Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
Should a nation, to be considered a nation, have a history that is common to all of its citizens, if they be that, or its subjects, if they not be citizens?
Or doesn’t it really matter anymore, as is the case in the United States of America today, where it seems that if you have ten people in a room, you might get twenty or more versions of what the history of the United States of America really is, and hack politicians like Barack Hussein Obama making it up as they go along?
Which thought takes me to a recent essay courtesy of Marketwatch by Joseph Eugene Stiglitz (born February 9, 1943), a.k.a. “Bad Boy Joe,” because he dared to question the World Bank and was fired by the World Bank for expressing dissent with its policies, entitled “Opinion: The fight to preserve democracy has come home to America” published Nov. 6, 2018, where “Bad Boy Joe,” who also is making it up as he goes, informs us as follows, to wit:
NEW YORK (Project Syndicate) — The United States has long held itself up as a bastion of democracy.
It has promoted democracy around the world.
It fought, at great cost, for democracy against fascism in Europe during World War II.
Now the fight has come home.
Now, first let me remark that that is a refrain we have been hearing fairly constantly, chiefly from those who self-identify as Democrats, since the 2016 presidential election, and from this essay by Joe Stiglitz, it appears that the refrain is not going away anytime soon, especially since the Democrats are now in charge of the House of Representatives, so, hence this essay in reply to this fake news being put out by “Bad Boy Joe” Stiglitz in that Nov. 6, 2018 political essay on behalf of the Democrats.
But first of all, let us deal with this critical question of what is a nation?
According to one definition, a nation is a geographical entity with defined and recognized boundaries.
According to that definition, is the United States of America really a nation anymore, where the Democrats at least, the globalists among us, do not want national boundaries or borders for the United States of America?
Another definition states that there four characteristics of a nation, to wit:
Every state must be inhabited; it must have a population (people).
The state has absolute power within its territory.
It can decide its own policies.
The state makes and enforces its policies through a government.
Every state must have land, with known and recognized borders.
For the purposes of this essay, since I am on the other side of this debate from that taken by “Bad Boy Joe” Stiglitz in his Nov. 6, 2018 Marketwatch essay, I am going to stake my position in this debate as the United States of America is in fact a nation, and has been since the government under the U.S. Constitution, as spelled out in great detail in the Federalist Papers, begin on March 4, 1789, and if that is going to cause me to be condemned in here as a “nationalist,” defined as “a person who advocates political independence for a country,” so be it, for I am, as a loyal American citizen.
And that takes us back to this political essay of Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, where he states as follows:
America’s credentials as a democracy were always slightly blemished.
The U.S. was founded as a representative democracy, but only a small fraction of its citizens — mostly white male property owners — were eligible to vote.
Now, that statement by “Bad Boy Joe” Stiglitz that the U.S. was founded as a representative democracy, is pure horse****, because there, Joseph Eugene Stiglitz is as wrong as wrong can be when he says that the U.S. was founded as a representative democracy, and he would be the first to know that.
So why is he feeding us that horse**** then, as if we were all nothing more than ignorant fools who are putty to be formed and shaped in the hands of a political manipulator like Joe Stiglitz?
But let’s face it, people, with that political essay, Joe Stiglitz was not aiming for the truth, at all.
He was making it up as he goes, and he is hoping we are all too stupid and too in awe of him to know the difference, or to dare to question him.
And many will be in awe of him, and take his word as gospel, even though what he says is totally refuted by the Federalist Papers, which papers Joe Stiglitz has chosen to ignore, and treat as irrelevant to his political arguments of today, for tomorrow, where the Democrats clearly want our Republic, the Republic promised to us in the Federalist papers, dead and buried, and forgotten to the minds of men and women in America, so their democracy, which favors the Democrats as the party in charge of the lives of all Americans, can flourish.
I mean look who we are talking about here, people, as my opposite number in this debate.
While I am as common as common can be in America, Joe Stiglitz is quite famous as an American economist, public policy analyst, and a professor at Columbia University who was a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank as well as a former member and chairman of the US president’s Council of Economic Advisers, known for his support of Georgist public finance theory and for his critical view of the management of globalization, of laissez-faire economists whom he calls “free market fundamentalists”, and of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
According to his bio, in 2000, Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), a think tank on international development based at Columbia University, where he has been a member of the Columbia faculty since 2001, receiving that university’s highest academic rank of university professor in 2003.
As an aside, knowing actual American history, as opposed to making it up as you go along as Joe Stiglitz did in his essay under discussion in here, does not seem to be a requirement to be a university professor at Columbia, nor does being factual appear to be, or Joe Stiglitz would be on the outside looking in based on this essay, anyway, where Joe Stiglitz has grossly distorted the early history of this nation with his bogus claim that the U.S. was founded as a representative democracy, when FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, February 8, 1788 makes clear we are a compound Republic, to wit:
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.
In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments.
In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.
Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.
And that is for this pertinent reason, to wit:
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.
I am old, and white, and non-gay, so I am in that weak and helpless segment of the society of America that wants to be guarded from the injustice of the Democrats now that they have taken power in the House of Representatives, but fears he won’t be, especially when the voices of famous Americans like Joe Stiglitz are being heard on behalf of the Democrats, while my voice except for in here is pretty much silent.
Getting back to Joe Stiglitz, he was also the founding chair of the university’s Committee on Global Thought, and he chairs the University of Manchester’s Brooks World Poverty Institute, and is also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, and in 2011, Stiglitz was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
And now he appears to be using his considerable influence to lie to the American people for no other purpose than to deceive them on behalf of the Democrat party, whose shill he is.
As to being a formidable opponent in this debate, Stiglitz graduated from Amherst College in 1964, where he was a highly active member of the debate team and president of the student government, and during his senior year at Amherst College, he studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he later pursued graduate work.
He studied for his PhD from MIT from 1966 to 1967, during which time he also held an MIT assistant professorship.
In addition to making numerous influential contributions to macroeconomics, Stiglitz has played a number of policy roles.
He not only served in the Clinton administration as the chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (1995–1997), but he is also a member of Collegium International, an organization of leaders with political, scientific, and ethical expertise whose goal is to provide new approaches in overcoming the obstacles in the way of a peaceful, socially just and an economically sustainable world, which Stiglitz World requires a United States of America with open borders, and beyond that, Stiglitz has advised American president Barack Obama.
So there are the sides taken, people, and the battle lines are now being drawn.
Which side will have the better argument as to what our American history really is?
Or doesn’t it really matter anymore, because in a democracy, you can have it be anything you want it to be, and nobody has the right to tell you that you are wrong?