Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Unlimited Re-hypothecation in the city of London

Fluoride Truth Hits Australian Television

"Fluoridation is responsible for 40 million cases of arthritis, dental deformity in 8 million children, allergic reactions in 2 million people and overall 10,000 unnecessary cancer deaths every year."

Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile. Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats.

The government tests were designed to determine whether water fluoridation results in an increase in human cancer risk. They were conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). PHS is a leading promoter of fluoridation," Yiamouyiannis points out.

The NTP tests confirmed what the Burk-Yiamouyiannis tests 13 years earlier had shown-fluoride is carcinogenic. Fluoride caused bone cancer and increased the rate of oral cancer. "The NTP studies were not the first animal studies to show that fluoride is carcinogenic". Fluoride at levels as low as 1 part per million in the drinking water give rise to an irregular formation of collagen in the body.

Collagen, which makes up about a third of our bodies, is a major component of skin, ligaments, tendons, muscles, cartilage, bones and teeth. The disruption of this collagen is what results in wrinkling of the skin, weakening of the ligaments, tendons and muscles. When fluoride induces the breakdown or irregular formation of collage in cartilage, irreversible arthritis and stiffness of the joints is observed.

Fukushima radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to release new data showing that various milk and water supply samples from across the US are testing increasingly high for radioactive elements such as Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137, all of which are being emitted from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichia nuclear fallout. As of April 10, 2011, 23 US water supplies have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 (, and worst of all, milk samples from at least three US locations have tested positive for Iodine-131 at levels exceeding EPA maximum containment levels (MCL) (, and in once case more than 2000 percent higher than MCL, cumulatively.

As far as the water supplies are concerned, it is important to note that the EPA is only testing for radioactive Iodine-131. There are no readings or data available for cesium, uranium, or plutonium -- all of which are being continuously emitted from Fukushima, as far as we know -- even though these elements are all much more deadly than Iodine-131. Even so, the following water supplies have thus far tested positive for Iodine-131, with the dates they were collected in parenthesis to the right:

Los Angeles, Calif. - 0.39 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Baxter), Penn. - 0.46 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Belmont), Penn. - 1.3 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Queen), Penn. - 2.2 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Muscle Shoals, Al. - 0.16 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Niagara Falls, NY - 0.14 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Denver, Colo. - 0.17 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Detroit, Mich. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/31/11)
East Liverpool, Oh. - 0.42 pCi/l (3/30/11)
Trenton, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Painesville, Oh. - 0.43 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Columbia, Penn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (4442), Tenn. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (772), Tenn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (360), Tenn. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Helena, Mont. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Waretown, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Cincinnati, Oh. - 0.13 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Pittsburgh, Penn. - 0.36 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Oak Ridge (371), Tenn. - 0.63 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Chattanooga, Tenn. - 1.6 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Boise, Id. - 0.2 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Richland, Wash. - 0.23 pCi/l (3/28/11)

Again, these figures do not include the other radioactive elements being spread by Fukushima, so there is no telling what the actual cumulative radiation levels really were in these samples. The figures were also taken two weeks ago, and were only just recently reported. If current samples were taken at even more cities, and if the tests conducted included the many other radioactive elements besides Iodine-131, actual contamination levels would likely be frighteningly higher.

But in typical government fashion, the EPA still insists that everything is just fine, even though an increasing amount of US water supplies are turning up positive for even just the radioactive elements for which the agency is testing -- and these levels seem to be increasing as a direct result of the situation at the Fukushima plant, which continues to worsen with no end in sight (

Water may be the least of our problems, however. New EPA data just released on Sunday shows that at least three different milk samples -- all from different parts of the US -- have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 at levels that exceed the EPA maximum thresholds for safety, which is currently set at 3.0 pico Curies per Liter (pCi/l).

In Phoenix, Ariz., a milk sample taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi/l. In Little Rock, Ark., a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, tested at 8.9 pCi/l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And in Hilo, Hawaii, a milk sample collected on April 4, 2011, tested at 18 pCi/l, a level six times the EPA maximum safety threshold. The same Hawaii sample also tested at 19 pCi/l for Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years (, and a shocking 24 pCi/l for Cesium-134, which has a half life of just over two years ( Together, this amounts to a level 2033 percent higher than federal limits (

Why is this milk contamination significant? Milk, of course, typically represents the overall condition of the food chain because cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. In other words, when cows' milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.

And even with the milk samples, the EPA insanely says not to worry as its 3.0 pCi/l threshold is allegedly only for long-term exposure. But the sad fact of the matter is that the Fukushima situation is already a long-term situation. Not only does it appear that the Fukushima reactor cores are continuing to melt, since conditions at the plant have not gotten any better since the earthquake and tsunami, but many of the radioactive elements that have already been released in previous weeks have long half lives, and have spread halfway around the world.

The other problem with the EPA's empty reassurances that radiation levels are too low to have a negative impact on humans is the fact that the agency does not even have an accurate grasp on the actual aggregate exposure to radiation from all sources (water, food, air, rain, etc.). When you combine perpetual exposure from multiple sources with just the figures that have already been released, there is a very real threat of serious harm as a result of exposure.

The EPA and other government agencies are constantly comparing Fukushima radiation to background and airplane radiation in an attempt to minimize the severity of exposure, even though these are two completely different kinds of radiation exposure.

No safe level of radiation from nuclear fallout
Background and airplane radiation is an external emitter of radiation, while Fukushima-induced radiation in food and water is an internal emitter. The former, which is considered "normal" radiation, hits your body from the outside, while the latter goes directly inside your body and into your digestive tract. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the immense difference between the two, and the much more severe consequences associated with literally ingesting radiation verses having it hit your skin.

In reality, there really is no safe level of radiation. No matter how many times the EPA and others repeat the lie that radiation levels are too low to have any significant impact, the statement itself is patently false. Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that radiation exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.

"There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period," said Patterson. "Exposure to radionuclides, such as Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water."

And now that radioactive levels in some areas have actually exceeded EPA maximums, Patterson's statement is even more chilling. So while the mainstream media continues its near-total blackout on Fukushima, the situation is actually becoming more severe than it has ever been. Time will tell how severe the long-term effects of this disaster will be, but one thing is for sure -- Fukushima radiation cannot and should not be taken lightly..

Sources for this story include:

Learn more:

FDA finally admits chicken meat contains cancer-causing arsenic

After years of sweeping the issue under the rug and hoping no one would notice, the FDA has now finally admitted that chicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic, a cancer-causing toxic chemical that's fatal in high doses. But the real story is where this arsenic comes from: It's added to the chicken feed on purpose!

Even worse, the FDA says its own research shows that the arsenic added to the chicken feed ends up in the chicken meat where it is consumed by humans. So for the last sixty years, American consumers who eat conventional chicken have been swallowing arsenic, a known cancer-causing chemical. (

Until this new study, both the poultry industry and the FDA denied that arsenic fed to chickens ended up in their meat. The fairytale excuse story we've all been fed for sixty years is that "the arsenic is excreted in the chicken feces." There's no scientific basis for making such a claim... it's just what the poultry industry wanted everybody to believe.

But now the evidence is so undeniable that the manufacturer of the chicken feed product known as Roxarsone has decided to pull the product off the shelves ( And what's the name of this manufacturer that has been putting arsenic in the chicken feed for all these years? Pfizer, of course -- the very same company that makes vaccines containing chemical adjuvants that are injected into children.

Technically, the company making the Roxarsone chicken feed is a subsidiary of Pfizer, called Alpharma LLC. Even though Alpharma now has agreed to pull this toxic feed chemical off the shelves in the United States, it says it won't necessarily remove it from feed products in other countries unless it is forced by regulators to do so. As reported by AP:

"Scott Brown of Pfizer Animal Health's Veterinary Medicine Research and Development division said the company also sells the ingredient in about a dozen other countries. He said Pfizer is reaching out to regulatory authorities in those countries and will decide whether to sell it on an individual basis." (

Arsenic? Eat more!
But even as its arsenic-containing product is pulled off the shelves, the FDA continues its campaign of denial, claiming arsenic in chickens is at such a low level that it's still safe to eat. This is even as the FDA says arsenic is a carcinogen, meaning it increases the risk of cancer.

The National Chicken Council agrees with the FDA. In a statement issued in response to the news that Roxarsone would be pulled from feed store shelves, it stated, "Chicken is safe to eat" even while admitting arsenic was used in many flocks grown and sold as chicken meat in the United States.

What's astonishing about all this is that the FDA tells consumers it's safe to eat cancer-causing arsenic but it's dangerous to drink elderberry juice! The FDA recently conducted an armed raid in an elderberry juice manufacturer, accusing it of the "crime" of selling "unapproved drugs." ( Which drugs would those be? The elderberry juice, explains the FDA. You see, the elderberry juice magically becomes a "drug" if you tell people how it can help support good health.

The FDA has also gone after dozens of other companies for selling natural herbal products or nutritional products that enhance and support health. Plus, it's waging a war on raw milk which it says is dangerous. So now in America, we have a food and drug regulatory agency that says it's okay to eat arsenic, but dangerous to drink elderberry juice or raw milk.

Eat more poison, in other words, but don't consume any healing foods. That's the FDA, killing off Americans one meal at a time while protecting the profits of the very companies that are poisoning us with their deadly ingredients.

Oh, by the way, here's another sweet little disturbing fact you probably didn't know about hamburgers and conventional beef: Chicken litter containing arsenic is fed to cows in factory beef operations. So the arsenic that's pooped out by the chickens gets consumed and concentrated in the tissues of cows, which is then ground into hamburger to be consumed by the clueless masses who don't even know they're eating second-hand chicken sh*t. (

Learn more:

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"

This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn't even bother to read the study itself (as usual).

NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these "scientific" studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.

The "60% effectiveness" claim is a total lie - here's why
What we found is that the "60% effectiveness" claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that "60% effectiveness" means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won't get the flu!

Thus, the "60% effectiveness" claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.

This is utterly false.

In reality -- and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" -- only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!

See the abstract at:

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots
Let's start with the actual numbers from the study.

The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.

The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.

So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!

Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (

In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines "don't work on 99 out of 100 people." Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).

So where does the media get "60% effective?"
This is called "massaging the numbers," and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.

The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.

So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.

Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.

But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.

How to lie with statistics
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.

You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"

But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.

But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!" And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"

And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies
At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don't), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.

In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let's suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:

"This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!"

You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality -- scientifically speaking -- you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?
Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!

It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.

So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)

Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (

Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors."

Good news for children?
If there's any "good news" in this study, it's that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.

So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).

Guess who funded this study?
This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.

For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (

The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called "Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine," ( which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (

Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study
Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:

Problem #1) The "control" group was often given a vaccine, too

In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the "control" groups were given so-called "insert" vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The "control" group, in other words, wasn't really a proper control group in many studies.

Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children

It's the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It's no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against "never vaccinated" children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.

Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D

Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots ( Read the article to see the actual "absolute" numbers in this study.

Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines

Vaccines are considered "effective" if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer's two decades later? Is that still a "success?" If you're a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer's pills, too. That's probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.

Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis

There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were "selected" for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.

Remember: Scientific fraud isn't the exception in modern medicine; it is the rule. Most of the "science" you read in today's medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.

Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers

I haven't had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I'm willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in "scientific" circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn't been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don't expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They'd rather not reveal what happens when you follow the money.

Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!

Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we're going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?

That's a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?

Just for fun, let's conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?

Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That's the far more likely reality of the situation.

Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That's why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask 'em yourself this coming winter, and you'll see.)

What the public believes
Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are "70 to 90 percent effective." This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.

It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be "only" 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, "Vaccines don't work as well as you might have thought." These headlines were followed up with explanations like "Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!"

I hate to break it to 'em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.

Outright fraudulent marketing
Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!

So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?

It's truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit's foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as "science" today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.

That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn't difficult these days. Just shroud it all under "science" jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!

The real story on flu shots that you probably don't want to know
Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren't for halting the flu. We've already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the "science" on that.

So what are flu shots really for?

You won't like this answer, but I'll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to "soft kill" the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates ( and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated "public health" message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.

Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.

And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.

Also worth reading:
Flu Vaccines -- The Mainstream Admits, We Want an Epidemic!

Learn more:

Gardasil HPV vaccines found contaminated with recombinant DNA that persists in human blood

In seeking answers to why adolescent girls are suffering devastating health damage after being injected with HPV vaccines, SANE Vax, Inc decided to have vials of Gardasil tested in a laboratory. There, they found over a dozen Gardasil vaccine vials to be contaminated with rDNA of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The vials were purchased in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Poland and France, indicating Gardasil contamination is a global phenomenon.

This means that adolescents who are injected with these vials are being contaminated with a biohazard -- the rDNA of HPV. In conducting the tests, Dr. Sin Hang Lee found rDNA from both HPV-11 and HPV-18, which were described as "firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant."

That aluminum is also found in vaccines should be frightening all by itself, given that aluminum should never be injected into the human body (it's toxic when ingested, and it specifically damages the nervous system). With the added discovery that the aluminum adjuvant also carries rDNA fragments of two different strains of Human Papillomavirus, this now reaches the level of a dangerous biohazard -- something more like a biological weapon rather than anything resembling medicine.

As SANE Vax explains in its announcement, these tests were conducted after an adolescent girl experienced "acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours" of being injected with an HPV vaccine. (

rDNA found in Gardasil is genetically engineered
The rDNA that was found to be contaminating Gardasil is not "natural" rDNA from the HPV virus itself. Rather, it is a genetically engineered form of HPV genetic code that is added to the vaccines during their manufacture.

As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:

"Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not 'natural' DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) -- genetically engineered -- to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA."

Innocent girls being injected with genetically engineered HPV rDNA
What all this means is that through Gardasil vaccines, innocent young girls are being injected with the recombinant DNA of HPV, and that this biohazardous substance persists in their blood. The implications of this are rather scary, as Dr. Lee explains:

"Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA."

The vaccine industry, of course, has a long and dark history of its vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing viruses and other frightening contaminants. Watch this astounding video of Merck scientist Dr. Hilleman openly admitting that polio vaccines were widely contaminated with SV40 viruses that cause cancer:

It's called "Merck vaccine scientist admits presence of SV40 and AIDS in vaccines - Dr. Maurice Hilleman" and was partially narrated by Dr. Len Horowitz. You can view the full transcript of this extraordinary interview at:

Learn more:

Monday, October 3, 2011

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Scientist Leuren Moret - Radiation war intensifies with HAARP tornadoes in USA

Plutonium and Uranium Detected

This has been one of the most difficult blog entries we’ve written. In order to gather the most thorough evidence to date, we poured through countless news stories from Japan and the World, as well as official press releases from TEPCO, NRC documents, Areva status documents, and a JAIF report in order to determine the truth at Fukushima. We had assumed that since the IAEA is an international organization, it would have the most honest report, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. What you’re reading took numerous hours of research over many days to discover the theoretical timeline of Plutonium radioactive isotope leakage at the Fukushima Daiichi facility.

Major Players

TEPCO Tokyo Electric Power Company; IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ; JAIF Japan Atomic Industrial Forum ; NRC Nuclear Regulartory Commission ; Areva: A huge French nuclear conglemerate.
DOE US Department of Energy

There are two sources of Plutonium at Fukushima’s Daiichi plant.
1. #3 Reactor was loaded with MOX fuel some four months before it was to be de-comissioned. This is strange in of itself.
2. Plutonium is created in small quantities by the nuclear fission process in the spent fuel rods. Most of these are stored in the fuel storage pool at #4 reactor.

Plutonium disclosure happened over time as it was discovered or theorized by various parties. Bear with us as you read the chronology. There are many groups and experts involved: all of them discussing the implications of a plutonium leak.

Experts like Michio Kaku mentioned that Plutonium could be released from the MOX fuel, and then when the explosions began occurring so often (beginning on March 12), many nuclear experts stated that plutonium is a byproduct of the nuclear fission process. The explosions, whether hydrogen in origin or not, occurred at least five times over the month long course of the disaster.

Apparently TEPCO knew about Plutonium isotopes on 3/21 and 3/22. It was discovered in the soil around #1 and around several parts of #1’s infrastructure. No disclosure came at that time. True disclosure of that information only came out in the TEPCO press release on April 9th and through the Japanese Educational website about the disaster and reactor status (April 8th).

On March 23, experts were asked, on television and in the press, about the blue neutron beam, and stated that it might be due to the presence of uranium and plutonium radioactive isotopes, and an indication of spontaneous random re-criticality.

Plutonium was detected on 3/25 and 3/28, but the only reason we know this is from a minor footnote from a JAIF document which was only recently released on April 8th.

On March 26th, the NRC (The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) analyzed the situation, but didn’t come right out say plutonium. Apparently based on the wording (read the chronology) they knew it though.

Here’s what is clear:

The 3/26 NRC document details neutron sources being thrown up to 1 mile and bulldozing of very high dose rate material being bulldozed between units 3 and 4. This means the US government knew about it and stayed silent. The New York Times broke that story on April 6.

On March 30th, the IAEA and a US dept of Energy official both documented possible Plutonium release in their statements.

The JAIF report wasn’t released until April 8th.


* March 11
o Earthquake and Tsunami and Reactor Breach

* March 12
o First explosion at Fukushima

* March 13
o Second explosion at Fukushima

o The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., commonly known as TEPCO, began injecting fresh water into the No. 3 reactor on Sunday after coolant water levels fell, while letting out radioactive steam to relieve pressure that had built up inside.

But after trouble developed with a fresh water pump, the company was forced to pour seawater into it to avoid a meltdown, a step that will eventually lead to the reactor's dismantlement. As a result, water levels rose but the water-level gauge has stopped indicating a rise, Edano said.

The procedure temporarily exposed the top parts of MOX fuel rods above coolant water by nearly 3 meters. MOX fuel refers to plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, used for so-called ''pluthermal'' power generation.”

* March 14
o Extreme pressure at #3 per TEPCO chronology dated April 9th 2011

o Two new explosions at Fukushima and high radiation.

“The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., commonly known as TEPCO, began injecting fresh water into the No. 3 reactor on Sunday after coolant water levels fell, while letting out radioactive steam to relieve pressure that had built up inside.

But after trouble developed with a fresh water pump, the company was forced to pour seawater into it to avoid a meltdown, a step that will eventually lead to the reactor's dismantlement. As a result, water levels rose but the water-level gauge has stopped indicating a rise, Edano said.

An official of the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said half of the roughly 4-meter rods were still exposed late Sunday, but that seawater kept being pumped into the reactor vessel.”

* March 15

Explosion from #4. There is no fuel in the core, so it must have come from the spent fuel storage pool.

* March 16 Smoke rises from Fukushima

* March 20

“The Tokyo Fire Department shot water into a spent-fuel pool of the No. 3 reactor in an operation that lasted more than 13 hours until 3:40 a.m., while the Defense Ministry plans to shoot water into a similar pool of the No. 4 reactor shortly.

More than 2,000 tons of water is believed to have been put into the No. 3 reactor's pool so far, exceeding the pool's capacity of 1,400 tons. Fuel rods used at the reactor were plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, known as MOX, said to be harder to control than normal fuel rods made from uranium.”

“The process of reducing the pressure by releasing steam from the vessel, a step already taken in the past to deal with the troubles of the No. 3 and other reactors, may mean that radioactive steam could be further released outside. But the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said later that it would not take the measure for a while because the pressure has stabilized.”

* March 21

First detection of plutonium on and/or near the ground. Detailed in the April 8th educational link.

White smoke at Fukushima from #2.

* March 22

2nd detection of plutonium on and/or near the ground and on Unit #1’s stack and exhaust pipe. Detailed in the April 8th educational link.

* March 23

Neutron beam reported for the first time: indicative of random criticality.

“But the measured neutron beam may be evidence that uranium and plutonium leaked from the plant's nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuels have discharged a small amount of neutron beams through nuclear fission.”

Gray smoke detected per the TEPCO April 9 2010 press release.

* March 24

White and then black smoke, neutron beams, high temperatures noted.

* March 25 JAIF report on Fukushima status details a Plutonium detection in small amounts.

Report dated April 08 2011

* March 26 The NRC issues a report of Fukushima, but the report has no details of plutonium in it. It does cryptically discuss some issues. See the yellow highlighted section at the beginning of this document.

* March 27

No plutonium detected, but TEPCO is waiting on a detailed analysis of extremely varied isotopes (niobium, tellurium, ruthenium, silver, iodine, cesium, and ruthenium ) released after 1000 milliSv or 1 Sv detected at unit #1. Awaiting their analysis.

* March 28

“Meanwhile, Tokyo Electric, known as TEPCO, is studying whether highly toxic plutonium is contained in the soil of the plant. The No. 3 reactor was using plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel for so-called ''pluthermal'' power generation.”

* March 29 Tokyo stocks open lower on worries over plutonium leak

“Plutonium has been detected in soil at five locations in the crippled Fukushima Daiichi atomic power plant of Tokyo Electric Power Co. The following are questions and answers regarding the potential health hazard of the highly toxic material.

Q: What are the salient characteristics of plutonium?

A: Plutonium emits alpha rays which get lodged in people's bones and lungs after being inhaled and could become highly carcinogenic. One half-life of plutonium-239, a variant of the radioactive element, is estimated at 24,000 years. It could keep emitting radiation inside a human body and is difficult to eliminate.

Q: How will the plutonium discovered this time at the plant affect human health?

A: The plutonium-238 isotope reading at one of the five contaminated spots was 0.54 becquerel per kilogram of soil. Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) said that it is the same level as found in most soil so it is not a health hazard. Experts of the Nuclear and Industrial

* March 30

“A senior U.S. Energy Department official said Tuesday the level of plutonium detected in soil at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan is ''not significant.''

''Certainly it would be a concern if it were in significant levels...It was not significant at this point,'' Peter Lyons, acting assistant secretary of the department's Office of Nuclear Energy, said in a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

He also noted finding plutonium that was derived from either the operating reactors or the spent fuel pools ''would not be regarded as a major surprise.'' -monitoring-and-consequences-30-march

The IAEA writes of the detection of plutonium in their notes on slide 6. There was a comment from a US nuclear official and the IAEA on the same day. We don’t know when they learned of it however.

"Pu-238 and Pu-239/240 in soil(Japanese authorities) Measured at Fukushima NPP: within the range of Japanese background Seeking further information about origin"

* April 2

Workers warned they're facing a 100-year battle to make fuel rods safe. Those battling to stop nuclear meltdown are expected to die in weeks.American recruiter asked to hire technicians to help

Dr Price said: 'As the water leaks out, you keep on pouring water in, so this leak will go on forever.

'There has to be some way of dealing with it. The water is connecting in tunnels and concrete-lined pits at the moment and the question is whether they can pump it back.

'The final thing is that the reactors will have to be closed and the fuel removed, and that is 50 to 100 years away.

Read more:

1. Workers warned they're facing a 100-year battle to make fuel rods safe
2. Those battling to stop nuclear meltdown are expected to die in weeks
3. American recruiter asked to hire technicians to help
4. World's largest concrete pump is being flown from U.S. to assist
5. Evacuation zone refugees won't be able to go home for months, admits Japanese minister
6. Joint Japanese-U.S. mission recovers bodies from sea
7. Man arrested after crashing car through gate of stricken N-plant
8. TEPCO releases video showing damage inside Fukushima's Unit 4

Read more:

* April 4

Highly radioactive water from #2 wastewater is shunted to a reservoir, while the low level water in that reservoir is emptied into the sea. Awaiting analysis of that highly radioactive water.

* April 6

NY Times reports of bulldozing spent fuel rods between units #3 and #4. Unit #3 contains the MOX fuel. #4 has the majority of the spent fuel rods. They quote from the NRC 03/26 report.

* April 7

Reports that they have information that Plutonium was in the 11,000 tons of radioactive water dumped. No official verification found. The water was tested and Cesium and Iodine isotopes were found.

* April 8

The Japanese government releases an educational site dealing with the status of radiation at Fukushima and elsewhere in the country. A menu hyperlink deals with Plutonium status and details the March 21 and March 22 detection, but has no word on the other incidents.

The government said on Friday that a cow slaughtered for beef had slightly elevated levels of cesium, another radioactive particle. Officials stressed that the meat was never put on the market.

Read more:

* April 9

Fukushima data from the Ministry of Economics, Trade and Industry, which has so far provided the most comprehensive daily data dump on Fukushima, has stopped reporting the dry well radiation reading in Reactor 1. This is the same reactor where following Thursday's Earthquake, METI represented a mindblowing reading of 100 Sieverts/hour in the dry well: a number on par with the worst data out of Chernobyl. Did the earthquake terminally break something in Reactor 1, or will the excuse be that another radiation counter turned up faulty after it was Made In Taiwan?

Phoenix milk sample exceeds EPA’s maximum contaminant level for radioactive iodine-131

Three weeks after the disaster in one of the most connected countries in the world, 260,000 households still do no have running water and 170,000 do not have electricity. Officials fear up to 25,000 people may have been killed.

Read more:

… Milk Contamination At EPA Maximum…

Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA, the data shows. The Phoenix sample contained 3.2 picoCuries per liter of iodine-131. The Los Angeles sample contained 2.9. The EPA maximum contaminant level is 3.0, but this is a conservative standard designed to minimize exposure over a lifetime, so EPA does not consider these levels to pose a health threat. …

TEPCO has repeatedly relaxed safety standards at the plant during the crisis to prevent frequent violations

But security concerns have been raised after an unemployed man from Tokyo was arrested after allegedly crashing a car through the Western gate of the Fukushima plant premises.

Hikaru Watanabe, 25, drove around the radioactive plant for around 10 minutes after entering at around 1.10pm on Thursday, said TEPCO, though the reason for his entry is not yet known.

Watanabe, who has been charged with unlawful entry, had tried to enter the plant via the guarded front gate about 50 minutes earlier, but he was refused.

A Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency official said the Fukishima plant is guarded, but the company is now examining whether the security is sufficient, the Japanese outlet Kyodo reported.

Read more:

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Sunday, April 17, 2011


Stop eating Pacific and/or Gulf fish - seafood

You are a child of the Creator, and YOU have dominion over the earth

Recording requested by, ]

And when recorded return to: ]


Name ]

Street/Box ]

City ]_____________________________________
State (Space above this line for recorder's
use only.)

Be it known to all courts, governments, and other parties, that I, ________________ am a living man with Divine Immortal Spirit given by the Creator, freeborn Sovereign, without subjects. The Creator has given man dominion over the earth. I am neither subject to any entity anywhere, nor is any entity subject to me. I neither dominate anyone, nor am I dominated.
My authority for this statement comes from the Creator and is the same as it is for all free Sovereigns everywhere: the age-old, timeless, and universal respect for the intrinsic rights, property, freedoms, and responsibilities of the Sovereign Individual. The law of the land is the only law of the righteous.
This notice is to advise that I do not grant personal jurisdiction or jurisdiction by deceit. That I will determine jurisdiction or the nature or cause of the action coming before my duly constituted court. This may be in subject matter person or in proceedings at realm. As a man, I will challenge, not recognize and do not consent to any fiction (person, name, mark, title, trade, business, state, nation and corporation) as my equal.

I will attend my court to determine who has or states to have a claim against me. Rules of evidence will apply and no witness may testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a witness has personal knowledge of a matter.

I am not a "person" when such term is defined in statutes of the United States or statutes of the several states when such definition includes artificial entities. I refuse to be treated as a federally or state created entity which is only capable of exercising certain rights, privileges, or immunities as specifically granted by federal or state governments.
I voluntarily choose to comply with the man-made laws which serve to bring harmony to society, but no such laws, nor their enforcers, have any authority over me. I am not in any jurisdiction, for I am not of subject status.
Consistent with the eternal tradition of natural common law, unless I have harmed or violated someone or their property, I have committed no crime; and am therefore not subject to any penalty.
I act in accordance with the following U.S. Supreme Court case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Thus, be it known to all, that I reserve my natural common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled and pretended "benefit" of any hidden or unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.
As such, the hidden or unrevealed contracts that supposedly create obligations to perform, for persons of subject status, are inapplicable to me, and are null and void. If I have participated in any of the supposed "benefits" associated with these hidden contracts, I have done so by necessity, under duress, and for lack of any other practical alternative. I may have received such "benefits" but I have not accepted them in a manner that binds me to anything.
Any such participation does not constitute "acceptance" in contract law, because of the absence of full disclosure of any valid "offer," and voluntary consent without misrepresentation or coercion, under contract law. Without a valid voluntary offer and acceptance, knowingly entered into by both parties, there is no "meeting of the minds," and therefore no valid contract. Any supposed "contract" is therefore void, ab initio.
From my age of consent to the date affixed below I have never signed a contract knowingly, willingly, intelligently, and voluntarily whereby I have waived any of my natural common law rights, and, as such, Take Notice that I revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio my signature on any and all contracts, agreements, forms, or any instrument which may be construed in any way to give any agency or department of any federal or state government authority, venue, or jurisdiction over me.
This position is in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brady v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970):
"Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences."
Typical examples of such compelled and pretended "benefits" are:
1. The use of Federal Reserve Notes to discharge my debts. I have used these only because in America, there is no other widely recognized currency.
2. The use of a bank account, with my signature on the bank signature card. If there is any hidden contract behind the bank signature card, my signature thereon gives no validity to it. The signature is only for verification of identity. I can be obligated to fulfill no hidden or unrevealed contract whatsoever, due to the absence of full disclosure and voluntary consent.
Likewise, my use of the bank account thereof is due to the absence of a bank not associated with the Federal Reserve system. In general, people have been prevented from issuing their own currencies, and such prevention is in violation of the United States Constitution. Were there an alternative, I would be happy to use it. To not use any bank at all is impossible or very difficult, as everyone knows, in today's marketplace.
3. The use of a Social Security number. The number normally assigned to persons of subject status, I use exceptionally, under duress, only because of the extreme inconvenience of operating without one in today's marketplace, where it is requested by banks, employers, lenders, and many other government agencies and businesses. My reason for using it is not because I wish to participate in the Social Security system, as I don't wish to participate. Let it be known that I use the Social Security number assigned to me for information only.
4. The use of a driver's license. As a free Sovereign, there is no legal requirement for me to have such a license for travelling in my car. Technically, the unrevealed legal purpose of driver's licenses is commercial in nature. Since I don't carry passengers for hire, there is no law requiring me to have a license to travel for my own pleasure and that of my family and friends. However, because of the lack of education of police officers on this matter, should I be stopped for any reason and found to be without a license, it is likely I would be ticketed and fined or obligated to appear in court. Therefore, under duress, I carry a license to avoid extreme inconvenience.
5. State plates on my car. Similarly, even though technically, my car does not fit the legal definition of a "motor vehicle," which is used for commercial purposes, nevertheless, I have registered it with the state and carry the state plates on it, because to have any other plates or no plates at all, causes me to run the risk of police officer harassment and extreme inconvenience.
6. Past tax returns filed. Any tax returns I may have filed in the past, were filed due to the dishonest atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the local assessors' offices; not because there is any law requiring me to do so. Once I discovered that the IRS and other tax agencies have been misinforming the public, I have felt it is my responsible duty to society to terminate my voluntary participation. Because such returns were filed under Threat, Duress, and Coercion (TDC), and no two-way contract was ever signed with full disclosure, there is nothing in any past filing of returns or payments that created any valid contract. Therefore, no legal obligation on my part was ever created.
7. Birth Certificate. The fact that a birth certificate was granted to me by a local hospital or government agency when I entered this world, is irrelevant to my Sovereignty. No status, high or low, can be assigned to another person through a piece of paper, without the recipient's full knowledge and consent. Therefore, such a piece of paper provides date and place information only. It indicates nothing about jurisdiction, nothing about property ownership, nothing about rights, and nothing about subject status. The only documents that can have any legal meaning, as it concerns my status in society, are those which I have signed as an adult, with full knowledge and consent, free from misrepresentation or coercion of any kind.
8. Marriage license. The acquisition of a marriage license is now being revealed as being necessary only for slaves. The act of a Sovereign such as myself obtaining such a license, through social custom and ignorance of law, has no legal effect in changing my status. This is because any such change in status, if any may be supposed to occur, could happen only through a hidden and unrevealed contract or statute. Since no hidden, unrevealed, and undisclosed information, if it exists, can be lawfully held to be binding, it is null and void.
9. Children in public school. The attendance of my children in government-supported "public" schools or government-controlled "private" schools does not create any legal tax obligation for me, nor any other legal obligation, because I never signed a contract agreeing to such obligation for the supposed "privilege" of public school attendance.
If any of my children have attended government supported "public" or controlled "private" schools, such was done under duress and not out of free will. Be it known that I regard "compulsory state education" as a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states in relevant part:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
10. Declaration of Citizenship. Any document I may have ever signed, in which I answered "yes" to the question, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" - cannot be used to compromise my status as a Sovereign, nor obligate me to perform in any manner. This is because without full written disclosure of the definition and consequences of such supposed "citizenship," provided in a document bearing my signature given freely without misrepresentation or coercion, there can be no legally binding contract.
I am not a "United States" citizen subject to its jurisdiction. The United States is an entity created by the U.S. Constitution with jurisdiction as described on the following pages of this Affidavit. I am not a "resident of," an "inhabitant of," a "franchise of," a "subject of," a "ward of," the "property of," the "chattel of," or "subject to the jurisdiction of" any corporate federal government, corporate state government, corporate county government, corporate city government, or corporate municipal body politic created under the authority of the U.S. Constitution. I am not subject to any legislation, department, or agency created by such authorities, nor to the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their authority therefrom. Further, I am not a subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article IV Courts of the several states, or Article I Courts of the United States, or bound by precedents of such courts, deriving their jurisdiction from said authorities. Take Notice that I hereby revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio any such instrument or any presumed election made by any of the several states or the United States government or any agency or department thereof, that I am or ever have voluntary elected to be treated as a United States citizen subject to its jurisdiction or a resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of any of the several states or of the United States as defined in the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
11. Past voter registration. Similarly, since no obligation to perform in any manner was ever revealed in print, as part of the requirements for the supposed "privilege" to vote for government officials, any such registration on my part cannot be legal evidence of any obligation to perform. Likewise, I have granted NO jurisdiction over me, to any political office. It is my inherent right to vote on elections or issues that I feel affect all of society; NOT because I need anyone to rule over me. On the contrary - I have used the voting process only to instruct my public servants what a Citizen and Sovereign would like done.
12. Use of the 2-letter state code and zip code. My use of the 2-letter state code and zip code in my "address," which is secretly codified to indicate United States "federal zone" jurisdiction, has no effect whatsoever on my Sovereign status. Simply by receiving or sending "mail" through a quasi-federal messenger service, the postal service, at a location indicated with a 2-letter state code and zip code, cannot place me under federal jurisdiction or obligation. Such a presumption would be ludicrous.
I use these codes only for the purposes of information and making it more efficacious for the U.S. Postal Service to deliver my mail.
13. Use of semantics. There are some immature people with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people, who masquerade as "government." Just because they alter definitions of words in the law books to their supposed advantage, doesn't mean I accept those definitions. The fact that they define the words "person," "address," "mail," "resident," "motor vehicle," "driving," "passenger," "employee," "income," and many others, in ways different from the common usage, so as to be associated with a subject or slave status, means nothing in real life.
Because the courts have become entangled in the game of semantics, be it known to all courts and all parties, that if I have ever signed any document or spoken any words on record, using words defined by twists in the law books different from the common usage, there can be no effect whatsoever on my Sovereign status in society thereby, nor can there be created any obligation to perform in any manner, by the mere use of such words. Where the meaning in the common dictionary differs from the meaning in the law dictionary, it is the meaning in common dictionary that prevails, because it is more trustworthy.

