Vote for Restoring the Rule of Law in November

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

DirtyDawg

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
640
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Oklahoma
By Arnold Ahlert

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The one thing that ostensibly elevates our democratic republic above the various outposts of global oppression is the idea that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. I say ostensibly because law is neither effective nor respected unless it applies equally to everyone. Since the Obama administration assumed control, it has become clear to many Americans that the equal application of law has been completely undermined by "Chicago way," progressive political considerations. Here are four blatant examples:

• The nationalization of Chrysler and GM. When the Obama administration nationalized GM and Chrysler, bankruptcy laws were tossed under the bus. This was the biggest--and most calculatingly ignored--story of 2009. Primary creditors, who are supposed to be first in line for repayment in any bankruptcy proceeding, were pressured by the president to accept 30 cents on the dollar, while a secondary creditor was awarded 50 cents on the dollar. Why? Because that secondary creditor was the United Auto Workers Union, one of the lynchpin supporters of the progressive movement.



This was a breathtaking assault on the rule of law for many reasons, but perhaps the most egregious aspect of the entire spectacle is that the wretched excesses of UAW were the primary reason GM and Chrysler were driven into bankruptcy in the first place. Labor costs to produce automobiles averaged $72-an-hour, and union health and pension benefits added almost two thousand dollars to the cost of each car produced. Just prior to its 2009 bankruptcy, GM alone had $53 billion of debt. Even now, after billions in taxpayer bailouts, employee pension obligations remain under-funded by almost $27 billion.

The Obama administration and progressive pundits argue that such machinations were necessary to save jobs. Even if one agrees, here's a question worth considering for an administration that bases much of its economic success on jobs "created or saved:" how many jobs will never be created by people who might ordinarily be willing to do so, but are no longer interested in assuming the risks of primary creditor-ship knowing their rights can be trampled on for political considerations?

If progressives wonder why so many companies aren't hiring, perhaps they might consider that economic uncertainty--which this administration and a Democratically-controlled Congress have produced in spades--is the chief culprit. The massively complicated health care and financial reform bills whose real costs are unknowable, and the failure to pass extensions of the Bush tax cuts are bad enough.



But they pale in comparison to the uncertainty created by a federal government whose fealty to the rule of law is capricious at best.



• The lawsuit filed against the state of Arizona. Lost amid the controversy of whether or not Arizona's law is a usurpation of federal power is the fact that the Obama administration is engaging in selective law enforcement. Hundreds of municipalities around the country have identified themselves as "sanctuary cities," and have passed statutes to that effect. In most sanctuary cities, law enforcement officials are specifically forbidden from inquiring about someone's immigration status, even if the person in question has committed a felony.



Progressive politicians claim such laws are necessary because, without them, illegal aliens with knowledge of a crime will refuse to come forward.



Again, even if one agrees with such pernicious nonsense, one reality remains inarguable: sanctuary city statues are in unquestionable violation of federal immigration law. Yet same the Justice Department suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its citizens from the ravages of illegal immigration hasn't filed a single lawsuit against any number of municipalities aiding and abetting the interests of law-breakers.



In both cases, the progressive priorities of this administration are clear: taking the side of illegal aliens over the interests of American citizens. Thus, the lawsuit against Arizona will be pursued with vigor, while far more winnable cases against sanctuary cities will remain unfiled.


• Dropping the voter intimidation case against three New Black Panther Party defendants. Once again, the Obama administration's Justice Department demonstrates their commitment to selective law enforcement. In Philadelphia, during the 2008 election, three men dressed in para-military clothing, one of whom was brandishing a club, were videotaped harassing voters. Two prominent members of the Justice Department, former Voting Rights Section member J. Christian Adams, and that section's former chief, Christopher Coates, both testified under oath that dropping the case was completely unjustified. Both men further testified that Justice Department officials were biased against pursuing any cases involving minority defendants.



Americans are lucky to have heard any testimony at all: both men had been ordered by the Justice Department not to testify, despite receiving subpoenas to do so by the Commission on Civil Rights. The threat of retaliation for testifying was apparently serious enough that Coates addressed the possibility, "claiming all the protections of all applicable federal whistle-blower statutes" during his testimony.


How biased is the Justice Department's decision to drop the case? Christopher Coates puts it in precise perspective:

"To understand the irrationality of these articulated reasons for gutting this case, one only has to state the facts in the racial reverse. Assume two members of the KKK, one of which lived in an apartment building being used as a polling place, show up at the entrance in KKK uniforms and that one of the Klansmen was carrying a billy stick. Further assume that the two Klansmen were yelling racial slurs at black voters who were a minority of people registered to vote at this polling place and that the Klansmen were blocking ingress to the polling place. Assume further that a local policeman comes on the scene and determines that the Klansman with the billy club must leave, but that the other Klansman could stay because he was a certified poll watcher for a political party."



"In those circumstances does anyone seriously believe that the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights would contend… the CRD (Civil Rights Division) did not have a case under the VRA (Voting rights Act)…?"



The Obama administration and its defenders have made every attempt they can to downplay this case, or dismiss peoples' concerns as an "over-reaction." It is impossible to do so for the simplest reason: the videotape of the incident went viral on the internet, giving millions of Americans the opportunity to see exactly what happened with their own eyes--and draw their own conclusions. The bet here is the overwhelming majority see exactly what Coates and Adams did: a travesty of justice.



• The Obama administration grants health care bill waivers to thirty different companies. Last week, employers, insurers and union plans were granted a "one-year waiver" allowing these entities to give their employees coverage below the bill's new regulations. Yet the one-year waiver is a crock: the various entities can apply for renewal until 2014, when the new health care bill kicks in, in its entirety--if Republicans don't kill it first.



Why did the Obama administration do this? Despite all their talk about the new health care bill "bending the cost curve down" for health insurance, the entities involved realized that their costs were about to go up--substantially. So much so that McDonalds threatened to drop its health care plan altogether. This apparently got the attention of the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats who realized that just before the November elections is no time for people to be losing their health coverage.



Ergo, the "special" exemptions.



Progressives can characterize this thuggery any way they choose, but the bottom line is clear: this administration believes government can pick "winners and losers" based on nothing more than naked political considerations. A law which is supposed to apply to everyone equally has been waived for an "anointed few"--one of which, by "sheer coincidence" is the United Federation of Teachers who have given 98% of their political donations to Democrats for the past eleven years. They were also staunch supporters of Obamacare, as written. Now that reality bites, they are quick to embrace one of the fundamental tenets progressives always fall back on when they are faced with the "unexpected consequences" of their socialist/marxist meddling:



Do as I as say, not as I do.



One of the most important elections in the history of the country is coming up in three weeks. Americans will be asked to decide many things regarding the direction this country will take in the next two years. First and foremost, Americans must decide whether they will continue to empower a party and a president for whom the rule of law remains a secondary consideration to the implementation of the progressive agenda.



Such an agenda is antithetical to everything for which this nation stands. Here's hoping the electorates recognizes it on November 2nd.
 

Dale00

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
7,462
Reaction score
3,868
Location
Oklahoma
Thanks for posting this article.

Too many people want a king instead of a president. Too many people want Washington to do for them instead of working to improve things themselves.They don't care about the abuses of the rule of law pointed out in this article as long as they think it benefits them.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
3,936
Reaction score
4
Location
Midwest City
I completely agree with this, particularly no. 1.

For hundreds of years, we've had well-working bankruptcy laws. Chapter 11 is a reorganization that saves a company from going belly up, allows them to continue business, yet hoses some unsecured creditors a bit, to varying extents, steamlines their product lines to just the profitable ones, etc. It's deemed to be, and is, worth the tradeoff, in order to let them continue and save lots of jobs and continuity in the economy if they have a basic core profitable product/service line. That's what chapter 11 does, and they could easily have done it.

Thousands upon thousands of small, medium, large, and huge companies have done successful reorganizations over the years under Chapter 11, and Chrysler and GM could have done the same exact thing - no big deal at all. Hell, the better question than "oh my, what on earth SHALL we do if they go - gasp - bankrupt?" is "which fortune 500s have NOT done chapter 11 at one time or another?".

But instead, these companies griped and begged and fear-mongered, along with this admin. and BOTH parties doing the same thing, and made people think that "bankrupt = gone" and "bankrupt= calamity and millions of lost jobs and predicate to guaranteed 2nd great depression" when nothing could be further from the truth. Bankruptcy or no bankruptcy, bailout or no bailout, the fat (unprofitable lines & plants) eventually has to be cut. In bankruptcy, it's the general unsecured creditors of the company, who made bad loans to them when they shouldn't have, who take the haircut.

So, all that we did here with the bailout of Chrysler and GM is this: By substituting bailout for Chapter 11, we shifted the real actual cost away FROM the creditors who lent them money when they knew or should have known that they were bad loans (jeez OP - what creditor COULDN'T have seen that they were going bankrupt due to the absurdly-bloated union contracts and everything else?) - ONTO us, the taxpayers, who did nothing to cause them to get insolvent. Oh, and we also encouraged more slothful negligent and extravagant behavior, rather than punishing it.

It's real simple. It's nothing more than a huge deception-fatcat-featherbedding payoff - simply shifts the burden of the "haircut" FROM creditors (yes including the union, via contract rejection) - ONTO YOU and ME!

Disgusting, but the public bought it hook line and sinker at the time, and many still do. Believe me, if you have a strong but vague & inarticulable resentment and anger at the bailout - I'm here to tell you that it's dang good and justified feeling that you have!
 

DirtyDawg

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
640
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Oklahoma
Sadly, the likelihood of voters heeding this advice is very slim. The members of this forum can't even agree that the 2nd Amendment RTKBA needs to be restored to allow open carry.
 

tran

Sharpshooter
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
1
Location
Purcell
Anyone who voted for Obama the first time was misguided.

Anyone who votes for him again is insane.

Or just STUPID!.... Their are a bunch on the walfare program who plan on keeping him in office so they dont haft to work... You can take that to the bank.:urwelcome:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom