Carrier Strike Group 10. Clockwise from bottom left: HMCS Charlottetown (frigate), USS Hue City (guided-missile cruiser) USS Oscar Austin (guided missile destroyer) USS Harry S Truman (aircraft carrier), USS Carney (destroyer) and USS San Jacinto (guided missile cruiser).

World leaders “believe absolutely” that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Saturday.

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders north of Toronto.

The leaders of the G-8, which comprises Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States, devoted much of their two-day session to discussion of the contentious nuclear programs unfolding in North Korea and Iran.

The leaders issued a statement on Saturday calling on Iran to “respect the rule of law” and to “hold a “transparent dialogue” over its nuclear ambitions.

In their communiqué, the leaders of the world’s richest countries said they respected Iran’s right to a civilian nuclear program, but noted that such a right must be accompanied by commitment to international law.

It is ironic that the G-8 are calling on Iran to “respect the rule of law” when the US, Canada and England have chosen to totally disregard and disrespect the rule of law with an unprovoked attack against Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. All three G-8 members have been accused of torturing POWs even though the rule of law forbids the use of any type of torture on any person. All three have executed military operations against civilians even though the rule of law forbids any military action against the Geneva Convention protected civilian population of Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not attack the US or Canada or England on September 11, 2001 or any time before or since yet the US, Canada, England and other G-8 member states went ahead and attacked Afghanistan. For almost 9 years the US, Canada and England have been violating the rule of law on a daily basis and yet they are now calling for Iran to respect the rule of law. What hypocrites.

The G-8 members are not the only ones who believe Israel is ready to attack Iran. Gulf newspapers have also reported that Israel is ready to attack Iran. The Gulf Daily News reported on Friday June 25, 2010 that Israel is massing war planes in the Caucasus for an attack on Iran. Preparations are under way to launch the military attack from Azerbaijan and Georgia, reports military sources. Israel was training pilots in Turkey to launch the strike and was smuggling planes into Georgia using Turkish airspace. Turkey has stated that it was unaware of Israel’s intention of transferring war planes to Georgia.

The crisis between Israel and Turkey following an Israeli commando raid on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza Strip interrupted the Israeli attack on Iran as the aid flotilla belonged to Turkey.

The Gulf Daily News reported that Azerbaijan based intelligence units, working under the cover of technicians, trainers and consultants, have been helping with the Israeli attack planning and preparations. Military equipment, mostly supplied by the US, was transported to a Georgian port via the Black Sea. It has also been reported that Georgian coast guard and Israeli controllers are co-operating to hide the operations from Russian vessels. They point out that according to Israel, it will not be in a position to launch a strike on Iran without using bases in Georgia and Azerbaijan due to the limited capabilities of its nuclear submarines stationed near the Iranian coast.

Last weekend nbGazette.com reported that the USS Harry S. Truman Strike group passed through the Suez Canal. The Pentagon confirmed that a large fleet of US warships had indeed passed through Egypt’s Suez Canal en route to the Gulf. At least one Israeli warship joined the American armada. The Navy announced on Monday that the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group, which left Norfolk in late May, is set to relieve the Dwight D. Eisenhower strike group on Friday in the Arabian Sea. The Navy states that the Truman strike group will conduct close air support missions for ground troops in Afghanistan and enforce maritime security in the region.

The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG) is made up of CCSG 10 staff, USS Harry S. Truman, Carrier Air Wing 3, Commander, Destroyer Squadron 26 staff, guided missile cruisers USS San Jacinto (CG 56) and USS Hue City (CG 66); guided missile destroyers USS Carney (DDG 64), USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79) and USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81); attack submarine USS Montpelier (SSN 765); fast combat support ship USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8); the Canadian frigate HMCS Charlottetown (FFG 339) and the British destroyer HMS Manchester (D95).

It makes me believe that the whole purpose of the G-8 meeting in Huntsville Ontario last week wasn’t an economic meeting but a war planning and preparation meeting. Looks like the US, England and Canada are planning for and preparing for another illegal war of aggression against another oil and natural gas rich Middle East country. Who’s disrespecting the rule of law now, eh?

In the United States a roll of toilet paper is now worth more than the US dollar. You could be a rich man in the coming US depression if you stocked up on toilet paper because in all past depressions and even wars toilet paper has always been a hot commodity.

With the rapidly increasing U.S. national debt is there a viable solution to prevent the collapse of the US dollar? The answer is NO. There simply is not a solution under the current U.S. financial system. It is now mathematically impossible for the U.S. government to pay off the U.S. national debt. The U.S. government now owes more dollars than actually exist. If the U.S. government went out today and took every single penny from every single American bank, business and taxpayer, they still would not be able to pay off the national debt. And if they did that, obviously American society would stop functioning because nobody would have any money to buy or sell anything.

Debt is a high-priority topic for the Fourth G20 Summit in Toronto, Canada this weekend. Below is the list of G20 with the greatest amounts of external debt. External debt measures the total public and private amount of money owed to non-residents that is repayable in foreign currency, goods or services. From the list we can see that the United States has the largest deficit with other countries. That debt amount is almost the same as the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.

1. United States … US$13.5 trillion (94.3% of 2009 GDP)
2. United Kingdom … $9.1 trillion (422.9%)
3. Germany … $5.2 trillion (185.3%)
4. France … $5 trillion (238%)
5. Italy … $2.3 trillion (132.3%)
6. Japan … $2.1 trillion (51.5%)
7. Australia … $920 billion (111.6%)
8. Canada … $833.8 billion (64.9%)
9. Russia … $369.2 billion (17.4%)
10. China … $347.1 billion (3.9%)

While one might argue that Canada’s external debt is much less than American, European and Australian deficits, Canada is still 8th among 19 G20-member countries in terms of highest debt load. Canada’s external debt is over 10 times higher than that of Saudi Arabia or South Africa.

The following is a list of G20 Countries with Lowest Amounts of External Debt

1. Saudi Arabia … US$72.5 billion (12.4% of 2009 GDP)
2. South Africa … $73.8 billion (14.9%)
3. Argentina … $108.6 billion (19.5%)
4. Indonesia … $150.7 billion (15.5%)
5. Mexico … $177 billion (11.9%)
6. Brazil … $216.1 billion (10.7%)
7. India … $223.9 billion (6.3%)
8. Turkey … $274 billion (31.7%)
9. South Korea … $333.6 billion (24.6%).

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partner Mexico has a much smaller external debt than either Canada or the U.S.

The first 5 countries on the list below are in bad financial shape because they owe more to foreigners than their respective economies produce in a year - Gross Domestic Product (GDP). How can these countries turn around their debt levels before foreign creditors refuse to lend them any more money? This is a critical question that is being discussed at the G20 Summit in Toronto this weekend. The greatest concern for the countries that hold the external debt of prominent G20 members are with countries that have a GDP of 90% and higher.

1. United Kingdom … 422.9% of GDP (US$2.15 trillion in 2009)
2. France … 238% ($2.1 trillion)
3. Germany … 185.3% ($2.8 trillion)
4. Italy … 132.3% ($1.8 trillion)*
5. Australia … 111.6% ($824 billion)
6. United States … 94.3% ($14.3 trillion)
7. Canada … 64.9% ($1.29 trillion)
8. Japan … 51.5% ($4.1 trillion)
9. Turkey … 31.7% ($863.3 billion)
10. South Korea … 24.6% (1.36 trillion).

While sporting a debt-level percentage healthier than some, Canada still has a considerable debt load that needs improvement.

Among all G20 member countries, the fast-growing economies are China, India and Brazil and they all have the lowest percentage debt levels.

1. China … 3.9% of GDP (US$8.8 trillion in 2009)
2. India … 6.3% ($3.6 trillion)
3. Brazil … 10.7% ($2 trillion)
4. Mexico … 11.9% ($1.5 trillion)
5. Saudi Arabia … 12.4% ($585.8 billion)
6. South Africa … 14.9% ($495.1 billion)
7. Indonesia … 15.5% ($969.2 billion)
8. Russia … 17.4% ($2.1 trillion)
9. Argentina … 19.5% ($558 billion).

Emerging countries like Russia and Argentina have percentage debt loads less than a third of Canada’s growing external debt percentage.

The only way to reduce external debt is to reduce spending. The governments of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Canada have been spending money they don’t have. In order to pay for all of those unnecessary expenses they seek out foreign money from other countries (creditors) to bankroll these debts. The US for one should have allowed a number of US Federal Reserve banks to fail to avoid the over $5 trillion bailout debt that added to the already weak economy of the United States. According to the US National Debt Clock the US National Debt is now $13.1 Trillion ($118,705 National Debt share per taxpayer) and the US Total debt is currently $54.2 Trillion and the total amount of the total debt per US person is $175,000. 41 millions Americans are now receiving food stamps meaning 41 million Americans can’t afford to buy food let alone be able to help pay off the US National Debt. The number of US citizens on food stamps is more than the entire population of Canada (34 million). It is mathematically impossible for the US population to pay off the US National Debt, not now, not in the near future, not ever.

Is there a solution? No! Not now and not in our lifetime. Couldn’t the U.S. government just fire up the printing presses and print a bunch of money to pay off the debt? Again the answer is No. That is not the way the US system works. You see, for more dollars to enter the system, the U.S. government has to go into more debt. The U.S. government does not issue U.S. currency - the Federal Reserve does - in violation of the United States Constitution because only “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof”.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank owned and operated for profit by a very powerful group of elite international bankers. This elite group of international bankers are also at these G20 and G8 summits.

If you will pull a dollar bill out and take a look at it, you will notice that it says “Federal Reserve Note” at the top. It states in clear view that the US dollar bill belongs to the Federal Reserve. The U.S. government cannot simply go out and create new money whenever it wants under the US current illegal money system. Instead, it must get it from the counterfeiting Federal Reserve.

When the U.S. government needs to borrow more money (which happens a lot these days) it goes over to the counterfeiters at the Federal Reserve and asks them to print (counterfeit) more green pieces of paper called counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes.

The Federal Reserve launders these worthless green pieces of paper for pink pieces of paper called U.S. Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve either sells these U.S. Treasury bonds or they keep the bonds for themselves (which happens a lot these days).

So that is how the U.S. government gets more worthless counterfeit green pieces of paper called “U.S. dollars” to put into circulation. But by doing so, they get themselves into even more debt which they will owe even more interest on. So every time the U.S. government does this, the national debt gets even bigger and the interest on that debt gets even bigger. It is a scheme created by the privately owned Federal Reserve so that foreign bankers can control the United States. They use the US debt to influence US agendas and foreign policies - through financial blackmail. The same group of bankers created the current US financial crisis by simply declaring their banks were in grave financial trouble. Being a private group of banks no audit has ever been done to prove or disprove their actual financial state. They robbed the American people and now the United States president is forced to bow and beg its foreign creditors for more money to keep the US government going.

US is bankrupt

Bottom Line - If all of the money owned by all of the American banks, businesses and individuals was gathered up today and sent to the U.S. government, there would not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt. The only way to create more money is to go into even more debt which makes the problem even worse.

This is what the whole Federal Reserve System was designed to do. It was designed to slowly drain the massive wealth of the American people and transfer it to the elite international bankers - all of who attend each and every meeting of the G8 and the G20.

It is a game that is designed so that the U.S. government can’t win. As soon as they create more money by borrowing it, the U.S. government owes more than what was created because of interest. If you owe more money than ever was created you can never pay it back. That means perpetual debt for as long as the system exists. It is a system designed to force the U.S. government into ever-increasing amounts of debt because there is no escape.

The US could solve this problem by shutting down the privately owned Federal Reserve and restoring the power to issue U.S. currency to the U.S. Congress (which is what the U.S. Constitution calls for).

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

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;

But the politicians in Washington D.C. are not about to adhere to the demands of the United States Constitution. They are all accomplices of the Federal Reserve. They are all guilty of crimes against the United States of America for they have failed to support and defend the supreme law of the United States - the United States Constitution. The US Constitution clearly declares that only Congress can coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin. Congress is duty bound to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States. The Federal Reserve is counterfeiting the Coin of the United States. But they will never be punished because most of the members of the United States Congress have received financial rewards and kickbacks from the Federal Reserve bankers. President Barack Obama too is bought and paid for by the Federal Reserve bankers. His policies and agendas are dictated, not by the wishes of the United States people, but by the demands of the bankers of the privately owned Federal Reserve. It is not only Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off The U.S. National Debt it is also politically impossible to begin to pay off the US National Debt.

The G20 Summit is now winding down. Now we begin to repair the damage to our city and to our city’s reputation. Now we collect the evidence and hold our political officials and representatives responsible and accountable for the G20 violence. Yes I said political officials and representatives and not the vandals because there is only one group of people who bears full responsibility and financially and politically liable for the damage and violence in the Toronto down town core this past weekend. That group are the real anarchists, the provocateurs, the aggressors and the vandals. That group is our government - federal, provincial and municipal. They are solely responsible because they idiotically decided to host the G20 Summit in the down town core of the largest city in Canada -Toronto.

The Canadian government had a choice of places to host the G20 Summit. The other choices would have cost hundreds of millions of Canadian Tax dollars less than hosting the summit in down town Toronto. The more practical choices would pose little or no threat to the visiting foreign dignitaries and bankers. There would not have been any violence at the 2010 G20 Summit in Canada had anarchist Stephen Harper chosen a lesser densely populated area.

Apparently everyone in Stephen Harper’s government is brain dead or at least pathetically stupid. We all have watched how other G20 summits have played out in the past. All summits before this one resulted in massive protests and massive aggression against peaceful protesters by the hosting city’s police force. In the past there has always been violence, the exact same time of violence perpetrated by the exact same group of people. Could the Harper government not logically surmise that exactly the same types of protests, police brutality and violence would happen in Toronto? They knew this would happen and yet they went ahead and hosted the 2010 G20 summit in the down town core of Canada’s largest city. That makes Stephen Harper’s government solely responsible, financially and politically liable for the damage caused to down town Toronto businesses and for the violence that occurred during the G20 Summit this past weekend.

Whenever the US government officials decides to meet outside of Washington DC to discuss important state issues or to entertain foreign ally dignitaries they have in the past meet at Camp David. Camp David type of meeting places would eliminate the extraordinary security cost that Canada is now on the hook for and it would eliminate any and all violent protests that causes damage to not only local businesses but to the reputation of the host. If the G20 members want something more secretive and quiet the best logical choice would be to host all of their summits in remote areas of the hosting country or better yet meet as the Allied nations of WWII did - aboard ships anchored in the waters off the coast of the hosting country. What the hell, charter a cruise ship to host every and all G20 summits. The cost to charter a cruise ship would cost pennies on the dollar, compared to the $1.2 billion price tag of Stephen Harper’s stupidity. The G20 members can meet, dine, wine and act like the pompous asses they are just as easily on a cruise ship than down town Toronto, Ontario Canada.

For being so wasteful with our money and acting like a fascist dictator by having our police attack us while we exercise our right to assemble peacefully in protest of this massive waste of public funding by Harper’s government and the other G20 members, justice will be served in the next federal and provincial elections. In the meantime investigations have already begun regarding the misappropriation of public funding for this non-essential pompous event, mishandling of this event by our government, both federally and locally, and for the police brutality and lawlessness in their attacks against and arbitrary detention of Canadian citizens exercising their guaranteed rights and freedoms.

Reporters covering the G20 summit in Toronto say they were the target of police violence overnight, as riots blamed on anarchist groups left four police bait cars burning in the financial district unjustifiably resulting in the arrests of some 150 people.

“A newspaper photographer was shot with a plastic bullet in the backside, while another had an officer point a gun in his face despite identifying himself as a member of the media,” reported the Canadian Press news agency. The agency did not say if it was its own reporters who were targeted.

Journalist Steve Paikin of public broadcaster TV Ontario said he witnessed “police brutality” against a reporter and the arrests of peaceful demonstrators.

“I saw police brutality tonight. It was unnecessary. They asked me to leave the site or they would arrest me. I told them I was doing my job,” he Tweeted.

“As I was escorted away from the demonstration, I saw two officers hold a journalist. The journalist identified himself as working for ‘the Guardian.’ He talked too much and pissed the police off. Two officers held him a third punched him in the stomach. Totally unnecessary. The man collapsed. Then the third officer drove his elbow into the man’s back. No cameras recorded the assault. And it was an assault.”

Paikin had been at a demonstration in Toronto’s Esplanade neighborhood, a densely-populated area near the waterfront. He said police moved in on a crowd of peaceful, “middle class” protesters and began arresting them.

“Police on one side screamed at the crowd to leave one way. Then police on the other side said leave the other way. There was no way out,” he Tweeted. “So the police just started arresting people. I stress, this was a peaceful, middle class, diverse crowd. No anarchists. Literally more than 100 officers with guns pointing at the crowd. Rubber bullets and smoke bombs ready to be fired. Rubber bullets fired.”

Paikin, a respected journalist who has hosted national election debates in Canada, said he was “escorted” away by police before he could see how many people were arrested, “but it must have been dozens.”

“I have lived in Toronto for 32 years. Have never seen a day like this. Shame on the vandals and shame on those that ordered peaceful protesters attacked and arrested.”

Province of Ontario secretly gives police temporary unlawful arresting powers

Civil liberties advocates, political activists and local politicians are up in arms after it emerged Friday that police in Toronto have been given special illegal powers to arrest anyone near the site of the G20 summit if they fail to identify themselves. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

What’s more, the government of the province of Ontario, which green-lit the new powers, didn’t tell anyone about it until after someone was arrested under the new powers.

Thirty-one-year-old Dave Vasey was arrested near the G20 perimeter security fence in downtown Toronto Thursday afternoon after refusing to identify himself to a police officer.

With Vasey’s arrest, it emerged that Ontario secretly changed its Public Works Protection Act to allow police officers unprecedented powers of arrest. That law allowed police to arrest people if they fail to identify themselves to a police officer when inside a government building or near a “public works” project. It has now been temporarily expanded to include the area around the G20 summit, meaning a significant portion of downtown Toronto.

Toronto Chief of Police Bill Blair, who reportedly requested the arbitrary arrest powers, denied Friday that it had been done in secret.

“We haven’t changed the rules,” he said, as quoted at the National Post. “We have put up a fence. We have told people very very clearly that we will not be allowing the public access into that area. … Our authority comes primarily comes from common law, but also by the regulation that has been passed by the province of Ontario.”

But the assertion that the change wasn’t secret was immediately challenged by reporters covering the G20 summit.

“Funny,” writes Adam Radwanski at the Globe and Mail, “I asked two different spokespeople for the integrated G20 police unit — at least one of whom was from the Toronto force — about the legal justification for the measures being taken around the perimeter. Neither breathed a word about anything about the Public Works Protection Act, let alone any recent cabinet decisions that affected it.”

“It’s just unbelievable you would have this kind of abuse of power where the cabinet can create this offense without having it debated in the legislature,” Vasey’s lawyer, Howard Morton, told the Star.

The Toronto Star reports:

The regulation kicked in Monday and will expire June 28, the day after the summit ends. While the new regulation appeared without notice on the province’s e-Laws online database last week, it won’t be officially published in The Ontario Gazette until July 3 — one week after the regulation expires.

Within those areas, police can demand identification from anyone coming within five metres of the fence perimeter and search them. If they refuse, they face arrest. Anyone convicted under the regulation could also face up to two months in jail or a $500 maximum fine.

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind. ~ John Diefenbaker (From the Canadian Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960)

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental 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.

Legal Rights

Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Arrest or detention
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.

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Self-crimination
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Legislative powers not extended

31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.

Application of Charter

32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has become the newest member of the notorious Billion Dollar Boondoggle Club thanks to Summitscam. He joins the ranks of Jean Chrétien, Jane Stewart, Allan Rock and Dalton McGuinty. Mr. Harper’s entry to the club comes as a result of the giant cost overruns for the upcoming G8 and G20 leaders’ summit, leaving taxpayers on the hook for $1-billion or more.

The ballooning costs for the upcoming chin-wag sessions came to light last week as the federal government released the Supplementary Estimates to the Budget. These are departmental requests for more cash than they had budgeted for the fiscal year. Such requests are indications of bad planning or unforeseen circumstances. The Estimates reveal that costs for the G8 and G20 gabfest are 420% over-budget.

Spending for the summit originally had been projected at $179-million. The new requests for cash stand at a staggering $930-million — and not all costs are yet known.

This summit spending boondoggle is a mess that requires investigation. If parliamentary committees weren’t such a farce of political mayhem, they would be the place for it to happen. Instead, the Auditor-General is the right person for the job. I am glad to see she will be investigating.

Many important questions deserve good, clear and detailed answers. How did the government underestimate costs in the first place? What has driven up the costs of the program so alarmingly? Who was supposed to mind the budget and why didn’t they? What companies received contracts? Were they tendered? Did the contracts stay on budget?

Certainly, hosting the summit did not come as a surprise. The government has known for a long time that the event was coming. Also known were the tremendous costs and challenges of security for such an event. Canada had just finished hosting the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver, where a cruise ship was contracted just to house security forces.

This spending fiasco shows our politicians have failed to learn from billion dollar spending mistakes of the recent past.

Allan Rock’s federal long-gun registry has cost more than $2-billion. Plus, it still costs taxpayers more than $106-million per year in direct and indirect costs. In 2002, Auditor General General Sheila Fraser uncovered waste in excess of $1-billion.

There was the HRDC training boondoggle under minister Jane Stewart in which the ministry made grants and contributions to projects designed to provide skills training through local organizations. In 2000, auditors suggested potential problems in the handling of up to $1-billion. Since this came to light charges have been filed against at least 27 individuals.

In 2009, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government got caught allowing an eHealth program to balloon out of control. A special audit discovered massive waste of $1-billion and said there were no results to show for the money spent.

Of course, there is also the famous Adscam fiasco under Jean Chrétien in which players have ended up in jail. In 2004, an audit investigated the $250-million program, finding not just waste, but also widespread corruption.

It was probably only a matter of time before the Harper government joined the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Club. Many Cabinet ministers spend a lot of their work day bragging about how much taxpayer money they spend. If, instead, they focused more time on how to reduce spending and balance the budget, this Summitscam might have been avoided.

National Post
Kevin Gaudet is the federal and Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Toronto police chokes a peaceful G20 Toronto Summit protester. Police on horse back were seen throughout the day riding into peaceful protesters in an attempt to incite violence. The Canadian government is under pressure to account for the $1.2 billion security bill and without violence the spending would not be justified. Police even baited the peaceful protesters by intentionally abandoning patrol cars in the middle of deserted streets and then pushing peaceful protesters into those streets with the abandoned police cars.

The Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, under the second clause states that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: Freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association.” The Canadian Charter of Rights was also designed to be stronger than the American bill of rights; section 24(1) gives the courts a free hand.

“Anyone whose rights and freedoms as guaranteed by this charter, have been infringed or denied, may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstance.”

Section 52 of The Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 allows the courts to invalidate laws or parts of laws for breaches of the constitution (including the Charter). Section 24 has broader capabilities (hindered only by the “appropriate and just” requirement) and can only be invoked when a claimant’s rights are violated.

Practices regarding what evidence may be brought against an individual in trials are addressed by section 24(2). When evidence is obtained through the violation of a Charter right, the claimant is able to apply to have the evidence excluded from the trial under this section.

At common law, all evidence, regardless of how it was obtained, can be submitted in a trial, however, the US exclusionary rule excludes all evidence acquired through the violation of the Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution Act makes it clear that any government action that infringes on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be brought before a judge, regardless if it is new legislation by a present government.

We have the right to assemble and protest the summits such as the one that is taking place in Toronto this weekend.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is our bill of rights. The Charter protects our political and civil rights from the policies and actions of all levels of government.

The G20 summits are illegal because they all intentionally infringe or deny our fundamental rights and freedoms. They use police intimidation (charging protesters with horses is an unlawful act of aggression against peaceful and lawful protest by the people against abusive and anti-democratic and anti-sovereign government organizations). The electorate never voted to form the G20 or the G8. Leaders of 20 countries formed the G20 to illegally obtain nobility, which is banned by every democratic government in the World including the US and Canada. In the US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 specifically bars all persons holding any office of profit or trust under them to assume or take any title of nobility:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

US Constitution Article 1, Section 10:

“No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.“

The G20 illegally decides who receives the wealth while the workers keep getting blamed for their losses. The G20 illegally infringes on the sovereignty of nations. The G20 illegally trades away the natural resources of natural resources rich countries. Their actions are taken to steal the riches of poorer nations. The G20 violates the US Constitution Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 as the elected president of the United States and US bankers unlawfully assumes the title of nobility and enter into alliances with foreign states at which time they illegally coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin tender in payment of the US debt, unlawfully passes bill of attainders, ex post facto law, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. All of these crimes against the United States are committed by the US presidents who have and are now taking part in the G20 Summits.

In Canada you can’t ever be a Baroness or Baron, Duke or Duchess, these titles are given to members of Royal family’s and there children. The prime minister, along with the other ministers in cabinet, is appointed by the governor general on behalf of the Queen.

Because the prime minister is, in practice, the most politically powerful member of the Canadian government, he or she is sometimes erroneously referred to as Canada’s head of state, when, in fact, that post is held by the Canadian monarch, represented by the governor general. The jurisdiction of the Canadian federal government is limited to areas prescribed by the constitution. Further, as executive power is constitutionally vested in the monarch, meaning the Royal Prerogative belongs to the Crown and not to any of its ministers. When the Prime Minister bows before the Queen, he bows before us [the Canadian people].

The citizens of Canada must address Harper and his administration and put an end to this illegal assembly of greedy politicians and bankers. It is time we take all those who take part in these illegal groups to court for denying us our fundamental rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, and, especially, for using tax dollars to bridle our freedom of peaceful assembly by fencing us out. They have shown us they want to meet secretly behind security fences so lets accommodate their wishes and put them all behind bars. There they can never infringe on our fundamental rights and freedoms. Putting them behind bars protects us, our country’s sovereignty and all of our fundamental rights and freedoms. It is time to use our police for their true intended purpose - to serve and protect the public and to keep the peace.

G20 Protest Update

What you see on the news concerning violent protests at the G20 Summit is a lie. The images of burning police patrol cars are disturbing but there is evidence that the police staged the burning of their own vehicles. At Spadina Avenue, on the northwest of the secured area, an unidentified man was seen sitting atop an abandoned police cruiser holding a placard bearing a quote by former U.S. President Andrew Jackson. He then climbed into the driver’s seat and set off the car’s siren as other protesters cheered their approval. Shortly after, the car was set ablaze.

The cars were abandoned hours before they were set afire to. They never exploded because there was minimal gas in the tank. The plausible reason being, if they leave their vehicles, and the protesters take them over, it’s now called a “violent” protest. In addition to this patrol car being set ablaze two cruisers were set abalze at King and Bay Sts. and another on Queen St. near Spadina Ave.

In another patrol car burning incident the evidence is presented by a live video news reporter who reported live that the patrol cars were literally abandoned and no protesters were in sight as well as no cops on bikes, walking or otherwise. Police only showed up 20 minutes after they saw the news report being feed live and then they swarmed in mass against the peaceful onlookers (no protesters) and started pushing and shoving them for no reason. In fact the reporter’s live news report showed no indication of any protester setting the car on fire. The reporter just happened upon a burning patrol car in a deserted street and started filming. Eventually a crowd grew, all curious onlookers. The police used this peaceful assembly of onlookers and turned it into a violent protest where they falsely claimed the group of peaceful onlookers attacked the police and set their patrol car ablaze. In the live news report you can see a few police officers running to the burning car, then police on bikes and ATV swoop in, followed by police on horseback and then police in full riot gear marching up to the peaceful onlookers and the reporter. Then for no reason the police began shoving and pushing the onlookers in what the video footage clearly shows as a police provocation.

Federal law requires everyone who enlists or re-enlists in the Armed Forces of the United States to take the enlistment oath. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

When one enlists in the United States Military, active duty or reserve, they take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

US President Barack Obama fired his top Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for remarks about administration officials. Obama said bluntly that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s scornful remarks about administration officials represent conduct that “undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system.”

Obama has never served in the US military. Had he served he would know that all military personnel take an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Military personnel also swear to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the order of the officers (not politicians, not administration officials and not civilian advisors) appointed over them, however, their obedience of any order(s) by the president or any other military officer is required only for lawful orders. If the president of the United States issues an unlawful order all US military personnel are bound by duty and oath to disobey any and all such unlawful order(s). McChrystal remarks are allowed by US law. In a democratic society, including the US, all of its citizens have the guaranteed rights. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

During and after the Constitution ratification process, Anti-Federalists and state legislatures expressed concern that the new Constitution placed too much emphasis on the power of the federal government. The drafting and eventual adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was, in large part, a result of these concerns, as the Bill of Rights limited the power of the federal government. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are permitted by the First Amendment. McChrystal exercised his right under US law and dictatorial Barack Obama assumed unlawful authority to infringe on McChrystal’s rights.

The US Constitution relies on everyone, including the president, military personnel, administration officials and civilians, to support and defend the supreme law of the United States, the US Constitution. All, including Obama and general McChrystal are bound by oath to support and defend the US Constitution. This defense of the US Constitution is the fabric of the United States democracy. Anyone who violates any part of the United States Constitution is an enemy of the United States and its democracy.

McChrystal isn’t the one undermining the core of the US democratic system Obama and his administration officials are solely responsible. Firing a US military general for rightfully speaking out against those who are endangering the United States with unlawful policies and agendas is unconstitutional and therefore undemocratic. McChrystal remarks are a wakeup call for the US population. The federal government has assumed too much power. It is about time someone told the US people the truth. It is about time someone in charge came forward and exposed the US government’s politically corrupt agenda in Afghanistan. More generals should speak up against the US government’s illegal war against Afghanistan. No oath has ever been taken by any US civilian or US military personnel to support and defend the president of the United States or any administration official. All allegiances are confined to the United States, the United States flag and the United States Constitution. All have taken an oath to defend the United States and the United States Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Today the enemy is a domestic enemy, the unlawful US president and his administration officials.

There are 20 members of the G20 organization. These include the finance ministers and central bank governors of the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. The 20th member is the European Union, which is represented by the rotating presidency and its European Central Bank. In addition to these 20 members, the following forums and institutions participate in G20 Meetings: International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Intl Monetary & Financial Committee, Development Committee of the IMF & World Bank. They are a group who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign aid organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, and extortion.

The G20 and G8 Group defraud the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries into accepting enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID. Saddled with huge debts they could not hope to pay, these countries are forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Developing nations are effectively neutralized politically, had their wealth gaps driven wider and economies crippled in the long run.

Why is the G20 meeting? First of all because the US$-based global financial structure is broken. The US Dollar is totally broken as the global reserve currency, fully discredited, and the anchor dragging down the national banking systems in scores of countries. The officially stated agenda of this weekend’s G20 meeting will be on what leading finance ministers and central bankers plan to do to prevent another global financial crisis - a crisis the G20 members orchestrated in the first place. Why would they orchestrate the Global Financial Crisis? The answer is hidden in the real purpose of the G20 Summit - to forge a radical overhaul of the world’s monetary system.

The real goal of the G-20 meetings is the creation of a new financial order based upon drastically new units of paper or fiat money to help wipe the world’s debt ledgers clean.

How? By systematically and progressively devaluing existing currencies, especially the U.S. dollar, and re-inflating ALL asset prices.

And while the planning stages will occur behind closed doors, already the public cries for a seismic shake-up of the world currency structure are becoming louder and louder …

Changing the value of a currency is nothing new. Government officials have talked the talk before. Treasury Secretary Donald Regan floated the idea in response to the Latin American debt crisis in 1982. The next year, when the French franc nosedived with three successive devaluations, it was President Francois Mitterrand’s turn to call for “a new Bretton Woods.”

Then, spurred by the emerging-market financial troubles of 1997-98, British Prime Minister Tony Blair opined, “We should not be afraid to think radically and fundamentally … We need to commit ourselves today to build a new Bretton Woods for the next millennium.”

In the past, whenever an international financial crisis crops up, authorities in high places have often referred to a new Bretton Woods “solution” (i.e., changing the value of paper money).

The concept of changing the world’s monetary system to wipe bad debts clean and to start anew with a fresh ledger or balance sheet, if you will, is not new.

It dates back to Roman times when emperors successively devalued the Roman denarius to wipe out debts and spark asset inflation.

More recently, emerging economies have engaged in chronic currency devaluations to deal with their mountains of debt. But surprisingly to most analysts, the industrialized world has also tried to “change the rules of the game,” which is central-bank speak for altering the value of paper money.

And interestingly, the most famous historical precedent — almost an exact analogy to today’s emergency G-20 meetings — was a little-known but critically important meeting in 1933, called the London Monetary and Economic Conference.

At the depths of that Great Depression, the world’s leading economic ministers met to find a cure for the global depression … just like they’re doing today.

But when finance ministers, central bankers and government leaders met in London to work out a plan, President Franklin Roosevelt changed his mind at the last minute and refused to attend. By most historical accounts, he had decided that there was no time to bicker with other nations and that action needed to be taken immediately.

So instead of attending the meeting, Roosevelt declared a bank holiday for four days, closing all banks in the country — largely to stem an outflow of gold, but also so federal examiners could inspect them and declare them fit for duty. Those that failed the inspection remained closed permanently.

More importantly, Roosevelt issued the famous Executive Order 6102 confiscating most all privately-owned gold by Americans, taking America officially off the gold standard, banning gold exports, and devaluing the U.S. dollar by 40 percent against gold to stem the deflationary spiral of the Depression.

Aside from the location of the meeting, there are tantalizing similarities between that 1933 Conference and next month’s G-20 meeting …

… Then as now, the global economy was in tatters from an international financial crisis.

… Then as now, the global economy was suffering from massive debts gone bad and deflation.

… Then as now, the main thrust of the 1933 initiative was to clear the deck of debt by changing the value of paper money.

Today, the U.S. is the world’s largest debtor. If the US even thought about trying to go it alone, it would end up very alone indeed … as their creditors around the world (all of the other members of the G20) would then threaten to stop financing the US debt needs, causing the U.S. economy to truly implode.

What is Bretton Woods?

In 1944, 44 Allied countries met at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. Their objective was to formulate a plan to stabilize international exchange rates in the aftermath of World War II and help indebted European countries survive. Thus, a new monetary system was born.

The system they came up with, which went into effect when the war was over in 1945, established fixed exchange or “pegged” rates for currencies to the U.S. dollar and in terms of gold.

Member nations were required to establish parity of their currencies to the dollar and to the “gold peg” and maintain exchange rates within plus or minus 1 percent of parity by intervening as necessary (buying or selling) in the foreign exchange markets.

The official price of gold was fixed at $35 an ounce. The agreement also established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bridge temporary imbalances of payment and the World Bank to provide loans and grants for economic development.

The problem: Bretton Woods was not immune to manipulation. For instance, while the U.S. maintained a commitment to convert dollars into gold, many other countries didn’t.

So the system essentially broke down. In 1971, President Richard Nixon “closed the gold window” of the U.S. Treasury for good by unilaterally terminating the convertibility of dollars into gold.

Although the dollar was cut from the gold standard, the greenback managed to remain the world’s reserve currency, largely because of the massive economic growth the U.S. experienced.

But now, as ground zero for the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, all that is obviously changing. Hence the calls for a new Bretton Woods, which means, at its core, a new monetary system.

The 1985 Plaza Accord

Deliberate official devaluation of currencies is nothing new. Ancient kings and emperors often skimped on the gold and silver content or simply made coins smaller while saying they were still worth the same to skim extra wealth for their coffers.

Nowadays, it’s much easier. Without the restraint of a gold standard or any other tangible backing, governments can simply crank up the printing press and create more money out of thin air. It’s a fine line to walk, though, because overdoing it leads to a crisis of confidence in the currency (Zimbabwe, Greece).

Sometimes, however, the system drifts so far out of whack that unilateral action isn’t enough. Then cooperation among nations is required.

The Plaza Accord of 1985 serves as a good example of coordinated currency manipulation. The main purpose of the agreement among France, West Germany, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom was to devalue the dollar versus the Japanese yen and German mark.

This was done to restart the global economy following the recession of the early ’80s and help reduce the U.S. current account deficit. And it worked: The dollar fell 51 percent against the yen over the next two years.

Today, we are again facing a major, worldwide epidemic. Deteriorating economic conditions in the U.S., Japan, China, Germany, and elsewhere are virtually forcing nations into competitive devaluations to stimulate growth. It’s become a “race to the bottom” to see who can drive their currency the lowest, to help their current account balance.

The result is a flood of fiat paper money such as we have never seen before. The potential for disaster in this free-for-all melee is not lost on the G-20 ministers and bankers.

The G-20’s Secret Debt Solution

Each and every time the G20 Group meet they discuss the same thing. They discuss how to implement their plans to:

1) Actively intervene in the forex markets to depress the dollar’s value, thereby re-igniting asset inflation and alleviating debt burdens.

2) Create three new monetary units (new dollar, new euro, new pan-Asian currency), to soon replace the US dollar as the world’s sole reserve currency.

3) Establish a new fixed-rate currency regime, abolishing the present floating rate foreign exchange structure.

4) Re-calibrate currency values to a common basis of value, most likely involving gold.

5) And implement the currency overhaul via the International Monetary Fund.

As of June 11, 2010, the World Health Organisation stated that 18,156 people World wide had died from swine flu, a year after the influenza was declared a pandemic.

The CDC ran “scare” ads that portrayed swine flu as a full-blown “pandemic” responsible for snuffing out countless lives, and which, unless stopped by universal vaccination, could kill millions of American citizens. But scientists and health officials throughout the world have called the governments claims unjustified and deliberately misleading.

A UN report stated that the pandemic may result in anarchy unless the rich western countries pay for antiviral drugs and vaccines.’ The amount to shell out is $1.5 billion. The UN report stated that the swine pandemic is expected to ‘kill millions’ which would ‘cause anarchy in the world’s poorest nations,’ thereby causing weak economies to completely collapse, unless the West can cough up the ‘subsidy’ for vaccines and antiviral medicines.

The warning and request are hedged on the premise that global health officials will be incapable ‘to stem the growth of the worldwide H1N1 pandemic in developing countries.’ The report from the United Nations was sent to ‘health ministers around the globe’.

An alleged deadly virus that was suppose to kill millions claimed just 18,156 lives. Of those numbers health officials World wide believe an investigation would show that thousands are not even Swine Flu related deaths, they are seasonal Flu deaths - intentionally added to falsely inflate the actual number of Swine Flu deaths. Why did the WHO and the CDC declare a pandemic when no pandemic existed? The British Medical Journal found that WHO guidelines on the use of antiviral drugs were prepared by experts who had received consulting fees from the top two manufacturers of these drugs, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

Scientists who advised the World Health Organization on its influenza policies and recommendations—including the decision to proclaim the so-called swine flu a “pandemic” had close ties to companies that manufacture vaccines and antiviral medicines like Tamiflu, a fact that WHO did not publicly disclose.

Several key advisors who urged the World Health Organization [WHO] to declare the H1N1 pandemic received direct financial compensation from the very same vaccine manufacturers who received a windfall of profits from the pandemic announcement.

“The transparency of the science underlying the W.H.O.’s advice to governments” is in doubt, which means that they lied about the seriousness of the illness.

The links between the advisors and the companies that make money from vaccines and flu treatments were detailed in a report published online by the British medical journal BMJ, which investigated the advisors’ role in WHO’s policy.

The report by Deborah Cohen, features editor of BMJ, and Philip Carter, a journalist with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, acknowledged that flu experts do “need to work with industry to develop the best possible drugs for illnesses,” but said that allowing industry experts to have a role in the formulation of public health policy was a slippery slope.

And worse, Cohen and Carter said, was the failure of WHO officials to disclose the conflicts of interest or even identify the members of its advisory committee.

An official Council of Europe inquiry led by Paul Flynn, a British member of parliament, concluded that the “Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level.”

Flynn’s team concluded that some of WHO’s actions led to the “waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.”

WHO’s advisors received compensation from manufacturers of the same antivirals and vaccines recommended for use during the H1N1 pandemic.

Henry Miller, MD, a biotechnology expert at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said WHO made a number of mistakes, and its declaration of a pandemic was one of them.

Cohen and Carter detailed WHO’s pandemic influenza preparation starting in 1999, when a preparedness plan was drafted by six researchers in collaboration with the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI). Over the next decade, according to their investigation, WHO failed to disclose industry ties among researchers advising the organization.

The document drafted in 1999 did not include information on conflicts of interest. Cohen and Carter pointed out that ESWI is funded entirely by Roche, which makes Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and that two of the authors of the document had participated in Roche-sponsored events in the previous year. Both were also involved in a randomized controlled trial of Tamiflu supported by the company.

In 2002, WHO called together flu experts to craft guidelines for the use of vaccines and antivirals during an influenza pandemic. The panel included representatives of Roche and Aventis Pasteur (now Sanofi-Pasteur), which makes flu vaccine, and three experts who had been named in marketing material for Tamiflu.

The resulting report, which advised stockpiling antivirals, was published in 2004, and the main author, Frederick Hayden, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, confirmed that Roche was paying him for lectures and consulting when the report was produced and published.

Several additions to the report did not include information about conflicts of interest, according to Cohen and Carter.

“WHO has failed to provide any details about whether such conflicts were declared by the relevant experts and what, if anything, was done about them,” they wrote.

Compounding this lack of transparency is the fact that the 16 members of the emergency committee that has been advising WHO during the H1N1 pandemic have remained anonymous, at least officially. The chair is known to be John MacKenzie of Curtin University in Perth, Australia.

Investigation turned up another three members, including Arnold Monto, M.D., of the University of Michigan School of Public Health; John Wood, Ph.D., of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control in the U.K.; and Masato Tashiro, M.D., Ph.D., director of the WHO collaborating center for surveillance and research on influenza in Tokyo.

Wood and Tashiro said they have no conflicts of interest, but Monto has received speaker’s fees from GlaxoSmithKline, maker of another antiviral, Relenza (zanamivir).

According to Philip Alcabes, associate professor of epidemiology at City University of New York Hunter College, investigations should go far beyond the question of whether potential links to drug companies went unpublicized.

CSIS director Richard Fadden raised concerns about foreign influence over Canadian politicians this week in an interview with CBC. The CSIS Act requires the service to investigate threats to the security of Canada — including foreign interference,” Fadden said.

“The service has been investigating and reporting on such threats for many years. Foreign interference is a common occurrence in many countries around the world and has been for decades.

“I have not apprised the Privy Council Office of the cases I mentioned in the interview on CBC. At this point, CSIS has not deemed the cases to be of sufficient concern to bring them to the attention of provincial authorities.

“There will be no further comments on these operational matters.”

In an exclusive interview with CBC News earlier this week, Fadden said Canada’s spy agency suspects that some municipal politicians and cabinet ministers in two provinces are being swayed by their connections to foreign governments.

Fadden said the agency was in the process of discussing with the Privy Council Office the best way to inform those provinces there may be a problem.

Fadden did not identify the cabinet ministers or the two provinces, but he said some public servants in British Columbia are also under suspicion. Officials in British Columbia were caught off-guard by the allegations that some among them could have a foreign government’s interests at heart. B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell’s office said the premier would not be available for comment.

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement saying, “We have no knowledge of these matters,” and directed all inquiries to CSIS.

Canadian security expert Martin Rudner found the timing of the claim curious, but he theorized that perhaps it was CSIS’s way of letting any politician or official who is selling out Canadian interests know that the spy agency is watching.

Fadden described how a few foreign governments are seeking out Canadian politicians from the diaspora of those countries and are offering free trips to the homeland or access to business contacts.

Fadden suggested that as the relationship gets cozier, a politician in that situation starts making decisions that favour his or her homeland over Canada.

The term fiat money is used to mean:

* any money declared by a government to be legal tender.
* state-issued money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
* money without intrinsic value.

The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning “let it be done”, as the money is established by government decree. Where fiat money is used as currency, the term fiat currency is used. Today, most national currencies are fiat currencies, including the US dollar, the euro, and all other reserve currencies, and have been since the Nixon Shock of 1971.

In a fiat money system, money is not backed by a physical commodity (i.e.: gold). Instead, the only thing that gives the money value is its relative scarcity and the faith placed in it by the people that use it.

In a fiat monetary system, there is no restrain on the amount of money that can be created. This allows unlimited credit creation. Initially, a rapid growth in the availability of credit is often mistaken for economic growth, as spending and business profits grow and frequently there is a rapid growth in equity prices. In the long run, however, the economy tends to suffer much more by the following contraction than it gained from the expansion in credit. This expansion in credit can be seen in the Debt/GDP ratio. We track the bubbles created by this expansion of debt at the inflation / deflation page.

In most cases, a fiat monetary system comes into existence as a result of excessive public debt. When the government is unable to repay all its debt in gold or silver, the temptation to remove physical backing rather than to default becomes irresistible. This was the case in 18th century France during the Law scheme, as well as in the 70s in the US, when Nixon removed the last link between the dollar and gold which is still in effect today.

Hyper-inflation is the terminal stage of any fiat currency. In hyper-inflation, money looses most of its value practically overnight. Hyper-inflation is often the result of increasing regular inflation to the point where all confidence in money is lost. In a fiat monetary system, the value of money is based on confidence, and once that confidence is gone, money irreversibly becomes worthless, regardless of its scarcity. Gold has replaced every fiat currency for the past 3000 years.

The founding fathers were concerned about the unrestrained control of the money supply. One thing they all agreed upon was the limitation on the issuance of money, Thomas Jefferson warned of the damage that would be caused if the people assigned control of the money supply to the banking sector, “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country” Thomas Jefferson, 1791

Many of the founding fathers experienced the damage caused by fiat currency. Most of the revolutionary war was financed by worthless currency called “Continentals”.

# The Continental Currency (”Not worth a Continental”) that American colonists issued for the Continental Congress to finance the Revolutionary War was replaced by the US Dollar in 1785 when The Continental Congress adopted the dollar as the unit for national currency. At that time, private bank-note companies printed a variety of notes. After adoption of the Constitution in 1789, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States and authorized it to issue paper bank notes to eliminate confusion and simplify trade. The U.S. Constitution (Section 10) forbids any state from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender. The Federal Monetary System was established in 1792 with the creation of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia. The first American coins were struck in 1793. The U.S. Coinage Act of 1792, consistent with the Constitution, provided for a U.S. Mint, which stamped silver and gold coins. The importance of this Act cannot be stressed enough. One dollar was defined by statute as a specific weight of gold.

# The Act also invoked the death penalty for anyone found to be debasing money.

# President George Washington mentions the importance of the national currency backed by gold and silver throughout his initial term of office and he contributed his own silver for the initial coins minted.

# The purchase of The US Mint in Philadelphia, was the first money appropriated by Congress for a building to be used for a public purpose. It was purchased for a total of $4,266.67 on July 18, 1792.

The first use of fiat money (called Greenbacks) in the United States was in 1862, it was used as a tool to pay for the enormous cost of the Civil War. Greenbacks were a debt of the U.S. government, redeemable in gold at a future unspecified date. They were circulated along with Gold certificates, backed by the government’s promise to pay in gold.

1944 Bretton Woods Accord (similar to gold exchange standard of 1926-1931) Two main currencies again, the US dollar and British pound. A run to convert pounds to gold collapsed the pound and began the end of the Bretton woods accord. It took 3 years while governments tried to salvage the system and also to determine what to do next. Kind of like having one leg on the boat and the other on shore. 1963 - New Federal Reserve notes with no promise to pay in “lawful money” was released. No guarantees, no value. This is also the year of the disappearance of the $1 silver certificate. Once again, a subtle shift in plain view.

1965 - Silver is completely eliminated in all coins save the Kennedy half-dollar, which was reduced to 40 percent silver by President Lyndon Johnson’s authorization. The Coinage Act of 1965 signed by Lyndon Johnson, terminates the original legislation signed by George Washington 173 years earlier (carrying the death penalty) enabling the US Treasury to eliminate the silver content of all currency.

1968 - June 24 - President Johnson issued a proclamation that all Federal Reserve Silver Certificates were merely fiat legal tender and could not really be redeemed in silver.

August of 1971 President Nixon ended the international gold standard and for the first time no currency in the world had a gold backing. This made paper money worthless.

The Smithsonian Agreement was passed pegging world currencies to the dollar rather than gold as a fixed exchange rate.

The Basel Accord established the current floating exchange of currency rates the US is operating under today.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. As long ago as October 19, 2000, the then United Nations Human Rights Commission (now Council) condemned Israel for inflicting “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” upon the Palestinian people, most of whom are Muslims.

The Israeli Tourism Ministry is using an advertising campaign called “Experience Israel” in an attempt to encourage tourists to visit the country. But the ministry totally wiped out Palestine off the map by removing any reference to the Palestinian territories.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) reported that the removal of the Palestinian Territories from a map used in the promotion of Israel as a tourist destination has been brought to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The PSC sent a strongly worded letter, and asked that the incorrect and misleading map be removed from their display locations on the London Underground.

The “Experience Israel” advertisement was produced by Longwood Holidays, in coordination with ThinkIsrael.com and Israel’s Tourism Ministry.

The PSC said should its complaint be approved, it would be the second time in less than two years that the ASA has issued a ruling against ThinkIsrael.com for producing false maps in its advertisements.

The illusive map shows the occupied West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the occupied Golan Heights as part of the State of Israel, although the afore mentioned areas are under occupation.

In this regard it is important to note that UN Resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, which are Palestinian territories.

Yet, Israel chose to violate international legitimacy resolutions, and maintained its occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan Heights.

The Israeli policy of wiping Palestine of the map is not something new; it has been going on for decades. In fact, all advertisements from Israel fail to mention the Palestinian territories. One of the main examples of this violation is referring to Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, as part of Israel.

With the support of the United States, a resolution was placed before the United Nation General Assembly for consideration. Defining genocide in 1943:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

In the wake of the Holocaust, Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws defining and forbidding genocide. In 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that “affirmed” that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which legally defined the crime of genocide for the first time.

The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally-recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Hundreds of Palestinian children have gone missing. Are they victims of kidnapping or paedophiles? Yes. Perpetrated by the Israeli government which routinely arrests Palestinian children, depriving them of their basic rights and subjecting them to ongoing violations.

Back in January 2009 the president of the UN General Assembly has condemned Israel’s killings of Palestinians in its Gaza offensive as “genocide”. “The number of victims in Gaza is increasing by the day… The situation is untenable. It’s genocide,” d’Escoto said at the UN in New York.

Article I of the Genocide Convention requires all contracting parties such as the United States “to prevent and to punish” genocide. Yet to the contrary, historically the Israeli government’s criminal conduct against the Palestinians has been financed, armed, equipped, supplied and politically supported by the United States. Although the United States is a founding sponsor of, and a contracting party to, both the Nuremberg Charter and the Genocide Convention, as well as the United Nations Charter, these legal facts have never made any difference to the United States when it comes to its blank-check support for Israeli government and their joint and severable criminal mistreatment of the Palestinians. Today, Israel is the only country anywhere on Earth threatening complete annihilation of the Palestinian people and their Palestinian State. Even after consistent international protests and condemnation the Israeli government still refuses to allow International aid to be brought into Gaza. International aid that is needed for the survival of the Palestinian people. These actions are taken by the Israeli government in their ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. One of the primary victims of the Nazi German Holocaust are now the perpetrators of another Holocaust - the Final Solution - the Israeli government’s intent to kill all of the Palestinian people.

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime. Jews were not the only group singled out for persecution by Hitler’s Nazi regime. As many as one-half million Gypsies, at least 250,000 mentally or physically disabled persons, and more than three million Soviet prisoners-of-war also fell victim to Nazi genocide. History is repeating. Even before the Nazi Holocaust began the United States and Great Britain knew what was happening but did absolutely nothing. Today the United States and the EU know and can see what the Israeli government is doing but is doing absolutely nothing. The whole World can see the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of the Palestinian people but are doing nothing to stop it. Who will end this Israeli atrocity against the Palestinian people? When will the International community intervene? I fear not until after it is too late. After all of the Palestinian people are dead.

Eleven American battleships and an Israeli warship crossed the Suez Canal Friday en route to the Red Sea, the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper reported. According to the report, traffic in the canal was halted for several hours in order to allow US Navy vessels, which included the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman and its Carrier Strike Group to pass from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.

The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG) is made up of CCSG 10 staff, USS Harry S. Truman, Carrier Air Wing 3, Commander, Destroyer Squadron 26 staff, guided missile cruisers USS San Jacinto (CG 56) and USS Hue City (CG 66); guided missile destroyers USS Carney (DDG 64), USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79) and USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81); attack submarine USS Montpelier (SSN 765); fast combat support ship USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8); the Canadian frigate HMCS Charlottetown (FFG 339) (HMCS Charlottetown is the first Canadian frigate from Maritime Forces Atlantic to be integrated into a United States Navy Carrier Battle Group. HMCS Charlottetown left its homeport of Halifax in January 2001, and was scheduled to returns from the Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf) in July. For all you naive Canadians who believe Canada isn’t or was never involved in the US war of aggression against Iraq you are sadly wrong and deceived as the HMCS Charlottetown has been with the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group when the US attacked Iraq on March 18, 2003.); and the British destroyer HMS Manchester (D95).

Egypt allowed the US / Israeli warships to pass through the Suez Canal as an Iranian humanitarian Aid Flotilla approaches Gaza. Egypt closed the canal to protect the warships with thousands of US soldiers on board. A day earlier the Egyptian government denied an Israeli government request not to allow the Iranian flotilla to use the Suez Canal to reach Gaza.

International agreements require Egypt to keep the Suez open even for warships, but the US/Israeli aggression armada, led by the USS Harry S. Truman with 5,000 sailors and marines, was the largest in years. Egypt closed the canal to fishing and other boats as the armada moved through the strategic passageway that connects the Red and Mediterranean Seas.

The American-Israeli fleet sailing through the Suez Canal is viewed as aggression according to the Laws of the Sea. The purpose of the fleet is clearly a use of military force against a humanitarian aid ships with civilians on board.

This is yet another unlawful act of war by Israel. This is yet another war crime act by Israel against the civilian population of Gaza. Earlier this month Israeli officials claimed that their IDF commandos, who killed and wounded dozens of civilian humanitarian workers on a Turkish humanitarian aid convoy bound for Gaza on May 31, 2010, faced a potentially lethal attack, and opened fire in self-defense. According to experts in international law, the Israeli blockade of Gaza itself is illegal, and therefore Israel had no right to board those ships in the first place. It renders the argument over culpability moot. Israel committed an illegal act of war attacking the convoy, regardless of who tried to draw “first blood.”

Israeli officials claim that the Jewish state is at war with Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip. On that basis, officials say Israel has a right to intercept shipping in and out of Gaza under the law of war. However, Gaza is not an independent state at war with Israel. Gaza is occupied by Israel, and, as such, an entirely different set of international laws apply. As UC Hastings legal scholar George Bisharat explained, the 2005 withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the ground in Gaza is immaterial, as the area remains under Israel’s “effective control” — it’s a remote occupation but an occupation nonetheless.

Under customary international law that Israel accepts as binding … a territory is “occupied” when foreign forces exercise “effective control” over it, whether accomplished through the continuous presence of ground troops or not.

Israel patrols the territorial waters and airspace of the Gaza Strip, regulates Gaza’s land borders, restricts internal movements by excluding Gazans from a “buffer zone” that includes 46 percent of the strip’s agricultural land, and controls the Gaza Strip’s supplies of electricity, heating oil, and petrol. Together these factors amount to remote but “effective control.”

According to Bisharat, this is not a matter of dispute. “The Gaza Strip remains occupied,” he wrote, “as the United Nations, the U.S. government and the International Committee of the Red Cross have all recognized.” Hamas controls the ground within Gaza, but Israel controls Gaza.

There are two important ramifications to this. First, a blockade that restricts the local population’s access to vital goods violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifies that an occupying force has a legally binding duty to protect an occupied population. Bisharat explained it like this:

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.

The second point pertains to the attack on the Freedom Flotilla. As Bisharat notes, “Actions taken to enforce an illegal siege cannot themselves be legal.” The Israel commandos were transported 70 miles offshore, into international waters. There, they attacked a civilian vessel flagged to an allied state — a NATO member — and killed and wounded some yet unclarified number of activists whose journey was motivated by their opposition to the blockade.

It was not an act of “piracy,” because the Israeli troops were operating under the flag of a nation-state. Because the blockade violates international law, and Israel had no military justification for boarding her with special forces troops, it rather constituted an “illegal act of war.” Craig Murray, a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, called the legal situation “very plain”:

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean … that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

After perpetrating an act of war on Turkey, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, among the most extreme figures to serve in any Israeli government, said of the attack: “We didn’t start this provocation, we did not send bullies with knives and metal rods to Turkey… In this case, the entire blame, all of it, from beginning to end, is that of Turkey.”

They didn’t in fact send “bullies” to Turkey armed with “knives and metal rods”; according to Craig Murray, they sent a heavily armed special forces team to Turkey — the deck of that ship represented Turkish “soil.”

A final point. Israeli leaders say they have no animosity towards the people of Gaza. Some of Israel’s defenders have suggested that it’s relatively easy to get goods in and out of the territory; that Israel simply wants to “inspect shipments for arms.” So it’s important to note just how deeply damaging the blockade has been for the people of Gaza.

Foreign Policy Magazine compiled a large volume of information from reports issued by the United Nations and various NGOs working in Gaza. Just a few highlights:

* Electricity: In 2006, Israel carried out an attack on Gaza’s only power plant and never permitted the rebuilding to its pre-attack capacity…. The majority of houses have power cuts at least eight hours per day. Some have no electricity for long as 12 hours a day. The lack of electricity has led to reliance on generators, many of which have exploded from overwork, killing and maiming civilians.
* Water: Israel has not permitted supplies into the Gaza Strip to rebuild the sewage system. Amnesty International reports that 90-95 percent of the drinking water in Gaza is contaminated and unfit for consumption.
* Health: According to UN OCHA, infrastructure for 15 of 27 of Gaza’s hospitals, 43 of 110 of its primary care facilities, and 29 of its 148 ambulances were damaged or destroyed during the war. Without rebuilding materials like cement and glass due to Israeli restrictions, the vast majority of the destroyed health infrastructure has not been rebuilt.
* Food: A 2010 World Health Organization report stated that “chronic malnutrition in the Gaza Strip has risen over the past few years and has now reached 10.2%. … According to UN OCHA: “Over 60 percent of households are now food insecure …
* Industry: A World Health Organization report from this year states: “In the Gaza Strip, private enterprise is practically at a standstill as a consequence of the blockade. Almost all (98%) industrial operations have been shut down.

Israeli officials are correct that the state has a right to defend itself. Every nation does. But it has no right to commit war crimes in mounting that defense. The European Union has condemned the blockade of Gaza as a form of “collective punishment,” a serious violation of international law. Here’s an excerpt from the Fourth Geneva Convention:

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II… In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance… The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility.

Israeli officials often invoke the image of rockets reining down on Israel from Gaza as justification for their aggressive policies. While they represent a modest threat — fewer people died in rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in all of 2008 than perished in a few hours during the Israeli attack on the Freedom Flotilla — they are terrifying and constitute a war crime. Yet punishing the population rather than the militants who fired those rockets is a war crime as well. Approximately half of the population of Gaza are under 18 years of age.

Matt Yglesias noted that Israel’s defenders have described the blockade “as some kind of narrow effort to prevent arms smuggling,” but adds: “this simply isn’t what’s going on.” “The objective,” he wrote, “is to make life in Gaza miserable.”

Yglesias linked to Peter Beinart arguing that, as far as Israel’s government is concerned, “the embargo must be tight enough to keep the people of Gaza miserable, but not so tight that they starve.”

This explains why Israel prevents Gazans from importing, among other things, cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, French fries, dried fruit, fabrics, notebooks, empty flowerpots and toys, none of which are particularly useful in building Kassam rockets. It’s why Israel bans virtually all exports from Gaza, a policy that has helped to destroy the Strip’s agriculture, contributed to the closing of some 95 percent of its factories, and left more 80 percent of its population dependent on food aid. It’s why Gaza’s fishermen are not allowed to travel more than three miles from the coast, which dramatically reduces their catch.

Many Israeli lawyers have also concluded that the Israel’s 31 May attack against the Turkish Freedom Aid Flotilla had violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters.

“To the degree that the State adheres to international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, we see that this was an act of piracy, albeit by a state, but one which can be regarded as a robbery by sea of the passengers in the convoy, beginning with the takeover of the vessels, the seizing of the goods on board…and ending with the arrest and hijacking of the passengers and, apparently, the act of bringing them by force to Israeli territory.”

The lawyers wrote that these acts constitute an international crime and that they establish the right to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction by any tribunal, especially by the courts of those countries whose flags were flown by the vessels that were attacked.”

The UN convention calls for freedom of navigation in international waters, states that the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes and that no state my validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

Under Article 102 of the San Remo Manual, it states that a blockade is prohibited if the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the military advantage. The UN has stated that “In so far as it constitutes collective punishment of all persons in Gaza, including the civilian population, the blockade is itself a violation of international humanitarian law.”

Even in a situation of war, civilians are not to be attacked. The Freedom Flotilla was clearly carrying civilians who were not carrying weapons (and this was confirmed before the ships left port and after the cargo was inspected by Israel). The ages of civilians on board ranged from the ages of one year old to 89 years old. Under Article 6 of the Charter Provisions of the Nuremburg Trials, murder or any other inhumane act against a civilian population is tantamount to crimes against humanity.

Israel not only has to answer to Turkey for attacking its vessel, but as Israel is Party to the 1988 International Maritime Organization’s Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, it has breached Article 3 which prohibits seizing a ship by force or any other form of intimidation, or to commit any acts of violence against the people on the ship. Article 3 also applies to the US / Israeli armada of warships that have entered the Suez Canal with the sole purpose of seizing ships by force and commit acts of violence against the civilians on the Iranian Humanitarian Aid ships. Stopping and seizing another humanitarian aid flotilla from reaching the civilian population of Gaza restricts the local population’s access to vital goods, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifies that an occupying force has a legally binding duty to protect an occupied population. It doesn’t matter if it is a flotilla of ships from Iran, Turkey, Russia or even Canada the use of military force by the US and Israeli governments violates International Law.

Bernard Lawrence “Bernie” Madoff is a United States former stock broker, investment adviser, non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, and the admitted operator of what has been described as the largest Ponzi scheme in history. In March 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 federal crimes and admitted to turning his wealth management business into a massive Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars. Madoff said he began the Ponzi scheme in the early 1990s. However, federal investigators believe the fraud began as early as the 1980s. On June 29, 2009 Madoff was sentenced to 150 years imprisonment and forfeiture of $170.179 billion

A Ponzi scheme is best summed up in the phrase “rob Peter to pay Paul,” meaning: use one investor’s money to pay the returns of another investor. The money in a Ponzi scheme flows through a central agent who moves it around creating the illusion of earnings. Ponzi schemes are successful because investors typically continue to reinvest their earnings into the scam. This constant reinvestment of securities causes a financial bubble to grow. Inevitably, the bubble reaches critical mass and implodes.

Group Life and Health Insurance is truly a Ponzi scheme in the classic sense, where the first contributors to the fund are paid benefits mainly out of the funds received from the contributions of later participants. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. It is for this reason that Group Life and Health Insurance plans need you to commit to the scheme with monthly payments, payments that they illegally deduct from your employment pay cheques.

A Ponzi scheme is closely related to a pyramid because it revolves around continuous recruiting, but in a Ponzi scheme the promoter (insurance broker) generally has no product to sell and pays no commission to investors (policy holders) who recruit new “policy holding members”. Instead, the promoter (insurer) collects payments from a group of people, promising them all the same high rate of return (life and health benefits) on a short-term investment. In the typical Ponzi scheme, there is no real investment opportunity, and the promoter just uses the money from new recruits (new Group Life and Health Insurance Policy holders) to pay obligations owed to existing longer-standing members of the program. In English, there is an expression that nicely summarizes this scheme: It’s called “stealing from Peter to pay Paul.” In fact they take monthly Group Life and Health Insurance Policy deductions from your hard earned pay cheques and pay benefits to any number of other existing and new Group Life and Health Insurance Policy holders.

Ponzi schemes are quite seductive because they may be able to deliver a high rate of return to a few early investors for a short period of time. Yet, Ponzi schemes are illegal because they inevitably must fall apart. No program can recruit new members forever. Every Ponzi scheme collapses because it cannot expand beyond the size of the earth’s population. When the scheme collapses, most investors find themselves at the bottom, unable to recoup their losses.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. Group Life and Health Insurance Policies are exactly the same type of fraudulent investment because it too pays benefits to separate investors (the insured) from their own money and from money deducted from the pay cheques of subsequent group policy holders. Ask any group life or disability insurance recipients how many of them feel secure based on the miniscule benefits they are receiving. This type of insurance Ponzi Scheme targets the middle class. This type of fraud is a Communistic spreading of wealth from the middle class to the poor, not from the wealthy to the poor. Policy contributions have always been cut off at a level of income associated with the middle class, leaving the wealthy free of liability on most of their income because group life and disability insurance benefits are capped, presumably making group life and disability insurance deductions, above the designated maximum level of income, unfair. In the end, the poor are still poor, the middle class has now joined the ranks of the poor, and the wealthy are now fabulously wealthy, which results are characteristic of any Communistic or Fascistic form of governance. The Life and Disability Insurance Communistic, Fascistic mantra has been: Give us your money and we will take care of you from the cradle to the grave.

Very few people come to their senses and see insurance brokers for what they truly are - criminals. Seriously, how can you personally benefit from a group life insurance policy, a policy that you’ve been duped into paying into for decades, when you are dead? You will never know if your beneficiary will even receive the money owed you from your policy. You will never know if the people you were looking out for will actually be taken care of, as stipulated by your insurance broker. The majority of policy claims never get the full stated value for the paid into policy. The insurance companies always decides in favor of their own survival and will use any and all excuses to not pay what is owed. Hurricane Katrina is the perfect example of insurance fraud by the insurance companies. Insurance companies like Allstate Insurance simply refused to pay their policy holders’ claims - both life and property claims. To this day, many insurance policy holders have still not been paid a dime.

Ponzi schemes continue to plague us and challenges the law enforcement community. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is just one among many agencies that have the authority to file suit to stop this type of fraud. The Securities and Exchange Commission also pursues these schemes, obtaining injunctions against so-called “financial distribution networks” which in fact sell unregistered “securities.” The U.S. Department of Justice, in collaboration with investigative agencies like the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, prosecutes ponzi schemes criminally for mail fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, and money laundering.

A Ponzi scheme is built on the word-of-mouth of its early investors. Once a schemer is able to get paid a return on initial investments, those happy investors urge others to take part in the scheme. In a scheme like Bernie Madoff’s, which operated for the better part of 15 years, it’s likely that many early investors made money and got out before the bubble burst. However, that doesn’t put them in the clear. There exists a “clawback provision” in the case of Ponzi schemes, wherein a court-appointed receiver or trustee can sue any investor for money he has received in excess of his investment. Anyone breathing a sigh of relief for pulling out early of a Ponzi Scheme (Group Life and Health Insurance Policy included) may find himself on the business end of a lawsuit.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) forcefully criticised Obama’s health care reform bill in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this year. Graham compared it to a “Ponzi scheme”: “You– you take $570 billion out of Medicare to pay for the health care bill. Then you’re using that same $570 to say it lowers the growth of Medicare over time,” Graham said. He added: “So, it is a house of cards. It is a Ponzi scheme of the first order. It’s gonna blow up the deficit. It’s gonna affect every business, every family in this country…”

Calling the Senate health care bill a package that Ponzi schemer “Bernie Madoff would really envy,” Republican Sen. Jon Kyl stated that the legislation is long on promises but short on accounting. “Any private or any publicly traded business that claimed it was making a profit because it booked revenue over 10 years but only booked expenses over six years would wind up in jail. That’s what this bill does, that’s just many of the frauds and hat tricks in this bill,” Kyl said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Corn is a gift from Mother Earth. It is food. It is medicine. It is revenue. It is also a renewable fuel source.

For the first time a study of the health risks of transgenic corn approved for consumption reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.

CRIIGEN performed a counter evaluation of Monsanto’s regulatory study on rats fed MON863 GMO corn for three months. This study was used to authorize the international sale of this corn. The symptoms discovered during this counter evaluation are coherent, and observed in control rats of the same genetic strain, same age, and raised in strictly identical conditions. The rats were fed a diet of chemical composition considered to be equivalent, but without the toxin Bt, which is the insecticide that is self-produced by the GMO corn. On average, the female rats experienced weight gain, significant increases in sugar and fat levels in the blood, disruption of renal functions and an increase in kidney weight compared to the rest of the body. Inversely, male rats lost weight, their kidneys become more sensitive and lost weight compared to the rest of the body. Additionally, ion analyses were modified in urine, which is likely related to the diagnosed nephropathies. Rats do develop this naturally with age, but the rats used in this case were young (5 months old at the end of the study). Some hepatic function markers were also affected. It is important to note that toxic products such as pesticides, as in initial stages of cancer, often provoke different effects depending on gender. It is not possible, through such short-term tests, to identify the beginning of any particular disease. But it was “detoxification” organs, as they are traditionally referred to, that reacted in this study.

Variations in the animals’ weights were not statistically studied by Monsanto, which published on the subject in 2006, nor were the data on urinary chemistry. The statistics were not explored further and their protocols are highly debatable.

Studies indicate that 2 percent of adults and 8 percent of children have food allergies. Inhaling pollen from GM crops is creating new threats that need to be researched and evaluated. In a 1999 statement posted on Soy Info Online, Joe Cummins, professor emeritus of genetics at the University of Western Ontario says that “GM pollen is likely to open an extended range of allergy and may cause autoimmune disease or other kinds of toxicity.”

Studies indicate that residues of glyphosate in foods may increase the incidence of certain cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bovine growth hormone (rBGH) found in most milk (unless the package notes otherwise) has been linked to breast cancer and diabetes. Transgenic cotton contains Bromorynil (brand name Buctril), which causes birth defects and is suspected as a cause of liver tumors. Cottonseed oil is found in many food products — another reason to read labels.

It took 60 years of Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (or DDT) use for its health hazards to be recognized by the government and for it to be banned in the United States.

Prince Charles of Great Britain is an outspoken anti-GE advocate. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration consistently maintains that GE foods are safe. Margaret Miller, former lab supervisor for Monsanto, helped the company develop rBGH. She left the company to become the deputy director of Human Food Safety and Consultation services at the FDA, where she helped push through FDA approval for rBGH.

Consumers are calling for more safety guidelines. In January 2001, the Consumer Federation of America, a coalition of 270 consumer groups — including the American Association of Retired People — called on President George W. Bush and Congress to label biotech food and to require strict safety and environmental testing. In a 250-page report financed by a grant from the prestigious Rockefeller Foundation, the federation said the United States government has basically abandoned its responsibility to ensure the safety of genetically engineered foods. The report also calls for the end of a government policy that holds that GE foods are substantially equivalent to their non-GE counterparts.

Some politicians are speaking out. When he introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Bill in 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, noted that “Government has a moral and legal responsibility to ensure the safety and purity of our food supply. We cannot abdicate this responsibility to global corporations whose goals may be limited to profit-making.”

Congressman Jack Metcalf, R-Wash., joined Kucinich and a bipartisan group to cosponsor HR 3883, the GE Safety Testing Bill. He has been quoted as saying, “I am not convinced that enough research has been conducted to determine the long-term health effects of genetically modified foods, and I believe that American citizens should have the right to know what they are eating.”

So what is an alternative solution? Stop messing around with mother nature. Stop messy around with our food sources. If farmers want a better return for their labor modifying the food staples is not the answer. Modifying your market is the answer. Now that modified corn has been proven to be unsafe for both human and animal consumption the most profitable solution for farmers is to grow corn as a source of renewable ethanol fuel. The benefits of ethanol fuel are not only limited to providing larger profit shares for farmers ethanol fuel is a benefit to the environment and the process of making ethanol generates a series of valuable co-products including corn oil, protein feed, gluten meal, germ, refined starches, corn sweeteners and commercial carbon dioxide. The value of the final products is roughly double that of the raw corn.

The strongest arguments for using unmodified corn for ethanol production is that it is a cleaner burning fuel. Ethanol’s oxygen content helps gasoline burn more efficiently, cutting tailpipe pollutants including carbon monoxide and benzene. Over 99% of fuel ethanol in the US is sold as E10, a 10% blend with gasoline. But E85, an 85% blend, is beginning to emerge. The big three US automakers annually sell around 250,000 flexible fuel vehicles capable of running on both E10 and E85 fuel blends, both at no added cost to buyers. How will ethanol fuel made from unmodified corn help the environment? E10 fuel blends can cut carbon monoxide emissions by 20%, benzene emissions by 25% and overall gasoline toxicity by 30%. Imagine what an E85 ethanol fuel blend can do to help reduce carbon monoxide emissions, reduce cancer causing benzene (The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that benzene causes cancer in humans. Benzene is also the cause of AIDS. You can not cure AIDS until you shut off the continued exposure to benzene) emissions and overall gasoline toxicity. The good news is that clean ethanol fuel made from corn is a renewable fuel source. If we used only corn for ethanol production the oil companies cannot falsely argue that by producing more ethanol fuel we will be causing the starvation of millions of people and or be responsible for higher food costs. Seriously, how many times do you buy corn when you go shopping for the food you and your family needs? Most, myself included, only buy corn when it is in season. Now that they’ve modified it I will no longer buy corn. I am no fool. I know other countries use corn as their main food staple or one of their main food staples. So how will this affect them? Again I must point out that the genetically modified corn that the US and Canada is growing isn’t fit for human consumption. That means not fit for human consumption not just in the US and Canada but anywhere on Earth. So the solution? Instead of wasting billions of bushels of genetically modified corn that has already been grown and harvested use it all as a fuel. Once this vial corn has been eradicated World wide then plant unmodified corn for both human consumption as a food and a fuel. Like Mother Nature make corn production a harmonious balance - grown first and foremost as a food source and only the excess used as a fuel source.

The oil companies are threatened whenever someone seeks alternative fuel sources - cleaner fuel sources. Ethanol is a threat to their $billion mass polluting industry. Of course they are going to blame you and I and terrorize you and I. They will and have spent $billions in bribes of politicians and regulatory board members. They will spare no effort or cost to discredit any research and report that unequivocally proves that ethanol made from corn is probably the single greatest solution to meet all of our fuel needs, now and for generations to come.

To the Navajo, corn is freedom, a gift from the Mother Earth. Corn pollen is a symbol of fertility and of renewal. Its use brings you back into balance and harmony with life.

Clayton Brascoupé, program director of the Traditional American Farmers Association of New Mexico and Arizona, says, “Corn is our Mother. A mother does things for us, feeds us, provides medicine. We have a responsibility to Mother Corn to treat her in a respectful manner.”

We don’t know the long-term effects of eating transgenic food. Do we want to be guinea pigs for biotech researchers? How will this affect our children, our grandchildren and the human race?

Today, human genes are being inserted into plants and animals. Should we be “playing” with the building blocks of life? Do we as humans have the right to undo or meddle with a system that has taken thousands of years to evolve? I firmly believe the answer is a definitive and resounding no. Only fools play with fire. The wise know better.

Corn is also the solution for the Afghan people. The US invasion of Afghanistan is directly responsible for the rejuvenation of the Opium drug trade in Afghanistan. The US refuses to eradicate the Opium fields and they falsely declare that without the illegal Opium field and drug trade the Afghan people will not survive. The US are the sole beneficiaries of the illegal Opium grow ops and trade. The Opium is used to finance the CIA and their illegal covert operations around the World.

What you haven’t been told is that in Afghanistan the US and British troops have eradicated corn fields (yes you read right - corn fields) in order to plant Opium. If Canadian troops started to eradicate the Opium fields and started shipping unmodified corn seeds to Afghanistan then the Canadian soldiers could truly begin to help the Afghan people. The Afghan people can not feed their families with Opium plants. The Afghan people can feed their families with corn. Any excess corn can be used to make fuel to heat their homes and fuel their farming, construction and industrial equipment and machinery. The Afghan people can begin to grow and prosper just by eradicating the Opium fields and planting corn instead. That would be the greatest gift that Canada could give to the Afghan people.

Why has Saudi Arabia allowed Israel to use Saudi airspace to launch a US proxy attack against Iran? Why has the US been pushing so hard the last few weeks for more UN sanctions against Iran? The reason is the same reason why the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq - natural gas. Iran has finalised a $7 billion “peace pipeline” deal on Sunday to export Iranian natural gas to Pakistan by 2015.

The US illegally attacked Afghanistan for the same reasons. The US and NATO attack against Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001. US government officials (Paul Wolfowitz - former United States Ambassador to Indonesia, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, and former President of the World Bank,is just one such US official) have stated publicly that oil was the reason that the US softened Iraq with sanctions and used UN sanctions against Iraq to launch a war of aggression against Iraq. US Congressional records show that US oil companies like Unicol, petitioned the US government to use the US military to expedite a regime change in Afghanistan so that Unicol could begin building a Trans-Afghanistan natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India. During a FEBRUARY 12, 1998 US Congressional hearing Unocal actually asked the US government to remove the Taliban and install a US friendly leader in Afghanistan. Again the US is planning to attack another country, using Israel as its proxy, to take control of yet another natural gas pipeline - this time the Iranian natural gas pipeline deal with Pakistan

“The deal was signed. Export of Iran’s gas to Pakistan will be launched by the end of 2015,” Iran’s state TV reported.

“For 25 years Iran will export one million cubic metres of natural gas to Pakistan per day,” it said.

The project is crucial for Pakistan to avert a growing energy crisis already causing severe electricity shortages in the country of about 170 million, at the same time as it confronts Islamist militancy.

Iran has the world’s second largest gas reserves after Russia but has struggled for years to develop its oil and gas resources. Iranian officials say the country needs $25 billion to develop its crucial energy industry. Sanctions by the West, political turmoil and construction delays have slowed Iran’s development as an exporter. The US has been intentionally (and illegally) interfering with Iran’s development of its rich oil and gas resources with sanctions, both UN and US imposed sanctions, The US imposed sanctions against Afghanistan and Iraq for the very same reasons. The US has been using a totally fictitious nuclear threat from Iran to divert US and World attention away from the real US agenda - to take control of the oil and natural gas resources of yet another Middle East country.

The very lucrative Iranian-Pakistan pipeline will connect Iran’s giant South Pars gas field with Pakistan’s southern Baluchistan and Sindh provinces. State television said the pipeline was 1,000 km (620 miles) long, with about 907 km of it already built.

Dubbed the “peace pipeline,” the project has been planned since the 1990s and originally would have extended from Pakistan to its old rival, India. New Delhi has been reluctant to join the project because of its long-running distrust of Pakistan, with whom it has fought three wars since independence in 1947.

Under a deal signed in March, Pakistan will be allowed to charge a transit fee if the proposed pipeline is eventually extended to India.

Iran’s South Pars gas storage development. One of the non-nuclear facilities being targeted by the US and Israel. The South Pars field is a natural gas condensate field located in the Persian Gulf. It is the world’s largest gas field, shared between Iran and Qatar. According to International Energy Agency (IEA), the combined structure is the world’s largest gas field.

Last week Iran issued a series of bonds to help finance developments of its South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf.

Branches of the Iranian Bank Mellat in foreign countries began issuing bonds for the development of the giant gas complex in the Persian Gulf. Four tiers of bonds worth a total of $1.2 billion would fund South Pars development.

Iran is eager to bring foreign revenue into the country as the US pushes for tighter sanctions. The US had more sanctions imposed on Iran immediately after Iran issued these bonds for development of the South Pars gas field.

Iran replaced Royal Dutch Shell and Spanish energy company Repsol with the Revolutionary Guard-owned Khatam al-Anbiya at two South Par development projects. The foreign companies were given a deadline to commit to South Par development or face removal from the project. The South Pars gas field is the largest in the world.

Yesterday nbGazette.com reported that Saudi Arabia gave Israel the green light to use Saudi airspace to launch attacks against Iran. Israeli (US) targets are not just against nuclear energy facilities. The US wants Israel to attack Iran’s natural gas storage development sites - natural gas storage sites that will be used in the Iran-Pakistan Natural Gas Pipeline deal. This is the clearest evidence of yet another war crime act by the US against another foreign sovereign state. Again the US is planning another illegal war of aggression against another oil and natural gas rich state.

The United States has tried to discourage India and Pakistan from any deal with Iran, not because of Tehran’s disputed nuclear programme, which the US falsely claims is a cover to build bombs, but because the US is completely left out of the deals. The US has been asking the UN for more sanctions against Iran to try and stop Pakistan and India from making such deals with Iran. If the US can get very strict sanctions imposed by the UN then the US will expect both Pakistan and India to respect the UN sanctions and not make any natural gas or oil deals with Iran. Even though the UN imposed more sanctions against Iran, at the US specific requests, Pakistan clearly has shown it has no intention of complying with US policies or agendas. Iran, was hit by a fourth round of US demanded U.N. sanctions on Wednesday.

The US is determined to use the UN as an excuse to attack Iran. George W Bush claimed he was authorized by the UN to attack Iraq because of UN sanctions imposed against Iraq and the US government intends on using this false assumption again to attack another oil and natural gas rich Middle East country. The real reason for the US government demanding UN sanctions against Iran has nothing to do with uranium enrichment activities, but everything to do with the US wanting to take control of Iran’s natural gas and oil deposits. A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law. Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council) are considered wars of aggression.

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).

During the Nuremberg 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.

Israel’s newest civilian killing weapon is connected via fiber optics to a remote operator station and a command-and-control center, each machine gun-mounted station serves as a type of robotic sniper, capable of enforcing a nearly 1,500-meter-deep no-go zone.

The country that can easily be convicted as the country that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia, has given Israel clear skies to illegally attack Iranian nuclear sites. On September 11, 2001 Saudi hijackers took over 4 US commercial airlines and flew 2 into the World Trade Center Towers and 1 into the US Pentagon. The US attacked Afghanistan to attempt to capture the man they declared was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrors attacks. Even today the US, Canada and other NATO nations and their military are attacking and killing the innocent people of Afghanistan based entirely on the US government declaration that Saudi Arabian national planned for and carried out the attacks of 9/11. Even to this day most of the countries involved in the war of aggression against the innocent country of Afghanistan believe they are justified in attacking a country with no military force because they allege that Afghanistan was harbouring the Saudi 9/11 mastermind - bin Laden. If the evidence of 9/11 was used in an impartial investigation and trial Saudi Arabia would be accused and successfully convicted of the hijackings and the killing of some 3000 US citizens on September 11, 2001.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out.

Such an attack on Iran would be illegal, since under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. A nuclear attack on Iran would be immoral, illegal, and politically disastrous for Israel, the US and any supporting Middle Eastern country like Saudi Arabia. Of course, the same could be said of the invasion of Iraq, but that did not stop the Bush administration in 2003. If such an attack were to occur, it would inflame the entire Middle East and Muslim world, at least at the popular level.

Attacking Iran would be folly, but we seem to be living in the Age of Folly. Morons and idiots took us into an unjustified war against Iraq and Afghanistan. China has a tremendous investment and interest in Iran and would likely see an attack as a threat to its national interests. China could strike a large blow against the U.S. just by dumping the financial paper the US have foolishly allowed the Chinese to pile up, thanks to the trade deficit.

Iraq is a small country compared with Iran. Iran has about 70 million people. Its western mountains border the Persian Gulf. In other words, its missiles and guns look down on the U.S. ships below it. And it has lots of missiles, from short-range to intermediate-range (around 2,200 kilometers).

More to the point, it has been equipped by Russia with the fastest anti-ship missile on the planet. The SS-N-22 Sunburn can travel at Mach 3 at high altitude and at Mach 2.2 at low altitude. That is faster than anything in the US and Israeli arsenal.

Iran’s conventional forces include an army of 540,000 men and 300,000 reserves, including 120,000 Iranian Guards especially trained in unconventional warfare. It has more than 1,600 main battle tanks and 21,000 other armored combat vehicles. It has 3,200 artillery pieces, three submarines, 59 surface warships and 10 amphibious ships.

It’s been receiving help in arming itself from China, North Korea and Russia. Unlike Iraq, Iran’s forces have not been worn down with bombing, wars and sanctions. It also has a new anti-aircraft defense system from Russia.

If you think the US or Israel can attack Iran and not expect retaliation, I’d have to say with regret that you are a moron. If you think Israel and the US could easily handle Iran in an all-out war, I’d have to promote you to idiot.

If the US or Israel attack Iran, the World will have a new war on its hands. The Iranians are not going to shrug off an attack especially when Iran has never attacked Israel or the US or any other country for that matter. Need I remind you that it is Israel who is constantly invading its neighbours and is currently committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Iran isn’t the country using its tanks and bulldozers against civilians in Gaza, Israel is. Iran didn’t illegally attacked and kill thousands of civilians in Lebanon, Israel did. Iran didn’t have any hijackers involved in the attacks against the US on September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia did - the majority of hijackers were Saudi and bin Laden is Saudi. What is Saudi Arabia’s interests in having Iran illegally attacked? Saudi Arabia is now providing China with a quarter of Chinese oil imports. Saudi desire to stop Iran is the reason why one of Israel’s target in Iran isn’t even a nuclear facility but a gas storage development site at Isfahan. Iran has not been accused by the UN of war crimes it is Israel. Israel is the only threat. Israel has nuclear weapons and they developed them solely for military purposes.

The evidence clearly shows that the UN should be imposing sanction against Israel, not Iran. Israel has illegally attacked civilians and civilian populations. Israel has used banned weapons against civilians. Israel has intentionally targeted and killed civilians. Israel has assissination squads which have been ordered by the Israeli government to murder hundreds of people - people who have committed no crimes, murdered for simply opposing Israel’s aggression. Israel has secretly developed nuclear weapons and has stockpiles of nuclear and biological weapons. The US, Saudi Arabia, the World for that matter, should attack Israel’s nuclear weapons facilities. Why? The Israeli nuclear threat is very real. The Iranian threat is the figment of Israel’s and the US imagination.

Security at last year’s G20 summit in London was pegged at about $20 million. Security for the 2009 G8 summit in Italy was estimated at $359 million. So why is the cost of the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto Canada now being pegged at $1.2 billion? The answer is no surprise. Actual security costs for the G20 summit in Toronto will cost about the same as the G8 Summit in Italy leaving about $800 million in over costs. What is different with the Toronto Summit and all other Summits? The attending diplomats are demanding and getting kickbacks from the Canadian government just for appearing at the G20 Summit.

The Canadian government has allocated and intends on giving $800 million in Canadian Tax dollars to the attending diplomats - including Mr Harper. The money will be held in trust until after the visiting diplomats and the hosting diplomat leave their respective offices. You see all of the members of the G20 are on a fixed income, including the US President and the Canadian Prime Minister. The laws of each country strictly forbids their leader from receiving any amount of money over and above the salaries that their government’s treasury pays them to lead the country. The US Constitution prohibits pay raises for sitting presidents. In September 1999, then US President Bill Clinton signed legislation that increased the presidential salary to $400,000, effective January 2001. That means George W Bush and the current President of the United State Barack Obama have been paid $400000 a year in salaries. In comparison,according to Forbes’ 2005 list of Executive Pay, Henry M Paulson Jr, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Group (GS) and former US Treasure Secretary under George W Bush, was paid $6.0 million in total compensation. The Canadian Prime Minister earns $300,000. The leaders of the G20 believe they are not being paid what they should be paid and are using the G20 Summit to increase their own economic prosperity - their retirement fund. The entire G8 and G20 members have conspired to swindle $millions from the summit hosting country.

What is the G-20

The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999 to bring together systemically important industrialized and developing economies to discuss key issues in the global economy. The inaugural meeting of the G-20 took place in Berlin, on December 15-16, 1999, hosted by German and Canadian finance ministers.

Stated Mandate

The G-20 is portrayed as the premier forum for international economic development that promotes open and constructive discussion between industrial and emerging-market countries on key issues related to global economic stability.

The only thing the G20 members do is meet and discuss their personal economic agenda and issues. These meetings have never been anything more than a very expensive dinner party. It is a very expensive charade - it is the only time when the leaders of 20 countries can pretend to be royalty. Only one thing ever is accomplished at these G20 Summits - they agree to meet in person each year to set up numbered bank accounts containing $millions - their share of misappropriated funds.

The G20 Summit is coming to Toronto on June 26 and 27. The Harper government is spending $1 billion on security measures and to protect the $billion investment has instructed security officials they can disregard the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are authorized to torture civilian protesters.

The RCMP led Integrated Security Unit (ISU) of the G20 are planning to use Agent Provocateurs to get protesters to commit illegal acts. An agent Provocateurs is a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. This is illegal under Canadian Law. This illegal activity by the police is called entrapment. In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.

The Supreme Court of Canada developed the Canadian version of the doctrine of entrapment in three major decisions: R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418, R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, and R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449. There are two different forms of entrapment in Canadian law.

The first type of entrapment, “random virtue testing”, occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual, or the place where that individual is located, is associated with the criminal activity under investigation. If police do have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence.

The second form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence, and instead actually induce the commission of the offence.

The Harper government is more interested in entertaining foreign dignitaries at a meeting that has never achieved anything than to safeguard the guranteed rights and freedoms of the Canadian people. The G20 is a farce. It is an infringement on the rights and freedom and sovereignty of the 20 member nations. The goal of such organizations is to strip the member nations of their sovereignty and impose a fascist singular government rule. Every meeting of the G20 has been held behind closed doors. The protests would not take place if the G20 Summit was an open forum. It is because the meeting are held behind closed doors and what has been discussed is kept secret that there are and will always be protests. After all our elected officials are meeting in secret sessions making deals that infringe or outright strip us of our fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Fundamental 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.

Legal Rights

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Arrest or detention
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.

Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

It has been confirmed by security officials that protesting civilians at the upcoming G20 summit in Toronto, will be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment by the RCMP, Toronto Metro Police, OPP and other security agencies. 4 long-range acoustic weapons (LRADs) also known as “sound cannons” have already been purchased and will be used against civilians participating in expected protests against the G20 Summit. LRADs are military developed acoustic weapons that emit extremely high frequency sounds that surpass the typical human pain threshold. The Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) is deployed in Iraq to help US forces prevent protesting of the US presense.

“It’s very effective when dealing with a very large crowd, and having to overcome loud sounds, such as music and chanting,” said Const. Wendy Drummond of Toronto Police. Purchased last month, the LRADs will become a permanent fixture in Toronto law enforcement, said police spokesperson Const. Wendy Drummond. “They were purchased as part of the G20 budget process,” Drummond said. “It’s definitely going to be beneficial for us, not only in the G20 but in any future large gatherings.”

While Drummond couldn’t comment on how much the devices cost, they were purchased from B.C.-based Current Corporation, which sells LRADs at about $10,000 for the handheld models and about $25,000 for the larger ones, according to sales representative Don MacLeod.

The Harper government has authorized the RCMP and Metro Police to use this military developed (Developed specifically in response to the USS Cole attack) and used weapon against unarmed Canadian civilians exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms . At 100 meters, according to experts, reception of the LRAD beam can be extremely painful. At full capacity, the LRAD emits a 150 decibel sound wave. 150 decibels is comparable to a jet-engine roar, which can cause permanent hearing damage and other trauma. In comparison, the Concorde supersonic jet, emitted 110 decibel sound waves when traveling at full speed and a normal conversation measures at about 60 decibels. U.S. experts say that any sound volume greater than 90 decibels causes permanent damage. The LRAD even provokes temporary vision loss, according to researchers.

Sound grenades, Tasers, and tear gas will also be used against unarmed and defenseless Canadian protesters. The weapon, labelled as non-lethal, was designed for the US military and was first used publicly in North America in the Pittsburgh hosted G20 Summit.

The makers of LRAD made a strategic choice early on in development not to call LRAD a weapon, and instead dub it a “device,” thus avoiding some of the politically charged debates (and testing) that a weapon would entail. But the fact of the matter is LRAD ia a weapon that has so far only been used against civilians. It is a military weapon that is to be used to intentionally inflict on a person severe pain or suffering. Torture is any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, at the instigation of and with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Have agreed as follows:

Part I
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

The Hebrew word SHALOM is understood around the world to mean peace. But peace is not the meaning of the word SHALOM in Israel. Chronicles 22:7 And David said to Solomon: “My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the LORD my God; 8 but the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight.

During an April 14, 2004 meeting between then President George W. Bush and “Israeli” Prime Minister Sharon, at the White House, Washington DC, Orthodox Jews demonstrated in front of the White House, to proclaim and clearly state that the State of “Israel” is illegitimate and does not represent the Jewish people.

Let it be known that:

The State of “Israel” does not represent the voice of Judaism and/or the Jewish people. The Torah clearly forbids the formation of a State, for the Jewish people, in their time of exile.

Our fervent prayer to God is, for this transition from the State of “Israel” to a Palestinian State, to transpire, speedily and peacefully, without any further suffering and bloodshed. Under this new Palestinian rule, we will once again, God willing, be able live side by side, Jew and Arab, in brotherhood.

Orthodox Jews have been against the ‘State’ Of Israel for more than a century, not because it operates secularly, but because the entire concept of a sovereign Jewish state is contrary to Jewish Law.

Religious Judaism and the Land of Israel

Two thousand years ago, the Jews were sent into exile by God’s decree, where they must remain until they are redeemed by God, as He has assured them through the prophets. The idea of a return to the country prematurely, without divine redemption, is wrong. In view of this, the Land of Israel belongs to those who have lived there for hundreds of years: the Palestinians.

The idea of a premature return was first conceived of by the Zionists, who at the beginning were a small Godless group, completely rejected by mainstream Jewry. They forced their plan upon the Jewish world through years of political maneuvering. Their slogan was that the Jewish people would finally stop waiting for divine salvation. “It is now time to take our destiny into our own hands,” they said. “We must forget our past; we must leave behind the Divine message and the ancient role of the Jewish people in the world. Israel, the people of the Bible, must be transformed into a secular nation.”

The majority of the Jewish people resisted this idea vehemently and wanted to know nothing of the Zionists’ solution and their Zionist state. Thus Zionism went forward in the face of the strong opposition of the vast majority of Jews.

Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust

The level of anti-Semitism in the world has now reached such proportions as we have known only in the years immediately before the outbreak of World War II. It is fueled by the Zionist atrocities against the Palestinian population. Eighty years ago, anti-Semitism was instigated and fanned by the Zionists. They cleverly organized defamation campaigns against the Jews of Europe, with the aim of causing the ground to burn under their feet, so that they should feel the need to flee and take refuge in the new “Jewish State “. It worked then, and it works again today.

We look at today’s Zionist activity in consternation, yet the Zionists tell the world that it is a duty and an honor to support their movement in any way. Whoever is negligent in this duty or, worse yet, exposes something about the Zionists, is branded an ‘anti-Semite’.

For this purpose, the Zionists have built a global lobby which, especially armed with the Holocaust card, is able to stifle any attempted criticism of Israel.

How the “Israeli state” was Founded

After the great destruction of the Jews in Europe, the Jews were rootless and bleeding. For the most part, they succumbed to the thoughts and plans of the Zionists and willingly followed them into their so-called Promised Land. Only a small part, in particular the faithfully religious affiliated Jews, did not follow and have remained to this day bitter enemies of their idea and their state.

The international community, out of compassion and a sense of duty, perhaps even a sense of guilt, agreed to the idea of a refuge and permanent homeland for the broken and uprooted Jewish people. For this the international community deserves recognition, praise and gratitude.

The idea to use Palestine for this homeland seemed right and logical at the time, and was implemented in the historic UN decision of 1947. But this decision brought with it an equally historic injustice: the country was simply robbed from the Palestinian residents, who had been there over a thousand years. They abandoned their homes, and Jews settled there instead. The “State of Israel” was born!
Wrongly. And wrongly, it is still standing today, after over 60 years.

The Turning Point

The time has come when the “Zionist redemption” has suffered shipwreck, and the historical error of the Jewish people and the world community must be reversed. The former global enthusiasm about the creation of the “Jewish State” is no longer there. It has dissolved into thin air. The dream has become a nightmare.

Zionism is not Judaism, and Judaism is not Zionism.

On the contrary, the two concepts stand in stark contrast to each other! The Zionists, now in the dress of the “State of Israel”, are not entitled to represent the Jewish people. Nobody has assigned them to this role; they have taken it on their own. Today, fewer and fewer people believe in this fiction. More and more people understand that the whole Middle East, thanks to the existence of the State of Israel, has become one big explosive powder keg, which can ignite at any time and plunge the entire world into the abyss. At the same time people are also beginning to understand, that by dissolving this State that does not belong in this region at all, the situation in the Middle East will finally stabilize.

This solution should actually be undertaken by the Jews who live there themselves, once they understand that it is a sin to break loose from a divinely-imposed exile, and that the way to repent of that sin is to go back to living in exile. However, the Israeli population is far from coming to such a recognition. The majority of the population is firmly rooted in fanatically-held beliefs that they live in the utopia of “redemption”, and that they have returned to the land of their fathers.

Meanwhile, however, their state represents a quickly growing threat in its region of the world, threatening to plunge the world into an inferno.

More and more people feel unease and opposition to the continued atrocities of the Zionist movement, today “the State of Israel.” The truth - that “anti-Zionism” does not equal “anti-Semitism” - is beginning to surface.

That our solution is, for the most part, “religiously motivated” is not surprising: Whether we want to admit it or not, the people of Israel since time immemorial have been the people of God and nothing else. We are not “a nation like all nations”; we have received our laws and life goals from God on Mount Sinai, and we have faithfully adhered to and always upheld them. That is, until about one hundred years, when the great catastrophe, the Zionist movement, arose with the aim of transforming the Jewish people into a nation like all nations. They said: “We have no connection with God, no connection with Sinai. But by staying strong, together, we will solve our problems ourselves! We will have one country, one state, one army, one language, and everything a country needs. ” And that is unfortunately what they did.

Today, after a hundred years of Zionism, we are facing a big mess. God has begun to show us that there is no escape from Him. The Zionists may have raised an insurrection against Him, but He will never accept it. He has been watching on the side for a long time, but it seems obvious that now He is manipulating world events to lead His people back to where He has always wanted it, and still wants it. Therefore, the solution to this problem is not only politically motivated, but also religiously motivated. Either it will be implemented by man, or by God himself.

This solution can only come about if there is pressure from the outside. The world, especially the UN, the U.S. and the EU, have the duty and the power to carry it out.

It is a political solution, but also a divine duty. Because, again, it is God who declares that the Zionist redemption of His people is not acceptable, and that His people must continue to live uninterrupted in exile, waiting for divine salvation. Redemption can only be left in the hands of the one God, and He will carry it out justly, according to His will. There is no other way to redeem the Jewish people. God will do exactly what He intends to do with His world. Israel will be redeemed by Him (not by the “State of Israel”), and the whole world will recognize God’s kingdom.

The “redemption” is not reserved only for the people of Israel. God will redeem all of mankind. Peace will prevail all over the world. Every nation, every country and everyone will recognize God’s regime and live in everlasting peace and satisfaction.

Now we are being given a unique, perhaps last chance to end the Zionist state on our own initiative, because if we do not, God will do it - the same God who sent His people into exile. He wants His people redeemed not by the Zionists but by Him alone, as He has repeatedly announced through the prophets. There is no getting around God’s plan. Therefore, let us have the insight to put the solution into action under all circumstances. There is no time to lose!

And as we bid adieu to the departing angels who guided our steps home from the synagogue and blessed our home with Sabbath peace, so too we bless them back. Tzetchem leShalom. Lech Lecha. Not, “maybe you should leave,” but rather, “Go in Peace, my beautiful friends, my sweet angels.”

nbGazette.com has learned first hand, from US President Barack Obama, that BP has been been ordered to pay economic injury claims and this week, the US federal government sent BP a preliminary bill for $69 million to pay back American taxpayers for some of the costs of the response so far.

The following is the email that the editor of nbGazette.com received from US President Barack Obama:

Yesterday, I visited Caminada Bay in Grand Isle, Louisiana — one of the first places to feel the devastation wrought by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While I was here, at Camerdelle’s Live Bait shop, I met with a group of local residents and small business owners.

President Barack Obama

On June 4, 1963, John F. Kennedy signed a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, a mere four months before his assassination on November 22, 1963. This decree returned to the U.S. Federal government the Constitutional right to create and “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.”

As a result, US$4,292,893,815 of new “Kennedy Bills” were created through the U.S. Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve System. In 1964, Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, stated that, “Silver has become too valuable to be used as money.” The Kennedy bills were removed from circulation.

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

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison. The Federal Reserve Bank banking system collects billions of dollars in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The US Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED.

At the start of each new Congress, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are sworn into office. This oath-taking dates to 1789, the first Congress; however, the current oath was fashioned in the 1860s, by Civil War-era members of Congress.

The Constitution specifies no details for the oath of office for Congress:

Constitution, Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The first Congress developed this requirement into a simple, 14-word oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

The Civil War led President Lincoln to develop an expanded oath for all federal civilian employees (April 1861). That July, when Congress reconvened, “members echoed the president’s action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.”

The current oath was enacted in 1884:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The passing of the Federal Reserve Act by the US Congress is a direct and intentional violation of the United States Consitution - Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states The Congress shall have Power To “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,”.

The FED illegally creates money from nothing (counterfeiting), and loans it back to the US through banks, and charges interest on the US currency. The FED also buys Government debt with counterfeit money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud. President John F Kennedy even went as far as to try and give back to the US Congress the sole power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. He paid with his life for daring to bar the bankers of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank from illegally controlling the money of the United States of America.

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the Federal Reserve Central Banks include:

Bank of England,
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,
Loeb Bank of New York,
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York.

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Bank. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America, they immediately made plans to control the United States by controlling the US banking system, the printing of US money, and US debt.

How did these bankers (mostly foreign) gain control of the United States banking system, the printing of its money and the US debt? After failed previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson’s campaign for President. He owed the bankers for putting him in office and as such was committed into signing this anti-Constitutional Federal Reserve Act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation. The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting as they had already left for the Christmas holidays. When elected, Wilson quickly passed the Federal Reserve Act - essentially giving full control of the United States banking system to private bankers. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied, “I have unwittingly ruined my country”

Now the privately owned Federal Reserve Banks financially back sympathetic presidential candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected. The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nicknamed T club) with lucrative salaries. Additionally, the Federal Reserve Bank started buying up the media in the 1930’s and now owns or significantly influences most of it.

Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers from printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest. Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED counterfeits dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the counterfeit dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing counterfeit money virtually cost free. Forty percent of the US people’s personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The Federal Reserve Bank’s books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it.

Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913.

Congressman Henry Gonzales, Chairman of a banking committee, introduces legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 nearly every year. It’s always defeated, the media remains silent, and the public never learns the truth.

The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting together have cost the United States ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT SEVERAL TIMES OVER.

About the Federal Reserve banks, Rep. Louis T. McFadden (R. Pa.) said, “They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; the rich and predatory money lenders. This is an era of economic misery and for the reasons that caused that misery, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable.”

To avert another financial crisis in the United States “The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. GOVERNMENT OFFICERS WHO HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OATHS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND BROUGHT TO TRIAL.

THE SOLUTION

How can the US taxpayers stop financing those whose purpose it is to destroy the United States? Exchange counterfeit FED money (interest attached) for real U.S. money (interest-free) dollar for dollar as Kennedy tried to do. The US people should not be required to pay interest on their own currency. According to Benjamin Franklin, this was one of the primary reasons “the people” fought the Revolutionary War. Today they are still fighting the same family of foreign bankers.

The U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million (per Congressional record). The U.S. Treasury could then collect all the profit on US money instead of the 300 original shareholders of the FED. The $13+ trillion of U.S. debt could be exchanged dollar for dollar with U.S. non- interest bearing currency when the debt becomes due. There would be no inflation because there would be no additional currency in circulation. Personal income tax could be cut if we bought back the FED and therefore, the economy would expand. According to the Constitution, Congress is to control the creation of money, keeping the amount of inflation or deflation in check. If Congress isn’t doing their job, they should be voted out of office. Unfortunately, voters can’t vote the FED or its Chairman out of office.

If the government has a deficit, we could handle it as Lincoln and Kennedy did. Print money and circulate it into the economy, but this time interest-free. Today the FED, through foreign banks, owns much of our debt and therefore controls us. The FED will cease to exist as taxpayers become informed and tell other taxpayers.

By law (check the Congressional record), the US people can buy back the FED for the original investment of the FED’s 300 shareholders, which is $450 million. If each taxpayer paid $25, they could buy back the FED and all the profit would flow into the U.S. Treasury. In other words, by Congress allowing the constitutionally illegal FED to continue, much of your taxes go to the shareholders of the FED and their foreign bankers.

Note: The people who illegally enacted the FED also illegally created the IRS, within months of the FED’s inception. The FED buys U.S. debt with counterfeit money they print from nothing, then charges the U.S. taxpayers interest. The government had to create a tax - income tax - to pay the interest expense to the FED’s foreign shareholders, but the income tax was never legally passed. The FED is illegal, per Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Not one state legally ratified the 16th Amendment making income tax legal.

If the FED was eliminated and the US government uphold the Constitution, the US could balance the budget and cut personal income tax to almost nothing. In Congressional hearings on September 30, 1941, FED Chairman Eccles admitted that the FED creates new money from thin air (printing press), and loans it back to the US people at interest. On June 6, 1960, FED President Mr. Allen admitted essentially the same thing. If you or I did this we would be arrested for counterfeiting and put in jail.

It is time to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank’s control of the United States - the printing of the US money and the US debt! The US people don’t even need to buy back the FED. They only need to print money the way the United Constitution requires - by Congress, interest free.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank Act, the bankers control the economy. The FED controls interest rates and the amount of money in the economy. These factors determine either US economic prosperity or the lack thereof. Bankers are now pushing for a cashless society. Why cashless? What a cashless society really means is the banks can now control you. Today you fear the IRS. In a cashless society, if you disagree with the bankers’ political goals, you’ll find your money gone via computer error. This has already happened. The Federal Reserve Bank have orchestrated computer errors resulting in $billions being lost for the owners of millions of privately owned savings account holders.

If you could accurately predict future interest rates, inflation and deflation, you would know when to buy or sell stocks and make a bundle of money. The FED has secret meetings (per Congressional Record) to determine future interest rates and the amount of money to be printed. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) by law, stops insiders from profiting by privileged information. Congressional records prove that FED bankers routinely hold secret meetings to profit by manipulating the stock market via interest rates and the amount of money they create. FED bankers also profit greatly from economic disasters like the Depression. The bankers create inflation, sell their stocks before the market crashes, then buy up stocks at cheaper prices. The bankers of the Federal Reserve Bank admitted this to Congress. This violates the law, yet Congress does not act because these bankers are large political contributors.

The Federal Reserve Bank orchestrated the US and Global Financial Crisis. They sold their stocks before they falsely declared $billion loses (an audit would show there never was any massive $billion loses), then bought up and closed hundreds of privately owned US savings and loans banks in every state of the United States with the $trillions in federal tax dollars that both George W Bush and Barrack Obama gave them for financing their campaign for the president of the United States of America. Both Bush and Obama have also profited from the Federal Reserve Bank theft of the US people’s money. Secret numbered bank accounts at Rothschild Bank of London contains $billions (kickback payments in exchange for betraying the public) from the $5.4 trillion Wall Street bailout. Thomas Jefferson predicted this scenario if we ever allowed a private bank, like the FED, to create our currency.

If you or I wrote a bad check or stole any amount of money we’d get a prison sentence. These bankers stole trillions of dollars and no one has yet been held accountable. So much money stolen that they debased the currency, and yet they are free to do it again, and again, and again. The crimes committed with the orchestrated Global Financial Crisis requires jail time for the bankers of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Former Goldman Sachs CEO and January 17, 2006 – January 19, 2010 New York Governor Jon Corzine (right) posing in a 1998 photo with his former Goldman Sachs co-chairman and former Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (left)

When Goldman Sachs joined some of its Wall Street rivals in late 2005 in secretly packaging a new breed of offshore securities, it gave prospective investors little hint that many of the deals were so risky that they could end up losing hundreds of millions of dollars on them.

McClatchy Newspapers obtained previously undisclosed documents that provide a closer look at the shadowy $1.3 trillion market since 2002 for complex offshore deals, which Chicago financial consultant and frequent Goldman critic Janet Tavakoli said at times met “every definition of a Ponzi scheme.”

The documents include the offering circulars for 40 of Goldman’s estimated 148 deals in the Cayman Islands over a seven-year period, including a dozen of its more exotic transactions tied to mortgages and consumer loans that it marketed in 2006 and 2007, at the crest of the booming market for subprime mortgages to marginally qualified borrowers.

In some of these transactions, investors not only bought shaky securities backed by residential mortgages, but also took on the role of insurers by agreeing to pay Goldman and others massive sums if risky home loans nose-dived in value — as Goldman was effectively betting they would.

Some of the investors, including foreign banks and even Wall Street giant Merrill Lynch, may have been comforted by the high grades Wall Street ratings agencies had assigned to many of the securities. However, some of the buyers apparently agreed to insure Goldman well after the performance of many offshore deals weakened significantly beginning in June 2006.

Goldman said those investors were fully informed of the risks they were taking.

These Cayman Islands deals, which Goldman assembled through the British territory in the Caribbean, a haven from U.S. taxes and regulation, became key links in a chain of exotic insurance-like bets called credit-default swaps that worsened the global economic collapse by enabling major financial institutions to take bigger and bigger risks without counting them on their balance sheets.

The full cost of the deals, some of which could still blow up on investors, may never be known.

Before the subprime crisis, the U.S. financial system had used securities for 40 years to help Americans finance their houses, cars and college educations, said Gary Kopff, a financial services consultant and the president of Everest Management Inc. in Washington. The offshore deals, he lamented, “became the biggest contributors to the trillions of dollars of losses” in 2008’s global meltdown.

While Goldman wasn’t alone in the offshore deal making, it was the only big Wall Street investment bank to exit the subprime mortgage market safely, and it played a pivotal role, hedging its bets earlier and with more parties than any of its rivals did.

McClatchy reported on Nov. 1 that in 2006 and 2007, Goldman peddled more than $40 billion in U.S.-registered securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting. Many of those bets were made in the Caymans deals.

At the time, Goldman’s chief spokesman, Lucas van Praag, dismissed as “untrue” any suggestion that the firm had misled the pension funds, insurers, foreign banks and other investors that bought those bonds. Two weeks later, however, Chairman and Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein publicly apologized — without elaborating — for Goldman’s role in the subprime debacle.

Goldman’s wagers against mortgage securities similar to those it was selling to its clients are now the subject of an inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to two people familiar with the matter who declined to be identified because of its sensitivity. Spokesmen for Goldman and the SEC declined to comment on the inquiry.

Goldman’s defenders argue that the legendary firm’s relatively unscathed escape from the housing collapse is further evidence that it’s smarter and quicker than its competitors. Its critics, however, say that the firm’s behavior in recent years shows that it’s slipped its ethical moorings; that Wall Street has degenerated into a casino in which the house constantly invents new games to ensure that its profits keep growing; and that it’s high time for tougher federal regulations.

In 2006 and 2007, as the housing market peaked, Goldman underwrote $51 billion of deals in what mushroomed into an under-the-radar, $500 billion offshore frenzy, according to data from the financial services firm Dealogic. At least 31 Goldman deals in that period involved mortgages and other consumer loans and are still sheltered by the Caymans’ opaque regulatory apparatus.

Tavakoli, an expert in these types of securities, said it’s time to start discussing “massive fraud in the financial markets” that she said stemmed from these offshore deals.

“I’m talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in securitizations,” she said, without singling out Goldman or any other dealer. ” . . . We nearly destroyed the global financial markets.”

HEADS, I WIN; TAILS, YOU LOSE

Goldman’s activities in the Caymans helped it unload some of its subprime-related risks on others and also amass tens of billions of dollars in protection against a U.S. housing crash that ultimately occurred. These deals have accounted for a sizeable share of the firm’s $103 billion in revenues and more than $25 billion in profits since Jan. 1, 2007. At the end of 2009, Goldman had set aside more than $16 billion in cash and stock bonuses for its employees.

Many of Goldman’s winning bets with other large U.S. banks raised the price tags of 2008’s government bailouts of Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and others by sums that no one has yet determined because the contracts are private, according to people familiar with some of the transactions.

However, one billion-dollar transaction that Goldman assembled in early 2006 is illustrative. It called for the firm to receive as much as $720 million from Merrill Lynch and other investors if defaults surged in a pool of dicey U.S. residential mortgages, according to documents in a court dispute among the parties.

Securities experts said that deal is headed for a crash that’s likely to cause serious losses for Merrill Lynch, which Bank of America acquired a year ago in a $50 billion government-arranged rescue.

Taxpayers got hit for tens of billions of dollars in the Caymans deals because Goldman and others bought up to $80 billion in insurance from American International Group on the risky home mortgage securities underlying the deals.

AIG, rescued in September 2008 with $182 billion from U.S. taxpayers, later paid $62 billion to settle those credit-default swap contracts. The special inspector general who’s tracking the use of federal bailout money has reported that beginning in 2004, Goldman itself bought $22 billion in insurance from AIG for dozens of pools of unregistered securities backed by dicey types of home loans.

When the federal government saved nearly bankrupt AIG, Goldman got $13.9 billion of the bailout money, and it still holds more than $8 billion in protection from AIG.

Tavakoli said that Goldman’s subprime dealings burned taxpayers a second way. She said that three foreign banks — France’s Calyon and Societe Generale and the Bank of Montreal — bought protection against securities they purchased in Goldman’s Caymans deals, using AIG as a backstop.

Those banks got a total of $22.6 billion from AIG (Societe Generale $16.9 billion, Calyon $4.3 billion and Bank of Montreal $1.4 billion), though not all of the money was related to investments in deals underwritten by Goldman.

Each of the 12 Goldman deals in 2006 and 2007 traced by McClatchy included credit-default swaps that reserved a chance for the firm to lay down modest wagers that could bring thousand-fold returns if a bundle of securities, in several cases risky home mortgages, cratered.

The investors wouldn’t buy the securities, but would agree that the insurance would hinge on their performance. Goldman said that it or an affiliate would hold those bets, at least initially.

“This might look stupid in hindsight, but at the time the investors thought they were lucky to get a piece of low-risk (AAA-rated) bonds created by Goldman Sachs with above-market returns,” said Kopff, the securities expert.

The Wall Street ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service has lowered to junk status the bulk of the securities in all 12 of those deals, devaluing some positions that Moody’s initially rated as investment grade by 80 percent.

One Wall Street market participant who watched the disaster unravel said that the bankers and traders who packaged subprime mortgage-related deals in the Caymans deals got paid based on volume and would “jam the stuff anywhere they had to close the deal.”

This individual, who declined to be identified for fear it would hurt his career, said that the swaps gave the banks an unlimited supply of cash and the mistaken belief that they had “an infinite return on investment.”

The insurance unit of ACA Capital Holdings Inc. wrote $65 billion in swaps coverage, mostly on the Caymans deals called collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, before it folded and turned nearly all its assets over to the banks that had thought ACA would backstop them.

The documents obtained by McClatchy also reveal that:

* Goldman’s Caymans deals were riddled with potential conflicts of interest, which Goldman disclosed deep in prospectuses that typically ran 200 pages or more. Goldman created the companies that oversaw the deals, selected many of the securities to be peddled, including mortgages it had securitized, and in several instances placed huge bets against similar loans.

* Despite Goldman’s assertion that its top executives didn’t decide to exit the risky mortgage securities market until December 2006, the documents indicate that Goldman secretly bet on a sharp housing downturn much earlier than that.

* Goldman pegged at least 11 of its Caymans deals in 2006 and 2007 solely on swaps tied in some cases to the performance of a bundle of securities that it neither owned nor sold, but used as markers to coax investors into covering its bets on a housing downturn.

* If Goldman opted to buy the maximum swap protection cited in the 12 deals in which McClatchy found that it sold both swaps and mortgage-backed securities, and if the securities underlying the swaps defaulted, its clients would owe the firm $4.1 billion. If all 31 deals were similarly structured, investors could be on the hook to Goldman for as much as $10.6 billion, according to Kopff, who assisted McClatchy in analyzing the documents.

From 2005 to 2007, Goldman says it invited only sophisticated investors to act as its insurers. In those CDOs, Kopff said, Goldman appears to have created “mini-AIGs in the Caymans,” arranging for investors to post the money that would cover the bets up front.

Kopff charged that Goldman inserted the credit-default swaps into CDO deals “like a Trojan Horse — secret bets that the same types of bonds that they were selling to their clients would in fact fail.”

Goldman’s chief financial officer, David Viniar, has said that the firm purchased the AIG swaps only as an “intermediary” on behalf of its clients, first writing protection on their securities, and then buying its own protection to eliminate those risks.

If that were true of all of the swaps contracts, however, Goldman would have earned only the lucrative investment fees on the deals and any gains from selling protection to its clients.

In a Dec. 24 letter to McClatchy, Goldman said it sold those products only to sophisticated investors and fully informed them of which securities would be the basis of any swap bets. The investors, it said, “could simply decide not to participate if they did not like some or all the securities.”

‘WHY YOU HAVEN’T SEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINING’

It’s impossible to tell without Goldman opening its books how much the firm bet against the housing market using only its own money.

Goldman said it disclosed $1.7 billion in residential mortgage losses in 2008, and that the losses “would have been substantially higher” without its contrary bets, or “hedges.” It called those hedges “the cornerstone of prudent risk management.”

The company declined, however, to reveal what share of its recent profits came from those secret bets and how much it stands to make if its Caymans deals continue to implode.

The new Caymans documents obtained by McClatchy, however, help peel back some of the shroud of secrecy around the market for more than 2,000 CDOs, the bulk of them peddled by six American and four European major banks, according to Dealogic.

As of Nov. 2, more than half of the 766 CDOs backed by risky mortgages and other consumer loans had experienced an “event of default,” signaling a possible collapse, according to a report by Wells Fargo Securities. The default rate soared to 77 percent for 114 deals struck as the subprime mortgage market deteriorated in the second half of 2006, and to 86 percent for 148 deals in 2007, it reported.

Securities experts said that regardless of whose money Goldman used, investors on the losing end of the deals suffered the same effects.

Whether Goldman deceived investors with its secret bets depends partly on whether the courts or investigators conclude that disclosing the swaps would have dissuaded potential buyers from purchasing its registered mortgage securities, the experts said. Separate questions of disclosure could apply to clients who invested in the Caymans deals.

The Wall Street figure who insisted upon anonymity said that despite all the hoopla, there were few private investors in CDOs, and that banks have suffered most of the losses, one reason “why you haven’t seen a lot of complaining.”

Indeed, a computer match conducted for McClatchy by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners found no records of any insurance company investing in the 12 identifiable Goldman hybrid deals containing credit-default swaps.

However, other experts said that many of Wall Street’s victims have chosen to remain silent. Douglas Elliott, a former investment banker at J.P. Morgan Chase who’s a fellow at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington, said that pension funds are loath to discuss investments that “blow up” because “it could potentially lead to lawsuits against them.”

Christopher Whalen, a senior vice president and managing director of California-based Institutional Risk Analysis, said that foreign banks “got stuffed” in the Caymans deals, but that Wall Street dealers typically averted litigation by buying back failed securities at a discount to avoid court fights. Any investors who sued would face the threat of being “blackballed” — shunned by Wall Street firms, he said.

The CDO devastation, Whalen said, underscores the need to close a “disclosure loophole” that allows Wall Street to avoid publicly reporting these deals.

Rolling Stones Magazine - Wall Street’s Bailout Hustle

Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren’t just pocketing the trillions we gave them to rescue the economy — they’re re-creating the conditions for another crash. “They raped the taxpayer, and they raped their clients.”

The Goldman Sachs Agenda - “Take massive sums of money from the government, sit on it until the government starts printing trillions of dollars in a desperate attempt to restart the economy, buy even more toxic assets to sell back to the government at inflated prices — and then, when all else fails, start driving us all toward the cliff again with a frank and open endorsement of bubble economics.“

A blockade is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war material or communications from a particular area by force, either in part or totally. A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions, which are legal barriers to trade, and is distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city. Also, a blockade historically took place at sea, with the blockading power seeking to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country; although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade.

A blockade is defined by international law as “an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts.”

On 31 May IDF special armed forces intercepted six ships of Freedom flotilla. The flotilla carried around 700 civilians and cargo intended for the civilian population of the Gaza Strip in light of their dire humanitarian crisis.

Palestinians have a right of self-determination in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). The Gaza sea is part of the oPt. Therefore, Palestinians have a right to the territorial water (12 nautical miles which are approx. 22 km) and some rights in the continuous zone (additional 12 nautical miles) of the Gaza sea.

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 sea 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.”

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 will constitute an illegal act of aggression that under the Nuremberg Charter is the “supreme international crime” above all others. It will make 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 committed an illegal act of war attacking the convoy, regardless of who attacked whom first.

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 Israel commandos were transported 70 miles offshore, into international waters. There, they attacked a civilian vessel flagged to an allied state — a NATO member — and killed and wounded some yet unclarified number of activists whose journey was motivated by their opposition to the blockade.

It was not an act of “piracy,” because the Israeli troops were operating under the flag of Israel. Because the blockade violates international law, and Israel had no military justification for boarding her with special forces troops, it constituted an “illegal act of war.”

What’s so funny? The US people haven’t yet figured it out that they’ve been had - they’ve been robbed by the privately owned US Federal Reserve Banks and their co-conspirators, the US government.

Many in the US think that the US Federal Reserve is a Federally owned and controlled banking system. That is fiction. The US Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank with shareholders and banks around the World. The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely as a response to a series of orchestrated financial panics or bank runs, particularly a severe panic in 1907. Today the Federal Reserve is behind the US economic crisis, a repeat of 1907 whereby the shareholders of the modern Federal Reserve have orchestrated another financial panic. An audit of the Federal Reserve would reveal that the banks (will list them below) conspired to defraud the United States people of $trillions. An audit would reveal that there was no actual $billion loses, only a falsely proclaimed loss. You see the books of a private company are not under federal scrutiny unless there is reason to believe that the company isn’t or hasn’t reported its true earning to the government so that the government can collect the proper amount of taxes. What an audit would reveal is that the Federal Reserve banks, domestic and foreign banks make up the US Federal Reserve, conspired to commit fraud by understating their earning and overstating their losses in order to get their hands on US taxpayers dollars that have now exceeded $6 trillion (according to the US Debt Clock). You see they have done this before - in 1907.

The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers’ Panic, was a financial crisis that occurred in the United States when the New York Stock Exchange fell close to 50% from its peak the previous year. Panic occurred, as this was during a time of economic recession, and there were numerous runs on banks and trust companies. The 1907 panic eventually spread throughout the nation when many state and local banks and businesses entered into bankruptcy. Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors. This is the exact same cause for the current US economic crisis.

Bank of America started today’s crisis by retracting market liquidity in the mortgage sector. Soon after other Federal Reserve banks did the same to exasperate the illusion of a financial crisis. The illusion of bank failures and bankruptcy achieved the Federal Reserve bank’s goal – to have Bush and Obama simply hand over $trillions in federal tax dollars. In both Bush’s Bailout Scheme and Obama’s Stimulus Scheme none of the banks of the Federal Reserve that received $trillions have to repay any of it back. Bush and Obama simply gave it all away with no strings attached. No repayment is required. No accounting of where the money is going is required. No paper trail. Bush and Obama even gave them all a get out of jail free card by declaring that their bailout and stimulus schemes will not be subjected to Judicial or Congressional oversight. Both Bush and Obama made sure this was part of the deal because both received multi $billion kickbacks for their unlawful defrauding of the US people scheme.

The 1907 panic began with a stock manipulation scheme to corner the market in F. Augustus Heinze’s United Copper Company. Heinze had made a fortune as a copper magnate in Butte, Montana. In 1906 he moved to New York City, where he formed a close relationship with notorious Wall Street banker Charles W. Morse. Morse had once successfully cornered New York City’s ice market, and together with Heinze gained control of many banks—the pair served on at least six national banks, ten state banks, five trust companies and four insurance firms.

Augustus’s brother, Otto, devised the scheme to corner United Copper, believing that the Heinze family already controlled a majority of the company. A significant number of the Heinzes’ shares had been borrowed, and Otto believed that many of these had been loaned to investors who hoped the stock price would drop, and that they could thus repurchase the borrowed shares cheaply, pocketing the difference—a technique known as short selling. Otto proposed a short squeeze, whereby the Heinzes would aggressively purchase as many remaining shares as possible, and then force the short sellers to pay for their borrowed shares. The aggressive purchasing would drive up the share price, and, being unable to find shares elsewhere, the short sellers would have no option but to turn to the Heinzes, who could then name their price.

Bush and Obama’s bailout recipients. Most of which were in the “derivatives mess”.

BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Banc of America Securities LLC
Barclays Capital Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Securities America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
Jefferies & Company, Inc.
J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
Lehman Bros.
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
Nomura Securities International, Inc.
RBC Capital Markets Corporation
RBS Securities Inc.
UBS Securities LLC.

Now compare this list to the list of banks that make up the US Federal Reserve. The US Federal Reserve banks are the majority receivers of Bush and Obama’s tax dollar give away scheme.

US Federal Reserve Banks

* Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC - headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland. Formerly known as Schweizerische Kreditanstalt with links to Nazi Third Reich. In 1940 opened its first branch outside Switzerland (in New York). Involved in “laddering” stocks. This means selling a buyer a set number of stocks before they go public on the condition that they buy an equal amount once they do go public. This benefits the buyer because they get a good deal on the pre-market stocks and the guaranteed sale temporarily inflates the stock price for the securities firm. Accused of “spinning” stocks, or giving certain privileged clients (usually executives of top investment banking clients) access to new stock before they hit the market. The client can sell them for a large return in the first busy day or two of trading. In exchange, Credit Suisse Securities gets their investment banking business and heavy transaction fees.

* Daiwa Securities America Inc. - in 1998 was sanctioned for violating anti-fraud and compensation disclosure rules. NASD Regulation began its investigation of Daiwa in July 1996, shortly after receiving an internal Daiwa memorandum outlining an overcharging scheme. NASD Regulation found that, from July 1987 to December 1991, Daiwa’s Los Angeles branch office told customers that their buy orders had been executed at a price higher than the actual purchase price, and their sell orders had been executed at a price lower than the actual sale price. The firm kept the undisclosed difference as “secret profits.” NASD Regulation found that the Los Angeles branch office – which closed in August 1995 – reported either higher or lower executions in approximately 265 out of 570 transactions, resulting in $306,000 in illicit profits

* Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. - used the aggressive expansion of the German Reich into Austria and the Czech lands in order to acquire new branches in those areas and holdings in banks already operating there. Knowingly purchased gold taken from the victims of Nazi concentration camps. By the time the war ended, almost all account assets and deposits held by Jewish customers had been transferred to the German Reich.

* Lehman Brothers Inc. forced into bankruptcy to start the Federal Reserve banking panic scheme.

* Dresdner Kleinwort Securities LLC. - They and Deutsche Bank AG did a lot of business with the Third Reich. Both bought 4,446 kilograms of gold from the Reichsbank, the central bank of Nazi Germany. The gold was worth just over $5 million at the time. Of those purchases, the bank acquired at least 744 kilograms of “Melmer gold,” taken from concentration camp victims and later recast into bullion bars under the direction of the SS officer Bruno Melmer.

* Goldman, Sachs & Co. - Goldman Sachs was founded in 1869 by German Jewish immigrant Marcus Goldman. In 1882, Goldman’s son-in-law Samuel Sachs joined the firm which prompted the name change to Goldman Sachs. On December 4, 1928, it launched the Goldman Sachs Trading Corp. a closed-end fund with characteristics similar to that of a Ponzi scheme. The fund helped bring about the Stock Market Crash of 1929. Today we have history repeating as they created TARP - The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector. It is the largest component of the government’s measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. The fund was set up by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) which economists believe is pushing the US to another Stock Market Crash of 2009.

* Greenwich Capital Markets Inc. - Effective April 1, 2009, Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., was renamed “RBS Securities Inc.”

* HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. - the U.S. home- lending unit for Europe’s biggest bank, went to trial on claims that a corporate predecessor hid predatory lending from shareholders. Plaintiffs claim the suit may be worth $1 billion. Paid a record $484 million fine in October 2002 to settle a dozen states’ claims it deceived borrowers about the terms of their mortgages. The company charged some clients double their promised interest by adding insurance and other costs, according to Michigan Attorney General Jennifer Granholm, who is now governor. “The company estimated that it had overcharged customers approximately $3.2 billion” and inflated its reported profits between 1999 and 2001, Dowd, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said in a pretrial court filing. HSBC Holdings’ profit fell last year to $5.7 billion from $19.1 billion because of claimed subprime losses.

* J. P. Morgan Securities Inc. - hostile takeover of Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. J.P. Morgan created and controlled Mahonia Ltd., an energy trading business. A venture company created in December of 1992, Mahonia operated out of the Channel Islands in the UK. Sixty percent of its transactions were made with Enron. These transactions were originally made by Enron in an attempt to defer taxes, but as the company’s debt increased, and the energy industry continued to experience losses, the transactions became a means to finance its operations. As the operator of Mahonia, J.P. Morgan faced major losses when Enron declared bankruptcy. The firm sought $1.1 billion from Enron’s insurers to cover losses it suffered through the pre-paid energy trades. Enron’s insurance companies, however, argued that they shouldn’t have to pay. Their argument centered on the assertion that the ‘trades’ that they had insured had turned out to be “disguised loans.” Their commitment to provide “absolute and unconditional” coverage, they stressed, did not apply toward covering “fraud.” They held that J.P. Morgan had conspired with Enron to hide the company’s debt by giving it loans masked as pre-paid energy trades with Mahonia. Their allegations raise questions as to why J.P. Morgan would have helped Enron hide its debt, and how supporting Enron could have benefited J.P. Morgan.

* Mizuho Securities USA Inc.

* Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated - conflicts of interest regarding a number of different companies. Morgan Stanley stock fraud actions involved client companies such as Gucci, and investigators claim that Morgan Stanley stock fraud were specifically designed to influence investment banking business with specific clients. Additionally, Morgan Stanley stock fraud is suspected in association with overvalued telecom stocks, and also in conjunction with Enron. Morgan Stanley stock fraud accusations have led to federal investigations related to failure to follow SEC required records-keeping. Morgan Stanley stock fraud plans were allegedly designed to benefit those companies who did business with the investment bank; Morgan Stanley stock fraud schemes were designed to deceive the investors, according to the investigators, who claim that Morgan Stanley stock frauds created false values, driving stock prices up or down according to their relationship with each company. The FBI has announced that former key executive for Morgan Stanley, Darin Demizio, will serve 38 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release for conspiring to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. Mr. Demizio routinely directed business from Morgan Stanley’s securities lending division to smaller brokerage firms for kickbacks that were paid to his father and Craig DeMizio, his brother. The amount of the kickbacks was over $1.6 million from 2000 – 2004.

* Nomura Securities International, Inc. - accused of conducting securities transactions through an agent whose record-keeping practices led to an erroneous transfer of funds attributable to dividend payments. Further, the Statement of Claim filed against petitioner alleged that petitioner violated “industry practice” by failing to return or to cause the return of these dividend payments.

* UBS Securities LLC. also linked to the Nazi Third Reich. In July 2008 the attorney general of New York accused UBS of consumer and securities fraud, saying the bank had misled investors when it sold them auction-rate securities. Auction-rate securities are preferred shares or debt instruments with rates that reset regularly, usually every week, in auctions overseen by the brokerage firms that originally sold them. But the $300 billion market for these instruments collapsed in February, trapping investors who had been told that they were safe and easy to cash in.Even as a senior executive at UBS called the market “a complete loser,” the bank continued to pitch the securities as short-term, liquid investments, according to the civil complaint filed by Andrew M. Cuomo, attorney general of New York.At the same time, seven executives at the bank sold their personal holdings of the securities, which totaled $21 million, to avoid losses, according to the complaint. “Once they knew the auctions were failing, they removed their personal money and corporate money from the auctions and were still bringing consumers into the auctions,” Mr. Cuomo said.

In 1907 a group of bankers conspired to create a fictional banking crisis in order to coerce the US Congress into forming the US Federal Reserve - a banking system of private bankers with complete control over the US. If you control a country’s money you control the country. Today the same group has orchestrated another fictional banking crisis in order to form the World Monetary Fund - a banking system of private bankers with complete financial control over the World. How do we stop them? We shut them down. We invest in other banks or form completely new banks. We take our money out of their banks and put them in other locally owned banks. Most importantly have no part in the World Monetary Fund because if you do you no longer have a sovereign state.

It has been over 5 weeks now since the BP Gulf of Mexico oil platform exploded causing the oil well to leak tens of thousands of gallon of unrefined oil into the Gulf of Mexico. What is taking so long to stop the flow of the oil from the leaking BP Gulf of Mexico well? It is outright stupidity that BP can’t stop the leak. I thought they are suppose to be experts in oil drilling. A true expert would already know how to handle an emergency situation like a leaking oil well pipe. A true expert would have stopped the leak almost immediately. They would have us believe that since the leak is a mile down on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico it is impossible to stop the leak. All I have to say regarding BP officials and the US government handling of the spill - you stupid, over paid, babbling idiots.

The solution is simple. All it takes is applying common sense. BP knows everything there is to know about this and every other well they own and operate. They know exactly what material the leaking well pipe is made of. They know the diameter of the well pipe. They know the pressure of the leaking oil. Put 2 and 2 together and you have a capped well, weeks ago. Instead BP is trying to maneuver a submersible a mile down into position to literally thread a needle. Wrong!!!!

Solution - Lets say you were training to be a firefighter. Your instructor one day decided to test you on how you handled and solved a problem that you might face at a future fire scene. Your instructor asks you to stop the flow of water from a fire hose - without touching the water pump valve. BP is the dumb firefighter trying to stop the pressurized flow of the water from the fire hose by putting his arm or nearest available object in the hose opening in an attempt to plug the hose. How successful has firefighter BP been in trying to stop the pressurized flow of water coming from a hose? Failed every time. A smart firefighter would know almost immediately how to perform the task asked of him or her. He (or she) would know that it is impossible and futile to try and plug the hose as the pressure of the water from the hose is just too great. So what to do?

Knowing that there is a certain amount of pressure for the water coming from the hose the simplest and quickest solution would be to kink the hose - make a bend in the hose. A smart firefighter can do this simply by driving over the fire hose with the fire truck or any vehicle or roll or drop something heavy on top of the hose. This would almost immediately stop the flow of water from the fire hose - even pressurized water flow. The same principle can be used by BP, the US Coast Guard, US Navy or another oil drilling company. I know the oil well is not made up of a flexible material like a fire hose but even a metal pipe can be kinked, crushed or bent into a kink.

The whole point is to stop the oil leak. BP can worry about getting the oil from the well at a later time. Drop heavy boulders, concrete blocks or steel on the well pipe to crush the leaking opening. Attach a cable to the well pipe and winch it upwards to create a kink in the pipe. Crush it closed. Threading the needle isn’t working, won’t work and is just plain dumb.