Monday, March 26, 2012

The Two Americas

Lately we’re hearing a lot about the legally disenfranchised in America in the context of the Trayon case. But it’s not Blacks who are on the lower rung of a two tiered justice system in America.

According to liberals there are two classes of Americans; liberals, including their supporters, and the lower class. Like other historical aristocracies liberals believe in one set of laws for themselves and another for the hoi polloi.

The concept of a dual track system of law has been around for awhile in liberal circles; think of FDRs court packing scheme. However it didn’t enjoy real success until the 1960’s.

Liberals laid the foundation for their coup by changing the definition of what the law is. Historically the law was a written representation of a concept. Liberals changed the law to a bunch of words which can be interpreted in different ways, ways totally alien to the intention of those who voted for a given law. 

For example the First Amendment protection of free speech was a written representation of the idea that people should be able to express their opinions without being persecuted by the government. Clearly the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to protect pornography, which is hardly an opinion, because they and every court for over 170 years found laws against pornography to be quite consistent with the Constitution.

But if the First Amendment is viewed as words torn from the mooring of the intent of those who ratified the Constitution then it can be interpreted in many ways, so as to protect pornography for example. This is convenient because it means that all that is necessary to create new laws is to get a majority in the Supreme Court.

Once liberals converted the law from something with a fixed meaning to just words liberal judges could effectively create new laws by interpreting those words in unique and fanciful ways. 

The first major example of this legislation by interpretation was based on civil rights laws. The vast majority of Americans agree that civil rights laws designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race are a good thing.

However liberals are capable of turning even the nicest thing to evil ends, witness liberal Christians who claim that Christianity really supports the elimination of religious liberty in the HHS mandate, so it’s not shocking that civil rights laws are being used to discriminate on the basis of race.

When a Black American, or a member of any other group with the liberal seal of approval, is attacked the people who did the crime are subject to prosecution through the same process used when Asians or Whites are attacked. But if the crooks get off the Federal government will step in and try them again because when a Black is attacked his or her civil rights are violated.

When a Black gang attacks a Korean you won’t find the Federal government stepping in to defend the victims civil rights. Blacks apparently have more civil rights than other Americans.

This is an example of the dual track. Blacks, LGBTs etc get two chances at justice while those not favored by liberals only get one.

When Americans didn’t rise up in arms about liberals first foray into dual track school of jurisprudence liberals turned the civil rights laws to the purpose of governmentally sanctioned racism. 

Liberals publicly declared that it was not only necessary but good to discriminate against whites, solely on the basis of their race, in order to make up for offenses against Blacks in the past.

It wasn’t necessary for the Whites, and Asians, who were to be discriminated against to have ever committed a discriminatory act or to have even harbored a racist thought. The pallor of their skin qualified them for legal oppression. To liberals two wrongs do make a right; a right for special privileges for Blacks in employment and college admittance.

The dual track system also insulates liberal supporters from the impacts of liberal policies. Liberals created a monster by tilting the legal process so far in favor of criminals that crime began to grow rampant. Liberals themselves, living either in rich neighborhoods or colleges with their own police forces, generally weren’t impacted. Sadly many liberal support groups such as Blacks, LGBT folk, and Jews were.

A reasonable person would have fixed the problem by removing some of the insane rules that favored crooks, like throwing out physical evidence because some arcane rule was not properly followed, so that criminals would end up in jail and innocent folks, of all races and sexual orientations, would be safe.

Instead liberals came up with the hate crime. On the surface the reasoning is not totally irrational. After all a Nazi killing a Jew has more significant societal impacts, although the impact on the victim is obviously the same, than the case where a neighbor kills a Jew because the Jew’s dog made too much noise. Of course addressing the virulent sort of hate that can adversely impact society was not the real intent of hate crime laws.

This is obvious because when Black gangs attack Koreans or Whites the phrase “hate crime” is never to be found. Only when someone attacks a person on the official liberal victims list--Blacks, LGBT, illegal aliens, Hispanics some times-- do hate crimes come into play.

This is the second example of the dual track. Attacks on members of groups sanctioned by liberals are upgraded to “hate crimes” as necessary, unless the attacker also belongs to a protected group . That classification ups the ante and effectively returns the prosecution of criminals back to a level comparable to that found prior to the liberal unbalancing of the legal system.

Sadly Americans did not rise up to protest this second phase in the liberals shadow legal system. Probably because most Americans find the sort of beliefs that “hate crimes” are supposed to punish, such as racism, to be odious.

Feeling empowered by the public's acquiescence to “hate crimes” liberals decided that politicians and government officials had the right to decide what laws they would enforce. This has popped up recently in a number of cases:

1) President Obama refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act

2) Two Governors and two Attorney Generals in California refusing to defend the peoples vote on Prop 8

3)The Justice Department decided that Blacks with baseball bats in front of a polling place were not really a problem--even though a court had ruled otherwise

4) The decision by the LA Police Department to not enforce a law they have decided discriminates against illegal aliens.

In all of these cases Democrats, and one Republican, have determined that it is unnecessary for the courts to decide what laws are legal or illegal. Instead politicians can simply pick and chose what laws to obey. In the voter intimidation case the Obama Administration even decided it could ignore a court ruling.

Ignoring laws is a privilege that is reserved for the cultural elites; the new liberal aristocracy. That’s why blockading a military recruiting office won’t get you in trouble but trying to hand a pro-life pamphlet to a women entering an abortion mill will land you in jail. In the dual track system of law the First Amendment is very sensitive to the content of your speech.

Liberals have arrogated to themselves the power to be above any law that they determine to be flawed. Unlike the lower class liberals don’t have to bother to fight long drawn out legal battles in order to effect change. Nor do they have to pass unpopular laws, or change popular ones, that might keep them from getting reelected. They merely need to win an election and then ignore the laws they don’t like.

The Obama administration has also put forth the concept of a new process for producing laws that impact the lower class. Liberals have championed the use of the Federal bureaucracy to create laws outside of the standard Constitutional process.

In declaring that politicians can ignore laws they don’t like and that unelected bureaucrats can make new laws liberals have taken America away from being a country of laws and onto the threshold of totalitarianism. The brave new liberal America is a country of men not laws. The powerful need not be hindered by laws and what laws are created must be approved of by the powerful.

That’s why the same liberals who condemned Nixon could, with a straight face, defend Clinton even though he was convicted of perjury. It didn’t matter what Clinton did; he was one of the aristocrats and was therefore above the laws that apply to non-liberals.

The liberal dual track approach to the law is much like the system in Iran where the Mullahs allow “Democracy” but retain the right to select which laws are allowed.

Liberals have effectively placed all non-liberals in a legal ghetto with special laws that apply only to non-liberals. A ghetto where liberals get to define all the rules with little or no effort while non-liberals are constrained to the resource intensive approaches, such as amending the Constitution, to reverse liberal fiats.

If Americans do not take a stand now and demand that all Americans should be equal in the eyes of the law we will soon have precious little freedom left; freedom will be reserved for the new aristocracy. Even worse the Civil War should have taught us that a Republic cannot persevere when there are two classes of citizens.

Success by the liberals in their endeavor will have devastating long term impacts on America for a county where the majority is oppressed is not a country that will prosper; instead it will be a country that will explode.

No comments: