The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

Restoring state sovereignty

Don Hank

The San Bernardino terror and the ease with which two jihadi killers entered and took up permanent residence in the US show that the US is putting US citizens in harm’s way.

Look, Folks, the solution is right in front of us and its name is state sovereignty.

Large central governments controlling large swaths of territory comprised of regions with people holding different political opinions and different cultures are an evil in themselves, because ultimately, a small group grabs all the power via “education” and the msm and produces a situation for the people that threatens life and basic freedoms.

Central government is the culprit here, and Europe is instructive. The EU has grabbed virtually total political power over European nations. Yet now that the EU is insisting on opening its borders to Muslim refugees in defiance of the will of the people and the nations, there are nations that defy them refusing to open their borders, such as initially Hungary, and later, at least partially, the Balkan countries,and now even Sweden, the country with the most open-border policy of all Europe. Under duress, European nations are rediscovering their sovereignty.

It’s not that the EU lacks laws to stop them, but it has no real power over them in cases where the exercise of such power threatens the security and liberty of the nations. They can’t enforce laws that are patently bad.

Our US states are analogous to these EU nations and their dire situation is also analogous. Our states do have a God-given right to sovereignty when the central government literally harms the citizens of the states as they are doing now with Obama’s resettlement of Syrian refugees and his policies of amnesty and open borders, all by fiat. Every American must know that no law that forces a people to harm itself can be Constitutional, regardless of whatever the Supreme Court says. The imported jihadis themselves are bringing this to light as they did in San Bernardino.

Eventually, our US states will be forced to do what Hungary and its copycats did and close their borders.

Here is what should be done now and will be done once enough Americans have died:

States that no longer wish to commit suicide will decide who enters their territory. If a person, even a US citizen, tries to enter a state, they may be denied entry on the basis of background checks. If they entered the US illegally, they may be barred — even if Washington gave them citizenship, because the state may decide whether this person was entitled to that based on the security concerns of the state. The states must be keenly aware that the Feds have overstepped their bounds as defined by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution (see below). If a person desirous of entering a state has entered the US illegally, then the state may deny them entry on those grounds, legitimately claiming that the federal government exceeded the powers granted to it under the Constitution.

Naturally, the Supreme Court will declare the state’s position un-Constitutional. However, we must examine the European model to see what can be accomplished regardless of the wishes of central-government agencies, such as the Supreme Court, which today is nothing but an interest group defending the Washington cabal and no longer represents the people of the US. Again, taking our cue from Europe, the EU government has declared, under the Schengen Agreement, that no EU nation may close its border except under specific extraordinary circumstances that threaten the country in question. However, initially, when the Hungarians closed the border, the requisites defined by Brussels may not actually have been met for this closing. However, the Hungarians, the Balkan countries and Sweden did not beg the EU dictators in Brussels for help in securing their borders or seek legal recourse. They simply resorted to their sovereign right to self-determination, bypassing the EU, and made it clear that this is the way it is going to be. Brussels made noises that they would be punished, but nothing happened. In a revolutionary move, Budapest (like the capitals of the other renegade nations that followed suit) faced down Brussels and won, at least for now, thereby restoring its sovereignty and providing for its own security. Indeed, in so doing, it caused the other above-cited nations to take notice and still others seem poised to do the same. EU officials are now warning of a potential collapse of the EU, and although dire consequences are elicited by the cunning EU officials, there could be no better solution. The same can happen in the US, with states declaring a state of emergency following a mass jihadi murder, and while the US could bluster and threaten, if the state stood firm, there would be little Washington could do short of civil war.

If a person is from a terror exporting country and has entered the US after a certain age, say, 15, then they can be denied entry into a state based on the fact that their country of origin is a terror exporting country. If it can be proved that they are not SUNNIS, then the state may allow their entry. ONLY the SUNNIS are pursuing jihad (where do we read that in our PC press? Even Trump ignores this fact).  Whether this is “constitutional” or not is irrelevant. The state must stand firm or perish. Indeed, the grounds for doing so could be a declaration of state-level emergency or even a claim that the state is at war (with jihadis, for example), whatever it takes.

The legal grounds for state-level initiatives are clear:

Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.

The clear-cut grounds for the states to ignore US statues are that the US has failed to protect the states from invasion and/or domestic violence — as it actually did by admitting the San Bernardino jihadis into our country — and if the Supreme Court makes excuses for the jihad-sponsoring government, then it too must be defied on the simple grounds that it too is blatantly ignoring the above-cited clause. A grave risk to the people of the state is always legitimate grounds to ignore federal orders because no government can demand that its own people commit suicide. Everything depends on the will of the people to survive and to know and understand their God-given rights to life and liberty.

This restoration of basic state sovereignty could either happen now at the discretion of states with security minded populations or – based on the European model — it will happen spontaneously when it becomes clear that this kind of security is vital to keep the population safe from imminent harm. For now, there are enough libertarians and leftist liberals to convince the sheeple of most states that the absurd borderless-world ideology trumps security.

But once a critical mass of terrorist murders has been reached, there will be a spontaneous and unstoppable movement to secure our people, with or without the approval of our terror-supporting federal government, and the states will be at the forefront.

Trying to replace our corrupt central government with people who actually care about our nation’s security will fail as a permanent remedy, just as it has failed in Europe. A Trump presidency may be a vital stop-gap measure, but in fact, given the fickle nature of national political sentiment, only the individual states can provide for their security in the long run.

Sooner or later we will learn the valuable lesson that the states have the right to self-determination and only need to reclaim it. Those that lose this right to the federal government do so voluntarily by surrendering their sovereignty, ie, wrongly taking federal statues and their interpretation by a corrupt and ideology-driven Supreme Court – rather than We the People — as supreme. The number of dead Americans that lead us to that awakening depends on how soon our states respond to the threat.

Do you agree or disagree with the above analysis? Post your response at the forum below.

Further reading

http://conpats.blogspot.com/2014/02/chuck-kolb-02162014.html

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141110

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

Normandy Four snub Obama

Normandy Four snub Obama

 

by Don Hank

The fact that Ukraine, Germany and France have agreed to meet with Russia in Paris on Oct 2 (see story linked below) without any kibitzing from Obama (not invited) is clear evidence that

1-Obama – not Putin (per the Neocon fable) is the one who is isolating himself with his uncompromising rigidity.

2-Putin scored points and changed minds at the UN debate on Monday.

3-Europe, while perhaps still wary of Russia, still considers it a negotiating partner, either despite of or – more likely – because of Putin’s bold military initiative in Syria – standing as it does in bold contrast to Obama’s inertness.

After all, as I have seen on European talk shows (Deutsche Welle, RAI Italia, TV 5 from France) since the Syrian air strikes, the Europeans – unlike the US – are more immediately concerned about the immigration crisis than any other aspect of the Syrian issue. No one — particularly not the US — has made any progress in stopping the terror that the refugees are escaping (and as Putin rightly suggested without naming names, ISIS is a US invention). Germany, which initially put on a show of compassion for the refugees, has seen violence (eg, against women, Shiites and Christians) and chicanery (false passports) among these refugees. Worse, their refugee welcome centers are overwhelmed and so are many public schools, unable to keep up with the demand for German language classes, etc.

American Neocons can sit down and moralize about Syria, pretending that the duly elected Assad is a “dictator” (while pretending that the Saudis and their unelected king are somehow democratic and more civilized – even as they bomb poor little Yemen to smithereens).

But Europe’s institutions are under siege and individual EU countries cannot reach an agreement even over whether to accept ANY refugees, let alone 10,000 a day. This is causing a rift that threatens the integrity of the Union.

Europe’s “leaders” are panicked and, Like him or hate him, they know that Putin is the one who has stepped into the gag and is helping to solve their problem (despite silly statements by Obama to the contrary). His prestige in Europe has undoubtedly gone up since the UN debates and the Syria initiative.

And our hapless White House resident said Putin needs to “become a little smarter”? LOL!

http://rbth.com/news/2015/09/30/normandy_four_meeting_in_paris_is_joint_initiative_of_france_germany_rus_49671.html

 

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

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  

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov interview

Interview of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the Sunday Evening Show with Vladimir Soloviev

Translated by Don Hank (all footnotes and links were added by the translator)

Original interview on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itd9WaolJtY 

Original Russian text:

http://el-murid.livejournal.com/1717453.html

Question: Hello, Sergey Viktorovich. What a feeling it is to realize that you are now not just the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but also the Minister of Foreign Affairs military. Every time I see and listen to you, I have a feeling of tremendous anxiety and that the world has gone mad. My generation does not remember this level of escalation. What is actually happening?

Lavrov: I think the entire world system is being reformatted, because after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, those we refer to by the collective word “West” missed a historic opportunity when Russia proposed a number of initiatives that would allow us to truly unite not only the European continent, but also the Euro-Atlantic, including Eurasia. There were suggestions to center this work around the OSCE based on equality of all states. There were suggestions that after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the major threats to the countries that were part of the NATO-North Atlantic bloc had ceased to exist or, at least, would not expand.

We were assured of this; we talked a lot about the fact that now everyone is interested in peer collaboration, which will be based on respect for each other’s security interests, that security is indivisible, and no one would ensure his own security at the expense of others. First they assured that the unification of Germany would not mean the spread of NATO rules and armed forces to the territory of the former GDR. Then this promise, of course, was forgotten. Then they promised not to expand NATO further to the East, not to cover Eastern and Central European countries, as recorded in a number of agreements, which, unfortunately, were not issued legally. But these promises were also violated. Then there were the political declarations signed at the Summit of the OSCE and they created the NATO-Russia Council which ensured NATO countries would not put substantial combat forces on the territory of the new member states of the North Atlantic bloc. This promise also failed to withstand the test of time, like the declaration of indivisible security that I mentioned earlier.

We started asking questions about why the military infrastructure of NATO is moving closer to our borders; why create a missile defense, for which we have good reason to believe that it carries risks for our strategic forces of nuclear containment. We were told not to worry, because it is not against us. But our calculations and facts that Russian experts have repeatedly provided to jointly explore the U.S. and other NATO partners say the opposite. Serious discussion on these topics was not conducted for all these years.

After this the EU Eastern Partnership was initiated, which covered six post-Soviet states – Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, with priority given to Ukraine.

As you know, the EU has offered Ukrainians an association agreement and a free trade zone. We politely raised the issue that we have a huge amount of trade, economic, investment and industrial relations with Ukraine and it would be nice to consider together about how to develop our relationship. They said “We will first make an agreement with the Ukrainians, and then we’ll show you what you have agreed upon.” We were assured that the Association Agreement and free trade zone would be standard – the same as the European Union had concluded with Mexico, South Korea and some other countries. Then, when the already initialed agreement appeared on websites (we had not seen it before that), it turned out that the draft document goes much further than the standard agreements, which we were told about by the EU. It goes so far as to directly affect Russian-Ukrainian trade and economic cooperation, impeding the functioning of the CIS free trade zone, which, incidentally, was formed at the initiative of the and the insistence of the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, ie at the insistence of the Ukrainians, and creates discriminatory conditions for Russian goods, worsening the agreements reached after Russia joined the WTO. Our efforts, already at the stage of holding an expert, professional, depoliticized conversation between Ukraine, Russia and the EU, were rejected, although Ukrainians were on board. And they were rejected with the words: “Do not interfere in EU-Ukraine cooperation.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/23/uk-tells-russia-dont-in_n_4841424.html)

Q: Of course, we are a regional power, which, as it turned out, lost some sort of war. Somehow I have not seen any foreign soldiers marching in a victory parade on Red Square. But it turns out they can shout to our representative at the UN, “Do not forget that you are the losers!”[1]

U.S. President Barack Obama tells us that we are a regional power and no one wants to talk to us (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/25/obama_regional_power_russia_is_no_threat_to_us.html). Why should we be informed of what is happening on our borders? Our destiny is to observe and, as I understand it, to continue the theme of decay, begun in 1991. Then we will gain love and respect. In other words, crumble into dust.

Lavrov: At the heart of what is happening is a winner syndrome which has emerged under the new conditions, and which they cling to in the depths of their souls, assuring us that in the “cold war” there were no winners, and we all have benefited from the fact that we now share common values. Of course, there is also the hurt pride: they believed they could ignore us and do whatever they saw fit with Russia’s neighbors and partners, without asking our opinion, ignoring our legitimate interests. Of course, there is obvious resentment over the fact that the next project of the Georgian Saakashvili[2] type had not panned out. All this is definitely being manifested.

Question: But this is manifesting itself in our relationship as well. We thought they were the allies on the Elbe[3], but it turns out that they saw us as the losing country, to which they only had to give McDonald’s and throw us a bone from a distance. Now it seems that the problem is not in relations between Ukraine and Russia, but between Russia and the U.S., which is behaving as though Alaska had voted for reunification with Russia. Why suddenly such an emotional, and I’d say extreme, reaction?

Lavrov: This proves only one thing: the expansion of NATO, the hasty inclusion in NATO and the European Union of new states, including Baltic countries, which did not meet the criteria for membership, but yet were instantly absorbed under an EU policy called the “Eastern Partnership” – all this was conceived with a significant proportion of American schemes to keep Europe under its thumb and to ensure formats of NATO and the EU which would give the U.S. a substantial voice. Concerns that Europe could suddenly become independent or more independent and less dependent on the Euro-Atlantic link are definitely present in Washington.

We can see it. No one talks about it openly, but it manifests itself in all the practical specific steps taken by the United States in connection with the Ukrainian crisis. We were concerned about this because the problem is not in Russian-“Western” or in Russian-Ukrainian relations, but in Ukraine, where there is a deep statehood crisis which must be overcome, and it can only be overcome by the Ukrainians themselves. We are in favor of this being done on the basis of a national dialogue of  awareness on the part of those who came to power in Kiev, and the need to reach out to all Ukrainians, without exception, including all political forces and all regions of the country, starting a real constitutional reform that is transparent and comprehensive. That’s what we need to talk about. Encouraging Ukrainians to hold this national dialogue and constitutional process must be a joint effort of Russia, the U.S. and the EU. But, unfortunately, our Western partners are trying to present the case as if everything revolves around a Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

Question: The Pentagon saw Russian troops on the border with Ukraine. Interestingly, the broadcaster CNN, came and videotaped, but did not find the troops. U.S. State Department officials saw Moscow’s hand in the events in the East and South-East of Ukraine. But when we asked for evidence, we were told: “Why? Everyone has free access to the social networks.”

This is a new logic in international diplomacy when a country decides on its own: “Here we see it, here we don’t; we accept this evidence but not the other. Everything the Russian side says is untrue, and we don’t take it into account, and everything the official Ukrainian side says, is considered legitimate. Europe and America represent ultimate truth.” So what’s the point of even talking to them if they don’t hear us?

Lavrov: You’ve always got to talk, and with everyone. It is always better to talk than not to talk and accumulate misunderstanding.

As for our troops allegedly preparing to roll across the Russian-Ukrainian border in the South-East of the country, I can say that they were training. This was announced, no one hid this fact. Within the framework of the OSCE and the so-called Open Skies Treaty, we have the obligation to inform partners about certain exercises, starting with a certain size and number of deployed forces and materiel, and that’s what we did. Moreover, in response to requests, including those of Ukrainians, Americans and Europeans, inspections were conducted, representatives of these countries were invited, who visited the exercise area and according to their own statements, they drew an official conclusion, finding no threatening military activities. After that, our representatives in the OSCE officially asked the inspectors to make their conclusion known in this esteemed organization. They have not yet done so.

Soloviev : Are they embarrassed?

Lavrov: They probably are. It just does not fit into the overall scheme of the whole situation from the West’s viewpoint.

Question: The Russian delegation went to PACE, where we were frankly humiliated, deprived of all rights except one – the sacred right to pay for membership.

S.V.Larov: And sit in the hall.

Q: Neither the West nor America wants to see the revival of the spirit of slumbering Nazism in the “right sector,” Banderovtsy, Shukhevich,[4] Svoboda (the ”Freedom Party”)[5], the same party that the EU once considered anathema, delegated five members to the current Ukrainian government, and the unpleasantness disappeared instantly. There is a feeling that countries that once had not supported the Hitler coalition were taking revenge on us for having won the Great War.

Sergei Lavrov: I have had many conversations with my colleagues about the nature of the coalition that broke the agreement of February 21, signed by the leaders of three parties that entered into it, and carried out a coup d’état. Of course, we talked about Svoboda (the “Freedom Party,” see footnote). I repeatedly asked John Kerry and foreign ministers of Europe, where one can explore their position on Svoboda and on that party’s policy documents, which provide a direct reference to their succession Declaration in June 1941, proclaiming their mission of helping Hitler impose a new order. I was unable to get a reference to public statements made in this regard.

We certainly know about the numerous speeches of the American, Israeli, and world community as to what the Svoboda Party is, not to mention the “right sector.” In conversations John Kerry told me: “We understand they have a troubled past, but, according to our observations, they are moving toward the political mainstream. “Laurent Fabius [French Foreign Minister–Translator] in one of his speeches said that Svoboda is “just a little bit to the right of others.” An astounding statement!

We have said that such an attitude toward the memory of those who fought and defeated fascism, who saved Europe from Fascism, is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to us to attempt to install in a European a country a coalition involving such people.

