SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

October 5th, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Banking and Finance, Europe, european union, France, Freedom, Global governance, International, Islam, Politics, World Affairs No Comments »

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:

These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:

– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.

- On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.

– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.

-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.

These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.

The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1848) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.

However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.

Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.

The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”

In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”

Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.

– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)

– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).

– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).

Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.

These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.

Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.

The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.

Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 

 

It added a fundamental clause:

The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.

The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

 

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:

Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.

A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.

The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,

–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,

–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.

The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.

No problem:

– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.

– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.

– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.

– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.

– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.

This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.

The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :

Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…

Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.

These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.

So, the bankers win every time!

The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.

ARTICLE 108

 

When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”

All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.

It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.

Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.

 

The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

 

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

 

has been achieved!

Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.

Conlusion:

The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.

To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!

History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.

Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.

That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance.

I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.

There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.

As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.

French patriots!

The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

October 4th, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Europe, european union, Global governance, Government, Human Rights, International, Sovereignty No Comments »

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

American conservatives and libertarians have always stressed the importance of the US Constitution as the ruling document in our government. Indeed sticking to the Constitution could restore government. Yet, government moves farther and farther from that document, and sometimes with the aid of unwitting conservatives.For example, we have often made the mistake of supporting presidents based on machismo and swag instead of on their insistence on respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Indeed, we have in the past praised presidents for their decisiveness in invading a country without the permission of Congress prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, foolishly thinking we can have it both ways.

We have also forgotten Section 10 of that Article, which gives Congress the power to print money. We’ve had over a century to forget that. It was back in 1913 that Congress, without constitutional authorization, gave a group of fast talking bankers that power and dubbed them the Federal Reserve. These people are no more legitimate than our foreign born and foreign raised White House resident. But force of habit accustoms unwary and lazy-brained people to accept the unacceptable. We cherry pick the Constitution, accepting the parts we like and discarding the rest. Many of the people who do this proudly call themselves ‘Patriots’ or even ‘sovereign citizens.’

Friends, all of these missteps have cost us not only our liberty but also our national sovereignty, and those are 2 equal but separate concepts. Americans have been brainwashed into forgetting sovereignty and focusing on personal liberty. We base our demands for liberty on the Constitution. Yet our government denies people outside the US their liberty on a routine basis, denying the concept of sovereignty. We have the gall to blame it on God, averring that He will protect us no matter how we misbehave because we are ‘exceptional.’ (Yet the Bible shows that God does not allow the disobedient to win wars. Joshua, the great general, lost one war because one of his soldiers took forbidden booty.)

Sovereignty is as important to a nation as the heart is to the body. And the borders are the skin of the nation, without which it would bleed to death.

The answer to these problems is complex, and part of the problem with sovereignty is that the word is not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution, which was written by men who took for granted that the US would always be sovereign because anyone seeking to eliminate national sovereignty would be considered a traitor and not be able to acquire power. But they were wrong.

Sovereignty is a 2 way street. A nation must not only defend its own sovereignty but also that of other nations. Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually gang up on the nation that denies theirs.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for our national government, the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of national sovereignty and the mutual respect of nations for each other’s sovereignty — a concept no more nor less revolutionary, or vital, in its sphere than our Constitution is in its.

Yet, like the Constitution, that remarkable Treaty seems to be lying around gathering dust.

However, if we read what international law specialist Bernard Chalumeau says in his translated article (click on his name or the link below), we can catch a glimpse of the importance of reviving the concept of national sovereignty, not only for our own country, but for every other country as well.

The EU, as pointed out by M. Chalumeau, was an attempt to suppress the sovereignty of all European nations — with disastrous effects both economically and socially. But that action to enslave was met with an equal and opposite reaction as the northern countries in Europe started to demand a return of their sovereignty and pro-sovereignty parties gained momentum. UKIP in the UK, PVV in Holland and Front National in France.

I  dream of a day when the concept of national sovereignty is revived and people of all nations reach out to each other in an effort to keep this concept alive and to reinforce their power. And in so doing, to diminish the power of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe. M. Chalumeau and I are committed to seeing that happen some day. We will lend our support to any group founded on the principle of national sovereignty.

So far, there is Free Nations in the UK and France Libre in France. America can and should be the linchpin. Like Europe, we are straining under the burden of unlimited immigration and all the problems of crime, drugs, disease and job loss that such entails, not to mention the disastrous loss of prestige associated with our haphazard military adventures that violate the sovereignty of other nations.

A political party based on the principle of sovereignty could resonate with patriotic Americans and kick off the movement, if only Americans could understand the vital importance of this little-used word ‘sovereignty.’

Please give the idea your thoughts and prayers.

Bernard Chalumeau’s article:

http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Don Hank  

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Using the truth to deceive us

March 31st, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Europe, european union, Global governance, Government, Russia No Comments »

How they deceive us with the truth

 

Don Hank

 

The following is a true account.

In 1964, an athlete in his prime savagely attacked an older, handicapped man with his fists in full view of countless witnesses, causing the victim lacerations under the left eye and severe bruising under the right eye.

The assailant was never arrested but amazingly, the victim was arrested weeks later!

What I have just described is the Cassius Clay-Sonny Liston fight of 1964.  I used a tactic employed daily by media and government, inserting accurate enough details but omitting the most important details that the public would need to assess the situation correctly.

At the time of the fight, Liston was suffering from severe bursitis and at one point could not lift one of his arms beyond waist level. This “handicapped man” was in fact a ruthless ex-con who had learned boxing in prison. Sports reporters considered him the most feared boxer in history. His arrest weeks after the fight was for drunken driving and driving without a license.

Now if reporters had reported this fight as I did above, they would have lost all credibility. Yet in matters of war that cost the lives of young men, they—and their cohorts in politics—report in precisely this manner when describing a supposed enemy in an effort to stir up war from scratch.

After 911 at ground zero, G. W. Bush, his arm draped around the shoulder of a NY fireman, said on live TV, “The people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.”

The people responsible were all Saudis, every one, and strong evidence later surfaced that the Saudi government had supported the terrorists. Yet, the people who “heard from” us were the nation of Iraq. Classic bait and switch.

The Kosovo war serves to show how US legal rationale is applied lopsidedely in Ukraine, based on accurate enough details but with the main ones omitted.

The US declared that Russia had no right to intervene to help the Crimeans secede, despite the overwhelming desire of these Russian speaking people to unite with their brothers in the Russian Federation—particularly since they had reason to fear for their safety in a region dominated by anti-Russian Ukrainians, who wanted to deny a nation with a Russian speaking majority the right to speak their language at home. The official US argument was that international law forbids any country to intervene in a secessionist civil conflict.

Yet that stands in direct contradiction to what Bill Clinton did in Kosovo.

The US reasoned during the Kosovo War of 1998-9 that it was legitimate to support Kosovo’s secession from the then sovereign Serbia because the Kosovars supported such—even though the decision to secede was made under a UN administration not elected by Kosovars. The US had done the same thing in Panama, militarily supporting that department’s secession from Colombia.
Yet later, in 2008, the US government later told the Russians that they could not militarily support the secession of South Ossetia because Georgia was a sovereign country (the EU wisely abstained from using the same lopsided logic at the time).
According to US reasoning, what was “legal” in Kosovo and earlier in Panama (secession supported by a foreign power, the US) was illegal in S. Ossetia because the foreign power happened to be Russia in that case. But hatred of Russia could never be a valid legal argument.
This is how the US government makes up international jurisprudence on the fly.
But you can’t have it both ways in law, international or other.
Now the Russians are using the US’s own logic to defend their actions in Crimea. The US government may or may not be correct in their interpretation of international law, but they have no legal authority to oppose what the Russians and Crimeans did because they themselves set the precedent for this kind of action.

A revisit of Kosovo is instructive. Numerous reports show that Western media and the US government brazenly hid important details to present the false picture that only the (Christian) Serbs had committed atrocities, whereas the Kosovars (Muslims), whom we portrayed as the good guys, had perpetrated their share of wholesale atrocities as well.

It would be a stretch to imagine that the Albanian Kosovars, who had committed genocide against Serbs in coordination with the Nazis in WW II, had suddenly become choir boys, as Western media suggested at the time. An article containing a series of gruesome photos of Serbs brutally murdered by Kosovars was published at a Serbian web site, even as Western governments and media were insisting that the Kosovars were the innocent victims. Another report showed that Kosovars killed Serbs for organ harvest.

Lest the reader think the above linked reports were purely anti-US propaganda, even the left leaning Amnesty International (natural allies of Clinton) admitted that the UN unfairly reported exclusively atrocities perpetrated by Serbs, when in fact, the Kosovars had been equally brutal.

Even the elitist CFR admitted Kosovo was a botch-up.

Fast forwarding, a similar false portrait was painted in Ukraine, where the rebels were portrayed as innocent victims, whereas in reality, they had broken into an armory and used rifles to kill the police of a democratically elected government.

Psychologists tell us that single instances of a behavior are not significant in evaluating a patient. But when enough of these instances have been documented, then a behavior pattern is established.

From Panama to Kosovo, from Georgia to Ukraine, from Libya to Egypt, Western governments and their cohorts in media have established a clear cut pattern of one-sided reporting and one-sided interpretation of international law—a pattern that is best described as fraud. It has cost untold human lives and suffering, both to our young sent to war and to the peoples of invaded nations.

It is therefore no less criminal than an overt act of brutality by a tyrant. The overt tyrant commits the atrocities himself.

The deceiving tyrant induces us to commit them.

 

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Russian “propaganda” sounds suspiciously like the truth

June 27th, 2012 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Europe, Global governance, Russia 9 Comments »

Don Hank

I recently read an opinion indicating the Russia is up to its old tricks of dividing the Western world and trying to destabilize the Middle East. The author cites the fact that Russia is refusing to go along with Western intervention in the Middle East. I was surprised to read this opinion because if anyone can be blamed for destabilizing that region it is the Western powers and their military adventures there.

The commentary also stated that Russia is a much bigger threat than the New World Order.

I disagree.

From what I see, the New World Order is actually an extension of the Soviet Union, but not of Russia, which is no longer a totalitarian communist state—or at least no more totalitarian than, say, the EU, whose commissioners are not elected democratically and who wield all the important power.

I think some US conservatives subconsciously conflate today’s Russian Federation with the Soviet Union. Even Reagan seemed to have a problem with seeing a Russian person in a positive light, including the Russian dissidents we should have reached out to, notably Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was treated with suspicion. Details here:

http://laiglesforum.com/aleksander-solzhenitsyn-tragically-misunderstood-by-conservatives/298.htm

During the cold war, I believe there were millions of confused people believing that it was the Russian nation and people we were supposed to oppose, not communism. Or rather, many felt that communism came with being Russian, just as freedom comes with being American.

Americans who tenaciously stick to this suspicious attitude toward all things Russian either no longer recognize communism when they see it or they aren’t afraid of living in a totalitarian state as long as it is orderly and they have enough to eat and as long as their keepers have Anglo-Saxon names and call themselves Christians on the campaign trail.

The truth is, what has happened in recent decades is an almost complete role reversal in terms of communist totalitarianism.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I think that essentially, Russia is becoming America and the West is becoming the Soviet Union.

Here are just a few of the blatant symptoms of communism that you and I have been seeing throughout the West:

Economic communism:

1-Wealth redistribution between the rich nations, esp Germany, and the poor nations of the EU, to the extent that the euro and the European economy are being wrecked to maintain this ideology-driven scheme. Many blame this on the greed of the bankers, but there is something else going on here, not far beneath the surface, and that is the steadfast belief, even among business people and bankers, that the wealth (all but their own, that is) must be redistributed to achieve “social justice.” The CRA, which forced certain banks to lend to “underserved communities” (minorities and the poor), is a perfect example. The knee-jerk reaction when this is pointed out is to quickly assert that the CRA had little effect because only some banks were enforced upon. Nonsense. By forcing some to comply, the US government was tacitly agreeing to prop up the loans of any bank to these underserved communities, and as a result, most banks went along, driving up housing prices and causing a bubble that ultimately led to the crash. The banks that made the most reckless loans under this socialist scheme were rewarded with your money in the form of bailouts. They made out like the bandits they were.

The scheme was shoved down our throats because, despite his socialist policies, Bush was seen as “conservative.” It was perfect camouflage for a people who see politicians with white faces talking about their faith in Jesus as beyond reproach.

2-In the US, a record and vast number of people on food stamps. The “rich” (i.e., workers) are supporting America.

3-Obamacare

4-The obliteration of borders. In world socialism, which was first promoted by the Soviet Union, there were eventually to be no borders. In keeping with this idea, Obama refuses to deport illegal aliens and provides only a modicum of border protection. He and many others consider Mexico and the US to be a common territory. Particularly under G.W. Bush and Barack Obama, the 2 nations have come to be a de facto economic and political union (North American Union).

The old Soviet regime was anti-Christian.

5-Obamacare forces Catholic hospitals to pay for abortions

6-For decades, the ACLU has been winning battles all over our country to take Christian symbols out of public life

7-We are importing Muslims wholesale, who refuse to integrate and recently, have literally “stoned” Christians in Dearborn (those who are on my daily alerts list got a video link to that yesterday) while the police turned a blind eye.

8-The EU and its puppet “national” governments in Europe import millions of Muslims who do not integrate, cause trouble, have doubled and tripled the rates of crimes like rape, etc, and have created no-go zones where police, fire personnel and ambulances dare not enter. Police in Europe respond to Muslim rioters the same way as US police: they don’t. Laws and enforcement favor the Muslims and disadvantage Christians (proselytizing to Muslims, for example, is now considered a crime or misdemeanor in much of Europe).

9-The EU and the US have totally wrecked the Middle East. Except in Syria, which the West is itching to attack, there are almost no indigenous Christians left. They have been murdered or exiled, their churches burnt to the ground. 

10-The West has started making it difficult or illegal to discuss homosexual behavior from a biblical standpoint. Pastors don’t dare mention it. Canada and parts of Europe fine people for speaking against it. 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia in 2006 for expressing a scriptural viewpoint regarding homosexuality at a homosexual “OutFest.” They were charged with a “hate” crime that carries a sentence of 47 years in prison and a $90,000 fine for each one:

http://laiglesforum.com/federal-judge-refuses-to-release-homosexual-group-from-philadelphia-eleven-lawsuit/30.htm

Contrast this with Russia, which does not acknowledge same sex marriage and, in some jurisdictions, does not allow homosexual demonstrations.

Now let’s look at Russia:

Do you see the Russians importing Muslims? Whom are the Russians supporting in the Middle East? Do they have satellite states and do the richer ones have to send money to the poor ones? Are they obliterating the Russian border?

And here is the key: Do they interfere in the political affairs of sovereign nations to overthrow existing governments?

Here is a video of a speech by Putin on what can be called the New World Order (he didn’t mention the term explicitly). Whether or not you consider this to be propaganda, which side comes off as being right here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr5GxN3C8uw&feature=related

If you are interested in joining my daily alerts list, just send an email to zoilandon@msn.com and type “Daily alerts list” in the subject line.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The EU expands further

June 19th, 2012 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Economics, Europe, european union, Global governance, Sovereignty No Comments »

Quote:

Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.)

There is a bit of history to this idea of politicians lying to the public to achieve what is supposed to be a noble end, a phenomenon we see on both sides of the pond. In the 1880s a group of wealthy English met in a private home in London to discuss how best to implement socialism and eliminate Christianity (which stands in the way). The group included Karl Marx’s sister, just to give you an idea of the ideology they represented.

They met later a number of times and eventually settled on a name for themselves: The Fabian Society, after a Roman general who had successfully used stealth to gain victory, thereby saving lives. They would do likewise, preferring stealth to usurp power over the violence used later in Russia.

But is stealth necessarily harmless?

Suppose you stop your car and ask me directions to a place. I direct you over a bridge, which happens to have collapsed in a recent hurricane. I tell you that it is narrow, so in order to avoid meeting another vehicle, you should speed up as you approach it. You do so and plunge to your death in the canyon below.

I didn’t harm you directly. But I caused you great violence through my stealthy and false directions.

So it is with the EU. It was sold as a community of states that would contribute to economic stability and greater harmony in Europe. No sovereignty would be lost and there would be a net gain for all.

But this community is now called a union and is a de facto empire with central control and almost no participation of the populace, with formidable power, ever-expanding boundaries (see Sonya Porter’s article below), a court, one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, and a growing military, and its economic policies are leading, by socialist wealth redistribution, to what is expected by many economists to be the greatest economic crisis of our age.

The Soviet Union has been reborn.

Don Hank

 

Sonya Jay Porter on the ever-expanding, rarely-asking EU

The creation of a European union of states was considered a noble aspiration following the destruction of the continent in two world wars. First proposed in the Schuman Declaration of 1950 by the then-French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, it aimed to transform Europe through a “step-by-step” process, leading to the unification of Europe and so ensuring that the individual nations of Europe should never go to war with one other again. But although senior politicians may have been aware of the gradual subsuming of their countries into a Federal Europe, most of their populations were not.

In Britain, for instance FCO 30/1048 which was written in 1971 by civil servants at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but only brought to light in 2001 under the 30 year rule, shows that the FCO was definitely aware of the gradual loss of Britain’s sovereignty that entry into the Common Market would entail. However, introducing the 1972 Bill, Geoffrey Rippon, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty” and this was echoed by the Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.) So it would be unwise to take what the EU authorities say at face value, including the fact that it is a strictly European union of nations or that any other countries brought into its fold would be there simply as trading partners.

Turkey is not a member of the European Union, and may never be. Yet on 30th March 2012, the members of the European Commission (who are appointed by the governments of member states rather than elected) quietly decided to grant Turkish citizens the same residency and labour rights as full members of the Union.

This accord will apply to Turkish workers who are or have been legally employed in the territory of a member state and who are or who have been subject to the legislation of one or more member states, and their survivors; to the members of the family of workers referred to above, provided that these family members are or have been legally resident with the worker concerned while the worker is employed in a member state. The text reads:

“It follows from Article 12 of the Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (the Ankara Agreement) and Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement (the Additional Protocol) that freedom of movement for workers between the Union and Turkey is to be secured by progressive stages.”

It adds,

“This proposal is part of a package of proposals which includes similar proposals with regard to the Agreements with Albania, Montenegro and San Marino. A first package with similar proposals in respect of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel was adopted by the Council in October 2010.”

As a mark of their devotion to openness and transparency, the following laconic note appears under the heading “Consultation of interested parties” –

“There was no need for external expertise.”

Later still, the following difficult-to-believe statement appears:

“The proposal has no implications for the Union budget.”

Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel are not in the EU but many of their citizens will now be allowed to live in, and benefit from, EU countries – which could cause many problems, not least that of how the EU is going to cope with yet more unemployed at a time when the Union’s financial situation is so parlous.

Read more:

http://www.quarterly-review.org/?p=919

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button