Tag Archives: David Icke

Britain’s Prince Charles is a descendant of Dracula

I find the strangest things while roaming the Internet.

Dracula is an 1897 Gothic horror novel by Irish author Bram Stoker, which introduced the character of Count Dracula of Transylvania and established many conventions of subsequent vampire fantasy.

Stoker’s notes for Dracula show that the name of the count was originally “Count Wampyr”, but Stoker became intrigued by the name “Dracula” after reading William Wilkinson’s book An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia with Political Observations Relative to Them (London 1820). The name Dracula was the patronym (Drăculea) of the descendants of Vlad II of Wallachia, who took the name “Dracul” after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431.

Dracula means “son of the devil” in Romanian.

Some historians believe that a historic figure, Transylvanian-born Vlad III Dracula, aka Vlad the Impaler, was the model for Stoker’s Count Dracula. The second son of Vlad Dracul, Vlad the Impaler massacred more than 100,000 Turkish warriors in battle. The vampire legend is said to have been inspired by his cruelty, brutality, and predilection for eating bread dipped in his victim’s blood.

The (UK) Telegraph reports, November 5, 2012, that Transylvania, synonymous with the legend of the vampire, should also be known as the ancestral home of the Prince of Wales, according to the Romanian National Tourist Office. Links between the British Royal Family and Vlad the Impaler are being exploited in an attempt to lure tourists to the eastern European country.

The Prince has made no secret of his love for Romania and is believed to travel there frequently. In 2006, he purchased a farmhouse in Viscri, a village in rural Transylvania, which is available as a guest house at certain times of the year.

Prince Charles himself appears in a video being used to promote the country in which he claims distant kinship with Vlad Tepes, the 15th–century Wallachian ruler on whom the Irish novelist Bram Stoker based his Dracula.

Prince Charles jokes in an interview first shown on satellite television in 2011: “Transylvania is in my blood. The genealogy shows I am descended from Vlad the Impaler, so I do have a bit of a stake in the country.” The video climaxes with a reference to the Prince of Wales, “who can trace his ancestry back to Romania’s dark and distant past”.

According to Royal Highness, a book published in 1982 by Sir Iain Moncreiffe, Prince Charles is a great grandson 16 times removed to Vlad the Impaler, his lineage traced back through his great grandmother Queen Mary, the consort of George V, to Vlad IV, the half brother of the notorious ruler.

It has been claimed that porphyria, an iron deficiency which is thought to lie behind the vampire myth, has run in the British Royal Family. One of the symptoms of cutaneous porphyria is sensitivity to sunlight — of burning and severe pain in skin exposed to sunlight.

Here’s the family tree:

Dracul is Romanian for the dragon — a serpent used in the Bible as a symbol of the Devil.

Maybe there really is something to conspiracy theorist David Icke’s notion of a reptilian ruling elite after all. LOL. (Note: Australia recently banned Icke from entering the country for his multi-city speaking tour.)

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

The reptilian eye of Miley Cyrus

Here’s something for a lazy Sunday which will either amuse or alarm you.

Some of you know about the assertion, begun and popularized by David Icke, 64, that walking among us is a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood who controls humanity. Descendants of reptilians from the constellation Draco — a race of gods known as the Anunnaki in the Babylonian creation myth, Enûma Eliš — they live in tunnels and caverns inside the earth, walk on two legs and can shapeshift from reptilian to human form. The reptilian Anunnaki have crossbred with human beings, the breeding lines chosen for political reasons. There have been three successive reptilian-human hybrids, the third of which controls the world today and includes such prominent figures as Queen Elizabeth II, George H.W. and George W. Bush.

It is said that the hybrids sometimes give themselves away when their eyes momentarily reveal their true reptilian, non-human nature when the pupils turn into slits.

9 months ago, I did a post on homosexual British actor/comedian Stephen Fry whose left eye’s iris, in a documentary film on manic depression, suddenly turned yellow-green in color and the pupil an inverted triangle. See “Is this the infamous reptilian eye?“.

While wandering on the net this afternoon, I came across a fascinating video of an interview Miley Cyrus did with Barbara Walters in December 2013 — the Miley Cyrus who twerted obscenely and mounted an inflated penis.

While you watch the video, pay close attention to Miley’s right eye (the one on our left). This is the screenshot I took at the 0:04 mark of the video, showing her right eye’s pupil narrowing into a vertical slit:


Here’s the video:

Below is the original ABC News video of the Miley Cyrus-Barbara Walters interview, which shows that the first video in this post had not been photoshopped or altered. The interview begins at the 1:11 mark:

A rival hypothesis or alternate explanation for the reptilian eye is that there isn’t a different species of reptilians posing as humans, but that the slit pupils (and other reptilian attributes like tongue-flicking and sudden manifestations of scaly hands) are signs of demonic possession. See:

I favor the demonic possession hypothesis because there is ZERO archeological evidence for a species of reptilian-human hybrids. In the case of Miley Cyrus, demonic possession could also explain her obscene twerking, exhibitionism, and insistence on sticking out her tongue.


See also “Reptilians and ETs, oh my“.

Update (Feb. 8, 2017):

Thanks to a tip from FOTM reader CP, we finally have the reason why Cyrus insists on sticking out her tongue.

As you can see in the pics above, Miley identifies with Krampus — a horned demon in Austro-Hungarian folklore who, during the Christmas season, punishes children who have misbehaved. (Source: The Sundial)

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Exorcists: Demon-possessed 'can take on the look of a reptile or snake'

David Icke, 64, is an English writer, public speaker, and former sports broadcaster. Since the 1990s, Icke has made a name for himself as a professional conspiracy theorist with over 20 books, numeorous DVDs, and lectures in over 25 countries speaking for up to 10 hours to audiences across the political spectrum. He calls himself a “full time investigator into who and what is really controlling the world.”
At the heart of Icke’s theories is the idea that many prominent figures belong to the Babylonian Brotherhood — a group of shapeshifting reptilian humanoids who are propelling humanity toward a global New World Order fascist state. The humanoids are descendants of reptilians from the constellation Draco, a race of gods known as the Anunnaki in the Babylonian creation myth, Enûma Eliš, who live in tunnels and caverns inside the earth, walk on two legs and can shapeshift from reptilian to human form.
Icke maintains that the reptilian Anunnaki have crossbred with human beings, the breeding lines chosen for political reasons. There have been three successive reptilian-human hybrids, the third of which controls the world today and includes such prominent figures as Queen Elizabeth II, George H.W. and George W. Bush. It is said that the hybrids sometimes give themselves away when their eyes momentarily reveal their true reptilian, non-human nature.
I used to snicker at Icke’s notion of Reptilians until I came across a documentary made by Stephen Fry, 58, an openly-homosexual English actor who portrayed the corrupt master of Laketown in parts 2 and 3 of Sir Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit trilogy. (Fry’s father is English, a physicist; his mother is Jewish, but Fry was not raised in a religious family. Fry has attempted suicide on a number of occasions, most recently in 2012. An atheist and “humanist,” he is against organized religions, especially the Catholic Church. In 2015, Fry married a stand-up comedian named Elliott Spencer.)
In 2006, Fry made an Emmy Award-winning documentary on manic-depression; he claims to be bi-polar. Beginning at the 49:55 mark, the camera comes in for a close-up of Fry’s face. Watch his left eye.
At the 50:06 mark, he closes, then opens both eyes. Look at his left eye at the 50:07 mark!

Here’s a screenshot at the 50:07 mark. What human eye has an inverted- triangle pupil and chartreuse-colored iris?
Stephen Fry's reptilian left eye
Fry then quickly blinks his left eye, as if something was caught in his eye and he’s trying to blink it away. The eye then returns to its former grey-blue color and round pupil.
Several weeks ago, the subject of Reptilians came up again when I published a post on UFOlogist Stephen Greer’s bizarre double row of lower teeth (see below), which prompted a YouTube video claiming that Greer is a Reptilian. (see “The stuff of nightmares: UFOlogist Dr. Stephen Greer has a double row of lower teeth“)
stephen-greers-double-row-of-lower-teeth
I was beginning to freak out until I discovered that there’s a dental condition called hyperdontia that explains Greer’s teeth.
That being said, there was still something about Greer, besides his teeth, that makes me uneasy — his penchant to smile too much; his hyper-muscularity; his mouth; the thin upper lip; the shape of his head . . . .
Then, on a tip from FOTM’s joandarc, I discovered this —
Exorcists say that the demon-possessed sometimes take on the appearance of a reptile.

