LATEST:HAARETZ 7 May 2013: A spokesman for a Palestinian militant group in Syria said Tuesday that it had received a nod from President Bashar Assad’s regime to attack Israel following alleged back-to-back Israeli airstrikes over the weekend. He stressed there is no official note. PFLP-GC has fought alongside government troops against the rebels trying to topple Assad. On Monday evening, two mortar shells and on Tuesday morning yet another one were fired from Syria to Israel,and landed in an open area near the border fence. The IDF notified UNDOF.
Global Res. 5 may 2013: The first missile which hit Jamraya near al-Haviyeh in Reef (outskirts of) Damascus contained uranium substances, a correspondent of Russian television quoted some local sources as saying. Other media outlets had also earlier released similar reports on Israel’s use of radioactive materials in attacks on Syria.
The New York Times 5 May 2013 The US military as well as politicians have tasted blood: Due to the lack of resistance to the Israeli attacks on Damnascus on 5 May, these people are now discussing to follow Israel´s example in the time to come. They think they can force Assad to resign that way!!!
DEBKAfile 6 May 2013: Israel’s two air force strikes on Syria in three days – the second targeting the emblems of Assad rule overlooking Damascus from Mt. Qassioun – appear to be part of a tactical plan put together by the US, Israel, and two Sunni powers, Turkey and Qatar, to break up the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut radical bloc and eventually force Iran to give up its nuclear bomb aspirations. This is how it will be interpreted by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Bashar Assad and Hassan Nasrallah as they prepare their responses for the Israeli attacks. A third Israeli strike would incur an instantaneous Syrian response, Al Assad warned.
According to our military sources, the Syria would launch a cross-border war of attrition from Syria and Lebanon by Syrian and Hizballah soldiers posing as Palestinian fighters. Washington is meanwhile expected to follow up on the Israeli operation in Syria by the end of May, early June, with operations ranging from US arms supplies to the Syrian rebels to demolishing Syria’s air force facilities and missile sites by US air strikes from Turkey, Europe and Israel.
The Obama administration made a point of getting these options into print in Monday’s media after saying in answer to a question about the Israeli air strikes: “Israel justifiably has to guard against advance weapons reaching Hizballah.”
Debkafile’s military sources: Since the Syrian rebels are being systematically ground down and falling apart under the crushing weight of the Syrian army backed by Iranian and Hizballah troops and Moscow, feeding the rebels more weapons may no longer avail. So this would be the less probable of the two options.
Isaiah17: 1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap 7 At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. 9 In that day shall his strong cities be as a forsaken bough, and an uppermost branch, which they left because of the children of Israel: and there shall be desolation.
An incursion of many peoples into the Middle East and a massacre is being envisioned. Something like the prophecy of the Masonic guru Albert Pike.
Damascus has this far not been destroyed in war - and in particular not by the Israelites. Judgement Day sects will see to it that Damascus will be leveled with the ground. God´s word will be fulfilled - and as always through men. The question is: when?
LATEST: Reuters 5 May 2013: U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
ANSAmed 6.May 2013: If Israel were to attack once again Syria, such action would be considered a declaration of war and Syria would respond immediately, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was quoted as saying by the Kuwaiti daily Al Ray which cited sources close to the president.
After attacking a Syrian convoy transporting Iranian rockets to Hezbollah in Lebenaon on the Syrian side of the border with Lebanon a couple of days ago and on 31 Jan. 2013, Israeli jets in the morning of 5 May 2013 attacked Iranian shipments of Iranian Fateh-110 surface-to-surface missiles for Hezbollah in the heart of Syria – in particular in Damascus. Haaretz 5 May 2013. BBC 5 May 2013 Israeli radio quoted a senior security official (Reuters) confirming an attack, and sources said it targeted weapons bound for Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. The Telegraph confirms.
DEBKAfile 5 May 2013: Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said Sunday, May 5, that the strike at Syria overnight represented a “declaration of war” by Israel. Russian and Iranian media earlier predicted full-scale Middle East hostilities involving Israel erupting in the coming hours, in the wake of Israel’s renewed strikes against Iranian missiles bound for Hizballah and other targets around Damascus. Russia Today claimed that an Israeli rocket strike Sunday caused heavy Syrian casualties – according to rumors, at least 300 members of the Syrian Army’s 501st Unit dead and hundreds filling four Damascus hospitals. Israel’s security cabinet holds emergency session.2:25 P.M. HAARETZ 5 May 2013. 1:47 P.M. Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al Mekdad, an official considered close to President Assad, said that Syria would choose when and how to retaliate.
The above makes a strange impression: The UN declared that the Syrian government has not used poisonous gas, but the Western-backed AlNusra / Alqaida rebels have! Nevertheless, Israel attacks Syria to prevent the ineffective weaponry of sarin from reaching the Hezbollah! Why not then attack the rebels that could provoke Israel with gas - then to blame it on the government? One must believe the reason for Israel’s provocations is not Syria´s poisonous gas
Oddly, Israel started on 30 April amassing troops on her borders with Lebanon and Syria, calling up thousands of reservists - for drills to start on 5 May! And , oddly, 6-8.000 Iranian and Hezbollah soldiers have taken positions on the Northern side of the same borders (DEBKAfile 3 May 2013).
Mr. al Mekdad´s answer has been heard before - meaning that Syria will do nothing!
The question is how long Russia and Iran will put up with Israel´s attacks in Syria. The UN? It is the US - and it is fortunately not willing to intervene on the ground. It knows that there is just one alternative to Assad; Chaos. Only one state profits from Chaos in Syria and the Muslim Chaos in the wake of the “Arab Spring”: Israel - whose enemies are now at loggerheads among themselves - being no threat to Israel.
Reuters 5 May 2013: It appears to calculate that Assad will not risk forces he needs to fight the rebels by attacking a much stronger Israel. As Ehud Olmert has said: “Never before was Israels situation so fortunate: Our enemies are fighting themselves”. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu does not expect trouble, either: On 5 May, he left for China.
Where is the “International Community” and “the inherent international law”. Does it not apply to violations by countries with Rothschild central banks against countries without such banks?
Or is Israel provoking an Iranian response in order to destroy its nuclear plants?
AKTUELLES:The Daily Mail 26. April 2013- Starke Nutzung desweltweit beliebtestenHerbizids,Roundup,konnte mit einerReihe von gesundheitlichen Problemenund Erkrankungen wieParkinson,Unfruchtbarkeitund Krebsverbunden werden. DasPeer-Review-BerichtvomMassachusettsInstitute of Technology,veröffentlichtletzte Wochein der FachzeitschriftEntropy,besagte,Beweise zeigen, dass die Restevon“Glyphosat“,dem Hauptbestandteil des Unkrautvernichtungsmittels,Roundup, dasüber Millionen vonHektar Getreidegesprüht wird,inEssengefunden wird. ‘NegativeAuswirkungen auf den Körper sind heimtückischund manifestierensich langsamim Laufe der ZeitalsEntzündung sowie Beschädigung zellulärer Systemeim ganzen Körper“, besagt die Studie. “Wir sind aufetwas sehr Wichtiges gestossen, das ernstzunehmen ist undweiter untersucht werden muss.”
(Wie üblich bestreitet MonsantoTatsachenin diesem Artikel)
In an article in Euro-med.dk on 24 Sept. 2012, I once again described the EU’s corrupt relationship with Rockefeller-affiliated GMO corporation Monsanto, which by means of the US government exerts an enormous pressure to the EU to market the toxic and carcinogenic products of this company with mafia methods - without labeling their products with “GMO”. Rockefeller and his intertwined WHO and his FAO see to that through their Codex Alimentarius. And Bill Gates tries to makeAfrica sick with the “green” Monsanto revolution. I have previously and here and here written about the efforts of corrupt Monsanto . The worst side effect seems to be the development of physical Malformations in newborn and here by Monsanto’s biggest source of revenue, Round-Up, which is now seeping into the drinking water - and incidentally also generates resistant weed.
The US Ambassador to France, a business partner of George W. Bush, declared in 2007, according to Wikileaks, that nations that do not want to accept Monsanto’s GMO crops, should be “punished”. In fact, Ambassador Craig Stapleton went so far as to say that such nations were to threaten with trade war by military way.
Right: When a French study showed mice with monster cancer tumors through Monsanto corn feeding - and when France wanted to ban this toxic feed, the EU took the side of a Monsanto and accepted the risk on our behalf!
Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten 1. Mai 2013: What the Europeans are to eat in future, would be decisively determined by the seed company Monsanto. In Brussels, Monsanto has already infiltrated deeply into the EU structures. Alongside with other industry representatives, the company is sending senior officials into the EU bodies, and creates itself the scientific studies for new cereal varieties (- even forbidding independent researchers to investigate the effects of their products). To the citizens themselves, the processes remains hidden - until it may be too late. The resistance of the citizens of Europe against the planned seed-regulation of the EU is massive and the EU has clearly been taken by surprise. Environmentalists and representatives of smallholder structures try to prevent any future use of varieties of fruit and vegetables in Europe to be subject to regulation by Brussels.
Next week, the European Commission will present a corresponding regulationdraft and attempts beforehand, to calm the waves (with very equivocal calming).
But in fact, acc. to information given to the Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten (DWN), there is no reason to call all clear. Especially small nurserymen fear that they will be fully subject to the economic dictates of a few large corporations. Both the German and Austrian Federal Ministries of Agriculture want to wait for the draft before they would talk about substantive changes. The text on a sheet of paper is one thing. But it depends on the political implementation. Citizens usually only recognize trends when it is too late. There is no transparency.
Recently, it had become known that the EU lawmakers usually pass laws as the lobbyists submit them. Thus, U.S. companies entertain a foundation in the Internet sector that ensures their access to MPs. In addition to Daniel Cohn-Bendit, sitting in the (EU) foundation are in fact representatives of all parties represented in parliament.
A closer look shows that the chances of citizens are poor. The seed and contrast food companies have been firmly anchored in Brussels for years. They know the laws because they make them. Create studies to prove whether their genetically modified products are harmful or not. They go in and out all the important offices.
Especially on one name we keep coming back.
This comes as no surprise. Nevertheless, it is remarkable how far the seed lobby has advanced into the inner core of legislation.
The manufacturers of seeds and pesticides are organized in several powerful networks. The most important ones are the European Seed Association and EuropaBio, two particularly resource-strong lobby groups. Before it ever comes to the formulation of legislative proposals by the Commission, the stakeholder takes influence. Often, new legislative initiatives are only launched to the direction general due to (the stakeholder´s) expressed wishes. “The agro-chemical lobby is one of the strongest in Brussels. Their approach is sometimes very aggressive, “says Nina Katzemich of LobbyControl to the DWN.
The interplay between human biotech companies and the European Food Safety Authority shows how closely private and official organizations are interconnected.EFSA is the highest point within the EU, where the food risks are assessed and controlled. Clubs like Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl in collaboration with other NGOs in recent years brought several cases to the public, how close high-level personnel of the EU are to the industry (a list of such interests is given). The European Court of Auditors has criticized conflicts of interest in 2012.
Monsanto wants to conquer Europe. If things develop to the liking of Monsanto the future of food is without any alternative.
This is what it is all about If things go acc. to the Commission’s plans, small farmers or individuals are not even allowed to give away their homegrown seeds in the future. In addition, environmentalists fear a strict official control. When replacing non-approved seed varieties harsh penalties can be expected. Only beneficiaries of the regulation are the food groups that have already divided the bulk of the seed market among themselves. For years, the lobby of the agricultural industry in Brussels has been encouraging a further step in the direction of seed cartel. The objective is to control the entire food production by a few large corporations. Already, smaller competitors are forced by reporting by Monsanto and Co to exclusively buy their seed. In the future, they now also face administrative penalties.
Consumers hardly have any freedom of choice, as for what lands on their plates, it is stated in an open letter from more than a dozen European environmental organizations to the Commission and the EU Parliament. It is indicative of the lack of democratic legitimacy of the EU that such fundamental decisions are taken, without the citizens noticing anything about it. Members of the European Parliament might not even have read the request for regulation.
Quite right, the aim of the NWO is to take control of the entire food production of the world by Rockefeller’s Monsanto. Because, as the Arch Illuminatus, Henry Kissinger sagte, said: foods are weapons. In his context it meant to starve states, which did not want to reduce their populations as desired by the NWO. Monsanto’s dangerous GMO products that are now being imposed upon us unsuspecting, are clearly also part of the population reduction and here. It is a continuation of the “Green Monsanto GMO Revolution ” of Rockefeller and Bill Gates in India and Africa - where many thousands of farmers dependent on Monsanto hybrid seed have committed suicide, because they can not afford to buy new seeds from Monsanto (see video above).
The current death cult is led by the elitist group of the Club of Rome, closely linked with the EU, with its books, “Limits to Growth” in 1973 and the “First Global Revolution” in 1991.
Are you losing appetite? Well, unless you can muster some hundred thousands of demonstrators in Brussels, you will eat Monsanto´s cancerogenic food when you get Hungry and probably have your cancer in due time!
Alternatively, you will have to grow your own food (”Preppers” now seen as “terrorists”in the US!).
Fortunately, both Obama and Israel are making themselves more and more untrustworthy for allowing their “red lines” to be transgressed time and again. Reason: Fear of Russia. Much indicates that the Government´s use of chemical weapons is a fabrication by the AlNusra/AlQaeda rebels supported by the West.
12 people lost their lives in Japan Tokyo subway in 1995. In another incident in 1994, after a 20-minute release period, the gas spread over an elliptical area measuring about 800 by 570 metres (most effects occurring within a smaller area of 400 by 300 metres). 7 unfortunate residents died as a result of the attack, there were 54 other hospital admissions, and 253 persons sought care at outpatient facilities.
The release of sarin by a terrorist group in Japan resulted in a highly publicized incident with mass casualties. In scale, however, it did not approach the human and environmental toll that has resulted from a number of recent terrorist attacks using conventional explosives.
Its mechanism of action resembles that of some commonly used insecticides, such as malathion. Specifically, sarin is a potent inhibitor of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. Death will usually occur as a result of asphyxia. It is classified by NATO as a weapon of mass destruction and was forbidden by the UN 1993.
Fox TV has a horrenous interview with some propagandist talking about sarin killing 18.000 persons by means of small quantities!.
So, what is the truth about the “Chemical weapons of Mass destruction”? The following is from the Organ of the US Council on Foreign Relations
Foreign Affairs 30 April 2013 The notion that killing with gas is more reprehensible than killing with bullets or shrapnel came out of World War I, in which chemical weapons, introduced by the Germans in 1915, were used extensively. The British emphasized the weapons’ inhumane aspects as part of their ongoing program to entice the United States into taking their side in the war. It is estimated that the British quintupled their gas casualty figures from the first German attack for dramatic effect. As it happened, chemical weapons accounted for considerably less than one percent of the battle deaths in the war, and, on average, it took over a ton of gas to produce a single fatality. Only about two or three percent of those gassed on the Western front died.
By contrast, wounds from a traditional weapon proved 10 to 12 times more likely to be fatal.
Above: The Independent 26 April 2013: Although the origin of the video - and the veracity of its claims - remains unclear, the patients are thought to be victims of a suspected chemical weapons attack on 13 April, in the rebel-held Sheikh Maqsood area of Aleppo. The blood hair and soil samples have not been collected independently by Western investigators inside Syria but handed over by the rebels or, at least on one occasion, by Turkish intelligence; some of the footage may have been faked; the tests had been carried out at the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratories ( DSTL) and multiple locations in America: conclusions on them vary - and are not conclusive. This is what Pres. Obama suspects may have been crossing of his redline!
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in Abdu Dhabi Thursday afternoon, April 25, that the US intelligence community believes the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own people, A senior Israeli official said on Monday that intelligence services have concrete and unequivocal evidence that Bashar Assad’s military has used chemical weapons against rebels.
However, fortunately for us, Obama does not seem in a hurry to attack Syria.
But that view lost out to the one that the British propagandists had put forward — that chemical weapons were uniquely horrible and must, therefore, be banned. In 1992, the phrase of “Weapons of mass destruction” was explicitly codified into American law and was determined to include not only nuclear weapons but chemical and biological ones as well.
The muddling of the concept of weapons of mass destruction played a major role in the run-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. That campaign was mainly justified as a way to keep Saddam Hussein from obtaining uniquely destructive weapons. At least in the first instance, this meant chemical weapons, which Iraq had already shown itself capable of developing. Many analysts fear that alarm about chemical weapons could lead the United States into another disaster in Syria if they become the game changer that the Obama administration has proclaimed them to be.
Baghdad’s chemical attack on the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 — have been held up as examples of the extensive destructive potential of chemical weapons. It is commonly contended that 5,000 people died as a result of the gas attacks. But the siege on the city took place over several days and involved explosive munitions as well. Moreover, journalists who were taken to the town shortly after the attack report that they saw at most “hundreds” of bodies. Although some of them report the 5,000 figure, this number is consistently identified as coming from Iranian authorities,
Foreign Affairs May/June 1999 “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD), lumped together with arms that have killed relatively few people to date (biological weapons), arms of much lower potential lethality (chemical weapons), and dramatic but costly and often ineffective delivery vehicles (ballistic missiles).
As these have become prominent bogeymen, the maturation of another impressive method, if not exactly a weapon, of mass destruction has been largely overlooked. The irony is that in contrast to the others, this device – economic sanctions — is deployed frequently, by large states rather than small ones, and may have contributed to more deaths during the post-Cold War era than all weapons of mass destruction throughout history.
On average, far fewer Americans are killed each year by terrorists than are killed by lightning, deer accidents, or peanut allergies. To call terrorism a serious threat to national security is scarcely plausible.
Weapons of mass destruction is an excuse for those powers who have them to force those who do not have them ino obedience.
Abstract: Barroso repeats that the crises vastly strengthen the EU. That the idea of a federal union had always been part of the EU project. Jean Monnet and other “EU founding fathers (just minions of the Council on Foreign Relations with the task of uniting Europe for a transatlantic NWO federation) came up with the idea, that the old independent nation state could be dismantled and an interdependent federal European government be forged through practical cooperation at elitist, ie parliamentary and financial level. This prompted the European, Coudenhove Kalergi, to state. “Europe is uniting at the level of parliament and state offices, but not in the hearts of the Europeans.” Barroso knows the EU crisis is making the EU more and more hated (Eurobarometer) - and it rankles his mind: “We have reached the limits of austerity policies,” he said - but was immediately put in his place by his paymaster, Germany, and had to modify his words.
Barroso sees a north-south divide in Europe. But instead of blaming it on the economically and culturally impossible EU federation, Barroso has this excuse: “prejudice, political extremists and populism break the political support and the social structures that we need to handle the crisis. Sometimes there are separate national prejudices that are simply unacceptable - even from an ethical perspective. Unblushing, he claims, the Lisbon Treaty to be a big step forwards in a democratic Europe - although rejected by the peoples of Europe! This Treaty is said to need even further revision to reach Barroso’s goal: a totally federal EU state with all power in its unelected government: Barroso´s Commission.
Barroso admits that there had never been an EU were it not for a “community of ideas to secure these initiatives. For European citizens and the Member States it will be a powerful instrument for their efforts to unite their forces in shaping globalization and in defense of our common values.” Which can only mean the Council on Foreign Relations and the NWO forces (Rothschild / Rockefeller) behind it. These are the forces that Barroso praises and for whom he, Monnet, Schumann, Adenauer, Spaak, etc. work(ed).
If you are in doubt, you can take a look at a recent debate at the Council on Foreign Relations in a video: “The EU is much more significant. It is really undermining sovereignty, and that works.” It was about a discussion on the TransatlanticTreaty, which is now being prepared as a supranational NWO regime under the disguise of a trade agreement. The associated one world government was announced in February 2013 by EU Commissioner Potocnic as Agenda 21.
Barroso boasted: The “Times of implicit consent are over, and it’s better to have a real European democratic debate”. Of course untrue: The Danish MEP, Messerschmidt, reports the Danish government and the opposition have secretly agreed to work as closely as possible with the EU core for the total federal EU state without debate - and to push Denmark´s 4 opts-out aside - in which the 9 unconstitutional elements are, which otherwise required an already promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Messerschmidt concludes. “These Danish politicians nurture their own career dreams to make themselves attractive to the corrupt bureaucratic EU culture and have for a long time no more talked of democracy, indigenous culture and decency”.
Are the other European governments just as morally corrupt?
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do….there is no truth in him…. for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44 - addressed to the Pharisees, the rulers of the world today).
EU Commissioner José Barroso has made a sensationally open speech on the methods the EU has used and is using to trick its unwilling populations into what they do not want, an EU Federation with all power with his unelected government: the EU Commission. He does not conceal that lies, concealment and manipulation on the behalf of an elite have been the tools since the 1920es. The following is an excerpt.
José Barroso EU Press Release 22 April 2013: One of the reasons why the term federalism is so sensitive is of course the idea or the suspicion that countries would be overshadowed by a unified, centralised federal state.
For European countries, most of which have fought long and hard to become united and/or independent, the thought of being a mere sub-federal entity is unbearable. One of the classic 19th century Irish nationalist songs goes: ‘and Ireland, long a province, be a nation once again’. It is only natural that such a nation does not want to go back to being, even if only symbolically, ‘a province once again’, and the same feeling lives just as strongly in many, if not in all Member States. A standard definition of federalism simply reads: A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units; At its very core is the idea of unity in diversity.
The problem is to have an integrated single national unity at European level.
The European Union already has a number of undeniably federative elements: a supranational European Commission with a mandate to promote the general European interest, a directly elected European Parliament, an independent European Central Bank and a European Court of Justice based on a system of law, the primacy of which is recognised over national law. All of these institutions have supranational powers which increased over time.
The financial crisis: In terms of economic governance … the balance of power has shifted further towards the European level, with new competences and a much stronger role for the European Commission. Institutionally, we are now more integrated than we were before.
Because of the crisis we have countered the risks of fragmentation by uniting against common challenges, applying what amounts to a federal approach. And while there is some tension between the intergovernmental and the community method, it is interesting to notice that the European Commission is even given a role in intergovernmental instruments as foreseen in the Fiscal Treaty.
This goes beyond economic governance even. For instance, the European Commission’s authority is now relied on not just to review the compatibility of national law with European community law but even to check the compatibility of the constitutional order of Member States with the values of the European Union.
The idea of a federation, an ever closer union, has always been part of the European idea.
Indeed, Jean Monnet’s method has also been called ‘functional federalism’. He and the other “founding fathers” of the European Community, like Schuman himself, or Konrad Adenauer, and others, found a way to break down… national sovereignty…. turning the fata morgana of strict national independence into a wake-up call for Europe’s interdependence; opening the way to European unity ‘through concrete achievements which create a de facto solidarity‘.
Barroso has a problem: His elitist EU has strongly decreasing popular support and democratic legitimation - and this really frustrates him. The following Eurobarometer poll is given by The Guardian 24 April 2013
We take one step at a time. This political unification of Europe has also taken another giant leap forward as a result of the crisis. That is why successive statements of the Euro area Heads of State and Government (let me just quote this example from March 2012) where they affirm their ‘determination to do whatever is needed to ensure the financial stability of the euro as a whole and their readiness to act accordingly’. Every one of these statements is an undeniable and unmistakable Declaration of Interdependence. And yet, on the political front, we must admit we still have a long way to go. In reality, there is also resistance, delays, hesitation; contradictions ….
Public opinion is still fragmented along national borders; political debate is still too much guided by national interests and national perceptions only; the political mind-set is often behind on the institutional realities. (Right Golden Dawn protest in Greece)
The real risk of fragmentation comes from not hearing citizens’ concerns. The real stress test today is the polarisation that is threatening to be the end result of the crisis. I am deeply concerned about the divisions that we see emerging: political extremes and populism tearing apart the political support and the social fabric that we need to deal with the crisis; a renewed demarcation line being drawn between the North and the South of Europe; prejudices re-emerging and again dividing our citizens, sometimes national prejudices that are simply unacceptable also from an ethical point of view
Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, the illustrious founder of the Pan-European Movement in the 1920s and one of the fathers of the idea of European unity, voiced this critique already in 1953: ‘Europe becomes one on the level of parliamentarians and state chancelleries but not within the hearts of the Europeans.’ The same lament was heard throughout the European Union’s history. Democratic integration was slower than administrative integration, and we have reached the limits of this imbalance long ago. The Lisbon Treaty was a huge step forward in correcting this, in promoting a more democratic Europe (while ignoring the rejection of it by the 3 countries granted a referendum on it).
Now it is up to us, as engaged Europeans, to breathe life into this European political sphere. I believe the European Parliament elections are a unique opportunity to do so.
Instead of having 27, now 28 national campaigns, as usually happens when there is a European election that in fact is an addition to national elections, we should have a truly European debate. If we have a broader debate on the challenges for Europe, we are one step further towards the unity we need. Of course I know that this is not without risk. Most likely, in the next European elections, the eurosceptic and europhobic forces will have their share of the vote, also exploiting the current difficult context Europe is facing. But the times of implicit consent are over, and it’s better to have a real European democratic debate where mainstream pro-European forces leave their comfort zone than to try to manage European challenges only in bureaucratic or even diplomatic terms trying to avoid the hard questions.
The dynamic was present at every step of the European integration process…
Time and again practical cooperation has reinforced the trend to political integration ; small steps for Member States could indeed be giant leaps for Europe as a whole. (The Jean Monnet strategy).
As I have said earlier, and it is also in the Blueprint presented by the Commission, for further steps to achieve the goals, yes, we will need later a treaty revision.
Angela Merkiavelli, as she is now nicknamed (after Nicoló Macchiavelli´s “The Prince”, which in Chapter 15 states that a prince, who wants to stay in power, must learn to use goodness and cruelty according to necessity!) uses coërcion into austerity by hesitation. She is Barroso´s biggest problem - causing “fragmentation”, i.e. what Barroso sees as hatred and “nationalist populism” . At the same time she is only option to finance his political but economically and culturally impossible Utopia, the European Federation. Thereby, German bailed-out-in countries and banks have to submit to Germany´s conditions on open markets for German goods, if they want to have the money from Germany to be able to pay the Rothschild banks their interest, thus sinking endlessly more deeply into the morass of unemployment, debt and the state of dependency - which is correctly called (Rothschild´s vassal´s) Germany´s 4. Reich. The angry German comments to Barroso´s “limits to austerity” immediately made Barroso´s spokesman backpaddle - “the interpretation on austerity was unfair.” For the EU has no other solution - the bailed-out countries debts now again rising (Spiegel 24 April 2013)
The process towards an ever closer union continues. With the Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU, the Commission has put forward its ideas on how this dynamic should be dealt with. It raises the hard questions on how to strengthen cooperation and integration in the financial, fiscal, economic and also in the institutional political field.… Last but not least a federation, as I see it, is also a meeting of minds.
The fact is that Europe would never have succeeded and will never succeed if there is not a community of ideas to back up these initiatives. It will be a powerful instrument for European citizens and Member States to unite their efforts in shaping globalisation and in defending our common values. The case for more European unity is clear:
More European integration is simply indispensable for our economy, to shield us from international rough weather, to face strong competition and to maintain the trust of markets and investors….
Globalisation itself is a key driver for European unification. European integration can support national policies and strengthen European citizens’ freedoms(!?). Only Europe can provide a guarantee that the mistakes of the past will not happen again and the challenges of the future will be better dealt with.
Barroso is thus in close correspondence with EU “founding father”Jean Monnet´s theory: “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”
Jean Monnet was a Frenchman who like a snake gained influence in the highest financial circles of Wall Street and the City. He became affiliated to Pres. Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, and his brother, Allen Dulles, who would later be the boss of the CIA. Both were leaders of the Pharisaic Rothschild-Jesuit founded and populated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). These were the forces behind the unification of Europe - which they planned already in 1943- through their “Activist Committee for the Unification of Europe”. Monnet had the task of having France implement this plan and integrate Germany in it - starting with the Coal and Steel Union. He and the other “founding fathers” were paid agents for the CFR , which will govern their one world by means of David Rockefeller´s Studies Program for the benefit of Rothschild´s central banks/-the BIS by means of bribery.
These are the forces Monnet worked for. These are the forces José Barroso profess with his above Declaration of Interdependence”! But who tells us about that? And who cares?
In the dicussion following Barroso´s speech, Mr. Barroso was heavily under attack for the EU´s austerity policy. He defended it, said that not the EU but the “Markets” and the irresponsibility of Southern European countries had created the crisis. He said there was only one way forward: growth through “market” investments - which means investments by Rothschild´s robber banks and their corporations, having their CEOs appointedprime ministers in Italy and Greece as well as CEO of the European Central Bank. Mr. Barroso blamed the austerity on EU national leaders, saying the Commission just had to implement austerity orders! However, he leaves his populations to the grace of the “pound of flesh” strategy on us “muppets“.
The New American 23 Apr. 2013: The EU and the US are negotiating The Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - publicly packaging and promoting the agreements as “trade agreements” when, in fact, they have been designed as evolving projects that will progressively “integrate” the economies and political systems of the signatory nations into a supranational regime modeled along the lines of the European Union. In a Council on Foreign Relations discussion on more effective world government along the lines of the EU, a participant remarked: “The EU is much more significant. There’s real subversion of sovereignty by the EU that works.” (The 18:30 min. mark)
Danish MEP Morten Messerschmidt, Jyllands-Posten 22 April 2013 writes that the Danish opposition and the Government have agreed to move “as closely as possible to the core of the EU”. (They are thereby disregarding the 4 Danish opt-outs given to lure the Danes into accepting the Maastricht and Nice Treaties – these opt-outs were even used as argument for evading a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which contained 9 items incompatible with the Danish Constitution!! Our then Prime Minister – now NATO Secretary General broke his promise on a referendum and was, therefore, received with standing ovations in the EU Council!).
In contrast to Barroso’s fine words about openness, these Danish politicians conceal the fact that the EU is developing into a federal state, where Denmark can only legislate on what the EU does not legislate on. For they know that people do not like this. Similarly, these Danish EU parties refrain from having an opinion about mass immigration with its crime, drug trafficking, loss of jobs for the Danes who are more and more frustrated. Similarly, the EU-parties conceal the massive fraud in the EU with taxpayer money - the fraud being 10 times higher than so far supposed - and that EU auditors have pointed out that the EU budget has no added value. “These Danish politicians nourish their own career dreams; make themselves attractive for EU´s corrupt bureaucratic culture and have long forgotten any talk of democracy, popular culture and decency.”
Abstract:The climatists are desperate, they have built their own livelihoods on the biggest lie in history: manmade CO2 climate change in the service of the One World Government of the NWO banksters - paid for by gullible and deceived taxpayers. A controversial peer-reviewed article was published by a dozen prominent scientists and other experts, including Nobel laureates, calling on politician to take draconian measures within the UN framework to change social norms and values - essentially mass social engineering - whether the public wants it or not. “A significant number of people need to change their existing practices by force to address global environmental problems,” the authors say.
The following will not be found in the NWO MSM - and nevertheles it is now official EU policy - indeed, it is the very meaning of the EU:
In a press release dated 25 February 2013, EU Commissioner Potocnik hailed the establishment of a UN Environmental Assembly (UNEA). “This was the first governmental Council with universal membership, with emphasis on the implementation of the outcomes of the Rio +20 conference, and in particular the operationalization of the strengthening and modernization of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), as decided in Rio.
The new governmental structure strengthens the preparations of decisions, and it even enables capital and interest groups to participate. UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said the deputies had provided something that will go down in history.
The UNEA also cheers: Ministers have committed themselves to strengthen the UNEP as the leading global environmental authority. (Communist and religious-environmental) UNEP should ensure that the sustainability development goals are enforced by taxpayer-paid public supply. Ministers stressed the need for the participation of all ministries to advance the transformation into a green economy.
UNEP invites governments to work together to build and support the capacity of the courts, tribunals and other law enforcement agencies in environmental matters and calls on the Executive Director: to support governments in their implementations of environmental laws in coordination with the UN and other organizations, as well as to improve environmental management to promote at national level and further explore the possible establishment of an international institutional network of lawyers and law enforcement agencies.
Monsanto joined the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a group of powerful interests, including the major banks and big oil companies, which support the “Agenda 21″ regulation of the United Nations for so-called “sustainable development”. Critics, however, expressed concern about the announcement and said the global “sustainability effort” is in fact a transparent plot to centralize power in the UN and enrich special interests at the expense of private property rights, national sovereignty and the freedom of the individual.
As said by Lord Monckton, the center of this one-world dictatorship, an Environmental Law Court, in all “environmental” matters - will in fact decide on all the political and economic areas along the lines of Rockefeller´s Club of Rome and Gorbachev´s, Rockefeller´s and Maurice Strong’s Earth Charter.
”The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer” ( Henry Kissinger’s quote recently released by Wikileaks).
The New American 21 Febr. 2013 A controversial peer-reviewed paper authored by a dozen prominent scientists and other experts including Nobel Prize winners is calling on policymakers to adopt draconian measures within the UN framework to change social norms and values— essentially mass social engineering, whether the public wants it or not. “Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address global environmental problems through coercion,” claim the authors.”
The authors express dismay that they do not yet fully understand how to socially engineer the population into accepting whatever its would-be rulers demand, adding that more data is needed on how to prod people into tolerating the draconian so-called “solutions” to the alleged problems. The authors then call for more information and research into ways of breaking down public opposition
The authors express dismay that they do not yet fully understand how to socially engineer the population into accepting whatever its would-be rulers demand, adding that more data is needed on how to prod people into tolerating the draconian so-called “solutions” to the alleged problems. The authors then call for more information and research into ways of breaking down public opposition.
The author of the CO2 climate hoax, Soros/Al Gore paid James Hansen, NASA, carries tirelessly on with his scaremongering - although he was repeatedly caught in flagrante in blatant lies and manipulations of the “global temperatures”. He recently published a document in which he describes what he calls the ‘Venus syndrome” - where global warming will be so bad that the Earth could not sustain human life. Now he wants to spend his time misleading young people about the “climate
As will be seen below, the UNEP is usurping/being given all rights over environment. This means the UNEP is to define what is environment – and then to govern it. I cannot think of anything that is not related to environment. Therefore: Sustainability development goals (SDG)2015: framework for development is an urgent priority for the international community. It needs to address the multiple interlinked global challenges of: poverty eradication, environmental sustainability, economic equity, gender equality, climate change, resilience, equitable distribution of resources, human rights and inequality - i.e. the NWO.
The establishment of UNEA, subject to approval by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), is an important step which implements decisions taken at Rio+20 and will lead to a stronger UN environmental body with universal membership. Being attached directly to the UNGA will mean environmental considerations are better integrated into the UN system.
UNEA’s high level segment will allow Ministers to make strategic and politically important decisions. The new governance structure will strengthen the preparation of decisions, also allowing capitals and stakeholders to participate and contribute. The structure will lead to better political leadership, improved efficiency and accountability(?). It is in the EU’s interest and that of our planet to see UNEP succeed in this new setting and I will do what I can to contribute to this happening.”
However, while clearly working for the Agenda 21 the Durban Meeting only created a draft of a world wide institutionalisation – far from being implemented.
UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner (left) said delegates had delivered on something that would go down in history.
UNEA The UN Conference in Rio in June 2012, on Sustainable Development did agree to potentially far-reaching actions to strengthen the environmental agenda, among them a commitment to strengthen UNEP as the leading global environmental authority. Ministers underscoredthe need for UNEP is to play an important role in promoting environmental sustainability into the Sustainability development goals (SDG) and in the post-2015 development agenda; SDGs are to promote economic transformation in developed and emerging economies and in encouraging innovative approaches for poverty eradication. SDGs and the 10YFP are to address public and private consumption through mainstreaming and up-scaling sustainable public procurement, and improved consumer information.
In achieving a green economy, ministers noted the need to, among other things: involve all government ministries to drive the transformation towards a green economy, place an emphasis on the ability of the green economy to deliver jobs; …and view the green economy as providing new investment and business opportunities.
UNEP invites governments to cooperate to build and support the capacity of courts, tribunals and other enforcement officials in environmental matters; and requests the Executive Director to: support governments in implementation of environmental laws in coordinate with UN and other entities to promote improved environmental governance at the national level; explore the possible establishment of an international institutional networkof legal practitionersand enforcement communities; and present a progress report on implementation as part of the mid-term review (Local Agenda 21) of the Fourth Programme for the Development and Periodic Review of Environmental Law.
Beyond 2015 is a global civil society campaign, pushing for a strong and legitimate successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals. The campaign brings together more than 500 organisations from over the world
The New American 4 Febr. 2013: Corporate giant Monsantohere and here and here, known for its controversial business model, lobbying, and its widely criticized genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has officially joined the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a group of powerful interests including major banks and Big Oil backing the United Nations “Agenda 21” scheme for so-called “sustainable development.” Critics, however, expressed alarm over the announcement, saying the global “sustainability” push is really a transparent plot to centralize power in the UN and enrich special interestsat the expense of private property rights, national sovereignty, and individual liberty.
According to an announcement late last month, the biotech behemoth will be rolling out a “sustainability” course for its employees all over the world.
Prison Planet 16 Nov. 2012: Opponents of Agenda 21’s local implementation in the United States have begun mounting a notable resistance. At state capitals and city councils, activists are showing up to educate and lobby their elected representatives about the implications of this United Nations’ plan for sovereignty, property rights and the future development of the country.
It has become such a widespread phenomenon that media outlets everywhere are spinning into damage control in effort to ridicule the anti-Agenda 21movement, hoping that it will go away before the general population understands the issue.
Here is a warning against the economic consequences of Agenda 21: New American 22 March 2013:
Over the last 12 months, 10,632 Australian companies have gone belly up, a number that is “more than 12 per cent higher than during the global financial crisis,” News Limited writes. “Australia has been taxing carbon emissions since July 1 of last year at a rate of $23AUD per ton,” reports the Daily Caller. “The system will become a full-blown cap-and-trade scheme in three years and will be integrated with the European cap-and-trade system.”The tax has already hiked the cost of electricity to the average family by 10 percent.