Corporate America's vanishing allegiance

The European Union is in tatters, which admittedly is not a bad thing. Yet the particular reasons for its continuing collapse portend a dark future for the continent that once defined Western Civilization. In short, the EU represented a futile attempt to forge a multi-national consensus on almost purely economic terms, purposely devoid of past loyalties to individual nationalism or any vestige of spiritual truth.

As a result, each entity within the power structure is left vying for power, or more accurately, economic dominance, with little or no consideration for those antiquated ideals of morality or principle. However, no great civilization can be established on the insipid precepts that remain.

France is wracked by riots, both among militant Muslim immigrants who refuse to accept their status as a permanent underclass, and those perpetrated by youths who regard as their highest calling the preservation of their socialist state. This upheaval represents the preliminaries of an unraveling society throughout the morally and spiritually bankrupt continent. And it should sound the clarion call for Americans who wish to avoid a similar destiny on this side of the Atlantic.

In his March 31, 2006 nationally syndicated column, Colonel Oliver North describes an abominable trend within corporate America, whereby members of the military (both active duty and reserve) are being systematically excluded from hiring. Colonel North explains this phenomenon in part as a result of the fact that in modern America, the bulk of higher management has never served in the military, and is thus unsympathetic to the plight of those who defend and protect the country.

Yet he mentions, almost in passing, an evil malignancy within the American corporate system that lies at the root of this problem, as well as being a foundational component of threats to the nation's future. North explains that even where a guard or reserve soldier's right to return to civilian occupation subsequent to active duty is guaranteed by law, many corporations simply choose to ignore the law and permanently fill the vacant spot in the soldier's absence.

Such behavior is at the core of the problem, but ultimately only represents the tip of the iceberg. Throughout America, both in corporate and governmental circles, the law is increasingly being selectively enforced, or ignored with impunity, as those in power shift the deck to their own advantage, with no regard for the common citizen.

Unbridled "economics" and "market forces," no longer held in check by traditional American values, dictate such a course. Thus they advance an ominous trend, which threatens to completely stratify society into a caste system reflective of third-world countries. And while corporate America does so to the detriment of all law-abiding citizens within its sphere of influence, equivalent actions when perpetrated by the government constitute nothing short of seditious crimes against the entire nation.

Government abuse of this nature is perhaps exemplified by its unwillingness to enforce its own borders, passively accepting the violation of its own statutes for economic gain. Why then should corporate chiefs be expected to abide by laws protecting veterans, when the President himself is willing to wink and nod at those same corporations as they supplant American workers with illegals who hold no allegiance to the very country the veterans sacrificed of themselves to defend?

Greater even than the social or economic impact of the illegal invasion, the biggest casualty of the immigration debate is the rule of law itself. While previously established law constitutes the only workable solution, reverting to it is no longer even being considered as an option.

Instead, power brokers ignore the law and defer to those benefiting from a burgeoning "underclass." In the long run, they empower an increasingly militant constituency that will just as quickly wave Mexican flags as American flags when protesting in the streets.

Elsewhere, similar breaches of law are decimating an industry that once represented the backbone of the country. American agriculture presently faces a bleak future at the hands of multinational corporations that exert monopolistic control over the markets. In response, ranchers and cattle growers have toiled tirelessly to convince the government to simply uphold the "Packers and Stockyards Act" of 1921, specifically designed to prevent such abuses.

Yet throughout the tenure of two Agriculture secretaries, and despite Senate hearings, it is apparent that the US Department of Agriculture has no intention of abiding by a law that would shield the livelihood of America's beef producers against the ravages of corporate market manipulation.

And if, as a result, an American steak ever becomes as difficult to find as an American television set presently is, the USDA will no doubt blithely dismiss the nation's total dependence on food imports on the grounds that foreigners merely "grow livestock Americans are unwilling to grow."

This is not to assert that such power brokers are deliberately "unpatriotic," but rather that having abandoned any sense of responsibility other than their quest to maximize next quarter's bottom line, such quaint concepts have become absolutely irrelevant to them. And increasingly, if the law itself becomes a hindrance to that end, it must somehow be circumvented.

But unless the law is upheld in such a manner that it remains a guardian of the rights of all citizens, it will degenerate into a weapon by which the strong can control and exploit the weak.

A free and virtuous society will inherently develop a capitalistic economy that rewards initiative and effort. But in and of itself, a corporate power monopoly with no ethical boundaries or national allegiances is a poor substitute that will degenerate into economic "Darwinism." In the end, such a system will readily sacrifice societal health in all of its respects, only to serve those at the top of the financial food chain.

This oughta be good. Is the inclusion of Oliver North's input enough to engender more than a "the author is a lefty wacko for suggesting that Corporations remain patriotic to the nation that enables their existence" knee-jerk response? Let's watch and see!

The article kind of wanders across the spectrum, albeit making valid points at each stop. Ultimately, it settles on how corporations selectively choose to ignore laws and then arbitrarily attempts to assign blame.

The blame is rightfully placed on the shoulders of those at the top. When the President and members of Congress ignore the specifics of laws and refuse (for example) to enforce our immigration laws and national sovereignty, it is absurd to expect the rest of America to obey them. We have so many redundant laws currently on the books that, were all of them to be enforced uniformly, we would all be willing to risk death to escape to Cuba for the comparitve freedom we would enjoy in that nation.

The fact is that, in today's politicized and litigious climate, Congress would rather write another redundant law than require existing ones to be enforced. It's all about TV face time and getting re-elected, and NOT about serving the needs of the nation.

re: Throughout America, both in corporate and governmental circles, the law is increasingly being selectively enforced, or ignored with impunity)))

If this is so--it is not corporate America who should be getting North's attention, but the Bush administration, who should twist the arms of enforcement.

But, hey, maybe he's too busy surrendering to Mexico to enforce these laws?

The other shoe that'll hit the floor is when soldiers come back from Iraq and need entry-level jobs as well as more highly-paid ones--they'll be competing with illegal black-market labor. Think of the irony--doing one's duty and service and risking life and limb for his country, only to find that citizenship and nationality have no value at home.

Vincente's children will be at the head of the line, not ours.

There is one law that will be cited in this context: The law of capitalism. Super-capitalists have no allegiance to anything but dollars and "the fiduciary responsibility to the stockholder". The poor duped Americans that believe that by owning a few hundred shares of stock in an "American" company they actually have a voice in how that company is run are being scammed.

The idea that the very country that defends the existence of a corporation should expect some return other than taxes is absurd to the neo-super-capitalists. They believe they can ignore patriotism because patriotism in itself doesn't make a buck.

All generalities are false including this one, but America has turned into a land where "there ought to be a law" is the primary mode of thinking. Are the existing laws enforced? Who cares! Write a new one. When the law is passed, the problem is solved.

This mode of thinking makes the government the problem solver, not the individual.

"If you can't beat out a non-english speaking, uneducated person from another country for a job, you have no job skills at all. "

Ahh but their governments have been sending them to the US to get educated in our schools taking the slots required by our children.

I would guess you aren't working in an industry thats been impacted by offshoring, yet.

Talking about upper management, the crux of the problem is the people who are the majority of the corporate executives are Baby Boomers. With that mentioned, a percentage of that generation were the hippies who protested the Vietnam war and were the ones who spit on the returning vets. These "spitters" would be the ones to be blamed for 99.9% of the problem such as treating the Iraq veterans with more subtle scorn.

One guy I use to work with in the early 1990's is a Vietnam veteran. He told me stories about how he was treated like $h!t when he went to look for a job when they found out he was a Vietnam vet.

About these former hippies who work in Sr. Mgt in Corporate America. My experience with these people have been bad. In my last job, I reported to such a person. To be blunt, he was an @$$hole, two face conniving prick. I got screwed on pay increases and when it came to taking vacation. He mentioned that vacation was a company benefit but he then mentioned that it was a privilege to take it when you want. One thing working for him, since he was such an @$$, I did not go out of my way to help him when he not only asked but demanded it. I also worked for a similar manager about 11 years ago, similar bull$h!t. That manager is now a big time corporate executive last I heard.

Well, actually I do, but now you're making an anti-globalism objection.

That's a different issue, although there's not much to discuss. Globalism is inevitable as lesser-developed countries begin to modernize. Economics guarantee that jobs will shift to places that are the lowest cost producer of a satisfactory product.

There's no way to stop that, nor should we. With all the outsourcing and illegal immigration, folks like you should be complaining about the US unemployment rate of 22%. So something is wrong with your economic assumptions.

I am perplexed and chagrined at Bush's hamhandedness. Running down to Cancun to cozy with Vicente when illegals took to the streets to demand that the US turn the sovereignty of US law over to them!! The enraging stuff he says in public, insinuating that those who want laws enforced are racist. He used to understand the Nascar voter and Joe Sixpack--what gives?

Chriac was better to us than Vicente on the WOT!!!

This is absolutely what is behind Bush's diving numbers--his surrender on illegal invasion. It'll erode his support for the WOT. I've been called twice by major polls in the past few years, and "approved" both times. I'm hoping I'll be called again to convey my deep disapproval of late. I'm surprised he even gets 30%.

Some say it's corporate influence, but I believe it is cultural and sentimental in nature. Bush was probably raised by Mexicans, maybe illegals--his Spanish is beautiful and his accent excellent. If he and his family have been waited on his whole life by illegal servants, he's probably on a guilt trip and wants you and me to buy the ticket.

I also worked for a similar manager about 11 years ago, similar bull$h!t. That manager is now a big time corporate executive last I heard.

They all watched Micheal Douglas play Gordon Gecko and thought that was what managing and being a corporate weenie was all about.

Multinational Corporations are by definition "one-worlders". That's why I try to patronize small-businesses or locally owned private companies for the majority of my needs. I'll patronize a multi-national only when there's no other choice.

".....the majority of the corporate executives are Baby Boomers. With that mentioned,......."
I believe you are incorrect about this. Many children of Baby Boomers are in their late thirties to early forties. A great many of them are in executive postitions. They are the ones who are actively engaged in the wholesale rejection of notions such as honor, duty, and faith, even more so than any anti-American from the 60s who might have reached a position of power in a business.

Sounds like one of my old bosses. I drove him nuts a lot of the time. He figured out that I would do the work, but the work would not be my life. He couldn't complain about my performance, but wrote me up on anything else. I once got a mark because my "desk was unprofessional". Never mind I had been on the road for months and didn't know that the electricians were using my desk to work on a few boards.

Really used to p#$$ me off, till I figured that he was making himself sick. Guy was trying so hard to rise up the ladder that he didn't have the health to enjoy it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.