Judge Andrew Napolitano: Is the Pope a False Prophet?

At the LewRockwell.com. Judge Andrew Napolitano questions the regime of Marxist leaning* and rock star /celebrity Pope Francis: (bold mine)

The papacy is an office created personally by Our Lord. Its occupants are direct descendants of St. Peter. Its role and authorities have evolved over the centuries, but the core of its responsibilities has always been the preservation of traditional teachings about faith and morals and safeguarding the sacraments. While the papacy is a monarchy, the teaching authority in the Church is “the bishops under the pope.” This means that a pope intent on change ought to consult with his fellow bishops.

Before the monumental Church changes of the 1960s and 1970s that trivialized the Mass and blurred the distinctions between the clergy and the laity, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI consulted their fellow bishops at Vatican II. The consultations were fractious and belligerent, but both popes got what they wanted: a watering down of liturgical practices and an easing of rules safeguarding the sacraments, so as to make the Church more appealing and accessible to former and non-adherents.

The result was a disaster. Fewer Catholics went to Mass, confusion about former theological norms reigned, and a general tenor pervaded the faithful that the Church never really meant what it preached. Former Catholics continued to stay away, new Catholics barely showed up, and many traditional faithful became demoralized.

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI attempted to roll this back. They succeeded in part by emphasizing traditional orthodoxy and personal piety to youth. Today, Catholic seminaries throughout the world are filled with young men who are more faithful to traditional practices and beliefs than many of their professors are.

Comes now Pope Francis to use moral relativism to take the Church in two dangerous directions. The first is an assault on the family, and the second is an assault on the free market — two favorite political targets of the left.

In the past month, without consulting his fellow bishops, the pope has weakened the sacrament of matrimony by making annulments easier to obtain. The Church cannot grant divorces because Our Lord used his own words to declare valid marriages indissoluble. But it does grant annulments.

An annulment is a judicial finding that a valid marriage never existed. This generally requires a trial, at which the party seeking the annulment must prove the existence of the marital defect from the beginning.

Fair annulment trials are costly and time consuming, often taking years from the initial filing to the final appeal. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis arbitrarily ordered the entire process to be completed in 45 days or fewer. For contested matters, a fair trial in 45 days is impossible. So, to meet his deadline, more annulments will be granted administratively, not on the merits.

It gets worse.

The Church has taught for 400 years that abortion is murder. Because the victim of an abortion is always innocent, helpless and uniquely under the control of the mother, abortion removes the participants from access to the sacraments. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis, without consulting his fellow bishops, ordered that any priest may return those who have killed a baby in a womb to the communion of the faithful. He said he did this because he was moved by the anguished cries of mothers contemplating the murder of their babies.

I doubt he will defend these decisions before Congress. He will, instead, assault the free market, which he blames for poverty, pollution and the mass migrations into Europe away from to worn-torn areas in the Middle East.

Pls read the rest here

* as for Marxism, let me quote Austrian economist Thomas DiLorenzo last January (bold mine, italics original)

Is the old Marxist ideologue (a.k.a. “a Jesuit”) just trying to deceive everyone when he says that “markets and financial speculation” operate “in absolute autonomy” with no government regulation at all?  He said that yesterday in yet another  Nixonian “I am not a crook”-style denial that he is a Marxist.  (Was that a thunder bolt I just heard?)

In reality, markets have long been swamped in regulation from all levels of government.  As George Reisman pointed out, in the U.S., for beginners, we have a government that spends almost 50% of GDP; there are 15 cabinet departments that exert controls over markets; there are more than 100 federal regulatory agencies and more than 75,000 fine-print pages of regulation of markets in The Federal Register.  Then there’s almost as much regulation of markets from all the state an local governments as well.

And there’s the Fed, which in addition to regulating the money supply, regulates all aspects of all financial markets as well.  And the SEC, the FDIC, Office of Thrift Supervision, etc., etc.

The pope ignores all of this reality to once again repeat the main theme of his papacy:  That “world resources” should be allocated according to the dictum of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  This is the Jesuit version of Catholic doctrine, but of course it is in reality propaganda from The Communist Manifesto.  No wonder Pope John Paul II criticized “liberation theology,” the “bible” of Jesuit political activists, as a danger to the teachings of the church because it is little more than Marxism masquerading as Catholicism.

I have been saying here that the Pope keeps denouncing 'trickle down economics' which he blames to capitalism. This isn't true. Trickle down economics exists nowhere in Laissez-faire capitalism. Instead it is a practice of state capitalism mainly channeled through financial repression (central bank monetary policies) or government spending (PPPs, infrastructure) where the latter breeds cronyism and corruption.

Quote of the Day: What Easter Means

Freedom is the ability of every person to exercise his own free will, rather than be subject to the will of the government or anyone else. Free will is a characteristic we share in common with God. He created us in His image and likeness. As He is perfectly free, so are we.

When the government takes away our free will, the government steals a gift from God; it violates the natural law; it prevents us from having and utilizing the means to the truth. The moral ability to exercise free will to seek the truth is a natural right that all humans possess, and the government may only morally interfere with the exercise of that right when one affirmatively has given it away by using fraud or force to interfere with the exercise of someone else’s natural rights.

We know from the events 2,000 years ago, which Christians commemorate and celebrate this week, that freedom is the essential means to discover and unite with the truth. And to Christians, the personification, the incarnation, the perfect manifestation of truth is Jesus — who is the Christ, the Son of God and the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On the first Holy Thursday, Jesus attended a traditional Jewish Passover Seder. Catholics believe that at His last supper, He performed two miracles so that we could stay united to Him. He transformed ordinary bread and wine into His own body, blood, soul and divinity, and He empowered His disciples and their successors to do the same.

On the first Good Friday, the Romans executed Jesus because they were persuaded that by claiming to be the Son of God, He might foment a revolution against them. The revolution He fomented was in the hearts of men and women. The Romans had not heard of a revolution of the heart; nevertheless they feared a revolution that would disrupt their worldly power, and so they condemned Him to death by crucifixion.

Jesus had the freedom to reject this horrific event, but He exercised His freedom so that we might know the truth. The truth He manifested is that His acceptance of the destruction of His body would enable Him to die so that He could rise from the dead. On Easter, three days after He died, that manifestation was complete when He rose from the dead. By doing that, he demonstrated to us that while living we can liberate our souls from the slavery of sin and our free wills from the oppression of the government, and after death we can rise to be with Him.

Easter — which manifests our own immortality — is the linchpin of human existence. With it, life is worth living, no matter its costs or pains. Without it, life is meaningless, no matter its fleeting joys or triumphs. Easter has a meaning that is both incomprehensible and simple. It is incomprehensible that a human being had the freedom to rise from the dead. It is simple because that human being was and is God.

Jesus is the hypostatic union: not half-God and half-man, not just a godly good man, but truly and fully God and at the same time truly and fully man. When the Romans killed Jesus, they killed God. When the dead Jesus rose from His tomb, God rose from the dead.

What does Easter mean? Easter means that there is hope for the dead. If there’s hope for the dead, there’s hope for the living. But, like the colonists who fought the oppression of the king, we the living can only achieve our hopes if we have freedom. And that requires a government that protects freedom, not one that assaults it.

This is from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano at the LewRockwell.com

Happy Easter! (image source)

Quote of the Day: Jefferson is weeping

The government the Framers gave us was not one that had the power and ability to decide how much freedom each of us should have, but rather one in which we individually and then collectively decided how much power the government should have. That, of course, is also recognized in the Declaration, wherein Jefferson wrote that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.

To what governmental powers may the governed morally consent in a free society? We can consent to the powers necessary to protect us from force and fraud, and to the means of revenue to pay for a government to exercise those powers. But no one can consent to the diminution of anyone else’s natural rights, because, as Jefferson wrote and the Congress enacted, they are inalienable.

Just as I cannot morally consent to give the government the power to take your freedom of speech or travel or privacy, you cannot consent to give the government the power to take mine. This is the principle of the natural law: We all have areas of human behavior in which each of us is sovereign and for the exercise of which we do not need the government’s permission. Those areas are immune from government interference.

