Occupation in Iraq = bad // Occupation in Wall Street = good

After watching this video I thought of something. The left bemoans “occupations” by America in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by Israel in the Middle-East. This being said, they seemingly — wholeheartedly — accept occupation in places like D.C. [Wall Street] and the Smithsonian Institute? Very odd.

ReasonTV Does Occupy Wall Street

Via BigGovernment

From Video Description:

Down with banks, student-loan debt, and expensive elections! Up with barter…capitalism…and…Mitt Romney?!?!

On October 4, 2011, Reason.tv visited the Occupy Wall Street protests at Liberty Square in Lower Manhattan, on Day 18 of the ongoing demonstration.

The crowd was relatively small at about 300, and included educated but unemployed workers, college students and recent graduates, homeless drifters, performance artists, 9/11 truthers, and a not-insignificant number of journalists.

The “leaderless” movement is made up of more than a dozen smaller groups, such as the “Information” group with Macbooks hooked up to generators who maintain the “OccupyWallStreet” Twitter feeds and liveblogs, a “People’s Library” consisting mostly of donated leftist literature, and a well-stocked kitchen where organic vegetables are sliced for communal salads.

Student loan debt, campaign finance reform, and general anger with the sluggish economy were the more frequent grievances aired, but the demonstrators are hardly monolithic in their passions or opinions. Among the boilerplate anti-capitalist rhetoric included a lifelong Democrat professing his support for Mitt Romney, an unemployed aviation mechanic declaring his continued support of capitalism and disgust at corporate welfare, and a homeless man expressing skepticism that any of the protestors would remain in the park if just “one bad wind” rolled through the area.

Also in the crowd was Republican New York City Councilman Daniel J. Halloran, who took all questions from the assembled crowd, and even won them over after forcefully denouncing taxpayer bailouts of corporations and eminent-domain abuse.

Though the message of Occupy Wall Street is muddled and the future of the protest remains unclear, similar “Occupy” demonstrations are popping up in cities all over the United States, and the quasi-anarchist community residing in Liberty Square shows no signs of relinquishing its post.

Reason recapped the list of demands of the self-professed “99%,” which include free college education for all and a minimum wage of $20/hr. Read that at http://bit.ly/pcDOLc

And check out this riveting eyewitness account and analysis from NYC at http://bit.ly/nRR3Wf

Reverse Psychology ~ Tea Party vs. Occupy Wallstreet

One of the criticisms about the Tea Party is that there were no blacks involved, and thus, racist. Obviously this is not true (See here, here, and here), but to be fair, let us turn the tables on the “99%’ers”, one site says this:

Occupy Wall Street demonstrations picking up momentum across the country better embody the values of the original Boston Tea Party.

So, what is the deal with these “proto Tea Partiers“? They’re racists! (Using the left’s own logic that is):

Really, these are nothing more than modern-day hippies who probably love terrorists (Palestinian movements) and hate Jews (who they view as bankers and Israel):

Here is HotAir’s input on the matter:

Apparently Charlie Rangel swung by the protest this weekend too. Incidentally, is that what they’re demonstrating for — corporate “accountability”? Philip Klein was at the protest this weekend and said it sounded more like good old-fashioned Marxism and anarchism to him. Dave Weigel was also there and came away convinced that “no one knows what it’s about,” although the guys at the front of the crowds looked to him too like anarchists straight out of a WTO “protest.” Anyway, the reason Grijalva and Ellison are baptizing the movement tonight is because there’s a big union march in support of it scheduled for tomorrow; that’s the first major attempt to try to mainstream the protests by tilting them away from overt Marxism towards a more media-friendly manifestation.

I wonder when we’ll see more mainstream Dems start to ingratiate themselves with the protesters instead of just the hard-left stalwarts like Grijalva. They saw what happened to Bob Bennett and Mike Castle and know that a left-wing tea party could do the same to them in a primary if it got traction. I think that’s what Van Jones ultimately has in mind, although he may be just goofy enough to think that his throngs of leftists are somehow going to influence/intimidate the GOP. Ah well. Here’s an enjoyable vid from the Occupy D.C. protest, where the goal seems to be … getting a second term for Obama. Exit question: Is it too early to start holding OWS to the same media standards as tea party protests, replete with predominantly white crowds and the occasional malefactor whose bad behavior somehow defines the entire movement?