Proper Government Would End ‘Occupy Wall Street’
"They can afford new windows." - overheard at Occupy Oakland in reaction to the vandalism of Whole Foods.
Tea Partiers are used to being called anti-government. When we stood opposed to President Obama’s state-run healthcare law, we were labeled “anti-government.” When we called upon Congress to risk a 2011 shut down in pursuit of real budget cuts, we were marked “anti-government.” When we refused to raise the debt ceiling without systematic fixes to the budget process, we were branded “anti-government.” Even now, as we stand in contrast to the genuine anarchists and violent revolutionaries rallying under the militaristic term “occupy,” it is we who remain “anti-government.”
Try this on for size. In some respects, we need more government. Public servants nationwide must assert their rightful authority to end Occupy Wall Street.
You read correctly. Spare us any hubbub about the constitutional freedoms of speech, assembly, or association. Occupy Wall Street rests upon none of them. In fact, the increasingly debauched and openly violent protest movement stands in opposition to the First Amendment and every freedom it protects.
Individual Occupiers almost escape blame. They are the inevitable byproduct of the ongoing degradation of critical thought. As a culture, we have long conflated the notions of civil disobedience, vandalism, and trespass with the right to petition government for a redress of grievances. Somehow, the freedom of speech became the promise of an audience. The freedom of assembly became an entitlement to a venue. And freedom of association became license to wreck businesses, stop traffic, and assault anyone who gets in the way.
Examples are now so prolific that the point is beyond argument. “Occupy” is the right word, conveying the precise intent, to employ force in pursuit of political change. These are terrorists.
Yet, there is a fundamental point regarding how the movement got here which requires looking at a relatively peaceful protest to demonstrate. The small number of protesters occupying the Hennepin County Government Center plaza in Minneapolis have been kind enough to refrain from rape. Nevertheless, security and management of their presence has cost the county more than $150,000. Ungrateful and unsatisfied, Occupiers at a meeting of the county board last week demanded provisions to keep them warm at night. Guess how the claim was justified? Freedom of speech.
Indeed, why shouldn’t Occupiers feel entitled to blankets and heaters? The county has already provided a canopy to keep them dry among other indulgence at taxpayer expense. In so doing, Hennepin County joins the likes of New York City and Oakland, California, in affirming the Occupiers’ claim to entitlement.
“Government’s sole job is to protect individual rights by upholding the law.”
That’s good theory, but in practice Government’s job is to perpetuate itself by creating a demand for itself. It is succeeding at that when people say we need more government.
That’s like saying “law enforcement’s job is to reduce crime”. Reducing crime is a simple matter: Hang the murderers and rapists, and flog all the others, and imprison the insane. But reducing crime would decrease the need for people who work in law enforcement, ie. judges, lawyers, jailers, police, parole officers, clerks,etc. So, the system is designed to create a demand for them and their services, by ‘managing the crime rate’ as opposed to reducing it permanently.
The same ill logic applies to the the government’s relationship with the occupy crowd. As long as they prey on innocent banks and churches, and the innocent private sector in general, all is cool. But let them turn on the government and that’s tantamount to cop killing, that’s secular heresy, and the government will crush them, jail them, and villify their memory.
IMHBLO, it all depends on the assumption that you have a “proper” government. America hasn’t had a “proper” government in decades. We have a 4 to 8 year Tyrant apprenticeship program. Designed for the super rich or the marketing geniuses that the system yields for.
Americans don’t want a ‘president’ as much as they want a good TV personality. It’s crystal clear obama has been a dismal failure in every facet of his presidency. Yet, a significant portion of Americans still like this looser. Despite everything that has been discovered and everything that hasn’t.
Patrick you are correct to this point. Add the hidden agenda of One World Gov. This would include UN law giver, Belgian court, EC Military, Islam religion. USA is a nonevent in this plan. Not my plan but BO.
Patrick, just where does it say that Law Enforcements Job is to “reduce” crime. The job of Law enforcement is to UPHOLD the Law. Thus they prevent crime, deter criminal behaviour arrest criminals when crime occurs, punish criminals, and incarcerate criminals.
Reducing Crime is a metaphor that Politicians (whether in uniform or not) use exactly like “jobs saved”. It is a phrase used to excite the press and pacify the citizenry. LEO’s know that Crime will never cease, ask any of them on the street. Human nature is Passion and sometimes passion leads to violence.
You also need to clarify the difference between Elected Officials and Bureaucrats. Bureaucracy is the Villan of the Piece and Politicians are the enablers. Elected Officials come and go, Bureaucrats multiply.
Let’s reduce the Bureaucrats!
That’s good theory, but in practice Government’s job is to perpetuate itself by creating a demand for itself. It is succeeding at that when people say we need more government.
You’re setting up a straw man. That “practice” proceeds from a completely different, actually opposite theory. If you can’t keep that straight, you aren’t qualified to contribute to this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Patrick of Atlanta makes some very valid points. We Christians in this nation are called on by the Bible, Timothy 2:12 to pray for our leaders. I have been doing that, and yes, God answers prayer. Our nation is in dire need of a ‘heart’ revolution. Changing one’s heart and mind is impossible for any of us human beings to achieve. But. God is more than capable of changing those minds and hearts of the occupy people along with the politicians who support their radical, anti-America agenda. When the occupy members blame the Jews for their problems, the occupy people are poking their finger in God’s eye. Afterall, the Jews are the ‘apple of God’s Eye’. So, He will deal with them. In the meantime, we Americans must work to ensure that our voting rights are preserved and to pray that God will handle the rest.
“Spare us any hubbub about the constitutional freedoms of speech, assembly, or association. Occupy Wall Street rests upon none of them. In fact, the increasingly debauched and openly violent protest movement stands in opposition to the First Amendment and every freedom it protects.”
Exactly. These stupid Obamaville tent cities should have been stopped on day one. You certainly have a right to protest, but you do NOT have the right to take over whole sections of cities and then riot for no apparent reason. The mayors in these cities were absolutely WRONG for not shutting this down at the beginning and maintaining law and order, something us actual taxpayers PAY cities to do. If Mayor Rudolph Giuliani were in power, this never, EVER, would have happened in New York City.
And what of the rights of the people who own shops and banks next to these rioters? Is the city going to pay for their damaged property? You are now going to have a terrible situation where the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the damage to their own property, pay for the overtime of the cops who are not protecting them, and pay for re-building of the parks that were damaged once these jerks leave. This is NOT the America we should be living in. Riots are riots, and we have laws for specific reasons. These anarchists are the complete polar opposite of the Tea Parties, and it’s about time the mainstream media should start to admit that (like they ever will).
“And what of the rights of the people who own shops and banks next to these rioters?”
If I was one of the business owners, I’d hire a middle aged night watchman with a very loud PA system and blare this (the 18-24 year old freq):
http://www.archive.org/details/AllAgeMosquitoDeviceFrequencies
I’d do it for 10 minutes every half hour starting at 10pm so just when the jerks start to drift off to sleep, it disturbs them again. Then I’d leave it on for hours at a time throughout the day. When those jerks can’t get any sleep, get grouchy and start turning on each other, the protests will start to peter out fast. The added advantage is that the ration of old homeless drug users to young protesting idiots would increase and eventually start to accelerate the dispersal along.
Could this be more illegal than vandalism? You’re not stopping them from protesting! If we have to listen to their crap, they can listen to ours. If they wear earplugs, it’s harder to coordinate their stupid chants or obey police…or maybe they don’t hear that car coming…
I can dream, right?
How to contain the rioters? If memory serves, back in the 1960s’ antiwar movements in Washington,D.C., Officials corralled the protesters and put them in East Potomac Park, and they called it Resurrection City. And there in a hot steamy and rainy summer, the residents there–perhaps the parents of today’s Occupy yahoos?–simmered in their own rage and finally melted away to no lasting effect. And by the way, how to control the rioters? A visiting foreign official, touring the U.S.-Mexican border’s security measures, had a solution to the border crossings: Position a 50-cal machine gun on a high hill and dare intruders to show their faces. When they do, mow them down–effective, fast resolution of problem.
Perhaps if more people took the tactic of Phil Tagami, the Oakland developer whose newly-renovated Rotunda was invaded by the “Occupiers,” this thing would simmer down a bit. Quoting Phil after he warded off the invaders who had just pushed through his doors: “They took a few steps forward and I racked the shotgun and they left,” Tagami said.
Yes, they had done hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to his building, but the big, brave phonies didn’t get close to Mr. Tagami.
The problem is, of course, that if one rioter is actually shot then Mr. Obama will be forced to declare martial law. It’s not something he would do to protect peaceful citizens, but these rioters are his people.
Martial law cannot be declared for a mob invading a law abiding citizen that is protecting his and his families own life and property, it would be a clear case in any reasonable court of law of justifiable homicide (case closed handled by local authorities, not the president of the United States).
No the imposition of martial law would require a local city or county or state or group of states to armed rebellion against the upper authorities and each case would have to be determined by the proper county state or then last federal authorities.
I am 58 years old and martial law has never been imposed and I hear of it often when you have a crappy president but I think as far as I can tell Lincoln was the only one to use such federal powers, but in the middle of a war what does that matter, the states were fighting the union so in that case martial law didn;t really matter that much then did it!
I pretty much knew were you’d go with this piece before I read it. However, I don’t like the title. While I understand what you are saying, we categorically don’t need more government, we need the law to be applied. It’s like Hate crimes. We don’t need separate legislation for hate crimes; we need to hold murderers accountable for actions, regardless of their excuses. That’s the law. You shall not commit murder. If you commit murder, you are in violation of the law. There doesn’t need to be more law to specifically deal with protesters. If they break the law, they should be arrested. If they escalate it into a riot, they should be dealt with appropriately. Vandalism is vandalism, and your personal excuses are of no value under the law. What we need to do is stop trying to exclude people from the law. We don’t need more government, which often times layers existing laws with more wordy laws that have greater propensity for loopholes.
More government has made it harder for police to enforce the law, because it places the undue burden of bureaucracy in place to retard their efforts, thus emboldening the law-breaker. These law breakers in the occupy crowd are emboldened by the excuse making of an ever growing portion of the American public. While I don’t advocate turning the dogs and batons on them, I do advocate that they are made to pay for their criminal activities as anyone else would, or should.
Exactly.
What we have is not too little government, but too little accountability to the voters. It’s because voters have been focusing too much on federal elections at the expense of local elections. We can change that.
City and county government officials have specific duties, including maintaining public order, curbing crime, protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to transact business, clearing out sanitation hazards and other public nuisances, and quelling mob violence. Refusing to use police power as needed in that regard is dereliction of duty.
Who’s your mayor? If you live in an incorporated area, you need to know more about your mayor and your city or town council than their names and party affiliations. Are they doing their jobs? Are they upholding the law? Or are they sympathizing and collaborating with our enemies?
Now is the time to recruit good candidates to run against those who are not fulfilling their duties.
I don’t advocate more laws. That was neither expressed or implied. I call for the enforcement of existing law, as you do. The term bigger government is in reference to its application. In pursuit of its proper role to protect individual rights, government cannot get too big. It should act vigorously.
The late, great Sam Francis explained all this at length with articles on the anarcho-tyranny that Leftists had constructed since the New Deal.
And we have a President who encourages this lawlessness and is encouraged by it. Perhaps supporting protesters is his real jobs program, administered by ACORN2.
Can any of the people who live near Zucotti Park sue the owners for damages? Since there appear to be no rules regarding the hours, noise level, or amount of time the occupiers can remain, do the owners have some responsibility for the actions of their guests? Or for the conditions created by those who view toilets as optional?
I do not know if the owners of the park have recourse. The NYC administration is unwilling to evict the terrorist from Vuccotti Park. There are laws prohibiting just about all of what OCCUPY is doing in ALL of its locations. At the risk of stating the obvious, this occupation will not end well for the OCCUPY idiots, the police, or the cities. The terrorists and the Lame Scream Media will get what THEY want, and that is dead idiot demonstrators.
It doesn’t have to end with anyone dead. Tranq darts or skunk scent in squirt guns would work. Fire hose cannons are just giant squirt guns. Let them have it full on. Trust me, they’ll go away.
Chris GREAT Ideas!
How about squirt guns full of that dye that is used in bank “money bombs” that won’t wash off. A great way to identify scumbags! We could then gather them all together and give them county jobs. Picking up litter and cleaning up graffiti for a few years!
When government tries to do too many things it has no business doing, its core functions are often given a back seat. If we try to cut spending, the politicians say we have to cut police and firefighters, like there isn’t any less important program that could be reduced. While I don’t think we need “more” government, we need smarter government focused on the core function of keeping us safe rather than trying to run the economy, give us “free” medical care, etc. By the way, you’ll notice that Obama’s former Chief-of-Staff, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is not putting up with the same level of crap from the protesters that the mayors of New York, SF and Oakland are tolerating.
Yea he can’t have that there, otherwise it might look like it was his idea as others have suggested. This way he is free and clear of it all.
No the reason he can’t have it there is because, it is his backyard, and also shit like this happens daily in his town. With killings between gangs and gangs killing cops he doesn’t need a large organized anarchy, I suppose he wants to keep his job. if he really does he will allow law abiding citizens like myself to own and carry concealed firearms. it works everywhere else it is being the law, so we shall see won’t we… nah he is to far gone to the left, heck he worked for Obama and is from the democrat party is he not?
This statement is unexceptionable in isolation, but as you note elsewhere, it runs up against the problem of “public property.” The contradictions built into the notion that property, especially real estate, can be “owned” by “the public” lead to exactly the sort of statements Espinoza has made.
You must know some very weird “libertarians.” I, and the others with whom I associate, consider “public property” a contradiction in terms and the source of an awful lot of public disorder. However, we treat such common areas with respect and consideration for the prerogatives of others.
Were there less “public property,” and more rigorous respect for the rights of private property, would you still say that?
Given that Zuccotti Park is actually private property, I don’t quite see how this applies to OWS. In any event, the owners of Zuccotti Park are allowing a public nuisance on their private property – meaning that the problems occurring in Zuccotti Park are not staying in Zuccotti Park. That’s how it becomes a public problem.
It’s Bloomberg’s fault for letting this continue. The owners should be paying huge fines for costing the city and its other residents and businesses so much money.
If the city administration is unwilling to confront the OCCUPY terrorists the owners of Zuccotti Park have little recourse. Court orders take time and in the interim the riots may or may not be contained.
Given that Zuccotti Park is actually private property, I don’t quite see how this applies to OWS.
To “own” property means: to have and exercise the right of use and disposal.
Seeing that Zuccotti Park is heavily controlled by the city and its rules, in no real sense is the park “private property”; being the “owner” of Zuccotti Park merely means that you have nominal title but no actual control. In what sense is that ownership, really.
If the city government simply took over the park, that would be recognized as communism. When the nominal title remains private but the government retains actual control, it’s called fascism.
And what a minor, largely irrelevant distinction that is.
As I understood it, the owners did not want their park occpied by have been pressured into allowing it by the mayors office.
It’s worse than that. The city requires the owners to leave the park open to the public. The owners are at the mercy of the city.
So it is Fascism then isn’t it?
Don’t get hung up on the term “bigger government.” My point is, where the legitimate role of government is not being fulfilled, we need to see more government action. To answer your last question, the overall size of government would be reduced in your scenario, while the size applied to its legitimate function would increase. Make sense?
I consider myself to be a libertarian in the plain sense of the word. However, the term is broadly applied. You’ll note I specified “a wing of” and “some” libertarians hold this flawed view of public property. It may be more than you think. Go make the case at Restore the Republic and see how you are received.
I would prefer to move toward no public property. However, while we have it, there should be no confusion regarding who makes the rules for its use. Public property is subject to public policy.
Allow me to quibble further: We need to see more action in defense of those rights and public prerogatives whose defense we have historically trusted to governments. However, government efficacy and efficiency in defense of those things has been extremely spotty. Indeed, it’s open to debate whether the police function — whose municipalization only goes back to the early 19th centure (Sir Robert Peel) — should continue to be trusted to an entity with no incentive to perform and the shield of “sovereign immunity” behind which to hide its misdeeds.
For a fascinating exploration of the alternatives, including a great deal of information not generally known even to students of justice, I recommend Bruce Benson’s book The Enterprise Of Law.
You begin to transcend the capacity of a blog comment section. Indeed, we could discuss the extent to which government works against its own charter at length. I would prefer to see more community policing in the true sense of the term, which is to say the community doing the policing. Officers of the law and judges should primarily be referees. Regardless, what we have here are municipal governments with the resources and justification to act providing preferential lenience to hooligans.
Are you an idiot?
“However, the entire pretext for outrage was the fact that the Jefferson Memorial is public property, as if that means anyone can show up and do whatever they want at any time without consequence.”
There’s a problem with that argument: Government has now placed so many restrictions on the use of public property that it really has begun to intrude on freedom of assembly.
Here in Massachusetts where I live, liberals tried to force the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade to let gays and lesbians march in the parade. Their argument was that since the Parade was going to march down public streets which were paid by tax dollars, the taxpayers had a right to tell the marchers how they could march.
What if a city told the OWS protesters, “You can stay as long as you want, but only if you allow Tea Partiers to join your protest. It’s on public property and we taxpayers have the right to tell you how public property should be used. Either admit Tea Partiers or we’re going to shut down your protest.” Or the reverse: Forcing Tea Partiers to accept OWS protesters into any protest held on public property.
The use of public property for redress of grievances is a complex issue, and I’m not sure where to draw the line. If untrammeled redress of grievances isn’t even allowed on public property, then where is it allowed? Unclaimed wilderness?
Eewww. Your cure is worse than the disease which I’m sure you know. But how about this? We find out where these OWS people really live and go protest their actions on THEIR property.
EXCELLENT idea. I’m sure you’ve seen photos of the mansions of some of the protesters. Would they or would they not howl if teeming masses of conservative protesters overran their property?
Sadly, the crap happening with the OWSers just isn’t second nature to any sane (i.e. conservative) person, so it’s not likely to happen… UNLESS somehow the oppressed OWSers could find out that there are 1%ers among them?
I don’t perceive anything complicated about it. If it’s not your property, you have no claim to its use. The freedoms which enable protest do not enable trespass. The only legitimate legal concern is that usage grants be content neutral. I find the argument that all events must be all-inclusive lacking. Instead, all events should have equal access to the permit process. I don’t see how that’s complicated.
You should place the government action in context. Mayor Bloomie said that the believed that the US would have an Arab Spring if the employment situation was not solved ala Obama. Sure enough Hizzoner here and elsewhere have been encouraging the action for their own political agenda. The Left is always looking to create a militant wing so they will not have to do any heavy lifting.
The opposition is just enjoying the show, giving the protests time to self-destruct or enough rough to perform the ‘friendly office’ on their movement.
I love freedom of expression because it is the best way to see who is what.
not so much that we need more government but, rather, a comprehensive reallocation of government resources
We gave them a week here in Sydney. The last 30 were rounded up and locked up in true Aussie style. Good riddance.
If it weren’t for your gun control laws I’d pack up and move to Australia with my retirement checks, assuming they’d let me in. LOL
I am assuming that these Occupy people have to get a permit or license to protest and just keep going back to get it renewed. If the city, any city, wants to end the protest there is an easy way to do it.
When they come into renew their permit to protest, to “occupy” this or that plot of land, simply tell them that the city/county/state can not afford to continue to provide protection for them, services for them, for free. Tell them that if they wish to continue they will have to “Pick up the tab” for their police protection. They will have to pay the normal rental fee that anyone else would have to pay to, lets say, hold a birthday party or a family reunion in that park. If they can’t, or won’t, pay, then don’t renew their permit to protest. At that point, they become trespassers. Yes, they’re going to yell and scream but it’s all perfectly legal. All they had to do was pay for their party… Finally.
Actually, one of the points of the OWSies is that they don’t get permits. They just show up and “occupy”.
Which actually (under the existing laws) makes their gatherings illegal. Which should have been pointed out to them in no uncertain terms on the very first day. It’s called “disperse or be arrested for impeding traffic and unlawful use of a public place”.
When the authorities (many of whom, as noted above, saw the OWSies as exploitable to further their own political dogmas) didn’t react, it set a precedent.
The OWSies learned that the authorities feared them, or maybe even sympathized with them, and began making more (increasingly petulant, selfish, and irrational) demands. And planning to expand their incursions even further.
(Any resemblance to the Visigoths is no doubt coincidental, as I am reasonably sure that most OWSies have never studied enough history to know what a Visigoth was, to say nothing of the Ostrogoths.)
The general population learned that for whatever reason, they were stuck with the OWSies in their faces 24/7. Unless of course winter setting in would do what the authorities had refused to, i.e. deal with the problem.
As for the authorities, they find themselves in the position of the young lady who tried to ride on the tiger. And they aren’t smiling now.
cheers
eon
Civic entities get the kind of leaders they deserve in our Republic, Bloomie being Exhibit A. Also check out the Mayors of Oakland and Chicago.
This is no more than the classic letting the inmates run the asylum. However It is not wise to hand more security power over to the present government. Look at the TSA and what a nightmare that has become and it has not prevented one incidence of terrorism. It is the right of each state to have an armed militia to protect its citizens; we need to restore the power of the states to protect our property and tell the central government to butt out.
I’m not advocating handing over power. I’m advocating more vigorous application of the rightful authority which local governments already have.
To help back up your points:
We have a Constitution in part because the founders were alarmed by mobs, and rightly so. The Shays Rebellion by disposessed soldiers and others — while many of their grievances were legitimate — represented a threat to authority and the rights and safety of lawful citizens in the weak confederation that governed our new nation. A stronger federation with a robust, documented underpinning (a constitution) was proposed and enacted.
Republics quell mobs; democracies enable them.
Well stated Walter…I especially like your point that freedom of speech somehow means that you get an ear.
Well, your headline says it all. We have no proper government. Only a flock of selfish politicians who care nothing for their constituents.
RJ – it has nothing to do with congress, it has to do with this lousy obama and his admin supporting these nether do wells! Don’t blame congress for this mess. If it becomes violent, and it surely will, it will be laid at obama’s feet. I hope the repubs will have the shots of the violence and the drugs and the sex with obama saying how much he is in tune with these idiots.
Unfortunately congress is to blame with the exception of the one that took over after last year’s election, and is now supplying a modicum of adult supervision. The Constitution designates Congress as the prime mover in the government. The Bill of Rights put specific limitations on what Congress is allowed to do, and by extension the rest of government. They have been failing in their duty. This dereliction has seeped into state and local governments.
I also wonder how Whole Foods can still support the dems, when they were the store that they boycotted and now are trashing. The CEO should get a clue!
I advise not holding your breath until that happens.
John Mackey is not a Democrat, he is a free market Libertarian.
He is anti-union, opposed ObamaCare, thinks the Obama greenie projects are boondoggles and is a global warming sceptic. He is a top target for Unions. Interesting man.
Thank you Kibby. Ever since I read Mackey’s editorial against Obamacare in the WSJ I went back to shopping at my local Whole Foods. Politically, Mackey and I are in the same camp and I believe he deserves my support for his business.
Would they like solar powered heaters, or diesel generators? Organic parkas, or Primaloft?
The dems tactics need ill people and problems to emerge with a collective,socialist strategy.
On the other hand,Mr.Cain calls his own approach unconventional trying to have his special way against the other contenders,but the public wants to clear the harassment charges:the people would like an honest Gov,but politics is a job,made of diplomacy and war too.
Obama’s seriousness is in doubt about Solyndra,Holder,his birth certificate and the direction that he would like for the MidEast.
So can Mr.Cain be more serious as a blackman?
The only place the OWSies can find enough useful idiots to sing songs and carry signs is Blue cities and college towns, which to my mind deserve them. No Republican is ever likely to carry a district where one of these “actions” can take place, so we can express a little sympathy for those who lose business or have property damage but maybe they should think about who they vote for and in the final analysis, where they choose to do business and live.
If any of this stuff were taking place somewhere that sane people would live, then a responsible, that translates to Republican, mayor and governor would have a real problem. The organizers want violence and repression. They have their video crews at the ready should they be lucky enough to cause some kids to get shot, preferably young girls. The only way to deal with it is if they tried to “occupy” illegally, you immediately arrest them all and haul them off to jail, real jail, not just some holding pen away from the cameras from which they are simply let go, which is what they expect and are used to. The need to be arrested, charged, and tried in which they will presumably be found guilty and do some time. An immediate, forceful stop would end it quickly and not give them much opportunity for the Saul Alinsky moment they’re seeking. If you let them establish themselves throwing them out will be dramatic and violent and they will keep coming back. SEIU and the other Democrat/communist front groups will hire people and bus them in once they have a good confrontation going with a true “reactionary” Republican mayor or Governor. We haven’t come to that yet, but this may just be a tune-up. I’m very fearful that next year we face a true “long, hot summer” as a ramp up to whatever the hard left has in mind for the ’12 election. I can envision as more and more people run out of UI, Comrade Obama will put in a bill for the Republicans to stop. Then he can tell the unemployed that the Republicans are the reason they don’t have UI or a job. The first time one of the Blue states can’t meet its welfare payments, and they can say they can’t whenever they want to, they’ll ask Comrade Obama to bail them out, which he will do with some outlandish bill that nobody would pass. Then he can tell them the reason that the EBT card doesn’t work is because all those nasty Republican voting people in the ‘burbs don’t want to pay a fair share of taxes so the welfare babies can watch Barney on 60 inch 3D TV. If The Won wants an explosion and something that looks a lot like civil war leading up to the scheduled election, it would be easy for him with the cooperation of the front groups and some Democrat mayors and governors to get it.
When it comes to protecting individual rights and property, we actually need more government.
I’ll never say we need more government.
In the case of OWS, I’d say we need Rudy Giuliani as opposed to bleeding heart, go along to get along, “Wot’s wrong with a Ground Zero mosque?” foolish and weak politically correct Michael Bloomberg.
Of course, next to the moronic Mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, Bloomberg looks like a rocket scientist.
And we need a different national leader, one who doesn’t pander to the squatters in lower Manhattan in some kind of desperate hope that such groups will shore up his 2012 re-election chances.
I read somewhere in passing this morning that Barack just put in an appearance at OWS.
“No, tans, it was only an effigy of Obie. See Drudge.
Merci.
See what happens when I only read the headline ?
But, regardless, Barack’s words of support for this crowd amounts to pandering for votes, equivalent to telling his Hispanic audience to “punish its enemies” when going to the polls Nov. 2010.
The problem here is not the size of government, but the inability of those in government to act responsibly. Bloomberg, for example, does not know what to do because he can’t figure out what action is the least damaging politically. And when politicians spend all their time concerned with only the political they will obviously neglect the liberties and property rights of their constituents. So how exactly does more of the same stupidity improve anything? Asking for more government is asking for more incompetence and failure. Instead demand respect for our rights from what we already have and threaten to eliminate what we have if they are incapable of performing their duties.
Perfectly on target.
It’s not so much the size of government, which is truly at a staggering proportion, but the quality and ability of the people IN government.
The old expression “Not my job” comes to mind. Bureaucracy spends 90% of its time trying to figure out whose responsibility something is. When such assessment comes up empty, nothing gets done. But, for a brief moment, everyone was busy looking or appearing to be looking. In bureaucracy, this is what passes for “work”.
I wouldn’t say we need “more government” but rather “more governing”…
We do not need more government, we have the laws on the books now to handle this park occupation by the 99%ters. We need to get the anarchist out of the white house!
Let’s see if Ebola makes speeches in front of OWS crowds next year.
I think this OWS should be left to fester. OWS is a very revealing infection on Democrat centers of power.
We need more of it and it must get worse in order to show dimwit Independents exactly what Democrats are all about.
……and I’m wondering if in the dark scheme of things being hatched in the Obama administration, all this OWS movement isn’t just a ruse to allow the POTUS
to try to stall, stop, or steal the coming election. Desperation calls for
strange happenings. Beware, all who believe this to be spontaneous.
If it is, they’re quite stupid. OWS isn’t exactly something readily controllable. Sure, they can pay people to show up, but what happens next is beyond their ability to control. OWS is exactly what they accused the TEA Party of being- astroturf, at least in part, but also a Frankenstein’s monster that cannot be controlled and will turn against Soros et. al.
Ah well, everyone loves Big Government (no?) when they’re the ones with their hands on its levers.
McKinnon, your hysterical/dopey supposition is an EXACT mirror-image of the hysterical and dopey accusations the Left was making in 2007 about ‘that terrible fascist Bush’ who was going to stop the 2008 elections.
Yes.
But let us be aware that when the left made those “hysterical and dopey accusations ” in 2007, it was pure projection, as it’s exactly what they’d do if given the opportunity and the power. (I recall them pushing that sort of nonsense when Ronald Reagan was winding up his second term.)
When righties do it, it is merely “hysterical and dopey” — isn’t it?? . . .
Well, I guess we’ll see. I’m prepared to eat crow if I’m wrong. And you?
3 Charged With Dealing Crack; Occupy Boston Deteriorating’ November 4, 2011 11:42 PM http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/11/04/3-charged-w…
The more government you get, the more laws you have. It was already seen in Roman times that the society with the most laws is the one with the least respect for them. OWS is symptomatic only of a society with insufferable government, not of one with too little government.
And, do we want to see serious outbreaks of cholera and typhus and other suchlike contagious diseases (including STDs) breaking out in our great Blue cities—as if they were Port-au-Prince after the earthquake. The poor Haitians had to deal with Mother Nature. We have to deal with our ‘gilded youth’. A Fifth Column?
It’s not MORE government that we need – we already have too much!
What we need is a government which will do the jobs it is chartered to do, and get out of the activities not assigned to it in the Constitution.
And Mr. Hudson is asking that government to perform its rightful duties.
I had no problem following your drift Mr. Hudson. Authorities today in America seem to follow the law according to their own conscience and political beliefs which is to say there IS no law, not really.
When it comes to OWS or sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, one standard is applied. When it comes to the Tea Party, you have an entirely different set of standards in play. You can extend this out to ACORN, the Congressional Black Caucus and the rich on the Left.
What is needed is enforcement of the law in a fair and impartial manner and with consistency behind it; not all that much to ask in America in the past but the wish of some reckless dreamer today.
Affirmative Action is another perfect example, based on the idea that certain people don’t have access to age old networks and institutions of power and influence. Well, neither have immigrants for decades and yet a totally different standard, devoid of this cheap psychology regarding a generational hangover, is in play and immigrants have no problems since success, generally speaking, is based on one’s own individual merits and not some stupid Skull and Bones idea. I don’t thing Horatio Alger is a Skull and Bones guy.
No. Not. More. Government.
Equal protection under the laws we already have. Simple application of the laws we have, which have the consent of the governed. That’s not more government. That is requiring a few highly-placed government officials to do their jobs.
Thank you for another great article Mr. Hudson.
Here is a relevant quote by Ayn Rand:
“Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.
But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means…No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.”
“The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physical intimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.”
–Ayn Rand
Civilization is a balance between Liberty and Order. The latter has a bad reputation. Everyone likes to spout the word “Nazi” when they’re told they can’t do what they want to do, but in a civilization SOMEONE is going to be told, “No, you can’t do that.” Mature people comprehend this.
Very telling the way the TEA Party follows the rules and the Occupiers don’t. I say sweep the streets.
It’s like Rush said quite a while ago: You have the right to speak; you do not have the right to be heard.
“Very telling the way the TEA Party follows the rules and the Occupiers don’t.”
Telling indeed: “protests” that pride themselves on always abiding by the rules, left OR right, are mainly dog-&-pony shows for the enrichment of their participants’ egos & little else. Both generated by crowds, both with signs, chanting & speeches – but real dissent has only a fleeting resemblance to a prefabricated con-job. The very idea of the TEA Party ever pulling off a direct-action occupation of this length (let alone doing so in the face of some very sincere police hostility) is low comedy at best. So too is the suggestion that it would then be emulated in 900 cities worldwide after five weeks.
Also very telling how yet another veteran has recently been attacked by police (& then ignored by them instead of being treated for serious injuries). Or how another car has mowed down more protestors – whereupon police charged the (again injured & in need of emergency care) people being run over with walking against the light, & let the driver go without any charges, again.
Yes, the growing threat of these insane dope-crazed fiends somehow convincing America to finally wise up & go after the white-collar crime mob that keeps grifting it into bankruptcy must be averted, with deadly force if necessary – FOR FREEDOM!
Perhaps next you could consider looking into making all protestors wear armbands whenever they go outdoors, with numbers tattooed on their arms to ID them – would that make them frighten you less?
Oh, please. These people, while demanding their free speech rights, are busily trampling on other people’s property rights & rights of free movement on public property (i.e. property that is there for the public’s use). It’s time they broke out the night sticks & firehoses!
Try to keep up, please – the nightsticks came out long ago, as did the teargas canisters & flashbangs.
Given the history that led to OWS, citing property rights as an argument against it is hilarious.
Yes, muzzle the protest mobs ASAP if you can’t destroy them outright – or maybe the many, many millions of Americans who had their mortgages, savings & pensions stolen &/or gambled into oblivion by proxy during The Great Banking Scam Of 2008 are apt to begin wondering who has either the guts or the basic human decency to defend THEIR property rights.
Well, actually Jim, many of us would really like to just shoot you OWLies. It would be kinda like shooting predatory varmints in the flyover West or a dog that was killing your chickens morally. But, since you’re all nominally human, just popping you is inappropriate and we’re relatively law abiding sorts – but don’t push us.
Art, when you start talking about shooting fellow citizens for standing up for their beliefs, however wrong-headed we may feel those beliefs are, you have crossed the line into barbarism. We need to oppose these folks on reason and rationality, not name calling and not-so-veiled threats of violence.
I acknowledged that they were nominally human so we couldn’t shoot them. That said, they are not rational and there is no reason to try to reason with them. They are useful idiots to the left and useless mouths to the rest of us.
Oh really? So you’re saying we should abnegate the First Amendment because you feel someone’s property rights are being trod upon?
I guess we should just turn the whole damned country back over to the Brits and buy them a couple cases of leaf tea from India in repayment too.
Just what is there about the “private” and “rights” part of private property rights that you do not understand? The right to private property is covered in the 5th amendment to the constitution and in many other places. There are restrictions on the freedom of speech, for example you can’t falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and there is such a thing as disturbing the peace. so if you want to protest, just keep it to a dull roar and stay off my lawn.
By your thinking if you can come on to my peoperty then what is to stop you from coming into my home – (if you did there would be consequences).
“So you’re saying we should abnegate the First Amendment because you feel someone’s property rights are being trod upon?”
Your First Amendment rights do not extend to spray-painting my property, nor breaking its windows, nor squatting on the door-step to block the entrance.
The element you, Jim, and the OWS loons are missing is the word “peaceably”.
On the contrary, if you act like an asshole on my property and I boot you off, that is me exercising MY right of free association.
The First Amendment protects your right to mouth off, and it protects MY right to treat you as the loudmouth you are.
Don’t invoke the First Amendment until you understand what it does, boy, lest you really hurt yourself.
I’ve seen mobs stop cars and rip out the inhabitants and beat them. If you stand in front of my car with my children in it, you will have tire marks on your body.
The Tea-Party have done more in 1/2 a year than you could acheive with 100 years of your anarchists mobs. In 2010 after only 6 months of Tea-Party rallies we were able to invigorate a call to the polls and upset and influence many nationwide elections. Just think what we will do next year when the spring thaws and we start our rallies again for the 2012 election. I hope you don’t miss it.
“Our Constittuion was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governement of any other.” -John Adams
Jim — seek help.
“The notion of passive resistance as “non-violence” assumes an inherent right to be where you are. But trespass upon property, public or private, is a violence all its own. Refusal to obey the law, disregard for the rights of neighbors, and refusal to mind fences is indicative of menace. Proper government would end it posthaste.”
Good Lord, can we never have a presentation from the right that doesn’t wander all over the countryside? Why did this get thrown in there? Passive resistance–if it’s truly passive–is non-violent, but not therefore lawful, and assumes nothing but that if it provokes a violent response, the violent one will be censured. Ghandi and Martin Luther King would have gotten nowhere outside of former British colonies and not in all of them–as could be seen in Tianamen Square. The belief that we must not obey “unjust” laws, fostered by the experience of the 2nd World War, is one to which all Americans and some of our cousins in the UK subscribe, I guess because we have such an attachment to the idea of “just” laws. I think that local governments are using this “occupy” thing to embarrass political opponents–but I think it wouldn’t be happening if “Wall Street” hadn’t been in the business of using social biases to sell stuff to the point that thinking in “consumers” has been strongly discouraged. I feel Wall Street’s getting what it deserves with this mess; and it’s not government’s job to save it from the result of its own excesses.
Do you really think Wall Street is suffering the least bit from the consequences of what these OWS demonstrators are doing? Let me tell you just who are the ones who are truly suffering: The taxpayers of the cities/counties in which the demonstrations are taking place & the local businesses which are being impacted (in a negative way) by their presence. There are even public health concerns which apply as well.
I suppose you think that somehow these people, like Wall Street, are getting what they deserve.
And I think that you are what Comrade Lenin described as a “useful idiot.”
Throwing rocks at the police when they come to tell you the park is closed and it’s time to go home is not passive resistance.
Yes the govenment should protect the interest of the public from willful destruction and violence. But we also need righteous morality from our government officials. When Eric Holder sends the message that he doesn’t see a voter intimidation problem with the Black Panther Party in Philadelphia and when he and Obama make statements that they will not uphold certain laws they don’t approve of like immigration and DOMA, then we have a breakdown in our government and the people will react. The occupiers are a symptom of the disease of immorality, or sin. The government cannot “force” people to do what’s right. But the government can force people to do its will. That’s why Liberals and Democrats love dictators so they can get unquestioned allegience for their “good” and “right” ideas from the people. Next year our people will meet their people and we will see who ends up running America.
“Our Constittuion was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governement of any other.” -John Adams
Walter, you are just confusing the poor trolls into thinking that the government is too small to do its job. I am deafened by the loud applause, the thunderous beat of drums, and the raucous yeas of approval from those pitiful souls approving your call for an expansion of government to give them more rights, and, oh yes, and more freebies.
If you mean “more government” in the sense of more action being needed from the government to limit the protests to public property and to provide clear instructions on how they should wipe their #$@%^&*, and cleanup their other messes, then just say so. Shame on on you for your insensitivity to their needs, wants, and desires.
It is plain that this government is part of the problem, and has no intention of being a solution….at least not a solution that Americans are be able to stomach.
Anagrams for Occupy Wall Street
Wry lout spectacle
Peccary towel slut
We let plutocracys
Plot accuser wetly
Copycat lure welts
Replace slutty cow
Callowest cur type
Rectally wet coups
Curly wet polecats
Welts cry copulate
Curtest yowl place
Cutesy rectal plow
Spruce yowl cattle
Lowly sect capture
Owly space clutter
Low aspect cruelty
Spacey trowel cult
Local cutesy twerp
Petty callow curse
Peyote scrawl cult
Weepy crustal clot
Pouty select crawl
I posted these thoughts before in a previous topic and I will repeat them here. It appears that the only way to get government to do their sworn duty might be to sue them. I forsee two very viable routes. The first being failure to uphold their oath of office. Most (I would bet all) officials take an oath of office which includes upholding the laws. If they are failing to do so they should be sued for damages and removal from office. The second is the 14th amendment. The amendment states “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By allowing the “Occupiers” to violate laws (and failing to protect the property and rights of others) that have been enforced on others the officials have violated the 14th amendment rights of many. This was often used on Southern States that were enforcing segregation/”Jim Crow” laws or failing to persue crimesagainst Blacks. I would dare say it seems that “Jim Crow” ideology has resurfaced, but unlike before where it was based on race it is now based on ideology.
Great, these #occupyyokels, through their self indulgence and contempt for organized society created an inconvenience for other tax payers and/or tourists, to cut short their visit to the Jefferson Memorial. Sounds like the Judge should award them a writ preventing the #occupy’ers from any government park during the duration of the #occupymovement.
I just watched a video and realized that by letting the occupoopers grow and stay as long as they have, by letting the members steep in their own propaganda amoungst their own, there is only one way to end the ‘protests’. They are fanatics, completely divorced from reality and reason; a violent end is the only one they will allow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMV0TR3pGzg
One of the interesting aspects of talking to a schizophrenic is that no matter how plainly you point out the unreality of their delusions, they have an explanation that makes some kind of twisted sense and they hang onto those delusions.
When the dunce in the video said that the interviewer was obviously one of the rich people who were thrown out of the USSR I got that exact same schizo vibe.
So how much difference between a fanatic ( self deluded ) and a schizophrenic ( functionally deluded ) ?
Has anybody else noticed that these protests mostly seem to be occurring in places with very strict gun control laws? New York, Oakland, Los Angeles…I’m not hearing about too many in Texas.
And you never will, Matt, because Southerners/Midwesterners tend not to put up with this crap. You won’t hear about ‘Occupy Anchorage’, either, because Alaskans will just shoot them and feed the bodies to the bears…..
‘Fraid you’re wrong on the Occupy Anchorage, batshit crazy lefties are alive and well in Anchorage and a handful of the usual suspects have been singing songs and carrying signs. It’s getting chilly here, teens – twenties, so they were inside a downtown mall over the weekend to “occupy” a Wells Fargo branch, which got them thrown out and a couple arrested.
Since Juneau is the capital city, downtown Juneau might as well be Berzerkley North, the suburbs are Purple leaning Red. Fairbanks has a big college population so the parts around the University are full of lefies and also organized labor is quite powerful in FAI. Downtown Anchorage is full of people whose grandfather made a bunch of money mining or some such in the early days, married a whore, not enough teachers and nurses to go around, and sent Junior to Hahvud so it’s pretty reliably Blue as are the areas around the University and the heavily ethnic East side of town.
Well, they’re ocurring in Blue cities because that’s where you can get enough mind-numbed lefty children together and get major market media attention. My great fear is that they will find a way to pull these stunts in “less friendly” areas where somebody will give them their fondest wish and do something violent. We have to be as disciplined towards them as we have been in Tea Party rallies, we have our own crazies and we simply MUST keep them in check and not let any violence start from our side of the ditch.
Why did the government force banks to accept TARP money? Why did the government refuse to let “bailed out” banks to repay the TARP money? Why is no one asking these questions? It appears to me the the regime wanted to get control of the banks and used TARP as their lever.
Proper government would have barred banks from hammering credit cardholders with usurious interest rates. Proper government would not have created the mortgage conditions for financial meltdown. Proper government would serve the common good, not lord over the people. See Federalist No. 57.
Yeah, those nasty banks filled out those CC applications and made those people charge all that crap. Responsible people wouldn’t get CCs with usurious rates and if the rate went up to that level wouldn’t keep the card. Responisble people wouldn’t buy houses they can’t afford. Responsible people would not have blocked GWB’s attempts to rein in Fanny and Freddie, see, e.g., Dodd and Franks, Maxine Waters, they’re Democrats by the way. Oh, and funny thing, GWB let Democrat holdovers keep their jobs at Fanny and Freddie and loot millions for themselves out of them.
Proper government would have barred banks from hammering credit cardholders with usurious interest rates.
Proper government protects individual rights. Period.
Such rights include: freedom of association. An example of this, is the right of contract, particularly the right to set terms of such contracts. The government has no right to interfere in such contracts, even if only to forcibly change a few terms.
Proper government would not have created the mortgage conditions for financial meltdown.
True, according to MY concept of “proper government”. It’s not at all certain of yours, seeing as you already have them interfering in private financial contracts in your previous statement.
Proper government would serve the common good, not lord over the people.
You mean COMMON GOOD OVER INDIVIDUAL GOOD, right?
I think the historical evidence is in on that one, bub. You have learned absolutely nothing from any of this, clearly.
There is a simple solution to this problem if the cold weather does not take effect first (don’t know what drugs these OWS people are taking, but nevertheless have a huge police presence and tell them:
“Alright folks, we are going to clear this property in the next 24 hours starting now, if you do not leave this property you will be arrested and taken to jail pending further investigation!”
“If you wish to avoid jail and possible prison sentences for certain crimes then please form a single file line over here and be prepared to present identification with a photo I.D.”
“If you do not have a photo I.D. with you please go into this line over here and give an explanation as to why as an adult or youth over 16 years of age you have no such identification or social security card, there will be further questions to ascertain your identity and you may then leave after photographic and fingerprinting and other measures.”
“For those who wish to continue to protest you may take one of two options an officer of law enforcement will approach you and tell you to leave after seeing proper I.D. or if you can not or will not produce such a document you will be arrested and handcuffed and placed into one of the city provided vehicles!”
“For those that not only refuse to leave following orders from the police or law enforcement and provoke or do bodily harm expect the use up to and including deadly force in which case you need not be handcuffed or go through the I.D. process which will be determined after this event is over!”
“O.K. I think everything has been covered so protesters it is time for you to leave and if not you are all outta here one way or another, make your choice, you are costing people that pay taxes money for us to be here in the first place so let’s save money, we are gonna do our job anyway!”
Accounting for the Tea Party, the OWS, and Tim Tebow
In the first part of a series titled, “What Sets the Tea Party Apart,” Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks asks, “What is the difference between OWS and the Tea Party?” a rhetorical question tantamount to asking the reader to distinguish a cesspool from a cathedral.
Kibbe might as well have inquired as to the difference between the Occupy Wall Streeters and Denver Broncos’ much maligned quarterback, Tim Tebow, who hasn’t publicly identified himself as a Tea Party member but who clearly shares their philosophy– and their condemnation.
The chief problem with the Tea Party and Tebow in the eyes of their detractors is that they represent everything their detractors are not. As for the OWS mobs, they should study up on the conservative movement and the conservative quarterback after, as Newt Gingrich suggested, they get a job and take a bath.
Many on the Left like to draw parallels between the anti-taxation Tea Partiers and the anti-everything Occupiers in a futile attempt to give a degree of credibility and civility to the latter. The two groups are as dissimilar as cleanliness and dirt.
Kibbe cites the 18th century English philosopher-economist Adam Smith in presenting his argument that the Tea Party is “set apart,” distinctive from other social movements by virtue of its commitment to what Kibbe describes with a single word, “accountability . . . the moral basis that binds a community, allows for cooperation, and enables human prosperity.”
I would add that the stark absence of a sense of accountability, compounded by an even more gross disinterest in civilized behavior, render the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations irrelevant except, of course, to the lives they have negatively impacted.
Adam Smith expressed that sentiment far more elegantly: “The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions.”
Though few are calling for “vengeance and punishment” for OWSers other than the enforcement of existing laws, the accountability factor is key to understanding the phenomenon of relatively small masses of people trampling on the rights of the vast majority.
Matt Kibbe sees the issue as the realization of a concept Tea Partiers genetically inherited from America’s Founders and Occupy Wall Street somehow missed: “Don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.”
The Tea Party respects everyone and hurts no one.
The OWSers respect no one, hurt everyone including themselves and seize whatever “stuff” they can get their socialist, grubby hands on, from public park spaces to the rights of others to property and livelihoods while injuring those parks, those rights, properties, livelihoods, and themselves by their utter contempt for fundamental principles of personal and societal responsibility.
Tim Tebow’s principal responsibility on the football field is to win games for the Denver Broncos and, if he accidentally hurts anyone in the course of executing that duty, he would be contrite and apologetic since, well, that’s Tim Tebow.
He has admitted that he is also accountable to God, religion, and ethical dictates and that antiquated attitude toward morality rankles many in the sports world.
His critics have attacked Tebow’s athletic talents but what evidently bothers them most are other accountabilities. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6358.)