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.

Dhimmis At Ground Zero?

Christianity, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Jihad, Terrorism, The West

The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”:

“‘Call me jaded or unsentimental,’ wrote one of my readers, ‘but the World Trade Towers were ugly Rockefeller buildings built by the abuse of eminent domain (my friend’s dad lost his job at a private firm there) and taxpayer theft and operated at a great loss to the taxpayers. They were known mainly for a dreadful remake of King Kong. While I mourn the loss of 3,000 Americans, I am not about to elevate the Towers into the Beit Hamikdash (The Temple in Jerusalem).'”

“My unorthodox patron was responding to news that the American Society for Muslim Advancement (quite literally) plans to erect a ‘Mega-Mosque’ at Ground Zero. The advancing Muslims say this is a peace offering – a center intended to foster Muslim tolerance and temperance. Most Americans, well-represented by the energetic crowds that pitched up to protest this affront, don’t believe them. (Taqiyya anyone?)”

Neither do I. To count as a peacemaking offering, the ‘Sulcha’ must be considered conciliatory by those it is intended to pacify. …

Less clear, however, is the course of action protesters intend to pursue. Defeat this act of domination, and the invasive species will take root elsewhere. Yet, restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained. As far as I can tell, then, all anti-mega-mosque activists are requesting is kindness and consideration from those they regard as conquistadors.

How like dhimmis! …

The complete column is “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”

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!

Dhimmis At Ground Zero?

Christianity, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Jihad, Terrorism, The West

The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”:

“‘Call me jaded or unsentimental,’ wrote one of my readers, ‘but the World Trade Towers were ugly Rockefeller buildings built by the abuse of eminent domain (my friend’s dad lost his job at a private firm there) and taxpayer theft and operated at a great loss to the taxpayers. They were known mainly for a dreadful remake of King Kong. While I mourn the loss of 3,000 Americans, I am not about to elevate the Towers into the Beit Hamikdash (The Temple in Jerusalem).'”

“My unorthodox patron was responding to news that the American Society for Muslim Advancement (quite literally) plans to erect a ‘Mega-Mosque’ at Ground Zero. The advancing Muslims say this is a peace offering – a center intended to foster Muslim tolerance and temperance. Most Americans, well-represented by the energetic crowds that pitched up to protest this affront, don’t believe them. (Taqiyya anyone?)”

Neither do I. To count as a peacemaking offering, the ‘Sulcha’ must be considered conciliatory by those it is intended to pacify. …

Less clear, however, is the course of action protesters intend to pursue. Defeat this act of domination, and the invasive species will take root elsewhere. Yet, restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained. As far as I can tell, then, all anti-mega-mosque activists are requesting is kindness and consideration from those they regard as conquistadors.

How like dhimmis! …

The complete column is “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”

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!

Bachmann On Stealing From BP

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Private Property, Socialism

That “Barack Obama is exceeding his legitimate constitutional authority” is not news. CNSNews.com: “The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified specifically to prevent the government from taking or redistributing private property without due process of law. The amendment says: ‘No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'”

Michele Bachmann reminds us that BHO’s strong-arming British Petroleum to “set up an independent fund, not controlled by the company, for compensating victims of the Gulf oil spill”—this is in violation of the constitution’s “jurisdictional limits … on what the extent of executive power” should be. (I hope the congresswoman is not implying that if Congress, and not the president, decided to seize BP assets—why, that would be an entirely different matter.)

The conservative from Minnesota said she was particularly bothered by the call President Obama made Monday–later reiterated in his Oval Office address Tuesday night–for BP to set aside money for reimbursements to victims of the Gulf oil spill that would be administered independently, taking control of the money away from the company.

“Bachmann acknowledged the problem began under President George W. Bush with the creation of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).”

Socialism is not necessarily the ownership of the means of production. As usual, Bachmann is a beacon of light in pointing out that, “just because we don’t own an industry doesn’t mean that we don’t effectively control it, because we are in a lot of ways.”

Not that anyone is listening. CNN Republican analyst Bill Bennett seemed satisfied with the arrangement whereby BHO compelled BP to surrender “$20 billion into escrow to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.”