I wonder if a foreign intelligence agency – or even a domestic US agency – is testing a new form of poison, and using Americans as the test subjects…
“A Long Island pizzeria owner joins the growing list of tourists who have died suddenly in the Dominican Republic.
Vittorio Caruso, 56 of Glen Cove, died June 17 while staying at the Boca Chica Resort in Santo Domingo, the US State Department confirmed to Fox News Friday.
His sister-in-law, Lisa Marie Caruso, said he was in good health when he suddenly went into respiratory distress after “drinking something.” ”
Calvo Sotelo, a stalwart right-wing leader and a former Minister of Finance under the Spanish Monarchy, made a speech in the Cortes on 11 July 1936, in which he attacked the Popular Front government for not taking the necessary measures to suppress the waves of unrestrained anarchy, bloodshed, and arson taking place all over Spain. Soon after, he was dragged out of his home in the Calle Velazquez in the middle of the night by a squad of shock police (Guardias de Asalto), one of whom shot him in the back of the neck for the sole reason of his being a very popular, honest, and fearless nationalist leader. His body was dumped in a suburban cemetary.
Spurred by this assassination, on 15 July 1936, Gil Robles, leader of the C.E.D.A. (Catholic Party) in the Spanish Parliament, summarized the real causes, which, in a matter of days, led to the Spanish Civil War. Among other things, he said:
…has the state of emergency declared by the Government accomplished any of its objectives whatsoever? Has it curbed the wave of anarchy that is ruining Spain morally and materially? Consider what is happening in the country and in the towns. Recall to mind the statistics I read in the last session of the Cortes. I am going to supplement them with statistics covering the current month…From 16 June to 13 July the following acts of violence have been committed, and my listeners must bear in mind that these statistics refer only to plainly established facts and not to rumors, although the latter are being confirmed each succeeding day: 10 churches burned down; 9 priests expelled from their parishes; 11 thefts and acts of confiscation; 5 monumental crosses demolished; 61 violent deaths; 224 wounded, with varying degrees of seriousness; 17 holdups; 31 estates plundered; 16 cases of seizure of private property and confiscation of assets; 10 political buildings burned; 15 general strikes; 129 partial strikes; 74 bombs; 58 grenades; 7 inflammable bottles thrown at people or objects; 19 cases of arson excluding churches. All of this in 27 days. In the final analysis, after the “state of emergency” has been in effect for four months, providing the Government with all kinds of extraordinary powers to impose its authority, what has been its efficacy? Are not these statistics the most explicit admission that the Government has failed utterly and completely in the exercise of its extraordinary powers? – that it has not been able to fulfill the solemn pledge made to the Cortes that these very extraordinary powers which the Constitution bestows upon the Government and which Parliament places at its disposal would serve to bring to an end the state of anarchy and subversion that exists in Spain? The following liberties have been swept aside by or with the extraordinary powers granted to the Government: the right of existence, the liberty of association, freedom of syndication, freedom of employment, the inviolability of the home. On the contrary, the Government has become an instrument of persecution for all those who do not share the same political views as the members of the Popular Front.
The situation is extremely grave, and I must examine it in the true light. I recognize the seriousness of the statements which I am about to make. I am acutely aware of the consequences that my words may have for me personally, but I cannot shrink from this great responsibility…
The Minister, with his characteristic vehemence – and I am sure with the greatest sincerity, which is also one of his characteristics – has come here to refute in the most disturbing manner, the imputations or accusations that could be deduced from the speech read by Mr. Suarez de Tangil in the name of the Monarchist minorities, in which the Government was accused of playing a direct role in the crime. It is not my intention to direct unfounded accusations…Your Excellency will not find in my words anything which might be a calumny insinuating that the Government has taken a direct path in criminal actions of this kind. But…the Government’s responsibility is not only to avoid complicity; its moral and political responsibility is tremendous, and to this I am obliged to refer.
I attribute paramount responsibility to the person who possesses supreme authority, and consequently, the maximum moral responsibility must fall upon the Prime Minister, who, having attained the highest position in the Government, stated that the Government would take action against Mr. Calvo Sotelo, or “persons entertaining similar ideologies.” Imagine!…the Government a belligerent against its own people! But the Government must never be a belligerent, but must be an impartial instrument of justice for all, and for all alike.
On one occasion, Mr. Calvo Sotelo, refuting the Prime Minister’s violent attacks, said: “I have broad shoulders, Mr. Casares Quiroga. I am aware of Your Excellency’s threat: Your Excellency has charged me with a passive and active responsibility for I do not know what incidents. I repeat, my shoulders are broad. I accept and do not shrink from any of the responsibility that can be a consequence of my own actions, and, if it be for the good of my country and the glory of Spain, I also accept the responsibility of others as well. I repeat the words with which Santo Domingo de Silos answered a Castilian king: “Sire, you can take my life, but no more; it is preferable to die with glory than to live in contempt.” Death has come to him with glory. But you, as the Government – even though you may not be to blame, directly or indirectly – are criminally responsible – you are guilty of the enormous crime of having patronized a policy of violence which has armed the assassin’s hand; of having prompted violence; of not having censured those who from the majority benches have uttered threats of violence against the person of the murdered statesman. You will never be able to rid yourselves of this guilt; you can, by means of censorship, prevent my words from reaching the people; no doubt, you can ask for a vote of confidence; but…you can rest assured that his blood is on your hands, and you will never be able to wash it off…
After this, I have few words left to say; perhaps there remain very few to be uttered in this Parliament. With each succeeding day, excitement mounts, provoked on the one hand by the majority groups, on the other hand by the newspapers inspired by you, to the effect that the opposition must be crushed, that a policy of radical extermination must be carried out. You are practicing it daily: people are murdered and wounded. Assaults, coercion, fires, acts of violence are a daily occurrence.
