Tuesday - October 14, 2003
Strikes in California, Clark's Call for a Civil Corps and Other Omens of
Bad Times Ahead
California is being wracked with strikes
across the state right now. Hmmm. They just ousted the Democrat governor.
Coincidence? Not!
The Democratic Party, long dominated by
Soviet spies like Harry Hopkins and by communist sympathizers and other ultra
socialists, has been smacked in the face, the rug pulled out from under them by
the election of a moderate socialist to the Executive branch of the state of
California. The new governor is hardly differentiable from a democrat with his
support for socialism and gun control, so why are they so upset? The obvious
answer is because politics isn't about ideas, it's about power. Ideas are only
used to get the people to grant them power. Thus, anyone on the opposite side of
the power aisle who shares their ideas must be attacked more ruthlessly than
those whose ideas are different.
I'm always surprised that the
"brilliant" pundits never see this. Why did Stalin attack Trotsky? They were
both brutal killers, believers in absolute control of the people by a
dictatorship of the elite. Their only difference was that Stalin thought that he
should be that elite dictator, and Trotsky thought he was the one to do it. I've
no doubt that Trotsky would have killed nearly as many people that Stalin did
had he been the winner.
Why did
the communists hate the fascists? Because their philosophies are nearly
identical.
Why do the Democrats
attack centrist Republicans so viciously? Because if the Republicans were to
drift left, the Democrats would no longer be able to claim that part of the
political spectrum as their own.
So now the discipline of the
ComIntern, er, I mean the Democrats has declared that they will make the new
governor's term as chaotic as possible with strikes and mayhem. Watch and wait
to see more and more unions strike, and watch and wait as the violence and
vitriol ramp up as the polemicists sling lies and distortions for the purpose of
agitation and propaganda. The Soviets call this agitprop.
On the other side of the country,
an old idea is being floated by Wes Clark: He wants a civilian corps to respond
to emergencies and be called up just like the military reserves are. This idea
has been put forward many, many times. Clinton started the fraudulent and
patronage laden Americorps on the same idea. It has been floated in military
journals like the U.S. Naval Institute "Proceedings" and won't seem to go away.
There's a reason it keeps getting brought up. It's a great way to control more
and more of the population, a primary goal of all politicians, and it promises
to let them pay people to be full time activists.
Think of it like this. Americorps
has been nothing more than a way to take young activists and give them a salary
while they do nothing except agitate for the Democratic party. It was a great
success only from this perspective. Now, not only would this small corps be
available, but people who can get their own jobs can be called away from those
jobs without risk of losing them.
Whom would this benefit? Unions.
Not the castle in the sky idea of unions working for better wages and working
conditions, but the unions that really exist that are only concerned with power.
Who financed and managed the World
Trade riots in Seattle? Unions, specifically the ILWU among probably others. How
were these people able to do this? Well, they couldn't keep up the pace, because
their riot instigators only get so much vacation time. However, if the federal
government would pay their salaries while they went away for a few weeks a year
for training, and were able to be called up in "emergencies" as needed, the
union can get their members paid and at the same time get new members hired at
the companies that need them, increasing their dues while at the same time
creating small armies.
You think
I'm stretching this too far? Time will tell. But if you give the President of
the United States, or any political leader, the ability to call up non-military
armies for whatever pretense he wants, this is what will happen.
Why then don't they just do this
with the military reserves? Well, they sometimes do, but only outside of the
country. The Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits using the military in a
domestic police role keeps this from being abused, as does the military's
culture of being apolitical.
Notice that the most blatant abuse
of Posse Comitatus was committed by Wes Clark himself. As the Commanding General
of the Fourth Infantry Division in Fort Hood, Texas General Clark volunteered
his troops and equipment to slaughter the Church members of Waco. I wonder what
uses he could find for a trained crew unfettered by Posse Comitatus and
controlled solely by him.
With
this new idea, the unions that are striking in California now would be augmented
by this corps. In a really sick twist, if the strikes get especially bad, a
President like Clark could order the new civil corps to take over the work of
the striking workers or enforce the unions' ability to inflict damage on the
companies resisting union demands. For instance, if the ILWU strikes they could
stop loading and unloading ships at the harbor. The corps would then be called
up as an emergency measure to handle strategically necessary ships at another
facility, or even at the same facility, but bypassing the control of the port
authority.
This civil corps being
called for by Wesley Clark is a bad, sick idea. I'm not surprised that a
Clintonista is supporting it. The power of the Clintons is undiminished by being
out of the White House and will only falter if their lackey loses the
nomination. Let's hope that Howard Dean succeeds. For all his faults, he at
least appears to be anti-Clinton. If I see the Dean campaign correctly, he is
being fought by the Clintonistas not because his ideas are so different from
Clinton's, but because if he wins he will strip Clinton of most of his power.
Until a Democrat gets in the White House, Clinton and his estranged wife will
continue to be viewed as the leaders of the the party. If Dean wins the
nomination, then even if he doesn't win the election, he will have severely
weakened Clinton's hold on the Democratic party. Maybe when that happens, we'll
be able to learn why Clinton was taking all those trips to Moscow when he was
young.
Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents
|
