French Corruption: Nerw Deal or Old News

Karachigate: a "curious" communiqué

IN THE PAPERS
23/09/2011

By Nicholas RUSHWORTH

Le Figaro is leading on what is being called “Karachigate” here in France, an illegal campaign-funding scandal that came to light following a bombing in Karachi in Pakistan in 2002 in which 11 French nationals were killed.

The paper headlines: “The Elysée condemns political manipulation”. Two of Nicolas Sarkozy’s associates - Nicolas Bazire, the best man at his wedding, and Thierry Gaubert - have been formally accused of handling kickbacks on arms contracts with Pakistan. Investigators are looking into whether sums of money from the kickbacks went into the coffers of the presidential election campaign of a former prime minister Edouard Balladur in the mid 90s. Nicolas Sarkozy has spelt out in a communiqué that he was a Balladur spokesman at the time and not the director of his campaign and had no role in raising campaign funds.

While Le Figaro reports the official line from the Elysée, Le Parisien-Aujourd’hui-en-France describes the press release as “curious”. “Is the presidency losing its nerve”, it asks? The paper argues that the Elysée has been clumsy by saying that Sarkozy’s name does not appear on any of the paperwork related to the scandal when in fact the president does not have access to it.

Le Monde Online is reporting that French judicial officials are now accusing the Elysée of violating the secrecy of the documents. (NB: the paper says “violating” - violé - and not “having stolen” – volé - as stated in error on air.)

Papers are also looking at two women who have emerged centre stage in the scandal. France Soir headlines: “La princesse qui fait trembler Balladur et énerve l’Elysée” (“The princess rocking Balladur and upsetting the Elysée") along with a photo of Hélène de Yougoslavie who is a descendant of the last king of Italy and Thierry Gaubert’s wife. Hélène de Yougoslavie has told investigators her husband accompanied an intermediary, Ziad Takieddine, to Switzerland to pick up cash-stuffed suitcases on several occasions in the period 1994-1995. Papers are showing the princess along with Nicola Johnson, Takieddine’s former wife, who has also spoken to investigators. Le Parisien-Aujourd’hui-en-France paper describes the revelations by the two women as “explosive”.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the french

European Civility and Humanity: Enlightened and Educated. Wise beyond their eons.

The issue of life and death, and whether the state has a right to take your life - a question that does not seem to ever be resolved when discussed by reasonable people of opposing views.  Europeans, who pride themselves on how enlightened they are (saving Paris from being bombed and all that art being preserved for all time, or that they are peace loving people and do not rush into war - unless we look at the curious case of Libya which was entirely European driven and for seemingly no good reason) often raise the fact the US does have the death penalty as a measure of our humanity and civility.

Perhaps.

Perhaps we do not make pretenses about how peaceful we are, wage war for utterly no reason that makes sense to anyone to drive out a leader who was your friend the day before (almost literally).  The rapist Frenchman who was head of the IMF - for many Frenchmen it was all set-up (unfortunately the ability of a Frenchman to examine any two pieces of information critically and arrive at a rational and logical conclusion is unknown to the French, so they prefer to muddle through and make up facts as they go - and then recreate history to conform to their peculiar belief system), he didn't do it.  I don't want to cause any capillaries to burst but that would mean the woman he assaulted was in on the conspiracy.

Further, it requires the simple Frenchman to add other rivals - anyone and everyone can become part of the conspiracy - Sarkozy for sure.  The woman who is about to become the head of the IMF would possibly be involved.  Obama - well, he seems to do what Sarkozy tells him to do (on Libya) so he may be involved which means the CIA is involved and you know what that means (that bin Laden was dead several years ago and the CIA kept him alive in spirit to allow Obama to look good).  The hospital staff where the woman he assaulted was taken would almost certainly be involved - they took DNA from her that came from the former IMF member.  As I recall, it was his body fluid removed from her that linked him to the assault conclusively.  We all know how quickly our police jump to conclusions and rush to airports to arrest foreign potentates.   This conspiracy would also require a Muslim woman to lie on behalf of governments and ideologies her belief system does not agree with nor accept.  Happens all the time - bin Laden was working with CIA, you know, for his kidney medicine and to allow Bush to become so powerful and Obama to be so popular ... 

There is a reason we should keep abortion legal in some countries.  Hopefully it weeds out these moronic idiots.

Alas, that is not the purpose for this post - rather, the point is the European idea of civility and humanity - that the death penalty is ghastly and always happens to the innocent and ... but the Europeans are so much more enlightened on the issue.  When they murder someone, they often receive 10-15 years.  Until recently, the only person charged in regard to the 9/11 attacks was in Germany and he was charged as an accessory - he received 10 or so years for the murder of 3,000 human beings.  Average worth of one human life  -1.5 days.  Very enlightened.

The story of Amanda Knox - a female living in Italy accused of killing her roommate in some twisted sex game or rape.  She was found guilty - consequently no longer accused.  She was sentenced to 26 (or 25) years for murdering Meredith Kercher.  She was not found guilty of being the single person to stab and murder Kercher, rather she was part of the murder and retrieved a knife for two others, who played the primary role, after which Knox purportedly stabbed her. 

The other two people involved - Rudy Guede and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele ­Sollecito.  Sollecito received the same length of sentence as Knox (25-26 years), while Guede received 30 years (he was also the primary actor in the killing).

Justice done.  30 years for the taking of one human life.  Except Guede had his sentence cut to 16 years. 

Justice.


This is not an isolated case.

















euro

The French: Always Willing to Stand Up and Fight Against Oppression and Evil

It really does sum it up pretty well.




French strike to save 'birthright' of privileges


Associated Press
October 21, 2010

MARSEILLE, France (AP) — Battling for benefits is a tradition in the Gilly family, passed from generation to generation — as it is for families across the country. And that goes some way toward explaining why the protests against plans to raise France's retirement age have shown such determination and ferocity.

For Gilly and many other Frenchmen and women, social benefits such as long vacations, state-subsidized health care and early retirement are more than just luxuries: They're seen as a birthright — an essential part of the identity of today's France.

[THAT is the problem.  Who will pay you when you are on your vacation for two months, and when you retire at 60 and ... dumb bunnies.]


The protest against a government plan to raise the retirement age to 62 has special meaning for five members of the Eric Gilly clan who are demonstrating in the streets of Marseille.

"We want to stop working at 60 because it's something our parents, our grandparents and even our great-grandparents fought for," says Gilly, 50, a union representative at Saint-Pierre Cemetery, the largest in this bustling Mediterranean port city.

"And over the years ... you can see that we're losing everything they fought for. And that's unacceptable."

In Marseille, strikes to protest President Nicolas Sarkozy's planned retirement reform have shut down docks, left tons of garbage putrefying on sidewalks and drawn tens of thousands into the streets for each of six protest marches since early September.

Gilly, with huge drums strapped over his shoulders, led the parade for the Workers' Force union Monday. His sister, two daughters and a nephew weren't far behind.

"Unionism, it's in the skin," Gilly said in an interview with Associated Press Television News. "It's more than a passion. When something is wrong or things aren't right, they have to be changed."

The nation usually watches with care over its citizens, who for decades have used street power to help shape French policy, sometimes pulling the rug from under politicians' feet.

Retirement benefits are coveted, by some, perhaps even more than a higher salary, making the issue particularly sensitive. Sarkozy's plan to raise the retirement age hits a nerve deep in the French psyche.

"France is showing some of its old cultural reflexes," said Etienne Schweisguth of the Center for European Studies at the Foundation for Political Science. "When there is something we aren't pleased with we must protest."

Trying to undo what the state wants dates back to an anarchist tradition of the 19th century, when unions first led a struggle against capitalism and a refusal to align with political parties, said Schweisguth. One wing of the hard-core CGT union, which is leading many of today's protests, still looks to that tradition.

Despite the anti-government protests, it is the French state that has for centuries been charged with protecting individuals and their rights.

"The state is the guarantor of the moral good," said Schweisguth, who studies changes in attitudes and values in society.

It was in 1982, under Socialist President Francois Mitterrand, that the minimum age to stop working was lowered from 65 to 60. The measure, emblematic of the 14-year Mitterrand presidency, was adopted by a special ordinance that bypassed parliament.

Sixty has since become a golden number — and the battle cry for entire families fearful of losing benefits bestowed on grandparents, parents or colleagues at work. Including the Gillys.

"This is a family affair because unionism is our big family," said Stephanie, 22, who is among Marseille's striking garbage collectors. "Our elders fought for retirement at 60."

"We have all the generations represented," she said. "There's me, my little sister, Dad. There we go. And then there will be our children, too. We will teach them."

Schweisguth said, that despite the ruckus, strikers represent a minority of the population and that, while polls show backing for such actions, they do not measure the fervor of the backing, which he called "flaccid."

Sarkozy, a conservative, has made pushing the legal retirement age back up a priority.

[How far BACK up?????  You might think he wants it up to 70 with all the protests and rioting.  No, 62 is the age.]


"The French are moaners, sometimes grouches. But at the same time they're lucid, intelligent and responsible," the daily Le Figaro quoted him as saying in May, when he criticized Mitterrand's 1982 decision. "They will be able to acknowledge that there is no alternative to our reforms."

But Sarkozy is increasingly unpopular, and he may be off the mark.

Gilly, a burly man dressed in red from his baseball cap to his Workers' force union bib, pounds the huge drum hanging from his neck at a street protest against the retirement reform, keeping time to the chorus of voices singing "The International," the Communist anthem.

"You're not really going to push up the age of people who retire with this reform," says his nephew, Mathias Gilly, a retailer. "In reality, it's going to mean a smaller pension for people when they do retire."

Gilly packs up his drum for another day, vowing that he and his family will keep up protests — "for as long as it takes."

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
french

L'histoire me rappelle ...

I thought the following was a very beautiful story. I am sure there is an English version, although translating it into English loses some of the beauty of it.

A friend sent it to me and I appreciated it.

[The fact I enjoy the story and the French language, does not imply/suggest/connote that I feel anything for the French ... just the story and their language.]





Il était une fois, une île ou tous les différents sentiments vivaient : le Bonheur, la Tristesse, le Savoir, ainsi que tous les autres, l'Amour y compris. Un jour on annonça aux sentiments que l'île allait couler.

Ils préparèrent donc tous leurs bateaux et partirent.

Seul l'Amour resta.

L'Amour voulait rester jusqu'au dernier moment. Quand l'ile fut sur le point de sombrer, l'Amour décida d'appeler à l'aide.

La Richesse passait à côté de l'Amour dans un luxueux bateau. L'Amour lui dit, - "Richesse, peux-tu m'emmener?" - "Non car il y a beaucoup d'argent et d'or sur mon bateau. Je n'ai pas de place pour toi."

L'Amour décida alors de demander à l'Orgueil, qui passait aussi dans un magnifique vaisseau, - "Orgueil, aide-moi je t'en prie !" - "Je ne puis t'aider, Amour. Tu es tout mouillé et tu pourrais endommager mon bateau."

La Tristesse étant à côté, l'Amour lui demanda, - "Tristesse, laisse-moi venir avec toi." - "Oooh... Amour, je suis tellement triste que j'ai besoin d'être seule !"

Le Bonheur passa aussi à coté de l'Amour, mais il était si heureux qu'il n'entendît même pas l'Amour l'appeler !

Soudain, une voix dit, - "Viens Amour, je te prends avec moi." C'etait un vieillard qui avait parlé.

L'Amour se sentit si reconnaissant et plein de joie qu'il en oublia de demander son nom au vieillard. Lorsqu'ils arrivèrent sur la terre ferme, le vieillard s'en alla.

L'Amour réalisa combien il lui devait et demanda au Savoir - "Qui m'a aidé ?" - "C'était le Temps" répondit le Savoir. - "Le Temps ?" s'interrogea l'Amour. - "Mais pourquoi le Temps m'a-t-il aidé ?"

Le Savoir, sourit plein de sagesse, et répondit : - "C'est parce que Seul le Temps est capable de comprendre combien l'Amour est important dans la Vie.

L'histoire me rappelle de Lee.







love

Tolerance can be a bad thing, and the end of racism as we know it.

SPIEGEL ONLINE


10/20/2008 11:54 AM

INTERVIEW WITH BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY

Why Europeans Love Obama

By Beth Arnold

French provocateur Bernard-Henri Lévy on how the left is being destroyed by tolerance -- and the Europeans' fascination with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Since he began his career 35 years ago, self-described leftist, philosopher and journalist Bernard-Henri Lévy has never been caught without a cause or opinion. He has flamboyantly articulated these in more than 30 books (including the much discussed "American Vertigo"), countless television appearances, articles and even films that he's written, produced, directed and/or narrated. Lévy is a kind of intellectual Robin Hood, going where there is totalitarianism and/or war. He has been a passionate advocate of Bosnia, smuggled himself into Darfur to report on the Sudanese genocide and followed the perilous trail of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl into Pakistan to write the New York Times bestseller "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?"

Lévy is a showman -- his narcissism is legendary -- which adds fuel to the fire of his critics, who accuse him of lacking original ideas. Known in France as BHL, Lévy is his own wildly successful brand. He wears the mantle of polarizing intellectual quite happily along with made-to-measure clothing from French house Charvet, which also made shirts for JFK and Marcel Proust. He was recently quoted in the New York Times' T Magazine men's fall fashion supplement saying he had no interest in his bespoke apparel or even talking about it -- though he had clearly agreed to this fashion profile, which was set in Bosnia, where he was screening two documentaries he had shot there and attending a children's festival partly financed by his family foundation.

At home in France, Lévy is treated as something of a god (which is not lost on him), known for his good looks and family wealth as much as for his intellectual output. It doesn't hurt his glamorous profile that he is married to provocative actress and singer Arielle Dombasle, who is sometimes uncharitably compared to a Barbie doll. The couple share an apartment with a chic address on the Left Bank, a house in the South of France and a Marrakech palace.

Lévy's latest literary publicity blitz coincides with the publication of his newest book, "Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism." When Levy wrote "Barbarism With a Human Face" 31 years ago, his sworn enemy -- the barbarism he spoke of -- was Marxism. In the new book, the author has focused on his own intellectual autobiography, examining his ideological and political history and identity. He believes a segment of his political family (the left) is being led astray and he rakes his extended kin over the coals for becoming too tolerant -- especially on issues like Islamic radicalism -- and letting their anti-imperialistic attitudes and loathing of America cloud their vision and damage their democratic values. He is unusual in French terms, because he's pro-American when a lot of Europeans think the U.S. behaves like it owns the world. Lévy has a fondness and understanding of American culture. He gets us, and attempted to prove it in "American Vertigo," his report on the state of the USA.

Lévy answers the door to his Paris apartment himself, a tall, lanky man wearing his signature white shirt, unbuttoned almost to the navel, underneath a sleek suit. In his large, blond-wood-paneled office, there is an enormous metal sculpture of a man's head with a panel opening half of it. Inside, the figure is empty -- the complete opposite of the man who owns him.

SALON: The subtitle of your new book is "A Stand Against the New Barbarism." Can you explain what you mean by that?

Lévy: What I mean by the new barbarism is great ideas having bad effects. Great ideals turning out to be the stem cell of big crimes, big injustices, unfairnesses, brutality and so on. The barbarism 30 years ago when I wrote "Barbarism With a Human Face" was Marxism, which pretended to be a fight in favor of justice, social equality, freedom, eradication of slavery, and which was exactly the contrary. And you have today a new barbarism in the case of these women and men who pretend to fight in favor of tolerance, in favor of anti-imperialism, in favor of anti-colonialism, and actually plead for slavery of the women, massive violation of human rights. Or when they don't plead for that, they tolerate them, refuse to denounce them.

You have a new mechanism today ... for example, where in the name of anti-Americanism the crimes in Darfur are not denounced. The crimes in Bosnia were accepted. And so many wars in Africa or elsewhere are just forgotten.

SALON: Are there specific kinds of people you're talking about?

Lévy: Those, for example, who pretend to be anti-mondialist ... I don't know if you have this in America? Anti-mondialists fight against globalization. Anti-globalization ... They are the dark side of the left of today.

Now, in my family, which is the left progressive camp -- in this family, I observe that there is a tendency which can reach the same results ... the same blindness of the right. The same indifference to the real suffering of the real people, and so on and so on.

SALON: So you are saying that you believe the left can end up committing the same sins as the right? Because I think in the United States we have been fighting for tolerance in so many ways -- tolerance for gays, civil rights ...

Lévy: These battles, of course, you fought. I fought ... And it is won. It is achieved. Barack Obama being a candidate for the presidency and maybe -- I hope -- elected means that the fight is won, more or less. Frankly a country where racism is sued in front of lawyers, a country where the women won the power of preventing discrimination and so on, this is great. This is a huge cultural revolution, which America led.

But in the name of tolerance there can be also some crimes -- not committed but veiled ... For example, those who tell us that we have to be tolerant of the radical Islamist movements. Those who tell us that being tolerant means trying to understand their reasons and their justifications. Those who tell us that, about women, to veil the face of a woman is just a customary habit, which we Westerners are not allowed to judge according to the standard of human rights. This is a very bad thing.

This idea that every habit should be respected, every custom should be accepted because it belongs to a whole and that if we take a piece, we break the whole -- this is one of the counter-effects of tolerance. And you have in America a lot of people who said, why should you ask the Indian people to resign the pattern of the castes that belong to their culture? Why should you oblige this or that tribe, people in Africa, to resign the excision of the clitoris of the little girl? It belongs to their culture ...

SALON: You framed the new book around your telling Nicolas Sarkozy that you would not support or vote for him for president. Even though you two had been friends for 25 years, you told him in a phone call that you'd never voted for the right, and you had no intention of changing that. What is your relationship with Sarkozy now?

Lévy: I don't know. I did not see him again since the book ... He does not believe in ideas, so he does not understand somebody who was a sort of buddy -- I would not say a friend but a buddy -- not to vote in favor of him. He still did not understand, I think, so he interprets these sorts of stories in terms of betrayal, fidelity. I don't believe in that. The only fidelity you have to have is to ideas, truth, and there are some circumstances when an intellectual has a duty of infidelity -- if he's a friend, and if you are against his ideas.

What does it mean to be a leftist? Does it mean to be faithful to a family, whatever the family does? Whatever the family says? I don't think so. There is a duty of unfaithfulness also to the family in question -- to the left when the left is embodied by Noam Chomsky, or when it is embodied by Naomi Klein.

SALON: Would you define for an American audience what you mean by a leftist? I'd like to try and get at what the difference is between someone on the left in Europe and the U.S.

Lévy: In the two countries, I think it is the same definition: to have freedom and equality, the two dreams of freedom and equality walking at the same pace. To refuse to choose between the two. This is written in the motto of the French Republic, as you know, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” And it is also written in the DNA of the best of America. The real dream of equality, which fed the battle, for example, for the civil rights, Martin Luther King and so on, and the battle for individual freedom. Those who ask to choose between the two -- if you have freedom you do not have equality, if you have equality, you do not have freedom -- for me, they are not leftist. This is a good definition of the left.

SALON: If there were three main differences between the left and the right, right now, what would you say they are?

Lévy: To believe or not to believe that equality and freedom can be combined, as I told you, is one difference. (Another is) to believe or not to believe in politics. A classical rightist or leftist-rightist does not believe in politics; he believes in the invisible hand of the market in one case, of history in the other case -- the invisible hand being able, herself and alone, to promote the change and the reform and so on. For me, a leftist is somebody who believes a democracy has to be built with time, patience, real meaning and so on.

And the third difference for me is not to choose the victims. When you are a rightist, you decide, for example, that you have some privileged blood baths, some privileged wars of which you take care and others of which you don't take care. You also have some people in the so-called left who (do that) -- for example ... Kosovo. You had a racist, neo-Fascist dictator (there), Miloševi. You had a civil population guilty of nothing, which was displaced, raped, killed and so on. And you had some people who, because America was against Miloševi, decided to be in favor of Miloševi and against the American intervention to stop the thing, and so on and so on. This is the false left.

SALON: In this book, you write, "Since the French Revolution, the word 'revolution,' the pure signifier, was, in France at least, the most serious political dividing line. The Left wanted it; the Right feared it." What is the state of revolution in the world right now?

Lévy: It depends on what you mean by revolution. If you mean by revolution the dream which was on the top of the clock when I was 20 years old (in the 1960s), I hope this dream is over -- the dream of rebeginning the human gender. To remake it. To remold it completely ... This was the old way of being a revolutionary.

Now, if you mean by revolution changing the world in favor of the have-nots, of the less gifted, and so on -- if you mean by revolution, more and more democracy and liberal democracy and not to choose between liberty, freedom and equality, this is still going on. Not enough. I hope it will be more.

SALON: I think that if Obama is elected, it will be a revolution in the United States.

Lévy: In a way, you can understand it like this. I am in favor of that myself. I hope, if I could pray I would pray, for Obama being elected.

SALON: Why do Europeans love Obama?

Lévy: I don't know. I can't tell you why. I don't love him, by the way. I wish him to be elected. It's not a question of love or hate ... This is not the best way to make politics.

Why Obama should be chosen, in my opinion: No. 1, because it would mean really the end -- and the complete victory of the battle begun in the '60s. No. 2, because it will mean the end of a new American evil, which is the dividing, the Balkanization of American society. This is another counter-effect of a great idea, which was tolerance. You so much tolerate that you tolerate the American society to be in separate bubbles having their own peculiarities, and so on. Obama as president will mean all these bubbles submitted to a real ideal of citizenship. This is his message.

McCain will not be able to do this. If McCain is elected, I can tell you the Iranians will close themselves in the Iranian identity. The Arabs will coldly, freezingly imprison themselves in the Muslim identity. The African-Americans will believe that the American society is more and more built against them. You will have an increase of the Balkanization.

And No. 3, you have another ideal in the America of today, which I call the competition of victims. Competition of memories. If you are in favor of the Jews, you cannot be in favor of the blacks. If you remember the suffering of slavery, you cannot remember too much the suffering of the Holocaust, and so on and so on. The human heart has not space enough for all the sufferings. This is what some people say. Obama says the contrary. It will mean the end of this stupid topic, which is competition of victimhood.

SALON: If McCain is elected, then how will the world react?

Lévy: The only way America can get out of the current crisis is a minimum of welfare state, of a Rooseveltian New Deal. It will not be tax cuts and so on ... So America will react badly. The world will react also badly. McCain may not be a bad guy, but he will mean -- his victory will mean -- the revenge, freezing, frightened, shy, rear-guard America. Rear guard. Not vanguard. Not victorious. Not optimist America.

SALON: A lot of Americans do not understand why it even matters what the rest of the world thinks about who the American president is.

Lévy: Because you are the most important, the most powerful country in the world. But don't be too narcissistic, you Americans. Everything matters to everybody. The next president of Iran matters to everybody. Who is president matters to everybody. Who presides over one of the most little states in the world, which is Israel, matters to everybody. The entire world matters. Even more little -- Gaza. Hamas or not Hamas? Everybody has the eyes on that. So it is a principle, a rule in this time of globalization: Everything matters to everybody.






French

Frenchmen: Some are dense as rock hard stupid

One of these individuals is Thierry Meyssan.

Monsieur Meyssan: il est un des etres humains les plus muets vivants!!

Why?

He believes 9/11 was carried out by the US government.

He wrote a book, the name of which I cannot recall - best seller in France and the Palestinian areas, picked up by Arab scholars as evidence, then incorporated into their arguments of hate against the West, forgetting to cite Meyssan, leading their minions to believe it crept out of their sick minds, lending it even more credibility.

Up there with world peace on my list of ideals / wishes / dreams ... is my fondest hope that people like Meyssan find themselves in a) SAW, b) Hostel, c) Tourista, d) a lions cage with a lion that has not been fed in a month. I could phrase my wish differently, but honestly, I wish this for people like Meyssan. Further, I wish their families and all people who know them get sucked into a giant vortex to another dimension just as a thermonuclear blast obliterates the other dimension. Why? The kind of stupid meyssan defines, needs to be eradicated. All DNA and genes and possible spread of his stupidity (and all those like him) needs to be erased. I fear everyday, that another person gets infected. It is just not worth the chance.

To summarize his main points, as laid out on Jaam-e-Jam 2 TV on August 30, 2005.


1) Prior to 9/11, There Was Stock Market Activity among Airlines and Insurance Companies
So what. They did before, they do after. They did twenty years ago. They did just last week. THEY ALWAYS HAVE and planes didn't fall out of the sky.


2) The Third Tower – CIA World Headquarters
No it wasn't you lunatics. The CIA did have an office, but so bloody what. They probably have an office near you. And that means what. The building was 20-28% destroyed by debris. It made the building unstable. END of story. And even if the building owner had insurance - so what if he committed fraud by convincing the authorities his building was unstable if it wasn't. SO WHAT. It is unrelated to anything and is a non-starter.


3) The Eisenhower Building – Hit by a Missile

NO. Big fat lie. LIE. LIE. LIE.



4) Law Requiring Pilots to Carry Arms Repealed Just Before 9/11

Yes, and I am sure that a week before 9/11, a flight attendant on one of the planes mentioned to their family members that they were afraid a plane might crash - I suppose that means they were in on it. SO WHAT. Well, had they carried a gun they could have ... NO YOU DUMB SHIT. THE RULES WERE agree to whatever hijackers want. ALWAYS HAD BEEN THE RULE.


5) "When the U.S. president travels around a large country like America, halls are prepared along his route, equipped with means of communications, such as telephones, videos, and so on, so he can talk to his joint command, his residence, and with the White House, without fear of being tapped. Such a hall was prepared at the kindergarten. Bush calls Rice and says: 'I have just seen on the secure video-screen that the first plane went into the first tower.' Then he entered the kindergarten, and did not appear to be agitated. Actually, when such incidents occur, the U.S. president immediately says a few words of condolence to the victims' families.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. they didn't have a hallway set up. They watch too many movies. His car is equipped with communications, and phones are also equipped, so he doesn't need a special room. Dumb shit.

And NO, the rule isn't that presidents offer condolences. You stupid asshole. Every time someone dies in a plane crash, the president doesn't run out and cry. You have been watching too many Bill Clinton re-runs. The US PRESIDENT NEVER speaks until everything is known. they believed the first plane was a small lear jet or private plane of some type. Then he went back to the class, but he was not aware ... T his is the best example of why Bill Clinton and other fools did more to hurt the presidency than anything Nixon did. Now the world thinks the president runs out every time a plane crashes to cry with people, hold their hands and feel their breasts, I mean, pain. It is unbelievable what the media have done to hurt the country in portraying moronic meanders of president's and congress to the world who believe what they see, being the morons that they are.


6) The only way to attack the Pentagon with a flying object is for this object to have the American army's 'friend' code. In fact, the Pentagon was attacked by a U.S. army missile fired by American military personnel.

What an idiot. NO, the plane came in 10-20 feet above ground level. over the highway, over the roofs of more than 30 cars which it crushed as it ran over them, over the cars in the parking lot that were hit and mangled as the plane rushed forward, knocking down light posts and fences. And then the images released - showing the plane entering the building. For Meyssan, facts are just little blips on his path to insanity.


7) No Proof Islamists Were Involved

The fact bin laden has said he did it more than thirteen times. The fact that each and every al qaida member left a video recording of their will stating their intention and desire and why they were doing the deed. That all those video will's were shown on al jazeera and anyone with a TV/DVD recorder has them, to this day (ok, so i don't have ALL of them, just seven, close enough).


*************************************


In the hours after the attack on New York, I went outside and looked into the skies above Los Angeles and saw thousands of angels who told me the attack was the work of mutants from Middle Earth.

There. Now, I have my own theory and I have as much evidence to support my theory as the retards who follow Meyssan.

And you know who you are you lunatics. You would argue you don't, you have your own theory. Yeah yeah, but the FIRST theory, the first ideas, ALL came from this lunatic. Your ideas were born from this man and his arguments are all severely flawed hence your argument based off a severely flawed argument is not only severely flawed, it is fatally flawed for you, if my wish were to come true.

LUNATICS and LOSERS.



Practice Birth Control.

Get sterilized.

Never have children.

Do not marry.

Do not work around children.

Take your meds.











Losers





idiots

UN - Corrupt to its core. Iraq, Oil, and Blood for money

The United Nations is an institution whose time came and went, all within a couple years. By the 1950s, the institution had outlived its usefulness.

For those who adore and hang upon every resolution from the place, NOTHING ever written will convince you otherwise. Fine. I understand your intent and will never as long as I live, accept your authority to do anything about anything except ... WHO is a somewhat useful organization. UNICEF has also done some good. There are 2-3 other entities within and of the UN which provide some usefulness and assistance. Those few positive contributions do not negate my claim nor is my support for those entities contradictory given my opposition to the UN as an entity. The benefit derived from those organizations could be absorbed by other private groups without the UN hanging over every issue.

The UN is an impediment to peace. It is an accessory to murder. It is and has been complicit in the deaths of millions. If the UN was a person, they would be in prison for life for the crimes they have committed.

Beyond Rwanda - which will stare at them for eternity, there is the little matter of the corruption at the UN over oil for food.

This cannot be under stated. Between 1996 and 2003, the UN controlled how much oil Saddam could sell. It was sold, the UN collected the money, put it in a bank, and would send him a check for the amount the UN deemed necessary to take care of 25 million Iraqis - from food to health or all needs.

Therein was the corruption!

100 barrels sold for $100 a barrel = $10000.

$10,000 is placed in a bank.

The bank pays interest.

The UN does not give the interest away.

Who gets to be the bank? Where is the bank located and how was the bank selected?
FRANCE gets the bank and the son of the president of France is on the board of directors of the bank (or similar functionary position). Hmm.

Still not stressing anyone. Well, instead of 100 barrels, make it 1,000,000 barrels and then multiply it by months and by years. Saddam didn't get all that money, only that which the UN determined was needed to take care of his people.

Saddam didn't use 20% for his people. It all went to weapons. The UN knew this yet continued the process.

The UN was aware he was buying weapons and the weapons would be and were used against his people and possibly others (UN responsibility for the crimes established).

None of that is really very important - just stick with the billions in the French banks. And the millions in interest.

Who gets the interest? How much is the bank paid? How much are the individuals involved paid? And more importantly, did any of this money or the wealth generated by this corrupt scheme, play a role in French opposition to the war in Iraq? The answer is yes. The same with the UN. They would lose their cash cow. Billions at stake. Enough to do everything possible to save Saddam, or support Iraqi troops when the US invaded.

The evidence is there - go find it. Indict Kofi Annan for crimes against humanity, and his co-defendant will be the UN.


You may wish to begin with the following articles. There are 4 - none are the best nor the most comprehensive, but I did have them sitting around. Claudia Rosett has done great work on the issue of oil/food/corruption/UN.


Article 1:
April 18, 2004, 11:36 p.m.
Oil-for-Terror?There appears to be much worse news to uncover in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
By Claudia Rosett

Beyond the billions in graft, smuggling, and lavish living for Saddam Hussein that were the hallmarks of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, there is one more penny yet to drop.

It's time to talk about Oil-for-Terror.

Especially with the U.N.'s own investigation into Oil-for-Food now taking shape, and more congressional hearings in the works, it is high time to focus on the likelihood that Saddam may have fiddled Oil-for-Food contracts not only to pad his own pockets, buy pals, and acquire clandestine arms — but also to fund terrorist groups, quite possibly including al Qaeda.



***************************************


Article 2:
AFTER THE WAR

The Oil-for-Food Scandal
The program was corrupt. The U.N. owes the Iraqis--and Congress--an explanation.

BY THERESE RAPHAEL
Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:01 a.m.

"If there is evidence, we would investigate it very seriously," Kofi Annan insisted last month when presented with allegations that U.N. officials knew about and may have benefited from Saddam Hussein's corruption of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program. Fortunately, Saddam appears to have been a stickler for record-keeping.

A letter has come to The Wall Street Journal supporting allegations that among those favored by Saddam with gifts of oil was Benon Sevan, director of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program. As detailed on this page on Feb. 9, Mr. Sevan's name appears on a list of individuals, companies and organizations that allegedly received oil allocations or vouchers from Saddam that could then be sold via middlemen for a significant markup. The list, compiled in Arabic from documents uncovered in Iraq's oil ministry, included many of Saddam's nearest and dearest from some 50 countries, including the PLO, pro-Saddam British MP George Galloway, and French politician Charles Pasqua. (Messrs. Galloway and Pasqua have denied receiving anything from Saddam.) According to the list, first published by the Iraqi daily Al Mada in January, Mr. Sevan was another beneficiary, via a company in Panama known as Africa Middle East Petroleum, Co. Ltd. (AMEP), about which we have learned quite a bit.

Mr. Sevan, through a U.N. spokesperson, has also denied the allegation. But the letter, which two separate sources familiar with its origins say was recovered from Iraqi Oil Ministry files, raises new questions about Mr. Sevan's relationship with Iraqi authorities.

The letter is dated Aug. 10, 1998, and addressed to Iraq's oil minister. It states: "Mr. Muwafaq Ayoub of the Iraqi mission in New York informed us by telephone that the above-mentioned company has been recommended by his excellency Mr. Sevan, director of the Iraqi program at the U.N., during his recent trip to Baghdad." The matter is then recommended "for your consideration and proportioning" and the letter is signed Saddam Zain Hassan, executive manager of the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO), the Iraqi state-owned company responsible for negotiating oil sales with foreign buyers. A handwritten note below the signature confirms the request was granted "by his excellency the Vice President of the Republic [presumably Taha Yassin Ramadan, now in U.S. custody] in a meeting of the Command Council on the morning of Aug. 15, 1998." Scrawled below that to one side is another note stating that 1.8 million barrels were allocated to the company two days later, on Aug. 17.

A second document shown to the Journal is a chart in Arabic with the heading "Quantity of Oil Allocated and Given to Mr. Benon Sevan." The Oil-for-Food program was divided into 13 phases in all, representing roughly six-month periods from December 1996 through June 2003. Under phase four (during which the letter was written), the chart shows 1.8 million barrels as having been allocated to Mr. Sevan and 1,826 million barrels "executed." In some phases the chart indicates that an oil allocation was approved but no contract was executed for some reason, so that the total allocation awarded to Mr. Sevan in phases four through 13 is 14.2 million barrels, of which 7.291 million were actually disbursed, according to the document.

Mr. Sevan could not be reached for comment on the letter, but did issue a denial in response to our Feb. 9 article. "There is absolutely no substance to the allegations . . . that I had received oil or oil monies from the former Iraqi regime," he said through a spokesman. "Those making the allegations should come forward and provide the necessary documentary evidence." The denial notwithstanding, the documents raise enough questions to warrant an investigation by the U.N., as well as by outside investigators, including the U.S. Congress. (A U.N. spokesman said yesterday that Mr. Sevan is on extended vacation until late April, after which he retires at the month's end.)


[To read the rest of the article click on the title link]


*****************************************
Article 3:

Saddam's illicit profits more than $21 billion

Deseret News (Salt Lake City),
Nov 16, 2004 by Pauline Jelinek

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Over more than a decade, Saddam Hussein's government raised more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting U.N. sanctions against Iraq including the humanitarian oil- for-food program, congressional investigators estimated Monday.

That's double the $10 billion the Iraqi president previously was alleged to have siphoned off. The earlier estimate included only the oil-for-food program. The new, higher number includes illicit profits from efforts like the illegal smuggling of oil in the years of sanctions that preceded the humanitarian program that began in 1996.

"The magnitude of fraud perpetrated by Saddam Hussein in contravention of U.N. sanctions and the oil-for-food program is staggering," Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said Monday as his Senate Government Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations began a hearing on the subject.
"This is like an onion -- we just keep uncovering more layers and more layers," he said.

New figures on Iraq's alleged surcharges, kickbacks and oil- smuggling are based on new documents obtained by the committee's investigative panel. The documents illustrate how Iraqi officials, foreign companies and sometimes politicians allegedly contrived to bring vast illicit gains to Saddam's government and how he tried to buy support abroad for a move to get the United Nations to lift sanctions, officials said.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the humanitarian program was that it allowed Saddam to decide who would get oil contracts, said Charles Duelfer, the last chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq who also studied Saddam's efforts to subvert sanctions.

[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]


********************************************
Article 4:

Saddam's illegal oil profits higher than estimated, U.S. says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein's regime made billions of dollars more than originally estimated from the United Nations' Oil for Food program and smuggling, the General Accounting Office said Thursday.

Saddam reaped $10.1 billion in illegal oil revenues from 1997 to 2002, GAO Director of International Affairs and Trade Joseph Christoff told a House Financial Services subcommittee Thursday. Originally, GAO had estimated the Iraqi regime acquired only $6.6 billion.

Christoff said $5.7 billion was from oil smuggled out of Iraq and $4.4 billion came from illicit surcharges on oil sales and after sale charges on suppliers involved in the Oil for Food program.

The program, which was set up after the 1991 Gulf War, allowed Iraq to sell specific quotas of oil, with the proceeds earmarked to pay for food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Other oil sales were barred under a U.N. embargo.

[to read the rest of the article, click the title link]

* * * * * *

The UN has damned itself more times than one can count, although everytime we begin counting, the UN redefines what counting is and everytime we get to 10 or 12, the UN determines we should count by 10s and every ten would be equal to 1. So they say that they have only screwed up once by their count. Absurd.







USELESS NATIONS




UN


KOFI




OIL



IRAQ

Home

I am considering the idea of looking for a new home - it must have a moat and a wall, or some form of moat and or a wall or both.

If there is a wall on a couple sides and a moat on the other, or whatever variation of moat/wall to give the greatest amount of privacy possible. Even a mountain side isn't private - anyone on an adjacent mountain and or in a helicopter can / would be able to see in. There are a few times in life when I can think of money as being a useful asset in the pursuit of happiness.

It is not the money that brings happiness, but what you can use the money for that can bring you greater happiness. For me - a walled moated fortress - with no neighbors and no traffic in front of the house. I don't want people parking in front of my fortress (hence the moat), I do not want solicitors (the moat and wall will come in handy for this), and I do not want people standing outside their home across the street for the heck of it watching as I come and go (hence the wall).

I don't think homes in the US have moats, so I am kind of out of luck, although I suppose I could look for one with a lake on one side and walls on the other sides, or I will have to consider the UK (England and Ireland). The problem I now have with the UK, is I may say YUK to some of their food and end up being called a racist, or stopped by one of the tens of thousands of CCTV cameras. However, if I live behind my moat and walls, it is possible I could outlast them.

There are small castles turned homes that have moats. I will have to look into them just as soon as I get my first million dollar check. Until then - neighbors across the street staring, and cars parked in front of my house.

Maybe I should learn Spanish - that will make it all better. Si se puede, and I will be able to say YUCK in two languages, or three if you count French (lucky for us it's the same word).

Hmm. That makes me more European than American (according to Obama) - I knew there was a reason why castles appealed to me. I should get the bags packed.











Neighbors

Books to Read

Author - Kenneth Timmerman. The book: Shadow Warriors.

If anyone has time, any amount of time - the book needs to be read.

If 10% is true ... well, if 10% is true then ... I cannot even fathom the 'then' part.

400 pages, extensively documented - EXTENSIVELY.

Timmerman wrote another book I found very good - The French Betrayal of America (if you still have time, pick this one up also).






books to read

SPRZECIW says Poland

Poland has said sprzeciw, odmowa, nie, or nic nie to the EU treaty the Irish trounced last month.


Poland deals new blow to French EU presidency
Tue Jul 1, 2008 7:20pm EDT

PARIS (Reuters) - Polish President Lech Kaczynski compounded the problems facing the European Union on the first day of France's presidency of the bloc on Tuesday, saying he will not sign the Union's reform treaty for now.

Kaczynski said it would be "pointless" signing the document following its rejection by Irish voters in a referendum on June 12. The treaty, intended to overhaul the bloc's institutions, needs the backing of all 27 member states to come into force.

Kaczynski, a Eurosceptic, helped negotiate the Lisbon Treaty but his party is now in opposition. Prime Minister Donald Tusk said ratification was in Poland's interest.


[...]

"I think Poland has decided, that it will ratify, and that the president, for reasons that are his business and not ours, does not want to sign for the moment. But I am more or less convinced that he will sign," Kouchner told France 2 television.


*******************************************


What we can cull from this little bit of biased news is that for the moment Poland will not sign the EU treaty Ireland trounced, as it would be pointless and Kaczynski understands the opposition in Poland to the treaty, so for the moment, he does not want to be booted as he is within a minority government.

It is not an issue of letting the people decide - the Poles would vote NO, rather it is waiting for a politically opportune moment -and this is not it.

That again raises the issue - why not let the people decide this, in each country. If you believe in the people, let them decide. The problem for the leftists is - they don't trust the people, they don't like them much even.

This is not what we want happening to the US.










EU





useless sorts






elitists

Talk about DUMB - European schools and The End of the World

These people fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. Reading the article made me feel dumber.

I could use this post to deal exclusively with the dumbest people I have had the misfortune of reading about, or I could use it to deal with two points - the article and another, a failing of the left in this country to understand context.

If you ask a business person in Europe where a certain country is, they stand a reasonable chance of knowing. If you ask a business person (or college student or anyone) in the US where that country is, they may or may not know. The left uses this as proof that we, the American people are ignorant of the rest of the world (for that matter, the rest of the world holds this same view), yet they are arguing a non-sequitor - neither the argument nor the conclusion have any correlation to one another.

Here is why -

We are told how terrible our education system is. It is a failure, California or Oklahoma or Texas or Louisiana or some other state is at the bottom and ... we have a poorly educated citizenry - right and wrong. Our K-12 system is a miserable failure - we could start with teachers, unions, and curriculum, but that is another issue. Surprisingly, our collegiate level is superior to any on earth. We produce the brightest from our colleges and universities. The scientists and doctors, the science, and technology - all stem from US universities and US educated students. How do we reconcile the failed K-12 and the superior collegiate level - something happens, the professors, the material - something. Again, another story.

In Europe and Asia - beginning in 6th grade and then 9th (different countries begin their exams at different grade levels) - you start taking tests. Up through grade 7, you take history and math and algebra and science, but say you are inclined to baking and prefer cooking/baking - they will funnel you off starting by 8th and 9th into courses designed to develop your culinary arts. Then your final set of exams determines whether you go on to culinary arts college or finish and go home and bake bread. No choices are allowed - room to maneuver - very limited. It is what it is. Only the brightest of the bright go to university - perhaps equivalent to the top 10% in the US. At university you would study specific courses, not general education. you would study science and all courses would be related to science. No Psychology or sociology. In the US, we provide a general education through your 4th year, then you get specific for your Masters. They are specific when they start university (talk about knowing what you will be, before you are even 20). We allow room for maturity and development, for waste, for fun, for opportunity without seriousness, which ultimately reinforces our passion later. The Brits or french or Danes - no passion, just obligation.

Furthermore, only a select few can go to university (university = the US 4 year university, such as Harvard or UCLA or Yale). Not everyone can go. In the US we allow anyone who wants to, to go to college and if they have decent grades, they can move on to university. that option is not available in Europe or Asia (unless they come to the US).

So ... to answer the question of what country is such and such or where is such and such a country - you are asking individuals who have made it through the European collegiate system - equivalent to asking the top 10% of our college graduates. In that case, our top 10% would do much better.

On average, students I have given a world map quiz to (no names, just numbers and they must label them), get 30-35% of the countries correct. That is an overall average of college students. Some are top 10% and some are bottom 10%. In Europe, the number would be lower if we took the same sample group, if it were possible.

Now to the article - the whole Mayan 2012 end of the world issue ...


Sidebar:
I should throw in my opinion now - I do not believe December 2012 will be one iota different than January 2012. The Mayan built this calendar system over 1000 years ago. They made 1000 years worth of calendars and then stopped. Much like you folding napkins. At what point will you say you have enough and when you use up most, you will fold more? Maybe the Mayan who was doing the stone calendar died and they were looking for someone to take his position and decided it was no rush because the dead guy had made 1000 years already in advance.
End of Sidebar



Many Dutch prepare for 2012 apocalypse

Published: June 23, 2008 at 7:25 PM

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, June 23 (UPI) -- Thousands of people in the Netherlands say they expect the world to end in 2012, and many say they are taking precautions to prepare for the apocalypse.

The Dutch-language de Volkskrant newspaper said it spoke to thousands of believers in the impending end of civilization, and while theories on the supposed catastrophe varied, most tied the 2012 date to the end of the Mayan calendar, Radio Netherlands reported Monday.
De Volkskrant said many of those interviewed are stocking up on emergency supplies, including life rafts and other equipment.

[An ARK might be a better investment!]

Some who spoke to the newspaper were optimistic about the end of civilization.

"You know, maybe it's really not that bad that the Netherlands will be destroyed," Petra Faile said. "I don't like it here anymore. Take immigration, for example. They keep letting people in. And then we have to build more houses, which makes the Netherlands even heavier. The country will sink even lower, which will make the flooding worse."


************************************

Tokyo, New York ... should sink into the center of the earth if that female was correct.

Petra hit every branch, really really hard, but I bet she can probably find 45% of the countries of the world on a map. Doing better than dumb old Americans who are not as concerned about needing rafts.



What bloody difference does it make.










utter


fools



nincompoops




Dutch




idiots

OIL - Gas Prices

WTF?

More oil, higher prices.

Seriously - we need, for 1 week, the Gestapo - arrest everyone who trades in oil contracts / futures / commodities, and then bring in the oil company executives. Everyone, arrest them all - no civil rights - arrest them all. Increase in oil, price up. Demand increases, price up. Supply up, price up. Demand down, price up. Supply up, demand down, price up.

STOP THIS INSANITY!


And what about the following (same article):

Limiting oil's gains Monday was the dollar, which rose against the euro.
When the dollar gains ground, investors who bought commodities such as oil as a
hedge against inflation tend to sell. Also, a stronger greenback makes oil more
expensive to overseas investors. Many analysts believe the dollar's protracted
decline has been one of the main reasons oil has nearly doubled in value over
the past year.

I am ready to call for an invasion of Canada to get more oil, this is ridiculous. The article makes it appear that the fact the US dollar is low gets investors to buy oil, but when the dollar rises against the Euro, it makes oil more expensive. Holy Jesus. Which is it?

Prices go up when the dollar drops.
Prices go up when demand increases.
Prices go up when demand drops.
Prices go up when the dollar value rises.
Prices go up when Saudi Arabia boosts exports.
Prices go up when Nigeria has a disruption.
Prices go up when there is a hurricane.
Prices go up ..

This is insane. Stop with the money or I will support a taxation of 80% on all money made on commodities/futures above $1000, just before I would support banning investing in futures/commodities.

I can very easily become the strongest advocate for taxing anyone who makes money on oil - every mutual fund, every bond, everything and everyone. 90% taxation on all oil profits not reinvested in oil exploration, construction of refineries, and alternatives sources of energy. Everything else - 90% tax on it.

Serious? Well, oil prices SHOULD NOT be this high. Nothing supports the value of oil as high as it is nor the cost of gas over $2.00 a gallon. NOTHING.

And Iran is next - just wait for that boost. $200 a barrel.

Listen you greedy selfish bastards who are getting what you can immediately because you know the laws will smack you sooner or later - ANY conflict will be sorted out. Less than a year and in the meantime, demand will not, NOT grow that much. China is already cutting back on allowing driving. It is about to reduce its subsidy on gas (is currently at about $2.88 a gallon) which will reduce consumption. DEMAND WILL NOT rise that dramatically and any issue in Nigeria will be sorted out as will Iran and they won't stop selling their oil as that is all they have. They would dry up and blow away in the wind. They need their oil money.

I am ready to start holding up gas trucks and building a huge cistern for gas. mass hangings. A Gas Revolution along the lines of the French Revolution.

Viva la France - liberte, egalite, fraternite! To hell with oil companies and Opec.



****************************
Washington Post

Oil rises on modest Saudi increase, Nigeria
By JOHN WILEN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 23, 2008; 11:40 AM

NEW YORK -- Oil prices rose Monday on disappointment over Saudi Arabia's modest production increase and concerns that output from Nigeria will decline. Retail gas prices, meanwhile, inched lower overnight, but appear unlikely to change much as long as oil prices remain stuck in their recent trading range.








STOP


THIS



INSANITY

EU-Ireland and Government TELLING you what you like

(lisbonvote.com)

Previous Posts on this subject:

It Lost - Ireland

and the story on the referendum: EU and Ireland

Hooray!! This, along with two other NO VOTES are strong positions in favor of independence and sovereignty. The issue of trade - they will still trade with you, and if they want your trade they will lower tariffs and if they don't, then they don't want to trade with you. Seems simple enough. They want what you have and you want what they have. You do not need a supranational body governing anyone. Your separate and individual governments are obliged to do as you tell them, not as they would like. Apparently, my issues with government and liberalism in general, are borne out in this column - they know what is best for you and even if you say no, they will still find a way to do it because they know! Sad. I do not enjoy being right about these issues. The logic is at best faulty - you've benefited economically and you won't ... what won't they do if they have benefited economically?

Comes the fallout from the failure (no link):

14 Jun 2008
Saturday's Irish Times

STEPHEN COLLINS, JAMIE SMYTH and DEREK SCALLY

Crisis for EU as Lisbon Treaty is decisively rejected by voters



IRISH VOTERS have rejected the Lisbon Treaty by a decisive margin. The result is a stunning setback for the Government and it has provoked a crisis in the European Union. Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan passes an opponent in the referendum count centre at the RDS in Dublin yesterday. The treaty was defeated by a margin of 53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent.

The treaty was defeated by a margin of 53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent, with 752,451 people voting Yes and 862,415 voting No. The turnout of 53 per cent was higher than in either of the Nice referendums.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen said he respected the result but described it as “source of disappointment” to himself and his Government colleagues.

“It is our duty now to reflect on the implications of this vote for Ireland so that we can move forward and keep this country on the path of progress,” he said.

“As Taoiseach, I will be devoting my full political energies to finding a way forward for our country which needs to take into account the concerns reflected by the referendum result,” said Mr Cowen.

When asked what would happen next, Mr Cowen refused to rule another referendum in or out until all options had been considered.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, however, said he believed the treaty was dead and could not be revisited. “I do not think there is any question of treaty being put a second time to the people,” he said.

The European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, insisted that the treaty was still alive and he urged other EU states to continue to ratify it, despite the Irish No vote.

He said Mr Cowen had told him in a telephone call that the referendum result was clear but that he also believed the treaty was not yet dead.

Mr Barroso said he also believed the treaty “is alive and we should now try to find a solution”. He noted that 18 of the 27 EU member states had ratified it.

He said Mr Cowen would be invited to present his views on the referendum result and how best to move forward at next week’s EU summit in Brussels.

The reaction from the EU’s leading politicians was restrained. The German government promised yesterday to give Mr Cowen time to reflect, but senior sources warned that it saw little alternative to a second referendum.

“ We would have wished for another solution but as good Europeans we have to take the situation as it is,” said German chancellor Angela Merkel after a conversation with the Taoiseach yesterday.

“Ratification will continue and either Ireland votes again or we try to come up with a new text, something on which 27 countries will simply not be able to agree,” said a senior government source.

In a joint statement last night, Dr Merkel and French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: “With all due respect, we take note of the democratic decision of the Irish citizens, even if we regret it.”

Sources close to Mr Sarkozy said there were only two solutions: for the Irish to vote again, or for an as yet undefined legal mechanism to bind Ireland to EU institutions if Ireland does not ratify the treaty.

[Whether they want to or not!]

While Dr Merkel was conciliatory, her coalition partners, the Social Democrats (SPD), were more blunt. The party’s foreign minister, Frank Walter Steinmeier, said the result was a “severe setback” while a party colleague called it a “catastrophe”.

“With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority,” said Axel Schäfer, SPD leader in the Bundestag committee on EU affairs.

“We are incredibly disappointed. We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this. There is no other Europe than this treaty.”

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano was equally critical, calling for states obstructing integration to be left out of the EU. “Now is the time for a courageous choice by those who want coherent progress in building Europe, leaving out those who despite solemn, signed pledges threaten to block it,” he said in a statement.

The Croatian president, Stipe Mesic, expressed disappointment in Ireland. “Now that they have used the accession and structural funds, when they have developed enormously, I’m a little surprised that the solidarity is at an end,” said Mr Mesic.

One of the leaders of the No campaign, Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams, said the Taoiseach now had to go back and renegotiate. Ireland was “the only state that allowed a referendum and that’s to our credit”, he said.

No campaigner Patricia McKenna described it as “a great day for the citizen, the voice of the people”. The founder of Libertas, Declan Ganley, insisted the No vote did not represent a Eurosceptic message. “It is a proEuropean message,” he said.

**********************************************************

They (the EU people) argue that Ireland has benefited economically - even though it was not fully integrated into the EU. Odd. You don't usually give someone a new car to have and ask them to pay for it after they have driven away with it. What did Ireland receive? Favorable trade with the other EU countries? So let me get this straight - the EU countries have favorable rates for each other and not for others? So that is a cartel of sorts. They will discriminate against, say, the US, even though we have (the title has been changed) Most Favored Nation Status, with a couple of them. That means we will open ourselves up to them, but their rates or fees will be higher for us? Ok, so we should think about redefining our economic relationship with them (and for those pro-EU types - as badly as we seem to be doing, we are still a heavyweight compared to their massive lightweight and we will not get much worse, only stronger - they on the other hand, don't seem to do very well anytime the people are actually consulted. ). They made a big deal of how so many other countries had passed the treaty - YEAH - without asking their people, and instead, forcing it down their throats: My people, we must sign this because everyone else is signing it and if we don't they will and we need to because.

What idiocy. For the EU people, notions of sovereignty and nationalism are quaint and antiquated. For the people of France, Ireland, (and one more - Sweden or Norway) where they can actually vote - the people say no, the people like the idea of nationalism and state sovereignty.

An interesting and humorous video on Youtube

Fucking retarded europeans

It Lost - Ireland

Human nature, human behavior, and the ultimate tribal influences!!



Returns show Ireland votes 'no' on EU treaty

By SHAWN POGATCHNIK
The Associated Press
2008-06-13 14:13:04

DUBLIN, Ireland - Substantial election returns showed Friday that Ireland's voters have rejected the European Union reform treaty, a blueprint for modernizing the 27-nation bloc that cannot become law without Irish approval.

Several senior Irish government figures conceded defeat for the treaty, which would be a major blow to the EU.

An EU constitution failed after French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005. Ireland was the only member that subjected its would-be successor, the Lisbon Treaty, to a national vote. The Irish constitution requires all EU treaties to be ratified by referendum.

*****************************************

The other countries are now chiding ireland for even having given their citizens the right to decide. See how much easier it is when you are not free to decide, when government decides for you, and when politicians talk about inevitablity.








Irish

EU and Ireland

Ireland to decide fate of EU treaty

10 Jun 2008
National Post
BY JAMES G. NEUGER Bloomberg News


U.S. OF EUROPE Those opposing accord lead in recent poll


DUBLIN • With less than 1% of the European Union’s population and just more than 1% of its economy, Ireland has 100% control over the bloc’s ambition to become a United States of Europe. Ireland is the only one of the EU’s 27 member nations to put the union’s new governing treaty to a vote. Because defeat anywhere means the treaty will fail, Irish voters will decide the political future of most of Europe.

This week, it becomes the only one of the EU’s 27 member nations to put the new governing treaty to a direct citizens’ vote. Because defeat anywhere will kill the agreement everywhere, it is up to Irish voters to decide whether the alliance will move toward the political unity envisioned by its founding fathers after the Second World War.

The parliaments of 15 EU nations have already approved the treaty and another 11 are expected to do so because their governing majorities also favour it. That leaves the Irish.
A veto in Thursday’s referendum would cripple the bloc’s long-time effort to parlay its economic might into a stronger voice in world affairs, proponents say.

Opponents point out the treaty is an expanded version of the unpopular constitution defeated in 2001 by the French and Dutch “no” votes. The new version was adopted by EU leaders in Lisbon in December and is now being pushed through various legislatures without voters getting a chance to make their wishes known.

[Why do they believe they know what is best? Why do they act in contravention to the best interests of their people as defined by the will of their people? They know that their populations do not support it, necessitating their forcing the bill through by simply ignoring the will of the people? Why? The answer is quite simple and it is also what is wrong with the liberal ideology that permeates so much of Europe and partially controls the US - THEY KNOW WHAT IS BEST for you. And they will push it down your throat whether you want it or not, they believe you will learn to appreciate it in time. Despite your opposition to it now, in the years to come you will shrug your shoulders and accept it. And some people wonder why the liberal ideology should be opposed? I believe the people should decide - they have a collective voice, and a brain. Inform them, educate them and they will make the best decision. Don't treat them like they are three year olds and tell them they will enjoy it. It makes totalitarianism and the former communists states appear democratic.]

For most of the campaign, polls showed a majority of Irish voters supported the accord. But opposition has been growing, and an Irish Times/ TNS MRBI poll published last Friday gave opponents a lead for the first time, 35% to 30%.

Supporters are concerned about a repeat of 2001, when a last-minute surge of opposition defeated the EU’s more limited governing treaty. After a concerted campaign, proEurope forces managed to win approval in a rerun of the election a year later.

With gross domestic product of ¤12.8-trillion ($19.8 trillion), the EU is the world’s largest economic bloc, with its own central bank, trade and regulatory authority, and close to 100,000 pages of laws that govern a common market from the Atlantic to the Russian border.

Still, the EU remains far less than the federal state envisioned by Jean Monnet, the French cognac salesman turned statesman who expounded the bold European visions of the 1940s and 1950s. The commercial colossus remains a geopolitical midget: EU divisions hastened the collapse of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, leaving the U.S. to halt the bloodshed. The bloc splintered when George W. Bush, the U.S. President, invaded Iraq in 2003.

The answer, backers of a higher-profile EU say, is the Lisbon treaty, a 277-page overhaul of the bloc’s founding documents that would create the post of president, strengthen the foreign-policy chief and give more power to the democratically elected European Parliament.

Irish supporters of the accord, including Brian Cowen, the Prime Minister, and the leading opposition party, are trying to neutralize claims the treaty would hand too much power to the EU, flood the Irish market with cheap foreign foods, let the EU jack up Ireland’s 12.5% business-tax rate, or even drag the country into foreign wars.

[Perhaps because other countries have experienced the onslaught of crappy goods, cheaper labor, increased taxation and people are fed up. When people trumpet the power of the EU and the seeming decline of the US, I just smile and realize human behavior will sort it all out, eventually.]

Passage of the new EU blueprint would end almost two decades of tinkering with its institutional arrangements, starting with the Maastricht Treaty of 1991 that paved the way for the common currency.

Back then, the bloc was a cluster of a dozen countries rooted in the reconciliation of France and Germany after a more than a century of war, from Napoleon to Hitler.

After expansion in 2004 into former communist nations in eastern Europe, today’s EU is closer to the instability of the Caucasus and Middle East, and the economic confidence of its welfare states has been shaken by rising powers such as China and India.

“We’re not a little club of 12 that can sit together and discuss things through,” said Sara Hagemann, an analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels.

Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said there is little evidence of a consensus for a more assertive European foreign policy.

“Whatever’s happening on treaties, I see very little sign that the major powers and even the minor powers are really willing to cede much authority,” he said.









(Beautiful country and very kind people. In the top 3 of the countries I would have a home, if I could afford another.)

.bea

Bea

beau

.

.