Category Archives: Law

The Abortion-Rights Linguistic Trickery

English, Individual Rights, Law, Left-Liberalism, Logic, Propaganda

When feminists and their media lickspittles speak of “abortion rights,” they mean federal funding for abortion. Nothing else.

Don’t conflate “abortion rights” with federal funding for abortion. A “right” to undergo an abortion is to be distinguished from a right to federal funding of your abortion.

Fact: In America, “women have the right de jure to screw and scrape out their insides to their heart’s content.” The only question is, should taxpayer rights, especially those of anti-abortion faithful, be compromised to fund the procedure.

So quit capitulating to leftist linguistic chicanery.

More about the distinction in “From Benghazi To The Abortion Killing Fields”:

Trojans, Trivora or a termination: An Americans woman has the right to purchase contraception, abortifacients and abortions, provided … she pays for them. For like herself, America is packed with many other sovereign individuals. Some of these individuals do not approve of the products and procedures mentioned. Americans who oppose contraception, abortifacients and abortion must be similarly respected in their rights of self-ownership.

Taxpayers who oppose these products and procedures have an equal right to dispense of what is theirs—their property—in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. America’s adult women may terminate their pregnancies (to the exclusion of late-term infanticide).

What America’s manifestly silly sex does not have the right to do is to rope other, presumably free Americans into supplying them with or paying for their reproductive choices. The rights of self-ownership and freedom of conscience apply to all Americans.

No Republican has ever come close to articulating the ethical elegance of a libertarian argument.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Schooling Beck On Trump’s Nullification Promise

Constitution, Donald Trump, Elections, Glenn Beck, Law, Liberty

“Schooling Beck On Trump’s Nullification Promise” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Former Fox News Channel broadcaster Glenn Beck, now of The Blaze TV, has been warning theatrically of an inchoate catastrophe should the country choose Donald J. Trump “as its next president.”

Trump “will be a monster much, much worse” than Barack Obama, says Beck. …

… “Where are the people who say we stand with the Constitution,” protested Beck. Trump fails to talk about the Constitution in depth, he blathered.

True. Trump is not a TV talker. Moreover, all candidates who talk about the Constitution “in depth” are dishonest. For there is no Constitution left to talk about. That thing died over the course of centuries of legislative, executive and judicial usurpation. That’s why when Iraqis were composing their Constitution (after no. 43 destroyed their country), the late Joe Sobran recommended we give them ours because we don’t use it.

Mention of the Constitution means nothing. It’s on the list of items candidates check when they con constituents. Beck went on to OMG it about Trump saying this: “President Obama’s irresponsible use of executive orders has paved the way for him to also use them freely if he wins the presidential race.”

Amen—provided Trump uses executive power to repeal lots of laws, not make them. We live under an administrative “Secret State.” Very many, maybe most, of the laws under which Americans labor ought to be repealed. The only laws that are naturally inviolable are those upholding life, liberty and property.

Trump, thankfully, has proclaimed: “the one thing good about executive orders: The new president, if he comes in – boom, first day, first hour, first minute, you can rescind that.”

Beck has protested. He apparently accepts the inherent legitimacy of Barack Obama’s executive orders. Beck also seems to believe that the Constitution, or some other higher order, demands that people continue to labor under burdensome government edicts forever after, and that to promise repeal is the act of a progressive.

“Ted Cruz,” countered Beck, who has since endorsed candidate Cruz, “is the guy who says he’s for certain principles and will be tethered and tied to them, exactly like Ronald Reagan was.”

Well, another of Eland’s discomforting observations about Reagan is that he “enhanced executive power through questionable means. Although presidential signing statements, accompanying bills passed by Congress, had been around since George Washington, Reagan began to use these signing statement to contravene or nullify Congress’s will without giving that body a chance to override a formal presidential veto.”

There’s nothing necessarily progressive about overturning laws that have been passed.

There is nothing sacred about every law an overweening national government and its unelected agencies inflict on the people. “At the federal level alone,” the number of laws totaled 160,000 pages,” in 2012. By John Stossel’s estimation, “Government adds 80,000 pages of rules and regulations every year.” According to the Heritage Foundation, “Congress continues to criminalize at an average rate of one new crime for every week of every year.”

America has become a nation of thousands-upon-thousands of arbitrary laws, whose effect is to criminalize naturally licit conduct. …

Read the rest.“Schooling Beck On Trump’s Nullification Promise” is now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Donald Trump Articulates The Impotence Inherent In State Law

Islam, Jihad, Law, Republicans, Terrorism

“So, they [terrorists] can kill us, but we can’t kill them? That’s what you’re saying”!! Donald Trump was incredulous, responding to Rand Paul in denial and defiance, last night, at the Las Vegas, CNN-Facebook Republican presidential debate.

Trump’s reality based observation is correct. Strictly speaking, law guarantees “the aggressor has all the rights because he places himself outside positive—national or international—law. The victim, being a law abider, has no rights, because his only recourse to justice is through the state.”

This impotence I attempted to confront on October 5, 2001, in “Facing the Onslaught of Jihad.” Read it.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Why Does Paul Ryan Conflate Bill Of Rights With Refugee Bill Of Goods?!

Constitution, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Reason, Republicans, UN

Paul Ryan is no Ted Cruz. Ryan’s illogical statements already grate. On Fox News, the other day, Paul Ryan disavowed a religious test in accepting refugees. We believe in religious freedom, he said, hence a preference for Christians over Muslims is “not who we are.” (I dissect the “not who we are” cudgel in tomorrow’s WND column.)

Wait a sec, Mr. Ryan, the so-called right to immigrate here irrespective of religion is not the same thing as the right of religious freedom. From the fact that Americans have a constitutional right to religious freedom, it doesn’t flow that refugees from all faiths must be welcome.

Don’t panic. As it is, the US privileges Muslims: “2,098 Syrian Muslim refugees were allowed into America, but only 53 Christians.”

As reported by Breitbart.com, demographic change in the US is entirely the product of legal admissions–”it is a formal policy of the federal government adopted by Congress.” Thus,

Another major source of Middle Eastern immigration into the United States is done through our nation’s refugee program. Every year the United Stated admits 70,000 asylees and refugees. Arabic is the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

In the same Fox News exchange, it transpired that Ryan loves our refugee laws—they are important legislation, he said on that occasion. But why? Like most positive law, US refugee law is written by and for special interests, starting with one of the most corrupt UN agencies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Besides who approved these refugee laws? Likely fewer than 535 law makers legislating on behalf of 323 million people who have to live with the law’s consequences.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint