Jerusalem Israel Liberty Bell Park – a replica of the The Liberty Bell, Philadelphia, United States
Zahi Shaked A tour guide in Israel and his camera email@example.com +972-54-6905522 tel 0546905522 My name…
By: Zahi Shaked. Israeli tour guide
Jerusalem Israel Liberty Bell Park – a replica of the The Liberty Bell, Philadelphia, United States
Zahi Shaked A tour guide in Israel and his camera firstname.lastname@example.org +972-54-6905522 tel 0546905522 My name…
By: Zahi Shaked. Israeli tour guide
HONOLULU, Sept. 20 (UPI) — On June 17th, President Obama announced he would expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument from 83,000 square miles to almost 755,000. That translates to a large portion of the ocean with islands controlled by the United States that cannot be fished. Many tuna fisherman are upset, because they believe this expansion will ruin their business, according to National Geographic.
Jack Kittinger, the director of Conservation International’s Hawaii office, claims there is very little tuna fished in the area the president has proposed protecting. Conservationists and scientists want to see that area protected, because the islands and reefs in the area have a large range of unique species and untouched life. The White House has received over 135,000 letters from U.S. citizens commending the efforts to protect the environment. The executive director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Kitty Simonds, claims 16 percent of the fishing her associates do is located in the proposed area, and American Samoa has over 5,000 jobs in the tuna industry. The islands in the region are almost 1,000 miles from Hawaii.
2014 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI’s prior written consent.
LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept.19, 2014 /PRNewswire/ –Liberty Power, the nation's largest independent retail electric supplier, announced that it will donate renewable energy certificates (RECs) to match 100 percent of the estimated electricity usage at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's (USHCC) Annual Convention. Liberty Power will supply enough RECs from United States wind energy …
NATO Drill in Ukraine: US-led military alliance shows support for Ukraine
The United States and its NATO allies have staged a long-planned joint military exercise involving approximately 1300 troops from 15 countries near the city of Lviv in western Ukraine. Check…
By: UKRAINE TODAY
PLAINSBORO, N.J. — Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation today announced the full commercial release of the Integra(R) Freedom Wrist Arthroplasty System in the United States. The system, which is …
Policy Brief US And NATO Support Georgia
September 16th, 2014 09:35 AM Russian aggression in Ukraine, along with the ISIL terrorist threat, have triggered a galvanizing moment for the United States and its partners, said U.S….
View original post here:
Policy Brief US And NATO Support Georgia – Video
You probably already knew this, but we have a pretty good idea of what our users are searching for. Sure, it’s a little creepy when Google knows your question before you even type it into the box. We don’t get that personal, but we do pay attention to frequently searched terms in order to better understand — and serve — your needs.
Since today is Constitution Day, we thought we’d share the Top 5 FindLaw.com search terms related to the U.S. Constitution. You’ll also find valuable resources for each topic listed below, but feel free to search for more:
1. “Gun Laws” (2nd Amendment) — Regardless of your personal beliefs, we can all agree that an epidemic of gun-related tragedies has kept this issue on the front burner of our collective conscience. Although the right to bear arms is a federal guarantee, many state laws provide varying restrictions on gun ownership and use. You can learn more about these laws here:
2. “Miranda Rights” (5th Amendment and 6th Amendment) — Nearly every crime show on TV will have an utterance of the words, “You have the right to remain silent…” Those are referred to as our Miranda rights, named for the U.S. Supreme Court case (Miranda v. Arizona) that requires police to inform arrestees of their constitutional rights. Check out these resources to learn more:
3. “Supreme Court Cases” — The U.S. Supreme Court is where the constitutionality of laws is tested. Quite a few of our users simply typed “Supreme Court cases” into the search box, but there’s a much easier way to find High Court opinions, news, and analysis of both recent and historical cases:
4. “Search and Seizure” (4th Amendment) — Few constitutional provisions have been challenged and clarified as often as the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure by the police. Searches and seizures have a broad impact on criminal rights and procedures, such as the admissibility of evidence and the legality of arrests.
5. “Due Process” (5th Amendment and 14th Amendment) — To honor “due process” is to follow the proper course of formal legal proceedings, carried out consistently, fairly, and in line with current laws and regulations. While the Fifth Amendment prohibits the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections to all U.S. citizens under all jurisdictions within the country.
It’s hard to believe that a document signed exactly 227 years ago today is not only still valid, but continues to serve as the cornerstone of this great experiment we call the United States of America. FindLaw may not have been around as long as the U.S. Constitution, but we’re always here to serve you.
Read more here:
Top 5 Constitution-Related Searches at FindLaw.com
Growing Together: Mexico and the United States
On September 12, 2014, The McCain Institute co-hosted Growing Together: Mexico and the United States with the Center for American Progress at The First Amendment Forum at The Walter Cronkite…
By: The McCain Institute
See the original post:
Growing Together: Mexico and the United States – Video
Policy Brief: U.S. And NATO Support Georgia
Russian aggression in Ukraine, along with the ISIL terrorist threat, have triggered a galvanizing moment for the United States and its partners, said U.S. Defense Secretary Hagel. It…
By: Editorials On VOA
NEARLY everyone lives by their smartphone these days, including U.S. Supreme Court justices. In Riley v. California, the nations highest court recently acknowledged this, finding all citizens have a Fourth Amendment right of privacy in their cellphones. The often-divided court was unanimous.
Before the Riley decision, lower courts were split on whether it was necessary to obtain a warrant before searching a suspects cellphone. Justice John Roberts definitively settled the dispute: Get a warrant.
The federal and Washington state constitutions are often tested in the context of criminal activity, but the ramifications of this ruling are weighty and will send ripples well beyond criminal suspects. The Riley decision speaks to the privacy rights of all in the digital age, including public employees.
Washington states Constitution provides citizens broader privacy rights than the Fourth Amendment, and the state Supreme Court has been ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue.
The Riley ruling will help decrease harassment of public employees by prison inmates and others who attempt to use Washington states Public Records Act to violate the privacy rights of teachers, firefighters, police officers, prosecutors and other public servants.
Pierce County and other government entities have been sued by requesters who wrongly claim the Public Records Act is a license to search the personal phones of public servants to determine if there have been work-related conversations or if personal phones were used during work hours. This far-fetched and shortsighted theory violates the privacy of public servants, their families, friends, and everyone who contacts them.
Such lawsuits against Pierce County have been twice dismissed by Superior Court judges, though the issues are continuing to wind through the courts. The Superior Court agreed that personal phone records and text messages are not public records and are protected by both the Washington and U.S. constitutions.
Public servants and other law-abiding citizens do not have fewer rights than criminals.
Some argue public servants could hide behind the state or federal constitution and somehow create shadow governments, and therefore they should give up their constitutional rights. Imagine, teachers could be forced to turn over their personal phones to be searched for public records because they might have talked or texted with a students parent. This is a good premise for a dystopian movie, but a bad law for a free society, and fortunately this is not the law in the United States or in Washington state.
Our federal Supreme Court has specifically held that public employees do not give up their constitutional rights by working for the public. Public employees make sacrifices to serve our communities, but they do not sacrifice their constitutional rights. Like private-sector employees, public-sector employees have a free-speech right to talk about their work and a constitutional right to privacy as well. Private landlines, which do not create public records, did not result in shadow governments and neither will personal cellphones.
Read more from the original source:
Guest: Why the privacy of a public employees cellphone matters
Plans for a major rewriting of international tax rules unveiled on Tuesday could eliminate structures that have allowed companies like Google and Amazon to shave billions of dollars off their tax bills.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development announced a series of measures that, if implemented by members, could stop companies from employing many commonly used practices to shift profits into tax havens.
According to Reuters, corporate tax avoidance has become a hot political topic following media coverage and parliamentary investigations into the arrangements many big companies use to cut their tax bills.
Amazon and Google say they pay all the taxes they should. Analysts say competitive pressures force companies to seek to minimise all costs, including tax.
Last year, the Group of 20 leading economies asked the OECD to develop an action plan to tackle the problem.
Big United States technology companies could be those most affected by the OECDs plans but others could also be impacted including pharmaceuticals and branded consumer goods, as well as many European companies.
The draft proposals announced have been agreed by all G20 members and OECD members, which include most major industrialised countries, the OECD said in a statement.
But the measures form part of a larger (tax) base erosion and profit shifting programmme that will conclude next year. Only then will countries look at enshrining the results of the programme in law.
For more than 50 years, the OECDs work on international taxation has been focused on ensuring companies are not taxed twice on the same profits. The fear was that this would hamper trade and limit global growth.
Over the years, the OECD has formulated a standardised model tax treaty which allows countries to split taxation rights and avoid double taxation, partly by providing reliefs from measures intended to stop tax avoidance, like withholding taxes.
WE ARE, as it always seems, at a pivotal moment in American history. At least thats what Sens. Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders maintained in a melodramatic Politico column recently as they explained their efforts to repeal the First Amendment.
Let me retort in their language:Its true that building the United States has been long, arduous and rife with setbacks. But throughout the years, the American people have repelled efforts to weaken or dismantle the First Amendment. We have weathered the Sedition Act of 1918, a law that led to the imprisonment of innocent Americans who opposed the war or the draft. Since then, we have withstood many efforts to hamper, chill and undermine basic free expression in the name of patriotism. We have, however, allowed elected officials to treat citizens as if they were children by arbitrarily imposing strict limits on their free speech in the name of fairness.But nowadays, after five members of the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and treated all political speech equally, liberal activists and Democrats in the Senate would have us return to a time when government dispensed speech to favored institutions as if it were the governments to give.
In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion striking down major parts of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to more political activism and more grass-roots engagement than ever before. In the 2012 presidential election, we quickly saw the results.
More Americans voted than in any election; more minorities voted; more Americans engaged in more debate and had more information in their hands than ever before. More than 60 percent of all those super PAC funds came from just 159 donors, each of whom gave more than $1 million. And still, every vote held the same sway. You may be convinced by someone, but no one can buy your vote. I wish the same could be said for your senators.
Even less worrisome is the propaganda surrounding scary-sounding dark money dollars spent by groups that do not have to disclose their funding sources. The 2012 elections saw almost $300 million spent on engagement in our democratic institutions, and the 2014 midterm elections could see as much as $1 billion invested in political debate. That means more democratization of media and more challenges to a media infrastructure that once managed what news we were allowed to consume. Still, no one can buy your vote.
No single issue is more important to the needs of average Americans than upholding the Constitution over the vagaries of contemporary political life. The people elected to office should be responsive to the needs of their constituents. They should also be prepared to be challenged. But mostly, they should uphold their oath to protect the Constitution rather than find ways to undermine it.
When the Supreme Court finds, for purposes of the First Amendment, that corporations are people, that writing checks from the companys bank account is constitutionally protected speech and that attempts to impose coercive restrictions on political debate are unconstitutional, we realize that we live in a republic that isnt always fair but is, for the most part, always free.
Americans right to free speech should not be proportionate to their political power. This is why its vital to stop senators from imposing capricious limits on Americans.
It is true that 16 states and the District of Columbia, along with more than 500 cities and towns, have passed resolutions calling on Congress to reinstitute restriction on free speech. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans support the abolishment of super PACs. So its important to remember that one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers offered us the Constitution was to offer a bulwark against democracy. Senators may have an unhealthy obsession with the democratic process, and Supreme Court justices are on the bench for life for that very reason.
Last week, Democrats offered an amendment to repeal the First Amendment in an attempt to protect their own political power. Whiny senators most of them patrons to corporate power and special interests engaged in one of the most cynical abuses of their power in recent memory. Those who treat Americans as if they were hapless proles unable to withstand the power of a television commercial are the ones who fear speech. Thats not what the American republic is all about.
Read this article:
David Harsanyi The senators who really threaten America
Like my co-blogger Will Baude, I was very interested in the Ninth Circuits recent case, United States v. Dreyer, suppressing evidence as a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. I think the case is interesting because it demonstrates a view of the exclusionary rule that I havent seen in a while.
First, some history. Back in the the middle of the 20th Century, the federal courts often found ways to impose an exclusionary rule for statutory violations in federal court. For example, in Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379 (1937) (Nardone I) and Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (Nardone II), the Supreme Court adopted an exclusionary rule for violations of the Communications Act. In McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), the Court adopted an exclusionary rule for violations of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court had a rather free-form approach to the exclusionary rule at the time, in part because suppression was seen as the judiciarys domain. The federal courts had an inherent power to control evidence in their own cases, so the Court could be creative in fashioning what evidence could come in to deter bad conduct. If the government did something really bad, the federal courts had the power to keep the evidence out to deter violations and maintain the integrity of the courts.
By the 1980s, after Warren Court revolution, the Supreme Court had a different view of the exclusionary rule. The scope of the rule had expanded dramatically when it was incorporated and applied to the states. But as a kind of tradeoff for that expansion, the Court cut back on the free-form approach outside core constitutional violations. The Burger and Rehnquist Courts saw suppression as a doctrine that had to be rooted in deterrence of constitutional violations and not just something that courts didnt like or found offensive.
In his post, Will points out a passage from Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon to that effect. And I would add the earlier case of United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), in which investigators had intentionally violated one persons Fourth Amendment rights to get evidence they were holding of the suspects crimes. The Sixth Circuit had suppressed the evidence on the basis of the federal courts supervisory power to punish the blatant abuse even though the suspect did not have Fourth Amendment standing to object to the violation. The Supreme Court reversed, blocking courts from using the supervisory power as an end-run around the limits of Fourth Amendment doctrine.
The new Ninth Circuit case, Dreyer, strikes me as a vestige of the mid-20th century free-form view of the exclusionary rule. The lower courts in the 1960s and 1970s had a few areas where they rejected suppression outside of constitutional law but recognized the hypothetical possibility that they might suppress evidence if the facts were particularly egregious. For example, a bunch of circuits held that the Fourth Amendment does not regulate evidence collection by foreign governments not acting in coordination with the U.S., but that they would suppress evidence if the foreign government conduct shocked the conscience. See, e.g., Birdsell v. United States, 346 F.2d 775, 782 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 712 n. 10 (2d Cir. 1975). But see United States v. Mount, 757 F.2d 1315, 1320 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Bork, J., concurring) (arguing based on Payner that lower courts lack supervisory powers to impose an exclusionary rule for searches by foreign governments). The caselaw was never reviewed in the Supreme Court, however, perhaps because those egregious circumstances were not found and the evidence wasnt actually suppressed.
Violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, the issue in the new decision, provides another example. The history seems to run like this. First, in the 1970s, a few courts applied the free-form approach to the exclusionary rule and left open the possibility that violations of the Posse Comitatus Act could lead to exclusion if it were necessary to deter violations. See, e.g.,United States v. Walden, 490 F.2d 372, 37677 (4th Cir. 1974); State v. Danko, 219 Kan. 490 (1976). When the Ninth Circuit reached the issue in 1986, the panel did not focus on the Supreme Courts then-new more skeptical approach to the exclusionary rule. Instead, the Ninth Circuit expanded on the 1970s lower-court cases, indicating that the exclusionary rule would be necessary for violations of the Act if a need to deter future violations is demonstrated. United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1986). Again, though, this was just a possibility, and the issue was never reviewed.
Dreyer picks up that 28-year-old invitation and concludes that the need has finally been demonstrated and that the exclusionary rule therefore must be applied. Dreyer cites Roberts, which in turn cited Walden. So on its face, the court is at least drawing on precedent.
But it seems to me that Dreyer is very vulnerable if DOJ thinks it is worth challenging in the Supreme Court. Dreyer appears to rely on a line of thinking about the exclusionary rule that the Supreme Court has long ago rejected. Of course, we can debate the normative question of how the Justices should approach the exclusionary rule, either in the context of constitutional violations or statutory violations. But just as a predictive matter, I suspect that todays Court would have a different view of the question than the circuit court cases from the 1970s on which the Ninth Circuits Dreyer decision ultimately relies.
Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.
Go here to see the original:
Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule
A coalition including civil liberties groups and government whistleblowers hascome out against aSenate bill respondingto the government surveillance and data collection revealed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Many observers seethe current Senate version of the USA FreedomAct as the most likely to succeed. But a letter released by the groupMonday argues that the language in the bill is too murky and could actually codify some controversial government programs while failing to provide meaningful prohibition against mass surveillance.
“The USA FreedomAct has significant potential to degrade, rather than improve, the surveillance status quo,” the letter warns. “At best, even if faithfully implemented, the current bill will erect limited barriers to Section 215, only one of the various legal justifications for surveillance, create additional loopholes, and provide a statutory framework for some of the most problematic surveillance policies, all while reauthorizing the Patriot Act.”
Signers of the letterinclude NSA whistleblowers William Binney and Thomas Drake, as well as journalist Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers, and groupsincludingProgressive Change Campaign Committee, the Sunlight Foundation, Restore The Fourth, and Fight for the Future.
But notably absent from the list are some of the big-name civil liberties groups–including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy & Technology and New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute–who havesigned on to a letter endorsing the version of the bill introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Major tech companieshave alsoendorsed the bill through trade groups and industry coalitions.
The legislation includes limits on surveillance under Section 215 of the USA PatriotAct — the part invoked to justify the bulk collection of domestic phone meta-data — as well as additional transparency provisions and the creation of a special advocate for civil liberties within the secretive court that overseas surveillance decision. But the billdoesnotaddress surveillance or data collection occurring under other authorities, including Section 702 of the USA PatriotAct and Executive Order 12333.
Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the ACLU, says the organization”conducted a careful analysis of the bill” and believes on the whole it is a step in the right direction, although “not perfect.”
Kevin Bankston, the policy director at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, says he sympathizes with the group opposing this version but believesthis bill is the best path forward. “I agree with the signers of today’s letter that USA FreedomAct doesn’t go nearly far enough in addressing all of the worst NSA surveillance practices,” says Bankston. “But I also believe this bill is a critically important first step in the reform process that would end the NSA’s bulk telephone records program while giving us much more transparency and accountability when it comes to government surveillance overall. ”
Thoseopposing the Leahy version of the bill argue it may not actually end bulk surveillance programs. “Given the several broad legal authorities claimed as justifications for mass surveillance of United States persons and non-United States persons,” the letter reads, “it remains unclear if the Senates USA FreedomAct would end any of the Intelligence Communitys clandestine programs to surveil Americans.”
Sascha Meinrath, directer of X-lab at the New American Foundation and the founder of the Open Technology Institute, isskeptical that the bill would effectively stymie bulk collection and signed on to the letter opposing the bill as an individual. Even experts on the matter, he says, have trouble determining the actual policy outcomes of the legislation because of the measure’s “nebulous” language.
Privacy advocates split over NSA reform bill
A fundamental aspect of any sovereign economy is the right to mint and value a currency. In the United States, the Constitution lays this out clearly. Section 8 permits Congress the right to coin money, and Section 10 denies the states or anyone else that right. Creating a physical alternative to the U.S. dollar isnt just difficult, its outright illegal.
Then came Bitcoin. What makes Bitcoin so unique (and legal) is that it is a digital currency and, thus, never minted. While its popularity has grown substantially in the past two years, the currency has actually been floating around since 2009, when it allegedly was created by clandestine developer Satoshi Nakamoto. Since that time, the currency has gone from little more than a theory to being worth as much as $1,200 per Bitcoin. At time of publication, it was trading just below $500.
Bitcoins are created through a process called mining, and they only exist in a computer file known as the blockchain, which is akin to a complex puzzle. After a computer works on the blockchain for a certain amount of time, a piece of the puzzle is solved, releasing 25 Bitcoins (rate halves in mid-2016) to the solver.
Seems easy, right? Buy a bunch of computers and get to mining! While this is how it worked early in Bitcoins existence, it isnt quite that simple any longer. Part of the genius of Bitcoin is how elegant it is as a functioning monetary base. As more Bitcoins come into existence, the blockchain puzzle becomes progressively more difficult. The monetary base of Bitcoin was built to grow by 3% annually. This number was not chosen randomly: A 3% inflation rate is considered a healthy target for developed economies, and is near the figure targeted by central banks around the world.
As Bitcoins popularity has exploded in the past two years, the mining has grown exponentially more difficult and expensive. Whereas in 2009 it was possible to utilize a standard home PC for mining purposes, today it takes highly specialized kits to mine profitably. One has to remember, computers cost money and run on electricity. So, if you are running a non-specialized PC, it may cost $100 in electricity to mine $25 worth of Bitcoins. While some hobbyists still engage in such operations (I tried it myself), it is obviously far from a sound business.
To seriously mine Bitcoins it takes a minimum of a $5,000 investment. Companies likeButterfly Labsbuild specialized graphic cards designed specifically for blockchain hashing. These cards cost several thousand dollars and are typically back-ordered for months. To be in the business of Bitcoin mining requires an entire fleet of this equipment, which can easily cost $100,000 or more. To further complicate mining, this equipment typically is obsolete in six to 12 months, meaning further capital outlays are constantly needed to stay profitable. Entrepreneurs who have been successful at mining have significant capital, both intellectual and dollar denominated. Cheap access to power also helpsdifferent parts of the country can have widely varying kilowatt costs.
If it is not profitable for the average person to mine Bitcoins any longer, then why has it exploded in popularity? The answer is twofold in my mind. First, and most importantly, central banks around the world have done very little to build confidence in paper currencies since the financial crisis in 2007. Furthermore, countries around the globe have taken on dramatic amounts of debt over the past seven years, resulting in an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratios of every developed market, and most of them have even doubled.
Open exchange rates have made fiat (paper) currencies viable since the removal of the gold standard in 1971. If one country practiced irresponsible monetary policies, the exchange rates punished them and devalued their currency. But what happens when everyone acts irresponsibly? Bitcoin is what happens.
The second reason Bitcoin has become so popular is that it has caught the attention of the investing community. The virtual currency has turned into a haven for speculators due to the extreme volatility of its exchange rate; at times it has doubled in the span of just a few weeks.
By design, there is a finite amount of Bitcoins that will ever be mined (20,999,839.77, to be exact). With a constrained supply, hedge funds have looked to corner the market on Bitcoin and have accumulated substantial holdings in the currency.
An unedited photo of U.S. President Barack Obama making a speech Wednesday has gone viral and sparked Illuminati rumors. Since his first inauguration in 2008, people have made links between the president and the secret society bent on a new world order. Obama addressed the nation Wednesday from the Cross Hall of the White Houseabout his plans for military action against the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS. In a photo taken during his speech, a set of “horns” can be seen on top of Obama’s head, due to the design of a curtain behind him.
People on social media were quick to make a connection between Obama and Illuminati based on the picture. In addition to the photo of Obama with devil horns, conspiracy theorists also noted that Obama has three syllables in his name, a triangle has three sides and 9/11 is three numbers. Thursday marked the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The numbers 3, 9 and 11 have very special meaning to the Illuminati, according to Milton William Cooper, author of Secret Societies/New World Order.” “The numbers3, 7, 9,11,13, 33, 39. Any multiple of these numbers have special meaning to the Illuminati. Notice that the Bilderberg Group has a core of39members who are broken into 3 groups of 13 members in each group, Cooper wrote.
The Bilderberg Group in 1954 had their first meeting and members reportedly include some of the most powerful people in the world who control its resources. Notice that the core of 39 answers to the 13 who make up the Policy Committee. Take special notice that the 13 members of the Policy Committee answer to the Round Table of Nine. You know that the original number of states in the United States of America was 13. The Constitution has 7 articles and was signed by 39 members of the Constitutional Convention, Cooper wrote.
Houston Seo Expert | Call 832-412-2929 | Uprising Houston SEO
Houston Seo Expert | Call 832-412-2929 | Uprising Houston SEO http://houston.uprisingseo.com/ 22722 Brafferton LnKaty,Texas 77449 United States Phone(832) 412-2929 https://www.youtube.com/user/Upr…
Read the original:
Houston Seo Expert | Call 832-412-2929 | Uprising Houston SEO – Video
[HOT NEWS] ISIS vs U.S. and NATO Coalition – Sept 8, 2014
[ISIS] OBAMA Calls for ANTI – ISIS NATO Coalition – Sept 8, 2014 A meeting of foreign ministers at the close of the NATO summit in Wales gave the world its first look at how the United States…
Continue reading here:
[HOT NEWS] ISIS vs U.S. and NATO Coalition – Sept 8, 2014 – Video
Russia has made clear once again that it doesn’t want NATO forces on its borders. Or on its shores. Or anywhere near foreign territory it occupies.
Canadian Defense Minister Rob Nicholson has accused the Kremlin of sending three warplanes to buzz its navy frigate Toronto on Sunday while it was taking part in NATO exercises in international waters of the Black Sea.
“While the Russian military aircraft that circled the HMCS Toronto did not in any way pose a threat to the Canadian ship, their actions were unnecessarily provocative and risk escalating tensions even further,” Nicholson said Monday in a statement issued in Ottawa.
The tensions he referred to emanate from months of fighting between Ukrainian troops and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine — a conflict inspired by Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea region in late February and annexation of the strategic Black Sea peninsula in mid-March.
The United States and its allies in the 28-nation North Atlantic Treaty Organization have accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of violating international law with the Crimean land grab and of destabilizing southeastern Ukraine by sending Russian soldiers and weapons across the border.
“Canada and its allies are taking part in reassurance measures as a direct result of the Putin regimes military aggression and invasion of Ukraine,” Nicholson said in his statement, calling the exercises a message that “Russia’s reckless actions must stop.”
Russia’s Defense Ministry responded with a denial that its warplanes flew around the Canadian vessel and the assertion that they had done nothing wrong.
“The Russian Air Force planes flight path ran through a region where a ship from the Canadian navy, the Toronto, was located but did not approach the foreign warship, ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told the RIA Novosti agency.
The two supersonic Su-24 Fencer fighter jets and an An-26 Curl military transport executed their scheduled flights “strictly in line with international rules,” Konashenkov said.
Russian media cast the reported encounter as the result of a NATO buildup of forces around Russia following the Crimea annexation, which the state-run agencies refer to as the result of a local vote to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
Read the original post:
Canada says its frigate buzzed by Russian warplanes during NATO drill
Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum