BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Surveillance state: Is Uncle Sam the new Big Brother?

Saturday, September 29th, 2007

If you’ve traveled out of the country, the government may have a file with your name on it.
    Names, addresses, credit card information. Itineraries, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. The cars that you rented and the names of the hotels where you stayed. Even the books that you read, the people you traveled with and the type of bed you requested in your hotel room.
    And that’s just some of the information that is gleaned by our government when ordinary citizens come into contact with border agents and transportation safety officials, or give personal information to airlines and companies that make travel reservations. The data is downloaded to the government’s Automated Targeting System, which links electronically to border points and reservation systems.
    Why? Inquiring minds in the Department of Homeland Security want to know. Since 2002, they’ve updated the system by bringing more border checkpoints online, as well as mandating that airlines provide data.
    Security officials claim it’s for our own good, of course. They say they need to know all they can about people who enter our country, including law-abiding Americans, in order to detect patterns and protect us from terrorists.

But privacy advocates and civil liberty activists correctly label it as an unnecessary and dangerous intrusion into the lives of regular people; another step in our evolution toward a surveillance society. The Identity Project, a group of civil liberties advocates, requested their Automated Targeting System files, and were shocked by what they found.
    John Gilmore of San Francisco carried a book about marijuana laws on an overseas trip, a fact that was illegally recorded in his file. And Edward Hasbrouck, a travel consultant, found information about his travel companions, another constitutional no-no. These and other cases are apparent violations of federal privacy laws, which prohibit the government from violating your First Amendment rights by collecting data about the books that you read and the people you choose to associate with.
    It’s just another example of how the eavesdropping Bush administration has used the events of Sept. 11 to wage war on our civil liberties.
    Forget Big Brother. Americans who value privacy and freedom have a bigger concern, one based on fact and not fiction. Uncle Sam is watching.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7030637

Have Your Say: Surveillance state: Is Uncle Sam the new Big Brother?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Big Brother Bins - This Time It’s CCTV

Saturday, September 29th, 2007

Requests to place cameras on new wheelie bins were among some of the queries submitted following the announcement of Spelthorne’s new waste collections.

The new alternate weekly collections have now been rolled out across the borough with pick-ups of recyclables one week and non-recycable waste the other.

Since Spelthorne Council announced it would be changing to the new system in March it has been inundated with enquires about the new scheme which has seen about 120 calls a day, 9,500 hits on the council’s website specifically related to waste, 260 face to face inquires, 155 letters and 600 emails. It hads received just 38 complaints.

The council also received some more unusual requests such whether cameras could be placed on to the containers to photograph people dropping litter into the bins. Something which is not being considered.

Anyone with questions about the new scheme should call a hotline on 01784 451 2199.

Have Your Say: Big Brother Bins - This Time It’s CCTV
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Child health program blasted by Bush

Saturday, September 29th, 2007

By Catherine Dodge

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) — President George W. Bush said a plan by Congress to expand a children’s health insurance program is “irresponsible” and chided lawmakers for failing to pass spending laws to fund government.

“Congressional leaders have put forward an irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand this program beyond its original intent,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “They know I will veto it.”

Bush also signed today a stopgap spending measure that continues funding federal agencies, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other programs at current levels until Nov. 16, buying time for lawmakers to act on regular spending bills.

Congress this week sent Bush legislation supported by Democrats and many of his fellow Republicans that would more than double the funds for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as Schip. The measure would add $35 billion over five years to the $25 billion program. To pay for the expansion, the federal tobacco tax would be raised to $1 a pack of cigarettes from the current 39 cents.

Democrats enlisted a 12-year-old boy who received life- saving care through U.S.-subsidized health insurance to deliver their response to Bush’s radio address today. Supporters of the measure say it is needed to add about 3.8 million needy children to the 6 million now covered.

Political Advantage

Bush has said he would veto the legislation because it would provide subsidized health care to middle-class children whose families can afford private insurance. Democrats see political advantage in Bush’s veto vow.

The president criticized the Democratic-controlled Congress for failing to pass any of 12 spending bills to fund government operations in fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1.

“Congress failed in its most basic responsibility,” Bush said.

The Republican-controlled Congress last year also had to send Bush a stopgap measure after failing to complete work on spending legislation.

Since 1977, Congress has only three times approved all its spending measures by the Sept. 30 deadline, according to the Concord Coalition, a Washington-based research group.

Have Your Say: Child health program blasted by Bush
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

High resolution aerial images of 9/11 clearly show effects of explosive demolition

Saturday, September 29th, 2007

In the weeks and months following 9/11 the world was slowly awoken to the possibility all was not as the Bush regime had spoken. Exclusive real pictures of that day have now come to light. (Thanks Lightshadow 4)

View the rare pictures

It is a simple and as clear minded as this: A gravitational collapse could not cause the effects seen in these exclusive real photos.

High explosives and lots of them were needed to do what is seen here, combine that with the 10 second freefall destruction and the only possible explanation is DEMOLITION.

Judge For yourselves - could Gravity turn thousands of tonnes of concrete to dust in an instant?

View the rare pictures

Have Your Say: High resolution aerial images of 9/11 clearly show effects of explosive demolition
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

The Bush-Aznar tapes: glimpse of a gangster preparing for war

Saturday, September 29th, 2007

By Bill Van Auken

The transcript of February 2003 discussions between US President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar published Wednesday by Spain’s largest daily, El Pais, provides fresh documentary confirmation of what is already a widely known historical fact. That is: the Bush administration was determined to wage a war of aggression to conquer Iraq and was not about to allow international law or compromise settlements to interfere with its long-planned invasion.

The contents of the conversation, transcribed by Spain’s ambassador to Washington, Javier Ruperez, had been kept secret by Madrid—both under Aznar’s right-wing government and under that of his successor, Socialist Party (PSOE) Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero—before someone leaked them to El Pais.

The document provides one more piece of irrefutable evidence that the Bush White House launched the invasion of Iraq on the basis of lies fabricated to further a predetermined policy. A significant component of this web of lies was the repeated claims made by Washington and its allies in the period leading up to the invasion that war was a last resort, and that they were determined to exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful alternatives.

As Bush told his Spanish counterpart, whatever the UN might decide, “In two weeks we will be ready militarily…. We will be in Baghdad by the end of March.”

The White House failed to deny the authenticity of the document. White House spokesperson Dana Perino described the conversation as a “private meeting” and dismissed questions about its exposure of the Bush administration’s deception of the American people and the world during this period. “There are some people who think we never should have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein,” she said. “And there is nothing we are going to be able to do that’s going to change their minds.”

The transcript records a conversation that took place on February 22, 2003—less than a month before the invasion—at Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch. The discussion centered on the final pre-war diplomatic maneuvers aimed at ramming a resolution through the United Nations Security Council providing a rubberstamp for the US plans to attack Iraq.

It also reveals that Saddam Hussein had indicated through the Egyptian government that he was prepared to go into exile, provided he could take with him $1 billion and documents on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, presumably including records proving US backing for Baghdad’s weapons programs, particularly under Bush senior’s administration.

In addition, it touches on plans for the Iraqi leader’s possible assassination and the campaign of intimidation initiated against countries represented on the Security Council that opposed a war.

The meeting also came just one week after massive worldwide demonstrations that brought millions of people into the streets in opposition to the war, including huge crowds in both Spain and Britain, Washington’s two principal supporters in preparing the aggression. In Spain, polls showed 90 percent of the population opposing an invasion, and Aznar’s principal concern was to convince Bush to use the UN to provide some form of pseudo-legal cover for war to help him with massively hostile public opinion at home.

In addition to Aznar and Bush, then US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice also joined in the discussion, together with another White House advisor on European affairs, Aznar’s chief advisor on international policy, Alberto Carnero, and the Spanish ambassador.

According to the transcript, Bush told Aznar he was willing to go to the Security Council for another resolution that would be crafted so that it could be used to claim authorization for military action, without actually saying so. He said that the document should not include any demands upon Iraq—with which Baghdad could potentially comply—and should “not mention the use of force.” Bush added, “A lot of people could vote for a resolution like that.”

Both Bush and Aznar made it clear that they expected the resolution to be vetoed—France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, opposed it. But they hoped to get a majority of the council’s members to support it, giving them a propaganda victory. In the end, they were forced to withdraw the resolution after it became clear that it would have gone down to overwhelming defeat without any veto having to be cast.

The US president continued: “Saddam Hussein will not change and he will keep playing around. The time has come to get rid of him. That’s the way it is. I, for my part, will try from now on to use the most delicate rhetoric possible while we try to get the resolution approved.”

Bush repeatedly expressed frustration over the failure of other European governments to fall into line behind Washington’s war plans. Singling out French President Jacques Chirac, Bush said, “The problem is that Chirac thinks he’s Mister Arab, and in reality he’s making life impossible.” The US president continued by expressing his contempt for public opinion in Europe, declaring, “The more the Europeans attack me, the stronger I am in the United States.”

When Rice reviewed a schedule for the presentation of reports to the Security Council by UN weapons inspectors—reports that would subsequently affirm Iraq’s substantial compliance with disarmament—Bush erupted in frustration.

“This is like Chinese water torture,” he said. “We have to put an end to it.”

Aznar said he understood Bush’s annoyance, but they had to get more support. “Have a little patience,” he begged.

“My patience has run out,” Bush replied. “I don’t plan on going beyond the middle of March.”

Referring to the non-permanent members on the Security Council that were voicing opposition to a resolution authorizing a US war, Bush declared: “Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon should know that what’s at stake is the security of the US and act with a feeling of friendship towards us.”

The imperialist arrogance is breathtaking. Mexico, which historically has been the victim of multiple US invasions, Angola, a country that saw more than half a million of its people killed in a CIA-instigated civil war and Chile, which was the victim of a US-orchestrated coup that imposed a quarter century of fascist-military dictatorship, should all subordinate any concern for international law or the rights of nations to the security concerns of the US.

Bush went on to spell out the kind of gangster-style threats being made behind the scenes. “Lagos [the Chilean president] should know that the free trade agreement with Chile is facing confirmation in the Senate and that a negative attitude on this issue could put its ratification in danger,” he said. “Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account and they too could be compromised if they don’t take a positive approach. And Putin should know that with his attitude he is putting relations between Russia and the United States in danger.”

Referring to differences with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on how soon to put the resolution before the Security Council, Bush commented, “This is like the bad cop, good cop game. It doesn’t bother me being the bad cop and Blair being the good one.”

Also appalling—given the one million Iraqi dead and the country’s total devastation—is Bush’s conception of the coming war’s impact. “We can win without destruction,” he said. “We are already planning out the post-Saddam Iraq, and I believe there are good foundations for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized in a federation. Meanwhile, we’re doing everything we can to attend to the political needs of our friends and allies.”

Aznar himself was somewhat taken aback by Bush’s sanguine approach to the upcoming slaughter.

“The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism,” said the Spanish prime minister.

Bush replied: “I am optimistic because I believe I am in the right. I am at peace with myself.”

The dialogue between the US president and the Spanish prime minister sounds more like a meeting between a Mafia godfather and one of his obsequious gangster captains than a discussion of international relations and policy between two heads of state. What they were cold-bloodedly planning, however, was not any run-of-the-mill crime, but a mass killing of world-historic proportions.

The ultimate significance of the Bush-Aznar transcript is that it constitutes one more piece of evidence for the prosecution of Bush and all those who conspired to launch the war of aggression against Iraq for war crimes.

Have Your Say: The Bush-Aznar tapes: glimpse of a gangster preparing for war
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Revealed: Saddam ‘ready to walk away for $1bn’

Saturday, September 29th, 2007

By Leonard Doylein

A transcript of an eve-of-war conversation between President George Bush and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has revealed a previously undisclosed initiative to avert war in Iraq by spiriting Saddam Hussein out of the country.

“Yes, it’s possible,” Mr Bush told the Spanish leader. “The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein … He seems to have indicated he would be open to exile if they would let him take one billion dollars and all the information he wants on weapons of mass destruction.”

But Mr Bush seems to shrug off the idea, saying “it’s also possible he could be assassinated”, and he makes made clear that the US would in any case give “no guarantee” for Hussein. “He’s a thief, a terrorist and a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa.”

The conversation, recorded by Spain’s ambassador to the US, Javier Ruperez, and published this week in El Pais, offers a unique insight into Mr Bush’s brusque interaction with one of the few foreign leaders he trusted. Here was a leader already on the march towards war, expressing impatience and anger at those that disagreed with him.

Mr Bush does admit that averting war would be “the best solution for us” and “would also save us $50bn,” greatly underestimating the cost to the US treasury of nearly five years of warfare. But he also talks of how he planned to exact revenge on countries, that did not back the US in its drive to war.

“We have to get rid of Saddam. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we’ll be ready militarily,” Mr Bush told Mr Aznar.

It was February 2003 at Mr Bush’s Crawford Texas ranch, less than a month before the invasion. Almost 150,000 US troops and their British allies were sitting in the Kuwaiti desert. The troops were well within range of any weapons of mass destruction, military analysts have pointed out.

US administration officials had already prepared public opinion for war by raising fears of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear programme and his ability to create “mushroom clouds.” But the transcript reveals the two leaders were more concerned about getting a fig leaf of international approval for the war, than any imminent threat from Saddam.

The transcript revolves around Washington’s frustrations at failing to get UN Security Council approval for war – the now-famous second resolution.

At the time, both Tony Blair and President Bush were officially open to a diplomatic resolution of the Iraq crisis – including a negotiated exile of Saddam - but the Spanish Ambassador’s notes reveal peace was never really an option.

With public opposition to the war in Europe in full swing, Washington’s two strongest allies, Mr Aznar and Tony Blair were under intense anti-war pressure.

President Bush needed to appear to be serious about diplomacy to “help us with our public opinion,” pleaded Mr Aznar. The hope was that by being seen to looking for alternatives to war, the growing anger against US policy and Europe would be assuaged.

“I’m not asking for infinite patience,” Mr Aznar said, but “simply that you do what’s possible to get everyone to agree”.

Pointing to the internal rows within the White House, where Vice President Dick Cheney was leading the drive to war, Mr Bush said he had gone to the United Nations “despite differences in my own administration” adding that it would be “great” if the proposed second resolution authorising war was successful.

“The only thing that worries me is your optimism,” said Mr Aznar who is now a visiting scholar at Georgetown University. “I’m optimistic because I believe I’m right,” the President replied. “I’m at peace with myself.”

Mr Bush also chastised Europeans for being insensitive to “the suffering that Saddam Hussein has inflicted on the Iraqis” adding rather oddly: “Maybe it’s because he’s dark-skinned, far away and Muslim – a lot of Europeans think he’s okay.”

He then attacked Jacques Chirac, who had publicly challenged the US drive to war, saying the Frenchman “sees himself as Mr Arab.”

It was at a time when the US right was trying to orchestrate a boycott of French wines and other goods. Restaurants across the US began using the name Freedom Fries instead of French Fries.

In one of the most chilling insights into the hardball politics Mr Bush was playing in order to get his way, he warned that countries which opposed him would pay a price, mentioning the Free Trade Agreement with Chile that is waiting for Senate confirmation and Angola’s grants from the Millennium Account.

Have Your Say: Revealed: Saddam ‘ready to walk away for $1bn’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

What is Common Purpose and why should you care?

Saturday, September 29th, 2007

Although it has 80,000 trainees in 36 cities, 18,000 graduate members and enormous power, Common Purpose is largely unknown to the general public. It recruits and trains “leaders” to be loyal to the directives of Common Purpose and the EU, instead of to their own departments, which they then undermine or subvert, the NHS being an example.

Common Purpose is identifying leaders in all levels of our government to assume power when our nation is replaced by the European Union, in what they call “the post democratic society.” They are learning to rule without regard to democracy, and will bring the EU police state home to every one of us. Common Purpose is also the glue that enables fraud to be committed across these government departments to reward pro European local politicians. Corrupt deals are enabled that put property or cash into their pockets by embezzling public assets.

It has members in the NHS, BBC, the police, the legal profession, the church, many of Britain’s 7,000 quangos, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries, Parliament, and it controls many RDA’s (Regional Development Agencies). Cressida Dick is the Common Purpose senior police officer who authorised the “Shoot to kill” policy without reference to Parliament, the law or the British Constitution. Jean de Menezes was one of the innocents who died as a result. Her shoot to kill policy still stands today.

Common Purpose trained Janet Paraskeva, the Law Society’s Chief Executive Officer. Surprising numbers of lawyers are CP members. It is no coincidence that justice is more expensive, more flawed and more corrupt. And no surprise the courts refused to uphold the law, when a challenge was made to the signing of the six EU treaties, which illegally abolish Britain’s sovereignty. Common Purpose is backed by John Prescott’s “Office of the Deputy Prime Minister” (ODPM), and its notional Chief Executive is Julia Middleton. The Head of the Civil Service Commission is a member

It is close to controlling Plymouth City Council, where is has subverted the democratic process. Local people cannot get CP’s corrupt activities published, because the editors of local papers are in CP, and refuse to let journalists publish the articles. CP started in 1985; in the 1990’s, with its members’ cross departmental influence, it was involved with what then became the disasterous New Millennium Dome Company and the squandering of £800 million; it appears £300m of this was diverted into the web of quangos set up by CP. There is a fraud case over this, stalled in the courts thanks to CP’s influence in the legal profession.

Over £100 million of our money has been spend on CP courses alone, and its been hidden from the public, and members names are a guarded secret. It charges substantial figures for its courses. Matrix for example costs £3,950 plus VAT, and courses for the high flying ‘leader’ can be as much as £9,950 plus VAT. This money is ours, paid by government departments financing senior staff to become agents for CP, instead of loyal to their own jobs. Common Purpose (Ltd by guarantee, No. 2832875) is registered as charity No. 1023384. It describes itself as being involved in Adult education. Given it preys on the rich and powerful, charges expensive fees, and its aims are clearly power and control, its charity status stinks and should be revoked.

Potential Common Purpose subjects are selected for training. Are they susceptible to being converted; are they in the right job, with the right colleagues and friends? Do they have power, influence and the control of money? If the candidate has some, or all of these key attributes, then the local Common Purpose Advisory Board decides if they can do the course.

Common Purpose - training our future EU rulers - continued Trained leaders are encouraged to act as a network, enable other members’ plans, and have meetings under the so called Chatham House rules. This effectively means their statements are not attributable to them, nor can attendees reveal information heard at a Common Purpose meeting.

Council Officers are having secret meetings with, for example, property developer Common Purpose friends. No agendas and no minutes. Common Purpose Graduates from the public quango sectors such as the Regional Development Agencies attend, and have the power to award large sums of public money to projects. It is the worst national example of cronyism, closed contract bids, fraud and corruption. And unseen to the general public.

Common Purpose undermines traditionally effective and efficient government departments with an overwhelming influx of new language, political correctness and management initiatives. The talk is of empowering communities, vision, worklessness, mainstreaming (sucking EU money into a project to sustain it), community empowerment, working partnership, regeneration and celebrating diversity etc etc. Documents appear about change, and reorganisation. As CP “leaders” become more senior they employ countless managers and bureaucrats. In time confusion rules, and things don’t seem to work properly. Management decisions are made that seem stupidly destructive. The organisation’s performance becomes sluggish. Undermining the NHS is Common Purpose’s biggest success so far, with bureaucrats outnumbering hospital staff three to one.

David Cameron, who is pro Europe, uses the language of Common Purpose; he has appointed Ken Clarke, the most committed of the pro Europeans, in charge of his “Democracy Taskforce” - rather like putting the cat in charge of the safety of mice. Common Purpose specifically targets children from the age of 13, and more recently younger, for special leadership and citizenship training. Yes, it is active in schools, and again the average parent has no idea.

People have contacted us to speak of their experiences with Common Purpose. A common theme is its all sweetness and light, until you fail to follow the direction set by the CP leadership. Then interesting things happen. Ladies in particular have been bullied at work, some have lost their jobs, some have become paranoid and depressed at the pressure from people ganging up on them.

A typical story is a husband describing the decline in his wife from the time she becomes a Common Purpose graduate. Loss of sparkle, enthusiasm, anxious and ‘changed’, and she initiated a divorce. Other Common Purpose people lie when they are challenged as to their involvement.

Common Purpose candidates are given a two day residential course in which they are ‘trained’ in a closed residential environment, such as a small hotel. They are encouraged to reveal personal information about themselves, such as their likes, dislikes, ambitions and dreams. Discussions are then controlled by the course leaders. Some participants have likened this to Delphi technique or the application of group psychology such as Cognitive Dissonance or brainwashing. If you suspect Common Purpose is active in your organisation, or see a pattern of incredibly bad decisions, money being wasted, notice bullying, fraud, or threats, note the names of those involved (we’ve tracked down over a thousand) and please contact us. And publish the truth about Common Purpose as widely as you can. Brian Gerrish 07841 464187, David Noakes 07974 437097; http://eutruth.co.uk for action.

Have Your Say: What is Common Purpose and why should you care?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pm and is filed under Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: