Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
Germany is not a sovereign state Submitted by Editor on 2013-02-21 01:30:39
Manuel Ochsenreiter
- Manuel, please, can you to characterize contemporary foreign policy of Germany, it's implications toward EU, changes during last years and possible perspectives?
- The contemporary foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)is not a foreign policy an independent and sovereign state would make. Berlin foreign politicians and so called “foreign policy experts” of the established parties in the Bundestag attach great importance to the fact that Germany is “embedded” in the foreign policy of the “transatlantic values” of the European Union or the NATO.
By the way, the fact that Germany is not a sovereign state is not a conspiracy theory. The German Minister of finance Dr. Wolfgang Schaublesaid during the European Banking Congress on November 18 2011: “But in Germany since May 8, 1945 [the unconditional surrender of the German Wehrmacht] at no time have we been fully sovereign”.
When we analyze German foreign policy especially since the reunification in 1990 when the so called “post war era” ended officially, we can see clearly that from the German side there were no attempts to regain full sovereignty, although it might have been possible. Instead, Germanyparticipated as a willing NATO-“partner” in conflicts (e.g. Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Syria, Mali). We don't witness any independent German foreign policy activities. Of course there are also some little exceptions.
Just one example of an exception: When in 2003 the discussion went on if Germany should participate in the military aggression against Iraq, the German Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroder from the social democrats refused to be with the US. The opposition leader in that time, Angela Merkel from the Christian democratic union (the Federal Chancellor today!), attacked Schroder in a speech in the Bundestag with the following words: “We don't want a German Sonderweg [special path]!” She expressed clearly that in her opinion there is no other option than supporting the US in the aggression against Baghdad. But we shouldn't forget in that context that Schroder's government already participated in the conflicts inKosovo and Afghanistan. Schroder's coalition of social democrats and greens ordered the German air force to bombard the Serbian capital Belgrade. But when it came to the Iraq aggression, a huge German peace movement became very active with demonstrations in the German cities. So it was more or less about collecting their votes than a general change in German foreign policy.
Everything must be permitted or confirmed by the western “friends” or “partners”. Germany even reforms its army, the Bundeswehr, in a way that it is not anymore a classical defense army but a global rapid deployment force. The Bundeswehr today is seen as an element of the western military forces but not as an independent German army.
There is one important point. The German foreign policy today is not “suffering” under western or EU pressure. All these things happen by the free will of the German politicians in Berlin. This is easy to explain. Especially US-dominated NGOs and foundations take care about the careers and education of German politicians since decades. When we look for example at the activities of the group “Atlantik-Brucke” (“Atlantic bridge”) which was founded in 1952 in Bonn (West-Germany), we have to see that almost all established political parties and media companies in Germany are influenced by that organization. More than 500 elites from the banking sector, economy, political parties, media, and science are organized in the “Atlantik-Brucke”. You find there social democrats as well as liberals and conservative, even greens. With the so called “young leader” program they secure the supply of “new blood”. In the official statement it sounds like this: “In 1973 the Young Leaders Program was added to Atlantik-Brucke’s repertoire. With it the Atlantik-Brucke promotes interaction between rising young German and American professional leaders”.
But the “Atlantik-Brucke”is just one of the many organizations that “shape” German foreign policy in a way that Berlin seems to be more or less a satellite of Washington. The western hegemony is fully developed in German policy. For the near future it doesn't seem that there might be any big change.
And just to mention in this context, the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, said in 1949 that the organization's goal was “to keep the Russians out,the Americans in,and the Germans down.” Although we are talking since 1990 about the reforms and new aims of the NATO, we have to admit that nothing changed. Lord Ismay's statement is as actual as it was in 1949. And Germany right now doesn't have a problem to be “kept down”.
- Is there any attempts to opposite initiatives of U.S. for global dominance such as concept of Anchor States proposed by Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development?
- Unfortunately, even the concept of the “Ankerstaaten” [Anchor States] doesn't really oppose the US global dominance. It simply recognizes the fact that other states develop to influential powers in their regions. But the original document of the Ministry from 2004 says clearly that those new powers, the Anchor States, might have a positive or negative influence on their specific region. And in the “Leitlinien” - the guidelines of the concept given by the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development we can read that Germany acts in “strategic alliances with the EU and other bi- and multinational donors”, and that Germanywants to enforce the integration of the Anchor States into the “international community of shared values”. So if we to analyze the Anchor State concept in a pessimistic way, we have to state that this concept is a pure western hegemony doctrine and not an idea to oppose US dominance.
- How going actualization of this process of dialogue between countries of Asia, Africa and South America?
- This dialogue fits perfectly to the western agenda. You will not find any “German attempts” here. For the Russian Federation and China the so called “human rights” questions are dominant. We witnessed the campaigns during the Pussy Riot scandal. Many German established politicians didn't hesitate to call Russia a type of dictatorship with President Vladimir Putin as an “almighty” leader. Sometimes the hostility towards Russia is conspicuous. The announcement that Putin would receive the official German Quadriga award in 2011 was widely condemned. As a result of protests by Quadriga board members and former recipients all the 2011 awards and ceremonies were cancelled.Same thing with China. Also here Germany acts as a political “housemaster” for liberal “western values”. So dialogue is a strong word. What takes place in reality is schoolmastering.
And we can see the same things in the majority of “dialogues” Germanyhas with the so calledAnchor States. The dialogue with Iran shows that Berlin is one of the motors of the policy of sanctions against Teheran because of defending alleged Israeli and US interests instead German interests. The dialogue with Turkey doesn't deserve the term “dialogue”. The large Turkish national minority in Germanyis abused by the Ankara government ofPrime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a “fifth column” for influencing German interior policy. Turkey, as a “NATO-partner”, is under the direct protection of Washington.
These are just some examples of dialogue. The rule is: Berlin will not do anything that opposes the US-hegemony.Germany with those personal elitewill not follow its national interest.
- Representatives of German government some time ago told about necessity to back golden reserves to the country. Why it happens?
- The real questions should be as follows: Why did it take so long until our politicians became active?More than two thirds of Germany's gold reserves valued at 137 billion euros or $183 billion is abroad, stored in the vaults in New York, Paris, and London. The official reason: During the Cold War times the gold was transferred from Frankfurt to USA, UK, and France because it is more secure in case of a Soviet attack.Frankfurt was considered too “close to the iron curtain”.
The Cold war ended 23 years ago. But some analysts say it might be for a certain reason that the German gold is in the vaults of the western allied powers of World War II.
Why is Germanyonly now interested to get the gold of the Bundesbank back? It might have to do with the crisis of the euro and with the European economic crisis in general. Some analysts like the UK based financial journalist Matthew Lynn speaks out very clearly: “German sentiment is hardening against the single currency with every month that passes. What is a whole vault full of gold in the basement of your central bank good for exactly after all? Starting a new currency of course.” So hopefully this might be the overture for the comeback of the Deutsche Mark. To be honest I doubt that our government thinks that way. But hope dies last.
- Is any signals in military sector for re-nationalization (I mean decrease of NATO and US influence on German military planning, strategy and so on)?
- No especially that the military sector becomes more and more fully integrated into the NATO-structures.Germany is “castrating” its own security forces. They are not fit anymore for homeland defense but as an element for international operations. We practically abolished conscription in July 2011 which was a long term tradition of the German forces and a base for the national defense.
Germanynever seemed so far away from a re-nationalization of its military defense as seen nowadays. Although during the Cold War times West German generals opposed the NATO-plan that Germany should become a nuclear battle field in case of a hot conflict with the Eastern block.
- What is your opinion about idea of Multistakeholder-approach developed by German think-tank SWP?
- Generally it would be crazy to deny the danger of cyber-attacks against infrastructure of a country. And it would be crazy as well to deny the necessity of international cooperation in this new battle field. We should be prepared and build up a well-organized defense structure.
But “Angst” (fear) alone is always a bad advisor for reacting in a clever way to such threats. So we should read the SWP-concept of the Multistakeholder approach very clearly before we celebrate a plan to protect our countries against cyber-attacks.
First of all we should take into account that the SWP is not an independent think-tankalthough it claims to be independent. The SWP is supported by several German and EU-governmental institutions as some German ministries and the European Commission. The author of the Multistakeholder-concept, Dr. Annegret Bendiek, is Deputy Head of Research Division “EU External Relations” of the SWP. So we can say that the SWP is more or less part of a multinational network.
And the Multistakeholder-concept should be read carefully, precisely, and accurately. It contains ideas of mixing up the cyber security tasks with the private sector and the so called “civil society”, and that this cooperation should happen with “equal rights” of all participants. This means nothing else other than giving state functions to non-state institutions. At the same time it mentions the fields of inner and foreign politics “melting” with each other. And the concept is again a very US-related. It gives the impression that the threat generally comes from the “evil” east but never from the west!
So when we analyze the concept we see that it contains in many ways guidelines how to disintegrate more and more sovereign state tasks. The concept follows the postmodern trend determining that the state alone is not able to take care of traditional state organized challenges. When it comes to security issues, maybe the most important national challenge for any state, we should be very careful. We should also be careful when such concepts tell us today where the future threats will come fromexactly. We can interpret this in two ways. The author is able to read in the coffee cup and knows exactly what will happen in the future, or the author follows an explicit frontline given to him by the party ordering the research study.
- What is role of Germany in Cyber-G5 (Deutschland, Frankreich, Gro?britannien, Niederlande, Schweden) and how Bundestag reflects on cyberpolicy and cyberthreats in general? The results of summit in Dubai shows red line between Russia, China, India, Iran etc. and U.S. + E.U. on other side that mean possible confrontation in this specific domen in future.
- The cyber policy is a political field which is underestimated by the majority of political analysts today. Let us talk frankly. Cyber policy is a part of the so called western concept of “world inner policy”. It denies national sovereignty. The European concept is close to the US concept given by the former US head of state department Hillary Clinton. She declared the “freedom of the internet” a “fundamental principle” of the US foreign policy. By the way, this was the justification of supporting the Libyan Sunni extremist fighters during their war against the Gaddafi-regime in capturing big parts of the Libyan national mobile phone network. The “freedom of the internet” argument is used right now to support anti-state groups with communication material. State sovereignty, where information policy is also an important part of state security, is violated by those Washington activities nonstop.
In the so called “Cyber-G5” group, the German government supports exactly this understanding of the “freedom of the internet”. Again German SWP-authors (Annegret Bendiek, Marcel Dickow and Jens Meyer) framed the concept in an article for “SWP-Aktuell”: The authors speak about an “emancipating and democratizing effect” of the internet and mention the so called “Arab Spring” as an evidence, although in the “Spring”-countries sunni islamist governments came to power who are not really well known for supporting “information freedom”.
So we cannot ignore the fact that what is called today with a nice term “freedom of the internet” might be tomorrow already the justification for violating the sovereignty of those states that don't obey that idea.
This is also cynicism and hypocrisy.While talking about the “freedom of the internet” and “freedom of information” all over the world the EU-countries violate freedom of speech and press inside. So we can say that the “freedom of the internet” policy is nothing else other than an instrument to violate and destabilize other states in the future.
And of course there is a fat red line between the west and those states that have a strong sovereign agenda such as Russia, China, India or Iran.
- And what you think about trade relations and it's link with politics and ideology? For example, last year presence of German companies in Russia become smaller than before.
- I consider Germany and Russia as natural partners in business and trade. Unfortunately the political situation doesn't encourage good and prosperous business relations. Germany is Russia's second biggest trade partner after China. We import resources and export industrial goods and high technology. In a positive political atmosphere Germany and Russia could benefit much more by close relations, not just in the economic field. But as long as the guidelines for German foreign politics are written in Washington and Brussels I don't see big chances for a change.
But why not think ahead? There are plenty of fields for great future cooperation. Germany and Russia could build up Northern East Prussia in modern day Russian exclave “Oblast Kaliningrad” with a joint venture! Konigsberg (Kaliningrad), the old Prussian town, could become again a capital of German-Russian free state outside the EU. Why shouldn't we combine our skills there on a historical soil. Konigsberg used to be an important center for north eastern European trade.
Of course for many readers this might sound like fantasy and very unrealistic. But the people who talked in 1988 and even in summer 1989 about a German reunification were also considered as lunatics. So why not be little bit crazy and think about such great opportunities. Things might change, and sometimes very quickly.
- Actually what is geopolitical thought of Germany now? It mostly unknown in Russia. After Haushoffers (father and son) and few names there is no information about it, expect discourse of some political scientists, but not geopoliticians.
- Geopolitics is banned in Germany since 1945. It was considered especially by the US as one of the evil sources of “German aggression”. So what does that mean today? The German authorities don't consider Germany itself to be an independent global player anymore.Geopolitically Germany became a full part of the so called “western international community” although this is anti-historical.Germany used to be a central European state, a bridge between east and west. This thinking almost disappeared.
If I personally want to talk with someone about geopolitics and e.g. about Haushofer's ideas I have to find most probably a Russian or Middle Eastern conversation partner.
Interviewed by Leonid Savin
IMAGE Manuel Ochsenreiter (right) and professor Alexander Dugin (left) in Freiburg, Germany
Once again, my gut instincts are confirmed correct.
The puppet state that is Germany follows the foreign policy of its American masters, supporting attack of sovereign foreign states, as subservient on-call American deployed attack-dog, while neglecting to even try to establish the German nation's sovereignty, over 70 years after Germany's defeat, and some decades since German reunification (1990).
Germany's politicians excel at pissing on the German and European people, as we're seen from Merkel's invasion of Europe policy.
That apparently extends to dismantling national defence capabilities of the German army, while pursuing a policy of providing the Americans with a ready rapid deployment force to violate some more countries with, and a policy of borderless and unprotectedGerman and European suicide.
Meanwhile German taxpayers are fleeced to the tune of €34.4 billion (1.2% of German GDP, 2014) and Germany is among the top ten in the world for military spending.
But the US extortionist, NATO, wants yet more from the German vassal: ie 2%.
Hypocritical US-shaped German politicians are also pissing on the very principles that are the cornerstones of purported Western 'freedoms' and 'democracy', demonstrating that the controlled German politicians, much like their two-faced con-artist oligarchy-serving American political master counterparts, have no regard whatsoever for: self-determination, justice, freedom, or freedom of speech.
Instead, Germany exploits the very principles it pays lip service to, manipulating public perception and sentiment, via the controlled media that has been exploiting and selling:
the fantasy of 'noble' American 'protector' intent, to window-dress the vassalage of Europe;
the fantasy of Western 'freedom', while Germany's violating liberties such as freedom of association; freedom of political affiliation; freedom of intellectual and political conviction; freedom from state harassment and freedom from infiltration of one's political organisations by state agents; freedom from communications harassment and censorship; freedom from ongoing state harassment and state attempts at political party shut-down etc; to name but a few such violations (while Germany's US-Anglo masters have been exposed violating entire countries, deploying American empire mass surveillance);
above all, selling the fantasy of post-WWII constitutionally-mandated American-designed 'united Europe,' a project that has since manifested itself in the unholy supranationalEuropean Union alliance of the obliging neocon American puppet elites;
the philosophical fantasy of 'universalism' above ancestral identity, along with the worship of universal 'human rights' ideology, which is accompanied by Western media and educational indoctrination to the point of absurdity, and has paved the way to exploitation of the assailed and politically castrated masses by their pious, moralising, instructing, and supremely virtuous intelligentsia 'betters' and the violent, lunatic left government shills that are never condemned as extremists that they are in the controlled media;
the fantasy of Western 'moral superiority,' with the US-Anglo war criminals cast in the role of 'champions', priests and popes of this universalist 'religion' of the American capitalist empire;
so as to embed in the realm of public perception, a fantasy of Western 'moral high ground', while deceitfully, callously, pre-emptively & hypocritically smearingtargets of American aggression that have been designated 'official enemies and targets of future American aggression, by joining the controlled media (and controlled Western politician counterparts), in the chorus of orchestrated disapproval, for public consumption (see 2012 Bundestag 124-member signed letter to Russian ambassador re Pussy Riot).
And that's when these principles are not more aggressively exploited as instruments of coercion and pretexts for economic and other sanctions (eg. Iran 40 years of sanctions; Iraq sanctions - millions of dead children, but American Madeline Albright thinks it was worth it), and even pretexts for US-led unlawful, strategic war of aggression by way of unprovoked military attack.
All of the above applies to German hypocrisy and to that of Germany's Western counterparts, save that they are not occupied in the way that defeated Germany remains occupied.
-------/\/\/
*What does the following say about the silent, Western, controlled corporate media collective, that has never referred to Clinton, Bush, Killary or Obomber -- actualwar criminals -- as 'strongmen', for example, while it routinely smears Russia's President Putin?
Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton Illegal Bomber of Serbia with support of prisoner of war Germany
(strategic US ambitions)
Bomber of Sudan medicine factory
(Lewinsky cover-up)
Cruise Missile Bomber of Iraq
(strike in violation of international law) War Criminal
Joke States
Czech Republic, Papua New Guinea, POW Germany & site of 'surprise' US military base: Kosovo
honoured Bomber Bill Clinton
Killary Clinton
famous for Libya
Benghazi
missing $6-billion ... yes, BILLION
... & missing state e-mails
Killary Clinton
"“And in denying that it represented policy she – under oath – essentially admitted to the fact pattern of US policy being regime change in Libya and the killing of Gaddafi. Both are war crimes, both are prosecutable acts at the International Criminal Court, and her statements were made under oath,” the analyst stated."here
Pussy Riot US Empire, US Vassals' & Controlled- Media Darlings
-------/\/\/
YetGermany's US NGO-moulded politicians have the nerve to criticise Russia regarding Provocateurs-R-Us, Pussy Riot, while the German US-controlled, prisoner of war, puppet state:
imprisons those that raise an arm at a "politically incorrect angle";
imprisons the likes of 87 year old Ursula Haverbeck for speaking her mind; and while
Germany, 'paragon' of progressive European 'liberty', has spent multiple decades harassing free-thinker Ernst Zundel, over six prisons and two continents, effectively kidnapping or pretty much 'renditioning' Zundel from Canada (albeit, with Canadian court approval), without charge, before imprisoning kidnapped free-thinker Zundel in the totalitarian, American-dominated puppet 'German' state that is ruled by self-serving elites - ibid & here.
Ernst Zundel had lived and worked in Canada for 40 years without criminal charge.
Zundel's sanctioned kidnap to Germany, without charge, was on the basis of allegations, and on the basis that his website could be read in Germany*.
Let's not forget the unjust and undemocratic imprisonment Zundel's lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, imprisoned for over 3 years and barred from practising law (video), pursuant to a victor-dictated 'German' totalitarian, unconditional surrender 'constitution,' enforced without challenge by the craven, US-indoctrinated German puppet politicians.
*What does that say about the collusion of Western governments and courts to violate the rights of Westerners?
*What does that say about Germany's portrayal as the bastion of internet and information freedom in Europe and champion of Western 'dissenters' when Germany violates the rights of Germans and even Germans abroad?
*What does that say about American 'dissident', NGO and Western controlled-media darlings, who choose US-controlled prisoner of warGermany as an 'escape' from US persecution?
Germany remains an occupied state, yet it's a magnet for American dissidents. Go figure.
-------/\/\/
[Click image to enlarge]
German elites that profit from and carry out American orders, and the Americans that pull the strings behind the scenes, are responsible for violations of German liberty, continued violation of German sovereignty and for violation of the German right to self-determination.
And it's the Americans who are therefore ultimately responsible for the present-day invasion of Europe, for the implementation of the policy that spells the destruction of Europe, and for the damage to European self-determination, in the short term, and the damage to all European people who are at risk and shall remain at perpetual risk bearing the costs and consequences of invasion of their ancestral lands and their unique societies, at the end of the day.
Among a number of negative consequences of mass immigration, the capacity to continue to exercise national self-determination is irrevocably damaged, in what can only be a perpetual, enduring and increasing cycle of divestment of native European host peoples in relation to foreign populations, as foreign populations grow biologically and through continued immigration.
Slavic
народ = narod = people
род = rod = to give birth to, to produce, to bring forth (crops)
also: family, clan
[source: 'Thinking about the Environment: Our Debt to the Classical and Medieval Past' - By T. M. Robinson, Laura Westra - page 88]
the prefix 'на' or 'na' = on
so народ = narod = people = on-birth
While the word 'narod' is applicable in general terms to all people, it is interesting that at its root this Slavic word appears to be comprised of the words for 'on' and 'birth'.
When a nation is no longer comprised of one people, whose political power is vested in that people, the capacity to exercise self-determination as a people is lost.
Merkel was merely mouthpiece here.
The US-Anglo alliance uses Germany, as if Germany were some independent, dynamic mover and shaker, when, in fact, they still control Germany behind the scenes, while making out the decisions are big, bad Germany's or something like that. That's the impression I have, especially when it comes to the EU.
TimeMagazine didn't waste any time sending the world's plebs its endorsement and propaganda 'positive' messaging.
-------/\/\/
TIME WARNER
STUDY IN CONTRASTS
E U R O P E
-------/\/\/
What's France's excuse, I wonder?
Funny how France and Britain, the WWII allied occupiers, aren't scapegoated like the Germans are for the European Union abomination that is their 'baby'.
The European Union is yet another US-Anglo empire (and Franco bloc) post-WWII concocted institution that is primarily a vehicle for American financial, corporate and political interests, in the ongoing post WWII exercise of American power over Europe.
Dr Wolfgang Schauble's remarks on the 'constitution' even refer to the alien concept of a 'united Europe', versus a Europe comprised of sovereign nations and sovereign peoples, as has been historically the case in Europe from time immemorial:
"... In the preamble 1949 it says the goal is to serve the peace of the world as an equal partner in a united Europe."[video ibid]
The controlled Western media and the US-Anglo political agenda serving 'humanitarian' shilling Western NGO's:
do not condemn the violation of rights of politically persecuted Germans (and their defenders), the designated ideological 'lepers' that are dutifully smeared in the press;
do not condemn the violation of the rights of native European populations that are subjected to invasion, deceit, political suppression, and decimation by invasion;
nor do they condemn the destruction of Europe and the destruction of the European peoples;
as the 'free press' is actually the corporate, controlled press and they, along with the Western NGO 'do-gooders', are in the business of maintaining and applauding the edifice that is US-Anglo led Western hypocrisy and farce.
Watch while they give each other self-congratulatory awards, as 'defenders' of values and principles they merely function to help exploit.
-------/\/\/
And Vladimir Putin is the 'dictator'? What lies and hypocrisy.
-------/\/\/
Imperial Russian Army Song Взвейтесь, соколы, орлами!
Anti-Zensur-Koalition
8th Internationale Konferenz
Speech Forbidden, Evidence Forbidden, Legal Defence Forbidden: The Reality of Freedom of Expression
Speaker: Sylvia Stolz Ivo Sasek Moderator / Announcer Our last speaker of the day will be speaking on the theme "Speech Forbidden, Evidence Forbidden, Legal Defence Forbidden." That's taking it to the next level [forbidding legal defence], and it relates to a still larger problem. This is a fully qualified lawyer, an Assessor Juris, and in listening to her it is particularly important that we don't let our judgment be influenced by what we have previously seen or heard. She really made the headlines a few years ago as a defence attorney. So let me briefly explain whom we are dealing with. This attorney is-- No, don't clap yet, we're not quite there. [laughs] This defence attorney has the courage of a lion. She is stronger than a man, and I have never met a woman with such a profile. She bravely stood up and took it upon herself to defendErnst Zundel in the famous case against him for so-called Holocaust denial. She was the trial lawyer of Ernst Zundel. During the legal proceedings she presented evidence to the court which would raise doubts regarding the official account of history. This caused a furore in the courtroom. And she was prohibited from speaking any further. This speech ban was ordered as she was presenting the arguments of the defendant. She was not allowed to argue the case and barred from listing more evidence. She ignored the speech ban and continued to submit evidence. She was then threatened with penalties if she persisted. And this defence attorney simply kept going. As it became too much for the authorities, she was arrested right there in the courtroom during her defence of the so-called 'Holocaust denier' Ernst Zundel. But not even this would silence her; if I remember correctly, they had her carried out and she continued to argue, she simply kept presenting evidence on behalf of her client. And for this she was imprisoned for almost three and a half years. Arrested in the courtroom and locked up. On top of this, she had to face 5 years of professional exclusion, through cancellation of her licence to work as an attorney, she was removed from the Association of German Lawyers. They threw her out, but we would like to carry her into our midst. I urge you to help her along. [applause]
US Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Senate Judiciary Committee admitted she asked FBI to examine if federal govt should take legal action 'climate change deniers'
RON PAUL INSTITUTE
Loretta Lynch Wants to Censor Climate Skeptics
By Ron Paul | Tuesday, 15 Mar 2016 03:47 PM
During her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committeelast week, Attorney General Loretta Lynchadmitted that she asked the FBI to examine whether the federal government should take legal action against so-called climate change deniers.
Lynch is not responding to any criminal acts committed by climate change skeptics. Instead, she is responding to requests from those frustrated that dissenters from the alleged climate change consensuses have successfully blocked attempts to create new government programs to fight climate change.
These climate change censorsclaim that the argument over climate change is settledand the deniers' success in blocking congressional action is harming the public. Therefore, the government must disregard the First Amendment and silence anyone who dares question the reigning climate change dogma.
This argument ignores the many reputable scientists who have questioned the magnitude, effects, and role of human action in causing climate change.
If successful, the climate change censors could set a precedent that could silence numerous other views. For example, many people believe the argument over whether we should audit, and then end, the Federal Reserve is settled. Therefore, the deniers of Austrian economics are harming the public by making it more difficult for Congress to restore a free-market monetary policy. So why shouldn't the government silence Paul Krugman?
The climate change censorship movement is part of a larger effort to silence political speech. Other recent examples include the IRS' harassment of tea party groups as well as that agency's (fortunately thwarted) attempt to impose new rules on advocacy organizations that would have limited their ability to criticize a politician's record in the months before an election.
The IRS and many state legislators and officials are also trying to force public policy groups to hand over the names of their donors. This type of disclosure can make individuals fearful that, if they support a pro-liberty group, they will face retaliation from the government.
Efforts to silence government critics may have increased in recent years; however, the sad fact is the U.S. government has a long and shameful history of censoring speech. It is not surprising that war and national security have served as convenient excuses to limit political speech. So-called liberal presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt both supported wartime crackdowns on free speech.
Today, many neoconservatives are using the war on terror to justify crackdowns on free speech, increased surveillance of unpopular religious groups like Muslims, and increased government control of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Some critics of U.S. foreign policy have even been forbidden to enter the country.
Many opponents of government restrictions on the First Amendment and other rights of Muslims support government actions targeting so-called "right-wing extremists." These fair-weather civil liberties defenders are the mirror image of conservatives who support restricting the free speech rights of Muslims in the name of national security, yet claim to oppose authoritarian government. Defending speech we do not agree with is necessary to effectively protect the speech we support.
A government that believes it can run our lives, run the economy, and run the world will inevitably come to believe it can, and should, have the power to silence its critics.
Eliminating the welfare-warfare state is the key to protecting our free speech, and other liberties, from an authoritarian government.
This article first appeared on the Ron Paul Institute website.
Ron Paul is a physician, author, and former Republican congressman. Paul also is a two-time Republican presidential candidate, and the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in the 1988 U.S. presidential election. His latest book is “Swords into Plowshares." For more of Ron Paul's reports, Go Here Now.
Freedom of speech restrictions an issue at universities
March 7, 2016
EXTRACTS
The 501(c)(3) is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that defines nonprofit institutions, including most public and private colleges and universities, as tax-exempt. Taxpayers essentially give financial benefits to schools based on the educational value they offer.
“Institutions often cite their tax-exempt status to justify banning political activity by students on campus or forbidding them to use university resources, broadly defined, for political purposes,” Catherine Sevcenko, director of litigation for Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said.
The IRS has concluded that the restriction on political activity does not apply to individual academic community members, Sevcenko said. Since FIRE’s founding in 1999, the organization has won 385 cases for students and faculty at 250 colleges and universities, advancing freedom of expression for over 3.5 million students.
Private universities are not the only higher educational institutions that have attempted to impose limits on speech. Private universities have no legal requirements for freedoms, but public universities have a legal obligation to allow students to speak freely. That’s because the First Amendment refers only to government suppression of speech.
The University of Oklahoma sent an email to its community during the 2008 election cycle stating that personal university email accounts “may not be used to endorse or oppose a candidate, including the forwarding of political humor/commentary.” OU President David Boren revoked the email after extensive criticism.
...
[Princeton Open Campus Coalition]
Zuckerman founded the coalition to maintain Princeton’s vibrant culture after Princetonstudents led by the Black Justice Leagueoccupied President Christopher Eisgruber’s office in November and issued demands, including creation of cultural spaces on campus and cultural training.
And why would the US tax office be policing the political freedom of expression?
That's an abuse of powers: it's not their role to limit criticism of politicians pending election, so they're exceeding their function.
It looks like they've since ruled that they cannot limit the expression of 'individuals' on campus, but I take it that means politically based groups on campus remain subject to on-campus censorship?
If they have altered their position on political censorship on campus, look what it has taken: 385 winning legal cases. That's enormous.
Too bad if you cannot find legal backers to protect rights.
Two hundred and fifty educational institutions tried to censor and deprive students of their rights. That's also massive.
The US Attorney General sending the FBI on a mission to find a pretext to censor global warming 'deniers' is scary.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
