – which should be framed in the context of opposing Hillary care in the 90’s – but it won’t be enough to derail his victory. Gingrich took a pro-American stance, sounded like a commander-in-chief, and will have former Perry supporters looking his way.2 – Rick Santorum. Turns out not taking hits can make you a winner (just look at Romney over the past few debates.) I don’t give Rick a chance to win the primary nomination, but he is one great scrapper! He was consistent on his push for American Exceptionalism and in his belief in G-d and the family. He was also fearless, whether taking on Romney, Cain, Paul, Perry or Bachmann. We are not ranking who will be the nominee, we are ranking who won the debate. Santorum came in second.
3 – Ron Paul. Again, it’s about the debate. And much of this debate continued the theme of the Bloomberg debate. As Ed Morrissey commented via Twitter, “Fascinating — we’re more than an hour in, and we’re still talking about economics after the econ debate.” That worked in Paul’s favor, where his comments on the Fed, government spending, healthcare and even foreign aid were well received by the audience. Unfortunately, Paul pushed memes that don’t connect, and lead people down a path of conspiracy theory – including the calling of America an “empire.” This is Paul’s last shot at the presidency, and he is in it till the end. He will always hit strong on the debate; he will always fall flat on foreign policy.
4 – Tie. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain. It’s not possibly for me to say which one did worse, and each had his moments. Romney proved he can be provoked. He proved that he can get scrappy. He proved that he can get in the Gingrich-esqe zinger (especially when he talked about Perry having a tough time in debates lately.) But he didn’t act like a president. His scolding didn’t come across as leadership. He allowed himself to be dragged into every two-bit schoolyard brawl. He has been masterful at being above the fray. That ended tonight…and ended ugly.
Perry had energy and vitality tonight. He was awake, ready to rumble. He came out swinging. However, if the bar for being successful in a debate is staying awake, the bar hasn’t gotten too far off the floor. Perry did not bring new ideas to America. He reached for his energy plan and then struggled to clearly explain it. His supporters admit he might not be the best debater. This is an understatment; you don’t have to be a great debater to be able to deliver your practiced speech about energy independence in the United States. Perry only gave reasons for his supporters to look at Cain or Gingrich.
As for Cain, he was winning this debate. Yes, he was forced to defend his plan for the first 15 minutes of the debate, but it was HIS plan! Cain was smart, he was aware, he was clear-thinking. The reiteration of his comments on Occupy Wall Street worked well for Cain. It strengthened his base. Then he was asked about negotiating with terrorists, and his words on Gitmo detainees. And as I tweeted during the debate, “Cain gets one foreign policy question, and stumbles….stunning.” Cain needed to be strong on foreign policy to guarantee himself front runner status. Instead, after the debate, he was quoted as saying, “…mea culpa…my bad. Y’all got that? I misspoke. I don’t want to negotiate with terrorists.” And that’s how quickly you go from winning to losing a debate….and perhaps an election.
7 – Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann simply doesn’t want to win. Anyone who wanted to win would not engage the American public the way she does. She had the right answers on the border, on taxation, on American Exceptionalism. Then she did the most unseemly thing possible – she spoke to “moms.” It was like watching a Lifetime movie. I kept looking for Meredith Baxter in the wings, ready to confront Michelle on a long lost love. Bachmann has all of the tools, but none of the instincts for presidential politics. Whatever she accomplished during the debate was mitigated by her shameless pandering to women.
Here is my article about Occupy Wall Street, as originally posted on BigGovernment.com. In it, I discuss my appearance on RT.com’s program CrossTalk, where two OWS supporters stated clearly that the desire is to transform America into a direct democracy. Also, when the show was put on YouTube, it received over 900 comments – many of them violent and anti-Semitic in nature. Some of them are listed in the article. Reader, be warned:
In the beginning, I was willing to accept that a group of unhappy citizens utilized their First Amendment rights to protest what they believe to be an injustice (as I have written here and here): the picking of winners and losers by government with a weak coverup attempt via cronyism. I accepted, at first, their claims of being a “non-violent” group wanting to have their grievances heard.
Yet, as the “movement” began to grow, it became obvious that being “non-violent” is “non-correct.” Quickly, the OWS protesters were co-opted by those who believe in violence as a legitimate means of achieving their objectives: Van Jones, who wants to see an “American Autumn” emulating the Arab Spring (which was, and still is, very violent), Michael Moore — who has stated publicly that the “rich” can give up their money now, peacefully, or later (though he doesn’t elaborate on what happens to get the money later, one can imagine), and even Roseanne Barr got into the mix. Barr actually said she longed for the return of the guillotine and re-education camps for those who don’t give up their wealth willingly.
In my appearance on CrossTalk, I was joined by Jason Del Gandio – assistant professor of rhetoric at Temple University and author of “Rhetoric for Radicals,” (a handbook for 21st century activists) and Kevin Zeese, organizer of October 2011.org and activist. In that program a few things came to the surface:
Both Del Gandio and Zeese pushed the meme that the organizations across the nation were non-violent. Zeese made it clear that they were not allowing themselves to be co-opted by Jones, Moore, the Democrat party or anyone else, claiming:
Van Jones is not part of the Occupy movement…he’s a Democrat…if Obama and the Democrats embrace us, they gonna be very sad to see that we will be protesting them as well…we see them as part of the crony capitalist corrupt economy that has resulted in 400 people having as much wealth as 154 million, not because they are smarter or work harder, but because they are politically connected and essentially bribing through campaign donations…
I pointed out that Democrats have both embraced and have co-opted the movement. How else could you explain the petition on the DCCC website asking people to support the OWS crowd? I then pointed out that the issue is not “crony capitalism.” Who wouldn’t be opposed to people who break the law to get ahead? Rather, the issue is that OWS is opposed to Capitalism and people being able to keep what they earn. The conversation went south from there:
Me : “You’re opposed to Capitalism. That’s the problem. You’re opposed to the idea of people working for what they earn…you think it should just be given to them. This is what you believe.”
Zeese: “That is not true. That’s not true. You’re absolutely wrong about that. You’re absolutely wrong about that, Tony.”
Me: “I’m not wrong about that. Take a look at your own words and your own actions. Take a look at the video by Andrew Breitbart where people are booing Capitalism.”
Zeese: “Tony is a loudmouth who makes up stuff. Tony is a loudmouth who makes up stuff….puts out false information.”
Let’s take a look at the video tape – courtesy of Mr. Breitbart:
People. Booing. Capitalism. It’s not made up. It’s not false information.
While there is much more in the video, the most frightening moment appears towards the end, when Del Gandio pushed the idea of “direct democracy” (emphasis mine):
Lavalle (Host): “Is this really a test of democracy in the United States? Because we talked about Capitalism but its about participation, isn’t it?”
Del Gandio: “…it’s about direct democracy. about reclaiming our democracy, redefining our democracy, repracticing our democracy in a way that is responsive to each of our wants, needs and desires.”
Me: “….we are not a direct democracy, and the Founding Fathers knew better. We’re a Constitutional Republic, that way we don’t have mob rule.”
Del Gandio: “Well, we can change it. Let’s change it.”
Me: “And from the outside looking in, that’s exactly what you have in Occupy Wall Street. You guys gotta figure that one out.”
Del Gandio: “Let’s change the system. Change the system.”
There can be no more doubt that Occupy Wall Street is NOT in favor of reforming the system but rather dismantling the system. The brazen desire of “change the system,” if uttered by a member of the Tea Party, would be front page news for weeks in the mainstream press. It would be followed up by the usual suspects claiming that the Tea Party is in favor of violent overthrow of the government.
The Tea Party believes in government, just less of it. Occupy Wall Street has shown that it does not favor free markets, nor our Constitutional foundation. They wish to change both.
When the clip of my appearance was posted to the RT YouTube channel, the commenters went on a violent, homophobic, anti-Semitic rant about my appearance. While not every comment is crude, below is a sampling of those who favor the OWS movement:
Yeah, bring back the guillotine and start with the tea party bastards! –theHoundsofDoom
Tony makes me with I could punch people over TCP/IP.- HWGuyEG
tony katz is a fat pussy – cornsnakedk
HAs tony ever been punched? Id like to be the first. – MrMrEvin
The only acts of violence are by the police! don’t listen to that Jew! – murmur6666
lol, just what i expected from a tea party douche. Pull the string, get the pre-programmed ideas. Sheesh. – ForestSongUnLTD
The guillotine needs to make a comeback. – bamboo4tameshigiri
T. Katz needs a bitch slappin’. Pick me! Pick me! – phillisthebarbarian
Teabaggers need to be put in re-education camps! Roseanne Barr was right! –petersz98
Tony’s face would look good arguing from the bottom of a basket. – Will224000
What a fat fuck – arturro666
tony should be wearing a white hood… – SHACKTRESS
What a dumb Zionist tool in the bottom right corner – megamogx
will someone please violently obliterate the man on the bottom right – humanboy1221
Who is this stupid Tea Party guy. Make me want to stand up and punch his face. What a dick head!!! – nhu111
Tony do the world a favour and choke yourself, you ignorant pawn/pig of the establishment!!!! – karveljay
OHHHHH I get it, tony must affiliate with the 1% – What a fag – RoyalW1979
FUCK TONY KATZ I WORK MY FUCKING ASS OFF AND GET PAID DIRT W NO BENEFITS FUCK YOU! YOU STUPID FAGGOT COME TO WALL STREET AND COME SEE ME YOU FUCKING HOMO – fucuts
With similar anti-Semitic statements and calls for violence amongst the rank and file of the OWS crowd, this kind of vitriol is completely unsurprising. Occupy Wall Street has begun to clearly reveal exactly what it stands for–envy, hatred, and destruction.
Here is my latest piece on TownHall.com, discussing the Occupy Wall Street disruptions going on across the country. In this article, I make a unique connection between the “movement,” the “message” and the “Man.”
OCCUPY WALL STREET GETS “MAN” LOVE
The anti-war protests of the 60’s, which gave birth to the hippie movement, taught future generations ofprotesters the concept of the enemy as “The Man.” The Man, in general, is the person, group of people or entity with power – economic, political, or both. The protesters are the people, angry with the power entity for corrupt, dangerous, or disingenuous or otherwise disagreeable behavior.
So, when Occupy Wall Street – and their blind allegiance minions – took to the streets in New York, they merely filled in the blanks in the protest template. Like a game of Mad Libs, the veracity of their statements was irrelevant. They (the people) were opposed to the crooked dealings between Wall Street (banking industry) and Government (see Republicans, because when the OWS crowd realizes that Obama is just a shill for Wall Street they will crap their pants, not police cars!)
They are protesting the bailouts, the way Wall Street puts profits ahead of people (a still unprovable thesis) and how they manipulate money to keep rich people rich and poor people poor (a still unprovable thesis.)
Protesting bank bailouts is fine. It is also smart. Most Americans view bailouts in general unfavorably. Why is it that government is in the game of picking winners and losers? So-called “winners” aren’t always – or ever – the most solvent, smartest, best-for-the-people investments; just look at Solyndra! The free market should be the only factor to determine whether a business succeeds or fails – not government. Government involvement in these decisions is just wrong. This is the Tea Party thesis, and has been advocated by the millions of Tea Party members across the nation for over two years.
Who is backing Occupy Wall Street? We’ve seen the outpouring of support from Leftist Hollywood –Michael Moore , Roseanne Barr, Susan Sarandon have all shown their love for the movement. A basic Google search of “hollywood supports occupy wall street” brings an article that has even moreHollywood people – Mark Ruffalo, Tim Robbins, Yoko Ono, Penn Bagdley, Alec Baldwin and music mogul Russell Simmons – supporting the cause of viciously attacks on those who work on Wall Street (and increasingly, Main Street) by those who don’t work at all. (The very next article highlighted that George Clooney also supports OWS, just proving that there is no lack of star-power support.)
Who else supports OWS? Democrats who desperately want to be integral to the movement. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently stated, “Well,I support the message to the establishment – whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest – that change has to happen.” She also stated, “God bless them….it’s young….it’s spontaneous.” Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) supports the OWS crowd(even though he was not allowed to speak at a OWS rally in Atlanta).
The DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) has a petition on its website trying to get 100,000 people to agree with OWS. It has even sent out Tweets about it.
President Obama has voiced – clearly – his support for OWS, stating:
“The protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works…”
Support of Hollywood? Support of leaders in Washington? Support of the Democratic Party? Support of the President? That is The Man – and The Man loves Occupy Wall Street! The protesters aren’t fighting The Man (or the system,) they are legitimizing it. They are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the forces that make, in their eyes, too many decisions. The controlling forces of Hollywood and government – both of whom are financed by the banking industry! – are now working hard to control Occupy Wall Street, and OWS is more than happy to let them in (with the notable exception of Rep. Lewis….racism, anyone?)
While the protesters in Manhattan, Los Angeles and other cities may think they are fighting The Man, the truth is they are in love with The Man, and The Man is in love with them. Their protest isn’t a protest, then, but rather a needed vehicle of the Democrat party and the Progressive movement to bring some excitement to a political party and a political ideology that has been cast aside by Americans in the run up to the 2012 elections. Maybe one day they’ll realize this, and then be able to answer the question – why are you here?
Until then, the protesters and The Man are in mad crazy love. They are registered at the local Apple store, because some corporations are still ok by (most of) them. A wedding date hasn’t been confirmed.
On Tuesday, October 4th I joined Sean Hannity on his show on FOX News Channel as part of The Great American Panel. Joining me are Deirdre Imus and New York State Senator Greg Ball (R). The panel talks about the Hank Williams controversy, and the real story behind the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The Hank Williams comments have created “controversy,” with two articles addressing my comments here and here. More grasping at straws than anything concrete. Amazingly – but not surprisingly – no comments on my accurate assessment that the Occupy Wall Street movement has the same vision as the Black Panthers.
I have a piece on the 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters that blocked the Brooklyn Bridge which should be published soon is now posted at TownHall.com. In the meantime, OWS has just put out their “Proposed List of Demands” for the OWS movement. The list can be found here, but the bullet points are:
…restoration of the living wage…single payer health care that bans private insurance…guaranteed income regardless of employment…free college education…end the fossil fuel economy while stimulating the green fuel economy…spend $1T on infrastructure…another $1T on planting trees…open borders migration…total debt forgiveness (personal and national) worldwide…
When I read the list, I immediately thought of another group’s list of demands. It is the Black Panther’s Ten Point Plan. The list is eerily similar, and includes:
…full employment for “our” people…free housing…free healthcare for all “black and oppressed people”…
The coup de grace is Point 10, where the Black Panthers state:
We want Land, Bread, Housing Education, Clothing Justice, Peace and People’s Community Control of Modern Technology
They are, in far too many ways, the same list of demands. It can now be said clearly, based solely on the evidence in front of us, that those associated with Occupy Wall Street are Communists, or at the very least Communists-in-Training. No wonder Van Jones is so supportive of them.
The list of demands from both groups is as ignorant as it is impossible. These are not the thoughts of sensible people, trying to show the world that we can no longer continue politics as usual, with uncontrolled spending and crony capitalism. These are petulant children who have no understanding of the real world, and whom (by their admission of their desires) believe that money grows on trees and hold valueless the concept of work and reward, and the rule of law.
Like Communism, this “movement” is doomed to fail. Like Reagan, we have to make sure it does.