The Soviet Union defined criminal behavior as action that would threaten the State. Because the State was represented by the Politburo, whomever ran the Politburo was thus the protected party in all laws. As noted by the fair-and-balanced State newspaper Pravda, Josef Stalin was the “genius of the new world, the wisest man of the epoch, the great leader of communism.”
In every despotic community within recorded human history, at its center you will find the Man of Laws. The Man of Laws is the person who embodies the Law. A woman who votes for the Communist party is a dedicated citizen while one who votes for a write-in candidate is sentenced to death. If the law is not written this way, judges interpret it this way. If the Man of Laws decrees that she realized the error of her ways, perhaps she will be spared.
The Man of Laws is little concerned with words, although a great deal of PR is spent on ensuring that words match actions. The Soviet Union had equal rights for all citizens; alas, some citizens were more equal than others. The Soviet Union allowed for open immigration, but no emigration. Everyone was happy under pain of death. No one ever wanted to leave.
The Ten Commandments are laws that are on loan from a higher power. Whether you are a person of faith or not, it is clear that the laws are based on principles that have few, if any, exceptions. We have the concept of mercy to ensure that in certain cases the laws are not strictly applied the same way.
Our faith in officers of the law, such as the police, is that they will uphold and defend the Law. Our charge to them is not to apply the law differently based on wealth, race nor class. Our faith in the law is based on our faith in the execution of the law.
Most third-world countries lack that faith. They understand far better the Man of Laws. For many immigrants, police should be feared because they simply carry out the policy of those with power. In Orange County, California, for example, many criminals who were of Asian background would rob Asian neighborhoods in the 1980’s with the knowledge that residents would never report the crime. They simply did not trust police based on their experiences back in Asia.
Race is a horribly disfigured word. We have one distinction based on pigmentation, “Black”, one based on facial characteristics coupled with geographic origin, “Pacific Islander”, one based on culture and geographic origin, “Hispanic”, and one based on historical origin, “Native American”. If parents come from more than one classification, best of luck to you. For “Hispanics”, a large percentage self-classify as “Caucasian” or “Black”.
We have passed laws which apply only to specific “races”, while also passing laws that only apply to specific “races” in order to achieve a “race-neutral” result. There are many citizens and visitors who have experienced unfairness under the Color of Law. There are many different causes, varying from racial animus to corruption to laziness. While the United States had a highly-prized “Rule of Law”, our opponents held no such concept in high regard.
Historically, we have altered our viewpoint through the passage of laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a piece of legislation that aided the Federal Government greatly in ending practices of racial injustice which were prevalent throughout the South. We may have many arguments about whether or not the Federal Government had the right to pass laws of that nature, but ultimately these battles were over the written word.
Unfortunately, at some point in the early 1960’s the Supreme Court transformed the Laws of Man into the Implied Laws of Man. Once we turned to the Implied Laws of Man, what we were really doing is replacing the Laws of Man with the Men of Laws. We had expected the Court to be the protector of our Laws and instead we turned to the psychoanalysis of the Court to determine the new Men of Laws.
And now the Men of Laws have repudiated the People in many States. When the law is what a judge states it is, and the judge states that the law is what they think it should be, then we are no different than the Soviet Union. For every Griswold v Connecticut that is celebrated for finding rights implied in the Constitution to the joy of one set of views, there are cases like Citizen’s United v FEC that people from an opposing viewpoint consider unconstitutional.
Ferguson, Missouri has experienced rioting and a great deal of controversy. Viewpoints vary, from those who believe that no white police officer can shoot a black, unarmed man without racial animus and without lying about the underlying facts of the shooting, to those who believe the officer obeyed the law and rightfully defended his own life. The legal mechanism available, the Grand Jury, did not believe that any criminal action had occurred.
When an outcome is not what someone wants, they can rely on a series of individuals who represent the Man of Laws who will rewrite the facts in order to comply with their viewpoint. Reverend Al Sharpton is but a good example. There can never be a legal argument of self-defense that involves an unarmed black person and an armed white person. Just cannot happen. Reverse the color of the assailant and victim and, well, he disappears.
The Man of Laws always has a viewpoint to advance that places responsibility on a community other than his own. For Hitler, there were Jews. For Okello, there were Arabs. There is always two sets of enemies: those who are not like Us and those who support those who are not like Us. All traitors, every last one of them.
The current Them in this country is Christians. They must be converted or abolished, punished and ostracized. Pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and sodomy are normal, while a belief in God is not. We are one nation, under God… until the Men of Laws decided we were not.
With any luck, Ferguson will inspire a generation of citizens to fight to restore the Laws of Man to our nation.