Question: This is not a coincidence, but a certain trend. On the one hand, they refuse to see absolute Nazis in the face of Svoboda. On the other hand, when a representative of the Russian delegation to the UN Security Council said that the tragedy in Syrian Kesab, where there is genocide of the Armenian people, cannot be ignored, the Americans blocked this decision. Isn’t this a double standard? Unfortunate Armenians must suffer because Armenia supports Russia?

Lavrov: Fortunately, it is better to be a refugee than to die. The vast majority in Syrian Kesab managed to escape: some to other Syrian districts, some to Lebanon. There were no massacres in the area with photos distributed in the Internet, but photos from other areas of Syria were shown on the internet, and that makes them no less horrific. But the idea of conducting ethnic cleansing in Kesab had emerged. This attempt was obvious, and at one point, it was partially successful. Therefore, when we proposed a clear and unequivocal comment on this topic in the UN Security Council, they said, “But let’s simultaneously condemn the Assad regime, because he is also doing bad things.” There is always a constant linkage tactic, a refusal to condemn specific acts of terrorism in Syria, citing the fact that they would not have happened if Assad had voluntarily disappeared, a violation of all the resolutions of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly, bilateral documents clearly stating that terrorism cannot be justified on any grounds.

Q: A lot of questions about the reunification with the Crimea. We see it quite differently. On radio station “Vesti” and on television, when I consider this topic with our distinguished guests, they all note that a 16,000 strong Ukrainian military corps was stationed in the Crimea. Officially, there were also Russian troops. More than 2.5 million men, and not a shot was fired. This is a real show of will that Americans and Europeans do not want to see. Can no one can tell the essential difference between the Yugoslav scenario and Crimea? Can no one see parallels between the reunification of West and East Germany, and of Russia and the Crimea? Has the level of political blindness and deafness reached an all-time high?

Lavrov: I think I’m pretty sure that everyone sees everything and everyone understands. But thanks to an ideologically charged atmosphere bent on restraining our country, and ill-concealed anger over the fact that it defended its legitimate interests, long violated despite all the constitutions and laws of secession from the USSR, no one has every concealed  the geopolitical project of Russian containment (and this is where it all started ). This is unfortunate and sad. If anyone needed proof of our suspicions and fears, it is no longer needed. All these years our Western partners have lied to us when vowing theirs commitment to a united Europe without dividing lines, swore that they would fully respect our interests and that security is indivisible, etc.

As for parallels that suggest themselves (Kosovo, and more), we are constantly told that “Kosovo was a special occasion; thousands of people were killed there.”[6] This has no part in any civilized framework. It seems that for residents of Crimea, with its overwhelming majority in favor of reunification with Russia, to receive recognition of their inalienable rights, it is necessary that as much blood must be shed in the Crimea as in Kosovo? Excuse me, these are totally unfit parallels and analogies.

But there is a more direct parallel; it is quite interesting — I mentioned it earlier — but I will tell you more. During the decolonization of Africa, in the Comoro islands, which were owned by the French, were released somewhat late from the colonial yoke — independence came only in the early 70s, later than in most other African countries. By arrangement with the colonial power, a referendum was held in which all the Comoros voted for independence except one, Mayotte, the majority of whose residents voted against independence. But the conditions of the referendum were that all should vote en bloc and if the majority said they want independence, then independence would be recognized.

Our French colleagues at the time refused to recognize the results of the referendum, although they were accepted by the UN General Assembly, and they said that a separate additional referendum would be held, and the vote on each island would be tallied and each island would get the status for which it voted. The referendum was repeated. Mayotte again voted against independence, and the UN General Assembly again disagreed with the results of the independent vote. But France said it would recognize the vote of the Mayotte residents. Contrary to the numerous decisions of the UN, which condemned this approach and did not recognize the results of the referendum, Mayotte became a French Overseas Department, i.e., a full-fledged member of the French Republic, in 2011.

Q: It is interesting that neither trade nor political nor economic sanctions followed.

Lavrov: Yes. I repeat, despite disagreement on this by the UN General Assembly, the EU ignores the decision of the international community.

Question: The sanctions against Russia are unusual, very harsh. The officially declared ones seem personalized and reflect resentment, while the informal, economic ones are unique. Everything is forgotten:  the right of business to make a profit and business freedom, and sanctions have even been imposed against journalists[7] for having the audacity to speak their minds. When this was published on the Ministry website warning the Russians that 111 countries signed a treaty with the United States, according to which Russian citizens can turned over to the American authorities…

Lavrov: Or robbed

Question: Or robbed, even on trumped up charges. So it turns out that Russians had better not go abroad?

Lavrov: It is absolutely better to travel. We do everything in our power to broaden these capabilities: annually concluding additional agreements on visa-free regimes, facilitating travel to many countries. Such arrangements exist with nearly all the countries of Latin America, many countries in Asia, and we have been ready to do this with the EU for a long time. Long before the Ukrainian crisis all the arrangements were ready, but their approval was delayed under the influence of a well-known minority[8] in the European Union, which wanted to hinder our rapprochement with the EU solely for reasons of ideological bias.

Question: For reasons of historical revenge..

Lavrov: Including for reasons of historical revenge. Probably in the minds of many, these phobias still play a dominant role.

Travel, of course, needs to be safe, and we pay attention to this issue. For example, during the exacerbation of the situation in Egypt or Thailand when unrest and riots occurred, we were obliged to warn our citizens that it was not safe to go there, so it was best to stay in the resort areas, etc. But what you’re talking about is a problem of a completely different nature associated with the extension of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction to territories that do not belong to them, but in which Americans feel entitled to seize citizens of other countries if Washington has issues with them. (http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-issues-travel-warning-about-us-citing-threat-kidnapping-1402265). This happened to the Russians K.V. Yaroshenko and Viktor Bout, who were arrested not for anything they had done, but had been lured into a conversation, during which they made certain statements, which undercover agents interpreted as sufficient grounds for their arrest. They were extradited to the United States in violation of the legal and procedural norms of Senegal and Thailand. These are not the only two examples. There are also such cases in European countries and Canada. Recently, at the request of Americans, Russian citizens were taken from Costa Rica, despite our protests and demands to comply with the requirements of applicable law. Therefore, we are obliged to warn Russians that if they have had some kind of relationship with our American partners, if they have reason to believe that there are issues with them, even the most innocuous, it is better…

Q: To go to Sochi!

Lavrov: Why? To Crimea!

Q: That’s a choice: you can go to Sochi or Crimea.

Lavrov: This is true.

Q: It was no accident that I said you were the most popular minister, and not only in Russia. Numerous articles, written by you or about you, have recently appeared in the foreign press, have created an image of a powerful politician. You are both hated and loved, are respected but people say that you allow yourself to make harsh statements. And you are right to do so. But you also point out that you have had for many years a good personal relationship, in particular, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Now you probably see him more often than your own family, holding “marathons” lasting several hours.
Lavrov: But not on the same issues.

Question: I hope we are still a traditional country. When you are dealing with John Kerry, do you ever feel like you are talking to a robot, who can’t hear you, doesn’t want to admit the obvious? Speaking of that, the following question arises: where is there a higher arbiter, who in the case of a dispute between the two major powers can say “break” and decide who is right and who is wrong, if each side claims that it is right and only its opinion is valid?

Lavrov : I cannot describe any of the partners as a robot or, in other words, say they lack understanding. Absolutely not. Secretary of State John Kerry is a highly intelligent man with a vast experience in the United States Senate. As senator, he was the head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and a presidential candidate in a US election that was won by Bush. He is a very erudite, experienced politician and diplomat.

Most of my other partners in conversations that are not intended for the public, express understanding and behave absolutely properly. With them, you can talk, discuss, exchange arguments, even sometimes disagree on things. I note parenthetically that we never say that our line is absolutely correct, and refuse to give an inch, centimeter, millimeter. Absolutely not. Convince us, because we never reject reasonable arguments and compromises since politics is the art of the possible. It is not part of our tradition to dictate to the rest of the world. This is just a trait of some other powers. I would really like the “unipolar world syndrome” to quickly disappear, because the world can only be multipolar. And the stronger the other poles, besides America, the more useful it will be for Washington itself.

Question: But the U.S. can’t see that.

Lavrov: They’ll have to see it, and I think they already do. Just as in the case of talking about Ukraine, or anything else, they will have to admit it. They understand it, sense it internally. Even when the U.S. decided to bomb Iraq or go to Afghanistan, they began to cobble together a coalition, seeking to include even the small island states willing to send at least some signals unit or two staff officers. And in the end, it all added up and it was announced that dozens of states (40 +) formed the coalition and the effort was legitimized, etc. They already knew it was inconvenient to go it alone, and they still understand that.

