We won. 
'nough said?
Claim of most visited website questioned
MARK HENNESSY, Political CorrespondentDECLAN GANLEY’S claim Libertas has the most popular political party website in the European Union is undermined by data from a global internet tracking firm.
Last week, Mr Ganley said the www.libertas.eu website was “the most visited political website in Europe” and was “receiving 40,000 hits per days, easily outstripping its rivals around Europe”. Speaking on RTÉ’s Today With Pat Kenny yesterday, Mr Ganley said the organisation sent out an e-mail seeking support for its upcoming campaign to 20 million people in Europe.
“We had the highest traffic figures for any political party in Europe to our website last week, and that has continued since then,” he told the programme.
However, the Libertas site was the 191,105th most popular website in the world over the last three months – and the 32,476th yesterday, according to rankings from internet tracking company, Alexa.
Last night, Libertas’s John McGuirk clarified that a comparison was being made between Libertas and other European political parties, and not with EU websites.
“The comparison is with parties like the CDU in Germany, big trades unions and other organisations that advocated a political opinion,” he said. However, Alexa put the CDU’s traffic figures over the last three months at 86,987th place and 19,860th on Thursday.
On a budget of zero Libertas Nein Danke ranks
Orsenigo">Hitler Appointed Chancellor
In 1927, German manufacturing was at its postwar high: twenty-two percent above what it had been in 1913. In September 1928 Germany had 650,000 unemployed. In the wake of the great fall of prices on the U.S. stockmarket, lenders from the U.S. gave Germany ninety days to start repayment. By September 1930 Germany's unemployment had risen to 3,000,000. By 1930 Germany's manufacturing had fallen seventeen percent from that 1927 level. [note] Bankruptcies were increasing,. Farmers were hurting. Some in the middleclass feared sliding into the lower class. And some in the middleclass blamed the economic decline on unemployed people being unwilling to work - while hunger was widespread.
Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, p. 299.
According to Stalinist dogma, a crisis in capitalism and its attendant suffering was supposed to produce a rise in class consciousness among working people and to advance revolution. The Communist Party in Germany did find a little more support, but, rather than Germany moving to the kind of revolution that Communists yearned for, Hitler and the fascists, campaigning against Communism, were gaining strength.
In 1930 the parliamentary coalition that governed Germany fell apart, and new elections were held. The biggest winner in these elections was Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party. From twelve seats in parliament they increased their seats to 107, becoming Germany's second largest political party. The largest party was still the Social Democrats, and this party won 143 seats and 24.5 percent of the vote. Communist Party candidates won 13.1 percent of the vote (roughly 50 times better than the U.S. Communist Party did in 1932 elections), and together the Social Democrats and the Communists were large enough to claim the right to make a government. But Communists and the Social Democrats remained hostile toward one another. The Comintern at this time was opposed to Communists working with reformers, and the Communists believed that a collapse of parliamentary government would hasten the revolutionary crisis that would propel them to power.
Instead of a left-of-center, socialist government, the president of the German republic, Hindenburg, selected Heinrich Brüning of the Catholic Center Party to form a government. This Party had received only 11.3 percent of the vote - less than the Communists. And Brüning did not have the majority parliamentary support needed to rule. As chancellor, Brüning ruled under Hindenburg's emergency powers. It was the beginning of the end of democracy in Germany, with Hindenburg willing to do anything but give the government back to the Socialists.
Brüning attempted to restore economic equilibrium by a balanced budget, high interest rates and remaining on the gold standard - no emergency deficit spending. And the economy continued to slide. Hitler, meanwhile, was looking good to many Germans because he seemed to be a man who believed in something and wanted radical change that differed from the alternatives offered by the Socialists and Communists. Hitler appeared to be truly devoted to Germany. He was. He was a sincere nationalist and, in addition to being obsessed by what he saw as enemies within Germany, and foreign enemies, he identified with Germans in the abstract. He loved innocent children and those adults who supported him - in his eyes real Germans.
Hitler found his greatest support in traditionally conservative small towns. He campaigned with attacks on Marxism, making it clear that by Marxism he meant the Social Democrats. Hitler appealed to morality, attacking free love and what he inferred was the immorality of Berlin and some other major cities. He promised to stamp out big city corruption. He called for a spiritual revolution, for a "positive Christianity" and a spirit of national pride. Hitler repeatedly called for national renewal. He and his National Socialists benefited from the recent upheaval in the Soviet Union and the rise in fear and disgust for Bolshevism. His party's posters read:
If you want your country to go Bolshevik, vote Communist. If you want to remain free Germans, vote for the National Socialists.
Hitler called for a strengthened Germany and a refusal to pay reparations. He promised to restore Germany's borders. He appeared to be for the common man and critical of Germany's "barons." To the unemployed he promised jobs and bread. His party had the appeal of being young and on the move. Disillusioned communists joined his movement, as did many unemployed young men and a variety of malcontents. In addition to finding support in small towns, he found support among the middleclass. He found support too from some among the newly rich and among some aristocrats. He found support among a few industrialists and financiers who wished for lower taxes and the arrest of the labor movement. From wealthy contributors, Hitler was able to set up places where unemployed young men could get a hot meal and trade their shabby clothes for a storm trooper uniform.
Hitler's call for more territory for Germany did not win him many votes, for the country was in no mood to consider adventures and risking war. Appeals to anti-Semitism had not been much help to conservative candidates before the depression, and conservative governments after the arrival of the depression were making no moves to rescind the rights of Jews. But Hitler's continued verbal attacks on Jews had some appeal. Not one prominent industry in Germany had a Jew as an owner or director, but Hitler continued to hammer away at what he described as the Jewish aspect of capitalism, appealing to those who believed the myths about Jews and believed in the socialism of his National Socialist German Workers Party.
The depression had been worsening in Germany, and in 1932 unemployment reached thirty percent - 5,102,000 in September of that year. Hindenburg's seven-year term as president ended that year, and at age 84 Hindenburg ran for re-election, his major opponent for the presidency - Adolf Hitler. Neither Hindenburg nor Hitler won a majority, and in the runoff campaign Hindenburg won 19.4 million to Hitler's 11.4. But in the parliamentary elections held later that April, the National Socialists increased their seats from 107 to 162, the National Socialists becoming the largest political party in Germany. Hitler had lost the election for the presidency, but his campaigning had paid off.
Hindenburg had become dissatisfied with his present chancellor, Brüning, and the hunt was on for a new chancellor. Brüning still lacked the parliamentary majority needed for democratic rule, and without Hindenburg's support, he was forced to resign. His last act as chancellor was to put a ban on Hitler's street force: Hitler's storm troopers, also known as the S.A. or the Brown Shirts.
The aristocratic Hindenburg disliked Hitler, seeing him as a rabble-rouser of working class types and believing that the Nationalist Socialists were indeed socialists. He was not about to select Hitler as his new chancellor, while his aide, Kurt von Schleicher, was having difficulty putting together a governing coalition of national unity. Giving up on national unity, Schleicher put together a cabinet that was largely of aristocrats - to be known as "the cabinet of barons" - with himself as minister of defense and Franz von Papen as chancellor. It was another government that lacked a parliamentary majority, and it was unpopular across Germany. But the new government did have at least one success in foreign affairs: the cancellation of Germany's obligation to make reparations payments.
The crisis over establishing a government with a parliamentary majority continued, and in late July, 1932, another parliamentary election was held. The results hurt the middleclass and middle-road political parties, and the National Socialists increased their seats in parliament still more - to 230 of a total of 670 seats. The number of seats for the Communists rose to 89. Schleicher believed that it was necessary to form a government that included National Socialists, and Hitler was buoyed by the thought that he was on the verge of being selected as chancellor. When parliament opened in September, the National Socialists, seeking a government led by Hitler, organized a vote against the Papen government, and von Papen responded by dissolving parliament, with new elections scheduled for November.
In the November elections, the Communists won seventeen percent of the vote, and their number of seats in parliament rose to 100, while Hitler's National Socialists lost 34 seats. This drop shocked the National Socialists, who believed, with some others, that their movement might have lost its momentum. Also the National Socialists were in debt from all their campaigning - Hitler having borrowed money extravagantly for his campaigns, believing he could pay it back easily if he won and that the loans did not matter if he lost. Discouraged financial backers began withdrawing their support from the National Socialists, and opportunistic party activists began leaving the party. Hitler was alarmed, and there was talk that some who were leaving the National Socialists were going over to that other party of revolution - the Communists.
Schleicher was alarmed by the growth of support for the Communists. He forced von Papen's resignation. Papen was irritated with Schleicher and, buoyed by the decline of the National Socialists, he hit on the idea of heading a coalition that included the National Socialists, believing that he and other respectable conservatives in his cabinet could control the humbled National Socialist party. Schleicher formed an emergency government and tried to put together a coalition of many political parties, including some National Socialists that he hoped to split away from Hitler. Schleicher hoped to win the support of both moderate socialists and conservatives, but the reforms that he hoped would appeal to the moderate socialists were rejected by conservatives, and Schleicher's coalition failed to hold together. The unwillingness of these conservatives to compromise was paving the way for Adolf Hitler, as other compromises were in the offing.
Hitler refused the proposal from von Papen that he, Hitler, be anything but the head of a new government, and Papen went to Hindenburg and proposed a government with Hitler as chancellor and himself as vice-chancellor, with the majority of the cabinet to be conservatives from von Papen's Nationalist Party. Hitler met with some right-wing industrialists, reassuring them of his respect for private property. He told them that democracy led to socialism and that he would curb socialism and the socialist-led labor unions. The industrialists liked what Hitler told them, and, in January 1933, Hindenburg gave power to Hitler and his new coalition - the conservatives with Papen still believing that they would be able to control Hitler.
Chancellor Hitler Acquires Emergency Powers
More Here
The one and only, Fifi Chachnil (above image). Have a wonderful day Celebrating Your Inner Eves! A bientot, dear Lingeristas!
I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere, will be offended that I find this hysterical. Whatever. I cannot stop playing it over and over and over...
Ganley critical of former aide who now backs Lisbon
MARK HENNESSYLIBERTAS FOUNDER Declan Ganley has sharply criticised a former aide who helped to mastermind his organisation’s campaign against the Lisbon Treaty.
Libertas’s ex-executive director Naoise Nunn told The Irish Times this week that he now believed Ireland does not have the luxury of a second No vote because of the global economic crisis.
Mr Ganley claimed the former aide was “now working for Fianna Fáil as a consultant”. Mr Nunn is, in fact, doing work for former minister of state John McGuinness, and not directly for Fianna Fáil.
Responding on Newstalk’s Lunchtime with Eamon Keane to his former employee’s declaration that both sides had scaremongered during the referendum campaign, Mr Ganley said: “We certainly did not scaremonger . . . That is Fianna Fáil language if I ever heard it . . . We pointed out the facts.”
Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin yesterday welcomed Mr Nunn’s change of heart on the treaty.
“I think it is significant that a person who was very much involved in the No campaign on the last occasion has come forward to say he believes it is in the best interests of Ireland now to ratify Lisbon when it comes before the people again.”
Meanwhile, Libertas has been formally registered as a political party in Ireland, following the passage without challenge of a 21-day period for an appeal to its inclusion on the Register of Political Parties.
Libertas’s headquarters is given as Mr Ganley’s Tuam, Co Galway, home, Moyne Park, and it can contest Dáil, European and local elections, though the focus now is on the European contest, said Libertas official John McGuirk.
“We intend to be an Irish political party and play a role in Irish political life, if we are successful. But at this stage we want to contest the Europeans. We don’t want to spread ourselves too thin,” he told The Irish Times .
