Trilingual World Observatory: italiano, english, română. GLOBAL NEWS & more... di Redazione
Di seguito tutti gli interventi pubblicati sul sito, in ordine cronologico.

Just as the Mayans predicted so many years ago, the apocalypse would become apparent in 2012. But many misinterpret the apocalypse to be the end of the world, when in fact it actually means an “un-covering, a revelation of something hidden.”

10 Signs That You're Fully Awake

As many continue to argue the accuracy of the Mayan calendar, it can no longer be argued that a great many people are finally becoming aware of what has been hidden from them for so long. Of course this awakening is not an overnight process. It takes time to peel away the many layers of lies to get to the core of the ultimate truths.

It would be beyond pretentious for us to claim to know all of the secrets of the universe. We don’t. Everyday we are humbled by what we don’t yet know.

However, it is becoming clearer by the day what isn’t true. And by that measure alone, it is possible to determine if you’re one of the people beginning to wake up.

Here are ten signs you may be fully awake:

1. You know there’s no meaningful difference between major political parties (Democrats and Republicans): It’s so easy to get caught up the left-right debate and believe there’s a difference between the two major political parties. However, debate is one thing, while actions are another. By their deeds you shall know them, and it is indisputable that there is no significant difference between political parties when it comes to action on the most important issues. Even hardened ideologues like John Cusack are beginning to wake up.

2. You understand that the Federal Reserve, or international central banking more broadly, is the engine of our economic problems: Debt slavery is the totalitarian force that threatens all of humanity, not some temporary political puppet or some greedy Wall Street trader. When a small group of people have the ability to create wealth out of nothing and charge interest on it, they have the ability to enslave the planet to their ownership despite what type of government a country claims to have.

3. You know that preemptive war is never necessary:  When we realize that self-defense is the only acceptable form of violence, then we become awakened human beings. To suggest war because someone is different from you, or they may pose a threat in the future is simply ludicrous. And when did the idea of bombing civilians become humanitarian? No one wants war except for the immoral creeps that benefit from it.

4. You know that you’re being systematically poisoned, how, by whom, and why: Admittedly, there’s a lot to learn in terms of how we are secretly being poisoned. But the fact remains that we are being systematically poisoned, and it is likely for the deliberate purpose of dumbing us down and, ultimately, culling the population. Who could believe anyone is so evil to do that to innocent people, you may ask. Well, once you begin to seek the answer to that question, you’re one step closer to enlightenment.

5. You understand that government can never legislate morality, nor should they: When you realize the role of government is only to protect your liberty and work for the well being of the citizens, you’re awakened. There should be one simple law regulating morality: Do no harm. Thus, it’s impossible for the government to enforce morality with guns, cages, and taxes because those clearly cause severe harm to your liberty and our well-being.

6. You know that the mainstream media is wholly owned and manipulated by the ruling elite: A dwindling number of people still actually believe what they hear coming from the establishment media as if it’s gospel, even when they already accept that they are bought and paid for by the elite controllers. Yet, recognizing that they are nothing more than a propaganda machine and a form of mind control are the first steps in being able to critically think beyond the scientific messaging they broadcast.

7. You know that your neighbors are not your enemy even if you have fierce ideological disagreements: This is perhaps the most difficult thing to overcome in the awakening process. But it’s vital to understand that your neighbors have been indoctrinated and hypnotized like the rest of the us, until someone helps shine a light on inconsistencies in our thoughts and beliefs. Most of their ideas are not their own. They are suffering just like the rest of us. It’s okay to condemn their actions if they’re harmful, but those who are awake will not give up on spreading information that can enlighten those who might still be in the dark. None of us were born “awake” and all of us can learn even more.

8. You know that the endgame is one-world control of planet Earth: Once you understand that the endgame for the ruling elite is to have complete control of all vital facets of society through a global government, one-world currency, international armed forces, and so on, it is simple to see through the lies and propaganda surrounding even the most confusing world events. You will never go back to sleep when you fully accept this reality.

9. You recognize that there are esoteric powers manipulating our physical world: Whether you’re a religious or spiritual person, scientific or just plain curious, there are many theories about an invisible force at play in all of this. Obviously it’s impossible to prove exactly what it is. You may not want to believe it, but the ruling elite takes their occult rituals deadly serious. And they likely know something we don’t. Just by keeping an open mind about this possibility, you’ll forever keep an open mind about the things we can actually see, hear, taste and touch. Current science has shown that we can only “see” what the visible light spectrum reveals, which amounts to the tiniest fraction of all that can theoretically be seen within the full spectrum of energy. Part of any awakening is realizing that there is much more that is possible than impossible.

10. The power to change the world rests with you and you alone: For too long people have believed themselves to be weak, or relied on others to change the world for them. You’ll know that you’re fully awake when you realize that you have infinite power to change the world by simply living the change you want to see. First, you have to identify the principles that you believe in and then go out and live by them. If just a small minority took steps to do this, it would shake the establishment to its core.

What kind of world do you want to live in?

Source: Activist Post via

Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa

Dear activists for the protection of privacy, dear people from all over the World.
We are Anonymous.

We call you to act now against overall Surveillance-Systems.
Worldwide governments are about to demolish Privacy with Systems like Trapwire and Indect.
Those network surveillance technologies sniff the CCTV cameras, government databases and the Internet to identify people and make a profile of citizens, their families and their socializing.

They pretend to design those systems to secure us against Terrorism but the truth is they have been working on Surveillance-Systems way before the first Terrorists attacks happened.

It's time to act, it's time to show the governments of the World, who we are, it's time to show humanity stands as united, it is time to show what freedom means to us.

We call all Activists over the world, from south and north America, from Asia, from Africa, from Australia and Oceania, from the Arab spring and from the European Union, to be a part of the Protest, against Surveillance Systems.

Act now and spread the word in your mother tongue, enter your Countries and Cities, in the pad linked on the description of this video.

Governments are supposed to defend the interest of their peoples. They are not here to cheat the citizens.

It's our Freedom and our privacy.

Let us unite the whole humanity as one.
Let it be the largest protests of the world history.
Let us engrave the 20th of October 2012 as a day in the Humanity history!

United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

We are the people
We are the only system,

We are Anonymous,
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us

More information on #OpBigBrother / #indect / #OpTrapwire :
Translation of text :

IRC : SSL #OpBigBrother

Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa

Un articol recent publicat (data publicarii in Business Magazin: 01 februarie 2010 - n. Red. TA) in cotidianul italienesc La Repubblica scria ca Romania este tara care detine suprematia serviciilor secrete din Europa. Ceea ce ne ridica inevitabil cateva intrebari, zic eu, firesti.

Cercetarea jurnalistilor italieni, mult mai obiectivi si neinruditi cu serviciile noastre, a pornit de la marinimia premierului Boc de a acorda, in vremuri de criza, bugete mai consistente acestor institutii. Fie ca se numesc SRI, SIE, STS, UM 0215 (faimosul serviciu al Ministerului de Interne, doi s-un sfert), acestea au primit zeci de milioane de euro pentru propria administrare, in conditiile in care alte institutii fac reduceri de personal si sunt nevoite sa isi diminueze cheltuielile. La Repubblica constata si ca numarul agentilor secreti este de sase ori mai mare decat al celor din FBI si de cinci ori superior colegior britanici din MI5.

Astfel, potrivit cotidianului, celebra Securitate romana, una dintre cele mai puternice si brutale politii secrete din lume, abolita in 1989, era compusa din sase departamente, care avea 11.000 de agenti. Si stim bine cat de eficienta era activitatea lor pentru pastrarea "sigurantei nationale", adica a stabilitatii regimului comunist.

Daca acum, in 2010, Serviciul Roman de Informatii are 12.000 de agenti, nu vi se pare firesc sa ne intrebam cu ce se ocupa acestia? Sau acum putem sa ne explicam si mai clar de unde apar unele discutii telefonice in presa sau probe-cheie care declanseaza linsaje mediatice ori procese care tin prima pagina? Putem acum sa intelegem, daca mai era necesar, si batalia pentru servicii ca doi s-un sfert, care a rasturnat trei ministri in mai putin de o luna? Putem sa intelegem de unde apar motivele de santaj intre politicieni? Si poate putem sa ne luam adio si de la mandatul de ascultare, care ar trebui emis, potrivit legii, numai de catre judecator.

Sunt curios de ce nu a aparut materialul in presa romaneasca decat foarte firav.

Sunt curios si cati securisti vor lasa comentarii in urma acestui editorial.

Sursa: - Autor: Razvan Muresan

Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (10)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa

I am not a mushroom so don't keep me in the dark and feed me bullshit.

Judge says ability to walk heel-to-toe not related to ability to drive.

A woman who admitted to using marijuana before getting into her car has been acquitted of impaired driving, with the Saskatoon judge saying he was not convinced her ability to operate a vehicle was affected.

The case, recently published to an online legal database, concerned the arrest of a woman on June 19, 2011, who was pulled over during a routine traffic enforcement program.

According to the judge, the officer directed her to pull over even though she was driving appropriately and in her proper lane of travel.

Unlike drunk driving cases, where .08 per cent is the legal limit for a person's blood-alcohol level, there's no equivalent for marijuana-impaired driving. Instead, officers must rely on a lengthy list of tests to establish impairment.

" I would have appreciated some evidence as to how these observations related to the accused’s ability to drive a motor vehicle." — D. E. Labach, provincial court judge

In the Saskatoon case, when the officer went to the woman's car, he detected what was described as an "overwhelming odour of marijuana." He decided to investigate further and learned from the woman that she had smoked some marijuana earlier in the evening. With that, the officer decided to have the woman perform a number of roadside tests, including walking heel-to-toe and touching the tip of her nose with her finger.

Missed her nose

"She was only successful in touching her nose on one of six attempts," the judge noted in his decision. "On the other five attempts, she touched her face right under her nose."

The officer noted that the woman had reddened eyes, something consistent with marijuana use.

Tests done on suspect in Saskatoon marijuana case:

  • Horizontal gaze nystagmus test.
  • Lack of convergence Test.
  • Pulse check.
  • Walk and turn test.
  • One leg stand test.
  • Romberg balance test.
  • Blood pressure test.
  • Temperature check.
  • Pupilometer eye Test.
  • Finger to nose test.
  • Urine sample.

Source: Court documents

A urine sample was also taken and confirmed that the woman had used marijuana.

However, the judge was not convinced there was any evidence that the woman's driving ability was impaired.

In his decision, the judge said he was left with several unanswered questions, including:

  1. What signs of impairment would one expect to see in someone who has been using marijuana?
  2. How long after using marijuana would you expect to see these signs and how long would they last?
  3. Can the results of drug evaluation tests taken over 1½ hours after the time of driving be reliably related back to the time the woman was stopped?
  4. Was the woman's performance in some of the tests an indication of poor balance or poor co-ordination?

On the other hand, the judge found there was plenty of evidence to suggest the woman was not impaired, noting:

  1. The officer did not observe any problems with her driving as she came to the check stop, when she was directed into the check stop or when she was directed to drive out of the line of cars to a nearby parking lot.
  2. She had no problems understanding the officer or answering his questions and did not slur her speech.
  3. She was able to provide him with her licence without any problems and had no difficulty following the officer's instructions or getting out of her vehicle.
  4. When he asked her to take her hand off her vehicle and step away from it, she did so without problem. She did not have to hold on to anyone or anything for balance and after he handcuffed her, she had no problems walking to his police car and getting into the back seat.
  5. She was polite and co-operative with the officer.

The judge added he was not sure how the finger-to-nose test and the walking heel-to-toe test related to one's ability to drive a car.

"I would have appreciated some evidence as to how these observations related to the accused’s ability to drive a motor vehicle," the judge said.

Ultimately, the judge said he was left with reasonable doubt on the charge and the woman was acquitted.

The prosecutor on the case told CBC News that Crown lawyers were still deciding whether to appeal.

The same thing will happen in WA state if 502 passes with it's DUI law in it "a judge familiar with marijuana and it's lack of serious impairment will demand proof and the state can't actually give proof" only propaganda and hyperbole.


Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa

Goldman Sachs owns both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney and Romney will serve the wishes of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, the Military-Industrial-Complex, and the Pharmacutical-Medical-Insurance-Complex just the same as Barack Obama has for the past 3+ years.

Whichever candidate becomes President of the United States in 2012, they will be owned by Goldman Sachs and they will do the bidding of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, the Military-Industrial-Complex, and the Pharmacutical-Medical-Insurance-Complex regardless of whatever campaign promises they made to the American voters.


Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa

SRI are de sase ori mai multi ofiteri la un milion de locuitori decât serviciul omolog american, FBI. Astfel, România are 571 de sereisti la milionul de locuitori, în timp ce Germania are 89, iar Franta - 98. Conform datelor obtinute exclusiv de Adevarul, România are în acest moment mai multi ofiteri de informatii pe cap de locuitor decât în perioada comunista. În plan intern, acest lucru arata ca exista "o problema interna grava". Acest lucru este confirmat si de doi dintre fostii sefi de servicii secrete, Catalin Harnagea si Ion Mihai Pacepa, care au comentat aceasta situatie pentru Adevarul.Situatia este asemanatoare si la calculul de cadre din serviciile externe. Astfel, SIE are, la un milion de locuitori, de aproape cinci ori mai multe cadre decât serviciul de spionaj britanic, MI5.Totodata, România este "campioana europeana" la servicii secrete, având de aproape patru ori mai multe decât majoritatea tarilor din U.E.

România are astazi mai multi ofiteri de informatii pe cap de locuitor decât în perioada comunista. În acelasi timp, proiectele legii sigurantei nationale ne prezinta tabloul unui spion-stapân pe tot ce misca în România. Iar daca ne aducem aminte si de eforturile de a pastra CNSAS ca un instrument pentru nedeconspirarea Securitatii, tabloul devine unul sumbru. La 16 ani de la evenimentele din decembrie 1989, care au dus la alungarea de la putere a regimului comunist, serviciile secrete continua sa reprezinte un subiect de actualitate, existând numeroase suspiciuni ca, de fapt, practicile fostei Securitati nu au disparut. În acelasi timp, cele doua principale servicii secrete, SRI si SIE, dau dovada în continuare de secretomanie în ceea ce priveste activitatea lor.

SRI si SIE tin la secret numarul personalului
SRI a refuzat sa precizeze la cererea ziarului Adevarul numarul cadrelor sale. Ca de altfel si SIE, care precizeaza pe site-ul sau de internet ca "din motive de securitate, ca si celelalte servicii de informatii externe, nu face referiri la numarul angajatilor sai". În realitate însa, în Occident, numarul de angajati al serviciilor secrete, fie ele interne sau externe, nu este secret. Mai mult, chiar unele dintre ele, printre care si CIA, pun la dispozitie celor interesati grafice comparative cu numarul de salariati din ultimele decenii. MI5 si BND (serviciile externe britanice si germane) dau si mai multe informatii. În ciuda secretomaniei oficiale, Adevarul a reusit sa afle numarul de cadre al celor doua principale servicii secrete.

21 milioane de români sunt supravegheati mai mult decât 90 milioane de nemti
Fostul director al SIE Catalin Harnagea confirma cifra de 12.000 de ofiteri pentru SRI. Generalul Ion Mihai Pacepa, fost director adjunct al Departamentului de Informatii Externe, care a cerut în 1978 azil politic în Statele Unite ale Americii, spune ca aceasta cifra este cea reala. Pacepa spune ca SRI are, practic, un numar dublu de ofiteri în comparatie cu Franta, unde echivalentul sau, DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire), are numai 6.000 de cadre la o populatie aproape tripla decât cea a României. Mai precis, România are 21 milioane de cetateni, iar Franta - aproape 61 de milioane, conform recensamântului din iulie 2005. Catalin Harnagea, fostul sef al SIE, da ca exemplu serviciul intern german, Bundesant für Verfassungschutz (BfV), care are 8.000 de ofiteri la o populatie de peste 90 milioane de oameni, adica una de peste patru ori mai mare decât cea a tarii noastre, dar ofiterii de informatii din Germania Federala sunt cu 25 la suta mai putini decât cei din România. Concluzia lui Pacepa este ca, astazi,
"dimensiunile serviciilor secrete ale României sunt iesite din comun".

De exemplu, FBI, echivalentul american al SRI, are 11.400 de agenti speciali si 16.400 de angajati administrativi. Populatia Statelor Unite este de peste 295 de milioane.

Suspiciuni de Politie Politica
Harnagea spune ca, în cazul unei scheme foarte mari a unui serviciu secret intern, se poate concluziona ca "tara are o problema interna grava".
El afirma ca daca întrebi un specialist în structuri de informatii despre supradimensionarea serviciilor interne ale unui stat, atunci raspunsul primit ar putea fi simplu: neconform cu regulile acceptate de tarile din Uniunea Europeana si NATO. De altfel, surse din serviciile secrete ne-au precizat ca, în ultimii ani, americanii au semnalat în mai multe rânduri situatia "ciudata" de la SRI. De altfel, si UE a transmis semnale identice. "Diferenta dintre România de azi si cea comunista este ca de la zi la noapte. Dar statul politist creat de Ceausescu nu a fost înca total demolat, din care cauza România detine un record european: are sapte servicii de informatii si contrainformatii majore. Germania, Franta, Italia, Spania, Belgia, Olanda, Danemarca, Suedia, Norvegia, Ungaria, Republica Ceha, Polonia si Bulgaria au doua. Finlanda, Estonia, Slovenia, Serbia, Elvetia si Grecia au doar unul", ne spune Ion Mihai Pacepa. Fostul sef adjunct al Directiei de Informatii Externe (DIE) mai afirma: "Cele sapte servicii secrete române, care continua sa puna o stampila comunista pe fata tarii, nu vor disparea de la sine. Ele vor putea fi eliminate doar când parlamentul, guvernul si clasa politica vor fi plivite de securisti, care vor sa mentina România stat politist pentru a nu-si pierde pozitiile".

Învatamântul de informatii de tip bolsevic
SRI are o structura foarte stufoasa, spun specialistii în domeniu. În acelasi timp, în schema SRI intra si Institutul National de Informatii (INI). La întrebarile ziarului Adevarul, SRI a refuzat sa dea detalii despre structura acestei institutii de învatamânt superior care functioneaza cu binecuvântarea Ministerului Învatamântului sub egida serviciului secret intern. Surse din SRI care au dorit sa-si pastreze anonimatul au invocat ca exemplu celebrul Quantico al FBI. Numai ca exemplul amintit nu este relevant, deoarece Quantico este administrat de Departamentul american al Justitiei în subordinea caruia functioneaza si FBI. O alta problema a SRI sunt asa-numitele gospodarii si întreprinderi productive din subordinea sa, ca de exemplu Radmil.
Acest lucru continua o alta traditie de trista amintire a Securitatii: folosirea serviciilor secrete pentru a face comert nesupus controlului organelor de stat. Perpetuarea acestei practici ceausiste poate duce la noi abuzuri, ca de exemplu vânzarea ilegala de produse petroliere catre regimul lui Milosevici, acum câtiva ani. Institutul National de Informatii a fost în ultimul deceniu subiectul mai multor scandaluri. Pe scurt, s-au formulat acuzatii ca studentii erau îndoctrinati contra Statelor Unite si Occidentului, adica tocmai aliatii de astazi ai României.

De doua ori mai multi ofiteri decât în epoca de glorie a Securitatii
Concluzia este ca România are mai multi ofiteri pe cap de locuitor decât în timpul dictaturii comuniste. În decembrie 1989, Securitatea avea circa 14.000 ofiteri. Doar doua (SRI si SIE) din cele sapte servicii secrete ale României de azi au peste 15.000 ofiteri. Daca am adauga la efectivele SRI si SIE miile de ofiteri din serviciul de informatii al Ministerului de Interne (care sub comunism apartinea Securitatii), am avea de-a face cu un total aproape dublu comparat cu cel al României comuniste.

SIE are cu 10 la suta mai multi angajati decât DIE
Serviciul de Informatii Externe (SIE) are în jur de 3.000 de angajati. În mod normal, dintre acestia, o treime ar trebuie sa se afle în centrala de la Bucuresti. Generalul Pacepa afirma ca, în 1978, când a parasit România, DIE - precursorul SIE - avea 2.700 de angajati. De observat în acest caz ca, la acea vreme, DIE facea spionaj global, ceea ce nu mai este cazul cu SIE, deoarece România de azi este membra NATO si va adera în cenzuratând la Uniunea Europeana. Fostul sef al SIE Catalin Harnagea confirma numarul de angajati avansat de Adevarul, dar spune ca nu poate preciza cifra exacta. El spune ca a avut o problema, pe când era la SIE, cu "echilibrarea" optima a angajatilor operativi cu cei de la administrativ. În acest moment, SIE are cu 50 la suta mai multi angajati decât mult mai celebrul sau omolog britanic, MI5. În prezent, serviciul extern britanic are 1.900 de angajati, dintre care 1.860 cu contract full time. De altfel, în ciuda secretomaniei SIE, MI5 precizeaza ca numarul de angajati la sfârsitul razboiului rece era de 2.150. Despre actuala structura a personalului, britanicii nu se sfiesc cu detaliile. 47 la suta sunt femei, iar 54 la suta sunt persoane sub 40 de ani. Nici serviciul extern german nu adopta secretomania SIE. Nemtii precizeaza pe site-ul lor de internet ca au în prezent 6.300 de angajati, însa personalul va fi redus în cenzuratând la 4.500.


Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador, but he remains holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If he leaves the compound, he will be arrested and extradited to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual assault. Assange denies the allegations and claims they are part of an effort to get him to the United States to face more serious charges related to his work for WikiLeaks. High-profile defenders like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have recently published editorials in support of Assange. Now, professor and activist Noam Chomsky weighs in.

Julian Assange faces serious accusations from two women in Sweden, yet you've said that any decent country should grant him asylum. Why?

The accusations should be taken quite seriously, just as all such accusations should. Independent of that, no decent country would permit a person to be sent to a country where the chances of his receiving a fair trial are very limited. The apparent conflict can be easily resolved. Sweden claims only that they want to interrogate Assange. They have been invited to do that in England, or in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. They refuse. They could also issue a statement that they will not extradite Assange to the United States. They refuse.

Suppose that Assange had leaked Russian, rather than American, documents, and the circumstances were otherwise the same. Then Sweden would not hesitate for a moment to question Assange in the United Kingdom and to guarantee that he would not be extradited to Russia. Those who think that this analogy is unfair have something to learn about contemporary history. They can, for example, look at the brutal and criminal treatment of Bradley Manning, to take one of many examples.

It is worth adding that Sweden is quite willing to follow Washington's orders in even worse circumstances than this - for example, when the United States wanted Sweden to send someone to Mubarak's Egypt to be tortured.

According to documents published by WikiLeaks, the Ecuadorian government doesn't support freedom of the press domestically. Is it hypocritical for Assange to accept asylum from such a country?

Of course not, no more than it is hypocritical for him to stay in London, which has a shameful record of violation of freedom of press - of course, targeting weak and defenseless journals, so that it passes without comment. As for the charges against Ecuador, they should be evaluated seriously, just like those against England, France, and others. But it is irrelevant here.

What's at stake here?

At stake is the question of whether the citizens of a country have a right to know what their elected officials are doing. Those who have a lingering affection for an odd notion called "democracy" believe that this is important. To be sure, a state has the right to keep some matters secret. I haven't read all the WikiLeaks exposures, but I have read quite a few, and I have not seen an example of anything that could legitimately be kept secret, nor, to my knowledge, have the horde of angry critics presented an example. I should say that this is not unusual. Anyone who has spent time studying declassified documents is well aware that overwhelmingly, they are kept secret to protect elected officials from the scrutiny of citizens, not for defense or some other legitimate purpose.

Someone who courageously carries out actions in defense of democratic rights deserves applause, not hysterical denunciation and punishment. We understand that very well with regard to official enemies. Since you bring up the matter of "hypocrisy," it is the extreme of hypocrisy to refuse to apply the same standards to ourselves.

Noam Chomsky is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has also written and lectured widely on intellectual history, contemporary issues, international affairs, and US foreign policy.

Source: TimesOfIndia - Originally published in The Mark News -

Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa



Immedesimarsi in una persona con Autismo... è praticamente impossibile,  ma anche la più amara delle giornate può avere un altro sapore. Questo vorrei dire a quelle madri e padri che hanno un figlio disabile.

Non riesco più a ricordare cosa significa essere normali, nel linguaggio di quel mondo di cui facevo parte e che oggi non mi vuole, da quando combatto contro lo spettro della patologia dell'autismo  e dell'autismo istituzionale.

Ho cercato in una vita normale di focalizzare lo scopo della mia vita, ma lungo il percorso è successo qualcosa d'inaspettato.

Come posso aiutarti a vedere, ora, figlio mio!? Posso solo sostenerti con le mie spalle per stare in piedi.

Non riesco a ricordare una vacanza, intesa come tale, una festa vissuta come dovrebbe essere vissuta.

Non siamo liberi di frequentare posti e luoghi comuni, a causa anche di una cattiva informazione, per la mancanza di strutture adeguate ad ospitare ed accogliere dei bambini ed i loro genitori.

Capita di avere di tanto in tanto un fine settimana positivo e quando arriva lo ricordi come un evento storico.
Si continua a parlare  di tagli. La crisi lavorativa e sanitaria colpisce anzitutto e soprattutto anziani e disabili, ma mai chi non ha problemi di natura economica... ed indirettamente o direttamente... anche i genitori degli stessi bambini e/o ragazzi disabili, una situazione che grava sulle famiglie ed aggrava le stesse famiglie, costringendole a sobbarcarsi di spese ABNORMI per una mancanza di servizi dovuti, ma non voluti... (qualcuno sa dirci perchè?).

Dal punto di vista sociale, attendiamo da anni una risposta efficiente e soluzioni altrettanto efficaci.

Ci dicono "vedrai tutto si risolverà" ed intanto il tempo passa e per noi che di tempo non ne abbiamo, con lui (il tempo), ogni giorno cresce lo sconforto, perchè non sai che fare... Poichè ogni giorno devi combattere con nuovi problemi legati alla malattia di tuo figlio e ti senti disarmato/a, inerme... e qualche volta ASETTICO.

Questo è un mondo che non ci vuole, che ci abbandona a noi stessi , ed in alcuni casi sono gli stessi amici a non comprendere  ed io sono stanco dei troppi rinvii e dico a tutte le istituzioni (locali e non)... BASTA... MA BASTA.

Bisogna intervenire SUBITO... come?

Partendo dalla soluzione e non dal problema...ascoltare i genitori... può essere un buon inizio ed applicare le leggi lo è altrettanto...poi occorre cuore e buona volontà.

Non posso sicuramente affermare che questo è quello che avrei voluto per i miei figli, pensando ad una famiglia, in questo mondo di squali.

Una vita difficile , dove solo se ti sai difendere con le unghie e con i denti, riesci a sopravvivere, dove il dio denaro la fa da padrone, dove si è perso il rispetto per il proprio simile.

Non è facile accettare una malattia, una patologia del proprio figlio, ed allora ti chiedi:

- Perchè proprio a me?

- Cosa ho fatto di male?

- Cosa posso fare?

- Chi mi aiuterà?

E poi ti rendi conto che è e sarà solo tuo figlio che vivrà una vita difficile, in un mondo che va sempre piu' di corsa, lasciando indietro chi non è in grado di stare al suo passo... ed in qualche caso anche volutamente abbandonato... poichè considerato un peso dalla comunità.

Non ho certo la bacchetta magica per risolvere i problemi, SONO UN GENITORE COME VOI, non ho la ricetta per uscire dal tunnel dell'autismo, MA HO CAPITO COSA SERVE AI MIEI FIGLI, QUALI SONO LE STRATEGIE DA ADOTTARE E PERCHE'.

Ho capito che non è piangendomi addosso, che darò un futuro ai miei figli. Se puoi capire anche tu, che non hai nulla da perdere, se puoi credere di poter dare un futuro  a tuo figlio e a tutti figli dell'autismo, ALLORA SEI GIA' TRE PASSI AVANTI.

 Ho vissuto parte della mia vita alla ricerca di risoluzioni ai miei problemi, rivolgendomi alle istituzioni, nella speranza che qualcuno con un cuore grande mi prendesse per mano, facendomi uscire dal baratro. Ho vissuto così 2 anni di travaglio cercando risposte a domande dove risposte non c'erano.

Ho perduto del tempo prezioso che  mai nessuno mi restituirà e ancor meno ai miei figli, per accorgermi  che solo un genitore come me può capire lo stato d'animo nel vedere il proprio figlio  autistico... un misto tra angoscia e impotenza,  per scoprire di non poter parlare con nessuno, perdendo ogni contatto con la realtà, con la  vita sociale ed allora si diventa disabili nostro malgrado e nello specifico AUTISTICI.

Ho conosciuto Mara, una mamma ed una donna straordinaria. Ho visto in lei gli occhi di una madre gonfi di dolore per l'autismo di suo figlio,  senza nessuno a cui raccontarlo,  con la consapevolezza di essere SOLA. In lei ho rivisto i stessi miei occhi.

Ho rivisto quegli occhi ritornare alla speranza, a sorridere verso un suo simile,  anche se solo uno sconosciuto e comprendere che insieme è possibile  vincere.

