Category Archives: Law

UPDATED III (11/15/021): WATCH: Republicans’ Main Focus: Showing Off How Black-Focused They Are (Kyle Rittenhouse, Republicans?)

COVID-19, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Law, Race, Racism, Republicans

2 Replies

“Republicans find it impossible to mention white suffering without dragging in the ‘black experience.'”—ilana

“Republicans’ Main Focus: Showing Off How Black-Focused They Are“

For the longest time, the American People—an inchoate, or formless concept, really—have endured great wrongs. Examples of these wrongs are en masse legal and illegal immigration, open-borders, the kind of multilateral trade deals that immiserate and impoverish, and now, vaccine mandates: take the hemlock or lose your job.

Ubiquitous black-on-white crime inflicted by a coddled criminal class, native born and imported energetically, is high on the list of state and corporate crimes against the citizenry.

Whether he postures on TV or on the Hill—the arguments advanced by the typical Republican front man against these defining depredations are, however, empty.

It is essential to alert the voter to this void. The “objections” put forth by Republicans in defense of their constituency are all theater, farce, to be precise.

These empty arguments are mirrored, for example, in my exposing, in a February 2019 column, the fact that, “Every time a manifestly racist, anti-white event goes down, which is frequently, conservative media and politicians can be relied on to call it ‘identity politics.’ ‘The left is playing identity politics,’ they intone. “They are dividing us,” they lament.

However, “Whatever is convulsing the country,” I explained, “it’s not identity politics, but purely anti-white politics.

So, identify the bogus argument—and you will have exposed the frauds who want you to send them to live off the fleshpots in Rome-on-the-Potomac. (Actually, it has been pointed out perspicaciously to me by Tom Piatak that “the comparison to Rome [is unfair].” And that [A]fter all, Rome built two great civilizations and is a site of enormous cultural significance.”)

Although not exclusive to him, my example today comes from Fox News’s Jesse Watters. When speaking loudly OVER his guest, Jesse Watters made the usual Republican straw argument against black crime. You hear it from Hannity and the rest all the time:

Democrats “only care when a white person takes a black life. If a black person takes a black life, they don’t even care at all.”

Likewise, it can be said that Republican don’t much care when a black person takes a white life.

Seldom mentioned in Republican argumentation is the REAL HATE CRIME IN THE ROOM: black-on-white crime which is invariably not reported, underreported, or if reported, masked as something other than what it really is, which is systemic, white hot hatred of whites.

Republicans can’t protect or stick up for besieged whites and are forever searching their pea brains for ways to show off their Abe Lincoln pedigree.

Having originated the popular meme “Democrats are the real racists” back in 2014, I’ll argue that the line, “Democrats don’t care that blacks are killing blacks,” is a species of the “Democrats are the real racists” fatuity.

In this way, by showing how black-focused and caring they are—Republicans hang on to respectability and on to the good graces of Democrats by the hairs of their chinny chin-chins. The empty ‘arguments’ of Republican frontmen are a way to stay in the political game.

The latest in this genre comes courtesy of Johnny-Come-Lately conservative J. D. Vance, who had shunned Trump, but found religion on the president’s populism, when it became politically expedient:

“I don’t care if we are talking about a little black girl in 1965, or a little white girl in 2021, telling a little girl that she is evil because of her skin color, is disgusting and vile.”

These words Vance spoke at a conference of self-anointed leaders of national conservatism, many of whom discovered national conservatism belatedly and opportunistically.

And my objection to what Vance said is, you ask? It is very plainly this: It is not 1965. And the victims of white-hot hatred are white, not black.

For Republicans, however, it is impossible to mention white suffering without dragging in the “black experience.”

This is a vintage Republican habit: Using weasel words to preen politically and sound fair and impartial.

UPDATE I (11/15/021): There’s my point again: White child Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t cut it as a cause absent the moral padding of the “black experience”:

Republican Dana Loesch thus proves incapable of defending white Kyle on FoxNews, without inserting mention of the “black businesses” that were being burned in Kenosha in BLM riots on that day. The substance of Ms. Loesch’s tweet is what she echoed on Fox News to Jesse Watters, 11/15/021:

Justice for the black business owners whose businesses were burned to the ground by people like white convicted pedophile and racist Joesph Rosenbaum screaming slurs on camera or white domestic abuser Anthony Huber, or white Antifa member Grosskruetz brandishing a handgun?

UPDATE II (11/16/021): Where are Republican politicians for Kyle Rittenhouse? Democrats speak up all the time for the armed militia of the Democratic Party, BLM. Why are yellow-bellied Republicans silent about a folk hero?

UPDATE III:

And what are Republicans doing about surveillance of parents by Merrick Garland? Fox News’ Jesse Watters asked Senator Josh Hawley. “We’ll question Merrick Garland,” Hawley answers. Stop him, don’t question him. There must be ways to stop an officer of the law from laying the legal infrastructure down (creation of “threat tags”) in order to commit constitutional infractions against citizens, using their taxpayer dollars. Ya think?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott MUST Stand His Ground, Uphold Texans’ Natural Rights

Constitution, COVID-19, Democrats, Federalism, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Law, Natural Law, The State

1 Reply

Natural rights antedate the state apparatus. It matters not who restores or upholds authentic negative, individual rights violated—state or federal authority—just so long as someone does.

So, “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order banning vaccine mandates in the state” is the correct thing to have done.

The entire legal community knows only the positive, state law, and cares nothing for the natural law, meagerly embodied in the Bill of Rights. This is why all “legal experts” are quite pleased to defer to the  Supremacy Clause abomination—it allows the State to subordinate  your natural rights as an American to the UN—in dismissing Abbot’s move.

Abbott’s move puts him at odds with some large corporations and with the Biden administration, which last month announced plans to require all employers with 100 or more workers to adopt vaccine mandates or testing regimens. A number of large private companies in Texas have issued mandates. (WaPo)

Said one “expert”:

…the supremacy clause to the Constitution says that federal law is the ‘supreme’ law of the land, and state laws give way to it” …. “The state mandate is of no effect in that case.”

In fact, as noted in the “CRADLE OF CORRUPTION” (2002),

“The Constitution is the thin edge of the wedge that has allowed U.S. governments to cede the rights of Americans to the UN. Specifically, the ‘Supremacy Clause’ in Article VI [even] states that all treaties made by government shall be “the supreme Law of the Land,” and shall usurp state law. Article VI has thus further compounded the loss of individual rights in the U.S.

Unless Abbot stands his ground (metaphorically, because the governor is wheelchair-bound).

Too hell with the Constitution; nobody follows it anyway, least of all the lawless, no-borders, White Lives Don’t Matter, licentious Democrats.

In Praise Of The Whip: To Whip Or To Rein Is Not The Question

Argument, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Morality, Nationhood, Reason, Republicans

3 Replies

©2021 ILANA MERCER

What on earth is wrong with the whip? The reference is, as CNN put it, to “recent images that appear to show US Border Patrol agents on horseback confronting migrants along the Rio Grande.” So far so good.

Videos taken by Al Jazeera and Reuters appear to show law enforcement officers on horseback using aggressive tactics when confronting migrants, who are largely Haitian, to prevent them from crossing into the US.

Wonderful.

“The Biden administration is expressing horror,” promising to proceed aggressively against these poor horseback officers, who work in near-impossible conditions, without institutional support and for meager wages.

How does the Right respond? Is it a whip or is it a rein, they kibitz. Look, if it’s not a whip, it ought to have been one, and if the border patrol agent used a rein as whip—then hooray for him. The End.

That’s the Right’s problem. The anatomy of every single left-manufactured national scandal sees our side always conceding to the legitimacy of the left’s case, and then going on the defensive, instead of attacking.

In short: asinine. stupid. defeatist.

The anatomy of a good response is never, but never, to apologize and equivocate about a principled behavior, in this instance, the right of self- and national defense.

The right response: “What if US Border Patrol agents on horseback were wielding whips? Got a problem with repelling and whipping outlaws, who are charging you, your horse and into your country?”

Vice President Kamala Harris called the images “horrible” and said she supports an investigation into the matter.

Heroic, not horrible. Part of the job of the law is to round up the likes of the Haitian invaders and turn them back. If the law is not doing this—it’s because natural morality has been inverted. Good is bad and bad is good. Right is wrong and wrong is right.

What a moral inversion it is that forces US law enforcement to process and pander to outlaws; instead of arresting and expelling them IN JUST THIS MANNER.

* Image via Tracey Ann Whitehill on LinkedIn

 

UPDATE II (12/21/021): NEW COLUMN: Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech (Part 3)

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Justice, Labor, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Technology, The Courts, THE ELITES

Leave a reply

NEW COLUMN: “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” is now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

This column is Part 3 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication” and Part 2, “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

It is inarguable that by financially crippling and socially segregating, and banishing politically irksome people and enterprises—the Big Tech cartel is flouting the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the Civil Rights Act.

For how do you make a living if your banking options are increasingly curtailed and constantly threatened, and your ability to electronically communicate with clients is likewise circumscribed?

Do you go back to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Do you go underground? Cultivate home-based industries? Do you keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Return to stamping envelopes? How can you, when your client base is purely electronic?

Telling an individual he can’t open a bank account on account of the beliefs and opinions swirling in his head teeters on informing your innocent victim he might not be able to make a living, as do other, politically more polite Americans, and despite his innocence: Our only “offenses” as dissidents are thought crimes, namely, speaking, or typing or wafting into the air unpopular, impolite words.

“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power,” Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, “what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

To paraphrase this Supreme Court jurist: Sure, there are alternatives to The Big Tech, but these make a mockery of the outcast. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s point about comparability, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes. “Have at it sucker.”

By Deep Tech decree, some Americans are worth more than others, based not on their actions, but on the voiced thoughts in their heads. This cannot stand.

The letter of the law needs changing. Do it.

Civil Rights Act

Thus, the preferred remedy to Deep Tech depredations would build upon existing Civil Rights Act jurisprudence.

As a reality-oriented conservative libertarian, I inhabit and theorize in the real world. From the conservative-libertarian’s perspective, Barry Goldwater got it right. Civil Rights law is an ass, for it infringes on property rights. But the onus is on flaccid Republican lawmakers to ensure that that ass can be ridden by all equally (with apologies to adorable, much-abused donkeys for the cruel metaphor).

These are existing laws that are already enforced. I see no reason to reject the application of civil rights solutions to wicked, woke bullies because existing laws that’ll never be repealed go against my core beliefs. What is libertarianism? The art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity? …

… NEW COLUMN, “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” can be read now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

UPDATED (10/26/021) I:

UPDATE II (12/21/021) II: “Berenson v. Twitter“:

Twitter is indisputably a messenger service. A longstanding California law regulates messenger services as “common carriers.” This means that they must accept all messages they receive. Twitter thus must accept all tweets it receives. It has no First Amendment rights to refuse them on the basis that it does not agree with them.
A federal law commonly called Section 230 “preempts” the California law, giving Twitter the right to reject tweets or ban users. (Whether that right is universal or whether Twitter must act in “good faith” in restricting service is a separate question; whether Twitter acted in “good faith” in this case is still another question. But put those issues aside for the moment.)
Section 230 is what enables Twitter to claim a First Amendment privilege that supersedes the California law and restrict my own First Amendment right to speak; thus federal courts have the right to review 230 on First Amendment grounds.

MORE.