That is at least the theory of the Declaration of Independence, and that is the basis for our 237-year-old American experiment in limited government, and it is the system to which everyone who works for the government today pledges fidelity.

Regrettably, today we have the opposite of what the Framers gave us. Today we have a government that alone decides how much wealth we can retain, how much free expression we can exercise, how much privacy we can enjoy…

The litany of the loss of freedom is sad and unconstitutional and irreversible. The government does whatever it can to retain its power, and it continues so long as it can get away with it. It can listen to your phone calls, read your emails, seize your DNA and challenge your silence, all in violation of the Constitution. Bitterly and ironically, the government Jefferson wrought is proving the accuracy of Jefferson’s prediction that in the long march of history, government grows and liberty shrinks. Somewhere Jefferson is weeping.

This is the fourth of July message from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano writing at the lewrockwell.com

Video: Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fake FBI Terror Plots

Former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Andrew P. Napolitano narrates of the US government's history of creating 'false flags' or fake terror plots at the Fox News Channel.(hat tip Lew Rockwell.com)

Has the Foiled Bombing of the New York Fed Been a Prank or False Flag?

A supposed attempt to "terrorize" Americans by "bombing" the New York Federal Reserve has been reported foiled.

From LA Times (bold mine) 

A 21-year-old Bangladeshi man who wanted to "destroy America" tried to detonate what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb in front of the Federal Reserve Bank in Manhattan on Wednesday, but the explosive was a dud provided by agents as part of an FBI sting, authorities said. 

The FBI and New York police said Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, whom they described as an Al Qaeda loyalist, was arrested in a hotel room after several futile attempts to detonate the fake bomb by remote control. He was arraigned in federal court hours later on charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempting to provide material support to Al Qaeda.

"Attempting to destroy a landmark building and kill or maim untold numbers of innocent bystanders is about as serious as the imagination can conjure," said Mary Galligan, acting assistant director of the FBI in New York. She said there was no danger to the public because two "accomplices" were working with the FBI and because the purported bomb contained no explosives. 

Officials said that did not reduce the seriousness of the threat. 

 "He was arrested, but he clearly had the intent of creating mayhem," New York's police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, told reporters. Kelly said the alleged plot — one of more than a dozen thwarted in New York since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — showed that the city remains "very much a coveted target" of terrorists. "We see this threat as being with us for a long time to come," he said. 

A 21-page complaint details months of alleged planning by Nafis, who entered the United States on a student visa in January but who allegedly told an informant that his true reason for coming to the country was to wage jihad, or holy war. Nafis settled into an apartment in the New York City borough of Queens and allegedly began trying to recruit militants, one of whom was an informant. 

Eventually, authorities say, Nafis also made contact with a second man, whom he believed to be a member of Al Qaeda. In reality, the man was an undercover FBI agent.  

"Bombing" of the NY FED with a dud or a fake bomb seems more like a prank than an act of terror. 

On the other hand, fingerprints of official involvement may even suggest of another possible false flag similar to the recent CIA double agent underwear bomber. The fugitive not only had relations with an FBI undercover agent but has been on the watchlist for months. 

One can't help draw the involvement of public officials in the understanding that many of the terror plots have been faked.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained in this video

 

In today's highly politicized world, one can't really know if events are for real, staged or that people have become paranoids.

Quote of the Day: The State is Not an Instrument of Justice; It's an Instrument of Power

Think about it. If you steal my chicken or I steal your cow, this is a dispute between us; what does the government care about it? The answer should be it doesn't care at all but because the state loves power and the state does not like to share power, it likes to resolve all disputes the way it wants to resolve them. This drives up the cost and diminishes justice because it forces the disputants to follow the state's rule and the state's command and the state's way, and this does not inure to politeness, civility or even the idea that a dispute could possibly be resolved amicably and justly, without the state being involved.

The state is not an instrument of justice; it's an instrument of power

This is from Judge P. Andrew Napolitano interviewed by Anthony Wile at the Daily Bell (source lewrockwell.com)

Quote of the Day: Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is a three-legged stool on which freedom sits. The first leg requires that all laws be enacted in advance of the behavior they seek to regulate and be crafted and promulgated in public by a legitimate authority. The goal of all laws must be the preservation of individual freedom. A law is not legitimate if it is written by an evil genius in secret or if it punishes behavior that was lawful when the behavior took place or if its goal is to solidify the strength of those in power. It also is not legitimate if it is written by the president instead of Congress.

The second leg is that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it. Thus, the law's restraints on force and fraud need to restrain everyone equally, and the law's protections against force and fraud must protect everyone equally. This leg removes from the discretion of those who enforce the law the ability to enforce it or to afford its protections selectively. This principle also requires that the law enforcers enforce the law against themselves. Of course, this was not always the case. In 1628, the British Parliament spent days debating the question "Is the king above the Rule of Law, or is the Rule of Law above the king?" Thankfully, the king lost – but only by 10 votes out of several hundred cast.

The third leg of the Rule of Law requires that the structures that promulgate, enforce and interpret law be so fundamental – Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the courts interpret the laws – that they cannot be changed retroactively or overnight by the folks who administer them. Stated differently, this leg mandates that only a broad consensus can change the goals or values or structures used to implement the laws; they cannot be changed by atrophy or neglect or crisis.

[bold emphasis added]

This is from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano at the LewRockwell.com

Quote of the Day: Libertarianism is the Philosophy of Freedom

libertarianism is simply the philosophy of freedom: freedom for one to do with his person and property as he chooses as long as in doing so he doesn’t aggress against the person or property of another. “The only freedom which deserves the name,” said political philosopher John Stuart Mill, “is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” Or, in the simple words of Leonard Read, “anything that’s peaceful.”

That’s from the splendid review by Lawrence Vance of Judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s latest book It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011); 240 pages. (lewrockwell.com)

Judge Napolitano's book is on my wishlist.

Easter’s Message: There is Hope for Freedom

There is hope for Freedom. And that’s Easter’s message according to this splendid article from Judge Andrew Napolitano…

Today it seems the power of the government continues to expand and the freedom of the individual continues to shrink. The loss of freedom comes in many forms. Sometimes it is direct and profound, as when the government stops you from doing what you formerly had the freedom to do – like choose your own doctor and your own health care insurance or choose not to have health care insurance. Sometimes it is more subtle – like when the government prints money to pay its bills and, as a result, all the money you already have loses much of its value. And sometimes the government steals freedom without you knowing it – like when federal agents write their own search warrants, authorizing themselves to learn of your computer use or medical or banking records; and they never tell you what they've done.

Freedom is the ability of every person to exercise his own free will, rather than be subject to the will of someone else. Free will is the essence of humanity, and humanity is God's greatest gift. When the government affirmatively takes away freedom, the government violates the natural law; it prevents us from having and utilizing the means to the truth. Your moral ability to exercise your free will to seek the truth is your natural right, and the government may only morally interfere with the exercise of that right when you have used fraud or force to interfere with the exercise of someone else's natural rights….

Easter is the linchpin of human existence: With it, life is worth living, no matter its cost or pain. Without it, life is meaningless, no matter its fleeting joys or triumphs. Easter has a meaning that is both incomprehensible and simple. It is incomprehensible that a human being had the freedom to rise from the dead. It is simple because that human being was and is God. Easter means that there is hope for the dead. And if there's hope for the dead, there's hope for the living.

Read the rest here

Andrew Napolitano: What If Democracy Is Bunk?

Provocative stuff from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn't make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if "one person, one vote" is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance? What if democracy is dangerous to personal freedom? What if democracy erodes the people's understanding of natural rights and the foundations of government, and instead turns elections into beauty contests?

What if democracy allows the government to do anything it wants, as long as more people bother to show up at the voting booth to support it than to oppose it? What if the purpose of democracy is to convince people that they could prosper not through the creation of wealth but through theft from others? What if the only moral way to acquire wealth – aside from inheritance – is through voluntary economic activity? What if the government persuaded you that you could acquire wealth through political activity? What if economic activity included all the productive and peaceful things we do? What if political activity included all the parasitical and destructive things the government does?

What if governments were originally established to protect people's freedom, but always turn into political and imperialist enterprises that seek to expand their power, increase their territory and heighten their control of the population? What if the idea that we need a government to take care of us is actually a fiction? What if our strength as individuals and durability as a culture are contingent not on the strength of the government but on the amount of freedom we have from the government?

Read the rest here

Andrew Napolitano on the Diminishing Economic Freedom in the US

As pointed out earlier, the US has swiftly been losing her reputational pedestal as “the land of the free” as evidenced by the fast expanding dependency culture that has been induced by a ballooning welfare state.

Yet the path towards fascism hasn’t been due to happenstance, but has accounted for gradualism or deliberate incremental efforts to achieve such an end.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano below defines economic freedom

The root of economic freedom is the recognition of the right to own private property. That includes the right to utilize it unmolested, to dispose of it without anyone's permission and to exclude anyone from it, even the government. Suffice it to say, no American president since the advent of the income tax and the Federal Reserve 100 years ago has fully accepted or meaningfully defended that right. The more the government extracts in taxes and the more it inflates the money supply, the more it rejects and assaults property rights.

And further explains the reasons for the deteriorating trend in the US .

The absence of economic freedom today is nothing new and didn't come about overnight. It is the culmination of the Progressive Era, which gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax; the New Deal, which gave us the beginning of entitlements; the Great Society, which enhanced the numbers of people who received entitlements; Ronald Reagan, who bashed entitlements during the six years he was running for president but did nothing to dismantle them; and every president from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush, all of whom just accepted the welfare and warfare state as if the Constitution didn't exist.

Today, we have President Obama, committed to private ownership but government control of the means of production, who wants to enhance the welfare and warfare state by having socialized medicine and perpetual war at the same time.

The essence of the governmental assaults on freedom is presidentially proposed, congressionally engineered and judicially accepted redistribution of wealth via the central planning of the economy. And the consequence of all this is the present lamentable state of affairs where half the country is financially dependent on the other half. When this state of affairs was reached in Ayn Rand's great novel "Atlas Shrugged," she had the productive half stop working just to see what the government would do. It wasn't pretty.

Obama's beloved Dodd-Frank law is the latest act of government theft of freedom in the name of economic equality. It brings us one step closer to total government control of the means of producing wealth. With its unaccountable bureaucracy, Federal Reserve-generated funding, and standardless and appeal-proof rulemaking, it reposes into the hands of an unconfirmed-by-the-Senate nanny stater the power to monitor and to regulate virtually all economic activity in the U.S.

The path to societal prosperity can only be attained by economic freedom. It’s a cause worth fighting for not only in the US but wherever society exists.

Andrew Napolitano on Elections: What If…?

Another gem from Judge Andrew Napolitano

What if elections were actually useful tools of social control? What if they just provided the populace with meaningless participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes? What if that establishment doesn't want and doesn't have the consent of the governed? What if the two-party system was actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion? What if there were more than two sides to every issue, but the two parties wanted to box you in to one of their corners?

What if there's no such thing as public opinion, because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his own? What if public opinion was just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, there's something wrong with that -- or something wrong with them?

What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters' choices, but to limit them? What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter who's in the White House? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter what the people want?

What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were actually just minor disagreements? What if both parties just want power and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars in order to enhance that power? What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs?

What if government policies didn't change when government's leaders did? What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same? What if government was really a revolving door of political hacks, bent on exploiting the people while they're in charge?

What if both parties supported welfare, war, debt, bailouts and big government? What if the rhetoric that candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory?

Read the rest here

I view Mr. Napolitano’s trenchant questions as universally applicable to democracies including the Philippines.

Video: Andrew Napolitano: What If Freedom's Greatest Hour of Danger Is Now?

A rousing message of Freedom from Judge Andrew Napolitano.


(hat tip Bob Wenzel)