Farage chastised in Parliament for highlighting the fact that the European Union is an authoritarian tyranny, breaks crazy law that states it is illegal to criticize the EU.
An astounding exchange took place in the European Union Parliament earlier this week when MEP Nigel Farage was reprimanded for daring to expose the fact that the EU is an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by unelected bureaucrats to the detriment of national sovereignty. Farage effectively broke a tyrannical 1999 law that states it is illegal to criticize the EU.
People like European Commission President Manuel Barroso squirmed and scowled as Farage openly savaged EU elitists for their lies and cronyism.
Farage wasted no time in going after the EU over their dictatorial policies, stating, “It’s taken you eight and a half years of bullying, of lying, of ignoring democratic referendums to get this treaty through (referring to the Lisbon Treaty)”.
Farage then attacked the appointment of Van Rompuy as the first EU President, highlighting that he was merely a pliable front man for Barroso.
“But at least he’s an elected politician unlike Baroness Ashton,” said Farage, referring to the woman who landed the job of High Representative for Foreign Affairs.
“In some ways she’s ideal isn’t she ,” said Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. “She has never had a proper job, and has never been elected to anything in her life, so I guess she’s perfect for this European Union.”
As soon as Farage hit his stride in revealing the dictatorial nature of the EU, he was immediately reprimanded by President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, who said he would like to “put down” Farage and later warned him for the “tone” Mr. Farage used in criticizing”important EU people”.
As we have seen in the past, the EU is very sensitive about anyone discussing the fact that they represent a dictatorial body.
The Nazis killed people who spoke out against the Third Reich, whereas the EU has implemented an altogether more efficient solution – simply kill their free speech instead.
Earlier this year, a Dutch MP was refused entry to Britain because his political opinions were deemed offensive under EU laws. Euro MP’s have consistently attempted to ban the “dangerous and unregulated blogosphere” in an attempt to shut down free speech on the Internet. Under the 1999 ruling of the European Court Of Justice (case 274/99), it is illegal to criticize the EU and the EU is on a mission to outlaw any national political parties that do not pander to the European federal superstate agenda.
Farage continued by highlighting the fact that Ashton represented the EU’s agenda in a “post-democratic age,” where people are selected by the elite for high power positions rather than elected by the people.
“She married well, she married an advisor and a friend and a supporter of Tony Blair and got put in the House of Lords, when she was put in the House of Lords she was given one big job, and the job was to get the Lisbon Treaty through the House of Lords, and to do so pretending that it was entirely different to the EU Constitution…and she vigorously crushed any attempt in the House of Lords for the British people to have a referendum,” said Farage at which point EU bureaucrats, upset that their tyranny was being openly discussed in the EU Parliament, began attempting to silence Farage by shouting and clapping, as Barroso looked visibly shaken.
Farage responded to one heckler by stating, “Well at least I’ve been elected sir, unlike her, she’s not been elected and the people don’t have the power to remove her.”
As EU bureaucrats continued to heckle Farage, he explained how Ashton had taken large donations from a prominent member of the Communist Party in Great Britain in her role as Treasurer for the CND, demanding answers on why she had taken money from someone who represented an organization staunchly opposed to western democracy.
“Did she take money from enemies of the west, that question must be answered,” stated Farage.
Farage then accused MEP’s of “betraying their national democracies” in allowing Lisbon to pass and warned that an avalanche of new laws would follow, before calling for a national referendum in the UK to decide whether Britain should leave the EU. The camera then cut back to Barroso who looked like he was fuming at the fact that someone had dared stand up to the almighty European Union and expose their authoritarian and dictatorial nature.
After Buzek warned him again over “certain expressions” he was using, Farage attempted to find out what he had said that was so offensive, before a Socialist MEP babbled out some barely comprehensible globalist rhetoric in a lame attempt to counter Farage’s incisive speech.
“With respect I think you’ve completely missed the point,” responded Farage, “Because twice you said ‘the people that were elected last week’ – they have not been elected, that is the point that I am making and in the case of Baroness Ashton she has never been elected to public office in her entire life, she takes an enormously powerful job and the peoples of Europe do not have the power to hold her to account and to remove her and that fundamentally is what is wrong with this whole European Union, it’s all about bureaucracy versus democracy.”
The foundations for the EU and ultimately the Euro single currency were laid by the secretive Bilderberg Group in the mid-1950’s. Bilderberg’s owned leaked documents prove that the agenda to create a European common market and a single currency were formulated by Bilderberg in 1955. One of the group’s principle founders was H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a former Nazi SS officer.
But the ideological framework for the European Union goes back even further, to the 1940’s when top Nazi economists and academics outlined the plan for a single European economic community, an agenda that was duly followed after the end of the second world war.
As we have highlighted in the past, Nazism and the EU have some very disturbing parallels. Indeed, the two are fundamentally intertwined and the origins of the EU can be traced directly back to the Nazis.
The fact that the EU was a brainchild of top Nazi economists and industrialists, formulated as a means of preserving dictatorial power and then implemented by a former Nazi working under the auspices of the Bilderberg Group in 1955, proves that the entire European Union system is poisoned with a legacy and a raison d’être of totalitarianism.
This is becoming increasingly obvious in the 21st century as popular social movements across Europe rise up to oppose the blatant power grab being undertaken by the EU via the Lisbon Treaty, which was forced through in Ireland earlier this year despite the population having already rejected it in a previous national referendum.
Just like Hitler repeatedly polled Germans of the 1930’s until he could intimidate them into delivering the result he wanted, the European Union has followed the same method. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was what enabled the EU to create the post of a European President in the first place, and there seems little doubt that Van Rompuy and Ashton will do everything in their power to accelerate the move towards Bilderberg’s ultimate goal – a dictatorial European federal superstate that completely swallows up what tattered shreds of sovereignty member states have left.
Archive for November, 2009
Since the last quarter of 2008, unrelenting currency warfare has been waged by the key global economies and while this competition thus far has been non-antagonistic, it will soon be antagonistic because the inherent differences are irreconcilable. The consequences to the global economy will be devastating and for the ordinary people, massive unemployment and social unrest are assured.
The policy-makers of these countries faced with the total collapse of the international financial architecture have concluded that the solution, the only solution is quantitative easing (i.e. massive injection of liquidity) to salvage the “too big to fail” banks and reflate their depressed economies. This is best reflected in Bernanke’s candid remark that, “the US government has a technology, called the printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost”.
This is the crux of the problem!
The Irreconcilable Differences
Some two decades ago, it was decided by the global financial elites that the framework for the global economy shall consist of:
1) A global derivative-based financial system, controlled by the US Federal Reserve Bank and its associate global banks in the developed countries.
2) The re-location from the West to the East in the production of goods, principally to China and India to “feed” the developed economies.
The entire system was built on a simple principle, that of a FED-controlled global reserve currency which will be the engine for growth for the global economy. It is essentially an imperialist economic principle.
Once we grasp this fundamental truth, Bernanke’s boast that the “US can produce as many US dollars as it wishes at no cost” takes on a different dimension.
I have talked to so many economists and when asked what is the crux of the present financial problem, they all respond in unison, “it is the global imbalances… the West consumes too much while the East saves too much and consumes not enough”. This is exemplified by the huge US trade deficits on the one part and China’s massive surpluses on the other.
Incredible wisdom and almost everyone echoes this mantra. The recent concluded APEC Summit was no different. This mantra was repeated as well as the call for freer trade between trading nations.
This is a grand hoax. All the current leaders on the world’s stage are corrupted to the rotten core and as such have no interest to call a spade a spade and expose the inherent contradictions within the existing financial system.
The call for a multi-polar world is meaningless when the entire global financial system is based on the unipolar US dollar reserve currency. This is the inherent contradiction within the present system and the problems associated with it cannot be resolved by another global reserve currency based on the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights as advocated by some countries. It was stillborn, the very moment it was conceived!
The leaders of China, Japan and the oil producing countries of the Middle East are all cursing and pissing about the current situation, but they don’t have the courage of their convictions to spell it out to their countrymen that they have been conned by the financial spin masters from the Fed acting on the instructions from Goldman Sachs.
Tell me which leader would dare admit that they have exchanged the nation’s wealth for toilet papers?
“It confirms suspicions I’ve had in my 30 years of working in climate science. I saw the hijacking of climate science particularly by modellers, and then by a small group of people associated with the IPCC. ….It really is deeply disturbing because what you’ve got here is this small group of scientists, who by the way Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick- he identified 42 people and said, “look, these people are all publishing together, and they are also peer reviewing each other’s literature”…..about 20 years ago I started to question why they were pushing the peer review process so much and now we realise it is because it gives them control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.
On a global scale this is frighteneing because not only do these people control the global temperature data through the Hadley Climate Research Unit, they also control the IPCC – and they have manipulated that, we read in the emails how that was done. ”
“Unlike many of his predecessors and virtually all his successors, Kennedy strove to tell the truth, which may have been contributory factor in his assassination”
“Is it possible,” Borghezio asked, “that no one has noticed that all 3 frequently attended the Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings? I believe we need to apply the principles of transparency, so often mentioned here in our institutions. We need to establish clearly whether these are the candidates of their own countries’ political forces, or whether they are simply the candidates of these occult groups that meet behind closed door to decide matters over the heads of the people.”
The candidates in question are Jan Peter Balkenende, David Miliband, and Herman Van Rompuy.
“The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Nino conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Nina conditions less likely” says corresponding author de Freitas….
The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.
Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
“..and it will be exploited by those who fail to understand the reasons for the rise”
There is little doubt that the decade of the 2000s will have higher land surface, sea surface, and lower troposphere temperature anomalies than the 1990s. There will be those who will wrongly attribute the rise from decade to decade to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, when it is very apparent that the actual cause is the lingering effects of the 1997/98 El Nino event. Attempts will be made to contradict the obvious by those who fail to acknowledge or comprehend the multiyear aftereffects of significant traditional El Nino events. They will present numerous unfounded arguments. Here are a few that have been tried.
Argument 1: The short-term global warming of El Nino events are countered by the short-term global cooling of the La Nina events that follow them.
What The Instrument Temperature Record Shows: That’s true for only parts of the globe and for some El Nino events. It is not true, however, for the SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans and for the TLT anomalies of the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Refer to Figures 4 and 8. The effects of the 1986/87/88 and the 1997/98 El Nino lingered through the La Nina events that followed them in those datasets. This created the appearance of gradual rises in global SST and TLT anomalies.
Argument 2: Global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is responsible for the increase in the number of major El Nino events since 1975. (This argument is normally made by someone referring to an ENSO Index that starts in 1950.)
What The Instrument Temperature Record Shows: There are multidecadal variations in the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events. This can be seen by smoothing the NINO3.4 SST anomalies from 1870 to 2009 with a 121-month filter. Refer to Figure 13. During epochs when the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events outweigh the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events, global temperatures rise. And during epochs when the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events outweigh the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events, global temperatures drop.
Argument 3: El Nino events don’t create heat.
What The Instrument Temperature Record Shows: During El Nino events, warm water that had been stored below the surface of the western tropical Pacific (in the Pacific Warm Pool) sloshes to the east and rises to the surface. Tropical Pacific SST anomalies increase in response. In this way, more heat than normal is released from the tropical Pacific to the atmosphere. But El Nino events not only release heat into the atmosphere, they also shift atmospheric circulation patterns (Hadley and Walker Circulation, surface winds, cloud cover). These shifts in the circulation patterns and cloud cover cause surface temperatures and OHC outside of the tropical Pacific to rise.
It is important to note that the vast majority of the warm water that sloshes east during the El Nino had been stored below the surface before the El Nino. While below the surface (to depths of 300 meters) it was not included in the instrument temperature record. But during the El Nino, that warm water has been relocated to the surface and is included in the surface temperature record. So, El Nino events relocate warm water from an area that was not included in the calculation of global temperature to the surface where it is included.
Argument 4: Climate models used by the IPCC reproduce these El Nino-induced step changes.
What The Climate Models Show: Most of the climate models (GCMs) used by the IPCC in AR4 for hindcasting 20th Century climate do not bother to model ENSO. Those that make the effort do not model it well. The frequency, magnitudes, linear trends, and multiyear aftereffects of those models do not match the surface temperature record. The step changes that exist in the instrument temperature record, which are the bases for the much of the rises in global temperatures, do not exist in the model outputs of the 20th century.
If and when GCMs can reproduce the past frequency and magnitude of ENSO events, if and when GCMs can reproduce the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events, which are these El Nino-induced step changes (including the ones that also appear in the OHC records), then GCMs may have some predictive value. At present they cannot reproduce ENSO or its multiyear aftereffects. At present they have no value.
This failure of GCMs to properly account for the multiyear impacts of major El Nino events (and other natural variables such as the North Atlantic Oscillation) can be seen in a graph of the actual rise in global OHC versus the projected rise forecast by GISS, Figure 14. The GCM used by GISS based its projection on the rise in Ocean Heat Content during the 1990s, assuming the trend would continue at that pace. But during the 1990s, the vast majority of the rise in OHC was caused by the combined effects of ENSO and the North Atlantic Oscillation, and these are natural variables that the GISS GCM did not model. Since 2003, Global Ocean Heat Content has been relatively flat, while the GISS projection reaches to unrealized levels.