As OWS Protesters Are Dispersed, We Demolish a Leftist Lie: “The Cops Wouldn’t Hassle Us If We Were Conservative”

I rarely lose my temper with dolts who send me angry emails or leave grammatically-deficient comments on my stories or videos. I either ignore that kind of stuff, or use it as fodder for jokes. But I did lose my temper recently with a liberal blogger who sent me an email in which he castigated me, and conservatives in general, for our “racism” toward President Obama.

Specifically, the blogger pointed to calls from some conservatives that Obama should be impeached (I don’t think there’s been a president since Nixon who has not been pilloried, at some point, by opponents demanding his impeachment).

The blogger’s proof that calls for Obama’s impeachment are fueled by racism, as opposed to politics? “Republicans never called for Bill Clinton’s impeachment!”

This individual, who I will from this point on refer to as “I Am Sam” (I won’t dignify him by using his real name, or by linking to his blog), actually was unaware that Clinton was impeached.

At first, I thought the email was parody – one of my friends fooling me with an excellent bit of satire about how ignorant the left can be. But no, I visited I Am Sam’s blog, and he’s for real. And on his blog, he describes himself thusly: “I am an American who didn’t know A THING about politics until Obama began his run for the presidency” (emphasis his).

He’s actually proud of this!

So, I went off on the guy, because, to me, he symbolizes the unmitigated ignorance of today’s leftist youth. They flaunt their ignorance of anything that happened before they decided to grace the world with their activism. Before them, there is no history. Politics itself was born when they decided to take an interest in it. Having grown up in an era in which many schools preach the secular gospel of “there’s no right or wrong answers; there’s just how you feel,” these cretins simply take it for granted that if they feel that something is true, it must be.  

Being a historian, I’ll freely admit that ignorance of history, especially recent history, is perhaps my number-one peeve. With all respect to Sam Cooke, if you don’t know much about history, either take the time to learn, or shut the hell up.

Which brings me to the Occupy leftists. There is a myth, a meme, that has become a number-one talking point every time there are police clashes with Occupy rioters. And as mayors and police departments across the country rediscover not only their spines, but also their oaths to uphold laws against vagrancy, destruction of public property, squatting in public spaces, rape, murder, and all the other blessings that the Occupy movement has brought with it, that liberal meme is growing.

That myth, that meme, is: “The cops wouldn’t be treating us this way if we were RIGHT-WINGERS!”

The claim is that if the Occupy movement were conservative, or Tea Party-aligned, the police would just let them do whatever the heck they wanted.

Check any “Occupy” Facebook page, and you’ll see this assertion repeated time and again. The Occupy leaders take every opportunity to repeat the claim: “These massive, violent assaults on the (Occupy) camps are the kinds of things that the right-wing never faces, and never has to deal with,” Occupy activist, author, and self-proclaimed “historian” Paul Street told the Iranian propaganda outlet PressTV this past weekend. The Daily Kos ran numerous posts that made the same points: “right-wingers” never have to deal with police abuse or mass-arrests at their protests.

Even Forbes, which I’m sure every Occupy freeloader reads religiously, gave voice to this claim, running an op-ed by Huffington Post and NPR contributor Dave Serchuk titled The Tea Party Never Got Pepper-Sprayed.” For three excruciating pages, Serchuk self-righteously asserts that conservative protesters have never had to deal with mass arrests or police violence. According to this lefty sage, police always handle conservative protesters with “kid gloves.”

Conservative protesters have never had to deal with mass arrests or police violence. The left has declared this to be true. Much like my buddy I Am Sam, they have declared this not based on the evidence of recent history, but because, you know, it feels like truth, man.

Okay, Occupy morons. Time to “expand your minds” with a little truth (“whoa…truth”). There are two points to be made, a little one, and a big one. Assuming, as I will, that the drug-addled Occupy clods need to be eased out of their collective denial of reality, I’ll start with the little point first (after all, I don’t want them all to start tweakin’ out on me). 

First point: The Occupy movement is intentionally breaking the law. They – by their own admission – are illegally occupying public land, either by setting up camps in public parks, or by blocking public streets.

At the start of the movement, Occupy leaders admitted it, plain as day (the following audio is from a radio interview with the leaders of Occupy Atlanta):

Was that clear enough? Their plan from the get-go was to commit an illegal act. Now, if they want to call it civil disobedience, that’s their right. But every honest practitioner of true civil disobedience has gone into it with the understanding that they are breaking the law, and therefore, they might be arrested.

The power of true, honest civil disobedience comes from the fact that it occurs to protest unjust laws. When Democrat-controlled police in the South beat black Americans for merely sitting at a lunch counter, good and decent people the world over were disgusted. The police and the Democrat city leaders were attempting to enforce unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional laws.

But the police who are clearing out the Occupy camps are enforcing laws regarding health and safety violations on public land. Those are not unjust laws.

It is typical of the Occupy moochers that they want to claim the mantle of “civil disobedience,” but when they are faced with the consequences of knowingly breaking the law, they run whining to their friends in the press, sobbing about how “this wouldn’t happen if we were conservatives!”

Which brings me to the bigger point. IT DID HAPPEN TO CONSERVATIVES. And the police brutality and mass arrests were FAR WORSE than anything that’s happened to the Occupy crybabies.

In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue decided to try a strategy of civil disobedience to further its goal of stopping what it sincerely believed to be routine acts of murder occurring at abortion clinics. Now, the fact is, like it or not, abortion is (and was at the time) legal. Operation Rescue knew this. But still, the group decided to hold nonviolent “sit-ins” around abortion clinics, in an attempt to block access to them.

DISCLAIMER: The abortion issue is a very difficult one for most people to approach objectively, so I want to stress that I am not taking a position one way or the other on the larger debate. I am merely contrasting a case of conservative civil disobedience with the current response by authorities to the liberal Occupy movement.  

So how did the police respond to these “right wing” civil disobeyers? Well, damn. I guess we’ll never know, because there was no Youtube, digital cameras, or smart-phones back then to capture the action. And as we all know, if it’s not on Youtube, it never happened.

Oh, wait…there are newspapers! I totally forgot about that. So why don’t we look back to 1990 and see just how local police agencies beat the living spit out of these conservative protesters.

Let’s start with the L.A. Times, one of the most staunchly pro-choice newspapers in the nation. This liberal rag would never go out of its way to portray Operation Rescue in a positive light unless there was no way not to:

A controversial videotape being shown among activists nationwide shows Los Angeles police officers intentionally hurting the nonviolent demonstrators they are arresting.

They press fingers under their noses. They dig their knuckles into protesters’ necks, and torque martial arts weapons around their wrists. At one point, two officers twist a woman’s arm till she rises from the ground, her face wrenched in agony. In another scene, a young man winces as officers lead him along. His arm, contorted behind his back, finally snaps.

The law enforcement name for these techniques is “pain-compliance.” Police departments nationwide say it’s a tried and true way to make uncooperative protesters cooperate. But opponents call the term a euphemism for torture.

LAPD and other police forces around the country, including several in Orange County and the San Diego Police Department, began using a modified martial arts tool called a nunchaku — now termed a “police control device”–consisting of two 12-inch lengths of plastic connected by a length of nylon.

In fact, injuries have been mounting ever since police and Operation Rescue protesters squared off at the 1988 Democratic convention in Atlanta. As Operation Rescue built momentum, engaging in civil disobedience at clinics around the country, the allegations of police brutality increased:

* In San Diego, an officer reportedly moved through the demonstrators singing: “Don’t try to understand ’em, just round ’em up and brand ’em.”

* In Pittsburgh, women claimed they were sexually molested by officers.

* In West Hartford, Conn., officers removed their badges and name tags–purportedly to avoid cutting demonstrators–and then allegedly hauled protesters away with come-along holds, by lifting them with sharp-edged plastic handcuffs, or with “crotch carries” in which a night stick is stuck between the protester’s legs. A priest testified that the police seemed to enjoy inflicting pain.

A woman arrested this year in Los Angeles said: “By the time they got my arms all the way back the pain was so intense I was just screaming . . . ‘Jesus! Jesus!’”

In demonstrations in those cities and others, including Boston, Atlanta and Denver, protesters alleged that officers continued to apply come-along holds after demonstrators had complied with their commands, administering pain as a form of “curbside justice.”

According to The Times, liberals reacted to the violence inflicted upon the anti-abortion protesters with hypocrisy:

Feminist lawyer Gloria Allred, never hesitant to criticize official abuses, said she believes police acted with professionalism last March, issuing fair warnings and acting only after demonstrators failed to comply. “I can’t have much sympathy for them,” she said of the anti-abortion “rescuers,” as she stood among a vociferous group of pro-choice “clinic defenders” at a Dec. 9 demonstration and counterdemonstration in Fullerton. “The pain inflicted on women’s lives by Operation Rescue people is enormous. What they are suffering in pain-compliance is a drop in the ocean compared to what we’ve endured in exercising our constitutional rights.”

Note that Allred didn’t deny the reality of the “pain compliance” techniques. Rather, she said the non-violent protesters had it coming. And others on the left ate up the violence with glee:

At demonstrations, throngs of pro-choice demonstrators, some of whom might well have been on the wrong end of night sticks in another era, watched the police twist protesters’ arms and chanted: “L.A. blue, we’re with you.” Chief Gates, an outspoken conservative, does not bask in this new-found support. “I felt like the people in the stands were cheering as we threw the Christians to the lions,” he said.

Thankfully, a few principled liberals (yes, they used to exist) didn’t applaud the violence:

Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff has skewered liberal civil libertarians for letting their ideology stop them from supporting anti-abortion protesters’ fight to restrain what he calls “the torture police.” He also has charged that his media colleagues have turned their backs on the uncomfortably complex issue.

And, believe it or not, the ACLU actually sided with Operation Rescue:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California has filed a legal brief in support of Operation Rescue, the anti-abortion organization that has demonstrated outside abortion clinics, ACLU officials said Thursday.

The ACLU action supports an Operation Rescue appeal of a federal judge’s ruling upholding the use of “pain compliance” techniques by the Los Angeles Police Department. In its brief filed with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the ACLU said pain compliance techniques violate demonstrators’ 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

Another L.A. Times article:

700 Abortion Foes Arrested at L.A. Clinic : Movement Founder Is Booked as Police Take Tougher Action

One man’s face was rubbed into the pavement and a pastor was stepped on by a horse, charged Russ Neal, who was arrested and later released.

Gates, defending the force used by his officers, said earlier that the technique is called a “pain compliance hold” and is effective when demonstrators make their bodies go limp.

“Why should a police officer have to hurt his back when these people can walk. So we use a little pain compliance,” said Gates. “We have wheelchairs if they can’t walk.”

Police were taking their time about the booking procedures.

Detective Vita Cicoria, who was directing the flow of bodies and paper, explained the pacing: “What we are not going to do is release them so quickly that they can go out again.”

And another:

Police officials have repeatedly defended the amount of force used to break up the protests, which resulted in the largest mass arrests in recent Los Angeles history.

So, no violent tactics or mass arrests have ever been used against conservative protesters, huh?

But wait – you haven’t heard the best part yet. This tops anything that any police department anywhere in the country has done to the Occupy mob. The police actually claimed that the anti-abortion protesters were ENJOYING the pain!

“Pain for many of the demonstrators is a catharsis for past failure to take action against abortion,” Capt. Patrick E. McKinley of LAPD’s Metro Division said in a sworn statement last August, given as part of a court challenge against pain-compliance devices.

So, the police were actually doing the protesters a favor by applying pain! Wow.

The Chicago Tribune reported additional stories of violence. I cannot confirm the validity of these charges, and it’s not my intention to slander the police departments involved. I’m merely presenting these allegations because they are far worse than anything the Occupy protesters have thus-far alleged:

Sabine Morson, 24, of Crofton, Md., says that after she was arrested at a Pittsburgh abortion clinic, Allegheny County jail guards fondled her breasts, punched her in the chest, kicked her in the groin, withheld oxygen when she had an asthma attack and removed their name tags so they could not be identified.

“They told one of my sisters they would sodomize her,” she said. “To another girl, they said, `See this key? It`s a key to a cell full of rapists. We`re going to put you in and watch you get raped.'”

In the Oxford University Press book “A Nation of Outsiders,” by Grace Hale, the author acknowledged the irony in the history and identity of some of the politicians who ordered violent responses to the anti-abortion protests:

(Atlanta) Mayor Andrew Young, a veteran of the 1960 sit-in movement and Southern Christian Leadership Conference leader (he was on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel standing beside King when he died), authorized police officers to use “pain compliance techniques” to stop the demonstrators; 1,235 people were arrested outside several clinics with those methods.

Yep, as the HuffPost’s Serchuk says, “kid gloves!”

One other interesting bit of trivia I came across (and this is not something I already knew): according to one liberal activist, the LAPD allowed him to serenade the arrested anti-abortion protesters with anti-Christian songs on the bus on their way to jail! Imagine the outcry if police allowed a Christian missionary to evangelize Occupy loons on their way to the pokey.

The point is, when conservatives tried the whole “civil disobedience” thing, they were treated far worse – FAR worse – than the Occupy goofs are being treated today. The liberal talking point that “this wouldn’t happen if we were conservative” is false. A lie. Totally fabricated. Not that any libs will care. If they cared about reality, they wouldn’t be liberals.

And as for conservatives, when the election of President Obama ignited a spirit of “street level” resistance not seen for several decades, they took the smart tactics of holding legal demonstrations (you know, with permits, respect for the law, etc.), and getting involved in the electoral process at the local level (by participating in town hall meetings, fielding primary candidates, etc.).

If the Occupiers want to actually make a difference in this country (beyond befouling public parks to the point that they are rendered barren for the rest of time), they might just want to follow suit. I don’t mind giving the World of Warcraft generation such sage advice, because I know they won’t take it. Just like my blogger buddy I Am Sam, the Occupiers avoid learning the lessons of history – even recent history – just as they avoid showering, using toilets, or having consensual sex with their female compatriots.

Down twinkles, Occupy clods. Down twinkles indeed!

3 Responses to “As OWS Protesters Are Dispersed, We Demolish a Leftist Lie: “The Cops Wouldn’t Hassle Us If We Were Conservative””
  1. Alan Katz says:

    DAMN! Well done. And I’m pro-choice. But you have completely demolished the lie that conservative protesters get treated with “kid gloves.” Another liberal lie, shot down!

  2. RestoreUS says:

    It’s a tragedy that people have forgotten this recent history. Are we no longer able to remember anything from longer than four months ago? Sad.

  3. Fullerton Resident says:

    An interesting aside,Patrick E. McKinle, the LAPD captain who gave “expert testimony” in support of torturing peaceful protesters eventually became the Chief of Police of Fullerton. Two of his handpicked officers recently beat a homeless man to death. McKinley is now a Fullerton city council member.

Leave A Comment