Globalism is Treason Against Your Country
nationalism
[nash-uh-nl-iz-uh m]
noun1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.
2. devotion and loyalty to one’s own country; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
By Shari Dovale
Last week, President Trump traveled to France to commemorate the centennial of the end of World War I. It was an important event for the world, and for individual countries.
During the events, French President Emmanuel Macron took aim at our President and made attempts to malign his character over his statements of being a Nationalist. It did not work, and Macron only showed his contempt for his own country in the process.
Macron has a belief that globalism is the answer. We are back to the “It takes a village…” socialist attitude. This is the Globalist mantra.
In the United States, we believe in American Exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism refers to the United States as a uniquely free nation based on personal liberty. We have built our country on this principle and have become known for it, much to the chagrin of Marxists around the globe.
The term was first used with respect to the United States by Alexis de Tocqueville “during his first visit to America in 1831.” He noticed that the American idea of “nationality” was “different, based less on common history or ethnicity than on common beliefs.”
However, in 1929-1930, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin condemned the “heresy of American exceptionalism”. Within a year, the Communist Party USA had adopted Stalin’s disparaging term. “The storm of the economic crisis in the United States blew down the house of cards of American exceptionalism,” the party declared.
We love our country, and the belief that we can have a great life based on the values this country was founded upon. This love is called Nationalism.
The opposite is to embrace Globalism and, by extension, Socialism and Communism. It is to have people believe that they cannot have the American Dream, they cannot set themselves apart as unique, and they cannot pray for greater things for their children.
Globalism is to surround yourself in a class system, and the belief that the common man is there to be ruled by the government elites. It is to believe that you are nothing special and cannot think for yourself.
Globalism could have someone in Asian dictate how farmers in America should be growing their crops. Or possibly someone in the Middle East determine how forest management should be handled throughout the West. It can even place someone from the Scandinavian area to decide what foods we should eat, or how much water we will be allotted for drinking.
Globalism is Agenda 21/2030. The government ruling class, such as Emmanuel Macron or Angela Merkel, want to determine, for the entire world, how we should live.
They have ignored their own country’s needs while they try to take over the world.
No thanks, this is not for me.
I believe that every country should see to their own needs first. To do otherwise would be treason against their country.
I will support my President. I will support my country and my countrymen. I am an American Nationalist.
God. Country. Liberty.
Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
“American exceptionalism refers to the United States as a uniquely free nation based on personal liberty.”
A free nation can be a legal fiction, a creation of a devious mind, or a common use of language to identify many people who share a common idea. The fiction in the honest use of language is in place to avoid having to name each accountable, responsible, individual: the fiction does not exist, it has no legs to stand on.
People are free, not legal fictions. This was the revolutionary idea. The devious idea is to blame something that does not exist, and thereby escape accountability.
Where once a king was said to be sovereign, the revolutionary idea instead was that individuals are all kings of their natural born prerogatives or rights. It was not a revolutionary idea to those born into freedom naturally. It was only a revolutionary idea to those who had been hoodwinked in the first place.
Where once a king could exercise privileges or hand privileges out to his chosen subjects, the revolutionary idea was that each individual was born into a kingdom that extended precisely to the door of each other’s kingdom, all having equal access to the real law, all doing unto others precisely what they would have done to themselves. Each sovereign individual king agreed to have any territorial disputes laid before the whole people in a trial by the country if there was any trouble at all in negotiating a reasonable settlement otherwise. Everyone was afforded equal protection, equal access, to the affordable law power, on an equal footing, because that was the agreement, the law of the land.
The word country was a locality, a vicinage, a place in which the people were all in agreement, all agreeing to abide by the same revolutionary idea, and this idea wasn’t hatched in America in 1776, it was an idea that goes back well before Magna Carta.
How about focusing on the word country? Not country in the context of music, not country in the context of cooking recipes. How about the word country in the context of who or what constitutes a fact at law in any matter affecting any individual any time and any place in an area whereby people agree by the law of that land? In what country are the people going to ask for unanimous consent of the whole country so as to settle any dispute worthy of the effort to pay for the settlement?
“FOR more than six hundred years – that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 – there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
“Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty “- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government – they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
“But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.
“That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. “The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” – that is, by the people – as distinguished from a trial by the government.
It was anciently called “trial per pais” – that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.” The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are? ”
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852
The country is therefore established as the people themselves, in a locality, whereby the law of the land is maintained by those people in that locality, as those people follow a specified course of conduct, a course of conduct that has outlasted many different languages, and a course of action that predates common literacy.
