The idea that we are all equal under the law is pure horse puckey. That shouldn’t be news to anyone who isn’t brain dead. Justice often goes to who can afford the best lawyer or who is more politically connected. No doubt the family of Mary Jo Kopechne, for example, have some thoughts on the subject.
Most people in America are law-abiding. Even when they don’t like a particular law or even when that believe a law to be unjust, they will generally abide by the law anyway. For these law-abiding folks, it really rubs them raw to see how some high profile law breakers are so arrogant and in-yoyr-face about it. Let’s look at just a few examples.
The worst offender by far is our current President. He treats the constitution, the law of the land, as an advisory document at best. He refuses to enforce laws he doesn’t like, he ignores federal court orders against his actions, he rewrites laws without Congressional approval, and he uses Executive Orders to circumvent the separation of powers enshrined in the constitution. Then he has the arrogance to tell Congress: “If you don’t like it, sue me!” and he dares the Republicans to try to impeach him knowing that his sycophants in the Senate will have his back.
What about the NSA spying on everyone, including the politicians? They know what they are doing is unconstitutional. They don’t care! They hide behind the cloak of secrecy in the name of national security. “National security” is sadly a cover for a lot of sins. The CIA is guilty of the same.
Then there is the United States Congress. You know, the folks we send to Washington to represent us. The ones who write laws that we must abide by, but that they themselves are exempt from having to abide by. Well, our Congress critters also have a penchant for breaking the laws that even they are supposed to abide by. For example, Congress has been under investigation by the Security Exchange Comission (SEC) for quite a while and the case has ended up in federal court. Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal by way of Zero Hedge this is what the lawyers for the House of Representatives had to say to the judge:
The U.S. House of Representatives told a federal court Friday it should dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission because Congress is lawfully allowed to ignore requests to turn over records and testimony to the executive branch agency.
But, the lawyers for the House couldn’t stop at that. They wanted to get in the face of the judge and by proxy, in the face of the SEC by continuing with this:
“Rather than acknowledge the fool’s errand on which it has embarked, the SEC instead invites this court to join it by disregarding fundamental limitations on judicial authority,”
Yes! How dare the SEC and a Federal Court try to stop our congressmen from enriching themselves with the inside information to which they are privy. After all, Congress writes laws to control the riffraff and they are not riffraff, right?
Not all arrogant lawbreakers are part of our government. Consider the cause de jour: those folks who have taken up residence in the US against the laws of the US. The so-called “illegal immigrants: or “undocumented immigrants” or “asylum seekers” or “refugee seekers” or just plain “invaders” have become quite the “arrogant lawbreakers”. They have gone so far as to protest in front of the White House just yesterday. Via The Pirate’s Cove, we have this report from the Washington Times:
(Washington Times) Illegal immigrants plan to picket the White House Monday afternoon, calling on fellow immigrant-rights advocacy groups to refuse to meet with the Obama administration until President Obama specifically includes illegal immigrants in any future meetings.
“We are among the millions of people who will either benefit or be harmed by the decisions the President makes, and we are here to represent ourselves in any future negotiations,” said Rosi Carrasco, one of organizers, in a statement announcing the action.
Billing themselves “undocumented immigrant leaders,” the organizers said they will erect a picket line to symbolize their demand.
Were they afraid of being arrested by immigration officers? Obviously not. Were they aking or pleading for recognition of their plight? No! They were DEMANDING to be part of a meeting because… “We are among the millions of people who will either benefit or be harmed by the decisions the President makes, and we are here to represent ourselves in any future negotiations”
Demanding??? The Pirate’s Cove author made a good analogy. He said: “This is like gang members demanding that they be allowed representation on parole boards and prison administration.”
George Orwell was right. Some pigs are more equal than others.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?