Eretz5: Vatican's immoral treaty with 'Palestine' will bring confusion and war.

The Vatican is to sign a treaty formally recognizing an entity called ‘the State of Palestine’. It is a big mistake. It is likely to lead to war, disputes and further injustice. Is the pope ignorant or has he lost his balance? He called PLO leader and Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Abbas  ‘an angel of peace’ and  gave him a medal.
Angel? Do angels tell the truth? Abbas (war name or kunya: Abu Mazen) wrote a holocaust-denying PhD in Moscow of the USSR as part of a Cold War disinformation campaign. The book is still reprinted and in circulation. No retraction. Abbas wants a Jew-free State. Is the pope’s commendation for Holocaust-denial and a Nazi-style Judenrein State the sort of moral conduct Europeans would expect from a religious leader?
Peace? Would any right-minded person call Abbas, who glorifies hijackers of a public bus who killed in cold blood 37 people (12 of them children), ‘an angel of peace’? Just a few weeks ago Abbas celebrated the March 1978 coastal road massacre in his Facebook post addressed to Israelis! He even exaggerated the bloody gore by saying there were 80 victims. He then told Israelis that ‘they should take their body parts and leave! The Vatican can hardly be unaware of this and other devilish remarks about murders or his fellow ‘Palestinians‘ in Syria.
The Vatican is not a member of the UN, nor was it a member of the earlier League of Nations. As a Permanent Observer State, a status granted in 1964, it maintains that ‘ its only competency is in elucidation of questions of principle in morality and public international law.'
The so-called ‘State of Palestine’ has no elected government, no defined borders and is in cahoots with terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood vowed to destroy Israel. In their constitutions, the PA’s National Covenant and Fatah’s Charter  maintains a similar objective. What would a PA State look like? Even at present the PA has a law that any Arab selling land to a Jew will be killed.
It took a pope like John-Paul II to recognize Israeli statehood! When? 1994! Nearly a half century late!  Why? Is the Vatican’s bizarre move now due to a resurgence of antisemitism to sideline the State of Israel?
It is shocking to normal, outside observers that the Vatican — which should know something about  the history of Israel and be familiar with the Bible — is showing such deplorable ignorance about both. Worse, such a treaty would likely ignite and stoke up further violence and war in the Near East. This move also shows that the present Vatican leaders have lost touch with basic principles of moral philosophy.
Let’s assume the technical ‘Palestine’ government of  Fatah and Hamas exists. What then is the purpose for the Vatican to sign a treaty with a group allied to Hamas which openly proclaims its objective as the destruction of Israel and the Jews?
What would be the purpose of signing a treaty with Abbas whose corrupt regime trains children to become martyrs by killing Jews, glorifies jihadis and celebrates them in public monuments and sport? Would that be morally acceptable in the streets of Rome?
Let’s turn to international law.
All States who joined the UN agreed to abide by the international law established by the League of Nations. That included the recognition of the historical borders of the Land of Israel.
Israel owes its international law recognition, not just to the UK’s Balfour Declaration of the Lloyd George government but principally the decision taken by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo, on 24 April 1920. The Jewish State was thus incorporated into law of the Treaty of Sèvres. Recognition became part of the conditional entrance requirements of the League and the later United Nations. This is a recognition of long-standing, continuous, undisputed rights, not a grant by other States. Like Britain it has been recognized as a 3000 year-old independent State, regardless of some invasions.
All Arab States subscribed to this when they became members of the UN. Indeed the very existence of those States relies on a similar, parallel process of international law. Deny one and they also deny their own existence!
What did those same Arab States do in 1948? They illegally declared war on the newly proclaimed State of Israel. Seven national armies, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, tried to march into this territory ILLEGALLY in unprovoked war. The Arabs living inside western Palestine were not planning an attack. The armies invaded an area that the United Nations still referred to as ‘Judea and Samaria’.
Yes, Arab Muslim armies illegally invaded an area where Jews lived called Judea! This is one reason why Arab oil-fed propaganda after the 1967 Six Day War wanted to change the name of Judea and Samaria to ‘West Bank’. How could they influence world public opinion by accusing Jews of illegally occupying Judea?
Judea became illegally occupied by Jordan.
(Jordan was initially called Transjordan. On the East Bank of the Jordan river, TRANS-Jordan indicates it was a transitory arrangement of the 1920s. It was trans, meaning across but still part of Israel, being across the Jordan from Israel’s capital, Jerusalem.) Jordan’s ‘king’ was hardly ‘legal’. The usurping Wahabite ‘king’ Saud had earlier expelled the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia!
The term ‘Palestine’ in 1948, both before and for many years afterwards, meant the Land of Israel. ‘Palestinian’ meant ‘Jews’ of Israel. No Arab State called ‘Palestine’ ever existed in history. (Only in the 1960s did the concept of ‘Arab Palestine’ arise, thanks to Egyptian and Soviet disinformation services.) Before this Arabs called themselves ‘southern Syrians’ or identified by name as Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis etc. They still do.
What’s in it for the Vatican? Is it claiming title to property it occupies in Israel? Does it still believe it has rights to tax-free extra-territoriality for the places it occupies? Does it still want Jerusalem (Israel’s capital since 1967!) to become an international City under its control and influence? Is that why the Vatican refuses to recognize the ‘eastern’ parts of Jerusalem as being part of Israel? Israeli officials pose the question: ‘What makes the Roman Catholic Church different from all the other nominally Christian churches?’
Does the Vatican move completely reject international law and justice?
A treaty with Palestinian Arabs puts the Vatican in the same thieving camp as some Muslim Arabs. Let me explain. One Arab proudly boasted that the property he had was legitimately his because it had been given to his forefathers by Saladin. Saladin was a foreign military invader. This Kurdish leader, born in Tikrit, who founded the Ayyubid dynasty in the twelfth century was proclaimed sultan of Egypt and Syria. He conquered Syria and fought the Crusaders.
Saladin, like the Romans before him, had no legal rights. During this process he killed some Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. That does not make property transfer legitimate. Saladin is no more. Neither is the bloody sword of his caliphate. Property belongs to the Jewish families from whence it was taken.
The Crusaders probably killed far more Jews. They burned the Jerusalem synagogue to the ground. They gave Jewish property to the Roman church.
So which of the two, Saladin or the Crusaders, really owned the land? Obviously neither. They merely dispossessed or killed some of the rightful owners whose families had lived there for three thousand years. The Greeks, Syrians, Romans, Islamic and Mongol hordes, Ottoman Turks did the same.
The Crusaders of the twelfth century may well have built the so-called Tomb of David. Above it is the Cenacle, also claimed by the Vatican. It is falsely called the Upper Room of the New Testament. (It was nowhere near there!)
You do not have to be a Permanent Observer at the United Nations with a self-given remit for morality and international public law to conclude that the Vatican has no legal right to this property or any other given by the Crusaders.
Is the pope a descendant of Jewish King David? No, he claims he is a Non-Jew, of Italian extraction from Argentina. Does the Roman church (among all the other churches) have any claim to Davidic property? No. Legally the property stays in the Davidic and Jewish family. There was no corporate ownership in Israel in biblical times. Nor is Rome in Israel!
If the Vatican wants to continue a claim for Jewish property, if it want to recognize a State of Palestine on the ancient land of Israel, then it had better be prepared for a shock. The Vatican should await a claim from the  Gauls, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks and ‘Holy Roman’ Germans.
They could apply Vatican moral and legal logic. They and others who once invaded Rome may lodge a property claim against the Vatican!

Circus9: European Commission EP Report discloses 2019 Election Dirty Tricks

The Christian Democrat  EPP, Socialists and Liberals think they have the eternal right to select old and pensioned-off politicians to be their Commissioners. The European Commission, was once a politician-free zone. It was then much more effective politically. One Commission president was a law professor, another was an engineer, a third was formerly a trades unionist.Together they stood firm against the powerful nationalist policy of de Gaulle who wanted to destroy the very idea of a European Community. Party hacks would have compromised the idea of Justice and European rights.
How do I know? Just look what party politicians are doing today, ignoring treaty articles on citizens’ rights in the smoke of their own propaganda machines! Read their reports to each other!
Now composed of entirely of party politicians contrary to Treaty law, the party political Commission has just explained in a Report how it wishes to seize permanent, undemocratic control of the European Commission. It won’t discuss flagrant political bias and abuse against the citizens, financial corruption and tax.
The treaties say the Commission should be composed of a small number of independent, experienced people from all walks of life. The treaties forbid national governments choosing national representatives. They forbid party politicians becoming Commissioners because that is a temptation for corruption. These rules have been turned on their head.
In 2013 the governments in Council were supposed to reduce the number of Commissioners.  What did they do? They decided without telling the public that the Commission would be entirely composed of party political national buddies acting as representatives. And they refused to tell the public of their decision or discuss it!  Is this shocking fact discussed in the new Commission report?
What do you think?
Last year’s European Parliament election had the lowest turnout of the voters — EVER! It was not due to apathy. The nationalist parties around Europe whether the Scottish Nationalist Party in UK or the National Front (FN) in France or the True Finns in Finland can all bring out their voters. The so-called ‘anti-Europeans’ like UKIP, are also increasing their support. Greece has its neo-Communist, anti-austerity party. Italy barely escaped from its own instant party government led by a comedian Beppe Grillo. In 2013 it rose from nothing to become the largest party in the Italian Chamber of Deputies.
The parallel decline in the European vote while the nationalist vote is booming shows that voters believe that European democracy is not working. The only way Joe and Jane Voter have to influence European policy is to select a nationalist party to fight their corner behind the closed doors of the Council.
Europe celebrated 65 years since its first treaty. Yet it has NEVER had a proper European election as repeated in articles in all the many European treaties. It has 28 national elections for the EP, each with its own electoral rules that favour national cartel parties. This allows some nationals to have the equivalent of ten or more votes and others none! The report says there is a need to act ‘far in advance of the next elections‘ but is the need for uniform, fair electoral rules discussed?
What do you think? What the report discusses is how to get politicians permanently into the 2019 Commission as antidemocratic, nepotistic ‘lead candidates‘. Mr Juncker selected by a handful of EPP faithful then got only 10 percent of the electorate to vote for him. In UK it was close to zero.
(The cartel parties think they know all the tricks. Take the example of the first-past-the-post trick in the Mother of Parliaments. UKIP’s 3.8 million votes resulted in just one seat in the House of Commons! Compare that with 56 MPs the SNP got with only 1.5 million votes! But social media is encouraging instant, rebel or anti-establishment parties, overtaking a century of tradition.)
Both nationalists and anti-Europeans are beaming a red light and blasting a siren warning to Brussels.
The Brussels political clique — composed of the EPP (Christian Democrats), the Liberals and the Socialists — are not listening. Their eyes are tight shut. They are already on the road to try an fleece the voters of democratic rights for the next European Parliament in 2019.
What does the European Commission’s official ‘Report on the 2014 European Parliament elections‘  say? The cover is labelled (or should I say libels) ‘Justice and Consumers‘!

‘The 2014 elections stemmed the steady fall in overall turnout since the first direct Elections in 1979.’

Oh! Really?  If that is so, can all Europeans now go to the betting shop and place a big bet on the election turnout in 2019 being bigger? The Commission, as far as I know, has no powers of prophecy. It has Gaullist-style five-year or ten-year plans such as that for 2000,  and so on to 2020.  After many populations in several referendums had rejected outright what later became the Lisbon Treaties, these ‘plans‘ refused even to discuss democracy. The 2020 plan also refused to discuss energy blackmail that costs Europeans trillions of euros. That for 2030 refused to discuss how Europeans made war both ‘unthinkable and materially impossible‘.
These plans are characterized by myopia and blindness. Today Europeans are robbed by gas and oil energy providers and surrounded by hostile forces in the East and by religious fanatics across the Mediterranean and in the Middle East.
Europe needs proper democracy. Even putting to one side the shock victory of UK Prime Minister David Cameron over the entire gaggle of pollsters, that totally inaccurate prediction of stemming voter decline is not what an impartial Commission of civil servants should be publishing at taxpayers’ expense. It is politicized and politically biased nonsense. Eurocrats are supposed to publish facts not fiction.
The Commission’s full-colour 24-page report has no reference number or ISDN except saying that it is from the Commission’s Justice and Consumer section. The Eurocrat folks there must have a bizarre sense of law and justice and a rather twisted view of consumer rights!
The truth is the 2014 EP election saw the lowest voter participation EVER! Therefore the trend is down, down, and continuously down! There was no upturn. No break in the trend. Here are the actual figures given in the report showing there is no stemming to the downward trend. If it were not for some Member States like Belgium and Greece where voting is mandatory by law, the average would be even lower. Many other States would reflect the woeful rates of the Czech Republic ( with18% turnout) or Slovakia (13%). Here are the figures from the Report itself:
1979      1984      1989      1994      1999      2004      2009      2014
62        59         58.4           56.7         49.5          45.5         43         42.6
percentage voter turnout at European elections.
The politicians who have seized control of the institutions cannot even raise enthusiastic voters among the populace of the new Member States! In Croatia only one in four voted. Why? People ask: ‘What’s it all for, seeing the budget and practical results of the funds are cooked up in secret in closed door budget or tax discussions!’ No press is allowed! What a travesty of ‘no taxation without representation‘ — the cry of the American Revolution. The representatives of Justice and Consumer Affairs have formed an opaque cartel of corruption.
Why would the Commission want to publish a bald fib? The answer is in the Report’s next sentence.

These elections have laid the ground for future European elections and established a clear link between the results of the European Parliament elections and the choice of the European Commission President.

The Report is an official Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. That means it’s an official legal document. It also exposes another lie.
Together with the Court of Justice these bodies represent the real institutions of the European Community system regardless of what the fraudulent, fog-ridden Lisbon Treaties say. (They say that the Court of Auditors, the European Central Bank are institutions. If they really were, why don’t they get a copy?) Only the Council, Parliament and Consultative Committees have the right to revise the Commission’s legislative proposals. Did the Report explain that?
What do you think?
The Founding Fathers said that not only should Members of the European Parliament be elected on uniform European basis, the Members of the Consultative Committees should be elected on a fully European basis. They should represent European economic, regional and professional organizations, with powers equivalent to the Council of Ministers.
The Report asserts that the elections were

the first to take place since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and were fundamentally different from those which preceded them. For the first time, a direct link was established between the outcome of the elections and the appointment of the European Commission President.

This too is a bit of a fib. None of the treaties (including the Lisbon Treaty) say that any legal authority exists linking the EP elections  and the selection of the Commission’s members. They say the REVERSE! Both institutions should be independent of each other. More importantly, and for very good reasons of anti-corruption, the Commissioners should all be totally independent. They should be the opposite of partisan politicians. They should be non-partisan.  Thus the ‘direct link‘ which the report speaks of is a corrupting link! It is flannel designed to flaunt the law of the treaties and Justice!
The Lisbon Treaty merely states that the Commission should be selected after the European Parliament elections. It defines the TIMING. That was thoroughly discussed when the treaty was put together. Many people objected to the ‘parachuting’ of politicians into the Commission.  It is against the letter and spirit of the Community system. Candidates should come from all citizens, engineers, lawyers, NGOs, unionists, journalists, academics, diplomats, all who can show they have a conscience free of party ideology. The Lisbon Treaty actually guaranteed this:

Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. TEU article 10.

The politicians are creating a trick to ‘interpret’ law differently — as a means to create jobs for their party guys. They want the total exclusion of normal citizens who are independent. All who are not members of three main political party groups — about 98 percent of the EU’s population are OUT.
What are the final objectives of the politicians’ cartel on seizing the Commission and making it a party secretariat? They want to make sure for the long-term future that only politicians can be Commissioners.
It is a policy that will lead to disaster. They may get away with it for a bit. But what happens when their national governments change?  What happens when the National Front controls France? What happens when UKIP breaks through the frustrating first-past-the-post barriers and forms a coalition government or — horror of horrors — forms its own government? What happens if and when Scotland with a SNP government separates from the UK? What happens in Spain, Catalonia, Italy, Greece? The rise of one nationalist movement will encourage the rise of nationalism in neighbouring countries or the parent nation.
If the governments become more and more nationalist, then the Commission will be composed in part or in whole of ultra-nationalists!  Who will speak impartially, without fear or favour, for the European common good? Who will stop national governments fiddling the election rules and giving extra votes to its parties? The ‘mainstream’ cartel political parties, who have put their politicians’ careers ahead of citizens’ rights,  will eat the fruit of their own corruption.
Consumers and Justice will suffer most.

Peace1: Why doesn't Europe divulge the keys to its unprecedented peace?

How did the European Union construct the bases for its longest time of peace it ever experienced? The EU presently outstrips the USA in GDP and global trade.
In May, Europe commemorates the end of WW2 in Europe. Europe was left in ruins, its industries destroyed, its populations decimated by killings and injuries, its economies torn by debts and inflation.
May also celebrates a far more important event. Five years after the end of war, Robert Schuman’s Proposal of 9 May 1950 brought about an unprecedented peace: the means to make war ‘not only unthinkable but materially impossible.’
War, impossible?! That sounded extraordinary in the 1950s. The reality is even more extraordinary today.
Europeans are now living in a 70-year period of peace, longer than any other in all written history – more than two thousand years. The core of today’s European Union composing France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, knew war every generation back to before Roman times. Today, three or four generations have never seen their home towns destroyed, their families killed or such horrors as concentration camps or forced labor.
No one foresaw such a peace. It was not ultimately due either to the Marshall Plan of 1947 or NATO, formed 1948, generous though they were.
In March 1950 the US-based Foreign Policy Association published a report on ‘Europe and the United States.’ It was written and finalised by Vera Micheles Dean, its research director. She made an extensive tour of Europe speaking with government ministers and lecturing on US foreign policy around Europe. This think tank expressed the common opinion:
‘We realise… that the United states, no matter how generously inclined, cannot under the most favourable political circumstances re-establish the economy of the continent on the foundations of 1914 or even 1939. Some of the foundations … have vanished beyond salvaging; others are perhaps not a total loss, but … their future contribution to the continent’s economy remains in doubt.
‘No power on earth can remedy Europe’s impoverishment as a result of two world wars. The only remedy one can recommend for the future would be the avoidance of conflicts so costly in terms of human values and material wealth. Whatever we do, Europe will sooner or later have to adjust itself to a radically altered world economic situation and face the fact that the singularly favourable position it enjoyed during the five centuries following the discovery of the Indies and the of the New World and the conquest of the colonies in Asia and Africa is now drawing to a close. While the Russians and the Communists have capitalised on the predicament of western Europe, they did not bring it about.’ Teenage Germans are ‘strongly imbued with Nazi ideas.’
The same conclusion was reached by the annual conference of US ambassadors in Europe in 1949. They considered European solutions as ‘pipe dreams’ and their ‘golden goose’ of the Marshall Plan was being sacrificed to various forms of nationalism. They were keenly aware of Soviet designs on Germany especially the industrial Ruhr.
General Lucius Clay, US Military Governor of Germany in March 1949 concluded: ‘I repeat what I said in a cable a few days ago. We have lost Germany politically and therefore it really does not matter except that history will prove why there was World War III. No gesture can we make to draw Germany westward so why do we spend money on Germany. Thank God I will be out of it soon…’ Papers of General Lucius Clay, p. 1063.
Robert Schuman was often a lone voice. His own political party often opposed him. Yet he was convinced as French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that Europe must use this last chance for peace, others said was impossible. He was not only the designer of the peace, but a shrewd political technician and an impartial visionary for a positive future.
He told the US Secretary of State Acheson before his Proposal that the supranational Community system would produce the greatest period of prosperity since the Middle Ages.
In a world where Europe is increasingly surrounded by war in Ukraine, Georgia, and barbaric violence in the southern Mediterranean, Syria and the Middle East, isn’t it high time we took a longer, harder look at how Europe gained such an enviable peace?
How do the European institutions commemorate ‘Schuman day’ — now proven to hold the key to Europe’s longest peace? They open their buildings to the public and show them their empty offices! What a  way to communicate the moral vacuum of the present political class!

Cartel1 World War Slaughter and Europe's longest Peace

What was the origin of World War One? A gunshot at Sarajevo? Don't you believe it! What started the Second World War then? Hardly another assassination attempt on a grand duke!
Why then is Western Europe now living in the longest period of peace in all its more than 2000 year history? What are the real causes of war? The New Testament Letter of James, the brother of Jesus Christ, to the 12 diaspora tribes of Israel asks 'Where do your wars come from?' and targets selfish, godless, materialistic greed. If that is the cause how did Europe find a solution that brought it unprecedented peace, safety and prosperity?
Has James anything to do with the Schuman Proposal to create a novel and more authentic form of European democracy? The truth of the extent of human greed and lust for power is so shocking and distasteful for the public palate that few politicians or historians are willing to broach the subject.
But our lives depend on being honest with ourselves.
True  democracy is not only about voting choice but about empowering the public good.   A Cartel has the opposite effect to a just Democracy. A small unrepresentative group  of manufacturers, for example, can fix the price of goods and cheat the consumer. A political cartel controls levers of power. Voting brings no results.
Cartels can do far worse. They can dictate war or peace. They can control all aspects of what in the west is considered democratic society. They act for profit against the common good of the people.
This month, April 2015, marks the hundredth anniversary of the slaughter of British, French, Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) soldiers on the Turkish beaches of Gallipoli during the First World War. Many of these brave troops were shot down in a futile attempt to seize the gateway to the Black Sea and outflank Germany's war of the trenches. Worse, they were killed and wounded by British bullets fired from British guns by Turks and Germans. A British warship there was sunk by British mines. Arms were sold to the enemy by British manufacturers in pre-war armaments cartels that surpassed all Europe's borders. In the postwar years British ministers again justified selling more arms to Turkey!
Arms firms sold their wares not even mainly to their 'home' armies and navies but indiscriminately to customers abroad. Quite often the 'home' market paid higher prices than export customers.
'One of the most anti-social, not to say detestable but also the most effective methods of soliciting orders,' said Nobel Peace Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker, {was} 'playing off one country against another'
Using a combination of flattery, patriotism and prestige the Swedish manufacturer of the first submarines fired up its own naval race. The first export submarine was sold in the 1880s to desperately poor Greece. Then two were sold to Turkey. Then after their warning to Russia of the dangers of Turkish submarines in the Black Sea, they sold a newer model to Russia.
Submarines later became a lethal instrument in two world wars, killing thousand of civilians in liners and cargo ships. On 7 May 1915 a German submarine sank the world's largest passenger liner, Cunard's Lusitania with the loss of more than a thousand passengers including 128 Americans. The USA entered the war in 1917.
The second technique was an arms or materials cartel.  Arms firms based in different countries worldwide cooperated in a blood-stenched 'Arms Ring' fleecing the global public.
The arms cartel enveloped all the major 'patriotic' manufacturers, many of which still survive to this day in contrast to the millions of WW1 dead. They include the great national champions of the 'defence industries': Britain's Vickers, Armstrong, Brown, Cammell Laird, France's Schneider-Creusot, Chatillon, Germany's Krupp, Dillingen, Deutsche Waffen, Thyssen, Austria's Skoda, Italy's Terni, USA's Bethlehem Steel, Carnegie Steel. Together with banks like Deutsche Bank, they formed joint companies, like the United Harvey Steel Company in 1901, to expand arms sales, share profits and exchange patents and licenses. Harvey Armour and Krupp armour plate used nickel and chrome in patent processes that firms all shared to boost arms race sales.
The advance of more powerful guns required that warships should be protected with ever thicker steel. By successively creating new techniques for armour-plated ships and then armour-piercing shells and so on, the arms ring was able to sell more and more 'Dreadnaught' or later 'Invincible' battle ships. It also rendered earlier models obsolete. Thus was ignited both a naval arms race and stoking an ever-increasing patriotic desperation for weapons supremacy. The same applied to other land armies with the advent of the machine gun and other inventions.
The power of these cartels extended to banks, the media and parliament and the organs of government. Six months before the start of WW1, Krupp stocked up on strategic materials. This included Nickel from the French monopoly producer, Le Nickel. Its board of directors included a French banker, a British arms trader and two Germans acting for Krupp. The shipments were to be made through neutral Norway. In the weeks after war had broken out, the Norwegian ship, Benesloet, with 2500 tons of nickel, half paid for by Krupp, was stopped by the French cruiser, Dupetit-Thouars.  A court in Brest declared it contraband of war but an urgent message from Paris ordered its release. The Court it Brest refused to comply ... until on 10 October 1914 an order from the Ministry at the insistence of Le Nickel, confirmed its release. Its cargo duly reached Krupp's plant at Essen via Norway.
Thus it became difficult to distinguish who was working for anti-democratic cartels and who wasn't.
As revealed in the new book, Jalonneur, on Robert Schuman and world peace, cartels (ideological, financial and industrial) were the major cause of two World Wars. Schuman's native Lorraine with its high-grade iron ore was the constant German 'war aim' throughout the war because of the German steel and arms cartel.
What happened then? This year in May we commemorate also the longest period of peace in all the recorded history of western Europe. Previously every generation knew war. It had prepared for war, gone to war or was trying to recover from the ruins of war.
No one foresaw such a peace. In 1950 diplomats and think tanks predicted that Europe would continue to be an even more disastrous zone of war and destruction. Schuman was often a lone voice. His own political party opposed him. Yet he was convinced as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that Europe must use this last chance for peace, even if others said it was impossible. In that way he was not only the architect and designer of the peace, but the constructor and technician supervising its foundation. He was a visionary of a future undreamed of.
He told the US Secretary of State before his Declaration that it would produce the greatest period of prosperity since the Middle Ages. Europe embarked on the highway to peace and prosperity  that it had never known in all its past.
Robert Schuman proposed and created the world's first international system to control cartels. Based on the industrial constituents, steel for armaments and coal for energy and the chemical for explosives, Schuman founded the European Community for Coal and Steel. It is the embryo body from which has grown the European Union.
It is not coal and steel that is so important but the democratic means to control cartels.
Today the European Union is faced with hostile and jealous powers that supply the energy it lacks to provide for itself. They also wish to destroy its democratic anti-cartel system.
On the east lies Russia with its huge gas and oil reserves. Together with its former Soviet States of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, Russia today supplies 40 percent of the EU's petroleum. Gas is even more critical. Some EU Member States rely 100 percent on Russian gas from its huge gas monopoly, Gazprom. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, I published a book in 1995, Russia and the Danger for the European Union. It proposed that the EU and Russia could work together to enhance democracy and the use of energy resources. The book was expanded and republished in 2000. Copies were given to the European Commission and other EU leaders without noticeable effect.
War has broken out in Ukraine, the umbilical link for gas to Europe. It is the chokepoint both for gas price blackmail and political leverage on the EU.  The European Commission has now announced that it is beginning to take action against Gazprom for abuse of its dominant position. In other words Gazprom is refusing to recognize the European law. The Kremlin would like to render European law and especially anti-cartel law void so that it can exploit its monopolistic and dictatorial position in some vulnerable States like the Baltics and others that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s the EU refused to take heed of the warning of this danger and create a democratic Energy Community based on supranational principles.
But Russia is not Europe's biggest cartel problem today.
(to be continued)

Jihad9: Muhammad, Schuman and the Limits to Free Speech

On 7 January 2015, France, Europe and the West were faced with people who killed rather than let journalists expose an unpopular truth. Shouting ‘Allah is great‘, three gunmen with automatic weapons launched an attack on the satirical publication, Charlie Hebdo, killing a dozen journalists and others and wounding many more.
News sources recorded reactions of horror. Almost immediately there were also reactions of joy and congratulations at the killings and woundings.  ‘This news quenches the thirst for revenge,’ said one. ‘France was [once] part of the land of Islam and will return to be the land of Islam‘ said another. Some newspapers in Turkey and elsewhere blamed the deaths on the journalists themselves.
Who is responsible for the cold-blooded murders? It was not the pope’s Vatican Swiss guard armed with pikes or orthodox Jews wielding prayer books that sent a death squad. Both the pope and Jews were satirized mercilessly by Charlie Hebdo. What are the limits to what I can say? Can I criticize just the blameworthy, murderous religious leaders and expose them and their books as frauds?

The duty of every human being is to search and find the truth about himself and about society. It is a fundamental to life. Each individual also has the duty before God to seek the truth about the Creation and the Creator.
Truth is not only the foundation of a stable society. It is the enemy of dictatorships, rascals, mafias, conspiracies and villains. The pantheistic Roman emperors decreed that British and Gaulish druidic Kelts should be put to death if found in Rome. Why? They worshipped one supreme being and began all their meetings with their recitation: ‘Truth against the world!‘ Julius Caesar records with some consternation that at their colleges in Britain they trained their youth in sciences, theology and philosophy for twenty years. Rome also decided to destroy all the Jews, and then Christianity. Instead it was pagan Rome that collapsed.
Today, in certain societies it is not always wise to speak the truth out loud. On the southern flank of the Mediterranean from the Atlantic to Egypt and Gaza, it is difficult to find a free distribution of the Bible in Arabic. Under Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, curiously underwritten by the EU, Coptic Christians were islamized by force, or even crucified. Bible shops were burnt. Further east, Christians are killed as soon as they are identified as such by the Islamic State. Thus the attack is much deeper and broader than just a ‘freedom of speech‘ issue.
Democracies should be different.
Democracies, according to Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community, are based on Judeo-Christian principles. The search for truth requires both tolerance and the means to exchange information, knowledge and wisdom. His own life experience also showed an intolerance to those, like the Nazis and Communists, who used the tolerance of democracies to subvert them.
What are the limits to free speech? This is what Schuman wrote in Pour l’Europe, p75.

In an authentic democracy, there is but one limit to freedom: the institutions of the State and society must remain protected from violence and from destructive operations. Every reform, every claim can be not only the object of free discussion, but by individuals or collective activities in relation to public authorities in the framework foreseen by law.

Violence must be outlawed, not discussion. What then is the end result of this ‘free discussion‘? Will it lead to confusion, disputes, anarchy? Clearly not. Nor did Schuman mean the rootless, modern liberalism that would not recognize truth if it stared it in the face. Because someone declares an opinion to be true, does not make it true. Discussion cannot be stopped by ‘political censorship‘ by declaring a topic to be not ‘politically correct‘. Truth has to be tested. Both the Kelts and the Jews demonstrated the method.
Democracies are instruments to search for what Schuman called supranational values: justice, truth, science and authentic communalities that bring together a Community.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said: ‘Today’s murders are part of a larger confrontation, not between civilizations – no – but between civilization itself and those who are opposed to a civilized world.’
What is this ‘civilization‘? It involves rational, patient discussion, and the analysis of all dogma. How does one judge what is dogma and what is truth? Schuman continued:

There is no place here for the sort of dogmatism that can only be claimed by unchangeable and absolute truths, revealed and sanctioned by God, who is the unique Master and Judge of our consciences.

The killing of those who trouble consciences is a heinous violation of this principle.
Schuman further warned of the dangers of theocracy, the combination of religion and politics.

Theocracies fail to recognize the principle of separation of the spiritual and the profane. A theocracy causes a religious idea to take on responsibilities that do not belong to it. Under such a regime political differences are likely to degenerate into a religious fanaticism. Holy war is the most dangerous expression of a bloody exploitation of people’s religious proclivities. (p65)

Those like the Muslim Brotherhood who make an idol of the Koran make the double mistake: that of the book’s infallibility and that of confounding the realms of religion and politics into Sharia law. That governs every aspect of a human’s life. It includes death as a slave for Allah as its highest aspiration. The Egyptian people could not stomach the Muslim Brotherhood or Morsi’s deceit.
Recently, President of Egypt al-Sisi told Egypt’s top clerics and scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar university that they must change their {political} ideology and bring the seventh-century religion up-to-datAe with realities. The ideology had become ‘hostile to the entire world.‘ He asked: ‘Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion Muslims would kill the world’s population of 7 billion, so they could live on their own?‘
What of those who believe the Koran is written in heaven and has intolerance to kaffirs (unbelievers) written as its marching orders? Such beliefs in a movement started by an illiterate person cannot be much countered rationally by other uneducated, illiterate people. Islamic and Arabic countries are among those with the highest levels of illiteracy. Saudi Arabia did not have a single high school until 1930. (But it had the petroleum the West needed!)

For a ‘civilized person‘ to follow Koranic texts without understanding their context and after logical and historical analysis is as illogical as to assume that two, out-of context Christian texts such as ‘Judas went and hanged himself‘ and ‘Go thou and do likewise‘ represent the essence of a well-founded religion.

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services0

Circus8: 2014 'Year of fooling the People' ends with Council's coup by press release!

Europe today is like a tennis club. Imagine you paid fees to a tennis club and that gave you right to elect the executive committee. All the membership agreed in a vote that the executive should be reduced in size and that it should no longer be composed exclusively of white, 60+, male, left-handed, millionaires. Then these same millionaires decided they would take absolutely no notice of the paying membership. They insisted unilaterally that the tennis club needed them even though everyone in the club paid equal fees and wanted change. Would you say it was democracy? The tennis club membership then took a vote of the whole membership. The executive committee refused to recognize the result of votes and referendums, not once but multiple times.
The year 2014 was declared the Year of the Citizen by the Commission. You might remember that 2013 was also declared the Year of the Citizen. No one asked the citizen in either case! The Eurocrats were not ashamed at a unilateral seizure of millions of euros of taxpayers’ money to pay a ‘citizen’s campaign‘. It brought them no success. According to the official report, it was ‘not effective‘ nor did it reach the ‘media or the citizens‘!
So what happened? Were these tricks of the Council and Commission sufficient to fool the people in the election ear for the European Parliament? Did it quieten objections to the political parties parachuting their favourites into the fat-paying Commission jobs?
The Juncker Commission wants to boost the economy by creating a 315 billion euro fund for loans to 'boost jobs and growth.' Will it work with an already devalued currency? How does it compare with the multi-TRILLION stimulus that OPEC, the oil cartel are giving to the world economy? Why is the Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi saying that he has convinced his fellow OPEC member States that oil supplies should manipulated together even if they have to bring the price down from well over 110 dollars a barrel to 20 dollars?
Have the euro crises and other distractions covered the politicians’ predominant moral turpitude? The latter arises where leaders fool the people on major issues while giving the impression from minor events that they are acting fairly and squarely.
What is European democracy‘s major problem? In contrast to our tennis club, there are no restrictions on candidates for the Commission. They can be black, yellow or white, over or under sixty years, they may be rich or poor and they may be right- or left-handed writers. All citizens can be possible candidates for the Commission. What candidates can’t be, according to the oath that all Commissioners take, is the following:

• They can’t be active members of a political party;
• They can’t be tied to an interest like a commercial company, a trade union or a consumer group.
• They cannot seek or take instructions from national governments;
• They must be independent like a judge in a Court of Law.

Governments believe they, against the treaty law, can give instructions to their Commissioners and others in closed door, secret meetings from which the public and press are excluded. Further, the governmental political parties completely ignored the treaty articles about how fair elections European Parliament elections should be run. They have yet yielded to treaty obligations for elections for organized civil society. These measures have been in the treaties since 1951.
The greatest political crimes are perpetrated when CLIQUES of ‘democratic representatives’ change the honest and just rules and allow the electors only to vote on minor matters. Thus they maintain power without proper supervision.
That is the disorder that the European Union is suffering from at the present.
Former French President Valery Giscard D’Estaing condemned the Council’s lack of respect for the Constitutional or Lisbon treaties he helped formulate. ‘There needs to be a more scrupulous respect of the treaties.‘ More than a decade ago it was agreed by all that the size of the European Commission was to be reduced to around a DOZEN people, max.
It was recommended by former members of the Commission. It was demanded by members of organized civil society. It was agreed by all in Convention on the draft treaty. Former European Commission President Jacques Delors said that European Commission must be not exceed about a dozen members plus the president and foreign affairs representative.
It was not only demanded a decade ago. It had been demanded for decades previously from the first expansion of the European Communities in 1973. A small independent Commission with four other independent OPEN institutions are the basis of the supranational system that brought peace to Europe.
So why does the Juncker Commission have 28 Commissioners?
Its size and composition is the BIGGEST democratic issue facing the European public. It is the key institution in the Community method. The Commission is not the politicians’ plaything. Democracy belongs to all the people, all the time.
Reducing its size to a small number of totally independent, qualified personalities has long been the most controversial of EU reforms. The public are sick and tired of party nepotism. Political party pals or defeated/ retired/ expendable politicians are parachuted into high-paying Brussels jobs. Why doesn’t Europe have a sleek group of highly respected impartial and independent Commissioners?
There is a simple answer.
The politicians have fooled the public. Have they fooled all the public? Have they fooled it all the time?
What are the implications of the European Council’s Decree to dismantle Europe’s Community system, made furtively over a fine meal at its 22 May 2013 closed-door meeting?

• It denies qualified citizens their democratic rights to become Commissioners (Art 10 TEU).
• It destroys any democratic purpose for voting in the upcoming European elections.
• It denies the vast majority of European citizens a voice in  Europe’s governance system.
• It  changes the Community Method into a party political Cartel, run by who knows who. This raises the danger that it might be captured by European of international cartels who act against the citizen’s rights and freedoms.
• It reverses all the treaties that say the European Commission should be totally impartial and that its members must not be politicians’ cronies or take instructions from any government, big or small.

Oh! perhaps you did not even hear or read about the Council’s Decree on 22 May 2013. You did NOT miss the debate! The EU’s 27 political leaders did not permit one. Democracy was changed without any public consultation.  The 27 politicians present did not expect you to debate it after they made their decision as Super-Citizens. They acted just like an economic Cartel acts on the market, they secretly control supply and demand of democracy! Like any Cartel it thrives on secrecy.
You did not read about it. It was not mentioned in the final communique of 27 Heads of Government and two of the EU’s many presidents.  You did not hear about it. European Council President van Rompuy and Commission President Barroso did not speak about it at their press conference. Neither did German Chancellor Merkel, nor French President Hollande, nor the British, in the person of Mr Cameron, who say they defend democracy.
I heard only the Irish Taoiseach make the briefest of statements about it at his press conference and quickly rushed on to other matters. The politicians purposely engineered the Agenda and Agenda Notes so that this major decision of the meeting would not appear in the Conclusions!
The control of the Commission by any group of political parties or States means that the Citizen can say Goodbye to impartial EU government. This key supranational institution is designed to safeguard freedom, fight financial fraud and corruption. It is the world’s first institution able to take on international Cartels of companies, international finance or workers and bring them to Court. Cartels involve, for example, business executives from different companies colluding in secret to fix prices and deny competition in the market. The consumer is ripped off.
Cartels may range from many small manufacturers that ‘fix’ prices of bathroom fittings to major internet operators who misuse monopoly powers to energy cartels like OPEC and its subsidiaries that raise the price of oil from a free market value of 5 to 10 dollars a barrel as in 1999 to 147 dollars recently, despite the huge Iraqi and other new fields coming on stream.  Raising of prices has had a depressing multi-trillion euro effect on the economy and employment. Dropping oil prices has destroyed industries (especially alternative energies to oil).
Now the cartel led by Saudi Arabia is dropping oil prices to record lows approaching 50 dollars and aiming lower. It does it simply by opening up the oil taps. A free market does not exist. (In 1999 when the oil price fell to below ten dollars, it exposed what was really a free market price.) When prices rose to 147 dollars a barrel, OPEC cartel was extracting about ten per cent of global GNP! Wow! That really is global blackmail!
How much does the oil/gas cartel filch from the pockets of European citizens by manipulating the price? When the price dropped just 20% to 83 dollars, the world economy received a stimulus package of 1.1 trillion dollars! With a price now fallen by more than 50%, the stimulus is in trillions not a few hundred billions. These enormous sums of money show the power of oil-drug Cartel to blackmail Western societies. Most of what the West gains now is what OPEC blood-sucks from industrialized economies by posting artificially high prices most of the time.
Why did the Saudis now purposefully lower prices? Don’t they lose profits? Yes. But they gain something far more important. A low price completely wipes out the competition of higher cost shale oil and gas. It makes North Sea oil unprofitable. Israel has also uncovered vast oil and gas reserves in the sea between it and Cyprus. The Saudis are so keen on the low price of oil at the moment that they are willing — perhaps for the first time in history — to sell their Saudi oil to Israel!
Why are the Arab oil-producers opening the oil spigots? (The Iranians are against this strategy. They need the money for their Iranian nuclear programme.) The Saudis and Arab oil-producers need to keep the West addicted to oil. The cartel action decimates alternative energy projects. It thus ensures longer lasting oil-dependence when they can eventually raise the oil price in the future. With a protracted period of low prices, financiers will refuse to fund any project that challenges Saudi oil and Gulf gas. Strategically, it wrecks their major competitor– Russia. Russia produces more oil than Saudi Arabia and its whole economy depends on it, including its political stability. Oil and gas are major levers in the global ideological struggle between Islam and Judeo-Christian civilization.
The effect of low oil prices will give a huge boost to the European economy. If Europe had a proper Community style government with an Energy Community as Schuman and the founding fathers recommended, it would have already been enjoying massive benefits for several decades. That is why a non-party political, totally independent European Commission is vitally important. Its election method, composition, and the means to dismiss it for incompetence and corruption concern every citizen and voter. In dishonestly attempting to seize control of it, politicians, themselves, acting in a political Cartel of major parties and excluding their many critics, have declared war on the citizen’s rights and liberties. They are not trusted. Opinion polls show record low trust ratings of  politicians, amid economic and financial corruption and the self-serving construction of the euro.
Party cartel control obfuscates democracy. No change of policy occurs. Politicians can milk the taxpayer’s golden cow. Politicians have selected themselves as Super-Citizens.
The party machines now illegally select the Commission from among their cronies. President van Rompuy himself declared that the ‘governments’ act more like party coalitions dividing up the Commission cake in secret. Instead of a Gaullist Europe it has become Europe ‘a la carte des parties‘. And the parties are now disdained by the European public. The electorate refuses to vote!
The crucial and unanswered question is: Who controls the party machines, pays them subsidies and in backdoor deals sets their policy agenda? Control of the Commission by national government representatives makes backdoor deals the rule to the detriment of weak and small States. Making only politicians eligible as Commissioners as a class of Super-Citizens is contrary to elementary Human Rights of 500 million citizens.
How did this abuse arise?
It is not who votes who rules the government. It is who writes the rules about the voting. The EU has 28 self-serving voting systems not ONE Statute as required by the treaties. That has been in the treaties since 1951 — without governments implementing it. First governments refused to have any election at all, until Parliament took them to Court. Instead of implementing the article, each EU government  fixes the voting system to bar opponents, not to help them.
The governments did the same sort of thing for the Commission which was originally a politician-free zone. Now the Council wishes to hold its thumb on the scales of the ‘honest-broker’ system, the Commission. It makes it dishonestly partisan. It wants to bias the magistrates. The European Council is making clear that no matter what people think, nor how they vote, nor how they protest, a small clique of politicians will decide the result. A Cartel of politicians controls the market of democracy.
Crisis will lead to further crisis. Politicians individually and collectively have failed their ‘stress tests’. MEPs seem quite willing to contort legislation when offered bribes by investigative reporters. Who knows what they do with powerful lobbyists and multinationals?  This is the reason that Schuman and the Founding Fathers insisted that the Council should hold open sessions, something it has refused to do. Why? What is so secret about discussing how citizens’ democracy should work?
The Cartel welcomed crony governments of the left, right and centre into the euro. The crony system does not seek to reform. It admits governments that everyone knew to be corrupt and who cooked the statistics. Then when the inevitable problems arose, they created new money institutions — not subject to the European Court of Justice — that involve handouts five or seven times the amount of money in the entire EU budget!
These same politicians feel they are above the law such as the European Court of Justice. It is their right to deny referendums on treaties, to ignore referendums that are negative, to close down national radio and television as they did in Greece — without even a parliamentary vote or legal power. The free press as the Fourth Estate is an enemy of cronyism.
Do you wish to place your future in the hands of a Politburo with powers without real democratic responsibility? When did it happen?
This latest antidemocratic and corrupt decision on voting was made as the Heads of  Government gathered at their lunch table on Wednesday 22 May 2013. It was a very short European Council, even though it dealt with tax fraud and energy — Europe’s major problem. The unannounced third topic was  to change European democracy — forever!
There was no public debate. Nor did any leader want to start one tomorrow with the public or the press.
The European Council acted like any tinpot dictatorship under Franco, Salazar, Stalin or Hitler,  under which many States formerly suffered . When everyone’s eyes were busy elsewhere it issued a fait accompli, a five- sentence press release!
Now we have democratic collapse by Press Release. This is a step worse than Democratic Abuse by Treaty that populations have thrown out by referendums!
Here is the release:

P R E S S
Dirk De Backer – Spokesperson of the President
Brussels, 22 May 2013
EUCO 119/13
PRESSE 207
The European Council decides on the number of members of the European Commission
The European Council adopted today a decision on the composition of the European Commission. This decision provides that the Commission will continue to consist of a number of members equal to the number of Member States. This number also includes the Commission President and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice President of the Commission (176/12).
The decision, which in effect maintains the current practice, will apply from 1 November 2014.
In view of its effect on the functioning of the Commission, the European Council will review this decision well in advance of the appointment of the first Commission following the date of accession of the 30th Member State or the appointment of the Commission succeeding that due to take up its duties on 1 November 2014, whichever is earlier.
Background
The Lisbon Treaty provided that as of 1 November 2014 the Commission would consist of a number of members corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council unanimously decided otherwise.
Today’s decision puts into effect the political agreement reached at the European Council meetings of 11-12 December 2008 (17271/1/08) and 18-19 June 2009 (11225/2/09) where the heads of state or government noted the concerns of the Irish people with respect to the Lisbon Treaty and agreed to continue the principle of one Commissioner per Member State.

Like a typically ineffective dictatorship, this press release provides a link to the key document that authorizes this overturning of the ‘inconvenient’ Lisbon Treaty articles. Check 176/12 that is the Decision of the European Council. It is

• a document whose drafting dates from 2012
• it is undated;
• it is unsigned !!
• it makes no reference to any democratic authority, such as the European people’s voice, referendums, the European Parliament, national parliaments, the Economic and Social Committee or any other Consultative Committee. It refers to no economic debate except the bribe made on the second Irish referendum. Nor does it explain why under European Council ‘Democracy’ the first was invalid and a second was called for. Everywhere else in the world a No means No.

Where the document says ‘Decision of the European Council’ it really means DECREE. The Tsarist Russians would call it an Ukase. It has no democratic base, authority or legitimacy.
It is a bluff because the European Council is trying to pass off as EU law what amounts to a secret, unilateral fait accompli.
In other words, the European Council wants to change the democratic system of the original treaties by a Press Release and by an UNSIGNED, IRRELEVANT DRAFT document. Furthermore its authority is a Spokesman, a paid official not a democratically elected representative.
This press release also puts a deceitful spin on history. In December 2008, the Lisbon Treaty was not active.
It was dead! In fact it was twice dead. The European Council  declared it was alive! This is what the European Council acting as a Politburo declared:

The European Council re-affirms that the Treaty of Lisbon is considered necessary in order to help the enlarged Union to function more efficiently, more democratically and more effectively including in international affairs. With a view to enabling the Treaty to enter into force by the end of 2009, the European Council, while respecting the aims and objectives of the Treaties, has defined the following path.
On the composition of the Commission, the European Council recalls that the Treaties currently in force require that the number of Commissioners be reduced in 2009. The European Council agrees that provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision will be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

The treaty proposal had just been rejected by the Irish electorate in a referendum. A number of other countries had also rejected the Lisbon Treaty in its former appearance as the Constitutional Treaty — France (55%) and the Netherlands (62%). The British, Czechs, Irish, Polish and the Danish who had been promised referendums did not have one as the politicians expected even more crushing rejections.
The Cartel politicians decided to impose the Treaty by autocratic force. The Constitutional Treaty was shorn of a few clauses. Important ones? Judge for yourself. They deleted the article providing for a European flag and a European Anthem. They are no longer official. Hadn’t you noticed? The Commission’s Berlaymont Building and all other EU buildings are surrounded by DOZENS of European flags!
The Constitutional Treaty was rewritten as amendments to the Treaty of the European Economic Community. (The Rome Treaty of Euratom, the non-proliferation treaty, was not affected.) As a list of amendments, it was incomprehensible as a functioning system. Nevertheless, some Parliaments such as Hungary passed it even before the parliamentarians had received the consolidated text! The European Parliament to its great shame refused even to publish the complete text!
Then the French changed their Constitution so that the French government could refuse another referendum. The other governments refused to hold referendums again. Except the Irish! They voted. They rejected it. They thought the Lisbon Treaty rubbish or dangerous. They were told to vote again and this time Yes. If they did they could retain an Irish Commissioner (to guard Irish interests).  They would be more than OK. They would also get ample EU money to boost the economy. Tell that to them now!
The Lisbon Treaty was not agreed by many peoples in the Member States, either because governments refused to recognize the referendums, or allow one to take place or because they even changed the Constitution to refuse people the right to reject the Lisbon Treaty, as they had the Constitutional Treaty (with which it was practically identical, except for a flag and a song!).
This is the chronology of the anti-democratic slide to Politburo takeover:
1951 Treaty of Paris with 9 Commissioners, eight nominated by Member States and one selected by these eight without recourse to State nomination. This Commissioner is mandated by the others. The Community’s major principle was to oppose to any form of dangerous cartel and restive practice. Hence the Commission must be independent, non-ideological,  impartial and act as ‘economic magistrates’ to ensure rules are obeyed for the expansion of production and lowering of prices in a single market.
1957 Treaties of Rome EEC with 9 Commissioners; Euratom with 5 Commissioners from the six Member States. The treaty of Paris specified that numbers may be reduced. It did not permit an increased number for these States. Europe’s three Communities show that the Commission must be independent of national governments.  Instead, following de Gaulle’s war on the Community,  governments increasingly parachuted their own political representatives rather than selecting impartial Europeans.
At the turn of the century abuse was rife. The public objected to the constant parachuting of politicians into the Commission. Politicians were dominating and States offering independent candidates were fewer and rarer. Instead of a small independent group the Commission became bloated with overpaid political cronies.
An Amsterdam Treaty protocol and the 2000 Nice Treaty (article 213) then limited all States to one Commissioner only, forgetting conveniently that the treaties say nowhere that a State has a right to a Commissioner. (The treaties say the opposite — which is why when there were six Member States, the Euratom Community had only five Commissioners.) The Commission was becoming a club of wall-to-wall political cronies. With the major enlargement of 2004, something had to be done.
The Convention presided by former French President Giscard d’Estaing drafted a Constitutional treaty where the Commission had to be reduced in number. This made clear that the Commission was not a dumping ground for politicians, one for each State.
With the enlargement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a Protocol to the Amsterdam treaty specified that the number of Commissioners should not exceed the number of Member States.
In 2008 the existing treaty of Nice required that the Commission must be reduced in numbers to avoid overstaffing and turning it into an international secretariat.
The Irish people were refused a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty in 2005 or 6. They rejected the Lisbon Treaty in June 2008 by 53.4 to 46.6%. In October 2009 the Irish were humiliatingly told to think again in a second referendum.
If you check the 2008 European Council Communique quoted by the Spokesman, you will see that the European Council admits it has no democratically solid basis for the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore no legally sound basis exists  either (a) to accept the Lisbon Treaty draft against the clearly stated wish of the people and  (b) to change a difficult article in the Treaty that the politicians had forced through parliaments by block votes.
The decision to accept the treaty (to be called the Lisbon Treaty) that had been rejected by Irish voters was made in the middle of the night. None of the CITIZENS of 27 nation States were consulted. The Communique admits that it was a political decision, decided by politicians. It does not say it was for their own benefit and not the public’s but that was obvious.
The big problem was Ireland. Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty. Under any normal democracy that would have dumped the Treaty in the bin. The European Council meeting after midnight also agreed to bribe the Irish electorate who had rejected the Lisbon Treaty as undemocratic. They said that Ireland must vote again— itself an extraordinary affront to democratic procedure. The bribe consisted of overturning the Lisbon Treaty’s stipulations that the Commission should not be European and composed of a small number of Commissioners. It would become international and composed of National Commissioners and by implication give party politicians in government the right to chose one of their cronies to be a Commissioner. No article of the Lisbon, constitutional or any other treaty gives governments powers to invest cronies with this office.
There are NO SUPER-Citizens in the EU who have preferences and exclude normal citizens. The Council's document supposedly

• supporting their ability to nominate national representatives (against treaty law) and
• only from political parties of the socialist, liberal and 'Christian democratic' persuasion lacks any democratic basis. (It goes against treaty law and a discrimination against the CITIZENS and their human rights to participate).

It is a fraud. It has no democratic approval or authority. It is merely a self-serving splinter for political fraudsters.
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st00/st00176.en12.pdf
This occurred after all in the first Year of the Citizen, one of two consecutive ones decreed by the Party Machines. Do you expect the party Machines to open up a debate with the Citizen about such a trivial matter as Democracy? This new decree says: 'European governance is the private business of government 'fixers' and parties! Citizens do not stick your noses in it!'
In short it says that the European Commission can remain a dumping ground of national politicians -- in complete violation of treaty law. Cronyism is to become the new law.
The British who say the EU must be reformed failed their electorate. They chose as their nominee for the Commission, a party politician who was formerly called a lobbyist. He was parachuted into Brussels with a high salary but no public support or knowledge. No matter what the public think of him or the Prime Minister’s choice, this is an egregious example of corrupt cronyism. The treaties exclude politicians from applying for the post of Commissioner as they say that Commissioners should

‘be chosen on the grounds of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt.’

I will avoid saying anything about the general competence of politicians. However there are many, many people in Europe, in European NGOs, in the offices of the Ombudsmen, in Law, Business, workers’ and Human Rights who have a great deal more competence than many politicians show. They may also have independence, that is, the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced and non-ideological.
Politicians are automatically excluded from any candidature because a political party tends to be ideological. That is, it has preferences of one side in society over another. Such people cannot be considered ‘honest-brokers.’
It is a designation that thumbs its nose at the public.
The Governments continue their practice of a bloated Byzantine bureaucracy. This was initiated by de Gaulle and his anti-Community henchmen. Its aim? to turn  the Commission into a political secretariat.
The Community system is now being reshaped into a Dictatorship, not of the Proletariat, but of the Party Machines. The same party machines have failed to attract even a half of the electorate. New anti-cartel parties are springing up with large followings everywhere.
It is not only the EU that is reached a crisis of democracy, but the national governments too.

Circus7: Contempt for a public oath of impartiality underscores EU Commission's illegitimacy

Commissioners are obliged by Treaty law to swear or affirm on their honour that they are absolutely impartial and independent. They must pledge not to take any instructions or seek instructions from governments, political parties or any interest groups or any ‘entities’, that is, anybody else.
Is that clear? Believers in divine justice in our democratic Judeo-Christian society, make an oath or affirmation before God. Those who are agnostic or atheists make an affirmation before their conscience (as their record for the Day of Judgement).
So far the Juncker Commission — whose members deem themselves to be in office — has contemptuously failed to take the oath of office. Today they are merely politicians, selected by governments as their personal and national representatives. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of treaties since 1951 — even  of the misbegotten Lisbon Treaty that violated national referendums.
Over the years, as Europe’s honest broker showed itself less than honest, the Commission tried to make the oath an obscure and hidden operation. Was that because of a bad conscience about funding wasteful wine and milk lakes, meat mountains, butter bergs and politicians’ pet projects of useless airports, bridges and motorways to nowhere?
Taking an oath of office should be a celebration of legitimacy and public support. It follows general national practice in democracies. Members of governments, privy counsellors, members of national parliament generally take an oath of office BEFORE they take office. The US President takes his oath of office very publicly — with a whole day of celebration and before the widest audience possible. It is all broadcast on radio, television and the internet.
Why does the European Commission feel it is above the law?
A European Commission that refuses to take a very open and public oath of impartiality and independence while freely drawing its salary is acting contrary to Treaty law. This requires that they make a ‘solemn undertaking‘ BEFORE they start work. Why wait? What are they up to now?  Making inappropriate deals? Perhaps obscuring problems and crises that may involve personal, party or national interests? Do they think they are permitted to violate the Treaties before they take the oath?
It is no argument to say ‘We will take the oath later, when we have time.‘ It puts the office in contempt. Where does logic or law say an oath of impartiality or any oath can act retrospectively?
Commissioners do not take office UNTIL they have pledged their suitability in an oath of impartiality. If they doubt this ask the judges at the European Court of Justice! Their oath is made as their entry into office. The President of the Court confirms the Commissioners' oath to be the essential link BEFORE installation to office.
Why have 28 Candidate Commissioners, who should encapsulate honest politics, all remained silent about the issue?
The following is the oath of independence they have to agree to. Just reading it makes it plain that it must be sworn or affirmed BEFORE they start work.

“Having been appointed as a Member of the European Commission by the European Council, following the vote of consent by the European Parliament

I solemnly undertake:

• to respect the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of all my duties;
• to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union;
• in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity;
• to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties or the performance of my tasks.

“I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.
“I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligation arising therefrom, and in particular the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after I have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits.”

If Commissioners only take this oath months after taking office, does that mean that they can say in Court that what they did illegally before taking the oath is permissible as they are not obliged to be impartial before? Hardly. That is why the oath should be taken immediately and very publicly.
The first oath was not made in secret. Nor in the building of the European Court of Justice. It was made in the most public place, the City Hall of Luxembourg, before a big audience and national observers. A Court environment is useful to remind Commissioners that they have a legal obligation to be impartial. If they are not, they can be taken to Court.
But what is more important for the EU as a whole is that this oath should be widely known by all European citizens. All the ‘entities‘, the interest groups and all the many lobbies and lobbyists should see and hear it. They should know it is illegal to communicate with the Commission in secret. The treaties give specific means so that the Commission can be fully informed about all issues in Europe without secret lobbying of governments, companies and political parties.
Today it makes more sense that the oath should be taken in Brussels, before the public and the press, and broadcast to the whole Continent and the world. The Commission should act like any mature democracy does. Why? Because the entire population of more than half a billion people in the EU need to hear that all Commissioners pledge absolutely that they will not receive instructions, nor seek them. They will make decisions according to their conscience and as openly as possible.
Their oath, like that of the judges of the European Court of Justice, is intended to be taken before they start work. In the case of the Commission the oath is even more detailed than the judges’ about the impartiality that they must acknowledge and follow. Any deviation from impartiality will bring them to the European Court of Justice.
At the moment the Commissioners have not promised anything. Yet the Commission is in a crisis about tax fraud, tax evasion and avoidance  and a number of other serious matters.
How will the unsworn Commission act now towards the citizen — who pays their salaries? What about ‘tax havens‘ for the world’s biggest companies? If the global companies do not pay tax, the burden falls on small companies and poor individuals.
Consider the matter of the State extracting your personal or small company taxes. You are brought to a Court of Law. How would you react if faced with a judge highly prejudiced and partisan against you? Distrust and fear.
How about a judge who was directly chosen by ‘entities and interest groups‘ who have already taken 40 percent of your income? For your case, they especially chose a judge who has declared and demonstrated his partisanship for decades. He maintained with pride his strong links to parties and specific interest groups.
I am not referring to a mere magistrate but the most powerful judge in the land. What if the judge was involved in multi-billion euro deals with the very people who were stripping you bare of your meager resources?
Wouldn’t you cry: INJUSTICE! Your whole being would revolt against the system. All Courts across the land would lose public confidence, their legitimacy would be reviled. People would forms groups based on their separate outrages to overturn and destroy the system. Society would be divided between the rulers and the skeptics. Europe will fragment. It’s happening.
What are the most powerful actors against individuals in society? Many would consider governments wield the most power. Consider how much tax they raise from society. They usually take up to half of all income.

2012 Tax on national income
Country		% burden
Austria		43.1%
Belgium		45.4%
Bulgaria		27.9%
Cyprus		35.5%
Czech Rep.		35%
Denmark		48.1%
Estonia		32.5%
Finland		44.1%
France		45.0%
Germany		39.1%
Greece		33.7%
Hungary		39.2%
Ireland		28.7%
Italy		44.0%
Latvia		27.9%
Lithuania		27.2%
Luxembourg		39.3%
Malta		33.6%
Netherlands		39.0%
Poland		32.5%
Portugal		32.4%
Romania		28.3%
Slovakia		28.3%
Slovenia		37.6%
Spain		31.8%
Sweden		44.2%
United Kingdom		35.4%

EU28:                       39.4%   (Eurostat 2014).
History tells us that the State provides benefits but also abuses its powers. Some governmental groups, for example political parties, are assumed to incorporate the needs and interests of sections of the population. But their policies are often made in secret and donors to party funding often dictate the policies.
In the UK House of Parliament, whose members like to consider themselves the paragons of democracy, the following exchanges took place on 10 July 2013:

Ed Miliband, leader of the Opposition Labour Party: The Prime Minister ‘ is owned by a few millionaires at the top of society and everyone knows it.’
PM Cameron: ‘The trades unions own you (Mr Miliband) lock, stock and block vote. … They buy the candidates (for Parliament), they buy the policies, they buy the leader.’

Some consider that large corporations now detain the world’s most formidable powers. Even by 1900s commercial companies represented around half of the world’s largest entities, bigger than many national States. Today Corporations are huge. They provide goods and services for the public. They act globally. But who really controls them? Certainly not the public, it seems.
But the Commission is the world’s first international anti-cartel agency. For good reason. Cartels were the major cause of World War One. If the Commissioners are not staunchly impartial and seen to be impartial, how can the Commission control global cartels, global tax fraud, international mafias and illicit foreign exploitation of the EU’s internal energy and financial markets?
Corporations want maximum profits, minimum taxation. Hence they want to make secret tax arrangements with some governments so that they can avoid paying tax in all the Member States. And then the other States complain of lost revenues. The corporations work such ‘fiscal competition‘ to their own benefit.  Multinationals can parachute their flexible ‘headquarters‘ into the most favourable State. Small States offer ‘sweetheart deals’. That means depriving other States of tax, but it means that small States can benefit hugely. If they tax the multinationals only a small percentage, it is a major boost to the small national budget. The large States– which might have large revenues if taxed at ordinary rates — are left high and dry. ‘European‘ tax has in theory been paid.
A dog-fight behind closed doors between them and tax administrations occurs. Governments are desperate to be able to tax the most lucrative corporations in the world. The public does not see the counter-struggle of the multinationals who fob off one administration against another and select the cheapest option. The Robber State is robbed and conned.
Now consider the public. What is their view? Because the corporations are paying low tax, the general public in all countries is paying higher personal tax.
Tax is levied by the State or rather the party politicians. They want to remain in power. How can they go about it? They usually try to bribe the public by offering ‘services‘, by creating ‘infrastructure’, by providing what they call ‘benefits‘ to certain groups who will vote for them. The also create bureaucracies and inefficiencies. Is their choice always correct and fair? Obviously not! That is why one lot of rascals gets thrown out in elections and another lot of rascals gets put in place.
However, nowadays it is harder and harder for the average citizen to distinguish between parties of ‘left‘, ‘right‘ or ‘centre‘. They seem all to be working on the same agenda. Some suspect this is ‘fleece the public‘ and maintain a well-paid career. Youngsters leave university, join the party apparatus and they spend the rest of their life in the service of the party. Nowadays it is common for politicians to have never held any other job or earned a proper salary in their life.
The main distinction people see nowadays is between newly formed parties that wish to leave or destroy the European Union with its obvious corruption, and those who wish to maintain the status quo.
How can the honest, hardworking citizen find an exit to this sorry tale of corrupt entanglement and self-interest by

• States
• Politicians
• Corporations
• Cartels and paper companies
• Trades unions
• Other interest groups
• External cartels and exploiters?

As Giscard d’Estaing reminded Brussels institutions recently, the Treaty says the Commission should be reduced to 13 or at maximum 15 persons. No public debate has been conducted, nor has public approval been given that justifies the Council delinquency in demanding 28 Commissioners, one for each Prime Minister.

• The European Commission is not the exclusive zone for hiring party old politicians and excluding eminent members of the public who are not party political. The concept of the Commission being made up of only national representatives is repellent, odious and an affront to the Community’s supranational principle.
• A small, impartial Commission should be in permanent dialogue with duly-elected Consultative Committees who represent the whole European Community, its economy, its regions and its energy resources.
• The Council of Ministers is the institution for expressing national positions. The Commission is not their secretariat.
• The European Parliament is the place for political parties to express their views. The treaties say it should be elected according to a Single Statute for the whole of Europe. Politicians refused. Voters have been diddled out of their voice for more than sixty years. The politicians should be defending the individual who is in need and not consciously or indirectly furthering blind party politics.