Category Archives: Constitution

UPDATED: Don’t Get ‘Grubered’ By W’s Groupies

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Foreign Policy, Media, Natural Law, Republicans

The current column, “Don’t Get ‘Grubered’ By W’s Groupies,” now on WND, is just in time for Barack Obama’s logically “broken” address on immigration is . An excerpt:

On Fox News’ “The Five,” one female host energetically involved in genuflecting to George Bush turned to another, a former prosecutor and lingerie model, to solicit her “constitutional take”—those are shudder quotes—on President Barack Obama’s impending executive amnesty. A better constitutional authority on presidential powers than Kimberly G-string is Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University. …

… Barack Obama’s cringe-factor has crescendoed—so much so that conservatives feel comfortable about dusting off an equally awful dictator, Bush 43, and presenting him and his dynasty to the public for another round. However, when James Madison spoke of “war as the true nurse of executive aggrandizement,” he was speaking not only of Obama.

“Speak softly but carry a big stick—the stick being executive power,” preached another Republican tyrant, Teddy Roosevelt. While Turley will be tackling the constitutional quagmire posed by Obamacare, immigration is the latest legislative stick with which Americans are being stuck.

Greg Gutfeld, the one and only neoconservative on that current-affairs show mentioned who entertains and occasionally edifies, is correct about the “broken” inchoate verbiage: “Our immigration system is broken” is a euphemism for the refusal to enforce immigration law (against certain ethno-racial groups). It is statist semantics; Orwellian Newspeaks; a linguistic trick to lead Americans to believe urgent action is required. …

Read the rest. The complete column is “Don’t Get ‘Grubered’ By W’s Groupies,” now on WND.

UPDATE: A reply to a critic, here:

The time to be a follower of Bush ditto-heads is over. Ask the Bush groupies why they ooze over and promote a mass murderer and his ugly art, on what is supposed to be a current-affairs program. This column was simply reporting what’s discussed on these multiplying panels of pig-ignorant loudmouths. (By the way, strong language is not vitriol.) Moreover, why confuse sexiness with smarts/ideas?! There is a reason Ann Coulter and Ms. Malkin don’t get a TV show: they are too clever for the cable master’s comfort. It is up to the consumer of this dross (“The Five,” “Outnumbered”) to know he is being entertained and not edified by most cable and nitwork shows. If he does—he should be OK.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Jonathan Turley Not Enough Of An ‘Anti-Executive Power Extremist’

Bush, Constitution, Democrats, Media, Republicans

When their guy is in power, both dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and Democrats—and the military-media-congressional complexes attached to each political affiliation—shun truth and justice. When Bush was in power, Fox News did a poor job of holding him accountable (they had “TUNED-OUT, [WERE] TURNED-ON, AND HOT FOR WAR”). MSNBC did the opposite; they held Bush accountable. The position was framed by a Facebook friend as follows:

Stephen James Bernier: How is it when you point out the obvious faults of George W. Bush you are a “Bush hater”? When you point out the faults of Barack Hussein Obama you are a “patriot”?

A hint of this is found in the response at Powerline to the choosing by House Speaker John Boehner of Jonathan Turley, prominent “constitutional scholar,” “to represent [the House of Representative] in a lawsuit against the Obama administration. The suit challenges changes the administration made to Obamacare without congressional authorization.”

The liberal law professor is pretty impartial when it comes to Obama. Yet Powerline worries that Turley is too much of an extremist on this issue, as “he believes in severely restricting presidential power.”

This first became clear during the Bush years, when Turley became a hero of the left, and a constant presence on such shows such as Keith Olbermann’s and Rachel Maddow’s, by consistently claiming that the president’s counter-terrorism efforts were lawless and unconstitutional. Turley went so far as to accuse Bush of committing war crimes and advocated prosecuting top administration officials for their approval of harsh interrogation techniques.

Essentially, Powerline begrudges Turley for having applied to Bush the same constitutional principles he is applying to Obama.

