Category Archives: Law

Free Speech: When It’s ILLEGAL To Say ‘ILLEGAL Immigrant’

Constitution, Free Speech, Law, Natural Law, Regulation

This is a case of a city’s anti-discrimination ordinance overriding the U.S. Constitution.

Most of us are unaware that the First Amendment to the Constitution has been flagrantly compromised by a city’s anti-discrimination ordinance. In this case, the New York City Human Rights Law.

Last week, New York City’s Commission on Human Rights declared that using the term “illegal alien” pejoratively to describe an undocumented person violates laws designed to protect employees and tenants from discrimination, and could result in fines of up to $250,000.

How long before “merely calling someone an illegal alien on the street, or threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on them, [becomes] illegal”?

The author at Reason seems to have confidence the above won’t occur, writing that, “It’s important to note that this guidance does not affect all kinds of speech: The law covers workplace harassment, tenants’ rights, and public accommodation.”

More moderate fluff from Reason:

The government cannot simply prohibit people from making politically incorrect statements about undocumented people—it must limit the scope of anti-discrimination mandates in order to satisfy the broad free speech guarantees enjoyed by all people.

Just you wait.

A way more principled analysis—as principled as the positive law can be—is Eugene Volokh’s. He has determined that “constitutionally protected speech [does not] lose its protection because of the speaker’s supposedly improper purpose.

Also way better than the milquetoast Reason Magazine is “NYC Seeks to Curb Speech About Illegal Aliens” by Hans Bader.

Thinking of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is just silly. Any vestiges of the natural law in the Constitution have long since been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.

If Cops Won’t Defend themselves, How Likely Are They To Defend YOU?

Crime, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism

CNN had reported that NYPD’s chief of department had scolded its policemen for passively taking abuse from hooligans. But Chief Monahan’s reprimand has been removed. Why!? It’s deserved!!!

The report was made by CNN’s Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon, who both approved of police passivity in the face of the assault.

Incidentally, someone at CNN seems to think the two’s sanctimonious banter time is something to encourage. If nothing else, the CNN exchanges between Cuomo and Lemon must give brainiacs, say at BBCNews, something to giggle about. These two are perhaps the dumbest act on TV.

To get a feel for how deeply stupid these two are, in this clip Don asks Chris in a grave tone, portending doom: “Is this getting to you?” Deep, man.

Neither man realizes that their elevated status is NOT due to their brain power.

In any case, both dummies rejoiced today that, in response to an assault on them, New York City’s finest did nothing; the cops just stood there happy to be bitch slapped.

If cops won’t defend themselves, how likely are they to defend YOU?

This is more like it:

A police supervisor who saw the videos lauded the Harlem officers for ignoring the jeers, but said the other cops should have been disciplined “for taking the abuse and doing nothing about it.”

An NYPD detective added that the department has become too soft in its effort to win back the trust and respect of various neighborhoods.

“These cops should have done something but they walked off like nothing happened,” the supervisor said. “I’m seeing red right now.”

UPDATED (7/22/019): NEW COLUMN: Do We Still Have A Country? Part I

English, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Law, Nationhood, Natural Law, Private Property, Racism

NEW COLUMN, on Townhall.com, is “Do We Still Have A Country? Part I.” It’s accompanied by an abridged YouTube clip.

An excerpt:

How do you know you don’t have a country?

Simply this:

Every single passive, non-aggressive act you take to repel people crossing your borders is considered de facto illegal, or inhumane, or in violation of international law, or in contraventions of some hidden clause in the U.S. Constitution.

So say the experts and their newly minted jurisprudence.

You may tell a toddler, “You can’t go there.” But you may not tell an illegal trespasser, “Hey, turn back. You can’t come into the U.S. at whim.”

Please understand that not giving someone something they demand or desire is a negative act. Or, more accurately, an inaction.

You are not actively doing anything to harm that person by denying them something.

Unless, of course, what you are denying them is their right to their life, their right to their liberty, their right to their property. Those are the only things you may not deny to innocent others. These interlopers do not have a right to, or a lien on, your liberty and property.

But if you cannot say to millions of people streaming across your border, into your turf, “Hey, you can’t go there.” Then it’s simple:

We don’t have a country.

Oh sure, we have a territory. America is a market place for goods and services. A mighty one at that. It’s a market place to which millions arrive each year to make a living and engage in acts of acquisitiveness. ….

… READ THE REST. “Do We Still Have A Country? Part I” is on Townhall.com.

UPDATE (7/22/019): pointing out that language and civics knowledge are not required to pass the US citizenship test: that amounts to bashing. Are you sure it’s not also racist?

Trump, on the other hand:

Tower Of Babel:

Once upon a time:

Alexander Acosta Did Not Need To Fall On His Sword

Constitution, Justice, Law, Sex, The West

The lynch mob against Alex Acosta, Trump’s former labor secretary, is just that: a lynch mob. Jeffrey Epstein is the slimy sleazebag here, not Mr. Acosta.

I don’t usually agree with broadcaster Michael Medved, who leans heavily left. However, today, Mr. Medved did a bang-up job defending the rules of evidence. Or, what Joe Biden once denounced as Western jurisprudence.

The girls involved with Epstein did not wish to testify. And who can blame them?

And while “[t]he evidence in the original case appears overwhelming—in an interview with the Miami Herald the lead detective recounted phone records, flight logs and instructions for delivering flowers to one of Mr Epstein’s young fixations, alongside her high-school report card”—Epstein’s “original defense team included Alan Dershowitz and Kenn Starr, two lawyers skilled in defending the indefensible.” (The Economist.)

Epstein hired the best lawyers who were unmatched by the prosecution and the limits of the law.

“… his star-studded lawyers,” reports the Daily Beast, “threatened to go to trial in a case prosecutors feared was unwinnable, in part because Epstein’s team dredged up dirt on the victims, including social media posts indicating drug use.”

Dershowitz (who has defended President Trump with his usual legal élan), “told The Daily Beast that his accuser, Virginia Roberts, “has committed perjury and will continue to commit perjury in federal court.”

“I am asking the FBI to come to this trial because perjury will be committed in front of a federal judge and in a federal courtroom,” Dershowitz added. “And I will prove it is she who is committing perjury.”

Even the Economist concedes that it was not at all “obvious that the top federal prosecutor who negotiated the deal, Alexander Acosta, had better options available.”

“… [T]he difficulties of securing convictions in cases of rape or sexual abuse are well known.”

Alex Acosta, whose address to the public I found credible, had to ultimately defer to police and prosecutors in Palm Beach, Florida.