Archive for January, 2008

On a hiding to nothing

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

Some unscrupulous litter-bug left a copy today’s Guardian on the floor of a train, but the proverbial silver lining is that my eyes were drawn to an article about a person under witness protection.

“The Witness Protection Scheme is designed to look after people who have essential evidence about some of the most serious offences, and who therefore face a real threat to their safety […] some of these are innocent bystanders […]
Individulas living under the scheme have to trade in their old life for a new one […] and changing their identity, with medical records and educational qualifications under a new name …”

I have mentioned (in passing) before that the NIR database cloud/grid/mesh will make maintaining the credibility of the Witness Protection Scheme very difficult. Currently your ‘identity’ can be decomposed and reconstituted quite easily by altering your official paper trail – and yet the witness protection scheme does not provide full untracability:

“In 1999, the IRA supergrass Martin McGartland survived an attempt on his life while living under an assumed identity in Whitley Bay”

Now consider that the ‘selling point’ of the NIR project is that your unique biometric information will be stored on the database and prevent people from assuming multiple identities. You run into a problem, in that there has to be the capability to completely expunge the record of a person – possibly across a number of linked (even transnational) databases and create a false history (which in turn will have have its own history forged – think timestamps!). Either the NIR has to be designed to be compromisable or schemes such as WPS have to be compromised.

And they didn’t deface the crossword either!!

The Suffragettes: Terrorists!

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

The Suffragettes wanted the privilege of the vote for women.

The move for women to have the vote had really started in 1897 when Millicent Fawcett founded the National Union of Women’s Suffrage. “Suffrage” means the right to vote and that is what women wanted – hence its inclusion in Fawcett’s title.

Millicent Fawcett believed in peaceful protest. She felt that any violence or trouble would persuade men that women could not be trusted to have the right to vote. Her game plan was patience and logical arguments. Fawcett argued that women could hold responsible posts in society such as sitting on school boards – but could not be trusted to vote; she argued that if parliament made laws and if women had to obey those laws, then women should be part of the process of making those laws; she argued that as women had to pay taxes as men, they should have the same rights as men and one of her most powerful arguments was that wealthy mistresses of large manors and estates employed gardeners, workmen and labourers who could vote……..but the women could not regardless of their wealth…..

However, Fawcett’s progress was very slow. She converted some of the members of the Labour Representation Committee (soon to be the Labour Party) but most men in Parliament believed that women simply would not understand how Parliament worked and therefore should not take part in the electoral process. This left many women angry and in 1903 the Women’s Social and Political Union was founded by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters Christabel and Sylvia. They wanted women to have the right to vote and they were not prepared to wait. The Union became better known as the Suffragettes. Members of the Suffragettes were prepared to use violence to get what they wanted.

Emmeline Pankhurst

Christabel Pankhurst

In fact, the Suffragettes started off relatively peacefully.  It was only in 1905 that the organisation created a stir when Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney interrupted a political meeting in Manchester to ask two Liberal politicians (Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey) if they believed women should have the right to vote. Neither man replied. As a result, the two women got out a banner which had on it “Votes for Women” and shouted at the two politicians to answer their questions. Such actions were all but unheard of then when public speakers were usually heard in silence and listened to courteously even if you did not agree with them. Pankhurst and Kenney were thrown out of the meeting and arrested for causing an obstruction and a technical assault on a police officer.

Both women refused to pay a fine preferring to go to prison to highlight the injustice of the system as it was then. Emmeline Pankhurst later wrote in her autobiography that:

“this was the beginning of a campaign the like of which was never known in England, or for that matter in any other country…..we interrupted a great many meetings……and we were violently thrown out and insulted. Often we were painfully bruised and hurt.”

The Suffragettes refused to bow to violence. They burned down churches as the Church of England was against what they wanted; they vandalised Oxford Street, apparently breaking all the windows in this famous street; they chained themselves to Buckingham Palace as the Royal Family were seen to be against women having the right to vote; they hired out boats, sailed up the Thames and shouted abuse through loud hailers at Parliament as it sat; others refused to pay their tax. Politicians were attacked as they went to work. Their homes were fire bombed. Golf courses were vandalised. The first decade of Britain in the C20th was proving to be violent in the extreme.

Suffragettes were quite happy to go to prison. Here they refused to eat and went on a hunger strike. The government was very concerned that they might die in prison thus giving the movement martyrs. Prison governors were ordered to force feed Suffragettes but this caused a public outcry as forced feeding was traditionally used to feed lunatics as opposed to what were mostly educated women.

The government of Asquith responded with the Cat and Mouse Act. When a Suffragette was sent to prison, it was assumed that she would go on hunger strike as this caused the authorities maximum discomfort. The Cat and Mouse Act allowed the Suffragettes to go on a hunger strike and let them get weaker and weaker. Force feeding was not used. When the Suffragettes were very weak……….they were released from prison. If they died out of prison, this was of no embarrassment to the government. However, they did not die but those who were released were so weak that they could take no part in violent Suffragette struggles. When those who had been arrested and released had regained their strength, they were re-arrested for the most trivial of reason and the whole process started again. This, from the government’s point of view, was a very simple but effective weapon against the Suffragettes.

As a result, the Suffragettes became more extreme. The most famous act associated with the Suffragettes was at the June 1913 Derby when Emily Wilding Davison threw herself under the King’s horse, Anmer,  as it rounded Tattenham Corner. She was killed and the Suffragettes had their first martyr. However, her actions probably did more harm than good to the cause as she was a highly educated woman. Many men asked the simple question – if this is what an educated woman does, what might a lesser educated woman do? How can they possibly be given the right to vote?

It is possible that the Suffragettes would have become more violent. They had, after all, in February 1913 blown up part of David Lloyd George’s house – he was probably Britain’s most famous politician at this time and he was thought to be a supporter of the right for women to have the vote!

However, Britain and Europe was plunged into World War One in August 1914. In a display of patriotism, Emmeline Pankhurst instructed the Suffragettes to stop their campaign of violence and support in every way the government and its war effort. The work done by women in the First World War  was to be vital for Britain’s war effort. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act was passed by Parliament.



Spy pictures of suffragettes revealed

By Dominic Casciani

BBC News Online

Photos uncovered by the National Archives show how the police spied on the suffragettes. These covert images – perhaps the UK’s first spy pictures – have gone on display to mark the centenary of the votes-for-women movement.

Ninety years ago, a Scotland Yard detective submitted an unusual equipment request.

It was passed up the chain, scrutinised, reviewed and finally rubber-stamped in Whitehall itself. Scotland Yard duly became the proud owner of a Ross Telecentric camera lens. And at a cost to the taxpayer of £7, 6s and 11d, secret police photographic surveillance (in the shape of an 11-inch long lens) was born.

Within weeks, the police were using it against what the government then regarded as the biggest threat to the British Empire: the suffragettes.

Documents uncovered at the National Archives reveal that the votes-for-women movement probably became the first “terrorist” organisation subjected to secret surveillance photography in the UK, if not the world.

The covert photographs are at the heart of an exhibition marking the centenary of the founding of the Women’s Social and Political Union, which invented modern direct action and ultimately changed the face of the UK.

The suffragettes, founded in October 1903, forced a social revolution to give women the vote. Photographs uncovered by the National Archives reveal hidden secrets of how the state spied on what it regarded as a terrorist threat. This first picture shows a suffragette caught in a confrontation with opponents and the police.

State surveillance

The state’s use of cameras in fighting crime began when prisons were instructed to photograph all inmates in 1871.

But police found the technology’s real value as they tried to combat the increasingly militant suffragettes.

Within two years of the founding of the WSPU, Christabel Pankhurst had become the first woman to be jailed for direct action. That civil disobedience continued within prison walls as jailed women refused to be photographed.

So Scotland Yard brought in the UK’s first long-lens paparazzi-style photographer, says Carole Tulloch, curator of the exhibition.

In 1912, Scotland Yard detectives bought their first camera to covertly photograph the suffragettes. The pictures were compiled into ID sheets for officers on the ground.
This first sheet shows 1. Margaret Scott, 2. Olive Hockin, 3. Margaret McFarlane, 6. Rachel Peace, alias Jane Short, 7. Mary Gertrude Ansell 8. Maud Brindley.

The ID list was also circulated to potential targets. This list was supplied to the Wallace Collection art gallery in London after curators feared they would come under attack.
Pictured are 11. Mary Richardson 12. Lillian Lenton, alias May Dennis 13. Kitty Marion, 15. Miss Johansen 16. Clara Giveen 17. Jennis Baines.

The police photographers showed no preference in whom was placed under surveillance. If they were considered a threat, they were photographed, followed and watched.
But the suffragettes had sophisticated tactics. Nellie Taylor (picture 4) used the alias Mary Wyan while Annie Bell (picture 5) had two alter egos – Hannah Booth and Elizabeth Bell.

That first photographer, Mr A Barrett, sat quietly in a van, snapping away as the women walked around Holloway Prison’s yards, according to the documents.

On the outside, detectives compiled photographic lists of key suspects, the aim being to stop arson attacks, window-smashings or the dramatic scenes of women chaining themselves to Parliament’s railings.

“The police got quite good. They would even send people along to meetings to take pictures and notes of what was being said,” says Ms Tulloch.

“They eventually put an officer in plain clothes and on a motorbike to try and keep up. He was able to make some notes but failed to keep up with the suffragettes because he had not been given a bike with an automatic starter motor.”

At Manchester Prison, the authorities used the technique to snap infamous window-smashers Evelyn Manesta and Lillian Forrester.

When the results were disappointing, the records suggest another attempt was made to coerce the women into posing.

Evelyn Manesta resisted and eventually a guard was used to restrain her around the neck. But when the photograph was reproduced in the official rogue’s gallery, it had been doctored – replacing the arm with a fashionable lady’s scarf.

In prison, the civil disobedience continued. When Evelyn Manesta, one of the Manchester suffragettes refused to pose for a picture, a guard was brought in to restrain her in front of the camera.

But when the photograph of Evelyn Manesta appeared, the arm had been removed. The photographer had acted on official instructions to doctor the photograph so that it would be less controversial.

Gallery panic

Back in London, the nation’s greatest art collections were nervous after suffragettes slashed the National Gallery’s Rokeby Venus in March 1914.


We still have her suffragette plaque and brooch and I remember as a child how my mother and grandmother would bring them out and explain to me their significance

The private Wallace Collection gallery appealed to Scotland Yard for help, and detectives supplied their list of London’s most wanted – almost all of the pictures secretly taken.

One of the women on the list, Kitty Marion, went on to become one of the most celebrated of the suffragettes as she endured more than 200 force-feedings in prison while on hunger strike.

“On the one hand, the state considered them dangerous terrorists, but on the other it simply did not know what to do with them,” says Ms Tulloch.”

The police and prison officials were so worried about what to do they made sure that every step they took was authorised by the Home Office. In the records you can find daily communications between the governor of Holloway Prison and Whitehall. In that era it was extremely rare for government to communicate so quickly.”

But the police surveillance did nothing to stop the movement – nor did it dim the growing support they were finding in the country. While the photographs presented the women as dangerous subversives, press photographs uncovered by the National Archives also exposed what some newspapers- particularly the Daily Mirror – regarded as police and mob brutality.

“I think we take for granted what they fought for,” says Ms Tulloch. “One of the images we found shows a lone woman on a cart, surrounded by 1,000 men.

“Today, she would be on a podium, surrounded by supporters in an organised event. No doubt many of those men would be telling her what to do – go home and feed the kids. The courage these women showed was remarkable.”


Message for the young of america

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

18-29 7%
30-34 18%
45-59 31%
60+ 44%

Young people of america, those numbers should frighten you.

They are the demographic of the people who voted John McCain to victory in Florida.

They are the generation that squeezed the sweet juice out of the orange that was america, and that wants to leave you with the empty orange peel to smell as your legacy. You will not even have the seeds to plant new trees for yourselves. They had america at its best, at its most free. They used it up, squeezed it dry and now that its all over, they want you to clean up the mess for the rest of your lives.

Indeed, they want you to give up your very life. That is how little they think of you.

These are the people who are voting for a man that wants to draft you into the army; 25% of the people voting in florida will be eligible for military service under new legislation, and John McCain has guaranteed you that there will be more wars, and that america will be in Iraq for up to 100 years.

That means you and your children will be paying with your blood.

You will also be paying with your labor. There is no money for you in the social security program as it stands, and the old people of today, the 45% of voters in Florida want someone in charge who is going to ‘take care of the seniors’. What this means is that you are going to be enslaved in a system that uses all of your work to finance social security and the endless wars that have guaranteed to come by all the candidates save one.

This is not fear-mongering, but common knowledge, being shouted from the rooftops by people who normally stay in the background. The crisis is real, and there are only two ways out for you; Revolution or retreat.

You can stay put, pay as you have been paying and run headlong into disaster and senseless death with all the other people who are not awake, or you can foment revolution and stop the insanity from taking place. There is a deadline that once passed, means that there is nothing left for you to try, as the end has come. That deadline falls after November 2008.

I say to you, that if you have any sense at all, you should resolve right now that you will not provide any money for this insanity, no matter what the outcome. You must refuse to pay into or cooperate with an insane system that is heading towards disaster. It’s every man for himself, and all of us together. Run as fast as you can after November if the result is not Ron Paul as president. It is clear that Geriatric America is going to weigh down on you like nothing we have ever seen before, as they drink your blood and steal your money from you while they sit down in a geriatric fog, doing nothing other than commanding you by proxy.

These words may sound harsh, but they are less shrill than the sound of bombs dropping or ricochet bouncing around you tens of thousands of miles away from home.

There is a way to take care of everyone and stop the insane wars and unburden the young. This is not about disenfranchising people, or euthanasia, disrespect for the elderly or being cruel in any way. The old are a treasure in many ways and they are horribly treated, especially in america. This may go some way to explaining why they vote the way they do; they are shunted off into homes like discarded chairs and abandoned – its no wonder they vote for people who promise to look after them. Perhaps if american families were more like Italian and Indian families, i.e. large and cohesive not prone to abandon their parents. there would be less of a problem of abandoned old people. But I digress. If you thought any of that whilst reading the above, you can count yourself as one of the sleeping.

The future is uncertain, and unwritten. The fact that we have any hope at all in a time like this shows that the human spirit is not yet totally demolished by this unimaginable evil that has been unleashed in the world. We can still win. But we also have to understand the dynamics of what is happening, and should all the heroic efforts fail, fighting against the geriatric tyranny will be as useless as trying to use a soup spoon to bail out water from a burst Hoover Dam.

This is the reality; everyone has been warned about what is going to happen next; financial ruin and horrific wars on behalf of bankers and ‘elites’. Do you want to be a willing part of it by staying put and paying for it all to take place as if it is perfectly reasonable?

Make your plans for escape and final resistance now. Whatever shape they may take, you cannot reasonably be expected to go along with this madness. Other generations had their own war to resist, like VietNam, and in the end, the changes that particular generation desired did not come about. You cannot possibly want this to be your fate also; having seen the passion, the eloquence and the real sacrifices made by those people in the 1960s, our goal should be to succeed completely in the arena that they failed in. Our challenges are greater than theirs – they fought against a single war; we are fighting against a future of wars AND financial oblivion AND the elimination of the United States itself.

The bigger they come, the harder they fall.

The stakes are so high that failure is not an option. We must win either by solving the problem completely or escaping completely. There is no half measure, no compromise or work-around that will suffice. We have reached a point of physical impossibility, like trying to push a marble faster than the speed of light in normal space. We are at a point beyond which it is impossible to go without breaking all the laws of morality and nature.

If you do not take a stand and make a move, your very existence guarantees the horrors that are promised to you as your legacy. Every time you shop, every hour you work, every morsel you eat will prop up this monstrous system they are building.

We are all very lucky. We have recent history to guide us, a hero to lead us out of the crisis, the means to communicate at zero cost, and all the tools to make it happen. No other generation had this much power at their fingertips. If we blow it, or if it doesn’t work, or if something happens to stop us, it is unlikely that a better time will come around; certainly once the wars start, the country is dismantled and the money is gone we will not be starting at anywhere near such a good initial position – as bad as everything is today. It will be harder by orders of magnitude to fix everything if we miss this window, and certainly the once in 200 years personality will not be there to lead the cause, barring a miracle. Perhaps that is what it will take; a miracle in the face of an impossible scenario.

This really feels like the last chance, the last gasp. Looking at the candidates, their diseased ideologies and false posturing are a glimpse into the nightmare we will enter should we accept their governance in the event of a disastrous outcome.

I am not putting up with it, I can tell you that.

You should not tolerate it either.

Everyone will choose what they are going to do either way; what no one will be able to say is that they did not know, or that they were not warned, or that they were not given the opportunity to rectify the situation.

Back to work.

Leaked ID document with analysis

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

here it is:

download the entire document here.

Hear america arise from its slumber!

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

This is the sound of america waking up.

It is a beautiful sound.

These are the Real Americans™ that we all knew and loved.

They live!

Mitt and his Mormonism

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

Shall we scratch the surface of Mormonism?

17. Church Prejudice Against Blacks

From the translated scroll written by Abraham comes the important doctrine that descendants of Cain (taught by Mormons to be African-Americans) are unworthy to hold the priesthood, the authority to act in God’s name. This clearly racist policy was changed in 1978 through another “revelation.” While Blacks could always be baptized into the Mormon Church, up until 1978 they could not hold the priesthood. This excluded them from the “saving ordinances” of the temple, and thus kept them from exaltation as the Mormons defined it.

Consider the following declarations by church Prophets and Apostles:

President Brigham Young:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses 10:110)

President Joseph Fielding Smith:

“There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.” (Doctrines of Salvation, p. 61)

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:

“Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them… Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned…” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 343)

Apostle Mark E. Petersen:

“God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death…

“The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. “No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood” (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a “Nation of Priesthood holders…

“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth…We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…

“I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace’…

“Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…

“When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…

“Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…

“The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…

“Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing – what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

“Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa–if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.” (Apostle Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems – As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)


Apologist Response

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained how earlier statements by church leaders on African-Americans and the priesthood should be disregarded because their understanding was limited at the time:

“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

“We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, All Are Alike Unto God, pp. 1-2)

Marvin Perkins explained the Book of Mormon teaching that those “cursed” with a “skin of blackness” could remove the “curse” by coming unto God:

“There are Blacks here today who are members of the Church. Why have we not turned White? But there are Blacks who have joined the Church, married White spouse, and their children became lighter than their Black parents. Then those kids grew up to marry those that believe as they do, which most are White, so they married White, and their kids became even lighter, and so on. Makes you think a bit, doesn’t it? (Marvin Perkins, Blacks and the Priesthood, FAIR)”

President Spencer W. Kimball described the process through which the church decided to bestow all church privileges upon African-Americans:

“It went on for some time as I was searching for this, because I wanted to be sure. We held a meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the temple on the regular day. We considered this very seriously and thoughtfully and prayerfully.
“I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. I said, ‘now would you be willing to remain in the temple with us?’ And they were. I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn’t right, if He didn’t want this change to come in the Church that I would he true to it all the rest of my life, and I’d fight the world against it if that’s what He wanted.

“We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had come. I had a great deal to fight, of course, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, p. 19)

According to President Gordon B. Hinckley, he simply doesn’t know why Blacks were denied the priesthood until 1978:

“HN: Until 1978 no person of color attained the priesthood in your church. Why did it take so long to overcome the racism?

“GBH: I don’t know. I don’t know. I can only say that. (long pause) But it’s here now. We’re carrying on a very substantial work on Africa for instance and in Brazil. We’re working among their people developing them. We’ve had them among the leadership of the Church and they’re able to do a great work and we love them and appreciate them and we respect them and we are trying to help them.” (Gordon B. Hinckley Interview, ZDF German Television, Salt Lake City, Utah, January 29, 2002, Conducted by Helmut Nemetschek)


1. Book of Abraham
2. Kinderhook Plates
3. Plagiarism
4. Polygamy
5. Emotionality
6. Changing Doctrine
7. False Prophecies
8. Lying for the Lord
9. Treasure Hunt
10. Blood Atonement
11. Vain Ambitions
12. Defections
13. BOM Changes
14. BOM Population
15. Lamanite DNA
16. Critics Squelched
17. Black Prejudice
18. Nephi or Moroni?
19. Archeology
20. First Vision


You can believe whatever you like, and everyone can vote for whomever they like, based on whatever they like.

People are voting for Hillary Clinton because she has breasts. No doubt, people will not vote for Mitt Romney because, amongst other things, he is a Mormon.

There are many other, more clearly objectionable things about Romney, mainly that he is an unctuous, ignorant, warmongering, dishonest, secretive man, who will do nothing but drag america and the rest of the world further into the pit of hell.

Back to Mormonism, there are many resources out there describing how people have left this organization and it reads like the sort of thing ex Scientologists write.

And we continue…


Friction between Mormons and other other Christians has been present during the entire history of the LDS Church. There were a number of reasons why most Christians rejected the Mormon movement during the 19th century:

Their religious exclusivity, communal lifestyle, and “Mormons first and for themselves” lifestyle were criticized. Joseph Smith’s visions were rejected as frauds. Some of his theological teachings about the nature of God, structure of Heaven, requirements for salvation, history of the Americas, etc. were rejected as heresy. Plural marriage in particular was considered totally unacceptable behavior. Smith’s elevation of three writings to equality with the Bible was considered offensive. Smith’s new translation of the Bible was viewed as heretical. Smith’s political goals were viewed as threatening to his neighbors. They feared that he wanted to establish a theocracy.

The movement has been growing rapidly — on the order of 10% per decade — since it was founded. This is perceived by some Christian groups as a threat.

Today, even though plural marriage has been at least temporarily suspended for over a century, many of the above points of conflict continue. During the early years, opposition by other Christians was violent. Much blood was shed. Now, the battle it is a mainly war of words: The general meetings of the United Methodist Church, and Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Southern Baptist Convention have stated, in their opinion, the LDS is a denomination that is separate from the Christian religion:

The General Conference of the United Methodist Church approved a document on 2000-MAY-10: “Sacramental Faithfulness: Guidelines for Receiving People From the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)” The document says, in part, that:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by self-definition, does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith…[Mormons’] explicitly [profess] distinction and separateness from the ecumenical community.”

The document also recommends that individual Mormons first formally remove themselves from the LDS before seeking membership in the United Methodist Church. 1

According to a pamphlet produced by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

“…Mormonism is a new and emerging religious tradition distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of the Christian Church, of which Presbyterians are a part…Latter-day Saints understand themselves to be separate from the continuous witness to Jesus Christ, from the apostles to the present, affirmed by churches of the “catholic” tradition. Latter-day Saints and the historic churches view the canon of scriptures and interpret shared scriptures in radically different ways. They use the same words with dissimilar meanings. When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks of the Trinity, Christ’s death and resurrection, and salvation, the theology and practices related to these set it apart from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches.”

Presbyterians do not recognize the baptism administered to Mormons. A convert must be re-baptized. Similarly Presbyterians do not allow LDS officials to administer the Lord’s Supper.


LA Times, reporting on Governor Romney’s possible 2008 bid for the presidency, wrote  that: “Pastor Ted Haggard, [at the time] president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA) in Colorado Springs, CO said:

” ‘We evangelicals view Mormons as a Christian cult group. A cult group is a group that claims exclusive revelation. And typically, it’s hard to get out of these cult groups. And so Mormonism qualifies as that’.”

“In addition, Haggard said, evangelicals do not accept Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith as a prophet. ‘And we do not believe that the Book of Mormon has the same level of authority as the Bible,’ he said.”

“When Romney says that he accepts Jesus Christ as his savior, ‘we appreciate that,’ Haggard said. ‘But very often when people like Mormons use terms that we also use, there are different meanings in the theology behind those terms’.”


Hmmm “Messy” is one of the first words that comes to mind.

Once again, Romney, whatever he believes, cannot do the job because he is not a man of peace and reason. He is a man of deception, war and ignorance, with a palpable lust for power.

I would be very surprised if this doesnt become a huge issue for Mitt, even more than it has so far. Against Ron Paul it wont make a big impact, but in a theoretical contest between Romney and O-Bomb-a, the Mormon racist issue will explode.

Finally, the best description of why the Mormons accepted ‘Blacks’ is to be found here:

THE 1978 Revelation

In the early 1970s the Church was building a Temple in Sao Paulo, Brazil, only to discover that most white Brazilian men had at least one Negro ancestor. According to Church policy, white men with one Negro ancestor were under the Curse of Cain and could not hold the Priesthood. But, all of these white men had already been ordained to the Priesthood. What to do? If the priesthood-ban policy continued, it would disqualify 85% of white Brazilian Mormons from the Priesthood and the Higher Ordinances of the Temple, then being built in Sao Paulo.

President Spencer W. Kimball then spent many hours in the Upper Room (Holy of Holies) in the Salt Lake Temple, supplicating the LORD, and asking Him to remove the Curse of Cain from those with a Canaanite bloodline. The LORD accepted the supplications of his Prophet, and told Spencer W. Kimball that the curse upon the lineage was over. President Kimball decided to announce this on June 8th, 1978, seven years (to the day) that the Genesis Group of Black Latter-day Saints was founded by three black Mormons: Ruffin Bridgeforth Jr., Darius Gray, and Eugene Orr.

The Priesthood-ban Policy continued until June 8th, 1978, when it was recinded by Mormon Church President Spencer W. Kimball. Since then, black Mormons have all the same rights and blessings as any other Mormon.

June 8 1978
To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:
Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthod without regard for race and color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servznts, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,
The First Presidency


Note the last name on that list.

That site really is well worth a very close look.

The fact of the matter is that Mormons had trapped themselves by trying to expand their organization around the world. They could either cut off the Brazilians, Nigerians and all other people world wide (and all of their money) or admit their ‘religion’ is false. They took the third way; they changed the religion to suit their needs.

They are free to do so, and believe it, and act on it. Everyone else is also free to act on their beliefs and like I said above, to vote based on them, wether it be voting on breasts, skin color or against a ‘cult’.

Moron the idiocracy

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

the next installment of a very irregular ceries:

The latist:

and the previus

And moron the elecshun, a lurker forwards this gem:

The bad news is that my Dumkopf wife is voting for the Clintocracy……”I’ve got to support her because she is a woman”

so I said, “what about supporting the brotherman as opposed to the otherman” and she said I haven’t followed Obama I don’t know where he stands on the issues and I said the only thing Hillary Clinton stands for is supporting her man while he blows his load on the face of an intern….


‘Your’re fucked up, you talk like a fag, and your shit’s retarded.”

What took you so long?

Monday, January 28th, 2008

Chavez: Pull Reserves From US

Chavez Urges Latin American Allies to Move Reserves Out of US

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged his Latin American allies on Saturday to begin withdrawing billions of dollars in international reserves from U.S. banks, warning of a looming U.S. economic crisis.

Chavez made the suggestion as he hosted a summit aimed at boosting Latin American integration and rolling back U.S. influence.

“We should start to bring our reserves here,” Chavez said. “Why does that money have to be in the north? … You can’t put all your eggs in one basket.”

To help pool resources within the region, Chavez and other leaders launched a new development bank at the summit of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Nations of Our America, or ALBA.

The left-leaning regional trade alliance first proposed by Chavez is intended to offer an alternative, socialist path to integration while snubbing U.S.-backed free-trade deals.

Chavez noted that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Colombia in recent days, saying “that has to do with this summit.”

“The empire doesn’t accept alternatives,” Chavez told the gathering, attended by the presidents of Bolivia and Nicaragua and Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage.

Chavez warned that U.S. “imperialism is entering into a crisis that can affect all of us” and said Latin America “will save itself alone.”

Rice left Colombia on Friday after a trip aimed at reviving a free trade deal that has stalled in the U.S. Congress. She sidestepped an opportunity to confront Chavez, who accused Colombia and the United States of plotting “military aggression” against Venezuela.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega joined Chavez in his criticism of U.S.-style capitalism, saying “the dictatorship of global capitalism … has lost control.” Three days earlier, Ortega had shouted “Long live the U.S. government” as he inaugurated an American-financed section of highway in his country.

The ALBA Bank is “being born with the aim of boosting development in our countries,” Venezuelan Finance Minister Rafael Isea said Saturday as he and other officials gathered at the bank’s Caracas office for an inaugural ceremony.

Isea has said the bank will be started with $1 billion to $1.5 billion.

Chavez welcomed the Caribbean island of Dominica into the ALBA — an acronym that means “dawn” in Spanish — joining Nicaragua, Bolivia and Cuba. Attending as observers were the prime ministers of Antigua and Barbuda and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, along with officials from Ecuador, Honduras, Haiti and St. Kitts and Nevis.

Chavez said a new fund created by Venezuela and Iran to support projects in third countries would have links to the ALBA Bank.


These people are not very smart.

They should have done this years ago before the Iraq invacion (yes ‘invascion’), when it would have made a huge impact. Now that we have a man who could actually become their greatest ally, they want to accelerate the destruction of the USA and trigger the neocon Final Push at the very point at which the whole world could be saved by Ron Paul. Yes, I typed that.

Peanut brained imbeciles!

The complete absence of morality

Monday, January 28th, 2008

Leaked memos reveal ‘confusing’ ID card plans

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:14am GMT 28/01/2008

The future of the Government’s identity card scheme is in confusion as it emerged that plans for a national fingerprint database may be quietly dropped.

MAY be is not good enough, and an NIR without fingerprints is still a pernicious and evil thing, of a kind that the Soviets would have wet their pants over…if they had the power to conceive of such a system.

At the same time, it appears that ministers are considering introducing a compulsory ID scheme by stealth, with plans that would require young people to obtain a card before being granted a driving licence.

We have said many times before, a driving license is a document certificate that proves you are competent to drive at a certain level, certain classes of vehicle. It should be used for nothing other than that, and what this immoral degenerate government is doing is a classic example of feature creep. Driving licenses are about road safety and nothing more.

The proposals were disclosed in two leaked Home Office documents and expose the lack of agreement within the Government over the extent to which ministers should continue with the commitment to ID cards.

A confidential document produced by the Home Office Identity and Passport Service and revealed in The Observer said: “We should test for each group we enrol whether the cost of fingerprints is justified by the use to which they will be put.”

First of all, these are the documents that we know about; heaven knows what else they have been discussing in secret. And of course they are doing it all in secrete because they instinctively know that what they are doing is evil and immoral. If any of this were of benefit to the public it would be done in public.

Secondly, the cost of fingerprinting is irrelevant, and once they go into any database, the use to which they will be put will always lead to a secondary use. Secondary use is one of the major, and most significant complaints about the NIR and ID cards, and not surprisingly, it is missed by the venal monsters who are in charge of cooking the witches pot of this scheme.

Asking people for their fingerprints so they can get a driving license is absurd; having someone’s fingerprints will not increase their skill as a driver, and it will not prevent accidents. None of these ‘security’ measures reduce crime. This is now a well established fact.

If you want to reduce traffic accidents, you make it easier to get driving licenses. Remove the barriers to people taking lessons and getting a license. There will be more skilled drivers on the road, less unlicensed drivers and a safer road system. But of course, ministers don’t care about road safety, they are desirous only of control over the individual at the minute by minute level, and they are, by their own language, looking for any way to get everyone on the database.

I 100% guarantee you that other, yet to be disclosed, leaked, secret documents state the following:

“…it is not imperative that we take fingerprints now; if we hold off on that part of the scheme, we still get a complete database and we can them include universal fingerprinting when that technology has improved. The increase in efficacy of fingerprinting technology in the future will help us make the case for it, and of course, everyone will already be conditioned to being on the NIR”.

You see?

A separate memo obtained by The People appears to contradict Gordon Brown’s insistence that ID cards will remain voluntary for everyone but foreigners living in the UK.

Headed “Options Analysis”, it says: “Various forms of coercion, such as designation of the application process for identity documents issued by UK ministers (eg passports) are an option to stimulate applications in a manageable way.

You see how they use the word ‘coercion’? Not persuasion, but:

co·er·cion /ko???r??n/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-ur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

This is what the NIR and ID cards is all about: the use of totalitarian government force to enslave the population.

“There are advantages to designation of documents associated with particular target groups, eg young people who may be applying for their first driving licence.”

The document adds that “universal compulsion should not be used unless absolutely necessary”.

Meaning that they need to have a pretext to bring it in? Like a ‘terrorist’ attack or some bogus emergency condition, or some crisis, like too many Eastern european people ‘clogging up the system’.

Once again, these problems can be solved without an NIR and ID cards. If you close the borders to all EU nationals, then the flow will be stemmed. But that is another question for another post.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: “The Government has seen their ID card proposals stagger from shambles to shambles. Now they plan to use coercion in a desperate attempt to bolster a failed policy.”

And you are going to do what? We still have not heard a commitment to the abolition of the NIR and the repealing of all biometric passports from the Tories. Do correct me if I am wrong about that.

Shami Chakrabarti, of the human rights group Liberty, added: “So much for a voluntary scheme. This leaked memo confirms what we have already known – that compulsion is the ultimate ambition of this scheme.”

I am not in the fan club of Liberty I am afraid, but their website has an interesting piece of history:

Liberty was founded in 1934 as the National Council for Civil Liberties, principally to monitor the policing of protests.

NCCL (renamed Liberty in 1989) has campaigned to protect and promote rights and freedoms for over 70 years.

Our founder, Ronald Kidd, created the Council because he was concerned about the use of police agent provocateurs to incite violence during the hunger marches of 1932.

President of the first Council was E.M. Forster, with vice-presidents including Clement Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, A.A. Milne, J.B. Priestley and Bertrand Russell.

With the UK’s complicity with torture and threats to privacy, free speech and protest rights in the news daily, over 70 years later, Liberty’s work is far from over.

As we have seen, using agent provocateurs is a long standing technique used by the police to create a pretext for clamping down on protest. That is another reason why demonstrating in the street is not only useless, it is dangerous. In the past, where it was impossible for people to communicate to millions of citizens unless you were working on a newspaper (and hence effectively neutered) demonstrations were necessary to literally rally support and act as a show of strength; to connect people to each other, to spread information rapidly and efficiently. Now of course, all of that can be done without going anywhere, at no cost. You also take away the enemy’s opportunity to spark off fake violence and induct the leaders into the police information systems, mischaracterize the legitimate concerns of fed up citizens and deflate movement.

A Home Office spokesman said: “When developing policy, it is right and logical that our first priority is to consider where ID cards can be of greatest benefit to the UK and to the individual.”



And there you have the mentality of these monsters perfectly encapsulated in a single sentence. Note that the person who said it is unnamed, so fterrified are they that their words will come back to haunt them.

These people are unaccountable, working in secret, without a care for the rights of the people for whom they work and to whom they are responsible.

This scheme is doomed to failure. The number of people who are now saying that they will not comply with it is growing every day. That they are still wasting time and money on it is a scandal.

Hussein Cahalayan

Sunday, January 27th, 2008


And in motion

Ministers admit ContactPoint system ‘too risky’ for the famous

Saturday, January 26th, 2008

By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
Last Updated: 2:04am GMT 26/01/2008

The security of the online computer system used by more than three hundred thousand people to view the private details of children is in doubt after HM Government admitted it was not secure enough to be used by MPs, celebrities and the Royal Family.

Thousands of “high profile” people have been secretly removed from the ContactPoint system amid concerns that their confidential details would be put at risk.

This provoked anger from consumer groups and accountants who said the same levels of security should be offered to all British children regardless of their perceived fame.

HMRC was responsible for losing 25 million child benefit records and the latest admission will concern millions of people entrusting the online system with their confidential financial records.


ContactPoint has a list of those excluded from the new rules who must have their records kept on hard copies for “security reasons”.

Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to use the electronic system to make the Jan 31 deadline this week.

ContactPoint records contain children’s names, addresses, parent details, doctor details and other sensitive personal information, – all valuable to paedophiles.

On Friday, senior doctors said they had concerns over the security of the system – apparently confirmed by the the Government’s secret policy.

Mike Warburton, of the General Medical Council, said: “Either ContactPoint is a system which can guarantee confidentiality for all or they should defer plans to roll it out. It is extraordinary that MPs and others can enjoy higher security.”

Mark Wallace, of the Dr. Barnardos charity, said: “This double standard is unacceptable. If the online system is not secure enough for MPs, why should ordinary taxpayers have to put up with it?”

The system was uncovered by the Tory MP Andrew Robathan, who received a letter saying his children’s records could not be found online. He challenged ministers.

“Given our discussions on the efficiency of HMRC recently, how come I have also been sent a letter from my doctor saying I cannot find my children online?”

Jane Kennedy, a Treasury minister, told him: “There are categories of individual for whom security is a higher priority. Not just MPs – there are several categories – and HMRC does not have the facilities for their children to be placed online.”



This statement means that Jane Kennedy believes that there is a way to create a higher security system for celebrities and MPs that depends only on facilities and not the nature of data or databases!!!!!!


In a statement to The Daily Telegraph, ContactPoint confirmed the policy. “ContactPoint services are designed with security as an integral part of the service. We use leading technologies and encryption software to safeguard data and operate strict security standards.

“A tiny minority of individuals’ records, including MPs, have extra security measures over and above the very high standards of confidentiality with which ContactPoint treats all childrens’ data.

“The separate arrangements mean their doctors are unable to use the online service.”

The extra security applies to those in the public eye. Their details are thought to be stored on a highly-restricted database with extra levels of security.

ContactPoint stressed that all childrens’ details were secure.



And there you have it.

Ron Paul, ‘The Silver Fox’

Saturday, January 26th, 2008

The Florida debate threw up a fascinating situation when Ron Paul asked John McCain a question:

McCain stumbles over Ron Paul’s question. He didn’t answer it because he had no clue what the Ron was talking about and has little knowledge of the way the economy works. The entire time answering the question he just named people he would have in his administration if he were elected and avoided the question.

Transcript of Ron Paul’s Question and McCain’s answer.

“My question is for Senator McCain. This is an economic question that I want to ask. It has to do with the President’s working group on financial markets. I’d like to know what your opinion is of this and whether you would keep it in place, what their role would be. Or would you get rid of this group? And if you kept the group, would you make sure that we’d see some sunlight and know what they’re doing and how they are being involved with our markets?” – Ron Paul

“Well obviously we would like to see more sunshine but I as President, like every other President, rely primarily on my Secretary of Treasury, on my Council of Economic Advisors and Head of that and I would rely on circle that I have had developed over many years of ..people like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Warren Ruddman, Pete Peterson and the Concord Group. I have a process of leadership, Ron, that is sort of an Inclusive one that I have developed a circle of acquintances and and people who are supporters and friends of mine whom I worked with for many many years.” – McCain

“You get rid of this group.” – Ron

“You remember, in 1982, Phil Gramm and Warren Ruddman and Graham and all those people got the first real tax cuts done… The Real first restraints in Taxes. I was there. You were there. I rely on those people to a much larger degree than any “formal” organization. Although the Secretary of Treasury is one the Key and important post that I would have.” – McCain

This demonstrates several things, one of them being the McCain supporter that I met at random, “birds of a feather flock together”.

First of all, lets get some information:


January 26, 2008 — Republican White House hopeful Ron Paul has made shining some light on the secretive President’s Working Group on Financial Markets – better known as the “Plunge Protection Team” – his pet cause.

The Texas congressman brought up the issue at Thursday night’s Republican debate in Florida. Paul asked candidate John McCain whether he would keep the Working Group and if the Arizona senator would open it up in order for the public to see how it works.


On Wednesday, Paul indicated that the Working Group may have had something to do with that day’s nearly 300-point stock market rally.

“Rep. Paul believes the [Working Group] wields a heck of a lot of influence and operates without public scrutiny and with no accountability,” a spokesman said. “Sen. McCain seemed to indicate in his answer that he didn’t know what the group was.”



That is news to me, and I would imagine, the majority of people.

John McCain claims that he is fit to ‘run the economy’. Clearly this is not the case.

Ron Paul, even with all of his knowledge of the inner workings of the executive and his vast experience and deep understanding expounded in the many essays and books he has authored and co authored admits that he does not know how to run the economy.

As you can see, John McCain has a long laundry list of people who he would use to tell him what to do once he gets into office. The Washington Post had an unpleasant shock at the level of ignorance of this man:

At a recent meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Republican presidential candidate John McCain admitted he “doesn’t really understand economics” and then pointed to his adviser and former Senate colleague, Phil Gramm – whom he had brought with him to the meeting – as the expert he turns to on the subject, The Huffington Post has learned.

The incident was confirmed by a source familiar with the proceedings of the meeting.

On the campaign trail, McCain has often made light of his lack of economic policy understanding. But his concern over such a shortcoming may be even greater then he has suggested.

This is not the first time McCain has turned to Gramm as a buffer for criticism of his economic views – or lack thereof. Gramm, who regards himself as a budget-balancing, anti-government spending Republican, was brought on board a sputtering McCain campaign last summer. Since then, McCain has staged a political recovery and is now a serious contender for the GOP nomination.


Even as far back as 2005, McCain was admitting that he lacked depth in economic policy. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, columnist Stephen Moore offered a probing and at times blunt assessment of McCain’s economic policies. “[He] readily departs from Reaganomics,” Moore wrote. “His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tells me: “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

And to whom did McCain tell Moore he turns to for advise? “His foremost economic guru,” wrote the columnist, “is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration).”

McCain’s office did not return multiple requests for comment. The Wall Street Journal, as a company policy, does not comment on meetings that take place privately with their editorial board.

“People around the table were sort of taken back,” said the source . “They thought McCain would have better answers.”



The truth of the matter is, the ‘factor of influencability’ of John McCain is the square of the number of people he relies upon to advise him what his policy should be in any particular area. That means that he is many times more vulnerable to being turned into an unwitting puppet, working at the behest of special interests.

Ron Paul on the other hand, is not only an intellectual, giving him ample protection from the pernicious influence of advisors, but more importantly he is constrained by The Constitution so no matter what people bring to him as solutions to a problem, if it is not within the remit of the executive, it will not be acted upon.

This debate shows perfectly why McCain is unfit for office. It demonstrates once again, that Ron Paul outclasses all the other candidates. Romney, the buyer of influence whose campaign finances are secret, Guliani, the giggling warmongering booster of ID cards, Huckabee, who is as unqualified as McCain with the extra added taint of Religion™ – none of these men compare in knowledge, substance or quality of character to Ron Paul.

This debate gave us another glimpse at the profound change that would be unleashed by a Paul Presidency. It is clear that this highly intelligent man is the greatest threat to the established order that has been seen for a very long time.

And to think, this is only the beginning!

A sober one to watch

Friday, January 25th, 2008

This blog, which is on our blogroll, is a sober voice to pay attention to:

Identity cards might not become compulsory for all Britons, Gordon Brown has appeared to suggest [at his monthly press conference].

Anyone getting a passport from 2010 will have to get a card, and ministers had said they would be compulsory for all if Labour won the next election.

But, in an apparent softening of that line, Mr Brown described compulsion only as an “option” which is “open”.

The press conference:

Do you think that in the medium to long term, to be effective, ID cards will need to be compulsory for British citizens?
Prime Minister:
That is the option that we have left ourselves open to but we haven’t legislated for it. [yet!]

I think over the course of the next few months people will see that there is some wisdom in the argument that we have put forward for identity cards themselves. If you look at the information that we are asking people to give for their identity card it is not much more than is actually required for a passport, but the advantage people have from an identity card is that that information cannot be used without biometric identification. So that is why we are starting with the foreign nationals and that is why we will move further, linking if you like passport information to biometrics over the course of the next few years, but we leave open a parliamentary vote on the decision about compulsion.

Well, there are all sorts of lies/mistakes in that response, such as the information to be stored* (or see BBC), and not answering the question, but let’s consider the issue of compulsion because this seems to be the hot potato at the moment.

Take care not to get drawn into whether or not ID cards will themselves become compulsory, because I think that as well as a ’softening of the tone’ as Phil Booth of NO2ID put it (indeed, perhaps Gordon is softening us up), we are being enticed on a wild goose chase – they don’t want us to consider or argue about what we should be concerned about.

And this is the National Register, the privacy demolishing database behind the cards (based on something that doesn’t function 100% at present).

(Not only because of the argument below, and that it is overkill, infringes on civil liberties, and probably won’t work, but also because here opponents to ID cards can find some common ground with supporters of the principle of ID cards but not this particular proposal.)

Once you are enrolled on the National Register, you are the card, in a sense – in other words, on accessing a service, you could just use a fingerprint or PIN. The card is surplus to requirements, really, unless it’s useful in circumstances to be able to simply show one (the lowest level of security envisaged by the Government’s proposals).

That said, it seems to me at least that Labour’s plan has always been to make ID cards compulsory: the IPS website is unequivocal (”Yes, it will eventually be compulsory”); Home Secretaries are unequivocal (”When we announced the decision, in principle, in November 2003 to introduce ID cards, it was made clear then that there would be a two-stage scheme. It was stated that the second stage would be compulsory—that it would apply to every UK resident”); Home Office Ministers too (”It is the Government’s policy that ID cards should eventually be compulsory”).

In short, it has been a fairly consistent public position of Labour’s.
I say fairly consistent… well, try Googling for “id cards compulsory”, taken together the first two results are amusing: the first article says, “Compulsory ID cards ruled out”; the second, “Move towards compulsory ID cards”; the two stories being just four months apart.
But if you read a lot of articles about ID cards, you’ll see these changes over time, and I think you’ll come to the same conclusion as me: that the intention is to make sure we are all enrolled on the National Register.

And we will be enrolled when we renew or apply for ‘designated documents‘. A designated document might be a passport – it could also be a driving licence, any ‘document’ the Home Secretary designates (after being approved by Parliament).
The Explanatory Notes to the Act say,

If a document is designated, anyone applying for one will simultaneously need to apply to be entered in the Register, unless he is already so registered (see section 5(2)). He would also need to apply for an ID Card unless he already has one. There is, however, an exception to the requirement to apply for an ID Card where the designated document being applied for is a British passport and the application is made before 1st January 2010 (see subsection 6(7)). …
Under subsection (7) an application for a designated document must include an application for an ID card in the manner prescribed unless the application is being made before 1st January 2010, is for a British passport and the application contains a declaration that the individual does not wish to be issued with an ID Card. Individuals applying for British passport can therefore choose to ‘opt out’ of being issued with an ID Card but only up until 1st January 2010. The ‘opt out’ does not apply to the Register. All individuals who apply for a passport will be required to be entered onto the Register once the passport becomes a designated document.

In short, once passports become ‘designated documents’, you can opt out of being issued with an ID card until 2010, but you will nevertheless be compelled to enrol on the National Register.

Question Time (BBC):

  • Mr Cameron asked if it was still government policy that ID cards would be compulsory for all. He read out a quote from Chancellor Alistair Darling, who said: “I do not want my whole life to be reduced to a magnetic strip on a plastic card.”The Tory leader added: “Compared with being Chancellor in his government being a magnetic strip on a plastic card is probably a welcome relief.”
  • If it was the policy of the government to press for compulsion, why did the PM say in an interview with The Observer that they would not be compulsory for existing British citizens, Mr Cameron asked the prime minister.
  • Mr Brown said he had made those comments because there had to be a vote in Parliament before they became compulsory. He asked if Mr Cameron supported identity cards for foreign nationals, which are being introduced this year.
  • Mr Cameron said he was against compulsory ID cards and asked why Mr Brown could not give a straight answer to the question.
  • “It is the government’s policy to move ahead with this,” said Mr Brown, depending on a vote in Parliament and how the voluntary scheme works.
  • Gordon does want compulsory ID cards and National Register enrolment for British citizens. It is that simple.
    He told the Observer that, “under our proposals there is no compulsion for existing British citizens”. As you can see, that is not the truth. (see also Guardian and Telegraph)

    * note however that this has gone from being “no more” or “the same as” with passports, or simply and merely “core identity information”, to “not much more” than “actually” required for a passport, honest guv.


    I would like a Word Press plugin that scanned our blogroll and perhaps a list of RSS feeds, put summaries into WPadmin so that BLOGDIAL authors can cherry pick from them to save us copying pasting clicking and indenting manually.

    In fact, the ultimate tool to do this would be a bundle for Textmate, that imports a list of posts and summaries as a new document with a ‘fetch’ keyboard shortcut, thereafter allowing another keyboard shortcut to present you with a ‘context selector’ of all the recent posts (like when you hit command shift b to turn a document into a blog post) so that you can import the post and then work with it. No doubt there will be more clever ways to present these lists, but the fact remains that we spend alot of time manually cross posting for comment and analysis and its a PITA that could be eliminated.

    No student loan without ID card

    Friday, January 25th, 2008

    Students will be “blackmailed” into holding identity cards in order to apply for student loans, the Tories have warned.

    According to Home Office documents leaked to the Conservative party last night, those applying for student loans will be forced to hold identity cards to get the funding from 2010.

    Anyone aged 16 or over will be expected to obtain a card – costing up to £100 – to open a bank account or apply for a student loan.

    The document says: “We should issue ID cards to young people to assist them as they open their first bank account, take out a student loan, etc.”

    The only ‘difficulty’ in opening a bank account these days is the insistence on ‘official’ identification, and that requirement was a result of government legislation rather than the banks. It is quite simple to verify if a student attends a college or university by liaising with the admissions department, the combination of a university issued card and letter of enrolment should suffice.

    Unfortunately these children will probably have been inured to the various incursions into their ‘privacy’ that we have all read about – metal detectors at school entrances, fingerprinting to use library books or at registration, etc.

    The government had planned to start issuing the ID cards to people applying for a passport from 2010, but confidential documents confirm that the scheme will be delayed to at least 2012.

    Not good enough, especially if the NIR ‘linked databases’ are being bedded-in anywa before then, and ‘voluntary’ cards issued almost immediately.

    The biometric cards are due to be introduced for foreign nationals later this year, with the first expected to be issued to UK citizens on a voluntary basis from 2009.

    As you see ‘2012’ is a red herring.

    From next year, they will also be issued to people in “positions of trust” such as airport workers.

    Edit to add: The government should also not be directly intervening in the terms of employment between a person and a private company. At most a private company that operates in a ‘secure environment’ should demonstrate the principle and efficacy of the company’s security audits when it tenders for its contract. As we know ID cards and biometric databases tell you nothing of a person’s intentions and as such should not be a condition of employment in any case.

    The revelations have led to concerns that the government is planning to collect the fingerprints and other biometric details of more than two million young people entering higher education each year by stealth.

    This is so ridiculous that anyone should see that the ‘need’ to create such a database is non-existant

    Shadow immigration minister Damian Green called the plans “straightforward blackmail” to bolster “a failing policy”.

    … and we reaffirm our commitment to dismantle the project completely?!?

    “This is an outrageous plan. The government has seen its ID cards proposals stagger from shambles to shambles. They are clearly trying to introduce them by stealth.”

    Indeed, they are so unpalatable that they would be rejected outright otherwise.


    The ‘dumbing down’ or ‘Why you should Home Educate’

    Friday, January 25th, 2008

    Dumbing down: the proof (may have to register)
    Issue: 27 November 2004

    As a service to Spectator readers who still have any doubts about the decline in educational standards, we are printing these exam papers taken by 11-year-olds applying for places to King Edward’s School in Birmingham in 1898.


    1. Write out in your best handwriting:-

    ‘O Mary, go and call the cattle home,
    And call the cattle home,
    And call the cattle home,
    Across the sands o’ Dee.’
    The western wind was wild and dank with foam,
    And all alone went she.

    The western tide crept up along the sand,
    And o’er and o’er the sand,
    And round and round the sand,
    As far as eye could see.
    The rolling mist came down and hid the land –
    And never home came she.

    2. Parse fully ‘And call the cattle home.’

    3. Explain the meaning of o’ Dee, dank with foam, western tide, round and round the sand, the rolling mist.

    4. Write out separately the simple sentences in the last two lines of the above passage and analyse them.

    5. Write out what you consider to be the meaning of the above passage.


    1. On the outline map provided, mark the position of Carlisle, Canterbury, Plymouth, Hull, Gloucester, Swansea, Southampton, Worcester, Leeds, Leicester and Norwich; Morecambe Bay, The Wash, Solent, Menai Straits and Lyme Bay; St Bees Head, The Naze, Lizard Point; the rivers Trent and Severn; Whernside, the North Downs, and Plinlimmon; and state on a separate paper what the towns named above are noted for.

    2. Where are silver, platinum, tin, wool, wheat, palm oil, furs and cacao got from?

    3. Name the conditions upon which the climate of a country depends, and explain the reason of any one of them.

    4. Name the British possessions in America with the chief town in each. Which is the most important?

    5. Where are Omdurman, Wai-Hei-Wai, Crete, Santiago, and West Key, and what are they noted for?


    1. Write in columns the nominative singular, genitive plural, gender, and meaning of:- operibus, principe, imperatori, genere, apro, nivem, vires, frondi, muri.

    2. Give the comparative of noxius, acer, male, diu; the superlative of piger, humilis, fortiter, multum; the English and genitive sing. of solus, uter, quisque.

    3. Write these phrases in a column and put opposite to each its Latin: he will go; he may wish; he had; he had been; he will be heard; and give in a column the English of fore, amatum, regendus, monetor.

    4. Give in columns the perfect Indic. and active supine of ago, pono, dono, cedo, jungo, claudo.

    Mention one example each of verbs followed by the nominative, the accusative, the genitive, the dative, the ablative.

    5. Translate into Latin:-

    1. The general’s little son was loved by the soldiers.
    2. Let no bodies be buried within this city.
    3. Ask Tullius who found the lions.
    4. He said that the city had been taken, and, the war being finished, the forces would return.
    6. Translate into English:-

    Exceptus est imperatoris adventus incredibili honore atque amore: tum primum enim veniebat ab illo Aegypti bello. Nihil relinquebatur quod ad ornatum locorum omnium qua iturus erat excogitari posset.


    1. What kings of England began to reign in the years 871, 1135, 1216, 1377, 1422, 1509, 1625, 1685, 1727, 1830?

    2. Give some account of Egbert, William II, Richard III, Robert Blake, Lord Nelson.

    3. State what you know of – Henry II’s quarrel with Becket, the taking of Calais by Edward III, the attempt to make Lady Jane Grey queen, the trial of the Seven bishops, the Gordon riots.

    4. What important results followed – the raising of the siege of Orleans, the Gunpowder plot, the Scottish rebellion of 1639, the surrender at Yorktown, the battles of Bannockburn, Bosworth, Ethandune, La Hogue, Plassey, and Vittoria?

    5. How are the following persons connected with English History,- Harold Hardrada, Saladin, James IV of Scotland, Philip II of Spain, Frederick the Elector Palatine?


    1. Multiply 642035 by 24506.

    2. Add together £132 4s. 1d., £243 7s. 2d., £303 16s 2d., and £1.030 5s. 3d.; and divide the sum by 17. (Two answers to be given.)

    3. Write out Length Measure, and reduce 217204 inches to miles.

    4. Find the G.C.M. of 13621 and 159848.

    5. Find, by Practice, the cost of 537 things at £5 3s. 71/2d. each.

    6. Subtract 37/16 from 51/4; multiply 63/4 by 5/36; divide 43/8 by 11/6; and find the value of 21/4 of 12/3 of 13/5.

    7. Five horses and 28 sheep cost £126 14s., and 16 sheep cost £22 8s.; find the total cost of 2 horses and 10 sheep.

    8. Subtract 3.25741 from 3.3; multiply 28.436 by 8.245; and divide .86655 by 26.5.

    9. Simplify 183/4 – 22/3 ÷ 11/5 – 31/2 x 4/7.

    10. Find the square root of 5,185,440,100.

    11. Find the cost of papering the walls of a room 16ft long, 13ft 6in. wide, and 9ft high, with paper 11/2ft wide at 2s. 3d. a piece of 12yds in length.

    12. A and B rent a number of fields between them for a year, the rent and other expenses amounting to £108 17s. 6d. A puts in 2 horses, 5 oxen and 10 sheep; and B puts in 4 horses, 1 ox, and 27 sheep. If a horse eats as much as 3 sheep and an ox as much as 2 sheep, how much should A and B each pay?

    These papers were kindly sent in by Humphrey Stanbury, whose father took the exam, and passed.


    The image at the top is from this site:

    A standard 1954 civics test on the U.S. Constitution on which student Kenny Hignite received a 981/2% score.

    You will remember Naomi Wolf and our post about her:

    Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree – domestically – as many other nations.

    Only the weak minded and people who never watched Star Trek re-runs have a hard time ‘considering’ this. This person is of the exact age she needed to be to have this built in apprehension. Also, the American Constitution and its founding fathers designed the country SPECIFICALLY to stop the emergence of tyranny; every REAL american understands that ALL government, ESPECIALLY your own is capable of turning to tyranny. Americans of her generation were taught about this ever-present danger in great clarity; everyone who did ’social studies’ class was given lessons in this, in healthy distrust of government. it is bewildering that an american of that age can even say this.

    Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government

    You did, and you forgot!


    I wonder if Kenny Hignite remembered his ‘Social Studies’ lessons in his adulthood and realized that his country was being dismantled. Even if he did not have a full grasp of the meaning of everything in that exam, he was able to memorize all the facts and reproduce them on the day of the exam in fairly neat handwriting; I know a ten year old and an eight year old who have better handwriting by the way.

    I am of the opinion that the principles of freedom, the very core ideas of it are what need to be instilled in the young, and they need to be fully understood before you start talking about government. That is the only way you can be fully prepared and made to see clearly just how unjust and bad government is.

    This is the threat that the Germans understand fully; Home Schoolers produce people that are able to think for themselves in ways that are unpredictable, non standard and, to them, undesirable. The Buskeros child simply walked away from the detention centre where she was being held, reminiscent of the scene in THX-1138 where the two felons and the hologram penetrate the infinite white void and SEN, astonished says, “nothing stopped us!”. This is the ultimate nightmare for all governments; the tipping point when people understand that their cage is an imaginary one and that there is no one there to stop them from being free.

    Of course the Germans are insane for suppressing Home Schoolers; it is precisely those people who create the greatest most imaginative works in the future.

    What We Said

    Thursday, January 24th, 2008

    Only 2 years late

    A piece on NIR and ID cards in light of the latest delay tactics of Grodon Broon.,,2245836,00.html

    “I’m optimistic that even if it starts to roll out, at some point down the line this is all going to start to fall apart,” says Neil Gerrard, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, and a sharp critic of the
    plans. “I think it’ll be disputed by the courts. If you reach a point where somebody is being told, ‘You cannot be issued with a passport because you have not put your name on the register’, you’re bound to get human rights challenges to that.

    The link at top to a Blogdial post in early ’06 addressed the problem thusly…

    I refuse an ID card, I will be unable to get a passport.

    If I cannot get a passport, I am for all intents and purposes interned in my own country.

    My government cannot deny my travel and/or entry and exit to my own country.

    Therefore it follows: passports must not be required for a British citizen to transit UK borders.

    Could this last part be true?

    After hounding HMG / HMRC for a while with no answer forthcoming we are left with two possibilities.

    Either they don’t know the answer, or they don’t want anyone to know the answer.

    In the same piece, Nick Clegg shows signs of being coloured LibDem Yella (sic);

    When we meet in his Westminster office, I read the quote out to him. Does he stand by it? “Well,” he says, “the first thing I’ll do, of course, is argue against the legislation.”

    OK. But if Labour win the next election and the watershed moment of universal compulsion arrives, what then? He pauses. “I’m going to effectively lead by example. I just cannot envisage the circumstances in which I would, by compulsion, give up my data.”


    Here’s a crass but unavoidable question, then. Would you go to jail?

    “Well, I mean … I’d be prepared to go to court. I guess it would start with fines. We don’t know what the sanctions are going to be, but I can’t take my position – that I’m not going to accept
    compulsion even if it’s written into primary legislation – unless I’m prepared to face the sanctions.”

    He agrees that all this represents a big step, happily acknowledging that some of his colleagues advised him against it. His young staff make a point of reminding me that imprisonment would mean that their boss would have to give up his parliamentary seat. But is he really
    prepared to go to such lengths?

    This powderpuff politician needs to (1) grow some cojones, (2) stop posturing and stand by his principles, if he really has any.

    Anyway, the argument is moot. This parrot is dead.

    They Know It.

    Homeschoolers flee to Iran seeking educational freedom

    Thursday, January 24th, 2008

    A homeschooling father and mother from Germany have fled to Iran with their son in search of educational freedom and apparently are being sought by authorities for child kidnapping, according to WND sources.

    Meanwhile, a new campaign has been launched by German lawmakers to approve a provision that would allow authorities to simply take legal custody of children whose parents are trying to avoid problems associated with the public school system.

    The two situations are the latest developments as parental rights in Germany are under attack, especially regarding the right to direct the education of their own children, homeschool advocates say.

    WND just weeks ago reported on an “open season,” on homeschoolers in Germany when a government letter to school officials revealed that when parents refuse to send their children to a state-approved school, it is now considered “a misuse of parental custody rights, which violates the well-being of the child.”

    Now word has surfaced about a couple whose concern for their gifted son prompted their flight to Iran.

    “As a family with a gifted and talented child, we fled Germany … with two suitcases and with the last of our money being spent on our flight to Iran,” a letter from the Mahjoubi Assil family to “supporting friends” said.

    The family includes the father, the mother, and the son. It was written by the mother on behalf of the family*.

    “As things stand now, Germany is unworthy of membership in the European Community, or to speak on Human Rights in the international arena. The shadows of the Third Reich and the ideology of Adolf Hitler – if not worse – still drift over Germany,” the letter said.

    *The names of the family members have been removed at their request.


    All to be upstanding:

    Sar Zad Az Ufuq Mihr-i Hawaran
    Furug-i Dida-yi Haqq-bawaran
    Bahman – Farr-i Iman-i Mast
    Payamat Ay Imam Istiqlal. Azadi-naqs-i Gan-i Mast
    Sahidan – Picida Dar Gus-i Zaman Faryad-i Tan
    Payanda Mani Wa Gawidan
    Gumhuri-yi Islami-i Iran