Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Originalism vs. the Managerial State

The managerial elite grabs much of its power through the manipulation of racial and ethnic relations. Often ignored is the pernicious role played by SCOTUS in mandating desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. Brown quite naturally led to enforced desegregation through such schemes as busing.

In an excerpt from their new book entitled "Who Killed the Constitution?", Thomas Woods and Kevin Gutzman provide an originalist critique of Brown and explore its radical implications, i.e., the destruction of constitutional government.

Keep Fighting the Future

Tom Piatak wrote a marvelous little essay causing me to recall fondly those bygone days sitting in front of television on Sunday nights. That was the era known as BC, before children. Ah, yes, Matt Groening was still pumping out great stuff and I even enjoyed "King of Hill," produced and written by another cultural reactionary, Mike Judge. It was interesting to note that the great Samuel T. Francis was also a big fan of the "X-Files."

Affirmative Action for GOP Lickspittles

A Justice Department internal report released on Monday shows that aides to former AG Alberto "Fredo" Gonzales broke the law by using politics to guide their hiring decisions resulting in the hiring of less qualified applicants for non-partisan jobs.

Recall that this administration was going to restore integrity to the White House. Instead they hired Regent U grad Monica Goodling to run Google searches implicating applicants in such criminal enterprises as contributing money to...Democrats.

Conservatives claim to believe that jobs and academic placements should not be doled out based erroneous criteria such skin color, gender or (heaven forbid) sexual proclivities. They do, however, want to make sure that competence has nothing to do with it.

Monday, July 28, 2008

War on the Horizon

Israeli historian Benny Morris predicts bad times in the Middle East.

Is This Evangelicalism?

I wonder if this guy is an expository preacher. What do you think?

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Eggheads at Work


A group of scientists and congressman Dana Rohrbacher, whom I once respected, say that the earth is in danger.

What is the impending peril? Is global warming the culprit? No, it would appear we are unprepared for an asteroid strike.

According to Rohrbacher, our parsimonious and tight fisted congress is going to cut funding for the Arecibo, Puerto Rico, radio telescope, which searches for near-Earth objects. Looks like Professor Frink might be out of job. HOYVIN-GLAYVIN!

But even if we knew an asteroid was going to hit, what could be done? Well apparently options include using nukes, sending Bruce Willis or Robert Duvall to take care of matters, or calling on Green Lantern to save the day.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Rushdoony on Kenneth Stammp

My wife recently purchased Rushdoony's 'The Biblical Philosophy of History' for my birthday. It is one of Rush's shorter works but brimming with insight.

For example, check it this quote by historian Kenneth Stammp from his book 'The Peculiar Institution':

"Today we are learning much from the natural and social sciences about the Negro’s potentialities and about the basic irrelevance of race, and we are slowly discovering the roots and meaning of human behavior. All this is of immense value to the historian when, or example, he tries to grasp the significance of the Old South’s ‘peculiar institution.’ I have assumed that the slaves were merely human beings, that innately Negroes are, after all, only white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less. This give quite a new and different meaning to the bondage of black men; it give their story a relevance to men of all races which it never seemed to have before."

Rushdoony unmasks the universalist abstractions propagated by Stammp that wind up undermining, in fact denying history:

"If Negroes are only 'white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less,' then, conversely, white men are only Negroes with white skins, nothing more, nothing less. this means that all cultural differences, hereditary predispositions, and historical traditions are irrelevant and meaningless. It means, in other words, that history is meaningless. And how can one be an historian if it is his purpose to deny history?

The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture, and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires. Although the white man may reject this faith and subject himself instead to the requirements of humanism, he is still a product of this Christian past. The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity is governed by radically different consideration...If you and I have our histories abstracted from us, and our heredities as well, along with all our cultural conditioning and responses, we are no longer men, no longer human beings, but an abstract and theoretical concept of man. No real history of us can then be written. Stampp’s Negroes are thus neither black men nor white men: they are an abstraction, but an abstraction to illustrate the devil in Stampp’s humanistic morality play.”

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Was Rushdoony Racist?

Bret McAtee who blogs at Backwater Report with yours truly, also has a fabulous blog of his own that you should check out. He is provocative and prolific.

Here
he handily dismisses critics who call Rushdoony a racist for his relatively innocuous comments on mixed marriages.

Multiculturalism on Display

Back in 2006, I wrote a blurb about research published by Robert Putnam indicating that ethnic diversity produces a fractured society characterized by an absence of trust.

Recently in Hartford, Connecticut, a 78 year-old-man was run over by a hit and run driver. He laid in the middle of the road while cars zoomed by without even stopping to help.

Hartford, believe it or not, is a bastion of multiculturalism with a population 19% white, 38% black, 2% Asian and 41% Hispanic.

Rodriquez, Garcia, Martinez, Oh My!

In yet another harbinger of the coming demographic transformation of America, the Census Bureau says that two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez is close behind.

The Hispanics population grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population and current estimates indicate that the population will increase by roughly 138 million between now and 2050 with 82% of that increase attributable to immigrants arriving after 2005 and their offspring.

Friday, July 04, 2008

Miscellany

Good satire from The Onion tracking Bush's tour of America to survey damage caused by his presidency.

Here is video of Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded. Any further commentary would sound uncharitable and unchristian.

Laurence Vance discusses double-minded, warmongering Christians.

Speaking of being double-minded on the war, Obama may be having a change of heart.

I had seen this but forgotten to comment. It's great to see open-borders loonies go down hard. Lets hope it is a harbinger of things to come.

I had never read about John McCain's first wife. Ross Perot's comments at the bottom of the story say it all: "McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory. After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history."

Seymour Hersh says the groundwork is being laid for an invasion of Iran with Democrat complicity. "In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Torture and the Bible

The Boumediene decision handed down recently by the Supreme Court grants detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to seek habeas corpus hearings. It also engendered a slew of criticism from the Brownshirt faction at NRO and other “conservative” media outlets. Do these fellas assume the state has unlimited power not merely to invade the world but to imprison it as well? John McCain stepped into the fray and called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

In a largely cautious dissent from rightwing orthodoxy George Will writes, “The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held… As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama’s characterization) ‘a legal black hole.’”

In other words, the court’s decision, mistaken or not, provides just a small limitation on the state’s power to imprison at will. Is that so bad? Conservatives, and regrettably lots of Christians among them, say emphatically “Yes.”

It was also reported this week that military trainers at Gitmo based an entire interrogation class on Chinese torture techniques used against U.S. serviceman during the Korean War to elicit false confessions.

In the NY Times Scott Shane writes, “The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

A truly biblical legal structure would not countenance torture. In Jewish law confession was inadmissible in criminal court. Professor Aaron Kirschenbaum writes, “Confessions, whether made in or out of court, guilty pleas, and self-incriminating statements are inadmissible. The prevailing principle is that allegations of guilty must be supported by evidence obtained from sources other than the mouth of the accused.” Justice requires the accumulation of evidence by lawful means.

The Old Testament account of Achan’s sin and execution shows the point. God had pronounced judgment on Jericho and demanded that all her residents save Rahab’s family be killed. Moreover all of the city's treasure was to be devoted to the Lord.

But Achan stole from the Lord (Joshua 7:1) and other men died as a result of his crime. God required the death penalty for the offender. The Lord also empowered Joshua with supernatural means to discover the offender. When Joshua confronts Achan he says, “My son, give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and give him the praise. Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me” (7:19). The confession of the crime is thus primarily to God and only secondarily to man.

It is important to note as well that even God’s supernatural discovery of Achan, as well as Achan’s confession, did not alone constitute grounds for conviction. Achan’s story was corroborated by evidence before his conviction and punishment (7:22-23).

Biblical law was largely the ground of civil law in early Christendom and there is no evidence that canon law allowed for torture. Indeed in 866 Pope Nicholas sent a letter to the Bulgars prohibiting torture. He wrote, “If a thief or a robber is apprehended and denies that he is involved, you say that in your country the judge would beat his head with lashes and prick his sides with iron goads until he came up with the truth. Neither divine nor human law allows this practice in any way, since a confession should be spontaneous, not compelled, and should not be elicited with violence but rather proferred voluntarily.”

In contravention to Christian civilization Hellenistic society and Roman law allowed for torture of suspects and slaves using such implements as red-hot irons and lacerating hooks. As the medieval church was increasingly influenced by pagan ideas and sought the synthesis of Christianity with Greco-Roman thought torture was revived as a means of weeding out heretics. With the beginning of the Inquisition, Innocent IV issued a decree that called on magistrates to use torture as a means of eliciting confession against themselves and others.

Under the influence of pietistic Christianity and as a result of secularizing tendencies the shift toward pagan practices in the civil sphere has continued. Today it is the polis or the state that is the source of morality rather than the Christian scriptures. Following Hegel modern man says, “The State is as God walking on Earth".

The 20th Century was filled with torture, violence and bloodshed. Mussolini, a man held in high esteem by Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler and Stalin, spoke for modern man when he said, “Beyond the state, nothing that is human or spiritual has any value whatsoever.”

Christians are largely responsible for this sad state affairs because of their general hostility to the application of scripture in the social and civil arena. By their indifference and outright hostility to this aspect of God’s word they implicitly affirm humanism as the source of civil law—which leads directly to the Star Chamber and the torture chamber.

“Biblical law,” writes Rushdoony, “is not popular with men even though it limits civil government to a minimal dimension; sharply limits civil taxation to a small sum; preserves the person from torture; requires self-government; and furthers freedom. It has a great fault; it indicts all men as sinners before God, something man refuses to hear.”

Dual Loyalty

Phillip Weiss says that Joe Klein has raised the "dual loyalty" issue with this column. Here is the relevant portion:

The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked--still smacks--of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel. And then there is the question--made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis--of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies.


Klein also indicts "Big Oil" in this little tirade but where is the denunciation of Klein from the ADL or over at The New Republic? Has Dershowitz been called? Where is Marvin Hier on this outrage? Perhaps I just missed it.