I know there are good people who are members of the #Occupy movement. I know that they have legitimate grievances, many of which I agree with. Unfortunately they are in an extreme minority. I’d say they make up no more than 1% of the #Occupy crowd. The other 99% are a bunch of thugs and vagabonds.
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes. Buck Murdock
I support the #Occupy folks who are upset with the Wall Street bail outs. I am too. But remember, it takes two to tango. Wall Street asked for the money, DC gave it to them. The get-away driver is just as guilty of bank robbery as the guy holding the gun. Go #Occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I support the #Occupy folks who are upset with the rising cost of college tuition especially in light of the low returns a degree brings. It simply is not a good investment. I also support the #Occupy folks who are upset with outrageous salaries and compensation packages. The outrageous salaries and compensation packages of college professors is disturbing and also the number one cause of the rising cost of college tuition. Go #Occupy the teachers’ lounge.
I support the Occupy folks who are upset with the sordid and unethical business-as-usual approach our elected officials take to commandeering and then spending our hard earned money. I resent that they make laws that govern me simply because someone with deep pockets pays them to. I am as tired as the OWS crowd about them passing laws that tell people that they cannot marry whom they want, smoke what they want or in anyway infringe on liberty. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else then there should not be a law against it. Go #Occupy Capital Hill.
I support the #Occupy folks who are upset with discrimination. The color of a person’s skin, their religious beliefs, their ethnic background, geographic ancestry, political affiliation, gender, sexual orientation or who one considers the coolest Ninja Turtle (Michelangelo) should not prevent them from getting a job or lease an apartment. It also should not be a reason why they are selected for a job or get that coveted loft in the East Village. Discrimination is always bad. Go #Occupy the Rainbow Coalition, NOW, KKK, NAACP, DNC (oops I already mentioned the KKK), MSNBC, US Department of Labor or HUD.
I do not support any of the #Occupy folks who have at any time participated in any act injurious to anyone. Once you rape, stab, steal from, vandalize or otherwise deface someone else or their property you have lost your argument. I don’t care what your grievances may be you are wrong. You are a criminal and should be handled accordingly. Nothing you have to say is worth hearing.
Protesting perceived wrongs is a Constitutional right. It doesn’t matter whether I agree with your view or not I still support your right to express your beliefs. However, there is never a reason to riot. I abhor violence but there is one way to handle rioting – bullets. Inhumane? Nope. Anyone who riots has, of their own decision, divorced themselves from the human race. A riotous act is a rejection of ones humanity and an adoption of the laws of the animal kingdom. As sad as it is, sometimes you have to shoot Old Yeller.
I do have an issue with #Occupy math. At no time in US history has 1% of the population controlled 90% percent of the wealth. It is a figure of speech not an actual statistic. The top 1% generate 40% of the wealth but they control none of it. The federal government controls 100% of US wealth.
Ugh, that’ll never do. Stewie Griffin
Economically about 8% of Americans are wealthy (worth at least a million bucks) and about 15% would qualify as poor. That leaves 77% making up the middle class. Half of all income tax dollars are paid by the top 5% of wage earners. The bottom 15% of wage earners do not pay any income taxes. Now who isn’t paying their fair share? Incidentally the bottom 15% have a higher quality of life than the 15% just above them who do pay taxes. Perhaps you should try #Occupying a math class.
Not only is the 1% vs. the 99% mathematically incorrect it also is yet another attempt by people to pigeon hole everyone into one of two groups – Liberals or Conservatives. As I have already explained, the two-party thought process is the root of all of America’s evils. If you are not a Democrat you must be a Republican or vice versa. In actuality more people are Independents than either. There is no 1%. There is no 99%. That is pure fiction. Anyone who says differently is lying, stupid or some mixture of the two. There is an 8%, a 15% and a 77% and within the 77% there are any number of sub-groups. In the US the percentage of rich is higher than any other country, the percentage of poor is the lowest in the world and most countries don’t even have a middle class.
I have a suggestion for all of the good #Occupy folks, the ones making intelligent arguments and civil protestations for legitimate grievances. Extract yourselves from Wall Street – leave the predatory lenders and social justice parasites to deal with each other. Go grab a slice of pizza or a cup of Joe and maybe open a dialog with someone from the Tea Party. If you both stop yelling and start listening you might find that you have a whole lot in common.
Although the American form of government has its origins in ancient Greece it borrows greatly from the aristocratic government of pre-parliamentary England – the very government we fought to escape. For centuries England has been a nation of two classes – nobility and commoners. Even with the establishment of the Westminster Parliament in 1801 those old affiliations remained with the founding of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Thus began the myth of the two-party system.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination’s. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. George Washington
When Parliament was formed into the two houses of Commons and Lords the perception (and possibly even the original intent) was to create a form of government that equally represented both classes of English society. I think the English citizens then and now would tell you that they don’t feel the members of the House of Commons represent the views of the commoner. The members of the House of Commons are merely second tier nobility.
Unfortunately, that has also been the result in our two-party system. Our current version of constitutional democracy presents itself to the masses as being made up of Republicans and Democrats but that is misleading. Sure these two groups fight a lot but they are not two separate parties but rather two factions of the same party. In actuality our two parties are the government and the citizenry – nobility and commoners. What would our founding fathers think of that?
It might actually surprise you that some would be delighted. Though most of the founding fathers were good men not all were. Take Alexander Hamilton who was a founding father and the first Secretary of the Treasury; to this day his face graces the $10 bill. Hamilton was a Federalist meaning that he was against the notion of “States Rights” and for a totalitarian federal government. In a speech in June of 1787 Hamilton defined his vision of our new government. He called for a Senate made up of lifetime appointees while the House of Representatives would be up for re-election every three years. It essence an inflexible and permanent nobility and commoners subject to constant outside influence.
To head the legislative branch he suggested not a President but rather what he called an “elective monarch.” Hamilton based his new government on what he claimed was the best model yet established, the British government. The great irony of Alexander Hamilton is that though he was considered a staunch abolitionist he also championed a form of government that relegated all but a chosen few to a life of servitude. The one aspect that he did not want to copy from the Brits was their notion of “free trade” opting instead for an economic philosophy favoring strong government intervention.
See, not a nice guy at all. He kind of reminds me of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. To me Reid is the archetypal Democratic politician, trumpeting equality and fairness while secretly trying to return us to the aristocracy of 18th Century England. Reid is one of the best at promoting class warfare, another governing philosophy inherited from the British model – divide and concur.
Anyone who has ever studied English history knows that century’s of British monarchs used clan warfare as a preventative against organized rebellion. The crown often pitted Scottish families against one another through deception. If you step away from your morality for a moment you can see the genius in this – if the people are busy fighting amongst themselves they won’t notice what you’re doing.
Our current politicians still employ this philosophy as is evidenced by their constantly playing the race card or the gender card or the religion card or diametrically opposed political parties. It’s to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they rob us blind. And Harry Reid is one of the grand puppet masters. Class warfare is one of the shiny objects (more on those HERE) politicians use to distract us from the real issues and that’s why each American needs to choose whether we excuse ourselves from class warfare or we become puppets to be ruled.
Another founding father that was kind of a putz was John Adams, the second President of the United States. Though he was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence once he became President, Adams found the US Constitution to be an annoyance. He signed into law the treasonous Sedition Act of 1798 which all but nullified 1st Amendment rights. Adams began arresting any journalists who publicly opposed his administration. In the case of Benjamin Franklin Bache (grandson of Benjamin Franklin) he was formally arrested before the Sedition Act actually went into law. Jefferson would restore the 1st Amendment when he followed Adams as President.
Adams, like Hamilton, also felt that the Presidency should be replaced by a monarchy and that the federal government should be all powerful. Adams was also instrumental in excluding women and blacks from voting as they had been allowed to do under Washington. John Adams would love the way our government works today because it exists solely to benefit bureaucrats, the modern aristocracy. If there is a modern equivalent to Adams it would have to be Senator John McCain – he presents himself as a conservative but his views are progressive which means big government and fewer civil liberties. Oddly enough the man that defeated McCain for the Presidency, Barrack Obama also reminds me of John Adams because he ran as a moderate but his policies have been extremely liberal.
George Washington in his infinite wisdom foresaw that a two-party system was detrimental to a nation built on individual freedom and equal representation. He theorized that a two-party system was freedom’s “worst enemy.” In his farewell address, Washington said of the two-party system, “It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
That sounds a whole lot like what we have today doesn’t it?
The issues assailing our great nation these days are many and complex. Odd that as a people we have allowed politicians and the media to manipulate us into approaching each of them in only two ways – liberalism and conservatism.
Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. Ferris Bueller
Watch a national news broadcast this evening and you’ll see what I mean. Their dichotomous syntax is geared to maintain a two-party system – bipartisanship, other side of the aisle, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative. Take one from column A and one from column B. That is not America as defined by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or Benjamin Franklin. It is the paradigm that defined the British Empire circa 1776.
The purpose of this blog is to examine things in their totality. The problems that divide us are too complex to solve simply by looking at them from only two angles. In fact, that mentality is why we have so many problems to begin with.