14

What Are You Going To Do About It? by Robert Gore at STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

Posted by straightlinelogic 9 years ago to Government
63 comments | Share | Flag

Justice and equality are inseparable. Equality here does not mean the fatuous and impossible equality of outcomes that animates collectivists, but equality before the law. Equality of outcomes in all its collectivist guises obliterates equality before the law, the foundation of which is the concept of individual rights. For that concept to have any meaning, each individual must have the same rights, which receive the same protection from the government. Individual, equal rights must be the basis of the law, and when they are not, no justice is possible.

Law instead becomes a tool wielded by those who control the government against everyone else. Yesterday’s announcement by FBI Director James Comey that the FBI would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton in the email matter is the government wielding the law to protect its own. The fix has been in since at least 1913, when it gave itself permission to steal its constituents’ money (the income tax) and to begin the process of profitably substituting its scrip for gold (the Federal Reserve Act). The Clinton fix is business as usual. The exempt-from-the-law class expect outrage and contemptuously ignore it. Indeed, disclosure of the Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting may have been designed to rub the noses of the not-exempt in it. Yes, it looks terrible, but we run things, you don’t. You don’t like it? Tough shit, what are you going to do about it?

This is an excerpt. For the full article, please click the above link.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years ago
    This what I'm going to do about it. It just so happened I read what is in the provided link just before coming here. W#ent back to fetch.
    After clicking the link, also click onto "cartoons." They will help you feel better.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtsc...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hillary did have criminal intent even if that intent was merely to evade open-records laws and FOIA requests.

    But I don't think it's fair to protest that "the statute does not require intent" as if that were a moral principle. The law ought to require intent for all felonies. Otherwise you get tragedies like Aaron Swartz and outrages like the Martha Stewart prosecution.

    Demonizing the likes of Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, is both necessary and right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    -1 for crap

    Carelessness with classified data is criminal action and the statute does not require intent only the action.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 9 years ago
    Straightline, I fear the corruptness has spread to the point of no return. It has infested every corner of America. I had a case in court for a nuisance, and I had been told by a county commissioner I could not win because "we are a right to farm" county. Yet the judge, with 8 witnesses and 53 pieces of evidence including state reports, found we had suffered $138,000 in damages. Yet she could not find they were a nuisance.Since it would be impossible to have damage without a cause, she walked the fine line and did both things. I don't blame her, she is as much a part of the corrupt system as the commissioner who told her what to do, but it has gone from the Federal level to the local level. There are other stories posted under the HillaryBeast posts showing similar instances. We would need a wholesale change in character, a return to personal integrity and honor, to ever make a change. I do not see how that can happen given a corrupt education system that teaches entitlement, religions that teach self service and concern, and morals that have no basis in any framework. I wish it was otherwise, but all I see is we are doomed by our own votes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago
    I agree with the idea of the law becoming tool, a rule-of-law fig leaf, covering rule by men. I don't see that happening at all in the case of Clinton's e-mails. It seems like a nothingburger that her political critics tried to turn into something more. They don't have a candidate who can beat her, so they hoped to win on a technicality. It seems like that explains the gymnastics to shoehorn the emails into the command-and-control philosophy some people have and the unsustainable US foreign policy. Apparently there's a bi-partisan consensus for these things. It seems like that tempts people who reject the consensus (as I do) to hope for a technicality.

    I think President Obama and Hillary Clinton are excellent at managing a country with an expensive and intrusive central gov't. That's not a good thing. But buying into the political game of their opponents and demonizing them, IMHO, actually hurts the cause of liberty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago
    Might their outright public, in your face, hubris be their undoing?...be still my heart...is that possible in this paradigm?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tkstone 9 years ago
    Thanks Robert. This feels like my breaking point personally. Not sure if it is still a green break or if it will be catastrophic. I think the election will tell.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years ago
    Houston, I think we have a problem.
    (Link is not going to the article. It goes to a login prompt instead. Maybe it's the link to edit the article;^)
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo