Consider the following: if laws ban 'discrimination', you cannot deny people whom the laws protect. Therefore, if some black or some gay or some woman or some other 'protected class' citizen decides to get in your face and push you around, to set you up for failure and dismiss you, to provoke you to anger by manifold aggravations, you cannot fight back. You cannot even speak of this torture because the law forbids it. You either suffer in silence or pay the consequences - e.g., lose your job, go to jail, etc.

If the law 'protects' certain people over others, this is discriminatory in nature. Liberals are brilliantly fighting discrimination with discrimination, as it were. Let me try and cast the picture in a different shade, if I may. The reticent wheels don't get the grease; I need to write for law school and as a lawyer I will be doing a lot of writing - practice makes perfect. Not only that, but I am deeply impassioned with these issues so hear me out, please! This radical-particularist, anti-Christian agenda employs the Devil's check-in clerks to smuggle in concepts unknown in scope or scale to the greater American body politic like a cancer on society these laws c_um norms pervert the original founders' intent and undermine the very traditions our country - indeed, the civilized world - is based upon - i.e., Capitalism, Republicanism, and Christianity.

From what I've seen, a majority of liberal politicians are bent on increasing the money they take from the American people and decreasing the freedoms of law-abiding, God- and family-loving, hard-working citizens in order to redistribute such to those less inclined to use money wisely or obey the common law. Through such artifice as establishing egalitarianism for the common people, these show they are predisposed to creating a [planned] disorder of sorts – as accountants, lawyers, physicians and police in syndication with organized crime. Such examples of pervasive corruption are in Mexico where public officials wink at police forces that run guns for and give sanctuary to drug mafias for kickbacks. In China, secret police reconnoiter townships and villages for purportedly seditious criminals whom speak out against [anyone in political authority] and take suspects to concentration camps where they will be tried for acts of treason and disposed of in a manner unspeakable for the purposes harvesting organs such as corneas, hearts, livers etc.

America is becoming a ghetto as the public turns a blind eye - perhaps out of self-indulgence in these deadly sins: sloth and greed - to public officials who sanction corruption for political gain. Benjamin Franklin stated at the end of the Constitutional Convention, "I'll give you a Republic, if you can keep it." As the chasm of knowledge grows between the common man and his political representatives in the realm of civil polity (e.g., with the size of the government itself via multilayered bureaucracy), the latter (and their cronies) become wolves while the former sheep. We are on a slippery slope down the road to H-E-double-hockey-sticks, but all is not lost. We can recover, but it requires an awakening and the time is now!

In conclusion, I'd like to make an explicit connection between the accommodation of political deviance and surrender. In the second article mentioned above, charges are being brought up against a retired Alabama state trooper for the killing of the protester. In other words, politicians are digging up old grievances, thereby perpetuating animosity to move a race- insulation agenda. In the first article, legislation is being passed to grant virtual immunity for certain peoples' actions based on sexual status and this is the corresponding sex- insulation agenda. We are creating pockets of insecurity where people are rendered unaccountable to peers and authority figures - i.e., when the law grants 'special' status, it makes these 'protected' individuals above the 'common' law. These are now said to constitute special cases and these individuals will be answerable, under parallel legal standards, as such. Ramifications include anarcho-relativist morality and the loss of shame-induced restraint to protect innocents from the violent tendencies of the most hostile and degenerate among us. In other words, unequal laws institutionalize injustice and the burden of accountability for maintaining any semblance of ethical standards, of social order, falls disproportionately on the most noble – those who are willing to sacrifice at [any] personal cost to maintain those standards. When the law fails to keep us bounded and guided towards moral correctness, we are all punished (for trying to uphold a law and order, which formally ceases to exist). That is to say, if you try and hold those who are formally protected to a higher level of accountability than the law necessitates – e.g., to the same level of accountability which you hold yourself and to which others hold you – it will not come without great sacrifice. As white Christian men under the subjugation of liberal leadership, we must accept our fate as second-class citizens or else pay the consequences. I will talk about the war in Iraq and terror very soon indeed; until then, let us not forget the hidden motives of politicians when we take all matters into account – as in the case of voting for representatives in government.