Category Archives: International Law

Congress is Wheelin’ and Dealin’

Deal2Today, The Washington Examiner published an article entitled “Kerry:  U.N. has the right to vote on Iran deal before Congress.”  The article focused on the recent preliminary agreement between Iran and the U.S. on the subject of nuclear weapons for Iran.

Including the headline, the article has 260 words.  The word “deal” appeared five times.  The word “treaty” didn’t appear even once.

Of course, The Washington Examiner article was not a Supreme Court decision.  We can’t assume that the article’s word choices reflect the actual law and relies on legal terms.  Still, it’s odd that the article repeatedly describes this agreement between the nations of Iran and the U.S. as a “deal” but never once called it a “treaty”.

Shouldn’t we expect that an agreement between two nations would be called a “treaty”?

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , ,

International Law for Christian Nations

International Law based largely on Christianity?

International Law based largely on Christianity?

One of my readers posted a comment that included the following:

“The problem with this is that international law is for Christian nations.  Excerpt from  The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary (verified in Vattel as well):

I had no idea of the link between international law and Christianity.  I don’t know that that link is still deemed true today in what passes for “international law”.

But, insofar as I view most of what happens on this earth as evidence of “spiritual warfare,” I’m pleased and excited to see evidence that international law was–and might still be–based on a Christian foundation.

I’m not yet sure how to apply this new insight.  But, if you’ve followed this blog or my radio shows, you might recall that I like to focus on the “man or other animals” definitions of drugs and medical devices.  Insofar as those definitions are subject to a “freedom of religion” challenge, they might also open the door to some challenge in “international law” (provided that “international law” is still founded to some degree on Christianity).

In any case, I’m posting the evidence of the International Law/Christianity “connection” without much commentary simply because I think it’s important and you deserve to see it.  That “connection” is at least consistent with arguments that most of what we see to today is the result of spiritual warfare.

If you have more knowledge on this subject, please let me know.


Tags: , , ,

Just a Thought

The International Currency of the NWO?

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part, that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”.  The mandate for gold and silver coin applies only to the States of the Union.  There is no similar constitutional restriction on the currencies that might be used in Washington DC or the territories since they are not “States” of the Union.

I’ve therefore concluded that the use of Federal Reserve Notes would be at least restricted and probably prohibited  within the States of the Union, but would be quite legal within any territory of the United States or Washington DC. This distinction between the constitutional venues of currencies is the cornerstone for my contention that “Texas,” “TX” and even “STATE OF TEXAS” do not signify the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas,” but instead signify a territory.  I.e., it’s lawful to use Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) in the “territory” of TX, but it would be unlawful to use FRNs within “The State of Texas”.

Thus, it might be that the mere use of FRNs would constitute evidence that you had “voluntarily” left your State of the Union to transact business in a fictional territory.  Within the State you would have many rights, but no currency.  Within the territory you’d have ample access to a fiat currency, but little or no real rights.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , ,