Category Archives: Justice

UPDATED: An Egyptian Revolutionary Tribunal?

Democracy, Economy, Islam, Justice, Law, Middle East, Welfare

Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak suffered a heart attack in the course of an inquisition “investigating graft and abuse allegations.” Also on the public prosecutor’s docket: “violence against protesters.” (Link)

Expect Egyptian freedom fighters, many of whom are of the once-thwarted Muslim Brotherhood, to grow more restive as it becomes clear that “freedom” will not make manna fall from the heavens—especially since most Egyptians are not, as far as I know, demanding a liberalization of their economy.

The Egyptian court judging Mubarak will oblige the masses. It’ll masquerade as a court of law, but I suspect that this tribunal will more closely resemble the French Revolutionary Tribunal, meting justice by popular demand.

UPDATE: A “Day of Cleansing” is what the rebels are, ominously, calling the next stage of the Egyptian revolution.

During “the early days of the movement … Egyptians showered the Army with flowers and saw them as defenders of the people after tanks rolled into the streets to restore order after violent clashes with police.” It was not as though “hundreds to thousands of people have [not] been detained by the Army and tried in military courts without access to civilian lawyers. Yet until recently, such criticism of the Army had not been widespread.”

The people, it would seem, have changed their fickle minds.

The blood will flow, and still something will be amiss.

Why do you think that, bar the likes of the tea party, is it never real liberty that the majority wants?

Here’s why: Radicals, libertarians among them, believe that because all people seek safety and sustenance for themselves, they’ll allow those they dislike to peacefully pursue the same. These radicals are oblivious to reality. People are not naturally good. They want what is not theirs. Free up the Egyptian economy. Some will rise, others will fall.

A cry will then go out for a third party (the new government) to take from those who rose and give to those who fell.

UPDATED: Bono Gives Go-Ahead to ‘Kill The Boer’ Chant

Crime, IMMIGRATION, Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Racism, South-Africa

I know that few in the developed world care about the undeclared, ad hoc, genocidal, ethnic-cleansing of rural Afrikaners in South Africa, my old homeland (a least so the major, cowardly conservative publishers assure me). But (from their positions of relative safety), my American countrymen do care about Bono, the great benefactor of mankind, and are surely interested in what he has to say about the incitement to kill the Boers. (Fore more about these killings see “‘Kill The Fucking Whites’ On Facebook”)

Anyhoo, Bono is a chap who fronts a three-chord band of unimpressive droners. His ignorance about the teachings of the late Lord P. T. Bauer, the foremost authority on foreign aid, has catapulted him to a position of great prominence on matters concerning the undeveloped world. This is, after all, the Age of the Idiot.

On tour in South Africa, and amid the ongoing assault against the beleaguered Boers, Bono told the BBC that the ditty “Shoot the Boer,” “which was sung during the fight against apartheid” [and at practically every political rally since] had folkloric pride of place in South Africa, “like music supporting the Irish Republican Army.”

G-d must be otherwise indisposed. (I’m not a believer, but I know many of my readers are. “Respek.”) The God of the Jews was vengeful, when it came to meting out justice. If he were fully “engaged” (and I’m being as delicate as I can), he would surely have struck the bonehead Bono down for giving the killing of a vulnerable people the go-ahead.

Given the mesmerizing, often murderous, power of the chant—any chant—in African life, this is in fact what Bono has done. Does anyone remember the “‘Kill them before they kill you” slogan that helped excite Hutus to massacre half a million of their Tutsi neighbors? Apparently not.

Of course, banning an incitement to murder will do nothing to excise a dark reality embedded deep in the human heart. It is this reality that must be discussed openly vis-a-vis South Africa. I do this in
my book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons From South Africa from Post-Apartheid South Africa. It will be published on May 10, 2011.

UPDATE (Feb. 15): No matter how many times I write or reply to the question of, “Why don’t South Africans up and leave,” I get the same insular, derisive responses, or repeat questions. Again and again. The penny never seems to drop. So, I will excerpt again from “The Immigration Scene,” where it was explained that highly-skilled and educated South Africans can petition destination countries to emigrate. The rest haven’t a hope in hell of getting into the USA. However, even highly-skilled immigrants are weeded out indirectly in the American immigration system, which,

“selects for low moral character by rewarding unacceptable risk-taking and law-breaking … An example should clarify what I mean by ‘select for low moral character’: Most of our South-African friends, all highly qualified, upstanding family men and women, have opted to go to Australia or the UK. Why? Well, legal immigrants to the U.S. don’t ‘wait their turn,’ as the uninformed pointy-heads keep chanting. It is usually their qualifications that, indirectly, get them admitted into the country. The H-1B visa, for one, is a temporary work permit—and also a route to acquiring legal permanent resident status. However, if one loses the job with the sponsoring company, the visa holder must leave the U.S. within ten days. What responsible, caring, family man would subject his dependents to such insecurity and upheaval? As I say, most of the people we know would never contemplate breaking the law by remaining in the US illegally. And not because they’re dull or unimaginative (an ‘argument’ I’ve heard made by Darwinian libertarians, who praise immigration scofflaws for their entrepreneurial risk-taking, no less). But because they have the wherewithal—intellectual and moral—to weigh opportunity costs and plan for the future, rather than say ‘mañana’ to tomorrow and live for today. Unhip perhaps, but certainly the kind of people America could do with.”

The H-1B visa or the O-1 ‘Extraordinary Ability’ Visa are the most popular in gaining entry into the USA. They are predicted on a job offer and are not easily attained (as you will see, if you bother to read the above-linked article).

Other work visas are easily obtained if you’re a law breaker, speak Spanish, are uneducated, and are not Caucasian—there are very few rational ways of getting into the US. The US simply selects for low moral character and a lack of professional accomplishment in its immigration-policy proclivities and sympathies.

As for the family reunification system, in the case that a candidate has family in the US (see “Please, Can My Sister Become An Illegal Immigrant?”), old parents can come right away. The younger, productive siblings of a permanent resident, such as my sister, are last on the legal waiting list. With backlogs running to 4 million cases, she may have to wait well over a decade, if not two, to come to the US legally.

Since Third-World immigrants have larger families, they will crowd out the smaller family units of the Afrikaner or Anglo- South African in vying for this category of visa. Thus, the US immigration policies also favors the Third World.

Please search my blog– and articles archives under Immigration and South Africa if you want to find out more about how near-impossible it is for some of the hardest working people in the world to come to the USA legally. You can purchase my book, out on May 10, and read up about the odd illegal white South African being sent packing back to South Africa by American justices.

But do wake up about America; it opens its arms only to a certain kind of oppressed refugee.

Assassinations Under US Auspices?

Constitution, Criminal Injustice, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iraq, Journalism, Justice, Law, Media, Middle East

I hope the failed assassination attempt on Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s vice president, recently appointed to quell the unrest in that country, is not a harbinger of things to come. I am thinking of the vulgar cellphone images that circulated the Internet, in which a stoic Saddam Hussein, noose about his neck, is heckled by a hooded Shiite executioner. Even more repugnant than the hasty hanging carried out under US auspices were the US-sponsored legal proceedings that preceded it. (All the obligatory denunciations of Hussein obtain here, naturally. Bad man. Bad man. Bad man.) That Tribunal, which was branded “made-in-America,” had more in common with the French Revolutionary Assembly (See “No Due Process For A Despot”).

Similarly, such a barbaric specter in Egypt (conjuring the French, and not the American, Revolution), will have been greatly inspired, like in Iraq, by American media screeches.

I worry because the US is not necessarily averse to hasty hangings, considering that the strongmen we betray may turn around and tell all: You know; the stuff about how they helped the U.S. with its rendition and torture programs.

UPDATED: Healthscare Halted?

Constitution, Democrats, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Justice, Law, Natural Law

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate,” Judge Roger Vinson writes. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40520) District Judge Roger Vinson hails form in Pensacola, Florida. He sided with 26 suing states.

Will those Senators who’re up for re-election in 2012 bring themselves to vote with their lower-chamber colleagues to repeal the thing? Will the same representatives admit that forcing an individual to purchase a product is wrong, and certainly beyond their mandate?

I doubt it. They’ll tell us that the (Rousseauist) common good, as defined by the state, takes precedent over the common man. We have not heard the last from Obama’s advancing Politburo Of Proctologists.

UPDATE: Vinson’s is really a beautifully written and reasoned Decision. It cleaves to the Constitution. Keith Olbermann’s proxies have begun to tarnish Judge Vinson as a judicial activist, whatever that means. Do these sound like unfair proceedings?

Both sides have filed strong and well researched memoranda in support of their motions for summary judgment (“Mem.”), responses in opposition (“Opp.”), and replies (“Reply”) in further support. I held a lengthy hearing and oral argument on the motions December 16, 2010 (“Tr.”). In addition to this extensive briefing by the parties, numerous organizations and individuals were granted leave to, and did, file amicus curiae briefs (sixteen total) in support of the arguments and claims at issue.

“… I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law….”

AND:
The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional. Accordingly, summary judgment must be
granted in favor of the plaintiffs… ”

Also adjudicated was the state plaintiffs objection “to the fundamental and ‘massive’
changes in the nature and scope of the Medicaid program that the Act will bring about. They contend that the Act violates the Spending Clause [U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1] as it significantly expands and alters the Medicaid program to such an extent they cannot afford the newly-imposed costs and burdens. They insist that they have no choice but to remain in Medicaid as amended by the Act, which will eventually require them to ‘run their budgets off a cliff.’ This is alleged to violate the Constitutional spending principles set forth in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), and in other cases.5 Under Dole, there are four restrictions on Congress’ Constitutional spending
power: (1) the spending must be for the general welfare; (2) the conditions must be stated clearly and unambiguously; (3) the conditions must bear a relationship to the purpose of the program; and 4) the conditions imposed may not require states ‘to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.’ Supra, 483 U.S. at 207-10. In addition, a spending condition cannot be ‘coercive.’ This conceptional requirement is also from Dole, where the Supreme Court speculated (in dicta at the end of that opinion) that ‘in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’ … If that line is crossed, the Spending Clause is violated.”

[SNIP]

Left-liberals believe a judicial activist is someone who reverses precedent. Republicans think a judicial activist is someone who disobeys the President. That’s the sum total of how the two parties relate to the law.