Unlawful Combatants

Posted in Politics on February 24th, 2015

Judge's Gavel on American FlagOn Monday, February 16, 2015, a mere one day before Obama’s sweeping executive actions on immigration would have allowed illegal immigrants to begin applying for work permits and legal protection, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states that had challenged Obama’s unilateral immigration actions and issued an injunction against carrying out these changes to the law.

Obama’s White House will, of course, challenge this ruling and battle it in the federal court system, possibly with it ending up in from of the SCOTUS in the relatively near future. That challenge is to be expected and is largely immaterial in the larger, deeper scope of America’s tribulations. There are bigger issues.

The bigger, deeper, and more fundamentally dangerous issue that this relates to is that almost half of the Democrats don’t believe that Obama should listen to- or abide by federal court rulings.

Should the president have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Sixty percent (60%) disagree and say the president should not have the right to ignore the courts. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Yes, you read that right. 43% of Democrats believe that Obama shouldn’t be bound or constrained by the federal courts, 22% aren’t sure, and only 35% Democrats think he should be bound by the federal courts’ decisions.

Obama Worship
All Hail Barack Obama

So one of the most horrific and potentially destructive problems facing America and Americans is that almost half of the Democrats are not just Statists, not just Anti-Federalist, but in favor of a tyrannical, autocratic presidency which unbound by- and unbeholden to the laws of the land set forth in the check and balances demanded by the Constitution.

If war is politics by other means than politics is just war by other means. These beings within the borders of our nation are not our opponents, they’re our enemies. An the very lawless, tyrannical nature of rule they desire makes them unlawful combatants. We, the People should treat them and such with no restraint and extreme prejudice.

Related Reading:

Immigration: Tough Questions, Direct Answers (The Skeptic's Guide)
Examples & Explanations: Federal Courts, Third Edition
The Federal Courts and the Federal System, 6th Edition (English and English Edition)
Constitution of the United States (Little Books of Wisdom)
Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About American Law (Law 101: Everything You Need to Know about the American Legal System)

First It’s I Don’t Say

Posted in Politics, Society on February 18th, 2015

Two student organizations at Duke University, Think Before You Talk and Blue Devils United, have started a campaign to get fellow students to self-censor themselves so as to not offend certain protected minorities.

First It’s I Don’t Say

As you’ll note, each image includes the starting phrase, “I Don’t Say.” Yet, the campaign’s name is far more honest, “You don’t say.” That’s both telling and important because such cultural pogroms, when enacted in what now passes for academic environments invariable move from “I don’t” to “You don’t say…or else.” It never stays voluntary self-censorship or, at least is hasn’t so far.

First it will shift into peer pressure against- and ostracization of students who do not chose to self-censor their speech. This would, under the current (mis)definitions of the term, be considered “bullying” if it weren’t being applied against the normative majority.

Then it will expand to protests against any student organization or club that are deemed by the “faithful” to have a tendency towards nonconformity to the new speech code.

After that, it will expand further into protests against faculty and curricula that do not overtly support the politically correct “newspeak.”

Finally, it will move into the political arena and, as a result of protests, “studies,” and the like attempt to coerce the government into basing funding of universities upon their compliance with fostering the use and enforcement of the new speech codes.

To any who claim this is merely a hysterical “slippery slope” argument I say that there is no better predictor of the future than the past and the past, in the form of racial appeasement and affirmative action, has shown that this downward slope is the one that is followed in what passes for academia in the US.

First it’s “I don’t say.” Then it’s “You don’t say…or else.”

Related Reading:

America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great
Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship
Free Speech and Human Dignity
Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools
Society: The Basics (11th Edition)

Saying And Hearing

Posted in Politics on January 30th, 2015

Non-communication in the gun debate
Saying And Hearing – Not Closely Related

One of the primary reasons I tell people not to bother verbally arguing with the gun-grabbers is that Americans and the Liberals and Progressives can’t truly effectively communicate with each other on this issue. What an American says and means is distorted into something else by the cultural bias of the Liberals and Progressives. What we say is not closely related at all to what they hear.

Related Reading:

Overcoming Cultural Bias as a Roadblock to Success - A Guide to Empower and Motivate Teenagers of Color
Law School Confidential: A Complete Guide to the Law School Experience: By Students, for Students
Politics (Dover Thrift Editions)
The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree
The Common Law