« December 2009 | Main | February 2010 »
well, there it is.
"we want our money back."
the quote of the evening from the exit polling on brown versus coakley. that is about it in a nutshell. we want to be paid for our work, our creativity, and our enterprise. we don't want to pay taxes to support failed programs, nor to pay for pipe dreams, nor to pay the bills of a corrupt democratic party machine.
seems simple enough. apparently it escaped ms. coakley.
john jay @ 01.19.2010
Posted at 09:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
title: no. 3 of the trilogy -- trilogy on wilders’ “hate speech” trial -- it is time for a marbury vs. madison moment in euro union jurisprudence, else the whole enterprise devolves into chaos and violence in the contest over immigration.
marbury v. madison.
this case remains a head scratcher, frustrating law students (at least this one) and historians alike as to the precise nature of its holdings, and exciting exclamations over the deep ironies of its historical setting. the official citation to the case is as follows, william marbury v. james madison, secretary of state of the united states, 5 u.s. 137, 1 cranch 137, 2 l.ed. 60 (1803). the case was filed on an application for an order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue under the original jurisdiction of the supreme court of the united state, to have the parties appear and show cause why a commission directing the appointment of petitioner marbury not be delivered to him, so that he could take office.
i hope all that is clear to you.
the history of this is a delightful read, and i heartily recommend to you the wikipedia version, which is pretty complete and pretty accessible, at least in getting a fundamental sense of the factual background of why the case came about.
understanding the legal holding of the case is just a bit more difficult. you may get a chuckle out of that assertion if you have read the wikipedia article already, for a more complicated factual setting is difficult to imagine, including the fact that john marshall who wrote the supreme court opinion, part of which concerned whether the court had the authority to either direct or prohibit the delivery of the commission appointing magistrate to him, … , that same john marshall was the ministerial officer who was directed as john adams’s secretary of state to deliver the commission to marbury. see wiki.
understanding the legal holding is more difficult because the principle for which the case has come to be understood, that being the primacy of the supreme court as an institution to decide upon the constitutional legality of the actions or enactments of the other two branches of government, was never before the court.
john marshall was a federalist.
one may probably safely assume that he agreed with the following propositions as related in federalist 78, authored by alexander hamilton:
if it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the constitution. it is not otherwise to be supposed, that the constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. it is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. a constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. it, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. if there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
there was more at work in the above paragraph than just the prejudice or animus hamilton’s logic toward one of the branches not being subject to the “checks and balances” of the other two when it came to this issue of supremacy on interpreting the law. hamilton also had history firmly in his vision, and he had before him the strengths and weaknesses of the parliamentary system, and he quite obviously did not want to see the supremacy of parliament in all things placed upon american government. for a full text of federalist no. 78, please see here.
and so, apparently, when john marshall got to a place in his analysis, and who knows whether he saw it coming or not, where he saw conflict in the statute before him recently passed by congress and in the organic text of the constitution, he asserted the right & authority of the supreme court to both declare the conflict and make an analysis of why it existed, and to declare the constitution supreme. again, keep in mind that this was not an open and shut proposition in all cases, given the descent from and the heritage of the supremacy of the british parliamentarian scheme, in which all these founding fathers had grown up. in the english system, the constitution is what parliament declares it to be, and if a parliamentary enactment is in conflict with established rules, the old gives way to the new enactment.
john marshall’s decision, whether founded in whole cloth, or whether founded in sweet reason and logical analysis, solved this issue.
and, in so doing, he established the primacy of the judiciary to say what the law is.
by so doing, john marshall interposed the court as an impediment upon legislative designs to usurp the protections afforded the people by their ancient liberties, and by the protections afforded them in the constitution and bill of rights.
just as john locke and sir william blackstone had advocated, john marshall assured that the courts would block the tyranny of a legislature without respect for constitutional limitations upon its power.
europe’s only hope for salvation from the tyranny of the euro union legislatures.
this is geert wilders’ only hope for salvation, as well. and, it is to be admitted, this hope hangs by a pretty slender reed.
in the end, geert wilders’ fate will be decided upon the interplay of these several provisions of the european union charter of fundamental rights, discussed at some length in previous posts, and found here. the provisions of the charter are at the bottom portion of the post.
the relevant provisions of the charter provide:
article 10
freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
C 303/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 14.12.2007
article 11
freedom of expression and information
1. everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
article 15
freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
1. everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
2. every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.
3. nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.
article 19
protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition
1. collective expulsions are prohibited.
article 20
equality before the law
everyone is equal before the law.
C 303/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 14.12.2007
article 21
non-discrimination
1. any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
article 22
cultural, religious and linguistic diversity
the union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
article 52
scope and interpretation of rights and principles
1. any limitationon the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only [: a.]if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or [:b.]the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
article 54
prohibition of abuse of rights
nothing in this charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein. nothing in this charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.
it is absolutely astounding how a document which is entitled “a declaration of universal right” prohibits everyone from doing anything not allowed by governmental edict. it is george orwell’s vision made incarnate, and immortalized.
it would appear that the bureaucrats of the european union have been hatching their immigration schemes for years, and have been designing for some years to make it virtually impossible for members of european society, or any nascent political opposition to their scheme, to give voice to their opposition to muslim immigration.
the provision make mass expulsions illegal, article 19. no discrimination shall be allowed, article 21. no act will be allowed which is calculated to diminish freedoms belonging to others, article 54. everyone has the freedom to religion, article 10.
and, while everyone has the freedom of expression, article 11, such freedom of expression is not without limitation. that limitation is found in article 52, and this article provides freedom of expression may be limited if “… in the general interests recognized by the union.”
in short, the euro union has recognized that it is in its general interests to both promote and promulgate north african muslim immigration into europe on a massive scale. the euro union will also recognize that promoting civic accord amongst muslims immigrants and its citizens is in the general interests of the european union.
in short, the euro union decides what is in its best interests, and it decides as well, by that amorphous hopeless indefinable phrase, whether or not geert wilders speech has transgressed on those “general interests,” whatever they may be.
he has no defense.
there is no defense that can be made to charges which are indefinable, to the extent that he is accused of “un-dutchness.” it is nancy pelosi’s “un-american” observation, all over again: where do you think she gets this horsecrap?
as noted in previous essays, this is not the application of law in wilders’ prosecution, this is simply the application of brute force.
the only opposition is armed rebellion, and the killing of this bloated bureaucracy before it destroys europe entirely.
unless.
unless some european judges get some balls, some intellectual courage. not likely, is it?
european natural law.
there is a brief glimmer of hope that perhaps there is a hint of “natural law” coursing through the veins, … , well, that is silly, to suppose that anything “courses” through the veins of a european jurist, … , so, let us just make it, … , a hint of “natural law” wending its way through the veins of some european judges, somewhere.
pray to g_d that wilders sits before them tomorrow. which is basically right now in europe.
i came across these passages quite by accident at wiki, looking for something else. there may be a strain of independence running through european judges, who otherwise do their very best to imitate soulless lackeys.
i am going to set these passages out, and suggest that just perhaps, the judges in wilders’ case might recognize a component in european political right and liberty which does not depend upon the indulgence of government, and that there is an element of natural law sustaining the europeans’s right to say what they please, without having to tow the exact party light of the regime in place.
just who in the fuck can determine what is agreeable to everybody on every situation.
but, follows the little passage at wikipedia about the european union law’s flirtation with a natural law concept, e.g., rights belonging to europeans as a matter of fundamental principle independent of governmental grant:
soon after the entry into force of the eec treaty, the community established itself as a major political entity with policy ramifications beyond its economic aims. in 1964 the european court of justice handed down its decision in costa v. enel, in which the court decided that community law should take precedence over conflicting national law. this meant that national government could not escape what they had agreed to at a european level by enacting conflicting domestic measures, but it also potentially meant that the eec legislator could legislate unhindered by the restrictions imposed by fundamental rights provisions enshrined in the constitutions of member states. this issue came to a head in 1970 in the case of handelsgesellschaft case when a german court ruled that a piece of eec legislation infringed the german basic law. on a reference from the german court, the [european court of justice] ruled that whilst the application of community law could not depend on its consistency with national constitutions, fundamental rights did form part an "integral part of the general principles of [european community] law" and that inconsistency with fundamental right could form the basis of a successful challenge to a european law.
in ruling as it did in handelsgesellschaft the ecj had, in effect, created a doctrine of unwritten rights which bound the community institutions. while the court's fundamental rights jurisprudence was approved by the institutions in 1977 and a statement to that effect by inserted into the treaties by the maastricth treaty, it was only in 1999 that the european council formally went about the process of initiating the drafting a codified catalogue of fundamental rights for the e.u.
now, wikipedia text is hardly basis for legal analysis, not “binding,” as you might say, upon european jurists. neither in that regard is the opinion of an old country lawyer from n.e. oregon. laughing. but, the author of the paragraphs above is no dumb bunny. he is suggesting that there may be some small glimmer of a hope that european judges may yet recognize in their jurisprudence some limitation on legislative power, and some well spring of protection in individuals of a “natural law” origin of individual rights, which are immutable by politics or jurisprudence. yay!! john locke, sir thomas blackstone, as it were.
the language is in the case holdings to suggest that this may be so. there may be a glimmer of hope in all of this, if a dutch judge who has the balls to say this speech of wilders is recognized as valid in dutch law, and i am not going to put him in prison for it, and i don’t care what the euro union politicians want me to do.
just a glimmer of hope, in all this. but, not very damned much.
our own alexander hamilton and john marshall recognized over 200 years ago the danger of an unchecked sovereign whose very edicts & whim reigned supreme. their solution was to impose a judicial counterbalance to such power, with the authority to analyze the law, and to declare whether or not that law was counter to the supreme law of the land, and to declare what the supreme law of the land is.
european judges better figure a way out of the same institutional problems posed by and with the euro union, and the european “hate speech” statutes as interpreted against the government backdrop of the universal declaration of right. if they do not fashion some sort of institutional check on the euro union and its legislature, they follow the path straight to hell.
and, what problem is that you say? (i know you are not that dumb, but, i have to set up the next argument, and a rhetorical question works as well as anything.)
well, it is the problem posed by a governmental entity with the authority to say what “the general interest of the euro union” is on an ad hoc basis, without definition or notice of what that may be, and, really, without defining in the slightest from where, from whom, and whence that declaration may issue. it is a most curious dictatorial power. with the soviets, it was lenin, and stalin, and even the latter day dictators from who the power flowed. with the genial inoffensive mollusks of the european union, the amorphous absolute power to say any damned thing you please, and make it law, flows from nowhere and from anywhere, without accountability or source.
it will end up imprisoning and killing just the same, however, and you can mark my words on it. we see already the “un-dutchness” in the wilders prosecution. we saw the authority for leftist hooligans to attack nationalistic protestors peaceably assembling, without provocation, and as police stood by, doing nothing, … , obviously on the directive from someone somewhere not to interfere or enforce the law. and, you will notice, that no muslim cleric in europe has ever been prosecuted under “hate speech” law, even those advocating the beheading of tony blair and queen elizabeth, although in her case no one probably would have noticed anyway.
there is no law in europe. only leftist orthodoxy.
in short, unless the european judges figure a way to place some limitation of some kind upon the ability to issue such pronouncements, the euro union is going to make a very swift transition from “soft” totalitarianism, to very “hard core” totalitarianism.
i cannot define “hard core” totalitarianism very well, but, i recognize it when i see it, and it is writ large all over this political show trial of geert wilders. it is enough to make chris matthews’s leg tingle, and to give b. insane obama a very large stiffy of envy.
this degenerates into civil war, if the euro’s are to retain any freedom.
or, it doesn’t.
i can only say to the euros what samuel adams said to us, so many years ago, and even unto now.
"if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. may your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" —samuel adams
the euros are about 2 seconds away from being soviet citizens, and about 3 seconds away from the gulags.
if geert wilders is imprisoned, they are in the gulags, only they just haven’t made them very big just yet. those european bastards can gussy it up all they want, but if wilders is found guilty of this, he is as much a political prisoner as alexander solzhenitsyn and he will sup at his fish eyed soup, either from his breakfast nook or from a prison cell, watching his political party go up in smoke as it is disbanded.
the euro union uses “hate speech” to crush all opposition to its immigration schemes, and that is the long and the short of it.
and, if euro judge’s don’t figure away to put the check on the excess of the euro union, they reduce the choices facing the europeans to insurrection to preserve liberty, or the comfort of the light chains of the euro soviet union, and the european gulag.
i say we run the european people guns, suitable for fighting an army of occupation. i say we help them blow the fuck out of those euro union politicians, bureaucrats and intellectuals who impose tyranny upon them and destroy nations and european national heritage. i say we blow those bastard mollusks straight to the hell they deserve.
john jay @ 01.19.2010
p.s. well, i am finished, except to run the spellchecker through all this. i am going to see if i can find the election returns on coakley vs. brown, and see how much ammunition i have to load up the rest of the winter. to assay how close we move to this legal chaos in europe.
Posted at 08:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
the "article."
included below, you will find an entire exchange of emails culminating in my letter to norma smith, a member of the state of washington house of representatives. in her otherwise cordial letter to her constituent, she remarks that public gun ownership is a right “given to” the public by the constitutions of the united states and of washington: how sweet of her to think that she has “given” us such rights, and how fundamentally mistaken. such ignorance of the law of our land, of our political heritage, is absolutely unforgivable. as a state legislator she should know better, she should have some inkling of the law of the land, and, as demonstrated by her public utterance, either she doesn’t have a clue about the source of our liberties, or she is not very careful about the way she writes, or thinks, about them.
such poor expression of fundamental concepts by ms. smith, a law maker, leads eventually to an equally poor understanding of them (or perhaps resulted from same), and then, ultimately, to a lack of any comprehension at all of what she speaks about. and, make no mistake about it, she misstates the law, and displays a frightening lack of comprehension about our political heritage, about the philosophy that gave it life and sustained it for so long, and about the public law derivative of these things. sloppiness of expression inevitably leads to sloppiness of thought.
state representative norma smith is a dangerous person. she is not intentionally dangerous, and is actually probably very well intentioned about protecting the liberties of her constituents: she did answer the letter, and she was very cordial, after all. but, she is not an ordinary person: she has been given through the electoral process a position in which she shepherds our liberties, and protects our rights, quite literally, a position of trust: to do so adequately, she needs to understand our rights and liberties, their dimension, and how they originated and exactly how the bill of rights has been enshrined to protect them from government encroachment. anyone who knows so little about such matters will be entirely without compunction about attempting to abridge them, for reasons misguided or ill intended. ignorance of such matters does not perform the trust she has been given, by us.
so, i may sound overly harsh, and it may look that i have seized upon what might be an inadvertent misstatement of something norma smith understands very well indeed, just to show off. but, she is the state representative, and she sought the office, and she is given the task of performing that office well. she simply has not done so in this letter to her constituent, because she evidently doesn’t know what she is talking about: she is to be held to her written word. so, she has to be properly informed. that is our job as citizens.
for those of you in europe who read these pages from time to time.—this is how we talk to our elected representatives, and we damn well expect them to listen. and, for members of our legislature, they should be reminded that they will have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers. (thank you, harlon carter and charlton heston, for first voicing that phrase. it is just such a precise way of enunciating the fact, that as citizens, we determine the parameters of those rights which we possess, and those rights and liberties that we will never voluntarily relinquish. period. the matter is not open to discussion. period.)
the thread follows. the emails speak for themselves.—
constituent: gun ban
dear representative smith:
your heart is in the right place, and since it is such a nice heart it should be joined by an equally informed intellect, a desirable joinder especially for someone in your line of work.
the essence of what i am going to relate for you is simple.--
rights and liberties are not conferred upon citizens in our country by the constitutions of the federal government or by the state governments. rights and liberties belong absolutely to the individual, and precede and exist before the formation of government, and are not ceded by individuals to government upon its formation except by formal expression.
this is called "natural law" theory, and it is the theory which is the foundation to our government, and it is the political theory which is recognized in the organic law of the federal government and the several states. not only is it theory that was recognized at the foundation of the government, but it is theory given vigor and renewal from time to time in the supreme courts of the states and in the supreme court of the united states, most recently in the case of heller vs. washington d.c., in which natural law theory was recognized as the bedrock for the right of individuals to own firearms.
you may ask, how could this be?
these theories were enunciated and espoused by seminal writers/philosophers of our political heritage, being no less than roseau, montesquieu, lock and sir william blackstone, the great compiler of the english common law (commentaries on the laws of england), and an advocate of natural law theory.
the greatest proponent of natural law of them all was john locke. he advanced the notion of a social compact existing between the ruler, who we may as well call the magistrate because that is where we end up, and it means all government and not just judges though it is they who announce the legitimacy of law (you may recognize this), and those who are ruled, usually called subjects by locke.
the theory goes like this.-- people live in a natural state, prior to government. it is a state in which each man has unfettered liberty. it is a state in which each man exercises and protects such liberty, and, as you might expect, this engenders conflict as such liberties and such people rub up against each other in the daily expression of those rights. life, in this state of nature, is not free of deadly conflict, either, as the matter goes. locke's formulation on government is that in order to achieve some degree of order, man cedes a bit of his liberty to the magistrate, and confers upon the magistrate the authority to decide such of man's disagreements as man submits, voluntarily, to the magistrate for decision, and man agrees to abide by those decisions in order to achieve desirable levels of order, and to reduce open violence and murder. arising from this are a whole host of mutual and reciprocal rights and obligations between the magistrate and his subject: for instance, the magistrate assumes the obligation to protect his citizens, while the citizens agree to confer obeisance upon the magistrate. he rules, they obey, ... , and he rules justly so long as they obey justly, and they obey as long as he rules justly. the corollary of this, is that if the magistrate rules unwisely or cannot protect his subjects, they no longer owe him any duty of fealty, and may rise up against the magistrate in rebellion, and reformulate the nature of their government.
please allow me to recommend to you a wonderful book, written during the course of the ratification process for our federal constitution in the form of periodic street pamphlets and newspaper editorials in support of ratification, and to meet arguments & debate against it, called the "federalist papers." the federalist papers were written by "publius," the pen-names for james madison, alexander hamilton, and john jay (who also wrote the state constitution of the state of new york, the "flag ship" of the fleet even in those days) who later became the first chief justice of the united states. (that is the proper way to say it.)
the "federalist papers" are recognized as the pre-eminent expression of political theory ever written by americans. they are also recognized as part of the "organic documents" of our form of government and society, along with the declaration of independence and the constitution of the united states: this recognition has been by scholars no less than clinton rossitor, and no less authoritatively than by the supreme court of the united states. you can look it up in the united states code annotated, which has a preliminary section devoted to such matters in the first volume.
this is not surprising, is it?
alexander hamilton was george washington's aide de camp in the revolutionary war, and became the first secretary of the treasury in washington's cabinet, and a recognized leader of the federalist party. he wrote the bulk of the federalist papers under the guise of "publius."
john jay was prominent in new york state, writing the first constitution which served ably until the mid 1900's. jay negotiated the peace of paris ending formal hostilities between the colonies and england. and, jay became the first chief justice of the united states, serving in that capacity until ill health prompted his resignation. so respected was he, that when it came time to select a third chief justice, he was offered the position, which he declined: john marshall was appointed instead, and the rest of the history of the supreme court was secured. jay wrote only 4 articles of the papers, one of them being recognized as a core advocacy for the constitution.
james madison became the fourth president of the united states, as well as having previously served as majority leader of the house of representative under washington, and having written about 1/3 of the federalist papers.
it is no surprise that even to this day when guidance is needed on the deciding of issues of constitutional magnitude having to do with the structure and function of government in a federal state, the "federalist papers" are turned to. it remains the authoritative oracle in such matters.
do you know why? well, because it is brilliantly written.
which brings me to my close.--
one of the things brilliantly written about in the federalist papers is the right of individuals to own guns. and, one of the places that the supreme court recently looked to on this issues was the federalist papers. hey, how about that. in the federalist papers, jay, hamilton and madison asserted that gun ownership was a bulwark against government oppression and governmental usurpation and infringement upon basic right and liberty. they asserted very clearly the right of the people to rise up and overthrow tyrannical government, to throw out tyrants, and they recognized the role of firearms in such situations as a legitimate expression of the political liberty owing to each free man.
think of this.
these men were sober men, lawyers, scholars, founding fathers and leaders of this great nation at her birth. they were not light nor frivolous men. and, to a man, they participated in, lead, and fought in their respective manners in revolution. they had taken the gun in hand, as it were, and defeated a usurping government. their writings, in this regard then, are to be given some credence, and some recognition as being authoritative on the subject, as indeed, they were and are in heller vs. washington d.c.
read again, ms. smith, if you will, the bill of rights. the first, second, ... , and, 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution. read those provisions which state that those rights and powers not expressly delegated to the government by the formation of the government, in the constitution, remain inviolate, inalienable and fully formed in the people of the united states of america.
and, among these rights are the right to own guns, to assert one's inalienable right of self defense, and to assert one's liberties and rights.
and, if i may be so bold, ms. smith, i think that you ought, as a legislator, to sit down and completely read or re-read the "federalist papers", and you ought to delve into the writings of john locke and sir william blackstone. i can assure you, that almost to a man and a woman, the leaders of the american revolution had the writings of both men in their libraries, and that they were intimately familiar with them. if you read all of these things, re-read jefferson's declaration of independence, and re-read the constitution and the bill of rights, and john locke and sir william blackstone come shining through.
john jay
whitman college, b.a. political science, 1971
university of oregon school of law, j.d., 1977
john jay
136 s.e. 8th avenue
milton freewater, oregon 97862
phone: 509.307.5272
from: _______@outdrs.net
date: tue, 19 jan 2010 06:08:35 -0800
subject: fwd: constituent: gun ban
to: _________________
pretty good, except for her understanding that the constitution gives rights. it guarantees rights we already have!
_____________________
begin forwarded message:
From: "Smith, Rep. Norma" <Smith.Norma@leg.wa.gov>
Date: January 18, 2010 4:01:47 PM PST
To: ________________________
Subject: RE: Constituent: Gun ban
[you ever notice how important people like to use “all caps” and “bold” for their email names & addresses? kind of like yelling, ain’t it?: jjay. laughing.]
dear ___,
thank you for your email, and for taking the time to share your comments regarding senate bill 6396. this bill was referred to the senate judiciary committee on january 13th and has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing. i oppose this type of legislation, as these regulations simply make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms - a right given to them through both our state and national constitutions.
public safety is at the heart of all we do as legislators. our families and individuals deserve to feel safe and secure in their communities. we must focus our laws on the criminals, especially those who use firearms to commit their crimes, and keeping those who choose to abuse their freedoms off the streets. as your legislator, i will continue to advocate for tougher sentences, and do what i can to ensure that violent felons serve their full time. placing more restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
again, thank you for your email. i will be certain to keep your comments in mind, and do hope you will keep in touch.
warm regards,
norma smith
state representative
10th legislative district
-----Original Message----
from: ___________________
sent: thursday, january 14, 2010 6:41 am
to: bailey, rep. barbara
cc: smith, rep. norma; haugen, sen. mary margaret
subject: constituent: gun ban
……………………………
from: mr. ________(constituent)
bill: 6396 (against)
subject: gun ban
message:
honorable senators and representatives:
as a retired police officer, as well as retired from the wa national guard, where i was a member of the marksmanship unit for 16 years, i take offense when lawmakers seek to use horrendous incidents to further a political agenda that otherwise would be unpopular. the so called assault weapon ban passed by the clinton administration was proven to be ineffective and was dropped after 10 years. because one person uses a particular type of firearm to commit a crime, is no reason to punish those who didn't do it.
i can tell you, from experience, that the only effect of the clinton assault weapon ban, was to make certain firearms much more in demand, therefore more expensive, as well as the magazines for them and other restricted firearms. there were other unintended consequences of this sorry piece of legislation, too numerous to mention. the very title of the bill is without fact. the fact is, true assault weapons are already banned in the state of washington, because assault weapons are fully automatic, (machine guns).
there are a great many people in the state of washington that own and use firearms for hunting, sport and self defense, that would never consider using one to commit a crime. because one or two miscreants choose to do so is not a good reason to restrict the rights of those people, especially after such a law has already been proven to be ineffective.
________________________
distinguished rifleman
member, president's hundred and governor's twenty
note: we are 99% sure that this constituent is in your district
response requested: mr. ______ has requested a response to this message
Posted at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
title: no. 1 -- trilogy on wilders “hate speech” trial -- the private letters -- re: european tyranny
related posts:
very complete details on the geert wilders “hate speech” prosecution in the nethlands. atlashrugs2000, the blog on the wilders situation.
geert wilders speaks against muslim immigration. wintersoldier2008.
euro-union restrictions on free speech: research notes . wintersoldier2008, on restricting opposition to euro-union immigration policies. article 52, charter of fundamental rights of the european union, on the regulation of “european right”:
article 52. 1. any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only [: a.]if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the union or [:b.]the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
european “free speech” protections: they are a sham. wintersoldier2008, on the regulation of “free speech” by euro government.
the complete list of european “hate speech” laws, nation by nation. wikipedia. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech . and, wintersoldier.
the essence of law, of legal standards, is precisely that. law is, that there be known standards of behavior to which one conforms, and with the understanding that exceeding the limits of acceptable behavior carries the threat of punishment with it. thus, you know that if you hit someone on the nose without legal excuse or personal license, that you are exposed to prosecution for assault.
law is knowledge, and a fairness of process. yes, law is ultimately in any system coercive: it is applied power, even when done most gently. but law which is applied wholly without standards, wholly by fiat, and which is arbitrary, capricious and based solely on the exercise of brute political power is tyranny.
it is as simple as that.
this fundamental quality of fairness and notice is precisely that which is lacking in the prosecutions of geert wilders in the netherlands, and of elisabeth wolff in austria. those who push wilders’ prosecution accuse him of being “un-dutch,” of all things: you may rest assured that in no statute or court decision is the term “un-dutch” defined, nor are the precise parameters of just what one must do or so in order to become “un-dutch” laid out.
it is purely an ad hoc determination, and no prior standard of conduct is established or recognized by which to judge the standards of behavior deemed “criminal.”
it is not a society of law that prosecutes wilders and wolff.
it is a society of men that prosecutes them. and, they are partisan in their zeal, and interested only in stamping out opposition to the policies they intend to impose on europe. and, they will eliminate anyone in their path under any pretext.
what is happening to geert wilders in europe, in a dutch court room tomorrow, is as naked a showing of tyrannical power as any show trial that ever occurred in stalinist russia: it is not a trial, it is a dumbshow, a farce, and stands as much a blanket condemnation of holland and the euro union as anything imaginable. it is naked tyranny.
it is naked tyranny. period.
it is a system adopted in canada.
it is a system some would import into this country.
this post consists of letters recently written by me re: wilders, and re: the euro union, and re: gun ownership. there is, in addition, a letter written in response by a correspondent in europe.
they speak for themselves. they are, however, inspired by events associated with geert wilders’s prosection, for being “un-dutch.” yes, you read that correctly.
the letters.--
1. letter to atlasshrugs, commenting on the wilder show “trial.” oh, yes, he will be convicted. link to the comments section, which is very good: atlasshrugs has good readers: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/january-20th-wilders-trial-all-could-be-lost.html#comments . the following is a link to the article, which is a very good post, btw: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/january-20th-wilders-trial-all-could-be-lost.html
choi, my friends:
to understand what is happening to wilders, you must understand the differences between american law and its well springs, and european law and its view of rights.
i will be brief.--
in american jurisprudence, and in american political philosophy, the liberty and right belonging to individuals derives from rights which exist prior to and independent of the formation of government. the formation of government does not diminish those rights. and, the formation of government does not confer such rights.
thus, it is in our bill of rights that government is prohibited from diminishing or infringing upon those rights. and, thus, it is in the 9th and 10th amendments that powers not expressly delegated to government are retained in the people, undiminished and inalienable, e.g., they can neither be taken nor given away. period.
european law, european government, is not premised upon such views.
in the european view of things, such things as rights and liberties are shaped by community, and by consensus.
the clearest expression of this is in the european union charter or universal declaration of human right. thus, in the articles in that charter, we find protected the rights of free speech, and freedom of association, and the rights of freedom of religious expression, association and faith.
well, what's the damn difference, you ask?
these rights are not absolute in the individual, they are rights of the community. and, as rights belonging to the community, they are regulated by the community.
if you will read the european union charter, or universal declaration of human rights, you will find in the final articles that none of the rights association with this case are absolute to the person who asserts them, but that the rights are expressly limited and regulable in order to uphold other values, such as community tranquility, community order, and also to protect those rights recognized in others.
thus, in our system of law, assuming a person does not comment defamation, e.g., speaks the truth, and further assuming creates no "clear and present danger" of violence or discord, oliver wendell holmes formulation, that person is free to say as he thinks on any subject. to attack islam. to defend christianity. to assert the importance of preserving heritage and values.
that is not the case under either european union law, or under the domestic law of holland. a person may speak the truth, but if in so doing he threatens to interrupt domestic tranquility, or if infringes upon the rights of worship or freedom of association of others, then in order to preserve the values inhering in all members of the community, and in the preservation of the community itself, the european law may balance the interests involved, and may restrict the right of one to protect the interests of another.
in short, rights are not absolutely held by the individual, they are balanced and regulated between individuals by the community.
it is a profound difference. choi, the person who uttered the statement that caused you to grasp, accurately describes the state of the law in the "animal farm" that is europe. thus, a person may speak absolute truth about islam. it is no defense to a prosecution under the dutch "hate speech" laws, because even if the statement is true, it is regulable if it causes community discord or threatens the religious liberties of others.
and, who decides if wilders has done so, if he has upset the balance of the community values?
why, the dutch government, in the form of the judges and prosecutors who have brought this "case" before the court.
do they apply clearly enunciated and elucidated concepts, honed by centuries of jurisprudence honed against the rigors of real life politics and history? (as, i would suggest, is done in american law.)
they do not.
this is the danger, this is the tyranny of what wilders undergoes. it is not that he is charged with violating law. he is charged, in fact, with violating the political orthodoxy of the leftist community which prosecutes. there are no legal standards with which he is charged as having violated. he is simply charged with having violated "political correctness," for lack of a better word.
he is charged, literally and precisely, as related in pamela's post, for being "un-dutch," a concept which appears absolutely ridiculous on its face, but a concept which is serious enough to place geert wilders in prison, to have considerable economic penalty imposed upon him and his political party in criminal and civil fines, and which may cause his political party to be eventually "de-certified" from participation in dutch politics, and banned from the same.
phillipe de winter suffered this in belgian, including the de-certification of his party in which he had a leadership position, for saying, "i am an islamaphobe."
pamela and i have explained in recent posts the fact that the left, which controls the euro union and the euro-med, intends to bring massive islamic immigration into europe in the next years.
this aim cannot be successful in the governments of the euro union cannot quell social unrest and disturbance associated with "native" populations opposing such immigration, not to mention rallying political opposition to it.
who decides what is community tranquility? well, it is whatever the governmental apparatus operating through its judges decides what it is. and, to have tranquility while this immigration process is undergone, means that it cannot be upset by people who speak against it, or speak against the influence or impact of those whom the european union wants to bring into the continent.
wilders has no defense.
truth is not a defense.
justice is not a defense, because he is in no position to assert that which is in the absolute possession of his accusers.
legal standards offer no protection, precisely because there are no legal standards to assert. he simply will be found guilty of doing something to upset political and social tranquility, and quite likely it will never have been found against any person anywhere else. it doesn't matter.
and, it should be absolutely clear, wilders will have no ability to either assert his own view or criticize the view of his prosecutors, because they are the ones who decide if his conduct has violated the standards they have just made up.
choi.
you must understand.
wilders does not possess individual rights under the system as it is designed.
the community has the rights. the community decides how those rights are to be balanced between and amongst members of the community who may be in conflict, and resolves the conflict in order to suppress the conflict. "truth," as observed the "openbaar ministerie," is not a concern.
peace and quiet and order are the concerns.
as defined by the state of holland. and the euro union. did i mention that this is precisely who prosecutes wilders for being "undutch?"
wilders has no ground to stand on, because it shifts at the whim of his accusers.
they are the ones who decide, of course, what it is to be dutch. and, they have decided wilders ain't it, as they have already decided that he is "undutch."
friends, i will say what is repeated below.--
there is absolutely no law in this proceeding against wilders. there is only politics, and the will of the european left as it administers the european union. there is, moreover, lots of government.
the only thing left to the europeans if they are to resist this, is armed insurrection. they will have to kill their oppressors to rid themselves of their oppressors.
buy guns. buy ammunition. something evil this way comes. to a neighborhood near you. soon.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
p.s. friends, you may google a listing of the european "hate speech" laws discussed here. you may also google a copy of the european union, treaty of lisbon, universal declaration of the rights of man.
i don't think that you will understand a word of what i have said, unless you understand these documents.
but, if you understand anything, understand this.--
there is no law in this proceeding. there is only politics, and political power.
2. a letter to elisabeth wolff, also under prosecution in austria for hate speech, in reply to her submission to a post at this blog:
elisabeth:
i was in attendance last year for geert wilders presentation [at the event put on by pamela geller of atlasshrugs], and it was an incredibly rousing event. the room was packed, and people were excited to see geert because pamela had done a lot of work with him before, including a couple of video logs.
……………………
she set the tone with introductory remarks, and when wilders took the stage he was greeted with shouts of "geert, geert, geert ... " from a crowd he had never met before. he was quite visibly moved.
when he explained his situation in holland, which most people knew from atlasshrugs, he received a lot of vocal support and encouragement, ... , and, again, i think that he was rather taken aback by the enthusiasm from an american crowd, on the issues that impact him vis a viz free speech, and that control all europeans from expressing their feelings on islam, and on muslim immigration.
we americans take our freedom of speech, and our rights to gun ownership, very seriously, and regard them as fundamental to any concept of liberty.
i have read and commented on the euro declaration of right, which ostensibly "guarantees" freedom of expression and freedom of association, and which is superficially modeled upon our own "bill of rights," itself derivative of the english magna charta.
but, american views of liberty find a different well spring than european views. our views our based upon john locke and william blackstone, and have their origins in english views of natural law. in our view, our philosophy of things, our rights as men devolved prior to the formation of government, and are not dependent upon the existence of government, and are not given to us by declaration of government.
these liberties and rights exist in us independently, and they are inalienable: they can neither be taken away, nor can they be given away. they cannot be alienated. thus, our bill of rights says that congress/government can make no law infringing on that right.
the right exists in each one of us.
as i have said many times, in my view, the extent & parameter of my expression of my views, and my freedom to express them, is determined by one person, and one person only, and that is me. i would look very dimly indeed on anyone who disagreed with me, or who tried to limit what i say.
in return, i speak civilly and respectfully, but, i speak.
the [view] now taken by english/british [the brits have basically extinguished the magna charta and have replaced it with their own “declaration of right”] and euro view are precisely the opposite.
the euro declaration of right says nice things, utters some platitudes about speech, but the telling remarks are saved for the last articles, wherein the declaration says that such rights of expression and association are to be balanced against the values and interests of the community in achieving and maintaining harmony, and equality and justice, and that anything that disturbs this harmony and community tranquility is forbidden, and can be deemed impermissible to utter.
here is precisely the rub. who determines this balance?
in your case, in geert wilder's case, it is manifestly obvious that those who are in control of the governmental apparatus are to determine what is permitted, and what is not, and when the community or a protected group within the community has been insulted or affronted by the remarks of another.
in your case, in wilder's, it is a panel of judges who decide, based upon the prosecutorial remarks of another member of the governmental apparatus, and the expression of hurt feelings by those who invoke the law in order to silence critics.
in short, the law is applied to protect islam because the euro union wants to foist muslim immigration into europe on a very massive scale, and wants to silence any unrest amongst the indigenous or native populations. as applied in europe right now, racism is any remark that tries to resist the imposition of the government's view of things is to be accepted, and that islam is the protected institution all over europe.
it is quite pernicious.
………………………………
[you should simply] shoot [your] oppressors. for that is precisely what they are. oh, they are [a] bland, pencil necked, buggy eyed, spineless wonders of [a] bureaucracy, perfect examples of orianna fallaci's european mollusks who have replaced manhood in government, ... , but, they are oppressors none the less.
in america we are armed. if the government thugs come to our doors to take our guns, or tell us what we cannot say when we know it is within acceptable parameters of civil discourse and political discussion, ... , why, we are prepared to just shoot the bastards, right at the threshold. i am entirely satisfied that the government will run out of thugs a long time before we run out of me. oh, i may not survive the combat to see the end, but i know when i take the weapon up that my judgment will be vindicated.
it is what locke called putting the trial of the issue before g_d, e.g., quite literally, a societal version of trial by combat. g_d's will to prevail. if man cannot decide, the great mandela will.
you are not in danger of being oppressed.
you are being oppressed in europe.
your freedom of speech is abridged, ... , in fact, it does not exist, because by definition [the parameters] what you say is determined by a "community standard" which is never defined, always shifting, and is always applied to suppress dissent in favor of whoever is favored by governmental apparatus. there is no defined or fixed standard by which a person can even gauge whether his speech is permitted or prohibited, sort of like having a vague sign saying "be nice to others" along the highway for a speed limit sign.
you have only the ad hoc judgment of agents of the state, intent on enforcing public opinion as to state policy.
you have no control over your politics or your elected and non-elected officials.
the euro union does treaties which bind all of europe without your approval or consultation. most of their arrangements with the euro-med partnership are done in private, hidden and the people not advised.
i have been absolutely amazed to find out that most european conservative bloggers, do not have a clue about euro med, or the fact that the president of the european commission, juan barroso has issued a communiqué to the e.u. parliament that his secretariat anticipates it will take 50 million north african muslims to fill absent worker's slots, due to the european propensity to engage in sexual intercourse for pleasure only and not to procreate any more europeans.
not a peep from the media, not a peep from the blogs, and sure as hell no peeps from the people. no twitter, as it were, from the twits. (in american slang, that is a pun and an insult. laughing. i think well turned, but you may disagree.)
[re: the “agreement of association” executed between the euro union/euro-med and the state of egypt] i have found and printed excerpts from the pdf, and provided the web address for all 355 pages of it, which constitutes the euro-med agreement with egypt, signed in 2001 and ratified in 2004, which details muslim immigration into europe, and which recites that it is to fulfill the task of providing workers for european industry. it also guarantees equal wages to muslim immigrants, access to and participation in social welfare and pension rights/obligations,and secures free access and travel to such people admitted into europe under the program, to travel, live, settle and do whatever, all over europe.
and, the documents talk of integrating such people into european society.
50 million of them.
the fact that such agreements were made largely in secret, that they remain unpublicized, and that it is illegal to speak against islam, or the presence of muslims in your society, or to oppose the government's policy on immigration, should the government find that damaging to the tranquility and security of the community, .... , all those things are oppression.
no way around it.
and, you are not going to be able to talk the marxist and leftist who occupy you government to give up their slots, or change their policies.
am i extreme?
probably.
but my conviction to speak my mind and the social benefit of me doing so, is sacred, and whatever unrest a big mouth like me causes from time to time, however prickly and bumpy i may be, is nothing compared to the dust up that is gonna happen in europe in about ten years, when people figure out they have been had.
…………………………
[i have read of you.] you were threatened with prosecution after one speech, and under the threat or actual notice of prosecution, you gave another speech in which you spoke your mind.
[that] is courage that i find [inestimable] . that is the essence of courage.
…………………………….
john jay
p.s. europeans need guns, and lots of them, and somebody has got to wake them up to the fact that right now they are little more than sheep. just a herd of docile sheep, being herded right down the road to slaughter, if lucky, and to dhimmitude, eternal dhimmitude, if not so lucky.
… you are a person to lead them from this.
3. letter to the comment section of jewishodysseus, and a reply back from the commenter who inspired it. the link to the comment: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4585230548913609409&postID=133404214926379163&pli=1 . the link to jewishodysseus: http://jewishodysseus.blogspot.com/
juniper in the desert:
i find it odd that the europeans do not take umbrage over the rather naked attempt by their leftist masters to replace them with muslims.
it is all so odd.
english and european people made europe into a standard bearer of freedom, intellect, enterprise and enlightened politics.
now the left schemes to replace you with a people, ... , shall we say, decidedly less accomplished in all of those attributes, and decidedly savage in some.
the irony, the sad oh so predictable irony of all of this, is that when the immigrant contract killers shall have annihilated the europeans they shall simply turn on their "masters" the euro leftist elites, and kill them as well.
it is all so tiresomely predictable.
yet, why do the euro elites not see the "end game" of this whole silly scheme, the scheme that they initiate.
yet, why do the europeans not rise up, throw off their imagined shackles and throw out the politicians who betray them, and cast the muslims from their shores?
why?
not much of a hardy band of brothers across the pond, in my estimation. way too damned civil for their own good.
john jay
“juniper in the desert” said:
john jay, everything you say is correct. they will turn on them. in fact you are being polite: it is nazism with internet and nuclear technology. in europe we are eaten up with a sort of decadence like the weimar republic. my family already went through this twice, once fleeing from polish pogroms, 2nd time ww2.
dear g_d what dont they understand?
"we are going to kill all non-muslims."
i have close relations who live in seattle and am making plans. this year is going to be definitive.
poor brave geert wilders is on trial tomorrow.
january 19, 2010 6:01:00 am pst
key links:
john jay @ 01.10.2009
Posted at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
friends:
introduction.
i had my little chart. in my hot little hand.
and the implications of the facts drawn from the little chart seemed clear, so that when i began writing it seemed to me clear enough what i was going to say, my conclusions, and the facts from which i had drawn them.
but little divergent thoughts popped up in the middle of things, and soon i felt that my essay had picked up divergent, if not contradictory impulses, and then themes, and then confusions. after a while i began to feel like the fellow who confidently starts to put 8 quarts of live octopus into a 4 quart jar, and finds out it is not so easy putting the lid on things with a tentacle grasping an arm and a neck.
and, then it occurred to me.
what if those little contradictory impulses and themes and confusions were not my fault, but reflected the reality of divergent impulses on the leftist elites who run the european union and control european politics, with the grip of orthodoxy long established and long exercised, if not entirely competently? what if my confusion were the confusion of the european left’s aims, ambitions and aspirations?
well, let us hope so.
i have written previously that the european left intends to use muslim immigration and the social discord it will create to sufficient for the politicians to excuse the imposition of the entirety of the marxist state upon the euro union, but not to do so until the time were opportune, say just after muslim terror wipes out the last of the europe vestiges of nationalism and nation state.
but a question kept nagging me. a question caused by the euro left’s mantra, as advanced by the various green manifestations of marxism, that it seeks reduced industrial output on the part of the west so that economic conduct, industrial production, is consistent and harmonious with the notion of “sustainability,” and harmonious with ecological values and goals.
in short, the left preaches downsizing, or as otherwise decorously put, “de-developing.”
so, the question is, if europe (e.g., the euro left) wants to down size, to become a “sustainable” & green economy, why don’t they (the intellectual and bureaucratic/governmental elites) just let their population demographic take care of the downsizing of the economic output, and just shrink into it with the decrease in population and other measures?
why the need for immigration?
within the context of the european left’s almost religious fixation on green politics and the de-industrialization of the western economies, the importation of foreign labor in order to sustain the profitability of industrial production seems to make no sense. why solicit immigration to negate a decrease in the labor force if you want to decrease the size of the economies in the first instance?
at first blush this seemed to bolster my previous analysis about the left’s motivation to import 50 million arab/muslim workers into europe to make up for the demographic loss of workers, due to a negative european birth rate. in essence, the calculus in my mind became, if there were no plausible economic justification for immigration on such a scale, what other reason could there be to sustain immigration on such levels, except, to use such immigration to force the political changes eliminating european nationalism as a rival to the political loyalties so wanted by the euro union and its leftist minions.
this factor alone satisfies me that the analysis that the left intends to use muslim immigration to impose socialistic/marxist/leninist social controls is correct. and, i thought, aha!!, i have stuffed the octopus into the jar.
and then, another little stray observation, unbidden by that part of my mind which craves at least the semblance of order, rose from the depths of the chaos the lies within. but, more of that later. but, i will give you a hint: look to the five economic giants of the european union, that being germany, france, the u.k., spain and italy, and look to their populations, gross domestic products (national economies), and look to the percentage (%) of muslim populations, as compared to the rest of the members of the euro union. i think that you will be surprised.
the essay proper.
welcome to my little chart, my little world reduced to some simple numbers, which seem to me to provide pretty straightforward proof of what a fraud the entire euro-med “partnership” really is.
mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man, you say? well, let’s see if it holds up.
Download Aaaa--chart please open my "little red chart," if you will. it helps with the body of the essay.
please look to the top portion of the chart, which lists the euro union countries, their populations, and their economies in terms of gross domestic product expressed in millions of u.s. dollars & the world rank of the same. for comparison’s sake, the economies of the several american states are listed alongside. the economies of four euro states, … , germany, france, italy and the u.k., … , are large enough that not even california’s economy matches them.
i have also listed the muslim populations of the european states. you will note that in comparison to the other european states, these giant economies have higher muslim populations than the other euro states. this means that their economies run on islamic immigration to generate earnings and profits, … , muslims provide cheap labor ensuring competitive pricing for goods produced in the great economies, plentiful tax revenue to fund the social welfare systems of the large economies, and they represent a comparative bargain thus far in that not much has been “paid back” in social programs or welfare & pension costs: it is, as of yet, a “deferred cost” in terms of cost of production. yes, there are some welfare costs, but they are not onerous.
now, look to the bottom half of the chart, comprising the “mediterranean” states which are associated with the euro-med partnership.
some of the other “mediterranean states,” such as albania, bosnia, jordan, lebanon, mauritania, montenegro, palestine, … , do not individually generate as much gross domestic product as the american state of vermont, ranking 50th in the united states in the size of its economy, which is in the neighborhood of $25,000 millions per year: lilliputian compared to california, or france or germany.
the largest “mediterranean” economy is that of israel’s, which ranks 42nd in the world at $202,000 millions a year, roughly comparable to louisiana’s, which ranks 24th of the united states’ economies. algeria, egypt, … , the largest arab/muslin economies in the mediterranean basin, or the “south shore” as the euro bureaucrats expansively like to call north africa, … , are roughly comparable at about $160,000 millions a year, about the same size as the economies of alabama and oregon, which are the 25th and 26th largest economies in the united states.
egypt and algeriaria are no.’s 49 & 50 in the world.
the arab/muslim economies of the euro union partnership rank 49, 50, 59, 61, 64, 68, 77, 84, 98, 99, 113, 141, and 147th in the world.
absolutely, conclusively, clearly, the states of the mediterranean basin with whom the euro union and euro-med want to partner up are not economic powerhouses in any sense at all, and the per capita income of all of these states, except for israel, is just pathetic, … , several of them being worse than dismal. [1] there is no justification, there can be no justification, in monetary terms for the euro union seeking “partnership” with these state entities, and, remember, europe seeks cross acculturalization and integration with these societies as well. all of this is with the exception of israel, whose economy is thriving, has more start ups than europe listed on international stock exchanges, and is a technology and research leader.
what resource do these states possess?
excess people. that is it. period. they have people for export.
look at the figures on the chart.—
algeria -- 34,000,000 people -- an economy the size of oregon
egypt -- 79,000,000 people -- an economy the size of alabama
morocco -- 32,000,000 people -- an economy the size of arkansas
syria -- 20,000,000 people -- an economy the size of delaware
tunisia -- 10,000,000 people -- an economy the size of alaska
friends, that is 175 million people alone, for three mid-sized & two very small state economies in the united states. the total population for the “south shore” mediterranean countries involved in euro-med is nearly 200 million people, who generate a total economic output roughly comparable to that of belgium and portugal combined, members of the euro union, and whose population stands at roughly 20,000,000 souls combined.
these figures speak loudly of the disparity existing between europe and north africa in economic terms, and shout to the heavens in terms of social heritage, social and religious values.
and, it literally shrieks of the tremendous social welfare undertakings involved if europe does in fact attempt to integrate 50 million muslims workers and their families into its social, legal, ethical, moral and religious fabric in the next few years. france does not have enough cars to burn during new year’s revelry if migration/immigration on this scale leads to 50 million muslim workers replacing 50 million european workers, lost to europe’s negative birth rate.
there can be no justification at all for the euro-med adventure in terms of economics or economic return, in trying to integrate this region into its economic structure, and in trying to integrate this regions people into its social heritage, into the fabric of its life: there is just no “gain” or “profit” in trying to integrate such small economies associated with such huge population figures, especially if such integration is to take place upon european soil. all of the european union rhetoric aside about building these economies into north african versions of the euro union success simply wilts in the face of these population figures. simply put, for a total north african “society” of 200 million people to enjoy economic success comparable to that of 500 million europeans, it would mean that they would have to generate 2/5’s of the euro union’s gross domestic product of $18,000,000 millions, or some $7,500,000 millions in economic activity on a yearly basis.
as opposed to the $750,000 millions in economic activity that they generate now. the euro-med/euro union would somehow have to increase the “south shore’s” productivity ten-fold for north africa to arrive at parity with european productivity.
the euro-med cannot and will not accomplish this kind of economic growth for the “south shore” partners. they simply haven’t the resource.
it ain’t gonna happen. some truths lie hidden in this, and they reveal one of the motives in euro med.
the “euro-med” exists for an overriding reason, and one reason only, and that is to procure arab/muslim immigration into europe, and to retain the cheap labor pool which has spurred the french, english, german and dutch economies. of the largest of the euro union economies, and if you look to the little chart you will see they are, only italy and spain have avoided having a massive influx of arab/muslim immigration.
which brings up a telling point.
the euros have experienced muslim immigration without any euro-med “partnership,” so why do they need a euro-med partnership to promote what already exists as fact, if not as a legally formalized process? and, as noted in my previous posts, if the euro’s wanted any other type of immigrant, say a reverse flow of the immigration of europeans to the americas or to africa, why did they simply not procure it, and have people very much in line and in keeping with their heritage and values, politically, religiously, socially and otherwise, to simply return to their origins. to assume again, the mantle of europeans, which they are.
and, this question illuminates a fundamental tension in the euro-med adventure.—
the euro-med in one sense is nothing more than a european effort to rationalize the existing african immigration into europe.-- i have read very little else in the last week save documents generated by european union bureaucrats and euro union staffers about the albufeira accords, and those plans being developed to effectuate it. and in these writings, i have learned about immigration routes up the west of africa onto the Iberian peninsula, and up the eastern coast of africa into egypt and the middle east, and the description of these immigration routes is so very evocative of the old arab slave trade that it is not even funny.
for, in some sense, that is just what this immigration is now, with traffickers and smugglers of human goods selling the same in markets in portugal and the balkans, … , trafficking in prostitution and the sex trades, and selling people into indentured labor to pay off the fees associated with their smuggling.
this illegal trade threatens to swamp europe, and the european union is working with the united nations and north african nations states to stem it, and regulate it, and to try and humanize it.
in some sense, the euro-med acts with humanitarian instincts, towards non europeans.
but, in another sense, the euro-med reveals what i have been preaching in my posts for the past several months, and that is the aim of the euro leftists to use arab/muslim immigration to destroy the last vestiges of european nationalism, and to create a new and just society. this, by contrast, does not seem to be motivated by humanitarian instincts at all, as directed toward those indigenous europeans who would preserve their ethnic and national heritage.
it is an odd tension of values, and a tension, i might add, that i find inexplicable in human terms, though readily apparent when looking at the euro left as ideologues, and as marxist/leninist ideologues at that.
the entire ideological motive is revealed in the phrase “sustainability.”
the european left, and the american left, talk about “de-developing” the great colossal economies, so that economic efforts & production levels can be “sustainable”, e.g., so that the western democracies do not “devour” the carbon (energy supplies) and other resources of the world: this was a driving motivation behind the copenhagen treaty, which motive lay hidden behind the rubric of “climate control,” and which also was the entire motive of the huge transfer of wealth from the west to the developing world ostensibly to pay for past carbon consumption, and which was the motive for carbon taxes in this epoch. in short, the motive behind “sustainability” and “climate control” is to narrow the gap between the industrialized west and the developing world.
the truth of this lies (yes, no little irony in any of this) in the two figures above for the economic output of the euro union, and what it would take for the arab/muslim nations to equal it. and, the largest truth lies in the developing world’s hostility to israel, the one country on earth which provides an almost infallible blue print for developing countries to follow in the rapid acquisition of industrial and economic and social prowess: and, of course, the muslim and african and african muslim world turns their backs upon israel’s example. as does the european, and the american left. go figure.
again, that ain’t gonna happen, the narrowing of the economic gap is not going to happen via north african muslim immigration into europe, in terms of increasing “south shore” productivity.
so, what the european left wishes to accomplish by arab/muslim immigration, is to bring european economic production down to a sustainable level more on a parity with its “south shore” and north african neighbors. the european left, while it uses islam to destroy european nationalism, also intends to use islamic immigration and muslim integration into european society to lower the level of european economic production. it will saddle the european economies with the social welfare costs associated with bringing 50 million muslim workers and families into the matrix of european social and legal and political life.
it is, in effect, the dumbing down of the european economy to reach levels of decreased production sufficient to satisfy the left’s notions of “sustainability” and equity & parity amongst the world’s economies and the world’s societies.
the european left cannot do much to increase the productivity of its “south shore” meterranean basin partners. but, it can do plenty to decrease the productivity of its constituent membership in the european union, and this is most certainly intends to do with muslim immigration. the european left does not need immigration to decrease its productivity and economic output: it could do this through simple demographic attrition, the path chosen by the japanese planners. their economy falters because of demographic population loss, yet they refuse to destroy the essence of their cultural fabric via immigration, so they are downsizing their economy, and their social institutions to meet the realities of a decreasing population. it is a path they have chosen.
it is a path open to the europeans. yet they eschew it, even though it is a rational path to achieve “sustainability”: ask any japanese bureaucrat or demographer.
the euro left chooses immigration for a two reasons (which may or may not seem entirely consistent): 1.)to destroy european nationalism, and 2.)to decrease european productivity and economic production, and to distribute european wealth to the third world in the form of “remittance” to north africa.[2] and, they chose to follow this policy on european soil.
and, it seems to me that one last little truth emerges from the little chart. something which seems to me subtle, but which emerges with some clarity in studying the chart. and, my little chart, at least in my own little mind, makes it damn hard to argue against these conclusions, and especially this last one.
the last little truth?—
look at the chart. most of the european countries really don’t have huge muslim populations, and some are remarkably small, considering their proximity to islam: perhaps that is the result of experience, i am supposing? but, italy, spain and portugal have very low percentages of muslim immigrants, even though they have large economies, and generate large per capita earnings for their populations. it is the economic powerhouses of france, the netherlands, germany and the u.k. which have gotten out of hand, and seemingly lost total control over their muslim populations (immigrant or “native born”, it makes no difference), and which experience the greatest amount of unrest from muslim populations, and whose economies have profited the most from immigration.
even while these economic powerhouses mean to downsize to meet the leftist/marxist green orthodoxy of sustainability, these large economies intend to maintain their dominance, economically and politically, over their smaller and subordinate member states in the euro union. all of us animals are equal on this farm, but some of us are far more equal than the others, and we mean to stay that way.
the euro-med is to meet the labor needs for three or four of the largest euro union nations, and in fueling the desire of the euro left to destroy the last vestiges of euro nationalism and to reach a leveling “sustainability,” it is the rest of the euro union states that will pay the price in the destruction of their national identities, and they will stay subordinate to their larger neighbors.
the chart sustains the revelation and perception of these lines of analysis, i believe.
what other rationale sustains the euro-med, or explains the drive of the european left and the euro union bureaucrats toward the euro-med partnerships.
is it motivated solely by humanitarian concerns, to improve the life of the sourthern shore by european economic skills, technology transfer and investment? all of those things are touted in euro-med literature, of course, along with the virtues of cross acculturalizaiton, and a cosmopolitan world view & order.
but, were this the motive, the humanitarian aspect of it could be easily sustained and actualized, in fact, more easily without the need for the added social and welfare cost associated with immigration, simply by direct european investment in north africa, by transfer of european technology and production infrastructure and plants, directly into north africa. and, ironically, europe could more easily achieve its desired and espoused goals of economic “sustainability” in the context of its industrial and economic production by transferring it out to other countries, all over africa. yet, this is not the economy of efficiency, or the efficiency of economies that the euro-med and the euro union seek to follow by this scheme of immigration. instead of taking europe to north africa, africa and the middle east, they bring north africa, africa and the middle east to europe: it is a very odd price indeed for the europeans to pay for the sins of their colonial empires, but it is the expiation for their sins that they court.
and, of course, the ultimate irony of all of this effort to bring some semblance of economic parity to the developing world on the “south shore” of the mediterranean, to this little corner of the developing world. and, that is israel.
israel took a country and countryside, and economy, indistinguishable from any other muslim nation in the world at that time, and turned it into a productive eden. it has developed in 60 short years an economy as robust as any in europe, and it has done it by hoisting itself from its boot straps and by other feats of force of will.
it is a precise blueprint for other countries in north africa to follow to achieve and sustain robust economy, and to be self sustaining societies.
and though israel has received aid, it has never received aid on the scale contemplated by the euro-med or by the copenhagen fiasco. yet, israel’s model is rejected. though it works, it involves too much work, too much faith, and too much education & scholarship.
this little chart suggests and sustains these arguments, i believe.
conclusion.
i am not going to write so very much more, in this little essay.
what i hope you do is to read the little chart some more, pocket computer in hand, and divide earnings by population as i have done. and, i would hope that you go to google, and look at the geographies of countries and states, their square miles of area, and look at their population densities in relation to their economies, and that sort of thing.
to see what a beacon israel is.
to understand that the states of oregon and washington, in the great pacific northwest region of the united states, though roughly comparable in size to the reunited germany, are home, just off the top of my head, 9 or 10 million persons, while germany’s population is roughly 82 million souls.
germany’s gdp is $3,700,000 000,000. oregon and washington combine to produce roughly $500,000 000,000’s, just guessing from the top of my memory. hey, i have done a lot of work, time for you to get off your passive dead butt and look some of this stuff up yourself, and see what you come up with.
but, let’s call germany $4 million millions, and call Oregon/washington $1/2 million millions. 82 million people for germany. 10 million people for oregon and washington.
that makes the per capita output nearly equal, doesn’t it? do the math.
and, look at oregon and israel in such a light. comparable economies, comparable populations, and oregon a proud descendent of the judeo-christian ethos invented, right there, in israel. by a jew, no less. and, i suppose, no more. he was, after all, a human being, endowed with human sensibility and capacity, and with a human lust for life. besides the other facets of his resume, and curriculum vitae.
israel makes sense economically to be in the euro union. none of the rest of north africa even remotely makes sense, in an economic sense. the basic rational of the euro med is not to raise north africa up, but to import its people to stamp out the last vestiges of european nationalism, and to lower europe toward its neighbors.
and the truth of the matter?
ask the euro-med just precisely how many jewish immigrants is seeks from the “south shore?” go ahead, if you ever come across one of those pencil necked geeks, a euro-med politician or bureaucrat, just ask about jewish immigration.
there.
i hope i have the octopus stuffed into the jar, and that no little tentacles wiggle from outside the lid. i have tried to impose consistency upon this essay, though i am not entirely satisfied that consistency can be imposed upon the leftist mentality which permeates, sustains and motivates the europe med, the euro union, and the society of elites, intellectuals and bureaucrats who run the whole damned mess.
john jay @ 01.16.2010
p.s. ask me if i think it is going to work, this leftist scheme?
o.k. you asked.
my answer is, “no.” but the european left is going to do a lot of damage to europe before it figures that out.
because of the failing of all leftist thinking the history of the left.
it refuses to acknowledge and account for human nature, and human passion. or, if it does, it commits the sin of the larger conceit, and thinks that it can control it. and, that it can control humans who acts by their nature, and through their passions.
this whole nutball scheme on the part of the euro union and euro-med pre-supposes that they can scientifically manage immigration via a complicated bureaucratic scheme involving the european host countries and the north african states of origin to precisely anticipate, control and regulate the influx and outflow of immigrants, precisely to fill job slots as they open in europe, and as they close in europe, negating the need for that immigrant job holder: the assumption is that he will go home.
and, they think that by partnering up with north africa to regulate legal immigration, that they can stem the tide of illegal immigration, as it is currently structured in north africa.
in short, they think that once they let 50 million muslims into europe, they can hold the number to that.
the euro intellectual has a severe case of myopia in this regard, because it is hard to see things clearly when one has one’s head shoved so far up one’s butt. the arrogance and conceit of the europeans is as breathtaking as it ever has been. and, no failure of any allied grand scheme ever seems to dampen their enthusiasm for undertaking another like grand scheme.
colonialism in africa didn’t work, for many reasons.
and, colonialism in europe isn’t going to work, either. for many of the same reason.
the euros exploited their colonial subjects for economic gain, during colonialism.
the euros intend to exploit their former colonial subjects for economic gain, this time under the guise of the euro-med.
i have news for the euros.—
the natives have wised up. they are insisting upon equal social, civil and legal rights as the citizens of the host countries. equal pay. equal social welfare benefits.
and, integration into the social fabric of europe.
they have no intention to go home. they have every intention to go forth into the hinterlands of europe, and to fructify and fornicate until they dominate and conquer europe.
and the euros, in their arrogance and conceit, haven’t got a fucking clue. they think that they are in control of demographics, that they run the penises and vaginas and birthing habits of these immigrants, and that once in europe they will hold social and political sway over them. i haven’t the foggiest idea what gave them this idea in their “previous experiences” with muslim immigration, or even what aspect of that might have suggested this thinking possible.
stupid is, as stupid does.
[1] 18,000,000 000,000 (millions of $) divided by 500 000,000 (of europeans) =’s $36,000 per capita.
750,000 000,000 (millions of $) divided by 200 000,000 (of n. africans) =’s $ 3,750 per capita.
202,000 000,000 (millions of $) divided by 6 000,000 (of israelis) =’s $33,666 per capita.
and, is the case always in the middle east & n. africa, the muslims want to excise from their midst precisely the people who can help them attain economic modernity, and a decent standard of living. well, consistency is a virtue, in some respects, i would suppose.
i haven’t the foggiest if this is the way economists generate per capita income figures. but, it serves it purposes, this rough and ready computation. it shows quite starkly the economic disparity between europeans and north africans, the “south shore” of the mediterranean basin.
[2] “remittance” is a euro union bureaucrats “term of art.” It refers to money earned in europe by a north african worker sent back to his home country, to both his family and to his government in the form of taxes withheld by the country of wage origin. in one example of literature i read, remittance to morocco amounted to some $32 billion dollars in wages to families and taxes to the government of morocco. that’s a chunk of change, anywhere on this little orb.
Posted at 09:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)
friends:
i have two coffee cups, which provide me with all the intellectual sustenance a person really needs.
coffee cup no. 1. "there are in the end three things that last -- faith, hope, and love. and the greatest of these is love." 1 corinthians 13:4-7, 13.
coffee cup no. 2. "g_d ~ family ~ country ~ honor ~ virtue ~ integrity ~ courage."
cousins, i suspect, these two coffee cups.
john jay @ 01.16.2010
Posted at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
i have been learning how to do some things, and publishing to the blog to see if i really understand what i am composing.
if this has come up on sammy's sidebar automatically, and being a source of confusion, i apologize for the previous nonsense posts.
i apologize for this nonsense post. laughing.
john jay @ 01.15.2010
p.s. i will have a real post up in a jiffy.
Posted at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
why would you lie to your own people?
why would you lie to them, if you intended to do "good" for them, and you could show them the "good?"
why would you lie to them, if they were "your" people?
the only inference to be reasonably drawn from all of this, from the fact that the euro union hides and obscures its "handiwork," is that it intends no "good" for the european people, and that it intends only to promote the interests of islam.
you tell me of any other reasonable inference to be drawn from these circumstances.
john jay @ 01.14.2009
Posted at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
friends:
the euro union communiqué set out below announces that the euro-med is up and running, but, to be sure, that euro-med implements a plan to bury europe under a tide of muslim immigration from north africa is not disclosed, oddly enough. nor, is the design and intent behind the “regional euro-med migration ii programe” discussed very fully, though we can well imagine what a “migration programme” intends, … , it intends to facilitate migration, obviously. what else? greater attendance at soccer matches?
and, you didn’t even know that there is such a thing as the “regional euro-med migration ii programme,” adopted at the “1st euro-mediterranean ministerial meeting on migration,” in albufeira in november of 2007, did you?
well, read the whole damned post, and find out!!
and, by the way, where in the living hell is albufeira? somebody get the google out.
please look at the materials in the euro union communiqué set out at the end of this post, especially the paragraph "bullets" which tout the "aims" of the euro union/euro-med agreements, and see if you find any mention of the 50 million north african muslim workers (plus families) that the euro union intends to bring into europe by mid century, announced in the five year work programme at the barcelona summit, and as confirmed by e.u. commission president juan barroso. (the full documentation and links to all of this can be found here, including links, pdf links, and excerpts from numerous euro union documents.)
you will find in this communiqué, however, discussion of pollution abatement in the waters of the mediterranean, and creating maritime highways, a mediterranean solar energy system, a mediterranean basin university, and plans to stimulate investment, small and large business enterprise, and other development.
nothing, by stark contrast, on immigration. except, in a very small sentence on page 18 of a document, mention of the “euro-med migration ii programme,” as noted above, and no further explanation or elaboration, and certainly no links to any document or text about the programme: you can be sure i will dig it up, though.
but, you will find in this communiqué a promotion of arab and muslim political and social agendas which are entirely consistent with promoting muslim immigration into europe, and of promoting sympathy to and affinity with, arab muslims. look to the 10 brief news clips in the eu communiqué,and you will find, amongst other things, footage galore of euro union officials visiting gaza to view firsthand the "destruction" that is being purportedly inflicted there by israel, and other things sympathetic to palestine: the euro union, and the euro med, appears to be not too much more than a propaganda shill for the palestinian view of the “peace process”, and little more than the servant of muslim aims to conquer europe, this time for good.
you tell me if you find in the below e.u. communique any mention of the immigration policies of the euro-med spelled out in the materials available through this web-site, or any mention of articles 64-68 of the standard "agreement of association" worked out between the euro-med and its mediterranean basin partners, in these partnership documents. (look here, for a pdf link to the full text of the euro-med “association agreement” w/ egypt, and the 64-68 mentioned above which establish the immigration policies, and which determine the future of europe.)
but, click the link to the november euro-med ministerial meeting in marseille, and you will find that the european union fully intends to fight illegal immigration. talk about misdirection!!
hey, way to go, fellas!! you are really in there pitching to protect europe from the muslim hordes.
people in europe, you should never have placed your trust in people who lie to you, and who keep from you the full dimension of their plans.
john jay @ 01.14.2010
p.s. i was just a bit too smug. the bastards did let the cat out of the bag, just a teensy weensy ittle bit, and lifted their veil of secrecy just a smidgeon, when they published this at their link in the text. it is from page 18 of the "final statement: marseille, 3-4 november 2008" in the pdf document in the main announcement, the same page where they promise the fight against illegal immigration. in fact, you might even think that they are just talking about illegal immigration, but, we know better, don’t we:
"Migration
Ministers recalled that the issue of migration should be an integral part of the regional partnership and its related challenges namely legal migration, migration and development and the fight against illegal migration, as laid down in the agreed conclusions of the 1st Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Meeting on Migration, Albufeira, 18-19 November 2007, need to be addressed through a comprehensive, balanced and integrated approach. In this regard, some initiatives have begun to be implemented this year with the launching of the of the regional Euro-Med Migration II Programme (2008-2011)." see the pdf link.
you can be sure that i will be doing follow up research on the ministerial meeting on migration at albufeira, and looking for the text of the euro-med migration ii program, 2008-2011. count on it.
and, the euro union “communiqué” that i have been promising all along. you read it, and tell me, if you think that i am wrong when i have said that the euro union obscures it purposes in the euro-med foreign policy line it follows:
[http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/euromed/index_en.htm -- the link to the below euro-med web page. jjjay]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Top of Form Bottom of Form
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" —Samuel Adams
Posted at 04:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
