Criminal Occupation

Disclaimer first, opinion after...

I am certain that most of the Occupy folks are decent enough people.  It is always tempting to make the weirdos and oddballs be the mean rather than the outlier.

But still, the Tea Party folks never had weirdos and oddballs of these dimensions.  Check out the list of serious crimes that are being committed in these Obamavilles.  And those are just the ones that have been reported.

The list does not include the many crimes that the various Occupy committees have successfully hushed up.  Their official position appears to be that they are unwilling to engage local law enforcement over criminal activities.

Rape appears to be the most common crime that these "committees" have the most trouble containing.

Worth considering by but unlisted is racism/anti-Semitism.  (A prominent theme for those following the Occupy antics via Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit.)

Many of the positive changes in our society over the last 30-40 years have occurred due to an expanded sense of tolerance.  What is lacking from the Occupy folks is discernment.  Tolerance is what causes a 16 year old girl to avert her gaze to the normal nudity experience when one is preparing for a good night's sleep.  Discernment is what causes her to call the cops when she becomes the object of to public masturbation.

Sadly, she possessed more discernment than the supposed adults that are running these protests.

The Difference Between Occupiers And Tea Partiers

While there are some elements that should unite the two groups (i.e. distrust of the well connected well-to-do and their government toadies), there are other elements in which the difference could not be more clear.  Jeff Jacoby tries to get some mileage out of the 10th Commandment, but the larger point is in the sadly growing catalog of vandalism, rape, assault, and continued threats of violence from the Occupy group. 

Where the Tea Party folks left their gathering spots devoid of trash, the Occupy folks trash their gathering spots.  Policy pretentions aside, the Occupy folks appear to value nothing beyond their own existence.  Nothing matters to them unless it matters to them; narcissism in spades.

Of course, it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel.  Were it not for a complacent media that ignores the blatant lawlessness of those few bad apples and their prior zealous attempts to convert a few minor blemishes into a worm in every Tea Party apple, we might justly and quickly purge the public debate such destructive disinterest in the well being of anyone not "occupying" a tent located inside a major metropolitan park.

Only then can a serious discussion of the issues at hand commence.

Abolish Money?

Via Classical Values:

I'm sure there was a fair amount of cherry picking going on, but still!

Successfully Patient

I have been intending to write something along these lines for quite some time.  Guy Fawkes was not, despite his popularity among anachronistic anarchists, a friend of liberty.

I waited long enough for someone else to pretty well cover my thoughts.  Success at last!

From Surprising Corners

I was listening to someone a couple weeks ago.  This person is a hard core anti-socialist, pro-freedom individual.  They mildly chastised me once for suggesting that corporations should not be considered the legal equivalent of a person.

They were observing that some of the Occupy protesters were making a few fair points about their respective situations.  His concern was that the Occupy movement would be subverted by the minority that wants to impose socialism on the country.

The point?  This is someone that I would not expect to be giving any credence to any of the OWS arguments.

I have some further thoughts that I am working on and hope to have posted soon.  Given that I am writing this post a couple weeks in advance, you might have seen them by now!

Who Is A Racist?

After being subjected to two year's worth of slurs suggesting that the Tea Party is based in racism, the news of this weeks "Occupy" protest in Atlanta is spreading quickly.  The group that is/was protesting there refused to let John Lewis, civil rights stalwart and legend, speak.

Congressman Lewis (D, GA) was ready to talk to the group, but they didn't give him a chance to speak.
"I was going to say, I stand with you. I support you, what you're down," said Lewis to the media.

He said he wasn't disappointed he wasn't able to address the crowd. Several people CBS Atlanta spoke to were upset.

Michelle Williams was excited to attend the event and no longer wanted to be associated with the movement, citing how Lewis was treated.

"I am angry because this is not what democracy is all about. This is Marxist more Stalin like. Your movement, you're just riff-raff. You're an organized mob," said Williams.

I am prepared to be a bit kinder....one might suggest more civil...than many left leaning polemicists by suggesting that the decision to not let Mr. Lewis speak was probably made by whatever passes for "leadership" in this movement and does not reflect the thoughts of the many participants.

I disagree with Mr. Lewis on a long list of issues.  But even I would be interested in what he had to say.

A side note to Ms. Williams.  The "leadership".  This "movement".  Marxist.  Stalinist.

This isn't particularly new.

As Dr. Wes suggests, this group isn't particularly gifted with "clue".

The Grass Has A Funny Color

Via Instapundit comes the news that protesters at the DC version of "Occupy Wall Street" are not there because they support the cause.  They are there for the paycheck.

Given the number of protests with lots of professionally printed SEIU signs, and other organizations, it isn't terribly surprising to learn that this leftist "movement" is really just AstroTurf.  Again. It is as if everyone to the left of Bertolt Brecht bought stock in Monsanto.

A real movement doesn't have to pay its protesters.

Begging For Equal Time

The Tea Party is allegedly a racist organization funded by billionaires.

What does that make these folks?

Someone wake me when that story hits the front pages of the NYTimes and Washington Post.  'Cause then I'll know that the world is about to be raptured!

Confused

I do not endorse the theatrics of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I do not endorse the slashing of tires on vehicles owned by WBC members while they are out protesting some soldier's funeral.

But this seems an opportune moment for schadenfreude.  I am so confused.

A Timely Illustration - Cordoba House

I had suggested earlier that the Islamic center proposed by Cordoba House for a location unreasonably, IMHO, near the World Trade Center site would be misinterpreted by more radical Islamists as a sort of victory.  Over the weekend, the terrorist group Hamas confirmed that my concern was valid.

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.


"We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip.


"In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer," he said on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC.

Then I learned that the face of Cordoba House, Feisal Abdul Rauf, had refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist group.

Hamas first came up in the mosque debate earlier this summer when Abdul Rauf refused to describe the group as a terrorist organization -- despite the State Department listing that identifies it as such.


Tom Brown, a chief opponent of the mosque, said: "This is what we've been saying . . . Imam Rauf is a radical Muslim who will not call Hamas a terror group."

Unlike Mr. Brown, I am not certain that Mr. Rauf is an extremist.  I believe he is a moderate in the mode of other Muslim moderates.  He either lacks the spine to actively oppose the terrorism that is being conducted in the name of his religion, or he finds those actions to be perhaps regrettable, but legitimate.

We frequently hear that Islamic Jihadism represents a small fraction of the Muslim world.  We hear that there are many, many more moderate Muslims that do not support Jihadism.

Yet what we see is that larger group of supposedly moderate Muslims that continue to sit on the sidelines and pretend that their religion is not involved in diabolical acts.  Even Fareed Zakaria's recent show illustrated the reluctance of supposed Muslim moderates to voice their opposition to extremism.

Such reluctance suggests to me that one of two things are true.  One is that extremism is a much larger force in Islam than most people are willing to admit.  Extremism that is capable of cowing so many moderates is not an insubstantial movement.

The other, less palatable suggestion is that these supposed moderates more or less approve of terrorist activities as a legitimate course of action.

In any case, if there is a shortage of mosques in New York, then they should build one.....elsewhere.  The current project is too close to the World Trade Center site to permit a mosque to be built there now.

Perhaps later, after Islam has experienced their version of the Reformation, it would be appropriate to build a mosque at the currently proposed site.  Perhaps when a nation's "Islamicity" is no longer a concern.  Perhaps when other religions are tolerated in Muslim societies.

Not now.

And yet.......

Every once in a while you need to listen to the arguments on the other side.  Or perhaps just other opinions.

Mr. Obama struck an appropriate note when he argued that Muslims have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to build places of worship in accordance with the usual local zoning regulations.  He also noted that he wasn't commenting on the wisdom of that particular project being built at that particular place and at this particular time.

Was it smart to select that location at this time for a new mosque?  Hell no.

Is it their absolute right....subject to the usual local zoning laws....absolutely.  You don't spend a serious chunk of your life defending the idea of religious freedom just to toss it aside willy-nilly.

Roger Simon has a piece that I read as sarcastic criticism of those that want Mr. Obama to follow the polls rather than leading the discussion.  I didn't think much of Mr. Clinton because he was such a poll follower.  I did think quite a bit of Mr. GW Bush because he wasn't.  I appreciate Mr. Obama's character because he does try to lead; even though his ideas as to what constitutes "good governance" appear to be predominantly useless garbage, socialistic claptrap, and statist.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has some similar thoughts to share.

Then I thought to myself....self, where are the other mosques/Muslim centers in New York City?  And where exactly is this current project going to be located?

Ahem...to the first issue and *cough*....to the second.

I would certainly not ask for those existing facilities to be torn down and a few are located a similar distance from the WTC site.  Therefore it is hard to see why a new mosque shouldn't be permitted in that area.

