Category Archives: Constitution

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

Avel Amarel, Gutsy Guy

Constitution, Criminal Injustice, Fascism, Private Property

How about a warrant if you want to search my house? Probable cause, perhaps? Avel Amarel insisted on his 4th Amendment rights, when a cop put his big foot in the door. “Oh no you don’t,” said this gutsy guy, standing between his family and the pigs, who truly deserve the moniker, in this instance.

I doubt I’d have the presence of mind, and, frankly, the courage to think as clearly and resist as forcefully.

Via the Free Thought Project.com:

If police come to your door and you don’t need their help, you can simply decline to answer. They cannot come into your home without a search warrant.

Even if the police have probable cause, they cannot come in your home without a search warrant.

You might even be a suspect in a criminal investigation. In such a case you should remain silent — except to say “Officer, I can’t let you inside without a search warrant.” Following such an encounter, you should immediately contact a lawyer before speaking to police again.

The fact is that police can legally lie to try and gain access into your home and knowing how to deal with police at your door can go a long way.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: When Cretins ‘Confront’ Creep-In-Chief

Barack Obama, Christianity, Constitution, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION, Journalism, Left-Liberalism, Media, Regulation

In the age of illiteracy and ignorance, newspaper transcripts are obsolete. So rely on memory I must in relaying what one can take away from Obama’s “presser at the conclusion of the Africa Summit.” And it is, chiefly, that the media, whose duty it is to keep the president on his toes, is really really dim.

Again, Obama called Congress a do-nothing Congress (if only this were true), when the Founding Fathers put in place a constitutional scheme that was intended to gridlock, so as to prevent usurpation of power belonging to the people. That the system failed to preserve freedom is beside the point. Obama still gets away with disgorging misleading dross about the constitutional system’s workings.

Just the other day, the creep-in-chief declared that there was no money to protect the border from tidal waves of central-American juveniles. (That too was the fault of a “do-nothing Congress.”) Today, this interloper found plenty taxpayer money to give to “Africa” so that it could unleash the potential of its women, press, medical men (or witchdoctors, as they are called on that continent), civil institutions, on and on. I’d say this was tantamount to throwing good money after bad, if there was any real money to throw about.

The American media, like the army, is internationalist. They like to present themselves as humanitarians, whose sympathies lie with the world’s poor (unless they personally have to step up, whereupon these left-liberals metamorphose into NIMBYs).

Why, one feeble-minded female demanded, was an Ebola drug, developed in the US and still not approved for use due to Food and Drug Administration regs—yes, regulation can indirectly kill—why was it not being provided to “Africa”? (I don’t think American journos understand that “Africa,” like Europe before the European Union, is made up of many countries.) And was it ethical to test the compound on the infected Christian missionaries—Americans all—who contracted the disease when ministering to the sick and afflicted on the continent.

If they could, the journos would take the ZMapp drug away from these saints who deserve a cure. The selfless saints serving the Lord in Africa would probably agree.

UPDATED (8/7): Partial transcript courtesy of CNN.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

The Tyrant’s Warring Factions

Constitution, Crime, Founding Fathers, John McCain, Media

I’m not quite convinced ordinary individuals should share the nation-wide outrage over the dispute between Congress, on the one hand, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on the other.

What’s it about? Explains AMY GOODMAN of “Democracy Now!”:

The Central Intelligence Agency has admitted its officials spied on a Senate panel probing the agency’s torture and rendition program. An internal probe found 10 CIA employees monitored Senate staffers’ computers. This development comes days after another revelation of CIAspying on Congress emerged. According to McClatchy, the agency has also been spying on emails from whistleblower officials and Congress, triggering fears the CIA has been intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases.

This CIA infraction is said to “violate the constitutional separation of powers and may also have been a violation of a federal computer fraud.”

McMussolini is upset. He doesn’t much appreciate any upset in the balance of his power.

Seriously, separation of powers has become nothing but a slogan. Very little remains of the Founder’s constitutional scheme. The people who were supposed to benefit from the dispersion of power inherent in that scheme, now labor under a centralized power.

Isn’t it curious how much fuss is generated by the media-congressional faction when their rights and privileges are messed with? Forgotten in the self-serving din is the spying that goes on against the people. The people themselves forget and become distracted by the whining of those in power.

For all I care, the CIA and Congress can devour each other.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint