Something's stinking at the Occupy Wall Street, and it isn't just the occupiers.
I've been wondering about Michael Bloomberg's role in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. He's a billionaire who made (and continues to make) his bucks in the financial world so hated by the "occupation forces," and he's also the mayor of a city whose economy is dependent on financial services and investing.
On the other hand, obviously, Bloomie could not have been elected mayor of New York City (not once, but three times) without having a très cosy relationship with the union supporters of the occupiers and (if you know anything about NYC politics) with ACORN's Working Families Party, whose staff, as The Blaze is reporting, are cheerfully taking bows for organizing the demonstrations.
So is Bloomie just another cog in the Alinsky machine rolling over the Constitution and the American Dream? Is he stuck between a rock and a hard place as pressure cracks crumble the Democrat Party? Or--what I consider the most likely scenario--is Occupy Wall Street just another opportunity for Bloomberg to make another bundle?
What would you expect from a Democrat billionaire?
|Bloomie with his live-in girlfriend, Diana Taylor.|
Question: Who is giving this tacit permission for the occupiers to hold a piece of Brookfield Properties? Answer: The directors responsible for Brookfield's decisions include Bloomie's very own live-in girlfriend, Diana Taylor, investment banker.
Taylor is up to her neck in the supposedly despised banking industry, and not in a quiet corner hidden away from Obama and his Obamatons. She also sits on the board of Citigroup, which, following the mortgage crisis, got bailed out with $25 billion of TARP funds, at which time the government also took over half the board of directors. At one time, Obama considered "dissolving" Citigroup altogether. In a past life, Taylor was the NY State Superintendent of Banks. Today, her day job is at the Wolfensohn investment firm, which is run by the former head of the World Bank.
As an editorialist at Investor's Business Daily points out,
So-called progressives like Obama have always sought to control the economy — to make it impossible for entrepreneurs and businesspeople to operate without government permission or guidance.
Banks are key to this. Not surprisingly, it's an idea progressives seem to have cribbed from Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto," a central tenet of which is "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."
Sound familiar? Fannie and Freddie together control nearly half of U.S. mortgages. Now Democrats want a U.S. "infrastructure bank" to do for our roads, bridges and ports what Fannie and Freddie did for housing.And, of course, Democrats wanted federal takeover of the college student-loan business, which they achieved as a footnote in their midnight passage of the Obamacare legislation. That was a double victory producing not only profits to fund future trips to Martha's Vineyard, but also the fun of exerting enormous control over the curricula that produces future "occupiers."
Somebody's about to make an enormous bundle, and it isn't the useful idiots sleeping on concrete in Zuccotti Park.
Linked at Adrienne's Corner, where you can view how thin a veneer is civilization when Communist theory collides with brains of mush.