Occupy a Communist Revolution

October 14, 2011

There is an awful lot of media frenzy over the Occupy Wall Street protests going on throughout the country.  However, we are entering the 27th day of these protests and there is still not a clear idea of what exactly OWS is protesting or what the protesters want.  This is not just a casual observation by me.  Their website offers nothing directly of substance and there are more than a few bloggers such as this Washington Times post and my buddy at Extreme Middle who had the fortune and initiative to visit a protest in Denver.  The Washington Times post is interesting because it attempts to identify the demands of OWS with an original list that was actually just a post on the OWS website by a supporter.  The article then tries to update with yet another list that it tries to associate with OWS, but the “OWS” link it provides is actually to Coup Media Group and written by “anonymous” who opens with an admission that OWS has no official demands.  There is no measurable amount of cohesion to this so-called movement.

You might wonder where the official news outlet stories are on this conspicuous absence of substance to the OWS protests.  Well, I do to.  I looked on every major news website and found nothing in the form of a formal article trying to investigate the demands of OWS.  CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC are all practically cheerleaders (such as this trash from MSNBC) and Fox News has reduced its stories to petty partisan jabs.  Only bloggers are actually doing any inquiry.  Glenn Beck sent a film maker into the fray for his GBTV broadcast.  I was somewhat skeptical about the result, but it is echoed in many personal accounts of objective people and my own research.

So,basically, it is reasonable to conclude that the OWS protesters are mad.  They are so chock full of rage that they even dedicate a link to US Day of Rage, which doesn’t seem to be any particular day- at least not soon…which doesn’t seem to be particularly rageful.  To be honest, I rather support USDR’s 3 demands.  However, according to their stated principles, they “will never endorse, finance, or lend our name to any other group, association, candidate or party”, which means I can’t associate their demands with OWS.  Hmm.  Anyway, OWS is mad at corporations and corrupt government according to their “about” page.  That’s it.  They’re just honest to goodness mad folk who want…what?

Truth be told, they don’t know, which makes their “movement” more like an obnoxious fart.  It’s annoying, but doesn’t really do anything.  It might be followed by a movement, but you would really rather it happen somewhere else.

I mean this very sincerely so as to avoid being vulgar because what they are collectively and indirectly advocating is nothing more.  The protesters are tools to the Democrat scoundrels in Washington who now claim to support OWS and relish in the lack of a platform.  It means Washington Democrats commit to nothing by supporting OWS, but they get the wonderful benefit of having public attention diverted from their own failings and significant contributions to the current financial mess (including corporate welfare) so that they may have a second term for their Democrat president for more of the same.  It’s a strategically smart move that they can disassociate from under the guise of “Who knew” the moment OWS develops a platform that may be objectionable.

It doesn’t end with just Democrats, though.  There is a much more dangerous, insidious, silent, and powerful (remember the bad fart and what might come afterward) association with communist thought in our society that is ever prevalent in our politics (see Bernie Sanders).  The supporters of this thought are seizing the opportunity to shape the OWS agenda.  Even speakers such as Slavoj Zizek, a Marxist/Leninist philosophy professor from Slovenia, are openly welcomed and their thinly veiled calls for communism are being hailed as representatives of OWS thought.  Among the latest calls for action by OWS is a “global” event to “…usher in an era of democratic and economic justice.  We must change, we must evolve.”  The very concepts of economic and social justice are Marxist, which led to the bloody Lenin revolution and eventual economic ruin of the USSR.  Contemporary applications of these concepts are being pushed through organizations like the Center for Economic and Social Justice, which claims to attempt to refine Marxist principles through the application of the kelso-adler theory of economic justice.  Make sense to you?  Not so much to me either and I am fairly confident that 99% of the protesters have no clue whatsoever.

As with many of my writings, my opinions change through my research.  I started this article as a blog on the misguided efforts of a bunch of legitimately mad people who don’t know where to direct their anger for productive results.  What I am now convinced of is that the vagueness is the deliberate workings of a puppet master.  The fact that I think our problem is with government is almost pale in comparison to this new threat of communist uprising that I see taking root through these unwitting protesters.  “Who is driving the OWS website?”, I now wonder.  Maybe George Soros?  It certainly isn’t just a hodgepodge of bloggers.  The calls for action are becoming more brazenly revolutionary and communist in nature.  In fact, the latest call for action is specifically to include children so that they can be taught “about our broken economic system, and alternatives that could help save the planet and provide a future for the next generation” and to embarrass officials by showcasing “parents and their children so invested in Occupy Wall Street that they would spend the night in a public park with their children.”

Aside from the fact that involving children for political leverage in this manner is a distasteful Stalinist revolutionary tactic, there is an awful lot of teaching going on for so little conversation.  BUT, now you and I know at least some of the truth.  I don’t fully understand it and I know I’ve presented just a fraction of what’s out there.  Clearly, the protestors are not any kind of grassroots effort or there would actually be root in something.  They are pawns in a much larger game and one side is gearing up to use them for their breakthrough move in possibly a defining event in American history.  Which side will YOU be on?

Advertisements

Congressional Term Limits: Ensuring Democracy within the American Republic

July 23, 2010

 

Currently, members of Congress are constitutionally limited in time only to the duration of a term in which they hold office.  House members are limited to two years per term while Senators are limited to six.  The number of terms that members may serve is in no way limited.  Considering the passage of the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution which limits the Presidency, our highest office, to two four-year terms and a maximum of 10 years in office an amendment to limit the maximum terms for Congress would seem to have been a logical progression that would have closely followed.  However, Congress has considerably more influence than the President on such matters since each member can present his/her case locally to persuade public opinion.  That the President has been limited, but Congress has not chosen to limit itself is by no means a surprise.

Due to inherent distrust in government by the American people, term limits have historically been a part of American political culture since our inception despite the fact that it has not been a requirement by law.  This tradition, started by President George Washington, largely persisted in the Presidency and Congress until the 20th century when Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for and was elected to four consecutive presidential terms under the perception that a change in Commander in Chief would be too disruptive immediately before and during a war.  This unprecedented event (by the President) helped create and propel the 22nd Amendment to ratification in 1951.  In the early 1990’s, measures to create congressional term limits at the state level, though later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, developed strong citizen support and has since been a regularly visited legislative consideration that has seen a recent surge of support.

Opponents of term limits argue that such restrictions hinder the democratic process by denying the voice of the electorate with a representative who may be seen fit for a lengthy period of time in office.  Opponents also argue that term limits eliminate the level of experience available to a given representative body.  By restricting the choice of the American people and creating an artificial ceiling in representative experience for a particular office, the argument is presented that democracy itself is limited through term limits.

I counter that the single most devastating threat to our democratic republic is the establishment of a ruling class through unlimited terms of service.  Through the 20th century to today, elected officials have shifted from being representatives of their electorate within the confines of the Constitution to becoming career politicians with a gift, through the experience of tenure, of manipulating interpretations of the Constitution to soften its regulations at the cost of the American people.  Confusing the American people of the difference between a representative and a politician has been the most effective tactic in securing the elitist, ruling class which has resulted in close to 100 members of Congress currently holding office having served either consecutively or an aggregate of 25 years or more.  In the spirit of maximizing their own political careers, members of Congress have enacted salaries, perks and retirement benefits such that they are now considered federal employees which sets the tone for a certain perception of permanence for an office holder.  At this point, the matter seems clear that if a person were to run for Congress with the understanding that a career and retirement are potential perks then the primary concern of that individual would necessarily shift, especially as he/she accrued years in service, from representation purely for the benefit of the People to politicking for ensuring a comfortable retirement through appeasing the masses to maximize votes.

As time goes on and members of Congress learn the political “ropes”, alliances form to strengthen their political clout with little regard to the negative effects.  This contributes to partisan divisions in both chambers and encourages members to acquiesce to the whims of those who can leverage power over their careers including senior members and special interests.  Herein lays the most rooted cause of the deterioration of constitutionally defined federal limits as unscrupulous legislations are pushed with attractive packaging, but have dire consequences that are often hidden in the buffers of time.

Finally, as if political self preservation and constitutional degradation weren’t damaging enough to the Republic, democracy itself is diminished as rules and political alliances discourage (either financially or politically) the introduction of same-party challenges to incumbents during election cycles.  Such seemingly unfair advantages are an inherent evil in the campaign process that I am not willing to propose limiting due to its protection under the First Amendment, but results in the suppression of new ideas and all but guarantees that only an incumbent will be reelected as has been demonstrated through the reelection of over 90 percent of Congress from year to year.  Here in particular, I argue that democracy is most threatened when a representative position is all but deemed an entitlement even if the representative is perceived to have done a good job.  Here is where I argue that a democracy is ineffective if there is no real choice and that for us to preserve the integrity of the Republic and ensure the benefits of democracy we must maintain fertile grounds for democracy to flourish.  The only way to ensure the persistence of our democratic republic is to enact representative term limits to guarantee a fresh rotation of ideas.  Our nation will be much healthier by potentially being forced to select from new and maybe unfamiliar choices rather than being deceived that a choice of one is any choice at all.


Obama’s Memorial Day Folly

May 30, 2010

 

President Obama will not be visiting Arlington National Cemetery this year for Memorial Day.  Instead, he is sending VP Joe Biden while he visits a national cemetery in Chicago.  When I first heard about this decision I didn’t know he was going to be visiting a cemetery in Chicago and was quite disgusted that the President would skip out on honoring our fallen servicemembers.  Wisely, he is at least attending a memorial site unlike some of our previous presidents as pointed out by the linked article.  However, I think it is in poor taste that he chose to visit a site in his home town where he is apparently not required to be, but simply planned to visit for the weekend.  It seems Memorial Day is primarily a vacation day and PR opportunity for this President while our service men and women struggle with what are now “his wars”.  Memorial Day should be a particularly somber event for a President who has committed significantly more troops to one war and has not ended another as promised.   

Indeed, there are numerous national cemeteries, but Arlington National Cemetery is THE national symbol of the ultimate sacrifice.  Visiting it should not be a matter of convenience for a wartime president- it should be a commitment of respect that must be met at all reasonable cost.


Caught in the Crossfire

May 25, 2010

 

I thought I’d look into what it takes for aliens to work here legally and I am surprised at what I found. Turns out that employers are the ones breaking the law more so than aliens:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=889f0b89284a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=889f0b89284a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

It is the employer’s responsibility to report an individual’s desire to work temporarily (or seasonal) and file for the H-2a program (for agricultural workers). It is also the employer’s responsibility to demonstrate that there is not a sufficient pool of American workers to fill the positions among other requirements. Assuming the H-2a program is being followed, an alien has up to 3 continuous years to work temporarily before being required to stay our of country for 3 months. Our own companies seem to be starting this whole immigration mess!!!

There are two factors that encourage this behavior:

1: The minimum wage laws that must be obeyed increase the cost of production and make those businesses who try to follow immigration laws no longer competitive with those who don’t.

2: The rediculous ways in which U.S. income is taxed makes reporting such immigrants considerably more expensive. Unfortunately, this also means that those immigrants are also being exploited by increasing profit margins through reduced tax liability.

We need to fix our country before even thinking about paying any attention to Mexico’s internal problems as suggested by some.  From a Libertarian standpoint, Federal income tax and income tax in general are the first hurdles to overcome.  At the same time we need to hold employers accountable to immigration laws.  Since being in this country without a Visa doesn’t appear to be necessarily illegal, I am actually somewhat more sympathetic to the plight of alien workers.  I’m not excusing willful disregard for our laws, but the laws appear to be broken by us first which sets a bad precedent.  Assuming an alien is actually aware of the H-2A program, I wonder how many of them are told that their “paperwork is being taken care of” only to be blown off.  There is really no other option for someone who has no desire to become a US citizen, but wants to work here seasonally.

I am aware that there are MANY dangerous illegal activites associated with illegal immigration, but the immigration debate is being centered around what are otherwise migrant workers who are unto themselves not a problem for us.  I’ve got nothing against people coming into our country to work legally.  However, I don’t have a language barrier to hinder my understanding of the law and if I were an alien I am left to believe from what I have read that so long as my employer is aware that I am in this country as a temporary worker, then I have done all I need to to work (and live) here legally for a significant period of time.  So, I am forced to ask why migrant foreign workers are part of the debate at all when our laws encourage them to come here?  It’s starting to look like they are just politically easy targets in light of our own economic struggles.

What a mess!


The Great AZ Immigration Debate

May 25, 2010

 

I’ve begun debating a blogger at the Huffington Post over the Arizona immigration legislation.  I’m having a lot of fun, but it is time consuming doing the research so Foundersten is suffering a bit.  All the same, check it out if you’ve got a minute!


Weakly Address (the Nation)

May 1, 2010

 

I listened to Barack Obama’s weekly address this morning.  I was rather interested to hear what he would say about the oil spill that is now washing on our Nation’s Southern shores.  I couldn’t wait to hear his plan of execution for a disaster that has the potential to be worse than hurricane Katrina on Louisiana’s economy- to say nothing of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.  I wasn’t the only one who noticed that Barack Obama and the rest of the Nation seem to live on two separate planets.  Golly, the status quo is mighty sticky isn’t it Mr. Obama?

That last link has some interesting points.  First, President Obama is quite famous for his deeply critical remarks regarding President Bush’s response to Katrina.  Of course, the New York times tries to provide flimsy cover by starting off the article with, “There’s a world of difference between the impact of an oil spill and a deadly hurricane. And the White House hopes it stays that way.”  But later it states quite nicely:

Officials note that a key difference between the spill and Hurricane Katrina is the pace of the onslaught of the disaster. While the hurricane hit the Gulf Coast in a fury, the oil has — literally — crept to the shores of the gulf. While the eventual harm from the leak could outstrip that of the Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska, that will not be known for weeks, if not months.”

…basically, Obama doesn’t have the reflexes to dodge a shoe much less an in-your-face, imminent disaster that has “crept” upon our nation.  Does the NYT actually see the light?

Let’s also take a look at the last point in the article:

Mr. Bill Eichbaum of the World Wildlife Fund said,

“This spill in the gulf is like having a heart attack in New York City,” he said. “Everything is there that you need to fix it.

So, with all the resources that are evidently available to him apparently Obama is inept as well as situationally detached.  BRAVO, NYT!

I was going to comment on the possibility that the awkward absence of any mention of the oil spill MAY BE associated with Obama’s expansion of offshore drilling rigs, and that this would be reflective of the “special interests” he criticized in his weekly address since the oil spill came from (I’m just going to let you guess).  I was also going to comment on his actual focus in his address, which was  campaign finance reform (where did THAT come from?).  Looking at this article, however, is enough to demonstrate the absurdity of his remarks in the face of the current disaster and of his passion to embrace the Washington status quo that he so, so loathes.

It’s too bad you’re so fun to write about, Mr. President.  It’s just one more thing I have to say you do well as President like…well, um…collecting campaign finance contributions, I guess.


State of Desperation

April 20, 2010

 

While Congress has been busy with profoundly expensive pet “please vote for me again” social projects it has failed miserably in its actual constitutional responsibility to protect national security at our borders.  Now, beleaguered border states are taking over and they aim to clean up the mess once and for all- basically, do Congress’ job.

Arizona has legislatively passed SB1070.  It’s a controversial bill that gives all agencies within the State of Arizona the authority to enforce immigration laws as written under Federal Law and it is awaiting Governor Jan Brewer’s signature.  The ACLU is promising to challenge the bill in Supreme Court for being unconstitutional.  The bill is a mere 17 pages and I have read and understood all of them- without an attorney! 

There’s bound to be misinformation, so here are the facts regarding SB1070:

1. The bill uses Federal Law (8 USC, sec. 1373(c)) to determine the legal status of a person.  ***Imagine that…using an existing federal law to support a state law.  The AUDACITY!

2. A person can be questioned regarding legal status only through “ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCYOF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE”.   ***It’s here that liberals are just up in arms about evil police officers intruding on people’s rights by demanding identification at every whim.  Trouble is, “lawful contact” does not permit this sort of action.  An officer has to have probable cause to request identification such as, oh I don’t know, SMUGGLING DRUGS, KIDNAPPING, GANG ACTIVITY, TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS, and the list goes on!!!  Simply “suspecting” that a person could be illegal does not count.

3. Agencies shall be in no way restricted from exchanging immigration information for the purposes of:

          a. Determining eligibility for public benefits.  ***My GOD! You have to PROVE you’ve paid for those benefits???

          b. To prove you’re a legal resident when required by law.  ***This is just SICK!

          c. Confirm the identity of a detainee.  ***Big brother ALWAYS has to know who you are when you’re arrested!  It’s how they get you!!!  Er…wait, they already got you…but STILL!!!

          d. Confirm, if a detainee is determined to be an alien, whether or not he is legal.***C’mon!  First demand ID, then demand legal status???  Next they’ll want FINGERPRINTS!

4. No official or agency may limit or restrict the FULL ENFORCEMENT of Federal Law or any person may sue that official or agency in superior court. If the accused party is found guilty, that party is responsible for all legal fees and expenses of the person who brought the action AND must pay no less than $1,000 and no more than $5,000 PER DAY that the policy in question remained active after the suit was initiated.  ***Unbelievable.   Make a law, then expect everyone to just suddenly be held accountable to it!   What is this country coming to that we should expect EVERYONE to abide by the law???

5. Any fines imposed on persons found to be residing illegally in the United States will be used toward the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund.  ***Gang members paying for others to get arrested- that’s practically water boarding!

6. An employer found to be knowingly employing illegal aliens must FIRE all illegal aliens and sign a sworn statement verifying that he has done so or lose all licensing. (no fines)  ***Great!  As if unemployment weren’t bad enough already.  Boy, if it weren’t for that stupid requirement to show ID for public benefits unemployment claims will go THROUGH THE ROOF.  That’s right, I said unemployment claims will go through the roof- you can quote me on that! (just forget about the little ID thing)

There’s obviously more, but it’s not as interesting as this stuff. 

All joking aside, I say, “GO ARIZONA!”  I imagine Sheriff Jo Arpaio is just tickled.  Why the hell hasn’t Texas done something like this?  Anyway, I don’t see anything about this bill that can be considered unconstitutional since it bases itself on existing federal law.  This bill doesn’t go far enough only in that it doesn’t demand a tax refund for the Congressional funds that are supposed to be enforcing immigration policies.  The major impact of this bill is that it finally gives authority to local agencies for deporting illegal immigrants rather than having to surrender them to the “catch and release” immigration authority (which is not their fault, BTW.  It’s just another example of Congressional pandering for potentially 10.5 million votes).  

Waste your money ACLU, waste it away!

***Correction: The bill does not give local authorities the ability to deport.  It simply gives authorities the ability to detain and transport suspected illegal immigrants to federal facilities for not being able to provide proof of either identity or legal status.  Apparently, this was not previously possible!  I do wonder how they will handle the average junkie who may very well be a US citizen, but is too tweaked out to keep his clothes on much less any form of ID.  I can see some potential for racial profiling here that will need to be addressed, but what a technicality on an otherwise bold and necessary bill!