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

The Sovereign Agrees To … A Bourbon Summit

Barack Obama, Constitution, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Founding Fathers

“The Sovereign Agrees To … A Bourbon Summit” is the current column, now on WND:

Barack Obama’s remarks on the results of the midterm congressional elections of 2014 were, well, remarkable. What else was the upheaval in the balance of power between the White House and Capitol Hill if not a repudiation of President Obama and his policies? Republicans gained control of the Senate. In the House they won the “largest majority since World War II, 246 seats in 1946, when Harry Truman sat in the White House.” There were major gubernatorial gains as well. Yet the message the president took away from the defeat of Democrats country-wide was that he needed to “get the job done.” He had not been busy enough.

Semantic sophistry being Obama’s forte, the president attempted to delegitimize the results of the midterm elections. A master of divide-and-control tactics, Pharaoh quickly blamed his party’s electoral ousting on a minority: those who voted. “To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too,” he said.

Luckily for him, Obama did not cry racism—although he had sent race RoboCop Eric Holder and his federales to election stations across the country to ensure that anyone who wanted to vote could, and that if a voter were asked for an ID, informed of a citizenship requirement, hadn’t been provided with “bilingual assistance” or a ramp for a wheelchair—this disenfranchised soul could quickly dial into a hotline to register a complain of “intimidation, discrimination, obstruction,” and racism, naturally.

Having faulted a misguided minority—the few who voted—for rejecting his regime, the president proceeded to reaffirm the policies just repudiated. “[M]ore Americans are working. Unemployment has come down.” [So has participation in the labor force: more than 102 million Americans are not working.] The “minority” that voted were informed, too, that “more Americans have health insurance” [because those who don’t need it, 19- to 25-year-olds, have been forced to purchase it; and the rest of us are paying for them and other indigents in exorbitant deductible and cost-sharing ploys]. “… Our deficits have shrunk [due to crippling taxes, and as the national debt balloons to $17.9 trillion]. Yes, “our economy is outpacing most of the world,” but that’s due entirely to the resilience of America’s private economy and a dearth of the same drive elsewhere in the world. …

… Read the rest. “The Sovereign Agrees To … A Bourbon Summit” is now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Dying For Obama’s Deadly Dogma

Africa, Conspiracy, Constitution, Healthcare, Propaganda, Racism, Science, South-Africa, The West

“Dying For Obama’s Deadly Dogma” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Africa, Like Trayvon Martin, is extremely important to Barack Obama. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” the president said famously about the slain teenager.

His fellow-feelings about the continent, the president expressed during the August 4-6 U.S.-Africa Summit, this year: “I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world – partners with America,” he said.

With the wealth of the most industrious, generous and gullible taxpayer at his disposal, the president believes that it is his duty, first, to stop the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, when, in fact, the duty of the president of the United States is to those who pay the piper.

America’s governing elites habitually betray their constitutional and fiduciary obligations to their constituents. The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tom Frieden, and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, claim that restricting entry into the U.S. from the Ebola ground zero is without merit “from a public health standpoint,” and will only worsen matters.

For whom, pray tell, Dr. Fauci? For American nurses? Cui bono Dr. Frieden?

Contrary to the Frieden-Fauci-Obama obfuscations, it is quite possible to both stop at-risk individuals from entering the U.S., as well as assist in curbing the contagion in the hot-spot countries of Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. The two are not mutually exclusive. While the U.S. welcomes, on average, 150 daily travelers from West Africa; dozens of infection-free African nations have done the sensible thing to contain the spread of the dread disease. The most advanced of them, South Africa, has “restricted entry for all non-citizens traveling from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.”

OBAMA’S OBFUSCATIONS ABOUT EBOLA
Back in South Africa of the mid 1990s, I trained and volunteered as an HIV/AIDS counselor. My last client, before I decamped to North America, was a lovely gay man who had just been diagnosed HIV positive and whose CD4-cell count was already low. He wept in my arms for hours.

My point: Comparing HIV/AIDS to Ebola, as the Frieden-Fauci duo has repeatedly done, amounts to politically correct theatre. …

… Read the rest. “Dying For Obama’s Deadly Dogma” is the current column, now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

South Africa: Made-In-America Constitutional Tyranny

America, Constitution, Private Property, South-Africa

Continued on Barely A Blog is my conversation with South African philosopher Dan Roodt, Ph.D., a noted Afrikaner activist, author of the polemical essay “The Scourge of the ANC,” literary critic and director of PRAAG. (Previous interviews with Dan: “The Elephant In The Pistorius Courtroom” and “Little America At The Tip Of Africa.”)

ILANA MERCER: The Afrikaners still linger as a people, clinging to what Barack Obama would indubitably deride as their Bibles, their guns and their bigotries. Dubbed the white tribe of Africa, this organic nation has, however, ceased to exist as a nation-state, dissolved by democratic decree. The sundering of state sovereignty has, in turn, exposed Afrikaners to ethnic cleansing, a familiar feature of democracy a la Africa. You once remarked that the tale of this negotiated betrayal has yet to be told. “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” tells something of how Mandela’s ANC said “No” to minority veto power, power-sharing, or any meaningful devolution of power to the regions of South Africa. Its wish was the command of power-brokers in Britain and America. Do elaborate. What role did the US play in compelling South Africa’s permanent minority “to legislate itself into a permanent position of political subordination” (to quote Duke University’s Donald L. Horowitz)?

DAN ROODT: I have already referred to US economic sanctions imposed on us at the behest of the Black Caucus in your Congress, supported by the Republican Party. Under current conditions there will be no White Caucus in the USA stepping in to force our government to accord us the right of self-determination, to be free of racial-preference in hiring and in business, will there? Baron Robin Renwick of Britain also made sure that he stripped the white minorities of the ex-Rhodesia and South Africa of all political and military power. Even in areas where we are in the majority, we cannot even influence local, municipal politics.

The problem in South Africa is precisely that we have been destabilized by outside intervention, just like Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and all the other countries. Now the natural balance of power in this country no longer holds and there is a free-for-all for predators. The ANC and their Communist Party allies actually use the term “National Democratic Revolution” for their takeover in 1994 and for all intents and purposes it was a revolution. We needed reform, not revolution. This country would naturally have developed into a federation or confederation, to the benefit of all. Some people were arguing for a complete devolution of power along Swiss lines, with our legal districts being turned into cantons. I still think that would be a way to get South Africa out of the mess it is in, but we lack the institutional or media influence to even argue this in public. The universities also kowtow to the government and no meaningful research will be undertaken on this topic, as there used to be in the past.

I actually popularized the term, first used by J.S. Mill and De Tocqueville, “tyranny of the majority”, in South Africa. You hear that more and more. Here the Western minority – who actually made this country into the jewel of Africa that it is – is constantly subjugated and even punished. The paradox is that the USA gives its own minorities special rights in relation to the majority, but in its foreign policy supports exactly the opposite, a “tyranny of the majority” which flies in the face of classical liberalism.

That is why many Afrikaners these days root for our Cold War enemy, Russia, in international contests. At least Putin seems to care for European minorities, as in Crimea. Many Europeans also think that Putin’s Russia represents the last bulwark against a global, multicultural empire ruled by billionaire oligarchs from Wall Street and the City of London and which will not tolerate nations anymore.

MERCER: “I would not look to the US constitution,” said US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview with Al-Hayat TV. “If I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012, I might look at the constitution of South Africa …” Having studied this wordy but worthless document while writing “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” I concluded that South Africa’s constitution allows a good deal of mischief for the ostensible greater good. It even has a clause devoted to “Limitation of Rights.” So too is redistributive “justice” a constitutional article of faith therein. And nowhere does this this obese document state whether South Africans may actually defend the most precious of rights. If anything, self-defense can be an offense in progressive South Africa. How well has Ginsburg’s preferred constitution served the endangered Afrikaners?

