There seems to be some debate regarding the validity of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests taking place in NYC and elsewhere. Yet, it seems incredible for such uprisings to have happened in these various places within such a short time span. But large-scale "organizing" of commonly-identified phenomena certainly does not go against the very system of government we have -- so long as it remains peaceful. A Constitutional Republic is the form of government we are fortunate to enjoy, despite various erosions that have weakened it's original form and intent. The question, in this post, is not the nature of our system of government, or numerous problems endemic to any system of human design, or the questionable legal changes that have and continue to take place, but rather, other questions and issues which I want to mention.
For example, I would question whether the Bill of Rights is being ignored if peaceful protesters are maced, kicked, and tackled by police? Here, there are two key points: 1) the Bill of Rights, and 2) peaceful protesters. If the protesters were not engaging in an act of "assembling peacefully" (i.e. versus an act of assembling to promote violence, for example), then an equally violent response is legitimate, however, if they were peacefully assembling, somebody please explain why such harsh acts could be considered a justified, or warranted, response. I do not see that as a possibility unless the police are being guided by something other than the First Amendment. Secondly, regardless of the demonstrators methodology, or future results of their "occupation of Wall Street," peaceful assembling is a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, so anyone claiming to support our Constitutional Republic cannot arguably justify denying peaceful protesters that right to assemble -- whether they are socialist, flaming sword eaters, Nazi's, Christians, etc. That is precisely what the Bill of Rights was designed to protect. To deny these rights is as fascist as a fascist because it would undermine one of the fundamental rights you would be claiming to uphold as a supporter of our Constitutional Republic. Has something within our system legally changed to the extent that the First Amendment to the Constitution is no longer active in certain places, or is it okay to just ignore, or subvert the parts the people who maintain order do not want to pay attention to? Maybe they simply are not aware of the scope of their jobs or that they may be disobeying the law by denying the rights of a citizen in these ways?
Despite the multitude of differing views on anything from abortion to the rights of homosexuals, to freedom of religion, if we truly believe that the form of government that was established when our independence was declared in 1776 is what we hope to keep, it must be the people who join together in a common cause to prevent less freedom-oriented types of government such as Marxism, Socialism, or Anarchy (which is temporary at best, with eventual replacement de facto oligarchy), to discard everything purposely designed by any treasonous individuals, or groups, intending to circumvent and swindle us, and focus on our common cause if we still have one. That cause would be to uphold the rule of law, and discard anything that is designed to overthrow our Republic with another form of government, which is by definition, treason[2]. Our founding fathers shed their blood to give us and our children the freedoms we have, and it is now left upon us to keep it -- if we can[4].
For example, I would question whether the Bill of Rights is being ignored if peaceful protesters are maced, kicked, and tackled by police? Here, there are two key points: 1) the Bill of Rights, and 2) peaceful protesters. If the protesters were not engaging in an act of "assembling peacefully" (i.e. versus an act of assembling to promote violence, for example), then an equally violent response is legitimate, however, if they were peacefully assembling, somebody please explain why such harsh acts could be considered a justified, or warranted, response. I do not see that as a possibility unless the police are being guided by something other than the First Amendment. Secondly, regardless of the demonstrators methodology, or future results of their "occupation of Wall Street," peaceful assembling is a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, so anyone claiming to support our Constitutional Republic cannot arguably justify denying peaceful protesters that right to assemble -- whether they are socialist, flaming sword eaters, Nazi's, Christians, etc. That is precisely what the Bill of Rights was designed to protect. To deny these rights is as fascist as a fascist because it would undermine one of the fundamental rights you would be claiming to uphold as a supporter of our Constitutional Republic. Has something within our system legally changed to the extent that the First Amendment to the Constitution is no longer active in certain places, or is it okay to just ignore, or subvert the parts the people who maintain order do not want to pay attention to? Maybe they simply are not aware of the scope of their jobs or that they may be disobeying the law by denying the rights of a citizen in these ways?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]You might wonder why I bother to even try to deal with such nebulous and murky issues, especially given the fact that I am not even qualified to answer these questions. The reasons why I bother are because, there is something seriously wrong when people, in large numbers, in various parts of the world, are similarly motivated to express outrage and protest at the same approximate time. However, it also seems quite phenomenal that these protests suddenly appeared. I wonder who organized these events? These people did not just appear simultaneously. Never-the-less, is there any question, at all, what the common denominator between these differing groups of people has been or why such protests might have such a growing following?
...The Fed differs from private firms and emerging markets in that it can “create” money to finance its debts. And indeed, that ability may well lead to hubris on the part of policymakers—similar to that seen among financial managers in the current crisis who were clearly overconfident in their ability to obtain financing. Regardless of such self-assurance on the part of policymakers, if market participants lose confidence in the Fed’s ability to obtain funds from lenders, the Fed would have to pay very high interest rates to obtain short-term debt. A self-fulfilling, high-inflation equilibrium in which expectations that the Fed will pursue lax monetary policy because banks demand a high-inflation premium will lead banks to demand that high-inflation premium."[3]There you have it. What does the Fed do anyway?
Despite the multitude of differing views on anything from abortion to the rights of homosexuals, to freedom of religion, if we truly believe that the form of government that was established when our independence was declared in 1776 is what we hope to keep, it must be the people who join together in a common cause to prevent less freedom-oriented types of government such as Marxism, Socialism, or Anarchy (which is temporary at best, with eventual replacement de facto oligarchy), to discard everything purposely designed by any treasonous individuals, or groups, intending to circumvent and swindle us, and focus on our common cause if we still have one. That cause would be to uphold the rule of law, and discard anything that is designed to overthrow our Republic with another form of government, which is by definition, treason[2]. Our founding fathers shed their blood to give us and our children the freedoms we have, and it is now left upon us to keep it -- if we can[4].
Tweet