Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.

Even after Paris, Libertarians want open borders

 

Even after Paris, Libertarians endorse open borders

 

by Don Hank

 

The libertarian think tank Mises Institute just published an article titled ISIS May Be Our Ally Some Day. (My thanks to our friend Peter in the UK for this tip).

Expressed in the following sentence from the piece is perhaps the most dangerous error of ideological Libertarianism:

 

“In the West, since the nineteenth century, nationalism has largely filled the role of manufacturing consent to government domination, by drawing arbitrarily the contours of a fantasized historical and cultural community.”

Libertarians make the same mistake as radical leftists in that they ignore cultural identity and pretend it does not exist. I discussed this and its disastrous effects here.

Their attitude is: 50 million people share the same likes and dislikes, the same customs, the same religion and the same cultural identity? So what? It’s up to us to erase this identity to protect the world from war and enslavement.

Liberals, including Libertarians, think that it was nationalism that gave the world the Third Reich and WW II. Quite the opposite is true. It was indeed the supranational idea of a united Europe that inspired Hitler, and the idea was carried on by his former officials after the war to create the EU dictatorship, as disclosed  here and here and in this video by Edward Spalton and Rodney Atkinson, respectively.

By attempting to erase all cultural differences, Libertarianism and Leftism both seek to dominate while hypocritically endorsing “liberty.”  Instead of divide and conquer, they seek to artificially unite and conquer.

The author mentions the 19th Century as a turning point, alluding to the Treaty of Westphalia which enshrined in international law the concept of respecting the sovereignties of nations. Today’s utter disregard for national sovereignties gave us, for example, the hideous grotesquery of a shattered Libya where the US hegemon decided arbitrarily to take out Ghadaffi, a progressive and beloved secular leader who brought unprecedented prosperity by refusing to allow Islamic radicalism to get the upper hand. The author is, perhaps unwittingly, supporting this lawlessness.

The contours of a historical and cultural community they speak of are anything but arbitrary. Calling them arbitrary is indeed arbitrary in itself. The author is referring to national groupings whose constituent populations identify with each other sentimentally and intellectually. Nor is this community in any way a fantasy.

Go tell an Italian that the Italian identity is a fantasy. Be prepared to run.

But especially, do not tell a Russian that there is no such thing as a Russian identity. It’s all in his head (BTW, the Russians’ strong sense of identity is one of the main reason for the utterly irrational hatred of all things Russian that permeates the West, particularly the upper strata, who cleave to the dangerous notion of supranationality endorsed by the Mises Institute author). False modesty aside, I am particularly alert to cultural differences because of my intimate exposure to many cultures and languages over about 55 years. My analysis is not only from intuition or from a study of other people’s ideas, eg, from having read books or heard lectures, but primarily from years of experience in total-immersion experiences in the field. Why listen to an armchair philosopher when you can get it from the horse’s mouth? Listen to me: Culture is real, more real than anything libertarians or their soul mates the liberal leftists have ever written. They, along with the liberal leftists, are in fact the reality-denying fantasists who promote the dangerous fantasy of a one-world world government that has wrecked swaths of our world both under the communists of the 20th Century and under the EU.

The lie that statehood and national identity do not exist is what is bringing down Europe before our eyes, flooding it with unvetted “refugees” from terror-nurturing countries and foisting a failed monetary system and military program on its constituent states, all subservient to the US government. It has enabled a small deceitful cabal to bring an entire continent to virtual economic and social ruin.

America is on the way to such a union. GW Bush tried to foist the North American Union on us years ago. Fortunately, Americans – most of whom think of ourselves as a nation despite the ill-intentioned propaganda of the kind so cheekily represented by the Libertarians above – protested vigorously and the project was apparently scrapped. But in reality, even after the elites stopped naming its name, they stealthily pursued its goals as vigorously as before, with Bush opening our borders ever wider, allowing more and more illegal aliens into our country and even refusing to repatriate violent criminals who had entered the US illegally, as I showed here long before Donald Trump raised the issue. Obama is carrying Bush’s torch. You don’t have to name it to create a supranational union. The unnamed ones are the most dangerous.

Like all ideologies, Libertarianism must deny reality to survive and receive donations. One clue as to why we ignore Putin to our peril is that he has stated publicly that he has no ideology at all. Recently he was named the most powerful man in the world. Realism is power. Ideology is doomed to failure.

 

 

 

 

 

What Adolf did with malice, Merkel does with kindness

What Adolf did with malice, Merkel does with kindness

They’re just as dead…

by Don Hank

 

Germany is finding out what cosmic justice is (if you are a Christian, you call it divine justice).

Back in 2011, Germany pledged 100 million euros to support the Arab Spring. Angela Merkel was from the government and was here to help.

It may have been supported with all the best of intentions, but the Arab Spring started wars that immediately got out of control and brought terror, chaos and mass emigration to the Middle East, which is still ablaze now, 4 years later. The people who warned this would happen were very effectively silenced by the German government, which is very good at this sort of thing, having practiced at it since the 30s.

Thus, the promised democracy didn’t materialize and thousands upon thousands died.

Germany, undaunted, and always wanting to be the hero that saves the day, offered the immigrants refuge in Germany. Just as the Kanzlerin had forgotten that it was her and her allies’ support for the Arab Spring that brought them there, Angela Merkel carelessly forgot to tell them there would be a limit to the number of them taken in.

During the first days of the immigrant wave, she spoke via news sources, scolding and threatening with legal consequences all the countries that refused to open their doors as she had done, suggesting to the world that they were selfish scrooges while she was a morally superior Joan of Arc.

Then all of a sudden, reality slapped Angela in her angelic face: German capacity was overburdened.

So she found herself obliged to do what some of the other, more realistic, nations had done – the ones she had scolded for doing what she was now doing. She closed Germany’s borders.

But so what? Germany is the biggest exporter in Europe and the 2nd biggest in the world after China, thought Merkel. We’ll let them in once we get a little richer. And then we’ll…

OOOOOPPPS!!! Volkswagen, one of the main drivers of German exports was spotlighted by the EPA as a fraud, having lied about emissions from VW diesels! It will cost the company up to $18 billion dollars!

Today, VW stocks are down 25% and that could be just the beginning.

There’s more than one moral here (but a euro says Frau Merkel will not learn any of them):

1– Respect the sovereignty of other countries. Trying to export democracy – especially to a country that already has a democratically elected government and respects its minorities (think Syria) – will have unexpected consequences, such as causing untold harm to the country you wanted to “help” and bringing ruin to your own country.

2 – Don’t let success go to your head. You could go from rags to riches overnight. So don’t set yourself up as the savior of the world with infinitely deep pockets.

3 – If you are helping others, don’t throw stones at those who are not doing what you are doing. They might just be smarter than you. There are a lot of immigrants who made it to Austria or Hungary, for example, but not quite to Germany and are seriously PO’d as they contemplate the closed border; and some other countries who bowed to pressure from Merkel to open their borders and let in immigrants are now stuck with a lot of disgruntled immigrants insisting to go to Germany, where they are no longer wanted by the Chancellor whose heart was bigger than her brain.

Merkel has a problem that she wouldn’t have if she had had a little foresight and common sense.

The German nation killed a lot of people in the Third Reich by being mean and selfish.

Now they are killing them with kindness in the Fourth.

They’re just as dead either way, Angela.

Frau Kanzlerin, can the world ask you a favor?

No more favors, please.

Thank you!

Don Hank

 

SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

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

 

It added a fundamental clause:

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

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

 

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

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

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

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

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

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

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

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

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

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

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

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

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

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

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

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

No problem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, the bankers win every time!

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

ARTICLE 108

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

has been achieved!

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

Conlusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French patriots!

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

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank

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  

The far-left connection to the Near-East rebellion

The far-left connection to the near-east rebellion

by Don Hank

It is now well known that Obama pals and Marxists Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Jody Evans were instrumental in instigating the rebellion in Egypt:

Without this far-left intervention and the blessings of the White House there may well have been no rebellion in Egypt, and a stable (though imperfect) regime would still be in place, friendly to the US and tolerant of Israel.

Since then the rebellion has spread to Libya, and this too is arguably part of the Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution. Indeed there are reportedly at least 100 Egyptian operatives there, as well as US and British commandos.

A reader objected to my latest column critical of the Coalition’s Operation Odyssey Dawn, and this is my response to his objections.

You are free to support with heart, mind, propaganda and even finances whomever you please, but excuse me if I decline to be part of a rebellion instigated by the far left and strongly supported by friends of Islamic terror who deny Israel’s right to exist. Excuse me if I see gross hypocrisy in supporting an all-out attack on a Middle East dictator who has long been cooperative with the West, while turning a blind eye to more egregious dictatorships like China (where a Noble prize winner is now in jail for speaking his mind) and North Korea (where dissidents and their families are routinely jailed and it is a crime to own a radio with unlimited tuning).  You say I want to soft-pedal on Ghadaffi. Yet you are perfectly content to soft pedal on the undemocratic rogue regimes of China and North Korea that also kill their own people at times (eg, Tiananmen Square).

Where were the noble contenders for democracy when China was holding Liu Xiaobao? Oh, that’s right, democracy champion Barack Obama was fêting him at the White House. Further, China is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which decided to attack Ghadaffi because he was behaving like a Chinese dictator. As for North Korea, we have sent them free food for years, and China, our “ally,” runs interference for that country. Apparently, the Koreans don’t need democracy.

But isn’t Iran also a dictatorship that suppresses democracy? Should we be soft pedaling on Iran? Well, judging by the silent consent of Western leaders, Iran is perfectly democratic. There was an uprising there during the one in Egypt, but Obama didn’t think it would be appropriate to demand that Ahmadinejad step down. After all, that dictator, who has reportedly been executing people at the rate of one every 9 hours, is anti-Israel.  No need to get rid of him.  He’s on “our” side.  A few years back, the US Energy Department even subsidized 2 Russian institutes that helped build parts of reactors for Iran.

So if the true motives of the Fabian leaders for the attack on Libya are not the noble ones they enunciate, what is the motivation? The Left never starts anything that will not likely further their cause of world domination or that will have the outcome expected and intended by the public. That explains Obama’s role in opposing a regime that in recent years has been forthcoming toward Western interests, while ignoring regimes antagonistic to our interests. Sarkozy has an additional motive: he is up for re-election soon and needs a good war at his back.

It is more than obvious that replacing regimes that support the US and Israel with our enemies (like the street mobs of Egypt — dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; and of Libya — strongly allied with terror) will help the Left, as led by Obama and socialist Europe, to undermine Western culture and values.

The Fabian Socialists (of which Tony Blair is a member) were founded in the 1880s for the express purpose of spreading socialism and eliminating Christianity by stealth.

They believed that they could get away with anything as long as they pretended to be supporting worthy-sounding causes, and it is going swimmingly (Tony even has a religious foundation aimed at uniting all religions — that goes nicely with the Christian teaching: I [Jesus] am the way). They have managed to pretty much take over the West. You see, it wasn’t only Tony Blair. The entire power structure, top to bottom, is infested with globalist New World Order operatives, and “conservative” parties are in no way exempt. David Cameron used stealth to get elected, in keeping with the West’s trademark Fabian tactics. As head of the Conservative Party, he promised that, if elected, he would allow a referendum as to whether the UK should stay in the EU. Even though everyone now knows that was a lie, many see Dave acting like a “conservative” now, helping with a war effort in the tradition of “conservative” GW Bush (reminder: Blair’s staunchest ally). Yet starting wars whose predicted outcome is to undermine Christianity and our relations with the Middle East and endanger Israel is not necessarily a conservative thing to do, though it can certainly be deemed within the scope of Fabian stealth activities. It is hard to believe that any true conservative could support this cheap and transparent stealth tactic of starting wars for the apparent purpose of strengthening our enemies and weakening our friends. In fact, judging by the popularity of my last column on this topic (which has been reposted at several sites) and also the next-to-last (which shocked even me with the boldness of its conclusions), I seriously doubt any true conservatives do fall for this.

There is no excuse for Europeans to believe in the sincerity of the Western coalition. The Western powers that now support the attack on Ghadaffi, replete as it is with abundant collateral civilian casualties, are essentially the same leaders who insist on importing millions of hostile Muslims to Europe who refuse to assimilate and who not infrequently kill Westerners (like the people who bombed Madrid and London, like the killer of Theo van Gogh, and like so many other Islamic terrorists and violent criminals who had enjoyed Western hospitality or claimed the West as their home) or deliberately configure the Southern US border as a welcome mat for terrorists (eg, some of the 911 attackers) or promote rabidly anti-US soldiers to high ranks (eg, the Fort Hood shooter).

Democracy sounds like a worthy cause and the vast hordes of politically unsophisticated (whose study of history – or even current events — is next to non-existent) and the spiritually blind are liable to fall for this ruse.

However, the rest of us generally realize that if democracy were really a cause worth the shedding of blood, then Iran, for example, would be a nation marked by justice and protection of the weak — now that Carter has gotten rid of the cruel dictatorial Shah and paved the way for democracy there.

But the dirty open secret of democracy (as distinct from the republican form of government our founders founded) is that it neither protects the weak nor promotes justice. Invariably, it eventually winds up protecting the majority or a very powerful group of oligarchs, just as it did in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, N Korea, and just as it is now doing increasingly in the Americas and Europe.

And as for Christianity, by supporting the Coalition, we are contributing mightily – knowingly or unwittingly — to the demise of Judeo-Christianity in the world.

By supporting the Iraq war, we indirectly eliminated the Assyrian Christians in Iraq by toppling a dictatorship that protected them, and are now witnessing the genocide of  the Egyptian Copts, who were at least allowed to exist under Mubarak. Within a week after Mubarak stepped down, at Obama’s behest, the democratic activist military that replaced him attacked a monastery and shot a monk and six church workers, and they’re just getting warmed up.

Behold democracy, a foul fruit with a noble-sounding name.

Remember these fruits of past Western adventures in the Middle East when the conflagration starts in earnest in North Africa and the torrent of crocodile tears from the instigators and participants from our own democracy movement starts to drown the West.

In the end, we all believe what we choose to – whether out of dangerously naïve or false altruism or because we are sympathetic to the far-left Fabian New World Order.

In either case, we reap the consequences.

Obama is already reaping some of his, both at home and abroad.

The terrorists fighting Qadaffi (he’s too moderate for them):

http://emperors-clothes.com/libya.htm

Further reading by a readers and friends:

http://www.ravenhill.org/prophet.htm