I can’t stand this and now my friends in Zanzibar are going to be treated to a rant !!!
It’s that blasted Ted Cruz. He’s certainly my pick of the availables at this point. I was even willing to forgive his not understanding the “natural born citizen” Constitutional requirement for the privilege of serving as President of the U.S., since apparently most of the elite libertarian legal eagles don’t either, and I am bitterly, bitterly sorry to say that that includes Randy Barnett, who gave a sobworthy (in parts) presentation on the issue to the Washington Journal. You can see for yourselves — link’s below. (C-Span, not embeddable.) –(You probably won’t see why I’m so disgusted by his performance unless I tell you, though.)
However, I’m just now getting around to watching Debate #6, and Ted is in the hot seat. He’s just been asked if he’s a “natural born citizen.” Butter wouldn’t melt as he snidely skewers (as he thinks) those who would dare to raise — quote — “the Birther issue.” In a voice dripping with disdain.
Now, given the authoritative Constitutional weight of people like Barnett and others at The Volokh Conspiracy*, I can understand and forgive the average layman and even the average lawyer and maybe even the average Constitutional lawyer for going along with the idea that birthplace is immaterial– though Shrill, or her staff, thought it important enough to bring up the birthplace issue vis-á-vis the Gentleman from Wherever-the-hell-he’s-from, when they were running against each other back in 2008. However, Ted DOES stick on side about being a Constitutional attorney, or at least his fans and promoters do. (I’m trying to be fair, even though I am royally p.o.’ed.)
So now, back to his answer in the debate. First, and the least of the issues, he says it’s only the “extreme” fringe who think eligibility requires not just one but TWO citizen parents.
Not so. There is a valid argument for that understanding, which is that at the time of the Founding the wife’s citizenship automatically followed that of the husband. Therefore if the wife was not a citizen, it would mean the husband wasn’t either. Mind you, that’s the argument. I don’t say it’s correct; in fact it overlooks uncommon cases that were in fact discussed by the Founders, such as Pop as already passed on or the child is illegitimate. But it’s not “extreme.” And it’s what most non-Proggies who have an opinion seem to believe.
But here is the real problem. He says that the courts have said time after time that people having a parent who is a citizen are natural born citizens (regardless of birthplace).
This is flatly untrue. Yes, such people have been found to be American citizens, but not natural born citizens. In fact they aren’t even native citizens, which specifically means citizens born on American turf: natives-by-birth, so to speak. This is an obvious difference** and so fundamental that only an ignoramus or a liar could say such a thing. So Ted, which is it? Are you openly showing your flat ignorance or are you lying — you know this distinction perfectly well — and hoping nobody will notice?
He has the nerve to back this remarkable position up by saying that “after all, if it were true then Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal wouldn’t be eligible either” — and so they aren’t, but not because of extra-American birth: Rubio born in Miami, Jindal in Baton Rouge. Birthplace not an issue with them. Their problem is parentage. But worse yet, he goes on to add that even THE DONALD wouldn’t be eligible, because although he was born here his mother wasn’t. (She’s from Ireland.)
You fool! As long as she (or she and her husband, or only her husband, depending on your theory about whether it takes one or two citizen parents) was a citizen — naturalized or statutory, makes no difference, which is why the “anchor baby” 14th Amendment comes into the controversy — as long as some non-zero number of parents were ALREADY citizens when the babe was born, the parent(s) citizenship is automatically inherited by the baby**. If Ma Trump was already naturalized when she popped Bonnie Donnie, he IS natural born. (Leaving aside the issue of one parent or two, of course.)
This really is baby stuff. And even Randy Barnett, If I Remember Correctly, does not make such an uninformed claim.
The reason I was going to vote for Ted was that he’s obviously the least worst of the bunch having any chance of the nomination. But if this is not flat-out lying, then he’s not only completely ignorant (or confused, as in deer-in-the-headlights confused, or having what we Computer Types call a Kernel Panic), he’s also unaware of how ignorant (or confused) he is — or else he’s perfectly aware and lying about THAT, claiming that his opinion is the one the courts have gone by all these years.
So now what. I have to vote against whatever fool and/or criminal the Dims put up, which means I have to vote for the Heffalump candidate.
At this point, those are the only grounds on which I can urge people to vote for Ted in the general election — if he’s the candidate.
Ted Cruz in Debate #6, 1/14/16, Fox, Bartiromo and Cavuto, around 22 minutes in, maybe a bit more:
Randy Barnett’s discussion is actually pretty good in the first half. He presents the opposition’s (that would be me) argument honestly and reasonably thoroughly. It’s in the second half of his remarks that he comes up with an ingenious but, to me, not entirely convincing argument, and then ends on a most undignified note (and remember, I’m a longstanding fan of Prof. Barnett; much more than any of the other Volokhites, except in some respects David Bernstein). Now I feel jilted by both of my Libertarian Legal Loves. It’s not FAIR !!! :>((
*Not Prof. Laurence Tribe, interestingly enough — per Barnett, Prof. Tribe’s understanding of “natural born” IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF ELIGIBILTY is the same as mine: A citizen parent at the time of the candidate’s birth, AND must be born on American soil. But, says Randy, this poses no problem for Tribe because Tribe is not an Originalist of any stripe but rather a Living Constitutionalist, so is not hampered by this little departure from the Rules.
**Not true that there are only two classes of American citizens: For purposes of Constitutional eligibility at least, there are three: Naturalized, statutory (for children born abroad of citizen parents), and natural born. Only those in the last category are eligible.
–No, that does not make anyone a “second-class citizen.” There is theoretically no such thing in the U.S. To serve as President is a privilege, not a right. There is no other post in the entire Federal government that is restricted to natural born citizens.
The last thing I watched by Michael Wood was his absurd “History of England”- which had factual errors all over the place.
For example the Romans were undermined by “climate change” – Dr Wood said this walking past a burned out car and implying some sort of man-made global warming (the Romans did not have the internal combustion engine). “Greedy bankers” (the Romans had no system of fractional reserve banking – “greedy” or otherwise). And “imperial expansion” – the empire had actually been on the defensive (not the offensive) for centuries before it collapsed.
When we got on to the Victorian period we were told about the “Victorian” Act of 1834 (Victoria was not Queen then) which “invented” the Poor Rates and so on – replacing “charity”. In reality the Poor Law in England and Wales went back to the Tudors – the Poor Law REFORM Act of 1834 was not about introducing a new tax, it was about REDUCING the existing Poor Law tax. The local property tax that had greatly increased in the years before 1834 due to the Speenhamland system of paying money to people in work – which had spread after 1795, being allowed by the Act of 1782.
So I was not really expecting high standards from Michael Wood trying to explain the Song Dynasty period in China.
As he is hopeless on the history of his own country (at least outside the Anglo Saxon period – which is where he made his name) – what is one to expect from him about the history of other countries?
Well the programme was NOT all bad. The pictures were nice – if it had been a National Geographic show it would have been fine. And Dr Wood did make the valid point that monarchs of the Song Dynasty got cut off from military reality – they allowed other concerns (mostly cultural) to distract them from the defence of the country.
However Dr Wood missed the central point of the Song period.
The central point about the Song period is that it was a time of relatively free private enterprise – when Chinese farmers, merchants and manufacturers did things themselves rather than have the state tell them what to do all the time.
One would not know this from Dr Wood – instead we got the idea that the state (the Dynasty – the Song) was the the source of all good things. The Dynasty did X, Y, Z, – not private traders and manufacturers doing X, Y, Z (which was the reality).
And the departure from a relatively free market policy near the end of the Northern Song Dynasty, the “New Policies”?
Again Dr Woods managed to turn history on its head.
The New Policies, according to him, were about creating a more open and free society (this must be a very odd definition of “freedom” – as the New Policies were actually about increased state control and state intervention) obstructed by evil “conservatives”. No mention of the famine and general economic mess the “New Policies” caused – that was all caused by climate change or the Klingons (or whatever). It is odd how statism is always hit by bad weather…..
Do we really have to pay a BBC tax (sorry a “license fee”) for rubbish such as Michael Wood “history”?
Friend Kevin dropped in a couple of days ago. He lives just down the hill in St. Werburghs. He drops in so often we have now nicknamed him … The Lodger. He drinks tea by the gallon and eats us out of house and home in his own weight in Malted Milk biscuits. Not a problem. We love him and we are well used to visitors. We used to have half the members of Bristol bands around practically every night, doing their thing.
Kev was Bass player for Colour Tapes and Maximum Joy back in the 80’s, and he brought news (and a couple of tickets) that Ryley Walker is playing The St. Georges Hall in Clifton on Feb 17th. I had never heard of him. He is a 25 year old American who is described as playing guitar like Bert Yansch and singing like Tim Buckley. Well that gets my instant and undivided attention . Bert Yansch was a member of Pentangle and an extremely fine guitarist. Tim Buckley is one of my all time favourites, who I was privileged to see twice. Once in Max’s Kansas City, in New York, when straight off the plane from Heathrow. We had a booth with waitress service right next to the stage, and our completely unknown waitress was Debbie Harry. Man what a night that was! The last time ,Buckley opened for the Allman Brothers at the very first Knebworth, and it was a tragedy for me because nobody noticed or knew who he was. They were all jockeying for space, rolling spliffs, getting the beers out. There was so much blue denim, the whole crowd looked like the Union Army camped out on the eve of Gettysburg.
Now young Ryley is being accompanied on his tour by Danny Thompson, the finest stand up Bass player in the UK, if not the world. Danny, I have seen many a time. He was in Pentangle with Yansch, he played with Buckley in 68 and many more, like John Martyn. If he is by your side, you know you are premiere division!
So I am looking forward to a bloody good night. The St Georges Hall has probably the finest acoustics in the country. And if you live in London, Manchester, Dublin and a few other places, check out the tour dates, because I’m sure if you are a music lover, it will be worth the effort to see them.
Mrs Clinton has been flexing her muscles in Iowa in the hopes of finally punching through what she’s described as the “highest, hardest glass ceiling”. So you’d expect the women of Iowa to give her a helping hand on the way to having a female occupant of the White House. But there are worrying signs for Mrs Clinton that the sisterhood is letting her down.
One poll has given Mr Sanders a double-digit lead over Mrs Clinton among 18 to 34-year-old women. Tad Devine, Mr Sanders’ senior campaign adviser, has put it down to a youthful suspicion of all things “phoney”. By contrast, “with Bernie there’s authenticity”. His stance on social issues like abortion has also done him lots of favours with 20 somethings.
The danger for Mrs Clinton is that history is about to repeat itself. In Iowa in 2008, Barack Obama defeated her, and it was in part women he had to thank for his victory then.
The possibility that Shrillary could be ‘out-leftied’ by Comrade Bernie Sanders was something that I initially dismissed as “Nah – never happen”, but leading into the Iowa caucuses they are both neck and neck in the polls with Comrade Bernie trailing Shrillary by 1-to-2 points.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve no love of Comrade Bernie and his 18 Trillion dollar bill for fixing America (yes, that’s Trillion with a ‘T’), but since this Marxist schmuck has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency, the possibility that he might sufficiently embarrass Shrillary in the primaries for her support to desert her would be both ironic and deeply satisfying.
She knows that this is last chance city to gain the White House as even 2020 will be too damn late for her, but is she really prepared to go for broke, bringing herself to near bankruptcy for a race to the crown that is slipping from her fingers?
I do hope so.
A meta-context is not a philosophy or a political belief, but rather the lens through which someone sees the world. It is a tradition of thought, a vibe, set of ‘givens’, the frames of reference within which questions are posed and answers found.
A person’s prevailing meta-context has an enormous impact on the way they make decisions and evaluate evidence.
The house of delusions is cheap to build, but draughty to live in, and ready at any instant to fall
I was not born a libertarian (small ‘l’), but became one through a process that can best be described as “painful self-enlightenment” over several years, which is I suspect the same for most of us.
There was one specific point though, something that I can best describe as my “Road to Damascus” experience that forever killed the tribal Labour voter I had been up until then, and that was the proposed introduction of ID cards into the UK by the Labour government of Tony Blair.
This fundamentally illiberal proposal (which was murdered by infanticide by the NO2ID campaign) left me with an undiluted hatred of both Labour and more generally of the state itself. Over the five years from 2005 to 2010 when it was finally repealed, my entire meta-context – the way I viewed the world changed from that of a typical centre-left socialist to what I would now describe as libertarian minarchist.
As Perry wrote in the article above, nearly 14 years ago, most of the arguments that we see taking place in the mainstream media exist only within the meta-context of “the state-is-society” and any views that are contrary to this are treated as insane or anarchistic.
Indeed, for many years (before reading Atlas Shrugged) I inaccurately used the label of “anarchist” as a self-descriptor as it seemed the only label that described my fundamental opposition to the state itself.
During these years I took great pains to remove myself from the system, acquiring an Irish passport through my mother (who was born in Ireland), rehousing my family back in my wife’s homeland of Penang, Malaysia and for a while returning to live in Port Erin in the Isle of Man, which had been a refuge for my mothers family since they fled sectarian violence in Ireland during the late 1950′s.
All of this I did to express my outrage and attempt to repudiate the unfair claim that the British government had made over me, but it made me realise the meaning of liberty in its original sense and recognize the price that I would pay for my own personal sovereignty.
With hindsight, my actions were draconian and directly led to the alienation of my wife and child and various professional consequences that cause me problems to this day, but I still feel that I could not do anything other than I have done. It was a necessary evil done for the sake of my sanity and my soul.
The problem is that I am now left looking at a world which I no longer recognize nor really understand. It is like walking through the halls of Bedlam with everyone focussing upon their own delusions, from apocalyptic visions of climate change to the 3rd wave feminists and SJW’s with their micro-dissection of perceived injustice.
I used to think that I was paranoid, but now I just feel that as a society Western civilisation has become complacent, corrupt and decadent. As with the last years of the Western Roman empire, we are beset by invaders without and traitors within…a combination that cannot last for long.
It seems to me that the meta-context of “the state-is-society” is fundamentally self-limiting, that in it’s very nature of ever expanding growth and scope the state contains the seeds of its own destruction.
I wonder why others who are far more knowledgeable about history and far more intelligent than I cannot see the same thing. Is it not obvious? The only conclusion that I’ve come to is that they either have too much invested in the current system or see the outcome as inevitable.
So the shadows lengthen and darkness falls…
Al Gore says we’ve got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we’re going to start counting. This is January 27th, 2006.
More uncannily accurate prognostications from the past (the first “Earth Day”, in 1970, in fact) here, from Ed Driscoll at Instapundit. I particularly like, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil”.
Of course, as the late great Yogi Berra said, predictions are always difficult. Especially about the future.
Socialism’s basic premise is that the value of anyone’s life is found only its contribution to the social good. No individual life has value in and of itself.
–Commenter Pat Frank, at What’s Up With That
There are quite a few of these anti-AGW-Alarmists floating about Oz, and Prof. Carter was certainly one of the most entertaining. Here is how Jennifer Marohasy begins her remembrance of Dr. Carter.
Nobody Lives in a World Climate: Professor Bob Carter 1942-2016
By jennifer on January 21, 2016 in Information
OUTSPOKEN critic of catastrophic global warming theory, Bob Carter, died in Townsville on Tuesday.
Professor Carter did not like the term sceptic, he considered himself a rationalist, and popular usage of the term ‘climate change’ a tautology. As he wrote frequently: the geological record tells us that climate always changes. In Professor Carter’s passing we have lost a person who believed in value-free science.
When he was still directing the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Professor Carter spent an evening with me at his home in Townsville poring over a single chart that was a proxy record of New Zealand’s climate over the last several thousand years. The time series data had been printed out on a long and continuous roll of paper: longer than the kitchen table so the end of the chart, that portion representing the present, was often dangling somewhere near the floor.
UPDATE: Here is one of Prof. Carter’s recent talks, from ICCC10 — the Heartland Institute’s 10th International Conference on Climate Change — held last June in Washington. It’s entitled “The Counter-consensus: Adaptation Versus Mitigation.” (The Heartland Institute’s page listing and linking to all the talks at the Conference, is here.)
It used to be the tradition in landed aristocratic families that if there were three male heirs, the smartest inherited and ran the estate, the second smartest was sent to the military and the divvy was sent to the church. Meet Divvy of the week… The Bishop of London.
He wants his vicars to grow beards, especially in parishes where the overwhelming population is Muslim, to reach out to them and gain their respect. That’s bound to work, eh? Imagine the scene in a Shisha Cafe down Brick Lane way…
Yo Ali, how’s it going man, not seen you for a while?
Fine Mo, just fine. Hey guess who I just bumped into in the High Street, our local Vicar. Respect bruv, you should see his beard, looks like an explosion in a sofa factory. You gotta respect a man wiv a beard aintcha?
Bollocks Ali, the twat is just trying to reach out to the hood… for all the good that will do him.
But they’re People of the Book, them Christians, aint they?
Well that’s what we keep telling them and they’re dumb enough to believe it. Thank Allah for Taqiyya. The fools seem to think all religions are equal when we know there is just one, ours. When the tipping point comes they will all be slaughtered, enslaved or we tax their asses off.
So Bish, might I humbly suggest that you pack it in with the social inclusion stuff and reaching out to those who will only laugh in your hairy face for your infantile naivety, and get back to preaching the Gospel. It might even get a few extra bums on pews, I seriously doubt it, but you never know.
Charlotte Rampling is the latest star to wade into the row brewing over the lack of diversity in this year’s Oscar nominations.
The 69-year-old, who has been nominated in the Best Actress category for her performance in 45 Years, said the move by some of Hollywood’s elite to boycott the awards “is racist to whites”.
She told French radio network Europe 1 on Friday morning, “Perhaps the black actors didn’t merit being on the finishing line”.
“One can never really know, but perhaps the black actors did not deserve to make the final list,” added Rampling.
Good for Charlotte Rampling, giving a few home truths to younger Oscar hopefuls about life in the real world…well, as far as that applies to Hollywood anyway.
Not that the Oscars represents anything like the real world, but you don’t tend to get a global television audience for the National Window Cleaners Awards do you? Then again window cleaning isn’t a multi-billion dollar industry where the top earners are treated like 19th Century royalty.
What she’s saying is true about earning acting accolades on merit rather than just because of the colour of your skin, but it does rather go against the whole black oppression narrative of the not-very-liberal-left.
Just because AMPAS aren’t prepared to give Will Smith a nomination for doing a comedy Nigerian accent with a straight-face in his latest movie “Concussion” doesn’t mean that all the members of the Academy are card carrying members of the KKK and some of those making a fuss may have cause to regret their actions in future years.
Unlike the population of Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, AMPAS is largely made up of those who have won awards previously and by definition, this makes it pretty much white and pretty much male, or as our SJW screecher’s would have it “a bastion of racist, elitist privilege”.
If Hollywood insiders start throwing those sort of remarks (even highly diluted) about the membership of the Academy to which they aspire, then don’t expect an invitation to join their ranks any time soon.
Hollywood can usually afford a few worthy set pieces like “Selma” here-and-there as long as they are backed up by receipts from the latest blockbuster Superhero’s movie, but if Hollywood executives start paying attention to the hyperbole of lefty Celebrities rather than audiences then Hollywood studios will end up being severely out of pocket.
A perfect example of this mentality is the new Ghostbusters film, due for release in July 2016, which has a massive $154 million budget and is already expected to be the biggest flop of the year. It takes a bit more to make a successful blockbuster than putting a bunch of fat female comediennes on screen and hoping the SJW crowd will support you. I suspect that by the end of the Summer there will be quite a few studio executives at Village Roadshow Pictures who will be looking for new employment.
Ultimately, I suspect that Charlotte’s comments (in French on Europe 1), may get a bit more coverage than she was hoping for and not for the reasons that she wants, but then again AMPAS are a funny bunch and may just award her the Oscar she’s up for as a nice “Fuck you!” to all the delicate little flowers calling them a bunch of racists.
Ah Well. Whatever happens. C’est La Vie!
Frank Fetter (from Lima Indiana – it is not just Cole Porter who came from there) refuted the David Ricardo land economics that the Henry George stuff is really based upon, a century before Murray Rothbard did. There is nothing special or “non distorting” about LVT.
So I will make only one point on the Land Value Tax. Under LVT someone who owned a farm (or even a nature reserve) that covered, say, ten acres would pay exactly the same amount of money in tax as someone who owned a factory complex, a housing estate, or a load of office sky-scrapers that covered ten acres.
Supporters of LVT seem to think that this is a good thing.
Oh good. There seems to be a ten minute pause between this site appearing and crashing again, so I can vent my spleen.
Nick and I had a moan over on Samizdata about how we both wanted to talk about Bowie dying, but the site was down yet a fuckin gain. It is down more often than it is up, and worse than that it is slow as hell to load when it is up.
This was pointed out by Philip Scott Thomas and Laird in their comments on Samizdat about our site, and how they no longer bother to even attempt to come here anymore. They used to be regulars, but I don’t blame them in the slightest… We have no readers left.
Look at the last 7 or 8 articles on this site and you will find that only three comments are made by people who are not writers for the site itself. What the fuck is the point of that?? Why are we here?
Well it should be to attract an audience, but if the platform is so fuckin inconsistent then that audience moves away, and it has in droves. Look at the right hand side bar and see the endorsements we got in our early days, we were good… nay great! I am proud to have been a participant on this site. I love my fellow Kitty Counters, they are magnificent in their breadth and depth of knowledge and diversity, but frankly we are now wasting our time crafting articles that no one can read for long or anybody can be bothered to read or comment on. So I am not about to try anymore.
I have been offered a post on another site and am seriously considering taking it up. I have sweated blood for this site and love it dearly, but enough is enough. Dr Johnson said that anyone who didn’t write for money is a fool. Well he was only half right. I’ve been there, done that and got the silk tour jacket. Good writers want to see their words in print, like any other craftsman like a carpenter or a painter or potter would their efforts. It’s not just the money, I … all of us do this for free. But we are being let down badly by a lousy Server that Cats refuses to do anything about.
Even if Cats suddenly decides to go professional, how long do you think it will be before we get our readership back? Fuck knows! But this is my last post for the foreseeable future.
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested that Britain should keep its fleet of nuclear submarines but have them patrol the globe without nuclear weapons.
The Labour leader suggested Britain could keep Trident submarines without the nuclear warheads, in a move that will placate the unions who fear abandoning the deterrent could lead to job losses in shipyards in Cumbria and Scotland.
With Labour in the process of reviewing its defence policy, Mr Corbyn’s comments raise the prospect that deploying British nuclear submarines armed with only conventional weapons could become the party’s official position.
Mr Corbyn also said that he would never “press the button” to launch nuclear weapons, adding that he didn’t think “David Cameron would either”. Number 10 firmly denied the accusation.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is worthwhile reviewing whether Trident is an appropriate solution given the restrictions and limitations placed upon its use by the US Government, but nevertheless, disarming them whilst retaining the rather expensive technical platforms they are reliant upon is an exercise in futility, all so that Jezza can keep in with the unions. It’s like a rerun of the 1970′s, something Tony Benn would have come out with.
Mr Corbyn floated the idea during a wide-ranging interview BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show in which he also suggested opening up a line of communication with so-called Islamic State and called for a “sensible dialogue” with Argentina over the British-controlled Falkland Islands.
As for his comments about simply ignoring the wishes of the Falkland Islanders and doing a dodgy deal with the Argentinians over sovereignty, “Go fuck yourself, Jeremy”. If self-determination means anything it is the Falkland Islanders that get to choose, not some moron in London.
He also pledged to repeal Conservative trade union laws banning sympathy strikes and did not rule out allowing the return of flying pickets.
Christ on a moped, so we’re going to return full circle to the bullshit of the 1970′s, with wildcat strikes and violent thugs roaming the country in minivans to destroy the economy like it did last time? Remember when Labour had to go begging for money to the IMF?
No, No, No, No, No!
Keep pushing the rhetoric Jeremy, because it will ensure that you never get elected and it makes the collapse of Labour even more likely every day you remain as leader, but everything that comes out of your mouth I find absolutely repellent, as will many who remember the dying days of the Wilson/Callaghan regime.