November 8, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Crime

The Truth About Diamonds…

June 20, 2012 By Leave a Comment

My name is Chris Everard - I have spent 17 years travelling to eleven countries investigating and reporting on how the super-wealthy families - who have become known as ‘the illuminati’ to many - gain their riches… I have established a monthly magazine which publishes fully illustrated reports and iBook/articles about the Aristocratic-Royal Elite, cover-ups, secret episodes of world history and other matters which are ignored by the mainstream media. FEED YOUR BRAIN MAGAZINE refuses all big corporate advertising and is instead funded by it’s readers via subscriptions. It gives us the the kind of editorial freedom which, say, the BBC do not have - for example, the Director General of the BBC is actually appointed by the Queen…

In this DIAMOND JUBILEE year, I decided to publish investigations into the DIAMOND industry - every diamond on the planet has been the result of some form of exploitation of people or the environment…

You can get a free copy of FEED YOUR BRAIN MAGAZINE by submitting your email in the little box at https://www.FeedYourBrainMagazine.com/ - this is a snippet of the kind of research and investigation I publish each month….

In the 40 years between 1952 - 1992 the Queen avoided paying tax. Does she really have any respect for the British people? She has almost completely avoided paying any contribution towards the upkeep of Britain. Now take a close look - a really close look - at her facial expressions on those rare occasions when the royal family step out onto the balcony at Buckingham Palace. Complete and utter control of the BBC newsfeeds has allowed - up until now - a very effective ‘news blackout’ on the investments of the royals - and their attitude towards the British working class…
Some of the Queen’s most important investments have been in the Nuclear electric industries… and DIAMONDS…

Fortunes have been made and lost in the age-old trading of diamonds. Three of the world’s largest diamonds are owned by the British Queen - whose real name is Elizabeth Saxe Coburg und Gotha (her name is not really ‘Windsor’ - that is a ‘styled’ title-name). The combined value of these diamonds is in excess of $1,000million dollars - perhaps as much as $2,000 million. If these diamonds were re-cut and sold, the accrued fund of money could be placed in a high return deposit savings account, producing an annual income which would provide enough cash to provide the National Health Service with Scanners and dialysis machines FOREVER. Additionally, African & Indian communities in the areas where the diamonds were originally discovered would also benefit from an annual income.

Diamonds are NOT rare - at the African Ekati diamond mine, they are transported on conveyer belts - in giant heaps. A direct result of diamond mining is the diversion of rivers to allow for the mining of alluvial diamond deposits. When the mine is depleted, the rivers are not redirected to their original courses, which in turn results in the pollution of waters and destruction of surrounding flora and fauna. The mining activities also degrade the surrounding land by increasing atmospheric air pollution, contaminating surface and ground water and increasing soil erosion and leaching. The pollution is, in the most extreme cases, leading to desertification and permanently changing land use from agriculture to waste, rendering it useless to traditional inhabitants when the diamonds have all been mined. In the short run the inhabitants of the region are suffering from sickness and disease related to contaminated drinking water supplies. Such diseases include dissentry, Malaria, schistosamiases and Biomphalaria pfeiffer. Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Congo and Angola are the foremost sources for diamonds in Africa - all these countries have been thrown into civil war and chaos by British Military forces & mercenaries. The ensuing chaos guarantees that the diamond mining can go on unhindered by democratically elected leaders demanding a fair cut of the profits for the African people. The royal elite have mountains of diamonds in stock and carefully control the sale & distribution, giving the impression that diamonds are ‘rare’.


Just recently, Sierra Leone erupted into what the BBC described as “civil war”. The truth is that most of these ‘turf wars’ play into the hands of diamond prospectors, with the displacement of millions of Africans quite - just by chance, of course - enabling mining companies to set up shop, their facilities looking like high security prisons which mar the natural beauty of the landscape and strip the subterranean strata using high powered water hoses and acids in search of yet more shiny transparent crystals. There is, without question, a strange paradox, that many African villages rely on a single standpipe of water, whilst just yards away, high powered water hoses flush diamonds underground by workers who have to suffer the indignity of anal probes and x-rays as they leave their workplace, the bosses making sure that none of their modern slaves have swallowed a small uncut gem to allay the horrendous inequality of their society. (below): The Indian Koh-I-Nor diamond set into a platinum crown owned by Queen Elzabeth’s dead mother.

The royal greed for diamonds has scarred our wonderful planet. In Kimberly, South Africa, we see an abandoned mine which was dug by hand using local labourers who were paid pennies for their hard work in arduous conditions. The giant hole left behind after the royal-elite diamond traders moved on to trash yet another landscape could easily be converted into a hydro-electric power station to benefit the local community. It was abandoned in 1914.

The Russian ROMANOV royal family are cousins to the British-Bavarian house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor. An orgy of top soil washing and feverish mining has left ridiculously huge chasms and black holes in the Rusiian countryside. A mine at Mirney in Siberia is 1,200 meters in diametre and more than 500 meters deep. The royals have left a giant sink hole at Yellowknife in Canada - a territory stolen from First Nation Canadian Indians - which is so big it can be seen from space. The Diavik diamond mine could easily be converted into a marine biology research station - but like so many other diamond mines, it will probably be left as an ugly scar on our planet.

In the 1930s, a third of British children suffered growth defects caused by malnutrition. This is the era in which queen Elizabeth II grew up - whilst beggars and child prostitutes fought hand and mouth for food and favour from the rich outside the walls of royal palaces, the young Elizabeth was being groomed to take her place as an adult princess - she had her own child sized six-roomed thatched cottage in the garden of the Royal Lodge at Royal Windsor Great Park (situated near Windsor Castle). The London Times reported; ‘The Small House is fully furnished with running water, electric light, and a wireless.’ Architect John Nash rebuilt the Royal Lodge for King George IV and it became one of the Queen Mother’s many homes. She died there, aged 101, after a century of indulgence, fine champagne and enjoying whole-body blood transfusions at the tax payer’s expense.

Since the 1800s, the British-Bavarian royal sovereign houses have been asset stripping Africa and India and building vast estates which are now almost impossible to value accurately. Their investments are global, with rumours suggesting that Queensland in Australia is actually owned by the royal Crown Estates (perhaps that would explain the reason for it’s name), and every building in Regent Street in central London is owned by the Crown Estates. Officially, the Crown Estates are custodians, merely owning properties on behalf of the British people - but that, as far as I am concerned, is nothing but window dressing and political double-speak - as at no time in history has any of the Crown Estates been sold off in order to build hospitals or fund public services. On the rare occasions when there are sell-offs, they are usually Leasehold, and the properties eventually return back to the Crown.

From 1953 up until 1992, the monarchy paid not a single penny in tax. More than 2,400 tax rises took place in that period, with the cost of goods being ramped due to massive amounts of duty being levied on them.
In 1992, a paltry £1million was begrudgingly handed over in ‘tax’ - perhaps this is the reason why the queen described 1992 as her “Anus Horribilis”. In the same year, a mysterious fire at Windsor Castle resulted in taxpayers being told that they would have no less than £30 Million taken from their wage packets to pay for the damage! Ten years later, in 2002, the Queen apparently was not required to pay tax on the cash bequeathed in her mother’s will. The Queen Mother often gave the impression that she was ‘broke’. But she owned not one, but TWO castles! Allegedly, £140 million was placed in Swiss Trusts for the benefit of her grandchildren… If true, then this shows that the Queen Mum was one of the wealthiest people in the world. She was allegedly in debt due to horse racing gambling fetishes - if this is true, then surely a 100 year old woman would not have needed TWO castles and one of these giant estates could have been commercialised or sold off or rented out as a hotel to take the burden off her ‘debts’.

THE CROWN’S ESTATES
So, let us now take a closer look at these so called ‘Crown Estates’… What we have here is a portfolio of some of the world’s most famous landmarks and buildings worth a conservative £6 billion, with urban properties valued at £4.2 billion, and rural holdings valued at £919.5 million; and an annual profit of £226.5 million - that’s almost £1 million profit per day earned from rental and lease incomes. The majority of the estate’s income is derived from urban cities - most notably properties in central London. The Crown’s estate also owns 272,000 acres (110,000 hectares) of agricultural land and forest, and, wait for it, more than half of the UK’s foreshore - beaches, ports, promenades, piers etc. It also includes Ascot racecourse and the aforementioned Windsor Great Park… I think you’re beginning to get the ‘big picture’…
This cosy little arrangement, where vast amounts of tax free cash is paid directly into the bank accounts of Royals has continued, with every succeeding sovereign renewing the arrangement made between King George III and Parliament and is now recognised as “an integral part of the Constitution [which] would be difficult to abandon”. That is, of course, an odd term - as Britain does not have an official ‘Constitution’.

The Crown Estates has an interesting history, where various monarchs have played a kind of ‘soft shoe shuffle’ moving assets in and out of the Crown Estates portfolio as and when their heavy drinking/heavy gambling/heavy tipping (delete as appropriate) habits needed. Upon King George III’s accession of the throne he ‘surrendered’ the income from the Crown lands to Parliament in return for a fixed civil list. What this means is that to this day there very often is a minister inside the Cabinet Office who is described as ‘Minister Without Portfolio’ and it is this minister’s responsibility to manage the Crown Estates. Old King George surrendered to parliamentary control the hereditary excise duties, post office revenues, and “the small branches” of hereditary revenue including rents of the Crown lands in England, (which amounted at that time to about £11,000) and was granted a ‘civil list’ annuity of £800,000 for the support of his household and the expenses of civil government, subject to the payment of certain annuities to members of the royal family. So, in other words, he forewent the few tens of thousands of peasant rents the Crown Estates were levying, handed over control to a puppet minister, and in exchange picked up nearly a £1 million tax free sum every 12 months. However, although the king had retained large hereditary revenues, his income proved insufficient for his expensive life style! Why? Because he used to reward friends with bribes and lavish gifts! Debts amounting to over £3 million during the course of King George’s reign were paid by Parliament, and the civil list annuity was then increased from time to time - leading to the situation we have today, where vast mortgages and massive ‘salaries’ are now paid to more than two dozen Royals who have seldom had ‘normal’ jobs.

55% of Britain’s foreshore is owned and operated by the Crown Estates - permission has been granted time and time again for ugly and dangerous nuclear reactors which belch radioactive waste into the English channel, North Sea and Irish Sea.

Filed Under: Africa, Banks, Corruption, Housing, Illuminati, Income Inequality, Nuclear, Poverty, Royal Family, Russia, Taxes, United Kingdom, War

Max Igan’s Trance-Formation (Full)

April 16, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Full film available for download at:
https://thecrowhouse.com
IP: https://67.20.81.143
from May 15th 2012

“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders and millions have been killed because of this obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves and the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem. - Howard Zinn

Universal Law trumps all others.

1. No man or woman, in or out of government shall initiate force, threat of force or fraud against my life and property and, any and all contracts I am a party to, not giving full disclosure to me, whether signed by me or not, are void at my discretion.

2. I may use force in self-defense against anyone that violates Law 1.

3. There shall be no exceptions to Law 1 and 2.

Filed Under: Banks, Corporations, Corruption, Crime, Education, Environment, Equality, Featured, Human Rights, Illuminati, Politics, Population, Privacy, Revolution, Rights, Safety, Technology

Syrian Peace Deal: UN’s Cloak to NATO’s Dagger

April 10, 2012 By 1 Comment

Turkey begins fabricating “cross border” incidents to justify Brookings prescribed “safe havens” inside Syria.
by Tony Cartalucci on April 9, 2012

From the very beginning, US policy makers admitted that Kofi Annan’s “peace mission” to Syria was nothing more than a rouse to preserve NATO’s proxy forces from total destruction and create “safe havens” from which to prolong the bloodshed. It was hoped that with established “safe havens” in Syria, protected by Turkish military forces (Turkey has been a NATO member since 1952) violence and pressure verses the Syrian government could be perpetually increased until it finally collapsed and the carving up of Syria could commence.

Photo: Annan is a trustee of Wall Street speculator George Soros and geopolitical manipulator Zbigniew Brzezinski’s International Crisis Group (ICG), along side Neo-Conservative corporate lobbyist and warmonger Kenneth Adelman, US State Department-listed Iranian terror organization MEK lobbyist - General Wesley Clark, Wall Street-backed color revolution leader- Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, and Brookings Institution’s Samuel Berger. Serving as “advisers” to the International Crisis Group include, Neo-Conservative warmonger Richard Armitage, former Foreign Minister of Israel Shlomo Ben-Ami, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bank of Israel Governor Stanely Fischer, and President of Israel Shimon Peres. While Annan poses as a representative of the “United Nations” he is in reality representing the pro-regime change agenda of the ICG and the special interests that fund its work.

….

This has been confirmed by Fortune 500-funded, US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria andIran. In their latest report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is stated (emphasis added):

“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership.This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Click to enlarge

Image: Also out of the Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

….

And while “peace” was being peddled by Soros-funded International Crisis Group trustee Kofi Annan, the US, UK, France, and members of the West’s proxy Arab League simultaneously called for Assad to stand down and withdraw troops from secured cities while openly declaring that arms and cash would continue to flow to the rebels. The “Friends of Syria” summit would even ludicrously declare that “wages” would be paid to rebels to continue their battle to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Clearly the label “peace deal” is inappropriate for a proposal that seeks to empower and indeed see one side prevail militarily over another whose hands are purposefully tied. It is an unconditional surrender to foreign-funded terrorists simply labeled as a “peace deal.”

The Brookings Institution’s “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” are meant to be established by NATO-member Turkey, who has been threatening to partially invade Syria for weeks in order to accomplish this. And while Turkey claims this is based on “humanitarian concerns,” examining Turkey’s abysmal human rights record in addition to its own ongoing genocidal campaign against the Kurdish people both within and beyond its borders, it is clear they are simply fulfilling the agenda established by their Western patrons on Wall Street and in the city of London.

Photo: Turkish tanks entering Iraq to raid Kurdish towns and hunt suspected rebels in 2008. More recently, Turkey has been bombing “suspected” rebel bases in both Turkey and Iraq, as well as conducting mass nationwide arrests. Strangely, as Turkey verifiably does what Libya’s Qaddafi and Syria’s Assad have been accused of doing, in all of their hypocrisy, are now calling for a partial invasion of Syria based on “humanitarian concerns.”

….Now, Turkey is fabricating stories involving Syrian troops “firing across” the Turkish-Syrian border. The New York Times published these bold accusations before admitting further down that “it was unclear what kind of weapons caused the injuries on Sunday around six miles inside Turkish territory,” and that “there were conflicting accounts about the incident.” As are all the accusations used by NATO, the UN, and individual member states to justify meddling in Syria’s affairs, these tales involve hear-say from the rebels themselves.

It is clear that Turkey, NATO, and the UN are attempting to set the pretext for the establishment of “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” intended to circumvent the UN Security Council which has seen attempts to green-light military intervention vetoed twice by Russia and China. As the UN “peace deal” deadline of April 10 comes and goes, we can expect an ever increasing din of propaganda purporting Syrian violations against Turkish sovereignty, the continued propaganda campaign accentuating the “victimization” of NATO’s death squads, and the public roll-out of Brookings’ Turkish established “safe haven” within Syrian territory.

Image: Some of the corporate sponsors behind the Brookings Institution, from whose playbook Kofi Annan is being directed in his disingenuous “peace mission” to Syria. (click image to enlarge)

Image: Just some of the corporate and “institutional” sponsors of the International Crisis Group, upon which Kofi Annan sits as a “trustee” with other dubious personalities including George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Israeli President Shimon Peres, Egypt’s Mohammed ElBaradei, and Neo-Cons Richard Armitage and Kenneth Adelman. (click image to enlarge)

….The UN “peace deal” was a rouse from the beginning. The West has no intention of leaving Syria intact and will seek all means by which to prevail in toppling the government, carving up the country along sectarian lines, plunging it into perpetual violence as it has Libya, and moving next toward Iran. While it is essential to expose the truth behind Syria’s unrest, is also important to identify the corporate-financier interests driving this nefarious agenda and boycott them entirely while seeking out viable local solutions to support instead. If none exist, it is our duty to use our time, money, attention, and resources to create such alternatives instead of perpetuating the self-serving agenda unfolding before us.

Ultimately it is “we the people” paying into this current paradigm that allows it to continue moving forward, therefore it by necessity must be “we the people” who undermine and ultimately replace it.

Source: https://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/syrian-peace-deal-uns-cloak-to-natos.html

Filed Under: Africa, British Petroleum, China, Corporations, France, Genocide, Human Rights, Iran, Libya, Military Industrial Complex, NATO, Russia, Safety, Syria, Terrorism, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Nations

Kim Dotcom: US Military Had 15,634 Megaupload Accounts

April 10, 2012 By Leave a Comment

By enigmax for TorrentFreak on March 26, 2012

In recent weeks the battle has continued to save the data stored at the now-defunct site Megaupload. Contrary to the image painted by the entertainment industries, untold numbers of people used the file-hosting service for completely legitimate sharing. Today we can reveal that not only did people at the Senate, Department of Homeland Security, FBI and NASA hold Megaupload accounts, so did more than 15,600 members of the US Military.

Ever since Megaupload was dismantled in January there have been concerns about data being held on the site’s servers.

While the MPAA and RIAA insist that the site was simply a huge piracy hub, the facts point to a much bigger picture of people using the site for countless legitimate transfers of files simply too big to email.

As mentioned earlier this month, Megaupload’s legal team is working hard to reunite site users with their data, an aim also shared by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) with their MegaRetrieval campaign.

As part of this process, Megaupload discovered that a large number of Mega accounts are held by US government officials. Today, thanks to fresh information provided to TorrentFreak by Kim Dotcom, we can reveal more details.

From domains including dhs.gov, doe.gov, fbi.gov, hhs.gov, nasa.gov, senate.gov, treas.gov and uscourts.gov, the number of accounts held at Megaupload total 1058. Of these, 344 users went the extra mile and paid for premium access. Between them they uploaded 15,242 files – a total of 1,851,791 MB.

While a couple of million megabytes of lost data is bad enough, another group – the ladies and gentlemen of the US Military – stands to lose much, much more.

From domains including af.mil, army.mil, centcom.mil, navy.mil and osd.mil etc, a total of 15,634 are registered with Megaupload. Of these an impressive 10,223 people paid to upgrade to a premium Megaupload account and between them they uploaded 340,983 files – a total of 96,507,779 MB.

There is no suggestion that any of these military operatives or government employees were using Megaupload for infringing uses but it is almost guaranteed that documents, photographs and videos are now at serious risk of deletion.

More on Kim Dotcom’s response to the US indictment is published in our feature article.

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-us-military-had-15634-megaupload-accounts-120326

Filed Under: ACTA, Censorship, Corruption, Equality, Internet, Privacy, SOPA/PIPA

Republican presidential candidates slam SOPA, Protect IP

January 20, 2012 By Leave a Comment

In response to question from CNN's John King, Republican presidential candidates find little to love in SOPA or Protect IP.

All four Republican presidential candidates today denounced a pair of controversial Hollywood-backed copyright bills, lending a sharp partisan edge to yesterday’s protest against the legislation by Wikipedia, Google, and thousands of other Web sites.

The bills are “far too intrusive, far too expensive, far too threatening (to) the freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet,” former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said during tonight’s CNN debate in South Carolina.

Romney’s rivals offered similar criticisms of the Senate measure, Protect IP-scheduled for a floor vote next week-and the House bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich said that while he’s “weighing” the bills, having “the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations” is exactly the wrong thing to do. Former senator Rick Santorum said that while there is a “role” for the government in protecting intellectual property, SOPA and Protect IP go “too far.”

Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Texas Republican, publicly opposed SOPA long before nearly any other member of Congress, as CNET reported in November. Paul said tonight that “the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue”-SOPA’s author is Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, Hollywood’s favorite Republican-and he’s glad to see that changing.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, calls Protect IP an “extremely important” piece of legislation, and is planning a floor vote for next Tuesday despite objections from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican warned today that there are “serious issues” with the bill.

Wikipedia’s English-language pages went completely black on Wednesday with a splash page saying “the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet” and suggesting that readers contact members of Congress. (See CNET’s FAQ on the topic.)

Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of the debate, conducted by CNN’s John King:

KING: Let’s continue the economic conversation with some input from a question from Twitter. If you look up here you can see it, CNNDebate.

“What is your take on SOPA and how do you believe it affects Americans?”

For those who have not been following it, SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act, a crackdown on Internet piracy, which is clearly a problem. But opponents say it’s censorship. Full disclosure, our parent company, Time Warner, says we need a law like this because some of its products, movies, programming, and the like, are being ripped off online.

Let me start with you, Mr. Speaker. There’s two competing ends, two engines, even, of our economy here at on this.

How do you deal with it?

GINGRICH: Well, you’re asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: And I’m weighing it. I’m weighing it. I’m not rushing in. I’m trying to think through all of the many fond left- wing people who are so eager to protect.

On the other hand, you have virtually everybody who is technologically advanced, including Google and YouTube and Facebook and all the folks who say this is going to totally mess up the Internet. And the bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable.

Well, I favor freedom. And I think that if you — I think we have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds that it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue. But the idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations, economic interests, strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Mr. Speaker, Governor Romney, these companies complain — some of them are based in Hollywood, not all of them are — that their software, that their publishing, that their movies, that their shows are being ripped off.

ROMNEY: I think he got it just about right. The truth of the matter is that the law, as written, is far too intrusive, far too expensive, far too threatening, the freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet. It would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America, which is the Internet, and all those industries connected to it.

At the same time, we care very deeply about intellectual content that’s going across the Internet. And if we can find a way to very narrowly, through our current laws, go after those people who are pirating, particularly those from off shore, we’ll do that.

But a very broad law which gives the government the power to start stepping into the Internet and saying who can pass what to whom, I think that’s a mistake. And so I’d say no, I’m standing for freedom.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: I mean, it’s a big issue in the country right now.

Congressman Paul and Senator Santorum, your views on this one quickly.

PAUL: I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law. And we have worked -

(APPLAUSE) PAUL: We have had a concerted effort, and I feel like we’re making achievement. This bill is not going to pass. But watch out for the next one.

And I am pleased that the attitude has sort of mellowed up here, because the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue. And this is a good example on why it’s good to have somebody that can look at civil liberties and work with coalitions and bring people together. Freedom and the Constitution bring factions together. I think this is a good example.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Those who support the law, Senator, argue tens of thousands of jobs are at stake.

SANTORUM: I don’t support this law. And I agree with everybody up here that is goes too far. But I will not agree with everybody up here that there isn’t something that can and should be done to protect the intellectual property rights of people.

The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people, and particularly when we’re talking about — in this case, we’re talking about entities offshore that are doing so, that are pirating things. So, the idea that the government — that you have businesses in this country, and that the government has no role to try to protect the intellectual property of people who have those rights in this country from people overseas pirating them and then selling them back into this country, it’s great.

I mean, I’m for free, but I’m not for people abusing the law. And that’s what’s happening right now, and I think something proper should be done. I agree this goes too far.

But the idea that, you know, anything goes on the Internet, where did that come from? Where in America does it say that anything goes? We have laws, and we respect the law. And the rule of law is an important thing, and property rights should be respected.

KING: All right.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you.

Source:

Photo credit: CNN

Filed Under: Censorship, Justice, Law, Protests, SOPA/PIPA, USA

Two Dead Bodies Found at Queen’s Estates

January 5, 2012 By Leave a Comment

“Yet another DEAD BODY Ma’am!”

CHRIS EVERARD Reports on the growing Royal Body Count - two more bodies have been found on royal properties - a woman on the Sandringham estate, and a man found in a tree stump close to the gates of Buckingham Palace in London:

3rd January 2012:

Yet another dead body has been found on a Royal Estate. This time, a woman, found dead near the pony track which the Queen was photographed near yesterday. This is the second body to be found in recent years - virtually on the Queen’s doorstep. How many dead bodies have you ever found on YOUR doorstep? None, right? So this last couple of ‘royal corpses’ will take a lot of brooms to sweep under a very plush carpet…

Historical journals, confessions and letters of State all show us that the royals often conduct a killing spree eradicating ‘people who knew too much’. We see this in the annals of the British, Bavarian and Russian royal houses. Grand Duke Dimitri strangled Rasputin with his own hands - when push comes to shove, some royals don’t mind getting their hands dirty. The big question is this; is the Royal Killing Season still continuing in our day and age? Many bodies have been found on royal estates over the years, however, to date, not a single member of the royal family been questioned by the police. ‘The Palace’, you see, in matters such as this, perform an ‘internal enquiry’ before a policeman is ever allowed to enter a royal residence - even when investigating a murder charge.
So, do the Royals kill people? Oh yes. It is proven through documents and letters that many, many people have been murdered at the hands of the royals - or by ‘royal decree’. I have made a two hour documentary, called MURDERED BY THE MONARCHY’ which clearly lists all the Royal Murders. The latest BBC newsfeed says;

An investigation is under way after human remains were found in woodland on the Queen’s estate in Norfolk on New Year’s Day.

Detectives from Norfolk Constabulary were alerted to the discovery by a member of the public at Anmer, which lies on the Royal Family’s Sandringham Estate.

A police spokesman confirmed that the remains found were that of a single body. The area was sealed off and a detailed search is being carried out.

The force said: “Detectives from Norfolk Constabulary have launched an investigation following the discovery of human remains in an area of woodland at Anmer, near King’s Lynn. “The remains were found by a member of the public who reported the incident to police on Sunday January 1 shortly after 4pm.

Buckingham Palace said it had no comment to make as it is “a matter for Norfolk police”.


“MURDERED BY THE MONARCHY” is a two hour documentary charting the strangulations, torture, beatings, rapes, enforced imprisonment and child murders perpetrated by the royal families throughout history. CLICK HERE to read reviews of the DVD at the Enima Channel Cyberstore.

The general public in Britain all have grave doubts over the crash which killed Princess Diana in 1997. Since the year of Diana’s death, popularity of the royals has undergone an earthquake-magnitude crack. Mohammed AlFayed has described the crash which killed Princess Diana and his son, Dodi AlFayed, as “black and white murder” - an organised crash, in which several vehicles driven by Her Majesty’s Intelligence Officers took part in orchestrating the tragic events. Since Diana’s death, several years passed before someone from Buckingham Palace even bothered to visit Diana’s memorial. Her former husband, Prince Charles, who Princess Diana identified as being the killer - in a note she wrote to her lawyer, Lord Mischon, shortly before her death has not, as far as we know, paid his respects at Diana’s memorial so far. Four years after the tragic crash, Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer implied a grievance that Charles had failed to visit Princess Diana’s grave since her burial. He implied during a BBC interview that he believed the Prince had relegated his former wife to a ‘memory’ and wanted to draw a line under his marriage.

Criticism is NOT Tolerated…
Another recent case of a body being found on a royal property is Robert James Moore. Found dead just yards from the Queen’s front door. Mr Moore, allegedly sent hundreds of “strange and offensive” packages to the Queen over a period of 15 years, including, so Her Majesty’s Constabulary say, obscene photographs. Some of the “peculiar” letters ran to 600 pages, and he had also posted a copy of his passport and boxes falsely warning that they contained dangerous substances.

He had obviously been wronged in some way - and he set up a little crow’s nest watch in a tree close to the gates of Buckingham Palace.

His body was found there by a tree surgeon - and was already decomposing. That’s right - right at the gates of Buckingham Palace, in a tree stump, in a royal park, in the centre of London - the official story says that Mr Moore’s body was unnoticed by millions of tourists for three years.
Many have rumoured that Mr Moore was killed - and the official story is that his body - found in a tree stump virtually at the gates of Buckingham Palace - is a ‘placement’ killing - where the actual crime took place elsewhere, or at the same place, but was then stored and replaced at the original crime scene by the murderer.

It seems obvious that Mr Moore was murdered - and was possibly the latest in a very long line of people murdered because they know ‘Royal Secrets’ and intended to get ‘even’.

History tells us that the act of killing - for the royals - comes with the waive of the hand, a deep stare, a telephone call - it’s all done in great hush hush whispers - by distant decree. But what would a royal killer do with the bodies? Simple, you just ‘leave them’ - after all, the royals own huge swathes of wild woodland everywhere - not difficult to stash a victim’s body and then let nature take it’s course.

Mr Moore’s body, is supposedly being investigated by Det Sgt Mike West, from Marylebone police station. We wish the Detective luck.

“MURDERED BY THE MONARCHY” features interviews with DAVID ICKE and the author of Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence, Mr Jon King.

Source: https://christophereverard.blogspot.com/2012/01/two-dead-bodies-found-at-queens-estates.html

Filed Under: Featured, Murder, Royal Family

Senator Bob Casey says the NDAA will NOT be used against the American people

December 23, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The following is a copy of an email from Bob Casey with the correspondents name blanked out:

Dear Mr. *****:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes policy and annual expenditures for the Department of Defense. The House of Representatives and the Senate recently passed the final version of the 2012 NDAA with broad bipartisan support. It is currently awaiting the President’s signature before it becomes law.

The Department of Defense is responsible for overseeing the United States Armed Forces and ensuring that our Nation is able to effectively respond to threats. It is critical that Congress provides the Department of Defense with sufficient funding to protect American lives, defend our Nation and support our servicemembers and their families. While our overseas military engagements continue, it is particularly important to provide the resources our servicemembers need to successfully conduct operations and ensure their own safety.

As your United States Senator, I am committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Americans. Since 2001, United States counterterrorism efforts have helped to ensure our national security. Our brave servicemembers and intelligence personnel work tirelessly to protect our nation against the threat of terrorism. However, it is essential that the executive branch operate with transparency and ensure that our counterterrorism efforts do not infringe on the civil liberties of American citizens. We must not sacrifice our fundamental values and ideals in the face of this critical threat.

The custody and detention provisions in the NDAA are the result of thorough consideration and bipartisan agreement. These provisions, including Sections 1021 and 1022, will allow the United States to deal effectively with the threat posed by al Qaeda, a terrorist group that has inflicted devastating harm on our Nation and continues to seek to attack our citizens, our allies, and our interests both here at home and around the world.

Section 1021 of the NDAA does not expand the executive branch’s authority to detain suspected terrorists. This section states explicitly that it is not intended to limit or expand the authority that Congress granted the President in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The definition of a ‘covered person’ in this section is ‘a person who was a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.’ This is the position that has been adopted by the Obama Administration and upheld in U.S. courts since 2001. In addition, it requires the executive branch to brief Congress regularly on the individuals and groups to whom this authority is being applied.

It is important to note that Section 1021 does not create any ‘new’ or ‘unprecedented’ presidential power, nor does it create any ‘permanent’ detention power. The legislation explicitly states that Section 1021 shall not ‘affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’

Section 1022 of the NDAA requires that persons who are members of al Qaeda and have participated in planning or carrying out an attack against the United States or its allies be held in military custody. However, the executive branch can exercise a waiver of this requirement if the President certifies to Congress that holding a particular suspect in civilian custody will better serve U.S. national security interests. In addition, this provision applies only to non-US citizens and non-lawful resident aliens who are al Qaeda operatives and who plan or carry out attacks against the United States. It explicitly does not apply to American citizens and those who reside here lawfully.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment which would have limited the requirement of military custody in Section 1022 to suspected terrorists captured abroad. This proposal was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 55 to 45. I voted against this amendment because the waiver provision provides flexibility to the executive branch to determine whether a suspected al Qaeda operative captured on U.S. soil should be transferred to civilian custody.

Senator Mark Udall of Colorado offered an amendment to remove the detention provisions in Section 1021 from the bill altogether. This amendment would have essentially allowed the executive branch to continue to engage in existing detention practices without codification in law. By codifying the detention practices already in use, Congress is exercising its critical responsibility to oversee and create a legal framework for executive branch action. For this reason, I joined a majority of Senators in voting against this amendment.

Senator Feinstein also offered an amendment to explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens. I voted in favor of this amendment out of concern that authorizing the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens was at odds with fundamental American values. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 55 to 45. Finally, Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill ‘shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’ I also voted for this measure, which passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1 and was included in the final version of the bill.

On December 15, 2011, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. This legislation would clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. S. 2003 would also require Congress to make a ‘clear statement’ about the limitations on authority to detain U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This legislation has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will examine this legislation closely.

Nothing in the NDAA authorizes the U.S. military to patrol our streets, detain ordinary Americans in their homes or conduct any law enforcement functions inside the United States. Section 1022 says only that a specific group of persons, narrowly defined as those who are ‘a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners’ should be subject to military custody, unless the executive branch determines that civilian custody is more appropriate in a particular case. The NDAA does not address when or where a person may be captured, and does not authorize the military to exercise unprecedented powers on U.S. soil.

In addition, the NDAA will not disrupt ongoing interrogations, intelligence gathering functions and surveillance activities, and it does not require military commissions in terrorist prosecutions. The administration raised concerns that certain provisions would limit its ability to collect vital information and limit its prosecutorial options. In response, the Senate Armed Services Committee clarified that no such limitations would be placed on the President?s authority.

The NDAA absolutely does not authorize torture of detainees, irrespective of citizenship. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire proposed S. Amdt. 1068 to the NDAA to authorize certain enhanced interrogation techniques. However, the U.S. Constitution prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishments,’ and we must not tolerate the use of torture under any circumstances. I believe strongly that the United States has a moral obligation to uphold its commitments under the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners. We must, therefore, hold all executive branch officials accountable for alleged violations of these commitments. I am pleased that S. Amdt. 1068 was not included the final version of the NDAA that passed the Senate. Please be assured that I support efforts to prohibit the use of ‘enhanced interrogation’ practices, and that no such practices have been endorsed in this bill.

The NDAA also does not change the fundamental, constitutional right of habeas corpus review. The writ of habeas corpus is a legal doctrine that allows individuals to challenge their detention in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution explicitly provides this right to American citizens, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld its applicability, even with respect to suspected terrorists. Any American citizen or lawful permanent resident held in U.S. custody will have the right to habeas corpus review. Similarly, the courts have established that persons detained under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, including those held at Guantanamo Bay, have the right to such review. Nothing in the NDAA undermines this critical right.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, https://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Filed Under: Featured, Martial Law, Military, Police, Politics, USA

Britain is ruled by the banks, for the banks

December 23, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By on December 12, 2011 8:00PM GMT

Is David Cameron’s kid-glove treatment of the City remotely justified, when it neither pays its way nor lends effectively?


The City, London . . . Britain’s finance sector contributes less to the country than manufacturing. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

The national interest. It’s a phrase we’ve heard a lot recently. David Cameron promised to defend it before flying off last week to Brussels. Eurosceptic backbenchers urged him to fight for it. And when the summit turned into a trial separation, and the prime minister walked out at 4am, the rightwing newspapers took up the refrain: he was fighting for Britain. In the eye-burningly early hours of Friday morning, exhausted and at a loss to explain a row he plainly hadn’t expected, Cameron tried again: “I had to pursue very doggedly what was in the British national interest.”

As political justifications go, the national interest is an oddly ceremonial one. Like the dusty liqueur uncapped for a family gathering, MPs bring it out only for the big occasions. And when they do, what they mean is: forget all the usual fluff about ethics and ideas; this is important.

You heard the phrase last May, as the Lib Dems explained why they were forming a coalition with the Tories. More seriously, Blair used it as Britain invaded Iraq.

But here Cameron wasn’t talking about foreign policy; nor about who governs the country. The national interest he saw as threatened by Europe is concentrated in a few expensive parts of London, in an industry that would surely come bottom in any occupational popularity contest (yes, lower even than journalists): investment banking.

In its haste to depict events as Little Britain v Big Europe, the Tory press hasn’t dwelt on the inconvenient details of last week’s fight. But it was only after the prime minister failed to secure protection for the City from new financial regulation mooted by the EU that he told Nicolas Sarkozy to get on his vélo.

On one issue in particular, Cameron had a good case: Britain wants banks to put more money aside for a rainy day than the EU is considering. Elsewhere, he just looked unreasonable – what exactly is wrong with having international banking supervision? One reason for the euro crisis was that its members have 17 national bank watchdogs and barely anyone looking across borders.

Step back from what even EU officials were calling “arcane” details, though, and the big principle is this: the prime minister effectively stuck relations with the rest of Europe in the deep freeze in order to protect one sector of the economy.

In my recollection, no British minister in recent times has termed one industry as being of “national interest”. “Vital” or “key”? Why, such words are the very currency of the MP’s address to a trade association. But on the big phrase, I asked the Guardian’s librarians to check the archives from 1997 onwards. They came back empty-handed.

Cameron is merely expressing more openly something Labour frontbenchers also believe: that the City is pretty much the last engine functioning in Britain’s misfiring economy. Indeed, one of the Labour lines of attack against Cameron this weekend has been that he has left the City more open to regulation.

A few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor Ed Balls warned against any further taxes on financial trading within Europe. However, he said, he would urge a “Robin Hood tax with the widest international agreement”. In other words, Balls will give his fullest support to something that has no chance of happening.

This is the same kind of political subservience towards the City, observed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in its report into the collapse of RBS. According to the watchdog, a major reason why Fred Goodwin wasn’t checked as he drove RBS off a cliff was because of “a sustained political emphasis on the need for the FSA to be ‘light touch’ in its approach and mindful of London’s competitive position”. Had regulatorsbeen harder on the bankers, “it is almost certain that their proposals would have been met by extensive complaints that the FSA was pursuing a heavy-handed, gold-plating approach which would harm London’s competitiveness”.

As all British taxpayers know by now, securing the “competitiveness” of RBS has wound up costing us around £45bn.

So what is it that justifies the kid-glove treatment of the finance sector? Switch on the news and you normally hear some minister or lobbyist (come on down, Angela Knight of the British Bankers’ Association) talking about the vital contribution banking makes to employment. Our tax revenue. Or the role banks ideally play in directing money to needy businesses.

These claims are repeated so often that they rarely get even the briefest patdown from interviewers, let alone backbench MPs or economists. Yet they are largely bogus, as explained in a new book called After the Great Complacence, produced by academics at Manchester University’s Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (Cresc). Indeed, on nearly any important measure, finance actually contributes less to Britain than manufacturing.

Take jobs. The finance sector employs 1m people in Britain. Chuck in the lawyers, the PRs and the smaller fry that swim in its wake and you are up to a grand total of 1.5m. And most of these people are not the investment bankers for whom Cameron went to war in Brussels. At the big British banks such as RBS and HBOS, 80% of the staff work in the retail business. Even if Sarkozy were to shroud Canary Wharf in a giant tricolore, those staff would still be needed to staff the branches and man the call centres. Even in its current state of emaciation, manufacturing employs 2m people.

What about taxes? Lobbyists like to point out that banks are usually the biggest payers of corporation tax, but usually omit to mention that corporation tax isn’t that big a money-spinner. For their part, even leftwingers will usually assume that the bankers effectively paid for the tax credits, hospitals and schools we enjoyed under Labour.

It’s not true. The Cresc team totted up the taxes paid by the finance sector between 2002 and 2008, the six years in which the City was having an almighty boom: at £193bn, it’s still only getting on for half the £378bn paid by manufacturing. It would be more accurate to say that the widget-makers of the Midlands paid for Tony Blair’s welfarism. But that would be a much less picturesque description.

Even in the best of times, the finance sector hasn’t paid anything like as much to the state as the state has had to pay for them since the great crash. According to the IMF, British taxpayers have shelled out £289bn in “direct upfront financing” to prop up the banks since 2008. Add in the various government loans and underwriting, and taxpayers are on the hook for £1.19tn. Seen that way the City looks less like a goose that lays golden eggs, and more like an unruly pigeon that leaves one hell of a mess for others to clear up.

Ah, but what about lending? After all, this is why we have banks in the first place: to channel money to productive industries. The Cresc team looked at Bank of England figures on bank and building society loans and found that at the height of the bubble in 2007, around 40% or more of all bank and building society lending was on residential or commercial property. Another 25% of all bank lending went to financial intermediaries. In other words, about two-thirds of all bank lending in 2007 went to pumping up the bubble.

This doesn’t look like a hard-working part of an economy humming along: it’s nothing less than epic capitalist onanism.

If the statistics don’t support the arguments for the City’s pre-eminence, the public don’t either. In 1983, 90% of the public agreed that banks in Britain were well run, according to the British Social Attitudes survey. By 2009, that had plunged to 19%.

In other words, both the evidence and the voters are against investment bankers. So why do the politicians cling on to them?

Part of the answer is financial. Bankers used the boom to buy themselves influence – so that, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the City now provides half of all Tory party funds. That is up from just 25% only five years ago.

Another part must be cultural. Running this government are two sons of bankers. Cameron’s father was a stockbroker, Clegg’s is still chairman of United Trust Bank (and famously helped his son get some work experience). For its part, Labour spent so long outsourcing all economic thinking to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls that it has long lost the ability to argue against the orthodoxy of giving the City what it wants.

In a poorer country, the cosiness of relations between bankers and politicians would be scrutinised by an official from the World Bank and disdainfully pronounced as pure cronyism. In Britain, we need to come up with a new word for this type of dysfunctional capitalism – where banks neither lend nor pay their way in taxes, yet retain a stranglehold on policy-making. We could try bankocracy: ruled by the banks, for the banks.

What are the results of bankocracy? It means that the main figures arguing for a Robin Hood tax are the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Bill Nighy. It means that opposition to the rule of banks isn’t found in Westminster, but in tents outside St Paul’s or among a few grizzled academics and NGO-hands – with no political vehicle to carry them. Meanwhile, the politicians declare that the national interest of Britain can be defined by what suits one square mile of it.

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/12/britain-ruled-by-banks

Filed Under: Banks, Corporations, Corruption, Featured, Money, Politics

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Matter of Peace or War?

December 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment

“Let us, on this International Day, reaffirm our commitment to translating ‎solidarity into positive action. The international community must help steer the situation ‎towards a historic peace agreement.‎” That is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s message for the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, 29 November 2011.

Mr. Ban called on the Israeli and Palestinian leadership to show courage and determination to seek an agreement for a two-State solution that can open up a brighter future for Palestinian and Israeli children.

There have been many Middle East peace proposals and many negotiations including an Arab state, with or without a significant Jewish population, a Jewish state, with or without a significant Arab population, a single bi-national state, with or without some degree of cantonization, two states, one bi-national and one Arab, with or without some form of federation, and two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with or without some form of federation.

During the 19th Century some Jews banded together to form a political ideology called Zionism, based on the idea of a “Jewish homeland.” In the USA the Zionist movement developed a powerful political lobby to promote its aims, while its military groups pursued a violent terrorist campaign in Palestine against the Arabs and Britain to force acceptance of its demands.

On 29 November 1947 the United Nations adopted a partition resolution dividing the land of Palestine into two independent states- one Arab and one Jewish, while Jerusalem was put under international protection. This was accepted by most of the Jewish settlers, who comprised 13% of the population and rejected by the majority Arab population, the original inhabitants who demanded self–determination. The British said the decision would be a failure and refused to apply it. When British forces withdrew in May 1948, and Israel declared independence fighting broke out between Arabs and Jews.

One of the first plans for settling the Arab-Israel war of 1948 was made by the UN emissary, Count Folke Bernadotte. Count Folke Bernadotte was a Swedish noble and diplomat, nephew of the Swedish king, fluent in six languages; he was an outstanding humanitarian and very well respected for his integrity. He gained international recognition through his work as head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War Two, organizing exchanges of disabled prisoners. Bernadotte also used his position to negotiate with Heinrich Himmler, a military commander, and a leading member of the Nazi Party, and save the lives of about 30,000 Jews, Allied prisoners of war and other people from the concentration camps, just before the end of the war.

Count Folke Bernadotte

On 20th May, 1948, the United Nations Security Council appointed Bernadotte as mediator in the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine. After meeting Arab and Jewish leaders he succeeded in obtaining a 30-day truce that began on 11th June. In then developed his first plan for peace.

First Proposal

Bernadotte’s first plan called for the Jewish State to relinquish the Negev and Jerusalem to Transjordan and to receive the western Galilee. Bernadotte advocated a total demilitarization of Jerusalem and blamed the Jewish forces for “aggressive” behavior in the city.

The Arab world rejected the Bernadotte plan on the grounds that, as Syrian officer Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib said, “Most of these mediators are spies for the Jews anyway.” The Israeli government, hating the idea of giving up Jerusalem and bent on military victory, quickly followed suit. Fighting resumed on July 8 and the Israeli army gained strength and succeeded in pushing back the Arabs until a second UN cease-fire was declared on July 18, this time with no time limit and a threat of economic sanctions against any country that broke it.

After the unsuccessful first proposal, Bernadotte continued with a more complex proposal that abandoned the idea of a Union and proposed two independent states. Having witnessed the expulsion of the Palestinians from their home, he called for the unqualified return of all Palestinian refugees expelled as a result of the conflict. He declared:

“The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by the present terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurance of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return…. [N]o settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged. It will be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right of return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine…”

The Palestinian People

Second Proposal

This proposal was completed on September 16, 1948 and it contained what he described as “seven basic premises” regarding the situation in Palestine:

  1. Peace must return to Palestine and every feasible measure should be taken to ensure that hostilities will not be resumed and that harmonious relations between Arab and Jew will ultimately be restored.
  2. A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.
  3. The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.
  4. Adherence to the principle of geographical homogeneity and integration, which should be the major objective of the boundary arrangements, should apply equally to Arab and Jewish territories, whose frontiers should not therefore, be rigidly controlled by the territorial arrangements envisaged in the resolution of 29 November.
  5. The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by the present terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurance of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return.
  6. The City of Jerusalem, because of its religious and international significance and the complexity of interests involved, should be accorded special and separate treatment.
  7. International responsibility should be expressed where desirable and necessary in the form of international guarantees, as a means of allaying existing fears, and particularly with regard to boundaries and human rights.

On 17 September 1948, the day after he submitted his progress report to the UN, a four-man team of the Jewish nationalist Zionist group Lehi (commonly known as the Stern Gang or Stern Group) ambushed Bernadotte’s motorcade in Jerusalem’s Katamon neighborhood.

The four hit men were, in fact, Stern Gang members consisting of three gunmen and a driver. The three gunmen were Yitzhak Ben-Moshe, “Gingi” Zinger, and Yehoshua Cohen. Cohen was the shooter who murdered Bernadotte. The fourth member of the hit team, the jeep driver, was Meshulam Makover.

The Assassination of Count Bernadotte

Of the three Stern Gang leaders who dispatched the killers, Israel Eldad, Natan Yalin-Mor and Yitzhak Shamir, only Yalon-Mor was brought to trial along with one gang member, Mattiyahu Shmulovitz. They were not charged with Bernadotte’s murder but with membership in a terrorist organization. Following their conviction Yalon-Mor and Shmulovitz were pardoned under a general amnesty ordered by Ben-Gurion after serving only two weeks in jail.

Based upon events in Israel following Bernadotte’s assassination it is apparent that being a member of the Stern Gang was not blight on one’s good name but a career-enhancing credential. For example, Natan Yalin-Mor was elected to a seat in the First Knesset, the Israeli parliament. The shooter, Yehoshua Cohen, became Ben-Gurion’s personal bodyguard. In 1983, Yitzhak Shamir succeeded Menachem Begin as Prime Minister.

From 1948 through to the present day, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is ongoing. After all these years, the only unanswerable question is the one that was asked by Bertrand Russell in his message to the International Conference of Parliamentarians held in February 1970:

The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was ‘given’ by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased.

How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty?

It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict.

Sources:

https://www.1948.org.uk/right-of-return/

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/un/solidarity-day-palestinian-people

https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/News/News/child-charity-news/Pages/International-Solidarity-Palestinian-749.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state

https://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Bernadotte_Plan.htm

https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDbernadotte.htm

https://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/49384

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/folke.html

https://suspiciousdeaths.blogspot.com/2010/06/count-folke-bernadotte.html

Filed Under: Featured, Genocide, Human Rights, Israel, Palestine, Politics, War Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

China’s Black Market Boosts Deadly Ivory Trade

December 16, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Chinanews.com

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE PETITION AGAINST IVORY POACHING: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/774/846/056/

Elephant tusks are highly sought after for use in Chinese sculpture, name seals andjewelry, and according to a survey conducted by the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species (CITES), rising demand in China’s black market has becomethe most powerful drive for the illegal international ivory trade.

This year China surpassed Japan as the top consumer market for illegal ivory productsin the world, and over half of the country’s enterprises engaged in the processing andsales of certified elephant tusks have their fingers in the pie, reported SouthernWeekend.

Since 2008, when China was approved as a buyer of government-owned ivory fromSouth Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, ivory laundering has become an openindustry secret.

Ivory laundering

The Elephant Trade Monitoring System (ETIS), which tracks global ivory and elephantproduct confiscations for CITES, shows a trend in the illegal trade of ivory that hasbeen growing since 1998 as a direct result of emerging demand in China.

An insider revealed that 100 kilograms of elephant tusks is only enough for two monthsof work by two skilled ivory carvers, so it is easy to calculate the general amount of rawelephant tusks that a factory uses by its number of carvers.

Theoretically, the legal amount of elephant tusks is only 62 tons till 2017, but in thepast seven years the number of ivory carving factories has increased from 9 to 36, andivory product sales offices have grown from 31 to 137.

So where do the other tusks come from? The answer is smuggling, mostly from Africa.Moreover, in the local unregulated ivory market, the majority of the buyers areforeigners.

According to the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), the year 2009 saw a recordnumber of seizures of illegal ivory being smuggled into East Asia, a trend that hascontinued over the past two years.

When some of it enters China, it usually has to be laundered. The process is simple: each certificate for legal ivory product is printed with a picture and a number, but doesnot contain information about its weight, which creates a loophole.

Suppose an enterprise only has 50 kilograms of legal elephant tusks for the year,which can be used to make 10 large ivory products and some small ones. The company may still make the same number of ivory products, but will mix in illegallysourced elephant tusks. In this way, the illegal sources become laundered and”certified.”

This approach has been condemned by many officials and animal activists who say itwill lead to further increases in demand, which results in the poaching of thousands ofelephants each year. In their opinion, a complete ban is the only way to the stop killingof innocent wildlife and end the deadly ivory trade for good.

 

Source: https://english.peopledaily.com.cn/102774/7675836.html

Filed Under: Animal Cruelty, China, Crime Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »