The EU expands further

Quote:

Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.)

There is a bit of history to this idea of politicians lying to the public to achieve what is supposed to be a noble end, a phenomenon we see on both sides of the pond. In the 1880s a group of wealthy English met in a private home in London to discuss how best to implement socialism and eliminate Christianity (which stands in the way). The group included Karl Marx’s sister, just to give you an idea of the ideology they represented.

They met later a number of times and eventually settled on a name for themselves: The Fabian Society, after a Roman general who had successfully used stealth to gain victory, thereby saving lives. They would do likewise, preferring stealth to usurp power over the violence used later in Russia.

But is stealth necessarily harmless?

Suppose you stop your car and ask me directions to a place. I direct you over a bridge, which happens to have collapsed in a recent hurricane. I tell you that it is narrow, so in order to avoid meeting another vehicle, you should speed up as you approach it. You do so and plunge to your death in the canyon below.

I didn’t harm you directly. But I caused you great violence through my stealthy and false directions.

So it is with the EU. It was sold as a community of states that would contribute to economic stability and greater harmony in Europe. No sovereignty would be lost and there would be a net gain for all.

But this community is now called a union and is a de facto empire with central control and almost no participation of the populace, with formidable power, ever-expanding boundaries (see Sonya Porter’s article below), a court, one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, and a growing military, and its economic policies are leading, by socialist wealth redistribution, to what is expected by many economists to be the greatest economic crisis of our age.

The Soviet Union has been reborn.

Don Hank

 

Sonya Jay Porter on the ever-expanding, rarely-asking EU

The creation of a European union of states was considered a noble aspiration following the destruction of the continent in two world wars. First proposed in the Schuman Declaration of 1950 by the then-French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, it aimed to transform Europe through a “step-by-step” process, leading to the unification of Europe and so ensuring that the individual nations of Europe should never go to war with one other again. But although senior politicians may have been aware of the gradual subsuming of their countries into a Federal Europe, most of their populations were not.

In Britain, for instance FCO 30/1048 which was written in 1971 by civil servants at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but only brought to light in 2001 under the 30 year rule, shows that the FCO was definitely aware of the gradual loss of Britain’s sovereignty that entry into the Common Market would entail. However, introducing the 1972 Bill, Geoffrey Rippon, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty” and this was echoed by the Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.) So it would be unwise to take what the EU authorities say at face value, including the fact that it is a strictly European union of nations or that any other countries brought into its fold would be there simply as trading partners.

Turkey is not a member of the European Union, and may never be. Yet on 30th March 2012, the members of the European Commission (who are appointed by the governments of member states rather than elected) quietly decided to grant Turkish citizens the same residency and labour rights as full members of the Union.

This accord will apply to Turkish workers who are or have been legally employed in the territory of a member state and who are or who have been subject to the legislation of one or more member states, and their survivors; to the members of the family of workers referred to above, provided that these family members are or have been legally resident with the worker concerned while the worker is employed in a member state. The text reads:

“It follows from Article 12 of the Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (the Ankara Agreement) and Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement (the Additional Protocol) that freedom of movement for workers between the Union and Turkey is to be secured by progressive stages.”

It adds,

“This proposal is part of a package of proposals which includes similar proposals with regard to the Agreements with Albania, Montenegro and San Marino. A first package with similar proposals in respect of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel was adopted by the Council in October 2010.”

As a mark of their devotion to openness and transparency, the following laconic note appears under the heading “Consultation of interested parties” –

“There was no need for external expertise.”

Later still, the following difficult-to-believe statement appears:

“The proposal has no implications for the Union budget.”

Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel are not in the EU but many of their citizens will now be allowed to live in, and benefit from, EU countries – which could cause many problems, not least that of how the EU is going to cope with yet more unemployed at a time when the Union’s financial situation is so parlous.

Read more:

http://www.quarterly-review.org/?p=919

 

Remembering the prime cause of the economic crisis

Most Americans are puzzled and, of these, most are angry that Tim Geithner and Obama keep forking over our cash to a failing Europe via the IMF.

In fact, these politicians are some of the few who realize that the US Left actually triggered the world economic crash and therefore, in a sense, owes Europe and everyone else an apology at the very least.

It is interesting that even the most conservative authors, writing on the economy, rightfully blame the banks, the Fed and the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall for the economic crash, but most of them fail to look back at the prime cause, the bleeding heart giveaway policies of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). True, these other factors were absolutely key and no one is denying that. But without the CRA, it would not have happened, at least not in the same way.

“Most people do not realize this, but derivatives were at the center of the financial crisis of 2008,” states an article at theeconomiccollapseblog.com.

Nothing wrong with that statement. (This blog is in fact one of the best sources available on the progress of the West’s current economic suicide attempt.)

Indeed, neither party noticed the enormous destructive power of these instruments back when the market was bearish.

But let’s be more specific. In the case of the current crisis, it was not just any old derivatives that caused the initial tremor in the markets. It was mostly a derivative known as MBSs, or mortgage backed securities, that got the avalanche rolling. And the repeal of Glass-Steagall (which had denied banks the right to act as both investment houses and banks) was the enabler.

However, we need to look back further to find the root cause. To recap for those who have forgotten: Back in the 70s Carter, always the bleeding heart and skeptic of the free market, decided banks were deliberately refusing to service blacks, Hispanics, etc, on the basis of race. That assumption was in itself unproven at best and maliciously phony at worst. Nonetheless, the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) became the law of the land in 1977. No one tried to seriously enforce this law until Clinton became president because Republicans used to know that forcing banks to lend to the insolvent would inevitably lead to ruin. Ironically, by the founding of the Clinton Dynasty, businesses were even more conscientious than before about eliminating racial considerations from their lending practices. A well-off black men could secure a loan just as easily — if not more easily (thanks to affirmative discrimination) — than a white man.

But Clinton had declared himself the “first black president” and he had to live up to his absurd title. So his HUD secretary Henry Cisneros, with equal absurdity, started to put teeth into the law that had, mercifully, lay fallow in the intervening years:

Here is what the CATO Institute says:

In 1992, HUD was given regulatory authority over these government-sponsored enterprises, and it began pushing the two firms into the subprime lending business.

The ensuing horrors we see all around us could perhaps have been mitigated, or even averted, had GW Bush not tried so hard to be a “compassionate conservative” (code for socialist in sheep’s clothing). In fairness, Bush had initially warned against these policies, but by January 2004, his HUD web site was trumpeting:

“Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities,” said HUD’s Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. “President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal.”

It was the serious enforcement of a less-than-serious law, coupled with the repeal of another law that would have prevented the securitization and sale of mortgages that indirectly led to a debacle that has engulfed the entire world and has led to a situation in which derivatives with an estimated notional value of $1.4 quadrillion have flooded the world market – a value of about 23 times world GDP. Not only the issuance of MBSs, but the practice of creating and selling these potentially lethal instruments, is what threatens every inhabitant of our globe.

So keep this in mind: without the repeal of Glass-Steagall and without the “compassionate conservatism” and outright socialism of our past governments, you and your friends would have reasonable job security and/or a job.

Good reasons to avoid voting for a RINO or a Democrat next year.

Will Muslim Africa join the EU?

Millions of Muslims  live in Europe but refuse to integrate. The EU wants even more. And now, Muslims countries to join the EU?

by Don Hank

There has been much speculation as to the reasons for the US and NATO interfering in the internal affairs of Libya, the US and the rest of the West interfering in Egypt, the UN taking sides in an election dispute in the Ivory Coast and using deadly force to install the Muslim candidate, while doing nothing to stop the slaughter of 1,000 Christians, etc.

There is the old knee-jerk accusation that it is all about oil. Yet Egypt has almost no oil. Neither does the Ivory Coast.

Remember that the EU has been importing Muslims into Europe at the rate of almost a million a year and a realistic estimate forecasts a Muslim majority in about 15-25 years in that continent.

Also recall that the Fabian Society (of which Bush pal Tony Blair is a member) was founded in the 1880s for the purpose of spreading socialism worldwide, and one of their immediate goals was to eliminate Christianity. Now do you suppose engineering a Muslim majority may help achieve that goal?

Also recall that every major conflict in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion has resulted in the murder, exile and/or persecution of indigenous Christian populations that were protected until the West got involved!

This is all circumstantial evidence, you say.

But for many years, an expansion of the EU into Africa has been in the works, and now a high-ranking EU official is recommending “deep and broad” integration with Africa, ostensibly to expand the EU “market.” This means, long-term, that African nations are now to be integrated into the EU. Which in turn means that eventually the Schengen agreement (open borders) would be extended to Islamic Africa.

Remember that the EU started out as an innocent little agreement (the EEC, European Economic Community – with the emphasis ostensibly on the market), then morphed into the EC (European Community — note that “economic” is no longer the focus, not even part of the name), and now is a supranational government whose top ranking officers (the European Commission) are not even elected. We used to call that kind of arrangement a dictatorship. We also used to call the kind of wealth redistribution policies this government practices communism.

My, how times have changed. Good thing communism is “dead.”

The EU’s William Hague wants to “broaden and deepen” ties with N. Africa:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/05/william-hague-argues-for-broad-and-deep-economic-integration-between-the-middle-east-and-the-eu.html

Sarkozy has wanted Mediterranean Union:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/world/europe/10iht-france.4.5656114.html

They’re still catching up to Laigle’s Forum

by Don Hank

As I have said before, the world is slowly catching up to Laigle’s Forum.

I have written a fair amount about the hypocrisy of US policies that coddle Mexican illegal aliens and treat the corrupt Mexican government with exaggerated respect instead of standing up to it as it should.

It is therefore always gratifying to see at least the alternate media focusing on this hidden issue.

COPS magazine is the latest to show such courage, and I include the following link for those who do not regularly read Laigle’s Forum, and for whom this COPS report will therefore seem like news:

http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/mexican-military-police-brutalize-illegal-aliens-from-central-america

Having been in the Peace Corps in El Salvador in the late 60s, I have come into contact with enough Central Americans to know that Mexican police are practically an arm of the cartel they purport to oppose, and Central Americans passing through their country fear them with good reason.

It is well known in the US Central American community that male illegal immigrants in Mexico are routinely robbed and female illegal immigrants are almost routinely raped by these defenders of law and order.

I have reported on this before and have posted a commentary on the condemnation of the Mexican authorities by the Mexican Diocese, which had the cojones to stand up and condemn them shortly after the massacre of over 70 immigrants:

http://laiglesforum.com/mexican-church-confirms-immigrant-abuse-by-authorities/1754.htm

Ironically, our government’s coddling of Mexican “immigrants” and its refusal to confront the Mexican government over gross human rights abuses is perhaps the prime factor in the perpetuation of this abuse. Victims of abuse by Mexican authorities have no voice and in fact, feel betrayed by us. To state it plainly, the US government is the best friend of Mexican criminals and the most fearsome foe of law-abiding Mexicans and Central Americans. 

Our open borders policy and tendency to want to grant amnesty to all Mexicans, regardless of any criminal past they may have is harming America to a great extent but Mexico and Central America even more.

The Mexican and Central American people desperately need a US government policy with guts — or as they say, cojones.

Instead, they get mush brains in Washington tripping all over each other to please the far left, and hence the criminal element, in the Mexican community, opening up our country to increasingly dangerous criminals, while encouraging the cartels in Mexico, even supplying them with guns.

Finally, let me point out that a recent online exchange I had with a group of libertarians (Sons of Liberty) and an opinion expressed by the chairman of the Utah LP (“there is not such thing as an illegal”) demonstrate to me that libertarians are running with the progressives in this issue (and also in many others).

Ron Paul identifies with the libertarians and, sadly, he too apparently does not believe in protecting our borders and making immigrants present documents.

Conservatives must stand up and be different, even if it means standing alone at times. We are truly the only ones who insist that right is right and wrong is wrong, an insistence on absolutism that has held America together since the very beginning.

More on Libertarians:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/probe-the-progressive-libertarians/