Catre: Dl. Victor Ponta, Guvernul Romaniei, Prim-Ministru
Spre stiinta: Excelentei Sale, Domnului Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, Comisia Europeana, Presedinte (in limba engleza)

Domnule Prim-Ministru,

Va scriu aceast protest in contextul intetirilor atacurilor la adresa Comisiei Europene din partea Guvernului pe care il conduceti, din partea Dvs. personal, precum si din partea unor reprezentanti ai coalitiei guvernamentale, inclusiv dupa recenta publicare a raportului privind Mecanismul de Cooperare si Verificare in domeniul justitiei.

Fara a comenta motivele pentru care ati decis sa va pozitionati nu ca partener, ci ca adversar al Comisiei Europene, va cer, domnule Prim-Ministru, sa va asumati pana la capat aceasta politica de adversitate care a dus, mai ales pe fondul crizei economice prelungite, la scaderea drastica a increderii romanilor in Uniunea Europeana. O astfel de asumare presupune ca Guvernul Romaniei si Uniunea Social-Liberala sa spuna clar, neechivoc, daca doresc ca Romania sa paraseasca Uniunea Europeana, eliberandu-se de sub „jugul Bruxellesului” sau sa ramana in Uniune, ca si partener al Comisiei, precum celelalte state membre. Guvernul Roamaniei si USL nu pot duce la nesfarsit o politica ambigua, acceptand, pe de-o parte beneficiile accesarii fondurilor europene, precum si a celorlalte beneficii directe sau indirecte care decurg din calitatea de stat membru si, pe de alta parte, sa duca o campanie acerba de denigrare a executivului comunitar.

Dupa cum stiti, domnule Prim-Ministru, dar nu spuneti, finantele publice ale Romaniei sunt intr-o situatie nu tocmai roza. Prin comparatie cu structura bugetara de la inceputul anului 2012, veniturile la bugetul de stat au scazut real cu 1,6 miliarde lei, respectiv cu 0,8% sub tinta de colectare. In aceasta situatie sunteti constient ca Romania este dependenta de ajutor financiar international si european. Ultima vizita a FMI a aratat ca nu s-a facut nimic in realizarea reformelor structurale iar ragazul de 3 luni acordat Guvernului va trece mai repede decat credeti, evident fara schimbari majore in ceea ce priveste implementarea acestor reforme. Ati preluat de la guvernele anterioare un deficit bugetar sustenabil insa chiar si acest deficit trebuie finantat. Stau si ma intreb la ce costuri veti ajunge sa-l finantati, in lipsa unui acord cu FMI (si, implicit, cu institutiile europene).

Prin politicile de austeritate extreme, bazate mai mult pe aritmetica decat pe calcule economice, coroborat cu lipsa de reforme structurale si de gestionare a politicilor publice (in special de resurse umane), PDL s-a auto-condamnat si acest lucru s-a vazut in preferintele electorale, dandu-va in acelasi timp Dvs. posibilitatea de a guverna practic fara opozitie si, mai mult, fara nici un fel de risc electoral. Ati preluat asadar o Romanie cu un deficit bugetar mic si cu o opozitie anemica. Aceasta situatie va confera avantajul – unic in istoria post-decembrista – de a face aproape orice, sub umbrela votului masiv anti-PDL din 9 decembrie: majoritatea electoratului va sustine neconditionat. Inclusiv in lupta cu „Inalta Poarta”, cum va place sa denumiti Comisia Europeana, desi 50 de ani inainte de Revolutie si inca 17 dupa aceea am sperat sa ne intoarcem acolo unde am fost inainte de comunism, respectiv alaturi de Europa civilizata.

In aceste conditii, domnule Victor Ponta, va solicit in mod public sa luati, in cadrul executivului pe care il conduceti, precum si in cadrul coalitiei guvernamentale, o decizie demna de un sef de guvern: hotarati-va daca vreti inauntrul sau in afara Uniunii Europene. Daca vreti in afara ei, asa cum rezulta din actiunile liderilor USL si ale Dvs. personal, fiti consecvent cu Dvs. insusi si cu partenerii de guvernare si cereti, precum primul ministru britanic, organizarea unui referendum pe aceasta tema, profitand de gradul minim la care ati adus increderea romanilor in Uniunea Europeana. Dar spuneti-le in acelasi timp romanilor despre toate consecintele retragerii, incepand cu pierderea a miliarde de euro din fonduri europene si pana la pierderile de competitivitate ale economiei Romaniei ca urmare a iesirii din piata unica. Spuneti-le romanilor cum se va contracta economia si cum vom ajunge la iesiri semnificative de capital, avand ca efect pierderi masive de locuri de munca. Mai spuneti-le romanilor cum o serie de state membre ne vor (re)institui vizele de calatorie, pe langa pierderea dreptului de munca, si cum exporturile catre UE (care acum reprezinta 90%) vor scadea dramatic. Si incercati sa ii convingeti pe romanii care totusi cred in Uniune sa nu emigreze, pentru ca altfel veti ramane doar cu asistatii social, liber sa implementati oricate „reforme” fiscale de stanga doriti, daca veti mai avea de unde sa luati impozite.

Daca vreti insa inauntrul ei, va cer, domnule Prim-Ministru, sa incetati atacurile la adresa executivului comunitar, la adresa liderilor unor importante state membre – care ar trebui sa fie pentru noi un model de urmat, nu un cal de bataie si un prilej de exacerbare a unui nationalism rudimentar – si sa deveniti partenerul Comisiei Europene, incadrandu-va in cerintele acesteia. Faceti reformele structurale cerute de FMI pentru a putea continua acordul de finantare. Fiti un lider politic adevarat si nu unul duplicitar, un jolly-joker al politicii europene ce isi schimba culoarea in functie de context.

Sebastian Bodu
cetatean european

Iuliu Maniu

La 5 februarie 1953 se stingea din viaţă, la 80 de ani, în temniţa de la Sighet, un mare bărbat de stat, luptător intransigent pentru întregirea neamului şi democraţie: Iuliu Maniu. (…). Trupul său închircit de frigul celulei a fost azvârlit într-o groapă anonimă din cimitirul săracilor unde s-a înfrăţit, şi după moarte, cu destinele celor doi Brătieni, Dinu şi Gheorghe, a mitropolitului Ioan Suciu, a episcopilor greco-catolici şi a altor fruntaşi ai vieţii publice care au lăsat o dâră de lumină şi demnitate în istoria acestui mult încercat popor.

Descendent dintr-o familie de intelectuali, strănepot al lui Simion Bărnuţiu pe linie parternă şi nepot al memorandistului Iuliu Coroianu care era fratele mamei sale, Iuliu Maniu uneşte tradiţia familială de luptă pentru fiinţa neamului cu o solidă educaţie pe linia Blajului, continuată cu iniţierea juridică la universitatăţile din Cluj, Viena şi Budapesta. (…)

În anul 1892, student fiind, se deplasează cu mari riscuri la Roman pentru a reprezenta studenţii români din Transilvania la un congres studenţesc în acest oraş.

Era în jurul vârstei de 20 de ani când întreaga suflare românească din Transilvania a fost cuprinsă de frământările legate de întocmirea şi prezentarea unui memorandum care trebuia să conţină „gravamintele poporului român” din Monarhia bicefală – document ce trebuia să fie prezentat Împăratului. Curajul şi intrensigenţa sa sunt remarcate încă din timpul procesului şi manifestaţiilor ce au avut loc în favoarea acuzaţilor Dr. Ioan Raiu, Vasile Lucaci, Iuliu Coroianu, etc., condamnaţi pentru a fi redactat o petiţie (…).

Încă dinainte de sfărşitul secolului XIX, Iuliu Maniu şi grupul tinerilor militează pentru participarea activă la viaţa politică, acţiune încununată de succes în cadrul Congresului din 10-23 ianuarie 1905, când Partidul Naţional Român rupe cu pasivitatea, hotărând să ia parte la lucrările Parlamentului de la Budapesta. În alegerile din 1905 au fost aleşi 8 deputaţi români. Iuliu Maniu nu a reuşit din cauza ingerinţelor autorităţilor maghiare şi a lipsei de unitate a românilor cu drept de vot.

Candidează din nou în 1906 şi este ales deputat de Vinţ (din apropierea simbolicei Alba Iulia). (…)

De atunci până la izbucnirea primului război mondial în 1914, îşi dăltuieşte ascensiunea prin calităţi politice şi morale de excepţie. Considerat cel mai periculos lider politic român, a fost trimis pe front la 45 de ani, potrivit principiului „bate-voi păstorul şi se va risipi turma”. (…)

În 1916 refuză împreună cu V. Goldiş, V. Branişte şi alţii să semneze o declaraţie de fidelitate către regimul austro-ungar, spre deosebire de reprezentanţii altor naţionalităţi.

În preajma şi în peiroada prăbuşirii frontului austro-ungar, în luna octombrie-noiembrie, artileristul I. Maniu – reprezentantul Comitetului Naţional Român – înscrie la Viena una din paginile cele mai puţin cunoscute ale istoriei. În timp ce soldaţii austrieci şi maghiari îşi părăseau unităţile, ori se înrolau sub steagurile revluţiei bolşevice, ofiţerii regimentelor de români (români şi ei în majoritate deoarece doar ei vorbeau limba soldaţilor pe care îi comandau) îşi strâng rândurile şi constituie un „Sfat al ofiţerilor şi soldaţilor români” de la Viena. În fruntea lor era căpitanul de artilerie Iuliu Maniu, reprezentantul Comitetului Naţional. Sfatul de la Viena depune un jurământ solemn pentru realizarea idealului nostru naţional, adună şi îndrumă din punct de vedere politic pe soldaţii români ce se întorceau de pe front, are convorbiri cu Împăratul şi ministrul de război, controlează oraşul, împiedică jafurile din capitala Autriei în derută, ţine legătura cu regimentele româneşti care îndeplineau acelaşi rol la Praga. (…)

La 1 decembrie 1918 rosteşte la Alba Iulia acel discurs antologic, ascuns cu grijă generaţiilor mai tinere de regimul de dictatură:

“Noi, onorata Adunare Nationala, privim infaptuirea unităţii naţionale ca un triumf al libertăţii omeneşti. Noi nu voim să devenim din oprimaţi oprimatori, din asupriţi asupritori. Noi voim sa întronăm pe aceste plaiuri libertatea tuturor neamurilor şi a tuturor cetăţenilor (…). Este adânc înrădăcinată în noi convingerea că numai un regim de adevărată democraţie ne poate întări ţara şi ne înălţa neamul (…)”

Oratorul vedea în neamul românesc ceea ce a fost întodeauna: „sentinela trează şi conştientă a civilizaţiei”, concepea deci naţiunea pe un plan mai vast, încadrat în destinele umanităţii. De mare actualitate sunt îndenurile la unitate şi încredere în propriile forţe.

„Istoria a dovedit, spunea Iuniu Maniu, că nu putem aştepta nimic de la împăraţi străini şi nici de la fii altor neamuri. Bine poţi să aştepţi numai de la propriile tale puteri”.

După momente solemne, se trece la Alba Iulia la organizarea provinciei dezrobite. Se înfiinţează Consiliul Dirigent, în frunte cu Iuliu Maniu, al cărui rost a fost să facă tranziţia de la legislaţia şi organizarea Imperiului la cea a Regatului Român. S-a încercat a se acredita – de către adversarii de mai târziu ai lui Iuliu Maniu, ca şi ai unităţii poporului român – ideea că acest Consiliu provizoriu ar fi constituit o încercare de a transforma Ardealul şi Banatul, Crişana şi Maramureşul într-o regiune autonomă. Nimic mai fals şi reprobabil, când primul demers al Consiliului a fost să trimită o delegaţie la Bucureşti, primită de primul ministru Ion Brătianu cu neuitatele cuvine „Vă aşteptăm de o mie de ani şi aţi venit să nu ne mai despărţim niciodată”. Consiliul Dirigent, conştient de posibilele răstălmăciri, s-a autointitulat „consiliu” şi nu „guvern”, iar responsabilii unor compatimente, „şefi de resort” şi nu „miniştri”, încredinţând de la început conducerea unor ministere-cheie guvernului de la Bucureşti şi având reprezentanţi proprii în acest guvern. Atribuirea intenţiei de autonomie a Transilvaniei celui care şi-a pus întreaga viaţă în serviciul Unirii nu este egalată în absurditate decât de acuzaţia, la procesul din 1947, „de trădare naţională”. (…)

A fost Preşedinte al Partidului Naţional Român 1918-1926, al Partidului Naţional Ţărănesc 1926-1933 şi 1937-1953; prim-ministru 1928-1930; iunie-octombrie 1930; 1932-1933. (…)

Primele măsuri ale lui Iuliu Maniu ca preşedinte al Consiliului de miniştri a fost defiinţarea cenzurii şi a stării de asediu, descentralizarea administrativă, aplicarea de măsuri în favoarea muncitorilor, preconizate de Organizaţia Internaţională a Muncii, legiferarea drepturilor pentru invalizi şi văduve de război, instaurarea unei politici externe pe baza principiului ca „aceasta nu aparţine partidelor, ci ţării”, reorganizarea „Casei Rurale” şi a Camerelor de Agricultură, vânzarea pe credit a maşinilor agricole, organizarea învăţământului agricol, consolidarea proprietăţii ţărăneşti, promulgarea unei legi a cooperaţiei, modernizarea transportului, rutier în special, montarea, în 1929, a postului de radio Bucureşti de către compania Marconi, stabilizarea monetară, legea asupra contractelor de muncă, amnistierea infracţiunilor politice.

Iuliu Maniu s-a situat ferm împotriva tendinţelor dictatoriale ale lui Carol al II-lea, a cedării Basarabiei, a Diktatului de la Viena, împotriva pericolului fascist şi împotriva depăşirii Nistrului de către trupele române în vara anului 1941.

În timpul regimului Antonescu, Iuliu Maniu s-a aflat în fruntea coaliţiei care urmărea detaşarea României de Axă şi obţinerea unor condiţii susceptibile de a permite continuitatea şi integritatea ţării. Când, după 1945, o nouă dictatură, mai periculoasă decât cele anterioare, şi-a făcut apariţia în ţară, Iuliu Maniu, la 74 de ani, devine stegarul şi simbolul luptei pentru democraţie.

Acuzat de trădare pentru intenţia de a trimite o echipă de fruntaşi în străinătate, Iuliu Maniu e arestat în iunie 1947 şi condamnat la închisoare pe viaţă (*). Astfel îşi sfârşeşte zilele la Sighet în 1953, omul de stat a cărui viaţă a fost o luptă necontenită împotriva opresiunii din afară şi dinăuntru, a dictaturilor care au bântuit acest colţ de lume (…).

Nu era ceea ce se numeşte în mod curent un mare orator, dar simţeai că vocea sa caldă te învăluie, că vorbele poartă pecetea unei reflecţii şi convingei adânci. De aici devotamentul cu care a fost înconjurat de cei care au avut privilegiul de a-l auzi ori de a-i fi aproape. Omul se întruchipa în cuvântul rostit fără o gestică romantică.

Nu cred că există în istoria noastră politică un om de stat care să fi consacrat atâta timp contactului direct, personal, conversaţiei cu orice solicitant.

Un soldat necunoscut, sosit de pe front, era primit cu aceeaşi pacienţă benedictină ca o personalitate marcantă a vremii. Maniu asculta, întreba, se informa cu privirea aţintită asupra interlocutorului, aproape fără a clipi din ochi, fără ca pe faţă să i se întipărească altceva decât atenţia încordată, interesul faţă de interlocutor. (…)

Mulţi gazetari şi oameni politici au vazut în Maniu un excelent tactician. Ca întotdeauna, când ţi se atribuie cu generozitate ceva, o altă calitate se estompează. Bunăoară, cea mai importantă şi cea mai legată de actualitatea noastră imediată: calitatea de vizionar.

„Europa de mâine – spunea Maniu imediat după Unire – va fi cea a uniunilor, confederaţiilor, federaţiilor. Acest moment inexorabil nu trebuie să găsească poporul nostru nepregătit. Conducătorii politici trebuie să cultive calităţile profesionale şi morale ale românilor astfel ca ei să nu devină în noul context de liberă circulaţie a valorilor un fel de neoiobagi în raport cu alte popoare. Deci pregătire de specialitate, pregătire politică şi morală, pentru a face faţă concurenţei inevitabile!”

Dar câte nu ar fi de spus despre personalitatea pe care temnicerii de la Sighet nu şi-au dat nici măcar osteneala de a-l transporta omeneşte la groapa comună, târârndu-l într-un sac, coborându-l pe trepte în timp ce capul care purtase atâtea asipraţii ale poporului său izbea neputincios într-o sonoritate sumbră lespezile reci. Se sperie şi se înfioară gândul la nimicnicia generată de atâta ură şi atâta nepăsare.

„Cine-şi cinsteşte martirii se cinsteşte pe sine şi cinsteşte istoria însăşi” – spunea un mare învăţat. (…) Să-l onorăm intrepretându-i corect gândurile şi faptele.

Să-i publicăm scrierile, discursurile şi articolele politice de la cele risipite prin presa transilvană, germană şi maghiară şi, evident, în cea românească până la odiosul proces din 1947 în urma căruia a fost condamnat la închisoare pe viaţă la vârsta de 75 de ani.

Prof. universitar dr. docent Gabriel Ţepelea

(Cuvântare rostită în Adunarea Deputaţilor, la 5 februarie 1991)

(*) a fost acuzat de : complot în scop de trădare şi de insurecţie armată, complot în scop de surparea ordinii constituţionale, trădare, răzvrătire, insurecţie armată, instigare la crimă de înaltă trădare prin necredinţă, tentativă de surpare a ordinii constituţionale, instigare la trecerea frauduloasă a frontierei – n. red.).

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Cineva fusese sunat și informase conducerea redacției că „oameni din apropierea președintelui Băsescu” au ucis-o de fapt pe mama băiatului. Sunt chemată și rugată să scriu eu materialul cu care trebuia să înceapă jurnalul principal al zilei. Ba, mai mult, eu să fac și o transmisie în direct pe tema asta – din care să reiasă că președintele Băsescu, candidat la Președinție, acoperea și era, de fapt, în strânsă legătură cu criminalul mamei băiatului.
Aveți vreo dovadă, ceva? – am întrebat. Nu, caută și tu, vezi tu, te descurci…- a fost răspunsul aproximativ.
Am simțit atunci, efectiv, cum văd stele verzi. Adică eu trebuia să acuz un președinte al României că acoperă criminali? Cam asta era esența. Am zis că eu nu fac așa ceva. Cu orice preț. Mi s-a spus că trebuie s-o fac.

Former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, arch-Eurofederalist, and leader of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, has penned a piece for The Huffington Post railing against the idea of a British exit from the EU. He doesn’t mince his words with his views of David Cameron’s impending call for Britain to renegotiate its relationship with the European Union:

Cameron will not succeed if he attempts to hold his European partners to ransom, exchanging acquiescence to EU treaty change over the eurozone for a unilateral repatriation of powers. Moreover, the rest of the EU knows that stability and economic recovery in the eurozone is vital to the UK’s own economic interests. Some have said Cameron is not going to get his way by pointing a gun at everyone else’s head. I believe a more apt metaphor would be that of a madman, threatening to blow himself up unless he gets his own way.

Verhofstadt represents a deeply closed mindset in Brussels that still supports the notion of ever closer union despite the myriad problems afflicting the European Project. For Verhofstadt and his colleagues the very idea of EU member states carving opt-outs on various policies is absolute anathema. Any challenge to the established order, to the dream of a federal European superstate, is sheer heresy.

Verhofstadt’s rigid views are not just representative of his own group in the European Parliament. They are the dominant sentiments held by a significant majority of Europe’s political elite, from the upper echelons of the European Commission to the halls of the German Chancellery. (See also this YouTube video posted by Dan Hannan earlier this week, where Verhofstadt openly mocks the UK in a speech to the European Parliament.)

As Verhofstadt’s comments show, the idea that London will be able to successfully renegotiate its relationship with the EU and re-shape the Union in Britain’s image is a fantasy. If David Cameron is serious about defending British sovereignty there can be only one option – supporting a British exit from the EU, and pledging to hold a referendum before, not after, the next general election. Britain is a great nation with a proud history, whose soldiers liberated Brussels in 1944. It does not need to take any lessons from a pompous Belgian politician who can barely disguise his contempt for the country that selflessly freed his own people from tyranny just two generations ago.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Instrumentul trio-ului Voiculescu – Antonescu – Ponta in atacarea institutiilor statulului de drept este in aceste zile un senator PNL care a recunoscut public ca a colaborat cu Securitatea si care acum cere desfiintarea Agentiei Nationale de Integritate si amputarea puterilor Consiliului National al Audiovizualului.

Desfiintarea ANI i-ar face fericiti pe politicienii care nu vor sa li se controleze averile, dar ar incalca prevederile Mecanismului de Cooperare si Verificare, care a cerut crearea Agentiei: “instituirea, astfel cum s-a prevazut, a unei agentii de integritate cu responsabilitati privind verificarea averilor, a incompatibilitatilor si a potentialelor conflicte de interese, cu rolul de a pronunta hotarari cu caracter obligatoriu, pe baza carora sa se poata aplica sanctiuni descurajante”.

Taierea atributiilor CNA ii lasa cale libera colaboratorului Securitatii Dan Voiculescu, patronul trustului Intact, sa intensifice atacul mediatic asupra justitiei ori impotriva altui inamic personal, fara a primi sanctiuni. O fosta angajata a lui Voiculescu, senatoare USL, si-a propus sa „amendeze” legea Consiliului National al Audiovizualului si sa se implice in „procesul de redresare a TVR”.

Toate demersurile din aceste zile par sa fie coordonate de Voiculescu, colaborator al Securitatii si inculpat penal. Voiculescu este aparat si de Ponta, care a spus recent ca judecatorul de la Tribunalul Bucuresti, care a decis sa trimita dosarul inculpatului Voiculescu la Inalta Curte de Justitie si Casatie, a gresit si a cerut CSM sa il cerceteze.

Cheia atacurilor din ultimele zile este in buzunarul lui Voiculescu, care vrea sa controleze Romania si dupa 23 de ani de la Revolutie.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Ministrul Mona Pivniceru are cea mai mare raspundere pentru propunerile pe care le-a facut pentru functia de Procuror general al Parchetului de pe langa Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie si de Procuror sef al Directiei Nationale Anticoruptie.

Ministrul Pivniceru a fost cea care i-a selectat in urma interviului pe care l-a organizat la Ministerul Justitiei. Interviul pe care candidatii l-au sustinut in fata ministrului Justitiei a fost cu usile inchise, dar, dupa raspunsurile date astazi la CSM, putem banui ca nu au fost intrebati nici despre rolul Comisiei Europene in elaborarea raportului din cadrul Mecanismului de Cooperare si Evaluare si nici despre rezultatele activitatii DNA.

Este inacceptabil ca propunerea ministrului Justitiei pentru functia de procuror sef al DNA, Ioan Irimie,  sa nu cunoasca date despre activitatea specifica, cum ar fi date statistice despre condamnari si achitari, sau sa confunde Consiliul Europei cu Comisia Europeana, iar in ultimul an de activitate sa nu fi facut niciun rechizitoriu. La fel de inacceptabil este ca propunerea  ministrului Justitiei pentru functia de Procuror general al PICCJ, Tiberiu Nitu, sa nu stie efectele asa-numitei legi a “micii reforme” si sa nu prezinte nicio propunere concreta pentru gestionarea PICCJ.

Ministrul Mona Pivniceru trebuie sa-si asume raspunderea propunerilor inaintate CSM, sa se rusineze de modul in care s-au prezentat si sa isi dea demisia.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

The furious debate surrounding Israel’s ongoing military operation in Gaza was given a surreal twist this morning when Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks ambushed himself on the Today programme. Having concluded his rather mundane Thought for the Day, Sacks was asked the presenter Evan Davis whether he had any views on the violence. Clearly believing he was off air, Sacks began by wearily responding “I think it’s got to do with Iran, actually”, before he was suddenly made aware his words were being broadcast live, and hurriedly fell back on the more pious “a continued prayer for peace”. Cue much frothing and excitement on Twitter.

But then Twitter hardly needs much encouragement where Israel and the Palestinians are concerned. Watching this centuries old conflict played out in 140 characters isn’t the most edifying experience. But a couple of interventions did catch my eye yesterday, primarily because they were advancing a case that is gaining wide currency. I didn’t save any copies, but the gist was essentially: “If the IRA were firing a few rockets or mortars at us, would we start bombing the Falls Road?”

It’s one I’ve heard before, and provides quite a compelling frame for the proposition that Israel’s response is wholly – some would say murderously – disproportionate. Except there’s one small flaw in the argument. If London and mainland Britain were facing the sort of assault Tel Aviv and Israel are currently facing then we would be bombing the Falls Road, and several other parts of Northern, and southern, Ireland as well.

According to the Israeli government, since January, 563 missiles and rockets, and 204 mortars have been fired into Israel. By my rough calculation that’s more than two random attacks every day. Now, imagine if such a bombardment was currently being launched at London. Two or three times each day, as we were all going about our business, an air raid siren would sound. Most of the time nothing would happen; the incoming barrage would fall harmlessly into an empty field in Surrey or Kent; perhaps disturbing some livestock, but doing minimal damage. But every so often one would find its mark. A rocket would detonate in Leicester Square. Regent’s Street. The grounds of St Thomas’s Hospital. The playground of your child’s school.

What would our reaction be? Would we just sit back, shrug, and say “Well, there’s nothing we can really do. Remember, international law and all that”?

I’m not sure we would. In fact, I know I wouldn’t. I would be frantically tapping away on here, demanding an urgent, massive – and if necessary – disproportionate response. And I suspect I wouldn’t be alone.

But we don’t need to look into the crystal ball. We can just look back at what our reaction actually was, when we were the subject of our own, much more limited, assault from Irish Republican and Loyalist terrorism.

We didn’t give our military response a cool – if sinister – name like Operation Cast Lead, the last major Israeli incursion into Gaza. Ours was the more prosaic Operation Banner. Operation Banner lasted 38 years, and represented the longest unbroken deployment in the history of the British Army. At its peak 21,000 troops were on active service, including the Army, Navy Air Force, special forces and intelligence services.

Over 700 British military personnel lost their lives during the course of the operation. 150 civilians were also killed.

Britain’s proportionate response to the terrorist threat also involved the introduction of internment, the suspension of trial by jury, exclusion of UK citizens from the British mainland, unprecedented broadcasting restrictions, alleged collusion between the military and civilian authorities and paramilitary death squads, and several well documented miscarriages of justice.

And that was when Britain was confronted with terrorists whose relatively limited aim was a united – or divided – Ireland. Imagine if the daily rocket and mortar attacks we faced were from, say, Abu Qatada and his friends. Fanatics, whose objective wasn’t just a separate state for themselves, but our total annihilation. What if their rocket attacks were backed up by suicide attacks, and the threat of dirty bombs and indiscriminate casualties on an unimaginable scale?

Well again, we have no need of the crystal ball. When our close ally, the United States, was subject to just such an attack on 9/11, our response was swift. We launched a full scale invasion of Afghanistan. Thousands of troops. The RAF Tornado force. A Royal Navy carrier task force.

Britain and her allies lost over 3,000 service personnel, with a further 20,000 wounded. Over 14,000 civilians were killed. That was our proportionate response to the threat realised by 9/11. And that was an attack perpetrated by guys armed with box cutters, boarding passes and a few hours on a flight simulator.

Israel is currently under attack from Qassam rockets, which can propel a 20lb warhead up to 11 miles. Katyusha rockets, which can deliver a 35lb warhead over a distance of 13 miles. And the upgraded Grad rocket, which carries a 100lb warhead, and has a range of almost 30 miles.

I remember being told Britain was potentially in range of weapons like that. Actually, it wasn’t Britain itself, but “British interests”.

On 24 September, 2002, Tony Blair’s government published a dossier “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government” which asserted Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime had “constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable of reaching the UK Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus”. Our proportionate response to that rocket threat was the invasion of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of almost 5,000 US and British troops, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and the destabilisation of the entire region.

Some may debate the wisdom of Israel’s response; others the legality. But please, let’s not get all self-righteous and pretend that if it was British cities currently under rocket bombardment our own response would be a virtuous turn of the other cheek.

“If the IRA were firing a few rockets or mortars at us, would we start bombing the Falls Road?” Yes. We would.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Notă admin Blogary: în imaginea de mai sus e casa lui Al Gore.

ManBearPig just won’t quit. According to new e-mail documents I’ve obtained, global warming cultist Al Gore continues to pressure an independent videographer for his stunning footage of a fire tornado in the Australian outback.

You may recall that in September, Chris Tangey of Alice Springs Film and Television had rejected Gore’s request to use the firestorm film in his alarmist climate change presentations. (You can watch a snippet of the footage Gore wants to get his green, grubby paws on here.) As The Australian newspaper reported at the time, truth-teller Tangey told Gore’s office that it would be “deliberately deceptive” to license the footage for Gore propaganda. He added in his exchange with Gore’s office: “I am aware that you may have missed the reporting on the very localised nature of this firestorm,” Tangey wrote. “However, in any case, I am confused as to why you would offer to buy a licence to use it at all unless you had conducted even elementary research which might indicate that this Mt Conner event had direct linkage to global warming/climate change.”

Two months later, Gore’s reps are still after Tangey. The battle comes as Gore prepares for his “Dirty Weather Report” two-day online broadcast scheduled to begin on Wednesday.

Tangey received his first correspondence from Gore’s Carthage Group in September. Here’s a recap of that first correspondence:

On 25/09/2012, at 2:52 AM, Jill Martin wrote:

Hi Chris,

I work for former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Gore recently saw the amazing footage of the fire tornado taken on September 11th, and is interested in showing it during some of the presentations he gives on environmental topics.

Could you give me an idea of what you might charge to license that footage to us? Here are some details about how it would be used:

Usage: in live, PowerPoint-type presentations to live audiences
Where: worldwide
Term: for up to five years
Context: Mr. Gore often shows photos and video of wildfires in his presentations. This video would augment that section.

Thank you very much,

Jill

Jill Martin | Office of the Honorable Al Gore
Jill@carthagegroup.com | +1 408.348.7269

Tangey replied:

From: chris tangey chris@alicespringsfilmtv.com.au
Date: 30 September 2012 5:29:32 PM ACST
To: Jill Martin jill@carthagegroup.com
Subject: Re: Licensing the “fire tornado” film clilp

Jill,

Sorry for the late reply but I have been in Melbourne on a shoot down there.

I’ve now had time to look at your offer to license my footage, no doubt for a substantial amount of money, and have carefully considered it.
Having now had time in the last couple of days to research Mr. Gore and his usage of third party material previously I have to say I am a little concerned about the context in which my footage might be used.

To be honest, in terms of a global warming/climate change presentation it is difficult for me to imagine a fire event less relevant. This was, by all accounts and as reported, a highly localized event. The fire occurred in a patch of highly flammable spinifex grass, renowned for its intense heat, which had remained unburnt for a period of over 50 years, possibly causing an unprecedented build up of oils and resins in that small area. The local cattle ranchers had been protecting the habitat of the nearby mesa, Mt.Conner right up until this month’s fire.

On top of that it has been reported that the 10 day-old fire it emerged from was deliberately lit, not a natural event. In fact with not a cloud in the sky that day or even the slightest breeze, the only “weather” around had to come from the very-much contained area of the fire itself.

I am aware that you may have missed the reporting on the very localized nature of this firestorm. However, in any case, I am confused as to why you would offer to buy a license to use it at all unless you had conducted even elementary research which might indicate that this Mt. Conner event had direct linkage to global warming/climate change. I am happy to hear your response, but I can’t personally imagine one that I would find convincing.

Having taken all of the above into account I have had to make a decision not based on monetary reward but on what is the right thing to do.
Hopefully I have demonstrated that I have not dismissed this offer lightly. For me, if I were to allow this footage to be used in an out of context scenario, even by insinuation, I just wouldn’t feel right.

In fact if I were to use it myself in any climate change framework I would feel like I were being deliberately deceptive, so please thank the Vice President for your offer, but I must respectfully decline.

Kind regards
Chris Tangey

Despite widespread publicity and mockery of Gore’s failed attempt to turn Tangey’s work into junk science, Gore’s office persists.

On November 7, Gore’s Climate Reality Project contacted Tangey – again waving money around and ignoring Tangey’s previous, science-based objections:

Hi Chris!

Wasn’t sure if this is the same Chris who shot the fire tornado? But I was curious if Alice Springs Television still controlled the rights to the footage?
I’m a producer working on some documentary pieces for a nonprofit organization doing an internet broadcast, and was wondering how much it would
be to license some of the footage?

Thank you so much for your help and time!

Best wishes,

Andrea L. Smith
Producer/The Climate Reality Project
andrea.andreasmith@gmail.com
[phone numbers redacted]

Tangey again rejected Gore:

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:28 AM, chris tangey chris@alicespringsfilmtv.com.au wrote:

Andrea,

I mean no disrespect, but I have to say that at best your organisation has some serious internal communication problems.

At worst, Mr. Gore is now requesting these images “through the back door”, and I note in your email that you completely omit mentioning Mr. Gore or the specific intentions you have for its usage.

As I’m sure you are aware I have previously refused a request for this footage from your Founder and Chairman on the grounds that there is no evidence to support your proposed usage.

That is, that this intense, but incredibly localised, event has any relationship whatsoever to climate change/global warming. In fact from the expert advice I have received, I believe the evidence is to the contrary.

I am happy to be proved wrong, but that appears highly unlikely.

In any case, even if “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing” in Mr. Gore’s organisation, I again have to ask the question; Why would you request this footage if you do not have firm evidence to prove that this particular event was caused by, or was in any way attributable to, global or even regional climate change?

If a project is bold enough to call itself “Climate Reality, ” then I would reasonably expect a great deal of fact and reality attached to it.
I believe viewers all over the world would expect the same. If I tune into your special event “24 hours of reality” on November 14 and 15, how will I know which event you present is really factual and directly attributable, and which is not?

Dare I say, what will be truth and what won’t be? How will anyone watching know? Especially, how will the 4,000 activists around the world your project has trained to “educate and inspire others” know?

Are all your requests for visual material to support climate change presentations made without any prior requirement for supporting evidence?

I must say that this continuing episode has adversely affected my view of those promoting anthropological climate change , and I now view any programs about it with a more sceptical eye.

So, yet again, I cannot in all conscience accept your offer, for any amount.

Sincerely

Chris Tangey

The exchange continued. Smith wrote on November 8:

Chris,

First of all, I in no way meant to disrespect or offend you. I am an independent, freelance producer, and I don’t think anyone is trying to acquire the footage through “the back door.” I can assure you that the Climate Reality people have been very very tough on us as far as what stories we are able to cover. For instance, I have produced a piece on climate change and coffee in Colombia with scientists from CIAT, so it is very grounded in science, and both fascinating and terrifying as to what is happening all over this planet.

The program this year is to discuss “Dirty Weather” and “Extremes” of weather. It’s an open point for discussion for the scientists and panelists that will be participating. It’s to invite conversation and discussion. As a freelance producer I had no idea when I started this project that the US is the only country in the world that has an active Climate Denier movement – every other country in the world has accepted this as a fact and is moving forward to do something about it. From what I understand, Australia has implemented a very innovative carbon tax and has a number of other programs in place in many of their cities. I’m somewhat embarrassed I live in a country where we so greedily use up so much of the earth’s resources and seem immune to it.

Anyway, it’s an incredible piece of footage and fantastic you captured it. I have been lucky enough to have the opportunity to visit your country twice for extended periods of time, including Alice Springs. I can easily say Australia is one of my favorite places in the world. Again, no offense meant, and none taken. I hope you do have the opportunity to watch part of the programming and that you find merit in it.

Very best wishes,

Andrea L. Smith

Tangey spoke more reality-based truth to climate change brainwashing power:

Andrea,

Thanks for your response, I’m sure from your comments below that you are personally committed to the cause of anthropological climate change, but as copyright owner my primary concern is that any usage of this material should be scientifically valid and in context. I find that your response hasn’t addressed my specific questions on whether it would be scientifically appropriate to use it in an extreme weather context .

As has been widely reported, it was such a highly localised event it was most likely caused by the fire itself, let alone any external “weather” and certainly not anything on a climatic scale.

The cattle station owners (who have been on that property for 55 years) have indicated that is their firm belief, and that in fact its heat and severity was caused by the fact that they have deliberately protected that patch of resin-filled spinifex grass for over half a century, allowing that resin to build up over time. Spinifex (Triodia) is highly flammable and creates intense heat in any case.

Joel Lisonbee, Manager of the Northern Territory Climate Services Centre, was quoted as saying he also saw no connection between this event and climate change/global warming.

“This event was better described as a dust devil within a fire. Most of us have seen dust devils and know they are not uncommon,” Mr Lisonbee said

“You need hot, dry conditions but you get those in desert-like conditions everywhere, regardless of global warming.”

I know that we could just “agree to disagree” but I feel I must raise some real concerns to your response. Firstly your title indicates your are employed at the highest level of the Climate Reality Project, a Producer, freelancer or not, so I am confused as to why you refer to “the Climate Reality people” in the third person. Assuming for a moment that these people are separate to yourself you go on to say that they “have been very very tough on us as far as what stories we are able to cover”. So clearly this indicates they must have approved not just your enquiry about the footage, but the next stage of actually offering to buy it.

Since Mr. Gore’s office first contacted me to buy the rights, which indicated Mr. Gore himself had made the request to purchase, I have had cause to conduct considerable research on climate change.

In the course of this research I have discovered a lot of non-scientific, apparently agenda-driven name-calling going on, including your below “Climate Denier” tag.
Apparently “climate deniers” are people with a different viewpoint to yours, so are fair game to be labelled , put in a box and publicly pilloried. I would have though the correct scientific response would be to simply convince them of your argument. I think few people have doubt that the climate is changing, the questions are to what extent and whether it is human-induced. I am happy to be convinced, but by simply labelling questioners who need more information “climate deniers” might be colorful politics, but would seem a doomed approach to science education.

Now, the doubts that I mention don’t appear from thin air, but have actually been introduced by your own “team” so to speak , so it would appear a bit rich to be blaming others, let alone calling them childish names for them now having doubts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9192494/Climate-scientists-are-losing-the-public-debate-on-global-warming.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

Much more relevant to me is that my research has shown that your own Founder and Chairman has had his own share of controversy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Michael-Mann-says-hockey-stick-should-not-have-become-climate-change-icon.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/69679-judge-al-gores-nine-incovenient-truths

I have even found a quote from Mr. Gore saying that “the science is settled”. As far as I know true operational science is never settled, it is always open to additional data that may later arrive at a new conclusion.

You say the context of using my footage on this global media event would merely be as “an open point for discussion for the scientists and panelists that will be participating” and to “invite conversation and discussion.”

If there is going to be an “open discussion”, then I presume there will be Scientists with opposing opinions, if not, how will it be “open”?

I’m sorry, but this seems to me both disingenuous and illogical and echoes Mr. Gore’s original request to simply use it in “presentations” on “environmental topics”. In barely the space of a month 2 major Al Gore organisations, Climate Reality Project and Carthage Group have asked to buy this footage. Given the very reason for the existence of these organisations is to promote anthropological climate change, I am to believe that the purpose is actually NOT to sell viewers on climate change? Then sorry… why do you wish to buy it?

For your information I am no stranger to either science or extreme, wind-related weather events. For instance, I was Associate Producer, Head of Research and Co-Writer on the 1 hour long, 2001 National Geographic Channel (U.S.) documentary “Red Storm” which dealt with dust storms and the relevant science globally.

It seems to me I am the type of person you are making this program for, those of us yet to be convinced, but after the experience of the last month or so I’m afraid I am left less convinced than ever.

Cheers

Chris

So far, Gore’s office has not responded.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone
Bono

In addition to unions, other soak-the-rich because they’re evil types, and corporations-aren’t-people so we can destroy them without hurting anyone, President Obama hooked up with Bono of U2 fame. I love the music but hate the hypocrisy. U2 moved its businesses from Ireland years ago to avoid paying taxes. Moreover, the ONE Foundation created by Bono is nothing more than another pity Africa and make us feel better organization that rich socialists cobble together to assuage their guilt.

Consider that ONE raised $14.9 million in 2008 and distributed $184,732 to charities. The rest of the cash went toward salaries and administrative work.

These organizations are also around to try and embarrass western nations especially America. The fact that western nations have given poor nations over $2.0 trillion over the past fifty years never seems to be mentioned or appreciated. It’s the same within these nations where the richest people and corporations pay mountains of taxes only to be critiqued for not doing even more. It’s a ridiculous joke and takes all the attention off the fact that human beings owe it to themselves to change their lives.

All these would-be nice rich people that can’t wait to dig into pockets of others with less wealth in order to balance out a sense of guilt or a fit of anger are the biggest phonies in the world. They speak in the tongues of angels but their hands go into the pockets of well-off but not rich people.

Get past the glitter and the smiles and the talent and they are as cold as stone.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

At 11:29 p.m. local time, Hamas tweeted a photograph of a young boy bleeding in his father’s arms, apparently dead. Syrian exile Razzan Saffour, who lives in Britain and sympathizes with the Palestinian cause, responded:

She later tweeted an explanatory note to emphasize that she supports Hamas regardless of the fakery:

Aside from passing off civilian casualties caused by its former Syrian sponsors as Israeli atrocities, Hamas’s @Alqassambrigade account spent the day falsifying its military activities, claiming that Hamas was shelling military targets, when in fact most of the rockets from the Gaza Strip were aimed at Israel’s civilian population.

The IDF distributed–but did not tweet–photographs of civilian casualties in Israel due to Hamas rockets. The photograph at top is one of them.

That is what a real civilian casualty looks like. That is why Israel is at war.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.