The Capitalism Death March
By: Eddie Clements
At what point does outrage expressed in these many words by many writers on the internet and in print, and TV and radio hosts, transform to widespread dissatisfaction among enough voters to force action? There are some to whom Obama can keep serving the koolaid, and they will continue to drink it. Others who sampled the koolaid have been made ill.
The absurdities we are currently experiencing are dissolving into disorder. AIG employees are now receiving death threats â€“ over monies earned by contractual obligation. Whether the threats may translate into action may be beside the point. This is because the problem from the administration/Congressional perspective is not those making threats of violence, rather it is the subjects of the threats. As evidence of this point, Obama compares recipients of bonuses at AIG to suicide bombers, when he will not even call the USâ€™ sworn enemies terrorists or even enemy combatants, but has nothing to say regarding those making threats. Indeed, he encourages them.
At first it appeared the object of accusations against AIG employees was to create a distraction â€“ a simple time-worn strategy â€“ to deflect attention from some decisions being made by the administration, and from Congressâ€™ (read: Democratsâ€™) contribution to the economic crisis. However, successful capitalists are an enemy being created that is more than straw man; they are singled out as the prime cause of inequity and destabilization of the whole society â€“ which must be corrected. Capitalists are the problem that must be resolved. Obama is setting the stage to say capitalists commit hate crimes against all US citizens by practicing their craft. Democrats and Obama have a solution.
It would appear then that this is a civil insurrection instigated by the President himself against citizens of his own country â€“ with the purpose of creating an excuse to seize absolute power. I have said in previous articles that power was what this election was all about, and other articles paralleling the current political climate to the rise of the NAZIâ€™s in Germany. â€œHope and changeâ€ was just bumper-sticker campaign fluff. A huge deception is creating circumstances around which fundamental makeover of the whole USA might be undertaken.
Even while contemplating such a possibility, one could only imagine the mechanics of the reality. Now those mechanics are becoming more clear.
Not only must capitalism be destroyed, but democracy as defined in our Constitution. Imposing a â€œshare the wealthâ€ paradigm upon a previously free people largely opposed to the idea is incompatible with the current Constitution, specifically property rights, contracts, habeas corpus (the suspension of which is probably the reason he admires Lincoln) and other provisions protecting rights and freedoms. The changes Obama alluded to in his radio conversation in 2001 (what government â€œmust doâ€ for citizens) must be imposed instead of voted on, because the current mechanism for amending the Constitution is too slow and cumbersome (intended by the framers). Voters would never agree to sweeping changes like Obama believes in, so it has to be forced on us. But how?
Democracy is incompatible with the socialist/communist vision. However, order is necessary to any society. Individuals or groups (or organized gangs, which are known to exist) can threaten security of law-and-order-abiding citizens in their homes, and the normal course of commerce. The primary function of government is to maintain order, but it can be economic disorder, it doesnâ€™t have to be civil unrest. If disorder begins to take hold, masses of people will call for order to be restored. The system under which that restoration takes place doesnâ€™t matter as long as people feel secure from arbitrary actions by others not in authority. Calls for order create an excuse to declare martial law, call out federal troops to domestic locations in the case of civil demonstration, abridge Constitutional rights and suspend elections. The right to peaceably assemble (tea parties) could be stopped. Some will grumble at first, but when a time has passed, citizens will have become used to operating under a new system. The new conditions will then become status quo â€“ effectively holding the Constitution in abeyance without actual amendment by the prescribed methods. A new constitution can then be written favoring a more socialist and totalitarian governing model, with only one political party allowed, Democrats. This would be more acceptable if done under the auspices of maintaining order.
All of this is likely to happen prior to 2010 elections. It would not be unexpected to encounter a debilitating â€œOctober surpriseâ€ before November election day 2010, in which the above scenario could be realized. The reason is off-year elections tend to favor parties out of power. There is every reason to believe there is now and will be more widespread discontent with the course of actions currently undertaken, and that Democrat majorities will disappear. Such an event would forestall further attempts at shaping the US government into the Democrat/Obama image. There is thus a definite timetable in which to act, which is why Obama is pushing for so much so quickly. Democrat trial balloons are being floated as precursors to power grabs. Example: the House vote for a bill that violates specific prohibitions, at least ex-post facto and bill of attainder, taxing AIG bonuses. Acceptance by media and Democrat supporters thus establish â€œfairnessâ€ as a basis to allow government to cherry-pick which contract agreements are valid and those that may be voided, regulating all commerce and not just interstate commerce. Example: a Representative of one district in Massachusetts, Barney Frank, whose committee demands names of individuals at AIG receiving bonuses. Frank appears on TV and elsewhere calling for regulation of pay for all executives at private companies, an unprecedented interference in private business. Example: government takeover of the automobile industry, instead of reorganization under bankruptcy. Reorganization would nullify union contracts, and unions are objects of Democrat protection because of their financial support for Democrats.
Establishing unions in as many businesses as possible will increase labor costs, traditionally the largest expense of any company. The latest plan promoted by the administration will allow the Secretary of the Treasury to seize control of any company â€“ not just banks. Any company then will be subject to nationalization. Which companies? Those unionized, or considered strategic for the national interest, and/or managed by Democrat loyalists. Other criteria may emerge.
Government ownership of banks unfortunately creates a situation where the government will control who does or doesnâ€™t get credit. Consumer credit is not as extensive as business loans. Credit lines to companies provide smooth operations during cycles of diminished cash flow, such as with retailers who recoup most of their revenues at Christmas. Deciding who gets what, when, and how much can stifle capitalism easier than anything. The push to nationalize banks is a part of this strategy.
In a previous piece, I asked the question: Is any of this legal? It isnâ€™t legal and Democrats know it. But they wonâ€™t tell us that. They will act like itâ€™s perfectly all right. The purpose here is not to responsibly discharge their duty to citizens of the United States under the Constitution. Their purpose is to accumulate power and dictate terms of behavior.
MSM criticism of Obama goes to disappointment in his style, not the substance of policy. Other criticism from commentators, with few exceptions, go to specific policy proposals where an opinion is advanced how to improve on that policy, Geithner is not performing correctly, etc. None of this is relevant. Obama is an ideologue, doing exactly what he wants. He just has to finesse the details of procedure as resistance develops.
Obamaâ€™s course is set in stone; the destruction of capitalism. He has the arrogance and determination to see it through, much as Adolph Hitler led Germany to rise â€“ and fall.