LA Attempting to Bribe Protesters

It is disheartening to learn that LA officials are considering buying their way out of having to remove the “Occupy” protesters and enforce the law. Incentives such as a $1 per year lease on 10,000 square feet of office space and free farm land and housing are seriously being discussed as a means of “persuading” the protesters to leave. It seems that breaking the law pays in LA.

Discussions are occurring with “organizers” of this supposedly grassroots, spontaneous movement. One of the negotiators is an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild which has been an advocate of the Occupy LA protest since it began. This assumes that none of the Guild’s lawyers are members of the evil 1% and that the Guild speaks for all the protesters including the homeless, disenfranchised students, the media, and the shameless celebrities.

Considering the reports of rape, robbery, assault, and even murder that are occurring in some of the Occupy camps, one could make the claim that LA officials are negotiating with terrorists. At the very least, this type of negotiating (bribery?) could set a precedent that prolongs the protests and incites further violence. Why leave peacefully when you can be paid to do so? Why not up the ante with more violence to increase the bribe?

It is not clear where the money for the $1 office space or the farmland would come from or who would benefit from it. Some protesters displayed anger upon hearing that someone has appointed themselves as their representative. That’s just what the protests need, more confusion and anger. One can only hope that taxpayers would not be forced to foot the bribery bill since they have already been paying for the clean-up and policing already.

LA has been the most lenient city in dealing with the protesters, a sharp contrast to other cities which have been forcibly removing protesters. This latest idea takes that leniency to an entirely new level – and a dangerous one.

David J. Hentosh


Tags: , , ,

6 Responses to “LA Attempting to Bribe Protesters”

  1. liberaltalkingpoints Says:

    I can’t argue with your critique of this negotiation.

    Your attempt to label OWS protesters as ‘terrorists’ is scurrilous at best. You are taking the actions of a few individuals and painting the entire movement with that color.

    I doubt Jefferson would approve.

    • thomasjeffersonclubblog Says:

      Thank you for you comments. I am not painting all protesters as terrorists, but the negotiators took it upon themselves to speak for all, so if officials’ fear of violence is a major reason for negotiating, it begins to seem very much like terrorism. It doesn’t matter that only a few are guilty of violence if the entire group tries to benefit from it – and that could end up being the negotiators’ (who are speaking for all) bargaining chip – the same chip terrorists use.

      • liberaltalkingpoints Says:

        This negotiation is being held because Americans exercising their 1st amendment rights is inconvenient for the city government.

        Which is more important to you? That the 1st amendment retain some validity and coherence in our modern society. Or is the safety of the protestors choosing to put their bodies on the line in order to exercise their rights granted by the 1st amendment more important? It sounds to me you are more concerned with the latter. Again I think Jefferson would not approve.

      • thomasjeffersonclubblog Says:

        Exercising 1st amendment rights does not come with a license to break the law. Period. The Tea Party got its message (a much more coherent one) across without breaking the law, causing disruption in businesses, or costing cities millions of dollars in security and clean up – and there was no violence at all. Whiners about rights always neglect responsibilities. There are no rights without responsibilities and the protesters are neglecting theirs. I’m sure Jefferson would agree that rights come with responsibilities.

      • liberaltalkingpoints Says:

        Sorry I have to start quoting the hallowed text but you made me do it.

        ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”

        There is no law that can supersede these rights granted by this text written from Jefferson’s hand. I’m pretty sure he would agree that these rights trump local zoning and ordinance. This is not the 9th or 10th amendment for good reason.

        I agree that the logistics of the protests are stinky and dirty, but this is the rabble of America exercising their right as conceived by our founding fathers. Again, individual lawbreakers do not make an entire movement criminals. If you have any respect for Jefferson, you will defend the rights of these citizens to speak out and assemble and petition for redress of their grievances.

      • thomasjeffersonclubblog Says:

        Your myopic view only sees the 1st amendment even though there has been no suggestion that the protesters don’t have the “right” to speak out. Your contention that the 1st amendment supersedes other laws is a result of that myopic view and the reason why “some” of these protesters have gone too far and spoiled the entire movement’s original intent and turned it into a dangerous endeavor. Laws are being broken (not just local ordinances), people are being robbed and assaulted, local businesses are being hampered, public health is being endangered, and local police forces are being stretched to their limit – all under the umbrella of 1st amendment rights. There is a limit to everything (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater) and since the “movement” cannot, or will not, police itself, it is necessary for it to be forced to an end. The “right to assemble” does not include taking over public or private land as personal living quarters for as long as one wishes, and trashing that land. The movement has received way too much leeway and sympathy from officials already and has deteriorated into a disorganized, public menace. Preaching about 1st amendment rights ignores the reality of a situation that has long ago surpassed being an exercise of those rights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: