Wow, another coincidence – fancy this, Thad Allen was in Christchurch at the time of the earthquake, too. This man was involved in directing the federal response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
More: Thad William Allen (born January 16, 1949) is a retired 
United States Coast Guard admiral who served as the 23rd Commandant of the Coast Guard. Allen is best known for his widely-praised[1][2][3] performance directing the federal response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast region from September 2005 to January 2006. Robert J. Papp, Jr. succeeded him as Commandant on May 25, 2010, in a change of command ceremony.
Following his position as commandant, Allen continued to serve on active duty for 36 days in his role as National Incident Commander of the Unified Command for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Allen officially retired from the U.S. Coast Guard on June 30, 2010, but continues to serve as a civilian as the National Incident Commander of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He is a Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation
.[4]
For more go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thad_Allen
Related:
Hear Thad Allen talking about being in Christchurch in this YouTube video:
NORTHLAND NEW ZEALAND CHEMTRAILS WATCH 
A group of New Zealand lawyers put their names to this open letter. It appears that the NZ government used the September 4th, 2010 earthquake in Christchurch to aid the rise of fascism.
A group of 27 legal scholars from New Zealand and overseas has written an open letter outlining their deep concerns over the constitutional implications of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010.
We write as a group of concerned citizens with academic expertise in the area of constitutional law and politics.
We share New Zealand’s deep concern about the physical damage to Canterbury and the personal trauma this has caused the region’s residents. All levels of government have an obligation to help the people of Canterbury rebuild their homes, businesses and lives as quickly as possible.
However, while we are united in wishing to help Canterbury recover, there is a risk that the desire to do “everything we can” in the short term will blind us to the long-term harms of our actions. In particular, abandoning established constitutional values and principles in order to remove any inconvenient legal roadblock is a dangerous and misguided step.
Yet this is what our Parliament has done, in just a single day, by unanimously passing the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010. It represents an extraordinarily broad transfer of lawmaking power away from Parliament and to the executive branch, with minimal constraints on how that power may be used. In particular:
• Individual government ministers, through “Orders in Council”, may change virtually every part of NZ’s statute book in order to achieve very broadly defined ends, thereby effectively handing to the executive branch Parliament’s power to make law;
• The legislation forbids courts from examining the reasons a minister has for thinking an Order in Council is needed, as well as the process followed in reaching that decision;
• Orders in Council are deemed to have full legislative force, such that they prevail over any inconsistent parliamentary enactment;
• Persons acting under the authority of an Order in Council have protection from legal liability, with no right to compensation should their actions cause harm to another person.
These matters are not simply “academic” or “theoretical” in nature. Over and over again history demonstrates that unconstrained power is subject to misuse, and that even well intentioned measures can result in unintended consequences if there are not clear, formal measures of oversight applied to them.
We do acknowledge that the powers granted by the Act have some restrictions on their use. They only can be used to achieve the objective of the legislation (although this is very broadly defined). Five key constitutional statutes are exempted from their ambit. Orders in Council inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 may not be made Parliament can review and reject Orders in Council, albeit through a rather slow and protracted process.
Nevertheless, the vast amount of lawmaking power given to ministers renders these limits insufficient. In particular, there need to be tight restrictions on the enactments a minister may change through an Order in Council and clear and precise grounds that justify any such change. These grounds also need to be open to review by the judiciary, to ensure that they really are met in any particular case.
Any claim that such safeguards are unnecessary because the Act’s powers will be wisely and sparingly applied, and that informal “consultation” and “public pressure” will ensure that this happens, must be resisted. Only formal, legal means of accountability, ultimately enforceable through the courts, are constitutionally acceptable.
Furthermore, the Act now stands as a dangerous precedent for future “emergency”situations. This earthquake, devastating though it has been, will not be the last natural disaster to strike New Zealand. When the next event does occur, inevitably there will be calls for a similar legislative response, which will be very difficult to resist given this example.
Finally, we emphasise that we have no partisan agenda to pursue here. The fact is that all MPs of every party joined in this action. They did so with the best of intentions, driven by an understandable desire to display their solidarity with Canterbury’s people.
But we feel their action was a mistake, and they too quickly and readily abandoned basic constitutional principles in the name of expediency. We hope that with a period to reflect on their action and the consequences this might have that they now will revisit this issue in a more appropriate manner.
Signed:
Professor Stuart Anderson, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Mark Bennett, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Malcom Birdling, Keble College, University of Oxford.
Joel Colon-Rios, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Richard Cornes, School of Law, University of Essex.
Trevor Daya-Winterbottom, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato.
Professor John Dawson, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Richard Ekins, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Associate Prof. Andrew Geddis, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Claudia Geiringer, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Kris Gledhill, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Professor Bruce Harris, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Professor Mark Henaghan, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Dr John Hopkins, Law School, University of Canterbury.
John Ip, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Carwyn Jones, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Dean Knight, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Prof. Elizabeth McLeay, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Steven Price, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Vernon Rive, Law School, Auckland University of Technology.
Mary-Rose Russell, Law School, Auckland University of Technology.
Katherine Sanders, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Dr Rayner Thwaites, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Professor Jeremy Waldron, New York University School of Law.
Ceri Warnock, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Nicola Wheen, Faculty of Law, Univerity of Otago.
Hanna Wilberg, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
For more information about the open letter, contact:
Associate Professor Andrew Geddis
Faculty of Law
University of Otago
Office Tel03 479 8864
Home Tel 03 473 1488 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 03 473 1488
Email: andrew.geddis@otago.ac.nz
—–
Just looking for the dots ..
This from an earlier post by Clare.
POLYMER FIBERS-HAARP LINK
“Bernard Eastlund, [the inventor of HAARP], wrote me an e-mail…and he said that to heat up the atmosphere with HAARP” This from an earlier post by Clare
What sort of Chemtrail reports have there been, that refer to Christchurch over the past months?
And how odd that all of these Americans happened to be in the area at the time of the earthquake.
However, while we are united in wishing to help Canterbury recover, there is a risk that the desire to do “everything we can” in the short term will blind us to the long-term harms of our actions. In particular, abandoning established constitutional values and principles in order to remove any inconvenient legal roadblock is a dangerous and misguided step.
This is spine chilling and especially in the speed that the legislation was introduced. Whose names are attached to it?
Very interesting indeed.
I also note that NZ journalists were reporting events from behind roped off area’s, dressed in ties and suits.
Exercise Southern Katipo: 21.02.11 to 10.03.11
“The exercise scenario is set in a stability and support operational environment that aims to test the Defence Force’s ability to react to short notice deployments.
Operations that are undertaken can include the protected evacuation of New Zealand nationals, disruption of insurgent and criminal groups and provision of Humanitarian aid.”
NB: The Media Release in the NZDF site has been taken down, however the cached version is still availabel and there is a PR on Scoop
NZDF:
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2011/20110214—otsfdtsi.htm.
Scoop
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1102/S00126/one-thousand-strong-force-deploy-to-the-south-island.htm
+++++
The United Nations has asked the armed forces to go into (Alpira) to ensure the security of the new country, and “provide confidence for the locals by supporting and assisting them”,
As well as large numbers of army vehicles being on South Canterbury roads, the HMNZS Canterbury will visit the port and the Air Force’s C130 aircraft will be in South Canterbury.
With much of the exercise being held in public areas, defence personnel will be interacting with the public, just as they would in a real situation,
Checkpoints were set up on Marine Pde as soon as the soldiers landed, with all vehicles and pedestrians being asked if they were part of the exercise. If they were not, they were free to pass.
By mid-morning the first arrest had been made – someone found with a camera
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/4685773/Defence-forces-taking-charge
+++++
Obviously the military was very well prepared.
NZDefenceForce | Feb 23, 2011
HMNZS CANTERBURY provided 700 meals last night to residents of Lyttelton who were displaced after a major earthquake struck there 22 Feb.
At Burnham Military Camp Chefs from 3rd Catering and Supply Company prepared and delivered 750 meals into the city – 300 for Police, 300 for Fire Service and 250 for New Zealand Defence Force personnel:
Way too many “fishy” deals going on here ~why so many US officials of one sort or the other at this precise time?
Pingback: Terremoto de Nueva Zelanda: Detalles curiosos « EN CONTRA DEL NUEVO ORDEN MUNDIAL
Pingback: Uncensored Magazine | Was the Christchurch earthquake a terrible natural disaster, or was it a terrible MAN MADE disaster?
Pingback: Canterbury TV (CTV): The New Normal ? | Beyond Criminal
Pingback: Eight Reasons the New Zealand Earthquake May Have Been Artificial | Conscious Life News
John Kerry just leaves New Zealand ahead or latest quake /2016…. ? Haarp again..?