Liberal Logic

When "Occupy" Means "I Steal What's Yours"

William Teach over at Pirate's Cove, had this sickening piece of video, depicting the aftermath of the OWS occupation of a privately owned dwelling:



If I break into your house and trash it, and it costs you five thousand dollars to repair (and fumigate), how is that any different, morally, from someone who swindles or steals the same amount?

And if the "one percent" are evil for "tricking people" into mortgages they couldn't afford, and taking their money, then aren't the OWS thugs just as guilty for stealing someone else's wealth, too? (And I suspect whoever owned this house was NOT part of the 1%.)

Vandalism is a form of theft. Even if the home owner or business has insurance that would cover the vandalism, it still robs the owner of the cost of his deductible, plus the time and labor to make things right, and robs every one in the pool of insured who must pay the premiums to make this vandalism whole again.

IMHO, the homeowner should have pressed charges against these thugs. I would have loved to have heard the pony-tailed moron trying to justify his actions in a court of law.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Pharaoh Was a Job Creator?

From the witless liberal (but I repeat myself) analogy department:



I hate to bring up the whole "S" word, but please, libs, tell me how owning slaves and making them work is "creating jobs"? Or is slavery the only vision liberals have for all of us?

And why is it, pray tell (pun intended), that it seems the only time liberals refer to or give any credence at all to the Bible, is when they think they can use it to bludgeon conservatives?

H/T Blonde Sagacity

Coddling Criminals Across the Pond

Having successfully disarmed most of the homeowners in Great Britain, nanny staters want to make sure the little darlings robbing your shed don't hurt themselves!

Residents in Surrey and Kent villages have been ordered by police to remove wire mesh from their windows as burglars could be injured.

Home owners in the villages of Tandridge and Tatsfield in Surrey and in Westerham, Brasted and Sundridge in Kent have said they are furious that they are being branded 'criminals' for protecting their property.

Locals had reinforced their windows with wire mesh after a series of shed thefts but were told by community police officers that the wire was 'dangerous' and could lead to criminals claiming compensation if they 'hurt themselves'.

What about the glass?? A fellow could get a nasty cut reaching through the glass he broke to get into your shed. Shouldn't the wire be there to protect the little bugger from the glass??? Or eliminate the windows altogether, just to be safe!

Maybe next, homeowners will be asked to put out cookies and milk, like they do for Santa, in case the little criminals get hungry or thirsty? Or maybe tea and crumpets?? Could the homeowner then be sued if the tea was too hot or the milk wasn't cold enough?

More at The Daily Mail
H/T Memeorandum