Note: Forgive me for mixing cultural metaphors but to enhance your reading enjoyment of this piece, may I also suggest musical accompaniment in the form of Bedřich Smetana’s stirring tone poem “Richard III,” which captures the political turmoil of the War of the Roses (not unlike our own situation) in Great Britain as portrayed by in the play of the same name by William Shakespeare.
When the Allies finally beat the Germans in World War II the world wanted the Nazi elites to be prosecuted for their horrific crimes against humanity. But there was no international law governing such crimes. In fact, under the secular humanist legal philosophy called “positivism” then in vogue throughout the Western world, national sovereignty was assumed to grant absolute power to governments to determine the legality or illegality of anything within national borders.
Legal Positivism was the humanist alternative to Natural Law. Its primary philosophical progenitor was Jeremy Bentham, the 16th-century “woke” founder of “utilitarianism,” who considered natural law and natural rights (grounded in the biblical worldview) “nonsense upon stilts.”
Per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “What laws are in force in [legal positivism] depends on what social standards its officials recognize as authoritative; for example, legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or social customs. The fact that a policy would be just, wise, efficient, or prudent is never sufficient reason for thinking that it is actually the law, and the fact that it is unjust, unwise, inefficient or imprudent is never sufficient reason for doubting it. According to positivism, law is a matter of what has been posited (ordered, decided, practiced, tolerated, etc.).” In other words “law” is what the government says it is, without regard for morals and ethics, right and wrong. (Sound familiar?)
Thus, when the Nazis were prosecuted at Nuremberg, their perfectly unassailable defense was that the court had no jurisdiction over them because everything they did was legal under German law. To hold the Nazis accountable required the imposition of natural law principles: what we Christians call “the law above the law.” Our Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson presided over those Nuremberg trials, which “established that all of humanity would be guarded by an international legal shield and that even a Head of State would be held criminally responsible and punished for aggression and Crimes Against Humanity. The right of humanitarian intervention to put a stop to Crimes Against Humanity – even by a sovereign against his own citizens – gradually emerged from the Nuremberg principles affirmed by the United Nations.”
As the only America ever sued (civilly) in U.S. federal court for “crimes against humanity” (from 2012-2018 for non-hateful, non-violent preaching against the normalization of the LGBT agenda in Uganda – a case I finally won after six years of persecution under a corrupt “woke” judge), I can attest to the extent that international human rights law (in which I hold greater academic credentials than virtually all of my leftist opponents) has been turned on its head.
But, natural law and natural rights have never changed, and the same principles that justified the punishment of the Nazis elites in spite of laws they thought sufficient to protect them also apply to the criminal elites of so-called Big Pharma. They believe they are immune from prosecution because of legislative and contract terms related to their “vaccine” manufacturing and marketing, but they are not. They are subject to the same law above the law as the Nazi elites and can be held accountable whenever the citizens of this republic restore the rule of law in the United States. It won’t matter what sweetheart deals these greedy sociopathic killers struck with the prior government; they can be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity. There is no statute of limitations, there is no “immunity” defense to the law above the law.
Let me show you two examples of this principle in action under existing law.
The first is the Rochin case, which is little used since the 1960s but still binding. “The U.S. Supreme Court established the ‘shock-the-conscience test’ in Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952). Based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition against states depriving any person of ‘life, liberty, or property without due process of law,’ the test prohibits conduct by state agents that falls outside the standards of civilized decency.”
This legal test was directly based on the Nuremberg trials.
The second is the principle of unconscionability in contract law. “Unconscionable: Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it. … In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power.”
Like me, you’re probably one of the “little guys” who cannot conceive of having the kind of power it would take to prosecute the elites. But times do change, and God has empowered folks like us many times in history, our own Founding Fathers being the prime example. A post-Marxist republic could very well turn the tables on all of these crooks – politicians and predatory corporatists alike.
In my research for my book “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party,” I once had the privilege of interviewing at his home in Massachusetts an old man (now deceased) who as an 18-year-old American soldier guarded the Nuremberg defendants in the courtroom. His name was Bill Glenny. He got most of their autographs and took personal notes on their personality and traits. I have photos of his papers, including a document bearing Herman Goering’s signature and Bill’s trial notes calling him “brutal” and a “homo.” Bill was just a little guy who grew up under WWII cultural storm clouds as dark as we face today or worse, but he personally watched the “untouchables elites” face justice.
And I also interviewed, and received a personal “biblical tour of Berlin” from Col. Eugene Bird, who was the commandant of Spandau Prison where the Nazi criminals not hanged were incarcerated until their sentences were complete.
Bird ensured that those men did not escape the consequences for their crimes, the last man released being Rudolf Hess, whom Bird says accepted Christ during a Bible study, and about whom he wrote a book called “The Loneliest Man in the World.”
If the Lord tarries, we might yet see the pendulum of history swing back to the side of “liberty and justice for all” – and if that happens, there very likely WILL be a Nuremberg II.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.