Saturday, December 08, 2012

The Squatting Occupiers Versus The Banks - JUSTICE Would Be For The Banks To Disassemble The Foreclosed Houses And Return The Materials Back To Nature, Forcing "The Occupation" To Finance And Reconstruct Shelter For "The Least Of These" Out Of Renuables

PRINT IT!!!  For I Approve Of This Message.  
(and yes I am coming to you next Rob Redding after listening to your show last night)




WSB TV:  Occupy Atlanta Takes Of A Vacant Home - Gives Shelter To A Homeless Family

HOW DID THE HOME GET THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

(Note - I Listened To And Have Been Recording 'The Labor Forum' On WRFG AM Atlanta (The PROGRESSIVE Information Station) as it provides detailed insight about this mindset that we have before us.

  • Occupy Atlanta DID NOT Rent A Bulldozer To Do Land Preparation For This House- They Would Have Likely Protested Against The Environmental Damage That Development 
  • Occupy Atlanta DID NOT Cut Down The Trees For The Wood That Makes Up The Frame - They Would Have Likely Protested The Destruction Of The Virgin Forrest 
  • Occupy Atlanta DID NOT Choose Acquire Any Of The Petroleum Based Paint, Asphalt Shingles, Plastics Or Refrigerant For The HVAC System That The Was In The House WHEN THEY Selected It, Walked Up And BROKE IN - They Would Have Protested Because They Were Not "Green Products"
  • Occupy Atlanta Protests Outside Of The Coal Powered Plant That Generates The Electricity Used To Power The House And Are Opposed To The Natural Gas From Fracking That Is Used To Heat The House And Cook The Food.   Remove These Utilities And Allow The Code Violations To Render The House Unfit For Human Habitation
  • Occupy Atlanta Did NOT Pay The GENERAL CONTRACTORS Who Applied The Original SKILLED  LABOR To Construct This House - A Commercial Bank DID.   They are PROTESTING This Bank And The Entire Capitalistic System That Created The HOUSE THAT THEY BROKE INTO. 
IF There Were SOCIAL JUSTICE  - The OWNER Of The House, In A Fit Of Charity And A Desire To Not Allow Occupy Atlanta To STEAL PROPERTY - FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR OWN THEIR CAPITALISTIC PURSUIT OF THEIR DESIRED INCOME WHICH IS  "ALTRUISM" Would Have BURNED THE WOODEN BRIDGE That The LOOTING ARMY Plans Their Invasion And FORCE THAT ARMY TO EMPLOY THEIR OWN SKILLS AT FORAGING, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION.

If The Letter From Napoleon In Which He Ordered A Bridge To Be Burned Can Sell For $200,000 At A Recent Auction Then Let The Occupiers Resell Their "Tweets" That Direct Their "Twitter Friends" To The Next Location Of Their Looting.  This Is A Measure Of Untapped Income For Their Cause.

It would be "Double Social Justice" if the bank made The Occupation PROVE That It Was Paying Each Of Their Home Contraction Agents A LIVING WAGE To Build The House And The Bridge.  The Federal OSHA Can Inspect The Worksite To Ensure That Safety Rules Have Been Sufficiently Followed. 


The Occupation - THEFT BY TAKING STOLEN ALTRUISM 

Dispense of all claims that I am a disciple of Ayn Rand and that my statements above is out of "The Fountainhead".  I am looking at a group of OPPORTUNISTS - who's aggregate theories stand as logical ONLY IF YOU choose to overlook the primitive inputs that afforded them their "moral stance".

This situation is no different than the present protesters at "The Cooper Union For The Advancement Of Science And Arts" who are angry at talk that their school will start charging tuition.  They use their founders VOICE as he made the case that tuition should be FREE in order to accommodate the development of their minds...........................they casually forget that Peter Cooper was a millionaire industrialist.  If he were alive today the OCCUPATION would likely be protesting against his labor exploitation and pollution.   The Koch Brothers might one day find redemption by constructing an art school in Brooklyn, right next door to where the "Nets" play basketball.

Those with the "Occupation Mindset" reserve the right to SELECTIVE INDICTMENTS.  They are the "judge and jury".  They depend upon a populist thinking society that won't bother to connect the dots and see the big picture.   Justice would be to have the squatting tenants of this new home agree to allow a progressive construction company to install a new inground barbecue pit.   Upon excavating to dig a pit that is EQUALLY DEEP as the one a rich person in Buckhead has in his own property they happen upon a bones and skulls from a  "Native American Burial Ground".  The progressive construction company refuses to agree to keep quiet about this archaeological find, accepting that once the news gets out the land would have to be restored to its natural state.  

Such a circumstance  would force The Occupation to return to the home to EVICT the squatters that they placed in because this house is on "Sacred Land Stolen From Indians" and the house is more offensive to them than "The Tomahawk Chop" done by the Atlanta Braves.  

THEN THE OCCUPATION would rent the bulldozer to tear down this house as it is of the greatest offense to them: PRIVATE PROPERTY.




EDITOR'S NOTES

What IS MY AGENDA?
YOU CANNOT ALLOW A "PROGRESSIVE FUNDAMENTALIST" TO HAVE AN OPEN ENDED INDICTMENT AGAINST YOU!!!!!
They are going to OWN the shirt off of your back as you yield it to the point of nakedness BECAUSE most people think TRANSACTIONALLY and seek to avoid being called a BIGOT per the FRAME JOB that THEY have constructed.

You had better learn to see the UNIVERSE of "The Issue" and note that they only play within a well defined corner, using repetition and indictment to create a mirage.

We are now entering into a phase in this nation of "POPULIST DEMOCRACY" and we will witness its destructive effects.

If you thought that the "misallocation of resources" at the hands of corporate interests was bad - wait until you see POPULISM in effect.  A new wave of ARBITRARINESS will come.  Pay attention to how "Corporate Liability" is played out when populism is the "last man standing" with regard to economic distribution.   We only need to look at other nations in which your individual ability to "sue the state" is curtailed because your private injury is "the privatization of public funds" and popular view is that there is a greater need for these funds that the choice to compensate for YOUR private injury


No comments: