The Ati-thesis , Marxism


"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Constitutional Questions in theNews

I've been busy redesigning the website for andersenstudio.com, our family business and so I have long been putting off writing a post that compares the original version of Maine's Pine Tree Zone, passed in 2004, amid protests that it would be expanded statewide, to the transformed version, expanded statewide with "little fanfare" in 2009, while the public was focused on the last election season.  This projectedpost will also provide a comparison to Cain's "empowerment zones" which has already been  repackaged as "opportunity zones" and which sounds like the original version of the Pine Tree Zone, except that the the Pine tree Zone was then targeted at areas of "low income and high unemployment", while Cain talks in terms of "inner cities".

Being that I still need to keep my focus where it is, that is left brewing on the back burner and in the meantime I am posting some issues that impact preserving the American political philosophy and the current election season.

First I recently saw this blog about Purpura v , Sebelius Supreme Court docket  case number 11-7275
This claim is docketed with the supreme court and is more thorough than the others citing provisions in the law that clearly violate Amendments 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16. Also identified are violations of various provisions of Articles 1, 2, 4, and 6., making it the most complete of all the law suits against Obama Care. If the Supreme Court leads with this claim, they will be required to adjudicate on all counts  and so it could be very instrumental in realigning  our nation with our constitutional roots. The article urges the reader to contact our representatives or any one known to be influential in getting this case to be the lead case. I have written to all of my congressional representatives and Governor LePage. I do not know who has the power to influence what case leads in the Supreme Court, but since Obama Care directly impacts state sovereignty, it seems that if anyone can have such an influence, state governors might be in that group.

This blog from Reason.com relates that in California there is a fight brewing over dismantling all government economic redevelopment agencies ,which our state legislatures love so much ( as In The Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority). Here is a switch- at least in name only- It is the Republicans who want to keep the corporate state in tact and the Democrats want to dismantle it.

 Gov. Jerry Brown isn’t often right, but he was on target when he proposed shutting down these central planning agencies that primarily dispense corporate welfare to big businesses and drive small property owners off their land so that big-box stores can prosper. quoted from Corporate Welfare and the California GOP

Sound familiar? The charter for the Midcoast Regional Development Authority grants this city state the right to seize adjacent property by eminent domain.

As Bloomberg reported, “The governor and supporters of the law said the redevelopment agencies have become little more than slush funds for private developers, and they want the tax money generated by new developments to be diverted from the agencies to local schools, law enforcement agencies and other services.” quoted from Corporate Welfare and the California GOP

And finally in today's Portland Press Herald Snowe and Collins, who made it possible to pass that first Obama stimulus plan with lightening speed are going to vote against the GOP budget plan. Snowe doesn't like that the Senate is asked for a straight up or down vote on the Ryan plan and thinks there should be time for a bi-partisan compromise on Medicaid and Medicare. She is opposed to having the control and management of  Medicaid transferred to the states, which she envisions in resulting in a "rush to the bottom"

I am waiting to see if the Maine main stream media provides quotes from Maine's Republican primary challengers to Snowe, Scott D'Amboise and Andrew Iain Dodge on what they think of Snowe's decision to oppose the Ryan Budget Plan and to oppose state management of medicaid. The latter impacts how one interprets the Tenth Amendment. Will the Maine main stream media bring the Tenth Amendment into the discussion- or will that be left up to Maine's alternate press? I guess that's my cue! See you next time with those results.


Saturday, November 12, 2011

Hermain Cain, The United States Constitution, and The Elephant's New Clothes.

It seems that racial politics has descended like a fog over the national mind set with few willing to take to task the policies of the Republicans black candidate, Herman Cain. Meanwhile the left up the ante with pretenses that portray the right but are even more blatantly ugly expression of racism than giving a pass to Cain on his policies and his response to a character challenge which would never be granted by the right to a white candidate.

I thank John K W for being the lone voice in the over crowed scene willing to say that the emperor has no clothes. John's view is well researched and based in true constitutional conservatism and so with John's permission, I am re-posting this comment found on As Maine Goes, with a few minor edits of parts that do not pertain to a more general audience. These are questions and arguments that should be part of our national debate:



Does Herman Cain propose to have the federal government enter a State, declare a geographical area or areas to be “opportunity zones”, and then allow the people and businesses within these zones to be free of taxes which people and businesses a block outside the zone will be forced to pay? 

If the answer is yes, would Herman Cain’s proposal not violate the very intentions of our  founding fathers written into Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 of our Constitution and be granting preferential regulations of commerce?
       
How about that part of our Constitution which requires direct taxes to be apportioned and indirect taxes to be uniform “throughout the United States”? Does Mr. Cain not know these provisions were put into the Constitution to forbid the federal government from picking winners and losers via taxation? Is it not a fact that Herman’s “opportunity zone” tax policy would violate the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment and rule of uniformity was put into our Constitution?

And how about Herman Cain even suggesting to have the federal government enter a State and use its power to meddle in a State’s internal affairs and commerce? Is his proposal not in direct defiance of our Founding Father’s intentions which are summarized in Federalist No. 45?

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

And if the above is not clear enough that our founders intentions were to forbid the federal government from entering the States and interfering with their internal affairs and commerce, what part of the Tenth Amendment does Mr. Cain not understand which was specifically adopted to protect federalism and a free market system?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

Finally, if the above parts of our Constitution are not clear that Mr. Cain’s proposal is sugar coated tyranny wrapped in Orwellian Newspeak as being "opportunity zones", let us recall what our very own Supreme Court stated shortly after the Tenth Amendment was adopted:

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

So, once again I ask the questions, why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Doc Thompson, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, or any media personality on FoxNews] avoid taking Herman Cain to task for proposing to allow the federal government to enter a State, designate a geographical area an “opportunity zone”, and then allow people and business inside that zone to be free of taxes which people and businesses a block away will be forced to pay by the federal government. Why are our “conservative” talk show hosts not siding with our founding father’s rejection to allow Herman Cain to pick winners and losers or grant preferential regulations to a State or individual? Why do our “conservative” talk show hosts not defend our founding fathers and our Constitution, intended to create and protect a free market system, and preclude Herman Cain from picking winners and losers?
JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Friday, November 4, 2011

Herman Cain's Empowerment Zones and the United States Constitution

Quote of The Day:

Herman Cain’s “opportunity zones” would have the federal government granting preferential regulations of commerce among the States which would violate our founding father’s very intentions expressed in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 of our Constitution which states: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.


John W K