As I am setting out to write Part Three of my Madison VS Marx series, I had in mind to make it be about education. This is an article published in the New york Times calling for Americans to give up on our constitution. written by a member of the US academic class, an "esteemed" educator sharing Obama's alleged Alma mater, Harvard - only Louis Michael Seidman. actually is a constitutional professor at Goergetown University
The article by professor Louis Michael Seidman echoes the call by our current president when, as an educator, in 2001, Obama called for the Supreme Court to break with the constraints of our constitution.
Professor Seidman identifies himself as a progressive in the paper he authored , Left Out. The term "progressive" simply means progressing towards socialism which then "progresses" toward Communism, and so is just the current popular language signifying Marxism. The term "conservatism" in the USA means conserving the political philosophy of our founding fathers as preserved in the Federalist Papers and realized in our founding documents- including the United States Constitution which professor Seidman, is now so emboldened as to openly call for the over throw there of.
In Professor Seidmans' paper Left Out he makes this statement:
While in the New York times article Professor Seidman clearly is making a lowbrow argument with statements such as this:
Professor Seidman is using his bully pulpit to perpetuate the Marxian class warfare rhetoric and to frame the US Constitution as a constitution written by and for "rich white men" - not our professors exact terms but close enough. The professor moves toward the high or middle brow when he uses the term "propertied men"- which in Marxian rhetoric is the same as "the bourgeoisie" and then our Marxian professor disingenuously occludes from that picture that the founders of his progressive philosophy also came from the propertied classes- although Marx lived his life among radical academics and never participated in the responsibilities of property ownership- only in accepting handouts from the same to finance their political activism aimed at abolishing private property ownership- which is clearly also the agenda of the Obama presidency.
Furthermore The Professor chooses to occlude from his representation of history the fact that slavery was an issue of great contention during the founding of this country but it was clear that trying to resolve the issue of slavery at the same time as trying to sell the Union would just mean that there would be no Union formed between the North and the South. The professor is not ethically challenged to acknowledge that Madison spoke out many times against slavery. The professor is using our Pravda media as a bully pulpit for a "low brow" argument, which as he makes clear by the positioning of "The Romantic Model" as last in his paper, that our professor is well aware that the lowbrow argument is based in emotionalism and disinformation and not reason. The left is adapt at milking that while posing as a educator in and of America's ivy leagues institutions.
If there is a silver lining to every dark cloud, in the case of America's current economic crisis it may well be that fewer young people will be attending "institutions of higher learning" where they will be the target of this anti-American indoctrination that has long ago infiltrated our University systems and through the University has spread the indoctrinated into positions of power throughout our once free land.
The article by professor Louis Michael Seidman echoes the call by our current president when, as an educator, in 2001, Obama called for the Supreme Court to break with the constraints of our constitution.
Professor Seidman identifies himself as a progressive in the paper he authored , Left Out. The term "progressive" simply means progressing towards socialism which then "progresses" toward Communism, and so is just the current popular language signifying Marxism. The term "conservatism" in the USA means conserving the political philosophy of our founding fathers as preserved in the Federalist Papers and realized in our founding documents- including the United States Constitution which professor Seidman, is now so emboldened as to openly call for the over throw there of.
In Professor Seidmans' paper Left Out he makes this statement:
Second, crime is not only an academic preoccupation; it is also a subject of
political debate. It is important, therefore, to distinguish between what might
loosely be labeled highbrow positions and low- or middlebrow positions on
criminal justice. In much of this essay, I will be discussing highbrow positions;
at the end, I will turn briefly to low- and middlebrow views.
While in the New York times article Professor Seidman clearly is making a lowbrow argument with statements such as this:
Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action.
Professor Seidman is using his bully pulpit to perpetuate the Marxian class warfare rhetoric and to frame the US Constitution as a constitution written by and for "rich white men" - not our professors exact terms but close enough. The professor moves toward the high or middle brow when he uses the term "propertied men"- which in Marxian rhetoric is the same as "the bourgeoisie" and then our Marxian professor disingenuously occludes from that picture that the founders of his progressive philosophy also came from the propertied classes- although Marx lived his life among radical academics and never participated in the responsibilities of property ownership- only in accepting handouts from the same to finance their political activism aimed at abolishing private property ownership- which is clearly also the agenda of the Obama presidency.
Furthermore The Professor chooses to occlude from his representation of history the fact that slavery was an issue of great contention during the founding of this country but it was clear that trying to resolve the issue of slavery at the same time as trying to sell the Union would just mean that there would be no Union formed between the North and the South. The professor is not ethically challenged to acknowledge that Madison spoke out many times against slavery. The professor is using our Pravda media as a bully pulpit for a "low brow" argument, which as he makes clear by the positioning of "The Romantic Model" as last in his paper, that our professor is well aware that the lowbrow argument is based in emotionalism and disinformation and not reason. The left is adapt at milking that while posing as a educator in and of America's ivy leagues institutions.
F. The Romantic Model: This model is not much discussed any more, but it animates some left reaction to the criminal justice system. At least, it animates my own reaction. The image plays off the left's historic hatred of authority and attraction to unmediated freedom. This model suggests that the criminal is a romantic outlaw, unconstrained by bourgeois inhibition and fighting against an unjust social order.So here we have the progressive professor- the proponents of ever expanding government making a "romantic" argument against authority- and for what - to over throw the authority of the US Constitution- which is founded on a belief that the smallest size of government possible - without descending into anarchy is the best size. This is the typical hypocrisy of the progressive's political rhetoric.
If there is a silver lining to every dark cloud, in the case of America's current economic crisis it may well be that fewer young people will be attending "institutions of higher learning" where they will be the target of this anti-American indoctrination that has long ago infiltrated our University systems and through the University has spread the indoctrinated into positions of power throughout our once free land.
Comments
Post a Comment