|
|
|
|
Coup d'état in Norway in 1939 "Jesus and Hitler Told the Truth about the Jews."
Dear kindred and fellow Aryans
I bet you never heard of any coup d'etat in
Norway. Well, I will to tell you about it. Before I tell you the story I
have a riddle for you: Who do you think was behind the coup d'etat?
You will be able to answer after you have read
this article.
The difference between storting and Storting is:
the Storting means a specific parliament while storting means any
parliament.
Let me start by quoting four paragraphs from the
Norwegian Constitution as it was in 1936. I emphasize that my translation
of the wording is not an official one. Sorry, but there are no official
translation of the Norwegian Constitution of 1936. Storting is the name of
the Norwegian parliament.
§ 54 Election shall take place every third
year. Election shall take place within the month of November.
§ 71: Members of the Storting is elected for
three years.
§ 97: No law must be given retrospective
force.
§ 112: If practice show, that part of the
Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway should be changed, a proposal for
changes shall be set forth the first year after an election. But a debate
on the changes of the change can first take place during the first or second
year after a new election and after the proposal have been known to the
public in printing. No changes must be contradictory to the spirit of the
Constitution, changes must only be modification to the various paragraphs.
Two third of the members of a Storting must vote yes to a change if the
paragraph can be changed.
On April 22, 1938 the Storting agreed to change
§§ 54 and 71. The changes were to extend the legislation period of the
storting from three to four years. What is frightful is that the
Storting on that date enlarged their own legislation period to four tears.
Reason given for extending the legislation period was the troubled time in
Europe. The Storting of 1938 was elected in 1936 and then for a
legislation period of THREE years.
The proposer, Henrik Amlen
from Bergen, protested against the Storting enlarging it's own legislation
period to four years. He said that was not what he meant with his
proposal.
The liberal press demanded the King to act
against the government lead by Nygaardsvold who intended to
accept the changes..
None of the protests that were set forth were
followed up neither by the King nor by the parliament.
In stead of engaging an independent examination
the Storting chose to listen to the storting's own assistant secretary
Hoirtoey. Hoirtoey had NO juridical education, but he had
made some notes after a telephone conversation with a juridical professor,
Frede Castberg. Castberg's expert opinion was so ambiguity that the
assistent secretary should have understood that an independent examination
should have been carried out before the Storting extended it's own
legislation period. The correct action from Hoirtoey should have been to
ask the Supreme Court to evaluate the new paragraphs and the Storting's
request to extend it's own legislation period to four years instead of the
three years the Storting was elected for.
On February 10, 1939 the parliamentarian Moseid
invited the Storting to ask the Supreme Court to evaluate the new
paragraphs. This proposal was rejected against 25 votes.
The committee where the discussion regarding the
extension of the legislation period was headed by the President of the
Storting, Carl I Hambro. Hambro was a Jew, and related to
the Hambros of Hambro's Bank in London. Hoirtoey was in close cooperation
with Hambro in the evaluation of the Constitution's new paragraphs.
Sweden had a legislation period of three years
and saw no reason for changing it's legislation period. This even though
Sweden also saw the troubling time in Europe.
One can not find any faults with with the
resolution to change the two paragraphs, 54 and 71, of The Constitution.
The extension of the legislation period from three to four years was legal.
The critics were directed towards the Storting's extension of it's own
legislation period. The Storting of 1938 was elected to a period of three
years. A legislation period of four years could first be set in force after
the election of 1939. The election of 1936 was for a period of three years
NOT for four. The extension of the legislation period of one year upset the
people of Norway. One must go back to the French revolution to find
anything resembling to what happened in Norway in 1938, All over Norway
people protested the increased legislation period of the Storting of 1939,
but to no use,
The Storting had committed a coup d'etat.
No one challenge the fact that the legislation
period was extended with one year and that the change was set to force
immediately. Every political interested person agree a mistake was made,
but they don't want to discuss the consequences of what the Storting did in
1939. One even agree that a change in the Constitution can not be set in
force the day the change is agreed to by the storting. Paragraph 97 is a
guarantee for such mistakes shall never happen.
The representatives of the Storting in 1939 had
an agreement with the people of Norway to only be legislators for three
years. To break that agreement was like a earthquake in the political life
in Norway. The storting had help the leading political party - Det norske
Arbeiderpartu, (The Norwegian Labour Party - DnA) in doing this coup
d'etat. But without the help of the Jew Hambro the Storting could not have
carried out this coup d'etat. The government of Norway in 1939 belonged to
DnA. With other words - Hambro the Jew helped DnA to carry out The first
ever Coup d'etat of Norway.
King Haakon 7 could have
stopped the coup d'etat which was done by the Storting. We will never learn
why the freemason King Haakon 7 did not stop the coup d'etat. It would
never have been a coup d'etat if the government had overlooked the ruling of
the Storting.
The British expert in jurisprudence
Lionel Courtis says the following can and shall be done by a king
if he learns the parliament acts against the constitution of a country:
"The king is responsible to watch for the parliament and the ministers do not usurpers the voters sovereignty. If a minister backed by the parliament stays in office after his term of office has expired the monarch shall dismiss the minister/government by appoint a new government with the only task to issue writs for a new election."
It is of course a possibility that King Haakon
considered the possibility of demanding an election. We will never know -
the Royal House will not publish King Haakon's diaries or notes.
The problem was that the Storting had made a
decision and was not willing to change. That they had made a wrong decision
against the Constitution did not matter. How could the parliamentarians go
against the wishes of the President of the Storting? The coup d'etat was
final.
Had there been an election in the autumn of 1939
the composition of the Storting would have been changed dramatically.
During the autumn and winter of 1938/39 the fatalism in the public had
changed for that of 1936 to a wish to change the political system of
Norway. The willingness among Norwegian to fight for their own country and
that of other were shown as the Russian attacked Finland. Further Norwegian
had turned against the political establishment and wanted a change. This
was shown in political debates in various new papers.
Norwegian were in an identify crises during the
winter of 1938 and the spring, summer and early autumn of 1939. They felt
the politicians had opened the country for attacks from any country. A
large part of the young people had seen how the labour party had bowed for
communism and pressure from international liberalism. A lot of young people
felt the lack of military investment were wrong. This all politicians on
the Storting of 1939 knew - they did not want an election that autumn
because the faired for their jobs.
On January 20, 1939 barrister Finn R. Schoedt
among others said this in an article in one of the country's largest news
papers:
"After January 1, 1940 any citizen can claim that all laws the Storting gives is wrong and can not be enforced. He can claim this because the Storting was not elected correctly."
The story I have told you here was the first
time Norway experienced what it meant to be ruled by a revolutionary
political party. Unfortunately both the country and all Norwegian in the
months to come would experience what it meant to have a Jew as president of
the storting.
After WW2 the debate regarding what the Storting
did on 1938 and 1939 regarding legislation period. One of the leading news
papers wrote on January 24, 1946:
What the Storting made as they extended their own legislation period was a coup d'etat.
The leading Norwegian juridical professor, Jon
Skeie, wrote:
The Storting made a coup d'etat as they extended it's legislation period.
I trust this article give you a new view to what
happened in Norway during and after WW2.
Let me rephrase a clause from Hamlet: "There is something rotten in the state of Norway. Heil og sael
|