Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America

Economy, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, The State

THE NEW COLUMN IS “Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America,” now on the Unz Review. Or, WND.com. An excerpt:

When preaching immigration leniency and lawlessness in America, immigration bleeding hearts should lay off the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 19:34, in particular.

The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

One Rev. Ryan M. Eller, on Tucker Carlson’s show, gave a dissembling and misleading reading of the tract, in mitigation of the immigration status of Kate Steinle’s killer.

The reverend glibly translated the word “sojourn” to mean citizens living among you, the latter having created, presumably, an immutable reality on the ground.

In appropriating the Hebrew text to his humanistic ends, Rev. Eller left-out that Leviticus 19:34 is a reference to strangers who are temporarily in your country.

A “sojourn” is a “temporary stay; a brief period of residence.” The Hebrew word “ger” means alien, stranger, not citizen.

The Hebrew Testament is not the New Testament. It’s not the text you want to use in spreading the Christian, “We Are The World” dogma. For it revolves around distinguishing the Jews and their homeland from the nations of the world.

What is commonly called the Old Testament, I read in the Hebrew, free of the bowdlerization that often accompanies the Christianized translations. As I read it, our Bible was not meant to meld the Jewish People with the world.

The opposite is true.

While it evinces ground-breaking exploration of natural, universal justice—and a lot of not-so-merciful meting out of “justice”—the Hebrew Bible is something of a parochial document.

Undergirding what Christians call the Old Testament is a message of particularism, not universalism. The ancient Hebrews would have been appalled by many a modern, left-liberal Jew who has betrayed the nationalistic message underlying the 24 best-written books ever.

Mercy and justice are all Leviticus 19:34 exhorts. The tract reminds the Hebrews only that they suffered in Egypt as slaves to the Egyptians. Consequently, the people of Israel are to be kind to the strangers living temporarily among them.

Were the biblical author to have added a parenthetic statement, it would’ve been: “Fear not, the stranger will soon be on his way, or chased away.”

The Christian Saint Joan of Arc was certainly steeped in a sturdy nativism. …

… READ THE REST.  Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America” is now on the Unz Review. Or WND.com.

Another Of Judge Napolitano’s Un-Libertarian Brainstorms

Constitution, English, Government, libertarianism, Media, The State

I have a dossier on the guy. I’m talking about “Judge Andrew Napolitano, [who] Is [absolutely] NOT A Rightist Libertarian.” Ann Coulter has also lost her legendary patience with this TV personality posing as a legal scholar. Ms. Coulter had the good sense to demolish Napolitano’s ridiculous 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Today Napolitano declared Vladimir Putin to be “the most dangerous man on the planet,” to all inhabitants, on all continents, practically.

A couple of months back, I made a note of another of Judge Napolitano’s un-libertarian infractions. As is his wont, Napolitano was empaneled on the Bret Baier show. “The Panel” was vaporizing about Tom Price, the Health and Human Services Secretary, who used chartered flights for government business, and subsequently resigned.

The usual banalities were exchanged, when Napolitano decided to show his “originality.” The Judge ventured that he didn’t much care that Price splashed out at the expense of the taxpayer, if this got Mr. Price to his destination quickly. After all, “argued” Napolitano, we want our government to be efficient. We want them to do things in a timely manner. No delays on the way. (If readers can locate the link, I’d be most grateful.)

No we don’t!

A libertarian wants the exact opposite.

Knowing how government “works”; knowing that practically everything a government official does is harmful, we libertarians want the state to be thwarted at every turn. If Tom Price needs to get from destination A to destination B to sign some giveaway bill, I want him traveling via … camel or walking. Unless it is repealing rights-infringing legislation, I want to see inertia and inaction in government.

What makes this libertarian happy is to be told that President Trump has not filled many a position in his administration. And when, likewise, The Economist saddles Dr. Carlson (in its latest issue) with the same “sin.”

As for the Judge’s “WTF If” columns, you know, the ones in which every sentence (x 50) begins with, “What if government was …  What if government was … “: More than to his atrocious writing style, this writing is an indictment of the syndicator’s editor.

AP Dossier:

Julie Borowski’s Wrong: Judge Andrew Napolitano Is NO Rightist Libertarian

Andrew Napolitano: Some Libertarian

Ann Coulter Offers A Corrective To Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judge Napolitano’s Left-Libertarian Confusion

Fighting Words From Left-Libertarian Egalitarians

Napolitano-Koch Connection? (Sixth Sense)

The Neoconservative & Left-Libertarian Positions: Liberty Is Universal

14th Amendment Jurisprudence For Dummies

Moore Defeat Marks End Of The GOP & More War Between Deplorables & ‘Detestables’

Conservatism, Democrats, Elections, Republicans

By Dr. Boyd Cathey

Yesterday in Alabama the Republican Party lit the fuse that will blow it up and possibly destroy it. That auto-destruction has been in the making for some time; one could even argue that ever since the presidency of Ronald Reagan there’s been a just-below-the-surface death wish within the GOP. But the extremely narrow defeat of US Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, the reddest of “red” states, by a leftwing, pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage Democrat, Doug Moore, revealed that festering chasm, that unhealable division, that raging civil war, as never before.

