Are Muslims God’s enforcers?

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against Him.

Daniel 9:11

by Don Hank

In the comments section of our article “My friend Abdul,” our Muslim reader Alif gave us some things to ponder.
Firstly, he pointed out how immoral the West has become and in so doing presented an uncomfortable argument as to why Muslims would have the moral authority to rule the West and the rest of the world.
Secondly, however, he ignored my question as to why Islam favors the Koran over the Bible — and specifically, why the Bible, parts of which were written thousands of years before the Koran, and most of the historical content of which was written by contemporaries, should be given short shrift or even be ignored by Islam, which is based on the writings of one man who has never met any of the protagonists of the Bible, whom he nonetheless claims to revere. I have posed this question to Muslims for years and never receive an answer.
Thirdly, Alif, like all good Muslims, defends cruel punishment, and to read his words is shocking to anyone with humanitarian instincts, regardless of their religious beliefs, and it echoes those of Abdul in our story:

“Punishments like amputation of hand, whipping, stoning to death and beheading have the dual impact of preventing the individual from committing the same crime in future and serving a stern warning to others.”

Given the tenuous position of the Western world at this critical time in history, all of these points deserve careful analysis.  I will attempt such an analysis herein.
Many secularists and liberal “Christians” who oppose the cruelty and terrorism displayed by Islamists do so on an untenable basis, namely, either  a denial of the existence of God or the claim that God does not intervene, or no longer intervenes, in the affairs of men and has no interest in their morality or lack thereof.  Thanks to such thinking, Muslims will always be able to point out how the West has failed in all possible ways through its loss of morality. For example:
Economically, because politicians, capitalists and bankers, for example, no longer feel constrained to be honest. They think honesty is for suckers. What would anyone expect since they deny the power of God and believe that life ends at physical death? Grab what you can, Boys!
Politically, because they, having no respect for God, think man must be in charge even of natural phenomena such as the weather, and hence, must make and enforce harsh laws to punish “carbon emitters.” Further, like the atheistic Soviet Union, they believe that only technocrats can solve our political and economic problems and even control nature, and hence, the common man (who, they think, isn’t smart enough to grasp their high-minded ideas) must be muzzled, enslaved and impoverished in a modern-day feudal system, which is now in place. The European Union, for example, now rules Europe with almost no input from the ruled. The US is slowly following suit, with politicians ignoring the will of the people (for instance, 90% of us opposed the bailout, but both parties rammed it through).
In the Old Testament, God chose the cruel enemies of the Jews to punish them for their immorality. He can be expected to act similarly today in dealing with us, using Muslims to punish the West for our open immorality.
Now the fact that Muslims cannot account for why they ignore the original accounts of the prophets and rely almost exclusively on a book written by one man on the basis of dreams to which only the author was witness, shows a serious lack of intellectual justification for that religion. Without the Bible, Mohammed would never have heard of the prophets he claimed to honor. Yet he spoke scornfully of the “People of the Book.” Despite its reliance on the Judeo-Christian scriptures for much of its teachings, Islam therefore remains outside Biblical history and, in those areas where it mentions the Jewish and Christian prophets yet portrays them differently from the original accounts, can be considered religious and historical revisionism.
Yet, if God so chooses, He can use Islam to enforce His laws in the West, just as He used the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar – unbeknownst to him — as an enforcer against the wayward Hebrews (see the book of Daniel).
Many solutions have been tried by ordinary people to end the Muslim invasion of Europe, but all have failed.  For example , Harry Taylor mocked Islam and was fined and jailed; secularist Geert Wilders made a movie “Fitna,” critical of Islam and has proposed banning the Koran, but that suggestion opens the door to the banning of other expressions as well, including potentially the Bible. He too was threatened with prison and will be tried soon.

Many other activists, including celebrities and high-ranking politicians, such as Nigel Farage, have railed against the EU and its out-of-control immigration policies that fill Europe with Muslims who refuse to integrate. Though an intelligent and fiery speaker, Farage is largely ignored by the media and EU leaders.

