Ruth Lea: We need a referendum on EU membership

Ruth Lea, economist and member of the People’s Pledge advisory council, puts the case for a referendum on our EU membership:

Nigel Farage on the Alex Jones Show 29 Mar 2011

Nigel lays into the EU and the British government for its lamentable Libyan 'adventure' - stating what we all believe - that the coalition will regret this war that 70% of the population don't want it.

He urges us all to take to the streets to protest this war and withdraw our democratic consent against endless war.

Part 2 to follow, once Alex posts it on youtube!

Nigel comes in at about 05:45 ...

Elected Police Commissioners: Democratic or pseudo-democratic?

Nick Herbert has a propaganda piece in the Telegraph today about the joys and 'accountability' that elected police commissioners will bring to policing in the UK.

Over the past 14 years, we have witnessed the transformation of our police from friendly 'Bobbies' to arrogant, big state, militarised thugs who terrorise the public and who seldom suffer appropriate penalty for their illiberal, Stasi-like behaviour.

Labour complain that electing police commissioners would have the effect of politicising the police - as if the system they instituted did not - viz Ian Blair (whose peership I do not recognise as warranted).

So I welcome plans which would make the police more accountable - only I have yet to be convinced that the government's policy will achieve that goal.

Far too many questions arise, and I fear I won't like the answers to any of them.

• How will candidate commissioners' campaigns be funded? 
• Will they be permitted to accept large donations from big business?  
• Given that the EU has stated that it will 'contribute' to elections and campaigns in member states where it feels that the issues in question have a bearing on EU issues ("what doesn't?", you might ask), will the EU be able to donate to their campaigns?

From exactly which sectors or 'stakeholder' bodies will the the body which imposes "strict checks and balances" draw its members?  Will such slots be available to ordinary members of the public? Will they have open meetings which the public can attend?

I believe a democratic system could work, but I'm afraid I have no confidence in the government's notion of "democratic accountability"; its track record to date has been dire.

Unconditional Surrender: your oil, or else!

Oh sure. Our latest war (for that's what it is) in Libya, is purely for 'humanitarian' reasons. Nothing to do with oil. Oh, no.

It just so happens that a retired general (active in the Bush years) reveals that the administration wanted to take down 7 Arab countries in 5 years - starting in 2001.

See for yourself.

Lew Rockwell doesn't mince words:

Wilson and FDR knew that their policies of unconditional surrender would ensure that their wars would go on as long as possible, which was one of their goals. They loved being wartime leaders, Great Men pushing the little boxes around on the map, sending so many to their graves. They knew that war strengthened them and their governments. And they wanted their special interests to profit from the destruction, and the remaking of a new US-dominated world. It is also no coincidence that Obama and his satraps confiscated all of Gadaffi’s money; forbade him to travel internationally; and now, told him he will be tried for war crimes. Of course, he is a war criminal, like Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Wilson, FDR, et al. But if one actually wanted him gone, a safe, plush retirement would be the most likely way to bring it about. Obama’s policy is designed to lengthen the war, cause maximum chaos, punish the Arabs who refuse to bow the knee, and enable the empire to extend its control over oil and everything else.

Evil though Gadaffi is, there's more blood on Blair's hands, but I don't expect to see him tried for war crimes, despite taking us into an illegal war.

Related:

• War, Peace, and the State - Essay by Murray N Rothbard

Quote of the day: Abraham Lincoln

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

— Abraham Lincoln

Naked Aggression: Libya assault planned months ahead

U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.



Meanwhile, Congressman Ron Paul says that Obama "believes in one world government" and "wants to keep nudging us in that direction" ... i.e., by taking down nations which don't want one world government.

How to cock up your census form - legally

In case you missed the link in my previous post, here's a little helper to scupper the Census process.

How to deal with the Census forms -UKIP-style

Hat tip: The one and only UKIP.TV (tune in, folks)

Update: If that doesn't appeal, try this. (Hat tip: 21st Century Fix)

Farage tears into Van Rompuy for his links to Gaddafi

Hat tip: Daniel Hannan

If ...

Hypothetically, if:

... potassium iodide, abundant in kelp, helps ward off the lurgies of nuclear contamination
... and if most of the West's supply of kelp comes from Japan
... and if Japan is contaminated by nuke fallout from its reactor explosions
... and if we buy kelp to help ward off those lurgies ...

... will we succeed?

Or will that kelp itself be radioactive?

Socialism: The Final Solution

The European ruling elites, whatever part of the political spectrum to which they ascribe themselves, are ideologically Socialist, so pernicious and successful have its propagandists been. The so-called centre ground has moved sharply left.

Money merely replaced barter as a means of wealth exchange and wealth accrual.

When wealth is redistributed, it takes from one who has earned and accumulated it and gives to another who has not: the overall effect is no wealth increase.

If the recipient merely consumes the wealth, as is often the case, and/or wealth is lost in the process by sticky-fingered State apparatus, there is an overall reduction in wealth, unless the donor generates more wealth.

Wealth redistribution demotivates wealth generation - why earn something if it is to be taken away for no benefit to the earner? - and over time total wealth is eroded. Why generate it at all if it is going to be distributed your way from someone else?

It is the essence of Socialism, to wean the individual off personal wealth ownership, all wealth to be concentrated to the centre for redistribution, decided by a few enlightened, high-minded overseers.

Socialism applied in its fully fledged version to societies, such as the USSR and China for example, destroyed wealth so all but a select ruling clique were impoverished, and caused economic ruination.

Socialism is then 'the final solution' to economic success and free market capitalism, and enslavement of the People under the yoke of a self-selecting elite.

The problem with discussions about the EU and the Euro and proposed solutions, is they deal with the symptoms not the disease.

Cure the disease. Get rid of Socialism, its vehicle the EU and all those still peddling it around Europe.

The Berlin Wall still stands, invisible, between the People of Europe and a self-indulgent political elite.

Time to knock it down.

Hat tip: Q46