Fall 2011 Part 3

The Occupy Wall Street Movement

The Occupy Wall Street marchers have experienced police brutality. They are divided into 2 factions. One faction legitimately wants economic justice. The other faction is being manipulated by globalists in order to escape the real issues (which is about the FED, the City of London, debt free money, etc.). Now, some even in the alternative media have used gatekeepers like Michael Moore and George Soros as an excuse to support Austrian economics (while having paranoia about Communism). The truth is that Austrian Economics like Communism has been funded by the same banking, reactionary cartel used to divide & conquer the human race. Even Austrian Economics was funded by the Rockefellers, which Mises don't talk about. We don't need controlled opposition. Also, some of these alternative media types yell about socialism when no economic philosophy (not even capitalism) is 100 percent. Historically, what works is the harmony of public services and private services existing in a mixed economy to benefit humanity. Debt filled money doesn't work since the central banks charge interests on the money created via loans. A central banking system that relies heavily on interests doesn't work. I don't agree with all components of socialism. On the other hand, I will never accept militarism, war mongering, corporate evils, and unbridled neo-liberalism. Also, corporate greed and globalization contributed to the economic crisis. Some yell about the government, but corporate interests dominated the government to enact bad policies (not the government in it of itself being totally corrupt since true government is of the people by the people. The government shouldn't be of the corporations by the corporations). I don't agree with the billionaire George Soros funding some protesters either. Also, the big banks and Wall Street firms have used bailouts to strip wealth from the poor and the middle class. Not to mention that some in Wall Street have executed insider trading. Now, in a totally free market, the poor will suffer even worse since a real free market would exclude any regulation. You need some regulation in the economy to make it viable and ensure protections for labor. That refutes the notion of a totally laissez faire system on Earth. So, the real protesters (not corporate funded protesters) in New York and all over the nation should be praised for their efforts not marginalized by neo-liberal supporters. Not to mention that tax cuts alone hasn't worked to radically improve the economy. You need revenues and a radical restructuring of the current, corrupt economic system in order to have reformation.

The establishment and FOX are angry at some members of the Occupy movement. The reason is that they want the myth of true rugged individualism (or if you want a job, get it or you're lazy, etc. That lie). There is fear that the proposals from the Occupy Wall Street members might be successful. The propagandists want to privatize the public sector to leave the people alone in a parasitic and dying system. Rich men alone shouldn't rule all of us and call themselves the markets. The plutocracy must end. Real solutions ought to be made manifest in the world. There should be public institutions to use capital to help human needs and developments. It was the influence of Wall Street that caused the 1999 repeal of the Glass Steagall act or a pillar of the New Deal (this ended must needed regulation that prevented the merger of commercial banking and the essence of Wall Street). We can't defend the pirates at Wall Street since these pirates and others were responsible for the recession in the first place. Consistently, 2/3s of all Americans in polls want a jobs bill to help Americans to get to work. Even Dr. King wanted an economic Bill of Rights and his Poor Peoples Campaign. So, the elite stole money from the working class. This refutes the anti-selflessness notions of Ayn Rand. The OWS wants financial regulation, financial transparency, the expression of the truth that a corporation is not a person, an end to bribery of Senators, Congressmen, and judges, etc. Police brutality has been enacted against the protesters as well. Kurt Nimmo talks about OWS calling for global governance. That's a lie since some people may advocate that. Yet, every single OWS protestersdon't support that dogma (since the OWS is made up of people from across the political spectrum and across backgrounds). I don't agree with global governance or global democracy since I believe in national sovereignty. Nimmo is correct that any movement shouldn't be controlled nor funded by Foundation money. Yet, his Austrian Economics philosophy has been supported by the Rockefellers for decades. It's hypocritical for Nimmo to talk about global government when Austrian economic supporters want to ruin the constitutional concept of taxation plus economic checks and balances. One prominent Austrian Economics supporter advocated a global governmental system. Regular OWS folks are genuine.

