96% Of Us To Be Fitted With Tracking Devices

I can't vouch exactly for the 96%. I heard on the radio a few months ago that only 4% of British citizens don't have mobile phones. No matter. The truth is that Celldar is a secret government programme which can monitor every move you make in 'real time' from your mobile phone signal. If you carry a mobile phone then you're already carrying a tracking device.

-

Read How mobile phones let spies see our every move, an Observer article by Jason Burke and Peter Warren, here. Incidentally, Jason Burke has written what I understand to be an authoritative book about Al Qaeda, called Al Qaeda, covering some of the Al Qaeda myths and lies spun by the government and reported in the media. He was also featured in the excellent BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares. See excerpt below.

Assault on Liberty (Orwellian reprise)

CCTV Camera Microphones to be Axed

Thus hails Patrick Hennessy, political editor of the Telegraph. I didn't even know they existed. Microphones attatched to CCTV camera's. Jesus. Did you? Nor did I know that they've already been used in Britain, recording conversations up to 100 yards away. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner (a job straight out of 1984) says that recording private conversations from Britain's 4.5million CCTV camera's would be "highly intrusive". Quite why we need an Information Commissioner to tell us this is beyond me. Of course it would be highly intrusive. Though someone eaves dropping on your private conversations is no more intrusive than someone spying on you with a CCTV camera.

There's a further Orwellian twist to this story. From the headline 'CCTV Camera Microphones to be Axed', you'd think that - CCTV camera microphones were to be axed, no longer used. Not so. They are to be used. But, says a spokesman of the Information Commissioner, only in "extremely special circumstances". However the "only in extremely special circumstances" mantra doesn't hide the fact that your conversations can be recorded and the camera microphones are not being 'axed'. The article even says that councils are keen to use the microphones in the 'run-up' to the 2012 London Olympics. It is plain double-speak. The headline says that CCTV camera microphones are to be axed. The article says that they're not. Two plus two equals five.

First They Came

[A poem I came across recently about the rise of the police state and the Third Reich in Nazi Germany.]

First they came...

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism"

Al Qaeda. Aside from knowing that the term losely translates as "the base", and that we're told that Bin Laden is its head and that they were the purpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda remains a tough nut to crack. Who are they? Where did they come from? What do they want? Why are so many groups from here in the UK to pretty much everywhere on earth 'believed to be linked' to Al Qaeda?

In Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism", Michel Chussodovsky of Global Research answers these questions. Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. It was funded and directed by the CIA via Pakistan's ISI in a covert operation that began in 1979 in Afghanistan. "Islamic Jihad" was originally a holy war against the communist, aetheistic Soviets, not the West. For the US, it was intended to cripple the Soviet empire - which it did - and to bring about unending civil war in Afghanistan - which it has.

An excerpt:

Washington’s Hidden Agenda

"U.S. foreign policy is not geared towards curbing the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The significant development of "radical Islam" in the wake of the Cold War in the former Soviet Union and the Middle East is consistent with Washington’s hidden agenda. The latter consists in sustaining rather than combating international terrorism, with a view to destabilizing national societies and preventing the articulation of genuine secular social movements directed against the American Empire.

Washington continues to support — through CIA covert operations — the development of Islamic fundamentalism, throughout the Middle East, in the former Soviet Union as well in China and India."

Assault on Liberty

Over the past few months there have been many reports in the media about increasingly sophisticated surveillance technology and the extension of government surveillance powers.

Here's some reports from the past week alone:

Prisoners 'to be chipped like dogs' (13th Jan 2008, Independent) "Ministers are planning to implant "machine-readable" microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme." Ken Jones, president of the Assaociation of Chief Police Officers, rather chillingly says, "...it's time has come."

Hospitals tagging babies with electronic chips (15th Jan 2008, US, World Net Daily)

FBI wants instant access to British identity data: (15th Jan 2008, Guardian) "Server in the Sky is an FBI initiative designed to foster the advanced search and exchange of biometric information on a global scale." This follows the revelation last December that the US says it has right to kidnap British citizens (Times).

"The internet can't be a no-go area for government." (17th Jan, BBC) Jacqui Smith, having already taken away our right to make private phone calls, begins her assualt on internet privacy. All justified, of course, with recourse to a terrorist threat that is being purposely fermented by our own government through its criminal and murderous policies in the Middle East.

-

In Creeping Fascism: From Nazi Germany to Post 9/11 America Ray McGovern records the "sheepish submissiveness" with which the German people reacted to the 'security' measures implemented by Hitler's Third Reich in the 1930's. Measure's like phone tapping, having letters opened or desks broken into. The German people accepted them with very little protest because they were told (or manipulated into thinking) there was a terrorist threat, and these measures had to be implemented in defense of that threat.

-

I'm not historically astute enough to say where the parallels between Nazi Germany and New Labour Britain begin and end. But the fact is that there are parallels. And when Privacy International, an internation privacy watchdog, brackets Britain and the US in the same category as China (that's right, China), the category of "endemic surveillance societies", then you should probably start to hear alarm bells in your head.

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Benjamin Franklin

Will future generations look back at us and wonder at the "sheepish submissiveness" with which we accepted the eradication of our civil liberties?

-

Further Reading

-

Big Brother is watching us all (Sept 2007, BBC)
-
Surveillance system tracks faces on CCTV (Oct 2007, Guradian) New tracking technology means that you'll no longer remain anonymous in a crowd.

-

U.S. and Britain: “Endemic Surveillance Societies” (Dec 2007, TruthNews)

A History of the Universe Made Easy

Yesterday I stumbled upon this 10 minute 'What we know and how we know it' film about the Universe. It sheds light on things such as how we've come to measure the vast distances between earth and everything else in the cosmos and how stars originally came into being. And for the record, I think it's a dead fish. Though I wouldn't rule out nothing.

Noam Chomsky: Pirates & Emperors

The Emperor says to the Pirate: "How dare you think you can molest the seas!"

The pirate replies: "I am but a man with a small boat, so you call me a pirate. Yet you have a vast navy, and they call you an Emperor? How dare you think you can molest the world!"

Chomsky.Info

A Call To Arms by Ron Paul

[I just read this message by Ron Paul to his supporters on RonPaul2008.com. I found it particularly stiring. Read it in full below.]

-

Did you see that funny YouTube where Mike Huckabee's young Iowa spokesman endorsed me, "by mistake"? We know what was in his mind! Indeed, I am amazed at the friendliness of the supporters of other candidates. Many Obama voters, for example, in Iowa and New Hampshire are reading our literature, and studying our ideas. It's just one of the reasons I am so optimistic about what we are doing, and where we are heading. And so were the 500 or 600 people at our New Hampshire rally after the primary. I talked to everyone there, and they are rightly enthusiastic about our movement.

This does not mean we will have an easy time of it -- just the opposite, of course. After all, we are seeking to reverse more than a century of big government, of the warfare-welfare state, of Federal Reserve's dollar manipulation, of a fat and happy military-industrial complex, of the subversion of our Constitution. So all the media and other "second-hand dealers in ideas," as F.A. Hayek called them, who have a vested interest in the current order, will do everything possible to smear me. They will do and say anything to try to block our movement. Even vote fraud is not beyond these people.

And we have been successful. This movement has always operated on two tracks -- intellectual and political, and must. The first and most important is the intellectual. Such heroes of freedom as Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and so many others like Rose Wilder Lane, John T. Flynn, Isabel Patterson, and Garret Garrett, have helped build the foundations of freedom, prosperity, and peace. We carry on their work, to change hearts and minds.

The other track is political. Here too, we have touched millions with our ideas, and recruited many, many thousands -- not only in Meetup Groups and as voters, but as sympathizers and future voters too. Walter Block was kind enough to call this effort the most important in the long history of libertarianism. I don't know about that, but I do know that even if we place a solid fourth, rather than the higher place we all want and are working so hard for, that is huge progress.

But we can never forget that this is a long struggle. Many great men and women have lived and died in this cause. I have been deeply involved in it all my life. It is a matter of educational work, and elections. We may not accomplish all we want, in one or even two elections. But we will accomplish it. Young people now living will see the free society that you and I dream of, as their everyday reality, an America at peace, prosperous and free, with the federal government chained down by the Constitution, as Jefferson said.

Does this mean our campaign has done everything right? No! We have made mistakes, and will make them again. Not only because errors are to be found in any human endeavor, but because an effort like this, to repeal a hundred years and more of evil, is brand-new on the face of the earth. But now is the time to stick together like the brothers and sisters we are, to stand side by side in this fight against the media toadies, warmongers, and Wall Street rip-off artists who stand against us, and who always remind me of Tolkein's Orcs.

If you have suggestions for me to do better, I want to hear them. But beating back the enemy, teaching so many young people and others about liberty, that is our victory, and it is real and permanent. Won't you link arms with me? We will have more vote victories too, if we stick together and do not let the enemy divide us.

As you know, and as our neocon enemies try to cover up, we are in a financial crisis. It may chug along at this pace, slowly into recession, or it might drop off a cliff, like the dollar. In that case, we will have the only coherent solution, and we must get our message out.

All my life, I've been working to make sure that when the Fed had done its work, and the special interests had looted the system to their hearts' content, and there was a crisis, I would be in a position to speak the truth about why, and what to do about it. In this fight, I need your heart, your mind, your time, and your financial support. I also need you to become a precinct leader https://voters.ronpaul2008.com/grassroots/ . What a fight we are in. What stakes there are. Together, we can build a new America faithful to the values of the framers. Bother the enemy, help the good cause: make your most generous contribution https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/, and let's roll up our sleeves and get to work, together.

-

Sincerely,

-

Ron

BBC Censors Bhutto's Bin Laden Murder Claim

On 2nd November 2007 the late Benazir Bhutto gave an interview to David Frost on his show Frost all over the World in which she claims that Omar Sheikh murdered Osama Bin Laden. The show originally aired on Al Jazeera. However when the BBC got hold of it they sleekly edited out this claim. See the unedited clip below.

Following complaints - by amongst others the guy who posted the video below - the edited segment was finally restored on the BBC version of the interview (just a few days ago, I think). See the edit below, it begins at around 2:20.

BBC

Several questions. Firstly, and most obviously, why did the BBC edit the interview? Clearly we don't know. But it's suspiscious. If they knew the story to be false then they should have aired it and written a piece declaring it as such. The BBC is, after all, a news organisation. They're meant to employ journalists to tell us what's going on in the world. But instead of this they edit Bhutto's allegation as if it did not exist.

STOP PRESS!

The BBC have explained why they edited the interview. I did a search on the BBC website for 'Bhutto Bin Laden murder'. Whilst there's no story in relation to Bhutto's allegation, there is an editorial about it. Following accusations of censorship Steve Herrmann, editor of the BBC news website, defends the editing of the interview by saying that the item producer was under "time pressure" to get the interview out. He says that Bhutto's allegation "appeared so unexpected that it seemed she had simply mis-spoken." Thus the allegation was edited to "avoid confusion."

Fucking bullshit. If the producer of the interview was truly under "time" pressure to get the interview out then surely it would have been quicker to not edit it. Editing something obviously takes more time than not editing it. And it "appeared" unexpected? It "seemed" that she had mis-spoken? You have to be kidding me. Is Bhutto's allegation true or isn't it? That's the only relevant question here. The BBC doesn't receive over £3billion a year in licence fees to base its version of 'truth' on how an allegation appeared or seemed. I almost can't believe I'm coming out with this phrase, but 'it's a disgrace'. Even the admission that the interview was edited to "avoid confusion." It doesn't matter whether it's confusing or not. What matters is whether or not it's true. Yet even in Harrmann's editorial, the importance of this question completely passes him by. He doesn't even acknowledge that whether or not Bin Laden was or was not murdered by Omar Sheikh is something that requires an answer.

Omar Sheikh

You will probably recall this name. British born Sheikh was arrested by Pakistani police in February 2002 for the murder of the Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl. He was charged and sentenced to death in Pakistan in July 2002. The sentence has yet to be carried out.

There's also reason to believe that Omar Sheikh was a British agent working for MI6. Michael Meacher, Oldham MP and former cabinet minister under Blair, claims that Sheikh was recruited by MI6 along with anything up to 200 other British muslims. Sheikh and the others were sent to overseas terrorist training camps under the protection of the Pakistani secret service, the ISI, to act on behalf of UK and US interests in - amongst other things - an effort to overthrow the Afghan communist regime and its Soviet backers. Futhermore Pakistan President General Musharraf also claimed that Sheikh was a British agent in his book Line of Fire.

It will come as no surprise to find that the BBC in their profile of Sheikh completely fail to mention this. Something else the BBC fails to mention:

Omar Sheikh was responsible for transfering $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, just days before the attacks. This transfer was made at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of Pakistan's ISI. This transfer was confirmed by Dennis Lomel, director of the FBI's financial crimes unit.

Was Omar Sheikh still a British agent when he made the wire transfer to Atta? Did MI6 know about the transfer? Were they in any way complicit?

Bin Laden Murdered Claims Bhutto

This would hardly be a pithy little tit-bit story, would it? Yet there's no such story on the BBC website. And they made every attempt to withhold it from us. Herrmann's defense of the charge of censorship does nothing but confirm it. The BBC did censor it. And you have to ask yourself why.

But is Bhutto's allegation true? Did Sheikh murder Bin Laden? I have no idea. But it's an important question. If he did then Sheikh would have to have killed Bin Laden prior to his arrest in February 2002. And if he did, then every video and audio message by Bin Laden since at least this time can be known to be a fabrication. This further means that every news agency which carried the messages were knowingly or unknowingly complicit in an effort to convince us of a threat which did not exist. And who produced the fake audio and video messages if Bin Laden was dead?

If Sheikh didn't kill Bin Laden then we should at least know. This question deserves an answer. Even a flat out rebuttal would suffice. Yet the BBC says Nothing. At least nothing other than the allegation "appeared so unexpected that it seemed she had simply mis-spoken." Which manages neither to affirm or deny the claim.

Remember that Britain invaded Afghanistan on the grounds that Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. At least that was the cover story for the invasion. If Bin Laden was murdered or killed in late 2001 (and there's good reason to think he was: even the BBC admit that no one has seen him since that time) then could Britain's continued presence in Afghanistan be publicly justified?

New Hampshire Jiggery Pokery

A blogger in Sutton, New Hampshire, was surprised to see the final tally for Sutton as registering 0% for Ron Paul. This result came in spite of the fact that he, his parents and his aunt all voted for Paul. [Click image below to see initial result.]

It transpires that Sutton actually received 31 votes for Paul, votes which were subsequently reinstated following protests. Jennifer Call, the head clerk in Sutton, later explained that this discrepency occured because of 'human error'. However vote fraud expert Bev Harris, speaking on the Alex Jones radio show, said that, "The classic method for rigging a hand count is to write the wrong number on the form." It's textbook.

Read more here:

New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Votes Not Counted

Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, New Hampshire

Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire

Greenville Vote SAME as Sutton

New Hampshire Townships With More Than 50 Votes For "OTHER" Some townships recorded as many as 10% and even 20% for "other". As I just heard Alex Jones say: "Who the hell is this 'other' - the Easter Bunny?"

There are numerous other anomalies in the New Hampshire primary which bring the final result into question, not least of which how Hilary Clinton achieved a sudden 20-point swing in her favour to beat Barack Obama by 3%.

Michael Collins writes: "81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as “Premier”). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. People like to say “but we use paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!”"

"But they’re not. They’re counted by Diebold. Only a candidate can request a hand recount, and most never do so. And a rigged election can easily become a rigged recount, as we learned in Ohio 2004, where two election officials were convicted of rigging their recount…."

Collins adds: "Is it just a funny coincidence that the Diebold spokesman is named Mr. Riggall?"!!!

It would cost Ron Paul $67,000 for a full recount. At this time this possibility has not been ruled out. Find out more at the Ron Paul War Room.

Good Night & Good Luck

Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons? The government exaggerated, nay, got trigger happy with the bullshit button - again? No shit. But none of us were ever going to be naive enough to believe those exact same lies a second time. How stupid they must think we are.

Quote: Joseph Stalin

"The easiest way to gain control of the population is to carry out acts of terror."
-
The public "will clamour for such laws if the personal security is threatened."

Joseph Stalin

Can't Take My Eyes (And Ears) Off You

War is Peace

Only those with something to hide would object to the government having the power to monitor their phone calls. After all: if you've done nothing wrong then you've got nothing to worry about. That's roughly how it goes. And besides, in spite of a six year multi-billion pound war effort to catch him, Osama is still at large. And while he is who knows what kind of shit's going to hit the fan. But don't worry, your government is here to protect you, and to protect your civil liberties. Because your civil liberties are exactly what Osama and his 'freedom' hating Al-Qaeda network want to attack us for. "They hate our freedoms." And all your government needs to protect you and your civil liberties is access to your phone calls, text messages, your emails and the websites you visit, access to your financial transactions, ID cards, and ever increasing surveillance though the millions of CCTV cameras monitoring every move you make.

-

-

Am I dreaming? Sometimes it's hard to tell. Henry Porter (in a very good Observer article) points to the fact that we've now reached a kind of rhetorical tipping point where what the government says is the exact opposite of what it does:

-

"Gordon Brown proclaims his solemn duty 'to uphold freedom of speech, freedom of information and freedom of protest', yet his ministers steal through the night to attack each one of these rights."

-

Porter's article follows a parlimentary 'statutory instrument' (sounds painful) signed by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in July 2007 which gives 795 public companies access to all landline and mobile phone calls and text messages. The House of Lords passed the bill without even debating it. By 2009 the government intends to apply this law to internet use, allowing the government to monitor your emails, the websites you visit and any internet phone calls you make. Conveniently to this end, the 'statutory instrument' process allows the government to 'alter laws without a full act of parliment'. It really is incredible. The terrorists hate us because of our civil liberties, the government protects us from the terrorists by taking away those liberties. Brown has beaten Osama to it.

-

[Read more here.]