Election7: Politicians' Ministry of Truth 'FORGETS' to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of Europe's DEMOCRACY

Did Europe's politicians forget? Today 11 September 2012 is the sixtieth anniversary of the first assembly of the European Parliament.

Guess who was the first president? None other than Paul-Henri Spaak. Yes, the same one after whom the Paul-Henri Spaak building of the European Parliament is named. It is difficult for the MEPs to forget the name. It houses the Hemicycle, the main debating chamber plus scads of other conference and committee rooms. But the MEPs 'forgot' to celebrate the very central democratic reason why they have a building boasting Spaak's name. They 'forgot' to celebrate why they have a job and a handsome salary.

Spaak's Presidency has been written out of the politicians' history on flawed and erroneous site of europa.eu However those interested in the principles and roots of democracy can find details of Spaak on Wikipedia or good history books. The importance of the Spaak presidency is underlined when it is realized that in just a couple of days of action, Spaak had created a special Assembly (the Ad Hoc Assembly) to draft the European Political Community, based on supranational democracy. The Council of Ministers had asked the Assembly of the Coal and Steel Community to help draft the architecture for a democratic Europe. Irony indeed. The Council today would do no such thing even with a partially elected European Parliament. By writing Spaak out the political fraudsters now in the European Parliament are trying to write out democratic history so the public does not question present Politburo politics. George Orwell, the author of the anti-totalitarian novel 1984, must be turning over in his grave! Today we have much more than a Ministry of Truth.

Did the MEPs really forget the date? Well it should be a date that is important for all democrats. We are told Democracy is now being talked of again. Confidence and trust in European politicians reached an all time low recently according to Eurobarometer polls. Trust in the EP fell from 56% in 2007 to 46% last year. Trust in the Commission, the ECB (both 36%) and Council (31%) plumeted.) Can a currency survive without the people's trust?

Now is the time to emphasize democracy, say the politicians. Is that what the present Politburo system is all about? The fact that they 'forgot' indicates that the political powers are not really interested except for a thin veneer of democracy. They can decide policy behind closed doors. They want the public to agree this is democracy. They live in a dreamworld that invents its own fraudulent history. They think a political cartel can run not only European politics but cheat the money markets.

That goes for not only 'normal' EU expenditure but now the money-crazed little outfit called the Eurogroup (which isn't an institution of the EU) and its totally extra-Treaty Big Brother Eurogroup composed of heads of government. They want to grab hold of between FIVE and SEVEN times the EU budget to cover over the financial misdeeds and crimes of their political co-conspirators of the mammoth EURO FRAUD. All Member States politicians were active or passive culprits in this misuse of European money to cover skyrocketing debts, political backhanders and falsified statistics. The public is then asked to claim 'ownership' of the Council Diktat. No democracy, no legal system. Generations into the future will have to pay for this fraud. The poor suffer most from political duplicity. The European Central Bank, whose head was chosen in secret with no other candidates able to apply, is now a willing and profligate partner with YOUR money, throwing good money after bad to help crooks and a crooked system.

Did the Parliamentarians really forget? Six months ago I mentioned this important date to several MEPs including a former President of the European Parliament. No action.

Yesterday, one of the leaders of the major political groups told me that the question had never arisen to his knowledge among any of the joint meetings with the other groups.

So why did they all REFUSE to mark the date?

Well they are not alone.

• On 10 August 2012 the Commission REFUSED to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the first meeting of Commission /High Authority of the first Community. Jean Monnet was its first President as the Europa site reminds us all. Mr Barroso's spokesperson said they were too busy to remember such dates!
• On 18 April 2011 the Council of Ministers REFUSED to celebrate the first meeting of the Council that signed the FIRST treaty of the EU, the European Community of Coal and Steel. It and the other institutions refused to publish the great European Charter of Democracy that says that no measures, no laws and no treaties can be passed without the full-hearted consent of the European peoples. This legal document forbids any treaty -- such as the Constitutional Treaty or the Treaty of Lisbon to be passed and considered law without the peoples' consent. The Charter was signed as a legal document to prevent any state or the Community as a whole from being governed by a Politburo as was then the case of the People's Democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.
• On 8 September 2012 the Council of Ministers -- and indeed the European Council its bosses -- REFUSED to celebrate the first meeting of the Council under Europe's first treaty. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of Germany was the first president of the Council.
• The Consultative Committees first met on 26 January 1953. It is not known whether they will mark this occasion.
• The European Court of Justice of the EU will mark the event of their opening session in December. After all lawyers cannot write off their history as easy as politicians. Case law has dates on them.

The Council of Europe is not afraid to celebrate its history. It celebrated the sixtieth anniversary in 2009. What happened in European history after 1949 ?

Well, firstly we must turn to the Constitutional Treaty and then the Treaty of Lisbon, which apart from the removal of the European Flag and anthem, is basically identical. The public in several countries realized that the Constitutional Treaty was not either a Community system or fair. They voted it down in France, the Netherlands in May-June 2005. It failed before a further referendum with an expected No in Ireland, UK and elsewhere could be held. Instead the text as the Treaty of Lisbon was forced through by regimented political parties in the national parliaments. Countries which had promised a referendum, REFUSED to have one. No one else was asked what they thought of it. And if they did, the Council did not care. This is called the Politburo method. The European Parliament to its lasting shame refused to demand the full text of the document before they approved it, like sheep to the slaughter. It removes Parliament's power to dismiss the Commission.

In 2007-8 in order even to get the Member State parliaments to vote for a document that was not available as a full-text, the Council spent an enormous amount of money in a Public Relations campaign. Where did the PR money come from? You guessed it -- the European tax-payer. The Council decided to CELEBRATE the anniversary of the European Union. Unfortunately there was only 1957 to celebrate. It was NOT the anniversary of the EU. It was merely the anniversary of the second and third Communities of the Treaties of Rome, the Economic Community and Euratom, for nuclear security, anti-proliferation and energy independence (little mentioned).

So 1957 became the Politburo 'BIRTHDAY' of Europe. The Parliament -- which was composed of spineless yes-men and women agreed. They celebrated their fiftieth anniversary. That was a FRAUD.

By REFUSING to mark any landmarks of democracy, by supporting the Gaullist system of Council-knows-best, European politicians are not only undermining democracy itself, but also their cherished, illegitimate currency, the Euro. Only a democratic Community system can lay the democratic foundation for a currency circulating in a score of diverse Member States. Without democratic trust the EU is entering a parallel history of the People's Democracies of East Germany, Poland, Hungary and the rest. No amount of writing by the European Ministry of Truth will prevent the fate of counterfeit democrats.

Eretz3: Northern Ireland, Jihad and my unpublished Reply to a "Palestinian diplomat"

Today Queen Elizabeth sealed the Irish peace process with a handshake and a private talk with Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness. He was the former chief of the IRA, responsible for mayhem and the murder of Earl Mountbatten, the Queen's cousin. This peace was acknowledged by the Irish Nobel Peace Prize winners as owing a great deal to European reconciliation, supranational law and the recognition of Human Rights. Much more can yet be done with properly functioning European institutions.

In contrast to the Irish peace process, the 'Peace Process' of the Israel government and Arab States has been going nowhere for two decades. There are little indications other than that the 'Palestinian' side will always refuse any offers Israel makes for peace. Its media encourage children to become suicide-bomb fodder, they name squares after bombers and the celebrate vicious killers who blow up innocent people on buses. Meanwhile 'president' Mahmoud Abbas remains unelected. Although the multi-millionaire is rather 'poorer' than billionaire, terrorist Yasser Arafat, he has not had the charity to condemn the 1972 Munich killing of Israeli athletes for which he was partly responsible. Nor has he withdrawn the circulation of his doctorate on Holocaust denial.

Has the EU nothing to say to Arab forces about this? How about: GET REAL! OR THE WORLD WILL END IN FLAMES!

Below I give my reply made last week to a blog published by the 'Blogactiv team'. I was surprised that the Euractiv organisation had prepared an article full of elementary factual and historical mistakes. It is called The Palestinians and the “Piece” of the Process.
I replied only later to find out later it was written by Fadi Elhusseini, described as 'a Diplomat at the Embassy of the State of Palestine in Turkey, responsible for Political and media affairs.' That was a shock. I didn't know there was such a thing as the State of Palestine. Palestine is the land of the Philistines, a nation that is long extinct. Fraud is no basis for democracy or world peace.

My comment is still 'awaiting moderation'. As this may take a long time yet, I am publishing my response here.

You’re right the whole peace process is a fraud. It was foisted on Israel by the West because Saudi Arabia wanted it. The West needs oil. Arafat called it the Two Stage solution to destroy Israel. I didn’t see in this article a reference to the 13,000 rockets (around 360 500 this year) from Gaza, Sinai, that have been launched at Israeli cities in this period of the ‘Saudi Plan’. Why? If a European country was subject to such a barrage and children lived in terror in any European democratic country wouldn’t this be covered in the news? I do not see why Jews cannot build garages, extend housing or build homes in a country that was deeded to the Jews by international law in 1922 at San Remo, was recognized by all member States of the League of Nations and was then re-affirmed in the Statutes of the United Nations. After WW1 with the defeat of the Ottoman empire, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and other Arab nations were founded by the same laws. What is most objectionable is Jew-free policies funded by the EU.

I do not see anything here about the huge problem of illegal Arab settlements (building without permission) in Judea and Samaria. Why? See:
http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/09/23/eretz2-how-to-tell-a-fraud-call-your-nation-palestine/ Why has the EU not dealt with race-hate in subsidized text books and TV for kids that encourages them to become suicide bombers?
Europeans should be applying European principles of justice to the dispute not encouraging Nazi-like policies of ‘Jew-free’ territories, exclusive enactment of the most extreme Sharia law that excludes Christians and Jews, and extols terrorism and race hate and religious exclusivism see: http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/05/03/jihad4-eu-must-reverse-its-nazi-like-support-for-holocaust-denial-jew-hatred-and-jihadi-terrorism/

What is called the West Bank and was called Judea and Samaria in the original UN documents was illegally occupied in 1948 by Jordan and other armies. It does not belong to Jordan nor to other Arab States including far-way Saudis. Jews were also called Palestinians before 1948 because this anti-Semitic term ‘Palestine’ was invented by the Romans to describe the land of Israel. To call the PNO/PLO Palestinians is a fraud see http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/09/13/eretz1-the-declaration-of-a-second-palestine-is-declaration-of-war/ When will Europe cease fooling itself for oil? http://www.schuman.info/diplomacy1.htm

While that response is still awaiting acknowledgement and publishing with the article, I might add the following additional factual corrections for the attention of the European External Action Service and European democrats.

1. It is not just a 60-year conflict. That only dates back to the time when six Arab armies ILLEGALLY invaded the Mandate territory, defying the laws, and resolutions of both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

2. Long before 1948, peaceful Jewish residents were killed and massacred by mobs led by ideologues. During most of the time of the British Mandate Jews were targeted and the British reacted inadequately. In 1929 59 people were killed in Hebron, a city that was the home of Jews and Israelites for nearly 4000 years.

3. The idea of Palestinian nationhood, that is, an identifiable Arab people is a fiction, invented by the Egyptian dictator Abdul Nasser. He hired Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian-born militant to become the third leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The Syrian dictator Assad would not speak to Arafat because he was convinced by Arafat's Egyptian accent that he was just an Egyptian agent planted to cause trouble. At that time the so-called West Bank was occupied illegally by Jordanians! What liberation?? At no time in the last 2000 years has there ever been any entity called a Palestinian State. There is no Palestinian culture which is any different from a Syrian or an Egyptian culture because most of the so-called 'Palestinians' came from Egypt or Syria to work in the Jewish Mandate territory.

4. Just before getting the Nobel Prize, Arafat said in Stockholm to Fatah supporters that 'We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state.' He added 'We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. Jews will not want to live among Arabs.' That is the same policy today as articulated in Arabic by a female Fatah official.

5. The idea of Palestinian State is to destroy the Jews and then the West. In Arabic on Al-Hekma TV on 23 March 2012, Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hamad angrily shouted out the truth to his Egyptian brothers. He said that "Palestinians" originate from other parts of the Middle East. 'Palestinian nationhood' is a total fraud. 'Palestinians' do not come from 'Palestine'!!

According to Gazan minister Hammad. 'Every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties.'

"Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis," he exclaimed. "Thus, the conspiracy is very clear. Al-Aksa and the land of Palestine represent the spearhead for Islam and for the Muslims. Therefore, when we seek the help of our Arab brothers, we are not seeking their help in order to eat, to live, to drink, to dress, or to live a life of luxury. No. When we seek their help, it is in order to continue to wage Jihad."

6. With the Muslim Brotherhood holding the presidency in Egypt and Hamas the militant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Europe and the Mediterranean is in increasing danger. One aide of the new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Safwat Hajari, told roaring crowds that he wanted to make Jerusalem the capital of Egypt!

WHEN WILL EUROPE SAY 'NO MORE' AND EXPOSE LYING PROPAGANDA?

REAL PEACE HAS FLOURISHED IN EUROPE AFTER MORE THAN 2000 YEARS OF WAR.

PEACE HAS BLOSSOMED IN IRELAND AFTER CENTURIES OF SECTARIAN STRIFE.

WHEN WILL EUROPE'S LEADERS SOUND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT REAL PEACE IN A WORLD OF LIES?

IOC1: SHAME on the Olympics! SHAME on Europe! SHAME on Germany!

Renew the Olympic spirit of peace in sport! Athletes from around the world, inside and outside the stadium at London, and the general public watching the Olympic opening events can all help. It started to go wrong forty years ago.

In a terrorist attack at the Olympics in Munich in 1972, eleven Israeli athletes were murdered.  A German policeman also lost his life. The German organizers failed to provide security safeguards for their new democracy. Unwilling to have their Olympics dubbed an authoritarian operation with allusions to Hitler's 'Nazi' Olympics in Berlin in 1936, they showed scant sensitivity to real dangers posed by terrorist groups. The Arab terrorist group, Black September, linked to Fatah of the PLO of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas was responsible for taking the athletes hostage and the subsequent  massacre. It was further responsible for hijacking Belgian Sabena and German Lufthansa aircraft, killing high European, Jordanian and US officials, letter bombs and other bombings of energy plants in Germany and the Netherlands, plus other outrages in Athens and New York.

At the service after the killings of the athletes, the President of the Olympics Committee failed even to mention them by name in his remarks. 'The games must go on. We must proceed with our efforts to keep them pure and praiseworthy. We declare, therefore, this day as a day mourning and we will continue all events as planned, one day later.' he said. Thus was truth and the conscience of the world smothered.

In 1896 by Baron Pierre de Coubertin revived the Olympic ideal to build on the ancient Greek example that wars should be forbidden while the Olympic sports took place. Its present Charter says: 'Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on ... the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.' The IOC took no notice of the warning made that day 'the entire fabric of international life is in danger of tearing apart and disintegrating.'

The Olympics is supposedly about principles and PEACE between nations and peoples. The next year saw war and Europe impoverished by more terrorism including the Oil Weapon. IOC action remains unprincipled. For FORTY years the International Olympics Committee has miserably failed to address this issue at the CORE of its existence. It had another opportunity this year. The London Olympics open on 27 July.

A widow has tried for nearly forty years to have the International Olympics Committee agree to recognize this affront to the Olympic spirit by just one minute's silence. The IOC was formally requested to reaffirm its peaceful principle by the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and US Congressmen representing the widows of slain athletes. They asked the IOC President Jacques Rogge and the Committee to hold one minute's silence at the opening of the Olympics in memory of those slain athletes. They said it should act as a reminder about the purpose of the Olympics.

The IOC REFUSED.

Mr Ayalon retorted: 'Unfortunately, this response is unacceptable as it rejects the central principles of global fraternity on which the Olympic ideal is supposed to rest.' In a statement Ayalon said: 'The terrorist murders of the Israeli athletes were not just an attack on people because of their nationality and religion; it was an attack on the Olympic Games and the international community. Thus it is necessary for the Olympic Games as a whole to commemorate this event in the open rather than only in a side event.'

On 8 June 2012 the US House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed Resolution 663 urging the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to institute a minute's silence at every future Olympics Opening Ceremony. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee asked for the IOC to think again.
Mrs Ankie Spitzer, widow of slain fencing master and team coach Andre Spitzer, started an online petition. It now has more than 72,000 signatures. 'One minute of silence will clearly say to the world that what happened in 1972 can never happen again,' Mrs Spitzer says in the petition. 'Please do not let history repeat itself.'

But where is Europe? Where is Germany in this? Where is the Olympics organizer, Great Britain?  What is the attitude of the European Institutions? Why are they SILENT?

During World War Two, six million of Europe's nine million Jews were exterminated by a Nazi regime that had overthrown democracy. Robert Schuman and the founding fathers of Europe said 'NEVER AGAIN!' They created the Council of Europe. This defined the New Europe. Membership was only allowed to nations and peoples who respected the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Statutes of the Council of Europe where signed in London in May 1949. Only nations that are members of the Council of Europe can become members of the European Community or the European Union.

The aim of the Council of Europe, originally to be called the European Union, was according to their Statutes the 'safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage' recognizing the 'rule of law and that every person placed under its jurisdiction should enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms.' This step, said Schuman, 'created the foundations of a spiritual and political cooperation, from which the European spirit will be born, the principle of a vast and enduring supranational union.'

His colleague Pierre-Henri Teitgen told the Council of Europe that recognition of the principles was necessary because:

'An honest man does not become a gangster in 24 hours. Infection takes time. In thought and in conscience, he has to let himself be drawn into temptation. He gets used to the fault before he commits it. He descends the stairwell step by step. One day, he finds evil has beaten him and he has lost all scruples. ... Evil progresses in an underhand way, with a minority operating to seize what amounts to the levers of power. One by one, freedoms are suppressed, in one sphere then another. Public opinion is smothered, the worldwide conscience is dulled and the national conscience asphyxiated. ... Intervention is needed before it becomes too late.'

Today the EU has its own diplomatic service, called the European External Action Service. It should act based on European values, supranational values, like Human Rights and the respect of law.
Where is the External Action Service? What on earth is it doing if it has not made clear it should act Europe's fundamental values and that all the EU rejects terrorism? Why has Europe not put all its diplomatic weight behind supporting the call of the widows and the other government leaders?

The leaders and the EU have a short time to act. If they do not act formally the people of Europe and around the world can. All who deplore the IOC's irresponsibility and the slide to lawlessness can act independently and collectively.

The Israeli government together with support of all sympathetic governments, organizations and friends should set a TIME during or at the end of the opening ceremony. At this moment  all who wish can observe a minute’s silence can do so, regardless of what the IOC has decided. Many athletes who deplore sectarian killing of athletes can show the lead. At the Olympics Opening ceremonies all athletes are free to follow this recommendation and shame the IOC. The US presidential candidates should be asked if they support this ‘INFORMAL’ minute’s silence. So should all Europe's leaders.

The programme for the opening cermonies on 27 July has been announced. It provides an ideal opportunity to add a minute's silence in a natural way.

Part of the theme will be William Blake's poem 'Jerusalem' -- with the music by Hubert Parry which many consider to be a sort of English anthem. It is sung at the Last Night of the Proms and many other occasions, including sporting events.

Many people will sing the words. The last stanza is:
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

Those who support the Olympic ideal that the Games should be free of wars, killings and ideological battle should re-affirm it. They can do so by publicizing their intention to remain standing after the singing for an extra minute in silence.  This should act as a renewed remembrance that the Olympics is supposed to be about peace between people and nations. Nations should denounce terrorism and killing at a world sport event.

What is required is for all friends of peace to make their intentions known. Both in the stadium and outside the stadium. Wherever they can, let all people around the world remain silent for one minute after this anthem.

SECS1: The 'New Hedonist' school throws Europe's currency rules out the window

The present euro system is on its last legs. A new European Currency will have to be built. How should Europeans create a Supranational Economic and Currency System? It should be fairly obvious that countries and nations that have fought each other for more than two thousand years need a system tailor-made for them. It is no use going to theorists living on other continents who are ignorant of Robert Schuman, one of France's most successful Finance Ministers initiating thirty glorious years of postwar growth, and how he brought about a system that ended war -- including Europe's expected Third World War.

The euro's fatal flaws arose because the politicians decided in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to abandon supranational democracy and the supranational philosophy that built the Community. Under the arrogant impulse of Charles de Gaulle who wanted to destroy the Community, the other European politicians succumbed to his closed door Council. They acquiesced to the non-democratic easy route of 'package deals'. Vote-getting Wine Lakes and Meat Mountains for farmers were paid for by European taxes and tariffs. This has led to our present Politburo Council system, where a cartel of political parties has replaced de Gaulle and his spineless European cronies. They FEAR openness in the Council as it will unfreeze moves to further democratic progress.

The European Community system must have a currency based on supranational currency principles. North American federal ideas won't cut the mustard. For decades economists have said that a European Currency must be based on a Optimal Currency Area. This idea is based on two fallacies:

• (a) it assumes that the European Community will act like a federal system such as either economic theorist Robert Mundell's native Canadian federation or the USA.
• (b) it relies on the Neo-Hedonist presumptions about the economy and currency.

For example, the US currency is minted by the Fed (the privately owned US Federal Reserve -- which is neither federal nor a reserve). Their mission is to print money only on the basis of encouraging growth and employment for Americans. Further dollars are created by the banking and speculative institutions which try to multiply loans for all. The massive avalanche of dollars that is being churned out by the Fed has had in practice little effect on either growth or employment. It has seen a massive flight of jobs abroad to places like China and other parts of Asia. Its own growth has only been kept above zero by massive borrowing. This is hardly healthy and will lead to 'an adjustment'.

The USA, now shackled by huge debts and overdraft from the other world economies, has become a dangerous and explosive debt overhang for the rest of the world. China, Japan, Russia and other major economies are avoiding US Treasury Bonds and divesting. Why? because of the coming massive inflation. The USA is likely to go through even worse crises than it has so far. This was clear several years ago. The world will also suffer. About 70 per cent of dollars circulate OUTSIDE the USA.

The European Community system is different from the North American experience. It is based on remedying the flaws that Robert Schuman and others saw in those systems and creating a better one. The Canadian and US federations are distinguished in the sense that because of their respective constitutions the first tends to stimulate the growth of governance powers to the provinces away from the centre, while the second has a tendency to centralize and grab powers from the constituent States, both where the constitution allows it and too often where it would seems to forbid it. The European Community system is designed -- when it works democratically -- to reinforce the nation State and build a higher supranational level, based on law and economics, above it.

America is suffering from toxic assets from the sub-prime property bubble scam, junk bonds and complicit credit rating agencies and a central banker with little democratic control. Europeans have most of the same plus a wide variety of political and statistical corruption in a 'European Union' -- not a democratic Community. It is led by the nose by the secretive EuroGroup (that meets in the dead of night) and the closed door European Council which decides policy in a democratic vacuum for the public.

Both sides of the Atlantic are now crying: 'Growth, Growth, Growth. That will change all our fortunes and the people will forget our mischief.'

The Neo Hedonists make no distinction between toxic (or crooked) deals and a healthy economy based on what should be obvious to all: The economy is not a separate or independent creature but it is connected to the real world, real people and goods and has to obey universal and supranational values. Any operation that is based on Ponzi schemes, pyramid selling and ignores morality will end in collapse, trauma and catastrophe.

The European Community is not based on Neo Hedonism as far as its founding philosophy is concerned, nor is it a model that can be shaped by either American, Canadian, Mexican or other federal systems. Whatever politicians try to do against those founding principles and philosophy will end unhappily. At the moment they are trying out all the wrong alternatives (mostly against supranational democracy and in line with a Politburo or political cartel approach).

Their failures are apparent to all but themselves. Thirty years of political corruption, behind closed doors, is now being exposed. Unfortunately all Europeans will have to pay for this mess.

The Community is not designed to be a centralizing governance system, but a purifying system for national democracies that willingly participate in it. Schuman said it was designed to de-toxify European relations.

That must include money, detoxifying it from private and governmental fraud and corruption. But in the 1990s the politicians threw the supranational rule book for a successful currency out of the window. They decided to base the euro on other fanciful ideas. They belittled and sidelined the Werner Report that in 1970 traced the steps needed for Monetary Union. This was written by a Luxembourg Prime Minister who knew Schuman, and among others, the governor of the Bank of France, Bernard Clappier, Schuman's former directeur de Cabinet. He acted as Chairman of the key Monetary Committee.

The politicians based the euro on the Delors Report of 1989. That did not even recognize the five key institutions of the European Community and understand how they should develop to take on the responsibility of a European Currency. It spent a good deal of ink explaining why the supranational criteria and conditions should not be applied, and ignoring others.

The Community made its first major contribution in a way that no federal system has succeeded in doing: it made war impossible between its Member States. But this is only the first step in the process of a supranational Community.

The politicians of the Delors era looked into the Treaty of Rome with its Economic Community Treaty to find out how to create a European Currency. In vain. It is not there. The principles are set out well before the Treaty of Rome in the founding documents and treaties. They set out the principles of the Single Market of 1953 and the way to currency union. They apparently did not even seem to analyse the first Community -- which defined both the Economic Community and Euratom.

The founding principles are well outlined in the Schuman Declaration, its democracy in the great Charter declaration, that the politicians still refuse to publish. It provides a clear outline of future developments including a Single Market, single economy and Single Currency based on enhanced democracy and justice.

The aims spelt out in the Schuman Declaration are to serve all Europeans and the world. They include raising employment, increasing innovation and building a stable European currency. Check it out!

• National decisions made together with supranational independent arbitration would become enforceable international law
• Equality, open information systems, better treatment of workers
• Raising living standards, promoting peace, aiding developing countries
• Was an aim of the Coal and Steel Community to create a single market?
• Goods would circulate within the Community free of customs duties
• The new Community was neutral about nationalizations or private ownership
• The new Community drew on the experience of the International Ruhr Authority
• Do a Common Market and a common currency figure in the proposal?
• Is a European economic community part of the proposal?
• Is monetary union implied in the original proposal?

Lobby4: How the Commission gets Employment and Company Law upside down.

Trillions of euros have been lost to the European economy because companies are badly structured. They take their constitution from ideas current decades if not centuries ago. They are encumbered with antiquated tax structures, which develop like some mutating monster by adding more and more complex annexes and qualifications to an already complex Tax Code. They are unfit for a Single Market of 500 million consumers

No wonder Europe is in a Employment crisis. Young highly educated people are waiting to find jobs. But employers are saying No Thanks -- not with today's complex and disadvantageous environment!

Why should young people wait?

Where are the young people in Europe who will create IN EUROPE tomorrow's Intel (Noyce and Moore), Google (Page and Brin), Microsoft (Allen and Gates), Apple (Jobs, Wozniak and Wayne) and Facebook (Zuckerberg and college roommates)? Why aren't European youngsters saying: "Forget my last years in university! I want to build my own firm'?

Many Europeans think they need a doctorate before they can start work! RUBBISH! Many of the world's greatest entrepreneurs never finished their first degree because they had a hot idea and wanted to create a company.

Is it because Europeans lack garages where a lot of multi-billion American firms like Microsoft saw the first light of day?

At the root of many of Europe's economic woes is the COMPANY STRUCTURE. What young 19-year old would want to start a company today? It's a nightmare to avoid at all cost! It is a jungle of local, national law and European Regulations, tying any foolhardly inventor or entrepreneur in masses of red tape, legal obligations and potential debt.

In Europe the complex system has become the greatest DISINCENTIVE to economic success!

Who should decide on the structure of companies? How should commercial companies be set up to take advantage of the European Single Market and globalization? How can they do it legally and SIMPLY?
What's more pertinent,

• who should be deciding how companies are structured?
• how they run their affairs?
• under what conditions should they move their operations from one Member State to Member State?

What about public companies or utilities? Should they be allowed to compete with commercial companies? Don't they have an unfair advantage?

Who decides? Should such issues be decided by bureaucrats? Is it really the business of officials who may have had no experience in running a company? Should they be decided by politicians? They may be considered to be representatives of the people but don't they have their own interests? Members of the European Parliament admit that corruption is widespread and hardly controllable. Isn't it a danger that they will shift the balance into their favour and make sure they have extra influence if not contributions for their depleted party funds?

Wouldn't it be better to collect all the experience of young entrepreneurs and ask them how they would wish to have their first company?

Surely three most obvious deciding groups have nothing to do with politicians or bureaucrats. They are:

• the entrepreneurs who have to pay and invest then employ people
• the consumers who buy goods and services and may have recommendations and complaints about what they are served
• the workers for the companies who may find themselves pressed between capitalists who want to cut their wages and consumers who also want the cheapest goods possible.

So how is the European Union dealing with the problem? The answer is BADLY. The Founding Fathers created a body to deal with the issue of companies, but the politicians and the bureaucrats have consistently over the last decades refused to allow the European bodies to develop democratically as they should.

So what do we get? The Commission does not refer to the Consultative Committee -- the parliament for industry and social issues -- but asks creates a questionnaire for all and sundry. This has no real legal standing. Even if the majority of people who had the time to reply came up with good ideas, there would be no guarantee that the Commission or the Council would make it their choice for a Regulation. They will decide what is to their advantage. Is that a hard cynical comment? Unfortunately it is based on fact because the first proposals for a European Company were made in 1949 in the Council of Europe and the governments have consistently refused to implement any thing that does not conform to the creaking tax-system that few citizens understand.

This week the European Commission closed what it calls a consultation on the Future of European Company Law (below). Notice how the questions force people to concur with what is a failed politiburo system. The very formulation of the questions show that the Commission is not thinking in terms of European democracy -- supranational institutions -- but in reinforcing the Politburo thinking of deals between Commission and Council with a fig-leaf of consultation from the 'public' -- whoever they are.

The following are my replies in bold to their questions.

I Identity Questions 1 to 4.

II. Objectives of European company law

Question 5. What should be the objective(s) of EU company law ?* (compulsory)
Improve the environment in which European companies operate, and their mobility in the EU.
Facilitate the creation of companies in Europe.
Setting the right framework for regulatory competition allowing for a high level of flexibility and choice.
Better protect employees.
Better protect creditors, shareholders and members.
Other.
No opinion.
Please specify

Since the 1950s European political leaders have failed to create a truly European company with simplified tax structures that might be headquartered in any Member State and receive favourable conditions for a fair and useful contribution to the European and world economy. There is also a notable failure to elect Consultative Committees (such as the Economic and Social Committee) based on the registration of all European professional associations. DEMOCRATIC ELECTION should prioritize EU action.

III. Scope of European company law
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides the legal basis to adopt Directives harmonising EU company law (Article 50). That legal basis has been used for the adoption of Directives related to the disclosure of companies and their branches as well as the validity of their obligations and their nullity; the maintenance and alteration of the capital of public limited-liability companies; the merger and divisions of public limited-liability companies; and the single-member private limited-liability companies. It has also been used to adopt Directives concerning take-over bids, cross-border merger of companies and certain rights of shareholders of listed companies.

6. Would you support that the EU's priority should be to improve the existing harmonised legal framework or, rather, to explore new areas for harmonisation? * (compulsory)
Yes, the following pieces of existing legislation harmonising company law could be modernised further.
Yes, new areas could be explored for further harmonisation, such as...
Yes, both approaches could be combined and further work could target.
No, further harmonisation is not needed, the approach should rather be based on:
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Soft-law instruments, like Recommendations.
Increased administrative co-operation and exchange of good practices.
Other.
Please specify
The Consultative Committees are required (1) to register all entrepreneur associations, all workers' associations and all consumer associations (Not done in 60 years) (2) Eliminate any lobby associations and establish professional criteria (3) Arrange elections to the seats in the CC such as the EESC and CoR. The Council refused to support this. It chose to select its own candidates (as it had for the EP). Schuman and Reuter (who wrote much of treaties) condemned this manipulation as 'ILLEGAL'

 

EU company law has been built on the basis of the distinction between public and private limited-liability companies. While some EU Directives apply to all company law forms, others focus on one type of company or the other. However, the reality has changed in the last years in particular to confer appropriate protection to public shareholders. A trend in some Member States is that public limited-liability companies are often used as legal form for listed companies while other large and medium-sized companies are private limited-liability companies. New hybrid company law forms have been designed in some Member States to grant further flexibility. Furthermore, the public-private distinction does not exist in all Member States.

7. Should the focus of EU company law move away from the distinction between public/private towards listed/unlisted in order to ensure adequate protection to shareholders? * (compulsory)
Yes, for all the legal instruments harmonising EU company law.
Yes, but only for legal instruments related to
No.
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Disclosure of companies and their branches as well as the validity of their obligations and their nullity.
Maintenance and alteration of the capital.
Mergers and divisions.
Single-member ownership.
Take-over bids.
Cross-border mergers.
Certain rights of shareholders of listed companies.
Other.
Please specify
Company definitions, because they affect all Europeans, should not be defined exclusively by one State but should be subject to an agreement (Opinion) made at the European level by fully elected Consultative Committees such as the EESC and CoR as sketched out under answer to Question 6.

IV. User-friendly regulatory framework for European company law
Because of the large number of Directives dealing with it, European company law is sometimes regarded as not particularly ‘user friendly’. It is also exposed to the risk of inconsistencies, gaps or overlaps. In order to address this risk, the existing Directives could be amended and codified either to create a single instrument on Company Law or to only have a very limited number of Directives regrouping related areas.

8. Do you think that codifying existing EU company law Directives, thus reducing potential inconsistencies, overlaps or gaps, is an idea worth pursuing? * (compulsory)
Yes, a single EU company law instrument should replace all existing Directives.
Yes, EU company law Directives with a similar scope should be merged.
No, this is not an idea worth pursuing.
No opinion.
Please specify
Politicians have created a regulatory jungle and this cannot be cleared overnight. The approach of the Founding Fathers -- still to be applied -- is best. They proposed that a European Company statute should be created as simple as possible with simple tax rates and encouragement for expansion. This could be set up in any State and the success of its simplifying procedures would encourage the mass of existing Regulations to be eliminated over the course of time. Google eurdemocracy and Lobby2

V. EU company legal forms
Apart from harmonisation, EU company law has also focussed on the definition of specific EU company law forms, such as the Statute for a European Company (SE), the Statute for the European Cooperative Society (SCE), the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) and more recently, the proposed Private Company Statute (SPE). Those instruments are often referred to as being a "28th regime" to the extent that they introduce new legal forms that do not harmonise, modify or substitute the existing national legal forms, but provide an additional alternative legal form.

9. What, if any, is the added value that EU company legal forms bring for European business? * (compulsory)
The European image of those company law forms.
Their European label ("SE", "SCE").
Their full legal personality.
Savings in costs of cross-border transactions.
Ad hoc solution to cross-border related issues.
Workable alternatives to existing national company law forms.
The possibility not to be subject to compulsory national requirements (for example, the SE allow public limited-liability companies to choose between one-tier and two-tier management structure).
The possibility to carry out operations, like cross-border transfer of seat.
Tax reasons.
Labour law reasons.
Other.
No added value.
No opinion.
Please specify
The EU should stop DIY or bricolage solutions and use the Consultative Committee duly elected democratically to sound out the real impact of such schemes. This would provide real data as the CC system provides for in-depth studies not reactions of companies and groups who have time and inclination to reply to such questionnaires as this.

10. What, if any, are the main shortcomings of EU legislation introducing EU company legal forms? * (compulsory)
The complexity linked to frequent cross-references to relevant national legislation.
The uncertainty linked to the application of different national legislations that are applied simultaneously.
The differences in the way EU company law forms are understood and used at national level.
The different degree of attractiveness across Member States.
The limitations that derive from unanimity decision-making.
Other.
No main shortcomings.
No opinion.
Please specify
Lack of democratic legitimacy and trust. This can only be recovered by having democratically elected Consultative Committees such as the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions plus the scientific and technical bodies of Euratom.

11. Should existing EU company legal forms be reviewed* (compulsory)
Yes, in particular concerning...
No.
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Simplification and rationalisation of existing procedures.
Increased uniformity through reduction of cross-references to national legislation.
Reduction of minimum capital required.
Deletion of cross-border element requirement.
Possibility to have the registered office and the headquarters in two Member States.
Explicit solution to the issue of shelf companies.
Other.
Please specify
Full and democratic examination can only be done via a fully functioning 5-institution Community system. The EU is falling into greater crises because of the lack of legitimacy of Council actions. Political, social and democratic legitimacy is outlined in answer to Q6.

The European Model Company Act (EMCA)* on which academics are currently working aims at providing a modern and flexible Model Act, taking account of the latest developments in Member States. The initiative does not strive to harmonise national company law, but rather to facilitate understanding of the specific features in various national systems and to serve as a flexible and optional model.
* For further information please see: http://law.au.dk/forskning/forskningscentre/europeanmodelcompanyactemca/overview-over-the-emca-project/

12. Could optional models such as the EMCA –or similar projects- be a suitable alternative to traditional harmonisation? * (compulsory)
Yes.
No.
No opinion.

Please explain
The only useful opinion would be that of democratically elected Consultative Committees that have full powers, equivalent to the European Parliament and the Council in such matters according to the treaties and the Founding Fathers.

VI. The particular case of the societas privata europaea (SPE) statute
The proposal on the SPE Statute has been discussed for more than three years without any final outcome. After lengthy negotiations, Member States could not agree in particular on the possibility to separate their registered office and the headquarters and the regime for employee participation. However, the Commission still believes that European small and medium size businesses need support at EU level, particularly in the current economic context.

13. Should the Commission explore alternative means to support European SMEs engaged in cross-border activities?* (compulsory)
Yes.
No, further efforts should be made to get an agreement on the current SPE statute proposal.
Other possibilities to explore?
No opinion.

for example:* (compulsory)
The Commission could prepare a new legislative proposal aimed at promoting EU SMEs through the European labelling of existing national company law instruments that meet a number of pre-defined harmonised requirements.
The 12th Company Law Directive could be reviewed in order to introduce a simplified company charter to facilitate the organisation of groups (i.e. single member private limited-liability companies would be exempted from certain harmonised rules, not indispensable for a single member company).
The scope of application of the SE Statute could be modified to allow smaller EU companies to benefit from it on the basis of more flexible requirements.
Other.
Please specify
The Commission should assume its responsibility to encourage proper elections to the Consultative Committees as is clear from the treaties and the Founding Fathers.

VII. Cross-border transfer of a company's registered office
Apart from the rules contained in the Statutes for the European Company (SE) and for the European Cooperative Society (SCE), the current EU rules do not provide for a general right to the cross-border transfer of a company's registered office, which would preserve the company's legal personality. Currently, only few Member States allow for a seat transfer without winding up and subsequent re-incorporation. In most Member states, companies must therefore establish a new legal entity in the Member State of destination, merge the companies in question and register the company formed by merger in that Member State

14. Should the EU act to facilitate the cross-border transfer of a company's registered office?* (compulsory)
Yes, through a harmonizing Directive.
Yes, through some other measure.
No, as the existing EU framework (European Company Statute, cross-border mergers Directive) provides for sufficient tools for a cross-border transfer of registered office.
No.
No opinion.

Please give further reasons for your opinion

This is again a measure that is within the legitimate right of the Consultative Committee involved to decide and give an Opinion by a vote of the three sections: enterprises, consumers, and workers.

Other questions: No opinion.

(Questions need to be settled in an institutional body after a full discussion of properly constituted professional associations with proper means of analysis and communication.)

Council6: On Schuman Day the politicians roam into a Politburo Wonderworld

On 9 May the leaders of the European Parliament met with the Commission and Council representatives. First they spoke of European solidarity and European values. They praised Robert Schuman for introducing a great democratic experiment that has brought the longest period of peace in Europe's several thousand year history.

That is true.

Then they spoiled it all. They immediately went into a self-congratulatory mode of their own delusions. They boasted that Commission, Council and Parliament have become the champions of the citizens and reduced roaming charges for mobile phone and now for data across the European Union.

Wasn't Europe wonderful!

The high charges were an 'irritant' to citizens, they said. Now we can show how 'Europe' protects their interests. The mobile companies had been charging excessively for telephone calls and data downloads across the Continent and they -- the Council, Parliament and Commission -- were the heroes that forced them to cut them. How? with a Regulation -- European law!! Now they expect all the citizens to love the new-style politburo politicians that rule Europe.

Is this fair? They boasted that they had got cuts of 75 percent in customers' bills. Is it helping the free market? Who knows? It was a Diktat.

Yes consumers like lower prices, but what if they find the bills going down in roaming and extra charges arising elsewhere because the companies find the prices unrealistic? The companies have spent billions on hi-tech satellite technology and land infrastructure and coordination. They made a strategy to pay for it over several years. Then along come a posse of cowboy politicians and say: 'Hey some of our people say you are robbing them! ' And with a pistol at their head they lower the prices.

Maybe the prices were too high to chat as if callers were at home. But who gave the cowboys the authority to decree lower prices in the market? What's the point of the internal market if it is not free from cowboy laws of politicians? It should be open wide to competition to increase efficiency of pan-European services and industry. It is supposed to reduce prices for consumers and make companies stronger so they can compete globally.

Guess what? The mobile companies reaction is not to complain loud in public. They are simply raising their domestic rates fast -- sometimes by 66 percent. Will the European Commission and its cowboys and girls be boasting that they were responsible for the rise in domestic mobile charges? I think not! The European Politburo has still to learn that they cannot get a free lunch wielding a gun.

Who should be setting prices? Should it be a free market with plenty of competition and innovation? Or should the politicians be setting the caps and ceilings for prices?

When Schuman warned of counterfeit democracy, Europeans had in front of them the so-called People's Democracies of the Soviet bloc. How did the Soviet socialists and Communists run their economies? They had artificial fiat currencies and they fixed the prices of all the goods on sale. The Politburo controlled the industries, the production and supply. They decided what everything should be worth in the funny coupons that passed for socialist money. They decided on the price by fiat.

Reminder: A real democracy does not have politicians fixing the prices of goods and services.

So why did the trio of white-hatted cowboys get in the business of fiat prices? Firstly something was uncomfortable for Europeans travelling across frontiers. More importantly the politicians wanted to gain some plaudits from the public as their credit and trust was hitting rock bottom. So they applied the same technique they did to the constitutional and Lisbon treaties -- they ignored democracy and imposed the political equivalent of martial law. They ignored the free market solutions in the same way as they had earlier ignored and despised the votes in the referendums.

Where will it lead to? Will everything on the European market now have its prices set by political fiat? By getting in the populist business of forcing reduced prices, the Council Politburo system is now heading in the same way as the People's Democracies.

Will we now see the Council Politburo responding to citizens' complaints and setting the price wherever single market customers complain? Will toothbrushes and toilet paper be the list? Will all electricity tariffs now be reduced? Will they soon decree a single low-price airplane ticket for anywhere across the EU?

Like a meteor in the fermament, some mobile phone companies have risen from nothng and replaced major companies that had been round for centuries as some of the biggest companies in Europe. The politicians often think of them as tax cows. Some long-established industries may be harder to boss around. But bossing around hi-tech industries is likely to be a bad industrial strategy for reducing unemployment. And of course those fig-leafs that the politicians use for doing anything they want -- Europe2020 or Europe2030-- say absolutely nothing about this antidemocratic market manipulation. How could they justify cheap populism for EU Public Relations?

The democratic five-institution supranational Community system on which the EU is based was created to

• stop price-fixing
• break cartels
• encourage European infrastructure for supply and demand.

How should the question of mobile phone rip-offs be treated in a real supranational democracy? Who should be setting the price of mobile calls?

The guardian of the European free market is the Consultative Committee, a major institution de Gaulle and other egocentric politicians blocked and are still blocking. The Coal and Steel Community had its own Consultative Committee that oversaw the introduction of Europe's first Single Market on 10 February 1953. The European Economic Community introduced an Economic and Social Community that was to be composed entirely of NON-POLITICAL European associations active in the market. European professional associations would all be listed and registered and THEY would then elect the member associations that should sit in the Consultative Committee.

They would vote on all matters of dispute.

Schuman suggested that three equal groups should be involved to come to a fair decision. This is confirmed in the treaties. Note: NO politicians, NO Government representatives are included. The real tripartate committee is defined as:

1. Industrialists and entrepreneurs who innovate and invest
2. Consumers who have to pay for the service and have criticism about price and service
3. Workers in the industry because they should have safe conditions and their wages should not be cut if the consumers want cheaper prices.

How did he say they should run the economical sector? If there is any dispute such as on roaming charges, the three sections would have to vote on an Opinion. As each of the sections had equal number of member associations, they would have to come to a consensus based on European values, intelligent economic strategy and social justice. Based on intensive in-depth debates, they would come to agree not only on price levels but the overall strategy for creating jobs for a stronger Europe. Such a powerful, intensive discussion of all the issues avoids quick-fix, cowboy regulators making a mess of industrial investment, and wreaking research and development plans.

The present treaties still provide the requirement for the Europe-wide elections to the Economic and Social Committee. When will it happen?

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.