By J.B. Williams
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Am I the only American left who does not care at all what happens to Paris Hilton? With all that is going on (going wrong) in our world today, I am amazed at how much press coverage we can afford to give one little spoiled party girl. I intended to be the only writer in America who did not write about Paris Hilton this week, yet here I am, forced to write about Paris anyway.
Am I the only one left in America who is sane enough to see something horribly disturbing about these two headlines? US Court Orders Release Of Enemy Combatant From Military Detention and Paris Hilton Ordered Back To Jail...
Do I understand this correctly? Spoiled little rich snobs caught speeding without a drivers license must do hard time, but members of Al Qaeda and enemy combatants must go free?
To put a finer point on it, our courts, our justice system, has decreed that Paris Hilton is more dangerous to America than foreign terrorists plotting inside America to attack American interests through numerous equally devastating tactics.
I'm sure some sniveling liberal will be fast to point out that Hilton has been afforded her civil rights of a speedy trial, which ended with a conviction and seemingly fair sentence, while all suspected terrorists sitting in Gitmo have been afforded no such favor.
Must I point out that our constitution is not an international document, that our courts are not international courts and that our laws are not international laws? That our justice system in designed for civilized Americans not international enemy combatants? Or that our courts are no longer suited for jay-walkers, much less terrorists...?
To the best of anyone's knowledge, Paris Hilton is not plotting to destroy anything more than a good party, while those enjoying free room and board at Gitmo would like nothing better than to rearrange our continent and eliminate our entire way of life, reducing our population as much as possible in that process. Is our justice system now completely blind to the difference?
Hilton vs. Terrorist is but one example of just how far off track our courts have strayed. This is the inherent problem with the rule of men, falsely claimed to be the rule of law.
Aide to Vice President Cheney Scooter Libby, was sentenced to 2? years in prison for lying to federal prosecutors about the role he didn't play in the CIA leak case that never happened. He was off by less than 72 hours when recalling two dates upon which he did NOT disclose the name of a non-covert CIA agent, which was NO secret to anyone but Bush and Cheney to begin with. The courts gave Libby 2 ? years in prison for that mental lapse.
But former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy "Burglar" Berger, while acting advisor to the Kerry presidential campaign, was caught stuffing Top Secret National Security documents in his shorts, stealing them from the national archives hours before his former boss was to testify before congress as to how 9/11 happened. Berger got NO prison time at all, instead a silly $10,000 fine and a temporary suspension of his top level security clearance, which by the way, will be re-instated just in time for the upcoming Clinton presidential campaign. Paris is doing time...Berger is working on the next Democrat campaign...?
Our courts no longer represent a common sense rule of law, but rather instead, the rule of a few men, free to interpret justice as they see fit, limited only by their agenda and imagination.
It has been long argued by those of the so-called liberal persuasion that our Constitution and therefore our laws are living, breathing organisms, free to evolve beyond their written texts via single minded interpretation and the whims of men cloaked beneath a veil of secret agendas. Our unalienable rights are being systematically removed by an unalienable oligarchy. Even congress dare not wade into those waters.
Yet Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Johnson, in 1823. ME 15:450 "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --
Still, liberals have used judicial activism to interpret freedom of religion and One Nation under God as a secular nation under men, free from religious expression. They have misinterpreted an unalienable God given right to Life as less important than a man-made right to kill at or before birth.
Now they use the law to get even with the little rich party snob that everyone loves to hate, while demanding "civil rights" and access to our insane courts for known terrorists intent upon killing as many Americans as they can manage to kill. They interpret at will, placing a good man in jail for mis-recalling a couple insignificant dates, while turning a national security thief loose to promote the next would-be president.
Meanwhile, our no longer independent or unbiased press is busy making sure we are up to speed on every Paris Hilton moment, while remaining completely silent as our entire justice system elevates itself above the power of the elected government and replaces our republic with a self anointed monarchy of the courts.
Beam me up Spicoli... Fire me up a joint, pour me a double and make room for me over at Tom Cruise's Scientology commune... Get me a table with Mr. & Mrs. Sarandon. This country is just too weird for me!
Somewhere in some God forsaken hell of a cesspool country halfway around the world and far from anyone who cares, some young American soldier died today fighting for the peace and freedom of others not yet able to fight for themselves. Our nation is under attack from every angle...
Yet the press thinks the top story of the day is Paris Hilton? And our courts think Paris belongs in prison and known terrorists do not?
What country is this and how do I wake up from this nightmare?
Sanity feels much like insanity when you are the only sane one in the room...
Am I all alone in my sanity here?
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement