Dr. Taylor Haynes: Wyoming’s Gubernatorial Candidate Is A TRUE Constitutionalist

If ever there was a list of gubernatorial candidates who would strictly adhere to the Constitution, the list would be small. But joining Dr. Ron Paul is Dr. Taylor Haynes, who would like to see Wyoming succeed by giving people liberty.

Dr. Taylor Haynes is intelligent and well-spoken, like Dr. Ron Paul, and seeks to limit government to its roles laid out in the Constitution.  Dr. Haynes said he would like to see the 16th amendment removed from the Constitution, but it needs to be done without using a Convention of the States.  He says this opens up the Constitution and the government would surely and immediately take away free speech and gun rights. This amendment is not a part of the Bill of Rights but was added so the federal government could disingenuously steal money from the American people.

On his website, Haynes is quoted as saying:

I am the first person running for office to promote Wyoming’s sovereignty and the absolute need to establish a “constitutional” relationship with the Federal Government. The vision I have shared with Wyoming voters for a prosperous and free Wyoming, has shown signs of coming to life. –Dr. Taylor Haynes

Not even two weeks ago, Dr. Haynes did an interview with Glenn Woods from KGAB radio in Cheyenne, in which he said:

The Constitution was weighing heavily and being lost and when I could see how the primary was going…I really wanted to keep that particular message out there. Because over the years starting in the late ’80’s pushing back on people like Bill Clinton…I could see that state sovereignty was an issue. If we were under the Constitution, we wouldn’t have some of the problems we’re facing in this very day.

 

Haynes admits that some of his ideas involving liberty and freedom come across as “scary” to some.  But that’s likely due to the fact that oppression and tyranny of the federal government has taken such a firm hold on many Americans, they don’t actually feel oppressed through complacency. When Haynes was asked if he was interested in raising taxes he replied:

In the interest of fiscal responsibility and balance between chaos and order, I would just hold the line. I would not raise any taxes and I’d hold the line on spending. The spending problem we have, and we have one, and the revenue problem we have, obviously, they are related. But what we’re doing…is only working with 49% of our [Wyoming state’s] mineral wealth.  We should have 100% of our mineral wealth…I’m not saying we should be ‘drunken sailors.’ I’m saying IF we were under the Constitution IF we ran the state in a fiscally responsible constitution-based manner, we wouldn’t have budget problems.

Haynes also says that we [Wyoming] don’t NEED the feds involved in education. We need to get away from, for example, math teachers teaching social engineering.  Math teachers should teach math, not “engineer” our children.

Listening to Dr. Haynes speak was a breath of fresh air. He will be one man to watch. Haynes will attempt to bring the free market, wealth, and freedom back to Wyoming, making the state what America used to be: the land of freedom and opportunity.

Catalan Independence: Why The Collective Hates It When People Walk Away

This report was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com

I have written many times in the past about the singular conflict at the core of most human crises and disasters, a conflict that sabotages human endeavor and retards critical thought. This conflict not only stems from social interaction, it also exists within the psyche of the average individual. It is an inherent contradiction of the human experience that at times can fuel great accomplishment, but usually leads to great tragedy. I am of course talking about the conflict between our inborn need for self determination versus our inborn desire to hand over responsibility to a community through group effort — sovereignty versus collectivism.

In my view, the source of the problem is that most people wrongly assume that “collectivism” is somehow the same as community. This is entirely false, and those who make this claim are poorly educated on what collectivism actually means. It is important to make a distinction here; the grouping of people is not necessarily or automatically collectivism unless that group seeks to subjugate the individuality of its participants. Collectivism cannot exist where individual freedom is valued. People can still group together voluntarily for mutual benefit and retain respect for the independence of members (i.e. community, rather than collectivism).

This distinction matters because there is a contingent of political and financial elites that would like us to believe that there is no middle ground between the pursuits of society and the liberties of individuals. That is to say, we are supposed to assume that all our productive energies and our safety and security belong to society. Either that, or we are extremely selfish and self serving “individualists” that are incapable of “seeing the bigger picture.” The mainstream discussion almost always revolves around these two extremes. We never hear the concept that society exists to serve individual freedom and innovation and that a community of individuals is the strongest possible environment for the security and future of humanity as a whole.

Thus, the mainstream argument becomes a kabuki theater between the “ignorantly destructive” populists/nationalists/individualists versus the more “reasonable” and supposedly forward thinking socialists/globalists/multiculturalists. The truth is, sovereignty champions can be pro-individual liberty and also pro-community or pro-nation, as long as that community is voluntary.

Collectivists will have none of this, however, and despite their intellectual and “rational” facade, they will often turn to brutality in order to disrupt any movement to decentralize power.

The civil unrest in the Spanish region of Catalonia is an interesting example of the tyranny of the collectivist ideology. According to mainstream doctrine, Spain is supposed to be a “decentralized unitary state” made up of “autonomous communities,” all with their own statutes and self governing bodies “loosely” regulated by the Spanish constitution of 1978. Catalonia, along with a couple other regions and cities in Spain, has long fought for true autonomy from the central government in Madrid. This separatist culture was crushed under the heel of Francisco Franco’s dictatorial regime after the Spanish Civil War which started in 1936.

After Franco’s death in 1975, Spain began its “transition to democracy” (democracy being the tyranny of the majority rather than tyranny by military regime). Once again, Catalonia’s push for independence returned.

The reasons for a Catalan secession are multitude and are of course noble or nefarious depending on which side you talk to. From my research, it would seem the primary drive for Catalonia is economic. Spain is one of the more indebted member states in the European Union with a national debt near 100% of GDP. The “great recession” starting in 2008 struck Spain particularly hard, with around 21% of the general population officially in poverty and over 40% of all children officially in poverty. Unemployment according to government statistics hovers near 18%.

Catalonia is the most prosperous region in Spain’s economy, accounting for nearly 20% of total GDP. Catalans also assert that taxation in their region is a primary pillar for the Spanish government, which has not returned the favor with sufficient investment in infrastructure in the region. In essence, there is a “taxation without representation” feel to the conflict, and Americans in particular know very well how that kind of situation can end.

On the other side of the debate, it is clear that if Catalonia leaves the Spanish system on negative terms, then Spain’s already crumbling economy will be destroyed. The motivation for Spain to keep control of Catalonia is high just on the grounds of economic disaster.

Beyond the economic issue, another interesting side note on Spain is its intense social justice (cultural Marxism) programs. While Europeans often suggest Spain as being a “conservative” government, in policy and action this is simply not true.  Spain is notorious for being one of the most militantly feminist governments in the EU aside from Sweden, and this is saying something given the socialist nature of the EU. Gender laws and divorce laws in the country offer some of the most draconian double standards against men I have ever witnessed. Perhaps this will give you a kind of litmus test for the sort of culture we are dealing with here, and maybe it accounts for some discontent in certain portions of the Spanish population.

Catalonia itself is often cited as being “more liberal” in its political orientation in comparison to the rest of Spain. Of course, the term “liberal” can mean many different things in Europe depending on the nation, and American definitions do not necessarily apply. Just as Europeans tend to have no understanding whatsoever of what “conservatism” means in the U.S., Americans have a hard time understanding all the intricacies of the various levels of “liberalism” in Europe.

That said, what side of the political spectrum Catalonia sits on is irrelevant to greater discussion.

What I actually enjoy pointing out here is the fact that whether you look at the Franco era of nationalist totalitarianism, or the “semi” socialist and hyper-cultural Marxist era of today, the Spanish government STILL acts the same in its despotism against Catalan separation or independence.  It is not as if the socialists set out to right the wrongs of the Franco regime once it fell. Not at all. Instead, they merely perpetuated the same attitude of centralization while wearing a smiling face. Once again, we see that there is very little difference between fascism and communism/socialism when we get down to core behaviors and policies.

Collectivists, regardless of what other labels they use to identify themselves, have certain rules that they consistently follow in order to maintain power. One of those rules is that the collective is indivisible. They might pontificate endlessly about their superior democratic ideals, but when some people vote to leave en masse, either in polling booths or with their feet, the mask of benevolence always comes off and the true monster behind collectivism is revealed.

As we have seen in Catalonia, this monstrous behavior is undeniable. The Spanish government has set out to prevent not just separation, it has sought to prevent the very act of voting on separation using police and military force. In essence, martial law was been declared in Catalonia in order to stop the people from enacting the very democratic ideals the Spanish government claims it enshrines.

Despite the vicious measures of interference, reports suggest that the vote was still successful, with 90% of the citizenry in support of independence. What happens now is unclear, but I can tell you two things are relatively certain.

First, a 90% vote in favor will result in a militarized response from the Spanish government. If the vote was less overwhelming, the government might attempt to pit one side of the population against the other, causing internal strife and disrupting secession. This strategy is unrealistic given the mass movement for independence. So, the only other option for the government is full blown martial law.

Second, such a crackdown will result in a violent counter-response. This happened in the 1970s in Catalonia and I see no reason why it would not happen again. When you have almost an entire population in agreement on separation and you use force to stop them from attaining it, they will become violent. Civil war is inevitable if martial law is declared.

It is vital that we examine the root ideological catalyst in this scenario.

The most rational solution would be for the Spanish government to accept the Catalan vote (if they believe in “democracy” as they claim, then they have to accept it, otherwise they appear extraordinarily hypocritical). This could result in a more harmonious economic relationship and less drastic damage to Spain’s fiscal structure. However, this is not going to happen. Instead, Spain is going to use the age old collectivist tactics of intimidation and carnage to oppress the Catalan’s and subsume their economic production (as socialist governments always do).  When civil war erupts, and it will, production in Catalonia will grind to a standstill and Spain STILL loses 20% of its GDP.

You see, this is a lose/lose scenario for Spain, all because the collectivist doctrine demands a jackbooted reaction to any movement for decentralization. Collectivist systems are parasitic in nature; they see the citizenry as food, as units of production for the state that cannot be allowed to leave, for the “greater good of the greater number.” Collectivists rationalize their behavior as essential to the well being of the society at large, but this is dishonest, for their behavior more often harms society by crushing individual innovation and instigating wars that might not have ever happened in the first place.

There is at the same time the matter of sovereignty movements across Europe. The only people who benefit from stopping these movements are globalists/collectivists. They may also benefit by sabotaging these movements after the fact, making an example of them and holding them up to the rest of the world as symbols of the “failures of populism.”

It is important to point out here that Catalonia is not necessarily seeking independence from the EU, only Spain.  Some might argue that this makes the Catalan vote irrelevant.  I disagree.  

Some people might also argue that if secession happened in the U.S., the response would be the same. I would argue that just because it might happen the same way, this does not mean it is right. If leftist Californians, for example, followed through with their latest threats to secede from the U.S. and a massive shift of leftists and cultural Marxists move to the state, frankly I would be ecstatic. Let these people separate and congregate. Let them fail or succeed on the merits of their own ideas and ethics. If they are allowed to organize without interference and they fail, then this is simply more proof that their ideology was unsound and impractical. California’s large percentage of U.S. GDP would simply transfer to other states if in fact the productive people there are not leftists and they migrate away, leaving the separatists to wallow in their naive ideology.

If Catalonia separates without interference and succeeds economically and socially, then perhaps it is not for Spain to try to subvert or destroy the region, but to emulate their model and learn from them. If people wish to walk away from a community, they should be allowed to do so. This is very simple. Self determination is not dependent on political expediency or mutual benefit. It is an inherent human right.  Communities and borders should be based on principles that the population stands by and every system should remain voluntary. If they do not stand by said principles and they work to thwart voluntarism, then those communities are worthless and should not exist at all.

When a collective acts to stop people from leaving, all they are doing is exposing the fact that their reasons for existing are inadequate and unconvincing. This goes for Spain, it goes for the EU and it goes for the rest of the world. Globalists and collectivists should take note — decentralization is the true model for the future. In the long run, forcing people into participation in the system is a losing battle.

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

Unsuspecting Americans to be Hit Hard by this U.S. Scheme to Confiscate Your Savings:Alan Greenspan, 20-year head of the US Fed, reveals Washington’s nasty trick to confiscate the savings of unsuspecting Americans. Here’s How Some Americans Are Preparing

Globalists Are Building An Army Of Millennials To Destroy Sovereignty

Back in October of 2016 I covered an issue which I have been very concerned with for over a year now. In an article titled Global Elites Are Getting Ready To Blame You For The Coming Financial Crash, I outlined the basis for my belief that Donald Trump would win the U.S. election and why the U.K. Brexit was allowed to meet with success. Here is a quote from that article to give you a general sense of my position:

“I argue that the Trump tapes will be forgotten in a week and that they have no bearing whatsoever on the election. They are nothing more than bread and circus. Beyond the fact that really, almost no one cares what Trump said a decade ago. I argue that this election has already been decided. I argue that the globalists want Trump in office, just as they wanted the passage of the Brexit. I argue that they need conservative movements to feel as though we have won, so that they can pull the rug out from under us in the near future. I argue that we are being set up.

Again, the elites are openly telling us what is about to happen. They are telling us that if ‘populists’ (conservatives) gain political power, the system will effectively collapse. To what extent is hard to say, but let’s assume that the situation will be ugly enough to influence the masses to reconsider the ideal of globalism as a possible solution. The elites are fond of the Hegelian dialectic and the philosophy of ‘order out of chaos,’ after all.”

While Trump did indeed go on to “win” the presidency, I still believe that the basic foundation underlying my prediction has mostly fallen on deaf ears. There is a disconnect in terms of the globalist long game in people’s minds. I think it is because many in the public do not consider the effects of geopolitical events on mass psychology. Or, to be more precise, many people, even in the liberty movement, forget that the ultimate goal of the globalists is not just to corrupt governments and monetary systems, but to corrupt our collective mindset.

As a perfect example, I will link to the latest globalist lunacy from the Pope, Jorge Bergoglio, in which he attacks libertarianism (true conservatism) as a dangerous form of individualism that threatens the fabric of the new and more progressive collectivist world.

In terms of Western culture, recent events would indicate that globalists hope to enlist the newest generation to reach “maturity” (and I use that term loosely), the millennials, as a weapon to deal the death blow to conservatism. If not directly, then indirectly through propagation.  That is to say, if the globalists can’t kill us off immediately, they will try to breed us and our ideas out after bringing down the hammer of economic and social crisis.

When I discuss what essentially amounts to a “war on conservatism,” what do I mean? Well, first let’s consider what it is about conservatives that presents a threat to the globalists…

Limited Government

The basic core of conservative thought rests on the concept of limited or small Constitutional government. If you don’t believe in small government, you are not a conservative. Big (and centralized) government is the most vital tool in the hands of globalists. Without it, they would not be able to accomplish a single item on their agenda.

Big government requires big money. Thus, the central banking syndicate becomes “necessary” to the life of the nation or society because they have positioned themselves to provide the financing and fiat that greases the big government wheels. In a limited government system, central banking becomes irrelevant. It is therefore essential that globalist financiers diminish or destroy conservative principles of limited government because they represent a primal threat to the interdependent behemoth system they hope to create.

Sound Money

True conservatives are sound money champions. This principle fell by the wayside for many decades but has made a resurgence since 2008 as more people have been awakened to the failings of central banking and fiat money. Sound money is basically money backed by a tangible commodity, money that cannot be created out of thin air. If it can be created out of thin air, it is not sound money.

Obviously, the very existence of a true sound money movement horrifies the globalists. Without fiat printing or digital currency systems (which can be created and re-created ad infinitum), the future of a global currency system, the pinnacle goal of the globalist economic scheme, is all but impossible.

Free Thought And Free Expression

If you are in the business of controlling the thoughts and opinions of other people, then you are not a conservative. This is where we find distinct misconceptions, by liberals most of all, as far as what free expression is.

For conservatives, this means that if you are in a publicly funded space or on private property with permission of the owners, you should have the right to say whatever you like whenever you like (this includes so-called “hate speech”, millennials and liberals). You should be able to make grievances known and to discuss those grievances in a constructive manner. It does not matter if your thoughts are offensive to some people; their feelings are meaningless compared to your freedom to speak in that space.

Leftists seem to think that freedom of expression means being allowed to invade the sanctity of other people’s private property or invade a public gathering with the intention of disrupting the free speech of others that they disagree with. My favorite argument presented by leftists is their argument that liberty proponents cannot kick them out of events or off of websites because “that would be a violation of our own principles and their free speech.” They don’t seem to understand the different between private and public or destructive and constructive. My other favorite argument leftists often use is their argument that it is an act of free speech when they disrupt other people’s free speech.

Hopefully you can see the difference between the two ideals. Leftists today seek to control speech and expression they see as “aberrant” or “evil.” Conservatives defend everyone’s right to speak as long as they respect the nature of the property they are standing on and do not abuse the owners of that property — this includes taxpayers, the owners of public property.

Freedom Of Association

This is a very simple and straightforward liberty that has all but been crushed in our country today. Conservatives have this crazy idea that you should not be forced by government to associate with people you do not want to associate with. It does not matter why you don’t want to associate with them. The “why” has no bearing whatsoever. We feel that logic should dictate the situation. If you don’t want to associate with someone, why would they want to associate with you?

But, for some reason, certain people within our culture and within government believe that denying anyone association is discrimination, and, in a progressive and interdependent society, discrimination is unacceptable. I happen to think the ability to discriminate on an individual level is necessary to a healthy society. Discrimination only becomes dangerous when it is backed by government power.

The Right To Self Defense

Many people are so disconnected from their own survival that the notion of “self defense” is alien and terrifying to them. They pay taxes so that “professionals” can handle their security for them, after all. Why should they need the means to secure themselves and their loved ones?

Well, what if the professionals you pay taxes for suddenly turn on you? Or what if they simply quit en masse one day? What if your attacker is 60 seconds from harming you and the closest law enforcement officer is six minutes away? In a conservative society, EVERYONE acts as security for themselves and others if needed.

Globalists need to encourage a culture in which the population is always reliant on government for everything, including their own safety. The most effective form of control comes not through force, but through permission. The most successful tyranny is the one that the people demand rather than the one people barely tolerate.

Sovereignty

All of these principles coalesce into the root principle of sovereignty — the inborn right to self determination. This might take the form of individual action or voluntary group action based on the freedom of association. A single person might seek to live on his own away from others in his own way, and he absolutely has the right to do this even if it annoys people for whatever crazy reason. A large group of people also have the right to cooperate, to build a system or even a nation based on a particular set of shared values and to have their borders respected or avoided by those with different values.

Conservatism, at least in its traditional form, is the vanguard of sovereignty. Without conservatives, sovereignty dies.

Now that we have briefly summarized the conservative archetype, consider for a moment the predominantly progressive millennial generation; what values do they hold? This is not to say that all millennials think the same way, but what about the majority? In 10 years, what would a country like the U.S. look like when they move into power?

The statistics indicate that the U.S. would be even more socialist than it is today, bordering on communist. A paradise for pushing forward the globalist agenda.

When you take into account the fact that Bernie Sanders, a staunch socialist with Marxist tendencies, garnered more support from young voters during the last election than both Clinton and Trump combined, you can see the problem here. Sanders enjoyed nearly 80 percent of the millenial vote in many states, and this tends to correlate with what we have seen in other western nations such as the U.K., where over 70 percent of the young vote was AGAINST the Brexit campaign to leave the globalist EU project.

Also take into account the establishment push to instill millennial academia with open borders propaganda.  In this article for the Washington Post, the president of George Mason University in Northern Virginia argues that open borders are the source of “innovation” and a better economy.  Open borders philosophy cannot coexist with sovereignty.  Sovereignty being a foundation for individualism and nationalism; open borders being a foundation for forced collectivism and a one world system.  For open border ideology to continue forward, all sovereignty must be eliminated.

Here we find the socialist entrenchment within the younger population. To question its validity among them is simply not done. Through most of Europe, for example, to even describe one’s self as “conservative” is considered highly taboo. Many sovereignty activists there will instead list themselves as “classical liberal” (conservatives).

In the U.S., the last true bastion of hardcore conservatives, there is a little more hope as Generation Z teens are showing signs of a conservative resurgence and a little more sense than their older millennial brothers and sisters. This is why I believe the globalists are focusing on the millennial subset; the millennials experienced the American world when they were children at its height pre-2008 and conjured grand dreams of career, success and technological ease. After the crash and subsequent end of college degree relevancy, they now feel jilted and put upon. Clearly “free markets” are the culprit and revolution is the answer.

Generation Z is growing up in the new and downtrodden economic landscape. They are accepting that harder work is necessary and that more freedom is paramount instead of demanding that entitlements be given to them. So, it would appear that the the globalists have a small window of time to stage a coup against conservative philosophy, install a new millennial generation as the captains of the ship and discourage Generation Z from continuing on the path towards what they consider a “terrible and ignorant” world view.

If you think that perhaps I am exaggerating the gravity of the situation, or that I am applying too much conspiracy to an otherwise random social development, I would like to cite Facebook mogul and globalist cabana boy Mark Zuckerberg, who in a recent speech to Harvard graduates asked them to “fight isolationism and nationalism” which he equated with “authoritarianism” and to support “openness and global community.”

“This is the struggle of our time. This is not a battle of nations, it is a battle of ideas,” Zuckerberg stated.

Zuckerberg’s rant is just the most recent example of this propaganda in action. As I have been warning, the globalist strategy is to destroy opposing ideas, not just opposing groups. And clearly, they want to exploit the millennials to do just that.

This article was republished from Alt-Market.com.

After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

Sweden Inches Closer To Cashless Society As Churches And Homeless Now Accept Plastic

The citizens of Sweden are perhaps closer to completely giving up a component of their individual sovereignty than any other country on earth.  In a world where government"s abuse of power and intrusion into the personal lives of its blissfully ignorant enablers grows more disturbing by the day, at least for now, cash offers the one opportunity to transact in a truly anonymous way.

That said, Swedes are ditching their physical currency at a breakneck pace with notes and coins in circulation dropping consistently for the past 6 years and down over 15% in 2016 alone. 

According to the following chart from Bloomberg, notes and coins in public circulation dropped to an average of 56.8 billion kronor, just $6.4 billion, in the first quarter of this year, the lowest level since 1990 and more than 40% below its 2007 peak with the pace of the decline accelerating to its fastest ever in 2016.

As Bloomberg notes, the avoidance of cash has become so prevalent in Sweden that churches, and even the homeless, now accept plastic and/or digital payments.

A growing number of Swedish parishes have started taking donations via mobile apps. Uppsala’s 13th-century cathedral also accepts credit cards.

The churches’ drive to keep up with the times is the latest sign of Sweden’s rapid shift to a world without notes and coins. Most of the country’s bank branches have stopped handling cash; some shops and museums now only accept plastic; and even Stockholm’s homeless have started accepting cards as payment for their magazine. Go to a flea market, and the seller is more likely to ask to be paid via Sweden’s popular Swish app than with cash.

“Fifteen years ago I would withdraw my entire salary and put it in my wallet, so I knew how much I had left, but these days I never really carry cash,” said Lasse Svard, the acting vicar at the parish of Jarna-Vardinge, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) south of Stockholm.

"A drive for innovation has been created in Sweden to come up with cost-effective and user-friendly alternatives to cash,” Skingsley said. Cash is likely to “more or less disappear” as a means of payment in the private sector, she said.

Of course, we should all promptly ignore the negative, unintended consequences of a cashless society in the name of "innovation."  Forget about the ultimate power and control it gives to governments to track your every move and to Central Banks to ram their reckless policies down your throat. 

And you shouldn"t t worry too much about those cyber attacks either...because those things rarely happen these days..."Worst-Ever Recorded" Ransomware Attack Strikes Over 57,000 Users Worldwide, Using NSA-Leaked Tools".

Brexit Fallout: Spain Sends in Gunship After British PM Threatens War Over Gibraltar

A Spanish ship illegally encroached on Gibraltar’s territorial waters Tuesday, amid rapidly deteriorating relations with the U.K. following Prime Minister Theresa May’s signing of Article 50 to launch the fraught exit from the European Union.

Upon the illegal foray into the British Overseas Territory’s sovereign waters — a topic of fraught debate between Britain and Spain for decades — the official government account for Gibraltar tweeted a brief video clip of the vessel, with the caption:

“Illegal incursion into #British #Gibraltar Territorial Waters by Spanish Navy patrol ship Infanta Cristina this afternoon. #BGTW”

Illegal incursion into #British #Gibraltar Territorial Waters by Spanish Navy patrol ship Infanta Cristina this afternoon. #BGTW pic.twitter.com/IkYadi8XNn

— HM Govt of Gibraltar (@GibraltarGov) April 4, 2017

A spokeswoman for the Gibraltar government told the press, “The ship entered British/Gibraltarian territorial waters. It was met by the Gibraltar Squadron and invited to leave.”

According to Express, a British ship far smaller in size intercepted the Infanta Cristina and chased it from the area.

“The status of the waters around Gibraltar continue to be debated,” The Independent explains. “Spain has previously suggested that the UK can claim only the rock and not the water that surrounds it, while Gibraltar itself believes it owns the surrounding sea.

“Occasionally that disputed status has led to flare-ups, when Spanish military and tourist vessels have entered into water that is claimed by Gibraltar.”

Beyond the refuted waters, Gibraltar shot to the top of the news recently when a document pertaining to the impending Brexit intimated The Rock — an informal name for the tiny peninsula, referencing its most prominent feature — would be at the mercy of Spain’s veto power for any future trade deals.

How a U.K. independent of the European Union will conduct trade, diplomacy, and other interactions with the rest of the world must be hammered out as thoroughly as possible before the completion of Brexit.

Gibraltar, a dependency of the United Kingdom since 1967, retains substantial independence and separation from Spain while receiving support and defense from the controlling nation — and Gibraltarians like it that way. In June 2016, a breathtaking 99 percent of Gibraltarians voted to remain a part of the U.K. — while 96 percent voted not to leave the E.U.

Further, the bold maritime incursion by Spain came one day after former Conservative leader Michael Howard suggested Prime Minister Theresa May is prepared to go to war over the geostrategically vital land.

“Thirty-five years ago this week,” Howard told a reporter during an interview, quoted by NPR, “another woman prime minister sent a task force halfway across the world to defend the freedom of another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country and I’m absolutely certain that our current prime minister will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar.”

In that comparison, Howard referenced an eerily similar dispute — one which, oddly enough, became a full-scale military conflict exactly 35 years ago, April 2 — over the British territories of the Falkland Islands and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, saying May would act as former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had in taking all steps necessary to defend the territory.

Argentina invaded the Falklands by sea on April 2, 1982, sparking all-out war with the U.K., which sought to preserve the South Atlantic islands under its distant governance. Fighting lasted just 74 days and ended with an Argentine surrender and the return of full control the U.K.

This small but bloody conflict might have faded from headlines decades ago, but the U.K.’s dispute with Spain over Gibraltar not only summons the specter of the Falklands War, but might have reignited a bit of that caustic tension with Argentina.

Ironically enough, the decades-old incendiary rivalry also returned to the forefront because of Brexit talks — and Argentina, like Spain, appears poised to flex muscles and potentially wrest control of the disputatious land from Britain’s clutches.

“We will never cease to claim what belongs to us. Not one single day of our lives are we going to let our arms down,” Argentine Minister of Interior Affairs Rogelio Frigerio attested this week, cited by Express.

“Let these 35 years help us look to the future and find intelligent paths to advance in our legitimate claim over the Islands’ sovereignty.”

Like Gibraltar thousands of miles away in the northern hemisphere, Falkland Islanders mostly support and advocate for the current British control; however, neither country felt favorably of Brexit in last June’s referendum.

Argentina — again, like Spain — reportedly views the chaos of the U.K.’s grand egress from the E.U. as an opportunity to exert influence, even of the highest order, if necessary.

“We are here to confirm our conviction that someday we will stop thinking of our Islands as some distant dream, and so that the community continues to sustain a standing live homage to the heroes of the motherland,” Frigerio asserted.

For all the posturing over Gibraltar — which was ceded to Great Britain by treaty in 1713 — it isn’t likely to spark a full military conflict. May has since downplayed Howard’s statement comparing her doggedness to Thatcher’s, laughing off the suggestion without explicitly denying what was said.

The Falklands, however, could yet become a flashpoint thanks to the contentious Brexit proceedings — particularly with the government of Argentina considering pouncing on the opportunity.

Frigerio pointed out that “law, geography, history, the past, present and future support our sovereignty claim of the Islands,” and — perhaps portentously — added, “we will return to our Islands following the path that leads the nations of the world: dialogue, truth, the law and justice.”