Peter Osborne — The Telegraph May 29, 2013 via Stop the War Coalition

Almost four years have passed since Sir John Chilcot called a press conference to launch his inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq War.

He grimly acknowledged that “there have been inquiries which have taken very long periods of time: they are being held on a quite different basis from ours”.

Sir John insisted that he was “determined to avoid… a long, drawn-out inquiry”. His would all be over within “a year and a half, maybe a bit more” – in other words, by the summer of 2011.

Sad to report, Sir John’s inquiry was (apparently) still at work in the summer of 2011. Then 2012 came and went. Earlier this year, there was a buzz around Whitehall that Sir John was due to announce his findings this summer, but this hope has also vanished.

Eyes are now starting to turn, in the words of one senior figure very close to the inquiry, towards “the end of this year and maybe 2014”.

Comparisons are being made privately to the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday, which was published an unfeasible 12 years after being commissioned, and an outrageous 38 years after the events it investigated.

Furthermore, just the faintest stench is starting to surround Sir John’s inquiry: there is talk of documents being withheld, perhaps because too many senior reputations are at stake.

Until now, these worries have not been publicly articulated. This has now changed. David Owen, the former foreign secretary, who has followed the Iraq invasion and its consequences carefully from the start, last weekend made a series of extraordinary, and indeed devastating, allegations.

Speaking at a public meeting, Lord Owen said that the inquiry “is being prevented from revealing extracts that they believe relevant from exchanges between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair”. The culprits, he said, are Tony Blair and David Cameron: “Publication of the Bush extracts would not be blocked if Tony Blair had not objected, nor if that objection had not been supported by the present prime minister, David Cameron. Both men are hiding behind conventions that are totally inappropriate given the nature of the inquiry.”

Lord Owen then went further. He suggested that Cameron and Blair have entered into a private deal: Mr Cameron is helping to prevent publication of vital documents, essential to discovering the truth about the background to the Iraq War, in return for political support for the Tories. “No 10 reveals that they are in constant contact on many issues with Tony Blair and Blair’s own people confirm this,” he said. “Not for nothing does Cameron see himself still as the ‘heir to Blair’. It is hard to escape the conclusion that No 10 hopes to… win the neutrality or possibly tacit support of Blair by the General Election.”

Many people will be eager to dismiss Lord Owen’s allegation, and no wonder. He is in effect asserting that there is an active conspiracy between past and present prime minister to hide the truth about Iraq. It sounds absurd.

Nevertheless, Lord Owen’s comments deserve to be taken seriously, and not simply because he is a former foreign secretary and privy counsellor who knows the issues – and many of those involved – extremely well. For example, he is right to draw attention to the political closeness between Tony Blair and the current Prime Minister. It is true that Tory strategists have long worked on detaching Tony Blair from Ed Miliband, just as Blair in his day successfully encouraged Margaret Thatcher to turn on John Major. Indeed, the Blair business empire, which has made millions giving very profitable advice to Middle Eastern and African dictators, could not exist for a second without the implicit consent of the Foreign Office.

But now for the core of Lord Owen’s accusation. It is not ridiculous for the ex-foreign secretary to claim that sinister forces may have been at work when it comes to Chilcot. Certainly, something went very wrong with each of the first four inquiries into the Iraq War.

For example, the report by the foreign affairs committee in 2003 was almost completely worthless, because it was effectively controlled by the government whips office. The following year, as we have recently learnt, vital facts were withheld from the Butler Inquiry, of which Sir John was a member. None of this comes as a surprise, for very powerful interests are at stake.

If Chilcot were to conclude that Tony Blair lied over Iraq (and many well-placed people are convinced he did) it would be a first-order catastrophe for the former prime minister. He would be disgraced, just as Anthony Eden was after it emerged that he had lied to Parliament over the invasion of Suez in 1956. His political life would be over and his reputation destroyed. It is not merely that he would be unable to return to British politics. He would also be forced to abandon all ambitions on the international stage, such as his professed desire to become European Union president.

The central allegation against Mr Blair is that he gave a private assurance in early 2002 to President Bush that Britain would join the United States in an invasion of Iraq. Thereafter, it is said, all was decided. Even though Mr Blair later highlighted Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and misrepresented what he was being told by the intelligence services to the House of Commons, it was of little significance to him, because the die had been cast anyhow.

Hence the central importance of access to those conversations. They are likely to cast much-needed light on whether or not the allegations that the prime minister struck a private deal with the president are true. Yet, amazingly, the Chilcot Inquiry’s website states that it has “not yet” even “begun its dialogue” with government over the treatment of these Blair/Bush conversations.

Four years ago, when still in opposition, David Cameron claimed that Chilcot was part of an “establishment stitch-up”. Now he has changed his mind. He suggests instead that it wasn’t needed in the first place. “I would want to reassure people and say the lessons of Iraq have been learned,” he told the BBC last month, when asked whether intelligence concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria could be trusted. But this is not reassuring at all: it was the job of Sir John Chilcot to learn the lessons of the Iraq fiasco, and his report is now three years overdue.

Sir John’s failure to deliver on time is part of what is becoming a Whitehall pattern. The Gibson Inquiry into powerful allegations that Britain was involved in extraordinary rendition and torture, also supported by the prime minister in opposition, has been abandoned. We ought to have enough confidence in our magnificent values to be able to cast daylight on our national errors, crimes and misfortunes. Yet, as the experience of Gibson, Chilcot and Hillsborough suggests, the culture of secrecy seems always to prevail.

Source

Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro has announced the expulsion of two US embassy officials for allegedly spying on the country’s military, accusing Washington of infecting late President Hugo Chavez with the cancer virus.

Maduro made charged the US administration in a televised speech on Tuesday, after holding an emergency meeting with high military command and civilian leaders and hours before the announcement of President Chavez’s death.

Caracas accused the US embassy’s Air Force attache, Colonel David Delmonaco, and assistant air attache, Major Devlin Kostal, of trying to stir up a military plot against the Venezuelan government.

Washington confirmed that the two officials were employed at the embassy, saying Delmonaco was en route back to the US, and Kostal was in America at the time.

Maduro also said that, “We have no doubt” that the President’s cancer, first diagnosed in 2011, was induced by “the historical enemies of our homeland,” a thinly-veiled reference to the US.

He compared the situation to the death of the late leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, who Maduro claimed was “inoculated with an illness.”

US State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said in a statement that Washington “definitely rejects” the assertion that the US was involved in Chavez’s illness.

On Tuesday, the 58-year-old Venezuelan leader died after a two-year battle with cancer.

Back in 2011, Chavez had accused the US of developing a technology for infecting Latin American leaders with cancer.

Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner Fernandez, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and former Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo have all received treatment for cancer disease.

“Wouldn’t it be weird if they [the US] had developed a technology for inducing cancer and nobody knows up until now?” Chavez had said at the time.

SAB/PKH/HJL

Source

The president of Fox News sent a reporter to Afghanistan with a message for Gen. David Petraeus shortly before he was appointed head of the CIA in 2011: News Corp. thinks you should run for president.

Both Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, and Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of parent company and media conglomerate News Corporation, were interested in seeing Gen. Petraeus toss his hat into the 2012 presidential race. The news comes courtesy of a just published recording of a conversation between Ailes and Fox News national security analyst Kathleen T. McFarland that was provided to the Washington Post.

Bob Woodward, a longtime Post journalist and one of the reporters credited with exposing the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration, was given access to the audio and reports this week on a presidential ticket that may have almost been.

According to Woodward’s take on the tape, both Ailes and Murdoch floated the idea of endorsing Gen. Petraeus as a presidential contender, at least to some degree, and the Fox News chief urged McFarland to make their intentions known on the then-commander of US troops in Afghanistan during a Spring 2011 interview.

The “advice to you from Roger Ailes is…. He says that if you’re offered [JCS] chairman, take it. If you’re offered anything else, don’t take it; resign in six months and run for president,” McFarland says in the recording.

“I’m only reporting this back to Roger. And that’s our deal,” she told him, to which Gen. Petraeus responded that any answer “has to be off the record.”

“His deal with me was that I was only supposed to talk to you,” McFarland said. “And he is a little paranoid, so believe me, he doesn’t have anybody in that room.”

“Tell him if I ever ran,” Petraeus told her in a light-hearted tone, “but I won’t . . . but if I ever ran, I’d take him up on his offer.”

“He said he would quit Fox . . . and bankroll it,” the general told her

“Bankroll it?” McFarland asked.

“Or maybe I’m confusing that with Rupert,” Petraeus responded.

“I know Roger, he’s done okay,” McFarland countered, “but … no, I think the one who’s bankrolling it is the big boss.”

“Okay,” McFarland said, “the big boss is bankrolling it. Roger’s going to run it. And the rest of us are going to be your in-house.”

Since being provided with the audio recording of the encounter, the Post has reached out to all parties involved to find out if any of the matters discussed were seriously considered by either Petraeus or the president of Fox. Murdoch, who is no stranger to stirring up matters within US politics, did not respond to calls for comments by the Post.

Weighing in with Woodward, though, Fox chief Ailes says he thinks McFarland made more of a to-do with his request than he intended.

“It was more of a joke, a wiseass way I have,” he said. “I thought the Republican field [in the primaries] needed to be shaken up and Petraeus might be a good candidate.”

Ailes added, “It sounds like she thought she was on a secret mission in the Reagan administration. . . . She was way out of line. . . . It’s someone’s fantasy to make me a kingmaker. It’s not my job.”

On his part, Petraeus never had to quite consider the offer, serious or not. Within weeks he was appointed the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, a post he held until just last month when he resigned amid a highly publicized sex scandal.

Source

Ed Miliband may be a contender to occupy 10 Downing Street if the Labour Party wins the next general election, and his brother David Miliband may have been Foreign Secretary under Tony Blair, but many questions remain about both men and where exactly their loyalty lies.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, the corporate media have barely touched upon what is potentially an explosive issue.

For like they say ‘there’s no smoke without fire’, and the Miliband family have had connections to Zionism, communism and Soviet Russia stretching back generations. From Ed Miliband’s father, the late Marxist theoretician Adolphe Ralph Miliband, to his grandfather who reportedly fought with the Red Army during the Russian civil war.

The connections continue today with a cousin, Sofia Miliband who worked as a code breaker for Stalin and who still lives in Moscow.

While David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary had at one time been tipped for the leadership of the Labour Party, his brother now occupies the post. However, although David’s still active in politics he has assumed a fairly low profile of late.   

This happened after having been named as a potential party leader, David Miliband was exposed by this website and others for his links with Zionist activism.

He had indeed been listed on an Israeli Propaganda site as an ‘Israeli Hasbara (Propaganda) Author’ while still serving as Foreign Secretary.

But while David Miliband may have been unnerved by this exposure, his brother has continued his ascent in British politics to the point where he is now also a serious contender for the office of prime minister.

It’s bad enough when the current prime minister is ready to give Israel the benefit of the doubt, even as it slaughters Palestinians. It would however, be much worse for Palestine and Britain if a committed but covert Zionist were resident in 10 Downing street.

So it’s appropriate to take another look at the Miliband family. Otherwise the day could come when a serving British prime minister is ready to put Israel’s interests over and above everything else. 

Continues … 

Also see: Exposing the Zionist Hidden Hand That Rules Britain and the United States

There were secessionist movements in Texas as far back as the 1990s before anyone heard of Barack Obama.

For example, you might occasionally see a TEXAS SECEDE bumper sticker; however, these were fringe gestures. 

But, since Obama’s re-election, the Texas secession movement picked up considerable support. In addition, we now see strong secession petitions in all the southern states, and these have spread to all 50 states. The most bizarre aspect of this movement is where these petitions are hosted. The White House!

Oddly, The Obama Administration established a method to petition his own administration online.  However, for anyone seriously seeking their state’s secession from the USA, they need to petition their own state legislature. 

Why isn’t The Obama Administration telling Americans that the President lacks jurisdiction to rule on these petitions? And why are Americans being misdirected and distracted in this matter? Apparently, the Texas petition has already crossed The White House threshold (25,000 signatures) requiring Obama to officially respond.

    WHO’S REALLY BEHIND THESE POST-ELECTION SOUR GRAPES SECESSION MOVEMENTS?

Continues …

A powerful paedophile network may have operated in the UK with links to Parliament and Downing Street, a Labour MP said today.

Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Tom Watson urged David Cameron to ensure that the allegation was properly investigated.

Mr Watson, who campaigned on the phone hacking scandal long before a new police inquiry was opened, said: “The evidence file used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring.

“One of its members boasts of a link to a senior aide of a former prime minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.”

He went on: “The leads were not followed up, but if the files still exist, I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it, and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and Number 10.”

Mr Cameron, who had earlier spoken of Jimmy Savile’s “appalling” case, agreed to look into the claims.

He told the Labour MP: “You raise a very difficult and complex case and I’m not sure which former prime minister he is referring to. But what I would like to is to look very carefully in Hansard to the allegations you have made, the case that you have raised … and to see what the Government can do to give you the assurances you seek.”

Earlier, Mr Cameron had said the police inquiry into Savile must find out how he had been allowed to abuse children for so long.

Criticising the BBC’s record on the TV presenter, the Prime Minister told the Commons: “These allegations do leave many institutions – perhaps particularly the BBC – with serious questions to answer – I think above all the question, ‘How did he get away with this for so long?’.”

He added: “The most important thing is that the police investigation is properly resourced and is allowed to continue. I don’t rule out further steps but we do now have independent investigations by the BBC, independent investigations into the NHS.”

Source

The English Democratic Party has been receiving coverage on a number of different BBC programmes, including the national news. Their ‘Directors report’ tells a tale. 

Zero assets, zero income, zero investments. Should this operation be treated like a serious political organisation? 

If only some of the rest of us were offered similar access to the airwaves.

Source

Also see: 

BBC Promote Unheard-Of ‘Spoiler’ Party

Comment – September 26, 2012

Linked below in the comments section under the title: “FIRST CLASS IDIOT DOES SOME RESEARCH ON ENGLISH DEMOCRATS” more less confirms the fraudulent nature of the English Democrats. Wherein commenting on Kevin Boyle’s post, and we quote: “He confused the official English Democrats with the “UKIP” front the unofficial English Democratic Party.”

As if the English Democrats were the ‘official’ party and the UKIP were some beakaway group.

Of course the opposite is true but this sort of reverse logic bears the hallmarks of disinformation that is the characteristic of those in the service of the New World Order.

A Liberal Democrat Defence Minister has claimed he was sacked to avoid a damaging Coalition split over a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Former Armed Forces Minister Sir Nick Harvey told friends that he  was fired in the reshuffle to allow Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg  to sign Britain up to an Israeli-US preventive strike to take out Iran’s nuclear installations.

Friends of Sir Nick – who was handed a knighthood just days later – say that he could have embarrassed the Lib Dem leader by being too critical of Israel’s actions if he had still been in the key Ministry of Defence post.

The row broke as sources confirmed that British intelligence agents are already deeply involved in attempts to discover Iran’s nuclear secrets.

It is also understood that the US has asked Britain to provide frigates to patrol the Straits of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil passes.

The sacking of the respected  Minister took MPs and Army top brass by surprise.

Party sources have insisted the move – which has left the Ministry of Defence staffed entirely by Tories – was due to Mr Clegg’s decision to accept Lib Dem ministerial jobs in other, more ‘voter-friendly’ Government departments.

But when approached by The Mail on Sunday, Sir Nick confirmed he had considered his sacking was linked to mounting speculation of a pre-emptive strike on Iran and the expectation that UK forces would be drawn in afterwards. However, the MP went  on to say he had since discounted  that theory.

‘I have cast my mind over the issues that might have led the party leader  to this decision,’ he added.

‘But having toyed with that one, I have decided it could not have played any part in it.’

However, one party insider said the idea made sense, adding: ‘With our record over opposing the Iraq War, no one in our party is going to congratulate Israel on launching a strike.

‘But Nick may have been particularly outspoken, especially in the immediate aftermath and when we’re bound to get caught in cleaning up the mess alongside the Americans.

‘He probably takes the view that we’d need to give a particularly strong condemnation of Israel to show  the Arab world that we didn’t approve. However, that could have caused a problem for some of Clegg’s Tory  Coalition colleagues.’

The reshuffle earlier this month came amid renewed speculation  that Israel is planning to launch a  unilateral attack to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Only last weekend, Israel’s defence minister Ehud Barak appeared to hint that he believed the US would join his country in the pre-emptive attack.

There were also reports that  US President Barack Obama was  poised to set out the ‘red lines’ that would trigger an American attack if Iran continued to press ahead with its nuclear programme.

MoD sources yesterday confirmed that contingency talks over the dispatch of Royal Navy minesweepers to the Gulf had already been held.

Last night, Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United  Services Institute, suggested that  the Lib Dem reshuffle arrangements would not release the party from  difficult defence decisions as part of the Coalition.

He said: ‘The United Kingdom is doing everything it can to keep a  handle on what the Iranians are  doing and we have got a lot of well-developed sources in the region –  signals and human intelligence.

‘The Liberal Democrats cannot  simply wash their hands of national security issues by removing their  Ministers from the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office.

‘As a member of the National Security Council, Nick Clegg is briefed on the latest intelligence on Iran and will continue to be so.

‘Clegg could adopt a position of agreeing to disagree, raising his objections to the Prime Minister but saying go ahead.’ 

Dr Anthony Cordesman, an expert on Iran at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, said the US and Britain were sharing ‘a great deal of intelligence at this time’. 

Sources close to Mr Clegg last night denied the Iran situation had played a part in the decision to remove Sir Nick.

Source

With thanks to the observant reader who spotted this. Ed.

Behind the frenzy unleashed by a defamatory film on Islam, Webster Tarpley scents a machination orchestrated by a Zionist-connected network with the ultimate goal of removing Barack Obama from the White House, increasingly perceived as posing an obstacle to Israel’s unfettered grip on U.S. foreign policy. A regime change, with Netanyahu’s bosom friend Mitt Romney at the helm, would pave the way for a neocon comeback to better accommodate Israel’s interests and resolidify Tel-Aviv’s influence in Washington.

Demonstrations have occurred in the past few days at US embassies in more than 20 cities across the world to protest the scurrilous California film originally entitled “Desert Warrior” and then “The Innocence of Moslims.”

In an attack designed to coincide with the protests, a Libyan death squad has assassinated the US ambassador to Libya and three of his associates. The US State Department has set up a crisis management center to monitor developments 24 hours a day.

The film in question was obviously designed as a provocation and nothing else. But was this film, as the US media claim, the work of the isolated Cerrito, California resident and Egyptian-American Nakoula Bassely Nakoula. aka Abanob Bassely aka Israeli citizen Sam Bacile, an ex-convict with a drug problem, and a few actors he hired? Persuasive evidence suggests that this is not the case.

Instead, we are dealing with an ambitious international intelligence operation aimed at creating an October Surprise (a few weeks early) to shock world and US public opinion for the purpose of discrediting and “Carterizing” the current tenant of the White House, and installing Netanyahu’s friend Mitt Romney in his place. Since the US public identifies Obama as the patron of the color revolutions and military interventions of the “Arab Spring,” attacks on US diplomats, assassinations, and possible hostage taking can be expected to weaken his case for reelection. If Romney prevails, control over US foreign policy would pass to the group of incorrigible warmonger neocons who are the Romney’s handlers for international affairs. The current crisis is a sign that the neocons and their friends are attempting a comeback.

The networks involved in this operation appear to be these:

The CIA Mormon Mafia

Featuring top officials across the US intelligence community who are members of Romney’s tightly-knit sect.

This group can also be referred to as the Brent Scowcroft faction. Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger’s right-hand man, used his entrenched bureaucratic position over decades to help promote many of his co-religionists. This group wants Romney in the White House because Romney and his transition team boss Mike Leavitt, also a Mormon, are visibly embarked on a policy of favoring Mormons for top positions.

On Sept. 14, Google rejected an appeal by the Obama White House to remove the controversial film worldwide. As Wired magazine noted on May 11, 2012, “former National Security Agency chief Mike McConnell told the Washington Post that collaboration between the NSA and private companies like Google was ‘inevitable,’” and has been widely reported since January 2010. So Google’s refusal to cooperate with Obama tells us about the views of the NSA, and speaks volumes about which presidential candidate the intelligence community is backing.

The Netanyahu Likud

During the past week, the reactionary Israeli Prime Minister has intervened blatantly and outrageously in US election-year politics in the attempt to secure the election of Mitt Romney, with whom he has been joined at the hip since the two worked together at the Boston Consulting Group in 1976.

About a week ago, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States has no “red lines” in regard to the Iranian nuclear program. Netanyahu replied with an angry outburst, raving that those who have no red lines have “no moral right” to give Israel a red light when it comes to starting a catastrophic aggressive war against Iran. This was interpreted in Washington as a call to vote for Romney. To underline the message, the deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset appeared on MSNBC cable news one morning to demand immediate US war with Iran. Republican candidates are using this material for their campaigns.

Some observers have pointed out that, while Netanyahu demands that the US specify some future set of circumstances under which war must begin, the Israeli government has never specified any red lines of its own, meaning that Bibi wants Washington to be more Israeli than the Israelis. These brazen actions by Netanyahu have evoked a wave of American resentment and hostility, even in circles which are usually prepared to go along with the Israelis.

Some have also speculated that, since Romney has shown repeatedly that he has no knowledge of world affairs, Netanyahu believes that he would be able to dictate US foreign policy through his friendship with Romney. During the Republican presidential debates, Romney promised to get Netanyahu’s approval for every US action in the Middle East.

US Neocons

The pro-Israeli neocons of the Bush-Cheney era have attached themselves to Romney as their main hope of getting back into power. This group includes John Bolton (the likely Secretary of State if Romney wins), Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Robert Joseph, and Dan Senor (who now tells vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan what to say about foreign policy).

Prince Bandar bin Sultan and the Saudi Arabian royal family

This group would likely prefer Romney to Obama. Since the Saudi royals are the paymasters for the majority of the death squads now operating in the Middle East, including Libya and Syria, their support would be valuable in organizing operations like the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

The French imperialist ideologue Bernard-Henri Lévy, who had strongly advised President Sarkozy to start bombing Libya, is praising Stevens as a “secret craftsman of [Libyan] liberation.”

BHL says Stevens had accompanied Hillary Clinton to a meeting with Libyan rebel chief Mahmoud Jebril on March 14, 2011, and had later helped convince Hillary to call Obama and recommend that he order an immediate start to the bombing. (Le Monde, Sept. 12) Given the Arabic and French language skills of Stevens, he was then well qualified to serve as contact man with the pro-al-Qaeda militant groups of the Benghazi-Derna-Tobruk extremist axis which did much of the fighting against Qaddafi. Many of these armed groups have been transferred by NATO into Syria to fight against President Assad, raising the question of Ambassador Stevens’ role in these currently ongoing operations. Less clear is why he should be singled out at this time. Perhaps he was a witness whose testimony could have proved embarrassing later.

On Tuesday evening, Stevens had left the US consular compound and taken refuge in a secret safe house nearby. Somehow, the well-trained attackers knew of the existence of this safe house and directed professionally accurate mortar fire against these premises. How did they know where Ambassador Stevens was hiding? We would need to ask the CIA and the Saudis.

Nakoula/Bacile served almost two years in jail after conviction for identity theft and bank fraud involving credit cards. He is currently out on parole, and one of the conditions is that he not use a computer. If authorities can prove he posted the incendiary video, they can immediately revoke his parole and send him back to prison for four years. Nakoula/Bacile looks like a patsy – specifically a drug informant. (Peliske and Daly, Daily Beast, Sept. 14)

As for the film, it would appear to be the handiwork of a well-known Islamophobic network reputedly inspired by US intelligence. According to the Los Angeles Times, the permit for the film originally called “Desert Warrior” was requested by a “Christian nonprofit” calling itself Media For Christ of Duarte, California. The blogger Panglozz of The Daily Kos reports that Media For Christ is owned by Joseph Nasrallah Abdelmasih, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian activist and anti-Moslim firebrand. Nasrallah was prominent in the summer 2010 campaign to prevent the building of a mosque and Islamic community center not far from the site of the former World Trade Center in lower Manhattan. Nasrallah was a speaker at a rally held at Ground Zero on September 11, 2010, to protest the mosque. This rally was organized by a well-connected Islamophobic organization known as Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA).

The main spokesperson and organizer for SIOA is Pamela Geller, a notorious professional Islamophobe and the hostess of the Atlas Shrugs blog. Geller, despite her venom, enjoys access to the US mainstream media. The SIOA rally just mentioned was also addressed via video link by Ambassador John Bolton, a top neocon, close adviser to Romney, and widely touted as a possible Secretary of State in a future Romney regime. Another speaker at this rally was the Netherlands xenophobic politician Geert Wilders, who also wanted to block the mosque. Wilders’ party has just suffered heavy losses in the Netherlands elections earlier this week.

Bolton took a leading role in trying to turn the Stevens assassination against Obama this past week. Bolton told a Washington, DC radio station: “I’ve said for 3½ years the President doesn’t care about national security. He doesn’t think the world is terribly threatening. I think a weak reaction, a failure to demonstrate American power and resolve, will help see this stretched throughout the region.” Bolton warned particularly that a new hostage crisis would replay the “destruction of the Jimmy Carter administration,” this time at Obama’s expense. (Politico, Sept. 13)

Source

The Biblical story at Luke 15:11:32 tells us of a wastrel son who wanders off, realises his sins and then returns home broken and penitent.

The news that Tony Blair is preparing to re-enter British politics, tells us a great deal about the current situation in the British Labour party. The ruling party leader, Ed Milliband denied his own brother the chance to gain the Labour leadership, and as a foreign Jew parachuted into place is viewed by many with some suspicion.

Nonetheless, its worth remembering that each time a political party gets into power in Britain it’s not because the public want them, but rather because they are desperate to get the incumbents out. In the most recent elections 70% of the electorate did not vote and of those who did many wrote the names of fictional characters on their ballot papers.

This mounting cynicism over the political process amounts to the public’s recognition, if only subliminally, that the game is rigged and far from being “free and fair” elections are in effect a loaded dice.

Doubts about the integrity of the political process have been growing ever since Labour Party leader John Smith, known as “The Prime Minister who never was”, died suddenly on May 12th 1994.

Like many politicians, Smith was a leading lawyer who went on to become Secretary of State for Trade under Callaghan before becoming the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Both positions would have been ideal stepping-stones had he ended up taking up residence in Number 10, Downing Street.

In both positions John Smith made an impression and was twice named as Parliamentary speaker of the year. Although he was sharp, sarcastic and cutting he always made his point and in the process made many enemies too.

In 1988 he was given an Electrocardiography (ECG) in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary where the cardiac specialist told him: “whatever it is, it is not your heart”.

In other words John Smith was in good health and tipped to lead the Labour Party to victory in the next election. However like Robin Cook who suffered an unexpected heart attack while walking in the Scottish highlands, Smith died equally unexpectedly after he too suffered a massive heart on May 12, 1994.

The 55-year-old leader of the opposition suffered his first attack at his central London flat.

He suffered a second heart attack in the ambulance on its way to hospital and was pronounced dead at 0915 BST.

While Smith’s death took his political friends and foes by surprise, it conveniently opened the door for Tony Blair to take over as the Labour Party chief.

History however, has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

A similar chain of events had occurred nearly 30-years earlier when the then Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell died after visiting the Soviet embassy in January 1963. Like John Smith and Robin Cook, Gaitskell was a fit man in his fifties with no prior record of heart problems.

Nonetheless, a sudden and unexpected heart attack killed Gaitskell and conveniently opened the way for Harold Wilson; which pleased the Soviets as his policies played right into their hands, and led to suspicions of foul play as like John Smith, Gaitskell was poised to become prime minister.

The Porton Down disease specialist, Dr. Ladell later secretly reviewed Gaitskell’s death and concluded that he was indeed probably murdered.

The similarities between the deaths of both these potential prime ministers and those who conveniently replaced them raise many questions. For both deaths opened the doors of power to those who seemed ready to serve interests other the national interest.

If Tony Blair returns to the political arena, the word is that although Ed Milliband is not on par with Gaitskell or John Smith, he should avoid walking in the remote Scottish hills.
 

T Stokes London

The Ron Paul TV spots out lately have gained attention for their tech savvy, but they may have a dark side.

In his “Big Dogs” commercial, Paul is showcased as a budget cutting marvel, blowing up government agencies and rolling over bureaucrats.

Look closely though, and you’ll see subliminals in the form of everything from all-seeing eyes and pyramids to skulls.

At first, I thought Paul was using them to his advantage but further examination reveals the opposite may be the case.

Continues in full at source…

The accusations against the French president come ahead of elections he is polled to lose.

Mr Sarkozy, 57, received a warm response from workers when he visited the social housing construction site in Mennecy, Essonne, near Paris on Thursday.

However, yesterday it was claimed that half the crowd of “workers” who braved the cold to meet the President had been specially drafted in for the occasion and had nothing to do with the building work.

“I only recognised two or three but I didn’t know the others,” Ambroise, one bona fide bricklayer told Europe 1 radio.

“They wanted more people around Nicolas Sarkozy,” he said, adding that there were twice as many workers than usual.

Bosses on sites from other locations had ordered staff to attend. They were then told to “pretend to work in front of the press,” he said.

In theory, none of them should have been working due to the unusually cold weather, and the place was deserted shortly after Mr Sarkozy’s departure.

“It’s total nonsense, it’s ludicrous,” said the Elysée.

Management of the construction company in charge of the site “categorically denied” any stage-management, saying “only the 67 workers working daily on the site, were present, as well as support staff.”

But a spokesman for the opposition Socialists slammed the visit. “If correct, this episode says a lot about the relationship with the truth the outgoing president keeps with the French,” said Claude Bartolone.

“It is proof of his taste for permanent trickery.”

The far-Right National Front wrote: “The workers are abandoning him, extras will have to do.”

The controversy could not have come at a worse time for Mr Sarkozy, a day after an Ifop poll placed him behind Marine Le Pen, the National Front leader, in voting intentions among France’s active workforce.

Miss Le Pen stood to win 24 per cent of the vote, with Mr Sarkozy on 18 per cent.

François Hollande, the Socialist candidate, was in first place with 27 per cent.

Mr Sarkozy is still tipped to reach round two in nationwide polls.

This is not the first time the French president has been accused of stage-managing visits. In September 2009, factory workers at the Faurecia auto parts company in Normandy said they had been hand-picked to appear alongside the diminutive leader because they were short.

The Elysée dismissed the reports as “grotesque and absurd”, despite the fact that staff confirmed they had been selected because they were “no bigger than the President”.

Source

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company. When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com. The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing. As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA. 

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations. 

This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global. 

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won’t work (if SCYTL’s voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own “audit” by matching one number against the other. 

These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL. 

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count. 

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia. 

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker. 

Excerpted from Black Box Voting.org

Okay.  It’s time somebody says it. Something seems very strange about the GOP primary pre-polling and vote thus far.

As a Ron Paul fan, I didn’t want to seem like a sore loser after the odd Iowa result where the failed no-name Senator, Rick Santorum, was catapulted to victory with very little tangible support.

But now, how on earth could Newt Gingrich win the South Carolina primary when the day before the vote he had to cancel a major campaign stop because of lack of attendance?

The Associated Press reported:

Newt Gingrich has cancelled a campaign appearance in South Carolina because of poor attendance. 

The Republican presidential candidate was scheduled to speak to the Southern Republican Leadership on Friday. But a campaign spokesman told reporters that he would no longer be appearing due to poor attendance. 

There were just a few dozen people in the audience at the College of Charleston’s arena, where the event was taking place.

Meanwhile, on the same day Ron Paul boasted over 1000 attendees at his campaign event in Charleston:

2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul attracted more than 1,000 supporters in Charleston today, demonstrating his strong support among younger voters and his overall popularity. 

The crowd gathered expressly for the 12-term Congressman from Texas as he participated in “The Bully Pulpit Series” at 11:00 a.m. EST at the College of Charleston, located at 7 College Way, Charleston. The candidate had been in Washington the day prior for a key House vote against President Obama raising the debt ceiling, but upon his return there was apparently no loss of enthusiasm.

Primary elections are traditionally driven by enthusiasm.  In other words, the average voter does not turn out for primaries unless they are motivated by a certain candidate.  So, could someone please explain to me how Newt Gingrich, who has virtually no ground game, no money, and no fervent supporters, just won the South Carolina primary?

Could the conspiracy to keep Ron Paul out of the Oval Office be this coordinated, this pervasive?

Source

Tonight’s final vote tally for the Iowa caucuses will take place at a secret undisclosed location, an announcement that has stoked fears of vote fraud amongst Ron Paul supporters, concerns that were heightened following a Republican insider’s claim that the GOP establishment will not allow Paul to win.

The final Iowa vote count normally takes place at state party headquarters in Des Moines, but following dubious “security concerns” about Occupy protesters disrupting the tabulation process, the Republican Party of Iowa announced that it would be moving the final vote count to a secret undisclosed location.

The move occurred despite Occupy protest leaders confirming there were no plans to disrupt the caucuses themselves.

“Votes in each of the 1,774 precincts will still be counted on location, and observers from the campaigns will be able to watch that process. That precinct information will then be conveyed to the state party’s tabulation center,” reports CNN.

WatchtheVote2012.com warns that not only Paul, but also Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are “in grave danger of being cheated on Iowa caucus night 2012 by the Iowa State GOP and the 5 big TV networks.”

“The Iowa STATE Republican Party has a long history of rigging both the Iowa Straw Poll and the Iowa Caucus against populist, constitutionalist candidates like Ron Paul,” states the website, which is asking for observers to visit the voting precincts to help ensure a fair tabulation process.

“The RHINO GOP establishment also hates Presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, even though these two are acceptable to the RHINOS in foreign policy matters. But, since Bachmann and Santorum ACTUALLY believe in their domestic and social issue agendas for the USA, they are also in danger of being cheated out of votes received at the state level. This is not an accusation against the Gingrich or Romney or Perry campaigns — but against the Iowa STATE GOP, and whichever groups they are in alliance with to “count” the votes at the state level.”

As the Brad Blog documents, the potential for the Iowa primary result to be manipulated by using saboteurs to flood vote for one candidate is considerable.

“No Photo ID is necessary for any voter in the Republican Iowa caucuses. No Photo ID is necessary to register as a Republican at the caucus site, even if you’re not already a registered voter. You may then cast your vote at the caucus on the same day you’ve registered (without a Photo ID).”

Vote fraud expert Bev Harris has compiled a checklist to aid vote observers in ensuring a fair count.

Concerns about vote fraud, subversion and undue influence on behalf of the Republican establishment that could serve to steal the Iowa caucuses from Ron Paul have gone viral today in the aftermath of Republican strategist Dee Dee Benkie telling a radio show last night that GOP insiders have resolved to prevent Ron Paul from winning tonight’s primary.

“They’re not going to want him to get number one, it’s very bad for Iowa, it’s terrible,” said Benkie, confirming the host’s claim that Iowa District Chairmen are organizing voting blocks to sabotage Paul’s chances by offering them sweetheart deals in return for voting against Paul.

RELATED: Republican Insider: GOP Establishment Planning To Subvert Iowa to Prevent Ron Paul Win

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Source

American civil rights activists have censured the country’s senate for seeking to allow the military to intern American citizens without trial.

American rights activists have slammed the US Senate for gearing up to vote on a bill on Monday that would define the whole of the United States as a ‘battlefield’ and allow the military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

The reactions comes after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said last week that “the senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president-and every future president – the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even US citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor Monday, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said South Carolina’s left-wing Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing, the ACLU added.

This means Americans could be declared domestic terrorists and thrown in a military brig with no recourse whatsoever.

Given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and other instances of mundane behavior as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse, critics say.

The senate bid comes against a backdrop of protests in the United States where Americans have been holding rallies against the corporatism and corruption on Wall Street.

The so-called ‘Occupy’ protesters say they are fed up with current economic hardships and are demonstrating against poverty, unemployment, war, and corporatism among other grievances that have plagued the country for several years now.

Protesters say they aim to increase the awareness of the public on the economic injustice in the country.

The Occupy movement emerged after a group of demonstrators gathered in New York’s financial district on September 17 to protest the unjust distribution of wealth in the country, and the laws that maintain the distribution.

GHN/JG/HJL

Source

 The British phone-hacking scandal crept closer to Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain on Tuesday when his party admitted that another former news executive recently arrested may have provided informal public relations advice before last year’s election.

 The Conservative Party said that the executive, Neil Wallis, may have provided Mr. Cameron’s communications director, Andy Coulson, with unpaid advice on a voluntary basis and that it was looking into the matter. Mr. Wallis had been Mr. Coulson’s deputy at The News of the World, the newspaper in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, now defunct, at the center of the phone-hacking scandal, but left in 2009. Mr. Coulson was arrested July 8 as part of the police investigation into phone hacking by reporters at The News of the World.

The latest revelations were likely to prove uncomfortable for Mr. Cameron, who has repeatedly had to explain his decision to hire Mr. Coulson and defend his close relations with Mr. Murdoch’s executives in Britain. Mr. Cameron cut short a state visit to Africa to address a special debate on phone hacking in Parliament on Wednesday.

Mr. Wallis was arrested last week, when it also emerged that he had been working as a public relations consultant for the Metropolitan Police Service, more commonly called the Met or Scotland Yard. That revelation raised additional questions about the close ties between Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers and the police, which led to inquiries into five current and former senior Metropolitan Police officials by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The extent of the interconnections between those newspapers and the police, and the strains Mr. Cameron’s government has gone through to keep its distance from the widening scandal, emerged in fresh testimony by some of Britain’s most senior police officers in Parliament on Tuesday.

In harsh questioning in front of the Home Affairs Committee, the senior officers revealed that 10 of the Met’s 45-member media relations department are former News International employees.

The senior officers, Sir Paul Stephenson, the commissioner of Scotland Yard who resigned on Sunday, and John Yates, the former assistant commissioner who resigned on Monday, also said Mr. Cameron’s chief of staff had stopped them from informing Mr. Cameron about the scandal and the employment of Mr. Wallis by the Met. Sir Paul said they had been advised against briefing Mr. Cameron on the issue because of the risk of linking him to it.

Barraged by media inquiries about this, Mr. Cameron’s office quickly released e-mails from September 2010 between Mr. Yates and the chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, confirming Sir Paul’s explanation.

In one e-mail, Mr. Llewellyn wrote: “I am sure you will understand that we will want to be able to be entirely clear, for your sake and ours, that we have not been in contact with you about this subject. So I don’t think it would really be appropriate for the PM, or anyone else at No. 10, to discuss this issue with you.”

The request alone highlights the difficulties Mr. Cameron has on this issue because of his decision to hire Mr. Coulson as his communications director at 10 Downing Street. Mr. Coulson resigned in late January.

In a separate development underscoring the intertwined relations between Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers and the police, The Evening Standard on Tuesday reported that The News of the World’s former chief reporter worked as an official source for the police under the code name George. The Evening Standard reported that the journalist, Neville Thurlbeck, passed information to the police in return for confidential information from the police national database.

Mr. Thurlbeck, who was questioned in the phone hacking investigation, was unavailable for comment Tuesday evening.

Along with Mr. Yates, lawmakers questioned Dick Fedorcio, the police communications director now being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over his links with Mr. Wallis. The two traded blame over who was responsible for hiring Mr. Wallis. Mr. Fedorcio said Mr. Yates had done “due diligence” on Mr. Wallis, but Mr. Yates hit back, saying he had only sought assurances from Mr. Wallis that he had done nothing that could embarrass the police force. He said Mr. Fedorcio’s statement was “slightly over-egging the pudding.”

Mr. Yates is under investigation by police authorities examining whether he helped Mr. Wallis’s daughter get a job with the police. At the hearing, he said he had only passed on an e-mail and résumé to the head of human resources in the police service.

He “simply acted as a postbox,” he said.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting.

Source

In a few short weeks Britain’s political landscape has been transformed. In that time we’ve witnessed the demise of Murdoch’s UK media empire and with it an entirely new line coming from British politicians.

For it was only a few years ago that Rupert Murdoch held unrivalled influence over the political process in Britain; indeed his News International had almost as much power as the prime minister’s office itself.

According to Peter Oborne writing in the Telegraph last Thursday, the first person Blair would call after leaving the Labour Party conference hall was Rupert Murdoch. We can only guess as to the nature of those conversations but the fact remains that Blair and Murdoch’s media were working almost hand-in-glove.

This applied as much to Tony Blair’s ministers as to the prime minister himself. So when two of Blair’s senior ministers left office, David Blunkett and Alistair Campbell were both promptly offered columns in Murdoch’s publications.

The unhealthily close relations continued when Gordon Brown took office at No 10. Perhaps culminating when News International’s chief executive, Rebekah Brooks attended a “pyjama party” at Chequers, the prime ministers country residence.

Guests at the “girls’ night” party also included Wendi Murdoch, Rupert’s wife and his daughter, Elisabeth Murdoch.

Even while he was still Chancellor Gordon Brown was already courting Murdoch though, and his attentions extended to others in News International too.

According to one Labour MP who formerly advised Tony Blair, when Irwin Stelzer, one of Murdoch right-hand men,  “visited Number 10, Number 11 always had to make sure he visited them too. It became a competition,” the MP said.

In her memoirs, Gordon Brown’s wife recalls the now notorious “pyjama party” attended by Rebekah Brooks, and describes Rupert Murdoch as “a very solicitous host and very touching in the affection he shows for [his wife] Wendi”.

Those warm relations weren’t to last however, and by 2009 it was becoming increasingly clear that Murdoch was planning to switch his papers political allegiance.

So in what was perhaps a last desperate attempt to retain Murdoch’s backing, November 2009 saw Gordon Brown professing the “most enormous personal regard” for Rupert Murdoch.

Gordon Brown’s “regard” was to no avail and Murdoch switched his papers allegiance to the Conservative Party nonetheless.  Just in time for the next election.

If nothing else though the whole debacle illustrates the patent insincerity of our political leaders. Gordon Brown in particular.

As the crisis engulfing News International reached its peak this week Gordon Brown stood up in parliament to castigate Rupert Murdoch and News International.

The man who once professed his “most enormous high regard” for Murdoch now accused News International of “law breaking on an industrial scale”.

The contrast was all too telling. For in denouncing Murdoch’s “criminal media nexus” Gordon Brown omitted to mention his own role in it. Indeed, he sounded like a man desperately trying to conceal his own crimes by loudly accusing others. 

“Those at News International” said Brown had “marched in step … with members of the criminal underworld.”

“And it was this nexus, this criminal media nexus, claiming to be on the side of the law-abiding citizen,” said Brown, was “in fact standing side by side with criminals”.

But even as Gordon Brown’s words echoed with insincerity, Rupert Murdoch was being forced to apologise.

Perhaps in a desperate attempt to save his crumbling UK holdings, a “humbled and very shaken” Rupert Murdoch apologised to the family of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl whose phone News International had hacked.

According to the family’s solicitor, Murdoch held his “head in his hands” as he apologised. As well he might, given that he was trying to save a failing UK media empire. So we give his apologies about as much credence as Brown’s condemnation of Murdoch and News International. In short, close to zero.

Nor should we lose sight of the fact that this isn’t confined to News International. Just as Gordon Brown isn’t the only politician who courted his attention, Murdoch isn’t the only man in the media. Together they exemplify the incestuous relationship between politics and media and the patent insincerity currently pervading both.

People might not believe me when I say that the Establishment is full of Paedophiles who are being protected by the police and secret services while, in turn, being blackmailed by their European Union handlers, so I thought I would put up a List of Shame of those Establishment figures that have actually been caught and charged for such offences against children.

This list is by no means exhaustive, as it does not include those who are listed as suspects but have yet to be investigated, if ever. You can find those names out for yourselves with a little help from Google…

The Conservative Party (Tories):

■Tory Party General election candidate, Michael Powell – Convicted and jailed for 3 years for downloading hardcore child porn.

■Tory Party Councillor (Wickbar/Bristol) Roger Talboys – Convicted and jailed for 6 years for multiple sex attacks on children.

■Tory Party MP (Billericay) Harvey Proctor – Stood trial for sex offences of a sado-masochistic nature against teenage boys, and was forced to resign.

■Tory Party Councillor ( Stratford-upon-Avon ) Christopher Pilkington – Convicted of downloading hardcore child porn on his PC. Placed on sex offenders register and forced to resign.

■Tory Party councillor ( Coventry ), Peter Stidworthy – Charged with indecent assault of a 15-year old boy.

■Tory Party Mayor ( North Tyneside ), Chris Morgan – Forced to resign after being arrested twice in 2 weeks, for indecent assault on a 15-year old girl, and for suspicion of downloading child porn.

■Tory Party Liaison Manager on the London Assembly, Douglas Campbell, who’s job includes running the Tory GLA website – Arrested for allegedly downloading child porn. He is currently suspended while the Police investigation continues.

■Tory Party Councillor (Folkestone – Michael Howard’s constituency), Robert Richdale – 41 year history of crime, involving 30 convictions and 5 prison sentences. Richdales enormous criminal record, which covers 10 pages of A4 paper, includes convictions for assault, theft, causing death by dangerous driving, forgery, drugs offences, possession of an offensive weapon, and sex attacks against underage schoolgirls. The Tory Party election campaign literature described Richdale as “a family man” who had a “compassionate personality”

The Labour Party (NuLabour):

■Labour Councillor (Newton Aycliffe) Martin Locklyn – Convicted and jailed for 15 years for sexually abusing 3 14-year-old boys.

■Labour Councillor (North Lincolnshire) David Spooner – Convicted and jailed for 1 year for masturbating in front of 2 young boys.

■Labour Mayor (Westhoughton/Lancashire) Nicholas Green – Convicted and jailed for 10 years for 3 rapes and 13 counts of indecent assault against little girls between the age of 6 and 10. He raped one woman on her wedding day.

■Prominent Labour Party activist Mark Tann (who has met Tony & Cherie at Party functions) recently got a 15-year sentence for raping a 4-year old girl on 2 separate occasions.

■Entire Labour Party conspired to conceal the activities of Labour Party activist and serial child-molester Mark Trotter, who died from AIDS before he could be convicted.

■Labour Councillor (Manchester), George Harding – Charged with indecent assault on a girl of 12.

The Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems):

■Lib-Dem Council candidate (Tower Hamlets), Justin Sillman – Convicted and jailed for 2 years for sexual abuse of young boys.

■Lib-Dem Councillor and Mayoral Candidate ( Sheffield ), Francis Butler – Prosecuted for indecent assault of a young boy.

■Lib-Dem Councillor ( Stockport ) Neil Derbyshire – Sexually assaulted a 16-year old boy in a public toilet. He was caught with a plastic bag containing lubricant, plastic surgical gloves, a condom, and underpants.

■Lib-Dem Councillor ( Preston ), Bill Chadwick – Charged with: Making an indecent photograph of a child, Incitement to rape, Incitement to murder, Incitement to kidnap, and Incitement to torture. Chadwick’s gay lover – Alan Valentine, is also a Lib-Dem councillor.

Other Notables:

■According to media reports, the names of 2 former Labour Cabinet Ministers said to be `Household names` appear on the `Operation Ore` list of subscribers to hard-core child pornography. The same FBI investigation, which led to the arrest of rock star Pete Townshend. So who are they? Suggestions on a postcard to the head of SOCA at New Scotland Yard, please…

■William Straw – Son of Labour Foreign Secretary, and former Home Secretary – Jack Straw, was cautioned by Police for drug dealing, amid a frantic Government attempt to cover up the matter and gag the media as to his identity. Jack Straw also has a brother who was convicted of a sex attack on a schoolgirl. Lovely family!

■Homosexual mass murderer; Dennis Nielsen, who strangled and dismembered 16 young men in the 1980`s, was also a highly active member of Labour fringe groups such as the Anti-Nazi League, and the SWP. That’s when he wasn’t busy boiling peoples heads in a pot, or masturbating over the corpses of his victims.

The list goes on and on and on, and we have not even begun to cover senior police officers, senior social workers, sheriffs or judges yet…

 www.philipbrennan.net

Source

Also see: Study: Politicians share personality traits with serial killers

Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.

Kouri, who’s a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.

These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.

But – and here’s the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion – these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)

Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal nut-jobs, who run from police but not for office.

Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing their dirty deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse.

“This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want,” he wrote. “Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders.”

Good grief! And we not only voted for these people, we’re paying their salaries and entrusting them to spend our national treasure in wise ways.

We don’t know Kouri that well. He may be trying to manipulate all of us with his glib provocative pronouncements. On the other hand …

He adds:

“While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government.”

Source

Also see: The Treason Files: Part Two: Establishment Paedophilia – List of Shame