An Example of a Pseudo Elitist
Pushing for Enslavism in the
United States of America:
The Focus is on Richard Stengel
of Time Magazine
by
Victor Edward Swanson,
publisher
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
The United States of America
copyright c. 2011
June 24, 2011
(Version 1)
(Draft version)
"Enslavism" is, as I define it, a political system in which a few, who might consider themselves elitists, rule over the many, and some of specific forms of "enslavism" as governments are communist governments, as practiced in many countries of the world, an example of which is Cuba, Sharia-based governments, in which women are second-grade citizens to males, and monarchies, in which a king rules over his subjects, which is the type of government that the founders of the United States of America rebelled against and won independence from in late 1700s. People who push for "enslavism" and practice "enslavism" have existed throughout the history of man, exist today, and will very likely exist in the future, because the real nature of man, generally speaking, remains the same and the nature of men will always include "enslavists," who wish to be nothing more in life than "enslavists." The United States of America became defined and is defined as a government through a document called The United States Constitution, and a big purpose of the document was and is to define specifically what the federal government can do and cannot do, and, in essence, The United States Constitution is a blocking document--it is designed to block those who would wish to become like kings or dictators over the citizens of the country from becoming like kings of dictators, who today are most likely to be members of the Democratic Party, which is really a party made up of communists, socialists, and the like. Because The United States Constitution is such a blocking document, people have been getting into government positions over the decades so that they can by making laws and rules (such as through court cases) make the document mute and change the government structure to something very foreign to what it was designed to be, and some of those people working to, in essence, kill important blocking features of The United States Constitution are some U.S. Senators, some U.S. Representatives, some judges, and even Barack Obama, a well-known communist, who has said that The United States Constitution is a "flawed" document, and helping to convince people, especially the ignorant and naive, that The United States Constitution is flawed and should be radically changed work in the media, and one of those is Richard Stengel, who became the "managing editor" of the well-known weekly publication entitled Time in May 2006. On Thursday, June 23, 2011, Richard Stengel had a piece entitled "One Document, Under Siege" published by Time on the Internet (Stengel, Richard. "One Document, Under Siege." Time, 23 June 2011.), and it is an article that shows Richard Stengel, who supports "enslavism" and Barack Obama's political policies, is an evil man, who would wish harm to come to this country and the citizens of this country by having the country become not that which is defined by and based on The United States Constitution as it was intended, for the most part, to be or set up to be (by the way, a photograph accompanied the article, and the photograph that accompanied the article showed a shredded piece of paper that is The United States Constitution). Look at some of what Richard Stengel wrote, and look how wrong some of it is or how defective points of it are and how screwed up Richard Stengel's logic is, et cetera, and when you read through this document, you will see my comments about the Richard Stengel material that is presented.
The piece by Richard Stengel, which would not get, as far as I would say, an "A" or "B" in English composition class, given that it has paragraphs that have rambling thoughts, opens with:
"Here are a few things that framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting, Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga."
In this opening paragraph, Richard Stengel is trying to put in to your mind that, because "the framers" of The United States Constitution did not know the things that are listed in Richard Stengel's paragraph would become a reality someday, what "the framers" created--The United States Constitution--would not really apply to the future, especially in two-hundred years, but I say that that is nonsense, since The United States Constitution was not designed to take into consideration anything like Medicare, the atom, typewriters, antibiotics, artificial knees, motorboats, miniskirts, atom smashers, the stars in the sky, automobiles, et cetera. So Richard Stengel begins the article by running off the mouth with nonsense. For one, ask yourself--What does the miniskirt have to do with a constitution for any government and why was the miniskirt even mentioned in the article?
Then comes a long paragraph, which basically works on the idea of making people wonder what
"the framers" would say about such and such if they were alive today, and it is filled with more nonsense than I wish to discuss, but here I show one set of words from it:"What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say."
Richard Stengel presented crap through that set of words. First, it is no matter that "James Madison did not know what health insurance was," but James Madison and "the framers" did not set up The United States Constitution so that the government could tell people what they had to buy or could not buy from other people or entities in the country, because if a government can tell a person what the person must buy or cannot buy, then the government is a tyranny or is all powerful and the people are oppressed by a few. Second, Richard Stengel pushes forward the argument that James Madison is stupid when compared with even the average person in the country today, since James Madison did not know about all the "things" we have today, and Richard Stengel even worked to tie James Madison to a time when doctors still used leeches and were stupid about medicine and worthy medical care (by the way, sometimes, even in the United States of America today, leeches are used in medicine by modern doctors).
Richard Stengel was not done with "the framers" by only talking about James Madison--Richard Stengel gave readers this statement:
"And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)?"
Ask yourself--What does Thomas Jefferson having slaves and maybe having sexual relations with a black woman have to do with The United States Constitution, which is supposed to be the main purpose of the article or you would think is supposed to be the main purpose of the article.
One part of his article focuses on the idea that--"The framers were not gods and were not infallible." Then, Richard Stengel puts forth some things that he thinks "the framers" did right or did well. And then Richard Stengel mentioned some things that he felt were bad, such as:
"...but they also gave us the idea...that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy."
Through that statement, Richard Stengel is putting down the idea that, in the U.S. Senate, each state is represented by two persons (two senators), no matter how big the population is in a particular state. "The framers" did that--giving the U.S. Senate a two-person-for-each state-structure--purposely to give small states some power within the federal government and in making legislation. Consider something. The U.S. Congress--which is the Legislative Branch of the federal government--is made up of two main parts, which are the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. House of Repesenatives is set up in relation to population--big states have more representatives than small states have--so, in essence, big states can dominate what gets done and what laws get passed. If the U.S. Congress only had a U.S. House of Representatives, big states would, in essence, dictate what legislation gets made. Fortunately for the country, a particular bill must pass not through only a U.S. House of Representatives, but also a particular bill must pass through the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, in which small states actually are on an equal basis with big states. Ask yourself--If the U.S. Senate was based on a population idea, then why should it even exist? There would be no purpose in having a U.S. Senate if it were set up in relation to population as the U.S. House of Representatives is--you might as well only have a U.S. House of Representatives, which, of course, would then be based on population and have power held strongly in the grips of big states. Well, maybe, then the U.S. House of Representatives should be set up so that every state of all the states should have a specific number of representatives (such as two). What do you think of that?
I say that the article is so filled with nonsense that I could do--easily--a talk for hours about the article, but now what I do is skip a bunch of crap and come to the first sentence that comes under a heading--"Where's the Crisis?--and here is the sentence:
"A new focus on the Constitution is at the center of our political stage with the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document."
Here, the enslavist--Richard Stengel--shows the evilness of his mind clearly. The United State Constitution is a blocking document, and, for one, it has a number of rights for the individual citizen stated within it, and, for example, Tea Party-type people are people who understand the document is designed to protect them from bad people, such as bad politicians, who might enslave them, and the Tea Party-type people are defending their rights against bad people by defending The United States Constitution. The material from Richard Stengel shows that he is against those who wish to have such rights as the right to talk against politicians who are enslavists and criticize the government when it does bad, and Richard Stengel shows that he thinks the Tea Party-type people are, in essence, "fanatics," which can be translated as "nuts" and "crazy people" and the like.
Look at this piece of text:
"As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended."
The sentence just presented in quotation marks has to be looked at closely. Richard Stengel hints at the idea that there has been only been a rise in a group considered "constitution originalists" recently. I point out that there has always been "constitutional originalists," who are people who, for one, look back at documents, such as The Federalist Papers, that show what the thinking was of the framers at the time The United States Constitution was being made. Richard Stengel is pushing the idea that the meanings in The United States Constitution are ever changing or that the words within the document can be interpreted in many ways. To have a document made in which the meanings of the words and sentences can be interpreted differently from day to day is nonsense. Notice how Richard Stengel tries to persuade the reader that "liberal legal scholars analyze," meaning these scholars are really putting forth brain power to analyze meanings of words and such in the document, unlike the "constitutional originalists." Ask yourself--Why would people look for "elasticity" in the document or ways to bend the meanings of words in the document? And ask yourself--Should not the document have the same meanings--stable meanings--all the time and forever, as, for one, a mortgage contract that might last thirty years should have? Yes, Richard Stengel shows "liberal legal scholars" are not looking for the original meanings within The United States Constitution--they are looking to put their meanings--ever-changing meanings it appears--into the words and sentences. When the meanings of words in a document can be ever changing over time, what use is the document and why even have the document? Such a document is useless to one and all.
Now look at a long section and one sentence of a section that follows the long section:
"Nor are we in danger of flipping the Constitution on its head, as some of the Tea Party faithful contend. Their view of the founding documents was pretty well summarized by Texas Congressman Ron Paul back in 2008: 'The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government.' Well, not exactly. In fact, the framers did the precise opposite. They strengthened the center and weakened the states. The states had extraordinary power under the Articles of Confederation. Most of them had their own navies and their own currencies. The truth is, the Constitution massively strengthened the central government of the U.S for the simple reason that it established one where none had existed before.
"If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so...."
Read the above two sections again, and notice the theme of Richard Stengel's argument. Richard Stengel is putting forth the argument that "the framers" did not put restrictions on the federal government in The United States Constitution. His thoughts are nonsense. "The framers" had just won freedom from an enslavism form of government--a government based on a king--and they made The United States Constitution a document that gave the parts of the U.S. government "enumerated" powers, and what powers were not given to the federal government resided with the states or the people. You must keep in mind that it was the states, in essence, that created--by ratifying The United States Constitution--the federal government. Ask yourself--Why would people who had just escaped the government control of a highly centralized government the King of England) create a federal government that would have no restrictions on the power that it has? By answering that question for yourself--through logic--you should see that Richard Stengel's thought is crap.
The article ends with this sentence:
"Limited government indeed."
Now that you have read this document, you should look at the entire article from Richard Stengel, and you should analyze it for yourself, which should be easier for you to do now that you have seen some analysis of the article (though you may not have enough knowledge to refrute all that should be refruted). In the end, you should come away with a better impression of how a "liberal" main-media person--Richard Stengel--works to pass along misinformation and lies and push what Barack Obama believes in, such as a more-powerful, if not an all-powerful, central government, one in which the government owns the people (the citizens) and the people (the citizens) do not own the government. And in the end, you should come away with the idea that Richard Stengel is an evil man, a person who would do you harm and allow others do to you harm.
P.S.#1: You must understand Richard Stengel is trying to persuade more people, especially young people who are naive about life and the country--through false information and lies--to take up with his side, and that is the way of an evil man, especially when he pushes for a government without restrictions or nearly no restrictions or limits on power.
P.S. #2: I noted early in this document that the piece written by Richard Stengel would not get a good grade in an English composition class, especially since Richard Stengel is supposed to be a well-respected writer and the manager of a nationally distributed publication (Time), and, in fact, to me, his writing looks like that of a learner in an English course of a two-year college, and let me show one example why Richard Stengel's work does not deserve a good grade. As I have noted already, one paragraph begins with: "A new focus on the Constitution is at the center of our political stage with the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document." You would think the paragraph that you are about to read might be about the "Tea Party" or members of the "Tea Party" being "fanatical" about The United States Constitution. Well, the logic and focus of the paragraph goes astray--many times. The next sentence is: "The new Republican Congress organized a reading of all 7,200 words of an amended version of the Constitution on the House floor to open its first session." [I will skip talking about why Richard Stengel's use of "amended version" is defective and deceptive presentation.] The second sentence does not fit with the first sentence, since the second sentence is really another introductory sentence, which presents another direction of thought, which could be made into a stand-alone paragraph. Next, Richard Stengel presents: "As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended." This third sentence presents yet another direction of thought, which could be the basis for a paragraph and could be expanded upon. The idea of reading The United States Constitution in the U.S. Congress does not have a link with the idea presented in the third sentence, which is about the difference between "originalists and "liberal legal scholars." The fourth sentence is: "Everywhere there seems to be debate about the scope and meaning and message of the Constitution." Well, we now have yet another topic, which could be the theme of a paragraph with could have examples of where the debate has been or is taking place. Richard Stengel finishes with: "This is a healthy thing. Even the framers would agree on that." Okay, what is there for the framers to agree on based on what is given in Richard Stengel's paragraph? Now, Richard Stengel could argue well that "This is a healthy thing" does follow well after "Everywhere there seems to be debate about the scope and meaning and message of the Constitution." But that is all that Richard Stengel could defend. The entire paragraph has no meat and is only a bunch of what can be called introductory sentences that do not get expanded upon logically and with facts or examples. I do believe Richard Stengel should go back to college and learn the basics of good paragraph structure and then study for years Modern American Usage, the writer of which would probably give Richard Stengel an "F" for Richard Stengel's article if the writer were yet alive.
###
Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on June 24, 2011.
Note: This document is known on the Internet as www.hologlobepress.com/stengel.htm.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatism for
Children and What Conservatism Means,
which can be reached by using this link:
Conservatism.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Madness in a President
and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
which can be reached by using this link:
Madness.
For further reading, you should see my
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Never Forget These
Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
Individual in the United States of
America, which can be reached by
using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled A Little History of
Barack Obama Events: A Show of
Deconstruction, which can be reached by
using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Lessons for Children
about Politics and Dangerous People,
which can be reached by using this
link: Children.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The Next Elections:
What Has to be Done to Protect the
United States of America, which can
be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled World Tyranny:
Warnings about the Insane Who are
Trying to Create a Communist World
Country, which can be reached by
using this link: World.Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may click on this link now:
www.hologlobepress.com.###