Category Archives: Law

UPDATED (3/14): Tucker Suggests That POTUS Has Not YET Delivered On Equality And Freedom For Deplorables

Conservatism, Donald Trump, Elections, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Justice, Law, Republicans, Technology

Will his Republican viewers punish Tucker Carlson for his brutal, journalistic honesty, rather unusual on Fox News?

The remarkable Tucker suggested that POTUS has done precious little to stop the intimidation, firing, hounding, de-platforming, doxing, and marginalizing of those who do not follow the herd.

(I was shadow-banned by Twitter. I think I still am, as my hashtags go nowhere, mostly. Nobody stood up for me …)

Tucker Carlson asked Trump voters Wednesday to assess whether or not they feel more confident to express their beliefs since the president was elected.

Carlson said that whether or not President Trump is able to build a wall or effect infrastructure legislation, how the president handles the attempted suppression of free speech may be more important.

He said that conventionally conservative beliefs in the years leading up to Trump’s election are now described as “terrorism,” while actual terror by the left seems to go unnoticed.

Among other examples, he noted a former community college professor who in 2017 allegedly hit Trump supporters with a bike lock during a “free the speech” rally.

Charges were dropped against the professor, Eric Clanton, although he was initially charged with a felony.

Carlson then asked viewers to imagine how former President Barack Obama would have responded if similar incidents happened to his voters while he was in office.

Hume: Press ‘Fact Checking’ in Trump Era Becoming a ‘Matter of Opinion’

Spicer Blasts Dems: If We Called Wall the ‘Schumer Border Security Bill’ They’d Pass It

“You think Obama would have done something about that? Hell yes. … You would never get away with threatening an Obama voter for supporting Obama,” he said.

He said that society is becoming “less free,” something the current administration should fight back against.

“Fighting for speech is always the right fight,” Carlson stated.

Ahead of the 2020 election, Carlson added that Trump can exercise his executive powers to defend the Bill of Rights.

He said that if Trump can credibly say in two years that he fought to make sure all Americans are treated equally under the law, he’ll be remembered as a “genuinely great president.”

SEE: “Tucker: Trump Will Be Remembered as ‘Genuinely Great’ If He Fights for Free Speech.”

On the Unz Review, Fred Reed, long since ousted from establishment conservatism, independently (and less diplomatically) seconds Tucker’s thinking:

Curiously, despite the seething antipathy, Trump hasn’t done much that would not have been expected from any Republican. He engineered large tax breaks for the rich, reversed environmental regulations to benefit corporations, and growled about immigration while doing little. He is firmly in Israeli pockets, as any Republican would be. He appointed Bret Kavanaugh, a mildly conservative judge, to the Mini-Legislature of the Nine Cadavers. Whoopee do.

UPDATE (3/14/019): On being “shadow-banned, follower-throttled, and sensitive content-blocked because the Twitter police don’t want your tweets seen.” (Check)

Check. https://t.co/SUUzvRDjNn

— ILANA Mercer (@IlanaMercer) March 14, 2019

NEW COLUMN: Wage Walls, Not Wars

Abortion, Addiction, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Law, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The West, War, War on Drugs

NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” This “Big League Politics” Interview about paleolibertarianism is now on WND and the Unz Review.

Excerpt:

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, how would you define paleolibertarianism and how does it differ from standard paleoconservatism?

ILANA MERCER: First, let’s define libertarianism. libertarianism is concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.

All libertarians must respect the non-aggression axiom. It means that libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,” as neoconservatives like to cast America’s recreational wars of choice. If someone claims to be a libertarian and also supports the proxy bombing of Yemen, or supported the war in Iraq; he is not a libertarian, plain and simple.

As to paleolibertarianism, in particular, and this is my take, so some will disagree. It’s how I’ve applied certain principles week-in, week-out, for almost two decades. In my definition, a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the just-mentioned libertarian non-aggression principle, by which all decent people should live, will crumble. It won’t endure.

Ironically, paleoconservatives have no issue grasping the cultural and civilizational dimensions of ordered liberty—namely that the libertarian non-aggression principle is peculiar to the West and won’t survive once western civilization is no more. Which is why, for paleoconservatives, immigration restrictionism is a no-brainer.

By the way, the statement is not meant to be culturally chauvinistic. There are indigenous tribal people (say, in Brazil) who’re peaceful and pastoral. I mourn their culture’s near-extinction, as well. Where such extinction has been brought about by the West’s chauvinism—it must be condemned.

In any event, paleoconservatives would typically grasp that libertarian principles would not endure in certain cultures. Libertarians, on the other hand, have had a hard time linking civilizational issues with the libertarian axiom of non-aggression. What do I mean? Libertarians will chant, “Free markets, free minds, the free movement of people.” Let’s have ‘em all.

They don’t always explain how these principles are to endure once Western societies are overrun by individuals from cultures which don’t uphold these principles. (From the fact that our own societies are turning out liberty hating individuals—it doesn’t follow we should import more.)

On the other hand, paleoconservatives are far less focused on the state as an evil actor and often appear more concerned with culture wars: gay marriage, cannabis, pornography, abortion. The paleolibertarian rejects any attempts by the state to legislate around the issues of:

Abortion: Completely defund it is our position.

Gay marriage: Solemnize your marriage in private churches, please.

Drugs: Legalize them and stop the hemispheric Drug War.

Wage walls, not wars.

As a creedal paleolibertarian, I see the road to freedom, primarily, in beating back The State, so that individuals can regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

Foreign policy—specifically, no meddling in the affairs of other countries!—is the be all and end all of both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. Don’t let any of the radio or TV personalities fool you. If he or she liked, justified or rationalized Bush’s Middle-Eastern wars or Trump’s dabbling in Niger—he or she is no paleolibertarian. (Tucker Carlson is a fabulous paleoconservative.)

Both variants are for small government and big society. Again, more so than the paleoconservative, the paleolibertarian is radical in his anti-state position, sometimes even advocating a stateless society.

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: In what ways does your political thought differ from CATO institute libertarianism? …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” The interview is now on WND and the Unz Review. It was conducted by correspondent Seth Segal for Big League Politics. A version was published on Nov. 23, 2018.

NEW COLUMN: Liberals Want America To Go Borderless

Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

NEW COLUMN is “Liberals Want America To Go Borderless.” It’s currently on Townhall.com, WND.Com and the Unz Review.

An excerpt:

That’s the law. Nothing can be done about it.

And that’s the liberal reaction to any rational action to stop the stampede of uneducated, unruly, fractious, antagonistic masses toward and over the U.S. southern border. Liberals call law-enforcement unlawful. Or, they shoehorn the act of holding the line into the unlawful category.

Prevent uninvited masses from entering the country: Unlawful.

Tear gas marauding migrants for stoning Border Patrol personnel: Illegal, immoral, possibly even criminal.

Illegal. Unconstitutional. Immoral. Un-American. These are some of the refrains deployed by wily pitchmen, Democrats and some Republicans, to stigmatize and end any action to stop, disincentivize and summarily deport caravans of grifters, bound for the U.S. in their thousands.

Our avatars of morality and legality seldom cite legal chapter-and-verse in support of their case for an immigration free-for-all.

To go by the law, as professed by the liberal cognoscenti, claims-makers must be allowed to make their claims.

Could the cuddly treatment mandated be predicated on the Christine Blasey Ford standard? Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser claimed she had A Story to tell. So, the country had to hear her tell it. A compelling standard.

That’s what happens when feelings and fancy replace reason and facts.

No wonder the noise-makers are drowning-out the authentic claims-makers in society. Against the sainted noise-makers on the border all laws appear to be null and void or tantamount to torture

The Left is creating reality on the ground, all right. But the prime real estate liberals hope to colonize is in every American’s head.

Ruffians are breaching the U.S. border near Tijuana, demanding access to the American Welfare State. That’s the reality! Helped by the American left’s monopoly over the intellectual means of production—the average American is being encouraged to look at this aberrant apparition and “think”:

“Awesome. This is who we are. American laws are amazing for inviting this.”

Illegal, immoral, un-America: These are all pejoratives reserved not for the grifters making claims against Americans; but for the Americans resisting their claims.

To listen to the liberal propagandist class is to come away believing that breaking into America is legal so long as you call yourself a refugee or an asylee and are “seeking a better life.” Moreover, provided an asylee, refugee or saint in disguise appears at a port of entry (San Ysidro, in our case), then he must be admitted into America.

So, is The Law an ass or are those lying about the law the real asses?

A bit of both. …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN is “Liberals Want America To Go Borderless.” It’s currently on Townhall.com, WND.Com and the Unz Review.

Posse Comitatus? You’re Being Told That America Doesn’t Have Borders, So No Law Can Defend Her

Federalism, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Military, Neoconservatism, Secession, States' Rights

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act: It’s the excuse parroted by almost everybody, Republicans included, for lack of vigorous military action against invaders on the border.

It took Ann Coulter to point out the obvious: “You can’t shoot … AMERICANS. You can shoot invaders.”

What on earth is The US Army for?

In effect, what you’re being told is, there is no law that’ll defend American borders.’

Or, America doesn’t have borders. Therefore, there is no law that can defend a de facto and de jure borderless country. And certainly some laws even prohibit a defense of America’s borders.

In truth, and according to the Congressional Research Service, as relayed by the Military Times, the Act means that “the U.S. military is not used to control or defeat American citizens on U.S. soil.”

The hordes amassed on the border with Mexico, rushing the port of entry in San Ysidro, Calif., are not Americans. They are not even very nice.

Posse Comitatus sets “limitation against active-duty U.S. forces conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil,” but watch how quickly military force will be used “to suppress insurrection or to enforce federal authority.”

Feeling free?