Skip to main content

See also:

The March of the American Oligarchs aka…Onward Christian Soldiers

Onward Christian Soldiers
Onward Christian Soldiers
Google Images

Introduction

Located deep within the “Enchanted Conservative Forests” where Republican janissaries faithfully stand guard over the ivory towers of their American oligarch benefactors, there is an eerie hum radiating from the forests that sounds a lot like Sir Arthur Sullivan’s “Onward Christian Soldier”.

In the News…

For more than a week wealthy conservative ideologues, conservative pundits and conservative prognosticators have noticeably walked with their head held a little higher and with an increased swagger / confidence in their step as lawyers representing Hobby Lobby argued before the U.S. Supreme Court justices that corporations should be entitled to receive the same religious freedoms / protections that every American citizen is guaranteed in accordance with the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Based out of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the corporate leaders of “Hobby Lobby” are contending that it violates their core religious beliefs to provide emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans to its’ employees and their family / spouse as prescribed and directed by the Affordable Health Care Act which is more commonly known throughout the United States as “Obamacare”.

Once again Americans / The World are experiencing live political Kabuki theater at the U.S. Supreme Court . The actors dressed in full legal regalia represent the two distinct different “faces” of America, “Conservatives vs. Liberals”.

Conservative special interest groups that [interestingly] support and accept the loss of human life in wars, police actions, judicial executions and “Stand Your Ground” laws as collateral damage are arguing “once again” that a woman has absolutely no right to determine how she regulates her reproductive organs.

The billion dollar question that Democratic politicians must find the intestinal fortitude to ask their Republican / Tea Party opponent in the upcoming Congressional and Senatorial elections is simple, “How can you support death “By a thousand knives” but be against a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion or choose to use birth control?

If a woman / young lady who is emotionally and financially unprepared to bring a life into this world is forced to bear a child, who will pay for that child’s food, clothing, educational costs, shelter, and health care? The Republican / Tea Party? No, American voters already understand that conservatives unabashedly support slashing money from federal programs that feed and educate the poor. And…we already know conservatives hate “Obamacare”… You can almost hear the chatter from the Ivory Towers, “Who do the poor and near-poor think they are to want to live longer”?

Rhetorically, can you say “Let them eat cake”? Somewhere in France the ghost of Marie Antoinette just peed on herself.

In the “enchanted conservative forest”, Hobby Lobby’s Supreme Court challenge “knocks out two birds with one stone” . They not only get a chance to attack legalized abortion in the U.S., (Roe vs. Wade, 1973) but also conservatives are given an opportunity to attack President Obama’s presidential legacy.

Much like the religious conservatives who argue that a Zygote should be recognized as having the same constitutional rights of a human being, in the mind of wealthy conservatives, American industries and their corporate leaders and not the plurality of American voters should ultimately determine the destiny of the United States of America.

Assuming that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are generally more sympathetic to the arguments made by the attorneys representing Hobby Lobby, while Justice Breyer and the three female justices, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg are more sympathetic to the government's case, Justice Kennedy has now become the “King maker.”

Peeping behind "the velvet curtain", it's abundantly clear that conservatives and their oligarch “big brothers and sisters” are ecstatic about their odds of winning at the minimum, a partial court victory as they continue to shape the United States into their model of a “21st Century Puritanical Paradise”.

Adding to conservative giddiness, the Supreme Court on Wednesday abolished the limits on election spending, striking down a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle.

The ruling will certainly increase the role money plays in American politics.

The 5-to-4 decision, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority, echoed Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Wednesday’s decision appear to alter campaign finance laws in subtle but important ways, notably by limiting how the federal government can justify laws said to restrict the exercise of First Amendment rights in the form of campaign contributions. In layman’s terms, “More money, more Money from the super-wealthy, going straight to their favorite politicians, no questions asked.”

The Supreme Court’s 88-page decision reflects the enormous difference in the Justice’s interpretation of the meaning of the First Amendment, including the federal government’s role in regulating how elections are financially orchestrated.

The majority of Justices that ruled to eliminate federal limits placed on special interests campaign contributions explain that they are “deeply cynical of the federal government’s efforts to control participation in U.S. politics”, while the minority is of the belief that such oversight is needed to ensure an “honest democracy”.

What every American voter should ask is this simple question, “If the Supreme Court empowers politicians to receive unlimited financial contributions from special interests groups, thus empowering the super-wealthy to unfairly control America’s destiny via a bombardment of partisan media blitzes that’s designed to daze and confuse the average voter, then why would the majority of court’s Justices rule against Voting Rights Act Section 4, a provision in the Voting Rights Act that clearly protects the right of every citizen to vote, unless….the game (voting) is rigged to favor corporate interests?

In closing, the Oligarchs are on the march in the United States, and their best and not-so-secret weapon to achieve total control of America is placating a “sleeping / ignorant” U.S. voter with “sweetened bread crumbs”.

When Corporations are determined by our nation’s highest court to be equal partners in American democracy (Corporations are people?) and individual states are given the right to legally discriminate without fear of federal government interference then how close is the United States to becoming a full-fledged Feudalistic Society ruled by the Oligarchs who live in their Ivory Towers, overlooking the implementation of their “master-plan” with the excitement of a school girl being kissed for the first time by her beau?

Yesterday at Fort Hood, Texas a 34 year-old soldier named Ivan Lopez shot over a dozen people, killing at least three before turning his weapon on himself and committing suicide. Setting aside the inadequate counseling war veterans receive after returning home from a hostile environment, a Texas Republican lawmaker stated upon interview that “if more people were allowed to carry guns, less people would have been shot and less would have died”....What’s wrong with conservatives? In his mind more people packing guns and shooting them in public equates to less injuries and death.

And these are the same morons that “sleeping / ignorant” American voters are electing to advance the U.S. into the 21st century. (Shaking my head)

The Fall Senatorial and Congressional elections are coming soon, please, don’t be asleep and please educate yourself before you vote. The Oligarchs and their minions are counting on you to be watching more “ESPN” than C-SPAN. If you stop and closely listen you can hear the humming of “Onward Christian Soldiers” coming from the “other side of town”. This is not a drill.

As always the New Orleans Examiner is interested in what you think. Should the Justices of the Supreme Court be appointed for a “life-time” or should they too have a term limit that comes before natural death? Inquiring minds want to know.

Until next time, Good day, God Bless and Good Fishing.