Is UN plotting to bring illegal aliens from Libya to Europe?

Is UN plotting to bring illegal aliens from Libya to Europe?

Thousands of sub-Saharan African illegal aliens are in detention centers in Libya. Gaddafi had been processing them for repatriation as part of a large agreement with Italy.

Since problems began in North Africa, illegal aliens have been flooding into Southern Europe creating a major crises. The launching of the Sarkozy/Obama war in Libya has made matters much worse.

Libya just made a deal with the UN to allow aid workers to Tripoli and Misurata. The UN has already commenced the evacuation of as many as 5,000 Philippine oil workers. However, the radical left-wing European media is calling for a “rescue” of detained illegal immigrants in Libya as well.

Italy, Malta, and Greece are at breaking points. Popular anger over EU immigration policies is boiling over.

Now France has openly violated EU immigration law to block the entry of illegal aliens “lawfully” crossing the Italian/French border. This has given the Italians ammunition to go against EU open borders policies as well. France had been blocking illegal aliens along their Mediterranean border and diverting them to Italian Islands. Italy retaliated by given some of them temporary visas so they could legally cross back into France. In return France called up riot police to block their entry.

Meanwhile German officials have already stated that they will not agree to take a share of the new illegal aliens.

One of more straw could break the camels back and lead to open defiance of the EU by Southern Europe over immigration laws.

European Union: We have power to control member nations economies, we suggest that member nation ban all political parties we deem racist.

EU Can Control all Member Nations’ Economies Says ‘Former Communist’ Commission President

March 4, 2010 – By BNP News

Jose-Manuel-Barroso-cpThe European Union has the power in terms of the Lisbon Treaty to control the economies of all its member states, former Communist Party member and now European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has announced.

Mr Barroso said yesterday he was going to use the “full force” of the Lisbon Treaty to impose economic control over every EU nation.

He said that this would be necessary to create “financial stability” within the EU. “The economic crisis is worse than anyone imagined and increased economic inter-dependence demands a more determined response and makes the case for stronger economic governance in the EU,” Mr Barroso said.

“Now we have the Lisbon Treaty, which provides for (economic) policy warnings. The commission intends to use these powers to the full.

“The commission will address country-specific (economic) recommendations to member states and warnings in the case of inadequate responses.”

He said the commission would now draw up economic targets for all member states in five key areas, including employment, poverty reduction and the number of young people attending university.

“Five years ago, at the time of the proposed revision of the Lisbon Treaty, there was strong resistance to the idea of stronger governance in Europe and increased economic co-ordination.

“But now things have changed. There is a much bigger awareness of the need to act together … that is recognised and accepted by all European leaders.

Gordon Brown committed Britain to the Lisbon Treaty and David Cameron is also now committed to it after giving an “iron-clad” guarantee that he would give the public a referendum on the topic.

* The Conservative Party also betrayed its supporters by voting for the re-election of Mr Barroso as European Commission president.

Mr Barroso received a standing ovation from many Conservative MEPs when the result of the vote was announced — despite his membership of the underground Maoist MRPP (Reorganising Movement of the Proletariat Party, later PCTP/MRPP Communist Party of the Portuguese Workers/Revolutionary Movement of the Portuguese Proletariat).

Eurocrats Urge the Government to Dissolve Opposition Parties

March 4, 2010 – By Michael Wood

The New Nazi Empire

An EU report has recommended that organisations which it describes as ‘racist’ be dissolved and has described the BNP’s electoral success as ‘unpalatable’.

While not specifically calling on the BNP to be dissolved, it is clear from the context of the report that this is what is intended.

In a report released on Tuesday by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), for the Council of Europe, said it was “greatly concerned” about the democratic election of two BNP members, together with the  “substantial local support bases in certain regions”.

The ECRI asserts that emergency legislation adopted in 2002 should allow the UK government to dissolve legal and democratic organisations such as the BNP.

Aside from proposing anti-democratic manoeuvres, the ECRI makes the following recommendations:

1.)    Increased funding for Trevor Phillips’ race Gestapo; the heavily criticised Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

2.)    The construction of more pitches for gypsies and travellers.

3.)    Undocumented (bogus) asylum seekers should not be considered as criminals.

4.)    Further witch-hunting of the employees within the Home Office and UK Border Agency.

5.)    Provide more legal aid for employees that play the race card.

The commission is chaired by Latvian Nils Muiznieks, the author of several anti-nationalist publications, not a surprising choice given the federalist nature of the Council of Europe.

You may view the full report here.

Labour Party Think Tank Says Britain Needs Even More Third World Immigration

March 3, 2010 – By BNP News

13b-illustrationThe Labour Party’s leading ideological think tank, the extremist, leftist Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has called for an increase in Third World migration to Britain on the grounds that it “economically benefits” the immigrants’ origin nations — even though it costs Britain billions and is destroying British cohesion and identity.

The revealing insight into the criminal and treasonous nature of the Labour Party’s leading ideologues in the IPPR was provided in a report entitled”Development: Do points mean prizes? How the UK’s migration policies could benefit the world’s poor”, published at the beginning of this month.

The IPPR was previously headed up by Matthew Taylor, the Labour Party’s Campaign Co-ordinator and Director of Policy during the 1997 general election. He played an important role in drawing up the Labour manifesto and was Assistant General Secretary of the Labour Party until 1998.

Tony Blair appointed Mr Taylor to head the Number 10 Downing Street Policy Unit and to draw up the Labour Party’s manifesto for the 2005 election.

Other IPPR directors have included Nick Pearce, a former special advisor to David Blunkett MP. Former IPPR staffers have included cabinet ministers Patricia Hewitt and David Miliband while another leading light in the IPPR is Tristram Hunt who sits on the Labour’s National Parliamentary Panel.

(Mr Hunt recently published a sympathetic biography of Friedrich Engels, the co-founder of communist ideology, called Marx’s General: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels.)

According to the new IPPR report, the Government’s “points-based system” for assessing the skills of newcomers should be used as a tool for international aid.

The report says that ministers should “take into account the economic boost when immigrants send cash home to their families” — in other words, the billions that migrant workers send home, out of Britain, are another way of subsidising the Third World.

Although this is of course true, it ignores the fact that it is the British economy — already struggling under a massive deficit, unprecedented Government borrowing and near-record unemployment — which is being used as a source for this “subsidy.”

The report claims: “There are arguments for increasing the freedom of movement to migrants between the UK and their home countries for skilled and low-skilled workers.

“Our analysis has shown that trying to reduce skilled migration flows to the UK from developing countries may actually be bad for development in many circumstances.

“Many developing countries could benefit, it appears, from more rather than less skilled emigration because of the remittances that migrants send, the transnational communities that migration creates, and the positive incentives that migration can create, which in many places outweigh any negative impacts that skilled emigration has.”

The IPPR report even called for an increase in non-skilled Third World migration, saying: “We also think that in some cases there is a development argument for increasing migration flows. For some developing countries this would involve more skilled emigration (certainly to above five percent), and many countries seem likely to benefit from the opening up of more channels for low-skilled migration.”

The British National Party’s policy is one of closing the gates. Britain is already overpopulated and the time has come for a government to put the interests of the British people first — economically, socially and politically.

* The annual total cost of immigration to the British taxpayer is now set at just over £13 billion per year.

According to figures compiled earlier by Oxford Professor of Demography, David Coleman, and released by independent think tank Migrationwatch, immigration already costs the British taxpayer some £12.8 billion per year.

This figure does not include the cost of housing and feeding foreign prisoners generated by the imprisonment of 11,350 foreign convicts in Britain’s overcrowded jails. Criminal immigrants held in British jails cost the taxpayer £283 million per year, Government figures have revealed

It is estimated that foreign nationals already remit over £4 billion a year back to their “home” countries every year.

Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition

Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition

2010 February 17

by lornakismet

By STEPHEN POWER And BEN CASSELMAN / FEBRUARY 17, 201 / Wall Street Journal

Three big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.

Reuters BP PLC and two other major firms quit a lobbying group focused on shaping global-warming policy.

Several companies are quitting an influential lobbying group focusing in on legislation, despite the administratin’s push to use the budget to pass greenhouse gas legistlation. WSJ’s Grainne McCarthy reports in the News Hub.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won’t renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.

Last week, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Billy Tauzin, said he would step down as president of the industry’s main lobby in Washington, amid criticism from some in the industry over the alliance he made last year with the White House to support health-care legislation.

The administration had worked hard to persuade industry groups to climb aboard its major legislative initiatives—a tack many business interests saw as sensible following the Democrats’ big gains in the 2008 elections. But “unlikely bedfellows make for breakups,” said Kevin Book, managing director of Clearview Energy Partners, a consulting firm.

More on Climate Change

Spokesmen for ConocoPhillips and BP said the companies still support legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but believe they can accomplish more working outside USCAP’s umbrella. Caterpillar said it plans to focus on commercializing green technologies.

ConocoPhillips’s senior vice president for government affairs, Red Cavaney, said the USCAP was focused on getting a climate-change bill passed, whereas Conoco is increasingly concerned with what the details of such a bill would be.

“USCAP was starting to do more and more on trying to get a bill out without trying to work as much on the substance of it,” Mr. Cavaney said.

A spokesman for USCAP said it intends to continue its work. More than 20 other large companies, including oil company Royal Dutch Shell PLC and industrial heavyweights General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc., remain in the coalition with environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. The USCAP said it expects to add new members in coming months.

“We think there’s momentum to get [a climate bill] done,” USCAP spokesman Tad Segal said. “President [Barack] Obama’s State of the Union address made it clear the administration is behind us.”

But experts said the companies’ decision to withdraw from USCAP is a sign the politics of climate change is shifting in Washington. When Mr. Obama took office, Congress appeared to have momentum for a climate bill that would push the economy toward lower-carbon alternatives. But as the economy soured, support waned.

The Obama administration says it will curb greenhouse-gas emissions using the Clean Air Act if Congress doesn’t act, and the Environmental Protection Agency has been pushing ahead with rule making.

When USCAP was founded in 2007, leaders of big U.S. companies had grown concerned that Democrats in Congress were preparing to put strict limits on industrial emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to climate change. Many executives decided it was better to be part of the debate in a united front.

“The saying in Washington is that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” said Whitney Stanco, an energy policy analyst for Concept Capital, a Washington research firm.

The big-tent approach boosted USCAP’s influence. In January 2009, the group released its recommendations for legislation. Many were incorporated into legislation, adopted by the House, that would require companies to reduce carbon emissions or buy pollution credits from firms that did.

But not all of USCAP’s members supported the bill. Caterpillar objected in part because it would impose tariffs on goods from countries that didn’t match U.S. efforts to combat climate change. BP and Conoco opposed it on the grounds that it didn’t treat energy producers equally.

As long as climate legislation appeared imminent, companies were willing to paper over their differences and continue to work together. But by late last year, momentum had stalled in the Senate as Washington turned its attention to health care, the economy and the midterm elections. Few experts expect a bill to pass this year.

USCAP isn’t the only group to be roiled by the issue. Last year, several members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quit the group over its stance against the climate bill.

View interactives HERE.

Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com and Ben Casselman at ben.casselman@wsj.com