Such compelled and supposed "benefits" include, but are not limited to, the aforementioned typical examples. My use of such alleged "benefits" is under duress only, and is with full reservation of all my common law rights. I have waived none of my intrinsic rights and freedoms by my use thereof. Furthermore, my use of such compelled "benefits" may be temporary, until better alternatives become available, practical, and widely recognized.

It is further relevant to this Affidavit that any violation of my Rights, Freedom, or Property by the U.S. federal government, or any agent thereof, would be an illegal and unlawful excess, clearly outside the limited boundaries of federal jurisdiction. My understanding is that the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government is defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, quoted as follows:
"The Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful Buildings; And - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." [emphasis added]
and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
"The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
The definition of the "United States" being used here, then, is limited to its territories:
1) The District of Columbia
2) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
3) U.S. Virgin Islands
4) Guam
5) American Samoa
6) Northern Mariana Islands
7) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
8) Military bases within the several states
9) Federal agencies within the several states
It does not include the several states themselves, as is confirmed by the following cites:
"We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." Slaughter House Cases United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
"THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE." [emphasis added] Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. §1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct.1973, 41 L.Ed.287.
This is further confirmed by the following quote from the Internal Revenue Service:
Federal jurisdiction "includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." - Internal Revenue Code Section 312(e).
In legal terminology, the word "includes" means "is limited to."
When referring to this "District" United States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "WITHIN" the United States. When referring to the several States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "WITHOUT" the United States.
Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of court cases prove that federal jurisdiction is limited to the few federal territory areas above indicated. For example, in two Supreme Court cases, it was decided:
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government," Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215.
"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed..."
"[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted..."
"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 221, 223, 228, 229.
Likewise, Title 18 of the United States Code at §7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the several States.

Therefore, in addition to the fact that no unrevealed federal contract can obligate me to perform in any manner without my fully informed and uncoerced consent, likewise, no federal statutes or regulations apply to me or have any jurisdiction over me. I hereby affirm that I do not reside or work in any federal territory of the "District" United States, and that therefore no U.S. federal government statutes or regulations have any authority over me.

All United States and State government officials are hereby put on notice that I expect them to have recorded valid Oaths of Office in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article VI:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution..."
I understand that by their Oaths of Office all U.S. and State government officials are contractually bound by the U.S. Constitution as formulated by its framers, and not as "interpreted," subverted, or corrupted by the U.S. Supreme Court or other courts.
According to the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thus, my understanding from these Amendments is that the powers of all U.S. and State government officials are limited to those specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution.
I further understand that any laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and procedures contrary to the U.S. Constitution, as written by its framers, are null and void, as expressed in the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177:
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted."
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..."
"A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby."
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."" [emphasis added]
and as expressed once again in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
All U.S. and State government officials are therefore hereby put on notice that any violations of their contractual obligations to act in accordance with their U.S. Constitution, may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law, as well as the application of all available legal remedies to recover damages suffered by any parties damaged by any actions of U.S. and State government officials in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, I hereby revoke, rescind, and make void ab initio, all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, as it pertains to the Social Security number assigned to me, _________________ as it pertains to my birth certificate, marriage or business license, or any other licenses or certificates issued by any and all government or quasi-governmental entities, due to the use of various elements of fraud by said agencies to attempt to deprive me of my Sovereignty and/or property.
I hereby waive, cancel, repudiate, and refuse to knowingly accept any alleged "benefit" or gratuity associated with any of the aforementioned licenses, numbers, or certificates. I do hereby revoke and rescind all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, signed by me or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, with or without my consent or knowledge, as it pertains to any and all property, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, obtained in the past, present, or future. I am the sole and absolute legal owner and possess allodial title to any and all such property.
Take Notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, by, but not limited to, any and all quasi/colorable, public, governmental entities or corporations on the grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts.

I affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am of lawful age and am competent to make this Affidavit. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and my specific common law right not to be bound by any contract or obligation which I have not entered into knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion.
The use of notary below is for identification only, and such use does NOT grant any jurisdiction to anyone.


Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice, and with all rights reserved,
(Print Name Below)
Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris.

My Hand and Mark as Subscriber (Sign Name Below)

Date:_____________ Common Law Seal:__________________________________

On this ______day of____________, 19____, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for _______________________(state), personally appeared the above-signed, known to me to be the one whose name is signed on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that s/he has executed the same.
Printed Name:____________________________________
My Commission Expires:____________________________

They have poisoned us and our food supply continue to lie about it.

Dr. Mark Sircus: Running For Our Lives

Arnie Gundersen Speaks With Russia Today About the Increased Severity Rating at Fukushima from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Fukushima Radiations are a Killer: Gerald Celente

They are radiating us to death says Gerald Celente , Fukushima radiations are deadly the same are the radiations from TSA , Gerald Celente then speaks about the collapsing housing market and the rising unemployment rate , the situation in Libya will go on for ever the worst is going to come and now they are selling weapons to rebels we do not know who they are , the rebels are now in the oil business too , terrorism are revenge attacks of which Gerald Celente always warned about the wors is only going to come , get your money out of the banks , because of Bank Holiday you won't be able to get your money out of the bank.

Friday, April 8, 2011

We are all our own worst enemy. Just watching this world go down the drain!!

This world needs more "Love love love"


14 June 2007

General Assembly
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Special Committee on


5th & 6th Meetings (AM & PM)



Text Also Requests General Assembly to Consider Question;

Urges Clean Up of Vieques Island, Release of Puerto Rican Political Prisoners

The Special Committee on decolonization approved by consensus a resolution calling on the United States to “expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence”, and request the General Assembly to consider the question in all its aspects.

By other terms of the text, the Committee urged the United States to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island to the people of Puerto Rico, and cover the costs of clean up and decontamination of areas previously used in military exercises.

Moreover, the Committee requested the President of the United States to release all Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences in United States prisons for over 26 years for cases relating to the struggles for independence and peace on Veiques Island.

Further, the Committee noted the debate in Puerto Rico on the implementation of a mechanism that would ensure the full participation of representatives of all viewpoints prevailing in Puerto Rico, mindful that the solution to Puerto Rico’s political status should originate from its people.

The representative of Cuba, which sponsored the resolution, said considering the status of Puerto Rico had risen to its highest level ever, noting that it was the first time a resolution had requested the General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico in all aspects, an important step forward in reviewing the case within the United Nations framework.

The representative of Venezuela, a co-sponsor of the resolution, added that unanimous approval of the draft made it clear that Puerto Rico was indeed under colonial power. Such a resolution would strongly support the rights of the Puerto Rican people in their independence.

Also speaking on the draft resolution were the representatives of Saint Lucia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Syria, Iran and Nicaragua.

Throughout the day, the Committee heard from petitioners, many of whom weighed the options for Puerto Rico’s future status. The representative of the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico in the United States stressed that the relationship of association between Puerto Rico and the United States must evolve to ensure compliance with present legal realities. Most Puerto Ricans treasured their United States citizenship, yet many were divided, with 49 per cent of the population supporting the status of an associated free state; 46 per cent supporting annexation; and 5 per cent supporting independence. They rejected colonialism in all its manifestations and, for that reason, the territory’s alternative status needed to be non-colonial and respectful of modern principles of sovereignty.

He said in February, a bill had been presented to the United States House of Representatives, with the help of Governor Acevedo Vila, in which Congress recognized the authority of Puerto Ricans to convene a constitutional assembly, and was committed to a formula favoured by a majority of Puerto Ricans. That draft law called for the inclusion of four million Puerto Ricans living in the United States.

Echoing that sentiment, a representative from the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico discussed two measures before the United States Congress on self-determination. While his party had not expressed a preference for either one, he demanded that any action by Congress include the option of an associated State.

The issue of contamination from weapons was touched on by a few speakers concerned about the health and environmental consequences that it imposed on the island of Vieques, where the United States Navy had previously conducted military exercises. A representative of the Ithaca Catholic Worker Vieques Support Group said the United Nations subcommittee on human rights had condemned weaponry containing depleted uranium as a weapon of mass destruction. Yet, some 9,500 residents of Vieques lived 11 miles west of the bombing range where the United States Navy was today detonating unexploded ordinance. Fine radioactive particles were forced 2000 metres into the atmosphere and carried by the winds and hurricanes to populated areas throughout Puerto Rico and the Caribbean.

As others had pointed out, cancer rates in Vieques were higher than the main island of Puerto Rico, she said. No hospital in Puerto Rico was able to test for the presence of depleted uranium, but the military’s decision to use that radioactive metal, in spite of obvious health risks, showed a blatant disregard for human life and well-being.

Also, a representative from the Frente Patriotico Arecibeño decried the United States strategy for a nuclear weapons production facility in Puerto Rico, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He explained that documents from the United States Departments of Defence and Energy, and the National Nuclear Security Administration appeared to be directed to the use of Puerto Rican territory for the production of nuclear weapons. On 17 May, a United States House Bill on the safety for Americans from nuclear weapons testing was introduced, which stated that “alternate locations for nuclear testing were being considered”.

The Committee also heard calls for investigations into the assassination of independence leader Filiberto Ojeda Ríos and efforts to guarantee respect for the human rights of all Puerto Ricans, including the rights of political prisoners condemned to excessive time in United States jails.

Almost all participants asked the Committee to urge the General Assembly to reopen consideration of the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects. The representative of the Socialist Workers Movement, for example, said the United States had used its relationship with Puerto Rico to abuse the environment, weaken the tax base and dampen independence movements. United States control over Puerto Rico had adversely impacted the island’s economic development, and he hoped the Committee would pave the way for the unconditional transfer of sovereign powers to people from whom they were illegally seized. The Puerto Rican quest for independence should no longer be sidestepped, he said, demanding that the General Assembly take up the matter.

