Different and Dangerous: Chain Reaction Chaos
February 28th, 2011
By Barry Secrest
What a mess virtually anywhere we look. While the Democratic "Fleedom Fighters" of Wisconsin hide-out from their constituents, the Mideast continues its implosion, and the Iranians continue to garner ever more power for their Caliphate building, twelfth Imam seeking misadventures. Meanwhile, the worrisome protests, the world over, have reportedly now spread into North Korea with even a nibble in China.
But looked at in another way, it's almost as if the "democracy" protests, which started in Tunisia and spread throughout the Arab world, have seemingly found their way, somehow, to the shores of America of all places. So the question then quite logically becomes, is there a connection between an Arab world on fire and the worker's party protests here in America, and are these truly Democracy protests?
The answer is indeed, there may in fact be a connection, and talk of democracy might only be the spark-plug, as we are noticing a certain, very specific commonality at play in each of these events, and that commonality goes by the name of chain-reaction chaos by any measure available. So where does it all begin or end? To answer that question, all that one can do is to try to root out the various connections, and each of those connections will always have a sort of impetus built into itself. Our closest verifiable connection can obviously be found right here at home, along with the rather bizarre antics of the Democrats of Fleedom in Wisconsin, and that particular connection stands out as one bit of the mystery finally solved.
An Innocent Coincidence?
In an increasingly hemorrhagic naivete' concerning all things political, the one thing both I, and to be sure many others, couldn't quite figure out was the seeming benevolence of the Federal Government's stimulus program which went out, in large part, to all of the State Governments. This even while the Federal Government had virtually ignored the State's assertions that their rights were being abrogated under Obamacare. Granted, we both knew and understood that the States, as a result of their acceptance of Stimulus, would be coerced into more self-funding of various programs in the future, thereby reducing the Fed's outlays for these same services. It is also a granted that we understood that there was a certain amount of payola involved, as we had all experienced the Obama administration's penchant for a largely self-interested ideological agenda, in the first place.
But, still...there was something missing, much like an incomplete puzzle with one final missing piece-- easily identified as being missing--but knowing not exactly where that piece was or precisely what it looked like.
Alas, we have all now found it, and from the most unlikely of events, being a burgeoning public labor union dispute gone absolutely nuclear. Yes indeed, unraveling a mystery and finding that one particular kernel of truth that ties everything together can be an unusually liberating event--to wit-- it now appears that the public sector State and local Labor Union jobs were both primarily and directly protected by the Democrats of your Federal Government by way of the largely contrived monster stimulus of 09, at the extreme expense of "We The People." It's as simple as just that, and yet many of us, while only partially understanding this particular idea, just couldn't quite get our arms around the entire plot.
In a report dated March 10, 2010, nearly one year ago, Veronique De Rugy at Biggovernment.com cited data from the website Recovery.gov that indicates nearly 600,000 jobs were either created or saved at the Dept. of Education by the Stimulus, as compared to a relative pittance in virtually all other areas. But, it gets even better, you see, when De Rugy, comparatively innocent at the time, reports that "for the first time, more public sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a Union than did private sector employees (7.4 million)," and this despite a depressingly severe economic downturn that left few, if any, in the private sector unaffected.
De Rugy goes on to point out that public sector union membership grew at a higher rate than the same private sector union membership, despite there being more than five times that number of employees within the private sector. She then ruminated over the fact that Obama's Union boss, Andy Stern, had been appointed to the debt commission effectively tying our eureka moment in a tidy package. And remember, this was reported nearly one year ago. But the bow on top for De Rugy would have to be her prediction, in ending her report, about the chances for these stimulus funds for education being made permanent, which is exactly the fight we are seeing right now with the collective rampage of both the Democrats and the Union members working against their employer, being, once again, We The People.
A Non-Working Workers Revolt In A Right Not-To-Work State
One also but needs to understand the cycles involved to get a grip on how these startling truths shake out. It's quite simple actually, when you follow the money. The public sector Union members largely depend upon the largess from their Democrat elected friends in order to politically back the Unions efforts at consistently taking bigger chunks of pay and benefits from the people of each State. In turn, the Unions collect exorbitant fees from their members, as much as a thousand dollars per person per year, and then politically fund those same Democrats lavishly in order to make sure that they are re-elected. Then, when it's time to renegotiate the union contract, these same Democrats will throw their political power and undying support behind the Union members, which is exactly what we are seeing now in Wisconsin and many other States, thus the bizarre Fleedom Democrats.
However, this year there arose a problem for the Democrats. The advent of the Tea Party and the Conservative awakening against the radical liberal agenda of both Obama and his liberal-leaning Congress stymied the Democrat's cycle of lavish doom in the form of an election. That, coupled with huge State deficits and the threat of these States becoming insolvent, meant a change was in order, thus ushering in the Republican takeover of both the US House along with State legislature after legislature in a domino effect, some for the first time in over 100 years.
Thus, we now have a President who seems to bizarrely function much as a Minister of defense for a relatively small special interest group--being the public Sector Unions--which had helped to propel the President into his office in the first place. So, why is it--still--that Obama would side with, at best, 10 million members of a special interest group against the other 300 million citizens whom he is expected to serve?
The answer to that question goes, in large part, to who butters the President's political and ideological bread. Not withstanding the long-held relationship the President has maintained with the "Workers of America." Remember, too, that whenever you read the words workers of America, or workers party or even the workers, this nomenclature has always been international code-speak for the forces of Communism and Socialism, and this is where the full-circle meets for Obama, and to a greater extent, a world that appears increasingly on fire.
A Shovel-Ready Democracy
Remember the President's admission of not long ago that, at the time of the stimulus, he simply did not understand that there were no shovel-ready jobs to throw the Stimulus at--despite the President's insistence that the Stimulus would go directly to shovel-ready jobs? Remember, too, that Obama seems to always fall unabashedly at labor Union's door no matter the impetus? One must further remember that Richard Trumka, probably the most powerful labor Union chief in America, essentially has carte blanche at the White House.
In fact, a recent interview had Trumka essentially crowing about how frequent his contacts were with either Obama himself or members of the White House staff. This fact becomes especially glaring when one notes that it was also recently reported and confirmed that at least eight of Obama's "expert" cabinet members have rarely if ever been consulted by Obama, even over two years, while a Labor Union leader effectively utilizes a swinging door to the White House.
In other words, Obama, the President of The United States, regularly consults with a Labor Union Leader--that being a special interest group-- more than even members of his own Cabinet? I think we can now conclusively put to bed all of the special interest group nonsense that Obama was spouting during the campaign.
Remember, also, when the private labor unions were essentially given the keys to both Chrysler and GM by way of the Chief Executive's mandate? Remember the billions of dollars that were crammed into these corporate entities by the Federal Government, only to later allow these same entities to declare bankruptcy, much of the proceeds then flowing to the Unions via executive fiat? Remember Obama's Supreme Court excoriation at the State of The Union speech in 2009? That was, in essence, about the Courts "leveling the playing field with Corporations and Unions" in the Citizen's United Case regarding who can underwrite Campaign ads and a judicial corporate victory.
The main thing to ultimately remember in that regard is just this: When a group of companies or corporations, which are made up of individuals, get together and set prices that citizens will have to pay, this is called collusion, which is an illegal act, and then becomes subject to anti-trust law penalties or worse. But, when a group of workers or employees, being individuals, get together to set the price for their labor and or benefits, this is called collective bargaining, and here you can thusly see a certain dichotomy at work. So what's the difference exactly? None within the nature of the thing itself.
The Party Of "We" versus The Party Of "Tea"
Meanwhile, the Public Union sector workers continue to spread their protests over an increasingly infected swath of America, and we can begin to see the possible beginnings of yet another ideological battle drawing out. In February of 2009, we witnessed the Genesis of modern-day major protests when a both outraged and injured Civil Society sparked the Tea Party Revolution that continues to this day. Conversely, in these Public Union inspired, democratically-leveraged protests, are we now seeing a counter-Tea Party mini-revolution from the Workers Party of America?
Remember too, the Tea Party Protests were a Constitutionally inspired groundswell aimed at out of control government growth, increasing taxation, and mammoth government spending from bail-outs, Tarp and the stimulus along with a Federal takeover of healthcare. The Tea Party, despite media ravings, certainly isn't an anti-government event intended to inspire anarchy as much of the media and a virtual majority of left-leaning politicos would have We the People believe. In fact, the forces of anarchy appear to be far more in play from these Union protests than ever was the case as it regards the Tea Party--this fact can easily be seen in the actions of public sector protests happening both here and in Greece.
In fact, the Tea Party celebrates a Government system in which a rule of law is rooted within the US Constitution and effectively champions a Government which should seemlessly fit in and represent the People's concerns both efficiently and justly. Espousing all that is both great and good about a limited Government system is a key tenet of the Tea Party protest. In contrast, the Public Sector Union protests, which we are witnessing, appear to be the antithesis of everything that the Tea Party revolution was all about. Greece II, in effect, is what we are now seeing to one degree or another.
In essence, these workers parties are battling to keep their collective bargaining agreements, along with their prime benefit packages, and pay while going against their employers, the Peoples of these States, who in virtually every case have had to cutback in some way or another. So what exactly does collective bargaining mean? Simple. It speaks to a collective of individuals and their group rights in abeyance to their employers needs, their employer, in this case, being the People. The main point here being that the US Constitution is built upon the primacy of the individual and certainly not the group. When we speak of groups, especially in this case, we are speaking of what is in effect nothing more nor less than a special interest group with benefits and the concept of group rights is simply a misnomer, the US Constitution certainly does not address group worker's rights.
These such special interest group's main concern is to retain their full pay, their full benefit packages and their full special interest group bargaining concessions. The penalty, if the groups demands are not met? A strike, which is a threat not to work. Do what we say or else is the basic message. The state of Wisconsin has made it quite plain that the protesters risk layoff, if not the possibility of eventual replacement of their positions, if they do not relent. Their answer? Obtaining false doctor's notes so that they can continue to maintain a government mired in gridlock. Gee, now wasn't that the Left's argument against the Republicans and Conservatives now serving in the Federal Government?
But, why is all of this happening now, exactly? Are we actually seeing a backlash from the worker's party as indirectly engineered by the Tea Party? Timing, as they say, is everything, insofar as it now appears that the worker's empire is striking back at the People. But the question then becomes, what, exactly, sparked the movement of the workers party to become so terribly outraged that it would risk obliteration by a refreshed Civil Society's now pending, but recycled, umbrage and is there some sort of connectedness with the protests firing up throughout the world?
Different and Dangerous
Partial answers to this burning question can, perhaps, be found in a sparsely-known news story which appeared in the UK Daily mail. The story titled "America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind protests" goes into some detail about American efforts to train and aid a rebel Egyptian agent who was part of a group planning to overthrow the Government of Egypt prior to the September elections of 2011. The report goes onto note that while the US government publicly backed the Mubarak Regime, US Diplomats were, in fact, secretly plotting ways to overthrow Mubarak's Government. Much of these facts came out in connection with the WikiLeaks Cable leaks.
However, another smoking gun of connectivity would be that both President Obama and various left-leaning activists groups, which included the Democratic National Committee, put their full political machine on alert and in action. What was their goal? To fire up and increase the union protests throughout as many states as possible thereby fomenting the chaos. Hmm... a sitting President and a major Party fomenting political unrest? Are these acts not both different and dangerous?
So the question then becomes why would the US Government plot to remove a singular keystone of peace within the Mideast and an avowed ally and then foment unrest here at home? And why would that same US Government virtually ignore the same attempts at Democratic overthrows occurring in Iran, Libya and several other Nations? Further, why would the US Government seek to overthrow one of the few Governments which sought a peaceful allegiance with a major US ally in Israel? We will endeavor to at least try to answer some of these questions in the next article. Suffice it to say, their does appear to be a common thread running through each of these ignored Regimes and that thread is beyond disturbing.
But, in light of US efforts at destabilization of an authoritarian controlled secular Democracy, that being Egypt, what happens if this successful overthrow births another Iran-like theocratic Islamic regime, which might, in many cases, be even worse than the Government it replaces?
You see, the question that is constantly being asked should not be: "Will the people of these various countries of the Mideast setup secular Democracies?"
Rather, the question should be: "Why would the people of these Mideastern countries set up secular Democracies when an easily overwhelming majority of them fervently believe in the activation of Shariah law within their governance?"