Category Archives: Reason

Alien In More Than One Way (Part II)

Ann Coulter, Barack Obama, Conspiracy, Constitution, Media, Propaganda, Reason

In Part I of this post, I ventured that the president was an alien on so many levels, and that I failed to see why the formality of his birth was more central than the insanity and un-American nature of his thinking.
The saga continued today, with Orly Taitz, leader and lead attorney for the “Birthers,” being “grilled”—or shall I say shouted down—by David Shyster and the brassy, breast-bearing Tamron Hall—two dye-hard, MSNBC Obama heads.

Taitz tried to state her case, but was bellowed at by these blowhards. Now, as I stated, I am uninterested in this initiative. However, two issues caught my attention:

With my knack for detecting bogus arguments, it appeared to me that Taitz—who for all I know may well be lying—did at least present arguments. An argument can be logically sound while being untrue. Her attack dogs did not; they just shouted and offered arguments from authority. This raises alarm bells for me; tweaks my interest.

The Birthers’ lawyer claimed that the Obama birth certificate was a culmination of a report to the press by parents or relatives, and was not stamped by a hospital. If this is true, then Taitz is correct: it is possible that the certificate was a misrepresentation of Obama’s place of birth. Of course, her contention may be untrue. But she presents a case that could be investigated.

Her other, perfectly coherent, contention can easily be verified by a constitutional scholar. Taitz claims that to confer presidential eligibility on their child, both Obama’s parents would have to be American. Obama’s father was neither a citizen nor was he born in the US.

And who would object to a request for the release of the following heavily guarded documents, unless Obama’s scholarly articles were devoted to an application of Critical Race Theory?:

Obama’s Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago.

I’d sure like to read his legal articles, if any.

Tamron and Shyster offered Ann Coulter in defense of their positions: the Queen Bee had called Birthers “crackpots.” Argument from authority is no argument at all. See what I’m saying?

To their taunts to Taitz that Coulter was surely not a member of “mainstream media,” Dr. Taitz ought to have replied: “Oh yes she is.” Whatever one thinks of the “Birthers,” and I don’t think about them much at all, one thing is indisputable: Ann Coulter is a mainstream Republican.

“The secret to becoming a successful right-wing columnist,” quipped Canadian conservative Kevin Michael Grace, “is to echo the mob while complimenting yourself on your daring. That’s all there is to Ann Coulter’s craft, the rest is exploitation of the sexual masochism of the American male—he just can’t get enough of the kitten with claws.”

Updated: Cronkite Dies; News Croaked Long Ago

Celebrity, Journalism, Media, Reason

He reported the news. Nothing but the facts, ma’am. He never pulled faces to demonstrate his exquisitely politically correct sensibilities; he focused on the events, not on himself; he did not promote a brand and an annual book, he wiped a tear once in decades of reporting, and expressed an opinion with the same frequency. He became a personality by default—through the professionalism he evinced and not by cultivating a persona. His political opinions may have been unpalatable, but Walter Cronkite’s professional performance bore little resemblance to the slobbering done by the current crop of cable and TV men and women.

Anderson Cooper, grizzled “newswoman”—who crumbled when the Rev. Wright scandal broke all over his presidential candidate—and cried, “How do we make this go away?”, Don lemon, the Black-In-America disgrace of an anchor, Contessa Brewer, big-faced idiot of the childish, whiny inflection, Obama Boy Keith Olbermann, Hard-for-Obamby-Ball Chris Matthews, FoxNews cleavages for W., Barbara Walters of the “cutting edge” anti-aging reportage and colonic crusader Katie Couric—how dare they claim they are a strand of the Cronkite DNA? How dare they claim to be filling the shoes and following the example of a decent reporter?

But this is precisely what these fools have been doing since Cronkite passed away: cementing their legacy.

The procession of shameless narcissistic, self-aggrandizing and promoting hustlers—these are the news men and women of contemporary America.

Update (July 21): I’m not terribly familiar with Cronkite’s broadcasts, but from the little I’ve seen, he was professional. Those who’re condemning him for his statism and personal politics, of which I’m unaware (and you’d certainly need to know a good chunk of his oeuvre to pronounce on his opinions, as they are not manifest like David Shyster’s of MSNBC are), are in error—exhibiting some categorical confusion and feeble mindedness. For if Cronkite did journalims as one is supposed to, his politics are immaterial. Most journalists are statist. What do you want, a Mencken? But if they stick to their reportorial duties, their personal beliefs should not matter.

Updated: Barbara Boxer Speaks Down To Head Of Black Chamber Of Commerce

Business, Democrats, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Race, Racism, Reason

Democrat Barbara Boxer takes a slow, labored, condescending tone with Harry Alfred, Head Of the Black Chamber Of Commerce. The Senator also makes sure that the testimonies she produces to counteract his are all from black groups. Watch Alfred deftly nail her for appealing to his race rather than to his facts. The annoyance in this little vingette is that only a black or Latin person could hope to get away issuing a similar challenge. And: there are very few such crusaders around.

Update (July 18): John Danforth is absolutely right: Mr. Alfred is locked in a performative contradiction. He is a participant in the discussion in his capacity as a representative of a racial organization, yet he objects when his data is discarded and his race addressed instead. Still, beggars can’t be choosy. Truth is in such short supply that we must welcome it even when it comes from imperfect, self-serving sources.

Updated: Vin Suprynowicz On The Immigration Vexation

Classical Liberalism, Crime, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Multiculturalism, Reason

“Californians are living now what will be America’s future—unless mass immigration is stopped,” writes Peter Brimelow of VDARE.COM. I thought I’d beat the daring VDARE folks by mentioning the latest American of note to be picked-off by an immigrant: NFL quarterback Steve McNair. His alleged assailant was a 20-year-old Iranian woman, Sahel Kazemi. But VDARE, being unbeatable on exposing the miseries and contradictions of enforced, centrally planned “third-world immigration and immiseration”—that proved impossible.

I do want you to read “Letting the looters vote on who’s for lunch,” an eminently reasonable column by another intrepid freedom lover, Vin Suprynowicz. Other than Vin, myself and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I have not come across a libertarian who was willing—and able—to offer a sane, reality-based, countervailing analysis of current libertarian “thinking” on immigration:

“A recent column on the euphemisms used by proponents of illegal-immigrant amnesty brought some irate buzzing from all seven members of the Young Anarchists’ League.

As near as I can figure, I’m “not allowed” to call for the enforcement of current immigration laws — or possibly of any laws, even those few (like the immigration laws) enacted within the powers delegated to Congress under the Constitution — because any such enforcement of the law amounts to some kind of “collectivist police state fascism” against people who have “not initiated force or fraud.”

I’m not sure how you cut through a border fence without “initiating force,” or how you rent an apartment, register a car and go to work every day using someone else’s Social Security number without “initiating fraud.”

I’m further “not allowed” to cite the cost to taxpayers of illegal alien trespassers swarming our public schools and hospitals, lest I be accused of somehow “supporting” tax subsidies for schools and hospitals.

As it so happens, as a libertarian (not an anarchist) I do stand proudly and publicly against tax subsidies for schools and hospitals. People should pay their own way, and seek private charity if unable to do so. This would bring down costs for everyone. But that’s not enough for my young anarchist friends. Instead, I am apparently obliged to pretend these current, swelling tax burdens do not exist.

Perhaps this is an easier position to maintain if Mommy and Daddy still pay all your taxes, while allowing you to live in the basement, pounding your keyboard.

I do remember hearing my friend Jackie Casey, former head of the college Libertarians at the University of Arizona, regaling me with tales of how she would join her mother to visit rental properties the family owned south of Tucson.

Virtually every night, the human waves pouring north through the area would invade these residence units, using the sinks and other available surfaces for bodily activities which most of us reserve for actual toilets. Jackie and her mom would don elbow-length rubber gloves and go to work with their ammonia and bleach, cleaning up the human feces deposited by our noble wave of “harmless guest workers” who I’m “not allowed” to call trespassers because they “never initiative force or fraud” against anyone, merely going “where landlords and employers want them.” …

“Tara Cleveland was a lovely Las Vegas beauty pageant runner-up, an all-A student who wanted to go to law school and who sang at an annual “Spring Fling” employee party here at the Review-Journal 15 years ago. A short time later she was involved in a minor traffic accident in nearby North Las Vegas in which her car was struck by another car driven by two illegal Mexicans.

These two honored Latino guest workers immediately thought, “What would brave freedom fighters like George Washington and Nathan Hale have done, in these circumstances?” So, of course, they ran away.

Tara pursued and confronted the pair. At that point, channeling the spirits of brave patriots like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, these two south-of-the-border freedom fighters shot Tara Cleveland in the face with a double-barrelled shotgun, which had the predictable effect of killing her. They then stole her car and ran away again, eventually reaching Mexico.

It sure puts me in mind of the courage, the principles, the self-sacrifice of the men who risked their lives and their personal fortunes to fight the American Revolution, doesn’t it you?

One of the pair, Joseph Villezcas, was turned over by Mexican authorities in 2006, after they determined he was not actually a Mexican national. He was returned to Nevada and convicted of second-degree murder. But the other, now-33-year-old Fernando Garcia Valenzuela, received sanctuary in Mexico.

Clearly a genius on the order of Ben Franklin, freedom-fighter Valenzuela was not about to stay home, though. He was arrested in California in 1998 and 1999, though authorities there did not link him to the outstanding Las Vegas warrant, possibly because he used fake ID and a fake date of birth — while somehow still not “initiating force or fraud,” you understand.”…

[SNIP]

Read the complete column, “Letting the looters vote on who’s for lunch.”

This writer has argued that on certain “moral (and legal) matters, patriotic, freedom-loving Americans agree instinctively.” The right and righteous rage Suprynowicz expresses comports with the aforementioned observation.
It also reminds me of my sentiments in “José Medellín’s Dead; Cue The Mariachi Band.” To say nothing of my unabashed refusal, in the fractious Comments Section of a BAB debate (scroll down for the referenced exchange), to succumb to Tom Knapp’s egalitarianism-tainted brow-beating and admit that we are all essentially the same, and that—because all immigrants—libertarian scribe ilana mercer and her Ph.D., productive spouse were comparable in their combined contribution to this country to a scum, uneducated, illegal alien, Mexican drug dealer.

In its vim and verve, the Vin piece captures all that stuff. And it’s all good.

Update: Do me the courtesy of at least being vaguely acquainted with my position on immigration (gleaned from going through the Immigration Archive). My policy is not to quote distortions of my positions. I’ve never contended that “illegal immigration” is the country’s demise. Rather, mass immigration, legal and illegal, will indeed be the country’s undoing. I’m an immigration restrictionist for a reason. And those who’re not are rightly termed the “Treason Lobby.”

In response to the tired, so called argument to the effect that, “We have local criminals and welfare bums in the US,” I have countered again and again in articles and on the blog (only the other day) that,
“From the fact that taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals is morally wrong, why does it follow that extending it to millions of unviable non-nationals is economically and morally negligible? Or that it remotely comports with the libertarian goal of curtailing government growth? How is this stock-in-trade, truncated argument different from positing that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits (welfare-dependent nationals), repelling or arresting the next (welfare-dependent non-nationals) is unnecessary because the damage has already been done?”

If the leap is not too difficult, please apply this logic to local versus imported criminals, and please do not again inflict on me the vacuity of the non sequitur, “But, but, we have plenty local criminals in the country…”

So bloody what? The premise of that “argument” is: Importing more detritus is negligible to life and property (the robbed bank analogy), because, once some nationals steal property and snuff-out lives, then non-nationals ought to be allowed to have at these expendable resources.