While many laughed off Occupy Wall Street and predicted it would not last, the puppet masters have made their next move. We now have the evidence to prove that the early phase of the movement was nothing more than a staging period to build an infrastructure that will culminate in a massive occupation of Chicago this May. The strategy to descend upon Chicago’s NATO/G8 Summits has now been made loud and clear, as evidenced from a recent call to arms for revolutionaries around the world to flock to Chicago in May, as well as details regarding Occupy Chicago’s internal communications provided to RebelPundit.

Yesterday, Adbusters.org, the originators of the initial “Occupy Wall Street” call-to-action, just released its “Tactical Briefing #25,” an international call for radical revolutionaries from around the world to set up a month-long “occupation” (tent city) against the backdrop of the international NATO/G8 Summit.

From Adbusters:

“On May 1, 50,000 people from all over the world will flock to Chicago, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and #OCCUPYCHICAGO for a month. With a bit of luck, we’ll pull off the biggest multinational occupation of a summit meeting the world has ever seen.

“And this time around we’re not going to put up with the kind of police repression that happened during the Democratic National Convention protests in Chicago, 1968 … nor will we abide by any phony restrictions the City of Chicago may want to impose on our first amendment rights. We’ll go there with our heads held high and assemble for a month-long people’s summit … we’ll march and chant and sing and shout and exercise our right to tell our elected representatives what we want … the constitution will be our guide.

(more…)

Occupy Chicago’s presence in the financial district may seem to have quieted down a bit from the circus show it was earlier this fall, but organizers in the group are just beginning to put the pieces in place to continue their assault on America. The revolutionaries have identified a desirable piece of real estate for their new headquarters where the movement leaders will be able to thrive during the cold months ahead as they finalize plans to disrupt the G-8/NATO summits in Chicago this spring.

Occupy Chicago’s New Lair

The Occupy leaders could not have found a more perfect location to occupy. A loft warehouse just far enough off the beaten path, yet close enough to the city’s financial district to continue their strategizing.

(more…)

The following video features the demands made by Occupy Chicago activists Andy Thayer and Joe Iosbaker during the invasion they led into City Hall yesterday.

The march of the moochers stormed the building and marched clockwise in the lobby, rather than their usual counter-clockwise marching. The angry mob then proceeded to the 5th floor and continued their protest at the doors to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office.

Thayer’s demands included being granted permits to protest the G-8 and NATO Summit being held in Chicago this coming May as well as dropping the charges against fellow “occupiers.” He was followed by Iosbaker with statements on an SEIU resolution to support their demands and comments on his current investigation by the FBI.

Iosbaker also noted that they were notified that Northwestern University Law School has changed their graduation so that the students will not be downtown during the G-8 and NATO protests next may. They were reportedly warned by the FBI that it would be too dangerous.

(more…)

Today Occupy Chicago protesters stormed City Hall to let Mayor Rahm Emanuel know their displeasure in the recent arrests of the Occupy campers at Grant Park on Michigan Avenue.

They were lead by radical anti-war activists Joe Iosbaker and Andy Thayer, who we have reported on in the past for their ongoing investigations by the FBI. In September of 2010 they were targeted for suspicion of providing material support to Hamas, the F.A.R.C. and other terrorist organizations.

Photo H/T: FoundingBloggers

Here is footage of Thayer last spring addressing a Chicago crowd and calling for “action” like we saw in Egypt.

Thayer and Iosbaker have played a key roll in organizing massive demonstrations in Chicago this coming May for the G-8 and NATO summits. The recent anti-war and Occupy protests have served as a clear rally cry to build momentum and support for these demonstrations next spring. The tandem duo worked their message and demands for G-8 and NATO protest permits into todays Occupy City Hall protest.

(more…)

In June we reported on newly elected Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel using his clout to bring the 28-member NATO meeting and G-8 Summit to town in 2012. Also, in bringing the meetings to Chicago, the city will likely be confronted with the usual large-scale protests, which are most often comprised of violent anarchist revolutionaries.

The Chicago Tribune is now reporting that activists in Chicago are indeed planning large-scale demonstrations in Chicago, and have filed requests with the city to obtain protest permits.

From the Trib:

Activists are planning massive demonstrations to coincide with the G8 and NATO summits in Chicago scheduled for spring 2012, with crowds of protesters likely to reach “tens of thousands,” organizers said.

More than 160 members representing about 50 groups from across the U.S. and Canada gathered Sunday at the Chicago-Kent College of Law to discuss strategy and start planning two large-scale protests and a march during the weeklong joint summit, which is set for mid-May 2012.

Chicago could see crowds of protesters similar to the 35,000 or so activists who descended on St. Paul, Minn., during the 2008 Republican National Convention, said Joe Lombardo, co-coordinator for the New York-based United National Anti-War Committee.

Chicago activist Joe Iosbaker, who helped organize the RNC protests in 2008, and radical gay rights and anti-war activist Andy Thayer, whose homes were raided by FBI agents in October 2010 for suspected ties to funding Hamas and other terrorist organizations, are helping to organize the protests.

According to the Trib, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy recently stated that the department is preparing for “mass arrests” of protesters during the summit.

(more…)

How did he get out again? He should have been sitting in a padded room wearing  one of those nice trench coats with the long sleeves that tie into a knot around the back. But somehow the  slug from the Nation of Islam, one of the biggest purveyors of hateful venom in the world Louis Farrakhan, must have escaped again.