(1) Fr. Gary Thomas

father-gary-thomas
Father Gary Thomas is the official exorcist for the Diocese of San Jose, California. In 2005, for 3½ months, Fr. Thomas received training in exorcism in Rome under veteran Italian exorcist Fr. Carmine De Filippis. Thomas’ apprenticeship is the subject of the 2010 book, The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist by Matt Bagli, as well as the 2011 Hollywood movie based on the book, The Rite, starring Anthony Hopkins.
In a 2012 interview with Patrick Coffin for Catholic Answers, Fr. Thomas said this about the demon-possessed:

Sometimes their whole body language, including their face, can take on the look of a reptile or a snake, and I’ve had that happen a number of times.”

(2) Ed and Lorraine Warren

ed-and-lorraine-warren
Ed and Lorraine Warren were a well-known husband-and-wife demonologist and exorcism team for over 40 years. In the 1980 book on the Warrens, The Demonologist, Gerald Daniel Brittle wrote (on page 115):

Ed speaks of the demonic spirit showing itself only rarely in preternatural form. What does the demonic spirit look like? The question is an uncomfortable one for him to answer.
“Although the spirit can project itself in any form it chooses,” says Ed, “Its appearance is an abomination, a monstrosity. To see what is really behind the phenomena is not something to be desired. To actually see the demonic is to feel ruin. What shows is something distinctly preternatural in appearance: something real enough as you can see it, but yet something not of this world.”
But what does it ultimately look like?
“Ultimately,” Ed answers with great reluctance, “it is not human. It is inhuman. It has scales. It looks…like a reptile. That’s it,” he cautions, “I won’t complete the rest of the image.”

(3) Fr. Francisco Sedano

fr-francisco-sedano

Fr. Francisco Lopez Sedano, 80, the national coordinator emeritus of exorcism for the Archdiocese of Mexico who has conducted at least 6,000 exorcisms in 40 years of service, said he has observed possessed persons who “began to shout, to bark like a dog, to scream or writhe and who squirmed like a snake on the ground. There are a thousand forms.” (Catholic News Agency)

Of late, there are many accounts of a worldwide increase in demonic possession and demand for exorcists. Father Thomas concurs:

“It would seem there are many more people today who have dabbled—or more than dabbled—in idolatry and paganism who are both Catholic and non-Catholic than twenty, twenty-five years ago. Benedict XVI said, ‘As faith diminishes, superstition increases.’ And I would say, as a kind of corollary, ‘As faith diminishes, darkness increases.’ Because we’re all spiritual beings, we’re all searching for meaning; and if we don’t find meaning in ways that the Church would promote, we’ll go search for ourselves. And because of our flawed nature, oftentimes we’re drawn to things that, down the road, can do more harm than good.”

According to Fr. Thomas and other exorcists I’ve read, there are different levels of demonic activity. From mild to intense, the levels are:

  • Infestation: Demonic infestation refers more to a thing or object, than to humans. A demon or even a disembodied spirit can attach itself to a house. It could be because a satanic ritual was performed there, or a satanic cult existed there for a long time.
  • Oppression: Demonic oppression is a physical attack on the person. It can be kind of depression, where the person is filled with anxiety and very often there’s a sense of despair or despondency.
  • Obsession: The person is overcome with or obsessed with the idea of Satan being in their life. In both oppression and obsession, the afflicted person can function “where you wouldn’t necessarily be able to detect anything demonic going on unless they disclose certain things to you.” According to Fr. Thomas, a curse done by a competent practitioner of the occult or the satanic could create an oppression or an obsession. In cases of oppression or obsession, the exorcist has “to go in and break the curse before you can remove the demon.”
  • Possession: Sometimes called “involuntary possession,” demonic possession is “the most extraordinary and the rarest degree,” wherein the person’s will is compromised and their functionality is limited, to the extent that they may not even be able to take care of their own physical needs or make decisions on their own. Fr. Thomas said he had witnessed only a few cases of full possession — “a couple of them in Rome and one here” in the U.S.
  • Complete or “voluntary” possession: Also known as “integration,” this is when the person accepts the demon and so does not want the attention of exorcists. Fr. Malachi Martin called this “perfect possession” — a frightening phenomenon about which little is written, except this account.

According to Fr. Thomas, the following are the “classic” signs of demonic possession:

  • Rolling of the eyes.
  • An aversion to the sacred, such as to the crucifix, the Eucharist, or a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mother because, in the words of Fr. Thomas, she is “the first disciple, the first to say ‘yes’ in the Gospels … the carrier of the Word. From the point of view of an exorcist, Satan and the demons hate the Blessed Mother in a very different kind of way than they hate Christ. And very often the Hail Mary can be more powerful than the prayers of the rite of exorcism.”
  • A sensation of burning when the person comes into contact with holy water or a crucifix.
  • Knowledge of hidden things that the person has no reason to know, either about the exorcist or a situation or the future.
  • Ability to speak in a language they have no competency in.
  • Inordinate strength.
  • A change in the voice.
  • Very extreme facial contortions that are not just some strange thing the person does with their mouth or tongue, but “a physiognomic change” — “almost a temporary bone structure shift” — such as taking “on the look of a reptile or a snake”. Fr. Thomas said: “I know that seems off the charts, but I’ve actually seen that in people’s faces, where there is a change in the contour of their face. I wish I could describe it better, but I’ve seen that happen a number of times.”
  • “Animation of legs and arms during the [exorcism] prayers, where they’re using their limbs to either intimidate me or put their hands in the form of fists with every intention of using them to injure me or the people around them.”

Fr. Thomas said 80% of the people who come to him have been sexual abuse victims, usually as a child, and that traumas, including attempted suicide, as well as the wide availability of pornography on the Internet, “open doorways to the demonic”.

See also “Psychiatrist says demonic possession is real”.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

And they say there are no reptilians. LOL

Note: This post is a tongue-in-cheek rif on David Icke‘s contention that a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures, who appear as different “races,” are not human but reptilian.

I give you:

The (Spanish) Duchess of Alba, 88, born on March 28, 1926.

duchessofalba2014The Duchess of Alba‘s full name – take a deep breath – is Maria del Rosario Cayetana Alfonsa Victoria Eugenia Francisca Fitz-James Stuart y de Silva. She goes by simply Cayetana, and is a distant relative of Queen Elizabeth and Winston Churchill.

The Duchess of Alba is only one of her more than 40 titles. According to Guinness World Records, she has more titles recognized by an existing government than any other noble in the world.

Estimates of her wealth range from €600 million ($800 million) to €3.5 billion ($4.7 billion). Besides fabulous and historic real estate sprinkled around Spain, the family treasure boasts paintings by Goya and Velazquez, a first-edition copy of Cervantes’ El Quixote, and letters written by Christopher Columbus.

Doña María del Rosario Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart y Silva is the 18th Duchess of Alba de Tormes and the current head of the House of Alba — only the third woman to carry the title in her own right. The Duchess is a descendant of King James VII of Scotland, II of England, through his illegitimate son James Fitz-James, Duke of Berwick (1670–1734), born of a relationship with Arabella Churchill, only sister of the Duke of Marlborough — which makes the Duchess of Alba a distant relative of both Sir Winston Churchill and Diana, Princess of Wales (Winston and Diana were descendants of Arabella’s daughter Henrietta FitzJames).

The House of Alba is an important Spanish aristocratic family who derive from the 12th century Mozarab nobility of post-conquest Toledo. Some Mozarabs were Converso Sephardi Jews. “Converso” refers to Jews or descendants of Jews who converted to Catholicism in Spain or Portugal, particularly during the 14th and 15th centuries when mass conversions took place under great governmental pressure.

On October 5, 2011, the Duchess married Alfonso Diez, a 25-year younger civil servant with the social security administration in Madrid, whose salary was a paltry €1,500 ($2,000) a month.

For her wedding, the twice-widowed duchess wore a salmon, shin-length dress by Spanish designers Victorio y Lucchino. In fact, little Maria was on Vanity Fair‘s International Best-Dressed List in 2009!

Alba2Here’s an idle thought:

Why don’t the “Occupy Wall Street” commies demonstrate against the global super-super-super rich like the Duchess of Alba, George Soros, and the satanic Baroness Philippine de Rothschild?

See also:

UPDATE:

h/t FOTM’s swampygirl

The Duchess of Alba had undergone plastic surgery to make her face look like a reptilian (see here). This is her pic on Wikipedia:

The Duchess of Alba in late 2009 (from Wikipedia)

Update (Nov. 20, 2014):

The Duchess of Alba passed away from pneumonia at age 88.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Who Are the Top 1%?

“Those who don’t know the game or are assets and manipulators of  the game will want to ‘endorse’ people and organisations they say they support  in cleaning up America – but they will be the very people and groups that are  systematically destroying America.”David Icke, October 16, 2011
The movement that began as Occupy Wall Street in New York has spread to other cities across America as well as countries. In Italy, the Occupiers instigated a riot in Rome, torching cars and smashing windows, which required armed police to be brought in.

In the name of equity, the Occupiers say they are the 99% opposed to the top 1%, the filthy rich. So who are America’s Top 1%?
To begin, we need to define “income” vs. “wealth or net worth.”
Income is what people earn — from salaries, wages, dividends, interest, royalties, and rents from properties they own. U.C. Santa Cruz Sociology Professor William Domhoff claims that most of the income of “the rich” does not come from “working”: In 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries.
Wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns in marketable assets (such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, but not including cars and household items), minus any debts or liabilities (such as home mortgages, credit card debts and auto loans). In effect, wealth is assets minus debts, or W = A-D. That is why a better term for “wealth” is “net worth.”
High income (HI) may or may not mean great wealth because a high-income person or household may simply spend everything they make — and more, by going into debt. At the same time, an individual or household with moderate or even low income (MI/LI) may actually become wealthy by being frugal and investing their savings wisely.
Thus, HI ≠ W; whereas it is highly possible that MI/LI = W. Remember that when you decide to condemn “the wealthy.”
Wikipedia says the current per capita (per person) median income in the United States is roughly $32,000 (for those employed full-time between the ages of 25 and 64, it’s $39,000). By “median” income is meant that the figure $32,000 divides the American population into two equal halves — half (50%) of Americans make more than $32,000, and the other half make less than $32,000.
The U.S. Census Bureau offers income data by household and individual. 42% of U.S. households have two income earners; thus making households’ income levels higher than personal income levels. According to a 2008 article on the investment website My Budget 360, the median U.S. household income was $46,326. Dual earner households had a higher median income at $67,348.
Currently marketing corporations and investment houses classify those with household incomes exceeding $75,000 as “mass affluent,” while sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies all those with a net worth of $1 million or more as “rich.” The upper class is most commonly defined as the top 1% with household incomes commonly exceeding $250,000 annually.

Income in America (source: Wikipedia)


In a recent Census report there are 110 million households in the United States. Here’s the distribution of U.S. households’ income in 2006:

  • Top third (34.73%) of households had annual gross income of $65,000 or more.
  • Top quarter (25.60%) of households had annual gross income of $80,000 or more.
  • Top quintile (20%) of households had annual gross income of $91,202 or more.
  • Top 15% (17.80%) of households had annual gross income of $100,000 or more.
  • Top 10% of households had annual gross income of $118,200 or more.
  • Top 5% of households (3/4s of whom had 2 income earners) had annual gross income of $166,200 or more.
  • Top 3% (2.67%) had annual gross income of $200,000 or more.
  • Top 1.5% had annual gross income of $250,000 or more.
  • Top 0.1% (0.12% or 146,000 households) had annual gross income of $1,600,000 or more.

The 2008 article on My Budget 360 further breaks down that Top 0.1%. At its apex are:

  • The top 0.01% (11,000 households) with annual incomes of $5.5 million or more.
  • The top 400 highest tax payers in America had annual incomes of $87 million or more.

Notice how the incomes gradually go up from the Top Third’s $65,000 to the Top 1.5%’s $250,000, but between the Top 1.5%’s $250,000 and the Top 0.1%’s $1.6 million) is a huge gap of $1.35 million!
While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top 0.01% of households. One can therefore conclude that almost any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top 0.1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households.
According to the Federal Reserve Board, here’s the distribution of U.S. households’ networths in 2001:

  • 6.9% of U.S. households had a negative networth of <$0 (i.e., those who not only have zero assets but are in debt).
  • 5.4% of households had a networth of $0-$999.
  • 2.4% of households had a networth of $1,000-$2,499.
  • 3.5% of households had a networth of $2,500-$4,999.
  • 4.7% of households had a networth of $5,000-$9,999.
  • 8.1% of households had a networth of $10,000-$24,999.
  • 9.2% of households had a networth of $25,000-$49,999.
  • 12.8% of households had a networth of $50,000-$99,999.
  • 19.2% of households had a networth of $100,000-$249,999.
  • 13% of households had a networth of $250,000-$499,999.
  • 7.8% of households had a networth of $500,000-$999,999.
  • 7% of households had a networth of $1 million or more.

Alas, the Federal Reserve Board did not break that top 7% down, so we don’t know what’s the networth of the Top 1% of U.S. households, other than that the Top 1% own 32.7% of Americans’ total networth in 2001. In contrast, 50% of U.S. households own just 2.8% of Americans’ total networth.
Here are some interesting tidbits about the above distribution of U.S. households’ networths:

  • 58% of households with negative networth were young, i.e., under 35 years old (which makes sense because many college students are poor).
  • Those with negative networth are more likely to have a less-than-high-school education.
  • Among those with negative networth, the percentage who are unemployed (but not retired) is more than twice they are in the larger population.
  • Households with negative networth are concentrated in the South and in the West.
  • 10.1% of households with networth of $1 million or more are Boomers (aged 46-55).
  • 28.2% of the Top 1% households in networth are Boomers.

The Top 1%

Leonard Beeghley called the top 0.9% the “Super Rich”, whom he described as “Multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,000; includes celebrities and powerful executives/politicians.” The OWS Movement say they are against the Top 1%. Here are some members of the Top 1% who are or should be targets:
Barack Obama: (supports OWS)

  •  Annual POTUS salary (not total income): $400,000
  • Net worth in 2010: $10.5 million

The 25 richest members of Congress (in Roll Call’s 2009 annual survey that gives only their estimated net worth. Under federal law, members of Congress must disclose their personal investments and liabilities, but only in broad categories, thereby shielding the exact value of any asset or debt):

  1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass): $188.37 million
  2. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca): $160.05 million
  3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca): $152.62 million
  4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va): $81.50 million
  5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.75 million
  6. Sen. Mark Warner (D- W.Va): $70.19 million
  7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo): $56.49 million
  8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla): 55.47 million
  9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): $49.70 million
  10. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca): $46.07 million
  11. Sen. Alan Grayson (D-Fla): $31.41 million
  12. Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM): $25.52 million
  13. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca): $21.74 million (supports OWS)
  14. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NY): $19.90 million
  15. Sen. James Riche (R-Idaho) : $19.69 million
  16. Rep. Gary Miller (R-Ca): $19.37 million
  17. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Tx): $18.41 million
  18. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn): $18.21 million
  19. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo): $15.73 million
  20. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY): $14.90 million
  21. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): $12.52 million
  22. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn): $12.12 million
  23. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont): $10.90 million
  24. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz): $10.52 million
  25. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa): $10.45 million

Non-elected political figures:

The Media:

Celebrities who’ve spoken out in support of Occupy Wall Street:

  • Yoko Ono: $500 million
  • Russell Simmons: $325 million
  • Sean Penn: $150 million
  • Rosie O’Donnell: $100 million
  • Roseanne Barr: $80 million
  • Deepak Chopra: $80 million
  • Kanye West: $70 million
  • Alec Baldwin: $65 million
  • Russell Brand (networth: 15 million; combined networth with wife, singer Katy Perry: $63 million)
  • Susan Sarandon: $50 million
  • Tim Robbins: $50 million
  • Michael Moore: $50 million
  • Danny Glover: $15 million
  • Talib Kweli: $14 million
  • Mark Ruffalo: $10 million

Here are the networths of some of the Super-Rich, the Top 0.01% (from Forbes’ richest 400 in America list):

  1. Steve Jobs: $8.3 Billion
  2. Carl Icahn (leveraged buyouts): $12 Billion
  3. Sergey Brin (Google): $15.9 Billion
  4. Charles Koch (manufacturing, energy): $19 Billion
  5. Michael Bloomberg (NY mayor): $20 Billion
  6. George Soros: $22 Billion
  7. Jim Walton (of Wal-Mart): $23.4 Billion
  8. Lawrence Ellison (of Oracle): $27 Billion
  9. Warren Buffet: $50 Billion
  10. Bill Gates (Microsoft): $57 Billion

The Occupy protesters reportedly are armed with iPhones and laptops and are active in social media — the very gadgets and communications technology invented by Jobs, Brin, Ellison, and Gates. Reportedly, Soros is funding the Occupy movement.
Will irony ever end?
By the way, raging socialist and President-for-life of Venezuela Hugo Chavez has an estimated networth of $1 Billion (!) — the same as Prince Albert II of Monaco. Another raging socialist, Fidel Castro of Cuba, has an estimated networth of $900 million.
Adios for now. See you at the Revolution!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0