(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “State” means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia.
There are several different principles of law that govern interpretation of the two definitions of “State” set out above, but probably the more concise is “Inclusio unius est exclusion alterius”, defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, as follows:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others.Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d, 321, 325. This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
Kevin McC v. Mary A, 123 Misc.2d 148 N.Y.S.2d, 116, 118.
The definition of “State” at 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 111(d) clearly applies only within the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 legislative jurisdiction—Congress’ “special” or limited jurisdiction. Therefore, the Buck Act does not apply to the Union of several States party to the Constitution as they are not territories or possessions of the United States. All examples in the definition are of federal territories. When the definition employs the term “includes”, it can be expanded only to the class, not anything outside the class demonstrated by example. Since 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 111(d) does not mention the several States, and does not name any of the several States as a class example, “[they were] intended to be omitted or excluded.”
On the other hand, 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 112(d) specifically includes the several States along with the District of Columbia, incorporated territories and insular possessions of the United States. This particular statute is the underlying authority for uniform laws relating to extradition, detainers, etc. Congress has legitimate constitutional authority to make these kinds of uniform rules, and this is one of the few acts classified in the United States Code that appears to issue under Congress’ general legislative power.
Now consider corresponding applications found in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Per authority of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules, delegated at 28 USC Ă‚Â§ 2072, any statute in conflict with the rules is automatically repealed, so the following applications govern Title 18 of the United States Code, which is entitled, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”:
“State” includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.
“Act of Congress” includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.
Given the Latin principle above, it is clear that these applications do not extend to the Union of several States party to the Constitution. They address only real estate under Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 municipal authority. Therefore, little or nothing in title 18 of the United States Code applies to the Union of several States and the population at large. Since all other penalty statutes in the United States Code fall back on Title 18 for procedure, the conclusion can be made that few if any criminal statutes classified in the United States Code are applicable to or within the several States except in federal enclaves such as military installations and national parks.
At 18 USC Ă‚Â§ 5, the “United States” is defined as follows:
Ă‚Â§5. United States defined
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental and insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.
There we find the word “territorial” - the territorial or geographical United States. The territorial United States is subject to Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 plenary power—the combined power of state and national, and in some instances, local government. The United States definition above, which is controlling for Title 18 of the United States Code, has application limited to territories and insular possessions of the United States.
Another clear clue is in the catchline for the Title 18 jurisdiction section, Ă‚Â§ 7: “Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined.” The section defines eight jurisdictions, none of which apply to the several States beyond borders of federal enclaves. No jurisdiction defined in Title 18 reaches the Union of several States party to the Constitution.
It is also important to understand that Congress can enact laws applicable exclusively within Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 jurisdiction that fall within Article I delegated power, but not exercise the Article I power for general application. This is basically what happened following across-the-board repeal of excise taxes via the revenue act of November 23, 1921. Excise tax with general application were legitimate under Article I Ă‚Â§ 8 delegated authority, but when they were reenacted, they were promulgated under Congress’ special authority within the geographical United States.
To see this, consider definitions of interstate and foreign commerce at 18 USC Ă‚Â§ 10:
Ă‚Â§ 10. Interstate commerce and foreign commerce defined
The term ’interstate commerce", as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia.
The term “foreign commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.
The term “State” must have the definition or application set out in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in order to maintain consistency and agreement: “’State’ includes the possession.” Examples in the 18 USC Ă‚Â§ 10 definition of interstate principle set out above governs: That which was omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
The Federal Register Act provides a convenient test for the allegation that Title 18 of the United States Code is applicable only in the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 municipal authority. Of particular import, 44 USC Ă‚Â§ 1505(a)(1) stipulates that all “Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof,” must be published in the Federal Register. The subsection concludes, “For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.”
There was, however, an early glitch. Congress chartered a national bank. Money powers were waiting at the gate from the beginning. That experience soured, so the charter for the first national bank was terminated shortly after the turn of the century. Then a second was chartered. Andrew Jackson put an end to the second in 1836 when he vetoed the bill that would have renewed the charter. Jackson’s reasoning was simple: The Constitution does not delegate authority for Congress to establish a national bank. Jackson’s rationale has never been seriously challenged, and the Constitution has never been amended to authorize Congress to establish a national bank. Nor, for that matter, does the Constitution delegate authority for the United States to establish corporations, particularly private corporations.
Development in these areas came primarily during and after the Civil War. National banks were established in territories of the United States, but no central or national bank was established. Many of the nation’s railroads were also chartered and incorporated in territories, so were and are United States corporations. The underlying rationale is simple: Where territory of the United States is concerned, Congress has permissive rather than restrictive power—Congress can do anything not explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
One of the things entrenched powers wanted was authority to print paper money, and by way of paper, to create credit. The Supreme Court held out on this matter as late as 1880, but in 1884, the court almost completely reversed with the Julliard decision—the Constitution does not expressly prohibit Congress from printing paper money.
It does, however, prohibit the several States from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt, and the court generally upheld this prohibition through the balance of the nineteenth century when states such as Washington demanded payment of taxes in gold and silver coin.
Generally speaking, United States paper money was accepted and honored as it was backed 100% by gold. It was more convenient with respect to weight and bulk, and it had other advantages, particularly as silver coin became less plentiful.
In 1913, Congress chartered the Federal Reserve System as a national bank of sorts. Federal Reserve banks provided several advantages, not the least of which was giving United States government access to ready credit created out of thin air. With authority to create credit, Federal Reserve banks could effectively manufacture money—or what appeared as money. From 1914 to 1933, United States paper money issued in conjunction with Federal Reserve banks went from 100% backed by gold, to 40% backed by gold and the other 60% backed by obligations of the United States. Dilution of the currency dramatically increased money in circulation, which resulted in inflation, and partially fueled the speculative period producing the 1929 equities collapse.
The three basic mechanisms the Federal Reserve uses to control credit and money supply, with all “money” generated through credit issue, are as follows: The percentage of reserve required on deposit by member banks; open window discount rates (interest charged to member banks, mostly Federal Reserve Banks); and the basic discount or interest rate. Through these mechanisms, the Federal Reserve maintains “hard money” or “soft money” policy, either shrinking or expanding credit and money supply and thereby regulating the overall economy. Through these mechanisms the Federal Reserve can single-handedly collapse the nation’s credit and monetary systems, or if there is perceived benefit, such as an election year might be, nurse a sick economy along. This is hardly the regulation of value the Constitution delegates to Congress.
If the Constitution hasn’t been amended, United States paper money (Federal Reserve [bank] Notes), and the Federal Reserve System, must be creatures of Congress’ Article IV authority in the geographical United States.
The Constitution says what is says—it hasn’t been amended either to authorize the several States to make anything other than gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt, or authorizing Congress to take absolute control of the nation’s economic activity. Consequently, there can be but one conclusion: The Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve [bank] Note are legitimate, or have legitimate authority for use, only in the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 legislative jurisdiction Ă˘â‚¬â€śthey are creatures within the scope of Congress’ special rather than general authority.
There is far more to the credit and monetary scams than will be treated here since the purpose at hand is to demonstrate proper application of federal law rather than to address any given subject. It should be obvious, however, that once fraudulent credit and monetary systems predicated on Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 legislative authority were in place, it was necessary to move all or nearly all of United States government under the same authority. Where the federal tax system is concerned, that was done via the revenue act of November 23, 1921—virtually all taxes promulgated under Congress’ Article I and Sixteenth Amendment authority were repealed. When they were reenacted, they came back in under Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 legislative jurisdiction. No taxing statute in the current Internal Revenue Code (Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large), as amended in 1986 and since, evidenced in title 26 of the United States Code) reaches the several States and the population at large. The taxes apply in three general categories: Income tax, Social Security tax, and the like apply only to agencies and employees of the United States; most other taxes, including inheritance, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, etc., are applicable only in the geographical United States; and some taxes cross over to customs duties.
One of the ways to determine geographical application of any given statute or act is by way of definitions contained in the act. For example, the Buck Act, which allegedly extended authority of “States” to tax on federal territory within a “State”, is a classical red herring. The Buck Act is reproduced in sections 105-111 of Title 4 of the United States Code. The term “State” is defined at 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 111(d), as follows:
(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
Compare the above definition to the one in the act that authorized the several States, and eventually federal territories and the like, to enter cooperative agreements relating to crime. The original act was promulgated in June 1934, then the basis for the current form was reenacted in May 1949. It has been amended several times since, but no major revision since Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. The definition is at 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 112(b):
The current geographical United States includes the District of Columbia and federal enclaves where jurisdiction over forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings has been ceded by the several States respectively; lands retained in States admitted to the Union since approximately 1870; and insular possessions, along with territorial waters (12-mile limit, established under international law).
The geographical division determines Congress’ power: Congress may exercise constitutionally delegated power, primarily under Art. I Ă‚Â§ 8 of the Constitution, throughout the “American empire.” This is Congress’ “general power.”
Congress exercises the combined power of state, national, and even local government in territory belonging to the United States—in the “geographical” United States. This is Congress’ special or limited jurisdiction.
Within the Union of several States, Congress may exercise only constitutionally delegated authority; within the “geographical” United States, Congress may exercise all power not explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Congress’ general powers delegated by the Constitution are restricted to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution; Congress’ special plenary power is permissive, limited only by implicit and explicit constitutional prohibitions, but may be exercised only in territory belonging to the United States.
Congress’ authority in and over the geographical United States is somewhat on the order of a European government where what we understand as national government in the American system is also a state government. Where existing insular possessions are concerned, there is also the distinction that the Constitution applies to them only as Congress chooses to extend it. Governing principles are more under international than constitutional law.
This notion was first judicially framed by Chief Justice Marshall in an 1828 decision involving an incident in Florida while Florida was yet a territory of the United States.
The Constitution extends authority for Congress to declare war and make treaties. It also delegates authority for Congress to establish new states.
Although the Constitution is silent with respect to acquisition of new territory beyond borders of existing States, and implicitly bringing territories ceded by original States into the Union, these powers were construed to extend territorial acquisition authority, and vest Congress with authority to govern and determine disposition of acquired territory. Following the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson drafted proposed amendments that would authorize incorporating Louisiana and other future states included in the Purchase into the constitutional scheme, but Congress elected to proceed without an amendment. Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Supreme Court in 1828, was put in a position of having to rationalize a quarter century of territorial development. In the Article IV framework, he stepped from strict constitutional construction into the forum of international law. Thus, federal government found a capacity beyond strict constitutional restrictions. There was a whole separate world to be explored, and subdued, beyond constitutional bounds.
To the point of the Spanish-American War, there was an amount of solace for incorporated territories of the United States, as well as the Union of several States: Once the Constitution has been extended to a territory, it cannot be retracted. The Ordinance of 1787 provided an amount of protection as it specifies that people of the territories were assured of common law and due process in the course of the common law, along with most other rights secured in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. But unincorporated territories did not enjoy these assurances.
Insular possessions have gained an amount of ground by way of compacts and agreements, but remain outside the constitutional scheme. Virtually all of them are subjected to “due process in the course of the civil law” (admiralty/maritime), and remain within Coast Guard jurisdiction.
With the history of United States territorial acquisition and development in place, Congress’ distinct roles, and distinction between the Union of several States and the geographical United States, are reasonably clear. With this in mind, the reason precious little federal law applies to the Union of several States and people of the several States will be easier to grasp.
The underlying theme—“Follow the money!”
Article I Ă‚Â§ 8.5 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...” and at Article I Ă‚Â§ 10.1, stipulates that, “No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...” At Article I Ă‚Â§8.6, Congress is granted power, “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting and Securities and current Coin of the United States...”
There has been no constitutional amendment to alter these provisions. They remain as firmly in place today as they were in 1789. Yet there is precious little gold and silver coin in the United States or the Union of States—none in general circulation.
An old story has it that a woman once found her husband with another woman, but rather than panic, the man calmly got out of the bed, slipped on his clothes, straightened himself up, then asked his wife, “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”
Does the Constitution mandate gold and silver coin as the national currency? Monetary theories and rationalization are irrelevant. Either the several States are prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a payment for debt or they aren’t. Authority to “coin” money and prescribe punishment for counterfeiting “current coin” of the United States pretty well locks the matter down. Either the several States are prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a payment for debt or they aren’t. If this prohibition lies against the States, it follows that American founders intended for Congress to provide gold and silver coin as a uniform monetary system. In fact, George Washington and others threatened not to attend the Constitutional Convention if the notion of a federal paper currency was going to be considered. The fact that minting gold and silver coin of the United States was immediately implemented speaks to the matter—the first Congress, so far as possible, carried out constitutional intent.
The United States and the Union of several States party to theConstitution of the United Statesare constitutional republics. The United States, by way of the Congress of the United States, has certain powers delegated to it by the Constitution. So far as the several States party to the Constitution are concerned, the United States may not exercise power not delegated by the Constitution. All power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is reserved to the several States within their respective territorial borders, or to the people.
However, Congress is solely responsible for governing territory belonging to the United States. This authority is conferred at Article I, Section 8, clause 17 (Art. I Ă‚Â§ 8.17) and Art. IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 of the Constitution. The responsibility for governing territory belonging to the United States is vested solely in Congress, it is not shared by the other two branches of federal government. Congress has absolute or what is described as plenary power—municipal power, police power, etc.
So far as its role as government for the several States party to the Constitution is concerned, the United States is an abstraction—it exists on paper only. It takes on physical reality after Congress positively activates constitutionally delegated powers through statutes enacted in accordance with Art. I Ă‚Â§ 7 of the Constitution. When statutes are in place authoring administrative or judicial activity, the “power” of the United States becomes manifest through people carrying out duties prescribed by law Congress has enacted.
The second physical aspect of the United States is constitutionally delegated authority to own land and other property. The only specific mention and direct estate is at Art. I Ă‚Â§ 8.17 of the Constitution, which specifies that the Congress may acquire land for the seat of government, and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. States in which these land purchases are made must cede jurisdiction over the lands in order for the United States to extend federal laws and judicial authority over them.
When the United States acquires land, and secures jurisdiction over it, the United States becomes a geographical entity. In other words, after Congress [acquired] the present District of Columbia from Virginia and Maryland, and the two state governments ceded jurisdiction, the United States became a geographical entity. The geographical United States within the framework of Art. 1 Ă‚Â§ 8.17 of the Constitution includes the District of Columbia, and all forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings within the several States.
There is a second class of territory belonging to the United States that existed when government of the United States convened under the Constitution in 1789. This was territory claimed by the several States by way of the treaty of peace with Great Britain following the American Revolution. The land ceded by King George extended from the Great Lakes on the north to the Atlantic on the south, except for Florida—approximately everything from Illinois to Mississippi and Alabama. States of the Union ceded lands beyond their respective original borders to the United States in order to generate revenue to pay debts accumulated by the Revolution, with the condition that as they were settled and developed, the territories would become states of the Union.
Prior to these lands being admitted to the Union, they were territories of the United States. Under provisions of Art. IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 of the Constitution, Congress is charged with responsibility for making all needful rules and regulations for territories belonging to the United States. Therefore, Congress has historically established territorial governments, providing for law enforcement, courts, and everything else necessary for a territory to operate in an orderly fashion.
The first venture in this enterprise was framed by the Ordinance of 1787, providing for government of the Northwest territories. The United States was at that time operating under the Articles of Confederation. In 1789, when government of the United States convened under the Constitution, the Ordinance of 1787 was adopted as an existing covenant obligation, and was subsequently extended to Kentucky, and as applicable, to southern territories—Alabama and Mississippi included. The Louisiana Purchase from France, and subsequently acquisition of Florida from Spain, included treaty agreements to incorporate the land and people under the constitutional scheme, so the Ordinance of 1787 was applied as the development guide in acquired territories as well.
This pattern held until after the Spanish-American War. Islands ceded by Spain in 1898 were not incorporated in the constitutional scheme. In 1901, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that while Puerto Rico and other islands ceded by Spain belonged to the United States, they were for certain purposes foreign to the several States and incorporated territories of the United States.
