The following are excerpts of a New York Times article from that cerebral giant Paul Krugman. It is his attempt at celebrating Independence Day. Rather laughable, since he and his ilk have pushing for government dependence for decades.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It’s that time of year — the long weekend when we gather with friends and family to celebrate hot dogs, potato salad and, yes, the founding of our nation. And it’s also a time for some of us to wax a bit philosophical, to wonder what, exactly, we’re celebrating. Is America in 2013, in any meaningful sense, the same country that declared independence in 1776?
Above all, we are still, at root, a nation that believes in democracy, even if we don’t always act on that belief. As usual the lefties like to espouse “democracy” in lieu of what we really are, a constitutional republic. And don’t think he doesn’t know the difference.
America in 1776 was a rural land, mainly composed of small farmers and, in the South, somewhat bigger farmers with slaves. America today is nothing like that, even though some politicians — think Sarah Palin — like to talk as if the “real America” is still white, Protestant, and rural or small-town. Notice how he wrote that. It is to cause the myopic NYT reader to assume that Palin actually said it, which is, of course, a lie. She has never even hinted such a thing. But Krugman, being a mind reader, knows her sinister thoughts.
But the real America is, in fact, a nation of metropolitan areas, not small towns. In fact, two-thirds of Americans live in metro areas with half-a-million or more residents. What do we do in these dense metropolitan areas? Almost none of us are farmers; few of us hunt; by and large, we sit in cubicles on weekdays and visit shopping malls on our days off. This is what liberals like Krugman do. Spend their whole lives promoting American division, us vs. them, as if the “metropolitan dwellers”, due to their numbers, are somehow more important than those hick rural citizens. That’s mob rule and that’s pure democracy, which is why they use the term democracy, not republic.
And ethnically we are, of course, very different from the founders. Only a minority of today’s Americans are descended from the WASPs and slaves of 1776. If that’s the case, why must we call all American blacks African-Americans? Just asking.
Yet I would maintain that we are still the same country that declared independence all those years ago. Huh? Have you read the list of grievances in The Declaration of Independence recently? It’s a virtual itemized list of king Obama usurpations.
Today’s America is a place where everyone claims to support equality of opportunity, yet we are, objectively, the most class-ridden nation in the Western world — the country where children of the wealthy are most likely to inherit their parents’ status. It’s also a place where everyone celebrates the right to vote, yet many politicians work hard to disenfranchise the poor and nonwhite. Krugman is worth about $2.5 million. I assume since he has no children of status to inherit his wealth, he will give it all to the poor, nonwhite and disenfranchised.
But that very hypocrisy is, in a way, a good sign. The wealthy may defend their privileges, but given the temper of America, they have to pretend that they’re doing no such thing. Maybe some think they need to pretend or suppress for fear of mob reprisal. Kind of like the government and the liberal press giving up home addresses to mobs like Occupy Wallstreet, so they may go protest, harass and threaten the “rich” people’s children. Funny that no one ever complains of the liberal rich, like you Paul.
So, yes, we are still, in a deep sense, the nation that declared independence and, more important, declared that all men have rights. Well, how eloquent. It’s nice to know we all have rights, no doubt bestowed upon us by government. In 1776, Krugman would have been a Tory or Tory sympathizer, not a rebel.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
It’s funny that the left can consistently find things that are clearly not in the Constitution and discount or completely ignore those that clearly are in the document.
Decade after decade we’ve heard the constant drumbeat of the left exclaiming the separation of church and state. That it’s the law and we must take care not to co-mingle religion and the state.
I’ve read the Constitution many times and can state unequivocally that the separation of church and state is not written nor even implied in the Constitution.
What is clear, to anyone who cares to take a peek, is the separation of powers. That is as plain as the nose on my brother’s face.
Yet there doesn’t seem to be a separation any longer. There appear to be no branches of government that are separate but equal. Somewhere along the American timeline our constitutional republic has been replaced with some kind of three-class system.
But what about “we the people”? There is no “we the people”. We are merely indentured servants of the state, lower than the low.
Our federal legislative branch, the House and Senate, have become the lower or serf class. They have to answer to the parliamentarian class, the executive branch, who in turn must ultimately bow to the will of the rulers, the judicial branch.
How did we morph into such a society? Easy; from a single Supreme Court decision. It’s called judicial review and was set up long ago.
The 1803 decision of the Marshall Court in Marbury v Madison set this country on a path to judicial tyranny.
The eventuality of that one Supreme Court decision has effectively nullified the 10th amendment , states rights and rendered individual state constitutions virtually meaningless.
Yet in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, a review of Article III, section 2 nowhere states or implies judicial review of the Constitution.
Folks (I sound like Bill O’Reilly), the Constitution is quite simple to understand. It’s made to appear complex so that the common man feels reliant upon “scholars” to explain to us idiots what the founders “really” meant.
In fact, it was written and enacted for and by the states thus granting states most of the power. It would not have been ratified otherwise.
That is why, unlike today’s legislation, it is not at all a lengthy document. It didn’t have to be. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government reverts back to the states and thus the people. It’s really that simple.
Yet we have allowed the Supreme Court to usurp their mandated authority.
Thomas Jefferson wrote of the danger of the court in 1823: “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for the removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction, before anyone has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employing in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”
There’s that word, precedent. Makes my skin crawl.
Ditto Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”
But with the recent Supreme Court decision nullifying a legally binding California state constitutional amendment on marriage, I’ve concluded that ship has sailed.
The fix is now in and that decision marks the end of states rights and the 10th amendment. We will soon be known as the “United Community of America”, a centuries-old progressive dream come true.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
A few days ago Erick Erickson at RedState wrote of the great immigration debate, particularly the involvement of Senator Marco Rubio.
Senator Rubio, for good or ill, is the talk of the political town, as it were. He has become the face of this battle.
Erickson said that Marco Rubio is either being played for a fool or we are being played by Rubio.
I’m sorry Erick. You are either soft peddling what you know to be true, or stupid. and we know you’re not stupid.
Let’s just say it. A liar is a liar, regardless of party affiliation and Rubio is a bold face liar. What…need proof? Here ya go.
During a recent interview with Latino broadcaster Univision, Rubio said, in spanish: ” Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing legalizations. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then comes the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residency.”
Now I don’t hablo espanol, but I think I can translate. Millions upon millions of illegals will be immediately legalized. Then there will be plan for border security, but no border security. There will be no fence, or wall erected. They may hire more border agents but the “no-touchy the illegals” policy will remain so it won’t matter.
It’s painfully obvious that the vast majority of politicians in Washington are not interested in border security. Just look at the failed yet quite reasonable amendment put forth by Senator Chuck Grassley. He wanted legalization to only happen after certifying that the border had been secure for a 6 month period. Only 6 months! It received virtually no support and was tabled by “Dirty” Harry Reid. So you tell me anyone wants to seal the border.
Glenn Beck made a great point about Rubio. As usual, Glenn is dead-on right.
Beck said that he likened Rubio’s “spanish language” interview to the tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah. Their leaders give incendiary speeches to their followers in arabic. They then give a whitewashed speech in english to the rest of the world claiming it was the same speech, but we misunderstood due to the poor translation.
Beck continued by saying that Rubio: “Is not on your side.” He was also disgusted with Rand Paul and Jeff Flake.
Like Beck, Levin and Limbaugh, I too have had enough of these faux-conservatives we all counted on to take the fight to Washington. At this point I wonder if these republicans were ever constitutional conservatives as some of them claimed.
After the last election, I stated unequivocally that under NO circumstances will I ever support any politician who supports amnesty! And don’t fool yourself. That’s what this is.
So, you may say; this is one issue. You can’t expect to agree with politicians all the time, right? Wrongo! Not this time.
The immigration issue is the most important issue of our lifetime. More important than the debt ceiling, the sequester, the deficit, the IRS scandal, Benghazigate, the PRISM program…anything; even Obamacare.
We will not and cannot survive the onslaught of 10, 20, 30 million instant citizens. And this will be a perpetual amnesty program. It will not end. Don’t believe the lies to the contrary.
I hate to be such a downer but we better wake up and fast. Call, write, talk to your friends. Whatever, but this must be stopped. If it is allowed to take hold, we are done.
Joe Biden Hypocrisy, 2006
Barack Obama Hypocrisy, 2007
My how things have changed, eh?
by: the Common Constitutionalist
I recently heard an argument presented by a pro-surveillance advocate.
I’m paraphrasing: The metadata being compiled is no more dangerous or intrusive than the Post Office scanning every single envelope they handle, which they do. How is collecting phone numbers or e-mail addresses any more intrusive than that?
I can think of three things right off the top of my head. First: The intrusiveness is immaterial. Unless I’m mistaken, the fourth amendment of the Constitution does not have a clause indicating that search and seizure is okay depending on the severity of the intrusion.
Second: there is an “intention” that the Postal Service will scan and read the envelope that you send. Otherwise, how would it get to its intended destination? The same cannot be said of the electronic data the government is collecting. There is no “intention” of me allowing the government to see this data without first clearing the fourth amendment hurdles.
Third: the Postal Service is a government/public agency. Yes, it’s supposed to support itself, so one might call it quasi-governmental, but it ain’t private.
The companies being mined for data are all private. They are not public entities so they should be afforded the same benefit of the fourth amendment as you and I.
This massive data collection is supposed to be for our own safety and security. That is the way it is being portrayed to the low information citizen, and frankly to all of us, is it not?
Well, anyone who has ever been a cop, or a spy, or done any investigatory work knows that mining for gazillions of bits of information is not the way to catch anyone. Human intelligence, feet on the street and interrogations. These are the things that lead to real actionable intelligence. Electronic data collection is also quite useful when limited and focused properly.
That focus is how we found bin Laden and how we could have found the Tsarnaev brothers ahead of time.
What about the FISA court? Doesn’t it is still have to sign off on this surveillance?
To tell the truth, I’m not 100% sure about that, nor do I think this administration gives a flying crap about getting permission to do anything. But if they did happen to seek permission to hack, eavesdrop or collect everyone’s firstborn, chances are pretty good that FISA would rule in the affirmative. It has been a virtual rubberstamp for the feds.
FISA was developed by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by Jimmy Carter. Without knowing anything about it, I would automatically reject just on that basis.
In its 34-year history, from 1978 through 2012, the FISA court has rejected a grand total of 11 government applications, while approving more than 20,000. That’s pretty good odds.
When running for president, candidate Obama pretended to have serious concerns about the law, then voted for it. He then vowed to rein in its excesses. But last year he demanded the renewal of the law with no reforms and Congress as they tend to do, complied.
Gee, what a shocker. Obama, or any other politician for that matter, said something and then did the exact opposite.
In 2011 there were 1676 applications presented to the FISA court and not one was denied. Let me repeat, not one.
In 2012, the Obamites ramped up the applications to 1789. Again, not one was denied. Give me those odds in Vegas baby!
There is no reasonable or justifiable reason for this data collection of American citizens and there appears to be absolutely no oversight. This is the stuff of paranoid dictators and Kings, not of a constitutional republic.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
The other morning Glenn Beck asked if the president really does know what’s going on?
Is he in charge? Is anyone in charge? Do any of his people actually report to him or not. Eric Holder for example. Does he report to Obama? If not, than to whom does he report; himself?
Was Leon Panetta telling the truth when he said he had no additional contact with the president. It was rumored that Obama went to sleep the night of the Benghazi attack.
Obama had no idea of the fast & furious scandal. Not even Holder had any notion of the gun running into Mexico. Is any of this to be believed?
The IRS was and for all we know still is, targeting groups that don’t agree with the administration. Are we to believe the president knew nothing of this either?
Is this guy the most incompetent official ever to hold office? Is he the most disengaged Chief executive ever, or is he the most corrupt politician in history?
That’s a tough choice.
Well, I agree with Rush and have contended this for years. Liberals and radical leftists all think the alike. Obama doesn’t need to coach or tell them how to think or act. They don’t require meetings and strategy sessions to make sure all are on the same page. So, although I doubt it, it could be possible that Obama isn’t aware of some the nefarious goings-on.
He has a circle of friends and colleagues that are cut from the same cloth. So Obama can hire or promote someone like Lois Lerner and just walk away. She knows what to do. She knows to wield her power. She doesn’t need instructions from Obama. She is also able to hire others radicals to do her bidding, and so on down the ladder. That way everyone can claim to be ignorant.
If they do appear to be caught in the act, they just clam up.
Regarding Lois Lerner, of IRS infamy; she claimed the Fifth before Darrell Issa’s committee. Many republicans thought, we’ve got her now!
Conservatives claim she lost the benefit of the Fifth Amendment and wish to her force her to return and testify to the commission.
They certainly have the right to do so, but what will happen? She will reappear, plead the Fifth and refuse to testify again. The republicans will then remind her that due to her original opening statement, she effectively surrendered her Constitutional right to silence. The republicans will then hold her in contempt of Congress. How naïve.
Now being in contempt of Congress is not the same as it is in a courtroom. A Judge can find someone in contempt and toss him or her in jail until they answer his questions. It’s different with Congress.
The committee will find Ms. Lerner in contempt. They then must bring the contempt order to the entire body of the House of Representatives for a vote. Now during this time, Ms Lerner isn’t sitting in the slammer. She is out, going about her business completely unencumbered, and getting paid.
The House votes on the contempt charge. If they vote it down, that’s it; she’s off scot-free. But what if Congress votes in favor? She’ll be in deep doo-doo, right?
Ummm…No. If the body votes to hold her in contempt, they must hand the order over to…, you got it; the Obama Justice Department. Eric Holder’s Justice Department. And what will happen to Ms. Lerner? Absolutely nothing. Well, maybe she’ll get another raise and promotion for a job well done.
So I ask again. Who is running the country anyway? Is there anyone really in charge? Does the buck actually stop anywhere? No, of course not silly. If there were one individual in charge, either the president or department head, he, she or it would bear ultimate responsibility for all the high crimes and shenanigans.
No one who should be in charge seems to know anything, including our dear president. Is it because they really don’t know, or are they all liars? You make the call.