Other petitioners at today’s hearing on Puerto Rico also included representatives of the Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico; Puerto Rican Independence Party; Human Rights Committee of Puerto Rico; Fundacion Acción Democratica Puertorriquena; Comité Puerto Rico En La Onu; Puerto Ricans United in Action; Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico; Socialist Workers Party; American Association of Jurists; Fuerza Electoral Puertorriquena Movement; Estudiantes de Derecho Hostosianos Pro Independencia; Frente Autonomista; ProLibertad Freedom Campaign; Vieques Si; Colectivo de Trabajo Pro-Independencial de Mayaguez; Unidad en La Acción; Coordinadora Nacional Rompiendo el Perimetro; Ithaca Catholic Worker Vieques Support Group; Movimiento Independentista Nacional; United for Vieques; PROELA; Frente Socialista; and Gran Oriente Nacional de Puerto Rico.

The Committee will meet again on Wednesday, 20 June to consider the question of New Caledonia. Two petitioners from Guam will also be present.


The Special Committee had before it a report (document A/AC.109/2007/L.3) prepared by the Rapporteur of the Special Committee per a resolution adopted on 12 June 2006. The report highlights Puerto Rico’s general constitutional and political status. It notes that under the current Commonwealth arrangements, authority over defence, international relations, external trade and monetary matters remains with the United States, while Puerto Rico has autonomy on tax matters, social policies and most local affairs. Given the current deadlock among Puerto Rico’s political parties as to whether the island’s territorial status should change, an agreement on how to address the question of future status is unlikely during the current administration, the report states.

However, the United States Congress reopened debate over Puerto Rico’s political status in early 2007. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 was introduced in the House of Representatives in February and urged a plebiscite to be conducted no later than 31 December 2009. It called for the ballot to provide voters with two options: to continue the existing form of territorial status or pursue a path toward a constitutionally viable permanent non-territorial status. Another bill, cited as the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007, also was introduced in February in the House of Representatives.

Regarding military developments, the report noted that three issues remained to be clarified following the official end on 1 May 2003 of the United States Navy’s presence on the island of Vieques, located eight miles off the east coast of Puerto Rico: the future development and environmental clean up of Vieques; definitive conclusions regarding the effects of military exercises on the health of residents; and the future of the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station on the island of Puerto Rico. The Navy later announced it had budgeted $76 million for the clean up of Vieques for the 2006-2009 period.

Regarding previous actions taken by the United Nations, the report noted that the United States maintained that Puerto Rico had exercised its right to self-determination, had attained a full measure of self-government, had decided freely and democratically to enter into a free association with the United States and was, therefore, as stated explicitly in resolution 748 (III) of 1953, beyond the purview of United Nations consideration.

Adopting on 13 June 2005 a decision by consensus, the Special Committee reaffirmed the right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence in conformity with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). It reiterated that the Puerto Rican people constituted a Latin American and Caribbean nation that had its own unequivocal national identity.

Also before the Committee was a draft resolution on the Special Committee decision of 12 June 2006 concerning Puerto Rico (document A/AC.109/2007/L.7).

Introduction of Draft Resolution

Introducing the draft resolution on the Special Committee decision of 12 June 2006 concerning Puerto Rico (document A/AC.109/2007/L.7), RODRIGO MALMIERCA DÍAZ (Cuba) said the high number, and great variety of, Puerto Rican political and social forces represented at the present meeting was proof of the high interest regarding the Puerto Rico “colonial question”.

He said that, notwithstanding 30 years of effort on the Committee’s part, the Puerto Rican people remained unable to exercise its right to self-determination. The United States, the colonial power, had tried by all means to consolidate its economic, political and social domination over the people of Puerto Rico. For its part, the Committee had adopted 25 resolutions and decisions on the issue, reaffirming the right of Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV).

He said the present resolution called, once again, on the United States Government to accept responsibility to foster a process allowing the Puerto Rican people to exercise its inalienable rights. It also reiterated the principle that any initiative for the solution of Puerto Rico’s political status must first spring from the Puerto Rican people. The text urges the United States Government to complete the return to the Puerto Rican people all occupied lands and the facilities in Vieques and Ceiba, and to accelerate execution and costs of the cleaning up and decontamination of the areas of impact, through methods that did not worsen the consequences of its military activities on the health of the inhabitants of Vieques Island and the environment.

He said the resolution noted statements made by the Non-Aligned Movement at its 2006 summit in Havana, in which its 118 members reiterated their solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico. The draft also noted the Proclamation adopted within the framework of the Latin-American and Caribbean Congress for the Independence of Puerto Rico, held in Panama in 2006, with the participation of 33 political parties from 22 countries.

He said the resolution further reiterated the Special Committee’s deep concern for the continued “violent actions” against Puerto Rican independence fighters in Puerto Rico, and urged that investigations be conducted on such actions. The President of the United States was called on to release political prisoners that had been serving sentences for more than 26 years in United States jails, on charges related to the struggle for independence.


CELINA ROMANY SIACA, representative of the Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, said her organization was charged with defending the fundamental rights of Puerto Rican citizens, noting that it had opened a dialogue to advocate for self-determination for them. For years, the Puerto Rican Bar Association had advanced that position. Despite the torturous route travelled in that process, only once in the last 35 years had Puerto Rico been the subject of General Assembly discussion, in 1953.

The democratic deficit and human rights violations persisted, she said. In keeping with the current reform process of the United Nations, the time had come for Puerto Rico’s case to be brought to the General Assembly. The Puerto Rican Bar Association had reiterated that position, informed by resolution 1514, and all delays lacerated the island’s dignity. Rarely was it heard that the level of poverty in Puerto Rico doubled levels found in certain areas of the United States. Further, the island was undergoing a governance crisis.

The island was facing the gradual disappearance of its economic model and a new, post-colonial transition model was needed, she continued. Manifestations of colonialism remained, including the imposition of the death penalty for federal crimes and environmental contamination. Legislation on the issue of Puerto Rico was under consideration in the United States Congress. For the first time, Puerto Ricans were recognizing the right to self-determination and a procedural mechanism had been created to help bring that about. Another bill advocated for a plebiscite. She called for a consultative opinion from the International Court of Justice on the issue of Puerto Rico and demanded that the United Nations defend Puerto Rico’s right to free determination.

FERNANDO MARTIN, Puerto Rican Independence Party, said support for the cause seemed to extend beyond the Committee. Indeed, a build up of “continental will” in favour of solidarity with Puerto Rico was being seen among the citizens of Latin America and the Caribbean, bringing to mind the episode surrounding the transfer of sovereignty of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama. The swelling of support was evident in the success of the Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Panama last November, where members expressed support for Puerto Rico, and in the resolution passed in December 2006 by the Latin American Parliament expressing support for decolonization.

He said recognition of the failure of “the system of colonial subordination”, coupled with the trend towards the demilitarization of countries, had obliged the United States Government to re-examine its “relations of domination”. In its recent formal declaration, the United States Congress had openly recognized the colonial character of the regime in Puerto Rico. Three major political parties in Puerto Rico had unanimously voted in 2005 to call on the President of the United States and Congress to respond to the call of Puerto Ricans to provide them with alternatives that were not territorial or colonial in nature. That represented a “majority feeling” in Puerto Rico, with the exception of a minority party, including the Governor, which tended to support the status quo. The draft law on Puerto Rico, currently being examined in Congress, indicated that a process was underway to overcome the present regime, but the “colonial Governor” could derail such an initiative.

He said the people of Puerto Rico, in one way or another, must hold electoral consultations on the issue of decolonization, whether under the auspices of the United States Congress or another mechanism based in Puerto Rico itself. He thought it important that the issue was taken to the General Assembly, to exert further pressure on the United States to intensify its moves towards decolonization. He expressed support for the draft resolution submitted by Cuba, especially its provisions relating to Vieques and the demands for the freedom of Puerto Rican political prisoners. He hoped Puerto Rico would proceed on the path towards independence, and reach its goal before the end of the second decade for the eradication of colonialism.

EDUARDO VILLANUEVA MUÑOZ, representative of the Human Rights Committee of Puerto Rico, requested the immediate release of prisoners held in federal jails, some as long as 27 years. The United States Congress had held discussions on the colonial status of Puerto Rico, and the release of prisoners was a precondition for any discussion. All political prisoners had been subjected to torture and degrading treatment. One prisoner had been placed in a special cell and his isolation had been intensified for years. Despite the fact he had been diagnosed with cataracts, he had not been given the opportunity to correct that problem. He faced the possibility of dying in jail. Another prisoner who had been entitled to provisional release was denied that opportunity. A third inmate, imprisoned over the Vieques situation, had been attacked in jail, however, no investigation had been conducted. He’d often been placed in solitary confinement.

The moral strength of a country was derived from its human rights actions, he said. However, how could those who imposed human rights guidelines on other countries keep prisoners in such awful conditions? The United States was violating the most fundamental human rights of prisoners.

After 27 years of unfair treatment, Puerto Rico called for the unconditional and immediate release of prisoners, he said, noting that last October, a 2,000 person march had taken place calling for their release. Further, an open letter had been sent to President Bush calling for their release. That letter had been signed by legislators, mayors and party chairpersons. A recommendation approved in the Special Committee could be a real contribution for Puerto Rico’s call for the release of prisoners.

ENRIQUE BAQUERO, Fundación Acción Democràtica Puertorriqueña, whose organization was committed to improving the quality of democracy in Puerto Rico, urged the Committee to arrange for the General Assembly to take up the issue of the decolonization of Puerto Rico. The Assembly should seize on the formal recognition by the Bush Administration of the “territorial”, and, thus, colonial relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico, to question the argument made in 1953 by the United States to the Assembly that peoples of those two countries had an “agreement” that exempted them from reporting annually to the United Nations on the economic and social development of Puerto Rico’s inhabitants.

He said it was urgent that the Assembly take action, given that the United States House of Representatives had begun considering a draft resolution on a possible plebiscite in Puerto Rico on the issue. The Committee was urged to ask the Assembly to call on the United States to organize a plebiscite that presented all valid alternatives for self-determination, in line with United Nations resolution 1514 (XV) and others, and that the plebiscite not limit people’s choices to “colonial options” alone. The current, so-called commonwealth relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico was not of a kind that the United Nations accepted. He noted that the United States, and the General Assembly in turn, had recognized the sovereignty of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

He said that, in its resolution this year, the Committee should include a provision urging the United States Congress to deal with the issue seriously and in good faith, given that, in past years, the issue was often taken up and then left to fall by the wayside. He supported the option of establishing a Puerto Rican constitutional assembly with the authority to decide how the status of its people should be taken up. He noted that the United States House of Representatives had another bill before it, recognizing the right of Puerto Ricans to convene such a constitutional assembly. He also supported the freeing of Puerto Rican political prisoners.

WILMA RIVERÓN, of the Comit é Puerto Rico En La Onu, said that from the outset, the United Nations had included in its Charter the recognition of peoples to their right to self-determination, to freely establish their political situation, and to provide for their economic, social and cultural development. The right to self-determination was a fundamental right, she stressed, without which it was not possible to enjoy other rights. The right to decolonization was outlined in the United Nations Charter, as well as the International Declaration on Human Rights, and in many General Assembly resolutions, particularly resolution 1514, the main guideline for decolonization.

All those instruments repeated the inadmissibility of the intervention of States in the sovereignty of peoples, and protected peoples subject to colonialism, particularly their right to self-determination and independence. It should be clear that on the basis of the adoption of resolution 1514, any claims to sovereignty of a territory were no longer be valid, because they violated the principle of the right to self-determination. On the basis of new international law, old colonial entitlements no longer existed.

In the case of Puerto Rico, the “legality” that the intervening Power, the United States, used to justify its subjugation was based on resolution 748 (1953). Its position was that the Puerto Ricans had already exercised their right to self-determination by creating their own Government.

However, in the inter-agency group report on Puerto Rico adopted in April 2007, the United States reiterated that Puerto Rico belonged to, but did not form part of the United States and, thus, was subject to the full powers of Congress. That declaration served as proof that the adoption resolution 748 was truly an act of international public relations, and that the United States had no desire to comply with the law on decolonization. Puerto Ricans had denounced that situation each year in this Committee. Implementation of resolution 1514 recognized the inalienable right of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence. Some 35 years had passed and 25 resolutions had been adopted without the United States fulfilling its obligations.

The Special Committee resolution of 2006 stated what was expected of the United States, she said, noting that the inter-agency working group affirmed that Puerto Rico was subject to the congressional authority of the United States. It noted the debate in Puerto Rico for a procedure that would allow for a decolonization process. She joined denunciations of others on the expropriation and control by the United States of Puerto Rican environmental resources. She also called for the release of political prisoners.

MANUEL RIVERA, Puertorriqueños Unidos En Acción, thanked Cuba and Venezuela for the unconditional support they have shown to the people of Puerto Rico, so far. He also paid tribute to the efforts of various other international supporters, such as members of the Non-Aligned Movement, whose efforts in the final months of 2006 had led to a declaration reaffirming Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination, and to the Latin American and Caribbean Congress, which had produced the Panama Proclamation in favour of Puerto Rico’s independence.

He said Amnesty International had issued a report that condemned various human rights violations by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), including the assassination of a major independence leader, Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, as well as the excessive use of force by the FBI against Puerto Rican journalists. Efforts must be made to guarantee a respect for the human rights of Puerto Ricans, as they worked to achieve their self-determination and decolonization. That included the rights of political prisoners condemned to excessive jail time in United States jails, where they were submitted to psychological pressure and physical mistreatment.

The exercise of Puerto Rican self-determination must be full and just, he said, and must ensure the participation of Puerto Ricans residing in the United States, through a constituent assembly. The idea for such an assembly had received support from the Puerto Rico bar association, workers groups, the religious sector and political parties. However, the United States had taken measures to confound world public opinion regarding the true nature of its power over Puerto Rico and seemed to “discard” ideas for convening such a constituent assembly. Indeed, the United States seemed to be using its influence to prevent the issue from being taken up by the General Assembly, and to prevent the people of Puerto Rico from exercising their rights. After 500 years of struggling against colonialism, the people of Puerto Rico must be careful not make the mistake of supporting a process that failed to uphold the principles of resolution 1514 (XV).

PAULA SANTIAGO, representative of the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico, denounced all crimes against the Puerto Rican people, particularly colonialism. She hoped the commitment of the Committee would help to achieve Puerto Rico’s independence and membership in the United Nations system. She understood that the Committee’s work was important for Puerto Ricans’ full enjoyment of their rights within a legal framework. When resolution 1514 was adopted, the Committee had decided to examine the question of Puerto Rico.

She urged the President of the United States to help the island ensure its self-determination and desist from all actions that harmed its freedom fighters. Moreover, she called for the immediate release of those held in federal prisons, and the halting of “electronic warfare” conducted by the FBI.

Further, she said the United States Government should stop violating the fundamental human rights of Puerto Ricans, particularly in the area of health. Puerto Rico had the second-highest level of death from HIV/AIDS, but lacked the funds necessary to deal with that epidemic. Also, the United States should decontaminate areas it had ruined with experiments.

Since 1898, the United States had tried to destroy Puerto Rican nationality and imperialism again was sharpening its sword, she continued. The United States kept the island as a personal corporation and that exploitation made its citizens poor. Puerto Rico was the last significant colony in the world, and its fate was in the hands of the United States Congress. It was time for the international community to overturn the situation. Puerto Rico needed self-determination, according to international law. The island must be a free and independent nation. She asked all Committee members to help take the question of Puerto Rico to the General Assembly.

ARGIRIS MALAPANIS, representative of the Socialist Workers Party, called for the immediate release of all Puerto Rican independence fighters from United States prisons, particularly the “Cuban Five”, whose real crime was fighting for their country’s sovereignty. The fight for Puerto Rico’s independence was in the interests of the majority of United States people, he continued, noting that as long as the island remained a United States colony, the fighting capacity of the working-class movement was weakened. The United States Government had used Puerto Rico as a springboard for launching assaults on countries, from its 1983 invasion of Grenada to the occupation of Iraq. Further, it continued to use Puerto Rican youth as fodder in its imperialist wars. The successful 60-year struggle by the Puerto Rican people to remove the United States Navy from Vieques had educated millions about those realities.

The ongoing incarceration of four Puerto Rican “independentistas” was another case of turning the victim into the criminal, he said, as was the case with the 12 million undocumented immigrants. Those workers had become a growing section of the United States working class, and provided a pool of “super-exploited labour” to satisfy the bosses’ greed for profit. The United States rulers had the gall to tell the Puerto Rican people -- while assaulting then on wages, job safety and living conditions -– that they had no choice but to depend on Washington and that independence would only bring them ruin. Indeed, the Committee’s condemnation of Washington’s colonial rule would serve the interest of those fighting everywhere for the right to self-determination and against oppression.

LUIS VEGA RAMOS, representative of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, said he had come to inform the Committee about the situation in Puerto Rico. In accepting Puerto Rico’s Constitution in 1952, the United States had committed to accept petitions on freedoms. It was time for the United States to respond to its lack of compliance in those matters. Puerto Rico’s claims for autonomy and self-determination had always been heard. In 1962, the development of a free associated state was urged, based on the sovereign capability of the Puerto Rican people. Further, the respect for the sovereignty and identity of Puerto Ricans was outlined in resolution 1514.

He demanded that Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination be respected. Moreover, he reaffirmed the island’s right to sovereignty, saying that since 1978, that right had included the right of free association. There were two measures before the United States Congress on self-determination, and while his party had not expressed a preference, he demanded that any action by Congress include the option of an associated State. He supported bill 1230 to establish federal mechanisms to negotiate future discussions with the United States. He also had put forward draft legislation in the Puerto Rican Chamber of Representatives, which had been developed by a multiparty committee.

Finally, he said, the United States had not complied with promoting the processes that would ensure Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination. If Congress did not adopt either draft before it, he hoped Puerto Rico, nonetheless, would become a free associated State to the United Nations. He asked the Committee to urge the General Assembly to re-examine the issue of Puerto Rico’s self-determination. He called for full membership of Puerto Rico in the United Nations, as the time had come to seek mechanisms that would allow for Puerto Rico’s full exercise of self-determination.

ALEDIA CENTENO RODRIGUEZ, Frente Patriotico Arecibeño, said her organization had spoken last year on the United States strategy to authorize a nuclear weapons production facility in Puerto Rico, in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. She explained that Arecibo was home to the Arecibo National Astronomy and Ionospheric Centre (NAIC), which was used as an “ionospheric heater” [an array of antennae which are used for heating the uppermost part of the atmosphere]. Arecibo was also mentioned as a test-site for the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP), in a patent filed by an individual in the United States, to conducted experiments related to ionospheric manipulation. HAARP could function as an anti-missile and anti-aircraft defence system, permit interception and disruption of communications, weather and submarine and subterranean communications, among other things. The HAARP patent papers also stated that the invention could “simulate and perform the same function as performed by the detonation of a heavy type nuclear device”.

She said Arecibo was also mentioned in connection with the Puerto Rico Karst Conservation Act, which included authorization for the deployment of a nuclear weapons production facility. Aerial photos taken in the region showed antenna-like devices directed towards the ground, present since the mid-1990s. The citizens of Arecibo had not been made aware of the consequences or possible effects of those atmospheric experiments. Statements found in the literature regarding those experiments admit to the use of laser rays aimed at the atmosphere and there have been witnesses to the use of such rays for decades. There was a high rate of cancer cases of unknown origin in that region.

She said documents from the United States Department of Defence and Energy, and the National Nuclear Security Administration appeared to be directed to the use of Puerto Rican territory for the production of nuclear weapons. On 17 May, a United States House Bill on the safety for Americans from nuclear weapons testing was introduced, which states that “alternate locations for nuclear testing were being considered”. The bill also stated that the Department of Energy, acting under the National Environmental Policy Act, would be responsible for handling cases of contamination in the United States. In addition, Puerto Rico was designated as a territory under the purview of the Radiological Assistance Programme, which was ready to intervene in cases of radioactive contamination. It would seem that that entity was in charge of the well-being of the people of Puerto Rico in case of a nuclear accident.

A document on land acquisition, available at the property registry of Puerto Rico, Arecibo Section, showed the consolidation of various estates into a single 114 acre estate purchased by the United States Government. More purchases would follow. The people of Arecibo were wary of the intentions of the Untied States Department of Defense, and denounced the fact that the people of Puerto Rico were not being included in plans that affected its security and future. The Committee was urged to refer the case of Puerto Rico to the General Assembly, and to take the necessary precautions to guarantee the security of the hemisphere.

DINORAH LA LUZ, of the American Association of Jurists, said her organization was a non-governmental organization with consultative status in the Economic and Social Council. She reiterated her call for the eradication of colonialism and support for resolution 1514, which dealt with decolonization. The General Assembly should take up the political status of Puerto Rico without delay.

She denounced the violations of human rights instruments by the United States, especially those treaties dealing with self-determination, and reiterated support for such instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the United States had not fulfilled its obligations to various international treaties, she said there was a lack of sovereignty among those governing Puerto Rico.

Turning to the issue of Vieques, she said the island was awaiting the decontamination and return of its lands. Moreover, it was a cruel punishment that Puerto Rican prisoners were under disproportionate jail terms. The United States was not complying with the General Assembly decision that stated that nations that maintained colonies should dismantle their military bases. Clearly, resolutions on decolonization and racial discrimination should be implemented. She hoped the case of Puerto Rico could be solved without further delay and that its important issues could be brought to the General Assembly.

EDUARDO BHATIA, Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico in the United States, said he stood ready to work with the Committee and the United Nations General Assembly to reach a new agreement that would reflect the political, economic and social realities of the twenty-first century. The relationship of association between Puerto Rico and the United States should evolve to ensure compliance with present legal realities, and serve the best interests of Puerto Ricans in terms of their economic and social well-being. A majority of Puerto Ricans treasured their United States citizenship; yet, there were many who recognized that there were alternatives beyond annexation, which would lead to assimilation, and independence, which spelled separation.

He said Puerto Ricans were divided into factions where 49 per cent supported the status of associated free state; 46 per cent supported annexation; and 5 per cent supported independence. Puerto Ricans rejected colonialism in all its manifestations and, for that reason, the territory’s alternative status needed to be non-colonial and respectful of modern principles of sovereignty, while also respecting the wish to associate with the United States. Various political forces in the United States and Puerto Rico were pushing certain anti-democratic processes, which must be stopped. Last year and the year before, the Governor had made clear his commitment to establishing a process of free-determination for Puerto Rico that would be inclusive; represent self-determination and not imposition; and would respect ideological differences among Puerto Ricans. It would involve participation not just from political parties, but also from of civil society.

He said the process promoted by the Governor, the Status Constitutional Assembly, enjoyed wide support among the Puerto Rican bar association, civil society leaders, and the Special Committee itself. The proposal had generated more support in last two years than in previous decades, including from Puerto Ricans residing in the United States, American Government officials and others. There was a need to turn such “historic support” into immediate action. In February, a bill was presented to the United States House of Representatives, with the help of Governor Acevedo Vilá, in which Congress recognized the authority of Puerto Ricans to convene a constitutional assembly, but also committed to a formula that was favoured by a majority of Puerto Ricans. The draft law calls for the inclusion of four million Puerto Ricans living in the United States. Members of the Committee were asked to maintain solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico to ensure that the Constitutional Assembly became a reality.

He said the “Puerto Rico Democracy Act”, H.R. 900, proposed imposing a controversial vote in two rounds, eventually proceeding to a vote where people would choose between forming a federated state or an independent one. The objective of such a strategy was to ensure annexation of Puerto Rico against the people’s will.

He said the Government of Puerto Rico stood ready to begin work to resolve the present dilemma, by establishing a non-traditional relationship of association that was free, stable and democratic, and which was underpinned by modern political reasoning.

DOMINIQUE A. GILORMINI-DE GARCIA, representing the Fuerza Electoral Puertorriqueña Movement, said his organization represented university students. For the last four years, he had encouraged young people to participate in elections and other activities that would have an impact on the development of the island. He reiterated that his organization stood ready to educate young people. Although he did not affiliate himself with a particular position on the question of status, he encouraged a fair and democratic process. In recent years, Puerto Ricans had been dragged into a sterile debate on the status of the island, and it was his understanding that a Constitutional Assembly on status had offered the best hope for the future.

The United States Congress had two bills before it, he continued. Bill 900 was designed to make Puerto Rico the fifty-first State, while Bill 1230 recognized a Constitutional Assembly. Bill 900 was the result of the poor work of the task force created by United States President Bush, he said, noting that such a bill represented an attack on the integrity of Puerto Ricans. Those imposing status on others without taking into consideration the wishes of those affected were an attacking democracy. He urged a fair, democratic and inclusive process, and asked the Committee to support the island of Vieques in calling for the clean up of its contaminated areas.

CÉSAR PÉREZ LIZASUIN, Estudiantes de Derecho Hostosianos Pro Independencia, speaking on behalf of the Law Students Association, said that since the illegal North American invasion of 1898, the people of Puerto Rico had not had an opportunity to exercise their legitimate and inherent right to self-determination, based on resolution 1514 (XV) and the pacts and covenants on civil, political and economic and sociocultural rights. Resolution 2621 (1970) stated that in territories where there had been no exercise to the right to self-determination and independence, the General Assembly must shoulder responsibility for them until their inhabitants had had an opportunity to exercise their rights. Resolution 2621 also stated that there was an inherent right for all colonial people to struggle by all means necessary against colonial powers. Meanwhile, resolution 2625 provided for a separate and different legal status vis-à-vis administering States for their territories, until they could exercise right to self-determination.

He said for national liberation movements, such as the Boricua People’s Army, must be able to take action against anybody opposing their right to self-determination through assassinations; brutal persecution by the FBI of independistas and members of the press; 60 years of bombing in Vieques; the federal Government’s seizing the best lands; and sending Puerto Rican to fight in Iraq. Unfortunately, the demands of Puerto Ricans had been ignored, and, meanwhile, the country was in danger of disintegrating. There was a 50 per cent poverty rate, high economic dependency, 30 per cent unemployment, and an economy that could not grow more than 1 per cent per year. The situation was closely linked to the relationship of subordination to the United States, and he recommended that Puerto Rico’s case be taken up to the General Assembly.

He drew attention to the 2005 report of the Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico, which indicated a clear change in the United States position as compared to the decision of 1953, which established the status of free associated state for Puerto Rico. That status meant that Puerto Rico was no longer on the list of self- governing territories, and could not be treated as a colony; the United States Government has now changed its tune and acknowledged the colonial nature of the relationship. He urged the Committee to expose these contradictions.

ISMAEL GUADALUPE ORTIZ, Vieques Si, recalled a time when his siblings were removed from Vieques and his parents’ house destroyed. His story was the same as that of thousands of others from Vieques. Four years had passed since the navy left the area, but the land remained under federal authority, with a few plots of land handed to the municipality. The rest were under the control of a United States federal wildlife agency, which kept the people of Vieques from visiting their land.

For years, he said, the group had denounced the environmental contamination taking place in Vieques. The plan for conservation and environmental impact assessments was an excuse to maintain control over the area. The plan called for public participation, but in truth there was no room to ask for the return of that land to its rightful owners. The Navy used that land to build a system of radars, which was for purely military purposes. The type of clean up undertaken in Vieques was also suspect -- they were openly detonating bombs, with support the navy. The Government of Puerto Rica and the Environmental Protection Agencyhad rejected the burning of grasses to clean the land anddetect the presence of bombs, because it was damaging to people’s health. Yet, that method was openly being proposed to the clean up group. In april 2007, civil disobedience groups intervened to protect the mangroves and the grasses, but they were nevertheless set on fire.

He said the Navy refused to listen to the community regarding their concerns. The Committee should call for a halt to the open detonation of bombs and open burning of grasses, as well as the return of decontaminated lands and a true clean up. Also, those responsible for the deteriorating health of the people must be held accountable.

MARIE MERILL RAMIREZ, representative of the Colectivo de Trabajo Pro-Independencial de Mayagüez, said she had supported independence for Puerto Rico and the release of political prisoners for 20 years. She was here today to discuss various incidents of harassment of those supporting independence, including searches by the FBI of the homes and offices of trade union leaders and community leaders. There also was unnecessary involvement of local police. Such incidents were not isolated; rather, they formed part of a long and cruel tradition against those supporting independence, and the true dimensions of such harassment were being exposed today.

Proof of repression by the United States Government against those promoting independence was seen in the 168,000 documents recently declassified by the FBI and today found in the legislative library of Puerto Rico. In the last 20 months, she recalled that a friend had reported over 40 incidents in which he and his family had been followed or investigated. Other activists had been called for interrogation without warning or reason. All those involved were ready to offer sworn statements about what had happened and some had approached human rights commissions.

She was a witness to the fact that those questioned were upstanding citizens who were respected in their communities, she said. Many had lost their jobs and all continued to cope with courage and dignity. The Committee had a great responsibility to ensure that the aspiration to eliminate colonialism was guaranteed. She urged the Committee to request the General Assembly to reopen consideration of the case of Puerto Rico.

JANNETTE RAMOS GARCIA, Unidad en La Acción, Coordinadora Nacional Rompiendo el Perímetro, urged an investigation into the Rios assassination and asked that those responsible be brought to justice. Last year, her group denounced the harassment and threats against those fighting for Puerto Rico’s independence, and she repeated the same message today. Her organization was personally familiar with such incidents of harassment. In the last few months, United States police agents acted with impunity and were a constant threat to those advocating the decolonization of Puerto Rico.

She said she had called on the FBI to provide the names of agents involved in such incidents, but the FBI had declined. But the Bar Association of Puerto Rico stood ready to investigate the matter. The United States Courts seemed to act in favour of the FBI, and seemed to provide legal cover for instances of police “insolence”; meanwhile, the people of Puerto Rico were left with no legal recourse.

She said the people of Puerto Rico grieved along with victims suffering from similar occurrences in other countries. For example, in any other incidents in Milan a few days ago, a case had arisen against 26 CIA agents, accused of kidnapping a man and bringing him to Egypt via a United States base in Germany. Her group had a deep aspiration for justice and wished to defend human rights. She called for the issue of Puerto Rico’s independence to be brought to the General Assembly.

MARY ANNE GRADY FLORES, representative of the Ithaca Catholic Worker Vieques Support Group, said she had participated in the non-violent struggle in Vieques to stop 60 years of United States Navy bombing. The United States military continued to impose itself unjustly in Vieques, and also through its proxy nations such as Israel. Recalling her recent trip to Palestine, she said that parallel struggles existed in Vieques and Palestine. Further irony lay in the fact that the United States was responsible, directly and indirectly, for colonization in both cases. Other parallels existed: the confiscation of lands, forced removal of people, demolition of homes and the holding of political prisoners were just a few. The people of Vieques believed that their struggle to remove the United States military was intertwined with the fate of others around the globe.

She said the people of Vieques demanded: the United States Navy stop detonations of unexploded bombs; the immediate removal of all hazardous materials; the immediate return of lands occupied by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; and the inclusion of Vieques citizens in the development of their island. Further, they called for a moratorium on the sale of Vieques lands to large developers.

Turning to the issue of nuclear weapons, she said the United Nations subcommittee on human rights had condemned weaponry containing depleted uranium as a weapon of mass destruction. Yet, some 9,500 residents of Vieques live 11 miles west of the bombing range where the United States Navy is detonating unexploded ordinance today. Fine radioactive particles were forced 2000 metres into the atmosphere and carried by the winds and hurricanes to populated areas throughout Puerto Rico and the Caribbean.

She added that cancer rates in Vieques were 27 per cent higher than the main island of Puerto Rico. No hospital in Puerto Rico was able to test for the presence of depleted uranium, and, like United States veterans of both Iraq wars, the people of Vieques did not have base line information about the presence of depleted uranium in people’s bodies. But the military’s decision to use that radioactive metal, in spite of obvious health risks, showed a blatant disregard for human life and well-being.

JULIO MURIENTE PEREZ, Co-President of the National Independence Hostosiano Movement of Puerto Rico (MINH), said that 25 July would be the one hundred-ninth anniversary of the United States military invasion of Puerto Rico. During all those years, the United States Government had not taken a single step to advance the decolonization of Puerto Rico. On the contrary, it had fortified its presence and control on Puerto Rico and its people in all the facets of their lives. The official political condition that prevailed in Puerto Rico was called a Free Associated State or Commonwealth. That was a fraud promoted as a decolonization process, but the international community had never given it legitimacy.

“We demand that established international law be complied with, especially United Nations resolution 1514 (XV) and its requirement that powers be transferred to the people of Puerto Rico, so that we might freely decide our destiny,” he said. Until now, the United States had acted with open impunity and defiance of the principals approved by the international community. “We should not permit international law to be reduced to a dead letter,” he stressed, recalling resolution 1514, 25 resolutions approved by the Special Committee, the forceful resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in favour of Puerto Rico’s self-determination and independence, as well as the voice of representatives of dozens of Latin American political parties, who had asked for the same thing in Panama recently. The Special Committee had before it “an ample resolution, firm and equitable”, reaffirming those rights of Puerto Rico. He subscribed to its general content, particularly the reclamations for the people of Vieques and the release of Puerto Rican political prisoners.

As affirmed in that resolution, “all the initiatives for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should be taken by the people of Puerto Rico”, he said. That should take place in a Constitutional Assembly of Status, which was representative and inclusive. It would be such national consensus, together with international solidarity, that would force the Government of the United States to assume its responsibility in the case. “We are not asking you to substitute for us in this liberation endeavour, this is our responsibility and no one else’s,” he said. “All we are asking for is solidarity in a just cause, authenticated as such by this Committee on innumerable occasions.”

Action on Draft Resolution

Making a general statement before the action, the representative of Saint Lucia, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the exercise of self-determination continued to be a top priority of the Non-Aligned Movement’s agenda. The inalienable right to self-determination remained valid and essential to guarantee respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. She reiterated support for the Committee’s work, and urged administering Powers to give their full support to that United Nations body. The Movement renewed its call to speed the process of decolonization and the complete elimination of colonialism.

Moreover, the Movement reaffirmed its position on the question of Puerto Rico contained in the final document of the Summit Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana last September. The colonial question of Puerto Rico had been under consideration for more than 30 years and many resolutions had been developed.

While she was pleased that over the last seven years, the Committee had adopted its resolutions by consensus, she also called for the prompt implementation of those resolutions, and reaffirmed Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination. The Movement called on the United States to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise self-determination, and return occupied land on Vieques and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station.

Finally, she urged the General Assembly to actively consider the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects. Her delegation fully supported the work of the Special Committee and hoped the resolution would take into account the position of the Non-aligned Movement.

The representative of Venezuela, a co-sponsor of the resolution alongside Cuba, endorsed the statement made by the representative of Saint Lucia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Venezuela had itself suffered the ignominy of colonialism in the past, and, for that reason, always sought to maintain solidarity with all people wishing to liberate themselves from colonial powers. Venezuela supported the important political statements made on the decolonization of Puerto Rico by the Latin American Congress and the Non-Aligned Movement.

He remarked that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico now allowed its people to request Puerto Rican citizenship, bringing them closer to a concept of a sovereign Puerto Rico. Unanimous approval of the draft would make clear that the country was indeed under colonial power and that there was a need for the General Assembly to actively consider the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects. Such a resolution would go far in supporting the rights of Puerto Rican people to their independence.

The representative of Syria said Puerto Rico had struggled for many years in its right to self-determination, noting particularly that resolution 1514 granted independence to colonized peoples and lands. The Committee had dealt with the question of Puerto Rico for 30 years and adopted 24 resolutions and decisions in that regard. All those actions had been adopted by consensus, he continued, emphasizing the need for Puerto Rico to exercise its inalienable right to self-determination. Moreover, those actions had demanded that the United States Government expedite the process that would allow Puerto Rico to exercise its right to independence.

Syria fully supported the document adopted at the Summit Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana last September, he explained. He hoped that the resolution presented by Cuba would be adopted by consensus, which would reaffirm the sanctity of the principle on the right to self-determination.

The representative of Iran, aligning himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said his country supported the resolution before the Committee and hoped the Committee adopted it by consensus, as had been the case in previous years.

The Committee then adopted the resolution on without a vote.

RODRIGO MALMIERCA DIAZ ( Cuba) said he was pleased that the resolution had been adopted by consensus for the eighth consecutive year. Indeed, the case of Puerto Rico had risen to its highest level ever, he continued, noting that, for the first time, the resolution requested that the General Assembly consider the question of Puerto Rico in all aspects, an important step forward in the review of the case within the United Nations framework.

The number of delegations, both members and non-members, participating in the debate was commendable, he said, highlighting the statement made by the 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement. He said the adoption of the resolution was highly relevant for Cuba, and his country held a historical debt to the Puerto Rican people, who had provided examples of fighting for self-determination. Cuba would particularly remember sacrifices made by Ramón Emeterio Betances and Pedro Albizu Campos, among others.

Recalling the first article of the Cuban Revolutionary Party’s guidelines created in 1892, he said Puerto Rican and Cuban patriots had conspired 140 years ago to conceive what would later become the “Grito de Lares” in Puerto Rico and the “Grito de Yara” in Cuba, war cries that almost simultaneously started their respective independence struggles. Moreover, both countries had been subjected to the Spanish colonial yoke and suffered the same United States military intervention in 1898.

Despite their long colonial domination, the Puerto Rican people had kept their culture and identity, a fact which showed that the unswerving vocation for independence was deeply rooted in the island. The adoption of the resolution today was a tribute to that patriotic spirit. Puerto Rico could always count on Cuba’s unconditional solidarity, he said, adding that Cuba would continue to uphold Puerto Rico’s legitimate right to self-determination.

The representative of Nicaragua thanked the representatives of the Puerto Rican people for returning year after year to inform the Committee about their long process of emancipation. He trusted that the Committee would take the necessary steps to help the people of Puerto Rico exercise their full rights to self-determination, thereby becoming members of the United Nations. Indeed, many people had come to enjoy their right to self-determination after the passage of resolution 1514, which, in turn, had helped democratize the United Nations. Puerto Rico must no longer be the exception to that rule.

He remarked that, in recent times, great efforts had been made in Puerto Rico itself -- through dialogue, discussion and the exercise of political will -- leading to the withdrawal of the United States Navy from Vieques. However, he was disturbed by what had been said by leaders in Vieques regarding the environmental impact of the Navy’s actions, alongside other problems. Nicaragua joined others in the world in endorsing what was declared by the Non-Aligned Movement at the 2006 summit in support of Puerto Rican independence.

He said Puerto Rico –- a warm, loving people, which shared a strong sense of brotherhood and sisterhood with the wider Latin American family -- deserved to be free. Puerto Rico must one day take its rightful seat at the United Nations, where it could begin making a contribution to the “better world” that all States “deeply yearned for”.

BETTY “COQUI” BRASSELL said she had been actively supporting the people of Vieques for the past seven years and had been a founding member of United for Vieques, a grass-roots organization in Manhattan. As a member of “Grannies against the War”, she had learned about the dangers of military contamination. While it had been four years since the United States Navy bombing of Vieques had ended as a result of a worldwide campaign to stop the bombing and contamination, the people continued to suffer the aftermath of bombings, as the Navy still detonated unexploded bombs on the island.

She said the victory for peace in Vieques, celebrated in May 2003, had not resulted in the fulfilment of the people’s four demands, namely demilitarization, decontamination, the return of the land and development. The detonations continued, releasing, among other things, lead, depleted uranium and radiation. The people of Vieques deserved an island free of cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. The local economy was rapidly deteriorating as developers and private land speculators bought up homes, land and businesses at inflated prices in order to gentrify the entire island. Unemployment continued to rise.

Forced immigration also continued as the people sought alternatives to the worsening economic reality in Vieques, she added. Gentrification and land-grabbing presented an ongoing critical problem for the people of Vieques. The people of Vieques deserved and demanded peace with justice. Now more than ever Vieques needed the international community’s support and solidarity.

HECTOR IVAN SANTOS, representing PROELA, a civil society organization, said for 30 years he had defended Puerto Rico’s decolonization, while others had only wanted a liberalization of the system. Full liberation was needed, as Puerto Rico was the oldest colony in the world. In the Second International Decade on the Eradication of Colonialism, he said the United States must erase its “worst stain”, and urged that Puerto Rico be considered as a separate agenda item by the General Assembly. That alone would lend a sense of urgency to the situation.

Puerto Rico had become a colony as a result of the Hispano-American war, he continued. Although the United States had granted some autonomy to the island in the form of a new constitution, he said the process of modernization had gone hand-in-hand with political repression guided by the mainland. That repression was selective and intense, as seen in the Vieques situation, the assassination of Filiberto Rios by the FBI and other violations of civil rights. For those reasons, the process of self-determination had been slow. Further, the level of self-government in Puerto Rico was limited.

In the economic and social area, Puerto Rico was dependent on the United States, meaning that any self-determination process would be difficult. A “subject economy” had been created in Puerto Rico, as shown by its isolation in terms of trade from the world. Further, the island was subject to a monopoly market favouring the United States. The United States had not been a good partner or a good neighbour, and the island had been a test area for its military, economic and cultural imperialism. He called for the immediate liberation of political prisoners and a cleanup operation on Vieques. He denounced the shameless violation of Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination, and urged that the matter of Puerto Rico be taken up as a separate agenda item by the General Assembly.

MANUEL A. RODRIGUEZ BANCHS, Frente Socialista, remarked on the level of control exercised by the United States over Puerto Rico, in terms of its defence, armed forces, foreign relations, trade, customs, immigration, citizenship, and other aspects. Certain provisions of United States laws were in conflict with those internationally-protected rights, such as freedom of association. Indeed, Puerto Rico’s laws upheld the right to form trade unions, as protected under several International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. The United States itself had ratified those conventions and, in 1998, had voiced support for a separate ILO declaration which stipulated that even those Members that had not ratified such conventions were committed to respecting, promoting and realizing the freedom of association and the right of collective negotiation. Yet, under federal law, agricultural and domestic workers did not enjoy the right to organize, making it easy to replace striking workers. Also, the practice of hiring temporary and part-time workers had the effect of frustrating the freedom of association. Those who sought to exercise that right were spied upon, threatened, fired or suspended.

In addition, capital punishment, which was prohibited under Puerto Rican law, was allowed under the federal law, he continued. No part of Puerto Rican life should be subjected to laws that the people did not believe in, but, in fact, Congress enjoyed a certain power over Puerto Rico, although it pretended otherwise. It had still not implemented the results of three plebiscites on the Puerto Rican status. In the meantime, poverty continued to affect Puerto Rican youth, who were prime targets for recruitment by the United States Army for its “illegal war” in Iraq. The Committee must recommend that the General Assembly take up the matter of Puerto Rico as a priority, so that power could be transferred from the United States to the people of Puerto Rico. He also called for the unconditional release of Puerto Rican political prisoners jailed in the United States.

PEDRO COLÓN ALMENAS, Socialist Workers Movement, said his organization had been founded 25 years ago to protect the rights of workers in Puerto Rico, who were increasingly demanding that Puerto Rico be given its independence. It was “unreal” that, in the 21st century, their struggle for independence after five centuries of colonial rule -- of which 10 were spent under the United States -- was still not complete. He would like the Committee to reiterate its commitment to the cause and to come out against the colonial regime, by urging the General Assembly and the United States Government to respect the Puerto Rican people’s right to freedom. After all, self-determination was a human right.

He said the United States and United Nations tended to take refuge in resolution 748 of 1953, which said that Puerto Ricans had a constitutional status as an autonomous entity. Many groups, such as the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, had condemned it at the time, and their members were imprisoned and even killed for doing so. In recent decades, Puerto Rican attempts to deal with its status had been futile; “the Empire” simply ignored the numerous plebiscites, federal bills, and so on, on the issue.

He said United States used its relationship with Puerto Rico to abuse the environment; weaken the tax base; and used the Patriot Act to squelch independence movements by students and other peaceful demonstrators. The imposition of a death penalty, even though such a punishment was barred under the Puerto Rican constitution, increased tensions even further. Although Puerto Rico succeeded in ridding Vieques of the United States armed forces, that land still remained under that country’s control. Furthermore, the number of Puerto Ricans who died as a result of war was out of proportion to its population; the fact was, many found themselves obliged to become soldiers because of their poverty.

He said the United States control over Puerto Rico had a negative impact on their economic development, such that they were not competitive in regional and international markets. Puerto Rican political prisoners in United States jails continued to serve punishment out of proportion to their crimes. He hoped the Committee would declare the current situation unacceptable, and make possible the unconditional transfer of sovereign powers to people from whom it was illegally seized many years ago. There was a rumour that a group of legislators had asked the Committee to provide Puerto Rico with a seat at the United Nations as a free associated state, but such a move would only prolong the current arrangement. The Puerto Rican quest for independence should no longer be sidestepped; he demanded that the General Assembly take up the matter.

ERASTO ZAYAS NUÑEZ, Gran Oriente Nacional de Puerto Rico, said his father and grandfather, who were master Masons, had come before the Committee during the early years of the movement for Puerto Rico’s independence. As a third generation member of the Masonic order to address the SpecialCommittee, he demanded that the United States stop interfering in Puerto Rico’s affairs, halt the use of force and repression and end the practice of imposing its laws on Puerto Rican people.

He said the Masonic order he belonged to had joined others in Puerto Rico in calling for the release of political prisoners who had served over 25 years in United States jails. He also called for the release of those who fought to remove the United States Navy from the island of Vieques. The United States must stop damaging the island by detonating old bombs and burning land, and causing chronic health problems among the residents. The issue of Puerto Rico in all its aspects must be considered by the General Assembly. The territory’s political and socio-economic disintegration cried out for action. It was time for the Puerto Ricans themselves to find consensus through a constitutional assembly for status issues, and to uncover the best method to move towards decolonization. The Committee should, in turn, urge the United States to exercise its responsibility towards the same end.