Skip to comments.America Now Functioning As 'Krytocracy'
Posted on 04/01/2005 7:33:41 AM PST by Pendragon_6
No longer functioning as a nation of, by and for the people, the U.S., in the aftermath of the Terri Schiavo case, is now a "krytocracy," ruled by judges, asserts geopolitical expert Jack Wheeler.
In a column on his intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler mentions many disturbing news stories he read upon returning from a trip to Egypt for 10 days including the Schiavo saga.
"The Bush brothers' refusal to prevent Terri's killing will do lasting political damage to them both," writes Wheeler. "As John Fund of the Wall Street Journal points out, if Janet Reno could override a court order and have Elian Gonzalez kidnapped at gunpoint to be returned to Communist Cuba, either Jeb or George Bush could have overridden Greer to save Terri's life. Her death will be an ineradicable stain on GW's presidency and Jeb's chances for the White House.
Wheeler then mentions a possible silver lining to the story.
"If any good is to come of this tragedy it would be to catalyze the recognition among Americans that America is no longer a democracy
"The Bush brothers' refusal to prevent Terri's killing will do lasting political damage to them both," writes Wheeler.
Talk about twisted thinking, President Bush and Governor Bush were mocked and jeered for the actions they did take, and some even tout the polls were against them.
Unfortunately, that would require a mass cure for cranial/rectal inversion disease. Not likely.
""If any good is to come of this tragedy it would be to catalyze the recognition among Americans that America is no longer a democracy "
What an idiot. We've NEVER been a democracy, but a constitutional Republic. No need to read further.
Posted on 03/30/2005 2:58:42 PM EST by St. Johann Tetzel
It is time to add a new word to the "pop culture of death" lexicon: Kritocracy
Kritarchy \Kri"tarch*y\ (kr[imac]"t[aum]rk*[tcr]), n. [Gr. krith`s judge + 'archh` beginning, government.] The rule of the judges over Israel.
Kritocracy: "-the rule of "wise", "omniscient" and omnipotent judges unchecked by constitutional strictures or popular constraint-appealed greatly to an authoritarian like Plato. But it doesn't resemble democracy, and it isn't freedom."
--definition from KEN BELL, "Judges Benched for Bad Behavior"
As Alan Keyes has so elequently pointed out, to the continued consternation of not a few so-called "conservatives" on this forum, when the judiciary branch assumes supremacy over and above that of the legislative branch and the executive branch, and inviolation of the safeguards against same written into the US Constitution, and the legislative and executive branches refuse to act to restore the proper checks and balances distorted by the judiciary branch, we are no longer a Representative Republic.
We have become a Kritocracy with absolute rule by omnipotent judges unchecked by constitutional strictures or popular constraint.
Unless and until the legislative and executive branches make definitive efforts, including force if necessary in cases like Terri Schiavo, to re establish the checks and balances between the three branches of government, we will continue to live as unrepresented people, the subjects of judicial tyrants.
This situation is of course untenable.
From a document that should be familiar to us all, but apparently has been forgotten:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The long train of judicial abuses and usurpations that has lead us to this current stage of absolute judicial Despotism, unchecked by the other two branches of government, have brought us to an unwanted but grim reality.
As Fr. Frank Pavone, of Priests For Life, stated so eloquently during Hioly Week,
"The Terri Schiavo case has demonstrated that we are being governed by unelected judges, and that the legislative and executive branches of government lack the will to stand up to them when they authorize acts of violence.
"The matter, therefore, now rests with [WE] the people," he said in a statement.
"When government fails to protect life, the people must do so directly. Today must mark the beginning of a new era of civil disobedience and conscientious objection, with simultaneous, determined efforts to curb the authority of the courts and restore government to the people through their elected representatives."
They are wrong wrong wrong. It shows that the Governor Bush and President Bush do believe in the rule of law. However, most importantly it shows the need for reform of our judiciary. If we had judges that merely interpret the law as strict constitutionalists (as do Thomas and Scalia) instead of making law by judicial fiat, we would have never reached this point in our history. What happened in Florida should bring even greater pressure for George Bushes nominees to the judicary to be confirmed by an up or down vote in the Senate.
"Talk about twisted thinking, President Bush and Governor Bush were mocked and jeered for the actions they did take, and some even tout the polls were against them."
The left would mock and jeer them anyway, and another 20% of MSM-fed imbeciles went along.
The irreparable problem for the Bushes is that they slammed their own base. Deny it now, but watch it in '08.
Looks like World Net Daily's Jack Wheeler reads Free Republic's Religion Forum!Perhaps he read Ken Bell's "Judges Benched for Bad Behavior" : )
"The irreparable problem for the Bushes is that they slammed their own base. Deny it now, but watch it in '08."
Watch what in '08', this judge getting reelected??
I suppose you like the liberal method of operation better.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Excellent article, please read and comments are invited. If the judiciary is supreme, and no one can contravene their pronouncements, and the majority of them are leftists, what is our recourse? If the executive and legislative branches are in thrall to judges, what is the solution?
Let me know if you want (back)on/off this pinglist.
"It shows that the Governor Bush and President Bush do believe in the rule of law. "
That is the problem. They believe in man given (judge) law, but not in Constitutional Law (CFR for example), not Natural Law (thou shalt not kill). Those higher laws trump judicial decrees.
If we are a nation governed by the "rule of law", well Hitler and Stalin had plenty of laws too. We are instead a nation governed by laws which are a subset of natural law. Once you take the higher religious aspect out of the law, then anything goes.
"It has become a krytocracy, a government of judges. We no longer have a government of, by and for the people. America today is ruled not by elected representatives, but unelected judges, governed not by law but by the arbitrary and in the case of George Greer, homicidal whims of people in black robes."Bump.
As proven in the Clinton impeachment, the RINOs in the U.S. Senate at that time made the Republican "majority" one in name only. Today the same RINOs make George Bush's senatorial "majority" a delusion. G. Bush must know that the same RINOs who backed Clifton after he was impeached would sell him out in a heartbeat if he gave them what they could see as grounds for impeachment.
Jeb Bush is in the same position with the his false republican majority in the Florida Senate.
In short, executive action by either would have been at best a very short lived victory. The forces of radical judicial activism would force both Bushs into a side battle to save their own jobs and Court reform would have been totally derailed. ( And the courts would have reclaimed jurisdiction of Terri. )
The war could not have been won by executive action NOT supported by the Congress. It can only be won by replacing the RINOs with real Republicans.
And I thought it was just lefties that blamed Bush for everything.
Perhaps! (Thanks for keeping us humble ;-)
That's a democracy allright. The blind judge was elected; any judge, whether directly elected or appointed and confirmed by elected officials is a product of democracy. Both Elian and Terri debacles illustrate the same point: the state protects itself and no one else, works solely its interest, and uses inhumane and injust laws to devour the individual.
It is democratically produced laws that sent Elian back to the prison island and killed Terri.
When two wolves and one sheep vote what to have for dinner, the dinner menu becomes law. It doesn't make that piece of thick paper wise or just, but it gives the sheep an illusion that their lives are violated justly.
instead of attacking the bushes, why don't people do something useful:
work to lessen the wrongful influence of judges.
Democracies get the government they deserve. As for the ostriches that think this is still a republic I refer them to the speeches of GW Bush, who at every opportunity promises to spread "democracy" (his word not mine) to every corner of the globe - at gunpoint if necessary. The constitution is dead, has been dead for decades (1860 or 1930s, take your pick)
There is a word for the idealogy of democracy, the world has seen it before - JACOBINISM - look it up.
We live in a pagan plebscite democracy and allowing the powers that be to misdirect our attention onto one aspect of that system and thinking we can somehow work within a governmental structure that denies the Kingship of Christ is foolish.
FReepmail me to get on of off this list
Where did comments 2 through 5 go?
You cannot make sense of the American legal system. It is complete sophistry. Words do not mean what we laymen think they mean. Rulings are inconsistent and depend predominantly on the disposition, philosophy, or ideology of the presiding judge.
Because of this, it is almost impossible to really "know" where you stand on any given legal issue.
The Sciavo affair seems to me (but, hey, what does a mere layman know?) to be a very straitforward issue of violation of contract -- specifically, the marriage contract. Michael had an adulterous affair, which would be grounds in any court in the country for a divorce. But Terri was physically incapable of launching such a civil suit.
Nevertheless, this evil, evil man was permitted to exercise jurisdiction over his wife as part of that very same marriage contract, and effectively order her execution! Now substantial evidence that suggests he physically abused her prior to the onset of her terminal disability.
So all you have to do in order to violate a contract with impunity is disable the other contracting party to the point where he or she is incapable of starting a civil suit.
But this is just one example of how the law has become essentially meaningless. People are arguing this issue from the perspectives of right to life vs. right to die. That's not the issue at all.
It's about contracts, and it demonstrates that agreements are unenforceable unless you have sufficient financial resources to shepherd a case through the entire appeals process. Basically, it's rich man's justice. The only exception to this is when you become an "enemy of the state", such as Martha Stewart.
In this, at least, socialist critics of the American "legal" system are right. If there is ever justice for "the little guy" this usually occurs only because it is in the interests of the state to do so.
I can't believe I'm saying this to you, because you should know better. Marriage is not a contract, it's a sacrament . This is important because viewed as a contract it becomes an agreement between people who exchange services as opposed to a covenant before God where they promise themselves to each other.
If laws against adultery, which protect both parties but particularly the women, were enforced we wouldn't be having the discussion and Michael Schivao would be in jail where he belongs.