Saturday, May 31, 2008

Lisbon Treason: As the No vote gathers strength, the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon could spell disaster for the EU

The electorates in France and Holland rejected the EU constitution in 2005 and then the EU changed the text in the best Soviet Style of affairs, incomprehensible filled with Eurocratic NewSpeak in a Kafkasque nightmare construed for a 'coup d'etat' in a chlorophormed slow-motion.
Removing the electorate from the political decisions is the end of democracy in Europe and amounts to treason while installing a beaurocratic behemount of a Supranational Totalitarian state where we, the Europeans are reduced to masses in the best Stalinist Style under a suppressive and perverse social engineering experiment equal to Stalin's population movements which was necessary to destroy the former nations identities and cultures under the evil Empire of the USSR - Today they call this abomination of Cultural Marxism multiculturalism, an Orwellian NewSpeak perversity, in order to implement multiculturalism you have to destroy the host culture, just like Stalin he did, about a 100.000.000 people died.

All eyes are on Ireland, the feeble hope for Democracy in Europe, one wonders what kind of oppressive stealth measures the EUSSR will implement if it becomes a 'No', some EU countries like Sweden, Britain and Holland are morphing into something similar as nation wide Gulags of 'political correctness', Lenin's invention he introduced on the Communist Party congress in 1921.

From: The Telegraph
By Gordon Rayner

In 1973, when Ireland joined what is now the European Union, it was the poorest country on the continent. Today, thanks in no small part to £32 billion in EU
grants, it is the second richest per capita (after Luxembourg).

So the result of a referendum on June 12 on whether to consolidate EU powers by ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon must surely be a foregone conclusion.

Think again.

Despite every major political party backing the Yes campaign, support for a No vote is growing daily.

The most recent poll put the Yes voters at 41 per cent and the No voters at 33 per cent.

That sounds like a healthy lead until you discover the Yes campaign was polling well over 50 per cent on the eve of another Irish EU referendum – on the Nice Treaty in 2001 – before the electorate delivered a resounding No.

In Brussels, European parliamentarians are twitchy about the future of the EU's 495 million citizens resting in the hands of the one million Irish voters expected to turn out on polling day.

Having spent two years rebuilding the Treaty of Lisbon from the scrap parts of the defeated European Constitution, the Eurocrats can only watch as a learner driver takes the wheel of their juggernaut and drives it towards the edge of a cliff.

This scenario has arisen because, while all 26 of the other member states have decided to wave through the treaty via their parliaments (the UK included), Ireland alone has a legal obligation under its constitution to put the matter to a public vote.

Because the treaty must be passed unanimously by all 27 member states, an Irish No vote would kill it.

Earlier this week, the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, suggested a No vote would be catastrophic for the EU.

"We will all pay a price for it, Ireland included," he said, adding that there was "no plan B" if Ireland exercised its veto.

Mr Barroso and his cohorts argue that the treaty represents the next glorious stage in the EU's future, creating a new post of full-time European Council president, streamlining the European Commission and redistributing voting powers.

If you don't find these allegedly crucial changes inspiring, you're not alone.

And therein lies the fundamental problem for Ireland's Yes campaigners. Try as they might, they have been unable to come up with anything approaching a coherent, inspirational argument for a Yes.

Most tellingly of all, the new Irish premier, Brian Cowen, has admitted he hasn't read all of the 287-page treaty, and nor has Ireland's EU Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, who said no sane person could read it from cover to cover.

Asked to sum up why the Irish should support Lisbon, Micheál Martin, director of the referendum campaign for one of the big three parties, Fianna Fáil, said: "First of all, the purpose of the treaty is to ensure that the EU is reformed so that it is more efficient and effective in meeting modern challenges…"

Cue widespread yawns from voters. And the leaders of the other main parties have been equally soporific, leaving an open goal for any No campaigner with the charisma and ability to play on popular fears.

Such a man is Declan Ganley, a multi-millionaire businessman who formed the campaign group Libertas to fight first the European Constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty.

Along with such powerful voices as the Irish Farmers Association and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, he has given voters a dizzying array of reasons to vote No.

The farmers, who have received two thirds of Ireland's EU subsidies, argue that their handouts will be drastically cut, devastating rural areas.

Pro-life groups say Ireland will be forced to relax its abortion laws, pacifists say Ireland's cherished neutrality will be in danger because of provisions for a European army, and patriots say Ireland will be giving up the independence it fought so hard for less than 100 years ago.

On top of all that, there are fears that a centralised taxation system will mean the end of Ireland's favourable 12.5 per cent corporation tax (compared with the UK's 28 per cent), which has helped attract so many businesses.

John McGuirk, a leading member of Libertas, told me: "We will lose huge influence if Lisbon is ratified and we will get nothing in return.

"It will open the doors for Europe to interfere in our taxation system, and it will place huge restrictions on what rights we have to set our own laws."

While the treaty may yet get a Yes vote – the online bookmaker Paddy Power is offering odds of 1-4 for, 5-2 against – it all depends on whether the voters turn out on the day.

There is a real danger that apathy will prevent pro-Lisbon support being transformed into votes.

Éanna Nolan, a 38-year-old civil engineer, told me: "I am tending towards voting Yes, if only because the Yes campaign has the backing of all the major parties, whereas the No campaigners are people like Sinn Fein and [the singer] Dana."

Miriam Laird, a 28-year-old accountant, said: "I've always been pro-Europe, so I'm in favour of the treaty."

Yet both of these voters were not sure whether they would even bother to turn out on polling day.

In contrast, the No campaign supporters I spoke to were clear about their reasons for turning down the Lisbon Treaty – and about their intention to cast a vote on June 12.

Pádraig De Faoite, 22, a student teacher, said: "We're giving away our democracy and we have no idea what's going on in Brussels. On top of that, migrant workers will be able to come in from all over Europe and undercut Irish workers, so it will cost jobs."

Ide Nic Mhathuna, 24, an office administrator, cited the plight of Ireland's fishing industry, which has all but disappeared under the EU, as one of her reasons for voting No.

"A friend of mine who is a fisherman appeared in court this week for catching too many fish in the Irish Sea," she said.

"He's going to have a criminal record now, and it's crazy."

If Ireland rejects Lisbon on the basis of what might be termed parochial reasons – say, abortion or farming subsidies – and the vote is close, the country could be given opt-outs that would salvage the treaty.

But if it votes No by a substantial margin, and the reasons for doing so are varied, it will be impossible to resuscitate the fatally wounded treaty.

The EU will be faced with the prospect of starting all over again with a new document several years hence, or trying to bring in changes one by one.

Such an outcome would not, arguably, be a disaster (the EU has managed to keep functioning despite the 2005 Constitution being rejected) but it would leave European leaders with serious questions about the union's future.

The fact that France and Holland rejected the European Constitution in 2005 was a clear warning that support for the project among ordinary people may be waning.

This time, only Ireland has dared risk asking what people think. And if a country that has benefited so clearly from EU membership decides to distance itself from Brussels, it would be proof positive of just how far disillusionment with the EU has spread.

Forget Democracy Promotion, Go for Democracy Preservation

Excellent article with an insider's view on the affairs.
Yes indeed, not only should we stop promoting democracy to despotic and tribalistic regimes not wanting it - But leave them be altogether, history shows that the Arab and islamic world when left alone fizzle into a stasis of limb nothingness incapable of being any sophisticated threat whatsoever as compared to the rest of the civilized world.

From: Pajamas Media
By Youssef M. Ibrahim

After decades of failing to reform Arab and Muslim societies, the U.S. should focus not on exporting democracy, but on bolstering it wherever it already thrives.

Democracy may have been a paradigm once aspired to in the Arab-Muslim world, but the dominant reality today is the religious ethnic militia. In some places like Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, these armed entities displaced central authority altogether.

Ironically it may be the pursuit of force-fed democracy that cleared the way for its confiscation by those men in turbans and ski masks and potentates who color the landscape.

A prime model was the Iranian revolution of the late seventies, a supremely democratic movement to those of us who watched it grow to immobilize scores of cities, with millions on the march bearing tulips to soldiers and braving the Shah’s bullets until his army folded and he fled.

Iran’s revolution was a communal democratic exercise of the will of a people choosing to vote with their lives and bring a seemingly wholesome, just rule by mullahs to power. Westernized Iranians quickly fled after they saw little in common with those masses of religious aspirations. But the grand majority of Iran’s 70 million continue to this day to defend their revolution, fighting two decades ago, for example, in the eight-year war with Iraq to protect it by the millions.

Similarly, Islamist Hamas came to the fore with a certified free vote among Palestinians, under the gaze of Western observers. A majority elected the veil and bearded sheikhs to lead them in a new way of life. We don’t know if there will be free elections again as Palestinians appear to have crossed a generational Rubicon onto enduring Islamism, not lasting democracy.

It is wrong to assume the will of the people will always be freedom.

Should Hosni Mubarak ever extend free elections to those outside his family, every poll shows the fascist Muslim Brotherhood — which believes in one vote, one time, under one religious supreme leader and Sharia law — to be the overwhelming choice of a majority of 80 million Egyptians. The only opposition will come from the 10 million Christian minorities and a few million secularist Muslims, all destined to be served for breakfast by the incoming “brothers.”

There will be similar “democratic” swings in Jordan or Morocco should these monarchies permit free choice. In Pakistan military dictatorships all the way back to General Zia ul-Haq and an alternate feudal collection of civilian parties opted for over 30 years to make nice with the Taliban, empower turbaned preachers, and expand Sharia laws, surrendering so much that any talk of freedom is superfluous.

Over in the Arabian Gulf, where Bedouin culture never met an election it liked, the only refinement oil money brought are chic burqas and furtive looks modernizing oppression. Religious stupor in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and nearby is the operative social project with state-of-the-art mosques and TV networks drawing thousands to have their minds impounded.

Most dramatically, in “liberated” Iraq, where American troops overthrew a despotic regime, the people chose tribal tyranny to replace it. The elected are a Shiite coalition of armed militias whose priority project is ethnically cleansing Iraq of Sunnis and Kurds and a greater ascendancy of Shiism in tandem with Iran. In the mountains of Kurdistan where Western protection guaranteed democracy for Kurds since 1990, the militias there are not struggling toward multiculturalism but to throw the Arabs out.

In poll after poll a grand majority of Muslims and Arabs tell us they believe individual freedom, liberalism, and secularism — those enduring values of Western democracies — are rotten and the West decadent.

So if democracy is not a worthy American pursuit out there for the next administration, what is?

Obama says he wants to talk to the bad guys while McCain wants to fight them, but neither outlines a goal. Hillary wants to do a little of both fighting and talking, with no goalpost altogether. A clearer objective for an incoming administration may be not exporting democracy, but supporting it wherever it thrives.

Is this a quest for new isolationism? Far from it. It is a quest for a rational strategic common realignment. Outside the neurotic self-obsessed Islamo-Arab arena with teeming militias and wars to revive some mythical Islamist ummah, there is a huge growing democratic world of greener pastures in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. Instead of leading recalcitrant horses to drink from wells they wish to poison, let in those who want to partake in a redefined community.

The more you think of it, the more Senator McCain’s idea of a “Democratic League of Nations” sounds like the 21st century strategic substitute to the furtive, aging NATO or the haplessly compromised United Nations. Indeed it sounds like a worthy new paradigm.

Youssef M. Ibrahim, a freelance writer and risk consultant, is a former New York Times Mideast correspondent and Energy Editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Pallywood Agitprop: More On France2's Al-Dura Hoax

Karsenty Won! - That is very good news, in fact it is a reason for freedom loving people to celebrate and a symbolic victory to our ethical rights and to be presented with facts instead of staged propaganda to which Joseph Göebbles would be jealous - The mainstream media's credibilty in reporting from the Middle East is virtually more or less nil - The same media which is silent and ignores this Al-Dura Hoax to which they were all screaming to the public with an almost hysteria and shaped the Hoax into an iconic symbol - A lie!

This lie is being repeated again and again - One can only conclude that the rest of the mainstream medias are in compliance through silence or simply fear that if they do tell the story their will be riots, that is anyone's guess - The silence however speaks for itself. I recommend to read Nidra Poller on the France2 Hoax. It is not over - The public has been taken for fools through manipulation, there have been death and suffering as a result of France2's Hoax, Endelin still run his weekly Pallywood propaganda on France2. This is an extract from a mail sent by Karsenty:

"The most serious damage to our cause was done by certain members of the American Jewish Committee, notably the AJCommittee's representative in Paris, Valérie Hoffenberg, who for the past three and a half years has worked actively against our efforts to reveal the truth. She functioned as the gate-keeper at the Elysee Palace (the French White House), discouraging serious discussion of the al Dura hoax among decision makers, and blocking access to me and others who were capable of providing evidence of the hoax. Her role was crucial and destructive."

"Within the past year, the Elysee Palace received many letters and faxes in support of our position on the al Dura hoax. Almost everyone in the government was aware of the case and of the support my position was receiving. However, it was assumed, at the Elysee, that my position did not have the support of American Jewish organizations--that the American Jewish community, in fact, supported France 2's version of the story. This impression was created by Valerie Hoffenberg who actually advised French politicians to "keep their hands off the case." Hoffenberg was working behind the scenes to discredit me and to assist France 2 in covering up its lie."

"On September 2007, the AJCommittee leadership realized that it was on the wrong side of the issue--protecting the worst anti-Semitic blood libel of modern times. They then chose to mask the behaviour of their Paris representative by issuing a congratulatory press release that contradicted their actual position. The press release was designated for an American and English speaking audience. When its Paris representative was asked to issue a public statement about the case in French , she refused. Even after our recent, major victory this May, she has steadfastly refused to comment in French: she doesn’t want to jeopardize her relationship with the French establishment."

"Over the past year, in an effort
to prevent the AJCommittee from undermining our efforts, I personally alerted AJCommittee President David Harris several times. I also met with people from his organization to inform them of the problem. He has also been contacted by numerous donors demanding that he instruct Valerie Hoffenberg to withdraw her opposition to my efforts in the case. To no avail."

"Nicolas Sarkozy has got the power on the state-owned TV channel to admit that the al Dura news report was a fraud and issue a public apology for broadcasting a staged "killing" and, therefore, an apology for being the party to a colossal historical hoax."

France 2 is still denying the truth and French media, if and when they even mention the case, are still covering France 2's lies.
France 2 has been lying about the al Dura affair for seven and a half years.
They are still lying today.

From: Wall Street Journal
It's hard to exaggerate the significance of Mohammed al-Durra, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli bullets on Sept. 30, 2000. The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father
helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada.

It's equally hard, then, to exaggerate the significance of last week's French court ruling that called the story into doubt. Not just whether the Israeli military shot the boy, but whether the whole incident may have been staged for propaganda purposes. If so, it would be one of the most harmful put-up jobs in media history.

You probably didn't hear this news. International media lapped up the televised report of al-Durra's shooting on France's main state-owned network, France 2. Barely a peep was heard, however, when the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in a suit brought by the network against the founder of a media watchdog group. The judge's verdict, released Thursday, said that Philippe Karsenty was within his rights to call the France 2 report a "hoax," overturning a 2006 decision that found him guilty of defaming the network and its Mideast correspondent, Charles Enderlin. France 2 has appealed to the country's highest court.

Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate.
While Mr. Karsenty couldn't provide absolute proof of his claims, the court ruled that he marshalled a "coherent mass of evidence" and "exercised in good faith his right to free criticism." The court also found that Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 who was the only journalist to capture the scene and the network's crown witness in this case, can't be considered "perfectly credible."

The ruling at the very least opens the way for honest discussion of the al-Durra case, and coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general. French media could stand some self-examination. The same holds for journalists elsewhere.

On that Saturday in 2000, Palestinians faced off against Israeli troops at Gaza's Netzarim junction. Two months before, Yasser Arafat had walked out of the Camp David peace talks. Two days before, Ariel Sharon had visited Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The second Intifada was brewing.

The French network's cameraman, Mr. Abu Rahma, filmed the skirmishes and got the footage to the France 2 bureau in Israel.

Mr. Enderlin edited the film and, relying only on his cameraman's account, provided the voice-over for the report. He suggested Israeli soldiers killed the boy. He didn't say he wasn't there. Along with the Temple Mount incident, the al-Durra shooting was the seminal event behind the second Intifada.

Israel apologized.

But nagging doubts soon emerged, as Nidra Poller recounts here. An Israeli military probe found that its soldiers couldn't have shot the father and son, given where the two were crouching.
Others including Mr. Karsenty asked, among various questions, Why the lack of any blood on the boy or his father? Or why did France 2 claim to have 27 minutes of footage but refuse to show any but the 57 seconds on its original broadcast? Mr. Enderlin said, "I cut the images of the child's agony, they were unbearable." Under pressure from media watchdogs, and after years of stonewalling, France 2 eventually shared the additional film. It turns out that no footage of the child's alleged death throes seems to exist.

The extra material shows what appears to be staged scenes of gun battles before the al-Durra killing. For a sample, check out, a site run by Richard Landes, a Boston University professor and one of Mr. Karsenty's witnesses.
Judge Trébucq said that Mr. Karsenty "observed inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin."

We don't know exactly what happened to Mohammed al-Durra. Perhaps we never will. But the Paris court ruling shows that France 2 wasn't completely open about what it knew about that day. It suggests the Israelis may not have been to blame. It makes it plausible to consider -- without being dismissed as an unhinged conspiracy theorist -- the possibility that the al-Durra story was a hoax.

To this day, Islamic militants use the al-Durra case to incite violence and hatred against Israel. They are well aware of the power of images. Mr. Karsenty is, too, which is why he and others have tried to hold France 2 accountable for its reporting.

1938 in 2008: Britain's University and College Union Call For Boycott of Israelis And Jews From Academia

This is simply to obscene - Yet another tale from the Leftofascist unholy alliance, get the Jews, eliminate their country by all means possible including what else you might think - Reading this there is no doubt left that the 21rst century Nazism is the Leftofascist Islamo Alliance and we are descending into madness.

Adding this we are approaching insanity - Read this completely absurd story from the Socialist-worker:

Nottingham student arrested over research on al-qaeda

There is growing outrage over the arrest of Nottingham university student Rizwaan Sabir and staff member Hicham Yezza.
Police arrested Rizwaan and Hicham under the Terrorism Act on 14 May.
Rizwaan is a masters student researching terrorist tactics who downloaded a copy of the Al Qaida training manual from a US government website.

Because he could not afford the printing fees, Rizwaan forwarded it to Hicham, a friend, to print on his behalf.
The university then informed the police and Rizwaan and Hicham were arrested.
The police told him that he had downloaded an illegal document that shouldn’t be used for research purposes. The government wants universities to inform on students they suspect of being “radical”.
Lecturers, students and local people have backed Rizwaan over this attack on academic freedom.
They have organised a petition demanding the university acknowledges the “disproportionate nature of [its] response to the possession of legitimate research materials”.
A demonstration was also set to take place on Wednesday of this week.
Hicham said in a statement, “The home office has no respect for human dignity and human life.
“I’m grateful to everyone who has come to my aid and stood with me in solidarity. I think this really reflects the spirit of the generous, inclusive Britain we know – and not the faceless, brutal, draconian tactics of the home office.”

The UCU lecturers’ union is set to debate the government’s assault on academic freedom at its conference in Manchester this week.

=== If you got a bad taste in the mouth, spit, and drink a Coke, one wonders how many terror manuals are now circulating in Nottingham, how can one describe this absurd madness ===

By Melanie Phillips - The Spectator.
Wednesday, 28th May 2008

Today, the Universities and Colleges Union is discussing whether universities should single out Israeli and Jewish scholars for active discrimination.

Yes, you read that correctly. The UCU is debating a motion which not only raises the spectre yet again of an academic boycott of Israel but demands of Jewish and Israeli academics that they explain their politics as a pre-condition to normal academic contact. The motion asks colleagues

to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating... the testimonies will be used to promote a wide discussion by colleagues of the appropriateness of continued educational links with Israeli academic institutions... Ariel College, an explicitly colonising institution in the West Bank, be investigated under the formal Greylisting Procedure.

The implication is that, if they don’t condemn Israel for the ‘occupation’, or practising ‘apartheid’, ‘genocide’ or any of the other manufactured crimes laid at Israel’s door by the Palestinian/Islamist/neonazi/leftwing axis, they won’t be able to work. Their continued employment will depend on their holding views which are permitted. The views they are being bludgeoned into expressing as a condition of their employment are based on lies, distortion, propaganda, gross historical ignorance, blood libels and prejudice. And this in the universities, supposedly the custodians of free thought and inquiry in the service of dispassionate scholarship.

What makes it all the more appalling is that it is Israelis and Jews alone who are being singled out for this treatment. No other group is to be barred from academic activity unless they hold ‘approved’ views; no state-run educational institution controlled by any of the world’s numerous tyrannies is to be ‘grey-listed’. The UCU’s own rules state that it

actively opposes all forms of harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination.

Well, various Jewish groups in the Stop the Boycott campaign have obtained a legal opinion from two QCs which states that today’s motion constitutes harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination on grounds of race or nationality. It says:

If the Motion is passed it would expose Jewish members of the Union to indirect discrimination... Additionally, the Union faces potential liability for acts of harassment on grounds of race or nationality. The substance of the Motion may also involve the Union in becoming accessories to acts of discrimination in an employment context against Israeli academics...No doubt, if such Israeli academics speak in favour of the Palestinian viewpoint they will be immune from further action; if they are against it or possibly even non-committal they and their institutions are to be considered potentially unsuitable subjects for continued association...

The Union will accordingly be adopting a provision, criterion or practice which will put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members. That is because Jewish members are much more likely to have links with Israeli academics and institutions than non -Jewish members. To require Jewish members to act consistently with the Motion (if passed) would be to impose a professional detriment upon them as Union members which is based on their race. If they acted inconsistently with the Motion, we infer that they would also be subject to disadvantage or sanction under the Union rules or practices -- an alternative detriment. We do not see how any such detriment would be justified as pursuing a legitimate aim. No proper Union purpose is promoted by imposing this detriment on certain members. Thus the Motion will have the effect of indirectly -- and unlawfully -- against Jewish Members of the Union.

The opinion is thus unequivocal. Today’s motion breaks the law; it breaks the UCU’s own rules; it is prejudiced, discriminatory and unjust towards Israelis and Jews. But the motion also notes

legal attempts to prevent UCU debating boycott of Israeli academic institutions; and legal advice that such debates are lawful

In other words, two fingers to the Jews. Such is the disgusting and terrifying state to which Britain’s intelligentsia has now descended.

Jewish groups condemn new call for boycott of Israeli universities

By Henri Stein.
LONDON (EJP)--- British Jewish groups criticized Wednesday's vote of an academic motion to contemplate a possible boycott of Israeli universities as “shameful” and "utterly irresponsible".

Although they didn’t vote on severing links with their counterparts in Israel, they agreed at their annual conference held in Manchester to “consider the moral and political implications of education links with institutions".
In the new UCU resolution, the members noted the “the apparent complicity of most of the Israeli academics with the humanitarian catastrophe imposed on Gaza by Israel and the EU.”
The union represents over 120,000 academics
Around 30 delegates among the 250 present at the congress opposed the motion brought by Tom Hickey, a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Brighton.
A similar motion passed by the union last year prompted Jewish leaders to condemn it as an assault on academic freedom and provoked outrage around the world.
But last year, the motion for an academic boycott of Israeli universities was dealt a blow as lawyers warned the UCU that the action would be 'unlawful and discriminatory' and cannot be implemented

More: EJP.

ADL slams British union's call for academic boycott of Israel

'Cynical and perverse violation of academic freedom,' Anti-Defamation Leauge describes Britain's University and College Union's motion to allow reintroduction of boycott despite legal advice stating it would be in breach of British anti-discrimination laws

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) denounced the vote, calling it a “cynical and perverse violation of academic freedom and anti-discrimination principles."

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman issued a statement saying: "Four years after the first such academic boycott resolution, it is clear the UCU’s anti-Israel activists remain as determined as ever to demonize everything and everyone Israeli, while shunning constructive measures to promote Israeli-Palestinian academic partnerships."

If UCU were to implement the motion, it would encourage its 160,000 members to consider cutting off links with Israeli academic institutions - most of these links are with individual Israeli academics such as research partnerships, peer review of papers, or academic conferences.

More: Ynet News

Friday, May 30, 2008

European Parliament Bans Opposition

Revealing article by one of the brightest and most important political analysts - Fjordman.

From: Brusselsjournal

The European Union, the "free trade organization with a few added extras," is officially turning into a pan-European dictatorship. The Daily Telegraph reports:
The European Union assembly's political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings. Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP's pan-European Eurosceptic "Independence and Democracy" grouping. Under the rule change, the largest and most pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament's political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.
The EU already has clear authoritarian leanings and is moving in a totalitarian direction with astonishing speed.

The pace with which these changes are occurring is so breathtaking that it even surprises me sometimes, and I'm one of the most militant anti-EU persons around. Within the past two years, EU leaders have ignored the referendums in several countries rejection the EU Constitution. The Lisbon Treaty is virtually identical to the Constitution, and is now being pushed through without referendums, with the exception of Ireland. This Constitution/Lisbon Treaty will more or less dismantle the existing nation states throughout much of Europe, which constitutes high treason against dozens of countries simultaneously.

That's bad enough. What's worse is that the same EU leaders, including the British Foreign Minister, the French President and the German Chancellor, have officially announced the enlargement of the EU to include Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. A proposed European Arrest Warrant lists a number of crimes, including terrorism, armed robbery, rape, and racism and xenophobia, which are punishable throughout the EU. The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state. The accused must then be transited for trial to the issuing state within ten days, without any interference, judicial or otherwise, by the executing state.

Racism includes "Islamophobia," according to numerous EU documents. Which means that "Islamophobia" will soon be treated as a crime as serious as rape and armed robbery across most of the European continent. At the same time, European leaders are busy enlarging the EU to include North Africa and the Middle East, thus flooding Europe with tens of millions of additional Muslims. Not far into the future, EU authorities can arrest a person in, say, Denmark or Italy, who has published a cartoon that could be considered offensive to Islam. He or she will then be quietly handed over to the authorities in Algeria, Egypt or Jordan. Remember that blasphemy against Islam potentially carries the death penalty according to sharia. Multiculturalism in Europe is thus reaching its openly totalitarian phase. Those who think this is a joke can look at the Dutch cartoonist who was arrested recently. Several documents that are publicly available (but little known by the general public because they are never referred to by the mainstream media) state that the EU should "harmonize" the education and legal systems with the Mediterranean "partner countries" within the coming decade. This is being negotiated as we speak, behind our backs.

This is part of a long-term plan to merge Europe with the Islamic world. As I've said many times before, the creation of Eurabia constitutes nothing less than the greatest betrayal in the history of European civilization, possibly the greatest betrayal in the history of any civilization. An entire continent, the cradle of the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen, is to be culturally dismantled and turned into an obedient dumping ground for demographic warfare by its Islamic enemies. Those among the indigenous peoples who object to this will be harassed, and opposition to these policies will be banned by law. This is done by the very same individuals who are supposed to be these nations' entrusted leaders.

The time has now come for the natives of Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries to treat the European Union for what it is: An aggressively hostile organization fundamentally opposed to anything we hold dear.-

Another free thinker is to be executed in Iran in the coming days

The so called 'human rights' orgs are more busy in attacking western countries and defending the rights of terrorists while they keep silent against the regimes and ideologies which are the core problem - .60% of the UN resolutions on their Orwellian notions of 'human rights are passed against one country - Israel - And this is what is happening why the EU is cozy to the islamo-fascist regime and busy working on their insane EUROMED project to fuse Europe together with North Africa.

Here is more on Dr Fouladvand from Iransara and the struggle for survival and freedom under the islamo-fascist terror regime.

From: JihadWatch

Urgent Attention

Another free thinker is to be executed in Iran in the coming days

It is with great regret that I inform all freedom loving people of the world that the Mullahs' terrorist regime is about to execute one of Iran's finest thinkers, a true patriot, scholar and historian.

Dr. Foroud Fouladvand is a dedicated monarchist, a Ferdousi expert as well as expert on the history of Iran and Islam.

A confirmed report sent to the office of Dr. Fouladvand in London from inside Iran suggests that Dr. Fouladvand and two of his compatriots are going to be executed on Saturday, May 31, 2008 or possibly even sooner.

The two men to be executed alongside Dr. Fouladvand are Mr. Nazem Schmidtt, an Iranian/American citizen, aka Simorgh, and Mr. Alexander Valizadeh, an Iranian/ German citizen, aka Koroush Lor.

Dr. Fouladvand, a British citizen, was known throughout the Iranian community for his open criticism of Islam and the Mullah's tyranny.

Dr. Fouladvand, who is an expert on Islam, openly challenged the Qur'an in his daily television broadcasts for listeners both inside and outside Iran. His Television discussions were offensive to the Mullahs. On March 10, 2006, in a preplanned action, about 65 of his supporters refused to leave a Lufthansa plane in protest of the European Union's policy of appeasement of the Mullahs' regime.

Dr. Fouladvand was led to believe by an agent of the Mullahs' regime posing as a monarchist activist from within Iran that there were many Iranian patriots inside Iran who believed in him, and that a meeting with them would be fruitful in organizing and uniting people inside Iran to oppose the Mullahs. On October 13, 2006, Dr. Fouladvand and a number of his friends, including the above-named men, left London for the Turkish/Iranian border. The last news of Dr. Fouladvand's whereabouts was on January

17, 2007, when he was expected to meet the supposedly Iranian activists in the Kurdish province of Hakkary in Iraq, which is close to the Iranian border.

In January 2007, the agents of the Mullahs' secret police arrested and smuggled these three men into Iran, where they were imprisoned and were subjected to torture.

Please contact anyone you can. Alert government officials, the press, the Amnesty International and the human rights organizations in your country of residence.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

An Old Ghost Is Rising In Belgium: Anti-Semitism And Hatred Of The Jews - Politicians Stage Psycho-drama

On Saturday the 24th of June political 'progressive' activists dressed up in Israeli military uniforms goes through the streets screaming against the people surrounding them and passers by in the city center of Nivelles, a Belgian city situated approximately 30km south from Brussels.

The occasion for this staged psychodrama was Israel's 60 years anniversary to which the organisers wanted to illustrate what their leaflets called the "expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 when Israel was created." and what they called the "disposition of the Palestinian people".

The activists who were dressed up like Israeli soldiers are screaming "You are on our land now, allez, allez, allez, hurry up, on to the trucks", "This is our place" while they are swinging their truncheons and harrassing other activists dressed up as Palestinians and passers by, the children present who are witnessing the whole psychodrama are terrified, some of the activist who are penned around dressed as Palestinians are playing along "We are scared, I got my baby in my apartment" while the 'soldier' is screaming "Move on, move on, hurry up"and to others "Down on your knees" and they are penned towards a stand with the United Nation's UNWRA written on it and ' The Bethlehem refugee camp'.

Terese Snoy, MP from the Ecolo (Greens) told the crowd.

I was dumbfunded to witness the pressure of what happened in the municipal of Nivelles. First someone had tried to block the tractor going through the street [pedestrian] and we had to do the second tour on foot. I suppose this illustrates the capacity of the political class which unfortunately will have to submit under the pressure from certain Jewish groups. I imagine this is going on at all level. And maybe this the reason for Belgium's weak positions"

Former Belgian defense minister André Flahaut, a Socialist MP city councillor in Nivelles, compared Israel to a Nazi state.

He starts declaring he is ashamed of the town and he is ashamed of his life and continues:

“Like any normal person, I am revolted when I see children suffering, when I see maltreated women, who are raped, when I see maltreated men and freedoms ridiculed. During the twelve years and half I was minister, I left no stone unturned so that the atrocities against the Jews during WWII be remembered and not forgotten. I also ask that one have the same commitment, the same determination to make that the voice of those who suffer today is heard and to avoid banalization. I am determined to fight against all exclusions, all nazisms, all fascisms wherever they are.”

The video have shocked the Jewish community in Belgium and with good reason, it paints a complete false picture of Israel and simplifies the whole Israeli - Palestinian issue, comparing Israel to Nazis is by definition Anti-Semitism - Staging such a psychodrama using the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary leaves more than just a bad taste in the mouth and revokes the spectre of 1938 in 2008 - Telling bystanders that they [the organisers of the psychodrama] had been under pressure and harrassed from 'certain Jewish groups' is yet again awakening an other old ghost from Europe's Nazi past that of the' Zionist Occupied Governments' and Hitler's 'Jugentum'.

The Israeli Embassy has got this to say to the European Jewish Press

"This demonstration, which trivializes and simplifies the Mideast situation, and during which the organizers didn’t not hesitate to manipulate the public, presented a negative and untrue image of Israel," the Israeli embassy deplored Wednesday in a statement.

"Under cover of criticism and free expression, certain associations and certain political representatives make every effort since several years to spread shameful and intolerable confusion," the embassy said.

"By acting this way, these associations are taking an active part in importing a regional conflict in the streets of Belgium and are feeding anti-Semitism."

The embassy called on the Belgian authorities "for more vigilance in the face of such outbursts which are inciting to hatred."

Andre Flahaut who you can watch on the YouTube making his speech later denied he had made any Anti-Jewish comments.

"Psychodrame Nakba" à Nivelles

Transcript of Andre Flahaut's speech:

Andre Flahaut:
"Bonjour à tous et tout d'abord effectivement je suis conseiller communal de cette ville et je
suis honteux pour cette ville et je suis honteux de ma ville."

"Parce que lorsque l'on interdit une manifestation ou une expression, je considère ça comme une dérive dangereuse."

"Je suis, comme toute personne normalement constituée, révolté lorsque je vois des enfants souffrir, lorsque je vois des femmes maltraitées, violées, lorsque je vois des hommes maltraités, des libertés bafouées."

"Pendant les douze ans et demi où j'ai été ministre, j'ai mis tout en œuvre aussi pour que l'on n'oublie pas et qu'on se souvienne des atrocités dont le peuple juif a été victime pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale."

"On a eu cet engagement et donc je demande aussi que l'on aie le même engagement, la même détermination, la même volonté pour faire entendre la voix de celles et de ceux qui aujourd'hui souffrent, pour faire en sorte que l'on évite la banalisation."

"Je suis déterminé à lutter contre toutes les exclusions, tous les nazismes, tous les fascismes où qu'ils se trouvent et au moment où ils se présentent."

"Voilà, c'est pour ça que je suis ici"

More: European Jewish press

Good News: Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'

A free Iran in the Middle East would greatly shift the balance of power there and will ultimately spark a domino effect down the road - The Persian people have been oppressed through the islamic tyranny for almost 14 centuries not to mention the cultural and ethnic cleansing under the banner of islam - The Iranians themselves are indeed welcoming airstrikes, see: Iranians Would Welcome Airstrikes, Sources Say

This is good news indeed and would greatly add to the stability in the region and the rest of the world as well without the Iranian terror regime funding terrorism, murdering US service men in Iraq, the terrorist organization hezbollah, arms sales to Bosnia and Kosovo and of course, the islamo fascists wouldn't get their nukes.

From: Asia Times

By Muhammad Cohen

NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an

air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.

Rockin' and a-reelin'
Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders' minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as "Bomb Iran". Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised "total obliteration" for Iran if it attacked Israel.

The US and Iran have a long and troubled history, even without the proposed air strike. US and British intelligence were behind attempts to unseat prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who nationalized Britain's Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power in 1953. President Jimmy Carter's pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah.

But the new government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the US as "the Great Satan" for its decades of support for the Shah and its reluctant admission into the US of the fallen monarch for cancer treatment. Students occupied the US Embassy in Teheran, holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Eight American commandos died in a failed rescue mission in 1980. The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran during the hostage holding and has yet to restore them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric often sounds lifted from the Khomeini era.

The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.

Sense in the senate
Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece "within days", the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

In a statement received by Asia Times Online from Feinstein's office, the senator said she "has not received any briefing, classified or unclassified, from the administration involving any plans to strike Iran".

Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration's plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.

The proposed air strike on Iran would have huge implications for geopolitics and for the ongoing US presidential campaign. The biggest question, of course, is how would Iran respond?

Iran's options
Iran could flex its muscles in any number of ways. It could step up support for insurgents in Iraq and for its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran aids both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Israel's Occupied Territories. It is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.

Iran could also choose direct confrontation with the US in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long, porous border. Iran has a fighting force of more than 500,000. Iran is also believed to have missiles capable of reaching US allies in the Gulf region.

Iran could also declare a complete or selective oil embargo on US allies. Iran is the second-largest oil exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and fourth-largest overall. About 70% of its oil exports go to Asia. The US has barred oil imports from Iran since 1995 and restricts US companies from investing there.

China is Iran's biggest customer for oil, and Iran buys weapons from China. Trade between the two countries hit US$20 billion last year and continues to expand. China's reaction to an attack on Iran is also a troubling unknown for the US.

Three for the money
The Islamic world could also react strongly against a US attack against a third predominantly Muslim nation. Pakistan, which also shares a border with Iran, could face additional pressure from Islamic parties to end its cooperation with the US to fight al-Qaeda and hunt for Osama bin Laden. Turkey, another key ally, could be pushed further off its secular base. American companies, diplomatic installations and other US interests could face retaliation from governments or mobs in Muslim-majority states from Indonesia to Morocco.

A US air strike on Iran would have seismic impact on the presidential race at home, but it's difficult to determine where the pieces would fall.

At first glance, a military attack against Iran would seem to favor McCain. The Arizona senator says the US is locked in battle across the globe with radical Islamic extremists, and he believes Iran is one of biggest instigators and supporters of the extremist tide. A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain.

On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.

But an air strike will provoke reactions far beyond US voting booths. That would explain why two veteran senators, one Republican and one Democrat, were reportedly so horrified at the prospect.

Former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen told America's story to the world as a US diplomat and is author of Hong Kong On Air (, a novel set during the 1997 handover about television news, love, betrayal, high finance and cheap lingerie.

How crypto-Marxism won the Cold War

An excellent analysis by James Lewis and which pinpoint todays political climate and the issues of the rise of the twenty century Fascism.

From: American Thinker
By James Lewis

Today, for the first time in American history we have two --- count 'em, two --- hard-core Leftists running for the Democrat Party nomination. The Left hasn't had this kind of chance for power since Truman defeated Henry Wallace in 1948. Hillary and Obama are Marx twins who only differ in race and gender.

All the media tell us is how great it is to have a woman and a black man running for president.
What those two really believe, where they learned their quasi-religion, where they derive their support, who else they want to raise to power, and what they will do if they get there --- all that doesn't even get discussed. All over the world, Leftist hearts are leaping at Hillarybama. What exciting progress!

Wait a minute. Marxism lost the Cold War, right? The Soviet Empire came down, Eastern Europe was liberated, China is now semi-capitalist, and post-socialist countries like India are thriving like never before. More of the world is prospering, because economic and political freedoms have spread since the USSR crumbled. Even Russia has a low, flat tax to encourage free markets. Indigenous talents and enterprise are finally being liberated, and the results are wonderful for hundreds of millions of people.

Liberals are upset today because free-market economies are growing too fast, and are therefore polluting an unsullied Mamma Earth. Tens of millions of ordinary people in China and India are doing too well. The elites seem to yearn for the good old days --- the famines in India, the massacres in Russia and China --- and that wonderful sense of being in charge of human progress.

And yet ... in spite of years and years Leftist catastrophes, our organs of propaganda are still tilting drunkenly to the Left. Crypto-Marxism, a barely disguised revival of the old farce, is flourishing in our chattering classes. The prestige that Marxism lost in the real world soon came back in fantasy. Oh, if people only loved one another! Oh, if people only cared! Oh, if we only had real solidarity with the wretched of the earth! That's the feel-good story. But the real yearning is for power: Oh, if only people like us were in charge of everything.

In Britain, under the daily pounding of the Bolshie Beeb, the most admired "philosopher" of all time is now ... blood-dripping old Karl Marx. Freedom is routinely trashed; thieving tyrants like Hugo Chavez are celebrated.

"Crypto Marxism" --- crypto meaning "hidden" --- is a useful word to describe what's happened in the last twenty years. Because as soon as the Soviet Union crumbled, a host of barely disguised post-Marxist ideologies grabbed the microphones: the Green Movement, now furiously peddling global warming fraud; Third Way socialism in Europe, trying to hitch the welfare wagon to free markets; the European Union, a new autocracy of unelected committees, exactly what the USSR used to call "workers' Soviets"; the unbelievably corrupt, bigoted and self-serving United Nations; and all over the academic world, an explosion of anti-Western and anti-democratic fads like Post-Modernism, Multi-Culturalism, Deconstructionism, Feminism, anti-Zionism, Black Liberation Theology and other repackaged Marx imitations. It was a triumph of image-making and marketing.

Today, crypto-Marxism dominates our political discourse. It's wild --- just as if Nazi goose stepping had became a popular sport after World War Two, instead of the hula-hoop. The Nazis were horrific in their thirteen years in power. The Marxists had seventy years in the Soviet Union, and managed to kill 100 million people according to Marxist historians themselves. But here we are, twenty years later, and all that is deliberately wiped from our minds.

So --- who won the seventy-year struggle of the Cold War? We did in reality. The good guys really did triumph, and in the most profound way, going by Sun Tzu's Art of War --- not by waging a mega-war, but by constant political pressure, by far outrunning Marxist regimes economically, and by a spontaneous revulsion from within the Soviet Empire itself. Yet we fought many small wars --- and two large, bloody and unpopular ones, in Korea and Vietnam. The United States and a few allies faced down numerous Marxist threats in a very determined way. It was a huge test of our will to live and win.

And yet, today the New York Times makes a boutique specialty out of writing loving obits for flaming Old Reds, when they finally sputter out and die. No one on the American Left has ever expressed public sorrow for the estimated 100 million people killed by Marxist murderocracies; after all, they were murdered for "idealistic" reason. The crumbling of the Soviet Empire simply made it possible for the Left to walk away from Darth Vader and the Evil Empire. Soviet Union? Never heard of it.

As Rush Limbaugh often says, conservatives stopped teaching when the Soviet Union fell. Marxists, on the other hand, just accelerated their propaganda. Privately they mourned the "idealistic" experiment of the Soviet Union --- never confessing their own, whole-hearted participation in unrelenting evil. The Boomer Lefties rose to power in the 1970s, and they were not going to sacrifice their religiomania just because all the Marxist nations walked away from Marx. (Except for North Korea, which is still as murderously Stalinist as ever.)

In fact, without the Soviets our hard-core Leftists were no longer agents of a foreign power --- as the KGB archives showed that many of them were during decades of Moscow's control. So they could pretend to be running different "idealistic" movements: Red changed to Green, but that was it. The mainstream media learned to peddle that old Daily Worker agitprop instead of real news, until talk radio and the web broke the media monopoly, and conservatism revived. In Europe this is only barely beginning to happen.

Since 9/11 the Left has been telling itself how really patriotic it is --- providing that you redefine patriotism as internationalism, just like the old CP USA. And of course, the vitally important history of the Cold War is being written by the hard-core Left. It's just as if the Confederate South controlled the history of the Civil War.

Senator Joe Lieberman's fate shows what has happens to centrist Democrats: They are all but thrown out for deviationism, which is exactly what Josef Stalin used to do with the CP USA.

Both Obama and Hillary grew up on the Alinsky Left, which only a theologian can tell from orthodox Marxism. Coming out of Yale Law, Hillary joined a crypto Marxist law outfit in Oakland, California. David Horowitz, who was part of that world until he recovered his moral center, has been pretty clear about the real roots and goals of that Greater Berkeley network.

The triumph of crypto-Marxism is not just weird, it's dangerous. The Reds haven't changed. They have just metastatized: That is why we are now so vulnerable to the next wave of totalitarianism, the Islamofascist kind. The long struggle of Western civilization against bloody tyranny is being covered up. The very real danger of new totalitarianism is being dismissed.

We have to start teaching again from scratch.

Well, that's how it is.

Note to conservatives: You don't win a war until the histories are written.

Roll up your sleeves and go to it. There's work to do.