IPFS News Link • Military
Pentagon Concludes America Not Safe Unless It Conquers The World
• http://www.paulcraigroberts.orgThe document announces a shift in focus from terrorists to "state actors" that "are challenging international norms." It is important to understand what these words mean. Governments that challenge international norms are sovereign countries that pursue policies independently of Washington's policies. These "revisionist states" are threats, not because they plan to attack the US, which the Pentagon admits neither Russia nor China intend, but because they are independent. In other words, the norm is dependence on Washington.
Be sure to grasp the point: The threat is the existence of sovereign states, whose independence of action makes them "revisionist states." In other words, their independence is out of step with the neoconservative Uni-power doctrine that declares independence to be the right of Washington alone. Washington's History-given hegemony precludes any other country being independent in its actions.
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Telegram
1 Comments in Response to Pentagon Concludes America Not Safe Unless It Conquers The World
What is this strength of law? It lies in the 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of rights. Here's how it works.
Anything written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights came about before there was any legal language (legalese). Even if the legal language of the day happened to be connected to The Articles of Confederation, legalese had nothing to do with any of the legal language that came about after and because of and flowing out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their formation.
This means that the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the common law language that is different from the legalese definition of common law today. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the starting point where legalese and common language fork, splitting away from each other in meaning.
Why is this important? It is important because every time that a human being decides that he doesn't like what Government is doing, if he forms his complaint as a claim, and takes it to common law court that has no legal language behind it, he is in a completely different court than if he uses legalese. The 7th Amendment allows this. The language used would have to be the language of the people, since common law differs from legalese, and even varies from place to place within the country. Common law as used here is not written. It is the law that is common among the people = customs and traditions from place to place. This is shown by the power that the 7th Amendment common law jury has.
To take this even further, the 9th Amendment says that people have all the rights that they had before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came into being. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not limit peoples' rights to the things that they (Constitution, Bill of rights, legalese laws and codes, court cases) or any legalese law state. The rights of the people are limited only to things that the jury (common law jury - no legalese allowed) allows and decides. This means that no judge can direct the 7th Amendment common law jury on any decision that it makes whatsoever.
If the Government of America takes down the rest of the governments of the world, and the people use their common law rights to limit the Government of America, the whole world just might become common law oriented. The civil law of the many nations (civil law is essentially dictatorship by the government) just might be replaced by freedom of the people.
It's time people in America wake up to the strength that they have over their Government. It's time Americans stop letting their Government practice civil law on them. The people are waking up to the great freedoms placed in the 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.