Thursday, March 16, 2017
No Law That Needs Respecting
The time has come. Maybe even past due. Let me rewind first. In the infamous Dredd Scott decision the Supreme Court ruled that black people have no rights that white men (people) were bound to respect. Today Dredd Scott has been returned in whiteface. Today the American citizen has no rights that non-citizens are bound to respect. Let me repeat this: The American citizen has no rights that a non-citizen is bound to respect. Indeed not only do non-citizens have to abide by the law that is dutifully and zealously enforced against citizens but the ruling elites and their "judges" are in plain view in their seditious and treasonous activities because they are certain that there are no consequences for their behavior. With their gated communities, secret entrances and security personnel and technology along with the general law abiding nature of the very citizen they shit on, they do not fear the warranted exacting of justice that their treason calls for. As they say, incentives drive behavior. In the past, judges that made the kinds of decisions such as the ones we witnessed yesterday would have feared for their jobs if not their very lives. Today, insulated from such direct consequences, the "judges" of the day have free reign to willfully commit treason. And be clear. Treason is exactly what we are seeing. Bold and unfiltered. Trump's first travel ban was unlawfully blocked. I have already explained why in a previous post so I wont go into it again. Trump then revised the ban in order to comply with the ludicrous and wholly unconstitutional reasons given for the blocking of his original ban. Yet another set of "judges" decided that this "made for compliance" ban was also "unconstitutional". Herein shows why we are supposed to be a country of laws and not of men. It simply should not be possible for a executive order that is made in compliance with relevant congressional law to be blocked by a judge AND then again when the so-called "unlawful parts" are modified to address the alleged illegality. What this shows is that the bans have nothing to do with law but with the whims and caprices of whoever is looking at the order. This is law by man. Under the law, the best any of these judges could have done is said that they strongly oppose the ideology that Trump has in regards to Muslims or whomever but that the law is very clear (and it is) as to the powers given to the executive (and notice I say executive not Trump) to determine who may or may not enter the country for whatever reason. And that if the people don't like the law then they should get their representatives to pass another law to address their concerns. That is how the US democracy [is supposed] to work. The current situation is kind of like video games from back in the day where if you made a mistake you were forced to go back and play from the last checkpoint. A frustrating experience to be sure but those were the rules. Of course since players are impatient, game developers had to make it so that you could save any point in the game so that if you died due to a mistake you could just pick up from the last save point, which was usually much closer to point of death and not have to play through stuff you already mastered. Similarly these people don't want to trudge through the long democratic process and risk losing and having to go through all that again. So better to get to the last save point via a judge willing to be treasonous and keep having a go at the boss until they win. Back to the matter at hand though. You'll note that these judges and indeed the people who support them simply do not believe that the US is a sovereign nation that can include and exclude whomever. Indeed they do not see the US as they see their own private property (or leased). This is the fundamental problem. The disconnect if you will. The United States was founded on the Blackstonian idea of limited government, protections of the individual citizen against the power of the state and the principle of a man's house as his castle. I have found that liberals are either unfamiliar with Blackstone or English common law (a total failure of the educational system) and therefore do not understand the nature of nationalism (or if they do, they simply do not care...to a point). Simply stated, the English idea was that a man's castle was his. His rules apply in his house and the state couldn't just barge in there and do whatever it wanted. A community is a collection of men's castles. On the community level, no outsider can just walk in and do whatever they pleased. If one entered a community and offended the locals in some way, they could remove you and you have no appeal. While these communities generally had customs regarding strangers, strangers could not expect to change the fundamental cultures and folkways of that community. If they didn't like it, they could leave. Bye. You'll note that this collection of communities only works if they share a common set of values and customs. All throughout human history, wherever a community diverges in customs and values, they split apart and form new communities. A nation is a collection of communities which are collections of men's castles. Same rules apply simply on a larger geographic area. Again it must be understood that a nation has a set of values and customs that grow out of the communities that make it up. A nation cannot long exist where it's communities are fractured, with different values and customs and competing for national dominance. What liberals are doing is saying that the national castle doesn't exist. At the same time, if you tried to impose yourself on a liberal's individual castle you would likely find yourself arrested. Hence they have not made the connection between the nation as a greater community that is an expression of the "castles" within. Worse, though is that now the liberal sees itself as separate from or worse should dominate the "not liberal". Judges are supposed to be neutral agents in these conflicts. They are not supposed to be swayed by the why a law was passed and "intent" comes to play only when the letter of the law is in serious dispute. For example, speed limits on highways were imposed in the US for reasons of reducing gasoline consumption in response to the Arab oil embargo. Now states will claim that these limits are for safety. Can you imagine going to court to argue against a speeding ticket by stating that the "intent" of the law was for consumption and since my car gets xMPG relative to whatever the MPG was at the time of the passage of speed limits, that the ticket should be thrown out? Me neither. Do you even think you could make a safety argument like since the vehicle you are driving is 5x safer than when speed limits were imposed, that the safety argument is moot. Besides you had your seatbelt on, were indicating when changing lanes, and generally going with the speed of traffic so what was the safety hazard? No, me neither. Yet a "judge" decided to block a lawful executive order because of something Trump and/or his staffers said. This is what passes for jurisprudence these days? There is a saying that (paraphrasing) where justice is not evenly applied, the law abiding see no benefit in being so. And understand that we are currently in a low level civil war. States that are outright saying they will not cooperate with the federal government are in open rebellion. No different than 1861. Understand that the violence visited upon "non-liberals" at various institutions of "higher education" are the shots fired. The only question now is whether the troops are going to be deployed to "save the Union". Sessions has the AG job. It's time he stop pandering to them and blathering about Russia and wiretaps and get to work.