Friday, December 16, 2011

Person of the Year: The Protester

The protester?

For the 84th year, Time Magazine has picked whom they believe is the most influential game changer of the past year.

This year it is a faceless, nameless woman---I believe, representing all protesters.

Not Steve Jobs or Navy Admiral William McRaven, head of US Special Ops that killed Osama bin Laden---it's the Protester.

Time Magazine's first "Person" was Charles Lindbergh in 1927. In 1938, it was Adolf Hitler, in 1943, Joseph Stalin and in 1979---I remember that one, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Managing editor, Rick Stengel, says they choose the person who brings about "transformational change."

But are the protesters we are honoring only those from the Arab world? Many of whom are terrorist operatives?

"Oh no," Stengel says.

Ann Curry was wondering the same thing while interviewing him on NBC's Today Show. "Are there links between what happened in the Arab Spring," she asks, "and also whats happening on Wall Street and across this country?"

An enthusiastic Stengel: "Absolutely!"

"There's this contagion of protests...what happened in the Arab world also happened in Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland," Stengel continued.

So it isn't just the "person" under the Arab veil, but those in the streets of America. Those who claim to represent the "99%".

Good grief. Why are we honoring them? Where is the "transformative change" that has come from all that?

Well, I guess they have changed some people's lives.

Blocking people who actually have jobs from getting to work, stopping traffic, blocking retailers from making money to pay their employees, shutting down ports---I guess there is a sense in which that is transformative.

How many deaths were there in their illegal encampments in city parks and streets? How many needles were gathered up as the "People of the Year" left their waste behind, moving from place to place---street to street.

I don't remember how many rapes were reported in the Occupy Camps. So many that in some places shelters were set up to protect and care for those who had been raped.

They sometimes used children as human shields against the police, even, in at least one case placing children on train tracks in order to stop trains from delivering the freight.

Broken windows in stores, broken windows in offices, pipe bombs and even an arrest in Fort Collins in relation to an arson fire that caused $10 million in damage, is all part of the transformative change.

ExposeTheMedia.com
has documented from news sources, the "transformative" results of the Occupiers, the people of the year. It amounts to over $80 million and counting. I have linked their information. It's ugly and profane.

Somewhere in America, a child is helped, the elderly are cared for, the poor are fed and clothed, the sick are healed.

But today TIME Magazine honors the "Occupiers" and other protesters and terrorist operatives in faraway places, because, as editor Rick Stengel tells NBC, "I think it is changing the world for the better."

God help us.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

8 comments:

  1. We're talking about it, aren't we? So it's working. One of the most likely results will be a constitutional amendment limiting the influence of big money in our elections. That would be a very positive move back toward democracy.

    The polls show that people are siding with people over the powerful corporations and ultra rich. I imagine Jesus would too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What the protesters are saying is that the ideology that we have been using doesn't work.

    The measure of an economic ideology is success. Corporations and small businesses would make money and citizens' household income would be above the survival rate.

    For 30 years our politicians have been following the ideology of Reaganomics to the letter.

    If Reaganomics had been successful our politicians would not be wrestling with the problems of high unemployment and low manufacturing, and President Obama would not have to try to solve these problems with a jobs bill because these problems would not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Influence for change is the keyword- not positive change. As we are a country of 'illegals' with 'amoral' ethics; the changes I see are not for the better. Hard to be optimistic in a 'broke' 'me first', money grubbing society. rural central Wa RINO

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course, Gary doesn't even attempt to address the message the occupiers are attempting to send, just the broken windows, blocked traffic, etc. he could have just as easily been referring to the civil rights protests of the 60s.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "So many that in some places shelters were set up to protect and care for those who had been raped."

    Wow! Really? Special shelters set up in "some places" just to treat all the Occupy Wall St. rape victims? What an amazing story! Where can we find these shelters?

    Also, it has been many months since I asked you to post some deposition excerpts to prove your allegation that the AG's office was hostile and unprofessional towards you or other witnesses in the R71 case. Still waiting to see even one sentence fragment. Maybe you can post those excerpts along with the locations of the OWS rape shelters in your next blog entry. I know that you will want to show your readers that you would never bear false witness.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If Reaganomics had been successful our politicians would not be wrestling with the problems of high unemployment and low manufacturing, and President Obama would not have to try to solve these problems with a jobs bill because these problems would not exist."

    Wow are you clueless. Please explain in your opinion what exactly Reaganomics was, and how it was continued through Clinton's 8 years? This should be good.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 9:42pm

    Reaganomics is obviousely trickle down or supply side economics. Let the rich get much richer because the riches will trickle down. Hasn't worked.

    Two of the most damaging things he did were stopping enforcement of the Sherman anti-trust act and stopping enforcement of the fairness doctrine. Clinton did nothing to reverse either.

    In fact, things got worse under Clinton's watch.

    By continuing to ignore the anti-trust act, big companies continued to get bigger and gobbled up everything in their path.

    Clinton pushed the telecommunications act that removed limits on media consolidation. Reagan had made it OK to lie on talk radio. Clinton made it easy to do it on 1200 radio stations at once, sometimes several in a single market. This has resulted in the Republican hard shift to the right and the scorched earth shenanigans in congress.

    And when you think of Clinton, think of NAFTA.

    Clinton may have raised taxes a bit, but he wasn't a progressive.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just to be clear, I'm only speaking for myself, not for the original Reaganomics poster.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.