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

The US loses another battle for hearts and minds

The US loses another battle for hearts and minds

 

by Don Hank

I never see in the media or the political world any connecting of the dots with regard to the US’s loss of prestige, and yet the ground is giving way under our very feet even as we party on into oblivion. It seems incredible to me that almost no one notices this geopolitical tectonic shift. Much of the US’s lost prestige and respect is due to Obama’s heavy handedness but after all, the US has been busy creating disasters for years — particularly military ones — that erode the trust our partners have invested in us. We will not recover this trust easily or quickly — perhaps not in any of our lifetimes.

I have been tracking this phenomenon roughly since my report on the total blackout regarding the major dedollarization effort by the Eurasians, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141009

The next major shift was marked by RMB clearing centers being built all over the world, and most notably in Europe, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141219

This got very few comments and I did  not see any indication that the rest of the Western press — including the alternative media — noticed or cared.

This was followed not long thereafter by the accession of almost all US allies to the Chinese investment bank AIIB, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150319 in another attempted wake-up call that went unnoticed.

These were followed by low-key statements by European leaders indicating that European “alllies” were no longer willing to bow to the Washington hegemon. These included statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the most powerful national leader in Europe and no less than Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the EU Commission, the most powerful man in Europe, as reported here: http://laiglesforum.com/game-over-for-obama-power-in-the-world/3523.htm

These statements showed that Europe’s allegiance was gradually turning from the US to Russia. NATO’s allegiance could no longer be taken for granted.

Now still another sign appears that Europe is ready to ditch its allegiance to the tyrant in DC. The EU Parliament has recently issued a statement in support of Edward Snowden, signaling that he could soon be welcomed in the EU despite all the accusations against him by US Neocons, whom Paul Craig Roberts aptly calls “inhuman filth” because of their interventions that sow chaos everywhere.

See:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20151022IPR98818/html/Mass-surveillance-EU-citizens%27-rights-still-in-danger-says-Parliament

Folks, please to not underestimate the importance of each of these small shots across the bow of the DC tyrant. They are all clear signals that the rest of the world is no longer willing to be pushed around by a government that:

1–Intentionally harmed the world economy with its subprime mortgages packaged and sold around the world under the watchless gaze of US agencies tasked with preventing such disasters

2–Intentionally threw the Middle East into near-total chaos with disastrous military interventions starting with Iraq.

The tyrant in Washington has been identified and is targeted for at least a major comeuppance that will definitely be felt as the US government falls into a deep isolation of its own making.

I fear the best we can hope for is lenience.

I will be updating this column from time to time because it is impossible to keep up with all the geopolitical shifts showing how the US is receiving rejection slips from the rest of the world:

Shift 11/3/2015:

 

Just today I saw an article in El País with an interview with Ban Ki-Moon, where he says (my translation):

“The future of president Assad must be decided by the Syrian people.”

That statement sounds innocuous to the uninitiated but it is in facta block buster because it is in fact a low-key challenge to the Washington policy that Assad must go no matter what the Syrians want, based on the highly dubious notion that the US is entitled to define morality and enforce it. It is also a perfect reflection of what Russia has been saying all long in favor of respecting national sovereignties and it flies in the face of Washington’s untenable position that the US should decide the fate of the Syrians. Washington in so doing fully intends to trample on the sovereignty of the Syrian people (just as it tramples on its own people), who have already suffered much. If anyone deserves to decide the fate of their president it is they.

Here, Ban Ki-Moon joins the swelling ranks of high level officials who cautiously oppose US policy and agree with Russia.

Shift 11/3/2015

Iraq has now effectively excluded the US from participation in military operations in that country against ISIS. Ater seeing the remarkable successes of Russia’s airstrikes in Syria, it realized only Russia will provide honest, sincere assistance in defeating ISIS in Iraq.

TO SECURE WORLD PEACE, KOSOVO MUST RETURN TO SERBIA!

TO SECURE WORLD PEACE KOSOVO MUST RETURN TO SERBIA !

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

Specialist in Public and International law

General Secretary of « Alliance pour la Souveraineté de la France ».

By its decision of 22nd July 2010, the International Court of Justice in the Hague (ICJ) ruled on the conformity of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) with international law. It is now necessary to consider the actual legal impact on Kosovo.

By ten votes against four, the ICJ concluded July 22, 2010: “The declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate international law or Resolution 1244 (1999) of the Security Council (1) or the constitutional framework. Accordingly, the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”

This is far from the noisily urbi et orbi conclusive statements of the socialist former High Representative of the General Secretary of the UN in Kosovo, French Foreign Minister and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner, proclaiming that: “This statement confirms that Kosovo’s independence is irreversible.”

In doing so, he broadens for his own purposes the conclusion of the ICJ, obscuring fundamental issues regarding the status of Kosovo, to twist international opinion by camouflage, as usual.

Indeed Mr. Hisashi Owada, President of the ICJ stated “the Court was not instructed by the question to determine whether international law gave to Kosovo a positive right to declare independence unilaterally and “The Court is not instructed to decide whether Kosovo has gained statehood.”

This is absolutely essential for the present and for the future. It allowed, rightly I say, and I will demonstrate herein, that Serbia could declare “never under any circumstances to recognize Kosovo’s independence”.

In this case, the conclusion of the ICJ is not a surprise, because it has long been settled that no principle of international law can oppose the right of peoples to self-determination.

Here we are at the heart of the question: is it part of the Serbian people in Kosovo which seceded? Of course not, since in fact the so-called “international community” that is to say, the United States and the EU, have added their huge military arsenals by supporting the so-called “Kosovo Liberation Army” (UCK) of Ibrahim Ruigova, underhandedly supplying weapons, military training  and financing.

In its usual unsavory manner, the “international community” practiced spreading outright lies so to manipulate international public opinion into consenting to the dumping of tons of depleted depleted uranium munitions over Serbia by the US and the EU.

Of course, this same “international community” says nothing about the realities of war crimes committed during and after the conflict and the abduction by the Albanians of Serbian civilians, men, women and children to collect some of their organs and route them to foreign clinics before killing  them all (2).

The ICJ has therefore been cautious in his conclusion. Besides, how could it do otherwise than to invalidate the first unilateral declaration of independence in history, that of of the United States of America on July 4th 1776?

Here are the reasons :

–          is it the Serbian people living in Kosovo, who declared independence?

The answer is no!

–          is it a democratically elected assembly representing the will of the Serbian people of Kosovo who declared independence?

The answer is no!

–          is this Declaration of Independence the expression of the Serbian Kosovars’ right to self-determination?

The answer is no!

–          is this statement the demonstration of the Serbian people’s will to establish the internal and external sovereignty of Kosovo?

The answer is no!

–           does this creates a sovereign state in the hands of the Serbian people?

The answer is no!

–          were the borders of the new state agreed upon with Serbia by treaty as required by the Vienna Convention and the principle of uti possidetis juris?

The answer is no!

All these reasons demonstrate that this secession does not meet the criteria of international law. Obviously, it is therefore not a secession of part of the Serbian people, but an invasion by the Albanian population in the Serbian province of Kosovo, with the military support of the “international community” (ie the USA and the EU).

Of course, if sometimes the invasion of part of a state, whatever it could be, by a foreign population was recognized as legal, and if this invading population proclaimed the independence of the annexed part of the State, international law would be stood on its head and the door would be wide open for all possible conflicts throughout the world.

It is no doubt for this reason, and to respect their signing of international treaties, that 123 UN member states (including Russia) out of 192 have not recognized the independence of Kosovo.

On the other hand, the judgment of the ICJ is a precedent in favor of legalizing a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) of the people of Quebec to free from the control of the Canadian federation and a UDI of the French people to break free from the European Union EU.

The ICJ judgment confirms that, as in the case of the United States of America, a Declaration of Independence, except in rare cases, is never upheld by institutions of the predecessor State.

That is why, to secure world peace, Kosovo must return to Serbia!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

(1)   The resolution 1244 (1999) suspended the sovereignty of Serbia on Kosovo.

(2) To protect the interests of high-ranking political figures, curiously, the international community was very quick to stifle this case by destroying evidence.

 

Bibliography :

 

–          « France qu’ont-ils fait de ta liberté ! » by Jean Foyer  (Former Minister of Justice of General de Gaulle) – François Xavier de Guibert Publisher.

–          Judgment of the International Court of Justice in The Hague (Netherlands). Press Release No. 2010/75 of 22nd July 2010.

–          “Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of 22 July 2010 on the legality of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo a precedent for secessionist entities?”  by Alexandra Chauvin, Law Degree at the University Paris X Nanterre.

–          « Srebrenica : mythe ou réalité d’un génocide ? » by Edward S. Herman.

–          « Kosovo assiégé, une bombe à retardement » by Philippe-Xavier PAULY. L’âge d’Homme Publisher.

 

Translation edited by Don Hank

Editor’s notes :

Carlos Ponte accuses leaders of Washington’s protégé state of Kosovo of trafficking in human organs :

Original French language version:

POUR GARANTIR LA PAIX DU MONDE LE KOSOVO DOIT REDEVENIR SERBE!

To the point

http://www.srbijadanas.net/serbian-kosovo-and-metohija-by-william-dorich/

 

Serbian KOSOVO and METOHIJA, by William Dorich

The magnitude of Kosovo reverberates across the centuries. It has survived 609 years and throughout the succeeding generations Kosovo has become the inspiration of an entire nation. And through its grandeur and its religious example it has influenced other nations to seek freedom. Kosovo permanently changed the face of Europe and altered history. Kosovo, 100 years before Columbus sailed for the New World, was a statement for religious freedom and the belief that no man had a right to rule another. Rather than to consent to become slaves to tyranny, the Serbs willingly gave their lives for their religious belief. Seldom in history have we witnessed such a commitment. The Serbs on the Kosovo Field not only paid with the staggering loss of 77,000 lives in one day of battle, but the Serbian nation suffered 500 years of Ottoman slavery as the consequence. Historians have never spoken of Kosovo as though it were an event in the past that will never happen again. Through the centuries, Serbian sacrifice and Kosovo have become synonymous.

The Serbian people have continually assumed that in every century they would again find it necessary to defend their rights to their land, self-determination, and freedom of worship. History in the Balkans continuously repeats itself! In 1690, more than 180,000 Serbs were forced from Kosovo and, again, an equal number were exiled in 1737. After the Congress of Berlin, in 1878, another 150,000 Serbs were expelled. This ongoing trend took on tragic proportions following the war in Crete between Turkey and Greece in 1897. Diplomatic efforts to stem the tide of atrocities against Serbs were useless, but documentation remains to testify to the crimes committed against the Serbian population. The Balkan war of 1912 was fought not only by Serbs but by Montenegrins, Bulgarians, and Greeks to liberate their people from centuries of uninterrupted Islamic aggression. The situation is little changed today.

To understand Kosovo, the American people need to compare the current Balkan crisis with its own American Civil War in which just 4% of the population lost their lives compared to Serbia who lost 52% of her adult male population in WWI and another 26% of her overall population in WWII. Readers of this forum need reminding that during the American Civil War it was the loyal Virginia citizens who refused to secede from the union and formed the state of West Virginia in 1863. Certainly Serbs deserve the same rights to remain in their union, a union which was internationally recognized as a nation in 1878 at the Congress of Berlin.

Not a single head of state, nor any American president, senator, or humanitarian group raised their voices as 200,000 Serbs were “ethnically cleansed” from Kosovo in the last 2 decades. People should be asking, why are the Serbs destined to suffer and be persecuted?

In September 1992, Jehoshua Porat, reporting in the Israeli daily Ha’Aretz, claimed: “It seems we have caught the same syndrome as the Russians — fear that we shall lose billions of dollars from the United States and the West if we say something good about Serbs.” Serbs are perplexed when the media proclaims Kosovo as Serbian territory, then encourages the Albanians who comprise a majority in just the last 40 years, to secede and seek self-determination while denying the Serbs that same right in Croatia in 1991 in areas where Serbs were the majority and in Bosnia in 1992 where Serbs represented 31% of the population and owned 62% of the land. It was arrogant that the world awarded the Bosnian Muslims for gaining their majority population through their genocide of the Serbs in WWII. Awarding the Albanians for the same disgusting deeds in Kosovo would make a mockery of democratic principles.

