Bozell Column: Occupy's Celebrity One Percent Backers
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement has hit several huge road blocks. First it was the cold temperatures that sent many home. Next was the long-overdue decision to evacuate them out of public parks by liberal Democrat mayors. But another huge road block that’s emerging: their enormous hypocrisy on wealth.
The “occupiers” have pushed the ludicrous slogan that “we are the 99 percent,” somehow standing for the same public that installed 63 new conservative Republicans in the House in 2011. To demonstrate their 99 percentism in October, these protesters staged a “Millionaires March” in New York City, parading to the homes of wealthy citizens such as Rupert Murdoch and David Koch. But OWS organizers have conveniently ignored the massive wealth of celebrities within their own ranks.
Paul Wilson of the Culture and Media Institute has run down the list of the top 25 richest celebrities supporting Occupy Wall Street, according to the website Celebrity Net Worth. They possess – ready? – a combined net worth just over $4 billion. The lefties at MSNBC actually said on air these people may be “unaware” they’re in the top one percent.
While mega-banker Jamie Dimon (worth $200 million) was one of the targets of the ''millionaires march,'' he has a net worth less than five of the celebrities supporting OWS. The most flagrant example of hypocrisy is hip-hop music mogul Russell Simmons (net worth: $325 million). Simmons has been both a fervent OWS supporter and the author of a 2011 manual titled “Super Rich: A Guide to Having It All.” Simmons calls his book “a stimulus package of consciousness.”
Simmons visited Occupy Wall Street protests almost daily at the beginning, and then started a cross-country tour of different Occupy sites to gather grassroots support for his proposed constitutional amendment that would ban private donations to candidates running for federal public office. But on Christmas Eve, the New York Post gossips noted “he was spotted far from Zuccotti Park this week, strolling the beach in front of super-luxurious Hotel Isle de France on St. Bart’s.” At the same time Simmons tweeted in support of “Christ consciousness,” he angrily told critics to perform an oral sex act.
The hip-hop contingent wants to advocate for the far less “fortunate,” but they’re too rich to strike the right pose. At number two on the list was rapper Jay-Z (worth $450 million), who drew controversy for trying to sell T-shirts to Occupiers without ''sharing'' the proceeds. Rapper Kanye West, worth $70 million, showed up to the protests in New York wearing gold chains.
Yoko Ono (number one on the list at $500 million) is a descendant of a prominent Japanese banking family. Her late husband John Lennon wrote 'Imagine' in a Park Avenue penthouse. She threw in her support for the movement, saying “John is sending his smile to Occupy Wall Street.” She actually matches the OWS movement in mental aimlessness, with tweets like “You are water. I'm water. We’re all water in different containers.”
Actress and fitness guru Jane Fonda, worth $120 million, attacked the wealthy on the Joy Behar Show without contemplating she might, just might, be one of the loathsome One Percent. Like Simmons, she is currently selling two exercise DVDs and an advice manual. But she said the Occupiers were the forces of common sense. ''Any country that has a very, very small narrow layer, of very rich powerful privileged people and no middle class and the rest are just really struggling and some of them not making it, is a country that's not going to be stable.'' She even said of the Occupiers: “They’re the Paul Reveres.”
Alec Baldwin (number 19 on the hypocrite list with a net work of $65 million) visited the Occupy crowd in November and praised “a lot of dedicated people at Zuccotti Park.” But as Jeffrey Lord reported for The American Spectator, Baldwin’s partnerships with corporations for the Carol Baldwin Breast Cancer Research Fund show high levels of hypocrisy. “Alec Baldwin is a board member of a family charitable fund which partners with and takes money from a veritable who's who of that famous trifecta of liberal enemies: Wall Street, Big Oil and Corporations.”
The funniest hypocrite was radical filmmaker Michael Moore (net worth: $50 million), who tried to tell CNN’s Piers Morgan he wasn’t in the One Percent, and then later had to confess the obvious. The conservative site The Michigan View found and displayed photographs of Moore’s 10,000-square-foot mansion on Torch Lake in northern Michigan, where the average property sells for $2 million.
So have a good laugh when you read of Moore speaking to a very supportive Occupier crowd in September about those other rich people: "They are thieves. They are gangsters. They are kleptomaniacs. They have tried to take our democracy and turn it into an hypocrisy."
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
hypocrites and liars
Submitted by ohio granny on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:01am.
Democrats/liberals/progressives - hypocrites and liars. That is all anyone needs to know.
Amen, granny!
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 8:20am.
It's hypocrisy on stilts!
When are we going to hear about "fat-cat" Hollywood types? They always talk about "the rich" as if they are "those people over there" and they're not part of that group.
Michael Moore talks about how "they" have all "our" money in this country. That's just jaw-dropping!
Apparently, just like "black" isn't a skin color any more but a collection of political beliefs, "rich" isn't actually wealth any more, rather it's about where the money came from. If one got rich as a Hollywood celebrity, that doesn't count.
I'm up for Occupy Hollywood!
Submitted by Now_I_Want_Change on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:30pm.
But I don't know how long I could stand the sanctimonious self-smugness that permeates that area.....
Pardon my crudeness
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:45pm.
But how long do you think Occupy Hollywood would last if people defecated on the cars of the Hollywood elite? Or showed up in buses to protest at their homes?
Speaking of Russell Simmons
Submitted by OxyCon on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:06am.
Roll out the trophy wives: Tycoons and their much younger girlfriends turn out for Roman Abramovich's £5million 'little party'
Roman Abramovich’s annual New Year's Eve party in St Barts is one of the biggest showbiz events of the year.
But looking at the guestlist this year, the invitation could have easily read 'bring your own trophy wife/girlfriend' given the age gaps on show.
While the Russian oligarch, 45, was hosting the party with his girlfriend Dasha Zhukova, 30, a host of celebrity men arrived on the arms of their much younger partners.
While the rest of the world confronts the worst global economic crisis in decades, St Barts stands apart as a defiant beacon to glitz and conspicuous wealth. And the richest of all of its well-heeled holiday-makers is, of course, 45-year-old Abramovich.
One of the many advantages of St Barts as a party venue is that it’s incredibly difficult and expensive to get to, which minimises the chances of gatecrashers.
There is one small airport - a tiny strip just 2,200ft long - that can accommodate only small prop planes or private jets.
It isn’t clear if Abramovich footed the bill for his guests’ air fare - though, since he’s worth an estimated £8 billion, he could certainly afford to - but he did provide accommodation for most.
Many stayed on Abramovich’s super-yacht, Eclipse, which has been a dominating feature - some might say eyesore - of the pretty harbour of Gustavia over the past few weeks.
At 536ft long, it is the world’s largest private yacht. It has two helicopter pads, two swimming pools, a submarine for underwater adventures and guest accommodation for up to 20.
Eighty members of staff, wearing discreet tan uniforms, operate the craft.
Another of Abramovich’s yachts is the 377ft Luna, which has a crew of 40, is also in Gustavia. A number of revellers have been staying there.
The guest list included Martha Stewart, Australian actress Melissa George and her music producer boyfriend Russell Simmons and Star Wars creator George Lucas.
And a clue as to who else may have been invited could be found by watching those strolling around the harbour, boutiques and jewellery stores in the past week.
Among those seen on St Barts in the run-up to the party were fashion designer Marc Jacobs, rock star Jon Bon Jovi, Jimmy Choo supremo Tamara Mellon, and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2081140/Roman-Abramovichs-l...
Great post!
Submitted by DaMav on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:26am.
nuff said
Don't overlook another garrison of rich liberals
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:28am.
Reporters, jouronators, pundits, commentators, and even Keith the missing Sports Boy.* They earn a lot of moolah (ask Katie C**TUS, for example) and make up a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the country, but they have something worth more than monetary wealth: they can tell their opinions to the entire nation all the time. Try that at home, all you Up Twinkles, Down Twinkles, and Charmed Quarks.
*Where's Keith the Caucus Absentee? Check the news from Mediaite:
http://snipurl.com/21j3n7f
Nomenklatura - the 1%
Submitted by forest on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:02am.
More progressive projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura
Feed The Poor....
Submitted by Samaritan01 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:34am.
We can fix the hunger problem that seems to concern the "Occupy" folks......just feed Michael Moore to the poor, yum!!
You mean ...
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:26am.
Soylent grease?
Someday I'll get even with you!
Submitted by Now_I_Want_Change on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:33pm.
You just made me waste a good cup of coffee, not to mention the time to clean up my keyboard and screen.
I hereby award you the Coffee Spew of the Week Award!
Moore
Submitted by angelann1 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:25pm.
They may have money but they are morally bankrupt !!!
Yeah,
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 3:09pm.
I never understood the "hypocrisy" charge in this case. Just because you have money, that does not mean you are disallowed from supporting the Occupy cause. That's akin to claiming that you couldn't support the civil rights movement if you were white.
Now if, as you claim, many of these celebrities don't realize they are a part of the 1%, then they're just stupid. But I'd be genuinely shocked if they weren't already aware of this.
But most of the prominent supporters of the Occupy movement are entertainers-the Occupy movement is against corporate money getting involved in politics. The rich that they find offensive are the CEOs and the Bankers and Brokers and the Wall Street lot. So they can accept the support of the Alec Baldwins and the Michael Moores without any trepidation. And should there be a rich CEO, Banker type that supports them as well (take your Soros or your mega producer Simmons) then that's fine too. Because it's about the idea, not the actual money. If you want to make a change, you need to work with people on both sides-though I'm sure many of you see it this way, they aren't advocating an all out French-styled Revolution in which the rich are sent to the guillotine.
Being rich does not preclude you from disagreeing with the state of the current financial system.
Entrenchment
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:23pm.
A lot of these rich backers of the Occupy movement support it because they want barriers to entry raised so others cannot compete with them or potentially live near them one day, leaving the current crop of rich, successful people entrenched as aristocratic elites.
They just see the Occupy movement as a pack of useful idiots in achieving that end.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You obviously missed
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 4:28pm.
Roseann Barr's comments on all of this.
heh
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 5:10pm.
That I did. As did most Occupiers, I'd wager. But they don't surprise me, given her... "classy" past. However, she hasn't been relevant since 1994 (if even then)... and I'd love to hear the statistic of what percentage of Occupy kids even know who she is.
Anyway, I hope you don't consider her the "voice" of the Occupy movement. I'd imagine very few people would grant her that distinction.
As far as the 1%
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:42pm.
I'm confused as to why some wealthy people are o.k. and some aren't. So actors are allowed to use their money and influence to alter elections but CEO's aren't? What about unions, who, like corporations, use blocks of money to influence politics? Are some more equal than others?
The hypocrisy of people like Michael Moore is that he, in particular, talks like he's for the common man, but doesn't use union labor in his movies. U2 moved their recording studio out of Ireland to avoid taxes. Meanwhile, they advocate others should employ union labor at inflated rates and pay more taxes. You don't find that hypocritical?
Check out Williams's take
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 9:36pm.
Some time back, on the NB Extra feature, Walt Williams had a GREAT article on it. IIRC, it basically boils down to this: CEOs have their own source of power. Never mind that the CEOs derive their power from both the people that work in corporations and the customers that partake of their products (would anyone give a rat's rear about Tim Cook, for example, if his company wasn't churning out a line of great products in demand by millions of satisfied customers?), and that just as easily as that power is granted it can be taken away. People in government despise anyone having money and power that aren't in government. Now, actors/actresses, celebrities and sports figures don't that that sort of power so government doesn't target them.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
what movement?
Submitted by Eric the Fred on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:11pm.
@BosTarus
Your second-to-last paragraph illustrates quite well how confused, confusing, and open to infinitely variable projections and speculations the OWS 'movement' is. No one knows *what* they stand for nor what they want, including you (and me). It's one of their 'strengths', apparently: no leaders, no direction, no agenda. The only 'strength' I can see is that it allows them to endlessly change definitions, shift goal-posts, derail arguments, whathaveyou, in any debate; a fruitless exercise in futility.
So, sure, anyone can join the movement, or leave, or whatever, and it means nothing nor changes anything since the 'movement' has no meaning nor direction in the first place.
The only clear and consistent goal I've identified so far is that of getting media attention, which is probably why rich entertainers and actors are out in support of this 'movement'.
Strange, I thought the Occutards were all about
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 8:41pm.
oh, lets' see, free college, forgiveness of student loan debt, a "living wage" paid to everyone, regardless of employment status, open borders and, according to some, exactly what the French Revolution exacted from their 1%. Oh, and there was the proviso that we should eliminate nuclear power plants, and the "fossil fuel economy", not to mention a trillion dollars to plant trees. Not to mention, across the board debt forgiveness for everyone.
I don't really recall reading that the Occutards were "against corporate money getting involved in politics". Unless it was "corporate money" the Occutards disagreed with. Otherwise, bring all of your money, Georgie Soros, Georgie Clooney, Russell Simmons, Roseann and the rest. Your money is OK./sarc