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

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Ted Cruz Takes A Progressive Stand on the Birth Right Issue.

Breitbart's Article (with link to video) reports accurately on the dialogue
Headline states :Cruz Accuses Megyn Kelly Of Asking "Mainstream Media Liberal " Question
http://goo.gl/WQpp6Y

In this interview, Kelly's asks two questions that Cruz refuses to answer dodging the questions like a season politician and a true progressive- with the meaning of progressive being one who thinks that the constitution can be overridden to serve policies and political agendas of the day- versus a conservative who hold that the constitution is the ultimate Rule of Law and that the philosophical intent of the constitution must be the measure of any change to our constitution.

Cruz keeps the focus issue on policy in response to Megyn's question as to whether he thinks changes to birth right citizenship requires a Constitutional amendment  OR if it can just be changed by Congress. Cruz uses a lot of rhetoric to say that it is a policy (meaning not a constitutional) issue and needs to be achieved any way that it can be achieved. When listening closely Cruz is saying clearly that it is can be changed by Congress and does not need to go through a process that requires the consent of the governed- but in terms of the perception manufacturing industry- Cruz is trying to appear as not taking any position at all. Megyn Kelly is asking him a very direct and clear answer for which he gives us reams of rhetorical talking points that he consistently repeats every time Kelly rephrases the question.

When Megyn asks specifically if he would deport the children born in this country to illegal parents or deport only the parents- once again Cruz cannot give a direct answer and evades it like a politician- then he pulls out the big one - he attacks the question- using the standard attack of the anti-establishmentarians- He calls the question a "‘Mainstream Media Liberal Question" . This functions like a command to the anti-establishmentarian social media organizations which then reach across the internet spinning  Megyn Kelly as a Liberal. The anti-establishmentarian social media unilaterally attacks Megyn Kelly -Paying no notice to Cruz's politically crafted evasion of  the constitutional issue.  Once again. the perception manufacturing industry attacks Megyn Kelly for asking  perfectly legitimate and spot on questions which their candidates cannot answer- and once again the candidate delivers his instructions to the foot soldiers of the anti-establishmentarain movement on how they should target Megyn Kelly. mirroring the Donalds message, publicly delivered during the debates when he told Megyn that she was not being nice to him and suggested that he could could be not nice to her as well!

There is nothing "liberal" about Kelly's question and if it is a question the non-mainstream media thinks Cruz should not have to answer, then shame on the non-mainstream media!

Cruz's undeniable evasion of the question asked by Megyn Kelly- which goes straight to the heart of the constitutional issue- which is the ultimate Rule of Law- reveals that Cruz is a progressive when it comes to the US Constitution. "it's a policy issue" is the answer that makes that clear !

Afternote: 

I came across this article from the Heritage which discusses a series of Supreme Court decisions that clarify that no involuntary expatriations are legal. Taking away the citizenship of any one born in the USA qualifies as an involuntary expatriation- in my layman's assessment:

Here is the specific quote:

Finally, in Vance v. Terrazas (1980), the Court clarified its decision in Afroyim by holding that it was not enough to show that an individual voluntarily committed an act that Congress determined was inconsistent with American citizenship. It was necessary also to show independently that the individual "intended to relinquish his citizenship." Given the broad language of the more recent cases, it seems that no involuntary expatriations are lawful. The one exception, which applies only to naturalized Americans, is the denaturalization (and deportation) of those who became citizens through fraud or illegality. It has been applied most notably in recent decades to former Nazis who engaged in war crimes during World War II and later lied about their wartime activities either when they entered the United States as "displaced persons" or when they applied for citizenship.

Reasons for involuntary expatriation that were overturned by the Supreme Court:
Although it upheld expatriation for voting in a foreign election, Perez v. Brownell (1958), it overturned expatriations for desertion from the military during wartime, Trop v. Dulles (1958), and for service by a dual national in the Japanese army during World War II, Nishikawa v. Dulles (1958). In 1963, in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, the Court ruled that a citizen could not be expatriated for fleeing the country during wartime to evade military service. 

Afternote 2
  As election season heats up the anti-establishmentarians are becoming increasingly aggressive about censoring the free speech of all dissenters to their will.

So after I signed up for FreeRepublic and posted this blog post and only this blog post , my posting privileges were revoked. You can see from this screenshot how networked the anti-establishmentarian movement is:


No comments:

Post a Comment