It is one thing to be embarrassed by something one is personally responsible for, but quite another to be embarrassed by, and for, another person. Many Americans may be proud of this nation, although one can hardly fathom why, but if the majority of people took stock of the level of rank stupidity and willful ignorance of the population at large they would be embarrassed for America and, more to the point, the people themselves.
Over the course of the past six years since Americans elected an African American man as President, there have been a mountainous studies, research, and reports denoting the sad state of affairs in America that can be attributed to the population’s stupidity and ignorance. A couple of weeks ago, another study revealed that Americans are inherently ignorant and, if not for one other more ignorant developed nation, would rank as the world’s stupidest people.
The astounding ignorance or, more aptly, stunning stupidity of Americans is certainly a function of availability bias generated by mainstream media’s habit of reporting Republican lies as verified facts. The conservative media’s successes at propagating American ignorance was revealed in a new Ipsos Mori “ignorance index” survey revealing that the American people rank second among all developed nations as being incredibly ignorant about a wide range of subjects in their own countries; including immigration. Republicans are well-aware of the overwhelming ignorance plaguing the population, most of whom make up the GOP base, and it is why they claim the President’s immigration action is illegal, unconstitutional, dictatorial, a prelude to ethnic cleansing, and something about internment camps.
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
There is just one problem for Republicans, the conservative Roberts’ Supreme Court has already ruled that the President is well-within his Constitutional authority to, like every Republican president since Eisenhower, use his executive authority regarding prosecutorial discretion on immigration enforcement. However, yesterday, de facto Speaker of the House and presumed incoming Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz, referred to something unrelated to legal statutes as “the law of the land” to prove the President’s immigration actions are “unconstitutional.”
Forget Cruz’s absurd assertion that the President’s immigration enforcement actions have anything whatsoever to do with granting amnesty; only the world’s second most ignorant population would accept that as reality. Where Cruz likely impressed the stupid Republican base is when he said, “We should use the constitutional checks and balances we have to rein in the executive. You know, if the read the Federalist Papers, in the Federalist Papers, ‘they talked about’ a president who would rule by diktat and decree rather than follow the Constitution.”
If the Fox News host, Chris Wallace, had an ounce of integrity, he would have stopped Cruz in his tracks, slapped him into reality, and clarified something Texas Ted certainly knows is a true and a verifiable fact; particularly since he swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The Federalist Papers are not the law of the land, they carry no legal authority, and are no more the U.S. Constitution than the Ten Commandments or the bible are.
However, due to Americans being the second-most ignorant people in the developed world, it is likely a relatively large majority believe that if Cruz cited the Federalist Papers as proof the President’s immigration action is dictatorial and unconstitutional on national television, it must be true. Especially since the Fox host did not inform Cruz that the U.S. Constitution, and not the Federalist Papers, is the supreme law of the land.
Obviously, the Founding Fathers envisioned the future when a manipulative cretin like Cruz would attempt to fool ignorant Americans, so they included a clause in the real Constitution to preclude a malcontent like Cruz from fooling what they likely anticipated was a population steeped in ignorance.
In Article Six, Clause 2 of the nation’s founding document it says, “This Constitution, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” It is “this Constitution,” that the Roberts’ Supreme Court, including two of the Court’s most conservative members, cited in striking down most of Arizona’s immigration law in 2012 and specifically addressed immigration enforcement discretion.
Writing for the majority ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy included language highlighting the “broad discretion” the executive branch enjoys in matters relating to immigration. He wrote that, “Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.”
President Obama, like Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, all decided that it did not always make sense to pursue removal and used executive action to order immigration officials to exercise broad enforcement discretion. In fact, when it came to using executive action to order immigration officials to use broad discretion, Eisenhower issued 3 executive orders, Ford issued two, Reagan issued four, Bush I issued five, and Bush II issued four.
Not one of the Republican presidents faced even one threat of impeachment, lawsuits, or claims that the stinking archaic and impotent Federalist Papers proved their actions were ethnic cleansing, socialism, internment camps, unconstitutional, or ruling by “diktat or decree.” However, those five presidents were Republicans, but more importantly to Republicans and their inherently racist base; they were white guys.
Despite anything the lying Republicans claim, their only opposition to President Obama taking executive action five of his Republican predecessors did is that he is exercising Presidential authority while being Black. Interestingly, there is nothing in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers Republicans think is the Constitution, or the Christian bible for that matter, that remotely resembles a prohibition on a Black man being elected as President. Unfortunately, since Americans are the second-most ignorant people in the developed world, it is likely there are a significant number of racist, religious, Republican sycophants who believe Barack Obama is violating the Constitution by sitting in the Oval Office while being Black.
Audio engineer and instructor for SAE. Writes op/ed commentary supporting Secular Humanist causes, and exposing suppression of women, the poor, and minorities. An advocate for freedom of religion and particularly, freedom of NO religion.
Born in the South, raised in the Mid-West and California for a well-rounded view of America; it doesn’t look good.
Former minister, lifelong musician, Mahayana Zen-Buddhist.