Laws are for the Little People

For the Left, laws are there to punish political, cultural, and social enemies

Laws are for the Little People

If Hillary Clinton got what she deserved, she would spend the rest of her ambassador-murdering, national security-endangering life in a federal prison.

Yet, let’s be realistic here – she will not.  Indeed, instead of going to the Big House, there’s even a chance that the Free Stuff Army will rally to her cause next year and put her into the White House.  She will continue to be completely unaccountable to the Congress and to the American people.  Despite her role in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the attempted obfuscation of responsibility, despite her endangerment of American national security by using private email and private servers (which, as it turns out, were almost assuredly hacked by America’s enemies), and despite her blatant perjury before Congress this past week, she will suffer no lasting repercussions for her actions.  Instead, she will continue to be lauded by millions of Americans who place partisanship and personal self-interest over and above things like character, probity, honesty, honor, and doing what is right for the United States of America.

It has been rightly pointed out that if any of us had done the things that Hillary Clinton has done, we would be headed for a very long stint in Leavenworth.  Violating several provisions of various federal acts relating to national security and the possession of classified materials would result in any normal person taking the metaphorical book right to the side of their face.  So why not Hillary?

It’s because laws are for the little people – a position which left-wingers wholeheartedly agree with and endorse. 

Normal Americans like you and I don’t understand how this can be.  After all, we approach our government with at least an ostensible expectation that the rule of law should prevail.  We have laws.  They say what they say.  You break them, then you are called to task for it, and if you are found guilty, you suffer the penalties attached.  Everyone is equal before the law, and faces equal enforcement and penalties if they break the law.  That’s the way a rule of law system is supposed to work.

Yet, liberals don’t think this way.  To them, laws are there not to prevent intrinsically or morally wrong behavior, nor do they exist to preserve order and decency in society.  Instead, liberals believe that laws are there in case you need to use them against your political enemies.  This is why liberals love to make laws, even as they are less keen on actually obeying them.  The more obscure the object and the more intricate the construction of the law, the more useful they find it to be.  For instance, liberals love campaign finance laws.  Why?  Because it is so easy to run afoul of them accidentally.  Unless you have an army of lawyers watching a contender’s every move like a hawk, sooner or later, John Q. Candidate is probably going to transgress a campaign finance law at some point.  And if he’s a conservative or a Republican, you can nail him for it - drag his name through the mud in the media, story after story about how he’s under indictment for “breaking federal campaign finance laws,” and destroy him politically.

A Democrat who breaks the same law—of course—will be spared all of this unless his or her transgression is SO egregious that it becomes a political liability to the Democrat Party.

Ayn Rand’s text from Atlas Shrugged has turned out to be quite prophetic,

“‘Did you really think we want those laws observed?’ said Dr. Ferris. ‘We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against…We’re after power and we mean it…There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.’”

It’s been said that the average American breaks at least three federal laws, which they didn’t even know existed, in the course of the average day.  You can face serious jail time for something as simple as bringing a Honduran bonefish into the country, or for absentmindedly picking up a rock in a federal park and carrying it out with you.  You will draw unwanted federal attention merely for moving around large amounts of your own money to and from the banking system.  On and on it goes.

But the thing is – all of this only applies if you are not a liberal or Democrat bigwig.  If you are, these laws don’t apply to you, in practice if not in theory.  Dennis Hastert was convicted of violating federal banking laws (by moving large sums of his own money) and then lying to the FBI about it.  If Hillary Clinton had done the same thing, I can guarantee you that it would have been no big deal.  After all, she’s lied to the FBI about a lot of other things and gotten away with it scot-free.

This is the way left-wingers always operate.  Back in the days of the Soviet Union, average everyday Soviet citizens lived in deathly fear of being brought before “administrative tribunals” which were simply kangaroo courts designed to enforce Party supremacy, rather than punishing actual criminal behavior.  These tribunals punished citizens for infractions of the law that Party members, especially ones higher up in the hierarchy, routinely got away with.  The same sort of system existed in Nazi Germany, and indeed, has existed wherever the radical Left has managed to get into power.

It exists here in America today.  That’s why Christians who refuse to participate in gay marriages can be fined and imprisoned, but Muslims who do not are untouched.  Gays can refuse service to whomever they choose and nothing is said about it, but a Christian does the same, and you’d think World War III came early.  Left-wingers have invented the spurious “Campus Rape Culture” motif whereby men can be accused and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence (or no evidence at all), while women are not held to anywhere near this same level of guilt for their behavior.  The same people who endlessly screeched about how we needed gay “marriage” because of the 14th amendment’s equal protection language suddenly defend the grossest inequalities before the law when it is to their ideological advantage to do so.

For the Left, laws are there to punish political, cultural, and social enemies. 

Which, in turn, serves only to delegitimize the law itself.  It’s no wonder that we see more lawlessness in America now than we have ever seen before.  When lawlessness defines our governing class, from the President on down, is it any wonder that the rule of law falls apart?  Who can have respect for a law that is selectively applied based on who the offender is?

So what do we do?  Well, the easy answer is to “make the Democrats adhere to the rule of law.”  Fine.  But how do you do that?  After all, the “ruling-class Republicans” aren’t exactly enthusiastic about really holding lawless left-wingers accountable.  These Republicans are too busy toadying to the Left in the hope that they will be prosecuted last.  It may eventually come down to direct action by the American people themselves.  However it takes place, the end result must see Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of their cronies landing in jail for a long, long time.  Anything less would be a travesty of justice.

Tim Dunkin

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts





Understanding Unalienable Rights

Why do we use the term unalienable instead of inalienable? Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights, these rights cannot be abridged.
Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as “not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights” and inalienable as “cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another.” The Declaration of Independence reads:

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law. Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. In these situations no violation has occurred by way of the application of inalienable rights – a mere change in the law changes the nature of the right. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights the right to the use and enjoyment of private property cannot be abridged (other than under the doctrine of “nuisance” including pollution of the public water or air or property of another). The policies behind Sustainable Development work to obliterate the recognition of unalienable rights. For instance, Article 29 subsection 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights applies the “inalienable rights” concept of human rights:
“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
Many call for a “Civil Society” which argues for a statutory framework that does not give recognition of the imbued nature of unalienable rights.

Modern dictionaries blur the difference, as does modern intellectual thought. The modern definition of unalienable is the same as the historical definition of inalienable. The contemporary blurring of the meaning of unalienable and inalienable is evidence of the process of dictionary evolution that Orwell forecasted in “1984.”