Secret Squirrel Advises The American Government How To Reduce It's National Debt To Zero AT ZERO Cost.

The America government, through not fault of it's own, has not consulted with Secret Squirrel on it's economy,nor has the British government for that matter......to their great detriment. However, in demonstrating Squirrel's sheer economic genius, Squirrel has decided, as an example of his great mental cunning, fortitude, intelligence, nay need I say cosmic genius to solve America's great national debt crisis.
Indeed Squirrel CAN SAY, and indeed does, that he has studied, directly ECONOMICS under John Kenneth Galbraith, writer of many many great economics works,and Economics advisor to President Kennedy, and under Dr. Sani, in Canada, one time Economics Advisor to the Canadian government. So knowing that you just know Squirrel has a solution to America's debt crisis.
Firstly I must explain the American economic system,financial system, based on the US dollar, on which the world seems to be dependent and uses as a marker of value of their currency. Indeed secondly, nations build up debts, great debts, and due to various debt factors their using the US dollar as standard economically, their currencies fluctuate against the dollar, dropping against,it, but never rising above it.....since it is the standard used.
Now in America, they use The American dollar, now as the United States builds debts, it needs money to run itself, and of course, it's very very many great foreign wars,pay for it's massive military, pay for it's massive government bulk etc, such that it cannot afford National Healthcare as other nations do. Well, when a government, the American government, runs out of money they have massively bloviationally fired crisis in government, in the end with much strainings and fartings, they agree........and the Government then prints up Treasury Certificates, with massive dollar amounts on them, an I.O.U. really is what it is, it then approaches the Federal Treasury with it, the treasury takes it, looks at the amount, and prints up the stated amounts of US dollars.
The Treasury certificate is thence placed away on a pile of other such certificates.Of course, the figures printed up add to the National Debt. So How will America solve it's now 19 trillion and mounting National Debt, how will it pay it off? With the printed certificate dollars GIVEN to other nations to pay off their debts?
No it seems not.....but that IS YET ONE WAY to pay off their national debt to other foreign nations, BUT the US government is loath to do this. So how is America to do it. Well in some ways exactly like that.......Now, figure this, there are 15 nations with debts in the TRILLIONS, the rest are in the paltry BILLIONS.
Now consider this, 19trillion, divided by the other debt ridden nations, over a trillion in debt,each, which total 14, gives 1.35trillion each.
Now picture this you American there, the American government goes to The Treasury..........not....what the government must do is go to each Nation of the 14 debt miscreants, and each MUST be told. This brings Hong Kong,Belgium.Australia to ZERO debt, Canada has then 100 Billion, Switzerland 300billion, China 380Billion, Singapore 400Billion, Spain 1 trillion, Italy 1.3 trillion, Japan 1.5trillion, Luxembourg 2.1billion, Germany 4.3trillion, France 4.4Trillion, UK 8trillion.........all other nations keep their debts as they are.
All he has to do, really without bothering with the print up currency process, is just present each nation with the certificate, pronounce their debt reduced by 1.35Trillion, and take back the certificate, indeed he need not print up certificates for each, just use that one in line for each, thence return to The Treasury Department, pronounce America's debt at ZERO, and burn all the existent and existing Treasury I.O.U. Certificates, and start again.
NOW all those 14 nations have been paid, their debts have been reduced, well they should be happy, and America, has really spent no money, and it's debt is thence at zero, and it should be happy, and can commence to increase again by the same rate and whatever and where ever.
The Treasury department can thence simply burn all those I.O.U. which have thence been paid on return to the united States from those 14 foreign nations which have had their debts reduced, and thence the I.O.U. Treasury Certificates can ALL be burned, and the system entirely restarted. It works............Squirrel has seen it. The USA now has ZERO debt having PAID out to those nations each 1.3 trillion lowering the US debt to absolutely zero.......The only problem the United States and it's dimwitted government is to get those foreigners of those foreign governments to accept the 1.3 trillion payout towards their debt..............BUT.............................what?  Is the American government wise enough and intelligent enough to do it...........??
Well, for one thing the US government hasn't had, no it seems shall ever have, the utter genius to think about that and just do it.......too easy is it..........sad sorry state of affairs it is in America's government, getting worse every day, and gotten far worse and will get yet more ridiculously and laughably worse......Or will they sulk it having been Squirrel's economic idea.....?
We shall see...we shall see.....we shall see....but any American government which doesn't follow Squirrel's advice...........is and must be utterly and completely.............mental.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-=Deranged re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel Investigates The Really Worthless I.O.U. That Money Is.

Did you realize that banknotes are just I.O.U.'s, but they won't

let us print up our own I.O.U.'s but then we're using I.O.U.'s but they're somebody elses, and we're given these I.O.U.'s to use but

are never really paid? An IOU (abbreviated from the phrase "I owe

you") is usually an informal document acknowledging debt. An IOU differs from a promissory note in that an IOU is not a negotiable

instrument and does not specify repayment terms such as the time of repayment. IOU's usually specify the debtor, the amount owed, and sometimes the creditor. Which means all we really have and hold are debts,as a direct result.But the definition says that money

extinguishes all debt. IOU currency would put Greece in line to

quit the Euro..........which is in itself an IOU currency...but it

is being made worthless by more printing of it, whilst the USA

prints up more and more of it's I.O.U. currency and so it increase

in value because it is U.S.A. currency, you see...no Euro nor Greek I.O.U. currency. A company's IOU is counted as an asset on the balance sheet because another party owes that company money or goods.

When banks make loans, they create money. This is because

money is really just an IOU,so money is just an I.O.U. and the

banks are rolling in it. Now, government, such as the U.S.

government, when it wants money for The System, it prints up a

Treasury Certificate, which is ALSO, an I.O.U. promising to pay the

Treasury Department, whatever, whenever,however, IF it ever can,

the Treasury Department then prints up the money which is in fact

just I.O.U.'s.The government must create and then SPEND its dollars in order for the private citizens to earn the dollars they need to pay their taxes.

So, if government doesn’t need your tax dollars in order to spend,

does government tax at all?It is based on the insight that the

government DOES, in fact, need to collect taxes, but the “taxes” it

collects are not your “tax dollars.” Taxes drive money—in other

words, private citizens are willing to provide goods and services

to the government in exchange for government’s paper dollars

because they NEED those dollars (government I.O.U.s) to pay their future taxes. A paper dollar, printed by the sovereign U.S.

government, is nothing more—and nothing OTHER than—a tax I.O.U. which states, in effect: “The sovereign U.S. government owes the bearer one dollar of tax credit on the day taxes are due.”Because of this I.O.U. pledge, the government is able to use the paper dollar, in the MEANTIME, to purchase real goods and services from private citizens and businesses. The citizens and businesses are willing to exchange their real goods and services for the paper dollars because they will NEED the I.O.U.s (dollars) to present to the government on “tax-day”. When the government collects “tax dollars” it is NOT collecting something it “needs” but, instead, is simply collecting back (or cancelling) its own I.O.U.s (The ACTUAL taxes are the real goods and services it had prevIOUsly received in return for those I.O.U.s). A paper dollar is a tax I.O.U., what is a Treasury bond?

The common understanding is that Treasury bonds represent a “debt” which the government must “repay” in the future. But look how our new perspective requires that view to shift:a private citizen “buys” a Treasury bond. What takes place? The citizen exchanges say a hundred paper tax I.O.U.s for another piece of paper (the Treasury bond) which is…what? It is another government tax I.O.U. pledging to pay, at a specified time in the future, a hundred and SEVEN paper tax I.O.U.s (the original hundred plus 7 percent interest.) What is unique in this transaction is that, while it appears the government is in “debt” to the citizen, what it “owes” the citizen is nothing more than its own promise to accept these I.O.U.s (dollars) as tax payments.

In short, money as such is entirely worthless,just so much printed

paper, to promise payment of something or other,which does in fact not really exist at all as such......For some reason they system

has broken down in Europe, the Euro becoming and being regarded as worthless, which is in fact a reality, it is as worthless as the other currencies in Europe are or were, and the only currency solidly worth something and regarded as something is the American dollar, an I.O.U. based entirely on Treasury Certificates, which are I.O.U.'s which permit the printing of more I.O.U.'s and also Treasury Bonds which people buy with their I.O.U.'s and are a form of the Treasury Department collecting I.O.U's such that it has something to show for it all. So what's the problem with the Euro nations, they can't seem to print up enough to satisfy demands...are there sufficient presses available to print up the I.O.U. money papers. What thence is the problem that makes Euro money paper worthless compared with the U.S.A. printed up I.O.U. money papers?

Or is it then that the I.O.U. money papers printed up in certain

locations are thought of being worth something or other much more than those printed up in their local area? So there we have it, the I.O.U. money converted to nothing or less than nothing or something depending if it's regarded as being worth something or other of which we know not what,depending on where it is printed up. At least so it seems.

Secret Squirrel,

MRL,MP,(Dunny On The Wold),

Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel's Points On How To Win An Election In America,Or Nazi Germany For That matter,it Worked For Adolf, It Can And Will Work For You

Secret Squirrel has studied American election proceedings, and has noticed what they do to win elections.......at least those who will and do win, stand out amongst the rest, and here is why, what Squirrel has discovered is the key to success........

1. Always try and read the opposing political person’s mind. Never wait until the other person (or country) explains itself.If that fails, try the Ouija board.
2. Judge before you are judged.
3. Never give the other side the benefit of the doubt.
4. Always jump to conclusions.
5. Never seek any outside assistance.
6. What you say is what you mean, even if that isn’t so.
7. Change your mind randomly and without notice.
8. Always treat the other side like they were mentally deficient if not criminally insane.
9. Impute evil intentions to every act of the other.
10. When all else fails, do not respond at all.
11. There are two possible meanings to everything, if in doubt, explain that they took it the wrong way.
12. Launch a public relations campaign disputing your opponents.
13. Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
14. Find and pay a respected scientists to argue persuasively against incumbent government environmental policies.
15. Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don’t publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view on matters of public health and environment.
16. Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your points of view as scientific fact.
17. Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken with respect to problems.
18. Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.
19. Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding when encountering global warming issues.
20. Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in Britain, as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.
21. Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken on things to do with public Health and Safety.
22. Refuse to answer questions.
23. Insult your opponents, totally, utterly and completely, even yet involve their immediate family members and friends.
24. Show your opponents all and total utter manners of disrespect.
25 Degrade your opponents, and members of the press,show them utterly no respect.
26. Anyone who from the crowd challenges your opinions, statements, policies et all, have them thrown out by security.
27. Show complete and utter disrespect and contempt for any and all regarded as immigrants, foreigners, those of foreign origins, them,their behaviour, their customs.
28. Don't reveal nor display any comment or opinion of any sort with respect to any foreign policy matters, in short don't reveal you don't have any by refusing to answer questions concerning any foreign policy you might have, or not.if they persist, just insult them, the press and also your opponents.
29. Make yourself seem smart and educated, and try to appear so in public, at meetings at debates,belittle your opponents, claim they're not educated properly, or used influence to obtain degrees, suggest their IQ's are lower.
30. Showmanship, be loud,brash,brazen, provocative,disgusting,insulting to set you apart from your opponents,yell and scream a lot, appeal to the masses, let the masses hear what they want to hear, it worked for the insane and megalomanic Hilter you know, it'll work for you too.
31. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis waged a modern whirlwind campaign in 1930 unlike anything ever seen in Germany. Hitler traveled the country delivering dozens of major speeches, attending meetings, shaking hands, signing autographs, posing for pictures, and even kissing babies..and you just know American politicians have followed this pattern ever since.
32. Offer the people they needed most, encouragement. Give them heaps of vague promises while avoiding the details. Use simple catchphrases, repeated over and over.
33. Begin each debate in low, hesitating tones, gradually raising the pitch and volume of voice then exploding in a climax of frenzied indignation,attack your opponents, attack those asking questions.
34. After a series of debates, refuse even to appear,belittling your opponents,showing contempt for the press, and......really the people, they just love being abused, they're used to it you know,you're rich,richer than they are........all of them, they love it,secretly relishing such abuse.
35. Offer something to everyone: work to the unemployed; prosperity to failed business people; profits to industry; expansion to the Army; social harmony and an end of class distinctions to idealistic young students; and restoration of (American,British) glory to those in despair.
35. Promise to bring order amid chaos; a feeling of unity to all and the chance to belong. Make (America,Britain) strong again; end payment of war reparations to the Allies; tear up the treaty of Versailles; stamp out corruption; keep down Marxism/Communism; and deal harshly with the powerless immigrants.
36. Play up to the rich, and the industrialists, attack the trade unions.
37. Offer the working class protection for jobs,your protection, indicating yours is greater than that of the abilities of the weak and wimpering and useless unions.
38. To farmers offer increased prosperity, whilst at the same time promising people lower prices, neither will notice the other.
39. To the middle class offer restoration of law and order.
40. To women,offer emphasis on family, religion, and morals, never mind your comments, its YOUR family.

Secret Squirrel: How To Turn A Massive Profit On The Simple Cauliflower.

Secret Squirrel: How To Turn A Massive Profit On The Simple Cauliflower.

Secret Squirrel discovers the headlines,

"In Canada, the 8-Dollar Cauliflower Shows the Pain of Falling Oil Prices"

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/business/dealbook/in-canada-5-cauliflowers-cost-more-than-a-barrel-of-oil.html?_r=0

Well, Squirrel knows, Squirrel is wisdom, Squirrel knows it's not the oil prices that affect the cauliflower prices, nay, the oil prices dropped, the cauliflower prices rose, the oil rises, the cauliflower price should drop? Does the price of gold fluctuate, no, gold rises and rises and rises, the precious metals, and so too Squirrel sees the precious Cauliflower. Indeed, in Canada, steamed, sautéed or stir-fried,or as a soup,in stews,breaded,fried and whatever, cauliflower is standard fare on many dinner tables. BUT,in Canada, it is a luxury.

As prices for commodities have dropped,oil and so forth, the value of the Canadian dollar has fallen, a direct link to an economy that is dependent on oil and other resources. It makes imports, like fresh American vegetables during the dark Canadian winter, look especially costly.The drought in California, where Canadians get most of their vegetables in the off-season, just compounds the sticker shock. With less bounty in the fields, farmers’ prices, in American dollars, are higher. The Canadians have even yet taken to buying up land in Mexico, farming it, with cheap, virtual slave underpaid if at all, labour, and there they grow food, whilst the Mexicans starve, and said food is then shipped cheaply in to the USA and Canada where it is sold to feed Canadians, and Americans, all whilst the Mexicans starve.

Well now. How does this effect us, the Brits,for example? Well, our cauliflower prices are but a pittance 49pence, which is .97 Canadian cents you know, a 50% drop. BUT recall, the 8 dollar cauliflower,so 8 dollar cauliflower to pence, give or take we'll round the figures,t'is but a pittance to us, the 8 dollar cauliflower converted to pence works out to 8 x 49pence...3.95 pound.........a 3.95 pound cauliflower....... nay, but said 8 dollar cauliflower converted to pounds is 3.95 pounds, less the .49pence...a profit fully of no less than 3.46 pounds/pence....said full 3.95 could buy, garnered from a single Cauliflower sold to a Canadian, 405.70 pence, or 4.05 pounds, so , starting with a seed cauliflower,even yet a single one, sold to the Canadians.........and we profit profit profit, you see, the more cauliflowers sold to them at $8 Canadian, the merrier we are in solid British pounds! We convert the currency garnered to British pounds and buy yet more and more and ever increasingly, multiplying more, cauliflower!!

Now do you really need your cauliflower, couldn't you like broccoli for example, perhaps psychologically looking at it as a green cauliflower,really, and thence part with your cauliflower and sell it to the Canadians, growing it anywhere and everywhere we,and you, could, and should, including the system of buying Mexican lands cheaply from the Mexican government, to grow it there and sell it to the Canadians. Why we would garner huge,absolutely huge, profits.

Yes, Squirrel knows, there is profit in confusion, Canada is a confused land, there is profit in Canada,there is profit in Cauliflower! Yes, please see Squirrel's new, going soon to production, financial film, Cauliflower:The New Hope........I'm working on it and shall have my cousin, George Lucas, produce and create it, as he has some experience in producing films.
As they say in Canada, never let it be said, that Squirrel, gave you a bum steer, nor a cheap cauliflower. And if our laggardly government would wisely engage in this,Squirrel's cauliflower venture, and speculation,why the massive amounts of currency so garnered, would produce a Britain as sound as the pound.

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

Secret Squirrel Suggests Ways To Solve California's Lack Of Water

Now Secret Squirrel has been pondering California's great water shortage. And, of course, Squirrel has solutions to the problem, solutions that the American government sadly is not obviously considering nor implementing. Now what is the OTHER MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world besides water.....t'is OIL! BIG OIL! Now each year America imports, in oil, in barrels,
160 million barrels from Saudi Arabia alone......now 1 barrel equates to 34.9723 IMPERIAL gallons,or 41.9 US,or 6,704,000,000 gallons..........now imagine if this was water imported from foreign nations sent in to California......

Now each Californian uses 181 gallons each day....which means 7,022,800,000 gallons consumed per year,by the sum total population of California, population figure being placed at 38.8 million, this makes a deficient of 318,800,000 gallons. Of course did I mention it's JUST Saudi Arabia, and it's oil? Well now what if these oil tankers were water tankers, then, you see water could be transported to California from foreign sources, and notice the tanker capacity in oil,thence transferred to ability to carry water, we see the NUMBERS of tankers necessary just easily matches the numbers of oil tankers, in short, all is possible. Now we DID see a total shortfall, BUT we didn't include ALL foreign oil imports requiring tankers. So IF America built a huge tanker fleet comparable to the Big Oil tanker fleet, it COULD supply California with water from foreign lands.....but it doesn't want to. Tch Tch Tch. Such laggardly government Americans suffer from.

What did America do and fund for the Saudis, and the Israelis who were also short water.........it funded, and built.............salt water water desalination plants,many great numbers of them,in ever increasing sizes. Does the American government do this and fund this, for California and Californian? Nay it does not.

Now there have been ideas,proposed by Americans, when it was realized that the Saudis wanted water, that ice berg be towed to Saudi Arabia and there melted to supply them with water.
Well, Secret Squirrel, says, tow icebergs to California to supply California with water.....but does the American government do this, nor suggest this to itself...nay it does not. But what did it do in it's place.....

What did America do and fund for the Saudis, and the Israelis who were also short water.........it funded, and built.............salt water water desalination plants,many great numbers of them,in ever increasing sizes. Does the American government do this and fund this, for California and Californian? Nay it does not.

Squirrel also eyed BIG OIL's pipelines, and suggested that California have pipelines built for it,funded by the US government as BIG OIl's pipelines are,and pipeline in water from neighbouring states which have water!! Does the US government consider nor do this for Californians? Nay it does not.

So Secret Squirrel suggests to America to do all suggested water supply methods, for the Californians, for the government of the State Of California, for their fellow Americans. So says Squirrel. Why doesn't America do this........."Forget it, Jake; it's Chinatown".

Secret Squirrel,
MRL,

MP,Dunny On The Wold,

Secret Squirrel Presents A Plan To Run Amtrak On Time.

Secret Squirrel knows considerable about the railroads, and indeed, America's in particular. Squirrel romped about Europe, taking trains, in Germany, Squirrel made a 5 minute train exchange, as in 5 minutes BETWEEN trains,and Squirrel noted that German trains ran on time, like clockwork, arrival and departure,the Deutsche Bahn. Squirrel has taken trains in Canada as well,The Via Rail, not stolen of course, but has rode them, and they have been on time. Squirrel has noted that there are timing problems with trains in Britain, but they are all privatized, foreign owned as such and there really is willy nilly no real control over them beyond paying ever increasing rates the government said would'nt occur when they privatized British Rail.

However, America's AMTRAK, does really have a central authority as the passenger trains,The Amtrak, is owned by and operated by, GOVERNMENT, the Americans didn't,haven'and have stated they won't, PRIVATIZE The Amtrak, as they wished Britain's rail privatized,thinking it wasn't a good idea for THEM, but was for the British government. Squirrel suspects the American government was up to no good for the rails, and the people of Britain when it told the British governmnet to privatize British rail. Well, so now there is a central authority to control things, idiot or not depending on your view of the American politicians,the government.

Now Squirrel knows, what happens in America, is that each and every freight train has priority over The Amtrak where ever the Amtrak is or runs, on all rail lines.The net result is The Amtrak waits on a siding for a freight to pass it,of course, increasing the time it is late. Well, Squirrel suggests timing The Amtrak, the different routes and noting the average late time,start to end. So, knowing that, we now redo the schedules,using the sensible actual time rates, and publish those for the Amtrak schedule. Now, there are times IT MAY,be still actually late, but nowhere's near by as much now, and the schedule can be further modified to reduce even that. Also the train,The Amtrak, may now actually also arrive ON TIME or, even yet EARLY!, In deed the latter two have a 66% odds,or 33% each on chance  early or on time! And only a 33% LATE!!Huzzah!

Huzzah!Huzzah!Hooray for Squireel, solving The Amtrak lateness problems!No need for the American government to thank Squirrel, hands across the puddle eh whot!!! Of course Squirrel mentions, that the same could be applied in Britain for notably late,always late,British trains, but then Britain doesn't own them,as the Americans do,so the British government can do nothing about it, UNLESS, the British Government, wisely follows The American lead, and PRIVATIZES British Rail, come now,the Americans can hardly object.


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

Secret Squirrel Ends Global Warming Problem By Creating More Fat People.

Secret Squirrel has seen the headlines screaming,such as "Global Warming! You're Responsible! What You Can do". Well,Secret Squirrel has pondered many scientific findings, and in doing so has usually
come up with rather interesting scientific and scientifically provable, and scientifically backed, facts, and, as always, has come up with a solution to the problem, in this case, the problem of global warming. Government is right, and government is wrong, but Squirrel is always right, scientifically provably right, and so cannot be wrong. Squirrel has discovered that the whole cause of global warming, and also yet the very cure to the problem of global warming, is ........ actually ....... FAT PEOPLE.
NOW, let Squirrel make this perfectly clear, Squirrel does NOT,in any way shape nor form, BLAME fat people .... nay not at all, Squirrel, does, in fact state that fat people can get us out of this global warming bind, the more, the merrier. Squirrel shall here go on to explain.

 Of course, the entire global warming issue, and problems associated directly and indirectly with the issue of global warming, is also most directly encompassed by and most directly affected by three (3) most important things in life, for a person, fat or slim, affected  by 1) Dieting, 2) Exercising, 3) Eating.

The body stores the excess protein or carbs in a person's diet in form of FAT, specifically, as triglyceride molecules, which consist of just three kinds of atoms: carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. For people to lose weight, their triglycerides must break up into building blocks, which happens in a process known as oxidation.

When a triglyceride is oxidized (or "burned up"), the process consumes many molecules of oxygen while producing carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) as waste products. Of course here entering in to the
equation also, involves the digestive generation of flatulence, fartings as it were and is,which, of course involves the direct food converted release of gas, warm gas in to the atmos thus directly increasing global warming and its effects. Of course, it is noted that those most guilty in the field
of fartings are, of course, Mexicans, due to their high bean diet. Here I cannot comment as to what would be better for the world, but fartings is certainly not one of them.

So, going on there, through the clouds of digestive scientific fartings, plainly put, to burn 10 kilograms (22 lbs.) of fat, a person needs to inhale 29 kg (64 lbs.) of oxygen. And the chemical process of burning that fat will produce 28 kg (62 lbs.) of carbon dioxide and 11 kg (24 lbs.) of water, the researchers calculated.The researchers showed that during weight loss, 84 percent of the fat that is lost turns into carbon dioxide and leaves the body through the lungs, whereas the remaining 16 percent becomes water. The calculations also show the frightening power of, for example, a small muffin over an hour of exercise: At rest, a person who weighs 154 pounds (70 kg) exhales just 8.9 mg of carbon with each breath. Even after an entire day, if this person only sits, sleeps, and does light activities,your typical couch potato, he or she exhales about 200 grams of carbon, the researchers calculated.
So,sadly, we all contribute to global warming, by merely eating and
digesting,however we must mention and make note of fat people, store far more efficiently and exhale, or whatever, far less of what they eat, so they are,in fact much more efficient.

However,consider, eating a 100 g muffin can cover 20 percent of what was lost, of course eating a full 10 recovers, easily ALL of what was lost. On the other hand, replacing one hour of rest with exercise such as jogging, removes an additional 40 g of carbon from the body, the researchers said. Even if one traces the fates of all the atoms in the body, the secret to weight loss remains the same: In order to lose weight, one needs to either eat less carbon or exercise more to remove extra
carbon from the body. What this all means, mostly, surely and directly, dieting,exercising INCREASE global warming most significantly AND FAT PEOPLE should never ever be allowed to diet nor exercise in any way shape nor form, and that forcing them to actually eat MORE will significantly DECREASE the amount of available carbon and thence carbon dioxide from the environment,PROVIDED that, they DO NOT DIET NOR EXERCISE, else they will significantly increase most greatly, available atmos carbon dioxide and hence result in an increase in global warming. So to maintain the present status quo in the world with respect to global warming, fat people must not exercise, must continue to eat, and must not exercise.Their further eating and lack of exercise will increase their bulk and so store much carbon dioxide which is now scrubbed from the environment and so safely stored.
They must avoid directly highly destructive dieting which can and will and shall cause the massive release of further grand quantities of carbon dioxide in to the atmos and so raise global warming to frightening levels.
To further decrease global warming, and its effects, we must therefor INCREASE the available amount of fat people. Doing so we shall most surely, and provably, all things not withstanding, rein in global warming, and ultimately, most easily control and finally end, global warming.

Yet what do we find, of course? Governments, most notably the American and The British government, actually are doing and encouraging the exact direct opposite. Yes, I shudder to think, but yet it is so, they encourage people to exercise, most severely. They encourage people to diet,they encourage people to reduce their body's fat content, and they encourage people to eat far less such that we do not and cannot generate more of the very much needed and scientifically cherished, worldly important, worldly influencing, fat storage people,in plain layman's terms really, simply put, fat people. A sad sorry state of affairs it is. But such is government, hardly the factual world, hardly the actual world, hardly the scientific world, hardly the world of sense and sensibility, hardly the world of Secret Squirrel.

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

Secret Squirrel Comments On Paying Off America's National Debt In Coin.

 It has come to Secret Squirrel's attention, that there has been a rather intriguing and interesting solution proposed to solving the great American debt crisis.Indeed it has been revealed, that there is another course of action, other than simply printing up Treasury Certificates for a required sum, presenting those to the Treasury Department, which takes said stated certificates, places them away, and then prints up and provides the stated sum the certificates are for, in short an
i.o.u. to oneself,one's own nation, which,never gets paid off,really in point of fact.
A legal loophole allows the U.S. Treasury to mint platinum coins in whatever denomination it chooses - even $1 trillion.Speaking to the BBC's Today
program, Mr Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group and blogger at Pragmatic Capitalism, said the idea was being taken "somewhat seriously" in Washington."I know it’s been spoken about at the White House and a number of prominent people, including congressman, are talking about it," he said.
Mr Roche said the idea was an "accounting gimmick", but noted it was just "one really silly idea being used to fight another silly idea".

"The idea of the US willingly defaulting on debt is beyond crazy," he said."We started kicking the idea around a year ago and it was really a joke and the fact it’s become something sort of serious, well it’s a sad state of affairs that it’s become so dysfunctional in Congress that this is something we’re having to resort to."

Writing in his New York Times blog, economist Paul Krugman, said that while he did not expect the Treasury to go ahead with this "gimmick", there could be a case for it."This is all a gimmick — but since the debt ceiling itself is crazy, allowing Congress to tell the president to spend money then tell him that he can’t raise the money he’s supposed to spend, there’s a pretty good case for using whatever gimmicks come to hand," he said.

To mint or not to mint,that is question,will they mint or won't they mint is another question.U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has the authority to mint platinum coins in the denomination of his choosing, and experts have said the
idea is being taken seriously in Washington.Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (left with President Obama in Oct. 2010) could mint a $1 trillion coin,said to be pondered to be an actual 1 ounce Platinum coin,which would in actual fact be valued in
it's metal content at about $1,600 thereabout roundabouts. And, of course, intrinsicly valued at it's stamped value of 1 Trillion Dollars. We won't consider here that in ancient times, a coin's value was appraised upwards if and due to a very
fine etched stamping or whatever was done to manufacture it.A White House petition advocating for the coin has garnered more than 5,000 supporters.Minting such high-value coins to pay the government's bills would allow President Obama to
sidestep a showdown with Republicans over the federal debt ceiling.The proposal would involve the Treasury minting the coin and depositing it into its own account at the Federal Reserve, allowing the government to write down or cancel $1 trillion
of its $16.4 trillion debt.On the other hand, stamping say 17 or so would result in going past the zero debt level to a surplus!!The mind boggles here pondering yet greater numbers of these coins.Ever to poop a party, however,Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said on Monday he will introduce a bill to prevent that maneuver.Walden, it turns out, has written legislation that would bar the executive branch from minting coins of any denomination. That would include the much-talked-about trillion dollar coin.Walden stated,“My wife and I have owned and operated a small business since 1986.

When it came time to pay the bills, we couldn’t just mint a coin to create more money out of thin air,” Walden said.Clearly there is much personal jealousy in his words,directed at the government of the people of America deligently trying to clear the national debt problem.BUT......take careful note, that by introducing legislation to ban such a maneuver, Walden is implicitly acknowledging that under current law, the trillion dollar coin is a perfectly legal and workable way to get
around the debt limit,and also as such, the actual entire national debt problem.Interesting an actual solution to America's national debt and there are politicians willing not to allow it,clearly these aren't lads to invite to your parties, nor to allow to use your toilet,by no means.So there you have it, a debt solution for all seasons, a debt solution for all the right reasons. However,you know and I know, politicians being what they are....they'll then spend all their time for the
next century arguing over what designs should be stamped on the coin.


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

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

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 Pays America's National Debt By A Revolving Credit System

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

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 Examines The Ridiculous Mexican Attempts To Sue US Gun Manufacturers.

Secret Squirrel has learned, through perusal of a CBS News item, that the Mexican Government,of it's present President,one Felipe Calderon, has retained an American law firm to explore filing civil charges against U.S. gun manufacturers and distributors over the flood of guns crossing the border into Mexico.Not that it matters any but there is a law in America, in effect,a law which has been applied
several times, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,and this law, brought in under the Bush era,would bar that kind of lawsuit from the start. The law, passed in 2005 has resulted in several lawsuits against gun makers being dismissed.Sources familiar with the case say the law firm retained by Mexico - New York based Reid Collins & Tsai - believes the federal law won't stand in the way of their case.Mexico’s actions are a “novel approach,” in reality, such lawsuits have been used for decades as a tactic by anti-gun groups and governments in their attempts to bankrupt gun manufacturers and circumvent the political process.

That’s why Congress passed the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” in 2005. This act protects firearms manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers from suits brought about as a result of “the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” The outlook for a Mexican government suit looks dim; since the PLCAA was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26, 2005, no federal court has allowed such a suit by a government plaintiff to go forward against a U.S. firearms manufacturer.

The Mexican government’s plans for a lawsuit extend at least back to November 2, 2010, when a contract with the law firm was signed. Unfortunately for the Mexican government, the possible lawsuit has come to light at the same time as diplomatic cables newly made available by Wikileaks, which have shown that drug cartels obtain much of their weaponry from Central American arsenals.

One such cable, recently publicized by Mexico City newspaper La Jornada, addresses a frequently heard claim about the origin of guns used in Mexico’s crime wave. The cable’s author writes, “Claims by Mexican and U.S. officials that upwards of 90 percent of illegal recovered weapons can be traced back to the U.S. is based on an incomplete survey of confiscated weapons. In point of fact, without wider access
to the weapons seized in Mexico, we really have no way of verifying these numbers.”
This information comes to light only weeks after another cable publicized by La Jornada revealed that 90 percent of the drug cartels’ “heavy armament,” such as grenades and rocket launchers, originates in Central America and enters Mexico through its Southern border with Guatemala. Bolstering these claims, IHS Global Insights reported on April 6 that the head of U.S. Southern Command, General Douglas Fraser, testified before the Senate that over 50 percent of the military grade weapons in the region originated from Central America.Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in
January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.

"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

Christopher Renzulli of New York, who has represented U.S. gun makers for fifteen years, says he believes this would be a difficult case for the Mexican government to win.It would make sense that the Mexicans and their legal friends couldn't win, not only due to the law being in place not even yet allowing suit, but,it is fundamental logic that the gun makers can't prevent somebody from selling or giving said guns to the Mexicans.But then Mexicans are hardly logical, and the law firm being what it is,will take anybody's money,for any case,obviously,considering they are taking up a case for the foreign government of Mexico,against America and American firms.Indeed, if the gun firms could and did,refuse to sell guns to Mexicans, the Mexican president would be suing claiming it was discrimination against Mexicans in America,and that Mexicans had the same rights as Americans in procuring guns, and whatever else could come to his mind,being what he is,intelligent,perhaps, or not, as is most certainly likely.Recall The Mexicans complained when America started building a high fence to prevent Mexicans from illegally entering the US.At that time they claimed this was discrimination against the Mexicans, in effect keeping them in Mexico,and illegally out of America,this was under then Mexican President, Vincente Fox.But we of course,see things differently, the fence would be a grand idea to continue round and about as it would keep Mexicans from illegally entering the United States, and of course, it would much more handily keep guns from getting to the Mexicans, which may irritate the Mexican President at this point.It seems that Calderon believes the guns enter Mexico from across the Mexican American border, either across in a reverse wetbacking fashion, or through in reverse fashion, the drug infiltration tunnels, or flown in by air seemingly passing any Mexican security to prtevent such things.The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry, issued a statement saying it “respects the work of President Calderon to willingly take on his country’s powerful drug cartels. However, we are
disappointed that he would seek to hold law-abiding American companies responsible for crime in Mexico.”The association also denied that most of the guns used for crime in Mexico come from the United States.

In either case, the drug lords,and gangs, are getting their hands on a great many guns, and using them as well in the pursuit of their favorite pass time in Mexico, the drug trade which they then pedal in to the United States,across the border. Calderon is not prepared to believe that the guns enter from,say, the sea ports, but it is known that many of the guns are actually European in origins, Soviet AK 47's,Belgian guns, even yet Israeli guns have shown up,guns of all kinds and types. Mexican authorities have investigated reports that some were supplied by arms dealers in Israel and Belgium.

The plot thickens,however, and here we do have an interesting development.In a related legal move, Mexico’s Attorney General is demanding the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives turn over the names of its agents who participated in its “Operation Fast and Furious.”During the covert operation last year, ATF agents allowed smugglers to sneak about 2,000 guns into Mexico so they could be traced to suspected criminals and drug cartels.Although the operation helped U.S. law enforcement agents identify criminals, it also resulted in some of the guns being used for murders and other crimes, according to Mexican police.Mexico’s Attorney General did not say why he wanted the names of participating law officers, but the Mexican news media is speculating he will try to sue them or press charges against them.So far, the U.S. Justice Department has refused to reveal the names of Fast and Furious agents.President Felipe Calderon expressed his frustration to CBS News correspondent Peter Greenberg: "We seized more than 90,000 weapons...I am talking like 50,000 assault weapons, AR -5 machine
guns, more than 8,000 grenades and almost 10 million bullets. Amazing figures and according to all those cases, the ones we are able to track, most of these are American weapons."Unquestionably some of the guns do come from America, the great majority of the traceable ones, as Americans guns are just that, traceable, the rest are not, not being American guns, and the vast majority of the guns are not American guns.Indeed, the grenades were not America,and as for Armalite, this was and is a weapon supplied, oddly enough, to many revolutionaries, by one Fidel Castro, and no doubt, a tradition continued by his brother,they're in to the more modern AR-10, but for Mexicans the Ar-5 will just have to do.They've also
seized many of the famous and prolific AK 47's. In short, the Mexicans have a problem, a problem which is beyond them,but it is not a problem of the Mexican selected American arms manufacturers,but rather those of foreign manufacturers whom the Mexican President does not choose to sue, nor blame.He's the American
equivalent of the Mohamed Al Fayed the British have, in short, perhaps if they give the Mexican President American citizenship, perhaps he will withdraw his ridiculous attempts to sue,for what ever.