Insieme possiamo fare tanto, insieme possiamo aiutare i nostri figli, scendere dal titanic per risalire sull'arca... non permettere a nessuno di annullarti, noi siamo chi vogliamo essere.

Ma il vero autistico, il vero ostacolo è la politica ed i suoi rappresentanti che si mettono le dita nelle orecchie per non sentire, le mani sugli occhi per non vedere, sulla bocca per non parlare ed in mezzo alle gambe... per farsi cavoli suoi.

Vedendo, anni fa, "Rain Man" , oggi in una tournè teatrale, pensavo, durante e dopo a cosa avessi fatto se fosse capitato anche a me. Oggi ho 3 figli di cui 2 autistici e mi batto per loro, vivo per loro, morirei per loro.

Il senso di responsabilità dei genitori con figli autistici è elevatissimo Non possiamo spianare loro la strada, ma  costruire attraverso un duro lavoro una carta stradale con la quale possono orientarsi.

Voglio salutarvi dicendovi che questa lettera non è rivolta solo agli orfani di ideali ma si rivolge anche a coloro che vogliono cambiare il modo di guardare all'esistenza.


Autore: Alessandro Capobianchi - ITALIA 19 LUGLIO 2012

Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa


§ 0.96b Exchange of prisoners

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons and officers of the Bureau of Prisons designated by him are authorized to receive custody of offenders and to transfer offenders to and from the United States of America under a treaty as referred to in Public Law 95-144; to make arrangements with the States and to receive offenders from the States for transfer to a foreign country; to act as an agent of the United States to receive the delivery from a foreign government of any person being transferred to the United States under such a treaty; to render to foreign countries and to receive from them certifications and reports required under a treaty; and to receive custody and carry out the sentence and imprisonment of such a transferred offender as required by that statute and any such treaty.

The delegation order above clearly distinguishes between the United State of America and the United States. The Director and designated officers, wardens, are “...authorized to receive custody of offenders ... from the United States of America ...,” and “to act as an agent of the United States to receive the delivery from a foreign government of any person transferred to the United States under such a treaty ...” Once the Director and his designated officers receive custody of offenders from a foreign government, they become agents of that government by carrying out the sentence imposed by the foreign government.

This bit of “hide the truth with legalese mumbo-jumbo” becomes clearer via the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (Pub.L. 91-538, Dec. 9, 1970, 94 Stat. 1397 et seq.). In section 2 of the Act, the United States and the District of Columbia are made parties to the agreement:

The Interstate Agreement on Detainers is hereby enacted into law and entered into by the United States on its own behalf and on behalf of the District of Columbia with all jurisdictions legally joining in substantially the following form:

In Article II (a) of the Act, the “United States of America” is defined as a “State”:

“State” shall mean a State of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession of the United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Delegations of authority at 28 CFR, Parts 0.55, 0.64-1, 0.96 and 0.96b, and the above cites from the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act clearly demonstrate the two critical elements: The United States of America is an entity defined by act of Congress as a State, which means it is geographical and territorial, and it is a government foreign to the United States.

Finally, the “United States of America, ss, President of the United States”, is principal of interest in courts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (48 USC §§ 874 & 1406f), and probably other United States courts in the larger insular possessions, those being located in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. There is no statutory authority authorizing the “United States of America” as principal of interest in courts of the United States situated in the Union of several States party to the Constitution. In fact, it is reasonably easy to demonstrate that all civil and/or criminal actions prosecuted on behalf of the United States of America in United States District Courts presume admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the territorial United States District Court of the Virgin Islands.

Where this discourse serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that precious little current federal law applies in and to the Union of several States, and people of the several States, whether citizens or aliens lawfully admitted to the several States, it isn’t necessary to address motive beyond what is necessary to assist with understanding, and accepting, why elected and appointed public servants left constitutionally delegated authority behind to exit through the Article IV § 3.2 loophole, then establish a nonconstitutional government entity—a political compact or alliance—foreign to the United States.

Motive is ages old—the lust, and greed, for wealth and power. For the first time in history, the alliance behind the scheme is postured for true global conquest. But the conquest is without authority of law. Perpetrators must step beyond constitutional, statutory, and regulatory authority in order to impose what is glibly described as private international law—a system which is slightly more subtle in means, if not effect, than methods employed by Vandals to sack the Roman Empire.

Source: - Author: The Watcher on the Wall


Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa


The legalese mumbo-jumbo is designed to make understanding as difficult as possible, but the mandate for publication of delegations of authority, regulations, etc., is articulated in Note 16, 44 U.S.C.A. § 1505, by the following decision:

The Administrative Procedure Act, § 551 et seq., of Title 5, and this chapter [44 USC §§ 1501 et seq.] require publication, irrespective of actual notice, as a prerequisite to issuance of a regulation making certain acts criminal. Hotch v. U.S., 1954, 212 F.2d. 280, 14 Alaska 594

There are no regulations (see Code of Federal Regulations titles) for Title 18 of the United States Code. Therefore, by terms of the Federal Register Act, there can be only three applications of penalty statutes classified in Title 18 of the United States Code: They can apply to, (1) agencies and officers, employees and agents of the United States, (2) territories and insular possessions of the United States, and (3) United States admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. All of the applications, or jurisdictions, are special in nature. Congress’ authority to regulate government, and to define and punish piracy and other offenses on the high seas, are Article I § 8 delegated powers, but the special territorial jurisdiction falls under Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority.

There is yet another erroneous fly in the ointment to be examined: Virtually all civil litigation and criminal prosecution by government officials is in the name of the “United States of America”, not the “United States.”

This detail cannot be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States, as the Articles of Confederation before, vests authority in the governmental entity designated as the United States. Article I § 1 of the Constitution vests legislative authority in the Congress of the United States; Article II establishes the President of the United States; and Article III vests judicial authority of the United States in the supreme Court of the United States and whatever inferior courts Congress might establish. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the United States from exercising power not delegated by the Constitution.

The “United States of America” is an historically significant name. Article I of the Articles of Confederation established the several party States as the United States of America, and the people of the United States of America established the Constitution of the United States (Preamble). But each of the several States is sovereign within its borders except for powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The people of this nation have vested no authority in a governmental entity known as the “United States of America”, and state and national constitutions do not delegate authority for officers of the several States and the United States to unilaterally establish a new national power.

Resolving the mystery of who or what the “United States of America” is somewhat like walking through a house of mirrors, but two conclusions can be drawn from available evidence: (1) the United States of America is a governmental entity foreign to the United States, and (2) the United States of America is a geographical entity.

The first capacity of the Assistant Attorney General is found at 28 CFR, Part 0.55. At Part 0.55(b), the delegation order specifies that the Assistant Attorney General will conduct, supervise, or handle, “Cases involving criminal frauds against the United States...,” and at Part 0.55(s), the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice is required to conduct, supervise, or handle, “Civil proceedings in which the United States is plaintiff...” In other words, the “United States” is principal of interest in the basic delegation of authority for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

However, at 28 CFR, Part 0.64-1, the delegation to the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division authorizes him to serve as agent for a distinctly separate entity, the “United States of America.” The delegation also authorizes him to redelegate this authority to Deputy Assistant Attorney’s General in the Criminal Division, or to the Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division. The entire delegation order, as it appears in the Code of Federal Regulations, is as follows:

The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division shall have the authority and perform the functions of the “Central Authority” or “Competent Authority” (or like designation) under treaties and executive agreements between the United States of America and other countries on mutual assistance in criminal matters which designate the Attorney General or the Department of Justice as such authority. The Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, is authorized to redelegate this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Criminal Division, and to the Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division.

In order to establish that the “United States of America” is a government or some other form of entity foreign to the “United States”, it is not necessary to prove the precise who, what or where, it is only necessary to prove that the United States of America is separate and distinct from the United States. The above delegations of authority to the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice do that—Part 0.55 establishes his capacity in relation to offenses against the United States; Part 0.64-1 establishes his capacity as agent for the United States of America. They are clear and distinct capacities. Therefore, the United States of America is a government or political compact established under treaties and executive agreements which is foreign to the United States; whether geographically or in the sense that a donor heart is alien and foreign to a heart transplant recipient.

Delegations to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons are even clearer. The Director and his officers (wardens) are authorized to (1) imprison people convicted of offenses against the United States, (2) accept and imprison prisoners transferred from the United States of America, and (3) accept and imprison prisoners transferred from the District of Columbia. District of Columbia prisoners will not be considered in this context.

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons relating to offenses against the United States is at 28 CFR, Part 0.96, reproduced in relative part:

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to exercise or perform any of the authority, functions, or duties conferred or imposed upon the Attorney General by any law relating to the commitment, control or treatment of persons (including insane prisoners and juvenile delinquents) charged with criminal offenses against the United States...

The Director’s capacity as agent of the United States of America is at 28 CFR, Part 0.96b:


Articolo (p)Link Commenti Commenti (0)  Storico Storico  Stampa Stampa
Ci sono 2282 persone collegate

< dicembre 2023 >

en - Global Observatory (605)
en - Science and Society (594)
en - Video Alert (346)
it - Osservatorio Globale (503)
it - Scienze e Societa (555)
it - Video Alerta (132)
ro - Observator Global (399)
ro - Stiinta si Societate (467)
ro - TV Network (143)
z - Games Giochi Jocuri (68)

Catalogati per mese - Filed by month - Arhivate pe luni:

Gli interventi piů cliccati

Ultimi commenti - Last comments - Ultimele comentarii:
Now Colorado is one love, I'm already packing suitcases;)
14/01/2018 @ 16:07:36
By Napasechnik
Nice read, I just passed this onto a friend who was doing some research on that. And he just bought me lunch since I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that Thank you for lunch! Whenever you ha...
21/11/2016 @ 09:41:39
By Anonimo
I am not sure where you are getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic information I was looking for this info for my...
21/11/2016 @ 09:40:41
By Anonimo


03/12/2023 @ 11:48:51
script eseguito in 1007 ms