Before Giving Answers, Please Ask This Question First

I see lots of answers around today - but does anyone understand the question? There is most definitely a choice to be made in the world today, please be sure you understand the question properly before you give your answer.

I've had some exchanges with friends over the last week which makes it painfully clear that many people are going straight to their favorite answers, and never considering the actual question at all, and several people are even doing their best to seem 'open minded'... in order to avoid the question.

One friend of mine, whose political views do not reflect mine, said that,

“As for the Tea Party, well in my case I would have to do much more research in order to make any kind of informed statement.”

I told them that if they did their research well, what they'd find, is something that should be extremely shocking to them - because it'll come as a shock to them. We don't want anything from them, we don't want to do anything to them - we want the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, and to be left alone. That's it. The Tea Party is a diverse group of people, of all ages, colors, lines of work and levels of wealth, stretching across the nation, who are united by nothing more than their

• expectation that the government should be bound by the laws which formed and define it – the Constitution - and we call for the rule of law,
• we expect our laws to uphold and defend everyone’s Liberty and Individual Rights equally and without exception, and
• Govt should spend wisely in support of those aims, and that its programs should not conflict with the Constitution or its laws

, these are our stated aim, which you can find in one form or another on every groups web page and blog posts.

The sorts of signs you'll see at our rallies are

• Give me liberty don’t give me debt
• Stop shredding our constitution
• Taxed enough already
• Can’t read? Run for congress!
• Don’t spread my wealth, spread my work ethic,

Do these goals or signs seem to you to be seeking anything other than to be left alone? Are they shocking? Is there anything there that is threatening to anyone? We've held hundreds of rallies across the nation, always peaceful, never accompanied by destruction of property, no violent or unruly (Tea Party) demonstrators, and with zero arrests. I’d say that our stated aims and our track record of behavior reflect each other. Yet we have been portrayed in the press as not very intelligent, inherently violent, thuggish and racist people who yearn for slavery and robbing 'the little guy'.

Does that make sense to you? I’d say the disparity between aims our aims and actual actions, as opposed to how we are portrayed, is something that is definitely worth researching.

On the other hand....
The Occupy Wall street people, well… they aren’t too coherent on their stated demands, but look how the New York Times calmly noted, about them that,

"Occupy Wall Street is a diffuse group of activists who say they stand against corporate greed, social inequality and other disparities between rich and poor. On Sept. 17, 2011, the group began a loosely organized protest in New York's financial district, encamping in Zuccotti Park, a privately owned park open to the public, in Lower Manhattan.
The idea, according to some organizers, was to camp out for weeks or even months to replicate the kind, if not the scale, of protests that had erupted earlier in 2011 in places as varied as Egypt, Spain and Israel."

Hmm... the Protesters own signs, noted in an article in theAtlantic,

• A Job Is A Right! Capitalism Doesn't Work
• I'm a student with $25,000 in school loans - I'm the 99% - Occupy Wall St. Sept 17 - SOCIALIST PARTY USA www.socialistparty-usa.org
• Make Banks Pay!
• Demand jobs and income for the workers and poor!
• Sh*t is f**ked up and bullsh*t

What do those signs tell you about the sign holders? Do they sound like they just want to be left alone? Do they sound like they're willing to leave you alone?


Idealistic protestors with a representation of Goldman-Sachs CEO
Lloyd Blankfein's head on a pike. Isn't that special?


Look again at what the Times so calmly notes… what were the purposes of protests in they mention there, such as Egypt? Oh yeah, overthrowing the govt. That is making direct comparisons to violent revolutions... and yet the press is on the whole... sympathetic to them.

Unlike the Tea Party, who the press is so eager to say they are 'just like a leftist version of', these protesters have been slovenly, rude and disruptive, resulting in 700 arrests in one instance alone. Another New York Times article notes that,

"Heather Amato, 35, a psychologist who lives near the protest area, said she felt disturbed by some of the conduct of the protesters. She said she had to shield her toddler from the sight of women at the park dancing topless. “It’s been three weeks now,” Ms. Amato said. “Enough is enough.”"

And yet what the opinion leaders and talking heads have to say about these people and their demands, is on the whole, sympathetic, Reuters said,

"When Paul Friedman met the rag-tag youth camped out near Wall Street to protest inequality in the American economy, he felt he was witnessing the start of a protest movement not seen in America since the 1960s.
And Friedman should know. The 64-year-old was a student organizer during the anti-Vietnam War movement, protesting from 1964 for 11 years until the war ended. He also joined Civil Rights actions against racial segregation in America."

Aside from the obvious fond ‘memories of youth’ bias of the press, do these summaries fit the ideas being summarized? These protesters, their signs, their aims, their behavior, they definitely express a consistent set of ideas – Those who have, should be forced to give to others, and the current institutions of America should be overthrown, and spreading revolution, is the way to do it.

Yet how are they portrayed? Warmly.

Here we have a newscaster from "Free Speech TV", Nora Flanders, excitedly talking with Nelini Stamp, an organizer with the 'Working Families Party', established by members of the socialist organization The New Party, ACORN, SEIU and other unions and 'community organizations',
The Newscaster jubilantly says:

"Finally, some occupations we can believe in!"

Nelini says she is there helping with 'bridging the gap' between the occupiers on wall street and those organizations, in order to, as she puts it,

"The goal is to bring Revolutionary change to the States"

And the newscaster finishes with,

"Thanks so much for joining us, keep it up."

In case that isn't clear enough for you let me point out, those calling for the basis of our government to be respected and for our laws to be upheld, are being called lawless thugs; while those calling for revolution, behaving in a disorderly manner resulting in hundreds of arrests, are being called idealistic rag-tag youth.

Hello?

What does that say about the level of concern which the popular press has, that ideas the ideas they are concerned with, and are reporting on, should reflect reality? Do they ever think the least about what the ideas behind these statements are? Can Truth really matter to them? What do you think? Before you answer that, consider this about our event last Tuesday.

Forcing Ideas
A fellow I've met and I’ve worked with on several events over the last couple years, someone I've had meetings and meals with, Martin D. Baker, has decided to run for Congress in Missouri's 1st Congressional District, which has gone democrat for over 60 years, and he was at our event last week... and he was treated by those who disagreed with his his position, with us, like dirt.

Not one of those from the left who behaved so abusively towards him had an ounce of curiosity about why he was running as a Republican; not one of them wanted to ask him why he would consider doing such a thing, their only and immediate response, was to call him an Uncle Tom Ni**er!, and one hell of a lot more.

Why he was running was of no interest, because ideas are clearly of no interest to them, they oppose him not because of his ideas, but because of the color of his skin!

And THAT is something which I think is worth researching.

The article in the Atlantic linked to above, offered this summary,

" If you look across the placards at the protest, there is no one cause. Some signs call for student loan reform. Some call for tax reform. Some call for legal reform. Some are contradictory, such as the calls for anarchy and better government. Some don't make all that much sense. But so what? This is a populist movement, not a campaign platform. Not yet, anyway."

So what? So what?! First of all, he's wrong that there is no one cause being supported, dead wrong, the cause being supported across the board is that they haven't been properly taken care of, and they are mad about it. So what? With that as a basis for a populist movement, the answers they're going to demand is going to reflect the means they are using right now - force. Force and action.

In just the same way as Martin was attacked not because of his ideas, but because of the color of his skin, the Occupy Wall Street people are not attacking 'The Rich' not because they got so much of their money wrongly, but because they have so much money at all.

When ideas are of no interest, force is the only option remaining. And nothing but force, real or implied, is what I've found it reasonable to expect from the proregressive left. Whether we're talking about SEIU union thugs or even Democrat Office Holders, or their supporters, intimidation and violence is the go to response of the proregressive left, and if that surprises you - then in my book, you have a lot of explaining to do.


These “kids” are not only using force to occupy public grounds, obstruct public places and walk ways and bridges, and even storming public buildings; they are engaging in ignorant, rude, crude, uncivil behavior, because that is the only response available when you have cast reason aside, and that should speak volumes to you. If you pass these 'protests' off as if ‘they mean well’, you are saying that the ends justify the mean, and that it is ok - and that means nothing but a blank check for whatever actions and violence that they decide 'is necessary'.

Nothing can come of this behavior, and the tolerance of it, but violence, destruction, and if it ever reaches the scale which they themselves are publicly calling for, death. Mark my words.

Please. Just look at what their manners and actions are, look at what the meaning of their words is, connect the dots, and realize what the result must finally be.

I was recently accused, by someone who should have known better, that

you think "everything is political"

, which is laughable (and cryable) because just the opposite is true. Politics is the bottom rung of philosophy, it is where ideas are put into action - nothing, IMHO, can be changed by politics alone, the best that can be hoped for is to offer counter actions, but if the actions being taken do not reflect the ideas behind those taking them, what is that possibly going to accomplish and for how long?

The Boston Globe actually got it partially right, though not in they way they meant, with this:

"The protests are in some ways the liberal flip side of the tea party movement, which was launched in 2009 in a populist reaction against the bank and auto bailouts and the $787 billion economic stimulus plan."

They are the very opposite of the Tea Party movement,

• The Tea Party believes in the Rule of Law, they believe in lawlessness.
• We believe in Liberty, they believe people should be forced to behave 'correctly'.
• We believe that we are responsible for our own lives, they believe that their lives and livelihoods should be provided for them.

The Question You Need To Ask Before Deciding On An Answer
Ideas are everything, and right now the idea that needs to be thought about, the question that every one desperately needs to ask themselves, is who is the person that should have the Right to choose how you will live your life?

The people who come out and support the Tea Party, the people who nod their heads at us and honk their horns at us as they drive by, they believe that you are the person who should choose how you should live your own life.

The left believes that government should make the choices of your life for you, and provide for you what they think you need.

The Tea Party believes that no one can force you to live in anyway other than you choose, and the left believes, along with Rousseau, that you must be forced to be free, by experts who just know better, what is better for you.

• The Tea Party believes that you are the one to choose how best to live your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
• The Left believes that experts should tell you what choices you are allowed to make and how you should choose between them.

The choice is before you, do you want to live your life... or do you want the government to do it for you?

Everyone wants to do good. But to do Good, requires thought. To intend to do Good, requires only intent. Only one can even hope to do accomplish anything Good, the other is almost a guarantee of unintended evils, born of the thinking you did not do.

Before you give your answer, ask the question first, and think your way to a worthwhile answer - stop taking your favorite brightly packaged one off the shelf.