Category Archives: Law

Aztec Princess Ana Navarro Has No Christian Mercy For Roger Stone, Only Irrational Vengeance

Classical Liberalism, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Individual Rights, Justice, Law, Morality

A man can be robbed of his liberty for life for lying to professional liars: to politicians. Politicians, in turn, may lie—and do lie—to citizens whenever they open their gobs, but are not legally liable for their lies. This is what occurs in a system in which those in power set the rules for themselves.

But the blood-thirsty Ana Navarro, every bit the Aztec princess, doesn’t care about mercy and justice. She brings to the United States an all-consuming, utterly un-Christian and un-American, lust for the blood of her political opponents, and proportional punishment, namely justice, be dammed.

How Second World. Ms. Navarro-Cárdenas is from Nicaragua. She is a Republican.

Via Mediate:

The CNN commentator … told the network she was rejoicing in Donald Trump confidante Roger Stone’s conviction, saying she hopes Stone “rots in jail and then in hell.”

“I have to tell you, the Sacred Heart nuns told me not to rejoice over another person’s grief and distress, but I can’t be happier that this guy got convicted on all seven counts,” The View co-host told CNN Newsroom anchor Fredricka Whitfield Sunday afternoon.

“Why’s that?” Whitfield asked.

“Because he has been incredibly misogynistic,” Navarro responded. “He’s been racist, he’s been a jerk. He’s attacked people like me, he’s attacked Donna Brazile, he’s attacked Don Lemon, he’s attacked Roland Martin, he’s attacked so many friends of mine in the vilest of forms and guess what … we are all people of color. He is a racist and misogynist… and frankly I hope he rots in jail and then in hell.”

In the First World we are not supposed to imprison a man for life for being a “jerk,” a “racist,” and having neem mean to Ana.

What a bad, bad person is Ana Navarro-Cárdenas

Comments Off on Aztec Princess Ana Navarro Has No Christian Mercy For Roger Stone, Only Irrational Vengeance

Written by on

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 And Progressivisim

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: