Statesman Sword: MUSIC COMPOSED BY 1% OF THE POPULATION

Occupy Vienna

Obviously most people realize we are not all equal in talent or circumstances. When Americans say that God created people equal, they are speaking about a basic aspect of our Law. We do not have a class who are allowed to murder and plunder, etc. We are all equal before the Law. No one is above the Law, including government officials.

In an opportunity, incentive-driven, free society we can pursue our talents and possibilities. Our 'constitutional due process guarantees,' in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. The powers of government must be applied uniformly for all citizens, and particular groups or individuals cannot receive uniquely singled out light nor heavy-handed treatment, nor selective prosecution.

The Occupy crowd weren't elected to represent the 99%, and they foster criminal activities like drugs and rape. If they aren't fostering them, they obstruct catching the rapists. Many are very scared that "Occupy" lawbreaking is given light prosecution. We fear the government allowing mob rule. We don't want Kristallnacht in America. Due process is fundamental to individual rights. We don't agree that the "Occupy" group has the right to obstruct justice, or to obstruct our peaceful lives, or to represent anyone.

Kimberley A. Strassel

Kimberley A. Strassel in her April 26th 2012 Wall Street Journal article, "Strassel: The President Has a List," explains that now something has already happened differently with the Obama campaign. She described the violation of due process by the Obama administration for Romney donors when they exercised their right to donate to Mitt Romney for a change in the Oval Office.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, single{d} you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: you made a mistake donating that money.

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

He's targeted insurers, oil firms, and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections.

The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. "But now," says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "...he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It's getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House's new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to "hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable," but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate.

He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one. Write to kim@wsj.com

We ought to be alarmed at Obama's tactics. Yes, something already happened. The President published a list, and smeared these donors. This is intimidation, but might also inflame an Obama cohort organization calling themselves, "Occupy Fill-in-the-Blank." These spawning groups remind us of Germany's Brown Shirts and the way socialists praised bullies and rewarded them at spa-like resorts/government-run enterprises in pre-WWII Germany, such as the U.S. government-run and spa-like enterprise, Solyndra, in America today.

Details Socialist 'Solyndra-Type' Bully Tactics Available on Netflix

On April 27, 2012 Becket Adams posted his article that references the WSJ Strassel article which generated thousands of online comments. Adams' article is called, "'Team Obama' Names and Shames Eight Private Citizens for Donating to Romney Campaign."

The Obama reelection team has publicly accused eight private citizens who donated to the Mitt Romney campaign of “betting against America” and of having “less-than-reputable” records. Apparently, making an example out of two GOP members of the Congress wasn't enough for President Obama; he has moved on to bigger game. “This past week, one of {the president's} campaign websites {KeepingGOPHonest} posted an item entitled ‘Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.’

“The White House has couched its attacks in the language of ‘disclosure’ and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals,” Strassel explains. However, the president is “doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies,” says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation.

And it’s probably only going to get worse from here. Why? Because, as Strassel points out, the money game is not going so well for “Team Obama.”

Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney,” Strassel writes. “The White House’s new strategy is thus to de-legitimize Mr. Romney by attacking his donors, as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

"We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices."

Kimberley Strassel explained:

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

Becket Adams scoffs, "But maybe the president and his election team have nothing to do with singling out these private citizens –"

But after checking their "KeepingGOPHonest" website disclosure, displayed above, Adams derisively understates America's contempt, "Well, there goes that argument."

"Best Qualified President in Fifty Years" ~Jack Welch

No one is above the Law, including government officials. In an opportunity, incentive-driven free society we can pursue our talents and possibilities. Our 'constitutional due process guarantees,' in the context of the United States, refer to how and why laws are enforced. The powers of government must provide uniform treatment of our citizens. Obama did not merely publish a list, he also pointed out things they might have done, for which they haven't been indicted.

This is a threat, not an abstract fact-checking conversation for "full disclosure."

On July 30, 2010 Obama said,"I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served-- his constituents very well." Charlie Rangel was not called a criminal by Obama, but Obama described these eight Romney donors as all having "less-than-reputable records," that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans." And Obama accused an energy CEO of profiting from oil?!

Fat Cat Profiting Off the People

Strange ... CEO Person Wants Profits

How and why did Obama suggest Romney donors were criminal? How? Obama heavy-handedly, without uniform treatment, only targeted a list of Romney donors, then suggested they had criminal activity. This clearly is not "due process" as guaranteed by the Constitution to Americans, and it is not First Amendment guaranteed Free Speech. Why does Obama do this? Obama seeks to frighten other donors out of giving.

Obama has violated the most basic aspect of our Law by accusing Mitt Romney donors without due process. A fundamental purpose of our Constitution is to limit government powers, not to use them to suppress the political opposition. Donations are a function of free speech. Use of governmental power for intimidation breaches, among other things, the presumption of innocence and trial by jury. Their alleged "crime" was making a donation for Mitt Romney.

Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Oakland Demonstrators Focus On
Recording and Transmitting Images

Chairmen Obama

Obama has provoked us a in host of different ways over the last three years. "American Outrage" exploded in the 2010 GOP Landslide. No American can vote for Obama 2012 either, in good conscience. "Nancy" commented on Strassel's revelation about Obama's List, and defiantly said: "I don't like Romney either, but it's for darn sure I'll vote for him over Chairman Obama."

Civil Conflict

Civil conflict within Occupy Wall Street over supporting Obama is one violent facet of the dubious "movement" openly pushing for a crippling general strike on May 1st. May Day protests by groups connected to the Occupy movement were also announced in Amsterdam, Athens, Auckland, Barcelona, London, Melbourne, Seoul and Toronto, among other world cities. Occupy promises up surge as activists prepare for 'summer of discontent'

Adbusters has even tried to create a sort of cautionary tale for OWS followers by advancing the idea that the Tea Party is now a co-opted movement of Beltway Republicans — a fate they claim could befall Occupy with Democrats should they support Obama.

On October 6, 2011 Obama said he thinks the Occupy crowd represent a broad-based group. Yet

Brad Sexton online at TheBlaze tells us what Adbusters says, “It’s up to you to decide if our movement goes the way of Paris ’68, the dust bin of could-have-been-insurrections, or something more daring, more inspiring, something not yet dreamed.”

Take that in for a moment. The General Strike of May 1968 in France involved millions of workers and almost brought down the government of Charles De Gaulle. If that’s not disruptive enough, perhaps the famed Paris Commune of 1870 — which ended in horrific bloodshed — is more the desired end game.

The battle for Paris ended in Père Lachaise cemetery. Approximately twenty thousand people were executed during the year of the Reign of Terror. During Bloody Week, twently thousand or more Communards - men, women, and children - were slaughtered in the streets or executed without trial.

Stephen Gutowski on 11/05/2011 posted his article, "Occupy Movement's Disturbing Reaction to Rape." Gutowski said:

This is a pervasive problem, emblematic of exactly why we don’t want liberal utopians pushing their real-life dystopias on us. No free blankets and counseling for rapists? That’s seriously scary.

Frances Fox Piven, contemporary American Marxists, has made it clear that the Occupy movement has always been on Barack Obama’s side and always will be. And Obama "supports" them.

If the common lack of a college education does not call into question these young peoples’ motivations, the organizations funding the movement should. First of all, the original call to action was not from an American citizen or group. Rather, it came from a foreign magazine.

Furthermore, much of the funding for the protestors comes from unions. Finally, although the protests are obviously very liberal, many of those participating openly admit to be anarchists.

Vancouver Riots After Losing Stanley Cup Riot Breaks Out After Game June 15, 2011

Even with such characters affiliating themselves with Occupy Wall Street, President Barack Obama said in a press conference that he sympathizes with them.

Occupy Wall Street protester arrested during a "Spring Training"
march in Financial District in New York

In the same conference he said, “Not only did the financial sector, with the Republican Party in Congress, fight us every step in the way. But now you’ve got these same folks arguing we should roll back all those reforms and go back to the way it was,” Obama said. “That does not make sense to the American people. They are frustrated by it and they will continue to be frustrated by it until they get the sense that everyone is playing by the same rules.”

It’s curious that such a small group of young college students with liberal views can catch the president’s attention, while at the same time he didn’t seem to hear tens of thousands of Tea Party ... protesters with a conservative perspective.

By painting Republicans as the enemy yet again, Obama shows compromise and financial recovery are not his goals. Rather, by showing his support of this movement, it appears his goal lies somewhere in the cacophony of Occupy Wall Street, somewhere between wealth redistribution and the destruction of capitalism.

As Strassel concluded:

"If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, ... he doesn't deserve to be one."

As Milton Friedman explained, the Occupy crowd won't find jobs by the order of a bureau, but in free enterprise ventures:

"In regard to the unsatisfactory distribution of wealth, the only cases in recorded history where the masses and ordinary people escaped from grinding poverty was in the free enterprise system where individuals pursue their separate interests.

Neither political nor economic self-interest rewards virtue. There are no angels who can organize society for us. Soviet and China systems are also based on greed. All systems are.

The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. No other system can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."

GREED IN THE CHINESE

Stamping the iPhone brand to a generic phone is a somewhat expected forgery. But officials from China’s Industry and Commerce Administration announced today that they have confiscated six hundred eighty-one iPhone branded gas burners. According to media reports, these stoves were being manufactured in a factory in Wuhan, China.

Brand affinity, however, is a phenomenon that crosses borders: some Chinese see the iPhone brand as symbolic ticket to the elite upper class, and what they want, ... they must fake.

RUSSIAN GREED

So-called "merchant of death" Viktor Bout was ready to deliver weapons by the planeload before being arrested in a sting operation, prosecutors said on the first day of testimony in his trial in New York.

Bout is facing charges he conspired to arm Colombia's FARC guerrillas
(AFP/File, Nicolas Asfouri)

In his opening statement, at the start of the closely watched trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan McGuire said Bout was doomed by greed when he tried to sell undercover agents an arsenal that he expected to be used against U.S. pilots in Colombia.

DEMOCRATS' GREED

What Socialism is made of: breadlines and 90% of the people in poverty.

Obama averred that when it came to channeling public funds into private hands, “We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra.” He bragged that the $535 billion government loan, to his own family and friends, had enabled the company to build the state-of-the-art factory.

Not content with that rosy portrait, the president further predicted a “ripple effect”: Obama touted it as a redistribution success story that would be rippling jobs, growth, and spectacular success for the foreseeable future; but his was.a breathtaking misrepresentation.

Happily, it proved insufficient to dupe investors who, unlike taxpayers, get to choose where their money goes. They stacked what the administration was saying against what the PWC auditors were saying, and wisely went with PWC. Solyndra had to pull its initial public offering due to lack of interest.

But fraud doesn’t have to be fully successful to be a fraud, and this one still had another chapter to go. As the IPO failed and the company inevitably sank in a sea of red ink, Solyndra’s panicked backers pleaded with the administration to restructure the loan terms — to insulate them from their poor business judgment, allowing them to recoup some of their investment while the public took the fall.

It should go without saying that the duty of soi-disant public servants is to serve the public. As structured, the loan gave the public first dibs on Solyndra’s assets if it collapsed, and, as we’ve seen, the law requires it. There was no good reason to contemplate a change. OMB had figured out that there was no economic sense in restructuring: Solyndra was heading for bankruptcy anyway, and an immediate liquidation would net the government a better deal — about $170 million better.

But with numbing predictability, the Obama administration proceeded with an unjustifiable restructuring. In exchange for lending some of their own money and thus buying more time, Solyndra officials were given priority over taxpayers with respect to the first $75 million in the event of a bankruptcy

Obama's rationalization is priceless: his actions were necessary “...to create a situation whereby investors felt there was a value in their investment.” But Barack Obama, his friends and his family knew Solyndra had no value. In his new so-called "redistribution" scheme, they made "the public" even bigger saps. The word for such schemes is fraud.

COMMENT

But nobody is surprised to observe a communist President abuse government power in a capitalist system to spread the evils of socialism and the inevitable mediocre spiral into breadlines and medieval poverty. Wealth redistribution IS the destruction of capitalism, and the destruction of respect for private property. In other words, the end of freedom. When Barack Obama says he sympathizes with with Occupy Wall Street, was it their rape culture? tent cities? drugs? chaos? all the above? We do see Barack taking his big fees from Goldman Sachs. He is Wall Street.

Curious that such a small group of young college students with liberal views can catch the president’s attention while at the same time he didn’t seem to hear millions of Americans at Tea Party rallies who were protesting with a conservative perspective. Yet again Barack Obama treats Republicans as the enemy, even after he admitted the KKK were part of the Democrat Party.

...from Obama's support of this movement, it appears his goal lies somewhere in the cacophony of Occupy Wall Street, somewhere between wealth redistribution and the destruction of capitalism.

... many of those participating openly admit to be anarchists ... and President Obama said in a press conference that he sympathizes with them."

Several hundred indignados, culture jammers and occupiers from across Europe swarmed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters in Brussels in a bold attempt to shut it down. We just might see May’s uprising snowball into a wildcat consumer revolt.

We believe in the improvability of the condition of man, and we have acted on that behalf, in opposition to those who consider man as a beast of burden made to be rode by him who has genius enough to get a bridle into his mouth. ~Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1810. ME 12:351

Thomas Jefferson Memorial

If a people are so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control, their reformation must be taken up ab incunabulis. Their minds must be informed by education what is right and what wrong, must be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible.

In all cases, they must follow truth as the only safe guide and eschew error which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government. ~Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:234

The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training. ~Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1824. ME 16:22

Without becoming familiarized with the habits and practice of self-government, ... the political vessel is all sail and no ballast. ~Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 1822. FE 10:237

General Washington

General Washington has often declared to me that he considered our new Constitution as an experiment on the practicability of republican government, and with what dose of liberty man could be trusted for his own good; that he was determined the experiment should have a fair trial, and would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it. ~Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:51

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. ~Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

Jefferson commented to Samuel H. Smith that "...an interesting treasure is added to your city, now become the depository of unquestionably the choicest collection of books in the U.S., and I hope it will not be without some general effect on the literature of our country."

Jefferson was paid $23,950 for 6487 volumes based on measurements of the sizes of the books. By 1814 when the British burned the nation's Capitol and the Library of Congress, Jefferson had acquired the largest personal collection of books in the United States.

Jefferson offered to sell his library to Congress as a replacement for the collection destroyed by the British during the War of 1812. Congress purchased Jefferson's library for $23,950 in 1815. A second fire on Christmas Eve of 1851, destroyed nearly two thirds of the 6,487 volumes Congress had purchased from Jefferson.

The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate.
They are the result of habit and long training.
--Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1824. ME 16:22

LINKS TO OTHER ARTICLES