Washington’s Farewell Address 1796

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitutionwhich at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it – It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

 

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

 

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

 

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

 

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

 

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

 

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

 

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

 

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

 

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

 

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

 

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

 

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

 

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

 

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

 

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

 

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

 

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Help us keep this publication free. Consider supporting it with a donation. Thank you

Adam Rice’s Message from France

Gilets Jaunes coming to America

Adam- So here is a basic text update for what has been seen so far:

We attended manifest in Paris this past Saturday. We had a late start to our day and missed the first initial march and caught the tail end of it. When I arrived we saw a street closed off by a massive police presence and many gilets jaunes dancing in the street to bob Marley surrounded by cops. Eventually the police forced everyone out so we moved to La Place De Republique. When we arrived there was a massive rave occurring in the square aside the protesting revolutionaries. Shortly after arriving we began to march.

At one point we stoped to take pictures with supporting locals and our american flag until BOOM!! From behind us there again was a large squad of CRS firing flash bangs at the backs of the marching citizens. It was when the third explosion occurred only feet from our persons that we ran. I could see the explosion it was so close. We took a corner and followed others running for cover and ultimately looped back to find the crowd.

We found shortly after that the CRS had cordoned off the street and were not letting people through. Several officers were picking fights with senior citizens, and another was kicking chairs over at a restaurant where uninvolved citizens were eating. As they persisted we grabbed our flag and faced these jerks. We stood tall and proud as more french gilets jaunes followed and we chanted in french until they retreated. Soon after we sang a celebratory song and returned to the plaza.

When we got back to the plaza we almost couldnt get in as there were more cops than id seen in my life. We retrieved our friend kate by the monument and were again forced across the street by the mobs of police. A brief stare down occurred and the people again decided to not take this shit. We got our flag out again and stood strong in the street and spoke to many about our intentions as American Yellow Vests. There were definitely mixed opinions at first about our flag at first glance, but once explaining our intentions it was empowering to all involved. Speaking about liberating America from tyranny, equality, peace, ending wars, preserving nature, and more often led us to understand we are all after the same ends. We talked to many about how the French and Americans have typically been united in revolution and it was time to do it again.

So the crowd marched again towards the line of police who again retreated. It was only briefly after that everyone turned on a dime and ran away again. I still dont know what they were running from but as soon as it appeared no danger was present we made our third stand and faced the jerks. We spoke with a man from Poland briefly about global unity and decided we should finally retreat ourselves. As we left it appeared that the police succeeded in dispersing the crowd.

We spent the night in Paris and rode back with a big spokesperson here named Jeremy Clement. I had been following him since News2share interviewed him. We stopped for lunch and discussed doing our own interview this week, as well as getting Yellow Vest from America on the TV here. I explained how I wanted to show the world that people in America do care about what is important, and we are ready to stand up. That we wished to share a message of unity, love, and courage. The most exciting part of this encounter was his offer to bring a group of their organizers here and French media in the beginning of June. We agreed it is no time to wait, and the world is very ill and only the people can/will fix this. Over the next few days I believe we will work out the details of this, and hopefully come June we will see the French standing with America in some meaningful places for returning power to the people, and R.I.C.! Once confirmed, I will be screaming this from the mountaintops. We are thinking of picking four locations for now: Denver, Utah, Twin Ports MN, The Statue Of Liberty, and our original capital: Philadelphia, PA. Locations will naturally be able to be worked out once all parties involved have more time to discuss, but the main point is WE INTEND TO BRING THE REVOLUTION HOME!

To conclude, the police here suck!!! There are way too many of them, and the government here is doing everything they can to suppress free speech. Everything is on camera, and it often feels like Nazi occupied Germany seeing the police presence here. The Gilets Jaunes never back down or give up, and seeing that first hand could not possibly be more empowering. We managed to stay safe and unharmed in the face of these events, but also realized pretty quickly it takes bravery to defy insurmountable odds.

Help us to keep this publication free by leaving a monetary tip. Thank you

No justice for Frances Gilets Jaunes

Warning **GRAPHIC**

Paris­­— The satirical weekly newspaper called Révélation du Canard Enchaîné (Revelation of the Chained Duck/Paper), leaked its finding on the corrupt justice system in France. The publication could not put a humorous spin on its findings.

It found that out of the 227 complaints filed by various injured Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vest) from police brutality, not one has succeeded going through the corrupt court system.

In fact, all the complainants are still waiting on any word that the proper authorities are investigating. Some of these complaints are several months old and could go back as far as the end of 2018.

Macron, Frances President gave the order back in December of 2018 to use any means necessary to disband the Yellow Vest movement in Paris. Since the order, the police brutality has escalated to the point anyone caught in the streets can be subjected to the police brutality. Civilians that are not involved in the Yellow Vest movement have been beaten and injured.

Some civilians involved in the Yellow Vest Movement have been so severely injured their lives will never be the same. Some of them are missing eyes, and carry life altering scars on their faces. Some have had to have their jaws surgically put back on them after police shot them in the face blowing it completely off.

The police brutality against the innocent civilians practicing their right to demonstrating in the streets is not only intolerable, but a symptom of the Wetiko or Ouroboros that is engulfing all of us in this New World Order.

Please help to keep this publication free by leaving a monetary tip. Thank you

This is our Resistance, we do not want to Fight, but we will Persevere! (action letter)

Police violence against the people of France has gone unchanged by its government for almost 6 months now. It has only escalated to the point of sever injuries to children, elderly, and anyone that is out in the street that day. The police have become so uncontrollable they are as bad as a pack of rabid dogs! One citizen (Juut Muijs) has put together an action letter for everone to send to authorities to make this violence stop!

Date of sending:
Country you live in:
 
Dear personnel reading this,
 
I, (your full name), want you to know that I am part of the people, and I want to tell you that we, the people, are very pissed off.
This is also an understatement. Understand that.
 
I want to bring something to your attention. I am contacting you regarding an urgent matter happening in France, Europe. Something that affects us all.
 
We want you to speak for all of us and urge France to stop the police violence against the people protesting in France. And to reinstate the freedom of press.
 
We ask you to do everything in your power to make this happen. And we want you to understand that we condemn this and ask for this in every and for every country, against every human who is part of us, the people.
 
From now on I will be heard. I will not accept the violence anymore.
 
I will Resist, fight and persevere in what I can do to stop this violence against the people. Your silence tells us, the people, that when the French people want to protest for something that we all believe in to be “liberté, égalité, fraternité”, that if they are stopped in doing that, we can also not do that anymore.
 
The protests in France are “allowed” but the police stops the people from protesting by attacking them violently and breaking up the protests, way outside the agreed times.
 
I say agreed because it is our basic right to protest and we shouldn’t even be asking permission.
 
We should be organizing it all, together.
 
Furthermore it is very important for us, the people, that we can be aware of what is happening.
 
In a democracy the people can see, hear, know what governments, institutions, police, anything working for the public, the people, is exactly doing. And more importantly how that all is being done.

In France the police is blocking cameras, taking away cameras, beating up press people, the mainstream media worldwide is silent about the events happening in France.
 
This goes against every little detail of what journalism is about. The freedom of press is being violently attacked.
 
You should be well aware of this because these are basic principles of any democracy and human rights. And you do tell us that this, a democracy, is what we are living in? Or are we mistaken? Is that not what you are working for?
 
So, please, we, the people, urge you to make sure France stops, not only because France is attacking our people and therefore us, but also because we feel that you agree to what is happening in France, because you do nothing about it, and that makes us all feel unsafe.
 
This is our Resistance.
We do not want to Fight.
But we will Persevere!
 
Kind regards,

(your name)

Send to:

European Union

European Parliament
 
klaus.welle@ep.europa.eu, TO-Dir@europarl.europa.eu, LINC.information@europarl.europa.eu, dgtrad.secretariat@europarl.europa.eu, fins-dirgenerale@europarl.europa.eu

Members:

A
asim.ademov@europarl.europa.eu, isabella.adinolfi@europarl.europa.eu, marco.affronte@europarl.europa.eu, laura.agea@europarl.europa.eu, johnstuart.agnew@europarl.europa.eu, claraeugenia.aguileragarcia@europarl.europa.eu, daniela.aiuto@europarl.europa.eu, tim.aker@europarl.europa.eu, marina.albiol@europarl.europa.eu, nedzhmi.ali@europarl.europa.eu, michele.alliot-marie@europarl.europa.eu, lucy.anderson@europarl.europa.eu, martina.anderson@europarl.europa.eu, max.andersson@europarl.europa.eu, eric.andrieu@europarl.europa.eu, info@laimaandrikiene.lt, pedronidavide@libero.it, nikos.androulakis@europarl.europa.eu, gerolf.annemans@europarl.europa.eu, maria.arena@europarl.europa.eu, pascal.arimont@europarl.europa.eu, marie-christine.arnautu@europarl.europa.eu, jonathan.arnott@europarl.europa.eu, jean.arthuis@europarl.europa.eu, richard.ashworth@europarl.europa.eu, francisco.assis@europarl.europa.eu, janice.atkinson@europarl.europa.eu, margrete.auken@europarl.europa.eu, petras.austrevicius@europarl.europa.eu, ines.ayalasender@europarl.europa.eu, pilar.ayuso@europarl.europa.eu

B
hans.vanbaalen@europarl.europa.eu, georges.bach@europarl.europa.eu, guillaume.balas@europarl.europa.eu, zigmantas.balcytis@europarl.europa.eu, zoltan.balczo@europarl.europa.eu, nikolay.barekov@europarl.europa.eu, amjad.bashir@europarl.europa.eu, gerard.batten@europarl.europa.eu, nicolas.bay@europarl.europa.eu, hugues.bayet@europarl.europa.eu, catherine.bearder@europarl.europa.eu, beatriz.becerra@europarl.europa.eu, heinzk.becker@europarl.europa.eu, tiziana.beghin@europarl.europa.eu, bastiaan.belder@europarl.europa.eu, ivo.belet@europarl.europa.eu, bendt.bendtsen@europarl.europa.eu, brando.benifei@europarl.europa.eu, xabier.benitoziluaga@europarl.europa.eu, monika.benova@europarl.europa.eu, pervenche.beres@europarl.europa.eu, joelle.bergeron@europarl.europa.eu, goffredo.bettini@europarl.europa.eu, izaskun.bilbaobarandica@europarl.europa.eu, dominique.bilde@europarl.europa.eu, mara.bizzotto@europarl.europa.eu, malin.bjork@europarl.europa.eu, jose.blancolopez@europarl.europa.eu, vilija.blinkeviciute@europarl.europa.eu, andrea.bocskor@europarl.europa.eu, reimer.boege@europarl.europa.eu, franc.bogovic@europarl.europa.eu, simona.bonafe@europarl.europa.eu, michal.boni@europarl.europa.eu, mario.borghezio@europarl.europa.eu, david.borrelli@europarl.europa.eu, biljana.borzan@europarl.europa.eu, victor.bostinaru@europarl.europa.eu, louise.bours@europarl.europa.eu, marie-christine.boutonnet@europarl.europa.eu, jose.bove@europarl.europa.eu, lynn.boylan@europarl.europa.eu, paul.brannen@europarl.europa.eu, mercedes.bresso@europarl.europa.eu, renata.briano@europarl.europa.eu, steeve.briois@europarl.europa.eu, elmar.brok@europarl.europa.eu, klaus.buchner@europarl.europa.eu, daniel.buda@europarl.europa.eu, udo.bullmann@europarl.europa.eu, jonathan.bullock@europarl.europa.eu, cristiansilviu.busoi@europarl.europa.eu, reinhard.buetikofer@europarl.europa.eu, jerzy.buzek@europarl.europa.eu

C
soledad.cabezonruiz@europarl.europa.eu, alain.cadec@europarl.europa.eu, enrique.calvetchambon@europarl.europa.eu, wim.vandecamp@europarl.europa.eu, david.campbellbannerman@europarl.europa.eu, nicola.caputo@europarl.europa.eu, matt.carthy@europarl.europa.eu, james.carver@europarl.europa.eu, david.casa@europarl.europa.eu, daniel.caspary@europarl.europa.eu, fabiomassimo.castaldo@europarl.europa.eu, pilar.delcastillo@europarl.europa.eu, jean-marie.cavada@europarl.europa.eu, lorenzo.cesa@europarl.europa.eu, dita.charanzova@europarl.europa.eu, aymeric.chauprade@europarl.europa.eu, nessa.childers@europarl.europa.eu, caterina.chinnici@europarl.europa.eu, nikolaos.chountis@europarl.europa.eu, ole.christensen@europarl.europa.eu, lefteris.christoforou@europarl.europa.eu, kostas.chrysogonos@europarl.europa.eu, salvatore.cicu@europarl.europa.eu, angelo.ciocca@europarl.europa.eu, alberto.cirio@europarl.europa.eu, deirdre.clune@europarl.europa.eu, david.coburn@europarl.europa.eu, carlos.coelho@europarl.europa.eu, sergio.cofferati@europarl.europa.eu, birgit.collin-langen@europarl.europa.eu, jane.collins@europarl.europa.eu, jacques.colombier@europarl.europa.eu, lara.comi@europarl.europa.eu, annamaria.corazzabildt@europarl.europa.eu, richard.corbett@europarl.europa.eu, Thierry.Cornillet@europarl.europa.eu, ignazio.corrao@europarl.europa.eu, silvia.costa@europarl.europa.eu, javier.cousopermuy@europarl.europa.eu, andrea.cozzolino@europarl.europa.eu, michael.cramer@europarl.europa.eu, andi.cristea@europarl.europa.eu, brian.crowley@europarl.europa.eu, pal.csaky@europarl.europa.eu, ryszard.czarnecki@europarl.europa.eu, edward.czesak@europarl.europa.eu

D
peter.vandalen@europarl.europa.eu, miriam.dalli@europarl.europa.eu, daniel.dalton@europarl.europa.eu, jakop.dalunde@europarl.europa.eu, rosa.damato@europarl.europa.eu, seb.dance@europarl.europa.eu, office@sebdance.co.uk, arnaud.danjean@europarl.europa.eu, nicola.danti@europarl.europa.eu, william.dartmouth@europarl.europa.eu, rachida.dati@europarl.europa.eu, paolo.decastro@europarl.europa.eu, angelique.delahaye@europarl.europa.eu, andor.deli@europarl.europa.eu, karima.delli@europarl.europa.eu, mady.delvaux-stehres@europarl.europa.eu, mark.demesmaeker@europarl.europa.eu, isabella.demonte@europarl.europa.eu, gerard.deprez@europarl.europa.eu, albert.dess@europarl.europa.eu, michael.detjen@europarl.europa.eu, tamas.deutsch@europarl.europa.eu, nirj.deva@europarl.europa.eu, mircea.diaconu@europarl.europa.eu, agustin.diazdemera@europarl.europa.eu, geoffroy.didier@europarl.europa.eu, martina.dlabajova@europarl.europa.eu, diane.dodds@europarl.europa.eu, jorn.dohrmann@europarl.europa.eu, herbert.dorfmann@europarl.europa.eu, mireille.dornano@europarl.europa.eu, damian.draghici@europarl.europa.eu, pascal.durand@europarl.europa.eu, angel.dzhambazki@europarl.europa.eu

E
lampros.fountoulis@europarl.europa.eu, ashley.fox@europarl.europa.eu, romeo.franz@europarl.europa.eu, eugen.freund@europarl.europa.eu, stefan.eck@europarl.europa.eu, christian.ehler@europarl.europa.eu, bas.eickhout@europarl.europa.eu, andre.elissen@europarl.europa.eu, frank.engel@europarl.europa.eu, linnea.engstrom@europarl.europa.eu, georgios.epitideios@europarl.europa.eu, norbert.erdos@europarl.europa.eu, cornelia.ernst@europarl.europa.eu, ismail.ertug@europarl.europa.eu, rosa.estaras@europarl.europa.eu, info.etheridgemep@gmail.com, Jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu, eleonora.evi@europarl.europa.eu

F
tanja.fajon@europarl.europa.eu, nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu, joseinacio.faria@europarl.europa.eu, fredrick.federley@europarl.europa.eu, markus.ferber@europarl.europa.eu, josemanuel.fernandes@europarl.europa.eu, jonas.fernandezalvarez@europarl.europa.eu, giuseppe.ferrandino@europarl.europa.eu, laura.ferrara@europarl.europa.eu, joao.ferreira@europarl.europa.eu, raymond.finch@europarl.europa.eu, santiago.fisasayxela@europarl.europa.eu, raffaele.fitto@europarl.europa.eu, christofer.fjellner@europarl.europa.eu, john.flack@europarl.europa.eu, lukeming.flanagan@europarl.europa.eu, knut.fleckenstein@europarl.europa.eu, karl-heinz.florenz@europarl.europa.eu, eleonora.forenza@europarl.europa.eu, jacqueline.foster@europarl.europa.eu, anna.fotyga@europarl.europa.eu, doru.frunzulica@europarl.europa.eu

G
michael.gahler@europarl.europa.eu, kinga.gal@europarl.europa.eu, francesc.gambus@europarl.europa.eu, iratxe.garcia-perez@europarl.europa.eu, eider.gardiazabalrubial@europarl.europa.eu, elisabetta.gardini@europarl.europa.eu, enrico.gasbarra@europarl.europa.eu, evelyne.gebhardt@europarl.europa.eu, stefan.gehrold@europarl.europa.eu, jens.geier@europarl.europa.eu, elena.gentile@europarl.europa.eu, gerben-jan.gerbrandy@europarl.europa.eu, arne.gericke@europarl.europa.eu, lidiajoanna.geringerdeoedenberg@europarl.europa.eu, sven.giegold@europarl.europa.eu, adam.gierek@europarl.europa.eu, jens.gieseke@europarl.europa.eu, neena.gill@europarl.europa.eu, nathan.gill@europarl.europa.eu, teresa.gimenezbarbat@europarl.europa.eu, julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu, michela.giuffrida@europarl.europa.eu, karine.gloanecmaurin@europarl.europa.eu, sylvie.goddyn@europarl.europa.eu, charles.goerens@europarl.europa.eu, bruno.gollnisch@europarl.europa.eu, anamaria.gomes@europarl.europa.eu, tania.gonzalezpenas@europarl.europa.eu, esteban.gonzalezpons@europarl.europa.eu, beata.gosiewska@europarl.europa.eu, marcel.degraaff@europarl.europa.eu, giorgos.grammatikakis@europarl.europa.eu, luis.degrandespascual@europarl.europa.eu, maria.grapini@europarl.europa.eu, ingeborg.graessle@europarl.europa.eu, karoline.graswander-hainz@europarl.europa.eu, igor.grazin@europarl.europa.eu, nathalie.griesbeck@europarl.europa.eu, theresa.griffin@europarl.europa.eu, iveta.grigule@europarl.europa.eu, francoise.grossetete@europarl.europa.eu, andrzej.grzyb@europarl.europa.eu, roberto.gualtieri@europarl.europa.eu, enrique.guerrerosalom@europarl.europa.eu, sylvie.guillaume@europarl.europa.eu, antanas.guoga@europarl.europa.eu, jytte.guteland@europarl.europa.eu, sergio.gutierrezprieto@europarl.europa.eu, andras.gyurk@europarl.europa.eu

H
jussi.halla-aho@europarl.europa.eu, thomas.haendel@europarl.europa.eu, dan@hannan.co.uk, christophe.hansen@europarl.europa.eu, marian.harkin@europarl.europa.eu, rebecca.harms@europarl.europa.eu, martin.haeusling@europarl.europa.eu, heidi.hautala@europarl.europa.eu, brian.hayes@europarl.europa.eu, anja.hazekamp@europarl.europa.eu, anna.hedh@europarl.europa.eu, office@hansolafhenkel.de, esther.herranzgarcia@europarl.europa.eu, krzysztof.hetman@europarl.europa.eu, maria.heubuch@europarl.europa.eu, nadja.hirsch@europarl.europa.eu, czeslaw.hoc@europarl.europa.eu, iris.hoffmann@europarl.europa.eu, monika.hohlmeier@europarl.europa.eu, gunnar.hokmark@europarl.europa.eu, gyorgy.holvenyi@europarl.europa.eu, mike.hookem@europarl.europa.eu, brice.hortefeux@europarl.europa.eu, john.howarth@europarl.europa.eu, danuta.huebner@europarl.europa.eu, ian.hudghton@europarl.europa.eu, jan.huitema@europarl.europa.eu, filizhakaeva.hyusmenova@europarl.europa.eu

I
sophie.intveld@europarl.europa.eu, carlos.iturgaiz@europarl.europa.eu, catalin-sorin.ivan@europarl.europa.eu, robertjaroslaw.iwaszkiewicz@europarl.europa.eu

J
liisa.jaakonsaari@europarl.europa.eu, anneli.jaatteenmaki@europarl.europa.eu, yannick.jadot@europarl.europa.eu, peter.jahr@europarl.europa.eu, ivan.jakovcic@europarl.europa.eu, jean-francois.jalkh@europarl.europa.eu, diane.james@europarl.europa.eu, france.jamet@europarl.europa.eu, livia.jaroka@europarl.europa.eu, ramon.jaureguiatondo@europarl.europa.eu, benedek.javor@europarl.europa.eu, danuta.jazlowiecka@europarl.europa.eu, petr.jezek@europarl.europa.eu, teresa.jimenez-becerril@europarl.europa.eu, eva.joly@europarl.europa.eu, dennis.dejong@europarl.europa.eu, agnes.jongerius@europarl.europa.eu, marc.joulaud@europarl.europa.eu, marek.jurek@europarl.europa.eu, philippe.juvin@europarl.europa.eu

K
karin.kadenbach@europarl.europa.eu, eva.kaili@europarl.europa.eu, jaroslaw.kalinowski@europarl.europa.eu, sandra.kalniete@europarl.europa.eu, syed.kamall@europarl.europa.eu, petra.kammerevert@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.kappel@europarl.europa.eu, othmar.karas@europarl.europa.eu, rinaronja.kari@europarl.europa.eu, sajjad.karim@europarl.europa.eu, rikke-louise.karlsson@europarl.europa.eu, karol.karski@europarl.europa.eu, elsi.katainen@europarl.europa.eu, sylvia-yvonne.kaufmann@europarl.europa.eu, manolis.kefalogiannis@europarl.europa.eu, tunne.kelam@europarl.europa.eu, jan.keller@europarl.europa.eu, franziska.keller@europarl.europa.eu, sean.kelly@europarl.europa.eu, wajid.khan@europarl.europa.eu, jude.kirton-darling@europarl.europa.eu, wolf.klinz@europarl.europa.eu, slawomir.klosowski@europarl.europa.eu, dieter-lebrecht.koch@europarl.europa.eu, jeppe.kofod@europarl.europa.eu, jaromir.kohlicek@ep.europa.eu, arndt.kohn@europarl.europa.eu, bernd.koelmel@europarl.europa.eu, katerina.konecna@europarl.europa.eu, adam.kosa@europarl.europa.eu, dietmar.koester@europarl.europa.eu, stelios.kouloglou@europarl.europa.eu, peter.kouroumbashev@europarl.europa.eu, bela.kovacs@europarl.europa.eu, andrey.kovatchev@europarl.europa.eu, agnieszka.kozlowska-rajewicz@europarl.europa.eu, zdzislaw.krasnodebski-office@europarl.europa.eu, constanze.krehl@europarl.europa.eu, urszula.krupa@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.kudrycka@europarl.europa.eu, werner.kuhn@europarl.europa.eu, eduard.kukan@europarl.europa.eu, miapetra.kumpula-natri@europarl.europa.eu, kostadinka.kuneva@europarl.europa.eu, zbigniew.kuzmiuk@europarl.europa.eu, kashetu.kyenge@europarl.europa.eu, merja.kyllonen@europarl.europa.eu, miltiadis.kyrkos@europarl.europa.eu, georgios.kyrtsos@europarl.europa.eu, ilhan.kyuchyuk@europarl.europa.eu

L
Patricia.Lalonde@europarl.europa.eu, alain.lamassoure@europarl.europa.eu, jean.lambert@europarl.europa.eu, philippe.lamberts@europarl.europa.eu, danilooscar.lancini@europarl.europa.eu, bernd.lange@europarl.europa.eu, esther.delange@europarl.europa.eu, werner.langen@europarl.europa.eu, giovanni.lavia@europarl.europa.eu, jerome.lavrilleux@europarl.europa.eu, gilles.lebreton@europarl.europa.eu, christelle.lechevalier@europarl.europa.eu, ryszardantoni.legutko@europarl.europa.eu, patrick.lehyaric@europarl.europa.eu, jo.leinen@europarl.europa.eu, jeroen.lenaers@europarl.europa.eu, innocenzo.leontini@europarl.europa.eu, jean-marie.lepen@europarl.europa.eu, janusz.lewandowski@europarl.europa.eu, boguslaw.liberadzki@europarl.europa.eu, peter.liese@europarl.europa.eu, arne.lietz@europarl.europa.eu, norbert.lins@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.lochbihler@europarl.europa.eu, philippe.loiseau@europarl.europa.eu, morten.lokkegaard@europarl.europa.eu, veronica.lopefontagne@europarl.europa.eu, javi.lopez@europarl.europa.eu, juanfernando.lopezaguilar@europarl.europa.eu, paloma.lopez@europarl.europa.eu, antonio.lopezisturiz@europarl.europa.eu, sabine.loesing@europarl.europa.eu, bernd.lucke@europarl.europa.eu, olle.ludvigsson@europarl.europa.eu, elzbieta.lukacijewska@europarl.europa.eu, peter.lundgren@europarl.europa.eu, krystyna.lybacka@europarl.europa.eu

M
david.mcallister@europarl.europa.eu, emma.mcclarkin@europarl.europa.eu, mairead.mcguinness@europarl.europa.eu, anthea.mcintyre@europarl.europa.eu, monica.macovei@europarl.europa.eu, vana.maletic@europarl.europa.eu, svetoslav.malinov@europarl.europa.eu, curzio.maltese@europarl.europa.eu, andrejs.mamikins@europarl.europa.eu, blog@lukasmandl.eu, ramonanicole.manescu@europarl.europa.eu, vladimir.manka@europarl.europa.eu, thomas.mann@europarl.europa.eu, louis-joseph.manscour@europarl.europa.eu, florent.marcellesi@europarl.europa.eu, notis.marias@europarl.europa.eu, antonio.marinhoepinto@europarl.europa.eu, david.martin@europarl.europa.eu, dominique.martin@europarl.europa.eu, edouard.martin@europarl.europa.eu, fulvio.martusciello@europarl.europa.eu, michal.marusik@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.matera@europarl.europa.eu, marisa.matias@europarl.europa.eu, gabriel.mato@europarl.europa.eu, rupert.matthews@europarl.europa.eu, stefano.maullu@europarl.europa.eu, emmanuel.maurel@europarl.europa.eu, costas.mavrides@europarl.europa.eu, eva.maydell@europarl.europa.eu, georg.mayer@europarl.europa.eu, alex.mayer@europarl.europa.eu, valentinas.mazuronis@europarl.europa.eu, gesine.meissner@europarl.europa.eu, joelle.melin@europarl.europa.eu, susanne.melior@europarl.europa.eu, nuno.melo@europarl.europa.eu, morten.messerschmidt@europarl.europa.eu, tamas.meszerics@europarl.europa.eu, roberta.metsola@europarl.europa.eu, tilly.metz@europarl.europa.eu, joerg.meuthen@europarl.europa.eu, louis.michel@europarl.europa.eu, martina.michels@europarl.europa.eu, iskra.mihaylova@europarl.europa.eu, miroslav.mikolasik@europarl.europa.eu, francisco.millanmon@europarl.europa.eu, matthijs.vanmiltenburg@europarl.europa.eu, anne-marie.mineur@europarl.europa.eu, ana.miranda@europarl.europa.eu, Miroslavs.Mitrofanovs@europarl.europa.eu, marlene.mizzi@europarl.europa.eu, angelika.mlinar@europarl.europa.eu, nosheena.mobarik@europarl.europa.eu, giulia.moi@europarl.europa.eu, sorin.moisa@europarl.europa.eu, csaba.molnar@europarl.europa.eu, bernard.monot@europarl.europa.eu, claudia.monteirodeaguiar@europarl.europa.eu, sophie.montel@europarl.europa.eu, clare.moody@europarl.europa.eu, claude.moraes@europarl.europa.eu, nadine.morano@europarl.europa.eu, luigi.morgano@europarl.europa.eu, elisabeth.morinchartier@europarl.europa.eu, krisztina.morvai@europarl.europa.eu, alessia.mosca@europarl.europa.eu, ulrike.mueller@europarl.europa.eu, siegfried.muresan@europarl.europa.eu, renaud.muselier@europarl.europa.eu, alessandra.mussolini@europarl.europa.eu

N
caroline.nagtegaal@europarl.europa.eu, jozsef.nagy@europarl.europa.eu, javier.nart@europarl.europa.eu, momchil.nekov@europarl.europa.eu, norbert.neuser@europarl.europa.eu, dan.nica@europarl.europa.eu, james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu, norica.nicolai@europarl.europa.eu, angelika.niebler@europarl.europa.eu, ludek.niedermayer@europarl.europa.eu, peter.niedermueller@europarl.europa.eu, liadh.niriada@europarl.europa.eu, lambert.vannistelrooij@europarl.europa.eu, maria.noichl@europarl.europa.eu, andrey.novakov@europarl.europa.eu, paul.nuttall@europarl.europa.eu

O
franz.obermayr@europarl.europa.eu, patrick.oflynn@europarl.europa.eu, jan.olbrycht@europarl.europa.eu, younous.omarjee@europarl.europa.eu, stanislaw.ozog@europarl.europa.eu

P
maite.pagaza@europarl.europa.eu, rolandas.paksas@europarl.europa.eu, rory.palmer@europarl.europa.eu, pierantonio.panzeri@europarl.europa.eu, massimo.paolucci@europarl.europa.eu, demetris.papadakis@europarl.europa.eu, konstantinos.papadakis@europarl.europa.eu, dimitrios.papadimoulis@europarl.europa.eu, gilles.pargneaux@europarl.europa.eu, margot.parker@europarl.europa.eu, ioanmircea.pascu@europarl.europa.eu, aldo.patriciello@europarl.europa.eu, emilian.pavel@europarl.europa.eu, jiri.payne@europarl.europa.eu, piernicola.pedicini@europarl.europa.eu, vincent.peillon@europarl.europa.eu, alojz.peterle@europarl.europa.eu, mortenhelveg.petersen@europarl.europa.eu, marijana.petir@europarl.europa.eu, florian.philippot@europarl.europa.eu, giuseppina.picierno@europarl.europa.eu, tonino.picula@europarl.europa.eu, boleslaw.piecha@europarl.europa.eu, markus.pieper@europarl.europa.eu, sirpa.pietikainen@europarl.europa.eu, Joao.pimentalopes@europarl.europa.eu, miroslaw.piotrowski@europarl.europa.eu, kati.piri@europarl.europa.eu, georgi.pirinski@europarl.europa.eu, julia.pitera@europarl.europa.eu, marek.plura@europarl.europa.eu, pavel.poc@europarl.europa.eu, miroslav.poche@europarl.europa.eu, stanislav.polcak@europarl.europa.eu, maurice.ponga@europarl.europa.eu, razvan.popa@europarl.europa.eu, tomasz.poreba@europarl.europa.eu, jiri.pospisil@europarl.europa.eu, soraya.post@europarl.europa.eu, cristiandan.preda@europarl.europa.eu, marcus.pretzell@europarl.europa.eu, gabriele.preuss@europarl.europa.eu, john.procter@europarl.europa.eu, carolina.punset@europarl.europa.eu

Q
godelieve.quisthoudt-rowohl@europarl.europa.eu

R
emil.radev@europarl.europa.eu, jozo.rados@europarl.europa.eu, dennis.radtke@europarl.europa.eu, paulo.rangel@europarl.europa.eu, laurentiu.rebega@europarl.europa.eu, julia.reda@europarl.europa.eu, evelyn.regner@europarl.europa.eu, julia.reid@europarl.europa.eu, michel.reimon@europarl.europa.eu, terry.reintke@europarl.europa.eu, christine.revaultdallonnesBONNEFOY@europarl.europa.eu, sofia.ribeiro@europarl.europa.eu, frederique.ries@europarl.europa.eu, dominique.riquet@europarl.europa.eu, michele.rivasi@europarl.europa.eu, robert.rochefort@europarl.europa.eu, liliana.rodrigues@europarl.europa.eu, mariajoao.rodrigues@europarl.europa.eu, inma.rodriguezpinero@europarl.europa.eu, ulrike.rodust@europarl.europa.eu, jens.rohde@europarl.europa.eu, claude.rolin@europarl.europa.eu, bronis.rope@europarl.europa.eu, dariusz.rosati@europarl.europa.eu, virginie.roziere@europarl.europa.eu, fernando.ruas@europarl.europa.eu, paul.ruebig@europarl.europa.eu, pirkko.ruohonen-lerner@europarl.europa.eu

S
karlis.sadurskis@europarl.europa.eu, tokia.saifi@europarl.europa.eu, sofia.sakorafa@europarl.europa.eu, joseignacio.salafranca@europarl.europa.eu, massimiliano.salini@europarl.europa.eu, mariadoloreslola.sanchezcaldentey@europarl.europa.eu, anne.sander@europarl.europa.eu, alfred.sant@europarl.europa.eu, manuel.dossantos@europarl.europa.eu, dacianaoctavia.sarbu@europarl.europa.eu, judith.sargentini@europarl.europa.eu, petri.sarvamaa@europarl.europa.eu, jacek.saryusz-wolski@europarl.europa.eu, david.sassoli@europarl.europa.eu, algirdas.saudargas@europarl.europa.eu, marietje.schaake@europarl.europa.eu, jean-luc.schaffhauser@europarl.europa.eu, christel.schaldemose@europarl.europa.eu, martin.schirdewan@europarl.europa.eu, elly.schlein@europarl.europa.eu, claudia.schmidt@europarl.europa.eu, helmut.scholz@europarl.europa.eu, gyorgy.schopflin@europarl.europa.eu, annie.schreijer-pierik@europarl.europa.eu, sven.schulze@europarl.europa.eu, joachim.schuster@europarl.europa.eu, andreas.schwab@europarl.europa.eu, molly.scottcato@europarl.europa.eu, giancarlo.scotta@europarl.europa.eu, olga.sehnalova@europarl.europa.eu, jasenko.selimovic@europarl.europa.eu, lidia.senra@europarl.europa.eu, remo.sernagiotto@europarl.europa.eu, ricardo.serraosantos@europarl.europa.eu, jill.seymour@europarl.europa.eu, czeslaw.siekierski@europarl.europa.eu, pedro.silvapereira@europarl.europa.eu, peter.simon@europarl.europa.eu, sion.simon@europarl.europa.eu, birgit.sippel@europarl.europa.eu, branislav.skripek@europarl.europa.eu, davor.skrlec@europarl.europa.eu, alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu, monika.smolkova@europarl.europa.eu, csaba.sogor@europarl.europa.eu, michaela.sojdrova@europarl.europa.eu, jordi.sole@europarl.europa.eu, igor.soltes@europarl.europa.eu, renate.sommer@europarl.europa.eu, martin.sonneborn@europarl.europa.eu, renato.soru@europarl.europa.eu, dobromir.sosnierz@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.spinelli@europarl.europa.eu, maria.spyraki@europarl.europa.eu, bart.staes@europarl.europa.eu, sergei.stanishev@europarl.europa.eu, joachim.starbatty@europarl.europa.eu, ivan.stefanec@europarl.europa.eu, jaromir.stetina@europarl.europa.eu, helga.stevens@europarl.europa.eu, theodordumitru.stolojan@europarl.europa.eu, olaf.stuger@europarl.europa.eu, dubravka.suica@europarl.europa.eu, richard.sulik@europarl.europa.eu, patricija.sulin@europarl.europa.eu, pavel.svoboda@europarl.europa.eu, kay.swinburne@europarl.europa.eu, neoklis.sylikiotis@europarl.europa.eu, eleftherios.synadinos@europarl.europa.eu, jozsef.szajer@europarl.europa.eu, tibor.szanyi@europarl.europa.eu, adam.szejnfeld@europarl.europa.eu

