Shell financed Hitler

Royal Dutch Shell financed Hitler

May 19th, 2011 

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan

Today we publish further confirmation of Shell's financing of Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Extract from a review of "Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. WILLIAM ENGDAHL

"Later, the consequences from Baron Kurt von Schroeder's January 4, 1932 meeting would have to be faced after he, Heinrich von Papen and Hitler secretly arranged a Nazi takeover. A year later, another meeting followed preparatory to acting. The Weimar government was weak, the scheme was to topple it, and it made Hitler Reichschancellor on January 30, 1933. On August 2, 1934 he seized absolute power as Fuhrer. British interests backed him, Royal Dutch Shell financed him, and the Bank of England "moved with indecent haste to reward" him with a vital line of credit. The rest, as they say, is history, and from it would emerge a new world order."

EXTRACT FROM PAGE 100 OF THE BOOK

"On January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich.

The final London visit of Alfred Rosenberg was in May 1933, this time as one of the inner figures in the new Hitler government. He went directly to the country home in Buckhurst Park in Ascot of Sir Henri Deterding, the head of Royal Dutch Shell and arguably the world's most influential businessman. According to English press accounts, the two had a warm and eventful discussion. Rosenberg had first met Deterding during his 1931 London trip.  Royal Dutch Shell had intimate contact and support to the German NSDAP. While the details were kept secret, reliable British reports of the day were that Deterding had provided substantial financial support to the Hitler Project in its critical early phases."

EXTRACT ENDS

Notes

1. Dr. Alfred Rosenberg was Hitlers envoy

2. The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German:Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party. (Extract from Wikipedia)

About the Author

F. William Engdahl is the author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order." It has been published in eight languages. He is one of the more widely discussed analysts of current political and economic developments, and his articles and analyses have appeared in numerous newspapers and magazines and well-known international websites.

Posted in: Adolf Hitler, Business Principles, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Oil,Outspoken Articles, Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Sir Henri Deterding.
Tagged: Adolf Hitler · John Donovan · Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Spoof 24 page section of Shell Annual Report published

Shell's U.S. Shale Gas May Be Refined Into Diesel, Jet Fuel →

SOUNDS FAMILiar GUARDIANS OF LAW

Hon. Enriqueta Esguerra Vidal

Clerk of Court

JBC Ex Officio Secretary

Hon. ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA VIDAL

CLERK OF COURT

FIRST DIVISION SUPREME COURT

THE HONORABLES FROM THE CA

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOSEFINA GUEVARA SALONGA

THE HONORABLES FROM THE NLRC

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER LOURDES C. JAVIER

COMMISSIONER GREGORIO O. BILOG III

COMMISSIONER TITO F. GENILO

LABOR ARBITER MICHAELA LONTOC

THE LAWYER FOR SHELL

ATTY. RAUL G. QUIROZ

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

SHAKE IT OFF AND TAKE A STEP UP

The Farmer's Donkey

By: Author Unknown

One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal

cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out

what to do. Finally he decided the animal was old and the

credit: entirebox.com

well needed to be covered up anyway, it just wasn't worth

it to retrieve the donkey.

He invited all his neighbors to come over and help him.

They all grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into

the well. At first, the donkey realized what was happening

and cried horribly. Then, to everyone's amazement, he

quieted down.

credit:www.youtube.com

A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked

credit: mikesteeden.wordpress.com

down the well and was astonished at what he saw. With every shovel of dirt that hit his back, the donkey was doing something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up.

As the farmer's neighbors continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and trotted off!

Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt.

The trick to getting out of the well is to shake it off and

take a step up. Each of our troubles is a stepping-stone.

We can get out of the deepest wells just by not stopping,

never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up!

VACUUM THESE JUSTICES OUT OF THE COURT

Editorial
Vacuumed justice

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:13:00 05/11/2011

Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice), Military, Graft & Corruption
Most Read
THE SANDIGANBAYAN'S May 9 resolution upholding the controversial plea bargain agreement that ex-military comptroller Carlos F. Garcia entered into with then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is a model of judicial obtuseness. As we can see for ourselves in both the language and the reasoning they used, the judges in the majority were so determined to willfully ignore the greater context and the higher purposes of the law that they ended up burrowing their head in the sand—and looking stupid.

While the resolution is attributed to the anti-graft court's Second Division, it was in fact a "Special Division of Five" that reached the unfortunate conclusion. Since the three-person Second Division was divided on the issues of the case, the Special Division was created to resolve the matter; it did, by a close 3-2 vote—and by the narrowest of judicial reasons.

Essentially, the resolution in the Garcia case centered on Garcia's compliance with the terms of the plea bargain agreement. About half of the resolution's 22 pages was used to list the various properties and bank accounts held by Garcia and members of his family. On Page 17 we read: "It therefore appears from the foregoing that the transfer in the name of the Republic of the Philippines of the assets and properties of accused Maj. Gen. Garcia subject of the Plea Bargaining Agreement, in the total amount of P135,433,387.84, had already been accomplished." Two pages later, we read: "Inasmuch as the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Agreement and the concerns of this Court about the protection of the Government have been already fully addressed, there is no reason why this Court should withhold approval of the Plea Bargaining Agreement in these cases."

In fact, there are several reasons why the plea bargain should not have been approved, and why the Sandiganbayan should reconsider its ruling. Compliance with the terms of the agreement cannot be the primary consideration, when the agreement is itself the issue at stake. The protection of the government cannot be understood in the narrowest terms of securing property and other assets; the highest purpose of the anti-graft court is to punish grafters and prevent corruption. How can a plea bargain that allows a military official with hundreds of millions in unexplained wealth to keep half of it serve as both punishment and preventive measure?

Above all, in ignoring the greater context, the anti-graft court succeeded in making itself an accomplice of the corrupt. From the unusual circumstances of the plea bargain (struck only after an uncooperative special prosecutor retired), to the smoking-gun confession of Garcia's wife Clarita (the subject of apparently intense internal debate in the court), to the revelations disclosed in hearings at the Senate and the House of Representatives (including evidence from the Anti-Money Laundering Council showing that Garcia's wealth may have reached over P700 million), to the obvious discrepancy between Garcia's official income and his unexplained riches (the only instance when the law puts the burden of proof on the accused, not the accuser), there was an entire range of old and new evidence that the anti-graft court could have taken notice of, but chose not to see. President Aquino was only right to ask whether the judges lived in a vacuum.

One gauge of the resolution's strained reasoning is when it reiterated the court's earlier ruling that there was no need for the AFP to give its consent to the plea bargain, in part because "the blatant allegations in the information fail to indicate that the amount mentioned therein was purportedly taken from the AFP, as in fact none from the said agency was listed therein as a witness." This is plainly ridiculous; the facts of the case show that much of the money involved came from suppliers' bribes. But while the funds did not necessarily come from the AFP, the bribes were made precisely because, at the time, Garcia was the AFP's comptroller. In other words, the abuse happened as a direct result of the office Garcia held; if we want the AFP to reform itself, surely it must have a say on how an officer who abused his office must be meted justice.

A once-secret plea bargain that allows Garcia to pocket over a hundred million pesos is many things, but it isn't justice

--
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

SHAME ON ME

9-year-old Japanese's self-sacrifice shames Filipinos 

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:23:00 05/12/2011

Filed Under: Earthquake, Graft & Corruption, People

I WAS really deeply touched by and cried over the storyConrado de Quiros narrated in his column "Deliverance." (Inquirer, 4/21/11) It was about a Vietnamese who worked as a cop in Japan, and a 9-year-old Japanese boy who gave despite having lost everything, including his parents and siblings during the Fukushima tsunami disaster that ensued in the aftermath of a powerful earthquake.

Truth or fiction, the story made a strong impact. I totally agree with De Quiros' view that the observation of the Vietnamese cop—that "[a] society that can produce a 9-year-old who understands the concept of sacrifice for the greater good must be a great society, a great people"—was "more precious" because the cop was a survivor of a decade-long Vietnam war. Like Vietnam, the Philippines had once been ravaged by war. But after that, what kind of generation did we produce?

Comparing the cop's and boy's countries with our own in terms of instilling in children the values of love and charity, we would arrive at a shameful reality that we're raising our kids far below their standards. It is true—and again I agree with De Quiros—that the Japanese boy and Vietnamese cop are not Christians, yet as the story showed us, they had more Christian charity than we do, and they demonstrated a capacity for self-sacrifice more than we Filipinos do.

So, how soon, then shall we Filipinos—who are mostly Christians—transform our society into one that can produce a generation of Filipinos with values like those that a 9-year-old Japanese orphan exemplified and a Vietnamese cop extolled? When can we produce a generation of Filipinos who "understand the concept of self-sacrifice for the greater good," so that we Filipinos can also be called "a great society and a great people"? Or shall we just remain as we are now, mired in the culture of corruption, where selfishness and greed are being cultivated by most of our vicious and depraved politicians and government officials?

God bless us Filipinos!

BENJAMIN B. MALLORCA JR.,

benmallorcajr@yahoo.com

DEFINING MOMENT AGAINST TERROR AND CORRUPTION

GLOBAL NETWORKING

Defining Moment 

for Obama and PNoy

By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.netFirst Posted 14:26:00 05/12/2011Filed Under: Graft & Corruption, graft, Acts of terror, Congress, Impeachment

A president's "defining moment" is generally said to be the event which either makes or breaks him and which determines the course of his future. For Pres. Barack Obama, this occurred on May 1, 2011 with the killing of Osama bin Laden. For Pres. Noynoy Aquino (PNoy), his defining moment preceded Obama's by just two days and it came with the resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

The significance of Obama's defining moment, as Charles Larlham describes it, is in the context of the fact that "every President for 20 years has tried to find and neutralize this terrorist leader. After the events of 9/11, President George W. Bush started a war and destroyed a country's government to find him. But it was Obama who was able to run him to the ground and 'take him out.' And now the President is riding the ecstatic reaction of tens of thousands of people in Times Square, Washington D.C. and around the country."

Pres. Obama did what candidate Obama promised to do during his second presidential debate with Sen. John McCain on October 7, 2008: "If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take him out, then I think that we have to act and we will take him out. We will kill bin Laden.; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
Obama delivered on his promise and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed that he deserves full credit for the killing of Osama because he would have received all the blame if the military operation had failed.
Pres. Obama's approval rating has zoomed to its highest point in two years – 60 percent – and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to recent polls which show that Obama's standing had improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy.
Unlike the killing of Osama which was high drama for Obama, the resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was a low-key affair that was not even the major news of the day as it was eclipsed by wall-to-wall coverage of the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton in London which was viewed by two billion people worldwide.
But the high significance of the Ombudsman's resignation should be viewed in the context of the fact that PNoy's presidential campaign was anchored on his promise to rid the country of corruption ("kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap") by starting with the prosecution of his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

When Arroyo went after her predecessor, Joseph "Erap" Estrada, and sought to prosecute him for plunder and corruption, she had the benefit of the support of the Ombudsman who was appointed by Erap's predecessor and of a Supreme Court which was also dominated by justices appointed by Erap's predecessors.

PNoy was handicapped by the fact that the Ombudsman in his watch was an appointee of his predecessor whose chief virtue was her abiding loyalty to the president who appointed her to high office. As long as Merceditas Gutierrez was the Ombudsman, no charges would ever be filed against Arroyo or any of her appointees, she would make sure of that.

PNoy sought to get around the prophylactic protection provided to Arroyo by the Ombudsman by signing an Executive Order creating a Truth Commission that would investigate the corruption of the previous administration. Even though the commission was generally considered toothless, its constitutionality was still challenged before the Philippine Supreme Court, the vast majority of whom were, like Gutierrez, appointees of Arroyo, and it was predictably struck down as unconstitutional.

PNoy's only hope of being rid of Arroyo's Ombudsman was to have her impeached by the House of Representatives and all he needed was 93 votes and surely he could gather that number. But before he could get the House to vote on the impeachment motion, the Ombudsman raised a legal challenge that there can only be one impeachment complaint filed against her in any given year and two were filed.

The House sponsors of the impeachment complaint explained that the two bills would be combined as one, which happens all the time. But the Ombudsman sought and obtained a restraining order from the Supreme Court stopping the House from voting on her impeachment.

The SC justices, perhaps unwilling to remain tainted forever as lapdogs of Arroyo, overturned the restraining order and allowed the House to vote to impeach the Ombudsman.

On March 21, 2011, PNoy easily secured 212 votes in the House of Representatives, more than enough to impeach Ombudsman Gutierrez without even having to send Philippine Navy Seals to accomplish the mission and, despite reports that Arroyo had spent P100 million pesos to defeat the impeachment motion.
The significance of this vote, as presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda explained, is that "by doing so, the House has put an end to the long era of impunity that tarnished our institutions and made a mockery of the bedrock principle of accountability that is the bedrock of our Constitution."
Newspaper reports confirmed that Arroyo personally visited the Ombudsman at her home on the day of the impeachment vote perhaps to assure her that PNoy did not have enough Senate votes to secure her ouster and that was the conventional wisdom.
As only 1/3rd of the House votes was needed for an impeachment to succeed, that first part was a picnic. The next step, the Senate trial, would be infinitely more challenging as PNoy would need 2/3rds of the vote or 16 out of the 23 sitting senators.

Pres. Aquino could likely secure the 16 votes he needed to oust Gutierrez but there would be a heavy price to pay. Each of the senators would want something in return for their vote. Sen. Ping Lacson may want PNoy to get his Department of Justice to drop its criminal prosecution of him for his alleged role in the kidnap-murder of Salvador Dacer and Emmanuel Corbito. Sen. Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos may want PNoy's pledge to allow his father to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

It may be recalled that when his ally, Sen. Kiko Pangilinan, sought the Senate presidency last year, Sen. Lito Lapid made it crystal clear that he would support PNoy's candidate only if his son, Mark Lapid, would be retained in his post as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority. As Kiko bowed out of the Senate presidency contest, Sen. Lapid needs another Senate vote to secure the permanent appointment of his son.

When former Pres. Joseph Estrada was facing ouster by the Philippine Senate at his impeachment trial in January of 2001, he appointed the mother of one grateful senator as Ambassador to Mexico and reportedly awarded a P750 million peso dam construction project to the husband of another senator. That's the politics of back scratching that is common in Congress.

If Merci Gutierrez had not tendered her resignation to Pres. Aquino on April 28, 2011, PNoy would have had to scratch the backs of an awful number of senators or, rather, a number of awful senators. In seeking the ouster of Arroyo's Ombudsman in order appoint his own, PNoy would have laid the grounds for the corruption of his own administration.

Because of what PNoy did not have to give up, the resignation of Ombudsman Merci Gutierrez was the defining moment of his presidency.

(Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or write to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 4154.334.7800).