There is a very well-known saying that revolutions are like the Devil; they devour their own children. You are overconfident now now because you see your opponents on the defensive; the day will come when the very violence which you have loosened will turn against you with a vengeance.”
Notably, according to Alejandro Lerroux, a Radical party leader in 1930, who was on the Revolutionary Committee that prepared the way for the Popular Front government, and who was Home Secretary of Spain and the Representative of Spain in the League of Nations, had this to say about the resulting Nationalist Uprising:
“Neither Franco nor the Army infringed upon the law, nor did they rebel against a legitimate and normally functioning democracy. They did no more than replace the [Popular Front Government] when it dissolved in an anarchy of blood, mud, and tears.”
From Combat Over Spain. Memoirs of a Nationalist Fighter Pilot 1936-1939. By Captain Jose Larios, Marquis of Larios, Duke of Lerma.
Posted by Patrick Cloutier.
Mr. Cloutier is author of Mussolini’s War in Spain 1936-1939.
(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump retweeted about a dozen messages Saturday morning, including two by a well-known right-wing personality, as he continued to assail what he says is bad treatment of “conservative thinkers” on social media such as Facebook.
Facebook on Thursday said it was banning a number of contentious far-right personalities, including Infowars founder Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, a former editor of Breitbart News, and far-right activist Laura Loomer, for violating the social-media company’s policies on hate speech and promoting violence.
“We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement.
Paul Joseph Watson, a British radio host and YouTube personality who goes by the Twitter handle @PrisonPlanet, was among those banned on Facebook and Instagram. He tweeted on Thursday that Trump should take action against Facebook.
On Saturday, Trump retweeted a message from the 36-year-old urging his followers to “keep up the pressure,” and a second wondering why his opinions should be deemed “dangerous.”
Also retweeted on Saturday were posts by Lauren Southern, a far-right Canadian political activist, and Jeremy Boreing, a filmmaker who directed “The Arroyo,” a 2014 movie about vigilante justice on the U.S.-Mexican border and contributes to The Daily Wire, a conservative news and opinion website.
“I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America – and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!” Trump tweeted on Friday.
See complete story at the link below:
Less than 24 hours after Notre Dame Cathedral was destroyed in a fire, and before an investigation could hardly have begun, French officials ruled out arson as a cause of the blaze.
Yet one onlooker with a camera caught what appears to be a Muslim man, moving along a walkway on the facade of the Notre Dame Cathedral – while it is on fire. The footage can be viewed here: Still Report #2641, on YouTube.
The footage has yet to be verified as authentic, but French President Macron and his government appear to be in no hurry to find out. Nor are some major US news networks. Shepherd Smith and Neal Cavuto of FOX News both dumped live guests, who suggested arson might be a cause. So far, only Lou Dobbs has considered the question.
The silence of the French Establishment with regard to arson, may be motivated, among other things, by fear that Marine Le Pen’s nationalist right party, Rassemblement National, or National Rally, will gain strength in the European Parliament elections to be held on May 26th. For the sake of France, let’s hope that they do.
Patrick Cloutier is the author of Mussolini’s War in Spain 1936-1939.
Below: photo of a man in Muslim garb moving on Notre Dame Cathedral walkway.
Below: Lou Dobbs condemns “political decision” to avoid considering arson.
In what may turn into a totalitarian absurdity for the Trump Presidency, Julian Assange was arrested by British police at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, with the blessings of the U.S. Government.
Julian Assange faces conspiracy charges in the United States, for his role in making sensitive documents available to the American public and world opinion. He faces lesser charges in the United Kingdom.
The irony of it all is that President Trump in part owes his 2016 Electoral victory to revelations made by Assange’s “Wikileaks”, of Hillary Clinton’s mass-scale security and criminal violations, during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama years. And now the Trump White House appears to be ready to throw this man under the bus.
Shall it be said that being Trump’s friend is more dangerous than being his enemy?
And if the President is prepared to jail Julian Assange, who is a champion of First Amendment freedoms, how unthinkable would it be for Donald Trump to pardon “Crooked Hillary”?
Mr. Cloutier is the author of Mussolini’s War in Spain 1936-1939.
In 1885, retired and ailing General Ulysses S. Grant, who had also served two terms as President of the United States, completed his memoirs. He had this to say about the Democrats: “National success by the Democrat party means irretrievable ruin.”
Jayda Fransen is a leader of the Britain First Party. You retweeted videos she had posted, which depicted Muslim violence and intolerance toward Christians and Europeans.
British Prime Minister Theresa May condemned you for sharing those posts on your Twitter account. And as a demonstration that your admirers will not be tolerated in the U.K., her government has been systematically imprisoning and harassing Ms. Fransen and her associate, Paul Golding.
You have since distanced yourself from Jayda Fransen, perhaps as a diplomatic gesture to Theresa May, but what commitment for British freedoms or Western values has she shown in the last 18 months? Through her duplicity, she is doing all she can to sabotage BREXIT, the act of separation from the EU, which was ratified by the British people in a national referendum – and she would sabotage you, if only she could.
Last year, U.S. Ambassador Sam Brownback lobbied on behalf of British journalist Tommy Robinson, who was jailed for accurately reporting on Muslim pedophile gangs in the U.K. Though he is threatened with heavy fines and re-imprisonment, he has since been released, thanks to your intervention. All who support freedom of speech and the press are thankful.
Yet it remains that you did not retweet Tommy Robinson: you retweeted Jayda Fransen. And the U.K. government vengefully oppresses her in retaliation. It is a clear signal that you, your worldview, and your support for Western values will not be tolerated in a once-free nation. But what shall your message be? Shall you help Ms. Fransen, who has admired you, or shall you signal silence?
Mr. Cloutier is author of Mussolini’s War in Spain 1936-1939: Italian Intervention in the Spanish Civil War.
According to a Newsweek article featured on ATT.NET:
The Fox News show Justice With Jeanine Pirro was pulled from programming Saturday evening, one week after Pirro’s controversial comments about Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.
“Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” Pirro said. “Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”
– A valid question in the opinion of this blogger, in light of the experience of nations like the United Kingdom, or Germany, where criticism of Islam is essentially illegal and is punished with heavy fines or imprisonment. Perhaps it is time to drop FOX News.
Mr. Cloutier is the author of Mussolini’s War in Spain 1936-1939: Italian Intervention in the Spanish Civil War.
Concern has been expressed over an attempt by several states to, in essence, alter our form of government, by altering the way in which their Electoral College votes are awarded in Presidential elections.
Each state has a certain number of Electoral votes, based on the number of U.S. Senators and Congressmen who represent it. No state can ever have less than 3 Electoral votes. The system was designed as a compromise to protect smaller states from being politically overwhelmed by larger states, and to prevent any handful of very populous states from dictating to the rest of the Union.
However, according to well-known and respected journalist Bill Still, 12 states have formed a so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), by which these states would award their Electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than to the candidate who captures the vote within their respective boundaries. And perhaps predictably, 2 of the 12 states are the most populous states in the Union – just the sort of combination the Electoral College was designed to counter.
However, their NPVIC is dead on arrival, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from entering into compacts, without Congressional approval.
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I, Section 3, Paragraph 3:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”
Even if both Houses of Congress could be so thoroughly corrupt as to permit a group of rogue states to attempt such a thing, it would be unlikely to survive a legal challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, such a course of action would constitute a rebellion against the authority of the United States (the authority of the United States is the Constitution) and could result in an unwelcome military response, with Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Colorado and Connecticut ending up as Reconstruction States – perhaps to the great relief of their citizens.
Patrick Cloutier is the author of “Mussolini’s War in Spain. Italian Intervention in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939“.
I cannot see how Nancy Pelosi can legally block a State of the Union Address – according to Article II, Section 3, the President is required by law to deliver the SOTU:
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union…he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them…as he shall think proper”.
And: [He] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” – thus it appears that by law, President Trump cannot permit Nancy Pelosi to block the SOTU…
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to remake the image of Europe and issued her invitation for a Muslim and African invasion of Germany, it struck me that she must be in violation of previous security agreements. I decided to have a look at the NATO Treaty, to see what it might say about uncontrolled migrant growth. Analyzing the document, I learned that besides being a collective defense agreement, it requires each member state to ensure stability within its borders, and to stick to the agreement. And member states cannot enter into agreements or organizations that set aside the purpose of the Treaty. These provisions extend to the U.S. as well, since it is the senior partner in the Alliance.
Specifically, Replacement Migration violates the Preamble, Article 2, and Article 8 of the NATO Treaty.
The Preamble’s mission statement defines the Alliance as an organization designed to perpetuate European civilization and the historic peoples thereof; and to provide for the internal stability of member states.
Article 2 requires each member state to guarantee conditions of internal stability. Replacement migration brings instability. Moreover, Article 2 prohibits member states from contributing to instability within other member states, for example, by permitting migrant invasions to pass through their territories, as the Turkish and Greek goverments have done.
Article 8 prohibits member states from entering into international agreements or organizations – such as the European Union – that overthrow the NATO Treaty. Even if the Treaty promotes closer European political integration, it is not a suicide pact! The Treaty language is very plain in this regard and it is baffling that the governments of leading NATO countries either did not consult the Treaty, or ignored it entirely.
I have posted the NATO Treaty text below for the reader’s benefit and highlighted the relevant sections.
The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. – 4 April 1949
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of [internal] stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 1
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.
- The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
- On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
- The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the
- ratifications of all signatory states.
An apparent about-face by President Trump on Syria, brought about by National Security John Bolton, as told by RT News:
Claas Relotius, former ‘journalist’ for Der Spiegel
Claas Relotius, a former journalist for the establishment German newspaper, Der Spiegel, and dedicated member of the Anti-Trump Abroad, has recently been exposed as a fraud. With an arrogance that defines the Left, Relotius made a career out of conditioning the German people to accept ‘progressive’ causes, among them Replacement Migration, which is their own replacement with Muslim and African migrants. Of course, when Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, he had no choice but to attack those ‘backward’ Americans who voted for him. Besides a phony narrative about vigilantes patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border, he also wrote a hit-piece about the people of Fergus Falls, Minnesota. In two recent videos, YouTube personality “Red Pill Germany” explains how Relotius was uncovered by curious Americans and a colleague at Der Spiegel:
Patrick Cloutier is author of Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941.
The latest in Fake News – and there is a heap of it – says that a DNA test has proven Elizabeth Warren’s Native American ancestry. If one reads past the headline, however, the article goes on to say that her DNA findings “suggest” Native American ancestry – a suggestion is not a convincing proof, so Trump owes her nothing. And the speculation is rather weak, bottoming out at a possible 1/512 gene share. Besides, the timing of the announcement, just before the November elections, must also be considered suspect.
I am not persuaded that all DNA test results are on the up-and-up. In today’s PC world, when government funding drives much research, and drives politically correct research in particular, DNA ancestry test results must be looked at with skepticism. Apparently, it is standard fare to include speculative results, alongside the hard data. Thus, many of solid European descent are led to believe that they have African, Asian, or other Third World ancestry, even though there is no conclusive proof. And vice versa, all those of African or Asian descent would be made to believe that they have Scandinavian, or other European origins. The latest rage in DNA testing even pushes Neanderthal ancestry. The chance of any modern human having Neanderthal ancestry seems remote, if we give serious consideration to Danny Vendramini’s theory that Neanderthals were incompatible with homo sapiens and even saw them as a food source, and moreover, that both groups were committed to completely annihilating each other, in a contest that homo sapiens narrowly won. But modern DNA science appears to be part of the decades-long effort to advance the Out-of-Africa Theory of Evolution, the notion that all mankind is descended from black Africans, who migrated out of East Africa about 100,000 years ago. Prior to this, most anthropologists accepted the concept of multi-polar human evolution. However, this hypothesis, while not disproven, was forcibly stamped out in the Soviet Union, and later exiled from academia in the West. Vladimir Avdeyev, a Russian researcher, discusses this in detail in his work, RACIOLOGY, a book which treats the topic of the development of racial studies over the centuries and millennia.
But it would seem that modern geneticists are as eager to push the Out of Africa Theory, as Classical World scholars and elites, and later the Church, were eager to push the Earth-Centered Theory of the Universe. And just as those who opposed the Earth-Centered Theory risked suffering the wrath of the Classical World Establishment, so too, do modern scientists who challenge the Out of Africa Theory, risk the wrath of the Western Elite. The question is, shall knowledge again suffer for 1,500 years, as a PC Elite-Science alliance combines to commit academic fraud, or will rational thought prevail before then?
Mr. Cloutier is the author of THREE KINGS: AXIS ROYAL ARMIES ON THE RUSSIAN FRONT 1941. He is also the translator of RACIOLOGY.
В КОНГРЕССЕ, 4 ИЮЛЯ, 1776
Eдинодушная Декларация тринадцати объединенных Государств Америки
Когда в ходе человеческих событий становится необходимым, для однoгo народa расторгать политические связи, которые связали их с другим, и занимать среди держав Земли, отдельное и равное положение, на которoe Законы Природы и Бога Природы дают ему право, приличнoe уважение к мнениям человечества требует, чтобы они указали причины, побуждающиe их к разделению.
Мы считаем эти истины самоочевидными, что все люди созданы равными, что они наделены своим Создателем определенными неотъемлемыми правами, что среди них есть Жизнь, Свобода и стремление к Счастью. – что Для обеспечения этих прав, правительствa учреждаются среди народов, извлекая свои справедливые полномочия с согласия управляемых, – что когда же, любая форма правления становится губительной для этих целей, это Право Народа изменять или отменять его, и создать новое Правительство, закладывая свои основы на таких принципах и организуя его власть в такой форме, как им кажется, скорее всего, осуществлять их Безопасность и Счастье. Благоразумие, действительно, будет диктовать, что правительства, давно установленные, не должны изменять для легких и временных причин; и, соответственно, весь опыт показал что человечество более склонно страдать, пока зол терпимо, чем выравниваться, путем отмены формы, к которым они привыкли. Но когда длинная цепь злоупотреблений и узурпаций, неизменно преследуя один и тот же Oбъект, проявляет умысeл, чтобы понижать их под абсолютным деспотизмом, это их право, это их долг, отбросить такое правительство и предоставить новые гвардии для их будущей безопасности, – такова терпеливое страдание этих колоний; и такова теперь необходимость, которая принуждает их изменить их прежние Системы правления. История нынешнего короля Великобритании – это история непрерывных оскорблений и узурпаций, все, имеющие в прямом объекте установление абсолютной тирании над этими государствами. Чтобы доказать это, пусть факты будут представлены беспристрастному миру.
Он отказывался от своего согласия на законы, наиболее полезный и необходимый для общественного блага.
Он запретил своим губернаторам принимать законы немедленной и неотложной важности, если они не были приостановлены в их действии до получения его согласия; и когда они были так приостановлены, он полностью пренебрегал заниматься ими.
Он отказывался принять другие законы для благоустройство больших районов людей, если эти люди не покидают их право представительства в законодательном органе, что является неоценимым для них правом и ужасным лишь для тиранов.
Он созывал законодательные собрания в местах необычных, неудобных и отдаленных от хранилища их публичных записей, с единственной целью утомлять их в соответствии с его мерами.
Он неоднократно распускал Представительные палаты за то, что они c мужественной твердостью противились его вторжениям в права народа.
Он отказался в течение долгого времени после таких роспусков, вызывать другие быть избранными, посредством чего законодательные державы, не поддающийся истреблению, вернулись к широкому народу для их осуществления; государство остающееся в то же время, подверженное всем опасностям вторжения извне, и волнения внутри.
Он старался препятствовать заселению этих государств; для этой цели препятствует Законам о натурализации иностранцев; отказываясь принять другие, чтобы поощрять их миграцию сюда; и повышал условия новых ассигнований земель.
Он мешал Отправлению Правосудия, отказываясь от своего Согласия на Законы о создании судебных властей.
Он сделал судей зависимыми лишь от своей Воли для пребывания в их должностях, а также суммы и выплаты их зарплат.
Он учреждал множество новых должностней и отправил сюда рои чиновников, чтобы преследовать наших людей и изъедать их состояние.
Он содержал среди нас в мирные времена, постоянные армии без согласия наших законодательных органов.
Он повлиял на то, чтобы сделать Военные и помимо и выше Гражданской власти.
Он объединился с другими, чтобы подвергнуть нас юрисдикции, чуждой нашей конституции, и непризнанной нашими законами; давая свое согласие на их акты мнимого законодательства:
Для расквартирования крупных вооруженных сил среди нас:
Для защиты их, путем инсценированного судебного процесса от наказания за любые Убийства, которые они должны были совершать на Жителях этих Государств:
Для пресечения нашей Торговли со всеми частями мира:
Для обложение нас Налогами без нашего согласия:
Для лишения нас во многих случаях, пользы суда присяжнымы:
Для перевозки нас за морем, для суда за мнимые преступления:
Для упразднении свободной системы английских законов в соседней провинции, установление в ней произвольного правительства и расширение еe границ, с тем чтобы сделать ee в одно и тоже время примером и подходящим инструментом для введения такой же абсолютной власти в этих колониях
Для отнятия наши Хартий, уничтожения наших наиболее нами ценимых законов и коренного изменения Форм наших правительств:
Для приостановления наших собственных законодательных собраний и объявления о том, что они вложили в себя полномочия издавать законы для нас во всех случаях.
Он отрекся от правительства здесь, объявив нас из своей защиты и ведения войны против нас.
Он разграбил наши моря, разорял наши берега, сжигал наши города и уничтожал жизни нашего народа.
Oн в настоящее время перевозит крупные армии иноземных наёмников, чтобы довершить дела смерти, разорения и тирании, уже начатые в условиях жестокости и вероломствa, едва аналогично в самые варварские времена и совершенно недостойных главы цивилизованной нации.
Он принуждал наших сограждан, захваченных пленниками в открытом море, чтобы нести оружие против своей страны, стать палачами своих друзей и братьев или пасть сами их руками.
Он вызвал рабские мятежа среди нас и старался навести обитателей наших границ, беспощадных индийских дикарей, чье известное правило ведения войны – это уничтожение без различия всех возрастов, полa и условий.
На каждом этапе этих угнетений мы подали прошение об исправлении в самых скромных выражениях: на наши повторные петиции ответили только неоднократные оскорбления. Князь, характер которого, таким образом, отмечен каждым действием, который может определить Тирана, не может быть правителем свободных людей.
Ни были мы невнимательный к нашим британским собратьям. Мы время от времени предупреждали их о попытках их законодательного органа распространить на нас не оправданную юрисдикцию. Мы напомнили им об обстоятельствах нашей эмиграции и заселение здесь. Мы обращались к их врождённой справедливости и великодушию, и мы заклинали их связями нашего общего родствa, чтобы отрекаться от этих узурпаций, что неизбежно прервало бы наши связи и дружбу. Они тоже были глухи к голосу справедливости и единокровности. Поэтому мы должны примириться с необходимостью, которая заявляeт наше Разделение и cчитать их, как мы считаем остальное человечество, Врагaми в войне, в мире друзьями.
Поэтому мы, Представители объединенных Государств Америки, в Генеральном конгрессе, собрались, обратившись к Верховному Судье мира за праведностью наших намерений, делаем во имя и по авторитету добрых людей этих колоний, торжественно публиковать и заявлять, что эти объединенные Kолонии по праву и должны быть Cвободными и Hезависимыми Государствами, что они освобожденные от всей верности английской короне и что всякая политическая связь между ними и государством Великобритании и фактический и должны быть полностью расторжены; и что как Cвободные и Hезависимые Государства, у них есть полная сила, чтобы вести войну, заключать мир, заключать альянсы, устанавливать торговлю и делать все другие действия и вещи, которые могут по праву делать Hезависимые Государства. – И для поддержки этой Декларации, с твердым доверием к защите Божественного Провидения, мы взаимно обвязываемся друг другу наши Жизни, наши судьбы и нашу священную честь.
Джосия Бартлетт, Уильям Уиппл, Мэтью Торнтон
Джон Хэнкок, Сэмюэл Адамс, Джон Адамс, Роберт Пайн, Элбридж Джерри
Стивен Хопкинс, Уильям Эллери
Роджер Шерман, Сэмюэл Хантингтон, Уильям Уильямс, Оливер Уолкотт
Уильям Флойд, Филипп Ливингстон, Фрэнсис Льюис, Льюис Моррис
Ричард Стоктон, Джон Уизерспун, Фрэнсис Хопкинсон, Джон Харт, Абрахам Кларк
Роберт Моррис, Бенджамин Раш, Бенджамин Франклин, Джон Мортон, Джордж Климер, Джеймс Смит, Джордж Тейлор, Джеймс Уилсон, Джордж Росс
Цезарь Родни, Джордж Рид, Томас МкКин
Сэмюэль Чейз, Уильям Пака, Томас Стоун, Чарльз Кэрролл из Карролтона
Джордж Уайт, Ричард Генри Ли, Томас Джефферсон, Бенджамин Харрисон, Томас Нельсон-младший, Фрэнсис Лайтфут Ли, Картер Брэкстон
Уильям Хупер, Джозеф Хьюс, Джон Пенн
Эдвард Рутледж, Томас Хейворд-младший, Томас Линч-младший, Артур Миддлтон
Буттон Гвиннетт, Лаймен Холл, Джордж Уолтон
I wrote a revised Russian translation of the Declaration of Independence, after having read several versions and commentary. A number of English versions of the Declaration appeared after the 4th of July, so it is understandable if some translations differ from the official document – therefore allow me to note that I worked from a copy of the official version of the Declaration, which is stored in the National Archives.
Interestingly, the translation rendered by Communist scholars was among the most faithful to the original. However, all versions contain word selections that risk a less complete understanding of the document and the history that followed. Therefore, I changed several words in hope of attaining greater accuracy. I will discuss some of these words below.
The word relinquish in “relinquish the right of Representation”: some Russian translators rendered it as “отказался” [otkazalsya], which means to renounce or give up; this is technically correct, but according to Dr. Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (1756), relinquish meant first and foremost “to forsake, to abandon” – these words have far more emotional strength and better communicate how dear the right of representation was to the Colonists. Therefore, in this context I used the term “покидать” [pokidat’] – to abandon to express the word relinquish in Russian.
The word swarms in “swarms of Officers”: according to Dr. Johnson, a “swarm” was “a great body or number of bees”. Rather than label numerous tax collectors a “crowd”, which would already be unpleasant, author Thomas Jefferson likened the officers to a cloud of insects, such as locusts or wasps, which bring economic ruin or pain. Thus rather than толпы – [tolpy] crowds, I chose рои – [roi] swarms.
The phrase domestic insurrections: it appears that all Russian translators consider the word “domestic” to mean “internal”, and so they employ the words внутренние восстания – [vnutrennie vosstaniya] internal rebellions. However, the phrase “domestic insurrections” in this instance meant “slave rebellions”, “domestic” being a polite word for the term “slave”. I did not find a polite Russian noun that corresponded to “slave”, so I made use of the word рабские [rabskie]. Bосстания did not seem the best choice for insurrection, since the word could have an honorific connotation in the Soviet era, for example, “Площадь Восстания”, or Revolt Square. I have observed however, that the word мятеж – myatezh, which also means revolt or insurrection, is used in Soviet/Russian historiography to refer to the Nationalist revolt of the Spanish Civil War; since they were considered the “bad guys”, it seems appropriate to use myatezh in the Russian-language Declaration, since slave rebellions are being referred to in the negative, and thus it is rendered рабские мятежа – [rabskie myatezha] slave revolts.
The word united in “united Colonies” and “united States”: I examined the phrases and considered them against the historical background of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, as well as Russian usage.
Regarding the phrase united Colonies: how “united” were the Colonies? Confederate Military History (1899), edited by General Clement A. Evans of Georgia, provides an answer. Let us look to Volume 1, in the section titled “Legal Justification of the South in Secession”, written by J.L.M. Curry, L.L.D., who describes the condition of the Colonies, as they were on 4 July 1776:
“There was neither alliance nor confederacy between the colonies…The [Continental] Congresses of 1774, 1775, and 1776 were occasional and not permanent bodies, claimed no sovereign authority, and had no true governmental powers…The Declaration of Independence…was an act of Congress declaring absolution of the colonies from the crown and government of Great Britain and that they were “free and independent states”. The Congress which made this declaration was appointed by the Colonies in their separate and distinct capacity. They voted on its adoption in their separate character, each giving one vote by all its representatives who acted in strict obedience to specific instructions from their respective colonies, and the members signed the Declaration in that way. The [delegates] had authority to act in the name of their own colony and not of any other, and were representatives only of the Colony which appointed them…The sole object [of the Declaration was to announce] and justify the separation from, and the independence of [the Colonies from], the British Crown. The colonies being distinct and separate communities, with sovereignty vested in the British crown, when the tie which bound them to that sovereignty was severed, upon each colony respectively was devolved that sovereignty and each emerged from provincial dependence into an independent and sovereign State…The Declaration of Independence is not a form of government, not an enumeration of popular rights, not a compact between states, but was recognized in its fullest demands, when in 1782, Great Britain acknowledged New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, Georgia and the other colonies to be “free, sovereign, and independent States”.
Thus the Colonies were in voluntary association with each other. In this regard, I considered the Russian term “united”, as it is used in “United Nations”, to refer to an association of sovereign nations. For this reason, I rendered “united Colonies” as объединенные Kолонии – [obedinyonnye Kolonii] united Colonies.
Regarding the phrase united States: how “united” were the States? As J.L.M. Curry further explains: “Stress is laid on the revolutionary government and on the Declaration of Independence, by those who are anxious to establish the theory of a national or consolidated government, reducing the States to mere dependencies of a central power. As has been shown, the contention…is without legal or historical foundation; the temporary government [the Continental Congress], largely for war purposes, was superseded by the Articles of Confederation, which because of the reluctance of the states to delegate their powers, did not become obligatory until 1781, as [unanimous] ratification by all the States was a condition precedent to their having any binding force. These articles, in explicit terms, incapable of misinterpretation, declare that “each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.” There can be no mistake here as to the reservation of entire freedom, entire independence, entire sovereignty. These were retained without qualification and limitation, and the use of the word “retains” is the clearest assertion that these unsurrendered prerogatives were possessed [during the Continental Congresses].”
According to Article III of the Articles of Confederation, the Confederation is described as a “league of friendship”, it is important to note that according to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, a league is “An agreement or treaty between states.” Thus, having a status like a treaty, any State was free to withdraw from it, anytime the Articles no longer served their purpose, or became injurious to the interests of a signatory State, and Congress had no power to prevent it.
According to Article IV, there was no treason against the “united states”, but rather against individual states. The person accused of Treason was not tried by the “united states in congress” assembled, but by the courts of the State wherein the offense took place.
Article VI provided that with the approval of 9 of the 13 “united states in congress assembled”, a state could individually send or receive an embassy from any King, prince, or foreign state; could enter individually into an alliance or treaty with any King, prince, or foreign state; could enter into a treaty, confederation, or alliance with another American state. States could individually maintain navies and armed forces for self-defense.
Under Article IX, each State had the right to strike its own coin; Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont exercised this right.
All of the above again indicate a voluntary association of states. With the States retaining so many attributes of sovereignty, in any work concerning the Articles of Confederation, in defining “united states in congress assembled” for a reader of the Russian language, I would again use the word объединенные [obyedinennye] for “united”. Let us also note that in the English-language version, the word “united” appears in all lower-case letters, when it precedes both the word “Colonies”, and the word “States”. That is because in both cases the word “united” is simply an adjective and not part of a proper title; for this reason, the Russian equivalent объединенные also appears in lower-case letters, in those instances.
A final consideration was finding a suitable Russian term for “States”, as it is used in the Declaration. All Russian-language versions of the Declaration that I have read use the word Штаты – [Shaty], a cognate of the English word “States”. While it may be convenient in English that the word “State” may describe a nation, a constituent republic of a federation, or unit of government, it is a disadvantage for anyone trying to explain the degrees of sovereignty involved, when applying the term to different cases. Fortunately, the Russian language can assist in making those distinctions.
In my estimation, the Russian word государство – [gosudarstvo] most closely corresponds with the meaning and intent of the word “State”, as it appears in the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. For the reasons described above, I render it as объединенные Государствa Америки [obyedinennye Gosudarstva Ameriki] united States of America.
It is not until 1789, when the U.S. Constitution came into effect, that the Russian term Штат ~ [Shtat] state becomes an appropriate Russian equivalent. Having ceded some of the vital aspects of their sovereignty – such as the power to mint coins – to the United States, the several States became more than associates: they were now statutorily joined, and so we may use the Russian term cоединенные ~ [soyedinyonnye] for united, thus yielding the expression Соединенные Штаты Америки – [Soedinennye Shaty Ameriki] for United States of America, from the year 1789 to the present. We can render the different titles in the following ways:
united States of America – объединенныe Государствa Америки (1776-1781)
United States of America – Oбъединенныe Государствa Америки (1781-1789)
United States of America – Соединенные Штаты Америки (1789 – present)
As for the document that started it all – the Declaration of Independence – we can see that the actions of the several States were influenced by the spirit of the words “Free and Independent States”, for nearly 100 years. The several States considered themselves co-equals of the Federal Government, and acted accordingly:
In 1798, Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions to nullify President Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, which had made it illegal to criticize the government, even without a declared state of war being in effect.
During the War of 1812, the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts refused to give President Madison control of their state militias.
The New York State Militia refused to invade Canada. Militia could not legally be ordered to invade another country, they could only be used to repel invasions. Knowing this, the militia refused orders to cross the border and could not be prosecuted for it.
In the 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Scott v. Sandford, that being a slave, Dredd Scott was property and not entitled to any rights. The legislatures of Ohio, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania sought ways to nullify the Court’s decision; and the High Courts of Ohio, New York and Maine would not recognize the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision as valid.
During the War Between the States, Kentucky declared neutrality, though it was short-lived.
Concerning secession, it is important to note that in 1789, while the several States ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the agency of the United States, the States entered into the Union as though entering a compact, and a number of states reserved the right to secede from the Union and re-assume the complete sovereign powers they had previously enjoyed, that is, to become “free and independent states” once more, should the Union prove harmful to their individual interests. And this right of secession was widely recognized. U.S. District Attorney William Rawle, author of “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America”, a textbook which was used for courses at Harvard University and West Point Military Academy, wrote in Chapter XXXII “Of the Permanence of the Union”: “The states…may withdraw wholly from the Union”. William Rawle’s writing guided the thinking of many Americans, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who often cited “A View of the Constitution” in his own written work, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833); it influenced as well many Southerners, who, serving in the U.S. Army, resigned their commissions to fight for their native states in the Confederacy. Story wrote: “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.” As early as 1814, at the Hartford Convention, the New England states had considered seceding from the Union.
Unusually, secession was an expressed right in the Constitution of the USSR. It was not so in the U.S. Constitution, though, as discussed above, it was considered a matter of common knowledge. In the end, secession depends on sufficient force: where it succeeded in the case of the USSR in 1991, and in the case of Crimea in 2014, it failed in the case of the Confederate States in 1865.
Nevertheless, the rights or reserved powers of the states continue to be subject of discussion. There are Texans, for example, who believe that the Lone Star State should become an independent republic once more, and the present regime in California (which sided with the Union in 1861) has been taking measures to separate from the United States.
As we can see, to this day the Declaration has been a subject of debate. Argument will continue, but one thing may be said with absolute certainty about the Declaration of Independence: it was unanimous.
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books.
 http://chnm.gmu.edu/declaration/russian1/one.html, http://chnm.gmu.edu/declaration/russian2/one.html, https://ushistory.ru/istochniki/teksty-k-seminaram/779-declaration-of-independence-na-anglijskom-i-na-russkom-jazykah, S.F. Udartseva, Deklaratsiya Nezavisimosti – Inauguratsionnie Rechi, trans. S.A. Nurgazievoy and V.V. Markova (Almaty: Zheti Zhargy, 2004) 29-34.
 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Barnes and Nobles Books, 1994)
 J.L.M. Curry “Legal Justification of the South in Secession,” in Clement A. Evans, ed., Confederate Military History (Atlanta: Confederate Publishing Company, 1899) V.1: 8-
 J.L.M. Curry “Legal Justification of the South in Secession,” in Clement A. Evans, ed., Confederate Military History (Atlanta: Confederate Publishing Company, 1899) V.1:, 11. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015070227528;view=1up;seq=41
 John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia (Kansas City: Vernon Law Book Co., 1914) V.2: 1887.
 Yielding the expression “объединенные государства в конгрессе собрались”.
 An attribute of the sovereignty that was retained by the several States, in relation to the United States, was the power of state legislatures, until passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, to appoint Senators to the U.S. Senate. The Senators acted as the ambassadors of the several states to the United States. We may observe that following adoption of this Amendment, the United States quite often became embroiled in international conflicts and military adventures; U.S. Senators, no longer accountable to the penny-wise State legislatures that once appointed them, now only needed to satisfy the greed of the national banks and corporations which provided most of their campaign donations, in order to secure nominations for public office.
 Yet though they ceded their independence to the United States, they retained a portion of their sovereignty, with respect to the national government and each other. As explained in Bouvier’s Dictionary of the Law, V.3, page 3121:
“The several states comprising the United States are sovereign and independent in all things not surrendered to the national government by the constitution, and are considered, on general principles, by each other as foreign states: yet their mutual relations are rather those of domestic independence than of foreign alienation.”
 R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History from 3500 B.C. to the present (New York: Harper and Row, 1986) 797.
 https://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/sto-303/ – Concerning secession, see Chapter 3.
 https://www.wnd.com/2017/02/california-the-reconstruction-state/ While Texans may be conscientious “states rights” enthusiasts, the clique in California has no legitimacy outside of Mexico. For my part, I believe in the adage: “United we stand, divided we fall.”
- The swiftness with which injustice was meted out to Tommy Robinson is stunning. No, more than that: it is terrifying.
- Without having access to his own lawyer, Robinson was summarily tried and sentenced to 13 months behind bars. He was then transported to Hull Prison.
- Meanwhile, the judge who sentenced Robinson also ordered British media not to report on his case. Newspapers that had already posted reports of his arrest quickly took them down. All this happened on the same day.
- In Britain, rapists enjoy the right to a full and fair trial, the right to the legal representation of their choice, the right to have sufficient time to prepare their cases, and the right to go home on bail between sessions of their trial. No such rights were offered, however, to Tommy Robinson.