Category Archives: Law

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

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

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, 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

UPDATED: On Refugee Reparations & Paul Ryan’s Weasel Words

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Critique, Democracy, Hillary Clinton, Law, libertarianism

Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Obama started the wars that eventually caused entire Middle-Eastern populations to be on the move. Personally, I think these American politicians and their respective cabals (Samantha Power and the Rices, Condi and Susan) should pay reparations, out of their personal fortunes, to Iraqi, Syrian and Afghani refugees. No qualifying test required.

Libertarian justice aside, Laura Ingraham has been ahead of Ann Coulter in evolving away from establishment Republicans and their weasel words, as was noted in this space, in July of 2014. Now Ingraham is doing her listeners a service by alerting them to how “Paul Ryan is using the language of the Left to advocate a new Republican way forward”:

“By opposing a ‘religious test’ for refugees, the new House Speaker Paul Ryan is ‘using the language of the left,’ ‘the language of Obama.'”

“Nobody is talking about a religious test,” counters Ingraham, “we are talking about a test of leadership, for the American people to finally see their leaders—Obama and the Republicans—standing up for the American people.”

Not quite. A religious test is inherent in refugee legislation, as religious persecution is grounds for a request for asylum. However, and by the sound of it, Americans are sick and tired of laws passed in contravention of their rights and interests.

More materially, there is nothing in the thousands of bills dreamed up by representatives, annually, that remotely approximates the will of a self-governing people and their exclusive interests. I mean, poor, working-class whites are dying in inordinate numbers in the US. Who do these local refugees turn to for redress? The left-liberal establishment (GOP included), which finds the exotic more sympathetic?

UPDATE: As Christians die across the Muslim world, America’s leaders feel the urgency of importing more Muslims:

Jeff Sessions (R-AL), “chairmen of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations and Immigration and the National Interest subcommittees respectively, issued the following statement, 11/17. It’s a little soft, but better than most:

… Under our nation’s current policy, the President simply brings in as many refugees as he wants. Refugees are entitled to access all major welfare programs, and they can also draw benefits directly from the Medicare and Social Security disability and retirement trust funds – taking those funds straight from the pockets of American retirees who paid into these troubled funds all of their lives.

Our immigration and refugee policies must serve the interests of our nation and protect the security of the American people. After admitting 1.5 million migrants from Muslim countries on lifetime visas since 9/11, it is time to assist in relocating Muslim migrants within their home region rather than relocating large numbers to the United States. It simply cannot be our policy to encourage a mass migration of entire populations from their homelands, a strategy that will only further destabilize the region and bring threats of terrorism deep inside our shores.” …

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Where Are The Celebrities To Protest Idaho Rancher’s Death By Cop?

Celebrity, Justice, Law, Military, Morality, Racism, The State

Nobody will march for the right to life of 62-year-old Idaho rancher Jack Yantis. Certainly not Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino.

Cop brutality is an endemic problem, but so is the immoral, meddlesome and mindless nature of celebrity in America. Do you suppose Tarantino, marching with Black Lives Matter or some proxy thereof, would protest the murder by cop, Sunday Nov. 1, of Mr. Yantis?

The Idaho rancher was shot dead by cops when he appeared on the scene of a car crash adjacent to his farm, involving one of his bulls. The cops were about to put the animal down. You know that the obedient (white) rural community of Adams County, Idaho, will accept the loss of one of theirs and move on.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Prima Donna Paul Ryan Gets His Work-Life Balance & Much More

Business, Constitution, Government, Law, Neoconservatism, Politics

According to historian Clement Wood it is an unwritten law followed “scrupulously,” “although omitted from the Constitution,” that the Speaker of the House of Representatives possesses “the czar-like power” “to recognize only such members as he pleases, and thereby strongly to influence legislation.”

After playing hard to get, pampered prima donna Paul Ryan has agreed to be the czar-like Speaker of the House. (Were you to ask neoconservative kingpins like William Kristol and John McCain who they’d tap for that position, any position, the Ryan/Rubio duo would be the choice. Bear that in mind.)

Ryan haggled until his “conditions” were met. These were for him “to emerge as House Republicans’ unity candidate, endorsed by the three major factions of House Republicans”—the Freedom Caucus, especially—and to “have enough flexibility to spend time with his wife and kids in Wisconsin.” (TIME)

Ryan’s feminist worthy demand for work-life balance—it got the girls on CNN hot, especially Andy Cooper—really irks. Try telling a major high-tech company that you want to enjoy work/life balance, and they’ll tell you in deeds more than in words that you can have your balance, but expect to remain at the same grade till you retire (or are nudged into retirement on account of “laziness”), and don’t expect good performance reviews or raises.

The pampered parasitical political class goes on about Donald Trump tweeting late into the AM. Successful tycoons are accustomed to staying up till the wee hours.

In any event, poor baby got his wish.

Here is Ann Coulter on other unappealing aspects of Speaker-to-be Paul Ryan.

UPDATE (10/24): “Fox’s Charles Payne Calls Work-Life Balance ‘A Bunch Of Crock’ And Calls For Children To Work More.”

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Perp Walk U.S. Central Command Leadership

Foreign Policy, Government, Law, Middle East, Military

Imagine a large private company that invests half a billion dollars in a training program for a large workforce only to find that the program has failed, and that only 4-5 of those that underwent the training are kind of prepared to do the job they were trained to do. Imagine, further, that the company’s CEO decides not to scrap the program and fire those that dreamt it up—but, rather, to retain the program and merely shift its focus.

The creditors or the shareholders would have a field day in the courts (is it a derivative action that shareholders bring to “redress harm to the corporation caused by management?”) There might even be a perp walk or two.

Via RT:

The US State Department did not have a straight answer for RT’s correspondent when asked about why the program to train and equip ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels had failed, or why it believes the new version that is said to solely equip the rebels would work.

The State Department said the US has dropped the training program and decided to focus on just the equipping part of the plan.

“There is a pause being put in place, while we focus more on the equipping side of those groups that are in Syria now and have proven competent against ISIL [Islamic State, ISIS/ISIL],” State Department spokesperson John Kirby told RT’s Gayane Chichakyan at a Friday briefing. …


These sort of scandals are an every day occurrence. And nothing is done. No one pays. China is known to execute officials for lesser embezzlement.

The US government and military, in this case I think Central Command is responsible, is terribly corrupt. It never has to account for ongoing embezzlement and it makes no pretense about having a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: It takes A Special Kind Of Stupid To Lose Moral High-Ground To Planned Parenthood

Conservatism, Federalism, Law, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Morality, Republicans, Uncategorized

Progressives are evil, immoral; as clueless as the pope in their arrogant ignorance of the American political system and the role of government in the American federal scheme.

But one has to be a special kind of stupid to lose the moral high ground to the 500,000 dollars-a-year babe (Cecile Richards) and her congressional harpies, who plump for public funding for Planned Parenthood.

THAT Republicans certainly are. (I say this as a libertarian who doesn’t see how, in a free world, one can agitate for the arrest of a woman for what she does with her property: her body and all that’s in it. I do, however, see a clear and logical way to argue the outlaw of late-term abortion. The reasoning I’ll share in a new book.)

Progressives are gloating: “The GOP still has nothing to show for its anti-Planned Parenthood campaign.”

UPDATE: What I mean by outlawing” late-term abortion is arguing convincingly—well, almost convincingly, since it’s pretty hard—against the practice of late-term abortion based on libertarian reasoning. Libertarian law turns on private property rights and the non-aggression axiom. You cannot initiate aggression against a non-aggressor. To aggress against a woman for what she does to her body, however much you abhor the practice, flies in the face of libertarianism.

So the challenge is arguing for that aggression in the case of a late-term child. It’s almost impossible logically, but I think it can be done. Stay tuned. In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing from religious libertarians how they’d argue for outlawing abortion. Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Not sure it works in libertarian law. But please share. Don’t bother specifying that abortion should not be funded by the state. We all agree. In fact, this is the central silliness of the Repubs; they can’t explain to silly bimbos that to defund abortion is not to ban abortion.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint