|
|
|
Jewish World Review Oct. 13, 2010/ 5 Mar-Cheshvan, 5771 Vote for Restoring the Rule of Law in November 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, is 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 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 wavers 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.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR Contributor Arnold Ahlert's column, by clicking here.
© 2010, Arnold Ahlert |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||||
