|
..
casper(2) ................. casper sept23-08 Mid-Day For your
Mid-Day entertainment:
How low
can HE go?
Bush
attempts to borrow T's from a big church "out west".
They
say NO, so last night Bush attempts to access church accounts
and steals substantial sums from the church. This was
caught and blocked.
China
says No More Business with Bush.
He
promptly violated the terms of last weeks loan, some of which has been
retrieved by China.
There
was an agreement to Announcement NESARA at 6PM LAST NIGHT (( monday))
which Bush blocked by threatening the media outlets. No
further Del. news at this moment.
Working
on it.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/nesara/news/news.php?q=1222190240 ................................................................................................................................................ Mid-Afternoon sept-23-08 After
the attempted raid on the church accounts by Bush last night news began
to break early afternoon in the following order:
1.) Multiple reports of the suitcase to be released this
week. One report says today at the World
Court
2.) All
countries including China to cut off all Goods and
Services to the US beginning at 3PM today.
3.)
World Court to
releases a 3 hour documentary to be televised around the world
including CNN and FOX at 6PM EST tonight.
Bush
activities and thefts over several years to be explained to the
American people and the World Wide audience including the theft
of our
accounts on multiple occasions, Marshall Plan money, etc.
Threats
to
call news media loans were blocking announcements apparently not
necessary.
NN even demanded an Exclusive. No Dice due to their previous failure to do their job. 4.) 7,000 arrests to begin
with the top 700 tonight including S.C.
and Cabinet.
The
blocking of NESARA Announcements by Bush at 6PM last evening triggered
the above responses.
Del. are
now rescheduled for tomorrow = Wed.
casper
and assoc.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/nesara/news/news.php?q=1222204807 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and
AVAILABLE NOW: Get an
audio
tape of Joan's latest speech: "World Government--the Tragedy and the
Hope." This tape will help you understand a world without borders, the
new global policy for the dollar and how the stock market has been put
back into pre-1929 times.
On this website you will find the
notes,
reports and interviews of Joan Veon, international journalist and
business woman. At present, the documents are roughly organized by
topic or conference. Joan writes two newsletters, one on the United
Nations and the other is an economic newsletter. Both are on this
website.
THE WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL MEDIA GROUP
MD 21769..........
THE NORTH AMERICA UNION: DOES THE QUEEN OF CANADA
BECOME THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED STATES? by Joan Veon.
In
November, 2004, President Bush told Canada’s then Prime Minister Paul
Martin, “It’s good to be home.” Exactly what did he mean? Was he
inferring that America has been integrated into Canada’s system of
government? Was this “code language” to reveal to a group of insiders
that Canada’s queen is the Queen of the United States?
Let’s
take a look at what we know about our relationship with Canada. They
have become America’s largest trading partner—surpassing our trade with
Japan. On a daily basis the volume is over $1B or about $400B a year.
Twenty-three percent of American exports are sent to Canada and more
than 80% of Canada’s exports come to us. They are the largest export
market for 39 of the 50 states. We import 80% of Canada’s wood, paper,
and pulp and 17% of their oil and 18% of their natural gas.
Furthermore, we not only share energy grids all across the northern
borders, but New England obtains most of their power from Quebec.
Financially,
the Nasdaq Stock Exchange owns 30% of the London Stock Exchange and
there are plans to erase the barriers between the Canadian and American
stock exchanges. Recently the U.S. adopted the UK style of securities
regulation. The currencies between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are
becoming one. This new currency, the Amero, will be the common currency
for this hemisphere.
From
a
military standpoint, over the past 46 years, America has been
inextricably linked to Canada through our joint military efforts
through the North American Aerospace Defense Command-NORAD.
On
September 11, 2001, it was a Canadian general who was holding the chair
at NORAD and who gave the order to initiate our defenses. As a result,
more than 200 commercial planes were diverted to airports across the
U.S. and from coast to coast. Since then both countries have
implemented measures to strengthen military cooperation as well as law
enforcement and intelligence agencies.
In
2002, the two countries established the Bi-national Planning Group to
develop joint plans for maritime and land defense and for military
support to civil authorities in times of emergency. There are plans to
move ahead with a common ballistic missile defense system.
Under
the new partnership called “Common Security, Common Prosperity, A New
Partnership in North America”, the U.S. and Canada, will cooperate to
expand business opportunities, protect the environment, improve
intelligence-sharing and cross-border law enforcement,
counter-terrorism, increase critical infrastructure such as
transportation, energy, and communications networks, and renew the
NORAD agreement. In addition there are plans to cooperate on clean air
and clean water initiatives, especially in the Great Lakes Region.
In
June 2007, the Financial Times reported that Bush is going to back a
treaty to “tackle one of the most contentious issues in relations
between the two countries by allowing Britain to buy defense products
from American companies without having to obtain export licenses. [T]he
treaty would represent a victory for the UK prime minister who has
lobbied George W. Bush over this long-standing disagreement between the
two.” Currently only Canada has a waiver! Do we see the integration of
our countries yet? Therefore in order to ask if the Queen of Canada
will become the Queen of America, we need to take a look at Canada’s
political structure.
While
it appears to be like ours, it is not. There is an executive level
which we do not have which consists of the queen, the queen’s
representative and her Privy Council.
According
to Wikipedia, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional
monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and queen of
Canada with a federal system of parliamentary government. The Canadian
Constitution, renamed the Constitution Act of 1867 in 1982, states that
Canada’s constitution is “similar in principle to that of the UK” and
divides the powers between the federal and provincial governments.
The
governmental structure is made up of the Executive Branch which is
comprised of: the Executive (the Queen), the Governor General, the
queen’s representative in Canada who formally appoints the prime
minister and their cabinet; the Queen’s Privy Council, the Prime
Minister and the Cabinet; the Legislature and the Judiciary.
You
can see that the Queen has her own Council which is over the rest of
the government!
Wikipedia
states that The Privy Council is the council of advisers to the Queen
of Canada whose members are appointed by the Governor General of Canada
for life on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and
his Cabinet are all sworn into the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and
become MINISTERS OF THE CROWN.
The
Queen’s Privy Council for Canada was established by the British North
America Act and is modeled after Britain’s Privy Council. The formal
authority of the council is vested in the Canadian Monarch but is
exercised by the Prime Minister and the Canadian Cabinet who make up a
minority of the Council’s members.
Every
member of the Privy Council declares an oath to the queen
which in part is,
I
[name] do solemnly and sincerely swear that I shall be a true and
faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member
of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. Generally, in all things I
shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.
.................
The
Queen is represented in Canada by the Governor General which she
appoints on the advice of the Prime Minister. Every Canadian Providence
has a Lieutenant Governor who represents the queen there.
Upon
taking office, the Governor General takes an Oath of Allegiance:
I
[name] do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and successors, according
to law. So Help me God.
................
The
Governor General’s functions are primarily ceremonial. As
representative of the Sovereign, the Governor General performs some of
the functions normally associated with heads of state. He or she makes
state visits abroad, hosts foreign heads of state, receives ambassadors
and high commissioners, meets ceremonial groups, and awards medals,
decorations and prizes. He or she serves the symbolic role as the
Commander-in-Chief of Canadian Forces and fills this position in the
name of the queen.
The
Armed Forces of Canada swear allegiance to the Canadian Crown and not
to the sitting and transient government.
The
Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors are also representatives
of “The Crown”. The concept of the Crown took form under the feudal
system, evolving from various concepts of kingship. Under England’s
feudal system, all rights and privileges were ultimately granted by the
ruler.
The
rights of the Crown are exercised by the Queen’s representatives in her
various realms and dominions.
It
is
the queen who is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The queen through the Governor General also has the power to dissolve
parliament.
The
Queen’s official title is “Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of
the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories
....Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
When the queen ascended the throne, there was discussion as to her
official title, then Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent said, “Her
Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because
she is the Queen of the United Kingdom…It is not a separate office.”
Furthermore,
the style, “Queen of Canada” is included in the Oath of Allegiance, as
well as the Oath of Citizenship. While the prime minister is considered
head of government, it is the queen who is head of state.
If
the governmental structure of Canada is like that of the UK, we need to
consider the ties Canada has with England.
In
November 2004 when Bush declared it was “good to be home”, he pledged
the following:
My
country is determined to work as far as possible within the framework
of international organizations and we’re hoping that other nations will
work with us to make those institutions more relevant and more
effective in meeting the unique threats of our time.
Was
Bush talking about the Commonwealth, the United Nations or both? If he
was speaking about the Commonwealth, we need to understand that
the Commonwealth is a brilliant plan devised back in the 1920s by the
Royal Institute for International Affairs, which is financed by the
estate of Cecil Rhodes, to make it appear that the various colonies,
territories and dominions of the United Kingdom were given
“independence” and were totally free of British rule. However,
that is not the real case. Although they were given “independence,” the
British never left.
They
just changed the structure of government to accommodate the sovereign
as head of state and not head of government.
This
historical feat was accomplished through the Balfour Declaration
in 1926 when Britain and its dominions agreed they were equal
in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their
domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the
Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of
Nations.
This
was formalized by the
Statute of Westminster in 1931.
While colonies were given legislative independence, it automatically
set the basis for continuing the relationship through the Commonwealth
in which they share allegiance to the monarch! Pretty amazing.
The
Queen is not only Queen of Canada, but Queen of the following
Commonwealth countries in our hemisphere: Antigua and Barbuda; The
Bahamas; Barbados; Belize; Grenada; Guyana, Jamaica; For St Kitts and
Nevis: St. Christopher and Nevis; St. Lucia; and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.
The
Commonwealth today has 53 sovereign states
with
Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Commonwealth.
The
Queen’s position is recognized by each state and as such is the symbol
of the free association of the organization’s members.
The
16 members where the queen is head of state are called Commonwealth
Realms. Decolonization started in 1931 with Canada, South Africa and
Australia;
in
the 1940s: India, New Zealand, and Sir Lanka;
in
the 1950s: Ghana and Malaysia;
In
the
1960s: twenty more: Barbados, Botswana, Cyprus, Gambia, Guyana,
Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Nauru, Nigeria,
Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago,
Uganda and Zambia.
During
the 1970s, nine more: the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada,
Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the
Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Tuvalu.
During
the 1980s, seven more: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Brunei, Maldives,
Pakistan, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Vanuatu and
in
the 1990s, three more: Cameroon, Mozambique and Namibia.
As
each country obtained independence, they received a vote at the United
Nations. Therefore, the Commonwealth has the potential of 54 votes at
the United Nations.
Throughout
the entire international structure, the United States is OUTVOTED by
the Commonwealth. In the Group of Eight, Canada and the United Kingdom
outvote the U.S. While the U.S. has 50 states, we only receive one vote
at the United Nations!
Furthermore
in this hemisphere there are 13 Commonwealth countries that swear
allegiance to the queen.
While
the Commonwealth bills itself as a free and voluntary association,
several years ago, I separately interviewed three representatives from
three different African countries. When I asked why they don’t go to
Britain for help, they said there was no help from them. When I asked
why they don’t withdraw from the Commonwealth, they each looked at me
with terror and said they could not.
We
Americans would be extremely naive if we thought that Britain was a
good loser over the outcome of the American Revolution and the Battle
of New Orleans in 1812. As explained in a previous article, “Treason in
the Congress”, there is a very, very powerful group of men whose money
runs the world both here in Britain and the U.S. These Pilgrims swear
allegiance to the Crown and have been working since 1902 and 1903
respectively to bring America back under British rule.
While
it appears Senator Charles Schumer is a Pilgrim, maybe we need to ask
if our president, who is distantly related to the queen, is also a
Pilgrim. It appears he does not swear allegiance to the Constitution!
Perhaps
NAFTA was the beginning of a bloodless coup and the Common Security and
Prosperity Partnership sealed the merger between the U.S., Canada, and
Britain.
Just
maybe the Queen of Canada is indeed the Queen of the United States!
It
is time for TRUE AMERICANS TO WAKE UP!
Joan
Veon is the author of Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince and The
United Nations’ Global Straitjacket.
Please
visit her website: www.womensgroup.org.
................................................................................................
THE FINAL TRUMP OF THE BRITISH
OVER AMERICA –
CLOSER FINANCIAL AND REGULATORY TIES SEALING OUR COUNTRIES AS ONE By Joan M. Veon The Women’s International Media Group, Inc. www.womensgroup.org Unlike the 17th Century
battles
fought on American soil to give us our independence from Great Britain,
the final battle of brilliant maneuvers and institutions began in 1903
to delicately orchestrate the gradual reintegration of the United
States with Great Britain. The military genius of the plan would be for
American armies to unite with Britain in the name of world peace; the
common enemy being, WWI, WWII, and the war on terrorism.
The second wave would be on an
international level to bring order to a disorderly global market while
merging financial and regulatory authorities. It was the money of one
man that started the ball rolling.
Cecil John Rhodes, a
British aristocrat who died in 1902,
funded the merger by leaving his gold and diamond fortune as a means to
bring America back under British rule, believing the British was the
finest race in the world. Those agreeing with his mission included many
wealthy American industrialists who, in 1903, pledged allegiance to the
British Crown when they founded the Pilgrim Society. This powerful
society still meets today as a secret membership.
If
you listen to the words of our politicians, such as New York Senator
Charles Schumer and former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer you can
hear their approval of anything British for America.
It
is
the men of the Pilgrim Society who determined the best way to re-unite
the countries was to get America to come in on the side of the British
during WWI, continuing through with World War II. Now the British have
come to our aid with the war on Iraq and the War on Terrorism.
Rhode’s
fortune also helped to fund the creation of the Royal Institute for
International Affairs-RIIA in England, which is a key think-tank
creating ideas and procedures in how best to merge our countries. The
US counterpart is our Council on Foreign Relations.
It
was the Scottish industrialist turned American, Andrew Carnegie, who
endowed America with its library system in his belief it would be good
to re-unite the two countries into the “British-American Union.”
The
British then took a brilliant step by passing the Statute of
Westminster in 1931 in which the UK would establish legislative
equality between the self-governing dominions of their empire and the
mother country. As a result the Commonwealth was birthed.
Between
1946 and 1989 Britain gave “independence” to 41 of its colonies.
But
it
was not enough for Britain to have the Commonwealth; they had to create
an international system where they could outvote everyone else!
The
idea of the League of Nations came first through President Woodrow
Wilson after World War I. Our then wise Congress swore its allegiance
to the United States Constitution thereby preventing ratification.
However,
after World War II, the British idea of a United Nations was birthed as
a means to end to all wars and to serve as the guardian of world peace.
Each time a British colony gained independence, they were given a vote at the United Nations and at the various UN agencies, commissions and organs. While the United States receives one vote at the United Nations, the Commonwealth receives 54. While the US receives one vote at the World Trade, the Commonwealth receives 46, and so forth. This
type of imbalance is also seen at the World Health Organization, the
World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
In
other words, the British run the world
through
the international level that they set up!
That
brings us to this hemisphere and the 14 year old North American Free
Trade Agreement. Eventually all the countries of this hemisphere will
be connected in a free trade zone like that of the European Union. Ours
is called the Free Trade Areas of the Americas-FTAA.
With
regard to NAFTA, Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and is a
parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. The proper
title of the queen is, “Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of
the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories...
Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
I
think the question should be asked, “Does the Queen of Canada become
the Queen of the United States?” As such when you consider the FTAA,
there are 13 commonwealth countries in this hemisphere which means we
are outvoted in our own hemisphere!
With
regard to disorderly markets and a global financial crisis, if one will
just look at the number of banks closely involved, they are all
inter-related, many of them British owned and if they had continued to
buy each others mortgage paper, we would not have had a problem.
As
I
see it, there is no problem at all; there is a situation to create
chaos so the problem can be solved according to the pre-determined plan
to reemerge our countries.
In
many ways, the military is already merged. The structure of our
congress is no longer the two sided republicans and democrats as both
sides have the same global philosophy.
Now
the international bankers, who run the Treasury, have signed an
agreement with the British to merge our Treasury Department and the SEC
with theirs. This is NOT being addressed at the hearings between
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and our congress at the
respective House and Senate committees.
This
is a diabolical stealth move to use the global financial system as a
way to merge the finances of our two countries
with
no public understanding of what is really happening.
According
to the 3/31/08 Financial Times, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and
U.S. president George Bush have agreed to “step up cooperation over the
crisis in financial markets by setting up a UK-US working group that
will develop proposals to monitor and regulate the banking system.”
Thus
far the new working group will be comprised of senior treasury and
regulatory figures from London and Washington.
It
is
reported they are working on a system of “individually tailored
international supervision for leading banks and financial institutions
involved with cross-border activity”. While other details will be
confirmed next week at the IMF/World Bank Spring Meeting, it is
recognized that this new body will meet “fairly intensely, sharing
information, and over time, pushing through the kind of regulatory
action that needs to be taken. It will also seek to improve day-to-day
cooperation between regulators in the US and UK.”
The British have overturned the outcome of the War of 1812. British accents have become common on our TVs and radios. There is an increase in movies about the British monarchs. The British outvote the U.S. on all international levels. Powerful
groups comprised of key CEO’s, economists, and politicians, such as the
Pilgrim Society, the RIIA and the Council on Foreign Relations are
working to reintegrate America under British rule. Our military and
intelligence agencies now work very closely with one another, and now
our financial and regulatory system is being merged through the UK-US
working group.
And
I say to you, not one shot was fired!
...............................................................................................
THE CREDIT CRUNCH THAT NEVER
WAS IS OVER!!!!
THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND THE FEAR By Joan Veon The ruse that has been played out in the stock, bond, and credit markets for the last two months is one of the biggest scams of the century, after the crash of the NASDAQ. At stake is the
cementing together of a global economic structure that will not be able
to be dismantled.
At
the
core of the trumped up credit crunch were a handful of international
bankers that helped create a big enough deception which will ultimately
lead to Congress exchanging our national regulatory laws for
standardized international regulatory laws.
Sadly,
I have seen the pattern of creating a problem so you can solve it
according to your hidden agenda, over and over again in the 27 years I
have spent in the investment business.
For
those who think it is about a new low in the value of the dollar, they
are wrong—the dollar has been dropping ever since the twin 1973
currency crises which sent then Assistant Treasury Secretary for
International Monetary Affairs Paul Volcker around the world to hammer
out a new regime for floating currencies (what a great way to transfer
wealth and control countries: currencies). Every time the dollar drops,
it is new and historic.
For
those who think the past two months was about the Rothschild’s
cornering the global gold market, no way. They and the same core of
international bankers that own the Bank of England, the Federal
Reserve, and other major central banks control the value of gold.
When
central banks sell gold as they did in the late 90s, it is only title
that changes, not the owners.
In
the
fall of 1983, my husband and I purchased our first home. Several months
later he got a job in another city but we were straddled for 2 ½
years
with a house we could not sell because interest rates climbed to 22%
with mortgages as high as 14-16%. Years later, I found out that our
Congress changed “old and outdated” banking laws to render to national
and international bankers, one of the most major coups of the century!
The law which Congress passed is called the Depositary Institutions
Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980 Deregulation Act), which
basically lifted all restrictions on U.S. banks as to the amount of
interest they could pay or charge investors/creditors.
At
the
time this was heralded as being “good” for America since banks would
have to pay market rates on savings, which conveniently rose to 22% for
a short period of time. That was not a bad short-term price to pay for
banks being able to pay very low rates for savings and charge usurious
rates for credit cards from 9 ½% to 35% with home equity lines
of
credit being tied to prime. The high interest rates were appreciated by
the serfs who have ceased to remember their joy.
This
globally trumped up liquidity and credit crunch was orchestrated by the
key players: the international bankers: Goldman Sachs, Barclays, BNP
Paribas, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America.
They would not buy commercial paper from one another or lend to one
another. Come on. This was reported as being shocking when in fact, it
was the standard insiders game designed to facilitate major changes to
U.S. regulations by scaring Congress and the rest of the country first.
Once
the Security and Exchange regulator has been folded into one
agency—like Britain’s Financial Services Authority, instead of having
separate regulators for commodities and derivatives, the world will go
back to calm—for a little while. The next thing you are likely to hear
is that the world needs a global financial regulator. But before that
can happen, the national regulatory laws have to be harmonized to
prepare the way.
The
supporting players were the hedge funds and complex investment
instruments. It is not Joe Average who can afford to invest in these
animals. Hedged funds known as “Quants” attempt to profit from price
inefficiencies identified through mathematical models. These send
buy/sell signals on small variations in price between different
securities (Financial Times-FT, 8/13/07). Most of the international
bankers have quant funds. In fact while they were crying the blues over
a 30% drop in August and external investors lost 20% of their
investment,
it
was reported that Goldman Sachs made $300M last month from the rescue
of one of their troubled hedge funds. They injected $2B of their own
money while billionaire friends injected another $1B to save it (FT,
9/16/7, 6). The fund was up 15% before the Fed bailout! What great math!
The
investment instruments are no doubt terribly complex. They are called
derivatives ($400T in a world where the entire GDP is $40T),
off-balance sheet structures known as conduits ($1,400B), and SIV’ or
structured investment vehicles.
The
pawns were those who took a sub-prime mortgage and bit the apple in the
same way Eve did. According to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, “About 7.5
million first-lien subprime mortgages are now outstanding, accounting
for 14% of all first-lien mortgages. So-called near-prime loans—loans
to borrowers who typically have higher credit scores than subprime
borrowers but have other higher-risk aspects—account for an additional
8 to 10 percent of mortgages” (speech 5/17/07). Six months ago, there
were $1,300B of subprime loans or about 13% of all outstanding
mortgages while the total residential mortgage market is more than
$20,000B. In other words, the subprime market is a very small
percentage of our total economy. In fact the losses from the Savings
and Loan Crisis in the 1990s were much higher.
Regarding
the mortgage market, it should be noted that the practice of banks
selling mortgages they use to hold until maturity is over. In the 1980s
when there was a mortgage default, it was the bank that took the hit.
Now mortgages and loans of every type (auto, credit card, etc.) have
been securitized (packaged into group of mortgages), then repackaged in
a collateralized debt obligation bond (CDO) and sold to a hedge fund
that bought it on leverage (David Hale, FT, 8/14/7, 11). The
sophistication and complexity of how you sell mortgages has evolved
since the 1980s.
Bottom
line is that the banks no longer carry mortgages or the risk—they
basically act as conduits. It is the market—now the global market that
carries the risk.
The
banks really are not concerned about the risk in the loans they make
because all of them are now sold in the bond markets to pension funds,
mutual funds, and others.
While
there is much more that could be said about this whole trumped up
charade of loss of liquidity, the bottom line is that the Federal
Reserve could have solved this problem two months ago by lowering
interest rates. They are the ones who create the business cycle and
market highs and lows by the amount of money they inject into the
banking system. Just like in the 1980s, interest rates could have come
down at any time, but there was another agenda. Can the Fed solve the
problem of the sub-prime mortgages, no. Congress will have to deal with
the inequities.
At
the
international level, all of the international organizations: the Bank
for International Settlements, the International Organization of
Security Commissions, the Group of Seven finance ministers, and the
Financial Stability Forum are talking about the need to have capital
markets that are globally integrated since no one Central Bank could
determine how to proceed. The U.S. is the only major country not to
have all of their regulators under one roof (just like the British
system which is used in many countries around the world).
All
countries need to adopt global accounting standards (the US is in the
process of moving in that direction, there has been agreement between
GAAP and the IASB) and countries must implement the BASEL II Capital
Accords (which are new rules for international banks on how much they
need to have in reserve for protection), the U.S. is in the process of
implementing them. Then once these things are put in place, the world
is ready for a global financial regulator!
Just
days after the Fed reduced interest rates by ½ of 1%, it was
announced
that the Dubai Stock exchange will acquire just under 20% of the Nasdaq
stock exchange and 28% of the London Stock Exchange while the Nasdaq
purchases the Nordic stock exchange, OMX.
Do
we see the handwriting on the wall?
If
the
IMF is suppose to become a Global Central Bank, then perhaps the
Financial Stability Forum is a forerunner of what might be suggested
next month when the G7 reports on the problems of supposed credit
crunch! All this drama just to integrate world markets and stock
exchanges! The ruse is now global! People need to see beyond the lies,
deceit, deception, and distortion so that they stop operating in fear
and begin living in truth.
Lastly,
all of the volatility created allowed those in the know to make lots of
extra money at the expense of those who sold low and those who lost
their homes. Be prepared for more of these trumped up vignettes, they
have been occurring from the beginning of time.
This
one is in our generation.
Joan
Veon is Executive of The Women’s International Media Group, Inc., www.womensgroup.org
...................................................................................
UN WATCH!
Helping YOU to Connect the Global to the Local The Women's International Media Group, Inc. Vol. 6, Issue 5 September-October, 2004
Issued January, 2005 “THE
POWER OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OVER THE WORLD”
By Joan Veon, Executive Director Introduction The following report on “The Power of the British Commonwealth Over the World” began when I was at the WTO meeting in Cancun in September 2003. There, several African countries held a press briefing in which they said that they would starve if America and other rich countries did not open their cotton and agricultural markets to them. I asked several questions about their vast natural
resources
(gold and strategic minerals) and if they had any monies left over
after their World Bank loans were paid. They refused to answer.
Afterward I spoke to each one and asked the following questions and
received the same response. Since they were Commonwealth members, I
asked if they could go to Britain for help. They could not. So I then
asked why they don’t withdraw from the Commonwealth if there is no
help. With great alarm, they told me they could not withdraw from this
voluntary association.
When I returned home, I called the British Information
Office to
see if they could tell me if the countries which Britain de-colonized
in the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s received a vote at the UN at the time of
separation. The lady told me she would have to research my very good
question. She called the next day to tell me that every time a country
was granted independence from Britain, they were given a vote at the
UN. Bingo!
I have
always
questioned how Britain would regain control of America when they were
defeated by Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans in 1812.
Are we so naive to think that they would not try some other way to
“capture the world”?
In the past ten years, as I have covered the UN, I
have been
amazed at the number of suggestions and key reports that come from the
British which influence UN policy.
So, just how much power does Britain have in the world
today?
The first book that I wrote is Prince Charles the
Sustainable
Prince which has to do with the role of the British Royal Family as the
power behind the United Nations. This book asserts that the British ARE
the power behind the United Nations. This opinion has not changed since
I wrote Prince Charles. The prince is a key, behind-the-scenes mover
and shaker and is responsible for the radical environmental agenda that
perverts Genesis 1, 2, and 3 and puts the earth above man and not man
above the earth as God intended.
When I wrote Prince Charles, I was not aware of the
information you are now going to read.
A Brief History of Britain
The following is taken from the Internet site, “britania,” and is from England, A Narrative History by Peter N. Williams. What I have tried to do is to show the aggressiveness of this little island nation and its role in the world today. Some of the sub-titles are my interpretation of the material reprinted. Early History
The Celtic culture in Early Britain developed about 1000 BC and came from Gaul, driven from their homelands by the Romans who invaded in 55BC under Julius Caesar. In 43 AD an expedition was ordered against Britain by Emperor Claudius who sent an army of 40,000 men. The Romans established their bases in what is known as Kent and subdued much of Britain in less than 40 years. They remained for nearly 400 years. After the Romans left, England entered a dark period. By 314
an
organized Christian Church seems to have been established in most of
Britain. By 410 Britain had become self-governing in three parts. In
597 St. Augustine was sent to convert the pagan English by Pope
Gregory. Ethelbert had married Bertha, daughter of the Merovingian King
and was practicing Christianity.
The first Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Britain was an Anglo-Celtic
kingdom. In 726, Aethelbold called himself “King of Britain” while his
son Offa called himself “king of all the English.” For several hundred
years, various kings in various part of Britain tried to gain control.
In 896, Alfred occupied London. He was born in 849 and became King of
Wessex in 871. Due to his battles with the Danes, he succeeded in
becoming the first king of England. Throughout the 8th century, the
Danes, Norwegians, Scandinavians, and British fought as to who would
have power and control. The Normans invaded England in order to secure
the throne for William of Normandy who was crowned King of England at
Westminster on Christmas Day, 1066. With him, came feudalism and a new
aristocracy.
By 1086, other than small-estate holders, there were
in the whole
of the land only two Englishmen holding estates of any dimension.
William insisted that landowners who had land from the king produce a
set quota of mounted knights which produced a new ruling class in
England. In this system, those at the bottom suffered most, losing all
their rights as free men and coming to be regarded as mere property,
assets belonging to the manor.
Feudalistic Sustainable Development
Further restrictions and hardship came from William’s New Forest laws and his vast extension of new royal forests in which all hunting rights belonged to the king. The peasantry was deprived of a valuable food source in times of bad harvests. In 1080, the “Domesday Book” was begun and was an attempt to provide the king with every penny to which he was legally entitled. It worked only too well, reckoning the wealth of England, “Down to the last pig.” William sent his men into every village and had them find out how many hides there were, what land and cattle the king should have in the country, and what dues he ought to have in twelve months from the town or village [JV: Does this sound like sustainable development and the UN Biological Diversity Treaty?]. From the rule of the Plantagenet’s to Richard the
Lionhearted and
the Crusades to King John who was forced to sign the “Great Magna
Carta” in Runnymede on June 15, 1215, to Edward I, Longshanks to Henry
VIII and to Queen Elizabeth I, the British kings and queens were
concerned with holding on to the power of the monarchy.
As a result of the defeat of the Spanish Armada by Elizabeth
I and
her long reign, England saw remarkable economic growth and a time of
calm from her chaotic past. Industry and trade prospered under the
guidance of men like Secretary Cecil, later Lord Burghley. [JV: It
should be noted that Lord Burghley perfected torture techniques and the
secret police.]
During her reign, many of the Dutch bankers and
capitalists from
Antwerp flocked to London to find a new and more secure international
money and credit market.
That year Thomas Gresham opened the Royal Exchange in
London to
make it the financial capital of the world. Cecil encouraged the
fishing industry, the source of England’s navy and backbone of its sea
power. English sailors began their mastery of the world’s oceans.
Though little more than pirates, these seamen laid the foundations of
their nation’s naval superiority which was to last for centuries.
John Cabot discovered Newfoundland in 1497, Martin
Frobisher
established trade with Moscow in 1555 to trade with Russia. Sir Francis
Drake searched the world for treasures.
Key British Economic and Trade Concepts
In 1694, the Bank of England was formed by a private stock company which raised their own funds and issued their own money to be lent to the government “in perpetuity.” This started the concept of “central banking.” Then a group of merchants and sea captains at Lloyd’s Coffee House in 1688 formed marine insurance which would underwrite enormous expenditures in overseas ventures and shipping. On May 26, 1698, Parliament came up with the idea of
granting
monopolies in trade by an act of Parliament. This act created the East
India Company. This company, with the newly formed Bank of England
showed only too well the growing power of the British traders and
financiers over the state government (emphasis added). [JV: This is
very key for they still rule the world today.]
As a result of the East India Trading Company, the trading
classes
were able to control parliament. It became one of the ever-increasing
problems for the country’s government: the interference of trade with
legislation and administration was to become an inevitable part of the
future.
In 1496, John and Sebastian Cabot discovered Newfoundland
and Nova
Scotia. England’s own era of exploration, initiated by the Cabots, was
expanded by the journeys of Hugh Willoughby to seek a Northeast Passage
to China and the spice trade. He reached Moscow by way of the White Sea
and Archangel in 1553. As a result, the Muscovy Company was founded by
Richard Chancellor to trade with Russia in 1555.
Then John Hawkins, who began his career high-jacking
Portuguese
and Spanish ships in 1562, led to England’s entering the Slave Trade.
David Ingram explored from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada and reported
finding vines with grapes as large as a man’s thumb. English mariner
Francis Drake undertook his daring voyage of 1572 to capture the
Spanish treasure fleet returning from Peru, a feat surpassed by his
even greater haul one year later.
In 1580, Drake arrived back in Plymouth having
circumnavigated the
globe in the Pelican, renamed the Golden Hind after the gallant ship
had passed through the Straits of Magellan. Drake was knighted by the
Queen after capturing the richest prize ever taken at sea. In 1584, Sir
Walter Raleigh established a colony in Roanoke, Virginia. One year
later, Chesapeake Bay was discovered by Ralph Lane and Davis Strait by
John Davis.
In 1585, the first oriental spice to be grown in the New
World, Jamaican ginger, arrived in Europe.
In 1586, Sir Richard Cavendish became the third man to
circumnavigate the globe when the ship the Desire reached England after
a voyage of over two years. When the Portuguese closed its spice market
in Lisbon to Dutch and English traders, the Dutch East India Company
was created to obtain spices directly from the Orient. In 1600, the
Honorable East India Company was chartered to make annual voyages to
the Indies and to challenge Dutch control of the spice trade.
After James
I
made peace with Spain in 1604, he re-directed England’s efforts at
colonizing North America and the Plymouth and London companies sent
ships and colonists. Jamestown, Virginia was founded in 1607. That same
year, Henry Hudson sought a route to China and sailed around the
Eastern Short of Greenland.
In 1610, Hudson’s ship Discovery reached the strait
later to be known as Hudson Bay, Canada.
In 1620, the Mayflower arrived off Cape Cod with 100
Pilgrims. In
1628, John Endicott arrived as the first Governor of the Massachusetts
Bay Colony. In 1632, Maryland received its charger by a grant from King
Charles to Cecil Calvert.
In 1655, Admiral Penn captured Jamaica from the
Spanish. In 1654,
New Amsterdam was renamed New York after its capture from the Dutch. A
year later, the New Jersey Colony was founded by English colonists. The
1674 Treaty of Westminster returned New York and Delaware to England.
In 1681, Pennsylvania had its beginning in the land grant given to
William Penn. In 1698, William Dampier sailed on his Pacific expedition
to explore the West Coast of Australia.
In 1648, South Africa came to attention of Europeans when a
Dutch
ship broke up and the survivors urged authorities to establish a
settlement for provisioning their East India fleets. In 1652, a small
group of Dutch settlers founded Cape Town. In 1815, Britain gained its
long-desired “half-way house” on the sea route to India when the Dutch
ceded the Cape of Good Hope. The British arrived in 1820.
When diamonds were discovered in the Orange Free State, the
Boer War began. Then gold was discovered in the Transvaal in 1886. Cecil Rhodes
who founded the De Beers Mining Corporation in 1880 was determined that
the riches being discovered in South Africa were not going to the Boer
farmers. Rhodes dreamed of extending British rule in Africa. Using his
great wealth, amassed in the diamond and gold fields, Rhodes with other
imperialists established British colonies to the north of the Boer
territories. Both Northern and Southern Rhodesia were granted charters
by London. Eventually the Boer republics were annexed to the British
crown in 1900.
The South Sea company founded in 1711 had acquired a
monopoly in
the lucrative Spanish slave trade and other trading ventures in South
America.
At the
Treaty of Paris in 1763,
Britain gained Canada, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, the right to navigate
the Mississippi, the West Indian Islands of Grenada, St. Vincent,
Dominica and Tobago in the West Indies; Florida (from Spain); Senegal
in Africa and the preservation in India of the East India Company’s
monopoly, and in Europe, Minorca.
In India, Robert Clive defeated pro-French forces at Arcot
in 1751
thus helping his East India Company monopolize appoints, finances, land
and power. The British victory led to the withdrawal of the French East
India Company.
Then Clive defeated the local Nabob at Plassey to become
virtual
ruler of Bengal and opened up much of the country to further
exploitation and control by the East India Company. India was regarded
as the “jewel in the crown” of the British Empire; over two thirds of
the vast sub-continent was ruled by the East India Company. Its
finances and its troops were used to protect British interests, even
overthrowing native Indian princes.
In 1769, Captain Cook discovered a country that consisted of
two
main islands, it was called New Zealand. In 1770, he explored the
eastern coast of what was then called “New Holland.”’ He took
possession of the island continent in the name of George III. Britain
had found a new empire, Australia to resettle criminals and to
accommodate early settlers to help with the overpopulation in Britain
which the agricultural and industrial revolutions had contributed to.
In 1822, an article by James Mill on “colonization” in the
“Encyclopedia Britannica” offered emigration as a remedy for
over-population.
Between 1768 and 1781, Captain Cook made three exploratory
voyages
to the West Coast of Canada. Because the Chinese were interested in
receiving fur in exchange for the tea, silks and porcelain which was in
demand in Europe, the British went further west.
In 1788, a group of English traders settled on
Vancouver Island.
Spain still claimed the whole West Coast of America up to Alaska but
after a confrontation at Vancouver between the two countries, England
presented an ultimatum to the Spanish whose lack of allies and an
effective navy forced them to accept its terms. The Spanish recognition
of British trading and fishing rights in the area
opened the way for the establishment of British Columbia and
the
creation of a British North America. In 1867, the British North America
Act united Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the Dominion of Canada.
When Admiral Nelson defeated a combined French and Spanish
fleet
near Gibraltar in 1805, the long struggle between Britain and France
for world supremacy ended.
English soldiers were involved in a war with China
over British
export of opium from India in exchange for silks and tea. When China
forbade the opium trade and fired on a British warship, they were
bombarded by a Royal Navy squadron. The Opium War ended with the Treaty
of Nanking in 1842 that opened up five “Treaty Ports” for trade and
gave Hong Kong to Britain.
.........................................................................
Britain’s rise to a world power meant that she found
interest
everywhere. Not only was she now head of the self-governing colonies
such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, but also the vast Empire of
India and a veritable host of dependent territories all over the
world’s oceans. Most of these had been acquired somehow to protect the
merchants and traders of England. On the following page, you will find
a chart of British interference and domination in the affairs of the
world.
Observations of Commonwealth Countries
While I could make numerous observations about the various countries that comprise the Commonwealth countries, I would like to offer the following: 1. There is an interesting mix between extremely
wealthy countries such as Australia, Canada, Brunei, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and UAE versus the Highly Indebted Poor Countries-HIPC such as Bangladesh, Mozambique, Uganda and the Sudan. See British Domination in World Affairs
Many of the HIPC have vast mineral resources which are used to pay for World Bank loans instead of building infrastructure. Please refer to Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince. For example: Ghana – Rich in gold, bauxite, manganese, diamonds
Guyana – Rich in bauxite, manganese, gold, diamonds Mauritania – Iron and copper ore Senegal – Petroleum refining Sierra Leone – Diamonds, chrome, bauxite and iron ore Uganda – Copper and cobalt Tanzania – Rich in gold, diamonds and coal Zambia – Rich in copper. 2. By the number of countries that the British invaded,
ruled and
plundered, you can see that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.”
3. Israel was a British Mandate and then was made a country
by vote at the United Nations.
4. The financial and economic power of some of the
Commonwealth Countries and those invaded by the British is as follows:
Australia – rich in coal, gold, meat, wool, machinery, iron
ore, bauxite, natural gas, uranium and petroleum.
Brunei – Rich in oil and gas with 79 million barrels of oil exported in 2001. It also has forests, fish, rubber and pepper. Kuwait – Has 10% of the world’s oil reserves at 98 billion barrels. India – Has textiles, chemicals, steel, transportation equipment, cement and petroleum. Nigeria – The most populous country with proven oil reserves of 27 billion barrels and natural gas reserves of 4 trillion cubic feet along with coal, peanuts and palm oil. Malaysia – Rubber, palm oil and electronics. Oman -Has oil and natural gas with some copper, gold, manganese, and goal. Qatar – Has 5% of the world’s oil reserves of 14.6B barrels and proven natural gas of 17.9% trillion cubic feet. Singapore – Electronics, chemicals, transportation equipment, one of the world’s largest petroleum refining centers and an important ship-building center. South Africa – The world’s largest producer of platinum, gold and chromium. UAE – Has 10% of the world’s oil reserves estimated at 98.1 billion barrels and natural gas at 5.8 trillion cubic feet as well as largest producer of dates and fresh fruits, has a national shipping fleet of more than 4,000 vessels, produces aluminum, chemicals, paper and pharmaceuticals. Zimbabwe – Coal, gold, copper, nickel, tin, clay, steel, wood, cement and chemicals. While we are at it, let us make mention that most of the
off-shore trading and banking is conducted in the Cayman Islands
which is part of the UK. They have 40,000 companies as of 1998 with 600
banks and trusts. AT that time, banking exceeded $500B.
Definition of Commonwealth The English word, “Commonwealth”, dates from the 15th century and indicates one of the following: a nation, state or political unit, a state founded on law by agreement of the people for the common good, a republic, and/or a federated union of constituent states. The Commonwealth of England was the official title of the political unit that replaced the kingdoms of Scotland and England under the rule of Oliver Cromwell. The states of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and
Virginia are all “commonwealths” which emphasizes they
have “government based on the common consent of the people”
(Source: Wikipedia.Org.)
The Commonwealth
According to an Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia.org, “The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, mostly formed by the United Kingdom and its former colonies.” Countries that “acknowledge the British monarch as head of state are known as Commonwealth Realms” while all members recognize Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is the successor of the British Empire and
has
its origins in the Imperial Conferences of the 1920s. The Commonwealth
was established as an association of free and equal states, and
membership was based on common allegiance to the British Crown.
The old British Empire, we are told, was dismantled after
World
War II beginning with India and the activities of Mohandas Gandhi. A
number of the countries that have been de-colonized are republics.
Because several left the Commonwealth, they established the
London
Declaration which provided for members to accept the British monarch as
Head of the Commonwealth regardless of their domestic constitutional
arrangements, and are now considered by many to be the start of the
modern Commonwealth.
The population of the Commonwealth is about 1.8 billion
people
which comprise about 30% of the world’s population. India is the most
populous member with a billion people while Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
Nigeria have more than 100 million people. The land of Commonwealth
nations equals about ¼ of the world’s land area. Membership is
open to
countries that accept the association’s basic aims.
In recent years, the Commonwealth has suspended Fiji
(2000-2001),
Pakistan from 1999-2004, Nigeria from 1995 – 1999, Zimbabwe was
suspended in 2002 and left the Commonwealth in 2003.
Organization and Objectives
Queen Elizabeth II is the nominal Head of the Commonwealth. Since 1965 there has been a London-based Secretariat. The current Commonwealth Secretary-General is the former New Zealand Foreign Minister Don McKinnon. The objectives of the Commonwealth were set down in The
Harare
Declaration of 1991. While it is not a long declaration, part of it is
reprinted only to show that there
really is no real reason for the UK to have the Commonwealth except to
control the UN through the Commonwealth. Its goals are exactly those of
the UN.
The Declaration states in part,
The Heads of Government of the countries of the Commonwealth
reaffirm their confidence In the Commonwealth as a voluntary
association of sovereign independent states, each Responsible for its
own policies, consulting and co-operating in the interests of their
peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world
peace.
The Commonwealth way is to seek consensus through
consultation and
the sharing of experience. It is uniquely placed to serve as a model
and as a catalyst for new forms of friendship and co-operation to all
in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations.
We believe that international peace and order, global
economic
development and the rule of International law are essential to the
security and prosperity of mankind.
Internationally, the world is no longer locked in the iron
grip of
the Cold War. Totalitarianism Is giving way to democracy and justice in
many parts of the world.
Many Commonwealth countries are poor and face acute
problems,
including excessive population growth, crushing poverty, debt burdens
and environmental degradation.
Only sound and sustainable development can offer these
millions
the prospect of betterment. Achieving this will require a flow of
public and private resources from the developed to the developing
world, and domestic and international regimes conducive to the
realization of these goals: environmental degradation, migration and
refugees, communicable diseases and drug production and trafficking.
Having reaffirmed the principles to which the Commonwealth
is
committed, we pledge the Commonwealth and our countries to work with
renewed vigor, concentrating especially In the following areas: the
protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the
Commonwealth…
....................................................
How Voluntary is the Commonwealth? You would think that if a country was de-colonized that Britain would have a “hands-off” policy. That is not the case. Every Commonwealth country that acknowledges the queen as head of state has a representative of the queen who is called a “Governor-General.” The Governor-General retains all the reserve powers that the Queen exercises in the UK which includes opening and closing parliament and abolishing parliament. Furthermore, the Governor-General appoints the prime
minister and
cabinet from the part with the most support from the House of Commons.
In Canada, for example, the ten provinces all have a
representative of the Queen! When Parliament is opened, both the prime
minister and the Governor-General give a speech. The Governor-General
delivers “The Speech from the Throne.”
Commonwealth Votes at the UN When the UN was formed in 1945, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom had three votes. As the UK de-colonized countries, they were made voting members of the United Nations. Then between 1946-1959 when the United Kingdom de-colonized a number of countries, their votes increased by four: Ghana, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sir Lanka. During 1960-1969, twenty more countries were de-colonized: Barbados, Botswana, Cameroon, Cyprus, Gambia, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Zambia. During 1970-79, ten more countries de-colonized: Bahamas, Bangladesh, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Mozambique, Papau New Guinea, Samoa, and Solomon Islands. During 1980-89, seven more countries de-colonized: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Vanuatu, and Zimbabwe. The last country to de-colonize was Namibia. In addition, associated states, external territories and
dependencies include: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman
Islands, Channel Islands, Falkland Islands, Isle of Man, Montserrat,
Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, and Turks and Caicos Islands. Those that
come as a result of being part of Australia or New Zealand include:
Christmas Island, Cocos Island, Cook Islands, Niue, Norfolk Island, and
Tokelau.
........................
Canada and the Free Trade Areas of the
Americas
Our neighbor to the north and our largest trading partner, Canada, is the largest member of the Commonwealth in this hemisphere. Canada is America’s largest trading partner—surpassing our trade with Japan.(..) In November, 2004 President Bush told Canada’s Prime
Minister Paul
Martin at a meeting on “Common Security, Common Prosperity, A new
Partnership in North America, “It’s good to be home.” He went on to
declare, “Both the U.S. and Canada participate together in more
multinational institutions than perhaps any two nations on earth—from
NATO to the OAS to APEC in the Pacific.” He went several steps forward
when he pledged,
My country is determined to work as far as possible within
the
framework of international organizations and we’re hoping that other
nations will work with us to make those institutions more relevant and
more effective in meeting the unique threats of our time.
With all this “interconnectedness,” I would like to
seriously
question our involvement with, not only Canada, but the Free Trade
Areas of the Americas-FTAA which is a trading zone for all the
countries in our hemisphere. Begun in 1994, the various cabinet level
secretaries of the 34 countries have been meeting throughout the year
since then to integrate our laws. In a the Western Hemisphere, Canada,
Antigua, the Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St.
Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and
Trinidad and Tobago are members of the British Commonwealth.
We are outvoted by 13 votes to our one vote in our own
hemisphere! Let’s take a look at the voting power of the Commonwealth
in the world today.
THE VOTING POWER OF THE COMMONWEALTH IN THE WORLD TODAY
Starting with the founding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in 1944, an economic international infrastructure was established which was followed by a political international infrastructure above the nation-states. Over the last 61 years, this infrastructure has been developed to include trade, law, the military and now intelligence as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. Interestingly enough, the Commonwealth of Nations
operates in
each of these organizations. Not once has an American President said,
“Chose either the UN or the Commonwealth.” On the following page, you
will see the power of the Commonwealth. We are outvoted with our one
vote at every turn.
Let me just make mention that on a regional basis, the U.S.
and
the world are also outvoted: Free Trade Areas of the Americas by 13
votes, two votes in the European Union, and seven votes at the Asian
Pacific Economic Cooperation!
Furthermore, whenever a committee is formed at the UN, they
rotate
“presidency”. For example, if there are 4 Commonwealth countries that
are part of a committee of 15, that means Britain is president 25% of
the time. This is occurring throughout ALL of the hundreds of
committees, agencies, organizations, etc. throughout the WHOLE of the
UN system.
IN CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I believe the purpose behind the construction of the international level is to transfer complete and absolute power to Britain. I can now see why Prince Charles was working behind the
scenes.
For him to be center-stage along with the power of the Commonwealth
would look like they are in the process of using Francis Drake’s
pirating methods to grab the world! You can now see how The British
have the majority of votes in the global organizations of the world
through the Commonwealth and not one major power has questioned the
ability of the Commonwealth to operate in tandem with the other global
organizations!
And while we are on the subject of being outvoted, let us
turn to
the EU for a moment. When it came together the whole purpose was to
create a “United States of Europe.” Now that the travel and trade
barriers are down between the European states which now total 25, and
they have adopted a common currency which is giving the dollar a run
for her money, and they have a common parliament in Strasbourg, how
come, they still have 25 votes at the UN instead of ONE? America has 50
states and we only get ONE vote!
There, the Commonwealth has two votes: Malta and the
UK.
Globally Queen Elizabeth II has out-maneuvered more
than what her namesake did when she defeated the Spanish Armada!
(..end)
_______________ “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us. He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak to them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare: Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for your inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.” Psalms 2 .....................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
Added:
April 22, 2007
THE NAU AND THE INTEGRATION OF AMERICA (2007)
The Real Face of the European Union
- 43 min - 24
Feb 2006
Phillip Day The EU has
been sold
to Britain as our best hope for the future . . . But behind the scenes,
has another, more unsettling agenda been unfolding? The European
Economic Community (EEC) began for Britain as a free-trade agreement in
1972. Today's European Union is well on its way to becoming a federal
superstate, complete with one currency, one legal system, one military,
one police force â even its own national anthem.
In this shocking new
documentary
featuring EU insiders and commentators, independent author Phillip Day
covers the history and goals of the European Union, as well as the
disturbing, irrevocable implications this new government has for every
British citizen. Whether the viewer is for or against Britain's
participation, this film asks the troubling questions the mainstream
media has refused to confront
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ more from icke:
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Entreating
The Beast
'Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, we are insistently told by advocates of
further military adventurism in the Persian Gulf region, is the most
recent version of Hitler Revisited, harboring an implacable desire to
annihilate Israel. The
regime in Tehran doesn't occupy an acre of land beyond its borders, and
displays no desire to acquire any through aggression or other means.
Yet we are told that Iran is a threat to the entire world, and must be
contained by Washington through the use of economic impediments and
covert operations that are tantamount to an undeclared war.'
Thus it may be
considered odd that Ahmadenijad
has made a point of avowing his government's "friendship" for the
Israeli people,
despite its irreducible antagonism toward the government ruling that
country. Even if one assumes that such statements are fashioned from
the purest hypocrisy, they do complicate matters for those who seek to
shoehorn the Iranian leader into Hitler's jackboots.
This is not to say, of course, that such people will relent. Next week, as the monument to human
folly called the United Nations opens for business,
a
coalition of the militant, the mawkish, and the misguided will assemble
to demand further action to provoke Iran into a war its government --
unlike that of Germany in the 1930s -- is seeking to avoid.
One key demand of that coalition is that Ahmadenijad be arrested -- that is, kidnapped -- and delivered to The Hague for trial by the UN's International Criminal Court. A petition on behalf of that demand either will be, or has been, delivered to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by David Parsons, a representative of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem (ICEJ). An Evangelical organization that acts as a de facto lobby on behalf of the Israeli government, the ICEJ has collected 55,000 signatures from Christians in some 128 countries who earnestly believe that Ahmadenijad should be tried for violating the UN's Genocide Convention. The logo of ICEJ's Washington Affiliate. In anticipation of the obvious question -- "When did Ahmadenijad, an admittedly unsavory but thoroughly unremarkable chief executive, attempt to slaughter an entire ethnic group?" -- supporters of the ICEJ's proposal would reply that the Iranian president hasn't committed an act of genocide, but that his public criticisms of Israel are tantamount to inciting such acts. The assumption here is that the UN has the authority to punish genocide pre-emptively by criminalizing public utterances. This is necessary in the case of Ahmadenijad, according to the ICEJ, in order to prevent a war. Reasonable people would believe attempting to abduct a head of state for arraignment before a foreign tribunal would precipitate a war. Cynics such as myself suspect that this is the entire point -- that the War Lobby in Washington and Israel are eagerly searching for a suitable pretext or provocation to bring about a conflict with Iran, and indicting Ahmadenijad under the UN Genocide Convention might be the right approach. The chief allegation is that the would-be defendant abetted genocide by allegedly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Wouldn't his recent professions of friendship to the Jewish people mitigate that supposed offense? Apparently not. But for those who inhabit the world of objective fact, the matter is moot, since Ahmadenijad never actually uttered the offending phrase, or used his native tongue to express a sentiment accurately translated as such. Furthermore, even if he had given voice to such an abhorrent desire, this would not be a crime under any law worthy of respect. Nor does the UN have the legitimate authority -- much less the moral standing -- to prosecute anybody for any authentic crime, let alone a purported violation of a spurious global "law." When the United States government ratified the Genocide Convention in the late 1980s, there were those of us who predicted that it would be used to re-define that offense -- from the attempted extermination of an entire human sub-population, to the much lesser "act" of saying things that hurt some people's feelings. Ironically, the act that (unconstitutionally) amended U.S. criminal law to permit the enforcement of the UN Genocide Convention was signed by Ronald Reagan, who under the "Ahmadenijad Standard" might well have been hauled away to The Hague for his misbegotten quip, "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." (...) That the UN is a "weak and deformed organization," no informed and honest observer will dispute. It has provided spectacles of barbarous hypocrisy on many matters, not the least of which would be genocide -- both in Cambodia and Rwanda. In fact, years before Kofi Annan shared a Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nations Organization, the future Secretary General was a passive accomplice to the Rwandan genocide as head of the world body's "peacekeeping" apparatus. The UN mission in Rwanda was to administer a peace treaty that called for the disarmament of the civilian population. The country's two chief ethnic groups, the Hutus and Tutsis, had taken turns slaughtering each other for decades or longer. When Rwanda was a Belgian colony following World War I,* the Tutsis were in favor because their physiogomy -- tall, slender, with smaller and finer features -- made them appear more "European" and therefore, under the regnant racial dogmas of the period, superior to the Hutus. The Belgian colonial authorities recruited Tutsis to administer the government and regiment the Hutus. This had the predictable, if tragic, effect of exacerbating inter-communal conflict that led to a rotating series of bloodbaths between Hutu and Tutsi. (Interestingly, Pastor Ntakirutimana, a Hutu, was married to a Tutsi woman.) In late 2003, the UN military occupation force (or "peacekeepers," as the world body prefers to call them) obtained advance intelligence of impending massacres of Tutsi civilians in Rwanda. The on-site commander of the UN force, Canadian officer Romeo Dallaire, shared that intelligence with his superiors, a chain of command that terminated with Kofi Annan. Annan's office instructed Dallaire, to pass along that intelligence to the same national government that was plotting genocide. Dallaire (whom I interviewed at some length several years ago) is a genuinely tragic figure, a decent man working within a thoroughly indecent system. He knew that his orders would lead to horrific mass bloodshed. During the 100-day orgy of murder that began in April 2004, Dallaire was immersed in an incessant Grand Guignol production. He later recalled "standing knee-deep in mutilated bodies, surrounded by the guttural moans of dying people, looking into the eyes of children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots or flies." After being evacuated and returning to Canada, Dallaire continued to suffer severe psychological after-effects, often being shocked awake in the middle of the night by dreams in which he waded "waist deep in bodies, covered in blood." He was driven to alcoholism and attempted suicide. In 2000, shortly before Kofi Annan received his Nobel Peace Prize, a news reporter found Dallaire cowering under a park bench in Hull, Quebec, a human ruin. Dallaire was the man who attempted to stop the genocide by disarming the government-organized death squads. Annan was the individual who abetted the genocide by ordering Dallaire not to act on his intelligence, but to share it with the government planning the slaughter -- and to continue to disarm the targeted civilian population. Between 800,000 and 1.1 million people were annihilated in the 100-day killing frenzy. Most of the victims were dismembered and eviscerated by machete. But the machete-wielding mobs were backed up by government troops carrying automatic weapons. They trusted the UN: Victims of the Rwandan genocide (left, below right). "They have guns and knives and machetes, the people from the Government party, so we can't fight back," explained Jeanne Niwemutesi, a Tutsi refugee. "We don't have any arms." In 2000, an Australian attorney named Michael Hourigan conducted an inquiry into the UN's official actions during the genocide. Among his discoveries was the fact that "peacekeepers sent to protect [potential victims] ... either handed them over to the rampaging militants or ran way when fighting broke out." That is the precise nature of the allegation against Ntakirutimana. In the case of the UN military, however, the evidence was solid as granite. Hourigan attempted to file a class-action suit against the UN. The body replied by asserting a claim of plenary immunity. "What does it tell us about the UN that not a single official thought fit to resign over the first indisputable genocide since the UN Charter was signed?" asked human rights activist Alex de Waal in despair over this spectacle. What it tells us is that the UN is not a noble idea that was imperfectly realized. Instead, it is an abhorrent idea -- "human security" through concentration of power in a global body -- that has had predictably tragic consequences. Assuming that Mr. Parsons and his colleagues at the ICEJ are motivated by sincere concern for the well-being of Israel, it is clear that they are under the influence of a very powerful delusion. Since its creation, the UN done more than any other human institution to facilitate war and genocide. Were it to act on the demand that Ahmadenijad be apprehended and prosecuted for something he never said, the UN would add to its unenviable record by precipitating an utterly avoidable war with Iran that would be a disaster for everyone in the region, including Israel. ...................
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Euro MPs To
Vote On Anonymous Blog Ban
'Marianne
Mikko,
an Estonian centre-left MEP, is concerned that growing numbers of blogs
are being used by individuals with "malicious intentions or hidden
agendas". "The blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions
and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming
commonplace, less principled people will want to use them," she said.
Mrs Mikko has proposed that bloggers should be required to identify
themselves and that some popular blogs should come with a declaration
of interests. "We do not need to know the exact identity of bloggers.
We need some credentials, a quality mark, a certain disclosure of who
is writing and why. We need this to be able to trust and rely on the
source," she said.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3059617/Euro-MPs-to-vote-on-anonymous-blog-ban.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|||||
