by Dr. William Pierce

And of course, the fact that there always has been an overabundance of men with more ambition than scruples wasn’t the only reason for this; there also was the fact that there was a real need for lawyers. As long as we live in a society based on law, we need men to formulate laws, to administer laws, to interpret laws, and to help ordinary citizens cope with the laws. We also need safeguards to prevent laws and lawyers from swamping our society. We need safeguards to keep laws as simple as they can be while still serving their purpose, and to keep them from proliferating unnecessarily. We need safeguards to prevent lawyers from abusing the system. And unfortunately, these safeguards do not exist in our society. Lawyers are out of control. The legal system is out of control. The Romans at least tried to provide safeguards against the lawyers. We haven’t even tried.

The reason we haven’t tried is that we have in effect put the foxes in charge of the henhouse. The people we have put in charge of our legislative system and our judicial system are all lawyers themselves, and they are as a class not inclined to do anything to curtail their bread and butter or to limit their power and influence. The result is the sorry spectacle we witnessed in the U.S. Senate last week, when a bunch of crooked lawyers was called on to deal with another crooked lawyer who had been caught in flagrante delicto. The senators didn’t really care that Clinton had broken the law. What they cared about was his popularity polls. They weren’t concerned about having a felon and a reprobate in the White House; they were concerned about votes, about their own popularity polls. That’s why we saw the Republican lawyers dancing all around the real issues and failing to come to grips with them. That’s why we saw Charles Schumer and other Democrat lawyers dancing the hora in the halls outside the Senate chamber after the head lawyer of their party was acquitted. What a disgusting scene!

Well, it’s easy enough to hate lawyers any day of the week on general principles, but I’ll tell you about some very specific things the lawyers are up to now which ought to make a real lawyer-hater out of every patriot. What sparked today’s comments was the jury verdict earlier this month against an anti-abortion group which has a site on the Internet. Probably you’ve already heard something about the case. A group of abortionists and their lawyers went to Federal court with a lawsuit against anti-abortion activists who used the Internet to publish “wanted” posters with photographs, names, and descriptions of abortionists. Rewards were offered for personal information on some of the abortionists. The anti-abortionists did not actually threaten the abortionists or urge anyone to harm them, but they did describe them as “baby butchers.” During the past five years four abortion doctors have been shot to death, and three other abortion-clinic workers have been killed by anti-abortionists, and whenever one of the abortionists was assassinated his name would have a line drawn through it on the Internet “wanted” list.

A Federal jury in Portland, Oregon, agreed with the lawyers for the abortionists that the public stand of the anti-abortionists might have encouraged the assassins to take action against the abortionists, and the jury ordered the anti-abortionists to pay more than $107 million to the abortionists and their lawyers.

Now, I should tell you that I am not opposed to all abortions on religious grounds, as most anti-abortionists are. I am opposed on racial grounds to the large-scale abortion for mere convenience that we have in the United States and much of Europe today. I am opposed to the large-scale killing of healthy, White babies, just because the mothers decide that it would be inconvenient for their careers or their life-styles to give birth. I believe that the fact that the U.S. government and much of American society, with the vigorous encouragement of the mass media, approve of the large-scale abortion of healthy, White babies for the sake of convenience is a sign of the moral collapse of our society. I see a sign of moral collapse whenever the convenience of the individual is given precedence over the health and welfare of the race. And in line with this racial view, I approve of abortion whenever it serves a eugenic purpose.

My views on abortion, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is the use of the courts, the use of the judicial system, to punish Political Incorrectness at the expense of everyone’s freedom. And if you think that your freedom of speech is not jeopardized when a bunch of Jews and feminists can use the courts to silence their critics, as they did in Portland this month, then you aren’t thinking very clearly.

I should point out that this $107 million verdict in Portland against anti-abortionists is only one case in a growing trend of using the courts to take away our freedom. In New York just last week another Federal jury ordered gun manufacturers to pay nearly $4 million in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates, even though none of the defendants had done anything unlawful, and no firearm they had manufactured could be tied to any specific wrongful action. They were found guilty on general grounds of being negligent by manufacturing guns which might be used by criminals to harm other people. This verdict is a direct threat to every American’s right to self-defense. It is a threat to all of us because the people who would like to keep anyone except the Clinton government’s jackbooted thugs from having a firearm have decided to use civil litigation against gun manufacturers and gun dealers to achieve their aim.

Even before last week’s New York verdict lawyers representing the cities of Chicago, New Orleans, Miami, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, had filed separate but similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers, claiming that the manufacturers have been negligent by failing to take effective steps to ensure that their guns do not end up in the hands of criminals. Lawyers for Atlanta, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are eager to follow with their own lawsuits. Some of these plaintiffs have been frank enough to admit that their aim is not so much to recover money from the gun-makers as it is to bankrupt them and force them out of business.

Many of the people associated with these lawsuits are prominent in the movement to repeal the Second Amendment. Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell heads a committee on gun control in the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which has been behind all of the lawsuits filed — or soon to be filed — against gun manufacturers by various cities. Rendell’s committee works closely with a group of Democratic senators on the formulation of strategy for gun control — specifically with California Senator Diane Feinstein, New York Senator Charles Schumer, and New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg. All three senators are leaders of the gun-banning faction in the U.S. Senate — and all three are Jews, as is Mayor Edward Rendell himself.

The lawyers behind these class-action lawsuits against firearms manufacturers are following the example set by a series of successful class-action lawsuits against tobacco companies during the past couple of years. Let me tell you, I believe that smoking is an extremely harmful vice our society needs to rid itself of. The companies which sell tobacco products are in my view more morally reprehensible than the drug cartels which bring cocaine and heroin into America. Certainly tobacco kills far more addicts every year than die from their addiction to cocaine, heroin, and all other addictive drugs combined. If it is illegal to import, sell, or possess heroin, then tobacco products also should be illegal.