Where is the Rule of Law?

“A lie can go half way around the world before truth can even put its pants on.” – Mark Twain

Where are common sense, logic, critical thinking, belief in God, accountability, and the Rule of Law? Have they been replaced by the Fabians’ Social Justice Doctrine, controlled chaos, endless corruption, good is bad, evil is good, mindless propaganda, and political correctness?

The Rule of Law is the cornerstone of our Republic and, without the Rule of Law, there is tyranny. Sen. Rand Paul wondered about the Rule of Law on the floor of the Senate: “Either we’re a nation of laws or not.” He continued, “If we ignored our own laws, are we in any position to preach to the rest of the world about democracy and the Rule of Law?” (C-SPAN radio 7/31/13)

The Rule of Law is necessary for freedom, justice, and equality to prevail, without it we are ruled by a government of men and women who make arbitrary decisions on a whim. When the Rule of Law is not respected, nobody is truly safe from government encroachment, intrusion, and abuse.

When ICE agents were ordered by DACA directive to violate federal law in non-deportation policies because of lack of jurisdiction, the ICE agents’ lawyer said, “There has to be a forum in which the rule of law can be restored.” Kris W. Kobach, the lawyer for the ICE union continued, “This is without question a lawless amnesty being imposed upon America. All Americans, regardless of how they feel about the amnesty, should be concerned when a president can flagrantly ignore the law and violate the Constitution.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/1/ice-agents-weigh-appeal-in-deportation-policy-figh/

Has this administration followed the Rule of Law or have they deliberately ignored it? Is this the new norm?

In the tsunami of executive orders and laws passed against the wishes of the majority of the American people, was it legal to give Congress and its staffers a 75% subsidy to insulate them from the expensive and harmful effects of Obamacare?

Was it legal to give exemptions from the unaffordable Affordable Care Act to special groups and not enforce the law across the board in a timely manner, as it was passed?

Was it legal to fire AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin for doing his job and exposing the corruption of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson?

Was it legal to hound Republican administration appointees with often-absurd and/or invented  accusations while ignoring crass corruption and illegal behavior of Democrat administration appointees?

Was it legal to wipe out GM and Chrysler bondholders by ignoring the bondholders “prior claim” and violating bankruptcy laws involving the order of compensation, and giving unions preferred status?

Was it legal to give the EPA so much power over Congress that it was able to force administratively the “cap” portion of “cap and trade?”

Was it lawful to declare the Senate in recess in order to make “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board? Has dissolving legislative bodies throughout history not been the hallmark of dictatorships?

Was it lawful to decree the Dream Act passed when Congress refused to pass it?

Was it legal to ignore the language of the Affordable Care Act and to run federal subsidies for state run exchanges in states that refused to set up exchanges? Current litigation is underway in the Oklahoma http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/could-oklahomas-new-lawsuit-strike-fatal-blow-obamacare and Halbig lawsuits.

http://medicalhealthplan.org/could-halbig-et-al-v-sebelius-sink-obamacare/

Was it legal to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act mandate in spite of the clear terms of the statute?

Was it legal to send millions in farm subsidies to dead farmers? http://www.examiner.com/article/millions-u-s-farm-subsidies-are-sent-to-dead-farmers

Was it legal to sweep under the rug the Benghazi incident in which four Americans died needlessly? Yet we “feel” that it is our duty to get involved in someone else’s civil war because citizens there died and they happen to live under a dictatorship in the proximity of a lot of natural gas?

What happened to the Solyndra Criminal Probe investigation?  What happened to the many other criminal investigations relating to the “Green Energy” scams? You can hear crickets in the main stream media.

Did the artificially low interest rates purposefully enabled  out-of-control government spending with cheap money? Did the government pressure the bond rating agencies such as Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch to not downgrade the U.S. debt further? If they did so, was it legal? “The Truth” wants to know because the media is reporting very little.

Maybe the definition of the Rule of Law has changed and I missed it in the flurry of death by a thousand paper cuts changes. Maybe the new Rule of Law is now the plain clothes police everywhere, who no longer serve and protect since we don’t know who they are to ask for help in an emergency, they just ticket us to death for speeding, or the drones hovering over quiet residential neighborhoods, or the EPA police surprising a few law-abiding miners in Alaska, or the full geared and assault ready police in the metro, the TSA molesting and irradiating us at airports, or the IRS making sure that we pay all of our taxes, including the Affordable Care Act tax?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Progressives as "moral superiors" who like to play God

 The most famous eugenicists were the Spartans. Their newborns were allowed to live only if perfectly healthy. The state did not want to be burdened by imperfect babies.

The modern eugenicists advocate infanticide as being no different than abortion. According to an article in The Telegraph, a team of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University maintained that “parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are ‘morally irrelevant.’ (Stephen Adams, February 29, 2012)

The Journal of Medical Ethics published an article, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini argued that babies are not “actual persons,” do not have a “moral right to life,” and parents should be allowed to kill their babies if they are disabled.  (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html)

Prof. Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics labeled those readers who made death threats to the article’s authors as “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” Most modern humans must then be fanatics because they reject such a liberal society based on brutal values. We no longer live in Sparta. A sign of civilization is treating life with respect and awe, beginning at conception until death.

It is frightening to logically comprehend how liberals argue for population control through eugenics and advocate abortion when they themselves have already been born and their mothers did not consider them an inconvenience, an imperfect form of life, or a burden on society.

With a self-appointed “moral superiority” mandate, these warped individuals argue that “the moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life of an individual.” “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life.’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html)

The authors believe that “after-birth abortions” should be available to parents if the newborn is disabled and the parents had no prenatal testing and did not know their fetus was not perfect, but also in cases when the newborn is not disabled. Allowing disabled children to live “might be an unbearable burden on the family and society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Therein lies the truth – under the socialized medical care system in the U.K., the state considers a burden to care for people’s imperfections, life is not sacred, and rationing of care must occur in order to save money. It is an admission of the failed medical care system that is incapable to deliver proper care to its citizens and must thus vilify those who are not perfect in order to justify getting rid of financial burdens and inconveniences in a supposedly “ethical” way. It is similar to our Obamacare labeling persons over the age of 70 as “units” and their medical care rationed based on their utility and contribution to society.

One of the authors, Alberto Giubilini, lectured students on the topic, “What is the problem with euthanasia?” Morally, ethically, and religiously, there is plenty wrong with euthanasia and “after-birth abortion.”

Dr. Trevor Stammers, medical ethics director at St. Mary’s University College summed it best when referring to the term, “after-birth abortion.” “This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”

Verbal manipulation and influence of the low information masses is what liberals do best. Progressive liberals, a growing minority, like to control not just our moral, economic, political, and ethical lives; they want to be able to play God in both birth and death because they see themselves as the ultimate authority, an omnipotent force that can control nature and Earth.