The news media portrays the Wall Street Occupiers as peaceful, well-meaning demonstrators who, like the Tea Partiers, have become disgruntled and frustrated watching rich corporate Americans get richer while they — and the average American worker — get poorer.
One day the media will awaken and discover that for the most part the Occupiers do not share the Tea Party’s peaceful protest motivations. Rather, they are radical political fanatics who want to seize control of our American democracy. If they can do it peacefully and legally, so much the better. But if they have to seize power violently, then so be it.
It reminds me of the college students who thought they were demonstrating against the Viet Nam War by expelling ROTC offices from Ivy League college campuses.
If they didn’t know, certainly their professors knew that the military does not set national policy. Any honest activist knows that the President and Capitol Hill lawmakers are the ones to put pressure on and demonstrate against, not the military, not campus ROTC staff.
The demonstrations were a farce and charade, not unlike today’s Occupy movement which is supposed to be directed against Wall Street.
What and specifically who is funding and stoking the politically charged maelstrom of the Occupiers? Can we get a hint by observing the actions of their demonstrators? Who and what type groups support them, and who is financing and organizing their rallies and demonstrations?
SEIU, Soros, Labor Unions, the KKK and David Duke, radical Muslims, Communists, neo-Nazis, the National Socialist Party, and an armed militia group calling itself the US Border Guard seem to be among their supporters.
These are clearly identified as class warfare types and hate mongering extremist groups from which the White House and the Democrat Party seek approval while, at the same time, feigning disapproval of their actions.
One wonders whether these organizations were what President Obama had in mind when he gave that speech in Colorado Springs on July 2, 2008 concerning the establishment of a Civilian National Security Force that was to be “larger and better funded” than the US Army?
He said, “As president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots … and double the size of the Peace Corps … we’ll expand the USA Freedom Corps …”
The only way for Obama to achieve expansion of his private national security force to eclipse in size and budget our existing standing army would be to slash the Army’s numbers and gut its budget. Is that what he is about with the secret super committee budget review process?
Perhaps he anticipates that the committee will not produce budget cuts that will meet their assigned targets, or that the targets themselves are too small and will not get the job done.
Not only does Obama seem to want the committee to fail, he seems determined to do all in his power to help it fail while washing his hands of the Department of Defense budget cuts which will automatically follow and usher in the destruction of the effectiveness of our armed forces.
Plus, he will blame Congress and the Republican Party for any and all military failures. Then at some future time President Obama may drum up a requirement for a large military organization of some kind; but the force structure and budget will expand Obama’s private civilian national security force rather than fortify the Department of Defense.
My guess is the civilian security force will have different loyalties than our current armed forces. Historically America’s military officers have taken oaths of allegiance to the constitution “… I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …”
But don’t be surprised if Obama’s civilian security force officers swear their oath of allegiance to him and not to America, much as Germany’s military forces swore allegiance to Hitler and not to the nation of Germany.
I wonder, have Obama’s czars sworn allegiance to the Constitution?
Harry Truman, our 33rd President once said, “If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.”
With rights goes power. If the federal government has the right to do something then the American people have given it the power to do it and with that power goes the authority to make private citizens obey.
When sworn in, President Obama’s primary goal was to consolidate his power over the American people. The easiest and fastest way to do that was to take control of the American people’s need for and right to medical care. By contrast, the American people’s primary goal was to find work to feed themselves and their families and pay their bills.
The people’s need for jobs was in conflict with Obama’s determination to grow his personal political power.
For an entire year the president made every effort possible to use the Democrat Party and Democrat controlled Congress to thwart the best interests of the American people.
Instead of using the Presidency to rejuvenate the economy and grow jobs, he spent its power in political haggling over ObamaCare. Growing jobs doesn’t automatically give the president and government control over the lives of the nation’s people; but controlling the people’s medical care and using it to seize control over large chunks of American lives does.
Our Founders insisted on equal justice under law, so much so that it led to fighting the Revolutionary War. They were opposed to secret, hidden agendas that favored a federal government, its bureaucrats, and elite, privileged classes of people.
In direct opposition to the Founders concept Obama routinely sews discord, divisiveness, discontentment and racial conflict. For example, his Justice Department has a propensity to enforce the law when the case favors minorities, and to ignore enforcing the law if it is favorable to white males.
Sensible supporters of the Occupy Wall Street Movement have abandoned demonstrating and have gone back to the realities of life: namely family, work and country.
More and more it seems that the remaining agitators have a sinister purpose. They appear to be radicalized, professional demonstrators with a criminal and anti-American bent and political agenda, who capitalize on violence and exploit America’s citizens and democracy.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter