Be A Golden Rule Citizen! 

A Conversation With America & the World
Creating the Future 2012
Where the New World Begins!

The Problem With the
Rule of Law

What's more important than the specifics laws by which we are ruled is the intent of laws.
We don't need more laws. We need more honest intent.

Menu

	For the Love of the World A  Book
	Site Search
	My Journals
	Vernacular-Chuck's Dictionary
	My Favorite Clipart
	Recommended
	Trip to South Africa 2005
	News
	Books
	Bitter Pills -
	Psychotronics, PsyOps & Illegal Gov't Harassment, Directed Energy Attacks. Please read this for your own sake.

I doubt that it's just a coincidence that one of my favorite founding Patriots in Patrick Henry. He truly understood the difference between the intent of the law and the rule of law.

It's why, when participating in the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, he not only said "Give me liberty or give me death", but he included in a phrase in that speech: "I smell a rat".

You have to remember a few things about the founding of this nation. The pilgrims came for many reasons, but a large part of those reasons included freedom of religion, escaping the tyranny of having the government tell them they must worship in the Anglican Church,  which, back then, like the British Empire, wanted to dictate the equivalent "universal church" as part  of their empire, as a nation purporting the furthering of the sanctity of God's will and shaping the church to fit the ethics of it rulers.

Part of the tyranny, as they experienced it, was being told they must follow certain beliefs and practices. Part of the beliefs back then, as now, were that if everyone agreed to the same way of thinking and conduct, that the "order"   of the world would eventually "even out", that in time, people and nations would surrender to the rule of law.

The problem is, as Charlemagne found out, is that when you try to force people of differing views and beliefs to conform to another, it causes dissent and rebellion. Charlemagne attempted to use militancy and even terrorism against dissenters long ago, and failed, but caused a 20 year war against those I'm sure he would have said, these days, were home-grown terrorists.

It's important to state clearly that they used military force and harassment against those people and nations who dissented, and then claimed they were the aggressors. Just as the United States and others do in order to cause Globalization, fulfillment of the empire, the New World Order. And then they claim the victims are the aggressors via the corporate media. Just as the Romans did.

What Patrick Henry understood back then is that when the Pilgrims arrived in the New World, they brought with them the beliefs and mores they wanted to live by from England, as well as their perceptions of power and control and governance.  Some people involved in the creation of the Constitution were still attached to the old ideas, leading to things such as the Salem witch hunts.

What Patrick Henry and others understood was that in order to "form a more perfect union", we required a more perfect foundation, one that truly expressed liberty and justice and equality, acknowledging that their deliberations included the knowledge of the desire of the new nation to base its conduct upon the "laws of God", the 10 Commandments and  the Golden Rule. To be a "nation under God" by personal choice, neither promoting or requiring a particular faith or form or worship. It's why we say our nation, our laws, are based on Judeo-Christian values.

Judeo, meaning based on the 10 Commandments and the laws delivered by Moses, Mosaic law, and the teachings and leadership of Christs. Moses, Abraham, Noah and others are considered Christs, although Jesus the Christ is the master of them all. That's why his teachings and the Golden Rule supercede the teachings of the previous Christs. Christianity is actually an agreement with God to follow the leadership of the Christ, which means the chosen leader God provided throughout history as His eyes, ears and mouth in this world. God's ambassador from the Kingdom of Heaven, if you will, to the slowly emerging and establishment of the Kingdom of God.

Don't ever forget, politics is, primarily, founded in religion.

But, if there was any proof in the Constitution that justified Patrick Henry's concerns of a fundamental problem, it was that according to the original Constitution, slavery was legal. That meant that, once again, the Christian values the founders claimed back then were being compromised for political purposes, primarily for those special interests who owned slaves, including themselves.

Even in the Constitution, our founders contradicted the intent of the founding of this nation in favor of special interests, including their own.

That's where the problem with the rule of law began.

That's what Patrick Henry knew.

He knew that those who "rose to the top" as leaders in America, the British Colony, later to become leaders in the New World called the United States, had to do what all political leaders have had to do throughout time: deal with the issues as they are presented, per the mores and ways of the nation as it is, its status quo, and with devotion and understanding of the rules set forth and the reasons, the intent upon which they were established, and seek to create a more perfect union, as a nation, as a government, as individual citizens and as citizens of the world.

George Washington had the first reported experience of a visit by an angel expressing to him, the "Father of Our Country", the possibilities of the United States as constructed, with the foundation of our nation as it was conceived and written, was bestowed the anointing or selection as the next great nation, an empire unlike any other, leading by the acknowledgement and "covenant", as covenants have been made with God and other nations and fallen empires, to be a global leader by the ways of God and the Judeo-Christian foundation we claim, or that we would fail like every empire before, not to cease to exist, but to evolve and then devolve to mediocrity in the same ways as every previous empire.

Washington understood.

I have a few favorites in our original history. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant... But, Patrick Henry has been special to me since I was a child. That became more true when I recently learned he was a devout Christian, truly living Christian values, speaking them and all the while fully respecting the separation of church and state.

He was so concerned with the construction of the Constitution and they wanted his approval so much that he even refused an appointment to the Supreme Court to make his point, a point that has come true, as it has in every empire.

Patrick Henry understood the history of the world, the history of the British Empire, and as a Christian, he understood temptation. He understood the ways of "unscrupulous" politicians and financiers throughout time. Ways that could only be described as "anti-Christian", or, not the ways true Christians would do them, and he understood the need for a loyal government that could sort of stand up to the "mob" in the name of justice like a Sheriff in an old western movie.

For him and for me, it's like the Golden Rule. It seems simple, like the Constitution. It's an open ended rule that actually encompasses a code of conduct covering everything you could possibly imagine or think of doing when you fully explore and consider its intent.

For him and for me, what he saw, and what I've learned to recognize, was not a nation of laws, but a nation of loopholes.

I'm not criticizing the Constitution. I believe it's a beautiful document, masterfully written, and in a simple and concise way it expresses a vision of perfection worthy of endeavor, even if never fully realized. The "more perfect union".

What Henry understood from his Biblical study is that there's a difference between the guileless, those who would know just law and seek to live by it, and those who would be opportunists who would look for every possible way to "game the system", or to take advantage of the interpretation of law to their own advantage.

A good example of this is the Cap and Trade program, supposedly one way to make it appear as if we're being environmentally responsible by reducing carbon and pollution emissions that actually allows heavy polluters to buy the right to pollute from other companies not using heir allocation of allowable emissions, thereby creating legal system for heavy polluters to pollute even more.

If there is not a specific law to make something illegal, opportunists will take the legal position that it is legal, regardless of ethics or harm to others.

One of the worst legal decisions to come down the pike in centuries was the one that gave corporations rights as if they were citizens. According to Thomas Payne (not related to the moralist), it turns out that when the case was pursued in court, the judge actually wrote a decision against corporations. But, the judge died of pneumonia before filing the decision, and his clerk changed it in favor of corporations.

So that brings me to my question: if corporations want to be treated as citizens, then why are they not required to be responsible citizens.?

For example. You can go to any search engine and look for "Exxon fine" and find listing after listing of fines paid in response to breaking the law.

If you or I, citizens, broke laws that were considered so bad that they would be fined billions of dollars, what would happen to us? We'd be arrested and jailed. Why are corporations only fined? Why aren't the people in corporations who make the decisions to do such things arrested?

For the same reasons people in the Federal Government make decisions to torture people and are not treated like they broke the law, but were just acting like politicians.

Why is there a difference between the "rule of law" of the wealthy and powerful and the "rule of law" for the citizens?

Who makes the laws, and who uses money to shape the politics of the nation?

Greg Palast didn't call his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" for nothing.

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

Adam Smith. (1776). Wealth of Nations

Adam Smith knew what Patrick Henry knew, too. That people are all too often corrupted, tempted and giving in to, the tendency to protect one's own over the interests of others.

This is what I refer to when I recall what my father taught me "Do the right thing, even if it's not the best thing for yourself". It's much easier said than done.

I remember a conversation Bill Clinton had with CNN's Larry King when his book "My Life" came out, discussing some of the things he did and the mistakes he's made. He said that a number of things he's done had nothing to do with whether they were right or wrong. He said he did them because he can.

The idea that you would challenge the legal definition of the word "is" is a perfect example of an opportunist using the rule of law to defeat the intent of law. Because he can.

The thing is, we all actually know the difference between right and wrong, whether the law says it's legal or not.

So, when the intent of law, easily determined by reviewing the issues at the time the law or previous ruling was made, is overridden by the rule of law, you know that someone is either seeking to subvert the law OR someone is trying to stop such subversion.

Often times legislation is created based on a compromise, such as with energy companies, that make it illegal to do one thing that would publicly embarrass them, something they might have stopped doing anyway, in order to make a PR announcement stating that a certain onerous practice had ended, but in the fine print is something hidden that allows them to do the next questionable thing they wanted to do. Something no one questions because it hasn't been raised as a media issue yet.

These legal/political maneuvers are the most dangerous weapons of mass distraction.

After the economic crisis hit in 2008, John Boehner remarked one day that the economic crisis was caused by regulation.

There's a perfect example of someone telling you what actually happened that most people missed. What he was saying was  that while Democrats were blaming George W. Bush for the economic crisis, they failed to point out that the Democrats were in control of Congress when they devised regulations that allowed for the "plan" to basically bankrupt millions of Americans while making it appear the credit companies were in crisis, knowing full well the bailout planned down the road would make the finance companies richer by allowing them to harvest and resell foreclosed properties. Meanwhile, their supposed losses became tax write-off.

These same corporations will cause the illusion that the recession is over, when in fact, for the citizens of the United States, it's hardly begun, as a round of inflation to compensate for the losses of citizens and decline in manufacturing will ensue, making it appear that the economy has recovered once again, except that real-earnings will be greatly reduced again, and the actual earnings of citizens takes us one step closer to the long-range plan of serfdom once again.

Making the rich rich and the poor poorer. That IS what the trickle down theory actually does.

And it's done not by a nation of laws, but  a nation of loopholes.

The part no one knows about until unjust laws are enforced against citizens, while cost-effective crimes are being committed by corporations. Crimes being paid for by stockholders, as well as the victims, in terms of economics and health.

Patrick Henry knew, by history and experience, that if laws weren't created for every specifically imaginable crime on every given issue, that someone would find a way to interpret the law in a way to take advantage of it.

That's why, off all things, Henry was most adamant about the adoption of the Bill of Rights.