From the beginning, there were certain distinctions between the Union of States party to the Constitution and territories of the United States. For the most part, outlying territories were reasonably primitive, so many were first secured under military authority, then went through an evolution that progressed to representative government to development sufficient for self-rule. At that point, most territories established their respective constitutions and were admitted to the Union on equal standing with other States party to the Constitution.
Texas and California were two exceptions. Texas became an independent republic following the war of independence from Mexico, then joined the Union by way of treaty. Some time after Mexico ceded California, California became a state of the Union without formally going through territorial status. However, this has not been the case for islands ceded by Spain following the Spanish-American War and other island acquisitions other than Hawaii. With admittance of Hawaii and Alaska in 1959, the last of the incorporated territories of the United States became states of the Union, leaving only unincorporated territories, called insular possessions, under Congress’ Article IV plenary power.
In 1946, the Philippines became an independent commonwealth, exiting the family of United States insular possessions. In 1953, Puerto Rico became a commonwealth for purposes of local government, something on the order of states of the Union, but remained an insular possession of the United States subject to Congress’ Article IV authority.
There are a total of five larger United States insular possessions with viable local governments, four of which have courts of the United States: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. The latter doesn’t have a federal court. Smaller insular possessions are for the most part uninhabited, or at best, sparsely populated, or small enough that populations aren’t truly viable small islands, reefs, etc. None are incorporated in the constitutional scheme, although Puerto Rico in particular has addressed the possibility of becoming a state of the Union.
After about 1870, Congress began reserving land for the United States within borders of new states admitted to the Union. This land fell within two classes: Unappropriated public lands, most of which was designated as national parks, forests, etc.; Yellowstone National Park was the first, and lands secured in trust for Native American Indians, most of which was used to establish reservations.
Geo-engineers are finally coming out of the "chemtrail" closet, as reports are now emerging about deliberate plans in the works to dump untold tons of sulfate chemicals into the atmosphere for the purported purpose of fighting so-called "global warming."
The U.K.'s Guardian and others are reporting that a multi-million dollar research fund, which just so happens to have been started and funded by Microsoft founder and vaccine enthusiast Bill Gates, is being used to fund the project. A large balloon hovering at 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico, will release the sulfates into the atmosphere within the next year.
The stated purpose for this massive release of toxic sulfate particles is that doing so will allegedly reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere, and thus cool the planet. But many environmental groups and advocates of common sense are decrying the idea as dangerous, and one that could result in permanent damage to ecosystems all across the globe.
"Impacts include the potential for further damage to the ozone layer, and disruption of rainfall, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, potentially threatening the food supplies of billions of people," said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the ETC Group, a Canadian environmental protection group.
"It will do nothing to decrease levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or halt ocean acidification. And solar geo-engineering is likely to increase the risk of climate-related international conflict, given that the modeling to date shows it poses greater risks to the global south."
But the Gates-backed cohort is persistent in its efforts to geo-graffiti the world, as its scientists insist that governments are not doing enough to fight back against the supposed environment impacts of global warming. If governments refuse to implement high enough carbon taxes to eliminate greenhouse gases, in other words, then Gates and Co. believes it has no choice but to "save the planet" by polluting it with sulfate particles.
Spraying the skies with sulfate particles will destroy the planet faster than 'global warming' ever could
Sulfate particles are toxic, though, and constitute the very same type of ambient particulate matter (PM) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers to be a noxious air pollutant. Deliberately spraying the skies with tiny particles composed of any material, for that matter, is hazardous both to respiratory health in humans and animals, as well as to water sources, soils, and other delicate environmental resources.
"Sulfate particles from acid rain can cause harm to the health of marine life in the rivers and lakes it contaminates, and can result in mortality," says an online water pollution guide (http://www.water-pollution.org.uk/health.html). A University of Washington (UW) report also explains that sulfate particles "contribute to acid rain, cause lung irritation, and have been a main culprit in causing the haze that obscures a clear view of the Grand Canyon."
Blocking the sun with reflective particles will also deprive humans of natural sunlight exposure, which is a primary source for naturally generating health-promoting vitamin D in the body. So once again, Bill Gates is at the helms of a project that seeks to control the climate in artificial ways using toxic chemicals, an endeavor that is sure to create all sorts of potentially irreversible problems for humanity and the planet.
Sheeple (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") is a term of disparagement in which people are likened to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research. By doing so, they undermine their own individuality and may willingly give up their rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple)
"There is scope for further action by the Federal Reserve to ease financial conditions and strengthen the recovery," Bernanke wrote to the committee's chairman, Representative Darrell Issa, in a letter obtained by Reuters on Friday.
Bernanke at the end of next week will give a closely watched speech at an annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, which will be closely watched for clues into the prospect of further bond-buying from the Fed.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke answers questions during a news conference at the Federal Reserve in Washington June 20, 2012. Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
Asked if it was too soon to consider new monetary easing steps when the Fed's Operation Twist program aimed at lowering long-term bond yields was still in effect, Bernanke said policymakers must invariably look beyond the immediate term.
"Because monetary policy actions operate with a lag, the stance of policy must necessarily be set in light of a forecast of future performance of the economy," Bernanke said.
Fed officials sharply revised down their forecasts for U.S. economic growth in June, and another potential round of downward revisions could come at its September meeting.
U.S. gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the second quarter, a level seen too weak to lead to a sustained decline in unemployment, which rose to 8.3 percent in July.
In response to the financial crisis and recession of 2008-2009, the Fed cut rates to effectively zero and bought some $2.3 trillion in mortgage and Treasury bonds to put downward pressure on long-term borrowing costs.
Source: reuters.com - Reporting By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa; Editing by Neil Stempleman
''Pierderile înregistrate din cauza secetei sunt la minimum 2,5 miliarde de euro si înca nu este totul încheiat. Banii pe care îi vom primi de la Ministerul Agriculturii, cei 100 de lei pe hectar, daca îi calculam pe numarul de hectare eligibile, reprezinta o recuperare de câteva sute de milioane de euro. Paguba ramâne însa consistenta si importanta'', a precizat Caras.
În opinia acestuia, fermierii vor trebui sa renunte la o parte din suprafetele cultivate pentru ca nu detin resurse financiare sa reînceapa în toamna ciclul de productie.
'Fermierii vor trebui sa renunte la o parte din hectarele cultivate sa caute finantari pe la banci ca sa reînceapa ciclul de productie. Noi încercam sa aram si nu putem pentru ca plugurile ies din pamânt oricât de fortoase ar fi tractoarele noastre. Pamântul este foarte greu de lucrat pentru ca opune rezistenta imensa. Daca se strica tractorul când trebuie sa cumperi piese mai bine te spânzuri pentru ca echipamentele sunt foarte scumpe. Situatia este disperata', a adaugat Caras.
În ceea ce priveste productia agricola din 2012, reprezentantul fermierilor estimeaza o reducere cu peste 40% fata de productia anului trecut.
'Desi unele estimari din piata sunt scoase din burta, fara doar si poate pierderea de productie va fi de peste 40% fata de productia anului trecut, iar contributia la PIB se va reduce si ea, poate nu chiar la jumatate, dar va fi în functie de productie. De exemplu, sunt fermieri mari care au plati impozite anul trecut de 2-3-5 milioane de euro si poate chiar mai mult, iar cei care au platit un milion anul trecut vor plati doar între 400-500.000 de euro', a subliniat seful PP.
Productia agricola a României a crescut cu 8,9% în 2011, comparativ cu anul precedent, sectorul vegetal fiind în crestere cu 12,9%, iar productia animala cu 0,8%., potrivit datelor Institutul National de Statistica /INS/.
Pedeapsa, care este cea maxima în Norvegia, va putea fi prelungita atât timp cât Breivik va fi considerat periculos.
Instanta, formata din cinci judecatori, l-a gasit în unanimitate pe Breivik /33 de ani/ responsabil de faptele sale, respingând astfel una dintre expertizele psihiatrice, care îl descria ca suferind de 'schizofrenie paranoida'. Inculpatul va putea depune cerere de eliberare conditionata doar dupa executarea a minumum 10 ani de detentie, iar la ora actuala avocatii lui Breivik dispun de 14 zile pentru a face apel împotriva verdictului. Dupa aceea decizia va intra efectiv în vigoare.
La intrarea în sala de tribunal amenajata special pentru acest proces, dupa ce i-au fost scoase catusele, extremistul - îmbracat cu un costum negru, camasa alba si cravata gri - a facut salutul sau de extrema dreapta, apoi a ascultat zâmbind verdictul. În perspectiva pronuntarii acestuia, bariere de securitate au fost amplasate în fata tribunalului din capitala norvegiana.
În interiorul salii, Breivik era separat de un geam protector de rude ale victimelor aflate la fata locului. De asemenea, camere de filmat controlate de la distanta filmau audierea, transmitând imagini catre alte tribunale din Norvegia unde alte rude puteau privi procesul în direct.
Mohamad Hadi Hamed, 21 de ani, una dintre victimele lui Breivik care a scapat cu viata, dar care acum se afla într-un scaun cu rotile, a povestit pentru instanta cum i-au fost amputate bratul stâng si piciorul stâng dupa ce a fost împuscat de inculpat.
La 22 iulie, Breivik a ucis 77 de persoane, opt într-un atentat cu bomba împotriva sediului guvernului din Oslo, apoi 69, majoritatea adolescenti, într-o tabara a tineretului laburist pe insula Utoeya, deghizat în politist. Cea mai tânara victima decedata a avut 14 ani. Aceste atacuri au socat pasnica Norvegie si au evidentiat lipsa de pregatire a politiei si a serviciilor sale de securitate în astfel de cazuri, noteaza AFP.
Prin verdictul tribunalului din Oslo, Breivik obtine satisfactie evitând internarea psihiatrica, de care se temea ca îi va discredita ideologia rasista si xenofoba. Aspectul cel mai controversat al procesului, care a durat între 16 aprilie si 22 iunie, a fost sanatatea mintala a inculpatului. O prima expertiza psihiatrica a concluzionat ca Breivik nu este responsabil din punct de vedere penal, iar o a doua l-a declarat sanatos. Breivik a recunoscut ca este autorul masacrului, dar a pledat nevinovat: el a explicat ca a comis acte 'atroce, dar necesare' pentru a proteja Norvegia de un multiculturalism pe care îl considera nociv.
Dupa încheierea procedurilor de astazi, Anders Behring Breivik se va întoarce la închisoarea Ila, la circa douazeci de kilometri de Oslo, pentru a-si continua 'detentia preventiva'. El este repartizat într-un grup de celule mici într-o zona pentru prizonieri considerati deosebit de periculosi. Extremistul, care se prezinta ca fiind un 'scriitor', afirma ca are mai multe carti în pregatire, printre care si o autobiografie. El are propria sa camera pentru exercitii fizice si o camera de studiu. Alti detinuti au întreaga închisoare la dispozitie, cu sali de sport si biblioteci si pot merge si la munca. Breivik nu beneficiaza de aceste privilegii.
Potrivit unui sondaj publicat vineri de tabloidul Verdens Gang, 72% dintre norvegieni apreciaza ca acuzatul este suficient de sanatos pentru a fi condamnat la închisoare.
Casi di pedofilia all'interno della Chiesa cattolica
Sacerdote, insegnate e anche pedofilo, secondo la magistratura. E’ stato condannato, in rito abbreviato, dal gup Claudio Mattioli, a 4 anni e due mesi, un sacerdote accusato di aver abusato di due ragazzini.
Il prete, A.D. [Don Antonio Calcedonio Di Maggio - n.d.R.TA], di 58 anni, di origine siciliana, officiava nella diocesi dedicata alla Madonna di Czestokova, alla Rustica, e insegnava religione alla scuola media di Roma «Salvo D'Acquisto». L’uomo, che per i fatti oggetto del procedimento era anche finito in manette, è da tempo agli arresti domiciliari in un convento di Benedettini Silvestrini a Bassano Romano. Il capo d’imputazione per A.D. è: atti sessuali con minori, aggravati dal fatto che le vittime erano a lui affidate «per ragioni di educazione e di vigilanza». Il giudice ha imposto anche una provvisionale di 15mila euro di rimborso alle vittime.
