The Weekly Standard is echoing party rhetoric here in suggesting that President Obama is indulging in class warfare and that the OWS folks are mirroring his rhetoric.. It’s a particularly ugly piece of rhetoric since it’s an attempt to coopt what’s traditionally a left-wing point of view. The Right has gotten very good at this in recent years. Class Warfare is only one of the more recent cooptions on their part; they’ve gotten equally adept at throwing charges of racism around as well. In this case the notion of the poor conducting class warfare against the rich is particularly noisome, considering the disparity in incomes and exactlyt how thoroughly the rich have been wiping up the floor with the poor for the past thirty years or so. The closest piece of truth that fits this enormous distortion is that the poor have gotten fed up and seem to be thinking over whether or not they should fight back. Fighting back is a matter of survival, to keep jobs and income in this country and not ship capital and jobs overseas. Fighting back should remind us that we are fighting back for our form of government, which is Democracy, which may use whatever form of economics it chooses. I am personally quite fond of Capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that I think that predatory Capitalism does us a lot of good as a country. I think it ends up sucking the blood out of a country, actually, for the advantage of a few. It needs to be put to work for the good of the country; the country should not be put to work for the good of Capital.
Mayor Giuliani accepted a speaking engagement to present a pep talk to people who were supporting many of the views of predatory Capitalism. His speech was a peptalk for that approach to economics and to government as well. The group he presented that speech to is one that accepts significant funding from the Koch Brothers. When it comes to Predatory Capitalism, they seem to be The Real Thing. Not everybody loves Predatory Capitalism.
Before Occupy D.C. protesters swarmed the Washington Convention Center on Friday night, Mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech to the free market faithful at the Americans for Prosperity conference. In his speech, he made the case that Barack Obama is responsible for the Occupy protests because of his class warfare rhetoric, his demonization of American business leaders (or more specifically those who don't support his campaigns), and his rhetorical support for the increasingly violent movement has given aid and comfort to the mob. Giuliani also made the case that this mob may take down the Obama presidency.
You can see those comments in the video below, followed by events that took place outside the convention center later that night, when protesters attacked AFP members as they tried to leave the building, injuring several of them (including an 78-year-old woman who was pushed down the stairs and had to go to the hospital for her injuries), barricaded the doors to the convention center, and blocked traffic on the streets—keeping law-abiding citizens with jobs from getting where they needed to be, some of whom can be seen in the video below confronting the protesters. According to the Washington Post, the protesters were also provoking violent altercations with neighborhood's residents throughout the night. And the whole time, the chant mob chanted: "This is what democracy looks like."
The citation to The Washington Post article is inappropriate. While there may have been violent altercations, the article is about protesters injured by cars and how some drivers left their cars to pick fights with the protesters. The comment about the fights being with Neighborhood residents is offered as an unconfirmed speculation by the Post. The source for the pushing incident is the video whose quality I mentioned last night. Clearly there was an woman who’d been hurt. I don’t know how it happened. If it was as a result of the protesters, then charges should be pressed and followed up on firmly. It doesn’t matter who breaks the law in this regard; there’d better be a good defence for it or there should be punishment for it . Not a lot of room in between.
This is an excerpt of what Sourcewatch has to say about Americans for Prosperity. There is more information at the site listed below.
This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's spotlight on front groups and corporate spin.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a group fronting special interests started by oil billionaire David Koch and Richard Fink (a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries). AFP has been accused of funding astroturf operations but also has been fueling the "Tea Party" efforts.  AFP's messages are in sync with those of other groups funded by the Koch Family Foundations and the Koch's other special interest groups that work against progressive or Democratic initiatives and protections for workers and the environment. Accordingly, AFP opposes labor unions, health care reform, stimulus spending, and cap-and-trade legislation, which is aimed at making industries pay for the air pollution that they create. AFP was also involved in the attacks on Obama’s "green jobs" czar, Van Jones, and has crusaded against international climate talks. According to an article in the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, the Kochs are known for "creating slippery organizations with generic-sounding names," that "make it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington." AFP's budget surged from $7 million in 2007 to $40 million in 2010, an election year. 
Now, back to the Standard:
One other note on this protest: While Obama, Democrats, and the liberal media have indeed cheered on Occupy Wall Street, the protesters have been mostly independent of the "professional left." However, those lines are being increasingly blurred. This particular protest was organized by Health Care for Americans Now, a group that has received at least $5 million in funding from George Soros, and $25 million from the Atlantic Philanthropies, a foundation based in Bermuda that has funneled millions of dollars of foreign money into the American electoral system through a quirk in American tax laws that allows Bermudans to contribute to 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations which are otherwise barred from accepting foreign funds. Health Care for Americans Now has deep ties to the Obama administration as well. So here you have a Soros-funded group, supplemented by foreign money, organizing an Occupy protest that nearly turned into a riot. And presumably it will take a riot for Democrats and the press to wake up to the threat these protests pose to the communities they've occupied.
I was pleased to note the Weekly Standard take notice of the fact that OWS — in this protest at least — have been mostly independant of the “professional left.” This piece of reality is not one the Right can often bring itself to mention. I was pleased to see that funding from George Soros was mentioned in the funding of this protest. I was then moved to wonder, why it’s so terrible to be funded by Mr. Soros, whose agenda is clear, and why the funding isn’t a matter of public recond on all these political events, and why it isn’t publicized as a matter of course. I wouldn’t mind knowing where Mr. Soros bestowed his generosity at all, and I assume my Right wing friends would also like to know the same information. I wouldn’t mind having articles published in the press in general about Mr Soros and his plusses and minuses; I’d like to know what kind of guy he is. As long as everything is truthful and above-board, I’d think that it would be an exercise in the positive use of the First Amendment.
I’d also like the same scrutiny Applied to Rev. Moon, to Mr. Scaife, to the Hunt Brothers of past glory, to The Brorthers Koch, to Reverend Robertson and to the relationship of ministries in general and Christian fundamentalist ministries in particular in financial terms to the Republican Party and to the various branches of government.
I think an open and honest examination of these relationships would be absolutely fascinating, and that all such information about both parties should be made public, even publicized well in advance of any elections. In this case, I would be particularly interested in how these monies supported the movement of money toward the most wealthy members of society and to the most well established structures in this society. Some of these connections would no doubt be to Democrats, who should be voted out of office for maintaining such ties. And some connections will be to other parties.