Connect with us

Foreign Affairs

Kurdistan and the natural right of self-determination

Published

on

Over the weekend, one of my fellow writers here at the NOQ Report, Ryan Fava, reported that Kurdistan is set to follow #Brexit with their own #Kexit.  The Kurds have long sought autonomy and independence from their Iraqi overlords.  And President Trump and his administration’s opposition to the Kurdistan independence referendum will not stop the Kurds from exercising their natural right of self-determination.

There is a fundamental question, for Christians in particular, to contemplate here.  How are we to respond to these independence and sovereignty movements, biblically?  I’m really glad you asked this question.

If our foreign policies are to impose particular forms of government, or arbitrarily and internationally determine borders, then I believe our foreign policies are in rebellion against God.  But if we support legitimate sovereignty movements and independence referendums, then we are acknowledging God’s Sovereignty over nations and kingdoms.

The whole counsel of God’s Word is a covenant standard for all of creation, whether or not all of creation follows it.  Nations and people who don’t, don’t to their own peril.  The law books of the Christian Scriptures are the common law, case laws, where God’s standard is applied.  In light of the New Covenant, there are laws that are discontinued (ceremonial), and the general equity of the moral laws continues today.

Does the general equity standard of the whole counsel of the Christian Scriptures affirm the natural right of self-determination?

I believe there are two fundamental passages in God’s Word that bring to light the biblical understanding of the natural right of self-determination.  The passages are Genesis 1:28 and Acts 17:26.

Genesis says, “And God blessed them.  And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”

Acts says, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.”

God’s Word clearly teaches the ultimate Sovereignty of God as Creator and the One who holds dominion over His creation.  And in His Sovereignty, He endows man with the authority and natural right of dominion to cultivate God’s creation.  In Acts, God’s Sovereignty is revealed in His supreme authority to determine the rise and fall of nations and kingdoms, but also His authority to determine the borders of those nations.

It is with the natural right of dominion that man also has the natural right to self-determine the national borders of the culture and sphere of creation they have authority over.  I believe the Christian Scriptures clearly imply that a legitimate exercise of the natural rights of dominion and self-determination is Jehovah God exercising His ultimate sovereignty to determine the boundaries of nations and kingdoms.

The #Brexit, and even the Scottish referendum before #Brexit, is an example of a people exercising their God-given natural right of self-determination.  As are the #Texit and the Hawaiian sovereignty movements.

The United Nations and the international community in the 1940’s are humanistic projects in rebellion against the natural right of self-determination. Because they arbitrarily carved up the Middle East and established the State of Israel.  And I say this as someone who is a strong supporter of Israel.

The global democracy projects of the Bush 43 era and Obama’s Arab Spring are not examples of the natural right to self-determination either.  In all three instances, the boundaries and borders of nations were arbitrarily determined by humanistic elites with utter disregard for the people of those lands.

If our foreign policies are to impose particular forms of government, or arbitrarily and internationally determine borders, then I believe our foreign policies are in rebellion against God.  But if we support legitimate sovereignty movements and independence referendums, then we are acknowledging God’s Sovereignty over nations and kingdoms.

Therefore, I fully support Kurdistan’s independence referendum and their natural right of self-determination.  President Trump and his administration should seriously reconsider its opposition.  Most importantly, I want to pray for peace and safety for the people of Kurdistan during and after their independence referendum passes.

Full disclosure: I am a supporter of the Texas Nationalist Movement and the #Texit independence referendum, as a citizen of Texas.

Theocratic conservative blogger and columnist, independent speechwriter, and political provocateur Trey Mays is a Christian Reformist — because culture needs fundamental reform, not revolutionary change. He is a fighter for a multi-party, decentralized Constitutional Confederacy of small Christian republics based on the standards of God's Law of Liberty. You can read his columns here at the NOQ Report, but if you want to read his more informal "news" letter, stop by TruthDispatch.com.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Trump goes nuclear on Iran deal

Published

on

In a move that will doubtlessly give Muslim apologists around the world an apoplexy, President Trump withdrew the United States from the deal made with Iran under the Obama Administration which was theoretically supposed to prevent the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Instead, as the President made clear in his announcement, the Iranian regime has gained momentum toward developing nuclear weapons as well as the missile technology needed to deliver warheads around the world.

Calling the deal “defective at its core,” President Donald Trump gave his multitude of reasons to withdraw from the deal and to impose sanctions upon the radical Islamic regime. Trump also made a series of promises that made it clear that he would not tolerate Iran from advancing their nuclear weapons program. He also left the door open to renegotiating the deal in the future, and even seemed confident that Iran WOULD seek such a deal in the future.

Presidents are supposed to remain optimistic, and Trump did a good job in this respect by leaving that door to renegotiating open. However, it is quite possible that the President himself didn’t believe his own optimism. Iran has never negotiated in good faith with the world before, and they are unlikely to start now.

President Trump touted his ongoing success with the North Korean regime to prop up the idea that new sanctions will force Iran back to the bargaining table. On its face, this seems like it could be done. After all, Trump has accomplished on the Korean Peninsula more than six decades worth of Presidents combined.

That said, the circumstances are somewhat different in Iran than they are in North Korea. For one thing, Iran has large oil and natural gas reserves, which allows them to generate foreign currency at a level North Korea cannot come close to matching. Further, while North Korea is controlled by a brutal dictator, we have seen circumstances over the decades where Communist ideology has been overturned in favor of capitalism based simply on the fact that the latter works, and the former does not. Iran, however, is not just dictated by Marxism, but rather by radical Islamic fundamentalism, which has never been overcome except by force of arms.

Only time will tell how all this plays out.

In the meantime, there is, sadly, little the President can do to recoup the billions of dollars given to Iran by his predecessor. That money is gone, and has undoubtedly been used not only to further Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but to fund radical Islamic terrorism across the Middle East and around the world.

What the President CAN do is order a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding the giving of billions of taxpayer dollars to the murderous regime, and if evidence is found of wrongdoing, prosecute those US officials and former officials who had a hand in what is tantamount to treason. While the money will still be gone, having been used for evil, such prosecution could discourage future US Administrations from acting so willfully against the best interests of the American People and the world.

Former White House National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes would be an excellent person with whom to start the investigation, and Secretary John Kerry as well as former President Obama himself may need to be called to account. I, for one, am not holding my breath on the Obama Administration being held to account for any of its multiple crimes, but it WOULD be nice.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Trump went full Globalist First with Syria strikes

Published

on

President Trump should redirect aid to Guatemala from nations who voted against the Jerusalem move

Too often we find ourselves in emotive cycles. For instance, mass shootings are used by the anti-gun crowd as a means to motivate a legislative attack on our Second Amendment. Likewise, chemical weapon incidences in Syria are similarly used to create an emotionally based reason to use military action. We are quick to assume that the Assad regime was responsible for the previous high profile uses of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. This started under the Obama administration with his famous “Red Line” blunder in which he declared any use of chemical warfare unacceptable even if against the Al Qaeda affiliates or the JV team, ISIS. Trump, in contrast, followed through on Obama’s blunders, when the cycle repeated itself again.

A little over a year ago there was a chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, in a province most openly ruled by the rebrandings of Al Qaeda. This incident led to Trump ordering airstrikes on Syria betraying his campaign promise of staying out of Syria. This attack was carried out under false and premature pretenses. This is an instance where the intelligence community says one thing but evidence says another. But before you defend the intelligence community’s infallibility, look back to how they insisted the DNC was hacked despite the lack of evidence, specifically from the server, that a hack took place. And so the Russian Farce Began. Theodore Postol, a professor at MIT and former DoD scientific adviser pointed out the staged nature of the evidence regarding sarin gas attack in 2017. He ultimately showed that the crater and canister that is credited with the chemical weapons rocket was detonated from the ground, not the air. Read more about his findings here. The point is: the emotive response automatically assumes that the Assad regime carried out the attack. There have been many chemical weapons uses in the war, but only about three or four have gotten media notoriety. I don’t deny that the Syrian Arab Army has used chemical weapons ever, but I seriously doubt the nonstrategic use of chemical weapons that occurred in these notorious incidences. Though as described below, this incident had a strategic outcome.

With the most recent incidence, guilt has already been pointed at Assad restarting the cycle. I don’t care to defend Assad in this instance. I do however want to call Trump and his supporters out on their own support of globalism. So let’s assume Assad carried out this attack. Let’s assume Assad gassed Al Qaeda territories a day after launching a new offensive and because he did, the terrorists surrendered. Why should we care?

The easiest reason to dismiss is that striking Assad is beneficial to America’s Middle Eastern strategy. This would imply that there has been a strategy in the Middle East. But even if we soften strategy to “interests” striking Assad is counter to America’s interest. Al Qaeda has lost in Syria and is clinging to certain besieged areas. In the particular area of this incident the group that was beseiged was called the “Army of Islam”. How does weakening the army that has done more to fight Al Qaeda and ISIS than the US in the last decade benefit Americans or their interests? If Hezbollah, a terror organization sponsored and allied with Assad, were alleged to have been responsible, this would be a different story. But instead, we target the one belligerent in the Syrian Civil War that can actually stabilize the region, even if slowly.

You could then claim about civilian deaths which have been a constant theme in this war on all sides. Most recently, this year Turkey has taken to slaughtering Kurds in its land grab of Northern Syria, but Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care about the death toll there. Nor have other brutalities in Syria been enough for Trump or Obama, to act. Assad, along with every belligerent, has killed civilians in this war. Why are these deaths special? News flash they aren’t. A person is a person is a person. A person dies whether being shot, stabbed or gassed. The people who died in the gas attack were no more important than the people who died in gunfire or strategic bombing. Every person has a moral worth that is irrelevant to their cause of death. So this isn’t about civilian deaths. This is about chemical weapons in and of themselves.

So now that we established Trump attacked Syria because of chemical weapons, now lets dive in to why he’s a globalist for it. Trump wanted to send a message that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. But why is it unacceptable? What makes chemical weapons different than bullets and shells. Why is gas morally reprehensible and incendiary bombs permissible? There is no logical way to construct an argument that chemical weapons are impermissible while nuclear, radiological, and biological aren’t (though biological weapons are difficult if not impossible to control thus having little strategic use.) If we are to accept that weapons of mass destruction are morally wrong to ever use, then it would be inconsistent to not favor disarmament. Furthermore as Americans we would have to admit that the use of atomic bombs was a immoral decision if we do insist that the use of WMDs is morally impermissible.

I refuse to accept these premises and rewrite history in a globalist politically correct way. So why are chemical weapons such a big deal? The short answer is that the UN says they are a big deal. After World War 1, the League of Nations sought to outlaw chemical warfare and war in general. The ladder was ineffective. Though chemical weapons didn’t see as much light in World War 2, more extreme weapons did. Since its founding, the UN has sought to control what weapons a country can have. In addition to chemical weapons, there’s the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty. Article V of the NPT requires disarmament which nuclear nations have thus far refused. Some nuclear nations tolerate this treaty because they don’t want have-nots to get nukes. Others such as Israel, India, and Pakistan recognize that the UN wants to place limitations on their self defense capabilities. UN limitations on chemical weapons are similarly globalist schemes for the UN to encroach on a nation’s sovereignty. Chemical weapon use is wrong according to international law, not in and of themselves. As Ben Shapiro noted:

One of the arguments for intervention in Syria is that if we do nothing to reimpose the Obama red line in Syria, chemical weapons use will become more common. That’s probably true. But it’s also true that if someone attacked Americans with chemical weapons, we would end them. Furthermore, not all chemical weapons are the same: some are indeed weapons of mass destruction, but others are not as dangerous in scope as cluster bombs. Do the 500,000 dead in Syria’s civil war care whether they were killed by Russian cluster bombs or sarin gas?

So when Trump attacked Syria, he wasn’t responding to a threat nor can we really say it was about the people killed. He was upholding the UN’s power which Syria defied. This is where Trump goes full globalist. Never go full globalist. To repeat myself: he had the United State’s military attack another country because of a violation of international law! In the United States, international law has very little power here. This was established in Medellin v Texas. The globalist community cares not about American interests. Do we not remember when the UN condemned America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? It was allowed by Congress for decades. The UN would want nothing more than for America to relinquish its power.

Globalist First

All of Trump’s talk of nationalism is really a farce. He had our military act on a globalist cause, not “America First”. Trump may talk tough on tariffs, but globalism isn’t really about economics, its about sovereignty. Being “tough” on China doesn’t benefit America First. Instead these tariffs are now the biggest  threat to our economic security coming out of the Great Recession. Bombing Syria doesn’t benefit America first. It benefits Turkey and their terrorists. It benefits the UN. Trump wasted military resources doing the UN’s bidding instead of making America or its allies safer. Trump upheld UN norms instead of his lawful duties as defined by Congress and the US Constitution.

In an America First foreign policy, we would have seen if the President had gone through America first. Congress. Instead Trump relied on a thumbs up which he got from the globalist community.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Trump ignores Constitution and his own words by bombing Syria

Published

on

After Trump launched a series of airstrikes against Syria without the Constitutionally required authorization from Congress—just as he did a year ago after his “advisor” Ivanka told him to do so—he sent a self-congratulatory tweet to his adoring followers and declared, “Mission Accomplished.”

Despite the unwise reference to the phrase used by George W. Bush when he announced the end of combat operations in Iraq—we’re still there—Trump’s strike on Syria had little in common with Bush’s war because Congress authorized military action against Iraq. In reality, Trump’s actions have more in common with Obama’s war in Libya in that Obama didn’t have Congressional authority either.

Regardless of any perceived moral benefit from last week’s actions, Trump has once again ignored the Constitution in the name of political opportunism—a fact pointed out by a few voices in Congress (Notice the one-two punch by Amash when he nails Paul Ryan along with Trump).

Though motivated more by Trump’s nationalist/populist ideals than they are his unconstitutional actions, his worshipers in the media are also speaking out about the airstrikes against Syria. FOX News Trump Pravda hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham slammed the Syrian attacks as inconsistent with promises made during Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Michael Savage tweeted that warmongers had hijacked the country.

And Trump sycophant Ann Coulter continued to regret her support of Trump by expressing her disagreement with his war against Syria in a series of retweets from conservatives and other voices like those below:

Proof of Trump’s double-mindedness regarding Syria was also documented by DailyCaller.com in an article listing numerous past tweets by Trump opposing military action in Syria when Obama was president. Here are just a few:

Trump’s narcissism and Constitutional ignorance are not only a threat to liberty here at home, but they’re now a threat to Americans and others around a destabilized world—a world that grows more destabilized and dangerous with every tweet he sends.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.