Occupy Wall Street to Attack US Freedoms With Constitutional Convention?
By Staff News & Analysis - October 24, 2011

So, what can we do to regain our ability to make our votes count and take back our democracy? We have to concentrate all of our resources into one single attack – making sure we take corporate money out of politics. The only way to do that is to bypass the corporate owned Congress and the Supreme Court – and pass a Constitutional amendment. We must pass an amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians. – Wolf-PAC, Cenk Uygur @ AmpedStatus

Dominant Social Theme: Look, the US is broke. Corporations have ruined it. Now we have to kill corporate "personhood" and then the US will be good again and there will be equality and justice for all.

Free-Market Analysis: Leftist commentator and "Young Turk" Cenk Uygur has announced the formation of Wolf-PAC to campaign for a constitutional convention. His call to action was featured on the AmpedStatus website run by David DeGraw, one of the original founders of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

We've been covering the increasing leftist tilt of Occupy Wall Street and Uygur's disingenuous video announcement fits right into this pattern. Multinational corporations are a kind of Frankenstein's monster, the bastardized creation of the US judicial system. But the way to pare back their influence is to go to the heart of the matter – the US's corrupt judiciary and monetary system – not to create an unpredictable constitutional convention that might have significant anti-freedom ramifications or do away with constitutional protections entirely. (What's left of them, anyway.)

In fact, a constitutional convention has been a dream of US leftists for a century or more. tells us that as far back as 1932, the Socialist Party's platform included proposed changes to the Constitution, and many of these changes seem to parallel what Cenk and others want now. From

The Socialist Party's 1932 platform included many proposed changes to the Constitution. One group concerned voting and elections, including popular election of the President and the ability to hold national referenda. Judicial review would be specifically barred. Workers' rights would be protected and child labor barred; nationalization of industry would also be permitted and promoted. Finally, they advocated an easing of the requirements for ratification of constitutional amendments.

We can see here the concentration on the "popular election of the President and ability to hold national referenda." This parallels Occupy Wall Street's calls for "direct democracy." Nothing changes except the various disguises that the Left uses to promote its destructive agenda. Uygur is a lawyer who has worked for prestigious American firms. He surely knows that there are likely no limits on what can happen during a constitutional convention. One could end up with an entirely different and even MORE authoritarian system. Is that what he REALLY wants?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to push through permanent price and wage controls in the 1930s. Only a Supreme Court decision narrowly averted his plans. But Occupy Wall Street non-leader/leaders seem to be in the process of reviving those plans and more.

Of course, the damage would likely run deeper than mere "Leftism." As we try to illustrate virtually every day, Leftism is the stepchild of the Anglosphere power elite, a hypocritical and manipulative conjuring of "people power" by the banking elites that Occupy Wall Street purports to despise.

There is considerable evidence that Occupy Wall Street is funded by these powerful elements, as others and we have illustrated in numerous articles. The great central banking families (and their political, military, religious and financial colleagues and enablers) have been plotting world government for a century or more and see the US Constitution as an impediment. Leftism suits their purpose.

Occupy Wall Street under the guise of populist people power may well be a kind of Trojan Horse designed to further the aim of the "one world" crowd. A constitutional convention is a kind of promotion, a sub-dominant social theme that has been rattling around for years in the modern era and has now again come to the fore. Such elements, supported by American Intel agencies, hijacked part of the classical liberal (and libertarian) Tea Party and now apparently are setting up Occupy Wall Street in opposition to it.

The two movements, intended as expressions of people's rage, are to be sanitized and reconfigured to parallel the right/left Hegelian dialectic under which the Democratic and Republican parties now operate. This process is ongoing and one reason why we've written that libertarian elements in Occupy Wall Street ought to think about going off on their own.

A constitutional convention is fraught with risks – and could easily spin out of control. A likely scenario is that it could be hijacked by powerful interests that would then ram through an anti-freedom, populist agenda of their own and declare it passed by a majority of states whether or not it actually was. Similarly, the 16th Amendment on the income tax was apparently never actually passed, but was announced as passed even though only TWENTY states were in legal compliance, according to modern research available on the 'Net.

We have covered previously a call by Kalle Lasn, founder of Adbusters magazine based in Vancouver, B.C., to protest at the upcoming G20 while demanding a one-percent tax on financial transactions. You can read our article on this here: "Occupy Wall Street Demands Global UN Tax and Worldwide G20 Protest."

This is probably something of a ruse as UN leaders have been calling for such a tax for years. Adbusters is one of the founders of Occupy Wall Street. Lasn is also in bed with the power elite Soros crowd, which helps fund his magazine, as reported definitively over at

Ironically, Cenk's announcement brought a yelp of dismay from the Leftist Daily Kos where David Dickinson posted the following:

A Constitutional Convention Is Dangerous: With a constitutional convention, the entire constitution can be re-written. That is the purpose of constitutional conventions. The members of the convention are not bound by any restrictions that we might wish to place on them. That means that the entire structure of our government can change. That means that the Bill of Rights could disappear. In fact, since our Constitution defines what the United States of America is, and since that constitution would no longer exist, our country would no longer exist. It would be replaced by an entirely new country.

In his comments, Cenk cited the fabulous product of the work of our founding fathers. He used the fact that what they did turned out to be pretty good as an assurance that what we would come up with now would also be equally good. But that assurance is completely unjustified, and to understand that all that needs to be examined is our current political climate.

Where are today's Thomas Jeffersons and Benjamin Franklins? Who would sit on today's Committee of Detail? John Boehner and Harry Reid? Make no mistake: those who are politically powerful today would determine what would be in our next constitution, yet they are the very people whom we oppose. And we must not forget that many state legislatures, who also would have a significant say in who sits at a convention, are controlled at least in some part by ALEC.

We can do that with an amendment and without writing a new constitution. Do we really want to take the risk of a completely unpredictable future when an amendment would solve the immediate problem? … Personally, I think that a constitutional convention is a very dangerous undertaking.

As we have pointed out many times, the best way to end the destructive elements of the American empire – and bring back prosperity and peace – is to eliminate the current mechanism of central banking. Central banks the world over, led by the Fed, print money from nothing. They cause ruinous booms and busts and fund militarism, corporatism and all the other ills that both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street claim to be concerned about.

Editor's Note: The Vatican has called for a central bank for the world along with a global tax on transactions. It seems to us that it becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to deny the collusion between the great central banking families and their enablers and co-conspirators … including the Vatican and Jesuit "Black Church." The Anglosophere elite is moving RAPIDLY toward world government, far more rapidly than one might have expected even a few years ago. See our article @ … See this lede from Reuters: The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn. “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions. -Reuters

After Thoughts

Remove the Fed (and central banking generally) and return the country to the competitive money system that included gold and silver and Leviathan will begin to wither, including the increasingly authoritarian judiciary that created the current corporate personhood. This can be done via political and economic pressure and needs no unpredictable constitutional convention, global transaction tax or any other kind of dangerous social engineering. Congressman Ron Paul's ideas are correct in this regard. First … End the Fed.