Obama1: Europeans! Prepare for a huge, Watergate-type, transAtlantic crisis!

A German Defence Minister resigned when it was revealed that many parts of his doctorate were plagiarized or "in error'. The British coalition government was shaken when a minister resigned over alleged fraudulent reporting of an eight-year old speeding fine. The Hungarian President resigned when it was considered that he quoted references in his doctorate without proper sourcing.

What would have happened if these politicians had refused to step down amid the accusations? A long and bitter dispute would have ensued, tying up the resources of the nation.

The German President resigned when the Parliament asked for legal immunity be stripped from him so that a full inquiry about freebies and favours could be conducted. What would happen if a minister of an EU country was not only suspected of fraud or questions about his degree but spent between one and two million dollars paying a firm of lawyers so that no voter or anyone else could see his college records?
These types of events affect all neighbouring countries. Today our countries are inevitably linked more strongly with each other.

No democracy can be based on lies. It must be based on Judeo-Christian values. 'Democracy owes its existence to Christianity,' wrote Robert Schuman. For the USA, democracy was established in what Schuman called 'the marvellous edifice of the American Constitution, raised up on foundations envisioned in the spirit of their times by Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton. ' (Pour l'Europe, p118.)
What if the country's president was found violating the Constitution, not  being 'a natural-born American citizen ' but a national and a passport-holder of another country? Would he then resign? Would people ask for an explanation for fraudulently posing under false nationality? That would be the least to be expected. Wouldn't that situation make a mockery, not only of the presidency but throw into question all the laws he had signed? What about international agreements, would they be null and void because the signature was an impostor and fraudulent president?

Yet this is what is happening in the United States. All of Barack Hussein Obama's college records have been legally sealed from public view by presidential decree, Occidental College in California, Columbia  and Harvard University.

Why?

Many journalists and voters suspect that he attended these as an Indonesian student, not as an American. Whoever is elected in the 2012 elections, a vast legal debate is about to explode, perhaps paralyzing the presidency in the coming years.

It won't go away. It is now entering the area of criminal process, not mindless political derision against 'Tea Party' activists and so far unsuccessful but outraged lawyers.

As a student Barack  Obama was known as Barry Soetoro, a muslim with an Indonesian step-father. Some student who were taking classes say they can't remember ever seeing him there. (The name Obama comes from his Kenyan father who held a British passport and was suspected of being already married by the Immigration Service when he came to the USA.)  Other people have now deposed legal affidavits that he was intimate with subversive groups involved in terrorist bombing campaigns and underground activities.

Astounding? There is even worse!

Who is paying the multi-million legal fees from keeping these records out of daylight? For the president, the most basic security for employing a federal building janitor seems not to apply. A whole range of documents have all failed multiple authentication tests. When some journalists and voters questioned whether Obama had ever become a US citizen, a Freedom of Information search brought to light Obama's Selective Service Card. According to US law all men must register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Evidently something was awry in Obama's case. The document is clearly forged.

It is filled out, not on a 1980 form, but one dating from 2000s, when it was vital if he were to be elected as a Senator. Furthermore the date stamp is clearly fabricated. It has '80' on it as the year and not what the authenticating stamp should have:  '1980'. A closer examination by a forensic team of lawyers, postal management and detectives shows that the '80' was made from cutting the last two digits from a rubber stamp with '2008' and inverting them -- rather badly and amateurishly -- in a US postal stamp.  It was also cut so that the larger, lower part of the '8' appeared less obvious when it was inverted.

This of course is a serious federal criminal offense and as distinct from fiddling with a few lines of a doctorate. Such forgery will likely to fine the perpetrator -- whoever he/she is -- and send him to prison. His reported Social Security Card number 042 68 4425 is also dubious and was issued in 1977 from the State of Connecticut -- where, at around 17-year old, the  Hawaii high schooler Obama never resided.

The Arizona police, acting on the tip-off that Obama might have been born abroad and not Hawaii, checked the incoming flight details to Hawaii in August 1961. They found that all the US Federal border agency cards for that week were missing. The governor of Hawaii in his election campaign promised that he would publish the birth certificate when elected. Despite all his efforts and authority, he gave up.

Given the furore about lack of documentation indicating who exactly the US President is, many citizens created a pressure group so that he would be forced to publish his birth certificate.  A short form birth certificate (COLB, Certification of Live Birth) was published on a website of a group Obama used to work for. Then President Obama published it. What, however, was published on the White House site had errors that required its replacement.  This publishing effort did not stop the protests from pointing out that this type of certification could be obtained without adequate checks, on the unsupported say-so of a relative.

Moreover, it did not indicate which of Hawaii's two hospitals Obama was supposedly born in -- and various of his family and supporters named  one while others named the other!

Before the publication of a major study on the Obama identity forgery and numerous legal actions, the White House was forced to put up at the White House website what they claimed was the full-length Birth Certificate that included the hospital, doctors and other information.

Technical specialists were surprised. This began to look like an amateur production too. In fact it was quite tacky.  It was supposed to be a copy of an opened page from a birth log but the green security hatching was printed over the page and also the space beyond the paper page! A false shadow was added for the gutter as if it had been placed on a photocopier. It hadn't. It was an electronic cut and paste job containing simultaneously binary, grey-scale and even colour letters! (Compare for example the grey tone D of Dunham or last '1' of the reference number 61 10641 under maximum zoom. They are different formats and exist on different layers.) The White House later reduced the resolution of the pdf file on its website but it is clear that some of the letters come from different fonts and white haloes show unexplained manipulation for a scan or photocopy. The higher resolution file published and given to news correspondents on 27 April 2011 seems no longer available. Who is fiddling with the 'facts'?

A group of voters petitioned the Arizona police force to investigate. They wanted to have real proof of the identity of their presidential candidate. Sheriff Arpaio called a volunteer group of former policemen and lawyers plus technical computer experts together. (Volunteer, that is, not paid by taxpayers to avoid political issues. )

He expected them to clear the birth certificate of all suspicion. In fact they proved it was forged. So was the Selective Service Card -- which the police considered a more serious criminal offence.
Much like the start of the Watergate affair, the main media in the USA are not investigating this -- or even reporting it. You can find full press conference report on YouTube, local TV and on foreign media such as Russian radio the sheriff is grilled about the facts and background.

The Arizona police department released some short explanatory videos for the public.
Sheriff Arpaio's introduction 'probable fraud and forgery'
1 Birth Certificate
2 Opening Birth Certificate with Illustrator
3 Was OCR software applied?
4 Was the file optimized?
5 Conclusion: fake and forgery
6 Forgery of Selective Service Card.

If you want to check the detectives' results in detail, view the official police press conference video. Those who have software like Illustrator or CorelDraw can check that the document has NINE electronic layers whereas a scan of a real paper document would not.  The seals and date stamps give no authentication. They can be moved anywhere at will!

Reminder: This is a clearly fraudulent document that the White House chose to introduce. It is still on its
website! Magnify with zoom and you can see the differences in fonts, saved in different formats from separate documents then pasted together!

Another demonstration video using CorelDraw shows that the file has been trimmed and that the hatched 'security' paper show manual manipulation and that white dots have been hand-painted to cover black spots in one layer. Amateur fraud!

A criminal case will not go away. The controversy has moved into new territory. The police say they can identify some of the computers used in the fraud. They now have a pile of  sworn affidavits from international specialists. The next years will increase, not dissipate, the affair.

Europe had better take a lesson from this criminal forgery. Democracy at the European level is languishing. Politicians have lost the trust of the public. Lasting trust can only be built on honesty and truth.
Today's leadership still refuse to put into effect the requirements of the treaties they signed up to. There are no proper European elections, either for the parliament, nor for the consultative committees, nor proper openness in the institutions.

In the European Union there is

• not even an election for the President of the Commission, free of party cliques,
• nor for the President of the European Council!
• The President of the European Central Bank is selected in secret.

Any document revealing who the political cartel selected, how, when, why and where or describing what goes on is forbidden to the public eye.  Once the supranational democratic sytems are inaugurated such biased, partisan politburo politics will be eliminated. It will be far more difficult to commit such identity crime at a European level. There will be multiple cross-checking systems to ensure fairness and justice.
OPENNESS AND THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA TO DISCERN TRUTH IS A FUNDAMENTAL OF GOOD GOVERNMENT.

Euro7: Who will stop euro crooks mortgaging the future? Not their buddies and comrades!

Parliamentarians in the UK are discussing a referendum -- promised by all three major parties. When the parties came to power, what happened? No referendum. It is still refused. The referendum would ask the public about the desire of some UK citizens to leave the EU or modify its membership. Why do so many Britons want to leave? Corruption of politics by what they see as an opaque, undemocratic cartel of power in Brussels. The parties at home who refuse their pledges also look like they have the same disease -- dishonesty.

The euro is just one example. Politicians, meeting in secret, want to mortgage future generations so grandchildren will have to pay off TRILLIONS of debt. These secret meetings in the eurogroup and in the so-called European Council of the euro States want to illegally use the Community framework to deal with amounts of money multiple times the entire EU budget.

Consider. The entire multi-annual budget for the whole EU for seven years from 2013 to 2020 amounts to ONE trillion euros. The secret politicians' cabal wants to use the EU framework to raise funds on the markets who are betting against them. They want many times the amount of that entire EU budget, two, three maybe more trillions. The comparatively tiny EU budget is not yet decided. Worse it is not subject to proper democratic control. Journalists and the public are refused entry to the deliberations of so-called democratic institutions on that EU budget.

The journalists and the public are even more restricted from Eurogroup meetings. They are given a briefing afterwards, if they are lucky, usually in the middle of the night. The trouble is the chairman of the eurogroup has said several times that he has to lie to journalists, when he is dealing merely with the timing of possible meetings on the euro. If he admits he is dishonest outside the meetings about their calendar, how can journalists and the public know that anything politicians say is going on inside the meetings is not also a lie?

A currency is based on confidence. Schuman who was faced with many currency problems, not only devaluations of the French Franc but secrets about the Pound Sterling and the Deutschmark and about launching the free gold market. He had to keep secrets, legitimately. He was surrounded by would-be saboteurs. Then he announced publicly to everyone the creation of the European Community. The Schuman Proposal gave birth to the European currency as a likely product.

He had a horror of lies. He was asked at the end of his career: 'Do politicians have the right to lie?' He said: 'You must not lie, not even in politics.' (Rochefort, p22).

It was part of his success as a Minister of Finance and Prime Minister. However, he added: 'People say that I am honest. Being honest, for a minister of finance, is not sufficient.'

Today Schuman's Europe has meetings called 'Councils of Ministers' with heads of State and Government. Are they European Councils? How can they be with only 17 of 27 Member States present? Are they just ministers holding a Council of Ministers or are they rather more as presidents and prime ministers? They are masquerading as EU official meetings. Is that honest? These are not official meetings of the EU under the Lisbon Treaty or any other treaty.

The so-called European Summits of these government leaders dealing with the euro have also nothing to do with official meetings of the treaties. It is a multinational conference meeting INFORMALLY in the EU offices. The Council of Ministers must have representatives of 27 sovereign States.

The politicians even try to make out it is part of the legal frame by fraudulently using Council letterhead paper. Supranational democracy has five key institutions. Any attempt to create counterfeit institutions is a sure sign both of fraud outside and mischief inside.

You can see why the democrats including a large number of Britons are fed up and some are enraged at the unethical management of mega money in the EU. If any politician thinks that by amassing a few more trillions in the betting game against the markets, he will convince anyone that no fraud is involved, he is gambling with public money in the wrong game at the wrong moment. And without the public's assent.

It is high time to come clean and put in REAL democratic reform.

Is it possible for government leaders to clean out corruption in government accounts, even throw out member States in the euro for fraudulent practice? The European cabal in the European Council says NO. No Member State can leave the euro, they say!

It is extraordinary that all the clever lawyers in Brussels say that it is impossible for EU delinquent countries to leave the euro zone. They have come up in the past with some pretty contorted interpretations of law to suit their political masters. Leaving the EU is possible but leaving the euro is impossible?? even for mega fraud involving fixing national and European statistics, corruption and thereby secretly indebting the whole Union? This view encourages moral hazard for the future, that is corruption.

Think. The clever lawyer-politicians could use the same 'exit clause' to clean up the game. They won't. If a tennis club has admitted a bunch of crooks who are taking all the resources and hogging the finances, it has two alternatives. One it can ask the crooked partners to leave. If they refuse then the honest members can all leave and reshape a new Community based on law, moral and ethical principles that have to be observed by all.

The European Council will not do this because there is a political clique that takes mega fraud– that is fraud at the government level with public money — as fundamental to the rules of their club. Example: All governments want to go on a spending spree BEFORE elections — not with party money but with State money, that is, taxpayers’ money. Is this a politicians’ perk or is it plain fraud, corruption and bribery? Companies would be taken to court for this. What sanction have the public against crooks in government who see public money as pocket money to get votes?

Some States have clean booking. The Community must learn that what applies to the honest nation States also applies to a Community of sovereign, democratic States, their governments and their peoples. We are now in clean up time for Europe.

EuroStat, the EU's statistical organ, long warned about fraudulent practice. Politicians had many such reports before, dating from when Commission President Roy Jenkins warned that Greece had serious problems even before it elbowed ahead of other candidate States to enter the Communities in 1981. It had buddy-buddy power not ethical purity. Inaction before obvious moral hazard became ingrained in the Council of Ministers with their buddy-buddy and comrade-comrade culture.

The so-called reforms of finances and debt with the six pack still suffer from the main defect: they leave all the levers of abuse in the hands of the perpetrators of excess debt and fraudulent accounts and statistics — the political clique or cartel. Only card-carrying members of the main political parties — the cartel — are power brokers. The reaction is similar to what commercial cartels normally do — ask for more power to regulate themselves, while refusing independent control to the citizens’ groups over the accounts.

At present the EU is not only NOT dealing fully with correcting the abuses of politicians by instituting proper measures of control of finance through elections of organised civil society through the Consultative Committees, it is refusing the most obvious ways to stem massive and continuous mega-fraud on VAT for example. Hundreds of billions are involved in ‘carousel fraud’. It is refusing to stem energy blackmail where oil / gas rises from 9 dollars /barrel in 1999 to 146 dollars in less than a decade. That price hike is typical action of a cartel too, OPEC and friends. The EU needs to develop proper energy INDEPENDENCE.

The life of the Community is at stake. The Warning about the jihadi attempt to DESTROY Western capitalism was made on 9/11 and recorded in 2001 at the European Commission and re-published as http://www.schuman.info/energypol.htm .

The politicians have had a decade to do some REAL reform. They have worsened the problem. They have had thirty years since Greece joined and it and others began to misspend Community money. Instead of insisting on reforms in the 1980s they gave more public money. If Greece is serious about reform it should look at the examples of Slovakia and Latvia. They work.

If the politicians are serious they should start the reforms by empowering independent, non-party organised civil society to act as their supervisors for their moral and ethical conduct, not party buddies in the European Parliament and the Commission where non-party, independent people are now banned.

A party oligarchy controlling all the institutions will expose Europeans to never having a referendum again. They may have no say at all as the reckless politicians fritter away money they do not have in a bottomless blackhole of debt.

Future generations will be the slaves of the debt masters.

Avalanche5: Is the euro crisis about olive-growing States or politicians' fingers in the nation's piggy bank?

Is the EU and the euro suffering from a southern problem? Is it a problem of olive-growing southerners against the cold, industrialized northern countries?

Not at all. The disapproving idea behind the epithet PIGS, that some Mediterranean countries are somehow genetically or geographically inferior, is a nonsense. For a start these countries led the other European States at certain times our common history. They were pioneers for Europe, whether it was trade or exploration of the world or inventions. There were also powerful bankers that led the world when northern Europe was still somewhat lacking.

Yet something is seriously missing and it is not climate. Spain and Portugal are not too warm for innovation and industrial prowess in the twenty-first century. Why then is Portugal not the equal to those on the same climate zone like California's Silicon Valley to the West or Israel's vibrant technological wonder to the East? Portugal has the advantage of a bigger internal market than the USA. This incongruity is even more apparent to the Mediterranean natives who migrate this latitude to the East or the West. They will tell you: 'There is something wrong at home.'

Is it then a matter of Europe's geography? Not at all. Europe’s most southern State is doing rather well and has not had problems in attracting long term finance. What then makes Malta superior to Greece and Portugal at the moment? Clearly Europe’s problems have nothing to do with whether the State is south or produces olive oil or not.

It is about oily hands where they should not be. Political hands. How do politics and politicians make currencies weak and sap innovation?

A major factor is the interference of politicians in the machinery of monetary affairs. The national bank should be independent of politicians. A European Bank should be independent of European politicians. Banks should be run without any interference. The Statistical Office should also be a forbidden zone for politicians. They can't resist tweaking the figures to say how great they are.

Look what happened with one member State —- Greece. This is not to say that Greece is the worst example. Every State has its own breed of corruption. Most are more sophisticated. Some facts about Greece however are in the open. They are instructive.

When Greece applied for membership, the European Commission — which was not then stuffed to the gunnels with party politicians but had a few people of honest and independent character — had to make an assessment according to the law of the three treaties. For the Economic Community, article 237 applied. The Commission delivered this Opinion in January 1978. What did it say? It said that while a positive response to the eventual application should be given, Greece was not ready.

Was it because it was poor or grew too many olives? Nope. The Commission said that an accession transition period was necessary in order to undertake ‘economic reforms.’

That was a polite way of saying it. After the years of the dictatorship of the Colonels, Greece was still in a chaotic and corrupt situation. Everyone knew it. But the Greek political leadership made political appeal to their brother politicians. What was a technical matter about bad bookkeeping leading to corruption became a hot political issue.

Roy Jenkins, who became Commission President the next year was quite frank about this. Three countries had applied for membership. Greece was ‘the least qualified for membership, but it was too late for that view greatly to signify’ because of the political influence of the Greek Prime Minister Karamanlis. Guess who became a full member first?

At the time the population of Greece was 10 million and they were promised a few billion in accession funds. Later they got more munificence in the Integrated Mediterranean Programme. That looked like a politically agreed inducement. Why were European funds amounting to a few thousand for each man woman and child necessary? It doesn’t take that much to make sure the book-keeping systems are working properly. It requires hiring some honest professionals, probably at a lower salary. Investment and venture capital wings its way into any environment because it finds the right combination of active intelligence and trust.

In the Community system it is not necessary to bribe the voters. That destroys trust. If the people do not want to join, then it’s up to them. So it is not necessary for the Brussels authorities to supply other people’s money to do this bribing -- especially when the taxpayers are not asked about providing it. However if the enterprises and the workers of a country want to join there are several Community bodies with which they can establish contact and that should provide impartial and useful information. Citizens should be educated to discern the facts. They should not be the targets of a public relations campaign. It would be far better to supply funds so they could learn to detect political hum-bug on a European scale.

Politicians too often prefer to dispense money in favour of their own ideological policies. Not their own money of course. They like to be considered public benefactors but that is not really their job description. Whose agreement is necessary for representatives of the people to give away public money? Surely the public, the non-political tax-payers! The taxpayers in the other parts of the Community were not asked to provide financial supervision like the Community is supposed to do. Each of the three Communities has a consultative committee, a chamber for organized civil society, unfettered by political considerations. Their role was frozen out in the secret deals done by politicians.

Did this largesse help Greece with the ‘economic reforms’?

Judge from what happened in Court.

At the vortex of the public scandal was the Bank of Crete. This was a major bank in the Greek system, being originally an emitter of banknotes. It became a siphon for Brussels funding. Then in the 1980s one of its employees, yes an employee, an accountant working there for only two years, raised a loan from the bank and bought it! A remarkable feat pioneering criminal operations that banksters seem to have emulated elsewhere. With European and depositors’ money at his disposal, he then proceeded to create a banking and publishing empire. It controlled three daily newspapers, other publications, a radio station and a soccer team.

Of course when you buy a bank like that you think it is your own personal piggy-bank. Oily fingers dip into the till. When things got hot, the bankster fled to the USA. He ended up in jail. He was charged with forgery, bribery and embezzling more than $200 million from the Bank of Crete. Note it wasn't the Greek politicians that threatened to take him to Court. In fact when he fled Greece, a minister had to resign for this 'carelessness'. Safely in the US after a detour in Brazil, he said that operatives were out to kill him. Who did not want exposure?

Then he sang. The Greek people and other Europeans were spell-bound.

He claimed that the prime minister ordered state companies to deposit funds with the bank and took bribes from stolen money. The allegations resulted in the resignations of several ministers and demands for a vote of no confidence in the government of Prime Minister Papandreou. A court case lasting ten months astounded the public with the exposure of ministerial goings-on. Thus in 1992 several years after the event, Mr Papandreou was cleared of all charges by the Greek Supreme Court (with a close 7 to 6 vote on the most important charge). Two of his former Cabinet ministers were found guilty of related charges.

Of course there may be many such scandals hidden under the surface. Not every one is exposed in court. If one person can get away with such outrageous conduct, no doubt many others try and succeed. Did Greece and the European institutions learn a lesson? Did they install great anti-corruption measures?

The very next year Mr Papandreou was re-elected as prime minister. The Council of Ministers decided to provide even more money for the Mediterranean region.

Where did Greece and Europe go wrong? Clearly if Greece had reformed its finances to Swiss, German or Dutch standards the euro would not be in the pretty pass it is in today. Who is to blame? Clearly a succession of politicians did not do the cleaning job.

But what of the floods of European money that streamed into the banks and into the politicians pockets? What of the money that was used to bribe voters, rather than proper reconstruction and ‘economic reform’? Why was there no case to answer for this debacle in the European courts? One indication would be that the only active institutions at the time were full of people brandishing membership cards of political parties. They were already a sort of cartel.

The responsibility still lies with the European institutions. In this post-Gaullist period Europe was already creating its political buddy network where each scratched each other’s back. What’s the problem with political friendships? Nothing for the politicians but it does not get rid of the fleas.

A governance system controlled by a political cartel is a big problem for the public and the survival of independent media who criticize them. It is no coincidence that the crook in this case bought heavily into the media and offered free gifts to journalists. The politicians too often did not have the courage to clean up their own mess. Why? How can you be hard on political friends that you meet all the time at European party meetings to work out policy together? You need their vote and support to advance your own political ideas in Europe. Political parties open their doors to every lobby group in the telephone book and a few more besides. Parties can easily be captured by such lobbies. That is why the Commission should function in total independence of political parties and national governments.

Only an independent, supranational authority can cure this type of corruption that Europe is presently suffering from. The best way to achieve it is to examine the politicians’ interests in an open debate with non-ideological sections of society like enterprises, workers, consumers and the regions. Five independent bodies should provide a modicum of practical sense.

So how did Europe get into this fix with a party political cartel replacing de Gaulle’s paternalistic system that subsidized the French farming systems and others?

The biggest area of corruption occurred when the Commission became more and more the instrument of the political parties. The Treaties say the opposite. The members of the Commission should be absolutely independent. They should not talk to governments except in the Council of Ministers where there are witnesses and the public can see and hear. Yes, where the public can hear everything going on. After many years of abuse of secret political deals with their wine lakes and meat mountains, a clause was specifically written into what is now the Lisbon Treaty. It says in article 15 that all sessions of the Council must be open when they are considering money matters and any legislation. That was obvious before. Money is a public matter. Now it is written clearly in law.

After saying goodbye to de Gaulle, Europe must straighten out the party political seizure of the Commission. The treaties still say that the same thing. In the early days party politicians had the honesty to resign from parties when the joined the Commission. They said it was to ensure that they were independent but also seen to be independent.

Recently however after one secret night session, the politicians of the European Council decided without asking the people that the Commission should become their intergovernmental party political secretariat. The Council decided to prolong what was a temporary, transitional arrangement. They now stipulated that Commission members must be nationals, one each for the 27 Member States and all must be party card-holders of the main parties. That does violence to the spirit and the letter of the treaties. It is opposite to what it says. It is also dangerous for the political, financial and moral health of Europe.

In the past the Commission members — some of the strongest democrats —were not politicians and the Commissioners were independent of the States. That was because the Treaties say that the Commissioners must be independent, meaning having the courage to say NO to parties and to governments. Commissioners often take instructions from governments, also in flagrant violation to treaty law. Treaty law still says the same thing, but that does not stop the politicians of the European Council to make illegal maneuvers contrary to the treaties. They act in no-one’s interest but their own.

The next failure of Brussels lies with the representatives of organized civil society and their debating chamber. What chamber you might ask? Rightly. The members of the Economic and Social Committee — which the treaties say should have powers comparable to Parliament has NEVER been elected. If there were a debating chamber with legal powers over the legislation, we would not be in the euro crisis we have today.

A proper functioning Economic and Social Committee would have its own monetary and fiscal committee that would be independent of parties. It would ask pertinent questions about where European money was going. It would demand answers. It would not shut its mouth when the Council of Ministers and the Commission wants it to. It would also act by taking some cases to Court.

The euro crisis is the result of many years decay in professional standards of European supervision. The euro crisis will not be resolved until Europe has the proper democratic bodies functioning properly. According to the treaties a democratic Economic and Social Committee would also have its influence on whether a candidate State was accepted in the first place — such as setting its house in order before its prime minister takes a seat in the Council of Ministers.

Europe can be strong financially, politically and morally. That requires that the Commission should be independent and composed of the wisest and the best among Europe's 500 million citizens. It requires a selection process that the Council have signally failed to introduce in more than half a century.

If Europeans want to get their currency into a healthy state they should begin by insisting that the Council obeys the spirit and the letter of the law. If they do not do it themselves, someone else will make them. National courts are now examining dossiers that will begin this reform process. The Council has chosen to discriminate against Europe’s 500 million citizens, by making it impossible for free citizens to become candidates for the Commission and the Consultative Committees. Europe's 500 million citizens have ample potential to take these abuses and others to the European courts. That right of the individual and of every association was written into the treaties from the very start.

Europeans have powerful legal rights to safeguard their freedoms. A national court can catch some of the villains. But in the European system if one government is colluding criminally with other politicians, a court case can be taken out in any of the 27 national courts. People can go to the European level. They can ask for rulings on pertinent European matters even if they have a case in the lowest national tribunal. That is why governments and politicians are restricting the number of judges in the Courts in Strasbourg and in Luxembourg. However, the courts may act slowly but they do act eventually with force. On 18 April 2011 Europeans should celebrate that freedom and the sixtieth anniversary of the foundational Community Treaty and the great Charter of European inter-dependence.

Truth10: Hungarians, Show Courage Again! It's 60 years! Publish the Community's democratic Magna Carta of 1951!

The 18th April 2011 represents the 60th anniversary of the founding of the European Community and signature by the Founding Fathers of the great Charter of the Community, laying down the democratic principles on which Europe should organize itself. The Charter has not been published since the 1950s.

Why? Because de Gaulle's subsequent rise in France, his seizure of power and his war against Community democracy buried it deep in the Foreign Ministry's archives. De Gaulle is long dead. Secrecy, anti-democratic practice and political cartels remain.

Over the ensuing decades the European Commission has refused to publish Europe's Charter. It still does. Many recent requests have been turned down. A complaint is presently lodged with the European Ombudsman.

Is the Commission afraid that the shade of the French autocrat will haunt the Berlaymont? Are they scared that the democratic principles of Europe's foundation will expose their double-dealing and the cartel party politics that now subverts the institutions?

The Great Charter of the European Community should be published next year. The public has a right to know that supranational democracy is the 'true foundation' on which that the founding fathers and Member States agreed to build Europe as a Community. It is not intergovernmentalism, a neo-Gaullist process where matters like raising taxes and spending is conducted behind closed doors and without any participation or control of public opinion or taxpayers.

The following letter was sent to the Hungarian Permanent Representative to the EU with copies to the European Commission, all Member States and Presidents of the European Parliament, Economic and Social Committee, Committee of Regions and European Council.

Schuman Project
The origin, purpose and future of
Europe’s supranational Community


2 December 2010

H E Ambassador Dr. Péter Györkös
Hungarian Representation to the EU


Dear Ambassador,
Many of us remember the courageous action of the Hungarians, not only in 1989 in bringing about the collapse of the Berlin Wall, but also the heroic action of 1956, when many gave their lives to establish the principle of a people’s and nation’s rights and their freedom to choose.

Next year, 2011, not only brings the Hungarian presidency of the Council meetings, but also the 60th anniversary of the major positive event in modern European history. That is the signature of the Charter of the Community on the day the Founding Fathers also signed the Treaty of Paris, establishing the first European Community, that of Coal and Steel.

The Charter of the Community speaks in legal and lyrical terms of Europeans’ right to unite in freedom. It held out hope to the countries behind the Iron Curtain.

It states clearly: ‘the contracting parties give proof of their determination to call the first supranational institution into life, and are consequently creating the true foundation for an organized Europe.

This Europe is open to all European nations that can decide freely for themselves. We sincerely hope that other countries will join in our common endeavour.’

For decades this momentous, historic document about the foundation of Europe has lain gathering dust in archives.

Is not the date 18 April 2011 the day to bring this again to the knowledge of the public and reaffirm the living principles it encapsulates for our future?

I request that the Hungarian Presidency will seize this opportunity to make an exhibition of this and other documents of Europe’s foundation in the Council building in Brussels, prior to a tour of the 27 Member States.

Yours etc,

Truth9 Mr Ombudsman: Where is Europe's Magna Carta, guaranteeing everyone's freedom to choose?

The European Ombudsman
COMPLAINT ABOUT MALADMINISTRATION
Against the European Commission


What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it? Add annexes if necessary.

The complaint is about the continuing failure of European Institutions in particular the European Commission to publish the full text of the Schuman Declaration (and publishing an edited version as allegedly the Full Text) and refusal to publish the Charter of the Community of 18 April 1951. The full details of the complaint are in Complaint 1200/2010/ RT.

I have made numerous appeals, written and otherwise, over a period of two or three decades, including letters to the Commission President and other institutions. Some letters were also published on the Web on 30 November 2009. http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2009/11/30/commission-debate18-open-letter-to-new-commission-on-europes-foundational-declaration-of-interdependence-and-supranational-democracy/ and http://www.schuman.info/truth7.htm

I am here replying to latest letter of the director general of the Commission’s Communication DG of 5 July 2010.

What do you consider that the EU institution or body has done wrong?

Following my earlier complaint, 1200/2010/RT, I would like to expose the fallacies in the response I have received from Commission Director General Mr Sørensen of the DG Communication. These answers seem to have been accepted at face value by the Ombudsman. I was not allowed to reply before the Ombudsman closed the case. Following the subsequent recommendation of the Ombudsman, I am therefore renewing my complaint.

The Commission is supposed to be guardian of the treaties. This function requires that the Commission have a clear understanding of what the treaties are, where they are kept and also how to discern the truth and veracity of documents. Unfortunately the Director General Sørensen makes some elementary mistakes in his reply. The officials do not know where to look for the original (which is clearly stated in the treaty) and they have chosen an archive that is obviously the wrong one. This would indicate that the Commission officials do not take their major public function seriously.

(1) The Director General says that he verified the Schuman Declaration with the University Institute of Florence. He need not have gone so far abroad; the answer is near at hand. It can easily be shown that the real Declaration is not the document at Florence, and that the problem document was presumably provided during the Monnet presidency of the High Authority. The Florence archive of Commission documents was only set up by Commission Decision in 1983. Officially it only deals with documents deposited since the European Coal and Steel Community started. Its archives started in 1952. The archive contains a dossier labeled the Schuman Declaration but obviously this does not contain the original of the Declaration. Nor does the archive contain important originals such as the Treaty of Paris, signed on 18 April 1951 or other foundational documents like the Charter of the Community (‘Europe Declaration of Interdependence’). These were apparently never in the Commission archive. (Monnet did not like the word supranational, the foundational, legal term for the Community. 'I do not like the word supranational and never fancied it.' Mémoires p 352.) At best the DG’s alleged Schuman Declaration used so frequently by the Commission and other institutions is a shortened copy introduced by the Monnet team who have been proved to be unreliable when it comes to historical fact.

(2) (a) Where is the original of the Schuman Declaration? The original Declaration is the text of the actual speech that Schuman made on 9 May 1950 in the Salon de l’Horloge of the Quai d’Orsay, the Foreign Ministry building in Paris. Where is it? As might be expected, it is deposited at the French Foreign Ministry archives. Is it a secret matter, kept out of public view? Possibly. However, the Commission has at hand an authentic copy of the original text. It is annotated with corrections in the handwriting of Robert Schuman. It contains the full text of the introduction that set the geopolitical context and describes the importance of the initiative. These vitally important paragraphs are always omitted from Commission publications. They are reproduced in colour facsimile in the book, ‘Un Changement d’Espérance’ published only in 2000 (fifty years after the event) by the Jean Monnet Foundation (JMF). A copy is to be found in the Central Library of the European Commission in Brussels. The book says that one copy of the important introductory paragraphs of the Declaration is to be found in the archives of the Jean Monnet Foundation, which also holds important private papers of Schuman. The last words are ‘Voici cette décision, avec les considérations qui l’ont inspirées.’ According to this book, Schuman’s corrected text of the rest of the Declaration is to be found at the French Foreign Ministry. It should be noted that the pages of the typescript are numbered and that page 3 starts with the phrase ‘La paix mondiale …’ (That is the part that the Commission uses with some changes on http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/9-may/decl_en.htm .) That page numbering would indicate the full text with Schuman’s corrections in his own hand is probably in the Ministry. The JMF copy of this first part of the Declaration is typed on a different typewriter and the book says that this is to be found at the JMF at Lausanne, Switzerland.

(2b) Mr Sørensen says that in 9 May 2010 celebrations a reconstitution of the Schuman Declaration took place at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs as part of celebrations. He did not say if this and the ‘re-lecture of the Schuman Declaration’ at Paris included the full text. If not why not?

(2c) The list of events he supplies supposedly for the sixtieth anniversary of the Schuman Declaration includes many events having nothing to do with Schuman (Chopin, Nikowitz, cocktail parties and discussions of Gaullist ideas like ‘Franco-German engines’, which Schuman opposed. Why is the Commission spending money supporting anti-communautaire ideas? ) The letter fails to say how much money was spent directly on the Schuman Declaration celebrations (not Schumann Declaration as was written) compared with the fraudulent 50th Birthday campaign of 2007, called ‘Together since 1957’. That PR event, aimed unsuccessfully to try to make people like the Lisbon Treaty without its being published, was in total contradiction to the Community Charter. In the Charter the Founding Fathers declared that 18th April 1951 should be commemorated as the day creating ‘the true foundation of an organized Europe’ and Europeans should be free to choose.

3 (a) The French Foreign Ministry is also the Depository of the original text of the Treaty of Paris. According to Article 100 of the Treaty there is only one authentic copy and that is held in Paris. Certified copies of the Treaty are to be sent to Member States.

(3b) The French Foreign Ministry is presumably the legal Depository of the Charter of the Community, the Europe Declaration of Interdependence. This document is of primary importance as it represents a signed agreement of all the Founding Fathers, the plenipotentiaries of the Six. It defines the spirit and purpose of the European Community. However it is not clear whether the French Ministry sent copies of the Charter of the Community to Member States. It is hard or almost impossible to find. After Schuman left the Foreign Ministry it came under even stronger Gaullist control. The Charter is printed in books about the Treaty and is in newspapers of the time. This Charter is, by some considerations, more important than the treaty itself as it describes the principles on which Europe should unite, such as freedom of thought and the free and wholehearted action of the people. In it the Founding Fathers defined the federating principle for organizing Europe as supranational democracy. Schuman puts the Charter in the category of the Magna Carta for Europe.


What, in your view, should the institution or body do to put things right?

The European Commission has refused over decades to publish its foundational documents because presumably the documents insist that all treaties should be democratically agreed and not forced through against the wish of the people.

(1) The Commission should publish a full apology for not having published these documents in more than half a century (when de Gaulle took power). (2) The full text of the Schuman Declaration with the introduction and the corrections of Schuman should be published prominently with an explanation. (3) The Charter of the Community should be given major prominence and presented to the public by the Commission itself with a full explanation of what is meant by supranational democracy, how it provides the true foundation for Europe, how the five supranational institutions are to work together in this democratic system, which is ‘open to all European countries’ and where people are ‘free to choose’. (4) These documents should remain the major documents in all publications explaining the astonishing introduction of peace in Europe after more than 2000 years of continuous warfare and the creation of a true foundation for organizing Europe for works of peace.

Please treat my complaint publicly

Budget6 Fiasco as EU's Budget egotistical talks fail. What happened to the taxpayer?

'A fiasco!' 'A kindergarten.' That's what Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski called the failure of the Council of Ministers and Parliament to agree in the Budget Conciliation Committee. It broke up soon after midnight on 16 November 2010. It became a dialogue of the deaf, the politics of the 'kindergarten'. Each was claiming the budget is my toy. Yet the budget is taxpayers' money. Guess who was excluded from the meeting? Yes, the public!

European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek kept repeating his question about how to make the budget less crisis-prone in the future, but the Council refused to answer. It was not able to do so because some Member States would not discuss the matter. They claimed the budget was THEIR money. Whose money is it really? Who should decide how to spend it?

It is an expensive mistake to plan a crisis when the financial markets are scrutinizing the EU's political will on financial matters and testing the euro. The honesty and integrity of governments is under the microscope. This crisis could easily be avoided if the European governance system put the citizen at the centre of its affairs rather than marginalizing him.

The Council wanted the EP's agreement on the 2011 budget according to their whims. The Parliament which initially asked for a 6 percent increase rapidly changed its tune and agreed to accept the Council's 2.9 percent. Why? That way Parliament could concentrate on a matter they considered a priority. Control. It wanted to establish clearer rules for the longer term to avoid the knock-down-drag-out discussions every year. A flexible mechanism under the new treaty was needed for the future finances, the Parliament maintained. Commissioner Lewandowski said it was a legitimate request of Parliament. But the Council refused to respond.

Instead neither party got what it wanted. The budget now moves into crisis mode with the possibility that next year's budget will be fixed at the present level and doled out in monthly packages.

The Parliamentary delegation told the Council it had lost its position of trust. Never before said the Budget committee chairman, Alain Lamassoure, had the Parliament simply accepted the Council's budget figure. However the removal of this financial point of contention only exposed more to daylight the Council's lack of political interest in creating a new working relationship on the budget which would treat the Parliament as co-partner. The Council -- or at least three or more member States -- refused to discuss the subject. Their intention is simply to retain their governments power as the sole decider in budgetary matters.

Council President, Belgian Minister Melchior Wathelet told the Conciliation Committee that the lack of agreement would 'hit the citizen'. Really? The citizen was the main interested party left out of the whole discussion. The whole of the budget process involves a system that tries to shut out the citizen. Why? Because money is involved, the plaything of politicians. The citizen is incidental to the process. The budget involves taking taxes from the citizen, and spending it for the citizen. It was all done behind the citizen's back and with the public being excluded wherever possible.

What was the scrap about? One so-called democratic institution was at loggerheads with another. Each had 27 delegates in the meeting. Both sides claimed (somewhere in the past) that they were representing the citizen either via his national government or via his parliamentarians. If they were both representing the citizen accurately and faithfully, why then was there such disagreement? Why was there a crisis? Who was the advocate for the citizen? Were neither?

It can easily be proved that none of the three institutions involved had the citizen's welfare at heart. How? The citizen is totally excluded from the meetings and all the debates of the Council and the Conciliation Committee. The secret committees are the places where the politicians decide how much they will take out of the pocket of the citizen. The Conciliation Committee was a closed door affair. The so-called democratic institutions are ASHAMED to show their real behaviour on television.

This is all the more extraordinary when both institutions were quoting the Lisbon Treaty at each other. One Article they did not quote was article 15. It says: 'The Union institutions .... shall conduct their work as openly as possible. The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.'

The Commission, which is supposed to represent all the interests in the Community and is guardian of the treaties, said nothing at this travesty.

The Council's own meeting was advertised to the public as 'Public debates and deliberations'. In reality it was not available to the public because the Council opened it for public viewing for one second on the internet. Then someone pressed the PAUSE button. Nothing was seen or heard until the final moments several hours later when it was clear that no agreement could be made. Not even on a simple text of a couple of sentences that was to represent their views on how exactly the Council and Parliament would work together.

The whole debating process would have been of major interest to citizens because it would show how their governments advocated, or failed to advocate, common action on the budget when they meet and talk to other European governments. Any voter would like to have this information. So would the media. It would provide means to analyse political ethics in action on raising and using tax.

The 27 members of the Council, finance ministers or their representatives of the 27 Member States, then left the Council building to attend the joint meeting in room 5G3 of the European Parliament.

The Parliament had worked with commendable openness on the Budget question until the Conciliation Committee. It then fell in with the Council's bad habits. The Conciliation took place in Parliament but Parliament immediately shut the doors to room 5G3 when the Council and Commission entered. Why? Who authorized this?

Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski characterised the whole affair as 'self-centered and egoistical'. This was to be expected from the people who brought Europe the Lisbon Treaty (Also Known As the Constitutional Treaty) in spite of its rejection by the citizens. In the Parliament's library a few days before, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the author of the Constitutional Treaty, addressed a meeting about Europe 2020. He explained that after it had been soundly rejected in referendums, the politicians purposely thought of a way to pass the same text by making it unreadable. It was reproduced in the form of a list of amendments to the existing treaties. (A few non-controversial matters like the the European flag and anthem were left out -- it was then called a simplified version.) The Council refused to publish the cut-and-paste list of amendments as a complete text.

That conjuring act was designed to try to fool the citizen and obliterate the citizen's rights. It was immoral. So it is unlikely that anything moral will result from a method so ugly and in favour of a political cartel acting against democracy. That is proving to be the case. 'Self-centered' and 'egoistical' are clearly descriptions of institutions that have forgotten they are servants of the citizens not the bosses.

The citizens were rejected and ejected out of the system. And now the citizen-rejecting politicians (both Parliament and Council) want to speak for the citizen. In reality they are only speaking for themselves.

It bodes ill for future and those who wished to replace the supranational Community system by the inter-governmental Lisbon Treaty system.

Budget4 How EU's leaders can prove they are democrats, not kleptocrats

Seventy years ago Europeans fought a war about theft of property. The Nazis were kleptocrats. The gang stole from everyone they could. It became a planetary war. In Germany Hitler disenfranchised many of his honest citizens. He stripped them of their wealth and then sent them with any persistent supporters, Jews, Christians, journalists or politicians, to the gas chambers and death camps. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland and subjugated lands that were not his own. He then stormed into Russia to steal its petroleum. Western democracies united to free themselves from oppression by these gangsters.

Europe's Founding Fathers helped fight and win that war. They then established a new democracy for the whole of Europe. They did not do so to AGAIN subjugate Europeans to another form of political kleptomania.

Today, to have a position in the main European institutions, you have to be a member of a political party. That puts you in 2 percent of Europe's population who have a party card. Fully 98 percent of the population are excluded from representation. This is the greatest act of discrimination in modern times. Both Hitler and Stalin had far more party members. (Their enlightened enemies compromised critics who refused to join the party for cultural, religious, ethical, racial or political reasons.)

Party political leaders want secrecy to divide up Europe's wealth. Should today's political leaders of Europe impose taxes on Europe's citizens IN SECRET? Should excluded citizens submit to any amount of tax that Eurocrats designate behind closed doors? Who decides what money is raised from the population? Who decides how it will be spent?

Imagine a Court case. If honest citizens do not know HOW and WHY taxes are formulated in secret sessions, how can they go to Court to say the leaders were all unjust? How can the Judge know the motivation of the leaders?

It should be remembered that Hitler was also voted into power in democratic elections. That did not make him a democrat. He was antichristian and a corrupter of democratic power. With slick propaganda he immediately misused and overturned democratic controls to install his Fuehrertum.

The lesson is that we can only judge what is a democratic, fair-minded and just government by its action. We cannot judge it by its words. Hitler's propaganda ministry under Dr Goebbels was powerful in persuading the German people and many in other countries, including Britons and French, that he was doing something right. It was all lies. Some were subtle lies. Others were blatant, repetitious lies that people believed out of weariness. Or that was what Goebbels hoped would be the outcome of his PR campaigns.

Lies contain the seeds of their own destruction. Schuman gave grave warnings about pseudo-democrats and political fraudsters.

How does anyone tell if a government is democratic? A key test involves MONEY. What are they doing with the people's money? How are they collecting taxes? Above all, how are they spending taxes they collect? Who gets this money? Is it fattening the governors or feeding the governed needy? Consultation and democratic assent are required on all money matters.

No taxation without representation! That was the battle cry throughout the ages of democrats against autocratic regimes. It led to the revolt of the British colonies in America in the 1770s, even though their taxes were minimal by today's standards.

The Americans based themselves on ancient British laws. In 1215 the British declared the principle when King John met with the barons at Runnymede. The result was the Magna Carta setting out democratic principles. Articles 12 and 14 laid down that taxes could not be raised 'without common counsel of the realm.' In other words no arbitrary taxation by the king. The Charter specified the categories of citizens, moral and secular, from bishops and abbots and barons, who had to be consulted in the process. This allowed the larger part of the population to be brought into the consultation. The key concept was that taxes could not be conceived and imposed in secret by the king or leader.

The principle goes back thousands of years before the Magna Carta. Ancient civilisations such as the Celtic nations proclaimed before all meetings that truth was the foundation of all civil society. Truth requires open assemblies, more than representation. Why? Because there was no guarantee that the representatives would not seize the opportunity to fatten their own face before they really cared for those they were supposed to represent.

Today the European Union is ruled by party machines. It is not governed by non-political civil society. Non-political citizens do not get a look-in. Politicians have taken some autocratic Gaullist ideas and applied them to milking the fattest milch-cow in sight, the EU budget. The Gaullist strategy was closed meetings, package deals, arm-twisting and blackmail in private.

His first target was the Council of Ministers which he attempted to exaggerate in importance to make it the decision-maker of the Community system. It isn't. The Council still discusses in secret. The European Council more so. At the core of the present day system are not representatives of civil society but three main parties, the left middle and right. (That sort of categorization makes no sense to many people).

The Commission which is supposedly by treaty law independent of all such associations is now exclusively composed of card-carrying party members. This party cartel violates the spirit and the letter of the treaties. The action of the parties and their fiddling of the parliamentary results has resulted in ever declining voter turn-outs. More people say 'None of the above' when looking at the ballot paper.

However, the Lisbon Treaty, the party-imposed version of the Constitutional treaty, does demand open sessions of the institutions. This, as discussed previously, was introduced by non-party civil society organisations. They revolted against the Meat Mountains and Wine Lakes that Gaullist and Italian corruption encouraged. The present action of the party cartel to close doors as they did in the past has no legal standing. It is also immoral.

The Lisbon Treaty includes the principle that: The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act. The Budget is a primary legislative act.

THREE institutions are involved in the conspiracy of closed doors at the Conciliation Committee. Three bodies violate the treaty and also democratic morality. The Parliament usually has open sessions on the budget has succumbed to this secrecy. The Commission, supposedly the Guardian of the Treaties, did not speak out. It was represented by a Commissioner at the Conciliation Committee on the Budget. He helped shut the door. The Council was present in the person of the acting Belgian Prime Minister. No one seemed concerned about the public's rights, the public's money or public accountability.

They all need to explain why the doors were closed when they discussed how much they should collect of the citizen's money in the form of tax and how THEY would spend it. Some money will go on EU programmes. Other money goes on pet party projects. The budget also increases the salaries and allowances and expands illicitly the subsidies given to the party machines. Money given to the party machinery and buddy infrastructure has not had the approval of the people because it was the politicians in and of the party machines who decided that they wanted more taxpayer's money for party purposes.

I have therefore sent the following letter to Mr Buzek, the President of the European Parliament.

Schuman Project

10 November 2010

Mr Jerzy Buzek
President, European Parliament

Public access to Budgetary draft legislation meetings

Dear President Buzek,
The Parliament has public meetings to consider the Budget. At the European Council press conference on 29 October 2010 in reply to a question about the Budget Conciliation Committee, citing the Lisbon Treaty Article 15.2 (TFEU) the Commission President, Mr Barroso, replied that ‘I think we should keep full respect of the Lisbon Treaty in all the co-decision procedures.’

The treaty says in Article 15.2 (TFEU) The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.

Public access is the fundament of democracy. It is most important for open, public sessions when it comes to draft legislation on public money. Today is both the time of austerity and of grave suspicions of fraudulent practice in high places.

However, the Conciliation Committee on 27 October and subsequent meetings were shut to the public and the press. The highest representatives of the Parliament, Council and Commission participated in the meetings of the Conciliation Committee to consider draft financial legislative act involving public money.

May I ask for an official reply as to why these meetings were shut to the public, television and the press? Who decided that the public and press should be excluded?

Many thanks for your help in this matter.

Similar letters were sent to European Commission President Barroso and Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme.