|
|
|
Now that syndicates are taking over local newspapers,
almost all Southern newspapers are like The
State here in Columbia, SC. It used to be
a South Carolina newspaper with our own attitudes.
Now it is a Northern newspaper.
Every person hired by The State is a minor leaguer
in the faceless national news bureaucracy. Each
of these stamped-out little bureaucrats dreams of
an afterlife. He hopes that, if he is good, he will
die and go to The Washington Post.
Like all good Yankees, including galvanized ones,
each of these little bureaucrats accepts every
Southern stereotype his betters in Washington and
New York serve up. If you are in the South
or from the South, any expression of doubt about
these stereotypes means your media career ends instantly.
It labels you as a Southern provincial. Every media
bureaucrat must assume that Southern opinions exist
simply because of provincial nastiness. Once again,
if you are in or from the South, you are supposed
to be even more fanatically attached to these stereotypes.
Otherwise you are a Southern Provincial, and you
are OUT.
So, especially in the South, media bureaucrats never
hesitate to use nastiness to crush Southern opinions.
For example, at the very time when The State was
waging war to get the Confederate flag taken down
from the state capitol dome, pictures of major independence
demonstrations in Eastern Europe appeared on front
pages all over America.
Prominently featured in pictures of these demonstrations
were huge Confederate flags. Almost every newspaper
in America carried these stories, but not The State.
To include these front-page stories would require
The State to show these lead photographs. This would
demonstrate that the Confederate flag is a universally
recognized symbol of rebellion against tyranny.
To avoid that, The State simply spiked two major
international stories! This was the kind of mind
control the demonstration was against. But such
small-minded media bureaucrats never hesitate to
use this kind of pure viciousness against what they
consider Southern Evil, which has no right to be
heard in their world.
But The State made a major error in fighting the
Confederate flag. They let the other side have SOME
right to object. They were absolutely one-sided
and bent over backwards to give anti-flag people
all the advantages. But they did publish letters
on the pro-flag side. So they lost.
On another issue, The State fought desperately against
"right to carry" gun permits. This law,
adopted by some 42 of 50 states, allows a person
to have a gun permit if he qualifies for it by taking
a course and passing a rigid, three-month background
check. Before "right to carry" laws, a
gun permit was entirely a matter of political pull.
You gave money to your sheriff's election campaign
or you had other connections, and you got a permit.
No other qualifications were required.
As Southerners, we were very much in favor of the
right to bear arms. New York and Washington are
against it. So The State is against it. The State
declared that if people without political connections
were allowed to get permits, blood would flow in
the streets.
"Dodge City"! was what every major member
of the news bureaucracy screamed in The Washington
Post and The New York Times. So the little media
bureaucrats at The State screamed "Dodge City"!
Of course, despite the fact that these permits have
been issued by the tens of thousands all over America
for years, nothing of the sort has happened.
But the media bureaucrats ignored that, as did their
big brothers in the big cities. Once again, The
State took a media bureaucrat position that made
no sense. And once again, because they allowed some
opposition to be heard, they lost. Once again, The
State favored everyone who was against "right
to carry."
Of course The State printed one editorial after
another which was a straight copy of editorials
in The Washington Post, The New York Times and anything
else by the top media bureaucrats they worship.
Of course Arail had cartoons picturing "right
to carry" advocates as evil, fascistic, and,
above all, Provincial.
But The State allowed some opposition to be expressed
in its pages. And, once again, The State lost in
its battle against Evil Southern Provincialism.
The State lost these two battles because it allowed
the other side to speak out.
By the time they got to a third issue, they were
tired of getting beaten. So they went to straight
censorship. And this time, they won. Every state
that ratified the Bill of Rights had and enforced
an antimiscegenation law. Every state but one which
ratified the Fourteenth Amendment had and enforced
an antimiscegenation law. The congress which proposed
the Fourteenth Amendment had and enforced an antimiscegenation
law in the District of Columbia.
So in the 1960s, the federal courts declared that
the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment
outlawed antimiscegenation laws. The State wanted
South Carolina voters to approve this court decision
by taking the antimiscegenation law out of the state
constitution in the November ballot. The State had
editorials demanding this. It printed letters to
the editor demanding that South Carolinians get
rid of antimiscegenation provisions inside thick
lines around them to draw special attention to them.
This was what The State routinely does when it fights
Evil Southern Provincialism.
But it took another step: The State banned all opposition
from its pages. Not one word of opposition to ratifying
the court's unconstitutional decision was allowed.
Every letter I had written to The State previously
had been published. I wrote two letters
on this subject. The State did not even bother to
send my letters back or openly reject them.
I called the guy in charge of the The State editorial
page letters. He was forced to answer, and pleaded
complete ignorance of the whole process. I sent
him another letter, as I had sent the two earlier
ones, both by email and regular mail. He admitted
he had gotten them, but he refused even to reject
them. He sounded like the operatives for Communist
governments I dealt with in Eastern Europe. The
proposition won, 62% to 38%. No opposition had been
allowed anywhere.
And no one but Robert Whitaker has said one single
word about this. To this day, absolutely nobody
anywhere but me has said a word about this complete
and blatant censorship. And I am NOT going to let
it go.
So, now that South Carolina has agreed to the 1968
court decision removing all antimiscegenation laws
in the teeth of constitutional intent, there are
three lessons I want everybody to recognize:
First, South Carolinians have no right to question
ANY Federal court decision. We have ratified the
proposition that the court can decide anything it
wants to without any reference to original intent.
The second lesson is that the media bureaucracy
can win if it uses outright censorship.
The third lesson is that, if outright censorship
is used on a really Politically Incorrect issue
like this, absolutely no one but me will object
to it. So censorship works in South Carolina. And
South Carolinians don't even have the guts to object
to it.
|
|
The Constitution is very specific about what the
Senate is to do once the House of Representatives
has impeached the president. The House impeaches,
or indicts, and the Senate conducts the trial.
Period.
But the usual people, Republican ex-presidents,
Democratic liberals, and respectable conservatives,
are all saying the Senate doesn't have to conduct
a trial. They demand a censure or something. They
say that the old, dead words of the Constitution
are not binding. That is because those who wrote
the old document are dead, and we have a "Living
Constitution."
The twentieth century is full of "Living Constitutions."
In 1936, Joseph Stalin promulgated a new Soviet
Constitution. In comparison with the words of that
Soviet Constitution of 1936, the United States Constitution
looks totally undemocratic. The Stalinist Constitution
of 1936 contains a ringing endorsement of free speech
and a long list of other freedoms. Its guarantees
of freedom are absolutely poetic, and perfectly
ironclad.
The 1936 Soviet Constitution declares absolute sovereignty
for local government, even including the right to
secede! Those who have read it are always impressed
by the long list of rights that are guaranteed.
It also contains repeated assurances of every Soviet
citizen's personal safety.
So much for the words. Now for the music.
Before, during, and after 1936, people were snatched
from their homes and sent off to die in Siberian
work camps, by the TENS OF MILLIONS.
So how did the millions of Stalinists in the United
States and Europe justify all that horror and hold
up the Stalinist Constitution as an ideal document
at the same time?
They pointed out that, while we bourgeois types
might think Stalin was doing things his Constitution
forbade, that was because we did not understand
the Marxist Interpretation of that Constitution.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what they said! Sounds familiar,
doesn't it?
You see, the Stalinist Constitution
was a "Living Document." That is to say,
the government was not bound by the mere verbiage
in a document as you or I might understand it. The
leaders of the Soviet Union were free to adjust
their interpretation of that document to the times
and to Marxist Reality.
So after 1936 Stalin continued a slaughter larger
than Hitler's. And Stalin's slaughter was no War
Crime. It was just as massive IN PEACETIME as it
was in wartime!
Speaking of Hitler, one thing most people don't
know about him was that his entire Third Reich was
perfectly constitutional. The Weimar Constitution
of Germany was written right after World War I,
and established Germany as a democracy. Until May
8, 1945, the Weimar Constitution was still in force.
All of Hitler's actions were conducted under that
document.
You see, there was one little provision in the Weimar
Constitution which allowed for the indefinite imposition
of emergency powers. So Hitler did not nullify the
democratic Weimar Constitution when he took power.
He merely INTERPRETED it. Using that Constitution,
Hitler simply had the Parliament give him absolute
emergency powers after the Reichstag Fire.
True, everybody knew that the writers of the Weimar
Constitution did not mean for it to justify a permanent
dictatorship. But Hitler adjusted the words to his
new and modern age.
Sound familiar?
Let us say that you and I have worked hard together
to accumulate some assets. We sit down and make
up a very, very serious contract between us for
the conduct of business in the future. Obviously,
since so much is at stake and it was so hard for
us to make this agreement, we make any changes in
it very hard. It goes without saying that we are
very, very specific about how it can be amended,
changed, or, if you like, "interpreted"
differently. A few years later, you decide you want
more. You get very large, paid thugs to back you
up, and you make whatever changes you decide are
fair.
So you declare that what we really have is not just
a bunch of old dead words on a piece of paper. What
we have is "A Living Contract."
I would say that what we now have is no contract
at all. I would call you a thug. And I would not
appreciate it if someone agreed with you that you
were doing the right thing.
And I would think it was crazy if the same people
who agreed with you and the other thugs today started
getting mad at you for being a thug tomorrow.
It is therefore amusing to hear respectable conservatives
accusing Clinton of violating his oath "to
protect and defend the Constitution."
WHAT Constitution? Every single respectable conservative
has long since agreed that the United States Constitution
is nothing but the opinion of nine lawyers sitting
in Washington wearing black robes. Nobody can take
the idea of a United States Constitution seriously
if he goes along with the court's decision to strike
down all state antimiscegenation laws, for example.
In striking down state antimiscegenation laws, the
Supreme Court declared openly, and once and for
all, that any hint of original intent meant nothing
whatsoever. To accept that decision is to reject
original intent absolutely.
And ALL respectable conservatives not only accept
that decision, but try to prove they are more fanatically
in favor of it than any liberal who was ever born.
Racial intermarriage is critical to liberals, so
respectable conservatives do not hesitate to toss
the Constitution into the toilet for it.
A "Living Constitution" is sillier than
a joke. It is an oxymoron.
And every single respectable conservative demands
a "Living Constitution" when it comes
to things liberals really want, like racial intermarriage.
It is important to make all these points before
one discusses anything to do with this mythical
"United States Constitution."
A new wrinkle has developed in the very unfunny
joke that calls itself "constitutional law"
in the United States. The "dead words"
of the old document contain a provision in Article
I that makes the Congress the sole judge of the
qualifications of its own members. The Congress,
for example, may censure its own members.
When the Congress found it couldn't actually impeach
Andrew Jackson, as required by the Constitution,
it decided to censure him. Jackson pointed out that
that was unconstitutional, since it did not give
him the right to argue back. More important, it
did not carry the enormous gravity of a vote for
impeachment.
Censure of its members is part of Congress's job
of judging its own members. There is no provision
for congress to judge the qualifications of
a sitting president, except for impeachment.
Now, congress can DENOUNCE the president. Congress
can DENOUNCE the Pope. Congress can denounce Sasquatch
if it wants to.
But a censure, in the same sense as censuring a
member of congress, is a different matter altogether.
|
|
|
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|