How many times have you heard someone comment about "The Rule of Law"? Exactly what do you think they mean? Most seem to feel that "The Rule of Law" protects their rights and it does. The "Law" defines our rights and the enforcement of those "Laws" is how our rights are protected. Seems simple doesn't it? It is, but it seems that thing as simple as this one can still get screwed up and perverted even here in the USA. On the News, there was a report that the person in charge of ICE, John Morton stated that he was not going to deport Mexicans who were arrested under the new Arizona law. This means he is not going to "Enforce" the laws of the USA unless he and Obama agrees with the law. That means he does not accept the basic concept of the USA that we are a society of "The Rule of Law". If the executive branch of government can reject the laws passed by the other branches, then we might as well not have a democracy at all. This is not a minor point. It strikes at the foundation of this country and every thing that everyone before us has worked and died for. It is a very big deal and we all need to wake up.
I have a little story that shows how critical "The Rule of Law" is. This might be a repeat, but with this new information, I think it just might need repeating. Back in the late 60's and early 70's, I lived in Argentina and traveled all over South America. Many people view South America as a bunch of Banana Republics where there is no "Rule of Law", only never ending corruption. That is partly true. The one bright spot in South America was Chile. They had an operating democracy that dated to about the same time period as the USA. They were very proud of this fact and were confident that they did not need to worry about any group taking it over. As it turned out, Salvador Allende was elected by a plurality as President in the early 70's. Looking back now, he was just like our Obama, a real socialist radical who wanted to do much the same things as our Obama. I recognized this before Allende actually took office and told my Chilean friends my opinion. They said that they were not worried because he was limited to only one 6 year term by law and he really could not change things that much because of their congress and senate. I listened to them, but continued to be skeptical. Since Allende did not get a majority of the votes, the congress had to chose the winner and validate the election. If they had required a run-off, it is my opinion that Allende would not have been elected. Chile had a historical tradition of accepting the person with the most votes, even if they did not have a majority so that is what they did.
Every thing started out with the typical honey moon, just like with Obama. It was not until a few weeks later that changes started to happen. What Allende did was to "Selectively Enforce the Laws". In affect, he rejected the whole concept of "The Rule of Law". Allende just enforced the laws that went along with his socialist philosophy, just like Obama and this John Morton. Consider how many laws are on the books in the USA and how complex they are. Complexity is just what someone like Allende or Obama wants. As they selectively enforce laws they like, they can hide behind complexity. The other side of this is the courts. We all know how long it can take to get to court or to the Supreme Court. During all that time the executive branch of our government has control of you and your property. You or your business could be tied up for years before you had your day in court where you could be found innocent of anything. This is exactly what happened in Chile under Allende and we know how it all ended up. Allende shot himself in the White House, right?
A short time after Allende was elected, some of his community organizers came to one of our ITT plants in Chile and asked us to hire a bunch of their friends and we said no. We did not need any more workers. The former community organizers were now from the equivalent of the OSHA under Allende. They asked us to reconsider and that they would be back in a week. They did come back and when we said that we still did not need to hire anyone from their list, the OSHA inspector went into our plant and found a violation and "Red Tagged" our plant. We had to shut down immediately and send everyone home. We had the violation fixed in 10 minutes, but they left without removing the "Red Tag" and thus we were shut down until we could get them back in a week. They came back in a week and removed the "Red Tag" and we were back up running. When we told them that we still would not hire the people on their list, they arrested our plant general manager and threw him in jail for obstruction. By this time the courts were over loaded with complaints and cases to the point that getting anything into court was much worse than ever. Our GM stayed in jail for several weeks as the Chilean legal system ground its way along. This same thing could happen right here in the USA with the way Obama is doing thing. I know that you are just like the people of Chile were before they had their wake up call. It couldn't happen here. Chile was some kind of Banana Republic and that is why they had such a problem. Do you really think so?
I have a lot of other stories of how Allende selectively enforced the laws and "Changed" the whole country in no time at all. Do you remember the Black Panthers who were intimidating voters during the last election? If you do, do you remember what Obama's Black Attorney General did? He did just what Allende did, he dropped the charges. If that was not a clear case of selective enforcement, I don't know what is. Remember, in Chile the way that Allende was removed from office was that he shot himself and the military took over for a while and cleaned things up. Now Chile is the success story of South America. The fact is that Chile has always been a success story until Allende became President. If you don't believe me, you should do your own research and I am sure you will come to the same conclusion.
