Press Ignorance Over The History of The Constitution

 

 Walter E. Williams has always been one of those in academia and outside that has always made sense to me and he did again earlier this month when he discussed a Time Magazine article regarding the Founders.  The assertions that the author, Richard Stengel, makes in his piece shows an utter lack of understanding of how the Constitution was created. In his response, Mr. Williams made it clear that he  understands how the document that governs our country was constructed.

Mr. Stengel is an example of how people lie in today's world to prove their point, a view I expressed in a previous posting.  If the author had listened and learned his civics lessons in grade school or high school, he would understand where he erred. Where are his editors or is their knowledge of history so poor that they too do not understand or is their purpose to mis-inform? Regardless of the reason or rationale, it speaks very poorly of Time Magazine and its editors.

We read Time to gain information, unbiased reporting of the facts. We do not subscribe to get opinion, lies and deceit. If we want editorials there is a spot, it is called the editorial page where we expect to read the opinions of the Editors.   If Time continues down this path, it will soon be the same as the recently closed "News of the World" which tapped cell phones and who knows what else to get their scoops.

If those in the news business believe that they can continue down this  path because the "freedom of the press" will protect them, they are fools.  With this freedom as well as all freedoms comes responsibility. Only those who practice the judicious use of the ability to write freely are preserving it. One cannot say or write anything that comes to mind as that was not the intention of the Founders. They wanted the press to freely investigate and report and not to be hamstrung by government leaders dictating what should be reported.

If the press, a newspaper, magazine, radio or television news program continually misrepresents the issues, do they deserve to be protected by the Constitution? There are many who do not believe they should.

How does this effect talk radio or blogs for instance.  In my humble opinion, this is completely different.  These are opinion outlets just like the Editorial page.  When you tune in Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes or read this blog, do you expect to read or hear all the appropriate facts? No, it is the hosts opinion you hear. You may agree or disagree with the view, but the host is not telling you that he has given you all you need to be informed. That does not mean they should either. Neither does the Editorial page for that matter.

The "talkers" or "bloggers" are covered under another right. The freedom of speech.  They are not the press nor should they be considered as that.  They help the public discuss, chew on, and decide their opinions. Much of the information these people use to discuss the "topic of the day" come from the media which makes the balanced reporting necessary by the press even more important. 

The press has a valuable place in a free society. To abuse that right by unbalanced reporting, is to minimize the significant value of the freedom of press. Those who abuse this right daily are saying that facts and balance are only important when trying to lead us to a certain decision. That is not the value of the press.

Here is Mr. Williams' article:

Walter E. Williams

Gross Media Ignorance

7/6/2011 |

There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution. If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation.

Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms -- freedom of speech, assembly, religion -- but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College."
My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power. I agree the framers were not gods and were not infallible, but they had far greater wisdom and principle than today's politicians.
The framers held democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. James Madison argued that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as anti-democratic that South Dakota and California both have two senators, but the framers wanted to reduce the chances that highly populated states would run roughshod over thinly populated states. They established the Electoral College to serve the same purpose in determining the presidency.
The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution. The Bill of Rights says Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe, shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections. I've always argued that if we depart this world and see anything resembling the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we'll know we're in hell. A bill of rights in heaven would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to override a veto and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
Stengel says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Stengel apparently has not read The Federalist No. 45, in which James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Stengel's article is five pages online, and I've only commented on the first. There's also little in the remaining pages that reflects understanding and respect for our nation's most important document

Is Lying The New Way Of Doing Things In the United States

 

 

It seems that everyday we deal with the repercussions of the new way of doing business in the US.  Whether it is pages of disclosures we have to read and sign when we try to buy something or the willingness of people to "shave the truth" when they tell us their point of view or our politicians who cavalierly mislead us.

Whether it was the mortgage companies who sold mortgages to those who could not afford them; the people who submitted the false income numbers to justify their loans; the government regulations which required the banks to lend to those who could not afford a loan; or the politicians who saw nothing wrong with the process until it exploded, our country is experiencing a decline in morals.

Why have our morals changed? 100 years ago, a man's word was his bond. If he said he would do something, he did. If you asked someone to "put it in writing" they would be insulted. Now, the opposite is true.  Even if it is in writing, there are always those "wiggle words or phrases" which allow us to get out of the contract if we want.
This change has permeated the entire country, every business, every aspect of society.  As the following article illustrates school administrators and teachers made changes to the kids grades so their schools would meet certain requirements. If there should be one aspect of society that you would hope would not be corrupted, that would be schools.  Obviously, schools are reflective of the society in general.

History is always a good teacher and usually is illustrative of future events. In Rome we had the same degradation of values. The longer the country existed, the standards continued to decline. Are headed to the same direction. In short, we believe it is so.

Can the trend be reversed?  Possibly, but it would take an attitude adjustment which would be traumatic and most people do not like change never the less massive change. So the chances of anything occurring are minimal at best. 

What can be expected?  The government will continue to mislead and misdirect us. Our leaders will treat us like children.  Business deceit will increase. Government will add  more regulations to legislate morality and fair business. Morals in general will decline. It will become fair to take from those who have more through theft.  Bribery of officials will become common. Stealing money, benefits or privileges from the government will be the norm, in other words, playing the system will be legalized.

Yes, it is not a pretty picture, but never is life in a third world country to which we are quickly descending.  The United States never was intended to end up this way.  I can only hope that we, Americans, can find the intestial fortitude to make the necessary changes to avoid this tragedy.

The attached article relates the story about education deceit. I hope it upset you as much as it did me.

 

Bill O'Reilly

Lying and Cheating in the Home of the Brave

7/23/2011 |

So, I'm trying to channel Moses here to find out why so many Americans are bearing false witness against their neighbors. Ask any attorney or judge, and they will tell you that lying under oath is now the rule, not the exception, in the nation's courtrooms.
In addition, the national cheating epidemic has exploded. A Georgia investigation alleges systematic cheating occurred at 44 public schools over a 10-year period. But it's not the kids who were caught. No, the state says at least 178 teachers and principals did the deeds. It seems the remarkable improvements in student scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests were fraudulent. Educators doctored the tests in order to make their schools look good. They have all been fired.
Lying and cheating almost always come down to betrayal and are most often driven by selfishness. America has become a nation obsessed with immediate gratification. Public schools have embraced secularism with a vengeance; therefore, Moses and his 10 Commandments have been banished.
There are, of course, good people who understand that honesty is indeed the best policy if you want to live a worthwhile life. But their numbers are dwindling. In fact, a recent study out of the University of Connecticut says that an astounding 95 percent of high school students have admitted to cheating in the past year.
For a variety of reasons, our society now embraces and empowers scoundrels. Many of them are fun and exciting. Charlie Sheen commands headlines. Bad guy rappers make millions. In the 1960s, it was: "If it feels good, do it." Today, it is: "If it looks good, steal it." Or: "If it sounds good, say it." Many of the moral boundaries that once elevated this country have collapsed.
President Obama talks about "shared sacrifice," and we used to have that in the USA. My parents pulled together with their neighbors during the Great Depression and World War II. Americans looked out for each other in those trying times. Lying and cheating were considered shameful and could get you ostracized. Generosity and honor were celebrated in even the poorest precincts. This is not some romantic remembrance. It's what happened.
Not today. Now it's a free-for-all of getting what you want as quickly as possible. Lying and cheating are considered by many to be useful tools on the road to accomplishment. If society does not hold us responsible for deceit, why should we hold ourselves responsible?
That's a tough question to answer when students see their teachers cooking the books. And God help the public person who addresses the issue. That person will be branded a hypocrite if he or she has any wrongdoing on the resume.
Truth be told, even Moses would have a tough time in this environment

A Terrorist By Any Philosophy Is A Terrorist

There are many who will try to use the Norway Terrorist as an example of what is wrong with the conservative point of view and incorrectly try to equate "right-wing" terrorism with Islamic terrorism as if they were equals.  It avoids one basic difference that being the number of events and participants.

 As I count there were two involved in Oklahoma City and one in Norway for a grand total of three.  Please remind me, how many were involved in 9/11 alone?  Islamic terrorism wins hands down when you count up the numbers.

However, in this column, we are equal opportunity condemners.  We condemn all those who use terrorism as a way of winning the day.

Whether it was the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers or the SDS of yesteryear or Al Queda, Timothy McVeigh or the Norway bomber of today, their attempts to disrupt society and to remake it in their vision should be resisted by all.  A win by these anti-social criminals (even if they later become friends of the President of the United States) would end up being a loss to all civilized society.  They might have ideas which would improve how we live, however, their methods have to be condemned regardless of political philosophy. They should be arrested, tried and if convicted, subjected to the same sentence as their victims.

We must send a strong message that these actions will not be allowed in our country (or any other country). Unless we speak with a strong and clear voice, these miscreants will continue their vicious ways.

So if one of your "friends" tries to lay the blame on Norway at the feet of Conservatives, tell him that you condemn all terrorism regardless of political orientation. Hopefully, it will make them think a bit more.

What follows is an article which will give you more ammunition. Hope you enjoy it.

The Norway Terrorist

Bruce Thornton - FrontPage Magazine, July 25th, 2011

A year or two ago I was at a dinner party where a gentleman and his wife confronted me about my writing on Islamic terrorism. “Why is it,” he asked irritably, “that terrorism is always called ‘Islamic’? What about ‘Christian’ terrorists?”

“Well, name a Christian terrorist,” I replied. I wasn’t being combative; I was genuinely curious to know whom they considered to be someone committing politically-driven murder and mayhem in the name of Jesus. The sentence was barely out of my mouth before the wife shot back, “Timothy McVeigh.”

McVeigh’s bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City took place sixteen years ago. Unlike Muslim fundamentalists who theologically justify their acts of terrorism, McVeigh can not rightly be characterized as a “Christian terrorist,” because he was, by his own admission, not a committed Christian, and he carried out the attack not because God or the Bible commanded him to, but because he hated the U.S. government. And yet after all these years his name remains virtually the sole flimsy example that people have at the ready to challenge what they consider to be the stereotype of Islamic terrorism.

No more. Now a new McVeigh has arisen, a symbol that the Left and Islamic supremacists themselves will use to bludgeon Christian conservatives and critics of jihad for the next sixteen years – Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik is in police custody for carrying out what some are calling Norway’s “Oklahoma City,” a reference to McVeigh’s 1995 bombing, of course. Breivik, who claims to have acted alone, set off a massive bomb that devastated an Oslo government building and killed seven, then traveled to a nearby youth camp for hundreds of teen children of Labour Party politicians, where he proceeded to massacre as many as 90 of them with ruthless, methodical gunfire.

As the news began leaking out about Europe’s deadliest terror attack since the 2003 Madrid train bombing, there was a predictable – and perfectly reasonable – assumption on the part of terrorism experts, the media, and possibly anyone who follows the Clash of Civilizations, that the perpetrators were Islamists. After all, there were plenty of reasons to suspect initially that these were acts of Islamic terrorism: at least one Islamist group initially claimed responsibility (but later retracted it); Muslim extremists cheered the attacks in online chatrooms; Norway is still a target of Islamists burning to avenge the Muhammad cartoons; legal action was finally taken against the radical Mullah Krekar whom Norway has been sheltering for years, and he threatened retaliation; al Qaeda tried to attack Oslo last year; and, frankly, most terrorism carried out worldwide today is at the hands of jihadists.

But the truth was a stunning reversal. Not only is the perpetrator a well-educated, boyishly blond, ethnic Norwegian, he is a self-described Christian conservative bent on sparking a Pan-European resistance movement to oppose – by violence if necessary – the corrosive forces of multiculturalism, Islamic immigration, and “cultural Marxism” that are destroying the fabric of European society and culture. It’s too soon to have all the facts –speculation, as usual, began flying at light-speed over the rumor-mongering internet, including the mystery of a fake Facebook page and the musing that Breivik is himself a jihadist posing as a Christian conservative. But as of this writing, the coldly rational Breivik has apparently confessed to what he described in a 1500-page manifesto as the “systematical and organized executions of multiculturalist traitors.”

But the tragedy won’t end at the lives lost in Norway. Bruce Bawer, the author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom who lives in Norway, notes the broader concern that “legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited by association with this murderous lunatic.” As the European anti-jihad blogger Fjordman puts it,

"Breivik has scored a major victory for his opponents. An agent provocateur seeking to discredit the right-wing conservative sliver of the European political spectrum would have a hard time doing a better job… It is the perfect excuse to persecute and silence opposing voices… We’re heading for dark days."

The Left – including the mainstream media, and stealth jihadists themselves, like the ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood legacy group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations – won’t even bother to contain its collective glee over the fact that Breivik is a “right-wing Christian.” The narrative is already being constructed that will use him to tar everyone on the Right, particularly vocal critics of Islamic fundamentalism. This is the same Left that hijacks any and all discussions of Islamic terrorism by jumping up to insist that all Muslims must not be smeared because of the actions of a “tiny minority of extremists,” that not all terrorism is committed by Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists. Of course, no responsible anti-jihadist has ever made such claims, but the Left never bothers to concede this. By contrast, instead of living by the standards they demand of the Right, Leftists will now be perfectly happy to politicize Breivik’s terrorism and use him to tar everyone on the Right – Christians, conservatives, anti-jihadists, the Tea Party – everyone. And in fact, they have already begun attempting to link the Norway terrorist to Sarah Palin, of all people.

Breivik is a terrorist. His targeting of helpless schoolchildren makes him no better than the slaughterers at Beslan. But that doesn’t make everyone concerned about unfettered Islamic immigration, jihad, or the rapid disintegration of Europe’s cultural heritage a terrorist or even a sympathizer. There is no connection between the legitimate, courageous, lawful work of notable anti-jihadists and such evil. No true Christian, conservative, or responsible critic of jihad would condone Breivik’s despicable, cowardly acts or deem them to be in accordance with our beliefs and values. Much less would we celebrate those acts, unlike our Islamist counterparts. But denouncements of Breivik will be purposefully ignored by the Left.

Nor does it make Islamic terrorism any less of a threat. But the Left will use Breivik to divert attention from worldwide jihad, to advance their cultural Marxism, and to demonize the defenders of freedom. To echo Fjordman, we are facing dark days. We must face them with the truth.

Leadership Vacuum Identified

In the attached link that is on Youtube, this gentleman nails it. It is a five minute video which describes the Washington problem better than any of the talking heads while warning our leaders what will happen if they do not wake up.

Here is the link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SGyVNippvA&feature=youtube_gdata_player>

Listen to it and please do comment.