Of course, there will be those who argue—and rightly, with some facts and reason—that the Moore candidacy and the issues swirling around him personally contributed mightily to the defeat. The all-of-a-sudden appearance of over a half-dozen women, claiming some form of sexual harassment, despite it having taken place—supposedly—forty years ago, took its toll in support for the judge. And the massive injection of hundreds of thousands of Hollywood pro-Jones dollars, and a frenetic get-out-the-black vote campaign, certainly helped do him in.

But, in the end, it boiled down to a vigorous and constant bombardment by fellow Republicans and by the elites. And it revealed the bitter and viciously unrelenting struggle between the “Establishment party”, the party of Washington DC and of Congress, of the big time lobbyists and major donors—and those millions of grass roots voters who for the past thirty years have more or less blindly followed them, and, at each election, have entered the voting booth to pull the GOP lever. In Alabama those elites, through a variety of factors, were able one more time to avoid electoral disaster.

“You have no other place to go—you have no other choice,” the refrain has always been. “It’s us, or those damnable socialists in the Democratic Party!”  And, so, millions in the grass roots have, docilely and continually, obeyed. And on rare occasions, a decent Republican has found his way into Congress, but their numbers were far and few between. Mostly, even the better candidates who arrived along the Potomac found themselves surrounded by the glittering temptations of money and power, or, if they resisted, veritable exile and being shunted off to some obscure role or responsibility. Who, indeed, could resist such enticements? After all, Senator Jesse Helms died nearly ten years ago…and there are few who could come close to his stamina and principles, or, for that matter, his ability to “play Washington and not be played by it.”

The so-called lessons about yesterday were already prepared and written weeks ago by the GOP establishment types. Here is their script: (1) Moore’s loss would be blamed on himself because  he was a flawed candidate (with totally unsubstantiated charges against him taking a toll), and (2) if those lowly “rednecky” voters in Alabama had only supported the more “moderate”—and establishment—candidate, Luther Strange, all of this could have been avoided.

The national GOP, thirty Republican US senators, and a goodly portion of the so-called “conservative” media never let us forget that.  From the pompously officious neoconservatives Marc Thiessen and Steve Hayes and other neoconservatives on Fox, to “conservative movement” journals like The Weekly Standard and National Review, the prepared refrain was the same: “If you had listened to us, if you had avoided the attempt to leave the ‘reservation,’ things would have worked out.”

“Mind your manners, you yokels, and let us make the decisions and run the country!”

Those Republicans—from the voluble US senators and House members to the various consultants and pundits, and those “conservative movement”  honchos—all those creatures of the Establishment “swamp,” feared a Moore victory and preferred, in effect, a Doug Jones triumph to having their power and authority challenged and compromised. True, they have had to deal with that great usurper, Donald J. Trump, and they are still grappling with how to approach him, at times begrudgingly going along, at times acting like the offended school marm, condescendingly telling him what to do and how to do it, warning him about his tweets, telling him to be “more presidential.” And attempting to sabotage his agenda if it did not suit them or if he did not listen to them. This latter strategy is the preferred one employed by Congress, where the president’s agenda is as popular as the measles.

They have their minions even scattered strategically within the administration, including possibly that most brain-dead of brain-dead has-been-but-wannabe power players, Nikki Haley.

Their refusal to support Moore, their withholding of support (including financial), their encouragement of efforts to undermine his campaign at every turn—the constant drum beat, the constant harping on “believe the women,” while certainly not the only factors, were still major ingredients in Tuesday’s loss.

But even worse were their public expressions of disdain and seething hatred, their upfront condemnations based on unverified, obviously political and trumped-up accusations, their consistently negative approach…they had to protect their rabbit hole on the Deep State preserve. It was that simple…and Roy Moore threatened that.

But what they have done, in effect, is not just manage to defeat Judge Roy Moore; after all, he is just one man, one controversial political figure in one Southern state. They have illustrated once again that, to quote John Milton’s Paradise Lost, they would “rather reign in Hell rather than serve in Heaven.” And so that increasingly public war—for that is what it is—between the “Deplorables” and those I would call the “Despicables”—now will rage even hotter and become even more severe.

Steve Bannon’s efforts are only a foretaste and a harbinger for what is to come.

 

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

Roy Moore: How Ethical Is It To Overturn The People’s Democratic Decision Via An Ethics Committee?

Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Government, Morality, Republicans, States' Rights

It isn’t.

By now you have to have noticed the ethical and moral corruption baked into the vaunted American system.

In the event Judge Roy Moore is elected in the Alabama special election by the people, The Establishment is waiting to unseat him and overturn the election via a Senate ethics investigation when he gets to Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters last week that he expects Moore will face a Senate ethics probe if he wins.

“If he were to be elected I think he would immediately have an issue with the Ethics Committee, which they would take up,” McConnell said.
Young, the Moore strategist, cast the Senate election Tuesday in Alabama as a referendum on President Donald Trump.
“This is Donald Trump on trial in Alabama,” Young said on “This Week.” “If the people of Alabama vote for this liberal Democrat, Doug Jones, then they’re voting against the president who they put in office.”
“It’s ground zero for President Donald Trump,” Young added. “If they can beat him, they can beat his agenda, because Judge Moore stands with Donald Trump, and his agenda.”

It’s unethical for a politburo to overturn The People’s democratic decision via a far-removed ethics committee. They do it anyway.