As you know, on the eve of the recent vote by the UN General Assembly resolution in support of the sovereignty of Ukraine, including Crimea, which is a clear anti-Russian step, there was no capital, where U.S. ambassadors would not go and impudently request to vote for the resolution, saying that they just have to do it. Those who did not agree were blackmailed and threatened. We know this. For obvious reasons I cannot name the countries and names, but it happens.

Q: And yet it didn’t work.

Lavrov: It didn’t work because only half of the members of the UN supported this resolution.

Question: The wisest was Israel, where there was a strike at the time, and they couldn’t vote.
Lavrov: You asked about the visible and invisible sanctions reaching the point of absurdity, when journalists are forbidden to practice their profession, etc. Besides what lies on the surface, we know that all over the world messengers were sent and American and European ambassadors from different countries were instructed to seek a freeze on normal working contacts with our representatives. In Moscow, the ambassadors of the EU and the U.S., apparently, also agreed to communicate less with us on issues that they believe are of interest to us. Although on issues interest to them, they will definitely be in touch with us.

Here you need to understand a simple thing: international relations are based on reciprocity – “Do as is done to you.” We will not retaliate or act out of spite, but we will take a balanced approach to specific situations arising.

When they make statements about certain arrogant new sanctions against Russia, it is entertaining to listen to what follows that. For example, NATO announced it would freeze most practical projects, including the “helicopter” project for Afghanistan. It splits the cost in providing service to Soviet and Russian helicopters, spare parts supplies, primarily with Russian enterprises, training for pilots and maintenance personnel. There are a  number of other projects, including training to combat drug trafficking in Afghanistan and Central Asia. These were projects of the NATO-Russia Council. In announcing these sanctions, one of the Vice Secretary General of NATO, when asked by reporters, said: “We understand that these are the areas in which it is very important to achieve results, but we will continue to seek cooperation in these areas in other formats.” In other words, the NATO-Russia Council will not do it, but the members of the Alliance will seek ways to continue these projects under another “umbrella”. This shows contrived, artificial ideas in line with the logic of “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”

Question: Have these people who are “cutting off their nose to spite their face” put us in a category all by ourselves or is there someone lower down the list than us? Are we alone? Unfortunately, we have people who always vote the same way as we do, like have North Korea, although they’re not the best example. They are willing to do anything to “cut off their nose” to spíte the US. Are there any countries that can be called “wise people” who support Russia?

Lavrov: We have serious support. If smaller countries still cannot afford to openly talk about this because they are too dependent on the West economically and financially, countries that feel more self-reliant and take a serious approach to international relations, understand what is now in question. The problem now is not that it is necessary to help the Ukrainians to overcome the crisis, although that is important, but, as I said, reformatting the world system, the objective formation of a polycentric world order. In late March at the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague, we met with the foreign ministers of the BRICS countries. A statement was adopted which emphasizes the need to avoid interference in the internal affairs of other countries, condemns any policy of unilateral sanctions and expresses commitment to all the principles of the UN Charter in its entirety.

Question : Is BRICS on our side?

Lavrov: BRICS, I think, is not just for us, but understands that the stakes are enormously high, and not in terms of “who wins and who loses,” but in terms of defending their legitimate interests in this changing world.

Question: How long will this last? Have we ended the era of “peace, friendship, chewing gum” and entered a new round of “cold war”? Changing relations, sanctions, extreme rhetoric – will this go on for a decade?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I don’t expect it to last a decade. Even now you can see a number of signs that our Western partners are “torn .” On the one hand, they see quite calm reaction on the part of Russia: They failed to ruffle us with the sanctions which go far beyond the scope of basic human decency. Therefore, our partners want to continue to annoy us hoping to ruffle…

Q: They want to ruffle us to achieve what result? So we could write our names on the Brandenburg Gate[9] again? What’s the idea here?

Lavrov: In simple terms, they want to see how we felt now that we’ve been punished.

Question: Call the parents, bring the report card. Are we school kids or what?

Lavrov: Something like that. It has nothing to do with the real problems of international life, Europe, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian. In parallel, they have to understand that without us it would be very difficult to solve many problems, and I’m not just talking about Syria or Iran. We’re not about to declare: “If you do this to us, then let the bloodshed continue in Syria; we will not deal with a political settlement or provide humanitarian assistance; let Iran build a nuclear bomb.” Russia will not do this, because we’re responsible people, unlike many who are trying to push us in this direction. Without us it will hardly be possible to seriously address the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula – we don’t want to have a nuclear bomb at our borders.

In addition to the political context and the problems on the agenda of the international community (I can’t use this term without irony, because the West applies this term solely to itself and to those who support it unconditionally), there are the economic and business interests. You can read the press or participate in some activities conducted by business circles of Germany, Italy, Spain, France or the USA. In America, a number of companies are deeply invested in the Russian economy: for PepsiCo, for example, Russia is the second biggest market, while Coca-Cola planned to invest $5 billion by 2016; ExxonMobil invested a mere $10 billion; Boeing, Caterpillar and many others work here. Their response shows that they are not welcoming the signals from Western governments, like, “Come on, guys, don’t develop too much cooperation with Russia.” Businessmen are convinced that it is necessary to maintain and cultivate our economic cooperation not only because business always wants profit, but also because business is not sure that these sanctions are lawful.

 



[1] Referring to a hysterical outburst by Samantha Powers, US ambassador the UN.—Tr.

[2] Mikahil Saakashvili, US backed former Georgian president—Translator.

[3] Lavrov is referring here to the link-up of Soviet and American forces at the Elbe River near the end of WW II.–Translator

[4] Ukrainian nationalists widely accused of collaboration with the Nazis in WW II—Tr.

[5] A party now holding top positions in Ukraine thanks to Western support. Their leader Oleh Tyahnybok, who posed famously with John McCain during the Maidan uprising, is listed by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre as the world’s 5th

most dangerous anti-Semite.

[6] Lavrov is referring to the fact that, despite the irregularity of an outside state (the US in that case) intervening in a war of secession, the US was given the green light during the Kosovo War (1998-9) to bombard Serbian cities, under the pretext of alleged “genocide” of Kosovars by Serbs. Later investigations revealed numerous murders of Serbs by Kosovars as well. The US bombing raids killed untold numbers of civilians. Meanwhile the “international community” has recently condemned Russia for intervening in Crimea to save lives, saying that not enough casualties had accumulated to justify the intervention. Lavrov is nonplussed that the “international community” would require people to be killed to justify intervention and is suggesting it should be the other way around: the fewer the casualties the more successful, and hence, justified, the intervention is—Translator.

[7] There are indeed reports of such sanctions in the Western media, such as here.

[8] I am not sure what “minority” Lavrov is referring to here. However, the UK, for example, has had rocky relations with the Russian Federation over issues of extradition and the Litvinenko murder. Yet despite strong anti-Russian sentiments in the political class, over 60% of UK citizens polled recently by The Independent said Putin was their favorite world leader. Their own David Cameron scored 1%!

[9] TV host Vladimir Soloviev is alluding here to the Battle for Berlin after which the fallen Russian heroes were commemorated with a memorial at Brandenburg Gate. The names of some of the Russian fallen are inscribed on this memorial—Translator.

Are Muslims God’s enforcers?

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against Him.

Daniel 9:11

by Don Hank

In the comments section of our article “My friend Abdul,” our Muslim reader Alif gave us some things to ponder.
Firstly, he pointed out how immoral the West has become and in so doing presented an uncomfortable argument as to why Muslims would have the moral authority to rule the West and the rest of the world.
Secondly, however, he ignored my question as to why Islam favors the Koran over the Bible — and specifically, why the Bible, parts of which were written thousands of years before the Koran, and most of the historical content of which was written by contemporaries, should be given short shrift or even be ignored by Islam, which is based on the writings of one man who has never met any of the protagonists of the Bible, whom he nonetheless claims to revere. I have posed this question to Muslims for years and never receive an answer.
Thirdly, Alif, like all good Muslims, defends cruel punishment, and to read his words is shocking to anyone with humanitarian instincts, regardless of their religious beliefs, and it echoes those of Abdul in our story:

“Punishments like amputation of hand, whipping, stoning to death and beheading have the dual impact of preventing the individual from committing the same crime in future and serving a stern warning to others.”

