World Health Organization warns about rise in cancer cases due to Fukushima radiation

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRUARY 28, 2013

The World Health Organization (WHO) warned on Thursday that there is an increased risk of some types of cancer among Japanese who were most affected by the Fukushima nuclear accident that took place in March 2011. Since exposure after the disaster has been continuous, the effects of the radiation have been wide spread not only in Japan, but the rest of the world.

The UN agency has published a report put together by international experts on the health risks linked to the Fukushima tragedy caused by the earthquake and tsunami that hit the region in Japan on March 11, 2011.

These experts have concluded that for the general population, both in Japan and in the rest of the world, in general, the risk of higher rates of cancer should be low, but some kinds of cancer may experience higher rates as a result of the exposure, especially in the weeks after the explosion at the nuclear plant. But the damage is not concentrated to people who live in Japan or the rest of the world.

Nuclear material has leaked into the ground and to the sea, which makes much if not all of the seafood and fish captured near that side of the Japanese coast unfit for consumption.

The report is clear that “the estimated risk for some specific cancers in certain strata of the population of Fukushima has increased”, hence the need to have “long-term continuous monitoring and medical examinations of these people.”

The Director of Public Health and Environment at the WHO, Maria Neira, explained that “the breakdown of the data on the basis of age, sex and proximity to the nuclear plant shows an increased risk of cancer for people living in most polluted areas. ”

“Out of them, even in the Fukushima prefecture, it is not anticipated to have increases in the incidence of cancer,” she explained. Thus, according to WHO figures, it is forecast that the population will experience a 4 percent increase of all cancers among women and children who were exposed, and overall a 6 percent increased risk of breast cancer. These figures are debated by other studies which conclude that the risk of cancer is much higher, even in areas far away from ground zero.

This population will also have a 70 percent greater chance of getting thyroid cancer – usually the risk of this cancer is 0.75 percent -. As for the men who were exposed to the nuclear accident while in their infancy, they will have a 7 percent increased risk of developing leukemia.

As for the workers of the emergency services who worked at the plant after the tragedy, it is estimated that “about two thirds” of them are at risk for cancer as likely as the rest of the population, while the remaining third have a higher risk. The one third found to be at a higher risk are those who worked closer to the disaster area.

Moreover, the report, which consists of 200 pages, notes that it is expected to have an increase in the number of abortions, stillbirths and other mental and physical problems that can affect newborns after the accident due to radiation.

The experts have also analyzed the psychosocial impact that the disaster could have on the health and welfare of the victims. In this regard, WHO has stressed that this aspect should not be ignored in the context of the overall response.

According to Neira, “it is necessary to carry out a long-term health monitoring of people at increased risk, and that these people need to be afforded the necessary medical monitoring and support services.”

“In addition to strengthening medical support services, environmental monitoring is required, including food and water, in order to reduce the potential radiation exposure in the future,” stated the director of the Food Safety at WHO, Angelika Tritscher.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

The 2000-Page Power Grab any Dictator Dreams About

In the words of the very same legislators who created the new financial bill, ‘No one will know until this is actually in place how it works’…, said Christopher Dodd, democrat from Connecticut.  The new bill gives sweeping powers to the president, whoever it is, to determine what is done with many aspects of American citizen’s lives.  “…it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” added Dodd.

WSJ

After more than 20 hours of continuous wrangling, Congressional Democrats and White House officials reached agreement on the

Lawmaker Christopher Dodd (D), next to senator Richard Shelby.

final shape of legislation that would transform financial regulation, avoiding last-minute defections among New York lawmakers that had threatened to upend the bill.

After months of uncertainty about how the U.S. would craft new rules, the agreement offers the clearest picture since the financial crisis of how markets and the government will interact for decades to come. The common thread: large financial companies are facing a tougher leash.

he bill is expected to have enough support to become law. Both chambers plan to vote next week. The margin in the House and Senate will likely be close because most Republicans are expected to oppose the measure.

If the bill passes, President Barack Obama is expected to sign the package into law by July 4. Thursday’s agreement also gives the president leverage going into a weekend summit of world leaders in Canada, where he will prod other nations to rewrite their rules.

“This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), a chief architect of the compromise.

In two important ways, the agreement is tougher on the banking industry than officials in the Treasury Department anticipated when they first drafted their version of the bill 12 months ago.

Lawmakers agreed to a provision known as the “Volcker” rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with their own funds. To win support from Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.), Democrats agreed to allow financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds.

The move could require some big banks to spin off divisions, known as proprietary-trading desks, which make bets with the firms’ money.

The bill also includes a provision, authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark), which would limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives. This provision almost derailed the bill following vehement objections from New York Democrats. Ms. Lincoln worked out a deal in the early hours of Friday morning that would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk.

Banks, however, would have to set up separately capitalized affiliates to trade derivatives in areas lawmakers perceived as riskier, including metals, energy swaps, and agriculture commodities, among other things.

A panel of 43 lawmakers spent two weeks reconciling differences between a bill that passed the House in December and the Senate in May. They concluded their negotiations along party lines at a little after 5 a.m. ET in a Capitol Hill conference room marked by tension, levity and exhaustion. Senior administration officials, including Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin, arrived late in the afternoon to try and quell the feud between the New York delegation and Ms. Lincoln.

Major components of the bill, including the derivatives provisions, were negotiated in the hallway of the Dirksen Senate Office Building as the clock neared midnight. At one point, after hearing of an offer from Senate Democrats, Rep. Melissa Bean (D., Ill.) exclaimed: “Are you flipping kidding me? Are you flipping kidding me?”

Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit.

“My guess is there are three unintended consequences on every page of this bill,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) said of the nearly 2,000-page bill.

The deal comes as the banking industry is still struggling to regain its footing. Hundreds of banks have been dragged down by bad loans and investments. The violent restructuring of the U.S. banking sector two years ago has left just a few companies controlling a vast amount of the deposits, assets and financial plumbing of the country.

Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal. And the banking sector in parts of Europe remains fragile.

The legislation would redraw how money flows through the U.S. economy, from the way people borrow money to the way banks structure complicated products like derivatives. It could touch every person who has a bank account or uses a credit card.

It would erect a new consumer-protection regulator within the Federal Reserve, give the government new powers to break up failing companies and assign a council of regulators to monitor risks to the financial system. It would also set up strict new rules on big banks, limiting their risk and increasing the costs.

The legislation gives the Securities and Exchange Commission new powers to regulate Wall Street and monitor hedge funds, increasing the agency’s access to funding. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would also have new powers under the bill, which would try and force most derivatives to face more scrutiny from regulators and other market participants.

To pay for some of the new government programs, the bill would allow the government to charge fees to large banks and hedge funds to raise up to $19 billion spread over five years. The assessment is designed to eventually pay down a part of the national debt.

The broad contours had been set for weeks and mostly mirror a proposal the White House has pushed since last summer. But the last few days represented a mad dash of political maneuvering to iron out final details.

Negotiations went into Friday morning, with New York Democrats and White House officials meeting to address the bill’s potential impact on New York, which relies on the financial industry for employment and tax revenue.

To win broader support, Democrats softened the bill’s impact on community banks, auto dealers, and small payday lenders and check cashers.

From the beginning, lawmakers opted against a dramatic reshaping of the country’s financial architecture. Instead, they moved to create new layers of regulation to prevent companies from taking on too much risk.

For example, regulators decided not to order a sweeping consolidation of the regulatory agencies policing finance. They also decided not to bust up large financial companies, despite pressure from liberal groups.

But they did create a process for seizing and dismantling faltering companies, tools the government lacked in 2008 during the seemingly chaotic events surrounding Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group Inc.

Democrats are banking on stronger government regulators to constrain risk in the financial system and prevent a future banking crisis—or at least blunt its impact.

$1.2 Quadrillion Derivatives Market Dwarfs World GDP

AOL Finance

One of the biggest risks to the world’s financial health is the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market. It’s complex, it’s unregulated, and it ought to be of concern to world leaders that its notional value is 20 times the size of the world economy. But traders rule the roost — and as much as risk managers and regulators might want to limit that risk, they lack the power or knowledge to do so.

A quadrillion is a big number: 1,000 times a trillion. Yet according to one of the world’s leading derivatives experts, Paul Wilmott, who holds a doctorate in applied mathematics from Oxford University (and whose speaking voice sounds eerily like John Lennon’s), $1.2 quadrillion is the so-called notional value of the worldwide derivatives market. To put that in perspective, the world’s annual gross domestic product is between $50 trillion and $60 trillion.

To understand the concept of “notional value,” it’s useful to have an example. Let’s say you borrow $1 million to buy an apartment and the interest rate on that loan gets reset every six months. Meanwhile, you turn around and rent that apartment out at a monthly fixed rate. If all your expenses including interest are less than the rent, you make money. But if the interest and expenses get bigger than the rent, you lose.

You might be able to hedge this risk of a spike in interest rates by swapping that variable rate of interest for a fixed one. To do that you’d need to find a counter party who has an asset with a fixed rate of return who believed that interest rates were going to fall and was willing to swap his fixed rate for your variable one.

The actual cash amount of the interest rates swaps might be 1% of the $1 million debt, while that $1 million is the “notional” amount. Applying that same 1% to the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market would leave a cash amount of the derivatives market of $12 trillion — far smaller, but still 20% of the world economy.

Getting a Handle on Derivatives Risk

How big is the risk to the world economy from these derivatives? According to Wilmott, it’s impossible to know unless you understand the details of the derivatives contracts. But since they’re unregulated and likely to remain so, it is hard to gauge the risk.

But Wilmott gives an example of an over-the-counter “customized” derivative that could be very risky indeed, and could also put its practitioners in a position of what he called “moral hazard.” Suppose Bank 1 (B1) and Bank 2 (B2) decide to hedge against the risk that Bank 3 (B3) and Bank 4 (B4) might fail to repay their debt to B1 and B2. To guard against that, B1 and B2 might hedge the risk through derivatives.

In so doing, B1 and B2 might buy a credit default swap (CDS) on B3 and B4 debt. The CDS would pay B1 and B2 if B3 and B4 failed to repay their loan. B1 and B2 might also bet on the decline in shares of B3 and B4 through a short sale.

At that point, any action that B1 and B2 might take to boost the odds that B3 and B4 might default would increase the value of their derivatives. That possibility might tempt B1 and B2 to take actions that would boost the odds of failure for B3 and B4. As I wrote back in September 2008 on DailyFinance’s sister site, BloggingStocks, this kind of behavior — in which hedge funds pulled their money out of banks whose stock they were shorting — may have contributed to the failures of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

It’s also the sort of conduct that makes it extremely difficult to estimate the risk of the derivatives market.

How Positive Feedback Loops Crash Markets

Another kind of market conduct that makes markets volatile is what Wilmott calls positive and negative feedback loops. These relatively bland-sounding terms mask some really scary behavior for investors who are not clued into it. Wilmott argues that a positive feedback loop contributed to the 22.6% crash in the Dow back in October 1987.

In the 1980s, a firm run by some former academics came up with the idea of portfolio insurance.

Their idea was that if investors are worried about their assets losing value, they can buy puts — the option to sell their investments at pre-determined prices. They can sell everything — which would be embarrassing if the market then started to rise — or they could sell a fixed proportion of their portfolio depending on the percentage decline in a particular stock market index.

This latter idea is portfolio insurance. If the Dow, for example, fell 3%; it might suggest that investors should sell 20% of their portfolio. And if the Dow fell 20%, it would indicate that investors should sell 100% of their portfolio.

That positive feedback loop — in which a stock price decline leads to more selling — boosts market volatility. Portfolio insurance causes more investors to sell as the market declines by, say 3%, which causes an even deeper plunge in the value of investors’ holdings. And that deeper decline leads to more selling. Before you know it, many investors are selling everything.

The portfolio insurance firm started off with $5 billion, but as its reputation spread, it ended up managing $50 billion. In 1987, that was a lot of money. So when that positive feedback loop got going, it took the Dow down 22.6% in a day.

The big problem back then was the absence of a sufficient number of traders using a negative feedback loop strategy. With a negative feedback loop, a trader would sell stocks as they rose and buy them as they declined. With a negative feedback loop strategy, volatility would be far lower.

Unfortunately, data on how much money has been going into negative and positive feedback loop strategies is not available. Therefore, it’s hard to know how the positive feedback loops have gained such a hold on the market.

But it is not hard to imagine that if a particular investor made huge amounts of money following a positive feedback loop strategy, other investors would hear about it and copy it. Moreover, the way traders get compensated suggests that it’s better for them to take more and more risk to replicate what their peers are doing.

Traders Make More Money By Following the Pack

There is a clear economic incentive for traders to follow what their peers are doing. According to Wilmott, to understand why, it helps to imagine a simplified example of a trading floor. Picture yourself as a new college graduate joining a bank’s trading floor with 100 traders. Those 100 traders each trade $10 million: They “win” if a coin toss lands on heads and “lose” if it lands on tails. But now imagine you’ve come up with a magic coin that has a 75% chance of landing on heads — you can make a better bet than the other 100 traders with their 50-50 coin.

You might think that the best strategy for you would be to bet your $10 million on that magic coin. But you’d be wrong. According to Wilmott, if the magic coin lands on a head but the other 100 traders flip tails, the bank loses $1 billion while you get a relatively paltry $10 million.

The best possible outcome for you is a 37.5% chance that everyone makes money (the 75% chance of you tossing heads multiplied by the 50% chance of the other traders getting a head). If instead, you use the same coin as everyone else on the floor, the probability of everyone getting a bonus rises to 50%.

When Traders Say ‘Jump,’ Risk Managers Ask ‘How High?’

Traders are a huge source of profit on Wall Street these days and they have an incentive to bet together and to bet big. According to Wilmott, traders get a bonus based on the one-year profits of those on their trading floor. If the trading floor makes big money, all the traders get a big bonus. And if it loses money, they get no bonus — but at least they don’t have to repay their capital providers for the losses.

Given that bonus structure, a trader is always better off risking $1 billion than $1 million. So if the trader, who is the king of the hill at the bank, asks a lowly risk manager to analyze how much risk the trader is taking, that risk manager is on the spot. If the risk manager comes back with a risk level that limits how big a bet the trader can take, the trader will demand that the risk manager recalculate the risk level lower so the trader can take the bigger bet.

Traders also manipulate their bonuses by assuming the existence of trading profits before they are actually realized. This happens when traders get involved with derivatives that will not unwind for 20 years.

Although the profits or losses on that trade have not been realized at the end of the first year, the bank will make an assumption about whether that trade made or lost money each year. Given the power traders wield, they can make the number come out positive so they can receive a hefty bonus — even though it is too early to tell what the real outcome of the trade will be.

How Trader Incentives Caused the CDO Bubble

Wilmott imagines that this greater incentive to follow the pack is what happened when many traders were piling into collateralized debt obligations. In Wilmott’s view, CDO risk managers who had analyzed a future scenario in which housing prices fell and interest rates rose would have concluded that the CDOs would become worthless under that scenario. He imagines that when notified of that possible outcome, CDO traders would have demanded that the risk managers shred that nasty scenario so they could keep trading more CDOs.

Incidentally, the traders who profited by going against the CDO crowd were lone wolves whose compensation did not depend on following the trading floor pack. This reinforces the idea that big bank compensation policies drive dangerous behavior that boosts market volatility.

What You Don’t Understand, You Can’t Properly Regulate

Wilmott believes that derivatives represent a risk of unknown proportions. But unless there is a change to trader compensation policies — one which would force traders to put their compensation at risk for the life of the derivative — then this risk could remain difficult to manage.

Unfortunately, he thinks that regulators aren’t in a good position to assess the risks of derivatives because they don’t understand them. Wilmott offers training in risk management. While traders and risk managers at banks and hedge funds have taken his course, regulators so far have not.

And if regulators don’t understand the risks in derivatives, chances are great that Congress does not understand them either.

A Pandemic of Corruption, not H1N1

Margaret Chan

Dr. Margaret Chan standing next to the WHO's flag bearing the Caduceus.

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 7, 2010

There is no need to say it; it is almost redundant and repetitive to tell about the corruption that brought about the H1N1 false alarm last year.  However, it is never excessive to point out massive corruption when it is detected and identified so clearly.  Many independent sources have denounced the corruption that runs rampant in the World Health Organization.  One of them, the European Health Council, studied and published a report that revealed the gigantic corruption scheme within the WHO and between its workers and the pharmaceutical industry.

Now it is the turn of the British Medical Journal to denounce and publish its findings.  The highlight of the report states that highly positioned scientists who ‘convinced’ the heads of the WHO to declare the pandemic, held tight financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that loaded up their coffers with the sale of the vaccines.  The WHO scientists received direct financial compensation from the vaccine manufacturers. During and after the fallout, the WHO denied requests to disclose information on conflicts of interests between its top advisers and the drug companies.

Perhaps the biggest victim after the thousands of patients who died of the side effects the vaccine produced, those suffer from irreparable neurological disorders -also as a consequence of the vaccine- and others who will die and get sick in the future, is the WHO itself.  The very little credibility it still held has completely dissipated and nothing that comes out of its loudspeakers can be trusted.  Now, the only way the organization -a branch of the United Nations- can enforce any of its maddening policies is through the puppet governments that follow any of the guidelines it may issue in the coming months and years.

Caduceus

* The Caduceus is an appropriate choice to represent modern medicine. In antiquity, it was the guide of the dead and protector of merchants, shepherds, gamblers, liars and thieves.

The findings revealed by Deborah Cohen, editor at the BMJ, and Philip Carter, a journalist who works for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, were not only not denied by the head of the WHO, Dr Margaret Chan, but also defended and justified.  Chan said the secrecy was necessary to protect the integrity and independence of the members while doing critical work and also to ensure transparency.  In other words, it is not necessary to carry out honest work at the World Health Organization so long people do not suspect or discover corruption.  However, if corruption is discovered, it is absolutely fine to cover it up while the WHO investigates itself to determine if there is or not wrongdoing in its operations.

The British Medical Journal is not the only organization that found corruption at the heart of the WHO.  As mentioned before, the European Health Council’s investigation also determined that the declaration of the H1N1 Pandemic was based on politics and not science.  It says the way in which the WHO handled the supposed pandemic was “a waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.”

The reaction from the pharmaceutical industrial complex could not come fast enough.  The drug lords said the WHO did not have other option but to declare the pandemic due to the fact vaccines are the only ways to prevent and cure disease.  This of course are lies.  Vaccines do not treat or cure disease; they prolong them and produce them.  On the other hand, natural production of vitamin D3, for example, is a proven way to prevent and cure disease such as Influenza and others like cancer more effectively than any vaccine ever could. How many times do you hear any doctor or WHO scientist recommending a patient to take sunlight so the body can produce the necessary vitamin D or D3?  The answer is never.  The reason for that is that both the pharmaceutical industry and the WHO pretend to perpetuate the sick care programs that currently have more people than ever in drugs.  Anyone heard of drug or pharmaceutical dependency?

Studies in North America, South America and Europe have shown that a 40-60 nanograms of serum per mililiter hydroxyvitamin D (100-150 nanomols per liter) of  blood is lethal to disease, including 10 different kinds of cancer, diabetes and of course influenza.  The details of the studies and what Vitamin D and D3 are capable of doing to prevent disease as well as to decrease the chance of many medical problems to recur, can be seen here.  So one of the keys to prevent disease is to find out what’s the level of serum in your blood, and to intake vitamin D or D3 if there is a deficiency.  The cost can vary from free (exposure to sunlight 10-15 minutes a day between 11 am and 1 pm when there is less UVB radiation) to about five cents of a dollar a day (using supplements).  Don’t let any doctor confuse you with “no one knows what is the right dosage of vitamin D”, because that is exactly the wrong question to ask or try to answer.  But if you are someone who feels more comfortable with measuring your daily intake, 2000 IU per day is a recommended dosage.  Again, the details can be seen in the video cited above.

As Mike Adams writes “People were kept ignorant of natural remedies, in other words, to make sure more people died and a more urgent call for mass vaccination programs could be carried out.  A few lives never gets in the way of Big Pharma profits, does it?”.  That is exactly my point, too.  A few thousand lives don’t mean anything to an industry whose only goal is to profit every single year based on lies, scare tactics and corruption.  This is precisely what Dr. Margaret Chan meant with her statement.  Corruption is tolerated.  Experimenting with humans is all right.  Looting the public coffers is also fine.  And when people find out the lies, they themselves decide whether there was wrongdoing or not.

But how is it that the World Health Organization mixes, brews and carries out the corruption cocktail we are talking about?

Over-blow the supposed risk: The WHO and pharmaceutical companies classify the risk as very high and create imaginative levels of chance of mortality.  This time, the WHO created a 6th stage which it then declared we were all in.  At this time, when very few cases of H1N1 had been confirmed around the planet, the simple intake of Vitamin D and D3 -either through sunlight or supplements- would have done away with the virus.

Demand that nations purchase vaccines: The WHO asked and then demanded that countries bought vaccines from the biggest manufacturing houses: Sanofi and Glaxosmithkline; in order to prepare for the supposed pandemic.  They then raised the risk level to one of “public health emergency”, which made the countries carry out massive vaccination campaigns against the unsuspecting public.

Loot the public coffers: Nations -both in developed and underdeveloped regions of the world- spent billions of dollars purchasing  H1N1 vaccines while the virus never even reached a significant level of risk.  As it turned out, what did get indeed gigantic was the bank accounts of the pharmaceutical companies as they collected the money.

Payoffs to corrupt scientists: While the world was falling victim of the panic and interacting with anyone on the street was seen as risky, -masks popping out everywhere- scientists at the WHO pocketed kickbacks from the pharmaceutical  manufacturers. Those monies were intentionally kept secret; as the head of the WHO, Dr. Margaret Chan admitted.

Instigate and increase fear: As a way to keep the profits from the sale of vaccines growing, the WHO as well as national and local health departments called on people to vaccinate themselves and their relatives.  Vaccinating, they said, was the only way to be saved from the deadly H1N1 virus.  How many of the people who allegedly died from H1N1 died due to the virus?  Very few.  Most of them died of health complications related to previous medical problems that were aggravated with the influenza virus.  The vaccine did not prevent or treat those complications.  In fact, many of them were triggered by the vaccines themselves.

The question that comes to mind then is: Why do governments and its health departments continue to follow guidelines from the WHO given the blatant corruption schemes that govern its actions?   And more important:  Will they continue to obey the directives from the WHO in the future?  Probable yes.  Bureaucracy is an equal opportunity offender and it does not distinguish whether it is a local, regional, national or international organ.  So the decision to reject the WHO’s corrupted rules and to take responsibility for your health is in your hands.  So when the next ‘pandemic’ comes around remember:  The scientists that advice the WHO are in the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies and they will always hype a virus and turn it into a monster with 5 heads if that is what it takes for them to turn a profit. And one more thing:  there has never been an independent scientific study that confirmed that vaccines prevent, treat or cure any disease.  Vaccines are the biggest scam of modern medicine.  All medical studies carried out which claim that a vaccine prevents, treats or cures disease were either conducted by vaccine manufacturers or paid by them so universities and laboratories  “independently confirmed”  they are effective.

If there is anything positive left from the WHO’s imaginary H1N1 pandemic is that now more than ever we can be sure neither the WHO nor the pharmaceutical industrial complex have your interests at heart.  Their only interests revolve around the idea of filling their pockets with money and in the process depopulate the planet a little bit more every time.

* W. Burkert, Greek Religion 1985 section III.2.8; “Hermes.” Encyclopedia Mythica from Encyclopedia Mythica Online. Retrieved October 04, 2006.

Obama May Have Spent $10 Million On Illegal Kenya Abortion Push

Infowars.net

A U.S. Congressman investigating possibly illegal expenditure towards the promotion of abortion in Kenya says he has receivedinformation that indicates the Obama Administration may have funneled more than $10 million in taxpayer funds into the project.

Earlier this month Rep. Chris Smith (R, NJ) wrote to the State Department, calling for a federal probe to determine whether government spending in support of a pro-abortion constitution in Kenya contravened U.S. laws.

Smith, the top ranking Republican on the House Africa and Global Health Subcommittee, along with Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, outlined their concerns that the Obama Administration’s advocacy, along with a pledge to spend $2 million to build support for the proposed constitution, could constitute a serious violation of the Siljander Amendment and, as such, may be subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act.

The Siljander Amendment, part of the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act reads, “None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion,” and “violations are subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341.”

Now Rep. Smith says investigators have provided him with fresh information:

“This week I learned that U.S. taxpayer expenditures in support of the proposed constitution may exceed $10 million—five times the level we original suspected,” Smith told the independent pro-life news website LifeNews.com.

“This massive spending will undoubtedly be directed to those entities that are pressing for ratification of the proposed constitution. Such support will further enable passage of a constitution that is opposed by many pro-life leaders in Kenya, because it enshrines new rights to abortion. As such, the funding is a clear violation of federal law against use of U.S. taxpayer funds to lobby for or against abortion,” Smith explained.

He added, “Learning of significant additional U.S. donations gives even more urgency to our request for thorough and objective investigations into all State Department and USAID funded activities related to Kenya’s proposed constitution. I hope that all investigative agencies will take our request seriously and act swiftly in this matter.”

Despite the fact that up to 300,000 abortions take place every year, the practice is not currently permitted in Kenya, except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. The proposed new constitution, set to undergo a public referendum in August, would effectively legislate for unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.

According to Human Life International (HLI) up to 20 foreign pro-abortion groups are currently spending money in the African country to gain public approval of the proposed constitution.

Last month, US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger urged Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga to rally popular support for the constitution, and intimated that the Obama administration would help fund a national campaign in an effort to persuade the public to ratify the document.

Any official probe into U.S. government spending in Kenya is likely to point to one of Obama’s first acts in office, the issuance of an executive order lifting a ban on using taxpayer money to fund international “family planning” groups who counsel women and perform abortions around the world, but mainly in Africa.