I also ran across this background piece on Salon.com that was very informative.  And thus it appears that the folks at Cordoba House never linked their project with 9/11 or the WTC site.  Their critics did.

Anyone who has never been snookered is free to cast the first stone.  You folks that still believe in Social Security need to sit down first.

Howard Kurtz repeats and amplifies on the Salon.com story.  He includes this from Mr. Rauf

'We want to push back against the extremists,' added Imam Feisal, 61.

                                      
Permit me to suggest that Mr. Rauf could "push back" more effectively if he could clearly identify and rebuke Hamas as a terrorist organization.  He might also be more effective if he declined to participate in projects designed to accurate measure the "Islamicity" of a government.  As with other faiths, anything more than a very low measurement is an indication of a problem to be solved.

So where does that leave us.

Does Cordoba House have a right to build a mosque at the proposed location?

Absolutely.  Without qualifiers.

In light of the statements from Cordoba House and the projects financiers indicating that a certain respect for certain sensibilities is required if one wants to build dialog, was this a good location for their project?

Certainly not.  Had they had any respect for the sensibilities of New Yorkers and Americans in general, they would have looked for a different site.  Such respect is apparently unidirectional.

What would I like to see happen?

One of two options.  Either they can find a more suitable location for their project, or they can stop being so "moderate" in their opposition to terrorism and governments based on sharia law.  Being a little less tolerant of the intolerance common among Islamic jihadists would a step in the right direction.  They should fully embrace the difficulties that all religious people have in living in a pluralistic and multi-cultural country.

And work towards a truly pluralistic and multi-cultural world.

And what if I don't get my way?  What if they continue to be tolerant of intolerance and still want to build the mosque in that spot?

So be it.  Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our country.

As is freedom of speech.  And my right to grouse and complain about their project is equally important with their right to build a mosque and worship as they please.

The right to worship as one pleases does not mean that your religion may never be criticized.  Welcome to the free world, folks.

My Kind Of Class Warfare

One that focuses on reducing government programs and spending that distort the market in favor of the well connected at the expense of the rest of us that just work for a living.

Still, watching the Giudices sashay through their onyx-encrusted mansion, and knowing that thousands of similarly profligate homeowners are simply walking away from their debts, it’s easy to succumb to a little class-warrior fantasizing. (Pitchforks, tar, feathers ... that sort of thing.)

The trick is to channel those impulses in a constructive direction. The left-wing instinct, when faced with high-rolling irresponsibility, is usually to call for tax increases on the rich. But the problem, here and elsewhere, isn’t exactly that we tax high rollers’ incomes too lightly. It’s that we subsidize their irresponsibility too heavily — underwriting their bad bets and bailing out their follies. The class warfare we need is a conservative class warfare, which would force the million-dollar defaulters to pay their own way from here on out.

Elana Kagan - Citizen's United - Banning Books Is OK

In my "stack o' stuff", I have some items related to the Citizens United case recently decided by the Supreme Court.  Fortunately for my loyal readers, I'm not going to delve into it for this post.  I bring up the "stack o' stuff" only to note that I had thought to write at length regarding the decision.

The most important thing I can say today is please take the time to read the full decision before making up your mind about it.  Both the majority and the dissenting minority had some interesting things to say.

One reason why I believe that Citizen's United was decided correctly is because the law in question effectively placed individual citizens in the position of having to ask permission from the government before exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.  That is an unacceptable proposition from my perspective.

I ran across this edited video of Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government's position in support of the campaign finance laws being challenged before the court.  In her argument before the court, Ms. Kagan argued that it was acceptable for a federal law to ban books because the FEC had never before taken any regulatory action towards a book.

What Ms. Kagan fails to understand is that there is a first time for everything.  She apparently does not understand that each successive instance only becomes easier and easier to justify.  Nor does Ms. Kagan appreciate that the first time she is likely to notice the enforcement of a federal law banning books is when it is a government that is not of her preference [that is] banning a book [that] reflects her perspective.

Putting Lunacy In Its Place

I am not a fan of police brutality.  Nor am I a supporter of the idea that the police ought to be given a little "leeway" in the performance of their duties.  There is a line between the legitimate performance of their duties enforcing the laws that the people have established and an unacceptable abuse of a position of authority.  It shall not be crossed.

It gets crossed anyway.  No one should think otherwise.

With that caveat aside, I think it may be time to let loose the dogs of war on the self professed "anarchists" that destroy any city that has the poor judgment to host a meeting of the G-20 group of nations.  Invariably, these socialists.....'cause let's admit that they really are advocating socialism rather than anarchy.....turn to breaking windows, burning cop cars, looting stores, and generally destroying as much of the city in question that they can. They never get near the G-20 meeting.  They just march around until the moment seems ripe and the destruction begins.

Toronto is the latest city to burn at their hands.  The police have demonstrated a repeated inability to halt the actual destruction while at the same time harassing peaceful and legitimate onlookers.  The indications of an overwhelmed and frustrated police force are not hard to miss.  Pittsburgh had similar problems when they hosted a G-20 summit.

Take a good look at some of these "protesters".  Do people that turn up with steel bars and gas masks really intend to demonstrate peacefully?

Of course not.

So for the next G-20 summit, perhaps we ought to call out the national guard.  Have them waiting in the wings.  Arm them with the latest in anti-riot armaments.  And when the protesters fail to respond appropriately to the police, let the guard handle the situation.

And if the protesters escalate things by bringing guns to a gun fight.....well the guard knows how to use those as well.

These are not "one time" events.  They are planned for years in advance.  And the people that inevitably pay the price are the people of the host city; with downtown businesses and property owners paying the largest penalty.

The way to stop those years of prior planning is to make rioting an unacceptable option...in their minds.  Quite frankly, the only way to make that happen is to cause them enough pain that they will think of a more constructive and socially acceptable way to express their point of view.

Where Were The Protests?

One of the current criticisms of the Tea Party folks that drives me nuts is when people ask why the Tea Party folks didn't protest George W. Bush when he was creating the initial round of bailouts.

Who knew?

At the time we were treated to all sorts of economic horror stories.  Free market economies experience recessions.  The are an unpleasant but necessary part of any healthy, growing economy.  The only way to experience the boom is to have the bust.  It is hard to defend free markets in the middle of a deep recession.  You get called all sorts of ugly names.

Who knew that the problems at AIG might have been addressed some other way?

Who knew that healthy banks would snap up the bankrupt ones right away?

Who knew that Morgan Stanley Goldman Sachs and many European banks would benefit from Congressional largess?

Who knew that part of the problem was federal regulators with the authority to stop the worst abuses were actually spending their time downloading porn?  On Mr. Bush's watch, in case you weren't paying attention.

We were faced with "do this and do it now or else".  Who knew that there were other options?


The ugly fact of the matter is that recessions come and go.  And while some small portion of the money spent in the early days of the recession might have been defensible, the larger part of that money has been summarily wasted.  We would have a healthier economy now if we had simply let the contraction continue until the markets really stabilized.  At least then we would know where we were.

As of right now, we sit with a hole of unknown depth below us as we wait for the next over inflated market to collapse to its true value.

On The Census

I read a lot of criticism aimed and folks...like me....that object to demographic questions included in every census. I'm actually pretty pleased that the Obama administration has opted to pare down the list of questions.

The logic behind that criticism runs something like this.....

The data gathered helps to determine how much money the federal government spends in your community. Responding to the census means that your community will get more federal funds.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the federal government spends too much money as it is.  I want them to spend less.  How can I use the census to make that happen?

Our census goes back today.  Completing it is a minor patriotic obligation.  I still want a way to use the census to ensure that everyone gets less federal money rather than ensuring that my "community" gets something imagined as a "fair share".

Muslim Women Standing For Freedom

Asra Q. Nomani tells the story of a recent stand-in protest at a Washington D.C. area mosque where Muslim women demonstrated for equal treatment within their faith.

What unfolded that day inside the mosque underscores a growing agitation inside the American-Muslim community by women frustrated by separate-and-unequal status. A survey by the Council on American Islamic Relations showed that two of three mosques in 2000 required women to pray in a separate area, up from one of two in 1994. In 2003, I challenged rules at my mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, that women enter through a back door and pray in a secluded balcony. I argued that, in the 7th century, the prophet Muhammad didn’t put women behind partitions, and the barriers were just emblematic of sexist man-made rules. The men at my mosque put me on trial to be banished.

To me, the women’s space in a mosque is an indicator of whether the interpretation of Islam being practiced is puritanical and dogmatic, or open and inclusive. This one choice is a harbinger for other controversial interpretations of Islam, including domestic violence, honor killings, suicide bombings, violence and interfaith relations. Just this week, a hard-line Saudi cleric issued a fatwa on his Arabic-language Web site calling for the killing of Muslims who don’t enforce strict gender segregation.

Shaking the tree that needs shaking most.