Skip to main content

See also:

The occupation should go on vacation...permanently

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 02: About 100 demonstrators from the Occupy DC movement shut down rush hour traffic as they march through downtown.
WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 02: About 100 demonstrators from the Occupy DC movement shut down rush hour traffic as they march through downtown.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

With the #Occupied 'Movement' (tacitly and overtly supported by Cook County's hometown hero, President Barack Obama), it keeps coming back to the same, basic question - if you disagree or question the rapes, which have led to gender-segregated tents with guards; lawlessness; and meaning and goals of the thing, that is. 'So, are you OK with banks destroying this economy on the backs of the working man?!' Or, something as hyperbolic, misleading and confusing like that. Banks did not give loans to bad risks of their own free will; Government used its peculiar force to make them give those loans...to people who had a duty not to accept them, if they could not afford to pay them off.
There is an additional duty to recognize the difference between the Tea Party and the mutant Occupation that aspires to use the former as a model. There were no reported rapes at the Tea Party rallies (You can be sure media elites would not have given any such allegation a pass - as they have given those who have raised the specter of sexual assault at the spawn events of President Obama's #OccupyWallStreet 'Movement'.) There is a more important and stark difference between the Tea Party rallies and President Obama's #Occupation Protests.
The Tea Party rallied to lift America back up to its height and to redeem its exceptional status, while President Obama's #Occupation protesters are decrying necessary layers in the foundation of the American system - capitalism and personal responsibility (to pay their own loans and, most perplexing, to spend their free time working to attain the jobs about which they are taking to the streets to complain, instead). All Tea Partiers are not perfect. As radio talk show host and author, Mark Levin has said before, "[Richard Keith "Dick"] Armey [,former U.S. Representative from Texas's 26th congressional district (1985–2003) and House Majority Leader (1995–2003)] had a radical, open-borders, pro-amnesty position record in Congress and has recently endorsed that position as head of FreedomWorks. Do most Tea Party activists agree? Of course not.”" Furthermore, the Tea Party has a Constitutional ground wire, rather than a Communist or Anarchist connection.
One reason why the cultural elite who are among those who utilize violence under the cover of the First Amendment are not enamored of the founding document, the Declaration of Independence or, the Constitution either, is that they think "...traditions are [] the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age...." (Sowell, Thomas, 1996 p. 118). Thus, one may start to understand why President Sarkozy and President Obama disdain [Prime Minister Netanyahu] as a liar and a boor - because Israel's premier disagrees with them on the proper lens through which to perceive reality.
Unlike the Tea Party, President Obama's #Occupation Movement sees the Constitution (and any law, really) as an expedient that they will ignore, if it is not seen to be moving society toward a "...goal [of] liberation of human beings from unnecessary social inhibitions, so as to allow repressed creativity to emerge and the vast knowledge and talent already available to be applied to existing problems." (Ibid., pp. 117-118). Take the law signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, which flies in the face of the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed into law by Former President Clinton. (For that matter, consider President Obama's unwillingness to defend the federal law.)
Free - even from the duty to pay for the space they have occupied - President Obama's #Occupation 'Movement' makes vague references to "changing the conversation"; "shifting our culture"; "educating each other"; and "recognizing our strength in number". They call themselves "peace and justice" activists. But this flood of the so-called ninety-nine percent is creating less political fear by their brand of lobbying, and more actual fear - for physical safety, of the theft of the liberty to simply drive home with one's child.
If Wall Street has committed 'crimes', there is another question. What were 'the banks' expected to do with the risky loans they had been forced to give - ? - except to bundle them and cross their fingers that bubbles would not burst before they had a chance to make some money off of them?
And what about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Barney Frank?
When you see signs that say things like 'Jobs not cuts', and all the rest, are you supposed to think about golden parachutes and 'greedy' CEOs who will not share the rewards they have earned by working long hours away from their families for decades?
And if so, how do you reconcile the lack of scrutiny turned on the Government-supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonuses given to their 'greedy' (and some might argue, disastrously unsuccessful) CEOs recently?
The working people of America work at banks, too. It is not only the wealthy who are fed off of the tentacled body of these companies. What would happen if banks were forced (by President Obama's #Occupation) to find friendlier homes - in other cities, other states, or even other countries - might be a more pressing issue than whether banks are oppressing the people employed by them.

Comments