Thursday, December 1, 2011

Final Argument Against Wilkow: There Is NOTHING In The Constitution About Only Protesting "With Permission" Regarding Property

Mr. Andrew Wilkow, you may think it a bit too strong of me calling you a "traitor" to the Constitution because of your argument that the Occupy movement has no "practical" right to protest while you skirt around the issue of something that sounds like "I never said OWS has no right to protest." (Well, you never said "I never said OWS has no right to protest" but for all practical purposes you DID say OWS has no right to protest because they are "violating public or private ordinances" and misusing Property.

This carries with it the same convoluted argument that Meygn Kelly used to describe pepper spray as a "vegetable" (just like President Reagen once said ketchup was to cut funding for school lunches and Head Start programs).

Well, Mr W, pepper spray IS technically a vegetable, just like technically if the Occupy protesters are using either public or private property they ought to keep this property in good working order as well as allow others to use it.

Now, you may have forgotten in your zeal to denounce OWS's Constitutionally-granted right to protest because it is "run by dirty hippies and other leftists," which I think you once admitted you couldn't stand...how Ayn Randian of you! Gee, Andrew, some folks think Jesus Christ looked like a dirty hippie! But anyway...you must have forgotten at some point that the OWS protesters in Zucotti Park WERE GIVEN PERMISSION TO PROTEST THERE BY THE OWNERS OF ZUCOTTI PARK! Furthermore, the OWS protesters DID share the park, for one, with homeless New Yorkers, and did let folks walking their dogs use the park, etc.

Now, go back a couple of days to Tuesday, November 30, when you (during your interview with Matthew something-or-other of the Weekly Standard) stated that some Tea Party protest in Richmond (I think) was fined for using some property or other without some form of permission from the city authorities, but that the OWS movement has not been fined and how terrible is that! Well, Mr. Wilkow, right then and there you destroyed your own argument: if the Tea Party has to pay a fine then it must mean that they were "illegally" protesting, no? And, conversely, if the OWS movement doesn't have to pay a fine then it means they are LEGALLY protesting, maybe?

Of course, I could be wrong and it could be that the Tea Party was fined because the city could get money out of the leaders of the movement there, because everyone knows that since the Koch Brothers hijacked Ron Paul's movement with the help of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, you--ah, but aren't you, Glenn, Sarah, and the Koch Brothers PART OF THE ONE PERCENT??? MAYBE THAT IS WHY YOU HATE OCCUPY WALL STREET, MR. WILKOW??? ISN'T IT TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH, MR. WILKOW???--well, everyone knows that since (insert a certain onerous word here) to the Constitution such as yourself, Glenn and the rest of you neoconservative media clowns have hijacked Ron Paul's movement simply to enrich yourself at the lair's table and wish "us little people" would just go away and die, that there is no way you would uphold the right to protest except when it is your Koch-supported-(insert onerous word here)-to-the-Constitution-movement that is protesting!

Gee, I bet you laughed along with your Wall Street pals when a Marine in the Oakland OWS protest got hit with a projectile by the Oakland police that not only sent him to the hospital but has disabled him really good, or when a former police chief from Philly got beat up really good, or some pregnent lady in Olympia lost her unborn child...did you, Mr. Wilkow, get together with Meygn, Bill O'Really, Rush, and the Koch's to party over it? "Take that, you worthless, unproductive, "something for nothing" 99 percent!"

BTW, who said everyone in the OWS movement was a "hippie," "unproductive," "something for nothing"? As untrue as that is (being about 100 airline pilots protested early on...gee don't airline pilots make almost as much fiat currency as you, Mr. Wilkow; being Marines, former and current peace officers, union and non-union laborers, public and private-sector employees, old folks, old veterans...as well as "dirty hippies") the fact is that people of all walks of life are protesting because the so-called "one percent" has looted this country for its own greedy gain...ah, but Randians like you think greed is good...and also, BTW, how productive are you, Andrew, making six figures sitting a few hours a day in front of a radio/internet mike? What do you actually produce? Or are you as much a parasite as those you denounce? How many "jobs" do YOU provide?

Oh, by the way, Andrew, there is nothing...nothing!...in the Constitution about folks trying to redress grievances (ie. protesting) only when they have the property owner's "permission" to do so (and no, Andrew, there's nothing in the Constitution that says only right wing protesters have the right to protest regardless of property rights) in a manner that says "one can only redress grievances on property where it is permitted by the property owner." Andrew, it doesn't say that! Seriously! Read the Constitution some time and see if you can find anywhere that it says one can protest only where one is permitted to. And don't hand me that worn out argument that the Constitution only applies to the Federal government! I know that, Andrew! But, thanks to the Fourteeth Amendment, aren't we all UNITED STATES CITIZENS now? Ipso facto, the Constitution applies to us!

Finally, let me clue you in to how stupid your argument is. Let's say I am a member of the one percent..I'd have to be for this to happen...but I was sick and tired of my fellow one-percenters screwing and looting the 99 percent, so, since I owned one hundred thousand acres out in the middle of nowhere, I decided that I would let every single OWS person, regardless of where their OWS protest was, protest on my land, put up tents, toilets, etc. (think about what the farmer Yasgar did for the Woodstock crowd in 1969 up in Saugherties, NY). There would be no way cops or troops or whatever could come on my land and hurt the protesters. Fine. The thing is, what effect would it have to do this? The government and the one percent (you, for one) could just simply ignore the protesters and nothing would be of any effect. You know, if a tree falls in a forest but the mainstream media (again, you, for one) doesn't hear it, does it make a sound?

Note: But we are now beyond Gandhi's phase one: "First they ignore you". We are now in phase two: "Then they denounce you." Because OWS does NOT want to be ignored, they are not protesting on someone's private property out in the middle of nowhere where it would be okay by you to protest. Since they are protesting on the thick of things on either public streets or private parks, you are denouncing them. But still, it IS having some effect and might have a whole lot more (if they can keep themselves from being co-opted by the MoveOn, SEIU, or Michael Moore crowd of the left).

That is why, Andrew, the OWS protesters MUST protest on public property, on Wall Street, in front of the White House or the Capitol, in front of the Oakland or Philly or LA mayor's office or city council, or in front of the Dallas Federal Reserve Building. Because the Constitution you claim to so clearly uphold DOES NOT SAY THIS CANNOT HAPPEN BECAUSE OF PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY ISSUES.

You know and I know it: I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG, AND THAT'S THE END OF THE STORY!

No comments: