The Occupying Wall Street Protests

[Rob W. Case]

I’m sure that by now, everyone has at least heard of the “Occupying Wall Street” protest rallies that have been repeatedly talked about by the activist media, talk radio, blogs, and internet news agencies. Usually the pictures have been showing a bunch of kids with a lot of paint on their faces marching on the streets of New York. By the way, they are mostly college kids as well as young people in their 20’s, but either way they are a bunch of kids with paint on their faces. A couple of days passed, and then I heard more about this protest. I started hearing from the kids themselves. These kids obviously knew nothing about anything they should know in their 20’s, especially after many of them earned college degrees. The more they talked, the more they came off as “stupid kids” who wanted to “paint their faces,” and “be on TV.” While for the moment, they did come off as sort of funny, the magnitude of what was really going on has been anything but. Too many of our young people are critically ignorant, dazed, confused, and worse… are the future of this country. So, what’s to say about the future of this country?

The Demands:
Those running the “Occupying Wall Street” Rally opened up their own internet domain and on it released a set of “demands” to the public. And if you read the demands, much of them seem familiar in that they are ironically in alignment with the agendas both an individual as well as a militant organization.

occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

In a nutshell, they demand trillions more in new spending. They demand to be “freed” from their self-inflicted responsibilities. They demand everything to be “free” and handed over to them. They also demand “open borders” for all, and elections to be brought to standards led and organized by a global, collective body. In other words, many of these things are impractical ideas that would come from kids who paint their faces and want to be on TV.

What’s very interesting about this set of demands is that much of this list poses a striking resemblance to many of the Marxist talking points that were used to energize Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Amassing a Coalition:
The Communist Party USA is heavily supporting this rally, as is Moveon.org, the AFL-CIO, and other prominent Communist leaning, left-wing organizations. The tactic is obvious in the sense that they are trying to pump new life into President Obama’s disenchanted base and motivate them to hate the American system so much that that hate alone will drive them to the polls to re-elect him in protest to the American system. Don’t doubt me on this. Young people have been thoroughly brainwashed about the American system to the point where they feel like they are helpless victims that can only get anywhere if the government does everything for them. This is a lie that they are not wise to and have fallen for. Too many of them in my opinion readily seek to hand over America’s sovereign power to anybody or anything that so much as promises to relieve them of anything that might require them to work. They want everything, but don’t want to earn it. In the end, isn’t this just another form of the very greed they are supposed to be fighting against on Wall Street?

[OldMS]

STREET PROTESTS ARE SEDITIOUS

We Americans have soldiers dying at war and it is seditious to cause problems back home as it puts stress on our soldiers and that stress gives aid and comfort to the enemies. It puts the soldiers into "A clear and present danger." At one time this meant prison for the trouble makers...now America is getting soft like crybabies. We have politically corrected ourselves into a corrupt government full of inept tokens and quotas.
Sedition Act of 1918
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub. L. No. 65-150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. One historian of American civil liberties has called it "the nation's most extreme antispeech legislation."[1]
It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for 5 to 20 years.[2] The act also allowed the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times "when the United States is in war."[3] It was repealed on December 13, 1920.[4]

Though the legislation enacted in 1918 is commonly called the Sedition Act, it was actually a set of amendments to the Espionage Act.[5] Therefore many studies of the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act find it difficult to report about the two "acts" separately. For example, one historian reports that "some fifteen hundred prosecutions were carried out under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, resulting in more than a thousand convictions."[6] Court decisions do not use the shorthand term Sedition Act, but the correct legal term for the law, the Espionage Act, whether as originally enacted or as amended in 1918.

[Rob W. Case]

They have every right to protest, I'm not at all suggesting that they should be stripped of that right (which is why I gather you posted that information about the Sedition and Espionage Act).

Everybody has the right to free speech. Everybody has the right to call out what they see going on in this country. Everybody has the right to talk to people and form groups joined together by like-minded individuals, or even try to win over those who are not as likeminded. And everybody has the right to be wrong. These individuals are, in their own way proving everything I just stated.

[Rob W. Case]

You know, in coming back to this article a month later, it seems more lighthearted and innocent compared with what the protests have actually turned into.

From evident ignorance and mass stupidity to anarchy, to paid union protestors, to illegal immigrants, to activists in the media joining the protests and using their influence to promote the cause, to listening to these kids (we don't know what we want, but we want it anyway), to disrespect and antisemitism, total chaos and civil disorder. A clear distintion has been made between the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party.

And while I can go on and on about these people, there are some things I noticed that I will address, that would hopefully be constructive to any quasi-sensible Occupy Wall Street protestor or anybody sympathetic to their cause. The thing is this. Many of these guys want jobs, and if they had them, they would no doubt at least try to climb the ladder of success. Also, if they were offered the opportunity to take on new responsibilities and make more money, they would grab it at an instant. So in essence is supporting more and more restictions on "the rich" going to get them there any faster? No. Business opportunities make for open job opportunities. You see the "rich vs. poor" populism architects don't want people to own, to raise a family, or anything that would allow independence. They want us all to be dependent on them because that dependence keeps them in power, while the endless supply of money flowing into their pockets continues to work for them, by convincing you to believe certain things. They also want to be able to control our consumption, give us "allowances" on their terms, and render us all submissive to their laws, while the standards set for themselves are of a higher quality. This is a total and complete perversion of what should be in America. And while many lobbyists and big corporations do in fact have too much influence in Washington, who are they supporting? The same guys you are electing. The ones screaming the loudest to "tax the rich." What a clever way to funnel big bucks for yourself and then divert attention away from that by getting people to focus on a group that they would like to be themselves, but aren't. I guess the biggest thing to ask yourselves is how much money does it take to get you to believe what you believe? How much is being spent and from whom? And why is it being allowed?

Ignorance yields many opportunities for people who know what they are doing, and have the money to do it. Knowledge of what is true, right, and lasting can chip away, and eventually break this stronghold, so long as foundational truths remain intact. All it takes is for you or anybody to examine things on the "ground level."