Monthly Archives: June 2014

News Blackout For Barack

Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Taxation

It looks like CNN might have been shamed fleetingly into fulfilling its mandate: covering current news. Yesterday, out of the blue, Wolf Blitzer conducted an interview not entirely friendly with that piece of detritus, IRS Chief JOHN KOSKINEN. By contrast, a day prior, reporter Dana Bitch ran a smarmy, lighthearted and facetious segment about the Internal Revenue scandal, suggesting it was a figment of the minds of Republicans. Perhaps the stark data of the sparse coverage of this and other Obama scandals, gathered by Media Research Center senior news analyst Scott Whitlock, and presented to large audiences by Bill O’Reilly, did something to create oscillation in the closed media circuit (“circus” is a better word).

… A grand jury is investigating whether members of Mr. Christie’s staff sabotaged traffic on the bridge to get revenge on a political opponent. The story is valid and the network news went wild with it, devoting 112 minutes to the situation in the first week, 112 minutes.
But when the VA scandal story broke, there was no coverage on the nightly network news broadcast for almost two weeks. No coverage.
When the lost IRS email story broke, just three and a half minutes combined on all the network newscasts. Unbelievable. That is a news blackout.
On the newspaper front, the big three liberal papers – the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post – printed fifty-six stories and commentaries about Governor Christie in the first week. Fifty-six.
First week of the V.A. Scandal, two stories. First week of the IRS scandal, three stories. You want media bias, there it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

UPDATED: Desperately Seeking Desperadoes in Diapers

Business, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Nationhood

“Desperadoes in Diapers” is the current column, now on The Quarterly Review. An excerpt:

“First they came: thousands of unaccompanied illegal minors rushing the South-Western border. Then came the theories as to why they came. Determined not to miss a trick, America’s traitor elite—open-border interests and enemies of private-property rights—called the arrivals refugees, victims of nativist Know-Nothings who want invaders turned away. The desperadoes in diapers were also said to have fallen victim to a sudden deterioration in conditions in Central America. No proof has been advanced for the claim that, all of a sudden, things in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have worsened. Because they reason in circles, no-border advocates deploy no logic to justify their claims. Only this did these Aristotelians say:

That Central American minors are arriving, hat-in-hand, is in itself proof that their homes have become uninhabitable. Quod erat demonstrandum (as Erik Rush likes to say); Q.E.D.; case proven.

Having been given the go-ahead by media mogul Rupert Murdoch—he came out for de facto limitless importation of third-world immigrants—his employees at Fox News cued the violins. Shepherd Smith was weeping and gnashing his teeth: “Not politics, but the disgusting conditions in their countries have sent these kids to our shores,” he asserted. “What is a caring nation to do? Their parents love them so much; they gave them to smugglers for a better life.”

However poor, this here mother would never have handed over her daughter to a smuggler. But what do I know about parental love? No more than the nation’s first president knew about the glue that was meant to keep America together.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington presented what historian Paul Johnson calls “an encapsulation of what [he] thought America was, or ought to be, about.” America, said Washington, “is a country which is united by tradition and nature. ‘With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles.’”

What a dummy!

“The children, the children,” wailed Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “It’s all about the children. We are the United States, what do we do about the children?” Such showy “humanitarianism” invariably means the following: Working people in the U.S., with children of their own to mind, will be roped into supporting the children of the world. Enslave one set of people to whom American politicians are beholden by law, for the benefit of another.

Where’s the humanity for the non-consenting host population? …

Read the compete column. “Desperadoes in Diapers” is now on The Quarterly Review..

Our German readers can now follow this column and other worthy writers in the JUNGE FREIHEIT, a weekly newspaper of excellence.

Editors wishing to feature the “Return to Reason” column in their publications, pixel or paper, please contact Bookings@ilanamercer.com. Or, ilana@ilanamercer.com

UPDATE (7/3): Myron Robert Pauli: “I liked the quote of John Quincy Adams. Historian David McCullom said he was the most intelligent of our Presidents. His nickname was Old Man Eloquent. When one plots the trajectory from John Quincy (‘America does not go around in search of monsters to destroy …. She might become the dictatress of the world’) Adams to Bush-II and Obama, it makes me want to cry. – – – Arguably, I am a classical liberal but not a libertarian anarchist OR a welfare-socialist. I do not want foreign mobs taking $$ and turning the country even more socialistic nor do I want to have to turn my own home into a personal fortress to keep out the horde. The reality of modern America is that Washington and Adams would essentially be intellectual outcasts in America of 2014.”

Crime And No Punishment

Constitution, Liberty, States' Rights, Taxation

More proof that the Constitution is worse than useless: John Boehner is “taking the president to court,” for “amassing power at the expense of the legislative branch.” This infraction, pronounces a Washington-Post liberal, correctly, has been a trend “not just for the past five years but for a generation or more. The Prince of Orange is mostly right about the problem, if not the time frame.”

Equally futile for our liberties is the grandstanding against the d-cks from the agency whose job description is to oppress and steal: The Internal Revenue Service. You abolish such a den of iniquity and vice, you don’t tweak it.

But what makes Boehner’s “long-shot litigation” meaningless is that, other than impeachment, which seldom happens, and the chocking off of finances (also a rarity)—the marvel that is the US Constitution offers no serious remedies for punishing officialdom.

Mark Levin talks-up the idea of a state convention. Yeah right. As I countered in “Secession, Not Convention, Offers Salvation,”

To reclaim the republic, Levin and his listeners hold out hope for the atrophied states and their unexercised role in the amendment process, as stipulated in Article V of the Constitution. Never mind that the states, contrary to the mistaken predictions and hopes of the Constitution makers, have never initiated a constitutional amendment; and never mind that even in the event that the states demand a constitutional convention, there is no mechanism to compel Congress to act.

The great constitutional scholar James McClellan was no “neo-confederate.” Yet even an ardent defender of the Constitution as was McClellan conceded that, sadly, “the Framers relied on the good faith of Congress for the observance of the requirement” and that, when it came to a constitutional convention, “there was no way to force Congress to act.” (“Liberty, Order, And Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government,” p. 310.)

Ultimately, the legislatures of two-thirds of the states have to unite to call on Congress to hold a national constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the dead-letter Constitution. Levin and his listeners are deluded if they think that the states, which are hardly bastions of freedom, will unite for this purpose; salvation is more likely to come from dissolving dysfunctional political bonds.

Lawless Lynching Of Mississippi Tea Partier

Democrats, Elections, Ethics, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media

From her position as a lowly reporter at CNN, dumbo Dana Bash—whose love for Barack Obama is second only to Jessica Yellin’s, another of CNN’s pack animals—often allows herself to editorialize. Today Dana was doing Jackson, Mississippi, where she campaigned (oops, reported) for establishment Republican Thad Cochran, urging Democrats, via her “suggestive reporting” and selective interviews, that, “African-Americans … do have a stake in this runoff election.” In other words, vote against anti-establishment Republican Chris McDaniel if you don’t want to witness a reinstatement of Jim Crow laws.

Dana assures her readers and viewers that, “Mississippi law allows anyone to vote in the runoff, meaning Democrats can go to the polls so long as they didn’t vote in the Democratic primary and they don’t plan to support their party candidate in the general election.”

Not everyone agrees with Dana, who is no more than an Obama devotee, parading as a journalist. J. Christian Adams, “an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice,” has this to say:

Mississippi law has a prohibition against voting in the Republican primary if you do not intend to support the nominee in November. The law is still on the books. A case which undermined the statute was thrown out and vacated by a federal appeals court. The closest thing there is questioning the law is an old attorney general’s opinion questioning the enforceability of the law.
The attorney general’s opinion, issued by a Democrat in 2003, doesn’t do what the left is claiming it does. For starters, it is simply an attorney general’s opinion. When I went to law school, we learned that such opinions are not binding authority. These days it seems that they are binding authority, as long as the left agrees with the outcome.
But the AG opinion cites eight reasons a voter may be challenged. Number 8 says “(g) That he is otherwise disqualified by law.” “Otherwise disqualified by law” certainly might mean they aren’t supposed to vote in the primary because they don’t qualify under Mississippi Code 23-15-575.
When I went to law school, we also learned about the canon of statutory interpretation that “courts must not construe statutes so as to nullify, void or render meaningless or superfluous.”
The chairs of the Democrat Party and Republican Party recognize what the academics apparently do not. Both are calling for Democrats not to raid the Republican runoff Tuesday. … MORE.