Heard just today on the radio, a newsman asking the “occupiers” in New York City why they were there and what was their purpose:
“F— Wall Street! F—- politicians! F— the rich! F— the police!” was one answer, from one protester.
“Soak the rich b—–s. We want more money. Take it from Wall Street, and send the b—–s to jail!” was another.
“All politicians are criminals! So are the bankers! We demand our rights!” was a constantly repeated refrain. “Tax the rich!” was another.
Many of the demonstrators, some sleeping in tents and others right out in the open in sleeping bags and blankets, eating at improvised “soup kitchens,” seemed vague when asked, not quite sure what the objectives were, but expressing anger at the status quo and “solidarity” with the other demonstrators, whatever the goals might be. Some carried signs handed to them by organizers, but couldn’t explain exactly what their meaning was.
One young college student, obviously “playing hooky,” observed, “This was fun for a couple days, but I’ve gotta get back to class. I’ll do a report, and my professor will love it.”
These protests, these “Occupy” demonstrations, just seemed to “spring up” spontaneously in city after city across the country … or so the compliant and empathetic media reported. A number of liberal TV commentators, and eventually even the vice president and President Obama himself, characterized the events as “evidence of widespread discontent” about the economy, joblessness and corruption on Wall Street. And they compared them to the tea-party phenomenon – as if all reading from the same script.
Tea party? Were they kidding? Were they serious?
I not only attended and spoke at several tea-party events, my neighbor Josephine Resigno and I created and hosted two Beverly Hills tea parties, right in front of the big tourist attraction Beverly Hills sign on Santa Monica Boulevard. At each one, we attracted over 500 of our neighbors, had speeches from rabbis, ministers, celebrities, elected officials and just plain citizens, including Cuban and Iranian immigrants. We sought and obtained police and city permits, rented porta-potties and umbrellas and a good sound system. There were no rabble-rousers, no “racist” comments or signs, no profanity or even angry shouts.
At both our events, the mood was celebratory, positive, reasoned and intelligent. Though there was almost no trash, we all pitched in and left the park neater than we found it. And we who cooperated in putting it on paid all the expenses ourselves.
Ours was typical of the thousands of tea-party events all over America these last two years plus. Irresponsible and false claims notwithstanding, there have been no racist or exclusive elements at any of the events, large or small. They’ve all been orderly, neat, respectful and intelligent. And if you asked almost any participant why he or she was there, you’d get many of the same answers. Every last person was demanding more responsible, responsive government; less budget-busting taxes; strict allegiance to the Constitution; fewer regulations and more adherence to our traditional values.
Can any rational person compare tea-party events – and their openly expressed purposes – to the rebellious, raucous, often profane and filthy, at times illegal, angry and purposeless mob scenes called “Occupy Wall Street”?
Sure, there were some who were interviewed who could posit political or economic concerns. But not one could explain how these wildly unreasonable protests could hope to address those concerns. Hundreds of people, mainly young, uninformed and clueless, camping in city locations, clogging up traffic, closing down local businesses, annoying the citizenry and creating all kinds of nuisance, could not possibly affect decisions on Wall Street or influence governmental decisions. And certainly not, when they “sprang up” in Topeka or San Diego, supposedly in spontaneous “solidarity” with protesters actually near Wall Street.
Big question: How “spontaneous” were these events, actually? And how honestly empathetic were the liberal public figures who endorsed these protests, including our president?
As reported by Reuters, the protests were triggered by Adbusters, an anti-capitalist marketing and advertising group in Canada. Although a spokesman for George Soros, one of the very richest of the targeted “1 percent”, denied any direct funding of the Adbusters campaign, IRS disclosure documents report that his personally funded Tides Center gave Adbusters grants of at least $185,000 from 2001-2010, as part of his continuing support for the subversive group. Its co-founder Kalie Lasn proudly said when interviewed, “We felt there was a real rage building up in America, and we thought that we would like to create a spark which would give expression for this rage.”
Does it bother you a little that these protests in American cities were triggered deliberately by anti-capitalists – in Canada? And encouraged by a Hungarian anti-capitalist (!) billionaire who, though he has reaped billions living here in America and betting against our economy, is spending much of his fortune to transform us into a socialist country?
Does it bother you to learn that Nancy Pelosi (also a prominent member of the targeted “1 percent” richest) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who express such “sympathy” for the Wall Street Occupiers, have gladly received multiplied millions from the very banking industry the hapless protesters are damning? The same Nancy Pelosi who helped Dodd/Frank pass and who voted for the laws and regulations that helped cause the mortgage meltdowns?
And finally, does the president’s “understanding” seem hollow when you remember he traveled to New York in June for a $35,800-per-plate dinner with the very Wall Street bankers the protesters are castigating – and in the last few days has received the adulation of wealthy celebrities who also paid $35,000 apiece to bask in his light? This, while the poor dupes of this charade sleep in the city streets, thinking they may be doing something worthwhile?
This should not surprise us. Our community organizer in chief learned his techniques from Saul Alinsky in Chicago. In the “Rules for Radicals” playbook, the organizer creates or greatly exacerbates a crisis, fans it into rabid, angry, violent protests – and then presents himself as the one who can resolve it, often accusing the ones who helped him aggravate the crisis.
One good thing the OccuMob has done, though. It has dramatically emphasized why the vastly different tea party has to achieve its goals.