Anthony Weiner, Human After All?

Share

As a general rule, I firmly hold that the private, victimless affairs of individuals are their own and no one has the right to know the details of the lives of others. But once such incidents are introduced into the public arena by the parties thereto, not only is it a matter of public interest, it becomes a matter on which others may express their judgments and hold the parties to account. Why? Be cause contrary to the dreamy hopes of Frankfurt School socialists (Foucault, Marcuse, Derrida, Chomsky, et.al.), there are objective standards of “right and wrong” and “good and bad.” Our ability to recognize same, is the single greatest characteristic which distinguishes conscious-driven human beings from sociopaths.

Yet despite this, there are in fact two glaring reasons why Weiner should have resigned immediately.

Weiner and the American Left have established the rule that a politician accused of illicit and/or aberrant behavior is unfit for public office. At least this is the rule which they apply to their political enemies/opponents on the Right. Republicans are routinely forced from office or at least set upon for same, by the Left for failing to live up to certain standards of rectitude. Therefore, it is only reasonable then that a Democrat who is proven to have so behaved, must be invited to leave his post by same said Leftists. It is shameful (were they capable of shame) that they vacillated on this issue for so long before pressuring him to do the right thing for his constituents and the American people in general.

There is however, a greater matter of concern as regards Weiner’s behavior vis-à-vis his responsibilities as a public official and the authority which he and his ilk have arrogated to themselves.

These supposedly well-intended men and women of the Left have anointed themselves our moral arbiters. They believe that we the governed are so morally and ethically bankrupt, that if left to our own devices and initiative, the entire universe would become a veritable wasteland. Therefore they and they alone must assume control over our lives so as to protect us from ourselves. We simply cannot be trusted with the responsibility of making decisions about our lives. It is Weiner and his ilk who must tell us the kind of car we should drive, the kinds of light bulbs we should use, the kinds of healthcare we are permitted to have, the manner in which we are allowed to raise and educate our children, the proper temperature of the Earth and the list goes on ad nauseum.

Allow me to turn to, Frederic Bastiat:

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority. – The Law (1850)

So long as Weiner and his colleagues hold themselves out as somehow more moral than I, possessing a prescience that is truly god-like, it is only fair that I should hold them to standards of rectitude which exceed the expectations of fallible human beings. When Leftists give up their “right” to control my life, accepting that they are no more deified than I, I will gladly permit them the privilege of error and forgiveness. Until then let us all hold these gods-among-men to the standards expected of gods and permit them no room for human indiscretion.

Assassinating the Truth

Share

On 21 January 2010 the US Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of Citizen’s United v. Federal Elections Commission. Two months have passed and still most people are either ignorant of the facts of the decision or are deliberately misrepresenting same. Experience leads me to presume the later.

Since that day we have witnessed President Obama’s unprecedented lack of decorum and common decency with respect to the members of the court along with an unending flurry of ideologically-induced rhetoric from like-minded journalists, educators and pundits. All maintain erroneously that the decision was a gift to corporate special interests. Some have gone as far as to say the court surreptitiously ruled that corporations were individual persons.

Simply stated both positions are entirely at variance with the truth.

Firstly, the case-in-chief originated with a dispute arising from what Citizens United argued was a violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech. Such violation grew out of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(aka, McCain-Feingold). Citizen’s United was the producer of a film which delineated acts of alleged corruption on the part of then-Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. The Federal Elections Commission barred CU from marketing the film under provisions of McCain-Feingold which effectively proscribed corporate advocacy for or against a candidate for office or a political cause on the eve of an election.

The issue before the court was specifically one of free speech and equal protection. Therefore the court was asked to rule whether the rights of the individual supersede the government’s desire to limit speech by particular individuals. The Supreme Court ultimately concurred with the argument of Citizen’s United and in-so-doing, reversed the precedent established in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 and partially reversed the decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209

"Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion." (CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, No. 08–205)

Did the court rule that corporations were individuals as a prerequisite to issuing its decision on the merits of the case?

No. This issue was never before the court and therefore beyond the case at bar. The court merely acknowledged the existing standard of personage and ruled therefrom.

The personage of corporations dates back to the late 19th century. I don’t believe any of the current members of the court were on the bench at that time, appearances notwithstanding.

In short, corporate personage is rooted in the fact that individuals who suffered injury due to the acts of a corporations were precluded from bringing a cause of action against same as one may only seek recourse against an individual. As the owners and directors of the companies enjoyed the privileged of limited liability the aggrieved were left with no legal alternatives. Given the fact that the US is a nation of laws, the law had to find a means why which a corporation may be called before the court. Thus Congress forthwith deemed corporations, “individuals” and thereby made them liable for civil and penal infractions. In 1906, corporations were prohibited to donate money to political candidates (this rule was applied to labour unions in 1946) [Note: These proscriptions were never applicable to trade associations such as the American Bar Association]. It was only natural then that in 1909 the government would extend the personage of corporations so as to tax the income of corporations as individual income. Do those who object to corporate personage want also to end the corporate income tax? I think not.

Was the ruling a surrender to “corporate special interests”?

No. The rules as regards corporations in generally, includes labour unions. Unfortunately those rules have only ever been applied to for-profit corporations. In fact, the court specifically allowed such inequity when it ruled in Austin (supra) that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity. Therefore the ruling in Citizens United v FEC lifted all legal restrictions against both for-profit corporations and labour unions.
Labour unions have always been able to avoid the restrictions of law due to the fact that they enjoy unparalleled political and legal protection. Moreover these rules do not apply to films and so-called “news casts” which advocate specific leftist issues and/or criticise non-leftist politicians. While ideologues rail against “special interest” they remain utterly silent in the case of unions and certain trade organizations such as the American Bar Association which expend hundreds of millions of dollars on political causes and lobbying on behalf of the Democratic Party and other leftists organizations and issues. The caterwauling in the present case exists because this decision places for-profit corporations on equal footing once again with unions and other leftist organizations.

Are corporations now permitted to contribute unlimited amounts to politicians?

No. Corporate individuals are still limited by existing law including, but not limited to, limitations of McCain-Feingold which prohibit giving directly to candidates. In 1976 in the matter of Buckley v Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, the court found that restrictions on political contributions were lawful (Restrictions on political expenditures in general were ruled unconstitutional. This remained the law until McCain-Feingold.) The court was not asked to consider this restriction and justly avoided taking up the issue. The ruling only applied to an individuals' right to expend his/her own resources as he/she prefers.

It’s shameful that so many Americans lack a basic understanding of the Constitution. Even more shameful that so many seem willing to ignore the Constitution whenever its application benefits their political opponents or impedes their own political agenda. Their guiding philosophy was best articulated by the late Senator James William Fullbright (D-Arkansas) who referred to the Constitution as an antiquated document which limits his ability to do for the people what he knows is best. All Americans, including the sanctimonious lot of Pennsylvania Avenue, would be well-served by learning a bit more about facts before stoking the embers of political deceit.

For Whom The Belle Tolls

Share

Time to start a revolution my friends. It’s now official. Pia Varma - our very own Liberty Belle - is a candidate for the US Congress (here).

She faces a well-entrenched and corrupt Democrat political machine in Philadelphia and they will surely fight hard and dirty to keep her out. That’s precisely why we all need to stand shoulder to shoulder in defense of liberty.

Show the world who we really are. Will we allow Socialism to continue to enslave millions or shall we draw our own line in the sand? This has to be the point beyond which they will not go, that point from which we will not retreat.

In šā’Allāh

Lamenting The Things We Lost

Share

Ok, I give up!!! It’s impossible to enjoy life in an atmosphere of irrational assumptions, unrealistic expectations and after-the-fact determinations of guilt in matters wherein the rules are compounded and interpreted so arbitrarily that one would have to possess a God-like prescience to even muddle through this labyrinth of abominable asininities (deep breath). We are expected to play the game based upon rules known only to the other side. And they have they audacity to fault us when we fall short. Oh, I may have failed to mention that the “they” to whom I refer is not government; its women.

Is it really a coincidence that the people responsible for fostering the adversarial relationship between the people and their government are the same people responsible for fostering similar contentiousness between men and women? Yes, I fault those 60’s and 70’s era Cultural Marxists. C’mon you had to have seen that one coming. When considering the attack on common sense which prevails in matters of public policy, one cannot not help but see the similarity vis-a-vis interpersonal relationships.

I regret that I never had the pleasure of living at a time when men were allowed to be men with all the boorishness worthy of our genetic makeup. Sure we were expected to be gentlemen but that did not equate to the feminized version of gentlemanly behaviour common to today’s standards. I have it on good authority that we once were expected to pursue the target of our affections with zeal. We understood that her reluctance and protests were just part of the game. Any woman worthy of our affections was worthy of the chase. And real gentlemen could distinguish playful protest from honest disgust. Sure there were those of our species who occasionally failed to understand when they were playing above their skill level. There were those who did not know when to apply the breaks. But did that really justify torching the rule-book? Did we really have to kill the patient to cure the disease? Talk bout your reductio ad absurdum.

If we're attentive we're smothering you. If we need you we're co-dependent. If we don’t need you we're emotionally bankrupt. And if we dare to ask what the rules are you say, (let’s all say it together) "Well if you don’t know I’m certainly not going to tell you." Today, men are expected to know beforehand what to do and when to do it but if we misjudge the situation we not only risk rejection, we risk prosecution. That’s right. It’s no longer a matter of try and fail, then move on; today it’s try and fail, then go to jail.

Years ago, women swooned over Humphrey Bogart because he was aggressive, self-assured and dare I say, cocky. “Pompous, conceited and arrogant” were not epithets, they were compliments. For years women read dime-store romance novels featuring leading men who forcefully took the woman in his arms and stole that kiss while her knees buckled. Today, he would be prosecuted for sexual assault. Once upon a time, men were required to chase his love interest even to the point of risking public embarrassment. Today, this would be considered “stalking.” Pursuing the modern woman is so precarious that unless she is standing in front of you waving semaphore flags to guide your every move, the prudent course of action is no action. Frustrated women then turn to the deep, insightful wisdom found in Cosmopolitan Magazine and popular films such as “He’s Just Not That Into You” which tells them that if he’s cautious, he’s either gay or disinterested. What planet am I on!?! Isn’t this the epitome of “damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”

That famous scene in “Gone With The Wind” wherein Rhett Butler takes a resisting Scarlet O’Hara into his arms, kisses her aggressively, sweeps her off her feet then carries her up that famed Tara staircase, made millions of women instantly fall in love, not only with the character “Rhett Butler” but with the person of Clarke Gable (here). And his intentions were not subtle. Her feigned offense at his boorish behaviour didn’t dissuade him in the least. Why? Well, frankly my friends, he didn’t give a damn. But that was 1940. Lamentably no studio would green-light a “Gone With The Wind” these days unless the director agreed to include a final scene showing Rhett Butler being tried and convicted of sexual assault. The great culture of the South may have disappeared in the winds of war in the 1860’s, but common sense itself has in the winds of the cultural wars waged in the 1960’s.

Don’t get me wrong my friends, I thoroughly enjoy the women’s movement (especially when walking behind it). But is this turn of events really what those well-intended activists of yesteryear actually sought to engender?

The United "STATE" of America

Share

On 11, January 2010 US President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order to effect the Establishment of the Council of Governors. Citing the authority granted him under Public Law 110-181 §1822 (a.k.a. the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008), the President’s order goes further than any Federal action to date to blur, if not obliterate, the distinction between the Federal government and the States. And with every step in this direction this supposed union of 50 sovereign States gets every-closer to being one giant entity of central planning and control.

Contrary to the wild assertions of an army of Conservative bloggers and media personalities, this order does not establish Martial Law. In fact, this scheme is so deleterious in and of itself, that such unfounded and irrational scenarios are wholly unnecessary.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the US Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded could see that the underlying law, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, is nothing short of 600 plus pages of well-crafted verbal gymnastics intended to circumvent Constitutional limitations on Federal authority. But as this law entered the record without public outcry or legal challenge we are forced to consider how the President found in it the authority to create a new Federal agency dedicated to merging the States’ National Guard with the military forces of the US Government. For that we turn to Section 1822 thereof which reads in its entirety:

“The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.”

Consider that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 ostensibly governs measures which the Federal government may employ in the event of a national defense emergency such as armed insurrection or nuclear/chemical/biological attack within the territory of the United States. Nothing in the body of the Act expressly or implicitly grants the President the authority to employ such measures under any other circumstances. Moreover Section 1822 does not grant the President the authority which he so casually arrogates to himself, to synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities in the United States (See §2(d) of the President’s Executive Order). This is why the actual language of law and regulations is so crucial.

President Obama does not limit his authority in this regard to matters related to national defense emergencies. A fair reading of the order reveals that he intends to remove the National Guard from the authority of the Governors of the various States and place them under the authority of the US military command now and in perpetuity.

It is true that any future President may issue an Executive Order quashing that of President Obama, but as we all know, once a government scheme has been enacted it becomes inviolable; sacrosanct!!. It would therefore be folly to reset on the mere assumption that a future holder of the office of the President will abolish this council and uphold the Constitution. History is replete with too much evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately there is little that can be done to thwart this abomination at this stage. But perhaps this will serve as a rallying call to all Americans to scrutinize the voting records of those who seek your vote in elections and more importantly ascertain their principles and the philosophy upon which those principles are predicated.

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009

Share

Ever hear of H.R. 4173? What about, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009? Still nothing? Well, that’s not surprising. Your trusted and devoted Representatives on the House Financial Services Committee have been feverishly working on this legislation since the last summer. And fortunately for you, it managed to clear most major Congressional hurdles under cover of the public furor over Health Care Reform. After all, they didn’t want you to worry your pretty little heads over such confusing and innocuous matters like, “Wall Street” and “bank failures” during the holidays. Don’t you just love the way they always have your best interests at heart?

The bad news is, this new legislation when (not, “if”) passed, will create at least four new Federal regulatory agencies. It also grants heretofore unimaginable powers to the Federal Reserve to police risk and take over any US company which it deems a threat to economic security and stability. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Federal Reserve that same institution that is not actually subject to government control? So they are granting this entity the power to literally plan, control and coordinate all economic activity as it sees fit.

You should know that H.R. 4173 also protects “Americans from unfair and abusive financial products and services” and “enables regulators to ban inappropriate or imprudently risky compensation practices.” Does anyone care to specifically define these statements? How does one objectively define terms such as “unfair” and “inappropriate” in such a way as to ensure that persons looking to start a new fund or financial services venture can accurately plan their activities. That is the essence of “rule of law.” Laws must be written with such clarity that any lay person is able to determine which course of action is both profitable and permissible. It allows one to properly gauge exposure. But with language like this, financial services will be nothing more that a roll of the dice and the only people capable of determining whether one’s actions are permissible or not will be those who promulgate and enforce the rules. Worst of all such determinations will as always, be made after-the-fact. That’s right, you will have no way of knowing if you’ve violated the rules until some bureaucrat makes the call. Contrary to the claim of House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Barney Frank, these are not “mere common sense rules of the road.” Pardon me but when I elect to drive my car, I do so fully aware of the rules and risk of violation. I know that I risk losing my life, liberty and/or property for breaking actual laws and not just behaving in an “unfair” or “inappropriate” manner.

Based on what I’ve seen thus far, most Americans don’t really find this all that alarming. So prepare yourselves for yet another phase in the road to serfdom. Not to worry though, I hear they’re doing wonderful things with chains and cages these days.

The Portrait of Socialism

Share

I recently began re-reading Oscar Wilde’s, “The Portrait of Dorian Gray.” It was prompted by two things actually: one, a friend recommended I see the latest cinematic adaptation of it (“Dorian Gray”), which I didn’t know existed and two, I came across a copy of Wilde’s essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” “The Soul of Man...” reminded me of Wilde’s hatred of Socialism and the masterful way that he weaved his political views so seamlessly into his work; granted, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” wasn’t exactly subtle.

“The Portrait of Dorian Gray” tells the story of a man who inhabits a stately London home while enjoying the extravagance common to those of his class. A friend paints his portrait and before long, Dorian Gray develops a deep hatred of the piece. That portrait will forever be the image of the beauty that he will surely lose as the years progress. Consumed with maintaining his youthful beauty Dorian delves into the dark arts and falls every more into depravity. Dorian has found a way to remain young and beautiful forever but the portrait begins to show his true soul and with each act of debauchery the picture grows more hideous. I wont give away the ending here since I would hope that you would either read the book or see the film. But in re-reading it, I suppose it was inevitable that a political connoisseur like me would see something deeper in a story that is essentially more to do with vanity and narcissism.

In brief, this story is a perfect allegory of modern socio-economic conditions. Consider the US where Socialists now control or dominate every area of society: labour, academia, journalism, religion, entertainment, government and the judiciary. Nearly 200 years ago, when the proponents of these ideas first began their crusade to reshape man and the world he inhabits they did so openly and honestly. Their romantic utopianism was a beautiful thing. But as time passed, they could not hide the hideous nature of their beliefs. Despite its desire to present itself as a purely altruistic endeavour on behalf of mankind, Socialism produced nothing but economic calamity, social decay, national and ethnic hostility, mass murder, internecine conflict, serfdom and one dictator after another (to name a few). By the mid 20th century, it was more important than ever to banish that image to the attic. The French Revolution and the flurry of bloody revolutions it spawned throughout Europe have been stripped of all traces of Socialism, Stalin and Lenin are forgotten, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge erased from history, Hitler posthumously relegated to the “political right” and every radical Socialist movement of the Islamic world is treated as nothing more than religious fanaticism. The errors of Socialism mount year after year and the degrees to which the adherents will go to hide those errors seem limitless.

But try as they may, the portrait still shows the hideousness of the idea and those fortunate enough to see it recoil in horror. They have thus far succeeded in hiding it from the world and themselves, but it remains there; a constant reminder of who and what Socialism truly is. Like Dorian Gray, I know that they occasionally gaze at that portrait in anguish knowing that the utopia that others see is only a masque to hide their true identity.