During King Milutin’s reign of 40 years (1281-1321), he built 40 churches in Kosovo. There are more than 140 Serbian churches and monasteries in Kosovo, a significant number having been built before 1459. More than 75 were built after 1459. There are also more than 80 church ruins that date prior to 1459. The actual seat of the Serbian Orthodox Church was first established in Kosovo at the Pec Patriarchate in 1346 (pictured at the top of this page). The Patriarchate remained in Pec until 1939, when in fear of WWII it was moved to Belgrade. The surviving Monasteries of Pec, Decani, The Virgin of Ljeviska, and Gracanica are monuments to the Serbian people, their dedication to their faith, and a testimony to their cultural achievements.

The time has come for a more balanced and fair assessment of the situation and a review of the facts, not hysterical propaganda. As the Very Rev. Mateja Matejic has observed, “Serbs were the first to anticipate the grave peril coming at one time from Islam and then from Nazism and finally Communism. They were the first to resist … making the victories of others possible, even if they themselves were defeated.”

The following pages of this forum are intended to provide the discerning American reader with historical facts unethically withheld from them by the partisan press and American politicians with a hidden agenda in the Balkans.

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

The EU expands further

Quote:

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

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

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

But is stealth necessarily harmless?

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

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

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

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

The Soviet Union has been reborn.

Don Hank

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

It adds,

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

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

“There was no need for external expertise.”

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

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

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

Read more:

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

 

RINOs surfing the euphoria wave

Don Hank

As soon as I learned McCain and Mitt Romney were present at Brown’s acceptance speech, I realized the GOP’s strategy: Mask their RINO stench, eventually get them onto the ballot and then get one of them into the White House.

Many real conservatives were euphoric about Brown’s win because they saw it as a way to defeat Obamacare and turn America rightward.

But the ELITES in the GOP saw it as they golden opportunity to manipulate you by association.

Simple, really, according to the following equation:

OE = RE > R = OU

Our Euphoria = RINO’s Euphoria, hence RINOs = One of Us.

If you believe that, I have some land for you off the Florida shore.

This sleight of hand is combined with another potent dirty trick by the establishment: securing Sarah Palin as an accomplice in supporting McCain in AZ.

Everyone in my readership is aware of such tactics and I am not under any delusion that you are fooled.

But some of you may harbor illusions about your fellow conservatives who aren’t as smart as you. So now is the time to fight this with everything you’ve got, because a McCain or Romney presidency could, in the long run, do more damage than the Obama presidency — precisely because they would, at least initially, be trusted by many independants and gullible conservatives who saw them cheering for Scott Brown.

Back in the days of the first amnesty push, I – along with many of you — spent many tense days calling congress people to warn them NOT to vote for the McCain-Bush-KENNEDY amnesty. We averted that disaster by the skin of our teeth.

But with McCain in the White House, it will be MUCH more difficult than before–maybe impossible.

Ok, what has McCain done for America?

1 — Made a big show of suspending his campaign (it was in fact PART of his campaign) to sign an un-Constitutional bill to give your money to his rich banker friends

2 — Now that unemployment is around 20 devastating percent for whites and over 30% for some black groups, Juan McCain has not ONCE backed away from his pro-invasion stance.  As far as he’s concerned, Mexican scofflaws get first dibs at the rapidly disappearing US job market.

He doesn’t care about jobs for America any more than Obama. They are partners in crime — the crime of selling out America’s sovereignty for political gain.

As for Mitt, we know all we need to know about CFR member Mitt Romney from a previous article appearing here (this article is partially missing due to a web site crash at Underground Journal, but I will be glad to send you the text. Just drop me a line at zoilandon@msn.com)

So you see, RINOs are euphoric about Brown’s win, but not for the same reason as you. JUST THE OPPOSITE! They know the Brown win is a chance to falsely cast themselves as conservatives, grabbing the credit for what the grassroots did in MA.

Don Hank

This land is THEIR land

This land is THEIR land

 

By Don Hank

The New York Post reported today that a large encampment of jobless immigrants has been discovered near Southampton, a development featuring $1 million dollar homes.

The thrust of the story was the media’s usual focus: the rich-poor dichotomy that fuels the hatred of the rich in America but obfuscates the salient issue, a problem caused by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and that is, the elite’s abandonment of sovereignty for the US. Even “conservatives” ignore this theme as though we had “gotten beyond” it, as if abandoning our national identity and cohesion could constitute “getting beyond” anything and not getting into a growing and gargantuan tragedy.

The article about the encampment of immigrants (the word “illegal” is purged out) ends with a quote from the local police chief, who is obviously steeped in the lore of globalism:

 

“There really isn’t much we can do,” he said. “Our hands are tied on this.”

It has not dawned on either this police chief or the NY post writer that the reason the authorities’ hands are tied is that the “authorities,” the education system, the universities and the media have succeeded in erasing practically all memory of national sovereignty from the consciousness of the government and the American public in their race to hustle us into an EU-like dictatorship that now grips all of Europe and has impoverished the “rich” countries like Britain and Germany and stripped Europeans of fundamental rights, such as freedom of conscience, the right to protest, and the right to determine their own destiny.

Neither the police chief nor the writer dares to mention this or the fact that our only hope of restoration not only for Southampton or New York, but for the late great United States of America is to restore the awareness that we not only are still a nation of laws and borders (i.e., sovereignty) but we must be for our survival.

A border is like the skin on a living organism. Without skin there can be no meaningful protection from the encroachment of germs, viruses, temperature effects, drying, etc. Imagine a doctor prescribing the removal of all your skin in an attempt to help out with your relations with other people. The theory, in analogy with the globalists’ theory, would be that skin makes people selfish, reminds us that we are different and distinct from others and creates an unnecessary boundary that separates us from them. It sounds outlandish to us in a medical context, but yet, our education system, our media and government have endorsed just such a skinless system for our nation. Just as physicians routinely prescribed and performed bloodletting for more than 2 millennia, our government, with the backing of media, is prescribing, and even enforcing, the removal of the protective membrane – borders – around our country with alarmingly little opposition from conservatives or liberals, all of whom have an immense stake in national security and sovereignty. And just as the common man watched for millennia as physicians killed patient after patient with bloodletting, asking “what can be done?”, we stand by and ask the same question, without seeing the obvious answer in front of our face, namely, stop flaying our nation alive.

The results could not be clearer: Phoenix now has the second-highest kidnapping rate of any city in the world, after Mexico City. Kidnapping as a feature of life obviously came there from Mexico. Further, according to a widely quoted estimate by Strategy Forecasting, Inc., “at least half of the $65 billion worth of illegal narcotics purchased in the U.S. each year come through Mexico.” It is also estimated that 25 Americans are killed every day by illegal aliens, either by automobile or by weapons in the hands of criminals. Obama’s response? Apologize to the Mexicans for the drug use in the US.

The federal response here in York County, PA, has been to build a facility to provide assistance to citizenship applicants at the York County Prison, where immigrant criminals are housed. Yes, your government can’t wait to get these potential voters, with their paternalistic view of government, on their roles.

As the Southampton police chief said, his hands are tied.

But yours most certainly are not.

No matter what your pet issue happens to be, whether abortion, parents’ rights, homeschooling, crime, religious freedom, marriage, or whatever, your agenda is not going anywhere in a country whose laws could soon be subject to the UN or a North American Union, because once we are part of a one-world government, our laws will no longer be in our hands. Ask any European for details on that.

The first thing you need to do is refuse to vote for any candidate for any office who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (or the Trilateral Commission or other globalist group) or who refuses to acknowledge our right to have protected boundaries or strong immigration law enforcement. If your pastor preaches against nationalism, calling it dangerous and un-Christian, that is code for: I am a globalist and I do not believe in sovereignty.

Why is he your pastor?

Stop supporting that church. Worship at home if necessary. Where two or three are gathered together…

America’s foundation is riddled with globalist termites. The Bushes were such termites. McCain is such a termite. So were all the other candidates in the last election with the exception of Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Obama and the Democrats all are termites.

But weak though it is, this is our country, and we must stand up and defend it. Let us make anti-nationalism as unpopular as racism or communism.

Racism is an excuse for slavery on an individual scale. Communism is an excuse for slavery on a national scale.

Globalism is an excuse for slavery on a world scale and once it happens, the good old USA won’t be there to stop it because we will be part of it.

Does pro-life have to mean anti-sovereignty?

Does pro-life mean anti-sovereignty?

 

by Donald Hank

 A while back pro-lifers started reminding us that the babies that were aborted since Wade/Roe would have been productive American workers and that there were some 40 million of them. They said that this shortfall had to be made up by immigrants and strongly suggested that God had therefore allowed the current situation of millions of illegals from Mexico. They sound almost gleeful as they announce this.

So illegal immigration and all the associated ills like increased crime, drug abuse and extra money spent on social services is a visitation of God’s wrath on America for the sin of abortion?

That’s the old liberal guilt by association theory. But a closer look shows that it wasn’t God who intervened to punish us but rather the neocons under George Bush-the same ones who teamed up with the Democrats to punish us via our financial markets. And it is not the Christian God who started and perpetuated this myth but rather some corrupt left-leaning church leaders, including many evangelicals, who use this argument to defang opponents who have legitimate concerns about the invasion from Mexico.

A while back I got in trouble with some of the anti-sovereigns in the pro-life movement when I ran my article exposing pro-lifer Mike Huckabee’s choice of Richard Haass as his proposed secretary of state. Haass is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, which in itself is a huge red flag, but worse, had recently written a paper saying that we need to “rethink” the idea of sovereignty (meaning it is no longer needed in our post-modern world). I had also shown elsewhere how prominent church leaders like Dr. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, had criticized “nationalism,” and had shown that criticizing nationalism is just a sneaky way to undermine sovereignty. (If you understand that Land also endorses Al Gore’s ideas, it is not hard to imagine where he is situated on the political spectrum.) This criticism of nationalism is found throughout the denominations in America, which are coming under increasing centralized control and becoming little more than an arm of the Left, which is the main reason why you will almost never hear a “conservative” or “evangelical” leader or pastor speaking out against lawless immigration practices or sanctuary cities.

Now that McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, he has become increasingly vocal about his pro-illegal immigration views, apparently believing he is invincible. An ad his campaign recently ran in Spanish (endorsed by McCain himself) absurdly “blames” the Obama camp for blocking immigration “reform,” which smart people know is code for amnesty. Frankly, folks, if conservatives knew the Obama camp were opposed to amnesty, I am sure some would consider voting for Obama, and I wouldn’t blame them, although I am not so sure it was the Democrats who torpedoed the amnesty bill. If I recall correctly, a lot of us, myself included, lobbied so hard against that bill (supported by McCain and Bush, for example) that the congressional phone lines went down.

But McCain must take us all for a bunch of bumpkins if he thinks there aren’t any conservatives who understand Spanish and can find out what he is up to.

Michelle Malkin recently slammed McCain hard on the border-amnesty issue. And there are good blogs that show how shameless officials and their immigration policies are causing unnecessary killings, rapes and other hardships on Americans. CNN’s Lou Dobbs does an outstanding job reporting on illegal immigration, and I recommend you tune out of Fox News and into CNN for as long as his show lasts.

But Malkin and Dobbs are almost alone these days. You won’t hear much meaningful talk on illegal immigration on talk radio or Fox News these days. Sean Hannity is still blathering about the evils of the Democrats as if the Republican leadership were back in the hands of Ron Reagan, but in his interviews with McCain and Palin (where does she stand?), never mentions illegal immigration, as if the issue has gone away.

But we are far from that these days, and short of an act of God, we are in for 4 very very rocky years, no matter who is elected.

Oh, and if you believe pro-life automatically means anti-sovereignty, I have a bridge I can sell you.

 

Three Members of Obama’s Church Killed

Investigator close to case believes there’s more to the brutal murders than mainstream press is letting on.

 

By Victor Thorn

Is a Barack Obama bombshell lurking in the shadows, waiting to derail one of the biggest Cinderella stories in recent history?

While most political prognosticators in the mainstream press presume that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, they still wonder aloud if Hillary Clinton (or some other entity) has something up their sleeve.

The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ-the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church-Larry Bland and Nate Spencer-were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads-all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.

What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999.

 

Read more