Saturday, January 21, 2012

Right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government redress of grievances.....

I combined the last two into one post. Does anyone have any starting points. How about the OWS crowd, or the Tea Party crowd? Anyone have any talking points........................
I read a few blogs that were posting youtube videos of Policeman abusing their power on the OWS crowd. While this may be true, I was not there. But I was somewhat at the Chicago protests. Meaning I walked by them everyday for about three weeks. Not to mention the amount of Chicago policemen that I know. I can tell you one thing. They were not all peaceful. I remember one Liberal blogger asking, "Can you really judge a group of people by the action of a few?".....................
My answer is quite simply, YES. Take me for instance. I have been judged, or shall I say my political and social believes have been judged by the company that I keep. Even the way that I look is judged. When I spent the better part of three years in court, my attorney advised me to grow my hear, and make sure my tattoos were covered.. When I asked why, she simply replied, "Because you look like a White Suprematist.".......
Anyway, Back to my point, Yes you are judged. But I am proud of Chicago for having very few youtube OWS crowd incidents. We have the right to PEACABLY assemble. After that, fuck 'em.................


  1. Johnny,

    You and I are in a good industry for allowing us our freedom of expression. You can be bald and covered with tattoos, and I can be a fat redneck in overalls. But if either of us applied for a job as say a bank teller, they would shit over our appearance. A lot of these OWS freaks think they shouldn't have to have any dress standards to work at Lehman Brothers. One of the main reasons I enjoy construction is the freedom. Of course, the government is out to ruin it with OSHA regulations and other stupid rules.

  2. One of the things that bugs me about protests in principle is the requirement to obtain a permit.

    I get that if you have large crowds you need porta-potties, parking, first aid stations, etc. for public safety reasons.

    However, if a small group attempts to protest the government then they are whisked away because they do not have a permit.

    I don't remember seeing the permit part in the Constitution anywhere.

    Your thoughts?

  3. Johnny & Tenth,
    I suppose we are all guilty of profiling people. We are victims of our own experiences.

    The old saying "you can't judge a book by its cover" is appropriate but we all do it everyday.

  4. Johnny,

    This one will be good.

    There doesn't seem to be a shortage of articles, blog-posts, and e-mails comparing the two movements. As you know - I have been to both.

    I have been to several TEA movement (I don't like the term "Party" as they are not one) events earlier on. I stopped attending not for ideological reasons, but because I feel their tactics diffuse the effort and are in competition with their natural allies in the Republican Party.

    I also visited the McPherson Square based Occupy DC movement as chronicled in my blog. There is no rational comparison between the two. That is principally because they are made up of two entirely different groups of people.

    The TEA movement is representative of that vast middle America - they were called the "Silent Majority" in late 60's and early 70's. They delivered the wave elections to the Republicans in 1968, 1970, and 1972. These are salt of the earth people -they define what is good about America.

    The Occupy movement is the exact opposite. Most of the crowd are those lost souls that we call useful idiots though there is a smattering of leftist agitators who are guiding and nurturing the movement. Together they are as Anti-American as any group of people could be.

  5. Hardnox,

    As for judging a book by it's cover, I'd say that at least 50% of the time, you can. If you've read enough books, you learn to tell what's in them by the blurbs of crap on the back cover.

    As to profiling people, I contend that every human with dread locks smokes dope. Ninety percent of Mexican's under 5'4" are illegal. Everyone who's pants hang off their ass are idiots. Profiling works.

  6. Peacefull assembly means just that.

    The tea party folks demonstrated what a peacefull assembly looks like...while the moonbat media worked overtime to smear them as violent.
    They also left the grounds they assembled on CLEANER than it was when they arrived.

    The #OWS people have literally destroyed the places they've "occupied", cost cities (taxpayers) millions of dollars in cleanup costs, vandalized public and private property, raped, robbed and, murdered...while the moonbat media labeled them as peacefull and "mostly peacefull".

    A typical case of the media trying to convince you that black is white and bad is good via repeating a theme until it's no longer questioned.

    What were the occupiers doing when they were arrested that the tea partiers obviously were not?

    Staging incidents? Trying to bait the police into a reaction with the cameras rolling?

    The law-abiding calling on the government to obey it's own laws VS the lawless demanding freebies.

    I would ask, "why is the media painting the non-violent as violent while at the same time trying to convince America that the violent aren't really violent"?

    Who are they trying to convince and, why?
    And, for whom?

  7. Johnny,

    This is pretty interesting, from a Canadian Free Press article on 27 Oct 2011:

    OWS Comparison Tea Party
    40 Days of Protest 989
    2511 Arrests 0
    4 Rapes 0
    $2.4 mil Cost $0

  8. TGP- I hear ya brother. But I do clean-up well. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

  9. H/Nox- I'm not sure about the constitutionality of permits. My opinion is their should be no permits for protesting. In the case of porta-johns and first-aid stations. I think the protesting group should be responsible for that cost. There is definately no mention of permits in the First Amendment.

  10. Johnny,

    There is also no mention in the First Amendment about violating the rights of others to enable free speech. Their right to free speech doesn't trump my right to peace.

    I've been to McPherson Square and those fascists (liberals, progressives, democrats, whatever) have destroyed it. It will cost the District of Columbia (who will probably pass the bill on to you and me) tens of thousands to clean that mess up. In that DC is completely in the grips of democrats it will cost three to four times more than it should.

    It is costing us now to have police there, portajohns, and the like. There is a restaurant right across the street that I'll bet is delighted to have a rat infestation.

    By the way - the Freedom Plaza Occupiers (a few blocks away) did begin with a four month permit which they no doubt violated, but at least they tried.

    When your freedom encounters my freedom we have to negotiate. Their freedom to express themselves doesn't have to take the form of squatting in a public park and ruining it for everyone.

    They aren't exercising freedom they are abridging yours.

  11. Guys,
    Remember when protests where held during the day, usually on weekends? You did your thing then went home. Maybe to stress a point you did it the next day.

    Now the asshats do it full time and are often paid to do it.

    I doubt the Founders believed anyone would do it full time.

  12. Sepp- Yes, Peacefully assemble is the Constitutional wording.

    Good luck on your move. I'll miss you in Sandusky come Summertime.

  13. CS- Loved the stats.
    Not to be a dick, but I do not recall, a right to peace in the Constitution. I know that Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness, are rights given to us in the DOI.
    I do understand what you are saying though.

  14. Johnny,

    And the part you quote goes on to "insure domestic Tranquility" -

    and I get your point.

  15. Don't sweat the Sandytown issue, I'm not moving too far off the grid to miss out on indulging in a few $8 beers at CP.

  16. Johnny,

    More on the First Amendment and bad news for liberals (democrats, progressives, socialists, whatever) - lying is not protected free speech:aut

    Denver appeals court upholds military impostor law
    By IVAN MORENO Associated Press

    DENVER—The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a federal law making it illegal to lie about being a war hero is constitutional and making false statements is not always protected free speech.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the Denver-based court reverses a district judge's decision that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment.

  17. CS- Thanks for the article. That is one ruling I can live with.