Revisiting “Nobody is Above the Law”

Revisiting “Nobody is Above the Law” examines the use and abuse of this principle in modern politics, specifically, ICE killing a protestor.

The Democrat Party began using the slogan “Nobody is above the law” when they wanted to pursue the impeachment of then President Donald Trump. Whether there was basis for that impeachment or not was not under consideration, just the process of a public impeachment for wrong doing would also serve their purpose which was/is for them to gain and retain power and control of government.

They had their impeachment process, and it basically failed. While all prosecutors have their superiors over them, and their superiors always set the rules, that is, do not use your energies (the public legal resources) for cases that simply have no legal basis. Either the accused did not break the law, or whatever the situation is, from viewing it from the legal standpoint, there is no way to conclusively prove wrong doing. Always pressing upon them and their actions is the point that every decision can be appealed and overturned. At one time, an overturned decision was (1) a tremendous embarrassment to the judge that made that decision, and (2) the prosecutors are basically taken as clowns and eventually lose their jobs. Those powers that be that were over them, are also in ill repute.

But Nobody is Above the Law

The point of the slogan is simply that the law should be applied equally to all people. For every accused, there is a legal process of appealing a contrary decision, and although that is open, it is costly to the accused. They must pay personally high amounts to pursue that course of action. In the case of a contrary decision that involves the death penalty, the state will automatically pay all expenses. Somehow that concept of grace and mercy for cases of the death sentence has now been expanded to everybody. If a person comes to this country swimming across the Rio Grande, then he should be given free hotels, meals, income, work, and all legal expenses paid to continue in this country forever. He should also be allowed freedom until he gets citizenship.Where did this idea and practice come from? Even in California, the police and state prosecutors will not even take into custody a shop lifter if the total that they steal is less than $950 dollars. So they steal $900, and the police can be watching while they are stealing, and the police will not act. The store just has to lose.

We have to understand some basic principles in all of this. First of all, what is the principle?

What is the Principle

There is a law which is over everybody and in every situation applicable. That law is set by standards of justice. Here is a grave problem for America. The “standards of justice” come from the Bible, and it has basically been enshrined in certain cultures that “mankind” (whoever that is) has deemed as noble and good. This is the Roman culture, and the English culture. But American law is based on both Roman laws and English laws, and the underpinning of both basically go back to principles of just in the Old Testament.

One key point in the principle is that what is considered “good” or “bad” for one person, is and should be considered equally good or bad if done to another. If a man considers it bad (injust) for somebody to take his possessions without his permission, then that same man should also not take other people’s possessions without permission. This principle underlies much of our laws, and is the basis for what we would consider “just”.

An example. If a Mexican works in a good paying job in Mexico, and a foreigner, say from China, comes into the company and takes his job away from him, and the company fires him, because the foreigner will work for half as much as the Mexican, then the Mexican will get angry, rightly so. When the Mexican finds out that the foreigner entered the country illegally, or overstayed their tourist visa in order to work then that Mexican has a legal issue that he can use to get the person who took his job fired and thrown out of the country. But the point here is that justice, what we should only settle for, is that what the law says and is applied to one person, is also fair and just to apply to others, everyone.

Injustice is simply allowing or promoting what is not Just

If the company or a government functionary interposes himself in the above example to keep the fired Mexican out of his job, and the Chinese man in that job, then that is injustice. While every employer can fire and hire whomever they wish, there are standards of “just” action that are expected. Anybody can express their discontent with the actions of a company (make a march or demonstration against the company and their policies or actions) but against the concept of justice is that they cannot physically stop or impede the company from functioning. Thus the rules (law) that a striking union (disgruntled employees) can march outside of their place of work, but cannot impede the entrance or exit of people and vehicles from that establishment, nor can they interfere with the daily tasks of the people therein employed. So justice is freedom of speech to express your discontent but not to actually stop, impede, or otherwise cause the daily tasks of that establishment to cease or be detained or troubled in doing their business.

Democrats Impede Immigration (ICE)

So when the recent news of a woman (who obviously does not like Immigration doing their sworn duty as a federal officer) impeded the work of ICE in Minnesota, and she not only impeded ICE from doing their job (a federal crime), she also threatened the federal officer with a 2 ton vehicle as a weapon, there has been a lot of reaction. But is the reaction just?

Firstly, in no case can one person threaten with bodily harm another person because of their opinions. The woman had strong opinions, and there is a place for expressing those opinions. But not impeding ICE from doing their job. She had no business being there and using her car as a way to impede and then threaten a federal agent. The laws are made in Congress and signed into law by the President. Whether you like a particular law or not does not make any difference. If you are in the United States, you are under the laws of the United States. That goes the same for every country.

So what is really behind all of this? The Democrats do not like the Republicans removing all the illegal and barely legal foreigners that have entered our country under President Biden. Note that Biden did not change the immigration laws through Congress. He took a page from Obama, and signed an executive order. Executive orders are basically the President’s way to legally put into practice the laws that Congress hands him. Congress did not hand Biden any changes to immigration law. So Biden policies were not legal and should have been confronted as such in court. They were not. President Trump began attacking the illegal alien problem in his first term, and President Biden’s presidency was basically a reaction “against Trump.” When your politics get so low as to be against individuals instead of principles, then things are really bad. The Democrat Party continues with Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is hatred of a man, because Trump has principles, and they do not like those principles.

Here another point arises. Laws for everybody are established through investigation, study, and consideration of what is “fair” and balanced for all parties. That process is prolonged and difficult for a reason. No one person or party in power should be able to make new laws, change old laws, nor ignore the laws established by the process in the past, just because it is convenient for them at the moment. So if we accept this principle of “difficulty” and “prolonged process” in making good laws, fair laws for everybody, then what did Biden and the Democrats do? They circumvented the established process (which they used and endorsed in the past) in order to make an immediate change that others could not change. The fact that they could do that does not mean that what they did was correct. If Richard Nixon could send spies into the DNC headquarters, does that make what they did right? No. Because the principle of fair to all means that the Democrats should be able to do the same, and in the end, when one man steals from another, and the other steals from the thief, that is chaos.

So nobody should violate the personal possessions of another. We have to just stand with stealing is wrong, and we also must stand with the point that our immigration laws are the law, and the law has to be enforced by federal officers, and anybody who interferes with their performing their legal duty and obligation is a law breaker themselves and deserve to suffer the consequences.

But ICE killed “an innocent woman”

That ICE officer did take that woman’s life. The federal officer was doing his duty in removing illegal aliens on that day. If he refused to do his duty, that he had sworn to do, he would have broken the law and his work obligation. But that woman did not have to be there. Her rights extended to expressing her opinions, but not necessary in the presence of a federal officer arresting a felon. If that happens in any city or state in the United States, the law officer will get very difficult with such people. Stand and record from a distance, and every use signs and chants, but do not interfere. When there is interference like interposing a vehicle on a public road to impede law enforcement from doing their duty, that person and their car will be ceased by the police. That is anywhere as it should be. If in the altercation, the protester uses their vehicle in a threatening manner, it is not the police that need to back down, but the protester. Law enforcement officers carry loaded weapons, guns, for a reason. If a person breaking the law refuses law enforcement’s directions, that law officer is justified in pulling his gun and using it. Especially if the felon threatens his life or others’ lives.

When Your Obeying the Law is Inconvenient

The problem here is that whether we use slogans or not, everybody IS UNDER THE LAW. The law is universal, that is, for everybody. If the law is a bad law, change it. But study it for a long time and make a change that is fair and just to all, and that protects our country. The process is very well established, but Democrats have lost in these debates in Congress, so they are going about using other means (illegal means) to get what they want.

You cannot see Democrat opposition to the legal and ordered by the law activities of removing illegal aliens, and the Democrats “in-your-face” defiance of federal officers sworn to uphold the law and doing their duty, without questioning, “Why are they stopping federal officers from doing their duty?” The reason is because it is inconvenient for the Democrat. What is really behind all the current protests and problems (Democrats actually want people to get hurt and killed so that they can finally have some kind of talking points against Republicans) is simply Democrats have imported illegals, given them all kinds of legal government welfare as well as illegal billions in stealing from government programs, and all these illegals vote for Democrats. If they voted for Republicans, the Democrats would insist that Immigration remove them. Remember under Biden that Cubans were using all kinds of floating crafts (but not boats really) to get to Florida, and he sent the US Coast Guard to round them up and send them back to Havana. Why? With his position on open door border policies why? Because Cubans come from a Communist country, and they tend to vote Republican. So this has absolutely nothing to do with justice or helping people under stress. It has to do with registering foreigners without US citizenship to vote Democrat.

But the point has to be emphasized, a just and fair law is the only way to live. What is the law, and here, the United States has a sane immigration law even if there are problems, what is the law needs to be applied to all equally.

Democrats wanted to Impeach Trump, Because Nobody is Above the Law

That is right. The principle is a sound principle. The problem is that they do not believe in the principle at all, they just want to use anything and everything at their disposal, valid or not, to remove and defeat their opponents and continue their control and power in public office. Trump did not break the law. You cannot manipulate the law as they tried to do. When any sane person, any sane judge, i.e. without a hatred for the defendant, (no Trump Derangement Syndrome) approaches Trump’s case, they immediately say it was wrong to even bring charges against him.

All the indictments that they had against Trump were a perversion of justice. The law says you cannot multiple charges. So if the law says you cannot steal, but it is a higher grade of crime if you steal 20 things instead of one. So a kid goes into a store and steals a bag of M&Ms. There are 40 peanuts in the bag. The police arrive and arrest him, and the prosecutor says that he stole 40 items. Because the bag was open, and there were 40 peanuts in it. Under our laws, that is one crime, not 40. That is what they did to Trump. That one item was not a crime in itself either. That was a tax reporting dispute. The prosecutor says it should have been reported under one category of business expenses instead of another. That in itself is not a crime, but a problem reporting something to the IRS. So the IRS calls attention to the matter to the taxpayer, and they file an amended tax return moving the business expense from one column to another. If it would have been an illegal claim, i.e. the taxpayer claims something that the IRS says is not a valid business expense, then again, that is a matter between the IRS and the taxpayer.

There is an IRS court where both sides are heard, and the matter decided. At the worst of cases in that situation, the taxpayer has to pay tax on what he claimed as a business expense and it wasn’t, and maybe interest. But if the taxpayer has a valid argument (denied by the IRS tax court decision), then there is still no conviction for tax evasion. It is simply filing a new amended return and paying the difference. If that is how our laws works, then why the grand show with “convicting” Trump? What is telling is that that with Trump having businesses over the years, they could not find anything wrong that he had done in any of those businesses, and that is the best they could come up with!

Our Reaction to Claims “Nobody is Above the Law”

Our reaction to this claim being thrown around is first of all, public opinion does not determine what is lawful and what is not. Let the lawyers and courts decide, because that is their purpose in the first place. The entire matter hinges on creating and controlling public opinion, which is just wrong to begin with. The media is being used as a political weapon, and we must refuse to play that game.

Secondly, while Democrats accuse the ICE officer of murder (with purpose of mind, he sought out her death just because he wanted to kill her), the facts direct us toward another conclusion. The ICE officer was doing his job on a public road. The woman was blocking a public road (a crime), she was interfering with a law enforcement operation (a crime), she was interfering with a federal Immigration matter (a crime). The federal officer (obviously she knew he was ICE) ordered the woman to get out of the car. She refused. (a crime). When the federal office tried to reach into her window and open her door (probably to unlock it), she used the situation to try to harm that federal officer doing his job. When police arrive on a crime scene, or where they are arresting somebody, anybody with a gun has to surrender that weapon, no matter who it is. Only law enforcement can have weapons at that scene. The woman was in a 2 ton car, and she moved it in front of an immigration vehicle. That means she was using her car as a weapon. (that is a crime) When she turned her wheels into the federal officer, she threatened him at that point. That crime was sufficient for the officer to draw his weapon and order her to stop. A “law abiding citizen” would have raised their hands and stepped out of the car. She stepped on the gas trying to hurt the officer. That was a crime. Attempted murder. She got shot. We should not be indignant over her death, although I don’t want to see anybody die, she caused her own death.

Long Lasting Conclusions

The first point here is that what got Donald Trump elected is clearly in view. He got elected because people are breaking the laws and government entities that are supposed to investigate, stop, and bring to justice those criminals were not doing their jobs. These people under Biden and Obama, “did not obey the law”. Their “service” to our country was partisan, only what benefits the Democrats. Trump’s mandate was to stop that and enforce the law. It is completely hypocritical for Democrats to use that slogan against Donald Trump or what he does through those appointed to carry out the law.

Defund the Police, ICE, any Legitimate Law Enforcement

If you are really observing things with a discernment, the Democrat party is anti-law. They want to cripple and immobilize all law enforcement. Just look at your typical Democrat run state or city, and you will see this. You cannot defund law enforcement and at the same time hold to everybody is under the law. The law has to have teeth. Those who break the law have to pay the price of such actions. The Democrats always want to use Richard Nixon and Watergate as a cause, a slogan for their purposes. But if somebody does break the law, then the law should be applied to them. Equally in the equation here is that there has to be law enforcement to bring such people to a court, with lawyers and judges, to decide their ultimate fate. Democrats use especially when it is to their advantage, but they don’t want that used against their own.

Nancy Pelosi has illegally traded on the stock market and made a lot of money personally. She has out traded the best of Wall Street. But the Democrats violently oppose any attempts to bring the law (that is applied to everybody else equally) to bear on her. Hillary Clinton is another example. So there is a point here, do not let these people selectively use the law. The law has to apply equally to everybody, or there is no justice.

Your Reputation Counts

Speaking of Pelosi and Clinton, what your past history says about you also has a lot to say about the weight of your words. When Democrats insist on an injustice being rectified, look at their record. When Joe Biden broke the immigration laws of our country, laws which were passed with the support of all political parties, where was the Democrat outrage at Biden? It never appeared. Those people have no shame to then cry foul at anybody else. Their reputation has been tarnished as being moved only by what is advantageous to them at the moment. In other words, if their past doesn’t reflect their present outrage, then just shut up please. Your opinions do not move me.

Revisiting “Nobody is Above the Law”

More Posts from the Democrat Party Category

The Democrat party is identified by themselves as the party for the people, but often confuse their positions as being for the people when it is for keeping themselves in power.

• Welcome What is Conservative News About?
• George Soros Puppeteer
• Trump as a One-Term President Would Become DC’s Nightmare updated!
• Complaints Trump will continue in Politics
• President Trump’s Victories continued #3
• Robert Byrd’s relationship with the KKK
• Is White Supremacy Valid, Right?
• Constitution Overview
• Adam Schiff
• President Donald Trump