Meanwhile, former GAA president and chief executive of Galway Vocational Education Committee Joe McDonagh has confirmed that he will not seek to run for Fianna Fáil against Mr Ganley and others in the North-West constituency.
“I won’t be doing that. I have enough to do here with the cutbacks, and everything else,” he said.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009Libertas provides loan information
MARY MINIHANLIBERTAS HAS provided outstanding information on loans and other issues relating to its Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign to the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo).
In a report published last month, the commission said Libertas had “failed to provide the required information” despite a number of reminders.
However, at yesterday’s meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs, commission secretary David Waddell confirmed that Libertas had now answered its inquiries.
“It was a source of considerable frustration to the Standards Commission that what it saw as reasonable inquiries did not receive a timely response,” he said.
Mr Waddell said the commission was considering the responses and would give its assessment of them in its annual report. Sipo wrote to Libertas on June 19th last requesting details of any loans provided to it from a financial institution or other person for the purposes of funding its referendum campaign.
Libertas founder Declan Ganley replied on August 13th, confirming that Libertas had received a personal loan from him. The commission wrote to Mr Ganley again on August 22nd requesting a copy of the legal agreement and repayment plan for the loan made to Libertas. The information was provided at the end of March.
by Frank Schnittger
Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 10:12:51 AM EST
IRELAND DOES not have the luxury of a second No vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum and voters should vote Yes, one of the architects of last year's Libertas campaign has said.Naoise Nunn, who resigned as executive director of Libertas last September said: "The circumstances have changed: internationally, economically, financially and domestically.
"We don't have the luxury of doing anything else. I am glad that we had a referendum. We were the only member state to do so, to have a proper debate, or something like a proper debate," Mr Nunn told The Irish Times .
His public declaration will come as an embarrassment for Libertas founder, Declan Ganley, who is running for the organisation in the European Parliament elections in the North-West constituency.
Both sides were guilty, he said, of "scare-mongering and misinformation" during the referendum campaign. Mr Nunn, who was one of the central figures in Libertas's campaign last year, is understood to have written a detailed critique of Libertas's performance last year for Mr Ganley's attention before his departure last year.
Libertas has attracted quite a lot of negative publicity in both print and television media since the last Referendum campaign chiefly focusing on Ganley's murky business dealings in Albania and eastern Europe, his close links with the US military industrial establishment, alleged ties to the US neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, and the lack of transparency surrounding Libertas' funding.
Getting people to vote against a Treaty they are not sure about is one thing, especially when the vote can be cast as a vote against a remote "European Elite" and an extremely unpopular Irish political establishment. Getting people to vote for someone they are not sure about is quite another, and in a climate of distrust against entrepreneurial businessmen who are seen as the main authors of Ireland's boom to bust economy, this may be a particularly inopportune time for Ganley to run.
There are also increasing signs of a popular campaign in favour of Lisbon as evidenced by a recently launched Pro-Lisbon Youth Group called Generation Yes. Younger voters voted predominantly against the Lisbon Treaty the last time around.
The Irish electorate also have a history of being quite discriminating in how they cast their votes, and may well exercise their animus against their Government in the European Parliament polls rather than through any re-run of the Lisbon Referendum. The same (PDF Alert) poll shows Fianna Fail - the lead Government party - down from 42% in the 2007 general election to a projected 23% in the forthcoming European Parliament polls. The chief beneficiary of their decline has been the opposition Labour Party which is up from 10% to 19% in the same poll leaving it in with a strong chance of increasing it's representation in the European Parliament from 1 to c. 3 seats.
The Government's cause was not helped by a recent re-shuffle when one of the sacked ministers, John McGuinness, hired Naoise Nunn to advise him on his caustic criticisms of the Tanaiste (deputy Prime Minister) and the Government in general: Libertas spin doctor advised McGuinness
SACKED junior minister John McGuinness turned to a spindoctor who masterminded the Lisbon Treaty 'No' campaign for his public vote of no confidence in Tanaiste Mary Coughlan.
Dick Roche kept his portfolio as Minister for European Affairs and has promised me an interview for this blog. If you have any questions you would particularly like me to ask him, please submit them in the comments below!
This is the thing, it's untrue to say I have invested this money. We're getting donations in every day from business, from taxi drivers, from all sorts of people
Libertas founder says he only donated €6,500 to group
Wednesday June 11 2008
ANTI-treaty campaigner Declan Ganley reacted angrily yesterday to questions about the financing of his Libertas group.
He said he had personally spent just under €6,500 -- the maximum personal donation allowable -- with the remainder of Libertas' €1.3m budget coming from donations from the public.
"This is the thing, it's untrue to say I have invested this money. We're getting donations in every day from business, from taxi drivers, from all sorts of people," he said.
In his final news conference in Dublin, he said the 'Yes' side was finding it very uncomfortable to see the people of Ireland rising up and saying 'No' to a treaty that was "clearly a bad deal for the people of Ireland and for all of the people of Europe".
"These people (the Libertas volunteers) are here of their own free will, they're not being paid, they're out there and we've got hundreds of people across this country campaigning for a 'No' vote because it's in the interest of our country and of all the citizens.
Mr Ganley then said: "Thank you" to reporters and walked off abruptly to the black-coloured 'Vote No to Lisbon' bus parked on Merrion Square.
His group's €1.3m budget is greater than the combined budgets of all the major political parties. Fianna Fail is spending €600,000, Fine Gael is spending €500,000 and Labour is spending about €200,000.
Taoiseach Brian Cowen attacked Libertas yesterday, saying the group was spending more money than all the political parties put together "and nobody knows where their money comes from".
Fine Gael European Affairs spokeswoman Lucinda Creighton called on the group to "come clean" on the source of its funding.
"It is extremely disturbing that a group that is outspending Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour put together will not disclose the sources of its funding," she said.
Mr Ganley said his group would provide full disclosure of its donations in accordance with the rules of the Standards in Public Office commission.
He accused the 'Yes' side of trying to bully potential 'No' voters -- trying to scare them. into changing their mind.
