Petition to stop Islamic crescent memorial

From Tom Burnett Sr: a petition to stop the Flight 93 Memorial

Dear Fellow Americans:

The planned Flight 93 Memorial contains extensive Islamic symbolism. It is an insult to my son Tom, and to the other murdered heroes of Flight 93 who stopped Islamic terrorists from destroying the White House or the Capitol that terrible September day.

Please consider signing this online petition that I and some compatriots have put together. It calls for a new memorial design, and for investigation of the present design. If you want to do more, feel free to forward or post this appeal.

For those who are not familiar, the original “Crescent of Embrace” design was laid out in the crescent and star configuration of an Islamic flag:

Outrage over this overt Islamic symbolism forced the Memorial Project to disguise the original crescent with a few additional trees, but every particle of the original design remains completely intact in the so-called redesign. The giant crescent and star flag is still there!

The Memorial Project assumes that any similarity to an Islamic crescent has to be unintentional. Even if it WERE unintentional it would still be intolerable, but how can anyone look at that crescent and star configuration and think that it CAN’T be intentional? That is like seeing an airliner fly into the World Trade Center and thinking that it CAN’T be intentional. Worst of all, the Memorial Project refuses to confront voluminous evidence that the Islamic symbolism IS intentional.

It turns out that a person facing into the giant crescent will be facing Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a “mihrab” and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. The crescent memorial will be the world’s largest mosque!

When TWO airplanes fly onto the World Trade Center, even the most naïve person has start taking the possibility of intent seriously, but not the Memorial Project. The Islamic symbolism in Flight 93 Memorial goes on and on, but the Park Service refuses to be concerned.

Architect Paul Murdoch says that the crescent shape comes from the hijacked airplane breaking the circle where it crosses the upper crescent tip. The flight path then continues down to between the crescent tips where Flight 93 crashed. (That’s right: the crash site is the star on the crescent and star flag.)

Along the flight path are to be placed 44 translucent blocks, equaling the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists:

Left image: The Memorial Wall, traces flight path just above the point of impact. The white line at eye level is a set of 43 glass blocks, 40 to be inscribed with the names of my son and the other passengers and crew, and three (on the near side of the gap) to be inscribed with 9/11 date. Right image: At the end of the Entry Portal Walkway sits a huge glass block, the 44th glass block on the flight path. It marks the spot where, in the architect’s description, the terrorists turned our humanitarian circle into a giant (Islamic shaped) crescent. Inscription: “A field of honor forever.”

I don’t want to celebrate the terrorist’s circle-breaking crescent-creating feat, and I certainly don’t want my son’s name inscribed on that terrorist memorializing block count.

We need to get the word out: Flight 93 Memorial has been re-hijacked, and this time the whole nation is aboard. We have to get up out of our seats and stop this abomination!


Tom Burnett Sr.

Northfield Minnesota

March 2008

P.S. Paper petitions are also available, with mailing instructions, and explanatory information on the back. Just open and print.

Online petition:

Paper petitions and flyer-petition combinations:

More information:

Full exposé:

The nature of the lies

READ what Comptroller General David Walker says about US debt

Endless folly, endless wars? by Tom Kovach

No more Happy Meals for my kids!

Doesn’t McDonald’s know that the AFA boycott contributed to the near-bankruptcy of Ford Motor Company recently until Ford finally agreed to stop bankrolling the gay marriage agenda and running sexually explicit ads in gay publications?

Perhaps like Ford, they cavalierly ignore the public outcry of thousands of Americans who prefer decency with their fries.

When will American businesses finally grasp that sexualizing businesses that aren’t related to sex and porn really just isn’t appropriate no matter how thin you slice the pickles?

McDonald’s is a child-oriented business, and that makes this doubly offensive. I for one pledge to treat my kids at the other hamburg shop down the street. (We have found the service at Micky D’s a lot slower than the other places anyway).

The nature of the lies

by Charles Lewis

(reposted here with the author’s permission)

The “absence of WMDs” in Iraq has been the pivotal political issue of recent American history. It’s created the generally accepted impression that the Bush administration falisified evidence to justify an invasion, leading in turn to the Democrats’ takeover of Congress, an impending unprecedentedly leftwing Democrat presidency, and even the acceptance of this leftist spin on the affair by a segment of the “enlightened right,” leading to the Ron Paul phenomenon.

The “no-WMD” outcome has also meant saved face and enhanced the credibility and power for the United Nations (in harmony with an administration pushing UNCLOS and North American unification).

I’ll demonstrate that these have been the intended effects of this “RINO” administration from the start.

What W has succeeded in doing (like other Surrogate Democrat prezzes before him, like “Daddy Bush” and “Tricky Dick”) is systematically divide and de-energize the conservative base. He has about a third of us turned into “neolibs” – mouthing the left’s “war for oil, imperialist neocon” rhetoric. Another third is willing to follow Dubya off the cliff like the lemmings who followed his dad and Nixon. No matter the nature of the mental gymnastics required to defend whatever lethal absurdity (as in ChiCom “Freeportgate” and the Dubai ports affair) he offers, these toadies march in lockstep.

That leaves a final third (from Joseph Farah to David Severin to Bill O’Reilly to yours truly) having wondered out loud why Bush has concealed the WMDs and Al Qaeda connections we’ve found. W – an internationist by breeding, is consistently dividing conservatives into opposing camps and setting the table for the return of the overt Marxist party (whose bidding he has done “under the radar”) to power.

Bush rolls out the red carpet for criminal Mexicans and Salvadoreans who will get driver’s licenses (not to mention “paths to citizenship”) and “motor vote” virtually 100% Democratic (without even an attempt in a 2-term Republican presidency to repeal this Clintonista “motor voter” legislation that likely nets the Democrats about 5 million illicit votes per election cycle). Meanwhile he’s persecuting true refugees from Cuba (who come from the identical stock that won 2000 for him in Florida) under Clinton’s “wet foot, dry foot” policy – capsizing their boats, sending them home (to be tortured to death) even when they land on our soil, and prosecuting brave Americans who help them – as smugglers or murderers.

And hs regime tips off Mexico on Minuteman locations – and issues mandates for Border Patrol agents to refrain from investigating reports from Minutemen of illegal crossing citings. But the WMD thing is the most critical issue, the one that has us most confused and divided.

The Surrogate Democrat hypothesis is an apt one for both Bushes, and for Nixon/Ford. Nixon was no conservative. He instituted a socialistic wage/price freeze, initiated our racial spoils system, abandoned Taiwan and recognized China, and surrendered southeast Asia to the communists.

His lemming’s cliff involved sending political hacks to burglarize the office of an opponent he led by 40 points at the time. And most conservative politicos either went down with this pseudo-con’s ship or joined the bandwagon of condemning his “rightist” excesses. The net result was major losses in ensuing elections for the conservatism in which Nixon (contrary to the media hype) never partook.

All this should not have been a surprise if we recognize that Nixon, as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) – our internationalist “invisible government” – could have been expected to work against US interests, including handing a “mandate” to the “Dems” to wreak their more open brand of havoc.

By the time GHW Bush later took a similar dive (“Yes, new taxes”), it should have come as no surprise. Another CFR member, Daddy Bush had expelled just about all of the true conservative operatives he had inherited from the Reagan Administration, reverted to the Rockefeller school of Republicanism, and sold his conservative base out just about every way possible. But again, essentially out of aversion to the “alternative” Democratic Party (by then pure Marxist), conservatives tied their hopes to this pseudo-con, went down hard in the ’92 elections, and suffered 8 years of Clintonism for their troubles. (Read Phyllis Schlafly’s ’64 classic, A Choice, not an Echo for documention of a long succession of prior “me too” GOP presidents and candidates who similarly fell on their swords for their Democratic “rivals.”)

This current administration has eclipsed all records – even adjusted for inflation and population – for “entitlement” (read “welfare” program) spending. The same socialized medicine program that was so radical that Hillary could not get it through a Democratic Congress a decade ago has now become a reality under the “opposition” party, with fully 1/3 of our 300 million “insured” by the government.

A bi-cameral majority was not enough for W to pass ANWR drilling – even with gas prices out of reach of a many Americans and with us essentially at war with our principle foreign suppliers. But he spared no arm twisting to ram through CAFTA, which ceded about 1/3 of our sovereignty to Vicente Fox-types.

An unprecedentedly socialistic farm bill, the abolition of the 1st Amendment via “campaign finance reform,” the unpunished lynx hair fraud, the non-endangered Tucson area owl off-limiting 1.2 billion acres, continuation of the Feinstein-Schumer “assault rifle” ban, breaking of a campaign promise to reverse Clinton’s draconian National Monuments Order; the retention – with disastrous results – of Clintonistas like Norman Mineta, Joe Wilson, and George Tenet, the Patriot Act (facilitating future Democratic abuses), the cave-in on U of Michigan preferences, abolition of restrictions on supercomputer sales to China, Bush’s approval of Clinton’s destruction doctor-patient privacy, the pass given Clintonista spy Sandy Berger, his “guest worker” amnesty, ad infinitum all tell a dismal tale.

Even more telling have been W’s policies re the UN’s takeover of our sovereignty. He has gotten us back in UNESCO, implemented the UN’s One World agenda via No Child Left Behind, aggressively promoted ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, accepted the Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision (an imposition of principles of the UN’s Agenda 21 “Sustainable Development” tyranny), and carried the ball for the World Health Organization, via his plan to test all Americans for “mental illness.”

Rep. Ron Paul’s proposed amendment (opposed by the “Bushites”) to the last of these initiatives that would have at least required parental consent for the testing of children was roundly defeated. Republicans voted no by a 55%-45% margin, as did all but one Democrat. This may be the first time in history that the opposition party sided with a president by a much wider margin than his own party. (This provides stark insight into a motive for Bush wanting to sabotage congressional GOP candidates and replace them with Democrats, which I contend is one of the main reasons he’s done a “bellyflop” on Iraqi WMDs, which has indeed produced that transformation of power.)

On the eve of the Iraq invasion, I heard, on the Judicial Watch program, of the systematic suppression of the research of Jayna Davis (in The Third Terrorist), which proved that the Oklahoma City bombing was essentially the work of Iraqis (with Nichols and McVeigh thrown in as “lily whites”). This suppression occurred first with the Clinton Administration, which wanted to do anything it could to pin whatever it could on “conservative” forces within the country. The lengths to which Mrs. Davis showed that the Clinton administration had gone were unspeakably scandalous and corrupt. Yet the cover-up was perpetuated by the Bush Administration – which seemingly had much to gain (a virtual death blow to the credibility of its “rival” party; justification for the invasion) by exposiing it. Even the staunch support of lead impeachment counsel David Schippers had failed to yield the slightest attention.

[When supposedly conservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R, CA) later held hearings on Olahoma City, he called only 2 of Jayna Davis’s 20+ key wtiness (and ignored her list of questions for the FBI) and focused on a debunked theory – mirroring the Clintonista lies that rescued “Bubba” from rock bottom poll numbers and carried him to victory in ’96 – alleging involvement of the hard right.]

All of this made no sense in the context of the two-parties-at-each-others’-throats model. But it made perfect sense under the one party (Democrat policy supported by Surrogate Democrats masquerading as “Republicans”) model I knew to be true. I was moved to call the show and predict that we would find WMDs and not reveal that we had found them.

At this point it was our credibility against that of the UN, whose “inspectors” had assured us there were no such weapons. Knowing Bush’s allegiance to the UN’s designs on our sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity, I could not see him showing the UN up by exposing any WMD’s or terror links we might find.

Such revelations would have destroyed the UN’s credibility, seriously setting back its schemes to take us over. But if we could be the ones to lose credibility ,,, well, we’ve witnessed the political devastation, both at home and abroad, that this very oucome has created – especially within the conservative movement itself.

The 1st weeks of the war only reinforced my convictions. 12 servicemen who uncovered one site took sick, with symptoms typical for chemical exposure ( The administration immediately dismissed these illnesses as “battle fatigue.” (Battle fatigue? After about a week of war? And among 12 out of 12 GI’s?) No less left-wing an outfit than NPR then reported our finding missiles “ready to fire” armed with warheads initially testing positive for chemicals ( This report was immediately shut up via a designation (according to the Washington Times) of “classified.” We heard nothing more.

In the bowels of a site previously “inspected” by Hans Blix’s motley crew, we found radiation “off the scale.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s reaction was an extremely curious, “all first reports we get turn out to be wrong.” (,2933,83455,00.html) Not “some first reports aren’t entirely accurate,” but all of them are always wrong. Sure enough, everything “turned out” to be, ostensibly, false. Funny Rummy should have known in advance they all would be wrong, and funny that we even look if we know in advance we’ll always come up dry.

A later barrel find (based on a tip by locals) tested positive twice in the field for Sarin and mustard gas. One of the admin’s “experts” abrupty pooh-poohed the findings and predicted that the stuff was rocket fuel (, which it “sho nuff” “turned out to be” – to the preclusion of laboratory testing. In “reaction,” the administration promised not to divulge any further positive preliminary results – we had heard the last from this administration on WMDs in Iraq. Chalk up one more for the United Nations.

Funny how “conservatives” who are so willing to swallow whole the Marxist line about the Bushites’ designs on conquering the planet for the USA seem so oblivious to the obvious. Is it possible that a cadre so unscrupulous, so willing to fabricate the justification for going in in the first place would not be willing to take the easy step of planting WMDs to perpetuate the ruse?

Little by little, some major figures began to notice the pattern. Bill O’Reilly verbalized how he could not fathom the Bushites’ silence on Salman Pak, where we found a half-buried airliner, complete with manuals on how to hijack one and use it as a weapon.

On the eve of the ’04 elections, John Loftus (, perhaps the most knowledgeable American on middle eastern intrigues, revealed that Libya – apparently spooked by the fate of Saddam and the Taliban, and in conjunction with ‘fessing up to its own WMD projects – had revealed that Iraq’s entire nuclear program had undergone an eleventh hour transfer to Libya, personnel and all. Loftus, a Democrat, at that point predicted that this coup would sweep Bush to victory in those ’04 elections.

One expected W’s party to emphasize this as, if nothing more, an “October surprise.” It never happened. But we were not quite ready to elect a candidate with a 35-year history of open communist collaboration, lying, and disdain toward America. The GOP – with its charging entourage of “RINOs” (constituting the vast majority of at least its Senate retinue), won in spite of its best efforts not to.

Later, the highly credible Richard Miniter, in Misinformation, catalogued large amounts of chemical and biological weapons we had uncovered – finds the administration had never bothered to tell us about. This prompted Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily to exclaim, in headlines, “Why doesn’t Bush just say it?”

Then the solid evidence of cover-up began to emerge. David Gaubatz,, formerly of the Army’s Office of Special Investigations, told us of Nasirah, Iraq, where he saw convincing evidence that flooded tunnels, sealed off by 5-foot concrete walls, were the depositories of chemical and biological weapons that locals said they were. He recalled his frustration at being stonewalled by both the David Kay and Charles Duelfer WMD panels, in spite of months of pleading by himself and other agents.

Pentagon operative John Shaw ( told of how he and others had uncovered hard evidence that the Russians had removed (to Syria and elsewhere) huge amounts of WMDs in the run-up to the war ( The US government had gone to great lengths to see to it that this was not publicized . This report dovetailed with the stories of Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada (, and even Saddam’s half brother, Gen. Barzan Al-Tikriti (, neither of whose contentions and allegations have drawn the slightest note from the administration.

Later, Sen. Rick Santorum (R, PA) uncovered (through the Freedom of Information Act) data that showed we had found and destroyed about 500 other DMVs in Iraq ( This info had to be pried loose by a legislator (as opposed to revealed – triumphantly – when it all happened). The Administration itself once again offered no comment – except through an unnamed “Pentagon source” who downplayed it. And Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham’s 2004 revelation (reported in the BBC) that we had removed 1.7 tons of enriched uranium from Iraq] was also swiftly and summarily squelched.

Among those privy to these stories (kept from general consumption by the mainstream media), all this became so plain that some Bush apologists began taking it as a given and inventing bizarre alibis for the suppression of these stories. The best they seemed to be able to do was claim that the finds would implicate Russia, France, and Germany (as they almost assuredly would), and that administration did not want to alienate these countries, as it was looking for their help in an upcoming Iran campaign.

These explanations do not pass the imbecility test. These deceitful governments would be more obligated to help us if we exposed their real motives for opposing the Iraq invasion, exposed these folks for the high stakes colluders with Saddam that they were. The metamorphosis in public opinion that would occur would far more than make up for any reticence on the part of this trio of nations. It would likewise stanch much of the present flow of venom against us worldwide.

Many of us know that there are no real choices at the national level between the 2 parties, and that the agenda both follow is basically the overt Marxism of the Democrats. That Republican opposition to this is essentially token, and that the GOP is able to institute certain facets that the Democrats could never get away with introducing, given the critical eye of conservative opinion (including, tragically, that of large segments of the “religious right”) tends to not be focused anywhere near as much on Republicans.

Thus, a Republican administration like the current one would never willfully score a knockout punch for pro-American conservatism, and can only be expected to self destruct on cue, just as former ones have. What we cannot do is allow this president to get us accepting precepts (or mouthing the rhetoric) of the left. Once we have done that, his mission, in my humble opinion, is accomplished.

Let’s get a few things straight before we on the right lose all notion of common principles and self-destruct just the way those who want to divide and conquer us wish:

1. Bush’s immigration policy is not a “ploy for votes.” Voters of all persuasions (particularly Republicans and Independents) oppose amnesty schemes (not to mention his refusal to either accept Congress’s mandate to increase border manpower or allow the military to patrol the frontier) – by wide margins.

Besides, Bush has to know that the more non-Cuban Latinos he lets slip in, the more ground his party will lose to its leftwing rivals – especially in the absence of Motor Voter repeal. A reasonable hypothesis, then, is that he wants to lose that ground; the fact he’s shut off the Cuban faucet, coupled with his behavior vis a vis Portgate, Freeportgate, and WMD-find suppression (plus the curious self destruction of antecedents like Bush I and Nixon) make this hypothesis seem far from far fetched. And in light of what we have long known about the secret societies that control world politics, it is downright plausible.

2. The term, “military industrial complex” is not a synonym for the international banking cartel and tax exempt foundations that have been engineering our doom for so long. Neolibs cite Eisenhower’s cautionary reference during his administration, but Eisenhower was a CFR member who did not even call himself a conservative, a Rockefeller Republican very much along Nixon/Bush lines, and thus not anyone who would ever reveal the true nature of what goes on behind the scenes.

Besides, our military is and has long been hamstrung, gayed, feminized, demonized, sensitivity trained, forced to fight the UN’s battles and even wear its insignias; our industry is mostly outsourced or foreign owned, practically dead in the water. “Military industrial complex” is jargon of the Marxist left, aimed at destroying our economic infrastructure and disarming us. It’s not interchangeable with the many accurate (and sufficient) ones we have long had at our disposal: invisible government, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, etc. Our troops and weapons industry have kept us free these many years.

3. It’s not “corporate America” that deserves our scorn, but multinationals, including traitorous American-based corporations who’ve armed the likes of China, with passes & perks from whatever party’s administration happens to be in power. “Corporate America” is a leftist slur depicting capitalism as evil.

4. We are not “imperialists.” “Imperialist” is a Marxist anti-American term. We’re the victims of a one world takeover (imperialism, if you will), not perpetrators of expansionism. It’s amazing how neolibs no longer condemn the still very active communist imperialism (China, Russia, North Korea, Latin America… ) or Islamist imperialism (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia..) – only our own supposed quest to spread the American system worldwide (if only this were the extent of our worries).

5. These Republican traitors are not “neocons.” The left loves this supposedly derogatory term. “Neocons” simply means “new conservatives,” something we need a lot more of, especially the fully informed sort. What we’re dealing with are pseudocons – imitation conservatives.

6. We shouldn’t talk about “globalists” (though this particular term is not especially inaccurate). The rowdy demonstrators of the anti-capitalist far left – the kind that love to riot and tear up cities where the G8 meets – are fond of this term. Not that the G8 is up to any good, but neither are these thugs, and we don’t need to be confused with them. Not when we have tried and true, unambiguous terms these degenerates would never use in any critical contexts – terms like “internationalists,” and “one worlders.”

7. Iraq is no “war for oil.” If Dubya cared about oil for American companies, he would have railroaded through ANWR as he railroaded through CAFTA, and gas would not be $3 or so a gallon with no end in site to the carnage. Iraq – as it is being carefully contorted – is a war for the humiliation of America, a war for the destruction of our credibility, a war to strengthen the UN’s grip on us.

The deposing (and, yes, disarming) of Saddam and the enfranchisement of his formerly oppressed people, the incredible acts of heroism and goodwill of our incomparable troops are then seen, ironically, to be collateral (and, yes, beneficial) effects of a much larger campaign to bring us to our knees.

Every time we use the above rhetoric of the left instead of the perfectly adequate conservative Constitutionalist terms I offer there as substitutes, we are raising the hackles of numerous patriots who otherwise might be marching shoulder to shoulder with us. If American conservatives and Constitutionalists can see things in such a context they can heal their internal differences and become the type of united force that is so desperately needed at this point in our threatened nation’s history.

Instead of harmonizing with our sworn enemies on the left, we need our own anti-administration chorus – based on the truth, that there are Democrats, and then again there are Surrogate Democrats

The subversion of American education

THE HISTORY of Education subversion

Americans who are ignorant about the subversion of the education system over the last nearly 100 years are dooming their children to be ignorant about everything else.

The site linked below has an impressive reading list. I would recommend getting at least one of these books. A friend sent me one by Bev Eakman, an outstandingly insightful researcher whom I highly recommend.

Actually, the history of the United States in the last century is the story of subversion, which touches every important aspect of our lives. But the subversion of education was undoubtedly the most devastating, having led in some places to a near-total breakdown of morality. For while banning all references to traditional religion or intelligent design, for example, the system has openly endorsed other religions and their pillars: secularism, effete Darwinism (an ideology that masquerades as a science and, ironically, has not evolved itself in over 100 years!), globalism, enviro-Marxism (a term on loan from Don Feder), socialism, feminism, anti-white racism, Islam, the gay agenda and many more ideologies that are nothing but cheap substitutes for Judeo-Christianity.

Reading list:

HERE is an interesting site run by former Muslims.

It seems as if these people just got fed up watching their co-religionists making fools of themselves and hurting themselves and others in the process. In Romans, the Apostle Paul writes that even those who have not had a religious upbringing or an education in the law are capable of distinguishing right from wrong and know in their hearts what sin is. Here is proof of that:

UN RESOLUTION to muzzle freedom of speech, under pressure from Islamic nations.

The UN has not mentioned the Islam-on-Christian persecution going on throughout the Muslim world, or the abuse of women and children there, but they want to make sure Muslims don’t get defamed by the group they persecute.

To this end, they have written a resolution. Now you realize, of course, that millions of people in Muslim countries think of Jews as pigs and apes and Iran president Ahmadinejad denies the historicity of the Holocaust. Where is the UN resolution on that outrage?

Well, outrage is selective at the UN it turns out.

The EU countries, who are still concerned about this quaint concept of freedom, did not approve the resolution, proving that there is still some fight left there, despite the abject cowardice exhibited by the governments of individual countries like Holland.

Maybe the Wilders movie has had an effect.

Personally, I think it probably did. I went into a Dutch forum and read various messages on this film. The usually dhimmis were represented, claiming that Wilders is a race baiter. But many expressed approval.

Most telling of all was a poll that asked whether readers thought Wilders was over the top or had in fact made his point. 65% said he had made his point.

That surprised me, because the online daily newspaper Volkskrant, to which I subscribe, has written almost all negative articles and commentary about Wilders and his film since the news first broke that he was developing it, creating the impression that the Dutch don’t like Wilders and think he is a rabble rouser.

It may be too early for optimism, but the signs look favorable for a change in Holland soon.

Clearly the posters in that forum were fed up with being told how to think by Muslim newcomers who refuse to adapt. One poster made the point that when a Dutch person travels or settles in another country, he/she adapts and accepts the customs there, whereas the Muslims settle in a new country and right away want to tell the residents there how to think and act.

I think they’re finally getting it.

God bless you all this weekend!

Donald Hank

UN OKs Islamic Text Against Defamation


The Associated Press
Thursday, March 27, 2008; 11:40 PM

GENEVA — The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.

The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam.

The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted the resolution on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada.

EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.

The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, “expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.”

Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.

Speaking for the EU, Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said the 27-nation body was committed to tolerance, nondiscrimination and freedom of religion. But instead of a one-sided approach, it would be better to engage in dialogue with mutual respect.

The resolution “urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination … of racist and xenophobic ideas” and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.

The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed. The publication of a different caricature in a Swedish newspaper last year again led to protests from Muslims.

Finally here is an eye-opener on illegal immigration:

Especially surprising is the list of things states are doing to stop illegal immigration, including many northern states that will be sending national guard troops to the Mexican border.

IMPORTANT questions for Islamists and their appeasers

Our readers want to know…

by Donald Hank

The Organization of Islamic Conference now wants to sue people like Geert Wilders simply for his movie quoting the Koran against a backdrop showing actual footage of Islamic violence. And as long as treacherous appeasers wield their power in national governments, the OIC could win. Such censorship of the public has been accomplished in Canada, where religious freedom does not extend to those who disagree with other religions. In other words, where moral and religious equivalency is enforced. That’s right, the religion of post-modernism (=moral equivalency) is the only religion you may endorse in that country if you desire not to be sued, jailed or both. How’s that for freedom in a country that may soon share in the lawmaking decisions of the USA if G.W. Bush and the Globalist goons succeed in foisting the North American Union on us?

But there is a question the defenders of the “Religion of Peace” still need to answer: In a previous issue, I had quoted the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) stating that the then soon-to-be-released film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders will have “serious repercussions which could get out of hand and would be difficult to control.”

In other words, if Wilders insists on showing the world how violent and unreasonable Muslims can be, the OIC, which represents them, threatens that these same Muslims may become violent.

I had pointed out how untenable that position is, since in effect, it expresses both indignation at the suggestion that Islam is violent and at the same time, a threat of violence to those who would dare suggest that it is violent!

Which is it? Are they offended because they are in fact non-violent or are they violent enough to kill and harm people who would suggest this just because they know their behavior won’t bear scrutiny and are sore losers? They seem to want it both ways.

On behalf of my readers, I now ask the Muslim community for an explanation, or at least a position on this.


How can you Muslims leaders, with a straight face, threaten people with violence for suggesting Muslims are violent?

Are you trying to confirm their accusations against you? Or hadn’t you noticed what message you are sending? What’s wrong with sending your co-religionists the message that they can’t afford to provide more support for Wilders’ argument by reacting violently, and that instead Muslims everywhere need to prove to the West that they represent the Religion of Peace?

If you are concerned about your image, please explain how threatening innocent people will help maintain that image. The rest of the world, which you are trying to convert to your “peaceful” way, wants to know.

Of course, the worst offenders are not the Muslims themselves but rather the European appeasers who think coddling bearded babies in bomb belts is the answer to the violence problem.

What strikes me as odd is that the world’s ultimate lesson in the failure of appeasement actually came from Europe itself in the late 1930s. Of course, we need to realize that the European education system has failed miserably to teach history to its young (to the extent that a sizeable fraction of polled products of that system actually think that Churchill was a fictitious character!), and that is probably not a mistake but rather a calculated strategy of the Left. After all, a populace that understands the history of the Left would never want to embrace that failed ideology any more than a seasoned woodsman would want to approach a skunk.

So here is my question for you promoters of dhimmitude in Europe:

If the appeasement approach failed so miserably in England under Neville Chamberlain, while the hang-tough approach was so successful under Winston Churchill, why do you favor the former approach and eschew the latter when confronting another threat to freedom and Judeo-Christian traditions, and yes, to the existence of Jews worldwide, that is remarkably similar to Hitler’s threat?

If it failed before, how do you expect it to succeed this time?

We cordially invite both groups (Muslims and dhimmis) to enter our forum and state their cases. If you are acquainted with Muslims who may be interested in this debate, or if you have a friend who believes in bowing to Muslim censorship demands in the interest of peace, please pass along the link to this column and invite them to post their response in the Comments box below (they will need to be patient. The comment will only show up after it is approved).

We would like to better understand these folks.

Even a no-show would speak volumes, now wouldn’t it?

HOLMEN cross:

My friend Anthony Horvath, whose ads appear at the top and to the right of our columns and whose columns grace our pages from time to time, has a story of a new cross display on public property that seems to be the latest casualty in the war against Christianity.

This is one of multiple examples in our nation of Christian symbols falling prey to the misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which was designed in part to protect religion from government but wound up being appropriated by the Left as an instrument against our godly heritage. An instrument wielded by secularists and atheists to do exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do.

Read about it here.

McCain fails new muster

Save America Summit’s urgent call for a return to observed, hand-counted paper ballots by the November, ’08 electionsSaveAmericaSummit (

Charles Lewis, Moderator


Informal statistical analysis:

John McCain’s percentages in the 11 (transparent, stand up and be counted) caucus “states” as of 3/27/08:

Alaska:            15            Colorado:    19            Iowa:                13

Kansas:           24            Maine:         21            Minnesota:       22

Montana:         22            Nevada:      13            North Dakota:   23

West Virginia:    1            Wyoming:      0

Average: approximately 15.74

McCain’s percentages in the 30 (unverifiable, machine-counted) primary states as of 3/27/08:

Alabama:            37              Arizona:             47        Arkansas:           20

California:           42             Connecticut:       52        DC:                    68

Delaware:           45             Florida;               36        Georgia:             32

Illinois:                 47            Louisiana:           42        Maryland:           55

Massachusetts:   41            Michigan:            30        Mississippi:         79

Missouri:              33            New Hampshire: 37        New Jersey:       55

New York:            51            Ohio:                   60        Oklahoma:         37

Rhode Island:       65            South Carolina:  33        Tennessee:        32

Texas:                  51            Utah:                    5         Vermont:            72

Virginia:                50            Washington:        50        Wisconsin:         55

Average: 45.3

Standard Deviation: 15.42

Caucus average is approximately 29.88/15.42 standard deviations away from primary average = approximately 1.94 standard deviations away from primary average, meaning the probability that this dichotomy of high (unverifiable) primary results and low (verifiable) caucus results is about .0256, or about one chance in forty.

Repeat – there’s only one chance in forty that, all else being equal, McCain could somehow do so scintillatingly well in one class of delegate selection (the totally unverifiable machine-counted primaries) and so poorly in the (transparent) caucus process.  Statisically speaking, that’s next to impossible without some kind of “push.

Additionally: knowing the bias and unreliability of the “mainstream” American media, it is not incongruous that the “mainstream” American pollsters essentially predicted the primary (if not the caucus) results pretty accurately.  If “mainstream” newcasts can be rigged (as they clearly are), so can “mainstream” polls, and they can be rigged to coincide with rigged voting machines.

We are not claiming that this is absolutely the case, only raising the issue of appearance of possible fraud; an election as urgent as this upcoming one must not be run under even such an appearance.

Of course, there are lots of other factors at play, including how many candidates were in the race on whatever given date, relative size of states, voter turnout, relative conservatism/liberalism of the given state, and, in the case of West Virginia, some wheeling and dealing.  This is not a totally scientific assessment.  but the stirking consistency of the dichotomy does raise serious issues.

The importance of this election, combined with these questions and others, cries out for a return to bi-partisanly observed, hand-counted paper ballots.

Anecdotally (but so far off the norm as to be somewhat compellingly), in South Carolina alone:

Radio station WORD’s talk host Bob McLain focused on the SC primaries for the 2 weeks (30 broadcast hours) prior to the vote.  He has testified on air that not one single caller during that time stated he would vote for McCain, and only two were considering doing so.  (WORD is the GOP station of record in South Carolina’s most heavily populated region – it “upstate.”)  On the very day of the primary, McCain logged only 1% in a WORD on-line poll.

In Charlotte, NC (on the South Carolina border) a similar online poll at mega-station WBT predicted only 7% for McCain (in spite of – suspect, in our view – “mainstream” polls that predicted a McCain win).  Mind you, this was not even people saying they would vote for him, just people – aware of the media’s “polls” that said he was doing way better than other indicators – who thought he would win.

Yet John McCain supposedly won 33% of the statewide vote – including almost that much in the upstate region – in the Diebold machine counted tally.  (It has been noted that in every experiment Diebolds have been easily hacked, with their supposed vote counts altered at will.)

FITNA the movie is BACK!

Although the film was removed from Liveleak due to death threats from Islamists, there are mirror sites and it can still be seen. You are STILL a click away from Geert Wilders’ movie Fitna. It is the politically incorrect truth about the Koran that the Dutch government is desperate to keep under wraps. (My apologies for the previous link. It was fine when I viewed it first. Later some really nasty images were added). This one seems ok. Let me know if any trash comes up (You can take the poll here. The Dutch expression “zijn punt gemaakt” means “made his point,” referring to Wilders. Obviously he did, so please click there. So far 65% think he did, which shows how biased the Dutch media are when they suggest that the public is not behind Wilders:

And that last part is the real story. Denying the obvious blatant truth, namely that Islam, including the Koran itself, drips with violent threats against anyone who dares deny its “truth,” almost everyone in the entire Dutch government has pleaded with Wilders not to show the film or threatened him with lawsuits. In fact, an Islam society there has already sued him to have his legal right to self-expression rescinded.

Now look at this absurdity, which has to be a new low for even Europe:

The radical Islamic populace in Europe is outraged because some brave souls want to present the truth about them, showing that they are violent to the core. In response, these Islamists, instead of trying, as Christians would, to show that they are not violent, are suing Geert Wilders on the grounds that his movie Fitna, if shown in public, could cause violence among Muslims, who might be offended for being called violent.

Has the utter absurdity of this sunk in yet?

If not, please view this video [still ok?]:

Undoubtedly, if the European leadership took the attitude of Winston Churchill, they would never, never, never give up – their freedom, that is.

Instead too many have opted for the utter abject cowardice of Neville Chamberlain – surrender before the fight.

DANIEL predicts Easter, date and all

Did the prophet Daniel correctly predict the crucifixion hundreds of years before it happened? C.A. Horvath did the math.

Check it out for yourself.

THAT border fence? It’s guarding the sphinx

Now it is becoming clear why the US won’t build a fence at our borders. They are too busy building fences for other nations, like Egypt. You will pay $23 million for that fence. Forget about Mexico. Illegal immigration is only illegal elsewhere, according to neocon logic.

Shock and awe, the Save America Summit

Shock and Awe! – “We’re not going to take it anymore”

Announcing the Save America Summit (SAS) –

[also see today’s WorldNetDaily article on us:]

With the major parties offering nothing but two dyed-in-the-wool Marxists and the GOP’s leading “fellow traveler” (who’s made previous overtures to the Democrats about switching parties), patriotic, traditionalist Americans need a reason not to vote for “None of the Above.”  They need someone to vote for; up to now, they’re disenfranchised.

This year any “lesser of two evils” is too evil, as the information at our site clearly shows.

The Save America Summit – a group of prominent national conservative, Christian ministry, and activist leaders (available for appearances and interviews) has a plan: 

With the Constitution Party appearing set to nominate its first ticket composed of seasoned, prominent well-known personalities, and with a huge array of national conservative pundits, talk hosts, political operatives, and rank and file Americans dissatisfied with the current field (to the point of discussing “sitting things out”), we aim to be instrumental in uniting the various third parties, most of the 90+% of Republicans well to the right of John McCain, substantial numbers of “Reagan Democrats,” recently converted constitutionalist Democrats, and members of America’s fastest growing “party” (independents) behind that ticket.  That is our mission.

The ability to inform voters on the issues and candidates is likely to just about disappear under whichever of the three “leading” candidates wins (via a combination of the “Fairness Doctrine,” “Grassroots Lobbying Reform,” “Hate Crimes” legislation, McCain-Feingold extension to the Internet, Internet to the UN…)

Plus all 3 are open borders, amnesty fanatics, meaning “paths to citizenship,” “motor voter” laws, and the like will likely swing the American demographic far to the left (not to mention expose us to untold terrorism).

They’re all ravenously anti-2nd Amendment (SAS participant Larry Pratt’s Gun Owners of America has given McCain 2 straight f-minuses)

They’re all likely to enhance the ultra-left Ginsberg/Breyer (Democratic appointees) /Souter/Stevens (Republican appointees who vote in lockstep with them) axis on the Supreme Court (McCain lead the treacherous “gang of 14” and considered Sam Alito too conservative).

They’re all dead set against increased American oil production (while China and Cuba drain the Caribbean under our noses), most likely leading to a major depression, based on energy prices.

And, according to their “bi-paritisan” advocates, there are plans for an EU-style unification of America with socialist Canada and Mexico during the next administration.

And the above is just the tip of the iceberg (and – global warming hysteria to which all three subscribe notwithstanding – this has been a terrific year for icebergs!).

No, there’s no “wait till next time,” America.  The future is now.

Please review our site ( and contact us for interviews with any of our illustrious and engaging participants (see our “Our People” page for a listing of many of these persons).

Charles Lewis





Tell your school you won’t participate in DOS!

The de-activism is heating up regarding the homosexual Day of Silence. Many school administrators who participate are doing so mostly out of fear, believing they have no choice. But now that dozens of activist (or as Laurie Higgins calls them, “de-activist”) groups have challenged the legality of this obvious disruption in the nation’s schools, and have called upon parents simply to keep their kids home that day, some administrators are backing down.  According to The Central Times, the student newspaper of Naperville Central High School in Naperville, IL, the administration has canceled both Day of Silence and Day of Truth, arguing that they cause “substantial disruption” to the school day. There are schools here in southern PA that have not agreed to participate in the first place. There almost certainly will be more dropouts soon as more parents call and warn their schools not to politicize the classroom.

DOS walkout instructions

COLUMBUS, OH — A nationwide coalition of Christian and pro-family groups is calling for parents to keep children out of schools on Friday, April 25, 2008 – the day when thousands of middle schools, junior highs, and high schools will observe the 12th annual “National Day of Silence.”

Buddy Smith of American Family Association asserts, “It’s outrageous that our neighborhood schools would allow homosexual activism to intrude into the classroom. ‘Day of Silence’ is about coercing students to repudiate traditional morality. It’s time for Christian parents to draw the line – if your children will be exposed to this DOS propaganda in their school, then keep them home for the day.”

“It amounts to educational malpractice for school officials to engage in one-sided homosexual activism,” said Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America. “Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It is the height of impropriety and cynicism for “gay” activists and school officials to use children as pawns in their attempt to further a highly controversial and polarizing political agenda.”

“Day of Silence” is promoted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist group that targets schools. The event is typically organized by a school’s Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) and is designed to pressure students to regard homosexual, bisexual, and transgender behavior as normal and worthy. Students and even some teachers remain silent throughout the school day, disrupting the teaching environment. Protesters wear t-shirts and hand out “speaking cards” protesting alleged injustice, harassment, prejudice, and discrimination toward “LGBT” people and their “allies.”

“Social activism does not belong in the classroom,” says Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth. “Students would be far better served by reading a good book at home – perhaps even the Bible – rather than being subjected to pro-‘gay’ indoctrination.”

This year, GLSEN adds a special twist to “Day of Silence”: shameless exploitation of the recent tragic school shooting death of California 8th grade student Lawrence King. Los Angeles media report that although the boy had been entrusted to the care of Casa Pacifica, a residential center for “abused, neglected, and severely emotionally disturbed children,” he had been permitted for the last two weeks to attend school in feminine makeup, nail polish, and high-heeled boots. The adult guardians, school administrators, and teachers responsible for guiding and protecting this precious troubled child failed him miserably; GLSEN fails him again now by employing his violent death to manipulate and deceive millions of children.

What should parents do?

1.Call your local schools and ascertain whether they or passively allow students to observe “Day of Silence.” For a list of schools expected to participate, check the Mission America site.

2.Be sure to discover on what date the event is planned for your school. (The national date is April 25, but some schools observe DOS on a different date).

3.Inform the school of your intention to keep your children home on that date and explain why. (A sample letter is posted along with the school listings.)

4..Explain to your children why you’re taking a stand: Homosexual behavior is not an innate identity; it is sinful and unnatural. No school should advance a physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive sexual lifestyle to students.

5.Pray with your children for sexual purity and for wisdom to lovingly counsel sexually confused teenagers in your own community. Grieve for Lawrence King.

6.Encourage your church leadership to follow the bold example of Pastor Ken Hutcherson who is vocally opposing “Day of Silence” in his community in Redmond, Washington. Let your light shine by spreading the word to your church and neighbors, and explain that most school districts lose money for every absence.

Linda Harvey of Mission America urges parents to understand that “Homosexual activism creates an explosive situation in schools. I encourage parents to keep their children home on ‘Day of Silence.’ Let’s pray that in the future, schools will offer hope to students who are sexually confused by first telling them the truth.”

Gary Glenn of AFA Michigan, said:

“The director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force broke homosexual activists’ code of silence on the threat homosexual behavior poses to young people’s health when he admitted this month that HIV ‘is a gay disease.’ GLSEN should cancel its celebration of that code of silence about the severe public health hazards of homosexual behavior, and any school administrator who continues to stand silent while enabling the promotion of such harmful behavior should be sued for criminal negligence.”

The coalition includes: Abiding Truth Ministries, American Family Association, AFA of MI, AFA of PA, Americans for Truth, Campaign for Children and Families, CAP Ministry (Child Care Action Project),Christian Information Service, Christian Civic League of Maine, Citizens for Community Values of Indiana, Concerned Women for America, Culture Campaign, CWA- Washington state, Defend Education (WA state),Defend the Family International, Eagle Forum of California, Exodus Mandate, Faith,Family,& Freedom Alliance, Illinois Family Institute, Indiana Voice for the Family, Informing Christians, Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, Mission America, New Generation Christian Center,North Carolina Family Policy Council, North Shore Student Advocacy, Parents’Rights’ Coalition, Right March, Stephen Bennett Ministries, Values USA, Watchmen on the Walls.

For more information or media, contact:
Buddy Smith –662-844-5036;Peter LaBarbera –630- 717-7631;Matt Barber –202–488-7000; Linda Harvey– 614-442-7998;Gary Glenn — 989-835-7978

By Laurie Higgins for Illinois Family Institute

A broad coalition of individuals and organizations is urging parents to oppose the Day of Silence (DOS), a political action sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), because it politicizes the classroom for ideological purposes. The explicit purpose of DOS is to encourage sympathy and support for students involved in homosexual behavior and cross-dressing whose voices have been allegedly silenced by the disapproval of society.  The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. Parents should no longer passively countenance the political usurpation of public school classrooms through student silence.

Parents should call their children’s middle schools and high schools to ask whether the administration and/or teachers will be permitting students to remain silent during class on the Day of Silence. If students will be permitted to remain silent, parents can express their opposition most effectively by calling their children out of school on the Day of Silence and sending letters of explanation to their administrators, their children’s teachers, and all school board members. One reason this is effective is that most school districts lose money for each student absence.

School administrators err when they allow the classroom to be disrupted and politicized by granting students permission to remain silent throughout an entire day. The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around the silence of some or many, or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking.  Furthermore, DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.

Some administrators assert that DOS merely seeks to promote “acceptance.” They fail to clarify, however, what precisely they want students to accept. While it is legitimate to teach students that there exist diverse opinions on this issue, it is not legitimate to imply that one of those opinions is preferable to another. While it is appropriate to teach acceptance of people, meaning that we should treat all with civility, it is not appropriate to suggest that students need to accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral. These important distinctions are rarely, if ever, made in public school discussions of “acceptance.”

One oft-repeated mantra is that the goal of DOS is to keep LGBTQ students safe. The problematic rhetoric of “safety,” however, substitutes speciously for the more accurate term of “comfort.” To suggest that in order for those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” to be “safe,” no one may disapprove of homosexual conduct is both absurd and dangerous. If this definition of “safety” were to be applied consistently, virtually all statements of disapproval would be prohibited.

Day of Silence participants claim they seek to end discrimination. There is, however, a problem with the way "discrimination" is defined in public discourse today. Groups like GLSEN believe that statements of moral conviction with which they disagree constitute prejudice or discrimination. While relentlessly promoting this view, administrators are never asked to provide evidence for the dubious presuppositions on which claims of discrimination are based. They are never asked to provide evidence for the arguable claim that homosexuality is equivalent to race; or that disapproval of homosexual conduct is equivalent to racism; or that homosexual impulses are biologically determined; or that the presence of biological influences in shaping desire renders a behavior automatically moral. The time is long past that parents demand justification for those claims.
If we allow schools to define discrimination so expansively as to prohibit all statements of moral conviction, character development is compromised and speech rights are trampled. And if administrators continue to define discrimination in such a way as to preclude only some statements of moral conviction, they violate their pedagogical commitment to intellectual diversity and render the classroom a place of indoctrination. 

Finally, DOS supporters contend that one of their purposes is to end harassment. What they fail to acknowledge is that the worthy end of eliminating harassment does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time. There are myriad other ways to work toward that end. DOS participants have a First Amendment right to wear t-shirts, or put up posters, or host after-school speakers, or set up tables from which to distribute informative materials. They ought not to be allowed to manipulate instructional time in the service of their socio-political goals.

Here are responses to some common concerns about calling children out of school on DOS:

  • Some parents believe that there is value in having students who hold traditional views on sexual orientation in class on the DOS. This belief is flawed for two reasons. First, the adolescent culture is liberal, and adolescents desire to fit in. The vast majority of conservative kids do not feel comfortable vocally opposing their culture and will not do so. As those who are more public in opposing the normalization of homosexuality can attest, very few adults have the courage to oppose the dominant culture; we cannot expect teens to do what adults don’t do.

Moreover, the goal of calling students out of school on DOS is not to communicate an alternative message to that of DOS. The goal is to remove GLSEN-sponsored political action from taxpayer-funded classes.

  • Some parents express concern over the possibility of teachers exacting revenge through grading. First, it would be highly unethical for a teacher to treat a student punitively because of the teacher’s subjective assessment of the parents’ reason for calling a student out. If a teacher were to attempt to punish a student in such a way, parents should address the problem with the administration. Second, some students are willing to accept this possibility, viewing the cause as worthy of the sacrifice. Finally, those parents and teens who are not willing to risk even the remote possibility of teacher retribution can call their childout of school and not send a letter expressing their objections to DOS.
  • Some have argued that calling students out of classrepresents an attempt to deny free speech. Calling students out of class does not represent an attempt to deny free speech to students; rather, calling students out of class represents opposition to the exploitationof instructional time for socio-political action. Students are free to express their views in multiple ways mentioned above.
  • Some claim that those who oppose DOS must not care about the suffering of LGBTQ teens.It is utterly specious to suggest that parents, teachers, and administrators who oppose political action in the classroom support harassment. Put another way, this claim impliesthat theonly way parents, administrators, and teachers can prove they oppose harassment of homosexual or transgendered teens is to allow the politicization of the classroom. It also representsa classic ends justifies the means argument: If the ends, in this case, combating harassment of homosexual teens, are good, then any and all means are justified.

There are countless worthwhile goals that should not be promoted during class. Some might consider ending the tragedy of teen drunk-driving deaths, or the war in Iraq, or abortion to be worthwhile goals, and yet it would be equally inappropriate to use the classroom to promote them. The truth is that parents, teachers, and administrators can oppose harassment while concomitantly opposing the politicization of instructional time.

Schools have the right to prohibit student silence in the classroom if they deem it “disruptive.” It is our hope and belief that if schools have one group of students silent and another group called out, they will eventually decide that classroom silence is “disruptive.”

Government by deception

The following is kind of longish, but it is a very important document because it reflects what awaits the US once our treacherous officials finalize the NAU. We are halfway there already. Every single one of our presidential candidates will take us a step closer to this dreaded scenario, what Reagan called the first step into 1,000 years of darkness. Already Canada has prohibited any citizen from speaking out against any religion and against homosexuality. Mexico’s Constitution states that the government is responsible for the economy. We cannot afford to go down this road.


“France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments…There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.” 

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of MEP Group leaders, EUobserver, 14 Nov. 2007


* * *              


“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”

– Former French President V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007


* * * 


The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”

– German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech to the European Parliament, 27 June 2007


* * *

“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State

– Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004


* * *


“From the inside it looks like an arrangement based on Treaties between States. From the outside it looks like a State itself.”

– Jens-Peter Bonde MEP, The Lisbon Treaty: A critical analysis ; see


* * *


The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.  No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”   (emphasis added)

– 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 — What people will be voting on in June


A new and different European Union: 

The Treaty of Lisbon would create a quite new Federal European Union which would be politically and constitutionally profoundly different from the EU which was established by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty and which we are members of today. The same name, “The European Union”, would be used pre-Lisbon and post-Lisbon for two quite different Unions. Why is this deception necessary? 


Lisbon is a revamped version of the treaty which gave the EU its own State Constitution superior to the constitutions of its Member States, but which the peoples of France and Holland rejected in referendums in 2005. Instead of accepting that decision, the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents decided to give the EU a Constitution indirectly rather than directly, but not to call it a Constitution, and on no account to hold referendums on it, for fear people would reject it again.


Why an Irish referendum?: 


Because the Supreme Court laid down in the 1987 Crotty case that sovereignty in Ireland rests with the Irish people and that only they can surrender sovereignty to the EU by referendum, or refuse to surrender it, as the case might be.


The purpose of the Lisbon referendum would be to change the Irish Constitution so as to enable the State to accede to the new European Union which Lisbon would establish and to make the EU Constitution and laws superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in all areas covered by the Treaty. This is clear from the two key sentences of the proposed amendment to the Irish Constitution which are quoted above, which is what the Irish people will be voting on in June.


Lisbon would give the EU a Constitution indirectly rather than directly:


The two basic European Treaties which are currently in force include all the previous treaties from the 1957 Rome Treaty to the 2002 Nice Treaty. The EU Constitution which the French and Dutch said No to would have repealed these two treaties and replaced them with an explicitly titled Constitution for Europe. The Lisbon Treaty implements 96% of the legal content of this Constitution for Europe by proposing amendments to the two basic EU Treaties, thereby turning them into the effective Constitution of the new Federal European Union which Lisbon would establish.


These two basic Treaties as amended by Lisbon would be called The Treaty on European Union (TEU) and The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Below are the 12 most important changes which the Lisbon Treaty would make in the two constituent Treaties of the new European Union they would establish:- 



1. Lisbon would make the new Union Constitution superior to the Irish Constitution in all areas of EU law: 


The Irish Constitution would still remain, but “Declaration 17 concerning Primacy”, which is attached to the Lisbon Treaty, makes clear that the law of the new Union would have primacy over and be superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two. This has not been stated in any previous European Treaty.


Lisbon does this by referring to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, which over the years has asserted the principles of (a) the superiority of EU law, (b) its direct effect in the territory of its Member States even if it is not formally put through their National Parliaments, and (c) its constitutional character.


EU law and local national law would deal with different areas and matters, as is normal in Federal States. Some two-thirds of our laws each year now come from Brussels. The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU the power to make supranational laws that are binding on us in many new areas – see points 7 and 9 below – and would take that power away from the Irish Dáil and from Irish citizens who elect the Dáil.  


2. Lisbon would give the EU the constitutional form of a supranational European Federal State. It would turn Ireland and the other Member States into regional states of this Federation and would make us all real citizens of it for the first time:


It would do this in four legal steps which are set out in the Treaty:-


(a) giving the new European Union which Lisbon would bring into being its own legal personality and independent corporate existence for the first time, separate from and superior to its Member States (Art.47 TEU);


(b) abolishing the European Community which we have been members of since 1973 and replacing it with the new Union (Art.1 TEU);


(c) bringing all spheres of public policy either actually or potentially within the scope of the new Union, so that it would have a uniform constitutional structure (Arts.1-6 TFEU; Art.4.1 TEU); and


(d) making us real citizens of this new Federal Union, rather than notional or honorary EU “citizens”as at present (Arts. 20 TFEU and 9 TEU).


One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. Instead of European Union citizenship being “complementary” to national citizenship as at present (Art.17 TEC), Lisbon would make it “additional to” national citizenship (Art.9 TEU; Art 20 TFEU). This would give everyone a real dual citizenship for the first time – citizenship of one’s own National State, in our case Ireland, and citizenship of the new European Union. 


As citizens of this constitutionally new Union, we would owe it the normal citizens’ duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority. We would still retain our Irish citizenship, but the rights and duties attached to that would be subordinate to those of our EU citizenship in any case of conflict between the two.


Post-Lisbon, we would be like citizens of Virginia vis-a-vis the USA, or like citizens of Bavaria vis-a-vis Federal Germany. Dual citizenship of this kind – not of two separate States but of the federal and regional/provincial levels of one State – is normal in all classical Federations that have been formed by lower States agreeing to subordinate themselves to a higher federal authority. The USA, 19th century Germany, Switzerland, Canada and Australia are the best-known examples.

From the inside this post-Lisbon Federal EU would seem to be based on treaties between States. From the outside it would look like a State itself. This new European Union would sign Treaties with other States in all areas of its powers. It would have its own political President, Foreign Minister and foreign and security policy, its own diplomatic service and voice at the UN, and its own Public Prosecutor. It would make most of our laws and would decide what our basic rights are in all areas of EU law. It would have all the main features of a sovereign State in the international community of States, apart from the ability to make its Member States go to war against their will. 

As the EU’s politicians are creating an EU Federation, all democrats will wish that Federation to be run along normal democratic lines, with its laws being proposed and made by people who are directly elected to make them, either in the European Parliament or in National Parliaments. 


Instead, in the post-Lisbon Union European laws will continue to be made quite undemocratically. A democratic EU is not on offer in the Lisbon Treaty. The European Parliament, which is the only EU body directly elected by citizens, cannot propose any law. The Commission, which consists of nominated public servants, has the monopoly of proposing all EU laws. These laws are then made primarily by the Council of Ministers, a body which is irremoveable as a group, mostly on the basis of qualified majority voting.


The EU Parliament can propose amendments to these laws, but cannot impose them unless the Commission and Council of Ministers agree. The Court of Justice interprets the Treaties in specific court cases in a manner which tends to extend EU powers ever further, sometimes into areas that were never imagined by those drafting the treaties. Lisbon adds to the democratic deficit inherent in this institutional structure, while it further erodes democracy at the national level.  



3. Lisbon sets out the extensive powers of the new Union it would establish: 


The new Union’s powers would be conferred on it by its 27 Member States, for they would voluntarily have agreed to obey the EU’s superior authority in the policy areas surrendered, which nowadays cover much the greater part of government. The remaining governmental powers, which have mainly to do with the traditional social services and the taxation needed to finance them, would remain with the Member States (Art.4.1 TEU). Such a division is normal in Federations. Similar provisions are to be found in the US Constitution and that of other Federal States.


Lisbon sets out the powers or “competences” of the new Union in five major categories. Between them all it is hard to think of any area of life that would not be touched by the new Union:-


(a) Areas of exclusive EU competence, where the EU alone can make laws or decide policy and where Member States have completely surrendered this right. These are the customs union, competition rules for the internal market, monetary policy for Member States using the euro, trade and commercial agreements and rules for fisheries conservation (Art.3 TFEU);


(b) Areas of shared competence, where the EU decides some policy matters and the Member States decide others. These cover most areas of government apart from the principal social services, viz., the internal market, social and regional transfers, agriculture and fisheries policy, environment, consumer protection, transport, trans-European networks, energy, crime and justice, cross-national public health matters. In these shared areas however, Lisbon makes clear that EU intervention has priority: “The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall again exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence” (Arts.2.2 TFEU). The Union may also conduct programmes of research, technological development and space exploration and have common policies on development cooperation and foreign aid without preventing Member States from having their own policies in these areas (Art.4.3-4 TFEU);


(c) Coordinating powers, where the EU is required to take measures to ensure the coordination of Member State economic policies, employment policies and social policies within the Union (Art.5 TFEU);


(d) Areas of supporting, coordinating or supplementary EU action in relation to the protection and improvement of human health; industry; culture; tourism; education,vocational training, youth and sport; civil protection; and administrative cooperation(Art.6 TFEU);


(e) The Common EU Foreign and Security Policy: Lisbon provides that “The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.”(Art.24.1 TEU). The last phrase here, a “common defence”, means a common EU army and military forces. It needs to be distinguished from a “common defence policy”(Art.42.1 TEU) and a “mutual defence” obligation (Art.42.7 TEU) to both of which ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would commit Ireland; 


4. Lisbon would shift influence over law-making and decision-taking in the EU towards the Big States and away from the smaller ones like Ireland:


It would do this by replacing the voting system for making EU laws that has existed since the 1957 Rome Treaty by a primarily population-based system which would give most influence to the Member States with big populations and reduce the influence of smaller States like Ireland. Under Lisbon a “qualified” majority vote”(QMV) for making EU laws in future would be 15 States out of 27, as long as they included 65% of the EU’s total population(Art.16.4 TEU). 


When Ireland joined the then EEC in 1973 we had 3 votes in making European laws as against 10 each for the Big States, a ratio of one-third. Under the current Nice Treaty arrangements we have 7 votes as against their 29 each, a ratio of one-quarter. Under Lisbon Ireland would have 4 million people as against Germany’s 82 millon, a ratio of one-twentieth, and an average of 60 million each for France, Italy and Britain, a ratio of one-fifteenth.


 Under Lisbon Germany’s voting weight vis-a-vis the other 26 Member States would double from 8% to 17%, France’s would go from 8% to 13%, Britain’s and Italy’s from 8% to 12%. Ireland’s voting weight would fall to one-third its present level, from 2% to 0.8%. Ireland’s share in a blocking minority would go from its current 7.7% to 2.4%, while Germany’s would go from 32% to 44%.


Putting EU law-making and decision-taking on a primarily population basis would fundamentally change the consensus culture on the EU Council of Ministers. The smaller Member States would be less needed by the Big States than before, and their interests would therefore be less likely to be taken into account. Power relations would tend to replace the search for consensus policy-making. Fifteen States could impose an EU law on 12 if the former contains 65% of the EU’s population. Germany and France, with one-third of the EU’s population between them, would need just two other States to join them to be able to block any EU law.


5. Lisbon would remove Ireland’s right to a permanent EU Commissioner: 


The Treaty proposes to reduce the number of EU Commissioners from the present 27 to 18 (Art.17.5 TEU). Ireland would therefore have no member on the Commission, the body which has the monopoly of proposing all EU laws, for one out of every three Commission terms.


This means that for five years out of every fifteen, laws affecting all our lives would be put forward entirely by a committee of EU officials on which there would be no Irish voice. The Big EU States would lose their right to a permanent Commissioner too, but their size and political weight give them other means of exerting influence on this key body. As Dr Garret FitzGerald and others have emphasised over the years, having a fellow-national on the EU Commission is especially important for smaller Member States.

In the Convention on the Future of Europe which drew up the original EU Constitution, Europe Minister Dick Roche on behalf of the Irish Government sought to retain Ireland’s right to a permanent EU Commissioner, but he failed in the attempt.

6. Lisbon would deprive the Irish Government of its right to decide who Ireland’s Commissioner would be when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission: 


The Treaty provides that Ireland’s present right to “propose” a national Commissioner, and to have that proposal accepted by the others if we are to accept their proposals (Art. 214 TEC), would be replaced by a right to make “suggestions” regarding a name, but with no guarantee that a particular suggestion would be accepted by the new President of the Commission, who would in future decide (Art.17.7 TEU).


The Commission President would be decided first by the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents, who would also adopt the list of Commissioners as a whole by qualified majority vote. If the Irish Government were to suggest someone as its EU Commissioner who had, for example, antagonised the government of some other Member State in the past, or who was regarded as not enthusiastic enough for further EU integration, it could be asked to suggest someone else as more acceptable.


The Commission President could also ask a Commissioner to resign at any time, just as a Taoiseach may do with his cabinet, so the Commissioners would be fully under the control of the Commission President. The new Commission would be very like an EU Government, with the Commission President having powers like a national Prime Minister, except that this government would not be elected by the citizens.    


7. Lisbon would give the European Union the power to make laws in 32 new areas that would be removed from the Dail and other National Parliaments:


These new areas of EU law-making include civil and criminal law, justice and policing, immigration, public services, energy, transport, tourism, space, sport, culture, civil protection, intellectual property, public health and the EU budget. There would be majority voting too by EU Foreign Ministers as regards implementational decisions in foreign policy (Art.31.2 TEU). 


Lisbon would also give the EU Council of Ministers power to take decisions by qualified majority vote on many matters other than EU laws, so that as between laws and decisions some 68 national vetoes in all would be abolished, more than in any previous EU Treaty (For the full detailed list see

Under Lisbon the Irish Government has retained the right to opt in to or opt out of specific EU laws or measures in the crime and justice area in order to keep in line with Britain’s similar opt-out. However the Government has indicated its desire to opt in fully to EU crime and justice laws at the earliest opportunity and it states that if Lisbon is ratified it will review its position in three years time.  

Why do national politicians welcome this shift of power from the national to the EU level? The answer to this seeming puzzle is that the increase in EU power which results from shifting new law-making areas from Dublin to Brussels simultaneously increases the personal power of the 27 national politicians who make up the EU Council of Ministers by enabling them to make further laws behind closed doors for 500 million Europeans. At the same time it takes power away from the citizens and national Parliaments which elect those politicians and which have made these laws for their own countries up to now.

Each shift of power from the national level to the EU entails a further shift of power from the Irish Oireachtas and people to Irish Government Ministers at EU level, from the Legislative arm of the State to the Executive arm. It hollows out our national democracy further. The Treaty would also increase the power of the non-elected Brussels Commission, which has the monopoly of proposing EU laws to the Council of Ministers, by giving it many new policy areas to propose laws for. 


In practice some three-quarters of EU laws each year are agreed among the civil servants on the 300 or so Council of Ministers committees and the 3000 or so committees attached to the Commission. The Council formally approves all EU laws, although only around a quarter of them are orally mentioned on the Council and only a fraction of these in turn, usually those entailing amendments from the European Parliament, lead to significant debate. Lisbon provides for EU legislation to take place in public, which means that the TV cameras will be brought into Council of Ministers meetings when major laws are being signed, but the discussion and bargaining that leads up to them will remain secret. 


8. Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty — Two paths to EU control of Ireland’s company taxes:


Lisbon inserts a new Article 48 into the Treaty on European Union, the “simplified revision procedure”, which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents who make up the “European Council” by unanimous agreement among themselves to shift many areas of the treaties where unanimity now exists to qualified majority voting without the need for new treaties or referendums. This is called the “escalator clause”. Former French President V.Giscard d’Estaing called it “a central innovation” of the EU Constitution he helped draft.


 This shift to majority voting would cover areas like company taxation, but excludes defence and military matters. A National Parliament can veto the use of this mechanism, but citizens cannot, as we would have accepted this method of rule by agreeing to the Lisbon Treaty. National Parliaments usually support their Prime Ministers anyway. If Lisbon is ratified there would seem to be little need, practically speaking, for further EU referendums, for the new Union would have all the powers it needs to act internationally as a fully developed Federation, including taxation powers.

If the Taoiseach of the day should agree with his fellow Prime Ministers and Presidents to use Lisbon’s “escalator clause” for this purpose, the switch to majority voting on Ireland’s company taxes would go through. The National Parliament could still object and revolt against him, but it is not required to vote positively for the use of the “escalator”.


This leaves the citizens in the position of depending entirely on the backbone of the current Taoiseach or his successor to continue defending Ireland’s company tax position, which has been so important in bringing foreign firms here and has been so central to Ireland’s modern economic development. Already the EU Commission has drafted proposals for introducing a Common EU Tax Base for company taxes, but has postponed its publication until after the Irish referendum. Does this encourage confidence that the “escalator clause” will not be used to bring in EU tax harmonisation? 

Lisbon would open another path, and almost certainly a much wider one, to EU tax harmonisation if national differences in company tax are judged to lead to “distortion of competition“(Art.113 TFEU). This Treaty amendment which would be inserted by Lisbon would enable the EU Court of Justice to apply the EU’s internal market rules on competition matters, where majority voting applies, to matters of company taxation, although not the actual rates. For example a Court judgement might require States to harmonise their company tax rates over a particular period of time, although Member States would still decide the rates. This would be another way around the present unanimity requirement for harmonising company taxes.  

Lisbon would also permit the EU to raise its “own resources” by means of any kind of new EU tax to finance the attainment of its many objectives (Art.311 TFEU). The 27 EU Prime Ministers and Presidents would have to decide unanimously what taxes to impose, and once National Parliaments approved, that would be that. There would be no need of a referendum in Ireland, for we would have permitted this development by voting for Lisbon. It is hard to imagine the 27 EU Prime Ministers and Presidents refraining from exercising this power to give the post-Lisbon EU its own major tax revenues once it is up and running under their political direction.

Lisbon would also provide for qualified majority voting on laws governing foreign direct investment (Art.64.2 TFEU) and international agreements on foreign investment (Art.207.1 TFEU). Such rules could significantly affect bodies like the IDA, which have been so important for attracting foreign investment to Ireland over the years.  

9. Lisbon would give the EU the power to decide our human and civil rights: 


The new Treaty would give the EU the final power to decide what our rights are in all areas of EU law, including Member States when implementing EU law. It would do this by making the rights set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time (Art.6 TEU). The same Article states that the Charter “shall have the same legal value as the treaties.” 


This would make the 27 judges of the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg the final decider of our rights in many areas, instead of the Irish Supreme Court or the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which decides these rights at present.  If Lisbon gives the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) the power to decide what our rights are in the large area of EU law, it is likely that the Commission will in time come to propose laws to ensure their uniform application across all EU States, as has happened in the case of the other Treaties up to now.

The EU has already got a human rights competence, in that the Court of Justice can adjudicate on such rights as equality and non-discrimination under the existing Treaties. What Lisbon would do would be to give the ECJ a much wider range of human and civil rights to interpret and decide on, for the Charter would cover all the rights of EU citizens in the post-Lisbon Union. 


The Court has laid down in several court cases that National Law must be applied in ways that are consistent with EU law, for the latter has supremacy in any conflict between the two. This principle must logically apply to rights issues also. ECJ judgements on rights issues would override national provisions in any case of conflict between the two.

This raises the real possibility of clashes over rights standards in sensitive areas where there are significant national differences between Member States at present: for example, the right to life, the right to marry and found a family, the right to strike, rules of evidence in court, the rights of children and of the elderly, trial by jury, censorship law, the legalisation of hard drugs and prostitution, rights attaching to State churches, equality legislation, conscientious objection to military service, succession, property, family law, labour law.


Before signing the Lisbon Treaty the UK opted out of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, so that British courts will continue to decide the rights of UK citizens. The Irish Government however decided to opt in and to let the EU Court decide what the rights of Irish people will be under EU law. 


The Court of Justice’s judgement of December 2007 in the Laval/Vaxholm case showed how EU law could undermine Member States’ ability to maintain long-established national wages standards, replacing these with minimum standards under the EU’s internal market competition rules. This judgement was given five days after the Lisbon Treaty was signed and a special Protocol could have been agreed at the March 2008 EU summit to deal with it, but that was not done.


Such a special Protocol is now needed to restore to Member States and the organised Labour movement their right to lay down national standards for pay, as the Lisbon Treaty would make the Court’s judgement constitutionally binding. This can only be done in a new Treaty which is different from Lisbon if the Lisbon Treaty is rejected. 

Lisbon also provides for the new Union, like other European States, to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU Charter is far wider than the Convention on Human Rights. There is ample scope here for conflict between the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg over human rights jurisdiction issues.


10. Lisbon would militarize the EU further: 


The Treaty requires Member States “to progressively improve their military capabilities” (Art.42.3 TEU). It introduces a “start-up” fund for common foreign policy and military operations to be financed by Member States outside the Union budget and to be set up by qualified majority voting (Art.41.3 TEU).


It contains an Article (42.7 TEU) which the current Slovenian EU presidency has acknowledged is a “mutual defence clause”. Commission President J.M. Barroso also referred to this in a major speech on the Treaty on 4 December 2007: “It will introduce a mutual defence clause.” The wording of this clause is very similar to NATO’s mutual defence commitment: “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power.” This is a new departure for the EU and would commit all Member States including Ireland.


This commitment to an EU “mutual defence”under Lisbon needs to be distinguished from the obligation to participate in an EU “common defence”, i.e., a common EU army with joint officers on the lines of the current Franco-German brigade, which Art.42.2 TEU states that the “progressive framing of a common Union defence policy —  will lead to”.


Irish participation in such a common EU army would seem to be precluded by the Irish constitutional amendment which was adopted in 2002 to enable the Nice Treaty to be ratified (the 26th Amendment of the Constitution Bill). The Government is taking this out of the Constitution and putting it back in again by means of the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, presumably to give Irish voters the impression that it is doing something new to meet public concerns over this aspect of the Treaty. 


 Lisbon would also allow sub-groups of Member States to make more binding military commitments to one another with a view to “the most demanding missions” on behalf of the EU, without a requirement of a United Nations mandate for such missions (Arts.42.6 and 46). 

11. Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission’s proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it (Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Art.7.2).


It might reword the draft law, or if it considered the objection was not justified, it might ignore it. This right to complain, for that is what it is, is not an increase in the powers of National Parliaments, as it has been widely misrepresented as being, but is symbolic rather of their loss of real power.

Lisbon also provides for a right of petition to the Commission by one million European citizens asking it to propose a new EU law, but there is no obligation on the Commission to do anything apart from “considering” such a request. It can ignore it or reject it. In other words, if the citizens collect a million signatures, they have the right to complain and then hope for the best. 

The European Parliament cannot initiate a single European law, but it gets more influence under the new Union’s constitutional structures. It can put down amendments to draft laws coming from the Council and Commission in the new law-making areas that would be transferred to Brussels from the National Parliaments, although the Commission and Council must agree to them if they are to pass.


National Parliaments would of course lose their powers to make laws in these areas. Ireland has only 12 members out of 750 in the European Parliament. When Ireland was part of the United Kingdom in the 19th century it had 100 members out of 600 at Westminster, where all UK laws were both proposed and made. 


12. Lisbon and Climate Change:


Lisbon would commit the EU to “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems and in particular combating climate change”(Art. 191.1 TFEU). This is laudable, but its significance is being “spun” out of all proportion. Note that the action is “at international level”. It does not give the EU new powers internally.


Any internal actions on environmental problems would have to be reconciled with the EU’s rules on distorting competition, safeguarding the internal market and sustaining the energy market.  EU targets for carbon dioxide reduction in Ireland announced recently would cost Ireland ¤1000 million a year if implemented, which would average some ¤500 per household.  


Is Lisbon necessary to make the EU more effective?


The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Politique University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States in 2004 as compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. 


Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that “the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU’s institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement.” The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well.


If we reject the Lisbon Treaty will we be forced to vote on it again? 

Europe Minister Dick Roche has stated that if we vote No to Lisbon, we will not be asked to vote again on the same Treaty, as happened when people voted No to the Treaty of Nice.

We need changes to be made that are in Ireland’s interest and that of the other Member States before we can agree to any amended Treaty. We must keep Ireland’s Commissioner and our voice in Europe. We need to keep the Nice Treaty’s voting system for making EU laws. There must be no going over to a population-based system, which is a power-grab by the Big States for control of the EU. 


We need a special Protocol to set aside the Laval/Vaxholm judgement of the EU Court of Justice and enable us maintain national standards of pay and working conditions. Special Protocols are needed to enable Member States maintain control of company taxes, of their human rights standards and of their right to opt out of a mutual EU defence commitment.

If we reject the Lisbon Treaty Ireland would remain a fully committed member of the EU. We cannot be ostracised or thrown out of the EU – anymore than that happened to the French and Dutch when they rejected the EU Constitution, of which Lisbon is a revamped version.

We need to send Lisbon back to the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents and tell them that we want a better deal – for Ireland’s sake and Europe’s sake. We want a more democratic, not a less democratic, EU. 

This EU Constitution is being foisted on the peoples of Europe without referendums. Yet the French and Dutch have already rejected it. People everywhere have sought referendums on it. By voting No Ireland can open a way to that happening, to prevent this outrage against European democracy.

Ireland can do it, on our own behalf and on behalf of all the peoples of Europe, if we have confidence in ourselves and resist the misrepresentations of what Lisbon is really about, and all the bullying and threats which Lisbon’s opponents are subjected to. 


A Vote No is a Yes to something better! 


This document has been prepared by the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Ave., Dublin 9; Tel.: 01-8305792; Secretary Anthony Coughlan. It has veen vetted for legal accuracy by authorities on Irish constitutional and European law. Please copy it or adapt it as you please and pass it on to others, without any need of reference to or acknowledgement of its source. 


Our EU Research and Information Centre is an entirely voluntary organisation and receives no public funds. If you would like to help our work, please send a donation to the above address. If you wish to send a donation by cheque, please make it out to Bank of Ireland Account No. 30081817.



17 March 2008


Liberals’ Wall Street pirouette

Capitalism is not to blame for the collapse of Bear Stearns. Fascism is, as Thomas Brewton has defined it elsewhere at his blog The View from 1776. Fascism isn’t what our simplistic schools texts say it is. It is in fact a dysfunctional marriage of central government with private enterprise. We have examples of it all around us.

Every time the federal government bails out a private business, as it bailed out American Airlines, for example, after the 911 attacks, or Chrysler several years back when that company was foundering, we see an example of fascism. We are getting more and more used to it, and that is part of the plan.

Yet government never mentions that it is implementing fascism, because it knows we still respect in our hearts the free market system our Founding Fathers fostered, in which no citizen can be forced to support a business against his will.

Once the public understands what is going on, the system will be restored. That is, if it’s not too late by then.

Liberals’ Wall Street pirouette

by Thomas Brewton

Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. blames capitalism for the Wall Street meltdown that led to the collapse of Bear Stearns and its acquisition by J. P. Morgan Chase with financial support by the Federal Reserve.  Needless to say, Mr. Dionne uses his analysis to praise collectivist government intervention in the style of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal alphabet agencies.

He writes:

I don’t fault Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, for being so interventionist in trying to save the economy. On the contrary, Bernanke deserves credit for ignoring all the extreme free-market bloviation.

Undeniably, there was gross imprudence in the fantastic degree of leveraging by investment banks to underwrite structured investment vehicles and, in Bear Stearns’s case, to carry the riskiest tranches thereof for a seasoning period before dumping them into the secondary market.

In the same fashion, there was gross imprudence among the baseball players who used steroids, but that is no reason to condemn the game of baseball.

The real villain in this set of events in the Federal Reserve itself.  See Federal Intervention Always Has Negative Results.

Human beings, from the wage-earning homeowner to the Wall Street tycoon, will always find ways to use huge amounts of money when the economy is awash in liquidity created by the Fed’s deliberate policies (what Fed chairman Bernanke laughably called, a few months ago, “a worldwide glut of savings”). 

The Fed’s rampant expansion of the money supply gave false signals to the entire economy, leading individuals to go on a spending binge, buying automobiles, gizmos, and homes on credit.  The New York Times reported:

…personal debt in the United States is $13.8 trillion, including mortgage debt, slightly less than the country’s $14 trillion G.D.P.

In other words, a huge part of everything produced in the United States has been bought, not out of real saving, but on credit. 

Equally damaging has been the misallocation of the economy’s scarce resources induced by inflationary expansion of the money supply.  In the traditional capitalist economy based on savings rather than on credit, without lenders thrusting home mortgages and credit cards into the hands of non-creditworthy borrowers, the huge overproduction of housing would not have occurred.

That credit would not have existed had the Fed not flooded the market with excess money.  The Fed played the role of the man who gives matches to small children and tells them to set the woods afire so that shiny red fire trucks will appear, with wailing sirens and clanging bells.

Capitalism is the precise opposite of this mindless splurging. 

Capitalism is a system in which individuals are free to save or to spend what they get in return for their labors.  Only when they save (i.e., abstain from consumption) and invest their savings in more productive or innovative enterprises can the economy add jobs, pay higher wages out of the increased productivity, and increase the supply of desirable goods and services available to producers and consumers.

The capital in capitalism is savings invested in productive activity.  It is the opposite of spending phony money created on the books of account at the Federal Reserve.