Category Archives: Natural Law

UPDATE VIII: Congress: Call Off Your TSA Attack Dogs! ('Don't Touch My Junk')

Constitution, Fascism, Government, Homeland Security, Ilana Mercer, Natural Law, Racism, Regulation, South-Africa, Terrorism, The State

Here are bits-and-pieces from “Congress: Call Off Your TSA Attack Dogs,” my latest, WND column:

“When the large African-American woman—in the employ of the American taxpayer to torment the same subjects at the Miami International Airport—summoned me with a crooked finger for a pat down, I thought of the film ‘Midnight Express.’ And in particular, the scene where Billy Hayes’ far-from-delightful Turkish jailer schemes to enjoy some time alone with the young American. My tormentor wore the same sadistic, atavistic expression. Her giant digits were soon upon my chest and between my legs. …

… The attractiveness variable is, however, a statistical outlier; a red herring that should not form the focus of an uprising at the airports. To counter the salacious, if spurious, sexual angle, the TSA could easily produce accurate evidence of the equal number of attacks perpetrated on feeble, little old men and their wives. It would appear that this cross-section of the population is as likely to be targeted by TSA terrorists as is the attractive, distaff demographic.

“I’ve watched dozens of documented attacks, or accounts thereof, on YouTube. If the footage is at all representative, attractiveness is not the salient feature of the victims. The sex-appeal tack will, invariably, invite evidentiary exculpation: ‘See, I attacked grandpa, too; I’m all about the random.’ You don’t want the TSA’s hounds to be fair in their pursuit of the American people; you want them to cease and desist it. And you want individual culprits and their higher-ups publicly exposed and punished.”

If the countless YouTube clips I’ve cringed through are in any way typical occurrences – then what we have here are affirmatively appointed federal recruits, loosed upon meek, mild-mannered, mainstream Americans. What is salient about the assailed is that they are, from what I’ve observed, members of the pilloried and pliant majority.

This onslaught is a quest for submission, not sex. …”

The complete column is “Congress: Call Off Your TSA Attack Dogs,” now on WND.COM.

I know some of you are waiting for the publication of Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa. It’s turning out to be quite the ordeal. At least one publisher is still considering my controversial manuscript. If this fails, fear not; someone clever and courageous will see to it that the true story of the New South Africa (“Rambo Nation”) is told. (And that a good book, if a little different, is published.)

So far, two magnificent men (as writers, thinkers, and human beings) have already returned Praise For The Cannibal. Thank you. You know who you are. What touched me so was the speed with which both gentlemen returned their blurbs. They seemed to sense the urgency of my mission (and I like to think that the thing was a page-turner). How refreshing to encounter towering talents who do not inhabit the solipsistic universe in which most American “writers” (and publishers) are mired.

But I digress.

Until The Cannibal sees the light of day, please make do with my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your paper copy (or copies) now! Broad Sides is also available on Kindle.

UPDATE I (Nov. 12): In reply to “becky willard’s” dismay at my mentioning the race of the large woman who “touched me inappropriately.” Oh, but this fact is very germane to the column and to the topic. I would have added that in the “the countless YouTube clips I’ve cringed through” for this column, the victims were all “members of the pilloried and pliant majority.” My dear, that’s code for you know who… But I can’t say, because, well, we don’t speak of reverse racial hatred, now do we?!

Please correct me, “Y’all.” Send me documentation and YouTube footage of Brothers, Sisters and robe-clad Muslims being frisked and tormented. Please. I wish to be proven wrong.

UPDATE II: NATURAL RIGHTS; NOT SECTIONAL PRIVILEGES. Here is what the agents of the TSA, now “lobbying hard for law-enforcement power,” do when travelers express dissent (Via Salon.com.:

… “DISRUPTIVE PASSENGER!!! DISRUPTIVE PASSENGER!!! HEY I GOT A DISRUPTIVE PASSENGER OVER HERE!!! DISRUUUUUUUUUPTIVVVVVE PAAAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEENGEEERRR!!!”

A supervisor ambled over and I explained my case. “Put it in writing and send it to Washington,” was his advice. I got the impression that he more or less agreed with me, but as a front-line worker at the airport he had little say in actual policy or how to enforce it. That’s fair enough, though it did not excuse his colleague’s rudeness and hair-trigger temper.

Imagine that woman with actual law-enforcement power. Or a weapon.

Reportedly TSA is lobbying hard for law-enforcement power, and that it could happen is something worth worrying about. Speak out, or speak up, and you’ll be arrested. Protest the TSA’s rules, or demand an explanation as to why a guard is taking your belongings or possibly violating your rights, and you’ll be locked up.

The problem with this pilot’s account is that the man seems to believe that, “Essential liberty” is the preserve of “a pilot,” because of his position in the flying world hierarchy. Salon would probably agree.

The same cloistered, sectional concerns vis-a-vis natural liberties typify one 2,000-strong, flight attendant’s union, which has been fielding tons of complaints from its members. mauled and violated passengers to not fit the bill.

Liberty doesn’t have an exclusionary clause attached, unless you think, in error, that the state is the source of your freedoms.

UPDATE III: Via Randall Holcombe (a libertarian acquaintance):

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I am not an attorney, but my common sense tells me that the TSA was asking Mr. Roberts to undergo an unreasonable search without probable cause. If the government can’t tell you, “Here’s why we suspect you, and here’s what we expect to find when we search,” then as I read the Constitution, the search is unconstitutional.

UPDATE IV: Here go those “sectional interests” again (see Update II in this post): Noelle Nikpour is a Republican consultant and strategist who talks frequently and tediously on Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel. This evening she suggested that people like herself and her co-panelists—you know, important people who fly a lot—should be able to acquire a permit that’ll exempt them from being screened afresh as they scurry to their important appearances.

What an exquisite understanding of rights this Republican exhibits. All in all, the Republicans like the police state.

UPDATE V (Nov. 13): Writes my mother-in-law:

“Dear Ilana, have now read this week’s article in full and can sympathize with people going through Security in USA. We have had some of this ourselves going from Airport to Airport in US – each stop we were singled out for ‘Special Treatment’; found the ‘Special Treatment Forces’ obnoxious (administered by, mostly, what you call ‘minorities’), sporting the look of ‘we got the power’ on their faces – no smile, no polite exchange – no nothing. We were herded like sheep and treated as such – in fact sheep might well have fared better.

Found the Security, Immigration etc., in Holland for example – thorough but very polite. USA is paranoid and to my mind have taken it way too far. There must be other ways to ensure safety on Aircraft without making the Public feel like criminals. It’s disgusting treatment and quite unnecessary.

It is however quite necessary in this day and age for Airlines to ensure safe flying – we all want a safe flight wherever we go but there are ways and ways. The Public in general have no objection to security searches for baggage or their person, but it’s the manner in which it is done that is so disgusting.”

[SNIP]

UPDATE VI: This image says it all. The work of Dean Shaddock, via Derek.

UPDATE VII (Nov. 14): Yet more arguments for rights based on occupational privileges. Via the WaPo:

“The Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 53,000 employees with 38 U.S. and Canadian airlines, said it is working with federal agencies to create an exception for pilots who have been subjected, they said, ‘to a long line of ever-increasing security measures that have frustrated and burdened.'”

RADIATED & ROGERED. VIA CNN:

Peter Rez, a professor of physics at Arizona State University, disagrees. Rez has independently calculated the radiation doses of backscatter scanners using the images produced by the machines.
“I came to the conclusion that although low, the dose was higher than they said,” he said.
Based on his analysis, Rez estimates each scan produces radiation equivalent to 10 to 20 minutes of flight.
In April, four science and medical faculty members at the University of California, San Francisco, sent a letter to the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy expressing concerns about potentially serious health risks related to the X-ray scanners.
In the letter they claimed there could be risks to various population segments, including children, senior citizens and women susceptible to breast cancer. The group also called for a clear screening policy for pregnant women once possible risks to the fetus are known. The group wants a review of existing data and recommendations for additional study by an independent panel of scientific experts.

AND:

“‘There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations,’ a group of scientists from the University of California at San Francisco informed the White House.”

ANOTHER ANGLE. VIA THE EXAMINER:

In the past decade, terrorists on airplanes have killed just about 3,000 people — all on one day. Even if the Christmas Day bomber had succeeded, the number would be under 3,500.
Those are horrible deaths. But in that same period, more than 150,000 people have been murdered in the United States. We haven’t put the entire U.S. on lockdown — or even murder capitals like Detroit, New Orleans and Baltimore.
While reducing the murder rate to zero is very desirable, we also understand that the costs, in terms of liberty and resources, are too great. But when it comes to air travel, 9/11 seems to have stripped away our ability to put things in perspective.

UPDATE VIII: “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested.”

Mass Immigration ‘End Of Days’ Scenario

IMMIGRATION, Israel, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Natural Law

The following is from my new WND column, “Mass Immigration ‘End Of Days’ Scenario”:

“Toward the conclusion of my pleasant stay at the national, WorldNetDaily, ‘Taking America Back’ conference (some images are here), I was asked by the especially able organizer, Albert Thompson, to take part in a panel discussion on illegal immigration. The thinking was that, as an immigrant, I’d be able to speak to the topic with added force.

Unfortunately—or fortunately for the audience and the organizer—previous panels were running late, and I was forced to depart for Miami International to catch one of two flights back to the Pacific Northwest.

In any event, I did not get to say my piece. As I take my duty to do the job Americans won’t do very seriously (to use Peter Brimelow’s refrain), I’ll say it now.

The problem with the immigration master narrative is this: The scope of the discussion is limited to illegal immigration only, and is framed as follows: Follow our laws and we’ll welcome you into out country; break the law, and out you go.

This politically permissible position against illegal immigration, moreover, relies for its justification on the law. But argument from the positive law is usually flawed. The state’s laws—most of which do not comport with natural law—are an unreliable gauge of right and wrong.

What Americans ought to be discussing, and are not, is mass immigration (which subsumes illegal immigration). And, in particular, the radical transforming of America, through state-engineered immigration policies.” …

Read the complete column, “Mass Immigration ‘End Of Days’ Scenario,” now on WND.COM.

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATE II: Cyber Warfare: Is It Libertarian?

Individual Rights, Iran, Israel, libertarianism, Natural Law, Technology, War

“There is a pithy aphorism from a Tractate of the Jewish Law regarding the right of self-defense. The Talmud, as the law is called, is a veritable minefield of complexities and interpretations. The rabbis would have prefaced their edict with extended discussion. They would have argued about the threshold that must be met before a pre-emptive strike can be carried out, what constitutes imminent danger, and whether defensive actions apply only to individuals or to collective action as well. These scholars belonged to a people that spent a good part of their history perfecting the Christian art of turning the other cheek. Yet ironically, and doubtless after careful consideration, the rabbis recommended that, ‘He who rises to kill thee, ye rise earlier to kill him.'” (See “Facing the Onslaught of Jihad”)

Likewise, I am not a pacifist, although I am a libertarian.

There is no doubt in my mind that Iran would evaporate Israel if it could. Yet mention to Iran’s apologists that Israel is being considered by Ahmadinejad as The Bomb’s designated test site, and the reply one invariably gets is, “Oh, c’mon; are you referring to all that ‘wipe Israel off the map’ stuff? Haven’t you heard of ‘Scheherazade of the Thousand and One [Arabian] Nights? Ahmadi’s excitable. That’s his style. Chill, man.”

[READ “That Persian Pussycat.”]

There is a strong suspicion that Israel is behind “The Stuxnet worm, ‘the most sophisticated malware ever’ … [it] has been discovered infesting Iran’s nuclear installations. There’s growing speculation that these were indeed the intended targets of what the mainstream continues to call a ‘virus’ — it only infects certain Siemens SCADA systems in specific configurations. There’s also speculation that it’s state-sponsored malware, with fingers pointing at either Israel or the U.S.”

Reuters reports that “Cyber warfare has quietly grown into a central pillar of Israel’s strategic planning, with a new military intelligence unit set up to incorporate high-tech hacking tactics, Israeli security sources said on Tuesday.”

To be sure, hacking is a violation of property rights. That is as clear as crystal. Why, spam is trespass. But this alleged Israeli property trespass is also non-violent (I doubt very much that Israel is messing with systems that sustain life).

It would seem to me, then, that if indeed Israel is under a real existential threat from Iran—and not everyone believes this—the Jewish State has found the quintessential libertarian method to begin to combat some of the Iranian menace.

What do you think?

UPDATE I: TokyoTom: An act either does or does not comport with the libertarian non-aggression axiom. I spoke about your logical error in “LIBERTARIAN WRANGLING”:

“From the fact that many libertarians believe that the state has no legitimacy, they arrive at the position that anything the state does is illegitimate. This is a logical confusion. Consider the murderer who, while fleeing the law, happens on a scene of a rape, saves the woman, and pounds the rapist. Is this good deed illegitimate because a murderer has performed it?”

Iran’s leaders have threatened to annihilate Israel. They could easily do so, given Israel’s size. The act jibes with their beliefs. The more senior leader, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, right-hand man to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, once explained with lethal logical that “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.”

They know Israel would never launch a nuclear strike first. Iran’s top dogs have clearly done the math.

The men and women of the Israeli military, with their families in mind, have come up with a peaceful way to mess with this program of mass destruction threatening their community. And libertarians protest this? Don’t you just love the way so many libertarians inveigh against the evil of nuclear weapons, except when they are pointed at Israel?!

UPDATE II (Sept. 29): With respect to “contemplationist’s” comment here, I thought it was obvious to all libertarians who regularly weigh in on BAB, that the debate about the proper purview of the state is limited to its enforcement of natural rights only. That’s the mandate of the state in classical liberal thinking. As I have said often, to the extent that the American Constitution respects the natural law, to that extent only is it legitimate. It should be obvious to the same folks, for example, that, unlike Glenn Beck or other “Constitutionalists,” this writer views a great deal of the constitution as an affront to man’s natural rights. The 16th Amendment, for example.

“Sometimes the law of the state coincides with the natural law. More often than not, natural justice has been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute,” I wrote in a March 20, 2002 column.

“Contemplationist” has broadened the nightwatchman role of the state in classical liberal theory—confined as it is to the protection negative rights only—to include a plethora of positive duties, including intervention into the economy.

That’s statism, not classical liberalism. The debate in this post, in particular, is as to whether the Israelis, in disabling Iran’s nuclear-related cyber-operation, are defending their natural, negative rights.

Big-Government Gerson

Bush, Conservatism, Constitution, Natural Law, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy

BUSH’S Bastardized Conservatism is also Michael Gerson’s. As a committed ideologue, formerly of the Bush administration, Michael Gerson is a completely consistent, dangerous statist. He imagines that the General Welfare Clause gave our overlords, and the Little Lord Fauntleroys who serve them (the female version: Dana Perino), authority to enact the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, federal civil rights law; direct what Gerson terms “economic growth,” and pursue the national greatness agenda.

To oppose “Alexander Hamilton and a number of Supreme Court rulings” that affirm such overreach is “morally irresponsible and politically disastrous,” says Gerson.

Today, Laura Ingraham referred to Gerson, affectionately, as being part of that wonderful big tent that makes the GOP so inclusive. Yet Gerson, whom BAB celebrity Myron Pauli long ago identified as the most dangerous kind of (crunchy) conservative, holds that the welfare clause, “and Congress will have the power…to provide for the general welfare”—Article I, Section 8—implies that government can pick The People’s pocketbooks for any possible project, even though the general clause is followed by a detailed enumeration of the limited powers so delegated.

Asks historian Thomas E. Woods Jr.: “What point would there be in specifically listing the federal government’s powers if the general welfare clause had already provided the government with an essentially boundless authority to enact whatever it thought would contribute to people’s well-being?” Woods evokes no less an authority than the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison: “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

You’d think Madison knew one or two things more than Michael about this document.

I once wrote that “sometimes the law of the State coincides with the natural law. More often than not, natural justice has been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.” When Gerson and company (you’ll find that Rove, Perino, and the rest, currently masquerading as conservatives, are no different) reject “a consistent constitutionalism,” namely a critique of the current promiscuous applications of the 14th, the “General Welfare” clause, and so on, and embrace the concept of the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document—they rely for their case on layers of that rubble.

Having shoveled the muck of lawmaking aside, constitutionalists base their case on the natural justice and the founders’ original intent.

Gerson is the enemy of liberty. But even more so, because so deceptive, are the Ingrahams of the world. Ms. Ingraham wanted to know how Gerson could bad mouth the tea part, yet still call himself a Bush conservative. Ms. Ingraham has set up a dichotomy where there is only congruity and consistency on the part of Gerson: now that is dangerous.