"Look at the French Foreign Minister (Bernard Kouchner) saying the first victims of a 'No' vote would be the Irish," he said.
- Michael Brennan Political Correspondent
Ganley says he gave €200,000 loan to Libertas
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0919/1221773888299.html
THE FOUNDER of Libertas, business man Declan Ganley, says he gave a personal loan of €200,000 to help fund its campaign against the Lisbon Treaty.
Speaking to The Irish Times Mr Ganley said the organisation's spend on the campaign was "about €800,000". He said a number of people provided loans but he did not have a total figure for the amount lent. The money that did not come from loans came from donations from Irish people and companies, he said. "All of the money was raised in Ireland."
On Today FM's The Last Word Mr Ganley said: "The first loan that I gave was in the region of about €200,000." He later said this was the only loan.
During the Lisbon campaign the communications director for Libertas John McGuirk indicated it had a budget of €1.3 million. The law limits the amount an individual donor can give to a group such as Libertas in any one year to € 6,348.69. However, loans can be made as long as they are "bona fide", according to the Standards in Public Office Commission.
The Libertas website currently invites people to make donations, whether over the internet, by electronic transfer to its account in Tuam, Co Galway, or by cheque.
The leader of Fine Gael, Enda Kenny, and a spokesman for Minister for the Environment John Gormley, both said yesterday that the law on political fund-raising might have to be changed to increase transparency.
Asked yesterday if Libertas intended becoming involved in politics, Mr Ganley said that depended on whether Brussels and the Irish Government "respect the referendum result, the democratically expressed will of the people".
Speaking on RTÉ radio's News At One yesterday Mr Ganley said there was a need for "fresh blood" in Irish politics. "There is a need to grip the reins and take control of this mess that people like Dick Roche have got us into. Something needs to be done," he said. He was responding to Mr Roche who called Mr Ganley a "grade A hypocrite". Mr Roche said Mr Ganley had been saying there was a lack of transparency in Europe but his company, Rivada Networks, had secured substantial US government contracts using arrangements instituted to assist tribal corporations in Alaska. "I think anyone who reads into the arrangement of these contracts would see that they are quite bizarre."
Mr Ganley said if people like Mr Roche "had properly nurtured entrepreneurship instead of a stamp duty collecting, property inflating, bubble producing, economic process, we wouldn't find ourselves in the situation economically we are in now."
Mr Ganley is chief executive of a US company called Rivada Networks, which has a joint venture with an Alaskan native corporation, Nana Pacific. The joint venture, Rivada Pacific, has secured communications contracts worth $37 million in recent years from the US military, according to the website, www.fedspending.org. It's largest customer is the US Northern Command. Because of the involvement of the native Alaskan corporation, the joint venture is not subject to US procurement rules that would otherwise apply.
Mr Ganley told The Irish Times last night that Rivada didn't decide how the US authorities ran their tenders and he would not apologise to Mr Roche for his firm winning communications contracts.
"This has nothing to do with my business . . . Mr Roche won't abide by the will of the people . . . to say no to the Lisbon treaty. . ." he said.
DUBLIN WEDS, 1130 AM.BREAKING NEWS.Libertas leader Declan Ganley has just dropped his libel case against Ireland's Village Magazine."I am thrilled," author of the contentious article, Kevin Barrington told a blogger from the Barricade site."Even with our atrocious libel laws I thought we would win but at great expense," he added.Barrington, however, admitted, his real fear was that Ganley would drag it out for months and drop it at the last minute."I never thought he would risk open court but I thought he would try and bully us with his millions."Barrington said he was in touch with the relevant witnesses in the US, who were smeared by former Bush big hitter Jack Shaw and Ganley, and they had told him they were prepared to come and testify to back up the contentious comment that Ganley had "covertly" inserted a clause into a telecommunications contract."The only problem was this was all going to have to paid by us," he journalist said.The other controversial comment was a quote describing Ganley as a "liar, self-mythologiser and snake oil salesman."That was not a problem in the slightest to the lawyers, Barrington said."We sat with the lawyers and rang Dick Roche and together we made this lengthy list of blatant lies.""Liar? We could prove that in spades," he added.Ganley first sought unsucessfully
The honeymoon is over for Declan Ganley and brand “Libertas”. And the brand ‘s keeper, having being carried grinning over the publicity threshold by the positive if not sycophantic initial media coverage, is none too happy about it. In fact he seems to verging on paranoia as one of the latest “successful applicants” to join “team Libertas”demonstrates. Kevin O’Connell, a former deputy director of Europol, has been taken on board to represent Libertas in the UK. O’Connell was employed by Declan Ganley’s group last year as a “security advisor” whose role included “vetting staff and potential candidates”, as well as monitoring the press coverage that was becoming of mounting concern to Ganley. Ganley was troubled by what he labelled “conspiracy theories” surrounding his American business contracts and the funding of his Lisbon treaty campaign. O’Connell, obviously unperturbed by any possible conflict of interest, concluded that Ganley “has been the subject of a sustained and co-ordinated information campaign intended to destroy his political credibility”. “I looked into the matter and was concerned at what I found - and decided that if Libertas would have me as a candidate, I would run”, he added. O’Connell obviously passed his own vetting and was taken on board. This, however, was not the first time O’Connell had been involved with Ganley. As Deputy Director of Europol, O’Connell spoke at Ganley’s First Annual Forum On Public Safety In Europe and North America. The conference, which Ganley has hosted several times, along with the University of Limerick, generally lures big names, Al Gore being the most glittering catch so far. And in between the talks on general defence-related issue by such luminaries, Ganley and a host of senior ex-US-military Rivada Network employees, plug their own security-related communications products., O’Connell’s 2007 talk centred on how “the requirements of law enforcement and public safety professionals are falling behind the potential of the technology” – a theme very much music to the ears of Rivada’s marketing department., All a happy coincidence? Perhaps. The motivation, however, behind the conferences is not humanitarian but is the real-life actualisation of Ganley’s Entrepreneurial Rules [see previous article]. The rules are appropriate, or at least normal, in internatonal commerce. However, Ganley was entering a different battlefield with his new brand “Libertas “, a battlefield where Transparency and Accountability - the toxic Unique Selling Points (USPs), were required. We are now well used to the plummy voice of Declan Ganley railing against the “unaccountable elites” in Brussels and calling for greater transparency.
Time and time again Ganley responded to interviewers’ questions as to what he and Libertas stood for: Transparency and accountability, now wrapped in a right wing social agenda, became an integral part of the brand. The problem with such a USP is that it presupposes a standard of behaviour – in its proponents. And therein lay the start of Declan Ganley’s major problem, the potential seeds of his own destruction. Little did he realise he was now setting himself up for the scrutiny that he had avoided. And as the Celtic Tiger died so too did blind adulation for the buccaneer entrepreneur. The positive became the probing, mystery was seen as murk.
A few postings on the web had alluded to Ganley’s role in Iraq around the time of the launch of Libertas. But it was after the referendum that the unsightly picture got a fuller, more public unveiling. Ganley was part of a consortium chasing the untapped and hugely lucrative Iraqi mobile-phone market. Having failed, he picked himself up and went after a police network. Assisting him was the now-disgraced Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens who had slipped his Eskimo loophole into the Iraqi reconstruction effort. Stevens had introduced positive discrimination legislation to boost the Eskimo economy by allowing them non-competitive tenders for government contracts: get an eskimo front going and you have a one-way ticket to boomtown. But Declan Ganley wanted a bigger boom for his buck, so he covertly inserted a new clause into the police contract stating it would be the first step in a move to roll out a nationwide civilian network, the very network he had just been refused. Like those he now criticises, Ganley wasn’t taking No for an answer. His covert clause, however, was spotted by vigilant officials. And the contract was rescinded. But the officials, later completely vindicated, were accused by Ganley of corruption and fell foul of his Washington big-hitter allies - forcing their resignation. But Ganley and his partners’ scheming for more money led to a two-year delay in the police network at a very critical time. “During that time thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi police officers were killed, at least some of whom could have been saved had they been able to pick up a phone and call for help”, author T Christian Miller states in his book “Blood Money. Wasted Billions, Lost Lives and Corporate Greed In Iraq”.And in a scathing indictment of unaccountable elites, Miller continues: “The whole episode was a shameful victory of narrow business interests over a vital strategic policy”. Ganley, for his part, denies the contract was revoked and says he walked away due to murky affairs he is unable to elaborate on. Stevens’ Eskimo loophole has continued to pay Ganley dividends through “sweetheart” contracts with the US National Guard and other federal bodies. Not illegal. But the exploitation of positive discrimination legislation is hardly the foundation for his transparency and accountability platform. Further erosion to the platform is provided by the fact that Ganley’s wife Delia , operating under her maiden name, contributes to Senator Stevens. As she does to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Rivada got lucratives communications contracts with the National Guard. Nothing wrong there either. Delia Ganley is entitled to use her maiden name and contribute to these two Senators. But what have both senators got in common? They both chart this year in the Citizens for Good Governance Top Twenty Most Corrupt politicians. Transparency/Accountability?
It seems someone out there is calling the elites to account but it’s sure not Declan Ganley. As such stories circulate, Ganley’s personal bog to mansion story comes under closer scrutiny by the day. “He’s a liar, a self-mythologiser, a snake-oil salesman”, Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche told Village Magazine. The truth was slowly emerging. There is no way Ganley can keep the lid on such a catalogue of lies and dirty deeds, Minister Roche added.
The Village/Ganley saga. Declan Ganley withdraws proceedings
April 28, 2009 by MichaelToday 28 April Declan Ganley agreed in the High Court to withdraw proceedings he had taken against Village over the article displayed immediately below. Village paid no damages to Mr Ganley and the article remained on the shelves, despite Mr Ganley’s threats to have it removed in February. The article - among other things - quoted Minister for Europe Dick Roche saying Mr Ganley was a liar. Village agreed to publish an interview with Mr Ganley in its April edition but the chosen interviewer, Mr Bruce Arnold, submitted a piece which gave no evidence he had interviewed Mr Ganley for Village but was instead a paean to him. We published it anyway.
Below we also publish Bruce Arnold’s (non)-interview and our response to that article - making three articles in total!
Declan Ganley, Snakeoil Salesman (Feb Village by Kevin Barrington)
Did everyone at the back get their snakeoil?The honeymoon is over for Declan Ganley and brand “Libertas”. And the brand ‘s keeper, having being carried grinning over the publicity threshold by the positive if not sycophantic initial media coverage, is none too happy about it. In fact he seems to verging on paranoia as one of the latest “successful applicants” to join “team Libertas”demonstrates. Kevin O’Connell, a former deputy director of Europol, has been taken on board to represent Libertas in the UK. O’Connell was employed by Declan Ganley’s group last year as a “security advisor” whose role included “vetting staff and potential candidates”, as well as monitoring the press coverage that was becoming of mounting concern to Ganley. Ganley was troubled by what he labelled “conspiracy theories” surrounding his American business contracts and the funding of his Lisbon treaty campaign. O’Connell, obviously unperturbed by any possible conflict of interest, concluded that Ganley “has been the subject of a sustained and co-ordinated information campaign intended to destroy his political credibility”. “I looked into the matter and was concerned at what I found - and decided that if Libertas would have me as a candidate, I would run”, he added. O’Connell obviously passed his own vetting and was taken on board. This, however, was not the first time O’Connell had been involved with Ganley. As Deputy Director of Europol, O’Connell spoke at Ganley’s First Annual Forum On Public Safety In Europe and North America. The conference, which Ganley has hosted several times, along with the University of Limerick, generally lures big names, Al Gore being the most glittering catch so far. And in between the talks on general defence-related issue by such luminaries, Ganley and a host of senior ex-US-military Rivada Network employees, plug their own security-related communications products., O’Connell’s 2007 talk centred on how “the requirements of law enforcement and public safety professionals are falling behind the potential of the technology” – a theme very much music to the ears of Rivada’s marketing department., All a happy coincidence? Perhaps. The motivation, however, behind the conferences is not humanitarian but is the real-life actualisation of Ganley’s Entrepreneurial Rules [see previous article]. The rules are appropriate, or at least normal, in internatonal commerce. However, Ganley was entering a different battlefield with his new brand “Libertas “, a battlefield where Transparency and Accountability - the toxic Unique Selling Points (USPs), were required. We are now well used to the plummy voice of Declan Ganley railing against the “unaccountable elites” in Brussels and calling for greater transparency.
Time and time again Ganley responded to interviewers’ questions as to what he and Libertas stood for: Transparency and accountability, now wrapped in a right wing social agenda, became an integral part of the brand. The problem with such a USP is that it presupposes a standard of behaviour – in its proponents. And therein lay the start of Declan Ganley’s major problem, the potential seeds of his own destruction. Little did he realise he was now setting himself up for the scrutiny that he had avoided. And as the Celtic Tiger died so too did blind adulation for the buccaneer entrepreneur. The positive became the probing, mystery was seen as murk.
A few postings on the web had alluded to Ganley’s role in Iraq around the time of the launch of Libertas. But it was after the referendum that the unsightly picture got a fuller, more public unveiling. Ganley was part of a consortium chasing the untapped and hugely lucrative Iraqi mobile-phone market. Having failed, he picked himself up and went after a police network. Assisting him was the now-disgraced Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens who had slipped his Eskimo loophole into the Iraqi reconstruction effort. Stevens had introduced positive discrimination legislation to boost the Eskimo economy by allowing them non-competitive tenders for government contracts: get an eskimo front going and you have a one-way ticket to boomtown. But Declan Ganley wanted a bigger boom for his buck, so he covertly inserted a new clause into the police contract stating it would be the first step in a move to roll out a nationwide civilian network, the very network he had just been refused. Like those he now criticises, Ganley wasn’t taking No for an answer. His covert clause, however, was spotted by vigilant officials. And the contract was rescinded. But the officials, later completely vindicated, were accused by Ganley of corruption and fell foul of his Washington big-hitter allies - forcing their resignation. But Ganley and his partners’ scheming for more money led to a two-year delay in the police network at a very critical time. “During that time thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi police officers were killed, at least some of whom could have been saved had they been able to pick up a phone and call for help”, author T Christian Miller states in his book “Blood Money. Wasted Billions, Lost Lives and Corporate Greed In Iraq”.And in a scathing indictment of unaccountable elites, Miller continues: “The whole episode was a shameful victory of narrow business interests over a vital strategic policy”. Ganley, for his part, denies the contract was revoked and says he walked away due to murky affairs he is unable to elaborate on. Stevens’ Eskimo loophole has continued to pay Ganley dividends through “sweetheart” contracts with the US National Guard and other federal bodies. Not illegal. But the exploitation of positive discrimination legislation is hardly the foundation for his transparency and accountability platform. Further erosion to the platform is provided by the fact that Ganley’s wife Delia , operating under her maiden name, contributes to Senator Stevens. As she does to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Rivada got lucratives communications contracts with the National Guard. Nothing wrong there either. Delia Ganley is entitled to use her maiden name and contribute to these two Senators. But what have both senators got in common? They both chart this year in the Citizens for Good Governance Top Twenty Most Corrupt politicians. Transparency/Accountability?
It seems someone out there is calling the elites to account but it’s sure not Declan Ganley. As such stories circulate, Ganley’s personal bog to mansion story comes under closer scrutiny by the day. “He’s a liar, a self-mythologiser, a snake-oil salesman”, Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche told Village Magazine. The truth was slowly emerging. There is no way Ganley can keep the lid on such a catalogue of lies and dirty deeds, Minister Roche added.
“INTERVIEWING DECLAN GANLEY (current April Village by Bruce Arnold)
A Lesson for the Uninitiated”Declan Ganley launched his undeniably ambitious political career five years ago as a sponsor of The Forum to Debate the Constitution for Europe 2004. The two-day event, held in Galway, contains many of the seeds that sprouted into Libertas. Anyone seriously interested in interviewing Declan Ganley and finding out the main points in his career, needs to start here.
So, it was an international project involving participants from around the world and, yes, among them was Dick Roche, later to become Ireland’s Junior Minister for Europe and both a self-declared as well as an exclusive expert on the Lisbon Treaty.
Roche was later responsible for the delivery of abusive and dishonest slurs on Declan Ganley’s character and motivations, notably in Village Magazine, where he called him – without offering any basis for the slander – ‘a liar, a self-mythologiser, a snake-oil salesman’. Roche has collaborated more closely than is admitted by Village Magazine, with Kevin Barrington and was in the offices of the magazine on the morning Ganley’s solicitors delivered their legal documents.
Barrington also works as a copywriter in an advertising agency which has been awarded Government contracts dealing with pro-Lisbon material. Is there a conflict of interest here? One of several?
The articles are full of personal sneers, inaccuracies and allegations about corrupt actions that are not supported by facts and were not checked by any interview with the subject of the sustained attack. The editor, Michael Smith, who also offered in the first issue of Village Magazine to pay €10,000 for ‘verifiable information’ on Libertas funding in the Referendum – a requirement not followed in the articles – has admitted that this was wrong. I have checked the allegations and do not even consider them worthy of further consideration. They are part of the history of rumour that is used to denounce people. If an ounce or two of them had been delivered against Bertie Ahern by the brave men in Irish politics when the explanations he gave became dubious and contradictory in 2006, when first I wrote of them, we would not now be in the mess we are in.
