OWS’s Lack of Focus - Tibor Machan

I've tried to inject some sense through the #ows twitter channel, to expose some of the illegitimacy of the "99%" meme they push. There are a number of legitimate means of using the system to address their grievances, if they truly represent 99% of the country. For example, 99% could vote out every politician and replace them with those they agree with. They could easily file a class action suit, if a bank did in deed injure them or defrauded them. And finally, if they are 99%, they could focus on a corporate target, buy up all the stock, and take over the board and leadership of the company.

The fact they haven't done any of these things shows they do not represent 99%. So, what does that mean, well, they could do the above with much less than 99%, heck, a class action suit could be had with 2% or less, but still they don't. So what does that all mean? Well, it means they represent a very tiny fraction of Americans, they can't win through a vote, they have no specific injury to take to court, so they just want to protest and 'Occupy' to enforce a 'tyranny of the minority', to have their will implemented and forced upon the majority.

While hanging out in the #ows twit stream, I heard them calling to sing a petition of 100K people to support their movement. That was a big deal to them at the time, and they were putting that call out nationally. Well, 100,000 people supporting them means they have about .0003% of the country's support. Not very close to 99% is it? And if they are that massively incorrect in their 99% claim, how many other issues are they lying or misinformed about?

The below article about the lack of focus of OWS is by Tibor Machan, Ph. D. A distinguished professor working with Auburn, Chapman, the Hoover Institute at Stanford, and the Cato Institute.

Column on OWS’s Lack of Focus � A Passion for Liberty

When someone, some organization or an institution is charged with corruption, this is a serious matter. It is comparable to accusing some people of malpractice in medicine, education, engineering or the like. And such a charge requires specific proof in order to make it credible. Otherwise is it irresponsible.

All the while OWS has been afoot, however, no specific accusations have been laid out by the participants or leaders or supporters. It is all vague and unfocused. It is much more like scapegoating those on Wall Street, given that the group doesn’t bother to be specific and fails, moreover, to go after the main culprits, for example those in Washington who urged the banks to make borrowing easy. In 1992 Bill Clinton’s administration did, in fact, implore banks to do just that, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example. So why are these not the targets of OWS?

Activist Fakes Being Runover by Police at Class Warfare Protest

In this early frame from the incident, you can clearly see that his feet are both free of the bike and tires. In this one, his left foot is the closest, but looks like he missed the position he was shooting for, and later in the film switches to jab his right foot either in harms way or up close to the back tire.




And in this second one you can see, from the position of having his legs free of the bike, now they are sticking under the bike. They aren't under the front wheel, and from the bend in his knees/shins you can see they aren't under the back wheel at this point neither. That only happens by the agitator putting them there himself, either to 'look' like they were run over, or perhaps an attempt to get them run over by the second tire, taking one for the team so to speak. Other images and audio show him screaming his head off even before this moment and during, despite his feet not being run over.



Furthermore, there wasn't anyone really in the street ahead of the cop initially. Cameramen were on the near side sidewalk. This agitant faked a fall, trying to roll up by or under the cop all of a sudden.

The ONE Sign Your Teens Should Remember from 2011

Post this sign on your 17-24 yr old children's Facebook pages, with a note: "This was the ethos I was raised with. Let's talk about what it means. Love you."

Why Barack Obama could be America’s last big government president – Telegraph Blogs

My comments regarding this article:

Why Barack Obama could be America’s last big government president – Telegraph Blogs

Nile,

I would very much hope you are right. The greatness that our Founders made possible is at stake of dying under the constant rolling darkness of socialism that has taken over so many countries on so may continents.

I think Obama has woken some decent but previously asleep citizens to the problems with our government, but to truly be out of the woods long term, we will have to deal with TWO CORE ENGINES that promote collectivism, and attack individualism and a free society:

The Press and Educational Institutions. Those two work together for a profound and nearly insurmountable enemy. The school systems influence our children, with a measurable and decidedly liberal viewpoint from 4 yrs through graduate school. All of their formative years, 8 hours a day. Even before school, tv programs developed by the same educators, indoctrinate our children in the values and priorities of liberal ideology, laying the groundwork for collectivism. The press then takes over from there, completing the slanting of truth and the predominance of a collectivist worldview for our entire adult lives.

Liberal politicians block school choice and any weakening of the public school concept Marx so believed in, at every turn. And the main stream press maintain their righteousness through numbers and ostracisizing opposing opinions. NBC validates CBS, validates NPR, validates ABC, etc.

Over the past ten years, new press vehicles have emerged to counter this, and homeschooling has grown dramatically. Whatever the methods, we will not shirk a trending towards socialist meltdown until the press and education systems are reformed, or at least provided adequate competition.

I've had it with Giving Back and Takes a Village BS

Was out checking a few blog posts and comments tonight, and I got to tell you, I've had it with the twin false arguments of 1) wealthy people owe society for helping them get there, and 2) wealthy people and corporations have a moral obligation to "give back". Below was a post where I responded to those ideas tonight, and wanted to share it on this blog. Feel free to modify and share the response as needed. I would love to see national figures, such as Thomas Sowell, address this issue head on.

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare,’” she says of
Democratic tax policy. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich
on his own. Nobody.”

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare,’” she says of
Democratic tax policy. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich
on his own. Nobody.”

I'm so sick of this fallacious argument. Intelligent people should FIGHT IT on every blog they see it. And start hitting back on this, which is directly related: "Giving back". They say everyone needs to 'give back', corporations need to 'give back'. It's become part of our lexicon, and corporations all play along, fearful of the vengeful left. I manage a charity, and work on many causes, but not because there's a moral imperative to give back, as if I owe something. It's because I care about them, with my free will, not an expectation. Here we go, check it:

The one guy/gal that builds a 1000 person company is rare, statistically. I wish we had more, but business is hard, and risky. But to the point, the left says that a person owes society for being able to get rich, but that guy/gal had the same society as the 50% that are below the average, and the poor, and those on welfare. I went to the same schools, had the same teachers, same cops, politicians, etc, as everyone else in my community. I made something of myself, many didn't. What was the variable? Me, and my parents, mentors I chose. I made the effort. No mentors every came to my house asking if they could teach me something. The village didn't keep me up late studying harder than other kids, I did, with my parents guidance and encouragement.

If the 'village' was the reason the lone man succeeds, then it must also be the reason many more others failed. That's the response that should be shared every time you hear that garbage. When a county gives some land at a reduced/free rate to a big business to come in, that's not a gift, they aren't being altruistic. They are buying jobs, and then touting it to buy votes. It is a trade, not a gift. The state/county just waves the magic pen, it's up to the business to do all the work. And then, if the business brings in more jobs than projected, is the state going to "give back" for getting the better part of the deal? Hell no.

If society is struggling, if there are too many poor, too many uneducated, then stop selling that lie that the village is the reason for a rich person's success, unless you are going to admit that the same village is responsible for all the poor it has taught to be helpless, taught to expect that the rich must 'give back'. (Pretty lousy success ratio for that village, maybe we should trade it in for a new one. ) If anyone should be giving back, the state and poor should be giving to policies and decisions that bring more explosive profitable businesses, that cause a wave of direct, secondary, and tertiary benefits that growth brings to the society. And they should be 'giving back' appreciation, thanks, and respect for the rare person that can build a large business. If it's so easy, then everyone would do it, now wouldn't they?