T
antonio.tajani@europarl.europa.eu, dario.tamburrano@europarl.europa.eu, claudiuciprian.tanasescu@europarl.europa.eu, paul.tang@europarl.europa.eu, charles.tannock@europarl.europa.eu, ana-claudia.tapardel@europarl.europa.eu, marc.tarabella@europarl.europa.eu, indrek.tarand@europarl.europa.eu, keith.taylor@europarl.europa.eu, pavel.telicka@europarl.europa.eu, josep-maria.terricabras@europarl.europa.eu, eleni.theocharous@europarl.europa.eu, isabelle.thomas@europarl.europa.eu, roza.thun@europarl.europa.eu, patrizia.toia@europarl.europa.eu, laszlo.tokes@europarl.europa.eu, ivica.tolic@europarl.europa.eu, valdemar.tomasevski@europarl.europa.eu, ruza.tomasic@europarl.europa.eu, romana.tomc@europarl.europa.eu, yana.toom@europarl.europa.eu, estefania.torresmartinez@europarl.europa.eu, nils.torvalds@europarl.europa.eu, evzen.tosenovsky@europarl.europa.eu, ulrike.trebesius@europarl.europa.eu, ramon.tremosa@europarl.europa.eu, mylene.troszczynski@europarl.europa.eu, helga.truepel@europarl.europa.eu, mihai.turcanu@europarl.europa.eu

U
kazimierzmichal.ujazdowski@europarl.europa.eu, istvan.ujhelyi@europarl.europa.eu, marita.ulvskog@europarl.europa.eu, traian.ungureanu@europarl.europa.eu, miguel.urbancrespo@europarl.europa.eu, ernest.urtasun@europarl.europa.eu, vladimir.urutchev@europarl.europa.eu, viktor.uspaskich@europarl.europa.eu

V
inese.vaidere@europarl.europa.eu, ivo.vajgl@europarl.europa.eu, ramonluis.valcarcel@europarl.europa.eu, adinaioana.valean@europarl.europa.eu, elena.valenciano@europarl.europa.eu, bodil.valero@europarl.europa.eu, marco.valli@europarl.europa.eu, angela.vallina@europarl.europa.eu, monika.vana@europarl.europa.eu, anneleen.vanbossuyt@europarl.europa.eu, kathleen.vanbrempt@europarl.europa.eu, tom.vandenkendelaere@europarl.europa.eu, geoffrey.vanorden@europarl.europa.eu, derek.vaughan@europarl.europa.eu, hilde.vautmans@europarl.europa.eu, mirja.vehkapera@europarl.europa.eu, marie-christine.vergiat@europarl.europa.eu, sabine.verheyen@europarl.europa.eu, guy.verhofstadt@europarl.europa.eu, miguel.viegas@europarl.europa.eu, marie-pierre.vieu@europarl.europa.eu, harald.vilimsky@europarl.europa.eu, daniele.viotti@europarl.europa.eu, henna.virkkunen@europarl.europa.eu, anders.vistisen@europarl.europa.eu, udo.voigt@europarl.europa.eu, axel.voss@europarl.europa.eu, elissavet.vozemberg@europarl.europa.eu

W
thomas.waitz@ep.europa.eu, jaroslaw.walesa@europarl.europa.eu, julie.ward@europarl.europa.eu, manfred.weber@europarl.europa.eu, renate.weber@europarl.europa.eu, josef.weidenholzer@europarl.europa.eu, martina.werner@europarl.europa.eu, kerstin.westphal@europarl.europa.eu, rainer.wieland@europarl.europa.eu, lieve.wierinck@europarl.europa.eu, cecilia.wikstrom@europarl.europa.eu, kristina.winberg@europarl.europa.eu, hermann.winkler@europarl.europa.eu, iuliu.winkler@europarl.europa.eu, babette.winter@europarl.europa.eu, jadwiga.wisniewska@europarl.europa.eu, tiemo.woelken@europarl.europa.eu, steven.woolfe@europarl.europa.eu

X

Y

Z
anna.zaborska@europarl.europa.eu, theodoros.zagorakis@europarl.europa.eu, jan.zahradil@europarl.europa.eu, boris.zala@europarl.europa.eu, francis.zammitdimech@europarl.europa.eu, marco.zanni@europarl.europa.eu, flavio.zanonato@europarl.europa.eu, sotirios.zarianopoulos@europarl.europa.eu, tomas.zdechovsky@europarl.europa.eu, tomas.zdechovsky@europarl.europa.eu, bogdan.zdrojewski@europarl.europa.eu, joachim.zeller@europarl.europa.eu, janusz.zemke@europarl.europa.eu, auke.zijlstra@europarl.europa.eu, roberts.zile@europarl.europa.eu, gabriele.zimmer@europarl.europa.eu, jana.zitnanska@europarl.europa.eu, kosma.zlotowski@europarl.europa.eu, mariagabriela.zoana@europarl.europa.eu, damiano.zoffoli@europarl.europa.eu, stanislawjozef.zoltek@europarl.europa.eu, carlos.zorrinho@europarl.europa.eu, zeljana.zovko@europarl.europa.eu, marco.zullo@europarl.europa.eu, milan.zver@europarl.europa.eu, tadeusz.zwiefka@europarl.europa.eu

The Commissioners:
frans-timmermans-contact@ec.europa.eu, federica.mogherini@ec.europa.eu, cab-ansip-web@ec.europa.eu, cab-sefcovic-web@ec.europa.eu, cab-dombrovskis-contact@ec.europa.eu, jyrki-katainen-contact@ec.europa.eu, guenther-oettinger-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-hahn-contacts@ec.europa.eu, cecilia-malmstrom-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-mimica-webpage@ec.europa.eu, cab-arias-canete-archives@ec.europa.eu, cab-karmenu-vella-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-andriukaitis-webpage@ec.europa.eu, dimitris.avramopoulos@ec.europa.eu, cab-thyssen@ec.europa.eu, cab-moscovici-webpage@ec.europa.eu, christos.stylianides@ec.europa.eu, phil.hogan@ec.europa.eu, matej.zakonjsek@ec.europa.eu, margaritis.schinas@ec.europa.eu, vera-jourova-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-navracsics-contact@ec.europa.eu, corina-cretu-contact@ec.europa.eu, margrethe-vestager-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-moedas-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-king-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-gabriel-contact@ec.europa.eu

France

French embassies / consulates
cad.luanda-amb@diplomatie.gouv.fr, ambafr.argentine@gmail.com, cad.erevan-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, secretariat.vienne-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, presse.bakou-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, consulat.berlin-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, cad.bruxelles-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, ambafrance.cotonou@diplomatie.gouv.fr, information@ambafrance-bo.org, france@ambafrance-br.org, presse.sofia.amba@gmail.com, cad.ouagadougou-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, consulat.phnom-penh-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, politique@ambafrance-ca.org, admin-francais.bangui-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, cad.moroni-ambassade@diplomatie.gouv.fr, ambafrance@cytanet.com.cy, cad.copenhague-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, info@ambafrance-nl.org, ambafrance.paramaribo@diplomatie.gouv.fr, mediatheque@institutfrancais.hr, institut@institutfrancais.hr, zagreb@alliance-francaise.hr, split@alliance-francaise.hr, rijeka@alliance-francaise.hr, osijek@alliance-francaise.hr, dubrovnik@alliance-francaise.hr, contact@ambafrance-si.org, ifs@institutfrance.si, ljubljana@businessfrance.fr, ljubljana@dgtresor.gouv.fr, secretariat-cg.milan-fslt@diplomatie.gouv.fr, cfvenise@yahoo.fr, giuliano.berti@studiolegaleberti.it, agenceconsulairegenes@gmail.com, consulatgenes@gmail.com, consulfrance.sion@gmail.com, agenceconsulairedefranceabale@gmail.com, lionel.lafargue@helvetia.ch, cad.luxembourgamba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, millerobert38@gmail.com, londres.douane@dgtresor.gouv.fr, presse.londres-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, pa-frarmament@ambafrance-uk.org, pa-frarmament@ambafrance-uk.org

Spain

Embassies/Consulates/Etc
emb.tirana@maec.es, agredate@oc.mde.es, roma@comercio.mineco.es, berlin@comercio.mineco.es, consejeria.de@mecd.es, berlin@comercio.mineco.es, emb.andorra@maec.es, cog.andorra@maec.es, consejeria.ad@mec.es, paris@mcx.es, constrab.paris@mtin.es, toulouse@meyss.es, emb.moscu@maec.es, emb.viena@maec.es, emb.viena@maec.es, emb.viena.sec@maec.es, viena@tourspain.es, viena@comercio.mineco.es, viena@tourspain.es, emb.baku@maec.es, emb.bruselas@maec.es, cog.bruselas@maec.es, emb.bruselas.ofc@maec.es, consejeriabelgica.be@educacion.gob.es, belgica@mitramiss.es, bruselas@comercio.mineco.es, bruselas@tourspain.es, consejeria.bruselas@comunicacion.presidencia.gob.es, secbru@cervantes.es, emb.moscu@maec.es, emb.sarajevo@maec.es, emb.sarajevo.sc@maec.es, emb.sofia.sc@maec.es, emb.sofia@maec.es, emb.sofia@maec.es, emb.sofia@maec.es, emb.nicosia@maec.es, emb.SantaSede@maec.es, consulado@espana.hr, emb.copenhague@maec.es, emb.copenhague.info@maec.es, emb.copenhague.ofc@maec.es, agredosl@oc.mde.es, dinamarca@mitramiss.es, openhague@tourspain.es, copenhague@comercio.mineco.es, consejeria.de@educacion.es, maria.bustos@policia.es, dinamarca@mitramiss.es, agredosl@oc.mde.es, dinamarca@mitramiss.es, jussi.hakala@saastopankki.fi, paivi.makinen@aristo-invest.fi, ilkka@santapark.com, bratislava@comercio.mineco.es, agregaduria.sk@educacion.gob.es, aula.bratislava@cervantes.es, oficina@es-consulhon.sk, emb.liubliana@maec.es, agredroma@oc.mde.es, cultvie@cervantes.es, info.liubliana@cervantes.es, sc.helsinki@maec.es, emb.helsinki@maec.es, helsinki@comercio.mineco.es, helsinki@tourspain.es, consejeria.de@educacion.es, jussi.hakala@saastopankki.fi, paivi.makinen@aristo-invest.fi, ilkka@santapark.com, helsinki@comercio.mineco.es, helsinki@tourspain.es, dinamarca@meyss.es, bordeaux@cervantes.es, agredpar@oc.mde.es, emb.paris@maec.es, paris@comercio.mineco.es, finances.ocde@hacienda.gob.es, paris@tourspain.es, emb.paris.ofc@maec.es, consejeria.fr@educacion.gob.es, reper.paris@minetad.es, paris@mapama.es, agredpar@oc.mde.es, paris@comunicacion.presidencia.gob.es, cenpar@cervantes.es, cenlyo@cervantes.es, espana.georgia@gmail.com, emb.atenas@maec.es, emb.atenas.info@maec.es, agredate@otenet.gr, atenas@comercio.mineco.es, cenate@cervantes.es, atenas@comercio.mineco.es, consejeria2.it@mecd.es, emb.sofia@maec.es, agredbud@oc.mde.es, emb.budapest@maec.es, buzon@embajadadeespana.hu, emb.dublin@maec.es, dublin@comercio.mineco.es, cendub@cervantes.es, asesoriadublin.ie@mecd.es, dublin@tourspain.es, consejeria.londres@mpr.es, constrab.londres@meyss.es, londres@magrama.es, agredlon@oc.mde.es, vhg@rtobin.com, agretel@barak.net.il, info@espana.is, agredosl@oc.mde.es, agredroma@oc.mde.es, agredroma@oc.mde.es, roma@comercio.mineco.es, milan@comercio.mineco.es, emb.roma@maec.es, roma@mapama.es, consejeria.it@mecd.es, roma@comunicacion.presidencia.gob.es, italia@mitramiss.es, emb.roma@maec.es, emb.riga@maec.es, agredvar@oc.mde.es, markus.kolzoff@administral.li markus.kolzoff@advocatur.li, emb.luxemburgo@maec.es, emb.luxemburgo.info@maec.es, asabaterg@meyss.es, cog.amsterdam@maec.es, consuladoespana.aruba@hotmail.com, esconsul@xs4all.nl, viceconsul-h-spain@licoresmaduro.com, info@monchy.nl, emb.lahaya@maec.es, agredosl@oc.mde.es, agredvar@oc.mde.es, agregaduria.polonia@mir.es, emb.berna@maec.es, cog.zurich@maec.es, emb.estocolmo@maec.es, emb.estocolmo@maec.es, emb.estocolmo@maec.es, estocolmo@comercio.mineco.es, estocolmo@tourspain.es, info.stockholm@cervantes.es, consulgot@gmail.com, spanish.consulate@holmbergs.cc, spanskakh@ametller.se, emb.ankara@maec.es, emb.ankara.inf@maec.es, cog.estambul@mae.es, estambul@comercio.mineco.es, emb.praga.info@maec.es, emb.astana@maec.es, emb.belgrado@maec.es, emb.riga@maec.es, emb.valletta@maec.es, emb.budapest@maec.es, emb.paris@maec.es, belgrado@comercio.mineco.es, emb.skopje@maec.es, cog.lisboa@maec.es, cog.oporto@maec.es, emb.roma@maec.es, emb.belgrado@maec.es, emb.estocolmo@maec.es, cog.zurich@maec.es, emb.londres.brexit@maec.es, brexitventanillaresidentes@maec.es, agredlon@oc.mde.es, emb.londres@maec.es

UK/Britain

contactus@amnesty.org, british.embassytirana@fco.gov.uk, press@britishembassy.at, public.brussels@fco.gov.uk, britemb@bih.net.ba, DLSarajevoBLOfficeProtect@fco.gov.uk, british.embassyzagreb@fco.gov.uk, Enquiry.Copenhagen@fco.gov.uk, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk, info.helsinki@fco.gov.uk, ukingermany@fco.gov.uk, Information.Athens@fco.gov.uk, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk, info@britishembassy.is, HolySee@fco.gov.uk, britishembassy.riga@fco.gov.uk, enquirieslux@fco.gov.uk, podgorica@fco.gov.uk, ukinnl@fco.gov.uk, UKinNorway@fco.gov.uk, info@britishembassy.pl, ppa.lisbon@fco.gov.uk, BritishEmbassy.Bucharest@fco.gov.uk, enquiriesukinrussia@fco.gov.uk, Media.Moscow@fco.gov.uk, Stockholm@fco.gov.uk, Belgrade.PPD@fco.gov.uk, info.consulate@fco.gov.uk, bratislava.consularenquiries@fco.gov.uk, info@british-embassy.si, UKinUkraine@fco.gov.uk

Brittish media
guardian.letters@theguardian.com, observer.letters@observer.co.uk, culture@theguardian.com, arts@theguardian.com, books@theguardian.com, financial@theguardian.com, cities@theguardian.com, money@theguardian.com, consumer.champions@theguardian.com, education@theguardian.com, rosie.swash@theguardian.com, alan.evans@theguardian.com, feast@theguardian.com, film@theguardian.com, g2@theguardian.com, international@theguardian.com, law.editors@theguardian.com, lifeandstyle@theguardian.com, media@theguardian.com, nq@theguardian.com, obituaries@theguardian.com, opinion@theguardian.com, pictures@theguardian.com, photocalls@theguardian.com, politics@theguardian.com, review@theguardian.com, science@theguardian.com, society@theguardian.com, space@theguardian.com, sport@theguardian.com, travel@theguardian.com, weekend@theguardian.com, cash@observer.co.uk, your.problems@observer.co.uk, food.monthly@observer.co.uk, observer.letters@observer.co.uk, magazine@observer.co.uk, review@observer.co.uk, sport@observer.co.uk, guardianfoundation@theguardianfoundation.org, vouchersubs@theguardian.com, homedelivery@theguardian.com, digitalpack@theguardian.com, gwsubs@theguardian.com, apac.help@theguardian.com, gwsubsus@theguardian.com, business.information@theguardian.com, roger.clapham@theguardian.com, rights@theguardian.com, watchdog@bbc.co.uk, RipOffBritain@bbc.co.uk, yourlondon@bbc.co.uk, dtnews@telegraph.co.uk, stnews@telegraph.co.uk, customerservice@telegraph.co.uk, telegraphenquiries@telegraph.co.uk, stletters@telegraph.co.uk, syndication@telegraph.co.uk, digitalservices@telegraph.co.uk, telegraphenquiries@telegraph.co.uk, media.enquiries@telegraph.co.uk, announcements.ads@telegraph.co.uk, gardenshop@telegraph.co.uk, telegraphworks@telegraph.co.uk, viewerservices@itv.com, investor.relations@itv.com, groupsecretariat@itv.com, enquiries@linkgroup.com, itvcommercial@itv.com, yourrecruitment@reachplc.com, communications@reachplc.com, mirrornews@mirror.co.uk, madeuthink@mirror.co.uk, picturedesk@mirror.co.uk, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, feedback@people.co.uk, tabletsupport@reachplc.com, desk@mirrorpix.com, video@mirror.co.uk, webpictures@mirror.co.uk, webcelebs@mirror.co.uk, mirror.money.saving@mirror.co.uk, webnews@mirror.co.uk, blanche.coupland@reachplc.com, becky.clay@reachplc.com, chris.parker-loftus@reachplc.com, partnerships@reachplc.com, karen.brodie@reachplc.com

Human Rights Watch

oslooutreach@hrw.org, paris@hrw.org, sweden@hrw.org, zurich@hrw.org

Netherlands

Dutch Embassies
kab@minbuza.nl, tir@minbuza.nl, alg@minbuza.nl, par@minbuza.nl, lua@minbuza.nl, por@minbuza.nl, por@minbuza.nl, bue@minbuza.nl, tbi@minbuza.nl, can@minbuza.nl, bak@minbuza.nl, lis@minbuza.nl, kwe@minbuza.nl, dha@minbuza.nl, por@minbuza.nl, msk@minbuza.nl, bru@minbuza.nl, mex-info@minbuza.nl, cot@minbuza.nl, nde@minbuza.nl, lim@minbuza.nl, sar@minbuza.nl, rjansen@conservation.org, por@minbuza.nl, sof@minbuza.nl, bam@minbuza.nl, buj@minbuza.nl, ban@minbuza.nl, ott@minbuza.nl, pek@minbuza.nl, bog@minbuza.nl, kss@minbuza.nl, sjo@minbuza.nl, hav@minbuza.nl, nic@minbuza.nl, kop@minbuza.nl, por@minbuza.nl, std@minbuza.nl, bln@minbuza.nl

Dutch media
ad@ad.nl, bnn@omroep.nl, eindredactie@frieschdagblad.nl, eo@omroep.nl, groene@groene.nl, ikon@ikon.nl, info@vpro.nl, kro@omroep.nl, magazine@fnv.nl, ncrv@omroep.nl, nieuwsdienst@anp.nl, nieuwsdienst@telegraaf.nl, nps@omroep.nl, nrc@nrc.nl, red@hfd.nl, redactie@2vandaag.nl, redactie@katholieknieuwsblad.nl, redactie@milieudefensie.nl, redactie@nd.nl, redactie@parool.nl, redactie@spitsnet.nl, redactie@trouw.nl, redactie@volkskrant.nl, redaktie@gpd.nl, redactie@metronieuws.nl, rtlnieuws@rtl4.nl, staatscourant@sdu.nl, tribune@sp.nl, vara@vara.nl, brieven@volkskrant.nl, opinie@volkskrant.nl

Belgium

Belgium embassies
vienna@diplobel.fed.be, sofia@diplobel.fed.be, cons.on.belgio.mi@futureleadersociety.com, copenhagen@diplobel.fed.be, london@diplobel.fed.be, helsinki@diplobel.fed.be, cad.bruxelles-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, berlin@diplobel.fed.be, athens@diplobel.fed.be, guy.hanoulle@mil.be, guy.hanoulle@mil.be, cons.on.belgio.mi@futureleadersociety.com, thehague@diplobel.fed.be, oslo@diplobel.fed.be, kiev@diplobel.fed.be

Warning please be advised:

Sending out too many emails at one time can suspend your email account. Make sure to send out small groups at one time and wait a couple of minutes before sending more… You have to prove to the email system you are NOT a bot. So please act human when sending out these emails. 

Please help to keep this publication free by leaving a tip

NRA under fire for supporting red flag law

A new strategic tactic being deployed to take down the NRA is Red Flag Laws. Over the last few years this tactic has escalated, and it has doubled in 2019. Every state has introduced legislation in one form or another that leaves the door wide open to dissolve our 2nd amendment (2A) right to bear arms.

The NRA has always been the strongest lobbyist that fight against these backdoor policies that infringe on our 2A. They spend millions of dollars every year fighting corrupt anti-2A legislation. They have been the strongest supporters protecting our 2A.

But now the red flag legislation is flooding into every state at a money draining rate for the NRA to continue to fight against.  

It is no secret that the NRA is in financial trouble with the organization showing $30M in the red. This did not happen overnight. It started with Ackerman McQueen their go-to marketing team that has been siphoning 14% of the NRA’s total budget ($42 million, 2017) and NRA putting another $4.8M into lobbying. This is not to mention the money that was given to the Trump campaign ($36 million, 2016) and another $18M into lobbying (2016).

Once salaries are factored into this equation, like LaPierre’s (CEO) $1M; it is not hard to see the NRA’s supporters can’t keep up with the money being spent. In fact, on the NRA’s website it states it only received $23K in contributes in 2018. It does not show the money raised through newsletters, sporting events, swag, and gun safety education and training programs. NRA memberships have been on the decline since 2001.

So, I must ask, “where are they getting all the money they are shoveling out?”

“Could it be by helping to sponsor pro-gun-control legislation?”

The NRA is now under fire by its supporters because of LaPierre’s sudden 180 that supports ERPO (Extreme risk protection order). If this passes it would mean that one person could make a report and Law enforcement could break down your door and confiscate your guns.

The following conditions NRA would support, but I posted some questions you should ask yourself:

If you are judged unfit:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” ~2A

So, let us imagine a neighbor lodges a complaint against you. All the neighbor would have to say is they have a crazy neighbor who they know has a gun(s). The agency would ask the complainant questions, and we all know an individual’s perspective can be bias. So, the answer to the questions could be biased. It would still be grounds for gun confiscation. Your 2A right has just been infringed upon. Your 2A no longer stands in its pure state. It is gone! It is now your job to defend your right not to be infringed upon.

So, why is the NRA backing ERPO? Could it be they no longer have the money to lobby against it because of all the red flag legislation being forced through at an exponential pace, and the organization’s spending is so extravagant it no longer can monetarily keep up? Maybe if they support it, they can continue to survive in the cutthroat world of politics.

But one thing we all know, the NRA has been compromised!

There are some petitions below to stop all red flag laws. Please sign

If you liked this article help us to keep independent journalism flowing and our development team busy

Our development team are building a complete networking platform that will include:

  • Social sharing and networking
  • Write for us news platform
  • And social apps

to keep the information uncensored and free flowing

Please contribute today

The scam through fraudem legis

Fraudem legis is a Latin term which means in fraud of law. It includes any act done with the fraudulent intention of evading law” (US Legal, Inc.)

What would you do if you found out someone committed a heinous crime to scam millions of people out of their hard-earned money? Now what would you do if you found out it was blamed on someone else? To take it further, what would you do if it was done by your own government to raise money to cover up poor spending habits, invest in insider trading, or just line their own pockets?

This con game is so heinous I had to invent a word just to write about it and categorize the crimes of the actor[s] and the actions. Govartifice is the combination of the Latin word artificium, and the old French word Government. As a noun it can be used to name the ruling person or groups of ruling class. As a verb it can be used to describe the actions (see description below). The individual person will be named what they are, Govartifice-grifters, the legislative body, and Govartifice-grafters, presidents and their cabinet members, dictators, monarchies, etc. the ones put in charge to rule over others.

The con

Grifters make it into office playing the short game, playing off people’s emotions. The Grafters get elected by playing the long game, they are sponsored or have their own money to spend bribing their way into the elections. A Grafter will also make secret promises to foreign and domestic entities.

While elected Govartifice-Grifters are not as well respected as the elected Govartifice-Grafters, both learn how to create a symbiotic relationship to pull off the biggest public cons.

Historic govartifices have been Nixon’s insurance con. This involved putting a public traded middle-company between you and your health; you and your driving; you and just about any important function of your life that would allow an individual independence. You are now dependent on a middle-company for all your independent needs. This is a long game con. The Govartifices all hold stock in these public traded companies.

An even older historic govartifice would be setting up the Federal Reserve. But this will be for another article.

The most successful Govartifice setup NGO’s (non-government organizations) and charities that launder massive amounts of money and siphon it upwards. This money can be used to cover up poor spending habits, fund illegal activities, bribery, or just line the Govartifice-grifter’s and Govartifice-grafter’s pockets. It is the safest place for govartifices to manage and disperse massive amounts of money. NGO’s and charities have very few eyes on them, transactions can be very hard to trace and follow, because there are thousands of them out there.

Cash grabs

Because it is so easy to setup a charity and/or NGO’s, cash grabs are easily concealed. It can turn illegal activity into legal transactions. The public are the biggest contributors to this kind of govartifice scam because of the heinous nature of the crime, it pulls at the heartstrings of any caring and compassionate person. This type of govartifice can also illicit large sums of money from foreign governments and their citizens. This cash grab involves millions and sometimes billions of dollars.

One of the largest govartifices to date in the United States was 9/11. It generated over 1.4 billion documented dollars. This number does not include the aid from foreign countries. The public payout was only 324 million. There is over 1 billion that was not dispersed. Most if not all the repair spending came from the collected taxes. This heinous activity made Govartifices wealthy overnight.

Govartifice is not limited to the United States, just recently the roof of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris France, was set on fire. In two days, it has already raised more than 1 Billion dollars in foreign and domestic public aid laundered through NGO’s and charities. That number does not reflect the monetary aid coming from foreign governments. The repairs to the cathedral roof will only take a small fraction of the cash grab.

To make this even more sinister and to divert attention away from the con like all grifters and grafters do, a false narrative is presented to the public through controlled outlets. While the public looks one way, the Govartifice will cleverly conceal most of the funds raised. The control of the media outlets for this govartifice is critical for it to continue to be successful. So far to date the Muslim’s are the chosen villains. Notice how the heinous acts are blamed on a religious practice and not a set group of people? It makes the villain impossible to track and hunt down (grifters and grafters know this). It is the art of the shell game. It is the same as telling the public Christens, Catholics, or the Jewish people did it.

This tactic is used to dis-empower the public and keep them forever searching for the culprit. It is a deceitful practice and commonly used by the Govartifice.  

So why does the Middle East, with the highest population of Muslims, stay silent? They don’t but like all grifts and grafts, the Govartifices keep creating more elaborate diversions to keep them from being heard by the public. This is where controlling the narrative becomes imperative. There are also Govartifices in the middle east that get a cut to remain silent.  

Govartifice’s are so skilled and successful in the art of con, the public they rule over are no longer seen as people, they are now seen as “marks”!

Govartifice (noun) A body of ruling class that are underhanded and skilled at deception. This can be applied to a single individual that rules or governs over others.

Govartifice (Verb) (third-person singular simple present govartifices, present participle govartificing, simple past and past participle govartificed) The governments crafty and strategic maneuvers that uses some clever means to avoid detection or capture.

Breathing new life into an old proposal

Sitting on the World Wide Web like some prehistoric fossil waiting to be rediscovered is the NCID (National Citizen’s Initiative for Democracy) proposal that was finalized in 2002 by former Senator Mike Gravel. Exploring the website was like uncovering a hidden relic. Clicking deeper into the site I found many links no longer work, but the core of the message was still intact. I was uncovering a document that had been buried for years.

This document I was now reading would have allow representative democracy, and direct democracy to coexist together. Gravel had worked on this proposal during the late 90’s. At that time, it was called the National Initiative proposal. He sent invitations to organizations, professors, media, elected individuals, and anybody else he could think of. The Democracy Foundation ultimately accepted at the 2002 Democracy Symposium that was held in Williamsburg, Virginia. Taking feedback from the conference into consideration, a final draft on the proposed amendment and act was published on September 17, 2002.

The proposal started to get some big-name endorsements in 2008, and this continued through 2012; and then it seemed to just disappear, it vanished from the public eye. It just died…

The NCID is being resuscitated through the Yellow Vest Movement. It is a fundamental legislative proposal that will allow citizens, independent of Representative Government (Congress, Executive and the Judiciary), to propose and vote on laws. NCID consists of a Constitutional amendment and a federal statute.

As it stands now there are only 26 states in USA that carry some type of Initiative and/or Popular Referendum. This is only at a state level. There are no Initiatives or Referendums at the federal level.

The NCID was brought to my attention through a colleague who runs the American Yellow Vest Facebook group. Like the rest of the 65 countries around the world who have joined the Global yellow vest movement, they are demanding some form of Citizen Initiative and Referendum. The United States Yellow Vests are demanding their own version. Who knew there was one that had already been drafted and endorsed, buried on the WWW for 17-years, waiting for the Yellow Vest Movement to come to the USA, to breath new life into this old proposal?

 

Read more about the NCID here.

Sign the Move On petition here.

Sign the We the People petition here.

Corporatocracy

The war against Iraq is the creation of the corporations that have seized control of America and its institutions. America was once a democratic republic. It is now a corporatocracy. Corporations are soulless, deathless entities that have all the rights of citizenship that real people have and none of the responsibilities. Corporations have accumulated vast wealth that they have used to purchase, infiltrate, and colonize American government and many governments around the world. Corporations have absorbed the media, the two major political parties, the Congress, the Executive, almost all the Judiciary, in America and in many other countries, welding them into the globe-spanning unit that I have named the Corporatocracy. Corporations have distilled the essence of greed and rage to form their corporate structure. Profits must be maximized. Territory, natural resources, institutions, and citizens must be used and then discarded when they are no longer useful. Corporations must have more markets to colonize, and the military corporations, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, must have more countries to invade.

Since the end of World War II, corporations have emerged as the dominant force controlling the planet. Through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization, a mere 200 corporations have managed to seize control of 28.3% of the world’s economic output. The fifty largest commercial banks and diversified financial companies assets amount to 60% of the $20 trillion global stock of productive capital.

The war against Iraq is being promoted by the transnational military-industrial corporations for their financial benefit. The business of America is the export of war. The financial institutions that trade in currency, stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments must have volatility in the markets in order to make a profit. War creates volatility. Between $800 billion and $1.3 trillion in currency trades are made by speculators every day!

The military-industrial corporations and the military components of the Corporatocracy receive about $400 billion per year from the U.S. Government directly and much more indirectly through pensions. Arms sales by U.S. dealers equaled the amount of arms sold by all other countries in the world combined. The amount of profit the financial institutions will realize probably cannot be calculated. The Corporatocracy must have war in order to turn over its stocks and in order to justify its continued existence. The succession of wars beginning with Vietnam (and continuing with GrenadaPanamaAfghanistanColombiaKuwait, Yugoslavia, Albania, etc.) and now Iraq is exactly like the succession of new models of cars produced by Detroit. Detroit’s cars, since Robert McNamara was head of Ford, have been built to become obsolete (McNamara went on to head the World Bank after he was Secretary of Defense during Vietnam). These wars are like that. Wars favored by the Corporatocracy require the existence of poor countries in which the munitions can be dumped, just like we dump our toxic waste in poor countries. Bombs must be dropped, missiles fired, planes flown, rifles discharged so that more bombs, missiles, planes and ammunition can be manufactured. It is not about oil. Iraq would gladly sell us all the oil we could buy. It is not even about empire. It is about business. It is all about profit. And that makes it all the more horrible, all the more unforgivable.

John Omaha, Ph.D.

“What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others]? Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler‘s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”

Charles Higham, author of “Trading With The Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949

Different forms of Government

Government comprises the set of legal and political institutions that regulate the relationships among members of a society and between the society and outsiders. These institutions have the authority to make decisions for the society on policies affecting the maintenance of order and the achievement of certain societal goals. This article provides an overview of the types of government, the ways authority can be distributed, the divisions of government, and the functions of government. Separate articles deal with the origins and development of the concept of the state, the theoretical and practical development of representation, law, and the study of government.

The power of a government over its own citizens varies, depending on the degree to which it is free of limitations and restraints. The power of a government abroad also varies, depending on the human and material resources with which it can support its foreign policy. Governments range in size and scope from clans, tribes, and the shires of early times to the superpowers and international governments of today. Until recent times some governments were strong enough to establish empires that ruled not only their own people but other peoples and states across national, ethnic, and language boundaries. The present-day counterpart of the empire is the superpower that is able to lead or dominate other countries through its superior military and economic strength. Within the modern nation-state, government operates at many different levels, ranging from villages to cities, counties, provinces, and states.

Types of Government

Aristotle, a Greek political philosopher of the 4th century B.C., distinguished three principal kinds of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (a kind of enlightened democracy). The differences among them chiefly concerned whether power were held by one, by a few, or by many. Aristotle thought that the selfish abuse of power caused each type to become perverted, respectively, into tyranny, oligarchy, and a lower form of democracy characterized by mob rule. Monarchy tended to become tyrannical because it vested authority in a single ruler. Aristocracy, a government based on birth and privilege, in which the rulers governed for the good of the whole society, tended to become oligarchy as a consequence of restricting political power to a special social and economic class; only a few members of the class would have enough drive and ability to acquire the power to govern. The polity, likewise, would deteriorate into ochlocracy, or mob rule, if the citizens pursued only their selfish interests.

Aristotle’s classifications suited the societies of ancient times, but they do not correspond to the power structure of later societies. Modern writers have developed a variety of schemes for classifying governments, based on the nature of the ruling class, the economic system, the government’s political institutions, the principles of authority, the acquisition and exercise of power, and other factors. Some influential writers on government include Thomas Hobbes, Baron de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and the sociologist Max Weber.

Monarchy 

The most common form of government from ancient times to the early part of the 20th century was monarchy, or rule by a hereditary king or queen. Monarchy passed through three basic stages, varying according to the nation and the political and economic climate. The first stage was that of the absolute monarch. In the Christian part of the world during the Middle Ages, a conflict developed between the pope and the kings who recognized his spiritual authority. The pope wanted to expand the power of the church beyond spiritual matters to include the temporal realm. But some kings proclaimed that God had given them the right to rule, and by proclaiming this divine right they were able to give legitimacy to their reigns and limit the pope’s power.

Limited monarchy was the second stage. Kings depended on the support of the most powerful members of the nobility to retain their thrones. In England and some other Western European countries, the nobility placed limits on the power of the ruler to govern. This was done in England, for example, through the Magna Carta. Threatened with the loss of political and financial support, even the strongest kings and emperors had to accept a system of laws that protected the rights and privileges of powerful social and economic classes.

The third stage in the evolution of monarchy was the constitutional monarchy. Present-day monarchs are nearly all symbolic rather than actual rulers of their countries. (A few exceptions can be found in Africa and Asia.) In such monarchies as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain, governing power is now in the hands of the national parliaments.

Constitutional Government  

Today most governments derive their legitimacy from national constitutions that provide a legal framework for their rule and specify how power is to be exercised and controlled. Even one-party states, such as the traditional Communist countries and other nations in Africa, Asia, and South America, have found it necessary to establish formal constitutions. In democratic countries the constitution can be amended or replaced by popular vote, either directly or through a system of elected representatives. In authoritarian one-party systems, however, all political power, including that of revising the constitution, resides with the leaders of the party. The constitution may thus be only a paper facade, and in order to understand how the country is governed one must examine the actual political process.

Democracy  

Representative government in the modern world is based not only on a constitution that provides for it but on the actual rule of law — the assurance that provisions of the constitution will be enforced. It requires that citizens be free to organize competing political parties, engage in political campaigns, and hold elections according to agreed-upon rules. Democratic governments vary in structure. Two common forms are the parliamentary and the presidential. In the parliamentary form of government, as in Australia, Britain, Canada, or India, all political power is concentrated in the parliament or legislature. The prime minister or premier and the officers of the cabinet are members of the parliament. They continue in office only as long as parliament supports — or has “confidence” in — their policies. In the presidential form of government, as in France and the United States, the voters elect a powerful chief executive who is independent of the legislature but whose actions are delimited by constitutional and other legal restraints.

Dictatorship 

As a form of government, dictatorship is principally a 20th-century phenomenon. The dictator, often a military leader, concentrates political power in himself and his clique. There is no effective rule of law. The regime may or may not have a distinctive political ideology and may or may not allow token opposition. The main function of a dictatorship is to maintain control of all governmental operations. There have been some cases — Indira Gandhi in India and several military dictatorships in Latin America — in which authoritarian rulers have relaxed their control and have even allowed open elections. In certain Soviet-bloc countries of Eastern Europe dictators were forced from power in bloodless coups or voluntarily relinquished their authority to popularly elected officials as Soviet power declined.

The totalitarian dictatorship, as in Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the former USSR, is much more thoroughgoing. It seeks to control all aspects of national life, including the beliefs and attitudes of its people. It has a set of ideas that everyone is expected to embrace, such as revolutionary Marxism or counterrevolutionary fascism. At its most extreme, as during the leadership of Joseph Stalin in the USSR, the power of the dictator may become more absolute than in any of the earlier forms of tyranny. Such gross power in the hands of one person results inevitably in the development of what has been called a cult of personality. The leader is credited with almost infallible wisdom, because to admit that he or she may be wrong would deprive the regime of its authority. In some Communist countries the cult of personality appears to have given way to the dominance of a group of party leaders — a ruling oligarchy. The administrative complexities of managing a modern industrial state are too great to be monopolized by an individual leader such as Stalin or Mao Zedong(Mao Tse-tung). The successor regime in China, for example, continues to claim infallibility for its policies and doctrines but not for the leaders. Examples of 20th-century dictators in addition to those already mentioned include Idi Amin Dada(Uganda), Kemal Atatürk (Turkey), Fulgencio Batista and Fidel Castro (Cuba), Francisco Franco (Spain), Saddam Hussein(Iraq), Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Benito Mussolini (Italy), Juan Peron (Argentina), and António Salazar (Portugal).

Distribution of Authority

Effective government in any form requires a workable method for distributing authority within the country. The larger and more diverse the jurisdiction of the government, the stronger the tendency toward a federal system in which authority is “layered” or distributed among different levels. In countries with a relatively homogeneous population and with a common tradition, language, and sense of national history, the central governments may not be federal but unitary — that is, they may retain most of the administrative power at the center. Loosely allied autonomous states sometimes join together to create a type of central government known as a confederation, in which the central government exists only at the pleasure of the sovereign members.

Federal Systems  

The United States and India with their state governments and Canada and China with their provincial governments are examples of workable federal systems in large nations with very diverse populations. Other federal states include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, and Germany. The national governments of these countries are clearly more powerful than those of their subdivisions, even though the constitutions delegate many powers and responsibilities to the sub-national units. In certain prescribed policy areas a state government may have a high degree of autonomy. In the United States, for example, state legislatures pass laws having to do with state affairs; state administrators carry them out; and state judiciaries interpret them.

Federal systems also include autonomous local governments such as county governments and municipal governments — in cities, boroughs, townships, and villages local governments may stand in a relationship to their state governments that corresponds to that of state governments with the national government. The citizens in each jurisdiction elect many of the public officials. In addition, certain special districts exist with a single function, such as education or sanitation, and have their own elected officials.

The layers of government in a federal system may not be clearly defined in practice. Often the different levels compete for control of functions and programs. In the United States and other countries the tendency over the years has been for the national government to become much more involved in areas that once were the exclusive domain of state or regional governments. In addition, the distribution of authority has become even more complex and varied with the rise of large metropolitan areas — the megalopolis — and the corresponding new local governmental organizations such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Unitary States 

In unitary states the national government performs all the governmental functions. Sub-national national units administer matters within their jurisdiction, but their powers are set and delegated by the national authority. The national government retains the police power — the inherent power to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Taxation and major lawmaking powers also rest almost entirely with the national government.

Most nations are unitary states, but their institutions and processes may differ markedly. Great Britain, for example, is considered a unitary system, yet a certain degree of regional autonomy exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and local county governments perform certain fairly autonomous functions. In France, however, strict control over the administrative territorial subdivisions is exercised by the national government. In other unitary states there exists only token territorial decentralization.

Confederations  

Confederation produces the weakest central government. Member states in a confederation retain their sovereignty, delegating to the central government only those powers that are essential for its maintenance. The individual states jealously guard their power to tax and to make their own laws. The central government serves as a coordinating instrument to protect the interests of all its members. It also represents the confederation in dealings with outside governments, but its actions are subject to the review and approval of the confederated states.

The weakness of the confederate form of government led the United States to abandon that system in 1789 after only eight years. Confederations, however, have also served other nations — Germany and Switzerland, for example — as a preliminary step toward a more unified government. No modern nation-state is organized along confederate lines, yet some international organizations, such as the British Commonwealth of Nations, the European Union (formerly the European Community), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have some aspects of a confederation.

Divisions of Government

Various political thinkers have distinguished types of government activity. Montesquieu was the first, however, to urge the creation of three separate institutions or divisions of government—the executive, legislative, and judicial — a distinction that became common in almost all modern constitutions. Some governmental structures, notably that of the United States, are based on the principle of separation of powers at nearly every level. Executive, legislative, and judicial powers are divided into three branches of government, creating a system of checks and balances among them and helping to protect citizens from arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of any of the three branches. Such protection is crucial in the area of civil rights — those constitutionally guaranteed rights that shield the citizen from tyrannical actions by government. Often, in times of grave national emergency, when the central government needs more power, the public is willing to grant it. The executive branch usually predominates at such time.

Proponents of the separation of powers bring an additional argument in its favor: they point out that the system diminishes the influence of special-interest groups over any one branch of government or over the government as a whole. It is difficult for even the strongest faction to dominate a government in which the executive is elected by the entire population, members of the legislature represent different geographical constituencies, and the judges are appointed by the executive with the approval of the legislature.

Not all states, of course, have such clear divisions of government, nor do divisions necessarily guarantee personal liberties. Parliamentary democratic systems, for example, tend to merge legislative and executive functions yet control the exercise of power by constitutional methods of sharing it. Authoritarian states may, however, be constitutionally bound to have separate organs of government yet actually concentrate power in the executive.

Functions of Government

Maintenance of Authority  

One of the principal functions of government is to remain in power. Governments do not relinquish their authority unless compelled to do so. Many of the actions of politicians and civil servants can be explained by the need to maintain and enhance their power.

Every government strives to increase its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. It may identify itself with ancient traditions, with hope for the future, or with fear of a common enemy. Some governments employ repression, never relaxing their vigils against real or imagined opponents. Even democracies, when threatened, are likely to engage in a search for subversives and “enemies of the people.”

When a regime draws its main support from a privileged class or group that decreases in numbers and strength, when a government becomes ineffective in handling domestic affairs or countering external threats, or when a society’s consensus on the principles and goals of government evaporates, a government tends to lose authority. The French monarchy in the 18th century and the Russian monarchy in the 20th century were based on aristocracies that had lost much of their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Eventually these regimes were unable to enforce their laws, and revolutions swept them from power.

Governments tend, therefore, to foster widespread ideological commitment to the nation through patriotic ceremonies, propaganda, and civic education; they employ armed forces and intelligence-gathering organizations for national defense; they maintain police and prison systems to ensure domestic order; and they undertake the administration of supervisory and regulatory functions to carry out national goals by establishing various bureaucracies to handle each complex function.

Administration  

All governments recognize the principle that the public must be protected and served. The citizen, in effect, surrenders a degree of individual sovereignty to the government in return for protection of life and property and the delivery of essential services. Governments supervise the resolution of conflicting interests, the workings of the political process, the enforcement of laws and rights, and the monitoring of national income and international trade; they regulate economic and social relationships among individuals and private organizations; and they carry out enterprises such as production of military goods, provision of postal services, and ownership of power utilities and public works. Among the most basic services provided by government are the printing and coining of money, the provision of roads, sewers, water, education, and social and welfare services.

With the growth of the welfare state, governments began to provide services such as social security and health insurance. But the scope of government regulation is now much broader. In the United States the government sets minimum wages, limits the rates charged by public utilities, buys farm commodities to keep prices up, forbids the sale of harmful foods and drugs, sets standards for gasoline consumption by automobiles, requires manufacturers to install antipollution devices, and monitors the safety of factories. Federal, state, and local governments in the United States also engage directly in economic activity. They impose taxes, produce and consume goods, sell electric power, lend money to farmers, and insure bank deposits.

In other countries governments intrude even further into the workings of the economy. In Western Europe governments own and operate telephone, radio, and television services, railroads, coal mines, and aircraft companies. In some countries, such as Sweden and Great Britain, the entire health system is also run by the state. In countries with Communist governments, such as the former USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba, the state has attempted to control the entire economic life of the nation. All economic planning is centralized in the government and its bureaucracies. When the system fails to produce the goods and services expected by the people, the government is forced to increase the level of repression of its citizens in order to remain in power.

Internal Conflicts

The end of the cold war and the loss of control by the superpowers over international events have led to a different type of stress on many governments. The threats to their sovereignty are no longer external. Many nations, especially those artificially carved out of old empires that expired during both World Wars, are finding that the arbitrary power that maintained the central governments is no longer sufficient for the task. The communication revolution, through radio and the satellite transmission of television, has truly created a “global village.” Citizens no longer live in isolation. They demand the rights and privileges enjoyed by others.

Another kind of demand governments must try to meet comes from ethnic and religious groups that in some cases seek autonomy from the government. Some of these conflicts result in attempts at genocide, and the rest of the world appears powerless to intervene. These problems are not limited to Third World countries. NATO has revised its original purpose of preventing an invasion of western Europe to a strategy of maintaining smaller mobile forces to prevent the internal breakup of nations. But these internal conflicts continue to have the potential to produce anarchy and chaos, threatening entire regions.

International Government

In modern times national governments have become increasingly involved with one another in supranational systems. The League of Nations, established in 1919, grew to include more than 90 members. It collapsed in World War II but was succeeded by the United Nations (UN). The UN, like the League, is a voluntary association generally without power to act unless the five permanent members of the Security Council agree. It has, however, served as a forum for international debate and a convenient meeting ground for negotiations. The UN has also committed military forces of member nations in an attempt to limit the scope of conflicts that cannot be solved by national governments. UN forces have suffered casualties in some of these conflicts. The United Nations is now an international government in both theory and reality, and the organization will continue to face many serious challenges in many parts of the world.

Associated with the UN are a number of specialized organizations that perform important governmental functions. They include the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Court of Justice (World Court), the International Labor Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union.

The specialized agencies have enabled national governments to cooperate in many practical matters such as setting standards, extending technical and financial assistance to developing countries, eliminating or controlling epidemic diseases, and establishing an international monetary system.

Regional associations of nations have usually existed in a loose confederation for national security purposes or for vaguely defined geographical and political purposes. The European Union of 15 member nations has taken the concept of regional association to a much higher level. It has moved to create a political union among sovereign states, and its Common Market constitutes one of the major economies of the world.

Reviewed by Thomas B. Hartmann

Hartmann, T. B. (2014). Government. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 1, 2014, (03/06/2019) from Grolier Online http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0123980-0

Second Amendment- If Ohio falls the rest of the nation will follow

COLUMBUS, OHIO — A bill passed in the Statehouse would inadvertently make a million Ohio gun owner’s felons overnight.

House Bill 228 becomes a law on March 28 of this year. It was meant to expand stipulations in which shooting someone in self-defense is legally justified. But as it currently stands, it also makes owning certain rifles, guns with pistol grips or a weapon longer than 26 inches a felony.

According to WHOIO TV 7, The bill also attempted to align Ohio law with federal law regarding short-barrel weapons, or generally speaking shotguns with barrel lengths less than 16 inches.

Such guns are legal under federal law but classified as illegal in Ohio, even though many gun stores sell them. As the bill was being drafted, a misplaced paragraph unintentionally lumped a variety of long guns into a prohibited category.

Those could include semi-automatic AK-47s and any long gun with a pistol grip, which could also affect shotguns used in competitive shooting.

It’s unclear if the mistake would cause gun owners problems in “real-world terms,” said Dean Rieck, executive director of the gun rights group Buckeye Firearms, who said who said he’s consulted with lawyers for the National Rifle Association and Ohio’s Legislative Services Commission, among others.

Nevertheless, “We would prefer they deal with it immediately because it is causing a lot of concern and confusion among gun owners in Ohio,” Rieck said.

“It’s legally murky right now,” said state Rep. Niraj Antani, R-Miami Twp. “It could prohibit the sale of some firearms, which we do not want to do. That was a mistake. Our hope right now is to fix that mistake by the effective date so that it never affects anyone.”

Antani said, “it would be up to each jurisdiction as to how they enforce the new law. And he said he doesn’t believe county prosecutors would enforce that portion of it”.

But that’s not the point, said July Sparks of the Black Swamp Oathkeepters group. “We’ll already be prosecuted by being picked up. We’ll already be considered guilty. We just became felons. It’s not if the law passes – it passed,” Sparks said.

An amendment to the new bill will need to be introduced by March 20; to fix this grievous error. So far, the proposed amendments have only made this law worst.

The mistake illustrates the problem of rushing legislation through a lame duck session, said Sen. Cecil Thomas, a Democrat from Cincinnati.

“It’s just a bad way to do business now, and mistakes are made, and this is an example of that,” said Thomas, a retired police officer.

Was this a mistake, or has this been a deliberate manipulation? Ohio is one of the most important swing states that federal government covets. Could this lead to other states introducing similar legislation that in turn strips our second amendment rights?

Our second amendment right reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Does this sound like Ohio law makers are upholding our second amendment right? While they present this as a “mistake” I have to wonder could this be part of a bigger picture being played out?

A rally is planned for March 28 at the Ohio Capital to make sure this bill does not turn millions of Ohioans into felons overnight.

Quotes and statements collected by:

News Center 7’s Kayla Courvell

 

Get the UN out of the US, and why

The United Nations (UN) was conceived out of necessity in 1941, after the League of Nations failed to preserve international peace. The UN officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, and France, as well as a majority of the other signatories, had ratified the United Nations Charter (BPA, 2005).

 

The countries who are in the UN give a percentage of the taxes collected from its people to keep it running. This is how it was in the beginning and it did a pretty good job. It would be over a half-a-century before corruption started to seep its way into the UN. This corruption would come in the form of privatized corporate donations.

The changes in funding practices have deep implications for global governance. Private funding runs the risk of turning UN agencies, funds and programs into contractors for bilateral or public-private projects, eroding the multilateral character of the system and undermining democratic global governance. Multilateral mandates become increasingly difficult to carry out, as a profusion of earmarked projects undermines coherence, planning and coordinated action. The engagement of corporations and philanthropic foundation with UN organizations and their influence on global policy-making in general raise several concerns (University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017).

By the early 90’s the UN had changed its agenda from preserving international peace, to an agenda of bringing the world together under one ruling government and a New World Order (NWO). This proposal was presented in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. It was called the UN agenda 21. This has now been changed to the UN agenda 30.

On the outside this agenda looks good and presents a utopian like one world society. It teaches the public new words like sustainable energy, green living and introduces us to political correctness. It tells us that we can all live side-by-side through open borders and teaches us how to downsize our own lives to fit into this utopian world society.

What the UN agenda 30 really means will be forced mass migrations, taking land ownership away from the public sector and giving that land to the private corporate sector to manage. Our cars will be taken from us and we are to be moved into sustainable regions that will feed the population within that region.

The blighting of the public sectors has been happening for a few decades now. Once an area is marked for “blighting” (which means it does not sustain the population within that sector), police are told to no longer prioritize that area. It slowly becomes a high crime area. Strict regulations are made and imposed in that region. Zoning is changed. It becomes intolerable and often time inhabitable for the people living within that region. They find themselves forced off their land.

What happens to the land? Because of the new zoning regulations, the public sector is no longer allowed ownership.

There is so much more to the UN agenda 30 but I will let the readers do their own research. All the information is public. You just need to know where to look and how to look. They are required to give everyone public notice. The problem with the public notice would be it is buried deeply and broken up into pieces and housed within different Non-Government organization’s (NGO) that have been started by the private corporations that now run the UN.

It is time for the UN to get out of the U.S and here are some reasons why:

  1. The amount of money that is given to the UN from this country could go towards universal healthcare, education, and the homelessness in this country.
  2. American taxpayers cover 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That does not include the three special interest organizations- the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which require $100,000,000 every year.
  3. Then there are over a dozen other U.N. agencies and operations that American dollars also support.

If you would like more information about the UN and UN Agenda 21 I would recommend Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire.

Cited material:

  1. (2005). The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941 – October 1945. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/55407.htm
  2. (n.d.). Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/dumbartonoakspro00amer/dumbartonoakspro00amer_djvu.txt

Seitz, K., & Martens, J. (2017). Philanthrolateralism: Private Funding and Corporate Influence in the United Nations. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1758-5899.12448.

Declaration of the Governed

Author: Clay Mead

Published on Change.org

Petition

In Civic Congress, November 11, 2018. 
Declaration of the Governed of the United States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to alter the political bands which have connected them with their current government, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and superior station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the alteration.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, an uncorrupted government and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Citizens, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing tax help services stopmyirsbill.com its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Governed; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Federal, State and Local Governments is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

  1. It has conspired and succeeded, in whole and in part, to remove the realistic right of the average citizen to Representation in the Legislature, through its refusal to pass term limits and campaign reform in support of “Pay for Play” schemes, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  2. It has endeavored to eliminate protected unalienable Rights through partisan interpretations of interpretations of case law versus relying upon the plain and clear language of rights outlined within our national Constitution.
  3. It has endeavored to prevent the exercise of unalienable Rights, endowed by our Creator, through adulteration of our judicial system that has shown its complete and utter failure to self-regulate.
  4. It has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by its Assent to the practice of Selective Prosecution, thwarting any possibility of equal protects under the law and by establishing immunity, from prosecution and civil redress, to the Judiciary, Legislatures, States, Counties, Townships, Law Enforcement and Federal agencies or individuals, placing themselves in superior station to those who consent to grant them the power to govern.
  5. It has dissolved or seized the assets of citizens repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of its invasions on the rights of the people.
  6. It has affected to render the Law Enforcement Agencies independent of and superior to the Civic Power.
  7. For quartering large bodies of militarily armed police officers among us.
  8. For protecting them, through Selective Prosecution, immunity granted or by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.
  9. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury and the adulteration of the practice of Plea Dealing to evoke blackmailed admissions of guilt under threat of much harsher prosecution and sentencing.
  10. For transporting us to unscrupulous courts to be tried for pretended offences.
  11. It has erected a multitude of New Offices, Agencies and Departments and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
  12. It has created federal agencies to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation. Even now the dogs they have bred to submission the Citizen, bite the hand of their Masters in a Deep State rebellion for control of our country.
  13. For taking away our Charters, violating our most valuable rights and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments through payment for representation schemes.
  14. For suspending Laws of our own State Legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever and naming themselves the Supreme Law of the Land beyond those powers granted within the National Constitution.
  15. It has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. It has squandered our tax revenues and permitted a runaway annual budget that spends more than it receives, causing debt that will be in existence for our grandchildren’s grandchildren to be saddled.
  16. It is even now controlling our various forms of communication and medias to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Custodians of a civilized nation.
  17. It has excited domestic insurrections amongst us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our country a division so severe it most certainly will bring about an undistinguished fall and destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions if left unopposed and unchallenged.
  18. It has corrupted elections, shielded the governing class from criminal prosecution, granted them immunity from civil redress, refused to limit terms of service, refuse to reform campaign funding and built militarily armed domestic forces to protect themselves from being removed from power.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the custodian of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Governmental brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislatures to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the original circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our alterations, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, duty bound to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and to reverence the boundaries of power granted there in, comprehending that powers not expressly granted remain with the Citizenry.

We, therefore, the Governed of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Citizens of these States, solemnly publish and declare:

That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to proclamations of law beyond the reach of powers expressly granted within the Constitution of the United States of America.

We hereby call upon the current sitting President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, the entire setting Congress, the Supreme Court of the United States and every Independent State Legislature to Direct you to expressly redress the foregoing grievances and through appropriate means, however drastic it shall be required, to become compliant with the Plain and Clear Language of the Ratified Constitution of the United States of America.

By whatever means necessary, the Governed, whom have boldly joined their names below, Demand those who have violated the trust and powers, granted them by the Governed, be held accountable, to a degree that ensures that no future Elected Official or Civil Servant dare to follow these same actions.

You are further Directed to implement, by appropriate means, the following safeguards against future usurpations:

  1. For term limits and campaign financing reform to end pay for play schemes;
  2. To limit the power shift to bureaucratic deep state agencies, through appropriate oversight, at both the Federal, State and Local levels once term limits and campaign reform have been implemented for elected officials;
  3. For Strict adherence to the Plain and Clear Language of our National Constitution and its ratified amendments versus interpretations of interpretations of case law.
  4. The United States Supreme Court, and every other level of State and Federal Court has become partisan in nature and should have a revolving Grand Jury like panel of Citizens, drawn by lot from appropriate districts, to review and overturn, when appropriate, their decisions by unanimous agreement.
  5. The same type of panel should be tasked to review and overrule, when requested and upon unanimous agreement, the decisions of each State Bar Association upon attorney discipline and the decisions of each City, County, District, State or Federal Prosecutor to Selectively Not Prosecute any criminal case.
  6. For the abolishment of the practice of legislating criminal or civic immunity, to any member of the governing or law enforcement class, that does not extend equally to the general population. We are to be a Government of the people, by the people and for the people, no class stationed above the people. Every Citizen deserves equal protects under the law and thus every Citizen must be equally answerable to the law.
  7. For the national abolishment of the act of civil asset seizure without any criminal conviction or civil order based upon debt owed. The fourth Amendment states we are to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure of personal property which should include being safe from highway robbery from unscrupulous law enforcement.
  8. For the disarmament of Local, County, State and Federal Law Enforcement of any weapon not legal and regularly available to the general population.
  9. For the establishment of a requirement that the annual national and state budgets must live within their means and establish a plan to systematically reduce debt at an established rate, so as to end the thievery of the revenues of our grandchildren’s grandchildren.
  10. For the establishment of a level of ethics and truthfulness required of our national, state and local media and press core.
  11. For the providing of the securing of our borders and encouraging support of the legal immigration of people of education, needed skills and means.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Sign petition

Articles of Resolution

Articles of Resolution:

By: Aaron Dietrich

Article 1: Election reform to guarantee free and fair elections

Article 2: A complete independent review and reform of our political system, including; non election funding of parties and individuals, corporate political lobby access/restriction, ending two-party control

Article 3: End the Federal Reserve and use of fiat currency, review and reform our economic system, and tax system

Article 4: Break up all major monopolies, including; banks, media, communication, pharmaceutical, agricultural, food production, transportation, and energy production and distribution

Article 5: A complete independent review and reform of our large corporation news media regulations, restrictions, and insurances to prevent intentional misinformation from government or any other interest and guarantee free speech, equal coverage, and access

Article 6: A complete independent review and reform of our Dept of Justice and Justice System and end to private prisons

Article 7: Immigration System and enforcement to first guarantee national sovereignty and security, while secondly, providing legal immigration and asylum

Article 8: A complete independent review and reform of our Housing and Development (HUD &?) with a mandate to house 100% of U.S. veterans first, then the disabled, single parents, women, and men with a focus on ending homelessness completely

Article 9: Repeal of all prohibitions of naturally occurring substances, end the national and international drug war, end criminal treatment of substance users and include substance abuse treatment in health care

Article 10: A complete independent review and reform of our health care system, pharmaceutical industry, Dept of Health, Dept of Ag, FDA, and CDC

Article 11: A complete independent review and reform of our EPA to ensure all human and ecological considerations come before corporate or economic considerations, and fair access must be balanced with preservation

Article 12: End our alliance with the UN and NATO and create new international security treaties that will put national and personal sovereign rights before any other concern and will not favor one nation or group of nations to put corporate interests over any other or become any other international force other than international sovereignty concerns and dispute arbitration

Article 13: A complete independent review and reform of our Department of Education and Federal education guidelines and goals

Article 14: A release of all secret or classified technologies or medicines that have been developed or recovered by the government that would be beneficial to people and/or the environment

Article 15: A return of rule of law in regards of congressional approval for ALL military action (no loopholes for war vs military action). Any potential actionable intel used as a basis for military action must be verifiable and must be at least presented to a bipartisan committee to be reviewed, and if action is decided the intel must be made public with as little redaction as possible, before a vote in congress can be made (real rough)