Many “intellectuals,” ignorant of history, declare that Christianity starts wars – ignoring that 100 million innocents were slaughtered by atheistic communism in the 20th Century. Others absurdly declare that Hitler was a Christian . This is all grit for Muslim mills.

So from a secular standpoint, you have a completely incomprehensible phenomenon: a Ruling Class insisting on importing Muslims and according them special status (welfare payments, enclaves of their own where police are not allowed to enter).

Such behavior does nothing but harm the ruled class (now reduced de facto to increasingly impoverished serfs), the economy, law and order, and makes no sense from a human standpoint.

But from a biblical standpoint, it is perfectly comprehensible that amoral Westerners, who reject God and accept moral relativism, even deliberately protecting sinful sexual behavior (eg, homosexuality, see, Romans 1:25-28), should be subject to the whims of a group that insists on a rigid set of moral rules and even threatens them with physical harm or annihilation if they continue to disobey.

God allowed the disobedient Jews on several occasions to be banished from their homeland and enslaved.  The Old Testament (Tanakh) is in fact mainly the story of man’s disobedience to God and the dire consequences thereof.

Our situation here in the West is astonishingly analogous.

There is one solution out of this conundrum, but it is one few Europeans and not all that many Americans can countenance (many, for example, have been brainwashed into believing Christianity is evil and causes war): return to our Christian roots and stop playing at religious relativism, atheistic Marxism and atheistic or secular libertarianism, the same ideologies that have failed since the beginning of recorded history.  

To answer Islam intelligently and effectively, Christianity must be strengthened morally and Christians must follow their Book in their daily actions, but avoid interpreting it in a way that allows them to practice sinful and self-destructive hedonism. Specifically, we must stop promoting abortion, prostitution, drug abuse, dishonesty in business, finance and government, sexual libertinism such as divorce, adultery and homosexuality, and be pure and above reproach, like the Hebrew captives Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Babylon, who ultimately led King Nebuchadnezzar to the Lord. Only in that way — that is, by walking the straitened and narrow — can westerners restore their honor and prestige in the world, and more importantly, find their way through the narrow gate.

The West has a long way to go in returning to a Biblical worldview. In fact, we are running, not walking, in the opposite direction, gleefully tossing aside the moral principles that once set us apart and made our country great. Most churches have ignored or distorted Biblical teachings, betrayed Christ and sinned mortally in so doing. Many churches of America, the Church of England and the evangelische Kirche in Germany, to name but a few, are on the verge of accepting homosexual marriage and ordaining homosexual clergy.  Many churches have support groups where not only divorced, but also separated – and still-married – men and women can meet people of the opposite sex for the purpose of finalizing the breach in their marriages. This open, festering sin is encouraged by the church leaders, most of whom never once encourage separated couples to renew their vows, considering it passé and psychological incorrect to do so. Some US churches openly support abortion. To avoid supporting the openly anti-Christian policies of apostate churches, house churches may be the only solution for many. We can do that — just as the Chinese do.

Many of us will be persecuted. We can do persecution. We’ve done it for 2,000 years.

But what we can’t do is continue to wallow in our sins and call ourselves Christians.
There is no way loveless, man-centered religion — false Christianity and the harsh militant religion of Islam — can be defeated except through a rigorous return to the religion of love in a genuine heart-felt and lasting revival, complete with weeping and heartfelt repentance. Not just a return, but a renewed devotion and commitment to the Lord of Lords and to His commandments. Though apostate leaders, touting the “Age of Grace,” insist that “Christians” can continue their sinful, disobedient lifestyles and still be saved, Jesus said “I am come not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law.” By this he is not referring to those parts of the law that were abused by the legalists of his day, such as the Levitican dietary laws, but rather to those biblical laws that, as Paul implies in Romans 1:18-20, all human beings deep down know to be righteous and true, laws which Cicero, for example,  called “natural law.”  In so saying, Christ makes it crystal clear: The Ten Commandments and other godly principles still apply.

He can save us from our past sins, but, as he said to the woman at the well, “go and sin no more.” That last part of the story is the part modern church leaders want us to forget.

Rigorous adherence to Biblical teachings on the part of kind and gentle Christians would put Christianity far above the legalistic, rigid and violent Islam, if it were taken as seriously as it deserves to be taken. Muslims would convert by the millions if they saw Christians behaving like Christians: humble, gentle, kind, patient, morally pure but wise. But thanks to false teachers, pastors and other religious leaders, Christianity has come to mean for many: Play first, pray later, pay never.
This is tragically out of keeping with the teachings of Christ and will lead our Western culture, and many souls, to irremediable perdition.

By putting aside all the secularist, psychological brainwashing of and by their leaders over the last half-century, true Christians can still muster the moral authority to assert themselves in the West.

They can, and they should.

Because if they fail to accept God’s moral laws in their own lives, then those laws will be brutally forced on them by God’s enforcers.

It’s already happening.

Muslim brutality documented in MSM:

Journalist Daniel Pearl beheaded

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/12/iraq/main616901.shtml

Nick Berg beheaded

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119615,00.html

Briton beheaded

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1190477/British-man-Edwin-Dyer-beheaded-Al-Qaeda-terrorists.html

This just in (Olavo de Carvalho):

http://financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/a-philosopher-warning

Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

My friend Abdul

Britain isn’t like the US, where a bloke can still say what’s on his mind, even if it offends Muslims – or even gays (if you’re not in the bluest of blue states). It may not be that way for long, because what liberty the Dems don’t steal from us in the name of social justice, the RINOs surely will in the name of patriotism.

Thus, a UK friend who has kept me informed for quite a few years on the state of the UK and the EU, recently sent me an insightful personal story about his Muslim friend Abdul, but he didn’t really feel comfortable with his name in print, so he just wanted us to run an abbreviated version thereof.

What struck me about this story was that G. McA. obviously was really very fond of Abdul, and probably still is. Therein lies the tragedy. An unbridgeable chasm separates them.

Don Hank

My friend Abdul

by G. McA.

I tried to make my peaceful accommodation with Muslims many years ago, but in a Damascene moment I came to realise it was an impossible dream.
Years ago, I had become involved in the campaign to prevent homosexuals from propagandising our children.
Although I was an atheist at the time (I’m now just a faint, non-aligned believer), I sought out different religious groups as the natural allies of this cause. I had asked a Pakistani Muslim friend of many years to introduce me to the leaders of Glasgow’s Central Mosque in the hope of addressing the congregation after Friday prayer. They were evasive and probably playing a “long game” with  Glasgow’s Labour Party mafia.

I decided to take direct action, and as the worshippers exited, I challenged them as they came out the door to stand up to the Scottish Executives plans to teach their children that homosexuality and lesbianism  good and acceptable, and that their children would be shown pornography at school if they  walked on by.

The effect was immediate, and showed how swiftly Muslims can be organised for good – or ill.

In no time at all we had a large crowd. They made it very clear to the mosque worthies who had stalled me that they wanted to discuss this issue, and damned quick too.

We were given a large room, and the response was terrific. I challenged them that to be proper Muslims, proper human beings, they had to put the usual Pakistani obsession with business making money on hold for a while and take action, not just for their own children’s sake, but for our children’s sake.

One little chap got up to speak, and he had an authority and presence that belied his stature. He said (as near as I remember): “The brother is right- when a Muslim sees a man in the gutter, he does not ignore him — or encourage him to stay there — he puts out his strong and helps him out”

He then spoke very persuasively about Sodom and Gomorrah. “A holy man lived in a city of great sin, but took no part in the sin, staying in his house all day and praying. God told an angel to slay them all. The angel returned and told him about the holy man who took no part in the wickedness, but prayed all day.”

He paused, fixed the audience with his eyes and said “The Lord said “Smite him first!”

He let that sink in and then explained how wrong it was for Muslims to stand apart when anyone’s  soul, Muslim or not,  was in danger of eternal damnation.
Many then became very active participants in our campaign.
 As a then atheist, I became very impressed by most of the religious people of all dominations, who, unlike me, were much more moved by love of those they saw as sinners whose immortal souls were in danger than a deep detestation of them and their  actions. The truly religious Muslims and others loved the sinner, hated the sin, and felt that they had a clear duty to help turn them away from that path, and to prevent them from leading others down it.
Of all the people of various faiths I met, one man particularly impressed — Abdul.
Abdul  was a tall, bearded man who exuded a gentle serenity and love for his fellow man. It was calming just to be near him.
Although  humorous, every word he spoke was considered, calm and gracious. He was modest, kind and took no credit for anything– “All credit goes to God,” he would say when ever anyone praised him–and he meant it.
One night, months after we had met, I was in his house, and, as usual, he was trying to convert me as we discussed the campaign. My atheism truly distressed him, because he had come to like me and he feared for me, and wanted me to experience the greater love for the entire run of humanity that he had in plenty.

That night, he spoke to me of the Muslim love for Mohammed. He spoke of his compassion, his uprightness, his wisdom. We had also discussed racism, of which I have a tad. He spoke of Mohammed’s belief that all are brothers and sisters, and to underscore this, he told me the story of the time when Mohammed had been asked to judge a business dispute between a Jew and a Muslim.

 “Mohammed PBOH had ruled in favour of the Jew, who left.

The Muslim complained that he should have taken the side of a Muslim against a Jew.”

He let that sink in.

“Do you know what the Prophet Mohammed, PBOH did? ”

He gave me a questioning look, like an orator pausing before a punch-line.  

“No,” I said, expecting to be told that he had chided the Muslim.

Abdul’s tone changed, his whole demeanor changed .

“He left the room, came back with his sword and cut the Muslim’s head off!”

Adbul, gentle, kind Abdul, so full of love for all of humanity, was standing in front of me exalted and triumphant, with his eyes shining as he delivered his clincher.
That was my Damascene moment — with a sinking heart I realised that neither I, nor my children, nor their children’s children could live peacefully for long with people who fervently worshipped a psychopath, and the more of them there were here, the more bloody would be the outcome.
Gentle, kind Abdul would cut my head off for the good of my immortal soul, and no doubt cry as he did so, as many of his faith would —  and there are also far  too  many adherents of this sanguine faith who are a lot less squeamish, and  who would cut it off for the sheer joy of it.

In Islam, to kill the enemies of Islam gets a Muslim neared to heaven — we must never forget this fact.

As the link below showing the barbarians stoning to death an unmarried couple who fell in love with each other shows. Watch the Religion of Peace in action.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8287154/Shocking-footage-emerges-of-Taliban-stoning-couple-to-death.htmlReport

How the EU parliament works

The EU is the progressives’ dream. It is headed by the unelected European Commission, which is the only body entitled to propose legislation. Further, the public at large and their elected MEPs (Members of European Parliament) are thereby shut out of all meaningful decision making. The Commission does not consult with the voters but only with interest groups, and the details are ironed out by committees, which could be referred to as technocrats.

The national governments (called “local”) are obliged to adopt – or harmonize – EU legislation, so they are puppets of the regime.

We see the outlines of this system in our American “democracy,” where interest groups rule over the majority and the majority likes it or lumps it.

What you read here presumably is what a North American Union would look like. You will recall that in the latter days of his administration, GW Bush — whose father chattered a lot about the New World Order — was in fact toying with just such a supranational scheme, called the Security and Prosperity Partnership. A secret meeting held in Canada would have laid the groundwork for implementation of the scheme. Fortunately, the plot was outed and the plan was scrapped — temporarily or permanently, who knows?

Some GOP “moderates” now want to draft Jeb Bush for president in 2012.

Don Hank

 Quote:

“Before these are drawn up, the Commission consults a wide range of interest groups and advisory bodies and having drawn up such proposals it will consult experts via various committees and groups to get the technical details right.”

Sonya Jay Porter is an Englishwoman, a free-lance writer and a member of the UK Independence Party which is working to get Britain out of a political alliance with the European Union.   In the article below she tells us why.

HOW THE EU PARLIAMENT WORKS

                                      …And it’s not like Britain’s

by Sonya Jay Porter

Many people throughout Europe and the rest of the world still think that the parliament of the European Union is democratic.

Compared to that in Britain, It isn’t.

To begin with, the Members of the European parliament (MEPs) are not elected as in Britain, on a ‘first past the post’ system but by a multi-member type of proportional representation.  There is currently a total of 732 seats in the EU parliament and these are allocated to each member state on the basis of population, Germany having the largest number and Luxembourg the fewest.  Britain now has 72 seats, or about 9.8% of the total. Once elected, MEPs then sit, not in national blocks but in seven Europe-wide political groups.  As stated in the EU’s Guide to its Institution (2005), ‘between them, they represent all views on European integration, from the strongly pro-federalist to the openly Eurosceptic’.  You will notice the use of the word ‘openly’.  But so far, so democratic.

It is important to realise that unlike the British Parliament (which we know by its place-name as ‘Westminster’), the European parliament does not consist of a proposing Chamber, such as the House of Commons, and a scrutinizing Chamber like the House of Lords.  

Decision-making at European Union level involves various European institutions, in particular:

The European Commission

The European Parliament

The Council of the European Union

According to The Guide, The European Commission, which now consists of 27 members, is independent of national governments and its job is solely to represent and uphold the interests of the EU as a whole.   The Commission alone is responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation which it then presents to the Council and the parliament and it is here that democracy begins to falter, for the Commissioners are not elected but appointed. 

A new Commission is set up every five years within six months of the parliamentary elections and it is the member state Governments which agree together who is to be the new Commission President.  The President then, in discussions with the member state Governments, chooses the other Members of the Commission who will all have held political positions in their own countries but are neither MEPs (Members of Parliament) nor have been elected to this position by the populations of the EU member states.

It is the Commission alone which is responsible for drafting proposals for new European legislation.  Before these are drawn up, the Commission consults a wide range of interest groups and advisory bodies and having drawn up such proposals it will consult experts via various committees and groups to get the technical details right.

However, the European Council is the EU’s main decision-making body with its first duty being to pass European laws, in many cases, but not all, jointly with the European parliament.   In some fields, the Council alone legislates but has to consult parliament.   The Council, which consists of ministers from the member states, will discuss, behind closed doors and away from the media, the proposals put forward by the Commission.   Which ministers attend which meetings depends on what subjects are on the agenda.  For instance, Environment Ministers will attend a meeting on the environment and Finance Ministers will attend a meeting on financial matters.   If then agreed, the proposal may then be put to the chamber of the European parliament.

And it is in the European parliament that democracy really breaks down.

Before being voted on, the proposals will go to various Committees of MEPs for possible amendment after which the chamber will be given perhaps 24 hours’ notice of the coming vote in which to study these amended proposals.  Discussion will also take place as to who will speak for each group and for how long on which measure.   At this stage in Westminster, there would be an active debate in the House of Commons, often taking a considerable time, but in the European parliament speaking time is allocated amongst the Parliamentary Groups on the basis of size, and most MEPs will get around just one minute to speak.  Nor are these are not what would be recognised in the British Parliament as debates but just short talks, mainly designed for the media.

After these speeches come the votes.  But once again, although a proposal can be won or lost on 51% of those voting, the method of counting votes is quite different from that at Westminster.  No ‘ayes to the right’ and ‘noes to the left’.   Instead, most votes go through merely on a show of hands.  Bearing in mind that scores of proposals and their amendments can be brought forward for voting on in one day, and that there are nearly 800 possible voters, it is not surprising that there can be some spectacular mistakes.   The UK Independence Party, which sits with the European Freedom and Democracy Group, has formally requested that all votes be taken electronically but this was refused by the parliamentary authorities. In spite of this, should any vote be lost, this is not the end of the matter.   It then goes to ‘Conciliation’, after which in most cases, the proposal goes through into EU law.

In Britain these EU laws (known as either directives or regulations) go through Parliament in the sense that committees have a short debate where they are asked to ‘take note’ of a particular directive or regulation.   Note that there is no option to reject them and although there is a vote on ‘taking note’, this is academic since unless we have an appropriate veto, Britain has no choice but to accept these EU laws which now comprise some 84% of all British legislation.

Which means that whatever the unelected European Commission puts forward as a proposal will become law in Britain and the other EU states because there is virtually no way of stopping it.  And that means the countries of the European Union are ruled not by democracy but by a form of dictatorship known as an oligarchy, dictatorship not by one but by a group.  

But a dictatorship none the less.

Matias Rojas enfrenta a Rockefeller

por Don Hank

Recientemente, un activista chileno enfrentó a David Rockefeller en el aeropuerto y le dijo en inglés: “vete de Chile”.  Aunque la Izquierda declara que Matías Rojas (vea enlace abajo) tiene motivos anti-capitalistas, en realidad no es ni anti-americano ni marxista. Es uno de los pocos analistas que ha notado que el viejo paradigma caracterizado por una tensión más o menos igual entre la Izquierda y la Derecha está vencido. Según el análisis de F. Hayek, sería más apropiado hablar de una dicotomía entre Gobierno grande (o sea un gobierno entrometido y coercitivo) y Gobierno limitado. De urgencia primordial para Rojas es oponerse a los élites del Nuevo Orden Mundial y a su creciente control (en forma de Gobierno grande) sobre todo aspecto de nuestra vida en el contexto tanto local como global.

Un creciente número de personas como Rojas se da cuenta de que el capitalismo ya casi no existe en el Oeste. Desde hace décadas, el capitalismo va remplazándose por un sistema híbrido, o sea una combinación de los intereses gubernamentales de un lado y los particulares del otro en un sistema coordinado mundial cada vez más entrelazado, profundo, impenetrable y corrupto. A este sistema algunos ya lo denominan de “fascismo”, otros de “corporatismo”. Sirviéndose de este sistema, los élites controlan cada vez más nuestra vida, dañan la economía mundial y reducen drásticamente la libertad individual.

En EEUU, la Fed sigue imprimiendo dólares, análogamente a un cocinero quien, al llegar más invitados, le echa a la sopa más agua pero sin echarle más ingredientes. Como la sopa diluida que resulta de tal práctica, el dólar no puede no perder su valor. Es más, los rescates de los bancos en EEUU y Europa le roban los frutos de la labor a la clase media (cada vez más chica) para pagarles a los millonarios que por sus acciones irresponsables desencadenaron la crisis financiera, económica y laboral que vivimos.

Tales acciones por parte de la Clase Dirigente occidental (Norteamérica, Europa, parte de América Latina) encarecen nuestra vida cada vez más, convirtiéndonos en esclavos del sistema gubernamental-comercial-banquero, el cual por miles de enlaces mayoritariamente secretos, redundan en su beneficio y los enriquecen.

Es a esa dictadura corrupta que Rojas se opone. Vea abajo.

http://gonzaloantinwo.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/matias-rojas-chileno-increpo-david-rockefeller/

Citatación de Rojas:

Independiente de la corriente política que compartas, Agustín Edwards es cómplice de conspirar con células de inteligencia extranjeras para influenciar la gestión política local chilena (principalmente en el período previo al golpe de Estado en 1973). He leído a muchas personas tratándome de “comunista” por hacer lo que hice. Yo les diría que la Fundación Rockefeller y el consorcio petrolero del Sr. Rockefeller ha estado involucrada en financiar ambos bandos del espectro político. La élite a la cual pertenece este señor está dispuesta a colaborar con cualquier modelo dictatorial que exista. Volviendo a Edwards, “El Mercurio” también sirvió como filtro para culpar injustamente al ciudadano pakistaní Mohammed Saif Ur Rehman Khan e instalar la idea de un terrorismo islámico en Chile, mediante el acceso a dudosa documentación de células chilenas “de inteligencia” en el país. El imperio mediático de Agustín Edwards es un brazo más de las sombras de élite. Un ejemplo de eso es la presidencia de un ancestro de Agustín, llamado Agustín Edwards McClure, en la Liga de Naciones durante 1922-23. Nótese que la familia Rockefeller, una vez que la Liga de Naciones falló, hizo lo posible por promover la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU), e incluso donó los terrenos que actualmente sirven para sus cuarteles generales en New York. La historia se repite.

Danger ahead — Part I

Diário do Comércio, Olavo de Carvalho

Murdered by fanatical countrymen, Anwar El-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin paid the ultimate price for peace, but the shelf life of the product they purchased is rapidly expiring. Hosni Mubarak’s downfall removes from the scenario one of the few obstacles that have delayed the establishment of the grand Islamic strategic unity designed to establish the Universal Islamic Caliphate, and in so doing, to wipe Israel off the map. A few factors, which the enlightened minds of the usual international commentators cannot even remotely discern, contribute to the rise in danger level of this moment to the nth degree:

The Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological matrix of the revolutionary forces in the Islamic world, may not have given the initial impetus to the rebellion in Egypt, but it is surely the only political organization prepared to take advantage of the chaos and rule the country after Mubarak’s exit. The U.S. government is well aware of this and welcomes the rise of the Brotherhood, proving once again that Barack Hussein Obama has been deliberately working in favor of the enemies of the West. The soothing evasive responses by the State Department in recent days are so contradictory that they amount to a confession of falsehood: first, the Department of State swore that the Brotherhood would remain on the sidelines; then, when it became impossible to continue believing this, it assured us that the Muslim organization had changed, that it had become peaceable and meek as a lamb. Commentators hostile to the government noted that, in turning against Mubarak, Obama was following the example of Jimmy Carter, who, under the same pretext of promoting democracy, helped overthrow an allied government and ended up turning Iran into one of the most fearsome enemies of the United States, a dictatorship a thousand times more repressive than that of the former Shah. The difference, I believe, is that Carter seems to have acted out of sheer stupidity, while it is quite evident that Obama, whose career was sponsored by a Saudi pro-terrorist prince, and whose ties with the radical left are the most compromising you can imagine, is pursuing a rational plan designed to weaken the position of his country in the international context while systematically demolishing the economy at home.

The agricultural policy of the Obama administration seems to have been calculated to foment rebellion. Egypt, a desert country, depends primarily on American wheat, the price of which has risen 70 percent in the last months even as the dollardecreased in value, creating an untenable situation for the Egyptian people. Months earlier, economic analysts warned that the whole thing was about to explode (see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/ 2011/01/31/107813/egypts-unrest-may-have-roots-in.html ).

In other Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen similar rebellions are gradually taking shape, and they are always directed to the same goal: to eliminate pro-Western governments and expand the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. The state of panic that has spread among these governments can be assessed by the fact that, in recent months, they have imported more wheat than ever before, making the life of Egyptians even harder. [End of Part I. To be continued].

Translator: Alessandro Cota, Reviewer: Don Hank

Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is also the founder of the Inter-American Institute. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Regulation vs taxpayer subsidies

by Don Hank

In a recent video featuring former finance regulator Bill Black exposing fraud and corruption in major financial institutions, the GOP is seen as sticking to a highly questionable philosophy of non-regulation of finance even in situations where non-regulation leads to implementation of taxpayer-paid bailouts and guarantees for bad banker decisions:

http://fedupusa.org/2011/02/02/former-finance-regulator-bill-black-criminal-charges-must-be-laid/

This video shows that the old Republican habit of defending a regulation-free banking system could soon be an albatross.

The Old Republican theory is that too many regulations on banks will hamstring the free market. In theory, this libertarian approach to finance makes sense. But only in a vacuum or a libertarian (laissez-faire) utopia does it hold true. In the real world, the government is obliged to guarantee deposits of bank customers against bank failure. But when you relax regulations to the point that banks are no longer responsible for their actions, you get the kind of situation that led to Reagan’s savings and loan scandals.

Read more at FedUpUSA:

http://fedupusa.org/2011/02/02/guest-post-regulation-vs-taxpayer-subsidies/

Mitt joins Obama, Carter in calling radical Islamic mob “democratic”

by Don Hank

Mitt Romney has broken with conservative opinion in his statement on the Egyptian crisis, coming down on the side of the mob of angry Islamists and Barack Obama (see linked article):

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-Mubarak-Should-Go/2011/02/01/id/384619?s=al&promo_code=B965-1

Obama, who has in fact demanded Mubarak’s immediate withdrawal, saying it “must begin now” (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41377934), is following in the footsteps of President Jimmy Carter, who — you may recall — righteously demanded, back in the 70s, that the Shah of Iran be deposed because he was not democratic enough. The assumption was that whoever replaced the Shah would, of course, be democratic.

So once the Iranian radical clerics saw that the Shah would get no more support from the US, they moved in for the kill, long knives drawn. The Shah’s overthrow paved the way for the eminently authoritarian Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly took the US embassy personnel captive, as a way to say “thanks” to Jimmy Carter for all the support.

That went so well that, several years later, the democratic Khomeini’s successors eventually chose radical Islamist Akhmadinejad, who hates Western style democracy, as the leader of Iran. Democratic uprisings are now put down with an iron hand in Iran, but after all, that’s no longer important. The US democrats got what they wanted – elimination of a true American ally in the Middle East and his replacement with a man who hates America and Israel.

So now, Mitt Romney is in turn following Obama’s – and, let’s not forget,  Hillary’s — lead in denouncing Mubarak in Egypt because, after 40 years of serving as an invaluable go-between for Israel and the rest of the Middle East, why, it turns out he, like the Shah, is not democratic, never has been. Hillary was quick to scold Mubarak for not letting the Islamic radicals have their fun and organize his overthrow via the internet.

Discussion in the media generally portrays the Egyptian mob as the good guys, just as the media – and Carter – portrayed the Khomeini’s supporters during the 1978 upheaval in Iran.

But the persecution of Christians (as well as of Jews and Baha’is) was stepped up once the Khomeini was in power and Christians were forced out of their homeland. The media have forgotten that just a few weeks ago, a Coptic Christian church was burned by some of this same mob that now demands Mubarak’s overthrow.

The parallels are significant and if the lessons are clear they are clearly not learned.

If this Egyptian mob behaves the way the Iranian mob did in 1978 and the majority of Christians are driven from their homeland, remember the names:

Obama

Romney

Hillary

as being solidly behind the overthrow of a leader who played the lead role in stabilizing the region.

And then ask yourself if Mitt is your man in 2012. (But don’t forget to save a copy of the above-linked article, since Mitt has a habit of flip-flopping on everything as the wind changes directions or as he moves from one audience to another. One of his favorite lines is “I never said that.”)

Here is a brief profile for those not familiar with Mitt and his MO:

http://laiglesforum.com/mitt-romney-the-gops-bridge-to-oblivion/773.htm