Skip to comments.The US Constitution: A Warding Power That Preserves
Posted on 01/27/2011 3:36:42 PM PST by Barry Secrest
See Ezra, See Ezra and Nora Talk, See Ezra and Nora Get Confused...
Ezra Klein, a very popular Liberal blogger who also writes for the Washington Post, finally made us all cognizant of the exact reason for his extreme popularity--as it regards the increasingly mind-numbed, diminutively numbered, Liberal automatons of the Nation. In a televised interview with Progressive info-babe Nora O' Donnell on the "Lean Forward and to the Left" network MSNBC, Klein was asked his opinion of the impending public reading of the Constitution in the House. Klein responded that the reading was, indeed, "a gimmick" that "had no binding power on anything."
The Hulk-ettishly Ignorant Ezra Klein
Klein further explained, in an Aha! moment, his apparent reason for Progressive-angst against the Constitution by whining, "The text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago." He further stated, in a rather daunting display of incredibly Hulk-ettish extreme ignorance, the following: "What people believe it says differs from person to person and differs on what they want to get done."
Our increasingly typical response, these days, sounded once again: Oh, for Heaven's sake! Now...first of all, we would like to thank Ezra personally for allowing us that rare but very telling peek into the Liberal workings of what many might refer to as an ever declining group-think mental process. But the most important part of this particular discovery points to what we might refer to as a basic and yet mammoth misunderstanding of what the US Constitution means to both a Government and the people who are being governed. All of this even while missing the entire all-encompassing purpose of the text in the first place.
Recently Discovered All-Natural Liberal Repellent
First of all, we note it to be fascinating that the US Constitution begins with "US" --and musefully wonder if that is some sort of typographical accident, or does it, perhaps, point to some serendipitous cosmic implication of a thing much deeper at play? In fact, the entire document defines what a government cannot do to an individual or, more conjunctively, "Us." Conversely, President Obama referred to the Constitution as a list of negative rights against the government, while lamenting the fact that an individual's "positive rights" fail at redressing redistribution of wealth. In other words, the President would prefer to see the US Constitution as a list of positive rights custom designed for the expressed protection of each native individual in every way conceivable, which would leave the Government free to perform anything that it desires in achieving that unsound goal....
My late friend’s musical tribute to the Constitution: