Is that constitutional?

Once upon a time, the meaning of the term “constitutional” was understood as “what powers the federal government is given.” But thanks largely to the legacy of the president whose birthday it is today, that term now means “what subjects of the United States are permitted to do.”

Think I’m wrong? Check out this story on yet another DC power grab:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that North Carolina’s attempt to offer a “Choose Life” license plate and not provide an abortion-rights alternative was unconstitutional.

The ruling is the third time one of the Republican-led General Assembly’s abortion laws has been struck down over the past three years.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a 3-0 opinion written by Judge James Wynn of North Carolina.

“Chief amongst the evils the First Amendment prohibits are government ‘restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others,’” Wynn wrote.

Now there are certain extremists (me, for example) who think the First Amendment, like all the Bill of Rights, defined clear limitations to federal power. Those dangerous extremists would argue the sovereign State of North Carolina not only has the final say on what it puts on the license tags it issues, but would go on to say that North Carolina can adopt any slogan it wants, no matter who in DC disapproves. These days, however, all reasonable and moderate people know the Constitution makes DC sovereign. So it’s only natural that DC tells the people of the States what they can and cannot do.

Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a private Catholic school is being sued by a cafeteria worker claiming he should be allowed to work at that school despite his homosexuality. He’s in a “same-sex marriage,” and the school, which upholds traditional Catholic values, does not want to be seen as endorsing that man’s lifestyle.

But as NPR reporter Tovia Smith observes in her story, “Ultimately the question of how much leeway religious organizations have in hiring will be answered by the Supreme Court.”

Get that? We must look to the federal government to learn “how much leeway” will be permitted.

Notice that the political doctrine being enforced here is that DC views “rights” as belonging to the individual, not to the States or religious institutions.

So when libertarians claim their ideology is the best weapon in resisting an authoritarian federal government, ask how that is possible when they hold the same central belief that justifies that government’s endless expansion into our lives.

Tom Woods Defends Walter Block from his PC Inquisitors

Apparently the faculty at Layola University, including the University President, has their panties in a bunch again because Walter Block won’t play by their PC rules. Of course, this is, as usual, entirely feigned outrage. They know good and well that an anarchist libertarian doesn’t think slavery is peachy, and if they don’t know that then they are too ignorant to be teaching at the local elementary school, much less at a respected university. They are just jumping on an opportunity to do the PC “point and sputter” because Block is clearly not a PC rightthinker otherwise.

To address the Presidents’ childish letter (I guess they don’t make Jesuits like they used to) specifically, since Block is a libertarian it logically follows that he doesn’t support anti-discrimination laws such as the Civil Rights Act because he supports the right of private individuals and entities to discriminate, whether he agrees with it morally or not. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be a consistent libertarian. You know, like the cosmotarians at Reason. So again, spare me the feigned outrage that’s obviously calculated to protect you and your institution from charges of wrongthink from the PC though cops, rather than make a sound argument. And spare me the claim that you would fail Block for illogic, when you just wrote a whiny letter to the school paper that is full of its own illogic as I point out above.

Here is the faculty letter which is a little more substantive than the President’s, but still a classic example of “point and sputter” feigned PC outrage. Just to address one point, the letter rants “Block not only attacks the legitimacy and constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…” Well yeah … because the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and from a libertarian perspective was illegitimate for the reason I explained above. (For the record, I consider myself more of a paleocon than a libertarian, but you don’t have to be one to understand logical consistency.) If he didn’t think it was illegitimate then he wouldn’t be a proper libertarian now would he? As for it being unconstitutional, you have to understand that not everyone turns off their intellect and genuflects before the determinations of a modern Court. I assume Block is speaking from an originalist perspective, which would argue that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because there is no constitutionally delegated power to prohibit private discrimination. If these PC cloistered academics would actually educate themselves instead of just repeating approved platitudes, they would know that such a thing as originalism exists, and then they might actually be able to attempt to counter it rather than run to the student newspaper saying essentially “Mommy, Mommy, Mr. Block uttered wrongthink! Please make him stop!” like a bunch of kindergarteners.

Tom Woods explains the situation below:

Here is the Walter Block resource page Woods speaks of.

Here is Woods’ blog post containing the above video.

The only slavery the faculty and President of Layola University should be concerned about is their own PC thoughtslavery.

Coke Relents on its America the Beautiful Commercial – Sort of

Coke’s America the Beautiful ad has been praised by the boosters of multiculturalism, but it has also been harshly criticized by many flyover country yahoos who know a dis when they see it. Coke has apparently heard the criticism and is modifying the ad slightly to include the phrase E Pluribus Unum in Latin and English.

The ad is self-contradictory, as any person willing to look can tell. It features Jews and Muslims who based on attire seem to be at least somewhat observant. Well I have news for Coke, those groups have a history of not getting along. It has what has been widely assumed to be a gay couple. It shouldn’t be news to Coke that observant Jews and Muslims don’t have much use for homosexuals. So it could be argued that what the ad actually suggests is not so much the tired mantra that “diversity is our strength,” as “come to America and we’ll liberalize the diversity out of you and make you into a good little amorphous consumers just like the rest of us.” They’re won’t be any conflict if everyone is taught that their ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. are largely irrelevant or at least not worth differing about.

While I don’t think the addition of E Pluribus Unum helps that much if at all, it’s encouraging that Coke has heard the criticism and that many were willing to speak out despite being called names by the promoters of multiculturalism.

Group Opposes Amnesty Supporter Dr. Russell Moore

We would like to direct your attention to a group dedicated to opposing the amnesty supporting antics of Dr. Russell Moore and his Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. The group is ERLC Watch.

Their website is here.

Follow them on Twitter here.

They have been giving Dr. Moore a much deserved hard time of late, especially on Twitter.

Libertarianism: Once more unto the breach

Frequent commenter Cleophus posted this comment in response to my post announcing a permanent Rebellion link to a libertarian web site:

“It’s nice to see that you are coming closer and closer to our way of thinking, ‘Ole Reb! One day soon you’ll wake up and realize that you’re a conservative Libertarian! Come on in, the water’s fine!”

Sorry, Cleophus. Ain’t happening.

Libertarians are too far out there for me. Even in the post you responded to, I noted, “Not sure what their stance is on immigration and border security, but I’ve long advocated that like-minded activists can work together for shared goals despite differences.”

And libertarians are pro-open borders. They believe that society does not exist, and that only the autonomous individual has a legitimate claim to rights. I’ve dealt with that claim before and see no need to do it again.

I will add this: Libertarianism is self-contradictory. There’s a cartoon floating around on the web that shows a man contemplating the globe. The caption reads: “Libertarians: Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.”

Yes, that’s a problem. As the method actor objected, “What’s my motivation?” The motivation Libertarians claim is self-defeating. Marxists and imperialists are driven by naked power. Nationalists, on the other hand, seek to preserve their own kind. And despite the Marxists’ shrill assertions, they have not an ounce of science or history on their side. We nationalists have Sociobiology as well as the historical record on our side. I’ll put those against airy theories any day.

The inevitable collapse of multiculturalism

Look, if a bunch of leftists can’t appease Third-World activists, no one can, as this mini-riot among Minnesota Democrats proves:

Party caucuses are going on tonight in precincts across Minnesota. Caucuses are an old-fashioned civic tradition, more noted for boredom and long nights than anything else, but tonight there was some excitement at a DFL [Democrat-Farmer-Labor] caucus in Minneapolis. A fight broke out:

A very tense night at a caucus site in Minneapolis where DFLer Mohamud Noor is challenging longtime DFL state Rep. Phyllis Kahn. The heat in one Minneapolis location resulted in police being called out. With 300 people at the Byan [sic] Coyle Center, a fight broke out and people rushed the stage. After the melee, the Minneapolis police shut down the caucus.

Napoleon and his blood-soaked reign followed the world’s first leftist movement. Communists saw themselves as the heirs of the French Revolution, and their initial success led to the bankruptcy and breakup of the once-mighty Soviet Empire.

Leftists always self-destruct. With the blinders of ideology firmly strapped to their pointy heads, they have no frame of reference other than their airy theories about how people OUGHT to behave. When reality makes its unavoidable return, something’s gonna hit the fan, and hard.

Coca-Cola Promotes “Nation of Immigrants” Meme

Africa for Africans. China for Chinese. Israel for Israelis. America… for everyone.

And it’s an uphill battle for whites or any ethnicity to continue its existence, because capitalism demands that we be inclusive, seeks greater economy of scale by combining markets, and recruits cheap labour regardless of cost to the host civilisation. Coca-Cola will only drop the “Nation of Immigrants” meme if such is good for business. Only government action or very strong individual action (e.g. a populist boycott of Coca-Cola products) can thwart this expansionary tendency of capitalism.

In 2000 Sam Francis wrote an article entitled, “Capitalism the Enemy“. Therein he defends Confederate symbols, but this can be seen as a microcosm of a greater struggle by whites (not only Southern whites) and indeed any ethnic group that wishes to persevere amidst the great devouring beast that is global capitalism.

