Posts tagged "explained"

New World Order Chemtrails & Olgacom connection explained

this vide explain the connection of the new world order to the waste dump and geo engineering by big companies Royal DSM, China Sinochem, Monsanto as Olgacom Project. For more information see my website olgacomscandal.wordpress.com also please sign my petition http
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Identifying the New World Order as an enemy of America.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Corrupt CF Card Mysteries Explained

Corrupt CF Card Mysteries Explained

(PRWEB) September 3, 2003

September 1, 2003 — The most common reason for CF cards to become corrupt, is if the camera is turned off (or the battery cuts out) whilst still writing the data – the user then ends up with an unfinished file, which is unreadable and viewed as corrupt. However occasionally CF cards appear to be unreadable for no reason, which frustrates the user.

Viruses on CF Cards?

It was discovered in the course of our survey that a number of readers have corrupt or unreadable cards for no known reason. One card on investigation had managed to get a virus script stored on the card. They had been on holiday, taken the card into a camera shop to get their pictures burnt onto CD. Instead of just copying the images, the shop copied them into a folder, and then copied them back onto the CF card, carrying with it the data for a basic virus that was on the camera shops computer. The virus infected HTML files, so it was still possible to take and store pictures Â? however it rendered the card as unreadable by most CF readers Â? as these are designed to view JPEG or RAW data files.

The other common reason for CF cards to become corrupt is constant writes and re-writes to the card. It is always good practice to reformat your card after each download, not just to erase the images. A corrupt CF card is the modern equivalent to opening your camera while there is still film in the back.

Users also found that using the continuous mode on the camera when the CF card is nearly full can also cause courted images

G Series User Newsletter, conducted the survey to discover the most common problems for G Series users, and has produced a trouble shooting guide. Available for free from their website. http://www.gseriesuser.com

©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.

Find More Corruption Press Releases

How to Win Your Man Back in Order to Have a Making Up Relationship With You?

How to Win Your Man Back in order to have a making up relationship with you?

Did something go wrong between you and your man? If you were well on your way to being a happy couple and then fell off track somehow, don’t give up. You can win your man back.

Steps

Ask yourself these 4 questions: Is the matter important enough to warrant an argument? Is it appropriate to argue about the matter, or at this time? Can anything be changed, made different by prevailing in the argument? Is the issue worth arguing about? If you get a NO answer to any of these questions, there is no point in arguing. Sometimes realizing there is no benefit to arguing is enough to eliminate the temptation to argue. (A mnemonic for this is “not even worth talking to.”) No Use to Me.

Stop caring about how people perceive you. The fact is, it really doesn’t matter. It’s impossible to be yourself when you’re caught up in wondering “Do they think I’m funny? Does she think I’m fat? Do they think I’m stupid?” To be yourself, you’ve got to let go of these concerns and just let your behaviour flow, with only your consideration of others as a filter—not their consideration of you. Act like there is something more important you could be doing at the moment. Find something else to do or to care about: We care about things not by their absolute importance, but by their relative importance in our lives. If you find something else to take front stage in your life, then other things will naturally take the backstage.

Develop and express your individuality. Whether it’s your sense of style, or even your manner of speaking, if your preferred way of doing something strays from the mainstream, then be proud of it. Keep an emotional distance, too. Mentally take yourself out of the situation. Let it be somebody else’s problem. “That’s not my problem” I don’t know that’s not my problem?

Word Power: What you say and how you say it are two very important factors in exuding class. Always speak at a soft to moderate tone. A loud talker can seem too forceful and may make others feel intimidated. If you have nothing good to say then don’t say anything at all – take that to heart! Cursing is also inappropriate and is very unprofessional in a business setting. Speak calmly. This shows politeness. If you talk very loudly, it will seem that you’re desperate for attention.

Act as if the person bothering you was Non-Existent.

Never smile or laugh, this shows that you hear what the person is saying!!!

Behave. It’s fun to be in a party and dance a lot, but that’s not always classy behaviour. If you’re at a party, the classy behaviour is to socialize, but speak calmly, not monopolizing all the attention.

Smile. Classy people must always seem to be in a good mood.  Show life goes on to different shit. Smiling. Learn to recognize when a discussion is no longer a discussion, but is escalating to an argument: Raised voices, flushed face or neck, hairs on the back of your neck stand up, feeling defensive. A good mutual discussion involves both sides listening and attempting to understand each other. Walk away from it not worth the arguing energy, it becomes irrelevant.

Analyse what happened and think about the reasons you still care, then think about the reasons why you shouldn’t care!!!! Avoid desperate behaviour like the plague. This is the kiss of death for the classy person. Only desperate times call for desperate measures. Take a deep breath, be strong, and move through the situation with elegance and grace. You will be the victor for it, no matter the outcome. Try not to listen too much to the content of what they’re saying back to you. Remember, they’re TRYING to push your buttons. Show them your better than them and you really cud care less about it! Say “that’s the thing” I don’t Feel anything it doesn’t have a significant purpose, reason or effect, well to me at least. Your loud, unimportant and your sweating me, like your on my heels.

Take some time to reflect on your own life. What improvements can be made? Be honest with yourself. Have you been selfish? Demanding? Argumentative? Angry? Jealous? Change your ways. Once you’ve figured out what you may have done wrong in the relationship, resist the urge to call the ex and show off your newfound self-realization. Actions speak louder than words. Just BE the new improved self, and word will spread.

Look and feel your best. Get your nails and hair done. Take a nice warm bubble bath, and pick out a nice outfit. Be sure of yourself. Assertiveness and self-confidence are naturally attractive to most people. Showing your guy you’re capable of being happy is appealing and brings a natural desire.

Anger, hurt and insecurity are the root of most insults. If you hurt someone, even unintentionally, they may respond with angry insults. Also, insecure people tend to call attention to the shortcomings of others (even if untrue) in order to cover up for their own perceived inadequacies. Don’t retaliate.

Walk away. If you’ve tried to figure out why this person is targeting you, and can find no reason, tried to joke with them to no avail, and they’re still bent on humiliating and insulting you, just leave. And until they pick a new target (and they will), avoid them. Laugh while you walk away showing that it’s not important to you at all.

Tips

Don’t keep coming back and don’t wait by making yourself available to him. You have a life, so live it! Some one else is out there right now waiting for a person like you. Don’t let your emotions get to you, because then he’ll win. Any performance that he gives is to catch your attention. So just smile and act like it doesn’t bother you if you see him making out with another girl. If your best efforts to take the wind out of their sails fail, warn others to expect random insults from that person.

Don’t take it personally. Some people are just mean. Mean people suck and have no true motives that concern me and everyone knows it. It’s them its not you.

Don’t insult them back. It just adds fuel to the fire. Keep a too positive attitude through everything; it looks like you don’t care about the whole situation. Don’t pass negative comments about what the person is saying, because that shows that you do, indeed, care?

If you’re asked why the guy/girl is acting like that toward you, say honestly that you don’t know. Doesn’t trash talk them to anyone? In that way, they look like (what they probably are) a loony freak, and you look like an innocent, injured person. If you have trouble ignoring drama, imagine you’re sitting in an airplane taking off, watching the cars and buildings get smaller and smaller. You are that small. You’re actually smaller. Your problem is only in your head. Imagine how small your head is compared to one of those cars.

Think about why others might be judging you. What must their lives be like? Are they envious of you, or even attracted to you? They might just hate you. Never mind these people; get them completely out of your life. Smirking, acting superior or completely ignoring them is probably not a good idea. Again, react with humour, it usually works best. If the insulter is just being nasty, then you can ignore them. Whatever you do, don’t act like it matters. This will make others think that you are willing to work with them, destroying any chance of being able to not care. It takes two or more to argue. By politely refusing to argue, you stay out of it. Don’t give a damn. Occupy yourself with something you enjoy; if you have a phone or Nintendo DS, play a game or write a message to someone. If you like to do crossword puzzles, do some. Go ahead!

Jealous people will try to bring you down to their level. Don’t let them. Remember you’ve got a lot going for you Period! In order for this to work, you MUST remain calm, cool and collected. Determine some activities you’ll do to help you to remain calm: my music and things that matter like my purposes. Smile! Frowning or looking timid will only draw more “non confidence” towards you. Smile at everyone you know or other friendly looking people. Remember you have just as much right to walk around as any other person. If you want them to know you are relaxed and carefree, glance every now and then at their eyes. Remember that happiness is the key to value. Enjoy your life as much as you can and make the best out of every situation. If you are truly happy, then other people won’t be able to bring you down with their judgements.

Finding happiness is the definition of success in life. Remember that the whole point of this article is to show others you are proud of yourself, and you don’t care what people perceive you as. You will gain high respect for being yourself and not trying to attach yourself to a group. People want a reaction. If you ignore them, they will realize it’s no fun to taunt and make fun of you. Show them you don’t care, and they’ll get the message. There is a difference between maintaining your inner-self and making a “reputation” for yourself. You don’t want be tacky and loud, argrumentative and miserable “SHOW PEOPLE WHO YOU ARE”, if they don’t like it, then who cares. Don’t go try to change yourself because a few people disapprove. Just smile as you walk by and just think if they are mean to me maybe they do it to make themselves feel better which means they’re pretty unhappy and of poor character.

Make fun of yourself in a humble and witty way to acknowledge that you’re not perfect and you don’t care. Replace your worries about what other people think about you with a preoccupation over your own goals, achievements, and progress!!! You mean more to yourself than you mean to others, it doesn’t matter to you. Don’t speak or act submissively – show to others that you are a wild spirit and you roam this good old world with pride, and will do what you want whether they like it or not. Don’t respect someone’s OPINION if that person is unkind and doesn’t treat you with respect – they don’t deserve it. Don’t try to get back at people, which just sink you down to their level. Ignore people who THINK they know more than you. DONT LAUGH, practice not thinking about the thing that bothers you, and take the criticism and humiliation in that’s the key point, DONT OPPOSE AND DONT GET EVEN, THATS THE KEY TO NOT CARING.

Warnings

Don’t get revenge by cheating yourself. Never tell your friends that you are having problems with your man because they’ll just end up interfering! Don’t respond to the content of their remarks. The less you say, the less likely you are to get drawn into an argument. Is it important? Ummm am Still Pretty, I Got Bigger and Better and not even worth talking to. Beneath me, not even onnnnn my level to begin with.

If you become angry, know that you won’t be able to think calmly, and you’ll probably say or do something you might regret. Words, once spoken, can never be taken back. The point is to show that I really don’t care about you, your nothing to me and your unimportant!!!! It not logic. Won’t even give you the time of day shorty, you’re a Nobody and I don’t care!!! Make sure you stress that you don’t care…..

DON’T laugh. When you see this working, you may be tempted to smile or laugh at the excitement of finally finding something that works. Don’t do it. This’ll just irritate the person and make it worse. Wait until you’re alone, and then enjoy the moment. “Have a pleasant look and be like, it doesn’t matter, and that’s it don’t keep going on and on say it and mean it by looking oh so happy and pleasant about it. A classy person is simply one who consistently exhibits classy behaviour. Focus on your behaviour and attitude rather than your feelings.

Don’t lose yourself when you’re with other friends. Be yourself. Don’t be someone else so other people will like you because, in the end, you end up hurting other people and “losing yourself”.

Indeed, life is short. Don’t let another day go by without taking a chance on happiness. You will never know until you try, so remember to make a move today. It can change or affect the rest of your life, therefore, at the very least, you can try to come out something for your ex love partner during your weekend plans. With a little practice, perseverance and patience, I believe that your relationship could be enhanced with the tips that I have shared earlier. If you have faced any problems with your loved ones, do not hesitate to visit this piece of article again.

I really have a strong belief that if you can understand what I have explained and applied what you have learnt from this piece of article, your problems can be eventually solved and your making up relationship can become more stable and stronger. I wish all the best for your making up relationship with your partner. Do always remember to spread word of mouth to your fellow friends for supporting the decision of having making up than breaking up.

Watch a video that shows you exactly what you must NEVER do, what you should do to get your ex back and why at http://hubpages.com/hub/howshouldiwoomyexback

Alternatively, you can visit this website Win Your Ex Boyfriend Back Website.

You will also learn how to reverse the situation if you have already done those things that should NEVER be done.

dhlim88
http://www.articlesbase.com/dating-articles/how-to-win-your-man-back-in-order-to-have-a-making-up-relationship-with-you-591287.html

Hell or Heaven: Firsthand Authors Describe your Fate

Our earthly existence demands that we plan for our future in the best way that we can. We must conduct our affairs in this life in a prudent manner regarding investments, education, insurance and such to guide us towards the goal of safety and contentment. But what about a strategy regarding the afterlife when our brief stay on this planet is over?

Bill Wiese and Don Piper are two authors who describe in vivid detail the ultimate outcomes of our worldly lives in books respectively entitled “23 Minutes in Hell: One Man’s Story About What He Saw, Heard, and Felt in that Place of Torment” and “90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death and Life”. The aptly named books describe firsthand the reality of two extreme destinations one of which lies ahead of each of us according to our own freewill choices.

Wiese’s “23 Minutes in Hell” began at 3:00 a.m. on Monday, November 23, 1998 when he found himself being hurled through the air completely out of control before landing in what appeared to be a prison cell. He was “fully awake and cognizant” throughout the entire event during which he was led to experience a peril well beyond what can be imagined in this life.

“There is never any peace of mind. No rest from the torments, the screams, the fear, the thirst, the lack of breath, no sleep, the stench, the heat, the hopelessness, and the isolation from people.” Bill adds that “this place was so terrifying, so intense, and so hostile that it would be impossible for me to exaggerate the horror.” The hideous, seething creatures together with an overwhelming sense of hopelessness made one trapped in a “sea of tormented souls”.

The other end of the spectrum is explained by Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven” which describes his experience while declared dead after his car was struck by an eighteen-wheeler at about 11:45 a.m. on January 18, 1989. He was greeted in the heavenly realm by what he called a “celestial welcoming committee” of incredibly joyous people whom he had known previously that had passed on from earthly life.

Piper described the sensational level of bliss by stating that “everything I experienced was like a first-class buffet for the senses. I had never felt such powerful embraces or feasted my eyes on such beauty. Heaven’s light and texture defy earthly eyes or explanation. Warm, radiant light engulfed me. As I looked around, I could hardly grasp the vivid, dazzling colors. Every hue and tone surpassed anything I had ever seen.” Don was in another dimension and felt “fully alive” in a state of awe that human words are not capable of expressing.

The hell and heaven experiences of both authors are precisely in line with another source that has displayed irrefutable accuracy over time. This book is a compilation of 66 works written by about 40 authors over the course of approximately 1,500 years in three different languages on three different continents. The book that calls one’s attention to what awaits all in the afterlife is called the Bible.

The evidence is clear that the Bible gives harsh descriptions in regards to the reality of the “damnation of hell” ( Matthew 23:33 ). It warns of “everlasting destruction” ( II Thessalonians 1:9 ), “place of torment” ( Luke 16:28 ), “fire that never shall be quenched” ( Mark 9:43 ), ), “weeping and gnashing of teeth” ( Luke 13:28 ), “where their worm dieth not” ( Mark 9:44 ), “everlasting fire” ( Matthew 18:8 ), “outer darkness” ( Matthew 8:12 }, and “lake of fire burning with brimstone” ( Revelation 19:20 ) to name but a few of the wake-up calls regarding the “danger of hell fire” ( Matthew 5:22 ).

Heaven, on the other hand, is a place where “they shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more” ( Revelation 7:16 ) and “there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” ( Revelation 21: 4 ). It will be an indescribable “eternal weight of glory” ( 2 Corinthians 4:17 ) for those who cherish and abide by the Bible’s teachings. It will be a place of pure love beyond our finite comprehension.

Bill Wiese gives his support and states that “the Bible is far more unique than any other book written. It has been scrutinized by an endless array of scholars, historians, archeologists, scientists, mathematicians, and the like for thousands of years. There have not been any discrepancies or errors that could not be cleared up with good scholarship.”

Bill supports this claim by listing quotes from both acclaimed scholars and respected historical figures who support the absolute reliability of the Bible. Don Piper is also one who conveys his full conviction with respect to the truth of the Scriptures without question.

So what guidelines are to be followed to enter the gates of heaven and avoid the described torments of hell after reading “23 Minutes in Hell” and “90 Minutes in Heaven” and the most popular book in the history of the world? The answer is clearly to pay close attention to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as the only “mediator between God and men” ( 1 Timothy 2:5 ) to gain our heavenly triumph.

Both Bill Wiese who suffered the anguish of hell and Don Piper who had to leave the indescribable bliss of heaven to an agonizing recovery believe that their lives are meant to tell the world of the consequences that await us all. They are using their experiences to warn anyone and everyone about the realities of what they lived through. They also wish to share the truth that the only way to escape the eternal and hopeless trappings of hell is a commitment to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

My own unfortunate life events are what led me to find this truth. I have suffered the effects of having been comatose for 11 days, walked away from a burning car wreck, been struck by a Mack truck and have escaped a handful of other potentially deadly or crippling circumstances. Failure has certainly not been a stranger in my life in other ways as well. I share a belief with the authors that my experiences in this life are meant for salvation on both a personal level as well as for readers who simply need to get right with God through Jesus Christ.

My advice? Find and join, if you haven’t already, a true Christian church that bases its teachings strictly on the verses contained in the Bible. Avoid at all costs any “feel good” or watered down alternatives that compromise the truth for the sake of profit or political correctness. Finally, believe the words of Jesus in John 14: 6 of “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Your eternity depends on it.

( Bill Wiese’s “23 Minutes in Hell: One Man’s Story About What He Saw, Heard, and Felt in that Place of Torment” and Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death and Life” and the Bible can be purchased at http://www.christianbook.com )

Brian Connors
http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/hell-or-heaven-firsthand-authors-describe-your-fate-138609.html

How does federalism guard against tyranny?

I need this for homework and i dont get it!

Tyranny: A dictator

Federalism: The federal principle of government

it separates power, making it more difficult for any one government figure to seize control. If a portion of power is given to the states, it takes away from the central government. So, even if someone took control of the entire main government in DC, they wouldn’t have total influence over all public policy. It’s all explained in-depth in The Federalist Papers, mainly the ones by Madison No. 40-58

Social Work and the Law

NOTE: THE ARTICLE APPEARING BELOW WAS COPIED ON  22 JUNE 2009 BY http://www.cityadministrator.org/?p=397 WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND WITHOUT CITING THIS AUTHOR. The blog is hosted by GoDaddy and registrant

Registrant Name:Joseph R Smith
Registrant Organization:FloridaView Media LLC

Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight,

488 U.S. 1301 (1988)

A three month old infant was admitted for treatment in a hospital. It became apparent that the mother, Jackie Bouknight may have maltreated the infant. Consequently, the Department of Social Services (DSS) petitioned the Court to declare the child as a “child in need of assistance” and grant it the power to put the child under foster care (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). The Court granted relief and it was agreed upon by the parties that Bouknight shall have the custody of the child subject to the conditions of supervised parenting and an undertaking of non-infliction of bodily harm and punishment on the child. At first, Bouknight complied with the conditions but later on she became uncooperative and refused to produce her son to the DSS.

The DSS in fear for the safety and well being of the child filed a case before the Court to compel Bouknight to produce her son. She failed to appear before the Court but was later on arrested. On her refusal to disclose the whereabouts of her son, she was found guilty of contempt and was ordered to be incarcerated until compliance with the order [In re Maurice, No. 50 (Dec. 19, 1988). 314 Md. 391, 550 A.2d 1135].

On certiorari, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled that the incarceration of Bouknight was an infringement of her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. According to the Court, the production of the son is testimonial in nature because by doing so, it only proves Bouknight’s “continuing control” over her son which may be utilized in a criminal proceeding. It ruled that there are acts of production deemed to have testimonial value citing the case of U.S. vs. Doe (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the stay of DSS pending the filing of the requisite petition for certiorari. The grant of stay was based on the fact that even assuming that the act of production of the child is testimonial in character, many line of decisions of the Court are clear that as between the public need vis-à-vis a single claim of an individual on constitutional privilege, the former is upheld. In this particular case, the safety and interests of the abused child must be upheld over Bouknight’s assertion considering that, in the hierarchy of values, the safety and welfare of the child takes precedence over other concerns (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). Moreover, the information sought which is the whereabouts of the child is for the contempt charge and therefore civil in nature (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).

The Fifth Amendment: Right against Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment originated from England and derived from the Latin maxim “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare” meaning “no man is bound to accuse himself” (Levy, 1968). It was used in both the accusatorial and inquisitorial legal systems of England (Levy, 1968).

In the U.S., after the revolution the states ratified the Constitution with the inclusion of the privilege in the bill of rights. The original version of Madison was amended by the House to include “in any criminal case” (Schwartz, 1971). Thus, as it now stands, the Fifth Amendment provides, “. . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .” (U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights). The primary purpose of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is “to protect the innocent and to further the search for truth” [Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)]. However, in subsequent line of decisions, the Court ruled that other privileges stated in the bill of Rights are more in the nature of adjuncts to the determination of truth such as the right to counsel or the safeguards afforded by the Fourth Amendment while the privilege against self-incrimination is primarily for “the preservation of the accusatorial system of criminal justice” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. This maintains the integrity of the judicial system and protects the privacy of the individuals from government intrusion [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. The privilege is a guarantee against compulsion for testimonial evidence which consequently will result in the imposition of criminal penalty on such person making testimony.

The Court laid down the requirements necessary before a party can successfully invoke the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. In the cases of U.S. v. Doe, (465 U.S. 605) and Doe v. U.S. [487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988)], the Court enumerated the three (3) requisites that should be present for the Fifth Amendment to apply, namely: a) “that the statement be testimonial; b) incriminating; and, c) compelled.” According to the court, ‘testimonial’ refers to all communications whether express or implied which “relate to a factual assertion or disclose information” (Ashby, J., 2006 citing Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201). The statements or communications made whether verbally or in writing fall within the privilege (Ashby, J., 2006) and is not limited by the forum where it was elicited, i.e. before the court, administrative proceedings or before the law enforcement office [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]. The second requirement, ‘incriminating’ refers to statements that can be used as a basis for a finding of criminal liability under a penal law or “provides a link to the chain of evidence for prosecution under a criminal statute” [United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)]. The third requisite is the compulsion to give a statement. The Court explained that this requisite refers to “circumstances that deny the individual a free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer” (Ashby, J., 2006). Additionally, the Court ruled in the case of Fisher v. United States that these three requisites should all concur and be present so that the privilege can be successfully invoked [425 U.S. 391(1976)].

Legal and Ethical Issues and their Impact on Social Work Practice

The main legal issue in the case of Baltimore is whether the circumstances surrounding it would fall within the ambit of the privilege against self incrimination and consequently, Bouknight may successfully invoke it and prevent her from being compelled to produce or furnish the whereabouts of her son lest be incarcerated for contempt.

The Supreme Court allowed the stay of the decision of the appellate court for overturning the ruling of the juvenile court and in finding that the compulsion for Bouknight to produce her son squarely fell within the privilege and therefore ordered her release (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). The appellate court found that the act of production is testimonial and therefore its compulsion, is a violation of the privilege. Furthermore, the interest of the government in the safety of the son cannot outweigh the observance and respect for the privilege against self incrimination as provided in the Bill of Rights (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). In other words, the three requisites concurred, i.e. the act of production or of furnishing information as to the whereabouts of her son are incriminating and testimonial in character; and, there was also compulsion because if she failed to disclose information sought she would be incarcerated for contempt as what had happened.

The Supreme Court through Chief Justice Rehnquist predicated his discussion on three major points, namely: a) The Court of Appeals passed upon a controversy concerning the federal Constitution which logically can be properly resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court (California v. Riegler, 449 U.S. 1319); b) The act of production does not fall within the ambit of the privilege citing the cases of U.S. v. Doe, Fisher v. U.S. and Schmerber v. California. In these cases, the court ruled that the act of production of the documents is not ‘testimonial’ and therefore does not infringe upon the privilege considering that their existence and location are already known to the Government. In fact, responding to a subpoena have been considered legal and acceptable even if compulsion is present [Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)]. Moreover, when an accused is required to furnish his handwriting sample, this had been held not to violate the privilege because it is not ‘testimonial’  but merely evidentiary United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949 [10th Cir. 1994]). The third point c) is by using the balancing of interests test or balancing the public need vis-à-vis ensuring the individual’s constitutional civil liberties, public need prevailed considering that the disclosure of information was non-criminal and not directed at a particular group as was held in the case of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) where the validity of a law requiring disclosure of the name and address at the scene of a vehicular accident. Similarly in the case of New York v. Quarles where the Fifth Amendment rights have to give way to a public safety exception and therefore in the case of Bouknight, “the public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment was justified because its interest was in protecting children like Maurice, not in prosecuting” (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992).

In sum, the privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right. Albeit the civil liberties accorded under the Bill of Rights safeguards undue government intervention and restraint to its power, there are instances when these rights would have to give way to compelling interests of the society that would warrant Government intervention and intrusion such in the case of protecting and ensuring the safety of infants or children from physical abuse. Once it has been established that a child is abused, it becomes the duty of the State to take over and protect.

The judicial pronouncement in the case of Bouknight has a pervading and far reaching implication on social work practice. This gives the social workers a great burden and responsibility to follow up sharply abused children in foster care or those released under an order of protective supervision. Admittedly, there is an apparent lack of strict protocols in the present system of child welfare agencies (Parks, 2005). A set of guidelines must be crafted to govern exigencies of missing children from foster care like supervised visits and court orders in cases of abduction like what have occurred in Maryland with “Ariel” who had been abducted by his mother Teresa B (Parks, 2005). Guidelines should also be drawn to address the coordinated efforts both with the law enforcement and child welfare personnel.

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California,

17 Cal.3d 425

A graduate student from India, Prosenjit Poddar went to the University of California Berkeley to study naval architecture. It was there that he met Tatiana Tarasoff. A few kisses made him believe that they have a special relationship until Tarasoff bragged about her many relationships with other men. Poddar suffered depression until he sought professional help from Dr. Moore, a psychologist of the University Health Service. He confided to the doctor that he intended to secure a gun and to kill Tarasoff. On the strength of a letter request of Dr. Moore, Poddar was taken by the campus police, however upon assurance that Poddar was reasonable he was released. Upon the return of the University Health psychiatrist from his vacation, he ordered the destruction of Dr. Moore’s letter and did not recommend any further action on Poddar’s case.

When Tarasoff returned from her vacation, she was stabbed and killed by Poddar who at that time moved in with her brother already. The parents of Tarasoff sued the Regents of the University, its health personnel namely, Gold, Moore, Powelson, Yandell and the campus police namely, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel  for “failing to warn their daughter of an impending danger” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425). At the lower court, the complaint was dismissed because there was no cause of action. According to the lower court, the defendants only had the duty to the patient and not to a third party.

The dismissal was appealed to the Appeals Court but which only sustained the dismissal. Thus, it was elevated to the Supreme Court of California. The appealed decision in so far as the university police officers, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel finding them not liable to the plaintiffs was affirmed. However, in so far as the therapists and the Regents of the university, the appealed decision was overturned for reception of evidence in accordance with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).

In fine, the complainants averred four (4) causes of action, namely: a) “Failure to detain a dangerous patient; b) failure to warn on a dangerous patient; c) abandonment of a dangerous patient; and, d) breach of primary duty to patient and the public” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).

Anent the first and fourth causes of action, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants cannot be held liable because of a specific provision of the Government Code or Section 856 thereof which grants immunity to public employees from any resultant damage or injury from deciding whether or not to confine a person with mental ailment. This provision is also applicable to the therapists because the law also refers to those who are capable of recommending confinement. As regards the third cause of action, the government immunity includes the “award of exemplary damages resulting from a wrongful death” and therefore, defendants cannot be held liable (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).

Anent the second cause of action, the Supreme Court found defendants therapists and Regents of the University to have failed to comply with their duty to warn Tarasoff of the peril to her life. Albeit, the therapists had no direct relations with Tarasoff, they could have reasonably foreseen the danger and threat to her life as confided by their patient, Poddar. This is the point where the law establishes the duty of care on their part to warn Tarasoff. Their failure to warn her may reasonably concluded as a proximate cause of her death. The duty of confidentiality between patient and psychotherapist and the right to privacy of the patient cannot prevail over public interest or public safety. Moreover, there are clear provisions of laws, i.e. Section 1024 of the Evidence Code and Section 9 of the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association which allows the physician to divulge matters confided to him in confidence when it is necessary for public welfare (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).

Confidentiality

The effective therapeutic relationship between physician/psychiatrist and patient rests largely on trust that matters confided by the patient during the treatment are kept in strictest confidence by the physician/psychiatrist.  It is the ethical duty of the physician to observe privacy and confidentiality of his patients (Corbin, 2007). While it is also of public interest to ensure that treatment of those who are mentally ill by maintaining an atmosphere whereby they can have an open dialogue with their therapist and of safeguarding its confidential character; the same public interest calls for an imperative recognition of instances whereby disclosure of the confidential communications be revealed and be made to safeguard public safety and avert the threatened peril. In the instances, where the public safety is at risk, the therapist must disclose confidential information discreetly with due regard to protecting the privacy of his patient (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).

The parameters of confidentiality are defined by law and by the ethical code of conduct for practitioners in the territorial jurisdiction. In the case of Tarasoff, the Evidence Code and the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association provided specific and limited exceptions under which the confidentiality privilege can be breached, i.e. “if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger; unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).

It would be wise for the practitioners to familiarize themselves of the limits of confidentiality as provided under the laws considering that it may differ from state to state. The Tarasoff case provided a basis to guide a practitioner in his professional dealings relative to the duty to warn others in cases of a specific threat of harm by his patient against others/another. Subsequent cases followed the consistent pattern of the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of David v. Lhim (1983), the plaintiff-administrator of the estate sued the psychiatrist who treated the son who killed his mother after he was released from the hospital. There was failure on the part of the psychiatrist who treated the son to warn the mother of the potential danger after her son confided his intentions of killing her (Corbin, 2007). In another case, Chrite v. U.S. (2003), the Veterans Administration was held liable for having failed to warn the intended victim of a patient of a threatened harm. Subsequent rulings of the court clarified and defined what constituted ‘threat’ as “imminent threat of serious danger to a readily identifiable victim” and “specific” (Corbin, 2007).

When there are no specific provisions of the law, Dickson (1998) proposes that the therapist/practitioner may be protected against lawsuits if he would consult and keenly document the case of the patient or comply with the “mandated reporting guidelines” required by some states. Reamer (2003) on the other hand, suggests that the therapist must have evidence that the patient is a threat to the safety of another; evidence of that the threat can be foreseen; threat is imminent and that the potential victim is identifiable.

Legal and Ethical Implications and their Impact on Social Work Practice

The duty of reasonable care to assist others in danger is a legal duty as well as a moral duty. However, American negligence law only recognizes it as a moral duty except when there exists a relationship between parties. In the case of Tarasoff, no special relationship existed between the therapist and Tarasoff; however the court has made an exception to this general rule (Bickel, 2001). It declared that the therapist has the duty to care and to warn Tarasoff of the imminent harm on her life. This also includes the duty to control the conduct of his patient, Poddar. In the same breath, a doctor has the duty to warn his patient if he has a contagious disease (Saltzman and Furman, 1999).

There is an affirmative duty for the therapist to advise and warn Tarasoff of the threat to her life although this meant breach of confidentiality with his patient Poddar. This finds basis both legally and ethically considering that the law and the code of ethics for doctors have recognized and provided specifically that doctors are bound to disclose relevant facts to others even if this violates confidentiality with their patients provided they are required by law or if it is required for public safety (Saltzman and Furman, 1999). This legal duty to warn applies when the threat is specific and imminent and where the victim is “readily identifiable” (Bickel, 2001). The courts also have recognized the difficulty in assessing and predicting circumstances that may lead to harm or violence and consequently, adhered to the ‘professional judgment rule’ whereby the therapist is not held liable for errors of judgments. Liability attaches only upon showing that the conduct of the therapist was not in accordance with the “accepted professional standards” (Bickel, 2001).

There is an ambivalence that was created by the Tarasoff protective disclosure ruling with the practitioners (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). Analogous cases and protective disclosure statutes in the different states were analyzed and it was discovered that there are no clear defined parameters of these duties. The therapist is required to a certain way betray his patient by disclosing matters which are protected by confidentiality. Considering the uncertainty brought about by the legal doctrine and court decisions, the undesirable consequence of which was deterrence for therapists to accept “treatment potentially violent patients” (Merton, 1982). Moreover, therapists are more inclined to have their patients committed in an institution so that threats to the safety of potential victims can be averted.

The Tarasoff protective disclosure was even extended recently to include even “communications made from a patient’s family member” as pronounced by the Court in the case of Ewing v. Goldstein (May and Ohlschlager, 2008). The dubious jurisprudential precedents by the courts in interpreting the protective disclosure statutes or its resort to common law instead of interpreting the statute left a vacuum in the definition of the duty to protect (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). As a result, “clinicians must continue to rely on their clinical and ethical judgment, rather than statutory guidance, when considering potential protective disclosures or future drafts of protective disclosure statutes” (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004).

References

Alderman, E. and Kennedy, C. (1992). In our defense: the bill of rights in action. First Avon

Books edition.

Ashby, J. (February 2006).  Note declining to state a name in consideration of the fifth amendment’s self-incrimination clause and law enforcement databases after Hiibel. Michigan Law Review, No. 4, Vol. 104:779.

Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).

Bickel, R. Revisiting Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California: the scope of the psychotherapist’s duty to control dangerous students. Presented before the 22nd Annual Law and higher Education conference in Clearwater, Florida on 18-20 February 2001.

California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971).

Corbin, J. (Fall 2007). Confidentiality and the duty to warn: Ethical and legal implications for the therapeutic relationship. The New Social Worker, Vol. 14, No. 4.

Dickson, D. T. (1998). Confidentiality and privacy in social work. New York: The Free Press

Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988).

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).

Kachigian, C. and Felthous, A. (September 2004). Court responses to Tarasoff statutes. Journal

of  American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Online, Vol. 23:263-273.

Levy, L. (1968). Origins of the fifth amendment: The right against self-incrimination.

May, S. and Ohlschlager, J. (2008). California alert! Tarasoff ruling expanded for clients who ‘go off.’ ECounseling. American Association of Christian Counselors.

Merton, V. (1982). Confidentiality and the dangerous patient: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and lawyers. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 31:265.

New York v. Quarles, 476 U.S. 649 (1984).

Parks, A. (2008). Unless the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, MD children may not be. Daily Record The Baltimore.

Reamer, F. (2003). Social work malpractice and liability. New York: Columbia University Press, 2nd ed.

Saltzman, A. and Furman, D. (1999). Law in social work practice. Brooks Cole, 2nd edition.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).

Schwartz, B (December 1971). The bill of rights: A documentary history. Chelsea House Publishers with McGraw-Hill Education.

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425.

Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956).

U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605.

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).

E.Writers
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/social-work-and-the-law-756045.html

Churchill’s During World War II and Its Aftermath

The growing rapacity of German gluttony forced Hitler to take over Austria in 1938 and threaten Czechoslovakia. In Britain this produced a national crisis which resulted in Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s meeting Hitler in September 1938 at Berchtesgaden. Chamberlain returned from the meeting announcing ‘peace in our time’ which was abruptly smashed when Hitler invaded Prague in March 1939. Soon after given Western weakness and hesitation to work with the Soviet Union Stalin formed a pact with the Nazi’s guaranteeing Russian security and the partitioning of Eastern Europe between the Bear and the Hun. There was nothing to stop Hitler from destroying Poland and then turning his malevolence towards the West.

Public anger which had exploded after the subjugation of Prague had forced Chamberlain to give the improvident pledge to guarantee Poland’s security. Militarily and rationally this was an impossibility. The British did not possess a large enough standing army to lend help to Poland to stem a German advance and the logistics of transferring military relief to Poland was never calculated. Only the Navy was possessed war making power and there was little the Navy could do to defend Poland. She was invaded on the first of September and the Second World War began. Churchill was immediately recalled into power as First Lord of the Admiralty – the very same post he had assumed control of 25 years previous on the eve of the First World War.

From day one of the war Churchill was the true Leader of Britain. Chamberlain was defeatist and broken hearted remarking bitterly how his life’s work was now tragically sundered. He did not have the capability to rouse a nation and persevere to the bitter end. Winston as Naval War Lord was not only attacking the enemy on the seas but combating defeatist elements at home and trying to prod the blind neutral nations into action. Only Churchill could utter with true conviction and spirit, “Now we have begun; now we are going on; now with the help of God, and with the conviction that we are the defenders of Civilisation and Freedom, we are going on, and we are going on to the end.”

The Royal Navy was the only strong force that Britain possessed and from the opening bell the naval squads were on the offensive. Churchill worked at least an 18 hour day. Plans were drawn for a blockade of the German coast, convoy arrangements were made; mine-sweeping was instituted, enemy raiders harassed and submarines sunk. By the end of 1939 the Royal Navy had sunk half of all German submarines. However the war was only in its infancy. Great battles loomed.

On May 10 1940 the Germans began their vicious assault on the West. The Hun streamed into Holland and Belgium. That night the King of England sent for Churchill and asked him to form a government. Thus began the creation of the Churchill legend and his enshrinement into history. The story of the British war effort under Churchill falls into two distinct categories – the struggle to survive and the establishment of the alliance with the USA and Russia and the ultimate destruction of Germany and Japan.

The battle to survive covers the twelve or so months that Britain fought Germany completely alone in 1940-1. This period covered the dazzlingly quick disappearance of France under the heel of the Gestapo in June of 1940 to the German attack on Russia in June of 1941. This grim year brought horrible highlights; the partition of France, the formation of the pro-Nazi French Vichy government, the battle of Britain, the blitz on London, the beginning of the North African desert war, the defeat of Greece, and the British Commando raids along the Norwegian and French coasts.

It was during this sombre episodic current of ruin that Churchill became the most inspirational Leader of the Western world in the 20th century. He portrayed the towering, implacable fierceness of a proud nation, and of liberty, and expressed every free man’s tenacity to fight in words that no other could have summoned forth. Winston’s knowledge of military matters and his close operational vigilance over all affair animated and excited the British war effort with a boldness that astonished. British prestige in this desperate hour reached its highest ever pitch. The world over prayed for its salvation and success.

The immense energy and illimitable skill that throbbed and turned in his heart and mind was at last released from its bondage and given full scope of use. Churchill no longer knew the frustration of ideas that could not be brought alive, vitality that could not be expended, or ingenious approaches that could not be tested. The supreme challenge was met by a man of supreme stature. The Government was turned upside down. Routine was destroyed. Twenty four activity the rule with Churchill as the master organiser. All knew their place and role. Churchill immediately established a small War Cabinet to make effective and quick decisions. At first the membership was four which grew during the war to seven. This tiny all powerful directing force was supported by sixty or seventy other ministers of all parties who formed the core membership of the Coalition government but responsible only for their own departments. As Churchill pointed out, it was only the members of the War Cabinet, “who had the right to have their heads cut off on Tower Hill if we did not win.”

Never before in modern history did one man have so much power. Churchill was everywhere. He not only controlled the government but the operational side of the conflict as well. He was not only the King’s First Minister but Leader of the House of Commons and, even more important Minister of Defence also. The military Chiefs of Staff instead of reporting to their own ministries reported instead directly to Churchill. The Joint Planning Committee – a body of professional staff officers of all three services – worked under Churchill as part of the Ministry of Defence rather than under the Chiefs of Staff. Thus by permission of the War Cabinet and Parliament Churchill became the penultimate democratic Leader.

No one can study Churchill’s part in the war without being staggered by the colossal output of interests, dictation’s, orders, speeches, broadcasts, plans, promotions and prunings. In military matters he covered an almost incomprehensible range of activity. When Britain stood alone and the nation was bracing itself for the storm of invasion Churchill was racing about the government demanding attack plans, offensive action and targets of British incursions. He demanded the end of the passive war. Thus the commando raids were born. He participated during the war in every operational plan and strategy demanding full technical elaboration’s and missives to be sent to his attention. “During the war,” the American General Eisenhower later testified, “Churchill maintained such close contact with all operations as to make him a virtual member of the British Chiefs of Staff; I cannot remember any major discussion with them in which he did not participate.”

Churchill’s power was dependent upon the War Cabinet. It is a tribute to his skill of persuasion that unlike Roosevelt or Stalin, who were by their constitutions absolute military leaders of their nation, Churchill exercised his authority only by the permission of the War Cabinet who were willing to grant this authority only so long as Winston commanded the confidence of Parliament. Much of Parliament’s confidence was bolstered by Churchill’s impassioned, humanised and soaring orations. No man or women in the British Commonwealth who heard on June 4 1940 that France was being devoured by the German beast, will forget the tingling of emotion and courage when Churchill uttered in a strange, hoarse voice: “We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever he cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle until in God’s good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Another Leader may have uttered, “We will do what is necessary to win this war and persevere in its struggle until it is won. This government believes in the ultimate ability of our nation to come through to victory.” Or something to that effect. Very few would have evinced the crescendo of emotional “We shall’s” in a peroration. Churchill gave the roar to the British lion and heart to the British public. Romance, history, philosophy and leadership all running in the cloud-burst of Churchill’s speeches and leadership of the war effort. But though he carried his role with pride, prompt execution and relish in no way implies a cold heart or an acceptance of war’s carnage. The suffering that he saw, and he saw a lot with his own eyes as he inspected damage through Britain, on more than one occasion pushed him into tears. When Churchill saw a small shop in ruins and wondered out loud to his private secretary the anguish that the owner must feel to have his whole life exploded and ruptured so completely, he became so visibly upset that he resolved at that moment to compensate all damaged property with state payments. Thus the policy of war damage for private assets came into effect. If Churchill enjoyed the waging of war he certainly suffered from the anguish it induced and endeavoured to share its destruction with the common man and woman.

The second phase of the war lasted from the infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7 1941 until the end of the war. Until 1944 the British and Russian armies bore the brunt of the struggle against the demented German race. From early 1944 onwards the Americans assumed a greater share and responsibility of the war effort and began to relegate the British to a supporting role in the drive to victory. Roosevelt and Churchill met nine times during the war establishing a strong if short lived friendship. The Americans including Roosevelt were incorrectly convinced that Churchill and the British wanted to expand their Empire.

This calamitous suspicion allowed the Russians more freedom in Eastern Europe than the British would ever have tolerated. As early as 1943 with victory a matter of time and logistics Churchill implored the American leadership not to let Soviet ambition run unimpeded in Eastern Europe. The American reply was incredibly purblind and vague. It appears in scouring the documents and American communiqués that they trusted the Soviets to behave themselves more than their close allies the British ! Eisenhower and many of his chiefs remarked in letters and in meetings that they could not understand why the British constantly mixed politics and military affairs.

To the British this represented reality and the best hope to avoid another world war with the Soviets after the defeat of Germany. Churchill and his advisors even preached that upon the war’s closing everything necessary should be attempted to revive Germany as a bulwark against the pending Soviet menace. The Americans felt that such targets as Prague, Berlin and Vienna were unnecessary military ventures that would endanger the lives of their men. If the Soviets wanted to shed more life in attacking these seemingly remote locations than the Americans were content to let them. The British just shook their heads in dismay unable to impress the Americans with their superior logic. Victory was attained but it set the stage for the Cold War.

The fact that the British survived the early years of the war when Germany swept all before it and that the British evaded a complete national disaster at Dunkirk and defeated the Nazi’s in the air during the Battle of Britain, issued during the remainder of the war and for a short period after it, an inflated sense of self destiny and strength and even an isolationist mentality. The collective suffering and emotional agony endured by the entire British nation also gave express an imbued spirit of egalitarianism. The depth of this communal desire was the most profound in British history and exercised a new faith in social planning and cohesion. During Churchill’s premiership in the war the most celebrated social reconstruction document of the period was the report by William Beveridge which outlined a radical scheme of comprehensive social security, financed from central taxation. This new state aided social plan included maternity benefits, child allowances, universal health and unemployment insurance, old age pension and death benefits – an entire cradle to grave policy. From 1940-45 Britain moved more rapidly to the left than at any time in history a move marked by the important positions Labour ministers occupied in the war government.

At the end of World War II in 1945, Britain was still one of the Big 3 powers, indeed it was ranked as a great power, an illusion that held until about 1963. The British still had their empire in 1945 and in the ensuing years they could still produce great artists and Nobel prize winners, but much to the chagrin of Churchill and the leadership class British glory was long past. The rapid decolonisation of most of its empire — India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka — and parts of Africa shedded from British finance much unneeded expense and worry, and solidified Britain’s secondary role in world affairs subordinate to the USA and Russia.

Success in conflict notwithstanding the British electorate in the 1945 general election shockingly kicked Churchill and the Conservatives from office by an overwhelming share. For the third time the Labour party was called forth to govern. Churchill after leading the democracies to attain the supreme glories and garlands of success instantly found himself shorn of privilege and casted into opposition. It was a role he obviously did not appreciate. For Churchill defeat was only explained by the plain fact that people believed his government to be a war council, unprepared for the extended restructuring of society that peace demanded. Labour presented a sharper and more intelligent platform and catalogue of change. The Conservatives were quite content to rest upon Churchill’s name and ignore the organisation and deliverance of a viable alternative to the Labour programme.

Whilst Churchill harried the Labour government and began the rebuilding of the Conservative party to respond to public and peace-time pressure he began the personal memoirs of the great struggle and in the absence of anything else offered by the other leaders – Stalin, Roosevelt, Truman, or Hitler – Churchill was able to dictate on the best terms and in the most convincing language possible, his and Britannia’s exalted position in the struggle against evil. It was an incomparable success, ensuring that in times forward, historians would favourably compare the works of Thucydides and those of Churchill. Both men represented and recorded their times and events on an unparalleled scale.

What Churchill was able to offer the reader was a glimpse into the details of history’s most horrible man-made disaster. The wicked folly of the conflict was evident at the war’s end. Whole nations lay in ruins. Towns, cities, industrial plants and transportation facilities were erased. Food and life essentials were unavailable to great migratory populations. Cynicism and disillusionment in Europe and elsewhere bred the shift to the political left. Marxism replaced Fascism as an acceptable form of social order. Communism erupting from poverty, spread like an open wound across Asia and Europe. With the complete eradication of Nagasaki and Hiroshima the nuclear age dawned. Moral questionings loudly divided those in the West over the usage of weapons of such finality – especially against a prostrate Japan. Dropping two bombs three days apart on a nation that was in the process of trying to negotiate an exit from the war seemed to many morally reprehensible. It was an inauspicious beginning to the scientific era.

The United States and Russia emerged from the rubble of the war as opponents. Russia was mauled and mutilated by the war with over 20 million dead and whole sections of her country raped. The USA stood at war’s end possessing a massive ego and the greatest economic supremacy in history. The big two were joined by the little third – Great Britain – and the three during the war and after drove the discussions regarding the build up of the United Nations. Most vexing to the Allies in the construction of the United Nations Assembly was whether members were obliged to surrender part or all of their own independence to the new body in order to maintain peace. How would it be possible to invest such a supranational body with enough force to enforce decisions ? How would the large powers relate to the smaller in the decision making of such a forum ? At Moscow in 1943 the Big Three resolved many of these issues and in Washington in 1944, joined by China, hammered out the shape of the new international body. At the Yalta conference in 1945, the Big Three came to terms on the matter of securing for each of the major powers the right to veto decisions of the new international body. This allowed the creation of the UNO charter at San Francisco in April 1945 which clearly identified the principles and responsibilities of the new organisation. Fifty one founding nations signed the document and in September 1945 the UNO opened its headquarters in New York.

Comprising the UNO were principally the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. Most power resided in the Security Council which was given the task of maintaining the peace. Five permanent members sit in the council; the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, China and France and six other nations are elected for two year terms as non-permanent members. The permanent members retained veto power with all resolutions needing the consent of the five permanent nations before passing.

In contrast to the Security Council the UNO General Assembly was shaped by all the member states each wielding one nation one vote rights. International problems are to be solved in an open forum and mandates need to be passed by majority vote. This effectively gives the smaller nations more voice in international affairs. The Secretariat acting as the permanent secretary of the UNO concerned itself with internal operations with its Secretary General the highest profiled member of the UNO, exerting wide diplomatic powers emanating from the prestige of the office.

Thus the founding of the UNO was an expression of hope by the survivors of the Second World War. Quickly this vision was marred and jaded by political ineptitude and quivering resolve by the UNO in major affairs. There was little effective work during the Cold War that could be resoundingly accomplished. This war which was contested by two sides that viewed the other as monolithic or controlling inimical forces, could never have been settled via diplomatic channels. The mental straitjackets of both sides; with the Soviet Union believing that the capitalist West controlled by a few monied financiers who desired the destruction of communism and especially the Soviet Union and which would never grant the Russians fair credit in defeating Hitler; and the West believing that Russia controlled the communistic movement world-wide and that communism and especially Russia wanted to overthrow the better functioning liberal states, could only end with the breakdown of one of the combatants. The demise of Marxism gave spring to the hope of a liberal-democratic world.

The major events since 1945 can be summarised in a short list;
- The Collapse of Communism
- The Triumph of Capitalism
- The beginning of the High Tech Era
- The Decline of the USA and the re-emergence of Europe, Japan and China
- The Fragmentation of parts of the world into tribes
- Ecological dislocation
- Growing disparity between the have and have-not nations
- Emerging militant Islamism
- Questioning over the role of the UNO

The most momentous and important event however has been the spread of globalism. Economically, morally, and spiritually people are viewing themselves regardless of race, kin, geography or circumstance as belonging to the entire human race and not a limited defined tribe. Though tribalism in some areas of the world is taking hold even within these identified units a greater consciousness is emanating out to the rest of the globe that though distinct there resides a desire and need to be integrated into a global framework. Economics, peace and ecological salvation commonsensically dictate this. So do the various images from space capturing a small blue ball in the surroundings of space. Somehow this humbles even the largest of egos. So even as, in some parts of the world, balkanisation is shattering mature states, the pieces will still be forced to bond not only together but somehow they will need to align themselves to the greater puzzle that resides outside their narrow borders. It is only by collective effort that the solutioning of poverty, ecological rapine, and the stoppage of war can be peacefully effected.

Churchill died just after the Cuban missile crisis during a bitter period of Cold War strife, which almost pushed the world into a nuclear confrontation. Though he felt certain of liberal-democracy’s triumph he did not see the maturity of his concept. And though he sustained an undying faith in the ability of man to overcome his worst problems we can be sure that without using the leadership skills presented through his example we will have a very difficult time indeed.

C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/churchills-during-world-war-ii-and-its-aftermath-700338.html

Coming World Economic Collapse This Year Corruption explained by a Genius 2 of 2

Duration : 0:9:46

Read more…

Why does the New World Order want a one world government if they already control everything and profit from?

every war in the current system of nation states?

Question for believers in the NWO, new world order, people who believe the goal of the global elite is a one world government.

I’m NOT one of them, just interested how they see this. Isn’t the belief this elite has total power in the current system of nation states and always profit a lot from wars contradictory to the notion that their goal would be a one world government?

Maybe they have a good explanation, maybe not. Very interested either way.
DJnCSprings. Sometimes their is possesive, othter times it means they are and in your case the word you’re looking for is there.

I don’t do American idol and did my research. I interpret those leaders who spoke about it differently as you do. I believe in a new world order but interpret those wishes of the elite very differently than a one world government. They don’t need a one world government to establish a new world order. If you don’t get that I’m very sorry

Your patronizing attitude doesn’t hide the fact you obviously have no explenation
imback_missme

Thanks, can’t say we agree on the details but apreciate the answer.
Do you think they absolutely need a one world government to achieve this new ‘World Financial Order". or total control for that matter?
What’s from their perspective preferable about a one world government out in the open over the same control in the current system of nation states? Why would they give up their shadowy excistence that’s sucsesful, again from their point of view, in favor of open dictatorship? What’s the upsdie of that? They can have the total control withtout calling it a one world government or ending nation states, can’t they?
Seriously, aprciate your answer, please elaborate if you have thoughts about this.
zenmeister. The European constitution was rejected by the Netherlands and France, they lost. Even that agreement would have not overridden our domestic constitutions. Then the bureaucrats quit calling it constitution and tried to push a watered down version under the name The Treaty of Lisbon. Ireland rejected it in the only organized referendum on the matter, France and the Netherlands simply ratified it in parliament to avoid the population. The treaty explicitely states it will have to be ratified by each Member State in order for it to come into force. Ireland killed it, the EU bureaucrats lose again for now

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/countries/index_en.htm#

Still the facts are very different from your understanding, that undermines your credibility. Regrettable
Giordano. You clearly misunderstood my ideas. I can’t be held responsible. Maybe you should have payed attention or I should have explained myself better, maybe a little of both but that’s done.

I tend to be hostile towards those who present lies, misdirections and nonsense as facts because they take attention away from the real issues and often misdirect people I care about into the dead end street of conspiracism.
Your capslock does not impress me, especially since you apparantly don’t even understand the quotes you use to make your point.
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole"
Dominate the political system of EACH country, they don’t need a one world government. One world government fetishism is a distraction. They can win without the misdirected nationalists even noticing.
47, that’s a great answer. Thanks for taking the time. Your answer does tell how you see it and why it’s not nessecarily contradictory.
I also apreciate the fact you recognize they could very well give in on the semantic part of the issue which in my opinion also means those opposing this evil need to look further than words and terms. To try to say it in your terminology, the more people wake up about the new world order the more likely they will not sell their idea under that name. Another issue where this is very relevant is the whole Amero thing. You can have an effective monitairy union with fixed exchange rates without officially adopting one currency. In practise that’s also the same.
I just hope everyone continues to think, they will
DJnCSprings. I take being called a shill by you as a compliment. Thanks for the info. Why am I a shill though? Are your beliefs above questioning?
I question all things, including your ideas, my ideas, what governments tell, the people claiming to oppose the government and self proclaimed truth seekers say. I will accept no ideas unchecked, I’m not a sheeple.
I’m skeptical of all sides but give everyone a chance to express their view. Why is that a problem for you?
Truth is whatever survives the cleansing fires of skepticism after they have burned away error and superstition. The healthy growth of civilization depends on skepticism more than it does on faith. – Oliver Wendell Holmes
Giordano. Typical hostily and name calling for someone lacking ideas.
I didn’t ignore your first quote, I read it, it’s not news and not something we argue about. What’s there to say? What do you expect? Me saying that quote is false while it’s not? I’m not a liar.
I see you ignore the point I made. They can easily get all the control they want, an effective one world government in the shadows while out in the open continuing the illusion of nation states. It seems to work in the American electoreal system. Millions of Americans still believe they have free choice while the US is in fact already a dictatorship of the big banks and corporate interest and while most who voted for change Americans will get more of the same. I see as little reason for the elite to call themselves a one world government as for the US to openly call itself a dictatorship. The goal, total control, is more important than any name they use. The last point you make actually supports that notion
Giordano
That they can fool some or attempt to fool some by calling it something else is excactly the point of this whole question.
While you basically accuse me of shilling you fail to realize by insisting their goal is one world government, other people might be convinced they didn’t sucseed just as long as the US is called the US even at that time globalists/elitists, capitalists in my view, effectively control it all.
80 percent of Americans and possibly more around the world believe Obama is change. We both know better, we shouldn’t be fighting over the details where we disagree
Giordano for your and everyone elses information I’m against the CFR and other institutions like it. We do see their power and influence, even their goals, differently but we both reject them.
It’s like the whole Bilderberg group thing. My position is basically they will aproach and be able to effectively buy/ influence, steer any politician in the current setup because that setup is corrupt to the core while the conspiracists view is groups like bilderberg, CFR appoint their "agents" corrupting an otherwise legitimate system.
imback_missme, thanks for the edit. I happen to know zeitgeist and believe it’s full of inaccuracies (
But unlike with many other truth gurus I do believe the maker believes what he’s saying and addendum obviously appeals to me. Marxists like myself have been blaming the for profit system for decades. While Peter Jackson gets caught up in semantics I feel and denies Marxism is a solution his whole analysis testifies to the Marxist notion that the for prfit motive brings out the worst in humanity. I believe that and he usues footage of economic hitman, definetely a very good documentary
If I was a truther I’d be pro zietgeist but I’m not, loved the Alex Jones interview with Jackson, it’s recommended. If you like, respect zeitgeist but take Jones serious too you want to hear this.
Your contribution is very much apreciated
It’s Peter Joseph, not Jackson oops
Giordano, nothing stops you or anyone else from adding me as a contact or you from linking here to the answers you refer to. That would be the fastest way and that you don’t do that while sugesting they tell it all, says enough. I can’t read your mind and know what answers you refer to but yes I stand behind my answers in regards to conspiracism
You fail to understand my points and I don’t have to adress your quote, the one you don’t understand yourself or the other one. Your incoherent ramblings and accusations offer little insight into how you think and give me the impression your agenda is to surpress an open debate and discussion
Giordano. No I didn’t change my mind. The corruption comes from within, from the inherent faillure of the American political setup, that’s my position here and was my position there. I stand behind that answer, like I estimated you don’t understand.

Joining my contacts opens my whole Q&A, everyone knows that or can see for themselves, that’s enough
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege, but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to
to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/index.html

Maybe you will understand the difference now but it’s very doubtful

First of all, everyone must understand that ‘profit’ is not the goal here. There are motives beyond simple greed, and I know it’s hard for anyone with a conscience to really imagine what must be going on in the minds of these elites. EDIT: They’re f*ckin psychopaths. It seems like they’re obsessed and compelled to play god, and recreate the world according to their vision.

Money is not the END, it is the MEANS. The same can be said of war. It IS all going somewhere. These people do not intend to use War as a geopolitical tool -forever-. EDIT: Albert Pike’s "three world wars" had a theoretical objective. He never mentioned a fourth (that I am aware of…).

Have you heard of the Iron Mountain Report? Whether real or a hoax, the question posed to this think tank was "how can we maintain Anglo-American dominance in a future devoid of war?" The consensus was that they would need a common threat (i.e. environmental) that the world could unite against.

Secondly, they don’t already have "total power" (it’s quite the contrary – they seem to be losing it!)

"Total power" is what they’ve always been after, that’s what they are using their money and their wars to get. If they HAD total control, then all their wealth could not buy them any more influence, could it? Then it would become worthless to them.

Moreover, if they DID already enjoy total global control, most of us would probably be dead right now, and we certainly wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Also, a "World Financial Order" …IS… a "world government" ! (for all intents and purposes)! If you attended the first day of NWO 101, then you should know the influence that central banking systems hold over national governments, and you should know that the difference between "World Financial Order" and "world government" is purely semantic.

"They can have the total control without calling it a one world government or ending nation states, can’t they?" EXACTLY. That is exactly what I expect them to do. They’re not going to just come out and announce one day: "Welcome to the New World Order! Here’s your new flag and your new money." Yes, nations will continue to exist (in name only) long after global governance has been established. That is a NECESSITY, or the people would obviously revolt.

Global dominance has been attempted by force before, and it did not succeed. Conquest by deception seems to be working far better, so far… and I expect the deception to continue, at least until the globalist institutions have become so strong that they can no longer be challenged.

So, no, there is nothing at all contradictory about the idea of using war and economic manipulation to steer the geopolitical landscape gradually towards "global governance" or whatever you choose to call it. It’s really the only way to accomplish this.

When describing the level of control the globalist elite actually have over world events, I commonly use the metaphor of trying to steer a huge ocean liner at high speed in choppy seas.

I hope that answers your question.

world economic collapse this year – corruption explained by a genius

world economic collapse this year the corruption explained by LaRouche

See part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVEJifq8ePY

Check out nextdimensions

http://www.youtube.com/user/nextdimensions

If you enjoyed this video please give something back

http://martialarm.chipin.com/buy-martialarm-a-beer

OXYSILVER™ pioneers a new class of mineral waters providing the most powerful immune system support in healthcare history. http://tinyurl.com/martialarmyourself

Used daily by people who need it, or periodically whenever necessary to regain or sustain health, it can be relied upon more assuredly than any product ever developed.

Follow me on Twitter and BlogTV coming soon!
http://twitter.com/martialarm

Duration : 0:6:36

Read more…