Judge Andrew Napolitano (A Nation of Sheep) interviews Nigel Farage.
Showing posts with label treason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label treason. Show all posts
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Criminal Truth
The latest Pat Condell video is a very important one. Pat clearly explains what the Main Stream Media do not want to address, and that's how the peoples of the Western culture are being sold out to islam by making the truth a crime. Once upon a time, treason was punishable by death. These days, the traitors are applauded by their peers, leaving their subjects to pay the price, at gunpoint.
This is what you get when cowardly power-mongers assume the power & violence monopoly of the state. Honest and honorable citizens have no fighting chance defending themselves against these thugs. It may require a people's uproar like currently is taking place in the islamic world; unfortunately, those will ensure the Muslim Brotherhood will assume power, and all those people now burning the streets and looting the shops will find themselves in vessel states of Iran before they realize it, and possibly be longing for times gone by very soon.
I wish I could say: "Enjoy Pat's latest", but there's precious little to enjoy. However, this video is a must see for anyone who still values what's been left of our culture and freedom. Dear reader, I present you Pat Condell's The Criminal Truth. Peace.
This is what you get when cowardly power-mongers assume the power & violence monopoly of the state. Honest and honorable citizens have no fighting chance defending themselves against these thugs. It may require a people's uproar like currently is taking place in the islamic world; unfortunately, those will ensure the Muslim Brotherhood will assume power, and all those people now burning the streets and looting the shops will find themselves in vessel states of Iran before they realize it, and possibly be longing for times gone by very soon.
I wish I could say: "Enjoy Pat's latest", but there's precious little to enjoy. However, this video is a must see for anyone who still values what's been left of our culture and freedom. Dear reader, I present you Pat Condell's The Criminal Truth. Peace.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Yes! The Irish said NO!
The Irish have voted NO to the Lisbon Treaty, aka the Lisbon Treason. The pro-EU camp is devastated, certain as they were that their Goebbels-like propaganda would have ensured a yes majority. Dutch television reported disappointedly that 'this is a black day for Europe. The treaty that intended to make the EU more democratic has been rejected by the Irish'.
How's that: more democratic? The treaty was aimed at shifting more power from the nation states to the unelected leaders of Eurabia. The EU was already preparing the abolishion of the WOB, the law that forces politicians to provide insight in their governemental procedures and decisions, whenever requested.
Balkenende, the Dutch PM that boasted that he had made the Treaty acceptable to the Dutch by removing the flag and the song, and ensuring there would be no EU President, already announced that he will ignore the Irish NO and go ahead as planned. Interestingly, Dutch television also reported that preparations for selecting (mind you, not electing) the EU president (say what?) would now be delayed. It also claimed that the EU should not be stopped by only one country being against it.
What happened to the demand of unanimous consent? How is only one country against it? To begin with, there are three countries against it (FR, NL and IE, in that order) and most of the others never got the chance to speak out.
The Irish were the only ones that were granted a referendum. It was mandatory because of the Irish constitution, and it's binding: Irish government can't just ignore it. As the Treaty is almost identical to the earlier Constitution, voted off by the French and the Dutch, there are now three countries not accepting the Treaty, but the French and Dutch governments chose to ignore their citizens in favor of their own political careers.
Balkenende hopes to become the first EU president, but Blair has also put his sights on that position, as has Sarkozy. Balkenende stands a fair chance though, as he is weak and has no will or power of his own. He is the ideal puppet for the big players, as he provides them with the ideal scapegoat for their totalitarian intentions.
The Irish Connemara turned out a 85% NO vote, reason enough for me to go out and buy a bottle of Connemara Irish Peated Single Malt, as a token of my appreciation, and have something to celebrate the Irish NO with at the same time.
How's that: more democratic? The treaty was aimed at shifting more power from the nation states to the unelected leaders of Eurabia. The EU was already preparing the abolishion of the WOB, the law that forces politicians to provide insight in their governemental procedures and decisions, whenever requested.
Balkenende, the Dutch PM that boasted that he had made the Treaty acceptable to the Dutch by removing the flag and the song, and ensuring there would be no EU President, already announced that he will ignore the Irish NO and go ahead as planned. Interestingly, Dutch television also reported that preparations for selecting (mind you, not electing) the EU president (say what?) would now be delayed. It also claimed that the EU should not be stopped by only one country being against it.
What happened to the demand of unanimous consent? How is only one country against it? To begin with, there are three countries against it (FR, NL and IE, in that order) and most of the others never got the chance to speak out.
The Irish were the only ones that were granted a referendum. It was mandatory because of the Irish constitution, and it's binding: Irish government can't just ignore it. As the Treaty is almost identical to the earlier Constitution, voted off by the French and the Dutch, there are now three countries not accepting the Treaty, but the French and Dutch governments chose to ignore their citizens in favor of their own political careers.
Balkenende hopes to become the first EU president, but Blair has also put his sights on that position, as has Sarkozy. Balkenende stands a fair chance though, as he is weak and has no will or power of his own. He is the ideal puppet for the big players, as he provides them with the ideal scapegoat for their totalitarian intentions.
The Irish Connemara turned out a 85% NO vote, reason enough for me to go out and buy a bottle of Connemara Irish Peated Single Malt, as a token of my appreciation, and have something to celebrate the Irish NO with at the same time.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Lisbon Treason
What the treaty of Lisbon does
An EU Constitution
The Treaty of Lisbon is a revamped version of the treaty which gave the EU its own Constitution over and above the constitutions of its Member States, but which the peoples of France and Holland rejected in referendums in 2005. Instead of accepting that decision the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents decided to give the EU a constitution indirectly rather than directly, but not to call it a Constitution, and on no account to hold referendums on it for fear people would reject it again.
Why an Irish referendum?
A referendum must be held on it in Ireland however because the Supreme Court laid down in the 1987 Crotty case that sovereignty in this State rests with the Irish people and that only they can surrender sovereignty to the EU by referendum, or else refuse to surrender it as the case might be. The purpose of the referendum would be to change the Irish Constitution so as to make EU law superior to Irish law in the areas set out in the Lisbon Treaty.
Lisbon gives the EU a constitution indirectly rather than directly: The two current basic European Treaties are called "The Treaty on European Union"(TEU) and "The Treaty on the Functioning of the Union"(TFEU). These two documents include all the previous treaties from the 1957 Rome Treaty to the 2002 Nice Treaty. The EU Constitution which the French and Dutch rejected would have repealed these two treaties and replaced them with a document called "A Constitution for Europe". The Lisbon Treaty implements 96% of the legal content of this "Constitution for Europe" by proposing amendments to the two basic EU Treaties and thereby turning them into the effective Constitution of the new Federal EU that Lisbon would bring about.
The following are the main changes Lisbon would make in the EU's two constituent Treaties:
1. Lisbon makes the EU Constitution superior to the Irish Constitution in all areas of EU law: We would still keep the Irish Constitution, but "Declaration 17 concerning Primacy", which is attached to Lisbon, makes clear that EU law would have primacy over and be superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two. EU law and national law deal with different areas and matters, but the EU now makes the majority of our new laws each year. The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU the power to make laws binding on us in many new areas - see points 6 and 8 below - and would take that power away from the Irish Dáil and from Irish citizens who elect the Dáil.
2. Lisbon gives the EU the constitutional form of a supranational European Federal State and turns Ireland and the other Member States into regions or provinces of this Federation: It does this in three legal steps: (a) giving the new European Union which it would bring into being its own legal personality and independent corporate existence for the first time, separate from and superior to its Member States; (b)abolishing the European Community which we have been members of since 1973 and replacing it with the new Union; and (c)bringing all spheres of public policy either actually or potentially within the scope of the new Union. From the inside this new post-Lisbon EU would seem to be based on treaties between States; from the outside it would look like a State itself. It would have all the normal powers of a Federal State except the power to force its Member States to go to war against their will. Lisbon would then make us all real citizens of this new Federal EU for the first time, owing to it the normal citizen's duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority. One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. We would still retain our Irish citizenship, but the rights and duties attached to that would be subordinate to those of our EU citizenship in any case of conflict between the two. Post-Lisbon, we would be like citizens of Virginia vis-a-vis the USA, or like citizens of Bavaria vis-a-vis Federal Germany. This new Federal EU would sign Treaties with other States, would have its own political President, Foreign Minister and foreign and security policy, its own diplomatic service and voice at the UN, and its own Public Prosecutor. It would make most of our laws and would decide what our basic rights are in all areas of EU law.
If the EU's politicians are creating an EU Federation, that Federation should be run along normal democratic lines, with its laws both proposed and made by people who are elected to make them, either in the European Parliament or National Parliaments, and not by the EU Commission, Council of Ministers and Court. But that is not on offer in the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon means less democracy at EU level, not more.
3. Lisbon shifts influence over law-making and decision-taking in the EU towards the Big States and away from the smaller ones like Ireland: It does this by replacing the voting system for making EU laws that has existed since the 1957 Rome Treaty by a primarily population-based system which would give most influence to the Member States with big populations and reduce the influence of smaller ones like Ireland. Under Lisbon a "weighted" or "qualified" majority vote(QMV) for making EU laws in future would be 15 States out of 27 as long as they included 65% of the EU's total population. When Ireland joined the then EEC in 1973 we had 3 votes in making European laws as against 10 each for the Big States, a ratio of one-third. Under the current Nice Treaty arrangements we have 7 votes as against their 29 each, a ratio of one-quarter. Under Lisbon Ireland would have 4 million people as against Germany's 82 millon, a ratio of one-twentieth, and an average of 60 million each for France, Italy and Britain, a ratio of one-fifteenth. Under Lisbon Ireland's voting weight vis-a-vis the other 26 Member States would fall to one-third its present level, from 2% to 0.8%. Germany's would go from 8% to 17%, France's from 8% to 13%, Britain's from 8% to 12%.
4. Lisbon removes Ireland's right to a permanent EU Commissioner: The Commission is the body which has the monopoly of proposing all EU laws, which are then made by the Council of Ministers, with some powers of amendment for the European Parliament. Under Lisbon Ireland would have no member on the Commission for one out of every three Commission terms. This means that for five years out of every fifteen, laws affecting all our lives would be put forward entirely by a committee of EU officials on which there was no representative from Ireland. The Big EU States would lose their right to a permanent Commissioner also, but their size and weight give them other means of exerting influence on that key body. As Dr Garret FitzGerald and others have emphasised over the years, being represented on the EU Commission is especially important for smaller States like Ireland.
5. Lisbon deprives the Irish Government of its right to decide who Ireland's Commissioner would be when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission: It provides that Ireland's present right to "propose" a national Commissioner and to have that proposal accepted by the others if we are to accept their proposals, would be replaced by a right to make "suggestions" regarding a name, but with no guarantee that a particular suggestion would be accepted by the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents who would decide the list of Commissioners as a whole by qualified majority vote. If the Irish Government were to suggest someone as its EU Commissioner who had, for example, antagonised the government of some other Member State in the past, or who was regarded as not enthusiastic enough for further EU integration, it could be asked to suggest another name as more acceptable. The Commission President, appointed by vote of the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents, would in practice decide who Ireland's Commissioner would be. The new Commission President could ask a Commissioner to resign at any time, just as a Taoiseach has full control over his cabinet. The new Commission would be like an EU Government, except that this government would not be elected by the citizens.
6. Lisbon gives the European Union the power to make laws in 32 new areas that are removed from the Dail and other National Parliaments: These new areas of EU law-making include civil and criminal law, justice and policing, immigration, public services, energy, transport, tourism, space, sport, culture, civil protection, public health and the EU budget. There would be majority voting also by EU Foreign Ministers as regards implementing decisions in foreign policy. The EU Council of Ministers would obtain power to take decisions by qualified majority vote on many matters other than EU laws - amounting to 68 in all - so that Member States would no longer exercise a veto regarding them.
This increase in EU powers simultaneously increases the personal power of the 27 national politicians who make up the EU Council of Ministers by enabling them to make further laws behind closed doors for 500 million Europeans, while taking power away from the citizens and national Parliaments which elect those politicians and which have made these laws for their own countries up to now. Each shift of power from the national level to the EU entails a further shift of power from the Irish Dail and people to Irish Government Ministers at EU level. It hollows out our national democracy further. The Treaty also increases the power of the non-elected Brussels Commission, which has the monopoly of proposing European laws to the Council of Ministers, by giving it many new policy areas to propose laws for.
7. Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to EU control of Ireland's company taxes: Lisbon inserts a new Article 48 into the"Treaty on European Union", the "simplified revision procedure", which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents by unanimious agreement among themselves to shift many areas of the treaties where unanimity now exists to qualified majority voting without the need for new treaties or referendums. This is called the "escalator clause", which former French President Giscard d'Estaing said was "a central innovation" of the EU Constitution he helped draft. This shift to majority voting would cover areas like company taxation, but exclude defence and military matters. A National Parliament can veto the use of this mechanism, but citizens can not, as we would have accepted this method of rule by agreeing the Lisbon Treaty. National Parliaments usually back their Prime Ministers anyway. After Lisbon is ratified there would be no need, practically speaking, for further EU referendums.
If the Taoiseach of the day has agreed with his fellow Prime Ministers and Presidents, the switch to majority voting on company taxes would go through. If he has agreed, the National Parliament could revolt against him and object, but it is not required to vote for the use of the "escalator". This leaves the citizens in the position of depending entirely on the backbone of the current Taoiseach or his successor to continue defending Ireland's company tax position, which has been so important in bringing foreign firms to Ireland and so central to our modern economic development. Already the EU Commission has drafted proposals for introducing a Common EU Tax Base for Company taxes, but has postponed its publication until after the Irish referendum. Does this encourage confidence that the "escalator clause" will not be used to bring in EU tax harmonisation?
Lisbon opens another door to EU tax harmonisation if national differences in company tax lead to "distortion of competition"(Art.93 TFEU). This amendment inserted by Lisbon would enable the EU Court of Justice to apply the EU's internal market rules on competition matters, where majority voting applies, to matters of company tax. This could be another way around the present unanimity requirement for such taxes.
Lisbon also permits the EU to raise its "own resources" by means of any kind of new EU tax to finance the attainment of its many objectives(Art.269 TFEU). The 27 EU Prime Ministers and Presidents would have to decide unanimously what taxes to impose, and once National Parliaments approved, that would be that. There would be no need of a referendum in Ireland or anywhere else in the EU, for we would have permitted this development by voting for Lisbon. It is hard to imagine the 27 EU Prime Ministers and Presidents refraining from exercising this power to give the new post-Lisbon Union its own major tax revenues once it is up and running under their political direction.
8. Lisbon gives the EU the power to decide our human and civil rights: The new Treaty gives the EU the final power to decide what our rights are in all areas of EU law, including Member States when implementing EU law. It does this by making the rights set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time(Art.6 TEU). This would make the 27 judges of the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg the final decider of our rights in many areas, instead of the Irish Supreme Court or the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which decides these rights at present. If Lisbon gives the EU Court of Justice the power to decide what our rights are in the large area of EU law, it is likely that the Commission will in time propose laws to ensure their uniform application across all EU States, as has happened in the case of the other Treaties up to now. The EU Court of Justice has laid down in several court cases that National Law must be applied in a way that is consistent with EU law, for the latter has supremacy in any conflict between the two. This principle must logically apply to rights issues also. This raises the real possibility of clashes over rights standards in sensitive areas where there are significant national differences between the Member States at present: for example, the right to life, the right to marry and found a family, the right to strike, rules of evidence in court, the rights of children and the elderly, trial by jury, censorship law, the legalisation of hard drugs and prostitution, rights attaching to State churches, conscientious objection to military service, succession, property, family law, labour law. Lisbon also provides for the new Union, like any European State, to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. It would provide plenty scope for conflict between the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg over human rights issues.
9. Lisbon militarizes the EU further: The Treaty requires Member States "to progressively improve their military capabilities". It introduces a "start-up" fund for common foreign policy and military operations to be financed by Member States outside the Union budget(Art.28). It contains an Article which the current Slovenian EU presidency has admitted is a "mutual defence clause"(Art.28A.7): "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power." This is a new departure for the EU and would commit all Member States including Ireland. In the light of this mutual defence clause there would be no constitutional need for a further referendum in Ireland before we committed ourselves operationally to the military defence of other EU countries, for Lisbon would be that referendum. Lisbon also allows sub-groups of Member States to make more binding commitments to one another with a view to "the most demanding missions" on behalf of the EU, without a requirement of a United Nations mandate.
10. Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission's proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it: It might reword the draft law, as happened with the Constitution, or if it considered the objection was not justified, it might ignore it.
The European Parliament cannot propose a single European law, but it gets more influence under the new Union's Constitutional structures. It can put down amendments to draft laws coming from the Council and Commission in the 32 law-making areas that would be transferred to Brussels from the National Parliaments, although the Commission and Council must agree them if they are to pass. National Parliaments would of course lose their power. Ireland has only 12 members out of 750 in the European Parliament. When Ireland was part of the UK in the 19th century it had 100 members out of 600 at Westminster, where all UK laws were both proposed and made.
The Lisbon Treaty also provides for a right of petition to the Commission by one million European citizens asking it to propose a new EU law, but there is no obligation on the Commission to do anything apart from "considering" such a request. It can ignore it or reject it. In other words the citizens, if they get a million signatures, have the right to complain and then hope for the best.
Is Lisbon necessary to make the EU more efficient?
The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Po University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that "the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU's institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement." The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well.
If we reject the Lisbon Treaty will we be forced to vote on it again? Europe Minister Dick Roche has stated that if we vote No to Lisbon, we will not be asked to vote again on the same Treaty, as happened when people voted No to the Treaty of Nice. Nor can we be ostracised or thrown out of the EU - anymore than that happened to the French and Dutch when they rejected the EU Constitution, of which Lisbon is a revamped version. We need to send Lisbon back to the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents and tell them that we want a better deal - for Ireland's sake and Europe's sake. We want a more democratic, not a less democratic EU. Ireland can do it, on our own behalf and on behalf of all the peoples of Europe, if we have confidence in ourselves and resist the misrepresentations of what Lisbon is really about, and all the bullying and threats. A Vote No is a Yes to something better!
This document has been prepared by the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Ave., Dublin 9; Tel.: 01-8305792; Secretary Anthony Coughlan. It has veen vetted for legal accuracy by authorities on Irish constitutional and EU law. Please copy it or adapt it as you please and pass it on to others, without any need of reference to its source.
If you wish to send a donation to help support our work, which is entirely voluntary, please send it to the above address and make out any cheques to Bank of Ireland Account No.30081817.
Contact: info@free-europe.org
"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments...There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of MEP Group leaders, EUobserver, 14 November 2007
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
- Former French President V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007
"The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech to the European Parliament, 27 June 2007
An EU Constitution
The Treaty of Lisbon is a revamped version of the treaty which gave the EU its own Constitution over and above the constitutions of its Member States, but which the peoples of France and Holland rejected in referendums in 2005. Instead of accepting that decision the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents decided to give the EU a constitution indirectly rather than directly, but not to call it a Constitution, and on no account to hold referendums on it for fear people would reject it again.
Why an Irish referendum?
A referendum must be held on it in Ireland however because the Supreme Court laid down in the 1987 Crotty case that sovereignty in this State rests with the Irish people and that only they can surrender sovereignty to the EU by referendum, or else refuse to surrender it as the case might be. The purpose of the referendum would be to change the Irish Constitution so as to make EU law superior to Irish law in the areas set out in the Lisbon Treaty.
Lisbon gives the EU a constitution indirectly rather than directly: The two current basic European Treaties are called "The Treaty on European Union"(TEU) and "The Treaty on the Functioning of the Union"(TFEU). These two documents include all the previous treaties from the 1957 Rome Treaty to the 2002 Nice Treaty. The EU Constitution which the French and Dutch rejected would have repealed these two treaties and replaced them with a document called "A Constitution for Europe". The Lisbon Treaty implements 96% of the legal content of this "Constitution for Europe" by proposing amendments to the two basic EU Treaties and thereby turning them into the effective Constitution of the new Federal EU that Lisbon would bring about.
The following are the main changes Lisbon would make in the EU's two constituent Treaties:
1. Lisbon makes the EU Constitution superior to the Irish Constitution in all areas of EU law: We would still keep the Irish Constitution, but "Declaration 17 concerning Primacy", which is attached to Lisbon, makes clear that EU law would have primacy over and be superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two. EU law and national law deal with different areas and matters, but the EU now makes the majority of our new laws each year. The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU the power to make laws binding on us in many new areas - see points 6 and 8 below - and would take that power away from the Irish Dáil and from Irish citizens who elect the Dáil.
2. Lisbon gives the EU the constitutional form of a supranational European Federal State and turns Ireland and the other Member States into regions or provinces of this Federation: It does this in three legal steps: (a) giving the new European Union which it would bring into being its own legal personality and independent corporate existence for the first time, separate from and superior to its Member States; (b)abolishing the European Community which we have been members of since 1973 and replacing it with the new Union; and (c)bringing all spheres of public policy either actually or potentially within the scope of the new Union. From the inside this new post-Lisbon EU would seem to be based on treaties between States; from the outside it would look like a State itself. It would have all the normal powers of a Federal State except the power to force its Member States to go to war against their will. Lisbon would then make us all real citizens of this new Federal EU for the first time, owing to it the normal citizen's duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority. One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. We would still retain our Irish citizenship, but the rights and duties attached to that would be subordinate to those of our EU citizenship in any case of conflict between the two. Post-Lisbon, we would be like citizens of Virginia vis-a-vis the USA, or like citizens of Bavaria vis-a-vis Federal Germany. This new Federal EU would sign Treaties with other States, would have its own political President, Foreign Minister and foreign and security policy, its own diplomatic service and voice at the UN, and its own Public Prosecutor. It would make most of our laws and would decide what our basic rights are in all areas of EU law.
If the EU's politicians are creating an EU Federation, that Federation should be run along normal democratic lines, with its laws both proposed and made by people who are elected to make them, either in the European Parliament or National Parliaments, and not by the EU Commission, Council of Ministers and Court. But that is not on offer in the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon means less democracy at EU level, not more.
3. Lisbon shifts influence over law-making and decision-taking in the EU towards the Big States and away from the smaller ones like Ireland: It does this by replacing the voting system for making EU laws that has existed since the 1957 Rome Treaty by a primarily population-based system which would give most influence to the Member States with big populations and reduce the influence of smaller ones like Ireland. Under Lisbon a "weighted" or "qualified" majority vote(QMV) for making EU laws in future would be 15 States out of 27 as long as they included 65% of the EU's total population. When Ireland joined the then EEC in 1973 we had 3 votes in making European laws as against 10 each for the Big States, a ratio of one-third. Under the current Nice Treaty arrangements we have 7 votes as against their 29 each, a ratio of one-quarter. Under Lisbon Ireland would have 4 million people as against Germany's 82 millon, a ratio of one-twentieth, and an average of 60 million each for France, Italy and Britain, a ratio of one-fifteenth. Under Lisbon Ireland's voting weight vis-a-vis the other 26 Member States would fall to one-third its present level, from 2% to 0.8%. Germany's would go from 8% to 17%, France's from 8% to 13%, Britain's from 8% to 12%.
4. Lisbon removes Ireland's right to a permanent EU Commissioner: The Commission is the body which has the monopoly of proposing all EU laws, which are then made by the Council of Ministers, with some powers of amendment for the European Parliament. Under Lisbon Ireland would have no member on the Commission for one out of every three Commission terms. This means that for five years out of every fifteen, laws affecting all our lives would be put forward entirely by a committee of EU officials on which there was no representative from Ireland. The Big EU States would lose their right to a permanent Commissioner also, but their size and weight give them other means of exerting influence on that key body. As Dr Garret FitzGerald and others have emphasised over the years, being represented on the EU Commission is especially important for smaller States like Ireland.
5. Lisbon deprives the Irish Government of its right to decide who Ireland's Commissioner would be when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission: It provides that Ireland's present right to "propose" a national Commissioner and to have that proposal accepted by the others if we are to accept their proposals, would be replaced by a right to make "suggestions" regarding a name, but with no guarantee that a particular suggestion would be accepted by the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents who would decide the list of Commissioners as a whole by qualified majority vote. If the Irish Government were to suggest someone as its EU Commissioner who had, for example, antagonised the government of some other Member State in the past, or who was regarded as not enthusiastic enough for further EU integration, it could be asked to suggest another name as more acceptable. The Commission President, appointed by vote of the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents, would in practice decide who Ireland's Commissioner would be. The new Commission President could ask a Commissioner to resign at any time, just as a Taoiseach has full control over his cabinet. The new Commission would be like an EU Government, except that this government would not be elected by the citizens.
6. Lisbon gives the European Union the power to make laws in 32 new areas that are removed from the Dail and other National Parliaments: These new areas of EU law-making include civil and criminal law, justice and policing, immigration, public services, energy, transport, tourism, space, sport, culture, civil protection, public health and the EU budget. There would be majority voting also by EU Foreign Ministers as regards implementing decisions in foreign policy. The EU Council of Ministers would obtain power to take decisions by qualified majority vote on many matters other than EU laws - amounting to 68 in all - so that Member States would no longer exercise a veto regarding them.
This increase in EU powers simultaneously increases the personal power of the 27 national politicians who make up the EU Council of Ministers by enabling them to make further laws behind closed doors for 500 million Europeans, while taking power away from the citizens and national Parliaments which elect those politicians and which have made these laws for their own countries up to now. Each shift of power from the national level to the EU entails a further shift of power from the Irish Dail and people to Irish Government Ministers at EU level. It hollows out our national democracy further. The Treaty also increases the power of the non-elected Brussels Commission, which has the monopoly of proposing European laws to the Council of Ministers, by giving it many new policy areas to propose laws for.
7. Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to EU control of Ireland's company taxes: Lisbon inserts a new Article 48 into the"Treaty on European Union", the "simplified revision procedure", which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents by unanimious agreement among themselves to shift many areas of the treaties where unanimity now exists to qualified majority voting without the need for new treaties or referendums. This is called the "escalator clause", which former French President Giscard d'Estaing said was "a central innovation" of the EU Constitution he helped draft. This shift to majority voting would cover areas like company taxation, but exclude defence and military matters. A National Parliament can veto the use of this mechanism, but citizens can not, as we would have accepted this method of rule by agreeing the Lisbon Treaty. National Parliaments usually back their Prime Ministers anyway. After Lisbon is ratified there would be no need, practically speaking, for further EU referendums.
If the Taoiseach of the day has agreed with his fellow Prime Ministers and Presidents, the switch to majority voting on company taxes would go through. If he has agreed, the National Parliament could revolt against him and object, but it is not required to vote for the use of the "escalator". This leaves the citizens in the position of depending entirely on the backbone of the current Taoiseach or his successor to continue defending Ireland's company tax position, which has been so important in bringing foreign firms to Ireland and so central to our modern economic development. Already the EU Commission has drafted proposals for introducing a Common EU Tax Base for Company taxes, but has postponed its publication until after the Irish referendum. Does this encourage confidence that the "escalator clause" will not be used to bring in EU tax harmonisation?
Lisbon opens another door to EU tax harmonisation if national differences in company tax lead to "distortion of competition"(Art.93 TFEU). This amendment inserted by Lisbon would enable the EU Court of Justice to apply the EU's internal market rules on competition matters, where majority voting applies, to matters of company tax. This could be another way around the present unanimity requirement for such taxes.
Lisbon also permits the EU to raise its "own resources" by means of any kind of new EU tax to finance the attainment of its many objectives(Art.269 TFEU). The 27 EU Prime Ministers and Presidents would have to decide unanimously what taxes to impose, and once National Parliaments approved, that would be that. There would be no need of a referendum in Ireland or anywhere else in the EU, for we would have permitted this development by voting for Lisbon. It is hard to imagine the 27 EU Prime Ministers and Presidents refraining from exercising this power to give the new post-Lisbon Union its own major tax revenues once it is up and running under their political direction.
8. Lisbon gives the EU the power to decide our human and civil rights: The new Treaty gives the EU the final power to decide what our rights are in all areas of EU law, including Member States when implementing EU law. It does this by making the rights set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time(Art.6 TEU). This would make the 27 judges of the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg the final decider of our rights in many areas, instead of the Irish Supreme Court or the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which decides these rights at present. If Lisbon gives the EU Court of Justice the power to decide what our rights are in the large area of EU law, it is likely that the Commission will in time propose laws to ensure their uniform application across all EU States, as has happened in the case of the other Treaties up to now. The EU Court of Justice has laid down in several court cases that National Law must be applied in a way that is consistent with EU law, for the latter has supremacy in any conflict between the two. This principle must logically apply to rights issues also. This raises the real possibility of clashes over rights standards in sensitive areas where there are significant national differences between the Member States at present: for example, the right to life, the right to marry and found a family, the right to strike, rules of evidence in court, the rights of children and the elderly, trial by jury, censorship law, the legalisation of hard drugs and prostitution, rights attaching to State churches, conscientious objection to military service, succession, property, family law, labour law. Lisbon also provides for the new Union, like any European State, to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. It would provide plenty scope for conflict between the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg over human rights issues.
9. Lisbon militarizes the EU further: The Treaty requires Member States "to progressively improve their military capabilities". It introduces a "start-up" fund for common foreign policy and military operations to be financed by Member States outside the Union budget(Art.28). It contains an Article which the current Slovenian EU presidency has admitted is a "mutual defence clause"(Art.28A.7): "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power." This is a new departure for the EU and would commit all Member States including Ireland. In the light of this mutual defence clause there would be no constitutional need for a further referendum in Ireland before we committed ourselves operationally to the military defence of other EU countries, for Lisbon would be that referendum. Lisbon also allows sub-groups of Member States to make more binding commitments to one another with a view to "the most demanding missions" on behalf of the EU, without a requirement of a United Nations mandate.
10. Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission's proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it: It might reword the draft law, as happened with the Constitution, or if it considered the objection was not justified, it might ignore it.
The European Parliament cannot propose a single European law, but it gets more influence under the new Union's Constitutional structures. It can put down amendments to draft laws coming from the Council and Commission in the 32 law-making areas that would be transferred to Brussels from the National Parliaments, although the Commission and Council must agree them if they are to pass. National Parliaments would of course lose their power. Ireland has only 12 members out of 750 in the European Parliament. When Ireland was part of the UK in the 19th century it had 100 members out of 600 at Westminster, where all UK laws were both proposed and made.
The Lisbon Treaty also provides for a right of petition to the Commission by one million European citizens asking it to propose a new EU law, but there is no obligation on the Commission to do anything apart from "considering" such a request. It can ignore it or reject it. In other words the citizens, if they get a million signatures, have the right to complain and then hope for the best.
Is Lisbon necessary to make the EU more efficient?
The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Po University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that "the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU's institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement." The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well.
If we reject the Lisbon Treaty will we be forced to vote on it again? Europe Minister Dick Roche has stated that if we vote No to Lisbon, we will not be asked to vote again on the same Treaty, as happened when people voted No to the Treaty of Nice. Nor can we be ostracised or thrown out of the EU - anymore than that happened to the French and Dutch when they rejected the EU Constitution, of which Lisbon is a revamped version. We need to send Lisbon back to the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents and tell them that we want a better deal - for Ireland's sake and Europe's sake. We want a more democratic, not a less democratic EU. Ireland can do it, on our own behalf and on behalf of all the peoples of Europe, if we have confidence in ourselves and resist the misrepresentations of what Lisbon is really about, and all the bullying and threats. A Vote No is a Yes to something better!
This document has been prepared by the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Ave., Dublin 9; Tel.: 01-8305792; Secretary Anthony Coughlan. It has veen vetted for legal accuracy by authorities on Irish constitutional and EU law. Please copy it or adapt it as you please and pass it on to others, without any need of reference to its source.
If you wish to send a donation to help support our work, which is entirely voluntary, please send it to the above address and make out any cheques to Bank of Ireland Account No.30081817.
Contact: info@free-europe.org
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Coup d'Etat #2
This week, Dutch Prime Minister JP Balkenende announced his intention to perform the left's second coup inside 5,5 years. Just under 5,5 years ago, on May 6th, 2002, established election-winner Pim Fortuyn was killed by an extreme-left killer. The next coup was planned to happen shortly. Of course, only the bloggers complain, the MSM sides with the coalition, and even parliament takes no corrective action, although it claims to be 'outraged'.
The issue at hand is of course the EU constitution. In 2005, Balkenende signed the constitution, without awaiting the result of a referendum that was to be held on the subject. A campaign was launched to influence Dutch opinion favorably, (with a "No", I look like a fool", JPB said) and sure enough, Balkenende was made to look like the fool he was. As the French also said "No", other referenda were cancelled, as unanimity was no longer possible.
Now the EU constitution has been renamed, but according to JPB, it's no longer a constitution, so a new referendum is not required. Well, he's correct on the latter; it's the same thing under another name, and we already said "No" to it. But that's not JPB's reasoning. Not only the treaty has another name, but the Foreign Minister for the EU also has, and of course JPB managed to get the song and flag out of it. Big deal. But To JPB, this makes all the required changes so it can now be forced down our throat.
The PvdA (yes, them again) have always claimed to want a new referendum if the old one was deemed no longer valid, it was part of their 2006 election programme, it has been repeated over the past year and even their newly elected chairwoman has stated as recent as last Monday evening that the was in favor of a referendum. By that time, JPB had already blatantly stated that if legislation was drafted that demanded a referendum, he would overrule parliament and not sign the legislation, thus blocking the referendum. This is unconstitutional, and never heard of before. The US president can veto legislation, but the Dutch MP cannot. This is a coup.
In the mean time, the Dutch State Council already had advised that a referendum was unnecessary, as there were "no constitutional elements" present in the 'new' treaty. Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, however, had already warned the European public they were being betrayed: the 'new' treaty was just a renamed, reworded version of the same thing. He should know, as he wrote the first one. He was still in favor of it, and warned to European 'leaders' not to hold referenda, but he did not approve of the claims that it was an entirely different treaty.
Now PvdA has agreed not to hold a referendum, in exchange for keeping the current tight rules on firing people in business. Whatever the relation is between handing over one's sovereignty to Eurabia and the hiring and firing of people by local businesses is beyond me, but both steps are bad for the Netherlands. It has to be made easier to hire & fire staff, or else unemployment will stay unnecessarily high. But no, in exchange for Eurabia, we keep to be stuck with rigid and very costly firing rules. The PvdA obviously avoided the coup as well, as now no legislation will be drafted.
Rumour has it that JPB has threatened the PvdA with handing in his resignation if it kept insisting on a referendum. That would have meant the much welcomed collapse of government, and the demise of Islamist party PvdA in new elections. But they want to stay in power very desperately. So they continue to sell out to Eurabia and everybody else, as they always have been doing. Dutch government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the state by definition has to be a criminal organisation; this government certainly is.
I wrote on Dutch 'Democracy' before; well, it's officially down the drain now. Welcome to the Dutch provence of totalitarian Dictatorship Eurabia.
The issue at hand is of course the EU constitution. In 2005, Balkenende signed the constitution, without awaiting the result of a referendum that was to be held on the subject. A campaign was launched to influence Dutch opinion favorably, (with a "No", I look like a fool", JPB said) and sure enough, Balkenende was made to look like the fool he was. As the French also said "No", other referenda were cancelled, as unanimity was no longer possible.
Now the EU constitution has been renamed, but according to JPB, it's no longer a constitution, so a new referendum is not required. Well, he's correct on the latter; it's the same thing under another name, and we already said "No" to it. But that's not JPB's reasoning. Not only the treaty has another name, but the Foreign Minister for the EU also has, and of course JPB managed to get the song and flag out of it. Big deal. But To JPB, this makes all the required changes so it can now be forced down our throat.
The PvdA (yes, them again) have always claimed to want a new referendum if the old one was deemed no longer valid, it was part of their 2006 election programme, it has been repeated over the past year and even their newly elected chairwoman has stated as recent as last Monday evening that the was in favor of a referendum. By that time, JPB had already blatantly stated that if legislation was drafted that demanded a referendum, he would overrule parliament and not sign the legislation, thus blocking the referendum. This is unconstitutional, and never heard of before. The US president can veto legislation, but the Dutch MP cannot. This is a coup.
In the mean time, the Dutch State Council already had advised that a referendum was unnecessary, as there were "no constitutional elements" present in the 'new' treaty. Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, however, had already warned the European public they were being betrayed: the 'new' treaty was just a renamed, reworded version of the same thing. He should know, as he wrote the first one. He was still in favor of it, and warned to European 'leaders' not to hold referenda, but he did not approve of the claims that it was an entirely different treaty.
Now PvdA has agreed not to hold a referendum, in exchange for keeping the current tight rules on firing people in business. Whatever the relation is between handing over one's sovereignty to Eurabia and the hiring and firing of people by local businesses is beyond me, but both steps are bad for the Netherlands. It has to be made easier to hire & fire staff, or else unemployment will stay unnecessarily high. But no, in exchange for Eurabia, we keep to be stuck with rigid and very costly firing rules. The PvdA obviously avoided the coup as well, as now no legislation will be drafted.
Rumour has it that JPB has threatened the PvdA with handing in his resignation if it kept insisting on a referendum. That would have meant the much welcomed collapse of government, and the demise of Islamist party PvdA in new elections. But they want to stay in power very desperately. So they continue to sell out to Eurabia and everybody else, as they always have been doing. Dutch government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the state by definition has to be a criminal organisation; this government certainly is.
I wrote on Dutch 'Democracy' before; well, it's officially down the drain now. Welcome to the Dutch provence of totalitarian Dictatorship Eurabia.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The Evil Jimmy Carter
Recently, I reported on the Mohamed Al Durah hoax and the role France 2, a French state television network, played in it. I also mentioned briefly how France was instrumental in helping Iran to be born by harbouring Ayatollah Khomeini.
But Iran was also very much helped by Jimmy Carter, who even back in 1976 already proved to be a real Dhimmycrat. Carter, who in 1977 spent Christmas with the Shah of Persia, worked between 1975 and 1978 fiercely to destabilize the Shah's position, by launching a 'human rights' campaign, aimed at the release of "political prisoners", among which radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Carter was in no small way supported by the British government. The Shah never stood a chance. Read the detailed article on American Thinker.
It would seem that Carter can be held at least partly responsible for today's Islamisation and the war on terror. Nevertheless, he keeps defending terrorist activities. In January 2007, his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid caused 14 members of his own Carter Center staff to resign. The amount of fiction was so overwhelming that even his own cronies could no longer stand it. And there's much, much more. Little Green Footballs has a wealth of articles on this evil character.
But he'll probably never be held accountable for his actions, and for the hundreds of thousands he helped killing.
But Iran was also very much helped by Jimmy Carter, who even back in 1976 already proved to be a real Dhimmycrat. Carter, who in 1977 spent Christmas with the Shah of Persia, worked between 1975 and 1978 fiercely to destabilize the Shah's position, by launching a 'human rights' campaign, aimed at the release of "political prisoners", among which radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Carter was in no small way supported by the British government. The Shah never stood a chance. Read the detailed article on American Thinker.
It would seem that Carter can be held at least partly responsible for today's Islamisation and the war on terror. Nevertheless, he keeps defending terrorist activities. In January 2007, his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid caused 14 members of his own Carter Center staff to resign. The amount of fiction was so overwhelming that even his own cronies could no longer stand it. And there's much, much more. Little Green Footballs has a wealth of articles on this evil character.
But he'll probably never be held accountable for his actions, and for the hundreds of thousands he helped killing.
Monday, September 3, 2007
A New Dreyfus Affair
Many of you may remember how France played an important role in the creation of the totalitarian Islamic state of Iran by harbouring the Ayatollah Khomeini until such time he could safely go back in order to terrorise the Iranian people.
Less common knowledge is a more recent affair, the 'killing' of a Palestinian boy by 'Israeli fire' that was filmed and aired in 2000 by France 2, a french state television network (and many other networks around the globe), and has been used as propaganda by Islamist terrorists many times. The whole thing was staged, a hoax, set up by Talal Abu Rahmeh, a stringer working for France 2 and CNN. Recently, Joanna Chandler published an article on the hoax on FrontPage Magazine.
Please take some time to read the article and watch the video's. It is essential that more people become aware of the methods 'Palestinians' use, aided and abetted by the western state television networks of the west.
Less common knowledge is a more recent affair, the 'killing' of a Palestinian boy by 'Israeli fire' that was filmed and aired in 2000 by France 2, a french state television network (and many other networks around the globe), and has been used as propaganda by Islamist terrorists many times. The whole thing was staged, a hoax, set up by Talal Abu Rahmeh, a stringer working for France 2 and CNN. Recently, Joanna Chandler published an article on the hoax on FrontPage Magazine.
Please take some time to read the article and watch the video's. It is essential that more people become aware of the methods 'Palestinians' use, aided and abetted by the western state television networks of the west.
The History of Political Correctness
For anyone wondering how it came about that Political Correctness came to bloom on both sides of the ocean, and why it seems to be aimed at the destruction of western society, this video may be a very informative one. For anyone who can spare 22:24 and is interested in backgrounds on today's dhimmytude, this video is a must see. You will at once understand why most, if not all left politicians embrace Islam, as it is the ultimate means to their end. A transcript of a speech by Bill Lind on the subject was also brought to my attention. It's well worth reading.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The bad news from Holland
Unbelievable as it may seem, the Dutch 'Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie' (Residence, Neighbourhoods and Integration (I'm not making this up)), Ella Vogelaar, today has declared in an interview (in Dutch newspaper Trouw) that The Netherlands will be Islamic at some point in the future. She feels that The Netherlands should adapt to Islam, and subsidise Islamic institutions. What will emerge, according to her, is a "Christian-Jewish-Islamic culture". As if Christianity and Judaism aren't 100% opposite to Islam's teachings. The stupidity of the statement is mind boggling.
Never mind separation of state and church, Vogelaar is willing, even advocating, to spend extorted taxpayer's money on converting a western nation to Sharia oppression. According to Vogelaar, "terrorism and religious violence are not unique to Islam; this also occurs with other religions. We have to accept this as part of our society and of every religion". Vogelaar wants to "make Muslims feel at home". Well, if they come to The Netherlands voluntarily, which they do, and they don't like it here, which apparently they don't, nobody's stopping them to go back home. I fail to see why I should have to pay in order to make another person happy, and that does not only apply to Muslims.
Everyone has a right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. They do not have a right to happiness, as it would make me their slave, having to make them happy no matter their demands. Well, suit yourself. If you can adapt to the Dutch way of life, become western, and make your own future, through your own achievements, you are welcome. If you feel you have to impose a totalitarian belief, live from my money, and complain we don't adapt to your backward culture, please go home and stay there. Don't invade my freedom.
Only recently, a Muslim woman was murdered on the Alkmaar railway station by her Turkish ex-husband. She'd left him because he used to beat her up. Well, that was his right, wasn't it? She was his property, right? He killed himself after the fact, and it turned out his family had put him up to it: honor killing. Man and husband were cousin and niece. Not at all uncommon. But it's widely known what inbreading will do to both physical and spiritual health: lots of genetic defects and low intelligence, with all sorts of psychological disorders. Those are the Muslims we're importing, this is the Islam Vogelaar wants to become part of the Dutch culture.
Unfortunately, Vogelaar is just one of many traitors to the western culture, member of the PvdA political party (Partij van de Arbeid, Labour Party). She is totally incompetent. Ignorance never was an excuse for incompetence, and it's certainly not becoming one now. She actually thought that Mohammed Bouyeri, Theo van Gogh's killer, was some sort of social worker who's ideas she found agreeable. Is it surprising that PvdA has been nicknamed many names: Partij van de Allochtonen, Partij van de Allahs, Portemonnee van de Ander, Partij van de Achterlijkheid (Immigrant Party, Allah Party, Other People's Wallet, Retard's Party) and then some more?
The PVV (Freedom Party), the only party in The Netherlands that hasn't succumbed to dhimmytude, has asked questions on the issue to Dutch Parliament. The PVV wants these statements withdrawn, or else Vogelaar should resign. While PVV is the most (classical) liberal party we have in The Netherlands, and the only one with a critical attitude, I feel this is not good enough. Even if the statements were to be withdrawn, it won't change their meaning. Vogelaar said it, and she meant it. If she retracts, just to stay in office, it won't mean a thing. This woman is evil, and should be forced out of any official function immediately. In fact, she should be tried for high treason, but probably get equitted for being utterly clueless.
The only thing we may be thankful to Vogelaar for later on is that her incredible stupidity may have awoken some Dutch minds that up till now were too blind to see where our government is leading us. Whether it's too late or not, only time will tell.
Never mind separation of state and church, Vogelaar is willing, even advocating, to spend extorted taxpayer's money on converting a western nation to Sharia oppression. According to Vogelaar, "terrorism and religious violence are not unique to Islam; this also occurs with other religions. We have to accept this as part of our society and of every religion". Vogelaar wants to "make Muslims feel at home". Well, if they come to The Netherlands voluntarily, which they do, and they don't like it here, which apparently they don't, nobody's stopping them to go back home. I fail to see why I should have to pay in order to make another person happy, and that does not only apply to Muslims.
Everyone has a right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. They do not have a right to happiness, as it would make me their slave, having to make them happy no matter their demands. Well, suit yourself. If you can adapt to the Dutch way of life, become western, and make your own future, through your own achievements, you are welcome. If you feel you have to impose a totalitarian belief, live from my money, and complain we don't adapt to your backward culture, please go home and stay there. Don't invade my freedom.
Only recently, a Muslim woman was murdered on the Alkmaar railway station by her Turkish ex-husband. She'd left him because he used to beat her up. Well, that was his right, wasn't it? She was his property, right? He killed himself after the fact, and it turned out his family had put him up to it: honor killing. Man and husband were cousin and niece. Not at all uncommon. But it's widely known what inbreading will do to both physical and spiritual health: lots of genetic defects and low intelligence, with all sorts of psychological disorders. Those are the Muslims we're importing, this is the Islam Vogelaar wants to become part of the Dutch culture.
Unfortunately, Vogelaar is just one of many traitors to the western culture, member of the PvdA political party (Partij van de Arbeid, Labour Party). She is totally incompetent. Ignorance never was an excuse for incompetence, and it's certainly not becoming one now. She actually thought that Mohammed Bouyeri, Theo van Gogh's killer, was some sort of social worker who's ideas she found agreeable. Is it surprising that PvdA has been nicknamed many names: Partij van de Allochtonen, Partij van de Allahs, Portemonnee van de Ander, Partij van de Achterlijkheid (Immigrant Party, Allah Party, Other People's Wallet, Retard's Party) and then some more?
The PVV (Freedom Party), the only party in The Netherlands that hasn't succumbed to dhimmytude, has asked questions on the issue to Dutch Parliament. The PVV wants these statements withdrawn, or else Vogelaar should resign. While PVV is the most (classical) liberal party we have in The Netherlands, and the only one with a critical attitude, I feel this is not good enough. Even if the statements were to be withdrawn, it won't change their meaning. Vogelaar said it, and she meant it. If she retracts, just to stay in office, it won't mean a thing. This woman is evil, and should be forced out of any official function immediately. In fact, she should be tried for high treason, but probably get equitted for being utterly clueless.
The only thing we may be thankful to Vogelaar for later on is that her incredible stupidity may have awoken some Dutch minds that up till now were too blind to see where our government is leading us. Whether it's too late or not, only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
