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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.)
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, 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
This video highlights a very serious concern which n...
This video highlights a very serious concern which none of our media is looking into. The Amero is being looked at as the defacto currency of the North American Community (or Union).
Here is a better quality audio/video copy
Here is a high quality Google Video version
This video is from CNBC November 27th, 2006
You can also find the next day comments 11/28/06 on the Amero if you have the CNBC Plus account
The paper article is here http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publication...
Building a North American Community
Toward a North American Community
Stop the North American Union
The Amero - North American Currency:
IT’S OUR TURN, OUR TIME
By Joan M. Veon
As baby boomers, we are no longer able to read about history for it is now our turn, our time. While the above constitutes a “first time in history” list, there are as many astounding things that have happened in the last 65 years that are also for the “first time in history”.
In 1944, for the first time in modern history the finance ministers of the world met in New Hampshire to set in place a new international structure for how the monetary system of the world should be set up. At that meeting, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were put in place. While the U.S. Senate refused to ratify a type of world trade association, tearing down the trade barriers between countries would have to wait until 1994 when the 27,000 page plus General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs was passed by a lame duck congress. A year later in 1945, a world governmental organization by the name of the United Nations was set up. Not since the Roman Empire during the time of Christ has the world seen a “global parliament.” That same year, another global organization was set in place, the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization-UNESCO, its goal is to change how people think.
In 1998, the International Criminal Court was birthed. For the first time since the Roman Empire, there is now an international court to try those who have committed a number of international crimes. This body has the power to transcend sovereign country borders in order to search, seize, and arrest the alleged criminal. In 1999, we were part of a global propaganda ploy called “Y2K.” While we were told computers would shut down, that is not what it was all about. The whole purpose was to connect the world electronically in time for the third millennium. As a result of the Attack on the World Trade Centers, the remaining and most sensitive barriers between the countries of the world fell: the military and intelligence barriers. The result is that today we live in an “interdependent and integrated” world. President John Kennedy in 1962 called for a “Declaration of Interdependence.” Every president since then has referred to some type of integrated world or new world order.
For the first time since Rome, the world is interconnected. There are no more barriers between the nation-states. As each international institution was set in place, the barriers between the nation-states vanished: economic, political, educational, trade, legal, communications, intelligence and military.
In our lifetime, we had the birth of television which at first was a blessing, but 55 years later has lulled to sleep a populace that once was vigilant. Furthermore, we have a citizenry who would rather depend on the nightly news for truth rather than searching it out.
While there have always been the international traders throughout history as civilizations evolved, today we have the powerful transnational corporation which owes allegiance to no country. These corporations have evolved in power and position since the 1950s and are powered by individual and institutional investors in the form of mutual funds, foundations, pension and profit-sharing plans, and 401K’s.
For the first time in history, we are seeing the rise of a global stock exchange with the merging of the New York Stock Exchange with the Euronext and the potential merger of the Nasdaq with the London Stock Exchange! Because there are no more barriers between the nation-states, not only do the corporations run wild, but it is now possible for those with large amounts of money to skim off the top of the world’s markets. Every time the market drops 100 or 500 points, it is quite possible that those who control the market, are making a gigantic killing worldwide.
For the first time in history, during the late 1990s key governments moved to put in place an international economic architecture to accommodate an economically integrated world. Part of this new infrastructure was to repeal key post-Depression laws to protect the average investor.
For the first time in history we are seeing the rise of a world governmental system through the United Nations. In the past 61 years, more international law has been set in place than in 1625 when international law first became a study. Every time the UN General Assembly passes a resolution, international law is made. The UN ambassadors then go back to their countries and pass national laws to conform to international law. (...)
HOW TO STOP THE NEW WORLD ORDER:
STOP SPENDING, STOP CHARGING!
By Joan M. Veon
For the last 13 years as I have covered global meetings and studied the ever shifting economic and political structure of this New World Order of ours, I have been very saddened to realize that we the people have absolutely no voice in government. Over and over again, the president passes executive orders that bypass Congress and if that was not bad enough, our elected representatives have determined that “they know better than you and me.” Most of the change that is occurring today is because elected officials have decided that we the people are not smart enough to understand and we are being bypassed by them. If that were not bad enough, they go along to get along instead of opposing presidential policy that is out of sync with the Constitution.
Furthermore, we have seen the structure of government change as government assets are carved up and sold to the highest bidder through various privatization schemes. Then there is the co-managing of government by corporations and non-governmental organizations known as public-private partnerships. In fact the future structure of government is public-private partnerships.
Just ask the people of New Orleans, just look at the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road, just look at President Bushes space program of “Moon, Mars and Beyond.” Just look at the report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on “Public Works, Public Wealth” which basically says government needs deeper pockets: corporations to the rescue! Can you imagine having to pay a toll to use any part of the road you now travel on? Guess again, corporations are about to fight for the right to convert our roadways to toll ways and for any part of infrastructure to be public-private partnership! What gold there is in “them there hills”! This is the tip of the iceberg.
Government as we know it is changing as it gives away its power to the highest bidder.
Just recently, Norway overthrew their Democratic Socialist government so they can privatize more of their state assets! What that means is that every time a public-private partnership is set up, representative government diminishes. Yes, that’s right. What will happen after all our assets have been divided up among the corporations? You and I will still be paying our taxes to keep the shell of government afloat so they can meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goals of reducing poverty in the world by 50% or to provide foreign aid to bribe various third-world governments in order to comply with the New World Order.
Basically, the United States is becoming a feudalistic state. In medieval Europe, feudalism was a system in which the serfs were privileged to live on the estate of a duke or prince in order to be protected by him and his castle moat. In return, the serfs they gave a portion of their crops and paid a monthly wage for this opportunity.
Just when I think we have no power, I saw Wall Street and the Federal Reserve reverse their steps last week, and realized WE THE PEOPLE HAVE POWER-IT IS THE ONLY POWER THE MONEY MONSTERS UNDERSTAND: CONSUMER SPENDING! In order to understand our power OVER THE NEW WORLD ORDER, we must understand the present economic system that has come into being. There are four components: the Markets, Capitalism, the Federal Reserve, and a paper-monetary system. (...)
The bottom line is that Wall Street and our central bank made a huge mistake by raising interest rates at the same time when energy was going up. What they now know is that the power of the consumer is gone-or is it? They are not able to put gas in their SUVs and they are not buying new ones. Furthermore, they cannot afford a new home which has doubled in price as a result of 45 year low interest rates. In other words, there is very high inventory of SUVs by all the auto dealers and the home builders.
However this is GOOD NEWS BECAUSE IT IS THE CONSUMER WHO HAS SPOKEN. We have the power to bring the system which they created down. Let’s use their system to stop them. It is very simple: STOP BUYING AND STOP CHARGING!!!
We have not been using our power properly. Instead, we have agreed to their terms and their system. The Consumer is over extended. While we may not be up to our eyeballs in debt, it is time to get out of their system. We can use their system to make demands to change their hold on us. They need you and me to constantly buy, to determine that we need to look like the magazine pictures of what is acceptable on any given day, they need you and me to prop up their monstrous capitalistic system by buying newer and bigger so they can earn more interest. They need you and me to march to their tune. IT IS TIME TO STOP AND TELL THEM TO MARCH TO OUR TUNE. All this without a bullet being fired.
You know what they tell co-dependents. Get healed and then your marriage will change. We can change this evil, feudalistic system by not buying and not charging, emergencies excluded. This is what needs to be done:
Get financially well. If you have debt, stop buying until you pay OFF your current debts. If you need something new, start visiting the consignment shops. There are different level of consignment shops from Goodwill to high-ended clothing shops.
When you have finished paying off your credit cards, learn to live within your means. We have all been guilty of believing the beautiful advertisements that tell us we too can be beautiful with a new house, new car, new furniture, new kitchen, new shoes, new dress, new tools, etc. Joy comes from within.
For things you need, start going to flea markets, neighborhood garage sales, antique stores, and auctions. Read the “For sale” ads. The idea is NOT TO BUY IN THE DEPARTMENT STORES, but from one another. Create an alternative to their system.
When you send your credit card payment, write a note saying you can’t afford 18% to 35% and for that reason you are going to close your account. Tell MasterCard and Visa that you are not going to pay 18% any more. Keep one open for emergencies.
For Christmas, a retailer’s biggest opportunity to get people to buy, make your Christmas presents this year, next year, and the year after.
Start going to your county council meetings and vote down new spending appropriations. The answer is NO to further economic projects that will increase our debt. Tell them NO to usurious interest rates. NO to new bond projects that will increase our burden of debt for many years to come. Vote out the high spenders who advocate “economic growth.”
Write to your Congressman and Senator and tell them to repeal the 1980 Monetary De-Regulation Act and return interest rates on credit cards to fair rates instead of Mafia level interest rates and while you are at it, tell them to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.
Tell your neighbors, spread the word.
STOP BUYING AND STOP CHARGING.
Let’s break their dysfunctional system.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AGENDA 21 AND PRINCE CHARLES
By Joan Veon
August 13, 2004
It has been ten years since I have been writing and studying the now established environmental philosophy of sustainable development. I was first confronted with it at the United Nations Conference on Population and Development-UNCED in Cairo, Egypt in 1994.
Sustainable development was a core philosophy behind the Programme of Action called "Agenda 21" at the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development-UNCED, now dubbed the "Rio Earth Summit."
In Rio, conference Secretary-General Maurice Strong stated,
Agenda 21 - still stands as the most comprehensive, most far-reaching and, if implemented, the most effective programme of international action ever sanctioned by the international community. It is not a final and complete action programme, but one which must continue to evolve.
Sustainable development has continued to evolve as that of protecting the world's resources while its true agenda is to control the world's resources.
Communism also has control at its core and it also is evolving. I remember asking former UN Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali what he meant by "change" and he told me that he was introducing "constant change" as a way to continue the evolutionary processes begun in Rio.
Under the evolutionary process which Agenda 21 set in motion, sustainable development has become like a prism. Every time you turn it, you get a different "color." The sustainable development prism includes the social, political, economic and environmental factors. Until Rio, the phrase sustainable development had not appeared in any prior UN documents, papers or reference books.
It should be noted that Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure needed to manage, count, and control all of the world's assets. Included are the forests, fresh water, agricultural lands, deserts, pastures, rangelands, farmers' fields, oceans and inland waterways, marine environment, marine life, cities, housing, sewer and solid wastes, methods of production, air, pollution, biotechnology-every aspect of living-farming, production and manufacturing, research and medicine, etc., along with you and I. Today everything is sustainable: sustainable water, sustainable forests, sustainable markets, sustainable agriculture, etc.
Through advanced technology such as the Geographic Information System (GIS), the control, count and management of the earth's assets is being implemented. Scientists have told me that the GIS satellites can measure the quality of soil anywhere in the earth to a depth of three inches. Furthermore, it can tell you what kind of birds and insects are in which kind of tree. It can also see you and me sleeping in our beds and living in our houses-ever wonder why leaded paint was such a problem?
The UN calls this transparency while you and I call it invasion of privacy.
So how did the UN come up with this heinous agenda? It began in 1972 when the first Earth Summit was held in Stockholm, Sweden. Maurice Strong was the conference Secretary-General of that meeting also. As a result of its deliberations, in 1974 the UN General Assembly set up the UN Environment Program-UNEP, now a major player in sustainable development, interacting with corporations and a key partner in the United Nations Global Compact.
It should be noted that hundreds, if not thousands of environmental NGO's support and are helping to implement Agenda 21 worldwide. The United Nations has given them vast responsibilities to assist in the implementation of sustainable development. Furthermore, governments are recognizing their manpower as a free source of power to carry the message throughout the world. Two very powerful NGO's that were part of the birthing of sustainable development are the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).(...)
The centerpiece of Johannesburg was the launching of "International Sustainable Development Law" that will govern the implementation and legal rights of sustainable development. This new discipline is based on poverty alleviation and the rights of the marginalized (socialistic transfer of wealth mechanisms). Over 150 environmental lawyers and those from other related disciplines met in Durban, South Africa a week before to discuss the integration of environmental, economic, and social laws into one new discipline. There were policy papers put forth which they hoped would be used as the framework for a Treaty on International Sustainable Development Law.
Their actions reaffirmed Chapter 39 of Agenda 21 which recognizes the need to continue progressive development and codification of international law related to sustainable development. It should be noted that these laws will be incorporated into every local and national level of law worldwide.
For those of us with Christian values, this is the anti-thesis of what we believe for sustainable development is pagan. It perverts Genesis 1, 2, and 3 in that it puts the earth as being dominant over man and not man as having dominance over the earth-hence, you and I have no value since we have been demoted to the same value as an animal or plant.
So what do you think is the end result of international sustainable development law? Enslavement.
Now who were THE players behind the birthing of sustainable development? To my surprise, it was Prince Charles. Not happy with the Christian faith, Charles turned to "para- psychology" which some define as "dabbling in the occult." He was greatly influenced by the South African-born writer, explorer, and mystic Laurens van der Post who was a friend of his grandmother, the Queen Mother.
The prince was also influenced by James Lovelock, a British scientist who formulated the "Gaia hypothesis, which today is known as the worship of the earth, a belief based on the Greek goddess Gaia, the Earth Mother. Charles concurs with the perversion of Genesis 1, 2, and 3.
Most people will not find Prince Charles or his environmental activities in the headlines of major newspapers. Nor do his biographies really explain his involvement, as there is basically a blackout on what he is really doing worldwide.
In April 1991, fourteen months before UNCED, the Prince held a private two day international conference aboard the royal yacht Britannia, moored off the coast of Brazil. His goal was to bring together key international figures in an attempt to achieve a degree of harmony between the various countries that would happen at the Rio Earth Summit. Then Senator Al Gore was present, along with senior officials from the World Bank, chief executives from companies such as Shell and British Petroleum, the key NGO's, and other officials.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to interview Maurice Strong and specifically asked him about this meeting. He told me he was in London at a World Wildlife meeting hosted by Prince Philip and was asked by Prince Charles to accompany him to Rio for the April 1991 meeting. Furthermore, in 1990 when sustainable development had just been formulated by the Brundtland Commission,
it was the prince who commended them for "bringing the term 'sustainable development' into everyone's vocabulary."
As sustainable development has evolved to the point where the teaching of Agenda 21 is called "Earth Sciences" in schools, universities, and colleges, our government has instituted Agenda 21 through the Presidents Commission on Sustainable Development.
Throughout the U.S., there are cities that have adopted Agenda 21 and there are those that are now sustainable, such as "Sustainable Racine." We must remember Russia did not fall to the communists all at once-it was city by city.
I wrote Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince in 1997 with major updates in 1998 and 2000. It is key and relevant for those who want to understand what is happening today. At every turn the Prince is still involved in the affairs of the United Nations, sustainable development, and public-private partnership. The Prince's representatives are to be found at all the key global meetings, expounding and advancing this life changing philosophy.
Perhaps we should wonder why the world still follows him and carries out his dictates.
For ten years, various activists have been warning and educating about sustainable development. Who do we go to? The church has been silent. Major "conservatives" have been silent. No one has even questioned President Bush about his support for sustainable development. It is not even a key issue in this election. (2004)
UNDERSTANDING THE POWER OF THE
ABRAHAMIC COVENANT IN A TIME OF EVIL
Are you tired of not having answers to the problems of world government, free trade, and the loss of value of life? Do you feel that God has left us alone to battle evil? I have good news for you. God made provision for us to live victorious long before the “foundations of the world” were laid. Having reported on the topic of world government for the past 13 years, I have found myself covered too many times in the miry clay of oppression as a result of reading thousands of pages of UN and UN-related documents written by the world’s powerbrokers on how to change the world “for the better.” Their antics and control over the world’s monetary supply and corresponding interest rates, the plucking of government assets worldwide by public-private partnership, deregulation of country laws so as to increase the cost of utilities, and the privatization of government assets as a way of “reducing debt,” have kept me at times in an over-whelmed position. Why, because I considered the power of these evildoers greater than the power of Almighty God.
Centuries ago, a young shepherd boy went up against a very powerful giant by the name of Goliath. None of life’s dynamics have changed. They are the same but what has changed is how we are to fight these battles. The battle is spiritual, not physical.
How do we then live in light of the power of world government? I believe those of us who are believers in Jesus Christ are missing the boat. We are concentrating on man’s evil instead of concentrating on the promises of God given to us in His Word, the Bible. It says there is nothing new under the sun--which means that what we are seeing are the evil tactics of today’s ruthless, power hungry men who take what is not theirs in the name of jobs, free trade, freedom, and the environment.
These world rulers, international bankers, CEO’s, and members of groups like the Skull and Bones have used their power for evil instead of good. In other words, we are living history. Again, nothing is new under the sun. So where do we go to get the peace and joy necessary to live our lives today? (...)
all this from: - ( Joan Veon ) -
THE NAU AND THE INTEGRATION OF AMERICA (2007)
The Real Face of the European Union - 43 min - 24 Feb 2006
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.'