Category Archives: Individual Rights

Prior Restraint Arguments As Pretex To Watch YOU

Argument, Constitution, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Intelligence, Law, Liberty, Rights, Socialism, Terrorism, The State

If we accept state aggression based on prior restraint arguments, then aggress we must ad absurdum. Why not stop all statists from procreating, lest they sire proponents of state theft and aggression? Such a program would at least be in furtherance of liberty. (And we could all do with fewer Meghan McCains.)

Prior restraint arguments are being galvanized as justification for nation-wide information sweeps conducted by the state for over a decade. Another cow, “Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching,” said “that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.”

It is quite telling that the story about the “NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily” was broken by Glenn Greenwald (an American) writing for The Guardian (British).

Most serious libertarians have been shouting about state snooping from the rooftops for over a decade. Now you’re listening! I already told you weeks back that there was absolutely nothing new about state snooping.

Via The Guardian:

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.
The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.
The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.
The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI’s request for its customers’ records, or the court order itself.
“We decline comment,” said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

(I believe “Entertainment Interruptus,” published on November 28, 2001, was my first column touching on the The Patriot Act.)

Anti-Apartheid Does Not Mean Pro-Democracy

Democracy, Ethics, Etiquette, Individual Rights, Morality, South-Africa

Miguel write:

Mrs Mercer:

I purchased your book Into the Cannibal’s Pot and have just started reading it.

From your book and other sources on your website, I understand that you and your family (particularly your father) held an anti-apartheid stance.

Your book however, describes the current situation in SA, particularly after the multi-racial, democratic elections of 1994, as having resulted in a borderline lawless state.

My question to you is: Did you believe, prior to 1994, that the an end to the apartheid regime would bring a more beneficial political and quality of life process to SA.

Thanking you advance

It goes without saying that I make a point of replying to almost all letters I get, provide they’re polite. Thousands, since I began writing. As George Will once wrote, “manners are the practice of a virtue. The virtue is called civility, a word related—as a foundation is related to a house—to the word civilization.”

I’ll address in a future post the issue of what failing to answer your mail says about you. For now, here’s my reply to Miguel:

Hello Miguel,

Thank you for reading Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.

I believe that nowhere in my book do I state the belief below. Moreover, from the fact that I oppose state-enforced apartheid—it does not follow that I support what I call in The Cannibal, a “raw, ripe democracy.”

By the end of the book, you will better understand this perspective. My involvement in SA as a young woman was humanitarian, not political.

You are correct in your assessment of my father’s thinking.

ILANA Mercer

Forever Trapped In the Deforming, Deadly Clutches of IRS Freaks

Free Markets, Individual Rights, Republicans, Ron Paul, Taxation

One of the reasons the Internal Revenue Service will only ever accrete in size and scope is the thugs that man it. Watch this YouTube clip of a representative cross-section of the IRS workforce, no doubt, at a “training conference.” Look at these ugly, off-putting beasts getting their freak-on at your expense. They dress and look like crap, butts and crotches wiggling all over the place, and they sound like crap.

You don’t imagine that such a gross-out of a group—repulsive both physically and mentally—could add value to a company that is vying for the consumer’s voluntary vote, do you? “Give me a break.”

Although no Ron Paul in his understanding of American liberty, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), and not Sen. Rand Paul, has come closest to articulating the solution to the agency of legalized thuggery called the IRS.

The IRS ought to be abolished. Working Americans ought to be liberated from its deforming and deadly clutches.

‘Barack Obama Is The President That Nixon Always Wanted To Be’

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Constitution, Individual Rights, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism

As was observed in this week’s column, “Obama’s The Sinner; Holder His ‘Sin Eater,’” Professor Jonathan Turley has been doing the job most liberals and conservatives refuse to do: Argue that, as I put it, “Barack Hussein Obama’s philosophical fingerprints are all over his administration” and its scandals.

Turley has been magnificent, and must be losing many of his liberal pals for refusing to worship at the alter of Obama.

In March this year, Turley made the case, in a USA Today column, that “Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be,” and that, “In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments.”

Turley traverses the ugly terrains of Obama’s expansion of the “warrantless surveillance” over his subjects. There is little you can do to oppose such surveillance, thanks to BHO.

As has Obama asserted “his sole authority” “to decide what is a ‘war,’” so that even the cockroaches in congress can no longer control the imperial presidency in the matter of war powers.

Then there are the “attacks on whistle-blowers and Journalists.” This is quite remarkable, but under the Espionage Act of 1917, “Obama has brought twice as many such prosecutions as all prior presidents combined.

Obama has not only openly asserted powers that were the grounds for Nixon’s impeachment, but he has made many love him for it. More than any figure in history, Obama has been a disaster for the U.S. civil liberties movement. By coming out of the Democratic Party and assuming an iconic position, Obama has ripped the movement in half.

This Turley interview with film maker John Cusack is particularly good because so specific.

TURLEY: “That’s exactly right. In fact, President Obama has not only maintained the position of George W. Bush in the area of national securities and in civil liberties, he’s actually expanded on those positions. He is actually worse than George Bush in some areas. …”

MORE.

What a shame that in the universe of a civil libertarian like Turley, individual rights do not extend to the sphere of economics and property rights. That would mean becoming a libertarian. How about that? (See also “Obama And Bush: Partners In Government Giganticism.)