ROODT: Yes, you are quite right. The South African Constitution is a horrible document, full of platitudes and unnecessary clauses and setting up bureaucracies to supposedly protect us but that have proven either ineffectual, toothless or guilty of anti-white racism. The so-called South African Human Rights Commission, for example, almost invariably singles out whites for attack and does not even respond to complaints laid by members of the Western minority. I a country where the right to life does not seem guaranteed by the state, given the huge number of murders taking place, you would think that the Human Rights Commission would at least admonish government about this dire state of affairs. Alas, no! It is precisely busy sniffing out Orwellian thoughtcrime, speechcrime and harassing authors and bloggers for not being politically correct. In one absurd case, it fined a hair saloon for not doing both Caucasian and ethnic hair – whereas there are thousands of ethnic hair saloons who would never serve a Caucasian customer.

I could well imagine that American liberals could like our constitution, as it has affirmative action built right into it. Most rights enshrined therein are qualified in terms of “rectifying the injustices of the past”, etc., so no right can stand on its own against the universal need for affirmative action and race preferences.

During the very one-sided negotiations or capitulation by FW de Klerk and his chief netotiator, Roelf Meyer, some clauses were inserted, supposedly to placate conservatives, usually to do with language and culture, as well as the right to self-determination. However, these have remained a dead letter and are not applied by the state. At least two bodies supposed to oversee language rights, as well as cultural and religious rights, have at times stopped functioning completely.

As in the USA, litigation in South Africa is expensive and fighting a case through the courts for years up to the level of the so-called Constitutional Court results in frustration most of the time as the court has been packed with ultra-liberal judges who even go beyond what the ANC government would require. In fact, the SA Constitution is an activist judge’s dream.

You must understand that, despite the lack of order, corruption and other hallmarks of African culture, Africans are essentially conservative, holding on to their beliefs within a largely patriarchal society. They also have a fairly direct sense of justice, so if you attack me or steal from me, I kill you. The death penalty is often meted out on the spot by mobs in South Africa who might catch a thief, rapist or murderer red-handed. The majority in South Africa, white and black, support the death penalty for certain crimes. Soon after 1994, however, the Constitutional Court declared the death penalty “unconstitutional” and it was abolished. The same thing happened with same-sex marriage. Africans are mostly homophobic and the majority would never support same-sex marriage if a referendum were held on the issue. Yet the Constitutional Court interpreted the anti-discrimination clauses in the constitution in such a way that it also applied to gays and that was it. We got same-sex marriage and all the women’s magazines started to carry articles featuring married lesbians showing off their brand-new babies after a visit to the nearest sperm bank.

One of the greatest defects of the constitution is that it does not guarantee private property which again is qualified in terms of the “public interest”. Section 25.4.1 states:

… the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources.

South Africa has always had a very efficient and precise register of all immovable property in the country and to claim that some land was simply “stolen” as has become the fashion, is simply ridiculous. Yet the constitution has placed all property in jeopardy and there have been almost a 100 000 “land claims”, none of which would stand scrutiny in a court of law but have been processed by the government bureacracy.

Without the constitution, I think we would have had far more protection under Roman-Dutch law and the English common law that have served South Africa for centuries. Also, there would have been no “super court” above all others to which the state so often appeals when the citizens obtain favorable judgements in the normal courts.

MERCER: Other than Hermann Giliomee, author of “The Afrikaners,” I don’t know of a writer in South Africa more insightful than you. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, however, saw fit to ruthlessly lampoon you. Tell our readers about being ambushed by that smart-aleck, smarmy icon of the American left.

ROODT: Yes, I must say that has been the singular most absurd experience I have ever had and certainly does not say much for the ethics of some American TV interviewers. We spent almost a whole day here near my home filming while they asked me questions like: “Do you feel concerned about your people becoming extinct in South Africa?” Obviously, I would then reply with “Yes” and give some further explanation. Four or five hours later, they would steer the conversation in the direction of “racism” and then ask me: “Do you feel concerned about racists becoming extinct in South Africa?” To that question I would then reply “No” and perhaps say that there are not many more racists in South Africa than in most other places, etc., and that we are actually highly tolerant of non-Western cultures with a magical worldview, strange customs, superstitions and so on.

However, during the final editing, they cut up the lengthy interview completely and presented it in jumbled form, so that where I originally said “no” they would insert a “yes” from another part of the footage. It was all part of a joke, but presented in such a way that I would look like a ridiculous, die-hard “racist” worrying about my fellow racists “becoming extinct”. The meaning was exactly the opposite of what I had said. Afterwards, the episode was also placed on the internet and some of my local and foreign enemies repeatedly posted the link on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere in a whole campaign to vilify me.

I suppose I could go and sue the Daily Show for libel in a New York court. However, my faith in New York courts being limited, as are my time and energy already being copiously expended on our asymmetrical struggle here, I have not actually pulled the trigger on that one yet.

MERCER: The accusations of racism and other isms you keep getting from haters: I’ve never heard you say anything remotely anti-Semitic. I’m Jewish. You and I are friends.

ROODT: Anti-Semitism is not really an issue in South Africa, and we do not have a Muslim threat as Europe does. Amid all the multicultural conflict between races and cultures here, that is perhaps our one blessing. Personally, I have interesting discussions with both Jews and Muslims – many South African Muslims actually speak Afrikaans very well – so I try not to get caught up in the Middle-Eastern conflict. My only criticism of South African Jews is that they tend to be too liberal! But then I tell myself there are many other liberals too, so one should not generalize.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Why The Warring About War: What The Moron Media Don’t Explain

Constitution, Just War, libertarianism, War

This past Friday, CNN was festooned with the usual bobbing heads kibitzing about whether or not the administration had committed the country to war or not. The quarreling parties did not explain to the viewers whose brains they addle daily, why this distinction mattered. I doubt they know. I mean, if the president indeed possesses all the powers CNN journos often claim for him—why must their Almighty Mulatto bother to seek consent for his actions? Republicans are pretty much on board when it comes to executive overreach, although they’d prefer their guy to be doing the overreaching.

Here is a typical exchange, times 10 a day:

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Is the United States at war with ISIS. It sure sounds from the president’s speech that we are.

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think that is the wrong terminology.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Make no mistake. We know we are at war with ISIL.

BURNETT: Is this war?

MCCHRYSTAL: Well, I mean, you can trip over and argue about whether it’s a war for congressional purposes. If you are on the ground and people are getting killed, to a soldier it feels like war and to the population it feels like war. So it’s a struggle.

[SNIP]

And here’s the logical extension of the “to war or not to war” debate, which the Moron Media seems incapable of deducing: It matters whether the president has committed the country to war or not, because:

1) While the power to declare war under various statutes like the War Powers Act, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act was shifted to the Executive, to comport with a trend toward centralization of power in this branch—according to these statutes, the War Powers Act, in particular, “he cannot lawfully pursue any military action whatsoever after 180 days.”

2) War declared by executive order may be legal, but it is still unconstitutional. It flouts the obligation to get “the consent of the governed,” to quote the Declaration of Independence.

The libertarian’s duty is to reject the law of the state when it is at odds with natural justice. The process adopted so far by the Bush and Obama executive flouts both the U.S Constitution and the natural law. But Just War principles are for another debate, another time.

As for the Constitution, over to James Madison: “‘Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.’ Thus it is Congress that declares a war. The U.S. government is beholden to the Constitution, which prohibits the president from declaring war.

Explains Louis Fisher, senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress: ‘Keeping the power to commit the country to war—and to all the costs of war—in separate hands from the power to wage war once declared was a bedrock principle for the framers.'”

Modern statutes like the War Powers Resolution, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act do not displace the constitutional text and the framers’ intent. (From “UNNATURAL LAWLESSNESS”)


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint