08 January, 2017

Fake News! EU governments try old "Birthday" scam again!

In its first announcement of 2017, the European Commission has started with quite obvious Fake News. The European Commission Spokesman announced that
This year, 2017, the EU is becoming 60 years old.
He added:
“The European Project is turning 60 this year with Birthday celebrations being scheduled for Rome in March”
Wrong! March will not be the 60th anniversary of the European Union. The EU was formulated by the Treaty of Maastricht 1993.
Wrong Again! The Birthday of the European Project, after the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, was the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 18 April 1951. Schuman read out the Great Charter of the Community that all governments signed.
rs-qdo-1951-18-apr-ecsc-charter
The documents declared that on 18 April 1951 they were creating a European Community and specifically a European Economic Community. The basis for its governance was supranational democracy.
The first sectors involved in this great European experiment in democracy were coal and steel. The European Community of Coal and Steel began to function in August 1952.
Are all today’s European officials and 28 governments so mathematically challenged?
How does the Commission explain this preoccupation with 1957? The spokesman said:
“First of all we like the Treaty of Rome, because it was the treaty establishing the European Community that preceded the European Union. We like … the Treaty of Rome because it is a milestone that enabled the six signatory Member States to trigger a level of cooperation through common policies that was unprecedented and was not enshrined in law before the Treaty of Rome. So we use the 25 March 1957 as the formal departure, if you like, of this fantastic historical experiment of the European Union.”
He said nothing about supranational democracy and how it works. How should it work?
On 18 April 1951 the six governments initiated the European Community’s five democratic institutions.
The Six also signed what Schuman called the “Charter of the Community”. That title recalls the Magna Carta of British history. It emphasizes its importance.
rs-ceca-signature-1951-cec
It describes entry and exit conditions based on supranational Community democracy. (‘Supranational’ also appears for the first time in an international treaty in the ECSC article 9 to describe the High Authority, later called the European Commission.)
A supranational Community was totally new in history. It was neither confederal (like NATO) nor federal like the Federal Republic of Germany or USA. Only one institution was given federal powers and that was controlled by a European Court of Justice and a Consultative Committee composed of equal membership of entrepreneurs, workers and consumers.
The Charter also defines which States can become members of any Community. The States have to be among those whose people ‘are free to choose’. That ruled out the States – the so-called People’s Democratic Republics – of the Soviet Bloc.

europe-declaration4
They were invited to join. Schuman said that Russia was free to join. The condition meant that the States had to sign up to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe.
The State had to guarantee freedom of information, religion and assembly. If any citizen had a complaint against the State he or she could take it freely to the national courts. An appeal could be made to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
This was a hard pill for governments ruled by a Politburo to swallow. So none of them applied.
The first Community also initiated the Single Market. Single markets for coal, scrap iron and steel were opened across the Community in 1953. This broke nationalistic competition, which in turn led to wars.
With the Single Market came the right of workers to move freely around the Community. The Community budget paid for housing projects in the coal and steel industries, and for retraining of workers when inevitably worn-out mines were closed. Consumers had access to the cheapest coal and steel products. Workers and firms could redeploy. It fulfilled the promise made by Robert Schuman when he explained the Community project on 10 August 1950 in the Council of Europe.

“Its only preoccupation must be the improving of the productivity of the industry and the rising of the standard of living. … In no case will workers’ standards be lowered. This is an absolute rule that we laid down among our basic principles from the first.”

The budget was paid for by a levy on coal and steel products, up to a maximum of one per cent. There was no Court of Auditors. None was needed. The enterprises were very careful about the contributions they had to pay, the workers too watched carefully over their budget for their social requirements. Consumers made sure money was not wasted.
That one percent levy seemed a small price to pay for stable, full employment and increased, cheaper production. Nevertheless, to the surprise of many, the Treaty of Paris, with its duration of fifty years, was not renewed in 2002. Lobbying by steel firms may have something to do with it. There was no referendum in Member States. The matter was decided in the Council of Ministers, its doors still shut from the Gaullist period.
Shortly afterwards, the prices of steel rose sharply. Firms were bought by foreign investors. Many workers were thrown out of work.
In 2016 the EU apparently “forgot” to celebrate the 65th Birthday of European democracy. What is their substitute?
Europe of 1957 was entering the Gaullist Dark Ages for European democracy. It contrasts with the founding democratic principles of Europe’s true Birthday in 1951.
The Charter of the Community was buried by Gaullists in the archives of the French Foreign Ministry. It was again published in 2012 thanks to M. Bernard Cazeneuve, the present French Prime Minister, following a request by the Schuman Project.
Ten years ago EU Governments colluded to spend millions of taxpayers euros to “celebrate”this totally FALSE Birthday! Why? They thought that by spending millions on public relations (that is false propaganda) they could persuade the public to accept the renaming of the Constitutional Treaty (that had been rejected in referendums). They forced it through parliaments without a free vote. They renamed it the Lisbon Treaty.
What is the result of this shameful Machiavellian scam? Brexit! Loss of trust of both the governments and the central institutions of the EU. Massive crises of legitimacy from Greece to Finland. European Council President Donald Tusk feared the worst
“As a historian,’ Mr Tusk told the German newspaper Bild, ‘I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety.”
Deceit and secrecy have their consequences. Will the European Commission maintain its ‘Fake News’ and its mathematically challenged “Birthday” to March this year? Or will we have politically effective and scientifically correct democracy?

02 January, 2017

Europe's interest when Trump clears the Washington Swamp

Image may contain: one or more people and closeup  
Why did President Obama expel 35 Russian diplomats from USA? Why did Russian President Putin not react with American expulsions? Why did Washington Post get into a panic about Russian hacking into the Vermont Electricity Utility and then admit it was a fake scare? It was adware on a laptop. Why, before exiting gracefully, has President Obama been bringing in a record-shattering 97,000 pages of rules and regulations, some which will restrict press freedom?
The short answer is fog and smoke. Let me explain.

This is not just a simple matter of espionage. It is not about Russian manipulation of the US elections to “force” Donald Trump on a reluctant American electorate. Nor is it just outgoing Obama being nasty to in-coming Trump.
In a democracy all the electorate is free to vote for whomsoever it wants. That is based on information.The crux of democracy is openness and transparency. If there is an attack on democracy itself, then bipartisan or multi-partisan action is required. Not here apparently.
If some Democratic party scandals are spilled by anyone, that does not make the election result invalid. A better informed electorate is what all Democrats should applaud. After all Democrats tried their hardest to paint the dirt on Mr Trump’s past. At the heart of the complaints of the Democrats are the leaking of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its chairman John Podesta. These are seen as explosive as Hillary Clinton’s normally highly illegal, non-secured server, plus 650,000 more emails involving Huma Abedin, her Saudi-educated assistant from a prominent Muslim Brotherhood family. She worked also simultaneously for the Clinton Foundation.
According to Julian Assange of Wikileaks, both the Clinton Foundation and also ISIS (Islamic State) received tens of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
In the email sent on August 17 2014, Hillary Clinton asked Mr Podesta, who at that time worked under president Barack Obama, to help put “pressure” on Qatar and Saudi Arabia regarding the countries’ alleged support for the terrorist group Isis.
“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isil and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Ms Clinton wrote.
Who is shocked that the Russians are spying on Americans or Americans spying on Russians? Who is shocked that the USA or Russia might want to be involved in “regime change”?
First two things should be made clear.
Russians are expert in disinformation. In Soviet times the biggest department of the KGB intelligence services was the Disinformation Department. One of their major areas of disinformation, as revealed by the highest level defectors, was to instigate the idea — still paralyzing western society — that a Palestinian (non-Jewish) nation exists and that Yasser Arafat was not an Egyptian-born agent of Nasser, but the leader of the phantom nation fabricated in 1964. Previously Arabs refused to be called Palestinians. That was the name the world called Jews! We presented those facts on several occasions. Repetition of lies is a technique used by the Nazi Goebbels and false religions and ideologies throughout the ages.
Secondly, a foreign intelligence service that reveals some truth and fact could well be doing a western audience a favor. Western governments have been losing public trust, typified by Brexit. They have their own disinformation services — they are generally referred to as public relations campaigns. “Spin” operations by definition do not tell the unvarnished truth.
A disinformation service wants to hide the truth and emphasize what is irrelevant or distracting. That’s why we are hearing a lot about Russians and so little about Saudis and Qataris.
The big issue also revolves around the media. The Obama and Clinton camp accuse a multiplicity of non-mainstream news sources of being ‘Fake News’. But it is many of these independent news sources using diverse proofs that call the big mainstream media organizations the real ‘Fake News ‘ sources. They refuse to discuss the most sensitive and hence newsworthy stories.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) have proved themselves incompetent, willingly out of touch, or acting like Spin-Meisters. They plumbed for Jeb Bush as the obvious Republican nomination. They lampooned the very idea of Donald Trump becoming president. Out of the question, they said. But the non stated spin was ‘He is not part of the set-up or the game we have been playing for decades.’ Those who said ‘Trump is the man,’ were ridiculed. But they were right.
So what is the background? What are the present issues?
Petroleum power, Presidential pretender, Podesta, Psychology pioneer, pedophilia . One can add a couple of Cs for Cartels and corruption.
Many these explosive issues are likely to be exposed during a Trump presidency and with an active Republican Congress. The outcome is, as this column said several years ago, likely to open major crises on both sides of the Atlantic.
Power politics is a dirty game and involves the use of inculpating information from the time of the Kennedy assassination and the Nixon Watergate tapes.
Geopolitics use heavy weapons. War, corruption, blackmail. Moral policy will bring peace but is seldom applied. Fifty years ago this year Saudi Arabia tried oil blackmail — the oil weapon — in order to change the foreign policy of USA and Great Britain. Muslim OPEC States tried the same thing again in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war with Israel — this time against the whole of the European Community. They said Europe would not get a drop of oil unless they became anti-Israel in their foreign policy. That would be called Petro-Jihad.
That should give a clear idea about where the battle lines of global politics are drawn.
Instead of selling oil at a profitable 2 dollars a barrel, Saudi-led OPEC ratcheted up the price by cartel action. It reached 147 dollars, then crashed. It doubled in 2016 and is on the way up again. Each year oil States rip the equivalent of multiple times the EU budget from the European economy. That can be compared to sucking the blood out of a free-market economy.
Then they re-invest the cash profits and “spin” it via media and public relations to further jihadi aims. Saudi and other petro-jihad money finance Wahabi mosques across Europe. It finances chairs of Islamic studies in universities. It finances school text books to teach the younger generations about how to worship like a Muslim, facing towards Mecca. Unbelievers are second or third class citizens. There are no churches in Saudi Arabia, nor Bibles.
How much blackmail money is involved? Since 1973, Saudi Arabia alone must have made profits over production costs worth multiple trillion dollars. OPEC as a whole probably gained around 9 trillion.
oil-prod-73-to-2011


Where did this fabulous wealth go? Not all went to building castles in the Saudi sands but much went on armaments to jihadi armies fighting enemies of their religio-political theocratic monopoly. (Secularists like Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad). Billions went on warfare to cut territory for pipelines from the Gulf States through to the Mediterranean Sea. This again means having the Sunni-friendly Al-Qaeda and Islamic State bite off parts of Syria. Russia, whose economy depends on exporting high price gas and oil to Europe made ties with Shi’ia Iran. It held the line for Assad. Iran needs its own pipeline to the Europeans knowing they will pay any price in oil and gas blackmail.
Europe has long been more vulnerable than the USA, which now has its shale gas and oil. Nevertheless the Obama administration’s bias is apparent from the rebuke it got from UK’s PM Theresa May. She objected to the unwarranted condemnation of Israel as being under “extreme elements” in Secretary of State John Kerry’s parting speech. That epithet came because Israel would not instantly agree to a Two State Solution with “Palestinian” elements who have the destruction of Israel as part of their Muslim Brotherhood-based Charter.
While the Middle East goes up in flames, women are raped en masse, slavery becomes part of IS consumerism, Christians are expelled or beheaded if they do not convert, the US seems to be transfixed by a few cabins, houses, garages or homes for Jews. Jews should not live in Judea of all places! Why? The UN originally called it ‘Judea’. ‘Palestine’ is just disinformation.
Let’s turn to Germany. In her new year message, Chancellor Merkel says that the biggest threat to Germany is the threat of Islamist terrorism. The German intelligence services have warned that Jihadi groups in Germany are being funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait.
Does that shock us? Apparently it shocks President Obama. He has refused to use the term “Islamic terror”. Son of a Kenyan Muslim, he also had a Muslim step-father in Indonesia. “They (terrorists) have perverted and distorted and tried to claim the mantle of Islam for an excuse for basically barbarism and death,” he said. He says more Muslims are being killed by Muslims than Christians. That is true. They are in full jihad against each other.
Unless Europe takes stern and intelligent action, it should not expect the bloodshed to pass it by. We are living in an unusual period when there has not been major warfare with Islam. Since Islam’s inception in the seventh century, some 270 million lives have been lost by Islamic invasion. They were not national invasions but invasions driven by Islamic ideology to convert or kill.
islamic-battles-270-mill-dead-x
According to Robert Schuman, founder of the European Community, peace requires tolerance and the patience search for truth. President of Egypt al-Sisi told Egypt’s top clerics and scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar university that they must change their {political} ideology and bring the seventh-century religion of Islam up-to-date with realities. The ideology had become ‘hostile to the entire world.‘ He asked:
Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion Muslims would kill the world’s population of 7 billion, so they could live on their own?

Dr Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam has tabulated 548 battles of Islamic armies in Europe or formerly Christian areas.
islamic-battles-1680-1700-x islamic-battles-1260-crusades-end-x

In contrast the Crusades had less than a score of battles in Syria, Israel and Egypt. The dynamic of this process can be seen in the short video Battles with Islam or the longer version.



Now it is abundantly clear why Donald Trump has selected Rex Tillerson, a former oil company executive — who knows how to negotiate without making enemies — as his new Secretary of State. It is also clear why the outgoing Obama administration and the disappointed Clinton supporters are seething for having lost the election.

30 December, 2016

2016 Who celebrated Erasmus's greatest achievement?

  1. Erasmus and how to win a Nobel Prize
Desiderius Eramus. That name should have reverberated throughout the year of 2016. Five hundred years ago, Erasmus published his most important book. It revolutionized the entirety of west European society.
That exploit has much to tell us. It can explain to us
  • how to counter the all-enveloping propaganda and see through the fog of Fake News.
  • It tells us how to get to the truth of the matter as the world’s disinformation machines, Islamic, Chinese, Russian, commercial and ideological, all aimed to deceive.
  • It puts a spring in our step and leads us to the way of true happiness.
  • It shows us the way and the means to outclass those of dull eyes and closed minds.
  • It may even lead many to a Nobel Prize and will certainly increase any student’s chances of getting one.
Today Erasmus is more known as a university exchange programme. More than three million young adults have benefited from Erasmus. His name figures as part of their curriculum vitae. They are students. Some, in their turn, became professors. They are beneficiaries of a university mobility programme where students are able to be taught, not just at one university, but to take up learning across participating colleges and centres of learning in many different countries.
This programme reminds us that universities should be about learning not about indoctrination from a single source. Nor should they be about absorbing the latest faddish theories that, with modern global communications, are pollinated worldwide as if from mushroom spores.
Erasmus was known in his time as a wandering scholar. He was born in Rotterdam, Holland. He worked as a private secretary in Bergen, Brussels and Malines. He studied at the university of Paris. In 1499 he came to Britain, a country he visited four times. He was professor at Cambridge. He obtained his doctorate of theology at Turin. At the time Pope Julius II was brandishing his sword and leading armies against the French, he sought refuge from war in Florence whilst Leonardo da Vinci was there. In Switzerland, fountain of publishing and intellectual freedom, he published many of his works, editions of classics and translations by the great printing house of Froben. In Venice one of the great free printing centres of Europe, Erasmus published some works with the house of Aldus Manutius
To many students today Erasmus represents the freedom to move to another university to learn. In reality Erasmus represents much more. He was one of the handful of men that opened up critical learning and research. That is the basis for Europe’s spectacular rise as a powerful civilization of thought and technology after the “Dark Ages”.
The mobility that students presently enjoy is only a minor part of his legacy. Immobility is a relatively recent phenomenon. British scientists, like Humphry Davy and Michael Faraday, could visit France while the Napoleonic wars raged on the battlefields. The borders of countries were largely closed by two World Wars. Nothing is more isolationist than nationalistic wars where the civilian population is part of the target.
After WW2 the European Community brought in the idea of Erasmus scholarships. The Community had provided the means and the opportunity for a Single Market . The first single markets of 1952 were in coal, iron and steel. Workers could move freely. It was therefore logical that students should gain from this asset.
But what was the greatest achievement of the European Community? What made it all possible? Peace. The European Community brought an end to internal wars in western Europe. How did Robert Schuman come up with the intellectual conclusion about how to do it, integrate the right people and means to bring it about and, above all, have the political courage to devote his whole life to the project?
When around 1903 Robert Schuman had to choose where he would go to study, it was a perplexing choice. He was the son of a patriotic Frenchman who had fought in the siege of Thionville against the Prussian Germans. His mother was a Luxembourger. Robert was born in the Grand Duchy because his father refused to live in German-occupied Lorraine.
After having passed his High School exams with flying colours and determined his destiny, he was faced with the question: Where to go to study? He made an unusual choice. He decided to study at German universities. It required extensive extra studies to pass his entrance examination, the Abitur. The German-speaking states had only been unified by Bismarck in 1871 but the mobility of students to major university towns was still practiced. Schuman studied in Bonn, Munich, Berlin and finally Strasbourg where in 1910 he gained a doctorate cum magna Laude.
Before World War One broke out Schuman was an active agent among intellectuals and statesmen across Europe to prevent a catastrophic world war. He had but a few years for his activities in Germany, Belgium, France and in western Europe. In Berlin at the outbreak of WW1 four eminent scholars (among whom was Albert Einstein) published a “Wake-up Call to Europeans” calling for a supranational Community of scientists, philosophers, industrialists and workers to oppose war.
Schuman’s great achievement was not due to his ability to move from university to university. Nor was it due to the particular brilliance of any one of his teachers, although they were among the most brilliant of this golden age of intellectualism.
His main asset came from Erasmus. We live in an Age of Information. But it neglects Wisdom at its peril.
Peace in Europe owes a great debt still to Erasmus.
(to be continued)

15 December, 2016

Quick Brexit is becoming a fading reality

At the press briefing for the 15 December European Council here in Brussels, a “high European official” revealed how little the EU-27 have measured the widespread consequences of Brexit on their timetable.
Brexit Front Cover 8
The rush, rush attitude of Commission President Juncker, European Council President Tusk, EP president Schulz and as articulated also by Guy Verhofstadt is up for a surprise. The treaty of Lisbon calls for a 2 year negotiation. Guy Verhofstadt MEP and the Commission’s Brexit pointman Michel Barnier say this must realistically be reduced to 15 months to allow for preparation and ratification in all 28 States. All the lose ends have to be wrapped up well before the 2019 elections, they all say.
Why?
They don’t want UK to be electing MEPs while it is about to leave the EU under Article 50.
What they haven’t foreseen is clear from the briefing. That is regardless of what happens with the Lisbon E U negotiations, the UK will still be obliged to elect MEPs — not under the Lisbon Treaty but under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Euratom. (The EU is not the same as the European Community in law!)
The Founding Fathers of Europe were democratic and the Assembly was created by the founding Treaty in 1951. The first was the Coal and Steel Community with an Assembly which required elections by universal suffrage.
There were three Communities. Each treaty had full democracy based on one person one vote. But initially the parliamentarians were delegated by the national parliaments until the politicians provided the single statute for all Europe.

We are still waiting for them to do so.
The institutions of three Communities merged to have a single Parliament which is the present European Parliament. In the Merger Treaty of 1965 they have a single Council and the same Consultative Committees such as the Economic and Social Committee. When MEPs are elected they are elected to be parliamentarians for Euratom and for the EU.
Nuclear matters were responsible to this Assembly and other bodies such as the Consultative Committees which also should be elected. The public is still waiting for elections there too.
The European Union arose from modifying just one of these three Communities, the EEC “Common Market”. This was done by the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and the failed and rejected Constitutional Treaty whose articles were illegally incorporated as the Lisbon treaty.

Euratom remains a separate body and requires in its articles that States elect parliamentarians.
What does this mean for Britons living on the Continent? What does it mean for Britons in the UK? That has to be worked out.
Have the EU27 or the European Council considered the implications of this treaty? The answer is No. And officials said they won’t even be discussing it on Thursday, 14 December. They will leave it until after the negotiation date is set.
What will they find?
That (1) this Community treaty has a “perpetuity” clause like the EEC used to have before it was changed to the Article 50 of Lisbon.
(2) They will also find that, even if they come up with a legal device to overturn the perpetuity clause (which at the very least will require unanimity first, then treaty change and parliamentary ratification by 28 States) they will be faced with a world of highly complex additional negotiation to deal with. That is the common market of nuclear materials and safeguards that will prevent countries like Iran getting hold of it. It adds a new braking action for the fast Brexiteers.
http://www.politico.eu/…/after-brexit-brexatom-nuclear-bre…/
The EU-27 States estimate that it will take a decade or more to negotiate merely the trade aspects. So says UK's Brussels diplomat, Sir Ivan Rogers. That assumes there will be no legal delays by angry citizens and consumers.
Conclusion: Fast Brexit is looking more like Mission Impossible.

04 December, 2016

EU Religious Leaders react to 'naive' West facing Jihadi threats

eu-religious-leaders-29-nov-2016A century ago, 15 percent of the Middle East were professing Christians. Today only 4 percent remain. Following bloody murder, violence and mass persecutions, millions have left the region. Most of the changes have taken place in recent years. The Jews went first. Nearly a million were expelled from Arab and Muslim counties after WW2.
Barnabas Fund for persecuted Christians says 80 percent of Christians in Iraq have fled the country. Why? It says:
“During the 1970s, western politicians tended to view Islam as a gentle, peaceful, primarily eastern religion, a naïve view that ignored the periodic massacres of Christians that had been happening in the Middle East over the previous 150 years. This view still informs the policies of the Obama administration who even now flatly deny that there is any link between Islamic ideology and violence against non-Muslims. Consequently when it talks about being committed to seeing a “whole, unified, pluralistic, nonsectarian Syria”, it unwittingly embraces jihadist groups who routinely target Christians.”
How did a relatively peaceful region become such a cauldron of violence? The Barnabas Fund report says:
“During the 1980s, at the height of the Cold War, the US supplied vast amounts of arms to radical Islamist groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, notably the Taliban. It was the Pakistan Taliban who later carried out attacks on Christians such as the 2013 bombing of the All Saints Church in Peshawar that killed over 80 and injured more than a hundred others.
After the 9/11 attacks George W. Bush assumed that military intervention – initially in Afghanistan and then Iraq – would bring about western-style democracy that would in turn neutralise radical Islam.
In fact, almost the exact opposite was true.”

Today Christians and Jews worldwide are faced with another pernicious attack — that of changing or destroying Jewish and Christian history. Muslim clerics are destroying archaeological facts by the truck load. Four hundred trucks of them! Tons of archaeological earth was removed from under what in the West is commonly called “The Temple Mount” in Jerusalem and thrown on the city’s dumps. After patient sifting of this rubbish, Israeli archeologists found bullae or seals, coins and arrowheads of the Roman Tenth Legion dating back to the Israelite kings and their Secretaries of State, mentioned in the Bible and the Roman siege of Israel’s capital.
Ancient churches on the “Temple Mount” built by the Byzantine Romans and later by the Crusaders were destroyed. Muslims re-used the Dome of the Rock or columns for their own purposes. The Dome of the Rock retains an onion-shaped dome typical of its earlier Byzantine architecture. It has the octagonal structure of Byzantine churches and contains features and texts some scholars take to be pre-Islamic.
dome-of-the-rock
It was reconstructed half a century into the Muslim era by Abd al-Malik on a Christian church site, the Church of the Holy Wisdom. Texts are mainly non-koranic and contain many propagandist references to Jesus on the inside. They encourage Christians (then by far the majority in Jerusalem) to turn to Islam and physically face south towards Mecca.
History cannot be buried with propaganda. Truth is unearthed, even in our times. On the mounts of Jerusalem a bulla of King Hezekiah of Judah was found. It dates the legality of Jewish occupiers to around 2700 years ago.
Jerusalem is the capital of Judeo-Christian and European civilization, its education, science and culture.
United Nations agencies now collude in the Muslim propaganda that undermines Western culture. Both the USA and Israel have refused to fund UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) any more. Why? Because It has thrown out objective rule books about education, science and culture. Faced with Muslim disinformation attacks, UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee have passed resolutions denying Hebrew or Christian names for sites in Jerusalem.
It reiterates that Israel is an occupier. That is true in the sense Israel is the legal occupier as I am of my own house. But the resolutions imply that there is something nasty, illegal or unjust about it. That is rubbish. Israel is recognized as a Jewish Homeland.
An Arab who claims that his house was given him by Saladin in the twelfth century has no rights. Saladin was a foreign military invader. This Kurdish leader was born in Tikrit, (in modern day Iraq, the home of Saddam Hussein). He founded the Ayyubid dynasty in the twelfth century and was proclaimed sultan of Egypt and Syria. He conquered Syria and fought the Crusaders.
Saladin, like the Romans before him, had no legal rights. Nor has the pope. Nor has anyone in Poland who says the land of a former synagogue is his because the Nazis gave it him! The highest courts of Europe re-affirm this principle of legitimate ownership.
It makes absolutely no sense to deny the fact that the Jewish and Israelite capital was at Jerusalem from the time of Israelite King David. He bought it. He paid for it in gold and silver. No one disputed in the coming centuries that David was the legal occupier and owner. It remained legally occupied by Jews until centuries after Jesus Christ walked and worked in the Temple.
After Jerusalem was conquered and burnt by pagan Rome, the Byzantine Roman Empire built churches and ruled the land. The Persians also tried to conquer it. Muslims have no patent to change the names and heritage of places.
If the names of the places in Jerusalem should be defined by military conquest, they should all be in English. British forces were the last major power to conquer the land in 1917 during the First World War. The global powers meeting at San Remo after WW1 decided by law what to do. They recognized that the land of Israel was the Jewish Homeland. It did not belong to Turks, Arabs, Muslims or the Roman Empire. That international decision has recognition by scientific, cultural authorities. It is a historical fact. It has the force of international law. Those who disagree with it must also disagree with the Iranian State, the State of Syria, the kingdoms of Iraq and Saudi Arabia which were founded by the same authorities at the same time.
Jerusalem and Israel were not made by the League of Nations. The League and later the United Nations recognized the legitimacy of Jewish ownership. The same principle of international law is used after any military conqueror has left a country. Departing armies have no rights on the property of the owners who lived there before the conquest. That is what happened in Nazi-occupied Poland. It is what European courts affirm today about property rights in Cyprus, where the Turkish army intervened and Greek-speaking owners abandoned their houses.
The UNESCO resolutions thus attack the foundation of European law. They attack the Educational principles of Western society that says “might is not right”. They attack the Scientific principles that say archaeology and historical documents give proof of ownership, not the fables about dreams of peacock-winged mules who supposedly flew to an area then without either mosque or Temple. buraq
The UNESCO resolutions attack the founding Culture of Western civilization.
Robert Schuman in creating the European Community helped define real democracy that has brought a diverse, warring Europe its longest peace. The European Commission holds a regular dialogue with high-level religious leaders. So I put these questions to them. Here are their answers.
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I12994
Besides Vice-President Frans Timmermans, those attending included:
H. E. Archbishop Polycarpus Augin AYDIN, Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch in the Netherlands – Arie FOLGER, Chief Rabbi of Vienna – Bishop Heinrich BEDFORD-STROHM, Chairman of the Council of the Evangelical Church of Germany (EKD) – Imam Yahya PALLAVICINI, Vice-President of the “Comunità religiosa Islamica” in Italy – Jan FIGEL, Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion and Belief outside the European Union – H. E. Albert GUIGUI, Chief Rabbi of Brussels and Permanent Representative to the EU Conference of European Rabbis – Antje JACKELEN, Archbishop of the Protestant Church in Sweden – Elder Patrick KEARON, First Counsellor in the Europe Area – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – Imam Benjamin IDRIZ, Islamische Gemeinde Penzberg – Bishop Robert INNES, Anglican Bishop in Europe

22 November, 2016

Brexit throws the European Parliament in Democratic confusion

When in June 1950 Europeans were planning the European Community, Robert Schuman told the assembled delegates:
“We would very much wish that the United Kingdom were present at our discussions. We cannot conceive Europe without it. We know, and this reassures us in our efforts, that the British Government wants the success of our work.”
Schuman knew Britain was essential for preserving European democracy.
Brexit Front Cover 8
Today non-British MEPs are in turmoil about democracy. About time! Let’s have some REAL democracy in Strasbourg and Brussels! Some MEPs want to take over British MEPs jobs on the committees. They want to redistribute key posts on the assumption that UK will leave the European Parliament. MEP Guy Verhofstadt said complex Brexit discussions should be wrapped up in 15 months. He wants the UK MEPs out of Parliament. “It would be nonsense for UK to be voting for new MEPs in 2019”– the date of the next European elections. Doesn’t that reveal a bullying attitude, the very opposite to the spirit of democracy?
Wouldn’t Democracy be better served if he urged British MEPs to stay as long as possible to help implement real European democracy?
Many MEPs are confused about the nature of European Communities and European democracy. Does democracy mean shutting the mouths of those you disagree with? Wouldn’t Europe benefit from those who point out democratic mistakes? The United Kingdom clearly has a much longer democratic tradition than some Member States that only began to implement a democratic system and the Rule of Law in this generation.
Flaws are flagrant. The Brussels Politburo has NEVER yet implemented the requirements of the treaties for proper European elections! Europe has 28 national elections each fiddled and fixed by national government parties to exclude ‘critics’ they call populists! What democrats!
Then they think British MEPs should leave as soon as the legally dubious Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is activated.
Wrong!
This process as well as the Lisbon Treaty itself is illegal!
Europeans need a European Election. That’s common sense. It’s also what the treaties require! The Brussels Politburo has NEVER yet implemented the requirements of the treaties for proper European elections!
Some Brexiteers are also confused or ignorant.
In a BBC interview UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson suggested the two-year Brexit process should be over before May 2019 so UK need not elect MEPs in the European Parliament elections that month.
Not so.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty replaced Article 240 of the European Economic Community Treaty. This Article said that the Treaty was ‘concluded for an unlimited period.’ Lawyers called this the ‘permanency clause‘ or the ‘perpetuity clause‘. They understood it to mean membership was permanent. It guaranteed that States would only seek democratic solutions in good faith.
Some politicians thought they could do better than the Founding Fathers. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to be more democratic than them and provide for an option for democrats to be undemocratic. In other words LEAVE Europe’s democratic institutions, rather than make them more democratic. The way they phrased the Exit Article 50, showed they lacked basic notions of both logic and democracy.
Here’s what Lord Kerr, the Secretary of the body, the Convention, that came up with this nonsense, said:
“I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a Member State and the EU suspended that country’s membership. … I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.” He said he never envisioned that a British government might resort to it.
That shows that something is morally off-track. In Brussels and Strasbourg. The UK should never have been forced into a position that people thought that the only way to deal with Brussels chicanery would be to vote to Leave.
But it is worse than that. Article 50 is also illegal by national and international law. These crazy revisers of the European Economic treaty did not directly change the Treaty of Rome. They presented their EXIT clause first in what they called the “Constitution”– in reality a treaty called the Constitutional Treaty. It was written by the “Convention”of which as mentioned Lord Kerr was the Secretary and Valery Giscard d’Estaing was chairman. What is now Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was word for word Article 59 of the Constitutional Treaty.
What many MEPs and many of the Politburo refuse to acknowledge — YET — is that Article 50 is illegal. Why? Because the whole of the Constitutional Treaty was put to the vote in France and elsewhere. The people voted it down. It is null and void. In the French Constitution Article 3:
“National sovereignty is vested in the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of a Referendum. No section of the people, nor any individual may arrogate to itself or himself the exercise thereof.”
Hence Article 50 Also Known As Article 59 is dead. It is illegal to use it! But French politicians forced the exact same treaty through their Parliament by dubious means. By their own Constitution, French politicians cannot overturn the French Referendum NON.
The French political class know the Lisbon Treaty article 50 is a fraud. This is what the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron said when I asked him about it.
macron-emmanuel-2
Was it a good idea not to take the first referendum NON seriously? Should governments purposefully prevent the French people from having its voice as sovereign power?
It was a mistake,” he told me.
Most lawyers are hard-pressed to find the equivalent example of an Exit Clause in any Union of States. The first Constitution of the Soviet Union in 1919 is one notable exception. But whether it had theoretical or practical value is a matter of doubt.
It is common sense that a democratic organization should improve itself by becoming more democratic, not by rejecting criticism and causing the messenger to leave. That is why all three Communities (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) have articles to revise and improve the their treaties. The concept introduced with Maastricht to make a single bag treaty with targets and goals in a wide variety of sectors and domains (external affairs, Justice, Home Affairs etc) shows that politicians had already lost the plot about democratic legitimacy, accountability and popular support of such measures by referendums. They were more interested in establishing personal power.
However, the second Treaty of Rome, the Euratom Treaty was not affected by their fiddlings. Euratom has exactly the same wording in its Article 208. It also has the same institutions. It is not affected by Lisbon’s Article 50. Membership of the European Atomic Energy Community is permanent.
So is UK’s obligation in the Euratom Treaty to hold elections for the European Parliament in 2019. Come what may!
Check it out all the details! CLICK HERE : Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe at special discount prices

06 November, 2016

UK High Court exposes underhand Brussels Brexit plot

Brussels leadership is exposed as insolent tricksters! That is the implication of the UK High Court. Autocracy has no place in a real democracy, whether in London or Brussels.
The UK Parliament will fully discuss Brexit before it can leave under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaties. The High Court has ruled against Prime Minister Theresa May’s autocratic concept of Brexit that requires no real debate. It is known as the Henry VIII clause option. With reason. This is a pseudo-royal prerogative that politicians believe they have acquired. It dates from the 1539 Statute of Proclamations. Politicians are not kings. Nor is Mrs May a queen. Democracy is about people. Their ministers are servants not monarchs.
Instead of such comprehensive regal powers that would make 10 Downing Street a royal palace, the matter of Brexit will have to be discussed on the floors of the two Houses of Parliament.
The High Court re-affirmed that, even if prerogative powers remain for international treaties, the powers cannot be used in the case of the referendum, because Membership of the Communities has provided privileges and laws in the domestic sphere. These must be taken into account. Nor can the Secretary of State use the Crown’s powers to take away the rights of citizens.
The High Court with three of UK’s top judges, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales gave a unanimous verdict.
They gave a striking rebuff to the three Brussels leaders, Presidents Juncker, Schulz and Tusk. In the early morning of 24 June 2016, barely hours after the first results of the 23 June referendum were published, they gave their verdict. They demanded the UK leave the EU within hours of the referendum results. The Three demanded that the UK leave the EU “rapidly however painful it might be”. They told British MEPs to quit the European Parliament chamber immediately.
Pardon! Your ulterior motives and dirty tricks are showing Sirs!
Curious! The High Court judges made clear that the result of the referendum was purely advisory. That was well known to the public before. I wrote about it as an advisory referendum. The Brussels TopPols simply ignored this fact and tried to bluster the UK out of the EU. They showed abysmal ignorance, bad faith or anti-democratic collusion. Which? They have no excuse. It should have been abundantly clear to the Commission, European Parliament and the Council. Their buildings are stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers.
The referendum had no binding legal power over the government or parliament. This is what the High Court gave as judgement in paragraphs 105-111.
“The Referendum Act 2016 {does not supply} statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. This Act fails to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.
“Further the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended to be advisory only as the result of the vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to legal implementation of withdrawal from the European Union.”
It concludes:
“The Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union.”
First we should analyse what would make a Brexit decision really legally sound in British law. A referendum vote could be definitive. The High Court does not rule out that parliament could make the referendum legally binding IF it specifies this exactly in legislation.
Referendums were an ancient part of pre-Roman British culture. They also held the principle that the country (that is the expressed voice in a referendum) was above the prince.
magna_carta english_bill_of_rights_of_1689
Then came the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans. For many centuries in the later medieval period the idea of a referendum was lost by the British public because of monarchic autocracy. The ancient British laws are mentioned in the Magna Carta of 1215. That does not mean that the monarchy does not have an important role to play in a constitutional decision. Obviously it does and it is central.
In a democracy the monarchy cannot publish autocratic royal decrees that ignore the will of the people. That would place a monarchy in the category of a dictatorship or at best something like the pseudo-monarchy of France’s Charles de Gaulle. He had the sole vote that counted. (De Gaulle vetoed UK’s candidature for the European Communities twice in a disdainful way during press conferences and once via his instructions to his foreign minister. He did not discuss the matter with his government before he made his decrees.)
de Gaulle2
Now it is the Brussels Politburo which is acting like little Napoleons, if not kinglets. The big fall-out will hit Brussels and its Politburo (largely unelected!). The Politburo has assumed the mantle of Charles de Gaulle and failed to see that it leaves the little emperors without clothes! De Gaulle buried the Community’s own Magna Carta. that Schuman called the Charter of the Community. Brussels follows suit. It has been attempting to reverse all aspect of European-level democracy. What sort of democracy in any Member State would act in such an imperious way as the Brussels Politburo? It tells some States like Ireland and Denmark to reverse legally binding referendums. It tells the Greeks how to vote in the euro referendum and then forces its government to act contrary to the people’s result. It tells the UK it must obey immediately an advisory referendum.
Britain has a long democratic tradition. The British democratic process is far from finished before the government can even think of sending a letter under Article 50 of the (fraudulent) Lisbon Treaty. The three other national governments (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) want their say.
Wales First Minister Carwyn Jones says it is a mistake for the government to appeal against the High Court ruling – and repeated his view that the devolved administrations should also get a vote on Mrs May’s Brexit negotiating position. “It is important that votes take place in all four nations to endorse the UK negotiating position.”
The Community was originally based on the highest standards of democracy. Many Britons would agree with Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community system, that
“some monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and Holland, if we only refer to our nearest neighbours, are more clearly and traditionally attached to democratic principles than some republics where the people have only little direct influence on the direction and political decisions of the country.” (Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe, p 5.)

Check it out all the details! CLICK HERE : Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe at special discount prices