by Warner Todd Huston
There has been a lot of talk comparing and contrasting the Tea Partiers and these Occupy-Whatever people. In Georgia, though, we can see a stark difference. Tea Partiers are law-abiding citizens, while the Occupy Atlantans are law breakers. Sadly, Capitol Police in Atlanta have sided with the Occupiers and against Tea Partiers.
At the very least, the Capitol Police in Atlanta have definitely been treating these two groups unequally. These officers of the law have turned a blind eye to law breaking by the Occupy folks, allowing them to do anything they want, but did not extend that courtesy to those Tea Party groups that also protested at the Georgia Capitol House.
Notice in the video that the Tea Party group the Capitol Police were harassing was made up of both blacks and whites? And the young man in the video being forced to take down his flag was Matthew Perdie, who was known for his momentous freedom walk in 2010.
Now, as you can see, the Occupy people have been allowed to break nearly every law on the books governing protests in Atlanta. They’ve not been required to take out permits, have not been required to observe vagrancy laws, have not been forced to observe the time limits put on protests and have also not been required to follow the law on how long poles for signs and flags are supposed to be.
Read more at: Big Government
Good thing we live in the Netherlands, and stuff like that does not happen here! I am sure the 'Occupy-camping' Beursplein in Amsterdam stays within the law at all times, right? After all, in this country you get fined for riding around with a broken taillight on your bike, ins't it? The government could not let these Occupy-guys get away with ignoring/breaking rules, regulations and the law, could they???
vrijdag 21 oktober 2011
What Gaddafi’s Death Teaches the Middle East…And Should Teach the West
October 20, 2011 - 4:09 pm
There are three lessons for the region:
1. To get rid of a dictator, you need either Western intervention or the support of the armed forces.
Consider this simple list:
Dictators must fight or die and concessions don’t help.
The Western view is that revolutions are prevented by moderation and compromise, steps that please the masses and thus discourage them from revolting. This is so deeply ingrained that Western observers simply cannot conceive that approach as anything but a natural law. In contrast, in the Middle East, the political philosophy has been based on the idea that force and intimidation prevail.
With one notable exception, where brilliant maneuvering and concessions (albeit often illusory ones) worked — Morocco — the Middle East has shown that its approach works locally. Even in Turkey, where democratic norms are observed, once in power the Islamist regime has gained ground through toughness and not through concessions. The prisons are full of its opponents.
The event in Eastern Europe that most impressed Arab governments was the assassination in Romania of dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu and his wife, Elena. They knew that this could happen to them. When combined with the lesson from the USSR — how Mikhail Gorbachev’s engagement in reforms brought him down — these events played a central role in destroying the 1990s era of toying with possible moderation. The “old-time religion” of toughness and repression was reaffirmed.
Nowhere has this proven to be truer than in Syria. Despite Western fantasies of moderation and reform from dictator Bashar al-Assad, there has never been the slightest chance of this happening. The whole Obama foreign policy toward Syria was demonstrably foolish.
More at: Pajamas Media
There are three lessons for the region:
1. To get rid of a dictator, you need either Western intervention or the support of the armed forces.
Consider this simple list:
Dictatorships overthrown with Western forces taking the lead: Iraq, LibyaThat shows that it is not popular revolt that changes things in the region.
Dictatorships overthrown with the backing of the army: Egypt, Tunisia
Failed revolutions when these two factors are lacking: Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen.
Dictators must fight or die and concessions don’t help.
The Western view is that revolutions are prevented by moderation and compromise, steps that please the masses and thus discourage them from revolting. This is so deeply ingrained that Western observers simply cannot conceive that approach as anything but a natural law. In contrast, in the Middle East, the political philosophy has been based on the idea that force and intimidation prevail.
With one notable exception, where brilliant maneuvering and concessions (albeit often illusory ones) worked — Morocco — the Middle East has shown that its approach works locally. Even in Turkey, where democratic norms are observed, once in power the Islamist regime has gained ground through toughness and not through concessions. The prisons are full of its opponents.
The event in Eastern Europe that most impressed Arab governments was the assassination in Romania of dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu and his wife, Elena. They knew that this could happen to them. When combined with the lesson from the USSR — how Mikhail Gorbachev’s engagement in reforms brought him down — these events played a central role in destroying the 1990s era of toying with possible moderation. The “old-time religion” of toughness and repression was reaffirmed.
Nowhere has this proven to be truer than in Syria. Despite Western fantasies of moderation and reform from dictator Bashar al-Assad, there has never been the slightest chance of this happening. The whole Obama foreign policy toward Syria was demonstrably foolish.
More at: Pajamas Media
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
