US versus THEM

LATE MAY - After my previous ‘muse’ entitled ‘The Eyes Have It’ I thought at that time this next muse would be about money and banking. Not so. The political shenanigans going on in Britain these days have caused me to think again. And then I came across a quote by the late Bill Hicks, American stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist and musician.

“I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be (President) Prime Minister is the one who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking and screaming into the (White House) House of Commons.” ― Bill Hicks

That’s the theory. Then my thoughts turned to an ancient instruction-cum-admonition which I first heard years ago. It reads: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” That’s the one that changed my mind about what to write today. What if that turns out to be good advice?

In a few days time Mrs May expects Britain to vote in the EU elections and by the time this muse sees the light of day the voting will be over . . . but not the consequences of our actions.

Who should we vote for/for whom should we vote? Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats and a Solicitor, has started a case to block the UK Government from extending the Article 50 Notice or revoking it without first having to get an Act of Parliament. 

“The constitutional law set out in the Gina Millar case is, in my legal opinion, clear and unchallengeable that any attempt to extend the Article 50 Notice or to revoke it without a specific Act of Parliament will be invalid and unlawful.  That would mean that if there has been a purported attempt to extend the Notice by agreement without an Act of Parliament that that would be invalid and therefore we would be out of the EU regardless of what the Government said we were.” 

But you won’t find much about his case in national media. If he wins his case it means that we have already left EU with effect from 29^th March, and the pseudo EU elections in this country are unlawful (because we aren’t any longer members of the EU). Well, hush mah mowf. Whoda thunk it?

All this raises another question. If you nevertheless decide to vote, for whom should you vote? Bear in mind that a ‘party’ is a corporation or institution, not a person and not a ‘who’. Here’s another question. What do you know about your regional candidates? Do you even know their names? Under such circumstances WHY would you try to put your trust in ‘princes’? Why would you try to put your trust in a faceless corporation or institution? In Brussels and Strasbourg the individuals have no power to represent your interests and they are rewarded handsomely for being unable. Just ask Lord Peter Mandelson and Lord and Lady Kinnock, all Labour party multi-millionaires because once-upon-a-time they were EU commissioners. No wonder Mr Farage is making himself available for election in the name of his new party! No wonder Lord Adonis is having a crack at it, too.

If you stop to think about it there is a reason why you do the work that you do and don’t choose to do something else. It might be that there are few local opportunities to do something else; it might be that you really like doing what you do above all other opportunities; it might be that you are just too content (or idle) to try to change. But, rest assured that the man or woman who strives for power over people (ie a politician) is not an idle person, or one without energy to fight for what he/she wants. People who seek power are a peculiar people who have little clue about the history of mankind – or else they believe they know better than everyone else. These are the people who seek your votes. These are the people to whom you (and I) say ‘Rock on Tommy – you and your party will do for me’. In short, we hand over our power because we can’t be asked to use it ourselves, not even when it is likely to be in our own best interest. And then we wonder why we didn’t get the cream. 

We didn’t give our full attention to ALL the points in that manifesto – just to those we liked. Or, worse, we were beguiled by that seemingly attractive person with a microphone who keeps on spouting off in Talk Shows (the clue is in the name – they are supposed to be entertainment, doncha know?) on voyeur-vision.

I wish I had a £pound for every time I’ve heard one after another of them claim ‘they want what’s best for the country, and the party’. And, of course, they know what the best is even if you aren’t too sure. But we want what’s best for us, don’t we? Screw the rest. If that’s true then we’re all as bad as one another and we vote for and often get what we deserve . . . including the rubbish. So, be careful who you vote for/for whom you vote.  Let’s not put our trust in princes (or corporations), hey?

Some months ago I wrote an article (a muse) entitled ‘Who Gave Them Dominion over us?’ One man replied with the correct answer. “We did”, he said.  Having reminded myself of it, I’ve just now read through it again.

I closed with an observation from the much respected Judge Andrew Napolitano, the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. He wrote:

“Ultimately, we are responsible for the folks we have elected and the things they have done, whether secretive, hypocritical or in our faces. Ultimately, we have the government we deserve. Will we change this before it is too late?” (Judge Andrew Napolitano).

WE gave THEM dominion over us.

Big Mistake.

With awareness, comes responsibility

Cause no harm  
Be honest
Be peaceful
Be responsible

Whether or not you are a member of a political party, you didn’t choose the party leader. YOU didn’t chose Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn or any of the others. Someone else did. We have allowed them to hold sway over us. And we have the nerve to say that ‘they’ are responsible. Something ain’t right in the State of Denmark. (To paraphrase the Bard). And, in the words of a popular song: ‘Watcha goin’ to do about it?’

* * * *

See also www.democracydefined.org

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, THEREFORE I LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, RIGHT ? - WRONG !
"Suffrage does not define democracy..."

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

May 2019 - Anyone who has followed any of my earlier musings already knows something about my simple philosophies. 

Whenever I can I prefer not to use labels to describe people because labels and names often can generate unhelpful images and prejudices in the minds of readers. Your experience of life is different to mine therefore your view of the world is likely to be different to mine in several respects. Harmony of thought is neither instant nor is it gained easily but accurate definition becomes easier if we can do away with ‘-ists’ and ‘-isms’.

Among other beliefs, some secular and some spiritual, I believe in individual FREEDOM: of expression and of religion; I believe in personal and family responsibility; I believe in the Rule of Law and Trial by Common Law Jury; I believe in limited government; and, mostly, I believe in a free market economy even though ‘free’ rarely means free. I know I’m not unusual because, from time to time, I find others who believe similarly.

I believe, too, that taxation is legal theft supported by menaces by the state and I believe that party politics work against the best interest and well-being of the people. THAT tends to make me a bit unusual.

Oh, and bankers are not our best friends despite what their adverts say.


I believe in the Rule of Law and Trial by Common Law Jury.

Think on this, if you will. It is the first requirement needed for a safe, sovereign, peaceful and prosperous United Kingdom. Common Law equates to natural law and by ‘natural’ law I’m not referring to gravity. 

Natural law expresses itself as a common understanding of what is fair and what is not fair, based on the evidence presented to the jury. Children are instant experts at common and/or natural law. Adults certainly know about right and wrong.  When it came to Trial by Jury our predecessors gave us the standard of 12 jurors to hear and judge the case arguments, and a convenor, now referred to as a judge. The Jury is called upon (required) to agree an unanimous verdict based on the evidence. In a Common Law court ‘no unanimity’ equals ‘not guilty’ or else the law itself is flawed and must be over ruled.

“The Full Restoration of our ancient and proven Common Law Trial by Jury and Annulment by Jury Constitution, wrote Justin Walker, puts us, the people, firmly back in authority over our agenda-driven and self-serving politicians, judges, lawyers and bankers by lawfully removing from them their powers to punish and deceive.” 

Years before we ever had a ‘Parliament’ the King John of England reluctantly agreed a treaty with his Lords, Barons and his subjects. It became known as Magna Carta 1215 and it forms the bedrock of our Constitution. When the treaty was agreed the intention was that it should continue to be a treaty ‘in perpetuity’ - it said so within the document - meaning for ever after.

(Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a treaty as: “The term treaty is used generically to describe a variety of instruments, including conventions, agreements, arrangements, protocols, covenants, charters, and acts. In the strict sense of the term, however, many such instruments are not treaties. The key distinguishing feature of a treaty is that it is binding.” 

(Treaties are expected to be executed in good faith, in keeping with the principle of pacta sunt servanda (Latin: “agreements must be kept”), arguably the oldest principle of international law. Without this principle, which is explicitly mentioned in many agreements, treaties would be neither binding nor enforceable.) Hence our problem with UK leaving EU, even though the treaty that binds us has get out clauses.

You’ve stayed with me thus far. Now there are two important questions in need of your consideration:

1. Can you think of any reasons why the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in a so-called court of law? According to George Carlin the real reason is because you cannot post ‘Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery’ and ‘Thou shalt not lie in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.

2. Can you think of any reasons why Judges, lawyers, police officers, won’t admit to the superiority of Common Law courts over state-sponsored courts?
Answer 2. There is no money in it for them, and no authority, either.

Now can you see how truly precious Common Law Trial by Jury is to us? Can you understand how we have almost let this amazing gift slip through our fingers because we and our fathers listened to and believed those who would have dominion over us?

I often say there is nothing new under the sun and it holds true here. As Justin Walker wrote “The Full Restoration (nothing new) of our ancient and proven Common Law Trial by Jury and Annulment by Jury Constitution, puts us, the people, firmly back in authority.”

And that, m’lud, is when the fighting began. If it is legal for the government to judge us according to statute law but illegal for we, the people, to judge ourselves according to Common Law Trial by Jury – we are moving towards tyranny with our eyes wide shut.

WAKE UP!

* * * * *

For a more complete presentation on our democratic right to Common Law Trial by Jury and our Constitution emanating from Magna Carta 1215, 

I invite you to view 

www.democracydefined.org

by Kenn d’Oudney.

* * * *

Next time, look for the second Requirement necessary for a safe, sovereign, peaceful United Kingdom and “The Creation of Prosperity for all by bringing back debt-free and interest-free Treasury money.”

Written and published by Michael
www.newchartistmovement.org.uk