Secret Squirrel

Secret Squirrel Discovers And Shares A Bail Out Package Explanation.

2011-12-13T11:53:00.000-08:00

Secret Squirrel, never being one to ignore his financial and economic researches, found, on the OMRLP site, hardly surprisingly,the Official Monster Raving Loony site, that being http://www.omrlp.com/ a readily plausible and highly understandable, and simple, (even the most utterly ignorant of all frenchmen, their politicians,could understand this), explanation, on how economic bailout packages work, specificly that involving Greece and Italy,but Squirrel believes it highly applicable and self- explanatory with respect to other nations of Europe, and also the U.K. itself.

Herewith I share with you the wise MRL explanation of bailout packages, how they work, the very mechanics of the thing,a thing most definitly not to be missed...........here peruse the explanation.........

Here commences the economic explanational epistle...........

HOW THE GREEK & ITALIAN BAILOUT WILL WORK IN VERY SIMPLE TERMS:

It is a slow day in a little Greek Village.

The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted.

Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the village, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.

The owner gives him some keys and as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.

The guy at the Farmers’ Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks and food bill at the taverna.

The taverna owner slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him “services” on credit.

The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note.

The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works!!

Here doth end the wisdom of the MRL epistle.

Secret Squirrel,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering,
MP,MRL,(Dunny On The Wold),
MRL.

Secret Squirrel On Nazism Being Introduced By The U.S. Senate.

2011-11-27T12:34:00.001-08:00

Secret Squirrel has discovered an amazing development in America, a development quietly,hidden by, ignored by, the
press,the media, a media and press pulling the blinders over the eyes of Americans, a media covering the ears of the American people, a media muzzling the mouths of Americans, such that they did not, could not, see,nor hear nor comment on a very dangerous development in America, the introduction of a bill through the Senate of America, a development which is clearly and most certainly a development of Nazism in America.
The American Senate is to vote on a bill generated by the
likes of the militarist Senator John McCain,and the likes of the fascisti Carl Levin..a bill to allow American military
personnel to arrest Americans, in America,on the streets, in the bars, in the homes,in their gardens, and also yet further round and about the world.Imagine that,and yet the media has virtually ignored this development in it's entirety,even yet we hear no press,no media outcry against this bill.Strange, and also, for American, perhaps the saddest thing in their lives.

Yes indeed here see the headlines, at least, on the internet,as a matter of fact it was on the internet that Secret Squirrel's attention was attracted to these headlines.take a look for yourself.........

http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com/tag/national-defense-authorization-act-bil/

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial Saturday, Nov 26 2011

Emerging Police State and News and Politics and Rise of Fascism, National Defense Authorization Act bill, police state, Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial, Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.)

and at............

http://destructionist.wordpress.com/tag/national-defens... /

The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

and at....

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/AN-EGYPTIAN-MILITARY-MODEL-IN-THE-U-S-BR-I-Could-U-S-military-emboldened-with

-impunity-of-new-law-up-for-Senate-vote-arrest-any-American-anywhere-anytime-and-for-anything-I-834822

AN EGYPTIAN MILITARY MODEL IN THE U.S.?
Could U.S. military, emboldened with impunity of new law up for Senate vote, arrest any American anywhere, anytime
and for anything?NDAA detention provision would turn America into a “battlefield”.

It's no joke,it's not a hoax, it's real,very real, Nazism,Fascism in America, martial law, military rule,military law enacted on a civilian population besides their usual corruption within the Senate, now there rises the evil stench of militaristic Nazism.Imagine a militaristic rule,martial law, a rule by and of those not only uniformed, but non uniformed as well, a secret police bound by no laws themselves,the rule of the military,the policing of the people by the military, much as now occurs in Syria,Egypt and other stenchlike nations.
This bill was written in secret and approved by committee without
a single hearing. Senate Republicans support the bill and enough Democrats support it to give it a great chance of passing. This provision does have opponents. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill and even Ron Paul is concerned enough to bring it up during one of the GOP debates. An amendment called the Udall Amendment has been offered by Democratic Senator Mark Udall that would delete the dangerous provision.Amazingly,though, the bill has escaped mention in the media,all of the media.The U.S. Senate is getting set to vote on Monday or Tuesday on what critics refer to as a “worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial power for the military”One of the things Senators will be voting on in this bill is this: whether Congress will give President Obama and every future president the power to order the military to pick up and imprison - without charge or trial - American civilians anywhere in the world.The bill would define the whole of the United
States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial,it gives the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office all under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill.
Clearly this bill is most definately unconstitutional,The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America,yet the Senate would defy that supreme law,just as many Senators have abused,defied, defiled, and broken many of theh laws the American people are subject to. As a metter of fact they are quite clear in their nature............and should be to each and every Senator...assuming there are any left who respect and abide by the laws and constitution of America.........

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

and also these...........

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

All of those would quite clearly be suspended,revoked,removed from the people of American by this bill.It is pointed out that the provisions of the bill most certainly and most definately raise serious questions as to who Americans are as a society and what the Constitution seeks to protect. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil.
This means Americans could be declared domestic terrorists and thrown in a military brig with no recourse whatsoever. Given
that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or
binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse.

“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?” asks Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.We have been warning for over a decade that Americans would become the target of laws supposedly aimed at terrorists and enemy combatants. Alex Jones personally documented how U.S. troops were being trained to arrest U.S. citizens in the event of martial law during urban warfare training drills back in the 90′s. Under the the National Defense Authorization Act bill, no declaration of martial law is necessary since Americans would now be subject to the same treatment as suspected insurgents in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you thought that the executive assassination of American citizens abroad was bad enough, now similar powers will be
extended to the “homeland,” in other words, your town, your community, your back yard.This is a sad and deplorable time for
Americans, being ruled by a Senate that is sad and deplorable.It's America, one man, one vote, and soon that vote will be
decided for each and everyone,and they'll be told who they voted for before the fact.

Secret Squirrel Comments On Britain's Economic Stimulus Payment.

2011-11-03T14:45:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel comments, suggesting a UK Tax Guidance plan with respect to the British Tax Economic Stimulus Payment.

UK Tax Guidance

Sometime this year, we, the British taxpayers, will again receive another 'Economic Stimulus' payment..

This is indeed a very exciting program, and I'll explain it by using a Q & A format:

Q. What is an 'Economic Stimulus' payment ?

A. It is money that the government will send to taxpayers.

Q.. Where will the government get this money ?

A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money ?

A. Only a smidgen of it.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment ?

A. The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q.. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?

A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.K. Economy by spending your stimulus cheque wisely:


* If you spend the stimulus money at Asda or Tesco, the money will go to China , Taiwan or Sri Lanka ...

* If you spend it on petrol, your money will go to the Arabs.

* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India , Taiwan or China ...



* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico , Honduras and Guatemala ....


* If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea ....


* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan ...



* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy shares, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.

Instead, keep the money in the UK by:

1) Spending it at car boot sales,

or

2) Going to night clubs, or

3) Spending it on

prostitutes,

or

4) Buying beer or whisky, or

5) Get yourself a Tattoo

or
6) Visit a bookie.

(These are the only UK owned domestic businesses still operating in the U.K. )

Conclusion:

Be patriotic - go to a night club with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a car boot sale and drink beer day and night !

No need to thank me, I'm just glad I could be of help.

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,Dunny On The Wold,(MP),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel Encourages The Banning Of Ownership Of Exotic Wild Animals.

2011-10-19T12:15:00.000-07:00

Lions & Tigers & Bear,Lions & Tigers & Bears...it ain't Kansas, Dorothy.Secret Squirrel has noticed that it really isn't Kansas, and not the land of Oz either, but there are, in Ohio,lions and tigers and bears on the loose, and this has resulted in interesting headlines here as evidenced at...........

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/19/lions-tigers-and-bears-escape-from-ohio-animal-farm-as-cops-are-told-shoot-to-kill-115875-23499057/

and

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/us/ohio-animals-on-loose/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

and,of course, others.

One Terence(Terry) Thompson,had evidently let loose the animals he'd owned, and then killed himself,in his inhumanity,he let'em loose on humanity, on the human race, on Americans, on his fellow Americans, wild animals........lions and tiger and bear and whatever else all..........loose, out of their cages......so now the entire city is on lock down as police have to hunt and kill the animals, wild, animals a direct threat to ever man woman and child, as well, of course, their pets,lest we forget,and forget we not, as they search for...........FOOD, people are their food, lots of people, meat sacks running about, and their pets,of course. So now we have to question US laws which don't ban such things as the keeping a wild animals, classed as exotic or whatever they refer them to. Is there a reason to keep such animals, and so many.No there isn't it makes no sense.The Federal government in it's inadequacy doesn't act.Lions and tigers and bears.Lions and Tigers and Bears. All loose........loose because somebody was allowed,by law, to keep lions and tigers and bears.Lions and tigers and bears. Mind you the ridiculousness extends to all wild animals as such doesn't it, cheetahs,cougars,wolves,foxes whatever et all..and this occurrence is the epitome of the idiocy of the lack of laws banning the keeping of any exotic wild animal.Do you think for one minute the Federal government sees the sense in such a ban, or the State governments, or the local governments?No, idiots all,Americans, ruled by idiots, Americans live in the midst of an idiocracy, idiocratic governments,governments of ignorance and idiocy, making laws,all sorts of laws, laws for everything, but not sane laws such as banning the keeping of exotic wild animals,lions and tigers and bears,lions and tigers and bears,the lot of them.Of course we acknowledge that the local constabulary did a magnificent job, totally,utterly ,completely, and fortunate all round and for the people it was so, magnificent.But they should not have had to do that,they would not have had to do that should there be a law banning exclusively all exotic wild animals.

But,sadly, it is not so.Of course there are some who will not support and do not support such a law, those who keep or would keep such wild animals, but here we see the hazards,the dangers of keeping such wild animals.Interestingly he had complied with permits et ceterra as required for those animals, however, there should NOT have been any permits for such animals as it should never have been permitted to own such animals.As of November 2010, most US states forbid the possession of exotic pets, but 9 states have no license or permit requirements, and quite obviously these states are in dire need of such laws, especially Ohio.To commence with, local areas such as counties,cities and towns and whatever,in states lacking such laws, must initiate such laws at the earliest for their areas, enact and enforce them, whilst they wait for their state to follow the lead of the other states.Also it is for the Federal government to also enact and enforce their own ban on the keeping of such exotic wilds animals, and see to it that the states toe the line on those laws,for the good and safety of the American Citizen,there is a clear and present danger.

Secret Squirrel Ponders A Probable Invasion Of Mexico.

2011-10-03T14:05:00.001-07:00

Secret Squirrel has had his attention brought to Mexico,the sad and sorry state it is in at the present,a touch worse and worsening than it is most of the time and has ever been historically.Indeed Mexicans have always been portrayed in US films as mostly criminals,drunks,drugged out and poor,and so it seems at present it is across so very many levels, especially in the areas of the border near to America.It
seems,strangely, the populations there are really ruled,over ruled, and controlled by crime lords, much as in Somalia,who seem to be inundated with weapons of all sorts.The difference between Mexico and Somalia in that area, are that the Somali crime lords are visible, whilst the ones in Mexico remain invisible, but in all cases the crime lords rule they areas they are in.The Americans are becoming concerned and worried by the situation,and Mexico is in high visibility of US government view.

Look here at http://www.military.com/news/article...-collapse.html

Mexico is one of two countries that "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse," according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.The command's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. "In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico."The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."
So at high levels this state of affairs was seen as developing.

A retired CIA operative,one Sylvia Longmire,has written and informative, enlightening, and perhaps predictable book,inflammatory in title, "Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico's Drug Wars".

At http://www.talkingdrugs.org/a-retired-us-major-general-has-proposed-a-us-invasion-of-mexico

"A retired US Major General has proposed a US invasion of Mexico “to protect and secure the American people.” Major General Paul E. Vallely’s blinkered response to the increase in violence in Mexico, fuelled by US demands for illegal drugs, seems to overlook the failure that a military response has had to curb drug use in the past. He states “now if I were the Commander-in-Chief, I would be on a war-footing and I would have my military commanders planning and executing a strategy that will defeat swiftly and decisively these cancerous enemies.”
He further details, in an article written for the right-wing blog Family Security Matters, how he would conduct his military strategy to protect the USA. He states that the best strategy would be to position three “Border Task Force Groups” of 5000 “warriors” each on the US side of the border. These forces will “conduct offensive and defensive operations on the Mexican side of the border.” Interestingly the retired general does not think that these military incursions into Mexican territory would be in violation of any law and he cites the Posse Comitatus Act of 1848.General Vallely compares the violence in the northern states of Mexico to the lawlessness of 1846 and states “therefore, it is in the National interest of the United States to invade, and restore order because of this clear and present danger to US Citizens and our economy.” So clearly a military invasion of Mexico is in the mind and thoughts of the military."

Gov. Rick Perry,of Texas,as far back as 2010,said he would support sending U.S. troops into Mexico to fight the drug war.He also repeated,at THAT TIME his frequent statement that he doesn't want to be president. Asked if his refusal was "Shermanesque," Perry didn't seem to understand."Shermanesque? Help me on that one," Perry said.The reporter explained it meant if nominated he wouldn't run, if
elected he wouldn't serve."How about Perryesque?" the governor said. "The fact of the matter is I'm not running for the presidency of the United States - don't want to be the president of the United States."Well It seemed it was Perryesque Shermanesque,or Shermanesque Perryesque as you will have it as he has entered his candidacy for the Office Of The President of The United States.Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Saturday,October 1st,2011 that he would consider sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat drug-related violence and stop it from spilling into the southern United States.“It may require our military in Mexico,” Perry said in answer to a question about the growing threat of drug violence along the southern border. Perry offered no details, and a spokesman, Robert Black, said afterward that sending troops to Mexico would be merely one way of putting an end to the exploding cartel-related violence in the region.

Mexico has been invaded before by America and vast tracts of it's territory were removed from it, and profiftable ares they were at that,perhaps now they consdier going in for it all? Well Let's look at what set the American precedances for invasions of Mexico.

The Mexican–American War, also known as the First American Intervention, the Mexican War, or the U.S.–Mexican War, was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution.American forces invaded New Mexico, the California Republic, and parts of what is currently northern Mexico; meanwhile, the American Navy conducted a blockade, and took control of several garrisons on the Pacific coast of Alta California, but also further south in Baja California.

Another American army captured Mexico City, and forced Mexico to agree to the cession of its northern territories to the U.S.The major consequence of the war was the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the U.S. in exchange for $18 million. In addition, the United States forgave debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as its national border, and the loss of Texas. Meanwhile gold was discovered in California, which immediately became an international magnet for the California Gold Rush.Quite a profitable undertaking,and it was, as casualties were enormous, but what with the gain, as always, were swept under the rug.

The idea of incorporating Mexico as several new states of the United States has existed ever since the Mexican–American War of 1846–1848, when the All Mexico Movement proposed annexing Mexico by force. Today this idea stresses the strong economic and political connections between Mexico and the United States and the high recurring cost of defending a 2,000-mile (3,200 km) border. In 1913 during border skirmishes between the United States and Mexico, it was proposed by some that the U.S. annex Chihuahua.Incorporating Mexico would add over 100million to the United Satates population, of a mostly subsistance living near starving extremely poor people,heavily equipped with guns of various varities,which have strangely multiplied greatly in recent years.

There have been various break away republics formed within Mexico,but they have been short lived as they were not supported,nor annexed.

The northeast region, consisting of the states of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo León (where claims about federal taxes and water usage are similar to the proposed U.S. states complaints) is frequently alleged to be more alike in general mentality to Texas than to the rest of

Mexico. These three states formed the core of the short-lived 19th century Republic of the Rio Grande.

In 1853, filibuster William Walker conquered the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora with the intent of adding new slave states to the Union. Within three months he had incorporated both states into the independent Republic of Sonora, but a lack of support from the US Government and increasing pressure from the Mexican Government forced him to retreat.

Mexico could be invaded and annexed of sorts,and split in to states, thence admitted in whole or in part, in to the United States,but there are rules,it seesm they do have them for such doings.Following the precedent established by the Enabling Act of 1802, an Enabling Act must be passed by Congress as a prerequisite to admission. The act authorizes the people of a territory to frame a constitution, and lays down the requirements that must be met prior to consideration for statehood.In light of modern times and American designs, one can easily see the sudden emergence of several constitutions of the required nature, similar in required nature,appearing with great and mysterious speed and rapiditty.
Why would this occur, why ever would America attempt to absorb Mexico? Well Mexico, in spite of it's people being poor, is rather like the Arab states, great in resources.Mexico, America's southern neighbor, has been for centuries and continues to be a hellhole of political corruption, poverty and despair. It is indeed remarkable that a nation this vast, with great resources such as an abundance of oil (Mexico is a major petroleum producer), can be worse off than most Third World countries. It's no secret that Mexico is routinely ranked as the most corrupt
country in the world, even surpassing Nigeria.Mexico is of a much greater vital interest to America than, say, Libya. And, ironically, Mexico also has large oil reserves,(need I mention this again?)and vast natural resources,resources such as petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber.
Well.........timberrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr,there's oil there, lots and lots of oil and so very close to the USA as well, just admirable for pipelines to suck the oil to the American oil companies,and if it's one thing American oil companies like, and send the USA to wars of acquisition for, and control of, it's oil. Well, let's see the effects of invading Mexico, the possibilities,the probablities,the mechanics of the thing.

First. America has all along denied any purpose to interfere in the internal affairs of Mexico and the St. Louis platform declares against it. Intervention conveys the idea of such interference.And modern blow hard politicians no advocate such intervention,and should they achieve power can and will do it, indeed even yet Obama might.

Second. Intervention would be humiliating to many Mexicans whose pride and sense of national honor would resent severe terms of peace in case of being defeated in a war,which is what the interevention would be.Occupied or defeated, the Mexicans are heavily armed, even yet more heavily armed and spread out and in far greater numbers than were and are the Arabs of Iraq.

Third. American intervention in Mexico is extremely distasteful to all Latin America and might have a very bad effect upon Americas Pan-American program, of peace love and amistad and whatever they call not invading any iof them at any particular moment,for the time being,they'll just have to be placated by telling them, "It won't happen to you,Amistad lad!".That'll do it for sure, and it will too since there's nothing they can do about it in either and all cases.

Fourth. Intervention, which suggests a definite purpose to “clean up” the country, would bind America to certain accomplishments,such as occupation, which circumstances might make extremely difficult or inadvisable,there being so very mandy weapons no round and about and in the hands of Mexicans at large,Mexicans who are wisely ,and ever increasingly,arming themselves with what ever they can get their hands on.

Fifth. Intervention also implies that the war,of intervention would be made primarily in the interest of the Mexican people,it being billed as such, while the fact is it would be an intervention America forces onthe Mexican Government, and, if we term it intervention, we will have considerable difficulty in explaining why we had not intervened before but waited until attacked.

Sixth. Intervention with America's favorite attack group,the Coalition,the NATO Alliance attacking a nation for it's own good, as in all the NATO partners, as in for the oil, share and share alike,which suits all of them just fine,and especially the oil companies who are the huge driving force between all of the present wars of acquisitional intervention(for.............oil).

Will there be an intervention, and invasion of Mexico? Yes I see it in the cards.An acquisitional war of intervention of Mexico? Ye,s but for control and acquisition of natural resources, especially the oil.Will there be an entire absorptive acquistion of Mexico? No,I see that as being far too expensive and a drain an America,a simple less costly occupation is the most likely course of events accomplishing, but at high cost in lives, yes, the control and acquistional farming of Mexico's resources,especially of course, the oil,after all one simply just must make them pay for themselves for having necessitated the military intervention so indicated.I see that as the future of and for Mexico and Mexicans.

Secret Squirrel Examines Aircraft Cost Overruns.

2011-09-30T11:34:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel looks at the recent F35 purchase costs, and ponders the ever increasing costs of an aircraft regarded as being barely sufficient to the needs of nations such as Australia,an aircraft many regard as inadequate yet one they are purchasing,having made the decision to,an aircraft whose costs have magically ballooned to twice the signed for costs.

THE Rudd government gave the green light to Australia's largest ever defence purchase, approving a buy of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters at a cost of $3.2 billion. What do we find, and di we find, after a year or two,that the price Zooms from $50 Mil Original Cost Per Aircraft to $80-95 Mil in 2002.

In 2003 the Current terms did not require foreign partners to pay for cost overruns, and the Pentagon has not asked its partners to cover any such,but as you know that ALWAYS changes when the Americans are involved.The other eight nations participating in the program - Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the U.K. - aren't going to be happy about the cost increases either. I suspect some sweetheart deal will be made to make them less unhappy.

But the fact remains, that cost overruns,are always present in American programs,and anyone you're involved in, sweet deal, then, more cost added, of course, cost over run.America itself,what with maintanance figured in etc etc etc for THEIRS, is at a cost of over a trillion, about equal to Canada's GDP,and they claim it costs more than Australia's GDP,with respect to America's purchase and maintenance of it's purchase of this type of aircraft,albeit in much larger numbers,so no wonder America has huge unpayable debts....but does America worry, not really it just prints up more money to cover it, other
nations..........can't do that.Canada, which has agreed to buy 65 planes at an official program cost of $14.7 billion,($20 billion on 72 F-35.)the cost over the next 30 years would be $29.3 billion twice the official estimate of $14.7 billion. The F-35 does not have the stealth, power (supercruise ability), or range to engage SU-30 as a fighter aircraft,Su-30 out performs it but the F-35 has a larger weapons load, 42 aircraft being procured by Indonesia, By August 2010,they cost $4.3 billion or $102 million each,far less than the F35.Now, not to argue who's getting a better deal in a superior aircraft, we do see substantial savings in the Soviet aircraft, as a final cost.

So we do have to consider that Australia would have been much better off in the first place buying from the Soviets,at enormous savings, not withstanding the American cost overruns, but we do have to look on America with great suspicion with respect to stated purchase,sale ,cost of the aircraft.A cost overrun, also known as a cost increase or budget overrun, is an unexpected cost incurred in excess of a budgeted amount due to an under-estimation of the actual cost during budgeting. Cost overrun should be distinguished from cost escalation, which is used to express an anticipated growth in a budgeted cost due to factors such as inflation.So cost overrun is common in infrastructure, building, and technology projects,it is profitable, and increases profitability,in short, it is an influencable form of profit fraud,contract fraud,as all nations let the developing nation off the hook as it were,over the initial signed and price stated contract,final cost contract,or a stated, final cost.

However, in all such cases, there is no binding litigations with respect to final cost, no abilities for lawsuit, utterly no abilities to hold anyone, to the stated contract cost.However all round we must consider that a cost overrun results in increased final costs, and in all cases at levels at least twice those of stated contracts,and we really do have to recommend and consider that it would be better for Austrailia, as one nation,or perhaps any other nation, not purchase a selected aircraft until the final cost emerges, and so consider purchase at a final off the shelf cost, and then knowingly,regardless, not have a crippled aircraft, but a fully developed and working one,purchased at a clearly stated and final cost.

Secret Squirrel Comments On The United Nations Veto.

2011-09-25T18:36:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel's attention has been recently drawn to the ridiculous and improper United Nations veto, as one was presently cast by The United States of America, in efforts to see to it that a free nation, a new nation, the nation of a free Palestine coming about, in and after the very self-same fashion that Israel came about.Squirrel will not comment here on that putrescent and sad fact, that of the United States casting a veto preventing the nation of Palestine coming in to being, but rather here will comment on the United Nations veto itself.

Veto power circumvents the power and rule of the majority and subjects to nations to the slavery and idiocy, of the few, or given, one of the few at any given time.It subjects the majority to the will of a minority,it binds, it enslaves.It removes rights, and freedoms.The putrescence of the veto, is in the same fashion as the presentation of The Noble Peace Prize, to war mongers at any given time.It is subjectively imprisoning in its effects. It enforces the will of the one,over the will of the many, the belief of the one, over the belief of the many,Veto Power, we need to eliminate it. This was created more than half a century ago.Ambassador Charles W. Yost cast the first U.S. veto in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly on resolutions criticizing Israel; since 2002 the Negroponte doctrine has been applied for the use of a veto on resolutions relating to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council. On 18 February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli settlements.and used mostly by the US to veto resolutions involving Israel starting in the 1970's, "(and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel)".

Regard the comments here found at..

http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/394

Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue.

The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC, enjoying the veto right
Member States met on 16 and 17 March,2009 to discuss the veto in the second of five meetings devoted to different substantive issues connected to Security Council reform.The Philippines noted that “...even in the face of this extreme difficulty to remove the veto power, we may yet consider the need to curtail its exercise or use. There is a big chance for that,” ambassador Hilario G. Davide pointed out. To address this issue, the ambassador not only supported disallowing or denying the use of the veto power in certain grave cases, he also reiterated a Philippine proposal for a veto to be set aside or overturned by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, or by a vote of two-thirds of the Security Council itself.Reportedly, almost half of all Member States took the floor during the almost two-day long meeting. According to several delegates present, a number of African countries stated - in accordance with the common African position - that they are against the veto in principle.Italy's Ambassador Giulio Terzi said that even when not used, the veto can alter or block the discussion of urgent issues. "Again and again the 'hidden veto' has prevented substantial discussions of questions that are crucial to international peace and security," he said. German Ambassador Thomas Matussek apparently stated that the veto was "an anachronism and should be abolished." But hopes of scrapping or giving it to new council members were unrealistic and should not be used as a pretext to halt reform, he added.Apparently China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, permanent members of the Security Council, all signaled unwillingness to give up, change or reform the current veto structure.

Here ends the epistle .

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a "procedural" draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council.

The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called "P5" — casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution.However The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.

The UN Charter provision for unanimity among the Permanent Members of the Security Council (the veto) was the result of extensive discussion, including at Dumbarton Oaks (August–October 1944) and Yalta (February 1945). The evidence is that the UK, US, USSR, and France all favoured the principle of unanimity, and that they were motivated in this not only by a belief in the desirability of the major powers acting together, but also by a hard-headed concern to protect their own sovereign rights and national interest. Truman, who became President of the US in April 1945, went so far as to write in his memoirs: "All our experts, civil and military, favoured it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate."

The UNSC veto system was established in order to prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members. One of the lessons of the League of Nations (1919–46) had been that an international organization cannot work if all the major powers are not members.It had already been decided at the UN's founding conference in 1944, that Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course" France, should be the permanent members of any newly formed Council. However,they all wanted control over issues, plurality, will of the majority,rule of the majority, was not and is not for either of them,nor shall it ever really be.The veto, is a representation of injustice,a mockery of any forms of democratic prinicples the United Nations is supposed to uphold and represent.Removal of veto would address the lack of meaningful action in the face of atrocities and other urgent crises.The presence of veto allows those possessing same, to rule the roost.A former Pakistani Ambassador to the UN, Ahmad Kamal, states that in a democracy no one can be more equal than others and he terms the veto anachronistic and undemocratic, a sentiment echoed by many African countries. Abolishing the veto altogether seems to appeal to quite a few member states.Among those who oppose abolishing the veto—and the P5 are the most prominent in that group—references are made to the League of Nations, which many believe ended up in demise because major powers such as the US refused to join. This, they argue, is exactly what would happen if the veto was abolished: the major powers of the world would either leave the UN or disregard or refuse to pay for UN actions they oppose.I either case, what the veto is is the enslavement of the member nations of the United Nations, enslavement of an entire group of United Nations, to the will of a single one,the dominating one, the enslaving one,the democracy destroying one,the nation which casts the Veto.If the United Nations is ever to be a free and democratic institution devoted to world rule,world self-rule, world democracy,world peace,global stability,the veto must be removed in its entirety.However,the domintating nations holding the veto being what they in reality are,sadly this will never,ever come about.

Secret Squirrel Ponders Various Prison Solutions.

2011-09-09T18:18:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has turned his attention to Britain's problems with those who belong in Her Majesty's Prison For The Extremely Naughty.Quite frankly, they're expensive, but necessary to house.Let's have a look at a recently built facility those lads given to naughtynees.H.M. Prison Magilligan, near Coleraine,450 prisoners cost 200 m pounds to build(319.62 million U.S dollars),that's 444444.444 pounds per prisoner(in US dollars that's $709333.333,matter of fact we'll switch to dollars,much easier,the Americans print it all up, we could too, and would they ever notice?I think not. So to dollars it is,US dollars).Other housing would in fact be very much cheaper.

Take for example a cruise ship, let's look at Oasis of the Seas Luxury Cruise Liner. The 16-deck ship, which has an estimated build cost of $1.24bn,(1,240,000,000) is the largest cruise ship afloat with a tonnage of 220000gt (43% more than the Freedom Class Cruise ships),compares somewhat with the Titanic.It has a personage capacity of 5400 at double occupancy (2700 personages at single occupancy. For our purposes we'll go with double ocupancy, no use making things for our naughty inmates a true paradise. Now at Billion $ 1.24, that's $229629.63 per prisoner isn't it.By heavens it's much cheaper than H.M. Prison Magilligan isn't it,and we're accomodating 12 times the number of prisoners!!( If we splurged at single occupancy we'd be at $459259.259,rather the same cost as the prison then, be no saving you know). But in either and all cases, such a ship puts those given to mad dogginess,or dodginess if you prefer,at sea,surrounded by water, unable to escape really,a natural moat. Now the cost is certainly attractive per prisoner isn't it!They could hardly complain, even yet they'd be living in abject luxury at cheap rate cost to Her Majesty too wouldn't they. But hey, we can further reduce costs to Her Majesty and even yet increase the accomodation of those who have misbehaved in a manner displeasing to Her Majesty.

Consider now Edith Maersk,a container ship and the sister ship of Emma Maersk, thus the world's largest cargo ship,a construction cost US of$145,000,000,. It has capacity for 13500 containers.Consider modification of a container to housing,
including kitchen and toilet, double occupancy, that'd give a capacity of 27,000 prisoners, a cost per prisoner of only,yes,only,$5370.37037,and house more than 60 time H.M. Prison Magilligan. The ship has a length of 397.00 m (1,302.49 ft) and a beam of 56.00 m (183.73 ft). The depth of the vessel is 30.00 m (98.43 ft) and while fully loaded the ship can reach a draft of 17.5 m (57 ft). The deadweight of the container ship is 156,907 metric tons, while the gross tonnage is 170,794 gross
tons.You see a ship is less expensive to build,far less.............plus there would be no escape from there surrounded by a safe sea moat.Consider the size of the container rooms,20 by 8 container at 8ft 6 inch height,living area 170 square feet
l,studio 12 x 8 for 6 x8 kitchen,toilet 5 by 8 bathroom.Not bad.

Now consider the size of the vessel that the containers are stacked on in terms of Length x Breadth: 398 m X 56 m,giving 22288 square meters for containers,generally speaking. But consider now another idea, surrounded by the sea, an island as it were, specifically an abandoned and otherwise useless island, surrounded by the sea, an island such as Diego Garcia. One sectional island of it has a fully useable space of 173529203 square metres for Diego Garcia, this works to a collassal multiplier of 7785.76826,in terms of available space for containers, yes that times the containers in the same space aboard the ship, that works to 13500 containers aboard ship in the land area times that figure,gives 105097500 prisoners to be accomodated in that area,single occupancy,double occupancy twice that to 210195000.......wow! I'm not even yet going to figure the cost per
prisoner, but cargo containers can be had for $1500.Cheap, Effective.However in all of the above sceanarios, we do have to heat their facilities,provide them with air conditioning,provide them with prepared foods, provide them with hot water and sanitation facilities, and also recreational facitlities and whatever the where with all and have it all that intails incarceration in Britain in what ever facility of Her Majesty's Prisons For The Extremely Naughty.Cheap, Effective.Job done. But then consider is there a far far cheaper way? Yes,there certainly is.Consider.

Conrad Black is British, a citizen of Britain,just Britain. He wants the Americans to deport him, when he serves his time in the American prisons,to Canada.Well he isn't Canadian, he isn't from Canada.BUT if the USA can deport him to Canada, then we can deport all of our naughty miscreants to there also,for simply the cost of one way air fare, Heathrow To Montreal.......$1000.That's it, no further costs what so ever per prisoner,and, we're rid of them.It all hinges on the Canadians taking a deported Conrad Black.

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,MP(Dunny on The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel Considers Alarming Aircraft Problems.

2011-09-07T17:54:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has noticed the Airbus A380 has almost repeated what it did in Brazil, this time out of Venezuela when it encountered extreme turbulence as did the Brazilian crash A380.........and...the same thing happened.........almost.But Secret Squirrel has discovered a link between the two, and also a link involving yet many other airliner problems with speed,autopilots, and automated flight controls and instrumentation.Strangely,as things will be expounded on, they're actually not uncommon, but alarmingly common. But firstly let's have a look at the Brazilian crash.Some experts have blamed the speed monitors – called Pitot tubes – for fatally misleading the crew of Flight 447 that crashed in the ocean off the coast of Brazil on May 31, killing all 228 people on board.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191929/Air-France-rushes-refit-speed-sensors-caused-crash-Flight-447.html

"Air France pledged to immediately re-fit the entire fleet of 35 long-haul Air France Airbus jets came after unions urged pilots not to fly them until the key sensors were updated. Investigators believe the sensors may have iced over during a fierce thunderstorm and delivered dangerously false information to the plane’s computers which caused the pilot to slow down so much the plane stalled and pitched into a
deadly tailspin.There was pondering that the the tail section of the plane, which includes the rudder and the vertical stabilizer - which keeps the nose from swinging back and forth – was sheared off by turbulence.The Airbus 330 has a ‘rudder-limiter' which constricts how much the rudder can move at high speeds. If it were to move too far while travelling fast, it could break off and take the tail section with it, said flight safety analysts.Asked if the rudder or stabilizer being sheared off could have brought the jet down, he said: ‘Absolutely. You need a rudder. And you need the rudder limiter on there to make sure the rudder doesn't get torn off or cause havoc with the plane's aerodynamics.’ ‘If you had a wrong speed being fed to the computer by the Pitot tube, it might allow the rudder to over travel,’ said Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board in Brazil.
The speed sensors need to be ultra-sensitive because the safety margin for a plane's speed at high altitude is so narrow that pilots call it 'coffin corner'. Either 70mph too fast or too slow and a jet can either stall or nosedive.One Air France pilot wrote on an Internet forum for airline professionals:
‘If the pitot tube is unreliable in bad weather and at high altitude, the plane becomes an airborne death trap. We need to know exactly how fast we are going or the plane will simply fall out of the sky.
'Another Airbus captain wrote: 'I have never been taught unusual altitude recovery in the simulator because I was told the plane has so many
in built protections. This sounds like very similar reasoning to what happened with the Titanic.'

Erick Derivry, spokesman of the main SNPL pilots union, said a threat to ask all pilots to stop flying the Airbus A330 and A340 jets elicited a 'very swift and positive' response from Air France.He said: 'Air France has provided us with an extremely pro-active and very accelerated replacement programme. From today, all Air France A330 and A340 flights will use planes equipped with at least two new sensors out of three on board.'"

Here from...
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/26821/

"What causes a passenger jet to suddenly plunge intact--with engines and wing surfaces working just fine--from cruising altitude into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, killing everyone aboard?The full report on Air France Flight 447 in 2009, in which 228 people died, is still in the works. But one expert told me that preliminary
data suggest a role for human confusion, and a failure to focus on the plane's "attitude" or position in the sky: nose up or down, wings tilting left or right.
"You have a perfectly good airplane, other than not having airspeed data," R. John Hansman, aeronautics professor at MIT, mentioned to me today after we discussed the release of preliminary data on the accident, recovered from "black boxes" fetched from 12,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. "They clearly lost situational awareness. If they'd had it, they would have been able to regain control of the airplane."French investigators have said that the plane was entering an area of turbulence, possibly severe. They've also said the plane suffered a failure of its airspeed indicators, possibly because of icing on a sensors known as a pitot tubes.The aircraft climbed from 37,500 feet to 38,000 feet, and "stall warning" was triggered.This meant they were in danger of losing "lift." Why those warnings were sounding---whether they were valid, or based on inaccurate speed data--or whether the pilots ignored the stall warning because they saw high speeds that were inaccurate, is unclear.
It was late at night, more than four hours into the flight. Stall warnings were sounding. Speed indicators were going haywire. The captain had been called to the cockpit by an alarmed co-pilot. It took only about three minutes for the plane to plunge 38,000 feet to crash, belly first, on the surface of the ocean."
Air France Flight 447 slammed into the Atlantic Ocean, intact and belly first, at such a high speed that the 228 people aboard probably had no time to even inflate their life jackets, French investigators said Thursday in their first report into the June 1 accident."
More comes from......
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/item_MNTYiMvhUX0vyhMe8ZTb7N#ixzz1XJUslNuh

"The aircraft sent out automated messages starting At 11:10 p.m., a cascade of horrific problems began.Automatic messages relayed by the jetliner indicate the autopilot had disengaged, suggesting Dubois and his two co-pilots were trying to
thread their way through the dangerous clouds manually.A key computer system had switched to alternative power and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged.An alarm sounded, indicating the deterioration of flight systems.
At 11:13 p.m., more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers also failed.The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., indicated complete electrical failure and a massive loss of cabin pressure -- catastrophic events, indicating that the plane was breaking apart and plunging toward the ocean."
Now,what happened to another Air France A380 when it encountered extreme turbalance on a flight from Venezuela to Paris?'When it encountered extreme turbulence, the Air France jet almost stalled and went into a nose-dive after hitting a storm.In the latest drama, the autopilot shut down as the plane hit a storm at 35,000 feet while flying from Venezuelan capital Caracas to Paris.The high-altitude alert in July chillingly echoed the cockpit chaos that preceded the fatal crash of an Air France Rio-Paris flight two years earlier, in which all 228 passengers died.

French daily Le Figaro said it had seen a report into the alert and Air France had launched a full investigation into the cause of the malfunction.The paper said the drama was 'comparable in every way' with the crash of doomed flight AF447 on June 1, 2009.It added: 'Only this time there were no victims, only two of the crew who were slightly hurt.'According to the report, the A340 Airbus was at its cruising altitude of 35,000ft, just as flight AF447 was before the accident, when it
hit extreme turbulence.'The plane hit a strong variation in wind speed and found itself going too fast - a situation which set off the "overspeed alarm".(With the ill fated A380 the incorrect airspeed data was the apparent cause of the disengagement of the autopilot, the reason the pilots lost control of the aircraft remains a mystery, in particular because pilots would normally try to lower the nose in case of a stall.)'At this point, the autopilot disconnected. It went into a steep climb and began losing speed.'The plane then slowed drastically to just 205
knots, with an Air France pilot telling Le Figaro: 'This was just three knots away from stalling and from probable catastrophe.'"

Now we're getting somewhere.What happened...."false" speed readings? The autopilot disconnects,perhaps, yes it did, it is indicated it did, the pilots had to fly the aircraft, but not the speed loss, the attitude of the aircraft.Clearly there is a problem, turbulance encountered, auto pilot disconnects but aircraft doesn't fly straight and level, and at speed, instead it goes in to a steep climb, begins to loose speed,the engines don't power up to compensate....clearly then there is a major problem, it centers about the autopilot AND flight computer problems (Airbus A380 is HEAVILY automated, and it makes it difficult for the pilots to fly manually, there is a joystick on either side for them to use when flying manually, a joystick.Here we can see the actula flight deck itself......

http://www.futurastudios.com/airbus-380-flight-deck/airbus-380-flight-deck-front.jpg

The Flight 447 accident may have some relevant similarities to other A330 incidents with other carriers. Three similar reports are on file at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), with two incidents relating to Airbus A330s with flight computer problems, plus one which involved a Boeing 777. In the October 2008 accident, this fault caused injuries to passengers and damage to the aircraft on Qantas Flight 72, en route from Singapore to Perth, Western Australia, which was forced into a dive by a malfunctioning ADIRU. These incidents often started with the automatic pilot's disengaging and sending out ADIRU failure messages. Incorrect speed indications were also observed.The airframe and ADIRU involved in the Qantas Flight 72 accident were also previously involved in another incident on Qantas Flight 68, 2006. The Qantas aircraft were equipped with ADIRUs manufactured by Northrop Grumman, while Flight 447 was equipped with an ADIRU manufactured by Honeywell. A memo leaked from Airbus suggests that there was no evidence that the Flight 447 ADIRU malfunction was similar to the failure in
the Qantas incidents.

An Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) is a key component of the integrated Air Data Inertial Reference System (ADIRS), that supplies air data (airspeed, angle of attack and altitude) and inertial reference (position and attitude) information to the pilots' Electronic Flight Instrument System displays as well as other systems on the aircraft such as the engines, autopilot, flight control and landing gear
systems. An ADIRU acts as a single, fault tolerant source of navigational data for both pilots of an aircraft.The ADR component of an ADIRU provides airspeed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and barometric altitude data. Ram air pressure and static pressures used in calculating airspeed are measured by small Air data modules (ADM) located as close as possible to the respective pitot and static pressure sensors. The ADMs transmit their pressures to the ADIRUs through ARINC 429 data buses.The IR component of an ADIRU gives attitude, flight path vector, ground speed and positional data.The ring laser gyroscope is a core enabling technology in the system, and is used together with accelerometers, GPS and other sensors to provide raw data. The primary benefits of a ring laser over older mechanical gyroscopes are that there are no moving parts, it is rugged and lightweight, frictionless and does not resist a change in precession.

Analysis of complex systems is itself so difficult as to be subject to errors in the certification process. Complex interactions between flight computers and ADIRU's can lead to counter-intuitive behaviour for the crew in the event of a failure. In the case of Qantas Flight 72, the captain switched the source of IR data from ADIRU1 to ADIRU3 following a failure of ADIRU1; however ADIRU1 continued to supply ADR data to the captain's primary flight display. In addition, the master flight control computer (PRIM1) was switched from PRIM1 to PRIM2, then PRIM2 back to PRIM1, thereby creating a situation of uncertainty for the crew who did not know which redundant systems they were relying upon.

Take note of this......

http://www.routesonline.com/news/24/atw/6975/qantas-suffers-second-a330-adiru-failure/

Qantas suffers second A330 ADIRU failure
by Geoffrey Thomas

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it was advised on Dec. 27 of an occurrence that day involving a QF A330-300 cruising at 36,000 ft. on its way from Perth to Singapore. Some 260 nm. northwest of Perth the autopilot disconnected and the crew received an Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor message (NAV IR 1 fault) indicating a problem with ADIRU No. 1.The crew implemented the new Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin procedure by selecting the IR 1 and ADR 1 pushbuttons to off (ATWOnline, Oct. 15, 2008). The aircraft returned to Perth.
ATSB said the incident "appears to be a similar event to a previous event involving an A330 aircraft." In the October incident, 70 of the 313 people onboard the A330 flying from SIN to PER were injured when the aircraft pitched up and then dove twice after a failure of ADIRU 1. An ATSB preliminary report issued in November suggested the possibility that transmissions from a naval communications station interfered with onboard systems.

Now note this also, involving ADIRU and autopilot, and note what happened.........

http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/777DataFailure.htm

On August 1, 2005, a Boeing 777-200, which had departed from Perth, received an EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) warning of low airspeed, as the plane was climbing through FL (flight level) 380. Simultaneously, the aircraft's slip/skid indication moved full right, on the PFD (Primary Flight Display). The PFD speed tape also displayed contradictory information: that the plane was approaching both the high speed limit and the low speed (stall) limit. The aircraft, still connected to the autopilot, pitched up and climbed to approximately FL410 as the airspeed decreased from 270 kts to 158 kts. The stall warning devices also activated.The PIC (pilot in command) "disconnected the autopilot and lowered the nose of the aircraft. The autothrottle commanded an increase in thrust which the PIC countered by manually moving the thrust levers to the idle position. The aircraft pitched up again and climbed 2,000 ft." The PIC advised ATC "that they could not maintain altitude and requested a descent and radar assistance. The crew was able to verify with ATC the aircraft speed and altitude."The PFD indications became accurate again as they were descending through FL200. The PIC attempted to use both the left and right autopilots, but had to turn them off after each one produced undesired command responses. "There were no control difficulties experienced when the aircraft was flown manually, but the autothrottle 'arm' switches remained in the 'armed' position."ATC radar vectors put the plane in position to conduct an ILS to R 03 at Perth. When they reached 3,000 ft, the PFD again began indicating erroneous low airspeed information. The autothrottle again responded by advancing the thrust levers. Since the pilot can override that
command, simply by manually adjusting those thrust levers, the plane was able to land safely at Perth. The FDR (flight data recorder), the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) and the ADIRU (air data inertial reference unit) were removed from the
plane, for a detailed examination. Under the supervision of the American NTSB, the ADIRU was shipped to its manufacturer for detailed analysis.The FDR data confirmed the erroneous acceleration values had been displayed on the PFDs, as the pilots reported. The ADIRU produced those erroneous acceleration values and they were used by the PFC (primary flight computer). As it was designed to do, the PFC compared the information from the ADIRU, to the information coming from the SAARU (Standby Air Data and Attitude Reference Unit). That comparison ability
enabled the PFC to reduce the severity of the initial pitching motion of the aircraft.

Have a look at this,or rather ALL OF THESE..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Data_Inertial_Reference_Unit#Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_124

Alitalia A-320

On 25 June 2005, an Alitalia Airbus A320-200 registered as I-BIKE departed Milan with a defective ADIRU as permitted by the Minimum Equipment List. While approaching London Heathrow Airport during deteriorating weather another ADIRU failed, leaving only one operable. In the subsequent confusion the third was inadvertently reset, losing its reference heading and disabling several automatic functions. The crew was able to effect a safe landing after declaring a Pan-pan.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 124

On 1 August 2005 a serious incident involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 124, occurred when a Boeing 777-2H6ER (9M-MRG) flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur also involved an ADIRU fault resulting in uncommanded manoeuvres by the aircraft acting on false indications. In that incident the incorrect data impacted all planes of movement while the aircraft was climbing through 38,000 feet (11,600 m). The aircraft pitched up and climbed to around 41,000 feet (12,500 m), with the stall warning activated. The pilots recovered the aircraft with the autopilot disengaged and requested a return to Perth. During the return to Perth, both the left and right autopilots were briefly activated by the crew, but in both instances the aircraft pitched down and banked to the right. The aircraft was flown manually for the remainder of the flight and landed safely in Perth.

Qantas Flight 68

On 12 September 2006, Qantas Flight 68, Airbus A330 registration VH-QPA, from Hong Kong to Perth exhibited ADIRU problems but without causing any disruption to the flight. At 41,000 feet (12,000 m) and estimated position 530 nautical miles (980 km) north of Learmonth, Western Australia, NAV IR1 FAULT then, 30 minutes later, NAV ADR 1 FAULT notifications were received on the ECAM identifying navigation system faults in Inertial Reference Unit 1, then in ADR 1 respectively. The crew reported to the later Qantas Flight 72 investigation involving the same airframe and ADIRU that they had received numerous warning and caution messages which changed too quickly to be dealt with. While investigating the problem, the crew noticed a weak and intermittent ADR 1 FAULT light and elected to switch off ADR 1, after which they experienced no further problems. There was no impact on the flight controls throughout the event. The ADIRU manufacturer's
recommended maintenance procedures were carried out after the flight and system testing found no further fault.

Jetstar Flight 7

On 7 February 2008, a similar aircraft (VH-EBC) operated by Qantas subsidiary Jetstar Airways was involved in a similar occurrence while conducting the JQ7 service from Sydney to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. In this event - which occurred 1,760 nautical miles (3,260 km) east of Learmonth - many of the same errors occurred in the ADIRU unit. The crew followed the relevant procedure applicable at the time and the flight continued without problems.

Qantas Flight 72

On 7 October 2008, Qantas Flight 72, an Airbus A330, departed Singapore for Perth. Some time into the flight, while cruising at 37,000 ft, a failure in the No.1 ADIRU led to the autopilot automatically disengaging followed by two sudden uncommanded pitch down manoeuvres, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). The accident injured up to 74 passengers and crew, ranging from minor to serious injuries. The aircraft was able to make an emergency landing without further injuries. The aircraft was equipped with a Northrop Grumman made ADIRS, which investigators sent to the manufacturer for further testing.

Qantas Flight 71

On 27 December 2008, Qantas Flight 71 from Perth to Singapore, the same A330-300 registration VH-QPA and the same ADIRU as involved in the Qantas Flight 68 incident, was involved in an incident at 36,000 feet approximately 260 nautical miles (480 km) north-west of Perth and 350 nautical miles (650 km) south of Learmonth Airport at 1729 WST. The autopilot disconnected and the crew received an alert indicating a problem with ADIRU Number 1.

Air France Flight 447

On 1 June 2009, Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean after transmitting automated messages indicating faults with various equipment, including the ADIRU. While examining possibly related events of weather-related loss of ADIRS, the NTSB decided to investigate two similar cases on cruising A330s.
TAM Flight 8091
On a 21 May 2009 Miami-Sao Paulo TAM Flight 8091 registered as PT-MVB, and on a 23 June 2009 Hong Kong-Tokyo Northwest Airlines Flight 8 registered as N805NW each saw sudden loss of airspeed data at cruise altitude and consequent loss of ADIRS control.

Now isn't it wonderful with the degree of automation we have,with the technical skill of the systems designers,the computer programmers,remember!Remember when you board your ADIRU/Autopilot equipped aircraft,and you hear your welcoming announcement, "Welcome aboard your flight where nothing can go wrong,can go wrong,can go wrong,can go wrong........"

Secret Squirrel Suggests How To Save The US Post Office

2011-09-07T07:47:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has seen the headlines, the writting in and on the media,such that the USPS, the U.S. Postal Service, is one the very verge, on the brink or, bankruptcy, indeed the headlines read..........

"Postal chief to testify on Capitol Hill as USPS could face default

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe will insist a retiree health benefits fund be rescaled, a spokeswoman says.

The hearing is called "U.S. Postal Service In Crisis: Proposals to Prevent a Postal Shutdown"

The U.S. Postal Service might miss a September 30 payment to a retiree fund
Officials vow no interruption in payroll, mail or payments to suppliers
Spokeswoman: "We've overpaid into our retirement funds" after a 2006 reform act."

Well things are interesting, the USPS is operating under the direction of The Congress, and can only act and make changes if Congress, in it's long winded and elephantine speedy sessions, legislates it so, approves it, passes the necessary bills.The United States Postal Service (also known as USPS, the Post Office or U.S. Mail) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.The USPS traces its roots to 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, where Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first postmaster general. The cabinet-level Post Office Department was created in 1792 from Franklin's operation and transformed into its current form in 1971 under the Postal Reorganization Act.
The USPS cannot act like a private company and adapt to changes in the market with great rapidity,rather it acts with the elephantine lumberings,encumbered by the government, the Congress specifically. Th USPS started with and by Ben Franklin, one of the many great doings of the be speckled balding lad,that and in between had time to attends meetings in England of The Naughty Hell Fire Club(they did have one girl member you know).In either case the USPS evolved and changed, but in recent times, it has changed for the worse, and so too has and did it's regulation.
There have been cuts in the labor force, presently down by 260,000 for a high of 900,000.But problems arise in funding the mail system, a system which relies on
Congress to set things, like the price of postage stamps, parcel delivery costs.In short the USPS, is at,near,or going under,bankruptcy,short of being saved by Congress coming up with the required funds, as the USPS is incapable of generating such funds as it is at present.

Curious it all is, that President Obama, and other Presidents, have mentioned to other nations,America's USPS being a government run and regulated entity, that, what with their problems in the Post Office, THEY should privatize their similarly government owned Postal Systems, those two major ones being, specifically, Great Britain, and Canada. Interesting, though that they are not quite as badly off as is the USPS US government run entity. BUT they have viable solutions to their
problems and implement them. Noticeably both Canada and Great Britain,in their solutions to things,

They made staffing cuts (some have suggested a further 120,000 job cuts to the US one),
They have shut down extremely expensive to run,keep, and maintain,low level, or redundant post offices,those specifically government owned,run operated.

They have farmed out mini post offices to such places as pharmacies(chemists), and other locations, even yet heavily traveled groceries in their wisdom, in efforts to increase utility and availability to their public.The USA could do the same.

They have removed,or are in the process of removing, Saturday mail deliveries,(indeed worse to worse, one could consider a MWF system, deliveries of mail on Monday,Wednesday, and Friday).

They have reduced postal processing plants, and enlarged existing ones to a more centralized,efficient,stream lined, lower cost structure.
They have added and increased post offices as retail outlets for certain commodities,generating increased revenues.

They have increased the costs of their stamps, as in cost to deliver mail, first class and otherwise.Indeed the USA could increase such stamps to 25% above the present sale level, and still not be at their level of stamp/mail delivery/handling
cost. This is also true of parcel postage costs as well,in broad spectrum over the entire system.
Yes, the USPS is a good deal compared with theirs, but then theirs are not quite facing the problem that the USPS faces, that of the real threat of obvious bankruptcy.In short, they figured out how to stream line,render cost effective,their postal systems. The USPS must go down the same road. It is also evident their manners of operation are different, they are much more run in the model of a business, than is the US lumbering elephantine system of evident mismanagement starting with a weak minded and slow US Congress as it's actual head.The USA must adapt and change the actual day to day running of the post office, and actually model it after that of Canada and Great Britain,for as imperfect as theirs are, theirs are in much better shape than a USPS run by Congress, quite obviously.It has problems all the way down the line.
Let's look at the facts and figures......

The USPS employs over 574,000 workers(presently) and over 218,000 vehicles, and if it were a civilian company, it would be the second-largest employer in the United States after Wal-Mart, and the operator of the largest vehicle fleet in the
world.The USPS operates the largest civilian vehicle fleet in the world, with an estimated 218,684 vehicles, the majority of which are the easily identified Chevrolet/Grumman LLV (Long-Life Vehicle), and the newer Ford/Utilimaster FFV (Flex-Fuel Vehicle), originally also referred to as the "CRV" (Carrier Route Vehicle). In an interview on NPR, a USPS official stated that for every penny increase in the national average price of gasoline, the USPS spends an extra $8 million per year to
fuel its fleet.The number of gallons of fuel used in 2009 was 444 million, at a cost of US$1.1 billion.
Strangely enough, it appears that the USPS pays federal gasoline tax,18.4 cents per gallon,but should the Federal government exempt the USPS vehicles from such tax, that would a a relief expense to the USPS.

The USPS is obligated to serve all Americans, regardless of geography, at uniform price and quality. The USPS has exclusive access to letter boxes marked "U.S. Mail" and personal letterboxes in the United States, but still competes against private
package delivery services, such as UPS and FedEx.

Domestic US first-class mail costs 44¢ for envelopes (29¢ for post cards)

Canada domestic .59(inc postcards) 1.03 to USA, international 1.75......obviously the US can and should increase postal rates for letters to say 25% to match Canadian levels,that in the very least. Parcel rates are approximatily half of the
Canadian rates.......The U.S.P.S. has never taken any tax payer money . All revenue is self generated.
The USPS obviously, being on the brink of bankruptcy, is NOT being properly run, the proper steps are not being taken to make it properly run.

One can only make suggestions as to how to save the post office. Obama and other Presidents have suggested to other nations with struggling Post Office systems, system STILL YET running far better than America's that THEY should privatize their Post Office systems. Well, if that was and is such a good idea, and not the creative suggestions I have made above, then perhaps, yes, President Obama, should take the step and take his own advice to those with Post Offices in far better financial conditions than his, then,ipso facto, President Obama should follow his own advice, for the good of America and the USPS and should PRIVATIZE THE USPS?

Secret Squirrel Comments On Fish Stocks And The Seal Hunt.

2011-09-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

Whilst happily munching of Fish 'n Chips,Secret Squirrel realized that there are those who do not approve of the seal hunts.Squirrel has heavily pondered this issue as well, and has decided to comment on that issue as it directly affects
Squirrel's munching of fish 'n chips of any particular variety of fish that makes his fish n' chips, and also, notes that the seals,sadly, affect and impact heavily, on the fish stocks of mankind, in short Squirrel is all for you as well having any particular type of fish you choose to eat. Unfortunately, there is one thing between you and doing so......the seals you see.Yes, the seals. Ponder this, each seal,eats,what Canada est. of a population (locally to Canada) of 6 million seals, eat aprox. 35 pounds of fish per seal per day and that equals about 77 billion pounds of fish.Further it is widely known that seals eat between 6%-8% of their body weight in fish per day.How much fish will 10,000 seals eat in a day? Well, if those 10,000 seals weigh 500 pounds each, they would consume 350,000 lbs. of fish per day or 2.45 million pounds of fish per week.Both grey and common seals eat a variety of prey - fish, shellfish, squid and octopus,and assorteds including cod, herring, flounder, sculpin, salmon, mackerel, sandeel, shrimp and whelk.They are opportunistic feeders,while they have preferences, they will and do eat whatever is available.And eat they have, they eat so much they have adversely impacted the fish stocks,of Canada, and other regions and nations of the world as well. Canada has great problems within it's fisheries, a shortage of the commodity of fish.
Particularly any NewFoundlander can tell you this, and explain things to you. One recalls their hardship, still continuing of the sad necessity of the shutting down,basically, of the fisheries of Newfoundland,due to the exceptionally low fish stocks."A sustainable fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is vital to our economy and to those who make their living from the sea,"said Minister Peter Penashue, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Regional Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador."Our government recognises the importance of this key industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and we are committed to maintaining a strong connection with those communities for which the fishery is so important."
The industry collapsed entirely by 1993 six cod populations had collapsed, forcing a belated moratorium on fishing. Spawning biomass had decreased by at least 75% in all stocks, by 90% in three of the six stocks, and by 99% in the case of 'northern' cod, previously the largest cod fishery in the world.The waters now appear to be dominated by crab and shrimp rather than fish. After a 10 year moratorium on fishing the cod had still not returned.The devestating collapse of the cod stocks off the east coast of Newfoundland forced the Canadian government to take drastic measures and close the fishery. Over 40,000 people lost there jobs. The communities are still struggling to recover. The marine ecosystem is still in a state of collapse.

The collapse of this vital and important fishery sounded a warning bell to governments around the world who were shocked that a relatively sophisticated, scientifically-based fisheries management program. A major way to rebuild fish stocks are to actually increase sealing.The principal groundfish species of Atlantic Canada are cod, small flatfishes (plaice and flounder), redfish, haddock, pollock, turbot, halibut and silver hake. Of these, haddock on the Scotian Shelf, northern cod and northern Gulf cod are in need of rebuilding,these are fish seals consume.In 1996, Tobin announced a massive federal subsidy, literally paying fishermen per pound of seal they killed. Hunt numbers exceeded 240,000 seals that year, and have remained high since. The following year in a controversial move, Fred Mifflin (Brian Tobin's successor as Fisheries Minister) announced the reopening of cod fisheries off Newfoundland's south coast and in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence.Sealing must continue, and must increase, as the seal population decreases, fish stocks replenish, increase,re establish themsleves such that Canada and it's fisherman can once again enjoy a livelihood in the tradiational fisheries, and we, the people, are free to eat the cod and other fish the seals would have massively consumed.

One must look at the issues at hand in a sane manner, perhaps a cold manner, but a logical one. Mankind comes before seals our food supply comes before seals we come before seals.One must remeber as an added bonus the seals give fur for warm clothing,regardless, and also that seal meat can also be a viable food stock as well and shuld also be taken in to account.These are the added pluses of the seal hunt. Mankind wins all round and about, and, of course, seals loose, but asthe
french say, C'est la vie, and the emphasiss is on vie, life, the life of mankind.

There are negative impacts of grey seal predation on fish populations, particularly Atlantic cod. Over the last 30 years, the grey seal population off the coast of Atlantic Canada has grown rapidly - from 30,000 in the 1970s to over 350,000 today and it continues to grow.Scientific research suggests that grey seal predation could account for much of the high natural mortality of cod in the
southern Gulf of St Lawrence. At current rates of natural mortality, stock growth is not likely unless productivity increases well above levels observed in the past decade.

A Zonal Advisory Process (ZAP) on the impacts of grey seals on fish populations in eastern Canada concluded October 8, 2010. Science advice from the ZAP will inform DFO on the extent to which management decisions regarding grey seal population control are likely to achieve measurable increases in cod productivity and biomass. The current harp seal harvest is conducted as an economically sustainable activity. It can make an important contribution to the annual income of people living in rural coastal communities where other economic opportunities are limited, which may reduce outmigration to large urban centres. The loss of
economic opportunities would have an important impact on people in these small communities.The seal harvest provides direct employment for over six thousand people per year on a part-time basis. Some sealers have stated that their income from sealing can represent a significant amount of their total annual income.

There are also many secondary economic benefits derived from the seal industry. Seals have been harvested for food, fuel, clothing and other products for hundreds of years. Seal products consist of leather, oil, handicrafts, and meat for human and
animal consumption as well as seal oil capsules rich in Omega-3. New product development such as for specialized seal food products and research into the use of harp seal heart valves in human heart surgery is ongoing.Estimates from DFO and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador find that between 5,000 and 6,000 individuals derive some income from sealing. This is approximately 1 per cent of the total provincial population, and 2 per cent of the labour force. This is a substantial number of individuals in the context of small rural communities.

The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) regulates the seal hunt in Canada. It sets quotas (total allowable catch-TAC), monitors the hunt, studies the seal population, works with the Canadian Sealing Association to train sealers on new regulations, and promotes sealing through its website and spokespeople.
The DFO set kill quotas of 270,000 seals in 2007, 275,000 in 2008, 280,000 in 2009, and 330,000 in 2010. The actual kills in recent years have been less than the quotas: 82,800 in 2007, 217,800 in 2008, 72,400 in 2009, and 67,000 in 2010. In 2007, Norway claimed that 29,000 harp seals were killed in its seal hunt, and Russia and Greenland claimed that 5,476 and 90,000 seals were killed in 2007, respectively.
The hunt remains highly controversial, attracting significant media coverage and protests each year.Numerous celebrities have opposed the commercial seal hunt. Rex Murphy has reported celebrities have been used by antihunt activists since the mid-20th century; Yvette Mimieux and Loretta Swit were recruited to attract the attention of international gossip magazines.Other celebrities who have aligned themselves against the hunt include Richard Dean Anderson, Kim Basinger, Juliette Binoche, Sir Paul McCartney, Heather Mills, Pamela Anderson, Martin Sheen, Pierce Brosnan, Morrissey, Paris Hilton, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Rutger Hauer,Brigitte Bardot, Ed Begley, Jr., Farley Mowat, Linda Blair, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers.Yes, seals are cute, they clap their flippers together,bark, and get tossed fish at Marinelands, and in circus',but they are voracious breeders, and voracious eaters,consumers, of fish stock.Jacques Cousteau, renowned worldwide as a pioneer of marine conservation, criticized the seal hunt protests,and wisely and sanely supported the hunting of seals.

Sealing also in itself is an intergral part of Canada's trade and economy. Canada's biggest market for seal pelts is Norway. Canada sold pelts to eleven countries in 2004. The next largest were Germany, Greenland, and China/Hong Kong.In recent years, China has become a market for seal fur. Other importers were Finland, Denmark, France, Greece, South Korea, and Russia. Asia remains the principal market for seal meat exports.One of Canada's market access priorities for 2002 was to "continue to press Korean authorities to obtain the necessary approvals for the sale of seal meat for human consumption in Korea." Canadian and Korean officials agreed in 2003 on specific Korean import requirements for seal meat.For 2004, only Taiwan and South Korea purchased seal meat from Canada.Canadian seal product exports reached C$18 million in 2006. Of this, C$5.4 million went to the EU.

Other nations hunt seals,the more the merrier,for every seal killed, there's 35 pounds of fish that is available for mankind,each day, and there's 35 pounds of fish per day more to breed yet more fish, and increase the sadly depleted fish stocks.Other nations with seal hunts are Norway, Namibia, Russia, Greenland(Denmark), Sweden,also Japan(Japanese economy is boosted by seal hunting giving leather, oil, meat, gelatin, and fertilizer.

Between 1995 and 2005, an average 160,000 seals have been reported landed every year in Greenland. This makes Greenland the second largest sealing range state in the world, after Canada. Five species of seal are found and traditionally hunted in Greenlandic waters: the ringed, harp, hooded, bearded and harbour seals2. Regarding harp seals, between 65,000 and 90,000 animals are landed every year and for every seal landed, another is estimated to be struck and lost at sea1, bringing the total kill of Greenland’s harp seals to some 130,000 – 180,000 animals per year. Greenland has a total population of about 56,000 people of whom 88% are Inuit or mixed Danish and Inuit. Traditionally, sealing contributed to the subsistence of the people and has been an important part of the cultural identity.Harp and ringed seals are the main hunted species (98% of the reported catch for all seals in 20051). Previously, the ringed seal was the main species for subsistence (food and income) but the subsidies from the fur industry made it more attractive to hunt harp seals as hunters are offered a better price for harp skins.
According to the authorities, sealing still provides basic food supply to most Greenlandic communities, both for human consumption and feed for sled dogs.

annual catch of seals in Greenland:
Years Harp Ringed Hooded Seal
1995 63,263 79,105 7,179
1996 74,676 89,938 9,891
1997 69,567 80,207 7,492
1998 82,217 78,747 6,335
1999 50,017 83,343 7,455
2000 99,801 80,293 5,844

2001 86,763 78,432 6,503
2002 67,725 82,491 4,806
2003 67,607 80,645 6,336
2004 72,169 77,374 5,853
2005 90,351 89,773 4,096

Seals can be hunted year round by any Greenlandic citizen with a licence. Hunting licences are either “commercial” or “recreational”. Hunters with a commercial licence are “full-time” hunters2,5, while hunters with a recreational licence are
“free time” or “part-time” hunters. The majority (66%) of commercial hunters claim they have no additional occupation besides fishing and hunting while 24% state that they have additional occupation(s).The hunting of seals in Greenland is monitored each year by observers from NAMMCO, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, who inspect the hunting from vessels or from land.

The NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods provides advice on hunting and NAMMCO has implemented a Joint Control Scheme
for the Hunting of Marine Mammals which includes international observation of sealing to monitor whether legislation is respected in the four member countries (Norway, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Greenland, which currently holds the
chairmanship).The organisation notably defends the “rights and needs of coastal communities to make a sustainable living from what the sea can provide”. Seal hunting, or sealing, is most necessary to all nations, and in the best interests of all nations.

In fact sealing quotas should in fact be raised from their present levels to replenish the sadly dwindling and reduced fish stocks so necessary to nations,to mankind. We must put aside the fact that seals are cute, that they are circu performers, that they are marineland performers, rather they are in fact rodents, sea rodents, rodents who have a voracious appetite for fish, who have contributed heavily to the depletion of fish stocks in the world.There must be sense and sensibility,sealing is in the best interests of mankind,and must not only be condoned, encouraged, continued, but also increased,for the good of our fish stocks.

Secret Squirrel Comments On Ever Rising Gasoline Prices.

2011-08-30T07:54:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has noticed the ever increasing price of gasoline and commences to consider what is the actual reason for such an increase......it's the oil companies,they're calling the shots,they're pulling the strings, in Congress, in The Senate, those of the President.Whenever they increase the price of gasoline, they increase their profits taken from a finite captive audience, in the hippee terms of the Sixties, "It's a corporate rip off!"Price gouging and it's relative price fixing have
unquestionably been applied successfully in concert with each other and in concert with The Oil Companies, and The "President(read also an influenced and lobbied Congress/Senate).The biggest oil companies have stifled competition to raise
prices and make record profits,and unquestionably they have knowingly, and with the collusion of members of Government,through various forms of influence and influential ,shall we say, lobbying,affected a price gouging,price fixing regimen of function,the status quo.

Whenever gas prices spike, calls mount to increase oil production in the United States. Then experts point out that this won't make a dent in gasoline prices. And politicians ignore them and keep calling for more oil drilling. Today President Obama went along with these calls by announcing plans to expand drilling in Alaska, and speed new exploration offshore,which doesn't have much relevance as,face it, gas consumption,yours, is basically fixed isn't it.....you only need and use so much,not more than you need,or use. Obama agrees to speed drilling, but don't expect it to help gas prices,it means nothing. ... Increasing drilling won't decrease gas prices for reasons mentioned,gas prices rise,profits rise, gas prices drop,profits drop. Yes there has been a steady rise of gasoline prices.When it's noticed, and mentioned, it drops a few cents and sits a bit..........then it increases again repeating the pattern, so in 1997 it was $1.23 per gallon, and now is about $3.05,in 2011.

Well there is supposed to be the law,the economic laws,the law of supply and demand, increased demand lowers prices for a commodity, but noticeably, America doesn't follow this LAW, indeed what with the oil companies the reverse is really true. You see, as gas consumption is really fixed in America, i.e. there is as much use as there is.there is a set market of consumption for a commodity such as gas, it's basically, face it, determined by the amount of cars on the road consuming you
know.If there is an increase it is a fixed calculable increase in consumption and only by that fashion. Increasing price then increase further sales, hence profits. A decrease would lower profits, but if determinable and increase in price would offset. Increase increase increase. One can't fail to notice, as well, that prices rise in virtual concert with all companies,within days of each other, upwards, narry does one keep the price lower to increase profits by increasing sales in quantity...no indeed,it just wouldn't be sporting nor fair to the other companies who raised their prices would it now?

One also sees that when there is a drop in oil prices, the price at the pump remains, and further yet,increases.Obama increasing oil production within the United States has absolutely no bearing on price of gas at the pump in America, it
is set, by the oil companies,and one suspects with governmental collusion. You see the oil companies didn't increase said increases in drilling,the oil companies did, really, and if oil companies had to ask, could he, would he say no........ hhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,speed drilling,drill more, doesn't the oil belong to these oil companies........................or thence it IS the US government controlling things, hence profits,hence price of gas in America.You see if increased production occurs, this has no bearing on increased consumption, as the increased production implies shortage, and there is and are no shortages of gas, there never are.Increasing production of gas does not have bearing on consumption either as you cannot and never ever do consume more than you need.

Let me explain it like this, the seasonal summer drought means I cut my grass less times, I consumed only 2 1/2 gallons of gas this summer, because that's as much as was needed, given a bad summer when I have to cut more, it could be 5 gallons, hence that is my consumption, only what I need..........this is true for all who cut their grass, but as always with actual figures on grass cutting it will vary and level out including ALL of America, hence constant fixed consumption of necessity regardless of available quantity of said gas.The same is true of cars, increase gas prices and some may drive less, yes, consume less, not more, due to cost, then make available more gas, and so what, the price is there,they're not running to consume more since there's more available, they're consuming only what they need,what they actually need.Increasing gas prices will not increase gas consumption, nor will making more gas available cause increased gas consumption since gas consumption is fixed.

In 1978, U.S. gasoline consumption was about 7.4 million barrels per day

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=gasoline&graph=consumption

Source: United States Energy Information Administration

Consumption Thousands of Barrels per Day...(42 US gallons per barrel)

year consumption change

1997 18,666.60 1.82 %
1998 19,097.87 2.31 %
1999 19,403.20 1.60 %
2000 19,883.51 2.48 %
2001 20,077.91 0.98 %
2002 20,186.03 0.54 %
2003 20,404.55 1.08 %
2004 20,867.42 2.27 %
2005 21,166.90 1.44 %
2006 21,472.00 1.44 %
2007 21,642.91 0.80 %

Present day, 2011, consumption is about 22,000.00 so there's been a 4,000 per rise 1997 to present.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

Motor Gasoline Consumption by Country

Rank Country consumption (Thousand Barrels per Day)
1 United States 9,285.67
2 China 1,285.53
3 Japan 1,023.96
4 Mexico 744.94
5 Canada 724.81
6 Russian Federation 672.05
7 Germany 492.92
8 United Kingdom 410.05
9 Iran, Islamic Republic Of 403.29
10 Saudi Arabia 347.16
11 Australia 331.26
12 Brazil 331.18
13 Indonesia 321.52
14 Italy 288.25
15 Venezuela 269.29

From........

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=gasoline&graph=consumption

and at

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop-people-population&date=1997

US Gasoline Consuption Per Year, in Thousand Barrels per Day

Year Gas TB/D Change Population

1997 8,016.84 1.60 % 272,657,000 $1.23/us gallon
1998 8,253.42 2.95 % 275,854,000
1999 8,430.80 2.15 % 279,040,000
2000 8,472.06 0.49 % 282,224,000 $1.60/us gallon
2001 8,610.03 1.63 % 285,318,000
2002 8,847.83 2.76 % 288,369,000
2003 8,934.90 0.98 % 290,810,000
2004 9,105.41 1.91 % 293,655,400 $2.01/us gallon
2005 9,159.26 0.59 % 296,410,400
2006 9,252.53 1.02 % 298,988,100
2007 9,285.67 0.36 % 301,139,947 $2.80/us gallon
2010 312,090,000 $3.05/us gallon
2011 $3.63/us gallon

So from 1997 to present the price per gallon at the pump has tripled,though population rose only 12.6% Public Citizen estimates that Big Oil has taken in a quarter of a trillion in profits under the Bushes. Two-thirds of adults in a recent poll said gas prices had caused them "financial hardship."It just gets worse.

And in 2011...........

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/economy-and-business/Oil-Company-Profits-Surge-120870129.html

Major oil companies like ExxonMobil and Shell are reporting a surge in profits as crude oil prices rise and energy demand grows.ExxonMobil said Thursday that the firm made nearly $11 billion in the first three months of this year, a 69 percent improvement over the same period a year ago.Shell reported more than $6 billion net income for the quarter, a 22 percent gain over the same three month period last year.In the United States, higher energy costs are blamed for slowing economic growth as drivers cope with sharply higher gasoline prices. That is why higher energy prices are becoming a key issue for voters and politicians.

Of course, we realize,don't we, that increases in sales of a quantity of a commodity,such as gasoline, increases profits, but in cases where sales of a given commodity are limited but purchase quantity/necessity,increases in price of sold
commodity,such as gasoline, increases the profits as well.If they now decrease the cost of gasoline, their profits will drop accordingly,something they're loath to do having discovered that by increasing the price of gasoline,say from 1997 levels of
$1.23 per gallon, they're making much more in 2011 selling the same gallon at $3.63. It's been done slowly, but the effect of what they have presented as nickle and dimeing, has had a major effect on your pocket book and also on THEIR profit levels.

Some have woken up to fact that 74% of Americans regard the gasoline price rises as being gouging/price fixing......

http://rt.com/usa/news/gas-price-fixing-investigation/

Here commences the informative informational news content epistle,,,,,,,

US Senate Democratic leaders set a letter to the Federal Trade Commission requesting a formal investigation into whether oil companies have intentionally restricted the supply of gasoline to manipulate consumer prices.Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill made the push for the letter following a meeting on Capitol Hill where executives from America’s major oil companies testified and were questioned on why major oil companies received large tax benefits and subsidies. Many Democrats feel the hand-outs to big oil need to stop, but the industry is defiant.
“At a time when major refiners and oil companies are making record profits and American families continue to struggle with gasoline at record prices the idea that refiners may be manipulating the market to keep prices artificially high goes beyond reproach," said a statement released by Democratic leaders. "It is incumbent upon the Commission to ensure that the American
people are protected from this type of manipulation. Accordingly, we request that the Commission open a full investigation into these allegations of wrongdoing and to determine the impact this behavior, if confirmed, has on regional and national gasoline prices." McCaskill, in her push for FTC intervention, cites a report that shows oil companies are only using 81.7 percent of their overall capacity – a 7 percent decline for last year.“The rise in the price of oil is certainly a driving factor behind the recent rise in gasoline prices, but concerns have been raised that while gasoline use is declining, US gasoline inventories remain below average and refining margins continue to rise. According to information posted by the Energy Information Administration US refiners are using only 81.7 percent of
their capacity, a decline of 7 percent from the same time last year. Moreover, since the beginning of 2011 U.S. refiners have
seen over a ninety percent increase in their refining margins. While some have argued that this increase is due to potential impacts from recent flooding along the Mississippi River, this cannot justify the steady increases in their margins since January of this year,” said the letter to the FTC.

here ends the epistle....

Politicians have realized the price of gasoline is becoming a contentious issue, and offer manipulating prices downwards for electoral gains,recall that 2012 is an election year,but it is the epitome of low-hanging fruit,and once elected, it won't occur, for in doing so, it merely confirms the price gouging,price fixing collusion of members of The House Of
Representatives,The Presidency,and, of course, Big Oil.Sarah Palin wrote a post March 15 headlined the “$4-Per-Gallon President.”,Obama, of course. In her blog, she blamed the president,but actually it is The President, AND The Oil Companies, as it has ever been in the past,so is it now, and ever shall be,and is and would be and also even if she were the President ,everybody's been getting the business......... it's BIG BUSINESS.

Secret Squirrel Sets The Time For All Time.

2011-08-28T16:21:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has pondered the many time zones in the world which we suffer from, flying through each necessitates resetting a watch, and finally, also affects the actual date,which creates the International Date line.Well,the time zones have to go, and taking with them the International Date line as a consequence,making things much easier and less confusing.Confused? Read on,consider Simon and Garfunkle sing.........Time,time,time,to see what's become of me........the group Chicago sings...Does anybody really know what time it is, does anybody really care about time? Man sees to have an obsession about time, time for this time for that, time to do this, time to do that. He even makes things difficult for himself concerning time,but if he has or had a maid, I suppose he could make time, I do. Goldie Hawn enlightened us concerning time, in her time, and all in good time, on the American tele program Rowan and Martin's Laugh In on the Educational section of Laugh In (Rowan and Martin)..Goldie Hawn enlightened us in and after this fashion....

here encapsulated from.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b7BGBa6MTI

"There are four time zones in the United States for example when you're having lunch in Chicago it's breakfast time in California.Of course if you're in Chicago you wouldn't feel like breakfast if you're from California because you've just had lunch.However for those living in New York it's dinner time while we're still eating lunch here in California which means the time is totally different as in the menu.All this is caused by the sun which cannot be everywhere you know otherwise it would never be night and we would never know when to eat dinner.Well in my time zone that's all the time I have but maybe in your time zone they haven't finished
yet."

Well explained, and I would certainly have her as my maid.

Taking things further on in proper consideration let us ponder.Having time zones creates problems virtually all the time, for example my cousin Matilda called from Greece,where she was vacationing, and there's a 6 hour time difference between there and where I was at that particular time,while between here,and Greece there is a 2 hour time difference, at the same time that there's the 6

hour difference in what we call the East Coast North American Colonial zone.Besides this virtual and real clash,there are even yet time disputes, say between Greenwich Mean Time which the world is on, and the American Co-Ordinated Universal Time,that of a second give or take,according to them,they,the Americans.Besides these we have Apparent Solar Time,Siderial Time,Mean Solar Time,Ephimeris Time,International Atomic Time,Terrestrial Dynamic Time,Barycentric Dynamical Time,Terrestrial Dynamical Time(which they now insist
on calling Terrestrial Time),Geocentric Coordinate Time,Barycentric Coordinate Time, and all whatever else names they have for time at any particular time.Oh well,let them have their way,whatever,and they can have CUT and the rest of the world can have GMT. All I really want to know is when it is time to do the maid, which I get from her,and when I get to get her, which is known as Time For The Maid,the most important time of the day.

They have different ways and means of measuring time, and things like The Senate Ways And Means Committee which often meets at any particular time, and probably discusses the ways and means of getting to their maids as well,or whatever they choose to call them. But, does it all really matter.You know that as we cross each artificially determined and set time zone, we must adjust our watches, either forwards or backwards as they,whoever,determined,which really doesn't affect nor have to do with my Maid Time,which occurs whenever it does. Now, I once fell asleep on the airplane, and lo and behold, when I woke up, I was in a different time from everybody else, I had time traveled it seems, they were ahead of me in time zones at that time, and I was behind them, but even having a different time, I still got my maid on time. I got used to having time traveled,you know being out of time,for that matter so had everybody else with respect to me, as they could be out of time, at the wrong time and whatever.I didn't matter to them, and they didn't matter to me, what only mattered was when was it time for the maid,and we couldn't affect anything as the maid would decide that.So, time zones don't really matter then do they.

Consider J. G. Ballard's Chronopolis,a short story of his.Chronopolis' - city of time - is an ironic name for a city that has no time,we are told that Newman is in prison for understanding time,Newman is 'serving time' for being obsessed with time ,the reason time was banned in Chronopolis,is because people couldn't stand being organised, and having a specific time to do everything. This was obviously not a good thing for them, as they ended up being too organised - everything was pre- planned. The population was split up into social classes - each of which had their own time zones, clocks, currency and library tickets. Each of these classes had their own colour: 'blue for executives, gold for professional classes, yellow for military and government officials... green for manual workers and so on.". It is easy to see why the people resented this - it is like our society taken to the extreme, where nobody has any free will, and cannot even choose when to watch television - 'your time programmed told you when you could switch on your T.V. set and when to switch off,we could be doomed to years of watching Celine Dion singing, which is the only way she could generatea tele audience in either case, heaven for her hell for all of us... the viewer's economic status obviously determined the choice of
program in Chronopolis, we'd have to pray we had sufficient status not to have to watch Celine Dion.

Eventually the population revolted,(many it seems were subjected to watching Celine Dion,this leading to the banning of time,so that it could never again be time to watch Celine Dion sing.In Chronopolis,there was a character, named Marshall and there he is the keeper of law and order in this chaotic world,of the future past in time. He has spent his whole life winding up as many clocks in Chronopolis as he possibly can (and now has 278 running), all on his own. Yet when Newman arrives, he discovers that they are seven and a half years out. It is ironic that Marshall has spent his whole life trying to bring back time, yet his time is completely distorted.The world of Chronopolis is in fact similar to ours in every single way - except for one point, the absence of time, which makes it completely different.Chronopolis emphasizes the human ability to cope and adjust to different situations - the people of Chronopolis have got used to a world without time, and almost forgotten they ever had it.And good for them too.

Consider the time zones as they are. It is x amount of time here, in Greece the time is X plus 6,they being ahead of us, So it is 6 o'clock here, say, so it is 12 o'clock in Greece at exactly the same time.So to call here or there at anytime, you have to consider the time here and there,or simply not care about it. Why change the time anyway, we could NOT change the clocks as we cross time zones, or even when we think we actually do by calling there, in short, we simply select the time given as in say Greenwich at the specific moment, as in say now, and declare it to be 6,o'clock, and set our clock accordingly, everywhere, and it is 6 o'clock and
time advances as it does and it will from there,everywhere,in short it is the same time at all times everywhere in the world. It is no longer 6 o'clock here, and 12 o'clock there, it IS precisely, 6 O'clock everywhere,and the same goes for all time, 5 o'clock is 5 o'clock everywhere else etc etc etc.Indeed it works out grandly.We keep AM PM,or use the 24 hour representation, call it World Time in either case. So all we have to know is "over there"is it day or night,at what time do we and they eat what, when stores and business are open etc. just like we do here,but concerning their time for things, as we really did before, without the ridiculous
and encumbering calculations required due to the presence of the differing time zones.We would still have and keep firm the anchor of GMT, securely we set all our clocks just once, to the time in Greenwich, GMT Midnight,(New Years always comes at GMT midnight,pm/am), and off we go with a nice standardized, unencumbered sane system of time,everybody's time, all at the same time,
all in time, all keeping in time at the same time.Now, I've fixed your clock and everybody else's,and it's about time too isn't it,and if you'll excuse me, it's time for............. the maid.

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,MP (Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel On National Debts,Money, And Gold.

2011-08-25T14:53:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel is pondering national debts, and working with the national debts, in short, Squirrel has embarked on philosophical economic considerations of things of economics which are as they are, and may not seem to be as they are but they
are, and what they should be, yet aren't,and even yet might not yet be.To be or not to be,that is the question,economically strong is the completion of it.The United Sates,formerly regarded as being the humungous heavily muscled King Kong of the economies of the world, through the power of the ever almighty printed up fiat paper and ink based currency, has now been found to be some form of strange miniature but seemingly economically possibly killable midget monkey.Of sorts. You see whilst America has debt problems,most major nations,but not all, have been revealed as having massive debt problems,also. In the same vein as America, almost also bankrupt,and as America probably morally so as well, the other major nations are Ireland (94.2% debt versus gdp), Iceland (123.8%), Greece (144%), Spain (63.4%),Italy (118.1%) .Curiously though, lets examine America, which though it prints up money whilly nilly seemed to be in an internal position of not ,at least almost not, being ALLOWED, by it's Congress,to print up more currency for itself to run.It's national debt is placed at 58% of it's GDP, but this is far below the
% GDP debts of many European countries, and those regarded as being stronger economies.America's is 58% of GDP,yet they had a massive crisis.Why ever did they have a humungous crisis, and not those other nations yet more of a crisis.

Well,through it all the massively indebted nation of Canada remained undisturbed at a colossal 84% debt versus gdp, the UK is quiet at 76.5% and so too is France at 83.5%,and Germany at 78%.So,technically,if fiat money printing was linked to debt, the Americans should not be in any kind of a particular problem at all,concerning the per centage of GDP relationship, but strangely it was. What does it all mean?

Well let's confuse the issue by examining things as they are. Now the Australia national debt is at a paltry 22% of it's GDP,shall we say they're THE best of what we can call the Old Order,Old Economic Guard,nations. Now with canada at a whopping 84% debt of gdp,if dollars are equating, shouldn't Australia be allowed to further increase it's "debt" to the Canadian level, and increase dollar values out by 4 times..........great spending spree that'd be for them, and deserved as well,or conversely, shouldn't then a Canadian dollar be 25 cents versus the Australia(or increase to 4 dollars canadian equating to 1 dollar Australian.Well clearly Canada is an utterly inept and economically incompetent failure versus Australia.Wouldn't it be better for the Canadians if Britain gave Canada to the Australians to regulate,run,rule etc...life could be ever so much better..........!!!!!!!!!!Mind you it would still have winter.Now with the UK debt 76.5 % of gdp, and per capita productivity taken in to account,the Aussies rank above UK, and Uk also above Canada like per person per capita debts of respectively,41,39,31 thousands in terms of per capita debt ownership of the individual citizen, not that any citizen would wish to, nor does wish to,own his or her share of their national debt generated by governments regarded generally as being aliens of some sorts to them.So what is a dollar worth?It's not based on any value of gold or any other precious metal. It's not based on a national debt as percentage of GDP system.........obviously it cannot be else all of the above concerning Australia.
Now the USA is at 58% of the GDP debt.

Let's continue in the same vein.So the Aussie dollar ought to be worth 2us dollars to the Aussie dollar........the UK dollar value(even if pounds), 1 Aussie dollar worth 3.50 uk dollar values.But it isn't so is it.Well such is this thing of economics and finances.Now we find the US WANTS the Aussies to raise the value of their dollar versus the US dollar.They claim that by having a lower dollar value versus the Australians they force others to buy more from them,America, and the Aussies more,particularly, from whatever including America.But if the Aussie dollar was higher and got more dollars, the Aussies should be getting more bang for their buck in America, as in the car values in America say.Imagine a $18,000 car average
value, would be and should be accepted in exchange for said car 9000 Aussie bucks, BUT they want 18000 US bucks which at present is at par (or a touch higher cent of two aussie favor)as in equal value.But,they, the Americans, would not give the Aussies 2 US dollars in exchange for 1 Australian dollar,so the Aussies can't spend what they don't have but are entitled to,since when they want it to have it and use it, the Americans won't give it to them. Anyway you look at it,things are confusing,and the Aussies are getting the short end of things.

Things are getting more yet confusing.Imagine now they,the Americans, want to go back to the gold standard.What of things of gold?Under a gold standard, paper notes are convertible into pre-set, fixed quantities of gold.

The gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is a fixed mass of gold. There are distinct kinds of gold standard. First, the gold specie standard is a system in which the monetary unit is associated with
circulating gold coins, or with the unit of value defined in terms of one particular circulating gold coin in conjunction with subsidiary coinage made from a lesser valuable metal.

Similarly, the gold exchange standard typically involves the circulation of only coins made of silver or other metals, but where the authorities guarantee a fixed exchange rate with another country that is on the gold standard. This creates a de facto gold standard, in that the value of the silver coins has a fixed external value in terms of gold that is independent of the inherent silver value. Finally, the gold bullion standard is a system in which gold coins do not circulate, but in which the authorities have agreed to sell gold bullion on demand at a fixed price in exchange for the circulating currency.The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit (M2 deposits). Therefore, a return to the gold standard, if also combined with a mandated end to fractional reserve banking, would result in a significant increase in the current value of gold, which may limit its use in current applications.economic recessions can be largely mitigated by increasing money supply during economic downturns. Following a gold standard would mean that the amount of money would be determined by the supply of gold, and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy in times of economic recessionMonetary policy would essentially be determined by the rate of gold production. Fluctuations in the amount of gold that is mined could cause inflation if there is an increase, or deflation if there is a decrease.

In 2001, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad proposed a new currency that would be used initially for international trade among Muslim nations. The currency he proposed was called the Islamic gold dinar and it was defined as 4.25 grams of pure (24-carat) gold. Mahathir Mohamad promoted the concept on the basis of its economic merits as a stable unit of account and also as a political symbol to create greater unity between Islamic nations. The purported purpose of this move would be to reduce dependence on the United States dollar as a reserve currency, and to establish a non-debt-backed currency in accord with Islamic
law against the charging of interest. However, to date, Mahathir's proposed unified gold-dinar currency has failed to take hold.But present holdings in Muslim nations total 1328.3 Tonnes, or US 18Billion.This is interesting, it would be a workable
economy within the global economy, respting on participating nations having faith in their currency,their exchange standard.It magnifies and exposes the concept of the global economy and problem of the day. This idea of his should work,it is a mdoel of a workable economy, and economy in the world as it was, but isn't,it is the gold standard value economy.

The United States used gold as the basis for valuing the U.S. dollar successfully for roughly 180 years before President Richard Nixon embarked upon an experiment to end the practice in the 1970s that has contributed to a number of woes that the country is suffering from now.By restoring the gold standard, the United States would shift away from “less responsible policies” and toward a stronger dollar and a stronger America, he said. “If the dollar was as good as gold, other countries would want to buy it.” Forbes believe the US will return to the gold standard within 5 years.But here we have the starnge term.....buy the dollar......with what, gold they no longer have having cleared out their reserves.....some haven't noitcably the arab countries where it has been cherished and believed in from the beginning of time...but others cleared it out, almost entirely,So,now everybody has to go back to the gold standard?Most nations just spent their time getting away from the gold standard and getting rid of their gold. Why this sudden urge to go back to the gold standard?

Well, let's look at the tables.......

Top 10 Nations by Gold reserves :(tonnes)

Country Dec-09 Mar-09 % of reserves
United States 8113.5 8113.5 68.7
Germany 3407.6 3412.6 64.6
Italy 2451.8 2451.80 63.4
France 2435.4 2487.10 64.2
China 1054.0 1054.00 1.5
Switzerland 1040.10 1040.10 28.8
Japan 765.2 765.2 2.4
Netherlands 612.5 612.5 51.7
Russia 607.7 523.7 4.7
India 557.7 357.7 6.4
All other 26780 26349 10.2
Total 47825.5 47167.2
http://asiancorrespondent.com/29378/top-10-nations-by-gold-reserves/

Well,US holds the maximum gold reserves in the world. At the end of Dec 2009 the US has 8113.5 metric tons of gold in its foreign reserves. 68.7% of America’s foreign reserves are in the form of gold – highest by any country in the world. China on the other hand holds a mere 1.5% of its reserves in Gold. It is a big fan of green back and holds close to $2.5 trillion in foreign exchange, most of it in USD.Australia only holds about 8%,or 79.7tonnes, Canada 2% 3.4tonnes...hardly anything at all really,UK 312.2 tonnes.Europe,less Uk holds 13681 tonnes total,184 billion US.

But there is another stranger side of the coin as it were...let's talk a walk on the wild side, let's follow the left hand path, let's see what's on the dark side...that of things sinister.....

2009

Rank Country/Region Gold production (kilograms)

1 China 320,000
2 Australia 210,000
3 South Africa 210,000
4 United States 205,000
5 Russia 205,000
6 Peru 180,000
7 Indonesia 140,000
8 Canada 95,000
9 Ghana 90,000
10 Uzbekistan 80,000

Now to give an idea of production per year,let's exmine Australia's production.Now with gold at (per Kilo) $56,496.90, given Australian output at 210,000 kilos per annum, this equals in US Dollars, $11,864,394,000 which is 11.864 billion, or .118
trillion.Now One tonne is equal to 1000kg.So Australia's production is 210 tonnes per annum.It would take Australia, keeping all of it's own production, 38 years to equal America's present 8113.5 tonnes of reserves.Australia is a have, a very big have, so too are other seemingly poorer nations, but what then of the have nots?

The United States is in great field position,pretty much all round and about,massive debts or not,and their debt isn't the most massive in the world,Japan is at 225% of it's gdp take note, and plugging along quite nicely,thank you, in spite of it
all,facing no economic crisis what so ever,strangely enough.Yet the US debt,who's dollar is used as a world exchange currency,the world standard currency, has a debt of 14 trillion,at 58% of gdp, the Japanese at 225% of their GDP have a debt ot 9.8 trillion US dollars,the UK has a debt of 9.12 trillion but their is vastly less of it's gdp,only 76.5% of it's gdp to be exact.

China is also in really good field position, the best really within the world,in either case, debt based,fiat money based or gold based economy, but all the other nations with high gold reserves, aren't gold producers.What of the gold producers, would the Australian's then have to produce gold to give to the US for US dollars? But what of the non gold producing nations.

Obviously then the gold producing nations become the king nations of the new economic order over night.Indeed yes,why should they or do they have to sell gold at all, and for how much as well, in exchange for what and what ever also as well. Why shouldn't they not keep their own massively produced gold?Just look at Australia, South Africa, Russia, Peru, Indonesia, the economic colossus they would thence become, and should be,even yet today,but curiously aren't.

Obviously things are very very peculiar in the world of today, the world of money...........

ABBA

"Money Money Money"

I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That's too bad
In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd fool around and have a ball...

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

A man like that is hard to find but I can't get him off my mind
Ain't it sad
And if he happens to be free I bet he wouldn't fancy me
That's too bad
So I must leave, I'll have to go
To Las Vegas or Monaco
And win a fortune in a game, my life will never be the same...

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

It's a rich man's world

Secret Squirrel Ponders Mechanisms That Generate A National Debt.

2011-08-24T16:03:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel ponders the mystery,the illusion of this thing called an economy,the life blood of nations,this thing which generates a vast national debt that each nation simply cannot pay off, a national debt that is as illusionary as the sanctity of that thing called the dollar,that visible invisible piece of paper which nations print up to drive their economy,pay their bills,oil the machinery of capitalism,communism,socialism,that thing called money which nations simply never have enough of no matter how much of it they print,a fact they have just woken up to.

Yes,America has awoken to the fact that it is spending money it does not have, they the citizens have woken up to that, government has woken itself up to that fact, and almost didn't vote yes to print up more money to cover its previous debts INTEREST PAYMENTS,on money it had earlier printed up and spent...........err.........spent in America? Who would notice that? It seems America has been spending all over, all over the rest of the world, in similar fashion to the other nations of the world who are also in massive debt.Yes indeed, they're all spending money they don't have, and printing it up whilly nilly as well.As a matter of fact why just weeks before the American realization of debt came, Obama, it's President, was out and about yelling and screaming about other nations who were in danger of default on their debts, thundering,blundering ever louder than before, at Spain,Ireland,Italy,et cetera and especially at Greece, who somehow all managed to resolve their crisis, then suddenly Obama stepped in it, his own near default debt crisis.Sad is it not.

So in America it,the national debt, is set at $39,000 per person....THE NATIONAL DEBT.....a debt they claim is impossible to pay off.........why? well there seem to be so many in America who can't and won't come up with their 39,000 for the US government to give to the US government, to clear the national debt.why, because no doubt this figure includes the illegal Mexicans.We need them, you need them, turf them out and the numbers of people counted drop, and so then your share of the national debt rises, so, if there are MORE illegal immigrants, your share of the national debt will drop accordingly,so what if we move in to America all of the Mexicans, this'd be another 107,431,230, and YOUR national debt would drop by one quarter, (1.4),to a lower $30,000 approx. On the other hand we're only looking at a paltry $9000 drop, so maybe it's best to leave the Mexicans where they are,and we'd best get Obama to get the ones already in the USA,to send them back.

In the UK population 62,435,709,the national debt is 13,000 pounds per person...now the population of India,which once belonged to England you
know, is 1,210,193,422 , 19.3830332 times that of the UK, so divided by 19 is 643 pounds, give or take so, by readmitting them,the Indians,declaring them to be British,I know,yes, but we must have a use for them at the immediate moment, adding the figures, dividing reduces the national debt per person to that paltry sum,we then turf'em out again, and leave them with their debts to be paid,by whatever means they can or can't,not our problem really, and we have only a debt of 643 pounds per person, 40 146 160 887, 40.1billion or .401 trillion, a vast
reduction...........technique I,Squirrel,call debt transference and India is a convenience so we've made a convenience of them to conveniently reduce our debts,the debts of the UK..............The reabsorbed India could be left as is,where it is.THEN we then simply declare them once more self ruling.Turf'em, and their share of the debt remains THEIR responsibility.We must do this before the Americans find out,you see,India's population is 4 times that of America, if American absorbed India, that would add that amount of people to pay the
national debt and so the debt would divide per person,much easier to pay off,and be about say $9000 per person. So, the Americans could pay off their share, and,turfing them in like fashion,could leave the turfed Indians to pay their share off.Interesting system of reducing national debt, spreading it around somewhat more, thinning it out as it were, but alas and alack, merely wishful thinking.

So what is debt,besides being a huge global worrying amusement?It's stated that the USA has a national debt that is 58% of it's gdp,mind you that's far less than Canada's which is a colossal 84%, but then Australia seems to be best managed at only 22%.China's national debt is at 17.5% but can it be in such a good field position when it owns the US debt,meaning it owns noting, just IOU's on paper, really.

Interesting,the nations have no money, America has no money, but must print up money to pay off the interest on it's debts,and must print up money to operate internally.So, the nation has no money, but we see oil companies making vast profits, other companies making vast profits, and buying up foreign companies world wide,they have money, and the governmnet of America wouldn't allow them to operate if they had no money.Indeed the US even increased it's debts massively in the last years financing, on printed up money, their foreign wars of acquisition of
the arab oil lands, for the oil companies to make more profits.Curious.That's what it does, what they all do, print up money as they need it...no cause for alarm then, only when they threaten not to.Globally it's all really just a giant monopoly game,where each nation gets to add more monopoly money for it to loose(or spend), where ever and on whatever,with no cause for concern unless certain privileged members of the game complain about it at any given time.

So National debt, national debt, all the focus is on national debt.There's more to things than just the NAtional Debt,you know, There are internal debts,within nations,that occur. Take for example,the United States, made up of individual states,and we see,that yet, obviously, there is not one single state that does not have ever increasing debts of their own,as Schwartzenegger showed us by massively increasing California's debt such that everbody noticed this element of things.Let's have a look at America's state debts..........

State .. Total State Debt

.Nebraska .. 30,542,523 14%
.Wyoming .. 45,718,680 6%
.South Dakota .. 222,592,942
.North Dakota .. 230,276,464
.Iowa .. 237,620,624
.Montana .. 381,220,699
.Vermont .. 430,257,920 17%
.Alaska .. 601,385,253
.New Hampshire .. 695,401,875
.Idaho .. 792,995,913
.Maine .. 979,497,643
.Arkansas .. 1,083,543,750
.Utah .. 1,244,703,684
.Tennessee .. 1,467,027,182
.Colorado .. 1,708,414,320
.Delaware .. 1,883,539,616
.Oklahoma .. 1,884,082,550
.Rhode Island .. 1,908,414,708
.West Virginia .. 1,910,765,850
.Nevada .. 2,286,268,525
.New Mexico .. 2,801,481,374
.Indiana .. 3,095,940,466
.Kansas .. 3,281,021,508
.Alabama .. 3,748,131,568
.Missouri .. 4,011,678,600
.South Carolina .. 4,100,556,558
.Mississippi .. 4,363,050,088
.Minnesota .. 4,560,541,324
.Hawaii .. 4,759,779,150
.Louisiana .. 5,228,776,464
.Arizona .. 5,322,792,846
.Oregon .. 6,144,005,142
.Virginia .. 6,164,185,380
.Kentucky .. 6,371,944,901
.Michigan .. 7,636,810,882
.North Carolina .. 7,804,895,488
.Wisconsin .. 8,080,672,046
.Maryland .. 8,589,113,346
.Georgia .. 9,671,943,624
.Ohio .. 11,104,024,490
.Pennsylvania .. 11,974,528,650
.Texas .. 12,886,797,040
.Washington .. 13,908,174,965
.Connecticut .. 15,797,113,120
.Florida .. 20,669,835,435
.Illinois .. 24,232,837,693
.Massachusetts .. 28,504,076,601
.New Jersey .. 31,530,722,919
.New York .. 57,080,584,213
.California .. 66,715,803,520 19%
Grand Total .. 420,166,090,122 (.420 trillion)

(Interesting,this is not a huge figure,basically half of Australia's national debt total,whatever is the United States government spending on?)

The debt figures are in dollars, and the % is a percentage of the GDP debt they themselves have,so states vary in percentage of GDP debt from a low of a mere 6%, to a high of 19%. So these figures each must be added to the national debt,as they do not figure in to the national debt calculation.Wyoming at a population of 532981 has a debt of 4107 per person,the lowest state debt, and the highest is California at 9977 per its population of 37824187.California gets 79 billion from the US government,which is only 40% of what it spends .......so where does the rest come from???Money has to come from somewhere.It is now mathematically impossible for the U.S. government to pay off the U.S. national debt.

You see, the truth is that the U.S. government now owes more dollars than actually exists. If the U.S. government went out today and took every single penny from every single American bank, business and taxpayer, they still would not be able to pay off the national debt. And if they did that, obviously American society would stop functioning because nobody would have any money to buy or sell anything.In short, it's only so much "money" which exists only on paper.It doesn't exist.So why doesn't it exist?It is because the American financial system is based on something called fractional reserve banking.

When you go to your local bank and deposit $100, they do not keep your $100 in the bank. Instead, they keep only a small fraction of your money there at the bank and they lend out the rest to someone else. Then, if that person deposits the money that was just borrowed at the same bank, that bank can loan out most of that money once again. In this way, the amount of "money" quickly gets multiplied. But in reality, only $100 actually exists.The truth is that banks are freer today to dramatically "multiply" the amounts deposited with them than ever before.

But all of this "multiplied" money is only on paper - it doesn't actually exist.The system works because we do not all run down to the bank and demand all of our money at the same time.

According to the New York Federal Reserve Bank, fractional reserve banking can be explained this way....

"If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+...=$1,000)."

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The
perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.And so too does the banking system.

Nations handling their debts with respect to other nations are really using a pyramid scheme,a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment, services or ideals,which in all reality,they all cannot really make.So much of the "money" out there today is basically made up out of thin air.Again,the banking system works because we do not all run down to the bank and demand all of our money at the same time.The global system works because nobody dares to demand their held debts in actual payment,else it all collapses just as it is a house of cards.Nations are,in fact then, paper tigers,running a huge global pyramid scheme,with banking systems which are in fact vast ponzi schemes.None of it should work, but it does, it's the system.

Secret Squirrel Reduces The United Kingdom's National Debt.

2011-08-18T15:49:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has taken note of the United Kingdom's horrific and ever increasing National Debt.But Secret Squirrel has also seen a solution to save the United Kingdom,yes, save, from the horrific debt problem, Squirrel has seen how to actually reduce the United Kingdom's massive debt, created by non MRL governments,yes reduce that massive debt reduce that debt by no less than half, yes, that's right by fifty (50) per cent,rightly,intelligently, and properly and legally.Consider this now,that the Government has clearly said our debt hit £1043 billion April 2011,(1.04 trillion,pounds,yes, still secure pounds, not dollars as highly questionable as the highly suspicious sausages served on Indian Rail),1043 billion pounds, or,again, 1.04 trillion pounds,a debt of say 33000 pounds person on.

Squirrel has researched and has found that Government figures showed that at the end of 2005, government net debt stood at £400bn or .400 trillion......an interesting rise of 643 billion pounds, .643 trillion pounds..........and amounts to an actual doubling from point ground zero when Britain had a national debt of ZERO
pounds,period, and in just 6 (Six) years as well.So what's to be done?What has been done?Well Government has run up this National Debt but evidently through running up a constant debt, and ever increasing it,obviously has no idea what so ever as to paying it off, and most certainly not a single jot of an idea as to reducing it, yes actually reducing. But it is here where Secret Squirrel parts the ways with the Government, Secret Squirrel has the public Government figures, works with them and calculates with them, and with is mind, his brilliant mind.You see, I,Secret Squirrel has found an actual way to VASTLY reduce the National Debt, by utilizing an actual legal and existing method, one which has escaped the ken of our, far from brilliant, Government.Do you know that Secret Squirrel has actually found a way to reduce the National Debt to a paltry 643 billion pounds, or to put it in trillion terms, .643 trillion pounds,or say 16500 pounds per person.How to do it? How to do what the Government's great and brilliant minds can't do? Ridiculously easily, and rightly properly and legally too.

Let us consider,firstly and most legally and importantly,the significance of, England's squatter laws,those of things such as adverse possession,which most directly affects our National Debt reduction solution............for example.......as expounded in the Wikipedia, to be legally precise, at............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

...........Adverse possession is a process by which premises can change ownership. It is a common law concept concerning the title to real property (land and the fixed structures built upon it). By adverse possession, title to another's real property can be acquired without compensation, by holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights for a specified period. For example, squatter's rights are a specific form of adverse possession.

The circumstances in which adverse possession arises determine the type of title acquired by the disseisor (the one who obtains the title from the original owner), which may be fee simple title, mineral rights, or another interest in real property. Adverse possession's origins are based both in statutory actions and in common law precepts, so the details concerning adverse possession actions vary by jurisdiction. The required period of uninterrupted possession is governed by the statute of limitations. Other elements of adverse possession are judicial
constructs......specifically for England and Wales..............it is ...............England and Wales .In England and Wales, adverse possession has been governed by the Limitation Act 1980, the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Land Registration
Act 2002. Different rules are in place for the limitation periods of adverse possession in unregistered land and registered land.

For unregistered land, the Limitation Act of 1980 states that a squatter must remain in adverse possession for 12 years, at which point the paper owner's title to the land is extinguished.

For registered land, adverse possession claims completed before 13 October 2003 (the date the 2002 Act came into force) are governed by section 75(1) and 75(2) of the Land Registration Act of 1925. The limitation period remains the same (12 years) but instead of the original owner's title to the land being extinguished, the original owner holds the land on trust for the adverse possessor. The adverse possessor can then apply to be the new registered proprietor of the land.

The position of a registered landowner was significantly improved by the Land Registration Act of 2002. Where land is registered, the adverse possessor may apply to be registered as owner after 10 years of adverse possession and the Land Registry must give notice to the true owner of this application. This gives the landowner a statutory period of time [65 business days] to object to the adverse possession, and if they do so the application fails. Otherwise, the squatter becomes the registered properietor according to the land registry. If the true owner is unable to evict the squatter in the two years following the first application, the squatter can apply again after this period and be successful
despite the opposition of the owner. The process effectively prevents the removal of a landowner's right to property without his knowledge, while ensuring squatters have a fair way exercising their rights.

Where a tenant adversely possesses land, there is a presumption that he is doing so in a way that will benefit his landlord at the end of his term. If the land does not belong to his landlord, the land will become part of both the tenancy and the reversion. If the land does belong to his landlord, it would seem that it will be gained by the tenant but only for the period of his term......

here ends the wikipedia legal epistle...........

So basically just living in an abandonned property with no efforts to be evicted for a certain period of time,the statute of limitations, entitles the squatter to said occupied property which they occuipied for the a for said mentioned time. That's the law, and is governed by a statute of limitations as stated, and followed.And that's the whole point, England,Great Britain, the United Kingdom, has laws existent and laws which,being properly civilized, it follows,totally,utterly,completely,unquestioningly.Even squatters have those rights, any kind of squatters,citizens and/or not,equality for all,justice for all, according to the rules, to the law, to the very letter of the law. So, where are we going from here to connect to the United Kingdom's National Debt problem?Well consider now this.

It is the law.Did you know, that according to English law,British law, the law of the land, the law of the United Kingdom,that within the United Kingdom,it is possible that outstanding debts over 6 years old may not have to be repaid. Perhaps a rather complicated issue on the surface that needs some clarifying, especially if you have received any paperwork regarding the collection of debts that may have been outstanding for longer than 6 years.The answers can be unearthed by digging into the Statute of Limitations. What exactly is a statute of
limitations to the many of us who speak in laymen’s terms? Wikipedia describes a statute such as this as follows, “A statute of limitations is an enactment in a common law legal system that sets forth the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated. In civil law systems, similar provisions are usually part of the civil code or criminal code and are often known collectively as “periods of prescription” or “prescriptive periods.”

The Limitation Act 1980 sets a time limit on how creditor has to take court action against you for unpaid debts. There are different time limits depending on the type of debt you owe. Generally creditors should not pursue you if they have been out of contact for 6 years or more.

So, you cannot simply delay repayments for 6 years and have them written off. The creditor must have neglected to pursue you for the debts for a period of 6 years.You cannot use the statute of limitations if a court order has already found in favour of the creditor. Court orders stand regardless of the amount of time passed.

You can ask for a court order to be “set aside” if it was made after the 6 year limitation applied. So, for example, if you have not been contacted for 7 years and a court order is obtained by the creditor you can go back to the court and ask them to “set aside” the ruling so that you can submit a defense based on the limitation act.

So, let’s try and understand this in the simplest way possible. For example, the United Kingdom hypothetically, owes whatever a sum of money for a debt loan as nations are provided with. A period of time has passed the nation(s) still have not demanded the money repayment, further time still passes and it appears that debt has been all but forgotten,ignored,except for being so many huge figures on paper.

Suddenly, years later they remember that the United Kingdom still owes even yet a significantly huge amount of money but because this certain amount of time has passed (decreed by law, depending on the statute) without proceedings to recover the money being initiated, it as though the United Kingdom no longer owes those nations the money and the debt has there for been wiped out.Action is not taken,by and under and following the United kingdom laws,and so within these time limits then the creditors,the most foul and foreign nations,find themselves out of pocket and with nowhere to turn,the laws of the realm, this realm, this England,this United Kingdom, and the debtor,the United Kingdom,is debt free,the

debt being wiped out,forgiven or whatever term you wish, is gone and does not exist, except that of the now discovered 6 year period, which is the actual figure going back to the from now zero start,restart period, of six (6) years, the paltry figure of 643 billion pounds, or .643 trillion pounds.Via right and proper English laws, the debt of the united Kingdom, has been effectively, literally, in figures quite almost really halved,and legally so as well.

However,there may be some paltry drawbacks you know, as unpaid debts, even if under the Limitations Act, may still cause problems in the future, especially when it comes to credit rating. Even though a debt may not be enforceable, due to the points discussed, this does not mean that it won’t be filed onto our credit history and create an unfavourable credit rating. If this is an undesirable outcome, then the sensible option is to clear the debt in full,if we can, but our debt would then be the much smaller figure of the afore mentioned 643billion pounds.This puts us in much better field position all round compared with nations which don't have and don't or won't intelligently apply these(if theirs),laws........now we'd be twice as better off compared with Australia, and 4 times as better off as compared with the colony of Canada.....America is utterly ridiculous,I was going to try not to mention them,(As of August 3, 2011, the gross debt was $14.34 trillion dollars,if you really must gloat) nor they,the Japanese, but ,if you really must gloat Japan's national debt in dollars is.....12.31 trillion US dollars (7.48 British pounds).THEy don't know how to pay theirs either, lacking the legal ability to do it, nor to legally reduce it.

But,WE,know differently don't we,I,Secret Squirrel,have found the legal means to do so,all that remains is for the British Government, the politicians, to hold their lamps alight, hold the lamp of knowledge high, enlighten their minds,as much as the mind of Secret Squirrel glows, incandescently, but we all know,don't we, that the politicians are possessed of simple,very low wattage and dimly lit, curly bulbs.Do we have hope that they will follow the advice of Secret Squirrel, that they will follow the epistle of Secret Squirrel, that they will follow the legal economic psalms of Secret Squirrel........should they? The MRL would,you should,they should,without question.

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,MP,(Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel On Obama And The UN Gun Convention.

2011-08-16T13:53:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has noticed odd behavior by President Obama with respect to Americans,on an issue of the question of guns existent in the world of today by his wishing to sign a UN international gun treaty that the Senate refused to ratify under former President Bill Clinton.Obama has made no secret that he wants to in effect amend the American Constitution by signing a United Nations civilian gun ban treaty. Somehow I don’t recall a legal way for America’s politicians to attack the Bill of Rights and negate any of them by signing a treaty, but this seems to be what is going to occur through and by something called the United Nations, a group of foreign alien nations, foreign and alien to America. Despots throughout civilized history have never cared about liberty or freedom, and these United Nations are made up of many nations ruled by such, despots,dictators,communists,socialists and what ever have you and whatever you wish to call or describe these foreign
potentates that rule,overrule, and misrule, people.The present Convention which has attracted such controversy, is one United Nations convention having to do,particularly, with THEIR issue of guns existent in the world.

The United States does not and has not,in the past, ratified UN treaties and conventions that do not please it,the it being,interestingly,The Executive Branch(here read,The President),and thence also the Senate.Now any UN convention MAY be attended by The Nation, read, The United States Of America,should the President send a representative. Said representative
thence has, by permission of the PRESIDENT, the ability to sign said Convention.The Senate cannot in itself send a viable representative,nor one that can sign.However, should the Senate disagree with a particular Convention,on which the President has not consulted THEM, they can vote against ratification of the Convention, and they can also, refuse to vote on the Convention, hence stalling it, in the unratified state as well,in short, not acted on.In short, the President,can act on any UN Convention, on any particular issue,without the consent of Senate/Congress.In short, Obama wishes it, a convention which directly goes contrary to The Constitution of The United States itself, THE Constitution he is sworn to keep and uphold, HE,Obama, and through his minion, one Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, would sign a convention,ratify a convention which was contrary to the Constitution of the United States, in direct effect of allowing foreigners to overrule,direct,and (mis)rule,in direct unelected fashion, the lives of the American citizen,ruling in direct opposition to, The Constitution Of The People Of The United States Of America, the American Citizen.

This particular Convention treaty is a direct abdication of the principles of The Constitution of The United States. The treaty calls for tougher licensing requirements. That means everyday, law-abiding Americans will be subjected to even more bogus bureaucracy to obtain a firearm,directed by the most foreign United Nations. It is unfathomable that regular citizens would be treated just like the criminals the treaty claims to protect us from. “The Small Arms Treaty” will hijack and destroy all weapons that are classified “unauthorized.” What exactly classifies a firearm as “unauthorized” is up to unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations. The treaty will ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. In addition the Obama Administration is calling for an INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY that would pave the way to eventually disarming every American citizen.

The Obama ruling regimen,and United Nations gun agenda, ultimately seeks to take away not only your individual liberties,the individual and Constitutionally guaranteed liberties, but also more importantly, the complete autonomy of the American citizen. It is self evident, that The Obama regimen of rule,of misrule in actuality, simply does not believe that the average American is capable of making their own decisions so Obama wishes foreigners to make them for the American citizen,they the foreigners, Russians,Red Chinese, Libyans, Syrians, Iraguis, Mongolians, Cubans, Haitians,and what ever else have you, and we do have, in the world,comprising the United Nations et all, and whatever.. Just like Obamacare, the bureaucrats want to take away your right to live freely without the government breathing down your neck. The Anti-Second Amendment Delegates at the United Nations want to pass “The Small Arms Treaty.” If this treaty is passed American citizens’ firearms rights will be compromised and the Second Amendment will be obliterated. “The Small Arms Treaty” is being billed as a treaty that will help fight against “terrorism, insurgency, and international crime rings.”However, America has it's own laws with respect to the supply of guns to anyone in particular, foreign nations and what ever et all.Should there be a problem in that regard it is by and through American governmental and policing failures to either be capable, or to enact and act on them internally and properly in the first place.

One does recall where US government,has actually been supplying guns to Mexican drug lords in what ever endeavour they claimed,but supply they did, and were and are responsible for,they did not have to by any means. The treaty is regarded as a
control on the United States supplying guns to foreign lands?Well, then the American government must simply cease from doing just that, supplying guns to foreigners and what ever we have.Curious,why ever can Obama not stop himself from doing just that merely a facade to seize control of ALL FIREARMS owned by law abiding American citizens,Americans must follow laws internally, so too can and does Obama,and any semblance of government he has.

But yet there is so very much more in the treaty. Let's have a look here,What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail? While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to
grasp).

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.Obama is resolved to it, even yet,being there, at his direct, willing to enact it,bring it about,enforce it.Obama has not directed America, to be there out of simple curiosity,Obama is intent on reducing America, and Americans such that they become, suzerain,and subject to, foreigners and their enacted rules and laws,far and away above and conflicting with, laws deemed by Americans to be right and proper for they,the American citizens.It is and would be a direct usurpation, by foreigners,of the lives and laws, and Constitution, of the people of The United States Of America.Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real
agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama assured gun owners that he was no threat to gun rights.Hillary Clinton even yet campaigned supporting The Second Amendment.They have both been revealed to be much as the Indian basket, with two faces. So far the Obama administration had publicly steered clear of the issue,no doubt knowing directly, that a direct assault on the Second Amendment and other American Constitutional Rights, and laws of America and Americans,would be political suicide.

However, behind the scenes, Obama and his staff,have done a direct volte face,and have shown not only support for the U.N. Gun Ban,but direct approval, even yet PRE-APPROVAL,directed so by Obama,to a United Nations treaty on small arms sales that will sidestep established American gun rights and the Second Amendment,and others as well.The United Nations has ever been a favorite weapon used by the many left-leaning activist and directly most foreign, nations, their governments,and mostly directly foreign dictatorships, to launch attacks on American interests,and these leftist ideologues have tried to direct and so empower the U.N. to govern our right to fight just wars of liberation,the right to encourage freedom loving peoples to rise up and fight against oppressors and oppressions, and the right to control our own pollution standards,even yet internal to America and The American Citizen. And now this steadily advancing treaty seeks to govern the American,guarenteed,internal to America,the right to bear
arms,the treaty's threat to the right of Americans to buy guns for self-defense and sport.

The definition of "militia" as per Federal US Code:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms,as passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all
members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.The term,militia, clearly the people, the American Citizen, We The People.................and this The United Sates Code...

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, as you can see, all law-abiding citizens and soon-to-be citizens are, by legal definition, members of the "militia".

In reading the early State’s Constitutions, it is very clear that they guarantee a right to arms for the common defense of the State, which in actuality means, the common defense of the community against criminals. In today’s society this is called "justifiable homicide" because when an armed citizen kills a felon committing a crime (or wounds him for the police to arrest), that person has done their community a service by helping to keep the streets and environs safe for other citizens. So, if the UN treaty was to be passed, and the American people forcibly disarmed, two things would happen, one, criminals would profit by that action, as they have done in Chicago, for example, and two, the right to self defense and defense of others would be negated, which the UN, nor the Senate, nor Obama himself can do since that Right comes from our Creator.

For example, South Carolina's constitution, written in 1776, states very clearly:

"Hostilities having been commenced in the Massachusetts Bay, by the troops under command of General Gage, whereby a number of peaceable, helpless, and unarmed people were wantonly robbed and murdered... The colonists were therefore driven to the necessity of taking up arms, to repel force by force, and to defend themselves and their properties against lawless invasions and depredations."

As we all well know, the Battle on Lexington green began over gun control, as Redcoats were dispatched to disarm the Minutemen, who were deemed a threat by "the State." Other states followed suit as well:

1. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state..." Pennsylvania 1777.

2. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State..." Vermont (1777 and 1786)

3. The people have the "right to bear arms, for the defense of the State". North Carolina 1776.

4. "And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defense; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service..." NY 1777.

The states then, even New York, recognized the absolute right of an American to keep and bear arms and that the taking up arms to defend freedom against tyranny was appropriate and right. ("The militia of this State (NY), at all times hereafter,... shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service...") the militia WAS the individual citizen and they had the duty to drill to BE ready, on their own time. "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers..." George Mason. The great patriot Patrick Henry stated: "The great object is, that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun." It must be stated that "defense of the State" was the individual militia members responsibility and in a previous essay on the Second Amendment, it was noted that State’s often passed laws that all citizens shall be armed and those who could not afford a firearm were given one (with the necessary accoutrements) and then they worked to pay off the debt, doing whatever they were told to do by the
magistrate, sheriff, etc! Moreover, that an unarmed citizen was an easy victim of criminals and tyrants was also recognized in their early constitutions.

John Adams wrote, as he defended the British soldiers who had opened fire on a mob of colonists during the Boston Massacre (1770), "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the
inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense, that distinction is material and must be attended to."

Not to be outdone, the Republic of Texas Constitution, written in 1838, declared: "the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State." It is quite clear that the word "himself" means the individual, not the collective and it should be noted that Texas took their verbiage from the US Constitution and the Amendments therein. In 1871, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that an "individual" had the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In 1842, Rhode Island’s Constitution actually uses the US Constitution verbiage from the Second Amendment itself: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now liberals have used the term "the people" to point to the collective but nothing could be further from the truth, if one reads the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, which grants the rights therein to the individual.

Take serious and careful note,that as of 2010, 27 states have introduced in their legislatures, bills that would nullify all gun registration laws within the state, and several states have passed laws that allow any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress to regulate, under its constitutional powers.It nullifies Federal regulations based on the fact that some parts of the firearm have their origins outside the state. In other words, a firearm made in Montana, that is sold in Montana, is outside their regulations! As we can clearly see, the mountain of facts support that the State’s Constitutions defend our right to keep and bear arms not only from a legal standpoint from the hand of our Creator.The early state constitutions are strong evidence that the Founders, at the State level, confirmed their intent that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was an individual right.

Obama here,clearly, through such actions as he is taking, is intent on,not only directly violating the Constitution of the People of the United States,but also,removing from,We The People, the Militia,and there for also, the governmental right to have one ready, to combat any foreign nations invading, intent of invading, and otherwise terrorizing,We The People, and is removing from We The People, the right and ability to defend The American Citizen, and The Nation Of The United States Of America.

It is therefore incumbent upon liberty-minded people everywhere not only to oppose American involvement in the treaty, but also to oppose the mere existence of such a treaty.President Obama can not try to use the legally binding (on signatory nations) provisions to shift blame to the U.N. for civilian arms banning regulations,the regulations contrary to The Second Amendment, arguing that he has no choice but to follow the treaty,no indeed, he has sent the Secretary Of State, to the convention,and has the direct stated intent, to be a signatory to the convention,it is a direct,purposeful act.

What's to be done?Well, We,The People, must make known our opposition to the actions here of Obama, and Hillary Clinton.So though the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s firearms agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic.......right? Well,let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly in dissension concerning the Convention, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.

The United States has, in the past attended some UN Conventions, even yet agreed with them, but many HAVE NOT BEEN RATIFIED by the Senate,either voted against, or had votes blocked such that no vote takes place(at least, not at that time, but it CAN be brought out 5,10,15,20 years later or whatever timescale), hence NO ratification. Indeed this is rightand proper,for a President acting outside of the Senate,and/or Congress, acts outside of Government, note in the wishes,nor the best wishes of the people.Clearly a major improvement would be sanctioned actions taking place with the agreement of The Houses,the President presenting The Houses with any laws,agreements etc as PROPOSED, and thence acting on this within the bounds of the UN Conventions, and thence return to The Senate for final approved ratifications.As it is now, The President is acting improperly, exclusively, alone, by himself, without the approval of People, nor Senate/Congress and this is so very totally wrong.What needs be done in this present situation, the Citizen must address his Senator, His Congressman, with his disapproval of any such UN Convention as presently Obama is pursuing,such that they DO NOT RATIFY the Convention,ALSO, they must so address their Congressman/Senator, such that it is made clear to Obama that he should not participate in such a UN Convention as is contemplated to take place in 2012, or future without a structure in place with respect to such actions in Senate/Congress, sanctioning such future proceedings.

Secret Squirrel Comments On The London Riot.

2011-08-09T18:09:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has seen videos of the violence taking place in London, the London Riot of 2011,and sees that
London faces a big problem: police can’t figure out how to quell outbursts of violence and stop them from spreading,and there is a virtually total lack of proper riot control equipment. That doesn’t lend a lot of confidence to the city’s ability to ensure safety for the 2012 Olympics,in the very least.They were warned,there were earlier outbreaks of violence,mini riots,the so-called budget cuts violence,“The march was largely peaceful apart from isolated skirmishes between protesters and police, authorities said,” they falsely report. The “largely peaceful” march saw masked thugs going wild in Oxford Circus smashing shop windows and attacking the police. While it was dealt with there was no great rush to secure proper riot gear and formulate a proper riot plan, no indeed,none of any kind.There was time for police management and politicians of the city and the nation, to see rising violence and secure the proper equipment to deal with,prevent, and at least lessen such as what has and is still yet occurring in London,and spreading to yet other cities.

Some blame BlackBerry BBMs and Twitter for facilitating the organization of riots and looting,While Twitter was initially credited with helping to spread the unrest, newspapers and tech blogs are suggesting that the BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) service actually had more of a role, thanks to the privacy of messages exchanged on the network and its popularity with young people. {TechCrunch Europe}no steps were taken to shut down the Blackberry system, (that being in the hands of a foreign entity) but regardless of the communication tools used to communicate,much of the destruction has been caused by groups of a few hundred people or so.Will there be a plan in place to handle simultaneous civil protests, terrorist threats and general crowd related security at the same time? Part of the current problem lies with austerity budget cuts that haven’t seen police jobs spared. There are plans to cut 9,000 of 35,000 police jobs, and emergency responders like firefighters and paramedics face staff cuts as well. When the police are busy protecting firefighters trying to extinguish fires, riots spring up in other areas where there is no police presence.One sees a general lack of what could be called riot gear,one sees sparsley kitted out riot police, and few of them, spread widely apart due to a general lack of numbers. One doesn't see any general riot vehicles such as water cannon equipped trucks, no use of smoke nor tear gas,strangely enough. They've had years to plan,and secure the proper equipment, they could have learned much from the Americans and their riot equipment and planning.

As a matter of fact a curfew was not in fact imposed, no doubt due to a general inability to enforce it in either and every case.Since the 1980s, riot control officers have also used tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets,batons and electric tasers. In some cases, riot squads may also use Long Range Acoustic Devices, water cannons, armoured fighting vehicles, police dogs or mounted police on horses.Netguns are non-lethal weapons designed to fire a net which entangles the target.Netguns have a long history of being used to capture wildlife, without injury, for research purposes. A netgun is currently in development for non-lethal riot control.Stink bombs are devices designed to create an extremely unpleasant smell for riot control and area denial purposes. Stink bombs are believed to be less dangerous than other riot control chemicals, since they are effective at low concentrations. Sticky foam weapons are being tested, which cover and immobilize rioters with a gooey foam.

Low frequency sound cannons are weapons of various types that use sound to injure or incapacitate subjects using a focused beam of sound or ultrasound. Active denial systems (ADS) are a non-lethal, directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military. The ADS directs electromagnetic radiation, specifically, high-frequency microwave radiation, at a frequency of 95 GHz, which causes the water in the upper epidermis to boil, stimulating a "burning" sensation in the nerve endings and generating intense pain. Dazzler lasers are directed-energy weapons that use intense light to cause temporary blindness or disorientation of rioters.Amazingly, none of this was seen in London.Officers performing riot control typically wear protective equipment such as riot helmets, face visors, body armor (vests, neck protectors, knee pads, etc.), gas masks and riot shields. At least some of this was seen in London.

The front-line officers in a riot control are often fully armored and carry weapons such as batons, designed to be in direct contact with the crowd. These officers subdue rioters and subsequently allow the less heavily armoured, more mobile officers to make arrests where it is deemed necessary. In face of a greater threat, the riot police will be backed up with other officers equipped with riot guns to fire tear gas, rubber bullets, plastic bullets or "beanbag" rounds.

As a less aggressive step, mounted police may first be sent into the crowd. The might and height offered by the horse are combined with its training, allowing an officer to more safely infiltrate a crowd. Usually, when front-facing a riot, officers slowly walk in a line parallel to the riot's front, extending to both its ends, as they noisily and simultaneously march and beat their shields with their batons, to cause fear and psychological effects on the crowd.
German police deploy an armoured riot control vehicle at a demonstration in Hamburg.

The French CRS's tactics against a long demonstration march is to attack it at several points and chop it into segments, rather than to merely try to block it at its front end.In the United Kingdom, usually when large demonstrations take place that are deemed unstable, the territorial police force responsible for the demonstration in that area will usually deploy Police Support Unit personnel who are trained in riot tactics, along with normal divisional officers. If the demonstration turns violent, police will seal roads and other exits to contain protesters in a single area (known as kettling) to prevent widespread damage and wait until the protesters tire. These tactics were seen during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests and the 2010 student protests in London. Tear gas and other more offensive tactics are used as a last resort. Throughout police will be videoing or photographing protesters for future arrests, "snatch squad" tactics might also be used.However, the efficiency displayed in those events has been completely and utterly lacking in this one.Strange,a sudden total collapse of the riot squad.
Quite obviously The London Police were not, and are not, prepared to handle riots.A very sad and costly situation all round and about, one that must be immediately addressed and rectified.London, and England, is in a sad and sorry state,brought about by lack of planning, and fore sight,failure to heed the warnings of a series of escallating riots.It is said in England that one learns from the mistakes, but here we see mistake after mistake after mistake, leading to this latest mistake, and ever onwards to yet another.If anything the London riots have revealed lack of planning,coordination,general incompetence, and lack of proper equipment to protect the public at large.This is not acceptable.

Secret Squirrel's Plan For Britain, Let's Have Pensioners And Prisoners Swap Places

2011-08-06T00:02:00.000-07:00

Let’s put the pensioners in jail and the criminals in a nursing home........

This way the pensioners would have access to showers, hobbies and walks.

They’d receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs etc. and they’d receive money instead of paying it out.

They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be helped
instantly, if they fell, or needed assistance.

Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them.

A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell.

They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.

They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counselling,
pool and education.

Simple clothing, shoes, slippers, PJ’s and legal aid would be free, on
request.

Private, secure rooms for all, with an exercise outdoor yard, with gardens.

Each senior could have a PC a TV radio and daily phone calls.

There would be a board of directors to hear complaints, and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.

The criminals would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised.
Lights off at 8pm, and showers once a week. Live in a tiny room and pay £600.00 per week and have no hope of ever getting out.

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel Sees Debate On Capital Punishment As Being Irrelevant.

2011-08-05T00:02:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has seen some activity with respect to Parliament carrying on a debate with respect to the restoration of capital punishment, the death penalty, execution for the commission of certain and specific crimes.Well it is all grand isn't it that the issue has been brought up.This is all coming about through a system,introduced but of late, that a petition with 100,000 names on it,will trigger a parliamentary debate on the subject of the petition,regardless of what it is. It's grand,it's grand that a blogger, who goes by the name of Guido Fawkes, is out after Parliament once more, this time with a petition, which, if it
achieves 100,000 signatures, will cause a certain subject, that of the base petition,to be debated before Parliament.Yes, the subject has achieved much notability, notoriety, yet public debate, yes indeed, his specific petition wishes the debate of the issue of the re-instatement of capital punishment to the United Kingdom,his specific,the cure for what ails, being the return of the death penalty for child killers and those who kill on-duty police.Public debate wishes to add those who are serial killers (as whatever number is required to so designate), and still others, broad spectrum re-introduction of the death penalty.

It seems that a certain cure is preferred with respect to say, somebody being released from prison to do it all again, such as say, the Norwegian Woods bomber,shooter,mass murderer,say such as one Dr Harold Shipman,or The Moors Murderers,The Wests,Nilsen,Allit,Sutcliffe,et all or whatever and what have you, walking the earth again, after a few years, a few years of rather expensive and costly incarceration as being a guest of Her Majesty, in one of her extremely comfortable guest houses for the naughty?So capital punishment is to be the cure for the likes of that.Hmmm. Capital punishment?Well,I,Secret Squirrel shall he enlighten you with respect to capital punishment, to some degree, but not in great detail,as you will later see why the attention to the greatest and tinyest of detail is really, all so, very irrelevant.

Historically speaking,capital punishment in the United Kingdom was used from the creation of the state in 1707 until the practice was abolished in the twentieth century. The last executions in the United Kingdom, by hanging, took place in 1964, prior to capital punishment being abolished for murder (in 1969 in Great Britain and in 1973 in Northern Ireland). Although not applied since, the death penalty remained on the statute book for certain other offences until 1998.Down through the ages various forms were used and applied to bring about executions,very novel and interesting methods to say the very least from the earliest on,and thence slowly evolving to the more acceptable methods by modern standards,at least within the realm of The United Kingdom.Prisons evolved as a punishment secondary to execution,the Victorians had prisons, Her Majesty's Prisons,Her Majesty's
Prisons For The Extremely Naughty.The Victorians also had clear ideas about what these prisons should be like. They should be unpleasant places, so as to deter people from committing crimes. Once inside, prisoners had to be made to face up to their own faults, by keeping them in silence and making them do hard, boring work. Walking a treadwheel or picking oakum (separating strands of rope) were the most common forms of hard labour.However these have evolved towards modern times, and now very much really represent themselves as a virtual apartment living environment with priviledges to leave the building not being in the agreement.So, it is now wished to bring about debate on the issue of the re-instatement of capital punishment,execution.

Certain politicians have been expressing themslves on this issue as is here evidenced.............

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/9178527.Support_for_online_death_penalty_petition/

Wirral MEP Paul Nuttall has added his name to the e-petition and said: "I am in favour of restoring the death penalty for child and serial killers."I think capital punishment is needed for such heinous crimes and I know that many other people feel the same."

He said a YouGov poll last year found that 74% of people supported the death penalty for murder in some circumstances.And he added: "Generally too much attention is paid to the so called 'human rights' of offenders, what about the rights of victims and their families?"

Tory MP Priti Patel said such a debate was long overdue and that she favoured restoring capital punishment "for the most serious and significant crimes" - a position echoed by party colleague Andrew Turner.

Tory Philip Davies who said he would like to see “all murders” punishable by death.

Here ends the glowing words of several politicians, all to the yes side for various forms of restoration of the death penalty in the United Kingdom.

There have been many polls with respect to the return of the execution penalty,some from November 2009 when a television survey showed that 70% favoured reinstating the death penalty for at least one of the following crimes: armed robbery, rape, crimes related to pedophilia, terrorism, adult murder, child murder, child rape, treason, child abuse, or kidnapping.

However, respondents only favoured capital punishment for adult murder, the polling question asked by other organizations such as Gallup, by small majorities or pluralities: overall, 51% favoured the death penalty for adult murder, while 56% in Wales did, 55% in Scotland, and only 49% in England.And so on it goes,No doubt there shall be some dissenting voices expressing their views on the matter to the contrary in solid Parliamentary debate.Well there shall be much horrendous sucking and blowing,from both sides,the horrific ear splitting thunderous sounds of various political breakings of wind concerning the issue, and whatever issues out with that.Do I sound cynical?Do I sound perhaps, confusing on the issue, as to yeah or naye,does the ayes have it or the no's (eyes or nose)? Well after debate,one suspects there would be a vote on the matter,yes? Let us recall that the issue was last brought up,that the MPs last voted on the issue in 1994 the idea was rejected by 403 votes to 159.Is any such debate outcome, any vote outcome, completely irrelevant, an utter and complete waste of time, a useless gesture being made by politicians?Yes, on all counts, in any and all out comes.

Does this seem to influence you to ponder that I would reject the re-introduction of the death penalty.Would you mind?Do you mind? What is mind? Does it matter?Never mind!No indeed,it all doesn't matter,it IS all so very irrelevant, and a waste of
time,you see, with respect to,or not, to the outcome,from any and all points. Would there be a vote?Should there be a vote? Well, no, because it doesn't matter, for you see there is the fact that the death penalty is illegal in the European Union.You see,on 20 May 1998 the House of Commons voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." The last remaining provisions for the death penalty under military jurisdiction (including in wartime) were removed when section 21(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 9 November 1998. On 10 October 2003, effective from 1 February 2004, the UK acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances, so that the UK may no longer legislate to restore the death penalty while it is subject to the
Convention. It can only now restore it IF it withdraws from the Council of Europe, as in ONLY IF the United Kingdom,that is Britain,that is England,Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales,WITHDRAWS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Secret Squirrel Expounds The Reality That The Earth Is Flat.

2011-08-03T21:05:00.000-07:00

I,Secret Squirrel,here turn my attention to the general enlightenment of the global population so misled by politicians,scientists and governmental organizations and organs of the day, so misled, that I,Squirrel,have discovered there is a horrific theory being expounded,nay ,almost declared a scientific truth, bandied about on the streets, and taught in all levels of public and private schools,universities and scientific establishments to the nature such that, the world is a round,globe, rather than that the earth is in fact and point of truth,scientifically, and most positively,in all scientific reality and relativity, a Flat Earth.Well let me here commence to inform,reform, and enlightenment you,with a proper pedagoguery on the subject of The Flat Earth,the reality of the day.

Firstly,there is no unified flat Earth model,as such,having developed as mankind and the proper scientific individuals of the day achieved their enlightenment as to things of the day,awareness of things with respect to that universality,that thing of worldliness, the world, the earth,the Flat Earth.Generally the most commonly accepted one is that it’s more or less a disk,with some,but not jagged,irregularities in roundness,not a perfect model to say the least, with a ring of something to hold in the water,or some force which Stephen Hawking has not claimed to have thought up hence in the scientific world does not actually exist nor function,yet things are unquestionably as they are. The height and substance of that, no one is absolutely sure, but most people think it’s mountains with snow and ice,but they may or may not be wrong as there is no record of anybody having been there,but we do know that nobody wants to go there,nor has really tried hard enough to do so.Flat earthers are either scientific couch potatoes, or else wise enough not to go themselves.I must say there are a great many who suggest we send Stephen
Hawking,but the silly gnarly bugger says it is all not so.Quite simply he believes his batteries won’t last the journey.Well, his batteries wouldn’t last the journey proving the world is globular, so he hasn’t and it most definitely isn’t,by his own logic track.His thinking the world is globular is simply not sufficient in light of modern times, and there is much direct scientific evidence and logical reasoning to prove the earth is actually in a variously but generally roundly shaped rotating and orbitally wobbling ,flat dish with a convex nature to it.There is much evidence to support this and there are many Flat Earth Societies which hold the lamp of knowledge alight, and as further proof herewith is given the site of one such society….

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=62

And this has online,free,and readily accessible in PDF form,a vast library of the great classical literary works to do with the Flat Earth proofs, so refuted by the incompetent scientific minds of the century, and also the idiotic cartographers who refuse to include the various sea monsters and other hazards of the sea from maps(no wonder so many ships are lost at sea,they haven’t any idea of the hazards nor where they are,that’s why they’re lost).We must clear out the imbecility and go with distinct scientific proofs and direct evidence refuting the Globular Earth theory.Earth must rise out of the dark ages of scientific knowledge and emerge in to the light of day,knowledge,education and scientific fact versus the idiotic scientific theories of the day, theories presented as truth, such as the preposterous idea that the earth is a perfectly round globe.So to quote the Romans……..AVANTE!!!!!!

The Flat Earth model is a view that the Earth’s shape is a flat plane or disk. Most ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period(post Socrates), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.Flat Earth is the now widely accepted belief that the Earth is not
spherical, but flat. Except for mountains.In our modern scientific civilization it seems incredible that for over 450 years, people like Stephen Hawking and Galileo Gallilee (the Biblical character) have claimed that the Earth is like some kind of giant beach ball, but so they did.Go to GoogleEarth on your computer, now look very, very carefully at the screen. Put your face right up close to it and squint along the surface: see?- flat as a pancake! Except for the mountains. Look at any part of the Earth you like, even Russia, and you’ll see the same thing. Evidence is, after all, overwhelming. Nobody had ever heard of a person rolling along the ground and gathering momentum till they shot off the Earth and hurtled into space, and when you put a thing down on the table, it generally stayed on the table, unless it melted or was stolen.Basically, the Round Earth theory says that God has the whole world in his hand. Yet if the world were round, it would roll out of God’s hand and into space, quickly becoming either burnt to a crisp by the heat of the Sun or freezing into ice in the dark vacuum of space.Any image taken from
space will show that Earth is indeed flat. There is no photographic proof that states or implies otherwise.When drawn as a map, continents must appear “stretched,” as the array of continents on the map are larger than the flat surface itself. This is explained by the continents “scrolling” across this circular or disc-like surface in a marquee fashion, in the same way that a camera must pan across a long scene or a large computer graphic must scroll across due to the limited size of the user’s
monitor. Early thinkers once believed the Earth was in fact a Earth Ball|ball, and it turns out that this was once true, but no longer. Christophe (Crackpot Chris,or Crazy Chris, as he was called by his friends) Columbe thought the Earth was round, and set out to find India by going round the planet. The Earth, as things turned out, was indeed flat, and he ended up in America, the biggest mistake in the history of mankind.

Yes you’ve no doubt noticed that people, when left to their own devices,most notably ,lost, as Columbus was(that most definitely wasn’t China I could’ve told him that),walk,or sail, in circles,walking,or sailing, on the flat earth.One consequence of the Flat Earth theory is a neat and indisputable disproof of the theory of Global Warming,and,indeed, science is of the present day heavily refuting the global warming theory,and settling on the reverse, that of The Theory Of Global Cooling. The argument goes along the lines of “if you ain’t got no globe, you don’t ain’t not got no global warming!” This consequence has led to an upsurge in political and scientific interest in the Flat Earth theory. Some have however stated that a flat world may be liable to Planar Warming, which (given that a flat world would have much less volume to contain heat than a spherical one) would be akin to living in a frying pan.

Others have suggested that Planar Warming might cause the surface of the planet to expand and become convex to the point that it becomes a sphere. This has led to another bunch of idiots pointlessly suggesting that the Earth was a disc as some point in the past, only becoming globular during the industrial revolution.Wilbur Glenn Voliva offered $5000 for any acceptable proof to the contrary that the earth was flat.Many had tried to claim the $5,000”and all have failed. The catch is that your proof must not start with the assumption that the world is round, or rather a globe, for Voliva believes the world is round, but a round, flat disc rather than a sphere. Without that basic premise that the earth is spherical no one has found an absolutely convincing proof that Voliva is wrong when he describes his disc-shaped world, firmly planted on its foundations, surrounded by a wall of ice to keep mariners from falling off the edge, and surmounted by a crystal dome in which the stars are hung like chandeliers to light the night. Nor can you submit proof to absolutely disprove the belief of Voliva that the sun, instead of being an 800,000 mile ball of fire more than ninety millions of miles away is really a fairly insignificant affair, only some 27 to 30 miles in diameter and about 3,000 miles above the earth. Or that the sun and moon move in orbits while the earth stands still, that the moon is about the same size as the sun and the same distance from the earth, shines by its own light, and moves in much the same orbit as the sun.Contrary to Aristotle,Voliva and his followers maintain there is no proof that the curving shadow of an eclipse is the shadow of the earth, and maintain that there have been several eclipses within historical times in which both sun and moon were visible at the same time, so that the eclipse could not have, been due to the earth’s shadow.

One also notes that the disappearance of a ship over a horizon hull first is an optical illusion of perspective, no different from the apparent merging of the railroad tracks in the distance. A man at the foot of a tree a couple of miles across a plain may be invisible, while the tree itself stands up against the sky and is visible for miles. Earth curvature of eight inches to the mile is not sufficient to explain the invisibility of the man.The flat earth does allow for the earth itself have a three dimensional nature to it,of course, the earth of necessity,the habitable earth parts,versus the oceans, rises out of the seas,and
seas have their tides due to the earth wobbling in it’s orbital.Voliva maintains that there is no South Pole, and that it is 60,000 miles around the southern ice wall. Captain Gunnar Isachsen, the Norwegian explorer, last winter circumnavigated the Antarctic continent in a voyage of about 14,000 miles. Zion says Isachsen may have circumnavigated something, possibly an island of that size, but did not go around the antarctic ice rim, and points to the 60,000 mile journey of Ross in 1848 and the following two years, when he circumnavigated the ice rim. Of course Ross was in a sailing ship which tacked back and forth for three years on a journey

Isachsen completed in a few weeks, which could explain the discrepancy in the distance traveled.

“They say that Byrd flew over the South Pole,” Voliva said recently, “but there is no South Pole. East, west and south are not absolute directions; they are only relative directions with reference to north. East and west are points at right angles to north.”Yes, indeed, he claimed to have, but then merely flew……..back,no “through” and “over” etc. Note compasses don’t specifically point south, they point north, the other end of the needle naturally points, but not necessarily at anything, but
arbitrarily at anything.The Arabs state that all directions point to Mecca, as does their religious compass, but for our scientific compass,well, all directions point to north,as a true consequence.One must also return to Byrd for a further proof.For example, if the earth were a globe, then an airplane would fly upwards and outwards,tangentially, literally flying off of earth and in to space,however it does not, it maintains the same altitude from a zero sea level with respect to earth,it’s altitude constant versus the earth’s profile.Logic dictates.The world is a round sphere,of sorts, but flat,and I will give you
no argument there.It does orbit the sun, the moon does orbit around earth, but earth itself ,is rotating,rotating with the north pole as it’s center,and the rotational vortex effect keeps us firmly on earth and not flying off in to the void of space.

The vortex effect also allow us to have a curved effect to earth’s surface,broad spectrum,hence you cannot see Africa from North
America,with the sea in between etc,due to the curvational nature so introduced.This effect has seen the rise of a mistaken
belief in a round,actually spherical,globular earth,sadly enough which has so easily confused the fragile in body and so affected
in mind, likes of Stephen Hawking. I believe there is a heat resistant core turning, and a liquid sea of magma also turning. But
this does not create the momentum to turn the earth around it. rather it creates a pull (Gravity) on all that is around it much
like the old dropping floor amusement park ride only the exact opposite force. rather than pushing you away as the ride does it
pulls you in like a whirlpool. The airspace above ground is confined by an outer ring of space that also turns the blackness of space is in motion around our earth and exerts a pulling force of its own. It is these opposite pulls that keep our airspace confined and unable to mix, This has to do with the composition of our airspace and the lack of similar components in the blackness of space.

In our modern scientific civilization it seems incredible that for over 450 years, people like Stephen Hawking and Galileo Gallilee (the Biblical character) have claimed that the Earth is like some kind of giant beach ball, but so they didWilliam Carpenter, a printer originally from Greenwich, England, was a supporter of Rowbotham and published Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed – Proving the Earth not a Globe in eight parts from 1864 under the name Common Sense. He later emigrated to Baltimore where he published A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe in 1885.He argues that:

“There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet —notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth’s convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.”

“If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best – because the truest – thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.”

Here linked to maps proving The Flat Earth…..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anaximander_world_map-en.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map_edit.jpg

Here links to all of his offered proofs…….

http://lclane2.net/hundreda.html

click on the colored menu at top to see further all proofs offered by “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe”,issued by William Carpenter in 1885.

John Jasper, the black ex-slave preacher said to have preached to more people than any Southern clergyman of his generation,echoed his friend Carpenter’s sentiments in his most famous sermon “Der Sun do move and the Earth Am Square”, preached over 250 times always by invitation.

English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1885), writing under the pseudonym “Parallax,” produced a pamphlet called Zetetic Astronomy in 1849 arguing for a flat Earth and published results of many experiments that tested the curvatures of water over a long drainage ditch, followed by another called The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scripture. One of his supporters, John Hampden, lost a bet to Alfred Russell Wallace in the famous Bedford Level Experiment, which attempted to prove it. Rowbotham also produced studies that purported to show the effects of ships disappearing below the horizon could be explained by the laws of perspective in relation to the human eye.

In 1883 he founded Zetetic Societies in England and New York, to which he shipped a thousand copies of Zetetic Astronomy.Challenges were issued in the New York Daily Graphic offering $10,000 to charity to anyone proving the Earth revolved on an axis.In Brockport, N.Y, in 1887, M.C. Flanders argued the case of a flat Earth for three nights against two scientific gentlemen defending sphericity. Five townsmen chosen as judges voted unanimously for a flat Earth at the end. The case was reported in the Brockport Democrat.

‘Professor’ Joseph W. Holden of Maine, a former justice of the peace, gave numerous lectures in New England and lectured on Flat Earth theory at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. His fame stretched to North Carolina where the Statesville Semi-weekly Landmark recorded at his death in 1900: ‘We hold to the doctrine that the earth is flat ourselves.”

After Rowbotham’s death, Lady Elizabeth Blount created the Universal Zetetic Society in 1893 in England and created a journal called Earth not a Globe Review, which sold for twopence, as well as one called Earth which only lasted from 1901 to 1904. She held that the Bible was the unquestionable authority on the natural world and argued that one could not be a Christian and believe the Earth to be a globe. Well-known members included E. W. Bullinger of the Trinitarian Bible Society, Edward Haughton,
senior moderator in natural science in Trinity College, Dublin and an archbishop. She repeated Rowbotham’s experiments, generating some interesting counter-experiments, but interest declined after the First World War. The movement gave rise to several books which argued for a flat, stationary earth .

In 1898, during his solo circumnavigation of the world, Joshua Slocum encountered a group of flat-Earthers in Durban. Three Boers, one of them a clergyman, presented Slocum with a pamphlet in which they set out to prove that the world was flat. Paul Kruger, President of the Transvaal Republic, advanced the same view: “You don’t mean round the world, it is impossible! You mean
in the world. Impossible!”

Wilbur Glenn Voliva, who in 1906 took over the Christian Catholic Church, a Pentecostal sect that established a utopian community at Zion, Illinois, preached flat Earth doctrine from 1915 onwards and used a photograph of a twelve mile stretch of the shoreline at Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin taken three feet above the waterline to prove his point. When the airship Italia disappeared on an expedition to the North Pole in 1928 he warned the world’s press that it had sailed over the edge of the world. He offered a $5,000 award for proving the Earth is not flat, under his own conditions. Teaching a globular Earth was
banned in the Zion schools and the message was transmitted on his WCBD radio station.

Modern biblical literalists have swung to the other extreme over flat Earth theories. For example, the Biblical Astronomer website, while supporting a geocentric model of the Earth, is clear on this, although its description of the foundations shows ingenuity: “In summary, the Bible teaches that the earth is basically a sphere in shape; that there are pillars which undergird the world and which we conclude to be the crystalline rock corresponding to what we commonly call the mantle.”

Mohammed Yusuf, creator of the Boko Haram Islamic sect in Nigeria, stated his belief in a flat EarthIn 1956, Samuel Shenton set up the International Flat Earth Research Society, better known as the Flat Earth Society, as a direct descendant of the Universal Zetetic Society, just before the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik. He responded to this event “Would sailing round the Isle of Wight prove that it were spherical? It is just the same for those satellites.” His primary aim was to reach children before they were convinced about a spherical Earth. Despite plenty of publicity, the space
race eroded Shenton’s support in Britain until 1967 when he started to become famous due to the Apollo program. His postbag was full but his health suffered as his operation remained essentially a one-man show until he died in 1971.Shenton’s role was taken over by one of his correspondents, Charles K. Johnson, as he retired in 1972 to the Mojave Desert, California. He incorporated the IFERS and steadily built up the membership to about 3,000. He spent years examining the studies of flat and round Earth
theories and proposed evidence of a conspiracy against flat-Earth: “The idea of a spinning globe is only a conspiracy of error that Moses, Columbus, and FDR all fought…” His article was published in the magazine Science Digest, 1980. It goes on to state,

“If it is a sphere, the surface of a large body of water must be curved. The Johnsons have checked the surfaces of Lake Tahoe and the Salton Sea without detecting any curvature.”

There were those who argued sunrise and sunset proved a globular earth, but this was proved wrong by one Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816-1884), a 19th century religious fundamentalist, who headed an Owenite colony, and promoted the flat earth philosophy. Rowbotham concocted the fiendishly clever idea of light refraction in curved paths to ‘save the hypothesis’ of the flat earth, to account for what he called the ‘optical illusions’ of sunrise and sunset.Presently it is proved modern scientists are
correctly applying this very hypothesis, and state it as such, attempting to create a modern science fiction cloaking device, not to hide starships, but rather the much more sensible modern engine of war, the elephant of the day, the tank.(proof here supplied via Fox news item at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306678,00.html ).

General flatness of seas etc was taken in to account…..John Hampden (1819-1891) vigorously promoted the flat earth idea in
England. He founded the Truth-Seeker’s Oracle and Scriptural Science Review in 1876. In 1870 Hampden made a bet with naturalist
Alfred Wallace on the outcome of a test of the flatness of water in the Old Bedford Canal. Both sides claimed the test confirmed their view, and flat-earthers to this day assert that “water surfaces have been proved to be flat.”The New Bedford canal experiment inspired others to measure the flatness of water surfaces. Alexander Gleason, a civil engineer from Buffalo, NY, tested the flatness of the surface of lake Erie. He published Is the Bible from Heaven (1890) and Is the Earth a Globe? (1893).

But not everyone who measured water’s flatness got the same result. In 1896 Ulysses G. Morrow made such a test on the Old Illinois Drainage Canal, He found the water surface concave upwards. Morrow considered this “the most unmistakable evidence of the water’s non-convexity.” However,we’re not stating that the earth is perfectly flat, no indeed,but gnerally flat, but basically convex, having a convexity to it,indeed,which accounts for many optical effects such as a ship disappearing over the
horizon.

Maps existent proving The Flat Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_earth.png

http://www.world-wide-art.com/images/Walt-Disney-Storybooks/Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-Map-to-the-Land-of-the-Dead.jpg

There have been some confused, but on the somewhat right track maps and ideas of the flat earth.Have you ever heard of Orlando Ferguson?Well, Ferguson, a resident of Hot Springs,Arkansas,USA, at that time designed a map in 1893 which showed a round world,but one which had a convex northern hemisphere, and a concave southern hemisphere,but he was of course wrong,as ships don’t hit a corner and get stuck, rather can sale and return whence they came,indicating a round nature,the round natures at the ends,sort of, of the “earth”,as the maps indicate.Modern maps do him a great honor by displaying themselves as being either square or rectangular in natures,but all do correctly depict a flat nature to the representation. There are many Flat Earth Societies, endeavouring to propound the truth of things, the nature of things, and Charles K. Johnson of Lancaster,California,became president of one such society,The Flat Earth Society in 1971.

Johnson used Biblical authority to assert that the earth is a flat disk with the North pole at the center and a wall of ice in the Antarctic regions, surrounding the whole perimeter of the earth disk.Johnson also cited the testimony of his wife Marjory,who came from Australia. “She’s sworn out an affidavit that she never hung by her feet in Australia. She sailed a ship over here, and she did not get on it upside down and she did not sail straight up. She sailed right straight across the ocean. We consider that a very important proof that the world is flat,” Johnson says.

The scientific proof for a Falt Earth abounds, with zounds and zooks…….one ancient proponent of the Flat Earth is one Samuel Rowbottom, who’s reasoning is here supplied …..found at

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/library/samuel_rowbotham_-_earth_not_a_globe.pdf

There are,of course, many such historical works of proofs……irrefutable proofs, refuted by the refutable scientists of the day,scientists who hold the obviously heavily brain damaged Stephen Hawking in the highest regard,ridiculously so of course.Scientists such as Stephen Hawking and others have presented to us their theories, and thoughts, but they are all just that,theories and thoughts, unprovable,scientifically unprovable and hence they are and remain theories,but this is glossed
over by the press of the day,treating the droppings of such scientists rather as a celebrity magazine gossip of truth.Governments have lied to us throughout history,the hiding of the evidence that the Earth is flat isn’t the first time they or space organizations such as NASA, has lied to us. First they promised flying cars, then monkey butlers you know, I have neither,you have neither.There are scientists in Flat Earth Societies, throughout earth, and it’s populations, refuting claims made by the likes of the gnarly, crippley, Stephen Hawking,who mistakenly claims through many of his unproved theories,ideas of
things, that the earth is globular.Hawking has formed many theories, but there is not a scintilla of truth in any of them and yet you will find them in every book he writes,or at least dictates(or does he?), and even yet every primary science teacher repeats them like a parrot. I decline to be a parrot. A parrot is a man who never thinks for himself, but repeats what he hears without any questions as to why or wherefore.Patrick Moore is a prominent member of one of the Flat Earth Societies. His motives
are unknown, and when asked to comment on this writing, he promptly fell asleep, his monocle falling out. He then woke up, went on about Saturn a bit,said something about Stephen Hawking being a french whore mothered sausage sucking kraut, and fell asleep again. As of yet, none have been able to awaken him for further comment.

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel Recommends A Binding Britainwide Referendum On Leaving The EU.

2011-08-03T07:25:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has noticed massive discontent with the European Union in Britain.It's people resist the intrusion of the EU, the erosion of British weights,measures,values,laws and whatever else,et all replaced by those of foreign lands, specifically those of France and Germany, but not those of Britain there.The British people see a subjugation, a suzarainity(subservient slavery).Britain and it's people, is a tributary to the EU,basically the views and opinions of France and Germany which carry through on all occasions, those which now controls Britain's foreign affairs while allowing the tributary vassal state that Britain has become ,some limited domestic autonomy.The EU head, IS NOT ELECTED,nor by the British people, they had no say, they have no say..he is....a dictator by all standards,yes, The President of The European Commission,is appointed by the European
Council and European Parliament the "elects" him,or her,for five year terms.......NOT elected,a definite problem in legitimacy,in democracy.Direct democracy is a great principle,and the EU lacks this British principle.Discontent has grown immensely,and the Daily Express is championing and running a petition,to be presented to the government of the people of Britain,thence asking for, if they,the British government, will consider, a referendum, binding on Britain withdrawing from the European Union.THE great British public has a chance to help force a key vote on Britain leaving the European Union.

This newspaper’s (The Daily Express) historic crusade - the first to demand that Britain must quit the EU - has already been backed by almost 400,000 people by a postal coupon campaign earlier this year.The British Government has said it will consider any public campaign backed by 100,000 signatures for a debate in Parliament. (Should you,the people of Britain, wish to add your name to the Petition, do so here.....

http://www.express.co.uk/web/referendum

and then hope the government allows the referendum, and is willing to follow the outcome of the referendum(other improper and inadequate nations,dictatorially, hold internal referendums, but only follow them should the outcome be to their wishes, and not,when contrary to those,sadly).

The reasons to leave the Eu are many besides the sad events mentioned above.In the past year the UK has stumped up a colossal £12.5 billion to help rescue Greece, Ireland and Portugal with bail-outs.With possible further economic disasters looming large on the horizon in Spain and Italy the financial noose on Britain from Europe could tighten even further. In short, the EU is entirely misruled, and in a confused state, and is an economic runaway train, hurtling down a steep downgrade,unstoppably,due to economic incompetence of a great many of it's constituent nations.The WILL continue along this path, inevitably, and they can
and will take Britain down the abyss with them.We’ve got our own pound, our own currency. We don’t need to be in the EU. Half of Europe is falling apart at the moment.We’re better looking after our own interests, our own laws and finances.Opponents of the EU are also angry about the threat to Britain’s democracy by meddling Brussels bureaucrats. Critics claim we have lost control
of immigration due to EU freedom of movement laws.Our base law and order system – and basic common sense – are being undermined by the European Convention on Human Rights.

So let's look heavily and critically at the most definite disadvantages of remaining, or being in,specifically,the European Union...........

1. Common Agricultural Policy.

The CAP has been reformed, but arguably it still is an inefficient method of subsidizing the declining agricultural sector.
For a long time the EU has maintained target prices for agricultural goods above the market price; this has various disadvantages:

Higher prices for consumers
Higher Tariffs on Imports required, this has been a stumbling block to trade
High prices encouraged oversupply. EU had to buy surplus that was created.
Expensive for EU Taxpayer. - CAP budget accounts for nearly 50% of total EU budget. It costs UK £14 billion per year.

The UK has a relatively small but efficient agricultural sector, therefore it benefits the least from CAP.The inefficient benefit from it, and this only yet more encourages yet more inefficiency, hence much more cost within the CAP, which Britain is funding.In short, it encourages farmers in Europe to sit on their behinds,and collect subsidies,costly subsidies, for listening and watching rocks grow.

2. High levels of Bureaucracy and Administration within the EU.

The Bruges Group, a Eurosceptic think-tank, estimated that the combined direct and indirect costs in 2007 will amount to £100,000 a minute, or £52.4 billion — about £2 billion more than this year. This includes £20 billion in the additional costs to business of regulations emanating from Brussels.Britain funds a massively inefficient bureaucracy,mirroring such groups within each respective member nation,mirroring quite uselessly what already exists.

3. Increased Immigration.

A single market requires free movement of labour. This has led to an inflow of immigrants from Eastern Europe, this has placed a strain on housing and other amenities in the UK,amenities in the publicly funded social services as well.In short the massively unemployed are coming to Britain to there claim the common welfare and hence be paid for being unemployed.Previously this was a system,controlled, for those in need,in Britain, Britain is now funding the unemployed and unemployable of Europe who arrive, in much the same fashion as America has it's problems with Mexico and Mexicans, so has Britain the same problem with
Europe and the Europeans,a costly monetary vampirelike problem,a wandering gypsy roma people sucking the monetary blood out of Britons.By EU laws, they can't be ejected and sent back,nor seemingly kept out.

4. UK Can maintain some benefits outside EU.

The main benefits of the EU are free trade,supposedly. However, the UK could retain these benefits, even if it left. For example, Switzerland is not in EU but benefits from EU trade,nor Norway, nor even yet Mexico.Countries as diverse as Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Australia and India all have smaller economies than ours, yet all manage somehow to trade with the EU and the world without being in the EU.

5. Labour Market Inflexibility

EU Social Policies like the Social Chapter have increased labour costs and reduced labour market flexibility. Therefore, by leaving the EU, we would be able to abandon restrictive labour market practices, and therefore reduce unemployment and increase competitiveness.

6. With expansion into the East the UK no longer receives regional policy.

EU leaders are determined on political union. This is clear from the way the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution were driven through, ignoring their rejection by popular votes in Ireland, France and Holland.Hardly is this then a democracy. Polls show
that massively in the UK the vast majority,does not want the political union, and more and more want us to leave.

We can leave the EU, and have a free trade agreement with them. We would prosper outside as a free and independent country, trading with every part of the world, as we have always done,and we would be as every other free trading nation in the world.Face it, they exist happily outside of, and without,the European Union.Of Course we Can Leave - our Parliament is Sovereign we can leave the EU, because no UK Government can bind its successor. We are subject to EU rules only because UK legislation says that we are. Statutes are passed through Parliament to implement each EU treaty. These statutes require UK judges to have regard to EU law in making their judgements.Repeal this UK legislation, and we are free. EU law no longer applies to us. The debate with the EU would be about how best to manage our leaving, not whether we can leave. We don't have to pay
anything to leave. In fact we will stop paying into the EU budget – more and more every year.Yes, we pay in to the EU budget, massively,every year.

All forecasts predict economic decline for the EU - this from the European Commission itself. The single market and the euro have failed to boost EU trade, jobs and economic growth, according to a devastating report from an official French think-tank, which includes 40 of France's best-known economists. "Economic Policy and Growth in Europe"* was published in 2006 by the Conseil d'Analyse Economique, chaired by Prime Minister de Villepin. It says "economic integration has stagnated and no longer promotes growth. The Euro's creation has not produced the knock-on benefits expected... The inability of the EU to revive the economy turns investment away”

Leaving the EU would:

Save us over £7 billion payments into the EU budget every year, plus the estimated £50bn annual net cost to the UK economy

Let us control our own borders and set our own immigration rules.

Reduce the cost of food, and let British farmers meet market needs by growing what they want. This would directly benefit

our poor, who spend more of their income on food.

Give us back control over fishing in our 200 mile territorial waters, and revive our fishing industry.

Abolish over 100,000 pages of EU regulations, which hamper our businesses and rule our lives.

Let us help the Third World with trade and aid in our own way - far better than the EU does.

Eliminate the EU threat to our legal safeguards and the rights of the individual.

Restore our right to govern ourselves.

also we would avoid tax harmonization....

What are the disadvantages of tax harmonisation?

Some Member States, particularly the UK, consider the setting of taxes by the EU as a 'step too far'. For the UK, raising corporate tax is a move away from the taxation policy of the last 20 years.Some poorer regions of the EU may wish to use lower corporation tax to encourage firms to establish themselves in the region. For instance, Ireland has used lower tax rates to bring in foreign investment.Firms will tend to establish themselves in clusters in order to benefit from having similar businesses in the same area. Therefore, the level of corporation tax may well be offset by other benefits.If Member States are able to increase taxes, they are better able to control their budget deficits - an important area of economic policy in the eurozone,they,and we, won't be able to.

All round there are no advantages to Britain remaining in, nor being in, the European Union, only disadvantages.It IS necessary for Britain to withdraw from the European Union.The government can honestly gauge public opinion with respect to this through the allowance, and honest adherance to, an honest referendum to determine the fate of Britain, Remain In The EU, or, Withdraw From The EU.The best course of action would be the latter,but first, we must impose on the politicians of the day, their promise to hold one should the public show sufficient interest. Do take an interest in Britain's future, your future, sign the Daily Express petition, and thence, when the government keeps it's solumn oath, and provides it, get out and vote for the best interests of Britain, your own best interests.

Open Europe estimates for EU-27 budget for 2007–2013 in euros Member state

from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

To EU From EU Diff Ratio Population Benefit per capita
Austria 19 10 −8.5 0.526 8,298,923 −1024
Belgium 33 39 +6.4 1.182 10,584,534 605
Bulgaria 2.3 12 +9.7 5.218 7,679,290 1263
Cyprus 1.1 1 −0.1 0.909 778,684 −128
Czech 9.2 31 +22 3.370 10,287,189 2139
Denmark 17 10 −7.2 0.588 5,444,242 −1322
Estonia 0.8 4 +3.2 5.0 1,342,409 2384
Finland 13 9 −3.7 0.692 5,276,955 −701
France 140 89 −51 0.636 63,392,140 −805
Germany 164 78 −86 0.476 82,314,906 −1045
Greece 15 40 +25 2.667 11,171,740 2238
Hungary 8.4 32 +24 3.810 10,066,158 2384
Ireland 11 12 +0.6 1.091 4,312,526 139
Italy 116 70 −46 0.603 59,131,287 −778
Latvia 1.4 6 +4.6 4.286 2,281,305 2016
Lithuania 1.7 9 +7.3 5.294 3,384,879 2157
Luxembourg 2.3 10 +7.7 4.348 476,187 16170
Malta 0.5 1 +0.5 2.0 407,810 1226
Netherlands 37 13 −24 0.351 16,357,992 −1467
Poland 22 87 +65 3.955 38,125,479 1705
Portugal 12 29 +17 2.417 10,599,095 1604
Romania 7.2 32 +25 4.444 21,565,119 1159
Slovakia 3.5 14 +11 4.00 5,393,637 2039
Slovenia 3.1 6 +2.9 1.9354 2,010,377 1443
Spain 76 78 +2.2 1.026 44,474,631 49
Sweden 20 9 −11 0.450 9,113,257 −1207
United Kingdom 103 46 −57 0.447 60,816,701 −937

Polls on the European Union show that more and more British people want to leave the EU. An Angus Reid poll in July 2011 showed that in the event of a referendum on the UK's EU membership, 49% of Britons would vote in favour of leaving the EU and 25% would vote to stay in. Any advantages once thought to derive from EU membership are now far outweighed by ever-increasing disadvantages. Few of us are enthusiastic about keeping 54,000 Brussels bureaucrats in luxury, or paying an extra £10 a week in higher food costs because of the CAP. We could make much better use of that money ourselves.The EU Admits it faces Economic Decline,Economic Failure, FAILURE of a doomed union,the euro has and is failing, it only remains to bury it.

As with fruit, the Eu has surrounded itself with economic rot nations, around a central core of hardier nations, however, as with all rot,mold and fungus, the rot,mold,the fungus of the outside, penetrates towards, and reaches and corrupts the core,ultimately.I,Secret Squirrel say,let there be a referendum for the people of Britain, a free and binding referendum, let the people be the judge, let the people decide their own fate,the fate of their nation.Let freedom ring.

Secret Squirrel Comments On Using CFL Bulbs.

2011-08-01T17:10:00.000-07:00

I,Secret Squirrel,say to you,so what are we all learning and experiencing with the new,forced on us,Curly Bulbs,known as CFL's?Well we have learned their lives are notoriously short compared with a stated,and most definite lie, of having a 5 year
life....By no means is this anywhere near the actual truth.They also depend on being turned on continuously or at least for 4 hours at a time to meet an 8 month life. If they are on for only 1 hour you get a further 20% to 50% reduction in lamp life. If the CFL is used with 5 to 30 minute use cycles like most incandescents, the life is reduced 70% to 85%. That means your 6,000 hour bulb is now lasting 900 hours,far ,far less than many incandescent bulbs........need I mention that in use, in the LAST THREE YEARS, I have not changed a single incandescent bulb.

Second, the lifetime quoted on a CFL is just an average, meaning that 50% of the lamps can and do fail before the stated hours and can still be considered a valid rating.Average life, perhaps 8 months..I say again,MY INCANDESCENTS? I HAVEN"T CHANGED A BURNED OUT BULB THREE,COUT'EM,THREE,ONE,TWO,THREE.......THREE YEARS.The CFL's gave up the ghost in between 6-8 months in our normal,and yours, house, use.(I get 4 Incandescents for $1, CFL's cheap rate,for 4 CFL's for $7).

When an incandescent light bulb burns out you throw it in the trash. Simple enough. When a CFL or Compact Fluorescent Lamp burns out, you just throw it in the trash too, right? Wrong!CFL's contaion highly toxic,highly poisonous,highly dangerous MERCURY.Yes,CFL's contain mercury and mercury has no place in our landfills. Most spent commercial fluorescent lamps used in business are carefully controlled and recycled by law under the EPA's Universal Waste Rule.Why all the fuss? CFL's contain about 5 milligrams of a neurotoxin called mercury. MSNBC reports that data interpolated from Stanford University research shows the
amount of mercury in one CFL "is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels." An EPA funded study found that one gram of mercury deposited in a 20 acre lake is enough to contaminate the fish and make them unfit to eat.The recycling industry estimates that in 2007 about 400 million CFL's were purchased in the USA but only 2% were recycled. That's 320 million CFL's in the trash....going in to the earth,to the water supply as well.

What if the bulb breaks? Well.....there is the vapour/dust problem......Elemental (metallic) mercury primarily causes health effects when it is breathed as a vapor where it can be absorbed through the lungs. These exposures can occur when elemental mercury is spilled or products that contain elemental mercury break and expose mercury to the air, particularly in warm or poorly-ventilated indoor spaces.Symptoms include these: tremors; emotional changes (e.g., mood swings, irritability, nervousness, excessive shyness); insomnia; neuromuscular changes (such as weakness, muscle atrophy, twitching); headaches; disturbances in sensations; changes in nerve responses; performance deficits on tests of cognitive function."Mad as a hatter" is a colloquial phrase used in conversation to refer to a crazy person. In 18th and 19th century England mercury was used in the
production of felt, which was used in the manufacturing of hats common of the time. People who worked in these hat factories were exposed daily to trace amounts of the metal, which accumulated within their bodies over time, causing some workers to develop dementia caused by mercury poisoning. Thus the phrase "Mad as a Hatter" became popular as a way to refer to someone who was perceived as insane.Nowadays, this is no doubt going to affect those chinese workers who are manufacturing these bulbs.

We are also learing, through our experiences, and from internet mentionings of, the fact that CFL's are in fact a dangerous FIRE HAZARD.CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) don't burn out the way incandescent light bulbs do. Instead, as they near the ends of their lives, they grow dimmer. While some CFL bulbs merely stop emitting light when they finally quit working, others kick the bucket with a dramatic "pop"! sound and then vent a distinct odor. A few even release a bit of smoke at their termination. Sometimes the bases of the bulbs turn black. This seemingly cataclysmic reaction has to do with the breakdown of the bulb's ballast, which is contained in the part of the bulb that is screwed into the socket. As the bulb ages and degrades, so does its ballast. Yet as scary as odors, smoke, and even blackening of the base of the bulb.Bulbs burn out when the ballast overheats and
an electronic component, the Voltage Dependent Resistor (VDR), opens up like a fuse in your home's fuse box, shutting off the circuit and generating heat and possibly a small amount of smoke.However, flames shooting out the side of a bulb is not the way things should be,and yet,MANY times, at the end of their life,or rather as they end their early and small lives,they tend to do this and virtually all manufacturers of bulbs are evidenced on the internet of doing exactly this. It needs be kept in mind that any electrical device can malfunction,through manufacturing defects,and sadly, worse yet, in normal ordinary uses.It must
also be kept in mind that lampshades of 99.9% of all table lamps, are...flammable. We also keep in mind that these CFL's do not like being in upside down fixtures, shortening their lives further to like 4 months, and they also don't like being in
enclosed(entirely),fixtures.

So, we have a very short lifed,expensive,highly toxic,fire hazard..........in place of a docile lightbulb,so far. We also have one which up here in Canada,won't work parts of the year due to temperatures. Wonderfully they have developed CFL's which are supposed to work, but not well, to 0 (zero) degrees fahrenheit..well that's about say - (negative) 16 (Sixteen), Centigrade.Sadly here in lower Ontario,Canada, the temperature is for a few weeks minus twenty Centigrade,and up in Montreal, when its negative twenty here, it's negative 30 there,Centigrade, most definitely below working temperatures of the CFL's,so no outdoor lighting from the CFL's making things such as spotlamps,security lamps, outdoor porch lights,door lights etc NOT workable....we're left in the dark.Yes, this is the reality of what the politicians have forced on us all,"FROM HELL'S HEART I STAB AT THEE,CURLY CFL BULB."

Secret Squirrel Pays America's National Debt By A Revolving Credit System

2011-07-31T16:15:00.000-07:00

I,Secret Squirrel have solved the National debt of America, easily, quickly, efficiently, without needing The Houses of Congress and The Senate to agree,without the possibility of veto, or failure,by using a revolving credit plan.Credit card companies have cheques that permit you to pay off another credit card company by using this cheque,paying credit card company A with a cheque from credit card company B,then paying credit card company B.

I propose America use the same system, but in a form of revolving credit for the National Debt. In short,we pay our debt off with national credit card company government accounts, with several such companies,without mentioning names, as we're dealing with the financial mechanics of the system,say A,B,C,D,E,we pay A with B's cheque,B with C's cheque etc and on to, and then when arriving at E's cheque,we pay A with E's cheque, and so enter the system round about ever more, revolving credit revolves constantly, and so we maintain the national debt payments,fully, and so also garner an absolutely spotless credit rating, allowing America to borrow,print up, spend,whatever, yet more, as ever it needs yet more.
America will never ever default on a debt payment ever again,since that condition cannot possibly ever arise again.

Everyone knows that such a burden of debt is far more easily borne when it's kept constantly moving instead of sitting heavily upon the nation. Mind you you do notice that none of the other existent political parties have mastered the financial economics of debt management that I,Secret Squirrel, has.

Secret Squirrel On America And It's Possible National Debt Default.

2011-07-30T10:09:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has noticed the recent great suckings and blowings in America, sucking and blowing by well exercised wind bags, sucking and blowing about firstly, the debts of other nations and how defaults would bankrupt them,destroy them, et all,and veiled threats made to them of their inability to pay debts,bankruptcy etc etc etc, nations such as Spain, Iceland, Italy, Greece. Well it seems it is a case of The Great Black Kettle, calling the tiny pot,black.We now see an America, emblackened, emblackened with respect to IT now defaulting on it's debt, but we see a different outcome drawn for America,by Americans,specifically it's government, which made the admonishments and threats to the other nations, concerning their debts,et all, strangely enough.

The National Debt has Risen to $13.665 Trillion Under President Obama ... "And then we've got to pay interest to China or whoever else is willing to buy our debt,".interesting words, buy our debt.so what if no one wishes to buy our debt.Obama has just days before his crisis emerged, chastised Spain,Italy,Ireland, Greece about their debt saying he didn't buy their debt, and wouldn't tolerate, or whatever, their default..........well they didn't default,they haven't they won't,they were bailed out by France,Germany,England, but it seems nobody seems to buy Obama, and his plan,nobody wants to bail him out,for whatever reason, and why,can we guess.Does it matter.Do you mind?What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.The government's authority to borrow more money has expired, and the US risks a default on its debt if Congress and the White House cannot agree a plan by next Tuesday,to allow the government of the people of the United States, to borrow money,borrow from where who can say,borrow from whom, borrow from what,borrow money which doesn't exist, or doesn't yet exist.What started the borrowing crisis, and what happens to the US and the world economy if it cannot be resolved?

The US government has a legal limit on how much debt it can run up – $14.3tn at present. It reached the cap in May, which means it cannot borrow any more money.Well now, the US is in debt exactly to who and whom? To what nations?Shortly before this "crisis",Obama was yelling and screaming at,and threatening, Ireland,Spain,Italy,Greece on being in debt, and possibly defaulting on THEIR debts.So, a few days later, Obama's America debt problem arose. Now, who's in debt to whom? Well, nations are in debt to other nations, in sum toto their imports exceed their exports,however this oddity seems to be the case for all
nations, so what goes around comes around, everybody is in debt to everybody else, and everybody else, in Europe for example, solves their problem by borrowing from other nations at any particular given time, for example, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Greece ,borrow from nations such as England,France,Germany, in Europe, as in a closed circuit.

Well now, America is in similarity to Europe,but we must regard the States as nation states, therfore Obama must find a rich state to borrow from.Sadly, this may not be the case, and now what?Will America borrow from France,Germany,England...seemingly no as they claim to be over extended at
this point, perhaps thence to compound America's problem,in the light of global politics,so that solution,the number one solution, is out of the picture.

But is it a problem?Again, to whom exactly is America in debt to.Pondering this out, each nation being in debt to each other nation, we find that America's problem is simply itself,it is it's own problemHow did America pay it's debts in the past?

Interestingly they have a different solution to that of Europe, rather America is in debt to itself, as such it simply has to raise it's own debt limit,agaian, as it has in the past, and do what it always does.namely it prints up Treasury Certificates
for x billions or whatever is necessary, and it goes to the Treasury Department, which then takes the certificates, puts them away, and prints up the required currency versus and against the Treasury Certificates they were given. And so the problem is solve,that is the solution,the number two solution, it has been applied and has worked successfully for every other President before him.

So why then cannot Obama do the same thing?He seems to understand he must raise America's debt ceiling,but that's where Obama gets stuck.Underpants gnomes are also stuck, underpants gnomes are those who come in the night when you sleep,and steal your underpants. They have the understanding that this will lead to profit, but as yet they have not figured out how to make this profit.Studying
their problem, the missing step they haven't yet fathomed is to sell said stolen underpants and hence make a profit. Here too Obama is stuck, he has no idea how to make America turn a profit. In the life of the world, Obama (America), has invaded foreign lands, the Arab lands,which contain oil,but that's where he's stuck, how to turn a massive profit? Well, now, as with the underpants gnomes, the trick is to turn a profit by selling what he has, they have underpants they have procurred and must said said underpants if they wish to make a profit. Obama has a pile of oil(versus the underpants gnomes underpants), but he doesn't realize that he must now sell this oil he has procurred and hence make a profit. Problem solved. That is the other solution to things,the number three solution,but again, Obama does not realize this.He has happily invaded Arab lands, but is stuck in a now what condition.

So how has America been keeping afloat since then?Well,Treasury secretary Tim Geithner managed to stave off default by suspending payments into two federal pension funds, pledging to repay the money once Congress has approved a higher debt ceiling.This is wonderful as a solution, it is THE solution, the immediate solution.However, we hit a snag there in this reasoning, the logic is faulty, it will work, but it won't,for example, why can he not simply do this now,as in repay the money now...quite simply he hasn't got the money since he spent it,and won't have it then either,regardless, as where can this money which doesn't thence exist,come from.Well, pretzel logic dictates that it can't, therefor this solution, the number four solution, won't work,it can't it doesn't make sense.But then does government make sense,or is there no rhyme nor reason to politics,no sense nor sensibility.

There is another solution, the government can borrow the funds, provided Congress agrees,should all agree how to do it,quite simply, The Congress, and The Senate,Congress is Republican, the Senate Democrat, but from where will America borrow the funds that it can't repay to pay it's debts?Again, so Congress agrees,but from where can he borrow the money from which he can't get the money without the permission of Congress,neither they nor he, nor we, can ever possibly know,beyond the fact he can't ever pay it back again, so it's all gone from wherever it came from and they'll never see the money that they never had in the first place.All of which only serves to pint out that there is a problem existant because money at present doesn't exist. Curious that Europe has no evident problem that Obama has, but then Europe doesn't have Obama.What happens if a deal can't be agreed by Tuesday,which happens to be August 2nd,2011?

The US treasury estimates that funds will dry up by then, which would leave the government unable to pay its bills – such as social security payments, Medicare, military salaries and debt interest payments. The Republicans claim that the government would get by for a few more days after 2 August, but there is no doubt that the two sides need to agree a deal soon.Or at least they claim this will solve the problem, but this doesn't explain from where the money that they don't have will come from,nor what basis said currency then has.Some analysts said however that recent strong tax receipts meant the United States could have
up to two extra weeks of cushion after August 2, offering a possible temporary reprieve before it could be forced to default.So the world's richest nation default on its debt, with supposedly ruinous global results,because it has not been paying
its debts whilst they also have not been paying their debts,all merely acumulating yet more debts.Wonderful.So what would happen if the US defaults....‘Payments’ default would be accompanied by ‘default’ ratings of the US government or some of its debt issues by the major credit rating agencies. A downgrade of the short-term rating of the US government to ‘default’ would be highly likely, while the nature of the downgrade for the long-term debt looks more uncertain.Increases in US rates at all points of the curve are likely to be relatively large and to persist for years. The dollar could drop sharply and major disruption in the US and global financial system could cause private lending and borrowing rates to rise even more rapidly than the sovereign rates. Financial conditions could worsen sharply and interbank, credit and other funding markets are likely to ‘freeze’. As a result of the financial turmoil, the negative wealth effects, the increases in costs of capital and the substantial hit to sentiment, the US dives into a deep recession, taking the rest of the world with it,because they're all in debt themselves.So it's all a question of debt, isn't it.Well let's look at the national debt list by nations...........as a percentage of their GDP....let's start, in first place is Japan, with a percentile of 225.80 percent of their GDP......

1 Japan
225.80 percentile debt of GDP

2 Saint Kitts and Nevis
185.00

3 Lebanon
150.70

4 Zimbabwe
149.00

5 Greece
144.00

6 Iceland
123.80

7 Jamaica
123.20

8 Italy
118.10

9 Singapore
102.40

10 Belgium
98.60

11 Ireland
94.20

12 Sudan
94.20

13 Sri Lanka
86.70

14 France
83.50

15 Portugal
83.20

16 Egypt
80.50

17 Belize
80.00

18 Hungary
79.60

19 Germany
78.80

20 Dominica
78.00

21 Nicaragua
78.00

22 Israel
77.30

23 United Kingdom
76.50

24 Malta
72.60

25 Austria
70.40

26 Netherlands
64.60

27 Spain
63.40

28 Cote d’Ivoire
63.30

29 Jordan
61.40

30 Cyprus
61.10

31 Brazil
60.80

32 Mauritius
60.50

33 Ghana
59.90

34 World
59.30

35 Albania
59.30

36 Bahrain
59.20

37 United States
58.90

38 Seychelles
58.80

39 Morocco
58.20

40 Bhutan
57.80

41 Guyana
57.00

42 Vietnam
56.70

43 Philippines
56.50

44 Uruguay
56.00

45 India
55.90

46 Croatia
55.00

47 El Salvador
55.00

48 Poland
53.60

49 Malaysia
53.10

50 Kenya
50.90

51 Argentina
50.30

52 Pakistan
49.90

53 Tunisia
49.50

54 Turkey
48.10

55 Norway
47.70

56 Denmark
46.60

57 Aruba
46.30

58 Latvia
46.20

59 Finland
45.40

60 Colombia
44.80

61 United Arab Emirates
44.60

62 Costa Rica
42.40

63 Thailand
42.30

64 Dominican Republic
41.70

65 Mexico
41.50

66 Serbia
41.50

67 Slovakia
41.00

68 Mozambique
40.80

69 Sweden
40.80

70 Malawi
40.40

71 Czech Republic
40.00

72 Panama
40.00

73 Bolivia
39.70

74 Bangladesh
39.30

75 Ethiopia
39.30

76 Yemen
39.10

77 Bosnia and Herzegovina
39.00

78 Ukraine
38.40

79 Switzerland
38.20

80 Montenegro
38.00

81 Lithuania
36.70

82 Slovenia
35.50

83 Romania
34.80

84 Cuba
34.40

85 Macedonia
34.20

86 Canada
34.00

87 Taiwan
33.90

88 South Africa
33.20

89 Senegal
32.10

90 Syria
29.80

91 Guatemala
29.60

92 Papua New Guinea
27.80

93 Indonesia
26.40

94 Trinidad and Tobago
26.40

95 Honduras
26.10

96 Gabon
25.80

97 Algeria
25.70

98 New Zealand
25.50

99 Venezuela
25.50

100 Moldova
25.00

101 Zambia
24.10

102 Korea, South
23.70

103 Peru
23.60

104 Tanzania
23.30

105 Ecuador
23.20

106 Paraguay
22.80

107 Botswana
22.60

108 Australia
22.40

109 Uganda
20.40

110 Angola
20.30

111 Namibia
20.00

112 Hong Kong
18.20

113 China
17.50

114 Saudi Arabia
16.70

115 Bulgaria
16.20

116 Iran
16.20

117 Luxembourg
16.20

118 Kazakhstan
16.20

119 Nigeria
13.40

120 Kuwait
12.60

121 Qatar
10.30

122 Cameroon
9.60

123 Russia
9.50

124 Uzbekistan
9.00

125 Estonia
7.70

126 Gibraltar
7.50

127 Chile
6.20

128 Wallis and Futuna
5.60

.
129 Azerbaijan
4.60

130 Oman
4.40

131 Equatorial Guinea
4.10

132 Libya
3.30

America is at 58 percentile of it's GDP,made up of 50 states, Europe is at a similar cumulative percentile of GDP of the sum total of 27 nations in the European Union,collectively.China's is only 17.50 percent,Australia only 22.40,not far ahead of them.I must snicker at this, Libya under Khadafi before his problems, had Libya at only 3.30 percentil of GDP debt. So, how are they collectively able to pay their debts,and why aren't they in the position of defaulting on their debts?That is the other nations,who don't seem to have the problem America is having,seemingly being able to solve their economic crisis in intelligent fashion?Now all nations continually add to their national debt, in short, their national debt keeps rising,each year,rather than falling, and so too has America's.But Obama can't solve his national debt problem, the problem of America's national debt.

Now let's consdier what the probelm is,the national debt, and how it will be solved, merely by raising the debt ceiling itself.........according to....

http://politisite.com/2011/07/25/can-president-obama-use-14th-amendment-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling/

......... Although the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution does not say specifically that the President has the power to raise the debt limit, there is a lot of talk recently that he may try to do so. The Amendment says in Section 4.
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” And Section 5. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”Even so President Clinton said that he would use the Amendment to raise the debt Limit bypassing Congress. The ability for the President to bypass Congress in an Amendment that gives the President certain powers but not in section 4..............................
Clinton said he believed a deal would be struck before August 2, but if he were in charge, and both sides failed to reach an agreement, he would simply raise the debt ceiling himself using powers granted under the 14th amendment of the Constitution. The

amendment says that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Clinton said he’d “force the courts to stop

me.”...........So that's what Obama can try to do,IF? Congress allows him and says he can do it? Or not if they don't?So what now,what was the other attempt.....The latest round of bargaining began on Monday when Mr Boehner and Senate Democrats offered competing plans to raise the debt limit and cut spending.The plans differed in size and scope, and neither would raise new tax revenue - a red line for Republicans.Mr Boehner's plan would also require another debt limit agreement in about six months, something Mr Obama has publicly declared he will not accept.So,let me get this straight, all they have to do, is agree,and everything will be all right. So, why can they not agree, and will they not agree, for the good of the nation adn the people of the United States,they just have to agree,and the required debt ceiling will be raised, and the money borrowed from where ever in la la, or fantasy land, or never,never land and everything will be right and well..go figure,that's the cure.......there's more.........seems America defaulting really only affects it's credit rating, versus Obama's threats,blustering and blundering with respect to Spain,Italy,Ireland or Greece defaulting would affect THEM to massive extents, but not the same for America, America defaulting has now been pushed to a ridiculous credit rating,borrowing ability shift downwards.....curious things not the same as his statements about their debt
problem,defaulting..........bankruptcy.......so now the plot thickens,read on...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8672159/US-debt-crisis-Republican-budget-proposal-passed-in-House-of-Representatives.html

US debt crisis: Republican budget proposal passed in House of Representatives
The House of Representatives on Friday night passed a bill designed to end the looming US debt crisis, but amid high level warnings that Congress was "playing with fire", it faced almost certain defeat in the Senate.

By Alex Spillius, Washington

Hours after President Barack Obama called for Republicans and Democrats to put party politics aside, the Republican-controlled House scraped through a bill by just eight votes, even though Democrats, who control the Senate, had warned that it was unacceptable and "extremist".John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, gave an impassioned appeal to his colleagues in the House to approve his plan, slamming his fist on the podium several times."I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president of the United States," he said, referring to failed negotiations with Mr Obama earlier this month"My colleagues, I can tell you I have worked with the president and the administration since the beginning of this year to avoid being in this spot," he added. "A lot of people in this town can never say yes."With the vote out of the way after two days of high drama, negotiations immediately started on a compromise bill that would be started in the Senate by Democrats and then go back to the House.It might then pick up enough votes across both parties to pass before Tuesday's deadline to raise the so-called debt ceiling.There is a however real danger that Congress will not meet the deadline set by the US Treasury, which could mean that the US fails to pay its creditors for the first time.The government may also fail to fund state pensions, student loans, military salaries, contracts with businesses and a gamut of routine payments.World leaders have warned of the dire consequences for the global economy of a US default.There has been dismay at the dysfunction in Washington, with World Bank President Robert Zoellick saying the United States was "playing with fire"."Whatever the logic about the tactics, it's a very dangerous environment," he told a meeting of the Society for International Development."To be blunt, to have a debt default in the United States would not only be a financial calamity but should be an embarrassment for every American" he said.America's largest foreign creditor, China, has repeatedly urged Washington to protect its dollar investments and its state-run news agency said the US had been "kidnapped" by "dangerously irresponsible" politics.Speaking earlier at the White House, Mr Obama warned that the country's top credit rating was at risk after leading credit agencies said they were likely to issue a downgrade."If we don't do that, if we don't come to an agreement, we could lose our country's triple-A credit rating, not because we didn't have the capacity to pay our bills – we do – but because we didn't have
a triple-A political system to match our triple-A credit rating," he said."There are a lot of crises in the world that we can't always predict or avoid – hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks. This isn't one of those crises. The power to solve this is in our hands," he said.Opponents of a deal have accused the administration of scare tactics and questioned if the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling would be so dire after all.

Here ends to informational epistle from the Daily Telegraph.

So what happened in The Senate with the Republican bill? Well, the Democrats in the Senate, voted..........No.So now the Democrats want America to default?Seemingly so.That's politics?Suicidal politics?The politics of Russian roulette with ONE bullet removed?Curious,through the great embuggeration that is American politics,now the Democrats seem to want to allow America to Default,Obama's Democrats...Crisis?What crisis? It seems it's all so irrelevant with respect to America,and all is as it seems,for America,so we don't mind.Do you mind?What is mind? No matter. What is matter?Does it matter?Never mind.

Secret Squirrel Ponders Implications Of The Phone Hacking Scandal

2011-07-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has monitored the emerging British Phone Hacking scandal,as most call it, the Rupert Murdoch Scandal,as some call it, and feels it is necessary to comment on the scandal ,at present being investigated,and emerging events of the day concerning it. This scandal, at present,just that,but Squirrel surmises, it WILL, reach epic and gigantic proportions, proportions as yet unimagined by many.It WILL be a far reaching hummungous scandal reaching far in to the past, and having deep present day repercussions, and reaching out well in to the future,altering the fabric of the sanctity of the lives of Britons,citizens of Britain,citizens ruled by Parliament,the citizens under the British Monarchy.

There has been revealed, through a mole,a quesling,or what ever you term said person(one Sean Hoare) who first revealed the phone hacking scandal(he was one of them involved in actually informationally hacking as things had been set up for him,by as yet persons and persons unknown and anonymous,yet hidden by others,in short,he WAS a spy,of sorts,perhaps out of sorts), of the massive intrusion in to the private lives of Britons, of members of government, in short an event which may yet emerge to involve not simple journalists,nor journalism,but rather spies, spying, directed by foreigners, citizens of a foreign power, a power alien to Britain,events emerging most definitely indicating occurrences to the detriment of the British citizen.

Hoare had told the New York Times that reporters at the NoW (News Of The World)were able to use police technology to locate people using their mobile phone signals, in exchange for payments to police officers. He said journalists were able to purchase the mobile phone tracking data from police for just £300.Where there is crime, there must be punishment.Looking at events,from what may occur, dependent on whose phone has been hacked we're looking at something very much like this.People were located via their mobile phones,locationally traced.

Now what is the legal side to all this.Well now,dependent on how a crime of intrusion in to a politician,member of governments position,there is a definitional change in crime designation, phone hacking is a crime with respect to anyone,yes, but it changes when members of government,politicians are involved,dealing with them in that fashion can result in things like charges for treason,that's right, treason,where we shall first commence and proceed from there.

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.Treason is committed by citizens of the nation, in this instance,Britain.A
citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 became law, the maximum sentence for high treason,crime against the Monarch,members of the Royal Family, in the UK has been life imprisonment.For spying,in Britain, the maximum punishment is 14 years in prison.Ordinary treason, is somewhere in between.

Now in present day events,the scandal has been termed The Phone Hacking Scandal.Let us first examine the method used, that of hacking cell phones, in the first instance.The modern cell phone originated with Martin Cooper; however, in order to completely understand the invention of the cell phone, you actually have to go back to the year 1947. It was then that the underlying technology that makes cell phones possible was invented. Known as hexagonal cells for mobile phone base stations, cell phones were invented through a joint effort between AT&T and Bell Labs. They were not actually used until the late 1950s.Doctor Martin Cooper invented the modern cell phone. He invented the technology responsible for the cell phone when he was the Director of Research and Development at Motorola. Dr. Martin Cooper is also known as the first person to make a call on a cell phone. His revolutionary call took place in April of 1973 in New York. He is currently the CEO of an antenna corporation.That's where and when it all began, in America, the country which controls the technology, and security technology,and computer technology, of the modern in use cellphone.There were and are internet enabled smartphone devices as well, and as we know, they have had problems recently with nations complaining they wished the codings for said system such
that THEY could monitor calls made with those devices.One recalls the Canadian Blackberry for example, and calls by foreign nations such as Pakistan,India,some Arab lands, etc which wished THE TECHNOLOGY to be able to penetrate and monitor such device use, in short, they wished to be able to hack in to said types of "phones" NOT BEING ABLE TO DO SO THEMSELVES, in short they THEY, a GOVERNMENT had not been able to penetrate the Canadian security of said,device, but OBVIOUSLY ,CANADA, and the company which made said device, COULD. In short penetration of said security of such devices is not easy, BUT is available and can be done with sufficient knowledge provided by the system designers etc,do take careful note here.Can it be done? Yes, but knowledge, extreme knowledge computer codings of the system, are required, not something just anybody can
get their hands on, massive technological help at the highest levels, IS required, not a simple task indeed.

Phone hacking involves a highly technologically motivated enterprise.It is not easy by any means,face it you cannot do it you yourself. How would it be done, requires direction, ordered initiation, thence requires those with the technological know
how, those with knowledge of the phone networks involved,and those with a high grade of computer skills. It requires massive organization,and cannot be done by a joe plumber in the confines of his apartment.In short it is a form of say,foreign,
intelligence apparatus network abilities. Also, take note, IF you did this, you would go to prison, as well as those who assisted you, all the lackeys and minions involved, together with the brains and organization of the outfit. If such hacking
took place involving government officials, then the term for that is spying, if by locally directed, it is domestic spying, but spying nevertheless.If it involves foreign nationals,such as say, American citizens, it is spying by and for a second power, a foreign power, a breech of NATIONAL security by a malevolent foreign entity,regardless of nation.need one wonder to what purpose.Rupert Murdoch,owner of The News Of The World,owner of a newspaper and media empire,worldwide in it's situation, has tried to brand himself mostly as Australia,and is referred to in press(his) as an Australian American, but he was Australian,(and does NOT hold dual citizenship,NOT in Australia) and to expand his empire of owned newspaper apparatus in foreign nations,and to gain control of media in foreign nations,he had to become an EXCLUSIVE American citizen, and so dropped, and lost his Australian citizenship. At that moment he was no longer an Australian, those many years back, but ipso facto, an American purely and simply.To Britain, and Australia, at that moment, he became a foreigner,back in 1985.He is
ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes' The World's Most Powerful People list.With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world.

Interestingly high officials in Scotland Yard have resigned, having failed the British Politicians, the British people,all, not just those who were the victims of the phone tapping,hacking etc by and for whatever foreign directed purpose there was.For example Sir Paul Stephenson, commissioner of the UK's Metropolitan Police, commonly known as Scotland Yard, resigned (DailyTelegraph), following revelations that he had employed former News of the World editor Neil Wallis as a personal
adviser.

"Wallis was arrested last week on suspicion of phone-hacking while at the newspaper, though Stephenson claimed that Wallis was not involved in the scandal while working for him in 2009. Stephenson said he had not told Prime Minister David Cameron about Wallis's employment so as not to "compromise" Cameron "(Financial Times), whose former communications chief, Andy Coulson, was also arrested for phone-hacking activities at News of the World,as well as police corruption charges(bribery and corruption, obtaining information from police through monetary payments, bribes,the pot de vin,schmiergeld,tea money.),the penalties for committing a crime under the Bribery Act are a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment, along with an unlimited fine, and the potential for the confiscation of property.Well that's a right plum job he had, and a really well based position for a mole to be in,an informative position,an invasive position,a job of massive available intelligence on Britons and Britain,and on of influence.If the lad could and would wear a dress, we would have a Profumo Scandal.The affair even yet deepens......most seriously.........David Cameron's friendship with Rebekah Brooks([BBC]Ex-News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks has been arrested by police investigating phone hacking and bribery at the News of the World.The 43-year-old
was arrested by appointment on Sunday on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and on suspicion of corruption.) and employment of Andy Coulson puts him at the very center of the phone-hacking story, writes the Daily Telegraph.Curious, they're the heads, the high heads, the dinner table party lads, not really functionaries who actually function.Questions,questions,questions arise out of this,questions we must have answers to,regardless.

why was Tony Blair so effiminent and ineffectual,unable to function when it came to dealings with the Americans.Was he more than their simply servile,smarmy patsy and the world's worst negotiator when it came to the Americans?Was there more to his ineptitude with respect to the Americans,were there things he didn't know that they knew,about British policies etc and himself?He certainly was Britain's most ridiculous and worst leader(loose term here applied,probably incorrectly).The Prime Minister raised the prospect of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown being called to give evidence to a phone-hacking inquiry today.Prime Minister Cameron said,"For the last 30 years at least, the British political establishment has lived in dread of
Rupert Murdoch. Although the real influence of his papers has been probably been wildly exaggerated, the Tories have always craved his support. Neil Kinnock loathed him, but Tony Blair actively courted the Murdoch press and until late 2009 one of
the unofficial rules of New Labour was: "never do anything that might offend News International."

The judge leading the phone hacking inquiry will have powers to call past and present politicians, editors and media proprietors.so deep does it go, so far back does it go.but to what purpose..simple..."news".Recall Murdoch's paper's revelations were hardly shocking things, simply so much gossip as to hardly even irritate, say a Hollywood celebrity,run of the mill smut and a touch of smarm.

At the Guardian.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/08/phone-hacking-kate-middleton-tony-blair

The Guardian has commented.......Pressure is building on the Metropolitan police to expand their phone-hacking inquiry to include a notorious private investigator who was accused in the House of Commons on Wednesday of targeting politicians,
members of the royal family and high-level terrorist informers on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's News International.Guardian inquiries reveal that the former prime minister Tony Blair is among the suspected victims of Jonathan Rees, who was
involved in the theft of confidential data, the hacking of computers and, it is alleged, burglary. According to close associates of Rees, he also targeted:

• Jack Straw when he was home secretary, Peter Mandelson when he was trade secretary and Blair's media adviser Alastair Campbell;

• Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex, and the Duke and Duchess of Kent, all of whom are said to have had their bank accounts penetrated, and Kate Middleton when she was Prince William's girlfriend;

• The former commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir John Stevens, and the current assistant commissioner, John Yates, who later supervised the failed phone-hacking inquiry for 19 months;

• The governor and deputy governor of the Bank of England, whose mortgage account details were obtained and sold.Rees, who worked for the Mirror Group as well as the New of the World, is also accused of using a specialist computer hacker
in July 2006 to steal information about MI6 agents who had infiltrated the Provisional IRA.

Here ends their epistle.

At CNN.........

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-25/world/uk.blair.hacked.report_1_hacker-group-phone-numbers-personal-data?_s=PM:WORLD

Blair suffered personally, some, and maybe more.........

Personal details about Tony Blair that appear online were apparently not hacked from the former British prime minister's computer systems, but from the email account of a former staffer.Responding to a report about a hacker group that claims to have accessed Blair's personal data, a Blair spokesman said Saturday, "This information has not been obtained from Tony Blair or any of his office systems."

Here ends the epistle from CNN, but there may be more, known,unknown,made public,kept private.where there is politician, where there is government, where there is Prime Minister, there is image(the portrait with the stink lines air brushed
out),there is embarrassment,there is keeping up appearances.

There is far more to the phone hacking scandal than meets the eye.It has implications of, being yet far deeper than ever was the simple,by comparison now, Profumo scandal, it is of rather great epic proportions,and indicates a great depth and direction of operations involving foreigners,directed by foreigners,and those within Britain,moles and operatives of a nefarious foreign power penetrating the national security of the politicians of Britain,and the security of Britain itself. Actual penetration of the British phone system could not have been prevented, only in technological hindsight,nor known, until there was a leak from within that (domestically inclined or otherwise) newspaper intelligence apparatus.Also the technology of the entire

system, cellular, is, in fact, foreign, it's coding etc and and security anti-bugging,anti-listening, anti-hacking, is thence also foreign, and in the case of cellular communications, American.Those in Britain with the knowledge of the security system computerized and whatever to prevent hacking and thence initiate hacking, in Britain, are there for very very few and far between,but those with said knowledge withing America and it's system, are in fact a great many,if not commonplace,but sworn to the Omerta of Americans with respect to the system. A newspaper organization is a vast intelligence network, but the one of Rupert Murdoch, was extremely up to date, high technology,with capabilities far yet exceeding even yet say, Scotland Yard itself.

As of present, the scandal is of humungous perspectives, but even yet a far greater,far vaster vista is yet opening up, the surface of this occurrence has hardly yet even been scratched.Direct and massive investigation is required,but looking at the nature of things being what they are, one commences to already doubt whether or not the government itself will be able to afford,or even yet allow full revelation of things. The present coalition is extremely lucky, it has been in power only a few months, in the revelations of what has occurred,and was the fledgeling government of the people of Britain which detected it.But such penetration occurred far early and went on many yet years,quite probably, undetected,hidden by the secrecy of the organization.

The plot thickens, Police say Sean Hoare, the whistleblower reporter who alleged widespread hacking at the News of the World, has been found dead.Police said Hoare's death at his home in England was considered to be somewhat suspicious, according to Britain's Press Association news agency,since forensics teams were called in.Recall he had stated before his death, that there would be yet more revelations, but in light of everything,his statement in particular, suicide becomes a highly dodgey label to place on it. The whistle blower would gain the public notoriety , the adoration of having revealed, not a smashed and shattered life by any means, but rather a rather,perhaps, envied, life, now in the limelight, hardly having let the people of Britain down, he had uplifted them to the point where he himself would have been in fact,publicly worshiped for his brave actions, his actions on the behalf of the British justice system, his actions on the behalf of the British people. Yes indeed, but now he is gone, removed,out of the game,making investigations yet more difficult. Indeed the game is afoot, a high crime game, a high stakes game.This is not a simple home invasion, a simple hacking of cellular phone system, but also, the hackings of the phones of politicians.Why whatever for, whatever and whomever,would such phone tapping etc benefit, and who would suffer to the detriment.Who indeed is behind this foreign invasion,this foreign intrusion?Who indeed.

And how and whom is responsible,whom is to face,and how many are to face, the British Justice System, and the British penal system, and for what ever charges...........yes, the game is afoot.

Secret Squirrel On The Canadian Internet Billing Crisis

2011-07-12T21:58:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has had his attention aroused by a second attempt,in Canada, by the CRTC( Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) at initiating a monopolisticly financially dictated cap on internet use, i.e. to have a dictated global provider plan for UBB,Usage Based Billing of the free Canadian Internet,to the behest of the heavily monopolistic consortium of Bell/Rogers to the detriment of the Canadian people, the Canadian internet user, we, the people.
Why does anyone need to make laws about the internet at all. Everything has been working fine up to this point, and the internet and all it's technologies that it's producing have been growing at a fantastic rate.Why do people need to work so hard to try and not only control the internet but to make a profit from it? This is getting to the point it's absolutely retarded!But so too is the system.Presently Bell/Rogers Canada's rather large media monopoly,controlling heavily cable and cable services(including internet access through cable,through Rogers)and Bell controlling the phone lines,used for interne(by Bell and anyone else) and including internet access via satellite services)wish to force on consumers what is called an internet cap, or UBB, short for Usage Based Billing, on all consumers basically, by attempting to go through the CRTC to achieve this, broadspectrum.You see, they could easily do it themselves,and so heavily line their pockets,quite obviously, and greatly increase their already humungous and guaranteed monopolistic profits,but if only they do it themselves, then their internet customers,who are not yet fed up with them already, and their conduct,would flee to other providers you see, the basic independents, and others who are in whatever fashion allowed by government to run internet services in direct competition with and against them,such as AOL.Competition allows for a good deal for the consumer, a choice,but The Bell/Rogers idea is to in a sense remove this and force ALL internet providers to go to usage billing through the dictates of the CRTC,whose members are appointed,SHOULD the government follow the ruling of the CRTC.So, who then really is the government watch dog,the CRTC really working for,Bell/Rogers, or Canadians?

This is not the first attempt at this,the Canadian government(Conservative at that time, and once again incumbent THIS time) reversed a controversial ruling that was seen as hurting Internet video and competition,which of course it is, especially forcing all internet providers to the same ends,as in applying usage billing.The policy, which would have then taken effect March 31, centered on the amount of data that consumers can view or download and for what expense. Not surprisingly, it’s the bigger ISPs that supported the new fees supported by the policy. Many have already been charging users in accordance with how much data they access – and now, the new law would have smaller ISPs do the same. That’s because smaller ISPs lease bandwidth from larger telecommunications firms such as Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, and Shaw Communications. Despite their small size, the lesser-known ISPs (Internet service providers) have typically been providing both greater bandwidth and lower fees than have the bigger ISPs such as Bell and TELUS. Following a Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission decision that would not only allow but in some cases require usage-based billing for independent Internet providers, the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Harper and Industry Minister Tony Clement had already settled on overturning the CRTC's new rule. The regulator would have a chance to do so voluntarily but would be forced to make the change if it disagreed.While the Conservatives have often been pro-business, the party is concerned enough about the anti-competitive nature of the ruling to take action. "A decision like this is clearly not in the best interest of consumers," the anonymous official said.Clement in a Twitter conversation with a CBC reporter suggested it was virtually certain the CRTC measure would have to go back to the "drawing board.",and so too it was and so too it did happen.
Public reaction also likely played a factor. A petition with over 200,000 signatures, along with tens of thousands of e-mails to Clement and increasingly high-profile media coverage, may have signaled broad public opposition. A federal election is considered a possibility this year and could have seen usage-based billing as a major platform issue. Both the opposing Liberals and New Democratic Party were the first to formally object to the CRTC's ruling.Imagine, all parties agreed that USB,Usage Based Billing was NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.The Public, yes, I,you,me,we all Canadians,NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,that said decision was monopolistic, anti-competition,not in the best interest of consumers,of we,the people.
Critics rightly argued that Bell/Rogers and other major ISPs have an anti-competitive incentive for usage-based billing rules. The approach prevents an independent provider from becoming a genuine competitor, even if it can fully afford to offer better service than its major rival. Incumbents have their own TV services and, after Bell's new CTV acquisition, now have their own TV channels as well. The conflict of interest can encourage them to impose artificially low bandwidth caps on themselves, and on independents,all done in efforts to make themselves appear more attractive,to the disadvantage of the independents and other competitive internet service providers.And so the decision was rejected, and sent right back to the CRTC where is was supposed to quietly die. But,strangely,the Jaberwocky still stalks the public,BELL/ROGERS have revived the dead monstrosity in CRTC committee and once again the CRTC is holding hearings.however.what has changed.not the arguments solidly presented against, not the government resolve,consider ALL THREE PARTIES ALREADY OPPOSED UBB,Usage Based Billing.
What really then is the point of these CRTC hearings,and yet another decision.The THREE PARTIES were firmly resolved,the government itself of the incumbent Conservatives had made a decision, taken a stand,and so too did the other parties, the opposition, the Liberals, and the New Democrat Party........so why must the Jaberwocky of USB be slain again..........quite simply regardless of the decision of the CRTC what with their second attempt, they simply HAVE TO BE TOLD MUST BE TOLD, UBB is dead.Quite simply Bell/Rogers are attempting the journey toward an Internet oligopoly or monopoly,in sum toto.
To understand the real impact, though, it is important to view UBB in context with other issues, which together:

jeopardize the sovereignty of our nation,
have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, and
threaten the privacy and democratic freedoms traditionally enjoyed in Canada.
“There is a huge conflict of interest here being seemingly ignored by the CRTC. Bell-Rogers are limiting their competitors’ ability to compete with their cable divisions, by using their Internet divisions to discourage increased Internet usage. Why is this not discussed more often? Maybe one company should no longer be allowed to own both?”

As we've been covering, Canadian regulatory agency the CRTC recently had their (or should we say Bell's) effort to impose usage-based billing (UBB) on Canadian wholesalers and consumers shot down by Canadian leaders for being anti-competitive, punitive, and generally just ridiculous. The review was demanded after immense public backlash to the concept of usage-based pricing, though the CRTC's inquiry is expected to be rather hollow.
The Harper/Reform/"Conservative" Party ,though it did state it would not allow implimentation of UBB,as too did the will of the other parties,Liberal and NDP,did nothing except send the decision back to the CRTC with instructions to review the decision,as in change their minds.But the time is now,to reaffirm that decision NOT to impliment or allow UBB,it is the time for the Conservatives, to, and for the Liberals and NDP Party to,force the reaffirmation of the original decision not to allow such UBB implimentation,in all direct honesty and integrity,it is the time for the government also to keep it's WORD, it's solemn vow,to the Canadian people.Opposition to the CRTC was massive.
The NDP’s digital-issues critic said any decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to allow usage-based billing threatens access to the Internet.

According to Timmins-James Bay MP Charlie Angus, usage-based billing is unfair to consumers and could be used by large Internet service providers to limit competition from third-party ISPs and online media sources.

“We’ve seen this all before with cell phones,” Angus said in a press release today (January 20). “Allowing the Internet Service Providers to ding you every time you download is a rip-off. Canada is already falling behind other countries in terms of choice, accessibility and pricing for the Internet.”

Angus called for “clear rules that put consumers first”.

The NDP’s release was applauded by OpenMedia.ca, a nonprofit organization that’s been campaigning against usage-based billing, also known as Internet metering.

OpenMedia.ca has collected more than 34,000 signatures on an online petition against usage-based billing for Internet service.

In December, Vancouver city council voted to take a stand against usage-based Internet billing and call on the CRTC to reverse its May decision opening the door to the practice.What makes these UBB approaches noteworthy when viewed from a Canadian perspective is that in other countries, there is the free market system,free enterprise,and there is sufficient competition such that consumers in other countries can typically choose between unlimited or UBB capped plans,depending on the provider, and any provider must make itself attractive to consumers, or else adopt a different market plan approach to attract consumers, in short, they can choose, they are not dictated to.Should a provider imagine a UBB cap plan is attractive to a consumer at say $35 a month, versus a unlimited plan at $35 a month,well so be it.The choice is there, for the people,the consumer, and for the provider as well.That is the free market system, the proper method of free enterprise.

It is also pointed out the basic Bell/Rogers monopoly,the very root of this present evil,with access of internet by use of their phone line,they also have internet over their cable line,which is fair, in that their cable is a monopoly,do you suppose,or else it is somewhat skewed,and, then is it not.BUT there is internet by satellite, that bypasses both their phone monopoly, AND their cable monopoly.would CRTC see to it that a satellite provider was blocked BY GOVERNMENT from either beaming said service to Canada, AND/OR not following USB but rather a free usage internet through THEIR system................and so.........not....It is sadly pointed out that Satellite providers must have permission to beam their signals in to Canada, and the CRTC would subject THEM ALSO to being forced to use UBB also,AND that any such UBB would also be subject to the definition of the CRTC/BELL/ROGERS in what a "deal" they could submit to the Canadian consumer, the Canadian Public.so this all most assuredly,as it did before,and so too as it does now,points to a direct cash grab made available to the massive monopoly, the Bell/Rogers..........Let freedom ring!Let there be free enterprise, let there be a competitive system,let there be laissez faire,let there be a democratic economic system, Or not.

Here's my suggestion. Everyone everywhere needs to back off and let the internet progress as it needs to. Right now all these new laws and regulations are only meant to one thing,Put money into some monopolistic providers( BELL/ROGERS) pockets, and really that has no place in the supposedly free market,free enterprise,democratic Canadian financial and economic systems.LET FREEDOM RING!!In Poland,the internet is.......free.

Secret Squirrel On Canada Boycotting United Nations Conferences.

2011-07-12T07:35:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has decided to comment on Canada, a nation employing a strange political technique of the boycott,boycotting as in not attending, not attending social global interaction sporting events, and yet even United Nations conferences because the policies,politics, ideas,thoughts of other nations don't agree with their own. Canada employs the childish and ignorant technique of the boycott.Let us ponder Canada in its ridiculous boycotts,some of which are exampled here.

In 1980 Canada boycotted Moscow Olympics,(along with America) allowing other nations to garner the few medals Canada usually wins,and the large numbers America usually wins(not really wise for the Americans as there are a great many nations it doesn't like, and a greater number of nations which don't like it), shooting themselves in the foot there.The Canadians even yet boycotted an anti-racism conference in Durban,South Africa(along with America).......curious,anti racism,a conference to discuss anti-racism, and Canada chooses not to attend.

They,the Canadians,have also boycotted speeches by other world leaders,in and at The United Nations, unwilling to listen to them and their ideas, thoughts, perspectives and theories,in the free and open forum that is the gathered United Nations.Tch tch tch.....what if children boycotted schools, you know what that would lead to,what it has in Canada's government, idiocy.Canada's boycott of the Olympic Games 1980 was to protest the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.Perhaps Canada will now boycott(along with America), the Russia's 2014 Olympic Games at Sochi,will Canada boycott protesting it's(their) own invasion of Afghanistan? I think not.

So now Canada boycotts a UN arms meeting,because it disagrees that North Korea, whose turn it is to chair it,will chair it.Well, these disarmament conferences are mutual meetings geared to disarmament,trying to achieve it. Seems Canada is inclined to not to listen,heed the council of, nor respect the other nations of the world.In terms of peace and neutrality,Canada is not any of that,it has invaded militarily Afghanistan,presently also Libya,in short, it is on a belligerent course of action militarily,it is an aggressor nation,though it does nothing by itself,it does exhibit militarily pack behaviour.Canada cannot possibly say it has have every right, indeed the duty, to boycott a disarmament conference if the country chairing the meeting is North Korea,or any other for that matter. How is it possible to trust a country which claims it wants disarmament but won't discuss the issue?

Does Canada belong there in either case? No not really, they still haven't figured out how to successfully create an atom bomb for example,but if they actually ever do then they will pose a worse threat than the DPRK ever will, on the basis of their constant and continuing invasions of nations foreign to themsleves,whether or not they consider themselves liberators as that is the usual horn blown by all who belligerently invade.Should Canada ever chair such a meeting it would be “absurd” that one of the world’s worst offenders on foreign invasions should do so.The North Koreans invaded South Korea once,Canada has invaded foreign lands twice and counting. Canada claims that “North Korea’s chairmanship undermines the integrity of disarmament framework and of the United Nations, and Canada will simply not support that,” Canada will no longer “go along to get along” and will instead take principled stands on foreign policy, Canada will also press for reforms of the rotating presidency structure so countries like North Korea and Iran don’t have a chance at the seven-week helm,would it also push,perhaps, that Canada shouldn't as well.

Imagine Canada what with it's invasions of the Arab lands(for the oil supply of course),pushing some form a agenda at peace conferences!Could Canada be believed?Not really,no indeed.Canada is not a neutral,not a peace keeper, but really a belligerentnation(albeit not ever by itself).Canada is a member of NATO, a supposed defense alliance, but with recent invasions and activities in Arab lands, we see that this is really not so, NATO is, and has become, a repressive, suppressive attack alliance, garnered not to defense, but rather attacking lands, gaining political control of them, and then inexpensively sucking out the minerals and resources for their selective uses and applications,well under the guise of a fee charged for "liberating" the victim nation,Canada is part of such nations,a member of a group of such nations,and Canada is such a nation, yet they, the Canadians, condemn the North Koreans,the humungous kettle has called the tiny pot...........black.

Canada's presence actually undermines the integrity of any particular discussion on nuclear disarmament, and on any other military type of discussion due to its belligerent invasions of,presently, Arab lands.It is not for Canada to decide who
should host or who should not host any discussion forum in the United Nations in the first and any place, indeed all nations should in all equity,equality, and global fraternity be chairs at specific terms, whilst Canada should learn that chairs will
not be nations it specifically approves of and are within it's political and economic policy dictates.Canada has presently a pattern of driving a poorly defined agenda within international bodies such as the UN,when it should have a policy of toleration, respect and equality for all.You have to ask yourself what they’re trying to achieve here.After losing a bid for a UN security council seat Canada risks being further sidelined and more irrelevant by pursuing boycotts instead of showing
leadership on issues of any particular variety.Canada doesn’t seem to be definitive on issues that are going to get results and move things along – it seem rather to be blocking things that they don’t like or things they don’t appear to be in line
with,they're not providing what the alternatives are.The Canadian attitude seem to be, with the swelled head that the present government of Canada demonstrates,is a dictatorial attitude of it controlling the game, and not liking the direction the game takes, the sad snotty little nation takes it's ball and goes home.And,need we add,Canada ranks(really now), fourteenth (14th), in international arms sales.......

1. USA
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. France
5. United Kingdom
6. Netherlands
7. China
8. Spain
9. Italy
10. Sweden
11. Israel
12. Ukraine
13. Switzerland
14. Canada
15. South Africa
16. South Korea
17. Poland
18. Belgium
19. Norway
20. Brazil

Oh dear,North Korea didn't make the top 20.My,my...so should Canada be allowed to chair arms conferences?Why no, it would have to boycott itself.One simply must look at Canada now, the Canadian government, and its political position, as being
abusive,schizophrenic, and...racist, quite obviously.

BUT the game's afoot, and there is more than one ball in play in the game of international politics, and so, the game continues, without the sore looser.Canada seems stuck on North Korea having nuclear abilities, but rather curiously Canada
seems happy with the Pakistanis having it, the Israelis having it. Canada can never now have the ability to have a positive influence on these negotiations,it has a revealed agenda,nuclear bombs for nations it likes, not for those it doesn't like.By
withdrawing from the conference, Canada is abdicating its responsibility to act and to be heard on important issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and giving more radical countries like Pakistan,Israel,North Korea and Iran an even greater
influence on the outcome of the negotiations.Canada does not regard North Korea as a credible chair, but then the pot has called the kettle black, and Canada is by it's actions,also not a credible chair, just as it was not a credible chair for the
Security Council.Canada even yet argues that the UN has accused North Korea of selling weapons to Iran, Syria and Burma,other nations,not liking those nations, but does not complain about nations such as Israel,France,Britain,America and whatever and whoever also selling weapons round and about the world,to whomever they do, nor itself really, ranking,again, fourteenth in world arm sales.And need one add, it,The Canada, likes the nations it sells arms to.

It ,the UN,also said the country,North Korea,in it's arms sales, mislabeled shipping container contents, falsified information about the destinations of goods and used "multiple layers of intermediaries, shell companies, and financial institutions,which just goes to show you they have learned much from nations such as Britain,France,the United States,Israel.It is a global domination issue,a control issue, a subjugation issue,and Canada is itself a part of that very process,a very belligerent part of that process.Canada will resume its role on the 65-member body on 19 August, when North Korea's turn as president ends.And so the tardy child will have returned from truancy,to find that it has missed the the discussions, the educational enlightenment,the exchange of ideas and thoughts between nations, which took place while it was gone, and so,when the time comes for it to face its test, it will fail out of its own ignorance and stupidity,the ignorance and the stupidity of its own government which holds only its views and opinions in high regard and disclaims the views and opinions of other nations of the world in the global fraternal order of the United Nations, nation members in equality, equity, fraternity.Canada is a disgrace, it disgraces the United Nations, and it disgraces itself,by it's mere presence there.

Secret Squirrel Makes The National Debt Work For You

2011-07-11T16:56:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has seen that there is a great problem what with the economics of the economythe,National Debt, not only that of the UK,that is Britain,(England), Northern Ireland,Scotland and Wales, but all other nations within what was the EEC (the European Economic Union) and is now known as The European Union,(the EU),problems it seems pointed out by the Americans,of course, they do enjoy pointing out other nations problems, that nations besides themselves are in danger of defaulting their debts and this displeases the Americans who are pleased to be in a similar situation,which the other nations seem not allowed to mention nor reference nor refer ,nor infer to, but in not mentioning it to anybody in particular, and America hopes that they,the other nations, and our government incumbent, won't notice,and don't,notice.A successful ploy it is too, workable, sadly. So we seem to be forced in to a situation of reducing our increasing meager national debt in order to please the Americans whose national debt of bloated and ever burgeoning to grotesque obscene rates. well, the governments,of the UK, incumbent and past,were and are unable to solve this problem with the Americans,and one is quite sure that if they,the governments of the UK, if they ever had an original idea, it would die of loneliness,and so we,I,myself,Secret Squirrel, you and the MRL, have a problem of what they call the National Debt.So lets look at our field position with respect to that.

The US debt lists at 54 trillion..............in printed currency,theirs,not ours.The UK debt lists debt at 1.1 trillion,in dollars, no doubt hoping that the Americans can count it,or perhaps miscount it,and England is handicapped and saddled what
with Northern Ireland,Scotland and Wales,so there is a lot to play with here, in terms of figures and data,mathematically speaking. Now how do we get money in to the hands of the people to fuel,fire up,run,drive and whatever, our economy.Well, let's give our retirees a break, and use them to help us.What we do is give each 1 million pounds for example on retirement.This will encourage early retirement, making more jobs available for the unemployed and so fuel the economy on the job scene, the fluid cash flow area. Let look at the figures involved in that.25000 retire each year, time s 1000000 gets 25000000000 or 25 billion each year, 1 trillion every 4 years,which is what that scheme would cost.............but at 500000 that'd halve all, 1 trillion every 8 years,so we have an option, a Plan A at 1 million pounds, on retirement, or a suggested Plan B, at half that, halving costs. But giving that to retirees would allow them to spend that and so would fuel the economy quite nicely.Also to be considered,on their deaths, the inheritances would pass on the available economic fuel currency.Now all that remains is can we economically finance it all to the satisfaction of the ever irritating nuisances in things of the global economy and the internal economies of all the nations of the world, aside from it,the Americans.

We can, consider this,the American system itself, working for them, as we will make it similarly work for us,not that the Americans like to work for anybody else.Face it the United States,has a huge ever growing, massively,economic debt,and we find that it actually fuels,errr, pays, it's debt, by printing up Treasury Certificates whenever it needs extra money what with all the where with all and wars and invasions it runs,and these Treasury Certificates have monetary values printed up on them, the money the United States government wants and whatever needs for whatever it wants. So the government goes to the Treasury Department,and gives them The Certificate to keep and put safely away.The debt figure is then simply incremented accordingly,to the Treasury Department, and thence the Treasury Department,through the United States Mint, prints up the
currency value demanded. That's how that works. Well,surely the UK could well do the same, never mind Europe. Currently the Americans were and are after respectively or not, Spain,Iceland, Greece etc concerning their debts and possibilities of default over there debts, never minding that America is about to default on its debt,and hence to escape must again print up more Treasury Certificates.That's politics, that's economics, the politics and economics of the United States with respect to the rest of the world in sum toto, which means directly, in it's entirety.

So why again, can the UK not simply print up said Treasury Certificates as it needs? Not part of The System?Well, it could be. under an MRL government we could simply print up Treasury Certificates as well,and lacking the American Treasury Department, we could simply present the Treasury Certificates to them, for them to print up the money required for us.Surely they wouldn't complain, but would be accommodating.Failing that, as is most likely with our fair weather friends, that being the Americans, well, we could have the Bank Of England do and adopt the same system with respect to the UK could we and they not?We could further assuage the Americans who for some reason might object as they object to the possible default of Spain,Ireland,Iceland,Greece etc and whatever et all,meaning including.

What we also could do, and I do mean also,at the very same time,is to generate yet more additional funds,meaningful funds, to actually take in currency,to please the Americans,by further reducing OUR national debt, is very simple in it's mechanism, so unique and so cunning it is yet no surprise it has not occurred to any incumbent and previous government aside from myself, and so hence the MRL,through myself.Quite simply put, the government dishes out the DOLE,not the pineapple,but welfare as it were, funds for doing nothing, funds for not working,not being gainfully employed etc and whatever.Well, they receive their dole, currency, from the government, which hands it out as THEY need it. Of course it is increased when those on the dole need or ask for it,which renders the immune to and from everything, including fuel purchases,heating costs,food purchases, electric uses and rates,clothing costs,rental costs and increases,water rates and uses etc etc etc etc.Well now, what about taxing said dole folk?Yes, you see we tax those on the dole, and at higher rates than those who are forced to work for their living and pay for it all, and those on the dole.We tax those on the dole, they can't really complain and grumble as they simply go to the government to pay for it all with money the government would give them to do so, and so the government would then take in monies and us it to proper use, such as reducing any accruing National Debt. Ah you see the sense and sensibility in it all now don't you! A system which actually works,works for you, not against you, works to paying off a national debt, and seeing to it you're comfortable in your age! Yes,indeed! All that remains is for you to get and have it all.....and the only way you can get it,is to vote MRL!!

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,(MP),Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel Sees A Major Need To Review The Extradition Act Of 2003.

2011-06-19T12:59:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has had his attention drawn to an interesting development found in the news, the extradition of a student, one Richard Dwyer,a British subject,British citizen, British passport holding Briton, to the United States on violating the laws and dictates of the United States laws while living in Britain.Curious it all is but then here are the details as here
synopsed from the Daily Mail, found specifically at........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005079/Student-TV-file-sharer-facing-extradition-U-S-arrest-running-site-providing-pirated-films-TV-shows.html?ITO=1490

Student TV file sharer facing extradition to U.S. after arrest for 'running site providing links to pirated films and TV shows'

Undergraduate faces U.S. trial for copyright offences

By Daily Mail Reporter

Facing extradition: Student Richard O'Dwyer ran the TVShack website

A British university student faces being extradited to the United States for hosting a website which provided links to downloadable pirated films and TV shows.Undergraduate Richard O'Dwyer, a student at Sheffield Hallam University, was arrested late last month and is accused of criminal copyright infringement by U.S authorities.The 23-year-old could now be extradited to America to face trial there............Mr O'Dwyer, who lives in student accommodation in Sheffield city centre, was first visited by U.S. officials last year when he ran the site TVShack.The website, which he has since shut down, provided links to other sites where users could download pirated films and TV shows like The Hangover and Lost.The student appeared before Westminster Magistrates Court this week for a preliminary hearing into the planned extradition, which he is strongly contesting.Still studying: Mr O'Dwyer is currently reading computer science at Sheffield Hallam University ,Jailed: The 23-year-old was made to stay overnight at Wandsworth Prison until his family could answer the £3,000 bail.His mother, Julia O'Dwyer, from Chesterfield, said the case was 'beyond belief' and the possibility of extradition was 'madness.'.................She said: 'The first we knew about it was this visit from the police and the American officials in November.....
'But then in May he had to spend the night in Wandsworth Prison as the court was too slow for us to sort out his passport and bail.'Mr O'Dwyer spend the night in jail and was only released after his mother paid a £3,000 bail fee...........Mrs O'Dwyer, a nurse, added: 'Richard clearly has a talent for web design but was foolish in not understanding the implications of copyright.'Yet to try to haul him off to America for trial while he’s midway through his university studies is so utterly disproportionate it defies belief.'...................The UK's 2003 extradition agreement with the USA, is thought to be at the centre of the latest row.The law currently contains no proviion for 'forum', a legal term referring to judges being allowed to consider whether a case is heard in the UK or abroad.Mr O'Dwyer's family have argued that since the student has not been to America since he was a child and he did not have any copyright material on his website, the case should be heard in the UK.His barrister, Ben Cooper, told the preliminary hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court on Tuesday: 'The computer server was not based in the U.S. at all.'Mr O'Dwyer did not have copyright material on his website; he simply provided a link.

(Squirrel's note: The site is a search engine locating whatever etc. and providing download links to the sites which do house the whatever material,it does not site, nor house the material itself,quite similarly as I have provided the link herein to the Daily Mail which holds the informational material on the case in question.)

'The contention is that the correct forum for this trial is here in Britain, where he was at all times.'
Legal fight: Mr O'Dwyers lawyers argued that the student should not be extradited the the U.S. as his site was not hosted no American servers.The student's legal team will argue that he should not face extradition as the site he ran was not hosted on U.S. servers.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized the web address TVShack.net last July. Mr O’Dwyer moved it to TVShack.cc, but that was also seized later last year.Julia O'Dwyer said her son shut down the site after being contacted by police.

Here ends the Daily Mail synopsed article.

The is also yet more informationally to be found at.....

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/725/288/TVShack_Brit_Richard_O_Dwyer_Facing_Extradition_To_U.S._Over_Copyright_Infringement.html

TVShack Brit Richard O’Dwyer Facing Extradition To U.S. Over Copyright Infringement
Originally published on WebTVWire.com - a TV Technology

blog.(http://www.webtvwire.com/tvshack-brit-richard-odwyer-facing-extradition-to-u-s-over-copyright-infringement/)

Lock and ChainRichard O’Dwyer is facing going to prison in the United States for being the man behind the TVShack website. But the case against him and the extradition proceedings being sought are questionable.TVShack was a website linking to files hosted elsewhere on the Web which enabled the streaming on movies and television shows. Copyrighted movies and television shows which neither TVShack or the sites it linked to had permission to stream.The guy, a 23-year-old student by the name of Richard O’Dwyer, was arrested last November and is now facing charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright. Although O’Dwyer didn’t charge people to use the site he made money from advertisements on the site.The U.S. wants O’Dwyer tried in its court system, and if this happens he could face five years in prison.

The Legal Questions

There is an interesting legal debate to be had here for various reasons.

Firstly, O’Dwyer is a British citizen who was present in the U.K. all the while he was running TVShack.

Secondly, the TVShack server wasn’t based in the U.S.

Thirdly, TVShack merely linked to copyrighted material rather than hosting it.You could argue that the first two points don’t matter because the Internet is worldwide and the content being infringed upon was owned by companies mainly based in the States. But the third point is important.
It has consistently been shown that in Europe it isn’t illegal to link to copyrighted material or those who are hosting it.

In the U.S. things are a little more muddied. So whether O’Dwyer is tried in the U.K. or the U.S. could make a vast difference to his defense.

Conclusions

I cannot fathom how extraditing O’Dwyer makes any sort of sense. So I hope the case against him is heard in a British court of law. (Britain’s extradition treaty with the U.S. is already under review in light of the Gary McKinnon case, but that will not be concluded in time to help O’Dwyer.)

and here ends the Daily Mail/Webtvwire.com communal informational.

Well this pretty much states the case rather against the extradition of a student, one Richard Dwyer,a British subject,British citizen, British passport holding Briton, to the United States on violating the laws and dictates of the United States laws while living in Britain.He is in no way shape nor form and American citizen, therefor he is subject only to the laws of the UK while in the UK, and American laws whilst in America, yet he has never been to America, nor doing what
he did, and/or does, in America.His internet server isn't based in the United States, and there have been cases tried where the argument that said server etc wasn't within the sol called offended country has held true,legally true, according to the justice systems,and, most importantly, he was running what is a search engine, he did not himself host on his servers any
illegal material of any kind whatsoever, violating NOT British,nor America, nor anybody else's laws at all.He ran a search engine, which happened to point to and locate material sought,or indexed to be found,much as, face it, Google,Bing,Yahoo and any other search engine does. Indeed, I myself, as in above, pointed to and referenced existing sites of the Daily Mail, and
Webtvwire.com,in similar fashion as would/did/does, any particular search engine. In all things everything the Mr. O'Dwyer did is open,above board, and not against the law,not even yet American law else Google,Bing, Yahoo et all of their search engines are also in violation,yet they aren't,nor are they prosecuted,persecuted. The British law is also free and clear,yet Mr. O'Dwyer is subject to a massive amount, not of inconvenience,prejudicial behaviour, but also direct harassment,abuse, and judicial impropriety, costing him personal monies in defense against same. Obviously on failure, as it should fail, of the extradition processes,he should be monetarily compensated for all expenses and inconveniences and even yet receive additional monies to compensate him for the improper occurrence. Who should pay? Well, that is between the British government and the American government,in the very least the British government should compensate him, and thence attempt to recover said expenses for the improper judicial proceedings from the American government, rather than force him to directly sue the American government himself in Britain,for the conduct it directed against an obviously judicially innocent Briton,British subject, passport holding British citizen.

But here's much yet more to this. What must also now be considered is the ridiculous Extradition Treaty between Britain, and America, as it was arranged by one Tony Blair, a rather smarmy,negligent, and obviously easily influence politician of dubious nature, who at the time of the treaty negotiation, was the Labor Prime Minister Of Britain,sad and sorry to say.What is occurring already, in advance of this,though this is a prime example of the inequality,inequity,iniquity involved in the treaty such that this incident is and has been allowed to have occurred in the first instance,there is a movement to demand the treaty. Let us here study matter with respect to this yet further..here consider at..

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1933719-repeal-us-uk-extradition-treaty-ban-extradition?ref=title

Repeal US-UK Extradition Treaty, & Ban Extradition without Contestable Prima Facie Evidence

The US-UK extradition treaty (signed secretly under Queen's prerogative) and the Extradition Act (2003) effectively remove all protection from UK citizens against unjust extradition. Despite being denounced as an anathema to justice by Liberty, the ACLU and eminent legal consensus in the UK, and despite a series of resulting high-profile injustices, the Treaty & the Act are currently undergoing very expensive 'review' by the government to decide whether this blatantly unfair legislation is fair or not. The law as it stands means that anyone can be extradited to the USA and the recently publicized brutality of its prison system without a shred of contestable evidence - you don't need to have committed a crime to be extradited.

here ends the epistle from 38degrees.uservoice.com

The government is not there to allow foreigners to play with the lives of Britons, nor disrupt them in any way.........who will pay for the lawyers, the defense against the accusation false, and or improper,will the US government pay, and how much will it pay?Is it just,no.Is it justice?No. Not in either case at all.Can the US government be allowed to apply it's laws against Britons in Britain?No, it should not be so. If the lad had committed a crime in Britain, then he would be tried in Britain against British laws, but it seems this cannot be so, hence he has not.But then why allow him to be extradited to the US to face trial since they believe their laws were violated by a
lad in Britain who is not subjected to them while in Britain? Curious is it not, but that is what it amounts to. The disruption to his life is massive, they will not even yet try him in the UK for what they claim to be violation of their laws,while he's in the UK and a UK citizen to boot...quite literally as that is what is occurring to him, what the British government,itself in view of extradition being in their domain, allowing. The lad has no judicial problems in the UK with UK laws else he'd be tried in the UK against those laws.......no correct? Clearly there is much amiss here.....much injustice, inequity,iniquity,inequality, judicial and governmental impropriety, and it is the UK government allowing it.Quite clearly this must not come about.

Criticism of the treaty abounds in the United Kingdom on the basis that it is both unfair and unjust to UK citizens on the basis that the requirements needed to extradite a UK citizen to the United States are far easier to meet than those needed in order to extradite a United States citizen to the United Kingdom.This imbalance has come about as a result of two completely
separate issues which have combined to create what is largely regarded by informed commentators as one of the most one-sided, politically manipulative and unjust pieces of British legislation ever to make its way onto the Statute Book of the British Parliament.

So let us ponder here what has been said at

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=213253338695914

It is perhaps no coincidence therefore that the Extradition Act of 2003 was steered through Parliament by the same man who introduced the now notorious IPP sentence, former Home Secretary, David Blunkett.At the time this act of Parliament was introduced, both Tony Blair and Blunkett were keen to ingratiate themselves with the administration of the then US President,
George W. Bush. As it happens, they were both wasting their time for history shows that in the end, Bush didn’t care for either of them.One should not be tempted however to think that this criticism of the extradition treaty between the United States and the UK is anything new. It most certainly is not.

Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in the Extradition Act 2003. Considered by some to be one-sided because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offenses committed against US law, even though the alleged offense may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (for example the
NatWest Three) and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa.

Among other provisions in Part 2 of the Act: Extradition to category 2 territories (non-European Arrest warrant territories) removed the requirement on the USA to provide prima facie evidence in extraditions from the UK, requiring instead only reasonable suspicion.This was necessary to redress the previous imbalance against the USA under the 1870 Act, as the UK did not have to provide the more onerous prima facie evidence to extradite from the USA. The requirement for the UK is to show probable cause – and although not exactly the same as reasonable suspicion, they are more equal than the 1870 Act and are about as equal as can be, given the differences in the two legal systems and without violating the US Constitution. .There is also concern at the loss of entitlement of UK citizens to legal aid for maintaining an adequate defense to criminal
charges once they are extradited to US jurisdiction where costs are largely met by the defendant’s private means. This has been a cause of controversy in cases where it has been perceived that the UK has suitable legislation for prosecuting offenses domestically.The manner of its implementation also caused concern because of alleged secrecy and minimal parliamentary scrutiny, a trait some believe to be associated with much of the legislation introduced by David Blunkett.

Indeed, the treaty is typical of the Blair government’s legislation as is the aforementioned IPP sentence which was equally controversial and which has caused enormous problems for the UK Prison Service and the Justice system as a whole and which also received very little parliamentary scrutiny. Now, just as the IPP sentence is under review, so there are of calls for an
equally robust examination of the 2003 extradition treaty.In essence, the problem with the treaty is that it does not treat UK citizens as fairly as it treats those from the United States.

One would expect under normal circumstances that the treaty would be reciprocal to both countries; that is, what applies in one country should apply in the other. The fact is however that the American constitution, which unlike the British constitution is actually written down, simply does not allow for a reciprocal arrangement of this type.Unlike the British constitution which is designed primarily to protect the organs of the state, the American Constitution is designed to protect the interests of the citizen. This fundamental difference means that American citizens cannot be pushed around and subjugated by the law in the same way that British citizens can.

There is however another element which must be considered when considering why it is that the British seem to be very much on the wrong end of this agreement and once again TheOpinionSite.org must make the point that the British government seems willing to do almost anything in order to please its American masters for fear of being criticized for not doing so.
As usual, and perhaps not surprisingly as the coalition is nominally led by a Conservative Prime Minister, the British government is more than willing to give in to the Americans to preserve the so-called “special relationship” which actually is no longer that special anyway. Ask any Prime Minister or head of state from any European country and they will tell you that they too have a “special relationship” with the United States.Despite being bad law in the first place, it seems
unlikely that the extradition treaty will be changed in any significant way, principally because to do so might upset our American cousins.

The fact that because of it some British citizens could end up spending the rest of their life in an American jail when in this country they would probably serve less than six years does not seem to be a problem for either Cameron or Clegg.When and if the 2003 Act is actually amended or changed, any modifications are likely to be insignificant and largely cosmetic. To do anything else would, as far as the British government is concerned, invite criticism that it does not take
terrorism, serious crime or other threats to the nation and the world seriously. This is of course total nonsense but the British government are quite willing to go along with it in order to save face with the Americans.The British Home Secretary, Theresa May has managed to hold up the extradition of Gary McKinnon, largely due to the public opposition to his extradition to the United States. Waiting in the wings however is another potential threat to the “special relationship”…That threat is of course the attempt by the United States government to extradite Julian Assange, the founder and leader of Wikileaks.

Although nothing official has yet been said and although Mr Assange is successfully using his lawyers to delay any extradition proceedings, it is likely that the United States administration is waiting to pounce on the Swedish authorities so that if Assange is extradited to Sweden, he can then be transferred to face charges in the United States.The cases of McKinnon and Assange have together instilled great distrust in the workings of the 2003 Extradition Treaty, at least from the point of view of the British public. Whether or not the British government is prepared to look again at the treaty however is a completely different matter.

TheOpinionSite.org believes that if the treaty is reviewed and possibly amended or modified, any changes that will be made are likely to be insignificant, largely irrelevant and unlikely to help those affected by what is accepted by most to be both an unjust and unfair piece of British legislation drawn up by a former Home Secretary whose only objective was to suck up to the US administration of the time in an attempt to benefit his own circumstances.

Here ends the epistle.

There is yet more comment at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308478/David-Blunketts-startling-admission-UK-US-extradition-treaty.html

David Blunkett, the Cabinet minister who signed Labor's controversial Extradition Act, admitted yesterday that he may have 'given too much away' to the Americans.'I gave too much away': David Blunkett's startling admission on UK-U.S. extradition treaty .Critics say the Act is lopsided because British citizens are not given the same legal protection as their American
counterparts.If the U.S. government wants to extradite a UK citizen it needs only to outline the alleged offense, the punishment specified by statute and provide an accurate description of the suspect.But to extradite an American from the States, Britain must prove that the wanted individual has probably committed a crime, a much harder test.......................
The admission could make it easier for the Coalition to change the Act. Ministers will be able to point out that even its own architect is now having misgivings.Speaking to the Mail, Mr Blunkett-also called for a debate over trying people in the UK if that is where most of their crimes were committed...........'This has left British citizens especially vulnerable and the treaty is all too often being used frivolously and not for the serious crimes we were led to believe it was intended for............None must..hope the review of the one-sided Act, a focus of the Mail's Affront to British Justice campaign, will unravel the mess created by Labor.UK courts are approving 89 per cent of U.S. extradition requests. By comparison, only seven in ten requests to the Americans by the British authorities are granted, according to analysis by the Liberal Democrats.

The Daily Telegraph has also commented on the treaty......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5912435/Home-Office-warned-six-years-ago-about-unfair-extradition-treaty.html

MPs told then Home Office minister Caroline Flint that it "could not have done a better job of failing to represent the interests of British citizens" by signing the treaty.The warning came from MPs on a standing committee which was set up to examine the detail of the treaty in December 2003, days before it was due to come into force in early 2004.The treaty was created to prevent terrorism suspects dragging cases out for years, but as disclosed in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, has only seen one terrorism suspect extradited since the September 11 attacks in 2001.However, 56 other people have been extradited to America..........David Heath, a senior Liberal Democrat MP, told the minister during a committee hearing: "The treaty is extraordinarily asymmetric. In fact, many of us feel that a Secretary of State signing a treaty under duress could
not have done a better job of failing to represent the interests of British citizens. Mr Heath complained that MPs were not given enough time to study the treaty. It was only released to MPs on 21 May 2003, nearly two months after it was signed and the day before MPs went on their Whitsun holiday.Mr Heath continued: "That text stated that the treaty was intended to
'modernise and simplify the UK's extradition arrangements with the USA'."There is modernisation and there is simplification. Minor tidying-up arrangements are sometimes proposed, but the proposals seem to change fundamentally the relationship between the UK and the US, replacing the old treaty of 1972 and the additional protocol of 1986.
"Anything that carries a sentence of more than 12 months in American or Britain now becomes an extraditable offence without a prima facie case being necessary.
"I do not think that it is a good thing. It is not a good thing when British citizens - or those in the United Kingdom and under our judicial protection-are not given a fair crack of the whip. That is an important matter."Yesterday, Mr Heath, who is now the LibDems' shadow leader of the House, told The Daily Telegraph that he was saddened he had failed to prevent the treaty becoming law.He said: "We have been proved right. But it was obvious to me and [LibDem MP] Sir
Menzies Campbell at the time. I find it upsetting that we did not get the issue out into the open at the first time of asking."

Here ends the epistle from The Daily Mail.

To continue in a moral and ethical fashion,there is the question of the Citizenship of the person in question - some nations refuse to extradite their own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves,but you cannot hold a trial for a person breaking a foreign law in his own country where his own country see no violation of it's laws............it amounts to a British citizen speeding along legally at say 60 km while the law in America is 55km .he obviously is not violating US law in Britain, but is IF he would be in America, but yet isn't, however, Britain extraditing him to face trial in the US on exactly that charge, proven true or,thence not as the case may be.All democratic nations have the obligation to protect the rights of their citizens and uphold their national sovereignty.

According to The Independent.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sophie-kemp--and-jill-lorimer-double-standards-shame-our-treaty-with-america-1765883.html

Last year, Heritage published a study of the treaty that concluded that, extradition from Britain was too easy, it was because the Labor government of Tony Blair wanted to make it easy to extradite individuals from Britain. Blair’s government therefore created low standards for extradition and applied them to many countries, including the U.S.it is less easy to
obtain justice in the US. Disparity of sentence – excessive pressure to take a plea – use of the evidence of convicted felons in return for a reduced sentence – pre-trial incarceration – no legal aid – inhumane prison conditions – privatized prisons – official acceptance of torture (waterboarding) – a death penalty mentality. The list is endless.According to a freedom of
information request to the home office – as of June 2010 only THREE individuals with American nationality (or dual nationality ) were extradited to the UK, while TWENTY-EIGHT British citizens were extradited to the US despite the fact that the US has more than five times the population. Which means that (per capita) FIFTY TIMES AS MANY BRITS ARE EXTRADITED THAN
AMERICANS!!!British people,themselves,irregardless of the idiocy and personal smarmyness of one Tony Blair, the miscreant responsible for the inequitable extradition treaty, have a strong sense of Justice which is why this extradition is just simply wrong and the extradition treaty as it stands is a betrayal of British people.the UK-US extradition treaty has been loudly denounced for many years by civil rights groups in both the US and UK (ACLU and Liberty respectively) on the grounds that it is one-sidedly counter to the interests of justice, by virtue of the fact that it removes all safeguards from UK citizens. Never mind ‘sovereignty’, the removal of the requirement for an extraditing country to present contestable evidence for their allegations is an assault on the notion of justice itself. Even a brief perusal of the reasons given by Liberty and ACLU for objecting to the treaty makes it clear that these are not idle or erroneous objections, but have a strong and valid basis.On the face of it, it appears that the US authorities need provide little more than the name of the accused person and a brief outline of the facts of the case.It is easy to understand the commonly held view that the US can demand the surrender of a UK citizen on a whim, while its own citizens are afforded a much higher degree of protection.However for a British judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person sought by the US, section 71 of the Extradition Act
2003 does require "evidence that would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person accused of the offense". In other words, the judge is expected to apply the same standards as he or she would in respect of a person suspected of committing an offense in the UK. So there is no requirement to back up a request with any evidence. Perhaps the real issue is whether a British citizen should be extradited to stand trial in any foreign country without evidence first being presented to a British court to show there is a case to answer. The stress and expense of defending potentially unfounded criminal allegations in a foreign jurisdiction is a daunting prospect.....

(But this does not mean that the person has committed a crime in the UK applicable to UK laws, BUT a foreign government can acquire him to try it because they say he broke their law.while not being in America.)

David Cameron himself has said:

“The Extradition Act was put in place to ensure terrorists didn’t escape justice." However, not on his side of things as we can further see here.......at The Foundry.........

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=56809

Presumably too, the author is aware that Baroness Scotland herself(Patricia Scotland,Baroness Scotland of Asthal) (now disgraced,for employing an illegal immigrant) who was instrumental in negotiating the treaty, acknowledged at the time that these new extradition arrangements with the US were imbalanced, and that the bar to extradition from the UK was set very low – far lower than that in the opposite direction. As far as making extradition easier is concerned, I presume the author is aware of the somewhat immoral assurances (in letters disclosed under FOI) that B.Scotland gave to US Senator Feingold and others that the treaty would not be used to pursue suspected IRA terrorists who have sought (and found) safe harbour in the USA.

Here ends the epistle,

But to continue in this vein, and offer direct evidence,there is such a letter stating this and it can in fact be read here supporting fully the claim..............

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5BPw-qqEV28ZDU3OTRjYTMtMzAzMi00ZTI5LWEzYTctMzg2MWI3ZDlhYjI5&hl=en

Let’s be honest here: the treaty may have been about extraditing suspected terrorists from the UK to the US (though in 7 years it hasn’t resulted in a single extradition in such circles), but it was explicitly about NOT extraditing suspected terrorists from the US to Britain.

Squirrel concludes,indeed in all fairness one must push for the present Coalition Parliament to effectively and equitably renegotiate the extradition treaty with America, and failing America's willingness to do so, to simply declare the treaty to be nullified,ended,retracted,withdrawn,non existent and then force the Americans to the table to renegotiate it such that there is equity,equality,fairness,justice for all, citizens of both countries, and also to put an end to such improprieties allowing Britons to seemingly be innocent of crime in Britain, yet be so accused of and extradited to the USA for any such trial and travails.Secret Squirrel sees the need for justice for all,especially for those in Britain, and Squirrel also says no Briton must be made subject to any foreign law in his own land.

Secret Squirrel Comments On Donald Trump's Bullying Tactics Used On Scots

2011-06-13T06:50:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has had his attention drawn to a range war in Scotland, developing between some Scottish landowners,and one very belligerent and bullying American, one Donald Trump,of questionable financial accumen and practices.He has, you
know,filed for bankruptcy twice and still come out at the top of the heap,since in both instances, Trump's corporations have filed,not he himself,and his investors have lost,not he himself,in short he's a form of legal Madoff, the investors loose,the monies gone,but who knows where(Madoff at least knew where the money was, and is, but wasn't and isn't talking),he has no idea himself. So Donald Trump,still personally an impossibly rich person with a somewhat disagreeable reputation,neighbour to one Scottish citizen,British subject,British citizen,British passport holding,David Milne,whose home at Hermit Point on the Menie estate is near Donald Trump's planned golf resort site, is trying to stick a Scottish neighbour with an expensive bill for a fence, and a rather poor one at that, a fence of the slat like variety one puts up about trees, or uses as a windbreak in winter,one of those varieties,that rolls up and rolls out, a run of the mill variety.Without warning, Trump's contractors erected the new boundary and planted dozens of trees then sent an invoice for £2820 - half of the total bill.David Milne,the neighbour Trump is at odds with,said: "I could not believe it when the bill arrived. I priced the materials and I could put up the whole fence on my own for about £800,that'd be a £400 on Donald's side which Donald would be sure not to pay.The health and safety adviser said Trump's demand was "ridiculous" and that he would not pay a penny towards the fence.

He said: "I'm just ignoring the demand. There is no way I'm going to pay it."As far as I'm concerned it's just another attempt to intimidate and bully me. But it's not going to work. I'm not paying any attention to it at all. "It's made from the cheapest stuff available but that's the kind of standard we've come to expect from Mr Trump and his organization."Now his neighbour,David Milne, a Health And Safety Advisor,has happily lived there for 20 years, happily ,till the arrival of the American, Donald Trump, who intends to build a golf course round and about the property.Mr Milne has accused the tycoon of trying to harass and bully him by doing things like piling a huge mound of earth behind his property.Trump had decided that the demarcation of Mr Milne’s property was wrong and needed to be corrected.

Here you can see the fence for yourself.....

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3617771/Cheeky-Donald-Trump-erects-fence-and-bills-protester.html

Quite simply the house, with it's road access, is in his way, his line of way,line of sight, or what ever, but whom now has the right of way? Well, the American has permission to create two championship courses, a clubhouse, a hotel and 950
houses.And he's decided he also needs adjoining land and has applied for planning permission for properties he doesn't own.Seems quite sure all things will go his way, and Milne will go away, for the 15% (imagine 15%,only) over cost of property he's offered to buy.But the sticking point is Milne doesn't go for the Americans bullying and strong arm tactics, quite simply, Trump isn't in America,and he's encountered some very obstinate thistle arsed Scots. BUT he does have heavy support from the Scottish (in this case pronounced Sottish if you please) Government,and has bragged heavily to that extend when he revealed he'd plans for the golf courses,etc, and had worries that he said the Scottish government easily alleviated for him, as they didn't want to stand in the way of the American,after all what are a few happy Scottish landowners to they, or they
to he.To quote the Donald on his plans, all of his plans,Government told me I'd win' DONALD Trump made the "explosive admission" that the Scottish Government called him after his golf course plan was rejected by councilors to urge him to press on, assuring him "you'll win".And he did too, and it seems, will continue to win?Trump's
claim that the Scottish Government offered him its support following the rejection is significant as it is supposed to remain impartial.What an incredible revelation we see, the SNP going against the democratic process when it suits them,we see the
SNP doing favours for Donald Trump an American. Milne is one of four homeowners at Menie who had been living with the threat of being evicted from their homes until Mr Trump announced earlier this year that he had ruled out compulsory purchase orders to help build his massive golf development.The Donald has in the past described the home as “ugly” and said he wants to flatten it,as with respect to the other three homes which are in his view, but Mr Milne will not sell,nor the other landowners at present.

Yes, the Donald can get what he wants, with full Scottish Government support, and the Scots be damned for living and being there, by all, including their own cherished government.But the American has also applied for planning permission for
adjoining land, on which Mr Milne's home at Hermit Point stands,and the others as well,you just can't stand in the way of Donald Trump nor the Scottish government,they will get their way.

Look here at......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394484/Donald-Trump-puts-barrier-trees-Scottish-neighbours-home.html

and you will get a better overview of things as they are and are going to be.

Fence laws originated with disputes over livestock, which may wander off their owner's land and cause damage. Judges and legislators have developed three different schemes for allocating the costs of restraining animals. Countries or states with "fence-in" systems require ranchers to build and pay for fences to keep their cattle on their land. "Fence-out" regimes allow livestock to go where they please, and impose the cost of fencing on neighbors who don't want animals on their property. Lastly, a few Solomonic legislatures have split the difference, forcing neighbors to share the cost of a fence, even if one of them doesn't want it. But don't be alarmed, suburbanites. Most states restrict their fence-out and cost-sharing rules to less populated regions or to those who own livestock, so your neighbor probably can't stick you with a bill for the cost of his white picket fence.However, there are no cows present, at the time of the building of the fence by either,so the argument directly is no cows,livestock or what ever, have you, they don't ,either of'em, hence no direct necessity for the fence, as the law states...even as it states, there must be necessity. In future, should Trump decide to add livestock to the fields, he would still be stuck for any fence or improvement of said fence since the cows were not, as now, present in the first place in the first erection of the unnecessary livestock fence, hence, The Donald can have his fence, as he wishes, but entirely at his own cost and expense,according to the letter of the law,but what with there already being severe Scottish government
interference in the matter,things may not exactly follow the letter of the law,but rather the dictates of the SNP. There is,however much opposition developing against both The Donald Trump, and as a consequence concerning the developments,the SNP, as well, and support for the four Scottish landowners has emerged....

here view an article from The Scotsman.....

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Donald-Trump-fights-back-over.6783261.jp

Here commences a synopsis of an epistle from The Scotsman....

Herein Donald Trump fights back over 'Menie: The Movie'A BITTER war of words has broken out ahead of the Scottish premiere of a film about Donald Trump's controversial golf course project in Aberdeenshire.You've Been Trumped was made by a two-man team who spent a year following the story and questions the decision to back the proposed "best golf course in the world".Director Anthony Baxter yesterday said residents fighting the plans claim they have been "bullied" and "victimized" and the development would sabotage a sensitive environment.The film will be seen for the first time in Scotland next Friday in Aberdeen.Mr Antrhony Baxter,The Director, from Montrose, described the film as an "environmental parable for our celebrity-driven times".The film-maker, along with producer Richard Phinney, was detained by police following a complaint of breach of the peace.On the arrest of Mr Baxter, Grampian Police said officers were called to the Menie Estate regarding a complaint of breach of the peace on 30 July last year. "As the allegations were corroborated by independent witnesses, two men were detained by officers and subsequently, after careful consideration of the facts, given formal adult warnings in connection with the incident."(This is interesting in light of the view that the estate they were on is surrounded by docile farmland as viewed above in the mentioned overview).He said: "I hope (the film] will change attitudes as for the first time the public will be getting the truth about the way the police have been policing the development and the fact that Trump is bullying residents."He added: "The people there feel victimized, bullied and feel a landscape that they know and feel very passionate about as an environmentally sensitive and important piece of ground has been bulldozed and sabotaged for the sake of precious little."He is also seeking an apology from Grampian Police after being detained following an incident while making the film.

Here ends my synopsis of the epistle found in The Scotsman...

There's more of course to it all..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487384/Billionaire-Donald-Trump-faces-kilted-curmudgeon-opposing-Scottish-golf-resort-plans.html

And here commences a synopsis from The Daily Mail..........

Mike Forbes Is another who stands in the way of plans of Donald Trump to build a resort on his land.For the problem is that Mike, Molly and Mike's 60-year-old wife, Sheila ? currently hard at work in the fish factory down the road live slap bang in
the middle of Trump's site.So far, he has rejected offers of £350,000 and more recently £375,000. Trump, meanwhile, insists that unless Mike and Molly sell up, he'll simply build around them.So Molly will be able to wave at the golfers from her
window in Paradise and will be a mere hop and a skip from the five-star hotel, spa and the majestic Tarmacadam sweep of the £1billion resort's main access route, Trump Boulevard.It's not difficult to see why Trump is keen to get them out.The dispute mirrors the plot of Local Hero, the 1983 cult film by Bill Forsyth in which an American oil tycoon tries to buy a tiny Scottish Village ? actually filmed in Pennan, just a few miles up the coast and turn it into an oil refinery, but changes his mind when he comes to visit and sees how gorgeous the place is.Except for The Donald,of course, it's the reverse,such is the benevolence and friendship of the American,Donald Trump, in reality.Mike is furious and insists the tractors are used to
drag his fishing nets and their frames in from the sea, while the oil cans are homemade braziers for burning rubbish."Of course I was offended. I wasn't against the golf course from the start.""I was helping him out, repairing their roads and
things and then they just went mental because I wouldn't sell.""They said they would make my life a misery and suddenly it's all got a bit personal. I don't say personal things about him...though there's a lot I could say."Such as?
"Well . . . his hair looks like a dead squirrel, for starters."

So has he been bullied?
"Put it this way, in the last few months I've had visits from animal cruelty, the RSPCA, environmental health and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.Oh, and a couple of weeks ago I had the police round saying I had a shotgun with no
license. I don't even have a shotgun.It all seems a bit coincidental, don't you think?"He's also withdrawn access rights from my land down to the beach ? I need a tractor to drag the nets, so without it, I can't fish."He has also had lawyers' letters accusing him of damaging Mr Trump's property, which he denies."Well, I always said that when I retired I'd sell everything and go on a world cruise, but I know one thing, I'll never sell to Donald Trump. Never ever."

And here ends the synopsis from The Daily Mail.

No in all fairness and equity to all Scots,to all Scottish citizens,citizens of Britain et all.......the government may not care, but it is clear from Mister Trump's own admission that the impartiality of the system is most severely compromised with
the Scottish National Party's Mister Salmond in charge.The nationalists think that the machinery of government is there to be
used and abused, and that they are not subject to the law of the land.The Scots are entitled to fair dealing from the government, and it is plain that Mister Trump believes that he was given fair passage in advance of the process. Scots who
believed that they would get a fair hearing have been deceived.Any permissions given to Mister Trump must be suspended immediately, and a new process begun, under judicial supervision.Separately, a parliamentary inquiry must be begun. The Lord Advocate must commence an inquiry alongside the police to see if corrupt practices have been used.

Secret Squirrel On America's Senatorial Weiner Sex Scandal

2011-06-12T11:23:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has looked on, with amusement, yet another American Government sex scandal,and in his infinite wisdom has decided to analyze and comment on the events of the day, which happen each and every day.Let's start by considering that earlier this year, Rep. Chris Lee, a married Republican from New York, resigned within hours after it was revealed he had sent a topless photograph of himself to a woman he met on Craigslist.Hmmmm topless,were they absolutely huge man boobs (moobs or whatever they're called),fantastic hooters, huge gazongas,enormous zoomers,or what ever.I wonder, but mind I run about topless too, very provocative in the country environment I'm presently in,and so too do others,and its exceptionally daring in a city like Montreal where female cops have threatened to take in men going topless. So the Republican lad resigned at a snap of the fingers......hmmmmmmm.........so Republican.Democrats don't resign, even Clinton allowed himself to be impeached and didn't resign(why should he, none of his own Democrats would vote to kick him out,and none did).But zounds and zooks, the
very air abounds with political sex scandals over the years,massive amounts of them.According to Newsweek, there were,since 1976,27 Democrat ones,and since 1980,26 Republican ones,in 35 years, 53 total...to 2010,thereabouts,roundabouts in major government(and probably more yet as well). Of course there is no lack out of The House as it were,face it State,local etc etc etc.

So now Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York,Weiner,the central subject of Weinergate, admits he lied about his sexual conduct, but it is his private sexual conduct, embarrassing yes, a revealtion which, in marriage, may lead to divorce as grounds for that would have been achieved,but it is his private life.He has also lied about sexting (and what ever else) on government time........it is a lie about his personal life, but the issue, if anything,for The Senate Ethics Committee, is whether he used government resources to do so on the taxpayers time, and money...there is the issue,the issue on which they could remove him should it prove true, but his private personal life is an issue only with himself and with the electorate.

According to The Atlantic Wire...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/weiner-rehab-resign/38740/

His wife wants him to remain in office. Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, with her close relationship to the Clintons, is a powerful figure politically. She is also pregnant, and appears to be standing by him. He may think that she can clean up after him. As the Times reported, Weiner repeatedly told Pelosi that he could not resign now because his wife, Huma Abedin, was traveling abroad with her boss, Hillary Clinton -- "an assertion they viewed as an unpersuasive pretext." The Wall Street Journal also reports that Weiner has been privately telling colleagues that his wife wants him to remain in office.But Andrew Breitbart thinks even Abedin's influence with the Clintons won't be enough. On Fox & Friends Saturday morning, Breitbart said an “impeccable source” had told him that “Obama and Clinton spoke to him yesterday and said ‘Get the hell out of here,’”

Of course, that's his decision to make,though others would like to make it for him,for example the Senate Ethics Committee.But what of morals?Morals aren't ethics,and Senate Ethics Committee,in the American Senate deals with money issues,things like misspending,misappropriating,abusing,public funds,the money of the taxpayer for personal misuses.Face it their private life is their own, albeit highly disordered and amusing,looking at Schwartzenegger,Woods,James, et all and lets look at the MANY politicians who have had many of these interesting sex scandals, lads who had to bring in hookers by train, by plane, lads who even yet had to fly out of the country to meet their whores,errr mistresses, err girlfriends, lads who had problems getting their wives to provide free sex in marriage or whatever version of it,or lack of it ,they evidently hadn't any,or were refused it,denied it.........yes, and then there's the President,Clinton who had an amazing time.Hey, would we have known what else we could do with cigars without him? I must admit I have spent some of my time encouraging my girlfriend to take up cigar smoking,I even yet offered her a Tiparillo from time to time.If you try enough times they will take up smoking cigars to please you(I'm not a politician and that pleases her).

This one Weiner sends naked pictures of himself and various parts of his anatomy to women.It could've been worse in the school of public opinion, could've been men,and or both as in underaged, as in Senate pages.We've even yet had political,scandals as they're called,of politicians having affairs with underage pages,male and female,which leaned to the interesting side as they were the ones who came up with and enacted and exacted legislation and laws which have imprisoned the common ordinary citizen for doing the very same thing.What we have in reality,in American government, is one huge orgy open to the exclusivity of the politicians.It has been noted that politicians are above the laws for the greater part, whilst they are in government, in trouble when they fall out of government, and it has been noted that in America companies have
fired, or let go,laid off and what not, employees who have had extra marital affairs or variously distinguished themselves in the field of rentals of various women, and men.But government doesn't presently do this,so very not. But it IS their private
lives,the private lives of anybody, you know. The Senate ethics committee is interested only on the financial side of things, what they term to be abuse of funds, of government funds, of the peoples money,you,the citizen, who entrusted them with it all. It does not deal with morals,morality,or behaviour in the bedroom,theirs or others.......or in the backseats of cars, or the beaches or the forests and alleyways of America et all.

I myself am considerably amused to hear what becomes written in to the political Book Of Revelations, and also in seeing the women they had affairs with, basically as to their taste in things, in other words, was their taste in women on the side of what can only be termed fat or dumpy, and/or coyote ugly?

Ultimately it is for the electorate to decide.They,his fellow politicians, can try force them to resign, if they find various forms of dirt on him, his party,the Democrats, can evict him, yes, but he would remain as a Representative still yet, Independent or not sitting as whatever he labels himself, but for re-election attempts he would be on his own. Or the party can keep him, and take a chance on the broad scale electorate turning a blind eye to things, and you know, with respect to the electorate, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.

Secret Squirrel Comments On NHL Disciplinary Inequities

2011-06-08T15:56:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has turned his attention to events that have taken place in the Canadian sport of Ice Hockey,in the NHL,and Squirrel has happened to see certain events transpire,between players,of a rather dubious nature, involving penalties of a rather strange nature for interference coupled with a match penalty(player ejected from the game for same),on two occasions,both resulting in serious injury to one of the other, and yet has seen a different outcome, not in there refereeing, but in the after punishments meated out by the NHL itself.This perplexes Squirrel,and, needless to say, displeases Squirrel.Now,let us consider that violence,of various sorts, has been a part of ice hockey since at least the early 1900s.More modern examples of violence include brawls, fan involvement, physical abuse of officials, and deliberately injuring opponents,even yet biting opponents(do they taste like chicken?). Violent actions, such as kicking, hitting from behind, and prohibited stickwork(they have hit each other over the head with their ice hockey sticks), are penalized with suspensions or fines,and in some cases local policing actions. Fighting, or fisticuffs, is also penalized but is considered by many hockey enthusiasts, particularly in North America, to be quite distinct from stick-swinging or other violent acts,but again, not to the local constabularies which have been noted to press aussault charges.The referees are there to meat out the punishments, and they do,and in some cases, the courts have too(particularly those in the Canadian City Of Toronto).

But afterwards,after the referees award their penalities for the said misconduct, for the more violent acts, the league,the NHL, must meet in the boardroom to discuss the incidents,investigate, and meat out more punishment as necessary, in all equity and fairness,consisting of fines,suspensions, and sometimes fines and suspensions. However, one sees flaws in league function with regards to punishments in certain incidents,one sees inequity,inequality in the decisions meated out.Hardly fairness,equality, justice for all, no indeed. Perhaps it is time for the lawyers to enter in to the fray,and take the NHL to court for certain incidents,to secure compensation for their then clients, and punishment for the most severe miscreants in the NHL,since the NHL seems to have a perplexing inequality with respect to said after the fact punishments it meats out.The
NHL has staretd to exhibit an inability to fairly judge events which occur on the frozen ice surface,within it's boardroom and perhaps it is time to make the NHL legally accountable.

The league has acted grandly in some cases, such as Dale Hunter given one of the NHL's longest suspension records: 21 games for delivering a late hit to Pierre Turgeon from behind.Late in the deciding Game 6 of the 1993 Patrick Division Semifinals between the Capitals and New York Islanders, Turgeon stole the puck from Hunter and scored, putting the game out of reach. Hunter, who was trailing Turgeon on the play, checked Turgeon well after the goal as he started to celebrate. Turgeon sustained a separated shoulder from the hit, causing him to miss all but Game 7 against the Pittsburgh Penguins in the second round, as well as most of the series against the Montreal Canadiens in the conference finals. New NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, who had earlier promised to crack down on violence, suspended Hunter for the first 21 games of the 1993–94 season—at the time, the longest suspension in league history for an on-ice incident (in terms of games missed).However,Bettman's still
present,but the league has fallen considerably off the wagon in terms of league punishments for violent incidents.

Let's have a serious look at Boston Bruins defenceman,Zdeno Chara, and an atrocity committed on Montreal Canadiens player Max Pacioretty.............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdkPZrGL21I

Here we see Zdeno Chara's late hit on Max Pacioretty in Boston's 4-1 loss on 08/03/2011.
Pacioretty suffered a severe concussion and a broken vertebra in his neck on the hit.Like many of you, I saw the video. Then I saw the other pictures, images clearly showing that Chara not only knew what he was doing and where he was on the ice, but also that he intentionally pushed Pacioretty on the turnbuckle, driving his head towards it with his left arm.Chara received a penalty for interference and a match penalty as well.

The NHL rendered the decision,the league’s decision, to not suspend Zdeno Chara for his hit on Max Pacioretty , not even yet a fine, reasoned that there was no malicious intent,but on seeing the video for yourself you have to question things grandly,also take a look at this image of the hit,

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/NHL-No-suspension-no-fine-for-Zdeno-Chara-on-P?urn=nhl-331961

and at

http://habsterix.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/charapacioretty.jpg

One has to question the league on their "no malicious intent" reasoning,the image is quite plain, the truth,the plain truth, speaks for itself, speaks of all things to do with the term malicious,pre meditated,planned, a conscious act and yet there is

the strange ruling of the league,and there is the picture,the image of the act, the intent,...

Now we see a hit on a Boston player, late, rendering him semi-consious, concussion,and we find the league, et all, rendering a 4 game suspension on the Vancouver player,unhesitatingly.So we have a conflict, Montreal-Boston, Boston-Vancouver,and an outcome in one, yet not in the other.

There seemed to be no malicious intent on the hit Vancouver's Aaron Rome levelled on rendered on the Boston player Nathan Horton,it was at center ice, no post to run the lad's head in to, and quite clean as a matter of fact, just a touch late,the hit by the Boston Player Chara on Pacioretty was also a tuch late, but with the added flare of running Pacioretty's head in to a post...."Two factors were considered in reaching this decision," the NHL's representative said in a news release "The hit by Rome was clearly beyond what is acceptable in terms of how late it was delivered after Horton had released the puck and it caused a significant injury." Well the hit on Pacioretty was late, rendered an interference penalty, and quite clearly he ran the lad's head in to a post yet the NHL's decision there was..........to do nothing at all, no suspension, no fine.

Curious.

Lets look at the Rome Horton video,for which Rome also got a interference major and a match penalty...........

http://guyism.com/sports/video-aaron-rome-knocks-out-nathan-horton.html

We see a late hit,and the lads head runs in to a solid, shoulder, not a post, but hey what's the difference between a
shoulder and a post.The NHL seems to think so, but not many others do.The Boston player had a severe concussion, the Montreal player ,on his hit by a Boston player, had a severe concussion and fractured vertabrae........more.Fascinating are the league's differing decisions.No the league must be taken to task over its operations, operations which are not in the least satisfactory,nor can one say fair and equitable, but as to a punishment for such misconduct, yes, that's grand,with respect to the Boston Vancouver incident(the Horton incident) but when one looks at the lack of league action with respect to the Pichorretty incident(Montreal Boston), one must soundly and roundly condemn the league, and wonder if it is wise that it is to be left to it's own devices in policing the league.The policies and politics of hockey in the NHL leave one seeing inequity, iniquity,inequality, not with respect to the refereeing but with respect to league diciplines hidden in the board
room.Secret Squirrel is displeased.

Secret Squirrel On Needed Electoral Reform For Britain.

2011-06-04T13:30:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel has noticed that there are many grave irregularities in British elections,elections which lack proportional representation,representation by population,in British election results ,and Squirrel sees that there is grave need of electoral reform, of having constituency borders redrawn to bring about a fair and equitable electoral system for Britain, fair and equitable for all around, a system of representation by proportion, representation by population,a just,true, and fair system of elections.To continue,"The time has come," I,Squirrel said,"To talk of many things:Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--And whether pigs have wings.",and why a British Prime Minister can be elected, according to calculations, by having as low a popular vote as 25%, this according to the present Prime Minister himself,consider, the First Past The Post enabled Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair to win landslide majorities based on popular votes of only 35% to 44%,Democracy: we’ve never had it so bad.This democratic deficit is a direct result of the first-past-the-post system, which allows the election of MPs and governments with minority support.This is not democracy. It echoes the gerrymandering and ballot-rigging of two centuries ago, which galvanized the Chartists to campaign for a democratic, representative parliament.Not since the rotten boroughs of the eighteenth century have elections been so legally corrupt.With proportional representation , neither Thatcher and Major nor Blair and Brown would have been able to form governments without the support of other parties. Supported by only a minority of voters and with only a minority of seats, they would have had to form coalitions, which would have almost certainly prevented policy excesses, such as the poll tax and the Iraq war,if we switch to proportional representation Labor might never again win a majority of seats and form a government in its own right. If a party cannot persuade a majority of the voters, it doesn’t deserve to form a government (ditto the Tories). Democracy is supposed to be about the will of the majority. It cannot be reconciled with a voting system that persistently allows parties with minority support to form governments with often huge majorities. Under proportional representation,in the last four elections, there would have been Green MPs and more Lib Dem, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. Also the actual Prime Ministerial elections would have been reversed with respect to the two main parties, Conservatives, and Labor.A democracy requires a parliament that reflects the people’s will; where the proportion of seats won corresponds to the proportion of votes cast. Let's look at some of the strange British election results.........

In the 1992 election, the results were Conservatives 336 seats,41.9%, Labor 271 seats,34.4%, and Liberal Democrats 20 seats,with 17.8% of the popular vote.

In the general election of 1997, for example, 13.5 million people voted for the Labour Party led by Tony Blairfor 418 seats, but at 43.2% populator vote,; 9.6 million for the Conservative Party, led by John Major,for 165 seats, at 30.7% of popular vote,the previous Prime Minister; and, 5.2 million for the Liberal Democrat Party led by Paddy Ashdown,for 46 seats,16.8% popular vote.

In 2001,Labor had 403 seats,62.38% of the total seats,yet only 40.7% of the votes. Conservatives 165 seats,25.54% of the seats, yet 31.7% of the votes ,liberal democrats had 51 seats for 7.89% of the votes, and 18.3% of actual population percentage votes.

The United Kingdom general election of 2005 was held on Thursday, 5 May 2005 to elect 646 members to the British House of Commons. The Labor Party under Tony Blair won its third consecutive victory, but with a majority of 66, reduced from 160. Tony Blair was returned as Prime Minister, with Labor holding 355 MPs but with a popular vote of 35.2%, the lowest of any majority government in British history. The Conservatives managed to return 198 MPs, 33 more than they had previously and managed to win the popular vote in England. The Liberal Democrats saw their popular vote increase by 3.7% and won the most seats for any third party since 1923, in the form of 62 MPs.The system is so broken ,in 2005, if you total all the votes cast for the main parties, it took an average 26,906 votes to elect a Labour MP, 44,373 to elect a Tory MP and 96,539 votes to elect a Lib Dem MP.That gave labour 413 seats, 40.7% conservatives 166 seats, 31.7% liberl democrats 52 seats, 18.3%.

In 2011,Consevratives 307 seats 36.1%of vote share,labor 258 seats 29%of popular vote ,liberal democrats 57 seats, 23%of the vote.

This is hardly equitable, this is hardly proportional, this is hardly representation by population, it's still a system of rotten burroughs.In the last two elections, studying the color maps of the elections, we see that the largest effect on the electoral voting change which tipped and concentrated the balance of power, was in the East and West Midlands area of Britain, sparsely populated as compared with the denser ares of Britain where the Conservatives have the greater voter support, but strangely a meagher amount of seats to be garnered there.Inequity, inadequacy,inequality, in the representation of the population, the power of their vote.Looking on a political map of voters the Conservatives carry the greatest amount of voters, but strangely the seats vote do not show proportionality.The labor areas of the maps are few and far between, and small, but the seats per voters percentage are enormous, enormous quantity of seats, for the very least voters....disproportionality, not population by representation. Britain can redraw electoral maps,Ministers say it will lower the "cost of politics" without reducing accountability. No country actually uses representation by population.Almost every nation claims it uses this system; it gives the government legitimacy because it can claim it is expressing the will of the people. Representation by Population refers to the simple idea that every vote should be equal, and therefore every riding should be roughly the same size. Currently, some ridings contain far more voters than others which means that each individual vote is worth less. This is a difficult issue to address because changing a riding boundary will often benefit one party over another. Proportional Representation, on the other hand, is about how the seats in Parliament match with the actual votes that each party gets. If a party gets 20% of the popular vote, then they should get 20% of the seats. Currently, our Parliament is extremely disproportionate, and millions of votes across the country are wasted.our current voting system was invented when people still thought the earth was flat”. Not surprising. In a plurality system whoever gets the most votes in each riding wins, even if the vast majority of voters didn’t want them. This is what the present system is, a system not reflective of the popular vote, the true wish of the vast majority of,we, the people. What this amounts to, representation by population, given the population of Britain as it is, at 61,838,154, and equal division of seats by population, would mean each existing seat as it presently is, would have a population of 95135.6 in it's make up, the voters, all things being equal.

The independent Boundary Commissions of each of the four nations of the UK are responsible for drawing up the political map on which the next general election - expected to take place in 2015 - will be fought.Details of the re-drawn boundaries will only be finalized after a public consultation but must be agreed by 2013 in order to be in place for a 2015 poll.Under proposals announced on Friday, England will see its total number of seats drop from 533 to 502 with all regions set to see their representation fall.But the size the size with respect to what?Area? Or actually population? Britain is fully capable of redrawing such that size of population per seat is equal.Other nations have interesting difficulties in this.But it is stated that all seats will now comprise between This will require all seats - bar a handful of exceptions - to comprise of between 72,810 and 80,473 voters. No constituencies will cross national borders but critics say the shake-up will create seats spanning traditional county and local boundaries...a very great improvement indeed, and one must applaud this,it WILL be a major change, a major improvement, representation by population, proportional population, equal population per a seat..........indeed a major step forwards, should it be achieved, necessarily achieved.ugh Buchanan, secretary of the The present coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is proposing to make a change in the electoral make up of Britain, here specifically in the BBC.......

(Part of the electoral reform, besides redrawing boundaries, involves removal of some seats, a lowering of the amount of sitting MP's in the House of Commons, presented as a fiscal saving policy......)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12650869

Here commences the epistle from the BBC........

Constituency boundaries will also be fundamentally re-drawn to ensure that nearly all seats are roughly the same size.

PROPOSED SEAT ALLOCATIONS

England: 502 (-31)

Scotland: 52 (-7)

Wales: 30 (-10)

Northern Ireland: 16 (-2)

"The new rules put greater emphasis on equal electorates and as a result there may be more constituencies which cross local authority boundaries." Labor said they believed the Boundary Commission would handle the process "openly and impartially" - but they had "serious concerns" about the framework the organization was being asked to deliver. "These rules appear to have been devised with political motives in mind," a spokesman said. "The government have never been able to explain why 600 is the right number for the Commons and 650 is not. They have never explained where that number came from and refused all attempts to conduct an independent assessment. "The rigid rules for drawing seats also threaten to undermine the Boundary Commission's ability to take account of geography, history and local ties when constructing constituencies."The SNP attacked what they said seemed an "completely arbitrary" reduction in seats in Scotland. "There is no science behind this, just rushed reforms by a Tory-government which does not care about the impact this will have on rural areas where MPs are already stretched," said the party's constitutional affairs spokesman Pete Wishart. And Plaid Cymru said the loss of ten seats would mean Wales having less of a voice on issues reserved for Westminster such as tax, defense and welfare. "Decisions on matters which affect the lives of Welsh people are made daily in Westminster and it is worrying to me that it is Welsh representation which will suffer most under these plans," MP Jonathan Edwards said. "Wales needs to be heard. Cuts to our voice in Westminster mean less input into issues on defense, policing and other key issues."

Here ends the epistle from the BBC....

There is a need for change, Wales and Scotland don't like the seat number reduction, but as to necessity, there is a clear necessity for representation by population ,it's long overdue.Polls show that a majority of people want a fairer electoral system. It would benefit all progressive people and parties, shifting the political consensus leftwards.the new government should let the people decide by means of a two-stage referendum: first, on whether people want to change the voting system and second, if they do want change, on what kind of PR system they want.Constituency boundaries will be fundamentally re-drawn to ensure that nearly all seats are roughly the same size.This will require all seats - bar a handful of exceptions - to comprise of between 72,810 and 80,473 voters. No constituencies will cross national borders but critics say the shake-up will create seats spanning traditional county and local boundaries.Let wisdom prevail, let the majority rule,let the popular vote of the people decide,one man,one vote,all constituencies equal in size,proportional representation by population, the fairness,the equity, the equality, of the vote and the voter who will in future elect the government, of we,the people, of the UK.Let the votes fall where they may, and be counted, and a proper right,true and just election elect the government.

Secret Squirrel On Attempts At Altering The House Of Lords

2011-06-01T05:49:00.000-07:00

Secret Squirrel here sees that the present coalition government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, that of Clegg and Cameron,is (are), now intent on altering the constitution of The House of Lords, which, all things being considered, neither has actually clearly been mandated by the people to do,at least not according to their plans and intents laid before the electorate at the time of the election, neither having the clear majority to rule, actually.What's to occur now, each having had a different stated plan, will they create some form of aglomerate travesty,will their love child take on the trappings of some child of Chernobyl.Well alter the House of Lords and the days of the voting going not to have Sankrit prayers in public schools,or having that....or,indeed, having school taught in foreign languages so that the immigrants to the UK never have to bother to learn English,will be gone,or upon us,dependent on an absolute unopposed majority.

In it's place, will be.........DICTATORSHIP.........elected DICTATORSHIP, a DICTATORSHIP in which the general people, John Doe Everyman,Joe The Plumber, will be free only for the brief period of casting a ballot, which we all hope will forever at least properly count.And if THEY wish, you'll have Sanskrit prayer in public schools,that and more, at the whim of the thence elected party,in the majority,as they choose.

The elected leader of Britain will be the leader of the party with the most members.....regardless of quality as we have learned under New Labour.The House of Lords was a grand Wall,thorn,hinderance,obstacle ,to the rule of one(and others)Tony Blair. How did it all work,how did and was Tony Blair unable to push through legislation, changes(and change is by no meansgood for the people, dependent,and the Lords in their wisdom knew this and so refused to pass
these at times).But why? Well, his ideas of government,rule,finances legislation, HE wished for the people,being the party head, were seen to be a detriment to the British people,and so were blocked.Of course this stick in the craw of any Prime
Minister, dictation,absolute dictation, cannot be achieved,the absolute ruler, is absolutely overruled.

The House of Lords could not be held to a party whip,to a party leadership DICTATION, nayindeed not. They could vote no,vote against, and so BLOCK a legislation,rejecting it, sending it back ,repeatedly, to the Commons, hoping that the Commons sees the sense in that the bill they're trying to pass is not suitable for the people of Britain, they could also drag out all debates on such bills, delaying even yet longer, in hopes the government of the day sees sanity.

They,themselves, know no party lines, only the lines of the people. Remove the Lords and, yes, Britain would have total DICTATION, by whatever leadership qualities the political parties,New Labour,Tories et all have,rule by the dictating idiocy of the party leader(England does not elect the Prime Minister, he's in on the numerical presence of his party being elected in majority(America votes separately, for the two Houses, AND for the LEADERSHIP).The 'House of Lords' aids democracy! it does have the advantage of allowing the 'Lords' to make decisions individually,not based on party lines, nor party dictates,each individually voting according to their thoughts and beliefs on the matter at hand being in the better interests of the British people, or not.Also consider the role of the House Of Lords,The House of Lords,this second chamber with voting rights on all Government legislation,makes laws, holds the Government to account, investigates policy issues ,and
provides a forum of unbiased,uninfluenced,independent expertise.

Could and would any incumbent DICTATING political party be entrusted to investigate itself?Nay!Can an incumbent party intent on passing legislation then be said to debate itself the value of said legislation handed down by the obviously DICTATING party head?Again Nay,not a chance,unbelievable it would be,inconceivable.Rules? Rules made for the English people.....rules made by a DICTATING party,unfettered,as IT pleased, rules possibly repressive,oppressive,Draconian,unfiltered by the wisdoms of those not toeing party lines.Corruption,sleeze,cash for honors,cash for laws,expenses scandals, have heavily rocked the House Of Commons, the House of Lords relatively untouched by these. Imagine the scenario,implied,on a two House system of party lines,The Prime Minister says "Let's have a free vote today on my policy and rule which you can defeat and makes myself, and you,in all truth, look like utter idiots and burkes so we can have an election in which the people will look at that and think..idiots,out with'em"? "Course the people would have to wait for election time for such a thing as they could'nt be turfed out until such a time as the regular election, no mechanism for removal until then, not at all.

Would the government allow for a public referendum,a free vote,a plebiscite on the issue? No! Why?To abolish the House Of Lords it to pave the way for any government party leader, and it's party, to dictate absolutely,unfettered,unchecked, any law,bill,legislation that it so wishes to introduce and pass,without fail.The attraction of Absolute Power for any Prime Minister,Absolute Rule, Dictation of All Things, is the attraction to them
all,regardless.

You will be told, that's what you elected them for.You will be free only the day of the election, locked in thereafter,taken for a ride wherever the party politics dictates, a one way ride,and that is what will be. Absolute power attracts absolutely, and you will have no vote on the matter. They SHALL abolish the House Of Lords,not with you, but without you, as they do everything, unless the House Of Lords objects for you. Abolish the Lords and an evil will run free throughout the land, unfettered,unhindered.

But what if they change things such as The Lords remain,but in their place an elected Lords as it were,unlike the appointed ones of the day. Well, consider, this could be a grave error for them, the politicians who would do this.And so now why?Well Consider, at present there is The Parliament, made up of The House Of Commons and The House Of Lords.Well now, there's talk of an elected House Of Lords.Interesting,what now if you have an elected House Of Commons, Tories Majority, the the bill goes to the equally elected House Of Lords, Labour Majority................ah what then, a dead bill, deadlocked, tied, stuck, a
tie is a no, just as a no in the Commons would be a no, A yes in the Commons and a No in the Lords would also then be a no.............so.................I wonder if they've pondered that. Would this elected house of lords be a elected cash cow
capon, as impotent as a man with no testicles?

Interesting, Who's to be Prime Minister, a PM party leader with the most elected members, but he can have a majority in the Common's minority in the Lords, or a Majority in the Lords, and minority in the commons?There are 650 MP's.......House of Lords, 738..........But regardless of who's PM when, he may not have control of both houses,a good thing when one ponders the likes of Tony Blair.Britain's political system is broken. The way this country is run means that the Government does not have to listen to the people. One party can gain control of Parliament even if only a quarter of the people support them.Will the Prime minister then be the Party Head of the Majority of those voted in for the Commons, or for the Lords?What of a combination of both?Still there's a problem, control of one House and not the other. Top it all off,they have themselves pointed out, that it is possible, for a Prime Minister to come in to being with only an actual 25% of the popular vote, so on top of everything else, in Britain, there really is not representation by population,but rather the old system of the rotten burrough still is functional in a manner of sorts.

Electing both chambers of the Houses of Parliament would create legitimacy issues because both houses would be able to claim to represent the people;two would and could claim rightly to be Prime Minister,and in any events, popular percentage vote, number of seats in either house, either would and could cancel the other,one being considered to be the Senior Prime Minister of not.Neither house would have a right to superiority over the other as both have a democratic mandate. This would lead to the House of Lords becoming an alternative government entitled to as much power as the House of Commons. British governments tend to find it hard to agree internally – Blair vs. Brown, Cameron vs. Clegg -, do we really trust that they would be able to work with an equally, if not more, valid alternative government operating from the same building? Having two bodies who can claim a mandate would lead to a constitutional crisis and the jamming of the gears of government, reducing the power of not only the Lords, but also the Commons.

Now we dealt with real numbers, but the politicians want reduced but elected numbers for the new House Of Lords.However, even with that, the above mentioned problems still remain.Exactly what are they intent on doing, and why, and how?Consider what was to be found in the Australian Times with respect to the present British government fascination with altering the House Of Lords...............

The Timeshttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lords-dig-in-for-trench-warfare/story-e6frg6so-1226066736682

The Times sent questions to each of the 789 peers entitled to sit in the Lords. A total of 310 responded, in almost precise proportion to how their parties are represented on the red benches. The results revealed that:

80 per cent oppose a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber, even though the policy was in all three party manifestos and is in the coalition agreement;

74 per cent believe it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act -- a warning to Mr Cameron to think long and hard before triggering a legislative war with the Lords;

81 per cent believe the Lords works well as it is -- a challenge to Mr Clegg, in particular, to explain what is wrong with the system; Mr Clegg's peers are deeply split, 64 per cent believing the Lords works well, 46 per cent opposing a large
elected element and 54 per cent saying it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act.

The results are likely to inflame coalition tensions, emboldening Tory MPs to question whether the goal of an elected Lords is worth a civil war within their party and the legislative gridlock that would follow. It is understood that Tory ministers,
including Home Secretary Theresa May, have voiced concern that other public service reforms risk being sacrificed in the coming session by the anticipated trench warfare over Lords reform.The poll findings offer the first in-depth survey of
opinion in the Lords since Mr Clegg published plans this month to replace its members with a wholly or 80 per cent-elected chamber of about 300. They would be elected by thirds every five years and serve single 15-year terms. Party leaders in both chambers will soon select 26 peers and MPs to sit on a committee to draw up final proposals by February. It is expected to be chaired by a senior Labour figure.............An overwhelming majority of Britain's upper house believes it would be unconstitutional for the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to create an elected chamber in the face of objections from peers..........Frances D'Souza, convener of the crossbench peers, said legislating for a fully elected upper chamber would in effect be to abolish the Lords. "Then I think the use of the Parliament Act legally would be impossible," she said.

Here ends the Australian Times excerpt.

And so ,then,perhaps taking all things and arguments presented above in to account, then what with all the resultant problems,constitutionally and yet the others mentioned, perhaps it's better,say I,I say, neither either, either neither,
neither, let's call the whole thing off.Permissum quietus cannus recubo(Let sleeping dogs lie).Abolish The House Of Lords?Nay, let's not even yet waste time considering it,beyond it being clearly unthoughtout idiocy.

"I have come to condemn politicians,not to praise them."
-Secret Squirrel

"A doctor can bury his mistakes but a politician can only advise the people to vote for them."
-Secret Squirrel

Secret Squirrel.