Dictator Bharrat Jagdeo and Erik Solheim exploiting amerindian children in Fairview, Guyana

check out jaggie and erik drinking plastic bottled water in the virgin rainforest!! so much for low carbon

President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana and Norway’s Minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim today signed a Memorandum of Understanding declaring the two countries’ determination to work together to provide the world with a working example of how partnerships between developed and developing countries can save the world’s tropical forests.

“It will be impossible to defeat climate change if we don’t significantly reduce tropical deforestation”, President Jagdeo emphasized. “We said several years ago that the people of Guyana stood ready to play our part in determining how this can be done. We are delighted to work alongside Norway in searching for solutions that align the development aspirations of our people with the urgent need to protect the world’s tropical forests.”

“Through this partnership, we are building a bridge between developed and developing countries,” stated Mr Solheim. “We are giving the world a workable model for climate change collaboration between North and South. It’s not perfect, but it’s good, and it will be improved upon as we learn and develop together.”

Under the partnership, Guyana will accelerate its efforts to limit forest-based greenhouse gas emissions, and protect its rich rainforest as an asset for the world. Norway will provide financial support to Guyana at a level based on Guyana’s success in limiting emissions. This will enable Guyana to start implementing its low carbon development strategy (LCDS) at scale. In the words of President Jagdeo, “We want to avoid the high-carbon development trajectory that today’s developed world followed.” The LCDS sets out how Guyana can limit forest-based emissions, convert almost its entire energy sector to clean energy, accelerate the development of low-carbon economic sectors and address the huge challenges the country is facing in adapting to climate change. As an illustration, 90% of Guyana’s productive land is threatened by changing weather patterns, and in 2005, floods wiped out the equivalent of 60% of GDP.

Financial support from Norway will be channeled through a new fund, the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF). Guyana’s Ministry of Finance will be responsible for the GRIF’s operations, and a reputable international financial institution to be selected by Norway and Guyana will act as manager of the fund. The mechanism will ensure full national and international oversight of financial flows.”.

“Saving the world’s remaining tropical forests is a crucial element in the battle against climate change, and we are proud to support Guyana’s contributions in that effort”, said Mr Solheim. “We are committed to contributing 30 million dollars to support the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund in 2010. Provided that the expected results are achieved and that other elements of the partnership fall into place, our support for the years up to 2015 could add up to as much as USD 250 million.”

President Jagdeo said, “Addressing climate change can no longer be just about campaigning for action. It must also be about designing solutions and delivering results. This will not happen as long as developing countries are treated as passive recipients of aid. Instead, we need to be equal partners in the search for solutions. When we find solution-oriented partners like Norway, we will not be found unwilling. And this is not just about Guyana and Norway. The Informal Working Group on Interim Finance for REDD+ has set out a frame-work for others to join us in achieving a 25% reduction in global deforestation and forest degradation by 2015 for less than 25 billion euro. If successful, this would be the single biggest contribution to combating climate change during this period.”

Three years ago President Jagdeo said that Guyana might be willing to place its entire rainforest under long-term protection “to help in the world’s fight against climate change, providing our peoples’ sovereignty is respected.” At the signing of the MOU, which took place in the indigenous community of Fairview, the President said “that goal just came closer.”

The Memorandum of Understanding and an underlying Joint Concept Paper on the partnership can be found here

Information on Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy can be found at www.lcds.gov.gy

For questions or inquiries, please contact:

Shyam Nokta, Office of Climate Change (phone +592 223 5205 or +592 223 0917, email snokta@op.gov.gy or info@lcds.gov.gy (Guyana); or

Ambassador Hans Brattskar, director of the Government of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (cell phone +47 94 15 76 73, e-mail hans.brattskar@md.dep.no) (Norway).

For additional information on the Informal Working Group for Interim Financing for REDD+, see:  http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/MD/Vedlegg/Klima/klima_skogprosjektet/Report_of_the_Informal_Working_Group_on_Interim_Finance_for_REDD+__IWG_IFR____October_2009_Final.pdf

TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior Iranian judiciary official announced on Monday that three American citizens arrested in July near the country’s border with Iraq for illegal entry to Iranian territory have been charged with espionage.

Tehran’s Prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi said that the three American citizens have been charged with espionage.

The three American citizens had illegally entered Iranian borders from Iraq, he added.

Speaking to the Islamic republic news agency, he said investigations on their charges are now underway and their status will be declared in the future.

On the arrest of a Danish national who was arrested on November 4, anniversary of US Embassy takeover, he said the guy had introduced himself as a reporter but he did not have evidence to prove.

His case is now under investigations through legal channels, he pointed out.

Danish solicitor has been authorized to visit the arrested person in prison on Monday, he said.

On trial of a French national, he said his solicitor had called the trial to be postponed due to death of one of the defendant’s relatives.

“The Authority of the People”

* The Instrument of Governing
* Parliaments
* The Party
* Class
* Plebiscites
* Popular Conferences & People’s Committees
* The Law of Society
* Who Supervises the Conduct of Society?
* How Can Society Redirect its Course When Deviations From its Laws Occur?
* The Press

THE INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT

The instrument of government is the prime political problem confronting human communities (The problem of the instrument of government entails questions of the following kind. What form should the exercise of authority assume? How ought societies to organize themselves politically in the modern world?)

Even conflict within the family is often the result of the failure to resolve this problem of authority. It has clearly become more serious with the emergence of modern societies.

People today face this persistent question in new and pressing ways. Communities are exposed to the risks of uncertainty, and suffer the grave consequences of wrong answers. Yet none has succeeded in answering it conclusively and democratically. THE GREEN BOOK presents the ultimate solution to the problem of the proper instrument of government.

All political systems in the world today are a product of the struggle for power between alternative instruments of government. This struggle may be peaceful or armed, as is evidenced among classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals. The outcome is always the victory of a particular governing structure – be it that of an individual, group, party or class – and the defeat of the people; the defeat of genuine democracy.

Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate with, for example, 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49 per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of government they did not vote for, but which has been imposed upon them. Such is dictatorship. Besides, this political conflict may produce a governing body that represents only a minority. For when votes are distributed among several candidates, though one polls more than any other, the sum of the votes received by those who received fewer votes might well constitute an overwhelming majority. However, the candidate with fewer votes wins and his success is regarded as legitimate and democratic! In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the cover of false democracy. This is the reality of the political systems prevailing in the world today. They are dictatorial systems and it is evident that they falsify genuine democracy.

PARLIAMENTS

Parliaments are the backbone of that conventional democracy prevailing in the world today. Parliament is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the people and the exercise of authority, excluding the masses from meaningful politics and monopolizing sovereignty in their place. People are left with only a facade of democracy, manifested in long queues to cast their election ballots.

To lay bare the character of parliaments, one has to examine their origin. They are either elected from constituencies, a party, or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. But all of these procedures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people, depending on the size of the population. It also means that a member keeps few popular organizational links with the electors since he, like other members, is considered a representative of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional democracy requires. The masses are completely isolated from the representative and he, in turn, is totally removed from them. Immediately after winning the electors’ votes the representative takes over the people’s sovereignty and acts on their behalf. The prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of parliament with a sacredness and immunity which are denied to the rest of the people. Parliaments, therefore, have become a means of plundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has thus become the right of the people to struggle, through popular revolution, to destroy such instruments – the so-called parliamentary assemblies which usurp democracy and sovereignty, and which stifle the will of the people. The masses have the right to proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representation in lieu of the people.

If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its winning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representation in which each party holds a number of seats proportional to their success in the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their respective parties and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not that of the people. Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses that are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alternatively, the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by a one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clear that representation is a fraud.

Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people are unable to compete in the election campaigns, and the result is that only the rich get elected. Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy.

Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocated the theory of representative parliaments at a time when peoples were unconsciously herded like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. When even this aspiration was rejected, people waged bitter and protracted struggle to attain this goal.

After the successful establishment of the age of the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unthinkable that democracy should mean the electing of only a few representatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete structure. Authority must be in the hands of all of the people.

The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments.

THE PARTY

The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship. It is the modern instrument of dictatorial government. The party is the rule of a part over the whole. As a party is not an individual, it creates a superficial democracy by establishing assemblies, committees, and propaganda through its members. The party is not a democratic instrument because it is composed only of those people who have common interests, a common perception or a shared culture; or those who belong to the same region or share the same belief. They form a party to achieve their ends, impose their will, or extend the dominion of their beliefs, values, and interests to the society as a whole. A party’s aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its program. Democratically, none of these parties should govern a whole people who constitute a diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, regions and beliefs. The party is a dictatorial instrument of government that enables those with common outlooks or interests to rule the people as a whole. Within the community, the party represents a minority.

The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party. The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian concept – the domination of the members of the party over the rest of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, and assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is the theory justifying party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter how many parties exist, the theory remains valid.

The existence of many parties intensifies the struggle for power, and this results in the neglect of any achievements for the people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such actions are presented as a justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that an opposing party can replace it. The parties very seldom resort to arms in their struggle but, rather, denounce and denigrate the actions of each other. This is a battle which is inevitably waged at the expense of the higher, vital interests of the society. Some, if not all, of those higher interests will fall prey to the struggle for power between instruments of government, for the destruction of those interests supports the opposition in their argument against the ruling party or parties. In order to rule, the opposition party has to defeat the existing instrument of government.

To do so, the opposition must minimize the government’s achievements and cast doubt on its plans, even though those plans may be beneficial to the society. Consequently, the interests and programs of the society become the victims of the parties’ struggle for power. Such struggle is, therefore, politically, socially, and economically destructive to the society, despite the fact that it creates political activity.

Thus, the struggle results in the victory of another instrument of government; the fall of one party, and the rise of another. It is, in fact, a defeat for the people, i.e., a defeat for democracy. Furthermore, parties can be bribed and corrupted either from inside or outside.

Originally, the party is formed ostensibly to represent the people. Subsequently, the party leadership becomes representative of the membership, and the leader represents the party elite. It becomes clear that this partisan game is a deceitful farce based on a false form of democracy. It has a selfish authoritarian character based on maneuvres, intrigues and political games. This confirms the fact that the party system is a modern instrument of dictatorship. The party system is an outright, unconvincing dictatorship, one which the world has not yet surpassed. It is, in fact, the dictatorship of the modern age.

The parliament of the winning party is indeed a parliament of the party, for the executive power formed by this parliament is the power of the party over the people. Party power, which is supposedly for the good of the whole people, is actually the arch-enemy of a fraction of the people, namely, the opposition party or parties and their supporters. The opposition is, therefore, not a popular check on the ruling party but, rather, is itself opportunistically seeking to replace the ruling party. According to modern democracy, the legitimate check on the ruling party is the parliament, the majority of whose members are from that ruling party. That is to say, control is in the hands of the ruling party, and power is in the hands of the controlling party. Thus the deception, falseness and invalidity of the political theories dominant in the world today become obvious. From these emerge contemporary conventional democracy.

“The party represents a segment of the people, but the sovereignty of the people is indivisible.”

“The party allegedly governs on behalf of the people, but in reality the true principle of democracy is based upon the notion that there can be no representation in lieu of the people.”

The party system is the modern equivalent of the tribal or sectarian system. A society governed by one party is similar to one which is governed by one tribe or one sect. The party, as shown, represents the perception of a certain group of people, or the interests of one group in society, or one belief, or one region. Such a party is a minority compared with the whole people, just as the tribe and the sect are. The minority has narrow, common sectarian interests and beliefs, from which a common outlook is formed. Only the blood-relationship distinguishes a tribe from a party, and, indeed, a tribe might also be the basis for the foundation of a party. There is no difference between party struggle and tribal or sectarian struggles for power. Just as tribal and sectarian rule is politically unacceptable and inappropriate, likewise the rule under a party system. Both follow the same path and lead to the same end.The negative and destructive effects of the tribal or sectarian struggle on society is identical to the negative and destructive effects of the party struggle.

CLASS

The political class system is the same as a party, tribal, or sectarian system since a class dominates society in the same way that a party, tribe or sect would. Classes, like parties, sects or tribes, are groups of people within society who share common interests. Common interests arise from the existence of a group of people bound together by blood-relationship, belief, culture, locality or standard of living. Classes, parties, sects and tribes emerge because blood-relationship, social rank, economic interest, standard of living, belief, culture and locality create a common outlook to achieve a common end. Thus, social structures, in the form of classes, parties, tribes or sects, emerge. These eventually develop into political entities directed toward the realization of the goals of that group. In all cases, the people are neither the class, the party, the tribe, nor the sect, for these are no more than a segment of the people and constitute a minority. If a class, a party, a tribe, or a sect dominates a society, then the dominant system becomes a dictatorship. However, a class or a tribal coalition is preferable to a party coalition since societies originally consisted of tribal communities. One seldom finds a group of people who do not belong to a tribe, and all people belong to a specific class. But no party or parties embrace all of the people, and therefore the party or party coalition represents a minority compared to the masses outside their membership. Under genuine democracy, there can be no justification for any one class to subdue other classes for its interests. Similarly, no party, tribe or sect can crush others for their own interests.

To allow such actions abandons the logic of democracy and justifies resort to the use of force. Such policies of suppression are dictatorial because they are not in the interest of the whole society, which consists of more than one class, tribe or sect, or the members of one party. There is no justification for such actions, though the dictatorial argument is that society actually consists of numerous segments, one of which must undertake the liquidation of others in order to remain solely in power. This exercise is not, accordingly, in the interests of the whole society but, rather, in the interests of a specific class, tribe, sect, party, or those who claim to speak for the society. Such an act is basically aimed at the member of the society who does not belong to the party, class, tribe or sect which carries out the liquidation.

A society torn apart by party feud is similar to one which is torn apart by tribal or sectarian conflicts.

A party that is formed in the name of a class inevitably becomes a substitute for that class and continues in the process of spontaneous transformation until it becomes hostile to the class that it replaces.

Any class which inherits a society also inherits its characteristics. If the working class, for example, subdues all other classes of a particular society, it then becomes its only heir and forms its material and social base. The heir acquires the traits of those from whom it inherits, though this may not be evident all at once. With the passage of time, characteristics of the other eliminated classes will emerge within the ranks of the working class itself. The members of the new society will assume the attitudes and perspectives appropriate to their newly evolved characteristics. Thus, the working class will develop a separate society possessing all of the contradictions of the old society. In the first stage, the material standard and importance of the members become unequal. Thereafter, groups emerge which automatically become classes that are the same as the classes that were eliminated. Thus, the struggle for domination of the society begins again. Each group of people, each faction, and each new class will all vie to become the instrument of government.

Being social in nature, the material base of any society is changeable. The instrument of government of this material base may be sustained for some time, but it will eventual become obsolete as new material and social standards evolve to form a new material base. Any society which undergoes a class conflict may at one time have been a one-class society but, through evolution, inevitably becomes a multi-class society.

The class that expropriates and acquires the possession of others to maintain power for itself will soon find that, through evolution, it will be itself subject to change as though it were the society as a whole.

In summary, all attempts at unifying the material base of a society in order to solve the problem of government, or at putting an end to the struggle in favour of a party, class, sect or tribe have failed. All endeavours aimed at appeasing the masses through the election of representatives or through parliaments have equally failed. To continue such practices would be a waste of time and a mockery of the people.

PLEBISCITES

Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Those who vote “yes” or “no” do not, in fact, express their free will but, rather, are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as they are not allowed to say more than “yes” or “no”. Such a system is oppressive and tyrannical. Those who vote “no” should express their reasons and why they did not say “yes”, and those who say “yes” should verify such agreement and why they did not vote “no”. Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their “yes” or “no” vote.

What then, is the path to be taken by humanity in order to conclusively rid itself of the elements of dictatorship and tyranny?

The intricate problem in the case of democracy is reflected in the nature of the instrument of government, which is demonstrated by conflicts of classes, parties and individuals. The elections and plebiscites were invented to cover the failure of these unsuccessful experiments to solve this problem. The solution lies in finding an instrument of government other than those which are subject to conflict and which represent only one faction of society; that is to say, an instrument of government which is not a party class, sect or a tribe, but an instrument of government which is the people as a whole. In other words, we seek an instrument of government which neither represents the people nor speaks in their name.

There can be no representation in lieu of the people and representation is fraud. If such an instrument can be found, then the problem is solved and true popular democracy is realized. Thus, humankind would have terminated the eras of tyranny and dictatorships, and replaced them with the authority of the people.

THE GREEN BOOK presents the ultimate solution to the problem of the instrument of government, and indicates for the masses the path upon which they can advance from the age of dictatorship to that of genuine democracy.

This new theory is based on the authority of the people, without representation or deputation. It achieves direct democracy in an orderly and effective form. It is superior to the older attempts at direct democracy which were impractical because they lacked popular organizations at base levels.

POPULAR CONFERENCES AND PEOPLE’S COMMITTEES

Popular Conferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, is undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of government in the world today will remain undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferences are the end of the journey of the masses in quest of democracy.

Popular Conferences and People’s Committees are the fruition of the people’s struggle for democracy. Popular Conferences and People’s Committees are not creations of the imagination; they are the product of thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy.

Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputably the ideal method of government. Because it is impossible to gather all people, however small the population, in one place so that they can discuss, discern and decide policies, nations departed from direct democracy, which became an utopian idea detached from reality. It was replaced by various theories of government, such as representative councils, party-coalitions and plebiscites, all of which isolated the masses and prevented them from managing their political affairs.

These instruments of government – the individual, the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party struggling to achieve power have plundered the sovereignty of the masses and monopolized politics and authority for themselves.

THE GREEN BOOK guides the masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct democracy. No two intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal, but until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised. The Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us with a practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of democracy in the world will finally be solved. All that is left before the masses now is the struggle to eliminate all prevailing forms of dictatorial governments, be they parliament, sect, tribe, class, one-party system, two-party system or multi-party system, which falsely call themselves democracies.

True democracy has but one method and one theory. The dissimilarity and diversity of the systems claiming to be democratic do, in fact, provide evidence that they are not so. Authority of the people has but one face which can only be realized through Popular Conferences and People’s Committees. There can be no democracy without Popular Conferences and Committees everywhere.

First, the people are divided into Basic Popular Conferences. Each Basic Popular Conference chooses its secretariat. The secretariats of all Popular Conferences together form Non-Basic Popular Conferences. Subsequently, the masses of the Basic Popular Conferences select administrative People’s Committees to replace government administration. All public institutions are run by People’s Committees which will be accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences which dictate the policy and supervise its execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision become the people’s and the outdated definition of democracy – democracy is the supervision of the government by the people – becomes obsolete. It will be replaced by the true definition: Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people.

All citizens who are members of these Popular Conferences belong, vocationally and functionally, to various sectors and have, therefore, to form themselves into their own professional Popular Conferences in addition to being, by virtue of citizenship, members of the Basic Popular Conferences or People’s Committees. Subjects dealt with by the Popular Conferences and People’s Committees will eventually take their final shape in the General People’s Congress, which brings together the Secretariats of the Popular Conferences and People’s Committees. Resolutions of the General People’s Congress, which meets annually or periodically, are passed on to the Popular Conferences and People’s Committees, which undertake the execution of those resolutions through the responsible committees, which are, in turn, accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences.

The General People’s Congress is not a gathering of persons or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a gathering of the Popular Conferences and People’s Committees.

Thus, the problem of the instrument of government is naturally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The people become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the world is conclusively solved.

THE LAW OF SOCIETY

Law represents the other problem, parallel to that of the instrument of government, which has not been resolved. Although it was dealt with in different periods of history, the problem still persists today.

For a committee or an assembly to be empowered to draft the law of society is both invalid and undemocratic. It is also invalid and undemocratic for the law of society to be abrogated or amended by individual, a committee, or an assembly.

What then is the law of society? Who drafts it and what is its relevance to democracy?

The natural law of any society is grounded in either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outside these two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot be considered the law of society. A constitution is fundamentally a (man-made) positive law, and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification.

The problem of freedom in the modern age is that constitutions have become the law of societies. These constitutions are based solely on the premises of the instruments of dictatorial rule prevailing in the world today, ranging from the individual to the party. Proof of this are the differences existing in various constitutions, although human freedom is one and the same. The reason for the differences is the variation in the assumptions and values implicit in diverse instruments of government. This is how freedom becomes vulnerable under contemporary forms of government.

The method by which a specific modality of government seeks to dominate the people is contained in the constitution. The people are compelled to accept it by virtue of the laws derived from that constitution, which is itself the product of the tendencies within particular instruments of governments.

The laws of the dictatorial instruments of government have replaced the natural laws, i.e., positive law has replaced natural law. Consequently, ethical standards have become confused. The human being is essentially, physically and emotionally, the same everywhere. Because of this fact, natural laws are applicable to all. However, constitutions as conventional laws do not perceive human beings equally. This view has no justification, except for the fact that it reflects the will of the instrument of government, be it an individual, an assembly, a class or a party. That is why constitutions change when an alteration in the instruments of government takes place, indicating that a constitution is not natural law but reflects the drive of the instrument of government to serve its own purpose.

The abrogation of natural laws from human societies and their replacement by conventional laws is the fundamental danger that threatens freedom. Any ruling system must be made subservient to natural laws, not the reverse.

The fundamental law of society must not be subject to historical drafting or composition. Its importance lies in being the decisive criterion in light of which truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and individual rights and duties can be judged. Freedom is threatened unless society adheres to a sacred law with established rules that are not subject to alteration or change by any instrument of government. It is, rather, the responsibility of the instrument of government to adhere to the laws of society. Unfortunately, people the world over are currently ruled by manmade laws that can be changed or abrogated, depending upon the struggle for power among competing forms of government.

Conducting plebiscites on constitutions is often insufficient. Plebiscites are essentially a counterfeit of democracy since a “yes” or “no” is the only option. Moreover, under man-made law, people are compelled to vote on these plebiscites. Conducting a plebiscite on a constitution does not necessarily make the constitution the law of society. In other words, the status of a constitution will not be altered by a plebiscite; it will remain no more than the subject of a plebiscite.

The law of society is an eternal human heritage that does not belong only to the living. Therefore, drafting a constitution or conducting a plebiscite on it is a mockery.

The catalogues of man-made laws emanating from man-made constitutions are fraught with physical penalties directed against human beings, while tradition contains few such measures. Tradition lays down moral, non-physical penalties that conform to the intrinsic nature of humanity. Religion contains tradition and absorbs it; and tradition is a manifestation of the natural life of people. Its teachings comprise basic social guidelines and answers to the fundamental questions of existence.

Most physical penalties are deferred to a future judgment. This is the most appropriate law affording due respect to the human being. Religion does not provide for prompt penalties, save in certain compelling instances necessary to the well-being of society.

Religion contains tradition, and tradition is an expression of the natural life of the people. Therefore, religion is an affirmation of natural laws which are discerned therein. Laws which are not premised on religion and tradition are merely an invention by man to be used against his fellow man. Consequently, such laws are invalid because they do not emanate from the natural source of tradition and religion.

WHO SUPERVISES THE CONDUCT OF SOCIETY?

The question arises: who has the right to supervise society, and to point out deviations that may occur from the laws of society? Democratically, no one group can claim this right on behalf of society. Therefore, society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial for any individual or group to claim the right of the supervision of the laws of the society, which is, democratically, the responsibility of the society as a whole. This can be arrived at through the democratic instrument of government that results from the organization of the society itself into Basic Popular Conferences, and through the government of these people through People’s Committees and the General People’s Congress – the national congress – where Secretariats of the Popular Conferences and the People’s Committees convene. In accordance with this theory, the people become the instrument of government and, in turn, become their own supervisors. Society thus secures self-supervision over its laws.

HOW CAN SOCIETY REDIRECT ITS COURSE WHEN DEVIATIONS FROM ITS LAWS OCCUR?

If the instrument of government is dictatorial, as is the case in the world’s political systems today, society’s awareness of deviation from its laws is expressed only through violence to redirect its course, i.e., revolution against the instrument of government. Violence and revolution, even though they reflect the sentiments of society regarding deviation, do not constitute an exercise in which the whole of society takes part. Rather, violence and revolution are carried out by those who have the capability and courage to take the initiative and proclaim the will of society. However, this unilateral approach is dictatorial because the revolutionary initiative in itself provides the opportunity for a new instrument of government representing the people to arise. This means that the governing structure remains dictatorial. In addition, violence and effecting change by force are both undemocratic, even though they take place as a reaction against an undemocratic prior condition. The society that revolves around this concept is backward. What, then, is the solution?

The solution lies in the people being themselves the instrument of government whose authority is derived from Basic Popular Conferences and the General People’s Congress; in eliminating government administration and replacing it by People’s Committees; and finally, in the General People’s Congress becoming a truly national convention where Basic Popular Conferences and People’s Committees convene.

In such a system, if deviation takes place, it is then rectified by a total democratic revision, and not through the use of force. The process here is not a voluntary option for social change and treatment of social ills. It is, rather, an inevitable result of the nature of this democratic system because, in such a case, there is no outside group who can be held responsible for such deviation or against whom violence can be directed.

THE PRESS

An individual has the right to express himself or herself even if he or she behaves irrationally to demonstrate his or her insanity. Corporate bodies too have the right to express their corporate identity. The former represent only themselves and the latter represent those who share their corporate identity. Since society consists of private individuals and corporate bodies, the expression, for example, by an individual of his or her insanity does not mean that the other members of society are insane. Such expression reflects only in the individual’s character. Likewise, corporate expression reflects only the interest or view of those making up the corporate body. For instance, a tobacco company, despite the fact that what it produces is harmful to health, expresses the interests of those who make up the company.

The press is a means of expression for society: it is not a means of expression for private individuals or corporate bodies. Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not belong to either one of them.

A newspaper owned by any individual is his or her own, and expresses only his or her point of view. Any claim that a newspaper represents public opinion is groundless because it actually expresses the viewpoint of that private individual. Democratically, private individuals should not be permitted to own any public means of publication or information. However, they have the right to express themselves by any means, even irrationally, to prove their insanity. Any journal issued by a professional sector, for example, is only a means of expression of that particular social group. It presents their own points of view and not that of the general public. This applies to all other corporate and private individuals in society.

The democratic press is that which is issued by a People’s Committee, comprising all the groups of society. Only in this case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other information medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and representing all its groups.

If medical professionals issue a journal, it must be purely medical. Similarly, this applies to other groups. Private individuals have the right to express only their own, and not anyone else’s opinions.

What is known as the problem of the freedom of the press in the world will be radically and democratically solved. Because it is by-product of the problem of democracy generally, the problem of freedom of the press cannot be solved independently of that of democracy in society as a whole. Therefore, the only solution to the persistent problem of democracy is through The Third Universal Theory.

According to this theory, the democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on Basic Popular Conferences and People’s Committees which convene in a General People’s Congress. This is absolutely the only form of genuine democratic society.

In summary, the era of the masses, which follows the age of the republics, excites the feelings and dazzles the eyes. But even though the vision of this era denotes genuine freedom of the masses and their happy emancipation from the bonds of external authoritarian structures, it warns also of the dangers of a period of chaos and demagoguery, and the threat of a return to the authority of the individual, the sect and party, instead of the authority of the people.

Theoretically, this is genuine democracy but, realistically, the strong always rules, i.e., the stronger party in the society is the one that rules.

by Andy Sambidge, arabbusiness.com
Japanese construction companies are facing “serious debt problems” amid issues with being paid for work done in Dubai, a top ranking official has said.

Seiichi Otsuka, the Japanese consul general in Dubai, claimed firms are still owed billions of dollars on projects that include the Dubai Metro and Palm Island, UAE daily The National reported on Sunday.

Japanese builders have played a major role in Dubai’s construction boom, spearheading work on the metro and other key projects in the emirate.

“Some Japanese construction companies are facing very serious debt problems,” Otsuka told the paper. “Some companies engaged with the construction of the Metro are facing some payment issues.”

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), the lead company for the metro contract, are among those firms affected by non-payment on contracts, the paper added.

“MHI executed the construction of the Dubai Metro and some other contracts and we are still awaiting payment,” said Koji Okamoto, the general manager of the Middle East office of MHI in Dubai. The company has contracts in the Middle East valued at $150bn.

The Japanese government has not discussed the payment issues with the Dubai Government, nor has it intervened with financial assistance to those companies affected, Otsuka said.

“We are in a position to push both sides to make an amicable solution,” he said.

Otsuka told the paper it was difficult to put a figure on the outstanding debt as some payment was due shortly.

Last month, it was reported that some UK contractors were turning down invitations to chase work in Dubai because of continuing doubts over whether they will be paid on time.

According to Nelson Ogunshakin, the chief executive of the UK Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE), a large number of UK firms significant number of UK firms are still owed money by struggling developers in the emirate.

In July, the UK government reiterated its call for contractors to be paid by Dubai developers – and said it was “continuing to monitor the situation”.

A Palestinian demonstrator gestures atop the separation barrier, moments after knocking down a segment of the concrete wall, during a protest against the barrier in the West Bank village of Nilin, near Ramallah, Friday, Nov. 6, 2009. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday he does not want to run for another term in the January elections, blaming a stalemate in Mideast peace talks on Israel and the United States. (AP Photo/Bernat Armangue)

==

Officials in the West Bank told The Daily Telegraph that the most important Palestinian decision making bodies were preparing to meet to discuss a proposal to dissolve the Palestinian Authority itself.

TROISIEME REPRISE DE LA REUNION DES CHEFS DE FILES DES MOUVANCES POLITIQUES
La réunion d’Addis-Abeba est un tournant décisif pour la résolution de la crise politique à Madagascar.

La mouvance Andry RAJOELINA est plus que jamais déterminée à poursuivre toutes les démarches pour une issue de crise au nom de l’intérêt supérieur de la Nation.

Selon les accords du 06 octobre 2009 et en vertu du principe de non remise en cause des acquis, l’objectif de cette réunion est de continuer la mise en œuvre de la Charte de Maputo.

Nous, la mouvance Andry RAJOELINA exigeons que soient respectés:

• Le caractère inviolable de la Charte de Maputo
• Le respect de la Charte des valeurs
• Le plein respect des accords du 06 Octobre à Antananarivo.

Tous les sujets qui remettent en cause les acquis sont tout simplement inacceptables.

Ainsi, pour éviter une perte de temps inutile, nous déclarons ne pas pouvoir poursuivre les discussions jusqu’à la reprise d’un vrai débat lequel devait porter essentiellement sur les répartitions logiques, cohérentes des postes des institutions de la Transition.

Addis Abeba, 05 novembre 2009

TRINIDAD NEWSDAY – “This was the first time in my career that I came across so much liquid cocaine! I never see so much liquid cocaine,” acting Commissioner of Police James Philbert said as he reacted to the discovery of over $8 million of the illegal drug in the basement of a house in Phoenix Park, Couva, on Thursday.

The basement was converted into a cocaine lab where blocks of the narcotic were transformed into liquid which was then soaked in several items.

“But the most obscene thing seen, soaked in the liquid cocaine were pages from the Holy Bhagvad Gita and there were also starch bottles filled with the liquid cocaine,” Philbert added.

Speaking to reporters after a function on Thursday night to honour police officers who performed with merit during the Fifth Summit of the Americas at the San Fernando City Hall, Philbert said he led a team of officers to several areas in central Trinidad earlier that day after police received numerous complaints of suspicious activities taking place.

“The officers executed a search warrant on a Venezuelan national at a house in Phoenix Park, Couva, and we discovered in the basement a lab containing basins and three-quarter pigtail buckets of liquid cocaine. Also two large chunks of cocaine were found in a black plastic bag which was sealed with masking tape,” Philbert said.

“We also came across letters inviting certain persons to visit overseas. I believe the women were involved in the packing and transporting of the cocaine,” Philbert said as he referred to two women who were among five persons arrested.

Friday in Phoenix Park, Couva resident expressed shock over the cocaine bust. “We never knew there was such an operation going on right under our noses,” a resident said. “This is a real shock.”

“The people from that house moved in about three months ago and all they would do is say a quick hello and go about their business. They never meddled with anyone and kept to themselves,” a resident said.

Residents said the house where the bust took place was rented out and the owner of the property does not live in the area. “While he does not live in the area, we know the owner from small. He is a decent fellow and it is the tenants who did wrong,” the resident said.

“Next thing we see police moving out with a pigtail bucket, a big black bag and a large bottle. The police officers were in the house for a few hours,” a resident said.

According to a Patamona legend, Kaieteur Falls was named for Chief Kai who acted to save his people by paddling over the falls in an act of self-sacrifice to Makonaima, the great spirit.

Sources say that at one point during the tour around The Falls, Bulkhan was seen to be lagging behind the other tourists, and that it was at this point that she was seen to make a sudden dash towards the edge of the precipice, screaming at the top of her voice as she plunged into the abyss below, leaving her friend and the other passengers in shock and disbelief. [Guyana Chronicle]

Barefoot Lady by Aliya Bulkan

Hauntingly lovely, barefoot lady
wild raven hair, contorted by
the galloping horses of the wind
Mr. Love and Mrs. Faith
drowning in the icy pools
of her eyes
Simmering nimbus in indigo pot
Gelid waters lick her feet
and tried to erase the memory
of her footprints
The gash in her face
slowly widens, and releases
her birds of song
once trapped, in the cage of her mind
With each flutter of wings
forbidden thoughts
Thus flutter of heart
Damn you, say the crunch
of broken glass
that was once sand
Knives, once fingernails
Stain porcelain
with streaks of scarlet and tortured pools
weep bloody tears
Celestial canvas screams from labour pains
finally pushes out thunder
And she is sucked to the bottom of the earth.

April Castro And Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writers – 5 mins ago

FORT HOOD, Texas – A military mental health doctor facing deployment overseas opened fire at the Fort Hood … that killed 11 other people and left 31 wounded. Authorities killed the gunman, and the violence was believed to be the worst mass shooting in history at a U.S. military base.

The shooting began around 1:30 p.m., when shots were fired at the base’s Soldier Readiness Center, where soldiers who are about to be deployed or who are returning undergo medical screening, said Lt. Gen. Bob Cone at Fort Hood.

President Barack Obama called the shooting “a horrific outburst of violence.” He said it is a tragedy to lose a soldier overseas and even more horrifying when they come under fire at an Army base on American soil.

“We will make sure that we get answers to every single question about this horrible incident,” the commander in chief said in Washington. “We are going to stay on this.”

A law enforcement official identified the shooting suspect as Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said the Army major was about to deploy overseas, though it was unclear if he was headed to Iraq or Afghanistan and when he was scheduled to leave. Hutchison said she was told about the upcoming deployment by generals based at Fort Hood.

Retired Army Col. Terry Lee told Fox News that he worked with Hasan, who had hoped Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment.

Military officials say Hasan, 39, was a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before being transferred to the Texas base in July. The officials, who had access to Hasan’s military record, said he received a poor performance evaluation while at Walter Reed.

The Virginia-born soldier was single with no children. He graduated from Virginia Tech, where he was a member of the ROTC and earned a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry in 1997. He received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001. At Walter Reed, he did his internship, residency and a fellowship.

Officials were investigating whether Hasan was his birth name or if he may have changed his name, possibly as part of a conversion to Islam. However, they were not certain of his religion.

The Soldier Readiness Center holds hundreds of people and is one of the most populated parts of the base, said Steve Moore, a spokesman for III Corps at Fort Hood. Nearby there are barracks and a food center where there are fast food chains. The center is part of the largest active duty armored post in the United States. Covering 339 square miles, the post halfway between Austin and Waco was home to about 52,000 troops as of earlier this year.

A graduation ceremony for soldiers who finished college courses while deployed was going on nearby at the time of the shooting, said Sgt. Rebekah Lampman, a Fort Hood spokeswoman.

Greg Schanepp, Carter’s regional director in Texas, was at Fort Hood, said John Stone, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. John Carter, whose district includes the Army post. Schanepp was at a graduation ceremony when a soldier who had been shot in the back came running toward him and alerted him of the shooting, Stone said. The soldier told Schanepp not to go in the direction of the shooter, he said.

Soldiers don’t carry weapons with them unless they’re doing training exercises, said Spc. Jerry Richard, 27, who works at the building where the shooting happened — though he was not on post at the time.

“Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can’t even defend yourself,” he said.

Two other soldiers taken into custody following the deadly rampage have been released, Fort Hood spokesman Christopher Haug said. “They’re not believed to be involved in the incident,” Haug said. He said a third person was in custody, however.

The wounded were dispersed among hospitals in central Texas, Cone said.

Lisa Pfund of Random Lake, Wis., says her daughter, 19-year-old Amber Bahr, was shot in the stomach but was in stable condition. “We know nothing, just that she was shot in the belly,” Pfund told The Associated Press. She couldn’t provide more details and only spoke with emergency personnel.

Pfund said Bahr joined the reserves when she was 17 to earn money for school and loved being in the military even though none of her friends were interested in joining the Army.

A Fort Hood spokesman said he could not immediately confirm any identities of the injured.

“I ask that all of you keep these families and these individuals in your prayers today,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry said.

The shootings on the Texas military base stirred memories of other recent mass shootings in the United States, including 13 dead at a New York immigrant center in April, 10 killed during a gunman’s rampage across Alabama in March and 32 killed in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history at Virginia Tech in 2007.

Around the country, some bases stepped up security precautions, but no others were locked down.

___

Associated Press Writers Pam Hess, Anne Gearan, Lara Jakes, Suzanne Gamboa and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington, D.C., Jay Root in Temple, Linda Stewart Ball, Anabelle Garay and Andre Coe in Dallas and Colin Fly in Milwaukee and the Associated Press News Research Center contributed to this report. Barrett reported from Washington, D.C.

someone is apparently sending a message to the police that this time around there will be live rounds coming back the other way.
Guyana’s premier torture house [brickdam police station], a kangaroo court deeds registry below the kangaroo court on avenue of the republic and a school [richard ishmael secondary] were attacked today. more details to follow
east ruimveldt police station was apparently lit up with gun fire as well
fat belly henry the sexual predator will hold a press conference later

Statement by the Prime Minister on Australia and New Zealand’s interference with Fiji’s Judiciary

Nov 3, 2009, 19:27 Email this page

Printer friendly page

Commodore Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama

Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, National Planning, Public Service, Peoples’ Charter for Change and Progress, Information, Sugar, Indigenous Affairs and Multi-Ethnic Affairs and Provincial Development

1800 Hours

Ladies and Gentlemen

The Chief Justice has already highlighted the interference into our Judiciary, the Fijian Judiciary by the governments of Australia and New Zealand

It is a matter of great shame that Madame Justice Anjala Wati a respected member of our High Court bench was harassed and humiliated by the New Zealand High Commission in Fiji when she applied for a visa on medical grounds to take her baby son to New Zealand.

In fact had the Attorney General not highlighted the matter in the media she would not have been granted a visa.

In addition to this shameful incident the Sri Lankan judges who have been appointed to serve in the Fijian judiciary were told that they would not be able to travel through and to Australia because they had taken these positions.

Again when this matter was highlighted in the media by the Chief Justice there was frenzied denial that visas had been refused by the Australian government.

However, we now know that one of these Sri Lankan judges had the foresight to tape the conversation in which she was informed by the Australian official in Colombo that travel sanctions would apply because she had taken the position in the Fijian judiciary.

The culmination of these incidents displays a consolidated effort to attack Fiji’s independent judiciary. It also shows that the Australian and New Zealand Governments have been dishonest and untruthful over the matter of travel ban for judges.

In the circumstances it is not surprising that the Chief justice took the rather unusual step of holding a press conference on Sunday 1st November.

This morning he had a meeting with me.

In that meeting the Chief Justice reiterated his position that the interference by Australian and New Zealand governments in our judiciary undermines the judiciary.

The Chief Justice told me that this policy of the Australian and New Zealand governments stops him from nominating credible, well qualified individuals to serve on the Bench.

He also highlighted the fact that such interference is unheard of in particular in the absence of evidence that members of the judiciary are breaching any laws, either internationally or in Fiji.

If anything, the brave men and women who have joined our judiciary are contributing to the enforcement of the rule of law. They have shown fortitude and a commitment to the law.

Ladies and Gentlemen, following the meeting with the Chief Justice, given the seriousness of the matter at hand, I visited His Excellency the Vice President, who will be sworn in on Thursday as our 4th President.

I briefed the Vice President of my meeting with the Chief Justice.

We discussed the impact of the Australian and New Zealand governments’ position in relation to members of our Judiciary.

We discussed the importance of our national interest to maintain an independent Judiciary with credible and well qualified judicial officers.

We also discussed and agreed that the mandate given to my Government by the former President which includes a reformist and modernizing agenda, as supplemented by the People’s Charter for Change, must be implemented.

Indeed, we agreed that we cannot be deterred from this path.

We also discussed that we must engage with the international community and inform them, and indeed, partner with them to take Fiji forward.

We discussed the need to have an equitable and just society based on common and equal citizenry and an economy which is liberalized, investor friendly and which improves the living standards of all Fijians.

I am this evening holding this press conference to inform the public of Fiji about these events since it has an enormous impact on our country, on all our people as it affects our day to day living.

I am, to be candid, baffled by the position taken by the Australian and New Zealand governments.

On one hand they are our largest trading partners; they are members of the Pacific Islands Forum; 60% of our tourists come from these countries and their numbers are growing on a daily basis; majority of our people who have migrated have gone to these countries; we have studied, worked and holidayed the most in these countries.

They claim to be our friends yet on the other hand they fail to recognize the efforts that we are making in being a good international citizen; they fail to understand that we are creating a country that will be based on equal and common citizenry, a country of modern laws, a country which will have true democracy.

Only today Cabinet approved a new Crimes Decree, a new Criminal Procedure Decree and a new Sentencing and Penalties Decree that will make us compliant with CEDAW, with international standards on human trafficking and with the Rome Statute.

We have ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC); we have introduced new laws and strengthened existing laws in relation to corruption and bribery; we have introduced Domestic Violence laws; given protection to our children, paving the way for compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We have consistently said that we want to engage with our neighbours and indeed all our international and multi-lateral partners. We have also left the door open for bi-lateral engagements.

My focus is not disengagement rather it is engagement. My focus is on the future not the past.

My focus is to deal with ills of the past to create a better future.

My focus means that in my engagements I am upfront, candid and honest.

That is why I cannot understand why Australia and New Zealand are engaged in a dishonest and untruthful strategy to undermine our judiciary, our independent institutions and our economy.

I can accept their ban on me and my senior officers given the personalization of matters. But why punish those individuals both Fijians and non-Fijians who join the Judiciary?; those Fijians from the private sector who want to contribute to a better, progressive and modern Fiji by way of joining Boards of Statutory Organizations – even the Fiji National Provident Fund is targeted.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not only a short sighted policy but it constitutes an attempt to sabotage national building, economy strengthening and the modernizing efforts.

When the Rudd and Key Governments came to power, I believed that we would encounter enlightened thinking and policies based on friendship and understanding. Unfortunately, it has not happened.

Instead all we have had is their heads of missions refusing to engage with government and engaging only with those Fijians who have a political interest in holding Fiji back.

They mis-inform Canberra and Wellington and wage a negative campaign against the Government and people of Fiji.

By contrast the ordinary men and women and companies of Australia and New Zealand continue to come to our shores, they continue to do business in Fiji, and they continue to give us their good wishes.

My message to them is – you are most welcome, we value your investment, your visit and your best wishes.

We are a safe destination and the people of Fiji are the most hospitable in the world.

We are also proud of our country and our sovereignty and we believe in living in dignity. Therefore, we should ensure that our sovereignty, our Judiciary and key institutions are allowed to function with independence and integrity.

It is my Government’s duty to ensure that no foreign Government should interfere with such judicial independence and integrity. We must always protect and be proud our sovereignty.

I wish to declare that my Government fully supports the Chief Justice. We will always ensure that his independence and that of his judges remains unassailable.

It is for these reasons that I have told the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue communications to the Australian and New Zealand Governments that their respective heads of missions are to be recalled within 24 hours.

I have also informed them that our High Commissioner in Australia is to be recalled, with immediate effect.

Vinaka Vakalevu.

The following is the full text of the statement issued last night by Mr. McCoy:

“Information about the revocation of my US visa was first brought to my attention by the Stabroek news this evening (November 3, 2009). This scenario represents gross unethical behaviour on the part of the US authorities who choose to divulge such information to Stabroek news before doing so to me. I have had no correspondence thus far indicating this decision and it is through the media I was made aware of the action of the US authorities.

Further to that, the revocation is a clear demonstration of their unfair and imbalance approach as the US authorities has taken this course of action on the basis of a mere allegation, while it provides protection in the US for confessed drug killer Selwyn Vaughn.

It is useful to note that my US visa was always the property of the US who at anytime reserves the right to determine its cancellation or withdrawal. I am comforted by the fact that my revocation does not stand alone on a list and I hope the media would use the same level of aggression and enthusiasm to find out why the publisher of Kaieteur news had his visa revoked.”

guyana's 1st lady & child molester kwame mccoy standin behind the behin of dr frank anthony

apparently the visa of this child molester has been revoked for buggering young boys.

not bad uncle sam, not bad at all…and good job 009 avinash

November 3, 2009
Transcript: Hamid Karzai’s Acceptance Speech
A rough translation by The New York Times of Afhgan President Hamid Karzai’s acceptance speech.

(In Dari):

Dear Media welcome. Yesterday the Independent election commission of Afghanistan announced me and my deputies, first vice president Marshal Fahim Khan, and second vice president Khalili as winners of the Afghanistan election. We are thanking them for their announcement. And as we accepted and confirmed their decision for the election to go to the second round, and we accept and confirm this decision as an Afghanistan constitutional entity. The people Afghanistan participated with patience and courage in the election and legalization process, they stood up with tolerance, patience, believe on their decision as determining the country’s destiny. They tolerate problems and sacrifice. The real winner is the people of Afghanistan. I am congratulating the people of Afghanistan. I am remembering our security forces, police, army, N.D.S., all I.E.C. workers

And our civilian people, who have been martyred, sacrificed, and no doubt their memory were left with golden line in the history. I am thanking the international forces, the help of international community and United Nations.

We were hopeful; it would be better for our country, our democracy process, and us if our brother Dr. Abdullah participate in the election up end of it. And we conduct the second round of the election. It was ideal to us. However, dose not happened. Any way we are happy that the constitution been respected and the constitutional organs proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. I am thanking all respectful Candidates participated in the election. As I said before some of the candidates had broad and overall rallies. Dr. Abdullah was one of the most prominent in the rallies. His rallies were much better then my rallies, he had traveled to many provinces of Afghanistan and tried a lot. I am congratulating him for his overall rallies, which brought him 30 percents votes in the first round of the election. I am also congratulating Dr. Ramazan Bashardost for his great election rallies, he draw more then half a million votes form the people of Afghanistan, and Dr. Ashraf Ghani and Yasini and others.

Each single vote cast in the afghan election to the candidates was the winning vote for Afghanistan, and was for Afghanistan, if it was for me or to other respectful Candidates. Those votes were the votes of Afghanistan people and were for Afghanistan’s winning. Once more I am congratulating the people of Afghanistan for going to the polling centers in a difficult day in spit of attacks and other problems. It was the people of Afghanistan who succeeded our election. It was the people of Afghanistan who have proved their faith on this democratic process and new style of life. When the election was finished, results have been announced, and a winner being chosen, the winner is not an individual, or his two deputies or his colleagues, but in fact the winners are the Afghanistan nation and all those Candidates who participated in the process.

Like always my dear brother and sister our government is a national partnership government. All Afghans who have the abilities want to, and wish to would be in my government. Our government would be the mirror of Afghanistan, the mirror that all afghan people can see themselves in it. The mirror in which work efficiency, work maturity and serving to the people is clearly visible. So today I want to announce that no body should see him away from my government, and all of us should be contributors and inside the government of Afghanistan. Our competition during the election was only for the election, our competition was to best serve the people of Afghanistan, and everybody tried to prove to the people of Afghanistan that we are good servants. Now I am hopeful that, those who would be in the government and those who would be in the legal oppositions if there were any, the competition should be for the prosperity and welfare of the people of Afghanistan.

(In Pashto):

Afghanistan, as always pride on its nationality and Afghanistan alone based on unity in which any progress and prosperity that the people of Afghanistan expect can be approached. I am repeating once again that our government, and the future of Afghanistan should be a symbol of national unity. And alone Afghanistan will emerge towards peace, progress, and stability by the help of Afghanistan people.

Hoping that in the future people of Afghanistan according to its constitution reach to power, and for more transparent and governing, people have to take advantages of free and democratic election in the future and participate keenly and select their own senators, Ministers, provincial council members and districts representatives through your votes.

We will be strong in our beliefs and go ahead with strong belief..

Our future government will have a basic differences, Afghanistan has been vilified for an administrative issue [election fraud], we will do our utmost to try in any way, in any means to remove this mark from our reputation.

And an effort should be made to prove to the people of Afghanistan and world that Afghans are honest and successful in their struggles.

We will try as soon as possible to bring peace to this soil, for ultimate peace in all over Afghanistan.

And ask our Taliban brothers and others to return to embrace of their own land, in this way we will demand help of international community. In the region, with neighboring countries have good and sincere ties and will strengthen more, also with world and particularly with America, a strategic relationship will be more advanced. It will be possible when all Afghans with one voice and hand are integrated, however, our government will be the government of unity and representatives of all Afghans. National unity will be the aim of this government.

At the end, once again we are accepting and confirming the decision of the independent election commission. May Allah guide Afghanistan on the path in which people are expecting and governing, and may Allah prolong the governing process of people in Afghanistan, and so the people of Afghanistan choose their leaders through their own wish and vote in a very democratic way also in the future; no by other means, and not by force. And may Allah give power to the government to serve people well. And meet their desires and wishes of the people, may Allah bring prosperity, unity and pose its flag all over the world. And long live our historical, national freedom forever.

(In English):

Afghanistan has its difficulties. Afghanistan is emerging from 30 years of war, and stepping forward towards a more institutional, legal order while still struggling against terrorism and the menaces that affect us all. We are aware of the difficulties of our governance and the environment in which we live. We’ll keep trying to do our best to address the questions that we have facing Afghanistan and to make sure that the wishes of the Afghan people come true towards an effective, clean government, legally bound and also at the same time to make sure that the tax payers money coming to us from your countries is spent wisely and rightly by us the Afghan government but also by the donors themselves.

Al Jazeera question:

The call for peace and security in Afghanistan is one of the main desires of the Afghan people and one of our main national objectives, therefore this was also my main and first call, and will continue to be so as we move into the next five years and as we begin our new government, we will be reinforcing, adding to our efforts in order to bring all those Afghans who for one or other reason have gone away from their country and are taking orders against their country to return, and this will be done both in consequence of national consultation and international consultation and … (inaudible)

On the government of the future it will be a government of unity, it will be a government for all the Afghan people, as a matter of fact I don’t have any opposition, and I don’t have any personality or any group as my opposition and I don’t want to be opposed to anybody. That’s why I don’t have a political party. So my government will be for all Afghans and all those who want to work with me are most welcomes, whether they opposed me in the election of whether they supported me in the election. All Afghans who want to work and who are willing to work and who are in obedience of the Afghan laws and constitution are welcome.