So how much of what is happening in the course of the ongoing financial debacle is the result of a deliberate strategy to destroy capitalism in the U.S.? While it would be truly idiotic to think that the answer is “all” or “most,” it does seem that a reasonable answer might be “some.” There is an intriguing article at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/the-cloward-piven-strategy/
To quote a small portion:
The 2008 financial crisis has all of the earmarks of a Cloward-Piven strategy assault against the capitalist system. Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center recently explained that “community organizers” (1) “intimidate banks into making high risk loans to customers with poor credit,” (2) “occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes,” and, through these thuggish tactics, (3) compel “financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.”
Now one can not rationally blame Wall Street hyper-greed and governmental incompetence and corruption on such a strategy but it would be equally irrational to assume something of this sort paid no part.
This leads us – or at least me – to the question of whether Comrade Zero and his gaggle of the corrupt are really as foolish and incompetent as they seem and, truth is, I very much doubt it. What I think we’re seeing is a real agenda very much different from their professed agenda in which preserving a constitutional republic isn’t on the radar at all but destroying the system and replacing it with one to their liking is very much there. What other credible explanation is there for their utter lack of regard for the tsunami of debt they’re creating that can not possibly be repaid in constant dollars? For their unremitting efforts to get health care “reform” enacted before there is even a plan to enact? (And it is an historical curiosity how the most boneheaded, ham-handed and preposterous legislation is labeled “reform” rather than accurately characterizing it as the radical destruction it typically is.) It was well known, if disregarded by the MSM tools and fools, that Comrade Zero had never run a business or served in any executive capacity whatsoever. Indeed, if he had opened a lemonade stand as a littler zero he would have had more executive experience than he actually had. But to the cretins of the left, the presidency of the U.S., arguably the most powerful position in the world, was just a fine place for on the job learning with the teachers being . . . well, who? Big Nancy? Rahm the savage? Joe the walking gaffe machine? So here we are but while he may well be utterly inept at the job he was elected to the truth is also that he’s no fool and it would be dangerous to blithely assume otherwise.
Which brings me in a kind of indirect fashion to how to throttle the beast that the Thing in D.C. has become. While we may well see secession gathering steam in the future by far the preferred course of action is for the states to aggressively assert the Tenth Amendment and nullify unconstitutional D.C. enactments. For the Constitution to be enforced as it is written the critical step is to reject the supremacy of SCOTUS, that’s Supreme Court of the U.S. for those unfamiliar with the acronym. (As an aside, there is now a new acronym brought about by little o: TOTUS.. That’s Teleprompter of the U.S.) How can there be a constitutional federal republic among states if SCOTUS has the ability to make final decisions subject to no control or override? There can not be and such was apparent to Thomas Jefferson a few hundred years ago:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. – Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis
In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow… The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. – Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane
The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches. – Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance
So who gets to decide? Who is the “ultimate arbiter?” In Jefferson’s view:
But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best. – Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright
There is no doubt a convention of the states in this day and age would be a sort of ultimate political circus but if the D.C. Beast will not otherwise be tamed then bring it on! States have started to assert nullification but more must do so and must do so actively. Pick some massive bit of recent D.C. unconstitutional swill, it’s not hard there is so much to choose from. Let a states or, better yet, several of them refuse to enforce it within its borders AND direct its citizens not to pay taxes attributed to it and something would happen. This is hardly a sophisticated blueprint for the sort of nullification action that needs to happen but the essential point is the states must take on the D.C. Beast and do so in some kind of coordinated fashion that involves strangling it of tax revenue at the same time. How can Comrade Zero, or his shrub-like predecessor be commander in chief for two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the incomprehensible “war on terror” or the astonishing “war on drugs” when Congress has not declared war? Let the states start to nullify actions related to these boondoggles and direct non-payment of taxes and we will certainly see action.
“When in the course of human events . . . . “ Seems we’re about back where we started.
Report Error