A country in that context extends only so far as the people actually constitute that country. How far can someone afford to travel, to access trial by the country, and still be part of that country? To answer that it might be useful to consider how far is that long arm of that law: the place where the law is enforced by the people in that country.
If words have an agreeable meaning, then these words may help:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
The country is thereby stated as a district, and in this context the district, or country, agrees with the context of a locality, or the context of vicinage.
“Similar language was used in Virginia declaring that “trial by jury of the vicinage” was their birth-right.”
The Constitutional Right to a Trial by a Jury of the Vicinage, Henry G. Connor, Department of Law, January, 1909
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6792&context=penn_law_review
People power, people as the government, the concept of sovereignty returning to the individual people, a revolutionary idea, and people power is checked by the unanimous whole people, in a vicinage, in any case of controversy, foreign or domestic, civil or criminal.
But there are wolves out there, and generally speaking, the naturally peaceful people resemble peaceful sheep. So sheep people in each vicinage have been known to voluntary associate, or federate, with people in a foreign, but neighboring, vicinage. A county, for example, federates with another, and another, and if all people in all counties are in agreement, there is then a constituting of a state or nation. Historically those people in those nations of federated areas have agreed to pay the fees to cover the costs of their mutual defense, which includes both jury duty and military duty when called upon. Historically those people have agreed to pay for (or refuse to pay for) their preferred voluntary mutual defense association, so long as the people elected to run the association remain in good behavior, subject to the law of the land, just like everyone else.
Jury duty and military duty can be taxing in a free family, or free church, or free corporation, or free district, or free county, or free vicinage, or free country, or free nation, or free state, or free federation of free states. How far is that long arm of that voluntary mutual defense association under that law of that land? It is only so far as the wolves are not extracting extortion payment to cover the costs of enslaving all those ignorant, powerless, sheep. A clue to the length of that long arm of that law is when those hired to maintain the peace murder innocent people, and the murderers avoid accountability for having murdered innocent people in the vicinage, the murderers actually claim to be above the law that they claim to be their source of authority.
That is a clue.
When the criminals take-over, as history proves over and over again, the criminals at each level of the pyramid scheme are obligated to obey every order to the letter without question or else; no trial by the country, no check on arbitrary power in the hands of one group (or 1 disguised as 2) with one individual group leader, no place to run, no place to hide, no law in that land at all, no law other than whatever those in power dictate at their exclusive pleasure. No law, and it costs a lot to keep the law at bay, and the criminals extract whatever they need to keep the law at bay, and they have been known to tell a few tall tails.
“Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other – or at least no more accurate – definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.”
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury
Returning to the demonstrably false claim (depending upon what words mean):
“American exceptionalism refers to the United States as a uniquely free nation based on personal liberty.”
The consolidated Nation State created in 1789, a corporation based upon a legal fiction, is an arbitrary government that perpetually demonstrates its absolute power to extract whatever it pleases from the subjects of its demonic rule: it, being a legal fiction, having absolutely no accountability or responsibility. It, supposedly a free nation, did the precise opposite of what a free nation is obligated, in writing, to do: follow those laws required in order to maintain freedom in liberty.
The first exercise of arbitrary power claimed to be a law issued from a free nation is the subsidizing of African Slavery and the enforcement of that crime against all the people who actually stood up as free people against such terror. Terror that was thinly hidden behind absurd lies.
Of course the words “a free nation based upon personal liberty” can mean anything one minute, and precisely the opposite the next minute, depending entirely on the individual in command of their employment of language, accountable to that individual, as that individual is thereby responsible for that example of that employment of those words in that time and in that place.
Free speech can be taxing, so can shooting messengers, one is a responsibility, accountable to each individual, and free speech cannot be an intentional lie that causes injury to innocent people, and the other, the messenger shooting stuff, is yet another obvious, and ridiculous, criminal order claimed to be necessary in the National Interest of the exceptional free nation; and you sure as hell will get that bill too.
That all may sound brutal, but I wonder just how many brutalities will have to be endured by how many innocent people while so-called patriots continue to cover-up for this monstrosity created by fraud in 1789, despite factual accounting proving beyond doubt that this is not a free nation. If the idea is to know the meaning of the United States, a singular corporation, then free nation does not apply. If, on the other hand, there is interest in The United States (plural) of America as it was in congress assembled, a federation of free states, previous to the Con Con Con Job, then words ought to be agreeable, not intentionally confusing.