NY Times: trashing the Constitution for fun and profit

NY Times: trashing the Constitution for fun and profit

by Jon Rappoport

January 3, 2013


re: NY Times op-ed, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution,” December 30, by Louis Michael Seidman

It doesn’t surprise me that the NY Times has decided the Constitution is merely a reference document now. The paper’s loyal readership, what’s left of it, lives huddled on the upper east side of New York, behind their hundred-million-dollar front doors, where wealth must be protected through any and all means.

The Constitution might impede that. Much better to have a central government that knows what its business and obligations really are: guarding the fortunes of the rich.

The Times editorial, of course, doesn’t say that. It merely leaves the founding document to wave in the breeze, its every pronouncement up for grabs.

The editorial is a test run to gauge the reaction.

Cutting the ropes that tether the Constitution to the government and the people isn’t a call for new energized dialogue on our common foundations. Things don’t work that way. Instead, what you get is naked fascism; the stronger force wins all arguments.

History, if paid attention to, would teach us that. But history isn’t on the minds of the powers behind the Times. They, like every other special-interest group in America, want guarantees. Wherever the trough is located, they want to stand at the head of the line and feed from it.

They want assured survival in an era of bailouts and waivers. If trillions of dollars are being thrown around by the White House, if the corruption is so thick it’s creating the biggest junta and banana republic in the history of the planet, they want in.

And they want, of course, the government to have all the guns, which requires a new rendering of the 2nd Amendment.

Obama needs allies in his next four years, as he strives to shred as much of the Constitution as he possibly can, and the Times just sent him a signal that they’re with him.

For example, HUD is about to unleash a new housing program across America, a residential version of forced school busing. It will compel every local government that accepts federal-housing money to erect low-income housing and “desegregate its demographic.”

The Constitutional legality of this move is across the river and into the trees. Court battles will spring up like grass in the spring. The White House needs back-up. The Times will provide it. It will come out and say enormous wealth redistribution is right and just and real, and the hell with the Constitution.

It will also provide reasons aplenty to disarm the citizenry of this country.

The smoke-signal Times editorial is saying, “We don’t need to hide in the dark and snipe at this Constitutional provision and that provision. We can now come out in the open and paint a big X across the whole document, in favor of ‘what’s good for the people.’”

What remain unsaid is, in these gargantuan wealth transfers there are built-in mechanisms for theft. Not skim; outright wholesale robbery. Billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions, trillions disappear down holes, never to be seen or remembered again.

The federal government’s accounting books are so complex they make Vatican law or the Kabbalah, by comparison, read like Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill. The opportunities for stealing announce themselves on every page.

Everybody wants in. The Times, which has re-financed its debt, which is floundering in deep water, is inclining its well-coiffed head at Washington and asking, “Isn’t there room for a few billion for us?”

Achtung, baby, there is room. You scratch their back and they’ll scratch yours. You trash the Constitution and they’ll hand you bags of cash. It’s democracy. Ain’t it grand?

The Matrix Revealed

Somewhere on the upper east of the New York, a hundred-million-dollar liberal is drinking his morning coffee and saying to his wife: “Honey, this whole country is turning into a giveaway game show. It’s deeply embarrassing. I can’t believe it. But you know, if they’re handing out prizes, I guess I should find out how to knock on the relevant office door.”

He blushes. Oh, the shame of it. The impropriety.

His wife, who is a lot smarter than he is, pats his hand. “Don’t think of a door, dear. Think of an alley. Talk to that man who deposited four dumpsters full of drug money in your bank last week. I think he’ll know something. And keep reading the Times every day. They’ll keep you informed about who’s who in the new economy.”

Yes,” he says. “That’s good. It’s all about redistribution now. It’s not a dirty word anymore.”

In a similar but more lavishly appointed breakfast room in the same part of town, a graying NY Times eminence is sipping his morning coffee. He’s saying to his wife, “You know, I once thought our newspaper was a pimp. But now I see it’s a whore.”

She smiles.

What took you so long to figure that out?” she says.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

7 comments on “NY Times: trashing the Constitution for fun and profit

  1. Bildo says:

    Gee, I wonder which Constitution they are going to trash. The Constitution for the united States, or the Constitution of the United States. One is lawful, the other is not. the biggest difference is “for” vs “of” and the changing of the 13th Ammendment. One is by the corporation, one is by the actual government.

  2. hybridrogue1 says:

    Your heart is in the right place Bildo, but I’m afraid both “for” and “of” are actually in the document itself. In fact in the original version there was no ‘title’, that was added at the printers.

    But the fact that we are dealing with a corporation is no mistake, and the reading of the document as if were written in ‘statutory language’ is a corporatist lawyerly trick.

    But the so-called “government” has be ultra vires for generations.
    “Practical Politics” [the rule of men] is the game, and if you read history closely enough you will find this was a tacit agreement between the Federalists from the very beginning.


  3. Theo Radic says:

    In tennis there is a rule book which means that any player who breaks the rules is disqualified from the match. What good is a rule book which can be ignored at the whim of the players? That is what the Constitution has become. Lysander Spooner (1808 – 1887) was an American anarchist and abolitionist who believed that the Constitution “…has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” The historical facts are plain enough: The Constitution, written by slave owners (tyrants in the eyes of the slaves) to guarantee the nation a system of “checks and balances” to prevent domestic tyranny, has utterly failed. If Liberty is the henhouse, then the “founding fathers” in charge of guarding it were the foxes.

  4. […] Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas. […]

  5. […] Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas. […]

  6. […] Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *