We must check the EU federalists, or risk the rise of extremist politics

By Abhijit Pandya
11 May 2012

Both the federalists that dominate the EU and the member states that allowed Greece to join the Euro, are partly to blame for the rise of far-left fascism in that country.

The institutional processes that supposedly assessed Euro compatibility for the Greek economy, in whatever scant form, are now proven to have failed.

This illustrates the need for a powerful, objective, process within the EU itself to assess the appropriateness of expanding its own powers. This process should be accountable to member states.

This is to protect the EU against the dominating federalist agenda that rules it from within; an agenda that has risked, to a breaking point, general sustainability of inter-state economic relationships and almost caused a constitutional crisis in Greece.

This federalist agenda is clear from the expansion of the EU's powers in each consecutive inter-state treaty: the aim is to turn the EU into a super-state.

The EU’s federalism, however, is based on a firm social-democratic foundation - unlike its liberal American counterpart.

The harm that this federalist approach to the construction of the Euro has caused in many countries makes it clear that the economic benefits of a common market among European states are dangerously subservient to a federalist agenda in Europe.

Said agenda has blindly turned fundamentally economic decisions into political ones, with little if any direct input from the peoples it seeks to govern.

In the rise of the Greek fascist party Golden Dawn, we see a clear statement of visceral democratic intent: evidence that the electorate will attempt to check an EU that places federalism above the goal of economic stability and sustainability.

This democratic check is also illustrated by the rise of New Democracy, the anti-bailout party in Greece.

The Golden Dawn (Chryssi Avgi) group won 21 seats in the Greek elections, and its supporters have been accused of carrying Hitler slogans, acting out far-left Nazi salutes and threatening journalists.

Greece's reaction to the EU is an extreme response to those seeking to set a myopic federalist agenda among European states.

The federalists did this to further their own personal ideals of integration without a clear democratic mandate, at the risk of abusing the trust of the people who would suffer most from the subservience of economic reality to federalists' political aims: the peoples of European states.

The same dangerous democratic deficit exists in Britain.

The British people once voted for a common market, which was then not known to be a paternalistic social market project. To that end (and that end alone) they were happy to have rules pertaining only to the functioning of the common market override their national legislature.

The unforeseen crucial change of direction of the common market to create the EU illustrates that today there is no democratic mandate from the British people for an EU.

This is an EU that has the range of law-making powers that are wholly unrelated to the common market goals sold to the British public in 1975.

Much of the British public still trusts politicians to the extent that they cannot see the distinction between the following three:

(i) A common market run on free-market principles (the idea of Europe sold to many British Conservatives and the British people in 1975);

(ii) A paternalistic (nanny-state) over-regulated common-market;

(iii) An EU that has a nanny-state over-regulated common market as a side-show project and carries out national law-making from youth to tourism policy (as the EU does now under the Lisbon Treaty).

This ignorance may possibly result in a visceral backlash (a very un-British thing indeed) if the British economy and / or the European project goes wrong to a more palpable degree.

Until then, perhaps, the federalists in Britain and their acquiescing supporters will get away with it.

All this aside, the European federalists ought not to put the cart before the horse, even if their goals are not commonly accepted.

They are the ones that need the support of referenda across member states for the continued expansion of the EU behemoth, more than anyone else pondering the appropriate policy for the future of Europe.

A series of informed referenda, where the implications of the EU’s federalism are told cleanly and honestly, are needed across Europe.

To explain further: English law places an obligation on doctors to ensure patients fully understand any procedure to be carried out upon their bodies (termed informed, as opposed to uninformed choice)- the same should be the case for people concerning the destination of their nation, particularly when diminishment of the nation state is on the cards.

This is particularly required if we are to avoid the harmful potential repercussions of the EU federalists' wish to put democracy and economic reality second to federalism - as seen in Greece.

We must have a British referendum on continued membership of the EU if we are to stop the search for a democratic voice taking an extreme form, as it has in Greece.

Border staff stop and search white air passengers to 'even up racial mix'

By Jack Doyle
10 May 2012

White air passengers are routinely stopped and searched by customs officials simply to ensure the right racial ‘mix’ of travellers are being approached, a report reveals today.

It found staff searching for illegal goods at Gatwick Airport selected white passengers to balance the numbers against black and other ethnic minorities they suspected to help avoid race discrimination complaints.

Details of the practice are exposed in one of two highly critical reports by John Vine, chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, who said it was unlawful and must stop.

The second, criticising Heathrow Terminal 3, raised concerns about queues at the borders and found staff were allowed to clock off at some of the busiest times, resulting in long delays for passengers.

Targets for queuing times for passengers from outside the European Economic Area were breached 62 times between September 18 and 30 last year.

The longest wait was two hours and 15 minutes.

The racial scanning, seemingly widespread at Gatwick, involved pulling out white passengers when officials wanted to question a black passenger.

One official told inspectors he and his colleagues ‘specifically detained a number of white passengers’ from one flight so they could ‘show that white people were also being questioned’.

He said that when they saw arrivals they ‘knew they had a problem’ because the person they wanted to intercept was the only black passenger on the flight.

The inspectors added: ‘The officer also reported that this practice ... is also used for Caribbean flights to reduce the potential for future race claims.’
Mr Vine said the approach was ‘not justifiable’ and that there was ‘no legal basis for detaining people for such purpose’.

At Heathrow Terminal 3, inspectors found two-thirds of passenger searches were ‘neither justified nor proportionate or in line with legislation and agency guidance’.

The reports reveal a number of other areas where the border controls at Britain’s two biggest airports are failing.

At Heathrow Terminal 3, they raised questions over immigration controls, with the number of people refused entry by border staff falling by 20 per cent from 2009/10 to last year.

The numbers kicked out of the country after being blocked at the terminal border fell by one third.

Mr Vine questioned whether the UK Border Agency was still able to maintain ‘an effective and efficient border control’.

At Gatwick’s North Terminal, inspectors found passengers arriving from outside the EU were routinely allowed to enter through the ‘nothing to declare’ channel with too much alcohol and up to three times the legal amount of cigarettes.

Staggeringly, customs officers waved through passengers found with cannabis in their luggage, instead of arresting them.

The report said they had failed to follow ‘appropriate procedures’ and the passengers should have been arrested.

Inspectors reported ‘an almost total lack of visible detection presence’ in customs for ‘large parts of the day’.

And too many suspected illegal migrants were being allowed through, including cases where attempted deception and breaches of immigration rules were clear, it found.

The reports are published today as two major immigration unions – the PCS and Immigration Services Union – walk out on strike.

Justice Dept. accuses Ariz. Sheriff Arpaio of racial profiling

by Jerry Seper
May 10, 2012

The Justice Department, which first targeted Sheriff Joe Arpaio four years ago in his suspected mishandling of illegal immigrants arrested in the Phoenix area, filed a civil lawsuit in federal court Thursday accusing the sheriff and his office using “unconstitutional and unlawful actions” in their handling of Hispanics.

The complaint alleges that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) and Sheriff Arpaio, the nation’s so-called toughest sheriff, engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of:

• Discriminatory and otherwise unconstitutional law enforcement actions against Latinos who are frequently stopped, detained and arrested on the basis of race, color or national origin;

• Discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English skills;

• Illegal retaliation against their perceived critics, subjecting them to baseless criminal actions, unfounded civil lawsuits or meritless administrative actions.

The lawsuit comes in the wake of a breakdown of negotiations between the department and the sheriff's office over the appointment of a court monitor, who would oversee the office’s handling of those it arrests and detains, and direct operations regarding its enforcement programs and actions.

A “notice of intent to file civil action” came Wednesday from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas E. Perez in a letter.

Sheriff Arpaio said a series of meetings between representatives of his office and the Justice Department were scheduled to begin this week to discuss ways to resolve allegations of racial profiling by his office, but Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austin, a top litigator in the department’s Civil Rights Division, issued an ultimatum instead: It was absolutely mandatory for the sheriff's office to agree to an outside monitor otherwise there was no reason for further meetings.

The sheriff said the appointment of an outside monitor “essentially usurps the powers and duties of an elected sheriff” and transfers them to a person or group of persons selected by the federal government.

“Every policy decision, every operation, every new program in the jails and in enforcement, virtually everything would have to be approved by the monitor, nullifying the authority of the elected sheriff and eviscerating the will of the citizens of Maricopa County,” he said.

“I am the constitutionally and legitimately elected sheriff and I absolutely refuse to surrender my responsibility to the federal government,” he said. “And so to the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say, ‘This will not happen, not on my watch.’”

The sheriff’s attorney, Jack MacIntyre, called a federal monitor the “most extreme proposal,” particularly in light of the fact that the federal government has refused to provide any details or proof as to how it came to the conclusion that Maricopa County Sheriff's Office employees engage in patterns and practices of racial profiling.

“We have never agreed to a monitor replacing the duly elected sheriff,” he said. “We have always been open to negotiating these issues raised by the DOJ, but never the appointment of a monitor.”

The Justice Department has maintained that the sheriff's office “negotiated in bad faith” and, as a result, put the settlement talks in jeopardy. It told Mr. MacIntyre in a letter Tuesday the sheriff’s precondition of not having a court-appointed monitor to help enforce an agreement to settle the civil rights allegations would result in the cancellation of negotiations.

“We believe you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” wrote Mr. Austin, questioning whether the sheriff's office was ever interested in settling the matter. “Your tactics have required DOJ to squander valuable time and resources.”

In December, in a scathing report, the Justice Department accused the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office of violating federal law and the Constitution in the handling of Hispanics it arrested and held in its jail system. Mr. Perez at the time said a three-year civil investigation found that the sheriff and his deputies engaged in unconstitutional conduct and violations of federal law that jeopardized the sheriff’s “commitment to fair and effective” law enforcement.

The not-unexpected Justice Department report said investigators documented discriminatory policing practices including unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Hispanics; unlawful retaliation against people exercising their First Amendment right to criticize the agency’s policies or practices, including its discriminatory treatment of Hispanics; and discriminatory jail practices against inmates with limited English proficiency by punishing them and denying them critical services.

Mr. Perez said investigators found a number of “long-standing and entrenched systemic deficiencies” that caused or contributed to patterns of unlawful conduct, including a failure to implement policies guiding deputies on lawful policing practices; allowing specialized units to engage in unconstitutional practices; inadequate training and supervision; an ineffective disciplinary, oversight and accountability system; and a lack of sufficient external oversight and accountability.

While no formal findings of pattern or practice violations have been made, Mr. Perez said, the investigation remains ongoing. A separate federal grand jury investigation of the sheriff's office is continuing.

An unusually animated Sheriff Arpaio called the report “a sad day for America as a whole” and, at the time, denounced the Obama administration as putting a greater priority on going after law enforcement than securing the border with Mexico.

The sheriff also said the accusations were a foregone conclusion made in bad faith, noting that during one crime sweep by his deputies, “top Homeland Security people were there, and they commended us on our professionalism.

“Don’t come here and use me as the whipping boy for a national and international problem,” he said.

America the Doomed

by "Mr.Brown" on Expatica
2012-05-10

Throughout my life I have heard the term “stupid Americans” repeated over and over again. For the longest time I took some personal affront to. I spent my life surrounded by educated individuals whose intelligence seemed the normal condition. I was not submersed in a world of half wits and intellectually inbred morons. I looked on the saying as offensive but over the last decade it has become obvious to me that although America does has some of the brightest minds, creates some to the most unique products, has some of the highest rated higher learning and has invented the most unique ideologies as a mass we are drowning in a sea of our own ignorance.

An ignorance purposely created by our subpar lower educational system and our political elite. We have become a country, for the most part of course, of whiny, dependant sheep. A collection of court jesters and town drunks. Myrmidons who seem not to be able to string together a coherent and rational line of thought if their very existence depended on it. Nowhere is this more evident than in our world of politics and governance.

We continually elect “leaders” who do exactly the opposite of what is in our own best interest, “leaders” who manipulate us like hand puppets to increasingly devolve our liberties, our own self sufficiency in exchange of more safety, for comfort and dependence. They speak in lavish tons of scripted fluff that the masses glom onto. They feign compassion and righteousness while whittling away independence. They invent legislation to usurp our responsibilities that we are all too willing to surrender. We have been conditioned and manipulated to be good servants. Worker bees for the “greater good” but who’s good? They move various chess pieces of social ideology depending on which way our short attention eigth ball happens to be showing.

“Take Back” for whom? “The Majority” of who? “Forward” to where? “Change” into what?
The media, once a stalwart ally of the people, a watchdog against tyranny has become the lap dog of whichever party their majority in chained. They refuse to confront with facts and the hard questions instead opting for surface dribble. They have become the federal Völkischer Beobachter or the Pravda. A propaganda machine. Of course they will not always deceive.

There are always individuals trying to maintain truth but as a conglomerate they have become an arm of the elite. Glossing over the stories that actually matter for half truths and circular deceit. The cliché of “history repeats itself” may not be100% accurate, but at 95% it seems clear where the “winds of change” are blowing our sinking ship. If you don’t relish being included in the “stupid American’ collective remove those blinders, start digging deeper, stop taking lofty rhetoric at face value. Stop regurgitating the same phrases and talking points. Search for actual solutions not just problems. Demand independence. Insist on liberty and privacy rights.

Stop waving the white flag of laziness, raise you mental weapons and respect what our forefathers bleed and died for. Throw aside the partisan excuses and see clearly the intellectual dumbing down of generations or stay blind, stay blissfully unaware, remain addicted to the federal comfort food and remain the “stupid and future enslaved, Americans”.

[ed. Stop yer sniggering 'rest of the world', you too are going down the crapper and for exactly the same reasons...]

Obama's Marriage Payoff: Hollywood Cash

by Newsmax
09 May 2012

Political pundits may be wondering why President Obama decided to take a controversial stance on gay marriage with November's election approaching soon.

Surely, the pro-gay marriage position will not help the president with swing voters in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina or rust belt states like Michigan.

The big clue for Obama's change of heart comes from The New York Times, which reports that the president's re-election effort will benefit from Hollywood money.

The Times notes that during his first term, Obama "has largely been absent in Hollywood, a point of unhappiness with a community accustomed to the constant doting of Bill Clinton."

But that has apparently all changed, and the paper said Hollywood insiders are now lining up to fork over $40,000 a table for an upcoming private fundraiser for Obama at superstar actor George Clooney's home.

"Mr. Obama’s announcement on Wednesday that he now supported same-sex marriage should assure him a warm reception at the Clooney residence," the Times reports.

And Obama's endorsement for same-sex marriage is reaping some strong Hollywood support.

The Times also says: "Norman Lear, the television producer, said moments after the announcement that he and his wife, Lyn, who had held back from giving money to Mr. Obama, would now contribute the maximum allowed, $80,000 between them. 'This is the kind of leadership we support, and we are happy to max out today to his re-election campaign,' he said."

Vietnam bloggers battle tightening censorship

By Cat Barton
10th May, 2012

When riot police broke up a recent protest over a forced eviction, Vietnam's bloggers were ready -- hidden in nearby trees, they documented the entire incident and quickly posted videos and photos online.

Their shaky images spread like wildfire on Facebook, in a sign of growing online defiance in Vietnam, in the face of efforts by authorities to rein in the country's Internet community.

"They follow me, they keep track of what I am writing, they keep track of all dissident bloggers. Anything they can do to harass us, they do," said blogger Nguyen Thi Dung, one of several bloggers who publicised the April 24 Hung Yen unrest on a variety of websites.

"They have many people browsing the net, reporting things they don't like, getting them taken down. It is a perfect copy of what the Chinese are doing on the Internet," she told AFP, asking that her name be changed for her safety.

Authoritarian Vietnam, classed an "enemy of the Internet" by Reporters Without Borders, is drafting a new decree on online content in a bid to clamp down on the country's increasingly bold blogosphere.

The 60-article draft decree -- a translated copy of which was obtained by AFP -- bans "abusing the Internet" to oppose the government.

It would force bloggers to post real names and contact details, make news websites obtain government approval to publish, and compel site administrators to report any banned online activity to authorities.

The decree also seeks to make foreign companies that provide online services in Vietnam -- like Facebook and Google -- cooperate with the government and could force them to locate data centres and offices in the country.

But while some activists and experts see a chilling threat from the draft law, others say the government is fighting a losing battle to police Vietnam's 30 million plus online community.

"Any kind of imposing of new limits will just lead to new ways of overcoming all difficulties to get through the firewall," one blogger said on condition of anonymity.

"People will always find new, creative ways to access banned sites -- like they already do with Facebook (which is sporadically blocked in Vietnam) now," he said.

David Brown, a retired US diplomat who served in several posts throughout Southeast Asia, said the draft decree was "unenforceable".

At the worst, the decree might give authorities more explicit infractions to charge bloggers with, he said.

But Brown said he doubted that "it will inconvenience Facebook or Google (or) change the de facto relationship of bloggers to the government", he said.

Internet commentators are increasingly covering sensitive issues such as corruption, territorial disputes with China and rising discontent over land rights, often linking up with disaffected communities.

In the past, journalists set up blogs to spread information not published in the mainstream press, but "the recent phenomenon of bloggers going to the sites of land protests to cover it virtually live is new", said Vietnam expert Carl Thayer.

Hanoi-based Nguyen Xuan Dien's live-blogging of the Hung Yen eviction -- with photos and video of thousands of riot police evicting farmers and beating two journalists covering the protest -- quickly went viral, giving the unrest wide coverage despite being virtually ignored in the state media.

Thayer said Vietnam's new decree is "an attempt to keep up with the times".

"(It will) tighten the screw on internal dissidents and severely restrict their activities by making them, as well as commercial service providers, responsible for material broadcast or stored on the Internet," he said.

While censorship is not new in communist Vietnam, New York-based Human Rights Watch has said the country "intensified its repression" of dissidents last year.

Three high-profile bloggers, including one whose case has been raised by US President Barack Obama, are currently awaiting trial in Ho Chi Minh City for "propaganda against the state".

If implemented, the new rules could "lead to more arbitrary harassment and arrests for online postings and an overall chilling effect that results in greater self-censorship", HRW's Phil Robertson told AFP.

Dung agreed the new moves represent the greatest challenge so far for the country's bloggers.

"If the decree is passed it will provide the police with a very good legal framework to destroy freedom of speech," she said.

[ed. Sounds familiar...]

'Snooper's Charter' Proposals Are Unveiled

By Katie Stallard
10th May, 2012

Controversial Government proposals to increase digital surveillance in Britain have been announced in the Queen's Speech.

The Home Office wants powers to monitor internet traffic, known as communications data, to keep track of serious criminals and terrorists.

But civil liberties campaigners have described the measures as a "Snooper's Charter" and a "dangerous" invasion of privacy.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group , told Sky News: "We're really worried about these new plans for internet snooping, they represent a huge increase in the amount of surveillance government has that are really not appropriate.

"People need to be suspected before they're surveilled - that's how the law should work, but what the Government's saying is: 'Were going to treat you all as suspects, and ask you to trust us not to abuse that data.'

"These are very dangerous measures - they cross a line, they take us from targeting people that we suspect, to targeting everybody and really lowering the barriers of what the Government can find out about you without going through a court."

The new bill was revealed in the Queen's Speech on Wednesday, and the Prime Minister later addressed MPs on the issue.

It was "difficult and contentious legislation", but David Cameron said it was a matter of updating existing laws to cover new technology.

If the laws had not been updated when mobile phones came into use "there would be many, many unsolved cases", he said.

Mr Cameron told MPs: "I don't want to be the Prime Minister standing at this despatch box saying I could have done more to prevent terrorist acts but we didn't have the courage to take difficult steps."

Criminal justice professionals say the proposals are about keeping pace with the changes in technology - to catch paedophiles and terrorists - not reading your Facebook status.

In a recent operation in Lincolnshire, for example, codenamed Operation Alpine, police found an industrial-sized computer server hidden inside a cottage, which was used in the distribution of millions of images of child sex abuse.

Using that data, four men were convicted in the UK, and the email trail led them to hundreds more suspects worldwide.

Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) , said: "What if we didn't have legislation that allowed us to keep up with the criminals, and in six years from now we weren't able to investigate rapists, child abusers or terrorists?

"People would be coming back and saying - what were you thinking of? Why didn't you put in the investment to make sure that you at least kept up with the criminal?"

The proposals would involve recording "communications data" - the digital fingerprint of who messaged who, when and where - not the actual content of the communication.

The Home Office says it is just an extension of existing powers to cover new technology, as more and more communication moves online, jeopardising the ability of police and security services to keep pace with criminals.

A recent estimate said 25% of requests for communications data by police and agencies could no longer be met.

But some have questioned the cost and the complexity of the operation this would involve.

Professor Peter Sommer, a digital forensics specialist who has acted as an expert witness in some of the country's biggest terrorism and paedophile trials, explained: "In the old-fashioned telephone, when you make a call, a physical connection is made between you and the person you are speaking to, via a series of switches.

"What makes the internet efficient is that you don't need all those direct lines, you just need one connection - all the information is put into what's called a packet and each packet will contain information about where it's coming from and where it's going to, and then the content of the packet.

"But separating the content from the communications data involves specialist hardware called 'deep packet inspection' as well as all the individual filters you'd need for all the different types of internet services, which will in turn need constantly updating, because as we all know - the internet is constantly changing - so there's a vast ongoing cost we have to contemplate."

The Home Office says it does have the technology to make this work, that the content of messages will not be accessed, and that these measures would only be used during criminal investigations, when they could be justified as "necessary and proportionate".

In other words, those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

But civil liberties groups are less than convinced. They say this is a digital line that, once crossed, will give the Government unprecedented access to monitor the internet.

Fed clears China's first US bank takeover

By Veronica Smith
10th May, 2012

The United States on Wednesday opened its banking market to ICBC, China's biggest bank, for the first time clearing a takeover of a US bank by a Chinese state-controlled company.

Just days after high-level US-China economic talks in Beijing, the Federal Reserve approved an application from Industrial and Commercial Bank of China to buy a majority stake in the US subsidiary of Bank of East Asia.

The transaction will make ICBC the first Chinese state-controlled bank to acquire retail bank branches in the United States.

ICBC has been the most aggressive of China's "big four" banks in expanding overseas.

According to the Fed the bank has total assets of roughly $2.5 trillion.

It will buy up to 80 percent of the US unit of the Hong Kong-based Bank of East Asia, which operates 13 branches in New York and California.

As part of the deal ICBC and two state-backed financial firms -- China's sovereign wealth fund the China Investment Corporation (CIC), and Central Huijin Investment -- will be recognized as bank holding companies, regulated as commercial US banks.

The broad expansion of China's footprint in the US market comes amid a series of financial reforms in China that could begin to open the lucrative market to US firms.

After the May 3-4 meeting, the US Treasury noted China had made "encouraging progress" on a number of issues sought by the Obama administration, including taking steps toward a more open and market-oriented financial system.

The Fed said Wednesday that the ICBC proposed acquisition, which is "relatively small," would not have much of an impact on the banking market.

"The combined deposits of the relevant institutions in the Metropolitan New York banking market represent less than one percent of market deposits," the central bank noted.

The competition includes Bank of China branches in the New York metropolitan area, and CIC, which has a noncontrolling stake in Morgan Stanley.

ICBC will pay $140 million to buy an 80 percent interest in Bank of East Asia USA, China's state news agency Xinhua reported in January 2011, at the time the deal was signed.

"This unprecedented acquisition of a controlling stake in a US commercial bank by a mainland bank is strategically significant," Xinhua quoted ICBC chairman Jiang Jianqing as saying.

The Fed said its Board also consulted with the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the country's main banking regulator, and pointed to steady improvement in regulation since its founding in 2003.

"For a number of years, authorities in China have continued to enhance the standards of consolidated supervision to which banks in China are subject, including through additional or refined statutory authority, regulations, and guidance," it said.

In other Fed board decisions, Bank of China, the third-largest bank, won approval for a branch in Chicago. Bank of China operates two insured federal branches in New York City and an uninsured branch in Los Angeles.

Agricultural Bank of China, the fourth-largest bank, was set to establish a branch in New York City, where it already operates a representative office.

We face the prospect of mass civil unrest, even revolution (Video)

Green Police (Video)

VE DAY

May 8th, 1945: Victory in Europe Day!

Of course the war against totalitarianism would go on for many years longer...it continues to be fought to this day...

no surrender

lest we forget.