Category Archives: Natural Law

UPDATED: An ‘Ebullient’ President-Elect Who Cares About The Constitution As A Timeless Document

Barack Obama, Constitution, Donald Trump, EU, Europe, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Natural Law

Our magnificent President-elect Donald Trump spoke to libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano about constitutional originalists—who is; who isn’t—and the meaning of the Constitution.

Mr. Trump also asked Judge Napolitano about how you stop The Bureaucracy from legislating. As you all know, we live under a Managerial State, where the bureaucracy has vast discretion to pass and enforce laws that are never vetted by our so-called law-makers and representatives. These cockroaches have allowed it.

The Chevron Doctrine:

Did Barack Obama ever make such an inquiry? No. Barack Obama was not in the habit of hiding how he felt about the US Constitution. As much as he disliked the philosophical foundations of the republic, the president seemed to know a bit about the intent. Here’s Senator Barack Obama talking about the document Republicans seldom mention and Democrats deem dated:

… as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution … generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

The president recognized and rejected “the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties.” Because of the obstacles the Constitution poses to “redistributive justice,” community organizing à la Obama aims at achieving extra-constitutional change.

MORE GREATNESS FROM TRUMP:

If RNC Rules Are So True To Voters, Why Keep Tweaking Them Against Popular Will?

Natural Law, Politics, Regulation, Republicans

Fox Business has just reported that the Republican National Committee has decided against “tweaking” their arbitrary rules, as is their wont when they don’t get their candidate. The atmosphere is too politically combustive. In other words, The Party knows The People are hip to the kind of thing the RNC did with the Romney initiated Rule 40(b), in 2012, to make Ron Paul vanish.

Incredibly, the yarn the lyin’ media has spun is that the complaints against the Party bureaucracy are a figment of Donald Trump’s imagination. Unlike The People, these shysters can’t tell the difference between man-made rules and natural law. They seldom question The Rules.

If RNC Rules are so immutably fair, so small-r-republican, so true to the voters—why do they need constant tweaking in a direction away from popular will? And why, when a decision not to tweak them comes down, does Chairman Reince Priebus advertise the hell out of his decision not to rock the boat and usurp the voters?

UPDATED: Principled Patriots React To Ranchers Hammonds’ Plight

Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, States' Rights

The 3.1K number on my WND column, “Ranchers Hammond & Bundy: The Best of America,” refers to the number of times the column has been shared via any of the methods represented by the logo buttons to the left of the 3.1K. So that’s 3,100, a really big number, if accurate, but who knows?

2016, Hammond, WND Capture

LETTERS:

Writes Tim:

Ms. Mercer,

The show isn’t Hammond or bundy or even the Feds; it’s the transformation of rural America from a once-independent/gutsy psyche to what you saw today – the Burns locals showing up and asking the take-over guys to leave. Who planted fear and gutlessness into a community like Burns? I came back from combat in the Nam (usmc) and worked many jobs in the Oregon high desert; timber felling, loading hay trucks, fighting wild fires. These were once tough people who (then) would have supported the take-over stand, unanimously – seen its higher value as part of their own heritage. You’re smart, Ms Mercer, so tell me how urban fear and self-seeking became homogenized into this country’s entire demographic landscape. Was it media? Was it public education? Was it greed? Bottom line, there ain’t gonna be no more “Alamos.” Yes, the Hammonds are good guys, but even they want Bundy’s bunch outa town. It’s tragic and irreversible. What’s left is a man’s (person’s) responsibility to truth and courage; individual-by-individual, against the storm of darkness. And a lot of grace from God for that act.

Writes HS:

Another good column, Ilana. Do you ever feel like you are a voice crying in the wilderness? Your assessment of the situation of the land grab in Oregon and of those who have commented on it is a welcomed relief amid all the grandstanding from the powers that be and the media. Thank you for the level-headed analysis. You make much sense and we are indebted to you for enlightening us. Keep it up.
Humphrey

UPDATE: “Ranchers Hammond & Bundy: The Best Of America” was discussed on The Bill Meyer Show, January 8, 2016 (LISTEN).

UPDATED: Ranchers Hammnod And Bundy: The Best Of America

Conservatism, Criminal Injustice, Donald Trump, Government, Individual Rights, Left-Liberalism, Natural Law, Private Property, Propaganda, Regulation, States' Rights

Friday, at 8:10 AM Pacific Time, I will be chatting to Bill Meyer, Program Director for News Talk FM106.7/AM-1440 KMED, in Medford, Oregon, about the WND column, “Ranchers Hammnod & Bundy: The Best Of America.” An excerpt:

America, as one wag put it, is a “post-constitutional” country. Even worse, a plurality of Americans has now turned, en masse, against the First Principles of its founding. The organizing principle that currently informs American thinking is statism. It’s the state über alles: its laws, and the foot soldiers that enforce hundreds of thousands of arbitrary rules.

This sorry state-of-affairs is abundantly clear from the standoff between farmers and Fédérales, brewing in Burns, Oregon.

To look at rancher Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son, Steven, 46, is to see the salt of the earth; the best of America. Any decent American ought to be able to see that these family ranchers, so different from politically connected agribusiness, are better and braver than all of us city slickers put together.

We slickers consume the rancher’s grass-fed, organic, “local” beef, while we cheer his oppression. Fellini, the Italian film maker who excelled at portraying corruption of the soul, as expressed in the decay of the flesh, could not have set the scene better. The idiom of Greek Tragedy works, too:

Our protagonists are the two ranchers aforementioned—sentenced to five years in jail, due to a double-jeopardy like maneuver by the federal government.

The Antagonists are the federal government, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, The Courts, who’ve come down upon citizens with limited resources, citizens whom this Federal juggernaut is supposed to serve, not screw.

Other Antagonists in this morality play are the chorus of trash-talking radio, TV mouths and assorted bobbing heads (Republicans and Democrats), who say they care for The Folks but don’t know good folks when they see them.

Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon, has come to stand in solidarity with Dwight and Steven Hammond. The case of the Bundys of Bunkerville, Nevada, is instructive in understating the First Principles involved in the Oregon standoff.

In 2014, the BLM had come to steal Cliven Bundy’s cattle, in lieu of back taxes the BLM claims the rancher has owed it since 1993, when Bundy stopped paying grazing fees. The Bundys had homesteaded the disputed land, southwest of Mesquite, in 1877. Bundy’s forefathers had lived off the land well before the Bureau of Land Grabs came into being. The Feds subsequently passed laws usurping Bundy’s natural right to graze his cattle. The elderly rancher offered the following rejoinder: “I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. … I can raise cattle there because I have preemptive rights,’ among them the right to forage.”

Also edifying, via The Conservative Tree House, is that “the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal.” In other words, were “the Hammonds ever to sell their ranch, they would have to sell it to the BLM.” The BLM may get its way, for how are the Hammond women to pay the shakedown fines levied by the Fédérales? These amount to hundreds and thousands of dollars. How will the wives continue the Sisyphean struggle against the federal occupier, and, simultaneously, run the ranches sans the men?

Here we arrive at the “Catastrophe,” also an element in Greek tragedy. …

… Tune into to patriot Bill Meyer’s show. And, of course, read the rest on WND. The complete column is “Ranchers Hammnod & Bundy: The Best Of America.”

UPDATE: “Ranchers Hammond & Bundy: The Best Of America” was discussed on The Bill Meyer Show, January 8, 2016 (LISTEN).