Earlier today
I happened onto a book
which provided a topical treatment
of Blackstone's Commentaries.

As I was flipping through it
I happened onto a chapter
dedicated to
the law of nations,
which is an area
of particular interest to me,
for many years.

William Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
published in 1765-1769,
is a legal classic
that provides the basis
and foundation
for our understanding of
the English common law,
and our own
American system of jurisprudence,
which ultimately rests
upon the English common law.

In Book IV,
Of Public Wrongs,
chapter 5,
Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations,
in section 67
you will find the following language:

"The law of nations is a system of rules,
deducible by natural reason,
and established by universal consent
among the civilized inhabitants of the world,
in order to decide all disputes,
to regulate all ceremonies and civilities,
and to insure the observance of justice
and good faith in that intercourse
which must frequently occur
between two or more independent states
and the individuals belonging to each.

This general law is founded upon this principle,
that different nations ought in time of peace
to do one another all the good they can,
and, in time of war,
as little harm as possible,
without prejudice
to their own real interests.

And, as none of these states
will allow a superiority in the other,
therefore neither can dictate
or prescribe the rules of this law
to the rest;

but such rules
must necessarily result from
those principles of natural justice,
in which all the learned
of every nation
agree:
or they depend upon mutual compacts
or treaties
between the respective communities; 
in the construction of which
there is also
no judge to resort to,
but the law of nature and reason,
being the only one
in which all the contracting parties
are equally conversant,
and to which
they are equally subject.

In arbitrary states this law,
wherever it contradicts
or is not provided for
by the municipal law of the country,
is enforced by the royal power; 
but since in England
no royal power can introduce a new law,
or suspend the execution of the old,
therefore the law of nations
(wherever any question arises
which is properly the object
of its jurisdiction)
is here adopted
in its full extent
by the common law,
and is held to be a part of
the law of the land. 

And those acts of parliament,
which have from time to time
been made to enforce this universal law,
or to facilitate the execution
of its decisions,
are not to be considered
as introductive of any new rule,
but merely as declaratory
of the old fundamental constitutions
of the kingdom; 
without which it must cease
to be a part of the civilized world.`---

---where the individuals
of any state
violate this general law,
it is then the interest
as well as duty
of the govertnment,
under which they live,
to animadvert upon them
with a becoming severity,
that the peace of the world
may be maintained.

For in vain would nations in
their collective capacity
observe these universal rules,
if private subjects were at liberty
to break them at their own discretion
and involve the two states in a war. 

It is therefore incumbent
upon the nation injured
first to demand satisfaction
and justice
to be done
to the offender
by the state to which he belongs,
and, if that be refused or neglected,
the sovereign then avows himself
an accomplice or abettor
of his subject's crime,
and draws upon his community
the calamities of foreign war."



note: I can only ask
that you take a few minutes
and give some thought to the portions
which I have highlighted.

Then ask yourself
just how this "squares"
with the claims
by those who insist on
American exceptionalism,
world hegemony,
and full spectrum dominance
as an operating philosophy.

Do you suppose those beliefs
are a result of natural laws
which all learned,
civilized men,
in all countries,
agreed upon
as a result of reason
and universal consent?

Or might they more aptly
fall under the heading of
the acts of
individuals
and
arbitrary states?

And when a small group
acts, on their own
(read party hacks),
without the consent
of the governed,
are not they
acting as individuals,
and as violators of this law,
and thus subject to
the strongest
approbation possible?

Think about it.

Which side of history,
and liberty,
and justice
do you suppose
they will be found
to be sitting on?

Lawful,
or lawless?

In the NT we are told
that the "Man of Sin"
will be known for his
"anomia".

Nomos = law
a = not

as in lawless
or without law.

Which side do you
think
your pretended leaders
will be found to be on
at the judgment seat of Christ?

"Well done thou good and faithful servant"?

or "into the goat line, with you"
as referenced in
Matthew 25?

I think that
to ask the question
is to answer it.

Oh, and by the way,
animadvert =
to comment unfavorably
or critically
from Latin
animadvertere =
to censure


Peace on Earth
and
Goodwill toward men,
anyone?

Or will you choose to follow
the modern day incarnations
of all which is evil and abhorrent?

Take your pick.

As we were warned
2,000 years ago,
watch their actions,
and the fruits of their actions,
and don't be fooled by
their numerous enticing words
and specious claims
which they so scurriously make,
seemingly without end.


w/ high intensity love to all

vw

11:43 p.m.
6-20-13
Thursday
Ventura, California, USA