A Government of Laws – or a Government of Men?

It's all gone horribly wrong.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

A Government of Laws – or a Government of Men?

Since ancient times, the rule of law has been symbolized by the archetypal figure of Lady Justice. In Roman mythology, it was embodied in the figure of Justitia, the Goddess of Justice, who was usually depicted holding a sword or scepter in one hand, and scales of justice in the other. Beginning in the mid-16th century, Justitia is often seen blindfolded, symbolizing the impartiality of justice.

What is the rule of law? The term refers to "a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated." Conversely, under the rule of man - as may be seen in autocratic or tyrannical governments - the law and rules of conduct which guide society are set and altered at the discretion of a single person or group of persons (oligarchy).

The Founding Fathers, who were strongly-influenced by Greco-Roman thought and philosophy, sought to create - in John Adam's words - "a government of laws, and not a government of men." They had seen the cruelties and injustices of the absolutist monarchs of Europe, who had ruled their nations not as men, but as gods-made-human. They had suffered under the harsh rule of the tyrannical King George III.

Having personal experience of despotism, the Founders knew that one of the hallmarks of a just, civil society was that it functioned according to the rule of law, impartially applied, and not the arbitrary rule of men who would interpret the law to mean whatever they wished it to mean. The Founders labored to create such a government and society, and largely succeeded. At the conclusion of the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia, as Benjamin Franklin exited he was asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

More than two centuries have passed since Franklin's famous statement that day in Philadelphia; the republic has withstood countless trials, hardships and tragedies alongside its many triumphs and achievements. The constitution and the rule of law made possible under it have bent, to be sure, but they have not broken. Today, however, the constitutional republic of the Founding Fathers is under attack as never before.

The present lawless regime of Barack Obama has systematically usurped and undermined the constitution and the rule of law at every turn. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Trayvon Martin case and subsequent trial of George Zimmerman. During the pre-trial phase of the case and then during the trial itself, Barack Obama and Eric Holder, by their statements and actions, have made a mockery of justice under the law. They were, in no small measure, aided and abetted by the mainstream media and its members, who abandoned their duty as impartial members of the fourth estate and functioned instead as a de facto propaganda agency for the White House. Since its inception, the whole affair has been a carefully-constructed exercise in classic "agitprop" - agitation and propaganda - one that would have made the old Soviet KGB apparatchiks proud. The entire case was designed to racket up racial tensions to the benefit of the Obama regime and its goals.

Consider the following points pertaining to the case...

1. Shortly after Trayvon Martin's death, Obama violated long-established precedent and injected himself directly into the case by saying in a press conference, "If I had a son, he'd look just like Trayvon Martin..." This breach of legal and ethical protocol is so egregious as to be almost unprecedented in American history; a sitting president abusing the power of his office to prejudice the outcome of an on-going investigation and the trial that followed.

2. One might well ask the question: "What makes the Trayvon Martin case so different than the many other killings that take place on America's meanest streets day-in and day-out? Why did the case attain national prominence?" It has come to light that a relative of Trayvon Martin worked in a little-known office of the Department of Justice (DOJ) known as the Community Relations Service (CRS); shortly after Martin's death, a hand-picked CRS team was sent to Sanford, FLA with specific instructions to organize rallies and protests against George Zimmerman, the accused shooter of Martin. After questioning Zimmerman, Sanford law-enforcement officials declined to press charges against Zimmerman, citing no probable cause and that he appeared to have acted in self-defense.

However, shortly after the arrival of the CRS team and the ever-present publicity seekers/racial-grievance agitators Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Florida Governor Rick Scott directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to "render assistance" (i.e., take over the case) and subsequently, state criminal charges were filed against Zimmerman. The defendant was not arraigned via grand jury, but was instead charged via a confidential affidavit, which was then rubber-stamped by a prosecutor hand-picked for that purpose by Eric Holder and the Department of Justice.

Clearly, significant pressure from the federal government was brought to bear on state and local authorities to charge Zimmerman against their initial wishes. The defendant was railroaded in the interests of ideology and political correctness. Zimmerman's innocence would challenge the neo-Marxist orthodoxy that in cases of inter-racial crime, no black person can ever be anything but a victim and no light-skinned person can ever be anything but an aggressor. The powers-that-be demanded that Zimmerman be made an example of - and Eric Holder and the DOJ used the raw power of the federal government to force local officials into line. To paraphrase Voltaire, Zimmerman was to be the sacrificial lamb thrown to the wolves "pour encourager les autres" - i.e., to encourage others not to challenge the authority of the state or its ideology and to warn of the possible consequences for doing so.

3. The mainstream media immediately fell in line with the desired narrative of the White House and DOJ, which portrayed George Zimmerman in the worst possible light and Trayvon Martin in the best possible light. To "punch up" the racial angle on the story, the press invented a heretofore unknown term, a racial neologism, by terming Zimmerman a "White-Hispanic." The "white violence against blacks" meme was milked for all it was worth before, during and after the trial, never mind that crime statistics show that black-on-white crime is far-more-common in today's America than white-on-black crime.

If Trayvon Martin's death was, as some claim, a "hate crime" - then what should we term the horrifying deaths in January, 2007 of kidnapped Knoxville, TN couple Channon Christian, 21, and Hugh Newsome, 23, who were slain after being raped and tortured by four black men? That case did not become a six-month long cause célèbre; why not? Could it be that the victims were white and the perpetrators black, rather than the reverse?

It is now common practice in the mainstream media not to report the race of suspects or perpetrators if they are known/suspected to be black; conversely, if a member of another race commits a crime against a black person, the alleged assailant's race is often mentioned in press accounts. More ominously, in the name of political-correctness, many law-enforcement agencies are beginning to follow the same dishonest reporting practices.

4. After Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges against him by a jury of his peers, Obama implied that the jury was racist and that an all-black jury would have found him guilty. Holder immediately began searching for a legal loophole to re-open the case and invited black activists to submit new ideas for charging Mr. Zimmerman.

5. Numerous death threats were made against George Zimmerman in the days after the trial; Obama and Holder have remained silent; neither man has condemned these acts. The so-called "New Black Panther Party" (NBPP) has put a bounty of $10,000 on George Zimmerman's head. Again, the Obama regime has done nothing to address this outrage against law and order; at the time of publication of this article, no investigation of the NBPP had been launched nor had any charges been filed by federal/state/local authorities. In Obama's America, it appears that vigilantism is a crime only when it is committed by people who are not black.

6. Holder has already stated that the DOJ may charge Zimmerman under federal civil rights and "hate crime" statutes. Others have suggested that this innocent man be sued in civil court. Such measures violate both the letter and spirit of the 5th amendment to the constitution, which prohibits "double jeopardy" - i.e., being tried twice for the same crime. Essentially, the Obama regime has made it very clear that they intend to go after George Zimmerman until they find something - some charge, however bogus or trumped-up - that can be made to stick to him.

7. At the time George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, Martin was on top of Zimmerman, doing his best to pound his head into the ground. Martin was both larger and stronger than Zimmerman; the smaller man's life was in danger as he stood a very real chance of being beaten to death had he not acted to defend himself. At the scene, immediately after the incident, the back of Zimmerman's bloody and beaten head was photographed as evidence- but these photos were conveniently omitted from media accounts sympathetic to Martin.

The prosecution did its best to portray Martin as an innocent young man and a victim who simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In reality, Martin was a hardened, violence-prone gang-banger and drug user who was looking to score on the night of the altercation with Zimmerman.

In hip-hop circles, "lean" is currently a popular way to get high. What is it, you ask? One popular recipe, that favored by Trayvon Martin, mixes "Arizona Watermelon" brand fruit juice cocktail, "Skittles" candy, and commercially-available cough syrup containing codeine. A can of Arizona Watermelon fruit juice was found at the scene; before the incident with Zimmerman, Martin had previously purchased two of the three ingredients needed to make "lean" while at a local 7-11 store. Investigators know that Martin had previously tried to obtain codeine online, but had switched to "lean" after hearing from other social media users of its potency. Autopsy findings on this otherwise healthy 17-year old showed that Martin's liver had sustained damage characteristic of "lean" abusers. Perhaps most-significantly, the psychological effects of "lean" abuse often include extreme physical aggression and paranoia.

8. Trayvon Martin had been found in possession of stolen property in his school locker, but school administrators, fearful of being accused of racism and a backlash from the community, did not press charges against him. Ironically, if a teacher, principle, law enforcement official or other authority figure had possessed the courage to hold Trayvon accountable for his acts, Martin might still be alive today. Instead, the "bigotry of low expectations" held forth, and a young man is dead.

Conclusion

A jury found George Zimmerman innocent of the charges against him, and the former defendant is now free to resume his life as best he can under the circumstances. A casual observer might conclude that justice has been satisfactorily-rendered and close the book on the incident. However understandable that conclusion might be, it is precisely the wrong one to make - for there is a great deal more to this case than its outcome.

The troubled young life of Trayvon Martin is over, but the racial grievance mongers, agitators and propagandists are still at work, using the Martin/Zimmerman incident itself as a bludgeon with which to attack the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and the republic itself. Some troubling questions must be asked in light of this incident and how it has unfolded.

What is the agenda of a regime which shows such an obvious disregard and disdain for the rule of law? The Obama White House and Holder Dept. of Justice appear to be actively-engaged not in defusing racial/ethnic tensions, but in feeding them. To what end are these actions taken?

Can the rule of law still be said to exist in these United States, or have we become - as the Founders feared - a nation of powerful men above the law and unaccountable to it? The figure of Lady Justice is blind-folded; the constitution guarantees equality before the law. However, equality under the law does not describe the present legal/moral/ethical reality in today's America, where blacks and other minorities are protected classes subject, de facto, to a different set of laws than are unprotected individuals such the unfortunate Mr. Zimmerman. Justice is no longer blind; under Obama and Holder, the kind of so-called "justice" one receives from the legal system begins and ends in identity politics.

George Zimmerman is free today only because of the moral courage of the all-female jury that found him innocent; the federal government tried to stack the deck against the former defendant in every way possible.

The grim reality is that Mr. Zimmerman was (and remains) the victim of what might be called a 21st century lynching. For now, he is protected by the decision of the jury, but that protection hangs by the thinnest of threads. The veneer of civilization is thin. Obama, Holder and their supporters are relentlessly pushing our society toward a state of genuine lawlessness, where the strong rule the weak and the only "law" is the law of the jungle - a Hobbesian existence in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Some have expressed their solidarity with the late Trayvon Martin by saying "We are all Trayvon" - - but this writer sees it differently; for those who respect the rule of law and not the rule of men, we "are all George Zimmerman."

The Right of Americans To Throw Off the Shackles of 535 Tyrants

In this article over at Family Security Matters, there is a distinct reminder of just how our Founding Fathers threw off the tyrannical governmental rule of the English King...how they executed the Declaration of Independence for just that purpose - to end the rule of a tyrant. But the article also reminds us that the Founders made provisions for Americans of the future who might just run into that nasty old nemesis, tyranny, again.

From the article:

While our elected officials haven't necessarily “plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, [or] burnt our towns,” at least in an overt sense, they have repeatedly gone against the will of the people. A great number of Americans have expressed opposition to much of our government's agenda, which indicates that they no longer have the “consent” of a considerable percentage of the “governed.”

In the event that Americans find themselves at odds with their government, the Declaration tells us:

“... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

In summary, if our government chooses to violate our unalienable rights; if our government chooses to pass unjust laws, contrary to the consent of the governed; if our government chooses to take despotic actions that reduce us to servitude of the government, or some political agenda – then we have a right and a duty according to the Declaration of Independence to “throw off such Government.” Because regardless whether it comes from one tyrant in London or 3,000 tyrants in Washington, D.C., tyranny – in all its forms – must be passionately fought until it is defeated.

Now, I have to admit here that I am probably a bit more aggressive in my adherence to what the Founders suggested than the author of this article. Sure, we have elections this November and we certainly can purge the House of tyrants if we wish and at least some of the Senators, but at what point in time do we have to admit that the Government itself, in all of its bureaucratic enormity, has become the "tyrant?" It's not enough to vote out tyrannical Reps. and Senators, it's about instilling representatives that will agree to dismantle this behemoth called the Federal government. It is time to enforce the Constitution - if members of Congress, if members of the Executive, and/or members of the Judiciary are hellbent on ignoring the Constitution, going against the Constitution or violating the Constitution, then they need to be recalled....yes, THROWN THE HELL OUT.

I'd like to hear from anyone out there that can think of a single time in American history, other than the days of the colonies, where there has been more anger, resentment and distrust of our Government. And in that train of thought, I would really like to know when the American people have ever been closer to accepting that recommendation from the Declaration. In my summary, I'd like to say this: members of Congress, the President and his administration, the Judiciary and the endless layers of bureaucrats best be aware that a lot of us aren't looking to change the carpeting of this Federal government, but indeed, we are looking at a total remodeling of the entire entity... there are times in life when one has to realize that a one bedroom home is better for all involved than a McMansion.

The 'Right' and 'Duty' to Throw Off Unjust Government


The Declaration of Independence states that our government derives its just – or lawful – powers from the “consent of the governed.” The underlying principle implied in the Declaration was that “We the People” are the true and rightful government of the United States, and as Abraham Lincoln declared in his Gettysburg Address, “government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth.” Elected and appointed officials are managers selected to work on our behalf in order to accomplish our collective will. We do not, however, elect them to dictate what our will is, or should be.

However, in the event that our government becomes one consisting of rulers rather than representatives, our government determined over 200 years ago what our course of action should be.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution to the Second Continental Congress proposing that the thirteen American colonies declare independence from Great Britain. After they consulted with their respective colonies, Congress approved the resolution on July 2. The wording was not approved until two days later, when 56 American patriots would sign “the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” more commonly known as the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration's authors listed numerous grievances perpetrated by Britain's King George III: abolishing the colonies' laws and representative houses, depriving colonists of their right to trial by jury, trying colonists in overseas kangaroo courts for phony charges, imposing taxes without consent, inciting insurgencies against the colonists, conducting mock trials on British troops charged with murdering colonists, forcing American prisoners to fight against other Americans, and for declaring war on the colonies – the Revolutionary War began fourteen months before Lee introduced his resolution.

But these “repeated injuries and usurpations” were all symptoms of a much larger disease. The founding fathers didn't declare independence from mock trials and taxation without representation. King George had established “absolute Tyranny” over the colonies, and that tyranny is what drove America to declaring independence.

The Declaration not only absolved our ties with the tyrannical ruler of Great Britain, the document also established individual rights that no man or government could encroach upon:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”

Although our Constitution would not be ratified for another twelve years, the foundations had been laid for a people that – in theory – would no longer suffer under tyranny. Government could no more intrude on our unalienable rights than could an armed citizen walk into the Oval Office of the White House.

But has today's Federal government alienated American citizens from our unalienable rights? It is a sad truth that throughout human history, tyrants have used a mire of endless minutiae to obscure corrupt and manipulative power plays. The current state of political maneuvering seems to reflect this ongoing historic trend.

How much of Washington's activity is “just” when you consider that Article Ten of the Bill of Rights states that the Federal government only has the power to do what is enumerated in the Constitution. It is telling to mention that a bill has been introduced in each Congress since 1995, stating only that Congress cite where the Constitution grants them the enumerated power to enact each piece of legislation. Rather than leaving the American people to wonder if any legislation was constitutional, we could see the article, section, and clause that grants Congress the authority. As simple and necessary as that sounds, no session of Congress has allowed that bill to reach a vote. If Congress was operating within their authority, wouldn't it make sense that they would want to prove that they were doing so?

While our elected officials haven't necessarily “plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, [or] burnt our towns,” at least in an overt sense, they have repeatedly gone against the will of the people. A great number of Americans have expressed opposition to much of our government's agenda, which indicates that they no longer have the “consent” of a considerable percentage of the “governed.”

In the event that Americans find themselves at odds with their government, the Declaration tells us:

“... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

Unfortunately for the signers of the Declaration, King George most certainly did not see declaring independence as a right. Elitists almost never recognize the legitimate rights of others. But according to our nation's own foundational text, we now have that right:

“... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

Our government has not yet driven us to “absolute Despotism,” but recent trends indicate that we could be headed in that direction. Additionally, an orchestrated and deliberate propaganda campaign is underway, aimed at squelching any opposition: those who take a stand in favor of the Constitution, limited government, and the principles listed in the Declaration and Constitution are being labeled as “extremists.” If supporters of the government's founding principles are considered extremists, then what does that make the government?

We certainly have not have reached the point of revolution yet, but we can “overthrow” the government – although on a smaller scale – at the voting booth. Will November's elections prove enough to return Washington to a government “of the people by the people and for the people?” We shall see.

In the movie The Patriot, the fictional character Benjamin Martin stated: “Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can.” Many real American patriots probably expressed that same sentiment – a sentiment that could prove true for modern-day Americans in coming months. Over 200 years after the colonies declared independence from King George's tyranny, the United States has slowly devolved into a government that has in some ways has begun to resemble his rule. It appears that tyrants come in many guises.

In summary, if our government chooses to violate our unalienable rights; if our government chooses to pass unjust laws, contrary to the consent of the governed; if our government chooses to take despotic actions that reduce us to servitude of the government, or some political agenda – then we have a right and a duty according to the Declaration of Independence to “throw off such Government.” Because regardless whether it comes from one tyrant in London or 3,000 tyrants in Washington, D.C., tyranny – in all its forms – must be passionately fought until it is defeated.