Tag Archives: government

Powers Vs. Rights

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Powers Vs. Rights

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This post concerns the force and effect of the United States Constitution and similar documents. I’ll stick with the U.S. version for simplicity and because most state and many foreign constitutions are based on the federal version.

The old parchment is divided into several articles and subsequent amendments. Each of these deals with different legal concepts. Article One grants certain powers to Congress. Article Two does the same for the executive. Amendment Three prohibits the government from sheltering soldiers in your house during peacetime. There are seven primary articles and twenty-seven amendments.

Aside from formal division the Constitution may be properly divided into two parts. Good Constitutional Law professors cover this in first year law school. The notice is generally lost amid a mad scramble to interpret Byzantine case-law and make a living as an attorney. The lesson is almost completely unknown outside of law and political theory education.

The first effective feature of the Constitution is that is allows powers for the government. In fact the Constitution created the federal government. In 1789 those seeking strong central political control replaced the Articles of Confederation which had loosely united the several (and wholly independent) states for a very few mutually beneficial purposes. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, came along two years later as almost an afterthought.

The anti-federalists were concerned that certain fundamental rights needed official recognition and legal protection. Their theory was that a strong government, even of republican nature, could run roughshod over the freedoms of the people – like a dictatorial monarch. The amendments were added without much fuss as it was then concerned the new government, its keepers, and their successors would never seek to abridge such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, or freedom from illegal arrest and punishment. No one saw any harm in the additions.

The inclusion of those additional protections proved both prophetic and pointless. Those ten amendments and a few others comprise the other practical function of the Constitution – protection of individual rights.

In an ideal world government would only exist to protect people from those things they would be otherwise vulnerable to. The proper function of law and politics would be a careful balancing of the power of the government and the rights of the people. Powers versus rights. Some legal scholars still wax elegantly about the concept. Their conceptualization is largely just conceptual.

The new federal government lost little time in enacting various laws which curtailed individual liberty. The trend continues to this day in addition to the habit of constantly expanding the realm of federal authority light years beyond what the Constitution allows. The courts, allegedly the arbiters of the balancing test, have largely consented to this gross shift. They too wasted no time in inventing new authority for themselves – “judicial review” for example.

Any review usually ends up empowering the state. They are on the same team after all. The people, now bereft of representation and appellate avenues, are on the outside looking in. Lawyers gleefully await court decisions to tell them what laws really mean. The public, largely fat and ignorant, continues to support this corrupt system with astounding zealous patriotism.

As a result of all this what we are left with is a central government of unlimited power ruling over a nation of peasants who are happy to receive whatever liberty the rulers confer upon them. Every once in a while one or another branch kindly reaffirms some right. These are usually in trivial matters. However, the march to greater control never ceases. It works well as most do not favor freedom. Under the faux two-party system, most go along so long as their side wins on a somewhat regular basis.

In truth, they lose. We all lose. All except for the corrupt politicians and beaurocrats and their corporate crony enablers. The system is wrecked and bears nearly resemblance to even that central authoritarian regimes of the late seventeen Century let along an ideal state.

In modern reality ignorance abounds. Some speak of the right of the government to do some thing or the other. Governments have no rights as they are artificial constructs. Only human individuals have rights. These rights are natural, God-given. Governments can only protect or (more often) abridge those freedoms.

Others decry freedom outright. They declare the people have too many rights. For them, in their simple lives, they may be right. Argument for order and justice is lost on them and a waste of time.

There are those who indulge in the fantasy that a return to the original text and intent of the Constitution would usher in utopia. If this myth was anything but, I could agree with them. The federal government of 1791 would be infinitely better than what we suffer today. That of the Articles would be better yet.

The myth lovers assert the Constitution established a national government of limited scope. Maybe they are correct in theory. In real life no government worth its salt stays limited for long. Geometric growth of government is an iron law of political science.

bbnhyu66667

So it is with freedom and central authority. Mencken.

Lysander Spooner said it best of the lost war of Rights versus Powers: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” He elaborated: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

I find my view of anarchy criticized at times as belief in fantasy. It is said that men, by their very nature, cannot be trusted for long to maintain free, peaceful association and mutual respect. This, sadly, may be true. It, then, is also true that an honest man, desiring to remain free, cannot trust a government, any government. Belief in central authority is thus misguided. Tell you what, you have your fantasy and I’ll have mine. The rest of you have a choice to make: support powers or support rights.

Concealed Carry on Private Property (and Related Issues)

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Americans love guns and with good reason. Every year over a million lives are saved in this country because we are an armed people. We have guns. No one is going to take them from us. Period. The fascist left knows this. The nitwit politicians know this. More common criminals know it. ISIS is going to learn it sooner or later.

In the wake of the ISIS attack in San Bernardino and the brewing Sharia in the Whitehouse the people are buying more guns than ever. This year black Friday was flat except for firearms sales. Broken record after broken record.

People are carrying their guns – everywhere, everyday. If you are a criminal or a terrorist in America, know that hunting season has opened. You will be safer elsewhere.

Daily, it seems to me, I hear more and more of my friends talking about securing a concealed carry permit from their state governments. In Georgia, twenty years ago, one out a hundred citizens had a permit. Now they are more common than driver’s licenses. My mom has one.

I am philosophically opposed to the concept of these permits. What other natural and Constitutional right requires a permission slip? Imagine if they offered or required permits for speech, worship, or freedom from warrantless searches. As a practical matter I have conceded this is one of the state’s games it’s okay to play. Just don’t take it so seriously.

Don’t get too attached either. State after state is beginning to follow Vermont’s lead. They are concerning to me these slips are unnecessary and illegal. It’s called Constitutional carry. Small matters really.

As part of the growing concealed carry discussion I have seen several mentions of certain private establishments that do not welcome armed patrons. Friends on Facebook vow not to support such places. I tend to agree with them.

Buffalo-Wild-Wings-Gun-Free

Buffalo Wild Wings.

A question sometimes posed to me is how much legal weight these business notices carry. The answer is “it depends.” One must consult the law of one’s local jurisdiction.

In Georgia a “no guns allowed” sign is just a sign. It has no legal authority. Every outside door at my local mall has a little picture of a crossed out pistol. Maybe this means long guns only? It doesn’t matter. The worst they can do is ban you from their property. That’s their right as the owner. I can respect it. However, for most men, being banned from a shopping mall is more of a reward than a punishment. The mall I reference is the kind of place I will only enter if I am armed.

There’s a much better, more upscale mall a few hours away in Charlotte. It hosts a fine Cigar shop and fewer thugs. The sign there reminds shoppers not to leave their guns behind in their cars. It is an indirect encouragement to bring them inside.

The law in North Carolina is different too. There signs prohibiting guns on private property do carry legal consequences. A violation of such notice constitutes misdemeanor criminal trespass.

If you carry, you need to know the law. Or, at least, some of it. We have over 23,000 gun laws in the U.S. (all of these serve as no deterrent to criminals and terrorists). Compliance or even comprehension is virtually impossible. Luckily it matters very little.

If you carry concealed and your weapon is well concealed, then no one will know about it. Many public places require passage through metal detectors. Avoid the hassle. Don’t go to these places. The visit usually features payment of a tax or some other unpleasantry anyway.

As for all other locations, just keep the weapon hidden from view and don’t mention it. Everyone will be happy. Mind that if you walk in the grocery store sporting an AR-15 on a tactical sling you may rouse suspicion even if you break no laws. Use a little judgment.

This all reminds me of a conversation I had years ago at an NRA national firearms law seminar (in Charlotte or Pittsburgh I think). These courses feature expect analysis of popular legal issues. There are as exciting as any other law program. Those of us from gun friendly state sir and listen to the horror stories told by colleagues from communist jurisdictions.

That particular time a friend from Massachusetts went on and on about how restrictive are the Bay State’s gun laws. During a recession I approached him laughing. I told him I visit New England regularly and I regularly carry a gun. I informed him I had found a way around all of the restrictive laws. “How?!,” he asked. I smiled and said, “I break them.”

He sputtered and said I could be charged with something. I slapped him on the shoulder and said I knew a good attorney.

Take my car for example. I have been stopped by the police maybe five times in life and not at all in the past ten years. I have never been searched. Any search would have found me heavily armed. But, it never happened. Odds are it never will. Compliance with unjust laws out of fear is a mere phantom. It may be safely ignored as Aquinas suggested.

Note that encourage not the breaking of the valid law. Rather, I adhere strictly to and encourage strict adherence the law of the law. By keeping and bearing armed, the people, the militia, maintain the security of the free state.

IMG_20151115_142637057

Molon labe.

Simple Solutions From The D.C. Comedy Club

08 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Simple Solutions From The D.C. Comedy Club

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

President Obama spoke 1910 words Sunday on the threat of Islamic terrorism. Actually he only used 160 words for ISIS. He spoke almost as many, 131, chastising Americans for owning guns and another 372 telling Americans what a bunch of racists they are. His speech on terrorism was only 8% terrorism and 27% It’s all your fault. The remaining 65% was empty political babble.

Gun control, says Obama will stop terrorism. He has the brilliant idea to restrict gun ownership for anyone on the government’s “no fly” list. This almost sounds like the common sense reform liberals are always going on about.

The problem, one of them, is that the list is compiled in secret with a total absence of Due Process. One can land on the list for any reason or for no reason. There’s little one can do about it. To be deprived of Second Amendment rights one needs to be convicted in a court of law or have a court agree with a physician’s assessment about mental health. There has to be a trial or a hearing. Attorney representation. Examination. Appellate procedure. Notice. Evidence. Due Process. A former Constitutional law professor should know that.

Not to be outdone, Republican front-runner Donald Trump has called for a total moratorium on Muslims entering the United States. I have no idea how the word count worked out.

Muslim control, says Trump, will stop terrorism. Again, there’s a temptation to agree with The Donald here. Most Islamic terrorists are, in fact, Islamic. His recommendation set off a firestorm amongst his GOP and Democratic rivals. I found it a comical firestorm.

Trump’s plan is full of problems. For one, it won’t, by itself, fix the problem. Unless and until the U.S. starts minding its own business, terror-prone lunatics will never cease to wish us harm. It would be better to let them all continue their centuries old feuds by themselves and far away. Our business, concerning terrorism, should consist entirely of stamping it out in America. We don’t need to venture abroad in search of ISIS as they are right here, right now. San Bernardino. Chattanooga. Boston. A man who travels the country should know that.

Both of these suggestions are somewhat tempting and may appear somewhat plausible. They are very, very simple. Our problems a little more complex. That is the trouble. Mencken said: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

220px-Simple_Simon_2_-_WW_Denslow_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_18546

Simple Simon met a politician…

Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

07 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A few days ago I wrote a column about the trials and tribulations of a beautiful, talented young woman enrolled and embattled at the Moritz College of Law at THE Ohio State University. I’ve also written about my legal education.

Law schools have become a collection of expensive but houses where, if one can tolerate the boredom and foolishness, one is allowed the honor of applying for a state license to practice law. The courses studied in these schools bear little resemblance to the actual law. Graduation does not guarantee admittance to the Bar. Bar test preparation is left to the student once he graduates.

Many determined and intelligent students will succeed on their own merits. A few law schools do a fair job readying students for the profession; most are dismal in their attempts. Alan Watson, of whom I have sung praise before, is the preeminent expert on legal philosophy. He wrote a book, The Shame of American Legal Education, which should be required reading for any American giving serious thought to attending law school.

Watson decries the lack of intellectual rigor and dependence of the case method (religious study of court interpretation of the law) which plague American law colleges. He praises the system of his native Scotland where students attend school for a shorter period of time and actually learn both the letter of and the ideas behind the law. Following graduation the Scots apprentice under established barristers to round out their education and transition into the field.

It’s a far better approach than we Americans use. It is similar to our old system which we adopted from the British. They had adopted it from the Romans and the Greeks.

For ages attorneys were educated men who studied the law under the tutelage of a practicing attorney. A few had a short period of standardized class time at a college. This formal lecturing range from a few weeks to a year. Upon completion of the apprenticeship the budding lawyers were either certified by a local court or eligible to sit for Bar examination (if any) or they just started working on their own.

The institution was known as “reading the law.” Most of the greatest attorneys of history were produced this way. Their ranks include: Solon, Cato, Cicero, St. Thomas More, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay, Lysander Spooner, Abraham Lincoln, James Byrnes, and Robert Jackson. All of these men were accomplished attorneys. Some were titans of the field.

Marco_Porcio_Caton_Major

Cato the Elder.

In America this was the standard of legal instruction from colonial times until the early 20th Century. The College of William and Mary was the first American school with formal law lectures. These were designed to enhance the student’s apprenticeship. Jefferson attended lectures at William and Mary.

Young men were encouraged to read the law, to understand theory and application:

If you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done already. It is a small matter whether you read with any one or not. I did not read with any one. Get the books and read and study them in their every feature, and that is the main thing. It is no consequence to be in a large town while you are reading. I read at New Salem, which never had three hundred people in it. The books and your capacity for understanding them are just the same in all places.

Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.

Abraham Lincoln, 1855

Things began to change in the late 1800s. It was then the newly formed American Bar Association began to lobby states to restrict licensing to those who had attended law schools. Later the ABA commenced its practice of certifying the schools. This cartel approach of command and control protected the monopoly of the existing bar members. The results, from a quality viewpoint, were mixed. Blackstones and Jeffersons are hard to come by these days.

The radical expansion of law school power coincided with the massive growth of government. Both resulted in the growth and increased complexity of the laws. As Cicero noted, more laws means less justice. Of course, justice had nothing to do with these trends. They were premised entirely on control and money.

Nonetheless a few states still adhere to the reading tradition although it is frowned upon. Those who stand to lose prestige and tuition frown a lot.

California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington still allow reading in place of law schooling. Each has its own standards and in some a period of law school attendance is required. Out of over 80,000 new lawyers minted in 2013, less than 100 read the law.

The surviving process of reading has been lauded of late by Business Insider and the New York Times. Both note the difficulties faced by a reader.

“The A.B.A. takes the position that the most appropriate process for becoming a lawyer should include obtaining a J.D. degree from a law school approved by the A.B.A. and passing a bar examination,” said Barry A. Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education for the group.

Robert E. Glenn, president of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, was less circumspect. “It’s a cruel hoax,” he said of apprenticeships. “It’s such a waste of time for someone to spend three years in this program but not have anything at the end.”

NY Times.

Of course, anything but the cartel’s way is a hoax. The frowners frown. Never mind the vast number of students who drop out of law school or graduate but cannot pass the bar. At least they paid tuition.

A few organizations exist to perpetuate the old tradition. Sterling Education Services is one. “What if, instead of a traditional law school degree and six-figure debt, you could take the bar exam and achieve your goal through hands-on legal experience?” – Sterling. These groups offer study aids and seminars. They’re looking to cash in on the alternative. Then again, these are the exact same bar prep services law school graduates turn to immediately after law school.

Though frowned upon this ancient alternative is viable. If a lawyer reads the law in a reading state and passes that state’s bar, he can then apply in other states. It would certainly warrant examination by those considering the legal profession. Those who follow this path follow in the footsteps of giants.

It’s All Your Fault

06 Sunday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

America is under assault from Islamic terrorism. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the murderous rampage in San Bernardino. The FBI, almost reluctantly, has opened a terrorist investigation over the attack. It almost seems like an afterthought.

First, Loretta Lynch (does her name need a trigger warning?), head of the Justice [SIC] Department, which includes the FBI, announced she would prosecute any American who encourages violence against Muslims. Why threaten us first? As far as I know, no one has called for violence against any Muslims other than those involved in terrorism. In other times they would have been referred to as the enemy.

I suppose we are the enemy now of this debased government. While there are occasions when free speech ceases to be free, they are rare. A call for violence must be reasonably calculated to incite immediate violent, unlawful action before it may be considered criminal. It’s a tenuous standard at best. Not that that matters to Lynch. Her goal is to silence opposition against the regime’s plan to turn America into a burning third world wreck.

The federal government doesn’t like you and your freedom – especially your free speech aimed at it. In this former land of the free, people are being charged with felonies just for handing out pamphlets about the truth. The government finds the truth inconvenient.

If the First Amendment is a threat to the government, then the Second is extremely dangerous to them and just as critical for us. Gun violence has been falling nationwide for years except in “gun free zones.” Soft targets are easy targets. California is a model for the type of control the gun grabbers harp about for the rest of the country. It’s a model that doesn’t work. The UK is virtually gun free (the free people are gun free at least). That didn’t stop some ISIS bastard from attacking people on a London subway yesterday. Paris has stringent gun control too.

These facts are some of the inconvenient truths which hinder the government’s plans. Never one daunted by reality, President Obama tells us more gun regulations will deter terrorism. The fool says this as he simultaneously creates more terrorists abroad and imports as many of them as he can to the States. He’s scheduled to address the nation on these issues. He’ll probably blame you. He’s at war with us. It only makes sense he wants to disarm his enemies.

President Barack Obama speaks about college education, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington. The event which is to promote opportunities for students to attend and finish college and university, was attended by college and university presidents and leaders from nonprofits, foundations, governments and businesses. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) ** Usable by LA and DC Only **

President Obama: “Blah, blah, blah, blah. Your fault!” Google.

In the government’s eyes it is your fault the terrorists are so mean. They would behave if you weren’t so bigoted. Any bad thing that happened is your fault. It is not the fault of those who carried it out. You have too many scary guns. You say too many truthful facts. You don’t care enough. You don’t pay enough. Your fault, all of it.

In fact, any of this only becomes your responsibility if you go along with the official lies and destructive programs. Obama boldly states his lies. Where are all the Republican candidates on these issues? They’re in their pathetic poll-based fantasy world calculating. We can take their silence as either disinterest or approval.

Elsewhere a few leaders dare tell the truth. They deserve credit. Sheriff Arpio of Arizona is calling the armed citizenry to vigilance. So is the police chief of Detroit. Opposition leaders in France are riding the wave of anti terrorism to victory. These few are putting their people first and the enemy last – or the enemy dead.

Like it or not a war is underway. Pick your side. Choose freedom and be free. Choose the government and what happens will be your fault.

The Perfect Storm?

03 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The Perfect Storm?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Moving on from Paris we now have San Bernardino. No doubt this was an act of terrorism, even if the terrorists lacked official connections. Farooq Saeed and Tashfeen Malik and company brought jihad to a meeting at a center for the disabled. I have a theory.

Farooq worked for the county as a health inspector or something similar. Malik was a likely girlfriend. The center was run by nonprofits. Catholic Social Services is a nonprofit. CSS works hard to import “refugees” into the U.S. some refugees may need the assistance of centers like this one.

Farooq probably had a grudge against someone at the center based on what he considered ill treatment of a refugee or a similar person. He went to the meeting to pick a fight. They kicked him out. Moments later he and his cell members returned armed to the teeth. Murder, murder, murder.

My theory cannot be far off the mark.

The police responded with extraordinary speed and power. Maybe they were prepared for this type of event. Maybe they were waiting on this specific crime to happen.

The national media was ready too. Their initial coverage almost seemed pre-packaged – militia types with assault rifles. Barry, on cue, immediately blamed ordinary Americans and our guns. He hates both.

We have deadly serious problems in this country. Like the rest of the West we’re being overrun by foreign invaders who want to destroy everything in their path. They’re “fleeing” wars cooked up by the government. The government brings them here. The government is waging an indirect war on us.

CVQGmDRVEAADT2w

Right you are, Barry. Nothing ordinary here. This is a plot. Twitter.

We still have the means to fight back, being the most heavily armed people on earth. The government knows this and sees it as an obstacle. Thus the gun control angle.

Throughout history states have used false flag events to seize power. Or, they make good use of “natural” tragedy for the same purpose.

Some Americans are awake. Others are hiding in safe rooms, playing Call of Duty, obsessing over filthy celebrity trash, or cheering on the political theater. The gov counts on these weapons of mass distraction.

The wars, invasion, and gun/culture control are like a hurricane bearing down on us. A second storm of equal magnitude is converging.

The government’s wars and social engineering/ destruction programs are expensive. $674 Billion in a day expensive. The necessary funny money and control apparatus is wrecking the economy.

Those in the know, regardless of position, are sounding the alarms. Gerald Celente, Citi Group, and High Priestess Yellen have sounded off just this week. Yellen’s interest rate announcement yesterday was as surprising as she is attractive. The Fed is trapped in its own bubble and out of options. A rate hike would crash (into the bedrock) the economy today, not just next year per schedule.

Like the jihad the financial woes are global. Greeks will soon have to declare valuable assets when preparing tax returns. That’s so their belongings can be stolen to help the Banksters help the government help the robbery victims. It could happen anywhere. It could happen here and probably will – again. We saw it previously in the 1930s.

The storm collision is tracking hard and fast. Best move the Andrea Gail to safe harbor if possible.

News of the World, Good and Bad, Dec. 2, 2015

02 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on News of the World, Good and Bad, Dec. 2, 2015

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some in Iraq think the U.S. government is in bed with ISIS. It is, unless it’s not – as complicated as it is dangerous and stupid. This apparently is what passes for foreign policy in the 21st Century. It all matches domestic economic policy.

At home the meddling is immeasurable. Upon getting around the pointless debt ceiling … again … the government ran up the national debt $674 Million – in one day.

The debt cost never stops growing. Neither does any other program costs. The fools at United Healthcare admit they didn’t imagine the costs of Obamacare would rise so high so fast. They, being part of the larcenous Big Club lobbied for the Act. Now they regret it. Fools.

Citi Group says we’re in for a recession next year. Next year they will say it started this year.

Retailers know we are depressed now. Black Friday sales were nearly dismal this year. Except for gun sales – they keep smashing records as intelligent Americans prepare for the inevitable. This offends the unintelligent, the criminals, and the left. Much of life offends them.

White college students nationwide, tired of being hated by the system merely because they exist, are organizing student unions. Liberal administrative leaches, “educators” and the rabble that passes for the student body are all so offended.

Having had enough of the crybabies and fake students, the President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University has told them to grow up and shut up. His words bear repeating in full (this is truly great):

This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!

Dr. Everett Piper, President

Oklahoma Wesleyan University

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university!

OKWU might be the ideal place to go should you find yourself in the market for actual higher education. Impressive.

On the trivial but exciting side of “education” UGA is rumored to be higher Kirby Smart as its new head football coach. Mark Richt fans (legion) want him to consider running for governor of Georgia. I suspect he is too good a man to stoop down to the politicians’ level.

Speaking of the pols, there’s a big election looming. I’ll bet your favorite candidate has actionable plans ready to deal with all of these problems. That was a joke …

 

A Mad Mad Hillariously Mad World

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on A Mad Mad Hillariously Mad World

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I don’t think I would trade living in these crazy times for anything (maybe 7th Century Switzerland?). Things are so entertaining as to almost defy belief.

First, a little news from here. Last month was the biggest and best month in blog history. Thank you, all! My fledgling YouTube channel also appears off to a good start – in spite of the technical limitations. Sales of the HLCB have already exceeded my expectations and another, non-cigar book release is imminent. Great things are ahead.

Elsewhere, entertainment value aside, things look topsy-turvy at best.

A month has yet to pass since the devastating yet predictable terrorist attacks in Paris. The attackers were “refugees” brought in by the deluded “leaders” of the West. It is widely acknowledged there is no way to separate the terrorists from the oppressed. The lesson learned? Hell, let’s bring in more of both!

It’s like playing chicken with a semi. It may be fun if you survive but if you don’t, you don’t.

Since the attacks the U.S. alone has received 132 Syrian “refugees.” Every one of them is a Muslim. I have nothing against Muslims per se but they, especially these, have a demonstrated animosity towards the West. There are Christians in Syria. Are they unaffected by the war? Most of the 132 are young, healthy males (of fighting age). What about the families they leave behind? Maybe they hang out safe with the Christians.

President Obama tells us it is our moral obligation to support the “refugees” – at the same time he carries out insane policies which help create them. Why is it only us with the obligation? Why only the West?

According to Amnesty International, since the beginning of the Syrian civil war Saudi Arabia has not accepted a single Syrian refugee. Neither has Kuwait. Neither has Qatar. Neither has the United Arab Emirates. These nations are absolutely swimming in money, and yet they have slammed the door on these desperately needy Islamic refugees. So what precisely does that tell us?

Saudi Arabia Refuses To Take Even A Single Syrian Refugee, Michael Snyder,  November 29th, 2015.

In addition to the money, the Saudis have the resources. They have empty refugee centers which could house all of the affected people. And, they are closer to Syria too.

100915photo2

Who are these centers for? Google.

China and Japan are wealthy countries and yet they seem to shirk their obligations. Why? Maybe it’s because they don’t want or need terrorism at home.

Vox Day notes the hand wringing of the left over the refugees’ plight once they reach the West and are not welcomed with open arms or as conquerors. What world do these people live in?

Obama and his cohorts (except from France now) are oblivious to the effects of the invasion. That, or they support it. Instead they continue to push fascist gun control and communism masked as climate change reform in order to address problems that just don’t exist.

It’s fascinating and it would be funny if it were not deadly serious. How much longer will the people continue to support these suicidal fantasies? History, as a guide, isn’t too encouraging.

Anarchy Is Better Than No Government At All

30 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some years ago I landed in what for me was probably the perfect legal position of employment. I took a job out of law school as a law clerk with a Georgia court. Law clerks review case file, do research and make recommendations to their judges.

My tenure went far beyond the norm. I was afforded the opportunity to wear many hats – each of which fitted me perfectly. I was able to indulge in a great breadth and depth of research with some publication to boot. I was granted the more prestigious title of Staff Attorney. I was also a registered lobbyist, working occasionally in pursuit of projects concerning the judiciary. I even filled in a few times on the bench.

Gravitating naturally towards research and writing and having almost total freedom with my time I began to explore additional opportunities of academic nature. My great interest is in freedom in and out of legal and political systems. I am a theorist. I learned towards some hybrid between legal theory and political philosophy.

The American Bar Association views a J.D. as the equivalent of a PhD for teaching purposes. Most non-law schools hold a different view. I realized I might benefit from another, specialized graduate degree. My choices as I saw them were either a Master of Law or LLM (in law a Master’s degree comes after the doctorate – yes, backwards) or a PhD in poly sci.

My school of choice, based on both reputation and logistics, was the University of Georgia. I had my own strict criteria concerning any entry into these programs.

The only LLM program in the world which interested me was at UGA. It was a directed study of comparative legal theories under the esteemed base master of such philosophy, Dr. Alan Watson. The only PhD I would consider was in political theory or philosophy and, with a concentration in natural law and libertarian/anarchist views.

I demanded, or would have, freedom to explore my own paths. I also included teaching experience as a must have.

My quest never got very far. In short order life dictated I abandon my beloved job and move to a less than desirable locale, practicing less than desirable law. Thus began my professional “downfall.” I ended up, for a brief time, a miserable prosecutor. When I could no longer stand that I entered private practice. Several were my shinning moments but I never regained even a shadow of my former fit and happiness.

Everything happens for a reason. Today, through my writing, I am finally able to pick up where I left off nearly a decade ago. This time, it’s my way on my own by necessity. One, I doubt there is any organized poly sci department in America which would or could house me. That’s fine – times have changed. Today we have YouTube and Udemy. Two, Alan Watson retired and took with him the last vestige of true legal study in the country. Again, I’m on my own. Autodidact or die …

I visited Watson’s office a few times back the. It was my intention to interview him and to be interviewed myself to check compatibility. Per my usual laziness I always showed up unannounced. He was never in. I have never met the man. Perhaps that all was a sign. My little daughter did accompany me on one visit – we had a great time – as such the trip was anything but a waste.

The political science department did receive me for an arranged visit. I toured the facility and we had a good discussion. There was a real chance things might have worked out. Nearly all the faculty members were “liberals” but they seemed to tolerate my extremism rather well. They were open to my ideas of a very loosely structured curriculum and my desire to teach while I worked. They also deemed an attorney in the department a plus. But, as I said, life intervened.

On my afore-mentioned tour I passed many faculty office doors. Many were closed. One was covered in signs and stickers. One of the stickers read: “Anarchy is better than no government at all.” That stuck in my jumbled mind. I think I used it as a title once …

“Anarchy” has various meanings to different people. Of late the term has been used to describe somewhat disruptive protestors of modern socio-economic life. These, to me, appear more like pro-communist or anti-capitalist activists than anything else. Communism is in my mind the polar opposite of anarchy. Then again, I don’t have a monopoly on the word. I suppose this crowd is descended from the mad bomb throwers of yesteryear.

Tolkien, a hero of mine, described his own political philosophy as anarchism. The specifically rejected the bomber disposition; rather, he merely wanted to leave others alone in exchange for equal treatment. This position is as close to my own as any.

Anarchy and “no government” as the door sticker alluded are often used synonymously. However, I don’t think they are one and the same.

Many consider anarchy the equivalent of chaos. To them it is the complete absence of any controls, political or societal, and could only lead to pandemonium. Their views are understandable. For 10,000 years we have been trained to accept some degree of authority outside of ourselves and over us. As society has evolved (or fallen) government and society have also become synonymous. They are not.

One can speak of the American or French or Japanese cultures and traits without the slightest regard for their respective governments. Government did not create the beauty of the natural world. Nor does it bring happiness to small family gatherings. Though they might claim otherwise, politicians had nothing to do with the development of symphony, football, pizza or the quiet enjoyment of an evening cigar.

Anarchy does represent a form of governance. It is one that stems from the natural freedom of association between civilized people. Heavy-handed policies, tactics, and laws are most unnatural. Too many repeat the phrase “government is a necessary evil.” At least they acknowledge the evil but the institution is just that – evil but unnecessary.

Think of anarchy as “Golden Rule” government. Each affords the other respect and vows not to violate the other’s rights and freedoms. Anarchy is freedom. Freedom is happiness.

Yes, not all people are civilized. Criminality is a continuing cost of original sin. Somewhere in time someone postulated the state’s main purpose was to protect the good people from the bad. History shows this premise is a total failure. Governments are typically the worst violators of freedom and dignity. They also have the nasty habits of coercing decent people into supporting and paying for their depravity and of criminalizing private attempts to disrupt real criminal activity.

In the absence of such retarded controls the free would be able to – individually or in concert – using their strength and conscious – shame, disrupt, or terminate undesirable elements.

Other things government is supposed to do, but which it can’t do well and did not invent, are better left to private cooperation. Roads, schools and defense are all possible without state intervention. And they all predate government.

Many a good, libertarian man I know have said to me (almost in desperation) “you have to have some government!” No, I do not. I have reached a point where I am content to manage my own affairs and relations. Perhaps they real mean “they have to have government.” They don’t. It’s the conditioning of 10,000 years at work which convinces them otherwise.

Anarchy isn’t better than no government. It is the best government.

2000px-BlackFlagSymbol.svg

Google.

Note: I realized upon finishing this one that it’s as much about me as my pet philosophy. The two seem intertwined. Funny. I don’t care much for structure and tend to live out a life of personal anarchy. I have to admit that for all the foibles it works out pretty well.

The Guns of Obama

29 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Guns of Obama

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A song:

Now they’re tryin to take my guns away;
And that would be just fine.
If you take em away from the criminals first,
I’ll gladly give ya mine.

Charlie Daniels, A Few More Rednecks, 1989

An analogy:

A house is burning down. The occupants are concerned for their safety, their lives. Their leader, the owner of the house, is oblivious to the conflagration. Suddenly, as the flames reach new heights of intensity, he stops and decries a picture which hangs crooked upon the wall. He doesn’t fix it. He just lectures the terrified people about the picture – while the house burns. This story can’t end well.

As for Daniels’s lyrics, even if government were included among the criminals, I would still require serious consideration before going along with his premise. However, his melodious intent is clear. First things first. Deal with the problems – the trouble-makers – before bothering the civil and the decent.

The analogized burning house is America. She is besieged by a host of problems – abortion, terrorism, debt, government tyranny – which may well reduce her to smouldering ruins. The fool fixated on the small issue while ignoring the rest is dear leader Obama.

In his twisted thinking, because the economy has not already collapsed, there is no trouble brewing. Just because angry primitives haven’t killed every American yet doesn’t mean we could not do without a few more, or many more, of them amongst us. No thought needs be given to a million babies brutally murdered every year by a government-funded industry of blood.

The problem he sees, his crooked picture on the wall, is us. We, the people, and our arms are his concern. The fact of the purely anecdotal nature of the crookedness is no deterrent. An isolated incident here and there is all the evidence the lackadaisical dictator needs.

In Colorado a deranged, bearded, babbling wild man killed three people at a Planned Parenthood killing clinic. No estimate is provided as to how many unborn (and perhaps birthed) children have met a grizzly fate there. No mention of the failed mental health system and its relationship (or lack thereof) with demented, cabin-dwelling nut jobs. ISIS? Who’s that? The problem Obama sees is guns, guns in our hands. All of us. Even that majority of us who do not drift the countryside shooting as we mutter. Especially us, for the armed and the sane are a constant threat to the trivially obsessed and the criminally governing.

After the shooting Obama declared, “enough is enough.”

Reacting to the shooting, Obama made an impassioned call for tighter controls on military-style weapons.

“This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal,” a frustrated Obama said.

“If we truly care about this … then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them.”

He and I would be in agreement if by “people who have no business” he meant the mentally ill and the potentially dangerous. He doesn’t. He means me … and you. Agree we do not.

Cartoon-Gun-Control-for-Dummies-600

Google.

The killing in Colorado was terrible. All of it, not just the loss of lives and the injuries. That the shooter’s illness went untreated amidst the world of modern medicine and resources was terrible. That a place of such evil exists to give him demented focus is terrible. The President’s political exploitation is terrible.

A million dead babies a year is not hyperbole; it is a tragic fact. More tragic is that most abortions are committed for sake of convenience. All the while, a million American families wish they had a baby to adopt.

Obama and his party enjoy a cozy relationship with the industry. The loyal opposition, the gutless Republicans, do nothing. The people largely live on unconcerned.

In such circumstances it is often the crazy who alone will act. Being crazy their attempts usually miss the mark, they are self-defeating. Miguel de Cervantes’s titular Don Quixote was a madman, albeit heroic. His understanding of his wooden monsters was askew but, nevertheless, he attacked with righteous zeal. His loyal Sancho looked on. Few others took any notice of his quest or any reason (real or fanciful) behind it. So it is in America.

All the West is under invasion by jihadis. Their crimes Obama glosses over. He tells us it is only American to give them aid and comfort, to bring them home. Suicide has never been a lauded American trait.

Ever a politician and a contradiction Obama tells us, on the one hand, we must suffer more and more unvetted “refugees.” Just because. Self-presevation against their terrorist elements does not stem the flow. However, when a lunatic invades Obama’s sanctuary, jumps the Whitehouse fence, Obama permits his legion of guards and attack dogs to protect him. Live as he says, not as he lives.

For the liberal left the root of any problem is our guns. Crime, our guns. Terrorism, our guns. Our guns, our guns. The useless “conservatives” only maintain nominal opposition as it provides them an excuse to hold power. Otherwise, as with most things, they really don’t care.

Don-Quixote-Windmill

Google.

The good news for the free is the fact of the guns themselves. Of old rifles and shotguns were the province of white men in the country. Now everyone is armed. Blacks, whites, women, men, city folks, bumpkins – everyone sees the value of prepared defense. For all the clamour of the hand-wringing left, even the law has settled behind the people. And, there are just too many of us now. They, unless they would risk a real war, have lost this one. For now, at least, we have beaten this windbag’s windmill.