Those Evildoers never learn...What a tangled web they weave when they practice to deceive.. ;)

WTO Talks Break Down

GENEVA — After coming tantalizingly close to a historic trade deal, World Trade Organization talks collapsed Tuesday in a dismaying blow to seven years of efforts to open up the global economy.

Once promised as a recipe for lifting millions of people out of poverty, the end to nine days of high-level talks left no new trade openings for farmers and manufacturers, no global economic boost and no grand deal for Third World development.

It was by all accounts a disaster.

"This is a very painful failure and a real setback for the global economy when we really needed some good news," said Peter Mandelson, the European Union's trade commissioner.

His disappointment was shared by top negotiators from the United States, Brazil and India, who have played leading roles since the World Trade Organization launched its current trade round in the Qatari capital of Doha in 2001.

While the talks have struggled before, this failure was perhaps the most devastating. Faced with global unrest from rising food prices, credit problems from shaky financial markets and the threat of economic downturn, negotiators hoped that a deal this week to open farm and industrial markets would go some way to alleviating these problems.

It was all the more disappointing because the talks made greater progress than they had in years on issues such as farm subsidies and manufacturing tariffs _ which were responsible for scuttling previous high-level trade efforts. The talks hit a snag over an obscure "safeguard" for protecting agricultural producers in the developing world from a sudden surge in imports or drop in commodity prices.

While farm import safeguards currently exist in rich and poor countries, they are rarely used and reflect only a minute portion of the billions of dollars in manufacturing, farm and services gains the WTO's Doha trade round was supposed to create.

In the face of global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," said U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, who resisted attempts by China and India to ensure a loophole for developing countries allowing them to increase farm tariffs as part of an agreement.

Schwab called the measure "blatant protectionism."

India's trade minister, who was blamed by a number of rich and poor countries for his intransigence this week, said the U.S. demands were unreasonable.

"It's unfortunate in a development round we couldn't run the last mile because of an issue concerning livelihood security," Kamal Nath told reporters.

The most significant WTO meeting in three years aimed to pull off a broad compromise that, in short, would have let poor countries sell more produce to rich countries while giving the U.S., 27-nation EU and Japan new chances for their manufacturers and service providers in the emerging markets of Brazil, China and India.

This was the tradeoff that eluded a WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003, and Hong Kong two years later. Gatherings in Geneva in 2006 and Postdam, Germany, last year also failed to produce the breakthrough, but pressure was higher because of the likelihood that the United States and other key trading powers would lose interest amid administration changes over the next couple of years.

"I am extremely distressed," said Foreign Minister Celso Amorim of Brazil, which broke with many developing countries by accepting a would-be deal last week brokered by WTO chief Pascal Lamy. "It was hanging on a thread. The thread didn't hold."

Schwab appeared downcast when she first began to brief reporters. She said negotiators were "so close" last week, but then stopped speaking. Asked if the entire Doha trade round was over, she answered: "I didn't say that."

Before abruptly walking away, Schwab said she was disappointed that Lamy's package "is not going to carry the day."

U.S. officials were bitter after agreeing under the deal to limit U.S. farm subsidies deemed to unfairly distort international trade to under $14.5 billion. Although it is still above actual payments to American farmers, it was a far lower level than Washington had ever accepted and seemed to gain the support of all 153 WTO members.

Some took the U.S. movement as an important step, noting that it came after a contentious five-year, $291 billion farm bill that maintained and even extended a number of U.S. subsidy programs. But others noted that offers were made without any congressional weight, citing President Bush's lack of a "fast track" authority to submit a trade deal to Congress for a yes-or-no vote.

India's Nath at one point called Schwab an "impostor."

The debate over farm subsidies has taken on added significance amid the recent spike in food prices around the world. Poorer nations say the payments distort global farm markets and hinder the development of sustainable agriculture in the Third World.

But without a final deal, Europe will not be required to open up its farm markets to emerging powers in Latin America and elsewhere. Brazil, China, India and other fast-growing developing nations won't have to ease access to manufacturing imports from the rich world. And the U.S. will not have to make any tough decisions now on the billions of dollars in farm subsidies it pays out each year to American growers of cotton, soybean, rice and other staples.

"For any outside observer, someone coming from another planet, it must be hard to understand how, after all the progress we made, we were not able to conclude" a deal, Brazil's Amorim said.

The EU's Mandelson, who also tried to bridge differences at the end, said it was a "collective failure."

"But the consequences will not be equal," he said. "They will fall disproportionately on those who are most vulnerable in the global economy, those who needed the chances and the opportunities most from a successful trade round, those from the developing countries who really needed and deserved a break. I am afraid they have not received that today."

Berlusconi invokes Mussolini in threat to march on Rome

By Peter Popham in Rome

Silvio Berlusconi will meet President Giorgio Napolitano this morning to explain why he has threatened to put "millions of people on the streets of Rome" if a general election is not scheduled immediately.

The meeting comes on the last day of talks held by Mr Napolitano with all the main forces in Italian politics. He is trying to thrash out an agreement on how to escape from the thorniest crisis Italy has faced since the implosion of the First Republic amid a massive bribery scandal 15 years ago.

Italy has been rudderless since the centre-left Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, lost a vote of confidence in the Senate last Thursday. His quarrelsome coalition, which included Communists, Greens and staunch Catholics among its nine parties, fell apart after 20 months in power after the defection of the Justice Minister, who resigned when he and his wife were accused of corruption. In an apparent fit of pique, the ex-minister, Clemente Mastella, pulled his mini-party out of the coalition, and the loss of his three senators was enough to bring down the government.

The centre-left blames electoral rules brought in by Mr Berlusconi, which favour small parties like Mr Mastella's, for the frailty of their coalition, and have been plaintively demanding that new rules be passed before the next election. This would also give time for the recently launched Democratic Party, designed to be a mainstream centrist force capable of taking on Mr Berlusconi's Forza Italia, to gear up for the fight.

They want the President to appoint a "technical" government to run the country for up to a year to pass this and other essential reforms. Mr Napolitano is known to favour the same solution. But Mr Berlusconi, whose centre-right coalition has a lead of about 15 per cent in the polls, is insistent that elections be scheduled immediately.

On Sunday, he warned that if this didn't happen, "millions" of his supporters would protest in Rome. Opponents were livid at the remark, claiming Mr Berlusconi was trying to intimidate the head of state, evoking the "March on Rome" by thugs of the Fascist Party which catapulted Benito Mussolini into power in 1921 amid a comparable parliamentary stalemate.

Yesterday, the veteran libertarian leader Marco Pannella, whose small but influential Radical Party was a member of Mr Berlusconi's coalition last time around, said: "On the eve of his visit to the Quirinal Palace, Berlusconi announces that if the President doesn't carry out his wishes, millions will march on Rome. It's alarming that we are all silent about this." Mr Napolitano was said to be "irritated" by the threat.

Mr Berlusconi's spokes-man, Paolo Bonaiuti, said: "The press have made a great scandal out of this ... but the simple truth is that the people want elections to get them out of this crisis. They want change. We are submerged in letters, faxes, emails and text messages telling us that people are ready to go out and march."

Ten Things You Might Not Know About the Lisbon Treaty

A Brussels Journal piece shows: Too few Europeans are aware of the undemocratic nature of this treaty.

The Trumpet has written extensively about the undemocratic nature of the European Union and the federal superstate that is gradually emerging from it. Over the years, we have supported our forecast for Europe with analysis from various authors, historians and respected authorities.

The following are excerpts from another perceptive source about the real nature of the EU. Written by Anthony Coughlan, a professor and senior lecturer emeritus in social policy at Trinity College Dublin, this article, aptly titled “These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You,” details the 10 most important things the Lisbon Treaty does. It was published on the Brussels Journal last month (emphasis ours throughout).

1. The Lisbon Treaty establishes a legally quite new European Union. This is a Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European state:

The treaty gives this new Union a state constitution, which is identical in its legal effects to the EU constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in their 2005 referendums. …

The provision of the Lisbon Treaty that “The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community” (Art.1.3, amended teu) makes absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union will be quite a new entity, as the European Community of which our countries are all currently members ceases to exist.

2. The treaty empowers this new European Union to act as a state vis-a-vis other states and its own citizens:

To understand the change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, one needs to understand that what we call the European Union today is not a state. It is not even a legal or corporate entity in its own right, for it does not have legal personality. The name “European Union” at present is a descriptive term for all the relations between its 27 member states. …

The Lisbon Treaty changes this situation by creating a constitutionally and legally quite new EU, while retaining the same name, the “Union.” Unlike the present European Union, this legally new EU will be separate from and superior to its member states ….

This new European Union can sign treaties with other states in all areas of its competence and conduct itself as a state in the international community of states. It can speak at the United Nations on agreed foreign-policy positions of its member states ….

The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EU a political president, a foreign minister—to be called a high representative—a diplomatic corps and a public prosecutor. The new EU will accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as all other European states have already done, including those outside the EU.

The treaty also sets out the principle of the primacy of the laws of the new Union over the laws of its member states (Declaration 27). The new EU makes the majority of laws for its member states each year and under the Lisbon Treaty the new Union, which will replace the European Community, gets further power to make laws or take decisions by qualified majority vote in relation to some 68 new policy areas or matters where member states currently have a veto.

3. The treaty makes us all real citizens of this new European Union for the first time, instead of our being notional or honorary European “citizens” as at present:

A state must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a state.

Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to “complement” national citizenship, the latter being clearly primary, not least because the present EU is not a state. …

By transforming the legal character of the Union, the Lisbon Treaty transforms the meaning of Union citizenship. Article.17b.1 tec/tfu replace the word “complement” in the sentence “Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship,” so that the new sentence reads: “Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to national citizenship.” This gives the 500 million inhabitants of the present EU member states a real separate citizenship from citizenship of their national states for the first time. … The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union are [to] be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one’s own national state in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions. …

Although we will be given rights as EU citizens, we should not forget that as real citizens of the new European Union, we also owe it the normal citizens’ duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, which will be a higher authority than that of our national states and constitutions.

Member states retain their national constitutions, but they are subordinate to the new Union Constitution. …

4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name—European Union—will be kept, while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union. By this means, the importance of the proposed change is kept hidden from the people:

The change in the constitutional nature of both the Union and its member states will be made in three legal steps that are set out in the treaty:

a) It establishes a European Union with an entire legal personality and independent corporate existence in all Union areas for the first time, so that it can function as a state vis-a-vis other states and in relation to its own citizens (Art.32, amended teu);

b) This new European Union replaces the existing European Community and takes over all of its powers and institutions. It takes over as well the “intergovernmental” powers over foreign policy and crime, justice and home affairs which at present are outside the scope of European law, leaving only the Common Foreign and Security Policy outside the scope of its supranational power (Art.11.1, amended teu). …

c) It makes us all real citizens of the new federal union which the treaty establishes, with all the implications of that for downgrading our present personal status as citizens of sovereign nation states and superseding it by citizenship of a supranational European Federation.

5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens:

The Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution makes members of the European Parliament, who at present are “representatives of the peoples of the member states,” into “representatives of the Union’s citizens” (Art.9a, amended teu). This illustrates the constitutional shift the treaty makes from the present European Union of national states and peoples to the new federal Union of European citizens and their national states—the latter henceforth reduced constitutionally and politically to provincial or regional status.

6. It creates a cabinet government of the new Union:

The treaty turns the European Council, the quarterly “summit” meetings of member state heads of state or government, into an institution of the new Union, so that its acts and failures to act will, like all other Union institutions, be subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice.

Legally speaking these summit meetings of the European Council will no longer be “intergovernmental” gatherings of prime ministers and presidents outside supranational European structures. As part of the new EU´s institutional framework, they will instead be constitutionally required to “promote the Union’s values, advance its objectives, serve its interests” and “ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions” (Art.9, amended teu). They will also “define the general political direction and priorities thereof” (Art.9b).

The European Council thus becomes in effect the cabinet government of the new federal EU, and its individual members will be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their member states rather than their member states to the Union.

7. It creates a new Union political president:

The federalist character of the European Council “summit” meetings in the proposed new Union structure is further underlined by the provision which gives the European Council a permanent political president for up to five years (2½ years renewable once) (Art.9b).

There is no gathering of heads of state or government in any other international context which maintains the same chairman or president for several years while individual national prime ministers and prime ministers come and go. …

8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens:

All states have codes setting out the rights of their citizens. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be that. It will be made legally binding by the new treaty and will be an essential part of the new Union’s constitutional structure (Art.6, amended teu).

The charter is stated to be binding on the Union’s own institutions and on member states in implementing Union law. This limitation to EU law and to the EU institutions is unrealistic however, because:

a) The principles of primacy and uniformity of Union law mean that member states will not only be bound by the Fundamental Rights Charter when implementing EU law, but also through the “interpretation and application of their national laws in conformity with Union laws” (v. ecj judgments in the Factortame, Simmenthal and other law cases); and because

b) The Charter sets out fundamental rights in areas in which the Union has currently no competence, e.g. outlawing the death penalty, asserting citizens’ rights in criminal proceedings and various other areas.

This gives a new and extensive human and civil rights jurisdiction to the EU Court of Justice and makes that court the final body to decide what people’s rights are in the vast area covered by European law, as against national supreme courts and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg—the latter court serving all other European states, not just the EU members—which are our final fundamental rights courts today. …

9. It makes national parliaments subordinate to the new Union:

The treaty underlines the subordinate role of national parliaments in the constitutional structure of the new Union by stating that “National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union” by various means set out in Article 8c, amended teu. The imperative “shall” implies an obligation on national parliaments to further the interests of the new Union.

National parliaments have in any case already lost most of their law-making powers to the EC/EU. The citizens who elect them have lost their powers to decide these laws too.

The provision of the treaty that if one third of the national parliaments object to a Commission proposal, the Commission must reconsider it but not necessarily abandon it, is small compensation for the loss of democracy involved by the loss of 68 vetoes by national parliaments as a result of other changes proposed by the Lisbon Treaty.

10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers:

These are shown by:

a) the enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Art.308 tec/tfu), whereby if the treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union [to] attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty extends this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union’s policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

b) the proposed “Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure” which permits the prime ministers and presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the “Treaty on the Functioning of the Union” (Art.33.6, amended teu), where the population size of certain member states is likely to be decisive; and

c) the several “ratchet-clauses” or “passerelles” which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art.69d.3.2), in criminal matters (Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU public prosecutor (69i.4), and in a number of other areas.

Professor Coughlan concluded his analysis:

It is hard to think of any major function of a state which the new European Union will not have once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The main one seems to be the power to make its member states go to war against their will. The treaty does provide that the EU may go to war while individual member states may “constructively abstain.”

The obligation on the Union to “provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies” (Art. tec/tfu 269a), which means raising its “own resources” to finance them, may be regarded as conferring on it wide taxation and revenue-raising powers, although these will require unanimity to exercise. …

However the new European Union will have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political president, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and public prosecutor. It already possesses such normal state symbols as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday.

As regards the state authority of the new Union, it is embodied in the Union’ s own executive, legislative and judicial institutions: the European Council, Council of Ministers, Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice. It is also embodied in the member states and their authorities as they implement and apply EU law and interpret and apply national law in conformity with Union law. Member states will be constitutionally required to do this under the Lisbon Treaty. Thus EU “state authorities” as represented for example by soldiers and policemen in EU uniforms on our streets are not needed as such.

Allowing for the special features of each case, all the classical federal states which have been formed on the basis of power being surrendered by lower constituent states to a higher federal authority have developed in a gradual way, just as has happened in the case of the European Union. Nineteenth-century Germany, the usa, Canada and Australia are classical examples. Indeed the EU has accumulated its powers much more rapidly than some of these federal states—in the short historical time span of some 60 years.

The key difference between these classical federations and the new European Union is that the former, once their people had settled, share a common language, history, culture and national solidarity that gave them a democratic basis and made their state authority popularly legitimate and acceptable. All stable states are founded on such communities where people speak a common language and mutually identify with one another as one people—a “we.” In the EU however there is no European people or “demos,” except statistically. The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to construct a highly centralized European federation artificially, from the top down, out of Europe’s many nations, peoples and states, without their free consent and knowledge.

If there were to be a European federation that is democratic and acceptable, the minimum constitutional requirement for it would be that its laws would be initiated and approved by the directly elected representatives of the people either in the European Parliament or the national parliaments. Unfortunately, neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the EU constitution it establishes contain any such proposal.

By giving a constitution indirectly rather than directly to the new European Union which it will establish, the Lisbon Treaty sets in place what Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has called the “capstone of a European federal state.” For the Euro-federalist political elites who have been driving this process over decades this is the culmination of what started nearly 60 years ago when the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on May 9, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the “first step in the federation of Europe.”

If you’re unfamiliar with the Trumpet, you may wonder why we exert so much energy drawing attention to the undemocratic nature of the European Union and the future of the European continent. The Bible predicts that a union of 10 nations, or groups of nations, will unite to form the most dreadful superpower the world has seen (Revelation 13:1). This political “beast” is merely a revival of the Holy Roman Empire—a cause that united Europe on several occasions over past centuries.

The final resurrection of this historic union is building right now—under the guise of the European Union. It will definitely not be a democracy!

THIS IS GUN GRAB BY DIAGNOSIS..
THIS NEW PROPOSAL IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe = Break or violate a treaty, a law, a right etc.

United Nations influencing behind the scenes

Gun owners 'get stabbed in back'
'Veterans Disarmament Act on way to president'

Gun Owners of America earlier launched a campaign encouraging citizens to call their U.S. senators and ask them to oppose the bill that could be described as "disarmament by diagnosis."

The Gun Owners also were joined by other organizations in opposing the proposal, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the American Legion.

"The American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640 … that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment," the group said in a newly released statement.

The Schumer scheme would update federal law in the United States concerning the ownership of guns, and restrictions on those who can own firearms. A decades-old law creates a ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been adjudicated to be mentally defective, Eric Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners, told WND. It was intended to be used in cases when a person is declared innocent by reason of insanity in criminal cases.

However, the proposed update would allow that "adjudication" to be determined not only by a court but by any competent authority, which could include a Veterans Administration psychologist, any panel of psychologists or a wide range of other possible "competent authorities."

It also would automatically include people on a federal no-gun-ownership limit who have been diagnosed with some behavior-related childhood conditions, and in a provision that is especially objectionable to the Gun Owners organization, any veterans diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Pratt's organization also has published an open letter to members of the National Rifle Association, which has not been opposing the legislation on the grounds there are provisions that would allow an improperly classified person to "regain" his or her Second Amendment rights.

The letter, from GOA founder and chairman Sen. H.L. "Bill" Richardson, Executive Director Larry Pratt, and legal counsel Michael Hammond, noted the three include two Life Members of the NRA and one who was a paid consultant for the NRA.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns

"In fact, over the last 30 years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories…" the group said. "But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret."

"What the bill does is to lock in – statutorily – huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm," Pratt's organization said. "And then it 'graciously' allows these newly disarmed Americans to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot change to regain the gun rights this very bill takes away from them."

"Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans – promoted by the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign – is illegal and morally reprehensible. But section 101(c)(1)(C) of H.R. 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms."

The organization, however, said it would continue the battle. "GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control."

Mary Lou tells EU leaders:
'Let Ireland get on with our own referendum'

MARY LOU McDonald stood up in the European Parliament this week and told fellow MEPs to let the Irish people get on with their own referendum on the EU Treaty.

“2008 is set to be the European Union’s most decisive year,” the Sinn Féin Dublin MEP said on Tuesday, 18 December. “The Lisbon Treaty will shape the EU’s future irrevocably.

“Proponents of the Treaty state its purpose is to provide a mechanism to streamline decision-making powers for a burgeoning bureaucracy. This is not true.

“This is an ambitious political strategy to move member state decision-making areas such as taxation, foreign policy and social provisions from national parliaments to the institutions that remain beyond the democratic reach of ordinary people.”

She said that the EU Commission has made no secret of its desire to decide on matters relating to corporation tax and that, having secured jurisdiction in monetary policy the EU now has its sights set on fiscal policy.

“Provisions relating to national parliaments contained within the Treaty such as citizens’ petitions and the yellow card system are tokenistic and are of no meaningful value to member states,” she said.

The Dublin MEP maintained that it is ironic that the same champions in Ireland of such policies contained within all European treaties point the finger of blame at Brussels when the consequences are felt by ordinary people – the Brazilian beef and school water charges debacles being just two current examples of this.

McDonald left her EU parliamentary colleagues under no illusions:
“In Ireland we will have the opportunity to vote on this treaty. I suspect Bertie Ahern is envious of French and Dutch leaders, who can ignore the views of their citizens expressed so clearly in 2005.

“Repeatedly, Taoiseach Ahern and his Government cohorts pretend that our reputation of ‘good’ Europeans requires acceptance of this treaty. In fact, the values of democracy and the building of peace and respect for diversity, to which the EU is rhetorically committed, are best protected by good Europeans rejecting this bad treaty.

“Irish people do not need the ‘great and the good’ of Europe telling us there is no alternative to Lisbon. I have one simple message to EU leaders: If you are keen to be involved in a referendum campaign, organise one in your own country and leave us to get on with ours.”

Britons Insist on Referendum on EU Treaty

December 20, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - The vast majority of people in Britain believe the government of Gordon Brown should call a referendum on whether to ratify a revised common European Union (EU) treaty, according to a poll by YouGov. 62 per cent of respondents support holding a nationwide vote on this issue, while 17 per cent want Parliament to decide.

If a referendum were to take place, 44 per cent of respondents would vote against Britain adhering to the treaty, while 17 per cent would vote in favour of the proposed body of law. 40 per cent of respondents are undecided.

The heads of state of the EU officially signed the European Constitution on Oct. 29, 2004. The project for a continental body of law was practically abandoned in 2005, after voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed document in two plebiscites.

In June, the leaders of the 27 EU member nations reached an agreement in Germany to revise the proposed Constitution, create a new European Union Constitution Treaty (EUCT) before the end of this year, and achieve its ratification by mid-2009.

On Oct. 19, a final agreement was reached on the Lisbon Treaty or Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will become legally binding in all EU member states except Britain, which negotiated an exemption. The provisions call for the creation of new posts, such as a foreign policy chief, and a High Representative who will answer to EU governments and serve as vice-president of the European Commission.

The EU leaders would also choose a president of the European Council for a two and a half year renewable term. This will effectively eliminate the current six-month rotating presidency among member nations. The Lisbon Treaty also provides for the creation of a mutual defence clause, in case one of the member states is attacked.

If all countries ratify the treaty—whether through a referendum or a parliamentary vote—the body of law will become effective in January 2009. Ireland, due to its internal regulations, is the only country that must hold a nationwide vote on the Lisbon Treaty, while other governments can decide whether they want to do the same.

On Dec. 13, Brown—the Labour party leader—signed the Lisbon Treaty on behalf of Britain. On Dec. 17, Brown explained his rationale, saying, "We will ensure sufficient time for debate on the floor of the House so that the Bill is examined in the fullest of detail and all points of view can be heard."

Conservative leader David Cameron expressed dismay, saying, "Every opinion poll shows (a referendum is) what people want. This issue isn’t going to go away. (...) The prime minister’s argument has simply collapsed. Doesn’t he see that this sort of approach makes him look shifty and untrustworthy? Doesn’t he see that, far from it getting him out of his troubles, denying people a referendum is just digging him in deeper?"

Polling Data

At the 2005 general election Labour promised a referendum on the constitution before Britain ratified the EU constitution. Should there be a referendum on this treaty or should Parliament decide whether Britain should ratify it?

If there were a referendum on the new EU treaty how would you vote?

Via: C&L

Countdown: Rudy Giuliani Made Millions Lobbying For Data Mining Company

By: Logan Murphy @ 7:01 PM - PST

CLICK VIDEO

Keith Olbermann talked with The Huffington Post’s Arianna Huffington on Thursday’s Countdown about the latest in a string of scandals surrounding Rudy Giuliani. Apparently, Rudy’s law firm made millions of dollars, possibly illegally, lobbying on behalf of a software company that developed data mining programs that kept huge databases on millions of Americans, getting the company’s owners in front of Vice President Cheney, the FBI and other high ranking White House officials just one month after being hired.

The meetings led to millions of dollars in federal and state contracts for Giuliani’s client, but after privacy concerns were raised, the contracts were all dropped — but not before the company could be sold for huge money — and thanks to stock options in the contract, Rudy’s firm pocketed millions of dollars, which is illegal. If any of you wondered if Rudy Giuliani would continue President Bush’s intrusive and illegal spying programs, you now have your answer. Rudy’s already a big player in the game…

--

We can add illegally spying on Americans and data mining to his long list of criminal activity and shady dealings... That's why I keep asking myself: Who's idiotic enough to vote for Tutti Fruity Rudy ??

Ex-NYC Mayor Koch: Giuliani Acted Improperly, Looks Like A Cover-Up

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani acted improperly and appeared to be covering something up when he charged the cost of his and his girlfriend's security detail to obscure New York City agencies, former mayor Ed Koch told the Huffington Post.

On Wednesday, the Politico reported that in 2001, Giuliani transferred tens of thousands of dollars in security costs to non-related city organizations such as the New York City Loft Board and the Office for People with Disabilities (both of which, ironically, Giuliani once proposed for elimination). The costs were for trips Giuliani made to the Hamptons, presumably to visit his then-mistress Judith Nathan.

"There is something improper about charging costs to a department other than the NYPD," said Koch. "They are the ones who are supposed to pick him up no matter where he is whether or not it's in the city."

Koch, who served as the mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, said that the episode gave off the appearance that Giuliani, who was at the time married to his second wife Donna Hanover, was trying to hide his affair. He also argued that providing Judith Nathan her own personal protection (when she was not a member of the first family) constituted an even more flagrant misuse of taxpayer money.

Update: Giuliani's Mistress Used N.Y. Police as Taxi Service

"TUTTI FRUITY RUDY IS A GRAVEYARD BANDIT!"

Giuliani Party Seeks $9.11 Per Person

September 24, 2007 09:46 PM EST |

"The Man who basically told everyone to use their House as an ATM Machine now wants you to believe it's not his fault we're in Deep and Dire Debt!" ...Ok that's a knee jerker! LMAO*) - GEF ;)

Greenspan: Market Turmoil Is Not My Fault

New York Post | Janet Whitman | September 14, 2007 08:02 AM

"It was our job to unfreeze the American banking system if we wanted the economy to function," Greenspan told CBS' "60 Minutes" during an interview to be broadcast on Sunday.

Read more

« Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker says it's best for Britons not to debate "transfers of sovereignty" required under the new EU treaty. (John Thys/AFP/Getty Images)

EU Leader Encourages British PM to Keep British in Dark About EU Treaty

Luxembourg’s premier, Jean-Claude Juncker, said Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, is right to hide the fact that the new EU treaty will mean “transfers of sovereignty.” He explained that he supports public debate on the treaty—just not in Britain, where voters would probably value their sovereignty above their membership in the EU.

Go Read It-->

Wolfowitz Returns Home To Neoconservative Think Tank AEI

Former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz — who resigned last month after being embroiled in a corruption scandal at the World Bank — announced that he has found a comfortable landing pad from which to continue to disseminate his right-wing ideology:

Paul Wolfowitz vowed to continue in political life after he steps down as president of the World Bank this weekend following an internal revolt. … He said he would be joining the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington, as a visiting scholar, which would allow him to continue influencing public policy.

Prior to his recent government service, Wolfowitz served as a member of AEI’s Council of Academic Advisors.

Before the Iraq war, AEI helped spawn the administration’s regime change plans. Several Iraq war architects — such as Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Doug Feith — previously worked at AEI before their service in the administration. In February 2003, President Bush delivered a major policy speech to AEI, mapping out his war plan, “thanking them [AEI] for their service” and support for the invasion.

To this day, AEI “has the President’s ear” on national security issues. Bush’s escalation plan is largely based on a November 2006 paper by AEI analyst Frederick Kagan, who argued that the U.S. should “re-enter [Iraq] in large numbers.”

AEI offered a rigorous defense of Wolfowitz, despite his corrupt practices at the Bank. Said one AEI scholar: “The coordinated effort to harm him has revealed to polite society in Washington that something at the World Bank is seriously wrong.” Another placed the blame on Bank employees, slandering them as “militant staff.”

With his return to AEI, Wolfowitz said he continues to hold out hope of one day “rejoining the government.”

Think Progress-->

First PNAC and now AEI...

They still don't get it! They still haven't realized that we can smell their crap from a mile away and their lies and deception won't stand any longer!

Good bye and good riddance and we'll see who influences who from now on...

:)~

World trade talks collapse in acrimony

By Alan Beattie, World Trade Editor

Published: June 21 2007 20:43 | Last updated: June 21 2007 20:43

The chance of a global trade deal being clinched before President George W. Bush leaves the White House shrank dramatically on Thursday with talks between core negotiating partners collapsing again in division and acrimony.

In a near-exact repeat of events last summer, talks in Potsdam, Germany, between the four partners at the centre of the so-called Doha round of negotiations – the EU, US, Brazil and India – broke up with sides still far apart on cutting agricultural subsidies and goods tariffs.

Go Read It---->

BUSH SOWS SEEDS OF AMERICA'S DEMISE

By Cliff Kincaid

June 9, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

It looks like Al Gore did win the 2000 presidential election after all.

With most of the media attention focused on the collapse of the Bush-backed Senate immigration bill, the American people are not being told the complete story of how the President sold out American interests at the G-8 meeting in Germany. Assuming legislative powers that properly belong to Congress under the U.S. Constitution, Bush committed the U.S. to drastically reducing CO2 emissions. It’s unclear whether these reductions will be accomplished through increased regulations or higher taxes. But the document agreed to by Bush specifically refers to “fees or taxes” as an option. Bush, once known as a tax-cutter, apparently now wants to go down in history as a tax-raiser for the cause of arresting climate change.

Full Story

ELITE MEET BEHIND STIFF SECURITY

Secret Cabal Roosts at Ritz-Carlton; Riot Police Keep All But Invited Out


BILDERBERG(molech worshippers) 2007 REPORT

By James P. Tucker Jr.

ISTANBUL, Turkey—Bilderberg celebrated President Bush’s “surrender” on two major issues while showing distress over continuing setbacks to its goal of establishing a world government under the United Nations.
Full Story

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

Secretive Bilderberg meeting set for Turkey
Kissinger, Rockefeller, media moguls among those scheduled to attend

Posted: May 30, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The super-secret Bilderberg Group, an organization of powerful international elites, is set to meet this week somewhere in Turkey – but even the precise location is a mystery.

The meeting begins Thursday and continues through Sunday.

Those expected to attend include Donald Graham, chairman and chief executive officer of the Washington Post, Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, John Vinocur, senior correspondent of the International Herald Tribune, Paul Gigot, editor of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Nicholas Beytout, editor-in-chief of Le Figaro, George David, chairman of Coca-Cola, Martin Feldstein, president and chief executive officer of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vernon Jordan, senior managing director of Lazard Freres & Co., Anatole Kaletsky, editor at large of the Times of London and Gen. William Luti, special assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy and strategy for the National Security Council.

According to reports from Turkey, Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions and global energy issues will be on the agenda – but only invitees know for sure.

Click Full Story