Francis closes with:

If serious conservatives are going to salvage whatever remains of their civilization, in its local or national or civilizational forms, they will have to start working toward not only a new political vehicle but toward a new form of economic organization as well.

And the closest I’ve seen to this is David Opperman’s series: “In Defense of Economic and Social Nationalism: Why Libertarianism Must Die“. Also, organising ourselves within extended families reduces our tendency to atomise. Some might leave the family for money, power, other reasons; but if the extended family structure remains, they’ll be inclined to return.

For the love of money is the root of all evil

Ray Guy Has Finally Made it in the Hall! It’s About Time!

Ray Guy has finally made it into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It’s about time. That he didn’t make it before this is a travesty. That he had to make it as an ify “seniors candidate” suggests that the people who make these decisions don’t know what they are doing. Guy was the best or nearly the best at his position for an extended career. What more do you have to do to get in the Hall? Now, I’m probably biased because Guy is a fellow Georgian, but when I was a kid watching him on the Raiders I didn’t know he was from Georgia. I just knew that when I was playing football with the neighborhood kids (kids used to do that sort of thing), and I went back to punt, I would always declare “I’m Ray Guy.”

Guy and Humphrey — presented by the Hall’s seniors’ committee — were so uncertain it took more than 40 minutes to discuss each in a closed-door session that lasted a record nine hours.

If there was a problem with them, it was this: Together, they failed to make it in 11 previous tries, with Humphrey passed over once as a seniors candidate. But the Hall’s seniors committee, which meets every summer to sort out the best two nominees who have been out of the game 25 years or more, brought him back — along with Guy — because it believed both were the best choices.

The move was a risky one, but it paid off. Both reached Canton on what were surely their last tries…

Read more…

Was it just the fact that he was a punter that held the committee back? You almost have to wonder if he didn’t do something at some point to tick some people off, because this delay is really inexplicable.

I guess I should be happy that justice has finally been done, and I am. When I saw the crawl at the bottom of the screen anouncing his selection I cheered, and my son asked me what I was so excited about. But I can’t help but be miffed by how it happened. Guy should have gone in on the first ballot, no questions asked, because he was what the Hall is supposed to honor, the best at his position in his generation.

Rod Dreher Has Invoked the Wrath of the PC Crowd

Rod Dreher, who is normally pretty squemish regarding un-PC topics, has stirred up a hornets nest with a recent post about evolution and the culture wars. His blog post has 348 comments at the time of this writing. Brad Delong has responded with typical PC outrage. I don’t know how many comments his post has because I can’t see where they are numbered, but Steve Sailer says there are 250+.

I have not read the comments at either site yet. I wasn’t even aware that there was a raging Dreher post at TAC until I read the Sailer article above. I’m just passing along the controversy for now. I’ll try to wade through some of the hysteria when I have time.

Dreher has replied here.

Constitution Party Response to the 2014 State of the Union Address

Dear Fellow Constitionists,

Over the past few months the Constitution Party, with your help, has made inroads on several fronts – a new website, a new newsletter format, social media and internet advertising, ballot access battles in several states, and many more behind-the-scenes efforts by tireless patriot volunteers across the nation. We are making tremendous strides towards helping states build and improve their websites, improving our media relations, growing our social media outreach, too many ways to be listed in this brief email.

We are actively engaged in building a strong political opposition to the current two-party duopoly that is rapidly descending into a chaotic tyranny, as is evident from President Obama’s recent State of the Union address to Congress, the nation, and the world.

President Obama laid down the gauntlet at his first cabinet meeting of the year when he said, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

Click here to hear Darrell Castle (2008 Vice-presidential candidate) and Cynthia Davis (four-term Missouri State Legislator) present the Constitution Party Response to the State of the Union.

Our goal is simple: we want to re-establish the American Constitutional Republic, according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers.

Forget everything you have known about or experienced under the tutelage of the current two major parties. The Constitution Party is not your granddaddy’s political party. It is not your father’s political party. It probably isn’t the political party you first supported. The Constitution Party is committed to putting Principles before Party. Which principles? The principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the 1787 Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Find out about our basic Seven Principles on the national website.

The Constitution Party does not play Super Bowl politics. The Constitution and the impact it has on the American people, indeed the world, is not a simple football game between two opposing teams, whose strategy is to win the victory at all costs. Scoring a constitutionally-correct touchdown means standing up against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and saying “No, that is not within the authority granted to my office by the federal Constitution (or state Constitution, etc.). I will not do it.”

The Constitution Party is committed to putting forth constitutionally-committed candidates. Congressmen, the President, the Courts, elected and appointed officials at all levels of government have lost the vision of what constitutes a representative republic based on the Constitution. It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty.

We need you to make real change happen in America.

We need your time, your volunteerism. We are a grassroots, from the heart, organization. 99.9% of us take no pay for the work we do to build the Constitution Party. We do not rely on lobbyists or Daddy Warbucks. We are fighting against a corrupt system, which has no desire to support a political party that will not give those in charge the power, glory, and gain they seek. We need volunteers at all levels. Visit the State Parties page of our website to contact your state leaders or area chairman. Roll up your sleeves, it’s a hard job, but somebody has to do it and that somebody is you.

We need your financial support. It doesn’t matter how small or how often, just donate. Only you can provide the resources necessary to fight for ballot access in several states. Only you can give us the resources to expand our advertising outreach. Only you can choose to invest in a political party with the will to make the hard decisions necessary to restore Liberty. Only you can make a donation today!

We need your Vote. We need your commitment to vote for, or become, a constitutionally-committed candidate. No one else is going to do it for you. Stop wasting your vote on candidates who continue to support party over principle. If you don’t vote or run, then who? Contact your State Party or area chairman to find out more.

Explore our website and our commitment to the Constitution, then decide for yourselves if you are willing to take the next step and become an active participant the great struggle for Liberty, both for ourselves and our future generations.

Sincerely,

Karen Murray
National Communications Director

Editor’s Note: All the links in this letter are not intact due to formatting issues, but the link to the actual response is working.

Originally posted, in slightly different form, at Independent Political Report.

More on the Obama Memoir Authorship Question?

Dinesh D’Souza had a debate last night with Bill Ayers. The Obama memoir authorship issue came up as it apparently frequently does when Ayers makes a public appearance. And once again, Ayers answered the question as he always does, he says he wrote it but then obscures his yes in irony so you don’t know how to take it. The question is why does he do this? Why not just flat out say no? It’s possible that Ayers is just being a jerk and messing with “birthers.”  I know I have clicked on links before breathlessly stating that Ayers admitted to writing it only to read what he said and think “Well, not really.” It’s also possible, as is suggested in the link above, that he is keeping the Obama Administration on notice, in case they stray too far from a leftward course. Another possiblity, and this is my hunch, is that Ayers is not a humble man and really would like to get credit for his much praised creation. This is his way, consciously or otherwise, of leaving that door open. Here are some excerpts:

(Jack) Cashill, who makes his case in his book “Deconstructing  Obama,” said in a 2011 interview with WND he believed Ayers, with a sharp  intellect, had been “careful to couch his comments with irony.”

Cashill said he believed, however, that Ayers’s irony was not aimed at  critics like him but at the White House, “letting Obama know that he could blow  Obama out of the water, if he gets serious about it.”

Cashill noted Ayers is strongly anti-war and at odds with many of Obama’s  policies.

“All Ayers would have to do is give a press conference in which he  demonstrated he was the principle craftsman behind ‘Dreams’ and the whole myth  of Obama’s literary genius would come crashing down,” Cashill said.

Read more here…

Addendum: Listen to the exchange between Corsi and Ayers at WND. There is no video, just audio. It is a playful exchange, but what is obvious is that Ayers really doesn’t know who Corsi is, or only vaguely so. This is similar to a video clip I commented on before where Ayers said he thought Chris Matthews was a conservative. (I looked for where I said that, but couldn’t find it.) (Here is the video I was referring to, but I still can’t find where I commented on it.) Ayers is either dementing or he lives in a very insular world and is totally out of touch. Chris Matthews is a conservative? You’re in the middle of the Obama speculation storm and you don’t know who Jerome Corsi is? Since we know Ayers isn’t stupid, I suspect he has withdrawn himself from the broader political world.

Two Brits Attack the Dark Enlightment

Boy, those Dark Enlightenment folks have sure gotten the attention of (what they call) the Cathedral recently. The hit pieces continue to roll in. John Derbyshire discusses the situation in an essay at TakiMag. He also discusses it in a separate article at VDare. Two recent articles in The Telegraph, formerly a somewhat conservative paper, have taken their shots. The first is by Jamie Bartlett who I am not familiar with. The second, very disappointingly, is by Tim Stanley, who you may recall wrote a fairly friendly biography of Pat Buchanan and was thought by many to harbor some conservative sympathies.

Update: Tim Stanley is taking it on the chin in the comments section. It helps to make them sort oldest to newest, then just start reading them from the beginning.

Mike Church Column on the State of the “Union”

Here is a Mike Church column from the Daily Caller. Recall that we reported below that Church now has a regular column with the DC. The essay’s primary point is about the nature of the “Union,” which Church correctly points out is no longer the type of Union the Framers had in mind. But he also throws in a couple of shots about enumerated powers and moral decline, the latter perhaps distinguishing him from some more libertarian types. This is all quite subversive by mainstream conservative standards. I told you Mike Church is one of the good guys. We’ll see how long he can keep his job.

New York Times Attacks Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods etc.

The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.

Lew Rockwell responds here

Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)

Tom DiLorenzo responds here and here

Bob Wenzel (Economic Policy Journal) responds here and here

Ralph Raico here

Chris Rossini here

Update: Walter Block replies here

Tom Woods replies here on YouTube

Constitution Party Has a New Newsletter: The American Constitutionist

The Constitution Party has a new newsletter out and they have changed the name to The American Constitionist and changed the format a bit. Here is a letter from the CP Chairman. Please excuse the fund raising appeal.

Dear Patriot:

One of the best ways to grow our party is by circulating our monthly newsletter. It carries news of our progress, our take on the vital issues of the day, and provides a platform for our candidates — running for offices ranging from town council to the U.S. Congress.

Now I have the pleasure of introducing you to The American Constitutionist. I urge you to read over the issue, and then send it to friends and allies. It’s another effective way to demonstrate that the Constitution Party means business at every turn.

We have to mean business because the hour is late. In 1884, Congress wrote its oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …”

I believe there are politicians who don’t believe in that oath. They seek to ignore or do away with any Constitutional restraints on the dominance of the federal government in our lives. They seek nothing less than raw political power. The calling of the Constitution Party is to educate and motivate our fellow citizens: we must instill faith and allegiance to the Constitution to protect our liberties.

Does the Constitution have enemies? You be the judge …
•In a television interview during a visit to Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court asserts, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” In its place, she recommended, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the European Convention on Human Rights.
•New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak says, “The Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”
•Georgetown University law professor Louis Seidman claims, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflamed our public discourse.”

That is the challenge we face as Constitutionists: the Founding Fathers vision and values are either right and timeless for society, or we adopt situation ethics when it comes to the rule of law and the power of government.

I strongly believe in the advice handed down by Thomas Jefferson:

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution
so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

Let the fight for the Constitution be led by the Constitution Party. Read The American Constitutionist to see how you can help — state parties are on the move, a number of campaigns are already off the ground, and ballot access drives are underway.

To ensure success, patriots must invest our time, talent, and financial resources — your gift of $25 or $50 or even $15 helps so much in this election cycle. And I remind you that early contributions are far more effective in setting in place battle plans.

So share our newsletter by posting it on your Facebook page and sending it to friends: TEA party activists, pro-lifers, home schoolers … those who are just one step away from finding a home in the Constitution Party, but haven’t yet got an invitation.

I hope you appreciate the newsletter, and I hope you will invest $100 or even $10 right away. The election is fast upon us, and the fight for the Constitution is our cause.

Sincerely,

Frank Fluckiger
National Chairman

Cross posted at Independent Political Report.

Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?

My new column “Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?” is up at Intellectual Conservative. I plan to submit full length columns there more often. Here is an excerpt:

Bolton and King are clearly attempting to counter Rand Paul and his perceived libertarian tendencies, but this says at least as much about the paranoia and absolutism of the uber-hawks as it does about Rand Paul. Among non-interventionists, Rand Paul is widely viewed as a disappointment. The reasons for this warrant a separate article, but suffice it to say that while Rand Paul is better on foreign policy than your average Republican, he is not his father by a long shot.

Principled non-interventionists are often lectured by more pragmatic types that Rand Paul is the best we’ve got so we should make the best of it, but if the uber-hawks want a clear messenger like King or Bolton for their hawkishness despite the presence of more credible candidates who are mostly with them, why shouldn’t non-interventionists yearn for a clear messenger for their cause? While I think the super hawks are dangerously wrong, I admire that they are pro-actively seeking a spokesman to their liking for their message.

Read more…

I would prefer that you comment at IC if you would like to comment, so it looks like my articles are attracking interest. Registration is required. Thanks.

Update: This article has now been added to my personal blog.

Sooners…

Oklahoma politics is the place to watch.  Don’t bother looking for it, it’s not there, to quote Marti DeBergi, but I wrote about it a few years ago on a defunct blog, anyway.

A couple sessions ago, the Congress decriminalized home brewing, and placed a referendum on the ballot banning Sharia Law-passed, if to be struck down-only the humorless cannot see the natural consistency–and the gonzo political humor.

Word, from WorldNetDaily, that an Oklahoma legislature, a Republican, is moving forward with a plan to eliminate marriage is ever more encouraging as it seems to have conservative support.

Seeing as the other legislative angle would be to make divorce impossible,..