Just as the Tea Party movement eventually hit local it was only a matter of time the Occupy movement likewise hit local levels, arriving in Manchester with the first reported protests. The Union Leader wrote about it HERE.
Occupy New Hampshire, the group organizing the protest, is part of a grass-roots movement whose participants say they are among the “99 percent” of Americans who are being stripped of power by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
How exactly are the top 1% stripping me of power?
I can go on about how the government strips us all of power, but we elect the government and 1% of the vote isn't enough to control who gets elected.
Complain all you want about politicians being bought off with corporate or special interest money but then ask yourself, 'did you consider that when casting your vote in the last election or primary'? If 99% of the vote went to a 3rd party candidate who took nothing that candidate would win.
“I think there's got to be a time when things need to be fairer to the middle class,” said Wilson Vigo, 64, a machinist from Manchester. “I'm not saying this group should be Robin Hood taking from the rich, but the rich should pay their fair share.”
Ah there is the chant of the liberals. It's always about the "fair share". What is a "fair share"?
If you and I went to dinner and both ate the same food and drink would it be fair to expect you to pay more then me because you had a $50 in your wallet and I only had a $10?
Or what if we both went into a store, you looked around and picked up only a new pair of shoes. I meanwhile picked up a full cart of things I needed. Would it be fair to make you pay for the cost of your shoes and most of the items I had in my cart because you earned more in the past year then I did? And while you consider this, would it make a difference to you if the items in my cart were things I needed like food or if they were simply things I wanted like a new flat screen and a stack of DVDs?
Getting back to the article, what confuses me though is that the protests stiring up in New Hampshire aren't all the same liberals who want at others expenses, according to the article there are "republicans" involved in the movement.
I could go on a bit here about the media bias in striving to show this movement as having across the board support while painting the Tea Party movement (which had many of the same people who protested Iraq) as nothing more then a Republican movement, but I'm going to move on instead.
Merav Yaakov, 43, a software engineer from Henniker, brought her 10-year-old daughter, Maya, to the protest.
“Maya is very involved politically,” said her mother. The girl volunteers on the presidential campaign of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
Maya, who is home schooled, said she attended with her dog, Yoda, “because I wanted to come and see what people think about politics and what's their decision.”
Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger turned out for the protest, saying his protesting dates back to his college days in the late 1960s.
“I think the system is broken and we need to open things up, so everybody has equal opportunity,” said Karger, who planned to visit Wall Street protesters in New York City on Tuesday.
Now what's interesting to note here is that while they mention the Ron Paul supporter, it doesn't actually say she came to support the protest, only that she wanted to see what people were thinking.
Fred Karger on the other hand doesn't sound like much of a Republican. Perhaps those who know him can chime in on the feedback to this article but I have a hard time seeing how any true Republican would support a movement that wants to take from those who earn and give to those who don't.
But to give Fred the benefit of the doubt let me close with one last quote from the article, followed by my two cents.
“The reason is we don't feel we're being listened to, not being heard,” she said. “Wall Street has taken over our government.”
When I hear my liberal friends say things like this I agree with them that the government is a problem. The problem however is that they fail to connect the dots. I point out to them that if government is a problem and it has expanded far beyond it's means then why on earth support someone like Obama for instance who has gone out of his way to expand that same government?
If Fred feels the solution is less government and to shrink it's power back to what was intended in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution then I would agree with him but in listening first hand to those protesting, they don't want less government. They simply want to use the government as a tool for themselves. They want to commit the same wrongs they are crying out that corporations are doing, using the government for their own benefit.
Government is and never was intended for personal benefit and every time in history government has become twisted for that purpose it has failed. Government's only true purpose is to protect us from each other, the old adage of making sure your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.