The Rule of Law?


What do you call a country that spends its time and their taxpayer’s money legislating laws for everything under the sun and yet selectively refuses to enforce or prosecute anyone that, in their eyes, are above the law or if they find that the mood of the country dictates that the enforcement of the law would not be politically correct . . . mostly for their own reelection? I call it lawlessness, elitist and relativistic lawlessness; relative to who you are, your usefulness to an agenda and an opportunistic way to win votes; insure one’s reelection.

Why would anyone have regard for the law anymore? Today’s laws are as fluid as water and selectively applied as the mood strikes our politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, law is no longer used as the rule but as a suggestion (for the average men and women of this country)  while the application of Justice, based on these laws, can no longer be characterized as being blind; blind to color, religion, party affiliation, status or wealth and influence. Laws only apply to us if and only if, we are unfortunate enough to not fit into a protected group: latino, poor, black, elitist, sexual lifestyle, uber rich etc. For these are all extenuating circumstances that abrogate the law for many of these protected class of peoples, particularly if it might be expedient for the ruling class to do so.

So what happens to a country that ignores their own rule of law? Don’t they become the judge and jury? Are they not the all powerful elite that can fix or ignore that which is the mandated law for the country, presumably for the good of the nation? Can we all now ignore the law? Should we all be scofflaws such that we can even the playing field? Why, if it is OK for some is it not OK for the rest?

It appears that justice does not apply to Hillary or Bill Clinton, for illegal aliens or for the rioting hordes who are the modern equivalent of a good old fashioned  lynch mob. And this sadly skews the outcome of our political and juridical processes . . . the sad truth being that everything is political, exacted for political gain and one-upmanship. Selective use of the law seems only to be on the books to have something which can be used against those of us who disagree with the powerful elite who sit in office. They become laws to enforce against dissenting citizens; you might classify them as enemies of the state.

As the disgruntled masses lose their belief in the rule of law then we invite anarchy and open the door to tyranny of those who will impose their will on the people. They will give us rules that will be quite simply and openly just the laws applied by our totalitarian elite on those whom they decide to persecute ignored by the supporters of the ruling ideology that comes into power; because they will have a political blind spot that renders these people innocent by an elitist fiat.

Quite frankly, I am beginning to think that we have passed the point of no return. When Hillary can get away without a scratch from flagrantly abusing the law, and when Obama legislates law with his Presidential orders and while bureaucrats and Supreme Court Justices no longer protect the Constitution but instead protect the backside of their political ideology we have, in effect, rendered our Constitution devoid of all meaning; a nice relic to be placed in a museum and of interest only to a few historians; an amusing document that will soon be studied as a failed system of government and of no practical use. Its a sad day in Gotham City.

3 Replies to “The Rule of Law?”

    • Steve Brown

      Jock, I can only assume that you think Saddam was just sitting in Baghdad singing kumbaya. He had used chemical warfare against his own citizens, forcefully tried to overthrow Kuwait, violently executed political opponents, etc. But, you know all of this, so why don’t you get your head out of your ass and act like the educated person that you are.

      • Jock McSporran

        Kumbaya – is that the song they sing at mass when the incense is replaced by an awful lot of good weed?

        I do think they could have taken out Saddam Hussein in other ways (without going to war).


Leave a Reply