Category Archives: Justice

UPDATE II: The Law Of Rule Doubles Down

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Energy, Free Speech, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Correctness, Race, Racism

A member of the South African opposition (as I have already mentioned) characterized the effects of the ANC’s deployment of law as living under the law of rule rather than the rule of law. This characterization applies equally to Big Man Obama and his posse.

According to Fox News’ Megan Kelly, who does some fine reporting, the decree to dismiss the New-Black-Panther voter intimidation case originated with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Recall: the thugs who received a reprieve flanked the voting location in formation shouting variations on “kill crackers and their kids.”

A note to libertarians celebrating free speech and the beauty of an exhortation to kill in a “free society”: I’m sympathetic even to the last, believe it or not. But this is not about free speech. this is about a legal apparatus under which some are better than others. Don’t get me wrong: we’ve always lived under such an apparatus; my new book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot, (completed now and being prepared for publication), records this very reality. However, it has become manifestly obvious that things have gotten way worse (albeit on the same continuum) under the racial rule of Brother Barack.

To those interested in the law’s position on speech, here it is stated in one of my columns:

American jurisprudence allows the regulation of speech only under very limited circumstances. .. the jury would have had to find that … [the] speech posed a “Clear and Present Danger.” While the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t protect words that are likely to cause violence, the required threshold is extremely high. And so it should be.

However, speech that falls under the rubric of civil and voter rights law seems to get different treatment—when uttered against the pigmentally privileged.

UPDATE I: To prove this post’s point, the White House is threatening another lawsuit against Arizona. I believe it will try, this time, to make the racial profiling fiction stick. Is this an attempt to prosecute an infraction that has yet to occur? You see what I mean by the law of rule. As I write, coverage of this is hard to come by on the Net, so please do some digging.

UPDATE II: BHO will not abide by a “no you can’t!” The Law had ruled against the Rule in the matter of a moratorium on deep-water offshore drilling.

“[J]udge, Martin L. C. Feldman of United States District Court, issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a late May order halting all offshore exploratory drilling in more than 500 feet of water. A ‘blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium … with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,'” is how the judge justified smacking BHO. (Here is District Judge Feldman’s decision.)

But the law of rule wants an outcome of its own. And so, th “Obama Administration Issues New Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling.”

Living Under The Law Of Rule

Justice, Law, Race, Racism

INSTEAD OF THE RULE OF LAW (to paraphrase a South African politician’s saying). The Justice Department’s civil rights division has ordered the dismissal of one of the worst cases of voter intimidation to come before it because those threatened with batons, and told to prepare to lived under The Black Man were “crackers” and “honkies.” Yes, these epithets were used during the incident too. Via FoxNews:

“A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.
J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.”

Adams gave Fox’s Megyn Kelly an interview, but the EMBED ISN’T LOADING. LATER, THEN.

UPDATE III: Demonizing Due Process (O’REILLY & O’BAMA SITTING IN A TREE…)

Barack Obama, Business, Justice, Law, Private Property, Republicans, The State

Rep. Joe Barton is being raked him over the coals by the Media-Congressional complex, his Republican colleagues included, for telling the truth: Big “O” muscled PB into handing over private property without due process—in contravention of “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and all that stuff.

Not only is this unconstitutional; it is also immoral. It further entrenches the shakedown ethos, and the perception that private property works and breathes at the pleasure of the politicos. This is a slush fund, a piece of which everyone along the Gulf will be clamoring for, presumably without the hassles of proving they have been harmed by the spill.

None of what I’ve said will strike those of you who respect private property and due process, including the neglected, necessary, legal imperative of mens rea, as particularly original.

The real newsworthy point to take away from this is how uncommitted Republicans are to these bedrock principles.

This is a replay of the Jim Bunning brouhaha and what the Wall Street Journal called his finest hour. For attempting to abide by the quaint principle of pay-as-you-go—a position not even the crooked Chris Matthews could condemn in its entirety—Bunning was treated like a leper (or an Afrikaner farmer) by the entire spectrum of idiots.

UPDATE I (June 19): ET TU, BACHMANN? Where is this Michele Bachmann? “Neutered” is the right word, via The Right Scoop.

UPDATE II: O’REILLY & O’BAMA SITTING IN A TREE… Bill O’Reilly is consistent here. Never before has he deferred to the limits the constitutional scheme imposes on central power, and he does not now break with that commitment to an overweening central government. (Obama should cut O’Reilly some slack and give him that prestigious interview he craves. O’Reilly is his friend.)

But Bachmann backpedals and disappoints. O’Reilly declares he is okay with Obama bringing down on BP the full force of the federal government; MB, who rightly objected, now meekly agrees. Sort of. She ought to have stuck to her guns in noting the usurpation of power and the violation of due process of which she previously warned.

From “PATRICIDE AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT”:

“Prosecutorial power to bring charges against a person is an awesome power, stress Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Backing him, the prosecutor has the might of the state, and must never ‘override the rights of the defendant in order to gain a conviction.’
Prosecutorial duties are dual. While acting as the plaintiff, the prosecutor must also take pains to protect the defendant’s rights.”

O’Reilly is like a Benthamite bureaucrat; he’s no truth seeker.

Since the GOP went out of business, Mark Levin has begun to speak truth to power (and phony populism). VIA The Right Scoop:

UPDATE III (June 20): So you still think the “GOP, RIP” can be reformed?

CNN:

Rep. Jo Bonner called on fellow Republican Rep. Joe Barton to step down as ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Friday following the Texas Republican’s controversial statements to BP chairman Tony Hayward on Thursday.
“Earlier this morning, Rep. Barton called me to offer his personal apologies for any harm that his comments might have caused,” said Bonner, whose district covers much of Alabama’s coastline.
“It takes a big person to admit they were wrong and I appreciated Joe’s call,” Bonner continued. “However, as I told him, I believe the damage of his comments are beyond repair and, as such, I am today calling on Joe to do the right thing for our conference and immediately step aside as Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.”
“Joe’s comments were stupid and extremely insensitive to the hundreds of thousands of people who live along the Gulf Coast,” Bonner added.

UPDATE III: Then There Were Three (Sane Paleos)

Classical Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Justice, Middle East, Paleoconservatism

Serbian historian Srdja Trifkovic is one of the finest writers on Islam. Because he tells the truth about Islam, he also tells the truth about Israel. The latter follows from the former. Sane Serbs, Nebojsa Malic is another, have clashed with Islam’s emissaries and view Israel has having been “serbed.” The rest of the paleos are in contradiction: They acknowledge Islam’s aims but refuse to see its workings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I highlighted their inconsistencies in “Paleos Must Defend the West…And That Means Israel Too.” Trifkovic’s “Israel, the West, and the Rest” continues a tradition of three:

“… our primary interests in the Middle East … are not to defend human rights, or to promote democracy, or to build a Palestinian state, or to treat Israel as an existential American ally … Secondary and peripheral [interests] must remain subordinate to the primary interests when policy outcomes come into conflict. Should we promote ‘democracy’ even if its beneficiaries are Osama and Ahmadinejad? Should we seek ‘justice’ for the Palestinians — however defined — at the cost of risking the disappearance of the state of Israel? No, heck no!

Even if an evenhanded and generous agreement were to be offered to the Arabs — including the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, an equitable sharing of natural resources, and a generous compensation package that would resolve the refugee problem — it would be unworkable in the long term — the notion of Israel’s legitimacy is simply unacceptable to traditional Islam…”

UPDATE I (June 16) : To Derek: “Israel” does not have to mimic paleos to deserve a defense against those intent on extinguishing it. However, it so happens that Israelis have “Sued NATO For 1999 Air Strikes On Serbia.” Read my post about this valiant, well-directed, self-interested effort.

We know that Israel was streaks ahead, as far as paleo political philosophy goes, in terms of its relationship not only with Serbia but with the old South Africa. Read about the latter comity.

Put it this way: Israel did not attempt to destroy these nations; the USA did.

Where does that leave paleo incongruity?!

UPDATE II (June 17): The idea, hinted at in the Comments Section, that this column privileges Israel over the US for “tribal” reasons is insulting—at least to those familiar with my positions. As I wrote to Myron the other day, when he asked that I apply the Israel test to an American issue: “I’m an American commentator, first.” I’m also the quintessential individualist. I’ve never belonged or worked for any group/tribe/church.

Why does this writer fight for the Afrikaner, Gringo Malo? Tribal affiliation? What bunk. If I knew what was good for me, I would indeed conform to Malo’s insulting caricature—the book deals would role in. I’d be rewarded for becoming what in Russel Kirk’s estimation the American mind craves: the banal and the mundane.

If anything, paleos work against their “tribe” when they agitate for the Palestinians. An Israeli did not assassinate an American senator; a Palestinian did. Muslim terrorists extolling the Palestinian cause killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. Yet it is Israelis that paleos warn us against.

And don’t dare mention the vast sums of money that go to that nest of vipers known as the Palestinian Authority. We only speak of the Jewish ponces who take from the US.

Equating my mere recognition of the justness of Israel’s existence and its struggle and what it has accomplished with tribal affiliation—this is plain pathetic, all the more so considering I have not ever recommended a foreign policy that does anything other than stay out of Israel’s affairs.

UPDATE IV: THEN THERE WERE FOUR. Thanks, Daniel, for alerting us to Derb’s brilliant piece, “Taking Israel’s Side”:

“Each of us has a mental map of the world colored by partiality, some of it reasonable, some merely emotional. If we are patriotic, we will feel more warmly towards a nation that trades fairly with us, cooperates to some degree in international projects we undertake, and shares some commonality of history, culture, or values with us. Contrariwise, of course, if you believe, as a liberal once told me he actually did believe, that your country is the most evil that ever existed, you will feel affinity with foreign nations whose leaders share that view. …

It remains the case that any fair-minded person must be an Israel sympathizer. A hundred years ago there were Jews and Arabs living in that part of the Ottoman Empire. After the Ottoman collapse both peoples had a right to set up their own ethnostates. It has been the furiously intransigent Arab denial of this fact, not anything Israelis have done, that has been the root cause of all subsequent troubles. It is also indisputably the case, as has often been said, that if Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in Palestine, while if Israel were to lay down her arms, the Israelis would be slaughtered.It is also indisputably the case, as has often been said, that if Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in Palestine, while if Israel were to lay down her arms, the Israelis would be slaughtered.”

[SNIP]

The last very good point was one I made in LIAR, LIAR, ABAYA ON FIRE (2002), quoting Lorne Gunter:

“Cycle of violence” suggests a sequence of events that has no beginning or end. Do the media ever pause to pose the no-brainer the Edmonton Journal’s Lorne Gunter poses? “If Palestinians stopped their attacks today, tomorrow there would be no Israeli attacks. But if Israel stopped unilaterally, would you trust the Palestinians to follow?”