GIA' CONDANNATOPER LO STESSO REATO - In passato era già stato condannato dieci anni fa per una storia molto simile ma, scontata la pena, era tornato alla sua attività a scuola e all’oratorio. Arrestato nell’estate scorsa, il religioso, inizialmente, aveva negato tutto, ma in seguito aveva confessato, almeno in parte, cercando però di sminuire la gravità delle violenze. La prima denuncia a carico di A.D. venne presentata dai genitori di un dodicenne con gravi problemi psichici, un ragazzo "affetto da un disturbo del comportamento nell'ambito dell'organizzazione cognitiva borderline". Il giovane, che frequentava l'oratorio della Rustica, raccontò di essere stato palpeggiato e molestato dal sacerdote e, qualche giorno dopo, alcuni amichetti della stessa età gli raccontarono di aver subìto lo stesso tipo di violenze. In seguito si accertò un secondo caso, avvenuto, stavolta, durante un campo scuola nell'isola di Ventotene.
A.D. [ Don Antonio Calcedonio Di Maggio - n.d.R.TA ] aveva sorpreso un gruppo di ragazzi che scherzavano e si misuravano gli organi genitali. Il religioso avrebbe approfittato della circostanza per rivolgere pesanti avances a un altro adolescente, anche lui di 12 anni.
Il religioso ha confessato: quattro anni e due mesi di carcere grazie al rito abbreviato
La prima condanna risale a una decina di anni fa, la seconda è arrivata ieri mattina. E sempre per lo stesso reato: il sacerdote è accusato di aver compiuto atti sessuali con minori, con ragazzini che gli erano stati affidati da inconsapevoli e fiduciosi genitori. Ad Antonio Calcedonio Di Maggio, 58 anni, il gup Claudio Mattioli ha inflitto quattro anni e due mesi di carcere. Una pena ridotta di un terzo grazie allo sconto previsto dal rito abbreviato. Per il religioso, che prima di finire nei guai con la giustizia era sacerdote nella chiesa della Madonna di Czestochowa, a La Rustica, e insegnante di religione nella scuola media «Salvo D' Acquisto», il pm Nunzia D' Elia aveva chiesto sei mesi in più di reclusione. Ma il giudice ha deciso di concedergli le attenuanti generiche, considerando la lieve entità delle molestie e soprattutto il risarcimento dei danni già liquidato alle vittime, due ragazzini.
Di Maggio era finito dietro le sbarre a novembre dell' anno scorso e, dopo aver trascorso qualche giorno a Regina Coeli, aveva ottenuto gli arresti domiciliari nel convento dell' Ordine dei monaci benedettini silvestrini, a Bassano Romano. All' origine dell' ordinanza di custodia cautelare c' era stata la denuncia dei genitori (furibondi) di un dodicenne, che si era confidato e aveva raccontato di essere stato molestato dal sacerdote. Secondo l' accusa, nella primavera del 2006 il religioso aveva indotto il ragazzino, un suo allievo, a subire palpeggiamenti nell' oratorio della chiesa della Madonna di Czestochowa. Interrogato dopo l' arresto, Di Maggio aveva giurato che l' accusa era falsa, ma poi aveva corretto il tiro e aveva ammesso, almeno in parte, che l' abuso c' era stato. L' adolescente però non si è limitato a raccontare l' incubo in cui era precipitato: ha riferito al pubblico ministero di aver saputo che anche alcuni coetanei avevano subito le attenzioni del sacerdote. E indagando è emerso un secondo episodio, analogo al precedente: un altro dodicenne molestato durante un campo-scuola a Ventotene, l' estate scorsa. Anche questa accusa, in prima battuta, è stata respinta dal religioso. Che invece ieri in aula ha finito per confessare, ammettendo che anche nel campeggio sull' isola aveva abusato di un allievo.