The Anti-Occupy Wall Street Handbook

A middle class, middle aged, conservative Christian friend of mine last night texted me asking, “What would you say to your teen if he wanted to go down to Occupy Denver?”  This would not have alarmed much except this same teen had been acting extremely rebelliously toward his father and had just told his dad he and his friends were “liberals” and were very much interested in Islam. 

For those with this teenagers, neighbors, spouses, co-workers or classmates who have had their brains hi-jacked in favor of this movement, this post can be used to educate yourself and them on fundamental truths of economic law and history to clearly dispel their romantic notions the OWS movement has ANYTHING to do with actually helping themselves or the poor.  Bookmark this for future as we’ve learned that although OWS is dying out, it is a precursor for what is really planned next year right before the elections.

WHAT IS OWS REALLY?

Two of the best sources for Occupy Wall Street info is:

BigGovernment, and,
OWSExposed

John Nolte at BG summarizes it well:

Occupy is all about greed, self-actualization, and narcissism. The fastest and easiest way to feel superior is to assume the role of a victim … because a victim is always superior to his or her oppressors.  Occupy is also an army the left and Alinksy-style community organizers like Barack Obama have been breeding for decades. The formula is simple: feed enough self-esteem to those who don’t deserve it and you create an entire generation of entitled crybabies desperate to direct the frustration of their unfulfilled lives at whomever.

The idea was to launch Occupy in the hopes it would change the 2012 election conversation and media narrative from Obama’s failed record to ground upon which he might be able to win reelection: income inequality and those evil one-percenters on Wall Street who destroyed the economy.

When Glenn Beck predicted an economic collapse in 2006 and 2007, he was just some recovering alcoholic with air time.  When he spotlighted the Marxist revolutionaries in the Obama administration he was called certifiable.  When he predicted communists marching in the streets last year he was a loon and even after OWS began, he was ridiculed for suggesting violence would break out.  Someone, someday will actually pay attention to the homework he does to come up with these predictions and take him seriously.  What does he predict next?

People being drug out of buildings and shot in the streets. 

IS IT A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT OR ORCHESTRATED ASTROTURF?

Big Government again has exposed emails of the organizers showing how non-spontaneous it is and worse, how they are intentionally orchestrating escalation to violence.

Communists directly admit their involvement and designs to co-opt the movement to obscure truth to their benefit.  And they have direct ties to the Obama campaign.

Proof Occupy Wall Street is an organized movement with ulterior motives.  The evidence for US involvement in international insurrection including OWS starts at the 12 minute point:

The fact is that radicals like Alinksy (who dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to Lucifer), Cloward & Piven and others REQUIRE violent anarchy and class warfare or they can’t take control under the pretense of defending the working poor.

The prime perpetrator who was at the Israel flotilla conflict last year, at the Egyptian uprising and every major outbreak openly tells National Public Radio that America is ripe for communist revolution.  

By your fruits you shall know them.  It is the biggest collection of losers we've seen since Vietnam with 417 crimes being committed from rape to murder.  31% of attendees are willing to commit violence.

Obama derided the Tea Party, then tried to say OWS was just like it.  Communists, KKK, and radical extremists like law abiding citizens?  Here is a 2 minute video comparison of the two and Glenn Beck’s extensive comparison (and why Obama is trying to tie them together is in the Video History links below).

The Unions were positioned from the beginning to step in and take over as reported here.  Ironically, the rebellious adventurers who think they are “showing the man” by demonstrating, are in fact pawns and “useful idiots” of forces THAT WANT TO FURTHER ENSLAVE THEM.

QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT OWS

Who started Occupy Wall Street?  Where was the first one? Who is paying for the flyers and NY marketing firm promoting it? Why do Communists, Nazi’s, Pedophiles and Terrorists Support it? Why does a man who made $7 Billion last year and who has profited from destabilizing currencies around the globe, fund OWS groups? (More from Beck here.)

The Video History of OWS GBTV: How OWS Started GBTV: Unions Fingerprints An OWS Billionaire? Tea Party Vs OWS Why does OWS hate Jews? Global OWS Control

What we know about OWS in summary:

• It was a Madison Avenue orchestrated movement.
• It has been funded by radicals including those intent on enslaving Americans through government control.
• Organizers have planned to lie about their purpose to eventually introduce violence.
• There is strong evidence that the Obama campaign is using this to suspend freedoms directly before the election by bunching all “anti-government” protestors together following violence by OWS.

Let’s get to the heart of their argument.

IS CAPITALISM REALLY BAD OR TERRIBLE TO THE POOR?

The most understandable defense for CAPITALISM versus SOCIALISM was given by the great (and funny) Milton Friedman on the ultra-liberal Phil Donahue show in 1979.  It is in 5 parts (10 minutes each) but CRITICAL to watch WITH Cooper.  It begins here.  A very, very short clip just on Capitalism versus Socialism is here:

Milton Friedman Phil Donahue on Capitalism vs. Socialism

A much less serious but every bit as profound video shows how Occupy Wall Street – who complains that the “1%” are taking advantage of the 99% – actually has it going on within their own movement.  Jon Stewart of the Daily Show exposes it here (it’s hilarious):

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Milton Friedman video series makes a great point when Phil Donahue asks about the inequity that a very few have a lot of wealth and the masses do not.  Friedman makes an EXCELLENT point that in societies and cultures that have tried to “spread the wealth” they replace economic tyrants with political ones who take away even their basic rights.  Capitalism with all it’s flaws provides MORE money, MORE freedom and MORE opportunity than ANY OTHER SOLUTION.

Walter Williams makes the point that the “rich” do benefit disproportionately to the efforts they put in – but the benefits to the “99%” is often overlooked.  Imagine having no personal computers without a Bill Gates or inexpensive cars without Henry Ford.  Thomas Edison profited enormously, but the incandescent lightbulb allowed productivity and safety at a level never dreamed of by the 99%.

The original Pilgrim colony at Jamestown is evidence of this fact. They set out to share all of their production with each other and the pilgrims barely survived the first winter after they landed.  Even after the Indians showed them how to grow corn and adapt to the land, they were constantly battling shortages, lack and social contention.  It wasn’t until William Bradford realized that a socialist model was completely contrary to the teachings of the bible on personal responsibility, that they changed to a capitalist, free market system.  From then on – they prospered.  Bradford wrote:

The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,'

Truth: Free markets lower costs and increase values for everyone, while government regulation and forced sharing of wealth increases costs and depresses opportunity and prosperity.

THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM

Islam?  What does Islam have to do with Occupy Wall Street?  It is interesting that every “Arab Spring” uprising has resulted in MORE radical Islamic forces taking power instead of democracy.  As the first video shows, insurrection is being planned to rip out the totalitarian leaders (or democratic ones) who stand in the way. 

It is also interesting that immediately following Occupy Wall Street, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other radical Islamists endorsed it!  When you understand that the entire purpose of OWS is to destabilize Western democracies – it makes sense.  This is the same goal of Islam.  Where Muslims have power, force them to submit.  Where they do not have power, lie to them to destabilize them and gain power.

Anyone who doesn’t understand the already serious encroachment of Islam into American society is blind or ignorant.  The word “Islam” and terrorist was deleted from EVERY working manual at the Department of Homeland Security.  And the mainstream media is already complicit to perpetuate this myth for fear of not being “tolerant.”  This particular video takes an ABC 20/20 Muslim puff piece - and gives direct evidence for what Islam is really about  -

Funny (and scary) Truth About Islam in America

A much shorter (8 minute) debunking of 3 common myths about Islam here.

---

For Reference: My 2 part teaching on the amazing science, archaeology and factual support for the Old and New Testament begins here:

Comparison to "Occupy" Protesters Unfair to Tea Party

The so-called Occupiers at Zuccotti Park in New York City were forced to leave last week, and cleanup of the park has been taking place since.

For the two months that Wall Street was "occupied" comparisons were made to the conservative Tea Party movement, which heavily influenced the 2010 elections.

There comparisons are unfair to the Tea Party for a myriad of reasons.

First, no one has ever been arrested at a Tea Party rally because they are performed peacefully.  According to the New York Daily News, approximately 1,500 arrests have been made at the Occupy Wall Street protest alone as of November 17th.

Secondly, the Tea Party folks treat the space they use with respect.  Again, according to the New York Daily News there have been 31 complaints of public urination at Zuccotti Park, and more unconfirmed reports of public defecation. 

Finally, the Tea Party represents true American ideals: personal liberty and private property, small government with non-enumerated powers granted to the states and the people. 

Most importantly, the Tea Party believes in the system that made America what it is today; a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world.

The street rats at the Occupy protests believe in a Utopian society where everything you need is given to you by the government, and worse, everything you think you're entitled to.

The Occupiers believe is communism, not capitalism.  They believe in equality of results, not equality of opportunity.  They believe in class warfare and the notion that wealth is evil.

In short, they believe in the same radical philosophy as Barack Obama, which is why the President said he can, "identify" with them, and why Nancy Pelosi offered blessings for them.

The Tea Party has never represented an anti-Semitic stance like the occupiers have.

It gets worse too.

Today, reports of weapons caches at were made public through the NYPD and Brookfield Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park.

Gardeners who were hired to clean up the park found knives and some makeshift weapons inside flower beds.

This is not the first report of its kind either.  Knives and mace were found after the protesters marched on the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1st. 

The reality is that the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party movement are polar opposites.

They believe in opposing ideals and means of communicating their message.  The occupiers believe in violence and disorderly conduct while the Tea Party believes in peaceable assembly and voicing their opinion on Election Day.

The Union Fix - Part 2

In part one of “The Union Fix” I introduced the immediatestep towards dismantling the strangle hold unions have on U.S.manufacturing.  In part two, I discussthe longer-term solution to finally break the cycle of anti-competitiveness andbring manufacturing back to our nation.

In Washington State,the IAM waged a strike on the Boeing Company in 2008 resulting in months ofdelays and lost production.  Afterreaching a contract agreement, Boeing sought assurances from the IAM that itwould not strike again.  When the IAWfailed to meet this demand Boeing made the decision to build a second 787assembly line in North Carolina,a right-to-work state.  Although nowembroiled in a highly publicized lawsuit against Boeing over the decision, theIAM provides a perfect example of how unions price themselves out of themanufacturing labor market and drive companies to alternative markets. 

The Boeing case also illustrates part of my proposedsolution.  Twenty-two of our nation’sStates are right-to-work states. However, the liberal foothold in the remaining 28 States is unlikely torelent sufficiently to permit the adoption of right-to-work laws.  Therefore, we need a compellingcompromise. 

Large corporations are forbade from controlling too much ofa given market per existing anti-trust laws. The word monopoly in the halls of the Federal Trade Commission is aspringboard to action and eventual divestiture of assets from the offendingfirm.  However, these same principleshave not been applied to unions.  Unionsthat represent all employees to a particular firm or industry have a monopolyon that labor market.  Therefore, weshould extend anti-trust laws to unions via legal precedent orlegislation.  In so doing, no singleunion would be able to have a monopoly on labor.

The outcome of this step would be a dismantling of theAFL-CIO, SEIU, and Change to Win Federation. In addition, no one union could represent all the employees in aparticular trade at a single company. Therefore, more than one union would be required; in cases where noadditional union is ratified, at least a portion of the employees would not beunionized.  In all cases, the unionswould be forced to compete with one another for members.  Competition would tend to put downwardpressure on dues and inherently limit the amount of money available forpolitical manipulation.

This solution is effectively a compromise in that it stillallows a closed shop for unions, it preserves worker’s rights to unionize, andit gives workers greater choice in representation.  Finally, from the perspective of the firms,there would be competition in the labor market giving the companies greaterflexibility over the compensation packages. In turn, this helps prevent ludicrous pension benefits, exorbitant wagesfor menial labor, and ultimately makes the U.S.manufacturing industry more competitive against a world of low pricedalternatives. 

Read more like this at Aaron Opine

The Union Fix - Part 1

Photo by Bill Burke

Any non-imbecile can tell you that unions have exacerbatedthe decline in manufacturing in the United States. Their demands made upon the threat of work stoppages have enabled themto amass pension funds that have crippled the likes of Ford, GM, and Chrysler.  Many States and municipalities are likewisestumbling under the weight of massive public employee union pensionprograms.  Like the foreign substanceinvading a festering wound, we must winnow the power of unions in our countryto restore our predominance in manufacturing. There are two key steps towardsstripping unions of their power and influence in order to reinstate ourmanufacturing base and thereby strengthen our economy (Note that addressing theunions must be done in concert with far reaching tax and regulatory reform –resolving our union problem with not be sufficient alone).  The first is immediate action to be taken bysensible persons holding unions positions; the second is longer-term and canonly be accomplished at the State and Federal levels.

The first step is for all concerned union representedemployees to become objectors.  When Igraduated from college I went to work for a company that was infected with anagency shop union.  Initially, I chose tobe a Beck Objector (see Communication Workers of America v. Beck for legalhistory), but still paid an “agency fee” which was nearly as much as the fullunion dues.  About a year later I learnedthat a significant portion of my agency fee was being used as campaigncontributions towards democratic candidates. Under Section 701(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967,employees with bona fide religions objections cannot be coerced into supportingunions.  I wrote a letter to the unionshowing how every candidate supported by my fees was an abortion advocate.  I concluded by confirming that I viewabortion as an unethical and abhorrent per my religious convictions.  The union agreed (as required by law) toallow me to contribute to a non-religious charity of my choice instead of payingunion dues.

Although not all union represented employees are similarlyinclined to depose of unions, it is quite likely that many would be put off bytheir union’s prolific use of union dues to support the campaigns ofpoliticians and legislation that offends their religious sensibilities.  Therefore I encourage all union employees toinvestigate how their dues are spent – following the paper trail all the way tothe AFL-CIO if necessary.  With the veilof faux-legitimacy lifted, I’m willing to wager many more union employees wouldbecome religious objectors.  Doing sowould strip unions of the more than $400 Million they spend annually onpolitical influence that has effectually stripped our nation of its competitivenessand propelled us closer to socio-Marxism.

For more information about becoming a Religious Objector Iencourage you, or your union worker friends, to visit www.choosecharity.org and www.nrtw.org.

This step is critical and immediate.  However, it is not sufficient to curtail theinfluence, and therefore damage, of unions over our government.  Next week I will share step two – a longerterm solutions with greater reach and impact.

READ MORE LIKE THIS AT AARON OPINE