Below is an excellent article by William Barbe copied from Signs Of The Times website.
I have a couple of qualifications, though. The article concerns a talk given at the Mises Institute by one of its members, Judge Andrew Napolitano. I do not endorse the Mises Institute as I disagree with their solution to the current economic woes. But that is another issue for another day.
I also want to point out that though Judge Napolitano correctly blames government for the abuse of our natural rights (and for the incarceration of half of the US prison population even though they have not harmed anyone - and therefore have committed no crimes - in another video talk of his), he leaves out the very pertinent fact that his own profession is entirely complicit in these outrageous abuses and that these abuses are knowingly enacted daily for the profit of the legal profession. But more on that below William Barbe's article.
|Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, once a Fox News TV show host - and now an outspoken critic of the US government - delivered a short, intriguing, and, I believe, important speech at the Mises Institute in Costa Mesa, California, on November 8th, 2014.
He began by talking about the origins of Natural Laws, beginning with this quote from Sir Thomas More's treason case under Henry VIII:
Some men say the earth is flat.
More was appealing to the jury of the Laws of Nature that restrain even the government. This was the classic Natural Law argument. More was not the originator of this argument; that was Saint Thomas Aquinas nearly 800 years ago. The English liberal philosopher John Locke picked up on this, as did Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison when he was a Scrivener for the US Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson's version of More's phrase -- "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- articulates the view that our rights come from our humanity.
Napolitano asks: What are these rights that come from humanity? And how can the government trample them? The concept of Natural Rights articulated by Aquinas is that there are areas of human behavior for which we do not need a government permission slip in order to make free choices. Things like freedom to develop your own personality, to think as you wish, to say what you think, the right to worship or not to worship, to assemble in groups or to refuse to assemble, to petition the government for redress of your differences, and the right to defend yourself against tyrants. These are the quintessential 'American rights'. The right to be left alone, for example, codified in the Fourth Amendment today is called the 'right to privacy'.
Napolitano answers with the theory that we have surrendered some of our rights to the government so that the government will protect the rights that we have not surrendered. The idea is that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. He argues that no one is alive today that consented when the Constitution was enacted, therefore it is a fiction. The fiction is that we consented to surrender our rights where in reality our rights have been stolen from us through the use of force.(and through fraud - Ed)
He goes on to explain the theory that what was surrendered to the government was limited to 16 discrete, unique, separately stated and articulated powers in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment says that just because we've listed a bunch of rights in the first 8, there are many others and it would be impossible to list them all. Then the 10th Amendment explains that just because we've given some power to the Federal Government - we the states - that doesn't mean we've given them all power. That is the concept of limited government. The government must stop when it wants to touch our Natural Rights.
An example Napolitano gives is the fingers on his hand: "They belong to me. They cannot be taken away by majority vote or by legislation or by the commander of the Executive. They can only be taken away if I give them up myself. Such is the case if you rob a bank: you violate the Natural Rights of the depositors. You can then be prosecuted and have your freedom of movement taken away because you surrendered your Natural Rights by robbing a bank."
So you can voluntarily surrender your own Natural Rights but you can't surrender somebody else's Natural Rights because they are owned by the individual. Not collectively, not by groups nor government, but by individuals. That was the theory of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the founding generation of the United States of America. Regrettably it is no longer the theory today.
Napolitano goes on to state that today the government, to which none of us has consented, claims it has the authority by majority vote to assault those liberties that are a part of our humanity. He argues that our Natural Rights are ours and not the government's to be taken away. The Constitution was written to prevent the government from doing that except by due process. Due process means if I rob a bank and they want to take away my freedom, they have to give me a jury trial and the full panoply of protections that come with it.
Natural Rights can be summarized in four words: the presumption of liberty. This means we are self-directed. We make our own choices. It is not our obligation to prove we are unworthy of incarceration. It is the government's profound, unique obligation to prove that we are worthy of incarceration and it must do so before a jury of our peers. Napolitano agrees that it is an imperfect system but that is the best system that we can come up with.
The presumption of liberty, Napolitano explains, is that the rights we did not surrender to the government are retained for ourselves. They cannot be taken away by popular vote or a majority in the legislature or a command by a governor or a president.
He raises the question: Is there any legitimate activity government has in a free society? The answer is yes. To protect the Natural Rights of the people in that society. Meaning, instead of assaulting my freedom, my life, my liberty, and my property, the government should be protecting it!
Napolitano warns that we need to understand the force of darkness which is the very government we have elected and empowered to impose the darkness upon us. The better we understand it, the more we understand it, the sooner we can be free from its shackles.
He concludes his speech with a dire message for young people:
"Some of you must be prepared to die in a government prison and some of you must be prepared to die in a government town square to the sound of government trumpets blaring. When the time comes, you will know what to do because freedom lies in everyone's heart, but it must do more than just lie there."
I am unable to embed the youtube video but you can watch Judge Napolitano's 22min talk here-
There are two basic jurisdictions in Law - Natural (Common) Law (which is there to protect people's rights against harm or loss) and Statutory Law (which concerns contract law between legal entities such as between and within corporations. Statutory Law does not concern an individual unless they enter into a commercial contract as a legal entity with another legal entity and Statutory Courts are there to adjudicate disputes between these parties.
But governments use Statutory Courts to unlawfully enforce their edicts on people who have made no contract with them and to fine and incarcerate them when there is no jurisdiction, no victim, no harmed party and therefore no crime. Statutory Courts are private concerns run by and for the local Bar Association to which the Judge, Prosecutor and Defence Counsel all belong to and profit from. It's a scam!
The talk linked above by Judge Andrew Napolitano is very accurate about what he talks about - Natural or Common Law. But that is only half the problem. The other half, Statutory Law, is not mentioned. But perhaps we will explore that more in a subsequent post.
Judge Napolitano says at one point, "Natural Rights can be summarized in four words: the presumption of liberty."
It may sound pedantic but this is the wrong use of the word "Liberty" in this legal context. In Legalese (a separate language from English where the same written or spoken words have different meanings!), 'liberty' is a privilege that one is granted and therefore can be taken away. It's origins are in Admiralty Law or Marine Law. A sailor is granted 'liberty ashore'. This is notable because, while onboard under Admiralty Law, a sailor/crewman has no rights at all and is in effect a slave as are all military personnel today. So the correct terminology should be "Natural Rights can be summarized in four words: presumption of freedom".
It follows that the phrase "Right to Liberty" in legalese is an oxymoron. But more on this and related issues at a later time.
Below is a very instructive article first published in Russian by Dmitry Kalinichenko. This translated version by Kristina Rus was found at Fort Russ. I have copied it below in full but I urge readers to follow the link to Fort Russ to read this and other excellent articles.
| Grandmaster Putin's Golden Trap
by Dmitry Kalinichenko for Investcafe.ru
Accusations of the West towards Putin traditionally are based on the fact that he worked in the KGB. And therefore he is a cruel and immoral person. Putin is blamed for everything. But nobody ever accused Putin of lack of intelligence.
Any accusations against this man only emphasize his ability for quick analytical thinking and making clear and balanced political and economic decisions.
Often Western media compares this ability with the ability of a grandmaster, conducting a public chess simul. Recent developments in US economy and the West in general allow us to conclude that in this part of the assessment of Putin's personality Western media is absolutely right.
Despite numerous success reports in the style of Fox News and CNN, today, Western economy, led by the United States is in Putin's trap, the way out of which no one in the West can see or find. And the more the West is trying to escape from this trap, the more stuck it becomes.
What is the truly tragic predicament of the West and the United States, in which they find themselves? And why all the Western media and leading Western economists are silent about this, as a well guarded military secret? Let's try to understand the essence of current economic events, in the context of the economy, setting aside the factors of morality, ethics and geopolitics.
hat tip to Big Dan, a well-referenced site of consensus points proving the official story's falsehood http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
There are two wars being waged in Ukraine. One is by the Kiev Junta Forces (KJF) against the citizens of the Donbas in an effort to drive them out of their home and to kill and terrorize those that remain. This is, of course, one big war crime. The second war is being waged by the Novorossian Armed Forces (NAF) against the invading KJF and their masters in Kiev.
The purpose of Kiev junta's war is to gain (or regain) control of physical territory and resources. That is what is important to psychopaths. Behind the oligarchs in control of Kiev are the bankers of London and New York who control NATO and their member governments. Their big picture aim is to cripple the Russian economy so it doesn't outshine the dying economies of the West and to eventually bring about regime change in Moscow.
The NAF are fighting to completely eliminate the Ukrainian military and the fascist volunteer forces as viable forces that can be used by the junta against all the people of Ukraine.
(picture source) . . . Come on Porky. Just a bit closer . . . .
They aim to bring about freedom for the Novorossians and the chance for the rest of Ukraine to bring about a regime change of their own. This will suit the Russian government in its overall aim of eliminating the bankers from any power over the BRICS nations and eventually eliminate them from any power in the world.
So right now the junta are shelling the population of Novorossia to gain territory and the NAF are setting about systematically killing the KJF. The NAF are much less interested in controlling territory in the short term. They are focused on destroying the KJF and the best place to do that is in the Donbas on their own territory where supply lines are short, where they have the support of the people and where they know the territory intimately. It also frames their war as defensive and not aggressive.
The chickens are coming home to roost. So much so that pretty soon the 'government' of Kiev is going to be covered in chicken shit.
Psychopaths in power always bring two major problems with them - wholesale thieving and incompetence on a grand scale. These problems are on display in the following video.
Will we see a civil war in the west of Ukraine? Whatever it is called it will be a shit fight and who will NATO arm and support? Porky, Yats and friends are no doubt getting the engines warmed up now ready to 'do a Saigon'. I think it will be even too chaotic for the bankers' and NATO's purposes with no banker tools left in situ to receive and distribute the loot ... er ...loans, I mean.
International peacekeeping force, any one?
This video shows captured Kiev soldiers. Alexander Zakharchenko (Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic) begins to speak to them at 4:00 mark. Well worth watching.