Given the tenuous position of the Western world at this critical time in history, all of these points deserve careful analysis.  I will attempt such an analysis herein.
Many secularists and liberal “Christians” who oppose the cruelty and terrorism displayed by Islamists do so on an untenable basis, namely, either  a denial of the existence of God or the claim that God does not intervene, or no longer intervenes, in the affairs of men and has no interest in their morality or lack thereof.  Thanks to such thinking, Muslims will always be able to point out how the West has failed in all possible ways through its loss of morality. For example:
Economically, because politicians, capitalists and bankers, for example, no longer feel constrained to be honest. They think honesty is for suckers. What would anyone expect since they deny the power of God and believe that life ends at physical death? Grab what you can, Boys!
Politically, because they, having no respect for God, think man must be in charge even of natural phenomena such as the weather, and hence, must make and enforce harsh laws to punish “carbon emitters.” Further, like the atheistic Soviet Union, they believe that only technocrats can solve our political and economic problems and even control nature, and hence, the common man (who, they think, isn’t smart enough to grasp their high-minded ideas) must be muzzled, enslaved and impoverished in a modern-day feudal system, which is now in place. The European Union, for example, now rules Europe with almost no input from the ruled. The US is slowly following suit, with politicians ignoring the will of the people (for instance, 90% of us opposed the bailout, but both parties rammed it through).
In the Old Testament, God chose the cruel enemies of the Jews to punish them for their immorality. He can be expected to act similarly today in dealing with us, using Muslims to punish the West for our open immorality.
Now the fact that Muslims cannot account for why they ignore the original accounts of the prophets and rely almost exclusively on a book written by one man on the basis of dreams to which only the author was witness, shows a serious lack of intellectual justification for that religion. Without the Bible, Mohammed would never have heard of the prophets he claimed to honor. Yet he spoke scornfully of the “People of the Book.” Despite its reliance on the Judeo-Christian scriptures for much of its teachings, Islam therefore remains outside Biblical history and, in those areas where it mentions the Jewish and Christian prophets yet portrays them differently from the original accounts, can be considered religious and historical revisionism.
Yet, if God so chooses, He can use Islam to enforce His laws in the West, just as He used the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar – unbeknownst to him — as an enforcer against the wayward Hebrews (see the book of Daniel).
Many solutions have been tried by ordinary people to end the Muslim invasion of Europe, but all have failed.  For example , Harry Taylor mocked Islam and was fined and jailed; secularist Geert Wilders made a movie “Fitna,” critical of Islam and has proposed banning the Koran, but that suggestion opens the door to the banning of other expressions as well, including potentially the Bible. He too was threatened with prison and will be tried soon.

Many other activists, including celebrities and high-ranking politicians, such as Nigel Farage, have railed against the EU and its out-of-control immigration policies that fill Europe with Muslims who refuse to integrate. Though an intelligent and fiery speaker, Farage is largely ignored by the media and EU leaders.

Many “intellectuals,” ignorant of history, declare that Christianity starts wars – ignoring that 100 million innocents were slaughtered by atheistic communism in the 20th Century. Others absurdly declare that Hitler was a Christian . This is all grit for Muslim mills.

So from a secular standpoint, you have a completely incomprehensible phenomenon: a Ruling Class insisting on importing Muslims and according them special status (welfare payments, enclaves of their own where police are not allowed to enter).

Such behavior does nothing but harm the ruled class (now reduced de facto to increasingly impoverished serfs), the economy, law and order, and makes no sense from a human standpoint.

But from a biblical standpoint, it is perfectly comprehensible that amoral Westerners, who reject God and accept moral relativism, even deliberately protecting sinful sexual behavior (eg, homosexuality, see, Romans 1:25-28), should be subject to the whims of a group that insists on a rigid set of moral rules and even threatens them with physical harm or annihilation if they continue to disobey.

God allowed the disobedient Jews on several occasions to be banished from their homeland and enslaved.  The Old Testament (Tanakh) is in fact mainly the story of man’s disobedience to God and the dire consequences thereof.

Our situation here in the West is astonishingly analogous.

There is one solution out of this conundrum, but it is one few Europeans and not all that many Americans can countenance (many, for example, have been brainwashed into believing Christianity is evil and causes war): return to our Christian roots and stop playing at religious relativism, atheistic Marxism and atheistic or secular libertarianism, the same ideologies that have failed since the beginning of recorded history.  

To answer Islam intelligently and effectively, Christianity must be strengthened morally and Christians must follow their Book in their daily actions, but avoid interpreting it in a way that allows them to practice sinful and self-destructive hedonism. Specifically, we must stop promoting abortion, prostitution, drug abuse, dishonesty in business, finance and government, sexual libertinism such as divorce, adultery and homosexuality, and be pure and above reproach, like the Hebrew captives Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Babylon, who ultimately led King Nebuchadnezzar to the Lord. Only in that way — that is, by walking the straitened and narrow — can westerners restore their honor and prestige in the world, and more importantly, find their way through the narrow gate.

The West has a long way to go in returning to a Biblical worldview. In fact, we are running, not walking, in the opposite direction, gleefully tossing aside the moral principles that once set us apart and made our country great. Most churches have ignored or distorted Biblical teachings, betrayed Christ and sinned mortally in so doing. Many churches of America, the Church of England and the evangelische Kirche in Germany, to name but a few, are on the verge of accepting homosexual marriage and ordaining homosexual clergy.  Many churches have support groups where not only divorced, but also separated – and still-married – men and women can meet people of the opposite sex for the purpose of finalizing the breach in their marriages. This open, festering sin is encouraged by the church leaders, most of whom never once encourage separated couples to renew their vows, considering it passé and psychological incorrect to do so. Some US churches openly support abortion. To avoid supporting the openly anti-Christian policies of apostate churches, house churches may be the only solution for many. We can do that — just as the Chinese do.

Many of us will be persecuted. We can do persecution. We’ve done it for 2,000 years.

But what we can’t do is continue to wallow in our sins and call ourselves Christians.
There is no way loveless, man-centered religion — false Christianity and the harsh militant religion of Islam — can be defeated except through a rigorous return to the religion of love in a genuine heart-felt and lasting revival, complete with weeping and heartfelt repentance. Not just a return, but a renewed devotion and commitment to the Lord of Lords and to His commandments. Though apostate leaders, touting the “Age of Grace,” insist that “Christians” can continue their sinful, disobedient lifestyles and still be saved, Jesus said “I am come not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law.” By this he is not referring to those parts of the law that were abused by the legalists of his day, such as the Levitican dietary laws, but rather to those biblical laws that, as Paul implies in Romans 1:18-20, all human beings deep down know to be righteous and true, laws which Cicero, for example,  called “natural law.”  In so saying, Christ makes it crystal clear: The Ten Commandments and other godly principles still apply.

He can save us from our past sins, but, as he said to the woman at the well, “go and sin no more.” That last part of the story is the part modern church leaders want us to forget.

Rigorous adherence to Biblical teachings on the part of kind and gentle Christians would put Christianity far above the legalistic, rigid and violent Islam, if it were taken as seriously as it deserves to be taken. Muslims would convert by the millions if they saw Christians behaving like Christians: humble, gentle, kind, patient, morally pure but wise. But thanks to false teachers, pastors and other religious leaders, Christianity has come to mean for many: Play first, pray later, pay never.
This is tragically out of keeping with the teachings of Christ and will lead our Western culture, and many souls, to irremediable perdition.

By putting aside all the secularist, psychological brainwashing of and by their leaders over the last half-century, true Christians can still muster the moral authority to assert themselves in the West.

They can, and they should.

Because if they fail to accept God’s moral laws in their own lives, then those laws will be brutally forced on them by God’s enforcers.

It’s already happening.

Muslim brutality documented in MSM:

Journalist Daniel Pearl beheaded

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/12/iraq/main616901.shtml

Nick Berg beheaded

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119615,00.html

Briton beheaded

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1190477/British-man-Edwin-Dyer-beheaded-Al-Qaeda-terrorists.html

This just in (Olavo de Carvalho):

http://financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/a-philosopher-warning

European Court imposes immorality on Russia

The European court, which has played the part of God to packed houses in continental political theaters for decades, is now trying to assert the same role in Russia, demanding that this sovereign nation yield its sense of moral rectitude to the decadent West’s political correctness — and specifically, demanding that Russia allow “gay” parades and even pay a fine for past infractions of “human rights” in refusing to allow such parades.

Meanwhile Russia has always maintained that homosexuality spreads disease, is unnatural and offends the morals of Russians. 

While the sheeplike European nations have invariably fallen into line behind the unelected officials of the EU, I somehow can’t see Russia bowing to this pressure from the Western know-it-alls.  If they do, these snotty elites will have achieved what Napoleon, and later Hitler, were unable to do when they sent their armies into Russia: make her bow to the wishes of an arbitrary and godless foreign Empire.

Many Christians and the politically incorrect are — secretly or openly — hoping Russia stands her ground and refuses to cede her sovereignty to the arrogant European Court. Most probably think the Russians will flout the decision just to flex their muscles and show us who is boss.

That would certainly be one good reason for them to hold their ground. After all, like China, the other non-western super power, Russia has never shown the least bit of sympathy for the nebulous notion of “interdependence” that is the philosophical foundation for global elitism.  However, Russian history provides clues to an even more deeply rooted motive.

From the 1860s on, there was a smoldering social revolt gaining ground in Russia as the ideas of the “enlightenment” began trickling in, primarily from France, carried back by young aristocrats who had been to Paris and other European capitals and had been infected with the libertinism reigning among young university students there. The ostensible premises for change were political but were served up on a platter garnished liberally with heady promises of sexual freedom irresistible to young Russians of all social strata.

Thus from about the 1860s, Russia was shepherded into a European style socio-political revolutionary mindset that paved the way for the actual revolution in 1917.

But as with all revolutions, unexpected consequences set in. In retrospect, the revolutionaries should have seen it coming. Older Russians, even those sympathetic to the revolution, always had a disdain for the French and their moral depravity, as evidenced in the works of authors like Tolstoy and Turgenev.

Very shortly after the revolution, this titillating sexual apéritif that had provided a kind of euphorigenic drug, numbing the masses to the otherwise less-palatable realities (the blood baths and internecine warfare that led to the murder of thousands, including the czar and his family), was quickly swept away, supplanted by a rigid totalitarianism intolerant of the young idealists and their romantic notions of free love and Parisian-like communes. Anyone nourishing hopes of restoring the cherished libertinism was crushed. Some went to prison, others were murdered, others simply disappeared.

The fiery young poet Mayakovsky committed suicide. Others did the same as it dawned on them that the paradise they had longed for was turning into a sexually repressed hell, at least by their jaded standards.

Now, in terms of mores and sexual libertinism, Europe is approximately where Russia was then. So which way will Russia go this time, you ask?

It is clear that ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the government was in no way sympathetic to the “gay” culture that had tried to carve inroads into its cities. The Muscovite mayor consistently refused permits for gay parades and when the “grassroots homosexuals” defied the bans, he bashed heads.

If we consider that Russian strong man Putin comes from the old-regime’s KGB, it will be no surprise if Russia decides either to ignore this decision by the European Court or even to drop out of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If that should happen, then we can put this Russian intransigence together with China’s refusal to upgrade its Renminbi and glimpse a picture of a West crumbling under the weight of its greed, arrogance, lust for power and loss of common sense and Christian values that once gave it moral authority over the rest of the world.

The West that once gained the upper hand over the Evil Empire, is quickly going bankrupt both economically and morally. As things turn out this time, it is not too big to fail either way no matter how many nations get together and bleat in unison.

Because bears aren’t afraid of sheep.

copyright© Don Hank, M.A. in Russian Studies

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/russia-the-teacher-we-ignore/15.htm

Bank robbery in reverse

Remember when it was little guys who robbed banks?

By Don Hank

Remember when little guys robbed banks? Well, now big crooked bankers rob us, thanks to the crooks we put in office.

Alternet recently ran an amazing article on the ten most corrupt capitalists. I take issue with the use of the word “capitalists” to refer to people whose behavior is best described by the term “fascist” or, as my UK friends politely say, “corporatist.”

But the point is, as a quick scan of that column shows, if you want to get rich through corruption, the winning formula is to be an investor who is well connected to government officials. The popular bank bailouts, started under G.W. Bush and pursued enthusiastically by the Obama administration, are the quintessence of the concept. The idea is to hit up the taxpayer to make your banking buds richer. Of course, no kickbacks ever occur, because crooked politicians wouldn’t stoop that low.

Most of us are vaguely aware that this phenomenon of government-private partnering as part of a get-rich scheme is not just happening in America. It is all the rage in Europe as well, and the following illustrates to just what extent.

Previously, we had run a German language column (no translation yet) at Laigle’s Forum exposing a giveaway of hard-earned EU taxpayer money to millionaire investors in Panama under the wafer-thin guise of “carbon credits.” I sent the column to a number of outlets and a Swiss publisher asked for permission to reprint it there. Briefly, the column shows that the investors received the cash because they planned to build a hydroelectric plant instead of a coal-fired power plant.

What’s wrong with that, you say?

Two things come to mind:

1—There never have been nor ever will be coal-fired power plants in Panama. Thanks to the country’s rich water resources, rivers brimming with enormous flows and lakes to back them up, anyone proposing the construction of a coal-fired plant would become laughingstock immediately. Therefore, the incentive is not an incentive.

2—The same people who want to give the “carbon credits” to Panama for not proposing a coal-fired plant are keen on distributing “carbon credit” wealth to the Tata company to build a coal-fired plant in Gujarat, India under the paper thin pretext that this plant is more efficient than ordinary coal-fired plants.

In other words, there is always an excuse to rob from the poor to give to the rich. The governments of 2 continents saw how readily we swallowed the warnings that the banks would all collapse without a bailout, and now the sky’s the limit.

Now here comes an even taller tale of poor-to-rich wealth redistribution — but a true one (sorry, I was unable to find an English language report on the web).

The report comes from a small conservative blog but is backed up by facts from German radio/TV giant ARD and the widely read mainstream German daily Welt, and my translation follows:

Banker profits most from bailout?

The billionaire rakes in an additional 12 billion from the billion euro grab in Germany. He’s friends with EU Chief Commissioner Jose Manuel Barroso. Get the picture?

Naturally, the report by the ARD didn’t come out until after mental pygmies in the Bundestag (German Lower House) agreed to the package.

According to the report, the billionaire gets an additional 12 billion euros because ordinary Germans are being forced by greedy hands with long arms and fingers reaching into the multi-billion euro grab bag shoveled in by the Bundestag.  Is it insane to wonder whether money is being transferred to certain parties in Germany from these 12 billion extra euros that the billionaire will rake in? Are we out of our minds to think about a secret ugly but juicy kick-back?

The ARD web site explains the European Central Bank (EU) is buying Greek government junk bonds and that Spiro Latsis, Greece’s most powerful banker, is the chief beneficiary. He owned the government bonds, which fell to a value of zero until the EU bought them back from him at face value. Latsis is a personal friend of EU Commission Chief Barroso, who is one of the decision makers in the bailout process. The conflict of interests is obvious, and the ordinary Europeans who paid the bill now know the story.

Once they have taken our last dime, we may all finally figure things out.

Just don’t expect to get your money back.

Does Europe have a future?

With the article appearing below, Dr. Hans Penner makes his English-language debut here on Laigle’s Forum. With the exception of the reference to Roman law, you could practically substitute “America” for “Europe” and “Germany” in this essay.

It is clear that a unified single agenda, which you can call the Left, or the international Left, is responsible for the changes occurring throughout the Western world.

Interestingly, it was a group of German leftist academics, known as the Frankfurt School, that contributed perhaps the most to the destruction of our American culture. Yet their stealth tactic was not a distinctly German one. In the late 1800s, a group of dedicated communists — including Karl Marx’s sister — had gathered in an upper-class residence in London to discuss just how communism could be implemented without violence, by promoting all of the sub-agendas without naming its name. They called it the Fabian Society.

How successful was this group?

Just to give you an idea: Tony Blair is a prominent member of the society. Bet you didn’t know this close ally of George W. Bush was part of such a group, did you?

You weren’t supposed to. Hiding out in the open is one of the most successful Fabian subterfuges and it is succeeding.

Don Hank

 

Europe could have a future

By Dr. Hans Penner

“The Decline of the West” (Oswald Spengler) is not an inevitable outcome of history but rather the consequence of political mistakes. Europe can have a future if this future is desired.  The European Union does not show this desire for a future. We need another path. The path to the future is not hard to find.  We recognize the path to the future if we see Europe as a tree whose roots must be cultivated.

Theodor Heuss, the first president of the Federal Republic of Germany knew the path to the future. In his founding speech he quoted the Bible: “Righteousness exalts a nation.”  Paradoxically, we find this path not through sustainability fantasies but by looking at Europe’s past:  “There are three hills from which Europe got its start: Golgotha, the Acropolis in Athens and the capitol in Rome. The West is intellectually influenced by them all, and they can, and must, be seen as one.”  Thus the tree of Europe has three roots: Greek thought, Roman law and the Christian faith.

 

Greek thought

Greek thought began with the decision to explain the cognizable world on the basis of natural causes.  Logic and Mathematics were developed. Superstition, mysticism and myth were rejected. Thought and knowledge were systematized. Plausibility and working hypotheses became the bases of scientific thought. “Science is the recognition of reality for purposeful action” (Adolf von Harnack).

There is a vigorous attempt underway to sever this root. Postmodernism is characterized by rejection of thought and cognitive regression. Theologians boast of having no clue about science. Students of technology are scarce.  The Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) is approaching a complete lack of logic. Feelings are everything; thinking is hit or miss. Spirituality is in; plausibility is out. The solution to our problems is sought in absurd myths and viewpoints. Far Eastern mysticism delights our contemporaries. Public statements must be politically correct, not rationally founded. The Greek sense of order and moderation, and critical thinking are in disrepute.

Symbolic of our era is the irrational climate religion: “(Environment Minister) Jüttner is outraged that the Federal Institute (of Geoscience) is endorsing a new book by their colleague Ulrich Berner. This climate researcher attributes the so-called greenhouse effect primarily to the sun and not, for example, to industrially emitted toxins… Jüttner: “The inescapable conclusion that politics in Germany is insane really makes me furious!” (Hannoversche Allgemeine, May 18, 2001).

The provisional Minister of the Economy Renate Kühnast propagated anthroposophic agriculture, based on alchemistic notions. In Germany, a morass of superstition and esoteric thinking has spread widely.

Roman Law

The beginnings of Roman law were based on binding customs from which practical solutions to typical individual cases were developed. The separation between ius and fas, i.e., between civil law and religious custom, was concluded with the first legal record, the Twelve Tables (450 B.C.).  Roman law was thereby separated from sacral oriental law. Modern democratic constitutional states are based on this separation of state and religion. The Romans also recognized the unity of the quest for justice with law.  Law is directed as a challenge to our will.

There is an intimate relationship between natural law and Roman law. According to Cicero, it is natural law that creates and preserves human welfare. There can be common welfare at the expense of individual welfare. Humankind is invested with natural law. Justice is a frame of mind. It has its origin in nature: “Natural law was not brought about by a mere concept. It is an entity present in nature that nature has implanted in us.”  Natural law is the law founded on the reason-endowed nature of man, independently of human legislation, unlike positive law established by the state. Human laws are based on natural law.

There is also an effort underway to sever the root of Roman law in Germany. There is a vast array of legal prescriptions that have no basis in reason. The relationship between law and legal consciousness is therefore lost. A concept established under Chancellor Helmut Kohl enables the illegal killing of innocent unborn humans to be perpetrated with impunity if the killing physician is presented with a “certificate of consultation.”

As Bernward Büchner, President Judge of the Administrative Court of Freiburg, said, this provision leads to the destruction of our sense of legality. To declare socially undesired people as “unworthy of life” is national socialist (nazi) ethics.

Islam, which is invading increasingly broad areas of public life, is incompatible with Roman law and hence un-Constitutional. The Federal Supreme Court has introduced components of Islamic religious law into German law, i.e., the slaughter of animals without sedation.

Christianity

 Christianity was founded in the near East by a Jewish craftsman named Jesus. At the age of 30 years, he began to challenge people to change their way of thinking. His teaching consisted of two propositions:

 —we are to love God with all our heart, i.e., have a personal relationship with God.

—we are to love our fellow man as ourselves.

 Jesus taught freedom of faith. He rejected all forms of religious coercion. Jesus healed sick people and asked people to trust him personally. Because of the conflict with the religious leaders of his time, he was executed by crucifixion by the Roman occupying forces in Jerusalem. Three days after his death, he appeared to numerous people in the flesh. No scientific doubt about the resurrection of Jesus is justifiable.

 The Christian faith is one of the bases of European culture and of the high European living standard. The ethic of Christian faith is also the basis of the social market economy that permitted the reconstruction of Germany after the war and prosperity for all.

The concept of human rights came about as part of the Christianization of societies and states as the dignity of man was recognized in politics and law. Because a human being is free only in his bond with God, the source of all blessings, those persons and societies that minimize or reject God lose their freedom and run the risk of losing the privilege to exercise their rights.” (Miller)

 The Christian faith is the target of massive assaults. Islam views the Christian faith as blasphemy worthy of death. In particular, the destruction of the family structure of our nation and the torpedoing of the principle of faithfulness and belief are anti-Christian activities.

What must be done today

 This review of the cultural origins of Europe shows what must be done today for Europe to have a future:

 —Europe’s cultural roots must be studied.

—Europe’s cultural roots must be cultivated.

—political forces that destroyed the cultural roots of Europe must be resisted.

 

Dr. Hans Penner is a chemist. He has taught in German universities and in the former Soviet Union.“““““““““““““““““““

 This essay first appeared in the original German language at 

http://www.eip-news.co.cc/2010/02/europa-konnte-zukunft-haben/

Translated by Don Hank

Milan court sentences Google officials to prison for posting whistleblowing video

Milan court sentences Google officials to prison for whistle-blowing video

I have shown before that the internet is very much under attack in Europe, which now completely controls it. Censorship-happy Europe is the very worst place to be controlling your freedom of speech.

The world elites are stealing our freedom incrementally by stealth, just as they have been doing for the last century since the founding of the Marxist Fabian Society in England.

Now some Google officials have been sentenced to prison in Europe for allowing the posting of a video clip showing a boy with Down’s syndrome being abused by a group of students. It was hardly what anyone would call graphic or violent footage but it was a good excuse for censorship that could not be left to go to waste.

The group Vividown brought suit and the judge sentenced the Google officials to prison based on an alleged violation of the victim’s privacy. Nota bene: There is no mention of any trial against the perpetrators. Clearly, no one is portraying them in a bad light.

Anyone who expects to be able to use the Internet freely from here on out is not paying attention.

There are at least 2 reasons why the court (in Milan) accepted the suit and issued this incredibly draconian sentence, not on the perpetrators of the abuse but on those who dared to make it public:

1–The elites need to keep progressing toward total control of the Internet until they control it just as tightly as they do the “mainstream” press. Otherwise the masses may eventually break free and demand a say in the governments of their nations.

2–The only way illegal activity can continue unabated is by censoring the evidence — in this case, the video showing children harassing a handicapped boy. The real issue is the violation of the boy’s rights and in a common-sense traditional world, the courts and press would be focusing on the perpetrators and demanding they be punished.

But those days are gone. In the increasingly autocratic EU and in the individual governments of Europe, corruption abounds and officials are routinely getting away with misdemeanors and crimes. Those who take steps to expose them and bring them to justice are attacked in the media in subtle ways designed to make the unsuspecting public believe that telling the truth was somehow a criminal violation of their privacy rights. Thanks to distortions in the press, the issue becomes one of how whistleblowers violate people’s “rights” by telling the truth about perpetrators and abusers of human rights. Attention is diverted away from the perpetrators and toward those who exposed them. Readers are gently persuaded to accept the notion that committing crimes or violating human rights is of little consequence, but that exposing a perpetrator is a criminal violation of privacy.

Think about it. If this new policy of trying and punishing the ones who report crimes under color of “protecting the victim” and ignoring or downplaying the perpetrators is pursued to its logical end, anyone who reports on a crime in detail in the media, particularly by showing images of graphic crime scenes or battered victims, can be considered to have violated the rights of the victim and can be given jail time, thereby trivializing the actual crime itself and inevitably paving the way for increased criminality. At the very least, in a reversal of technological advances, the presentation of videotaped evidence against perpetrators of crimes and misdemeanors would not only be inadmissable (as is sometimes the case already), but in fact would be punishable in some cases by harsher penalties than the crimes it was attempting to expose!

The following site (also from Europe — UK in this case) provides an important hint as to why the elites think it is important to make the whistleblowers appear to be the bad guy in order to cover up for high-ranking perpetrators:

http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/hollie-greig-scandal-talk-by-robert-green-1-of-5flv/153578043

So far, America has not fallen quite this far, thanks in large part to the Internet. But if the European elites can succeed in censoring the Internet throughout the world, it can easily happen here as well, even eventually becoming the norm. (In case you missed the news, control of the Internet was transferred from the US to Europe last year, and since then, the attacks on our freedom have been substantial).

Thus, in order to protect high-ranking evil doers and dictatorial policies, the Internet as we know it is being attacked like never before! They can’t afford to have you know the truth.

Europe has long been a dictatorship — where the people now have almost no say in any of the lawmaking process or choice of lawmakers or judges — but sadly, few Europeans realize it. Most are under the influence of the sensational media which keep them dazzled by images of glamorous stars and athletes, cats rescued by firemen, “global climate crisis” and the latest cinematic achievements.

We will see more and more of this censorship and down-dumbing as time goes on. The pretext is privacy, but the real issue is freedom of speech. The use of Down’s syndrome as an excuse to censor is a new and creative one. Just wait. There will be thousands of such excuses and each one will seem “justified” to the uninitiated who fail to understand what is going on behind the scenes.

