Le Pen and Wilders forge plan to 'wreck' EU from within

Two of Europe's leading far-right populists struck a pact on Wednesdayto build a continental alliance to wreck the European parliament from within, and slay "the monster in Brussels".

Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's rightwing nationalist Front National, and Geert Wilders, the Dutch maverick anti-Islam campaigner, announced they were joining forces ahead of European parliament elections next year to seek to exploit the euroscepticism soaring across the EU after four years of austerity, and the financial and debt crisis.

Le Pen, who has predicted that the EU will collapse as did the Soviet Union, said the aim was to bypass Brussels and restore freedom to the nations and people of Europe.

The rise of populists on the right and the left, from Sweden to Greece, has worried the mainstream EU elites and is already shaping policy ahead of the May elections. At the top level of EU institutions in Brussels, there is talk of "populists, xenophobes, extremists, fascists" gaining around 30% of seats in the next parliament and using that platform to try to paralyse EU policy-making.

"This is a historical day. Today is the beginning of the liberation from the European elite, the monster in Brussels," declared Wilders after meeting Le Pen in the Dutch parliament in The Hague. "We want to decide how we control our borders, our money, our economy, our currency."

The aim of the electoral alliance appears to be to form a Trojan horse in Brussels and Strasbourg: a large parliamentary caucus dedicated to wrecking the very institution that the far-right has entered. To qualify for caucus status, the new group needs at least 25 MEPs from seven countries, which they will get easily on current poll projections, although it is not clear if they can yet muster seven national parties.

"We want to give freedom back to our people," said Le Pen. "Our old European nations are forced to ask the authorisation of Brussels in all circumstances, forced to submit their budget to the headmistress."

Both politicians are currently riding high in the polls in their own countries. A poll last month in France put the Front National at 24% ahead of the governing Socialists and the mainstream conservatives. Wilders' Freedom party, while suffering setbacks in elections last year, is currently leading in Dutch opinion polls.

Eurosceptic parties or those actively committed to wrecking the EU and to ditching the single currency are also expected to do well in Greece, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe, while Nigel Farage's UK Independence party is being tipped as a possible winner of European elections in Britain.

"As a result of the economic fallout from the eurozone debt crisis, populist parties on both right and left have seen and will likely realise a significant surge in their popularity," said analysts at the Eurasia Group. "The crisis has provided populist and nationalist parties with an excellent opportunity to clean up and modernise their rhetoric. Political parties hitherto thought of as 'nasty' or 'racist' can no longer be considered so."

The pact sealed in The Hague is a big boost for Le Pen who is successfully developing a more moderate image distanced from the overt antisemitism of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and for her campaign to form a broader "European Alliance for Freedom" on the nationalist right.

The effort to pool policies and campaigns has foundered in the past because the various nationalists invariably find enemies in other nations and because far-right parties tend to be dominated by leaders enjoying a cult of personality.

The aim of the Franco-Dutch alliance is to bring in Sweden's Democrats, also rising in the polls, the anti-immigration Danish People's party, Austria's Freedom party of Heinz-Christian Strache, which took more than 20% in recent national elections, and the rightwing Flemish separatists of Vlaams Belang.

By forming a new caucus in the European parliament, the group would gain access to funding, committee seats and chairs, and much more prominent chamber speaking rights. Farage, leading a caucus of 33 MEPs, has exploited the opportunity deftly to raise his European and national profile.

Wilders said they wanted UKIP to join, but Farage has said he will not collaborate with Le Pen because of the Front National's reputation for antisemitism.

There are also several major policy differences that Wilders and Le Pen appeared to be burying on Wednesday which are likely to resurface. Coming from the Dutch libertarian tradition, Wilders is strongly pro-Israel, pro-gay, pro-women's rights. The Front National is seen as homophobic, anti-gay marriage, and no friend of Israel.

The two big policy areas they have in common are anti-immigration and anti-EU. They have ruled out collaborating with more overtly fascistic parties such as Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary.

The attempt at a concerted campaign comes as support for the EU is haemmorhaging across Europe.

Gallup Europe, following polling in September, found that only 30% viewed the EU positively compared to 70% 20 years ago, and concluded that "the European project has never in its history been as unpopular".

Even in traditionally pro-EU countries, such as Germany, support is atrophying. It remained high among older people but the 25-50 age group was split 50-50 between EU supporters and opponents. Across the EU, eurosceptics outnumbered EU-supporters by 43-40%.

A new study by Mark Leonard and Jose Ignacio Torreblanca for the European Council on Foreign Relations identified five "cleavages feeding centrifugal tendencies in the EU".

The European elections "will be held against a background of economic crisis and loss of confidence in Europe as a political project," the authors found, pointing to the possibility of a "Tea party-like scenario" in which eurosceptic parties capture a large quota of the seats, turn the institution into a "self-hating parliament" which is then "effectively prevented from acting".

Source: http://ow.ly/qOLeq

Read More

France Fights Masonic Jewish Hegemony

France is ruled by Freemasonry and Organized Jewry. One is designed to serve the other. The will of French citizens, their vote, the survival of their history, their heritage, their culture and ancestral religion (Catholicism), does not matter to this clique.

Their aim is to destroy every root, every memory, every link to the past, every vestige of religious meaning, and above all, any shred of patriotism left in the heart of the French people. That's why they always emphasize the dark side of French history and ask the French people to genuflect in front of Jewry and the holocaust.

The aim of Organized Jewry is not to exert a benevolent and impartial power for the benefit of mankind and its general well-being. Its aim is to replace God, and to be worshiped the same way.

For century, France was the bastion of Christianity and stands in the the way of the Jewish globalist agenda. They do not want any nation left standing that could challenge their domination. Organized Jewry's thirst for power, greed for money, ignorance of moral and religious ideals all are behind our present culture of death and destruction.

"PROGRESS AND CHANGE"

In France, behind every call for "progress" and "social change," you always find a Jew.

The removal of death penalty was initiated by the Jewish lawyer Robert Badinter. The abortion law was perpetrated by Jewess Simone Veil. The "anti-racist" groups were all set up by Jews. (SOS Racisme was created by the Jew Julien Dray and the Jew Harlem Désir; all chairmen have been Jews since then, up to today with the Jewess Cindy Léoni).

As in every country they settled, French Jewry has created many groups to exert pressure on the host people to disarm legitimate resistance to their Luciferian agenda.

The survival of French people as autonomous entity doesn't matter to them, because they simply don't regard themselves as any part of it. Their sole allegiance goes to their tribal entity, Freemasonry, and for some, Israel, but not to France and its people.

JUDEO MASONIC CONTROL

jmlp.jpgHence, they made of the Front National and [its founder] Jean-Marie Le Pen (left) their number one enemy. He  refused to bow in front of the Jewish power. Therefore,  he had to face this occult power that control everything and hold  the destiny of France and of its people in its hand, just as they control the fate of the American people (leading them to bankruptcy)...

History is stubborn; that's why they are suppressing the young generation. (Jewish Freemason Minister for Education Peillon removed Louis XIV, Napoleon, and François 1er from school books last year...).

Only the colours of events appear to change, but in fact the meaning of history remains the same.

But let's make one thing very clear. We are obviously not talking about individuals here. We are talking of Jewish Money Power and all its proxies, mainly Freemasonry (B'nai Brith, Bilderberg, Skulls and Bones, CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc.) We are talking about a centuries-long agenda of subversion that is now close to fruition.

The two most important Jewish populations - outside of Israel - are to be found in France and in the U.S. That alone explains the recent policy of war carried out by the French government.

Hollande1.jpgThe current President of France is the Marrano Crypto-Jew Hollande

The current minister for Foreign Affair is the Jew Fabius

The current minister for Education is the Jew Peillon

The current minister for Economy is the Jew Moscovici

Obviously they are all Freemasons...

I could draw the same list about people on the media (press, TV, etc) university and so on. French people are getting more and more aware of it. But  they cannot yet understand how Jews can be so evil toward them when they hold the best positions in most sectors of economy (particularly in media, culture and of course banking). They enjoy much higher status than the average French citizen. But it's surely not enough for them...

Jean-Marie Le Pen was told by a high ranking B'nai Brith member that they feared that their "thought control" will fail to prevent him from being elected in 2002; and thus for years, the Front National was the main subject of concern of organized Jewry. That is the reason behind the media campaign of slander on the party and its President.

The "Republican Front" (Front Républicain) was put in place by the other opponent parties (Socialist and UMP) during an assembly of B'nai Brith (Masonry exclusively for Jews). It was an agreement among political parties to combine their vote whenever they were facing a Front National member during an election... (That's the democratic ethic of the political elite in France, to bypass the vote of citizen in order to maintain their grip on all positions of power...)

This is how the Socialist party and the Leftists ensured their election.

Source: http://bit.ly/18s9gBJ 

Read More

Toulouse killings: Lather, Rinse, and Repeat

The killer of French schoolchildren and soldiers turns out to be a man called Mohammed Merah. The story can now proceed according to time-honored tradition:

Stage One: The strange compulsion to assure us that the killer is a “right wing conservative extremist,” in the words of NRO commenter ExpatAsia, echoed by Chrisman and Galt’s Bain.

Up north, this view was shared by Canada’s most prominent establishment Jew and the Liberal Party attack poodle Warren Kinsella (whom NR readers may recall from my free-speech cover story, which mentioned the groveling apology he was forced to make to “the Chinese community” after an unfortunately sinophobic cat joke).

The insistence that the killer was emblematic of an epidemic of right-wing hate sweeping the planet is, regrettably, no longer operative. Instead, the killer isn’t representative of anything at all.

So on to Stage Two: Okay, he may be called Mohammed but he’s a “lone wolf.” Sure, he says he was trained by al-Qaeda, but what does he know? Don’t worry, folks, he’s just a lone wolf like Major Hasan and Faisal Shahzad and all the other card-carrying members of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves. All jihad is local.

On to Stage Three: Okay, even if there are enough lone wolves around to form their own Radio City Rockette line, it’s still nothing to do with Islam. I’m sad to see the usually perceptive Ed West of the London Telegraph planting his flag on this wobbling blancmange.

And then, of course, Stage Four: The backlash that never happens. Because apparently the really bad thing about actual dead Jews is that it might lead to dead non-Jews: “French Muslims Fear Backlash After Shooting.” Likewise, after Major Hasan’s mountain of dead infidels, “Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army.” Likewise, after the London Tube slaughter, “British Muslims Fear Repercussions After Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.” Oh, no, wait, that’s a parody, though it’s hard to tell.

Look, pace Ed West, isn’t it just a teensy-weensy little bit to do with Islam? Or at any rate the internal contradictions of one-way multiculturalism? No, it’s not a competition. Most times in today’s Europe, the guys beating, burning and killing Jews will be Muslims.

Once in a while, it will be somebody else killing the schoolkids. But is it so hard to acknowledge that rapid, transformative, mass Muslim immigration might not be the most obvious aid to social tranquility? That it might possibly pose challenges that would otherwise not have existed — for uncovered women in Oslo, for gays in Amsterdam, for Jews everywhere?

Is it so difficult to wonder if, for these and other groups living in a long-shot social experiment devised by their rulers, the price of putting an Islamic crescent in the diversity quilt might be too high? What’s left of Jewish life in Europe is being extinguished remorselessly, one vandalized cemetery, one subway attack at a time. How many Jewish children will be at that school in Toulouse a decade hence?

A society that becomes more Muslim eventually becomes less everything else. What is happening on the Continent is tragic, in part because it was entirely unnecessary.

Fonte

Read More

Francis Fukuyama Blames Europeans for the Failed Integration of Muslims

Source

I've been reading Fukuyama's book "The Origins of Political Order" recently and so far it's been very impressive.

But his analysis in a recent blog post (recapitulating a speech he gave last November) of what's gone wrong with European countries and their Muslim immigrants is deeply naive. He starts off with France.

A lot of people pointed to the riots that occurred in the French banlieues back in 2005 as evidence of an Islamist threat existed in France itself. I think that this is a complete misunderstanding of what happened there. ...What was going on in the French banlieues was very different. These were people that did not reject French identity; they in fact believed in the goals that the French society set for them but they were not allowed to achieve them. They could not get jobs; they were barred by racism from access to opportunities that white French people had and that was the source of their unhappiness.

OK, so French racism is to blame for the failure to integrate Muslims in France. What about Germany?

The German case is very different. German national identity evolved very differently from France. Partly due to the fact that the Germans were scattered all over Central and Eastern Europe, the process of German unification required definition of Germanness in ethnic terms. So legally their citizenship law was based on the legal principle of jus sanguinis. You become a citizen not if you are born on German territory, but rather depending on whether you have a German mother. Up until the year 2000, if you were an ethnic German coming from Russia, you could get citizenship far more easily than if you were a 2nd or 3rd generation Turk that had grown up in Germany, spoke perfect German and did not speak Turkish at all. Germans have changed their practice but the cultural meaning of saying I am German is still very different from the cultural meaning of saying I am French. It has a connotation that is more deeply rooted in blood. This means that when Angela Merkel says that multiculturalism has failed in Germany, I think she is only half right. She would be quite wrong to describe that failure one-sidedly as an unwillingness of Muslim immigrants and their children to want to integrate into German society. Part of the failure of integration comes from the side of the German society as well.

OK, so the German inclusion of ancestry as an element in the definition of their national identity (which the multicult would no doubt describe as 'racism') explains the failure of Muslim integration in Germany. What about Holland?

In Holland, national identity has always been defined by the pillarization (verzuilung)of Dutch society, its division into protestant, catholic and socialist pillars. The Dutch are famously tolerant but it’s a strange kind of tolerance. They tolerate people as long as they do things over there but not in my community. In a certain sense, it was a natural thing for Muslims to start arriving in the Netherlands and to create their own pillars, since that’s the way the Dutch themselves were organized. This lead to the emergence so-called “black” schools, in which you have only Muslim students with no opportunities to interact with native Dutch people. I think this has been one of the important obstacles in promoting faster and greater immigrant integration into Dutch society.

Hmm, so Dutch support for community "pillars" is to blame for the failure of Muslim integration there? OK, let's move on to Britain.

The failure of immigrant assimilation has in certain ways been the greatest in Britain – the European country that went for multiculturalism the most whole-heartedly. This was based on a mistaken interpretation of multiculturalism. In Britain there was a belief that pluralism meant you have to respect the autonomy of individual immigrant communities. The government had no role in actively trying to integrate them into a broader British culture. I had a colleague Robert Leiken who wrote a book called Europe’s Angry Muslims, that will be published in the United States very shortly, which gives some fascinating statistics in terms of the number of members of minority groups recruited into extremist organizations. In terms of the number of attempted violent acts by members of this community on a per capita basis he notes that Britain has the highest rate by far – much higher than in France, Holland, or Germany. The reason for that was that the British approach to multiculturalism that simply left radical imams to preach in their local communities without any interference from the authorities and without any effort by the state to actively use the education system to produce people that have allegiance to the British state. Again, the British have changed these policies in the last few years in the light of the subway bombings and other terrorist acts. But there is still a very problematic relationship between that country and its immigrant communities.

OK, so in Britain it's the laissez-faire approach to national identity that's to blame. The government should have intervened to suppress all the crazy preachers and brainwashed the Muslims into feeling British.

There's a pattern to his analysis; and the pattern is that Europeans are always to blame. This is basically just another application of the "European guilt" ideology that dominates our age. He goes through a list of European countries where Muslim immigrants and causing problems and then contrives a reason to blame the Europeans for the failure.

Altough he notes the diversity of the integration approaches that have been tried, there are two significant factors he does not mention. One is that non-Muslim third-world immigrants have not caused anything like the same degree of problems. Another is that the Muslims causing these problems are enormously diverse themselves: Turks in Germany, North Africans in France, Indian sub-continent Muslims in Britain.

The only reasonable conclusion a person who has not absorbed the ideology of European guilt could draw from the set of circumstances described is that the source of the problem lies with the Muslims, not the Europeans; and since the only thing these diverse Muslims have in common is Islam, the problem must lie very specifically in the ideology of Islam itself. Even if you knew nothing about Islam, you could reach that conclusion based on simple logic alone.

What does Fukuyama think about Hindu immigration polices in Europe and elsewhere? Or Shintoist immigration policies? Buddhist or Zoroastrian immigration policies? Of course he's probably never even thought in those terms. There's never been a reason for him to. And that right there points out the source of the problem.

Read More

Media Attempt to Cover Up Obama Comments on Israel

The incident involving a live microphone that took place last week at the G20 summit in Cannes, France involving President Barack Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was an important revelation on several levels.

First, it revealed the true feelings that Obama and Sarkozy have toward Netanyahu, which is quite different from their public pronouncements and actions. No big surprise in either case. But the bigger story is how corrupt the media are to go along with the attempted deception.

What occurred is that the two presidents were speaking in what they thought was a private conversation. But what they overlooked was that the mics they were wearing were live, and a simultaneous translation of their conversation was being broadcast to the journalists outside the room. Those journalists were not to be given headphones until the session resumed, but a number of them had their own and were listening as a translator repeated the comments of the two men.

Initially, in the conversation, Obama was critical of Sarkozy for not letting him know in advance that France would be voting to allow the Palestinians membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). After they were voted in to the organization, the U.S. Congress voted to cut off its portion of the funding for UNESCO, as it is required by law to do if Palestine is admitted as a member of any international organization before it reaches a peace agreement with Israel. Obama, whose spokesmen have made clear that he once again will ignore Congress and do what he can to help UNESCO, was also reported to have asked Sarkozy to try to help persuade the Palestinians to stop their bid to gain full UN recognition as a state.

Sarkozy then said of Netanyahu, “I cannot bear him, he’s a liar.” To which President Obama reportedly said, “You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”

A number of journalists heard this, but did not report on it after staffers from Sarkozy’s office went to the journalists and told them the comments were meant to be private. According to reports, French media tradition requires journalists to honor that privacy, and in keeping with that tradition, they were asked to sign agreements to that effect. Apparently many of them complied, “due to the sensitivity of the issue.” But it was a French website, Arret sur images, that first reported the conversation. Reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press confirmed the account of the conversation. Sarkozy’s and Obama’s offices have refused to comment.

There are a couple of excellent articles about this, though not much in the mainstream media. One is by Arnold Ahlert in Jewish World Review, in which he writes that “it is hard to decide which part of this story is more revealing: the incident itself, or the subsequent reaction by the Fourth Estaters whose commitment to the standards of journalistic integrity—or perhaps more accurately JournO-listic integrity—seemingly never reach the bottom of an apparently bottomless barrel.” And to the issue of reporters agreeing, after the fact, to keep this quiet, Ahlert writes, “What reporter in his right mind would sign anything that prevents him from reporting on a story made available, not by subterfuge or anything else resembling illegality, but by the carelessness of two world leaders? Since when did a legitimate ‘gotcha’ moment become off limits to the press?”

In a piece on FrontPageMag.com, Joseph Klein discusses some of the history between Obama and Israel that makes Obama’s comments unsurprising: “…we all know what Obama really thinks. This is a president who has gone out of his way to visit Muslim countries in the same region as Israel, but has yet to visit Israel itself since taking office. Obama had no trouble bowing to the Saudi king, while insulting the Israeli prime minister at every turn.”

Added Klein, “Obama’s latest blast at Netanyahu recalls his snub of Netanyahu during the prime minister’s first visit to the Obama White House in March 2010. Obama presented Netanyahu with a list of demands, including a halt to all settlement construction in East Jerusalem. When Netanyahu resisted Obama’s charms, Obama picked up his marbles. He stormed out of the meeting and declared, ‘I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.’ Obama also refused the normal protocol of a joint photograph with the Israeli leader.”

As I detailed in a recent AIM Report, Obama has made the situation much worse through his heavy-handed demands, and an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is more distant as a result. Obama raised the stakes enormously when he came to office in 2009 by demanding that Israel freeze all building of settlements, something they had never done before, and which had not been a pre-condition of the Palestinians. Then Obama pushed the 1967 borders issue, to make that a starting point for negotiations rather than one of many issues to be resolved through direct negotiations. And add to Obama’s missteps the so-called Arab Spring; Iran’s continuing efforts to possess nuclear weapons and to threaten Israel, both directly and through surrogates including both Hamas and Hezbollah; and the participation in the Palestinian government of Hamas, which controls Gaza. It is clear that Israel is less secure than at any time in recent years.

The timing of this incident has been bad for Obama. After barely a year in office, in April of 2009, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama, after having won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. He has slowly won some of that support back by trying to convince Jewish voters that he really does support Israel. A key test in that process came in September when he reluctantly made it clear that the U.S. would veto the Palestinians’ bid for statehood.

But this recent “live mic” revelation will clearly set back the Obama PR campaign to win over more Jewish voters.

Source

Read More

Video: French Feminists Protest Dominique Strauss-Kahn in Skimpy Maid Outfits (Very NSFW)

Notice what one guy says at 1:44.

H/T Verum Serum

Read More

Obama’s top ten insults against Britain – 2011 edition

Source

In March last year I published a list of Barack Obama’s biggest insults against America’s biggest ally Great Britain, during his time in office. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since then, including the Gulf oil spill and the White House’s campaign against BP, the now infamous Obama-Sarkozy press conference earlier this year, and the release by Wikileaks of US government documents revealing the Obama administration had betrayed Britain in order to appease the Russians over the New START Treaty.

In honour of President Obama’s state visit to Britain this week, here’s an updated and revised list, as a reminder to readers of the president’s less than stellar track record when it comes to US-British relations. The US president will no doubt be careful not to offend his hosts when he travels to London, and he will receive a warm welcome from the Queen and the Prime Minister, as any American president would.

But the prospect of an embarrassing diplomatic gaffe or insensitive remark cannot be ruled out from a world leader whose administration has all too often specialised in them. As I noted in my original piece:

Without a shadow of a doubt, Barack Obama has been the most anti-British president in modern American history. The Special Relationship has been significantly downgraded, and at times humiliated under his presidency, which has displayed a shocking disregard for America’s most important partner and strategic ally.

There are a multitude of reasons for President Obama’s dismissive approach to the UK, and here are a few: an obsession with engaging and appeasing America’s enemies rather than cultivating allies; personal animosity towards Britain because of his grandfather’s role as a Mau Mau supporter in 1950’s colonial Kenya; Democrat resentment over British support for the Bush Administration over Iraq; left-wing disdain for the idea of Anglo-American exceptionalism and world leadership; support for supranational institutions such as the European Union over the supremacy of the nation state.

1. Siding with Argentina over the Falklands

For sheer offensiveness it’s hard to beat the Obama administration’s brazen support for Argentina’s call for UN-brokered negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, despite the fact that 255 British servicemen laid down their lives to restore British rule over the Islands after they were brutally invaded in 1982.

In a March 2010 press conference in Buenos Aires with President Cristina Kirchner, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Argentina a huge propaganda coup by emphatically backing the position of the Péronist regime.

In June last year, Mrs. Clinton slapped Britain in face again by signing on to an Organisation of American States (OAS) resolution calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, a position which is completely unacceptable to Great Britain. To add insult to injury, the Obama administration has insisted on using the Argentine term “Malvinas” to describe the Islands in yet another sop to Buenos Aires.

2. Calling France America’s strongest ally

In January this year, President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House with his French counterpart, literally gushing with praise for Washington’s new-found Gallic friends, declaring: “We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.” As I noted at the time:

Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in US foreign policy.

Nicolas Sarkozy is a distinctly more pro-American president than any of his predecessors, and has been an important ally over issues such as Iran and the War on Terror. But to suggest that Paris and not London is Washington’s strongest partner is simply ludicrous.

These kinds of presidential statements matter. No US president in modern times has described France as America’s closest ally, and such a remark is not only factually wrong but also insulting to Britain, not least coming just a few years after the French famously knifed Washington in the back over the war in Iraq.

3. Downgrading the Special Relationship

Barack Obama very rarely refers to the Special Relationship, and has hardly even mentioned Britain in a major policy speech, either before or since taking office. The Anglo-American alliance is barely a blip on Obama’s teleprompter screen, and he acts as though it simply does not exist.

The Special Relationship has also been largely erased from the official lexicon of the State Department, and is barely used by US officials in London. Despite being America’s only major reliable ally when the chips are down, London is now treated in Washington as though it were the same as any other European power, albeit less charitably than either Paris or Berlin.

4. Supporting a federal Europe and undercutting British sovereignty

The Obama administration’s relentless and wrongheaded support for the creation of a federal Europe, from backing the Treaty of Lisbon to the European Security and Defence Policy, is a slap in the face for the principle of national sovereignty in Europe. British sovereignty is non-negotiable, and Obama’s willingness to undermine it is both insulting to Britain and self-defeating for the United States.

While the Bush Administration was divided over Europe, the Obama team is ardently euro-federalist. Hillary Clinton described the Lisbon Treaty as “a major milestone in our world’s history”, and in an interview with The Irish Times in 2009 stated: “I believe [political integration is] in Europe’s interest and I believe that is in the United States’ interest because we want a strong Europe.” And in May last year, Vice President Joe Biden described Brussels as the “capital of the free world.”

And the US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman, has warned Britain that “all key issues must run through Europe.” According to a report by The Parliament.com, in a private meeting with British MEPs at an event in the European Parliament in January, Susman called for a stronger British commitment to the EU, emphatically warning against British withdrawal:

I want to stress that the UK needs to remain in the EU. The US does not want to see Britain’s role in the EU diminished in any way. The message I want to convey today is that we want to see a stronger EU, but also a stronger British participation within the EU.

This is crucial if, together, we are going to meet all the global challenges facing us, including climate change and security.

5. Betraying Britain to appease Moscow over the New START Treaty

In February, The Daily Telegraph broke a major story with damaging implications for the Special Relationship, revealing that Washington “secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty.” According to The Telegraph report:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week. Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal. Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

6. Placing a “boot on the throat” of BP

The Obama administration’s relentless campaign against Britain’s largest company in the wake of Gulf oil spill was one of the most damaging episodes in US-UK relations in recent years, with 64 percent of Britons agreeing that the president’s handling of the issue had harmed the partnership between the two countries according to a YouGov poll.

The White House’s aggressive trashing of BP, including a threat to put a “boot on the throat” of the oil giant, helped wipe out about half its share value, directly impacting the pensions of 18 million Britons.

This led to a furious backlash in the British press, with even London mayor and long-time Obama admirer Boris Johnson demanding an end to “anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling”.

7. Throwing Churchill out of the Oval Office

It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and send it packing back to the British Embassy – not least as it was a loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is common sense.

8. DVDs for the Prime Minister

Readers of this blog will know I’m no fan of Gordon Brown, but whatever one thinks of his third-rate premiership, Brown traveled abroad not as a private individual but as the leader of America’s closest ally. He represented 61 million Britons including the Armed Forces, as well as a huge amount of British trade and investment with the United States.

He was however treated shabbily when he visited the White House in March 2009, and denied a Rose Garden press conference as well as a dinner. To cap it all, the decision to send him home with an assortment of 25 DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz – which couldn’t even be played in the UK – was a breathtaking display of diplomatic ineptitude that would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country.

9. Insulting words from the State Department

The mocking views of a senior State Department official following Gordon Brown’s embarrassing reception at the White House in March last year says it all:

There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.

One would have thought that this kind of monumentally shallow insult would have resulted in at least a formal apology and a reprimand for the official involved, but unfortunately Obama administration apologies are strictly reserved for the French and assorted enemies of the United States.

10. Undermining British influence in NATO

Despite Nicolas Sarkozy’s distinctly unflattering opinion of Barack Obama, the US president has gone to great lengths to appease French interests, even going as far as apologising to the French people in Strasbourg for hurting their feelings over the war in Iraq. The Obama administration has also done its best to give Paris a lead role in the NATO alliance at Britain’s expense, granting it one of two supreme NATO command positions – Allied Command Transformation (ACT). This, despite the fact that France has for decades been ambivalent and obstructionist over NATO, and is failing to carry its weight in Afghanistan

Read More

North Africans Attack White French Couple

Read More

Censored News report from Islamic Cultural Center in France

Read More

France prepares to debate legalization of assisted suicide

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Wed Jan 12 8:02 PM EST

July 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The French Senate is preparing to debate the legalization of assisted suicide for patients suffering from an “advanced” stage of a serious illness, according to La Croix, a national Catholic newspaper.

The language of the two bills under consideration, which were respectively proposed by a communist and a socialist legislator, would legalize euthanasia under vague terms that would permit patients to be euthanized because of “psychological” suffering, or even because they are indignant over their circumstances.

One bill, proposed by communist Jean-Pierre Godefroy, states that “any mature person, in the advanced or terminal phase of a accidental or pathological affliction that is grave or incurable, causing physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved and that she judges to be unendurable, can request to receive (...) medical assistance to die.”

The second, proposed by socialist Alain Fouché, allows that “anyone capable, in an advanced or terminal phase of an illness that is recognized s grave and incurable or placed in a state of dependence that she regards as incompatible with her dignity, can ask to receive (...) medical assistance to die.”

The debate represents the first time that the Senate has agreed to consider such measures. France has been subject to an intense pro-euthanasia campaign since 2008, when several cases of medical patients requesting assisted suicide were publicized by the French media.

A government investigation of the issue, conducted in late 2008, revealed that France’s Leonetti Law, which governs end of life issues, was “misunderstood” and “misapplied” and recommended that euthanasia not be legalized. The existing law gives patients a right to receive palliative care to relieve their suffering, and allows them to refuse further medical treatment. However, it does not permit euthanasia or assisted suicide, a “right” that is increasingly popular in northern Europe.

As a result of the report, the End of Life Medical Practices Observatory was created, and an effort to establish palliative care units at hospitals was undertaken, one that has met with success, according to a recent report by the National Committee for Monitoring the Development of Palliative Care.

Regis Abury, Chief of Palliative Care Service of the University Hospital Center of Benançon, told the La Croix newspaper that he regrets that things are being done “backwards,” in the words of the periodical, because, he says “they don’t know, at this point, the reality of the requests for euthanasia in France and the factors that lead to it,” a topic that the End of Life Observatory is studying.

“This means, regarding the subject, they might be about the legislate without a basis, which is dangerous in a democracy,” he added.

The debate is scheduled to be held on January 25.

Read More

Moonbattery before destruction

Source

It's good for a laugh when haughty Europeans (the French in particular) pooh-pooh America from the sinking ship of their spent civilization. But it's frightening too — for the same reason that graveyards are frightening. You can't help but think, Once they were as healthy as I am. Now they're decomposing. One day...

Of course, Europe isn't dead yet. But it could be on its last legs.

Prior to the Twentieth Century, Europe had been the greatest civilization in the world for hundreds of years, making unprecedented contributions to every aspect of human endeavor and laying the groundwork for the American civilization currently supplanting it. What happened to cause such a precipitous decline, from Charlemagne to Jacques Chirac?

Moonbattery is what happened.

If moonbattery is a disease, then one of its most severe symptoms is socialism, which has caused millions of deaths and incalculable economic harm in its three forms — Fascism, Communism, and the "third way" variety that cripples the economy through excessive taxation and regulation, and by discouraging work — leaving Europe enervated. An even more severe symptom is the delusion that a culture has no right to defend itself — in this way moonbattery attacks the immune system, like AIDS.

In nature, when an illness has sufficiently weakened an organism that it is no longer fit to survive, it won't for long. The same is true of nations. France, Holland, and Belgium — the canaries in the coal mine of moonbattery — exist today for the sole reason that they were rescued from extinction by the United States and Britain during World War II. But this was only a temporary reprieve.

Ten percent of the population of France now consists of Muslims. These are not the sort of immigrants America has been blessed with — who have come to this country from all over the world for the opportunities it offers, who for the most part have loved this country, and have worked hard both to assimilate and to make their own unique contributions. The Muslim immigrants in France appear to have neither love for their new country nor any intention of assimilating. They are not there to contribute to France, but to displace it. Given the respective birthrates of the immigrants, who continue to pour into the country, and the native French, there is little doubt that unless France defends itself (which it has not), they will succeed.

What stops French civilization from fighting for its life? A combination of cowardice, inability to confront reality, neurotic guilt, lack of cultural vitality, and indulgence in the self-defeating, sanctimonious nonsense that the Left prefers to morality — in a word, moonbattery.

Islamic conquest by immigration is even farther along in Holland, where people are already being killed in the street for expressing views critical of Islamofascism. When Theo Van Gogh, descendant of the great painter, was murdered for making a film that Muslims didn't like, there was a token complaint: an artist painted a mural in his neighborhood that included an ascending angel and the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Authorities destroyed the mural lest it offend Muslims.

It won't be long before we see women publicly stoned to death for adultery in Amsterdam. That's when we will know that Dutch culture doesn't exist anymore. Prevented by political correctness from fighting to save their country, the Dutch are responding to the situation by fleeing it.

The situation in Belgium is similar. As in France and Holland, there are those not so disoriented by moonbattery that they cannot perceive their encroaching doom. But in Western Europe, the moonbats hold the high ground. Facilitating the annihilation of their culture by Islam, they banned the country's most popular political party on the grounds that it was "racist" — indicating that in a sense, Belgium is already gone.

The situation extends beyond these three countries.

Sweden's ultraliberal asylum laws have resulted in one quarter of Malmö's population of 250,000 being Muslim. Of these, 90% are unemployed and live off government benefits. For self-defense, police cars enter some Muslim neighborhoods only in pairs.

Once a proud nation, Spain hit rock bottom when it responded to a terrorist attack that killed 200 people by electing an anti-Coalition socialist in a shameful gesture of appeasement.

I could go on.

Ironically, the Islamic culture that will finish off a Europe crippled by moonbattery is itself the withered remnant of a once great civilization. During Europe's dark ages, the Muslim world was at the pinnacle of human accomplishment. Now many of its people have degenerated into resentful barbarians, worshipping a homicidal pimp who promises to reward them with sexual favors from virgins for killing innocent civilians.

Every great culture reaches a point where it begins to decline. But for America that point does not have to come soon — not if we do our sacred duty when we encounter moonbattery by driving a stake through its putrid heart.

Read More

French Defence League Warns Muslims - Stop Praying on our Streets!

Read More