Back in June 2009, an Illinois state prosecutor declared that Senator Roland Burris [D] will not be charged with perjury for less-that-truthful statements he made before an Illinois House impeachment committee.

Well, of course not, he’s a senator. Isn’t that clout enough? [sic]

This next one — a true favorite — I’m stating entirely from memory. I do not recall the details, but the rest will be difficult to ever forget.

I believe it was during the summer of 2008, when White House-sitter, George W. Bush [R] was asked (or subpoenaed) to testify before a Senate sub-committee. In his formal reply, Bush agreed to testify as long as he was not required to be under oath.

Ironically, he was honest about intending to be dishonest. Maybe it’s my own naivety, but why do people need to take an oath just to tell the truth?

One of my pet peeves is when I’m intently listening to someone — whatever the topic may be — when out of nowhere, they state …

      “… OK, I’ll be honest with you …”

“WHAT!?  What about everything you just said?”

SOUND FX: GLASS BREAKING

This would be considered a wild thought by many, but it would seem that our justice system is severely broken.

I have witnessed, first-hand, how those with limited financial means, and even minorities, are treated much differently than those who do not need to worry (as much) about legal costs. And I also saw first-hand, how “truth” takes a distant second place behind the courtroom-version of the two-foot shuffle.

But since the Justice system is the only branch of our government that police’s itself, I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for any change. An argument for a major overhaul would certainly be placed in the judicial circular file. A request to consider even a minor tune-up would probably also be dismissed as unneeded, and an “unnecessary expense of tax-payers’ dollars.”

That’s always a good one … it’s a very simple formula to go to WAR (spending billions and billions of dollars), and that’s accomplished by simply creating fear, uncertainty and doubt — such as the Homeland Security Advisory System that never drops below yellow — and calling on patriotism (i.e., not real patriotism), but just the appearance of it, which is intended to incite guilt. If you’re not for the war, then you must not be patriotic. [sic]

By the way, the threat level has never been lowered to Low (Green) or Guarded (Blue).

Then consider the Patriot Act. Now, if you are against the Patriot Act, obviously you are not patriotic … there’s that guilt thing again, right. It’s just a marketing ploy.

Name the “Act” without using misleading Marketing Glitz

Imagine if they were required to summarize the major points of the book and how those issues would effect the public. That summary would then be shortened into a title and sub-title.

“The Big Book of Losing of our Constitutional Right to Privacy, and other gotchas” … other “gotchas” because no one read it before they signed it into law late one night.

And, not to forget how the US Supreme Court — a very political group to begin with — decided to give the presidency to Bush in 2000, all behind closed doors. Who told them to get involved? No one, because they’re accountable only to themselves. Their say is final.

Right or wrong, the Judicial Branch answers to no one, unlike the other branches of our government.

And remember, as much as we hear the value of a Democracy: the US is not a Democracy.

###