Starting with Occupy Wall Street:

• If the Tea Party had been shown to have done just a few of these things, if would have run on the nightly news for days. (Just recall how unsubstantiated accusations of racism were reported), and they would have been (rightly) castigated. When OWS does it, the press is mute.
• Richmond charged the Tea Partiers $10,000 to have a rally. OWS, nothing. The Tea Party is going to ask for their money back on the grounds that the government is playing favorites.
• It looks like even those who oppose the fat cats on Wall St. can act just like them. For a group upset at how the wealth has been spread around, they don’t do such a good job at spreading it themselves.
• When Lech Walesa, Poland’s former President, said he support OWS, the AP was all over it. But when he got more details about what was really going on and what the demands were (such as they were), he decided not to support it, saying "American is sliding towards socialism."  All of a sudden, the AP website didn’t seem to think that Walesa existed. Oh, that liberal media.
• Vagrants started to take advantage of the free food at the OWS protests, and all of a sudden the 99% started acting like the 1%. One protestor was quoted as saying, “It’s turning into us against them. They come in here and they’re looking at it as a way of getting a free meal and a place to crash, which is totally fine, but they don’t bring anything to the table at all.” It got so bad, the folks manning the kitchen staged their own protest against providing food for free to those who weren’t there to support the cause, aka freeloaders.
• Take a look at these headlines. If they described Tea Partiers, you just know they’d be the top story on the nightly news. OWS gets a pass. A lot of passes, actually.

Folks who support assisted-suicide claim they just want to stop suffering. Today’s slippery slope defines "suffering" as "loneliness" and financial troubles.

James Taranto starts out by describing what sounds like the housing bubble. But he’s not. What other bubble is out there, inflating as we speak, and is ready to burst?

With a Democrat in the White House, the "no blood for oil" chant has gone on hiatus. Imagine if Dubya had gone into Libya.

And finally, speaking of OWS, here’s a graphic to help the media tell Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party apart. (Click for a bigger image.)

This just seems a little too end-times-ish for my taste.

The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.

“Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions. “The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said.

But never mind the Biblical implications, let’s just consider this from an "absolute power corrupts absolutely" perspective. Does the Vatican really think that a global authority on money is going to be better than those in any of our individual countries. Given that any institution is staffed by fallible, corruptible humans, what this would do is allow the mistakes and failings of a few to impact the entire planet. This is a better idea?

It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.

Asked at a news conference if the document could become a manifesto for the movement of the “indignant ones”, who have criticised global economic policies, Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department, said: “The people on Wall Street need to sit down and go through a process of discernment and see whether their role managing the finances of the world is actually serving the interests of humanity and the common good. “We are calling for all these bodies and organisations to sit down and do a little bit of re-thinking.”

I believe it’s the Vatican that needs to do some rethinking. This goes against every single understanding of human nature that the church teaches. Our US founding fathers understood this, which is why they set up distributed government.

Should we be expecting a proposal for one-world government next? 

I participated in a comment thread to a blog post suggesting that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street protestors ought to come together and find common ground. It incorporated a Venn diagram of what the two groups think are the source of the problem and the intersection was what they could agree on.

Unfortunately, the diagram is just too simplistic. It equates corporate power with government post, which ignores the fact that much of the power corporations has comes from the government, because the government is susceptible to corruption. Because that’s true, the protest ought to be Occupy Pennsylvania Avenue. Trying to explain that to folks who agree with OWS was an exercise in futility. While buying power is wrong, selling it is worse, and is in fact the root cause of the problem.

One of the commenters, waynefromnaz, who understood this concept, put together a video showing the problem with the Venn diagram, and introducing one of his own that explains the real problem in a much better way. He highlights the fact that corporations aren’t the only ones who buy power, and thus the problem isn’t just that this or that group can buy it, but the main problem is that anyone can buy it, and thus we should go after the group selling it (i.e. government).

Additionally, this exposes the political motivation behind OWS. Why aren’t they protesting the unions that buy power and get special favors? Noticeably absent from the list of those being protested against are typical Democrat supporters. No, they’re concentrating on groups that many consider Republican constituencies. I don’t think that’s by accident.

Here, then, is the video, showing what the real problem is.

It would be easier to take the Occupy Wall Street crowd more seriously if they did something like Occupy Hollywood. How many multi-millionaires live there? Quite a few, actually. But not a peep from the OWS folk to them. Even though, as John Hayward notes, they do the same sort of things that the OWS accuse the Wall Street folks of doing.

Liberals are strangely incurious about why their betters never instruct them to hate Hollywood during their class-warfare lectures. I mean never. Movie stars, singers, producers, directors, and star athletes are the millionaires you’re never told to envy. Their “fair share,” and the methods they use to avoid paying it, are not topics for discussion.

Liberals are even willing to extend this consideration to a grotesque caricature like Michael Moore​, the greedy millionaire who made a fortune by making his fans look stupid, and refused to employ union labor while doing it. He walked right past union operatives to receive a warm welcome from the Wall Street protesters. He moved out of a luxurious New York City penthouse to avoid paying his “fair share” of New York taxes on his immense movie profits, celebrated the release of a movie lambasting capitalism with a posh party at another swanky penthouse, and filled in a wetland to put the finishing touches on his million-dollar Michigan estate.

Of course, most in Hollywood support the same liberal talking points that the OWS crowd is pushing. Which exposes this as a political movement, intent on pushing a socialist agenda, but under the guise of being an economic movement, concerned about spreading the wealth around. If it’s wealth that needs to be spread around, shouldn’t it also come from political allies? If you don’t care about that — if your friends can keep their money but your perceived enemies can’t — that’s just envy and covetousness, not concern.

One of God’s top 10.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Contrary to what some think, coveting is not just wanting something. Coveting is wanting something that belongs to someone else. God made it pretty clear about not coveting that which is your neighbor’s. (And of course, Jesus explained to us that our neighbor is essentially anyone else.)

But right now, in cities and countries all over, there are protests going on, getting rave reviews from liberals and the media, where the key ingredient is precisely this; covetousness. Much of what you hear from videos and their own website, even the whole 99% thing, is out of a want, not for money, but for the money of the “1%”. (But, because these things would be paid for by taxes, they’re really aiming for the wealth of the 53%.)

“You, cancel my loans!”

“You, pay me even when I’m not working!”

“You, finance my healthcare!”

And the target of their protests must pony up the cash. No, not “the 1%”, but the 53%, and their children. These protestors want their money; no their own. That is not at all to say that cancelling loans, unemployment benefits or subsidized healthcare are, in and of themselves, a bad thing in moderation, and when circumstances may warrant. But the method these “99%” suggest — more power to a government that got us into this situation in the first place — is both ironic and sad at the same time because they propose we keep digging the hole we’re in rather than get out of it.

(And, by the way, the folks who say they are 99% of the country? Not so much.)

We have some modicum of socialism in this country already — Social Security, Medicare, for examples — but these programs are going bankrupt. Social Security is now paying out more than it is taking in, and has been for a year now, because the socialized method used to pay for it couldn’t handle a Baby Boom. And yet these folks want the 1%/53% to finance yet another iteration of this.

The blame is misplaced, and the solution follows the direction of failed policies. So what’s a country to do?

Brett McCracken writing at his blog The Search sums things up well, both the issues and the solution.

As a “movement,” Occupy Wall Street doesn’t reveal an organized grassroots agenda as much as it represents a general climate of anger, frustration, and antagonism against the “haves”–a suspiciously narrow (1%), heartless, no good very bad group whose entrepreneurial success and capitalistic success apparently oppress the 99% of us have-nots who are being unfairly kept from sharing in the 1 percent’s riches.

Mostly, though, Occupy Wall Street represents the natural discontent of an entitled generation raised on the notion that we deserve things, that the government owes us something, that everything we want should be accessible, and that somehow we are not responsible if we don’t end up quite as successful in life as we’d hoped. It’s a blame-shifting problem. It’s an inability to delay gratification or go without that which we believe is our right or destiny. And it’s a problem both on the micro/individual and macro/government level.

McCracken suggests that the blame is one that we all share, not just some tiny slice of us, from whom we need to extract our pound of flesh.

The thing is, “sharing blame” is hard for us humans to do. We’re infinitely averse to admitting our own culpability. In almost anything. Whether it be our own financial hardships, or those of our communities, or the high taxes under which we suffer… We have to lash out against someone. We have to go occupy something.

As Christians, though, I think we must first and foremost look within for the blame. We must own our share in the mess. Beyond institutions and hegemonies and Wall Street tycoons, how are we responsible for the trouble we’re in? True revolution begins here. True change begins with what we can actually control: our own lives, an awareness of our weaknesses and potentials, and a commitment to working to improve.

If we have to occupy something, let it be the dominion of our own culpable Self, the guiltiest of all institutions and the one we are likeliest to spur toward positive change.

I dare say that should this particular philosophy suddenly grip the Occupy Wall Street crowd, things might disperse rather quickly. Is there injustice in America? Yes, there is. But Jesus didn’t storm the house of Zacchaeus, among the “1%” of his day. Jesus didn’t complain that the government in Rome was unfair and make demands of it. He spoke truths to individuals, even the 1%ers. He changed hearts, which then changed the culture. Let’s follow that example instead.

Let me get this straight: The government tells banks who they must lend to. Banks comply, and in doing so, very nearly go under. (Oversimplification, I know.) Obama propped up his friends in the banking industry by bailing them out. And the "Occupy Wall Street" folks are upset at the bankers? No, not just them; they’re upset at capitalism in general. Here’s a list of proposed demands that should make you squirm. Yes, it’s just a proposal from a forum post, but the promoted it to the front page of the site. And it gets general approval from the liberal commenters. "Universal single payer healthcare", "Guaranteed living wage regardless of employment" (emphasis mine), "Free college education", etc. The taxes required for all of this make the current unsustainable spending look like chump change. This certainly does not represent "the other 99%", as they claim.

Democrats insist that the Tea Party is run by the Koch brothers, on the idea that since the Kochs support it and give money to it, that they therefore control it. Wrong, but let’s go with that. How, then, to explain the big Soros, union, and other astroturfing money coming in to support OWS? (Additionally, if the Tea Party is racist for not having some requisite number of minorities among them, will those same people level that charge against OWS? Yeah, right. It’s not applied in the same way, depending on your political persuasion, so, in truth, it’s just a political bludgeon.)

And let me ask you this; if hundreds of Tea Partiers were being arrested around America, don’t you think the liberal pundits would be all over it? But when it happens at OWS, little if anything. In fact, the differences in how the media cover these two movements is and will be a very instructive lesson in media bias.

Getting away from OWS, when  you quote Ronald Reagan, you don’t think a little context might be in order?

Crony capitalism for Republicans? Bad. Crony capitalism for Democrats? Oh look, a squirrel!

And finally, if you’re going to protest, place the blame where it really belongs. (Click for a larger image.)

The mantra is always that the rich should pay their "fair share". Roseanne Barr recently said that anyone with personal wealth over $100 million should send the excess to the government (and if they won’t, she deadpanned that we should send them to reeducation camps or behead them (civility watch!)). President Obama said that you don’t have any inherent right to a certain amount of profit.

Now that’s an interesting juxtaposition; Roseanne Barr has more courage of her convictions, such that she should have a more concrete dollar value than Obama’s "certain amount".

What I would like to find out is, if there are liberals who would go on the record saying exactly (or even closely) what these values should be.

• How much is the rich’s "fair share"? The only answer we’ve ever had is "more than they’re paying now".
• Should the government put a limit on how much private citizens are allowed to earn, or a limit on total wealth? If so, how much?
• Should the government put a limit on the profit a private company is allowed to make, as either a percentage or an absolute annual amount? If so, how much?

Herman Cain has his "999" plan. Rep. John Linder started a Flat Tax proposal. You know where these guys stand. But how about the Left coming out and telling us how much is too much? What’s the target they’re shooting at?

When the International Monetary Fund needs bailing out, from bailing out so many others, it’s time to seriously question the socialist policies of those it’s having to bail out.

The Pope reminds Europe that moral failure usually precludes many other kinds of failure, eve economic.

A page to bookmark when someone brings up the faulty idea that billionaires are running the Tea Party.

Congress will investigate Planned Parenthood. About time.

Meryl Yourish has a keen eye for news media bias against Israel and, coincidentally, a bias for Palestinians. The latest? A Palestinian man kills an American tourist (because he thought the American was Jewish, which he wasn’t). The AP headline only say the Palestinian man was convicted of "stabbing" the tourist. (Oh, and the tourist was a Christian who happened to be wearing a Star of David.)

"Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI." This goes completely against the liberal narrative. The reality is likely closer to crime is down because of the increase in gun sales.

"President Obama’s jobs bill is better than doing nothing in the face of a national crisis, but it won’t have much impact on unemployment." This incredibly foolish line begins a column trying to suggest Obama’s Stimulus Jr. should be bigger. First of all, how is wasting money on something that won’t do what it purports to do better than doing nothing? That’s how politicians have gotten us into this fiscal mess. Second, the answer is always more, more, more. And yet here we are anyway. How can more pounding our heads against the wall feel any better?

And finally, a political cartoon (of sorts) of my own. Someone took a picture of tax protesters, and attempted a little irony by pointing out things around them paid for by taxes. But they missed the point entirely. Then point is… (Click for a larger version).

We’ve all heard about the rich guys who asked for Obama to tax them more. But in that same townhall meeting, there was a small businessman who complained about the burdensome taxes and regulation. Did you hear about that?

Probably not. CNN seemed to have forgotten about it. That’s why we need the Media Research Center. Here’s the whole story.

Planned Parenthood keeps breaking all its previous records in abortions performed.

Chavez is running out of people/things to blame for socialism’s failure. "[I]n a remarkable volte-face, for the first time this week Hugo Chávez admitted that the government was, after all, largely to blame for the electricity shortages and rationing that are hampering the economy, having previously tried to blame it on a drought, which dried up Venezuela’s hydroelectric reservoirs. That argument didn’t work so well this year, with torrential rains flooding much of the country."

Down’s Syndrome death panels are getting setup.

The debt crisis in Europe threatens to tear apart the EU. That’s not some conservative think tank talking, it’s the EU itself.

"If you love me, pass this bill!" Apparently, Mr. Obama has lost a lot of love in his own party, as Dems pick apart his jobs bill.

We spend more and more on public schools — in absolute dollars and per student — and yet SAT scores continue to fall. There are proven ways to deal with this, but Democrats are against all of them (predictably).

If poverty leads to crime, why is the crime rate falling during this recession (and the decade before it)? Is it because, perhaps, we’re actually keeping criminals behind bars?

Talk about over-regulation, here’s a CEO who was fined for hiring too many people and required to stop hiring altogether. When government calls the shots, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing (or even that there is a right hand).

Palin Derangement Syndrome: Joe McGinniss wrote an expose on Sarah Palin that was essentially (according to the publisher) filled with unproved “tawdry gossip” and rumors that lacked “factual evidence.”

The new 2011 version of the New International Version of the Bible strives for gender-inclusivity. Mary Kassian gives her 10 reasons why this is bad for women.

And finally, never mind abortion, Michelle Obama thinks you should have parental consent before getting French Fries. (Click for a larger version.)