Though I’ve not read it, it’s not hard to deduce that Defense of Internment is a putrid, hateful book. Michelle has stated numerous times that she is not advocating internment for Arab Americans. Here’s a hint, Michelle. Your book is called IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT with the subtitle of THE CASE FOR RACIAL PROFILING IN WORLD WAR II AND THE WAR ON TERROR.
Here’s another hint, Michelle. Rounding up tens of thousands of human beings (2/3 of them American Citizens), not to mention all Japanese infants adopted by Caucasians and evicting them from their property, freezing their bank accounts and generally stripping them of human dignity; all on the preponderance of secret evidence, is not racial profiling. It’s a crime against the Constitution.
Michelle never fails to remind us that Civil Rights are not sacrosanct. Perhaps Michelle needs a refresher course on the supreme law of the land. In respect to the Executive Branch as outlined in Article. II. of the Constitution, civil rights are sacrosanct. The President of the United states is given absolutely not one whit of power to intern a single person, let alone tens of thousands.
If the Writ of Habius Corpus is to be suspended, it is to be done by the Legislative Branch as outlined in Article. I. Section. 9. Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
The reason this power lies with the Legislative Branch is easy to ascertain. Congress is comprised of hundreds of Representatives from various backgrounds and political beliefs. Whereas, the President is but one, single, entity. Get it? Suspending the Writ of Habius Corpus was meant to be damn near impossible.. If our Founding Fathers wanted that kind of power to lie with the President of the United States, they would have put that little clause up in Article. I.
This is knowledge any schoolboy/girl should know.
Contrary to popular beliefs, Michelle is no conservative or libertarian. No self-respecting conservative would carry water for FDR like her and her ilk. No libertarian would presume to defend the actions of the government in 1942 in respect to Japanese-Americans. Her polemic about the Internment is not heroic; in point of fact, it is a poltroonish parlor trick.
One more point. Michelle’s most recent comment on her blog warns us all about “another sign of soft America”. What’s making America soft you may ask?
Now, cuddling parties are probably not my cup o’ tea. However, I can recognize a victory for the free market when I see one. Voluntary association? Check. The exchange of money for a lawful service? Check. Mutual satisfaction? Check. Now, that’s America in a nutshell.
At the end of her little rant, Michelle asks rhetorically “Have you heard of anything so self-indulgently 9/10? What will it take for these people to grow up?”.
This coming from the “woman” who finds it so easy to advocate trading her (and our) Liberty for the security and protection of the state.
Michelle, when are YOU going to grow up?
