May 5, 2007
What Paul Krugman Really Ought to Fear
by Robert E. Meyer
A recent Friday the 13th brought out that eerie mantra from the left again. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote another editorial rant about the "encroachment of the religious right" upon the political landscape.
First he offers an ominous quotation proffered by Christian economist Gary North over a quarter century ago, who apparently commanded his minions to secretly infiltrate the mainstream political structure. Gary who? I know who Gary North is, but I would wager that most people who identify themselves with the "Christian Right" never heard of him. So it seems unlikely they are deliberately heeding his dictate.
Krugman also mentions that the platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state." Horror of horrors! Most Americans are so historically illiterate that they don't even know the phrase "separation of church and state," is not in the Constitution or any government document. Sometimes trying to be historically accurate is a dangerous thing. Don't you spin doctors of orthodoxy confuse me with the truth.
The piece goes on to bemoan that so many graduates of Regent University, a satellite of Pat Robertson's "theocratic empire," have been assimilated into the Bush administration. Most presidents bring in personnel with ideological commonality, so they can best promote their mandates or agenda. This is, of course, clandestine when the people have some known religious affiliation. It makes me wonder, comparatively, how many liberals who are products of Ivy League universities, which were founded in colonial times to promote a Christian worldview, have silently infiltrated the public square to promote secular agendas.
Our country has been moving left on the ideological continuum for so long, any movement in the opposite direction is like a theft of liberal's birthrights. Theocratic agents lurk behind every tall blade of grass. The trees have ecclesiastical eyes.
To avoid being labeled a Christophobe or being impugned for religion bashing, Krugman reminds us that there is a big difference between the ideologues he is weary of and a true person of faith. I can guess the profile of this coveted "person of faith." Perhaps he is the individual who regularly attends his house of worship, faithfully prays in his closet, and has cherished opinions, but would never dream of allowing them to influence public policy, or impose them on anybody. That's Krugman's kind of religious zealot. Scary indeed!
Right about now, somebody will start trying to appease those of Krugman's persuasion, saying "Oh no! We aren't interested in establishing a theocracy." Oops! The "T" word is out of the bottle again. Chase it down while the "seculacrats" do an end run and grab another slice of American culture, another foothold in the public square
The people that worry me are the ones obsessed with removing God and religion from the culture. The reason they pose a threat is a lot more fundamental than the fact they dislike or ridicule religious faith. They want God publicly declared off limits.
The editor of a local religious paper where I write a monthly column, placed the Preambles of all the state Constitutions on the back page of the publication. Every one of those Preambles listed, acknowledged God. Our national Declaration of Independence says that our Creator has endowed us with inalienable rights, and that the government's job is to be the earthly protector of those rights. Take God out of the equation and one can only conclude that these rights are bestowed by the government.
What the government gives, it can take away.
Liberty can never be secure in that sort of society. The people accorded civil liberties will be the ones whistling the tune of political correctness. The so-called "religious person," particularly the Christian, will be persona non-gratis.
It's asinine to suggest that those whose lives are influenced by faith, should have no access to public policy, but the secularist, equally ardent in his ideological foundation, should have complete access to making the rules.
Within a representative republic, why should religious Americans not have the opportunity to build consensus, lobby for change, or protest perceived injustices, the same way every other group does? You tell me then we'll both know.
What Paul Krugman really ought to fear is secular totalitarianism with all its tentacles.
Robert E. Meyer is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.
Obama Arrogantly Cites Self Instead of Law
by Daniel Clark
Barack Obama has stirred up a controversy of his own while criticizing the president for his firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means, unlike the president, I actually respect the Constitution.”
Republican National Committee spokesman Dan Ronayne pointed out that Obama was not in fact a professor, but only a senior lecturer, at the University of Chicago. Fair enough, but the truly dishonest part of Obama's statement is in claiming that his academic achievements translate into a respect for the law of our land.
Like all liberal Democrats, the Illinois senator reads the Constitution the same way that W.C. Fields read the Bible ("looking for loopholes"). The difference is that Fields didn't have the chutzpah to claim that this exercise meant he was devoutly religious.
With typical liberal narcissism, Obama seems to think the Constitution is what he says it is. He said as much when he voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts. He agreed that the judge was impeccably qualified, but voiced concern that the two of them would not feel the same way about certain cases.
"In those circumstances," he theorized, "your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce … in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Obalderdash.
The type of affirmative action that Obama champions, racial quotas and double standards in state college admissions, is a direct violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. To selectively deny some students the protection of this law runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause.
Not only is there no "general right to privacy" in the Constitution, but Obama has in the past gone to anti-constitutional extremes in defense of abortion. As a committee chairman in the Illinois state senate in 2003, he blocked a bill from coming to the floor that would have protected children who had survived abortion attempts, much like the federal bill that President Bush signed that same year. These children, already born, are not only indisputably people, but also U.S. citizens. Yet the senator dismisses these babies' killings as just more "reproductive decisions."
He makes little attempt to hide his flouting of the "commerce clause" in Article I Section 8, where the powers of Congress are defined. "Interstate commerce" is the large-scale physical movement of commodities from one state to another. To someone who truly respects the Constitution, this clause does not leave much room for sentimentalism
When the Constitution is silent on an issue, the Tenth Amendment delegates the decision-making power to state and local governments, not to the whims of the federal judiciary. It contains no "follow your heart" clause to justify Obama's vote against Roberts. The "critical ingredient" is supplied, as always, by the language of the law, not by the individual egos of judges and politicians.
Obama has no constitutional beef with President Bush, who is empowered by law to fire U.S. attorneys, without having to justify his actions to Congress. The only way the senator can claim otherwise is by falling back on the personalized redefinition he used against Roberts. If constitutionality is the product of one's heart, then all Obama has to do is establish that his heart is superior to the president's in order to show that he has greater respect for the Constitution.
That's not hard to do, given the prevailing liberal media mythology. On the one hand, we have the “pure hearted” liberal Democrat Obama who distorts the Constitution to suit his purposes. On the other, our hard-hearted president, who took time off from stealing elections, starting hurricanes and drowning polar bears so that he could bomb Iraqi children to smithereens, just to stop them from flying their kites.
Ergo, Barack Obama is the embodiment of the "living Constitution." That means he can interpret the document to mean anything he needs it to, just as long as his heart tells him so. As it happens, this is also the way he has interpreted the word "professor."
Daniel Clark is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.
Editor’s Note: The views expressed in the editorial commentary above are the opinions of the writers and are not necessarily the views of Sage Commentary.