Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor: 'have the threads of democracy begun to unravel ?'

I have been criticizing the Daily Mail recently but nonetheless there are today, after wading through pages and pages of government and/or Israel-lobby drivel disguised as fake 'indignation about our Brits in Iran', a couple of quite important articles.

One is a tiny little story confirming what everyone knew anyway about the ruinous sociopath Gordon Brown's last budget, i.e if you are on a low income then you are going to be seriously worse off. And in particular it indirectly raises the issue, which was something I was going to bring up myself last week, what the hell is the Working Tax Credit anyway ?

In the Mail, the government confirmed that 75% of people entitled to it, don't claim it. That is hardly an accident and it's obviously something the regime are relying on heavily. But more seriously, the Working Tax credit and compounded by Gordon Brown's attack on the low income band in his last budget, is nothing more than trying to tie people to the state by taking and then 'giving them back their earnings' which are theirs anyway (if they ask that is and jump through the required demeaning hoops). This is abhorrent and wrong and it needs to end. If people are entitled to the money then it should not be coming out of their taxation to begin with. No ifs, no buts, the Working Tax credit needs to go. I'm sorry some Labour backbenchers think it is the only achievement of their time in government, but it is wrong, it is just another catastrophic failure of policy and it needs to come an end.

Anyway, the other article (and I'll just link to the Standard's version) is the coverage of this very important speech by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor denouncing these vile 'anti-discrimination' laws that would amongst other things force children into the hands of homosexuals and more widely form part of a framework for rewriting democracy itself:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says:

"...we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion.

"We Catholics - and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith - do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights.

[...] My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends.

My fear is that in an attempt to clear the public square of what are seen as unacceptable intrusions, we weaken the pillars on which that public square is erected, and we will discover that the pillars of pluralism may not survive.

"The question," the Cardinal added, "is whether the threads holding together pluralist democracy have begun to unravel. That is why I have sounded this note of alarm.

"I am conscious that when an essential core of our democratic freedom risks being undermined, subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent."

He also fueled speculation that Catholics may order their adoption agencies to break away from links with the state - and forgo their £10 million a year of taxpayers' funds in favour of relying on donations.

The Cardinal said: "I wonder how far we can still claim as British the assumption that if a religious organisation serves the public interest according to its own rights, it has a legitimate claim on public resources.

"I begin to wonder whether Britain will continue to be a place which protects and welcomes the works of people shaped and inspired by the church." The Cardinal said he feared intolerance of Christianity "so when Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites.

"When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are Rightwing reactionaries."

He added: "What looks like liberality is in reality a radical exclusion of religion from the public sphere."

The Mail/ES continues:

Catholic leaders have made a powerful point of their loyalty to the British state since full civil rights were granted to Roman Catholics by the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.

The Cardinal described the Act as a historic turning point.

The speech is likely to make uncomfortable reading for Tony Blair - he is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism ('convert' from what ? Bolshevism ? Satanism ? -j) after he leaves Downing Street later this year - and for Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a staunch Catholic responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations."

Just a few comments on the Mail's worthless ones. Firstly, it is probably doubtful that Blair's 'Christianity' has ever been anything more than window dressing to get the vaguely conservative gullible faction to buy into a deeply anti-Christian Mr Blair.

Secondly, as I understand it Ruth Kelly, despite ostensibly being a pin-up girl for New Labour, was actually very much against the legislation anyway.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor New Labour

War criminal UK regime prepares public for war with Iran ?

What Really Happened dig the dirt with a very interesting story. Seems the Independent already had an interview with Faye Turney, one of several sailors captured in Iran who previously described how "the crew of HMS Cornwall were well aware of the perils of operating in an area that had been targeted by suicide bombers. The 25-year-old mother, one of 15 sailors and Marines captured on Friday off the coast of Iraq, said: "I know by doing this job I can give [my daughter] everything she wants in life and hopefully by seeing me doing what I do, she'll grow up knowing that a woman can have a family and have a career at the same time."

Of course, this is all over the news, every newspaper front page has transformed itself back into being pro-war and pro-stupidity overnight by displaying a manufactured and totally fake indignation at events, as if there is any right or premise to. And while one would have some sympathy for the family, it just makes you wonder what kind of example Faye Turney really thinks she is setting for her young daughter ?

I do think a career in the armed services is quite a noble thing to do. In more normal times that is. I.e when the government is not in fetid ruins, the country dissolving into a something of an international socialist goo and completely soiled from the last illegal war and when we are now the bad guys and an international disgrace intent on enslaving our own population under the mantra of 'global values' etc.

Personally I don't believe this whole thing is anything more than a staged provocation with Turney as a narrative pawn by this wretched regime to either to kick off the aggression or more likely to demonstrate to Iran that we can create a provocation at any time or even a Gulf of Tonkin at any moment, and to show that the controlled and twisted UK regime and its sick and vile supporters in the media will try to get the British public on board with this idea of a war against Iran if need be, even if mainly for the benefit of the US. Interestingly according to the NY Daily News reporting reader feedback from the Mail, it seems to have backfired.

And if the UK armed forces genuinely want the respect and sympathy and support of the public, then instead of being completely stupid and criminally contributing to theses illegal, but more importantly utterly immoral wars or aggressive provocative military activity on behest of a terrible disgraced government in tatters that is only interested in destroying the country you serve as well as others then start turning your weapons onto Westminster and the New Labour project before it is too late.

Faye Turney Iran

Brzezinski: Terrorized by 'War on Terror'

This is from a couple of days ago in the Washington Post and of course it's really aimed at Americans but it's well worth a read. Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter.

Now I don't necessarily agree with all of it and while it's not important, leaving aside where you stand on 9/11 or other issues of great controversy, there's a little mistake in his essay about countries that haven't tried to terrorize their populations into fear with the 'War on Terror' slogan aka: a rather cruel and contagious political myth. He says Britain didn't, but of course in practice nothing could be further from the truth, in fact we are seeing a whole wave of debilitating, dehumanizing statist policies in the UK (and not limited to security at all), effectively made possible by this idea of a 'War on Terror' and being joined at the hip, by a fanatical Blair, to an America under this Neocon coup. And we've seen this filter down to encouraging people to spy on one another, to a vile AOL campaigns, car adverts, torturing people as if it were normal and just in UK dramas and so on. So that is just plain totally incorrect.

Anyway very much worth reading:

Terrorized by 'War on Terror'
How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B01

"The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."

To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.

The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.

That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq, President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it lest al-Qaeda cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the United States.

Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.

That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly debatable. A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival.

Just last week, here in Washington, on my way to visit a journalistic office, I had to pass through one of the absurd "security checks" that have proliferated in almost all the privately owned office buildings in this capital -- and in New York City. A uniformed guard required me to fill out a form, show an I.D. and in this case explain in writing the purpose of my visit. Would a visiting terrorist indicate in writing that the purpose is "to blow up the building"? Would the guard be able to arrest such a self-confessing, would-be suicide bomber? To make matters more absurd, large department stores, with their crowds of shoppers, do not have any comparable procedures. Nor do concert halls or movie theaters. Yet such "security" procedures have become routine, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and further contributing to a siege mentality.

Government at every level has stimulated the paranoia. Consider, for example, the electronic billboards over interstate highways urging motorists to "Report Suspicious Activity" (drivers in turbans?). Some mass media have made their own contribution. The cable channels and some print media have found that horror scenarios attract audiences, while terror "experts" as "consultants" provide authenticity for the apocalyptic visions fed to the American public. Hence the proliferation of programs with bearded "terrorists" as the central villains. Their general effect is to reinforce the sense of the unknown but lurking danger that is said to increasingly threaten the lives of all Americans.

The entertainment industry has also jumped into the act. Hence the TV serials and films in which the evil characters have recognizable Arab features, sometimes highlighted by religious gestures, that exploit public anxiety and stimulate Islamophobia. Arab facial stereotypes, particularly in newspaper cartoons, have at times been rendered in a manner sadly reminiscent of the Nazi anti-Semitic campaigns. Lately, even some college student organizations have become involved in such propagation, apparently oblivious to the menacing connection between the stimulation of racial and religious hatreds and the unleashing of the unprecedented crimes of the Holocaust.

The atmosphere generated by the "war on terror" has encouraged legal and political harassment of Arab Americans (generally loyal Americans) for conduct that has not been unique to them. A case in point is the reported harassment of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for its attempts to emulate, not very successfully, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Some House Republicans recently described CAIR members as "terrorist apologists" who should not be allowed to use a Capitol meeting room for a panel discussion.

Social discrimination, for example toward Muslim air travelers, has also been its unintended byproduct. Not surprisingly, animus toward the United States even among Muslims otherwise not particularly concerned with the Middle East has intensified, while America's reputation as a leader in fostering constructive interracial and interreligious relations has suffered egregiously.

The record is even more troubling in the general area of civil rights. The culture of fear has bred intolerance, suspicion of foreigners and the adoption of legal procedures that undermine fundamental notions of justice. Innocent until proven guilty has been diluted if not undone, with some -- even U.S. citizens -- incarcerated for lengthy periods of time without effective and prompt access to due process. There is no known, hard evidence that such excess has prevented significant acts of terrorism, and convictions for would-be terrorists of any kind have been few and far between. Someday Americans will be as ashamed of this record as they now have become of the earlier instances in U.S. history of panic by the many prompting intolerance against the few.

In the meantime, the "war on terror" has gravely damaged the United States internationally. For Muslims, the similarity between the rough treatment of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military and of the Palestinians by the Israelis has prompted a widespread sense of hostility toward the United States in general. It's not the "war on terror" that angers Muslims watching the news on television, it's the victimization of Arab civilians. And the resentment is not limited to Muslims. A recent BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries that sought respondents' assessments of the role of states in international affairs resulted in Israel, Iran and the United States being rated (in that order) as the states with "the most negative influence on the world." Alas, for some that is the new axis of evil!

The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S. "war on terror" against "Islamo-fascism." Only a confidently determined and reasonable America can promote genuine international security which then leaves no political space for terrorism.

Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, "Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia"? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions."

Zbigniew Brzezinski War on Terror US

Daily Mirror sinks to new lows.

As we have long noticed here, the Daily Mirror has no legitimacy at all anymore as a tabloid. It is without question a complete and utter disgrace of the worst kind that should be laid to rest forever as a bad memory, that is after it has paid reparations to its readers.

Never mind being essentially the only 'newspaper' on Earth to transform itself into becoming pro-war, when it was actually anti-war, it is also incessantly and unsurprisingly pro-Gordon Brown, aka the vain, egotistical fanatic and pact-partner of Blair, stained in the blood of Iraq and the rabid domestic destruction of society in the UK into a pitiful third-world police state.

In his latest worthless peripheral budget, Brown is trying to wipe away over a decade of his shame, disgrace, wretchedness, remoteness and utter debasement by taking away from the earnings of the very poorest in society to fund a image-helping 2p decrease on the next tax band up.

One would think that would be of some concern to Labour supporters. Brown says he had this planned for '4 years' and its not an opportunistic move designed to distract from his correctly dismal poll ratings, yet obviously it is just one that he had designed for his final budget as chancellor exactly when he would reach for power. If he really did plan it 4 years ago that makes it even worse.

But not satisfied with desperately trying to rehabilitate Gordon Brown from a ghoulish, ruinous sociopath into a possible politician to fulfill the Grantia conspiracy, the Daily Mirror seemed to actually loose the plot totally. In its fury that civilization and all that is good hasn't been completely wiped out yet, it included a massive piece of unusually provocative propaganda in its pages which must have left even its most vegetative readers perplexed.

'Hope not Hate', a 4 page pullout courtesy of the 'anti-fascist organization Searchlight', reminding us that we are all grey asexual pleblings in the multicultural mix bobbling along presumably with our ID cards and flying the 'tolerant' flag for the next illegal war under the glorious one world religion/order of Blair/Brown and how the BNP were bad etc.

One wonders what provoked this particular outburst in the Mirror, it is difficult to say indeed. But the Mirror has firmly identified itself as a complete and utter disaster and I don't think by any description, even the most vague could at all be described as a 'newspaper'. Rather, it constitutes a stream of vile, terrible regime-endorsing propaganda to break down any resistance to the wretched disgrace the country itself is becoming while trying to disguise this directive behind show biz gossip.

Gordon Brown Daily Mirror

The Money Masters

I recently saw the first part of the documentary called The Money Masters. A lot of you may well have seen this already, this is an excellent documentary in understanding the horrific problems and stranglehold the private or quasi-private central banks have created for national economies. A lot of people feel there is no way of proper government even until people can free themselves of this monstrosity, and of course many point the finger at this as a serious factor, if not the main axis for the multitude of problems the world is in today.

This is highly recommended viewing.

Part 1 on Google here.

Website here

The Money Masters Federal Reserve Fed Bank of England central bank

Daily Mail again: 'Brits to be grilled by regime for passport'

Daily Mail: "British citizens will be quizzed on up to 200 different pieces of personal information in a 30-minute grilling if they want a passport, it has been revealed. From May, thousands of applicants will be forced to travel 20 miles or more - at their own expense - to attend one of the interviews"

I think there is a clear case here for enormous and angry and disruptive and ongoing demonstrations at these offices, I think this a golden opportunity to start lashing out hard against this nightmare that the regime has created. And I think people should take this opportunity to do exactly that. As you are doing so remember you are not just complaining about this alone, but about CCTV, the radical quantized pleb grid (ID cards), rubbish spying, driving spying, terror laws, the wars of course and everything else that the regime and its supporters are doing to you. It is time to organize anti-regime (and its supporters) demonstrations

And again if you look at what the Daily Mail did with this story in its print edition, it is juxtaposed against this essentially bogus and certainly irrelevant concoction about 'Bin Laden's general' getting multiple passports which was clearly whipped up by the now deeply corrupted Home Office to offset complaints about the public being interrogated by the regime to get a passport and to instill fear and compliance into them. This is the level we are dealing with.

And as far as the Daily Mail goes, is this really stupidity at work, or is the Daily Mail a highly compromised newspaper at the editorial and proprietorship level knowingly pumping out disinformation ?

passports Daily Mail

'Ealing council' put cameras in baked bean cans to spy on residents say the Daily Mail

Daily Mail: "A local council is to use hidden cameras to catch residents who leave rubbish out on the wrong day. CCTV devices will be disguised inside objects such as baked bean cans and house bricks to film offenders"

Here we go again, look I would advise residents of Ealing to just crush these cans, but it's an interesting story that ties into the rubbish spying in general story. You will remember that was promoted as something that local councils were doing to appease EU rubbish targets, turns out of course as we speculated correctly here that wasn't quite the full story at all.

Now this case with Ealing and putting cameras in baked bean cans to spy on people putting their rubbish out is interesting, the Daily Mail spend their entire life shifting the blame for this stuff onto subordinates and cretins, in this case 'Will Brooks, the Tory councilor responsible for environment and transport'

So the question here is what power does a local councilor have ? Well very little really. And who is telling Will Brooks to endorse this ?

Now I do think the Daily Mail does some good work, but at the same time you get the firm impression on many issues, that the Daily Mail while appearing to complain about them, is just not telling us the full truth about anything that is really going on this country.

It is posing as a 'conservative' popular newspaper and on one level it kind of is, but at the same time it seems to be stripping out various personalities from stories and other times it is skewing and misdirecting the public about who is doing what, an example would be the headline 'Germans to put bugs in wheelie bins'.

At other times it (and its sister paper the Evening Standard) seem to be feeding the government with a mandate by complaining about things like crime and immigration which it must surely know that the regime will only use to declare legitimacy for things like ID cards, CCTV and ever-more draconian laws and so on. And there has been no other newspaper that has done more to feed the Blair/Brown domestic police-state agenda than the Daily Mail, which makes its frequent complaints about that seem almost ludicrous.

spying Ealing rubbish Daily Mail

Gordon Brown: 'ruthless Stalinist'

Independent:

"Gordon Brown faced one of his blackest days in Government yesterday as the run up to his final Budget was overshadowed by dismal poll ratings, gloomy figures on the economy and warnings that he is a ruthless "Stalinist" .

As the Chancellor prepared for what he hoped to be a triumphant 11th and final Budget before taking the keys to No 10, Lord Turnbull, the former head of the civil service and permanent secretary at the Treasury, unleashed an attack on Mr Brown's character, saying the Chancellor took a "very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues". The comments fuelled warnings that Mr Brown's personal style will hinder cabinet government if he succeeds Tony Blair. [...]

Meanwhile, an ICM poll in The Guardian demonstrated the political mountain Mr Brown has to climb, showing that the Conservatives' lead over Labour would widen if Mr Brown became Labour leader. The poll gave the Tories a 10 point lead over Labour, but when people were asked how they would cast their votes if Mr Brown was leader, the party's support dropped by three points to 28 per cent, while backing for David Cameron's party jumped to 43 per cent. [...]

Lord Turnbull's comments, in an interview with The Financial Times, echoed criticism from past cabinet colleagues, who have described Mr Brown as a " control freak", and said he would make an "awful Prime Minister".

His criticism of Mr Brown was reinforced by other senior civil servants. Sir Stephen Wall, a former Downing Street adviser on Europe, said: "People in the Labour Party need to weigh the virtues against the downsides. I cannot recall a time ­ and I was a civil servant for 35 years, including during the Thatcher period, which was a pretty brutal period ­ when there has been such a lack of open communication between the Treasury and the rest of Whitehall, and that is not good for government."

Lord Turnbull said yesterday he had been speaking off the record but in a BBC Radio 4 programme on the civil service under New Labour to be broadcast tomorrow, he says too much power has been developed at the centre of government. [...]

The Prime Minister ordered his official spokesman to disown Lord Turnbull's criticism, while the deputy leadership candidates Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson also rallied behind Mr Brown. Mr Johnson said he had known Stalinists in his time, and Mr Brown was not one of them"

The case against this vile creature, this disgusting stained war criminal coward and detached delusional dictator is just beyond overwhelming and it's worth reminding ourselves yet again, in fact there it is mentioned again in one of the newspapers today, that domestic policy unleashed on this country under New Labour is not so much Blair but Brown.

And of course some of us, have been warning about Gordon Brown for a long time now.

Gordon Brown New Labour

Paul Craig Roberts: The Confession Backfired

Via 9/11 Blogger:

Paul Craig Roberts, Lew Rockwell.com

"The first confession released by the Bush regime’s Military Tribunals – that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – has discredited the entire process. Writing in Jurist, Northwestern University law professor Anthony D’Amato likens Mohammed’s confession to those that emerged in Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders in the 1930s.

That was my own immediate thought. I remember speaking years ago with Soviet dissident Valdimir Bukovsky about the behavior of Soviet dissidents under torture. He replied that people pressed for names under torture would try to remember the names of war dead and people who had passed away. Those who retained enough of their wits under torture would confess to an unbelievable array of crimes in an effort to alert the public to the falsity of the entire process.

That is what Mohammed did. We know he was tortured, because his response to the obligatory question about his treatment during his years of detention is redacted. We also know that he was tortured, because otherwise there is no point for the US Justice (sic) Dept. memos giving the green light to torture or for the Military Commissions Act, which permits torture and death sentence based on confession extracted by torture.

Mohammed’s confession of crimes and plots is so vast that Katherine Shrader of the Associated Press reports that the Americans who extracted Mohammed’s confession do not believe it either. It is exaggerated, say Mohammed’s tormentors, and must be taken with a grain of salt.

In other words, the US torture crew, reveling in their success, played into Mohammed’s hands. Pride goes before a fall, as the saying goes.

Mohammed’s confession admits to 31 planned and actual attacks all over the world, including blowing up the Panama Canal and assassinating presidents Carter and Clinton and the Pope. Having taken responsibility for the whole ball of wax along with everything else that he could imagine, he was the entire show. No other terrorists needed.

Reading responses of BBC listeners to Mohammed’s confession reveals that the rest of the world is either laughing at the US government for being so stupid as to think that anyone anywhere would believe the confession or damning the Bush regime for being like the Gestapo and KGB.

Humorists are having a field day with the confession: "’I’m a very dangerous mastermind,’ said Mohammed, who confessed to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, the Brink’s robbery, St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, and the Lincoln and McKinley assassinations. Mohammed also accepted responsibility for spreading hay fever and cold sores around the world and for rained out picnics."

If there was anything remaining of the Bush regime not already discredited, Mohammed’s confession removed any reputation left.

The most important part of the Mohammed story is yet to make the headlines. Despite having held and tortured hundreds of detainees for years in Gitmo, and we don’t know how many more in secret prisons around the world, the US government has come up with only 14 "high value detainees."

In other words, the government has nothing on 99 percent of the detainees who allegedly are so dangerous and wicked that they must be kept in detention without charges, access to attorneys and contact with families.

And little wonder. The vast majority of detainees, alleged "enemy combatants," are not terrorists captured by the CIA and brave US troops. They are hapless persons who happened to be outside their tribal or home territories and were kidnapped by criminal gangs or war lords who profited greatly at the expense of the naive Americans who offered bounties for "terrorists."

The US government does not care that innocent people have been ensnared, because the US government desperately needs both to prove that there are vast numbers of terrorists and to demonstrate its proficiency in protecting Americans by capturing terrorists. Moreover, the US government needs "dangerous suspects" that it can use to keep Americans in a state of supine fearfulness and as a front behind which to undermine constitutional protections and the Bill of Rights.

The Bush-Cheney Regime succeeded in its evil plot, only to throw it all away by releasing the ridiculous confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Will Bush’s totalitarian Military Tribunal now execute Mohammed on the basis of his confession extracted by torture, or would this be seen everywhere on earth as nothing but an act of murder?

If Bush can’t have Mohammed murdered, the US government will have to shut Mohammed away where he cannot talk and tell his tale. The US government will have to replicate Orwell’s memory hole by destroying Mohammed’s mind with mind-altering drugs and abuse.

It is to such depths that George Bush and Dick Cheney have lowered America."


9/11 Khalid Sheikh MohammedPaul Craig Roberts

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 'confession' met with suspicion

So yesterday we have:

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks on the United States, has claimed responsibility for those and other major al Qaeda attacks, according to the transcript of a hearing at Guantanamo Bay released on Wednesday.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z," said Mohammed, speaking through a personal representative, according to the transcript of the hearing at the U.S. military prison camp released by the Pentagon"

"I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z,". You have to wonder who writes this stuff.

So for anyone who doesn't know KSM has been tauted as the practical 'mastermind' of 9/11. He was arrested some time back, even some mainstream journalists were very skeptical at the time whether he actually had been arrested or not. Nonetheless, the NYT and Human Rights Watch believed he had been the subject of torture while in US custody and so on.

Anyway, significantly both CNN and Time Magazine have displayed real suspicion towards this so called confession, and I think anyone who has looked at 9/11 would correctly be enormously skeptical indeed about the veracity of this and indeed the reliability of KSM himself.

9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed KSM

Tinpot fanatical war criminal regime and its supporters teaching homosexuality to primary school children

Guardian:

"A pilot scheme introducing books dealing with gay issues to children from the ages of four to 11 has just been launched in England's schools.

It is being argued that the books, one of which is a fairytale featuring a prince who turns down three princesses before falling in love and marrying a man, are necessary to make homosexuality seem normal to children. Fourteen schools and one local authority, backed by teaching unions and a government-funded organisation, are running the controversial scheme, which has been attacked by Christian groups.

Twenty years ago the publication of Jenny Lives With Eric And Martin for use in schools led to an angry public debate. In response the government passed Section 28, an amendment to the Local Government Act 1988, that prevented local authorities and, by extension, schools from 'promoting homosexuality' or its acceptability as a 'pretended family relationship'. The amendment was repealed in 2003 and this is the first large-scale attempt to put similar books back into the curriculum. Other books on the list of recommended texts for the schools, which have not been named, include a story about a spacegirl with two mothers and a baby penguin with two fathers. If successful, the scheme will be extended nationwide.

'The most important thing these books do is reflect reality for young children,' said Elizabeth Atkinson, director of the No Outsiders project that is being run by Sunderland and Exeter universities and the Institute of Education (IoE) in London. 'My background is in children's literature and I know how powerful it is in shaping social values and emotional development. What books do not say is as important as what they do.' Atkinson argued that leaving images of gay relationships out of children's books was 'silencing a social message', and could end up with children being bullied later in their school lives if they were gay or were perceived as gay. Atkinson and co-director Renee DePalma have received nearly £600,000 in funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and backing from the National Union of Teachers and General Teaching Council."

This is a couple of days old, and I really didn't want to write a about a topic like this. It almost would be one of those distraction issues, but sadly it does need looking at because of its gravity and what it speaks to more widely.

One has to ask what is next ? Teaching kids that the Iraq war is good and dropping cluster bombs on Iraqi kids is normal? Teaching kids that destroying swathes of Lebanon is good and normal ? Teaching kids that having a chip implanted in them is a reflection of reality ? Teaching kids that having their DNA stockpiled is normal ?

Actually, I think this is just beyond abnormal. And look any gay readers may take umbridge at what I am saying. Well I would say on this issue they would be plain wrong for doing so if they did.

Now I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, I need to do more research on this quite frankly so currently I can only speak in broad terms about this. In the UK, there was a militant gay lobby that grew more powerful it seemed, groups like Stonewall and people like Peter Tatchell (and I guess to some credit, at least time I looked Tatchell was strongly anti-ID cards) and so on, although there were various divisions between some individuals and organisations.

But if you listen to people like Ted Pike, and I should add I don't agree with everything Ted says, but in the US it would seem that a militant gay political axis if you like, didn't really have teeth or direction or perhaps even intent, until groups like the Anti Defamation League starting taking an interest in this and weaving it, along with other disconnected causes into their own curriculum and that is when it started to become a hammer to attack the non-gay and often traditionally Christian everybody else and society in general.

Now I don't know if that is what has happened here and I'm not saying it is, I just don't know, I think part of it is probably the alliance that started welding itself together and solidifying in the 80s with the Labour party with various minority issues, but what was happening in general though, and I think there is something of a vague consensus emerging on this, is that gay issues in terms of policy in particular have been so heavily promoted (and the key is the heavy promotion) not because there is an interest in gay issues per se but because they reflect a means of demeaning and undermining the position and natural exepectations of the state for everyone else, and if the lid can be lifted off this, then the lid can be lifted off of everything else policy wise.

And I don't believe that any semblance of a serious argument could ever be made that the rights of gay people were being encroached by not having a state-recognised 'marriage' or by not adopting children.

And it's probably worth pointing out that people like Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, leaving aside her pro-War on Terror, pro-Israel is a victim nonsesne, has been a strong critic in particular of this idea of putting sexual orientation above religious and indeed other cultural values in terms of both policy and legislation.

So sadly, you have to wonder, what kind of reality does this Elizabeth Atkinson reside in, that she and her axis, think they have some divine right to make victims of children with this kind of horrendous, potty self-indulgent social engineering ? Why are these people having an influence on our education system ? Why are they getting £600,000 and being endorsed by the National Union of Teachers?

A great many people would say that they can't think of anything more debasing and more horrendous and more reckless , but I would also say I can't think of anything more divorced from reality than the gratuitous promotion of homosexuality to young children, and it speaks of something gone disastrously wrong in terms of thinking. This isn't 'capitalism' or something, this is politics, this is activism at work in the system that is full of burning hatred and personal amibition and it speaks to something gone so monstrously wrong that one wonders how something so wrong could have been left to fester for so long without any restraint.

Obviously there was a very strong case for Section 28 as it turns out.


education children Section 28 Elizabeth Atkinson No Outsiders

David Ray Griffin: A reply to George Monbiot

Via 9/11 Blogger: "In “Bayoneting a Scarecrow The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.” (Guardian, February 20), George Monbiot accuses members of the 9/11 truth movement of being “morons” and “idiots” who believe in “magic.” Having in his previous attack---“A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world,” Guardian, February 6---called me this movement’s “high priest,” he now describes my 9/11 writing as a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense.”

If my books are moronic nonsense, then people who have endorsed them must be morons. Would Monbiot really wish to apply this label to Michel Chossudovsky, Richard Falk, Ray McGovern, Michael Meacher, John McMurtry, Marcus Raskin, Rosemary Ruether, Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of America’s leading civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists?" Read more...

People like Webster Tarpley, and indeed David Ray Griffin in the past have argued that the best way to stop the wars and the police state may to be run with 9/11 itself. I can certainly see the logic there. The only criticism I've said is that you have to be careful not to say that well '9/11 was inside job, therefore everything that has come after it is bad'. No that is false, everything that has come since 9/11 is entirely wrong irrespective of whether or not 9/11 is an inside job.

I think if anything DRG has been extremely conservative in his list of people here, remember you've got people. who while don't necessarily fully endorse the inside job position, are not satisfied with the current fable either and feel that MIHOP can't be ruled it out, from what I've seen would seem to include the likes of Daniel Elsberg, Rabbi Michael Lerner and possibly Gore Vidal from when I heard him on Alex Jones' show along with many many others.

The problem I have with George Monbiot is that he is the distraction here, and part of an insidious, albeit perhaps well-meaning, Axis-of-Drivel aimed squarely at the coffee-sipping left (chattering) middle classes, to which Monbiot has tried to elect himself a hero of.

Despite all the things he claims to have done in his life, Monbiot gives the firm impression that the hardest decision he has ever faced is what nut cutlet dish to choose from the local healthfood store. Now, a caricature of humanity, Monbiot is like the Modern Parents cartoon you may remember from Viz, nothing but a walking list of failed left clichés and a stupid poster boy for the international establishment's global taxations and so on.

Monbiot, is the exemplification of why the establishment left has failed, not just failed itself which is neither here nor there, but failed its constituency and everyone else at large. This idea that governments are benign creatures and that only another crippling tax to appease the white guilt of Monbiot will save the world really has been perhaps one of the most dangerously failed pseudo-zeitgeists of our time.

When I see this sort of drivel, its sadly no surprise that the US and the UK are embarking on horrific and brutal wars of aggression across the Middle East, slaying and maiming thousands upon thousands, accompanied by the construction of a dizzying, terrifying, humiliating and dehumanizing police state at home, as despite whatever Monbiot's anti-war direct political affiliations have been, he and his autistic friends have effectively given the green light for this with their stream of self-indulgent and valueless trinket distractions that have willfully distorted, misrepresented and masked the gravity of what is going on in the world today.

I think we can say that George Monbiot and the kind of thinking he represents can be safely disregarded.

George Monbiot David Ray Griffin 9/11

The Lord Levy saga...

The Herald:

"Lord Levy last night claimed he was the victim of a smear campaign by unnamed figures who wanted him to be the fall-guy of Scotland Yard's cash-for-honours inquiry.

Tony Blair's chief fundraiser delivered an angry riposte to claims he had encouraged another suspect in the police investigation to change her evidence. As the 61-year-old peer was thrust yet again into the spotlight, he complained of being the victim of a "media-style trial".

The latest twist in what one MP dubbed "a soap opera of an investigation" came after the Guardian successfully defeated an attempt by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to halt a story in which it said detectives were investigating whether Lord Levy urged Ruth Turner, the Prime Minister's gatekeeper, to "shape the evidence" she gave to the police..."

No doubt about it there is a faction somewhere that sees Levy in particular as a deeply sinister and corrupting figure, and we must take a seriously grave view of someone who has been so intimately tied to Blair, who has been funding this vile party to create these wars, create this crushing police state, but I think we have to be realistic about this too.

You've got a whole range of characters in and associated with the Labour party who are nasty dangerous sick people: pro-war of agression, pro-Orewllian police state, pro-'big lie', pro-deconstruction of society, pro-seizing private assets through a kind of Fabian incrementalism and I'm not sure it is clear that they are all under the thumb of Lord Levy as is sometimes being implied with this scandal.

Look I've really laid into this character and he deserves anything he gets, but my take on this right now, right at this moment, is that Levy, important as he may be, may have been made expendable, possibly he's just not that important anymore and despite whatever trouble he could genuinely be facing, he may be being wielded within that by the regime and its supporters, as a kind of relase valve for the far more serious and multi-layered crisis going on in the UK and a way of keeping the crap game going. On the other hand it is a direct attempt to dismantle Blair and his vile government as well, so we'll see how this plays out....

Lord Levy cash-for-peerages New Labour Blair

Libby convicted

Forbes/AP:

"Once the closest adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a leak investigation that shook the top levels of the Bush administration.

He is the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair two decades ago.

In the end, jurors said did not believe Libby's main defense: that he hadn't lied but merely had a bad memory.

The CIA leak case focused new attention on the Bush administration's much-criticized handling of intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war. The case cost Cheney his most trusted adviser, and the trial revealed Cheney's personal obsession with criticism of the war's justification.

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the government aware of the effort.

More top reporters were ordered into court - including Miller after 85 days of resistance in jail - to testify about their confidential sources among the nation's highest-ranking officials than in any other trial in recent memory.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said the verdict closed the nearly four-year investigation into how the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, and her classified job at the CIA were leaked to reporters in 2003 - just days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence. No one will be charged with the leak itself, which the trial confirmed came first from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

"The results are actually sad," Fitzgerald told reporters after the verdict. "It's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did."

One juror, former Washington Post (nyse: WPO - news - people ) reporter Denis Collins, said the jury did not believe Libby's main defense: that he never lied but just had a faulty memory. Juror Jeff Comer agreed.

Collins said the jurors spent a week charting the testimony and evidence on 34 poster-size pages. "There were good managerial type people on this jury who took everything apart and put it in the right place," Collins said. "After that, it wasn't a matter of opinion. It was just there."

Libby, not only Cheney's chief of staff but also an assistant to Bush, was expressionless as the verdict was announced on the 10th day of deliberations. In the front row, his wife, Harriet Grant, choked out a sob and her head sank.

Libby could face up to 25 years in prison when sentenced June 5, but federal sentencing guidelines will probably prescribe far less, perhaps one to three years. Defense attorneys said they would ask for a retrial and if that fails, appeal the conviction.

"We have every confidence Mr. Libby ultimately will be vindicated," defense attorney Theodore Wells told reporters. He said that Libby was "totally innocent and that he did not do anything wrong."

Libby did not speak to reporters.

The president watched news of the verdict on television at the White House. Deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Bush respected the jury's verdict but "was saddened for Scooter Libby and his family."

In a written statement, Cheney called the verdict disappointing and said he was saddened for Libby and his family, too. "As I have said before, Scooter has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction through many years of public service."

Wilson, whose wife left the CIA after she was exposed, said, "Convicting him of perjury was like convicting Al Capone of tax evasion or Alger Hiss of perjury. It doesn't mean they were not guilty of other crimes."

Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury to the grand jury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told.

Libby learned about Plame from Cheney in June 2003 about a month after Wilson's allegations were first published, without his name, by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Prosecutors said Libby relayed the Plame information to other government officials and told reporters, Miller of the Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine, that she worked at the CIA.

On July 6, 2003, Wilson publicly wrote that he had gone to Niger in 2002 and debunked a report that Iraq was seeking uranium there for nuclear weapons and that Cheney, who had asked about the report, should have known his findings long before Bush cited the report in 2003 as a justification for the war. On July 14, columnist Robert Novak reported that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and she, not Cheney, had suggested he go on the trip.

When an investigation of the leak began, prosecutors said, Libby feared prosecution for disclosing classified information so he lied to investigators to make his discussions appear innocent.

Libby swore that he was so busy he forgot Cheney had told him about Plame, and was surprised to learn it a month later from NBC reporter Tim Russert. He swore he told reporters only that he learned it from other reporters and could not confirm it.

Russert, however, testified he and Libby never even discussed Plame.

Libby blamed any misstatements in his account on flaws in his memory.

He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper.

Collins said jurors agreed that on nine occasions during a short period of 2003, Libby was either told about Plame or told others about her.

"If I'm told something once, I'm likely to forget it," Collins recalled one juror saying. "If I'm told it many times, I'm less likely to forget it. If I myself tell it to someone else, I'm even less likely to forget it."

Libby is free pending sentencing. His lawyers will ask that he remain so through any appeal"

Scooter Libby Cheney Valerie Plame Iraq WMD

End the nightmare in the UK - who wants to live here anymore seriously ?

Something else we should also mention today is this story about the rotting fetid tinpot regime's obsession to now start fingerprinting children. It's covered in all the media of course let's just pick the Scotsman:

"Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, said the idea was part of preparations for new biometric passports and identity cards. From next year, everyone over 16 applying for a passport will have their fingerprints - along with eye and facial scans - recorded on the National Identity Register.

But Mr Byrne said ministers were concerned that teenagers over 16 could end up travelling on passports without biometric details if they hold a five-year child passport issued between the ages of 11 and 15.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said widespread fingerprinting would change the relationship between the state and citizens.

"This borders on the sinister and it shows the government is trying to end the presumption of innocence," he said."

Any rational person should fully understand, that it is sinister that it is happening to anyone not just children, and this plan isn't new because it has been seen in the context of this European database.

When we see a government like this which is really just part of a global axis of misery and destruction, obsessed with trying to wipe out current society and replace it with a different kind of world, a world of a centralised elite dishing out political punishments from a lifestyle and information database and to find childish, really autistic justifications for doing so, we have to accept that we need to get rid of the regime, its supporters and the kind of thinking that it may leave behind.

I know some people still can't quite get their minds round this, and try instead to project a hopeless participation and consent onto these things, but we are beyond tolerating that bubble now and it needs to be popped. Furthermore, instead of complaining about the United States, or Europe and their own schemes on biometrics and passports to be trying to lobby these citizens of these countries against what is being created altogether.

According to a couple of the responses to the Scotsman's article, there really is still this small lost and I would say dying faction who is genuinely terrified of being blown up by terrorists, who really has tried to make excuses for this stuff in their mind, to try to find hoplessly inadequate rationalizations for it. Assuming those posts are genuine, which they are not always, this is the narrow band of support the regime relies on, the very easily manipulated in society, the extremely vulnerable.

And then this thing Byrne starts talking about the 'war on illegal immigration' ? Spare us the pathetic soundbyte to try to appeal to the Daily Mail's readership. It's not illegal immigration that is really a problem, this is such a disgusting distortion of everything going on. We really have to get a grip on this.

And perhaps the best way to do so, is to become not just anti-war, anti-ID cards, anti-rubbish tax, anti-tracking and tracing toll roads, anti-fingerprints but anti-regime and to identifiy it for what it is, as something inherently so vile and disgusting and awful that it must be wiped off the face of the Earth.

fingerprints children biometrics police state tyranny slavery

Debt is the new terrorism

It's been reported elsewhere, but I am just going to pick up on what I read in the Daily Express on this, as The Daily Express is like a number of newspapers now, anti-police state but remains thoroughly pro, clash of civilizations.

In the media today (and yes of course there are exceptions and we're not necessarily talking about individual journalists), it is permissible to be anti-police state or more specifically anti-'draconian'/anti-statist but you're not allowed to be anti-war, but of course you can't be pro-war of aggression and anti-police state as the two things are totally hopelessly intertwinned as history well shows.

You're not really going to get properly get to the bottom of the police state or general draconian legislation or exploitative degrading dehumanizing policies in general, until you can also say that the wars of aggression and this reshaping of the world are wrong, so in all practical terms various 'conservative' newspapers who are now taking an anti-police state position, are in practice, pro-police state because they remain (at least in their ownership which is what counts) pro war of aggression.

Now anyway what you see in the Daily Express on this topic of a second reading of a bill in Parliament that would give more powers to bailiffs to kick down doors and seize assets on behalf of creditors, is the usual 'but there isn't proper oversight of these laws and they could be abused' quote from some so called 'advocacy group' instead of 'Fuck! What the hell is happening here ? What the hell is going on in this country ?' .

So if you're seeing this then is difficult to imagine anything else, other than that organization or that reporter is either blissfully misinformed, so uneducated, so propagandized to and so stupefied as to make their contribution worthless, or on the payroll. Either way they are part of the problem, as naturally this is dampened opposition, bogus opposition, deliberately impotent, false and worthless opposition and which sadly, we tend to see across the board.

"I know let's create a law to make everyone who hasn't paid their debts have their legs cut off"

Response: "But will there be proper oversight ? will it be regulated properly ? ooohhh.'

You see how stupid it is.

Bailiffs trying to break your door down should be treated exactly as anyone else doing that. Is this 'law' ? Or part of an overall political/technological condition that is replacing it? This seems more about getting people used to the idea of breaking down safeguards, breaking down their dignity and self-respect, and part of an overall spectrum of ways to humiliate and degrade them that is fully in-step with all other ridiculous sick laws the regime has created for itself.

The real crime is of course putting vulnerable people into crushing debt in the first place, the trend of the endless creation of money, the creation of debt, so others can come along and seize their assets when they default. This needs to stop and people are becoming much more aware of this.

And if you look at the Daily Mail, with its campaign about outrageous and gross bank charges, quite right you might think, but is the Daily Mail really trying to help here or just offering a conduit for banks to make an even cushier and more expoitative deal for themselves ? It's difficult to tell.

And anyway, as usual we see this deep-rooted obsession of the regime with taking possession of every aspect of peoples' lives coming to the fore, through council tax inspectors, rubbish fines, more powers to some of the worst trash in society ie bailiffs and of course this is all garbage, and it is a sign of 2 things; this deep-rooted institutional burning hatred of humanity; this idea that the world is perpetually broken and needs fixing by an intellectual radical elite, and 2) a looming financial crisis as this whole debt bubble collapses which actually isn't just the opinion of alternative news websites but of the Financial Times and the Independent for the last year. So there is a real problem here.

And you have to ask the question, why should people put into crippling debt by these lending institutions be 'taught a lesson' like this and why are the institutions doing this not being taught a lesson ?

Now let's go back to the Daily Express, furious about Inheritence Tax and really used some very strong language recently about 'stopping the police state', so why this impotent drivel about bailiffs being given more powers by the regime ? Again the only truth is, you can't stop the police state, or related draconian trends if you're pro illegal war of aggression, it is as simple as that.

And for sure, we can leave out certain other newspapers like the Daily Mirror with 'the War on Terror being lost' on their frontpage recently, as that is now completely pro-war, completely pro-police state and completely pro destruction of all society, this is a dispicable vile piece of drivel now masquerading as a kind of popular tabloid for plebs.

We can leave out the Daily Telegraph ostensibly because although it complains about the police state from time to time (sometimes in very strong terms) it remains the main neocon purveyor of war and is the voice of neoconservatism in the UK and very interestingly even talked about Gordon Brown's strong admiration of neoconservatism last year. Actually Murdoch as well, openly critical of the nanny state/police state but fiercly pro war of aggression.

So lets go over things yet again, today in 2007, you have a cloistered sickly. rotting government in office headed by sickly rotting war criminals being propped up by deeply corrupt or flawed individuals. They are looking around at everything in a panic and fear and feverishly trying to reshape society and create as many laws as possible, this is pretty serious situation.

But I suspect the reason a lot of people don't understand why Blair went to war and they try and say he was a 'poodle of Bush' is they don't understand or rather don't want to accept what they are dealing with and what they have put in office and they still don't despite the fact that it is manifested on every layer of policy and couldn't be more obvious.

debt bailiffs