Time to Rid the Streets of the “Occupy” Movement By Alan Caruba

Is there any doubt left in the minds of observers of the Occupy Wall Street movement tends toward violence and is in need of control? The mayors of the cities—some seventy at last count—that are being occupied need to crack down on it.

Not all agree, of course. Among the list of the Occupy movement are the following organizations and individuals that have expressed support or sympathy:

    Communist Party, USA
    American Nazi Party
    Revolutionary Communist Party
    Industrial Workers of the World
    International Bolshevik Tendency
    International Socialist Organization
    Marxist Student Union
    Freedom Road Socialist Organization
    Party for Socialism and Liberation
    President Barack Obama
    Vice President Joe Biden
    Former House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi
    The Revolutionary Guards of Iran
    Communist Party of China
    Louis Farrakhan, National of Islam
    Black Panthers

There are others but they all have commonalities, not the least of which is a belief in Communism, they are representative of the American Far Left, and have an affinity for class and racial warfare.

There is nothing to recommend its supporters and considerable reason to take action against the movement that claims to be leaderless, but which has already been granted a tax-exempt status as it continues to collect a large bankroll.

As Lincoln pointed out, ‘The Constitution is not a suicide pact” and this nation fought a Civil War to ensure that the Union would remain intact. Thus, appeals to freedom of speech have their limits when it comes to efforts to undermine and destroy the nation. The free speech argument has been the initial fall-back position of some mayors, but it is rapidly wearing thin.

No doubt, Mayor Bloomberg of New York has been hoping that the dropping temperature as we advance toward winter will have the salutary affect of causing the occupiers of Zuccotti Park to leave. In a cash-strapped city, the millions in overtime and other costs do not justify his forbearance, but the Mayor is a liberal so his inaction is understandable. Mayors of other cities under siege have responded timidly for the most part.

As a student of history, I recall the hippie movement of the 1960s, the famed Haight-Ashbury refuge in San Francisco, and other places where a disaffected and unhappy youth gathered to “tune out” and listen to speeches about the Vietnam War and other grievances. In general, they did not engage in violence because their focus was on drugs and “free love.”

The Occupy movement is a different animal. The object of its anger is Wall Street, banks, capitalism, and the current economic distress. One group, OurTime.org, “a non-profit organization standing up for Americans under 30”, noted that the October jobs report “reveals that young Americans hold a 15.4% unemployment rate, which marks the eighth straight month that the 18-24 demographic…”

Their anger would be better directed against a federal government that is responsible for the 2008 collapse of the housing market and major banking, investment and insurance companies, many of which were bailed out by Congress using the funds of taxpayers, the real 99%.

The youth have cause to be unhappy, but they would be better informed if they understood how poorly they have been served by a debased national educational system and indebtedness brought about by universities that thrive off the student-loan system underwritten by the federal government. Their ignorance of this and so much more is both understandable and deplorable.

You don’t solve unemployment by embracing tyranny.

Further back in history, one recalls the mobs that brought down the Weimar Republic in Germany and opened the doors to the Nazi movement. Earlier, mobs led by Bolsheviks deposed the Russian czar and imposed some seventy years of Communist control there. It is not surprising, therefore, that so many communist organizations and nations support the Occupy movement or that Wall Street is its target.

In time we shall learn who the organizers of this “spontaneous” movement truly have been, but for now public safety must be asserted to rid Zuccotti Park of this gang of “useful idiots” and wherever else they show up.

There no longer is any excuse to tolerate them and plenty of communist groups who will welcome them or, if the message of “change” put forth by Barack Obama is more closely examined, they can join the Democratic Party and continue its long history of destroying the nation’s economy.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

For liberals, income inequality is the new global warming By James Pethokoukis

A A A Liberals think there are lots of ideas that intelligent Americans just aren’t supposed to challenge. If they do, they’ll be labeled “deniers,” intentionally raising a nasty comparison to Holocaust rejectionists. It’s politics at its absolute lowest.

Among the unchallengeable dogmata: the Obama stimulus created millions of jobs, Obamacare will save trillions of dollars, Dodd-Frank prevents future bank bailouts, and policy uncertainty isn’t an issue hampering the recovery. And, of course, global warming poses an existential threat to civilization and humanity. Make that an “undeniable” threat.

You can now add “income inequality” to the list, thanks to New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait. In a column headlined “The Ideological Fantasies of Inequality Deniers,” Chait writes: “Rising income inequality, like climate change, is an ideologically inconvenient issue for conservatives. … The underlying facts, like the facts of climate change, are stark. Over the last few decades, income growth for most Americans has slowed to a crawl, while income for the very rich has exploded.”

In a way, Chait is correct that income inequality really resembled global warming. Both are issues that, to the extent they are even problems, could be be fixed though faster economic growth. And both serve as handy excuses for the Left to raise taxes and expand government.

The reality about “exploding income inequality” and wage stagnation is far different than what Chait, the Obama White House, and Elizabeth Warren (D-Occupy Wall Street) contend.

Read more from American Enterprise Institute

Who lost the world? The unraveling of the globe under Obama’s watch By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Conventional wisdom has it that the 2012 election will be all about the dismal economy, unemployment and the soaring deficit. That appears a safe bet since such matters touch the electorate, are much in the news at the moment and have indisputably gotten worse on Barack Obama’s watch.
It seems increasingly likely, however, that the American people are going to have a whole lot more to worry about by next fall. Indeed, the way things are going, by November 2012, we may see the Mideast – and perhaps other parts of the planet – plunged into a cataclysmic war.

Consider just a few of the straws in the wind of a gathering storm:

Muammar Gadhafi’s death last week prompted the Obama administration to trumpet the President’s competence as Commander-in-Chief and the superiority of his “small footprint,” “lead-from-behind” approach to waging war over the more traditional – and costly and messy – one pursued by George W. Bush. The bloom came off that false rose on Sunday when Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council, repeatedly declared his government’s fealty to shariah, Islam’s brutally repressive, totalitarian political-military-legal doctrine.
Among other things, Abdul-Jalil said shariah would be the “basic source” of all legislation. Translation: Forget about representative democracy. Under shariah, Allah makes the laws, not man.

In short, the result of Mr. Obama’s $2 billion dollar expenditure to oust Gadhafi is a regime that will be led by jihadists, controls vast oil reserves and has inherited a very substantial arsenal (although some of it – including reportedly as many as 20,000 surface-to-air missiles – has “gone missing.”) This scarcely can be considered a victory for the United States and will probably prove a grave liability.

Read more from Center for Security Policy

Leading Like 1939 By Kori Schake

Even for an Administration that takes an awful lot of unearned credit, yesterday’s op-ed by Obama National Security Advisor was amazing. Tom Donilon’s piece in the Washington Post sets a new standard for self-congratulatory delusion. It asserts that in Libya, the Administration brilliantly led allies and built broad-based international consensus on a multilateral, shared-burden campaign that burnished America’s reputation and established the model for future efforts.

Allies are irritated to hear this from an Administration that came late to the coalition and grudgingly offered marginal help — not enough to win, mind you, only enough to prevent allied forces from losing — while publicly berating those countries who bore the real risks for not doing more.

I’ve been at a conference on transatlantic relations, where European policymakers and scholars were derisive about the Obama Administration’s claims. Daniel Korski from the European Council on Foreign Relations put it most acidulously: “America led in Libya the way America led in World War II from 1939 to 1941.”

Europeans serious-minded about national security issues are deeply worried that the Obama Administration has made it more difficult for allied governments to build public support for future operations, and for the long-term investments in defense capabilities that facilitate governments deciding to use military force to achieve national objectives.

The fundamental incongruity of Obama Administration “strategy” is that it relies on others to do the hard work while diminishing their incentives to do so. If the U.S. is going to take all the credit, let them do all the work, is what allies are grumbling. At a time when sharing the burden of solving international problems is at a premium for the United States, this is no way to get others to step forward.

Read more from Hoover Institution

The 3 men who pulled down Wall Street– where are they now?

Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae’s accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, ” Raines, who long defended the company’s accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn’t proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that “mistakes were made” and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company’s books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years.” Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. Raines left with a “golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ …The Government noted, ” The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner.” These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.

Net windfall . . . $190 million!

Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard “was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a “stable pattern of earnings” at Fannie. In everyday English – he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, “Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,” On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant’s income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company’s board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard’s Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!

Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you’ll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson’s 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.” Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson’s Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.

WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.

TIM HOWARD? Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines.

JIM JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee.