All Within The State
As his regime imitates Benito Mussolini, Biden calls Republicans "semi-fascists".
Think of how what Mussolini said applies to the Biden regime:
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
It is easy to determine what state of governance we are in:
If the government is the servant of the people, you live in a state of liberty.
If the people are the servants of the government, you live in a state of tyranny.
If you look at what state the Biden administration is in, it is clear that crimes against the people are at the bottom of their priorities - but criminalizing opposition to government is their highest priority.
Biden calls Republicans fascist and blames us for things we don't have the power to do. They have controlled government for almost two years - the problem they have had passing legislation has come from within their own party.
One must ask - if laws are applied unequally, what recourse do we have if we want to remain a free people?
Original construction anticipated the courts would decide, not about fairness – because fairness is subjective, but that laws are enforced, as the reprehensible Merrick Garland said, “without fear or favor”.
So, what now that the justice system has been compromised?
America is subject to a two-tiered system of justice, based entirely on fear and favor.
The very core of American law is that any law passed is equal in application, but the fact is that any law, while equal in application, is never equal in outcome.
The Democrats are the masters of passing laws and then squealing about how cruel the laws are when these same laws are applied as written – because the outcomes are often different.
Most recently, we see this with immigration law. “How dare you” they say to evoke emotion – but they never finish that statement with “…enforce the law as written” because that would diminish the emotional effect. So rather than deal with the law itself, the Democrats ignore the parts of law they don’t like, apply the laws arbitrarily and enforce the capriciously and by doing so, create a confused amalgam of unlegislated, quasi-legal conventions that are subject to change. That is what is happening now, border enforcement is trapped between a court decision and standing federal law, and this is the result.
The law must be the law.
That is unless you DON’T want to live in a constitutional republic.
Because if you do, you are doing it wrong. If you pass laws, you never intend to enforce or enforce them arbitrarily, you aren’t intelligent, enlightened, sophisticated, or compassionate, you are ignorant and destructive.
Sure, laws can be cruel. That is why there should be fewer of them – but no matter how many there are, they must be equally applied. To do otherwise invalidates the law and once laws are invalidated, all that is left is the lawlessness of tyranny.
People have been conditioned to think “tyranny” requires some big event, that it is all revolution, flashing billboards and fireworks – and titular event so conspicuous and obvious as to be instantly recognized – but it isn’t. Tyranny comes in the death of a thousand cuts – it comes incrementally through unequal treatment, through laws that apply to some and not to others, to elected officials exempting themselves from laws the citizenry must follow. It comes through a government focused on creating outcomes rather than protecting opportunity.
Trying to create equal outcomes is the reason economic and social collectivism exists.
Thinking this is possible in a world of individuals where each has different wants, needs, desires, intellects, skills, and drives is to believe in magic and trying to force it to happen is more than madness, it is tyranny.
I asked earlier what there is to do.
It is time for the people, as Nancy Reagan said, to “just say no.”
Revolutions take many forms.
I went to law school at the age of 29. I was very much a progressive-leaning student. One of the year long courses was Contracts. During discussion of a specific case, one of my fellow students opined the outcome was not "fair." The Prof had obviously been down this road before. He swung around and said, "Fair?" We don't use that four letter word that starts with an F here. We don't care if the results are fair; we ONLY care that they are legal!
Once graduated and out in the world of practicing law; I saw that even at the local level there was biased application of the "law." Local Judges, although not listed on the ballot as a D or R; received fund-raising from a specific local political party. This greatly influenced the outcome of cases for a majority of Judges. I did "Regular people law." Law people rich enough to afford a big firm or poor enough to afford free legal services wouldn't come to me for. My clients were people who worked for a living. They would come in for a Will, buying or selling a house, getting divorced, custody, etc... I would prepare my client for court and outline what I thought the outcome should be according to the law. On numerous occasions, things didn't go as predicted and I would have the unenviable task of trying to explain why the outcome didn't match the law to my client. I couldn't say the Judge goes out to lunch or plays golf with the other attorney. The Judge knew my clients didn't have funds available to appeal their ruling. There really wasn't a means for filing a compliant against the unlawful outcome as the Judges run their own investigative complaint board! The other lawyers knew this as well.
I am not someone who gives up. I tried for 9 years to help my clients. I came to feel as though I were banging my head against a brick wall and the blood running down over my face had blinded me. I stopped practicing law and have not regretted it once. This was as local a level as there is - District Court. If It is that broken at that level, I'm completely unsurprised that it happens at the top Federal level too.
“The truth is that men are tired of liberty.”
― Benito Mussolini