Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

National Sovereignty is About to Fall
December 4, 2001

By Jon Christian Ryter
Copyright 2001 - All Rights Reserved
To distribute this article, please post this web address or hyperlink

Excerpt from "Whatever Happened To America?" pages 486-491. Is history repeating itself once again? Will the globalist model from the 1930s and 1940s work in the 21st century?

     In February, 2002 the leaders of the Western Hemisphere “American” nations will meet in the barren wastelands of the far north of Canada to hammer out the final details of the new “All-America” dollar. When the meeting is over two thing will happen. First, NAFTA—the North American Free Trade Agreement will be expanded to include every nation in the western hemisphere, further draining jobs from the United States to the human capital-rich, job-poor nations of Central and South America in order to provide the transnational industrialists with the consumer base it needs to grow profits in the 21st century. Second, the Federal Reserve System will “dollarize” all of the economies of North, Central and South America as the Euro becomes the official currency of the nations of Europe—reducing 43 currencies to two...and giving the overseers of the Fed and the European Central Bank effective control over the decisions made by the governments of those nations. What does that mean to the American taxpayer? Effective December 1, 2002, the taxpayers of the United States will assume to responsibility of paying off the national debts of all of the nations in the western hemisphere. But even more important, the first phase of world government will have been successfully implemented. All that will remain is the final abrogation of national sovereignty globally...peacefully if
possible, by force if necessary.

ormer British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd declared during an interview at the United Nations in New York that the UN must assume an "imperial role," and be prepared to usurp national sovereignty and assume control when national governments collapse. And this, of course, is precisely what the European Union did in 1999 when it ordered NATO to invade Serbia, a sovereign but nonmember European Union nation, because the EU had received, but could not—or conveniently chose not—to substantiate reports the UN had received describing human rights atrocities committed upon Islamic Kosovar Albanians by Serbian eastern orthodox Christians. The "protecting human rights" rhetoric aside, the aerial invasion of Serbia by England, the United States and a coalition of European Union states was designed to accomplish three primary objectives.
     First, the invasion of Serbia was designed to show the European nations, and the rest of the world, that a new governing body existed which had supra-sovereignty over the nation states under its control, and that it would not hesitate to invade any nation that chose to ignore the new supra-authority's self-proclaimed prerogative to interfere in the internal affairs of any nation within its sphere of influence. Second, the invasion of Serbia made it clear that this new supra-government claimed the authority to redefine national boundaries and, if it so desired, to create additional nation states from the States or provinces of existing sovereignties as it did when it recognized Kosovo's right to secede from Serbia. And, third, the new supra-government wanted to create a precedent it could use in the future to invade any sovereign nation which either threatened or questioned its authority.
     The overlords of Europe, who created the master plan for global government—and who now controls most of its vast, lethal arsenal of war through NATO—are now flexing their muscles. While the human capital the transnational industrialists require to create the consumers they need to buy the products and services they will create over the next few decades in order to grow the global economy—and their profits—will come from the people-rich, job-poor impoverished third world nations that currently hold most of the key power positions in the UN. Although the overlords of Europe appear more than eager to surrender not only jobs, but entire industries, to their neighbors to the South and East in order to expand their profits in the new millennium, it is not likely they will eagerly surrender real power to the emerging nations who control the "public" affairs of the UN.
     The aerial invasion of Serbia was planned and executed by the European Union and the United States which unleashed most of the devastation that destroyed the Serb infrastructure. America joined the EU as a willing co-conspirator. While the "operation" was billed as a UN-controlled action by the media, it clearly was not one since the UN's angry voice was among those who protested the senseless killing of over a hundred Kosovar Albanians who were attempting to escape—not from the Serbs who, according to the media, were slaughtering them by the thousands —but from the NATO planes that were bombing their cities and indiscriminately killing those they were ostensibly sent to protect. The UN was obviously neither "in charge," nor "informed" of the actions being taken by NATO in either Serbia or Kosovo. It was a European Union action from start to finish.
     More clearly than anything else, the dichotomy of events that transpired during the brief Serb military excursion gave the world a clear indication of precisely who controls the United Nations, and who is the real power behind the New World Order. The former rulers of the kingdoms of Europe and their industrialist and banking partners who control the European Union flexed their political muscle and savored the sweet taste of victory. They had breached sovereignty and no cries of outrage were heard.
     According to Grant Jeffrey in Final Warning, "...Secretary Hurd drew attention to what he called 'a new phase in the world's history.' There is a need," he continued, "for the UN to intervene in crisis situations earlier to prevent things from getting to the stage where countries are run by corrupt warlords, as in Somalia." (Final Warning; Grant R. Jeffrey; Frontier Research Publications © 1995; pgs. 99-100.)
     Hurd's opinion on the authority of the UN, or the European Union, to usurp national sovereignty is simply one of many. In June, 1991 former CIA Director Stansfield Turner defended the UN's role in the Gulf War while admitting that the United Nations had intruded on Iraq's national sovereignty; adding that the UN had created a precedent that would, in the future, be used "...in all of the countries of the world." (Secret Records Revealed; Dennis Lawrence Cuddy; Ph.D.; The Plymouth Rock Foundation © 1995; pg. 40.)
     On July 20, 1992 Time magazine published an article entitled The Birth of the Global Nation by Strobe Talbott, the former Oxford classmate and personal friend of Bill Clinton, in which Talbott wrote: "All countries are basically social arrangements...No matter how permanent or sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary...Perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all...But it has taken the events in our wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government." (ibid; pg. 41.) Talbott, who is probably best remembered as the "credible" Time editor who came to Clinton's defense when then Governor Clinton was confronted with accusations that he had dodged the draft during the Vietnam War, was rewarded for his loyalty by being named to the second highest post in the State Department.
     In August, 1992 former Citicorp Chairman Walter Wriston's book, The Twilight of Sovereignty, was published. Wriston wrote: "...A truly global economy will require...compromises of national sovereignty...There is no escaping the system." (ibid; pg. 42.)
     During the winter of 1992-93, Foreign Affairs printed an article by former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali entitled Empowering the United Nations in which the Egyptian statesman said: "It is undeniable that the centuries-old doctrine of absolute and exclusive sovereignty no longer stands...Underlying the rights of the individual and the rights of people is a dimension of universal sovereignty that resides in all humanity...It is a sense that increasingly finds expression in the gradual expansion of international law...In this setting the significance of the United Nations should be evident and accepted." (ibid; pg. 44.)
     The issue, and the empirical need for the unilateral disarming not only of nations but of the people within those nations, is based solely on anticipated resistance to the worldwide dissolution of the nation state. If a nation, or a people, lack the means to resist, resistance to tyranny will be short-lived. Conversely, a well-armed population cannot easily be enslaved. As long as Americans retain and exercise the right to own firearms, the New World Order cannot be created. The minute that right is taken from, or voluntarily surrendered by, the American people, liberty will die a bittersweet death. The Constitution as we know it will die shortly thereafter, as will the Bill of Rights and the remaining rights and liberties that Americans so freely enjoy but so casually take for granted.
     The elitists among us, while rhetorically affirming our Constitutional right, but not our actual need, to own firearms insist that it is necessary to disarm Americans to protect us from themselves. Steps must be taken, the custodians of law and order steadfastly maintain, to get guns off the streets. They stubbornly insist that the availability of legal firearms has substantially contributed to crime in America.
     Tighter gun control laws, they insist, will reduce the rate of violent crime and murder in America.
      Organizations like the National Rifle Association and Gunowners of America have frequently and accurately quoted John R. Lott's1 research that less than 7% of the weapons used by criminals were either purchased legally or stolen from those who originally legally purchased them. (More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws; John R. Lott, Jr. © 1998; University of Chicago Press.)
  A cornucopia of unconstitutional confiscatory gun control laws are regularly enacted in almost every session of Congress with hardly a murmur of protest by an outraged public which has largely failed to grasp the reality that all of the other "inherent rights" guaranteed them under the Bill of Rights will remain unconditional only as long as the 2nd Amendment stands. When the 2nd Amendment is successfully breached, the Bill of Rights will die, as will the Constitution as we know it.
     While most diehard antigun lobbyists insist that increasingly restrictive measures are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, it is interesting to note that the most restrictive gun laws are enacted with retroactive grandfather clauses that are specifically designed to make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to possess the weapons they legally purchased before the law was created. It is important to remember, as difficult as it may be to believe, restrictive gun laws are not, nor were they ever, intended to keep guns out of the hands of the malefactor—they are designed solely to take the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen since it is the law-abiding citizens, and not the criminals, who will most likely rebel against the central government that attempts to steal their liberty and surrender their sovereignty to a foreign power.
     Because it violates the Constitution to forbid its citizens the right to own firearms, the government of the United States has chosen to nibble away at the edges of the 2nd Amendment rather than try to take a giant bite out of the middle of it, believing somehow that America wouldn't notice "baby bites" or that America wouldn't object too strenuously to the "regulation" of what they call the nation's most lethal industry, since Big Brother emphatically declared it was not trying to eliminate the citizen's right to own a firearm, but was merely attempting to control which citizens could legally do so—and what types of firearms those citizens might buy.
Germany's citizens did not object to the registration or the regulation of guns. Nor did Russia's.
     Neither remained free. Registration, as any government well knows, is the first step towards elimination.
  When Hitler came into power in 1933, he began by freeing Germany of the shackles of the Treaty of Versailles. It was his first step in restoring Germany to its pre-war economic eminence. That was, after all, what the German people wanted. They were unemployed and wanted jobs. They were hungry and wanted to be fed. In exchange for jobs and food, the German citizen willingly surrendered what each individually believed was "just a little" personal freedom. Unemployment in Germany dropped from slightly over 6 million in 1934 to roughly 1 million in 1936.
Censorship cloaked the media. The government issued a national identity card to each citizen, ostensibly to make certain that Jews didn't steal jobs—and food—from hardworking Aryans. And, because the need might arise to defend the motherland from foreign aggressors, every firearm in the Third Reich was registered.
     First to vanish was free elections.
     Second to vanish was freedom itself.
     Fed, and armed with a job, the German worker barely noticed. It didn't matter. One politician, he reasoned, was pretty much the same as another. And, what value was freedom to a starving man?
     Adequately confirmed by history, it is reasonably safe to say that gun registration ultimately leads to gun confiscation. It is also reasonably safe to assume that if gun ownership in America is not abrogated before the proponents of the New World Order attempt to abolish the Constitution and tear down the walls of national sovereignty in the United States, there will be a second American Revolution. Therefore, logic alone mandates that such an attempt must necessarily be made very soon.
     Americans who, for whatever reason, don't understand what they believe is a "fetish" other Americans have for guns, but who cherish the other liberties provided them by the Constitution of the United States must understand their need to fight to preserve the 2nd Amendment because when the right of Americans to own a firearm is swallowed up by the federal government, our remaining liberties will be consumed in the next couple of bites.




Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved