Last week, a Chinese ambassador got in trouble for telling the truth. Given his track record of aggressively asserting China’s diplomacy, [Loo Shay] Lu Shaye, the Chinese ambassador to France, is no stranger to controversy.
What he revealed offers a glimpse into what globalists and other one-worlders actually think about the right of a country to have independence and govern themselves accordingly.
We’ll cover this revelation and tie it into recent developments from the United Nations and the World Health Organization. If you’re concerned about American independence and freedom, then you’ll want to watch and take the recommended actions in the video description. Also, be sure to share, like, and subscribe, so we can reach many more concerned Americans.
The Epoch Times reported over the weekend that Lu Shaye was asked by a French journalist about the Russian war with Ukraine and if Crimea was part of Ukraine. He said that “Crimea ‘belongs to Russia from the very beginning,’ and that post-USSR republics ‘have no effective status’ in international law.”
He further explained, “In international law, even these ex-Soviet Union countries do not have the status, the effective status, in international law, because there is no international agreement to materialize their status of a sovereign country.”
Think about this word salad for a minute. He’s suggesting that countries must have an international agreement to legitimately claim sovereignty. If that’s the case, then would he advocate for the US to be returned to Great Britain? Apparently gaining independence through a war doesn’t count, unless there is some international agreement recognizing the achievement. Following that logic, would we have to reapply for independence by going through the United Nations?
For those seeking to rule others, sovereignty is a troubling hurdle to overcome. As one of the leading globalists in 1974 wrote in Foreign Affairs, the publication for the leading globalist organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, “… an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
In that same article, he also wrote, “even as nations resist appeals for ‘world government’ and ‘the surrender of sovereignty,’ technological, economic and political interests are forcing them to establish more and more far-reaching arrangements to manage their mutual interdependence.”
Did you catch that game plan? Using technology, perceived economic opportunity, and political interests, countries are to create more and more far-reaching arrangements, which help to create interdependence. The Founding Fathers called these entangling alliances and warned against them.
President Thomas Jefferson described his approach to foreign policy in 1801 as “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Prior to this, President George Washington advised, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”
Yet, by 1976, the 200-year anniversary of the nation, more than 100 U.S. senators and representatives from both sides of the political aisle signed the Declaration of Interdependence brought about by the World Affairs Council.
The opening paragraphs read, “When in the course of history the threat of extinction confronts mankind, it is necessary for the people of the United States to declare their interdependence with the people of all nations and to embrace those principles and build those institutions which will enable mankind to survive and civilization to flourish.
Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order. On this historic occasion it is proper that the American people should reaffirm those principles on which the United States of America was founded, acknowledge the new crisis which confronts them, accept the new obligations which history imposes upon them, and set forth the causes which impel them to affirm before all people their commitment to a Declaration of Interdependence.”
Not surprisingly, also signing onto this were various organizations, including the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Institute, along with 16 United Nations agencies, including the World Bank, the IMF, the World Court, and the World Health Organization.
At the conclusion, it also said that it will “work to ensure that [the] Declaration and its precepts will be included in the curricula and the texts of our schools. Starting with the schools of our region as a base, the prospects for national involvement are realistic and are being actively pursued. The National Education Association, Overseas Development Council, and Foreign Policy Association are assisting in this effort.”
As you learn more about history and see the forces that shape it, it is undeniable that the course charted for the future is not happenstance, but is being directed by those that are moving us away from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and toward a New World Order as stated in their own words and undertaken by their own efforts.
Let’s go back to the 1974 article from the Council on Foreign Relations. The author suggested that “for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements [or entanglements] should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system.”
Thus, the UN was created to facilitate world government duties as the result of additional arrangements and agreements that the Founding Fathers suggested we avoid.
The push for global governance to manage “interdependence” has only gotten stronger over the years, but has largely been rejected by not only an American majority, but of many others around the world, including the U.K. through its Brexit.
Yet, with every crisis, either natural or contrived, global government advocates use it as an excuse to further their agenda. As the Epoch Times recently pointed out, the “UN Seeks Vast New Powers for Global Emergencies.”
It reported, “The plan [is] to create an ‘Emergency Platform,’ which would involve a set of protocols activated during crises that could affect billions of people.” These crises include pandemics, economic, and climate change.
What would happen is that when member states agree that a crisis exists, “the global emergency protocols would be ‘triggered automatically’ … ‘regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved,’ the U.N. chief said.
The protocols would bring all sorts of institutions together, including national governments, international institutions, and the private sector. Ultimately, all would have to recognize the ‘primary role of intergovernmental organs [such as UN agencies] in decision-making,’ the document states.”
The Epoch Times also reported that this program was suggested by Bill Gates, a major donor to the World Health Organization, who has been intimately involved in building the need for and credibility of global government infrastructure for many years.
In the Council on Foreign Relations magazine, another author targeting sovereignty suggested that countries compromise their sovereignty in many ways, including “through treaties, coalitions, alliances, institutions (with their constraints), and confederations.” He then goes on to suggest that the logical follow-up is “that there is no such thing as sovereignty.”
Then in 2017, the President of the CFR Richard Haass made the case that, based upon sovereignty, individual governments can do whatever “they wish within their borders, subject to the constraints of broadly accepted provisions of international law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention.”
He suggested that this is a tenet to what he dubbed World Order 2.0.
Sovereignty is the ability of a country to govern itself. No other country can take this from us without using force, but we can lose it if it is given away to not only the United Nations, but to other unconstitutional bodies of government and related bureaucracy that can arise from arrangements, deals, agreements, treaties, and other regional or global declarations.
It’s death by 1,000 cuts. It’s how the people of the member nations of the European Union lost much of their sovereignty. And due to an EU-declared climate change crisis, it’s how 3,000 farms stand to be erased this year in the Netherlands if they cannot build enough opposition. It’s what will build the North American Union here if we do not oppose economic integration and harmonization with Canada and Mexico.
And it’s what will repeat the government lockdowns if we allow the proposed plans of the World Health Organization and the United Nations. Keep in mind, future lockdowns could be based on a goal of curbing climate change.
Each level of government from the local up to the federal has a responsibility to protect its own sovereignty from encroachments from other levels, including those internationally. Government powers and limitations are outlined in the federal Constitution and the state constitutions, and nullification as outlined by the Founding Fathers is one tool that provides for this protection.
The Founding Fathers provided many layers of strength to protect the rights of We The People. The John Birch Society educates concerned Americans on how these layers of strength can be utilized to protect American sovereignty, independence, and freedom.
Our members get out into the local communities and organize patriots to act. While others are content to merely complain about what is happening, The John Birch Society follows a game plan to identify globalist threats and works to overcome them using constitutional means.
If you’re sick and tired of the status quo, then it’s time to join The John Birch Society. We’re probably already in your area, and we are winning battles.
In the meantime, use our legislative alert to contact Congress to help stop the UN and WHO power grabs. Then let’s work together to kick the United Nations out of the U.S.
All links are in the video description. I’m Bill Hahn for The John Birch Society, and until next time, get informed and get involved patriots.
