Before You Vote For John Kerry
Find a Conversation
|Sun, 10-24-2004 - 10:36pm|
The reason I am against John Kerry, the lawyer, becoming our next president is because of his views concerning the people and the law. In order to help you understand what this view is, I must first spell out my view. I do this as a paralegal (I received my degree back in 1998). I also do it as a born-again Christian. Please understand that this is not a sermon. My views concerning the people and the law will take up only two paragraphs. I will then proceed to tell you what John Kerry’s views are.
I begin with the Ten Commandments, the foundation of the Christian faith. At least 90% of the Christian community, and probably most of the non-Christian community, consider the Ten Commandments to be “the divine laws of God”, yet there is nothing “divine” about them. How can they be “divine” when they bring nothing but death? Instead, it is God who is divine. Therefore, the whole purpose of the Ten Commandments is to reveal to us our crimes against God. In other words, the purpose of the Ten Commandments is to serve “God, the Divine”, not to become “God, the Divine”.
Since we are all created in the image (i.e., likeness, copy) of God, it stands to reason that we are divine as well (though not nearly as divine as God). Therefore, just as the law serves God by revealing to us our crimes against God, so the law serves us by revealing to us our crimes against each other. In other words, the whole purpose of the law is to help us, not to become the victim instead of us.
Now that you understand the people and the law from a Libertarian Christian paralegals point of view, allow me to explain the people and the law from John Kerry’s point of view. To do this, I present to you the story of “Jack and Diane”.
In order to understand the story of Jack and Diane, you must imagine for a moment that John Kerry is government. This shouldn't be difficult to do since politicians, by definition, both represent government and are, collectively speaking, government itself. Having done that, consider now that Jack keeps forcing Diane to do things she doesn't want to do, and because she is unable to defend herself against him, she goes to John for help. Who is John? Again, he is government. As the government he agrees to help her. So, he goes to Jack and he says, “Look, Jack, what you are doing to Diane is called rape. It’s wrong, and I don’t want you to do it anymore. I forbid you to rape her again”. But Jack ignores him and goes out and rapes her again anyway. Against whom has he committed a crime? Has he committed a crime against Diane by raping her? Or has he committed a crime against John Kerry, the government, by disobeying his order—his law—that forbade him to rape her? Why, he has committed a crime against John Kerry, of course.
Diane went to John for help, to stop Jack from raping her. John agreed to help her. John specifically told Jack not to rape her. Jack disobeyed John. By disobeying John, Jack offended John. Therefore, any plea-bargain attempt will be made with John—the government (through the prosecutor, who represents the government)—not with Diane. And, upon conviction, any fine imposed will be paid to John—the government—rather than to Diane. If Diane wants John to be held accountable to her, she has to go through the civil courts. The logic, of course, is that if John—the government—wants people to obey him, he must hold them accountable to him. (It should be noted here that trial lawyers like John Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards, are also responsible for this view of the people and the law. This is because any monetary damages that are awarded to the victim in a civil court are shared with the trial lawyer—which explains John Edwards’ $70 million fortune—whereas in a criminal court those monetary damages are shared with no one).
And the Lord said to Moses, “If anyone sins against me by refusing to return a deposit on something borrowed or rented, or by refusing to return something entrusted to him, or by robbery, or by oppressing his neighbor, or by finding a lost article and lying about it, swearing that he doesn’t have it – on the day he is found guilty of any such sin, he shall restore what he took, adding a twenty percent fine, and give it to the one he has harmed.
Notice here our Lord’s declaration that anyone who commits any of the above mentioned crimes sins against Him. Why would He say this? The answer, of course, is because He created us. That is, because He created us, we belong to Him. Therefore, whatever we do to each other we also do to Him. This was verified later by Jesus Christ himself when he said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me”. Matthew 25:40.
Notice also our Lord’s declaration that upon being found guilty of any of the above mentioned crimes the guilty party shall be held accountable, financially, to the one he has harmed (to people like Diane, the ones on the receiving end of the crime). The reason I call your attention to this declaration is because it shows the value our Lord places on the individual (on people like Diane). That is, although the crime is also against the Lord, He is more concerned about the person on the receiving end of the crime. Unfortunately, because of people like John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, we obviously cannot say the same about our government.
What are the implications of such a view? I’m referring, of course, to the view that is held by people like John Kerry. Consider the following:
We all know the history of black/white relations here in America. At one point in our history blacks were considered to be non-persons. At another point they were considered to be only two-thirds of a person. Even now they are considered by many to be less than a person. How do we remedy this? Do we do it by subjecting a black person, when he or she is the victim of a crime, to a system of justice that considers them to be less important than the law? Of course not! Yet, that is exactly what John Kerry used to do when he was a prosecutor, what he continues to do as a U.S. Senator (lawmaker), and will continue to do as president.
We all know the history of male/female relations here in America. That is, we all know how women have also been considered, at one point in our history, to be less than a person (i.e., second-class citizens) and, like blacks, were even denied the right to vote at one time. We also know that things haven’t changed much (i.e., glass ceilings, payroll discrimination, physical abuse, etc.). So, how do we remedy this? Do we do it by subjecting women who finds themselves on the receiving end of another beating or rape to a system of justice that considers them to be less important than the law? Of course not! Yet, that is exactly what John Kerry used to do as a prosecutor, currently does as a U.S. Senator (lawmaker), and will continue to do as president.
Senator John Kerry and his running mate, Senator John Edwards, are not the only lawyers currently in Washington. We have 200 more in Congress, both Democrat and Republican (This is why, as a Libertarian, I find very little difference between the two parties). And Illinois is about to send another lawyer to Washington in the form of Barak Obama. So, denying John Kerry the presidency will not solve the problem we have with our criminal justice system. However, electing him president will make matters worse. Why? Because it will give the American Bar Association, one of the most powerful special interest groups in the country which John Kerry, the lawyer, is a member of, total control not just of Washington, but also of our country.
So, before you vote for John Kerry, consider the implications.
P.S. For those of you who are wondering, if John—the government, mentioned in the above story of “Jack and Diane”, had given us a system of justice that is in accordance with the Bible, then he would force Jack to pay all medical expenses, both physical and psychological, incurred as a result of the rape of Diane, and reimburse her for any time she may have lost on the job as a result of the rape, in accordance with the Old Testament Book of Exodus, Chapter 21, Verses 18 and 19. He would also force Jack to pay a predetermined fine to Diane in accordance with the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, Chapter 6, Verses 2-5 (See also Exodus 22:9). He would make him do all of this from a prison cell, instead of allowing Jack to keep the money he earns in prison. In other words, he would hold Jack “financially” accountable to his victim, in accordance with Biblical teaching. But you know how John Kerry detests Biblical teaching. You know how he hates forcing his religious beliefs onto other people. So, he will be willing to force the American Bar Associations ethics onto us, but he will not be willing to force Biblical ethics onto us.