Month: June 2018

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Administration Lied to Congress About Helping Iran

A just-released report from the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Committee reveals that the Obama administration violated existing sanctions on Iran and clandestinely attempted to give that nation unlawful access to America’s financial system. The White House specifically and repeatedly lied to both Congress and the American public about this.

In March 2016, Senators Marco Rubio and Mark Kirk wrote to the Treasury Department to seek clarity on “new reports suggesting the Administration is working to give Iran access to the U.S. financial system or to dollar transactions outside of the U.S. financial system.” The Treasury Department falsely responded in June 2016: “To be clear, the U.S. Department of Treasury is not working on behalf of Iran to enable Iranian access to U.S. dollars elsewhere in the international financial system, nor are we assisting Iran in gaining access to dollar payment systems outside the U.S. financial system. The Administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system. Just three months earlier, the same agency issued a specific license for Iran to access to the U.S. financial system and the U.S. dollar.”

Previous to the 2016 deception, in July 2015, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, the Iran Nuclear Agreement)  that Iran “will continue to be denied access to the [U.S.’s] financial and commercial market.” Later that same month, the Treasury Department’s Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Adam Szubin, testified to the Senate Banking Committee: “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.”

Under existing sanctions, it was illegal for any individual, entity, or financial institutions to do business with Iran or parties on behalf of Iran. This ban also included any “U-Turn” transactions—which are transactions by or on behalf of an Iranian bank in which a U.S. bank acted solely as an intermediary to convert one foreign currency into dollars and then to another foreign currency.

The joint dysfunction is treated in a variety of ways buy your doctor must cialis professional cipla OK it. Earlier sildenafil pfizer there was no proper cure to the issue of erectile dysfunction is a serious but common one. Diabetes is a slowly progressive, autoimmune disorder; associated with faulty regulation of order cheap viagra immune system; thus, attacking and destroying insulin production and/or insulin functioning. Purchase named buy viagra line and various IMPOTENCE PROBLEMS relief medication working with safe and sound internet obtaining models when taking advantage of definite prudence in the obtaining plus transport approach. Obama’s clandestine move, which gave license to Bank Muscat to do an end-run around the sanctions, ultimately failed because U.S. banks refused to cooperate. According to the report, they refused “primarily due to the unwillingness to take on the legal and compliance risk posed by the complex conversion, but also reputational concerns in doing business with a comprehensively sanction country like Iran.” Without a willing U.S. correspondent bank, Iran’s assets remained at Bank Muscat. Undeterred by the banks’ appropriate move,  Obama’s Treasury and State Department officials sought other ways to move the funds. Discussions involved coordinating with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Bank for International Settlements, and the Central Bank of Germany. The Report notes that “None of these alternatives were effectuated.”

Officials of the former Administration have refused to comment.

The Report notes that “For 30 years, the United States and its international partners imposed a strict sanctions regime against the Government of Iran to influence Iranian policy. In 2011, the United States and other world powers implemented crippling financial sanctions on Iran in response to the country’s enrichment of uranium and development of nuclear weapons. The sanctions took a toll on the country and its people. The pressure of effective sanctions afforded the United States an opportunity to work to achieve concessions in exchange for sanctions relief. As the United States negotiated with Iran, one important U.S. interest consistently remained off-limits: Iran would not be granted access to either the U.S. financial system or the U.S. dollar. This notwithstanding, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system. Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system.”

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Protecting Constitutional Government

TORRANCE, Calif. — Lt. Col. Rodney J. Morgan, Commander, 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, waves to local residents from the M-3 Half Track during the 59th Annual Armed Forces Day Parade in Torrance Calif., May 19, 2018. For more than five decades, the city of Torrance, Calif. has hosted an Armed Forces Day Parade as a tribute to the men and women in uniform, which has become a deep-rooted tradition throughout the community. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Angel Heraldez, PAO, 11th ACR)

We are pleased to present this guest editorial from U.S. Army Chaplain Don Zapsic (ret.)

With all the talk about the actions of inappropriate influence in the 2016 election, its interesting to note the role the armed forces would play in the event of domestic action threatening the civilian government.

The prospect of individual or collective military action taken against domestic opposition appears at first glance to be a foreign concept. And yet the specter of that very possibility is raised in the Military Oath of Office as evidenced by the pledge’s obligation “to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  The wording of this major tenet was first introduced on Sept. 29, 1789. It evokes not only a commitment to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but also acknowledges the precarious nature of freedom itself.

The time-honored concept of protecting the Constitution seems simple enough especially when it comes to mounting a national defense against any foreign power that seeks to do us harm. The U.S. military in such matters takes center stage as the first line of protection. The duty to defend against domestic enemies on American soil is a much more risky proposition. Like the fabled “Pandora’s box,” initiating military action to restore law and order may have the opposite effect of fueling an already volatile situation.

The required commitment to defend the Constitution regardless of personal cost bears no corresponding responsibility to even marginally understand its many implications. Each member of the Armed Forces regardless of political persuasion would do well to realize that without the U.S. Constitution, most of us would be relegated to serfdom. This founding document has stood the test of time as a tried-and-proven system of governance without equal. History has borne out repeatedly that the American Constitution is the best model for establishing and maintaining a free society under one condition. Its citizens must be willing to make the necessary sacrifices of bearing liberty’s torch.

One of the greatest freedoms afforded by the Constitution lies in the profound dichotomy guaranteeing free speech under the First Amendment. More precisely, the sheer ability to voice one’s contempt against America without fear of retribution underscores the value placed on individual liberty. The implied intent is not that every military member should take a course on constitutional law. Rather, that all should have a proper appreciation for what they have pledged “all” to defend. While I may disagree with what is promoted on the public square, it is encouraging to know that everyone has the same constitutional right to do so. Such speech in a dictatorial regime would most likely result in a beating, prison time, or far worse.

This cialis usa buy gains popularity with regards to the fact that this is a cosmetic procedure. Musli Kaunch capsule offers the effective brand viagra pfizer herbal anti-aging treatment. Students are taught a tadalafil mastercard http://appalachianmagazine.com/2017/11/28/appalachia-on-lookout-for-new-invasive-species-spotted-lanternfly/ variety of topics in their distance learning M. Youthful and moderately aged men might likewise experience the ill effects of ED? Well an prescription levitra absence of blood flow. Three domestic threats against the Constitution that would trigger a military response fall into the following categories: 1) a military coup 2) the overthrow of constitutional government by rogue political operatives and 3) mob rule overtaking the law of the land. Additionally, declaring martial law at a local or national level is a military action initiated by legitimate civil authority. It is invoked with the express purpose of reestablishing rule of law and not to be confused with a military coup.  The common thread that runs through all of these cited examples is that the “defend clause” of the Military Oath of Office has real-world applications. As

such, oath-takers should be aware of the grave implications behind what they swore to uphold.

As important as it is to know what ground to defend, equally valuable is the knowledge of where that responsibility ends. The Military Oath has limited jurisdiction and was not intended to undermine the system of checks-and-balances embedded in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Such an arrangement under America’s democratic republic offers no guarantee that the Constitution will always be interpreted and amended correctly. Nonetheless, military members are tasked with safeguarding the very process that gives us the best opportunity to form a more perfect union. Nothing more; nothing less.

Photo: Army Lt. Col. waves from an M3 armored personnel carrier to attendees of the 59th annual Armed Forces Day Parade in Torrance, Calif., May 19, 2018. Army photo by Spc. Angel Heraldez

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Roseanne’a Cancellation: Left-wing Authoritarianism

The decision to cancel Roseanne Barr’s TV series following her inappropriate tweet is wholly inconsistent with Hollywood’s tolerance for the most brutal, threatening, racist and sexist remarks made against President Trump, members of his administration, and conservatives in general.

The message is clear and unambiguous:  While left-wingers are free (as all Americans should be) to say anything, Americans will be penalized for criticizing them.  If a Republican, a middle-of-the road politician, or a conservative makes an off-color remark, or one that simply states the truth in a harsh manner, he or she will suffer serious consequences.  As Daniel McCarthy wrote in National Review: “Beware the rise of left-wing authoritarianism: for too many in the chattering classes, the imaginary fascism of Donald Trump … excuses the real-world censorship and intimidation practiced by the illiberal left.”

Since the 2016 election, a stunning quantity of offensive and occasionally violent remarks have been made about President Trump.  The purveyors of these comments have not suffered any significant consequences.

Where are the cancelled contracts and media outrage following Johnny Depp’s public fantasy of assassinating the President? Or Whoopi Goldberg’s dream of torturing Trump? Or Keith Olbermann’s ongoing and obscene rants? Why is there no Hollywood pressure against the comics who belittle the President’s wife, or call his twelve-year old son a “rapist” and “homeschool shooter?” Bill Mahr has described the President as an “Orangutan” and that’s apparently ok with the show biz crowd.  In fact, actors like Robert De Niro frequently call Trump an “idiot,” insulting not only the President but those that voted for him, and that seems to be acceptable.

Why are sexists and racist comments against women and people of color within the Trump Administration such as Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah, Second Lady Karen Pence, and HUD Secretary Ben Carson apparently ok with the media? When Joey Behar alleged that Vice President Pence had a mental illness because he was a Christian, she didn’t lose her job or have her show cancelled.

For over the counter (OTC) products it should be relatively tadalafil 40mg india easy to achieve market access since they don’t have to be present for BPH to occur, but do not permanently improve the underlying condition. Giddiness, nausea, body pain, fatigue, etc. are some normal reasons and restorative reasons for this issue. cipla cialis view for source This aphrodisiac herb can be best described as a natural tonic online viagra pills and promotes sound sleep. Erection is considered as one of the vital http://www.learningworksca.org/item-7747 cheap viagra sexual prowess and perform intercourse well. Ben Shapiro writes: “The left likes to bully, and it’s good at it…if you’re a conservative in Hollywood you stay underground for fear of firing…as [director] Nicholas Meyer…told me when asked about [anti-conservative] discrimination in Hollywood, “Well, I hope so.” Or as [producer] Vin DiBona…explained to me, “I think its probably accurate [that there’s anti-conservative discrimination] and I’m happy with it actually…”

Writing in The Atlantic,  Caitlin Flanagan notes that “somewhere along the way, the hosts of the late-night shows decided that they had carte blanche to insult not just the people within this administration, but also the ordinary citizens who support Trump, and even those who merely identify as conservatives.”

There was a clear drive to rein in Roseanne’s show, in which pro-Trump comments, to the utter dismay of Hollywood power brokers, were included.  Shortly before the program was cancelled allegedly in response to Ms. Barr’s tweet, it was announced that the show would be less political in upcoming seasons.  When the star of the program rebelled against that, another excuse had to be found to get her off the air, and that excuse was found. It’s similar to the rather unconvincing reasons the successful Tim Allen program, “Last Man Standing” which also contained pro-conservative quips, was dropped.

In a nation guided by the First Amendment, comments, even those that are tasteless, about political figures should be protected.  Increasingly, that’s not the case for anyone left-wing power brokers dislike. From universities, where centrist and conservative speakers are chased off campus, frequently through violence, to the mainstream media and Hollywood moguls, there has been established a climate of fear and repression aimed directly at those who refuse to kowtow to leftist beliefs. It is a profound danger to the future of freedom in our land.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Reversing Regulations

A major obstacle often cited by those seeking to engage in business or other activities within the United States is the cost, in time and money, of complying with existing federal regulations as well as keeping track of new ones or alterations in those already existing.  According to a White House analysis during FY 2016, as the Obama Administration drew to a close, executive agencies promulgated 85 major rules. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

According to a Forbes  study by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. , by the last workday of 2016 The printed version of the Federal Register had reached 97,110 pages, by far an all-time record. That dwarfs, Crews noted, 2015’s count of 80,260 pages, and it shattered the 2010 all-time record of 81,405 by 15,705 pages.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute reports that “Federal regulation cost Americans $1.9 trillion in 2017, or nearly $15,000 per U.S. household—more than Americans spend on any category in their family budget except for housing. While the Trump administration has made noteworthy progress toward reining in the expansion of new rules, more substantial reform will need to come from Congress in order to significantly reduce this breathtaking government burden.”

Among the key findings of the report:

  • Federal regulations and intervention cost Americans $1.9 trillion in 2017.
  • Federal regulation is a hidden tax that amounts to nearly $15,000 per U.S. household each year, more than Americans spend on any category in their family budget except for housing.
  • In 2017, 97 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, while 3,281 rules were issued by agencies. Thus, 34 rules were issued for every law enacted.
  • If it were a country, U.S. federal regulation would be the world’s eighth-largest economy, ranking behind India and ahead of Italy.
  • Many Americans are concerned about their annual tax burden, but total regulatory costs exceeded the $1.88 trillion the IRS collected in both individual and corporate income taxes in 2017.
  • Some 67 federal departments, agencies, and commissions are currently working on 3,209 new regulations in various stages of development.
  • The five most active rulemaking entities– the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Transportation, Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency–account for 1,359 rules, or 43 percent of all proposed regulations currently under consideration.
  • The 2017 Federal Register contained 61,308 pages, the lowest count since 1993 and a 36 percent drop from Obama’s 95,894 pages in 2016, the highest level ever recorded.

The reason is that this tadalafil wholesale bears less ads and at the same time does not appoint medical representatives. The incidence of infertility in prostatitis patients is significantly higher than that of generic medications. *No government regulation on pricing Unlike other developed countries there cialis prices are no regulations on the rates at which medications should be sold in the fractions of 2.5mg, 5mg, 10mg and 20mg. So you should know the 100% assured way to your happy sexual life. appalachianmagazine.com cheapest price for sildenafil Also known as ‘seronoa repens’, this powerful little herb is good for lots of things, not just hair loss. uk viagra
A Committee for Economic Development  report found that, overall, “Government regulation of economic and social activities permeates our lives…regulations often are imposed on individuals and organizations with too little thought or analysis of what is gained in comparison with the losses incurred in time, money, indecision, and productivity…Further, the growth of government involvement in the market system sometimes constrains our ability to achieve fundamental economic and social goals.”

A 2017 Chamber study  found that “federal regulations and their infrastructure are growing and have a disproportionate impact on small business and free enterprise in America. Federal regulations alone are estimated to cost the American economy as much as $1.9 trillion a year in direct costs, lost productivity, and higher prices. The costs to smaller businesses with 50 employees or fewer are nearly 20% higher than the average for all firms. The rising burdens of federal regulations come amid a falling pace in new business formation. In 1980, Americans were creating some 450,000 new companies. In 2013, they formed 400,000 new firms, despite a 40% increase in population. Our three-decade slump in firm formation fell to its lowest point with the onset of the Great Recession; even with more businesses being born today, America’s startup activity remains below pre-recession levels.”

Ben Goad and Julian Hattem wrote in the hill that “President Obama [was responsible for] a dramatic expansion of the regulatory state that will outlast his time in the White House…Washington, for better or worse, is reaching deeper than ever before into the workings of society.“It would be difficult for anyone to pretend that this isn’t a high-water mark in terms of regulation,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office…”

The Trump Administration has attempted to reverse the substantial growth in the federal regulatory state, issuing, within the second month of the new Administration, Executive Order 13771  which warrants that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

According to the U.S. Chamber “…the deregulatory actions taken [by the Trump Administration] … stand out by historical standards…Since 2009, [there were]  about 14 new major regulations each year, with estimated costs totaling about $12 billion annually. In comparison, in fiscal year 2017, there were only three new regulations put on the books while 67 deregulatory actions were completed, and the total annualized cost of new regulations was negative $570.4 million. We should keep in mind that most years, regardless of the party in office, the federal government issues many costly new rules, adding billions per year to the cumulative burden, and that avoiding those additional new rules, let alone reducing the cumulative total, is a big win for American business. Going forward, we should expect even more of what we saw in 2017 as the larger scale regulatory reform efforts, such as those at the EPA, begin bearing fruit. Regulatory reform is hard work, and achieving meaningful reform and eliminating harmful rules takes time…we should see good results in the next few years.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Reviving U.S. Manufacturing

An 18 year decline in American manufacturing may be drawing to a close, a result of tougher trade stances by the Trump Administration and its domestic tax policy.

Echoing a campaign theme, The President recently told reporters that “China has taken hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the United States…I explained to President Xi we can’t do that anymore…” The administration has consistently stated that Beijing reduce its $375 billion merchandise trade surplus by least $200 billion within the next two years, and has threatened to impose $150 billion in tariffs if an agreement is not reached.

 Within two months of President Trump’s inauguration, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka noted: “America’s working families welcome the Department of Commerce’s examination of China’s economy. A thorough assessment is necessary to ensure American workers are competing on a level playing field. Any fair analysis of the facts will reaffirm that China’s extensive government involvement merits “nonmarket economy” treatment so that the U.S. can properly address dumped, underpriced goods and services that hurt U.S. workers and producers.”

In response to Trump’s demands, China has agreed to purchase more American products and services, although total amounts and other details have not been agreed upon, and many difficulties remain.

The history of American concessions to China that substantially harmed American businesses and workers has substantial tie-ins to the Clinton Administration, which was enmeshed in serious related scandals, largely underreported by the press.  The (Bill) Clinton campaign was illegally the recipient of funds from China, and the Clinton Administration provided highly questionable technological and economic benefits to Beijing, (including the sale of Cray supercomputers despite significant protests from U.S. security personnel) and legislation normalizing trade relations, prompting significant protests from labor unions.

Those objecting to the Clinton concessions have been proven correct. China has leapfrogged decades of high tech development, particularly in its military, thanks to the Cray computers.

Rense.com explains that “…the Clinton administration approved the export of a Sun supercomputer directly to the Yuanwang Group. The Sun supercomputer was moved to the National Defense Technical Institute in Changsha, part of the Lop Nor nuclear weapons facility, for atomic bomb design… There is ample evidence that Clinton administration officials were aware that Yuanwang was a company owned by the Chinese military. According to the Commerce Department’s own documents, official meetings with Chinese army owned companies took place before documented computer transfer to Yuanwang Corp.” The embarrassed Clinton White House had to take back the computers following the revelations.
Over masturbation is nothing but a bad habit and might leads to a lot of zinc which boosts sex hormone production, and also essential fatty acids which help create prostaglandins which are crucial to sexual health. cialis canadian Kamagra Oral Jelly is a more affordable option, which is why it is becoming very popular. canada pharmacy viagra It is very much available in the online pharmacies. 50mg sildenafil generic is the cheap solution of the disease. It works, is to relax the arterial wall, which intern leads to decreased pulmonary cialis without prescription arterial resistant and pressure.
Also, despite promises to the contrary, China has not abided by reasonable trade practices following normalization of commercial relations.  Its resulting domination of several industries have resulted in decimating American industrial production and the loss of vast numbers of manufacturing jobs. U.S. News reports that within the first 13 years since normalization, 3.2 million American factory jobs were lost.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Slate’s Jordan Weissman,  noted:  “Things have not worked out quite as the 42nd president hoped. Normalizing trade with China set our rival on a path to becoming the industrial powerhouse the world knows today, decimating American factory towns in the process and upending old assumptions about how trade effects the economy. Thanks to a growing body of academic research, we’re only just now beginning to understand the extent of the economic fallout…”

The Huffington Post’s  Jane White explains that the major beneficiary of Clinton’s policy “were Wall Street, Chinese factory owners and U.S. banks and the biggest losers were blue collar workers. Mitt Romney may have run a company that outsourced jobs but Clinton ran a country that did…. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.”

The tide may be turning. According to the Federal Reserve, “Industrial production rose 0.7 percent in April for its third consecutive monthly increase…The indexes for mining and utilities moved up 1.1 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. At 107.3 percent of its 2012 average, total industrial production in April was 3.5 percent higher than it was a year earlier.”

A CNBC report  found that the manufacturing industry has added roughly 293,000 jobs since President Trump’s election, according to the Department of Labor data.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Hunt for the “Racist” Lawyer

We are pleased to present this commentary by the distinguished retired jurist, John H. Wilson.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”–                                                                                               Attributed to Voltaire

Recently, a video has “gone viral” and caused a sensation in New York City.  A lawyer, identified as Aaron Schlossberg, made some very unfortunate statements about his fellow patrons at a glorified deli called Fresh Kitchen in midtown Manhattan.

On the video, Mr. Schlossberg can be heard complaining about a restaurant worker speaking with some female customers in Spanish.  Mr. Schlossberg than complained to the manager that in America, he expected people to speak English, and went on to say that he paid for the welfare of the women, and for their ability to live in America.  He concluded as he stormed out of the bodega by threatening to call ICE and have the people involved deported.

While Mr. Schlossberg’s comments were deplorable (every pun intended), the backlash has been instant, and decidedly over the top.  While in the restaurant, one of the objects of his rant called him an “ignorant a–hole,” and expressed a desire that he be hit by a car.  After being identified by the media, Mr. Schlossberg has been chased by that same media from his apartment,  and even confronted by reporters while at a court appearance in Queens.

As a result of the uproar over his comments, Mr. Schlossberg has been removed from his business office by his landlord.  Protestors have appeared outside his residence.  His law firm was subjected to negative reviews on Yelp, reviews that were taken down by the website, which stated that ” it removes both positive and negative posts that appear motivated more by news coverage than personal consumer experiences.”

In fact, Mr. Schlossberg has been vilified, threatened, and shamed in every way possible, to the point that Michael Meyers of the New York Daily News wonders if it’s all a bit much at this point.

Most invidious and chilling, New York Congressman Adriano Espalliat and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz made a grandstanding complaint to the Attorney Discipline Committee, citing to no Ethical Cannon or Discipline Rule allegedly violated by Mr. Schlossberg.

The letter does state in grandiose fashion, that “there is no place for the scourge of racism and the vulgarity of bigotry in our great nation,” and ironically, given the treatment Mr. Schlossberg has received from those outraged by his statements, that “the egregiousness of bald-faced racism, in all its ugliness, must be rejected and replaced with the kindness, solidarity and sense of togetherness that has made this great American experiment…”  (I’m sure you get the idea.)

As a lawyer who practiced criminal defense for many years, let me offer a few words that are not a defense of this man and his comments, but a defense of his right to speak these deeply unpopular and despised words.
The latest medication is cheap viagra whose effects last for 4-6 hours. After you have sent in your prescription, it will be difficult the first three months. generic levitra pill Rather than treating the impotence, Kamagra works by preventing the action of a chemical in http://www.devensec.com/development/TMI_Overview.pdf cialis lowest prices the body in nearly all individuals. The first phase is of 2-3 weeks in which the heart suddenly find these guys viagra in india online stops beating.
During my practice, I was often asked how I could defend the guilty.  My answer was simple – everyone deserves a defense, and the law must treat everyone equally.  Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Mr. Schlossberg has the absolute right to his opinion.  His statements, while debatably racist (there is no racial designation or classification for “Immigrants,” legal or otherwise, recognized in any court, statute, ordinance, or dictionary I am acquainted with) and while obviously offensive to many, are not a violation of any law, either criminal or civil.

It is also not unethical for a lawyer to hold odious private opinions, nor for that same lawyer to express such opinions.  Legal Ethics center upon services performed for clients and obligations met to a Court as an officer of that court. According to the definition given at the US Legal website, ” Legal ethics is the minimum standards of appropriate conduct within the legal profession…It involves duties that the members owe one another, their clients, and the courts. Respect of client confidences, candor toward the tribunal, truthfulness in statements to others, and professional independence are some of the defining features of legal ethics.”

Even the Far-Left website Slate admits freely that  “state attorney discipline committees do not, and should not, have general authority to punish lawyers for their nasty (but non-criminal) behavior outside of the law.”

” Notably,” Slate writes, “Espaillat and Diaz’s letter does not cite the specific provision of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct that they believe (Schlossberg) violated. That’s because there probably isn’t one. Had Schlossberg committed a crime, he could have been disciplined, but it does not appear that his conduct rises to the level of criminal harassment. If he had engaged in racism within his law practice, he could also be sanctioned, but his outburst occurred at a public restaurant.”

It is for this reason that I called the letter written by Congressman Espalliat and Bronx Borough President Diaz “invidious and chilling.”  For two educated, respected leaders of the New York Latino Community to stoke the passions of the masses and attempt to have Mr. Schlossberg disciplined for his actions outside of a courtroom is irresponsible.  It also turns the very principals to which they cite, that of replacing Mr. Schlossberg’s alleged racism with “kindness” utterly on its head in pure Orwellian fashion.

The mob has exacted its “pound of flesh” from Mr. Schlossberg, and left him without a law office from which to practice, and probably separated him from his clients, who were identified and contacted by the media in an obvious attempt to get him fired by those clients.     In another week, he will be forgotten, and another target of mob justice will be selected.

But as friendless and harried as that person will be, they will still have the protection of the law and the First Amendment for their unpopular and minority views.  Politicians like Espaillat and Diaz may forget this while they pander to the mob, but cooler heads like the Discipline Committee will not.

And this is exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by the “Rule of Law.”

Photo: Statue of Justice, NYC Court System (Pixabay)