Great Posting

Yesterday, anonymous posted the following as a comment.  It is an internal American Bankers Association memo regarding their approach to OWS.  It is worth reading and thanks anonymous for posting it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73209630/Anti-Occupy-Wall-Street

Conservative Tom

Gingrich Should Celebrate Occupy Wall Street

The following article by Bernie Quigley points out an interesting development. Newt could become President as a result of the creation of Occupy Wall Street (OWS)!  Nothing would make us happier if that would happen. As you know, we are not fans of Obama, however it is ironic that with the President's endorsement of OWS could be his downfall as well as another Democratic "shellacking" at the polls in 2012.
However before we celebrate, it is over a year before the elections and a lot of things could happen. We could have  a major economic problem, a new war, a new attack on the US or something else catastrophic which could make voters decide they don't want to change horses.  Or the Republican candidate could really stumble in his/her debate with Obama or say something really stupid which would give Obama the inside track. There is a lot of time for good or bad things to occur that could drastically change the election. So keep your powder dry.
Here is the article--what do you think?

How OWS could advance Newt Gingrich to the presidency

By Bernie Quigley - 11/18/11 08:55 AM ET

Politics is antidotal. That is, what comes next is the antidote or the equal and opposite counterforce to the disturbance of the force that just happened. It is nature finding its way back to balance. Had there been no Summer of Love, no hippies, diggers and all the adventurers of the Summer of ’67, there would have been no Ronald Reagan coming out of the wings. Reagan was California calling itself back to center just as the body responds to a virus: a stronger countervailing force than normal to balance the astonishing and rapid rise of the California counterculture.

And that is where Newt Gingrich comes in. As Reagan was antidote to the hippie movement, Gingrich is the equal and opposite counterforce to the Occupy Wall Street movement. His sudden recent support can be seen rising as a graph exactly in correlation to the rise in intensity of Occupy Wall Street.

Today’s astonishing Drudge headline: “Shock Poll Iowa: Gingrich 32% Romney 19% Cain 13%,” citing the current Rasmussen report. Gingrich is a great debater and an intellectual gadfly, but had their been no Occupy movement he might have spent out the remainder of his life in a dog-and-pony show, traveling a debate circuit of small colleges to debate policy with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as hippie high priest Timothy Leary and Watergate plumber G. Gordon Liddy did; the last exit at political Palookaville. Now he could well go all the way to the presidency. 

If I recall correctly, Gingrich’s first comments on the OWS were that it would take down the Obama presidency. He recognized that whatever was said by the spinners and sycophants, Obama was a lifelong dissident, and Gingrich correctly intuited that Obama would be connected with the squalid aspects of OWS through association. This is especially true now that Obama’s best bud (and ghostwriter?), Bill Ayers, was videotaped recently giving advice to Occupy Chicago protesters, according to a report from NBC Chicago.

Gingrich may have recognized as well, when he saw that OWS would take down the presidency, that these events would send him there instead.

Benefits of Capitalism Missed by the Occupy Folks

The attached article points out one of the arguments that I have not heard mentioned regarding the Occupy Wall Street folks which is that without capitalism, none of the benefits and goods we have in this country today would exist. At least they would not exist in the volume, depth of choice and variety that we see them.  This is a good point and most of these spoiled children miss it.

The article is well worth reading.  What do you think?

 

"Occupy Wall Street Crowd Blind to Benefits of Capitalism" By Gary Wolfram William Simon Professor of Economics and Public Policy Hillsdale College Whenever I watch media coverage of another Occupy Wall Street event I am reminded of an exchange between Jewish protesters in the 1979 Monte Python movie Life of Brian. One of the protesters asks another what the Romans have brought to the area and the conversation goes like this: Question: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? Answer: Brought peace? Response: Oh, peace - shut up! The point is that the Roman institutions brought a good deal to the area that was being overlooked by the protesters. The Wall Street protesters, in their hatred of capitalism, overlook things including the fact that over the last 100 years capitalism has reduced poverty more and increased life expectancy more than in the 100,000 years prior. Every semester I ask my students: "What would you rather be? King of England in 1263 or you?" Turns out, students would rather be themselves. They enjoy using their iPhone, indoor plumbing, central heating, refrigerators and electric lighting. All of these things are available to the average person in America today and none of them were available to the aristocracy when the West operated under the feudal system. How is it that for thousands of years mankind made very little progress in increasing the standard of living and yet today half of the goods and services you use in the next week did not exist when I was born? It wasn't that there was some change in the DNA such that we got smarter. The Greeks knew how to make a steam engine 3,000 years ago and never made one. The difference is in how we organize our economic system. The advent of market capitalism in the mid 18th century made all of the difference. We need not just rely on historical data. Look at cross-section evidence. I try another experiment with my students. I tell them they are about to be born and they can choose whatever country in the world they would like to be born in. The only caveat is they will be the poorest person in that country. Every student picks a country that is primarily organized in a market capitalist system. No one picks a centrally planned state. No one says, "I want to be the poorest person in North Korea, Cuba, or Zimbabwe," countries which are at the bottom of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. What does it mean to be poor in our capitalist society that the Occupy Wall Street crowd so hates? Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has several studies of those classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau. He found that 80 percent of poor persons in the United States in 2010 had air conditioning, nearly three quarters of them had a car or truck, nearly two-thirds had satellite or cable television, half had a personal computer and more than two-thirds had at least two rooms per person. Contrast this with what it means to be poor in Mumbai, India, a country that is moving rapidly towards market capitalism but was burdened for decades with a socialist system. A recent story in The Economist described Dharavi, a slum inMumbai, where for many families half of the family members must sleep on their sides in order for the entire family to squeeze into its living space. The Occupy Wall Street movement has shown a lack of understanding of how the market capitalist system works. They appear to think that the cell phones they use, food they eat, hotels they stay in, cars they drive, gasoline that powers the cars they drive and all the myriad goods and services they consume every day would be there under a different system, perhaps in more abundance. But there is no evidence this could be or ever has been the case. The reason is that only market capitalism solves the two major problems that face any economy-how to provide an incentive to innovate and how to solve the problem of decentralized information. The reason there is so much innovation in a market system compared to socialism or other forms of central planning is that profit provides the incentive for innovators to take the risk needed to come up with new products. My mother never once complained that we did not have access to the latest Soviet washing machine. We never desired a new Soviet car. The socialist system relies on what Adam Smith referred to as the benevolent butcher and while there will undoubtedly be benevolent butchers out there, clearly a system that provides monetary rewards for innovators is much more dynamic and successful. The profit that the Occupy Wall Street protesters decry is the reason the world has access to clean water and anti-viral drugs. The other major problem that must be solved by any economic system is how to deal with the fact that information is so decentralized. There is no way for a central planner to know how many hot dogs 300 million Americans are going to want at every moment in time. A central planner cannot know the relative value of resources in the production of various goods and services. Market capitalism solves that problem through the price system. If there are too few hot dogs, the price of hot dogs will rise and more hot dogs will be produced. If too many hot dogs are produced, the price of hot dogs will fall and fewer will be produced. Market capitalism is the key to the wealth of the masses. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in his 1920 book, Socialism, only market capitalism can make the poor wealthy. Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek in his famous 1945 paper, The Use of Knowledge in Society, showed that only the price system in capitalism can create the spontaneous order that ensures that goods will be allocated in a way that ensures consumers determine the use of resources. The Occupy Wall Street movement would make best use of its time and energy in protesting the encroachment of the centrally planned state that led to the disaster of the Soviet Union, fascist Germany, and dictatorial North Korea. This article was originally posted at the Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute blog.

This Is What Occupy Washington Protesters Look Like

The news media has glamorized the Occupy movement to the point that some would say they are the George Washington of this generation.  In the attached article which includes video of the "Paul Reveres" of today, we see these protesters in their full glory . Are they  just peace loving, non-confrontational students.  Wrong!

What we are seeing is the beginning of a not-so-pretty United States. The Occupy movement in nothing less than  mob behavior posing as a protest group.  If it is not stopped, it will end up spreading across the country and will make the riots of the 60's look like Sunday School outings. This movement, unless it changes its tactics, is dangerous, not in its initial goals but the execution of their actions. When its leaders (actually those who are funding these groups) do not accomplish the change they desire, they will encourage their followers to destroy the United States. It is coming and it will not be pretty.

I know that sounds pretty "out there."  However, we see unemployed young people who will not take jobs because they are beneath them or those who have worthless degrees for which there are no jobs in America for that sheepskin. In addition we see the violence that has occurred at the Occupy sites. The rapes, theft, civil disobedience and murders are a stain on the United States.. This is not an example of a peaceful protest. It is violent against itself, its supporters and society in general.

The Occupy groups seem to have missed the lesson the Tea Party illustrated so well. Peaceful protests are wonderful and have a place in society. The reason the Tea Party made such great inroads advancing its positions is that the protests were all without violence. Their leaders made sure that signs that were not appropriate were destroyed, no speeches extorting  violence were allowed and they wanted to change the government policies through the ballot box.  They were not successful in every campaign, but no group ever is. However, their impact was felt in 2010 and continues to today. Most of all,  it was done without anyone getting hurt. 

It is time for the Occupy groups, if they want real impact on society, to re-think their approach to the problems they see and to start to conduct their protests in a peaceful and law abiding manner. Otherwise, they will lose the support of Middle America and will relegate themselves to the dust bin of history.

On the other hand, if their idea is the destruction of America, there will be no change in their approach and every Occupy site will become a battleground.

Here is the article, tell us what you think.
Conservative Tom


http://e2ma.net/go/12519389283/214002893/228039884/1361371/goto:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/occupy-dc-protestors-heckle-harass-wheelchair-bound-woman

Occupy Wall Street Unveiled

As the Occupy ...protests continue, we are gaining more of an understanding of their "goals".  It appears as if they are protesting success and achievement. If someone has something, they want it but are unwilling to put in the effort to get it. If you want a Mercedes, you can work long hours and earn it or you can demand that you are owed a car like that which is the mantra of the Occupy groups.

Don't take my word for it, go to their site OccupyWallStreet.org and you will see it in their own words and actions. This is not your Tea Party rally. These are lawbreakers who ignore police orders to the extent they are arrested and pepper sprayed. Their signs are anti-capitalistic and pro-chaos.

To compare them to Tea Party members as the Administration has tried to do over the past couple days, it an insult to the law abiding, small government protesters who saw the financial troubles coming in early 2009 when the first rallies started. The Occupy folks want governmental hand outs, the Tea Party people want Washington out of their lives. The contrast could not be clearer.

Life never is fair. Sometimes people with above normal intelligence get stuck in everyday jobs while those who are more "street smart" advance rapidly and make millions. Other times luck comes to play when opportunity meets preparation. Being at the right spot at the time is definitely helpful. Other people make millions because they know how to make things and create articles that improve our lives. Most people who are successful in this country made the money themselves. Yes, some did inherit it or marry it (e.g. Theresa Heinz and John Kerry), but that is a vast minority.

There is an old Irish proverb which says: poor to rich to poor in three generations. I have seen that in my life also. It seems like for a lot of families, dad makes the money, son either continues to build the business or crashes it and grandson bankrupts it. (To be politically correct, you can substitute the female gender for all parties!) It is not always true, but for the vast majority it is.

So to blame the rich, who for the most part are the job creators, for the problems will be readily rectified in one or two more generations. Then there will be the "new" rich we can all admire or blame for our own failures.

These Occupy groups are trying to level the playing field by bringing down to their level, those who have achieved.  We should be trying to raise everyone up, not bring those who are successful, down. To do that  is not America, it is czarist Russia before the Revolution type thinking.  This is not the route that the United States should be following.

You might have friends who believe themselves to be very intelligent and have other friends who have been successful. In our life it seems the underachieving bright people are always jealous of those who have done well. Why?  It must be part of human nature or another reason might be that because school came so easy to the bright ones, they did not develop the skills to compete in the real world outside of the classroom.  We all have known the very bright nerd who could not keep a job, because everyone was so "stupid" where they worked.

The impression we get is that the Occupy Wall Street people are jealous of the achievers. They want some of what they have. "It is not fair that he/she has four houses and I live in this crappy one bedroom apartment. I should have my own house!"  This sounds eerily familiar with Russia, Cuba, China, Cambodia, Korea et. al.

One last comment.  These protesters continue to rail against "business."  Why are there no complaints about basketball, baseball, football players, musicians and actors?  All of these people make millions for "entertaining" us. They produce nothing tangible yet they have not been condemned. In fact, Michael Moore who has made millions condemning business in his movies, spoke at the Occupy Wall Street rally. My guess it that as long as you are against business regardless of your millions, it is OK.  If this is true, this is a confused message.

Bobby Eberle writes today more about this phenomena that is spreading across the US.

Introducing the 'Something for Nothing' Protest

By Bobby Eberle October 11, 2011 

        

Down with evil corporations! No more big profits! No more corporate greed! Blah, blah, blah. Those slogans all sound great to a bunch of liberals who have nothing better to do than play video games, live at home, and not work. Why go out and earn a living when, for decades, liberals like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others are telling you that your plight is caused by the other guy... that you deserve what he has... and that the government will take from him and give to you. It's no wonder people are protesting. Going out and earning something on your own is so "old school."
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is picking up steam. But what is it all about? If you look at the OccupyWallStreet.org web site, the description reads: "Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." Hmmmm... the greed and corruption of the 1%? What is it these protesters want? One can only assume that they want MORE. More of what the rich have... more of what the rich control... more of what the rich enjoy.
If that is the case, then my response is: Go out and earn it! The rich pay most of the taxes, yet these protesters want them to pay even more. Why? I wish some reporters would actually ask these people if they know why they are protesting. If some rich guy is forced to pay even more in taxes, how does that help the average "Occupy Wall Street" protester? Will it get him or her a job? No. Will it buy him or her a fancy car? No. Jobs are created when job creators have an environment where they can grow. Fewer taxes and fewer regulations mean business owners can hire. Taxing these business owners makes them LESS likely to hire.
And as far as the fancy cars and boats and houses, you won't get those unless you go out and earn them! If you want to rely on the government, then you will trap yourself in a sub-standard level, because the government cannot artificially create a prosperous environment. If welfare and years of unemployment benefits are your cup of tea, then go ahead... demand more. Demand that the person working 20 hours a day to build a company or lead thousands of people pay more, so you can do less. This is insane!
Oh, and to top it off, now the Democrats are fully on board with this "movement about nothing." As Fox News reports, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is now working on an online petition for those who want to "let billionaires, big oil and big bankers know that we're not going to let the richest 1% force draconian economic policies and massive cuts to crucial programs on Main Street Americans." Ugh! The massive cuts are due to the fact that people have been led to believe that BIG government is the only way. Now we have a government that can't afford to do what it said it was going to do, too inept to be able to do it anyway, and a population that would rather take from someone else than earn it themselves.
It just goes to show how the left-wing mindset and tactics work on people, and how terrible the results are. With the Tea Party movement, Americans were united in calling for smaller government, lower taxes, and less debt. It's about Americans versus big government. With these folks, it's about Americans versus Americans. How productive do you think that's going to be? Building a platform based on envy and jealousy is what the left is all about, and it is NOT the way to bring America together.
But they use it, because it works. It's just like the famous quote from George Bernard Shaw: "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

