The police warned that if protestors didn’t move, force would be used to remove them. Protestors didn’t move. Force was used to remove them.
What’s the big deal?
Liberals were aghast at last Friday’s video showing Police Lt. John Pike shooting pepper spray at a row of seated protestors blocking a walkway at the University of California at Davis. The protestors were barricading the path against officers trying to arrest students who had violated the college’s order prohibiting pitching tents on the quad.
Curiously, the seated protestors had their heads down and eyes covered during the entire 10-second assault. This may have had something to do with the fact that the sadistic monster Pike had raised his bright-red pepper spray can in the air and shook it for about five minutes before spraying, in order to warn the protestors about what was coming. In the video, onlookers can be heard calling out, “Keep your eyes closed!” “Cover your eyes!” and “Protect yourself!” Upon being sprayed, none of the seated protestors appeared to cry out in pain, though it was difficult to hear over the onlookers wailing, “You guys are supposed to protect us!”
One hysterical woman in the video can be heard yowling, “Why are you doing this? These are children!” which I guess is supposed to be aurally reminiscent of “It’s for the children!”
For those who don’t belong to the Young Democratic Socialists, pepper spray is a commonly used, non-lethal crowd control agent that is a chemical cousin of mace and other tear gases. It induces watery eyes, runny nose, and coughing—which can’t be any worse than the symptoms of Zuccotti Lung. read more »
Last summer, during the debt ceiling standoff, Congressional Republicans and Democrats came to a dubious—no, wait: stupid—deal to set up a bipartisan “supercommittee” to negotiate $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade.
The committee comprised three Republicans and three Democrats from the House, and three each from the Senate. The committee would make spending cut recommendations by November 23, and Congress would vote on them by December 24. If the committee failed to agree to cuts that can pass in Congress, automatic cuts of $450 billion from defense spending, $450 billion from domestic programs, and $300 billion from reduced interest payments would kick in on January 1, 2013.
What could possibly go wrong?
For starters, there are six Democrats on the panel and only six Republicans. Since spending bills originate in the House, which Republicans control, why is this a 50-50 proposition? Would gloating Democrats have been so sporting if this process had unfolded in 2007 or 2009?
The Republicans on the committee aren’t nearly as conservative as the Democrats are liberal. Only one Republican could be called a consistent, genuine fiscal conservative: newly elected Senator, Club for Growth President, and godsend Pat Toomey. Republican committee chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Sen. Jon Kyl, and Reps. Rob Portman, Dave Camp, and Fred Upton, whatever their virtues, all voted to increase the debt ceiling in August, and thus cannot be trusted. read more »
Iran’s leadership is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons, and has been doing so for the past two decades. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei have repeatedly pledged to use whatever means they have at their disposal to wipe Israel off the map.
Just about everyone except Israel’s right-wing politicians and John McCain has been denying, distorting, or downplaying these hard truths for years. Even though the U.S. State Department has listed Iran as the biggest state sponsor of terror for decades, and even though evidence has been piling up that Iran is working to acquire weapons, President George W. Bush did nothing to encourage military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities during his eight years in office, even after the attacks on 9/11. President Barack Obama is not likely to deviate from this course.
Israel has been undermining Iran’s progress via indirect channels, including deploying the sophisticated Stuxnet worm, which sabotaged Iran’s uranium enrichment centrifuges and set their capabilities back a year or two; and authorizing a covert assassination program to take out top Iranian nuclear scientists. These strategies have been helpful, but they only buy so much time. They are not enough to prevent Iran from succeeding at its ultimate goal. Economic sanctions are also not enough to halt Iran’s work.
The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is about to release its most detailed report yet documenting Iran’s secret nuclear weapon development at a site near Tehran called Parchin, its uranium enrichment at a facility in Natanz, and its installation of centrifuges at Qom. All of this activity has been going on, despite Iran’s lies that its technology will be used only to generate electricity. read more »
On Tuesday the Mississippi electorate will vote on a controversial amendment to the state constitution declaring that “the term ‘person’ [is] defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof.” The Mississippi Personhood Amendment, as it is known, is echoed by similar ballot measures in a half dozen other states.
Since it is illegal to murder a person in all states, and all states have laws dispensing jail time or even the death penalty for murder, the logical conclusion from these referenda is that they will instantly reclassify a broad swath of society as felons. Have pro-life advocates prepared state corrections officials for the flood of recently pregnant women, abortion doctors, and “morning after” pill consumers they’ll be sending to the pen or the gas chamber?
Mississippi’s law, the most extreme state personhood referendum on the ballot this year, would ban all abortions, some forms of birth control, and all embryonic stem cell research.
Jessica Valenti notes that Proposition 26 would “prioritize the rights of fertilized eggs over the rights of the women carrying them.” Passage of the law would lead to the absurdity of proclaiming unused but fertilized eggs in a Petri dish to be persons and outlawing in vitro fertilization.
Pro-life conservatives have been crowing about the recent spate of stealth victories their movement has won on the state level. In The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes explains that this progress has been possible largely because gay marriage has become the more visible social issue in recent years and has detracted attention from continuing behind-the-scenes efforts to restrict abortion. Such advances are supported, Barnes argues, by technological breakthroughs in sonogram quality, which have made fetuses seem more developed and autonomous than imagined. read more »
Presidential candidate Herman Cain is touting his 9-9-9 tax plan, which would replace the three-million-word tax code with a flat 9% federal income tax, 9% corporate tax, and 9% national sales tax.
Fellow candidate Rick Perry recently proposed a flat tax of 20% on earned income and 20% on corporate income, and a simplification of the tax code including elimination of loopholes and eradication of the death tax. Newt Gingrich has similarly suggested a 15% flat tax.
These plans recall the flat tax Steve Forbes campaigned for president on in 1996 and 2000. All of these plans, in addition to numerous other benefits, would massively reduce the U.S.’s collective tax compliance cost to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. (Though liberals don’t realize it, it would be a fantastic thing for our economy if every employee of the Internal Revenue Service, H&R Block, and every tax lawyer, accountant, and tax preparation service employee lost his job and had to go out and find useful productive work.)
In response to these Republican candidates’ thoughtful proposals, liberals are screaming that conservatives’ plan for getting us out of our present fiscal crisis is to “tax the poor.”
If only we could get out of our current budget predicament by taxing the poor. In fact, we can’t even get out of it by taxing the rich.
As has been amply demonstrated, massively increasing taxes on high earners wouldn’t come close to relieving our budget woes, which can be alleviated only via radical entitlement reform. Eating the rich now will not ensure an enriching long-term diet for the nation later. read more »
Last week a concerned reader took issue with my negative comparison of the Occupy Wall Street protests to the Tea Party rallies—in particular my statement that “Tea Party rallies have been amazingly peaceful, with not a single arrest… across hundreds of cities and thousands of events…” The reader was correct—there were in fact Tea Party arrests I had overlooked.
In March of 2011, Jim Canelos was arrested in Mohave County, Arizona for wearing a flag hat at a county supervisors’ meeting that prohibited wearing hats.
In February of 2010, Mervin Fried was arrested in Kingman, Arizona for bringing a symbolic pitchfork to a protest in a county administration building. Fried argued that the county already allowed citizens to carry guns—a more dangerous weapon—into government buildings, and was later acquitted.
Most notably, in November of 2009, ten protestors angry over ObamaCare were arrested for engaging in disorderly conduct outside Nancy Pelosi’s office in Washington, D.C. The ralliers were discovered to have been organized by rabid anti-abortion activist and Democrat Randall Terry of Operation Rescue.
That’s it! A dozen Tea Party arrests in two-and-a-half years, most tied to anti-abortion protestors. Given the media’s left-wing slant, you can be sure that every arrest ever made at a Tea Party rally in the tiniest hamlet in the country has been thoroughly documented.
Now that we’ve gotten that straight, let’s examine the arrest record of Occupy Wall Street, which just hit its one-month anniversary: read more »
The only similarity Tea Party rallies and the Occupy Wall Street protests share is that both involve humans gathered in public spaces. Other than that they have about as much in common as a Rolling Stones concert does with a public stoning.
The UK Daily Mail featured a story on the unsavory conditions at the OWS protestors’ home base in Manhattan, Zuccotti Park, including photos of one flannel-clad agitator squatting and defecating against a police car. Hmm, I think the last time that happened at a Tea Party rally was… never.
Having destroyed the park over the past three weeks by filling it with patchouli ashes and feces, the protestors traipsed north on Saturday to turn another great New York gathering space, Washington Square Park, into a public urinal.
The glaring differences between OWS and the Tea Party rallies are obvious to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes (and nostrils).
The Tea Party movement, which began around the start of Barack Obama’s presidency and built momentum during the year-long national healthcare debate, was a grassroots uprising. Across the country, people who had never been active in politics networked and gathered with concerned, like-minded citizens to demand a curb on the intrusion of federal government into our lives.
In contrast, OWS, which is a fraction of the size of the Tea Party, was instigated by an anti-consumerist Canadian magazine called Adbusters, and has seen its numbers swell via conspicuous throngs of bused-in union members, bored trust fund brats cruising for easy sex, disheveled homeless people looking for free food, and savvy criminals on the lam who understand that a crowd of ragtag bums is the perfect hiding spot for them. read more »
What the hell are the Wall Street occupiers protesting? Do they even know?
The “Occupy Wall Street” hoodlums have been occupying Zuccotti Park (formerly Liberty Plaza) near Manhattan’s financial district for almost three weeks, with no signs of leaving. They have literally been occupying the park—demonstrating without a police permit and setting up living quarters, complete with their own sleeping area, kitchen, and “library.” They have been clogging neighboring streets and bridges. They have pledged to occupy the area through the coming winter.
Demonstrators are trying to boost the legitimacy of their operation by passing out hundreds of thousands of copies of their self-published, four-page diatribe, “The Occupied Wall Street Journal.”
The self-described occupiers are, of course, long-haired, hippie-ish, slovenly, litter-strewing, profanity-spewing, Marxism-spouting, law-and-order-despising, ill-informed, inarticulate, slack-jawed, and unfocused—in other words, your typical left-wing mob.
(You knew the mob just had to be leftist before you even heard what it was about. From what other portion of the political spectrum could activists organize so many thousands of unemployed people to do nothing but sit around in the street and chant all day? Contrast the Wall Street occupation with Tea Party rallies, which always take place in the evening or on weekends, outside of work hours.) read more »
FiveThirtyEight whiz Nate Silver recently asked whether Chris Christie is the anti-Romney or the anti-Perry.
The answer is yes.
Christie is the anti-Romney, because he genuinely and unapologetically embraces and enacts conservative policies, at least on fiscal matters—in particular entitlement reform, the most important policy realm our nation currently faces.
Critics charge that he’s not consistently conservative on issues such as global warming and gun control. Yet Rick Perry critics complain that he’s not consistently conservative on issues such as immigration and the HPV vaccine, and most people wouldn’t call Perry a liberal.
Christie is the anti-Perry, because he knows how to identify, articulate, and justify his positions, using fiery, uncompromising rhetoric that doesn’t sound rehearsed, and isn’t afraid to say things that tick off hallowed interest groups.
Critics charge that he’s arrogant, has a temper, and insults people. Yet his style has proven wildly popular with voters who are fed up with politicians who can’t or won’t stand up to bullying public employee unions that are bankrupting the nation’s most populous states.
If Mitt Romney held more consistently conservative positions on the major issues of the day, he’d be able to articulate them to voters. But he doesn’t.
If Rick Perry were more articulate and had a better understanding of the issues, his positions would be conservative enough for most Republicans. But he isn’t. read more »
History has taught us that the farcical “peace process” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority breaks down every single time it is forcibly initiated by the West. The routine disintegrates because it always unpeacefully proceeds in the following manner: Palestinians make demands, and Israel agrees to them; Palestinians smell blood in the water and up the stakes, and Israel necessarily balks; Palestinians attack Israel, and Israel counterattacks; the world condemns Israel for its “disproportionate” response, and Palestinians secretly celebrate Israel’s global denigration without shedding a tear over the deaths of its own civilians; and then the whole sordid cycle starts again.
The Palestinians’ latest gambit for feigning legitimacy in the eyes of free nations is for PA President Mahmoud Abbas to request a platform for better infiltrating, isolating, and attacking Israel—I mean, “statehood”—at the United Nations’ Security Council meeting this Friday. This entreaty would require fulfilling President Obama’s outrageous demand earlier this year that Israel return to its undefendable, pre-1967 borders and cede east Jerusalem to the Palestinians. A usefully idiotic coalition of Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Lutheran priests in Jerusalem have boosted the PA’s bid.
The PA’s move on Friday will almost certainly be blocked by the United States, which, as a core member of the Security Council, has veto power over any such bid. If its statehood attempt fails, Abbas has implied that the PA will present its case to the U.N. General Assembly, whose peanut gallery of Third World dictatorships will likely approve an upgrade for the PA from “entity” to non-voting, non-member observer state. read more »