InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,064.20
(
0.91%
)
US TECH 100
17,178.00
(
1.88%
)
Dow Jones
38,225.66
(
0.85%
)
Brent Oil
83.73
(
0.11%
)
Bitcoin
59,370.86
(
0.42%
)
Post# of 10217
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Vexari

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 373
Posts 46280
Boards Moderated 11
Alias Born 07/20/2003

Vexari

Member Level

Re: Vexari post# 1038

Wednesday, 05/10/2006 3:31:26 PM

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:31:26 PM

Post# of 10217
law is force..legalized..

G. Edward Griffin, The Grand Design, 1968

The nationwide organization known as the Junior Chamber of Commerce (Jaycees) has a written creed to which all members subscribe. Referring to our nation's basic system of government, one of it's articles holds, "We are a government of laws, not of men." This particular statement expresses a clear choice between a republic and a democracy.

The government we inherited from our forefathers is indeed a government of laws, not of men. It is a Constitutional Republic (the rule of law), not a democracy (the rule of an unrestrained majority). Because it is a system built on the recognition of the rights of the individual, its laws are directed at controlling government, not the people. The wisdom it contains has generated for Americans the greatest amount of personal freedom in all history.


A DIFFERENT RULE OF LAW

In 1960, while he was serving as Vice President and campaigning to become President, Richard Nixon issued a statement supporting the idea of international law. He straightforwardly stated that whenever disputes between nations arose, he hoped they could be solved by negotiation. But if they weren't settled by talk, he contended that "the only alternatives left are to settle them either by force or by law." He encouraged international law under the United Nations, and he suggested it as an alternative to force.

Mr. Nixon, of course, is not the only advocate of such a direction. Over the years, scores of U.S. Senators and Representatives have associated with an ad hoc group known as Members of Congress for Peace Through Law. Its absolute purpose has been to "strengthen the United Nations" and bring about peace under "enforceable world law."

The objective of a UN directed rule of law has been praised over many years by a host of organization from the World Federalists to the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, to virtually every pacifist or peace advocate of world peace through international law.

Independence minded Americans are totally opposed to any international rule of law. Yet they are just as totally in favor of the rule of law codified in the United States Constitution. It is, therefore, worth considering the fundamental differences between what are obviously two completely different types of the rule of law. What makes one type praiseworthy and the other frightening? Why is one rule of law embraced by Americanists and the other feared?


THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

The underlying premise of the American system is the booming statement in the Declaration of Independence that "all Men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Because they are endowed with rights, the Declaration reasons, men have the power to protect their rights collectively. In other words, they have the power to form a government. The government they create is to have as its sole purpose the protection of the God given rights of the individual. Government is not to be the distributor of wealth, the regulator of the law abiding citizenry, or the ruler of the people.

The United States Constitution gave us a government based on these fundamental principles. As practically all of its provisions mandate, THE GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED, NOT THE PEOPLE. God given rights are even enumerated in the outstanding Bill of Rights. These are not granted by government or derived out of thin air. They are God given! Hence, the underlying relationship between government and the rights of the individual is clearly given in the first five words of the First Amendment. There we read that "Congress shall make no law..." regarding a whole series of rights. According to those who started this nation, all rights of the individual transcend any power of government, and government shall have nothing to say about them.

A fundamental point about the American system must be stressed here. Whenever Americans lapse into making reference to a "First Amendment right," or a "Second Amendment right," they are playing directly into the hands of those who are determined that we shall have no rights except, perhaps, those bestowed by government.

Our rights to, publish, practice religion, etc., are not "First Amendment rights." Our right to keep and bear arms is not a "Second Amendment right." Instead, these are God given rights PROTECTED by the First or Second Amendments. This point cannot be overemphasized; it is fundamental to understand the American system. Rights are not derived from the Bill of Rights; they are given by God and merely guaranteed by the amendments.


UNITED NATIONS TURNS IT UPSIDE DOWN

To begin a discussion of the way the United Nations treats rights, consider that at the United Nations there is no recognition of God's existence. Therefore, there can be no recognition of God given rights. According to the United Nations, men cannot be endowed by their Creator with any rights; there is no Creator.

Where then, according to the United Nations, do men get their rights? Interestingly, the point is never raised by the United Nations. The world body's basic documents presume either that rights exist of themselves or they are granted by government. But, if rights come from government, then it logically follows that it is government's prerogative to qualify, limit or even abolish those rights all in the interest of peace and harmony.

The second paragraph in the United Nations Charter contains the following statement of purpose for the organization:


To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small...
Note that there are none of the Declaration of Independence's references to a "Creator," or to "Nature's God," or to "Divine Providence." As we shall see, there is a immense difference between holding that men's rights are "fundamental" or "human" and insisting that men "are endowed by their Creator" with them.

It took over 20 years for the United Nations to promulgate its International Covenants on Human Rights. On December 16, 1966, the United Nations finally got around to publishing its equivalent of our Constitution's Bill of Rights. As we shall see, the differences are truly remarkable.

In the United Nations's International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (one of the three covenants addressing the overall topic of "human rights"), we read in Article 18:


Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

At first, that statement appears to include the age old dream of mankind to be free from suppression of religious belief. (Remember, if it is not included, it is excluded.) But, within the very same Article 18, we read:

Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary...
In other words, the right to freedom of religion can be subordinated to United Nations decreed limitations. The world body maintains its right to pass a law that cancels freedom of religion. When we recall the First Amendment's insistence that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." the differences between the United Nations and American systems become strikingly obvious. In several additional articles, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights repeats this pattern of acknowledging the existence of a right (but not its source) while proclaiming the United Nations' power to qualify it out of existence.

Article 19 discusses "freedom of expression," and notes that it may be "subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary." Article 21 acknowledges the "right of peaceful assembly," except that restrictions "imposed in conformity with the law" may be forthcoming. And so it goes: The United Nations acknowledges the existence of rights but insists that it has the power to qualify them out of existence. What a departure from our Bill of Rights where "Congress shall make no law..." is clearly and unequivocally proclaimed.

The United Nations ignores God's existence and establishes the framework for a world government in which power for the organization both to grant and to suspend rights is presumed. On the other hand, the United States acknowledges God as the source of men's rights and prohibits government from passing any law regarding them. The United Nations turns the American system completely upside down.


THE PURPOSE OF LAW

The American system establishes a system of law to govern the government. It holds that individual rights are above any power of government and that individuals form governments only to protect their rights. The rule of law in America is neither feared nor opposed by anyone except those who seek to have government dominate the individual. Under such a system, government is clearly the servant, not the master.

But the United Nations system establishes a rule of law based on the faulty premise that government is above individuals and should therefore be excepted to control them for the benefit of the United Nations. At the United Nations, rights are not above the power of government; they exist instead only at government's behest. Under this type of system, government is supreme and can be expected to become the master instead of the servant. Based on a reading of human nature, the kind of corrupting power possessed by a United Nations style government will, without question, lead to its being wielded to impose tyranny.

Which brings us back to the statement headlining this discussion:

"Law is force, legalized." A law without force backing it up is meaningless. Who would send hard earned funds to the I.R.S. on April 15th (April Fool's Day) if the threat of force did not compel the transfer of the funds. Law indeed is force.

Those who claim that the world needs international law instead of the force of arms to settle disputes are not posing alternatives; they are offering the same alternative twice. International law, like any law, is merely an exercise involving words unless there is force to back it up. Whether they realize it or not, champions of international law under the United Nations favor the establishment of a United Nations controlled international force.

In order to accomplish the goal of peace without bloodshed, this United Nations force would of necessity have to be more powerful than any other force on earth. If it were not, it would be unable to carry out the mission for which it has been assembled. Once assembled, however, who or what would be able to control it? In truth, it is hard to imagine anything more dangerous to liberty than an all powerful United Nations controlled international force.

The danger to liberty inherent in such a force stems from the thinking that underlies its existence. The United Nations' government that would wield it, places itself above the individual's God given rights. Such a force would be used not to control government on behalf of the individual, but to control the individual on behalf of the government.

Let us here concur emphatically with the Declaration of Independence's assertion holding as "self evident" the truth that individual rights are given by man's Creator. Like Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, we do not see any need to spend time and effort providing what is indeed "self evident."

Once again, then, under the American system, the force inherent in the law is directed at the government on behalf of the individual. While government is created, it is given strictly limited powers, all of which are aimed at enabling it to perform its sole and proper function of protecting the individual even from government itself. And under a system like the United Nations, the force inherent in law is directed at the individual on behalf of government.


THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING ARMED

Let there be no more confusion about law. Whether international, national or local, law is backed up by force or it is meaningless. Law is not an alternative to force; it is itself force legalized.

In the American system, the rule of law is designed to govern government. As with any law, ours is of no value if it cannot be backed up by force. Where in the American system should this force properly live? Not with the nation's military, whose sole function is to protect the nation from foreign threats. Not with a federally controlled police force that should never be allowed to exist. Not with any entity having anything to do with government.

Then where, in keeping with the American system, is the proper repository of whatever force is needed to control government? The answer: WITH THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. If those who wield the power of government are to be controlled made to obey the law by being required to stay within the boundaries forged for them by "the chains of the Constitution" the people themselves, acting alone or through a militia which is derived from their numbers, must do it. And they will preserve their own liberty, as has frequently been noted, "by resorting to the ballot box, or if things really get out of hand, resorting to the cartridge box."

It is highly significant that you will look in vain for any mention of "right to keep and bear arms" in the United Nations Charter in any of the United Nations' International covenants on Human Rights. But you will find it most prominently in the Bill of rights of the United States Constitution. It is this right guaranteed but not granted by the Second Amendment that gives teeth to every other right. If Citizens are unable to oppose a government that is usurping their rights and making slaves out of them, and the use of the ballot box has failed, then there is no way to make government officials obey the law except through the use of force.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the rights of hunters, sportsmen and target shooters. It exists because the founding fathers knew that the law they constructed to empower government but to hold it to a strictly limited domain means nothing if there is no force to back it up. And they properly intended that such power be left in the hands of the people themselves. Ultimately, it is the right to keep and bear arms against government that backs up the rights to speak, publish, practice religion, etc.

The mentality that seeks the creation of an all powerful United Nations Peace Force is the same mentality that wants a disarmed American populace. It calls for a different kind of law than that given us by the wise and brave individuals who created this Republic. While we work diligently to preserve freedom for ourselves and for future generations, let us never forget that the rule of law is not the most important consideration. What exceeds it in every detail is its foundation and its purpose..

Law is force!


Open invitation to learn how deep the rabbit hole goes..


http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1336768


grand design transcript..

http://www.realityzone.com/granddesign1.html


I am now quite sure that 'Tragedy and Hope' was suppressed although I do not know why or by whom. ~ Carroll Quigley

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up