Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Oakland Ought Oust Occupiers
Oakland Ought Oust Occupiers
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
January 31, 2012
Once again the Occupy Movement is demonstrating its base instincts for violence, mayhem and hypocrisy as it has taken Oakland by storm for a second time wreaking havoc and destruction in its wake.
The miscreants and denizens, behaving like Nazis tearing through a synagogue, broke into Oakland City Hall ransacking the property, destroyed a historic model of the city hall building, destroyed valuable antiques, destroyed elementary school children’s art displays, burning American flags as well as hurling bottles, bricks and rocks at Oakland law enforcement.
During the rioting and melee over 400 so-called protesters were arrested. They are so-called protesters because they beg the question of what the hell were they protesting? Seems their actions were nothing more than wanton destruction of property that does not belong to them for the sake of nothing more than pettiness. Every one of those arrested should be made to share in the restitution to the city to the tune of more than $5 million. The names of the guilty should be printed in the newspapers with their mug shots for all to see and jeer.
The dollar amount had been levied by Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, having toured the destruction, and who is just as irresponsible as the petty thugs who invaded and vandalized her city. Ironically, she made the absurd statement that “people in the community and people in the Occupy movement have to stop making excuses for this behavior.” In her television press conference Quan seemed surprised by the actions of those who committed such violent destruction.
Quan’s statement is both ironic and absurd as she defended the Occupy movement when they last invaded Oakland in November for the purposes of shutting down the Port of Oakland, occupying the airport and attempting to take over city hall. Quan supported the actions of the Occupiers while throwing her own police force under the bus.
Following the insolent and violent behavior by the petulant criminals invading Oakland, at least three police officers were injured, including one by a thrown bicycle. Now, the police may be on the wrong end of a lawsuit as many of the so-called protesters are thinking of filing a lawsuit against the Oakland police for unlawful arrest as well as denying protesters their First Amendment right of free speech and expression.
When asked in his daily press conference on Tuesday, January 31 about Obama’s response to the Oakland mayhem, spokesman Jim Carney said this is an issue of “local law enforcement,” and an issue of a line between the First Amendment and violence. Certainly this is the coward’s way out, especially when Obama did not even have the guts to condemn the burning of the American flag.
Looking at the Constitution, there is nothing in there calling violence and vandalism free speech and free expression. Any such lawsuit should be dismissed as frivolous and the filers made to pay court costs. The so-called protesters were given ample opportunity to disperse and no one forced them to commit the criminal acts of breaking and entering, arson or vandalism. Some even made the ridiculous claim that they were not told how to depart the scene. Leave. Just leave. How challenging is that?
Some of the so-called protesters suggested that the use of tear gas in the presence of children should be actionable in suit and cost the police officers who used it their jobs. The tactic of bringing children to such an “event” by the so-called protesters is akin to Arab/Muslim terrorists hiding their armaments in elementary school basements and milk factories as well as strapping bombs to infants. The parents of those children should be charged with child endangerment.
Whatever message the so-called protesters are attempting to deliver is falling painfully flat, unless their message is that those unhappy with their lot in life, take to the streets to disrupt civil society because the government hasn’t given you enough of a living.
The government does not owe you a living. The government owes you streets safe from the likes of you and your violent, disruptive actions, a strong national defense from foreign and domestic invaders, again, such as yourselves and that’s it. The government does not owe you jobs, housing, health care or even an education. The sooner this is understood, the better. (Yes, government has a moral obligation to take care of those physically and mentally unable to care for themselves.)
The purpose of people working is not to support those who refuse to do so. The job of government is not to steal from the haves and give to the have nots. People make choices in their lives and those decisions impact their futures. The thugs who invaded Oakland should have their choices on a police record for all potential employers to see and decide if those decisions are the kind of responsible actions requisite for gainful employment.
Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.