Matthew 5 ~ Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Put up your sword again into its place: for all those who take the sword will come to death by the sword. Matt 26:52.

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. John 3:15

If anyone says, I love God, but hates the brothers or sisters, he is a liar…Whoever loves God must also love the brothers and sisters. John 3:20, 21

Muslims and Christians share the same beliefs so why are we waring against them? Why are we killing people who have the same religious beliefs as our own? Why are we not demanding an end to the US wars? Why are we not calling for peace?

The Muslim’s Qur’an tells us a lot of wonderful things about Jesus. As a result, believers in the Qur’an love Jesus, honour him, and believe in him. In fact, no Muslim can be a Muslim unless he or she believes in Jesus, on whom be peace.

The Qur’an tells us that Jesus came to teach the same basic message which was taught by previous prophets from God—that we must shun every false god and worship only the one true God. Jesus taught that he is the servant and messenger of that one true God.

The Qur’an teachings can be compared with the Christian Bible ( Mark 10:18; Matthew 26:39; John 14:28, 17:3, and 20:17) where Jesus teaches that the one he worshiped is the only true God. See also Matthew 12:18; Acts 3:13, and 4:27 where we find that his disciples knew Jesus as a Servant of God.

The Qur’an tells us that some of the Israelites rejected Jesus, and conspired to kill him, but Allah (Allah is the standard Arabic word for God. It is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to “God”) rescued Jesus and raised him to Himself. God will cause Jesus to descend again, at which time Jesus will confirm his true teachings and everyone will believe in him as he is and as the Qur’an teaches about him.

Jesus is the Messiah. He is a word from God (Allah), and a spirit from Him. He is honored in this world and in the hereafter, and he is one of those brought nearest to God.

Jesus was a man who spoke the truth which he heard from God. This can be compared with the Gospel According to John where Jesus says to the Israelites: “You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God” (John 8:40).

“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!‘” (Luke 2:13, 14).

By definition, we who call ourselves “Christians” should be followers of Jesus. Our Lord is known as the Prince of Peace. We are commanded to “Love one another” and to be known for our love. Jesus pronounced a blessing to those who would be peace makers saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. ~ Henry Kissinger

Canadians are proud of our peacekeeping history. In a World full of war, peacekeeping conveys an image of Canada using its military in ways other than fighting. It is an image that many Canadians cling to and even cherish. Canadians do not like the idea of our military killing people in wars. We do like the idea of Canada keeping the peace. Unfortunately, the allure of non-violent peacekeeping that is embedded in the collective Canadian consciousness is an illusion in the 21st century.

Our rich history in peacekeeping – a concept invented in the 1950s by Canadian diplomat Lester B. Pearson – should be the cornerstone of Canada’s foreign policy today. A peacekeeping force was initially suggested as a concept by Canadian diplomat and future Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson as a means of resolving conflicts between states. He suggested deploying unarmed or lightly armed military personnel from a number of countries to areas where warring parties were in need of a neutral party to observe the peace process. Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for his work in establishing UN peacekeeping operations. UNEF was the first official armed peacekeeping operation modeled on Pearson’s ideas. Sadly with our participation in the war of aggression against Afghanistan our peacekeeping days are lost.

Canada isn’t in Afghanistan wearing the blue beret or helmet - the internationally recognized peacemaker symbols. They aren’t driving around in white jeeps or white painted light armored vehicles. They aren’t protecting the Afghan civilians from armed attacks. They aren’t doing anything to bring about peace. Canadian soldiers are not in Afghanistan as a neutral party observing a peace process. Canadian soldiers are there at the request of the United States. Canadians were asked by the United States government to support an armed attack against the foreign sovereign state of Afghanistan. Canada wasn’t asked to participate in a peacekeeping mission, Canadian soldiers were asked to attack and kill any and all who opposed the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the United States. The people of Afghanistan have done nothing wrong. They have not attacked us, the US or any other country. The Afghan people did not ask us to attack them. They did not ask us to destroy their towns and villages and kill their people. They did not ask us to torture them or to hand them over to the United States to be tortured by them. We are no longer peacemakers, we are war mongers, torturers, murderers, rapists, kidnappers and destroyers. None of this is to say that Canada should rule out contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. But we should do so with our eyes wide open.

91 Afghan civilians killed in a 6-hour air and ground assault by U.S and Afghan commando forces in Azizabad

The following is a list of 91 civilians killed (61 children, 15 women, 15 men) by U.S. forces in an armed assault against civilians on August 21-22, 2008. Would you call this peacekeeping? Would you be proud to serve if the public knew about these civilian killings, killings that occur on a daily bases in Afghanistan?

“Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. . . . It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.” ~ 2005 public speech in San Diego by Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis. General Mattis is President Obama’s choice to command American forces across the strategic crescent from Egypt through Pakistan, and from Central Asia past the Persian Gulf. Mattis was picked to replace Gen. David Petraeus, who is now in Afghanistan as the U.S. and NATO’s top military officer there.

Tsunami striking Thailand on December 26, 2004. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other underwater explosions (including detonations of underwater nuclear devices), landslides and other mass movements, meteorite ocean impacts or similar impact events, and other disturbances above or below water all have the potential to generate a tsunami.

On June 19, 1992, the United States conducted an underground nuclear bomb test in Nevada. Another test was conducted only four days afterwards. Three days later, a series of heavy earthquakes as high as 7.6 on the Richter scale rocked the Mojave desert 176 miles to the south. They were the biggest earthquakes to hit California this century. Only 22 hours later, an “unrelated” earthquake of 5.6 struck less than 20 miles from the Nevada test site itself. It was the biggest earthquake ever recorded near the test site and caused one-million dollars of damage to buildings in an area designated for permanent disposal of highly radioactive nuclear wastes only fifteen miles from the epicenter of the earthquake. Although the quake provoked renewed calls for a halt to plans for storing radioactive materials in such an unstable area, the larger questions have still not been raised in the United States: Do bomb tests actually cause earthquakes? Do nuclear tests make the planet more prone to geologic disruption?

In a statement on July 14, 1992, responding to “understandable unease”, the Department of Energy in Washington asserted the relationship between nuclear testing and earthquakes is “nonexistent.” Yet common sense would suggest the cumulative effect of so may nuclear tests around the world would leave the planet at least somewhat shaken. Indeed in 1956, Estes Kefauver, then Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, warned, “H bomb tests could knock the earth 16 degrees off its axis!” He was simply ignored.

However, in a study twenty years later by two Japanese scientists, entitled Recent Abnormal Phenomena on Earth and Atomic Power Tests, Shigeyoshi Matsumae, President of Tokai University, and Yoshio Kato, Head of the University’s Department of Aerospace Science concluded:

Abnormal meteorological phenomena, earthquakes and fluctuations of the earth’s axis are related in a direct cause-and-effect to testing of nuclear devices. . . . Nuclear testing is the cause of abnormal polar motion of the earth. By applying the dates of nuclear tests with a force of more than 150 kilotons, we found it obvious that the position of the pole slid radically at the time of the nuclear explosion. . . . Some of the sudden changes measured up to one meter in distance.

Not quite Kefauver’s 16 degrees off the axis; but not entirely reassuring either. Two years later, on 12 October 1978, the British New Scientist reported:

Geophysicists in Germany and England believe the 1978 earthquake in Tabas, Iran, in which at least twenty-five thousand people were killed, may have been triggered by an underground nuclear explosion. . . . British seismologists believe the Tabas earthquake implies a nuclear test that has gone awry. . . . Moreover, a seismic laboratory in Uppsala, Sweden, recorded a Soviet nuclear test of unusual size–ten megatons–at Semipalitinsk only thirty-six hours before. . . . One German scientist specifically implicated this test in the origin of Tabas disaster.

More recently, on 14 April, 1989, at the Second Annual Conference on the United Nations and World Peace in Seattle, Washington, Gary T. Whiteford, Professor of Geography at the University of New Brunswick in Canada, presented the most exhaustive study yet of the correlation’s between nuclear testing and earthquakes. In a paper entitled Earthquakes and Nuclear Testing: Dangerous Patterns and Trends, Whiteford presented alarming conclusions which to this day have remained almost completely ignored in the United States, although the paper has been widely translated and published abroad.

Whiteford studied all earthquakes this century of more than 5.8 on the Richter scale. “Below that intensity,” he explained, “some earthquakes would have passed unrecorded in the earlier part of the century when measuring devices were less sensitive and less ubiquitous. But for bigger quakes the records are detailed and complete for the entire planet.” So Whiteford was able to make a simple comparison of the earthquake rate in the first half of the century, before nuclear testing, and the rate for 1950 to 1988. In the fifty years before testing, large earthquakes of more than 5.8 occurred at an average rate of 68 per year. With the advent of testing the rate rose “suddenly and dramatically” to an average of 127 a year. The earthquake rate has almost doubled. To this day the U.S. military attributes the increase to “coincidence.” As Whiteford comments, “The geographical patterns in the data, with a clustering of earthquakes in specific regions matched to specific test dates and sites do not support the easy and comforting explanation of `pure coincidence.’ It is a dangerous coincidence.”

Within the data he found other suggestive patterns. A one-two nuclear test is usually proceeded a few days later by a major earthquake. The largest earthquake this century took place in Tangshan in North-East China on July 27 1976. It measured 8.2 and killed 800,000 people. Only five days earlier the French had tested a bomb in the Mururoa atoll in the Pacific. Four days later the United States tested a bomb in Nevada. Twenty-four hours later the earthquake hit China.

In an even more revealing analysis, Whiteford studies so-called “killer earthquakes” in which more than one thousand people have died. He compiled a list of all such quakes since 1953 and matched them with nuclear test schedules. Some test dates were not available, but in those that were, a pattern was evident: 62.5% of the killer earthquakes occurred only a few days after a nuclear test. Many struck only one day after a detonation. More than a million people have now died in earthquakes that seem to be related to nuclear tests. Again, the governments of the nuclear nations claim the results are mere coincidence. Officially the U.S. energy department maintains that even their most powerful nuclear tests have no impact beyond a radius of 15 miles. The claim is challenged by the instruments of modern seismology that can register nuclear tests anywhere in the world by measuring local geological disruptions. Whiteford speculated that although the reverberations may fade within fifteen miles of a test, they are merely the first ripple of a wave that travels through the planet’s crust and spreads around the globe.

In 1991 the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation published Whiteford’s findings in an article called “Is Nuclear Testing Triggering Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity?” In an interview with California State seismologist, Dr. Lalliana Mualchin, the foundation went on to inquire into the long-term effects of testing. Mualchin was asked if the cumulative effect of nuclear testing might be to trigger earthquakes and volcanoes. He replied, “A single nuclear test may have little effect on the earth, like that of an insect biting an elephant. But the cumulative effect might move the earth’s tectonic plates in a manner similar to how a swarm of insects might start an elephant running.” Mualchin added, “If an insect bites an elephant in a sensitive spot, such as an eye or an ear, then there might be a vast movement out of all proportion to the size of the bite.” The article concluded, “Who will the world hold responsible if suddenly an unprecedented series of violent earthquakes and volcanoes shake the earth? Will nuclear testers be able to assure the world they were not responsible?”

The proof that nuclear explosions do indeed cause an earthquake effect was presented on Monday 25 May 2009 when it was reported that North Korea had detonated yet another nuclear bomb underground. In the Guardian report “North Korea tests nuclear weapon ‘as powerful as Hiroshima bomb’” the evidence was presented with this interpretation of the underground nuclear detonation - “The force of the blast made the ground tremble in the Chinese border city of Yanji, 130 miles away.” The detonation was registered as a Earth tremor or earthquake measuring magnitude 4.5 that was felt 130 miles away. This also gives evidence to the fact that an uninformed society wouldn’t know the difference between a natural occurring earthquake and nuclear attack by a foreign country. People without access to information would assume that the ground shaking was an earthquake as no one saw a mushroom cloud.

Russian defence experts estimated the North Korean underground nuclear explosion’s yield at between 10 and 20 kilotons, many times more than the 1 kiloton measured in its first nuclear test in 2006 (measuring magnitude 4.2) and about as powerful as the bombs the US used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the second world war. One kiloton is equal to the force produced by 1,000 tonnes of TNT.

Both earthquakes and nuclear explosions generate seismic waves that can be detected thousands of kilometres away. From the 1960s to the 1990s about one underground nuclear explosion was carried out each week. This was how nations tested their nuclear weapons and certified them as ready for deployment. Seismology was often the only way to learn if a foreign power was developing nuclear weapons.

Scientists pick up the seismic waves at monitoring stations. These seismic signals allow scientists to locate the explosion or earthquake and to tell the difference between the two. For example if seismic waves are generated very deep within the Earth then they can only be caused by an earthquake. Today however, the United States does its underground nuclear detonation many miles below the surface in order to fool scientists and the World. The US, as do other countries, have the technology to bore holes very deep inside the Earth’s crust. Oil drilling rigs have been used since the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) outlawing nuclear weapon tests, to secretly bore very deep holes in the ground in the Nevada Desert (site of yesterday’s magnitude 4.2 tremor) solely to prepare, lower and explode a nuclear device. The 1998 movie Armageddon exposed to the public one of many secret U.S. military operations. In the movie NASA discovered that there is an asteroid roughly the size of Texas heading towards the Earth. Military scientists decide to blow the asteroid with the warhead inside the asteroid itself. To do this they chose the best oil drillers on the planet. The oil drillers’ mission was to drill 800 ft. into the comet to place a nuclear explosive device. That is exactly what the U.S. government does today in order to secretly test newly developed nuclear weapons, all in violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The first official use of an oil drilling platforms to drill a hole for deep underground nuclear bomb detonations was on July 6, 1962 at the Nevada Test Site. A 100 kiloton nuclear explosive device was lowered into a 635 ft. drilled hole in the Nevada desert and detonated, displacing 12 million tons of earth and creating the Sedan Crater. The crater is 320 feet deep and 1,280 feet in diameter.

While the U.S. and U.S.S.R. vied for space-exploration supremacy during the Space Race, a different, less-publicized race took place between the two nation’s greatest drillers. In the late 1950s and early 1960s Americans and Soviets began planning separate efforts to drill as deep as possible into the Earth’s crust, the rocky shell that comprises the outer 30-50 km of the 6730 km distance to our planet’s core. The American “Project Mohole,” stationed off the Pacific coast of Mexico, was cut short in 1966 due to lack of funding but set an important precedent for future off-shore drilling programs. The Soviets, thanks to the planning of the Interdepartmental Scientific Council for the Study of the Earth’s Interior and Superdeep Drilling, had greater success. From 1970 to 1994 their drill on the Kola Peninsula chipped slowly away to create a Earth-shattering record at the time: the deepest hole in the world.

In actuality, the Kola Superdeep Borehole consists of several holes branching from one central hole. The deepest of these, named “SG-3”, measures just nine inches in diameter but extends 12,261 meters (or 7.5 miles) into the Earth. While data produced by the Kola drilling project continues to be analyzed, the drilling itself was forced to stop in the early 1990s when unexpectedly high temperatures were encountered. While the temperature gradient conformed to predictions down to a depth of about 10,000 feet, temperatures after this point increased at a higher rate until they reached 180 °C (or 356 °F) at the bottom of the hole. This was a drastic difference from the expected 100 °C (212 °F). Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible. If the hole had reached the initial goal of 15,000 meters, temperatures would have reached a projected 300°C (572°F). In 2008, the Maersk Oil company completed drilling on a hole 12.29 km in depth, surpassing the Kola bore hole by 29 meters.

Man made tsunamis using the atom bomb

The first report by ABC’s Tim Palmer out of Aceh following the 2004 boxing day tsunami: The surf crashes in on the beaches of the west coast of Aceh but the town of Lhoknga, behind the beach, has disappeared. Iwasiti is here looking for her brother and most of her husband’s family, but there’s nothing and no one to be found here. This beach faced the earthquake and took the full force of the biggest of the waves across the region. In an age where the term ‘ground zero’ is sprinkled around lightly, this really does look like the site of a nuclear explosion.

AFP , WELLINGTON ~ Sep 26, 1999

Top secret wartime experiments were conducted off the New Zealand coast to perfect a tidal wave bomb believed to be potentially as effective as the atom bomb, a report said yesterday citing declassified files.

“Whether it could ever be resurrected … Under some circumstances I think it could be devastating,” he said.

In Afghanistan, the hidden US agenda has always been oil and natural gas. “ French authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie published a book entitled Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth which tells of the negotiations for oil pipeline rights in Afghanistan that collapsed in August 2001 after the U.S. told the Taliban: Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or you’ll get a carpet of bombs.”

The Bush administration was expecting the Taliban to cooperate with the US plans for exploiting the oil resources of Central Asia. The US was sure until August 2001, that the Taliban, as a source of stability in Central Asia, would enable US oil companies and their US subsidiaries to construct an oil pipeline across Central Asia. Then all of a sudden in August 2001, a trusted partner of USA, quickly became terrorists when the Taliban realized that their national interest was going to be robed by the US and they dared to refuse to accept US conditions for their support in exploitation of oil resources from central Asia.

As a last hope in the talks between the Bush administration and the Taliban, which began in February 2001, shortly after Bush’s inauguration a Taliban emissary arrived in Washington in March with presents for the new chief executive, (an expensive Afghan carpet). But the talks themselves were less than cordial. Brisard said; “At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs’.”

The Bush administration outright threatened to bomb the Taliban unless they came around and allowed the US to build the trans-Afghan Pipeline. These threats were made against the Taliban and the Afghan people months before the US airline hijackings that took place on September 11, 2001.

The trans-Afghan pipeline has always been the hidden agenda for the US. It is the sole motive for the US attacking and occupying Afghanistan. The US has declared that the mission in Afghanistan could last for decades and the reasoning behind this assertion is to protect US oil interests, the trans-Afghan pipeline. The US attacked Afghanistan, not to apprehend bin Laden, but to overthrow the Taliban government and install a government of their choosing. A pro-US government which would assist the US efforts to secure a multibillion dollar natural gas pipeline and an oil pipeline project involving the US firm Unocal (On August 10, 2005, Unocal merged with Chevron Corporation and became a wholly owned subsidiary) and the Saudi group Delta Oil (never forget that the majority of September 11, 2001 US commercial airline hijackers were Saudis, as is bin Laden). The two companies reached an argument with the former Soviet republic Turkmenistan for the pipeline which would go through Afghanistan into Pakistan long before the US airline hijackings of September 11, 2001. The hijackings were a false-flag plan Code named Operation Northwoods that called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war. It included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government. The US government implemented their plans to control the flow of the oil and natural gas of the Caspian Region soon after the CIA and their foreign national operatives executed Operation Northwoods.

With the US government staged hijackings of 9/11 an ulterior motive (an invented political excuse) was presented to invade Afghanistan - to get Osama bin Laden, the great elusive boogeyman. And because Saddam Hussein, the leader of a country which just so happens to have one of the largest oil reserves in the World, was allegedly in league with bin Laden, the US launched its war against Iraq on March 20, 2003.

Both US attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq were unprovoked and premeditated. Both attacks were planned for and prepared for long before the hijackings of US commercial airlines on September 11, 2001. The hijackings were criminal acts and so are the US attacks and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The hijackings were acts of terrorism and so are the US attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. The US government threatened both Afghanistan and Iraq with violence. The US government used terrorists tactics to intimidate and coerce the Taliban into handing over control of the trans-Afghan pipeline to the US oil company Unicol. “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” is clearly a threat, an act of terrorism, by the US government. In a televised address to the nation on March 17, 2003, shortly before the US officially begins its illegal invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum, warning the Iraqi leader that if he and his sons do not leave Iraq within 48 hours, the US will use military force to topple his government. “… all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.” ~ George W Bush

The televised address to the nation on March 17, 2003 is clearly a threat, an act of state terrorism by the US government against the sovereign state of Iraq, its leader and its people. Terrorism was used by the United States to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and legitimize the United State’s own use of terror against them.

Who are the real terrorists? The Taliban who are defending their country and countrymen from an armed attack by the US and NATO countries or the US government? The evidence is clear. The verdict is clear. The US government, for they attacked 2 countries that did not attack the US or any other country. The US government, for they launched an armed attack, in violation of US and International Law and Treaties, against Afghanistan and Iraq for the sole purpose of seizing control of both country’s oil and natural gas assets. The US “War on Terror” is clearly a US “War of Terror”.

John F Kennedy warned us on June 10, 1963 of a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. “What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.” – John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy was warning Americans of the secretive plan called “Operation Northwoods”. Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Almirant George W. Anderson Jr. (Chief of Navy Operations), General George H. Decker (Chief of the Land Forces section), General Leyyman L. Leymnintzer (Chief of the Joint Chief of Staff), General Curtis E. LeMay (Chief of the Air Force section), General David M. Shoup (Commander of the Marines) ) and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962

The plan called for CIA controlled terrorist operations against the United States. A CIA “Group W” (an ad hoc unit directed by William Harvey) plan that specifically called for:

“a group of conspiratorial passengers who could be students, for example, would be on board of this ghost-company’s charter flight under the control of the CIA. Once they were flying over Florida (revised by the Bush administration to include New York City and Washington DC), an empty and without-a-pilot identical plane would follow the route. The conspiratorial passengers (passengers from American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston to Los Angeles, American Airlines Flight 77 from Dulles to Los Angeles and United Airlines Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco) would then be taken to a CIA secret base. The plane would ask for help by saying it had been attacked (revised again by the Bush administration to being hijacked). Then, the plane would blow up.”

The implementation of Operation Northwoods would cost the lives of many American citizens, civilians and military men, which was actually the key element for their manipulative functions. The attacks of 9/11 cost the lives of many American citizens, civilians and military men and women.

When Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer presented the CIA Group W Operation Northwoods plans to John F. Kennedy, Kennedy opposed the plan and refused to involve the US in any such overt war. John F. Kennedy regarded Lemnitzer as a hysterical and extremist anti-communist backed up by unscrupulous multinational companies. It was then that President Kennedy understood the real meaning of his antecessor, President Eisenhower, warning when the year before, in his farewell address he said:

“The responsible of the government must be aware of an illegitimate influence whether it comes or not from the military-industrial complex. The risk of developing or using a usurped power exists and will remain present. We must not allow this threat to prevent us from our liberties and democratic processes. Nothing must be considered completely achieved. Only the proper surveillance and awareness can guarantee the balance between the lobby of the huge industrial and military machinery we have developed and our pacific methods and objectives so that security and freedom can work together”. John F Kennedy was murdered on November 22, 1963. The false flag attack scenario against the US by the US government, code named Operation Northwoods, actually played out on September 11, 2001.

Nuclear weapons detonations are not always accompanied by a mushroom cloud. Today the telltale signs of an underground nuclear detonation are huge craters. In the photo above, you are not looking at a picture of the Moon’s surface. These are nuclear detonation craters in the Nevada Desert. This crater is the Sedan crater at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. It is nearly a quarter-mile wide and 320 feet deep. One purpose of the 1962 Sedan test was to investigate whether nuclear weapons could be used to destroy towns and cities but make it appear as though an earthquake caused the destruction. Theory suggests that a nuclear explosion could trigger fault rupture and cause a major quake at distances within a few tens of kilometres from the shot point. Years of U.S. underground nuclear detonation testings proved that the pressure wave from an underground explosion will propagate through the ground and cause an earthquake. The U.S. could attack any city of their choice and not be held accountable for such an attack as the destruction could always be blamed on an earthquake.

A magnitude 4.2 tremor was detected by the United States Geological Survey in the Nevada desert today July 30, 2010 11:13:46 UTC. Analysis of the tremor indicates that it may be the result of an underground nuclear detonation. If post tremor analysis of the seismic data shows that it was a detonation then this would give evidence that the United States has violated the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty which bans all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes. The Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996. China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and the United States have already signed the Treaty, whereas India, North Korea and Pakistan have not yet signed it.

(Article I):

1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
2. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

How do scientists determine if a nuclear blast has occurred?

One method of detecting a nuclear blast is by seismograph, the device that monitors Earth tremors to pinpoint and analyze earthquake activity (among other ground-shaking events). There’s a whole network of 500 seismograph stations positioned around the world whose job is to report ground-shaking incidents, and that includes any evidence of bomb blasts. NPR’s “Detecting Underground Nuclear Blasts” reports that the seismic activity recorded on the confirmed October 9, 2006 North Korean underground nuclear test indicated a ground disturbance that would be the equivalent of a 4.2 magnitude earthquake. That magnitude indicates a blast with about a 1-kiloton yield, which is equal to the power of 1,000 tons of TNT.

Figuring out if a seismic event is an earthquake or a bomb blast is relatively easy. Scientists perform analyses of wave patterns that can accurately confirm an earthquake-versus-explosion determination. In highly simplified terms, in an earthquake, the ground starts shaking slowly as plates slide against each other, and then the seismic activity slow picks up as the ground really starts to move. In an explosion scenario, the initial blast is extremely power­ful, and the subsequent shaking of the ground grows progressively less severe.

Livermore seismologist Bill Walter explains that the differences in seismic P- and S-wave energy provide one method of discriminating explosions from earthquakes. Seismic P waves are compressional waves, similar to sound waves in the air. Shear (S) waves are transverse waves, like those that propagate along a rope when one end is shaken. Because underground explosions are spherically symmetric disturbances, they radiate seismic P waves efficiently. In contrast, earthquakes result from sliding or rupture along a buried fault surface and strongly excite the transverse motions of S waves. Thus, we expect that explosions will show strong P waves and weak S waves and that earthquakes will show weak P waves and strong S waves, as seen in the seismic graph below.

Today, July 30, 2010 the United States appears to have violated the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and the United States have already signed the Treaty) with an underground nuclear detonation. Seismic activity has been used by UN nuclear watchdogs in the past to detect underground nuclear testing. The UN used seismographic analysis to confirm all nuclear weapon testing by North Korea. The United States Geological Survey detected a tremor of 4.2 magnitude on the Korean Peninsula and analysis of the data proved that North Korea had detonated a nuclear device. China called the tests a “flagrant and brazen” violation of international opinion and said it “firmly opposes” North Korea’s conduct.

Since January 19, 1968, when a thermonuclear test, codenamed Faultless, was conducted by the U.S. in the Central Nevada Supplemental Test Area scientists have noticed a distinct difference between a natural occurring earthquake and a nuclear detonation induced earthquake. Analysis of local seismic recordings (within a couple of miles) of nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site showed that some tectonic stress is released simultaneously with the explosion. Analysis of the seismic wavefield generated by the blast shows the source can be characterized as 70-80 percent dilational (explosive-like) and 20-30 percent deviatoric (earthquake-like). The rock in the vicinity of the thermonuclear device is shattered by the passage of the explosions shock wave. This releases the elastic strain energy that was stored in the rock and adds an earthquake-like component to the seismic wavefield.

The U.S. has been using nuclear development and testing allegations against Iran to impose strict economic sanctions against Iran. U.S. headlines keep on declaring that Iran is in violation of nuclear weapons development and testing treaties with no evidence whatsoever to support their claims. Today the U.S. has done what they accuse Iran of secretly doing. Perhaps it is time to impose severe economic sanctions against the United States for secretly developing and testing nuclear weapons - a clear violation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

News Update

Epicenter of Today’s Magnitude 4.2 tremor in Nevada. The Nevada Seismology Lab site records the tremor occurring at 4:13 a.m (Nevada Time). Location 38.622°N, 118.212°W as stated by the United States Geological Survey. N

CIA backed Mujahideen freedom fighters preparing to launch a mortar attack against Soviet occupational forces during the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. For 10 years (27 December 1979 – 15 February 1989) the U.S. and other NATO countries provided diplomatic praise, financial aid and weapons for the very same people who would later be known as the Taliban.

A resistance movement is a group or collection of individual groups, dedicated to fighting an invader in an occupied country or the government of a sovereign nation through either the use of physical force, or nonviolence. Depending on the perspective of a state’s government, a resistance movement may or may not be labeled a terrorist group based on whether the members of a resistance movement are considered lawful or unlawful combatants and their right to resist occupation is recognized. Ultimately, the distinction of labeling a resistance movement as terrorists is a made by the attacking country’s government.

During WWII the French Resistance was acclaimed by the Allied nations as a resistance movements and helped them fight and kill the attacking and occupying German armed forces. Those Allied nations included the United States, Britain and Canada. All 3 countries and their ruling governments supported the French Resistance by providing both funding and weapons. The United States, Britain and Canada knew that the weapons they provided to the Resistance would be used to kill as many Germans as possible in order for France to regain its freedom from the German occupation. In those days the French Resistance were cheered on and diplomatically regarded as heroes. The French Resistance were responsible for acts of sabotage which today we regard as terrorists bombings. Back then the United States, Britain and Canada openly supported and condoned what we now regard as terrorists attacks and bombings. The French Resistance fought to regain their freedom from the German military occupation of their country by blowing up German military assets, resulting in numerous German soldiers deaths as well as French civilians deaths - from collateral damage. Today the United States, Britain and Canada are the attackers and no one in the U.S. Britain and Canada are properly identifying the Afghan Resistance as a resistance movement. Because the U.S., Britain and Canada are now the Axis Powers the people in the Afghan Resistance movement are erroneously labeled as terrorists.

The Afghan Resistance fighters are not terrorists. They are freedom fighters. Freedom fighters are people who are using physical force in order to cause a change in the political and or social order. This is done in response to oppression or perceived oppression by an internal or external body. The United States, Britain and Canada are the oppressors. The Afghan people and their legitimate ruling party called the Taliban are the victims of our oppression and because of our war of aggression towards their country and people the Afghan Freedom Fighters are actively using physical armed attacks in order to regain their freedom.

People who were once described as “freedom fighters” are now referenced as assassins, rebels, insurgents, or terrorists. This leads to the aphorism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. The degree to which this occurs depends on a variety of factors specific to the struggle in which a given freedom fighter group in engaged. During the Cold War, the term freedom fighter was used frequently by the United States and other Western Bloc countries to describe rebels in countries controlled by communist states or otherwise under the influence of the Soviet Union, including rebels in Hungary, the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola and the multi-factional mujahideen in Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir.

The Soviet Hind was one of the most feared Soviet Helos during the Soviet War in Afghanistan until the United States CIA changed the outcome of war by supplying the Afghan Freedom Fighters with the U.S. made shoulder fired Stinger missile.

