Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Anti-Semites of Occupy Wall Street
There is a disturbing undercurrent to the current Occupy Wall Street movement. It isn’t merely its passionate denunciations of capitalism and excuses for corporatism. It isn’t merely its perverse love for a president who has received more Wall Street money than any candidate in American history, and its hatred for Wall Street itself.
It’s anti-Semitism.
Even as President Obama comes out in support of Occupy Wall Street, more and more Occupy rallies are laced with anti-Semitic signs, placards, and slogans. In New York, ralliers hold signs reading, “Google: (1) Wall Street Jews; (2) Jewish Billionaires; (3) Jews & Fed Rsrv Bank,” “Gaza Supports The Occupation of Wall Street,” and shouting ugly canards like “Jews control Wall Street.” The American Nazi Party is supporting OWS, with leader Rocky Suhayda stating, “Who holds the wealth and power in this country — the Judeo-Capitalists. Who is therefore the #1 enemy who makes all this filth happen — the Judeo-Capitalists.”
Not everyone occupying Wall Street is an anti-Semite. But there is far too high a comfort level among those in the movement for anti-Semitism. If the Tea Party had been even one tenth as laced with racism as the OWS movement is with anti-Semitism, it would have been put out of business by the mainstream press long ago.
The OWS’ complacency with regard to anti-Semitism in its midst finds a mirror in the White House. President Obama supports OWS wholeheartedly – and why shouldn’t he? After attempting time and again to force Israel to the negotiating table with terrorists, after using Rahm Emanuel to threaten Israel into concessions by warning that the US would allow Iran to go nuclear, after backing anti-Semitic revolutionaries from Egypt to Libya, after making friends with notorious Jew-haters like Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright – why shouldn’t Obama extend that open hand to the folks at Occupy Wall Street?
The question is not why the left supports the anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street. The question is why the left seems to support anti-Semitism across the globe.
Europe is a leftist continent – of that there can be little doubt. Yet anti-Semitism runs rampant through it. Socialist Spain leads the way in anti-Semitic polling, but countries like France and Austria aren’t far behind. Britain’s anti-Israel policy is cover for anti-Semitism; Germany’s post-World War II history of stamping out anti-Semitism is beginning to fade into the past. Crimes against Jews are up across Europe.
In the United States, the left is just as anti-Semitic, if less violent. Their anti-Zionist rhetoric is certainly a cover for anti-Semitism, since Zionism stands merely for the principle that Jews deserve a state. The left has no problem with anyone else having a state – Palestinian, Kurd, Tibetan. When it comes to the Jews, however, they find it respectable to reject out of hand their right to a self-governing homeland. Opposing specific policies of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic. Opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is.
The focus on Zionism at the OWS rallies is odd, to say the least. Why should a foreign state located some 5700 miles from New York have any part in the discussion about America’s economy? The answer is simple at root: the hard left still buys into the discredited notions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in which Jews supposedly plotted the takeover of the world economy. Zionism, in this twisted vision, is the wellspring of that control – Jerusalem is supposedly the capital of the Jew/banker conspiracy. That sick notion pervades the rhetoric of the OWS rallies. Says one OWS rallier in Los Angeles, “I think the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve … need to be run out of this country.” Says another in Chicago, “Israel is beginning to be seen as the criminal pariah state that it is.”
This nasty thought pattern unites both the nationalist and the internationalist hard left. The nationalist hard left – i.e. neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups, as well as many nationalist groups in Europe – see Israel as a façade for a globalist Jewish regime seeking to bring “blood-sucking” capitalism to prominence. The internationalist hard left – i.e. OWS and its ilk – see Israel as the last vestige of discredited nationalism, and Wall Street as its colonialist branch in the United States.
If OWS wants to be taken seriously as a movement, its members need to root out the anti-Semitism from their midst. Then again, that rooting out process may not be possible because of how close the cancer of anti-Semitism is to the heart of the movement. If that is the case, every responsible politician has the responsibility to disassociate from OWS. Somehow, in the case of the Obama administration, that seems unlikely, no matter how outrageous the Jew-hatred gets at OWS.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle. Click here.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/26/the-anti-semites-of-occupy-wall-street/
It’s anti-Semitism.
Even as President Obama comes out in support of Occupy Wall Street, more and more Occupy rallies are laced with anti-Semitic signs, placards, and slogans. In New York, ralliers hold signs reading, “Google: (1) Wall Street Jews; (2) Jewish Billionaires; (3) Jews & Fed Rsrv Bank,” “Gaza Supports The Occupation of Wall Street,” and shouting ugly canards like “Jews control Wall Street.” The American Nazi Party is supporting OWS, with leader Rocky Suhayda stating, “Who holds the wealth and power in this country — the Judeo-Capitalists. Who is therefore the #1 enemy who makes all this filth happen — the Judeo-Capitalists.”
Not everyone occupying Wall Street is an anti-Semite. But there is far too high a comfort level among those in the movement for anti-Semitism. If the Tea Party had been even one tenth as laced with racism as the OWS movement is with anti-Semitism, it would have been put out of business by the mainstream press long ago.
The OWS’ complacency with regard to anti-Semitism in its midst finds a mirror in the White House. President Obama supports OWS wholeheartedly – and why shouldn’t he? After attempting time and again to force Israel to the negotiating table with terrorists, after using Rahm Emanuel to threaten Israel into concessions by warning that the US would allow Iran to go nuclear, after backing anti-Semitic revolutionaries from Egypt to Libya, after making friends with notorious Jew-haters like Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright – why shouldn’t Obama extend that open hand to the folks at Occupy Wall Street?
The question is not why the left supports the anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street. The question is why the left seems to support anti-Semitism across the globe.
Europe is a leftist continent – of that there can be little doubt. Yet anti-Semitism runs rampant through it. Socialist Spain leads the way in anti-Semitic polling, but countries like France and Austria aren’t far behind. Britain’s anti-Israel policy is cover for anti-Semitism; Germany’s post-World War II history of stamping out anti-Semitism is beginning to fade into the past. Crimes against Jews are up across Europe.
In the United States, the left is just as anti-Semitic, if less violent. Their anti-Zionist rhetoric is certainly a cover for anti-Semitism, since Zionism stands merely for the principle that Jews deserve a state. The left has no problem with anyone else having a state – Palestinian, Kurd, Tibetan. When it comes to the Jews, however, they find it respectable to reject out of hand their right to a self-governing homeland. Opposing specific policies of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic. Opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is.
The focus on Zionism at the OWS rallies is odd, to say the least. Why should a foreign state located some 5700 miles from New York have any part in the discussion about America’s economy? The answer is simple at root: the hard left still buys into the discredited notions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in which Jews supposedly plotted the takeover of the world economy. Zionism, in this twisted vision, is the wellspring of that control – Jerusalem is supposedly the capital of the Jew/banker conspiracy. That sick notion pervades the rhetoric of the OWS rallies. Says one OWS rallier in Los Angeles, “I think the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve … need to be run out of this country.” Says another in Chicago, “Israel is beginning to be seen as the criminal pariah state that it is.”
This nasty thought pattern unites both the nationalist and the internationalist hard left. The nationalist hard left – i.e. neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups, as well as many nationalist groups in Europe – see Israel as a façade for a globalist Jewish regime seeking to bring “blood-sucking” capitalism to prominence. The internationalist hard left – i.e. OWS and its ilk – see Israel as the last vestige of discredited nationalism, and Wall Street as its colonialist branch in the United States.
If OWS wants to be taken seriously as a movement, its members need to root out the anti-Semitism from their midst. Then again, that rooting out process may not be possible because of how close the cancer of anti-Semitism is to the heart of the movement. If that is the case, every responsible politician has the responsibility to disassociate from OWS. Somehow, in the case of the Obama administration, that seems unlikely, no matter how outrageous the Jew-hatred gets at OWS.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle. Click here.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/26/the-anti-semites-of-occupy-wall-street/
The Libyan Rebels’ Massacre
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On October 26, 2011 @ 12:27 am
Barack Obama and his supporters are no doubt hoping the lion’s share of the credit for the deposing and killing of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi will go to the president, who himself expressed praise for the rebels back in September. “Today, the Libyan people are writing a new chapter in the life of their nation. After four decades of darkness, they can walk the streets, free from a tyrant,” Mr. Obama said at the time. They are indeed free from a tyrant. Whether they are free from tyranny is another matter. The final days of the fighting in and around the city of Sirte resulted in a massacre, with 53 people methodically executed at a hotel — apparently by a faction of the same rebels who have assumed control of the country.
“We found 53 decomposing bodies, apparently Gaddafi supporters, at an abandoned hotel in Sirte, and some had their hands bound behind their backs when they were shot,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch (HRW). “This requires the immediate attention of the Libyan authorities to investigate what happened and hold accountable those responsible.”
The Libyan authority at the moment is the National Transitional Council (NTC) chaired by Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, and the likelihood of a competent investigation taking place is slim: on Monday volunteers were busy scrubbing the garden of the Mahari Hotel, where the alleged atrocity appears to have taken place. The volunteers, who said the dead were comprised of “at least two former Gaddafi government officials, local loyalist fighters and maybe civilians,” have collected dozens of bodies. But other evidence of the massacre, such as shell casings, plastic ties used to bind the hands of the victims, and patches of bloody grass remain behind.
Complicating any investigation is the fact that the bodies, which were found clustered together, were already in an advanced state of decomposition when they were viewed by HRW observers on October 23rd. HRW noted that the “condition of the bodies suggests the victims were killed approximately one week prior to their discovery, between October 14 and October 19. The bloodstains on the grass directly below the bodies, bullet holes visible in the ground, and the spent cartridges of AK-47 and FN-1 rifles scattered around the site strongly suggest that some, if not all of the people, were shot and killed in the location where they were discovered.”
According to witnesses HRW interviewed, anti-Gaddafi rebels from the city of Misrata had been in control of that section of Sirte since early October. Anti-Gaddafi brigades are organized according to their city of origin, and the city of Misrata has more that 100 brigades (katiba) which contain small numbers of fighters who operated semi-autonomously during battle. The names of five of those brigades, the “Tiger Brigade” (Al-Nimer), the “Support Brigade” (Al-Isnad), the “Jaguar Brigade” (Al-Fahad), the “Lion Brigade” (Al-Asad), and the “Citadel Brigade” (Al-Qasba), covered the walls and entrance of the hotel. This was apparently due to the fact that they used the facility as a base of operations. HRW did not directly accuse these five brigades of conducting the massacre, but said their presence at the hotel when it occurred “requires immediate investigation.”
The current record of the National Transitional Council suggests such immediacy is a pipe dream for both practical and political reasons. Practically speaking, the rebels who ostensibly liberated the nation are comprised of several separate militias. Despite repeated attempts, the NTC has failed to establish a chain of command among those militias or form a national army. Thus, despite several alleged incidents of arbitrary arrests, torture or murder, the mechanisms for dealing with formal investigations and prosecutions remain largely undeveloped. Politically speaking, the NTC’s attempt to burnish its own legitimacy requires it to establish relationships with the leaders of those militias, which may lead to more than a few alleged incidents of extra-legal activity being downplayed, ignored altogether or blamed on Gaddafi and his loyalist forces.
This last fallback position appears to be the stance the NTC is adopting with regard to the killing of Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes, the rebel’s top military commander, as well as two of his aides, back in August. Younis, former aide and interior minister to Gaddafi, defected on February 20th, and was credited with helping the rebels overthrow the regime’s military garrison in the city of Benghazi. When the murders occurred, Younis was reportedly in the hands of rebel forces. NTC Chairman Abdel-Jalil had promised to investigate that incident, claiming no one, “not even the highest officials” would remain above suspicion. Yet he proposed that Gaddafi loyalists were responsible, even as other members of his organization revealed that rebels remained the chief suspects in the killing.
Abdel-Jalil is using the same template to “explain” the as yet unresolved circumstances under which Muammar Gaddafi was killed, which has also prompted calls for an investigation, due to what Abdel-Jalil characterized as the “demands of the international community.” Video footage shows that Gaddafi was still alive when he was pulled from a drainpipe after a NATO air assault ruined his escape attempt. Yet subsequent video showed the tyrant dead with a bullet wound to the head and covered in bruises. Nevertheless, Abdel-Jalil tried to deny the obvious. “Free Libyans wanted to keep Gaddafi in prison and humiliate him as long as possible,” he theorized. “Those who wanted him killed were those who were loyal to him or had played a role under him. His death was in their benefit.” Though Abdel-Jalil makes no mention of it, one might be inclined to assume this argument also applies to Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Muatassim, who also ended up dead, despite videos showing he was captured alive.
Such calculated obstinance raises an obvious question: if the circumstances surrounding the death of Muammar Gaddafi could be whitewashed to exonerate the rebels, what chance is there of an honest investigation being conducted of the massacre at the Mahari Hotel? It has been over a week since the incident occurred, and no one from the new government has initiated an investigation to date. HRW’s Peter Bouckaert illuminates the implications. “If the NTC fails to investigate this crime it will signal that those who fought against Gaddafi can do anything without fear of prosecution,” he said.
So far they have. Back in May, the New York Times ran a story speculating that rebels had formed a “death squad stalking former Gaddafi officials in Benghazi.” In August, rebels were charged with killing black people indiscriminately by African Union leader Jean Ping, who contended “the NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries…They are killing normal workers.” Humanrightsinvestigations.org (HRI) also accused the rebels of conducting “ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people.” In October, rebels reportedly went on a “vengeance spree” in the town of Abu Hadi, known as a tribal center for Gaddafi. Unrestrained looting and the burning of houses by rebel forces was rationalized by rebel commander Col. Bashir Abu Thafeera, who contended they were the result of “42 years of oppression under Gaddafi.” And HRW noted that of the 95 people killed in the fighting and NATO strikes prior to Gaddafi’s capture, “between six and ten of the dead appear to have been executed at the site with gunshot wounds to the head and body.”
All of these illegal acts of vengeance and execution, plus others which will undoubtedly emerge as the fog of war dissipates, undercut the original premise of a “humanitarian” NATO mission sold under the auspices of “protecting the civilian population” in compliance with U.N Resolution 1973. And despite the fact that the National Transitional Council has shown little inclination to investigate any of the alleged abuses by rebel forces, NATO has announced that it will end operations in Libya by October 31st. “We did what we said we would do and now is the time for the Libyan people to take their destiny into their own hands,” said NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen last Friday.
It is a destiny which remains highly problematic. Abdel-Jalil amended his original statement that Libya will be a Muslim country governed under Sharia Law. “Libyans are Muslims, but we are moderate Muslims,” he said Monday, even as he urged “forgiveness and reconciliation” in his address to the nation. Yet he remained committed to Sharia Law. “Any law that runs contrary to the Islamic principles of the Islamic Shariah is legally void,” he said. Thus, second-class status for women and homosexuals, violence and intimidation directed at non-believers, and dreams of jihadist domination–all in moderation–will apparently be the foundation of the new Libyan government. It remains to be seen whether “forgiveness and reconciliation” includes turning a blind eye to rebel abuses, assuming any investigations take place at all.
As for those who wish to take credit for the outcome of the Libyan adventure, it would be wise to remember that with credit comes responsibility. Muammar Gaddafi will not be missed. It remains to be seen if what takes his place is better or worse, when thousands of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles capable of shooting down jetliners, remain unaccounted for, autonomous militias in search of vengeance remain unfettered by external control, and the genuine composition and ultimate objectives of the rebel forces remains largely a mystery.
One always hopes war will be won by the “good guys.” Fifty-three dead bodies of people seemingly executed in cold blood indicate that such a term may be nothing more than an exceedingly hollow expression when applied to the winners in Libya.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle. Click here.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/26/the-libyan-rebels-massacre/
Barack Obama and his supporters are no doubt hoping the lion’s share of the credit for the deposing and killing of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi will go to the president, who himself expressed praise for the rebels back in September. “Today, the Libyan people are writing a new chapter in the life of their nation. After four decades of darkness, they can walk the streets, free from a tyrant,” Mr. Obama said at the time. They are indeed free from a tyrant. Whether they are free from tyranny is another matter. The final days of the fighting in and around the city of Sirte resulted in a massacre, with 53 people methodically executed at a hotel — apparently by a faction of the same rebels who have assumed control of the country.
“We found 53 decomposing bodies, apparently Gaddafi supporters, at an abandoned hotel in Sirte, and some had their hands bound behind their backs when they were shot,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch (HRW). “This requires the immediate attention of the Libyan authorities to investigate what happened and hold accountable those responsible.”
The Libyan authority at the moment is the National Transitional Council (NTC) chaired by Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, and the likelihood of a competent investigation taking place is slim: on Monday volunteers were busy scrubbing the garden of the Mahari Hotel, where the alleged atrocity appears to have taken place. The volunteers, who said the dead were comprised of “at least two former Gaddafi government officials, local loyalist fighters and maybe civilians,” have collected dozens of bodies. But other evidence of the massacre, such as shell casings, plastic ties used to bind the hands of the victims, and patches of bloody grass remain behind.
Complicating any investigation is the fact that the bodies, which were found clustered together, were already in an advanced state of decomposition when they were viewed by HRW observers on October 23rd. HRW noted that the “condition of the bodies suggests the victims were killed approximately one week prior to their discovery, between October 14 and October 19. The bloodstains on the grass directly below the bodies, bullet holes visible in the ground, and the spent cartridges of AK-47 and FN-1 rifles scattered around the site strongly suggest that some, if not all of the people, were shot and killed in the location where they were discovered.”
According to witnesses HRW interviewed, anti-Gaddafi rebels from the city of Misrata had been in control of that section of Sirte since early October. Anti-Gaddafi brigades are organized according to their city of origin, and the city of Misrata has more that 100 brigades (katiba) which contain small numbers of fighters who operated semi-autonomously during battle. The names of five of those brigades, the “Tiger Brigade” (Al-Nimer), the “Support Brigade” (Al-Isnad), the “Jaguar Brigade” (Al-Fahad), the “Lion Brigade” (Al-Asad), and the “Citadel Brigade” (Al-Qasba), covered the walls and entrance of the hotel. This was apparently due to the fact that they used the facility as a base of operations. HRW did not directly accuse these five brigades of conducting the massacre, but said their presence at the hotel when it occurred “requires immediate investigation.”
The current record of the National Transitional Council suggests such immediacy is a pipe dream for both practical and political reasons. Practically speaking, the rebels who ostensibly liberated the nation are comprised of several separate militias. Despite repeated attempts, the NTC has failed to establish a chain of command among those militias or form a national army. Thus, despite several alleged incidents of arbitrary arrests, torture or murder, the mechanisms for dealing with formal investigations and prosecutions remain largely undeveloped. Politically speaking, the NTC’s attempt to burnish its own legitimacy requires it to establish relationships with the leaders of those militias, which may lead to more than a few alleged incidents of extra-legal activity being downplayed, ignored altogether or blamed on Gaddafi and his loyalist forces.
This last fallback position appears to be the stance the NTC is adopting with regard to the killing of Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes, the rebel’s top military commander, as well as two of his aides, back in August. Younis, former aide and interior minister to Gaddafi, defected on February 20th, and was credited with helping the rebels overthrow the regime’s military garrison in the city of Benghazi. When the murders occurred, Younis was reportedly in the hands of rebel forces. NTC Chairman Abdel-Jalil had promised to investigate that incident, claiming no one, “not even the highest officials” would remain above suspicion. Yet he proposed that Gaddafi loyalists were responsible, even as other members of his organization revealed that rebels remained the chief suspects in the killing.
Abdel-Jalil is using the same template to “explain” the as yet unresolved circumstances under which Muammar Gaddafi was killed, which has also prompted calls for an investigation, due to what Abdel-Jalil characterized as the “demands of the international community.” Video footage shows that Gaddafi was still alive when he was pulled from a drainpipe after a NATO air assault ruined his escape attempt. Yet subsequent video showed the tyrant dead with a bullet wound to the head and covered in bruises. Nevertheless, Abdel-Jalil tried to deny the obvious. “Free Libyans wanted to keep Gaddafi in prison and humiliate him as long as possible,” he theorized. “Those who wanted him killed were those who were loyal to him or had played a role under him. His death was in their benefit.” Though Abdel-Jalil makes no mention of it, one might be inclined to assume this argument also applies to Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Muatassim, who also ended up dead, despite videos showing he was captured alive.
Such calculated obstinance raises an obvious question: if the circumstances surrounding the death of Muammar Gaddafi could be whitewashed to exonerate the rebels, what chance is there of an honest investigation being conducted of the massacre at the Mahari Hotel? It has been over a week since the incident occurred, and no one from the new government has initiated an investigation to date. HRW’s Peter Bouckaert illuminates the implications. “If the NTC fails to investigate this crime it will signal that those who fought against Gaddafi can do anything without fear of prosecution,” he said.
So far they have. Back in May, the New York Times ran a story speculating that rebels had formed a “death squad stalking former Gaddafi officials in Benghazi.” In August, rebels were charged with killing black people indiscriminately by African Union leader Jean Ping, who contended “the NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries…They are killing normal workers.” Humanrightsinvestigations.org (HRI) also accused the rebels of conducting “ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people.” In October, rebels reportedly went on a “vengeance spree” in the town of Abu Hadi, known as a tribal center for Gaddafi. Unrestrained looting and the burning of houses by rebel forces was rationalized by rebel commander Col. Bashir Abu Thafeera, who contended they were the result of “42 years of oppression under Gaddafi.” And HRW noted that of the 95 people killed in the fighting and NATO strikes prior to Gaddafi’s capture, “between six and ten of the dead appear to have been executed at the site with gunshot wounds to the head and body.”
All of these illegal acts of vengeance and execution, plus others which will undoubtedly emerge as the fog of war dissipates, undercut the original premise of a “humanitarian” NATO mission sold under the auspices of “protecting the civilian population” in compliance with U.N Resolution 1973. And despite the fact that the National Transitional Council has shown little inclination to investigate any of the alleged abuses by rebel forces, NATO has announced that it will end operations in Libya by October 31st. “We did what we said we would do and now is the time for the Libyan people to take their destiny into their own hands,” said NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen last Friday.
It is a destiny which remains highly problematic. Abdel-Jalil amended his original statement that Libya will be a Muslim country governed under Sharia Law. “Libyans are Muslims, but we are moderate Muslims,” he said Monday, even as he urged “forgiveness and reconciliation” in his address to the nation. Yet he remained committed to Sharia Law. “Any law that runs contrary to the Islamic principles of the Islamic Shariah is legally void,” he said. Thus, second-class status for women and homosexuals, violence and intimidation directed at non-believers, and dreams of jihadist domination–all in moderation–will apparently be the foundation of the new Libyan government. It remains to be seen whether “forgiveness and reconciliation” includes turning a blind eye to rebel abuses, assuming any investigations take place at all.
As for those who wish to take credit for the outcome of the Libyan adventure, it would be wise to remember that with credit comes responsibility. Muammar Gaddafi will not be missed. It remains to be seen if what takes his place is better or worse, when thousands of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles capable of shooting down jetliners, remain unaccounted for, autonomous militias in search of vengeance remain unfettered by external control, and the genuine composition and ultimate objectives of the rebel forces remains largely a mystery.
One always hopes war will be won by the “good guys.” Fifty-three dead bodies of people seemingly executed in cold blood indicate that such a term may be nothing more than an exceedingly hollow expression when applied to the winners in Libya.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle. Click here.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/26/the-libyan-rebels-massacre/
Networks and Cable Still Mostly Silent on Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protests
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:44 AM EDT
Journalistic outlets, which were all too eager to accuse the Tea Party of bigotry, have been mostly silent in response to examples of anti-Semitism at the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests. Incidents caught on tape and the urging of the Anti-Defamation League to stop anti-Jewish bigotry have yielded very little coverage.
Since October 1st, a Nexis search reveals no discussion of anti-Semitism at the protests on ABC, CBS, NBC or during the primetime lineup of CNN and MSNBC. This is despite incidents of anti-Jewish comments at "Occupy" rallies in New York and Los Angeles.
At one L.A. protest, now-fired teacher Patricia McAllister complained, "I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government -- they need to be run out of this country." (The L.A. Times covered this story.)
In New York, another protester derided, "So, the hatred of the Arabs towards Israel is understandable."
Although prime time MSNBC has failed to cover such incidents of hate, MSNBC's Martin Bashir did. On October 18, he pressed activist Russell Simmons and played a commercial from a Jewish organization attacking the hate.
In that clip, a man can be seen screaming, "You're a bum, Jew!"
The New York Times on Saturday discussed and dismissed anti-Semitism at the rallies.
Clay Waters of Times Watch explained:
The MRC's Geoff Dickens previously explained the difference between the Tea Party protests of 2009 and Occupy Wall Street:
For more on this, see a statement by the MRC's Brent Bozell.
— Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Since October 1st, a Nexis search reveals no discussion of anti-Semitism at the protests on ABC, CBS, NBC or during the primetime lineup of CNN and MSNBC. This is despite incidents of anti-Jewish comments at "Occupy" rallies in New York and Los Angeles.
At one L.A. protest, now-fired teacher Patricia McAllister complained, "I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government -- they need to be run out of this country." (The L.A. Times covered this story.)
In New York, another protester derided, "So, the hatred of the Arabs towards Israel is understandable."
Although prime time MSNBC has failed to cover such incidents of hate, MSNBC's Martin Bashir did. On October 18, he pressed activist Russell Simmons and played a commercial from a Jewish organization attacking the hate.
In that clip, a man can be seen screaming, "You're a bum, Jew!"
The New York Times on Saturday discussed and dismissed anti-Semitism at the rallies.
Clay Waters of Times Watch explained:
While the New York Times was hypersensitive to any signs of racial prejudice among the massive, peaceful Tea Party protests, reporter Joseph Berger raised and dismissed the idea of anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street, in Saturday’s “Cries of Anti-Semitism, But Not at Zuccotti Park.” Just two of many references: Reporter David Herszenhorn assumed racism was a force in the movement in an April 1, 2010 podcast: “One is clearly there’s a racial component. Some members of Congress you know, had epithets hurled at them as protesters marched around the Capitol on the day of the big House vote.” Those claims have never been substantiated. On July 18, 2010 Matt Bai reported about fictional “hateful 25-year-olds” at Tea Party rallies.In the NYT piece, writer Joseph Berger noted complaints from the Anti-Defamation League:
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, urged the protest organizers to condemn any expressions of anti-Semitism, but said, “There are manifestations in the movement of anti-Semitism, but they are not expressing or representing a larger view.”The networks ignored Foxman's comments. Only PBS' Religion and Ethics Newsweekly's Bob Abernethy noted, "While Jewish groups have been part of the protests, the Anti-Defamation League condemned what it says have been anti-Semitic signs at some of the demonstrations."
The MRC's Geoff Dickens previously explained the difference between the Tea Party protests of 2009 and Occupy Wall Street:
In just the first eleven days of October, ABC, CBS and NBC flooded their morning and evening newscasts with a whopping 33 full stories or interview segments on the protesters. This was a far cry from the greeting the Tea Party received from the Big Three as that conservative protest movement was initially ignored (only 13 total stories in all of 2009) and then reviled.
For more on this, see a statement by the MRC's Brent Bozell.
— Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Thomas Sowell: Washington's Meddling Wrecking Economy
Tuesday, 25 Oct 2011 05:56 PM
Economist and author Thomas Sowell tells Newsmax that banks and businesses are sitting on piles of cash because they’re concerned about “what new bright idea” Washington might come up with to “mess up” their investments.
Sowell, a Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, says he would like to see a constitutional amendment barring politicians from intervening in the economy “under any circumstances.”
Story continues below.
Sowell is also a syndicated columnist and winner of the National Humanities Award. His latest book, “The Thomas Sowell Reader,” is a compilation of his writings on various issues over the past three decades.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Sowell was asked who is to blame for the dire state of the American economy.
“Practically everybody, and I think particularly the Washington politicians,” he declares.
“The crucial fact that brought this on was the failure of people with mortgages to pay those mortgages, and that in turn was due to politicians forcing lending institutions to lower their lending standards. That brought in lots of people who would not have been given mortgages before, who then failed to live up to their mortgages — which is exactly why the standards were higher before the politicians intervened.
“There’s a great pressure on people in Washington to ‘do something,’ and that pressure has led to many things that have been counterproductive.
“Right now the problem is not that there isn’t money in the economy. The problem is that the money is sitting idle. Banks and businesses have had record-breaking amounts of cash sitting around and are not doing anything with it. And they’re very prudent to be hesitant. They don’t know what new bright idea will occur in Washington over the next year that will mess up any investment that they make.”
Americans should not accept that unemployment will remain high regardless of who controls Washington, Sowell says.
“Not at all. Unemployment can go up and it can come down depending in many cases on what kind of policies the government follows.
“Even after the great stock market crash of 1929, the unemployment rate did not reach double digits in any of the 12 months that followed. It reached double digits after the politicians started intervening.”
His prescription for fixing the economy: “I would love to have a constitutional amendment that says politicians are not allowed to intervene in the economy under any circumstances. I think there would be a boom following that.”
Sowell, an African-American, recently commented on the Fox Business Network that presidential candidate Herman Cain “is certainly one of us far more so than Barack Obama.”
He tells Newsmax: “Barack Obama was raised in Hawaii where there is very little black population, and went to an expensive private school. What Herman Cain did was much more typical of most of the blacks in the country.”
Sowell says Cain’s 9-9-9 tax reform plan would probably have repercussions, like any tax plan, but they “would not be nearly as bad as those we are currently having — and might be a significant improvement.”
Asked if he’d like to see the IRS abolished, Sowell responds: “Yes. The country lived for over 100 years before there was an IRS.”
He was also asked if the Occupy Wall Street movement is right in blaming big banks for the nation’s income inequality.
“No. I’m always fascinated when people attribute very high incomes to greed. Greed tells you what you want. If you have high income it’s because other people are willing to pay it. And the other people who are willing to pay it very often in recent years have been the politicians who are spending the taxpayers’ money.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Radical Bill Ayers Speaks to Occupy Chicago Protesters About Revolution & the Tea Party
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:42am by Billy Hallowell
Former terrorist-turned-university professor Bill Ayers (you may remember him from his ongoing presence in 2008 presidential campaign theoretic), made an appearance last week at Occupy Chicago.
The former radical, a member of the infamous and violent Weather Underground, discussed his experience with “revolutions,” gave advice about how to handle the Tea Party and took a solid jab at President Barack Obama — a man many believe he was once friends with.
Considering the Occupy movement’s ongoing calls for “revolution” and a major push for a fundamentally changed system, it’s no wonder Ayers was brought in to address the Chicago protesters. Among their many questions, his audience wondered how they should handle the media’s continued comparison between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
“A big bright line running through the Tea Party movement is Jingoism, Nativism, racism,” he told the protesters. “A big bright line is funding from the Koch brothers.” Of course, Ayers didn’t mention anything about the large-scale progressive groups that are assisting with Occupy Wall Street and its sister protests.
While he characterized the conservative movement in these terms, he also said it‘s important to remember that those who associate with the Tea Party aren’t the Occupiers’ enemies. ”Even when they’re huffed up with false stupidity and manipulated by all kinds of forces,” he reiterated.
Rather than violence — a tactic his Weather Underground was never afraid to employ — Ayers directed the students to rely on their natural “tools”:
Below, watch Ayers give his leftist advice to the protesters:
(H/T: Gateway Pundit)
Former terrorist-turned-university professor Bill Ayers (you may remember him from his ongoing presence in 2008 presidential campaign theoretic), made an appearance last week at Occupy Chicago.
The former radical, a member of the infamous and violent Weather Underground, discussed his experience with “revolutions,” gave advice about how to handle the Tea Party and took a solid jab at President Barack Obama — a man many believe he was once friends with.
Considering the Occupy movement’s ongoing calls for “revolution” and a major push for a fundamentally changed system, it’s no wonder Ayers was brought in to address the Chicago protesters. Among their many questions, his audience wondered how they should handle the media’s continued comparison between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
“A big bright line running through the Tea Party movement is Jingoism, Nativism, racism,” he told the protesters. “A big bright line is funding from the Koch brothers.” Of course, Ayers didn’t mention anything about the large-scale progressive groups that are assisting with Occupy Wall Street and its sister protests.
While he characterized the conservative movement in these terms, he also said it‘s important to remember that those who associate with the Tea Party aren’t the Occupiers’ enemies. ”Even when they’re huffed up with false stupidity and manipulated by all kinds of forces,” he reiterated.
Rather than violence — a tactic his Weather Underground was never afraid to employ — Ayers directed the students to rely on their natural “tools”:
“I think you should use your brilliance, your humor, your wisdom, your body to dramatize the violence that exists. But we do not live in a neutral — not when there’s a trillion dollar military budget — the biggest in the world, not when they’re recruiting kids to be in the service, not when every athletic event begins with guns and marching…that‘s a violent culture and that’s where we live…”And, very oddly, he was sure to slip in a dig at Obama. ”Somebody like Barack Obama who drone strikes American citizens is saying ‘I want you all to be non-violent.’ Well, I want you to be non-violent,” he quipped.
Below, watch Ayers give his leftist advice to the protesters:
(H/T: Gateway Pundit)
Detailed Satellite Images of ‘Hellish’ North Korean Camps Show Growth
Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:15pm by Liz Klimas
South Korea’s Unification Ministry has released the most detailed images yet of concentration camps in North Korea — camps which officials in the country have denied existence.
The camps are estimated to hold more than 200,000 North Korean citizens, according to the Daily Mail.
Last month, Kang Chol-Hwan, a former prisoner of a Yodok, spoke with CBN News about his experience. He escaped to China in 1992 after being held captive for 10 years. Kang has written a book about the camp called The Aquariums of Pyongyang and is considered one of the first people to speak publicly about Yodok. CBN wrote that when shown satellite images of the camps, Kang didn’t like what he saw:
CBN interviewed another Yodok prisoner, Jeong Kyoung-il, who spoke on his torture at the camp after he was arrested in 1999 for suspicion of spying:
Daily Mail notes that Amnesty International, a human rights group, compared the new images to blurry ones taken 10 years ago:
According to the Daily Mail, the Unification Ministry has said its representatives will be leaving for Pyongyang tomorrow to discuss peace and human rights and potentially meet with Kim Jon-il.
[H/T Gizmodo]
South Korea’s Unification Ministry has released the most detailed images yet of concentration camps in North Korea — camps which officials in the country have denied existence.
The camps are estimated to hold more than 200,000 North Korean citizens, according to the Daily Mail.
This camp is located in Hwasong in the North Hamkyong Province. (Image: Daily Mail)
This camp is located in Bukchang in the South Pyongan Province. (Image: Daily Mail)
“The camp definitely looks bigger,” he observed. “For example, these new buildings for prison guards weren’t there before. I can only assume that means there are more prisoners being held and therefore more security is needed.”Kang was taken to the camps with his family when he was nine years old. Kang describes the camps as a place where “even animals are treated better”:
“We had no food. We eat anything we could get our hands on — rats, snakes, frogs, insects,” he recalled. “We just had to find a way to survive.”Watch CBN’s report:
CBN interviewed another Yodok prisoner, Jeong Kyoung-il, who spoke on his torture at the camp after he was arrested in 1999 for suspicion of spying:
While he was in the Yodok labor camp, Jeong says the prison guards performed a particular form of torture on him called the Pigeon Torture. In essence, the prisoner is hanged from the wall with his hands tied behind his back like this and he was in this position for several days.
“This happened repeatedly,’ said Jeong. “It’s like you are hanging upside down. Your muscles tense up and your chest sticks out like a bird. I thought I was going to die.”
Satellite view of the North Korean prison camp Yodok. (Image: Daily Mail)
[It] confirms they are growing in size and branded them ‘hellish’.
‘The outside world certainly doesn’t know what’s going on and very little from the inside comes out,’ Sam Zarifi, from Amnesty International said last month.
‘The very little that has come out paints a very disturbing picture.’
Scott Edwards, director of the science and human rights program at Amnesty International added: ‘The fact that we would have to rely on satellite imagery just to dispel the government’s assertion that these camps don’t exist is testament really to the scale of the human travesty that might be going on inside.’
This depicts what's thought to be Camp 22, one of the largest North Korean camps. (Image: Daily Mail)
[H/T Gizmodo]
This is what happens in a Communist Socialist Country
NKorean Prison Camp Survivor: Starving Women Cooked & Ate Their Own Children
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:15pm by Billy Hallowell
Kim Hye Sook suffered unbearable pain and emotional suffering when she was detained for 28 years in a secretive North Korean concentration camp. Brutal executions, starvation — even mothers killing and eating their children to ensure their own survival — were regular occurrences.
Kim — who miraculously escaped from the Bukchang prison camp back in 2003 – granted CBN News with the first American television news interview to discuss these horrendous conditions. She now lives in South Korea, with the details of her escape remaining classified for security reasons. This summer, she released a memoir entitled, “A Concentration Camp Retold in Tears.”
When she was 13-year-old, her tragic tale began. The year was 1975 and in the blink of an eye the young girl was captured alongside her entire family. After years of suffering, she didn’t taste freedom until she was 41-years-old. Kim explains:
Today, Kim wears dark glasses to ensure that her identity remains concealed. While she lost seven family members in the re-education camp, she currently has two sisters and a brother who are still imprisoned. She described a typical day at the camp:
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:15pm by Billy Hallowell
Kim Hye Sook suffered unbearable pain and emotional suffering when she was detained for 28 years in a secretive North Korean concentration camp. Brutal executions, starvation — even mothers killing and eating their children to ensure their own survival — were regular occurrences.
Kim — who miraculously escaped from the Bukchang prison camp back in 2003 – granted CBN News with the first American television news interview to discuss these horrendous conditions. She now lives in South Korea, with the details of her escape remaining classified for security reasons. This summer, she released a memoir entitled, “A Concentration Camp Retold in Tears.”
When she was 13-year-old, her tragic tale began. The year was 1975 and in the blink of an eye the young girl was captured alongside her entire family. After years of suffering, she didn’t taste freedom until she was 41-years-old. Kim explains:
“My entire family went to prison. Some were taken to the mountains; others were put in different labor camps all because of my grandfather’s one mistake: he escaped to South Korea during the Korean War.”
Two women are watched by a North Korean guard (Photo Credit: AP)
“I attended indoctrination classes in the morning. In the afternoon the children were sent to push trolleys in the coal mines, often without any safety gear.
People were dying in the mines. There were numerous mine collapses, so many injuries, people who lost their legs, many who were buried alive. It was horrible.I was treated like a slave and worse. I hardly slept. It was inhuman. But I never complained. I just followed all the rules. I had to find a way to survive.”Kim claims that the conditions were so terrible that she thought about committing suicide “hundreds of thousands of times” during her 28-year detention. But because there was always someone watching her, this simply wasn’t an option:
“Each prisoner is assigned to watch four or five other prisoners. So if anything happens, the other prisoners would alert the guards because they didn’t want to get into trouble themselves.”While her descriptions of executions are absolutely horrendous, nothing is more disturbing than her memories about those individuals who she saw kill their children in an effort to stave off hunger. In one instance, she recalls a mother boiling her 9-year-old daughter. In another fit of desperation, a woman killed her 16-year-old son, chopped him up and took him to a butcher to obtain some corn in exchange.
Kim admits that these details are difficult to share, but she bravely proclaims, “I want the world to see these images and to hear my testimony.” In describing the conditions in the isolated and volatile nation, she says, “I am living proof that there are no human rights in North Korea.” In September, she was invited to Washington, D.C., where she testified before a congressional panel about the conditions she faced.
Watch her story, below:
(H/T: CBN News)
Full-Blown Riots Erupt as Occupy Oakland Gets Out of Control Overnight
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 8:22am by Jonathon M. Seidl
We’ve already brought you some pictures and video from the Occupy Oakland eviction last night, but this morning it seems things were much worse than previously expected. How much worse? Apparently the crowed erupted in riots and police used rubber bullets on the crowd.
Intrepid blogger Zombie put together a collage of videos and pictures the seem to capture the full chaos of what happened. Here’s how he describes it in his piece, “Rioting in Downtown Oakland as Occupiers Clash with Police:”
The cops initially gave the protesters a four-minute warning to disperse (which they ignored):
As the police released the tear gas, it sounded like a war zone:
This video claims police were using rubber bullets. If you listen close, it does sound like you can hear projectiles whizzing by. It has not been confirmed that police did, in fact, use rubber bullets. However several protesters have claimed as much. In fact, one person released a Twitter picture showing a 12 gauge shotgun shell and what appears to be a rubber bullet:
Still, it’s unknown if that is the truth or an attempt to portray the police as escalating the situation:
Protesters chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets!”
And finally, videos show the protesters surrounding the police earlier in the day and throwing paint cans at them:
Zombie also has some pictures of the night:
See more pictures and video at Zombie’s blog
We’ve already brought you some pictures and video from the Occupy Oakland eviction last night, but this morning it seems things were much worse than previously expected. How much worse? Apparently the crowed erupted in riots and police used rubber bullets on the crowd.Intrepid blogger Zombie put together a collage of videos and pictures the seem to capture the full chaos of what happened. Here’s how he describes it in his piece, “Rioting in Downtown Oakland as Occupiers Clash with Police:”
What we know so far: After the Occupy Oakland encampment was torn down early Tuesday morning by police, the ousted protesters reconvened outside the Oakland Library on Tuesday afternoon and voted to attempt a re-occupation of the same plaza from which they had just been evicted. Summoned by waves of emergency tweets and emails, fresh recruits joined the evicted Occupiers and early this evening once again marched on downtown Oakland, intending to reclaim Frank Ogawa Plaza.This is what resulted. (CONTENT WARNING for language on the videos.)
But the Oakland Police were of course monitoring all this, and along with many other local police departments they were waiting for the protesters’ invasion. After an hours-long standoff at 14th and Broadway, interrupted by several confrontations and arrests, everything started to turn violent some time after 9:30pm.
The cops initially gave the protesters a four-minute warning to disperse (which they ignored):
As the police released the tear gas, it sounded like a war zone:
This video claims police were using rubber bullets. If you listen close, it does sound like you can hear projectiles whizzing by. It has not been confirmed that police did, in fact, use rubber bullets. However several protesters have claimed as much. In fact, one person released a Twitter picture showing a 12 gauge shotgun shell and what appears to be a rubber bullet:
Still, it’s unknown if that is the truth or an attempt to portray the police as escalating the situation:
Protesters chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets!”
And finally, videos show the protesters surrounding the police earlier in the day and throwing paint cans at them:
Zombie also has some pictures of the night:
See more pictures and video at Zombie’s blogTuesday, October 25, 2011
ADBUSTERS MEDIA FOUNDATION (AMF)
- Anti-capitalist collective that derides American consumerism
- Said in 2011: “Now may be the ripest moment we’ll ever have to power-shift global capitalism onto a new sustainable path.”
- Condemns Israel for allegedly expropriating Palestinian land and instituting a discriminatory system of laws reminiscent of South Africa’s apartheid regime
- Warns that pollution created by human industrial activity will lead to "catastrophic climate change"
The Adbusters Media Foundation (AMF) is a not-for-profit, anti-consumerist organization founded in 1990 by author/activist Kalle Lasn and wilderness cinematographer Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Foundation describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Further, their aim is to "topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century." Boasting a membership of more than 91,000 as of September 2011, AMF refers to its activist supporters as “culture jammers,”—a term denoting efforts to challenge and discredit the dominant advertising messages disseminated in the mainstream media. By AMF's reckoning, advertising invariably corrupts American culture by creating and perpetuating a societal obsession with materialism and consumption.
AMF publishes Adbusters, a not-for-profit, reader-supported, advertising-free “ecological magazine” that rejects consumerism, condemns “the erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces,” and seeks to eliminate “injustices in the global economy” as well as “any industry that pollutes our physical or mental commons.” Notable past and present contributors to this periodical include The Nation Institute senior fellow Christopher Hedges, polemical journalist Matt Taibbi, environmentalist Bill McKibben, science-fiction author Jim Munroe, documentarian and media-studies instructor Douglas Rushkoff, Marxist philosopher Michael Hardt, and Marxist sociologist Antonio Negri.
Among AMF's most prominent campaigns have been the following:
* Buy Nothing Day: Typically celebrated on the Friday after Thanksgiving in the U.S. (and the following day elsewhere in the world), this initiative emphasizes that “with catastrophic climate change looming, we the rich one billion people on the planet have to consume less!” An outgrowth of this tradition is "Buy Nothing Christmas," which urges people not to purchase Christman presents but instead “give your friends and family a 'gift-exemption' card; go to stores and ask holiday shoppers, “What would Jesus buy?”; and “dress as Santa and meditate in the middle of a busy shopping mall.”
* Blackspot Shoes: As an “affront to the consciousness of hyper-capitalism and profit-dominated boardroom policies,” AMF promotes and markets a line of shoes—produced in so-called “fair-trade” factories and made from hemp, recycled tires, and vegan leather—bearing the label “Blackspot.” Blackspot is an open-source brand, which means that it can be used by anyone, for any purpose, at no cost.
* Kick It Over: This initiative encourages economics students around the world "to join the fight to revamp Econ 101 curriculums and challenge the endemic myopia of their tenured neoclassical profs." The campaign's signature document—the “Kick it Over Manifesto”—calls for “an economic revolution” that will yield “a new economics” which is not centered around Gross Domestic Product or any other “fundamentally flawed and incomplete” measures of economic progress. “Deep in recession and with scary ecological scenarios looming,” said AMF in 2011, “now may be the ripest moment we’ll ever have to power-shift global capitalism onto a new sustainable path.”
* One Flag: This was a competition which encouraged Adbusters readers to design and create a flag that symbolized “global citizenship,” without using language or commonly known symbols.
AMF has often condemned Israel for allegedly expropriating Palestinian land, instituting a discriminatory system of laws reminiscent of South Africa’s apartheid regime, illegally demolishing the homes of peaceful Arabs, and routinely using excessive force and violence in an effort to humiliate and terrorize Palestinian civilians. In June 2009 article/photo montage critiquing Israel's embargo of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, Adbusters magazine likened Gaza to the Warsaw ghetto of the WWII era—suggesting that contemporary Jews' treatment of the Palestinians resembled the manner in which the Nazis had treated Jews under Hitler. A legal dispute ensued between Adbusters and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which reportedly owned the Warsaw photos used by the publication.
AMF was a key organizer—along with such groups as Occupy Wall Street, USDayOfRage, NYC General Assembly, Take The Square, and Anonymous—of a September 17, 2011 “Day of Rage” protest which was staged in the vicinity of New York's Wall Street financial center, which AMF viewed as the very emblem of the capitalist system which it so despised—“the financial Gomorrah of America” and “the greatest corrupter of our democracy.” Seeking to build on the anti-globalization movement and striving to promote “a worldwide shift in revolutionary tactics,” AMF called for “20,000 people [to] flood into lower Manhattan [on September 17], set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months.”
In its communiques to the “radicals and utopian dreamers” who were planning to participate in the September 17 demonstrations, AMF warned that: “Strategically speaking, there is a very real danger that if we naively put our cards on the table and rally around the 'overthrow of capitalism' or some equally outworn utopian slogan, then our Tahrir moment [i.e., opportunity for revolutionary change] will quickly fizzle into another inconsequential ultra-lefty spectacle soon forgotten.” To guard against this possibility, AMF called for “a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand” that was "so specific and doable" that it would be "impossible for President Obama to ignore." Thus, under the slogan “Democracy Not Corporatocracy,” AMF issued a demand for Obama to “ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington.”
According to journalist Aaron Klein, the September 17 New York City protests—which ultimately drew about 1,000 participants—apparently represented “the culmination” of a campaign by Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN and president of an SEIU local in New Orleans, who in March 2011 had issued a call for “days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase.” Rathke's efforts were supported by Stephen Lerner, an SEIU board member and radical-left organizer who candidly aims to “destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement”; “bring down the stock market”; “bring down [the] bonuses” of executives in the financial sector; and “interfere with their ability to ... be rich.”
On October 1, 2011, a horde of the Wall Street demonstrators shut down traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge for two-and-a-half hours, a move that resulted in some 700 arrests. Among the high-profile personalities who had already made personal appearances in support of the demonstrators were Michael Moore (who spoke at the September 17 New York rally), Susan Sarandon, Russell Simmons, Cornel West, Charles Barron, Frances Fox Piven, and Charles Rangel.
Between 2001 and 2011, AMF received $176,500 in grants from the Glaser Progress Foundation, and $309,773 from the Tides Foundation.
USDAYOFRAGE (USDOR)
Established in 2011 and named after a series of Weatherman-inspired anti-Vietnam War protests in Chicago in 1969, USDayOfRage (USDOR) consists of thousands of activists who use the Internet's social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to organize demonstrations against what they describe as “a system or ideology that runs counter to the aims of life.” In particular, USDOR rejects the notion that corporations should be permitted to give financial support to the political causes of their choice. Such spending by “special interests,” says USDOR, amounts to a corruptive “farce” that has “silenced and demoralized” America's “individual citizens, the legitimate voters.”
To rectify this situation, USDOR demands that the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision of 2010 – which nullified a provision of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns – be overturned. By USDOR's reckoning, “only citizens” – and not corporations – “should make campaign contributions,” and those contributions “should not exceed $1 to any political candidate or party.”
To advance this agenda along with a variety of anti-capitalist themes, USDOR at its founding scheduled public demonstrations to be held in more than 60 U.S. cities. The first of these – centered on Wall Street, the hub of New York's financial district – was held on Saturday, September 17, 2011. Smaller "satellite" demonstrations were held that same day in Los Angeles, Seattle, Barcelona (Spain), and elsewhere – all under the “Day of Rage” banner. Subsequent events promoting the same agendas were scheduled for early October and beyond.
The original call for the September 17 rally in New York was put out in July 2011 by the Adbusters Media Foundation. The most notable groups to then step forward and help organize the event were USDOR, NYC General Assembly, Take the Square, Occupy Wall Street, and Anonymous.
According to journalist Aaron Klein, the September 17 protests apparently represented “the culmination” of a campaign by Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN and president of an SEIU local in New Orleans, who in March 2011 had issued a call for “days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase.” Rathke's efforts were supported by Stephen Lerner, an SEIU board member and radical-left organizer whose declared aims are to “destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement”; “bring down the stock market”; “bring down [the] bonuses” of executives in the financial sector; and “interfere with their ability to ... be rich.”
In an effort to maximize the effectiveness of those people who planned to participate in the September 17 demonstrations, USDOR collaborated with the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) to produce literature enumerating a host of practical guidelines and suggestions. For additional details about this literature, click here.
Though USDOR and its fellow organizers were hoping that at least 20,000 people would take part in the September 17 rally in New York, the actual number of participants was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000. Throughout the afternoon, they gathered in parks and plazas across Lower Manhattan, holding teach-ins and displaying signs that bore messages like “Democracy Not Corporatization” and “Revoke Corporate Personhood.”
Many of the demonstrators said they were determined to continue their protest at least through the weekend, so they could confront Wall Street workers the following Monday morning. Some vowed to stay for weeks or months and likened their aims to those of the protesters who had flooded the streets of Egypt and Spain earlier in the year. On October 1, 2011, a horde of these Wall Street demonstrators shut down traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge for two-and-a-half hours, a move that resulted in some 700 arrests. Among the high-profile personalities who had already made personal appearances in support of the demonstrators were filmmaker Michael Moore (who spoke at the September 17 New York rally), Susan Sarandon, Russell Simmons, Cornel West, Charles Barron, Frances Fox Piven, and Charles Rangel.
Professing to be staunchly nonviolent and to be composed exclusively of volunteers with no desire to profit financially from their activist ventures, USDOR describes itself as “an idea, not a political party,” and pledges that it “will never endorse, finance, or lend our name to any candidate or party.”