The Occupy Whatever Movement

This came to me with the title "Obama's Red October Uprising", sent to me by an old tough as nails Cowboy I know well.

The Resurgence of the American Socialist Movement

"We must make our election between economy and Liberty , or profusion and servitude." --Thomas Jefferson

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 of Leftmedia 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 classiest message around the revolution-tested politics of disparity, under the leadership of old-school radicals like Ayers. They are building on Obama's classiest 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 are dependent upon government subsidies, and 40 percent of Americans pay no income 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 the Supreme 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!"

Congressman Issa's Letter to Eric Holder

As Eric Holder, the Justice Department, and the Obama Administration continued to stone wall Congress and the American people on the Fast and Furious atrocity, where the U.S. Government became the de facto provider of weapons to Mexican Cartels, some individual Congressmen continue to find the truth.

After receiving a scathing letter from Attorney General Eric Holder addressed to the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, Chairman House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, cited this new low in the efforts of Holder, etc., to keep the truth from coming out about this incredibly stupid endeavor. Their actions certainly relate to their incompetence and possibly their criminality. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Federal Agents hold Holder and the Administration responsible for the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Immigration Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata, whose murders were done using weapons from Fast and Furious.

Darrell Isa, R-CA, Chairman House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to Attorney General Holder dated October 9, 2011.

Apparently there was a lot more back and forth than just reported in the newspapers from Issa's committee and the Attorney General's Office on just how far up the chain of command did knowledge of Operations Fast and Furious, aka Operation Arming the Cartels, go before being blown up with Holder's lies (for you liberal's it was "mistruths") concerning when he knew.

Issa tells Holder that all he and his department has done was to "obfuscate, shift blame, berate and attempt to change the topic" concerning the Department's part in Fast and Furious....and that's putting it lightly.

You must read this damning letter. At the very least Holder needs to be fired for incredible incompetence. At worst he is guilty of perjury.

Again, you must read this letter, available from Fox News here.

Republican Presidential Candidate Status, October 19, 2011

Boy, I am sure liking the Republican Presidential Debates. The field is starting to be whittled down now, allowing Americans to see and hear more of the candidates they are interested in. If the truth be known, each one of these candidates are a much. much better choice than the current clown we have in office.

The measurement of previous public office,loosely termed as experience, has to be off the table now that we have a President who was elected without any experience.

It will be interesting to see how the polls change after last night's debate. Just before the debate the following CNN survey, taken from Friday through Sunday, showed Mitt Romney and Herman Cain essentially tied.

Romney gets 26 percent of the vote, Cain gets 25 percent, and Perry gets 13 percent.

Ron Paul is in fourth place, at 9 percent, Newt Gingrich gets 8 percent, Michele Bachmann 6 percent, Rick Santorum 2 percent and Jon Huntsman 1 percent.

The number of undecideds, including those who would vote for someone else or no one else, is 10 percent - a relatively small number.

So accordingly to CNN the Republican Residential Candidate Tree is looking like this:

I think last night's debate will not change the leader board too much, but the changes will be in this direction: Cain - unchanged or up slightly; Romney - unchanged or down slightly; Perry - down a little; Paul - down a lot; Gingrich - up somewhat and perhaps the bigger winner of this debate; Bachmann - down a little; Santorum - down somewhat, but not because of his performance but due to people's perception that he is too much of a dark horse candidate;

What's that? The poll lists Huntsman, but Johnson's picture appears above? Wait a minute,......Yeah, you're right. Can anybody tell them apart?