Monthly Archives: May 2019

President Trump Suspends United Nations Treaty Of Open Skies Which Allowed Russia To Conduct Aerial Surveillance Of United States.

Tupolev-Tu-154-aircraft

Russian reconnaissance aircraft will fly over parts of the United States this week through Saturday as part of obligations for the Treaty on Open Skies, U.S. officials said. (REUTERS/Dmitry Petrochenko)

Open Skies Treaty

Fact Sheet:

BUREAU OF VERIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND IMPLEMENTATION

May 18, 2009
2009-2017.state.gov
U.S. Department Of State


Origin and Purpose

The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 States Parties. The Treaty establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire territory of its participants. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date to promote openness and transparency of military forces and activities.

The original concept of mutual aerial observation was proposed by President Eisenhower in 1955; the Treaty itself was an initiative of then-President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. Provisional application of portions of the Treaty took place from signature in 1992 until entry into force in 2002. During that period, participants conducted joint trial flights for the purpose of training mission crews and testing equipment and sensors. With entry into force of the Treaty, formal observation flights began in August 2002. States Parties have conducted over 530 observation flights over each other’s territory.

Since the signature of the Open Skies Treaty in 1992, the security environment in Europe has changed significantly. The Open Skies Treaty continues to contribute toward European security by enhancing openness and transparency among the Parties.

Membership 

The 34 States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. The Treaty depositaries are Canada and Hungary.

The Treaty is of unlimited duration and open to accession by other States. States of the former Soviet Union which have not already become States Parties to the Treaty may accede to it at any time. Applications from other interested States are subject to a consensus decision by the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), the Vienna-based organization charged with facilitating implementation of the Treaty, to which all States Parties belong. Eight states have acceded to the Treaty since entry into force: Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Lithuania. One application for accession is pending before the OSCC.

Basic Elements of the Treaty

Territory. The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including – land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The Treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.

Aircraft. Observation aircraft may be provided by either the observing Party or by the observed Party (the “taxi option”), at the latter’s choice. All Open Skies aircraft and sensors must pass specific certification and pre-flight inspection procedures to ensure that they are compliant with Treaty standards. Certified Open Skies aircraft include:
Bulgaria An-30
Hungary An-26
POD Group C-130H & J (Benelux, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain)
Romania An-30
Russian Federation An-30 and TU-154
Sweden Saab-340B
Turkey Casa CN-235
Ukraine An-30B
United States OC-135B

Sensors. Open Skies aircraft may have video, optical panoramic and framing cameras for daylight photography, infra-red line scanners for a day/night capability, and synthetic aperture radar for a day/night all weather capability. Photographic image quality will permit recognition of major military equipment (e.g., permit a State Party to distinguish between a tank and a truck), thus allowing significant transparency of military forces and activities. Sensor categories may be added and capabilities improved by agreement among States Parties. All equipment used in Open Skies must be commercially available to all participants in the regime.

Quotas. Each State Party is obligated to receive observation flights per its passive quota allocation. Each State Party may conduct as many observation flights – its active quota – as its passive quota. The Russian Federation and the United States each have an annual passive quota of 42, and other States Parties have a quota of 12 or fewer. The Parties negotiate the annual distribution of the active quotas each October for the following calendar year. Over 100 observation flights are conducted each year.

Data Sharing/Availability. Imagery collected from Open Skies missions is available to any State Party upon request for the cost of reproduction. As a result, the data available to each State Party is much greater than that which it can collect itself under the Treaty quota system.

Implementation of the Treaty

In July 2008, under U.S. OSCC Chairmanship, States Parties commemorated the conduct of 500 observation flights since the Treaty entered into force.

The OSCC continues to address modalities for conducting observation missions and other implementation issues. The OSCC meets in three sessions per year, with monthly plenary meetings. The OSCC has several informal working groups that take up technical issues related to sensors, notification formats, aircraft certification and rules and procedures. The OSCC main functions are to:
consider questions relating to compliance with the Treaty;
seek to resolve ambiguities and differences of interpretation emerging during Treaty implementation;
consider and decide on applications for accession to the Treaty; and
review the distribution of active quotas annually.

The OSCC was established by Article X and Annex L of the Treaty, and has been in session since Treaty signature in March 1992. The OSCC takes decisions by consensus, and has adopted over 90 Decisions since its inception. OSCC Decisions enter into force with the Treaty and have the same duration as the Treaty.

State Department point of contact is Diana Marvin, 202-647-5357.

Note: This Treaty is not related to civil-aviation open skies agreements.

Why Russia Was Allowed to Fly a Surveillance Plane Over the Capitol and Pentagon.
Source: time.com

BY ARIC JENKINS 
AUGUST 11, 2017

With heightening concerns over conflict with North Korea and lingering allegations of Russian influence in the U.S. presidential election, you might think that the last thing Russia would do right now is fly a surveillance plane over Washington, D.C. But that’s exactly what it did Wednesday — and with clearance from the U.S. government.

The low-altitude aircraft flew over the Capitol building and the Pentagon with U.S. approval thanks to a long-standing global agreement called the Treaty on Open Skies, according to the Associated Press. The pact, which was signed and ratified by 34 nations including the U.S. and Russia in 1992, allows member countries to send unarmed observation flights over the territories of fellow members. It’s designed to promote transparency about military activity and hold participants accountable for diplomatic agreements.

But how did such a treaty come to exist in the first place?

Open Skies dates back to the beginnings of the Cold War, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed the initiative between the U.S. and Soviet Union at the Geneva Conference in 1955.

The idea was similar: exchange maps revealing the location of every military installation in the respective countries, in turn allowing them to conduct aerial surveillance on each other in order to guarantee the fulfillment of established arms agreements. But while France and Britain (the other attendees of the summit as part of the “Big Four” nations) were open to the deal, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev rejected the treaty, labeling it as an “espionage plot.” The proposal sat dormant for years. All the while, tension between the U.S. and Soviet Union further escalated.

It wasn’t until 1989 that the concept of Open Skies was reintroduced by President George H.W. Bush as a means to build trust between North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Warsaw Pact countries. The latter alliance — formed in 1955 between the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites — ended up collapsing as the socialist state dissolved by 1991. Despite this period of geopolitical change, Bush was able to successfully negotiate the terms of the Open Skies treaty with the majority of the Warsaw Pact countries. On March 24, 1992, the treaty was signed in Helsinki, Finland.

Open Skies officially went into effect on Jan. 1, 2002. Since then, there have been more than 1,200 surveillance flights conducted by the member nations. But given recent foreign relations between the U.S. and Russia, among other countries, will the Open Skies treaty continue in this current political comment?

“The Obama administration carefully assessed the risks and benefits of remaining in the treaty and judged with our European allies that it was in our best interests to stay,” said Lynn Rusten, a senior consultant at the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

She added that the primary concern of Open Skies was the advancement of surveillance technology from film to digital cameras that are able to produce clearer images. But she said the U.S. permitted the upgrades because it felt it was worth the risk.

“It’s critical to maintain any mechanism to retain that confidence,” Rusten said. “It would do more harm than good to walk away from this treaty.”

But Stephen Sestanovich, a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University and fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, cast doubt over the treaty’s future.

“The Russians have been so ready to roll back or disregard norms and treaties that they’ve got people in Congress, in the military, in the intelligence world asking, ‘Why pretend to trust each other?’” he said. “In that atmosphere, virtually any agreement can be challenged.

Russian FURY After Donald Trump Ends US Surveillance Treaty Sparking ‘ARMS RACE’ Fears.

PRESIDENT Trump has blocked funding for an international surveillance treaty designed to allow countries to monitor each other’s military strength, infuriating Russia and raising fears of a new arms race.

By JAMES BICKERTON

PUBLISHED: 02:40, Wed, Aug 15, 2018 | UPDATED: 10:40, Wed, Aug 15, 2018

express.co.uk

The measure was included in a $717 billion defence policy bill which Trump signed on Monday.

It ended US funding for the Treaty of Open Skies, an agreement between 34 states which will allow them to fly unarmed observation aircraft over each others territories.

The intention of the programme, which the UK has signed up to, is to allow countries to monitor each others militaries to deter secret buildups.

Senior Russian figures responded furiously to Trump’s decision.

Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy chairman of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Moscow Times: “This is an attempt to hide everything the Americans will be preparing in the course of a new arms race.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov told a state news agency his government regrets the US decision.

The US had already accused Russia of violating the treaty by limiting surveillance flights over Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave situated between Poland and Lithuania.

There have been numerous reports of a Russian military buildup in Kaliningrad, with some satellite images suggesting the development of nuclear facilities.

Surveillance fights by unarmed aircraft are currently routine between the US, Russia and other signatories of the treaty.

The Pentagon estimates the Russians have carried out over 165 missions over the US since the agreement came into effect.

A Pentagon source told Politico: “We put together the flight plan and with a few exceptions…they are allowed to fly over pretty much the entire territory.”

In August 2017 there was controversy over a Russian reconnaissance flight which travelled over Washington D.C. and a US airforce base in Ohio.

The US State Department had previously described Open Skies as: “designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information through aerial imaging on military forces.”

Tensions between Russia and the US increased last week after the Americans put new tariffs on Russia over its alleged involvement in poisoning Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, and his daughter in the UK earlier this year.

The new US sanctions restrain the export of so-called dual use technologies, which could have a military or civilian application.

Unless Russia takes certain actions, a second round of sanctions, tougher than the first, is expected to follow.

Former President Ronald Reagan or “Red Ronnie” Approves First World Government Law To Be Used To Prosecute Individuals In 1988.

proxy.duckduckgo.com

The Genicide Treaty 

Source: stopthecrime.net

12/2/13

Click Here: Reagan Signs Bill Ratifying U.N. Genocide Pact 

Click Here: Official U.N. Genicide Treaty

Only a national government has the power to produce “genocide,” which is the killing of an entire race of people. And only a government, when its troops invade other nations, can attempt to destroy an entire race outside of its borders. Neither an individual nor a group of individuals can commit genocide.

And, if they try, they would quickly be jailed under already well-established criminal statutes. Thus we see that only nations can commit genocide, never individuals. Only a nation can blot out a race; an individual can only kill individuals. But now we have a new international law governing nearly every civilized nation on earth,—that is able to charge innocent citizens with “genocide” for having done something that a national government considers harmful to other religions!

On December 11, 1946, the United Nations General Assembly voted unanimously to declare genocide as a crime under international law. Nearly a year later, on December 9, 1947, the same assembly unanimously adopted what is known as the “Genocide Treaty.”

Because of obvious omissions and inherent dangers in that treaty, the United States did not ratify that treaty for decades afterward. Finally, 40 years later, under immense political pressure from various sources, the United Sates approved it on February 19, 1988 Nearly eight months later, on October 14, 1988, the Senate gave final approval to the treaty as they enacted certain legislation which would impose extremely heavy penalties to those found guilty of violating that treaty.

The Genocide Treaty (also called the “Genocide Convention”) was signed by President Reagan on November 11. On December 9, 1988, the treaty was ratified by the United States of America—and became an important law of the land—when it was formally filed by a representative of the United States president at the United Nations headquarters in Lake Success, New York.

In an official ceremony, before all the delegates in the General Assemble Hall, the document was handed to the secretary general of the United Nations. And, because it is now on the statute books of 96 different nations of earth,—the Genocide Treaty has become the first worldwide man-made law in the history of mankind!

Why was the United States hesitant for so many years to adopt the provisions of that treaty as a law governing people of the United States? Why is it considered so dangerous?

First: Under this recently enacted treaty, one man can be held as a genocidist for killing just one other man. Yet we all know that the killing of one man by another is in no way genocidal! “Genocide: the deliberate and methodical annihilation of a national or racial group” (Macmillan Dictionary), “the systematic killing of a whole group of people or a nation” (Webster’s new World Dictionary). “Genocide means the physical dismemberment and liquidation of people on large scales: an attempt by those who rule to achieve the total elimination of a subject people.”—I. Horowitz, Taking Lives:

Genocide and State Power, chapter 85.

Second: A man can be tried and found guilty of committing “genocide,” which is the destruction of an entire race of people—without having killed anyone at all! “But the treaty definition differs substantially from that of the dictionaries. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS!

The Genocide Treaty http://www.remnantofgod.org/breaking-news.htm 2/5 It includes such items as ‘mental harm to members of the group,’ or moving them from one place to another, or even birth control. It would not be difficult to imagine a situation at a later time in which a special class of people were hailed into court on the charge of genocide. Their crime? having brought ‘mental harm’ to members of a certain religious organization, by their words, actions, or distribution of proscribed literature.”—The Genocide Treaty, October 1968, 5.

Third: If a man is accused of “genocide,” he can be hailed into a U.S. court or be sent to a foreign court to stand trial under non-U.S. laws as a Genocide Treaty violator. “[Senator Jesse] Helms had blocked action in the past, complaining that the treaty could threaten the Constitution and subject the United States to spurious lawsuits by other countries [that sought to have U.S. citizens arrested and turned over to them for trial].”—Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 22, 1986, 458.

Fourth: The Genocide Treaty Itself has such vague wording that leading American jurists and attorneys have declared it to be dangerous! They tell us that all kinds of people can be accused of having violated the Genocide Treaty. “The Genocide Convention [Genocide Treaty]” is such a vague and dangerous treaty that to cure its imperfections would require changes so substantial that they would have to be regarded as amendments requiring renegotiation of the convention by the United Nations itself].”—Charles Rice, Professor of Law, quoted in Congressional Record, February 13, 1986, S-1288. Many of its terms are shrouded in uncertainty.”—Senator Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina, Senate debate, October 10, 1984, in Congressional Record, December 1984. [Speaking of the Genocide Treaty] A statute which forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that man of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”—Orie L. Phillips, “The Genocide convention: Its Effect on Our Legal System, “American Bar Journal, 1949.

Fifth: That which makes a man’s actions to be in violation of the treaty—is the motive that others assign to those actions! “Motives” means the reason why he did it. Almost any kind of criminal action can be classified as “genocidal,” according to this treaty. “The description of the ‘crime’ of genocide provided by the restricted Genocide Convention is so expansive and allinclusive as to cover almost any wrongdoer, perpetrating almost any criminal act of violence or advocacy of violence against almost every type of victim.”— Robert A. Friedlander, “Should the U.S. Constitution Treaty-Making Power Be Used as the Basis for Enactment of Domestic Legislation?” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring 1986, 268-269.

Sixth: Instead of being worded to stop genuine genocidists— which are the national governments and political groups trying to kill races within their borders or outside of it,—this treaty gives no mention of nations or political groups, but only of individuals. And the terms of the treaty are construed against, rather than in favor of, the defendant. This is against American law. “Political genocide is nowhere mentioned in this Genocide Treaty. History relates the reason that the treaty was originally accepted by the UN members in 1948, and then signed by many of the individual nations in later years. The nations had nothing to fear from it, for the Genocide Treaty deals neither with governments nor with political actions.”—The Genocide Treaty, 7. “The definitions proffered by articles II and III of the convention (the treaty] are vague and overbroad, arbitrary and capricious, and statutorily unreasonable both in their construction and application. They are, in American Constitutional phraseology, violative of substantive due process and could not withstand strict Constitutional scrutiny by the United States federal courts, since criminal statutes in this country have to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant.”—Fiedlander, 268-269. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS! The Genocide Treaty http://www.remnantofgod.org/breaking-news.htm 3/5

Seventh: An individual need not kill an individual of another race, but only “mentally harm” him by his words— in order to be eligible for Genocide Treaty violation. “Genocide is mass murder perpetrated by repressive government. To say, as does article IV, that private individuals commit genocide is not only pure hyperbole but, in the context of the so-called criminality of article II, it is a loaded weapon pointed at the citizenry of any signatory state.”—Friedlander 268, 271.

Eighth: One need only do or say that which appears harmful to the best interests of another religion in order to be brought into court for having violated the treaty,—where he will receive a heavy penalty. “That penalty (assigned by the U.S. Senate on October 14, 1988, to Genocide Treaty violation] was about the greatest that could be assigned, in this present generation, of no capital punishment: A fine of up to one million dollars and a twenty-year-to-life sentence in a federal penitentiary was the Senate decision in the matter! Murderers in California routinely get no fine and six years in prison, but ‘harming’ ‘part of’ a ‘religious group’ is more dangerous.”—The Genocide Treaty, 10.

Ninth: The Genocide Treaty (also known as the Genocide Convention”) threatens U.S. Constitutional sovereignty, because the United States Constitution declares that international treaties made by America take precedence above — are more important than—the internal laws of the nation. “It [the Genocide Treaty] ran afoul of conservative objections that it threatened U.S. sovereignty and Constutional objections.”—Washington Post, February 20, 1986, A27.

Tenth: No treaty signed by the United States government has ever been found unconstitutional by its Supreme Court —or any lower court for that matter. The reason: Our Constitution binds the laws of our nation to yield to the wording of treaties we enter upon with other nations. “No treaty has ever been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Lacking explicit statutory language, the U.S. Supreme Court has been very reluctant to find Congressional abrogation of treaty right (Washington vs. Washington State, 443, U.S. 690, 99 S. Ct. 3077 (1979).”—The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Eleventh: The treaty says nothing about political crimes: only individual crimes; yet genocide is being carried on by political groups and political governments all around the world, even as I write these words. “For 37 years the convention [treaty] met with considerable opposition. Various opponents were concerned that the convention would supercede the U.S. Constitution; acts against political groups were not made criminal offenses; the convention would be enforced in ways detrimental to the U.S.”—Gist, Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State, June 1986, 1. “The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics signed the Genocide Treaty on December 16, 1949, yet the Soviet Union regularly imprisons Christians in Russia and its satellite countries, but the Genocide Treaty has nothing to say about government genocide of religious groups. Moscow is entirely free to continue on with such atrocities, even though it is a signatory to Genocide Treaty.”— The Genocide Treaty, 3.

Twelfth: This treaty was quickly signed by the very nations that are practicing genocide on a day-by-day basis! They signed it because its wording could not include their governments,—but could be used by those governments in bringing accusation, imprisonment, or death to their citizens! “A list of the signatories of the Genocide Treaty reveals that it includes the leading practitioners of post- World War II genocide: Albania, Bulgaria, Red China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union.”— The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Thirteenth: This treaty lacks proper wording for just handling cases in a court of law. “The various classifications of subject victim groups put forward by article II (national, ethnical, racial, religious, etc.) encompasses virtually all conceivable persons, except for those having a particular political affiliation . . No American citizen or resident alien (legal or otherwise) seems to be excluded from the sweep of this article. “As for the enumerated crimes, (a) ‘Killing of the group,’ does not allow for any [legal] defenses; (b) ‘Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group’ 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS! The Genocide Treaty http://www.remnantofgod.org/breaking-news.htm 4/5 does not specify the degree of mental harm or distinguish whether the injury includes psychological disorientation of a temporary nature; (c) ‘Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’ can lead to charges raised by minority groups suffering from residential discrimination or ghetto life . . The list of possibilities for creative lawyers is practically endless.”— Friedlander, 268-269.

Fourteenth: Domestic laws—laws governing our own people—have now been decided by foreign powers. In this treaty, governments outside the United States are reshaping the regulations governing our own citizens. “The offenses listed in the Genocide Treaty are not international but domestic. That is, they concern crimes committed by Americans within our own country. Thus, for the first time in our nation’s history, a treaty has been used to invade an area of domestic law. In other words, we are letting foreigners make our laws for us, the laws that will decide which of our citizens will be imprisoned, and for what crimes”—The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Fifteenth: It is possible that those violating this treaty can be requested by foreign powers to be shipped from the United States and tried in foreign courts. “Such foreign nations, upon learning of individuals living in America even though U.S. citizens—who they can show are working to ‘destroy’ a certain religion, or part of it, can ask for extradition of those individuals so that they can be judged under a non-American tribunal in the World Court of Switzerland, in regard to the nature, extent, and punishment due their crimes.”—Op. cit., 3.

Throughout this book, we have discovered that a primary way in which mankind seeks to destroy one another— is through religious persecution. A person speaks and lives differently than is agreeable to another’s religion,—so he is persecuted for it. This newly ratified treaty permits one man to hail another man into court on the charge of genocide violation,—for having spoken words that bring “mental harm” to another person, part of a group, or entire group. We have also seen that our free land is gradually moving toward the emplacement of a National Sunday Law that, when enacted, may at first appear to be a great blessing,— but which will rapidly bring in its train persecution of minority churches, including Sabbathkeeping churches.

When religious orthodoxy becomes the law of the land, soon a narrow view of what constitutes “orthodoxy” is also legislated and enforced. The very vagueness of this treaty is such that it can be used in many ways, quite separated from what may have been the motives of its authors or enactors. This Genocide Treaty could provide a powerful tool in enforcing the National Sunday Law—when that law is finally enacted. And because it is on the statute books of 96 different nations, a rapid international aspect has been added. The entire world will be able to quickly work together to enforce Sunday observance. The crucial part is that a worldwide standardized crime has been established, with most terrible penalties for its violation.

The penalties of the Genocide Treaty could be applied at will to any individual who violated the National Sunday Law. And, because this treaty is based on a 96-nation mutual pact, or treaty, each nation will be required by all the others to search out and bring the specified criminal into court. Although commonly called the “Genocide Treaty,” technically, it is a “convention” and not a “treaty.” A treaty is a bilateral agreement between two nations; a “convention” is a multilateral agreement between many nations, in this case, most of those on our planet!

But there is no provision for a convention in the U.S. Constitution! Because it is a convention and not a treaty, every signatory nation involved is bound to defend it, adhere to it, and be ready to persecute individuals according to its ambiguous terms, as agreed upon by the member nations. This makes this genocide convention one of the most powerful international laws in the history of mankind! Yet, no matter how the nations of earth may plan and devise, there is a God in heaven who has a rule of right: the Ten Commandments.

And the time is nearing when He shall judge men according to that rule. One of the ten is the Sabbath commandment. It stands as a great memorial to the creative power of the One who made us all. And it is bulwarked by twelve great pillars of truth. Here they are, in the next chapter.

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”—Matthew 22:21. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS!

The Genocide Treaty http://www.remnantofgod.org/breaking-news.htm 5/5 Every conceivable base is covered to make the individual Christian a prime target of any power-crazed polititan, judge, police officer, or neighborhood snitch. And STILL the scoffer believes Christian prophecy is a myth?

This law is a first of it’s kind. This is the first GLOBALLY ACCEPTED LAW on the books. That’s right! It’s a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENTAL LAW.

Now do you see why Canada has been playing games with such laws?

Are you aware that as of September 2003 Canada has had on the books a LAW that allows a homosexual to have a Christian thrown behind bars for upto FIVE YEARS for merely preaching Scripture!

Want the proof? Click here. Read book entitled “National Sunday Law Crisis” that carries the above chapter.