UPDATED: “Black Racism”: A Conversation With Erik Rush (Part 2)

Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Race, Racism

This week, on WND.COM (HERE), I talk “Black Racism” with Erik Rush. “Black Racism” is the title of a chapter in the book under discussion, and is the second of a two-part conversation with Erik, a WND columnist, and the author of “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.” Read part 1 of this interview is HERE.

Rush claims that “… American blacks have become more racist since the late sixties. … In many ways, blacks are more distrustful of whites now than when they had a legitimate reason to be.” More with Erik in “Black Racism’: A Conversation With Erik Rush (Part 2),” now on WND.COM.

UPDATE (April 1): I posted the following on David Yeagley’s Facebook page, in response to a Bad Eagle post titled, “Ilana Mercer: Echoes of St. Paul”:

David, this is deep. You are deep. But I think my political position is that individuals ought to be free to self-identify or affiliate in any way they wish—without being libeled, labeled and banished from polite company. To be a KKK is worse than horrid. But why, when we have proud black racialism, must we banish from polite company and from the job market WASPs who, peacefully, say and do the same? Freedom means more than speech: it means leaving people be. In that sense, America is unfree. Btw, I consider you one of my pepes because of your valor and values, not your heritage (which accounts for your handsomeness ). So, I don’t quite fit your analysis. which is, nevertheless, deep.

‘Former Springbok Accused Of Deadly Axe Rampage’

Crime, Race, Racism, South-Africa

Before you read about yet another grisly, garden-variety crime in South Africa (detailed below), here is what you should know: A hardcore criminal in my former homeland has at least a ninety percent chance of getting away with murder; conviction rates in South Africa hover at a dismal eight percent. In South Africa, crime pays.

In my forthcoming book, “Into the cannibal’s Pot; Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa” (more), due out on May 10, I compare murder rates in the New South Africa with those in the developed world. For example “Between April 2004 and March 2005, 18,793 people were murdered in South Africa (population 43 million). In comparison, the ‘high-crime’ United States (population 299,398,000) suffered 16,740 murders. South Africa has sixty homicides per 100,000 people; the US approximately six.”

These crime and conviction rates should be the backdrop to the following story, reported by the “Independent ie.” That, and the fact that HIV positive rapists and home-invaders are called “burglars”:

A former South African international rugby player has been accused of going on an axe-murdering rampage, killing “at least” three people.
The player is alleged to have killed the men in revenge for the gang rape of his daughter, who contracted HIV as a result of her assault.
South African police said the black player hacked his victims to death with an axe. One was decapitated. Others were assaulted, but managed to escape. The player’s identity is being withheld from publication to prevent his daughter from being identified.
However, it is understood that the girl was attacked after a break-in at the family’s home in Durban.
A gang of four burglars abducted the teenager, then raped her in a nearby wooded area. She subsequently was diagnosed as having HIV.
Enraged by his daughter’s fate, her 34-year-old father is said to have brazenly stalked one of the impoverished townships near his home.

Read the complete story. Nowhere does the reporter say if the murdered had been implicated in the crime avenged. He does tell you that, “Many South Africans had wrongly assumed [the killer] is white and that therefore there may have been a racial element to the attacks, but a police spokesman yesterday confirmed that he is black.”

In other words, had the butcher been one of the many white fathers whose daughters had been raped, killed, or sentenced to a slow death via HIV—the killing would have a racial aspect, rather than be motivated by revenge.

Speaking of “black racism,” don’t forget part 2 of my conversation with my colleague Erik Rush. It’ll be up on WND tonight. Here’s part 1.

UPDATE II: Lawless In Libya (‘Allahu Akbar’)

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Just War, Media

As Dr. Johnson said, “There is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.” Indeed, louse or flea — Obama is as much of a pest as was Bush. Still, in centralizing power in the executive branch, Obama may have surpassed Bush the younger. Here’s the latest in the annals of the Imperial Presidency (via BBC):

US President Barack Obama has secretly authorised covert assistance to rebels seeking to overthrow Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi, US media reports say.
He recently signed a document known as a “finding”, allowing support to the rebel groups, Reuters news agency and ABC News said.
Such “findings” are a common way for the president to authorise covert operations by the CIA.
The CIA and White House have both declined to comment on the reports. … The New York Times, citing American officials, said on Wednesday that the CIA has had operatives on the ground in Libya for several weeks. They are said to be gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with the forces fighting Col Gaddafi.

With the “rebels” in retreat, BHO will have to double his efforts in the Libyan theatre to avoid looking like he’s losing. Libya is about legacy more than Iraq and Afghanistan, wars Bush began.

Perhaps you’ve noticed this, but no sooner does the question of limits on presidential power intrude into the debate than the pundits and pols, who exist in symbiosis, start yammering about the top dog’s obligation to demonstrate “leadership.” “The American people,” say media elites, “want a strong leader.”

If they do, then they’re dumb. “Leadership” is presidential overreach euphemized.

Kneecap this president. Politically, that is.

UPDATE: I closed a blog post that “Cindy” responded to. So here below is her missive. As you can see, Cindy equates my feelings toward the American state with my feelings toward America the country. I would hope that the US is more than its pols, pundits, and foreign policy:

Cindy
2011/03/30 at 5:40 pm:

“Were you alive when Pan AM 103 exploded over the skies of Lockerbie Scotland? If you hate America, why are you living here? Leave! Go! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on on the way out.”

UPDATE II (March 31): Watching the “rebels” on PBS, it’s hard to ignore the blood-curdling harangues of “Allahu Akbar” emitted by our buddies, bless them. Secular democracy rising.

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.