Category Archives: Natural Law

UPDATE II: One more Media Matters con man (A Liberal’s Moral Compass)

Classical Liberalism, Founding Fathers, Ilana Mercer, Journalism, Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Morality, Natural Law, Propaganda, Rights, South-Africa

The following is excerpted from y “One more Media Matters con man,” now on WND.COM:

“Terry Krepel authors a website called ConWebWatch. ‘The focus of ConWebWatch,’ Krepel declares on the site, is ‘the ConWeb—large, well-funded, Internet-based conservative ‘news’ organizations [such as] NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and CNSNews.com.’ (I’ve inserted words in parenthesis so as to alert the reader to the edit. Accurate reporting should enable readers to distinguish editorial from authorial input.)

As a biographical note, Krepel adds that he ‘became employed by Media Matters for America in July 2004.’ At his Huffington-Post perch, Krepel is duly described as a ‘Media Matters senior editor.’ Media Matters for America purports to be a ‘progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.’

Our ace writer ought to have stated that he has been employed at Media Matters since 2004. ‘I became employed’ thus might be ugly English for, ‘I was once but am no longer employed by Media Matters.’ Conversely, perhaps this is a fellow whose intelligible written English is confined to the words ‘racial discrimination’?

Himself Krepel describes as ‘a veteran of 17 years in professional journalism as a newspaper writer, designer and editor. I know the ins and outs of the business and how it can be used and misused—and I see how the conservative Internet media is misusing journalism.’

His mission Krepel defines as documenting ‘the distortions, excesses and hypocrisy of these conservative media sites.’ Almost daily Krepel will dissect what Joseph Farah, Erik Rush, Aaron Klein, Jerome Corsi and others on WND.com and CNSNews.com have to say.

His method, crows Krepel, is to ‘hoist the conservative media on the petard of hypocrisy, accuracy and objectivity’ by ‘using their own words.’

Untrue; at least in my case.

Krepel has libeled me, but not by ‘using [my] own words'” … Disputes about democracy notwithstanding, there can be no disagreement over Krepel’s crappy journalism.”…

The complete column is “One more Media Matters con man,” now on WND.COM.

My new book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” is available from Amazon.

A newly formatted, splendid Kindle copy is also on sale.

UPDATE I (Sep. 2): With the same ease with which Krepel left-off quotations around my original words—so as to seamlessly introduce his interpretations of those words—so too could this purveyor of crappy journalism have suddenly “added” the required quotations, once exposed. In anticipation, I have captured the original (June 12) Krepel item. The omission begins with, “Washington and Westminster,” and ends with “the disaster that is post-apartheid South Africa.” Here it is in the original:

UPDATE II: A LIBERAL’S MORAL COMPASS. Terry Krepel thinks he has hit a home run on the Facebook thread at “One more Media Matters con man.” There, Krepel implies that Eugene Terre’Blanche deserved to die, even though the old man was the non-aggressor at the crime scene, and had served his time in jail for his past transgressions (which I am not here adjudicating).
Heaven’s! I’m speechless. All Krepel has demonstrated is that left-liberals (like himself) are every bit as blood thirsty and bereft of a moral compass as the neoconservatives they often critique.
Every remotely sane individual can see where this kind of sentiment leads. And every libertarian can see why the US is in such terrible moral shape. There is no difference between affiliates of the political factions as far as ethics go. “So long as my guy is killing off the guys I dislike—I’m WINNING”: That’s the pervading mindset. Justice be damned.

Positive-Law Arguments For The Anthony Outcome

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, libertarianism, Natural Law

Of course, “Caylee’s Law,” Radley Balko points out, is a horrible idea. Stupid too. However, to neglect real evidence because one is against the death penalty is as horrible and stupid, if not more so. These are separate issues.

Alan Dershowitz has been arguing that the Casey Anthony verdict is an embodiment of “our legal system.” In making this case, Dershowitz alludes, curiously, to the positive law, not to any natural-law aspect of the American legal system, or to this woman’s prosecution.

To support his view of the impetus of America’s legal system, Dershowitz (on Huckabee), for example, touted the Exclusionary Rule as exemplifying his view of the impetus of America’s legal system. (I say “curiously,” because libertarians seem not to be distinguishing positive- from negative-law arguments in support of the jury’s innocent ruling.)

The Exclusionary Rule is a technicality tarted up as a real right. Hardly libertarian—at least not if one is a proponent of the natural law.

In the same vein, a procedural violation of the Fourth Amendment, say, an improper search, can get evidence of guilt—-a bloodied knife or a smoking gun—-barred from being presented at trial. Fail to Mirandize a murderer properly, and his confession will be tossed out. Such procedural defaults are very often used to suppress immutable physical facts, thus serving to subvert the spirit of the law and natural justice.

More minted “rights” are “consular rights.” A procedural default such as the failure to apprise a defendant of his consular contacts is never a violation of a natural right. “Consular rights” are of a piece with Miranda rights and the Exclusionary Rule. Again, these are technicalities tarted up as real rights.

Might these gaps of understanding between libertarians touch on the distinction, in our multi-factioned movement, between the hardcore, life-liberty-property classical liberal, and civil libertarianism and “libertarianism lite”?

Dershowitz is a civil libertarian who once conflated the natural law with the law of the jungle.

The Father Or The Son?

Government, Healthcare, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Regulation, Republicans, Ron Paul, Socialism

Ron Paul is the elder statesman, Rand Paul is scrappy and fit for a fight. And you do know that breaking free from the moochers and the looters, if at all possible, is going to necessitate a fight. I used to wonder about Rand’s deadpan delivery. But a poker face is just what the doctor ordered together with those revolutionary statements.

“SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): ‘With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery.'” (RealClearPolitics)

Read the entire statement; it’s beautifully put.

To libertarians what Rand Paul said is real clear. We often describe the fabricated (positive) right to health care as a right to conscript doctors in the service of humanity. For what else does it mean? (“Protesters for a public plan have the right to seek out a doctor and pay him for his services; they have no claim to the products of his labor, and no right to enlist the State to compel third parties to pay for those products.”) But to hear a man who sits in the ossified Senate echo the natural law is just wonderful.

The other day, Rand Paul was quizzed about the absence of entitlement reform in his five-year budget plan. Without flinching, Rand replied that he chose to do away with whole departments, instead.

Natural Law Vs. The War Powers Resolution

Constitution, Foreign Policy, Just War, libertarianism, Natural Law, Neoconservatism, War

Modern statutes like the War Powers Resolution, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act do not displace the constitutional text and the framers’ intent. But even if the Constitution approved of Barack Obama’s subterfuge in the matter of war powers—the natural law does not. Because it is rational and rooted in the very nature of man, natural justice is immutably true; it is the ultimate guide to what is right or wrong. And it certainly informs the work of historian Tom Woods and the mission of the King Dude (aka Mike Church).

Woods and Church (against the Imperial Presidency) are sparring with talker Mark Levin (in support of it). Woods has repeatedly deferred to the work of Louis Fisher, senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, whose work I too galvanized during the Bush era war-powers abuse, in “UNNATURAL LAWLESSNESS” (here).

Tom Woods, The King Dude, and Fisher follow the framers and are thus formidable forces for liberty. To the debate between Messrs. Woods and Levin, I would add—and emphasize—only this point:

To the extent that the Constitution comports with natural law, to that extent it is good. To the extent that it does not jibe with natural justice, to that extent the Constitution is flawed. Even if the Constitution could be shown to support the many naturally illicit military forays conducted by successive American governments—it does not mean that these wars are/were just; only that they are/were legal. Contra classical natural law theory, legal positivism equates justice with the law of the state. However, while it may no longer guide most Americans, natural law must never cease to inform libertarians.