Showing posts with label TYRANNY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TYRANNY. Show all posts

February 25, 2025

Germans Voted for Change, Got Paralysis


Friedrich Merz (right), leader of Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, reacts after the first exit polls in the German general elections were announced on February 23.

Germans Voted for Change, Got Paralysis

 By Richard Palmer • February 24, 2025


Germans gave a clear message in their election yesterday: We want change. With 84 percent turnout, the highest since the end of the Cold War, they clearly felt strongly about it.

But the elections won’t give them change. The Christian Democratic Union (cdu), led by Friedrich Merz, won the election with 28.5 percent of the vote. But it has one coalition option, which gives no room for decisive leadership.

“Friedrich Merz won it, but it will become a nightmare for him [to] govern,” wrote EuroIntelligence.

Merz may be able to further the nation’s break from America—but his election won’t bring the stability Germany craves.

Coalition Math

Ahead of the vote, only 17 percent of Germans said they were satisfied with the outgoing coalition government. The Social Democrats (spd), who used to lead the ruling coalition, received their worst results since the 19th century, winning just 16.4 percent of the vote. The Free Democrats, one of their coalition partners, did so badly they won’t be in this next parliament at all. Parties must win a minimum of 5 percent of the vote to get seats.

It’s not just people demanding change. Germany’s economy has shrunk for two years in a row. Industrial production is down 15 percent compared to pre-covid levels. Germany’s largest companies in Fortune 500 Europe announced over 60,000 job cuts.

Yet despite the vote for something new, the elections seem to give Germany more of the same.

There is only one viable coalition: a “grand” left-right coalition between the cdu and the spd.

Germany rejected the spd by the largest margin in well over 100 years—yet thanks to coalition math, it comes straight back into government.

This is the equivalent of a coalition between Republicans and Democrats in the United States. How much decisive change can they agree on? Even then, they have a majority of just 13 in a 630-seat house. A handful of rebels can destabilize anything the government wants to do.

Major change requires a two-thirds majority. Even if all the mainstream parties band together, they cannot achieve that.

A coalition with the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)—who came in second place, doubling their vote from last time—would at least offer decisive change. But some AfD leaders glorify Nazis, and the cdu ruled out working with them.

A left-right coalition has another threat. A new far-left party, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (bsw) won 4.97 percent of the vote. If it can find just 0.03 percent more, it can enter parliament. That redistribution of seats would make a cdu-sdp coalition impossible.

The bsw is looking at challenging the election in the courts. Over the next few months, a court could rule an election rerun, and the coalition could fall.

Even with only one real coalition option, it could still be months before Germany has a government. Merz’s ambitious time scale is to have a government in place by Easter in seven weeks. That’s if all goes smoothly.

“The process will take weeks—probably months—leaving a vacuum in Europe’s most important country during a continent-wide crisis,” wrote journalist Andrew Neil.

“The Germans voted for change because they wanted to reverse the country’s economic decline, get a grip on its borders after too much uncontrolled immigration, rearm to deal with a revanchist Russia to its east and end the green energy obsession, which has resulted in soaring household fuel bills and decimated its once world-famous heavy industry,” wrote Neil. “Merz, who at 69 has never held ministerial office, is unlikely to be in a position to implement the radical reforms required to do any of that. Nor has he ever shown much interest in the [European Union], so that’s unlikely to get the leadership needed either.”

‘Independence From the U.S.A.’

With such an unstable coalition, Merz may only make progress on his highest priorities. He outlined this in his victory speech: “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.A.”

That’s a stunning statement for a German leader to make.

On Friday, just ahead of the vote, Merz raised the subject of Germany borrowing nuclear bombs from France and Britain. “We need to have discussions with both the British and the French—the two European nuclear powers—about whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the [United Kingdom] and France, could also apply to us,” he said.

Politico noted that this “would be a huge shift in position” and “a major strategic shift for Germany.”

Both of these are themes that French President Emmanuel Macron has brought up repeatedly. “A clear trend is taking place: President Macron demands what Germany wants,” wrote Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry in 2020, after one such outburst. “I don’t believe Macron would ever say what he said unless Germany approved of it. He acts as a sort of puppet to Germany!”

“Imagine if a German chancellor gave a speech like Mr. Macron did, demanding that all Europe support Brussels’ dictates,” he wrote. “Germany wouldn’t dare make such a proposal right now! But it is definitely in Germany’s interest—and Macron is the one pushing for it!”

When France talked about a European nuclear umbrella last year, Mr. Flurry wrote: “As is often the case, the French president is saying things that Germany dares not say.”

Now Germany dares.

German politics are unstable and indecisive, but Merz already seems set to be a different leader than outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz. He wants to radically transform Germany’s military, break with America, and push Europe to be a strong, united military power. How much of that he can do with his divided coalition remains to be seen, but he’s clearly in favor of a bold military transformation.

“Germany doesn’t want to give up America’s nuclear bombs,” wrote Mr. Flurry. “But Macron’s support for Europeanizing France’s bombs gives Germany more negotiating power with America. Germany can in effect say, We don’t need your nuclear bombs; we can have France’s or develop our own bombs with French support.

“This means the U.S. has lost power over Germany’s security. What then is left for America to do other than try to uphold good relations with Germany on the latter’s terms?” This is the thinking behind Merz’s statements.

Coalition Chaos

Herbert W. Armstrong warned for years of the rise of a strong leader and a revival of the Nazi spirit in Germany.

In 1945, he forecast the rise of a new European military superpower, which would start as “a European Union.” European nations are becoming “distrustful of America and thinking more and more about uniting themselves into a united states of Europe,” he wrote in March 1950. To do that though, they needed a “new supreme leader—the successor of Adolf Hitler—to rise up and assert himself and take command.”

In the Good News magazine in May 1953, Mr. Armstrong wrote, “[I]t is probable that none but a German can provide the dynamic, inspired leadership required to organize such a political military federation.”

Even in the final year of his life in 1985, he was writing, “There is yet another leader to arise in Europe!”

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry continued that same warning the first year the magazine was established—and every year since.

“If a real crisis develops, will the Germans call for a new führer?” he asked in the December 1991 issue. “Your Bible says that is going to happen!”

The Nazi spirit that these men warned of is here. The far-right AfD came in second place with “only” 20 percent of the vote. “We have the right to be proud of the achievements of the German soldiers in two world wars,” one of its leaders has said. Another called German attempts to commemorate and apologize for World War ii a “stupid coping policy.”

Among men ages 18 to 24, the AfD was the most popular political party, with 27 percent of the vote. For young women, Die Linke, successor to the East German Communist party, took the first spot, with 35 percent.

Clearly Germany’s youth are deeply unhappy with Germany’s direction—and they are willing to consider communism or Nazism as a way out.

“In the buildup, many Germans spoke of a Schicksalswahl—an election of fate,” wrote historian Katja Hoyer. “They weren’t exaggerating. The future of German politics seems balanced on a knife edge.”

This unstable coalition, coupled with a radical desire for change from voters, matches exactly the conditions Mr. Flurry warned would precede the rise of a strong leader.

“How this man is prophesied to come to power is utterly fascinating and frightening,” he wrote in 2002.

He continued:

He will appear on the scene in the “last end” (Daniel 8:19). Notice how he comes to power: “And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries” (Daniel 11:21). Let’s not forget, this is a prophecy for the time we are living in right now.

This man doesn’t come to power the honorable way—by being voted into office. He takes it dishonorably! He will work behind the scenes and come to power by flatteries—not votes!

He warned that “some leader is going to hijack the European Union! The person who leads Germany will also lead Europe.”

“Hitler also did some behind-the-scenes manipulating to come to power,” he wrote. “That method has worked well in German history.”

Mr. Flurry soon focused on the potential for German coalition maneuvering for that strongman to come in “dishonorably” and without votes.

In a 2009 Key of David program, he said this leader could “perhaps take advantage of a weak coalition.” In 2013, he warned: “They’re not going to give him the office; he’s going to come in and win it by flatteries. Some kind of a political coalition is established, and he comes out as the winner.” In 2015, he said, “I think this strong leader will come in probably through a coalition government of some kind because it says he comes in by flatteries and not by votes.”

This has been a consistent forecast. Germany has been stuck with weak coalitions for years. It is desperate for something new. As crises intensify, how desperate will it grow for a strong leader? U.S. Vice President JD Vance warned recently that German democracy is at risk of dying. He’s right.

In 2019, Mr. Flurry warned: “Current conditions in Europe, including the refugee crisis and the turmoil in German politics, provide probably one of the greatest opportunities ever for a new leader to come into power ‘by flatteries.’ … Expect political and social crises in Germany and Europe, and public resentment and anger, to grow even deeper. Then watch for a strongman to take advantage and make his way to power through flatteries!”

These elections aren’t the end of Germany’s leadership crisis. Instead they are yet more evidence that democracy can’t bring Germany the leadership it needs. Watch for them to lead to the rise of this strong German leader. To learn more about why, and even who this leader may be, read Mr. Flurry’s article “After Trump’s Victory, Watch Germany.”



source:

https://www.thetrumpet.com/31053-germans-voted-for-change-got-paralysis.


Germans Voted for Change, Got Paralysis







BECAUSE WE LIKE THE TRUTH

You can find us on Twitter


February 03, 2025

Canada MP DESTROYS Trump for TARIFFS








BECAUSE WE LIKE THE TRUTH

You can find us on Twitter


January 27, 2025

Canada’s Sovereignty in Jeopardy: “51st State”, Déjà Vu

Canada’s Sovereignty in Jeopardy: “51st State”, Déjà Vu


Canada’s Sovereignty in Jeopardy: “51st State”, Déjà Vu

The Militarization of North America under President Donald Trump


 Last December at  Trump’s luxury Mar a – Lago residence, President Elect Donald Trump intimated that Prime Minister Trudeau should become Governor of the 51st state of the United States of America.

This was no joking matter. Canada described as the 51st State of the USA signifies the outright Annexation of Canada.

In his  Inauguration speech on January 20, President Trump, referred to the deportation of illegal immigrants on the USA’s southern border with Mexico. Not a word was mentioned regarding America’s northern border with Canada. 

Jean Chrétien’s Letter to Donald. “From One Old Guy to Another”


A few days prior to Trump’s inauguration, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien sent an open letter to Trump pointing to “The totally unacceptable insults and unprecedented threats to our very sovereignty from U.S. president-elect Donald Trump”. 

“I have two very clear and simple messages. To Donald Trump, from one old guy to another: Give your head a shake! What could make you think that Canadians would ever give up the best country in the world … to join the United States?

I can tell you Canadians prize our independence. We love our country.

We also had the guts to say no to your country when it tried to drag us into a completely unjustified and destabilizing war in Iraq. [March 2003]

But you don’t win a hockey game by only playing defence.

 All leaders across our country have united in resolve to defend Canadian interests.

Now there is another existential threat. And we once again need to reduce our vulnerability. That is the challenge for this generation of political leaders.

And you won’t accomplish it by using the same old approaches. Just like we did 30 years ago, we need a Plan B for 2025.

Yes, telling the Americans we are their best friends and closest trading partner is good.

But we also have to play offence. Let’s tell Mr. Trump that we too have border issues with the United States. 

We also want to protect the Arctic. But the United States refuses to recognize the Northwest Passage, insisting that it is an international waterway, even though it flows through the Canadian Arctic as Canadian waters. We need the United States to recognize the Northwest Passage as being Canadian waters.

click to enlarge

Jean Chretien’s above statement regarding Canada’s Northwest Passage is but the tip of the Iceberg.

The Creation of the 51st State is “Déjà Vu“. It Was Announced by Donald Rumsfeld in 2002

Following the creation of US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) in April 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally (without consulting the government of Canada) that NORTHCOM’s territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories and the North Pole. What this means is that the U.S. gave itself the right to deploy its military by air, land and sea throughout Canada, including it internal waterways.  (see maps below)

“The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline.

NorthCom’s mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”

(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),

Announced by Donald Rumsfeld, Northern Command US sovereignty  regarding the deployment of  the US military (land, waterways, air) encompasses Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, from the Caribbean up to North Pole.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld boasted that:

“the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.’” (See Journal Canada Defense Forces)

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

U.S Regional Commands in Six Regions of the World,

USNORTHCOM, USSOUTHCOM, USAFRICOM, USEUCOM, USPACOM, USCENTCOM

NORTHCOM’s stated mandate was to:

“provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s [US] civil authorities in times of national need.” (Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),

Canada and US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)

In December 2002, following the refusal of (former) Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to join US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) –which was announced unilaterally by the Bush Administration,  –, an interim bi-national military authority entitled the Binational Planning Group (BPG) was established.

Canadian membership in NORTHCOM would have implied the integration of Canada’s military command structures with those of the US. That option had been temporarily deferred by the Chrétien government, through the creation of the Binational Planning Group (BPG).

The BPG’s formal mandate in 2002 was to extend the jurisdiction of the US-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to cover sea, land and “civil forces”,  

“to improve current Canada–United States arrangements to defend against primarily maritime threats to the continent and respond to land-based attacks, should they occur.”

Although never acknowledged in official documents, the BPG was in fact established to prepare for the merger of NORAD and NORTHCOM,  thereby creating de facto conditions for Canada to join US Northern Command.

The “Group” described as an “independent” military authority was integrated from the outset in December 2002 into the command structures of  NORAD and NORTHCOM, both operating out the same headquarters at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado. In practice, the “Group” functioned under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command, which is controlled by the US Department of Defense.

Jean Chrétien abruptly resigned in December 2003. Paul Martin, –who painted Jean Chrétien with  disdain– took over the position of Prime Minister, with a firm commitment to the Bush Administration’s’ USNORTHCOM project.

In December 2004, in the context of President George W. Bush’s visit to Ottawa, it was agreed that the mandate of the BPG would be extended to May 2006. It was understood that this extension was intended to set the stage for Canada’s “subordinate membership” in USNORTHCOM.

In March 2006, two months before the end of its mandate, the BPG published a task force document on North American security issues:

“‘A continental approach’ to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, ‘which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,’  (quoted in Homeland Defense watch, 20 July 2006)

The BPG task force report called for the establishment of a “maritime mission” for NORAD including a maritime warning system. The report acted as a blueprint for the renegotiation of NORAD, which was implemented immediately following the release of the report.

On April 28, 2006, an agreement negotiated behind closed doors was signed between the US and Canada. 

The renewed NORAD agreement was signed in Ottawa by the US ambassador and the Canadian Minister of Defense Gordon O’Connor, without prior debate in the Canadian ParliamentThe House of Commons was allowed to rubberstamp a fait accompli, an agreement which had already been signed by the two governments. 

“‘A continental approach  to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, “which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,’ the report says.” (Homeland Defense Watch, May 8, 2006)

While NORAD still exists in name, its organizational structure coincides with that of NORTHCOM. Following the April 28, 2006 agreement, in practical terms, NORAD has been merged into USNORTHCOM.

\With the  exception of a token Canadian General, who occupied the position of  Deputy Commander of NORAD, the leadership of NORAD coincided with that of NORTHCOM. 
These two military authorities are identical in structure, they occupy the same facilities at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado.

There was no official announcement of the renewed NORAD agreement, which hands over control of Canada’s territorial waters to the US, nor was there media coverage of this far-reaching decision. 

The Deployment of US Troops on Canadian Soil

At the outset of US Northern Command in April 2002, Canada accepted the right of the US to deploy US troops on Canadian soil.

“U.S. troops could be deployed to Canada and Canadian troops could cross the border into the United States if the continent was attacked by terrorists who do not respect borders, according to an agreement announced by U.S. and Canadian officials.” (Edmunton Sun, 11 September 2002)

With the creation of the BPG in December 2002, a binational  “Civil Assistance Plan” was established. The latter described the precise “conditions for deploying U.S. troops in Canada, or vice versa, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.” (quoted in Inside the Army, 5 September 2005).

The Demise of Canadian Sovereignty 

In August 2006, the US State Department confirmed that a new NORAD Agreement had entered into force, while emphasizing that “the maritime domain awareness component was of ‘indefinite duration,’ albeit subject to periodic review.” (US Federal News, 1 August 2006).

In March 2007, the US Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed that the NORAD Agreement had been formally renewed, to include a maritime warning system. In Canada, in contrast, there has been a deafening silence.

In Canada, the renewed NORAD agreement went virtually unnoticed. There was no official pronouncement by the Canadian government of Stephen Harper. There was no analysis or commentary of its significance and implications for Canadian territorial sovereignty. The agreement was barely reported by the Canadian media.

Operating under a “North American” emblem (i.e. a North American Command), the US military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast; extending from the St Laurence Valley to the Queen Elizabeth archipelago in the Canadian Arctic.

The agreement would allow for the establishment of “North American” military bases on Canadian territory. From an economic standpoint, it would also integrate the Canadian North, with its vast resources in energy and raw materials, with Alaska. 

Nanasivik Naval Facility at Resolute Bay

Ottawa’s July 2007 decision to establish a military facility at Resolute Bay in the Northwest Passage was not intended to reassert “Canadian sovereignty”. Quite the opposite. It was established in consultation with Washington and Northern Command.

A deep-water port at Nanisivik  on the northern tip of Baffin Island was completed in mid-2024. It is expected to open up in early 2025 (see map below). 

The US administration was firmly behind the Canadian government’s decision. The latter does not “reassert Canadian sovereignty”. Quite the opposite. It is a means to establishing US territorial control over Canada’s entire Arctic region,  its internal waterways including the strategic North West Passage, which de facto under the jurisdiction of  US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

There is an unspoken U.S. strategic and geopolitical objective behind the deep water port at Nanisivik, It’s the threat of Russia and China, largely in the sphere of “commercial traffic”:

With the signing of a memorandum of understanding [in November 2024], the United States, Canada and Finland are moving ahead on what military analysts see as a belated but much-needed answer to a mounting Russian and Chinese threat in the Arctic Ocean.

While the retreat of the polar icecap is steadily opening the region for commercial traffic and mineral exploration, the ICE Pact is largely driven by concerns over the Arctic capabilities of an increasingly hostile Russia and the rapidly growing presence of China.

Donald Trump’s intent to “buy Greenland”  is related to Nanisivik plan to control strategic water ways, through the Baffin Bay and the North West Passage, which in words of  Prime Minister Jean Chrétien belongs to Canada:

“We also want to protect the Arctic. But the United States refuses to recognize the Northwest Passage, insisting that it is an international waterway”.

“Integration” or  “Annexation” of Canada?

Canada is contiguous to “the center of the empire”. Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the “conquering nation” has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories and maritime rights. In regards  to the U.S., this concept of “contiguous territories” relates to Canada, Mexico and part of the Caribbean.(See the USNORTHCOM above which also includes Cuba and the Bahamas)

Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of Big Business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.

Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. NAFTA had not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it had laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement.

Canada’s entry into US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was barely covered by Canada’s media.  USNORTHCOM was presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US “cooperation”, as something which was “in the national interest”, which “will create jobs for Canadians”, and “will make Canada more secure” (sounds a bit like “Trump rhetoric”)

Ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a sovereign Nation:

-Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.

-US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.

-Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a nation.

By endorsing a Canada-US “integration” in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada –which refused wage war on Iraq in 2003– has also become a full fledged member of what George W. Bush’ called  the “Coalition of the Willing”, namely direct participation, through integrated military command structures, in the US-NATO war agenda in Ukraine, Central Asia, the Middle East and East Asia.

Canada  has no longer an independent foreign policy.

Under an integrated US North American Command,. Canada has been obliged to embrace Washington’s pre-emptive military doctrine, its bogus “global war on terrorism” which has been used as a pretext for waging war in the Middle East, South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.Lynne McTaggartBest Price: $8.46Buy New $43.88(as of 02:31 UTC - Details)

————————

Jean Chrétien

This article is dedicated to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, whom I had the opportunity of meeting in the context of an interview pertaining to the Canadian Economy on behalf of a TV Ontario Educational Programme with the support of the University of Ottawa.

He received our team at his office at the House of Commons, with smiles, hospitality and a wonderful sense of humour.

He is a man of the people, committed to peace and social justice, serving the interests of Canadians from his heart and his mind.

Censorship

An earlier version first published in 2005 under the title: Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush’s Military Agenda? by Michel Chossudovsky was granted a 2005 Project Censored Award (Sonoma State University California)

A short version of the above article (2005) was submitted to the Toronto StarIt was accepted and confirmed for publication three consecutive times in the Opinion section. It was never published.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

POPULAR POSTS OF ALL TIME

Blog Archive

Το εύδαιμον το ελεύθερον, το δ’ ελεύθερον το εύψυχον. – Ευτυχισμένοι είναι οι ελεύθεροι και ελεύθεροι είναι οι γενναίοι. // // Happy are the free and free are the brave.