Occupy Wall Street Demands Example

The following is an example of what the Occupy Wall Street Movement wants, however, as the disclaimer states, "There is NO official list of demands."  Pardon me, you bring hundreds of people onto Wall Street to protest and you have no demands?   Kinda sounds like "Change you can believe in." No demands, no plan, just protesting.

Take a look at the demands and you will see some pretty unrealistic ideas. Can you imagine all debt being cancelled? How about free education or  trillions being spent on infrastructure with our current debt problem.  None of these proposals will ever see the time of day, however, protesters who want to change the country will be attracted to outrageous ideas.

I don't understand why they did not include mandatory unisex bathrooms for all public places, the proposal would make as much sense as the rest of the ideas they proposed. 

Occupy Wall Street and the best of the Occupy organizations are not  friends of the American people. It appears as if they are staged and orchestrated events. Without any goals, the only explanation that I can perceive it that it is meant to be anarchy. What do you think?

Here is the posting:


Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! (User Submitted)

Posted Sept. 25, 2011, 3:46 p.m. EST (13 days ago) by anonymous

Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.

---

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party The Same?

The mouth, Joe Biden, says that those rabblerousers that are protesting on Wall Street are cut out of the same cloth as  the Tea Party.  Now I have not been to see the Occupy Wall Street or other Occupy locations, but I can see some big differences from the Tea Party events which I have attended.

First of all,  the Tea Party people are law abiding, respectful, conservative citizens who believe in the Constitution. Signs that are hateful or mean are cashiered.  From what I have observed, the attendees want their country back from the government, reduced taxes, more freedom and less interference from agencies.


On the other side, the Occupy people are law breakers (today they closed down the Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C.), liberal, and communist inspired and funded by Soros. The hateful (Nazi) signs and the verbiage used by the protesters are atrocious. You would not see them at a Tea Party. Additionally, they have some pretty outrageous demands.  (Our next post will give you an example.)

Sorry Joe, obviously  you have not been at  a Tea Party rally and  probably not at an Occupy protest. Once again Joe is talking through his hat.

Here is the ABC News report:

Biden Likens Occupy Wall Street Protests to Tea Party

EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- Vice President Joe Biden today likened the Occupy Wall Street protests to expressions of grassroots frustration by members of the Tea Party.

“Let’s be honest with one another,” Biden told an audience on camera at the Washington Ideas Forum. “What is the core of that protest? The core is: The bargain has been breached. The core is the American people do not think the system is fair, or on the level. That is the core is what you’re seeing with Wall Street," Biden claimed.

“There’s a lot in common with the Tea Party,” he said. “The Tea Party started, why? TARP. They thought it was unfair.”

Biden's statement comes despite the fact that the Tea Party movement espouses conservative values, while the patische of motivations from the Occupy Wall Street protests -- wealth redistribution, universal health care, and the like -- are hallmarks of many on the opposite side of the political fence.

Biden cited Bank of America’s recent decision to impose a $5 monthly fee on some debit card users as an example of new perceived unfairness related to the banking sector that has fueled more popular frustration.

“The middle class folks, these guys with the debit cards, are on their back. And [banks] are going to charge them $5 to use the cards? At minimum, they are totally tone-deaf,” Biden said.

This week, Frank Keating, CEO of American Bankers Association, blamed Senator Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat, for mandating the hikes.  "As a direct result of the Durbin Amendment," Keating told ABC News in am email, "consumers have started paying for financial services they previously enjoyed free of charge. Unfortunately, this proves that whenever government tries to control pricing of a product or service, consumers lose."

Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio