Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, March 4 2011 Volume 14 : Number 303 In this issue: Horrific US Medical Experiments Come to Light [Excerpt] More on war "Records show agents fired beanbags in fatal border gunfight" Re: 'Clean fuel' vehicles actually caused more air pollution For Money, For Oil? Why Wars Really Happen Septebmer 22, 1998: We're all suspects unless we Repeal Bill C-68 CTV - Tories rebrand Gov't of Canada as 'Harper Gov't' Re:Ian Thompson still facing 2 charges- Digest V14 #299 Re: 'Clean fuel' vehicles actually caused more air pollution ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:58:43 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Horrific US Medical Experiments Come to Light [Excerpt] [Apparently George W's 'green light' to torture military/political prisoners in defiance of the Geneva Convention had some foundation. Importing the Constitution of the Republic, as some would proffer, may not be all that it's cracked up to be. Not to suggest that 'our hands' are Lilly-white]. Horrific US Medical Experiments Come to Light Mike Stobbe AP Feb 27, 2011 – 1:04 PM > http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/27/horrific-us-medical-experiments-come-to-light/ ATLANTA -- Shocking as it may seem, U.S. government doctors once thought it was fine to experiment on disabled people and prison inmates. Such experiments included giving hepatitis to mental patients in Connecticut, squirting a pandemic flu virus up the noses of prisoners in Maryland, and injecting cancer cells into chronically ill people at a New York hospital. Much of this horrific history is 40 to 80 years old, but it is the backdrop for a meeting in Washington this week by a presidential bioethics commission. The meeting was triggered by the government's apology last fall for federal doctors infecting prisoners and mental patients in Guatemala with syphilis 65 years ago. U.S. officials also acknowledged there had been dozens of similar experiments in the United States - studies that often involved making healthy people sick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:13:32 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: More on war Many discussions of lies that launch wars quickly come around to the question "Well then why did they want the war?" There is usually more than one single motive involved, but the motives are not terribly hard to find. Unlike many soldiers who have been lied to, most of the key war deciders, the masters of war who determine whether or not wars happen, do not in any sense have noble motives for what they do. Though noble motives can be found in the reasoning of some of those involved, even in some of those at the highest levels of decision making, it is very doubtful that such noble intentions alone would ever generate wars. Economic and imperial motives have been offered by presidents and congress members for most of our major wars, but they have not been endlessly hyped and dramatized as have other alleged motivations. War with Japan was largely about the economic value of Asia, but fending off the evil Japanese emperor made a better poster. The Project for the New American Century, a think tank pushing for war on Iraq, made its motives clear a dozen years before it got its war - motives that included U.S. military dominance of the globe with more and larger bases in key regions of "American interest." That goal was not repeated as often or as shrilly as "WMD," "terrorism," "evildoer," or "spreading democracy." The most important motivations for wars are the least talked about, and the least important or completely fraudulent motivations are the most discussed. The important motivations, the things the war masters mostly discuss in private, include electoral calculations, control of natural resources, intimidation of other countries, domination of geographic regions, financial profits for friends and campaign funders, the opening up of consumer markets, and prospects for testing new weapons. If politicians were honest, electoral calculations would deserve to be openly discussed and would constitute no ground for shame or secrecy. Elected officials ought to do what will get them reelected, within the structure of laws that have been democratically established. But our conception of democracy has become so twisted that reelection as a motivation for action is hidden away alongside profiteering. This is true for all areas of government work; the election process is so corrupt that the public is viewed as yet another corrupting influence. When it comes to war, this sense is heightened by politicians' awareness that wars are marketed with lies. For the full article, go to http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23443 Clive Edwards Western Block Party Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon PO 1073 CSP Vedder Crossing Chilliwack, BC V2R 3N7 604-250-7910 (cell & text) 45clive@telus.net "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." - --Buckminster Fuller ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:34:27 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: "Records show agents fired beanbags in fatal border gunfight" http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/ article_681d29cf-845a-5aea-9f34-3837d70b8a31.html "The Terry family remains upset about allegations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed a gun smuggler it was investigating to purchase and smuggle into Mexico the weapons used in the shootout in which Terry died. The Justice Department has denied the allegations, but U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, continues to insist on the validity of the claims. "Your government is telling you to use beanbags, but you are selling guns back to the Mexicans," Kent Terry said. "There's a lot of questions that they haven't answered." The FBI investigation remains ongoing, said agency spokesman Manuel Johnson. No arrests have been made. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona said investigators and prosecutors aim to bring criminal charges against the people responsible for Brian Terry's murder." =================================================================== (Oh, really? Then when can we expect to see them charge the B.A.T.F.? Second, also, against the commanding officer that ordered firing bean bags at 5 gangsters armed with firearms, ones who have a truly reptilian reputation for violence?) In the U.S. various Departments are attempting to suppress civilian firearms ownership and the shooting sports via subterfuge, using commerce powers as a way around violating the 2nd Amendment directly. It's part of Obama's Democrat tactics. Word is part of the Canadian federal government have done likewise, semi-secretly, and enforcement is arbitrary. In Canada it just the bureaucrats running their own show as they mostly do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:59:42 -0800 From: Albert4 Subject: Re: 'Clean fuel' vehicles actually caused more air pollution mred wrote: > Begs the question?: How do you mix lubricating oil with natural gas used > as a motor fuel ??for a two-stroke engine ? I know its not a problem with > gasoline. > > ed/on > Inject the lube oil into the incoming airstream, generally right after the carb. My 1974 Yamaha RD350 did it just like that (and so did my '76 DT400 and '81 RD350LC) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:38:17 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: For Money, For Oil? Why Wars Really Happen It seems the link I posted previously didn't work. These new ones do. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23443 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23443 I copied each link from a different place and tested them. Both seem identical and worked when tested. Clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, March 3, 2011 3:43 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Septebmer 22, 1998: We're all suspects unless we Repeal Bill C-68 Lorne Gunter's column today in the National Post today reminded me of my predictions twelve years ago on Parliament Hill. National Post: Crown and police still view gun owners as criminals by Lorne Gunter http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/03/lorne-gunter-crown-and-police-still-view-gun-owners-as-criminals/#more-30145 Quote from a speech by Dennis R. Young at the FED-UP II Rally on Parliament Hill on September 22, 1998. “As a former member of the RCMP I know that once Bill C-68 becomes law some police officers will think of us - not as co-operative allies to help them in their fight against crime - but as easy targets for a firearms offence – just because we own a gun. When you see the police officer coming up the driveway, you'll be wondering, “Is he after a real criminal or is he after me and my guns?” The Minister of Justice has said we have nothing to fear as long as we comply with all the gun control laws. But how can we comply with laws that are so badly drafted even judges can't understand them, and laws that are continually misinterpreted by government bureaucrats and the police on a daily basis? Even if we do comply, we have heard of Crown prosecutors who think that every time a firearm is stolen from the home of a law-abiding gun owner that the police should also lay an improper storage charge against the homeowner. We are easy targets for the police - burglars are not. Take it from me, some police officers will use the new powers the government has given them in Bill C-68 to make a career for themselves, by charging as many gun owners as possible for technical mistakes under Bill C-68 and Bill C-17. These are “made in Ottawa crimes” – not real crimes. But for the police bureaucrat looking for a promotion, they're all criminal offences. Of course, real criminals support Bill C-68 because they think it's better to have the government wasting police time and our tax dollars chasing honest gun owners and not them! For 35 years I have been a hunter, now I'm a “suspect” – and so are each of you. Thank you for this award. The way things are headed; I will cherish it long after my last gun has been confiscated. Unless, unless we Repeal Bill C-68.” http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2010/978.pdf - ------=_20110304145645_14961 Content-Type: text/html; name="untitled-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="untitled-2" Septebmer 22, 1998: We're all suspects unless we Repeal Bill C-68

Lorne Gunter's column today in the National Post today reminded me of my predictions twelve years ago on Parliament Hill.

National Post: Crown and police still view gun owners as criminals by Lorne Gunter

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/03/lorne-gunter-crown-and-police-still-view-gun-owners-as-criminals/#more-30145

Quote from a speech by Dennis R. Young at the FED-UP II Rally on Parliament Hill on September 22, 1998.

“As a former member of the RCMP I know that once Bill C-68 becomes law some police officers will think of us - not as co-operative allies to help them in their fight against crime - - but as easy targets for a firearms offence – just because we own a gun. When you see the  police officer coming up the driveway, you'll be wondering, “Is he after a real criminal or is he after me and my guns?” The Minister of Justice has said we have nothing to fear as lon g as we comply with all the gun control laws. But how can we comply with laws that are so badly drafted even judges can't understand them, and laws that are continually misinterpreted by government bureaucrats and the police on a daily basis? Even if we do comply, we have heard of Crown prosecutors who think that every time a firearm is stolen from the home of a law-abiding gun owner that the police should also lay an improper storage charge against the homeowner. We are easy targets for the police - burglars are not. Take it from me, some police officers will use the new powers the government has given them in Bill C-68 to make a career for themselves, by charging as many gun owners as possible for technical mistakes under Bill C-68 and Bill C-17. These are “made in Ottawa crimes” – not real crimes. But fo r the police bureaucrat looking for a promotion, they're all criminal offences. Of course, real criminals support Bill C-68 because they think it's better to have the government wasting police time and our tax dollars chasing honest gun owners and not them! For 35 years I have been a hunter, now I'm a “suspect” – and so are each of you. Thank you for this award. The way things are headed; I will cherish it long after my last gun has been confiscated. Unless, unless we Repeal Bill C-68.”

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2010/978.pdf

- ------=_20110304145645_14961-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, March 4, 2011 3:06 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: CTV - Tories rebrand Gov't of Canada as 'Harper Gov't' CTV NEWS - MARCH 3, 2011 Tories rebrand Gov't of Canada as 'Harper Gov't' The Canadian Press - Date: Thursday Mar. 3, 2011 4:17 PM ET http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20110303/harper-ruling-110303/ OTTAWA - It's official: Stephen Harper rules. And lest anyone forgets, a directive went out to public servants late last year that "Government of Canada" in federal communications should be replaced by the words "Harper Government." Public servants from four different line departments told The Canadian Press the instruction came from "the Centre" -- meaning the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office that serves the prime minister. None would speak on the record for fear of retribution. It's a well-grounded concern given the treatment of a senior government scientist who was fired in 2006 after rebelling against a directive to use "Canada's New Government" in government communications. Andrew Okulitch was subsequently reinstated after his story went public, and the Conservatives finally retired the "Canada's New Government" handle after 21 months in office. The "Harper Government" moniker rose to prominence in 2009, when its use was noted in light of a controversy over Conservative MPs posing with giant, mock government cheques bearing the party logo and MPs' signatures. The mock cheques were consigned to the dust bin, and the "Harper Government" handle went into partial hibernation. Since December, the "Harper Government" has returned with a vengeance, sprouting like mushrooms across departmental communications. The Prime Minister's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on why the new messaging has been implemented. Scores of news releases -- from the Canada Revenue Agency to Fisheries and Oceans, Finance, International Trade, Health Canada and Industry Canada -- are all headlined by "Harper Government" actions. Even the Treasury Board Secretariat is using the term. Treasury Board is the federal department charged with policing government communications policy, including the Federal Identity Program -- which to a layman's eyes appears to forbid such off-handed personalization in government titles. Among other things, the policy states that "the criteria for creating an applied title include that it must: incorporate the word Canada or appear with the words Government of Canada...." Treasury Board spokesman Robert Bousquet said by email "the use of the expression 'Harper Government' is not prohibited by either the Treasury Board's Federal Identity Program Policy nor the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada." Added Bousquet in a brief phone interview: "In fact it's factual, in that it is the government of the day." Indeed, journalists routinely use the "Harper government" to describe Conservative government actions. But the moniker's employment by the government itself is raising hackles among more than just some straight-laced civil servants. "It is one thing for journalists or even the public to use the more partisan 'Harper government,' but it is another thing for the state to equate the Government of Canada with the leader of the governing party," said Jonathon Rose, a specialist in political communications at Queen's University. He notes such language is expressly forbidden under an Ontario law that prohibits partisanship in government messaging. "The effect of this subtle framing just before an election is to equate government with Harper," said Rose. "It creates a perception of a natural affinity between one party's leader and the act of governing." The Harper-centric messaging prompted Rose to recall French King Louis XIV and his 17th century divine right of kings: "L'Etat, c'est moi," quipped the political scientist. "The state is me." But Mel Cappe, a former clerk of the Privy Council, finds nothing amusing in the development. "It is not the Harper Government," Cappe said in an interview, tersely enunciating each word. "It is the Government of Canada. It's my government and it's your government." Cappe said the usage brings to mind Harper's own quip of last summer on the Arctic tundra: "I make the rules," Harper told journalists after he disembarked from an all-terrain vehicle. "What this shows is the hubris of this government's approach," said Cappe, president of the Institute for Research in Public Policy in Montreal. "We are governed by laws. Not by men. This is trying to change that." Peter Aucoin, an expert in public administration at Dalhousie University, also said the "Harper Government" branding exercise should be belled for public consideration. "It's the executive abusing the powers of government for purely partisan reasons. Period," said Aucoin. Leslie Seidle, another former Privy Council official who now works with Cappe's IRPP, had a far more sanguine view, calling the moniker "simply a creative use of language. I can understand that some people might find it unusual, but quite honestly I don't think there's a lot of 'there' there," said Seidle. Cappe agrees with Seidle that the issue is "totally inside baseball. It matters to maybe 600 people in Canada," said Cappe, before exorting The Canadian Press to take the issue public. "But my sense is it's this subtle erosion of our understanding of the institutions of government that leads to a lack of credibility and respect on the part of the public. And that's why it is important. That's why it counts." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:28:44 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Re:Ian Thompson still facing 2 charges- Digest V14 #299 Larry James Fillo wrote: > > Bingo, Mike, with any conviction the police and CFO will be able > to revoke his P.A.L. easily. Actually, in theory as the interpretation > of the wording, since Conservative's C-17 added to C-68 is, > if in the opinion of the CFO possession would be a safety > threat to any person(which to the gov't. includes violent > criminals attempting to murder a licensee.) a PAL is to be revoked. > (ask your Conservative/Liberal/NDP candidate to explain that > during the upcoming election, heck they all support it). Larry, As I understand it, Mr. Thompson's PAL is already forfeit. My understanding is, that If the police lay charges, your PAL is instantly rescinded, and because of this, your registration is no longer valid. This is instantaneous, and in the absence of due process, and runs roughshod over the presumption of innocence -- for the public safety, you know. In order to win back your license, in the aftermath, and presuming you are *ALLOWED* to do so, you have to re-take the course, and re-write your PAL exam, and it is likely that you will lose any grandfathering status, as such status is dependant upon *continuous* ownership. Please correct me if I'm wrong ... Cheers, Rob Sciuk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:45:46 -0500 From: "mred" Subject: Re: 'Clean fuel' vehicles actually caused more air pollution - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Albert4" To: Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:59 PM Subject: Re: 'Clean fuel' vehicles actually caused more air pollution > > mred wrote: >> Begs the question?: How do you mix lubricating oil with natural gas used >> as a motor fuel ??for a two-stroke engine ? I know its not a problem with >> gasoline. >> >> ed/on >> > > Inject the lube oil into the incoming airstream, generally right > after the carb. My 1974 Yamaha RD350 did it just like that (and so > did my '76 DT400 and '81 RD350LC) Thanks for your response . My knowledge of two strokes goes back 60+ years and in those days we mixed a straight # 30 weight non detergent oil with the fuel for lubrication. My dad had a two stroke DKW , German car .started on the coldest days no problem,but it was recommended to keep the engine partly revved when cold ,so that it would be properly lubricated . [I had a two stroke Excelsior single as my first bike, with a Villiers engine . It was practically indestructible.Nice little learner bike....... I was 17 at the time.] Just for the heck of it I once put varsol in the gas tank to see if it would run....it was hard to start even when warm but it did run.for a while .As long as you kept it revved it just kept on going ,like the Energizer Bunny. Ok so its injected in the airstream that feeds the fuel into the cylinder then ? Ok I have that down with gasoline as they are compatible , having similar but distinctly separate viscosity, but I cant see how that would work with natural gas aspiration ? Natural gas is, well, a gas, not a fluid, so I would think the physics of the lubrication system might be at odds with the combustion process ? I am speculating but I would say that the oil and natural gas mix wouldn't be complete. Not being an engineer I`m only guessing . Thanks again for the info on modern two strokes'. ed/on ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #303 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)