Upon becoming President, Reagan moved quickly to undermine Soviet efforts to subdue the government of Afghanistan, which the Soviet Army had invaded in 1979. Islamic mujahideen guerrillas were covertly supported and trained, and backed in their jihad against the occupying Soviets by the CIA. The CIA sent billions of dollars in military aid to the mujahideen to help them in their fight to regain their country’s freedom from the Soviet military occupation. Throughout the 1980s many movies were made that portrayed the mujahideen as noble and courageous freedom fighters. Actors Sylvester Stallone, Timothy Dalton, Chevy Chase, Dan Ackroyd, and Tom Hanks used the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to enhance their careers as well as foster U.S. and global support for the mujahideen freedom fighters and their war against the oppressive Soviet occupation of Afghanistan with movies like “Rambo III” (vigilante Vietnam War veteran John Rambo helped mujahedeen rebels fend off Soviet invaders in Afghanistan), “The Living Daylights” (Timothy Dalton as James Bond finds himself in Soviet occupied Afghanistan where he rescues himself, his girlfriend and a mujahideen commander), “The Beast” (In this picture, a Soviet tank crew is lost in the Afghan desert, pursued by vengeful mujahideen guerrillas.), “Spies Like Us” (A comedy about two totally incompetent applicants, Emmett Fitzhume (Chevy Chase) and Austin Millbarge (Dan Ackroyd), are chosen from a CIA recruitment program. They are parachuted into Pakistan and eventually end up in Afghanistan, chased by the Soviets, where they learn they are being used as decoys to draw out the Soviet defenses.), and “Charlie Wilson’s War” (the 2007 movie about the real-life Congressman Charlie Wilson and his relentless efforts to increase CIA support for anti-Soviet Afghan insurgents. Tom Hanks plays the role of Congressman Wilson.).

Reagan praised the mujahideen as freedom fighters battling an evil empire, stating, “To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson—that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.” (March 21, 1983)

The Afghan Resistance is dedicated in fighting our invasion and military occupation of their sovereign country using the same physical force and armed tactics as the French Resistance used in WWII yet they are regarded as terrorists. We are hunting to extinction (genocide) the Afghanistan people’s freedom fighters. Like the French people before them the Afghan people are engaged in a struggle to achieve political freedom for themselves and for their people. Where are all the movies stars and political leaders today? Why are we not supporting the Afghan people again in their fight to regain their freedom? After all the Taliban are the Afghan peoples’ freedom fighters who are battling the evil United States. After all the poorly armed Taliban are courageously battling the modern arsenals of the United States, Britain, Germany, France and Canada. After all the Taliban are fighting for something that is worth defending - their freedom and the freedom of their country. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all the people of the free World that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.

Bill and Hillary Clinton (now U.S. Secretary of State under Barack Obama) imposed very severe sanctions against Iraq in an attempt to overthrown Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. The Clinton imposed sanctions killed a million or more Iraqi civilians by means of malnutrition and disease. Many of the Clinton’s victims were children under the age of five. Reports by the United Nations and several humanitarian groups have documented the deaths and Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general, published two books detailing the effects of the sanctions and the loss of life that has resulted - “Impact of Sanctions on Iraq: The Children Are Dying” and “Challenge to Genocide: Let Iraq Live”. UNICEF estimated that 500,000 child deaths are attributable to the Clinton sanctions. As the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram noted, despite U.S. support for the “oil for food” agreement that allowed Iraq to import substantial amounts of food and medicine, “the American position toward Iraq cannot be described as anything but coercive, aggressive, unwise and uncaring about the lives of Iraqis, who are unnecessarily subject to sanctions and humiliations.” Was it all worth it? The sanctions did not oust Saddam Hussein.

Observers from around the globe continued to react to the latest U.S. trade sanctions against Iran and North Korea. U.S. imposed trade sanctions are viewed by a majority of countries as “interventionist” and “hegemonic,” violating international trade norms. Most countries see U.S. unilateral sanctions against any foreign states as being illegal under International Law.

Any and all economic sanctions are prohibited by the UN Charter. Article 2 (3) of the UN Charter requires States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means; and Article 2 (4) of the Charter requires States to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States prohibits all countries from using economic measures if its aim is “to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights”.

No state, not the United States, China, Russia, England, Canada or the EU states, has any legal authority to impose sanctions on any other state. Why not? Any form of attack that causes harm to another is by law, an assault. Sanctions are an assault on another country’’s sovereignty. Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. Any form of attack that attacks a foreign country’s sovereignty is an act of war. Any country that imposes sanctions against another is committing an assault, an act of aggression, an act of war. When the attack is financial in nature it is still an act of war because great harm and damage can be caused to the attacked country’s financial integrity and prosperity as well as cause grave harm to the attacked country’s civilian population. All sanctions have resulted in a physical cost. In all incidences of sanctions the victims are civilians. Sanctions cause the death of innocent civilians. Sanctions don’t attack armed forces personnel or political leaders they attack civilians. Any attack against civilians is a war crime. What may have started out as imposing financial restrictions always results in a direct attack, aimed at civilians - clearly a war crime. Attacking civilians, one of the most serious war crimes, is a gross human rights violation. Every time the U.S. imposes sanctions against a foreign state they are using a weapon that has uncontrollable effects. Such illegal use of sanctions against another state can be expected to cause harm to civilians (in the Clinton’s Iraq sanctions over 1 million civilians were killed, 0 politicians and 0 Iraqi Army and the Iraqi National Guard personnel) or civilian objectives in excess of the political and direct economic advantage anticipated. If the U.S. is allowed to continue to impose sanctions against Iran and North Korea innocent civilians will be their victims. Thousands of Iranian and North Korean civilians will die, not from a devastating natural disaster or a civil war or military invasion but as a direct result of a U.S. financial attack against their sovereign state.

Any attempt to punish foreign governments through unilateral sanctions and secondary boycotts is an unwelcome obstacle on the road to greater freedom of commerce. That development bodes ill for U.S. citizens, for America’s diplomatic relations with their major trading partners, and for the poor of the targeted nations who are the most likely victims of economic sanctions. U.S. government restrictions send the wrong message about America’s belief in the positive influence of private investment and fail to recognize that U.S. companies help foster greater economic and political freedom for people in developing nations.

U.S. imposed sanctions have several deleterious effects, among them: angering U.S. trade partners and allies–especially in the EU; having no effect on ending terrorism or toppling dictatorships; and stirring up anti-American sentiment everywhere. While the U.S. may have “very good reasons” for taking a tough line against nations that reportedly
support terrorism, the policy is still “very wrong.” Washington has no right to assume that it has the legal authority over all other nations by telling other countries where to invest and with whom to trade.

Unilateral Sanctions Are Bad Policy

Unilateral sanctions simply do not work. There are no examples of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions changing the basic character or significant policies of a foreign nation. The 35-year economic embargo of Cuba, a tiny country less than 90 miles from the US coast, is a monument to the ineffectiveness of unilateral economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool.

Supporters of sanctions often point to South Africa as a success story, but the facts tell a different tale. It is unrealistic to credit the U.S. congressional vote for sanctions in October 1986 with the overthrow of apartheid. It was not outside forces but powerful and well-organized domestic political forces that, after a three-decades-long struggle, achieved the peaceful overthrow of an anachronistic system that had no moral standing.

Because of the limited nature of the sanctions, the volume of U.S.-South African trade did change significantly, and many African governments that condemned apartheid continued to trade with South Africa behind the scenes. Disinvestment in South Africa led many Western companies to reduce their community-based funding of anti-apartheid organizations, according to the Investor Responsibility Research Center. After General Motors sold its plants, the new owners renewed sales to the South African military and police–which GM had ended–and reduced wages and total employment at the facilities.

To the extent that outsiders influenced developments in the country, it was through the discipline of market forces–banks were reluctant to make or renew loans in an unstable environment–and international expressions of opprobrium, such as banning South African participation in forums such as the Olympics. That helped shame the Afrikaner elite and, in combination with other forces, to lead to its abandonment of white-only rule.

It is also important to note that the economic sanctions against South Africa were multilateral, whereas all recent U.S. sanctions have been unilateral. In an effort to compel multilateral support from US allies, legislation passed by Congress in 1996 established secondary boycotts against firms doing business with Cuba, Iran, and Libya.

Such sanctions harm US diplomatic relations with friendly countries, as evidenced by the threat of US major trading partners to retaliate against US measures that penalize their companies. Other nations object particularly to the extraterritorial authority the U.S. government assumed over citizens of foreign countries.

It is vainglory to believe that by adopting unilateral sanctions America is “leading by example,'’ since nations throughout the world not only have refused to support recent U.S. sanctions but have actively opposed them. Leaders in France, Italy, Britain, Germany, and much of the rest of the world view economic sanctions as counterproductive and generally favor them only in extraordinary circumstances, such as war.

Without multilateral support, American trade sanctions can succeed only if a U.S. company is a monopoly supplier of a good or service to the targeted nation, which is not the case virtually anywhere in the world. In the absence of a monopoly, U.S. unilateral sanctions simply transfer business from an American company to a foreign competitor in the same market.

The goals of U.S. economic sanctions are often unrealistic. A bill seriously considered by Congress in 1996 would have banned all investment in Burma (Myanmar) unless the president of the United States certified “that an elected government of Burma has been allowed to take office.'’ Clearly, the details of the situation in Burma differ from those of the situations in other nations, yet setting a standard that requires a trading partner to have an elected government is a dangerous precedent, since that would lead to questions about whether U.S. companies would some day be prevented from doing business in the vast majority of countries in Africa and the Middle East, and much of the rest of Asia, including China.

To have any hope of effectiveness, any US imposed boycott would require the cooperation of China, Russia, and other foreign nations, which in most cases doesn’t happen. In fact, foreign countries are choosing, not isolation, but closer engagement with the country that is a target of US sanctions. Where the US forbids US companies from doing business with a sanctioned state other nations are taking over lucrative contracts that the US companies may have had or were negotiating for. Sanctions only imposes restrictions and financial loses for US companies as only US citizens are required to abide by US made laws. No other country in the World is bound by US laws. The US has legal jurisdiction only over it own people and only within the United States national boundaries.

In the past U.S. unilateral sanctions against foreign states have served primarily to transfer lucrative business from US companies to foreign firms without accomplishing larger goals. To date, those U.S. corporations that have pulled out of US sanctioned states have seen their investments being quickly replaced by companies from Asia and Western Europe. The US loses sustained by their government’s non legal binding imposition of sanctions has always resulted in foreign states’ financial gains.

As economic leaders, US companies should be encouraged to enter, not discouraged from entering, new markets. U.S. foreign investment not only is profitable for those companies that invest wisely; it also helps foster greater economic growth in developing nations. The companies help those nations advance their social, political, and economic institutions. The removal of American influence is often unfortunate because U.S. corporations tend to increase the wages and labor standards in the countries in which they operate.

A 1988 study from Johns Hopkins University estimates that over a 25-year period the embargo against Cuba cost US companies $30 billion in lost exports, while the diplomatic benefits gained by the United States were nil. To avoid becoming entangled by new U.S. sanctions against energy investments by any company in Iran and Libya, many European oil companies and suppliers are redesigning their procurement policies to exclude US equipment makers. That will put at risk $billions in U.S. exports and thousands of export-related jobs, according to the Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association.

The illusion that sanctions are cost free also necessitates reintroducing the concept of private property into the sanctions debate. It is one thing to stop sending U.S. government dollars to a distasteful regime; it is quite another to prevent private individuals and companies from legally using their own property in another country. The economic loses sustained in the US by their government imposing of sanctions against any foreign sovereign state is never factored in nor made public by the US government. If a U.S. company is lawfully extracting natural resources from mines say in Indonesia and Congress bans all investment there, that US corporation will suffer great financial losses. When the US government imposes any such non productive sanctions against foreign states do we ever hear of the negative affect those sanctions have on US companies? Do we see reports on the financial loses and workforce loses of US companies affected by US government imposed sanctions against foreign sovereign states? The real financial loses sustained under US imposed sanctions is always incurred by US corporations and the end result is a severely weakened US economy and higher US unemployment numbers.

Instead of sanctions the United States should maintain a flexible asylum policy to help victims of persecution from any country and should not provide financial assistance to oppressive regimes. But the United States cannot force other governments to become democratic, or even to treat their citizens humanely, though we should encourage, primarily through diplomatic means, moves toward more freedom.

Current US sanction policies have hurt US companies while accomplishing little else. More engagement with the outside world, through increased tourism and a proliferation of trade and investment activity is needed not isolation.

Undoing current sanctions and refraining from imposing new unilateral sanctions against Iran, North Korea, Cuba and other nations is the best policy course for the United States. Such sanctions have always proven ineffective, eschews normal diplomatic channels, and undermines US international relations. U.S. companies are often hurt, not only directly, but indirectly because they gain a reputation as unreliable suppliers. Congress should at a minimum adopt reforms that make clear to the public the costs of such sanctions to individual U.S. companies and to the U.S. economy as a whole. The U.S. should abandon the practice of attempting to improve the conduct of other nations by restricting the freedom of its own citizens.

In June, 2006, Ramsey Clark, a United States lawyer and former United States Attorney General, wrote an article criticizing US foreign policy in general, containing a list of 17 US “major aggressions” introduced by “Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way.”

Clark’s List of “Major Aggressions” by the United States of America

(1) Regime change in Iran (1953) the Shah replacing democratically elected Mossadegh; Eisenhower (R);
(2) Regime change in Guatemala (1954) military government for democratically elected Arbenz; Eisenhower (R);
(3) Regime change in Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (1961) assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Eisenhower (R)
(4) the Vietnam War (1959–1975), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R);
(5) Invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965), Johnson (D);
(6) The Contras warfare against Nicaragua (1981–1988), resulting in regime change from the Sandinistas to corrupt capitalists; Reagan (R);
(7) Attack and occupation of Grenada (population 110,000)(1983–1987) Reagan (R);
(8) Aerial attack on the sleeping cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, (1986) Reagan (R);
(9) Invasion of Panama Regime Change (1989–1990), George H. W. Bush (R);
(10) Gulf War (1991), George H. W. Bush (R);
(11) “Humanitarian” occupation of Somalia leading to 10,000 Somali deaths (1992–1993) George H. W. Bush (R) and Bill Clinton (D);
(12) Aerial attacks on Iraq (1993–2001) Bill Clinton (D);
(13) War against Yugoslavia (1999) 23,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton (D)
(14) Missile attack (21 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles) destroying the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Khartoum which provided the majority of all medicines for Sudan (1998) Bill Clinton (D);
(15) Invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Regime Change (2001–present) George W. Bush (R);
(16) War of aggression against Iraq and hostile occupation (2003)-present George W. Bush (R);
(17) Regime change in Haiti (2004) Democratically elected Aristide for three years of chaos and systematic killing, George W. Bush (R).

In 1991, Clark accused the administration of President George H. W. Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker, Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and “others to be named” of “crimes against peace, war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” for its conduct of the Gulf War against Iraq and the ensuing sanctions in 1996, he added the charges of genocide and the “use of a weapon of mass destruction”. Similarly, after the 1999 U.S. bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Ramsey charged and “tried” NATO on 19 counts and issued calls for NATO’s dissolution.

In 2002, Clark founded “VoteToImpeach”, an organization advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush and several members of his administration. For the duration of Bush’s terms in office, Clark sought, unsuccessfully, to bring Bush to stand trial for impeachment. Clark was an opponent of both the 1991 and 2003 Persian Gulf War conflicts - “War Crimes: A Report on U.S. War Crimes Against Iraq”

Between 48% to 62% of Canadians not only question but oppose our engagement of troops in this illegal war of aggression against the Afghan people. A war fought not out of self-defense or against terrorism but explicitly for exploiting the oil and natural gas supplies of the Caspian / Central Asian region.

There is already enough concrete evidence collected to indict Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper, Defense Minister Peter Gordon MacKay, former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin for Crimes Against Peace, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes.

The time has come for all of us to stand up for the rights of our fellow man. It is time for us to help the people of Afghanistan regain their freedom from the unlawful act of aggression and military occupation by the US, Canada and NATO countries. The attacks against the US on September 11, 2001 were criminal acts (Unlawful Seizure of Aircrafts) not acts of war. No foreign state or foreign military attacked the US on September 11, 2001. The attackers were criminals with criminal intent to cause harm to the US.

There is absolutely no evidence that Afghanistan took part in the attacks of 9/11. Not one hijacker was a Afghan citizen nor a Taliban. The FBI list of individuals believed to be the hijackers of the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001 is found here - http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm. No Afghan military aircraft took part in the attacks. There is absolutely no link between Afghanistan and the attacks of September 11, 2001. The US FBI Most Wanted Posted for bin Laden doesn’t even mention the attacks of September 11, 2001. That means the US government doesn’t even have any evidence to link bin Laden to 9/11. That means the US, Canadian and NATO military attack against Afghanistan is illegal. That means the US, Canadian and NATO military attack against Afghanistan is an illegal war of aggression - Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes.

Canadian Criminal Code

Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24 - An Act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24 http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-24/latest/sc-2000-c-24.html declares:

6. (1) Every person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada

(a) genocide,
(b) a crime against humanity, or
(c) a war crime,

is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance with section 8.

Conspiracy, attempt, etc.
(1.1) Every person who conspires or attempts to commit, is an accessory after the fact in relation to, or counsels in relation to, an offence referred to in subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence.

Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (1.1)

(a) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, if an intentional killing forms the basis of the offence; and
(b) is liable to imprisonment for life, in any other case.

Definitions
(3) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section.

“crime against humanity” means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

“genocide” means an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons, as such, that at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes genocide according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

“war crime” means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

Interpretation — customary international law
(4) For greater certainty, crimes described in articles 6 and 7 and paragraph 2 of article 8 of the Rome Statute are, as of July 17, 1998, crimes according to customary international law, and may be crimes according to customary international law before that date. This does not limit or prejudice in any way the application of existing or developing rules of international law.

Interpretation — crimes against humanity
(5) For greater certainty, the offence of crime against humanity was part of customary international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations before the coming into force of either of the following:

(a) the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis, signed at London on August 8, 1945; and

(b) the Proclamation by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, dated January 19, 1946.

The US, Canadian and NATO military (armed) attacks against Afghanistan is a violation of US, Canadian and International Law and Treaties. The attack was and is still illegal as Afghanistan did not attack the US, Canada or any other NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) nation.

A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. 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.”

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finland to prosecute the political leadership in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles were later 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;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The United Nations Charter

* Article 1: The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

* Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

According to Canadian and customary international law or conventional international law Prime Minster Stephen Harper, Defense Minister Peter Gordon MacKay, former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin are guilty of indictable offenses. Canada’s military armed attacks against Afghanistan, the Afghan people and the legal Afghan Taliban ruling party is a war of aggression - a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Canada was not attacked by Afghanistan. Canada are accomplices, aiding and abetting, in the United States unlawful attack against Afghanistan and to this day continues to occupy and mount military “armed” attacks against the civilian population of Afghanistan. To this day Stephen Harper illegally authorizes Canadian soldiers to hunt down and murder all Taliban members, which according to Canadian and International Laws is defined as the criminal offense called genocide - a criminal act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons (the Taliban). The Afghan people and the Taliban are not the enemy. The leaders of the US, Canada and NATO are the enemy. They are the ones who launched an illegal war against a country that did not attack the US, Canada or any NATO country - waged absent the justification of self-defense.

It is our duty as Canadians to set an example. We are a country of countries. We are a peaceful nation and we are peace keepers. We have an ethical, moral and legal responsibility to the World. We have a duty to make things right again and it all begins with indicting Prime Minster Stephen Harper, Defense Minister Peter Gordon MacKay, former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin for Crimes Against Peace, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes. When we make Prime Minster Stephen Harper, Defense Minister Peter Gordon MacKay, former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin accountable for their crimes against the Afghan people then other nations will do the same.

2010 will be the year when wrongs are made right. When the Afghanistan victims of these grave and gross injustices will finally see justice. When Canadian government officials are indicted for Crimes Against Peace, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes. Only then can Canada become a peacekeeping nation again.

On Friday October 1, 2004 Turkmenistan President Niyazov invited Oman and Canada to participate in oil and gas projects, including construction of a Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) and modernization of the Seyidi refinery. A Omani-Canadian delegation including Yusuf bin Alavi, foreign minister of Oman and Jean Chretien, former prime minister of Canada, met Niyazov to discuss cooperation in the energy and hydrocarbon sectors. Heads of some major Canadian and Omani energy companies were also in the delegation. Jean Chretien, who committed Canada to the US unlawful attack against Afghanistan and its civilian population is now an adviser to Bennett Jones, a Calgary-based law firm specializing in energy issues. In addition, he is international relations adviser to PetroKazakhstan Inc., an energy firm based in Calgary with major interests in Kazakhstan and Caspian. The US, Canadian and NATO attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001 or anything to do with capturing the US alleged mastermind of 9/11 bin Laden. The US, Canadian and NATO attacked Afghanistan to take from the Afghan people its financial future - the Trans-Afghan Pipeline, a pipeline that would transport Turkmen natural gas to Pakistan through Afghanistan.

Who among you will be peacemakers and support indicting Prime Minster Stephen Harper, Defense Minister Peter Gordon MacKay, former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin for Crimes Against Peace, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes? Who among you will step up, and formally file charges of Crimes Against Peace, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes against Prime Minster Stephen Harper, Defense Minister Peter Gordon MacKay, former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin with the Supreme Court of Canada and make right the wrong that our government has done to the innocent people of Afghanistan? Who among you will contribute legal counsel so that the indictments are filed legally and properly? Our motive is not one of financial gain. Our motive is not one of political or religious extremism. Our motive is to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and when their actions are deemed illegal, pursuant to Canadian and International Law and Treaties, indict them for the crimes that they commit. Our motive is to give back the Afghan people their freedom and restore peace - the stated purpose and goal of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty, and of all peacemakers.

Drug kingpins use to go by the names; Manuel Noriega, Ismael Zambada García, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, Amado Carrillo Fuentes, Frank Lucas and Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria but today they go by the names; George HW Bush, Barack Hussein Obama, George W Bush and Bill Clinton.

In Afghanistan, the U.S and NATO have put the blame on the Taliban for poppy cultivation to finance their resistance to allied forces. Ironically, it was only during the Taliban ruling era that the World saw a drastic decline in opium citivation in Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban had banned opium cultivation nationwide, probably for the first time in Afghan history. How and when did this business of drug production and trafficking get started in region? The answer is linked to the U.S. and the largest state sponsored terrorist organization in the World - the CIA. The CIA has been using drug money for decades to generate money to support its operations all over the world. It did not start in Afghanistan it was brought there after experimenting somewhere else.

Without active support of the Pentagon and the CIA it is not possible to export the cocaine drug prepared with more than 8000 metric tons of opium. U.S. relations with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban ruling government have given a free license to drug producers and traffickers. The CIA and the Pentagon have both been linked to all of these Afghan drug warlords in order to get a major supply of the drugs and export the drugs in U.S. Army planes. It has been reported that the CIA and the Pentagon have used U.S. Army planes leaving Afghanistan carrying coffins which were filled with drugs instead of bodies.

To make sure there was an undisturbed drug trade the U.S. appointed all Northern Alliance drug lords key posts in Afghanistan and the most prominent appointment was none other than President Hamid Karzai. Karzai’s brother, head of Kandahar’s provincial council is a notorious drug trafficker facilitating the transportation of heroin from Kandahar eastward through Helmand and out across the Iranian border. There is no reason to believe that the CIA is not aware of this. It is all one big enterprise where Hamid Karzai is a partner with his drug trafficking brother.

The Bush administration pushed the level of Opium cultivation to new level in Afghanistan just before the Wall Street orchestrated U.S. financial crisis. Many top Bush administration’s officials were worried about growing influence of countries in the Golden Triangle (Loas, Thailand, Vietnam, Burma) in Russian and Chinese drug markets. Like Oil in Iraq Opium was just another opportunity for the Bush administration to make some quick bucks.

Blame for using drugs to fight the NATO and U.S. forces is always put on the Taliban. But looking at the areas of Taliban’s active zones one can easily understand where all this poppy cultivation is actually taking place. The Taliban put a nationwide ban on poppy when they were in charge of the majority of Afghan territories and Kabul, the capital. Afghanistan was suffering the worse economic crisis at that time but the Taliban ruling government never went to build their economy with heroin trade. Now it is just ridiculous to blame the Taliban for having vast fields of poppy and having enough peace and time to grow and process it into heroin and then trade it in Pakistan and Iran to distribute it to destinations in Eastern Europe. The Taliban are not to blame, the U.S. is to blame for the U.S. facilitated and has protected the Afghanistan illicit drug trade since October 2001 as a major financial source for CIA operations.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) needs massive amounts of money to carry on its clandestine operations all over the world. The U.S. government calls on the CIA to conduct coups, assassinations, secret rendition flights, regime change, and other illegal operations against foreign and domestic targets. These kinds of operations need a lot of financial input. Usually the CIA arranges revenue from its own means for these kind of illegal operations where expenses can’t be predicted by any measure. Funds from the U.S. White House always needs a complete audit and detailed reports about usage of these funds. There are numerous occasions when the CIA never shared details of operations with its own analytical wing nor with any other public office in Washington. It is drug money that compensates these expenses.

CIA operations are not the only single expenditure fulfilled by Afghanistan Opium drug money there are also other deficiencies which are compensated with this money like financial institutes and banks in current financial crisis. UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa based in Vienna revealed that drug money often became the only available capital when the crisis spiraled out of control last year.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime had found evidence that “inter bank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities,” Costa was quoted as saying. There were “signs that some banks were rescued in that way.”

It is not only CIA anymore in trade for using it as gold mine to finance its illegal operations all over the world but U.S. economy also need some liquidity in its banks, it doesn’t matter if it is coming by drug trade.

The global proceeds of the Afghan drug trade is in excess of 150 billion dollars a year. There is mounting evidence that this illicit trade is protected by the US military.

Historically, starting in the early 1980s, the Afghan drug trade was used to finance CIA covert support of the Islamic brigades. The 2003 war on Afghanistan was launched following the Taliban government’s 2000-2001 drug eradication program which led to a collapse in opium production in excess of 90 percent.

The following report, which accuses the United States of using military transport planes to ship narcotics out of Afghanistan confirms what is already known and documented regarding the Golden Crescent Drug Trade and its insidious relationship to US intelligence.

Afghanistan drug trade revived under the U.S.

When Russia backed the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban ruling party, the last thing it expected to happen was that drug trafficking from Afghanistan would assume gargantuan proportions under the U.S. military. Since October 2001, poppy fields, once banned by the Taliban, have mushroomed again. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan produced 8,200 tonnes of opium last year, enough to make 93 per cent of the world’s heroin supply.

The U.S. led North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] forces in the country have not only failed to eliminate the alleged terrorist threat, but also presided over a spectacular rise in opium production. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Afghanistan was on the brink of becoming a “narco state”.

Narco business has emerged as virtually the only economy of Afghanistan and is valued at some $10 billion a year. Opium trade is estimated by the U.N. to be equivalent to 53 per cent of the country’s official economy and is helping to finance the CIA black ops (al Qaeda is the CIA created militant branch for secret covert operations against anyone who opposes the US agenda and unlawful actions) to further US determination to implement a New World Order. The US War “of” Terror is being financed by the Opium ops.

“Unfortunately, they (NATO) are doing nothing to reduce the narcotic threat from Afghanistan even a tiny bit,” Putin angrily remarked three years ago. He accused the coalition forces of “sitting back and watching caravans haul drugs across Afghanistan to the former Soviet Union and Europe.” As time went by, Russian suspicions regarding the U.S. role in the rise of a narco state in Afghanistan grew deeper, especially after reports from Iraq said that the cultivation of opium poppies was spreading rapidly there too.

“The Americans are working hard to keep narco business flourishing in both countries,” says Mikhail Khazin, president of the consultancy firm Niakon. “They consistently destroy the local infrastructure, pushing the local population to look for illegal means of subsistence. And the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) provides protection to drug trafficking.”

U.S. freelance writer Dave Gibson recalled in an article published in American Chronicle in December 2008 what a U.S. foreign intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told NewsMax.com in March 2002 of the CIA’s record of involvement with the international drug trade. The official said: “The CIA did almost the identical thing during the Vietnam War, which had catastrophic consequences – the increase in the heroin trade in the USA beginning in the 1970s is directly attributable to the CIA. The CIA has been complicit in the global drug trade for years, so I guess they just want to carry on their favourite business.”

Now Russia has joined the fray accusing the U.S. military of involvement in the heroin trafficking from Afghanistan to Europe. The Vesti channel’s report from Afghanistan said that drugs from Afghanistan were hauled by American transport aircraft to the U.S. airbases Ganci in Kyrgyzstan and Incirlik in Turkey.

The Ganci Air Force base at the Manas international airport in Kyrgyzstan was set up in late 2001 as a staging post for military operations inside Afghanistan. The Kyrgyz government threatened to close the base after neighbouring Uzbekistan shut down a similar U.S. airbase on its territory in 2005, but relented after Washington agreed to make a one-off payment of $150 million in the form of an assistance package and to pay $15 million a year for the use of the base.

One of the best-informed Russian journalists on Central Asia, Arkady Dubnov, recently quoted anonymous Afghan sources as saying that “85 per cent of all drugs produced in southern and southeastern provinces are shipped abroad by U.S. military aircraft.”

A well-informed source in Afghanistan’s security services told the Russian journalist that the American military acquired drugs through local Afghan officials who dealt with field commanders in charge of drug production.

Writing in the Vremya Novostei daily, Dubnov claimed that the pro-Western administration of President Hamid Karzai, including his two brothers, Kajum Karzai and Akhmed Vali Karzai, are head-to-heels involved in the narcotics trade.

The article quoted a leading U.S. expert on Afghanistan, Barnett Rubin, as telling an anti-narcotics conference in Kabul last October that “drug dealers had infiltrated Afghani state structures to the extent where they could easily paralyse the work of the government if decision to arrest one of them was ever made.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Richard Holbrooke said in January 2009 that “government officials, including some with close ties to the presidency, are protecting the drug trade and profiting from it.”

In an article carried by Washington Post, the diplomat described the $1-billion-a-year U.S. counter-narcotics effort in Afghanistan as “the single most ineffective programme in the history of American foreign policy.”

Charges of U.S. complicity in drug trafficking are based on hard evidence.

Nikolai Bordyuzha, CSTO Secretary-General, quoted a Pentagon general as telling him: “We are not fighting narcotics because this is not our task in Afghanistan.”

Instead of joining hands with the SCO and the CSTO in combating the narcotics threat, the CSTO chief said, the U.S. was working to set up rival security structures in the region. Washington is working to “drive a geopolitical wedge between Central Asian countries and Russia and to reorient the region towards the U.S.”, Bordyuzha said in 2008.

With the U.S. and NATO rebuffing their cooperation offers, Russia, China and the Central Asian states have to rely on their own forces in combating the narcotics threat from Afghanistan. The CSTO has been running a wide-ranging aid and military assistance programme for Afghanistan, which includes training Afghan anti-narcotic police.

Last year, the SCO joined in signing a cooperation protocol with the CSTO, which is aimed, above all, at curbing drug trafficking. At its summit in Bishkek, the Kyrgyzstan capital, in August 2008, the SCO decided to set up jointly with the CSTO an “anti-narcotics belt” around Afghanistan.

Foreign intelligence agencies are well aware of the fact that Afghanistan is part of a Bush-Clinton drug cartel. George HW and George W Bush and Bill and Hillary Clinton have revived the opium trade and the proceeds have gone to illegal CIA operations and to finance mercenary outfits like Black Water. The Bush-Clinton drug cartel uses money from trafficking opium from Afghanistan to finance their own private army. “If George HW Bush is prosecuted, and goes to jail for the crimes he committed when he was the Drug Kingpin of the 1980s, this will be the single most important historical event in decades. It will define a realm of possible action that many people right now feel is impossible, or unfathomable - that it would ever happen. It can happen, it must happen. This is the responsibility of the American people.” - Jeffrey Steinberg

Jeffrey Steinberg - The Evidence Against Bush

“I can assure you that the evidence against George Herbert Walker Bush and the entire list of complicit figures, all the way down to William Weld, is more solid than the evidence that was presented in the trial against Ricky Ross, is more solid than the evidence that’s presented in 99 out of 110 cases that go to trial by the federal government in this country today. There is no question that George Bush was in charge of an operation that helped flood the streets of the United States with cocaine and heroin during the 1980s.”

“These people are guilty. They’ve been caught. We’ve assembled enough evidence to send them to jail for the rest of their lives. We’re not proposing to open up the prisons and let all of the low-level traffickers out on the street. We’re proposing that there should be a principle of equity here, that the people at the top of the drug pyramid, the actual kingpins; not the Ricky Rosses who typically get indicted as kingpins but have probably, in Ross’s case, never left the streets of South Central while they were committing the crimes that they were accused of.”

“We want the real kingpins to go down. And, think about the political implications, for this country and the world, if George Bush goes to jail, is prosecuted, and does real hard time for the crimes that he committed when he was the Drug Kingpin of the 1980s. This will be the singlemost important historic event in decades. It will define a realm of possible action that many people right now feel is impossible, or unfathomable - that it would ever happen. It can happen, it must happen. This is the responsibility of the American people. If we accomplish this, if we bring down that list of kingpins that we’ve identified in our indictment, if they go to trial and go to jail, it will be a far more entertaining television trial than the O.J. Simpson case - and one that would be important for every American citizen to follow very closely. “

10th United States National Security Advisor (1977 – 1981) Zbigniew Brzezinski pictured here with Osama Bin Laden, commander of the Mujahideen “freedom fighters” who fought for the US and Saudi Arabia against the Soviet Union from which the Taliban and Al Qaeda were created. Today Brzezinski is the foreign adviser of President Barack Obama

“Throughout the world … its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They’re doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America … [They are] freedom fighters.”

Is this a call to jihad (holy war) taken from one of Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden’s notorious fatwas? Or perhaps a communique issued by the repressive Taliban regime in Kabul?

In fact, this glowing praise of the exploits of today’s supporters of Saudi terrorist bin Laden and the Afghanistan legal governing body the Taliban, and their war against the “evil empire”, was issued by US President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985. The “evil empire” was the Soviet Union, as well as Third World movements fighting US-backed colonialism, apartheid and dictatorship.

How things change. In the aftermath of a series of terrorist atrocities — the most despicable being the mass killing of more than 3000 working people in New York and Washington on September 11 — bin Laden and the Reagan praised “freedom fighter” are now lambasted by US leaders and the Western mass media as a “terrorist mastermind” and “evil-doers”.

Yet the US government refuses to admit its central role in creating the vicious movement that spawned bin Laden, the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that plague Algeria and Egypt — and perhaps the disaster that befell New York.

The mass media has also downplayed the origins of bin Laden and his toxic brand of Islamic fundamentalism.

Mujaheddin

In April 1978, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by that country’s repressive government.

The PDPA was committed to a radical land reform that favoured the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality for women and the separation of church and state. The PDPA also supported strengthening Afghanistan’s relationship with the Soviet Union.

Such policies enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment (many mullahs were also big landlords) and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organising resistance to the government’s progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government’s radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the “contra” force was known.

Following an internal PDPA power struggle in December 1979 which toppled Afghanistan’s leader, thousands of Soviet troops entered the country to prevent the new government’s fall. This only galvanised the disparate fundamentalist factions. Their reactionary jihad now gained legitimacy as a “national liberation” struggle in the eyes of many Afghans.

The Soviet Union was eventually to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the mujaheddin captured the capital, Kabul, in 1992.

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.

Washington’s policy in Afghanistan was shaped by US President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was continued by his successors. His plan went far beyond simply forcing Soviet troops to withdraw; rather it aimed to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilise the Soviet Union.

Brzezinski’s grand plan coincided with Pakistan military dictator General Zia ul-Haq’s own ambitions to dominate the region. US-run Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe beamed Islamic fundamentalist tirades across Central Asia (while paradoxically denouncing the “Islamic revolution” that toppled the pro-US Shah of Iran in 1979).

Washington’s favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West’s distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavoury “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar’s forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

Hekmatyar was also infamous for his side trade in the cultivation and trafficking in opium. Backing of the mujaheddin from the CIA coincided with a boom in the drug business. Within two years, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was the world’s single largest source of heroin, supplying 60% of US drug users.

In 1995, the former director of the CIA’s operation in Afghanistan was unrepentant about the explosion in the flow of drugs: “Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets… There was a fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.”

Made in the USA

According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA’s spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden’s operatives” in 1989.

These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar’s forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army’s elite Green Berets.

The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called “Operation Cyclone”.

In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).

MAK was a front for Pakistan’s CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.

Among those trained by Mohammed were El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Israeli rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane and plotting with others to bomb New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center in 1993.

The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA’s approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.

Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, one of 20 sons of a billionaire construction magnate, arrived in Afghanistan to join the jihad in 1980. An austere religious fanatic and business tycoon, bin Laden specialised in recruiting, financing and training the estimated 35,000 non-Afghan mercenaries who joined the mujaheddin.

The bin Laden family is a prominent pillar of the Saudi Arabian ruling class, with close personal, financial and political ties to that country’s pro-US royal family.

Bin Laden senior was appointed Saudi Arabia’s minister of public works as a favour by King Faisal. The new minister awarded his own construction companies lucrative contracts to rebuild Islam’s holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina. In the process, the bin Laden family company in 1966 became the world’s largest private construction company.

Osama bin Laden’s father died in 1968. Until 1994, he had access to the dividends from this ill-gotten business empire.

(Bin Laden junior’s oft-quoted personal fortune of US$200-300 million has been arrived at by the US State Department by dividing today’s value of the bin Laden family net worth — estimated to be US$5 billion — by the number of bin Laden senior’s sons. A fact rarely mentioned is that in 1994 the bin Laden family disowned Osama and took control of his share.)

Osama’s military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.

Milt Bearden, the CIA’s station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did … [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It’s an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built “training camps”, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns … Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden’s organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company — albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with “legitimate” business operations.

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980s — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilised primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

Bin Laden only became a “terrorist” in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

When thousands of US troops remained in Saudi Arabia after the end of the Gulf War, bin Laden’s anger turned to outright opposition. He declared that Saudi Arabia and other regimes — such as Egypt — in the Middle East were puppets of the US, just as the PDPA government of Afghanistan had been a puppet of the Soviet Union.

He called for the overthrow of these client regimes and declared it the duty of all Muslims to drive the US out of the Gulf states. In 1994, he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship and forced to leave the country. His assets there were frozen.

After a period in Sudan, he returned to Afghanistan in May 1996. He refurbished the camps he had helped build during the Afghan war and offered the facilities and services — and thousands of his mercenaries — to the Taliban resistance fighters, which took power that September.

Prior to the devastating September 11 attack on the twin towers of World Trade Center, US ruling-class figures remained unrepentant about the consequences of their dirty deals with the likes of bin Laden, Hekmatyar and the Taliban. Since the awful attack, they have been downright hypocritical.

In an August 28, 1998, report posted on MSNBC, Michael Moran quotes Senator Orrin Hatch, who was a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee which approved US dealings with the mujaheddin, as saying he would make “the same call again”, even knowing what bin Laden would become.

“It was worth it. Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union.”

Hatch today is one of the most gung-ho voices demanding military retaliation.

Another face that has appeared repeatedly on television screens since the attack has been Vincent Cannistrano, described as a former CIA chief of “counter-terrorism operations”.

Cannistrano is certainly an expert on terrorists like bin Laden, because he directed their “work”. He was in charge of the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras during the early 1980s. In 1984, he became the supervisor of covert aid to the Afghan mujaheddin for the US National Security Council.

The last word goes to Zbigniew Brzezinski: “What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Saudi, CIA connection to Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, according to Richard Clark in his most recent book. It was created for Saudi Arabia to bankroll Osama bin Laden, through the House of Saud, “in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union during the 1980’s and Riyadh and Washington together contributed an estimated $3.5 billion to the mujahideen.”

“In late 2003, U.S. News & World Report conducted an exhaustive study titled. ‘The Saudi Connection.’ Its findings included the following.”

“The evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia, America’s longtime ally and the world’s largest oil producer, had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, ‘the epicenter’ of terrorist financing’

Starting in the late 1980’s - after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in Afghanistan - Saudi Arabia’s quasi-official charities became the primary source of the funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some twenty countries the money was used to run para-military training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members’

Saudi largess encouraged U.S. officials to look the other way, some veteran intelligence officers say. Billions of dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries have gone to a broad range of former U.S. officials who had dealt with the Saudis: ambassadors, CIA station chiefs, even cabinet secretaries’

Electronic intercepts implicated members of the royal family in backing not only al Qaeda but also other terrorist groups.”

“In October 2003, Vanity Fair magazine disclosed information that had not previously been made public, in an in-depth report entitled ‘Saving the Saudis.’ The story that emerged about the relationship between the Bush family, the House of Saud, and the bin Laden family” (outlined) relationships that went back at least to the time of the Saudi Arabian Money-laundering Affair which began in 1974, and to George H.W. Bush’s terms as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1971-1973) and then as head of the CIA (1976-1977).

“Vanity Fair concluded: The Bush family and the House of Saud, the two most powerful dynasties in the world, have had closed personal business, and political ties for more than 20 years’.

In the private sector, the Saudi’s supported Harken Energy, a struggling oil company in which George W. Bush was an investor. Former president George H.W. Bush and his longtime ally, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, have appeared before Saudis at fundraisers for the Carlyle Group, arguably the biggest private equity firm in the world. Former president Bush Sr. continues to serve as senior advisor to the firm, whose investors allegedly include a Saudi accused of ties to terrorist support groups’

Just days after 9/11, wealthy Saudi Arabians, including members of the bin Laden family, were whisked out of the U.S. on private jets. No one will admit to clearing the flights, and the passengers weren’t questioned. Did the Bush family’s long relationship with the Saudis help make it happen?”

With the above as background, consider that Bush junior swore to go after all those who shelter terrorists, as well as all those who have been responsible for funding terrorist activities. Why hasn’t ‘Poppy’ been arrested? Moreover - why has the public not picked up on the fact that right up until September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda was a terrorist cell of the CIA; the US government created it, the US government trained the terrorists and the US government used them! Why can we not find them now, and why has bin Laden not been captured or killed? In this light “Links to Al Qaeda!” takes on an entirely new meaning. This is not just idle conjecture - there is a real problem here. the Bush family are in this up to their eyes, and have been, since long before this current episode became public.

American forces are, at this moment, fighting people and the organizations that the US created, the groups the US armed, and whom the US continues to protect, from implications in the actions that occurred on 911. So who at the top is “friend” and who is “foe”? When that ’secrecy-protected phrase’ “Links to Al Qaeda!” is uttered: Why is there never any proof of anything, and why has it continued now for nine years without any challenge to the legitimacy of these empty claims? It appears that the American public has been had - and will continue to be taken down the primrose path (lined with the bodies of the hundreds of thousands that we’ve killed) - all because we’d really prefer not to look too closely at what our tax dollars are paying for.

The US government needs to answer these questions on the record, the world wants to hear their response, because the facts simply don’t add up - they never have.

It’s one thing to keep the coffins of the dead a secret from the media, but it is another matter all together, to hide the US government complicity, with the very people who they say - started this war. Bush bulled the people of Iraq to rise up and fight us, when he said: “Bring it on!” That has been done, and the stats to date continue to soar with every day that passes, despite the unofficial news blackouts on the war in Iraq. Baby Bush vowed to bring “all those responsible to justice” - what happened to that empty promise when it came down to his own family and that closed but very special circle of his friends, who all came together to create Al Qaeda and to feed all that hate that keeps the resistance going strong?

Robin Cook, a former British Labour Party politician, who was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Livingston from 1983 until his death, and notably served in the Cabinet as Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001., stated in a column for the Guardian that “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” One month after Cook divulged this state secret about Al-Qaeda he suddenly died. Cook resigned from his positions as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons on 17 March 2003 in protest against the invasion of Iraq. At the time of his death, he was President of the Foreign Policy Centre and a vice-president of the America All Party Parliamentary Group and the Global Security and Non-Proliferation All Party Parliamentary Group.

Everyone who has studied science in school knows that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen or H2O. We all know about the importance of water but few know that water is also a fuel. You know that firemen use water to put out fires so how on Earth can water also be used as a fuel because to be used as a fuel we must be able to ignite it? The answer is H2O Cold Fission. H2O (Water) + a radio wave frequency = O (Oxygen) and H2 (Hydrogen fuel).

The technology is already here to break completely free of the oil dependency and Cold Fission of Sea Water is the answer to all our energy needs. Sea water is the World’s cheapest, cleanest and most abundant fuel source.

A Canadian owned entrepreneurial company called FuelReducer is working on developing new energy technology that will drastically reduce our dependency on oil. FuelReducer’s H2O - Water for Fuel Project is focusing on fueling the World with sea water instead of oil or gas. FuelReducer has recently developed a prototype that splits water (H2O) into Hydrogen and Oxygen using a low radio frequency. The amount of energy needed to split the water into a fuel and the life giving oxygen is very small. The applications are endless. Hydrogen fuel from sea water can be used to fuel electrical power generators, gas stoves, emergency power generators, boat engines, barbecues and gas furnaces to name a few.

Before everyone starts calling the owner and inventor of the FuelReducer a crackpot let me point out that this article is going to talk about “Cold Fission” not “Cold Fusion”. There is a big difference, in that “Cold Fusion” is very controversial and has already been labeled an impossibility by the scientific community - or at least that is what they want us to believe and have gone to great lengths to discredit everyone who has come out and reported having found the secrets of Cold Fusion.

This report is about “fission” not “fusion. ” The anomaly of “cold fusion” experiments — high energy yields with few neutrons or tritium nuclei — has resulted from a simple case of mistaken identity? There are a number of nuclear fission reactions that produce neither neutrons nor tritium, yet yield large quantities of energy.” Scientists have mistakenly reported on the process used to gain large amounts of energy in their experiments. A communication error has resulted in the World being denied access to a free energy source from the most abundant and cleanest fuel source on Earth - Water.

To understand the errors that caused the unnecessary wars to control the oil supply of the World we have to start with understanding the most important and basic fact - that water sustains all life on Earth. Water contains the oxygen we need to breath and the fuel (hydrogen) to create motion (life). No one on Earth can survive very long without water (H2O). We can’t survive and function without water. Our food can’t survive and grow without water either. About 1,460 teratonnes (Tt) of water covers 71% of the Earth’s surface, mostly in oceans and other large water bodies, with 1.6% of water below ground in aquifers and 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and precipitation. Only 2.75 percent of the water on Earth is freshwater. Saltwater oceans hold 97% of surface water. This fact alone states that 97% of the Earth’s water is readily available to mankind - not for human consumption (because humans require fresh water), but as the most abundant source of energy. How do we get that energy? By applying Cold Fission to saltwater which will provide both the energy we need to fuel our cars and homes as well as adds more oxygen to Earth’s atmosphere. Let me explain it all by starting with the very basics. First off what is Fission? Fission is defined as

1: a splitting or breaking up into parts
2: reproduction by spontaneous division of the body into two or more parts each of which grows into a complete organism
3: the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy

You already know that water’s chemical description is H2O - that is one atom of oxygen bound to two atoms of hydrogen. The hydrogen atoms are “attached” to one side of the oxygen atom, resulting in a water molecule having a positive charge on the side where the hydrogen atoms are and a negative charge on the other side, where the oxygen atom is. Since opposite electrical charges attract, water molecules tend to attract each other, making water kind of “sticky.” The side with the hydrogen atoms (positive charge) attracts the oxygen side (negative charge) of a different water molecule. All these water molecules attracting each other mean they tend to clump together forming water drops. As more water drops are formed they stick to each other to form a liquid state of water. Cold Fission is used to reverse the process - return water or split the liquid state of water back to its three atoms; an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. The bond between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms are very strong. The bond needs to be broken and Cold Fission does this. Most scientists would declare that it takes a lot of energy to break the bond between the oxygen and hydrogen that makes up water. That is why they continue to discredit all claims of Cold Fusion. But Cold Fission doesn’t require a lot of energy to split Water. In fact very little energy is required in Cold Fission to begin splitting the bond between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms of water. The very definition of fission is splitting or breaking up into “parts” and nowhere does it hint or suggest that energy, or a lot of energy is required to do it. Scientists have known for decades what it takes to break the bond that makes water. The secret they have been keeping from us is that water can easily be broken up into its oxygen and hydrogen parts by applying a resonant frequency (radio wave).

You already know that crystal radios were the only appliances on Earth that worked perfectly without using any energy supply. What you failed to see and understand is that they worked “without using any energy supply”. The crystal radio receiver (also known as a crystal set) is a very simple kind of radio receiver. It needs no battery or power source except the power received from radio waves by a long outdoor wire antenna. To listen to a specific broadcast we must tune in to the frequency being transmitted. Cold Fission uses low energy radio waves tuned to a specific frequency to split water into its oxygen and hydrogen parts.

The key to building a successful Cold Fission reactor is to find the resonant frequency of the bond that sticks the oxygen and hydrogen atoms together. That frequency has already be discovered. Applying the known resonant frequency in a Cold Fission reactor produces hydrogen fuel.

There are no environmental side effects (zero carbon emissions, zero toxicity) and by using sea water as a source of hydrogen fuel then all of the oil producing nations will have more fuel to sell to the World for decades longer, even centuries longer. We already know that oil is not limitless. We all know that a number of nations depend on selling their oil to their neighbors and allies for revenue so using other sources of fuel will allow those oil producing countries to continue to profit from oil sales much longer than now predicted. As global warming is apparently to blame for the rising of the sea levels then using sea water as a source of hydrogen fuel also addresses and provides a solution to slow and or stop the rise in sea levels that threaten to flood and damage our coastal properties.

U.S. government’s Internet kill switch. United States Bill of Rights, First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We live in an incredible era of information. A quarter of the world is online. This number is growing quickly and the amount of information we consume is ballooning. The openness of the Internet gives extraordinary access to information and this is a powerful force for good.

The Internet has helped level the playing field of commerce and education, enabled the sharing of ideas and opinions, and kept companies, institutions and politicians accountable. It helps keep them honest.

With the rise of the free Internet and the extraordinary information it brings also comes misinformation. And there is misinformation everywhere - not just online, but in newspapers, in classrooms, in books and by your cable news networks. Things your elected officials, parents and friends tell you turn out to be wrong, some things are right. The Internet forces us to differentiate between what is right and what is obviously wrong. It’s a vital skill called critical thinking, which we all need to learn the truth. People who are incapable of critical thinking may find themselves being misinformed.

More and more people around the world believe that Internet access should be a fundamental right. It would be a travesty if this openness was lost. But every day around the world, more and more governments are restricting access to information online. It isn’t just in China that Internet access is limited or access censored or outright denied. The U.S. is fast overtaking China in restricting access to informed information through the Internet. On June 24, 2010 Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), proposed a bill called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which lays out in 196 pages his plans to give the U.S. government the right to order ISPs to cut off service and make them pay heavy fines if they refuse to comply. The bill would also sets up a sub-bureaucracy under the Department of Homeland Security called the National Center for Communications and Cybersecurity (NCCC). Sen. Lieberman explained that other countries have been enacting legislative systems that allow for such a ‘kill switch’. “Right now China, its government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war, and we need to have that here, too.”

More recently, on July 16, 2010 the U.S. government killed 73,000 Internet Blogs. The U.S. Government claimed that they took action allegedly against a handful of sites connected to movie streaming but why were over 70,000 Wordpress blogs also taken down? Blogs that have nothing to do with movie streaming or music sharing. Blogs that post critical information for an informed society. Information critical of U.S. policies, agenda and actions? The free blogging platform was taken down by its hosting provider on orders from the U.S. authorities on grounds of “a history of abuse”. More than 73,000 blogs are out of action as a result. The accounts of more than 73,000 blogs ordered wiped by the U.S, government. Unless the owners of those blogs made a backup of their websites before the U.S, government killed them the information, and the hours of hard work that went into researching, collecting, writing and posting the information, is forever lost. The U.S, government actions is far worse than what China has done. China has only cut off Internet access to foreign websites whereas the U.S. has destroyed more than 73,000 websites of its own people. The U.S. government even went as far as seizing the domain names of many of those blog sites.

According to the owner of a free WordPress platform which hosts more than 73,000 blogs, his network of sites has been completely shut down on the orders of the U.S. authorities. Blogetery.com has been with host BurstNet for 7 months but on Friday July 9th the site disappeared. The owner of the server was also gag ordered by the U.S. government - “We are limited as to the details we can provide to you, but note that this was a critical matter and the only available option to us was to immediately deactivate the server. Please note that this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm. This was a critical matter brought to our attention by law enforcement officials. We had to immediately remove the server.”

Due to the fact that the U.S. government isn’t sharing information and the server owner has been sworn to secrecy (gaged), it is almost impossible to confirm the exact reason why more than 73,000 websites have been completely taken down. 73,000 blogs is a significant number to take down in one swoop, regardless of what some users of the site may or may not have been doing. This is censorship, pure and simple. This appears to be just the beginning.

The U.S. government has its finger on an Internet kill switch. They are preparing to take away the only media source left that isn’t swayed by political agendas and policies. It is the only media source left that hasn’t been bought and paid to publish the government’s propaganda. Welcome Americans, to the United Socialist States.

United States President Barack Obama signed into law Wednesday Wall Street’s reform bill — the most-sweeping violations of US law since 1913 when the Federal Reserve illegally gained control of the US money. Immediately after President Woodrow Wilson signed into law The Federal Reserve Act the Federal Reserve System was created and the Federal Reserve bankers got rid of the US dollar and introduced their counterfeit reproduction called the Federal Reserve Note.

The legislation puts major restrictions on how financial firms that are not part of the Federal Reserve can do business in the United States.

This is “reform that will prevent the kind of shadowy deals that led to this crisis, reform that would never again put taxpayers on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes,” the president said last week.

The bill aims to strengthen the Federal Reserve powers, powers prohibited by the supreme law of the United States of America - the U.S. Constitution.

The unlawful legislation was made to illegally establish a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau inside the Federal Reserve. Barack Obama has unlawfully given to the banks that created the US economic crisis, the privately owned Federal Reserve, the power to regulate all commerce in the United States of America. The power To coin Money and regulate the Value thereof, is only and can only be granted by the United States Constitution to the people (the elected Congress), not to any for profit, privately owned and operated Federal Reserve group of banks.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District …

Finally, Congress has the power to do whatever is “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers and, crucially, all others vested in it.

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government to the states, to citizens, and to all people within the United States.

The Constitution creates the three branches of the national government: a legislature, the Congress; an executive branch led by the President; and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. The Constitution specifies the powers and duties of each branch. The Constitution reserves all unenumerated powers to the respective states and the people, thereby establishing the federal system of government.

The United States Constitution clearly gives the United States Congress the power and only legal authority to “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof”, not to the privately owned, for profit, Federal Reserve. The US Congress cannot give away this Constitutional power to anyone or any organization that is not part of the US Congress. According to US law it is illegal for Barack Obama, or any president of the United States of America, to sign any bill that would give the privately owned Federal Reserve US Congressional power and legal authority to “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof”. The Federal Reserve does not represent the people of the United States of America. The Federal Reserve represents the interests of its shareholders. The privately owned Federal Reserve is not part of any of the three branches of the national government. The Federal Reserve heads are not elected by the people. The members of Congress are elected by the people. The United States President is elected by the people and upon taking office each and every president must take the following oath:

“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.”

This oath is required by law to be taken by every US citizen who wishes to be the president of the United States of America. It is a contract between the person taking the oath and the people of the United States of America. It is a contract that holds the president accountable to the people and to the supreme law of the United States of America - the U.S. Constitution. Mr Obama and elected members the United States Congress has broken their contract and therefore broken the law by unlawfully giving to a privately owned and operated group of banks the power to To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof.

President Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 19, 1863 - “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”

Federal Reserve is pushing for reforms to take complete control of the United States

In case you haven’t noticed government of the people, by the people, for the people, is quickly perishing from the Earth. It is disappearing with every new reform bill drafted by anti-US and anti-democratic Mr Obama. The privately owned and operated Federal Reserve is also foreign owned and controlled. Mr Obama is committing high treason by colluding with the foreign owned Federal Reserve group of banks. The foreign owned Federal Reserve is attacking the United States. It is attacking the financial sector. It is stealing $trillions from the US people in fraudulent bailout and stimulus schemes. It is attacking the United States Constitution. The foreign owned and operated Federal Reserve Bank is attacking the United States by having Mr Obama enact reform bills against everything that is the United States.

First there was auto industry reforms which illegally stole ownership of General Motors and gave it to the foreign controlled and corruption infested US government. Then there was the health care reform bill that was made possible by Obama attacking the US people by releasing the A-H1N1 virus on April 16, 2009 during his unscheduled trip to Mexico (one day after the American people gather in the millions in cities and towns across the US in a nation wide Tax Day Tea Party Revolt against Obama, the US government and their out of control spending and anti-American policies) and under the cloak of this biological attack Obama had Congress pass legislation that forced every American to pay money they didn’t have (non-payment to the Obama Heath Care Extortion Bill will get you jail time until you cough up the money) to the foreign controlled US government. Then finally there was the Obama foreign controlled government’s attack against the BP (British Petroleum) oil rig Deepwater Horizon that was used as a diversion so that Obama could force the US Congress to pass yet another reform (socialist) bill that illegally gave complete control of the US money to the foreign owned and controlled Federal Reserve group of banks. In order to achieve this sinister goal Obama had the SEC charge Wall Street banking giant Goldman Sachs with fraud on April 16, 2010 (exactly 1 year after Obama ordered biological weapons expert Marc S. Griswold to take from Fort Detrick, Maryland a biological weapon called the A-H1N1 virus and release it). Then 4 days later on April 20, 2010 the BP oil rig platform Deepwater Horizon was attacked with what area fishermen and oil rig survivors described as a flare from a flare gun (other witnesses described it as a being a FGM-148 Javelin). The explosion and sinking caused a rupture in the well and millions of gallons of oil were allowed to leak out as a diversion so that Obama could secretly get legislation passed that would give the foreign owned and operated Federal Reserve complete control over the US dollar and now complete control over every privately US owned bank and credit union in the United States.

The main requirement of the Obama financial reform bill is that all banks and credit unions in the United States can only keep a certain amount of cash on hand in their bank vaults. With the new legislation every bank in the United States must now open up their vaults to the privately owned and foreign owned Federal Reserve bankers and any and all cash amounts in holding that are over and above the Federal Reserve bank imposed limit must be immediately surrendered to the Federal Reserve bankers. Obama’s financial reform bill is simply another way for the foreign owned and controlled Federal Reserve to rob the American people of their life savings. Once the people’s money is stolen from their local banks and credit unions the money is gone forever. Federal Reserve bank regulation will make sure the people don’t get their money back. The BP oil disaster was allowed to continue as a diversion so that the American people would not know what Obama was doing. The connection between Goldman Sachs being charged with fraud, the BP oil spill and Obama’s financial reforms was made on July 15, 2010. On July 15, 2010 three very big announcements were made - the BP oil well was finally capped (after months of stalling by the Obama administration), the SEC dropped criminal charges of fraud against Goldman Sachs (one of Obama’s major presidential campaign financial backer escaped investigation and criminal prosecution) and Obama got his secret reform bill passed. Not a coincidence.

What is the next attack planned against the United States by Obama and the foreign owned Federal Reserve banks? It could be War. US carrier strike groups are massing in the Gulf for what members of the G-8 claim is a strike against Iran. Iran is seeking to use nuclear energy as an alternative to oil. Iran knows that its supply of oil won’t last forever so it is seeking to conserve it oil supply by using nuclear energy as it main energy source. The Federal Reserve lives off of revenue of oil. Oil is the bloodline of the Federal Reserve bankers. If even one country seeks alternative energy source from oil the Federal Reserve bankers’ profiteering is drastically affected. The US wants Iran to cease its production of nuclear energy plants not because the US fraudulent claim that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons but so that Federal Reserve bankers’ oil profits will be assured for years to come.

More and more countries are dropping the Federal Reserve Note as the currency for trade. They are not dropping the US Dollar because the US Dollar doesn’t exist. The name on every US greenback is stated as Federal Reserve Note. Check any US paper money and you will see for yourself that nowhere does it state on the paper money that it is a United States Dollar. The wording on the image above clearing states at the very top of the bill that it is a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE, not a United States Dollar.

Another war possibility is that the United States and South Korea have announced that they will begin large scale naval exercises on Sunday in the Sea of Japan as a show of force against North Korea. The USS George Washington has already been in South Korean waters for the past week in preparations for this weekends naval exercises. Is it any coincidence that the joint navy exercises between the US and South Korea were announced on the same day that China announced that it’s central bank will move to end the Chinese currency yuan’s peg with the U.S. dollar. The People’s Bank of China gave a statement that ending yuan’s peg with the U.S. dollar is a move toward reforming the country’s foreign exchange structure.

The foreign owned Federal Reserve owns the US by controlling the US money. If other countries simply stopped pegging their currency to the counterfeit US Federal Reserve Note the Federal Reserve bankers would lose its control of the United States by way of complete control over the US through its money. The Federal Reserve illegally counterfeits US money (mass unauthorized reproduction of their worthless Federal Reserve Note - a counterfeit substitution for the legal US tender called the United States dollar of which only the US Congress can coin) and charges the US people interest on their counterfeited paper. If countries stopped pegging their currency to the counterfeit Federal Reserve Note then the US people could longer pay the interest on the worthless Federal Reserve Note counterfeit reproductions. The foreign owned Federal Reserve could force Obama to order the US military to attack any country that no longer intends to peg their currency to the Federal Reserve counterfeit Note. Remember Iraq. Iraq was ordered attacked by the Federal Reserve bankers because Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq was no longer going to trade (peg) its oil with the counterfeit Federal Reserve Note.

Woodrow Wilson quoted saying in reference to signing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Almost 100 years later Barack Obama is quoted saying after signing into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act “It was a crisis born of a failure of responsibility from certain corners of Wall Street to the halls of power in Washington”

Both Wilson and Obama knew what they were doing was wrong. Both, displayed signs of guilt and these quotes are a testament and affirmation of their guilt.

The head of China’s largest credit rating agency has slammed his western counterparts for causing the global financial crisis. “The western rating agencies are politicised and highly ideological and they do not adhere to objective standards,” Guan Jianzhong, chairman of Dagong Global Credit Rating, told the Financial Times in an interview. “China is the biggest creditor nation in the world and with the rise and national rejuvenation of China we should have our say in how the credit risks of states are judged.”

He specifically criticised the practice of “rating shopping” by companies who offer their business to the agency that provides the most favourable rating.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis “rating shopping” has been one of the key complaints from western regulators , who have heavily criticised the big three agencies for handing top ratings to mortgage-linked securities that turned toxic when the US housing market collapsed in 2007.

“The financial crisis was caused because rating agencies didn’t properly disclose risk and this brought the entire US financial system to the verge of collapse, causing huge damage to the US and its strategic interests,” Mr Guan said.

Recently, the rating agencies have been criticised for being too slow to downgrade some of the heavily indebted peripheral eurozone economies, most notably Spain, which still holds triple A ratings from Moody’s.

There is also a view among many investors that the agencies would shy away from withdrawing triple A ratings to countries such as the US and UK because of the political pressure that would bear down on them in the event of such actions.

“The US is insolvent and faces bankruptcy as a pure debtor nation but the rating agencies still give it high rankings ,” Mr Guan said. “Actually, the huge military expenditure of the US is not created by themselves but comes from borrowed money, which is not sustainable.”

China is not the only country that resents the devastating frauds that the US has perpetrated on not only its own people but the rest of the world through its Wall Street banks and ratings agencies.

On June 18, the symbol of the German company Deutsche Telekom, DT, made its last run across the ticker at the New York Stock Exchange. Europe’s largest telecom company left the world’s biggest and most recognizable exchange after nearly 14 years of trading.

The company is currently in the process of delisting from all foreign exchanges and will soon only be traded on its home stock market in Frankfurt.

Deutsche Telekom is just the latest German blue chip to say goodbye to the American capital market. In an emblematic departure, Daimler, the first German firm to be listed in New York in 1993, officially quit trading on the NYSE on June 4, saying that it no longer needed a presence in New York to attract international investors. And Munich-based insurance and financial services giant Allianz abandoned the NYSE last fall.

The recent retreat of German firms from the American capital market has been attributed to tighter regulations introduced by the United States government in the wake of the recent uncovering of massive securities fraud by the larger Wall Street banks. The recent banking reform bill signed by U.S. president Barack Obama will mean more foreign banks will flee the U.S. market due to added oversight and regulations that will no doubt add to the already high costs for foreign companies to be listed on the NYSE. Of the 11 firms on Germany’s DAX index of blue chip companies that were at one time listed on the NYSE, only four still remain: Deutsche Bank, Fresenius, SAP and Siemens.

When Telekom and Daimler announced their departures from the NYSE in April and May respectively, the main reason the companies said publicly was to reduce the complexity of financial reporting and administrative costs. The double-digit costs of SEC complaince, however, are paltry compared the hundreds of millions of dollars in liability — either through lawsuits or investigations and prosecutions — to which a US listing can expose foreign firms.

The US Justice Department and the SEC have been more assertive in investigating publicly traded companies following a wave of investment fraud schemes like the one by former Nasdaq chief Bernard Madoff, who swindled prominent investors out of billions.

“That’s the real issue here,” says Miers, who worked for the SEC’s division of corporation finance from 1994 to 1997. “What the SEC fully doesn’t grasp to today is that dealing with the US regulation system is a nightmare,” he says. “It’s another reason to run to the exit door.” And running to the exit door has escalated in just the last few months as the Wall Street banking giant’s fraud schemes begin to be uncovered and Wall Street comes under investigation.

As of July 23, 2010 the U.S. national debt is a staggering $13.2 trillion (debt per taxpayer is $119,517), U.S. Total Debt is $54 trillion, Gross Debt to GDP ratio is 91.5%, 25 million Americans are unemployed, 41 million Americans now rely on food stamps, 1.4 million bankruptcies in the U.S. this year alone, and almost 1 million foreclosures so far this year. There is simply no way for the United States to pay its debt under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. The U.S. is insolvent and faces bankruptcy as a pure debtor nation.

After viewing hours of G20 Summit videos and images the above image sums up the G20 Toronto Summit of 2010. The Canadian government unlawfully authorized the police, our sworn protectors and servants, to stomp on our Canadian rights and freedoms for a few foreign dignitaries and bankers. Throughout the 2 day summit our police were the anarchists, the attackers, the assailants, the kidnappers and conspirators in the darkest 48 hours in Canadian history.

Community groups across the country are calling on the public to come forward with photos, video, and eye witness accounts of police violence against civilians during the G20 summit in Toronto on June 26 and 27 of this year. This evidence will be used to ensure that there are consequences for all those who beat and injured people, and for the masterminds who conspired to plan and give orders for the widespread police violence and repression that was experienced by thousands on the streets.

In just 48 hours rogue officers acted in total disregard for the law. Either these rogue cops acted alone or they were part of a coordinated conspiracy by police chiefs and politicians that led to injuries, the detention of organizers, and the largest arbitrary mass arrest in modern Canadian history. This is not democratic nor civilized behavior that should be commended, this is behavior that should be investigated and those who committed these unlawful acts must be removed from the force and indicted for their crimes. The public is demanding an independent investigation into the severe and widespread abuses of police power that occurred during the G20 meetings in Toronto, and the collusion of politicians in making and executing those plans.

Canadians across the country are demanding an investigation into the policing of the G20 Summit in Toronto and calling for clear consequences including firings, and prosecution of those responsible for abuses including:

1. Arbitrary detainment, illegal searches and seizures, mass arrests and abhorrent conditions in detention.
2. Serious injuries to protesters, including while in handcuffs.
3. Illegal, repeated strip searches, threats of rape, and molestation at arbitrary detention centers.
4. Discrimination against deaf people, women, LGBTQ people, Quebecois, organizers, others.
5. Illegally passing of secret laws limiting civil rights, and then misleading the public about their nature.

Throughout the G20 Summit in Toronto no police officer was ever seen arresting those who were actually engaging in acts of vandalism and violence against both private and public property. Plain clothes police officers, numbered in the hundreds, were mingling amongst the protesters throughout the G20 Summit yet not one of them performed their duties as police officers and stepped forward to legally arrest (identifying themselves as police officer by displaying their badge or police ID and informing the person being arrested as to why they are being arrested and then reading the arrested person their rights) those who were causing damage to property along the G20 demonstration routes. Instead the police officer attacked, assaulted, kidnapped and arbitrarily detained hundreds of peaceful G20 Summit protesters, innocent bystanders and curious local residents. The media is equally to blame for this mass injustice by the police for they dared to imply that somehow the legal right of all Canadians to protest and to take part in peaceful protests are illegal and the unlawful police acts are legal.

Dr. Abeer Majeed, a family physician and member of Toronto Street Medics, was on the streets during the G20 Summit weekend, providing emergency care to injured protesters.

“It is of great concern to us medics that there has not yet been any meaningful, binding public inquiry launched into large scale extreme violence we witnessed against people exercising their right to dissent and bystanders,” said Majeed.

Majeed and her medical colleagues treated protesters “with serious trauma from blows to the head by police batons, fractures and soft tissue injuries.”

She noted that the majority of injuries treated did not take place during the rampage on Saturday afternoon, when store windows were smashed.

Majeed was on the south lawn at Queen’s Park on Saturday afternoon when she witnessed injuries caused by charging horses, pepper spray and blows to the head and bodies by police batons.

“Most of those injured fell behind police lines,” she said. “Street Medics were prevented from reaching and providing care to them by the police.”

“All of the serious injuries we saw and treated were caused by police violence,” said Dr. Abeer Majeed . “We did not come across any police officers or bystanders who were injured by demonstrators. The police abuses that we witnessed against people caused significant trauma, injuries and a shattering of the public trust. It is imperative that there is accountability and there are consequences for these senseless, violent, and dangerous actions.”

Canadian Bill of Rights

PART I
BILL OF RIGHTS

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and of association; and
(f) freedom of the press.

2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of a person;
(b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,
(ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
(iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;
(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self-crimination or other constitutional safeguards;
(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance to the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; and
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance to an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.

The ban on arbitrary detention is enshrined in Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right is enshrined in Articles 9 and 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

On June 26 and 27 2010 politicians, local, provincial and federal, and the police of the GTA did commit crimes that are forbidden under Canadian and International Law. Police did attack, assault, kidnap and arbitrarily detain hundreds of civilians who were lawfully exercising their lawful right to free speech, freedom of assembly and of association; and
freedom of the press. Politicians have committed a criminal offense by secretly passing a law that gave the police special powers not expressly declared by an Act of Parliament of Canada. Journalists and volunteers who provided first aid at the G20 protests are calling for an independent investigation into injuries caused by police. “There has been a lot of focus on violence against property, but we are calling attention to violence against people,” said Sarah Reaburn, a nurse. “People were beaten simply for exercising their right to demonstrate”.

There are 3 major problems that would simply go away if the World stopped using the US dollar for trade and stopped buying US debt. China has the opportunity to kick start the end of these major problems simply by dumping the US Federal Debt.

1)The World economic troubles would be solved simply by dumping the US dollar. No longer would foreign currencies be devalued because of a weak US dollar. Good for the US too because if no one used the US dollar for trade then the US government would have to take back the $trillions they gave to the privately owned US Federal Reserve. Doing this would clear the entire US national Debt as the amount of money given to the Federal Reserve is over and above the total amount of the US National Debt.

2) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would end. No money would mean the US could no longer afford to continue their illegal wars of aggressions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Money is the sole reason why the Roman Empire collapsed. If the World simply stopped trading in US dollars there would be no money for the US government to buy $billion aircrafts and war ships or even to pay the US troops and US paid mercenaries or finance CIA covert terrorist operations overseas.

3) Israel would not be so aggressive against their Arab neighbors. Israel has no natural resources. Israel relies entirely on the US for financial aid. Israel is a third world country. If the US dollar was no longer traded the US could no longer afford to finance the Israeli nuclear weapons program, the Israeli military and the Israeli Mossad. Take away the US money from Israel and you would have peace in the Middle East. Israel would be forced to make trade deals with its neighbors instead of attacking them and stealing their land. If the World dropped the US dollar there would be no money for illegal Israeli settlement building on Palestinian land.

Everyone has the ability to stop countries from starting wars. US domination of the World would end simply by dropping the US dollar. The US government are the terrorists. The US government attacked 2 innocent countries. Russia has not attacked any neighboring country. North Korea has not attacked South Korea. China has attacked no country. The only countries that are starting wars are the US and Israel and Israel is only able to do this because of US money. Stop trading in US dollars would bring about peace in the Middle East.

A home safe is the only safe place to put your money these days. Banks can’t charge you fees. Brokers can’t charge you commission or lose it all on their bad investment choices. Your government can’t touch it. It’s there when you need it 24/7

It has been over a year now since Barack Obama declared he needed close to $1 trillion to stop banks from failing. He pressed the US Congress to pass his $787 billion Stimulus Bill by stating that in order to fix the problem Congress needed to throw $trillions into the financial banking system and those super rich bank recipients he claimed would use that money to create 3.5 millions of new jobs. Well his logic was foolhardy from the start as small town and city banks are still failing and the unemployment situation has not improved. Proving once again that Obama is working for Wall Street and not the people.

The banks of Wall Street put Obama in office with their $million campaign contributions and prime time TV advertising. Now that Obama is in, Obama is taking care of his financial backers. To do this Obama had his Treasury Sectary set up a new banking system that is rigged to cause even more mom and pop banks to fail. Why let mom and pop banks fail but rescue Wall Street’s super rich banks? Wall Street doesn’t have any money. They are only in business so long as investors keep on investing in risky stocks and business ventures. The real money isn’t on Wall Street the real money is in the bank vaults of your local banks. The US government, Obama and the banks of the privately owned Federal Reserve (the ones who fraudulently declared $billion loses in order to get $trillions from US taxpayers) need your local banks and credit unions to fail in order to get their hands on the valued assets owned outright by you, the bank account holders.

The government is broke. They have no money. They are printing money that has no value. Bank depositors like you, your relatives, friends and neighbors own $trillions in savings. Money that is free of any debt and tax. Your savings are being stolen by your government in government orchestrated bank failures. How? Once a bank fails the deposits are insured but not the full value. That means the government takes any amount over and above what is covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance.

Money parked in bank accounts is usually protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., but that doesn’t mean your money is safe. The FDIC insures checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit and retirement accounts placed in deposits at insured institutions. Ask your bank whether it’s FDIC-insured. If your bank isn’t FDIC insured then you could lose it all when your government causes it to fail. Money that is placed in a money market deposit account as part of your checking is protected, but don’t confuse that with a money market mutual fund, which is not.

Not every dollar you deposit to your bank account is protected, including holdings in mutual funds (stock, bond or money market mutual funds), annuities, stocks, bonds, Treasury securities and other investment products. And what about that prized family air loom passed down by Grandma or other contents in a safe-deposit box at your bank? Those aren’t protected either.

On those accounts that the FDIC does insure, know that the coverage isn’t unlimited. You’re safe if you have up to $250,000 per person per account, but only up until the end of 2013, when your government drastically reduces the coverage to less than half the present coverage - to $100,000. So come 2013 if you put your hard earned $250,000 into an account at a FDIC insured bank and that fails you will lose over half of your deposit. Of the $250,000 you deposited into a FDIC insured bank that fails you get only $100,000 and your government robs you of $150,000. Retirement accounts are covered permanently up to a maximum of $250,000 per co-owner or a maximum $500,000 per couple. If you have any amount over and above the maximum insured amount and your FDIC insured bank fails your government is going to rob you of those amounts. If you have large deposits in a bank that is not FDIC insured (I would advise you to check immediately) and that bank fails your government robs you of the entire amount. If you have any kind of gold or silver locked away in a safety deposit box at any bank, whether they are FDIC insured or not, and that bank fails your government again will rob you of it.

One industry that does good even in these bleak days are those that make safes. Confidence in banks and the overall economy is at levels not seen since the Great Depression. People are removing their hard earned money from their bank accounts at record rates and they have to put it somewhere. Safe deposit boxes were once the first choice as a place to stash cash and other valuables, but with some banks closing and the government taking the contents of those safety deposit box it is becoming apparent that emergency money belongs elsewhere if quick access to it is needed.

Safety deposit box holders and depositors are not given advanced notice when failed banks shut their doors. If people have their emergency money in a safe deposit box or an account in a bank that closes, they will not be allowed into the bank to get it out. They can knock on the door and beg to get in but the sheriff’s department or whoever is handling the closure will simply say “no” because they are just following orders.

Deposit box and account holders are not warned of the hazards of banking when they sign up. It is not until they need to get their cash or valuables out in a hurry that they find themselves in trouble.

Rules governing access to safe deposit boxes and money held in accounts are written into the charter of each bank. The charter is the statement of policy under which the bank is allowed by the government to do business. These rules are subject to change at any time by faceless bureaucrats who are answerable to no one. They can be changed without notice, without the agreement of the people, and against their will.

A look at the fine print of the contract signed when a safety deposit box is opened reveals that in essence the signer has given to the bank whatever property he has put into that deposit box. When times are good people will be allowed open access to their safe deposit box and the property that is in it. This also applies to their bank accounts. But when times get really bad, many may find that the funds they have placed on deposit and the property they thought was secured in the safe deposit box now belong to the bank, or in the case of insured banks to the government, not to the depositor. Although this was probably not explained to the bank depositors when they signed their signature card, this is what they were agreeing to.

During the Great Depression in the early 1930’s people thought that many banks were going to fail. They were afraid they would lose their money so they went in mass to take it out, in what is known as a run on the banks. The government closed the banks to protect them from angry depositors who wanted their money back. Throughout history, governments have acted to protect the interests of banks and the wealthy people who own them, not the interests of depositors or box holders.

In a time of emergency, people will have no recourse if access to their safe deposit box and bank accounts is denied. If they are keeping money in a bank that would be needed in an emergency or in a time when credit is no longer free flowing, they may not be able to get it out of the bank. The emergency may occur at night or on a weekend or holiday when the bank is closed.

The solution is to take emergency cash or valuables out of the safe deposit box or bank account and secure them somewhere else, like in a home safe. A home safe is the only safe place to put your money these days. Banks can’t charge you fees. Brokers can’t charge you commission or lose it all on their bad investment choices. Your government can’t touch it. It’s there when you need it 24/7. If you can’t afford a safe there are a lot of places on your property where you can hide you savings and valuables. Some people have removed floorboards or wall panels and placed their valued assets in water tight plastic bags or container and securely hide them within. If you are concerned about home invaders and robbers breaking into your house to look for a home safe hiding your money and valued assets within the walls or floors of your home is a safer alternative. Only you would know where in your home or on your property your money and valuables were hidden. If you don’t do anything to secure your hard earned money and valued financial assets , rest assured that your government is going to rob you whenever your bank or credit union fails.

The Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs escaped jail time last week when they successfully negotiated a suspicious deal with the SEC. The SEC charged Goldman Sachs with fraud on April 16, 2010 after investors lost $1 billion. The Goldman Sachs and Paulson fraudulent subprime mortgage scheme bilked $1 billion from investors and that fraudulent scheme resulted in a negative domino effect to the US economy. The SEC had evidence that Goldman Sachs’ illegal scheme was the root cause of the US economic crisis. For some reason the SEC negotiated a deal with Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs was ordered to pay a minuscule $500 million in damages to affected investors and SEC fines. The SEC imposed fines against Goldman Sachs instead of pursuing criminal charges. The SEC had evidence of criminal activity by Goldman Sachs but let the criminals go with fines. There is no doubt that Goldman Sachs will pay these damages and fines with money they received from George W Bush and Barack Obama in the form of Federal Reserve Bank bonuses scheme. Goldman Sachs took $10 billion from the US taxpayers for alleged $2.2 billion losses in 2008. Loses they have never proved they incurred. Loses that probably never existed but were claimed in order to receive $billion in taxpayers money. If the SEC had pursued with criminal charges instead of letting Goldman Sachs go free the US people would have finally known how much, if any, did Goldman Sachs actually lose and how much of their tax dollars was used towards $billion bonuses. If the SEC would have done what they were suppose to do an audit of Goldman Sachs would have been ordered and the US people would find out just how corrupt Goldman Sachs really is. Not only did they commit fraud and steal $1 billion from its investors, Goldman Sachs committed fraud when they took $10 billion from the US taxpayers.

Goldman Sachs crimes are just the tip of the iceberg. Other banks of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank committed fraud when they too claimed unconfirmed $billion loses in order to steal from the US people $9 trillion. At a hearing in early May 2009, Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman was asked by Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) to account for the $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions ($30,000 for each man, woman and child in the U.S.) plus a $1 trillion expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet since September 2008. Her answer is that no one at the privately owned Fed knows or is keeping track of where the money has gone. Congressman Ron Paul put forward a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to audit the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009) not just because of the growing unrest over the Fed’s gigantic and reckless expansion of trillions of dollars in credit during the past eight months but because of the increasing awareness that the Fed itself is unable to account for where this money has gone.

In just one day the stimulus package that president Barack Obama wanted and the U.S. Congress completed in 2009 raised the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages and almost the same amount (just $1 trillion less than the $10,7 trillion national debt when Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 as the 44th president of the United States) as the total amount of national debt incurred by every president before Obama since George Washington (the first President of the United States under the Constitution). The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have since lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more.

In 1910 the US National debt was $2.6 billion. Today, July 2010 the US National debt is over $13 trillion. World War I increased the US Debt by $25 Billion. The Great Depression increased the Debt by $33 Billion and World War II increased the Debt by $222 Billion. The Clinton “peace time” years increased the Debt by $1 Trillion. When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That’s a difference of $4.97 trillion. The biggest increase under any president in U.S history but Obama is going to beat that in just 1 term in office. The National Debt stood at $10.7-trillion on the day Barack Obama took office. By 2013 it is estimated (based on the rate of reckless spending by the Obama administration) that the national debt will be $17 trillion - Obama would have served just 4 years in office.

Only the stimulus bill, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion has never been voted on and authorized by US lawmakers - as required by US law. Over $8 trillion has been illegally taken from the US taxpayers by the Federal Reserve. Only Congress can authorize any and all use of US tax dollars and yet the SEC has never investigated nor charged anyone from the Federal Reserve for $8 trillion illegally taken from the US taxpayer for lending programs and guarantees, all under the Fed and FDIC. Recipients’ names of the $8 trillion have never been disclosed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Today nothing has been done by the IRS or other independent audit unit to track where the $600 billion under President Bush and $787 billion under President Obama have gone. Today nothing has been done by the SEC or the US Congress to track, investigate or indict the Federal Reserve for $8 tillion in loses to the US taxpayers. This has gone beyond wasteful spending. This is political corruption on a scale never before seen in all of the United States history. To allow a private group of bankers to simply take $8 trillion from the US people and do nothing is criminal.

The AIDS epidemic was triggered by the WHO mass vaccination campaign which eradicated smallpox. The World Health Organization, which masterminded the 13-year campaign, is studying new scientific evidence that immunization with the smallpox vaccine Vaccinia awakened the unsuspected, dormant human immuno defence virus infection (HIV).

Some experts fear that in obliterating one disease, another disease was transformed from a minor endemic illness of the Third World into the current pandemic. Doctors now accept that Vaccinia can activate other viruses, as it was the main catalyst to the Aids epidemic.

An adviser to WHO who disclosed the findings, told The Times: ‘I thought it was just a coincidence until we studied the latest findings about the reactions which can be caused by Vaccinia. Now I believe the smallpox vaccine theory is the explanation to the explosion of Aids.’ ‘In obliterating one disease, another was transformed.’

Further evidence comes from the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington. While smallpox vaccine is no longer kept for public health purposes, new recruits to the American armed services are immunized as a precaution against possible biological warfare. Routine vaccination of a 19-year-old recruit was the trigger for stimulation of dormant HIV virus into Aids.

This discovery of how people with subclinical HIV infection are at risk of rapid development of Aids as a vaccine-induced disease was made by a medical team working with Dr Robert Redfield at Walter Reed. The recruit who developed Aids after vaccination had been healthy throughout high school. He was given multiple immunizations, followed by his first smallpox vaccination.

Two and a half weeks later he developed fever, headaches, neck stiffness and night sweats. Three weeks later he was admitted to Walter Reed suffering from meningitis and rapidly developed further symptoms of Aids and died after responding for a short time to treatment. There was no evidence that the recruit had been involved in any homosexual activity.

In describing their discovery in a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine a fortnight ago, the Walter Reed team gave a warning against a plan to use modified versions of the smallpox vaccine to combat other diseases in developing countries.

Other doctors who accept the connection between the anti-smallpox campaign and the AIDS epidemic now see answers to questions which had baffled them. How, for instance, the Aids organism, previously regarded by scientists as ‘weak, slow and vulnerable,’ began to behave like a type capable of creating a plague.

Many experts are reluctant to support the theory publicly because they believe it would be interpreted unfairly as criticism of WHO. In addition, they are concerned about the impact on other public health campaigns with vaccines, such as against diptheria and the continued use of Vaccinia in potential Aids research.

The coincidence between the anti-smallpox campaign and the rise of Aids was discussed privately last year by experts at WHO. The possibility was dismissed on grounds of unsatisfactory evidence. Advisors to the organization believed then that too much attention was being focussed on Aids by the media.

It is now felt that doubts would have risen sooner if public health authorities in Africa had more willingly reported infection statistics to WHO. Instead, some African countries continued to ignore the existence of Aids even after US doctors alerted the world when the infection spread to the United States.

However, as epidemiologists gleaned more information about Aids from reluctant Central African countries, clues began to emerge from the new findings when examined against the wealth of detail known about smallpox as recorded in the Final Report of the Global Commission for the Certification of Smallpox Eradication.

The smallpox vaccine would account for the position of each of the seven Central African states which top the league table of most-affected countries; why Brazil became the most afflicted Latin American country; and how Haiti became the route for the spread of Aids to the US. It also provides an explanation of how the infection was spread more evenly between males and females in Africa than in the West and why there is less sign of infection among five to 11-year-olds in Central Africa.

Although no detailed figures are available, WHO information indicated that the Aids league table of Central Africa matches the concentration of vaccinations. The greatest spread of HIV infection coincides with the most intense immunization programmes, with the number of people immunised being as follows: Zaire 36,878,000; Zambia 19,060,000; Tanzania 14,972,000; Uganda 11,616,000; Malawai 8,118,000; Ruanda 3,382,000 and Burundi 3,274,000.

Brazil, the only South American country covered in the eradication campaign, has the highest incidence of Aids in that region. About 14,000 Haitians, on United Nations secondment to Central Africa, were covered in the campaign. They began to return home at a time when Haiti had become a popular playground for San Francisco homosexuals.

Dr Robert Gello, who first identified the Aids virus in the US, told The Times: ‘The link between the WHO programme and the epidemic in Africa is an interesting and important hypothesis. ‘I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV.’

Aids was first officially reported from San Francisco in 1981 and it was about two years later before Central African states were implicated. It is now known that these states had become a reservoir of AIDS as long ago as the later 1970s.

Although detailed figures of AIDS cases in Africa are difficult to collect, the more than two million carriers, and 50,000 deaths, estimated by the World Health Organization are concentrated in the Countries where the smallpox immunization programme was most intensive. The 13-year eradication campaign ended in 1980.

“We are quite convinced, based on this study, that there is an association between cancer and chlorinated water.” - Medical College Of Wisconsin research team

The addition of chlorine to our drinking water began in the late 1800s and by 1904 was the standard in water treatment, and for the most part remains so today. We don’t use chlorine because it’s the safest or even the most effective means of disinfection, we use it because it is the cheapest. In spite of all our technological advances, we essentially still pour bleach in our water before we drink it. The long term effects of chlorinated drinking water have just recently being recognized. According to the U.S. Council Of Environmental Quality, “Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.”

Dr. Joseph Price wrote a highly controversial book in the late sixties titled Coronaries/Cholesterol/Chlorine and concluded that nothing can negate the incontrovertible fact, the basic cause of atherosclerosis and resulting entities such as heart attacks and stroke, is chlorine.” Dr. Price later headed up a study using chickens as test subjects, where two groups of several hundred birds were observed throughout their span to maturity. One group was given water with chlorine and the other without. The group raised with chlorine, when autopsied, showed some level of heart or circulatory disease in every specimen, the group without had no incidence of disease. The group with chlorine under winter conditions, showed outward signs of poor circulation, shivering, drooped feathers and a reduced level of activity. The group without chlorine grew faster, larger and displayed vigorous health. This study was well recepted in the poultry industry and is still used as a reference today. As a result, most large poultry producers use dechlorinated water. It would be a common sense conclusion that if regular chlorinated tap water is not good enough for the chickens, then it probably is not good enough for us humans!

There is a lot of well founded concern about chlorine. When chlorine is added to our water, it combines with other natural compounds to form Trihalomethanes (chlorination byproducts), or THMs. These chlorine byproducts trigger the production of free radicals in the body, causing cell damage, and are highly carcinogenic. “Although concentrations of these carcinogens (THMs) are low, it is precisely these low levels that cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States“. The Environmental Defense Fund

Simply stated chlorine is a pesticide, as defined by the U.S. EPA, who’s sole purpose is to kill living organisms. When we consume water containing chlorine, it kills some part of us, destroying cells and tissue inside our body. Dr. Robert Carlson, a highly respected University of Minnesota researcher who’s work is sponsored by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, sums it up by claiming , “the chlorine problem is similar to that of air pollution”, and adds that “chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times!”

Breast cancer, which now effects one in every eight women in North America, has recently been linked to the accumulation of chlorine compounds in the breast tissue. A study carried out in Hartford Connecticut, the first of it’s kind in North America, found that, “women with breast cancer have 50% to 60% higher levels of organochlorines (chlorination byproducts) in their breast tissue than women without breast cancer.”

One of the most shocking components to all of these studies is that up to 2/3s of our harmful exposure to chlorine is due to inhalation of steam and skin absorption while showering. A warm shower opens up the pores of the skin and allows for excelerated absorption of chlorine and other chemicals in water. The steam we inhale while showering can contain up to 50 times the level of chemicals than tap water due to the fact that chlorine and most other contaminants vaporize much faster and at a lower temperature than water. Inhalation is a much more harmful means of exposure since the chlorine gas (chloroform) we inhale goes directly into our blood stream. When we drink contaminated water the toxins are partially filtered out by our kidneys and digestive system. Chlorine vapors are known to be a strong irritant to the sensitive tissue and bronchial passages inside our lungs, it was used as a chemical weapon in World War II. The inhalation of chlorine is a suspected cause of asthma and bronchitis, especially in children… which has increased 300% in the last two decades. “Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of chlorine in the water.” Dr Lance Wallace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Chlorine in shower water also has a very negative cosmetic effect, robbing our skin and hair of moisture and elasticity, resulting in a less vibrant and youthful appearance. Anyone who has ever swam in a chlorinated pool can relate to the harsh effects that chlorine has on the skin and hair. What’s surprising is that we commonly find higher levels of chlorine in our tap water than is recommended safe for swimming pools.

Aside from all the health risks related to chlorine in our water, it is the primary cause of bad taste and odor in drinking water. The objectionable taste causes many people to turn to other less healthful beverages like soft drinks, tea or other sweetened drinks. A decreased intake of water, for any reason, can only result in a lower degree of health.

