Category Archives: politics

Citizen’s Arrests

Posted on by
2

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) has no understanding of duty or of law.  It seems that an armed group of citizen militia caught 200 illegal aliens in the act of illegally entering our nation near Sunland Park, NM, and they detained those illegal aliens until US Border Patrol agents—which those citizens called—could arrive and take charge.

In her response to this, Grisham said,

It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone[.]

On the contrary, it should go without saying that regular citizens have both the authority and the duty to arrest and detain until the arrival of formally constituted authority—police or Border Patrol agents, for instance—persons committing crimes in the presence of those citizens.  It also should go without saying that that authority and that duty derive from the plain duties of citizenship.

It’s both instructive and illustrative that this Progressive-Democrat does not understand the obligations of citizenship.

An Outcome of Open Borders

Posted on by
Reply

Two members of MS-13, having been deported, have been arrested trying to illegally reenter our nation.  These thugs were traveling separately and were caught in widely separated locations.

The fact that they were caught might be an argument that we don’t need walls at key areas of our border.  However, such an argument elides the fact that many others get through without being caught because we don’t have those walls, which would both seal off the particular areas and would funnel penetration attempts to other areas more limited and more easily patrolled.

The continued flow of these thugs and of drugs is an outcome—intended or not—of the open border policy of the Progressive-Democrats.  Progressive-Democrats just don’t see thugs and drugs as much of a problem.

Progressive-Democrats do insist that they want secure borders, and that this can be achieved by technology.  However, they carefully do not say how technology will stop anything, since all technology is capable of doing on its own is watching—a necessary component of security, but very far, indeed, from sufficient.

These same Progressive-Democrats know that full well, which contradicts their pretense of not wanting open borders.

The Attorney General and Immigration Judges

Posted on by
Reply

John Yoo, who was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, has reminded us of the authority of the AG vis-à-vis immigration judges.

He [the AG] has the power to overrule immigration judges. Immigration judges have been making mistakes….

Aside from the immigration judges’ error rate, it’s really quite clear that the AG can overrule them. Not only are immigration judges not Article III judges, they’re employees of the Department of Justice—they work for the AG. Beyond that, they’re not even judges; they’re Special Inquiry Officers.

Fair Share of Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) says the rich should pay more taxes than they do already and that if only they paid “their fair share” Party’s socialist dream programs could all be paid for.  He repeated that demand on last Monday’s Town Hall with Fox News.

On the other hand.

According to data released recently by the Internal Revenue Service, compiled by the Tax Foundation, the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid about $43.9 billion in income taxes 2016—which accounts for roughly 3% of all income taxes paid.

The top 1%—Bernie’s second favorite target, at that Town Hall and everywhere else he speaks—pay

37.3% of all income taxes paid during the same year

That works out to $545.8 billion.

Those are dollars.  Here are the tax rates actually paid by those two groups.

the top 1% paid at a 26.9% individual income tax rate
the bottom 50% paid at a 3.7% rate

The rap on President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s tax reform is that it gave the bulk of the tax cut to those Evil 1%.

Well, duh.  The reform’s tax cut here was an across the board reduction in rate and a consolidation of brackets, so that all taxpayers got essentially the same reduction in rates—with many middle-class taxpayers getting pushed into a lower bracket for an even greater reduction in rate.  However, those 1%-ers remain in the highest tax bracket, they still pay the most, by far, dollar amount—and so of course they saw the largest dollar reduction.

Beyond that, the personal income tax rate reduction is only temporary, and if the rates and brackets revert to their previous levels, it’ll be the middle-class that’s hardest hit.  Nevertheless, Progressive-Democrats in Congress refuse to allow the personal tax reductions to become permanent so they can have a talking point about their own second favorite target for the 2020 elections.

From that, it’s only natural that Sanders and his Progressive-Democrat cronies constantly avoid (refuse?) saying how much is “fair share,” just that it’s more, more, more, gimme, gimme.

Progressive-Democrats are the modern epitome of an 19th century railroad magnate:

Anything that ain’t nailed down is mine, and if I can pry it loose, it ain’t nailed down.

Mores and the Patent and Trademark Office

Posted on by
1

The Supreme Court has taken up the case of Iancu v Brunetti and heard oral arguments Monday.  Erik Brunetti wanted a copyright on the label for a clothing line of his that he’d named FUCT, an acronym for Friends U Can’t Trust.  Iancu is Andrei Iancu, who is duel-hatted as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Wearing that second hat, Iancu and his fellow USPTO bureaucrats said they were scandalized and morally offended, and they denied Brunetti’s copyright application.  The Wall Street Journal, at the link, said

On [last] Monday the Justices will consider whether to broaden First Amendment protection to trademarks that offend moral sensibilities.

More correctly, though, whether the Justices recognize this or not, they’ll be considering whether to protect trademarks that offend the particular sensibilities of a few Government bureaucrats.

What constitutes scandalous is inherently subjective and depends on cultural mores….

This, on the other hand, is overbroad. Again, what constitutes scandalous behavior (what is scandalism?) in Government permitting doesn’t depend on cultural mores so much as it depends on the mores of a few Government bureaucrats and on how those bureaucrats choose to interpret what they personally view as the nation’s cultural mores.

It’ll be instructive if Brunetti doesn’t get a unanimous favorable ruling.