Selective protection


In plain terms equal protection under the law means what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

A black female poll worker in Cleveland bragged that not only did she vote two times for Obama this past election but four of her visiting friends who weren’t even registered were marched to her polling station and voted as well.

She was not prosecuted by Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department for two reasons. First she and her friends were black and secondly they all voted for Obama.

Their actions deprived responsible citizens equal protection under the law. Well intentioned people who invest in businesses, stocks and bonds expect our government to enforce laws designed to protect them against fraudulent schemes.

John Corzine, a former governor of New Jersey and a former senator from that state, headed up a Ponzi scheme that stole over a billion dollars from the investors and he says he doesn’t know where the money went. At the same time a shoplifter who happens to be from the same town as Corzine was sentenced to six months in jail.

It’s like an old English adage, “The law deals severely with the fellow who steals the goose from the common but let’s go the greater felon who steals the common from the goose.”

Of course most of us know that the ultra liberal Corzine was a big Obama supporter and contributed thousands of dollars to his campaign and that explains his freedom from prosecution.

When certain unions, public employees, members of the House and the Senate are exempted from the Affordable Care Act it deprives us of equal protection under the law. When conservative business owners are targeted by OSHA, the EPA, the IRS, and the FDA from selective prosecution they are punished for their political views and denied equal protection as well. When a government practices selective application of the law and selective prosecution it is nothing less than tyrannical.

Where’s the outrage?

Lloyd Berresford