Jan 3, 2012
This New York Times Op Ed by Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, is one of the most absurd and dangerous articles I have read in a very long time. This guy’s incredible conclusion is that it is the Constitution of the United States itself that is causing all that ails the nation at this time. Not once did I read about the Federal Reserve, or the “war on terror,” or the banker bailouts, or the complete destruction of the rule of law in recent years. Nope, none of that. Instead, this scholar’s conclusion is that the founding document, which created the fertile breeding ground for freedom and free markets and led to tens of millions of people to flee to from all corners of the globe, is the problem.
I suppose someone failed to remind Mr. Seidman that the oath of office for the military and those that hold political office continues to be:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
As I have said for years, a key part of the macro agenda of the corrupt elite has been and continues to be the destruction of the U.S. Constitution. While the Bill of Rights is already being dismantled behind the scenes, Mr. Seidman is part of the effort to “sell” this concept to the sheeple as I noted in my article: Here We Go…Slate Magazine Bashes the First Amendment. I expect more of this type of propaganda going forward.
From the New York Times:
As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.
The above paragraph is important for two reasons. First, he picks and chooses what part of the Constitution he agrees with and then says those things are good and should remain. More disturbingly, he then says we should defend freedom based on “respect not obligation.” This is insane. The reason the Bill of Rights exists is to enshrine the protection of civil rights under the law so that an authoritarian government cannot trample them. Do you really expect government to protect civil rights out of “respect” if they are not obligated to by law? Not a chance. Then he concludes with:
But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.
Full Op Ed here.
Please pass this on to every freedom loving American you know.