Written on 7:12 AM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
George Olliver Gospel Soul, Will be live on Streaming Praise Radio.com. Look for him with a live interview on The Cafe' from 6-9PM right here on www.Streamingpraiseradio.com. In January 2009.
Written on 7:00 PM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
The first step of 50 million steps 1997-2008
The begging of STEP BY STEP Foundation
Written on 6:02 AM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
Toronto SUN
News Canada
Selfless donor saves ill baby
By JENNY YUEN, SUN MEDIA
Last Updated: 26th November 2008, 3:37am
Story
Click here to watch the video
Radio host Clairmont Humphrey talks about his decision to give away part of his liver to save a little girl.
Play Video
MISSISSAUGA -- Baby Jaida Marae Fairman received the best Christmas present this year -- a second chance at life.
The one-year-old was diagnosed last December with biliary atresia, a rare liver disease in which the common bile duct between the liver and the small intestine is blocked or absent. She was only 11 weeks old when the news came that she needed a liver transplant.
It was a stranger who answered the call.
"When God speaks to your heart, you've got to operate," donor Clairmont Humphrey said yesterday.
"People thought I was a bit crazy because I didn't even know the child. But that doesn't matter. For me, it's just doing what God would call anyone out to do."
Humphrey, 46, a father of four and the host of the gospel Internet radio station Streaming Praise Radio, said he first met Jaida last summer when she was at the Hospital for Sick Children. The baby was related to his ex-wife.
"When I visited her, she was actually sicker than I thought, and without a liver transplant, there's no chance of life," Humphrey said.
Four people, including Jaida's father and grandfather, previously tried donating a piece of their liver to the tot, but there wasn't a compatible match.
The operation took about 41/2 hours last Tuesday, when surgeons removed a piece of Humphrey's liver.
What remains is a 38-cm hockey stick-shaped "war scar" stretching from his stomach to his right hip and a numbness of his muscles in that area.
Leading up to the procedure, Humphrey, a hemo technician assistant at Toronto General Hospital, said he wasn't scared.
"The doctor explained that one of the things that could happen is death and I still didn't fear it," he said. "If me doing this can give somebody life, that's an awesome experience."
Jaida's mom, Melissa Fairman, declined to speak to media yesterday because "her daughter is still in critical condition," Sick Kids spokesman Evelyne Jhung said.
It will take between six to 12 weeks for both Jaida and Humphrey to recover.
"She still has some setbacks here and there, but she's doing well," Humphrey said. "She seems to have more energy than I do. It tells you she's more resilient than I am."
Today, Humphrey, Jaida's family and friends will march from Queen's Park to Sick Kids' hospital to visit the baby girl and to provide hope for families anxiously waiting for organ and tissue transplants -- an estimated 2,000 in Ontario alone.
"Jaida's going to get her Christmas present -- it's called life," Humphrey said. "And I kept my word."
---
FACTS OF LIFE
- A liver transplant is an operation that replaces a diseased liver with either a whole or portion of a healthy, donated liver.
- Every other day, a Canadian dies while waiting for an organ transplant. More than 2,000 Ontarians are registered as waiting for a transplant -- 800 to 900 of those need a liver.
- One cadaver can save up to eight people's lives and restore the tissues of 30 others. A live donor can give a liver, kidney or lung, and can save one life.
- Number of liver transplants in Canada each year: More than 300.
- Diseases treated by liver transplants: Chronic hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and alcoholic cirrhosis. In children, biliary atresia.
- Success rate for liver transplant: 87% of adult patients and 93% of children.
Update on Jaida's Operation
Written on 8:49 AM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
Both Jaida, the recipient of the liver, and Claimont, the live donor, are doing well and are recovering in the hospital. The operation was a success and we wish a quick recovery for both recipient and donor.
Clairmont and Family
Clairmont in recovery
Written on 5:21 PM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
In the fall of 2006, My Mom was acting weird and was really confused, So my Dad took her to the hospital, Where they discovered her potassium level was dangerously low. The hospital ended up getting her levels back up.
In the being of February, My Mom went back to the Doctors to have some more test done, At that time,The Doctors said,"There's something not right about your Blood the tests your Liver".
Months went by before her case was transferred to Kingston General Hospital, during this time, My Moms condition seemed to be getting worst, She seemed more tired, She had bloating in the Stomach & Confusion.
In Nov of 2007, My Mom ended back up in Kingston in a Coma State from the Toxin bypassing her liver and going to her brain. I remember that day in early Dec/07 when my Dad called me, Saying he didn't think she was going to make it.
Kingston ended up getting her condition under control. A few weeks later, She was moved from ICU to a step down unit, She was aware of her surroundings. The Hospital ended up doing a lot of test on my Mom, Including a Liver Biopsy.
The Biopsy ended up showing she had Cirrhosis of the Liver caused by a virus & that she would require a Liver transplant, At that time, I stood right up and said, I want to be tested so I can donate half my Liver to my Mom.
In May/08 , My Moms case ended up being transferred to Toronto General Hospital.
My Mom & Dad have been going to Toronto once to Twice a Month for meetings & tests,
In Sept/08, Toronto General Hospital ended up giving my Mom & Dad a pager and informed them, That my Mom is now on the waiting list from a Cadavric Donor or Deceased Donor and the waiting time frame could be 2-3 years.
At that time, TGH called me to start my testing to be a Living Liver Donor.
On Sept 4/08, I was at TGH for the whole day going through number of tests & blood work.
On Sept 15th, The Coordinator called me from the Donor Team at TGH; She informed me that most of my test showed up great except I had a Moderate to severe Fatty Inflammation in my Liver and I would require to lose a little weight, I asked her how much does she think, She replied about 20-25 LBS, And that we will set up another date for an ultrasound in about 6 weeks.
So I stepped on the scale, My weight was 202 LBS.
From that day on, I started a Diet, went for walks. 2 days later, Toronto called and said, I have another Ultrasound on Oct 21st. That only 5 weeks away, So I better work hard,
On Oct 21st, I showed up to my ultrasound weighing 180 LBS, Wow! That Was a 22 LBS weight loss,
When I had my ultrasound, I was suppose to bring the report up to Cailin for the results, She looked at the report and said, The ultrasound shows a great improvement, So we are going to move forward with the testing and schedule a Biopsy.
The Biopsy was schedule for Nov 10th/08, I showed up at the Hospital weighing 177 LBS now, That 25 LBS since my Diet.
At 10:30am, Nov 10th . The Biopsy was completed, I had to stay there in bed for 4-5 Hours.
At 3:00pm. I was getting my coat on to leave, when Cailin came into the room with a paper in her hand, She said to me, " Congratulation, Your Liver Biopsy showed less then 10% Fat,The required Fat in the Liver for a Transplant.
So at that time they Scheduled a Surgery date for Monday, Nov 24/08.
But now things could get postponed, My Mom is in Kingston Hospital fighting 3 different kinds of Infections, 1 of them is a Cat Bite from there house Pet.
So I'm praying everyday for a speedy recovery for my Mom, So we can move forward, So I can Give my Mom the Gift of Life, and give my Mom Carol a 2nd chance at Life.
I would also like to thank my Beautiful Wife Amanda for all her love & support, Because deep down I don't think I could have did all this without her beside my side, I Love YOU AMANDA & Thank-You again for everything.
Regards,
Ted Smith
In the being of February, My Mom went back to the Doctors to have some more test done, At that time,The Doctors said,"There's something not right about your Blood the tests your Liver".
Months went by before her case was transferred to Kingston General Hospital, during this time, My Moms condition seemed to be getting worst, She seemed more tired, She had bloating in the Stomach & Confusion.
In Nov of 2007, My Mom ended back up in Kingston in a Coma State from the Toxin bypassing her liver and going to her brain. I remember that day in early Dec/07 when my Dad called me, Saying he didn't think she was going to make it.
Kingston ended up getting her condition under control. A few weeks later, She was moved from ICU to a step down unit, She was aware of her surroundings. The Hospital ended up doing a lot of test on my Mom, Including a Liver Biopsy.
The Biopsy ended up showing she had Cirrhosis of the Liver caused by a virus & that she would require a Liver transplant, At that time, I stood right up and said, I want to be tested so I can donate half my Liver to my Mom.
In May/08 , My Moms case ended up being transferred to Toronto General Hospital.
My Mom & Dad have been going to Toronto once to Twice a Month for meetings & tests,
In Sept/08, Toronto General Hospital ended up giving my Mom & Dad a pager and informed them, That my Mom is now on the waiting list from a Cadavric Donor or Deceased Donor and the waiting time frame could be 2-3 years.
At that time, TGH called me to start my testing to be a Living Liver Donor.
On Sept 4/08, I was at TGH for the whole day going through number of tests & blood work.
On Sept 15th, The Coordinator called me from the Donor Team at TGH; She informed me that most of my test showed up great except I had a Moderate to severe Fatty Inflammation in my Liver and I would require to lose a little weight, I asked her how much does she think, She replied about 20-25 LBS, And that we will set up another date for an ultrasound in about 6 weeks.
So I stepped on the scale, My weight was 202 LBS.
From that day on, I started a Diet, went for walks. 2 days later, Toronto called and said, I have another Ultrasound on Oct 21st. That only 5 weeks away, So I better work hard,
On Oct 21st, I showed up to my ultrasound weighing 180 LBS, Wow! That Was a 22 LBS weight loss,
When I had my ultrasound, I was suppose to bring the report up to Cailin for the results, She looked at the report and said, The ultrasound shows a great improvement, So we are going to move forward with the testing and schedule a Biopsy.
The Biopsy was schedule for Nov 10th/08, I showed up at the Hospital weighing 177 LBS now, That 25 LBS since my Diet.
At 10:30am, Nov 10th . The Biopsy was completed, I had to stay there in bed for 4-5 Hours.
At 3:00pm. I was getting my coat on to leave, when Cailin came into the room with a paper in her hand, She said to me, " Congratulation, Your Liver Biopsy showed less then 10% Fat,The required Fat in the Liver for a Transplant.
So at that time they Scheduled a Surgery date for Monday, Nov 24/08.
But now things could get postponed, My Mom is in Kingston Hospital fighting 3 different kinds of Infections, 1 of them is a Cat Bite from there house Pet.
So I'm praying everyday for a speedy recovery for my Mom, So we can move forward, So I can Give my Mom the Gift of Life, and give my Mom Carol a 2nd chance at Life.
I would also like to thank my Beautiful Wife Amanda for all her love & support, Because deep down I don't think I could have did all this without her beside my side, I Love YOU AMANDA & Thank-You again for everything.
Regards,
Ted Smith
Life for Jaida
Written on 10:15 AM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
Well Hello Everyone,
It is I again, bringing you up to date, with the Jaida Story http://streamingpraise.blogspot.com/2008/10/jaidas-story.html and my donation of a potion of my Liver to save her life. I am requesting your prayers.
As you know, donation of any organ is not always that simple, for some it does not work but for most it does. This Liver transplant has been done many times in Toronto General Hospital and has been successful. However, we know that, we wrestle not against flesh and blood and there is a real Devil out there who would like nothing less than, to mess plans up. So, I am asking you to pray that the operation will go smoothly and both Jaida and myself will be well. Pray that Jaidas little body will not reject the Liver she will be getting from me and that it will go well in the operating rooms.
Now, THE BIG DAY IS NEXT TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 18th 2008, starting at 8AM in the morning.
I thank you all for your prayers and may God continue to bless you all.
Your Brother and Friend In Christ
Pastors plan to defy IRS ban on political speech
Written on 5:35 PM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
Ministers will intentionally violate ban on campaigning by nonprofits in hopes of generating a test case.
Setting the stage for a collision of religion and politics, Christian ministers from California and 21 other states will use their pulpits Sunday to deliver political sermons or endorse presidential candidates -- defying a federal ban on campaigning by nonprofit groups.
The pastors' advocacy could violate the Internal Revenue Service's rules against political speech with the purpose of triggering IRS investigations.
The pastors' advocacy could violate the Internal Revenue Service's rules against political speech with the purpose of triggering IRS investigations.
That would allow their patron, the conservative legal group Alliance Defense Fund, to challenge the IRS' rules, a risky strategy that one defense fund attorney acknowledges could cost the churches their tax-exempt status. Congress made it illegal in 1954 for tax-exempt groups to publicly support or oppose political candidates.
"I'm going to talk about the un-biblical stands that Barack Obama takes. Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him," said the Rev. Wiley S. Drake of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park. "We may not be politically correct, but we are going to be biblically correct. We are going to vote for those who follow the Bible."
Drake was the target of a recent IRS investigation into his endorsement last year of former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. In the end, Drake was cleared.
Drake and 32 other pastors who have signed on to the "pulpit initiative" have sparked loud condemnations by fellow clergy and advocates of the separation of church and state."I'm going to talk about the un-biblical stands that Barack Obama takes. Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him," said the Rev. Wiley S. Drake of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park. "We may not be politically correct, but we are going to be biblically correct. We are going to vote for those who follow the Bible."
Drake was the target of a recent IRS investigation into his endorsement last year of former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. In the end, Drake was cleared.
These critics, such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argue that Sunday's sermons at churches in Oregon, Texas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and other states will violate federal tax law by politicizing the pulpit. That, they believe, will undercut the independence churches have long enjoyed to speak out about moral and ethical issues in American life, including women's suffrage, child labor and civil rights.
"The integrity of the religious community is at stake when religion and politics become entangled," said the Rev. Eric Williams of the North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio.
Williams was recruited for the defense fund but instead joined with 54 other Christian and Jewish clergy members to file a complaint against the initiative with the IRS.
The religious leaders asked the agency to stop the Arizona-based defense fund from recruiting churches and to investigate whether its efforts may jeopardize its own tax-exempt status.
Representing the religious leaders are three Washington attorneys, all former IRS officials, who also filed a complaint accusing defense fund attorneys of violating IRS rules by helping the churches break federal law.
Meanwhile, a separate group of 180 ministers, rabbis and imams also has sought to counter the "pulpit initiative."
Members of the Interfaith Alliance -- which includes the nation's top Episcopal bishop -- have signed a pledge to refrain from electioneering in their houses of worship.
"Political activity and political expressions are very important, but partisan politics are . . . . a death knell to the prophetic freedom that any religious organization must protect," said the Rev. Ed Bacon, rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, who signed the pledge.
All Saints survived a nearly two-year IRS investigation after former Rector George Regas spoke out against the Iraq war on the eve of the 2004 presidential election. Bacon repeatedly said the church did not engage in campaigning.
The IRS dropped the case last year even though agency officials indicated that they still considered the sermon to be illegal.
All Saints leaders voiced frustration Wednesday at pulpit initiative backers for using the Pasadena church's fight with the IRS as fodder for their cause.
"These people are wanting to promote one candidate over another and that's a huge difference," Bacon said.
At the heart of the controversy is the Johnson amendment, named after former President Lyndon Johnson, a senator from Texas when it was enacted in 1954. The measure stated that nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations cannot participate in political campaigns for or against candidates for public office.
Many churches have appeared to step over the line, but legal scholars could recall only one church that lost its tax-exempt status -- a congregation in New York that urged voters not to vote for Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential race.
The defense fund said churches targeted by the IRS would serve as clients for lawsuits against the agency in federal court.
The defense fund issued seemingly contradictory statements about the initiative. On one hand, it insists pastors will not endorse candidates and will simply exercise their constitutional rights by addressing "the differing positions of the presidential candidates in light of Scripture."
On the other hand, the defense fund describes its efforts as a "strategic litigation plan" that seeks to "restore the right of each pastor to speak scriptural truth from the pulpit" without losing a church's tax-exempt status.
"The bottom line is that churches and pastors have a right to speak freely from the pulpit," said Dale Schowengerdt, a defense fund attorney working on the project. "They should not be intimidated into silence by unconstitutional IRS regulations or rules."
Still, recognizing the confrontational nature of their strategy and wary of protests, the defense fund released the name of only one pastor ahead of Sunday -- the Rev. Gus Booth of the Warroad Community Church in rural Minnesota, who already is the subject of a complaint filed with the IRS over a May sermon in which he urged congregants to oppose Obama and Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton because of their positions on abortion.
"There is nobody who will ever tell me what I can and cannot say from behind my pulpit," Booth said, "except the spirit of God or the word of God."
-----------------
What do you think? Should Pastors endorse political candidates from the pulpit?
What do you think? Should Pastors endorse political candidates from the pulpit?
US-Iran: Raid on nuclear fuel market
Written on 3:17 PM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
by Rudo de Ruijter,
Independent researcher,
15 September 2008*
In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away. The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become the world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in. Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans. The problems of tomorrow’s world economy are being shaped today.
Contents:
· History
- Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
- Iran’s nuclear history
- From shah Reza to Khomeini
· The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of uranium
· US’ usual agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…
· The Iranian Oil Bourse
· Seeking allies
· The strange European delegation
· Russia and China
· Why does Iran want nuclear energy?
· Is enrichment in countries without nuclear weapons dangerous?
· Birth of a new world order
· Questionable elements
· The UN theatre
History
Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
US President Bush wants us to believe that Iran has plans for nuclear weapons. Well, we remember, in 2002 he accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be a lie, so let us look more closely at the facts.
Iran is a member state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the very beginning in 1968. [1] The NPT is a treaty not only to stop proliferation of nuclear arms, but also to help develop civil nuclear energy. [2] In the treaty, the nuclear-weapon states (US, Russia, China, France and England) promised nuclear disarmament. (So far, they have not kept their promises.) The other members had to sign agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), NPT’s watchdog, for the implementation of controls. IAEA’s agreement with Iran entered into force on May 15 1974. [3]
Iran’s nuclear history
At that time shah Reza ruled Iran. Thanks to the Anglo-US’ operation Ajax in 1953 he was still on the throne. From 1957 Shah Reza wanted to develop nuclear energy in Iran. [4] The US offered everything he wanted: a research reactor, enriched uranium and plutonium. The research reactor was started in 1967, but had critical problems soon after. Then the French became good friends too. They promised to repair the reactor. The shah made a $ 1 billion loan to the French for the construction of an enrichment plant in Tricastin in the South of France. From 1974 still more countries offered their services to the shah. Agreements followed for five reactors and fuel from France, two reactors and fuel from the US, regular purchases of uranium from Australia and two reactors from West Germany. Denmark delivered 10 kilo of highly enriched uranium and 25 kilo of natural uranium. Technical staff came in from Argentina and India, while Iranian students went to the UK and West Germany. Discussions took place with Pakistan and Turkey for regional nuclear cooperation. The Iranian budget for the atomic energy rose from $ 30 million in 1975 to $ 1 billion the following year, and still more reactors were ordered from the US. By the end of 1978, with not a single reactor completed, the shah ran out of money. Meanwhile, popular opposition against the shah’s blood shedding oppression rose to a climax.
From shah Reza to Khomeini
The opposition against the shah had grown since 1953, when popular hero and Prime Minister Mossadeq had been overthrown by a joint coup of the CIA, the English and the shah. [5] Mossadeq had successfully strived to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (BP). Sued by England, Mossadeq had won the case at the International Court in The Hague. [6] During the coup, the shah initially fled the country, but came back after the army had succeeded to beat down the protests of the population. In 1960, to please his American friends, he granted diplomatic immunity to all US’ personnel working in Iran. A young opponent, called Ruhollah Khomeini dared to criticize the shah publicly. The first time he was jailed. Recidivist a few years later he was expelled. The shah’s oppression continued to increase over time. In riots many hundreds of opponents were killed and thousands injured. By 1977 all opposition movements finally united and in January 1979 the shah definitely fled the country. Khomeini returned to Iran in triumph and on April 1st 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran was established by referendum. In November 1979, when Iranian students heard that the shah had gone to the US, they stormed the US embassy in Tehran to claim the extradition of the shah in order to summon him to trial. A long hostages crisis followed. A US’ attempt to free them failed. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, a good friend of the US at that time, invaded Iran, announcing he would be in Tehran within three days. However, the war between Iraq and Iran would last 10 years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
In the first year of the war, on June 7 1981, Israel bombed the nearly completed nuclear power plant of Osirak, in Iraq. [7] Israel disposes of nuclear weapons and is not a member of the Non Proliferation Treaty. Many countries feel threatened by the Israelian nuclear arsenal.
With the end of the Warschau Pact in 1989 and Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, the US attitude toward Iraq made a 180-degree turn. Iraq and Iran were both US’ enemies now. However, with respectively 10.5 and 10 percent of world’s oil reserves, it was unlikely the US would just ignore them. The US remains world’s largest oil consumer with 25 percent of world’s oil consumption. Today it has less than 2 percent of world’s oil reserves. Its dependency on foreign oil is rapidly increasing and, according to Bush, it was 60 percent in May 2006. [8]
------
The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of Uranium
On June 16 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency announced, that Iran had not reported an import of uranium in 1991 and its subsequent stocking and processing. That is true. But from a confidential IAEA document of June 6 2003 we learn, it contained just 130 gram of uranium. [9] According to article 37 of the official agreement between the IAEA and Iran, in force since May 15 1974, nuclear materials containing less than 1 kilo of uranium are exempted from the IAEA safeguards. [10] The IAEA accusations made the world believe that Iran had violated the rules.
Similar jousts are about the Additional Protocol. During the embargo against Iraq, when proof had to be found of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein was not willing to grant more rights to the UN inspectors, the IAEA developed additional rules to make controls easier. The new rules also made it easier to discriminate among members: excessive rules for one country, friendly rules for others.
In June 2003 only 33 of the 188 members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had accepted to sign the Additional Protocol. Nevertheless the US and a delegation of the European Union formed by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, wanted to force Iran to sign. In exchange, the three European countries (E3) promised to come up with interesting commercial deals. Iran was willing to hear what they had to offer. This is not so surprising. The EU is Iran's principal trading partner, with 36% of Iran's exports going to the EU and roughly 40% of EU imports coming from Iran. [11] [12] Spring 2003, Iran had even switched its oil sales from dollars to euros, which is good for Europe and bad for the US, since it weakens the dollar.
During the talks about new commercial deals with the Europeans Iran voluntarily agreed to suspend its research program for uranium enrichment and to grant additional rights to the IAEA for extended checking of their nuclear facilities. However, after repeated Iranian requests it became clear, that the E3 countries had no intention of following through on the incentives they had promised. They just wanted to keep the talks going on indefinitely, meantime preventing Iran from enriching uranium. So, Iran resumed the program it had voluntarily suspended and re-established the contractual conditions for the IAEA controls. This resulted in the attempt by the US and E3 to have the UN Security Council condemn Iran.
US’ usual agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…
So, if the so-called proofs against Iran appear to be fabricated, what is the real issue? I think the general idea is clear to all. With its excessive energy consumption the US thinks, it is necessary to have pro-US governments in Iraq, Iran and, (for the UNOCAL pipeline projects), also in Afghanistan. During the Cold War Saddam Hussein in Iraq and shah Reza in Iran were useful US’ allies, but those days are over. Thanks to Bush we now have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is located in between. Considering the reputation the US has built up in Iran, a spontaneous uprising of a pro-US government is not likely to happen soon.
The second thing that explains more immediately Bush aggressive stance against Iran is their part in the weakening dollar. At a glance, this is how it works. Nearly all oil and gas on the globe is sold in dollars. The first advantage is that the US can always dispose freely of gas and oil. If necessary, it can simply “print” the needed dollars. [13] The second advantage is that foreign countries need dollars. Since 1971 the US has enjoyed the advantage of being the petrodollar supplier to the world. Supplying dollars to foreign countries means, the US can create dollars and purchase goods, services and investments with it. Since the foreigners need these dollars to buy oil, and keep them also in use in the international trade outside the US, the US has never had to deliver anything in return. Merely supplying money means free shopping. This way, the US imports twice as much goods as it exports. For each second container it imports, nothing is delivered in return. [14] The amount is simply added to the foreign debt. According to the Federal Reserve, US’ net foreign debt was 2,500,000,000,000 dollars in December 2007. [15] If at some point the world starts selling the trillions of dollars they currently hold, the exchange markets would be flooded with dollars, and, as a result, the value of the dollar would drop to next to nothing. It would trigger a financial crisis, but if the dollar becomes worth next to nothing, it also means the foreign debt would vanish. So it is very advantageous to deliver currencies that are permanently needed and wanted abroad. And that is the case as long as the world needs dollars to buy oil and gas.
However, with US’ sky rocketing debt, the dollar is vulnerable. When Iraq, that disposes of the second largest oil reserves in the world, switched to the dollar on 6 November 2000 [16] [17] , it set in motion a long descent of the dollar rate. [18] Other countries had plans to break away from the dollar too. [19], On 4 July 2002 the situation had become that serious, that the IMF warned over a possible dollar collapse. [20] Three weeks later the plans for the invasion of Iraq were discussed at Downing Street (London). [21] On August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." [22] By the end of 2002 the dollar rate had fallen 18 percent. On March 20 2003 the US overruled the UN Security Council and invaded Iraq. They switched back the Iraqi oil trade into dollars on June 6 2003. [23] But from spring 2003 Iran had also switched to the euro, and during the two years that followed the dollar rate lost another 12 percent.
The US free shopping advantage (import more than export) only works as far as foreign countries need additional dollars. So, each time when oil prices increase on the US controlled IPE and NYMEX, more dollars are needed in the world. [24] As 85 percent of the oil trade takes place outside the US, for each extra dollar needed inside the US, seven dollars are needed outside and result in free shopping.
To increase the foreign dollar demand still more, the US treasury sells Treasury Securities to foreigners, which reduces the amount of dollars abroad. This lowers the offer on the exchange markets and makes the dollar rate rise. To avoid the exchange rate to rise continually new dollars have to be “delivered” to the foreigners, resulting again in free shopping. If the US wants to lower the dollar rate, it can just import more. In fact, as long as world demand for dollars keeps growing, the US can decide itself about the rate of their currency and enjoy free shopping. For the sole year 2004 the latter represented an advantage of, in average, $ 2,167 per US’ inhabitant.
When countries break away from the dollar, the dollars related to their trade normally become superfluous and overflow the exchange markets, resulting in lowering dollar rates. When these dollars cannot be mopped up in time, the dollar may collapse. A logical, but somewhat obscure solution is to pray that the oil prices rise at the IPE and NYMEX, in order to pump the dollars back into the oil trade again. To absorb the dollars of the Iranian oil and gas trade, and to sell extra dollars to finance Bush’ warfare, the oil prices would have to increase substantially. Well, the prayers of the Treasury have been heard. Between May 2003 and September 2005 the oil prices almost tripled. [25]
The Iranian Oil Bourse
It was in this situation, that Iran was to open a new Oil Bourse, independent from IPE and NYMEX. [26] It had been announced since several years [27] and the opening had been scheduled for 20 March 2006, the Iranian New Year. Assuming it would succeed in creating enough trade to establish a recognized world oil price, and assuming they would keep the price stable, oil prices on IPE and NYMEX would not be able to rise freely anymore. The credit merry-go-round may stop and that would trip up US’ hegemony. Towards March 2006 tensions rose high again, although, officially it was about the alleged Iranian plans for nuclear weapons and not about the Oil Bourse. On March 20 the Bourse did not open. In April it was announced for May. [28] But in May, President Putin announced that Russia would start a rouble denominated oil bourse. [29] [30] Less than one month later, on 8 June 2006 the Russian bourse (RTS) was ready and started trading. [31] [32] [33] Because Russia has a much bigger share in world’s oil exports [34],[35], it took away the interest of the Iranian Bourse. In February 2008 the Iranian Bourse finally opened for oil related products, but still not for crude oil yet.
Seeking allies
In its conflict with Iran the US needs allies. Allies are useful for sharing the cost of military operations and to clean up the mess, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Before allies fight along, they generally want the enemy to be condemned by a resolution of the UN-Security Council. The problem for such a resolution is, that members with veto-right must not vote against it. So the US should not get opposition of France, the United Kingdom, Russia or China. If the US would tell, that they want the might over the Iranian oil and gas reserves and switch back the trade into dollars, they would not have a chance. So, they have to come up with something, that would get the veto-countries on their side. Well, veto-countries are the victor states of the Second World War. They happen to have in common to be nuclear weapon states, all disposing of uranium enrichment facilities. So how about a project to reward them with the exclusive rights for uranium enrichment and for the supply of all nuclear fuel to all non-nuclear-weapon states? [36]
The strange European delegation
Then, in the diplomatic stage-play about Iran, the UK, France and Germany, the so-called E3, join Bush. They would represent the European Union. This strange composition of an EU-delegation starts to make sense, when we notice that these countries are the European countries possessing enrichment facilities. Camouflaged under the flag of the European Union, they have their own special interest in uranium enrichment and reprocessing.
How European are these E3 countries? It is very strange, of course, that this E3, on behalf of European Union, tries to get Europe’s interesting trading partner Iran condemned by the UN Security Council. It indicates they are playing poker for high stakes. They deliberately risk disrupting their trade relations with Iran and therewith the oil supply priced in euros. Because US’ final goal is to have might in Iran, Bush wants a trade embargo and for the moment “Europe” kindly goes along with the first steps. A trade embargo can be a redoubtable weapon to weaken a country, like the UN-embargo against Iraq between 1991 and 2003, during which nearly two million Iraqi people starve.
Bush would probably not mind, if the Iranian power plants under construction were bombed, like Israel had done with the Iraqi nuclear power plants in 1981. Then Iran would have to consume its oil, instead of selling it in euros.
And what role does the UK play in this EU-delegation? Of course it has its own interest in the nuclear fuel market, but with its London based IPE oil market always playing in symbiosis with the NYMEX in New York, and its subsequent inability to adopt the euro, the UK is, first of all, the messenger-boy of the White House, as usual.
The tone of the E3 talks with Iran is not the one you would normally expect between trade partners who wish to improve their relations. The reports about the discussions are long litanies of obligations the E3 seeks to impose on Iran. Iran is treated like a naughty child, who will have to obey one way or the other. [37] In January 2006, French President Chirac even covertly threatened with a possible nuclear attack. Threatening with the use of nuclear arms is in breech with the Non Proliferation Treaty and, of course, such an attitude can only be counter-productive.
Russia and China
To reach a Security Council resolution with sanctions against Iran the US, France, UK and Germany have to convince Russia and China not to use their right of veto. Since Russia and China are enrichment countries too, that seemed easy, but failed until now. Russia and China do not want any armed intervention against Iran.
Russia still has large reserves of oil gas and coal. Since the catastrophe in Chernobyl in 1986 it has not build any new reactors. (This is changing soon now.) Russia does not want a new US' invasion in its back yard.
China has good relations with Iran and contracts for the supply of oil and gas during the coming decades. If it wants to let Iran down, it would have to look for alternative solutions for their high needs of energy. China does not seem to share the aggressive stance of the US and the E3.
Why does Iran want nuclear energy?
It may seem strange, that a country disposing of oil, wants nuclear energy. Iran exports oil, but imports refined oil products. [34] These are needed for lighting, heating, transport and industry of its growing population. For many Iranians the real price of these products would be too high. That is why they are sold cheap, with losses for the Iranian treasury. The switch to electricity should provide affordable energy for the whole country. Iran needs the revenues from its oil exports to pay for the import of many other products it needs. That is the reason why Iran does not want to consume its oil itself.
Is enrichment in countries without nuclear weapons dangerous?
Natural uranium contains 0.7 percent of U-235 atoms, against 99.3 percent of mostly U-238 atoms. To use it as nuclear fuel the proportion of U-235 atoms has to be increased to 3 to 5 percent. To do so, the uranium must first be purified and converted into a gas. In this form batteries of centrifuges can filter out a few of the heavier U-238 atoms in a long and energy swallowing process. Risks in the enrichment process are those of the chemical industries and not so much the low radiation. This uranium is not suitable to make bombs. For bombs you need a degree of enrichment of at least 90 percent. [38] If a country, as for instance Iran, decided to develop such highly enriched uranium, it could take 3 to 5 years to produce sufficiently for a bomb. Besides, according to scientists, for high enrichment much larger centrifuge facilities are used. The oft-repeated but mistaken belief, that one could fabricate unnoticed highly enriched uranium in a civil nuclear plant, now serves Bush’ contention that enrichment should remain in the hands of world’s nuclear-weapon states.
Birth of a new world order
The idea of limiting enrichment capability to the nations that already have it is not entirely new. The accusations against Iran, the successful misleading of journalists, politicians and diplomats had created the ideal circumstances to speed up its realization. The idea appeared in a UN brochure in 2004. [39] Then it was still in the form of a call for a voluntary and time-limited moratorium on the construction of new facilities for enrichment and reprocessing. In February 2005 the United Nations further elaborated the idea as the Multilateral Nuclear Approach (MNA) [40]. Already in April 2005 Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan’s mission to the UN put the question, “if the MNA would not unduly affect the peaceful use of nuclear energy by those non-nuclear-weapon states that carry out nuclear activities in faithful and transparent compliance with their NPT obligations.” [41]
On February 6 2006 the US’ Department of Energy announced its version of the idea in their plan for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The following day, at the Oarai Conference in Japan, this GNEP is presented as an idea of IAEA’s head ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush. [42] And, of course, such a supreme idea should not lack of glamour. So, a few days later, DOE compliments itself as follows: “Finally, the partnership arrangement between fuel-cycle and reactor-only states envisioned by GNEP will help supply the world with clean electrical power by offering non-fuel-cycle nations commercially competitive and reliable access to nuclear fuel, in exchange for their commitment to forgo the development of enrichment and recycling technologies. “ [43]
Questionable elements
The new world order comes in the form of new safeguards within the IAEA control system. Considering the spirit of the Additional Protocol we should not count on equal rights or fair relations.
Within the Non-Proliferation Treaty countries, only the nuclear-weapon states, plus Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have enrichment facilities today. [44] The rest of the NPT countries would see their rights to enrich uranium taken away. In exchange, they will get the solemn promises of the nuclear-weapon states, that the latter will always deliver the nuclear fuel. Promises? Weren’t these the countries that promised in 1968 to strive for their nuclear disarmament? As we know, they did not keep their word up to now. Worse, France has even developed a new generation of nuclear weapons to make the step to nuclear war easier and progressive. In 2006, France and the US were still using their nuclear arsenal to threaten the world. And now, non-nuclear-weapon states should give away more rights and become dependent of IAEA’s club of nuclear fuel suppliers?
To seduce non-nuclear-weapon states, this new plan promises lower electricity prices. Today, on a global scale, enrichment facilities would have about twice the capacity the world needs. By preventing the construction of new enrichment facilities, a better use could be made of the existing capacities. This would enable lower prices for enriched uranium, and thus of electricity… Should we believe these words? The enrichment industries are not driven by the concern to lower world’s electricity prices. In spite of the world’s over-capacity the Europeans are considerably expanding their production in the UK, Netherlands and Germany. [45] They strive for more market share and more profit! And if by new IAEA regulations no new competitors are allowed on the market, this can only result in excessive pricing of enriched uranium, and thus of electricity.
The new plans foresee a highly regulated and closely monitored fuel supply distribution system. The IAEA would become the intermediate between fuel producing and fuel consuming members. At first glance this may look like a trustworthy construction, since the IAEA is a UN body. However, the IAEA is also the policeman in the system. I do not think it is wise to let policemen trade with the parties they should inspect. Besides, the UN is not some sort of democratic and integer government that would be able to guarantee their policemen’s impartiality.
The plans for the distribution system recommend minimal national stocks and joint regional buffers in different host-countries. Strange, isn’t it? The purpose of minimal stocks inside the countries and regional stocks elsewhere is hardly to defend as a security issue. Even with enormous stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium you cannot produce any nuclear weapon. Why would the IAEA want countries to dispose of only small quantities of fuel at a time? I fear there is only one plausible answer: to keep the non-nuclear-weapon states in a firm grip. That is a lot of power for our NPT-watchdog. This power goes far beyond what is needed for their inspections. This is pure power to overrule nations’ sovereignty. If a nation does anything that the watchdog or its masters do not want, the fuel tap can simply be closed to obtain its immediate submission. It smells like a dictatorship on world-level. Of course, the fuel supplying countries will never be affected. They produce their own fuel.
In theory the master of the IAEA is the United Nations Organization. But does it work that way in reality? The IAEA has a difficult role, because it cannot ignore tensions and conflicts of interest between NPT members. The IAEA’s independence from parties’ national interests is constantly under strain. Its limited budget forces the IAEA to make choices, which are influenced by occurring conflicts. During the embargo against Iraq, we witnessed an IAEA driven crazy by Bush, who demanded each time more and more thorough controls. The dog was sent out over and over to make sure Iraq could be safely invaded. Although the IAEA has the obligation to keep all sensitive information from their investigations undisclosed, the US military constantly received sensitive information, with which they prepared the invasion in 2003. (And finally, to invade Iraq, Bush simply overruled the UN’s Security Council…) Today, we see the same US’ influences in the IAEA’s investigations in Iran. Bush shouts and the dog runs to search for the stick.
The rules for the new world order are presented as “an idea of ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush.”. I presume that both plans, the IAEA’s Multi-National Approach (MNA) and Bush’ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), will merge into a final version dictated by the US.
Of course, getting a firm grip on all non-nuclear-weapon states as soon as they get addicted to nuclear energy is a major strategic coup. But there are far more advantages for the nuclear fuel suppliers. United under the umbrella of the IAEA, the market will be completely regulated. All producers cooperate in the same organizations and all of them will be interested in the highest possible earnings. Together they will set world’s nuclear fuel price. Just like today’s world’s oil prices are decided on the market places of IPE and NYMEX, nuclear fuel prices will be decided by the happy few.
Now comes the tricky part. Nuclear fuel has to be paid for. The question is: in what currency (or currencies) will the customers have to pay? These currencies will become the most needed and wanted currencies in the world. You can compare it to today’s US-dollar.
Apparently these currencies have not been decided yet. But, if each fuel supplier asks to be paid in its own currency, the world would widely accept Japanese yens, Chinese yuan renminbi, Russian roubles, euros, English pounds and US-dollars. There will probably be some preferential order due to each supplier’s capacity to deliver nuclear fuel. Each of these countries will know the advantages of the supply of their currencies to the rest of the world. Of course, in the long run, each of them will also experience the negative effects on their economies and, after decades, let their currency collapse to get rid of the sky-rocketing foreign debt. In short, this is what can happen when each supplier demands payment in its own currency.
However, the fact that the plan mentions, that the IAEA should become the intermediary between suppliers and customers, may indicate that the IAEA will decide in which currency the customers will have to pay. Bush surely hopes that this will be the dollar. When nuclear fuel has to be paid exclusively in dollars, demand for US-dollars and therewith the US hegemony will be assured for many decades to come.
The UN theatre
With the project for a new world order prepared discretely in the background, we now have an anti-Iranian alliance of the US and E3. They smell the opportunity for a coup to seize world’s nuclear fuel market. To succeed, they would just need some legal sauce on a prohibition of uranium enrichment by non-nuclear-weapon states, with Iran as example. And a UN Security Council resolution would be enough, if it legalizes IAEA’s stand that it can forbid countries to enrich uranium.
Of course, they would make it impossible for Iran to stay within the Non-Proliferation Treaty then. To succeed their coup, they will have to take care, that Iran does not leave the organization before such a resolution is successfully voted. For, if Iran leaves the treaty before, there would not be any ground for a resolution anymore. Countries outside the Non-Proliferation treaty, like Israel, India, Pakistan, Cuba and Brazil are free to enrich uranium and to do what they want.
The question is: will the US and E3 succeed in seducing Russia and China? In May 2007 the US, Russia, China, France and Japan met to explore the possibilities for co-operation for the suggested international nuclear fuel banks… [46]
In the event, that such a raid by the nuclear-weapon states would succeed, it would probably put the Non-Proliferation Treaty under enormous strain. These organizations might loose all credibility and see many non-nuclear-weapon states leave. The result may be opposite to the purpose of this treaty.
References and sources:
[1] NPT members:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Tracking_Ch02map.pdf
[2] NPT text:
http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html (See article IV)
[3] Agreement IAEA-Iran:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
[4] Iran’s nuclear history:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html
[5] Growing opposition against the shah:
http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/iran/history/growing_opposition_to_the_shah.htm
[6] Mossadeq:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php
[7] Israelian attack on Irakian power plant in 1981:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
[8] 60 percent dependency on oil imports:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news
[9] 130 gram of uranium:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea0603.html (last line)
[10] article 37 of IAEA’s agreement with Iran:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
[11] 40 percent of EU imports come frome Iran
http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r16004.htm (Item 14)
[12] EU imports from Iran consist for 90 percent of energy
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/iran/index_en.htm
[13] To print money is just an expression. Today, over 95 percent of all money in the world simply consists
of numbers on bank-accounts.
[14] US balance of payments and trade 2007
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/international-affairs/economic-exchange-rates/052008_report.pdf , page 9
[15] US net foreign debt 2007
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20080901a.htm
[16] Fred Eckhard stating UN’s permission for Iraq’s switch to the euro:
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2000/20001031.db103100.doc.html
[17] Statistics of Iraqi oil exports in euros:
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/oilexports.html
[18] Descent of the dollar rate
http://www.courtfool.info/en_Cost_abuse_and_danger_of_the_dollar.htm (last chart) & http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/data.html
[19] Colin Nunan, Petrodollar or Petroeuro:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm
[20] IMF warning over dollar collapse 4 July 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2097064.stm
[21] Downing Street Memo 23 July 2002
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece
[22] Cheney’s lie 26 August 2002
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&ontext=key_false_statements&id=946
[23] Financial Times, June 5th 2003
[24] More dollars needed
http://www.courtfool.info/en_Cost_abuse_and_danger_of_the_dollar.htm (first graphic)
[25] Oil spot prices 1997 – 2008
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_top.asp
[26] How can the dollar collapse in Iran?
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/__Collapse_in_Iran/__collapse_in_iran.html
[27] Oil Bourse Iran article September 2004
http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2093/html/economy.htm
[28] Announcement Iranian Oil Bourse 26 April 2006:
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=212013&n=32
[29] RTS Putin announces Russian Oil Bourse 10 May 2006:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060510/47915635.html
[30] RTS announcement 11 May 2006:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060511/48003539.html
[31] RTS will start in 2007 22 May 2006:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060522/48444227.html
[32] RTS will start 8 June 2006:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060522/48434383.html
[33] RTS first oil trade 8 June 2006: 1751 rubles ($ 65.20)
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060608/49205699.html
[34] World Oil Exports
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm
[35] Iranian imports 400,000 bbl/d of gasoline
http://hormuz.robertstrausscenter.org/iran_oil
[36] GNEP
http://www.gnep.energy.gov/ (Note: The content is different now from that in May 2006.)
[37] IAEA E3 report:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc651.pdf
[38] Uranium enrichment:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm
[39] UN brochure 2004:
http://www.un.org/secureworld/brochure.pdf
[40] MNA expert group February 2005:
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NENP/NPTDS/Downloads/SMR_CRP1_SRWOSR/2005/RCM1/Add%20materials/mna-2005_web.pdf
[41] Kenzo Oshima: MNA unduly affects peaceful use?
http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/speech/un2005/un0504-4.html
[42] ElBaradei’s idea and Bush’ proposal. February 7, 2006:
http://www.jaea.go.jp/04/np/documents/sym05_01_endo_en.pdf
[43] DOE compliments February 2006
http://energy.gov/news/3184.htm
[44] Map of world’s nuclear fuel stations, uranium enrichment capacity:
http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html?set=enr
[45] Uranium Enrichment and Fuel Fabrication
http://www.wise-uranium.org/epeur.html#UREGRONAU
[46] US, Russia, China, France, Japan
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/chinainstitute/nav03.cfm?nav03=60775&nav02=59973&nav01=57272
Articles:
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William R. Clark (Friday August 05 2005)
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450
Killing the dollar in Iran, By Toni Straka
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html
America's Foreign Owners, Thursday, September 22, 2005
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1712
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse, Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D., January 17, 2006
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html
Trading oil in euros - does it matter?,
by Cóilín Nunan,
Published on 30 Jan 2006 by Energy Bulletin.
http://www.energybulletin.net/12463.html
Letter from the heart
Written on 9:25 AM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
Good Morning My Family and Friends,
I would like to share something with you that I see as another call on my life for this season, as the Lord would permit me to do. It was an easy decision for me to make and as I felt it impress on my heart I said yes to the call.
I would really like you to read everything and get an understanding of what this is all about. I guess for me it was Love at first sight.
This is Jaida's story.
Jaida Marae Freeman
Jaida Marae Fairman was born on September 26th, 2007 to the delight of her parents Melissa and Marlon – she is their only child. Jaida was given a clean bill of health from the Pediatrician on duty and was released from the hospital the very next day. Jaida became jaundiced on her third day of life and was taken to her Pediatrician for a standard check up. After numerous blood work-ups and abdominal ultrasounds, it appeared that Jaida had a very rare liver disease. Jaida's jaundice became worse and she was officially diagnosed with Biliary Atresia in December 2007 at 11 weeks old.
About Biliary Atresia
Biliary Atresia (BA) affects approximately 1 in 15,000 births. The cause of BA is unknown, however, it is known that it only affects newborns; it is not hereditary; it is not contagious; and it is not preventable. BA is not caused by anything the mother did during pregnancy.
Cells within the liver secrete a yellowish-green liquid called bile. A network of tubular structures and tiny ducts form the biliary system to drain bile from the liver to the small intestine where it aids in the digestive process. BA is the closure or disappearance of the biliary system. If insufficient bile reaches the intestine, the baby will not be able to digest the fat in its food. This makes it difficult to gain weight. A child with BA may look quite jaundiced if bile flow has not been achieved; the liver may become enlarged, creating a 'pot-bellied' appearance. Frequent hospitalizations and long periods of feeling unwell may delay development of sitting, walking and other activities. Mental development, however, is usually normal.
BA causes inflammation and obstruction of the bile ducts which results in the back up of bile in the liver. The bile destroys the healthy liver and forms scar tissue further trapping the bile and causing cirrhosis of the liver and finally liver failure.
On December 12th, 2007 Jaida (at 11 weeks old) had an 8 hour surgery performed called the "Kasai" procedure. The surgery consisted of removing the damaged/non-functioning bile ducts outside her liver and attaching her small intestine directly to the liver at the spot where bile is found or expected to drain. The surgery was initially successful as bile drainage was achieved and Jaida was jaundice-free for approximately 3 months post-surgery. However, in March 2008 Jaida became jaundiced again which is the result of her progressive liver damage.
Jaida currently has cirrhosis of the liver and without a liver transplant she will not live.
It is at this point where I felt the tug at my heart to be a Liver donor to little Jaida. For me it was not a hard decision, but I am still yet to be cleared to proceed with the donation.
I have started with the pre-examinations to make sure I am a match, healthy and well enough to be able to give a piece of my Liver to Jaida Freeman. As you know your Liver do grow back, well not quite. What happens is this; they will take the left part of my Liver and the right side will grow to compensate for the missing left and all will be well.
Jaida is an O+ and to my surprise I am too, that is the first step. Now I am on the physical examination to make sure I am healthy and well, I have started that as well. Hopefully all goes well with me and we are on to the big day, the actual surgery to transplant, and give little Jaida a long and healthy life.
I am asking you all to pray that God will see it fit to make this transplant happen or completely heal Jaida Freeman. Really and truly I am praying that little Jaida will get a wonderful Christmas gift a New Liver and A Healthy LONG LIFE.
Please Keep little Jaida in your prayers and pray that everything works out well with my pre-examination to be able to be a complete Liver Donor.
Jaida and I at Sick Kids Toronto Ontario, where she is at Present waiting
For a Liver Transplant.
God Bless You All and Thanks for your Prayers
Clairmont
Jaida's Story
Written on 6:36 PM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
Jaida Marae Fairman was born on September 26th, 2007 to the delight of her parents Melissa and Marlon – she is their only child. Jaida was given a clean bill of health from the Pediatrician on duty and was released from the hospital the very next day. Jaida became jaundiced on her third day of life and was taken to her Pediatrician for a standard check up. After numerous blood work-ups and abdominal ultrasounds, it appeared that Jaida had a very rare liver
disease. Jaida's jaundice became worse and she was officially diagnosed with Biliary Atresia in December 2007 at 11 weeks old.
Biliary Atresia (BA) affects approximately 1 in 15,000 births. The cause of BA is unknown, however, it is known that it only affects newborns; it is not hereditary; it is not contagious; and it is not preventable. BA is not caused by anything the mother did during pregnancy.
Cells within the liver secrete a yellowish-green liquid called bile. A network of tubular structures and tiny ducts form the biliary system to drain bile from the liver to the small intestine where it aids in the digestive process. BA is the closure or disappearance of the biliary system. If insufficient bile reaches the intestine, the baby will not be able to digest the fat in its food. This makes it difficult togain weight. A child with BA may look quite jaundiced if bile flow has not been achieved; the liver may become enlarged, creating a 'pot-bellied' appearance. Frequent hospitalizations and long periods of feeling unwell may delay development of sitting, walking and other activities. Mental development, however, is usually normal.
BA causes inflammation and obstruction of the bile ducts which results in the back up of bile in the liver. The bile destroys the healthy liver and forms scar tissue further trapping the bile and causing cirrhosis of the liver and finally liver failure.
On December 12th, 2007 Jaida (at 11 weeks old) had an 8 hour surgery performed called the "Kasai" procedure. The surgery consisted of removing the damaged/non-functioning bile ducts outside her liver and attaching her small intestine directly to the liver at the spot where bile is found or expected to drain. The surgery was initially successful as bile drainage was achieved and Jaida was jaundice-free for approximately 3 months post-surgery. However, in March 2008 Jaida became jaundiced again which is the result of her progressive liver damage.
Jaida currently has cirrhosis of the liver and without a liver transplant she will not live.
Jaida is truly a blessing from God. Our little fighter is 1 year old now; she has such a wonderful personality and a distinct little attitude to go with it. Jaida brings so much joy to everyone around her and once you look in her beautiful bright eyes it's hard not to fall in love.
Share Your Faith - Somebody Needs It!
Written on 9:14 AM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
"Then I will teach transgressors your ways." Psalm 51:13 (NIV)
Roger Simms was hitchhiking home when he was picked up by Mr. Hanover. As they drove towards Chicago, Roger felt God urging him to share his faith. When he overcame his fear and asked the man if he would like to receive Christ, Mr. Hanover stopped, bowed his head on the steering wheel, began to cry, and accepted Christ. "This is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me," he said.
Shortly afterwards he dropped Roger at his house and went on to Chicago, which was about an hour down the road. Years later, while preparing for a business trip to Chicago, Roger came across the gold-embossed business card Mr. Hanover had given him years earlier. When he arrived in Chicago he decided to look up Hanover Enterprises and found it located in a skyscraper downtown. When he asked the receptionist if he could see Mr. Hanover, she said, "No, but his wife is here."
"You knew my husband?" the woman in her 50's asked. Roger explained that her husband had given him a ride and how he'd led him to Christ. "When was that?" she asked. "May 7th, five years ago, the day I was discharged from the army." She began to sob. After several minutes she regained control and said, "I prayed for my husband's salvation for years, believing God would save him. But right after he let you out of his car, on May 7th, he was killed in a head-on collision. I thought God had not answered my prayer, and I stopped living for Him five years ago." That day she recommitted her life to Christ.
Bishop E. Earl Jenkins, Share your faith - somebody needs it!
Find something to die for
Written on 12:48 PM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
I say to you, this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and so precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren't fit to live. You may be thirty-eight years old, as I happen to be, and one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls upon you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid. You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. You're afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you're afraid that somebody will stab you or shoot at you or bomb your house. So you refuse to take the stand. Well, you may go on and live until you are ninety, but you are just as dead at thirty-eight as you would be at ninety. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit. You died when you refused to stand up for right. You died when you refused to stand up for truth. You died when you refused to stand up for justice....
Don't ever think that you're by yourself. Go on to jail if necessary,but you never go alone. Take a stand for that which is right,and the world may misunderstand you, and criticize you. But you never go alone, for somewhere I read that one with God is a majority. And God has a way of transforming a minority into a majority. Walk with him this morning and believe in him and do what is right, and He'll be with you even until the consummation of the ages. Yes, I've seen the lightning flash. I've heard the thunder roll. I've felt sin breakers dashing, trying to conquer my soul, but I heard the voice of Jesus saying, still to fight on. He promised never to leave me alone, never to leave me alone. No, never alone. No, never alone.
Martin Luther King Jr, Sermon at Ebenezer, November 5, 1967
NEW BLOG DESIGN
Written on 9:52 AM by www.StreamingPraiseRadio.com
StreamingPraiseRadio.com has change the design of its blog.