Category Archives: Federalism

Privacy For Some Gun Owners (State Workers), But Not For Others (The People)

Constitution, Federalism, Free Speech, GUNS, Individual Rights, Journalism, Media, States' Rights

It’s old news that will not be getting old anytime soon. A shitty rag, The Journal News, published “an interactive map containing the names and addresses of pistol-permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Putnam counties.”

In response, there has been a great deal of special pleading from conservative quarters. A lot of the gun owners whose names and addresses were mapped are “first responders,” conservatives have been lamenting. “We can’t expose our [sainted] first responders to any dangers.”

The Bill or Rights was meant to protect individuals against the state. It defends the people from the government; not the obverse. But trust conservatives to elevate the “oink sector,” in the debate over the right of gun owners to privacy.

If anything, “first responders,” and other members of the oink sector—having sold their souls to the state—need to accept the risks that go with exercising ultimate decision-making powers in society, to use Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s term.

Government workers–the special interests—are expected to live with the risk of the job. They accept the perks and the pensions, don’t they?

I’m reminded here of the special pleading the same Fox News folks made in the case of the Transportation Security Administration’s illicit searches at the airports.

On Mr. Hannity’s Great American Panel, Noel Nikpour, a tedious Republican strategists who talks up a storm on that forum, extended her exquisite understanding of individual rights to … people like herself and her co-panelists. You know, important sorts who fly a lot; they ought to be able to acquire a permit that’ll exempt them from being screened afresh [by TSA goons] as they scurry to their important appointments.

This evening, Sean Hannity provided a forum for some very impressive gun owners, all of whom had been “outed” by the The Journal News. These were highly intelligent people, more than capable of articulating the essence of the freedoms they were exercising.

Still, sympathy is all “conservatives” like Mr. Hannity are able to offer to these exposed individuals. Sympathy and an appeal to the decency of the media (laughable, I know).

Republicans have no leg to stand on in objecting to the publication of gun-owner addresses, as they argue from the positive law. And the positive law, defended by all so-called “reasonable” conservatives, compels all law-abiding individuals to register with the state when purchasing a fire arm. (To this registration, libertarians like myself would object.)

Information thus collated and centralized is accessible to all.

An appeal to the sympathy and decency of the liberal establishment: That’s all statist “conservatives” have to offer in the case of The Journal News Vs. the gun owners of Westchester and Putnam counties.

Secession In Spain As Sweet As The Rain

EU, Europe, Federalism, Individual Rights, Journalism, Media, Republicans, States' Rights

I’ve been following the breaking news on RT of how “all four pro-independence parties now dominate 60 percent of the Catalan Parliament.” Fans of freedom, and hence of secession and nullification, will likewise be watching the developments in Spain’s Catalonia with great interest.

I’m surprised, however, that Drudge Report is doing the same. Today, 11/25/2012, Drudge led with the story, which none of the Dem and Republican loyalists on cable are remotely interested in. The same applies to the press. A “Calderon” item headlines the Washington Post’s “World” section. Neither has the possibility of secession in Spain made the front “page” of BBCNews.com

In the US, a country won over by dishonest Abe, it is considered politically improper to advocate political divorce down to the individual (check).

I may be jaded, but I think that Drudge views secession state side as a stand against Barrack Obama and thus worth hyping. More generally, he would not be covering a mass movement to secede in Europe, if it were not germane to his partisan interests in the US.

The GOP, the party of Lincoln, stands for centralized power, so long as their chosen dictator is at the helm. The same goes for the party’s press apparatchiks.

Egyptians Don’t Like Executive Orders

Constitution, Democracy, Federalism, Islam, Middle East, Multiculturalism

Whereas we in the US lionize our top dogs, mistaking the political overlords for benefactors, Egyptians have no delusions about their “sons of 60 dogs,” an apt Egyptian expression for their political masters.

So after removing one “son of 60 dogs” (President Mohamed Husni Mubarak), they elected another (Mohamed Morsy), this time democratically. These admirably rebellious people are now revolting against Morsy for issuing a “decree, late on Thursday.”

it marks an effort by Morsi to consolidate his influence after he successfully sidelined Mubarak-era generals in August. It defends from judicial review decisions taken by Morsi until a new parliament is elected in a vote expected early next year.
It also shields the Islamist-dominated assembly writing Egypt’s new constitution from a raft of legal challenges that have threatened the body with dissolution, and offers the same protection to the Islamist-controlled upper house of parliament.
Egypt’s highest judicial authority, the Supreme Judicial Council, said the decree was an “unprecedented attack” on the independence of the judiciary.

In American “democracy” such decrees are known as executive orders. For example, Obama passed an immigration law by extra-constitutional directive shortly before the election.

Americans didn’t riot. They never do. (Besides, rioting about free-for-all Third World immigration is racist.)

The International Criminal Court: Good For Thee, But Not For Me

Bush, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Europe, Federalism, Justice, Law, States' Rights

George W. Bush is likely nervous about traveling to Europe lest the International Criminal Court (ICC) put him in the dock to answer for Iraq and other war crimes.

In the spirit of American national sovereignty, Republicans have rejected ICC jurisdiction. As James Orr of the London Telegraph notes, Republicans do not believe the ICC should be supported by America.

Lo and behold, Mr. Romney promised, Monday, to “make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it.”

Is this some new neoconservative trope? And what of the wacky A-Jad’s right of free speech? I was under the impression that so-called conservatives were all for the right to offend, as they should.

Although Bush would likely reject the possibility of the ICC’s jurisdiction over himself, he did not hesitate to call on the World Court to subvert Texas justice.

“W,” who would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien, ordered Texas to halt the execution of murderer and rapist José Medellín. Texas said NO, and ended Medellin’s miserable life. (Celebrated in “José Medellín’s Dead; Cue The Mariachi Band.”)

Bush used the ICC to rationalize treason against Texans. Romney hasn’t gone that far. But he seems to be indicating that he’ll join forces with global government when it suits him.