Like The Left, Left-Libertarians Weaponize The ‘Nativist’ Pejorative

Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Race, South-Africa, Welfare

Et tu John Stossel? Austin Petersen? On the latest John Stossel Show (whose website seldom carries any contents-driven updates or transcripts, too unhip), the pejorative “nativist” is being bandied about to malign the concept of borders in a welfare state, where welfare is a magnet. Due to open-borders immigration central planning, America, as I’ve warned in Into the Cannibal’s Pot, is headed to dominant-party status like my native South Africa. But left-libertarians wish to do away with borders before private property has been reinstated as the governing principle in American society.

Anathema, too, to left-libertarians is the idea that liberty has a cultural and historical context—it is not a proposition or a mere idea easily assimilated by all. Hell, look at Bernie Sanders’ platform and its many American supporters! Do we need to import more Bernie voters?!

Check out my homeland South Africa, RIP, where the minority had imagined the black majority would be bound by the same political abstractions—that fellow black South Africans would relinquish race as an organizing principle, in favor of a constitutional design, because hey, that just how people are. It’s second nature.

Didn’t happen. Won’t happen.

In the left-libertarian universe, the perspective of someone like myself is discounted by fast-talking youngsters who’ve yet to be mugged by reality and human nature.

READ:

“Apartheid South Africa: Reality Vs. Libertarian Fantasy.”

“The Sequel to ‘Suicide of A Superpower.’”

The Winning Trump Ticket & Cabinet (Part I)

Bush, Crime, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Justice, libertarianism, Republicans, Ron Paul, UN

“The Winning Trump Ticket & Cabinet” (Part I) is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

If Donald J. Trump wishes to lessen the impact of his disappointing second in the Iowa caucuses and walk back the tack he’s taken with Ted Cruz—he must begin to think big and talk big.

Loud in not necessarily big.

Call it triangulation, a concept associated with Bill Clinton’s successful strategies, or call it “the art of the deal”: It’s time for Trump to DO IT.

To this end, Trump must quit the “we don’t win anymore” formulaic rhapsody, and start fleshing out substantive positions. A pragmatist does so by introducing the people he’ll be recruiting to “Make America Great Again.”

To Cruz belongs the Trump Department of Justice portfolio. Offering Justice to Cruz allows Trump to both put Ted in his place as unsuited to the presidency; while simultaneously making him part of Team Trump and repairing that relationship.

Ted is too soft to be US president in these troubled times. But he’d make a spectacular attorney general in charge of DOJ.

There’s a reason George W. Bush hates Ted Cruz. In 2008, Cruz gave America reason to cue the mariachi band and celebrate the death of detritus José Medellín.

As part of a gangbanger initiation rite, Medellín had raped (in every way possible), strangled, slashed, and stomped two young Texan girls to death.

“In Texas,” to quote another Ron from the Lone Star State, “we have the death penalty and we use it. If you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back.”

Bush 43 would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien. Backed by Bush—and on behalf of Medellín and other killer compadres awaiting a similar fate—Mexico promptly sued the US over procedural technicalities in the International Court of Justice. The president ordered Texas to halt the execution of murderer and rapist Medellín.

Texas’ heroic solicitor general said no.

Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court. There, he bested Bush and his lickspittles. As the Conservative Review gloated, Cruz “won the case, 6-to-3.” He had sought justice for Americans against a president who subjugated them to international courts. Ted, moreover, was forever gracious about Bush; Bush and his bambino bro routinely slime Ted. (In trashing Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Trump is in bad company.) …

…Read the rest.“The Winning Trump Ticket & Cabinet” (Part I) is the current column, now on WND.

The Open-Borders Murdoch Media

IMMIGRATION, Republicans

On June 18, 2014, Rupert Murdoch, the man who own Fox News, editorialized in The Wall Street Journal for amnesty. The reason “immigration reform can’t wait,” noodled Murdoch, is that “Immigrants enrich our culture and add to our economic prosperity.”

Some do, some don’t. Murdoch argues in circles. We need more of x because to have more of x is good. Some immigrants are a blessing but most are a bane

The editorial, “Immigration Reform Can’t Wait,” also reveals that Sen. Rand Paul and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, lobbied together for immigration reform.

(Famous Ex model Jerry Hall is Murdoch’s “partner.”)

The Abortion-Rights Linguistic Trickery

English, Individual Rights, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Logic, Propaganda

When feminists and their media lickspittles speak of “abortion rights,” they mean federal funding for abortion. Nothing else.

Don’t conflate “abortion rights” with federal funding for abortion. A “right” to undergo an abortion is to be distinguished from a right to federal funding of your abortion.

Fact: In America, “women have the right de jure to screw and scrape out their insides to their heart’s content.” The only question is, should taxpayer rights, especially those of anti-abortion faithful, be compromised to fund the procedure.

So quit capitulating to leftist linguistic chicanery.

More about the distinction in “From Benghazi To The Abortion Killing Fields “:

Trojans, Trivora or a termination: An Americans woman has the right to purchase contraception, abortifacients and abortions, provided … she pays for them. For like herself, America is packed with many other sovereign individuals. Some of these individuals do not approve of the products and procedures mentioned. Americans who oppose contraception, abortifacients and abortion must be similarly respected in their rights of self-ownership.

Taxpayers who oppose these products and procedures have an equal right to dispense of what is theirs—their property—in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. America’s adult women may terminate their pregnancies (to the exclusion of late-term infanticide).

What America’s manifestly silly sex does not have the right to do is to rope other, presumably free Americans into supplying them with or paying for their reproductive choices. The rights of self-ownership and freedom of conscience apply to all Americans.

No Republican has ever come close to articulating the ethical elegance of a libertarian argument.