Move On is trying to take over the Occupy Wall Street Protests. Like always, I don't believe Left gatekeepers like Moveon.org should control any real movement for change. They have just as much corporate funding as the Republicans have been. The MoveOn leaders and executives are in television lying about how they speak for the OWS movement. The mainstream media is trying to call them as spokespeople for the OWS. MoveOn wants the OWS movement to merge with the Democratic Party when that party is just as exploitative and has a nefarious of a history as the Republicans are. MoveOn won't greatly expose how Wall Street money put Democrats and Republicans into office like Goldman Sachs. OWS is made up of liberals, libertarians, and people from across the political spectrum. Move On has tried to infiltrate the Occupy Trenton protest as well. The protesters are mostly rejecting offers since they want to be their own movement separate of any political affiliation. They want to be in the 99 percent of people's interests. We should be careful of agent provocateurs as well. Also, reactionary liars talk about there is a difference between free market capitalism and corporatism. The reality we had free market capitalism without any regulations. During that time (in the 19th century inside of America), we had child labor, bad waters, and other evils. So, regulations are needed to protect people and society. Not all regulations are good, but some regulations are necessary to promote in America plus the world.

The OWS protest has been collectively demonized by jealous people. Nimmo and Alex Jones (who claim to be cutting edge patriot yet Jones supports the Right Paradigm John Birch Society. The JBS is a reactionary group with ties to the Knights of Malta, the Jesuits, and even the Rockefellers in the beginning according to various sources) yell about taxes, but we have had a higher tax rate on the super rich decades ago (and this incurred more economic prosperity for the poor and middle class). The movement isn't Communism and isn't collectively anti-Semite at all regardless of what people say. The OWS is made up of people from across the political spectrum. It's very hypocritical for critics to expose a global like George Soros, but refuse to expose how the Rockefellers funded the Austrian economic movement for decades. Also, the Austrian movement is pro-banking elite. The same ones demonizing anyone promoting labor rights, economic justice, etc. are the same ones decades ago who opposed the civil rights movement. Now, Scandinavia and Germany have more regulation than America, but they have less unemployment and greater benefits than America. Denmark and Sweden have more personal freedom than America also. Many of these nations have a higher standard of living or HDI (human development index) than the USA. So, the lesson is that pro-corporate policies don't mean a thing to help the poor. If you want to help the poor, you need a strong social safety net. Also, there should be other necessary, unique policies in order to give those suffering a better life (and real health care, a real job, and real education). Free market fundamentalism or Reaganomics (trickled down economics) doesn't work. Even proponents of tricked down economics have denounced that policy. These reactionaries even oppose a simple jobs bill that can provide employment for many Americans. Tax cuts alone and gutting regulations don't solve our economic problems since you need revenue growing system in order to create true economic stimulus. What the enemy promotes is an old game plan (not not globalism), but fascism.

These hypocrites believe in big government for the military, but little to no government to help workers and the poor. These hypocrites cry about welfare, but ally with corporate welfare. Scott Walker, John Kasich, and others have been protested by people seeking workers' rights simply. Walker's regressive agenda has been opposed as well. It's not about big vs. small government. It's a corporate dominated government and evil corporations vs. the people. It's about promoting efficient government beyond big or small. The government ought to be of and for the people, but the evil people have made the government to be infiltrated by corporate interests/elite ties. It isn't just bad corporations that are the problem, but the CFR, the FED, the Bilderbergers, Trilaterialists, etc. (that desire globalization at the expense of small businesses and the people). Also, a social safety net isn't a handout as the Economic Collapse blog says. They are earned benefits gotten via hard work. People worked to get these benefits. People don't get opportunities by tax cuts alone. People can get opportunities by ending the war on terror and having economic populist plans in place. Also, we have austerity (cutting government) and austerity worldwide doesn't work.

Really important issues relate to the prison system, poverty, health, the environment, and important issues. It seems that the Tea Party is now less popular than the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Popularity doesn't denote truth, but that's an interesting development. The OWS is now global. Most people in that OWS movement want economic justice and a fight against plutocracy. It developed not just because of the archaic policies from the Republicans. It formed because even President tried to compromise with the GOP over economic policy. That wasn't good enough for the reactionaries. If the President was willing to give up $4 trillion dollars from the social safety net and the GOP says no (and we want to kill nearly all of the New Deal), there's a problem here. Many African Americans want to occupy black neighbhorrhoods in order to make solutions. I have no issue with this at all. Glen Ford is right to mention that it's very hypocritical to allow young white kids to go into certain locations and flaunt public assembly laws and get away with it most of the time (if Black youth did similar acts, they will be accosted, humilitated, and falsely jailed by the police if they protest strongly in their own neighborhoods or any places in the thousands. Unfair arrests are happening now against people of all backgrounds, so I want to make that clear). More neighbhoods from the middle class to the poor are having their own occupation movements. It's also transparently clear in the 21^st century that laissez faire capitalism is officially dead. It doesn't work and it was never meant to work for the common people anyway (but for the oligarchy).That is why racial and class oppression across backgrounds have been a key reality by the forces of greed and the worship of capital. People like Rick Perry and Herman Cain (he said that it's the poor people's fault for their poverty, racism isn't a serious issue anymore, and he was accused of being sexually harassed by women) have reap what they have sown. More tax cuts for the super rich, deregulation, and the outsourching of jobs from this country don't work. That is why we need to promote human needs above Wall Street profits. The Democratic Party establishment tried to co opt or infiltirated the OWS movement, but many independent people are still in the OWS group. So, the Republicans and the corporate Democrats have inspired the creation of the OWS indeed. ....

Politics in 2011 Part 2

Learning about the basics about U.S. politics can be fun, serious, and interesting all at the same time. Politics deals with understanding the concept of government. The reason is that you need to understand about how the government works in America including the world. People can have this knowledge in order to maintain a keen awareness about politics in general. Our civic life is important to comprehend. We need to understand about the political system in order for us to vote in a credible fashion, to understand our rights & responsibilities, and to make the government accountable of its actions. The ancient laws of Hammurabi, the ancient Greek constitution of Draco, the rules form the Roman Republic, the Justinian Code, and the English Bill of Rights all had influenced the development of the Constitution. Even the rules from the Iroquois Confederation influenced the development of the American government. The Enlightenment scholar & Frenchman Montesquieu believed that there should be a separation of powers in government with checks and balances. His writings influenced the development of the American Congress. The American Congress today has checks and balances among the judicial, executive, and legislative branches. Montesquieu wanted the freedom of speech, he opposed war, he wanted religious freedom, and he disagreed with torture. De l'esprit des Lois (or "The Spirit of the Laws") was Montesquieu's famous work from 1748. His book called for the constitutional system of government. It called for the separation of power, the ending of slavery, and the preservation of civil liberties. The book said that political institutions ought to reflect the social and geographical aspects of each community. Rousseau was another Enlightenment figure. Rousseau believed in reason and emotion (like using the heart and the mind in forming decisions). Of course, John Locke was an English 17^th century political figure that wanted people to have the natural rights of the right to life, liberty, and to own property. He believed that
individuals molded their own experiences whether they are good or bad. Locke believed that people give up some of their natural rights to the government in exchange for the government protecting the people's rights in return. This concept is referred to the social contract theory. The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature. Locke believed that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. In Locke's mind, the people can reject the government and form a better one if the government violated the people's social contract. He is famous in writing his ideals in his book entitled "Second Treatise of Government" in 1689. ....

To understand government in America, you have to understand the American Constitution. The Preamble is a vital part of the Constitution. The Preamble is like the introduction to the rest of the documents of the Constitution. The Preamble talks about what is the purpose of the government existing in America (or what are the reasons why the government was created in the first place). The Preamble gives the government the right to promote a more perfect union, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare (like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and other benefits to the people), and to secure the blessings of liberty. These purposes of the Preamble are rather clear cut and transparently defined. To understand the American government, you have to learn basic governmental definitions as well. The basic civics related terms include the following words:

1). The consent of the governed is when the people are the sole origin of governmental power. That means that the people make up the government not a select group of unelected, individuals at all.

2). The separation of powers in America means that the government is divided into 3 branches (which are of course the legislative, executive, and judicial).

3). Checks and balances mean that one branch of government exercises some control over the others. One example is that the executive branch can issue a veto that can negate the legislative branch passing a law (and the legislative branch can’t overturn the veto when the Congress has given 2/3 of approval in overturning the veto from the President of the United States).

4). Federalism is when governmental powers are divided between the national government and the state government. In other words, there are certain actions that the federal government can do alone. There are certain acts that only the states can permit. Subsequently, there are duties that can be done by both the federal and state governments (or concurrent powers) like levying taxes and handling other responsibilities.

5). The rule of law simply means that in America, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All individuals living in America and all American citizens are accountable under the law (while they exist in American soil).

*In the Constitution, many Articles are in it to define the organization of the national government. Article I of the Constitution forms the legislative branch of the national government. This national government has 2 houses of Congress to make laws. Article 2 deals with the executive branch’s powers and Article 3 outlines the power of the federal courts to interpret the laws (the Supreme Court can’t make the laws. An amendment is a formal revision to the Constitution. This is sometimes necessary, because the USA changes all of the time. You need remedies to give citizens more liberty and new amendments can help create a better society). For a new amendment to be created, there must be a proposing of an amendment and then the ratifying of an amendment. In order to propose an amendment (as found in Article V of the Constitution), you can have a 2/3s vote of both houses of Congress (or require a national convention required by 2/3s of the state legislatures). To ratify an amendment, you can get approval by 3/4s of the state legislatures or have acceptance by conventions in the 3/4s of the states. The Enlightenment movement has a heavy influence on the Constitution. The Enlightenment promoted the divided powers of government,  thefreedom of speech, the right of the people to assemble, the freedom of religion, etc. On religious matters, the Constitution has been neutral. In other words, the Constitution protects religious liberty while at the same time the Constitution forbids the establishment of a religion in America. God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Nature’s God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Whole PHRASES in the Declaration are actually PARAPHRASES of Locke's SECOND TREATISE ON CIVIL GOVRNMENT. Expressions like "Nature's God" can be found in the writings of French and English DEIST philosophers whom Jefferson read, but NOT in the Bible. Christianity is a very influential religion in America then and now, but constitutional law didn’t total come from Christianity at all.

There are more people waking up in 2011. There is a huge slice of America living in poverty and these numbers are huge in across the world. Even in Oregon, there is a huge hunger crisis among children. So, it's morally right to have a global struggle against poverty. Many Austrian economic propagandists and reactionaries believe that economics should be based on gold worship and being against any government intervention at all (even if it's used for good purposes like feeding the hungry, giving education to people, and preventing corruption). These extremists in some cases call a person a Marxist or fascist if they disagree with their assumptions.To say that the poor should fend for themselves or beg for Christian charities (or private non profits) for help is sick. Some of these people don't care about the poor. Not all people are Christian. I respect real Christian charities, but even they can't care for every needy, sick, handicapped, and unemployed human being, especially in this economy. The Santa Barbara Rescue Mission was where someone beaten a disabled man by a staff. In the summer of 2011, a staff member assaulted a homeless man staying there who was disabled. The mission blamed the victim, called him derogatory names, and kicked him out. They refused to let him call 911, which is a violation of federal law. Residents are only allowed to stay for 10 days a month. Those who are workers are rarely given extensions. I believe in personal responsibility, but not personal denial of public help to those that need it. Fair taxes are a part of civilizations. Ironically, many private devices were either invented or influenced by government innovations from the Internet, space travel, communications, etc. They want to end all Social Security, all Medicare, and all welfare. They have made it clear. In America, about 45,000 people die every year. In the United States, the leading cause of bankruptcy is the inability to pay medical bills. Administrative cost is a problem. It's a good thing that I woke up about these things. It's hypocritical to yell about big government, yet you work as a politician in the employ of government. Also, you can't oppose the war on terror when you subsidize the military industrial complex building bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. So, we should end sanctions and end the war on terror saving trillions of dollars.

