Archive for June, 2010

Yet another false accusation by another worthless woman

Al Gore is a wicked and stupid human being, absolutely. But it is also absolutely true that he is innocent of this recent sex charge made by the anonymous woman. I have come to this conclusion after reviewing the audio tape of his accuser’s statement. (I’ve listened to the whole thing, although only Part 1 seems to be available on Youtube.) From what I can tell, the tape records her reading the statement after she wrote it or perhaps dictated it to police.

Based on the language she uses, it’s obvious that she is making up this story. In fact, the falsity of the accusation seems so plain to me that I think any idiot ought to see it. Frankly, the wording reads more like some sort of warped romance novel than like an accurate memory of a crime victim. Besides the overly flower language, a few of the verb tenses are also off, and the (lack of) pronouns seems odd. Additionally, her justification for why she was unable to flee the room at the earliest opportunity does not sound particularly credible. Furthermore, her inappropriate laughter during the reading serves to underscore the woman’s depravity.

This woman should be put in prison for her false accusation. That, and Al Gore should sue her for slander or malicious prosecution. Heck, I’d offer to represent you, Al! That is, I would…except that this non-existent “incident” happened in Oregon and I don’t think I could practice there, and I don’t think I could get personal jurisdiction over the woman in Tennessee courts. I think it’s a disgraceful that these despicable state governments (i.e., Oregon) often let these worthless yentas get away with making these accusations anonymously. When we have come to the point where a successful, relatively popular man can be attacked like this with impunity by some anonymous attention-whore with a dirty mind, we have failed as a society.

But then again, Leftists like Al Gore do tend to push for these “woman-empowering” rape shield laws and such, so I guess Al Gore is kinda getting what he deserves. As I demonstrated a few posts back, I become rather happy when I see wicked Leftists experience the foreseeable results of their self-defeating policies.

What’s that, Captain Nanny-State “Protector of Women”? You don’t think women invent rape accusations? Listen to this one on Youtube, and hear for yourself!

Certain inalienable privileges and immunities

Yesterday, the Supreme Court incorporated the freedom to bear arms into the set of liberties it will enforce against the state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. I would just like to know what took them so long. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In nineteenth century terminology, “privileges and immunities” basically meant “freedoms.” One of those freedoms was meant to include the freedom to bear arms — particularly since the Republicans wanted freed blacks to be able to vote Republican without getting lynched. Under the old terminology, what we now vaguely refer to as “rights” were subdivided into four categories:  1) Rights, 2) privileges, 3) powers, and 4) immnunities.

A “right” meant a bestowing of duty on others. For example, if you had a right to property, that meant that your neighbors had a duty to stay off your land. It also meant that you could sue your neighbors for trespass if they violated this duty. Due to its propensity to generate legal claims, a “right” was likewise called a “claim-right.”

Nowadays we tend to consider the word “privilege” to mean a gift, or an entitlement that the government may choose to deny us. For example, authoritarians will often tell you that “driving is only a privilege,” implying that they can take away your driver’s license if they want. But under the old terminology, a “privilege” just meant the absence of duty. That is, a “privilege” owned by your neighbor meant the absence or diminishment of your own “rights.” This freedom from duty implied a liberty to engage in activity, without the legal penalty incurred from claim-rights. If your neighbor bought some crops from you and if the two of you never specified how they would be delivered, the neighbor would have a “privilege” to come onto your land at a reasonable hour to pick them up himself. Your property “right” was powerless against this freedom he possessed, and you could not sue him for trespass.

A “power” was basically a potential right, or the ability to create rights in various circumstances via discretion. For example, an owner with the “right” to land would typically also have the “power” to sell his land, thereby creating a “right” for the buyer. For the most part, though, the government was the one with “power.” So if the legislature made a law requiring everyone to salute Drew Justice when he walked by on the sidewalk, it had used its power to create a right on the part of either Drew Justice or the government, depending on whether the law was meant to be a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. Whereas Drew Justice or the government prosecutors would obtain a right once the law was passed, all of the citizens would be liable under the government’s power. They would have to salute Drew Justice. “Power” for one entity meant liability for others. Liability referred to the potential to be subjected to power.

An “immunity” meant a lack of liability, basically a freedom from power. An immunity meant that another individual did not have power over you, even though he might have otherwise in the absence of your immunity. The city government might have the “power” to re-zone your real estate, but if your house is already being constructed on it, you are likely “immune” to the government’s power and will have to be grandfathered into the new law. Likewise, if all the citizens had an immunity against saluting, then neither Drew Justice nor the government could hold them accountable for failing to do so. And that is where the Privileges and Immunities clause comes in!

Using the aforementioned complex legal mumbo jumbo, we can understand the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment grants the citizens freedom from duty (privileges) and freedom from power (immunities). The amendment does not, of course, abolish all duty or all power, but only those duties and powers held by the “state[s]” that would “abridge the [freedoms] of citizens of the United States.” The Republican congressmen who crafted the amendment specifically stated on the floor of Congress that they meant to extend the freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights to state citizens.

But instead of enforcing the Privileges and Immunities clause as it was intended and as the plain text requires, federal judges basically ignored the clause. Sure, they offered a few minor protections under the clause, such as the “right to travel,” but for the most part the courts decided to enforce Bill of Rights freedoms via the more vague “due process” clause. What this decision basically meant was that the courts could enforce some freedoms that they liked, but ignore other freedoms that they did not particularly care about.

This limiting decision was a recipe for disaster. In my mind, the Bill of Rights is a complete unit. If you negate one freedom such as the freedom to bear arms but nonetheless guarantee the other freedoms, in some ways you are actually making society worse off. For example, the freedom of speech guarantees the Leftist demogogues the freedom to speak their poison, thereby creating a false sense of liberty while the ordinary citizens remain prohibited from taking up arms to defeat their tyranny. You could probably make the same argument regarding all of the Bill of Rights freedoms. For example, it took a while for the courts formally to incorporate the Fifth Amendment “takings” restriction against the states. If you have the freedom of speech without the Fifth Amendment guarantee against takings of property, then some well-spoken tyrant can tell the public that all they need to do is vote for him (or give money to him) and he will take your land and give it to others. As yet another example, if the government cannot take your property without paying you but may nonetheless quarter troops in your home and turn it into a military base, you are no worse off than if they had merely taken your property. Either give us freedom or give us slavery, but do not give us pretend freedom! The Bill of Rights is a complete unit, something quite probably inspired by God, and not something for statists to distribute to the masses piecemeal.

Someone might at this point wonder, “But why are the freedoms called ‘rights’ in the Bill of Rights and ‘privileges and immunities’ under the Fourteenth Amendment?” That is a good question. One possibility is that the legal terminology simply evolved after the Bill of Rights was passed. Even with a firm distinction between the four categories of rights, the differences between the categories can become a bit blurred, and frequently an individual will possess the entitlements of more than one category at the same time. For example, whereas a tenant would basically only have a right to certain property, a full owner would generally have a right to the property and the power to sell. Another possibilitiy is that the Founders generally despised government and believed that all God-given freedoms were sufficient to create a legal “claim-right” against the government. Under this latter possibility, the term “right to bear arms” should imply that the government has an affirmative duty to protect our freedom to bear arms. If the government violates these rights, then presumably society could enforice this claim-right in the court of divine justice, as the Founders did against King George. But ultimately, I am not really sure which of these two possibilities is the correct reason for the terminology.

Intentional stupidity regarding illegal immigration

Resident jackass Stephen Colbert has decided to team up with illegal aliens in a challenge for the American unemployed. His challenge is for unemployed Americans to come take farm jobs from illegal immigrants.

Those who have done the job have some words of advice for applicants: First, dress appropriately.

During summer, when the harvest of fruits and vegetables is in full swing in California’s Central Valley, temperatures hover in the triple digits. Heat exhaustion is one of the reasons farm labor consistently makes the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ top ten list of the nation’s most dangerous jobs.

Second, expect long days. Growers have a small window to pick fruit before it is overripe.

And don’t count on a big paycheck. Farm workers are excluded from federal overtime provisions, and small farms don’t even have to pay the minimum wage. Fifteen states don’t require farm labor to be covered by workers compensation laws.

Any takers?

Well just leave it to the dimwit leftists to make vocal fools of themselves through their ignorance of a basic economic principle. Specifically, Colbert apparently fails to understand that the quantity of labor supplied will always depend on the level of wage offered. That is why, for example, a business can get more employees when it raises prices (or alternatively, higher-quality employees). Really, it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to grasp this stuff. Some people are just willfully ignorant.

If the illegal immigrants were gone, then the businesses would lose their laborers. As a result, they would have to raise their wages, and then American workers would shift over to that industry. But this wage result will not occur simply from Stephen Colbert’s idiotic “challenge” to Americans, because if the illegals are still around, their presence will always create a safety valve for farm employers, and these employers will never experience a true shortage of laborers. Shortages are what raises prices. A shortage of labor will raise wages.

But the stupidity of the leftists continues:

“The reality is farmworkers who are here today aren’t taking any American jobs away. They work in often unbearable situations,” Rodriguez said. “I don’t think there will be many takers, but the offer is being made. Let’s see what happens.”

Unbearable conditions which warrant greater pay. Greater pay that many of these Mexican illegals would themselves hold out for if they were legal. A lot of these guys do indeed have a strong work ethic, but part of the reason why their work ethic seems artificially strong is because illegal immigrants are scared of being deported. They cannot go out into the open and get the best jobs, because doing so would expose them. Because of their legal disadvantage, they have an economic disadvantage with regard to wages. That means they have to accept low pay. They tend to congregate in industries that are disorganized and hard to regulate, and then once they congregate, the prices get driven down. Again, the prices are driven down perhaps partly due to a work ethic, but also largely because of fear.

If you make the illegals legal, they will stop doing these “jobs that Americans just won’t do” because…SURPRISE, THEY’LL BE AMERICANS.

Granted, these economic factors are not the most important reason to expel the illegal aliens. The most important reason is to maintain American sovereignty. A society simply cannot survive when millions of poorly educated, unassimilating foreigners invade its borders each year. An American must understand and pledge loyalty to the Constitution, to American society, and to American values. But Stephen Colbert hasn’t bothered to make a fool of himself yet with regard to the sovereignty issue, so I won’t delve more deeply into it at present.

According to the Labor Department, three out of four farm workers were born abroad, and more than half are illegal immigrants.

The Labor Department is aware of this startling statistic with regard to an entire industry, and yet they aren’t doing anything about it whatsoever. Boy, we sure are getting a lot of use out of our government bureacracies and agencies, aren’t we?

BP’s pact with Satan

Many people hate BP now, but I was boycotting BP even before this whole oil spill debacle started. I refused to frequent their gas stations — because I couldn’t stand their idiotic “Beyond Petroleum” commercials, which promoted the global warming scam among other enviro-fascist schemes. Although the disaster is obviously a tragedy for our country, it absolutely delights me that the company involved just happens to be BP. Hopefully this accident will send those jackals over the cliff for good.

Heh, maybe they spent so much money telling us how bad oil was that they didn’t have any left to follow all the safety protocols. More leftist hypocrisy and idiocy.

Recently people have begun reporting that not only was BP run by European leftists and not only were they airing those stupid commercials, but all along they were funding Democratic politicians and actively supporting global warming taxes. Barack Obama himself received $1 million dollars from them.

When will these fools learn the great difficulty in allying with tyranny? Poisonous serpents do not make good pets. As soon as they get the chance they will bite you. Why would any oil company think they could deal with someone who despises human progress? The moment Obama needed someone to attack, he through them under the bus.

The moment Obama got the chance, he extorted $20 billion from BP without a trial, even though legally it was questionable whether they could be held liable for that much. For all we know, a terrorist could have blown up the oil rig, but now Obama has declared them guilty of…something…so there we have it. Congressman Joe Barton apologized to BP on Thursday for Obama’s $20 billion “shakedown,” and he was right to call it that. The funny thing is that we have Obama extorting this money, despite the fact that Obama himself seems to be either intentionally or negligently delaying various efforts at containing the spill. Talk about biased arbiters.

Ultimately, I suppose people ally with the devil simply because they are depraved — and because their depravity makes them stupid. Wickedness destroys. Anyway, BP deserves to get bitten. They’ve had it coming for a while. As far as I’m concerned, this scenario couldn’t have happened to a better company.

Stopping the invasion

Although there has been a slight amount of uproar over the new Arizona law that enforces immigration laws, Tennessee is currently working on duplicating it here. At first glance, it may sound crazy to force citizens to carry around “papers” identifying themselves as citizens. After all, the Tennessee driver’s license is freely granted to illegal immigrants so that document alone will not suffice. However, it would be relatively easy either 1) to start giving driver’s licenses only to citizens and legal residents or 2) to create another, similar card that would only be available for citizens.

Yes, it is annoying to carry more cards in your wallet, but desperate situations call for desperate measures. Ordinarily, the border entry of millions of unauthorized foreigners would constitute an “invasion.” Why no one is using that term to describe the situation is beyond me. And don’t tell me, “Well Drew, they’re all peaceful.” They’ve already apprehended Islamist terrorists who were coming across the border. And besides that, Hispanic groups like La Raza (The Race) openly advocate retaking the former Spanish West, which would include Texas, California, Arizona, and that general area. Reclaiming a region of the United States for a foreign country is NOT peaceful.

Furthermore, when you create a welfare state (like we have), it is simply infeasible to let the entire world into your country to leech off your government benefits. Most Democrat politicians realize this dilemma and tension with their socialist goals, but they nonetheless want more poor foreigners to enter the country. The reason is because they want more poor voters. The old addage that “Republicans get votes from the rich and want to make people rich whereas Democrats get votes from the poor and want to make people poor” is absolutely true regarding this issue. The Leftists do not care about national integrity. They only care about power for power’s sake. Thus, they do not care about destroying the economy by letting welfare recipients into the country.

So getting citizens to carry their papers, and getting rid of the invaders who cannot prove their lawfulness to be here, hardly seems extreme to me.

Common-sense constitutionality

Preparing for the Bar, I have come to one main conclusion about constitutional law. Basically, all of constitutional law is either common-sense or just wrong. There isn’t much middle ground where the real law actually is convoluted but is nonetheless correct. When I say “common sense,” of course, I am referring to the common sense of the average fifteen-year-old or greater who knows how to read and has actually read the Constitution.

Consider, for example, the “right to privacy” found within the Constitution in Article…well, I’m not exactly sure where. This legal privilege basically means the freedom to engage in illicit sex without consequence, but ” right to privacy” sounds better. It does not actually refer only to private acts, and a great number of private acts are not covered by the privilege. (For example, two competing businessmen who meet in private to fix high prices cannot escape penalty based on the right to privacy.) This convoluted and deceptive term alone is enough to cast suspicion upon the constitutionality of the idea. But then when you start hearing about “trimesters” and all that, you pretty much know you have gone off course.

Other examples could be provided. As with the “privacy” privilege mentioned above, you know that things have become convoluted right off the bat (and thus, probably wrong) when the terminology gets confusing. For example, something is probably wrong when courts start redefining every human activity as a part of “interstate commerce” simply so  the federal government can have the authority to regulate further. Another aspect of convolution is self-contradiction, or the inability for observers to discover any logical pattern. Thus, we see convolution when the Supreme Court declares that high school education is not a constitutional right (probably correct) and that creationism may not be taught alongside evolution (possibly correct, although doubtful), but that the evolution must be taught in schools no matter what (probably wrong). Simply put, it is inconsistent to hold that schools need not teach at all, but that schools must necessarily teach evolution. This internal, convoluted contradiction gives us a hint that the Constitution has been violated by the courts.

Contrast these instances of overall convolution with the relatively sensible judicial interpretation of free speech as it relates to defamation laws. Defamation laws prohibit the slander of individuals, whereas the First Amendment allows for freedom of speech. Although the technical rules in defamation First Amendment cases can get a tad complicated, they all stem from the same basic idea of allowing greater freedom to individuals who are speaking about public events or public figures. They bestow greater freedom in cases that the First Amendment was actually designed to address. There is common sense in this area of the law. Although the First Amendment does not explicitly state that it was designed to protect political speech — as opposed, for example, to the publication of military secrets or pornography — common sense tells us that such was its purpose.

Ultimately, I hope my realizations will assist me in Bar preparation. Specifically, it should enable me to utilize my own common sense on most questions, and to keep in mind only the limited areas where the Left has established convoluted exceptions to common sense for their own profit. 

The Constitution is meant to govern and be interpreted by individuals with common sense. It is a rather short, simplistic document. When our interpretations get overly complicated, chances are they may be wrong. That’s probably why Justice Thomas tends to write short judicial opinions. Leftists do not utilize common sense, and so they create convoluted case law that requires armies of lawyers to sift through. Interpreting leftist case law is an attempt to draw logical principles from anarchy.

Of course, someone might always argue that common sense is in the eye of the beholder. For the most part, I don’t think that’s true. Textualists and originalists who look to the words and basic intent of the Constitution do have arguments amongst themselves at times, but not big ones. The big arguments are generally held only against 1) the people who pretend to honor the intent but lack all decency and sense, or else 2) the honest traitors who simply admit that they have abandoned the true rule of law.

Advanced voting versus primitive

The other day,  a weekend radio host brought up the fact that some individuals vote for a politician based on his physical attractiveness. (A caller even admitted to doing so.) The host mentioned the rather obvious point that we should not base our votes on such silly factors. I thought a little further about this annoying reality of human nature, and the mechanisms behind it. Overall, I think voting based on attractiveness represents a rather primitive instinct. The instinct is to personify the society in the glorious image of a single individual.

Basically, a primitive society lives vicariously through its leader. For that reason, the primitive people do not mind as much when the leader takes their wealth — because they are living through him anyway. It is far more difficult to bring everyone in society up to the level of super rich, for example. It is far easier to build a single royal palace with great glory. Even dirt-poor countries tend to grant magnificent luxury to their leaders, regardless of their leaders’ success at governing. This glorious individual creates an image for the country to be proud of.

Although America outlaws most of this title of nobility nonsense, we can see a similar phenomenon with our celebrities. We bestow upon them great amounts of money (often for very little real accomplishment, e.g., Paris Hilton), and then we (particularly women) worship them and live vicariously through them. Celebrities are our royalty, in much the same way that foreign countries treat their royalty as celebrities.

Of course, it is easy to distribute wealth to one person for the glory of the country, but although wealth can tend to enhance beauty in some minor ways (such as by allowing a healthier diet or by giving time for exercise), distributing beauty to a single leader is mostly infeasible. Nonetheless, while a primitive society cannot generally grant beauty to one powerful individual, it can make sure that the individual to whom it grants power is already attractive. That is where voting based on beauty comes into play. It completes the image of the society. It makes weak, sentimental people feel better about themselves.

Advanced societies work to overcome this problem, and because the people as a whole are living healthy and productive lives, they have less need to glorify a single leader. Hence, the advanced voter will not take such trivial factors as image into account to any great extent. Obviously, in some ways it does make sense to vote for the attractive candidate even in an advanced society. The leader represents society, and it can be useful to be represented by a beautiful individual — for example, to impress foreign leaders. (Even America, which prohibits titles of nobility, nonetheless constructed the white house and numerous other marvelous buildings.) But it is important to avoid getting carried away with these considerations.

Between an ugly candidate and an attractive candidate, all other things being equal I would prefer the attractive candidate. But in the real world, all other things are rarely equal. The wise and virtuous hunchback is always preferable to the handsome and charismatic scoundrel or fool. Ultimately, it takes an advanced society — and an advanced, wise voter — to weigh rationally the subtle benefits of beauty versus the numerous and concrete benefits of virtue. An advanced voter will make a logical decision by weighing the concrete benefits far more heavily.


ANALYSIS
YOU WON'T
FIND ANYWHERE ELSE

Author