Tweet of the Day, #Protip To Lefties Upset Over @SteveKingIA’s Civil Disobedience edition.

Look, let’s be honest:

…No Republican Congressman is ever, ever going to worry about being arrested because he or she made it possible for ordinary, decent, hard-working American citizens to see the People’s monuments. In fact, they’d welcome it. And put that on their campaign literature.

Barack Obama and the Democrats have dealt the Left a very bad hand, here: it’s becoming expected that of course military veterans will cheerfully and politely move the barrycades out of the way so that they can see the sights. And every time a group does it gets just a little harder to take Washington Monument Syndrome seriously; heck, we’re almost at the point where the populace will decide that they’ll be taking back the Lincoln Memorial now, Mr. President…

Moe Lane

PS: Why, yes, I am laughing at the people upset that the Right even does civil disobedience better than the Left does. It’s not my fault that they suck, and I don’t.


  • BigGator5 says:

    You’ve said this yourself: Civil Disobedience, by definition, is a willingness to be arrested for the right reasons. You can’t do this and call police brutality.
    When the police are unwilling to arrest the people committing Civil Disobedience, then the state has a problem. In short order, the police will start turning on the state. Now Park Rangers can’t do much, but they have shown a willingness to throw the Obama White House under the bus every time they talk to the press. They are unwilling to take any blame for this and I don’t really blame them.

    • Freddie Sykes says:

      RE: You can’t do this and call police brutality.

      That is a non sequitur. The police have the right to arrest people committing civil disobedience but not to do so brutally. This was the mistake committed by Bull Connor and the Democrats of the Jim Crow South.

      • BigGator5 says:

        I’m saying that liberals would claim police brutality, no matter what they do. Cops are rough, but I have never delt with one that wasn’t fair. They also have to deal with jerks every signle day who would do anything to get out of trouble, so 9 times out of 10 I give them the benefit of the doubt.

        • Freddie Sykes says:

          Most cops are okay but the trend towards militarization of the police and the over use on no-knock raids by masked swat teams often based on nothing more than a tip from a drug addled informant gives me pause. Check out Reason.com for the ever increasing litany of horror stories.

          • sicsemperstolidissimum says:

            Professional police in the English speaking world trace back to attempts to build a knock off of the French system that was also compatible with free societies. This is fairly recent vintage.
            One issue is that making the knock off work requires that a chunk of the police work force needs ten, twenty, thirty years experience with police work, which essentially requires a fair amount of them expecting to make much of their lifetime earned from that. Another is that society and other relevant factors have changed.
            The former means that controlling risk by limiting time spent in a hazardous occupation is less workable. However many out of, say, fifty live to retirement will obviously have an impact on the mentality of the occupation.
            The latter is where things get really amusing.
            You can divide people into two sorts, depending on whether or not they respond to some particular method of convincing them to do a things. If you vary that for many sorts of methods, or many sorts of things, you get various kinds of graphs. A professional police will convince some people, on part of the graph, to avoid the sorts of things police respond to with violence, while having no impact on another part, which will essentially stay constant. Get to the current day, and part of the population is culturally alien to the environment the knock off was created for, while the police is still heavily exposed to another part, which is the same as it was. The people who have changed, the aliens, are one source, probably a spurious one, of claims of police brutality. (Not to mention the impact they may have on legal liability, and hence on )
            Another relates to diversity, which might be better discussed here under the description of variations of rates of psychiatric issues.
            Short version, since I am running out of steam, alcohol would have been around at the start of modern policing, and hence dealing with drunks would have been grandfathered in, in addition to the normal incidence of mental illness. Other drugs, all the different ways modern chemistry gives up to cheaply really hose up the CNS, would not. The number of people naturally screwed up to the level of a PCP berserk would have to be fairly low, and many of those would have to have gotten killed earlier in life, perhaps before they reach full growth. This effects occupational risks, which have an effect on changes people make to mitigate risks.
            Skipped some of the material relevant to the joke summary ‘claims of police brutality are merely evil privilege’.
            Sic Semper Stolidissimum can be literally translated ‘thus’ ‘always’ ‘the most brutal’. Note that the adjective is neuter and has other translations.

  • Catseyes says:

    The Park Rangers didn’t sign up to be the Bully Boys of the Democrats. This is a purely partisan fight and unlike the IRS they haven’t picked a side to back. Let It Burn!

    • Lady Penguin says:

      I’ve been surprised to learn how extensive and pervasive the power of the federal government is – including the way the Park Rangers have acted.

      While there are a few who have stood with the people, many of these Park Rangers have not. IMHO, they’re appearing as Obama’s brownshirt troopers. The country is getting quite a glimpse of the statist federal power.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com