So voting in a poll is wrong?

I have been reading online that some pollsters are fed up with Ron Paul's supporters and are thinking of removing him from some straw polls because of them. What are these supporters doing that is wrong? Well, I'll tell ya and as an intelligent and thoughtful reader of this blog, you will never fucking believe this, but here goes:

Apparently they are skewing the natural and correct results in polls by actually having the cheek to vote for Ron Paul. YEAH I know, Crazy isn't it? How dare the supporters of a candidate support him by voting for him in polls! Dammit, all the supporters of the other media picked candidates will be pissed to learn that they lost only because of the supporters of another candidate voted for the candidate THEY support. How dare they?

Can you imagine these pollsters saying that about any other candidate? "

We are sorry, but we had to exclude Hillary Clinton from the Straw poll because the results are being skewed because of her supporters. You see that 'targeted' voting by Clinton supporters on this and other open polls may even be hurting their candidate because the public is turned off by her supporter's behavior."

This is blatant, in-your-face Bullshit. How obvious does it have to be that the media are paid shills for the corporate elite's pre-selected candidates.

People, you are going to have to do more, work harder, be even more unreasonable in your assertions and get even more creative. This is going to be like being a Brit in a boxing match in Mexico, You'll need more than a knock-out to draw. Ron Paul supporters are going to have to make sure that at LEAST 65% of ALL Americans support Ron Paul for him to have any chance of victory in this massively biased process.

How to create an angry american!

"You have somebody like George Tenet acknowledging in his book that he knew that the administration was deceiving the American people into a situation that is murdering young men and women from this country and others, then George Tenet and Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice and George Bush should be in fucking jail."

-- Sean Penn

IMPEACH! TRY! CONVICT! IMPRISON! EXECUTE FOR TREASON!

They swore to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from ALL enemies, Foreign OR DOMESTIC!

The Great Global Warming Swindle

This video has some debunked science in it, and some good science in it. Just as Al Gore's inconvenient truth has some good science and some debunked science. The "hockey stick" theory has been debunked, yet is still quoted by some.

The reason I post this is because the science of climate change is NOT settled.

Anyone that claims it is, is wrong and the rest of their argument is suspect at best.



Enjoy!

Is this a devout follower of Islam?

Is this the image of a devout follower of a very strict form of Islam?

If it is, then, in 20 words or less, Why is Saddam wearing what looks like a gold ring?

Answers on a postcard to :

Osama Bin Laden cock up competition.
CIA Headquarters,
Langley
Virginia
USA.

Global warming knee-jerking ...

What’s the connection between ethanol, the biofuel produced from corn, and a cherry vanilla ice-cream?

Answer: the first is responsible for pushing up the price of the other.

A fine summation from www.whatreallyhappened.com:

"Fossil fuel are burned to convert corn to ethanol. The net carbon and heat load added to the atmosphere is GREATER using ethanol when the fossil fuel burned to convert the plant matter to ethanol is added in. Plus, now there is a shortage of corn for food products."

So the world is apparently getting hotter, and we can't have ice cream because the corn oil is being used for something else?

It's a good job that man-made global warming is a myth. Man has almost 0% effect on the climate. But that big shiny ball of light in the sky, that gives us all our energy, definitely does have an effect.

What is climate? basically it is the tiny interactive layer, where the sun's energy is absorbed by vast oceans and the surface of the planet. To deny that this thin layer is NOT somehow effected by variations in the sun's output and cyclical trends in the oceans is just folly.

To suggest that an insignificant amount of the global CO2, an increase far lower than has been recorded in our history, has a greater effect on climate than that of the sun? That is pure flat earth thinking in my book.

Go ahead and download google earth. Look at how vast the earth is, the vast majority of the surface is ocean, and the rest is empty. Go ahead, zoom in anywhere at random. You'll most likely hit a big patch of empty nature.

I know that the world seems crowded and dominated by man's huge and clunking footprint when you live and work and exist almost exclusively in cities. But it is mostly empty and we are NOT making the huge changes that ARE happening. They are NORMAL.

There is a massive amount of King Canutian delusional syndrome about at the moment. The sooner people realise it is all a scam, perpetrated by the Rothschild faction of the unipolar world order, the better.

I am sick of this shit, I wish he would just be a man and stop!

It seems that the neo-con-lib Israeli firster (American traitor) Senetor Leiberman is rabidly demanding the death and sacrifice of far more people by having a daily demand for more war.

Iran, Syria and Pakistan are all in his sights, so here's my advice to mr "Lets kill more american troops for a foreign nation" and I shall put it in capitals to be real clear...

MR LEIBERMAN. IF YOU REALLY WANT A WAR WITH IRAN; GET A FUCKING GUN, GO TO TEHRAN, STAND IN THEIR MAIN SQUARE AND START SHOOTING AND DO NOT STOP UNTIL THEY STOP YOU!

Please STOP demanding more wars and deaths, STOP threatening other countries, STOP acting like a beligerant and evil emperor UNLESS you are prepared to have the balls to fight in these wars yourself, in person and on the FRONT LINES YOU EVIL CHICKEN SHIT COWARD!

If you ever got within a thousand miles of real military action you would piss your pants in fear and cry for mommy you sick in the head warmongering dumbfuck!

Your type of amoral, sociapathic cowardice makes me sick to my stomach and the sooner you are unelected and slip into total obscurity to die a lonely and miserable anonymous death, the better we shall all be.

You are a coward and a liar and a hypocrite.

I hope you are reincarnated as an Islamist's sweaty jockstrap.

Just STOP!

Oh, and before I am called some called of anti-semite racist, this rant has nothing to do with his being a Jew. NOTHING AT ALL. BUT, it has everything to do with his being a complete fucking jerkoff wanky media whore asshole warmongering cowardly bastard!

Impeach Bush and Cheney.

FLASHBACK: President Is Denied Executive Privilege

By Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A01

A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday.

In a ruling issued under court seal Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson concluded that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's need to collect evidence in his obstruction of justice probe outweighs Clinton's interest in preserving the confidentiality of White House discussions, the lawyers said.

The decision made Clinton the first president to take a claim of executive privilege to court and lose since the dramatic Watergate showdown in 1974, when the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Richard M. Nixon to turn over the secret Oval Office tapes that ultimately led to his resignation. Clinton's case also seems headed for the high court as sources indicated that the White House likely will appeal.

Johnson's ruling could amount to a significant political as well as legal setback for Clinton, lending ammunition to Republican critics, such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who have charged that Clinton is trying, in Nixonian fashion, to impede Starr's investigation with invalid privilege claims.

Clinton invoked both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege to prevent Starr from ...

© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

The time is ripe.

I find myself wondering what the global elite are thinking just now. They have been planning a unipolar world order, with a single global government, single global cashless currency and a micro chipped population. All these things still seem galling and most people (I would hope) would reject this idea as simply preposterous.

However, go back 7 years. The summer of the year 2000. In this more innocent time, before 911, before the War on Terror, When Bush was still considered a compassionate conservative by all but the 31 people executed in the Texas legal system under his watch. In those 'heady*' days when Americans believed themselves to be free, it would have been unthinkable to present the Average American with what we see today.

If you had told the average American that their republican party would be appointed to power by the supreme court, they would have laughed.

If you had told the average American that they would be attacked by airliners that would evade the NORAD and Air force defences of the United States for over 80 minutes to crash (apparently) into the Pentagon. They would deride you as insane. NORAD and the whole of the USA Air defence system defeated by people who could not even fly a Cessna? They would have doubts.

If you had told the average American that on the back if this that the fiscally conservative republicans would create the Department of Homeland Security, a department so huge and vast that the taxpayer will be burdened as never before. They might wonder what had happened to conservatism.

If you had told the average American that the USA would invade Afghanistan to take out Osama Bin Laden, and that this would fail miserably, they would scoff.

If you had told the average American that the Congress would pass the USA PATRIOT Act and that this act would remove their constitutional rights, they they could be detained without trial, that they could have their homes invaded by federal agents, their belongings ransacked and taken and all this could happen without them having to get a court order. Then they would not believe you. Not in the land of the free.

If you had told the average American that their court appointed leader would lie to the American people to succour them into invading a country that had never ever attacked them, to lie about WMD's and to tear up that country leaving it a ruinous wrecked failed nation, more corrupt and dangerous than Saddam's Iraq, a real breeding ground for international terrorism. That their government would have the CIA fly around the world kidnapping people flying them to detention facilities in other countries and torturing them, They would stick their fingers in their ears and shout la la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

If you had told the average American that their leadership would deliberately and with malice aforethought blow the cover of a covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, an agent who was protecting the world from the proliferation of WMD, in order to deflect criticism of their own deliberate lies. They would be walking away quickly from the strange delusional idiot who claims to be able to see into the future.

If you had told the average American that in the investigation that followed the leaking of Plame's identity, that a member of the Bush administration would deliberately obstruct that investigation and commit perjury to protect the administration, they might not be entirely surprised. But

If you had told the average American that the President would step in and commute the sentence of that criminal who was covering up and obstructing the prosecution in attempting to discover who risked the national security of the United States, during war time? A high crime and misdemeanor and that the opposing party would actively rule out impeachment? They would not believe you.

If you had told the average American that they would no longer be living in the land of the free, that they would be in a country universally detested and reviled in the world, that they would have lost their freedom and that the people of the USA would have rolled over and allowed this to happen with barely a squeak of protest? They would be sure that you are a crazy lunatic.

The global elite must be rubbing their hands with glee. Their selected leaders can do whatever they please and the people will meekly comply. They have the leaders in their pockets, the media in their pockets and now the people so utterly dumbed down and compliant that they may as well go for broke and imprison us all whilst enough of us are still far too deeply asleep to do anything about it.


*I could not resist the cliche, sorry.

Spot the difference!

The image below is of an IDF soldier inspecting the wreckage of a car bomb...




The image below is of the Glasgow Airport car fire.



Spot the difference?

Now can the mainstream media PLEASE STOP BULLSHITING ABOUT CAR BOMBS!!!!

There was no BOMB! there was some harmless gas cannisters that were never ever going to explode.

The image above is as bad is it was going to get. We were NOT lucky that it was not worse, we have NOT narrowly avoided a mass slaughter. THAT WAS IT! We are not facing a massive terrorist threat, we are facing a bunch of clueless muppets!

I will NOT give up my liberties and hard fought freedoms for these FUCKWITS!

An extraordinary challenge.

America! You have an extraordinary challenge to get an extraordinary human being into the Whitehouse in 2008! Are you up to the challenge? or are you going to give in and allow yourselves to be dictated to by the corrupt an undeserving for four more years and four more after that and so on...




Now is the time to take a stand and throw your full support in time, effort and money, behind Ron Paul.

Go forth and recruit, convert and pursuade everyone you know to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries and RISE TO THE CHALLENGE SET BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

This July 4th, remember that the international banking interests in the City of London are pulling your strings. Declare independence from them once more.

Join and extend the Ron Paul Revolution.

More responsible reporting.

Wow! on CNN too! I bet he's never asked back on again.

This was no Government Conspiracy.

Before the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts start claiming that the Government were behind these (so called) "attacks" lets look at the facts. We know that the Government was not behind these because:

a) These attacks were very small and amounted to one car fire and minor damage to the front facia of an airport and some damaged dustbins.

b) The "terrorists" were caught.

c) the CCTV cameras were actually working and other "terrorists" were recorded succesfully by CCTV.

d) Israelis where not warned of the attacks before hand

e) Security firms linked to intelligence services were not running top secret security drills in the same place at the same time.

f) Several identical copies of the "ID's" of the "terrorists" were not discovered intact at numerous locations.

g) There was no military explosive that magically became "home made". In fact there where no explosives used of any kind.

So this is the REAL terrorists (as opposed to the secrurity service enabled elitist neo-con created terrorists) and what can they do to instill such mind numbing, liberty scrapping, freedom destroying fear?

set light to a car!

wooo. I am, like, soooooooo scared!

"but it could have been so much worse" people foolishly cry.

Actually, NO it could not.

a) There was no bomb!

b) A car was never ever going to get inside the airport.

This pathetic car fire was the best that the terrorists could have hoped to achieve with what they had. There was NO bomb. If the media turn round in days to come and say that there was, they are lying, 1984 memory hole style.

And even IF it there had been, so the hell what? IF my aunt had a dick she would be my uncle!

Big fucking deal! IF this and IF that..... what bollocks. How about this one to make you squirt the brown and runny down your trouser legs:

"If they had a nuke in the car and the controls to all the world's military satelites they could have taken over the world and killed literally billions of people!!!"

Get real for fucks sake. It was a car fire. That's all, and that was all it was ever going to be at worst.

The mainstream media is losing what shreds of credibility it once had by the minute and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Sensible, realistic, responsible journalism at last! Listen Up BBC, SKY Et al.

This is decent responsible journalism. The BBC and SKY and all the other "news" outlets, that are currently salivating in a ridiculous, rabid fearmongering orgy, could learn a lot from this REAL journalism.

Olbermann is a credible journalist who reports on reality, not the vacuous vapid overhyped yellow journalism of the BBC et al.

Now who are the terrorists?

The police have blown up more cars than the alledged terrorists. Talk about un-necessary overkill.

It turns out this car did NOT have explosives in it. This whole thing has descended into the level of farce.

Who is the real terrorist?

After the "terrorist attack" at Glasgow airport and the subsequent media orgasm of propaganda, I have to ask, Who are the real terrorists?

If we are to judge on the ACTUAL AND REAL IMPACT of what happened, then let's consider how much fear has been spread by what happened.

So, what happened?

In Glasgow, a car was burned, the culprits found and aprehended immediately. Nobody else was even injured.

In London 2 cars were so baldy set up as car fires, (NOT BOMBS) that they did not even ignite. Slight damage was caused to dustbins. That's it!

Let's compare this to what happens nationally every year. From a minor local report in South Wales, UK, a computer system has been installed to reduce the amount of dumped cars.

"But despite this, hundreds are still dumped every year with up to 460 of them set on fire in arson attacks in 2005."

Sorry, let's look at that again? 460???? and this is only mentioned as a side issue in the local news?

Why should I be scared of those clowns in Glasgow? people who have attributed 1/460th to the abandoned and burned out cars statistics.

Well, Who has actually been spreading fear? Worse still, utterly groundless, baseless fear? Encouraging the nation to be afraid, be very afraid.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT!

Look at the evidence. We have 1 car fire, something that happens about 460 times every year in council estates up and down the country, often without any media coverage whatsoever. Occasionally warranting a side issue in another report in local news. How does the media respond to this actual event?

Forget what REALLY happened and go to 24 hour coverage of, IT WAS A Car BOMB! it could be Al Queda! remember 911! Terrorists! trying to kill vast numbers! evil maniacs! just like 911 this was low tech terrorism that could cause mass murder on a large scale. We are under enormous risk from global terrorism. Highest level of alert, etc etc etc.

All genuine quotes from the mainstream media and all fearmongering BOLLOCKS!

So, Who is terrorising the country?

It's not Al queda. Perhaps we should lock up the media and the Government.

The media is a fucking joke!

UPDATE:

The media frenzy surrounding this pathetic attack is just ridiculous. 24 hour non-stop political wet dream of fearmongering and disinformation.

A burned out car does not in anyway justify the massively over the top orgy of terrorism tv. Please could they just report, for once, on what has actually happened? You know, just for once, please? And not on mindless, brain-dead, speculation on top of propaganda on top of blatant lies.

The mainstream media is screwing its own reputation more and more by the minute.

the fact is we have a burned out car and two arrests of "Asian" looking people.

SO FUCKING WHAT?

If these pathetic and useless so called terr0rists actually pull off a real attack, then report it. until then, GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!

The media is a fucking joke!

Is that it? I am not giving up my liberties for these pillocks.

So, all the liberty removing laws. The constant hysteria in the media for years, the total consumation of fear that drives political media in this nation, warning of deadly attacks, attacks so severe that laws MUST be implemented that remove our freedom and liberty for our own good. A threat far far worse than anything Hitler, or the IRA could subject us to, A threat unlike anything we have ever seen before.

Well they are half right. This is a threat unlike anything we have faced before as this is a threat that is far, far more pathetic than anything we have ever faced before.

The attack at Glasgow airport is the first that has happened that has no Government link or clear attribution to the security services.

If this is all these so called terrorists can achieve over here then they can fuck off. There are home grown hooligan kids on council estates far far worse and more dangerous than these fuckwits.

I am not giving up my liberties for these pillocks.

I have just heard the police mention 911 and all the other so called "low tech" terrorist attacks to imprint fear. These attacks are so pathetically, rediculously inept that they could not scare a small child, so the specter of 911 must be mentioned to link the two. When the attacks are so lame, that they have to mention other intelligence sponsored attacks in order to subliminally increase the impact of these useless and woefully inept attacks, you know they are in trouble.

"Oh look, we are being attacked! You are in DANGER!" But this is pathetic, I will not fear this! "Oh but 911 was committed with box cutters and this could have been just as bad"

WHAT UTTER BOLLOCKS!

So anyone buying gas cannisters for their home barbequeues or their patio heaters will now be a target for the police.

This is all a sick joke.

WTF?

In Foreign Affairs, the publication issued by the CFR, Mitt Romney pens the following:

"Today's challenges are daunting. They include the conflict in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban, and global terrorist networks made even more menacing by the threat of nuclear proliferation. While Iran's leaders relentlessly pursue nuclear weapons capabilities and spout genocidal threats against Israel" {my emphasis}

WTF? This utterly abysmal paragraph, devoid of fact and yet utterly dripping with propagandistic venom is but one of the many reasons why I support Ron Paul.

There is not one jot of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, let alone a relentless one and Iran has never uttered any genocidal threats against Israel, they have only called for regime change (something America and Israel do regularly BTW) and the current administration know this, yet, as with Iraq's non existant WMD's, these brain dead religious extremist tools of a zionist entity continue to spout blatant and known lies for all they are worth.

Ahmadinejad has no military power, he is not head of the Iranian armed forces and has never called for war with Isreal, for more of what Ahmedinejad actually has said, look here.

So you know that with Mitt Romney there will be many more needless wars of choice based on lies, more of the American taxpayers (yours) money and the blood of American youth being overtly sacrifed on the alter of political cowardice and supine submission to a foreign entity.

If you want to cast a pro American vote, then Mitt Romney is not a viable candidate. I would suggest Ron Paul.

There is no path to peace, peace IS the path. Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

It is unrealistic to elect Ron Paul.

This is one response to the video linked to the title of this post, that it is unrealistic to support Ron Paul and hope he wins the Presidency.

That said, I believe that we can achieve the election of Ron Paul. We need belief and energy. Belief is the engine that helps tranform energy into matter. We can create this future of our dreams. We need belief and action.

Educate everyone. Spread the Ron Paul message. Get everyone to contribute and volunteer as much as they are able and even more.

A truly worthwhile revolution requires revolutionary and unrealistic levels of energy. Demand that people are unreasonable in their efforts.

Meanwhile we should all be unreasonable.

Is it reasonable to accept global perpetual war?

Is it reasonable to force fake democracies onto other nations at gunpoint?

Is it reasonable to accept the federal reserve creating money out of thin air and then charging interest upon it? (The interest that is charged is never loaned into circulation, so can NEVER be repaid. So the national debt gets bigger and bigger by design, that is why taxes always go up!)

Is it reasonable to pay unconstitutional taxes on your labour that is exchanged for cash? (income tax)

Is it reasonable to accept being subservient to the Government by the issuance of ID cards in a FREE COUNTRY?

Is it reasonable to give up your freedom and liberty to gain the false pretence of security?

Is it reasonable to live under a self declared dictatorship and the tyranny that is generated therfrom?

It is time to be unreasonable and unrealistic and to take unreasonable action to achieve the unrealistic aims of PEACEFULLY retaking the Constitutional republic of the United States and reinstating it as a beacon of freedom and liberty for the world to see and emulate.

It will take an unreasonable amount of effort to achieve the unrealistic goal of a Ron Paul Presidency, but is it worth it? I say it is. We shall unreasonably promote Ron Paul's message endlessly, to be heard everywere, and I say we do it and keep doing it and never tire of doing it until we succeed.

The whole world cannot afford for us to fail and that is the most unreasonable thing of all.

Ken Hall.

Another letter to the BBC.

Here is another letter I have submitted to the BBC that I expect will not be published. I am disgusted at the blatant way in which the BBC and other media have been trying to show Brown in a new light. As if they are trying to trick us into forgetting the last 10 years.

Actually the Daily Mail are even worse. They berate Blair and almost everything he has presided over, including the stealth taxes and all the policies pushed forward and funded by Brown, they are delighted to see the Back of Blair, yet they too are trying to push this new broom bullshit.

The whole, Brown has changed and is going to be a good Prime Minister who will listen and stop the spin and yadda yadda yadda Bullshit is completely, laughably and totally unbelieveable.

If ever there was a more blatant display of the media exposing themselves as the whores of the hidden rulers behind the new world order, then I have yet to see it.

here's my letter:

I understand that Blair has ruined the elitist agenda that the people who selected him put him in power to implement. He has lost the support of the nation, so that agenda is in peril, so Brown has to put up a different 'front' to get that agenda back on track. I also understand that as the mouthpiece for the 'establishment' the BBC has to help promote that agenda by helping promote a more acceptable image of Brown, but it really will not wash.

So long as a political leader pushes an agenda of an expanding EU, more globalisation, and every stepping stone to a "new world order" or "unipolar world order", then they get a favourable press. When they turn against that agenda, (like Thatcher did late in her premiership), or if they become a liability through their own ineptitude (like Blair) then they lose the support of the media and are replaced.

Name one British political leader, in the last 40 years, who was more Eurosceptic OR had a greater desire to move away from a unipolar world order, than the discredited leader they replaced? Why is the more expansionist leader popular? They are given the more favourable press, every time.

This is the same duplicitous Brown we have come to know and dislike for 10 years. The only change, perhaps, is that he has become more blatant in his lies as he knows he will not be called out on any of them by a supine media that's pushing the same NWO agenda.

That is why the media is despearately trying to push a false idea that he genuinely has changed, no really, this time he really really has, honest. Would we lie to you? OK forget the WMD in Iraq thing, this time we mean it.

The media's desparation is palpable.

Like a freshly beaten wife on the morning after listening to an abusive alcoholic husband declaring this time he really has changed, I do not believe a word of it.

And shame on the BBC for pushing this rubbish.

Instead of pandering to his blatant lies about being closer to the people, giving Parliament a greater say, listening more and being more open etc etc, perhaps you might try, for once, to hold him to account for his words and his actions being 180 degrees different. The restrictions on the freedom of information act, the referendum on the just signed EU treaty would be 2 very good places to be holding his feet to the fire over for a start.

I won't hold my breath however.

Cameron supports war crimes.

The tories have permanently lost my support. Cameron voted for war in Iraq. Cameron has stated that he still believes that it was the right thing to do. That means he beleives that a pre-emptive invasion against a nation that is no threat is just peach to him. Now I know why.

According to the report linked to this, he is a declared zionist.

Put the UK first or lose my support forever.

Vote UKIP!

WOOHOO!!! Outstanding drive from Hamilton

Anthony Hamilton has just won the incident packed Canadian Grand Prix. He was the class of the field and, in only 6 races, has raised the bar for the other formula one drivers. As a rookie, he has finished on the podium on every race in his career. He is showing himself to be an outstanding driver, possibly even better than Michael Schumacher himself.

Well Done Anthony Hamilton.

My take on the BB8 racism row (UK)

I am at a loss to understand why Big Brother allowed a contestant to shamelessly utter a disgusting racist word without any sanction whatsoever.

I refer to Charley calling herself a "nigger".

Emily was (rightly and appropriately) cast out of the house for her use of that word. Charley also used that word (more often than Emily did) and was not reprimanded at all. It seems that the ONLY reason for this is that Charley has a different colour of skin from Emily. In this case the rules are being interpreted and applied in a racially discriminatory fashion. This is appalling behaviour and is totally unacceptable to me.

This word, according to Channel four's own definition, was so foul that no housemate should utter it under any circumstances or in any context whatsoever.

According to channel four's big brother website:

"In the wake of Celebrity Big Brother we must consider the potential offence to viewers regardless of Emily's intentions and her housemates' response. The word nigger is clearly racially offensive and there was no justification for its use."

And

"Unacceptable behaviour includes: behaving in a way that could cause serious offence to either their fellow housemates or members of the viewing public including serious offence based on the grounds of race. Housemates who act in a way that is seriously unacceptable will be evicted."

Charley breached this very serious rule.

Here is an excerpt from the transcript:

"Emily: (referring to Charley dancing/ pushing her hips forward) You pushing it out you nigger.
Nicky: (shocked laughter) Em, I can't believe you said that.
Charley: You are in trouble.
Emily: Don't make a big thing out of it then. I was joking.
Charley: I know you were... but that's some serious shit, sorry.
Emily: Why?
Charley: Oh my god. I'm not even saying it.
Nicky: Just don't talk about it anymore.
Emily: I was joking.
Charley: Do you know how many viewers would watch that?
Nicky: Okay, don't make a big deal out of it.
Charley: Fancy you saying that. I can't believe you said that.
Emily: Somebody has already used that word in this house.
Charley: No way. (Pause) Yeah, me. I'm a niggerr.
Charley: I am one. Fancy you saying it. I know maybe you see it in a rap song. Maybe you and your friends sit there saying it."

I cannot understand why Charley is still in the Big Brother house and has NOT faced ANY sanction whatsoever.

Rules are rules. Either it is acceptable to use this word in a non-malicious fashion, (as BOTH girls did, and as accepted by channel four and the producers of this program), or it is not acceptable.

The serious sanction, and subsequent adverse media attention, that Emily suffered was not equally given to Charley. They both committed exactly the same offensive behaviour. The ONLY difference is the colour of their skin. If one human punishes, or prohibits the actions of another human based SOLELY on the colour of their skin, then that IS racially motivited discrimination.

I am also appalled that the media is editing and cutting their coverage of this programme to deliberately exclude Charley's use of this word.

Everyone I know who has fought racism, as I have, for many many years and who saw the episode last night are equally appalled.

It is this kind of blatant racial discrimination that feeds the evil popularity of the BNP. This could set back race relations for decades.

The Big Brother executives and the Channel four executives (and much of the mainstream media on screen and in print) are using edited and dishonest footage in such a way as to play the race card for all they are worth and are doing so in a blatantly racially discriminatory manner.

I am appalled.

Blogging is not enough!

Do more to support Ron Paul, blogging is not enough. Here is what you can do to support the great man ...

Love

Love is the only way. We cannot continue to grow and thrive on a diet of war and fear. We must love our enemy as much as our friend. We are all one consciousness, one mind, one heart, one energy, one love.

If there is one thing I have learned this week it is this: Love is eternal and will never end. Pain is momentary and will pass. To all those I love, I will always love. To those I have caused pain, anguish, stress, anxiety or doubt. I am truly sorry.

To those with hope left in their hearts, but doubt in their minds, I simply offer this truth. You are the manifest creation of love moulded from your imagination, wants, needs, expectations, hopes and deepest fears. Whatever you truly desire, you can create.

Never EVER give up hope.
Never EVER give in to fear.
Always KNOW truth.

Love is all you need.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

Ron Paul LOSES in own poll Shock!

This just in!

Scroll down for the active poll!

In the poll below (according to FOX's way of thinking) in a poll where ONLY Ron Paul is standing, Ron Paul has lost his own Poll! We cannot say who he lost to, as we don't want to distract the feeble minded from realising that he also won. BUT you can clearly see that the losing name is RON PAUL!!! Gee what a loser!!!!

Now, for those readers with active brain cells, Please support Ron Paul. This obviously excludes Fox reporters, as they even admitted not even being able to use a cellphone to send text messages!!! It's true. I could not believe what I was hearing. They tried to suggest Ron Paul did so well in their text poll because older people over 30 do not know how to use a phone to text in. Then they said that they could not use them themselves! They admitted being too stupid to know how to text. Well there you have it, fox reporters admiting to a major IQ deficit.

Fox News! We report, You decide, because we are too bloody thick to understand the question!

Who Won the televised debate?

So many other online polls have removed Ron Paul from their selections, so I am redressing the balance. If you cannot select Ron Paul in their polls , then vote here instead.

Service and how to make a REAL difference.

You may find it profitable to watch this movie, but I found it inspirational. What can you do today to give from your heart?

Holy Crap! Was he right? You decide.

Outa my mind?

if this don't move you, then you are already dead.

News Just IN, KSM booked for CONFEST 2007!

Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, long suspected of plotting the bombing of the USS Cole, confessed at a hearing in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to planning the attack, according to a Pentagon transcript released Monday.

This has enraged the world champion confessor, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or KSM as he has become known. The mainstream media darling was planning to open the confession gig 'confest 2007' with confessing to being the 'mastermind' behind the audacious attack, and to providing the equipment, personnel and even to piloting the craft and being killed in the attack!

The Pentagon sponsored event is expected to attract the cream of international terrorism patsies to confess to both solved and unsolved crimes before an audience of heckling conservative rednecks. As a special treat, Pentagon spokesperson said that there would be some extra surprises at this years event and hinted at spectacular expose's of who created the 'face' on Mars and how crop circles are really formed.

This Year's CONFEST is set to be the biggest and best for years, with the staff at the Pentagon having worked overtime diligently preparing the confessions for this years show.

"We have really pushed the boat out this year and utilised every tool at our disposal to come up with the most amazing collection of confessions possible." said a Guantanamo spokesperson, on the condition of annonimity. "This year is set to be the best year for confessions we have ever had."

However, speculation was quashed about an amazingly spectacular confession by the Israelis at this years show. "The attack on the USS Liberty will not be in this years show, and anyone that is claiming it is, is a dirty anti-semite and a friend of the terrorists." Said the spokesperson.

Well we should not expect miracles now, should we?

Why the BBC is plain wrong!

The BBC managed to, somehow, predict the collapse of WTC 7 half an hour in advance of it happening. They also predicted HOW and WHY it fell in advance. The same how and Why that has been parroted without question ever since by the 'official' news media and the 'official' government.

I am NOT suggesting that the BBC is part of the conspiracy, but I am still waiting for them to explain how they got detailed talking points in advance of the collapse happening.

This 'official' version of the conspiracy of Islamic terrorists attacking the USA and causing the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is what has lead to several wars and a major reduction in our civil liberties and a significant change in our way of life, not to mention that it has been used almost daily ever since by the Government and media to deliberately attempt to scare the population and make us live daily in fear and to submit to the Government ever since.

The Problem is WTC 7 could not have collapsed the way the official version suggests it did. Why? well below is one argument:

"Just to give you an example of the strength of a weld, for example; a 5/16" fillet weld 6" long, .928 x 5 x 6 = 27.84 kips per each 6" weld. A kip is equal to 1000 pounds, so this weld strength would be 27,840 pounds, if properly welded. thats 14 ton of force per 6 inches of weld or nearly 2.5 ton per inch. I have just read that WTC7 had steel added for reinforcement with 12 miles of welding. It supposedly fell down, at freefall speed with no resistance because of fire, no way. Workout the resistance 12 miles of welding would produce at 2.5 tons per inch. That’s 63360 inches per mile which is 760320 inches per 12 miles at 2.5 tons per inch which is 1900800 ton of resistance or 41,000 ton of resistance per floor using an average. The resistance is the force needed to shear the weld and the way this building was built all the welds per floor would need to shear at the same time to fall the way it didl. That is only the calculation for added steel. Absolute nonsense, this is so obviously not feasable.How can you meet such massive resistance and fall as fast as finding no resistance at all.If 41,000 ton of weight fell on 41,000 ton of resistance it would stop. If 100 ton of force met 50 ton of resistance you would have 50 ton of force so my point is you will meet resistance on every floor maybe not enough to stop it but easily enough to slow it..You don’t need to have any engineering knowledge to know freefall speed with absolutely no resistance is simply not possible,you just need some common sense and I despair that so many people appear not to have any.As for the heat causing the metal to weaken garbage,steel is a very good heat transferor.You can heat one beam and the heat will transfer to every other interconnected beam like a massive heatsink.Carbon fires would do diddly squat to that steel.This building WTC7 was a controlled demolition,it is the only possible explanation.
- ROBBY B | 03.01.07 - 7:04 pm"

And here is another-

the building was constructed with a huge amount of structural redundancy built in. In other words, it could stand having entire floors removed and still maintain structural integrity. In other words, it was VERY BLOODY STRONGLY BUILT! : Read more...

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7


So in the way that the BBC has tried to muddy the water and avoid answering serious questions, they have only brought more people into contact with the WTC 7 story. Some of these people realise that, whenever, or however the collapse story came out, that the collapse, as described by the media, is (according to the laws of physics) impossible.

However plausible the notion that during the day, firefighters believed the building became structurally unsound and cleared a collapse zone, believing the building to be in danger of collapse.(fact) The news of this spread the news agencies (fact) the BBC mistakingly went to air with a collapse presented as fact half an hour before it happened (fact). The BBC was NOT part of the conspiracy to attack the United States (fact). The fact remains that, without the use of explosives, the firemen should have been keeping people away from the building for days until the area was finally cleared by the 'deconstruction and site clearing engineers. Says who? THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Why did the firefighters believe the building was going to collapse? Some because their colleagues told them, some it was gut instinct, they looked at the building, and after everything that happened that day, they just thought it would. Some firefighters thought it would, because they had been told it was going to be blown up! SO, WHO TOLD THEM?

Therefore, it makes the media's pre-determination of collapse with their description of cause even more suspiscious.

More unsatisfactory answers from the BBC.

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an
article published online.

The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently
ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on
the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact
timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought
to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos
and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building
had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards
BBC World Customer Relations

Sorry, but that does not come even close to an acceptable reply. I have not ever at any point suggested in this question that the BBC were part of a conspiracy on the day and for you to suggest this is both offensive and beneath contempt.

Your response to this may lead people to suggest that you have become part of the cover up, however.

> The notion that the BBC has been part of any
> conspiracy is patently ludicrous.

I agree!

> We reported the
> situation as accurately as we could, based on the
> best information available.

Not True, you did not check the story at all, nor did you offer any attribution.

> We cannot be categorical
> about the exact timing of events that day - this is
> the first time it has been brought to our attention
> and it was more than five years ago.

Check the video of the day? Oh you can't, you LOST them! (in breach of your own procedures!) download a copy from the internet then!

> If in the chaos
> and confusion of that day our correspondent reported
> that the building had collapsed before it had done
> so, it would have been a genuine error.

IF? The building was clearly standing behind her! there is no IF in this. However I do accept that reporting this was a genuine error, now what we want to know is, how, exactly, did this error occur? It is obvious from the video that an error occured, that is NOT the issue here, the issue is HOW?

I have several very reasonable questions that the BBC, for some unknown reason, is refusing to answer.

1. How did you get the report that the WTC 7 had collapsed (past tense) before it happened?

2. Who prepared the detailed talking points about the collapse?

3. Were talking points prepared for the other (closer to to the two towers) buildings in the WTC complex, just in case they collapsed also? If not why not? Why only for this building?

4. Why was this news rushed to air live? without attribution or qualification, but presented as factual? I thought the BBC had a duty to check it's stories OR Attribute them. on this occasion they did neither.

5. Why has the BBC not complied with it's own obligations with regards to keeping copies of it's broadcasts?

6. What was the cause of the dropped feed 5 minutes before the building collapsed?

7. What did the correspondent in Manhatten think as the building actually collapsed? and what did she think once she realised it was the building that she had already described in detail collapsing, before it collapsed?

These are serious questions that, for some reason, the BBC refuses to take seriously, or answer. So far the BBC has lied and contradicted itself in response to valid questions of it's handling of a very serious story on a very significant day.

9/11 is a day so infamous that barely a news day goes by when it is not trumpeted as the cause of many major national and international policies, from ID cards, to immigration, to detention withoout charge or trial, to participating in multiple theater wars and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, paid for out of our taxes.

Why, then, are you taking such a cavalier and condescending approach to people asking very reasonable questions about the BBC's conduct on his day?

I have been trying, seriously, for 5 years to dis-prove the notion that WTC 7 was deliberately imploded. I have failed to PROVE this.

I can state that it may be plausable that it looked like WTC 7 might be compromised to some people and they thought that it MIGHT fall over. These are unqualified people who were going off their gut instinct, however this story may have been changed, in a chinese wispers effect to become 'has collapsed' (instead of 'may collapse') and was passed on the wires and unquestioningly reported as fact by the BBC and CNN, but this still does not explain, why you reported as fact without attribution or source or checking, a surprise collapse well before it happened. Nor does it explain why the BBC lost the tapes from this day.

NIST has not helped, by only adding supposition to their conclusions. FEMA has not helped. Larry Silverstein did not help by saying that he had the building 'pulled'. Many fire fighters have written sworn affidavids that they were told that the building was to be "brought down". Add this to the fact that no steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fire, the building collapsed in a way that was fully consistant with a controlled demolition, molten metal has been reported at the site. WTC 7 was further away from and behind two other buldings, so was unlikely to be compromised by the two towers collapsing.

Add all this and more together and the whole, "we accidentally broadcast an un-attributed claim of a demolished building, without it being checked, 25 minutes before it actually fell", and it begins to look very much like someone (who? and how?) knew it was going to collapse in advance. How else could you have repoerted the collapse 25 minutes early? How did they know? Whilst this does NOT prove forknowledge, it IS VERY suspicious.

IF this building was so badly damaged, by the collapsing towers, that for public safety reasons, it had to be deliberatly brought down, then that is a reasonable conclusion, given what had happened that day. However therin lies the problem.

How long does it take to wire up a 47 story building for a controlled demolition? A lot more than the few hours that they had had that day. This would mean that the building had to have been prepared before 9/11. That would mean more than forknowledge of the attacks. It would mean a deliberate involvement in the instigation of these attacks. Complicity!

The public who are paying for the multiple wars with their hard earned taxes, the people whose international reputations are going down the drain further with every innocent child bombed because of 9/11 has a right to have these VERY SERIOUS questions answered.

This has NOT been seriously investigated by anybody except the 'oddball conspiracy fringe'. NIST has not covered this properly, FEMA hasn't, the official 9/11 commision didn't. and now the BBC parrot without question the 'official line'. WHY CAN YOU NOT INVESTIGATE THIS?

You mention it has been five years since the attacks, very true. Why has it taken so long for this to come out? Because the mainstream media has (and largely still does) completely refuse to touch the WTC 7 story with a barge pole. Why? Because when people see that building come down, the obvious conclusion people (including demolition experts with 40 years of Controlled Demolition experience) draw, is that this WAS a controlled demolition.

This needs to be investigated. We need an answer that stands up to close scrutiny. We have had years of the Bush and Blair administration lying to us about WMD and Iran's nuclear ambitions and so much more. We have also had years of the BBC parroting these false and demonstratably fraudulent claims as fact. Without any investigation whatsoever, the BBC has been a propaganda mouthpiece for the Government.

It is time the people were represented and it is time you gave an honest account of both yourselves and of WTC7.

There are still too many if this happened and if that happened then that means that, on both sides of the debate. EVERY version of what happened that day, including the official one backed by the BBC, is a 'conspiracy theory'. None of these theories stand close scrutiny, they all have holes in them.

We just want the truth!

Ken Hall.

More from the BBC.

Another video has been found, this time from BBC news 24, with a UK timestamp.



The BBC is a nexus at the heart of the establishment, for all intents and purposes, it IS the establishment. Their number one priority with regards to 9/11 was to ignore the truth at all costs. Only when the truth would not go away, did they lend their enormous credibility to the 'official' conspiracy to try to shut up, once and for all, the so called conspiracy nutters.

The problem is, the people who made sure that 9/11 happened, left far too many clues and we are now living in an age where the information is available. We surfs are not stupid, and can make our own minds up. BBC take note, the truth movement will never let this go and after your inteventions in this subject area, you are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. You can decide which.

the facts remain. the BBC announced the collapse of a building with pre-prepared, detailed, specific talking points before the actual building collapsed.

These where not, "a source tells us", or "we are hearing that" sort of qualifications. this was reported as established fact with talking points.

1. Where did the talking points come from?

2. Who prepared them?

3. How did they know the building was going to collapse before it actually did?

4. How did they know the cause of the collapse five and a half years before NIST?

5. Did they provide talking points for WTC buildings 3, 4 and 5, (which where closer to the two towers), Just in case these buildings also fell down? if not, why not?

6. Why did the BBC not check this story at all? even to the extent of a glimpse through the window?

The BBC obviously trusted the source implicitly, or was following orders from ? whom?

If the source was trusted, then it must be part of the mainstream media, or the Government. first responders on the scene are not trusted enough to provide information, without it being checked, or attributed to them as a source. This story was niether checked, nor attributed. it was reported as established fact.

BBC, we are coming after you!.

EDIT ) 01 March 2007.

So, Google have removed the 'fair use' timestapmed clip from their website eh? WHY? If all this was a mistake on a shocking and confusing day, why hide it?

Why are the Questions not being answered and the footage that the questions refer to is constatantly being (pointlessly) removed? Something to hide?

The BBC videos of the report of WTC 7 collapsing, before it collapsed are available here:

Shouldn't someone let the Department of Homeland Security know about this?

Bush funding Al Queda? State sponsored terrorism brought to you by the GOP!





And as a brilliant put down of the ignorant and incompetenet Condi Rice:



'Nuff said!

The BBC responds! with utter contempt for our intelligence

My response to the BBC's contemptuous reply:

"1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

You did not get told in advance that the building was going to fall down? Then how did you report, from detailed talking points, that the Building had collapsed, what caused it to collapse, that people had been evacuated etc etc? BEFORE it had happened? clairvoyance? Tarot cards? Time Machine? This is BBC world service, not some two piece amatuer wacko news like FOX or SKY! HOW THE HELL COULD YOU NOT EVEN LOOK THROUGH THE WINDOW AND SEE THAT THE BUILDING WAS STILL STANDING??? Your excuse is not good enough by a long shot! The news crew obviously picked the information about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing from somewhere and had talking points prepared and even had the news ticker saying that the Solomon Brothers Building had collapsed. This all happened BEFORE the building collapsed.

"2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving."

There where no "qualifying words" in the ticker. The additional information that was discussed were void of the kind of qualifying statements that should have been used too, considering that the building in question was clearly visible over the reporter's shoulder. This was a pre prepared set of talking points presented as established fact. Who would prepare these talking points before the building had actually collapsed, and WHY? Were there also talking points prepared for any of the other buildings in the WTC complex, for just in case they collapsed also? If not why not? How could they have known in advance that the building would collapse? and how would they know the cause in advance too, when NIST still have not decided how wtc 7 collapsed over 5 years later?

"3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."

You have just contradicted your point in number 1. Either you were being told or you were not. Which is it? and if so, who by?

"4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."

You can get copies that are flying all over the internet. If the BBC was engaged in any serious genuine investigative journalism, that should not be a problem. Why not recruit a proper journalist, like Mike Rivero, or Alex Jones? They have more footage of that day than the BBC do apparently.

"5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ""

An error, sure, but who gave you the detailed talking points before the building had collapsed? How did they know it was going to collapse?

This is the key point here. That many many first responders, police, fire fighters, emergency workers, amblulance workers have all come forward and told that they where told that they were going to 'bring the building down' Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, admitted on PBS that they decided to pull the building. It may be this news that was misconstrued and reported mistakenly as fact, before the building was pulled, BUT the point is, this shows pre-determination that the building was to be brought down. How long does it take to do that? was the building wired up before 9/11 to be brought down?

WTC 7 was quite a long distance from the two towers. There where other buildings between the two towers and wtc 7. No plane hit wtc 7. No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to, or since 9/11. Even large skyscrapers that have burned for days and days have not collapsed.

All this information added together is VERY suspicious, and for the BBC to try to brush this under the carpet and dismiss it, instead of investigate is just staggeringly unbelieveable. The last part where you quote some loon from youtube is just beyond a joke. I could quote some nutter from youtube saying that 9/11 was caused by aliens, would that automatically make it true?

Your defence of this is far from satisfactory, and in fact is bordering on contemptuous. Enquiring minds want to know the truth, as the official version of what happened that day, the Government and mainstream media backed version is a wacky conspiracy theory that has been massively debunked. Why cannot the BBC take this seriously and actually investigate?

Is the BBC too scared?

What has the BBC to say about this?

Below is a message that I have sent to the BBC. Now I am NOT claiming that the BBC is part of a conspiracy and it was inside the 'inside job'! Nor am I suggesting that those who may possibly (but not certainly) be behind an inside job have given the BBC inside knowledge of it in advance. That would be preposterous.

I suspect that in the confusion of that day, the BBC picked up some prematurely released, and possibly speculative talking points and ran with them, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL! All they had to do was look out of the window for pity's sake, but no! they ran with a story that the Solomon Brothers Building has just collapsed and read off the pre-prepared talking points of how and why it collapsed, whilst the building in question was clearly STILL STANDING in the background!

As for some of the people querying this news, it was live, (as the ticker proves) it was filmed in front of a window - NOT A PREVIOUS RUN VIDEO, the news anchor in Manhatten turns and look out of the window at the scene to describe it. Additionally the time can be Established as the newsreader in London says that the attacks started eight hours previously and there is a top of the hour news headline review during the clip. This clearly places the time of this live news as being before WTC 7 Collapses.

The established facts therefore are that the BBC prematurely announces a building collapses 25 minutes before it actually does.

below is my submission to the BBC. If I get a response I shall post it immediately:

I know that on 9/11 there where many conflicting reports surfacing and there was lots of confusion, but given the revelations surrounding WTC 7, from the admission by it's leaseholder (Larry Silverstien) on PBS that he ordered the building 'pulled' and the revelations that emergency crews on the scene were told in advance that the building was to be brought down, is it not suspicious that the BBC reported that the building had collapsed a full 25 minutes before it actually did, and that the building was visible behind the correspondent clearly standing as she was describing, live, how and why it had collapsed?

This video is blazing around the internet and being seen by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. the BBC's reputation as an accurate reporter of news is at risk.

What is the BBC's response to this?
Why did you run with a set of talking points before they had been checked?
Where did these talking points come from?
Who prepared them in advance of the building collapsing? and Why?
How did the source of the talking points know that the building was likely to collapse?

No steel framed building (not leased by Mr Silverstien) has ever collapsed due to fire and there is significant doubt surrounding the cause of this particular building. The BBC's lax editorial control is adding fuel to the conspiracies surrounding this building and the rest of the attacks in general. What have you got to say for yourselves?

Will the BBC respond accurately or honestly? Watch this space.

Propaganda Extravaganza

So I have spent a good deal of this evening reading the accounts of the "highly" secretive, "ultra-classified" and "on monumental background" Iran briefing that the White House orchestrated today, just in time for Monday's breaking news. What is quite clear is that US corporate press has become an extension of the White House public relations department.

Under what circumstances would the following criteria for a news story ever be considered "journalism:"

The U.S. Administration have been caught lying again and again to deliberately and willfully launch un-neccessary wars. Why should we believe them now, on such utterly pathetic and flimsy evidence (and that is being generous) and when the stakes are so much higher.

As I have been saying, until I am blue in the face, the intelligence was NOT wrong on Iraq. the intelligence community was constantly telling the Pentagon and the Whitehouse that they could NOT corroberate the intelligence coming from the zionist office of special plans. Feith was twisting, exaggerating and inventing evidence of WMD plans, even from known disreputable single sources.

IN FACT: there are more witnesses that can claim that WTC 7 was deliberately brought down in a controlled demolition on the afternoon of 911, than there where to corroberate the lies coming out of the office of special plans. many, many, separate emergency workers have come forward stating that they were told to evacuate the media and the public out of the vacinity as the Building was going to be "BLOWN UP"

The American Way of War

Being a military thinker of the profoundest sort, I offer the following manual of martial affairs for nations yearning to copy the American way of war. Read it carefully. Great clarity will result. The steps limned below will facilitate disaster without imposing the burden of reinventing it. The Pentagon may print copies for distribution. more......

by Fred Reed

Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well and the just-published A Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire to Be.

Copyright © 2007 Fred Reed

At last, some common sense. Who'd have thought it?

The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a "war on terror" and calling for a "culture of legislative restraint" in passing laws to deal with terrorism.

Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a "fear-driven and inappropriate" response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law....

Sir Ken (great name) should be highly commended for speaking truth to power. At last some common sense.

Needed: New BS meter. Mine just exploded!

The President of the USA is in trouble. His poll numbers are in the toilet and with even more unpopular policies in the pipeline, he is to deliver his State of the Union Address in the next 24 hours.

It is against this back drop that an Al Queda video suddenly appears, specifically targeting the 21,000 new troops heading to Baghdad. You have got to admire the timing. Just when Bush needs a populist boost for his 'purge', along comes Al Queda, right on time, to help him out. How kind.

And people still doubt that Al Queda is a CIA psyop.

If the mainstream media allows you to see the video, pay close attention to the quality, backdrop and the way the face moves. It is clearly a computer generated fake and a poor one at that. It is a digitally altered manipulation of Ayman Alzawahri created, specifically, to help a desparate Bush.

Watch this and decide for yourself what is possible:



and this is the quality of the video image:



This video is poor quality, but are we really being expected to believe that, on the one hand, AL Queda is a global threat to the most sophisticated and technologically advanced nation on earth, well funded it can afford an endless supply of armunition, explosive and even WMD if it can find any, It can launch simultaneous global attacks against US interests, it is the greatest threat faced by the west since the cold war. AND on the other hand, they cannot find a decent quality video camera for love nor money, hence the grainy internet pictures. BS! These pictures are either grainy and pixelated because:

A) They are a digitally created fake and the grainy, pixelated pictures are deliberate to hide the obvious manipulation, or
B) As in the superb documentary, the power of nightmares,(below) the real Al queda really are a tiny organisation that cannot frighten a camel, let alone the USA, and the CIA's or Mossad's version of Al Queda is required to frighten the western population into abject submission to the Western Government's will.

Or a bit of both!

For the truth on Al queda watch these:
Part 1:


Part 2


Part 3


Educate and inform yourself. The evil old guard is failing. Humanity is evolving. Love and peace to you all.

We are seeing the dawning of peace.

The linked article shows clearly that the Iranian nuclear issue shall be resolved peacefully. We move towards peace and witness the Israeli's extremists fail in their demands for a nuclear attack on Iran.

We need leaders of vision and uncommon courage and resolve to pursue peaceful outcomes. We are experienceing the beginning of a process whereby the Iranians are becoming more moderate and the extremists are losing support. We need to be engaging with the moderate Iranians and helping them to create their nuclear power-stations in return for the promised entry into the global fold. The world needs moderate people in positions of power. Impeach those who would wage war as a first resort, whether they be Iranian, Israeli or American.

Peace and love to all.

Additionally, Iran has just announced that it is banning some IAEA inspectors from conducting inspections. In various places in the dishonest mainstream media, this is being mis-reported as the Iranians banning the IAEA. This is not true. They are stopping some specific members of the IAEA from visiting and Iran is completely within their rights and this action is 100% legal. That is something that even FOX news (to its credit and my surprise) admitted.

And these people believe they are part of the world's most superior nation.

There are stupid people in every country, BUT these countries do not believethat they are the best and most intelligent country in the world. They do not have people supporting every dumb military misadventure without having the first clue about what is being fought over, where or why or what the consequences are.

Many of the people here are allowed to vote! HOW SCARY IS THAT!!! Now I know why the imbecile (a dunce; blockhead; dolt) in the video below got so many votes. This is typical of the mentality of people who support the war, purely because they are so stupid that they do not realise that they don't have to support it. I bet after these interviews they went straight onto yahoo answers. It would explain a lot!

The world is in dire peril!

I think it is time that presidential candidates took an IQ test before being allowed to run for high office. Surely, when you are looking to place someone in a position of high power, you expect that they are intelligent and more capable than average. The highest level positions need to be filled by the best possible candidates.

American supporters of Bush should realise that this video is exactly what the rest of the world thinks Bush is.

If you support bush, does this video really make you feel proud that he is what is representative of America in the world today?



And the clip of the party at the end? That was filmed at about 5:00am May 2nd 1987. the morning of the general election victory of the Labour Party in the UK. This was the labour leadership (and Kinnock) celebrating wrestling power from the Tories after 18 years. So in reality it shows a bunch of very happy, but very tired old farts 'dad dancing' OK they don't have a natural rythm and look like prats, but that is not what they were elected for. I don't care how my political leaders look on the dancefloor. I do care how they perform in their duties at looking after the state. Unfortunately, labour are better dancers than they are statesmen.

Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hain?

Mr Peter Hain MP has labeled the current Administration, 'the most right wing in living memory'. he has stated that the neo-con agenda has been knocked for six and is delighted that the democrats have done so well in the November mid-terms.

This is supposedly to position himself in a better light to attract the grass-roots support in the Labour party deputy leaders election.

Well, forgive me for having a functioning memory and brain, BUT, He NEVER EVER CONTRADICTED THE NEO-CONS ON ANY POLICY!

He voted to go to war, and if he genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD at the time, then he was as big an idiot then as he is a liar and spiv now!

He has loyally supported every right wing policy of Blair over the last 10 years and has been as right wing as the neo-cons he supported.

He cannot back away from his past. And, if he believes that the neo-con agenda has been knocked off course, then he is clearly STILL an idiot, as the neo-cons send 21,000 more troops to Iraq and they are gearing up for a military attack on Iran!

Hain is a weak, cowardly spiv. he is just as detestable as all the other labour cabinet put together. Now he is realising the extent as to how wrong he has been, he is fleeing as far from his decisions as possible. It will not do.

Hain IS A NEO-CON PUPPET! He has been in bed with them and is every bit as guilty as them for the mess of Iraq as they are, He has toured the TV News studios Backing Tony Blair to the hilt for years.

Hain looks like a desparately foolish and cowardly man.

It's not a right vs left thing. It's a right vs wrong thing.

I am increasing hacked off at being accused of being a liberal because I am against war crimes and idiotic shortsighted strategically inept military adventures overseas. Sure the liberals may be against the Iraq war because it is an easy stick with which to beat a tired, corrupt and incompetent administration bereft of ideas other than for their own personal survival and enrichment, but in reality the Iraq war is just plain bad.

Any way you slice it, the iraq war is wrong. And that is not a liberal view, its a common sense, decent, honest, truthful and conservative view.

As a lifelong conservative, I am appalled that I am more and more agreeing with liberals, as the CON-servatives move further and further away from real conservatism to nestle on the banks of a neo-fascist extremist interventionist worldview. REAL conservatives are appalled also at how the CON-servatives waste billions in support of terrorist regimes (Bush is the best recruitment sergeant Al Queda ever had) to create fear at home to terrify the population into submission.

Conservatives like small Government and people taking care of and taking responsibility for themselves. Conservatives do not waste billions on constructing extensive surveillance systems for controlling people.

Conservatives believe in a fair and level playing field for business, not tax free handouts for corporations whilst small businesses are stifled by increased taxes and red tape.

Conservatives support working people. Conservative believe in playing fairly by the rules and being honest.

The current CON-servatives (republicans, pro war democrats and Tony Blair's cabinet) are a sad stain on the name conservative.

They are really fascists.

Conservatives are against the this war too.

Outstanding!!!

Impeach them all!

It is my belief that the current potentially catastrophic problems in the world today could be solved and fairly soon. ie within the next 12 - 18 months.

We the people of this planet do have the opportunity and ability to make a very positive change, if we only had the brass cahoneys to sieze it.

In the west, we have many voices calling loudly for the impeachment of Bush. In the middle east, in Iran, the Parliament is starting impeachment proceedings against president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I hope both cases of impeachment succeed!

We need to start calling, sending letters and faxes by the million in support of peacefull and legal measures that lead to the removal of tyrants at home and abroad.

Click here to support these measure now!

My experiment appears to be creating ever more examples supporting the theory of the law of attraction. These are but two, but as time continues this year, we will se more and more.

Peace and love to all.

CNN apologizes for Obama gaffe in Bin Laden graphic

It is hardly surprising that the mainstream media fools over at CNN made a simple mistake of getting Obama and Osama mixed up. After all, they had Osama and Saddam mixed for well over a year prior to Saddam's arrest.

Can the media really be so stupid as to allow these basic errors go unchecked? Or is there a far more sinister deliberation involved?

More awakenings

As we venture into the undescovered and fresh new dawn of 2007, There feels like the awakening is accelerating.

More and more people are waking and understanding where we find oursleves, spiritually and in reality.

At a new year party last night, the subject of Saddam's execution was brought up, typically, in the form of a joke: Why should saddam be in porn films? Because he is bloody well-hung!

Well this (to my surprise) did not get a laugh, or even a mild titter. But people stood silent for a short while and then each person in the room expressed their disgust in the manner of Saddam's demise.

Now for those reading this, the party was not at a muslim house, nor was it attended by anyone with any natural sympathy for Saddam at all. In fact it was at a house in a white 'working class' Northern town with a labour MP. This is a typical 'salt of the earth' working class area. at the party where people of all political persuasions, but everyone was disgusted at the way in which Saddam was publicly executed and in the way in which we all where collectively tarred, as British subjects, with the same brush as Blair.

Christians, atheists, labour supporters, tories and independents all agreed upon what was wrong. All agreed that Bush and Blair are the greatest terrorists on earth.

When many people from such diverse backgrounds and beliefs all agree on these things, then surely an awakening of consciousness is taking place. The dark forces are losing. 2007 shall bear witness to even greater understandings of the awakening of the human spirit.

With peace and love to all. Happy new year!

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Here's to 2007

Have a wonderful and peaceful new year!

We start 2007 without Saddam Hussien. Publicly hanged at dawn yesterday. (a war crime in breach of international law) He was hanged for the deaths of only 148 Iraqis. These Iraqis had been accused, charged and found guilty in court of plotting to kill Saddam. If 148 Texan townsmen had been similarly found guilty of plotting to kill Bush, then they too would have faced the death sentence in The USA surely?

Whatever, if Saddam must have been executed for the deaths of 148 Iraqis, then what about Bush, Cheney and Blair? For each of these 148 Iraqis, another thousand+ more Iraqis have died due to the murderous policies of Bush and Blair's administrations.

In case you are under the misaprehension that Saddam was hanged for killing thousands of Iraqis, for gassing his own people at Halabja, or for the abuse, torture and murder of tens of thousands of Kurds and Shias, then you are mistaken. He was tried for the deaths of only 148 men. The other alledged crimes are left un-investigated and unresolved. the victims left without justice, their stories left as propaganda for the west to keep regurgitating to accomodate their bloodlust.

There have been mass graves uncovered, but in total only about 50,ooo victims of the combination of Saddam's cruelty and the victims of the Iran vs Iraq war. A war in which saddam was helped, and encouraged every savage step of the way by the USA. Don Rumsfeld himself being a major supporter of Saddam at that time.

So Saddam was hanged for the deaths of 148 men. The west glibly announce that this is justice for the victims of Saddams Brutal regime. What, where and when will the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed since the totally illegal and immoral invasion on 2003 see their justice?

I ask you, if it was your country that had some foreign nation lay a massive campaign of disinfo, misinfo and blatant lies about, and your nation's leader had tried to comply with international laws and rules, but clearly could not (As Saddam tried to comply, but he could not hand over the WMD to the UN weapons inspectors, because he no longer had any WMD and the west KNEW this at the time!!!) and then if your nation was invaded, your leader overthrown to be replaced by a murdering bunch of thugs and theives and torturing rapists. Your nation's natural wealth plundered, your nation's laws re-written to suit the invaders, your prisons turned over to people to torture on a scale in excess of the prior leadership etc etc etc..

At what point would YOU stop fighting against the invaders????

Saddam was executed wrongly. We cannot right that wrong! However we could make up for it by granting justice to the many more numerous victims of Bush and Blair's crimes. They should be executed in Baghdad and laid to rest alongside Saddam.

In 2007, support your troops, DEMAND they be brought home. Demand that the whole world works to end war, poverty and the conflicts in Africa, the middle east and Asia.

We live in a world that is far more peaceful than violent. The vast majority of the planet is currently at peace. Out of the 6.75 Billion people sharing this lump of spinning rock, more than 6 Billion of them are NOT at war. Look out of your window, chances are, no matter where you are in this world, you are NOT at war either.

Remember that and that war is the exception to the human condition and it is because of a minority of greedy and evil leaders that war continues at all. It is time for humanity to evolve, to grow up and take real responsibility for this planet, clean it up, stop filling it with ever more people and to live and grow together in peace.

This journey continues in 2007. We need to accellerate this process and work to rid the world of these evil political leaders and only grant power to those who serve humanity and freedom, not those who abuse and enslave.

Please have a wonderful and peaceful 2007. Here's to a year of increasing peace and awareness of our infinate consciousness. A year of the demons being ever more clipped back, their wealth, influence, and capabilities stalled. The dark forces are failing and will continue to fail more and more in 2007. We are witnessing the fall of Rome, and the ascent of the human spirit.

Here's to 2007!

Time Magazine Person of the year, YOU!!

What a strange year this has been. The awakening of the great mass of people to the extent that only a tiny vocal and terrified minority still cling to the belief that the US Administration or the British Government still are acting as a benevolent force for peace and democracy, fighting evil terrorists and trying to create a better world for all of us. The reality is, of course the opposite. Blair and Bush are, (as I write these words) working to create a new dictatorship in Iraq. They wish to overthrow the current unelected Prime Minister and install another 'Saddam'. A strong-man who will crush all dissent for the benefit of the US/UK.

The public are awakening to this in ever greater numbers. Awarenes of many truths are increasing at an exponential rate and this is largely due to blogs like this one, and of the manifestation of truth as highlighted in my experiment.

This leads to the award of Time Magazine's Person of the Year award. They have awarded this to you, and to me and to all users of the internet. Particularly those who have taken control of the internet as a means to educate and inform. I personally take that to mean bloggers like me.

Of course I deserve this recognition. I have spent countless hours upon hours browsing the internet, researching and writing in my blog and writing in to mainstream media institutions and blogs alike.

I have worked tirelessly for peace, highlighting and passing on the blatant lies of Bush and Blair. The fraudulance of the case for war, the sure knowledge (confirmed further this week by a former civil servant) that Blair knew Iraq was not a threat. The decision to invade regardless of WMD (As shown in Downing St. Memos) and as been admitted through Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Blair all stating clearly on the record recently, that if they knew then what they know now, that they would have STILL invaded.

The WMD issue was a lie. The invasion is purely about western hegemony and a pursuit to [adopt evil comic-book villian character here] Take over the world HA HA HA HA!!! No, seriously. The Cheney neo-cons are seriously THAT CRAZY!

The internet community has managed inform and warn the public as to the real dangers, to expose the lies and basically do what the mainstream media has been FAILING to do. In fact, the Mainstream media acted, not as an honest broker of news and information, but as a paid cheerleader for Government propaganda.

As a part of the internet community that spread the truth, and as part of the community that has mobalised public opinion against the evil lies of Blair et-al. Evil? Yes, for how else can you describe deliberate and willful intent to lie to gain support for an illegal war and therefore the mass-murder of tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of innocent men women and children, and the mutilation of hundreds of thousands more. Yea, this is what Ian Huntley is doing time in prison for times 100,000!!! I cannot think of a more suitable adjective than evil. Blair personifies evil in his fake sincerity, whilst his policies indiscriminately kill thousands.

On behalf of whatreallyhappened.com, rense.com, prisonplanet.com, informationclearinghouse.info, davidicke.com, jimmarrs.com and many many more dedicated reporters of truth, I accept this honour.

Thank you.