The 2020 Demoncratic Platform in Two Words

HATE TRUMP…

It seems that no matter if President Trump turns to the right or to the left, he can do nothing correctly according to both the Demoncrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM).  Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign was also about resisting Trump at every turn but did not have any other issue, with the exception of the usual political platitudes.

Is it possible that hating any white person is not a “Hate Crime?”  So-called “Hate Crimes” are not crimes, unless there is a constitutionally injured party.  “Hate Crimes” stem from the mind and come out of the mouth.  There are no weapons involved that can physically induce harm, requiring medical attention. 

There is much talk about “equity in law”, or “equal protection of the laws” but does anyone who touts this particular phrase, fully understand what it means?  According to a law dictionary, authored by Steven H. Gifis, states the following under the word “equity”, to wit: most generally “justice.”  Historically, “equity” developed as a separate body of law in England in reaction to the inability of the common law courts, in their strict adherence to rigid writs and forms of action to entertain or provide a remedy for every injury.  The King, therefore, established the high court of chancery, the purpose of which was to do justice between parties in those cases where the common law would give no or inadequate redress.  Equity law to a large extent was formulated in maxims, such as “equity suffers not a right without a remedy,” or “equity follows the law,” meaning that equity will derive a means to achieve a lawful result when legal procedure is inadequate.  Equity and law are no longer bifurcated but are now merged in most jurisdictions, though equity jurisprudence and equitable doctrines are still independently viable. See 29 N.Y.S. 342, 343, 6 N.Y.S. 2d 720, 721, 293 F. 633, 637.

Equity in law cannot survive the magnification of so-called “rights” of special interest groups—this by itself offers nothing more than “private law(s)” that are narrowly defined within those groups, such as women’s groups or LGBTQ persons, who are de-natured by choice, and fully expect to be protected by “special laws” also known as “hate crimes,” for which any rejections of those from outside those groups can easily be construed as “hate crimes.” 

It is quite a comedy when relatives are gathered together within a family, and in most cases, it is the hostess who sets the places at a table of who is going to be seated where.  This behavior is precisely what special interest groups are experiencing when they expect to be protected.  The point is that laws that define a hate crime are never founded in equity.  The hostess who is setting the table can be likened to a judge, who is doling out judgments according to one’s situation to the one seated next to them.

Now comes the fun part—when an incident occurs within this table setting, will determine the seating arrangement at the next family gathering—this can also be applied to the rights of those within special interest groups, who upon an incident will be in a different place when another incident takes place that is construed as a “hate crime.” As long as we abandon “equal protection of the laws” and opt for special laws—it will be a never-ending of layer upon layer of laws, for which there will never be any justice.  “The more laws the less justice.” Thomas Jefferson 

By the way… “racism” is not a crime, but there is an extreme school of thought that has purported this idea and is being touted by both politicians and the MSM.  “Racism” is a morality issue, in other words, “a choice” and not a matter of law.  We can choose to be hateful or likable.  Let me give you a personal example; I was employed by a male gay couple, to do work on their house.  They have an RV that they allowed me to dwell in during my employment.  I was well aware of their living situation prior to me being hired, for which I had no problem with their chosen lifestyle, even though their practice is unnatural.  However, I am not sitting in the judgment seat and have accepted their choice because that is their right to make that choice, and I respect that choice even though I do not agree with it.

I could have easily have refused to do business with them, and I have that right to make that choice—it is not “racism” or a “hate crime,” if I have chosen not to do business with them.  The exact same thing is true with a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple.  What is happening in such cases is action is forced upon someone to produce or sue can also be construed as a “hate crime” against the gay couple, who are practicing the unlawful act of extortion.  The above is what is meant by “equal protection of the laws.”  The law must apply to everyone, or it means nothing.