Tag Archives: un

Business/Economics, International, U.S.

Government, Corporate & Farmer Incompetence: MF Global scandal will destroy U.S. Agriculture! “Christmas is canceled.” Is it all about creating the Great Global Food Crisis?

“I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date.”-Jon Corzine, former CEO of MF Global

On December 8, all those investors got their answer from the former boss of investment company MF Global.  Jon Corzine told the House Agriculture Committee that he doesn’t know what happened to the billions of investment dollars from clients, that include single moms and a lot of the country’s farmers.

“I can’t start my business at all because I have absolutely no capital…my twins’ birthday is December 9th, we can’t have a party now, Christmas is canceled.”-Jennifer DaRuzza, invested with MF Global in the hopes of raising enough money to start a business

The bigger concern is the fact that so many U.S. farmers were using investments with MF Global to fund their operations.  Historically farmers do not make enough money to “pay as you go”, they must deficit spend.

Senator Pat Roberts, who leads the Senate Agriculture Committee, told PBS’s Nightly Business Report that the MF Global scandal is bringing U.S. agriculture to a screeching halt: “…think of the farmer that was driving back to Kansas from Colorado, heard about this on the news, all of a sudden found out $30,000 of his assets were frozen. He was getting prepared to buy seed, fertilizer, was talking to a local realtor in regards to some land he might want to purchase or rent, that just stops it like that!”

Roberts also gave a dire warning for the country’s food supply in 2012: “…gonna have an impact on crops. This is gonna have an impact on our food prices. It is pretty broad across all the farm country and I’m hearing more about this than I am with what’s gonna happen in the farm bill!”

Try this:  Incompetent and greedy Corporate America just shot the United States in the Bread Basket!  Remember the Dust Bowl and Okies of the 1930s?  This time, instead of Mother Earth destroying U.S. agriculture it’s the hand of our divinely inspired leaders!

The destruction of the 1930s agriculture industry, in the bread basket of the U.S. (Midwest), is talked about as only one aspect of the Great Depression of the United States, but it should be discussed much more because people gotta eat!

(here’s a link to an interesting timeline of the Great Depression, where you should notice some ominous similarities between what happened then and what’s happening now)

It’s such a concern that United Nations officials have been warning of a coming Global Food Crisis for the past several years.  In 2008 UN officials called it “a silent tsunami” that was about to wash over the world.   This year the UN is stepping up preparations for long term famine relief (sinisterly involving the World Trade Organization): “My High Level Task Force is working to ensure that the UN system, international financial institutions and the WTO are ready to provide robust and consistent support to countries struggling to cope with food insecurity. This is a long term effort and it will require a comprehensive push to back solid partnerships, strong strategies and well financed actions that empower communities to become food secure.”-Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General

The strange thing about Ban Ki-moon’s statement; notice the emphasis is on “financed actions”.  What happened to growing food?  This is even more reason for individuals to try and grow their own, remember Victory Gardens? We’re at war people, and it’s not one country against another, as our 1% Elitist leaders claim, it’s the We the 99% against the 1%!

Here’s another scary part concerning the UN preparations, I don’t think the UN had taken into account the possibility that the Japanese would destroy their agriculture with radiation, or that the U.S. agriculture industry would be done in by their own financial system!  If the UN was predicting, back in 2008, that more than 100 million people are going to be starving to death, what about now?

Conspiracy theorists blame the coming Global Food Crisis on the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome, UN Article 21, and more.  Why?  Because all these organizations and proclamations are about one thing: Destroying existing systems for the purpose creating an all powerful one world government.

Oh, don’t worry, there will still be national and local governments, but they’ll answer to one single world government.  As the Russian Foreign Ministry recently said, regarding the formation of CELAC, it’s all part of “…the formation of a polycentric world and the strengthening of the role of regions in the system of global governance…”

Business/Economics, International, U.S.

Government Incompetence & World War 3: Russia & China say the West is foolish to ask them to embargo Iranian oil! China willing to fight for it!

Russia and China have said they will not join any embargo of Iranian oil.  For Russia the reason is simple: “…we are not consuming Iranian oil at all!”-Sergei Shmatko, Energy Minister of Russia

You’d think the leaders of Canada, the U.K. and U.S. (the countries pushing for an embargo of Iranian oil) would already know that.

For China the reason is personal: “Iran is a very important supplier of oil for China. I believe there would be a massive conflict between America’s prohibition from, and China’s interest in, the Iranian crude. China won’t certainly do what the United States says!” He Jun, Anbound Information Consultancy

Put it another way; China is willing to go to war over it!

 

International, Technology, U.S.

Media Incompetence: Some media calling new flu outbreak H1N1 Swine Flu, FAIL! The new flu is an old version of H3N2

Recently several media outlets have reported that people in the midwestern U.S. have been infected with H1N1 swine flu.  They’ve even reported that instead of spreading from pigs to humans, it’s spreading human to human.

Well that’s because it isn’t H1N1!  According to the United Nations World Health Organization, and the U.S. Center for Disease Control, it’s an influenza A virus of the H3N2 subtype, a type of flu virus that circulates between humans.

Since July 2011, 10 people in the United States have been infected with it.  Why are some media outlets reporting it as H1N1?  If you read the USA Today, and ABC News articles, you’ll notice that H3N2 is only briefly mentioned.  For some reason the articles focus on the 2009 scare caused by H1N1.  More text is dedicated to talking about H1N1 than to this latest form of H3N2.  Call it a case of fear mongering by the U.S. media.

The problem is some international media outlets have picked up the story as an new outbreak of H1N1!

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Russia blasts IAEA, backs Iran

“Russia is gravely disappointed and bewildered that the report is being turned into a source adding to the tensions over the problems connected to the Iranian nuclear program.”-Russian Foreign Ministry

Russia has doubts concerning the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program.  One clue is that the report wasn’t supposed to be made public until November 17/18.  It seems IAEA boss Yukiya Amano intentionally ‘leaked’ the report on November 8: “We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the ‘sextet’ (P5+1) of international mediators and Tehran have begun to appear.”-Russian Foreign Ministry

Russian officials say this is an intentional move made behind the scenes by the United States: “The analysis must take place in a calm atmosphere, since it is important to determine whether some new, reliable evidence strengthening suspicions of a military element in Iran’s nuclear program has really appeared, or whether we are talking about an intentional, and counterproductive, whipping up of emotions.”

Business/Economics, International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Iran responds to IAEA claims

On November 8, Iran’s envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, answered 20 critical questions about Iran’s nuclear program.

Question 1: Has the IAEA detected, after 4000 days of most intensive inspection in the agency’s history, even one gram of uranium being diverted for military purposes?

Response: No. Please study all of the reports by the agency’s current and former director generals.

Question 2: With respect to nuclear activities and materials which are claimed to have not been declared until 2003, has the IAEA found out that they had been diverted towards military activities?

Response: No. All of these activities and materials were audited by the agency. Please study all the agency’s reports to the Board of Governors between 2003 and 2004

Question 3: Was Iran ethically obliged to declare Natanz enrichment facility before 2003?

Response: No. Given that nuclear material had not been introduced into the facility until 2003, Iran was under no obligations to declare it. Particularly since Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements, as well as the additional Comprehensive Safeguards (CSA) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agreements.

Question 4: Was Iran legally obliged to declare the heavy water research reactor in Arak (IR40) before 2003?

Response: No. Iran was not under any obligation to declare it since no nuclear material had been introduced into it until 2003, particularly since Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements until 2003.

Question 5: Had Iran any obligation under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement to report Arak’s heavy water production plant to the IAEA before 2003?

Response: No, because heavy water and its products are not covered by the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. Iran started implementing the Additional Protocol in 2003.

Question 6: Was Iran under any legal obligation until 2003 to declare uranium conversion Facilities (UCF)?

Response: No. Since no nuclear material had been introduced into the facility until 2003, Iran was not under any obligations to declare it, particularly given that Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements until 2003.

Question 7: Did Iran have any legal obligation to declare uranium mines including Gachin and Saghand mines?

Response: No, because Iran had not signed and implemented the Additional Protocol until 2003.

Question 8: Has the IAEA detected any nuclear material or activity including enrichment in Parchin and Lavizan-Shian, which are claimed to have been part of a nuclear weapons program after the UN agency carried out intensive inspections, including sampling and analyzing?

Response: No. The director general’s press statement about Iran on March 6, 2006 reads, “On transparency, I think I mentioned in my report access to military sites, we have been given access to a number of military sites recently, to Parchin, Lavizan, Shian, to dual use equipment, to interview people. These are beyond the Additional Protocol, but they are essential for us to reconstruct the history of the program.”

On November 15, 2004, the director general reported that the agency had been provided access to the Lavizan-Shian military site where the agency took environmental samples. Finally, paragraph 102 of the director general (GOV/2004/83) says, “The vegetation and soil samples collected from the Lavizan-Shian site have been analyzed, and reveal no evidence of nuclear material.” Further information with respect to this issue is available in November 18, 2005 (GOV/2005/87) and February 27, 2006 (GOV/2006/15) documents.

Question 9: Did the IAEA, in its agreed Action Plan (INFOSIRC/711), announce that there is no other issue in addition to what was listed in 2007?

Response: Yes. The paragraph IV of the document (INFOSIRC/711) says that these modalities cover all the remaining issues, and the agency emphasizes that there will be no issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s previous nuclear programs and activities.

Question 10: Was the IAEA bound to submit the documents related to the “Alleged Studies” to the Islamic Republic based on its Action Plan?

Response: Yes. Paragraph III says, “Although the agency will submit the documents to the Islamic Republic, considering the Green Salt Project, experiments of high explosives and carrying missiles with returning abilities, it will also keep them with itself.

Question 11: Did the IAEA fulfill its obligations regarding the submitting of the evidence pertaining to the allegations to Iran?

Response: No. Please study the report by the former director general to the UN Board of Governors, where he correctly criticizes that the certain country that has provided the agency with the evidence on the allegations has not allowed the agency to submit the documents in question to Iran.

Question 12: Has the IAEA confirmed the authenticity of the content of the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: No. Please study the report by the former director general to the UN Board of Governors, where he correctly brought up the authentic problems with the documents. The director general also clearly explained that the nuclear materials and activities in the “Alleged Studies” are not relevant.

Question 13: What was Iran’s obligation toward the document INFOSIRC/ 711 regarding the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: In Paragraph III of the document, which was discussed and agreed upon by the IAEA and Iran, and was to be approved by the Board of Governors specifies, “As a sign of the resolve to cooperate with the agency, based on all the related documents received, Iran will study the document and will inform the agency of its evaluation.”

Question 14: Did Iran, under the work plan, have any obligation to hold meetings, interviews or [allow] sampling regarding the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: No. As mentioned in Response 12, Iran was only obliged to inform of its evaluation. Iran has submitted its 117-page evaluation of the past three years. But the agency has not acted on its obligation to end the Action Plan. Accreting to Paragraph IV of the Action Plan, “The agency and Iran agreed that, following the implementation of the Action Plan and the agreed modalities for the negotiation of remaining issues, the implementation of the safeguards in Iran change to continue in the normal and conventional path.”

Notice: Instead of the Action Plan’s conclusion, the secretariat introduced new allegations known as “Possible Military Aspects.” But in Paragraph IV of the Work Plan it is affirmed that “no issue has remained and there not any doubts about Iran’s nuclear program and previous activities.”

Question 15: Has the Islamic Republic implemented the Additional Protocol?

Response: Yes. Please study the report by the former director general before 2006.

Question 16: Has Iran implemented the Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement?

Response: Yes. Please study the report by the former director general before 2006.

Question 17: Since when Iran has halted its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the Modified Code 3.1? Why?

Response: Iran’s Majlis (parliament) voted to stop the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the Modified Code 3.1 (after two years and half) regarding the unfair reference of Iran’s technical nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council in 2006. The important point is that the Additional Protocol is not a binding legal tool and the Modified Code 3.1 was merely a suggestion by the Board of Governors and is not part of the legal provisions of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA).

Question 18: Have all Iran’s nuclear materials been measured, and are under the complete supervision of the safeguards and remained peaceful?

Response: Yes. Please study the annual Safeguards Implementation Report (SIR).

Question 19: Did Iran itself provide the possibility of unannounced inspections?

Response: Yes. The agency conducted more than 100 unannounced inspections in Iran. The advance-notice for some of them were issued only two hours before the inspection.

Question 20: Why does Iran deem the resolutions by the Board of Governors and the UN Security Council as illegal?

Response: A. In accordance with Article 12 C under the IAEA statute, if the inspectors notice any “non-compliance,” they should report the same to the director general and the later should report to the Board of Governors thereafter. Followingly, the Board will notify the report to the United Nations. None of these procedures have been applied with regard to Iran.

After three years elapsed since 2003, when the issue was raised at the Board of Governors, some members of the Board claimed that there had been “non-compliance” prior to 2003. Nonetheless, the director general did not use the legal term “non-compliance” and instead used the word “failure,” which has also been used with regard to the other countries, which implement the CSA. Based on this agreement, the issue will be considered as concluded after corrective measures are adopted. The former director general clearly confirmed in his report that Iran took all the corrective measures.

B. Article 12 C mentioned in the Board’s resolutions speak of “recipient member states,” which have misused the nuclear materials delivered from the Agency. Iran has never received the nuclear materials mentioned in the relevant provisions under the Statute.

C. According to the Statute and the CSA, if the Agency discovers that the nuclear materials have been diverted to military purposes, it will notify the UN Security Council of the same. All the reports submitted by the incumbent and former dire generals so far contain no evidence of nuclear diversion.

D. Based on the CSA, if a member state does not allow the inspectors to enter the country and as a result the IAEA cannot conduct its verification activities, the Agency will notify the UN Security Council of the issue. All the reports by the director general since 2003 have explicitly announced that the Agency is able to continue its verification activities in Iran.

E. The resolutions by three EU member states against Iran from 2003 to 2006 have recognized Iran’s move to suspend its uranium enrichment activities as a non-binding, voluntary and trust-building measure. Therefore, the Board of Governors ‘s resolutions which referred Iran’s nuclear issue to the UN Security Council, after Iran decided to suspend its UCF activities voluntarily, are totally in contradiction with the Board’s previous resolutions.

It should be mentioned that when the three EU member states proposed the anti-Iran resolutions at the Board of Governors in 2006 with political motives and in an attempt to involve the UN Security Council in an IAEA-related technical issue, enrichment activities in Natanz were still suspended voluntarily.

The last question from peace-seeking nations:

Based on the above mentioned facts, should we allow the IAEA, as the only international body tasked with promotion of peaceful use of nuclear energy for the achievement of peace and prosperity, to be manipulated as a tool by a number of countries which seek to turn the Agency into a watchdog utterly malleable into the hands of the UN Security Council and deprive the developing countries of their “absolute right” to use peaceful nuclear energy as stipulated in the IAEA Statute?

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: IAEA accuses Iran of trying to make nuclear weapons, get ready for another U.S. led invasion

An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report says Iran has built test sites for nuclear weapons.

The IAEA says Iran conducted high explosives testing aimed at simulating the detonation of nuclear weapons.  Iran is also accused of conducting research that is relevant only to nuclear weapons.

IAEA officials are demanding Iran provide an explanation.

Iranian officials say the IAEA is being directly manipulated by the United States.  Iran claims the current director of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano of Japan, is simply reading from a report that was made up by U.S. officials, and is baseless.

 

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Ron Paul says U.S. claims against Iran are overblown, sanctions are acts of war

“For them to be a threat to us and to anyone in the region, I think it’s blown out of proportion.”-Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman from Texas

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is scheduled to come out on November 8 with a new report on Iran.  Some sources say it will accuse Iran of making nuclear weapons.

One week ago, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee asked to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Ron Paul says that proves we are at war with Iran: “When you put on strong sanctions, those are acts of war.”

If you take some college courses on warfare you’ll discover that economic sanctions really are part of the war making arsenal (that’s why the Japanese say they were justified in attacking the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in 1941).




 

International

World War 3: Israel to speed up construction of illegal settlements

November 1, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered speeding up construction of 2,000 illegal housing units in East Jerusalem (al Quds), Ma’aleh Adumim, and Gush Etaion.

This is a response to the United Nations making Palestine the 195th member of the UN.  Other retaliations planned by the Israelis include; curbing VIP status of senior Palestinian officials to cross Israeli checkpoints, greenlighting more settlement construction, and halting the transfer of tax money that Israel steals, I mean collects for the Palestinians.

If you think Israel will turn to violence then you’re too late.  For months now Israel has launched ground raids, and air strikes into Gaza and the West Bank, yet where’s the western media’s coverage of it?

International, U.S.

World War 3: Japan to send troops to South Sudan

Japanese Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa announced that he will send about 200 troops to the new country of South Sudan in 2012. They will take part in UN peacekeeping operations.

Interestingly Ichikawa said the international community has been asking Japan to take on more UN peacekeeping roles, however I’ve not noticed any mention of that in all the international media sources I keep track of.  It’s probably more that the United States, in spreading its own military so thin, is putting pressure on Japan to take on more international military roles (also, payback for all the free U.S. aid in dealing with Japan’s on going nuclear disaster).

Japan’s current constitution does not allow their troops to carry weapons in other countries, but the new right wing government is trying to change that.

Most of the 200 Japanese troops slated to go to South Sudan are engineers.

International, U.S.

World War 3: UN recognizes Palestine. U.S. & Israel retaliate by cutting funding for UN

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) granted Palestine full UN membership on October 31!

The United States quickly retaliated against the UN by refusing to pay the U.S. share of funding for UNESCO.  Israel also ended its funding of UNESCO.

Palestine is now the 195th member of the U.S. created organization known as the United Nations.  Ironically, the UN has become something the U.S. doesn’t want to belong to, anymore (I guess the U.S. doesn’t want to play by the very rules it helped to create!).

The total amount of funding that UNESCO will lose, from the U.S. and Israel, is about one quarter its yearly budget.

The move by the U.S. is not a knee jerk reaction.  The pro-Israeli U.S. Congress created laws back in 1990s that stated if Palestine ever became a member of the UN, then the U.S. would end its funding.  Today, both Republicans and Democrats, in the U.S. Congress, denounced the UNESCO decision.

Who abstained from the UNESCO vote?  United Kingdom (Britain), Poland, Portugal, Denmark, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, Switzerland, Romania and Latvia.

Who voted against recognizing Palestine?  United States, Germany, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Netherlands and Israel.