There is NO DIFFERENCE between kings and career politicians.

 

Tyranny is Indistinguishable when used by Kings or Career Politicians

Posted Aug 25, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

What is going on in New Zealand and Melbourne is the complete rejection of every principle of liberty, which has degenerated into a tyrannical coup. These are the very same actions by those governments that sparked the American Revolution. We have to wonder about this forecast of Socrates about rising civil unrest on a global scale. I had assumed it would be because of the debt collapse and rising taxation. But we are witnessing such tyrannical actions from Europe to New Zealand and Melbourne that this appears to be using the virus to suppress what they realize will be the collapse of their governments. They are turning our Free World into Venezuela. These tyrannical people in office now will perhaps eventually suspend elections when they realize they themselves would be booted out.

They have suspended all warrants and authorized the police to simply break into anyone’s house if they suspect you are violating COVID regulations. This is precisely the same tyranny that sparked the American Revolution. The king authorized Writs of Assistance which allowed the government to arbitrarily search whatever they suspected for any reason. John Adams, Second President, listened to the 4-hour speech of the defense lawyer James Otis (1725-1783) who argued against the king’s Writs of Assistance in February 1761. History repeats for there are few people in government today that even understand what is at stake with the actions being taken in the name of this virus. This also proves that there is NO DIFFERENCE between kings and career politicians. Liberty cannot exist with pretend representatives of the people.

Here are a few excerpts from that famous speech of James Otis that so moved John Adams and inspired the birth of the American Revolution.

I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book…  

The writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special Writs of Assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath. But I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted…

In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed “to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects”; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the King’s dominions. Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm.   In the next place, it is perpetual; there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the Archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by this writ not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us…  

One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.