The Muslim leader who was recently quoted as saying America will be bathed in blood, and told Al-Jazeera that 9/11 was planned by the US because “America was looking for a New Pearl Harbor.”

On June 15th Farrakhan  joined such “luminaries” as Ramsey Clark and the always-crazy former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in a press conference near the UN to speak out against the US action in Libya.  No, Farrakhan is not suddenly  concerned with the constitution and/or the war powers act, his concern was that no one knows Moammar Gadhafi like he does and the Libyan tyrant is a real nice guy (he didn’t mention it but I bet Gadhafi calls him mom every day).

Farrakhan gave a speech that lasted more than an hour, praising Libya and bashing the West.

(more…)

“It’s an uncomfortable fact that sending a message of solidarity with our NATO allies is more important than sending a message to President Obama.”

It’s tempting to cut off funds immediately for President Obama’s ill-conceived Libya offensive.  But it’s not the right course.  For the sake of our allies, Congress needs to be patient in using the power of the purse to correct Obama’s misadventure.

The policy is indeed a mess.  Even if the ongoing air attacks chased Muammar Qadhafi from power, he might be replaced by a radical Islamist regime.  We have no good intelligence on what the rebels would establish if they took over.

Obama’s ham-handed approach has been an insult to Congress’ constitutional role “to define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations,” as specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Obama failed to make any meaningful consultation with Congress before he committed American forces, much less obtain any type of actual approval.

Yes, it’s tempting for Congress to “teach him a lesson” by voting to cut off U.S. funding immediately for Libyan operations.  The power of the purse is their strongest counter-balance to the President’s role as commander-in-chief.

But the countervailing argument is that our NATO allies—a key component of America’s national security—have been pulled into the Libya fray based on assurances and urgings from the Obama Administration.  Those may have been improvident, but they are real.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Pejman Yousefzadeh and Elizabeth Blackney to debate whether or not Obama should have intervened in Libya, what the real reasons for our involvement are, and who’s to blame when the operation goes awry.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Remember That Timely Debate About Libya Policy That We Never Had?
Between Sudan and Libya, Critics See U.S. Inconsistency
How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Elizabeth on Twitter

I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”
-General Stanley McChrystal, 6/22/2010

The interview of General McChrystal and his in Rolling Stone was not an accident, it’s a perfect  example of suicide by interview.  The General knew that every criticism would be “on the record.”  He also knew that the President will have no choice but to relieve the General of his command after their meeting tomorrow. The Military Code of Justice  provides that a General does not criticize the Commander-in-Chief publicly however,  the General criticized  Obama in a major way and even picked the perfect vehicle to do it in the most visible of ways.

McChrystal’s statements clearly point to the fact that he believes the war cannot be won under the President’s parameters, a tepid escalation to protect the president from his political supports. McChrystal  is clearly frustrated by  Barack Obama and his administration and finds it necessary to protect his men. He finds himself having to take radical steps to protect his troops in the face of an administration trying to fight a war on a half-assed basis.

According to Fox, Some of the highlights of the up-coming article include:

• Although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops. The President did not want to hear his advice. “I found that time painful,” McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. “I was selling an unsellable position.”

(more…)

On Tuesday, May 18, in busy rush hour traffic, a suicide bomber drove his Toyota minivan, packed with 1650 lbs. of explosives, alongside a NATO convoy in Kabul, Afghanistan and detonated. Eighteen people were killed, including five American soldiers and one Canadian. Forty-seven others were wounded.

According to an NYPD Shield Intelligence brief, it was the deadliest attack on foreign forces operating in Kabul this year. The Taliban claimed responsibility.

2010-05-18-NYPD-SuicideBombingInKabul –

The very next day, an estimated thirty to forty Taliban fighters launched a brazen, pre-dawn assault on U.S.-run Bagram Airbase, thirty miles north of Kabul. Though sixteen Taliban insurgents (four of whom were intended to be used as suicide bombers) were killed, at the end of the spectacular attack one U.S. contractor had been left dead and nine to twelve service members were wounded.

The Taliban took credit once again and claimed that seven suicide bombers had detonated at Bagram’s gates while thirty other fighters slipped inside; a report the U.S. military flatly denies. But did the U.S. military have advance information that the suicide bombing attacks were imminent? According to sources in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the answer appears to be yes.

(more…)

In my last column titled “The Cost of Delay,” I highlighted that one of the primary second order effects of the Obama administration’s stalling on the Afghanistan decision was that the Afghan runoff election would necessarily be a repeat of the general election, complete with allegations of fraud and intimidation.

Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and Afghan President Hamid Karzai Meet With then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

The issues surrounding the general election in Afghanistan were basically that it was poorly administered and security concerns were rampant as the Taliban tried to disrupt and influence the voting. Afghanistan with its 100,000 NATO forces does not have sufficient combat power to secure all of the provinces. It’s that simple. We had twice that amount to secure elections in Iraq, a country 1/3 smaller than Afghanistan, with 8,000,000 fewer citizens, and with far more infrastructure. For the Afghan runoff, there would have been no measurable difference in troop levels or international assistance from the first election, and so Abdullah Abdullah, the only viable contender to Karzai, pulled out believing the fix was in. Allegations of corruption and intimidation are just that, allegations, but should have been addressed. They weren’t.

(more…)