Read or Subscribe to all Tom Egelhoff’s Daily Blog Posts by Clicking Here

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

There’s been a lot of news lately. News reports are filled with election updates, the verdict in the Oregon case, demonstrators trying to stop a pipeline in North Dakota to name just a few.

The one thing these things all have in common is that they should have things in common — but they don’t.

I’m wondering why?

What’s Against The Law?

A group of armed men take over a Federal facility in Oregon for a number of weeks and are found innocent of any crimes. How does that work?

They claimed had they not been armed they would have been arrested immediately.

So the threat of armed retaliation against authorities kept them safe?

I have great sympathy for their cause. Government has a long and checkered history of overreaching its authority on many levels.

The Patriot Act is a good example.

And, I am not opposed to peaceful civil disobedience to bring attention to a perceived grievance.

The Civil Rights Act of the 60s is a good example.

Guilt vs. Innocence

The white defendants in the Oregon case are found not guilty. Reverse racism? OJ was found innocent — was justice done in that case?

Financial institutions destroy the life savings of investors and get a slap on the wrist and a fine they can easily afford to pay. No jail time.

Wells-Fargo signs unknowing customers up for credit cards and other financial instruments without their knowledge, ruins their credit, and the CEO resigns.

No jail time.

It seems that the definition of a crime is more and more vague with each passing day. Judges legislate from the bench and juries from the jury box.

It’s getting harder to find justice in our courts.

So people are resisting actions they perceive as illegal or unconstitutional. Waiting for the law and the courts to act could take months or years allowing the perceived abuse to continue.

Some Final Thoughts

As the fabric of society unravels, more and more people are reevaluating their response to perceived threats to their culture, religion, and way of life.

We don’t see the word “freedom” defined as accurately today as we did 25 years ago.

While we’re currently a civil society we are also a very well armed society. Yet the mixed signal is to restrict the means to protect one’s home and family if that’s what a citizen chooses to do.

The next president will appoint at least two, and maybe more, Supreme Court justices in the near future.

Are we looking for champions of law and order for the highest court in our land? Are we looking for those with the desire to see justice done no matter what skin color the defendant happens to have?

No — all we’re considering for the highest court in the land is — how can we pack the court with liberal or conservative judges to interpret the laws as we would like them to be  — not how they’re written.

How mixed is that signal?

Comments below

Read or Subscribe to all Tom Egelhoff’s Daily Blog Posts by Clicking Here