Walkerton cover up

Do you remember what happened in May of 2000 in Walkerton, a small farming community in southwestern Ontario? The government did a full inquiry into what caused seven people to die and 2300 to become sick after a breakdown in the equipment that added precise amounts of chlorine to kill life-threatening bacteria in Walkerton’s drinking water. The breakdown was not reported to residents until days later. Walkerton’s 4800 residents and hundreds of others from surrounding areas drank and used the water for days, unaware of the deadly effects the equipment failure would cause. The 700-page report from a public inquiry into this tragedy laid blame entirely on an E. coli outbreak, totally ignoring the evidence that too much choline was added manually to treat the water.

Water treatment workers didn’t bother to inform the public that the equipment that adds measured amounts of chlorine to the water had failed and for days they tried to hide the breakdown by adding the chlorine manually. Because they were not trained for such a breakdown they proceeded to add too much chlorine to the water. The proof of this is in the numerous complaints from town residents about the taste and odor of their drinking water at the same time as people began to become sick. The inquiry did make only one note of the residents complaint but used it to imply that the water treatment workers had testified that they did not add enough chlorine to the water which caused the E. coli outbreak. The inquiry picked and chose what they wanted to hear and report to fit their E. coli outbreak claim. In the report the resident of Walkerton’s chlorine complaint is noted in the final report as follows: they (water treatment workers) had received complaints from town residents from time to time that the water had too much chlorine, which affected its taste. The government inquiry and report totally ignored this fact and covered it up by claiming an E. coli bacteria outbreak from runoff. They excluded any and all mentioning of the fact that the town of Walkerton’s water treatment workers covered up the equipment failure by trying to manually add chlorine to the drinking water. Too much chlorine is evident by its taste and smell. Too much chlorine will cause the same effect as those that occurred in May 2000 in Walkerton Ontario Canada.

What is the effect of too much chlorine in the water? Depends on the concentration of the chlorine and how you are exposed. Very little amounts won’t do any major harm. Lengthy exposure to high concentration of chlorine can damage the airway and lungs quite severely. In all but very extreme cases, this would present as a nasty, productive chest cold, or pneumonia. A chest xray might show lesions as well. Extreme cases may cause blood to appear in the sputum — what you cough up. Ingestion excessive amount of chlorine symptoms often include vomiting, severe sore throat, nausea, trouble breathing, excessive drooling and slurred speech. Inhalation of chlorine vapor often includes nausea, a burning sensation in your nose and vomiting. If excessively high concentrations of chlorine gets into your eyes, they will become severely irritated, red and loss of eyesight can occur in extreme cases. The warnings of the hazards of water treatment chlorine ingestion and inhalation are the same as those found on your everyday household cleaner called bleach. As with bleach the exposure to concentrated levels of chlorine can cause scarring of the lungs which can lead to obstruction of the small airways and ultimately impaired lung function. Chronic exposure can lead to gradual worsening of symptoms over a period of time. Acute exposure can result in lung damage that may be asymptomatic for a short period of time but can then lead to rapid death due to severe obstructive breathing problems.

The group of people most affected by exposure to chlorine are children. In the Walkerton chlorine poisoning the first victims were children. Children up to 5 years old are at the greatest risk of chlorine poisoning (especially those between the ages of 1 and 2). On May 18, 2000 two children from Walkerton with bloody diarrhea were admitted to hospital in Owen Sound. On May 19, 2000, after speaking with a health unit staff, Walkerton PUC manager Stan Koebel began flushing and super chlorinating the system. As a result of Koebel super chlorinating the system there is a very rapid increase in the number of people affected and Walkerton’s hospital is flooded with patients and calls. On May 21, 2000 the first child is airlifted to London. On May 22, 2000 the MOE begins its own investigation of the water system at the request of the health unit. Stan Koebel provides daily operating sheets for Well 5 and Well 6, and instructs his brother Frank to alter the documents for Well 7. The MOE concluded that people died or became sick as a result of E. coli, totally ignoring the testimony of Koebel that he had super chlorinated the system.

How to protect yourself from deadly chlorine exposure?

Most major towns and cities today use the harmful chlorine to treat drinking water. The good news is that chlorine is one of the easiest substances to remove from our water. How can you remove the chlorine from the water? Install a Brita (or similar) filter that attaches to your faucet. There are also water pitchers with filters available that will purify the water. In-line filters, which sit under your kitchen sink, are also an effective way to remove chlorine. The least expensive method of filtering your drinking water is by boiling or even setting water out in a large glass container in the sun for a few hours. The UV rays from the sun kills all known and man made (A-H1N1) viruses, bacteria and pathogens contained in our water, on surfaces and in the air - including the bacteria that the government claimed killed 7 and made 2300 people in Walkerton sick.

The Trans-Afghan pipeline was the motive for the US planning for and carrying out an unprovoked, premeditated attack against Afghanistan. 9/11 was the US government’s means and opportunity. If the US government made plans to attack Afghanistan long before 9/11 then the US government could also have planned and carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001.

There is no country that is justified in invading any other country because of the World Trade Center attack of 9/11, but if there were, it would be the Afghans who would be more legally justified in carrying out combative attacks in the US than we would be in killing more innocent people in that nation.

Complete justice would require that the US government pay reparations for initiating these murderous hostilities against a nation that had no part in the attacks of September 11, 2001, nor attacked the US or any other NATO nation before or after 9/11. The US killed far more innocent people abroad than the 3,000 Americans who perished in New York City on 9/11, a day that will long live in infamy.

The problem we face in making sense of these horrible events is bias. We are all naturally biased in favor of “our” side: Americans in favor of their fellow citizens, and foreigners on their own side.

No party should be encouraged to invade the territory of the other. To do so, given that both are strong enough not to be brought to the bar of justice, would only mean the senseless killing of still others, neighbors of the attackers or defenders, whichever is the victim of subsequent hostilities. One and only one of these nefarious characters can indeed be punished for the murder of the others. It is clear that the US must be brought to justice. There are two reasons for this. The minor one: The US killed far more innocent people than did the Taliban or Al Qaeda (the US kept switching stories as to the reason for attacking the innocent people of Afghanistan. First it was Al Qaeda, then the Taliban for harboring an alleged criminal, then regime change, then it was bin Laden and now its about rebuilding Afghanistan - a nation that the US destroyed in the first place). Major reason: The US was the first to engage in murder - spilled innocent blood. The Taliban retaliated, they did not start the war. The Taliban retaliated in self-defense from the illegal attack against their country. The Taliban retaliates today and will continue to retaliate in self-defense of the US murdering of the people of Afghanistan. There is surely a place in hell reserved for those who begin such cowardly acts against a country and its people who justifiably and legally react in defending their country, their country’s people and themselves.

If the U.S. is justified in going into Afghanistan to hunt for Osama bin Laden, and other perpetrators and aiders and abetters of the crimes of 9/11 in New York City, then the Afghan people are even more righteous in doing precisely the same thing to the US.

Should the U.S. defend against any further, retaliatory attacks on US soil? Of course. But then, by that token, the Afghanis are entitled to defend their territory against our future and indeed future and even present invasions of them.

If, entirely unprovoked, the Mexican or Canadian armies started to sweep into the US, the U.S. military would be legally and morally justified in rolling them back, warding them off, killing them, and pursuing them to the death back to the evil lairs from which they sprang, so that they could never again launch such an attack. The US military should not have to wait for such an eventuality. Any country could act in this very aggressive manner as soon as there was a real threat, and a reasonable chance of this entirely unwarranted invasion taking place. But, there is absolutely no legal or moral justification for the US to preemptively bomb them, on the ground that, who knows, these nations might one day want to invade us.

The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one’s own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.

Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Defense of self or of others is an affirmative defense to criminal charges for an act of violence. It acts to provide complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of “extreme” danger. It is this affirmation that gives the Afghan people validity and justification to use deadly force against the US and NATO military forces who have illegally attacked and occupy their country. Every day the Afghan people face “extreme” danger, not from the Taliban or al Qaeda but from US military armed attacks. The Taliban and the Afghan people are the victims, not the US soldiers or the Canadian soldiers or any other NATO soldier.

Justification for self-defense cannot be applied to actions committed after a criminal act has taken place. A rape victim who, after the rape is committed and the rapist leaves, subsequently finds and shoots the rapist, is not entitled to claim self-defense. Most other victims of assaultive offenses are similarly not entitled to this defense if they act in revenge. The US was not legally entitled to claim self-defense for the attacks of September 11, 2001. The attack had already taken place and no new attacks were imminent.

Preemptive self-defense is not explicitly allowed under the U.N. Charter, which only exceptionally permits “self-defense” in the event of armed attack in its Article 51. This particular rationale also challenges the general principle of prohibition of the use of armed force established by Article 2(4) of the Charter. Simply put, it is illegal under the international law and therefore cannot be admissible.

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or “lying in wait” for the victim.

US Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 51 > § 1111
§ 1111. Murder

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Wilful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated attack of Afghanistan - First Degree Murder

Foreign political accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. These reports include the prediction, made in July of 2001, that “if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The Bush administration began its bombing strikes on the hapless, poverty-stricken country October 7, and ground attacks by US Special Forces began October 19.

It is not an accident that these revelations have only appeared overseas, rather than in the US. The ruling classes in these countries have their own economic and political interests to look after, which do not coincide, and in some cases directly clash, with the drive by the American ruling elite to seize control of oil-rich territory in Central Asia.

The US and Canadian media has conducted a systematic cover-up of the real economic and strategic interests that underlie the illegal war against Afghanistan, in order to sustain the pretense that the war emerged overnight, full-blown, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.

The US and Canadian television networks and major daily newspapers celebrated the rapid military defeat of the Taliban regime as an unexpected stroke of good fortune. They distracted public attention away from the conclusion that any serious observer would be compelled to draw, that the speedy victory of the US-backed forces reveals careful planning and preparation by the US military, which had to have begun well before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The official US myth is that “everything changed” on the day four airliners were hijacked and nearly 3,000 people were killed. The US military intervention in Afghanistan, by this account, was hastily improvised in less than a month. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a television interview November 18, actually claimed that only three weeks went into planning the military onslaught.

This is only one of countless lies that emanated from the Pentagon and White House about the war against Afghanistan. The truth is that the US intervention was planned in detail and carefully prepared long before the US commercial airline hijackings provided the pretext for setting it in motion. If history had skipped over September 11, and the events of that day had never happened, it is very likely that the United States would have gone to war in Afghanistan anyway, and on much the same schedule.

The United States ruling elite has been contemplating war in Central Asia for at least a decade.

US oil companies had acquired the rights to as much as 75 percent of the output of Kazakhstan new fields, and US government officials have hailed the Caspian and Central Asia as a potential alternative to dependence on oil from the unstable Persian Gulf region. US troops have followed in the wake of these contracts. US Special Forces began joint operations with Kazakhstan in 1997 and with Uzbekistan a year later, training for intervention especially in the mountainous southern region that includes Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan.

The major problem in exploiting the energy riches of Central Asia is how to get the oil and gas from the landlocked region to the world market. US officials have opposed using either the Russian pipeline system or the easiest available land route, across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Instead, over the past decade, US oil companies and government officials have explored a series of alternative pipeline routes—west through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean; east through Kazakhstan and China to the Pacific; and, most relevant to the current crisis, south from Turkmenistan across western Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean.

The Afghanistan pipeline route was pushed by the US-based Unocal oil company, which engaged in intensive negotiations with the Taliban regime. These talks, however, ended in disarray in 1998, as US relations with Afghanistan were inflamed by the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, for which Osama bin Laden was held responsible. In August 1998, the Clinton administration launched cruise missile attacks on alleged bin Laden training camps in eastern Afghanistan. The US government then demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden and imposed economic sanctions. The Trans-Afghan pipeline talks languished.

Throughout 1999 US pressure on Afghanistan increased. On February 3, 1999, Assistant Secretary of State Karl E. Inderfurth and State Department counterterrorism chief Michael Sheehan traveled to Islamabad, Pakistan, to meet the Taliban’s deputy foreign minister, Abdul Jalil. They warned him that the US would hold the government of Afghanistan responsible for any further terrorist acts by bin Laden.

According to a report in the Washington Post (October 3, 2001), the Clinton administration and Nawaz Sharif, then prime minister of Pakistan, agreed on a joint covert CIA operation to kill Osama bin Laden in 1999. The US would supply satellite intelligence, air support and financing, while Pakistan supplied the CIA Pushtun-speaking operatives who would penetrate southern Afghanistan and carry out the actual killing.

The Pakistani commando team was up and running and ready to strike by October 1999, the Post reported. One former official told the newspaper, “It was an enterprise. It was proceeding.” Clinton aides were delighted at the prospect of a successful assassination, with one declaring, “It was like Christmas.”

The attack was however aborted on October 12, 1999, when Sharif was overthrown in a military coup by General Pervez Musharraf, who halted the proposed CIA covert operation. The Clinton administration had to settle for a UN Security Council resolution that demanded the Taliban turn over bin Laden to “appropriate authorities,” but did not require he be handed over to the United States.

US subversion against the Taliban continued in 2000, according to an account published November 2 in the Wall Street Journal, written by Robert McFarlane, former national security adviser in the Reagan administration. McFarlane was hired by two wealthy Chicago commodity speculators, Joseph and James Ritchie, to assist them in recruiting and organizing an anti-Taliban terrorist cell among Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Their principal Afghan contact was Abdul Haq, the former CIA mujahedin leader who was executed by the Taliban after an unsuccessful attempt to spark a revolt in his home province.

McFarlane held meetings with Abdul Haq and other former CIA mujahedin in the course of the fall and winter of 2000. After the Bush administration took office, McFarlane parlayed his Republican connections into a series of meetings with State Department, Pentagon and even White House officials. All encouraged the preparation of an anti-Taliban military campaign.

During the summer of 2001, long before the United States launched airstrikes on the Taliban, James Ritchie traveled to Tajikistan with Abdul Haq and Peter Tomsen, who had been the US special envoy to the Afghan opposition during the first Bush administration. There they met with Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the CIA created Northern Alliance, with the goal of coordinating their Pakistan-based attacks with the only military force still offering resistance to the Taliban.

Finally, according to McFarlane, Abdul Haq “decided in mid-August to go ahead and launch operations in Afghanistan. He returned to Peshawar, Pakistan, to make final preparations.” In other words, this phase of the anti-Taliban war was under way well before September 11.

According to a front-page article in the Washington Post November 18, the CIA has been mounting paramilitary operations in southern Afghanistan since 1997. The article carries the byline of Bob Woodward, the Post writer made famous by Watergate, who is a frequent conduit for leaks from top-level military and intelligence officials.

Woodward provides details about the CIA’s role in the current military conflict, which includes the deployment of a secret paramilitary unit, the Special Activities Division. This force began combat on September 27, 2001 using both operatives on the ground and Predator surveillance drones equipped with missiles that could be launched by remote control.

The Special Activities Division, Woodward reports, “consists of teams of about half a dozen men who do not wear military uniforms. The division has about 150 fighters, pilots and specialists, and is made up mostly of hardened veterans who have retired from the US military.

“For .. 18 months, the CIA has been working with tribes and warlords in southern Afghanistan, and the division’s units have helped create a significant new network in the region of the Taliban’s greatest strength.”

This means that the US spy agency was engaged in illegal covert attacks against the Afghan regime—what under other circumstances the American government would call terrorism—from the spring of 2000, more than a year before the suicide hijackings that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

The British-based Jane’s International Security reported March 15, 2001 that the new American administration was working with India, Iran and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” India was supplying the Northern Alliance with military equipment, advisers and helicopter technicians, the magazine said, and both India and Russia were using bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for their operations.

The magazine added: “Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban. Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support.”

On May 23, the White House announced the appointment of Zalmay Khalilzad to a position on the National Security Council as special assistant to the president and senior director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues. Khalilzad is a former official in the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. After leaving the government, he went to work for Unocal.

The magazine IndiaReacts reported more details of the cooperative efforts of the US, India, Russia and Iran against the Taliban regime. “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime,” the magazine said.

At this stage of military planning, the US and Russia were to supply direct military assistance to the Northern Alliance, working through Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, in order to roll back the Taliban lines toward the city of Mazar-e-Sharif. An unnamed third country supplied the Northern Alliance with anti-tank rockets that had already been put to use against the Taliban in early June.

“Diplomats say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and later between Powell and Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh in Washington,” the magazine added. “Russia, Iran and India have also held a series of discussions and more diplomatic activity is expected.”

The original plan involved the use of military forces from both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, as well as Russia itself. IndiaReacts said that in early June 2001 Russian President Vladimir Putin told a meeting of the Confederation of Independent States, which includes many of the former Soviet republics, that military action against the Taliban was in the offing. One effect of September 11 was to create the conditions for the United States to intervene on its own, without any direct participation by the military forces of the Soviet successor states, and thus claim an undisputed American right to dictate the shape of a settlement in Afghanistan.

Two French authors write that the Bush administration was willing to accept the Taliban regime, despite the charges of sponsoring terrorism, if it cooperated with plans for the development of the oil resources of Central Asia.

Until August, they claim, the US government saw the Taliban “as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia.” It was only when the Taliban refused to accept US conditions that “this rationale of energy security changed into a military one.”

By way of corroboration, one should note the curious fact that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban regime. Such a designation would have made it impossible for an American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.

Talks between the Bush administration and the Taliban began in February 2001, shortly after Bush’s inauguration. A Taliban emissary arrived in Washington in March with presents for the new chief executive, including an expensive Afghan carpet. But the talks themselves were less than cordial. Brisard said, “At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs’.”

As long as the possibility of a pipeline deal remained, the White House stalled any further investigation into the activities of Osama bin Laden, Brisard and Dasquie write. They report that John O’Neill, deputy director of the FBI, resigned in July in protest over this obstruction. O’Neill told them in an interview, “the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” In a strange coincidence, O’Neill accepted a position as security chief of the World Trade Center after leaving the FBI, and was killed on September 11.

The US government wilfully, deliberately, maliciously, and premeditated every detail of the attack against Afghanistan and the innocent people of Afghanistan. Every detail including the attacks of September 11, 2001. 9/11 gave the US government motive and opportunity to launch their criminal attack against Afghanistan. The least likely explanation of September 11 is the official one: that dozens of Islamic fundamentalists, many with known ties to Osama bin Laden, were able to carry out a wide-ranging conspiracy on three continents, targeting the most prominent symbols of American power, without any US intelligence agency having the slightest idea of what they were doing.

Goldman Sachs & Co. has agreed to pay US$550 million to settle civil fraud charges that accused the Wall Street giant of misleading buyers of mortgage-related investments.

The settlement came on the same day that the Senate passed the stiffest restrictions on banks and Wall Street since the Great Depression.

The deal calls for Goldman to pay the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fines of $300 million. The rest of the money will go to compensate those who lost money on their investments. Investors get $0.25 on the dollar for Goldmans Sachs deliberate defrauding them of $1 billion. A slap on the wrist for Goldman Sachs who earned $3.3 billion in the first quarter of this year and $13.4 billion in 2009.

The settlement also requires Goldman to review how it sells complex financial mortgage investments. Goldman acknowledged in a court filing that its marketing materials for the deal at the centre of the charges omitted key information for buyers.

But Goldman did not admit legal wrongdoing.

The investments were crafted with input from a Goldman client who was betting on them to fail. The securities cost investors close to $1 billion while helping Goldman client Paulson & Co. capitalize on the housing bust.

The civil charges the SEC filed April 16 were the most significant legal action related to the mortgage meltdown that pushed the country into recession.

A very sweet deal indeed for Goldman Sachs as the SEC just gave Goldman Sachs a Get out of Jail Free Card deal. Not only did Goldman Sachs defraud investors of $1 billion but they also defrauded the American people of over $4.5 trillion. In 2008 Goldman Sachs converted to a bank holding company and took $10 billion from the U.S. taxpayers after declaring a 2008 fourth-quarter loss of $2.12 billion. Not bad of a deal. Claim to lose $2.2 billion and get $10 billion - nearly 5 times more than what was needed to balance the books. A $7.8 billion profit taken in, not from banking, but given freely by the US government. No wonder the US got into a financial crisis so quickly. Washington can’t do simple arithmetic.

It was Goldman Sachs subprime mortgage scheme that caused the mortgage meltdown and plunged the US into a recession. The damage they caused to the United States economy demanded a full investigation and civil trial. Before it was just Goldman Sachs being charged with fraud, Now that the SEC has allowed them to walk away screams of a conspiracy. The question now is why did the SEC make a deal with Goldman Sachs? Did the Obama government have anything to do with this grave injustice? The Democrats were after all the main beneficiary of Goldman Sachs’ campaign contributions and the Obama administration is stacked with former Goldman Sachs workers, advisors and CEOs.

HILLARY CLINTON, United States Secretary of State received $millions from Goldman Sachs when she was first lady and then Senator for New York State from 2001 to 2009. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid her husband, former United States President Bill Clinton, $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Goldman Sachs employees and PAC have given her $270,000 since 2000 — putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons. Although Barack Obama was the overwhelming favorite of Goldman Sachs to be president in 2008, for he could serve as their Trojan Horse, they were smart enough to hedge their bets, so to speak and back Hillary too. According to the Washington Examiner, Goldman Sachs in 2008 alone gave Hillary: $415,595.63 (inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well. Henry M. Paulson, Jr., then C.E.O. of Goldman Sachs and now former Treasury Secretary, Mayor Bloomberg, then Sen. Clinton and Sen. Schumer were all at the Goldman Sachs’ groundbreaking ceremony in Battery Park City on November 29, 2005, heralding the start of construction on a glimmering new 43-story tower that will serve as Goldman Sachs’s world headquarters come 2009. It was Hillary’s hubby Bill Clinton who chose ex-Goldman chief Robert Rubin to serve in his White House - served as the 70th United States Secretary of the Treasury during both the first and second Clinton administrations. Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, is engaged to the son of former Iowa congressman and convicted felon Edward Mezvinsky and former NBC reporter and congresswoman Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky, and Goldman Sachs Investment banker Marc Mezvinsky. Engaged to Chelsea Clinton in November 2009. Expected to marry on July 31, 2010. Purchased a 1,900-square-foot Fifth Avenue apartment for about $4 million in February 2008.

ELENA KAGAN, was appointed by Obama to serve as the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General, often called the 10th Supreme Court Justice, is the person who argues the U.S. government side of cases before the court. From 2005 to 2008, according to USA Today and other sources, Kagan served as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. Kagan received $10,000 from Goldman Sachs for her services in 2008, per federal disclosure forms. But since she was doing the same thing in 2005, 2006, and 2006, it would appear that she pulled in $40,000 from Goldman Sachs for what appears to be sitting in on one day sessions looking at big issues affecting the global economy.

HOWARD P. BERKOWITZ, serves as the Chairman, Board of Directors of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINAP). It is an important Washington think tank that gives input to Obama. It was established by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1985, according to Wikipedia. People affiliated with WINAP are a virtual Who’s Who of foreign policy including Henry Kissinger, Warren Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Richard Perle. Berkowitz also is Managing Director of BlackRock and sits on the Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs funded Hamilton Project (Brookings Institution). BlackRock is a global investmentment management firm with over $3.35 trillion under management.

WILLIAM C. DUDLEY, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York web site: “became the 10th president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on January 27, 2009. In that capacity, he serves as the vice chairman and a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the group responsible for formulating the nation’s monetary policy. Mr. Dudley was a partner and managing director at Goldman, Sachs & Company and was the firm’s chief U.S. economist for a decade. Earlier in his career at Goldman Sachs, he had a variety of roles including a stint when he was responsible for the firm’s foreign exchange forecasts. Prior to joining Goldman Sachs in 1986, he was a vice president at the former Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. Mr. Dudley was an economist at the Federal Reserve Board from 1981 to 1983.”

BLAIR W. EFFRON, is a money man. As a bundler for the 2008 Obama campaign, he raised more than $100,000. A “Mega Donor” to Obama in 2008, giving more than $28,500 though committees supporting Obama. His wife is also a major contributor, giving tens of thousands of dollars. Effron is a founding partner of Centerview Partners LLC. Their web site indicates he has executed over $400 billion in transactions. Effron is also on the Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs/Robert Rubin funded Hamilton Project.

Michael FROMAN, is deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, a position to be held jointly at the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. His responsibilities will include serving as the White House liaison to the G7, G8 and G20 summits of economic powers. Froman’s days with Obama go back to Harvard Law School. Froman appears to be the original link between Robert Rubin/Goldman Sachs and Obama. Froman received a bachelor’s degree in Public and International Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University in 1985, a doctorate in International Relations from Oxford University and a law degree from Harvard Law School where he was a classmate of Barack Obama, and also an associate of Obama’s on the Harvard Law Review. After Harvard, Froman had lost touch with Barack Obama until Froman heard of Obama’s Senate run. Froman volunteered at that point to help, began raising funds for the candidate, and introduced the candidate to Robert Rubin (who spent 26 years at Goldman Sachs eventually serving as a member of the Board, and Co-Chairman from 1990-1992. Rubin sparked controversy in 2001 when he contacted an acquaintance at the Treasury Department and asked if the department could convince bond-rating agencies not to downgrade the corporate debt of Enron, a debtor of Citigroup. Rubin wanted Enron creditors to lend money to the troubled company for a restructuring of its debt.), whom Froman had followed from the Treasury Department to Citigroup [Froman served as Rubin’s Chief of Staff] after the Clinton administration. Before moving to the Obama administration, Froman most recently was a managing director of Citigroup’s Citi Alternative Investments Institutional Clients Group, where he was head of infrastructure and sustainable development. He also served on 12-member advisory board of the Obama campaign’s transition team.

ANNE FUDGE, appointed by Obama to his budget deficit reduction committee. Fudge has been the public relations craftsman for some of America’s largest corporations. She sits, according to the Washington Post, as a Trustee of the Brookings Institution within which the Goldman Sachs/Robert Rubin funded Hamilton Project is embedded.

PHILLIP MURPHY, appointed by Obama to serve as his Ambassador to Germany. In the 1990’s, Murphy, who worked for decades with Goldman Sachs, served as GS’s head of its German offices. From 1997-1999, Murphy served as President of Goldman Sachs, Asia (during the Asian economic crisis). In all, according to Wikipedia, Murphy spent 23 years at Goldman Sachs including as a Senior Director of the firm in 2003 before retiring from GS in 2006.

MICHAEL D. GRANOFF, is another money man, and a “mega donor” to the Obama campaign. At least $28,500 according to Public Citizen. Granoff is President, CEO and Founder of Pomona Capital, a venture capital group. Granoff is also one of the 19 members of the Goldman Sachs-Robert Rubin funded Hamilton Project.

EDWARD MICHAEL LIDDY, was, until recently, the CEO of AIG which, during the Obama administration, was essentially taken over by the US government. He served in high positions at Goldman Sachs including : Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2003-2008). He was picked to the Goldman board by none other than Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs who was Bush’s Treasury Secretary who with Obama’s Treasury Secretary (Geithner) fashioned TARP. Barack Obama as President kept Mr. Liddy on while AIG was essentially in receivership under the Obama administration. How about this for a conflict of interest, as reported by Wikipedia: Liddy owns 27,129 shares in Goldman Sachs, at the time worth just over $3 million. In April 2009 members of Congress called for Liddy to sell these shares, as they create a conflict of interest due to Goldman Sachs’ receipt of bailout money. Liddy announced on May 21, 2009 that he would resign as AIG Chairman and CEO when replacements were found, suggesting that the two roles be split. On August 3, 2009, Robert Benmosche was named President and CEO of AIG.

DUNCAN NIEDERAUER, is CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. While a private entity, it is heavily regulated by the government and has close government ties. Niederauer, for instance, is a frequent speaker at Federal Reserve events and has an extensive Goldman Sachs background: He joined NYSE Group following a 22-year career at Goldman Sachs. He served as a Managing Director of Goldman Sachs since 1997 and was responsible for U.S. cash equities operations, including Institutional and Member Firm Client Group sales and client services for … both the New York Stock Exchange and NYSE Arca. Mr. Niederauer was previously a Partner at The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (United States) (”GS”) where he held many positions.

RICHARD PERRY, is an Obama supporter, adviser and fund raiser. He worked for Goldman Sachs and is on the Goldman Sachs’ funded, Hamilton Project’s Advisory Council. He is also CEO of Perry Capital, a hedge fund. Perry owns the full floor penthouse at 1 Sutton Place in NYC and according to the Washington Examiner is one of 15 ” fat cat Wall St. Banker” friends of Obama.

LAEL BRAINARD, is the United States Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the administration of President Barack Obama. She is an associate and protege of Mr. Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin. She has written numerous articles and bookson the joys of outsourcing work overseas. Brainard also worked at Brookings which has embedded within in Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin’s Hamilton Project.

JOHN THAIN, has served as a Henry Paulson aide whom Timothy Geithner has retained at Treasury as an adviser. Thain was President and Chief Operating Officer of Goldman Sachs from 1999 to 2003.

LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON, an economic adviser to President Obama. Tyson is a Hamilton Project Advisory Council Member. The Hamilton Project as noted above was founded by Bob Rubin and Goldman Sachs and has close links to Obama personally.

STEVEN SHAFRAN, served as an advisor/aide to Timothy Geithner especially on TARP. Shafran, like a lot of other TARP advisers, has extensive ties to Goldman as a executive for years.

GARY GENSLER, Chairman of Commodity Future’s Commission, spent 18 years at Goldman Sachs.

MARK PETERSON, chief of staff to Timothy Geithner, is a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs

DIANA FARRELL, Deputy Director to the National Economic Counsel, was formerly with Goldman Sachs.

With that many Goldman Sachs people installed in key places in the United States government it would be safe to say that Goldman Sachs controls Washington. It is no wonder that the SEC dropped fraud charges against Goldman Sachs. To many high ranking government officials in control of the White House.

Workers aboard the Transocean Discoverer Inspiration ready a “3 Ram Capping Stack” for lowering to the broken Deepwater Horizon well Sunday in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP finally choked off the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday _ 85 days and up to 184 million gallons after the crisis unfolded _ then began a tense 48 hours of watching to see whether the capped-off well would hold or blow a new leak.

To the relief of millions of people along the Gulf Coast, the big, billowing brown cloud of crude at the bottom of the sea disappeared from the underwater video feed for the first time since the disaster began in April, as BP closed the last of three openings in the 75-ton cap lowered onto the well earlier this week.

But the company stopped far short of declaring victory over the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history and one of the nation’s worst environmental disasters, a catastrophe that has killed wildlife and threatened the livelihoods of fishermen, restaurateurs, and oil industry workers from Texas to Florida.

Now begins a waiting period during which engineers will monitor pressure gauges and watch for signs of leaks elsewhere in the well. The biggest risk: Pressure from the oil gushing out of the ground could fracture the well and make the leak even worse.

“For the people living on the Gulf, I’m certainly not going to guess their emotions,” BP vice president Kent Wells said. “I hope they’re encouraged there’s no oil going into the Gulf of Mexico. But we have to be careful. Depending on what the test shows us, we may need to open this well back up.”

The news elicited joy mixed with skepticism from wary Gulf Coast residents following months of false starts, setbacks and failed attempts. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley’s face lit up when he heard the oil flow had stopped.

“That’s great. I think a lot of prayers were answered today,” he said.

President Barack Obama called it a positive sign, but cautioned: “We’re still in the testing phase.”

The stoppage came 85 days, 16 hours and 25 minutes after the first report April 20 of an explosion on the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon oil rig that killed 11 workers. Somewhere between 94 million and 184 million gallons spilled into the Gulf, according to government estimates.

“Finally!” said Renee Brown, a school guidance counselor visiting Pensacola Beach, Fla., from London, Ky. “Honestly, I’m surprised that they haven’t been able to do something sooner, though.”

“I don’t believe that. That’s a lie. It’s a (expletive) lie,” said Stephon LaFrance, an oysterman in Louisiana’s oil-stained Plaquemines Parish who has been out of work for weeks. “I don’t believe they stopped that leak. BP’s trying to make their self look good.”

Wells said the oil stopped flowing into the water at 2:25 p.m. CDT after engineers gradually dialed down the amount of crude escaping through the last of three valves in the cap, an 18-foot-high metal stack of pipes and valves.

On the video feed, the violently churning cloud of oil and gas coming out of a narrow tube thinned, and tapered off. Suddenly, there were a few puffs of oil, surrounded by cloudy dispersant BP was pumping on top. Then, there was nothing.

“I am very pleased that there’s no oil going into the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, I’m really excited there’s no oil going into the Gulf of Mexico,” Wells said.

The cap is designed to stop oil from flowing into the sea, either by bottling it up inside the well, or capturing it and piping it to ships on the surface. Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the Obama administration’s point man on the disaster, said it is not yet clear which way the cap will be used. The answer could depend on the pressure readings over the next two days.

Even if it works, the cap is not a permanent fix, and not the end of the crisis by any means. BP is drilling two relief wells so it can pump mud and cement into the leaking well in hopes of plugging it permanently by mid-August. After that, the Gulf Coast faces a monumental cleanup and restoration that could take years.

BP stock, which has mainly tumbled since the spill began, closed nearly 8 percent higher on the New York Stock Exchange after the news.

Steve Shepard, Gulf Coast chairman of the Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club, said he was still skeptical about the news. “I think it’s a little premature to say it’s definitely over. They’ve gotten our hopes up so many times before that in my mind I don’t think it’s going to be over until Christmas.”

Nine-year-old Lena Durden threw up her hands in jubilation when her mother told her the oil was stopped.

“God, that’s wonderful,” said Yvonne Durden, a Mobile-area native who now lives in Seattle and brought her daughter to the coast for a visit. “When came here so she could swim in the water and see it in case it’s not here next time.”

Randall Luthi, president of the Washington-based National Ocean Industries Association, a national trade group representing the offshore oil industry, said: “This is by far the best news we’ve heard in 86 days. You can bet that industry officials and their families are taking a big sigh here.”

“The product was new and complex, but the deception and conflicts are old and simple,” Robert Khuzami, the director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, said in a statement on April 16, 2010 after SEC charged Goldman Sachs with fraud . “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.”

The SEC ’s charges against Goldman Sachs (GS) marks the first time financial regulators have gone after a Wall Street firm that sought to exploit both investors and the housing crash. And it’s a big deal.

In essence, the SEC has charged Goldman with hawking collateral debt obligations, a type of credit derivative, to investors without letting them know that the CDOs were designed by a guy who fully expected them to fail. And not just any guy — Goldman let hedge fund kingpin John Paulson pick which subprime mortgage bonds he wanted the CDOs to contain. Why? So he could short the hell out of them on the open market.

More broadly, the complaint highlights the tentacle-like conflicts of interest that engulf Wall Street. Those conflicts themselves dramatically highlight how investment banks reap huge rewards by playing investors off each other.

Paulson, and Goldman, both made multi $billion profits up on the collapse in the housing market. The fund manager made $20 billion in 2007 and 2008, earning plaudits for what some called “The Greatest Trade Ever.”

“This litigation exposes the cynical, savage culture of Wall Street that allows a dealer to commit fraud on one customer to benefit another,” said independent banking analyst Chris Whalen in a note to clients.

The SEC says Paulson’s firm in 2007 paid Goldman to develop a financial instrument, which the bank dubbed “Abacus,” that would allow him to take short positions against various mortgage securities. Knowing which ones to short was easy because Paulson had selected the investments himself expressly because they were likely to lose value.

Meanwhile, Goldman VP Fabrice Tourre was pushing Abacus on pension funds, banks and other investors, partly by indicating that the CDO would be handled by a prominent funds management firm, ACA. None of the company’s marketing materials for the product disclosed Paulson’s involvement in the deal, according to the SEC. Tourre also misled investors into believing that Paulson had taken a “long” position on Abacus by investing $200 million. He hadn’t.

The scandal here is not that Goldman was short the subprime market at the same time as marketing the Abacus deal. The scandal is that Goldman sold the contents of Abacus as being handpicked by managers at ACA when in fact it was handpicked by Paulson; and that it told Abacus that Paulson had a long position in the deal when in fact he was entirely short.

The CDO subsequently bombed, and the investors lost big. Pauslon paid Goldman roughly $15 million to set up Abacus, closing the deal in April 2007. By January of the next year, the value of virtually the entire portfolio of securities had plunged. Investors lost more than $1 billion; Paulson made $1 billion.

Goldman’s defense – “We certainly did not know the future of the residential housing market in the first half of 2007 anymore than we can predict the future of markets today. We also did not know whether the value of the instruments we sold would increase or decrease.”

Maybe so, but Goldman Sachs knew the bonds included were being hand selected by a short seller with a lot to gain by betting against the bonds.

One question. Why didn’t the SEC also charge John Paulson, along with Goldman and Tourre? The facts show that Goldman Sachs emerged from the housing bust financially unscathed and John Paulson made $1 billion in proceeds from this crime.

Were other banking giants doing the same thing? It’ll be interesting to see if Goldman is the only firm charged by the SEC or whether this is the first in a wider campaign targeting conflicts of interest on the Street.

Now that their crime has be exposed should Goldman Sachs be allowed to make a deal with the SEC to get them off the hook for illegally defrauding its investors of $1 billion when the actual damage caused by the illegal actions of Goldman Sachs cost US taxpayers $trillions? As stated in the previous nbGazette report Goldman Sachs is trying to secure a settlement with the SEC whereby they would have to pay up to $1 billion in damages to affected investors in exchange for the SEC dropping civil charges of fraud. If the SEC is stupid enough to make such a deal who will be held accountable to the American people? Who will stand trial for defrauding the US taxpayers of $trillion in Wall Street bank bailouts? The Goldman Sachs fraud scheme didn’t just cause its CDO investors to lose $1 billion it also caused the US taxpayers to lose $trillions. Goldman Sachs’ securities fraud is the root cause and domino effect of the US financial crisis. Goldman Sachs was the hand that pushed over the first domino by devising a scheme that permitted a client (John Paulson) that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while falsely telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party. The US government and financial experts has already determined that the subprime mortgage crisis is what started the US and then Global Financial Crisis. So if the SEC is charging Goldman Sachs with fraud and their claim is based on Goldman Sachs and John Paulson’s mortgage market scheme then is it not safe to say that Goldman Sachs’ illegal activity is the root cause of the US and Global financial crisis? The SEC has charged Goldman Sachs with fraud in relation to subprime mortgages. The SEC filing on April 16, 2010 says that “the Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman Sachs & Co. and one of its vice-presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.”

After considering all the evidence the SEC should not allow Goldman Sachs to simply walk away from their crimes with a slap on the wrist fine of $1 billion. The SEC should proceed with civil trial against Goldman Sachs and let a jury decide for the American people whether Goldman Sachs is guilty or innocent. If found guilty by a jury, the CEO’s involved (present and past) must pay for their crime and receive lengthly jail time and the assets of Goldman Sachs (all $880.528 billion) should be liquidated and the funds given back to the American taxpayers. This will send a clear message to all bankers and financial brokers and the US will never have another financial crisis again.

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission held discussions recently with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) about a possible settlement to resolve the fraud charges against the firm and other probes of its mortgage department.

Goldman is looking to settle eagerly, as the firm would like to end the paid publicity it has seen since the SEC filed charges in April related to a collateralized debt obligation.

If Goldman is able to negotiate its way out of its various charges it could go a long way to ease the concerns of investors, and would allow the Wall Street bank to avoid making public information that could be used in civil court. Shareholders have been pushing Goldman to take this course of action.

The government seeks to uncover any evidence of wrongdoing by the firm that may be used against Goldman in existing cases, while the bank is looking for a Get Out of Jail Free card from the SEC in order to limit its legal liability.

Goldman is holding firm about ending the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) without facing a civil-fraud charge, as Goldman cannot afford to end the FCIC investigation with admitting nor denying fraud.

Analysts have anticipated that Goldman will end up paying a fine of more than $1 billion (no doubt using the $12 billion they received from US taxpayers) to avoid going to court and face civil fraud charges.

Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. A number of high-ranking government officials in recent years have spent part of their careers at Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs’ donations to both the Democrats and Republican parties of the United States government.

List of the top donors to Barack Obama in the 2008 election cycle. The ones in bold have been subpoenaed to appear and give testimony at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in Washington DC.

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc] $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

(L-R) Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; James Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Company; John Mack, chairman of the Board of Morgan Stanley; Brian Moynihan, CEO and president of the Bank of America Corporation participate in a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearing on Capitol Hill on January 13, 2010 in Washington, DC. The commission is heard testimony on the root causes of the recent financial crisis.

On April 16 2010, Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs, was formally charged with securities fraud in a civil suit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The criminal charges laid by the SEC claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

Goldman Sachs defrauded investors by failing to disclose a conflict of interest on mortgage investments it sold as the housing market went sour, according to the criminal charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Goldman allegedly failed to disclose to investors that it was betting against subprime mortgage investments it pushed on clients. Essentially, according to the complaint, Goldman pushed a product designed to fail.

How did Goldman do that?

In 2007 Goldman Sachs created what is known as a “synthetic collateralized debt obligation,” or CDO, called “ABACUS 2007-AC1”. It was one of many.

Goldman invited its clients to invest in ABACUS 2007-AC1, explaining in marketing materials that the $2 billion CDO was based on 90 bonds derived from subprime mortgage loans made over the previous 18 months.

If people whose mortgages make up the bonds in ABACUS 2007-AC1 keep up with their house payments, then folks who invest in ABACUS 2007-AC1 — typically banks, insurance companies, and pension fund managers — will make money.

The financial industry jargon for those investors’ position is that they are “long.” They’re betting that the underlying borrowers won’t default.

Goldman told investors the securities in Abacus had been chosen by ACA Management LLC, a firm managing 22 CDOs with assets of $15.7 billion.

The Securities and Exchange Commission says this is where Goldman defrauded their investors. According to the SEC’s charge, the underlying portfolio was put together by John Paulson, a hedge fund manager who hand-picked the worst possible assets in hopes that they would default. He rightly anticipated that the housing market would soon crash, and that people put into mortgages they couldn’t afford would default when they lost the ability to simply refinance based on rising home values.

But John Paulson wasn’t simply gambling. He analyzed the underlying criteria of recent mortgage-backed bonds before making his picks.

“Paulson’s selection criteria [for Abacus] favored [residential mortgage-backed securities] that included a high percentage of adjustable rate mortgages, relatively low borrower FICO scores, and a high concentration of mortgages in states like Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada that had recently experienced high rates of home price appreciation,” the complaint says. “Paulson informed [Goldman Sachs] that it wanted the reference portfolio for the contemplated transaction to include the RMBS it identified or bonds with similar characteristics.”

John Paulson picked those lousy underlying assets for the Abacus CDO so that he could bet against them by purchasing “credit default swaps” — insurance policies that pay out if borrowers default.

Paulson’s position is called “short.” He set up a CDO that would be perfect to short (short is both a noun and a verb).

Goldman Sachs also shorted the CDO, according to the SEC.

“[Goldman Sachs] arranged a transaction at Paulson’s request in which Paulson heavily influenced the selection of the portfolio to suit its economic interests,” the SEC’s complaint says, “but failed to disclose to investors, as part of the description of the portfolio selection process contained in the marketing materials used to promote the transaction, Paulson’s role in the portfolio selection process or its adverse economic interests.”

Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman executive who helped set up Abacus, emailed a friend in January 2007:

“More and more leverage in the system, The whole building is about to collapse anytime now…Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab…standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstruosities!!!”

Hedge fund manager John Paulson paid Goldman Sachs $15 million in April 2007 to set up and market the Abacus CDO, according to the SEC.

Within a year, 99 percent of the underlying assets in Abacus had been downgraded by ratings agencies, costing investors $1 billion and earning Paulson $1 billion. The amount of investors losses were exactly the amount of Paulson’s gains.

How does this affect the rest of us? The New York Times explains that, the “creation and sale of synthetic C.D.O.’s helped make the financial crisis worse than it might otherwise have been, effectively multiplying losses by providing more securities to bet against.”

“When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing,” said a structured finance expert, “you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

Goldman denies the allegations: “The SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”

Goldman Sachs’s securities fraud charges are just the beginning. The SEC has other Wall Street banks to investigate and indict in what is now being touted as the worse securities fraud and insider trading case in US history.

Janet Tavakoli, a derivatives expert deduced that the scandal is “related to activity of aiding and abetting fraudulent mortgage lending, creating phony securitizations and mis-selling them. Massive damage came from the massive risk of massively leveraging securities that could only go down in value, because [banks] created those bad securities. It was malicious mischief.”

The following US House of Representative hearing in 1998 proves a US intent to launch an illegal war of aggression against Afghanistan years before 9/11. A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

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).

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;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The US government immediately planned for, prepared for, initiated and waged a war of aggression against Afghanistan in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, after the following HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS hearing. NATO member countries are also guilty of this crime as they are willing participants and co-conspirators in this war of aggression against the sovereign state of Afghanistan and its people.

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, 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.

“If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.” ~ George HW Bush

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.

In this Aug. 20, 2009 photo the Lockerbie bomber Abdel al-Megrahi left, and son of the Libyan leader Seif al-Islam Gadhafi gesture on his arrival in Tripoli, Libya.

In August 2009 the British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Former Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after negotiations between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: “This is the strongest evidence yet that the British government has been involved for a long time in talks over al-Megrahi in which commercial considerations have been central to their thinking.”

Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.

In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May 2009, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: “The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn’t mention Mr Megrahi.

“At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.

“People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement].”

His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”

Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the 1988 bombing, said: “It’s always been about business.”

BP denied that political factors were involved in the deal’s ratification or that it had stalled during negotiations over the prisoner transfer talks even though BP plans to begin offshore drilling in Libya in the coming months. BP touted the 2007 oil agreement as “the single biggest exploration financial commitment an international energy company has ever made to Libya,” according to the company’s website. The troubled oil giant stands to earn as much as $20 billion from the deal.

President Bush with then Secretary of Treasury (July 3, 2006 – January 20, 2009) and former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry “Hank” Paulson. Each of Paulson’s three immediate predecessors as CEO of Goldman Sachs — Jon Corzine, Stephen Friedman, and Robert Rubin — left Goldman Sachs to serve in government: Corzine as a U.S. Senator (later Governor of New Jersey), Friedman as chairman of the National Economic Council (later chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) under President George W. Bush, and Rubin as both chairman of the NEC and later Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton. Through unprecedented intervention by the U.S. Treasury, Paulson led government efforts which he said were aimed at avoiding a severe economic slowdown. On September 19, 2008, Paulson called for the U.S. government to use hundreds of billions of Treasury dollars to help financial firms clean up nonperforming mortgages threatening the liquidity of those firms. With the passage of H.R. 1424, former Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson became the manager of the United States Emergency Economic Stabilization fund

The government on Friday April 16, 2010 accused Wall Street’s most powerful firm of fraud, saying Goldman Sachs & Co. (bank received $12.9 billion of taxpayer bailout funds in 2009) sold mortgage investments without telling the buyers that the securities were crafted with input from a client who was betting on them to fail.

And fail they did. The securities cost investors close to $1 billion while helping Goldman client Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, capitalize on the housing bust. The Goldman executive accused of shepherding the deal allegedly boasted about the “exotic trades” he created “without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!”

The civil charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission are the government’s most significant legal action related to the mortgage meltdown that ignited the financial crisis and helped plunge the country into recession.

The SEC said Paulson & Co (no relation to Henry Paulson) paid Goldman roughly $15 million in 2007 to devise an investment tied to mortgage-related securities that the hedge fund viewed as likely to decline in value. Separately, Paulson & Co took out a form of insurance that allowed it to make a huge profit when those securities’ value plunged.

The fraud allegations focus on how Goldman sold the securities. Goldman told investors that a third party, ACA Management LLC, had selected the pools of subprime mortgages it used to create the securities. The securities are known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations.

The SEC alleges that Goldman misled investors by failing to disclose that Paulson & Co. also played a role in selecting the mortgage pools and stood to profit from their decline in value. Two European banks that bought the securities lost nearly $1 billion, the SEC said.

“Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party,” SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami said in a statement.

Paulson & Co. is run by John Paulson, who reaped billions by betting against subprime mortgage securities. John Paulson was among the first on Wall Street to bet heavily against subprime mortgages. His firm earned more than $15 billion in 2007, and he pocketed $3.7 billion. He has since earned billions more, largely by betting against bank stocks and then buying them back after their shares plunged.

Less than a month after the SEC filed fraud charges against Goldman Sachs lawyers for Goldman Sachs Group Inc. were served a subpoena to testify or provide information in a closely watched case of illegal insider trading allegations, according to a court document made public on Monday May 3, 2010.

The subpoena to Goldman Sachs & Co and Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing LP on April 15, requests “all trading records and monthly account statements associated with account number UF703881” of Michael Kimelman, a former trader at Quad Capital LLC and Incremental Capital.

Mr. Kimelman is charged in a case running parallel with the one U.S. prosecutors are pursuing against Galleon hedge-fund founder Raj Rajaratnam.

U.S. prosecutors described the probe as the biggest hedge fund insider trading case ever in the United States. Mr. Kimelman was arrested and charged last Nov. 5 along with Zvi Goffer, a onetime Galleon employee who later started the Incremental Capital trading firm, and five other traders or lawyers. They have all pleaded not guilty to an indictment and are free on bail.

The subpoena, signed by presiding Manhattan federal court Judge Richard Sullivan, was submitted by Mr. Kimelman’s lawyer Morris Fodeman. It asks representatives of the investment bank’s legal department to appear before the judge at a hearing in the case on May 14. No other details were provided, other than that Goldman acknowledged receipt on April 19.

U.S. prosecutors have accused Mr. Rajaratnam of obtaining confidential information on Goldman, but have not formally included those in the charges, according to court documents. Prosecutors said Mr. Rajaratnam sought information on Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway’s purchase of preferred shares in Goldman before the transaction became public on Sept. 23, 2008.

They also said he conspired to obtain confidential information about the quarterly earnings of Goldman before public announcements on or about June 17, 2008, and Dec. 16, 2008.

The Sri Lankan-born Mr. Rajaratnam, a U.S. citizen, has pleaded not guilty and is free on bail. His co-defendant, former New Castle Funds LLC trader Danielle Chiesi, has also pleaded not guilty. Their trial is scheduled to start on Oct. 25 before Judge Richard Holwell.

Eleven defendants have pleaded guilty out of 21 charged. Eight people, some of them Mr. Rajaratnam’s former friends and business associates or onetime Galleon employees, have signed cooperation agreements with prosecutors.

Goldman Sachs and other banks of the privately owned Federal Reserve Banks sole beneficiary of the government multi $trillion bailouts

Financial companies that received multibillion-dollar payments owed by A.I.G. include Goldman Sachs ($12.9 billion), Merrill Lynch ($6.8 billion), Bank of America ($5.2 billion), Citigroup ($2.3 billion) and Wachovia ($1.5 billion).

Big foreign banks also received large sums from the rescue, including Société Générale of France and Deutsche Bank of Germany, which each received nearly $12 billion; Barclays of Britain ($8.5 billion); and UBS of Switzerland ($5 billion).

All are banks or shareholders of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? Rothschild Bank of London, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York.

Goldman Sachs conflict of interest

It has been pointed out that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan to use hundreds of billions of Treasury dollars to help financial firms clean up nonperforming mortgages threatening the liquidity of those firms could potentially have some conflicts of interest, since Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that benefited greatly from the plan. Economic columnists called for more scrutiny of his actions. Questions remain about Paulson’s direct financial interest in Goldman, even though he had sold his entire stake in the firm prior to becoming Treasury Secretary, pursuant to ethics law. The Goldman Sachs benefit from the government bailout was recently estimated as USD 12.9 billion and Goldman Sachs was the largest recipient of the public funds from AIG. Creating the collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s) forming the basis of the current crisis was an active part of Goldman Sach’s business during Paulson’s tenure as CEO. Opponents argued that Paulson remained a Wall Street insider who maintained close friendships with higher-ups of the bailout beneficiaries. The Paulson proposed bill gave the United States Treasury Secretary (Henry Paulson) unprecedented powers over the economic and financial life of the U.S. Section 8 of Paulson’s original plan stated: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” Some time after the passage of a rewritten bill, the press reported that the Treasury was now proposing to use these funds ($700 billion) in ways other than what was originally intended in the bill.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson about the Bank of the United States sums up the Fed.

“[The] Bank of the United States… is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution… An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries.”

Author Eustace Mullins in his 1983 book Secrets of the Federal Reserve stated:

“… The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today.” (Mullins, p. 47-48).

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” - Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

The world court in 2004 branded Israel’s vast concrete and steel barrier through the West Bank a political not a security measure, and a de facto land grab. The judges told Israel to tear it down and compensate the victims. The International Court of Justice at The Hague said all signatories to the Geneva convention, including Britain and the US, are obliged to ensure Israel upholds the ruling. “We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” ~ June 12, 1987 United States President Ronald Reagan to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to destroy the Berlin Wall. Isn’t it time to tear down another wall?

The Palestinian people pose no threat to Israel, its neighbors, or any other nations, including the US. Imposing a blockade against the Palestinian people violates the UN Charter and other international and US law. It constitutes an illegal act of aggression that under the Nuremberg Charter is the “supreme international crime” above all others. It makes Netanyahu, every supportive Israeli government member, and any government of other participating nations criminally liable.

Because the blockade of Gaza itself violates international law, Israel commits an illegal act of war every time it attacks a humanitarian aid flotilla.

Israel has authority to halt arms imports into the Gaza Strip. But it also owes a general duty of protection to civilians under its control, and has specific duties to allow them access to adequate food and medical supplies, and to maintain public health standards - duties it has deliberately violated in imposing the siege on Gaza. Currently 77.2 percent of Gaza Palestinians either face or are vulnerable to hunger …

Moreover, collective punishment is specifically barred under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that the objective of the blockade is to weaken the Gaza economy and undermine support for Hamas. That is a political, not a military, objective, and it is impermissible under international law to target innocent civilians to achieve nonmilitary goals.

Actions taken to enforce an illegal siege cannot themselves be legal. The blockade violates international law, and Israel has no military justification for boarding any vessel sailing in international water - it constituted an “illegal act of war.”

Since 1967 occupation the Gaza sea is being administered by Israel’s navy, as the occupying power. Israel is under the obligation to administer the Gaza seige according to international law including international humanitarian law (IHL).

International Law of the Sea

Article 14(1) of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1958, to which Israel is a party, states that “ships of all states, whether coastal or not, shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea”. Also, “passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. Such passage shall take place in conformity with these articles, and with other rules of international law”. The convention is international customary law.

Right of Humanitarian Assistance

The Palestinians have the right to demand humanitarian assistance (article 30 IVGC, article 50 Hague Regulations). The international community has a corresponding right to provide humanitarian assistance (erga omnes) through all existing border crossings including the Gaza sea.

The occupying power is under the obligation to provide humanitarian aid to the occupied people (article 55 IVGC), and allow others to provide it in case it does not or cannot do so. It must facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid even across a blockade line (article 59 IGVC, and article 70 IAP which reflects international customary law, rule 55 ICRC Study of 2005). All states are under the obligation to allow free access to such aid and guarantee its safety.

The ICRC Commentary on article 70 states that the intention of “rapid and unimpeded passage” of relief consignments, equipment and personnel is to avoid any harassment, to reduce formalities as far as possible and dispense with any that are superfluous. …Thus the obligation imposed here is relative: the passage of the relief consignments should be as rapid as allowed by the circumstances. … such a Party must do all it can to facilitate the passage of relief consignments.”

International law expert Professor Francis Boyle is very outspoken on this topic as well as on others of equal importance. He defines blockades under international and US law as:

— “belligerent measures taken by a nation (to) prevent passage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country. Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of war because of the belligerent use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare.”

The United States approved these Declarations, so they’re binding US law as well “as part of general international law and customary international law.” Past US presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy, called blockades acts of war. So has the US Supreme Court.

All treaties to which America is a signatory, including the UN Charter, are binding US law. Its Chapter VII authorizes only the Security Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of aggression (and, if necessary, take military or other actions to) restore international peace and stability.” It permits a nation to use force (including blockades) only under two conditions: when authorized by the Security Council or under Article 51 allowing the “right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member….until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.”

Every week around 10,000 people die of cancer. Government figures show the death rate for cancer deaths has not changed in the last 10 years. Chemo and radiation only save around 10% of the people treated. So this shows our doctors don’t have much to work with. Even with traditional treatments like Chemo and radiation more people die than are cured. That means as many as 90% of the people who have been diagnosed with having cancer will die. That statistic alone should be enough to warrant an immediate change in how cancer is treated. If there is only a 10% success rate then traditional treatment must be avoided and treatment with a much higher percentage of success must be used.

Many alternative cancer treatments exists today. Alternative treatments that are natural and thus safer than the traditional cancer treatments and more successful than the traditional treatments. One such treatment is available freely and has been used for centuries. That treatment is dandelion. The dandelion’s root has been used in China for certain kinds of cancers for centuries.

For many people, dandelions are simply a yard pest. However, dandelions are very rich in nutrients. The roots and leaves of the plant have been used as medicines for breast maladies, bloating, digestive disorders, aching joints, fevers, and skin disorders. The leaves of the plant are very rich in vitamins, including A, C, D, and B-complex. They also have high levels of minerals like iron, magnesium, zinc potassium, manganese, copper, choline, calcium, boron, and silicon. The most active ingredient in dandelions, eudesmanolide and germacranolide, are found only in dandelions.

The leaves of the plant are very nutrient-rich, and so they make good supplements for women who are pregnant or elderly women. Dandelion can also be used as a gentle diuretic and can decrease serum cholesterol in some people. The root can be an appetite stimulant and it can treat some digestive disorders. Today, many herbal doctors use dandelion to purify the liver and gallbladder of toxins. Research indicates that dandelions can treat pneumonia, bronchitis, and other respiratory disorders. Dandelion can improve general health, and is beneficial to the kidneys, pancreas, spleen, stomach, and other organs. Dandelion is also recommended for the treatment of tinnitus, tonsillitis, osteoporosis, abscesses, anemia, boils, mammary tumors, cirrhosis, water retention, hepatitis, jaundice, rheumatism, and warts. Dandelion may also be effective in eliminating or averting age spots. Some people also use toasted dandelion root as a healthier alternative to coffee.

Dandelion has been successful in treating prostate, colon, breast, liver and best of all lung cancer. In a recent clinical study a controlled group of people with lung cancer were administered dandelion root as a treatment for their lung cancer and all who participated in the study have been cured.

The medical professionals all know that the immune system controls the cancer cells in your body. As long as the immune system is healthy, you don’t usually have a cancer problem. When your immune system gets run down, it loses control of the cancer cells, and they start eating live cells and this is what they call cancer. Powder made from dandelion root has something in it that builds up the blood and the immune system.

When the immune system is built up so far, it gets back control of cancer cells, and they do an about face and start cleaning up the mess they’ve made. This is why you must have a fair appetite because your body must build itself up and be healthy if your immune system is going to be strong. This will not work for people that have lost their appetite or are on CHEMO. Doctors try to blast the cancer out of your body with Chemo or radiation. By doing so, it destroys your immune system and appetite. These are the most important things your body needs to beat cancer. Operations also knock the immune system haywire. This is why so many people that have operations for cancer find that a short time later it has spread somewhere else.

Many of the worst diseases that have plagued the world have been cured quite easily. Women use to dread the goiter more than cancer. A little iodine in the diet cured that. For hundred of years the most dreaded diseases was leprosy and lockjaw. A doctor found he could produce penicillin from moldy bread and could cure them and many more things. How long has moldy bread been around? I’m sure scientists will find many uses for the powder made from the root of the dandelions besides cancer. They have already found it builds up the blood so you heal much faster.

After taking dandelion root (the roots that you collected and prepared yourself) for three or four days, you will start to feel good, but nothing else. That is because your blood is building up. When you blood is happy, you’re happy. In most cases, the dandelion root treatment will rebuild your immune system in from three days to three weeks to the point it takes back control of cancer cells and thus the cancer stops spreading. You will feel a little better each week. You will feel a little less tired as each week goes by. After three weeks most of the cancer causing pain will be gone and when the pain starts to go away you know it’s working. If you have bone cancer in the spine, it will take three months to work. This is not an overnight cure. It took a while to get in this condition and it will take a while for your body to heal. The sooner you start, the quicker you will be over cancer. Young people heal faster than old people, but it will help at any age.

There are no side effects except when your body has had enough and it lets you know by getting heart burn. Then it’s time to back off some - reduce the amount you have been taking. Some people get stomach aches. That is their body trying to tell them that they need less. It also means your cancer is under control and you don’t need as much. You will also find you probably won’t catch a cold while you are taking it full strength.

The biggest enemy for dandelion root treatment is Chemo. The stronger the Chemo, the less chance the dandelion root power has to help you as Chemo tears your immune system and appetite down, two of the most important things you need to cure cancer. There is only a ten percent chance Chemo will cure you. With no chemo, your chances are 75 to 80% but you must take it every day. Don’t let your doctor give you that old threat if you turn him down that goes, “If you want to throw your life away, I can’t stop you”. Just remember that 90% of the people that took their advice and took chemo are in the cemetery. Don’t blame the doctor, he is doing his best with what he has to work with or you could ask for a written guarantee.

Dandelion is food, not a drug. In fact dandelion is one of those rare medicinal plants which is utilized by all its parts like stem, leaves, flowers, and even roots. Dandelion is also a blood purifier. Thus, it is effective for herbal treatment for anemia or blood related diseases. Dandelion is rich in natural calcium count; thus the herbal remedies by dandelion are prescribed for menorrhagia affected women to substantiate the blood loss due to excessive bleeding. If someone is facing the problem of low blood pressure and also suffer from anemia, herbal supplement of dandelion can help him/her immensely. Dandelion works efficiently as a natural energizer as well as it reduces the problem of acidity remarkably. This is one of the reasons herbal supplements of dandelion is often prescribed for those people who are on weight loss program; natural back up of dandelion helps to neutralize acidity in body and supply energy as well. Dandelion also helps in flushing harmful toxins from our body and helps to cleanse the entire health system. So if you are sick and tired of being sick and tired, the dandelion is the cure.

Free trade in its truest form. Buyers meeting vendors in person and negotiating purchases of resources, services and products at a mutually agreed upon price.

In 1798, 32 year-old British economist Malthus anonymously published “An Essay on the Principle of Population” and in it he argued that human population’s increase geometrically (1, 2, 4, 16 etc.) while their food supply can only increase arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4 etc.). Since food is obviously necessary for us to survive, unchecked population growth in any one area or involving the whole planet would lead to individual pockets of humanity starving or even mass worldwide starvation.

Farming practices are going to have to improve and every possible acre that can be planted is going to have to be utilized and producing at its optimal level. We have to grow more food on a shrinking agricultural land base while using depleted supplies of fresh water. So the question becomes: how do farmers get higher yields per acre?

The answer is both obvious and simple. Fertilizer, specifically the potash component. Potash is fuel for food.

In order for a plant to grow and thrive, it needs a number of different chemical elements. Three of these are the macronutrients nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (a.k.a. potash, the scarcest of the three). Potassium makes up 1% to 2% of any plant by weight and is essential to metabolism. The availability of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in the soil, in a readily available form, is the biggest limiter to plant growth.

The intense pressure on global food production will intensify demand for potash. Demand for foodstuffs will never go away and food supplies will only increase arithmetically while our population, as Malthus said so long ago, increases geometrically. We need potash to help grow these various grains and oilseeds, more and more of it every year.

Potassium is the seventh most abundant element in the Earth’s crust. About 93% of world potash consumption is used in fertilizers. Potash has been used since antiquity in the manufacture of glass, soap, and soil fertilizer. Potash is important for agriculture because it improves water retention, yield, nutrient value, taste, colour, texture and disease resistance of food crops. It has wide application to fruit and vegetables, rice, wheat and other grains, sugar, corn, soybeans, palm oil and cotton, all of which benefit from the nutrient’s quality enhancing properties.

For centuries Potash was principally obtained by leaching of the ashes of land and sea plants. Beginning in the 14th century potash was mined.

Most of the world reserves of potassium (K) were deposited as sea water from ancient inland oceans evaporated, and the potassium salts crystallized into beds of potash ore. These are the locations where potash is currently being mined today. The deposits are a naturally-occurring mixture of KCl and sodium chloride (NaCl), better known as common table salt. Over time, as the surface of the earth changed, these deposits were covered by thousands of feet of soil.

Most potash mines today are deep shaft mines as much as 3,300 feet underground. Others are mined as strip mines, having been laid down in horizontal layers as sedimentary rock. In above-ground processing plants, the KCl is separated from the mixture to produce a high analysis natural K fertilizer. Other naturally occurring K salts can be separated by various procedures, resulting in potassium sulfate and potassium-magnesium sulfate.

Today some of the world’s largest known potash deposits are spread all over the world. After years of trending upward, fertilizer use slowed in 2008. The worldwide economic downturn is the primary reason for the declining fertilizer use - stock inflation pricing has made it too expensive to use as a fertilizer.

While about 150 countries use potash for their crops, it is only produced in about a dozen of them. World production totaled 36 million metric tons in 2008, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Canada is the world’s leading producer, followed by Russia and Belarus; the United States ranks seventh.

Potash prices have soared in recent years. What was once a commodity worth about $200 a tonne is now speculated (by stock traders) to fetch $1,500 by 2020. In 2009 potash purchasers were paying US$872.50 per tonne at the port of Vancouver, which is a record high.

Potash is needed as the fuel for food but stock market speculation is making it too expensive to use. So is there a solution that would make it more affordable to use and allow our food producers to get the necessary higher yields per acre? Yes.

The only reason everything is so expensive today is the fact that everything is traded on the stock market (the super rich folks club). Stock brokers make huge sums of money just by selling and trading, mostly amongst themselves, natural resources and products that they never own or will never own. Before buyers can get their hands on needed products and resources traders have artificially inflated the prices. What was initially offered by a company for say $200 a tonne is traded and then artificially inflated (the higher the price the higher the profit for the brokerage firms) by traders to $872.50 per tonne, all as a result of trade speculation (conjectural consideration). Corporate giants with money to burn are the target group of all stock brokers, not the final buyer. The stock markets around the World post their stock pricing for every imaginable resource or product at the beginning of each trading day. When the bell rings the betting (trading) is on. You see betting is what is taking place on the floors of the stock markets. They are placing bets on what stocks will do good that day. They are not placing orders from the people who are actually in the market for a certain resource or product they are taking bets (An agreement usually between two parties that the one who has made an incorrect prediction about an uncertain outcome will forfeit something stipulated to the other. ) on a stock for the amusement of rich fat cats. Every time food prices rise it isn’t because of actual demand or actual stock on hand it’s all about stock brokers taking (trading) bets.

If there wasn’t a stock market there wouldn’t be a Global financial crisis. If there wasn’t a stock market there never would be a stock market crash. When a stock crashes it doesn’t mean that the actual resource or product has become worthless. The resources and products still exists. It just means rich fat cats no longer wish to play with it. It is no longer amusing for them to pass it back and forth or place bets on. So what type of trading system would be best for all? How about bringing back the old days when people actually set the price by negotiating a price - buyers negotiating purchases directly with the vendor. How about a system like a co-op - relating to, or formed as an enterprise or organization jointly owned or managed by those who actually use its products or services. Why not allow foreign countries to come to Canada or the US or any other country and negotiate purchasing deals directly with the people who have goods and services to offer. That my friends is what free trade is truly about. The free trade we have now with other countries is actually anti free trade as regulations, restrictions and bureaucracy makes it virtually impossible for any party to trade. With a co-op prices could fall on virtually everything that is produced, manufactures or mined. If China needed more Potash why couldn’t they just come to Canada and meet in person with the Potash mining people and negotiate purchasing deals? Everyone would benefit from such an arrangement. Everyone would get what they want, what they need, and all at a mutually agreed price.

Allstate video demonstrating how quickly and easily a car can be stripped of its parts.

It doesn’t take long for thieves to strip a car for parts to sell on the black market. As a way to remind drivers of this, Allstate Insurance Co. launched a 14-state tour in April of this year to show just how fast a car can be stolen and stripped.

The insurance company tested the live chop shop demonstration at lunchtime for a crowd of more than 100 Allstate employees and media at its headquarters in Northbrook. The “Stripped In Seconds” campaign involved Sterling Auto Body Employees armed with common hand tools and a timer. The demonstration, a lesson in theft prevention, shows what happens inside a chop shop as the auto body employees race against the clock to rip the car to pieces, turning it into a pile of parts sold for big bucks.

During the demonstration, the Sterling Auto Body Employees hustled to dismantle a white Honda Civic in just under six minutes. Signs were then placed on the parts to show how much money thieves can typically get for the parts. The bumper is valued at $250 on the black market, the quarter panels go for about $400 while the headlights were valued at $165.

These days cars aren’t being stolen to take on fancy joy rides. They are taken apart to sell the parts. The stolen car’s parts are usually sold for more than the value of the vehicle. A car thief can make more money these days stealing cars and trucks and stripping them down than trying to find someone to buy a stolen vehicle. Every part is a potential financial windfall. Body panels, electrical components, wheels, tires and mechanical parts including engines and transmissions are the reasons for most of the auto thefts in both Canada and the US.

Allstate says most stolen vehicles are historically reliable rides that stay on the road longer. A dependable car’s parts don’t end up as salvage, so spare parts can be more difficult to find, creating a black market for thieves. The Honda Civic, Dodge Caravan and Oldsmobile Cutlass are the top targets in Illinois for thieves, according to Allstate. The company added that a car is stolen in the United States every 33 seconds, citing the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

Suburban police departments say auto theft is more prevalent in Chicago, but stress it happens everywhere. The Illinois State Police reported that 628 vehicles were stolen in 2008 in DuPage County, 459 in Lake County and 155 in McHenry County. Cook County saw 24,554 auto thefts during 2008.

To protect your ride always lock your vehicle and take the keys. One out of every five vehicles stolen had the keys in it, and almost half of all vehicles stolen were unlocked. Most chop shop car thieves rely on you leaving the doors unlock and the keys in the ignition. A thief driving a stolen vehicle is less likely to be caught when they have the keys to your vehicle. They can sell a stolen vehicle to any number of both large and small salvage companies when they have the keys and the ownership that you conveniently left them in your stolen vehicle. Most salvage yards don’t usually ask questions when a vehicle with so many salvageable parts rolls into their yard. All salvage yard sales reps worry about selling not where the part came from.

What is being done by the police to protect consumers here in Canada and in the US? Literally nothing. Two factors have exacerbated the problem: Border officials on both side of the Canada US border don’t routinely check shipping containers to see if the contents inside are stolen, and police auto theft squads have weakened over time. Police are increasingly powerless to stop the black market cross border transporting of salvage parts procured from stolen vehicles.

Ten years ago in Ontario Canada the Provincial Auto Theft Team (PATT) had 48 officers attached to it, 23 of them dedicated full time. In 2009 it was down to 15. PATT was established in 1995 as a joint task force involving the OPP, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and local police forces, to stop auto theft rings. But the border services, along with Toronto, York and Peel police, has since left the team. Toronto’s auto theft squad used to have around 30 officers assigned to it. Toronto with a population of 2.48 million people (5.5 million in the GTA - Greater Toronto Area) has just 10 officers assigned full time to auto theft. York Regional Police has 11 officers attached to its auto squad. Peel has eight. Durham has just one.

“People think this is a victimless crime,” says Stephen Boyd, an investigator with the Ontario Provincial Police, “that the insurance companies pay out for the cars and no one gets hurt. But it’s not.”

The problem is the volume of stolen car parts entering Canada

Shipping a container with stolen cars or car parts under the current legislation is relatively easy. Before a container can be exported, a customs declaration must be completed identifying, among other things, the shipper, the contents of the container and the destination. The problem lies in customs agents inspecting containers entering Canada. The shear volume makes it impossible to open and inspect every container that enters Canada. Because of this a number of containers with stolen car parts enter Canada every day. Border agents only investigate a container that is suspected of carrying stolen car parts when the paperwork looks suspect or when they act on a tip by either US or Canadian authorities.

Stealing, driving or shipping a stolen vehicle in Canada, if caught, results in a charge under the Criminal Code of possession of stolen property over $5,000 or with theft over $5,000. Repeat offenders and those charged with multiple thefts rarely face jail time. Police say they are consistently arresting the same cast of characters.

“They’re just the foot soldiers,” says Paul Lasalle, a York auto squad detective. The “big players,” are the freight forwarders who either knowingly or unknowingly allow stolen vehicles and cars parts to be placed in their containers and transported cross border

The problem (with arresting a freight forwarder) is proving knowledge, Police must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person knows what is in the container..

Police and the Insurance Bureau have long been calling for tougher legislation. They’ve been asking for legislation that would make altering a vehicle identification number an offense, and those convicted of trafficking in stolen car and car parts get mandatory prison sentences. A bill that would allow the Canada Border Services Agency to prevent cross-border movement of property obtained through crime would seriously impact the black market industry. The one solution with the most immediate effect would be for the Canada Border Services Agency to hold for inspection all containers with declared contents of cars and used or salvage auto parts. A quick inspection and comparison with the corresponding customs declaration could identify suspect stolen cars and car parts. Will that ever happen? Not likely. The shear volume of stolen cars and car parts entering and leaving Canada today makes it practically impossible.

There is a very easy solution that you, the consumer, can take to protect yourself. If you want assurances that the salvage auto parts you are buying are not stolen only buy salvage auto parts from your local wreckers. If you call and order from only local suppliers odds are the salvage auto parts you buy are from scrap cars and not stolen stripped vehicles. Your local salvage supplier is a part of your community and in order to stay in business they will need to remain honest. Your local supplier are people you grew up with, people you went to school with or went to church with. They will not cheat or deceive you. Also, if you buy from a salvage supplier that is Canadian owned and operated your hard earned money stays in Canada. If you buy from US salvage suppliers your money is going directly to the US. If you buy from a US supplier there is always the possibility that the salvage auto parts you buy could be stolen. If you live in the US the same prudence applies. Only buy from local suppliers. Your money stays locally and chances are you won’t be buying stolen parts from Canada or Mexico.

Ask the supplier of the salvage parts questions each and every time you are shopping for used parts. Buy only parts that are already in stock. That way you save both time and money. If a part isn’t in stock you could be made to wait and you could be required to fork over more money than the part is worth as shipping costs are always added to the cost of every part sold. It might not state the actual shipping cost on the invoice as the cost is usually worked into the price. Local parts are a lot cheaper because they are free of long haul shipping fees.

Another very important thing to remember is to shop around. If the first supplier you called or visited doesn’t have what you are looking for in stock chances are another supplier in your area will.

If the part you need isn’t in stock anywhere locally and you really need the part ask the supplier who is going to have it brought in for you to state in writing exactly where the part is coming from and always require that the serial number of the vehicle it is coming from be put on the invoice. By doing so the supplier becomes liable if it is determined some time in the future that the part came from a stolen vehicle that was stripped of its parts and sold on the black market. Paperwork like an invoice with information as to who sold you the part, where the part came from and the serial number of the vehicle it came from is you best protection against being charged by your local law enforcement agency for possession of stolen car parts. That invoice is your proof that you bought the part in good faith and that you had no intention on buying any stolen auto parts. That invoice makes your supplier accountable. It keeps the honest suppliers in business and puts the dishonest ones out of business. Bottom line, buy only locally, buy only parts that are in stock (shop around by phone if not in stock) and demand a detailed invoice every time you buy used auto parts.

nbGazette.com has just completed setting up its new website http://newscore.ca. This website will allow you to upload videos and digital images that relates to a news story that you witnessed and captured.

You are the World’s eyes and ears. You are the World’s witnesses. You can make a difference. Register today and start uploading your video clips and digital images. Only news related videos and images will be approved for display on this website.

People around the World want to see what is happening in their community. They also want to see what is happening in other parts of the World. They want to see pictures and videos as video and digital images tell a story better than print.

A picture, either a motion picture or still picture, is worth a thousand words. Complex stories can be described with just a single still image or video. So grab you cell phones and digital cameras and get out and start recording history. Get out and start making history.

Identity theft is a form of fraud in which someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person’s identity, typically in order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that person’s name. An identity thief typically impersonates someone else in order to conceal their own true identity. If a US company bought a Canadian company and continued to use the original Canadian company’s identifying marks like name, logo and motto, wouldn’t that be considered to be identity theft? They are after all using the Canadian company’s good name, credit history, Canadian clientele and Canadian identity to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that company’s name. Pretending to be a Canadian company in order to conceal their US identity.

Foreign ownership of companies of Canada has long been a controversial political issue in Canada. Concerns regarding foreign ownership generally regard ownership by individuals or companies based in the United States, though foreign ownership occurs from entities and individuals based in other countries as well. Some estimates state that more than 50% of the petroleum and gas industry and more than 50% of all manufacturing in Canada is foreign-owned and foreign-controlled.

Of note is that Canada’s largest companies by value, and largest employers, tend to be foreign-owned in a way that is more typical of a developing nation than a G8 member. The best example is the automotive sector, one of Canada’s most important industries. It is dominated by American, German, and Japanese giants. Although this situation is not unique to Canada in the global context, it is unique among G-8 nations, and many other relatively small nations also have national automotive companies such as South Korea’s Kia and Hyundai.

When Canadians go shopping are they buying at Canadian owned and operated companies or foreign owned and operated companies? When Canadians make a purchase where is their hard earned money going? More than likely the money is going out of the country. When Canadians shop and buy at major department stores throughout Canada their money is more than likely going to the United States. The tax revenue the US government collects from that money goes to finance US wars abroad, US CIA covert operations like kidnapping, sabotage, political assassinations and torture of people opposed to the US foreign policies and wars of aggressions. US tax dollars from Canadians purchases in Canada, from stores they thought were Canadian owned, is helping the US government finance their wars of aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan. Its helping the US government build and stockpile more advanced and deadly weapons that will kill more civilians, mostly women and children, than foreign combat troops. All those who were opposed to the US attacking Iraq were actually supporting and financing the US unlawful attack against Iraq, by buying from US owned and operated department stores and companies in Canada.

If you had an informed choice where would you shop? Would you support Canadian owned and operated businesses or US and foreign owned and operated businesses? To help you be more informed the following is a list of companies, stores and businesses that are no longer Canadian. Many on this list, to this day, use misleading and false advertising to deceive Canadians into shopping and buying from them by implying that they are Canadian owned and operated, when they are not. According to our Canadian legal system such misleading practices are illegal. The use of the name Canada or Canadian by any foreign country is illegal.

Flag of Canada protected by The Trade-marks Act

The arms and the flag of Canada are protected by The Trade-marks Act (Statutes of Canada Chapter T-13) against unauthorized use for commercial purposes.

“9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for…… e) the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada in respect of which the Registrar has at the request of the Government of Canada or of the province or municipal corporation concerned, given public notice of its adoption and use…”

“Canada” Wordmark

The “Canada” wordmark is the global identifier of the Government of Canada and is protected under the Trade-marks Act.

Use of Canadian symbols abroad as an element of a foreign trademark

Under Article 6.ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Stockholm text, 1967),

“(1)(a) The countries of the Union agree to refuse or to invalidate the registration, and to prohibit by appropriate measures the use, without authorization by the competent authorities, either as trademarks or as elements of trademarks, of armorial bearings, flags, and other State emblems, of the countries of the Union, official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted by them, and any imitation from a heraldic point of view.”

“(9) The countries of the Union undertake to prohibit the unauthorized use in trade of the State armorial bearings of the other countries of the Union when the use is of such a nature as to be misleading as to the origin of the goods.”

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 6.ter Canada has notified to the World Intellectual Property Organization its wish to protect the Canadian flag, coat of arms and 11-point red maple leaf emblem against unauthorized use.

Foreign owned companies among Canada’s current largest companies

* General Motors Canada, Canada’s largest automotive manufacturer, 60% owned by the US government
* Wal-Mart Canada, wholly owned by Wal-Mart of the US
* Toyota Canada Inc. owned by Japan’s Toyota
* Ford Motor Company of Canada, owned by the American Ford company
* Imperial Oil, controlled by ExxonMobil, which owns 69.8% of its stock.
* Chrysler Canada now owned by the Italian company, Fiat
* Shell Canada, owned by Royal Dutch Shell.
* British Petroleum Canada, owned by British Petroleum
* Mitsui and Company, part of the Japanese Mitsui empire
* Honda Canada Inc., owned by Honda of Japan
* Ultramar fuels, owned by US-based Valero
* Costco, whose Canadian operations are the 7th largest private company in Canada as of 2006, is entirely a US owned company - Kirkland Corporation
* Labatt Brewing Company purchased by Belgian brewer Interbrew in 1995
* Hudson’s Bay Company, Canada’s largest retailer, and North America’s oldest corporation (est. 1670), sold to U.S. investor Jerry Zucker in 2006.
* Zellers, “truly Canadian” identity is truly not Canadian as it is the mass merchandise retail division of the Hudson’s Bay Company
* ING Bank of Canada, the largest foreign bank in Canada, formed by the purchase of several small Canadian companies, controlled by the Dutch ING Group
* Sears Canada, one the largest retailers (created by buying old Simpson’s stores), is controlled by the US Sears Holdings Corporation
* IBM Canada, owned by IBM
* Safeway Canada supermarkets, owned by Safeway Inc.
* Cargill Ltd. owned by Cargill of Minnesota
* McDonald’s Canada, owned by McDonald’s
* Pratt & Whitney Canada owned by US United Technologies Corporation
* Nissan Canada, owned by Nissan Motors of Japan
* Parmalat Canada owned by Parmalat of Italy
* LKQ Keystone Automotive, a leader in providing aftermarket vehicle collision replacement parts and OEM salvage auto parts is owned and operated by Chicago based LKQ Corporation.

Former major Canadian Companies acquired by foreign owners

* MacMillan Bloedel, B.C. forestry giant acquired by Weyerhaeuser for US$2.45 billion in 1999
* JDS Fitel $8.9-billion merger with U-S.-based Uniphase to form JDS Uniphase, in 1999. Company headquarters move from Ottawa to San Jose.
* Eaton’s, at one time Canada’s largest retailer, with a history going back to 1869, purchased by Sears in 1999, and closed in 2000
* Seagram distillery and entertainment conglomerate, sold to Vivendi Universal and Pernod Ricard in 2000
* Corel, a software and programming company, taken over by Vector Capital in August 2003.
* PetroKazakhstan a Calgary-based company exploring in Central Asia (specifically formed to build the Trans-Afghan natural gas pipeline - the main reason why the US attacked Afghanistan), was purchased by the Chinese state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation in 2005
* CP Ships Ltd., acquired by the parent company of Hapag-Lloyd Container Line, TUI AG, in an all-cash transaction worth $2.3 billion US in 2005
* Stelco Steel - With sixty percent of Canada’s steel being produced in Hamilton by Stelco and Dofasco, Stelco was bought by U.S. Steel for $1.9 billion in 2007.
* Dofasco, Canada’s largest steel maker acquired by Luxembourg-based Arcelor, January 2006.
* Molson Brewries, (including Molson Canadian brand of beer) one of the oldest companies in Canada merged with US Coors, in 2005. “I am Canadian” beer is now I am US beer deceivingly marketed as Canadian
* Terasen Inc., previously BC Gas (a public utility company), sold to American-owned energy giant Kinder Morgan for $6.9 billion. The deal was approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission despite 8,000 letters of protest, 2005. Terasen was subsequently sold to Newfoundland-based Fortis Inc. in 2007.
* Canadian Pacific hotels the owner of many of Canada’s most historic hotel properties (operating under the name Fairmont Hotels and Resorts since 1999) sold to Colony Capital, LLC of California and Kingdom Holding Company of Saudi Arabia for $3.9 billion, in January 2006.
* Noranda (mining company) & Falconbridge Ltd., purchased by Swiss mining company Xstrata in 2006. Noranda had earlier been a target of state-owned China Metals Corp., but had backed out in 2005 amid public concern in Canada of Chinese state control of such a major company.
* ATI Technologies, Canada’s graphics chip maker, acquired by Advanced Micro Devices, July 2006.
* Alcan purchased by Rio Tinto in 2007.
* Addax Petroleum, one of Canada’s 9 fortune 2000 2009 oil and gas companies was acquired by sinopec of China for C$8.27 billion in June 2009 and approved by the Chinese government on August 12, 2009.
* Creo Inc., a world leader in digital printing software acquired by Eastman Kodak
* Zenon Environmental Inc., a successful and innovative technology company spawned in Hamilton—sold to General Electric Co.
* Tim Hortons, sold to US Wendy’s International in 1995, later to be sold to the public an IPO in 2005.
* CN Rail, the historic Canadian railway, now estimated to be 2/3 US owned.
* Gulf Canada Resources, which had formerly been part of US-based Gulf Oil, but had since become independent, was purchased by US-based Conoco in a deal worth $6.7 billion in 2002.
* Moore Wallace sold to U.S.-based R.R. Donnelley and Sons for $4.9 billion.
* Masonite, bought out by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
* ID Biomedical, Canadian vaccine maker acquired by Drug giant GlaxoSmithKline for $1.8 billion.
* Vincor International Ltd., Canada’s top wine maker and distributor, purchased for $1.4 billion by Constellation Brands Inc. of Fairport, NY, USA
* Bauer, Cooper, and Hespeler, historic hockey equipment manufacturers bought by Nike in 1994
* CCM (The Hockey Company), acquired by Reebok in 2004
* Alberta Oil Sands - Under the terms of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US is guaranteed a percentage of Canada’s oil. (Canada currently produces 2.6 million bpd of oil and exports 1.6 million, or about 60 percent of it, to the US.) American investment controls between 40 and 50 percent of Alberta’s oil. Although oil sands occur in more than 70 countries, the bulk is found in Canada in four regions: Athabasca, Wabasca, Cold Lake, Peace River; together covering an area of some 77,000 km2”. In fact, the reserve considered to be technically recoverable is estimated at 280-300 Gb (billions of barrels), larger than the Saudi Arabia oil reserves [optimistically] estimated at 240 Gb. The total reserves for Alberta, including oil not recoverable using current technology, are estimated at 1,700-2,500 Gb. Alberta’s oil sands comprise one of the world’s two largest sources of bitumen; the other is in Venezuela.

On March 23, 2005, a fire and explosion occurred at BP’s Texas City Refinery in Texas City, Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring more than 170 others. BP was charged with violating federal environment crime laws and has been subject to law suits from the victim’s families.

Two weeks before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and sinking in the Gulf of Mexico, the huge BP refinery in Texas City spewed tens of thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals into the skies.

The release from the BP facility began April 6 and lasted 40 days. It stemmed from the company’s decision to keep producing and selling gasoline while it attempted repairs on a key piece of equipment, according to BP officials and Texas regulators.

British based British Petroleum (BP) says it failed to detect the extent of the emissions for several weeks. It discovered the scope of the problem only after analyzing data from a monitor that measures emissions from a flare 300 feet above the ground that was supposed to incinerate the toxic chemicals.

The company now estimates that 538,000 pounds of chemicals escaped from the refinery while it was replacing the equipment. These included 17,000 pounds of benzene, a known carcinogen (A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide or radiation, that is an agent directly involved in the exacerbation of cancer or in the increase of its propagation.); 37,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to respiratory problems; and 186,000 pounds of carbon monoxide. The amount of chemicals that was released into the air by BP far exceeds the limits set by Texas and other states.

In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank in the Gulf, BP has insisted that the incident, the nation’s worst environmental disaster, was a disastrous but unusual misstep for a company that has done much in recent years to change its ways.

BP’s record in running the Texas City refinery adds to the mounting evidence that the company’s corporate culture favors production and profit margins over safety and the environment. The 40-day release echoes in several notable ways the runaway spill in the Gulf. BP officials initially underestimated the problem and took steps in the days leading up to the incident to reduce costs and keep the refinery online.

Former workers and industry experts say BP’s handling of the recent release of chemicals was typical of the plant’s and company’s operating practices.

The 40-day emissions were initially reported by the Daily News of Galveston, Texas, but received little national attention.

The unit was never completely shut down, and if it would have been, the event probably would have received more attention. Any reduction in production for even as little as 24 hours is considered sufficiently important to be reported in the financial press to investors and others.

Environmental experts say the amount of chemicals released was one of the largest in recent Texas history.

“This was a giant release over that 40-day period,” said Neil Carman, who worked for the regulators for 12 years before joining the Sierra Club. “Even 50,000 pounds is big.”

Carman said a study he performed showed the BP Texas City Refinery was already releasing more benzene into the atmosphere than any other place in the U.S. from 1997 to 2007.

Officials in Texas City, who were not informed of the scale of the release until after it was over, have asked BP to explain how this could have occurred. “I’m like, ‘Oh goodness,’” Bruce Clawson, Texas City’s coordinator for emergency management, recalls thinking when BP notified him about the release. “I had a lot of questions and they didn’t have a lot of answers at that time.”

The incident began on April 6 when a component of the refinery’s ultracracker went offline. The ultracracker, an integral part of the plant’s processing of crude oil into gasoline and other petroleum products, processes 65,000 barrels of oil per day. A financial analyst who follows the industry said that each barrel should earn BP $5 to $10 in profits.

The part that malfunctioned, a hydrogen compressor, traps noxious chemicals, which can then be reused for fuel in the plant and other purposes. When the compressor stopped working, BP decided to send the gases to a 300-foot high flare, whose high temperatures turn the dangerous material into carbon dioxide.

It was not until June 4, he said, that the company understood that the emissions were far higher than was permitted. Industry experts say BP had reason to believe from the outset that emissions from the flare would be substantial.

Widely circulated industry guidelines assume that at least 2 percent of what is sent to a flare goes unburned and passes into the atmosphere. Because such large quantities of gas move through a refinery, this can amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

Studies have shown that as much as 20 percent of what is sent to flares is released into the atmosphere. A 20 percent release from the flare would equal 5 million pounds and the benzene would have been 170,000 pounds.

If BP had shut down the ultracracker, it would have lacked a key component needed to create gasoline suitable for its customers, said Mark Demark, the department chair of process technology at Alvin Community College.

“It’s a big deal to shut the ultracracker down,” he said. “It’s operating at two to three thousand pounds of pressure, 700 degrees Farenheit; so it would take you a week just to cool that place down.”

Demark, who worked for Shell for 33 years, said if he had been faced with that choice, he would probably have halted operations.

“Just from a public relations standpoint, for 40 days to have a flare going, you have to be really inconsiderate to your community,” he said.

On April 16, 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission charged Goldman Sachs with conflict of interest in sub-prime mortgage asset sales. The Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs, long considered a shrewd winner from the financial crisis, was slapped with fraud charges as US regulators accused the firm of fiddling investors out of more than $1bn (£640m) by willfully mis-marketing toxic sub-prime mortgage-related securities. The US financial crisis started as a direct result of those types of sub-prime mortgage related securities.

The SEC charged Goldman Sachs with working with a controversial US hedge fund, Paulson & Co, to structure and sell a complex package of mortgages to clients while Paulson took a “short” position betting that the very same mortgages would fail.

SEC charges revolve around a collateralised debt obligation called Abacus 2007-AC1 that was created by Goldman three years ago and proved a spectacularly poor investment for clients. Within nine months, 99% of the mortgages in the package had been downgraded and investors lost more than $1bn. Paulson, in contrast, made a profit of about the same amount.

Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC’s enforcement division, said: “The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple. Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio.”

Goldman swiftly denied any wrongdoing, saying: “The SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”

The bank was among the few Wall Street firms to avoid significant losses on mortgages during the credit crunch. But the bank has been dogged by accusations of betting against clients and its insistence on paying industry-topping bonuses to its staff has turned it into a lightening rod for public outrage over perceived greed.

The SEC alleges Goldman stuffed the Abacus portfolio with homeloans written in states such as Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada that suffered the worst of the US housing crash. Goldman told clients that an independent firm, ACA Management, was selecting the contents. In a 178-page memo to clients, it made no mention of Paulson, which, in fact, was heavily involved in selecting the mortgages. Goldman was paid $15m by Paulson for structuring and marketing Abacus.

The involvement of Paulson & Co is significant. The fund’s billionaire boss, John Paulson, became a Wall Street celebrity by earning nearly $4bn in 2008 by correctly predicting that the US mortgage market would collapse. Among his lucrative “short” positions were bets that UK banks including Lloyds, Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS would run into trouble.

Fours days after the SEC laid charges of fraud against Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs was scheduled to release quarterly results. The firm held a conference call at 8 a.m. to discuss the results and the civil fraud case filed by the SEC. On that same day, April 20, 2010 at 10 a.m. the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general of TARP, was scheduled to testify. At 11 a.m. (April 20, 2010) the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on policy issues raised by the Lehman bankruptcy report, including questionable accounting practices. Among those scheduled to testify are Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner; Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke; Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro; Lehman bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas; and former Lehman chief executive Richard Fuld Jr.

Later that same day news spread quickly that an offshore oil drilling platform had exploded. At the time of the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon, a 9-year-old semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit, was drilling an exploratory well at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in the Macondo Prospect, located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf of Mexico in the United States exclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast. Production casing was being installed and cemented by Halliburton Energy Services. Production casing is the final casing in a well. It can be set from the bottom to the top. Sometimes a production liner is installed.

The production casing is used to control the hydrocarbon (oil, natural gas) bearing zones that will be produced. This string of pipe adds structural integrity to the well-bore in the producing zones. It is necessary to conduct the hydrocarbons to the surface. Production casing should be set before completing the well for production. It should be cemented in a manner necessary to cover or isolate all zones which contain hydrocarbons. The day of April 20, 2010 the required cemented production casing wasn’t complete and yet the rig was drilling.

At approximately 9:45 p.m. CDT on April 20, 2010, methane gas from the well, under high pressure, shot all the way up and out of the drill column, expanded onto the platform, and then ignited and exploded. Fire then engulfed the platform. Most of the workers were quickly evacuated by lifeboats or were airlifted out by helicopter, but eleven workers have never been found despite a three-day Coast Guard search operation, and are presumed to have died in the explosion. Efforts by multiple ships to douse the flames were unsuccessful. After burning for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on the morning of April 22, 2010. As a result of the Deepwater Horizon sinking, the drilling riser running from the wellhead on the ocean floor up to the oil rig was destroyed.

Conflicting reports by BP and the US Coast Guard

On the afternoon of April 22, it was reported that a large oil slick began to spread at the former oil rig’s site. Two remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) were unsuccessfully in their attempts to cap the well. Then in another report BP announced that it was deploying a ROV to the site to assess whether oil was flowing from the well. The next day on April 23, a ROV reportedly found no oil leaking from the sunken rig and no oil flowing from the well. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry expressed cautious optimism of zero environmental impact, stating that no oil was emanating from either the wellhead or the broken pipes and that oil spilled from the explosion and sinking was being contained. But, the following day, April 24, Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry changed her assessment of the incident and announced that a damaged wellhead was indeed leaking oil into the Gulf and described it as “a very serious spill“.

According to a US House of Representative energy panel investigation the rig’s blowout preventer, a fail-safe device fitted at the base of the well (that was built by Halliburton - remember Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton before becoming vice-president of the United States under George W Bush) had a hydraulic leak and a failed battery, and therefore failed. The same well that Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry reported on April 23, 2010 “that no oil was emanating from either the wellhead or the broken pipes and that oil spilled from the explosion and sinking was being contained“.

First we were told that the well head was leaking oil and 2 ROV attempts to cap the leak failed. Then the Coast Guard, a public official who we look to give us the facts, states there is no leak from either the wellhead or the broken pipes and the little amounts of oil that did leak as a result of the initial explosion and sinking, was being contained. Then the US Coast Guard rear admiral changes her official statement of facts and reports “a very serious spill”. Makes me wonder if this oil spill wasn’t intentionally created as a diversion. How hard would it be for a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) to descend to the wellhead of the Deepwater Horizon and intentionally damage the fail-safe device fitted at the base of the well? Remember that a Coast Guard Rear Admiral reported no oil leak from either the wellhead or the broken pipes on April 23 but then reported “a very serious spill” less than 24 hours later.

Since April 20, 2010 US Congressional Hearings have been taking place in Washington in regards to Wall Street giant and Federal Reserve Bank Goldman Sachs being formally charged by the SEC with securities fraud and its culpability for the US economic crisis. At the same time we have a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The timing is just too perfect to be a coincidence. On Wall Street, a number of major financial firms (Federal Reserve Bank firms) are waiting for the other shoe to drop, as Goldman Sachs wasn’t the only Wall Street firm repackaging high-risk mortgage bonds into securities to sell to investors. Analysts say that additional cases similar to Goldman’s are around the corner. What would be the ramifications of such hearings and upcoming criminal proceedings? US Congressional Hearings of this kind could finally give the US government legal justification to get rid of the Federal Reserve Banks and give back Congress its Constitutional authority to coin the US money.

Ever since Goldman Sachs was officially charged with securities fraud by the SEC the BP oil spill has been overshadowing the ongoing Congressional Hearings into Goldman Sachs. There is much news about the oil spill and the environmental damage it is causing and very little now about the ongoing US Congressional Hearing into fraud by Goldman Sachs - the orchestrator of the US financial crisis.

Also not being reported in the news is that last year the Obama administration granted oil giant BP a special exemption from a legal requirement that it produce a detailed environmental impact study on the possible effects of its Deepwater Horizon drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico.

Federal documents show that the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) gave BP a “categorical exclusion” on April 6, 2009 to commence drilling with Deepwater Horizon even though it had not produced the impact study required by a law known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The report would have included probable ecological consequences in the event of a spill. Looks like the OBama administration can be held liable for the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the catastrophic environmental damage it is causing.

Corexit 9500 disperses the oil spill. It doesn’t clean it up or contain it. It breaks up the oil slick into droplets the size of dust particles and as such the oil does not have the ability to rise again where is can be seen and cleaned up. Corexit 9500 allows the oil and all its toxins to drift away with the current.

Environmental Protection Agency scientists were set to meet with the agency’s chief Saturday to discuss the chemicals BP is using to break up the oil slick. Dispersants have been a key part of BP’s cleanup strategy. Since the beginning of the disaster, more than 1.6 million gallons of the dispersant Corexit 9500 alone have been injected into the Gulf. BP was asked by the EPA on May 24 to cut back its use of Corexit, however dumping 1.6 million gallons of the dispersant Corexit into the Gulf clearly means BP did not comply with EPA requests.

“As stated in MSDS, Corexit 9500 can cause central nervous system depression, nausea, and unconsciousness. It can cause liver, kidney damage, and red blood cell hemolysis with repeated or prolonged exposure through inhalation or ingestion according to the MSDS. The threat to human health via exposure is characterized as ‘MODERATE’.”

BP using toxic Corexit 9500 is a huge mistake by the EPA. The Obama administration is being given bad advice and as a result clean up crews are getting very sick from breathing the fumes. More people in Louisiana have been getting sick from the chemical fumes as they try to clean up the oil on shores and inlets.

Corexit 9500 has highly toxic side effects and yet BP keeps on dumping millions of gallons of this dispersant. It isn’t cleaning up the oil spill it is spreading the oil mess and it is killing off the sea life faster.

The chemical is reported to have arsenic in it and this alone will poison the water column for fish and mammals. Paul Anastas, the EPA’s assistant administrator for research and development, said the dispersant were tested on shrimp and on a small fish called the inland silverside in government laboratories and contractors’ labs; some were more toxic to one marine animal than the other.

But the labs have not tested the toxicity of dispersant when mixed with oil, or products formed by the oil-dispersant mix when it is digested by microbes. (The purpose of the dispersant is to break the oil down into smaller droplets than can more readily be digested by the microbes.)

Oil is toxic at 11 ppm while Corexit 9500 is toxic at only 2.61 ppm; Corexit 9500 is four times as toxic as the oil itself. Sure, a lot less of it is being introduced, but that’s still a flawed logical perspective, because it’s not a “lesser of two evils” scenario. BOTH are going into the ocean water.

Corexit 9500, a solvent originally developed by Exxon is now manufactured by Nalco Holding Company of Naperville, IL. The US government had used Corexit 9500 in the past, and has decided to go with what they know — no matter how dangerous that might prove to be. Why is Corexit 9500 being used at all, when the water-based Dispersit is available, markedly more effective and less toxic? Follow the money. Obama was governor of Illinois before becoming president of the United States. A lot of government financed projects have gone to the state of Illinois. So many that there exists a conflict-of-interest.

Dispersal of the oil does not eliminate it, nor does it decrease the toxicity of the oil. It just breaks it up into small particles, where it becomes less visible. It’s still there, spewing toxicity at an even greater rate (due to higher surface area.) But now it’s pretty much impossible to skim or trap or vacuum or even soak up at the shoreline, because most of it will never make it to the shoreline. Instead, that toxic crude oil AND the dispersant will be spread all over the ocean’s waters. This is why introducing such a product into the crude oil as it comes out from the pipe is a very bad idea for the ocean.

It may not be pretty, but if the oil makes it to the shore, it can be soaked up, cleaned up. To “disperse” it means it will NEVER be cleaned up. It will just stay out there, polluting and poisoning the ocean, her inhabitants, and all the food we take from it. It’s unwise to be using Corexit 9500 at all, but introducing it to the oil as it leaves the broken pipe is approaching madness. The oil leak must be plugged immediately and the oil spill should be contained, and what has been leaked should be allowed to come to shore where it can be removed from the ocean by less toxic means.

BP’s use of Corexit 9500 on the oil before it rises to the surface seems to be a deliberate attempt to mask the poison, to cover up that it continues to flow out from the ocean’s floor, while making it impossible to recover. In short, BP wants and is allowed to do so by the US government to spread the toxic oil throughout the oceans of the world, pollute everywhere, rather than allow it to be seen coming to shore where BP would have to pay for its containment and clean-up. It’s our job to keep them from getting away with sweeping this ugly mess under the surface. We need immediate affirmative action from the US government to stop BP from continuing to perform this oil disappearing act. The “now you see it ,now you don’t” trick cannot be allowed to continue.

nbGazette.com recently received an email from the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, with an introduction of a novel new idea that is in keeping with the phenomenal technological advances of our times. iPhone and iPad apps allowing Democrats across the country to stay connected and get involved in new ways. How far we have come in such a very short period of time. It is our generation that has witnessed such extraordinary technological advances. Thousands of years have come and gone without ever seeing or enjoying these technological marvels. In less than 100 years we have gone from horseback transportation to trains, planes and automobiles. In less than 50 years we have gone from looking up into the skies using telescopes to actually putting men and women in space. In less than 30 years we have gone from wired communication to ultra fast wireless communication. Today our government is instantly keeping in touch with us via the newest technological marvels - the iPhones and iPads. What is coming can not only be imagined it is eagerly expected very shortly. Our generation can be very proud knowing that we are the best and the brightest for we have accomplished more and created more than any other generation before us. Mitochondrial Eve is the name given by researchers to the remains of a woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all currently living humans. Passed down from mother to offspring, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is said to be derived from hers. She is believed to have lived about 170,000 years ago, or roughly 8,000 generations ago. This places her in a period significantly earlier than the out of Africa migration some 60,000 years ago, and close to the first appearance of archaic Homo sapiens itself. It took 8,000 generations to come and go before we evolved into who we are today.

Email from Tim Kaine to Paul Kincaid editorial@nbgazette.com
Subject: Updates at your fingertips
Paul —

Governor Tim Kaine
Chairman

To help keep you up-to-date on World News and Events the Editor of nbGazette.com is creating a newer and better news gathering website. This website will feature only digital video clips and images of current news and events that will be uploaded to the website by you, our viewers. You will be the World’s eyes and ears. Your videos and images will record the news and events of our time so that others can be informed and or made aware of what is happening. “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.” — Abraham Lincoln Are you ready to make a differences? Start charging your batteries in your cell phone and digital cameras. You will, very soon, have very important work to do. The World is relying on you to keep them informed. “Information is the currency of democracy.” — Thomas Jefferson

45 seconds into this video footage you can clearly see Black Bloc Anarchist dressed people running towards the police line and allowed through. Throughout the 2 day Toronto G20 Summit, it is become increasingly clear that the ‘Black Bloc’ are undercover police operatives engaged in purposeful provocations to eclipse and invalidate legitimate G20 citizen protest by starting a riot. Police “allowed” the trashing of their purposely abandoned police cruisers in order to create what will become the signature media images of the event - burning police cars in Toronto.

In the above video and any number of other G20 videos you can see that a large number of supposed police officers are breaking long standing laws. All officers must verbally identify themselves as police officers and show police identification whenever they make an arrest. All police officers must carry a police badge which identifies them as a police officer and has their employee number. They must also carry a warrant card which has their photograph. Hundreds of people were unlawfully arrested because the arresting officers in the majority of arrests were dressed in plain clothes and simply, violently, snatched people from the peaceful crowds of protesters without verbally identifying themselves or showing a badge.

There are a number of videos on the Internet that shows minivans driving into a peaceful protest scene and a number of men jump out and literally kidnap protesters. The vans have no marking whatsoever that would identify it as a police vehicle and the men jumping out and grabbing people have no visible identifying credentials that would even remotely suggest that they are police officers. If these are suppose to be arrests the law requires the arresting officer to identify themselves verbally and visually and to immediately advise the suspect of the reason for his or her arrest and immediately advise the arrested person of their legal rights.

Virtually all individuals who are arbitrarily arrested are given absolutely no explanation as to why they are being arrested, and they are not shown any arrest warrant. Arbitrarily depriving an individual of their liberty is strictly prohibited by the United Nations’ division for human rights. Article 55 of the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court declares such a practice by government a major crime.

Articles 9 and 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

A video you have to see of Cops Charging Protesters at Queen and Spadina, After “O Canada”

The G20 Toronto Summit has now become the most expensive 72 hours in Canadian history. The cost of securing the Metro Toronto Convention Centre and the surrounding area for the 72 hour G20 Toronto summit now sit at approximately $1.2 billion. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews defended the costs for security, saying Canada has an obligation to make sure world leaders are safe while visiting Toronto and Huntsville, Ont.

If that were true then why hasn’t Canada’s most important figurehead, the Queen, been afforded the same security considerations as the G20 leaders and bankers received? Today is Canada Day and Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh are in Ottawa on an official state visit to partake in the celebration of Canada’s birthday. Nowhere can be seen any police in full riot gear pushing and clubbing the assembled people even though there are thousands of Canadians participating in the celebrations with Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh. It was announced that the Queen would do a walkabout among the thousands of Canadian celebrants. We don’t see any police in full riot gear rushing to protect our and their Queen and we don’t see people becoming violent even though this is a much larger peaceful assembly of people than what the G20 saw or could ever hope to see. The Queen is more important than any foreign dignitary or banker and yet the Toronto Police and its 8,000+ members acted as though their allegiance were to the US president and other foreign dignitaries when in fact their first and foremost allegiance is to the people, as represented by the Queen. The Toronto Police Service Motto “To Serve and Protect” is displayed for all to see on their patrol cars. Who do they serve and protect was clearly evident June 26 and 27 at the G20 Summit.

Queen Elizabeth told 100,000 people on Parliament Hill on Thursday that she could think of no better reason to celebrate than Canada’s 143rd birthday.

Queen Elizabeth II arrived on Parliament Hill in a horse drawn carriage. She was dressed in Canada Day red and, after watching an array of musical acts — both French and English — the Queen of Canada wished her country a happy birthday in French and English. Below, a transcript of what she said.

“Prime Minister, Minister, distinguished guests, fellow Canadians. Today, all across this country, Canadians are coming together to celebrate the history of Canada, its identity and its achievements.

This nation has dedicated itself to being a caring home for its own, a sanctuary for others and an example for the world. We have just now seen images of the Canadian forces [on a giant screen], and diplomats and humanitarian workers at work across the globe providing their support and assistance to others in dangerous and hostile circumstances, and earning the respect of us all.

The Canadian Oath of Allegiance is a promise or declaration of fealty to the Canadian monarch, taken, along with other specific oaths of office, by new occupants of various government positions, including federal and provincial viceroys, appointees to the Queen’s Privy Council, Supreme Court justices, members of the federal and provincial parliaments, as well as of the Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Oath of Allegiance also makes up the first portion of the Oath of Citizenship, and may form a part of oaths taken by new members of provincial and municipal police forces.

I, [name], do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God

The Oath of Allegiance was implemented to secure the supremacy of the reigning monarch of Canada, the giving of faithfulness to whom is a manifestation of a key responsibility central to the Canadian system of government, and serves to “remind individuals taking it of the serious obligations and responsibilities that he or she is assuming.”

Former Premier of Ontario Mike Harris said in 1993: “The oath to the Queen is fundamental to the administration of the law in this country. It signifies that, here in Canada, justice is done — not in the name of the Prime Minister, or the Mayor, or the Police Chief, as in totalitarian nations — but by the people, in the name of the Queen,”

The following Law Enforcement Oath of Honor is recommended as by the International Association of Chiefs of Police as symbolic statement of commitment to ethical behavior:

On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.

Before any officer takes the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, it is important that he/she understands what it means. An oath is a solemn pledge someone makes when he/she sincerely intends to do what he/she says.

Honor means that one’s word is given as a guarantee.
Betray is defined as breaking faith with the public trust.
Badge is the symbol of your office.
Integrity is being the same person in both private and public life.
Character means the qualities that distinguish an individual.
Public trust is a charge of duty imposed in faith toward those you serve.
Courage is having the strength to withstand unethical pressure, fear or danger.
Accountability means that you are answerable and responsible to your oath of office.
Community is the jurisdiction and citizens served.

POLICE SURROUND PEACEFUL PROTESTERS AND ATTACK - QUEENS PARK TORONTO - G20

In what has become for many in Toronto—and around the world—the iconic moments of the G20 weekend, police charging into an apparently peaceful crowd.

Canada was initially inhabited by the First Nations people for more than 10000 years and the Inuit people from 500 CE, before the Vikings visited Canada around the 11th century, withdrawing without establishing settlements after the violent reaction of the locals. In the 15th century Basque fishermen began fishing the Grand Banks near Newfoundland, one of the richest fishing regions of our planet. Later in the 16th and 17th centuries, first the French and later the British settled in Canada and built the first organised West-European style colonies there. However, the colonisation was not a peaceful process, since the First Nations People were very determined to defend their land.

Although there were numerous armed conflicts between the two European powers in Canada, the French and the British, the Europeans finally became the dominant power in most of Canada and together with their culture they also brought their flags: In 1497 Cabot carried the St. George’s Cross flag while approaching the east coast of Canada; before 1763 the most common flag in the colonies of New France (Nouvelle France) and Quebec was the fleur-de-lis; the Union flag was used in the British colonies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick..

In 1812, the United States (population: 7.5 millions, military force: 100000) declared war on the United Kingdom and attacked Canada (population: 0.5 million, military force: 50000). Canadians successfully defended their land and the Americans suffered much more casualties (12000) than the French/British-trained Canadian forces (5000). The war of 1812 caused a sudden rise of strong national identity sentiments in Canada and united its French and English inhabitants. A truly Canadian national identity was well established, and it was not too long until Canadians started feeling that they should have a distinct national flag.

By 1868, a new flag began to appear unofficially: The Canadian Red Ensign (In 1945 that flag almost became official when its use in government buildings and the parliament was allowed.) Later, in 1925, a committee was established to choose a new national flag for Canada, but its work was never completed. In 1946 there was another unsuccessful maneuver to change the flag.

The centennial celebration of the Confederation was approaching and prime minister Lester Bowles Pearson informed the House of Commons in 1964 that the government wanted to introduce a national flag. Despite strong opposition by former prime minister John George Diefenbaker, a committee was set up to choose a new flag for Canada.

After about 5900 submissions, 3 proposed designs were selected for final consideration:

* A Red Ensign with the fleur-de-lys and the Union Jack.
* A design with 3 red maple leaves (prime minister preferred a version of this flag designed by Alan Beddoe, which had two blue borders symbolising the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, nicknamed the “Pearson Pennant”).
* A red flag with a single red maple leaf on a white square, created by designed by George Stanley.

Several heraldists analysed the proposed flags and tried to find out which one was the most “Canadian”. Fortescue Duguid, a historian with heraldy expertise, and Alan Beddoe, a heraldy adviser of the Royal Canadian Navy, both favoured the 3-leaf flag. Although most Canadians liked the idea of having a new flag, there was much opposition to the Pearson Pennant design. John Diefenbaker, while speaking to the parliament, once said: “this flag will only be passed over by my dead body”.

For more than 30 days there was very intense controversy in the parliament, and Diefenbaker and his party issued over 200 speeches. Because of the debate, discussions for other programmes (which could be considered much more important for the people’s daily life), like the Canada Pension Plan, were completely stalled. To resolve the situation, the prime minister assigned to a 15-member committee headed by Liberal MP John Matheson to make the final decision.

In 1964, George Francis Gillman Stanley, a Calgary-born author, historian, public servant, soldier and teacher, who was educated in the University of Alberta and the Oxford University, and held several advanced academic degrees (D.Phil., M.A., M.Litt. and two B.A.), was at the Royal Military College. The college was using a red-white-red 3-pale flag featuring a college crest with 3 maple leaves held by a mailed fist. This design inspired Stanley to propose a similar red-white-red theme, but with a red maple leaf instead. In October, Matheson and NDP MP Reid Scott seemed to like Stanley’s flag.

The single maple leaf design had many advantages: It was neutral and it could help Quebec to stay content within the Confederation. According to Matheson’s book “the fight for a flag was a fight to save Canada” (source). Several people were afraid that the Confederation could someday collapse and that the French-speaking Quebec could separate from the rest English-speaking provinces. Back in 1946 Quebec demanded the exclusion of all foreign symbols from any Canadian flag. By 1963 the police was concerned by the activities of a small but very violent terrorist organisation calling itself Quebec Liberation Front (Front de Libération du Quebec) which was seeking to establish a socialist independent state in Quebec by force. There was surely some anti-Confederation or anti-British sentiment in Quebec which needed to be balanced with a neutral symbol of unity and inter-cultural cooperation. What could be better than a maple leaf, which symbolises the land that all Canadians love?

The maple leaf has a long history in the Canadian psyche. Its first documented use was in 1834 by the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, and in 1836 a newspaper (Le Canadien) proposed that it would be a suitable symbol for Canada. In 1860 it was used for decorations during the visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada. Alexander Muir wrote “The Maple Leaf Forever” in 1867, and it was considered a national song for many years then. In 1904 the athletes of Canada in the Games of the III Olympiad (in St. Louis, Missouri, USA) used maple leaf symbols on their uniforms. Later, in the First World War, the maple leaf was a symbol of the Canadian forces. It was used again in the Second World War, when many Canadian tanks were featuring a maple leaf on them, together with many heroic Canadian soldiers, many of them volunteers, who helped to save Europe from the Nazi invaders.

There are many maple species, and the committee relied on photographs produced by the Dominion Forest Service to choose the exact variety which was the most familiar to Canadians: The hard sugar maple tree leaves. The natural leaf has about 23 points, but the stylised version has only 11 because, according to Matheson’s book, they can “visually multiply as the wind speed increases”.

The exact size and the placement of the leaf on the flag was selected after thorough study and tests under varying wind velocities at the National Research Laboratory Wind Tunnel.

The flag was finally approved by the committee in December 1964 and on 15 February 1965 the maple leaf flag became the official national flag of Canada, with the agreement of Queen Elizabeth II. The new Canadian flag symbolised Canada’s independence and unity.

The flag of Canada, also known as the Maple Leaf Flag or the One-leaved (in French: l’Unifolié), is unique from many standpoints:

* It is the only flag tested under various wind velocities at a wind tunnel research laboratory.
* Its commercial use is protected by trade mark laws.
* Its symbol is a maple leaf, a reference to Canada’s environment and natural beauty.
* Its official colours, designated by King George V of United Kingdom in 1921, are references to St. George’s cross (national flag of England from 1277) and the French royal emblem since King Charles VII of France.
* It is instantly recognisable by most people around the world.

Flag of Canada protected by The Trade-marks Act

The arms and the flag of Canada are protected by The Trade-marks Act (Statutes of Canada Chapter T-13) against unauthorized use for commercial purposes.

“9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for…… e) the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada in respect of which the Registrar has at the request of the Government of Canada or of the province or municipal corporation concerned, given public notice of its adoption and use…”

“Canada” Wordmark

The “Canada” wordmark is the global identifier of the Government of Canada and is protected under the Trade-marks Act.

Use of Canadian symbols abroad as an element of a foreign trademark

Under Article 6.ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Stockholm text, 1967),

“(1)(a) The countries of the Union agree to refuse or to invalidate the registration, and to prohibit by appropriate measures the use, without authorization by the competent authorities, either as trademarks or as elements of trademarks, of armorial bearings, flags, and other State emblems, of the countries of the Union, official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted by them, and any imitation from a heraldic point of view.”

“(9) The countries of the Union undertake to prohibit the unauthorized use in trade of the State armorial bearings of the other countries of the Union when the use is of such a nature as to be misleading as to the origin of the goods.”

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 6.ter Canada has notified to the World Intellectual Property Organization its wish to protect the Canadian flag, coat of arms and 11-point red maple leaf emblem against unauthorized use.

Rules for Flying the Flag

The National Flag of Canada should be displayed only in a manner befitting this important national symbol; it should not be subjected to indignity or displayed in a position inferior to any other flag or ensign. The National Flag always takes precedence over all other national flags when flown in Canada. The only flags to which precedence is given over the Canadian flag are the personal standards of members of the Royal Family and of Her Majesty’s eleven representatives in Canada.

The National Flag of Canada should always be flown on its own mast - flag protocol dictating that it is improper to fly two or more flags on the same mast (eg. one beneath the other). Further, the following points should be kept in mind:

* The National Flag of Canada should not be used as table/seat cover, as a masking for boxes or as a barrier on a dais or platform.
* While it is not technically incorrect to use the National Flag of Canada to cover a statue, monument or plaque for an unveiling ceremony, it is not common practice to do so and should be discouraged.
* Nothing should be pinned to or sewn on the National Flag of Canada.
* The National Flag of Canada should not be signed or marked in any way

When the National Flag of Canada is raised or lowered, or when it is carried past in a parade or review, all present should face the flag, men should remove their hats, and all should remain silent. Those in uniform should salute.

Displaying the Flag

The National Flag is flown at all federal government buildings, airports, and military bases and establishments within and outside Canada. The flag may be flown by night as well as by day.

When three flags are displayed, the National Flag should be at the centre. To an observer facing the display, the second-ranking flag (in order of precedence) is placed to the left of centre, and the other to the right.

A common combination of flags is that of the National Flag of Canada with a provincial or territorial flag, and a municipal flag or an organization’s banner. In such a case, the National Flag should be in the centre with the provincial/territorial flag to the left and the municipal flag/organization’s banner to the right (to an observer facing the display).

Due consideration should be given to flag etiquette and precedence whenever the National Flag of Canada or other sovereign national flags or provincial/territorial flags are displayed.

The location of the position of honour depends on the number of flags flown and the chosen configuration. When two flags (or more than three flags) are displayed, the position of honour is furthest to the left (to an observer facing the display). When three flags are flown, the position of honour is in the centre.

The order of precedence for flags is:

1. The National Flag of Canada
2. The flags of other sovereign nations in alphabetical order (if applicable)
3. The flags of the provinces of Canada (in the order in which they joined Confederation)
4. The flags of the territories of Canada (in the order in which they joined Confederation)
5. The flags of municipalities/cities
6. Banners of organizations
7. Historical Flags

If one simply wishes to create a decorative effect (eg. dressing a house for a festive occasion) it is preferable to use pennants or coloured buntings and not flags.

When the National Flag of Canada is displayed in a place of worship or on a speaker’s platform, it should be against the wall, or on a flagpole on the left from the point of view of the congregation audience facing the celebrant or speaker.

When used in the body of a place of worship or auditorium, the National Flag of Canada should be to the right of the congregation or spectators facing the flag.

The National Flag of Canada, when flown or paraded, takes precedence over all other national flags. When flown with the flags of other sovereign nations, all flags should be flown on separate flagpoles/masts and at the same height, all being of the same size, with the National Flag of Canada occupying the position of honour.

The National Flag should be raised first and lowered last, unless the number of flags permits their being raised and lowered simultaneously.

With the flag of one other nation, the National Flag of Canada should be on the left of the observer facing the flags; both should be at the same height.

When crossed with a flag of another sovereign nation, the National Flag of Canada should be on the left of the observer facing the flags; the flagpole bearing the National Flag of Canada should be in front of the pole of the other flag.

In a line of three flags, the National Flag of Canada should be in the centre. The other two flags should, in alphabetical order, be placed to the left and right of the National Flag respectively, from the point of view of the observer facing the three flagpoles/masts.

When there are more than three flagpoles/masts, the National Flag of Canada should be flown on the left of the observer facing the flags, followed by the flags representing the other sovereign nations ordered alphabetically. An additional National Flag of Canada may also be flown on the right at the end of the line.

In a semi-circle of flags representing a number of sovereign nations, the National Flag of Canada should be in the center.

If carried with other flags, in a single file, the National Flag of Canada should always lead.

“O Canada” is the national anthem of Canada.

The song was originally commissioned by Lieutenant Governor of Quebec Théodore Robitaille for the 1880 Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day ceremony; Calixa Lavallée wrote the music as a setting of a French Canadian patriotic poem composed by poet and judge Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier. The lyrics were originally in French and translated into English in 1906.

Robert Stanley Weir wrote in 1908 another English version, one that is not a literal translation of the French. Weir’s lyrics have been revised twice, taking their present form in 1980, but the French lyrics remain unaltered. “O Canada” had served as a de facto national anthem since 1939, officially becoming Canada’s national anthem in 1980, when the Act of Parliament making it so received Royal Assent and became effective on July 1 as part of that year’s Dominion Day celebrations.

Official English version

O Canada!

Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.