Let us move on. In 2007 Declan Ganley launched the Libertas Website. His approach was businesslike, clearly focused and it emphasised the seriousness of the main issues facing the ordinary people of Ireland in coming to terms with what Ganley thought of as a huge European swindle contained in the incomprehensible Lisbon Treaty. Whether he was right or not remains to be seen, but he took up vital public issues over the planned Referendum, which only Ireland was holding.
The first of these was the Government’s outrageous changing of the law in order to stop the Referendum Commission from issuing a booklet telling voters what the for-and-against arguments were, in the case of the Lisbon Treaty a crucial requirement.
The Ahern Government is guilty of extraordinary and deliberate confusion over Lisbon by this quite improper change in the Referendum legislation. As a result, the Commission never did deal with this satisfactorily. Instead, it offered a superficial babble about the Treaty. This was far from being fair and balanced. The Commission is likely to do exactly the same again, the second time round. Ironically, even if it wanted to, it cannot easily rectify its position and tell the truth because the law stops it from being fair and balanced.
Ganley also attacked the use of State and Government resources in promoting a Yes Vote. The Government view in favour was all right. State funding was not. Ganley was also sharply critical of Dick Roche. Roche had attacked ‘bringing in people from outside to influence the referendum campaign’. This attack was made nonsensical by Brian Cowen. Quite improperly he invited President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel to help the Yes Vote campaign, thus starting a process that looks as though it will thoroughly abuse the use of outsiders and their money if the Referendum is run again. It seems when the government brings in people to support its policies it is all right; when others do the same it is condemned as disloyal or improper.
Ganley went on, in the early months of 2008 to deal with the subjugation of the Irish Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty – itself a new and supreme ‘Constitution’ for Europe – and raised repeatedly unanswered questions on tax reforms that would damaged investment here and the loss of Ireland’s World Trade Organisation veto. The first of these issues was subsequently reinforced by the French Finance Minister’s confirmation that France would push for equalisation of European tax positions.
By April the early salvoes on the EU democratic deficit – the simple fact that the Lisbon Treaty confirmed the creation of a European Federal State without democratic authority – was receiving unintentional support from Barroso and the Commission Vice-President, Margot Wallstrom.
There was a leaked Department of Foreign Affairs email. It was becoming increasingly evident that concealment was going on. The Referendum Commission was not being even-handed. The Government were appalled at the fate of Bertie Ahern at the hands of the Tribunal into his money. He was unlikely to win the Lisbon contest, and was disposed of by the Party.
It became clear – thanks to a gaffe by Dick Roche – that the Referendum would be Ireland’s last on Europe. That is, of course, so long as the vote was Yes. But Dick Roche and the Government got the wrong result.
At the beginning of May 2008, the campaign was distorted into one about how much gratitude we owed to membership of the European Union, with the implicit and dishonest message that we would lose out. Here was a Treaty no one understood, here were taxation threats, a WTO veto that the Forum on Europe confirmed was removed, farmers and workers getting jittery and the new and untried Taoiseach taking up the cry that a No Vote would be disastrous. We would learn, soon enough, that it is politicians who are disastrous.
Declan Ganley confronted this with his Libertas campaign. He won. He carried the popular vote. Others helped but he was the mainspring of analytical and forceful political opposition. Not for the first time, do I assert that, in a world of turbulence that was to lead into crisis during that turnaround year of 2008, he was the most successful Irish politician.
At the very least, this was the material for major interviews by anyone interested in the phenomenon of an Irish politician with a new organisation, no political party machine to back him but a set of unarguable convictions that weighed with the Irish voting public.
Instead, there were several serious, if inept, attempts to undermine his credibility with a mire of untried, untested and often inadequately researched allegations, some of which contained deliberate obscuring of the true facts.
The government continued to contribute to this negative approach by floundering its way into European Summit negotiations which contained public relations ‘performance’ by Michéal Martin and Brian Cowen, who tried to pass off a few opinions about what might be done before a second Referendum Vote as ‘massive achievements’.
They were no such things. Government strategy almost completely ignored all the Libertas issues. Instead they sought to persuade the relatively small group of voters in the first Referendum who had fears over neutrality, abortion and other social or moral issues, and presented this as ‘an achievement’, and ‘a landmark day for Ireland’ in which ‘after intense negotiation’ Ireland’s position in the European Union, which of course was never in doubt, had been ‘secured’!
The Government, represented by Micheál Martin and the Taoiseach, secured nothing whatever to satisfy doubts about democracy in the EU. They did little better over taxation and other issues raised during the campaign.
Declan Ganley had made the running on these issues, which had produced such a convincing No Vote six months ago and they were set aside in an adroit and entirely meretricious way. The truth is that Michéal Martin has buried a hatchet in his own head on the Lisbon Treaty since he has not addressed any of the major issues. One of the reasons is that they cannot be addressed. This was my considered view at the time and continues so to be. It will cause any Yes Campaign, however much European money is poured into it, to unravel.
What happened then, in terms of Declan Ganley’s level of political achievement, was that he began to make history with his impact in Europe. For the first time in the political annals of this country, one of its more dynamic figures has spread his own political impact over more than half the countries in Europe. Declan Ganley now has 50 candidates for Libertas in Germany, more than 30 in France, 72 in the United Kingdom, eight in Latvia, three in Malta of all places, and 50 in Poland. He has groups working for the election of Libertas candidates in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. This too has been the subject of further attempts to rubbish him.
He argues – in the interviews I have had with him about this – that the achievement and its potential impact on the European elections, is what interviewers should be asking him about. I agree with him on this.
Instead, as the last issue of Village Magazine showed, enormous energies are being expended in trying to find out things about Declan Ganley that, if they were true, would be decidedly detrimental to everything he has done. Any old slur will do.
This displays a tortured and relentless animosity, damaging, because people like to hear bad things about other people, and they are often easier to deliver than good things. This line of journalism, taken by Village Magazine and also by the RTE Prime Time Programme on Declan Ganley, was, in my personal view, not only unfair and unbalanced but malicious as well.
Declan Ganley, Liar? (current April Village by Michael Smith)
Village and Declan GanleyVillage published material about Declan Ganley in its February-March edition. Mr Ganley initiated proceedings for defamation, saying he wanted to get all copies of that magazine taken off the shelves. In the end he agreed to an adjournment of his action until after the publication of this, current edition which meant the February-March edition stayed on the shelves. In return Village and he agreed a statement:
The Statement
Village Magazine strongly upholds the right to engage in vigorous investigation and comment on matters of public interest. Mr. Ganley not only supports, but advocates this right. The Village however acknowledges that, given the opportunity, it would have been preferable to have interviewed Mr. Ganley before publishing serious allegations about him. It has now been afforded this opportunity and will in the next edition record and publish accurately the answers given by Mr. Ganley in a wide ranging interview relating to both the issues giving rise to these proceedings and to other issues of interest to Mr. Ganley and to the public.
Attempts to get an interviewer
We attempted to commission a number of Ireland’s most respected journalists including Fintan O’Toole, Keelin Shanley, Michael Clifford, Justine McCarthy and Olivia O’Leary to carry out this interview but for contractual or other reasons they could not do it. We also suggested Frank Connolly, Harry Browne and Damien Kiberd who were willing to do it but Declan Ganley was unwilling to be interviewed by them. He was willing to be interviewed by Vincent Browne or me but Vincent could not do it and I, as editor, felt I should preserve some distance from this legally-driven interview. Declan Ganley wanted to be interviewed by Bruce Arnold. He suggested a list of seven names including George Hook, Jason O’Toole, David Quinn, Eamon Dunphy, Matt Cooper, Richard Waghorne and Hermann Kelly. We were happy with Eamon Dunphy and he generously agreed to do the interview but in the end could not, for contractual reasons. Time was moving on so we felt the best thing in the circumstances was to hear from Mr Ganley in close to his own terms, from a journalist of integrity who is well disposed to him. Bruce Arnold it was.
Bruce Arnold and the interview
We forwarded to Bruce Arnold the affidavit which included Village’s defence to the libel proceedings. Much of the substance of that affidavit is outlined below. Readers will make their own minds up about how well Bruce Arnold has delivered on the requirement, agreed between Village and Mr Ganley to “record and publish accurately the answers given by Mr. Ganley in a wide ranging interview relating to both the issues giving rise to these proceedings and to other issues of interest to Mr. Ganley and to the public”. He informed me that he had conducted a telephone interview with Mr Ganley but there is no evidence in his filed copy that he did in fact conduct the interview. For this and other obvious reasons, Village will not be paying him the €500 fee he sought.
Mr Arnold also delayed publication of Village by a day by spuriously claiming he had not been sent a copy of the February-March article.
What Village said about Ganley and the truth
This is the substance of what Village said about Mr Ganley and the Truth in my affidavit, which was not opened in court:
Dick Roche, Minister for European Affairs has maintained that he was accused by Declan Ganley of telling untruths to the general public regarding Mr Ganley’s nationality. However, since those accusations have since been proven to be untrue, it is clear that it is Mr Ganley who has a most unhappy relationship with the truth.
Mr Ganley confronted Minister Roche, live on air during RTE’s News at One in September 2008 accusing him of falsely stating that Mr Ganley had, on occasion, chosen to describe himself as a British national. While Dick Roche acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with being a British national, he considered it odd that Mr Ganley, who sought to proclaim himself as an Irish businessman should choose to describe himself as British, on documents filed with the British Company Registration office. For his part, Mr Ganley denied ever having described himself thus, and accused Minister Roche of spreading falsehoods.
Minister Roche subsequently obtained photocopies of documents filed with the British Company Registration Office, to prove his position. When confronted by Irish Times journalist, Colm Keena for comment in relation to this, Declan Ganley responded that he must have “ticked the wrong box”. In fact, that portion of the relevant documents is either typed or written, showing beyond doubt that either he, or his wife, if she filled out these forms, knew that he had described himself as a British national on the relevant documents.
The foregoing example, where Mr Ganley’s vigorous denials and accusations against Minister Roche ultimately rang hollow, demonstrate his cavalier attitude to the truth, transparency and moral conduct. Indeed, Minister Roche maintains that there are many examples which cast a similar shadow on the Mr Ganley character.
In particular, Minister Roche points to Mr Ganley’s claims that he became Foreign Economic Affairs Advisor to the first Republic of Latvia Government. It has since been shown, including during a lengthy and detailed “Prime Time” programme on RTE television, that Declan Ganley held no such position.
Minister Roche has also pointed to Mr Ganley claims, throughout Libertas’ campaign on the Lisbon Treaty, that a “No” vote in the Lisbon referendum would entitle Ireland to retain its Commissioner. This was manifestly not the position since a “No” vote under Lisbon would pave the way for the provisions of the Nice Treaty to apply, wherein Ireland’s Commissioner would be lost in 2009. In fact, had the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, that date would have been pushed back to 2014.
Similarly, and by way of further example, Minister Roche has pointed to Mr Ganley’s claims, through Libertas, that the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty could lead to the legalisation of abortion in Ireland. Once again, this was, and is, manifestly not the position. In fact, this very point was addressed by Judge O’Neill, chairman of the referendum commission, during a speech dated the 4th June, 2008 where he stated:
“In regard to abortion, Protocol no. 35 to the Treaty of Lisbon on Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution of Ireland states that nothing in the Treaties or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution of Ireland.
Protocols have full legal force – they have the same legal status as an Article of the Treaties. This Protocol is EU Law and it explicitly excludes Article 40.3.3 of Irish Constitution from any other EU law. This means Ireland’s constitutional position on abortion would not be affected by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty”.
The foregoing examples, taken together or in isolation, are stark reminders of Mr Ganley’s deplorable attitude to the truth, transparency and moral conduct.
