THE UNJUSTICE SYSTEM

Our Justice System is biased toward illegal aliens and unions

 

Remember when the unions trashed the State Capitol of Wisconsin—the media did not complain and no charges were brought against those that were part of the conspiracy to close the Capitol to decent people.

Then a couple of months latter, the same thing was tried in Sacramento. This time it was only a few hundred, not thousands. 

Looks like unions can commit no crime—even demanding bribes from workers—no bribes, no work—is allowed.

Boeing decides to spend a billion dollars, create one thousand jobs in the Carolina’s, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) says NO. The unions complained and Obama’s minions listened.

Recently Delta flight attendants voted NO on the joining of a union. Guess they did not want to pay a bribe in order to work. So, the NLRB opens an investigation of Delta.

How corrupt is this? Workers say NO to corrupt unions and the Feds decide to investigate.

Then you have the sanctuary city movement. This is the effort to say that if you break the Federal immigration laws, local government will protect you from the Feds. In San Francisco, the Mayor used tax dollars to ship teenage drug dealers, illegal aliens, to San Bernardino, to hide them from Federal law enforcement.

The District Attorney of San Francisco used tax dollars meant to put crooks in jail to pay for attorneys for illegal aliens facing deportation.

In Texas, a well known illegal alien, deported a few times, killed a cop. Now local law enforcement is concerned.

  

We have an Attorney General, Eric Holder, who can teach the KKK something about bigotry. He allowed racists to use baseball bats to intimidate voters in Philadelphia.  Holder said nothing wrong with that.  About 20 years ago, an Assembly candidate in Orange County, a Republican, used poll watchers.  He lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in an intimidation lawsuit brought by Hispanics. They claimed just having legal poll watchers were intimidating—yet Holder thinks swinging baseball bats are OK?

And then, as if all this bias wasn’t enough, we have those stupid “hate-crime laws” which I have always maintained are unconstitutional.  They have never made any sense to me.  A crime is a crime pure and simple. What difference does it make if you hate, or love, or are totally indifferent toward the victim of your crime?  And, as if hate crime laws were not already bad enough, exacerbating that is the biased enforcement.

Now it seems no actual crime is necessary, the mere fact that you hate someone is in itself a crime. Take for example former NBA star Tim Hardaway. He was persecuted by the press for making the remark that he hated homosexuals. The way the News Media jumped on this story, you would think that he had physically attacked someone.

Not that I advocate hatred, but I think most people have at one time or another hated someone. I know we should hate the sin but not the sinner, but as long as you take no action on your hatred, you should have the right to hate whomever you chose. One thing we certainly do not need is "thought Police".

On October 10, 2004, eleven Christians were arrested in Philadelphia for criticizing homosexuality. They were arrested under a Pennsylvania hate crime law, which is almost identical to the federal hate crime law which did not exist at that time. In 2009, President Obama signed into law the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Actually, he signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act tacked onto which was the hate crimes legislation.

The bill adds extra penalties to violent crimes when they are deemed motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disabilities. It's the first major expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968, targeted then to crimes aimed at race, color, religion, and national origin. 

After signing this new law, Obama celebrated it by saying that in this nation we should "embrace our differences."  WHAT?  Law isn’t suppose to be about embracing our differences, it’s suppose to be about providing equal and non-arbitrary protection to all citizens.

Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War, guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously -- that there are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law -- has been a justifiable obsession of blacks. 

A society in which all life is not valued the same, where murder of one citizen is not the same as the murder of another citizen, is a horror that should be unacceptable to all Americans.  However, It’s the law; it is illegal to say anything bad about any person who is a member of a minority. However, sense I am a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male who is not gay, you may feel free to say anything you like about me.

So, why am I on the soap-box about hate crime laws and selective enforcement?  Here is why.  In the New York City subway a week ago this past Sunday, 29-year-old Jason Fordell was attacked by a group of black men who taunted him for being white.  Yet NYC police "are unsure" if the incident is a bias crime.

The problem started when Fordell transferred to a crowded train at 42^nd street, where he encountered four black men who began harassing him.  The New York Daily News reports on what transpired next, writing:
"People started saying stupid little comments - cracker this, white boy this, f----t this," Fordell said. "I told them the only reason they were saying this is there was four of them and one of me."

...As the train continued into the Bronx, the confrontation became physical, he said.
"I was in a headlock, punched and kicked on the floor," Fordell said.

Then a passenger decided to join in - declaring, "Oh, I get a few shots, too," before kicking and punching Fordell in the head, according to cops.
..."Everyone on the train was egging them on," said Fordell.

Fordell suffered numerous injuries, which included head-bleeding, a badly swollen eye and internal injuries, as evidenced by blood in his urine.  The assailants also stole a bag he was carrying that contained $2900-worth of handmade leather accessories, which Fordell sells at an East Village nightclub.

Despite the epithets hurled by Fordell's attackers, this crime hasn't yet been transferred to the NYPD hate-crimes task force because, we're told, the authorities aren't sure if it was motivated by bias.  According to a Daily News source, "They have to look at whether that was the motivation before the robbery."

Really?  I think we all know full well that if Fordell were black and the attackers were white, it would be a clear-cut hate-crime from the get-go.

If this keeps up, soon we'll be like Britain.  In that once-proud civilization, the police are so afraid to tackle Muslim criminality that their efforts to cover it up have reached comical proportions.  And it will keep up unless we experience a deep cultural renewal.  This means pulling leftist ideology up by the roots in academia, the media, the entertainment arena and beyond.  Mere political victory won't change a thing.

Governments are more and more the arbitrator of who and what we can hate, and we are just suppose to accept that hate is whatever they deem it to be. This is why we should all be so adamantly opposed to the idea that people have no legal right to hate. The Tim Hardaways of the world have every right to hate whomever they wish, and we have a right to scorn and ostracize them for it. But to say they have no right to voice their beliefs is to deny the fundamental freedom of speech.

Hate crime laws are worse than just redundant, they are, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional because they are discriminatory.  By conferring special status -- enhanced protection -- on certain government-favored groups, they violate the very principal of equality before the law.

Hate-crime laws are simple wrong as a matter of principle, since they attempt to punish criminals for their motivation, rather than targeting their illegal behavior.  Federal hate-crimes laws also duplicate state hate crime laws, which in turn duplicate long existing state and local laws.

I do not dispute that hatred and bigotry are reprehensible. But they aren't crimes in and of themselves. The law books are already filled with statutes that punish individuals for behavior that injures other people or damages property. Enhancing those penalties because the perpetrator may be a bigot is an affront to our legal traditions of equal protection under the law.  If a white man mugs a black man, and steals his wallet, who is to decide if he mugged him because he is a bigot, or simply because he wanted his wallet. Prosecutors of supposed hate crimes must pry into defendants' lives -- books and magazines read, Internet sites visited, the nature of his or her friends -- to uncover evidence of illegal thoughts.