But legal censorship isn’t the only way to silence sites like this one. Recently, the far-left site Tecnorati condemned Laigle’s Forum as “neo-nazi” for the article “Enjoy the internet while you can.” Other than mention of an anonymous report, no reason was given for this, but my best guess is that I had mentioned in the article that the far-left Frankfurt School was founded by a group of Jewish German Marxists who came to the US in the early 30s to avoid the impending Holocaust. My use of the word “Jewish” is no-doubt deemed anti-Semitic by the hypersensitive tecno rats, and this pretext is no different from the use of Down’s syndrome as an excuse to go after whistleblowers. Of course, if I hadn’t mentioned they were Jewish, the reader would have been left wondering why a group of Germans would be fleeing before the impending holocaust, so the use of the word was clearly not racist. Besides, I didn’t say anything negative about them, only that they were intent on destroying traditional American culture, and that’s a positive for the far left, so what’s the problem?

But the point is: for a group of Marxist activists desperate to censor, any excuse will do.

There is very little time left for the public to wake up in time to save what is left of the New Media from the wolves.

Enjoy it while you can. Or better yet, help save it by spreading the word.

Don Hank

European censorship

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/13/you-can-help-stop-world-dictatorship/

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/16/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/

Is there a REAL grassroots out there?

Ok, the American people showed we could march on Washington in dazzling numbers. We showed we could support a less-leftist candidate than Obama’s favorite.

But if you’re still feeling smug about RINO Scott Brown beating far-left Democrat Martha Coakly, it’s time to come back to earth. Fast.

I told you at that time there would be lots of work to do — and undo. Some got mad and said I was an alarmist. Some said my attitude was not Christian because we should try to convert Brown into a real conservative rather than criticize him. This is how we got to where we are today, incrementally, one RINO at a time, always believing we could make friends with them. Some people just don’t understand it doesn’t work that way and never will. The Left is a ratchet wheel. It only turns in one direction. Proof of that is where we are today, where the world is today, further and further from freedom and enlightenment, dropping year by year in our world ranking in education. Dumb, dumber, going, going, soon to be gone!

I warned you of excessive euphoria over Brown because it was clear this euphoria had shriveled up a lot of “conservative” brains to pea-size and had people actually believing Brown was a Divine Gift — one of the fatal flaws of the false Christianity that inundates our churches.

We had been warned by cooler heads that Brown had voted with the “liberals” in the Massachusetts Senate (need I remind you most are to the left of Hugo Chavez) 91% of the time and was openly pro-abortion — despite the totally unearned and disgraceful endorsement he got from MA Citizens for Life.

Ok, the “conservatives” have proven they can elect a left of center RINO to the Senate. But don’t forget that the Democrats were no doubt relieved to hear Brown say, shortly after his election, that he will not be voting with the Republicans on a routine basis.

Does Brown need to say more to convince his voters he despises them?

I am not saying there was an alternative. What I am saying is that his election can be expected to have a RINO-boosting effect, particularly for McCain, and the GOP are already trying to make hay of it. Brown is now busy campaigning for Mr. Amnesty-Open Borders John McCain. If McCain re-takes his Senate seat, that will spell a huge loss for the grassroots because it will mean that “conservatives” have fallen into the psychological trap set by the elitist GOP leadership. Here is the setup:

1–Convince the grassroots that “they” succeeded in electing Brown, and that

2–Brown is a conservative

3–Have this newly minted “conservative” Scott Brown support John McCain and other RINOs for high offices

Please bear in mind that the grassroots has yet to score a real victory in the tea party anti-Obama movement. The real winners so far are the GOP open-borders elite who despise America and couldn’t give a rap about you and your job security and personal secutiry. They have at least 2 things going for them:

1–The Brown win, which only seems like a victory for many of you, and

2–The phony news that joblessness has sunk to below 10%.

The Brown “victory” only serves to give you false hope that things will be different from now on, and the phony figures from the Obama administration are intended to make you forget that open borders and amnesty are deadly prospects that can take us further down the path to economic ruin (we have forgotten that millions of the subprime mortgages that poisoned the world economy went to illegal aliens). BTW, I call those figures phony because the rise corresponds mostly to government jobs, which are in fact a drag on the real economy and far from bringing in needed tax dollars, they cost the taxpayer more money. I also say they are phony because they do not include the workers who have given up on job hunting. Economist Jerome Corsi recently estimated the true unemployment rate at over 20%.

So if you think the war is over, it has only just begun. So be like Gideon’s soldiers and keep an eye on that weapon, Soldier! You will need it.

JD Hayworth may not be an exemplary candidate to unseat McCain, but he is anti-invasion. He does not want to outsource your job to an outlaw who sneaked into your country and wants to stay and eat your lunch. And the GOP elite is scared to death of him. That alone should tip you off.

As such, Hayworth, if he can be taken at his word, represents something infinitely more than just law and order. He represents American sovereignty in a further reaching sense. Our pastors and politicians have told us for almost 20 years that the immigrant is a gift of God and must be treated with the utmost respect. They didn’t tell  you that because they are devout. They told you that because they are far left.

That the immigrant is a person deserving respect is not necessarily untrue, but the devil is in the definition.

An immigrant, traditionally, is a person who comes to our shores with a visa in hand stating he is approved by our government. He has the ability to earn his keep, is not likely to depend on welfare, will obey the law, will be a contributor, or in some cases, will return to his home country once his stint is done.

A person who breaks the law to enter here is not much more than a thief. Yet, our churches (many of which don’t deserve that name) are busy teaching us that there is no such thing as an illegal alien. Some even make sanctuaries out of their churches to hide lawbreakers.  Yet these same pastors would call the police if a stranger surreptitiously entered their homes late at night. To put it diplomatically, they are rank hypocrites.

But sovereignty is much more than just wanting to have protected borders. A politician today who cares about the sovereignty of our country is a rare jewel. A chilling number of high-placed politicians, like McCain, are members of the CFR, a group that is seriously intent upon not only erasing borders but also dragging you into supranational government intended to replace the national one. If you want to know why that is a problem, ask anyone in Europe, where national “governments” are reduced to mere rubber stamps of the European Union, which is nothing but a wealth redistribution enforcer. It practices a unique form of communism under color of law, keeps allowing a constant influx of Third World immigrants, many of them common criminals, writes and enforces increasingly anti-Christian and anti-freedom policy and is increasingly hated by ordinary people, who have absolutely no say in all of this.

Already the EU is talking about not only taxing the internet (Europe is now in control of the Net!) but also issuing licenses for internet use.

Now is the time to show grassroots muscle because tomorrow may be too late. We have not made a move yet that is outside the scope of the elitists’ plans. They think they have us just where they want us.  And if we can’t succeed in unseating McCain, then they are absolutely right!

BTW, a lot of you probably think I sit around most of the time scratching my head wondering what to write for Laigle’s Forum. That’s not quite how it works. My readers send me stuff that is important and I just say what I think about it, off the top of my head. I don’t have to sit around wondering what to write next. Quite to the contrary, I sit around and think “now, which of those ideas do I postpone to address this urgent issue.”  For instance, here is something that just came in as I was thinking about what a horrible bully McCain is. It is unbelievable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0b1TRt-Cn8

Ok, please read what Alex Isenstadt says in the article below about McCain and his bullying tactics to keep Hayworth from defeating him. If you are from Arizona, kindly forward a link to this article to all your friends and family. Tell em friends don’t let friends vote for bullies.

John McCain turns up heat on J.D. Hayworth

By ALEX ISENSTADT | 1/26/10 4:45 AM EST
Updated: 1/26/10 3:37 PM EST

One year after seeing his presidential ambitions extinguished in an overwhelming defeat, Arizona Sen. John McCain is launching a scorched-earth campaign aimed at incinerating a reelection challenge from J.D. Hayworth, the conservative former Arizona congressman and radio talk show host.

McCain is attempting, with a series of hardball tactics, to cut Hayworth down before his campaign even gets off the ground. He’s mounted a concerted effort during the past month to push Hayworth off the airwaves, run an ad targeting Hayworth on his own radio station and warned him through emissaries that going through with a bid to unseat McCain would be a serious mistake.

One source familiar with the McCain campaign said the offensive was only a preview of things to come, adding, “I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of this.”

The anti-Hayworth effort began in earnest Dec. 15, when Grant Woods, the former Arizona attorney general and onetime McCain chief of staff, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Woods argued that Hayworth, who has used his KFYI drive-time program to blast away at McCain as a soft-on-immigration moderate, was essentially getting free airtime to wage a campaign as a de facto candidate.

Then, last week, McCain campaign attorneys Paul Charlton and Joseph Abate also wrote the FEC to complain that Hayworth was effectively using his radio show as a campaign platform, arguing that Hayworth’s radio parent company Clear Channel “has an obligation not to allow one specific candidate ­ regardless of that candidate’s occupation ­ unfettered daily use of its facilities to promote his candidacy for federal office.” 

Read more.