When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton invited key members of the Egyptian youth movement to meet with her recently she was snubbed by the group. The group’s response to Clinton was to essentially indicate that the Obama Administration “took the Egyptian protests very lightly.” So, did the Obama administration appear a bit tepid to these mideast revolutionaries, or should the US have taken a more pronounced role? No doubt, a question for the ages, however, the appearance to the world, of Obama’s stance on all things Democratic, would seem to suggest a certain stand-offishness as it regards foreign policy as a whole. The ultimate result of the leader of the free world’s seeming hesitance to get involved would seem to denote two essential elements at work. The first being that Obama seems to care very little for becoming actively engaged on Democracy’s behalf beyond performing rosey speeches in that regard. But the second and more telling element would be that Obama’s narrow focus rarely carries beyond the familiar haunts of domestic policy and his seeming agenda for America whenever action is truly called for.
Within the Obama agenda the one thing that continually purveys a domestically top-heavy administration, would be Obama’s maddening insistence at being at both labor’s and liberal policy’s beck and call, day and night, while remaining largely aloof to the needs of the free world in general.
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. It should further be noted that Obama’s fairly frequent foreign policy missteps could be as a direct result of his reticence at facing various foreign policy issues, of which he understands little, with certain cabinet members.
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 purveying of yet another extraordinarily heavy-handed domestic policy play at politics, to put it mildly, while the President, to date, has come across much like a squeaky mouse to the world in general in other matters. Almost like Dr.Jekyl and Mr.Hyde is the way that the President seems to pursue one agenda while blowing off the others, unless, of course, it involves an issue of legacy such as in the START treaty.
The main thing to ultimately remember with regard to the President’s union stance as opposed to his missing pro-business stance 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 and yet Obama would never acknowledge the irony at play in this regard.
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 while staying publicly dis-engaged? 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?”
The final answer may then belong to Obama’s Centrist-Regime inspired agenda here at home, which does not appear to mandate copious amounts of individual liberties.