Tuesday, December 16, 2014

The Rule of Law?

                 A reporter for the Washington Post, who has been jailed since July, has finally been charged with something by  Iranian authorities in a 10-hour court session. However, he has not been told what the charges are. The court appearance of the reporter, Jason Rezaian, was also confirmed by his lawyer, who has not been allowed to defend his client.
                Be thankful for the rule of law and concepts such as  “innocent until proven guilty”, “a jury of your peers” and individual rights granted by the creator. As incredible as it seems, most of the world has historically been ruled by anything other than those precious tenets. That is still true today.
                Worse, we here in America are sliding in that direction. State your considered opinion clearly, honestly and unreservedly in an unapproved manner on matters of politically-correct dogma and you may well be shunned, silenced, browbeaten…or worse. Think I’m overstating it? Ask any conservative who’s been asked to speak at a college or university and subsequently been told that they cannot. Or one of those that were flatly refused a forum in the first place. Research the “Fairness Act” that was proposed a few years ago. Or look into the incredible case/plight of Mark Steyn, the remarkably talented writer/commentator,  who got into legal trouble for expressing his opinion on global warming and a certain professor’s ‘hockey stick’ graph purporting to illustrate the affects thereof.
                Consider the IRS scandal, the President’s own verbal ‘war’ with Fox News, the way conservatives in Hollywood are shunned and in many cases fearful of getting work if they should speak their mind. Contrast that with the constant inane leftist babble that comes out of the mouths of so many ignorant Hollywood stars or starlets. Those who toe the shallow, politically-correct line are front and center. They have no trouble procuring gainful employment, even if they could not pick out California on a map of the United States.
                One cannot logically pick and choose which aspects of the rule of law one likes and which aspects one does not, or which aspects benefit your group and which don’t. The aforementioned concepts underpinning the unbiased application of said law are mostly absolute and must be applied universally or not at all, or arbitrary yet extreme prejudice will result.
                You believe in “individual rights granted by the creator” or you don’t. It is impossible, by definition, for a sane person to believe in “individual rights granted by the creator to me- or my group- only.”  Yet some liberals apparently do believe this. The only other alternatives are that we have no rights or that they believe that rights are granted by other men, i.e.  government.

                Do your rights stem from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

No comments:

Post a Comment