Category Archives: Media

Updated: America's Founding Philosophy

Barack Obama, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Glenn Beck, Individual Rights, Media, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Rights, The Courts

Glenn Beck is invaluable in highlighting the constitutional underpinnings of the republic violated by almost every law enacted by both parties. However Beck’s discussion is generally incomplete (along the lines highlighted in the article “Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY,” where I also readily conceded that “The man exudes goodness and has a visceral feel for freedom”).

Again and again Glenn has alerted his viewers to Obama’s disdain for the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties.” Said the president: (Transcript here)

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

To the president’s telling complaint vis-a-vis the Constitution being deficient in its articulation of negative liberties only, Glenn has retorted as follows: “That’s the way the founders designed it, because they saw what governments do when they are allowed to do stuff for you.”

I’m afraid that’s not quite it. Articulated by the Founders, in the philosophy of classical liberalism and natural law, negative liberties are the only authentic rights. Glenn must articulate more than a utilitarian perspective, which doesn’t do justice to the profundity of America’s Founding Fathers. Glenn is welcome to use the following explanation from “CRADLE OF CORRUPTION,” in my book (buy it), with attribution, of course:

“The only rights of man are the rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights exist irrespective of governments. Rights always give rise to binding obligations. In the case of natural rights, the duty is merely a duty to refrain from doing. My right to life means you must refrain from killing me. My right to liberty means you cannot enslave me. My right to property means you should not take what is mine, or stop me from taking the necessary action for my survival, so long as I, in turn, heed the same strictures.”

“If to exercise a right a person must violate someone’s life, liberty and property, then the exercised right is not a right, but a violation thereof. Because my right to acquire property doesn’t diminish your right to the same liberty, this right is known as a negative right. Negative rights are real or natural rights because they don’t conscript me in the fulfillment of your needs and desires, and vise versa. They merely impel both of us to keep our mitts to ourselves.” [“CRADLE OF CORRUPTION”]

[SNIP]

You see, positive liberties are rejected outright in natural law, unless undertaken voluntarily. So, dear Mr. Beck, the reason the Constitution is by-and-large a charter of negative liberties, as the president put it, is because positive, state-minted rights violate the individual’s negative (real) rights.

The Great Glenn in action:

Update (Dec. 18): Sitting in for Glenn, Judge Andrew Napolitano delivers a superb explication of the natural-rights doctrine, joined by Joe Salerno, whose lectures at the Mises Institute I greatly enjoyed, and John Tamny of RealClearMarkets.com. What a shame the Wall Street Journal’s statist extraordinaire, Stuart Varney, now tenured at Fox Business, gets to TALK over the Three Wise Men. I’ve had enough of the Stephen Moores and Stuart Varneys of the world, wrong for decades, yet able to keep lucrative careers going, as they pepper their verbiage with the occasional, non-committal, crudely stated truths (“government needs to be throttled”).

Allow freedom and reality to be heard for a change. Expunge the snake-oil merchants from forums friendly to freedom.

Readers, please send me the YouTube clip of this round table, which should be up very shortly (after all, YouTube is not yet run by the state).

O.J.-Like Evidence Convicts Noxious Knox

Crime, Europe, Journalism, Justice, Law, Media, Sex

The excerpt is from my new, WND.COM, December 11 column, “O.J.-Like Evidence Convicts Noxious Knox.”:

“Oblivious to the cameras—or perhaps for them—Amanda Knox (22) and Raffaele Sollecito (25) exchanged a slow, sensual kiss in full view of world media. Not far from where the two kissed lay the body of Meredith Kercher, the English girl with whom Knox had shared student accommodation in Perugia, Italy. Her throat slit, Meredith had expired in slow agony.”

“The kinky canoodling of Knox and her paramour outside the house of horrors conjured the climactic moment in the film noir ‘The Comfort of Strangers.'”

“Christopher Walken and Helen Mirren play an older couple (Robert and Caroline) who live in a palazzo in Venice. They gain the trust of the vacationing Mary and Colin (played by the late Natasha Richardson and Rupert Everett), a young English couple. As Colin sips a cocktail with Robert at the latter’s Venetian residence, Robert suddenly and swiftly (as planned) moves to cut Colin’s throat. He then steps over his gurgling victim and the gushing blood to engage in frenzied sex with his eager wife Caroline.”

“The two have fulfilled a shared fantasy. …”

THE COMPLETE COLUMN, starting with the kiss of death, is now on can be read on Friday, on ilanamercer.com

By popular demand, my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society, is back in print. The Second Edition features bonus material. Get your copy or copies now!

‘Putting Americans Back To Work’

Business, Economy, IMMIGRATION, Labor, Media

In October, I blogged Pat Buchanan’s timely call for a moratorium on immigration. Peter Brimelow of VDARE.COM has timed his demand for such a logical move with the clueless Obama’s Job Summit. In an article for WorlNetDaily.com titled “Putting Americans Back To Work,” Peter exhorts:

“Incredibly, despite the recession, about 125,000 legal immigrants and “temporary” workers a month – as many as 1.5 million a year – are still entering the U.S.

And, with some 15 million Americans unemployed, there are still an estimated 8 million illegal aliens holding jobs here.

Indeed, the Obama Administration has repeatedly promised that it will try to amnesty these illegals next year. This would end any hope that they might eventually leave the American job market. In fact, because there’s usually a fair degree of back-and-forth across the border in the illegal-alien population, the administration’s repeated promises of amnesty are probably discouraging departures.

Democrats and Republicans have been bickering about whether the Obama administration’s stimulus package really created the claimed 650,000 jobs.

But during the same period, twice that number of legal immigrants and “temporary” workers entered the U.S. – easily swamping even the most optimistic estimate of jobs created. …

It’s literally a holy cause with them, and they react very nastily if you question it. You even sometimes find economists making easily refuted claims that immigration does not impact U.S. employment and incomes – in other words, that the laws of supply and demand have been repealed, uniquely, in the area of immigration.

In contrast, contrary to stereotype, critics of immigration policy are generally rational. What’s not rational about supply and demand?

But why don’t MSM journalists at least ask policymakers about the option of an immigration moratorium as a way of reducing unemployment?

There’s the usual liberal media bias, needless to say.

But my own theory (which will probably sound weird to anyone who hasn’t spent the years I have in establishment financial journalism!) is that it goes beyond bias. Journalists don’t ask about an immigration moratorium because nobody else has asked about it. The idea would just never occur to them on their own.

Call it intellectual inertia – if you want to be kind.”

[SNIP]

Peter is indeed too kind. I’ve tied this mindless ennui to the “Age of the Idiot.”

'Putting Americans Back To Work'

Business, IMMIGRATION, Labor, Media

In October, I blogged Pat Buchanan’s timely call for a moratorium on immigration. Peter Brimelow of VDARE.COM has timed his demand for such a logical move with the clueless Obama’s Job Summit. In an article for WorlNetDaily.com titled “Putting Americans Back To Work,” Peter exhorts:

“Incredibly, despite the recession, about 125,000 legal immigrants and “temporary” workers a month – as many as 1.5 million a year – are still entering the U.S.

And, with some 15 million Americans unemployed, there are still an estimated 8 million illegal aliens holding jobs here.

Indeed, the Obama Administration has repeatedly promised that it will try to amnesty these illegals next year. This would end any hope that they might eventually leave the American job market. In fact, because there’s usually a fair degree of back-and-forth across the border in the illegal-alien population, the administration’s repeated promises of amnesty are probably discouraging departures.

Democrats and Republicans have been bickering about whether the Obama administration’s stimulus package really created the claimed 650,000 jobs.

But during the same period, twice that number of legal immigrants and “temporary” workers entered the U.S. – easily swamping even the most optimistic estimate of jobs created. …

It’s literally a holy cause with them, and they react very nastily if you question it. You even sometimes find economists making easily refuted claims that immigration does not impact U.S. employment and incomes – in other words, that the laws of supply and demand have been repealed, uniquely, in the area of immigration.

In contrast, contrary to stereotype, critics of immigration policy are generally rational. What’s not rational about supply and demand?

But why don’t MSM journalists at least ask policymakers about the option of an immigration moratorium as a way of reducing unemployment?

There’s the usual liberal media bias, needless to say.

But my own theory (which will probably sound weird to anyone who hasn’t spent the years I have in establishment financial journalism!) is that it goes beyond bias. Journalists don’t ask about an immigration moratorium because nobody else has asked about it. The idea would just never occur to them on their own.

Call it intellectual inertia – if you want to be kind.”

[SNIP]

Peter is indeed too kind. I’ve tied this mindless ennui to the “Age of the Idiot.”