- Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against marriage and
nothing against Latvia. And as for the state of Michigan marrying Latvia,
I personally, being a card-carrying states rights man, can only approve.
A state can do what it wants without the feds, or the other 49 states having
a say. Go, Michigan! I see that Kansas has tied the knot with Armenia.
(Yes, it's true; and Arkansas is shacking up with Azerbaijan, California
loves Ukraine, etc.; see below.)
-
- Where is Armenia? Well, it's a lot of jet fuel away,
so the taxpayers of Kansas may want to be sure they can afford these goodwill
flights. The fact that Michigan recently gave a school bus, customized
for disabled kids, to Latvia, raises the question: Which set of Michigan
brains decided that the bus was a good gift? I mean, technically, did the
policy issue forth from the education or health secretaries?
-
- If Michigan were a nation, we might expect the decision
to have come from diplomatic staff at that nation's State Department. Come
to think of it, most of the 50 states have an office called 'Secretary
of State.' Usually one thinks of that as the place that handles land titles,
the registering of corporations, and the supervising of elections. Can
a state's Secretary of State make deals, also, with foreign nations?
-
- As far as the US Constitution is concerned, there are
only a few specific restrictions on what a state can do. It does say, in
Article IV, section 3, that if a state wants to divide into two states,
permission of the Congress is required (presumably because that would add
two senators to the total). And, as everyone knows, no state can vary the
national rules of importation and customs, much less of immigration, much
less of coinage.
-
- All of that is covered by Article I, sec 8, which
created federal responsibility for those affairs. Section 10 of that article
expressly tells states not to grant titles of nobility (Gosh, who would
have thought of it!) and says: "No state shall enter into any Treaty,
Alliance or Confederation." Then, less restrictively, it says:
"No State, shall, without the consent of Congress... enter into any
Agreement or Contract with... a foreign Power."
-
- Is it legal, then, for Michigan to have a trade agreement
with Latvia? Yes, if Congress permits. Since many states do business
directly with foreign powers, I presume they have permission. Do you recall
that Jimmy Carter had foreign deals going for his state of Georgia when
he was governor? (Or that Sarah Palin lusted after one with Russia, in
her heart? Nah, just kidding.) The only constitutional restriction on a
Latvia-Michigan deal is that it not be a treaty, and that it not get around
US import and tariff rules.
-
- DELENDA EST CABAL AND THAT MEANS YOU, NATO!
-
- All of that said, and before looking at the 'engagement
notices' of many other states, let's recall the theme of this series of
articles, to wit: "delenda est cabal!" A prescient man named
Cato warned that Carthage must be destroyed by Rome, or else Rome will
find itself a vassal of Carthage. For the word 'Carthage,' in Cato's slogan
"Delenda est Carthago," I have substituted the word 'cabal.'
The cabal is the entity we want rid of before it conquers us.
-
- As we might have put it in the 1960s, the cabal is a
rat fink. In the parlance of today's young: the cabal sucks. Either we
squelch the cabal soon, or there will be a shocking future for Americans.
Rather like the shocking future we ourselves have delivered to the people
of Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, and Cambodia. And others.
-
- After all, if you were to ask why we were so mean to
those countries, you'd soon discover that it was because the cabal was
guiding our efforts! Many of those countries, having sharper talent than
us in the political perception line, are aware of that, and accordingly
they forgive us -- at least to some extent. (How's that for embarrassing:
they know we are under the cabal's thumb, when we don't know it ourselves!)
-
- Basically, the cabal, made up of very few individuals,
wants World Government. The cabal works through the Bilderbergers and the
Council on Foreign Relations. The cabal is a self-appointed elite (or bunch
of bozos, whichever). They try to meld industry, media, academia, and --
needless to say -- the military. Daniel Etsulin, who has party-crashed
some meeting of the Bilderbergers, or at least done some impressive eavesdropping,
has said that all the top business leaders hope for is a 'World Company,'
not a world state. They want their profits, with no challenges from below,
he says.
-
- Renato Ruggiero, a former head of the office of Economic
Cooperation and Development, the OECD, a group of affluent nations, said
in the 1990s that no sort of world constitution was desired by that group.
Rubbish! I disagree with Etsulin, an outsider, and with all the insiders.
It is as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face, that World Government
needs and desires all the apparatus of government, not to mention the thrill
of command. (Dominance, anyone?)
-
- Remember when a main tenet of Marxism was that "the
state would wither away," and then the Soviet Union went on to
become the model of totalitarianism? The style of control that is planned
for our own future may be a trifle more 'cyborg-ish' than that old stuff.
That is, HQ might be able to access your medulla oblongata directly,
rather than having to intimidate you into doing its wishes, but government
won't wither away. Control of the many by the few is hard yakka, as we
say in Australia. It's not for the lazy!
-
- Thus it is no surprise that a massive world military
is already in place. NATO runs it. "Delenda est NATO!" Seriously.
The cabal must be destroyed. And the sooner the better. This is a terrible
situation. And the nice-sounding Latvian-Michigan meet-up is, I fear, a
function of the world military run by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Now let us return to the marriages.
-
- MOST OF THE 50 STATES NOW HAVE EMBEDDED FOREIGN TROOPS
-
- Ah, remember the third amendment in the Bill of Rights
(oops, remember the Bill of Rights?). Number Three says "No soldier
shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent
of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
First of all, unlike any other amendment, that one is pretty worthless
since it contains its own undoing. But at least it implied that billeting
was undesirable.
-
- Now we have states hosting large numbers of 'visitors.'
The special-needs school bus mentioned earlier is just a public relations
cover. What is really going on, is that the National Guard of most states
have joined a NATO program. The title of the program should give everyone
shivers. It is "Partnerships for Peace." If there is one thing
that has never been in NATO's job description it is, of course, p-e-a-c-e.
-
- In the other hand, NATO is big on p-a-r-t-n-e-r-s-h-i-p-s.
Naturally, as the guns of World Government, it is mucho involved in taking
over existing governments. Admittedly the cabal hasn't done much, so far,
to change territorial borders. It goes about amalgamation through such
methods as setting up the European Union and the planned North American
Union. It does subtle things to the sovereignty of nations, sometimes by
manipulating currency or arranging hopeless debt, and possibly by fomenting
'popular revolution.'
-
- (If we were to look back a century, but we won't, we
would see more of the opposite kind of effort, in which the cabal broke
up larger agglomerations, such as the Ottoman empire, or knocked a 'too
strong' industrial nation such as Germany. The latter was openly arranged
by the US and was known as the Morgenthau Plan, named for US Treasurer,
Henry Morgenthau. Etienne D'Avignon is rumored to be the dude assigned
to destroy the industrial base of the US in the present decade. It's just
"standard office procedure.")
-
- Note: 'Transmigrasei' -- mixing ethnic groups by migration
-- is another way to break up a strong force. Indeed the cabal is so worried
about anyone's ability to spoil its fun that it does not even want us to
have religions, professional associations (other than ones it controls)
or, this is hard to believe families. Divorce, delay in marital age, and
'free love' are good.
-
- WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON THESE TROOPS ?
-
- Surely the Constitution must have something to say about
states making military arrangements with foreign powers. Reaching up to
my shelf for a concise reference book, oh here it is: "Prosecution
for Treason," by that user-friendly writer, Mary W Maxwell. (I've
read it so many times I practically know it by heart.) Turn to List 9c
for two quotes from the parchment:
-
- Article I, section 8. "The Congress shall have the
Power... To declare war... To raise and support Armies...To provide for
calling forth the Militia..." ('Militia' in the context of 1787 means
what we later formalized as the National Guard. The phrase "Congress
shall have the Power to provide for..." means legislation may eventually
be forthcoming on that.)
-
- Article II, section 2: "The President shall be Commander
in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of
the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
-
- Note: I would have guessed that "when called' means
"by Congress." However, SCOTUS (i.e., the Supreme Court Of The
United States) ruled in Martin v Mott, in 1827, that the President
can call up the Guard. Decisions by SCOTUS are considered tantamount
to altering Constitutional wording.
-
- Marvin v Mott is ancient -- decided 184 years ago for
Pete's sake -- and it dealt with a narrow issue. Therefore it does not,
in my opinion, deserve to weaken the grant of power to Congress in Article
I, section 8. However, we are stuck with it until a better case comes up,
or until the folks demand a Constitutional amendment. (Or, maybe until
the states get grizzly about handing over their men and women too often.)
-
- It does appear that we have today a federal entity called
The National Guard Bureau. What a strange animal! The militia (the guard)
was traditionally under the control of each state's governor. Usage of
those troops by the feds has been an emergency measure -- both with regard
to overseas wars and domestic natural disasters. (I pass over the subject
of riots, as I'm sure all riots are started by the cabal -- oh yes and
many Internet flame wars are, too -- no job too big or too small for our
cabal!)
-
- Although at first blush it would seem unconstitutional
for a state to join a partnership with another nation (recall Article I,
section 10 prohibiting "Alliances"), there are two loopholes --
not counting the semantic loophole of calling an 'alliance' a 'partnership'! First,
there is the fact that with Congress's permission, a state may "enter
into any Agreement or Contract with... a foreign Power." Okay.
-
- Second, at a stretch, the fact that the Guards are called
up by the president on a big scale nowadays, could perhaps mean that the
Pentagon is 'allowed' to make decisions for the use of the Guard in what
otherwise appears to be a state-hosting arrangement. May God help us if
that is so.
-
- (Interruption: I just saw on Kansas' website that its
guardsmen have just finished a one-year deployment to Dijbouti, Africa. Huh?
How could they be called up for that? The full quote from the Constitution's
Article I, section 8, is that Congress can provide for calling forth the
Militia"to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections,
and repel invasions." Didn't know we were undergoing an invasion from
Africa. Did you?
-
- Now we come to the alleged rationale for having so many
South American and former Eastern Bloc's troops stationed on American soil.
It is that we are helping those nations become democratic. (Gag, gag.)
For example: CT-Uruguay; DE-Trinidad; KY-Ecuador; MD-Bosnia; VT-Macedonia.
-
- The stated reason cannot by the wildest chance be the
true reason for NATO to have created this elaborate 'exchange' program.
Since when does NATO have a mandate to be a Grand Uncle? And, as hinted
at above, are the taxpayers of each state being told that they have new
jet fuel costs to pay? Also, as queried above, which segment of a state
would oversee policy-making? Was it, in fact, the Education Department
that advised about the school bus? Are locals even consulted about whether
they want their state to do this modern-day billeting?
-
- When I said, in the opening paragraph, "Go, Michigan!"
I meant that a state that wants to get all touchy-feely with Latvia, or
Malawi, or Uruguay, etc., is in its rights to start a friendship arrangement
or a cultural connection. The giving of a school bus is a perfectly admirable
thing to do -- honestly I am not knocking it.
-
- Cultural connections, like "Sister Cities,"
are not unheard of. Those are mainly meant as trade connections, I suppose,
but they do give citizens a chance to learn about another culture. This
National Guard Bureau deal, however, that partners a state with a foreign
nation is NOT what it is being presented as. It's a lie. Journalist
Jim Keith tried to tell people about it as far back as 1995, but states
were then denying outright that the program existed. That tells me all
I need to know, thank you.
-
- For a few years now, Michigan had admitted to its hosting
of Latvian troops. That may be better than denial, but it's horrific that
the public relations people are saying that its purpose is so Michiganders
can show Latvians the ropes of democracy. If you believe that, could I
please sell you the Sydney Harbor Bridge for a thousand dollars? And I'll
throw in the Opera House for another five hundred.
-
- No, the point is to plant World Government troops --
which is to say NATO-controlled troops, at every pillar and post.
-
- Houston, please come in, Houston! We have a problem!
Big problem, Houston. Help!
-
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Mary W Maxwell, PhD, hopes she has received bad information
and that none of the above is true. Watch this space for profuse apologies
if she has misled you. Meanwhile, please look for her at credosbooks.com.
|