Many reactionaries use the states right mantra as an excuse to justify their ideologies. Now, back before federal laws enforced civil rights, some states suppressed civil rights of human beings. This suppression of human rights allowed certain businesses, institutions, etc. to not only segregate, but deny basic opportunities of groups of people in America. Today, these acts are illegal. Yet, even today, we have some folks wanting to union bust. This philosophy is rejected now in Wisconsin. Still, we have a long way to go in promoting liberty. We have some Republicans using redistricting, changing voter laws, and using obstacles in order to prevent people of color and the young to vote. Recently, the Florida state legislature passed a bill. This bill will overhaul Florida’s election laws. This law is a direct violation of voting rights in Florida. People who support the law believe that it was created to prevent voter fraud. This is a false argument, because incidents of voter fraud have been rare in Florida. There were no cases of it prior to the passage of the law. The law will heavily restrict early voting activities that will harm the rights of minority voters in Florida. The reason is that studies have proved that Hispanics, and African Americans are the most frequent early voters in Florida. In 2008, one-third of Florida's Hispanics and over half of the State's African-American voters cast their ballots during the two-week early vote period prior to Election Day. The new law purports to cut that early vote period nearly in half from 15 days to a mere eight, and completely eliminate voting the Sunday prior to the election, the day in 2008 where 32 percent of the black Floridian electorate voted. In addition to cutting down early voting, the law would not allow voters to change their names or addresses at the polling location on Election Day as has been allowed over the course of the past four decades. Given the high rights of foreclosures in the State, particularly within Hispanic and other minority communities, many families will have changed addresses since the last election. Many of them will be unaware of the new requirement and on Election Day will be forced to fill out a provisional ballot. What is the problem with the law's actions on provisional ballots? On average studies show they are only counted 50 percent of the time. It seems that the snakes don’t want the President to be elected via unjust laws. People have opposed this law from across the political spectrum. The law has stringent requirements and decreases early voting times as well. This law will restrict people form registering in a Third party. It can cause a decline in new registered voters. The League of Women Voter, the Boy Scouts, Democracia USA, and other groups oppose this policy. Gov. Rick Scott and Florida's Secretary of State, Kurt Browning filed a petition in federal court asking that the section of the Voting Rights Act that provides protection for minority voters in counties with detailed histories of minority discrimination in voting, be thrown out. This is unprecedented stuff. This is a violation of human rights. Our taxpayer dollars are going to pay for this evil policy of voter suppression in 2011. The right to vote is a human right. The evil people in the world want to use 2012 as a means to promote fascism, but the clock will never be turned back. Truth will prevail and justice will win in the end.

Some good news exists in the voting situation inside of America. The South Carolina voter ID law has been rejected by the Justice Department. The Justice Department said that the SC voter ID law will make it harder for minorities to vote. The Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said on Friday that South Carolina’s law didn’t meet the burden under the Voting Rights Act. He said that tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina may be unable to cast ballots under the South Carolina law (because they may not have the right identification). The Justice Department must approve changes to South Carolina’s election laws because of the state’s failure in the past to protect the voting rights of blacks. So, the state has a history of suppressing the voting rights of black Americans like many states in America. This was the first voter ID law to be refused by the federal agency in almost 20 years. The law didn’t meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting. Tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina's law because they don't have the right photo ID, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said. A Republican controlled legislature passed the law. The law was signed by Nikki Haley. Haley wants to be something that she’s not if you get what I’m saying. We know the deal. Governor Nikki Haley is something else. The reactionary Attorney General from SC named Alan Wilson wants to fight it in court. He’s a Republican. He denies that the law will stop people from voting, which is false since the law can be used to restrict citizens from voting (if they don’t adhere to the strict rules). The SC law requires voters to show poll workers a state issued driver’s license or several other alternative forms of photo ID. South Carolina is among 5 states that passed similar voter ID laws. The Supreme Court upheld the similar laws from Indiana and Georgia. Some Republicans want to prevent voter fraud, but voter fraud is very low at various states including nationwide. If the Republicans were so concerned about voter fraud, why did they expose the voter fraud in Florida during the 2000 Presidential election? They didn’t for obvious reasons. Democrats believe that the measures are aimed at reducing minority votes for their candidates. The Justice Department once rejected its voter ID law in 1994 until changes were made. South Carolina's law also required the state to determine how many voters lack state-issued IDs so that the Election Commission can work to make sure they know of the law changes. The Department of Motor Vehicles will issue free state photo identification cards to those voters. "Minority registered voters were nearly 20 percent more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised," Perez wrote, noting that the numbers could be even higher since the data submitted by the state doesn't include inactive voters. The ALEC (or the American Legislative Exchange Council) reactionary group promoting voter ID legislation is linked to the billionaire Koch brothers. Many of the voter ID laws reduces the time period of early voting that can restrict voting opportunities for many citizens. You will notice that GOP won’t mention the Diebold voting machines in Ohio. The Republicans want more regulations on voting to make more votes go for them. Republican Paul E. Schurick, the 2010 campaign manager for former Maryland governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., was convicted Tuesday by a Baltimore jury of four counts stemming from a robocall that prosecutor­s said was intended to suppress the black vote (in the Baltimore and Prince George’s County). Many states are reducing the time of hours workers have in DMV offices. Also, we should have rights and we have the right to live in the USA without restrictive laws. A PA GOPer admitted that voter ID laws aren’t needed in Pennsylvania, but he still wants to do it. The Wisconsin voter ID law forces women to pay an unconstitutional birth certificate poll tax to get a photo ID too.



Many conservatives are absolutely right that preachers have the right to endorse candidate and promote political causes (whether these clergymen embrace a left, right, center, or independent perspective). Preachers who politically promote candidates (whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents) are no threat or danger to America at all. A pluralist society is a reality in America. If you want to live in America, you have to accept that. There are many religions here, there are those who are atheists, and those who are agnostics. Many different groups exist here like Scientologists, Hindus, and other types of human beings. LBJ was one figure that caused the muzzling of many churches. He helped to pass a law which states that any nonprofit church shouldn’t promote a certain point of view (that promoted or opposed a candidate). This new law violated the First Amendment. The admonition of a candidate by a preacher isn’t immoral at all. This doesn’t mean that a church or a Pope is infallible. No human is infallible except God. The First Amendment is clear that Congress can’t make a law that abridges the freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion. This means that the government can’t create a law to restrict religious liberty rights of people inside of a religious building. This is why long ago, many abolitions spoke in the church to oppose slavery and condemn pro-slavery politicians. This is why preachers centuries ago spoke out against the oppression and injustices of the Roman Empire. That is why civil rights leaders in the USA spoke in the church opposing racist politicians by name during the 1950’s and the 1960’s. So, these actions of preachers opposing candidates have a legitimate historical track record. That is why it’s completely right for a preacher in the pulpit to publicly oppose the candidate Bull Connor when he was a local police chief. Churches’ tax exempt status shouldn’t be restricted if they have exercised their full religious expression rights. The expression of the marketplace of ideas is needed not less in order to promote freedom.




By Timothy
..
..