Occupy Wall Street has often been compared to the Tea Party; I think it’s usually meant as an insult. By comparing the grass roots protest of the Tea Party to the amalgam of radicals at Occupy, they can diminish  the Tea Party’s success and make all protests distasteful to the general public.

There is little similarity. While the Tea Parties were neat and orderly, the Occupy protests are noisy, juvenile, and stinky. The Tea Parties were friendly while the Occupy movement is violent, angry, and crime ridden; they have the same problem with lawlessness that plagues most Democrat-controlled cities.

#OccupyBastille

This explains why there is such a vast difference between the two. The Occupy movement is not only mostly Democrat; it is also democratic. Likewise, the Tea Parties are both a republic and Republican. They are microcosms of the political philosophies they each represent.

Tea parties are controlled by the rule of law and are planned in advance. They acquire proper permits, rent PA systems, Porti-Potties, and Tents. When they’re over, people pick up the trash and go home.

Occupy is famous for creepy chanting after every speaker finishes a sentence and a guy relieving himself against the side of a police car.  Some of the Occupy residents have, ironically, used the facilities of McDonalds and Starbucks and even took ironic shelter from the rain in a Bank of America ATM kiosk (I’m sure the irony is lost on them, though).  They loudly proclaim that “this is what Democracy looks like!”

Constitutional author James Madison would agree. In Federalist # 10 he wrote: “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.“ (more…)

If you thought the class warfare tactic was being used successfully by the Progressive Left to instigate strife between the upper and lower classes in the United States you need to re-examine what you think you are seeing. With declarations by three Congressional Black Caucus Progressives that target the TEA Party, we witness a pathetic attempt by special interest Progressive Leftists to re-package the contrived charge of racism against what is essentially Middle Class America.

Over the past two weeks we have experienced some incredibly caustic declarations by three Congressional Black Caucus members: US Rep. Maxine Waters (P-CA), US Rep. Frederica Wilson (P-FL) and US Rep. Andre Carson (P-IN). All three, evidently, have little respect for their own President who, just after the shooting of US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), called for “toning down the rhetoric.”

On August 20, 2011, while speaking to a friendly audience at a Los Angeles “community summit,” Maxine Waters, a member of both the Progressive and Congressional Black Caucuses in the US House said:

“I’m not afraid of anybody…This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned, the ‘tea party’ can go straight to Hell.”

On August 22, 2011, at a Miami, FL, town hall meeting, Frederica Wilson, again, a member of both the Progressive and Congressional Black Caucuses in the US House said:

“Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party…The Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that’s to make President Obama a one-term president.”

Also in attendance was one Jesse Jackson of Rainbow/PUSH, a community organizing group that pressures institutions – both financial and otherwise – into doing things that would otherwise be considered ridiculous, like offering low-interest housing loans to unqualified buyers and coercing municipalities into hiring lower-scoring minority applicants to positions regarding public safety in the name of “diversity.” Rev. Jackson, a leader in the community organizing movement of social justice before he was eclipsed by one Barack Obama, compared the TEA Party to opposition to the civil-rights movement. “The Tea Party is a new name on an old game…Dr. King fought a ‘tea party’ in Alabama.”

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Pejman Yousefzadeh and Kevin Holtsberry are joined by Charles Lipson to discuss why democracies don’t fight one another and how trust and transparency allows democracies to make credible promises to one another.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Preview: Reliable Partners:
How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace
Buy Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace on Amazon
Dr. Charles Lipson at the University of Chicago
CharlesLipson.com

Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Kevin on Twitter

Greece, the cradle of democracy, is experiencing chaotic violence at the hands of Socialists and anarchists. That country’s Socialist government has come to a moment in time – like most Socialist and Marxist enterprises – when the system has failed. The promises of the Nanny State and prefectorial centralized government have come up empty and “the people” are angry as a result. Of course, “the people,” the ones who, today, are refusing to realize that you can’t bleed a turnip, are exactly the ones who are to blame for the situation they are in. If the citizenry of the United States of America isn’t careful and willing to make some painful adjustments, economically, we may be starring this future directly in the eye.

Today, We the People – we Americans, stand at a moment in time when a very hard decision needs to be made; honestly, the fate of the nation rides upon it. We can either follow the path of the Socialist Greeks; the path that has led them to national bankruptcy, debt and that nation’s unenviable position as the fuse for a global economic chain reaction, or we can feel a good deal of pain in the form of sacrifice so that our country might continue to exist for future generations.

At this crossroads, We the People find ourselves confronted by some very uncomfortable questions. Are we willing to push ourselves back from the “feed trough” of government dependence? Are we willing to embrace self-imposed personal responsibility, charity and self-reliance? Or are we too uncaring of our nation’s well-being that greed is somehow justified; too narcissistic to abstain from the too easy to attain government entitlement; too self-absorbed and addicted to the “I’ve got mine, to Hell with you” machinations of the Progressive “Me Generation”?

(more…)

We are hearing a great deal about a budding “Democracy movement” spreading throughout the Middle East. Many are calling it an “Arab Spring.” The belief is that after centuries of totalitarian oppression, the Arab street is suddenly pining for more freedom; rebelling against the elitist ruling class of kings, emirs, despots and tyrants. This is most likely true for a great number of those filling the streets of Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain and myriad other Middle Eastern, predominantly Muslim nations. But there is a less than honorable component amongst the rebellion that simply waits for the “right” to a democratic vote. Contrary to how the idea of a move to Democracy presents, in the volatile Middle East there are elements in play that could make it a move in the wrong direction.

Each and every day we hear the misnomer that the United States of America is a Democracy. We hear it from the average man on the street, the mainstream media and even from those we have elected to office. But the fact of the matter is this: we are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. A thorough and convincing exhibit of the facts surrounding this reality is presented in Notes on Democracy: And the Republic for Which It Stands. The fact that this issue is even in need of address is a scathing commentary on the constitutional illiteracy of the American electorate and serves as a sobering reminder that, often times, what sounds good – what “feels good” – isn’t always as it presents.

The distinction – between the benefits of a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic – is incredibly important, and while some describe our nation as a Democracy in an error of ignorance, others – some with schemes of political opportunism – do so with a nefarious purpose and bad intentions.

James Madison, recognized as the Father of the US Constitution, said this about factions and Democracy in Federalist No. 10:

“Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people…From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Why is this important in the context of what is happening in the Middle East at this very moment?

(more…)

If I tried to do at my job what Wisconsin Democratic lawmakers did at theirs, I’d be fired.

Yet fourteen Democratic Senators from Wisconsin still have their jobs, even though they aren’t performing them and are being paid.

This has nothing to do with unions and benefits.  It has everything to do with democracy, and the favoritism shown to politicians.

This isn’t a partisan issue.  It’s simply about holding people accountable for their actions.  In this case, the actions of these fourteen individuals are disgraceful.  Why?  Because they were elected by the people, for the people.  They serve at the pleasure of the people. They are part of the engine of Democracy.  Just because they don’t like a piece of legislation doesn’t give them the right to flee, and to avoid doing the work of the people (Interestingly, it’s always the Democrats who flee, isn’t it?)

A friend of mine posted on his Facebook page that he’s a union member and that if we don’t like the benefits he enjoys, then we should fight for our own.  Fair enough.  Heck, I’m a union member!   But the converse is also true. If you don’t like a piece of legislation, then fight for your own…by staying at the Capitol.

(more…)

Universally, democracy is being exalted.

Everywhere one turns, one hears of its virtues: how democracy ensures human rights, fosters prosperity and shepherds in modernity.

Yet democracy represents nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.  In other words, contrary to the ideals of western liberalism, democracy does not ensure that the smallest minority, the individual is protected.

In the vast majority of circumstances, people free to choose their government get the government they desire.  In Russia, the people have chosen again and again to elect KGB criminals.  In Gaza, the people have chosen to elect either Hamas or Fatah, terrorist parties in perpetual war.  Democracy does not a free society ensure.

Democracy is merely a system of election – it is not inherently good as its results are entirely predicated on the voters themselves.  Freedom-loving peoples will generally establish a political system to protect freedom.  Those who prefer strict rule will devise a political order that squelches it.

I would argue that any Islamic society will refuse to establish a system grounded in property rights, individual liberty and free market principles because it is completely anathema to Islamic culture, history and religious tenets.

(more…)

Last evening on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow took a few moments on her show to jab at the Beltway press, suggesting that the press in DC is so annoyed at being “sidelined” by the Egypt story that it’s “clawing and scratching to find some partisan story to tell here.”  Maddow then proceeded to slam a list of conservative politicians and bloggers, including freshman Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, and blogger Pam Geller.

One other story that Maddow called out was from RedState.com, to which she mocked the suggestion that unions and the U.S. state department are involved in the Egypt protests and quipped, “What, no ACORN?”

The author of that post is a friend of mine and fellow BigGovernment contributor, who, in addition to blogging at RedState.com, also runs Labor Union Report.  I was surprised when I saw his post called out on Maddow’s show.  Not only is he not usually a typical target of MSNBC’s brand of snark, but it was obvious that Maddow – or whomever does her research – had not even read the post beyond paragraph two.  If they had, they would have noticed that the information came from a few familiar sources:  the Huffington Post and WikiLeaks. And those sources contained some potent information that’s directly related to the current uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

(more…)

Predictably, the media is describing the goings on in the Arab world as consisting of revolutionaries fighting their oppressive leaders for democracy and human rights.  Never mind that democracy does not ensure liberty.  Never mind that the governments that will likely ultimately take over will consist of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.  Never mind that in our words and actions we are implicitly if not explicitly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, undermining anyone who might be helpful in the region, just as we did by sitting on our hands while actual moderate and secular people sought our help in Iran.

Egyptian rebellion in the liberal narrative, along with rebellion among any group hostile in nature to the US and Israel by default has to be good, as is any shakeup of the existing structure.  Crises are useful things.

And the useful idiots in our society, brainwashed by handlers in the media and academia can no longer recognize the difference between good and evil.  Whether it is “Palestinians” launching rockets at Israelis, or the obligatory disclaimer that there are plenty of patriotic Muslims in a State of the Union speech, leftists will always support anything that challenges the status quo, and pay lip service to Islam; anything that represents a threat to traditional Western civilization is a positive in the battle to create their Utopic socialist world.

Hope and change is inherently good, no matter what the hope is and what the change entails.  And why put up this facade instead of calling things what they really are?  Because pleasant and airy words hide the horrors of a socialist world or an Islam-dominated one (which are quite similar incidentally); these words distract us from despicable actions, and sound palatable to an apathetic public.

The leftists and the Islamic world understand public relations specifically and how to exert mass influence generally.  They know how to manipulate through media and propagandize in public institutions from the time our children are young, while committing enough people to their causes out of their own self-interest that given our quiescence heretofore, they appear to be well ahead in the fight to win the future.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Today we’re giving you a special advance preview of Monday’s Coffee and Markets with an interview with Elliott Abrams, a former senior national security adviser to George W. Bush and assistant secretary of state for Ronald Reagan and a leading expert on politics and the Middle East. We’ll ask him about what the future holds for Egypt, whether President Obama has had the right response to the crisis, and whether other nations will soon follow.

We’re brought to you as always by Stephen Clouse and Associates. You can find our iTunes feed at CoffeeandMarkets.com. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Abrams: Bush Was Right About Freedom in the Arab World
Abrams: Lessons of January
Hamid: Obama Got Egypt Wrong
Muravchik: Three Scenarios in Egypt
RS: Egypt Approaches the Abyss
Abrams: Pressure Points Blog