Paul Krugman, a liberal economist and columnist for the New York Times, is at it again. He is using the New York Times as a willing participant to spread liberal propaganda – this time in opposition to Governor Walker’s position on Wisconsin’s debt resolution proposals that include an end to collective bargaining by unions.

Originally, Mr. Krugman compared Wisconsin to Cairo – a place where Islamic thugs repeatedly raped and beat an American reporter in the middle of a public square for daring to simply cover their story of revolt, victory and, hopefully, the first steps toward a free society. As the brutal gang rape clearly demonstrates, these alleged freedom loving Egyptians have a long way to go in so far as women’s rights go.

Maybe, as a result of the rape, someone advised him to drop the Cairo comparison in order to appear somewhat sympathetic and intelligent, and less nutty and to use Baghdad to make his point, as he so often did in the past. In fact, the vile and most anti-American Mr. Krugman wrote an article in 2004, entitled, “Who Lost Iraq?” in which he foresaw America as an occupying force on the brink of Iraqi demands that U.S. Forces leave.

Mr. Krugman never saw, and apparently still does not see U.S. actions delivering to Iraqi’s a chance at a much better life for themselves and their children’s futures. Mr. Krugman apparently does not see how the lives of individual women have improved by allowing young girls to attend school, to participate in industry, and more importantly, to participate in government activity that ultimately determines how free the Iraqi people will become.

According to Mr. Krugman, we squandered the will of the Iraqi people and lost the war in 2004, much to his delight. In Mr. Krugman’s view, Saddam Hussein, centuries of primitive, tribal existences and superstitions, and the expansion of terrorist groups into Iraq encouraged by Iran and radical Islamofascists had nothing to do with how events unfolded in Iraq. All of the bad that was happening in Iraq was the fault of President George W. Bush and Ambassador Paul Bremmer.

If we were to adopt Mr. Krugman’s way of looking at world affairs, political ideology, and malevolent dishonesty, masses of Americans would be out in the streets burning effigies of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for allowing Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and others to fall into instability and crank up fears of oil shortages and worldwide violence. Instead, we have people like Representative Michael Capuano speaking about Americans getting bloody in the streets through violent union retaliation to political activity by an overwhelming majority of elected officials in Wisconsin. It’s a good thing Republicans did not make similar suggestions during the push against popular opinion by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama to fight health care reform.

People like Krugman advocate for adherence to the rule of law by their opponents when in power. Mr. Krugman, like most of his far left friends, however, reject outright the rule of law when the opposition is voted into power. In both cases, Mr. Krugman and his liberal brethren believe the will of the people is of no consequence and that listening to the voice of the people is unimportant. Mr. Krugman, like Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, President Obama and others of that ilk have all of the answers and unless they are given the means to force their beliefs on other outside their immediate circle, all is wrong with the world. Mr. Krugman, I know you are a fairly smart man and that you are familiar with words, but you may want to read this word for its definition one more time:

dic·ta·tor·ship – noun

1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator or a powerful few.

2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control. (we need to pass the bill before people can appreciate how it is good for them)

3. the office or position held by a dictator supported by a powerful and elite few.

Now, Mr. Krugman, try this word:

de·moc·ra·cy – noun

1 (a) government by the people; especially rule of the majority

1 (b): a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2 a political unit that has a democratic government

3 the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

4 the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

See the difference? Mr. Krugman is using the same propaganda techniques to justify people behaving outside the rule of law in Wisconsin in his duplicitous, self-serving NYT Op Ed piece, “Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.” The governor and the dominate Republican Assembly and Senate in Wisconsin are composed the way they are because the people of Wisconsin wanted this condition to exist. The majority of members elected were Republicans because the views they expressed regarding unions, collective bargaining and budget cuts meshed better with the majority of voters who live in Wisconsin than did those of Democrats. The people have spoken and polls indicated they support the actions planned. So, get over it. America is a country were the rule of law is supposed to be respected over the rule of man or God. For once in your petty existence, act like an American and respect the will of the people. Those public sector (government, taxpayer supported) workers who wish to work in a collective bargaining setting still have the option of moving to union run private sector companies.