What do Russia and Crimea have in common? Answer — Russian people! In reality, Crimea was annexed to mother Russia by the people of Crimea, not by Mr. Putin or his minions. Thomas Hobbes believed that when men covenant amongst themselves to establish a sovereign state for stability and clarity of law, they subject themselves to that sovereign’s authority by necessity. It therefore follows that the people of Crimea elected a different authority (Russia) under which to prosper, irrespective of the historical and national boundary lines drawn by the world order or a so-called “international law” promulgated by the likes of the United Nations, Council on Foreign Relations, NATO or what-have-you. In the annexation of Crimea, Putin was only a means to an end; he created a direction for the people to avail themselves of a different authority and perhaps a better opportunity to prosper.
Mr. Putin and the Russian people, including Crimea, have opted for sovereignty, rather than adhering to the dictates of the New World Order promulgated by unknowns wishing to maintain the status quo of intangible and meaningless boundary lines that demark one recognized nation from another. The political recognition and certification of “nations” by the one world power (US) and the United Nations, collectively, assume that they have the authority to define boundaries under which people must live and subjugate themselves — who are they to presume such powers when they are so feckless and impotent to enforce their will upon others? Mr. Putin and his people took it to the world order, and established a new sovereign state. He redrew the boundary lines, he recovered the Russian people of Crimea, and in doing so, he exposed the new world order of the United States government and the United Nations for what they are — collusive, corrupt, rogue, incompetent, impotent, feckless and pompous.
John Locke believed that when an authority loses the trust of its people, they then would have the natural right of rebellion, and to replace that abusive sovereign with another of their choosing. Do the American people not see similarities in their lot with that of the Russian people in Crimea? Were we, the people, to resolve that the federal government has lost our trust owing to its deceit and unconstitutional edicts, we would have the attendant right to replace it with another of our choosing? Or, would the new world order and/or the United Nations have the last say in the matter, trump the Constitution, and pre-empt our endeavors to become free of the yoke? Wouldn’t it be provident to have a Putin-like President that would confront the new world order, and liberate the American people from an imperial government that has turned rogue and treasonable? In this, I admire Putin for his pugnacity and intrepidness in confronting the world order of things as defined by our Mr. Obama and other unknowns. In summary, like in the days of the founders, only the people, or their duly authorized public servants, can determine the sovereignty of a nation, and not by a government that is inimical and detached from its people, not by a new world order, and not by the so-called “United Nations.” Were we to be so fortunate to have a president that believed in a sovereign America — now that would be a world power to be reckoned with.