An Army of 1%

"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world."
~Michael Bloomberg, New York City Mayor, 1%

As the birthplace of Occupy Wall Street, New York City has understandably been the focal point of the now world wide movement for change in our monetary/power structures. And the events that have unfolded there have become the general theme and narrative of the movements actual progress. To make things more interesting, the city's Chief Executive Officer (or CEO) is an actual member of the extremely exclusive 1%. Mayor Bloomberg proudly championed this group of over-privileged underdogs, because he simply has a soft spot for persecuted minorities, especially when they're all billionaires like him. And what a rich theme for this modern day fairy tale reminiscent of so many other historical clashes between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', it just wouldn't be much of a story without someone willing to play the villain and represent the haves, the 1%. And why should he care if he is destined to be on the wrong side of history, he's filthy stinking RICH! As long as there's a chance, he simply must thwart any change in his lifetime, so that his children and grandchildren can continue to burn up the planets resources to fuel the ongoing party called aristocracy, that's his role and he's only too happy to play the part.

Bloomberg was speaking at MIT in late November when he explained to the crowd why he didn't feel the need to run for president of the United States, he expressed his contentment with his humble position as mayor of New York City this way: "I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own state department, much to Foggy Bottoms annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have." Why would he refer to a police force as an "Army?" Are there not significant differences between a civilian peace keeping force and a military army, or standing army? In fact, a standing army that occupies our towns and cities is specifically forbidden by the constitution of the United States. But Bloomberg was not mistaken, just remarkably candid with his audience in revealing a new reality that has taken hold in the dark shadows of our collective ignorance. The police are in fact now standing armies in direct violation of the constitution, and this has never been more clear than when they are employed to violently beat and arrest those who are practicing their first amendment rights to free speech.

In the days following September 11, 2001, many new laws and practices were enacted as a result of anti-terrorism legislation that led to greater involvement in our urban and rural police departments by both intelligence and military officials and personnel. And with all of the bold and brutal attacks on the Bill of Rights through the duration of the Bush years, no one ever seriously considered repealing the Posse Comitatus Act restricting Military Personnel from carrying out a law enforcement role inside the United States territories. And though the Bush administration was guilty of holding U.S. citizens in military detention without trial in violation of Habeas Corpus, they made no attempt to completely abolish this most sacred of unalienable rights. So now, strangely, ten years later, Al Qaeda scattered, Bin Laden assassinated, the Iraq war over and the Afghan war on a slow burner, virtually every "representative" on Capital Hill voted in favor of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which does more to undermine our Bill of Rights and Constitution than ANYTHING that came out the of the Bush/Bin Laden era.

Perhaps Bush simply could not have gotten away with such a naked attack on the Constitution, though it's hard to believe they knew their limits. One thing is for sure, Obama has shown that most of his supporters are still so drunk on his first "Hope" and Change" campaign that they will let him get away with anything at all, even the obliteration of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. And Obama has shown that he has absolutely no respect at all for either of these documents or the people they are designed to protect. Though it is being widely reported that Obama has "promised to veto" this bill, his language and rationale are wholly incomplete and incompatible with constitutional law. Press Secretary James Carney relayed the presidents thoughts in this statement "Any Bill that challenges or constrains the presidents critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt his senior advisers to recommend a veto." Shouldn't we be relying on the presidents understanding of constitutional law to protect our unalienable rights and the integrity of the constitution? Instead, we're relying on him to decide if he wants to give up any of the ill-gotten powers usurped by the previous administration, or he might decide that the small restrictions pertaining to military detention are worth the vast additional powers added to his imperial presidency.

So again, why now? Even if Obama can effectively saber rattle us into a war with Iran, the one the Neo-cons have been dreaming about for over a decade, there's never been a valid terrorism threat from Iran, and if we could link them to Al Qaeda it would have been done long ago. And though we have Fukushima and the BP oil spill fresh in our collective memory, not to mention the collapse of the economy by the hand of the bankers, few can even recall the most recent "terrorist attack" or even "terrorist threat" on American soil. There's something altogether new about this attack on our rights, or perhaps there's something missing from the narrative. If you believe Al Qaeda is still alive and well and ready to strike at any moment then perhaps you don't sense this strange void. Al Qaeda under Bin Laden was a classic "Boogey man" capable of justifying absolutely ridiculous over reactions by the Bush administration, and even then they also had Saddam Hussein to make sure we felt insecure enough to allow our rights to be almost completely dismantled before our eyes. But this thanksgiving session of congress seemed somehow transported back to September 11, 2001 when the world seemed chaotic and cruel, what could possibly have them feeling so insecure that they would sign away our rights to a trial by a jury of our peers?

Could it be that members of congress, many of whom are millionaires, are more afraid of the 99% than they ever were of Osama Bin Laden? Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and many more wise souls have issued us countless warnings about "Bankers" and "Monied interests", and in the last century we have been repeatedly warned about the congressional/industrial military complex. Our forefathers raised an army without much help, but they borrowed a great deal of money to do so, mostly from France. They understood that any group with significant funds could raise an army to achieve any ends at all, for freedom or for tyranny, and they knew that this power in private hands was perhaps a fate worse than they could yet conceive. This is ultimately the design of fascism, in which the wealthy ally with and/or subordinate the military to sustain hegemonic control over collective resources, including labor. And though we have been born into our contemporary context and experience these baby steps towards tyranny as gradual and incremental motions, Jefferson, Lincoln, F.D.R. and Eisenhower would recognize our world instantly as that dark dystopia they persistently warned us about. It has never been more clear to the common citizen that our republic is gone, our democracy defunct, and our rights have all been twisted into freakish distortions of their original intent.

In the course of human events, it has become necessary that we the people dissolve the political bands which have connected us with one another, and assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and natures' god entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind have required us to declare the causes which impel us to separate. We hold that our self evident, equal and unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness have been undermined and chipped away at by governments who no longer seek the legitimate consent of the governed, but only of the wealthiest among us. We affirm the right of the people to alter and/or abolish the offending government, and institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us seems most likely to effect our safety and happiness. Prudence indeed, has dictated that governments long established have not been changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly our experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object envinces a design to reduce us under the absolute despotism of Plutocracy, it is our right, it is our duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards to our future security.

There may have been some plagiarism in that last paragraph but I am prepared to go to jail for either the infringement on intellectual property, or for the content of said property. Under the current National Defense Authorization Act almost every sentence in the Declaration of Independence is a crime that could have our forefathers rotting in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without trial. For someone such as myself to suggest that our current government has become destructive of our unalienable rights, and that it is therefore our right, and further our duty, to abolish said government, is effectively my one way ticket to indefinite detention. Our forefathers understood that this new entity they were creating was not in itself a cause for unquestioning loyalty, that in fact it was just another legal fiction that could, and most likely would, be co-opted by the forces of aristocracy that have been as adaptive to new forms of government as the common cold is to our body's immune systems. As hard as they worked to make the constitution a design that could repel the forces of inequity, they knew that no design would be impervious and they made sure that we had the legal precedent of the Declaration of Independence giving us ultimate legitimacy to abolish our offending government, which they would not even recognize as the cause for which they pledged their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "Sacred Honor."

The 1% is behaving as if there were no longer a constitution, it's time we realized what they have known for a long time, our republic, our democracy, is already gone, abolished by the 1% in a corporate coup detat. It's the only logical explanation for the behavior of our government in the last 50+ years, believing the constitution is in tact and fully active only leaves us perplexed and bewildered when contemplating our recent history. But when you realize that we currently have a government of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%, it makes perfect sense, like water flowing along the path of least resistance. By hierarchical design the military and the police are automatically working for the 1%, their orders come from so far up the chain of command they rarely even know who is calling the shots. Nor do they care, they are selected and trained to care little for justice and much for authority, and have rarely shown any solidarity at all with other workers, citizens, humans. There is no boogey man prompting this attack on our inalienable rights, there is only the 99% finally coming out into the streets to say that this game is over. We simply cannot continue to enrich the few at the cost of the many, and that is the only terror that the 1% truly fears, and they have always been prepared for this moment. But they have no intention of giving up the wealth of the world, they feel strongly that they "own" it and they will spend most of their riches to maintain their very own army. An army of 1%.