U.S. Interests in Central Asia: Policy Priorities and Military Roles

President Obama propagandized coalition forces during a previously unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Sunday, telling them the 8-year-old US war of aggression there remains “absolutely essential” to the security of the United States.

Speaking to about 2,000 U.S. and axis of evil troops at the major U.S. base in Afghanistan, Obama said, “Those folks back home are relying on you.” Oil folks that is, for the United States attacked the innocent country of Afghanistan not out of self-defense but to use military force to steal control of a Unocol lobbied Trans-Afghan pipeline project. The US military and NATO forces are there first to remove the legitimate Taliban government and once removed to provide US military security for the US contractors that are there to build the Trans-Afghan Natural Gas Pipeline.

“I know it’s not easy,” he said. “You’re far away from home. You miss your kids, you miss your spouses, your family, your friends.” But he added, “If I thought for a minute that America’s vital interests were not served, were not at stake here in Afghanistan, I would order all of you home right away.” The problem is that Obama is looking after corporate America’s vital interests and receiving very lucrative kickbacks for illegally using US forces to aid Unicol in its “hostile” takeover of the Afghan peoples’ financial future - the natural gas pipeline that the US government is building through Afghanistan.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Argentine oil company Bridas, led by its ambitious chairman, Carlos Bulgheroni, became the first company to exploit the oil fields of Turkmenistan and propose a pipeline through neighboring Afghanistan. A powerful US-backed consortium intent on building its own pipeline through the same Afghan corridor would oppose Bridas’ project.

Upon successfully negotiating leases to explore in Turkmenistan, Bridas was awarded exploration contracts for the Keimar block near the Caspian Sea, and the Yashlar block near the Afghanistan border. By March 1995, Bulgheroni had accords with Turkmenistan and Pakistan granting Bridas construction rights for a pipeline into Afghanistan, pending negotiations with the civil war-torn country.

The following year, after extensive meetings with warlords throughout Afghanistan, Bridas had a 30-year agreement with the Rabbani regime to build and operate an 875-mile gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

Bulgheroni believed that his pipeline would promote peace as well as material wealth in the region. He approached other companies, including Unocal and its then-CEO, Roger Beach, to join an international consortium.

But Unocal was not interested in a partnership. The United States government, its affiliated transnational oil and construction companies, and the ruling elite of the West had coveted the same oil and gas transit route for years.

A trans-Afghanistan pipeline was not simply a business matter, but a key component of a broader geo-strategic agenda: total military and economic control of Eurasia (the Middle East and former Soviet Central Asian republics). Zbigniew Brezezinski describes this region in his book “The Grand Chessboard-American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” as “the center of world power.” Capturing the region’s oil wealth, and carving out territory in order to build a network of transit routes, was a primary objective of US military interventions throughout the 1990s in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea.

As of 1992, 11 western oil companies controlled more than 50 percent of all oil investments in the Caspian Basin, including Unocal, Amoco, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Pennzoil, Texaco, Phillips and British Petroleum.

In “Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia” (a definitive work that is a primary source for this report), Ahmed Rashid wrote, “US oil companies who had spearheaded the first US forays into the region wanted a greater say in US policy making.”

Business and policy planning groups active in Central Asia, such as the Foreign Oil Companies Group operated with the full support of the US State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA and the Department of Energy and Commerce.

Among the most active operatives for US efforts: Brezezinski (a consultant to Amoco, and architect of the Afghan-Soviet war of the 1970s), Henry Kissinger (advisor to Unocal), and Alexander Haig (a lobbyist for Turkmenistan), and Dick Cheney (Halliburton, US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce).

Unocal’s Central Asia envoys consisted of former US defense and intelligence officials. Robert Oakley, the former US ambassador to Pakistan, was a “counter-terrorism” specialist for the Reagan administration who armed and trained the mujahadeen during the war against the Soviets in the 1980s. He was an Iran-Contra conspirator charged by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh as a key figure involved in arms shipments to Iran.

Richard Armitage, former Deputy Defense Secretary under George W Bush, was another Iran-Contra player in Unocal’s employ. A former Navy SEAL, covert operative in Laos, director with the Carlyle Group, Armitage is allegedly deeply linked to terrorist and criminal networks in the Middle East, and the new independent states of the former Soviet Union (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrghistan). During the 2000 Presidential election campaign, he served as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush as part of a group led by Condoleezza Rice that called itself The Vulcans.

Armitage was no stranger to pipelines. As a member of the Burma/Myanmar Forum, a group that received major funding from Unocal, Armitage was implicated in a lawsuit filed by Burmese villagers who suffered human rights abuses during the construction of a Unocal pipeline. (Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, performed contract work on the same Burmese project.)

Much to Bridas’ dismay, Unocal went directly to regional leaders with its own proposal. Unocal formed its own competing US-led, Washington-sponsored consortium that included Saudi Arabia’s Delta Oil, aligned with Saudi Prince Abdullah and King Fahd. Other partners included Russia’s Gazprom and Turkmenistan’s state-owned Turkmenrozgas.

John Imle, president of Unocal (and member of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce with Armitage, Cheney, Brezezinski and other ubiquitous figures), lobbied Turkmenistan’s president Niyazov and prime minister Bhutto of Pakistan, offering a Unocal pipeline following the same route as Bridas.’

Dazzled by the prospect of an alliance with the US, Niyazov asked Bridas to renegotiate its past contract and blocked Bridas’ exports from Keimar field. Bridas responded by filing three cases with the International Chamber of Commerce against Turkmenistan for breach of contract. (Bridas won.) Bridas also filed a lawsuit in Texas charging Unocal with civil conspiracy and “tortuous interference with business relations.” While its officers were negotiating with Pakistani and Turkmen oil and gas officials, Bridas claimed that Unocal had stolen its idea, and coerced the Turkmen government into blocking Bridas from Keimir field. (The suit was dismissed in 1998 by Judge Brady G. Elliott, a Republican, who claimed that any dispute between Unocal and Bridas was governed by the laws of Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, rather than Texas law.)

In October 1995, with neither company in a winning position, Bulgheroni and Imle accompanied Niyazov to the opening of the UN General Assembly. There, Niyazov awarded Unocal with a contract for a 918-mile natural gas pipeline. Bulgheroni was shocked. At the announcement ceremony, Unocal consultant Henry Kissinger said that the deal looked like “the triumph of hope over experience.”

Later, Unocal’s consortium, CentGas, would secure another contract for a companion 1,050-mile oil pipeline from Dauletabad through Afghanistan that would connect to a tanker loading port in Pakistan on the coast of the Arabian Sea.

Although Unocal had agreements with the governments on either end of the proposed route, Bridas still had the contract with Afghanistan.

The problem was resolved via the CIA and Pakistani ISI-backed Taliban. Following a visit to Kandahar by US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphael in the fall of 1996, the Taliban entered Kabul and sent the Rabbani government packing.

Bridas’ agreement with Rabbani would have to be renegotiated.

According to Ahmed Rashid, “Unocal’s real influence with the Taliban was that their project carried the possibility of US recognition, which the Taliban were desperately anxious to secure.”

Unocal wasted no time greasing the palms of the Taliban. It offered humanitarian aid to Afghan warlords who would form a council to supervise the pipeline project. It provided a new mobile phone network between Kabul and Kandahar. Unocal also promised to help rebuild Kandahar, and donated $9,000 to the University of Nebraska’s Center for Afghan Studies. The US State Department, through its aid organization USAID, contributed significant education funding for Taliban. In the spring of 1996, Unocal executives flew Uzbek leader General Abdul Rashid Dostum to Dallas to discuss pipeline passage through his northern (Northern Alliance-controlled) territories.

Bridas countered by forming an alliance with Ningarcho, a Saudi company closely aligned with Prince Turki el-Faisal, the Saudi intelligence chief. Turki was a mentor to Osama bin Laden, the ally of the Taliban who was publicly feuding with the Saudi royal family. As a gesture for Bridas, Prince Turki provided the Taliban with communications equipment and a fleet of pickup trucks. Now Bridas proposed two consortiums, one to build the Afghanistan portion, and another to take care of both ends of the line. By November 1996, Bridas claimed that it had an agreement signed by the Taliban and Dostum—trumping Unocal.

The competition between Unocal and Bridas, as described by Rashid, “began to reflect the competition within the Saudi Royal family.”

In 1997, Taliban officials traveled twice to Washington, D.C. and Buenos Aires to be wined and dined by Unocal and Bridas. No agreements were signed.

It appeared to Unocal that the Taliban was balking. In addition to royalties, the Taliban demanded funding for infrastructure projects, including roads and power plants. The Taliban also announced plans to revive the Afghan National Oil Company, which had been abolished by the Soviet regime in the late 1970s.

Osama bin Laden (who issued his fatwa against the West in 1998) advised the Taliban to sign with Bridas. In addition to offering the Taliban a higher bid, Bridas proposed an open pipeline accessible to warlords and local users. Unocal’s pipeline was closed—for export purposes only. Bridas’ plan also did not require outside financing, while Unocal’s required a loan from the western financial institutions (the World Bank), which in turn would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to demands from western governments.

Bridas’ approach to business was more to the Taliban’s liking. Where Bulgheroni and Bridas’ engineers would take the time to “sip tea with Afghan tribesmen,” Unocal’s American executives issued top-down edicts from corporate headquarters and the US Embassy (including a demand to open talks with the CIA-backed Northern Alliance).

While seemingly well received within Afghanistan, Bridas’ problems with Turkmenistan (which they blamed on Unocal and US interference) had left them cash-strapped and without a supply.

In 1997, they went searching for a major partner with the clout to break the deadlock with Turkmenistan. They found one in Amoco. Bridas sold 60 percent of its Latin American assets to Amoco. Carlos Bulgheroni and his contingent retained the remaining minority 40 percent. Facilitating the merger were other icons of transnational finance, Chase Manhattan (representing Bridas), Morgan Stanley (handling Amoco) and Arthur Andersen (facilitator of post-merger integration). Zbigniew Brezezinski was a consultant for Amoco.

(Amoco would merge with British Petroleum a year later. BP is represented by the law firm of Baker & Botts, whose principal attorney is James Baker, lifelong Bush friend, former secretary of state, and a member of the Carlyle Group.)

Recognizing the significance of the merger, a Pakistani oil company executive hinted, “If these (Central Asian) countries want a big US company involved, Amoco is far bigger than Unocal.”

By 1998, while the Argentine contingent made slow progress, Unocal faced a number of new problems.

Gazprom pulled out of CentGas when Russia complained about the anti-Russian agenda of the US. This forced Unocal to expand CentGas to include Japanese and South Korean gas companies, while maintaining the dominant share with Delta.

Human rights groups began protesting Unocal’s dealings with the brutal Taliban. Still riding years of Clinton bashing and scandal mongering, conservative Republicans in the US attacked the Clinton administration’s Central Asia policy for its lack of clarity and “leadership.”

Once again, violence would change the dynamic.

In response to the bombing of US embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania (allegedly but never proven to be carried out by bin Laden), President Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan. The administration broke off diplomatic contact with the Taliban, and UN sanctions were imposed.

Unocal withdrew from CentGas, and informed the State Department “the gas pipeline would not proceed until an internationally recognized government was in place in Afghanistan.” Although Unocal continued on and off negotiations on the oil pipeline (a separate project), the lack of support from Washington hampered efforts.

Meanwhile, Bridas declared that it would not need to wait for resolution of political issues, and repeated its intention of moving forward with the Afghan gas pipeline project on its own. Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan tried to push Saudi Arabia to proceed with CentGas (Delta of Saudi Arabia was now the leader). But war and US-Taliban tension made business impossible.

For the remainder of the Clinton presidency, there would be no official US or UN recognition of Afghanistan. And no progress on the pipeline.

On FEBRUARY 12, 1998 Unocal petitioned the US Congress to remove the Taliban and replace them with a pro-US and Uniocal company friendly government. U.S. Interests in Central Asia - Testimony before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific / House International Relations Committee - United States House of Representatives:

Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan’s vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place. ~ Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation.

During the final months of the Clinton administration, the Taliban was officially a rogue regime. After nearly a decade of fierce competition between the US-supported Unocal-CentGas consortium and Bridas of Argentina, neither company had secured a deal for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline.

Immediately upon seizing the White House, George W. Bush resumed relations with the Taliban.

Bush stocked his cabinet with figures from the energy industry with long-time ties to Central Asia (including Dick Cheney of Halliburton, Richard Armitage of Unocal, Condoleeza Rice of Chevron), and rode into office on the largesse of corporations with vested interests in the region (Enron). Suddenly, the prospects for a trans-Afghanistan oil and gas pipeline that would help ensure American dominance of Eurasia, described by Zbigniew Brezezinski as “The Grand Chessboard,” began to improve.

The Bush family’s involvement in the Middle East and Central Asian oil politics, and its deep ties to the Saudi royal and bin Laden families, span generations. Throughout his oil-soaked tenure as governor of Texas, George W. Bush colluded on a daily basis with oil and power companies, including Enron. In light of his close personal relationship with Enron CEO Ken Lay, it is reasonable to assume that Bush was aware of the company’s Central Asian aspirations. Among Enron’s many projects in the region was the Unocal pipeline, for which Enron did feasibility studies.

In their book “Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth,” intelligence authorities Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie believe that Bush’s primary goal was to consolidate the position of the Taliban in order to secure US access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia. According to Brisard and Dasquie, Bush viewed the Taliban as ” a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia,” from the rich oil fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.”

According to Brisard and Dasquie, and an investigation by journalist Greg Palast, Bush also blocked secret service and FBI investigations on terrorism, while bargaining with the Taliban for the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid.

Bush administration and Taliban officials met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad. Each time, the Taliban refused Bush’s conditions.

The last meeting took place in August 2001. Central Asian affairs representative Christina Rocca and a coterie of State Department officials voiced disgust and issued a threat to the Taliban ambassador: “Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” Bush promptly informed Pakistan and India that the US would launch a military mission against Afghanistan before the end of October.

Immediately the Bush administration started working on a plan to attack the United States and blame it on the CIA created al Qaeda and their fictional training camps in Afghanistan. George W Bush and Dick Cheney used a revised version of “Operation Northwoods” for their attack against their own country and people as a pretext for a war of aggression against the Afghan people and their Taliban leadership - to take by military force the Trans-Afghan pipeline project. Just weeks after the last meeting between the US government and the Taliban, under questionable circumstances, jetliners would crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, killing some 2,000 Americans.

Obama has put a gun to the head of every US citizen with his Health Care Extortion Bill

Organized crime or criminal organizations is a transnational grouping of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for the purpose of generating a monetary profit.

Organized crime most typically flourishes when a central government and civil society is disorganized, weak, absent or untrusted. This may occur in a society facing periods of political, economic or social turmoil or transition, such as a change of government or a period of rapid economic development, particularly if the society lacks strong and established institutions and the rule of law. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe that saw the downfall of the Communist Bloc and establishment of new systems of democracy and free market capitalism in the region created a breeding ground for organized criminal organizations. Most of the countries fell upon economic turmoil with their markets being flooded with western products that had previously been barred by the communists regimes at exceptionally high prices and a lack of interest in importing from Eastern Europe. This led to many turning to illegitimate means of making a profit, most of the time these efforts were backed by former secret service and police force who were now out of the job.

Under these circumstances, criminal organizations can operate with less fear of interference from law enforcement and may serve to provide their “customers” with a semblance of order and predictability that would otherwise be unavailable. For similar reasons, organized crime also often takes root in many countries among ethnic minority communities or other socially marginalized groups whose members may not trust local governments or their agents. This lack of trust serves both to insulate the criminal organization from the risk that law enforcement will find cooperative witnesses, as well as to encourage community members to trust the criminal organizations rather than the police to handle disputes and protect the community.

Organized crime is deeply linked to the moral problem of integrating subcivilized energy into civilized state building. St. Augustine famously defined them as what would now be called kleptocracies, states founded on theft.

Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a term applied to a government (the US government) that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class, via the embezzlement of state funds (George W Bush Republican administration’s Bank Bailouts and Barrack Hussein Obama Democrats administration’s Stimulus Bill) at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means “rule by thieves”. Not an “official” form of government (such as democracy, republic, monarchy, theocracy) the term is a pejorative for governments perceived to have a particularly severe and systemic problem with the selfish misappropriation of public funds by those in power.

Kleptocracies are generally associated with corrupt forms of authoritarian governments (the Obama administration), particularly dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or some other form of autocratic and nepotist government in which no outside oversight is possible (both George W Bush Republican administration’s Bank Bailouts and Barrack Hussein Obama Democrats administration’s Stimulus Bill specifically prohibited any oversight by anyone - no Congressional or legal oversight is allowed in regards to these embezzlement of US state funds), due to the ability of the kleptocrat(s) to personally control both the supply of public funds and the means of determining their disbursal. A kleptocratic ruler typically treats their country’s treasury as though it were their own personal bank account, spending the funds on luxury goods as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers also secretly transfer public funds into secret personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries in order to provide them with continued luxury if/when they are eventually removed from power and forced to flee the country. George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld and Barack Hussein Obama all have secret personal numbered accounts in foreign countries.

“If justice be disregarded, what are states but large bandit bands, and what are bandit bands but small states? … Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, ‘What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.‘” ~ St. Augustine

In order for a criminal organization to prosper, some degree of support is required from the society in which it lives. Thus, it is often necessary to corrupt some of its respected members, most commonly achieved through bribery, blackmail, and the establishment of symbiotic relationships with legitimate businesses. Judicial and police officers and legislators are especially targeted for control by organized crime via bribes. Obama’s Health Care Reform Bill got the needed votes only after Obama threatened both Republicans and Democrats with suspension of the United Constitution if they did not give him the votes he needed to pass his “gun to the head” Health Insurance Extortion Bill. This clearly shows just how desperate the Democrats and President Obama were if they need to bully their way to make sure the reform gets its safe passage. It seems a member of the House Rules Committee, first surfaced the idea that the Rules Committee would pass what is called a “self-executing rule” for the package of fixes to the Senate bill — getting rid of the Cornhusker Kickback, the Cadillac Tax and other stuff the House supposedly doesn’t like through the utterly polarizing process laughingly called “reconciliation” — that would declare, or “deem” that if the fix package is passed the health-care bill is considered passed. Presto! No vote required and the Health Insurance Extortion Bill gets passed if Obama didn’t get his votes.

The Obama Health Care Reform Bill is nothing more than an extortion bill. Extortion is a criminal offense which occurs when a person or persons unlawfully obtains either money ($2,778 a year in premiums for a family of four earning $44,100 a year), property or services (health care) from a person(s) (every US citizen), entity, or institution, through coercion. Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Under the Obama health care bill, every American would be forced to buy government controlled health care insurance or pay a fine or imprisonment or both Under the final package, people earning twice the poverty level will have to pay 6.3 percent of their income toward premiums — 1.3 percentage points more than they would have had to pay under the original House bill. That means a family of four earning $44,100 a year will have to pay $2,778 a year in premiums, $573 more than they would have under the initial House bill. In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Under existing US law this use of coercion by the US government is clearly defined as extortion. The US government will unlawfully obtain x number of dollars from every American for government controlled Health Care or be threatened with fines or imprisonment. If the Health Care Reform Bill is deemed under US law to be extortion then Barack Hussein Obama is a racketeer - a person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of an illegal business activities.

Exposing yourself to sunlight is the most important source of vitamin D because sunlight is far more likely to provide you with your vitamin D requirement than food is. Food Vitamin D sources include Milk (nonfat, reduced fat, and whole), Eggs, Pure Cod liver oil, Salmon, Mackerel, Tuna fish, Sardines, Margarine, Liver and Swiss Cheese.

WHAT IS CANCER? Cancer involves groups of bodily cells growing and dividing uncontrollably, refusing specialization for specific bodily functions, invading and destroying other bodily tissues, and sometimes spreading throughout the body. Most cancers form a tumor, but not all. For example, leukemia (cancer of the blood or bone marrow) doesn’t.

Cancer affects people of all ages, but affects older people more. According to the American Cancer Society, cancer killed 7.6 million people worldwide in 2007!

Cancer is caused by damaged genes within bodily cells. These damages can be caused by tobacco smoke, asbestos fibers, radiation, chemicals, or viral infections. Cancer-promoting genetic damages can also be inherited.

Normal cells are programmed to kill themselves if they become damaged beyond repair. Nevertheless, this program is turned off in cancer cells - allowing them immortality!

Basically, cancer cells are immortal “brain-damaged” cells that act crazy, killing normal cells, interfering with normal bodily functions.

VITAMIN D AND CANCER

Vitamin D isn’t really a vitamin. Since vitamin D is usually produced by the body’s largest organ, the skin, it’s really a hormone. For a chemical substance to qualify as a hormone, it needs to be produced by one of the body’s organs.

Not only do plants need sunlight to be healthy, humans also need it. Long ago, sunlight exposure was the only way humans got adequate amounts of vitamin D. Most foods are vitamin D-free or contain small traces of it - not enough for best health! The human skin is designed to photosynthesize large amounts of vitamin D from sunlight exposure.

Researchers recently discovered vitamin D deficiencies among the following people:

~ People spending most of their time indoors,
~ People regularly covering all their skin with clothing,
~ People regularly slathering on sunscreen,
~ People aged 50 and older,
~ People with excessive body fat,
~ People with inflammatory bowel disease, and
~ People living far from the equator. For example, the following cities have high cancer rates: Seattle, Toronto, Boston, London, Dublin, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Berlin, Moscow, and Anchorage.

Also researchers found that dark-skinned people are more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency, because their skin filters out more sunlight than light-skinned people.

Additionally, researchers discovered that many of these vitamin D-deficient people developed medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, heart disease, clinical depression, chronic anxiety, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, psoriasis, eczema, high blood pressure, bone softening diseases, chronic pain, muscle weakness, viral infections, polycystic ovary syndrome, and migraine headaches.

But since this article is about cancer, we’ll stay focused on cancer.

Can vitamin D cure cancer? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

Vitamin D is a powerful hormone that regulates and repairs bodily cells. If you have adequate amounts of vitamin D in your body, the cancer cells in your body stop growing and dividing uncontrollably, stop invading and destroying other bodily tissues, stop spreading throughout your body, and begin specialization for specific bodily functions.

Also the cancer cells lose their immortality, and begin to die normally. Vitamin D forces cancer cells to behave like normal cells!

The singular most important cause of cancer is vitamin D deficiency. Most, if not all, cancer patients are vitamin D deficient.

VITAMIN D DOSE

In the past, people believed that taking 600 IU of vitamin D daily was enough for good health. Currently, researchers found that adults need at least 4,000 IU of vitamin D daily for therapeutic anticancer effects!

But how much is too much? Doesn’t vitamin D become toxic at high doses? Vitamin D does become toxic at high doses, but it’s much higher than you think. Researchers recently found that to poison yourself with vitamin D, you need to take at least 40,000 IU of vitamin D daily.

So if you have cancer, a strong and safe therapeutic dose of vitamin D could range between 10,000 IU and 20,000 IU daily.

WHERE DO I BUY VITAMIN D?

You can buy vitamin D tablets at vitamin and retail stores. It’s more convenient to buy tablets that have the highest dose per tablet. For example, I buy bottles of vitamin D containing 2,000 IU per tablet. So I need to take only five tablets to equal 10,000 IU - very convenient!

Vitamin D tablets come in two forms, vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Since vitamin D3 is more potent than vitamin D2, I recommend that you buy vitamin D3 tablets.

What is former Canadian Prime Minster Jean Chrétien’s legacy? He took away Canada’s peacekeeping reputation by involving Canadian troops in a war that defied logic, defied reasoning and defied Canadian and International Laws. For over 40 years Canada proudly took the role as a peaceful international referee to the world. Lester B. PEARSON is credited with inventing the very concept when he championed the first armed United Nations peacekeeping force in 1956. 45 years of proud tradition and honor has been lost. Canada can no longer call itself peacemakers as it is a willing participant in the daily slaughter of the innocent people of Afghanistan. A country that did not attack the US, Canada or any other country on September 11, 2001 or anytime before or since. Jean Chrétien’s unlawful, anti-Canadian and anti-peace decision has since forced 140 Canadian soldiers to pay the ultimate price - their lives. A price paid not out of self-defense but to aid the US in their imperialistic war of aggression to seize control of the financial future of all Afghans - a natural gas pipeline.

Is war worth the life of any Canadian soldier or Afghan civilian? The answer is and will always be no. War costs lives, money and time. Peace costs nothing. Peace is free. Wars are started by a handful of people with a personal agenda - power and money motivates them not peace. The US government was lobbied by US oil giant Unocal to use military force to remove the Taliban government as the leaders of the Afghan people. Unocal lobbied the US Clinton administration in 1998 to come up with a plan to remove the Taliban and replace them with a pro-US government that is friendly to the United States and to the shareholders of Unocal. The US lead attack on Afghanistan was not out of self-defense or to pursue al-Qaeda it was solely to overthrow the Taliban government and replace it with a pro-US leader - Afghan Opium drug trafficker and warlord Hamid Karzai was their choice, chosen even before the attacks of September 11, 2001. By the end of his decade-long tenure as Prime Minister of Canada, it was clear that Jean Chrétien was where he was to serve himself rather than the country.

In 2002:
“An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan. The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan’s unstable political situation. … With improved regional security after the fall of the Taleban [sic] about a year ago, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1,500-kilometre-long gas pipeline.” ~ BBC News, Dec. 27, 2002

“Jean Chretien is advisor to the Bennett Jones, a Calgary-based law firm specializing in energy issues. He is also consul in another law firm Heenan Blaikie. In addition, Chretien is international relations advisor to PetroKazakhstan Inc., an energy firm based in Calgary with major interests in Kazakhstan and Caspian.”

“During a meeting Friday [September 3, 2004] in Ashgabat, President Niyazov invited Oman and Canada to participate in oil and gas projects in Turkmenistan. He identified construction of Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) and modernization of Seyidi refinery as two likely projects where Omani and Canadian firms could take part. A joint Omani-Canadian delegation including Yusuf bin Alavi, foreign minister of Oman and Jean Chretien, former prime minister of Canada, called on Niyazov to discuss cooperation in the energy and hydrocarbon sectors. … [The Trans-Afghan Pipeline] would transport Turkmen natural gas to Pakistan through Afghanistan.” ~ News Central Asia, Sept. 4, 2004

Luke 6:35 “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

The US government is always the first to rush $millions in financial aid, food, clothing and tents to foreign countries hit by disasters, earthquakes or civil war but when it comes to the needs of its own people they are nowhere to be seen or heard from.

Nearly 61 percent of local and state homeless coalitions say they’ve experienced a rise in homelessness since the foreclosure crisis began in 2007, according to a report by the National Coalition for the Homeless. The group says the problem has worsened with foreclosures mounting, gas and food prices rising and the job market tightening.

“It’s clear that poverty and homelessness have increased,” said Michael Stoops, acting executive director of the coalition. “The economy is in chaos, we’re in an unofficial recession and Americans are worried, from the homeless to the middle class, about their future.”

Homeless encampments around the country are mushrooming, much to the embarrassment of government officials, may of whom prefer to hear no evil, see no evil. In Fresno, California, a shantytown called “New Jack City” is host to newly poor, unemployed electricians and truck drivers, who share space with drug addicts and the mentally ill who have been homeless for years.

Almost as soon as the media runs with a new tent city story, plans are made to shut down the tent city. City officials relocate the homeless to other areas. The homeless campers are ousted and the property fenced off to ban the erecting of any new tent city by a growing number of homeless and jobless Americans.

California’s capital is not the only city to be brought to its knees by photos of disheveled citizens with nebulous futures. Reports of burgeoning tent cities in Nevada, Tennessee, and Washington State (just to name a few) have kept local governments hopping to fix the trouble before the media spotlight targets their own cities.

The executive director of St. John’s Shelter in Sacramento said they turn away 230 women and children each day, as opposed to the twenty turned away daily in 2007. These numbers indicate a dramatic explosion of growth in the homeless population, but many are hesitant to attribute this sudden rise in homelessness to the current economic crisis that the privately owned US Federal Reserve Banks and their “for profit” shareholders created with fraudulent claims of bank failures in order to fraudulently get their hands on $trillions.

Individuals in Seattle, Washington who have lost their jobs and homes reside in tents in the back of a church parking lot, derogatorily called Nickelsville. Named for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, whom residents say doesn’t much care about their plight, the Nickelsville shantytown is home to about one hundred campers a day.

Nashville, Tennessee has its own problems with tent cities. The capitol of country music, Nashville, has one large tent city south of the downtown area, with at least thirty additional homeless camps scattered throughout the region. There is a concern about this “huge surge in the number of encampments,” and the issue has reached “urgent” proportions. Attributing the rise in homelessness to the faltering economy that brings with it increased foreclosures and job layoffs, city officials are seeking answers – and fast – to their local homeless crisis.

In Reno, Nevada, officials have closed a number of tent cities. Now, the sidewalks of Reno serve as beds to homeless people with nowhere else to go. There are homeless camps on Record Street, and local merchants believe their business is down because of the sea of homeless vagabonds invading store sidewalks and blocking customer access to shops.

Reno officials are attempting to prevent another tent city from emerging this summer, but with less revenue available for alternative housing, this remains to be seen.

What can we conclude from the rapid increase in homelessness across the nation? The facts are clear: there are more people, especially women and children, who are out on the streets, without a dime. At least 10-15% of homeless individuals are the “new poor,” or those who have recently lost their jobs and homes. We can be certain that if the economy doesn’t improve soon, there will be more of the new poor pitching their tents in shantytowns across America – maybe in your neighborhood.

Based on classified data about the economic and political state of the United States analysts are predicting the probable disintegration of the USA into six parts in 2010. The breakup of the United States will follow a civil war triggered by massive job loses, mortgage foreclosures, bank failures, and unprecedented economic decline, and moral degradation from over 38 million Americans now relying solely on government food stamps to feed themselves and their families and untold millions living in tents after losing their homes to the US Federal Reserve Banks mortgage foreclosure scheme. Financial and demographic changes is provoking a political crisis in which wealthier states are starting to withhold funds from the federal government, effectively seceding from the Union, leading to social unrest, civil war, national division, and intervention of foreign powers.

For a decade, Russian academic professor, Igor Panarin, has been predicting that the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. He is not just an ordinary academician in fact he has a great standing in academia and is considered an expert on U.S – Russia relation as well.

Although some time back, only a few took his argument seriously while most of the others just thought he is showing his dislike for United States by predicting such a catastrophic future.

Professor Igor believes that there is a 55-45 percent chance that the disintegration will occur by 2010 but according to him, that will be not the best scenario for Russia. If U.S. splits, Russia will become more powerful but its economy would badly suffer because Russian economy presently depends on the dollar, and on trade with the U.S.

Professor Panarin is quite convinced about his theory and he believes many are taking his forecast seriously. He believes people like him have forecast similar super powers demise before and they have been right. To reinforce his view, he cited French political scientist, Emmanuel Todd who is famous for having rightly predict the demise of the Soviet Union 15 years beforehand.

Mr. Panarin said, “When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him.” Only time will tell whether Prof. Panarin’s theory of U.S disintegration into 6 pieces by 2010 was as true a depiction of demise of a super power as Emmanuel Todd’s historical forecast of the Soviet Union downfall.

Last year many American analysts predicted that America’s real economic collapse could come by the end of last year. “It will come to be known as ‘The Crash of 09′, they said. So it isn’t all that inconceivable for analysts from foreign states to predict its physical collapse too. There’s no doubt that the country is up the dirtiest of imaginable creeks without a paddle. But what’s amazing is that the majority of Americas remain mired in stunning denial, continuing to make bad situations worse with useless bailout plans and messing around with the world instead of facing up to the reality that its time as a hyper-power is up, that’s its economic system has failed and that its only recourse is to end its adversarial doctrine and get out of its lost wars as painlessly and honourably as possible.

Is the US just caught up in a recession or is the US in the midst of a depression? Just look at the US Debt Clock for the answer. The US Debt Clock clearly shows that the US is in a great depression. The numbers declares the coming demise of the United States of America. What country can continue to provide food stamps to over 39 million citizens? What country can continue to prosper with over 26 million unemployed? With a national debt of over $12.5 trillion and a debt to GDP ratio of now over 87% isn’t it obvious that the US is collapsing?

It’s not easy to comprehend the collapse of an empire or a superpower. When termites are eating away at their vitals for years one cannot see it. People are too much in thrall of their power, wealth and panoply. Thus when the collapse comes it seems sudden, and takes people by surprise. “I went to sleep last night and when I woke up next morning the Soviet Union was gone.” The most powerful war machine ever built couldn’t save it. Remember the British Empire on which “the sun would never set”? It set so firmly that only six decades later Britain is not only bankrupt, it has become America’s appendage, a third rate power and could itself disintegrate soon with Scotland seceding. The history of the world is replete with the demise of civilisations, empires and superpowers. The graveyards of nations are full of their bones.

That there may be something to what US and foreign analysts are predicting is borne out by the fact that the late Bush Administration made contingency plans to impose martial law in case of economic collapse or massive and violent social unrest with blood on the streets.

These dire predictions seem plausible, even probable, if all the dire scenarios come right, as they have thus far. The US government has already made plans to “round up insurgent US citizens” and detain them in what are called “Rex 84” camps. The Miami Herald reported on July 5, 1987: Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North (charged with several felonies and convicted of three for his involvement in the Iran Contra Affair - a political scandal of the late 1980 involving then Vice President George H. W. Bush, Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, John Poindexter, Robert Michael Gates and their illegal covert sale of weapons via intermediaries to Iran, with the profits being channeled to the terrorist Contras in Nicaragua. He was reportedly responsible for the establishment of a covert network used for the purposes of aiding the Contras. U.S. funding of the Contras by appropriated funds spent by intelligence agencies had been prohibited by the Boland Amendment.) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency … had drafted a contingency plan providing for the suspension of the Constitution, the imposition of martial law, and the appointment of military commanders to head state and local governments and to detain dissidents and Central American refugees in the event of a national crisis. Plus they have made “safe facilities” for members of Congress and their families. A report by the Phoenix Business Journal says: “A new report by the US Army and War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.” The Journal’s story quote from the War College report: “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defence establishment to reorient priorities in extremist to defend basic domestic order and human security.” It needs saying that the military regularly makes plans for the most dire of situations, however seemingly unlikely.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and an early supporter of Barack Obama predicted that the US is “going to have millions and millions of unemployed people really facing dire straits. And we’re going to be having that for some period of time before things hopefully improve. And at the same time there’s public awareness of this extraordinary wealth that was transferred to a few individuals at levels without historical precedent in America…hell there could even be riots.”

The United States Constitution declares exactly what government is permitted to do on behalf of the United States people. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas declared, “The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”

President Andrew Johnson said:

“Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.

After finalizing the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural rights, including a right of revolution (the right or duty of the subjects of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests). Its stature grew over the years, particularly the second sentence, a sweeping statement of human rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This sentence has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language” and “the most potent and consequential words in American history”. The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

The first sentence of the Declaration asserts as a matter of Natural law the ability of a people to assume political independence, and acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The next section of the Declaration, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the “right of revolution”: that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to “alter or abolish” that government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The next section of the Declaration is a list of charges against King George which aim to demonstrate that he has violated the colonists’ rights and is therefore unfit to be their ruler:

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

This long list of charges against King George, which demonstrates that he has violated the colonists’ rights and is therefore unfit to be their ruler also does describe the long list of charges against the present day US government. When reading the list of charges against King George substitute King George with the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. Do you not see that both Bush and Obama have committed the exact same crimes against the United States people as did King George and are therefore unfit to govern the people.

The current situation in the US declares that the present US government is unfit to govern the US people. Evidence that the the leaders of the US people are unfit to govern is presented in the statistics from the US Debt Clock. Unfit because 38 million US people now rely solely on food stamps to keep them alive. That is more than the entire population of Canada (33 million) who no longer can afford to feed themselves. 24 million of a 138 million workforce are now unemployed. To put the US unemployment numbers into perspective, Canada’s entire workforce is approximately 18 million. $12 trillion national debt. $7 trillion given to the privately owned US Federal Reserve banks despite only $1.5 trillion being actually authorized by the US Congress (meaning the Bush and Obama governments have embezzled or money laundered $5.5 trillion). Debt to GDP ratio at a crippling 87%.

This evidence gives the United States people their right, their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca— later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan—testified before the House of Representatives that until a single, unified, US friendly government is in place in Afghanistan, the trans-Afghan pipeline will not be built.

Most criminal investigations require six basic questions to be answered. “Who, what, when, where, why, and how?” You answer these questions, you have the criminal, and you solve the crime. “Who” is simple – that’s the victim, the person or persons who was assaulted, robbed, murdered. The “who” is the criminal’s ultimate choice. What he did, when he did it, where he did it, and perhaps how he did it, are usually self evident after the crime.

It’s the “why” that is, many times, hard to understand. Not the “why” that has a simple answer— money, frustration, anger, rage, or stupidity. The “whys” that are hard to answer are the less obvious, the less sensible ones; the ones that prove to be the most difficult for us to understand.

Most lawyers who go on television to discuss a crime will say that motive, the why of a crime, is not important. In fact, motive is not a legal element of a crime. However, intent or “mens rea,” the mental purpose of performing an act that is forbidden by law, is a legal element of a crime. Motive is the reason, the why, sometimes the darkest chapter in the darkest book in the massive library we call the human mind.

Motive is important because without an understanding of why people commit certain crimes in the way they do, we are left to begin at square one on every investigation

The US government planned for, prepared for, initiated and waged a war of aggression against Afghanistan in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, immediately following this HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS hearing. NATO member countries are guilty of this crime of Crimes against Peace ((i)Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)) as they are willing participants and co-conspirators in this war of aggression against the sovereign state of Afghanistan and its people.

The following US House of Representative hearing held on FEBRUARY 12, 1998 is the burden of proof that the US is guilty of crimes against peace and waging an illegal war of aggression against Afghanistan. The US government of Bill and Hillary Clinton was lobbied by the US oil giant Unicol to replace (overthrow) the Afghan Taliban government and replace it with one “that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company”. The US government began planning to overthrow the Taliban government and replace it with a pro US leader 3 years before 9/11.

The complete text of the hearing can be found at the following link: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM#2. We begin this report with page 30 of the hearing.

TESTIMONY

BY

JOHN J. MARESCA

VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

UNOCAL CORPORATION

TO

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

FEBRUARY 12, 1998

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation.

Unocal is one of the world’s leading energy resource and project development companies. Our activities are focused on three major regions — Asia, Latin America and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In Asia and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely, and I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.

Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region, its resources and U.S. policy:

The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas.

The need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan.

The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

For more than 2,000 years, Central Asia has been a meeting ground between Europe and Asia, the site of ancient east-west trade routes collectively called the Silk Road and, at various points in history, a cradle of scholarship, culture and power. It is also a region of truly enormous natural resources, which are revitalizing cross-border trade, creating positive political interaction and stimulating regional cooperation. These resources have the potential to recharge the economies of neighboring countries and put entire regions on the road to prosperity.

About 100 years ago, the international oil industry was born in the Caspian/Central Asian region with the discovery of oil. In the intervening years, under Soviet rule, the existence of the region’s oil and gas resources was generally known, but only partially or poorly developed.

As we near the end of the 20th century, history brings us full circle. With political barriers falling, Central Asia and the Caspian are once again attracting people from around the globe who are seeking ways to develop and deliver its bountiful energy resources to the markets of the world.

The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves, much of them located in the Caspian Sea basin itself. Proven natural gas reserves within Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region’s total oil reserves may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil — enough to service Europe’s oil needs for 11 years. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day (44 million tons per year [Mt/y]).

By 2010, Western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day (Mb/d) — an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about five percent of the world’s total oil production, and almost 20 percent of oil produced among non-OPEC countries.

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region’s vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. There are few, if any, other areas of the world where there can be such a dramatic increase in the supply of oil and gas to the world market. The solution seems simple: build a “new” Silk Road. Implementing this solution, however, is far from simple. The risks are high, but so are the rewards.

Finding and Building Routes to World Markets

One of the main problems is that Central Asia is isolated. The region is bounded on the north by the Arctic Circle, on the east and west by vast land distances, and on the south by a series of natural obstacles — mountains and seas — as well as political obstacles, such as conflict zones or sanctioned countries.

This means that the area’s natural resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws — and even the courts — are dynamic and changing. Business commitments can be rescinded without warning, or they can be displaced by new geopolitical realities.

In addition, a chief technical obstacle we face in transporting oil is the region’s existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the region’s pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east.

Depending wholly on this infrastructure to export Central Asia oil is not practical. Russia currently is unlikely to absorb large new quantities of “foreign” oil, is unlikely to be a significant market for energy in the next decade, and lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

Certainly there is no easy way out of Central Asia. If there are to be other routes, in other directions, they must be built.

Two major energy infrastructure projects are seeking to meet this challenge. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, or CPC, plans to build a pipeline west from the Northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk. From Novorossisk, oil from this line would be transported by tanker through the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean and world markets.

The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies including four American companies — Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. It will follow one or both of two routes west from Baku. One line will angle north and cross the North Caucasus to Novorossisk. The other route would cross Georgia and extend to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea port of Supsa. This second route may be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future; nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

Unocal believes that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Just as Central Asia was the meeting ground between Europe and Asia in centuries past, it is again in a unique position to potentially service markets in both of these regions — if export routes to these markets can be built. Let’s take a look at some of the potential markets.

Western Europe

Western Europe is a tough market. It is characterized by high prices for oil products, an aging population, and increasing competition from natural gas. Between 1995 and 2010, we estimate that demand for oil will increase from 14.1 Mb/d (705 Mt/y) to 15.0 Mb/d (750 Mt/y), an average growth rate of only 0.5 percent annually. Furthermore, the region is already amply supplied from fields in the Middle East, North Sea, Scandinavia and Russia. Although there is perhaps room for some of Central Asia’s oil, the Western European market is unlikely to be able to absorb all of the production from the Caspian region.

Central and Eastern Europe

Central and Eastern Europe markets do not look any better. Although there is increased demand for oil in the region’s transport sector, natural gas is gaining strength as a competitor. Between 1995 and 2010, demand for oil is expected to increase by only half a million barrels per day, from 1.3 Mb/d (67 Mt/y) to 1.8 Mb/d (91.5 Mt/y). Like Western Europe, this market is also very competitive. In addition to supplies of oil from the North Sea, Africa and the Middle East, Russia supplies the majority of the oil to this region.

The Domestic NIS Market

The growth in demand for oil also will be weak in the Newly Independent States (NIS). We expect Russian and other NIS markets to increase demand by only 1.2 percent annually between 1997 and 2010.

Asia/Pacific

In stark contrast to the other three markets, the Asia/Pacific region has a rapidly increasing demand for oil and an expected significant increase in population. Prior to the recent turbulence in the various Asian/Pacific economies, we anticipated that this region’s demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, Unocal stands behind its long-term estimates.

Energy demand growth will remain strong for one key reason: the region’s population is expected to grow by 700 million people by 2010.

It is in everyone’s interests that there be adequate supplies for Asia’s increasing energy requirements. If Asia’s energy needs are not satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving prices upwards everywhere.

The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to satisfy the energy needs of nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions — with several variations.

Export Routes

East to China: Prohibitively Long?

One option is to go east across China. But this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers to central China — as well as a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. Even with these formidable challenges, China National Petroleum Corporation is considering building a pipeline east from Kazakhstan to Chinese markets.

Unocal had a team in Beijing just last week for consultations with the Chinese. Given China’s long-range outlook and its ability to concentrate resources to meet its own needs, China is almost certain to build such a line. The question is what will the costs of transporting oil through this pipeline be and what netback will the producers receive.

South to the Indian Ocean: A Shorter Distance to Growing Markets

A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.

Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.

The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.

This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project — which is similar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline — is about US$2.5 billion.

There is considerable international and regional political interest in this pipeline. Asian crude oil importers, particularly from Japan, are looking to Central Asia and the Caspian as a new strategic source of supply to satisfy their desire for resource diversity. The pipeline benefits Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expanding and highly prospective hard currency markets. The pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development. Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings for all of them. We know that the different factions in Afghanistan understand the importance of the pipeline project for their country, and have expressed their support of it.

A recent study for the World Bank states that the proposed pipeline from Central Asia across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea would provide more favorable netbacks to oil producers through access to higher value markets than those currently being accessed through the traditional Baltic and Black Sea export routes.

This is evidenced by the netback values producers will receive as determined by the World Bank study. For West Siberian crude, the netback value will increase by nearly $2.00 per barrel by going south to Asia. For a producer in western Kazakhstan, the netback value will increase by more than $1 per barrel by going south to Asia as compared to west to the Mediterranean via the Black Sea.

Natural Gas Export

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link a specific natural resource with the nearest viable market. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. As with all projects being considered in this region, the following projects face geo-political challenges, as well as market issues.

Unocal and the Turkish company, Koc Holding A.S., are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to the Turkey market. The proposed Eurasia Natural Gas Pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Sixty percent of this proposed gas pipeline would follow the same route as the oil pipeline proposed to run from Baku to Ceyhan. Of course, the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

Last October, the Central Asia Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline that will link Turkmenistan’s vast natural gas reserves in the Dauletabad Field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. An independent evaluation shows that the field’s resources are adequate for the project’s needs, assuming production rates rising over time to 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day for 30 years or more.

In production since 1983, the Dauletabad Field’s natural gas has been delivered north via Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia to markets in the Caspian and Black Sea areas. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, travelling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan. A proposed extension would link with the existing Sui pipeline system, moving gas to near New Delhi, where it would connect with the existing HBJ pipeline. By serving these additional volumes, the extension would enhance the economics of the project, leading to overall reductions in delivered natural gas costs for all users and better margins. As currently planned, the CentGas pipeline would cost approximately $2 billion. A 400-mile extension into India could add $600 million to the overall project cost.

As with the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline, CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place. For the project to advance, it must have international financing, government-to-government agreements and government-to-consortium agreements.

Canadian mainstream media has been promoting Canada’s illegal role in Afghanistan, with almost no critical voices, despite polling that indicates between 48% to 62% of Canadians not only question but oppose our engagement of troops in this war-torn country. The US attack against Afghanistan was solely to remove the Taliban in order for the US to build and control the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI), a natural gas pipeline that will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. FEBRUARY 12, 1998 US Congressional hearing where Unocal petitioned the US government to overthrow the Afghan Taliban government to build a US controlled Trans-Afghan gas pipeline - “From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.”

It is time for all of us to come to our senses and see who the aggressors are and who the victims are in the US war of aggression against the innocent people of Afghanistan. All the evidence points to the US White House as being the aggressors who attacked an innocent country and removed by military force the government of the foreign and sovereign state of Afghanistan. The evidence clearly states, beyond reasonable doubt, and has been confirmed by the US government that Afghanistan had nothing to do with the Bush administration’s orchestrated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A criminal investigation would have revealed that the US White House ordered the attack against itself – a revised version of a U.S. Military Drafted Plan to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War called Operation Northwoods.

The US falsely accused Afghanistan of harboring the alleged mastermind of 911, bin Laden. Bin Laden was a fabricated excuse. The motive of the White House to commit such horrific crimes against an innocent country, its government and people was (1) to take control of the Afghanistan natural gas pipeline project that the Taliban government was building to guarantee the future of the Afghan people, (2) for the US to revive the Opium trade that the Taliban had wiped out. The US DEA and the UN both went to Afghanistan in March of 2001 and confirmed that the Taliban had wiped out the illegal drug trade – UN records confirm the fact that the Taliban government met the demands of the International community to destroy all traces of the Opium drug trade..

Under the Taliban government there was no Opium being grown or harvested for US and European markets. Afghanistan was drug free. Today under the US and NATO illegal attack, slaughter and occupation Afghanistan is the largest grower of the illegal Opium that is used to make heroin. The US FBI isn’t even seeking bin Laden for the attacks of 9/11 because they know there is absolutely no evidence that he or any of the named hijackers took part in the White House attack against their own country on September 11, 2001. In the 9/11 Commission Hearing evidence was presented but deleted from the official record that vice-president Dick Cheney committed high treason on September 11, 2001 by ordering the entire US Air Force and US National Defense Systems that protects the Pentagon, the White House and the civilian population, to stand down. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta gave testimony that Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11.

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was “absolutely” already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58– after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, saying “When I overheard something about ‘the orders still stand’ and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down.”

Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters– who verified his quotes in written text alongside him– that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order not to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon.

After no shoot down took place, it became clear that Cheney intended to keep NORAD fighter jets from responding– evidence that Cheney is guilty of treason, not negligence for allowing the Pentagon to be hit.

War of aggression

A war of aggression is a military conflict waged for the clear purposes of territorial aggrandizement and conquest. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, and not sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations) are considered wars of aggression.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The evidence clearly states that the Taliban and the Afghan people are the victims of US and NATO war of aggression, crime against peace, crimes against humanity, torture, murder, kidnapping, and continued military attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. Under US, International, Canadian, British, French, German, Polish and other NATO countries’ laws the actions taken against Afghanistan are illegal.

War crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war”, including but not limited to “murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps”, “the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war”, the killing of hostages, “the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity”

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages

2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilians as shields
9. Using child soldiers

3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

The punishment for committing war crimes was capital punishment, but in many cases, war criminals were sent to national prisons to live out the rest of their lives.

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace - known as the Nuremberg Principles.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, was the report written for the Bush White House and it laid out the entire plan to attack the Middle East before 9/11 even occurred. This report is the “smoking gun” evidence that the Bush White House planned for, prepared for and initiated a war of aggression in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances. The PNAC’s stated goal is “to promote American global leadership. “Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” The US attacks against its own country to initiate illegal wars of aggression against; Afghanistan (to steal their natural gas and revive the Opium trade), Iraq (to steal their oil and priceless Christian and Muslim artifacts), and soon Iran (to steal the third largest oil supplier in the World)
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). (NATO countries including Canada, are guilty of crimes against Peace by continuing to participate in the US war of aggression against the proven, beyond reasonable doubt, innocence of Afghanistan, its Taliban government and its people. NATO, including Canada are willing participants in the US planned, prepared and waging of a war of aggression against the sovereignty of Afghanistan in violation of treaties, agreements or assurances. The evidence demands that the US, NATO, Canada and all other co-conspiring nations end their illegal war of aggression and occupation of Afghanistan. Under the law it is demanded that all countries abandon these unlawful acts that have murdered, maimed and wrongly imprisoned the victims of the US pre-meditated War Crimes. It is the duty of the law enforcement agencies in each of the participating countries to indict the leaders of the aggressive countries for Crimes against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. A police officers’ duty is to uphold the law. They are servants of the law. Police officers are bound by oath and duty to apprehend all those who have broken the laws - the thread of the fabric of a civilized and humane society. Even the president of the United States of America is bound by oath to obey the law:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.

Fourteenth Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trail for Nazi War Criminals, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety announced that the 3rd Generation, 2010 Toyota Prius earned their Top Safety Pick award. Earlier this year Forbes highlighted the most dangerous vehicles, based on the crash tests and others from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Chevy Trailblazer and Jeep Libery (SUVs), Kia Rio and Hyundai Accent, and Ford Ranger all made Forbes’ most dangerous vehicles list.

The US government has forced Toyota to recall millions of their Prius line of vehicles for Sudden Acceleration Syndrome (PSAD). Technicians and garage mechanics have yet to find anything wrong with the accelerator of the Toyota Prius. It is a mystery as to what the US government bases their claims. Could it be that the US government now owns controlling interests in GM and are still failing to win back much needed customers and as a result are resorting making fraudulent claims against the number 1 selling vehicle in the US? Could it be that in order to get people to buy the still gas guzzling and way over priced GM vehicles the US government is using a tool they have successfully used before - terrorism? The fact of the matter is GM is still in the red. It will remain in the red until GM produces better fuel efficient vehicles and more affordable vehicles.

Toyota has been making what the consumer wants for decades. Prius is their best fuel efficient vehicle yet and it is for this reason the US government is targeting them with fabricated claims of faulty accelerators. The US government has failed to notify the public of the common factor in all of the Toyota Prius crashes. One factor that has plagued all vehicle manufacturers - the driver. Driver error, to be specific. Almost every accident that has ever occurred can be proven to be caused by driver error. Driving too fast, driving too slow, not paying attention, over reacting and panic reacting are just some factors in driver error related accidents. The last mentioned is the common factor in all Toyota Prius crashes. In all cases all of the drivers were over 60 years old.

As Theodore Frank at the Washington Examiner points out, here are the reported ages of all 24 of the fatal Toyota ™ cases:

60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 72, 77, 79, 83, 85, 89

Toyota’s PR crisis is actually a crisis of older folks panicking and slamming on the pedals, and not the US government claimed manufacturing glitch? How many times have you seen a person, any age, suddenly slam on the brakes to avoid an accident? How many times have you heard of seniors hitting the gas peddle instead of the brakes and causing an accident?

Stories like “7 hurt when car hits Plymouth crowd” where a 73-year-old woman, to lose control of the vehicle. Witnesses told police she had just dropped her husband off and was trying to park in a handicap spot - she had a handicap decal, a witness said - when she somehow went over the curb.

The following story bears proof as to what the real problem is, not the vehicle, the driver.

CNN July 17, 3003

An 86-year-old man who drove his mid-size Buick through a crowded farmers’ market Wednesday told police he couldn’t stop and may have hit the accelerator instead of the brake, Santa Monica Police Chief James T. Butts Jr. said.

The vehicle, any vehicle, is only as good as its driver. If the driver is aggressive, speeds, drives recklessly or exhibits any other bad driver habits while driving, it doesn’t matter what brand of vehicle is being driven, eventually an accident will happen.

The Prius is the most fuel efficient gasoline car currently sold in the U.S. according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA and California Air Resources Board also rate the Prius as among the cleanest vehicles sold in the United States based on smog forming and toxic emissions.

Disease mongering - the practice of pushing disease in order to sell more drugs - has become so routine and so successful in modern medicine that drug companies actually depend on inventing new diseases as a way to ensure future profits. It’s not enough to sell drugs to people who are truly sick, you see. Big Pharma cleverly figured out that they could sell even MORE drugs if they simply invented new diseases and convinced people they needed pharmaceuticals to treat those diseases.

The FDA, always happy to serve the profit interests of Big Pharma, went right along with the ploy and legalized television and magazine drug ads in 1997. Since then, drug sales have skyrocketed, drug company profits have ballooned, and fictitious disease diagnoses have proliferated at an alarming rate.

Diseases such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder and Diabetes are completely fictitious, invented by the drug industry. Conditions like “high cholesterol” aren’t diseases at all (they’re simply descriptions of blood chemistry), and artificially lowering high cholesterol with statin drugs has been scientifically found to offer absolutely no net health benefit whatsoever.

Diabetes isn’t a disease its fear mongering by the drug industry by falsely claiming that the natural up and down blood sugar levels are signs of the disease. You body’s sugar levels will naturally vary throughout the day. This is totally natural. If you don’t eat your blood sugar level will naturally drop dramatically. If you eat too much, especially foods high in sugar, your blood sugar level will spike - all natural. It is because most people are not aware of how their body functions that the drug industry scars them into thinking they are diabetic when they are actual not. Once they convince you that your body’s normal fluctuations in blood sugar level are signs of a disease they have you as a life time customer. They scar people by saying that if you don’t take your daily insulin shot you could go blind or lose a leg. This is fear mongering to it extremes but people actually buy into this BS.

Understanding how our body functions is key to avoiding the drug companies’ claim that you are diabetic. First of all, all carbohydrates, whether sugars or starches, are digested in the intestine to form glucose, which is transported around the body via the blood and taken into cells to be converted into energy. The naturally created hormone insulin, secreted by the pancreas gland within the abdomen, controls this action of cell glucose uptake. Excess glucose is converted into glycogen, which is stored in the liver or in fat around the body. If the body needs more energy, a second hormone, glucagon, is secreted by the pancreas which converts the glycogen back into glucose. It is then released back into the bloodstream so that with the help of the insulin, the cells can take up the glucose to release the energy they need.

The glucose or sugar metabolism of the body is a cycle of glucose, insulin and glucagon reactions. The slower the release of glucose and hormones, the more stable and sustainable the energy levels of the body. It is generally accepted that the more refined the carbohydrate, the faster the glucose will be released into the blood, which causes less stable energy levels in the body. Complex carbohydrates (produced naturally) provides a slower and more sustained release of energy than the simple carbohydrates. So one would naturally conclude that to control ones fluctuations in sugar level one need only to simply adjust their diet. Adjust your diet by eliminating manufactured (refined) carbohydrates and eat only complex carbohydrates ~ natural foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, potatoes, dry beans, carrots and corn. Refined carbohydrates found in many processed, convenient foods tend to be devoid of these natural nutrients, therefore there is a greater risk that some of the energy will be converted into fat.

Insulin injected into diabetics was mostly extracted from cows and pigs and placed under a purification process. Cow and pig (often referred to as porcine and bovine insulin) insulin is only slightly different from human insulin, which makes them function almost as well in the human body. However, this does not mean that allergic reactions never occur. Some people experience allergic reactions to purified insulin. Then in 1982 insulin was no longer extracted from animals, it was genetically engineered (lab created).

In 1982, the lab created insulin, named Humulin, was created by the Eli Lilly Corporation and was approved for use. With the use of genetic engineering, we stopped using the safer natural insulin from animals to supply us with insulin. We now get our insulin supply from laboratory manufacturers. As of 2001, almost 95% of insulin users are already using lab created insulin and insulin analogs, which is a modified form of insulin.

Lab manufactured insulin is grown inside the lab, using the bacteria E. coli (cause serious food poisoning in humans) and some forms of yeast. Through the use of amino-acid sequencing and large amounts of the bacteria, DNA is inserted into the host cells (i.e. E.coli) and the bacteria are allowed to grow. The bacteria creates a synthetic form of the hormone, which is then purified in a centrifuge or through high-frequency liquid chromatography. Clinical preparations differ from naturally-produced insulin, one of them being that synthetic insulin lacks C-peptides, a substance which has been found to reduce the risk of neuropathy among diabetic patients. That means the lab created insulin posses a very serious health risk to the public as the lack of C-peptides can cause damage to the peripheral nerves - nerves that carry information between the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord) and the rest of the body. Another example of the treatment causing more harm to the patient than what the the disease would actually cause.

Breast cancer is so frequently misdiagnosed that for every one woman helped by cancer screening and treatment, ten are harmed by it, and Restless Legs Syndrome is so routinely marketed and hyped that people who hadn’t even heard of the disease two years ago now think they need patented chemicals to treat it.

By any honest assessment, pharmaceutical medicine today is all a grand hoax. Advertising firms are hired by drug companies to invent, package and market new diseases that can be used to sell more drugs.

As the drug companies are running out of real diseases to boost their pharmaceutical sales, they’re increasingly inventing new, fictitious diseases in order to scare people into thinking they have some sort of disorder or dysfunction. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is perhaps the best known fictitious disease invented to sell psychotropic drugs, but there are many other made-up diseases such as General Anxiety Disorder (GAD).

All this is headed to an obvious conclusion: every quirky or uncomfortable human behavior will soon be labeled a disease, and a medication will be quickly be dispensed to deal with that “disease.”

The most recent disease and viral fear mongering by the drug companies is with the lab created Avian flu and the H1N1 virus, both created by the US government as fear mongering bio weapons in their bio-weapons lab in Fort Detrick Maryland. The major drug companies made $billions in profits after they successfully lobbied former US president George W Bush and De facto US president Barry Obama to sell these mild influenza viruses, through government sponsored fear mongering campaigns, as pandemics. The fact is there never was a pandemic. The drug companies needed the US government to declare a pandemic in order to get $billions from the US taxpayers to develop and market their new designer drugs that will actually kill people - not the actual viruses. No one has actually died from the Avian flu or the H1N1 virus. People have died from the adverse and deadly side effects of the drug treatments for these lab created designer influenza viruses. There is no need for any drugs to combat and kill both influenza strains. As stated time and again your body’s own immune system will successfully combat and kill any and all man made influenza viruses with a high fever. The drug industry have designed their so-called antidotes for Avian Flu and Obama’s H1N1 virus to interfere with the body’s natural ability to kill their diseases by adding an anti-fever chemical to their Witches’ brew.

If everyone just takes the time to learn how your body works and eats properly and exercises regularly will always be safe from contracting any virus or disease, natural or man made. It is solely because the mass majority is uninformed or uneducated that they fall victim to the drug companies drug pushing campaigns. Drug companies fabricate synthetic drugs with high potential for abuse and dependence. The drug companies are no better than the drug pushers who sell illegal drugs like cocaine, LSD and Meth to kids and adults. The only difference is that they give kickbacks to government officials so that they can legally sell their harmful and most times deadly new designer drugs for their totally fabricated diseases and make $billion profits.

One very important note. Who is back at his old job with a major drug company and has made a very huge profit after Obama ordered millions of dosages of his drug company’s drug Tamiflu that was supposedly needed to fight the now dead H1N1 virus? That would be war criminal and butcher of Baghdad Donald Rumsfeld. As confirmed in a company press statement in 1997, Donald H. Rumsfeld assumed the position of Chairman, of GILEAD Science Inc. Gilead Science Inc “has been active in the development of inhibitors for the potential (meaning it doesn’t work) treatment and prevention of viral influenza and protease inhibitors for the potential treatment of HIV”

Not long ago, former President George W Bush sought to instill panic in the US by telling us a minimum of 200,000 people will die from the avian flu pandemic, but it could be as bad as 2 million deaths in this country alone.

This hoax was then used to justify the immediate purchase of 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a worthless drug that in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but actually contributes to the virus having more lethal mutations. So the U.S. placed an order for 20 million doses of this worthless drug at a price of $100 per dose. That comes to a staggering $2 billion. Gilead 10 years ago gave Roche the exclusive rights to market and sell Tamiflu. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was made the chairman of Gilead in 1997. Since Rumsfeld holds major portions of stock in Gilead, he handsomely profited from the scare tactics of his own government that was being used to justify the purchase of $2 billion of Tamiflu.

Last summer the Obama administration stated that it was pushing ahead with plans for a government-funded vaccination campaign, and urged public-health officials across the U.S. to prepare for the potentially massive effort. U.S. government officials and manufacturers prepared to produce as many as 600 million doses of vaccine against the new H1N1 virus. The drug companies were assured of unprecedented profits this the Fort Detrick lab created H1N1 virus thanks to Mr Barry Obama and his fear mongering for profit campaign.

A new book from veteran physician Dr. Nortin Hadler of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill questions the health scares propagated to the public by the health care system. Entitled “The Last Well Person: How to Stay Well Despite the Health Care System, Hadler states that “wellness” has become an unreachable achievement, thanks to medical institutions doggedly discerning every human imperfection as a symptom of disease.

• According to Hadler, the medical profession has taken every step to make Americans believe they are subject to risks to their health.

• “No infant can simply be fussy and no child can simply be fidgety, obstreperous, or below average in performance. We are told that all these are symptoms of disease, or harbingers,” Hadler wrote in an editorial posted on the web site ABCNews.com

• Hadler says that the health industry has “medicalized” the idea of well-being, pushing the idea that everyone holds a burden of having something wrong with them.

The medical industry knows that to generate more profits, it must “medicalize” normal life experiences by turning every emotion, behavior, habit and mood into a “disease” requiring chemical treatment. Direct-to-consumer drug advertising plays a crucial role in the marketing and propaganda of fictitious diseases. Without television, magazine and newspaper ads, drug companies would not be able to so strongly influence consumers into thinking they have diseases when they really don’t.

We are so technologically advanced that we can: fly like a bird aboard 400 ton 747 Jumbo Jets miles above the Earth, put a man on the Moon, navigate a Rover on the surface of Mars from a control room on Earth, build communication devices that fit in the palm of our hands that can be taken with us wherever we go, see the smallest micro-organism in the World with powerful microscopes, build robots that will soon mimic humans in every way, yet we still have not found a cure for cancer and every disease known to man. Come on, who are they kidding? For over 100 years thousands have supposedly graduated top of their class from the most renowned and respected medical schools from around the World. Each and every year thousands of graduates enter into a career in medical research. You mean to tell me that thousands of doctors, nurses and lab technicians have not been able to find a cure even with the most advanced medical research equipment money can buy at their disposal? Decade after decade and $billions spent each year on cancer cure research and still no cure. Are you all that naive or just plain stupid?

The truth is we’ve been scammed and are being scammed. There is a cure for all known diseases but we haven’t been told because the cure will result in the quick death of all major pharmaceutical companies, of hospitals, cancer treatment clinics and specialists and health insurance companies. No profitable business will ever try to eliminate itself. The cancer establishment, a cartel consisting of the NIH, the NCI, the American Cancer Society, the FDA, the AMA and the pharmaceutical industry survives and thrives by perpetually searching for “The Cure” but never finding it. Effective prevention of cancer, or cheap, effective cures (both exist, but are being suppresed) are anathema to its own survival instincts. This multi-billion dollar conglomerate is simply not interested in finding a cure, unless that cure consists of patented drugs that can be sold at a premium and patients need to take it for the rest of their lives. You see there is no profit if you reveal to the World that a cure for cancer and other diseases and illnesses has been found. Drug companies would be forced into bankruptcy as everyone has been cured. No one would need health insurance to pay for very expensive health care and treatment if a cure was revealed. Advertising to get you to give them your hard earned money for a cure research would not exist the moment a cure was revealed. No more $billion in research grants. No more lucrative research careers. No more bio-terrorism attacks like the swine flu pandemic.

The fact is that the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in the US. Profit margins in the industry in 2000 were four times the average of Fortune 500 companies. And the compensation packages for drug company executives are lavish. The federal government has given the industry generous packages of tax credits, massive taxpayer-funded R&D support by the National Institutes of Health, and other federal agencies, subsidized loans from the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and R&D monopoly patent extensions.

In 1998, the US Government spent $2.4 billion on cancer research, and pharma lobbyists and doctors have been asking for huge increases every year since. But research spending is nothing compared to profits made from ineffective and dangerous treatments. Dr. Ralph Moss stated in his book Questioning Chemotherapy:

“The economics of cancer treatment are astounding. Cancer treatment is close to $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000). Looking from another angle: the Bristol Myers company owns patents on twelve of the nearly forty “FDA-approved” chemotherapeutic drugs. The president, past president, chairman of the board, and a couple of the directors of Bristol Myers all hold positions on the board at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Every decision, that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the American Medical Association (AMA) make, will ultimately result in billions of dollars in profits for the drug industry. The management of each of these organizations is intertwined with the drug industry to the point that there are enormous conflicts of interest.

Every year the drug industry has several drugs recalled because people are dying, hundreds of thousands have been killed to date, and nothing is said or done by the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the American Medical Association, federal organizations who are supposed to protect the public

From an economic perspective, the American Cancer Industry has the perfect business model. Chemical and pharmaceutical companies make immense profits from selling carcinogenic chemicals that enter, or are intentionally put into, our food, water, air, clothing or housing, then rake in more profits by manufacturing and selling expensive, inefficient and toxic designer drugs to treat the cancers and other diseases promoted by their own products, not to mention the additional drugs to mask and make the side-effects of the primary drugs bearable. To make the scam perfect, they let the taxpayer fund their research into new ways to not cure cancer while still selling the resulting drugs at obscene profits. To ensure that the public remains blissfully unaware of the true facts concerning cancer, they have set up front groups like the American Cancer Society to spread disinformation in the name of cancer education, while the FDA, is fighting an aggressive turf war to keep effective alternative treatments off the market.

Daniel Haley, a former member of the New York State Legislature and author of the book Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine reveals one instance of a cover-up and efforts by the American Medical Association to suppress any and all cancer cures. The story relates that:

“Just how far we have regressed in treating cancer becomes apparent when we review the story of Dr. William F. Koch (pronounced “Coke”) of Detroit, who was curing cancer with one shot in the 1930s and 40s. Koch had theorized that cancer formed as a result of a metabolic defect brought on by a toxin or injury and related to an inability to burn off such toxins. His anti-toxin, glyoxylide, made use of an oxidizing catalyst to burn off toxins that might otherwise become cancerous. This writer personally knows one such former patient. Now 50 and quite healthy, she had been diagnosed–at the tender age of three months–with terminal liver cancer. It took just one shot of Dr. Koch’s glyoxylide to cause the tumor to disappear in six months.”

The Journal Of the American Medical Association denounced Koch as a quack after he refused to sell his protocol to the AMA. At the instigation of the AMA, the FDA put him on trial in 1942 and 1946. They did not succeed in getting a conviction, but neither could Dr. Koch secure an acquittal: in the atmosphere of the U.S. struggle against the Nazis, some jurors could not conceive that their government was lying. When the FDA finally dismissed the indictment in 1948, Dr. Koch lost little time moving to Brazil before the FDA could trump up another indictment. He never revealed his manufacturing process. Dr. Koch’s one-shot cancer therapy died with him. Today researchers have shown the value of many oxygen-yielding protocols (such as hydrogen peroxide and ozone therapy) for treating various disease processes. ”

In a free market, where non-toxic therapies can openly compete with toxic therapies, and information is not suppressed, consumers will make informed choices. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies don’t want. Dancing to their tune, the FDA ferociously keeps off the market effective, nontoxic therapies that might provide formidable competition for patented, and often toxic, pharmaceutical drugs. By keeping these therapies off the market, the FDA is not protecting the public from harm. It is protecting the pharmaceutical companies from effective competition. An average of 65% to 75% of FDA employees work for drug companies upon their retirement.

Milk has many qualities which has been proven beneficial for the health. Milk in the unpasteurized form is referred to as raw milk. Raw milk has several benefits. It is milk in its purest form and hence has more health benefits than pasteurized milk. In the earlier days, raw milk was used as a medicine for curing many disorders. Since, many people use to drink it regularly, most them were not infected by any kind of diseases. But, as time has passed, many of us have forgotten about the various raw milk benefits.

This rich probiotic food is a highly nutritious beverage that has nourished man and created strong, able bodies for thousands of years. It has even been used to heal the body. Unpasteurized milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Compared to industrial milk, dairy foods from grass-fed cows contain more omega-3 fats, more vitamin A, and more beta-carotene and other antioxidants.

Unpasteurized Milk Benefits

Raw milk has different kinds of nutrients which make it a balanced food. It also contains all the 8 different types of nutrients. This milk is also rich in proteins. Another benefit of raw milk is that it is easy to digest. It is also known to improve the absorption and assimilation of iron. It helps in the assimilation of body building factors like calcium. Raw milk stimulates the immune system and can alleviate medical conditions like asthma, autism and digestive disorders. The raw milk also consists of anti-bacterial and anti-microbial properties. Raw milk lowers the pH level and prevents the growth of the microorganisms. This even kills the pathogens and bacterias thus, prevents the risk of food borne illnesses.

Researchers at the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Basel in Switzerland followed nearly 15,000 children ages 5 to 15 in Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, and Germany from 2001 to 2004. The study, sponsored by the European Union and published in 2007, found that children who drank raw milk had a lower incidence of asthma and allergies.

Spokesman Michael Herndon said the FDA advises against the consumption of raw milk because it is a welcoming host to pathogens such as listeria and salmonella. On its website, the FDA says there is no truth to the assertions that raw milk can cure allergies. The agency says children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems are particularly susceptible to the food-borne illnesses that can result from drinking unpasteurized milk.

Raw milk supporters see things differently. They say that although pasteurization kills dangerous bacteria and pathogens such as E. coli and listeria, it also destroys beneficial bacteria, enzymes, and raw fats that boost the immune system and aid digestion. Pasteurization usually goes hand in hand with homogenization, the process that breaks the fat globules in milk into smaller particles. The dairy industry homogenizes milk to prevent the cream from rising and to create a more uniform product, but raw milk advocates say that further corrupts the nutritional value of milk.

Not only is real (unpasteurized) milk a delight to your taste buds, but it is also very healthy for you - and yes for adults too! Butter and cream from grass-fed cows are a rare source of the unique and beneficial fat conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). According to the Journal of Dairy Science, the CLA in grass-fed butterfat is 500 percent greater than the butterfat of cows eating a typical dairy ration, which usually contains grain, corn silage, and soybeans.

CLA prevents heart disease, (probably by reducing atherosclerosis), fights cancer, and builds lean muscle. CLA aids weight loss in several ways: by decreasing the amount of fat stored after eating, increasing the rate at which fat cells are broken down, and reducing the number of fat cells.”

Butterfat helps the body digest the protein, and bones require saturated fats in particular to lay down calcium. The cream contains the vital fat-soluble and natural vitamins A and D. Without vitamin D, less than 10 percent of dietary calcium is absorbed. …Skim milk - especially industrial skim - is an inferior source of both. Skim and 2 percent milk must by law, be fortified with synthetic vitamin A and synthetic vitamin D.”

Glycosphingolipids are fats that protect against gastrointestinal infections, especially in the very young children and the elderly generation.

According to Dr. Mary Enig, World Leading Expert on the Biochemistry of Food and Fat, and Sally Fallon, President of The Weston A. Price Foundation, and authors of Eat Fat, Lose Fat: The Healthy Alternative to Trans Fats, “Children who drink skim milk and thus don’t get the benefits of glycosphingolipids, have diarrhea at rates three to five times greater than children who drink whole milk.

The common denominator among all these foods is cholesterol, which the body needs to produce a variety of steroids that protect against cancer, heart disease, and mental illness.

We cannot let our fear over tainted milk, and appreciation for the conveniences that pasteurization provide, stop us from bringing this valuable food source safely back to more people. This precious body building and healing food which supports our gastrointestinal function, has basically vanished from the North American landscape. Fresh whole unpasteurized milk has been out of circulation for most North American people since 1949. It is time for the excellent benefits of raw milk consumption to be communicated to everyone. Anyone who so desires, should be able to partake in the bountiful blessings of this perfectly created, healthy food from mother nature. Traditional non-pasteurized dairy beverage creates better health. Also, the health costs from its absence in our diets are far too great. We must bring back this ancient staple food that has safely nourished peoples for thousands of years.

Full-fat raw milk from pasture-fed cows has been used to treat:

* Tuberculosis
* Psoriasis
* Nervous system disorders
* Cardiovascular disease
* Renal disease
* Hypertension
* Gastrointestinal distress
* Respiratory ailments
* Asthma

J.E. Crewe, M.D., the co-founder of the Mayo Clinic, wrote that four weeks on nothing but raw milk reversed most chronic disease.

It’s remarkable how we now flock to buy foods with all those raw milk rich probiotics and nutrients added back in. We wouldn’t have to buy expensive supplements or add them back into dairy products if we didn’t take all that time to remove them in the first place, with the nutrient robbing pasteurization.

Under the Health Promotion and Protection Act, it’s illegal to sell, offer to sell, deliver or distribute raw milk in Ontario. Why make it illegal when the benefits outweigh the risks? DFO chairman Bruce Saunders. “It’s pure myth that raw milk offers any health advantages.” If raw milk is so dangerous then why does every dairy farmer in Canada drink their own milk without pasteurizing it and they’re not dying off. What is the government scared of? Why would something so natural and pure as raw milk be labeled as illegal and people be treated as criminals for selling or distributing something that has benefited mankind for thousands of year? Why are breast feed (raw milk) babies more likely to be more healthier throughout their lives than bottled feed (pasteurized milk) babies? The answer is clear. Raw milk offers many health advantages and is essential for the proper development of human babies and all mammals. Raw milk, either breast milk or cow’s udder milk, is the most essential food and hence the most health beneficial food on Earth. Pasteurized milk health benefits is the myth.