September 30, 2013

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam

 

BY HIS OWN WORDS AND OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH-EXPLAINS THE SLAUGHTER OF CHRISTIANS WITH NOT EVEN A MENTION FROM THE "SLAUGHTERHOUSE"

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam

#1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”
#2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”
#3“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”
#4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”
#5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”
#6 “Islam has always been part of America”

Salon Acknowledges "Elites' Strange Plot to Take Over the World"


Every once in a great while, someone in the globalist camp makes a spectacular admission against interest, to the effect that there really is — as patriotic organizations like The John Birch Society have long maintained — a plot to set up world government and to subordinate to it the sovereignty of all independent nations, including the United States.

In the 1960s, it was Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley’s revelations about a secret international organization laying plans for world federalism — first in his magnum opus Tragedy and Hope, and later in a slimmer and more focused tome The Anglo-American Establishment — that galvanized American patriots to warn against a conspiracy to erect a world government. In 1974, Columbia University professor Richard Gardner, eventual U.S. ambassador to Italy and Spain and member of the Trilateral Commission, observed in a famous article in Foreign Affairs, “The Hard Road to World Order,” that world government could best be created piecemeal, via an “end run around national sovereignty” that would look to casual observers like a “booming, buzzing confusion” but would succeed far better than an “old-fashioned frontal assault.”

Elites’ strange plot to take over the world


A few decades ago, politicians hatched a Tom Friedman-esque idea to unite U.S. and Western Europe. Did it succeed?

By Matt Stoller

The idea of a country seems pretty simple. I live in America, and I’m an American. She lives in France, and she is French. The Americans have a president who is their leader, the British have a prime minister, the French have their own president, and so forth.

But the way political decision-making around security issues ricochets around the world, from Western capital to Western capital, is making a mockery of commonly held conceptions of national sovereignty. In recent weeks, a British parliament vote on Syria forced the U.S. president to seek authorization from Congress, while leaked documents detailed extensive cooperation between the intelligence services of the U.S. and other nations. The president of Bolivia was forced to down his plane by Italy and France, just because he joked about having Edwards Snowden on board. And so on, and so forth.

This all demands the question: Why do we hold the conception that we live in separate nation-states? Well, it turns out that this question was actually asked after World War II, and the answer American leaders came up with was … we shouldn’t.

In fact, Western elites in America and Western Europe after World War II made a serious effort to get rid of nations altogether, and combine all “freedom-loving peoples” into one giant “Atlantic Union,” a federal state built on top of the NATO military alliance.

Coup d'etat in Poland. The great East-West reshuffle and Gladio.

zezowaty Zorro

Nobody among serious observers of european geopolitical scene has any doubts about long-term painful consequences od changing realities on the ground in former East-block european countries.

Geopolitical background

First and foremost, they were consciously given as a gift to Stalin by the end of the war, contrary to the military logic of power potentials. The russian army, although reportedly victorious, was in no position to dictate the terms of the new, postwar order on the continent, yet in the treaty of Yalta got all it wanted, i.e. all of central-eastern Europe for its uncontested, mediocre and antihuman, bolshevist rule. What was even more puzzling, was the fact, that this great historical concession was practically guaranteed by relentless scheming and pressure of the weakest of the allies, i.e. London in odious person of Churchill. The man whose whole army could be obliterated by the moustached teutonic corporal in Dunkirk mere two years prior, by the war's end effectively dictated the Goliath american military monster the terms of their victory and gave uncle Joe all he wanted and then some. Just try to logically explain this riddle, without recourse to hidden forces and agendas, my dear Watson!


Smolensk Crash Was a Russian/NWO Coup


The decapitation of the Polish elite April 10, 2010 was a brazen coup d'etat, aided by traitors, that returned Poland to the Russian sphere of influence.

by Zezowaty Zorro

As Zbigniew Brzezinski writes, Poland lies as a pivot between two tectonic plates - the great Asian plate to the north ruled by Russia, and the European peninsula to the west, comprised now of European Union. He who rules central Asia, rules the world, because the world cannot live without its resources; but he who rules the pivot, rules by extension central Asia. Therefore it is vital for the new world order to conquer and subjugate Poland, not for its own sake, but for its geopolitical role.

It is no coincidence that Brzezinski speaks and writes in Polish in his everyday work, although he has lived in America for fifty years....Why? Because he decided to retain and use the language, knowing it is vital for him. He oversees the pivotal territory on behalf of the empire.

The historical rivalry between Poland and Russia follows the unyielding cold logic of geopolitcs. Russia has to subjugate Poland for its imperial safety and Poland has to fight the eternal rival for own survival.

If anyone doubts that any such brazen coup is nowadays feasible, one needs only to remember, how many officials from abroad came to President Kaczynski's funeral: apart from Russians, virtually none. In diplomatical parlance it means only one thing - the crash was an obvious hoax, because the deceased was not an outcast to be so blatantly and unanimously offended.

The coup was prepared, orchestrated and perpetrated internally, in Poland. What is really remarkable, is international silence surrounding the coup. There were no visible reactions to it, although there was tremendous risk involved: in the alleged crash in Russia perished military jet, belonging to NATO state. It meant an unequivocal act of war, if only one official, anywhere in Poland raised the spectre.

Russia's role follows from immense resurgence of Russia's known and previously unknown assets in Polish politics and economy, at the highest level.

September 29, 2013

What the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Means to You (UPDATED)


Guns & Ammo

United_Nations_HQUPDATE (9/27/2013): Despite heavy opposition from U.S. Senators and civilians, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the controversial United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on Sept. 25.
The treaty establishes regulations for counties who sell or trade weapons across their borders. Official United Nations documentation would be required for the transaction of all types of weapons, from tanks to small arms.

Kerry and the Obama Administration hope their support will motivate other countries to sign on, but so far only six nations have ratified the treaty. The ATT requires ratification from at least 50 countries to become U.N. policy. China and Russia were among 23 nations who abstained from voting.

Many of the countries who didn’t sign the treaty cited vague language in the document that fails to punish countries who don’t play by the rules.

September 27, 2013

Gerard Batten: Tories are no 'cousins' of mine


 The Conservative Party wants to stay in the EU and UKIP wants to leave. We have nothing in common, writes UKIP MEP Gerard Batten

I have just read in the Mail-Online that Andrew Mitchell MP (former Tory Minister of Pleb-Gate fame) has said that, ‘UKIP supporters are cousins of the Tory Party and we want them back’.

Tories like Mr Mithcell really don’t get it do they.  Many people in UKIP, and those who support and vote UKIP, have never been Tories.  They don’t want to ‘go back’, and would never vote Tory because they know they can never trust them.

The Tories have the wind up because they can see that UKIP is taking votes in increasing numbers.  We have just replaced the Lib-Dems in third place in the opinion polls.  First the Tories called us names, but now realise that just drives more people into our camp.  Now their Plan B is to make anti-EU noises and pretend they want the same things as us.  Mr Mitchell who has reportedly said, the EU is a ‘supranational organisation unable to respond to British needs’. Full marks for observation, if a trifle late in the day. But the Tory Party wants to stay in the EU and UKIP wants to leave. We have nothing in common.


The Tory Party has sold Britain down the river to the EU since 1972. The Tories took us in under Ted Heath; Mrs Thatcher gave away our right of veto over EU legisaltion in 1986; John Major gave away yet more power in 1992 with the Maastrich Treaty (On European Union). This treaty made our Head of State, HM the Queen a citizen of the EU, and created the euro that is now causing devastation in Europe. All the further surrenders of power made by the Labour Government of 1997-2010 were possible bcause of the ground-work done by the Tories.

UKIP activists, members and voters come from all types of backgrounds.  We don’t trust Tories.  In fact the only thing you can trust the Tories to do  is to contiue to betray Britain still further into the EU.  Labour and the Lib-Dems are just as bad of course, but the Tories are the most contemptible because they have the word ‘conserve’ in their name and they have never conserved anything that anyone can remember – least of all the democratic self-governance of their own country.


http://www.ukipmeps.org/news_792_Gerard-Batten-Tories-are-no-cousins-of-mine.html

With 15 demands Greek Army Reservists want immediate resignation of government


Greek government, state and authorities are set on alert after a union of a union of Greek army reservists of Special Forces (KEED) issued a statement urging the Greek administration to step down and make way for a national unity government. The statement, posted on the union’s website on Wednesday, triggered an emergency meeting at the Supreme Court on Wednesday evening and a prosecutor’s investigation on Thursday morning.

The KEED statement said that the coalition government must resign after failing to live up with a constitutional pledge to provide work, health, education, justice and security for all citizens.

The statement included 15 demands, including the resignation of Greek President Karolos Papoulias, and it urged people to join hands with the army in a open gathering to take place upcoming Saturday, September 28th 2013 at Syntagma Square outside the Greek Parliament.

Among the 15 demands are:


September 26, 2013

Geopolitical Journey: The U.S.-European Relationship, Then and Now


By George Friedman

I am writing this from Greece, having spent the past week in Europe and having moved among various capitals. Most discussions I’ve had in my travels concern U.S. President Barack Obama’s failure to move decisively against Syria and how Russian President Vladimir Putin outmatched him. Of course, the Syrian intervention had many aspects, and one of the most important ones, which was not fully examined, was what it told us about the state of U.S.-European relations and of relations among European countries. This is perhaps the most important question on the table.

We have spoken of the Russians, but for all the flash in their Syria performance, they are economically and militarily weak — something they would change if they had the means to do so. It is Europe, taken as a whole, that is the competitor for the United States. Its economy is still slightly larger than the United States’, and its military is weak, though unlike Russia this is partly by design.

The U.S.-European relationship helped shape the 20th century. American intervention helped win World War I, and American involvement in Europe during World War II helped ensure an allied victory. The Cold War was a transatlantic enterprise, resulting in the withdrawal of Soviet forces from the European Peninsula. The question now is: What will the relationship be between these two great economic entities, which together account for roughly 50 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, in the 21st century? That question towers over all others globally.

A Fluid Concept


The events surrounding the Syria intervention, which never materialized, hint at the answer to this question. The Syrian crisis began not with the United States claiming that action must be taken against al Assad’s use of chemical weapons but with calls to arms from the United Kingdom, France and Turkey. The United States was rather reluctant, but ultimately it joined these and several other European countries. Only then did the Europeans’ opinions diverge. In the United Kingdom, the parliament voted against intervention. In Turkey, the government favored intervention on a much larger scale than the United States wanted. And in France, which actually had the ability to lend a hand, the president favored intervention but faced a less enthusiastic parliament.

The Future of U.S. Bases in Europe: A View from America

http://1.1.1.1/bmi/www.heritage.org/static/images/logo.jpg


Abstract

Reductions in the U.S. military capability in Europe are often carried out without considering either their possible effect or how they will be viewed by both friends and foes. Reductions in U.S. troop numbers in Europe send the wrong signal about America’s commitment to transatlantic security and will embolden U.S. adversaries. Most important, they will reduce the ability and flexibility of the U.S. to react to the unexpected in the region. Therefore, the Obama Administration should freeze all plans to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Europe until a proper review has been carried out and America’s allies have been properly consulted and should examine ways to increase the U.S. presence, especially on Europe’s periphery and with allies who have been committed to Euro–Atlantic security. 

I would first like to thank James Corum and his team here at the Baltic Defense College for putting together this interesting panel and for inviting me to speak here today. It is an honor to be able to address such an esteemed audience on an issue that is of such importance: the future of U.S. forces in Europe.This is an issue that often gets overlooked in the larger debate about transatlantic relations Perhaps it is because the U.S. has been in Europe for so long now that we are taken for granted. So we assume that they will always be here.

Yet there is a movement inside Washington to reduce the numbers of—and in some cases completely remove—U.S. forces in Europe. These calls are coming at a time when America’s commitment to transatlantic relations is being called into question. It is coming at a time when the future security and stability of the region is uncertain. It comes at a time when potential adversaries are getting stronger and bolder.

In my opinion, reductions in U.S. troop numbers in Europe send the wrong signal about America’s commitment to transatlantic security and will embolden U.S. adversaries. Most important, the move will reduce the ability and flexibility of the U.S. to react to the unexpected in the region.


This is why I am grateful for this opportunity today to speak on this issue.

September 25, 2013

A Useless Obama Addresses the Useless United Nations

ALAN CARUBA'S BLOG IS A DAILY LOOK AT EVENTS, PERSONALITIES, AND ISSUES FROM AN INDEPENDENT POINT OF VIEW. EMAIL: ACARUBA@AOL.COM OR ACARUBA1321@GMAIL.COM COPYRIGHT, ALAN CARUBA, 2013 WITH ATTRIBUTION, POSTS MAY BE SHARED. A PERMISSION REQUEST IS WELCOME.
By Alan Caruba

I don’t know who looked more pathetic when President Obama addressed the United Nations Assembly on Tuesday; him or the assembled ambassadors, many from nations where human rights, justice, and liberty don’t exist. Like the League of Nations before it, the United Nations has long since demonstrated how useless it is.

Founded in 1945, by 2003 just before the U.S. received the UN blessing to invade Iraq there had been 291 wars resulting in 22 million deaths at that point. We would stay in Iraq until 2011.

Since 2003, there have been conflicts in the Central African Republic, Yemen, an insurgency in South Thailand, a civil war in Chad from 2005 to 2010, a conflict between the Palestinian factions of Fatah and Hamas, a war in Somalia from 2006-2009, and in 2008 Russia invaded Georgia, seizing part of its territory. In 2010-11 there was an Ivorian civil war. Et cetera!

In the years since 2003, the largest war of all has been the effort to eradicate the global Islamic jihad.


September 23, 2013

Card. Bergoglio, a member of the Rotary Club


PROGRESSIVIST DOCUMENT OF THE WEEK

Card. Bergoglio, a member of the Rotary Club
A document recently released in Argentina gives evidence that Card. Jorge Bergoglio was a member of the Rotary Club in Buenos Aires.

As it is known, the Rotary Club, like the Lions Club, are para-Masonic institutions used by Freemasonry to recruit members and spread its ideas. Both clubs pratice religious indifferentism, profess a vague Deism and oppose the Catholic Church in her affirmation that she is the only true religion.

Before Council Vatican II, the Church strongly advised her faithful not to enter the mentioned clubs. Today, with the Masonic-friendly Conciliar Church, many Prelates enter those clubs, as did Card. Jorge Bergoglio.

Below is a photocopy of the letter by Card. Bergoglio thanking the Rotary Club directors for confirming him as an Honoray Member. This document is preceded by our translation from the Spanish in blue.

September 21, 2013

Explaining Global Communism Today


Submitted by on September 18, 2013 – 9:44 am EST  Comments
By J.R. Nyquist

17456

In discussions with former KGB and GRU officers you will run across two apparently contradictory statements. Sometimes you will hear them say that the former USSR is still run by Communists, suggesting that the rulers there believe in Communism. On the other hand, they will tell you to forget about the Communist label; that the rulers of the USSR never really believed in Communist ideology, which was a deception used to manipulate large numbers of unintelligent people.

Former KGB Lt. Col. Victor Kalashnikov recently wrote several paragraphs on this subject, and it is worth presenting. Kalashnikov’s key point is that Communism is strategy, not ideology. Useful idiots believe in Communist dogma, while Communist strategists do not. Here is what Kalashnikov had to say on the subject:

September 18, 2013

EU's democracy problem goes all the way down


The creation of a bureaucratic European order has become as transcendent a cause as loyalty to the Soviet Union was for many a last century West European Marxist

 Barroso_and_van_rompuy

It is natural that Jose Manuel Barroso should last week have expressed his displeasure at the British Conservative contingent in the European Parliament for faltering in their commitment to the European cause. He presumably sought to embarrass them by warning that they were in danger of becoming another UKIP.

In 2008, he unwisely remarked that the Eurosceptic views of the British public didn’t really count because ‘the people who matter in Britain’ want to adopt the Euro. A super-bureaucrat who wags his finger at whoever dares to break the top-down European consensus is a gift for those who wish to tilt the balance back to a Europe of democratic nation-states.

Barroso will be gone by next spring; his hopes of becoming the next secretary-General of NATO hopefully staying unfulfilled.

On the morning of his ‘State of the Union’ address, I happened to be attending a conference on the campus in the Portuguese capital where, back in 1975, he had organized student unrest in his days as a Maoist law student.

September 17, 2013

Does the West Believe in Itself?



By JR Nyquist 09/16/2013

Toward the end of his book From Dawn to Decadence [1], Jacques Barzun noted that the popular culture of our time has not “suffered from inertia.” It is mobile and ever-changing, wrote Barzun “in proportion to its predicaments….” It is a culture driven by “paralysis in one domain” and “incompetence in many.” Science and technology have continued to advance while art and literature are suggestive of outright decline. Many observers are reluctant to use the word “decadence” to describe what has been happening to us since the middle of the last century. Such reluctance, said Barzun, is only natural. But if we look at the economic side of culture, considering the sphere of business, production, trade and the market, we will find many worrisome trends. For in the sphere of economics we can track stagnation objectively.

The economy is a part of a larger culture. When cultural decadence appears, economic trouble is not far behind. It is no wonder that the economic growth rates of Europe and America have tended to slow over the last century. Many parallel developments might be cited as partial causes, or corollaries, of economic slowing. Barzun copied out an “anonymous” analyst who held that, “After a time, estimated at a little over a century, the western mind was set upon by a blight: it was boredom.”

Taking up the theme, Diana West has characterized the essential corollary of this boredom in her book The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization [2]. According to West, “The world of sensation engulfs grown-up and child alike. And just as we have erased the boundaries that once defined the domain of traditional childhood, we have also erased the boundaries that once regulated the patterns of average adulthood. Such boundaries – long established according to religious commandments, the law, and related conventions of self-restraint – largely vanished from the courts and the culture by the end of the 1960s.”

September 14, 2013

Conservative Renewal Conference 2013: Renewal or Return?

 Klaus.cz

Thank you very much for inviting me to attend this interesting, important and very timely gathering and for giving me a chance to speak here this morning. As you know I spent most of my life in a very non-conservative communist regime which was based on a totally different set of ideas than of the British Conservative Party. I would have never expected to be asked to speak at a Conservative Renewal Conference in Great Britain, in this highly respected citadel of conservatism.

It is a great challenge for me to say anything meaningful here now. As someone who – very soon after the fall of communism, which is already more than 20 years – founded a party based on very similar views as those of the British Conservative Party, as someone who regretted that this unique and highly treasured trade mark was stolen by a group of politically very problematic and with us not cooperating people, as someone who was fascinated by the rapid victory of freedom and democracy in his part of the world but who see their weakening, if not complete evaporation in the current EU, I feel very strongly about the state and the fate of conservative views and ideas.

I visited your country last time this spring attending Margaret Thatcher’s funeral and returned home with a rather unpleasant feeling: the British people were OK, but the absence of anyone significant from Western Europe at the funeral indicated to me very clearly that the truly conservative ideas and political stances on the European continent are practically dead. They probably do exist at the margin but are hidden in modern catacombs, how I would label the not widely known and not easily found webpages.


Remarks for the Saxo Bank Conference on Europe: No Illusions about the EU

 Klaus.cz

Many thanks for the organization of this important gathering and for giving me the chance of speaking here. I am motivated to be here, because I am convinced that we are approaching one of the crucial moments of European history. I suppose most of you came for the same reason. We know that not Europe but the European Union is a problem to worry about. Being aware of it we try to open the eyes of our fellow-Europeans who seem to be hopelessly lost in the noise of the EU propaganda and who are more and more indoctrinated by it. The misuse of words and the evident lies we experience in today´s European debates bring us close to the world of George Orwell and of our communist past.

he title of my today’s remarks as it was introduced in the program of this gathering is identical with the title of my recent book: “European integration without illusions”. The book was published a year and half ago in Prague in the Czech language and has its English[1], German, Spanish, Italian, Bulgarian and Danish versions. The Russian and Polish editions are under preparation. Speaking about illusions, I don’t have any as regards the EU. What I feel is a long-term frustration with the whole European situation, not just with the Eurozone crisis.

Germany's Bismarck temptation and secret pacts with Russia



By Last updated: September 13th, 2013


346 Comments Comment on this article
 


Germany's euro break-up party – Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) – has unveiled its foreign policy. It is pure Bismarck.

"Germany and Europe have no interest in a further weakening of Russia," said Alexander Gauland, AfD's foreign affairs chief. "Germany's relations with Russia should be managed with meticulous care."

What they say is no longer an academic question. The party is rising fast in the polls and may break through the 5pc barrier to take seats in the Bundestag, scrambling a close election.

AfD openly evokes the "Rückversicherungsvertrag", the secret "Reinsurance Treaty" between the Kaiser's Germany and Tsarist Russia in 1887. (As reported by Die Welt)

The terms were that the Germany would remain neutral if Russia were attacked by the Austro-Hungarian empire over disputes in the Balkans.

In return, Russia would remain neutral if Germany were attacked by a revanchist France determined to take back Alsace-Lorraine. It was Otto von Bismarck's guarantee – later dropped by the Kaiser Wilhelm II – that Germany would not have to fight a war on two fronts.

State of the (same old) European Union

Open Europe blog


It’s that time of year again, when European Commission President José Manuel Barroso delivers his ‘State of the European Union’ speech, laying out all his hopes and dreams for the coming year – few of which make it through the decision making gauntlet.

This year’s speech seems little different and, frankly, was a bit all over the place.

Barroso talked up the prospect of greater national flexibility, but, as always, within the end-goal of ever closer "political union". He said:

"The EU needs to be big on big things and smaller on smaller things - something we may occasionally have neglected in the past. The EU needs to show it has the capacity to set both positive and negative priorities."

"I value subsidiarity highly. For me, subsidiarity is not a technical concept. It is a fundamental democratic principle. An ever closer union among the citizens of Europe demands that decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely to the people as possible.

"The European Union must remain a project for all members, a community of equals."

"I believe a political union needs to be our political horizon, as I stressed in last year's State of the Union. This is not just the demand of a passionate European. This is the indispensable way forward to consolidate our progress and ensure the future."

The Cloward-Piven Strategy


FOR A MORE COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY, PLEASE CLICK HERE. 

The Cloward-Piven Strategy
By Richard Poe
DiscoverTheNetworks.org
2005


First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue an African American man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

September 12, 2013

Britain and the U.S.: Two Peoples United by an Attachment to Self-Determination

The Heritage Foundation
Abstract
The United Kingdom and the United States are a force for good in the world. Both countries are liberal democracies that believe in the rule of law and economic freedom. Sadly, however, many aspects of the Anglo–American Special Relationship have been thrown into question under the Obama Administration. This is especially the case over the issue of the Falkland Islands, where the Administration has repeatedly called for negotiations between the U.K. and Argentina over the status of the islands. The U.S. needs to demonstrate that it values its relationship with the U.K. and pursue policies that strengthen, not hinder, the Special Relationship. On both sides of the Atlantic, the U.S. and the U.K. are facing similar challenges. Both are stronger when they face these challenges together.

I would like to thank the Henry Jackson Society, not just for this event today, but for the very important work you do on transatlantic relations and security concerns. You stand up for freedom around the world, and I salute you for that.


I would like to say one word about the man after whom you’re named. Scoop Jackson was the kind of Democrat I wish we had more of today. While I don’t agree with every policy he supported, he understood the threat of Communism, the need for a strong NATO, and America’s commitment to freedom.

September 10, 2013

Orbán says era of economic “colonisation” over, promises stronger growth in 2014


Hungary’s economy is back on a growth path after the repayment of its 2008 loan to international lenders, and the government forecasts growth of 2 percent in 2014, Prime Minister Viktor Orban told lawmakers in parliament on Monday.
The repayment marks the end of constant pressure by international financial organisations trying to enforce austerity, Orban said.
Orban said that some forecasters expected the economy to grow by more than 2 percent next year, but the government’s expectation is a more cautious 2 percent.
He said this achievement was only possible in a country with a stable government and the appropriate reserves, as well as a disciplined budgetary policy and people who stuck together.
He said employment in the country was growing, inflation contracting and economic growth had started. Further, health-care workers and teachers have received wage rises thanks to the “successes of the past few months”.
The government is expecting further criticism and “attacks” over its efforts to help troubled forex mortgage holders and cut utility prices, but it will not back down, Orban said.
“We are ready to face the dispute and to fight for what we believe is right,” he said. He added that unlike under the previous Socialist governments, banks and monopolies must get used to a new situation: “while they were stronger before and Socialist governments bowed to their power, now we are stronger and it is they who must adapt to Hungarians.” Hungary will never again allow anyone to “earn extra profits at the expense of the Hungarian people,” he said.
“Hungary is an independent, sovereign country, the era of colonisation is over,” Orban added.

Democrats of Europe, wake up!

Klaus.cz

Manifest initiated by the Former President of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus
Prominent media both in our country (Lidové noviny, 4th September 2013) and in the world have published the declaration by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the infamous anarchist and fighter at the barricades of Paris in 1968, and by Felix Marquardt.  They are co-founders of the movement Europeans Now, the so-called Young Europeans: "Unite!"
This catchphrase is a deliberate rephrasing of Marx's Communist Manifesto and its appeal "Workers of the world, unite!" and it clearly points in the same direction. Modern leftist radicals, not only of the red sort but nowadays more often of the green one too, are now trying to revive the horrors that were brought into being as a result of the Manifesto and its appeal, with its tens of millions of victims of the Communist social-engineering project which in the end, after a long time (alas! much too long a time!), collapsed almost a quarter of century ago – these people are trying to revive all this by means of the European Union.
Democrats in Europe must not brush this aside as unimportant. It is an overt step towards the final transformation of this originally international organisation into a European superstate, designed to destroy the historical European states together with the concept of democracy that is indivisibly and inseparably associated with these states.

September 9, 2013

30,000 Scientists Sue Al Gore for Fraud

The Canadian Sentinel

Pretty big consensus of scientists agreeing that Al Gore is full of shit, and his lies are lies.

Consensus vs. Consensus.  Battle royal coming.

One side is lying.  The other isn't.

The chief argument of the global-warmist side is that "there's a consensus", therefore they're right.

Well, they're being countered by an opposing consensus.  And in court.

Story here.

Increasingly, environmentalists and politicians have exploited the shoddy global warming hypothesis as a method to take away the rights of the people in a draconian manner, and to tax all of us exorbitantly.

In the past few years, there has been massive growth in the amount of people who believe that man is the primary cause of global warming, and that ironically, an ice age is somehow coming.  It really is incredible when one steps back to examine the ridiculousness of it all.  The theory of man-made global warming has actually been widely accepted by society.  The power elites have told us that the world will come to an end if we do not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and lower our output of carbon dioxide (CO2).  Dissenting scientists have been silenced, even as they explained that most CO2 is emitted from the oceans, and that CO2 does not lead to any increases in temperatures.  In fact, the reverse is true.  The warming of the earth (due to solar cycles) leads to increases in CO2.

Now, 30,000 scientists, including the founder of The Weather Channel, have come forward to sue Al Gore for fraud.  Al Gore has made massive profits in the promotion of the global warming mythology, and he played a key role in getting the 'Cap and Trade' legislation passed.  Perhaps this lawsuit will finally give the thousands of 'dissenting' scientists a voice again.
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2013/09/30000-scientists-sue-al-gore-for-fraud.html

September 3, 2013

Lars Christensen: Merkel’s lack of vision is the Achilles’ heel of Europe

 Klaus.cz

I have met a number of politicians over the years, but lately it has dawned on me that very few of them are seriously prepared to stand up for their beliefs, if indeed they have any.

I can just about recall a time long ago when things seemed slightly different; nowadays, politics is all about solving day-to-day problems and following opinion polls on what voters are prepared to tolerate, rather than leadership and fundamental personal integrity.

Ideologies and courage have been consigned to the past and, as I see it, Europe’s Achilles’ heel is the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the de facto leader of the EU, and her lack of vision for the single-currency bloc.

Her lack of vision stands as a striking contrast to the emotional feelings that dominated much of post-war European political thinking. 


September 2, 2013

CURL: Obama’s 2014 calculation: Let’s have a war


ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The first rule for President Obama: It’s all about 2014. The second rule for President Obama: See Rule No. 1.


Make no mistake: The president couldn’t care less about the plight of Syrians, the 1,500 gassed to death — including nearly 500 children. It’s all about 2014. Win the House, reign supreme.

Consider this: Mr. Obama made his dramatic Rose Garden statement Saturday — then headed to the golf course. Congress has no plans to cut short its 30-day vacation, and the president did not call lawmakers back. So much for urgency.
The conventional wisdom is, as usual, wrong. Losing the congressional vote won’t be an embarrassment for the president, as all the talking heads are still parroting. A loss would be a double win. First, because a “No” vote would allow the foreign policy neophyte to walk away from his blundering “red line” declaration on chemical weapons (“I wanted to go in, but Congress said no”). And second, should Republicans who voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars now oppose Syria, the president would be armed with clear “evidence” that their opposition is purely political.

Keep in mind: This president knows no way to campaign other than to blame others. He’ll batter Republicans for all of 2014 as obstructionists should they be the reason the effort fails.

September 1, 2013

Putin’s Propaganda & U.S. Conservatives








      Toby Westerman
Putin is determined to “break the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon mass media” in international news reporting, according to an article of the German magazine Der Spiegel (online English edition). An unending flow of money from the Kremlin and an ever-present anti-American theme has drawn millions of viewers to Moscow’s best funded media propaganda tool, the international TV broadcaster RT, originally known as Russia Today.

 It has millions of viewers around the world and already is the top foreign news broadcaster in New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Its budget has grown from $30 million at its inception in 2005 to $300 million, and pays for 2,500 employees, 100 of which work in Washington, D.C.

Putin at Russin TodayPutin at RT, Russia Today's studios
Earlier this year RT hired Larry King, whom Der Spiegel described as “a legend of American radio and TV journalism.”

RT uses a wide variety of special effects, including computer animation to liven-up their broadcasts, a far cry from the stiff Soviet era broadcasts of Radio Moscow. The message, however, is much the same: anti-Western and especially anti-American propaganda.

The target audience consists of those who either already hate America or who see America as an over aggressive global bully.

Surprisingly, this view is also echoed among some U.S. conservatives who take a highly critical, even a one-sided, view of U.S. actions in the world.