Proof of Facts: There’s No Such Thing as a Democrat Who Isn’t “Privileged”

The main theme of most democratic complaints against everyone else is that they are “privileged” and therefore “elitist”.  But are they REALLY “privileged” in a legal sense? This article will prove that DEMOCRATS from a legal perspective are the main party that is privileged and elitist from a legal perspective.

The elitism and therefore inequality they complain about takes many forms:

1. Racism
2. Homophobia
3. White nationalism
4. Economic superiority
5. Geographical segregation between races

All of these democratic complaints appear to be directed at restoring equality of treatment to society, which at least APPEARS to be directed at eliminating “injustice”.  We too advocate “equality of treatment” by the government OF ALL.  But the democrat approach to ELIMINATING the inequality merely creates MORE inequality!  We talk about what “equality of treatment” means from a legal AND NOT political perspective in the following so that you can see that the remedy that democrats propose in fact implements the OPPOSITE of what they seek:

Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf

No doubt, “Justice” as legally defined has “equality of treatment” under the law as its foundation, as we point out in the following:

What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf

There is a dark side to the hypocrisy by the democrats of abusing legislative discrimination and franchises, which collectively PROMOTE INEQUALITY, as a remedy to ELIMINATE INEQUALITY.  Their intellectual inability to recognize that hypocrisy has made them into unwitting political pawns who are the main and real “privileged” parties.  But how is this?  The legal definition of “privilege” appears below, which betrays why THEY are the REAL and ONLY “privileged” parties from a legal perspective:

Privilege.  A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.  A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.

In tort law, the ability to act contrary to another individual’s legal right without that individual having legal redress for the consequences of that act; usually raised by the actor a a defense.

An exemption from some burden of attendance, with which certain persons are indulged, from a supposition of law that the stations they fill, or the offices they are engaged in, are such as require all their time and care, and that, therefore, without this indulgence, it would be impracticable to execute such offices to that advantage which the public good requires.  That which releases one from the performance of a duty or obligation, or exempts one from a liability which he would otherwise be required to perform, or sustain in common with all other persons.  See also Exemption; Immunity.

    See also Doctor-patient privilege; Executive privilege; Husband-wife privilege; Journalist’s privilege; Legislative immunity; Marital communications privilege; Newsmen’s privilege; Patient-physician privilege; Priest-penitent privilege; Privileged communications; Right; State secrets privilege.

Attorney-client, doctor-patient, etc. privilege.  See Privileged communications, and also specific privileges.

Civil law.  A right which the nature of a debt gives to a creditor, and which entitles him to be preferred before other creditors.  Civil Code La. art. 3186.  It is merely an accessory of the debt which it secures, and falls with the extinguishment of the debt.  The civil law privilege became, by adoption of the admiralty courts, the admiralty lien.  The J.E. Rumbell, 148 U.S. 1, 13 S.Ct. 498, 37 L.Ed 345.

Communications.  See Privileged communications.

Deliberative process privilege.  This governmental privilege permits government to withhold documents that reflect advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions and policies are formulated, and was developed to promote frank and independent discussion among those responsible for making governmental decisions and to protect against premature disclosure of proposed agency policies or decisions.  F.T.C. v. Warner Communications Inc.,  C.A.Cal., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161.

Discovery.  When interrogatories, depositions or other forms of discovery seek information which is otherwise privileged, the party from whom it is sought may claim his privilege.  Fed.R.Civil P. 26; Fed.R.Crim.P. 16.  See also Protective order; Work product rule.

Evidence.  See Privileged communications; Privileged evidence.

Executive privilege.  The protection afforded to confidential presidential communications.  However, the generalized need for confidentiality of high level communications cannot sustain an absolute unqualified presidential privilege.  U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039.  See also Executive privilege.

Libel and slander.  An exemption from liability for the speaking or publishing of defamatory words concerning another, based on the fact that the statement was made in the performance of a political, judicial, social, or personal duty.  Privilege is either absolute or conditional.  The former protects the speaker or publisher without reference to his motives or the truth or falsity of the statement.  This may be claimed in respect, for instance, to statements made in legislative debates, in reports of military officers to their superiors in the line of their duty, and statements made by judges, witnesses and jurors in trials in court.  Conditional privilege (called also “qualified privilege”) will protect the speaker or publisher unless actual malice and knowledge of the falsity of the statement is shown.  This may be claimed where the communication related to a matter of public interest, or where it was necessary to protect one’s private interest and was made to a person having an interest in the same matter.  Saroyan v. Burkett, 57 Cal.2d 706, 21 Cal.Rptr. 557, 558, 371 P.2d 293.

For defense of “constitutional privilege” in libel actions, see Libel.

Maritime law.  An allowance to the master of a ship of the same general nature with primage, being compensation, or rather a gratuity, customary in certain trades, and which the law assumes to be a fair and equitable allowance, because the contract on both sides is made under the knowledge of such usage by the parties.

Parlamentary law.  The right of a particular question, motion, or statement to take precedence over all other business before the house and to be considered immediately, notwithstanding any consequent interference with or setting aside the rules of procedure adopted by the house.  The matter may be one of “personal privilege,” where it concerns one member of the house in his capacity as a legislator, or of the “privilege of the house,” where it concerns the rights, immunities, or dignity of the entire body, or of “constitutional privilege,” where it relates to some action to be taken or some order of proceeding expressly enjoined by the constitution.

Privilege from arrest.  A privilege extended to certain classes of persons, either by the rules of international law, the policy of the law, or the necessities of justice or of administration of government, whereby they are exempted from arrest on civil process, and, in some cases, on criminal charges, either permanently, as in the case of a foreign minister and his suite, or temporarily, as in the case of members of the legislature, parties, and witnesses engaged in a particular suit, etc.  Art. I, §6, U.S. Const.  See also Immunity.

Privilege tax.  A tax on the privilege of carrying on a business or occupation for which a license or franchise is required.  Bulf & Ship Island R.Co. v. Hewes, 183 U.S. 66, 22 S.Ct. 26, 46 L.Ed. 86.

Torts.  Privilege is the general term applied to certain rules of law by which particular circumstances justify conduct which otherwise would be tortious, and thereby defeat the tort liability (or defense) which, in the absence of such circumstances, ordinarily would follow from that conduct.  In other words, even if all of the facts necessary to a prima facie case of tort liability can be proved, there are additional facts present sufficient to establish some privilege, and therefore defendant has committed no tort.  Privileges thus differ form other defenses, such as contributory negligence, which operate to bar plaintiff’s recover but do not negate the tortious nature of defendant’s conduct.  Conversely, plaintiff’s privilege may defeat a defense which defendant otherwise might have had.  The term and concept of privilege apply primarily to the intentional torts, but also appear in other areas, such as defamation.  See Libel and slander, above.

A privilege may be based upon:  (a) the consent of the other affected by the actor’s conduct, or (b) the fact that its exercise is necessary for the protection of some interest of the actor or of the public which is of such importance as to justify the harm caused or threatened by its exercise, or (c) the fact that the actor is performing a function for the proper performance of which freedom of action is essential.  Restatement, Second, Torts, §10.

Privilege may be divided into two general categories: (1) consent, and (2) privileges created by law irrespective of consent.  In general, the latter arise where there is some important and overriding social value in sanctioning defendant’s conduct, despite the fact that it causes plaintiff harm.

Privilege is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded by defendant.  Fed.R.Civil P 8(c).

Writ of privilege.  A common law process to enforce or maintain a privilege; particularly to secure the release of a person arrested in a civil suit contrary to his privilege.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1197]

More on “privileges” at:

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by topic:  “Privilege”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/privilege.htm

In legal terms, then, a “privilege” as legally defined therefore:

1. Always involves a “benefit”, property, service, exemption, or advantage administered by the government and given to the party who is privileged.
2. Is NOT available to people merely BECAUSE they are private citizens (“beyond the common advantages of other citizens”).
3. Is administered NOT to everyone, but only a “special class” of people (“A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.”).
4. Inherently involves DISCRIMINATION of one kind, because those who DON’T receive the “privilege” are in effect DISCRIMINATED against by the government administering or enforcing the privilege.  Isn’t “discrimination” abhorrent to the democrats?
5. Involves abuse of the government’s power to STEAL from the group who have to PAY for the cost of delivering the “benefit” or property or “privilege” that is then paid to those who DO receive it.  Provided that the person who RECEIVES the privilege and the person who PAYS it is the SAME person, there is no discrimination or theft, but this is SELDOM the case.  The money usually comes from the rich and goes to the poor, or, in the case of Social Security, present taxes pay CURRENT benefit recipients and do not come from what you previously paid.  Its a hand to mouth Ponzi scheme doomed to collapse soon.

Thus, those who are “privileged” in effect “think they are SPECIAL” and above everyone else at least in the eyes of the government ADMINSTERING or GRANTING the privilege. They feel ENTITLED to receive the advantage they get from government, and that sense of entitlement in fact is their MAIN source of unhappiness and dissatisfaction with anyone and everyone else! See:

The Key to Unhappiness, PragerU

The main focus of the democratic party, at the same time, is EQUALITY OF OUTCOME and SOCIAL JUSTICE.  What these two approaches have in common is the abuse of government legislative authority to STEAL from one class of people and through taxation and give it to another class.  We talk about the hypocrisy of this approach in:

1. What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050, Section 3; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf
2. The Absurdity of the Left’s Fixation on Equality of Outcome Rather than Equality of Opportunity-Bill Maher
   https://sedm.org/the-absurdity-of-the-lefts-fixation-on-equality-of-outcome-rather-than-equality-of-opportunity-bill-maher/

The LEGISLATIVE and GOVERNMENTAL implementation of “social justice” always involves the abuse of franchises and franchise taxes to impose disabilities upon one group in favor of another group.  Franchises are a type of legislative “privilege”, in fact.  Wealth redistribution cannot be effected WITHOUT franchises or privileges.  Franchises, in fact, are the main and ONLY method governments can use to LEGISLATIVELY create INEQUALITY of treatment between people, as we point out in:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

The Bible and the U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, both declare that any attempt to abuse governmental power to LEGISLATIVELY CREATE or ENFORCE franchises or privileges destroy societies and create strife, as Prager also points out in the video above:

“Where do wars and fights [in the ballot box and the jury box] come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money or “benefits” from the government] that war in your members [and your democratic SOCIALIST governments]? You lust [after other people’s money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your de facto THIEF government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness and dependency with a STOLEN Social Security retirement check]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the corrupt and deceitful government]. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures [“benefits”]. Adulterers and adulteresses [harlots, Rev. 17]! Do you not know that friendship [or STATUTORY citizenship] with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [a STATUTORY “citizen”, “resident”, or “taxpayer”] of the world [or the governments of the world] makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

“Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundation of the government. If the provisions of the constitution can be set aside by an act of congress, where is the course of usurpation [abuse of taxation power for THEFT and wealth transfer] to end? The present assault [WAR!] upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests [in the jury box and the ballot box between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS] will become a war of the poor against the rich,-a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness. ‘If the court sanctions the power of discriminating [UNEQUAL or GRADUATED] taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the constitution,’ as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, ‘it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence.‘”
[Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)]

If, in fact, the democrats and the liberal media hate hypocrisy and elitism or the alleged “violence” it creates and which they complain of on the part of “white nationalists”, they must therefore:

1. Oppose EQUALITY OF OUTCOME.
2. Oppose abuse of the government’s power to tax to redistribute wealth, which in effect makes THEM privileged as the RECIPIENT of the STOLEN LOOT.
3. Oppose all legislation, franchises, and taxation that creates or enforces inequality between one class or another.

By doing the above, democrats would be eliminating inequality enforced legislatively by the government, removing their ability to receive the “benefits” of franchises that enforce the superiority of them in relation to those the “benefits” were derived or STOLEN from to pay them.

The bottom of the opening page of our site explains the only approach that democrats can take in order to eliminate the very inequality they complain of, in fact:

People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment.  All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED.  The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact.  Nothing in life is truly “free”.  Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power.  If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free.  If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C.    If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over.  There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property.  Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights.  Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility.  For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22.  For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them.  Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.

[SEDM Website Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

Lets apply the SAME principles to the republican platform, so that you can see that it is NOT “privileged”.

1. They seek a smaller government.  A government which cannot transfer wealth is always small and has far less influence on society.  It in effect “leaves people alone” to live their life.  The definition of legal “justice”, in fact, is the “RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE”.
2. They want “tax cuts” or reduction of taxes.  This is intended to put money that ORIGINALLY belonged to the person who EARNED it back in their hands.  That’s not a “benefit’
3. They do not want the legislative authority of government abused to IMPLEMENT discrimination in the NAME of eliminating discrimination.  That is SLAVERY.

So, you can see that unless and until the democrats SURRENDER their advocacy of the abuse of government civil legislative authority to redistribute wealth enforce equality of OUTCOME, they cannot avoid, as the RECIPIENTS of the legislative “benefit” of implementing these things, being “privileged” from a legal perspective.  As long as THEY are privileged in this way, they have NO MORAL right to complain about anyone ELSE’S so-called “privilege”.  Unless and UNTIL they change their position, they inevitably are promoting VIOLENCE and the DESTRUCTION of our present form of government, as both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bible indicate above.

Democrat leaders know:

1. Every political issue is always decided on purely personal economic or emotional terms.  Morality, logic, and real “law” are irrelevant.
2. Every election becomes a literal “auction” of other people’s money or property.
3. It is a criminal offense to bribe a voter and a jurist, so you have to call the bribe “investing in America” or a “benefit” to make it sound acceptable and avoid prosecution.
4. Their party voters are professionals who are literally HIRED with “benefit” money STOLEN from others in the form of “taxes” and paid ADDITIONAL BRIBES after their candidate wins.  These bribes are “booty” from the abuse of the government’s taxing power to transfer wealth.
5. If anyone in the opposite party argues a point that hurts the economic interests of their party constituents, they will say that the opposing party is “speaking AGAINST his economic interests” and tell their constituents that if they want to maximize their bribe “benefit” payments, they better not vote for the opposing candidate.  Nancy Pelosi is famous for this.
6. The most loyal party voters are those who are mired in sin, cannot work or do not WANT to work, and who therefore out of economic expedience MUST vote for whatever candidate will not threaten their “benefit” check.  On this subject former President Trump used to say that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is which side of the check they sign.
7. The ultimate result of their system is to bankrupt the government and make the state fiscally unstable.  As former Prime Ministry Margaret Thatcher used to say:  “The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money”.
8. The result of abusing the government’s taxing power to transfer wealth is to punish success and reward failure and dependency.  Or in other words, to reward irresponsibility and to punish responsibility.  Thus, eventually, the state will inevitably self-destruct.  If the average person within a nation cannot support themself within a nation, the nation itself becomes an economic dependent of the rest of the world.  You will know when a society is DOOMED when over 50% of the people receive a government check, because all such people in what is the political majority will always vote to continue the benefit and THEFT that pays for it.

All the above are things that our parents should have taught us.  But because families have broken apart, sexual promiscuity is rampant, and people have therefore become narcissistic, we as a country didn’t learn these things before we reached adulthood.  Now you know why we call them “DEMONcrats”, rather than “Democrats”.