French Parliament Approves Sweeping Surveillance Law

 

 

• Critics say the oversight role is illusory and that the law effectively centralizes surveillance power in the hands of just a few individuals.
• "A law that will change our society should have been debated. Why was there no public hearing? Why does the judge have no place in the monitoring procedure?" — Laurence Parisot, former head of Medef, the largest business lobby in France.
• "We cannot accept a law that notably authorizes the establishment of systems that not only locate people, vehicles or objects in real time, but also capture personal data, based on what the drafters of the law call, vaguely, 'the major interests of foreign policy,' 'the economic, industrial and scientific' interests of France, 'the prevention of collective violence,' or 'the prevention of crime and organized crime.'" — Pierre-Olivier Sur, head of the Paris bar association.

The French parliament has approved a landmark intelligence-gathering law that gives the state sweeping powers to spy on citizens.
The government says the new law — which was fast-tracked after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris in January — is aimed at preventing Islamic terrorism.
But privacy groups say the law, which has been referred to as "the French Patriot Act," is so vague and intrusive and centralizes surveillance power to such an extent, that it poses an unacceptable threat to civil liberties in France.
The law on intelligence-gathering was adopted in the National Assembly, the lower house, on May 5 by a large majority: 438 in favor, 86 against and 42 abstentions.
The bill has enjoyed broad support from France's two main parties: the ruling Socialist Party, led by French President François Hollande, and the opposition center-right Union for Popular Movement (UMP), led by former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
The law now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass, and could enter into effect as early as July.
The 100-page law (PDF here) — which updates a directive from 1991, before the Internet and mobile telephones became ubiquitous — sets out the legal framework within which France's six different intelligence agencies can gather information.
The law allows French authorities to monitor the digital communications of anyone linked to a terrorism investigation, and it also authorizes surveillance if it is deemed necessary to protect "national independence, territorial integrity and national defense."
More controversially, however, the law goes far beyond the prevention of terrorism and includes vague language that critics say is confusing and opens the door to future abuse. The law states, for example, that surveillance is allowed if it supports "major foreign policy interests," promotes "industrial and scientific interests," and/or prevents "attacks on the Republican form of [government] institutions."
The law also allows French intelligence agencies to install so-called "black boxes" (boîtes noires) attached to servers to enable the bulk collection of metadata. Moreover, the law allows government spies to place cameras and microphones in private homes and install "keylogger" software to record real-time key strokes on targeted computers.
Such monitoring will not require prior authorization from a judge, and Internet service providers (ISPs) and telephone companies must hand over data to the government upon request. French authorities would be allowed to keep recordings for one month and metadata for five years.
The law establishes the National Commission for Control of Intelligence Techniques (Commission nationale de contrôle des techniques de renseignement, CNCTR), a nine-person committee that the government says will oversee the surveillance operations, which are led by the prime minister.
But privacy groups say the establishment of the CNCTR is meaningless because it will not be invested with any real power. The commission's remit is limited to providing the prime minister with non-binding advice and it cannot overrule him.
The CNCTR can refer concerns to France's highest administrative court, the Council of State (Conseil d'État), which does have the power to order an end to surveillance. But critics say the CNCTR's oversight role is illusory and that the law effectively centralizes surveillance power in the hands of just a few individuals.
In a speech to Parliament on April 13, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls defended the law, which he said is "strictly focused on preventing serious threats." He added: "The criticisms and postures that evoke a French Patriot Act or a police state are irresponsible lies, given the threat environment that we face."
An opinion poll published on April 13 found that nearly two-thirds (63%) of French citizens were in favor of restricting civil liberties in order to combat terrorism. Only 33% said they were opposed to having their freedoms reduced, although this number increased significantly among younger respondents.
In any event, the bill, which some are calling the "French Big Brother," has run into intense opposition from business leaders, journalists, far-left political parties, civil liberties groups, lawyers and Internet activists.

Protestors in France, on May 4, 2015, denounce the surveillance bill that was passed into law the next day. (Image source: Amnesty International France)

Laurence Parisot, the former head of Medef, the largest business lobby in France, has called the new law a "freedom killer" (liberticide). In an April 17 interview with L'Obs, she said it was "draconian and dangerous," and added:

"I am appalled by this act. A country like ours cannot deny its fundamentals: individual freedom and the protection of individuals. I find it impossible to abandon these principles. Yet this is what is happening with the bill on intelligence. It will change our society. This is not the first time that I am fighting against a repressive law. The French cannot live in a surveillance society.
"It is appalling that no debate has taken place. A law that will change our society should have been debated. Why was there no public hearing? Why does the judge have no place in the monitoring procedure? The speed at which the government wants this bill to be passed, with the accelerated procedure, is a serious mistake.
"Moreover, it should be noted the silence of intellectuals about this law. Where are they? What are they doing? Why do they not speak? You cannot hear them and yet we need them. Ironically, yesterday [April 16] was the anniversary of the death of Alexis de Tocqueville. Is this a sign?

In a May 3 interview with Le Figaro, the head of the Paris bar association, Pierre-Olivier Sur, denounced the new law as a "state lie" which poses a "serious threat to civil liberties." While President Hollande claimed on television that the law was "an essential text for the fight against terrorism," in reality "it will also apply in many other areas," he wrote.
Sur expanded his criticism of the law in an essay published by Le Monde on May 4. Sur wrote:

"Supporters of the bill under discussion argue, against all evidence, that it applies only to the fight against terrorism, playing on our legitimate fears, expecting us to close our eyes to the unacceptable general provisions.
"We cannot accept a law that notably authorizes the establishment of systems that not only locate people, vehicles or objects in real time, but also capture personal data, based on what the drafters of the law call, vaguely, 'the major interests of foreign policy,' 'the economic, industrial and scientific' interests of France, 'the prevention of collective violence,' or 'the prevention of crime and organized crime.'
"In all such matters, it must remain a court judge who can instantly give, not a mere opinion, but a formal authorization or a refusal, based on the evidence and context that are brought to him. This is guaranteed by Article 66 of the Constitution which seems to be overlooked by the new text."

In a 23-page analysis, the Syndicat de la Magistrature, the second-largest trade union for judges in France, agrees. It said the new law effectively overturns more than 200 years of civil liberties protections in France. It wrote:

"The heart of the debate is about protecting individuals against the public abuse of power, as conceived by the drafters of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The new intelligence-gathering law is primarily about protecting the work of intelligence agents; protecting the freedoms of citizens is only a secondary consideration. The reversal of fundamental principles is shocking."

In an apparent bid to allay public concerns, President Hollande has now pledged to submit the law to the Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel), the highest constitutional authority in France, before it enters into effect. If the council deems that parts of the law violate the constitution, it may demand changes to the text to bring it into line.

 

 

by Soeren Kern

The American Educational system totally eliminates any reference to 400 years of Turkish occupation of the Balkans when millions of Serbian and Greek Christians were slaughtered on a regular basis. "Convert or Die" was the motto during those 400 years and that ugly motto is once again being used today by ISIS Muslim terrorists. During the 1990's over 450 Serbian Christian churches were destroyed but the American media managed to look away and barely reported on this level of ...genocide...Today 50 Egyptian Christian churches are destroyed and it makes international headlines. The Armenian Genocide has been a political issue for decades and today Obama refused to even call it "Genocide." Obama also manages to look away when Christians throughout the world are being slaughtered in what can only be called Christian Genocide but it flies in the face of his hidden Muslim agenda. Today the streets of Los Angeles are full of Armenians whose families were exterminate 100 years ago. It's time the American educational system start teaching world history instead of defending these Turkish and Iranian terrorists.

Will Turkey repeat genocide of Christians?

On 100th anniversary, Obama still avoids calling Islamic massacre of Armenians by its real name

 

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/04/armenian_genocide2.jpg

An Armenian woman forced to march in the desert carrying her child

Could it happen again?
That’s the question many ask when contemplating the Armenian Genocide on this, its official 100th anniversary. Could the Islamic world, now 1.5 billion strong, again turn on its Christian neighbors in a massive way as it did so horrifically in Turkey during World War I? And could the government of Turkey actually make it happen again? Some historians say yes.
Unlike the Nazi Holocaust, the perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide denies it ever happened. Because Turkey has not exorcised those demons, it’s a bad omen for the future, especially as Turkey continues to gain prominence in the Muslim world, say some scholars and Christian leaders.
In fact, the slaughter has already begun in the Middle East, on a smaller scale but with cold-blooded precision similar to the systematic elimination of Armenians and other Christians by the Ottoman Turks.

 

 

This should serve as a reminder that Muslim tolerance of non-Muslim conquered peoples has ranged over the centuries from lukewarm to non-existent. And with ISIS’ success in establishing a new, Ottoman-like caliphate in terms of its brutality, the very word “tolerance” seems like a quaint memory to Christians living in this part of the world.
With no concerted Western action to eliminate ISIS, it only grows in strength. And its primary enabler is, interestingly, Turkey, says noted Bible teacher Joel Richardson, author of the New York Times-bestselling “Islamic Antichrist” and director of the documentary film “End-Times Eyewitness.”
“Because we’ve reached the 100-year anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, it’s getting all sorts of new attention in the press, and with that it’s drawing out many of the deniers,” Richardson told WND in a phone interview. “Even on my own website or on Twitter I’ve had several people claiming that the Armenian Genocide never took place. Worst of all of these deniers is the modern-day government of Turkey.”
And the deniers come out not just on little-known Twitter accounts, but in the hallowed halls of the establishment media, even in so-called conservative publications.

National Review opinion editor Patrick Brennan posted an April 21 article saying it was “quite reasonable” for President Obama to resist the pressure to acknowledge the Armenian massacre as a genocide because that might “offend an ally.”
Brennan himself appears to question the validity of calling the Armenians’ “great suffering” a genocide.
“Indeed, there are a number of eminent historians who believe that the horrors either did not amount to genocide or that the evidence is too unreliable to say,” he wrote.
Brennan must have forgotten to read the more than 100 New York Times articles of 1915 that documented the forced death marches. He must have neglected to look at the countless photos, film archives and personal stories of horrific execution by beheading, shooting, hacking and burning that lasted for decades and included more than just Armenians. Syrian, Greek, Chaldean and Assyrian Christians all suffered greatly under the brutal Ottoman caliphate.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/04/armenian_genocide6.jpg

A Turkish official teases starving Armenian children by showing them a piece of bread during the Armenian Genocide

And Brennan must not have read any of the many books, including eyewitness accounts such as that of U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Henry Morgenthau, meticulously documenting the well-planned butchering of Armenians by Turkish soldiers, as well as accounts of how normal Turkish Muslim citizens were incited by imams to kill their Christian neighbors.
‘And then they were all killed’
WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, who lost several family members in the genocide, grew up hearing stories from his grandmother that the killings were so well orchestrated that they began and ended at the sound of a bugle ringing out from the local mosque.
Read David Kupelian’s powerful story, “The Armenian Genocide and my grandmother’s secret.”
In fact, the killing started well before 1915. Some 300,000 Armenians were killed in Turkish massacres during the latter part of the 19th century, and continued on into the 20th century.
In 1909, Kupelian’s great-grandfather, a Protestant minister named Steelianos Leondiades, was traveling to the Turkish city of Adana to attend a pastors’ conference. Here’s how his maternal grandmother, Anna Paulson, daughter of Steelianos, describes the scene that day:

“Some of the Turkish officers came to the conference room and told all these ministers – there were 70 of them, ministers and laymen and a few wives: ‘If you embrace the Islamic religion you will all be saved. If you don’t, you will be killed.’”

Kupelian’s grandfather, acting as spokesman for the ministers, asked the Turks for 15 minutes so they could make their decision. During that time the ministers and their companions talked, read the Bible to each other, and prayed. In the end, none of them would renounce their Christian faith and convert to Islam.
“And then,” Anna recalled, “they were all killed. They were not even buried. They were all thrown down the ravine.”
The only reason Kupelian’s family knew any of the details of this particular massacre is because one victim survived the ordeal.
“One man woke up; he wasn’t dead,” his grandmother said. “He woke up and got up and said, ‘Brethren, brethren, is there anybody alive here? I’m alive, come on, let’s go out together.’”
Not just genocide, but ‘jihad genocide’
With virtually no pressure from President Obama or the U.S. Congress, Turkey apparently concludes it can go on living in denial and thumbing its nose at history. The Turkish leaders have the most powerful government in the world covering for them, and plenty of apologists to continue throwing doubt upon the validity of what happened 100 years ago.
But there are consequences beyond the war of words, Richardson says. Those who minimize or revise history are more likely to repeat it.
“In order to see that such genocide is never repeated, the first step is to acknowledge its reality. Whenever a government denies something so morally abhorrent and historically demonstrable, then that person or government is most likely to be responsible for future atrocities,” Richardson said.
Pope acknowledges Armenian ‘Genocide’
Pope Francis recently made a strong statement about the Turks’ guilt in carrying out the atrocities of 1915, becoming the first pope to use the word “genocide.” His comments prompted an immediate, angry condemnation from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who summoned the Vatican ambassador and recalled his own, warning the pope not to repeat his comments about the Turkish murder of millions in the early years of the 20th century.
German President Joachim Gauck, speaking on the eve of the April 24 commemoration, described the killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as “genocide.”
The German parliament was scheduled to debate the issue this week. Germany has a large population of Turkish Muslim immigrants, which could make the issue explosive in German cities with high concentrations of Turks.
Speaking at a church service in Berlin, Gauck said: “The fate of the Armenians stands as exemplary in the history of mass exterminations, ethnic cleansing, deportations and yes, genocide, which marked the 20th Century in such a terrible way.”
He described the 1915 atrocity as “planned and systematic mass murder.”
The official annual commemoration of the genocide is April 24, the date of a particularly egregious 1915 massacre in Constantinople of hundreds of Armenian intellectuals, writers and artisans. As of April 23, the silence coming from Washington has been deafening, Richardson said.
“The entire world needs to stand up in the face of the increasingly bullying and dictatorial government in Turkey and begin by acknowledging and renouncing the Armenian Genocide,” he said. “We’re happy the pope has shown the moral fortitude to denounce this genocide, but as American Christians we are ashamed our own president, out of political expediency, has allowed himself to be bullied by Turkish President Erdogan.”
Obama made a public statement while running for office in 2008 that he would acknowledge the Armenian Genocide but, once in office, he backtracked.
The White House did issue a statement from Obama late Thursday that decried the “horrific acts of violence” and “first mass atrocity of the 20th century,” conveying sympathies to the Armenian people on the centennial of this “dark chapter” in history. But Obama stopped short of calling it a genocide. Nor did he mention that the atrocities were carried out by Muslims against Christians.
“So while the deniers are the greatest threat, it’s the leaders such as president Obama that don’t have enough moral courage to stand up that are actually the enablers of such atrocities throughout history,” Richardson said. “This is a truly shameful thing that all Americans, whether conservative or liberal, should demand that our president make a clear moral statement on.”
Cowards on Capitol Hill
Dr. Andrew Bostom, a Jewish physician and scholar who has written five books on the history of Islam, including “Legacy of Jihad” and “Sharia Versus Freedom,” is equally disappointed with the failure of not only Obama but Congress. Even when the genocide is mentioned by a U.S. politician, it is rarely in the context of Islam’s history of jihad, he says.
“The major reluctance is to describe the genocide as a specific form of genocide: a JIHAD genocide,” Bostom wrote in an email to WND. “Nazi genocide, and communist genocides have been exposed and denounced as 20th century totalitarian ideologies that resulted in genocidal killings … But not the totalitarianism of Islam’s JIHAD.”
Bostom, referring to Obama’s comments at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year, noted that Obama, rather than condemn Muslim-led jihads, would rather compare them with the Christian crusades of 1,000 years ago in an effort to detract and deflect attention away from the current atrocities of ISIS. The underlying message of this type of comparison, said Bostom, is that all religions are capable of horrendous evil,and that Islam is no different than Christianity.
That is not only historically inaccurate, but Bostom, a Jew, sees it as a deceptive attempt at moral equivalency. Christian leaders of almost every stripe have long since apologized for any and all offenses possibly committed during the crusades, despite evidence that these wars were launched as a defensive action against 450 years of bloody Islamic jihads directed against Eastern Christians.
There has been no similar sense of mea culpa among Muslims for centuries of jihad, among which the Armenian Genocide stands out as one of the most brutal and barbarous.
“A century later, it is now readily apparent such a long overdue, mea culpa-based Muslim self-examination will never begin if the non-Muslim, especially Christian, targets of jihad genocide, remain in their own abject state of jihad denial,” Bostom said. “U.S. politicians could help facilitate that Muslim re-evaluation process by not only demanding recognition of the Armenian Genocide, but further identifying those mass killings as a jihad genocide.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/04/armenian_genocide5.jpg

A street in the Armenian quarter of Adana left pillaged and destroyed after massacres in 1909

In Turkey today, it remains a crime to teach about the Armenian Genocide, or for journalists to report on it from an “anti-government” perspective.
“We now have a government in Turkey that is arresting 13-year-old and 14-year-old kids for insulting the president,” Richardson said. “We have a president (Erdogan) who is accusing the Jewish community of being the mastermind of all global wars and problems, who is spouting out the worst form of racist conspiracy theories. This is the monster that President Obama is caving into.”
Ronald Reagan was the last American president to use the term “genocide” in describing the slaughter of Christian Armenians by Muslim Turks.
Why is Obama refraining from using the “g” word in reference to the Armenian slaughter?
“First of all, he’s a coward. But second of all, he would argue that Turkey is still our greatest ally in the region, walk softly and carry a big stick, etcetera, but the truth is there are times in history that demand that moral men take a stand, and this is absolutely one of those moments,” Richardson said.
The rise of ISIS and the renewed emphasis on wiping out the Christian presence in the Middle East makes this a pivotal point in history.
Dire warnings from prominent Christians
Some Christian leaders are sounding the alarm.
Franklin Graham recently said Christians need to “wake up,” and that “a storm is coming” to America that will be fueled by Muslim hatred.
James Dobson likewise came out and said conservative Christians are soon to become a “hated minority” in America.
In another bad sign, Muslim attacks on Jewish targets in Europe have reached the highest level since World War II.
“Particularly when we have people openly calling for genocide of the Jewish people right now, and there are vicious attacks on Christians, the beginnings of a genocide being carried out on Christians right now throughout the Middle East, and we cannot even acknowledge the genocide of our recent history, just 100 years ago, so we are doomed to repeat it,” Richardson said.
U.S. college campuses boiling with Muslim rage
Pamela Geller, an activist blogger and author who speaks out against Islamic anti-Semitism and hatred of Christianity, has experienced first-hand the growing hostility of Muslims toward anyone who would question their view of history and current events.
At a recent speech on the ISIS threat given at Brooklyn College in New York City, Geller was met with 80 percent Muslim students who packed the meeting hall and continuously heckled, jeered and laughed at her.
When she mentioned that ISIS “continues to grow,” at least one student shouted, “Thank God!”
Watch video clip of American Muslim students saying “Thank God” for rise of ISIS

With that kind of bloodthirsty fervor prevalent among Muslims on U.S. college campuses, Geller believes another genocide against Christians and Jews is possible.
“Absolutely, yes, it could happen again. Islamic jihadists frequently declare their genocidal intentions,” she told WND. “In response, Western leaders do nothing but insist that this has nothing to do with Islam. Obama’s denial is part of this – we are not confronting the genocidal ideology, and so it will only spread.”
Has the next holocaust already started?
This is what Richardson refers to as “the moral slippery slope.”
And Turkey’s questionable stance toward ISIS does not help quell fears that a new holocaust could be brewing.
“We need to recognize that the government of Turkey is the primary supporter of ISIS, logistically, financially, and in every way, that’s slaughtering Christians across the Middle East, so the world needs to take a stand and stop pretending that the Turkey of today is the Turkey of a decade ago,” Richardson said. “Because they are not our allies. Turkey has been taken over by a radical Islamic government and the government has experienced its own Islamic revolution, and we have a modern-day Adolf Hitler right before our eyes. We are living in the mid-1930s right now with history repeating itself and what we need right now are Bonhoeffers, not Chamberlains.”
“It’s so easy for Christians in the U.S. or in the West to not see the importance of the Armenian Genocide for themselves, but if we sit by and idly do nothing, then there will be nobody to stand up and speak for us when persecution comes to us and to our own shores,” Richardson said.
Richardson said Erdogan’s ultimate goal is to re-establish the very Ottoman caliphate that proved so brutal in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
“By 2022, his goal is to have the Ottoman Empire revived,” Richardson said. And the Turkish influence is already being spread beyond Turkey’s borders, to far-flung places like Somalia in East Africa.
“In the public square (of Mogadishu), you have the Turkish flag flying above the Somali flag in Somalia. It’s just crazy, so their imperialism is being affected by financial grants, construction projects, and all kinds of money pouring into all these poor countries and then they’re sending missionaries into these countries, not only for Islam, but for Turkish Islam,” he said. “They’re doing it in the Balkans and Middle East, and that’s why they’re trying to take out Bashar Assad (in Syria). Over the next 10 to 15 years, the two nations to watch are Iran and Turkey. After that, we’re going to see a massive Turkish engagement throughout the Middle East, and I think borders are going to change. That’s you’ll have the threat of genocide during that time, because Erdogan is irrational, he’s crazy, and when someone is filled with that level of narcissism and irrationality, there’s no question there is the threat of another genocide. And the world hasn’t woken up yet to that possibility.”

 

 

 

 

HOW PATHETIC...
CROATIANS RAISED $68 MILLION DOLLARS AND HIRED RUDER-FINN PUBLIC RELATIONS...THE WORLD'S LARGEST PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM IN WASHINGTON THAT ADMITTED TO LYING IN HUMAN RIGHTS HEADLINES AND THEN SAID IN PUBLIC..."WE WERE NOT PAID TO BE MORAL." WELL NOW THOSE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST...
CROATS GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, FREEDOM FROM SERBIA...BUT WHAT THEY DID NOT PLAN ON WAS 28% UNEMPLOYMENT, A TOTAL LACK OF INVESTMENT FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND A MEMBERSHIP IN THE EU THAT BOUGHT THEM FINANCIAL SLAVERY... INTEREST RATES ARE SKY HIGH IN A BANKING SYSTEM SO CORRUPT THAT THE MAJORITY OF CROATIANS WILL BE LOSING THEIR HOMES, THEIR JOBS AND THEIR COUNTRY ....LIKE 2008 IN THE UNITED STATES MOST CROATS CAN'T PAY THEIR PERSONAL DEBTS AND ITS GETTING UGLY. MAYBE THEY WILL EVENTUALLY TURN ON EACH OTHER?
THAT MAKES "SERBIAN DOMINATION" AND THE ALLEGED "SERB AGGRESSION" TAME BY COMPARISON...THESE CROATIAN MORONS WOULD GLADLY RESURRECT MILOSEVICH FROM THE DEAD A WELCOMED MIRACLE. HOW ABOUT GOING TO BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON TO BAIL YOU OUT?...THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ENCOURAGED YOU TO GO TO WAR AND THEY EVEN FINANCED, AIDED, EQUIPPED AND TRAINED YOUR MILITARY....HOW IS THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU?
YOU NOW HAVE A WOMAN AS PRESIDENT WHO DENIES ANY OF THE REMAINING SERBS IN CROATIA HUMAN RIGHTS...ISN'T THAT THE UGLY PROCLIVITIES THAT CREATED YOUR MESS TODAY IN CROATIA? YOUR NAZI PROCLIVITIES ARE SMOTHERING YOU...MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR ROTTEN SOULS...
Rising to the streets this weekend will be the proof that the Croats have lost patience waiting for a "better future", and that there are fewer and those who believe that joining the EU would be the magic wand for their problems in Croatia.
Today in Zagreb: Ban Jelacic Square, if packed with demonstrator at a rally that reached more than 50,000 people according to political analysts, was the end of an indifferent attitude of the citizens towards the crisis and strong political leadership warning that the country has to change. HOW ABOUT APOLOGIZING TO THE SERBIAN PEOPLE AND COMPENSATING THEM FOR THE 250,000 YOU ETHNICALLY CLEANSED...GIVE THOSE SERBS BACK THEIR LAND AND THEIR HOMES AND MAYBE YOUR COUNTRY CAN RETURN TO PROSPERITY...
The protests come a few days after the publication of the ranking list of the success of EU member states by the European Commission, which said Croatia in last place, transmitted "Novosti.rs."
What has long predicted that Croatia will find the fate of Greece, now, it seems, on the right. Public finances are sunk, no investment, artificially to address the issue of unemployment, blocked accounts is more, as responsible citizens who are unable to repay loans. Europe of Croatian seeking new belt-tightening, to reduce the deficit. Real reform is still there, and it is sure to be an election year issue.
On the streets will be the first to come out, "blocked", ie those citizens who can not pay their bills because most have no jobs. Today, in Croatia more than 300,000, and from month to month debts only grows. Next announcing protests savers to "the Swiss", dissatisfied with the way of resolving their fate.
List of discontented in Croatia is getting longer and bigger, so will the government of Zoran Milanovic, this will be a long, hot summer. Elections are expected later this year.
 

KKK "GRAND EXALTED CYCLOPS" SENATOR ROBERT BYRD OF WEST VIRGINIA, (my home state), SERVED THE SENATE FROM 1959 TO 2010...HE WAS A RACIST LUNATIC AND A DEMOCRAT. IN 1940 HE GATHERED 157 OF HIS CLOSE FRIENDS TO FORM A NEW CHAPTER OF THE KKK.
HE BECAME A RECRUITER AND THE LEADER OF THAT CHAPTER. THEN IN THE 1990s THE DEMOCRATS FORGAVE HIM BECAUSE HE WAS SUCH A POWERFUL DEMOCRAT. RACISM EXISTS IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE USED THEIR POWER AND POSITIONS TO PUT DOWN... THE BLACKS...IT HAS BEEN DEMOCRATIC POLICIES THAT HAVE CREATED GENERATIONS OF THE POOR AS THEY LINED THEIR POCKETS...MUCH LIKE HILLARY CLINTON IS DOING AS SHE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT.

NOW WE ARE ALL SUPPOSE TO BELIEVE BYRD CHANGED 50 YEARS OF HIS BIGOTED MINDSET... BUT IT HAS BEEN DEMOCRATS FOR 60 YEARS WHO HAVE CREATED THE FUNDING AND THE POLICIES THAT HAVE LED TO BALTIMORE AND FERGUSON AND THE WATTS RIOTS IN CALIFORNIA.

This Day in History… Republicans Pass Anti-KKK Act – Outlawing Democratic Terrorist Groups




On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)
On April 20, 1871 the Republicans passed the anti-Ku Klux Klan Act outlawing Democratic terrorist groups.
The Miller Center reported:

On April 20, 1871, at the urging of President Ulysses Grant, Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act. Also known as the third Enforcement Act, the bill was a controversial expansion of federal authority designed to give the federal government additional power to protect voters. The act established penalties in the form of fines and jail time for attempts to deprive citizens of equal protection under the laws and gave the President the authority to use federal troops and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in ensuring that civil rights were upheld.
Founded as a fraternal organization by Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan soon became a paramilitary group devoted to the overthrow of Republican governments in the South and the reassertion of white supremacy. Through murder, kidnapping, and violent intimidation, Klansmen sought to secure Democratic victories in elections by attacking black voters and, less frequently, white Republican leaders.

In related news – Republicans led the charge on civil rights and women’s rights.

This list was originally compiled by Michael Zak at Grand Ole Partisan and then posted at Free Republic:

September 22, 1862: Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
January 1, 1863: Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect
The Democratic Party continues to Support Slavery.
February 9, 1864: Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery
June 15, 1864: Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War
June 28, 1864: Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts
October 29, 1864: African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”
January 31, 1865: 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition
Republican Party Support: 100% Democratic Party Support: 23%
March 3, 1865: Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves
April 8, 1865: 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate
Republican support 100% Democrat support 37%
June 19, 1865: On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation
November 22, 1865: Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination
1866: The Republican Party passes the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the rights of newly freed slaves
December 6, 1865: Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified
*1865: The KKK launches as the “Terrorist Arm” of the Democratic Party
February 5, 1866: U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves
April 9, 1866: Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
April 19, 1866: Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery
May 10, 1866: U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
June 8, 1866: U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
July 16, 1866: Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights
July 28, 1866: Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen
July 30, 1866: Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150
January 8, 1867: Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867: Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
March 30, 1868: Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
May 20, 1868: Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors
1868 (July 9): 14th Amendment passes and recognizes newly freed slaves as U.S. Citizens
Republican Party Support: 94% Democratic Party Support: 0%
September 3, 1868: 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress
September 12, 1868: Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor
October 7, 1868: Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
October 22, 1868: While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
November 3, 1868: Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation
December 10, 1869: Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
February 3, 1870: The US House ratifies the 15th Amendment granting voting rights to all Americans regardless of race
Republican support: 97% Democrat support: 3%
February 25, 1870: Hiram Rhodes Revels becomes the first Black seated in the US Senate, becoming the First Black in Congress and the first Black Senator.
May 19, 1870: African American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies
May 31, 1870: President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights
June 22, 1870: Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
September 6, 1870: Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
December 12, 1870: Republican Joseph Hayne Rainey becomes the first Black duly elected by the people and the first Black in the US House of Representatives
In 1870 and 1871, along with Revels (R-Miss) and Rainey (R-SC), other Blacks were elected to Congress from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia – all Republicans.
A Black Democrat Senator didn’t show up on Capitol Hill until 1993. The first Black Congressman was not elected until 1935.
February 28, 1871: Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
March 22, 1871: Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina
April 20, 1871: Republican Congress enacts the (anti) Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

 

Tell the truth, the blame is on the person looking back at you in the mirror. No slavery, no white power its YOU THE MAN IN THE MIRROR!!!
 

Simple question, with a simple answer not the Republicans fault and sure as hell not their responsibility.
 

What to Do About ISIL?

• No Western leader strides out to the TV cameras and says that much the best response to the butchering of his or her citizens is to do not much, then wait to see what happens.
• If we really do think that ISIL has no place in our century, let us start to give that idea substance: create a master-register of suspected war criminals; block companies that do business with ISIL from Western markets; cut diplomatic relations with supporters of ISIL.

At a recent conference, I found myself bemoaning the ineffectiveness of Western military action against the Islamic State (ISIL). We in the West had decided to attack ISIL, but seemed to be pulling our punches. Why were their banking, propaganda and other facilities that support their terrorist operations not being blown to bits?
Imagine the surprise when a senior U.S. expert on these issues replied that by far the best thing to do with ISIL was precisely nothing: the Middle East and wider "Muslim world" was doomed to a massive revolting civil war, so let them get on with it and take stock of the situation once it clarified.
That, perhaps, is rather easier for an American to say. European leaders stare aghast at the rising death toll among refugees ("migrants") in boats in the Mediterranean. Is it moral to do Nothing? But does doing Something simply encourage more terrified people to try to cross to Europe and stay there? Where does such a process end? Whose continent is Europe anyway?
Anything can be analysed indefinitely. Policy papers, strategy documents, roadmaps, risk management assessments, spreadsheets of options can all be produced in bewildering, bureaucratic profusion. Yet sooner or later, one of our leaders has to go out to face the media or the public, and explain in just a few words what is happening, and what to do about it.
Any such statement has to accomplish two basic tasks. It has to describe the proposed action and explain why that action makes sense. And it has to do that convincingly, while setting a compelling tone.
The statement by President Obama in August last year, following the murder by ISIL of the American hostage, journalist James Foley, was, of course, awful on almost every level. It failed to convey urgency, and framed itself against the all-important background of the president's golfing prowess. Above all, the central explicit philosophical idea was unerringly wrong: "One thing we can all agree on is that a group like ISIL has no place in the 21st century."
Why should we agree on that, when it is horribly obvious (a) that ISIL does have a place in this century and (b) that its place is tending to grow, including by attracting young people from our own societies who take post-modern irony to its logical conclusion, namely lurching society back to the gory glory of the Dark Ages?
On the other hand, the president's statement arguably ticked the box of purposeful inactivity. If the real policy is to sit back and watch the different violent factions in the Middle East attack each other, but not in fact admit that that is the policy, maybe the statement was quite clarifying in the greater scheme of things.
One thing we perhaps can all agree on is that the worst of all worlds is to appear tentative or indecisive. No Western leader strides out to the TV cameras and says that much the best response to the butchering of his or her citizens is to do not much, then wait to see what happens. Even those people who might agree that, all things considered, this is the best policy, will be tempted to hoot that the leader is showing clueless weakness. Leaders are paid by us to act! They hit us? We hit them! What's so difficult about that?
Well, yes. But there is a problem.
Precision bombing of ad hoc targets degrades and demoralizes ISIL to some extent. But it does not do much to tackle the primitive yet alluring ideological impulse that ISIL represents. It might even encourage it. Plus, our accumulated experience in the Middle East since 9/11 suggests that acting tough does not necessarily improve the situation.
Is there a middle way of cautious offense? If you folks over there want to murder each other over theological distinctions, we will not actively move against you and weigh in on one side or the other, as we did recently in Libya. However, we will take steps to defend our civilization against you and try to stop you spreading, by raising the immediate cost to you and your supporters of your loathsome activities.
In other words, if we really do think that ISIL has no place in our century, let us start to give that idea substance.

• Proclaim that anyone joining ISIL goes on a master-register of suspected war criminals, and is likely to be an unemployable outlaw for the rest of his or her wretched life.
• Declare that under no circumstances will any so-called state or "caliphate" created by ISIL ever be admitted into any serious international organization.
• Announce that any Western companies that do business with other companies trading with ISIL or helping with its finances face brutal fines; any other companies found to be trading with ISIL or funding its activities will be blocked indefinitely from Western markets.
• Diplomatic and trading relations with any country found to be directly supporting ISIL will be terminated forthwith. And so on.

An ISIL spokesman proclaims the organization's plans to conquer Israel and the West.

Any such robust policy package as this will be implemented imperfectly. All policies are implemented with "pragmatic" (or cynical) exceptions and qualifications. Yet something like this at least sets a serious intellectual and rhetorical framework that makes sense to most of the mainstream global community and is likely to win popular support across the political spectrum.
The key point? Answer the bold ISIL assertion of inevitable Islamist victory with a clear counter-message: No, you are merely violent losers, you are not going anywhere.

Charles Crawford served as UK Ambassador in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw. He is now a communication consultant