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."