Awareness training for victims of legal abuse 30 Oct 2005

by David Grossack

See his websites at: and

More people are beginning to realize that in every respect we all live on what can best called a "Global Plantation," based on social systems in which those who control resources and wealth of the world are perpetrators of large scale legal and government abuse that serves to perpetuate rule by elites. Further, what many people do not realize is that aside from the war, pollution, epidemics, and poverty, the social systems imposed upon us by the elites produce emotional sickness.

They produce psychological depression, anxiety, substance abuse, sexual problems, obesity, and many other forms of disturbance that plague millions of people across the globe. The mechanisms for this are quite simple. The stress of living in highly regulated societies, with a predatory legal system results in a population which reflects the mental conditions of wounded, exploited, and bullied people. Moreover, we are tracked and watched through computers, and increasingly the entire industrialized world is being videotaped and monitored constantly. This is the beginning of a dehumanization process to which will alienate us from our individual nature and reduce us to cogs of production wheels in their factories, offices and other companies.

The disturbances may come about from being a party in a long, protracted, and ugly lawsuit. This now afflicts millions of people in the United States. The disturbance may come about from a random IRS audit (or several of them!) The disturbance may come about through extortion by a bureaucrat, or false arrest, or "forfeiture of assets", because a stranger used your property for an allegedly criminal purpose. Marriages are torn apart by the stress of coping with the abuses of government and the legal system, relationships with friends, relatives, children, and the ability to enjoy life can be twisted inside out.

Our potential to live happy, productive, and fulfilled lives is being robbed from us every day by a malignant and parasitic class of lawyers, judges, and government officials who are in their essence second tier masters on the Global Plantation. We are the victims. But too few people realize the victimization becomes a psychological problem, that is, a problem that affects your mind and your behavior. Once they rob us of our peace of mind and dignity, once they make us sick, we need a healing process.

I believe, as do many mental health professionals, that the most effective therapy for emotional disturbance caused by government and legal abuse is radical and militant activism directed against its sources, wherever that may lead. What do I mean by "radical activism." I refer to picketing, demonstrations, sit-ins, organizing public communications, and in general the kind of conduct that transforms society, produces changes, and puts the wrongdoers on the defensive. When you suffer in silence, when you allow the wrongs to stand without seeking redress and accountability, when you avoid demanding justice, you have become part of the problem.

You have told yourself that you will set aside reclaiming your dignity and demanding justice for whatever reason. But you have essentially betrayed yourself and accepted being a victim. That cannot possibly be an emotionally healthy decision. It is also likely to produce serious physiological symptoms over time. Hours of traditional psychoanalysis will not ever be as therapeutic as organizing a picket line. Prescription anti-depressants may help, but they are only masking the source of the problem.

Some people feel self-conscious about being in public. Others feel they ought to pray for those that hurt them. These thoughts are, in effect, self-destructive as they serve to perpetuate the victimization.. To where do we trace the origins of our problems? On a daily basis, the face of the Global Plantation deceives. While a policeman, lawyer, or government functionary may appear to be oppressive, and can certainly act accordingly, the Phaoronic pyramidical structure of the "System" leads upwards.

But the string pullers behind events are not always transparent. The identification and role of power elites in the United States as well as in al other countries has become a subject of both academic and popular focus. Because the power elites play such a significant and arguably destructive role, and have earned the legitimate wrath of billions of people, the activism we prescribe need be directed, at least in part, at them. They are the foundation heads, media moguls, and political power brokers. They are the controllers of multinational conglomerates, financiers of major political parties, and intelligence czars. They are the folks who own and govern the Global Plantation at the highest levels.

They are formidable adversaries and they will break the law and perjure and murder and conspire and never be held accountable except by the people. They , for all practical purposes , own the courts. The policies of local judges are directed through large institutional think tanks in Virginia, Washington D.C. and Santa Barbara, California, not at the grassroots. To those who shy away from rebellion, I say you are going to miss the greatest of human endeavors, and your illness will remain. To those who want to be healed, get a sign, get a pen or go to your computer or fax machine, and start agitating.

There is a process for launching this on a massive scale that the legal reform movement needs to consider, right now, today, to win back our Constitutional freedoms and rights,. I believe large scale awareness training, such as the techniques used in the human potential movement, are of immense value. There is a branch of psychology known as radical therapy which must be utilized where people resolve the psychological wounds to them by becoming activists. I am beginning this process to deal with the retaliation brought to my household for exercising First Amendment rights. The world cannot wait for business as usual to solve these problems and we have a mission, a burden to use evangelical terms. To turn their System upside down. The tools are there, money will not be a problem, and we will produce thousands of activists with a heightened consciousness to take on the Establishment.

I want to do this project. As the son of a radical psychologist and as a lawyer activist for may years I believe I am qualified. If we work together, we can change the system and heal ourselves in the process.

David C. Grossack Nantasket Beach, MA

The author, an artist and lawyer, is the founder of Citizens' Justice Institute. He is the author of Radical Planet and How to Win A Lawsuit Without Hiring A Lawyer. See his websites at: and

B'nai B'rith is in fact a Masonic Order 30 Oct 2005

B'nai B'rith-ADL Doesn't Represent Jews
By Henry Makow Ph.D.

While claiming to represent "the interests of the worldwide Jewish Community" the B'nai B'rith is in fact a Masonic Order that represents British Freemasonry, and shifts blame for its Luciferian "world government" agenda onto Jews in general. Thus while pretending to fight anti- Semitism, it actually puts Jews in jeopardy. The B'nai B'rith has no mandate to represent the Jewish people. But by equating opposition to the globalist agenda with anti-Semitism, it ensures that Jews are blamed for the emerging New World Order. For example, recently an Internet forum posted an item about B'nai B'rith advocacy of "Hate Laws" and Internet censorship. A member of the forum responded, "Those Jews are setting themselves up for extermination again."

Thus "Jews" become the scapegoat for the Freemason agenda despite the fact that about half of American Jews have nothing to do with Jewish organizations or religion, and in fact intermarry. Yes, many other Jews who are ignorant of the Masonic plan naively subscribe to Zionism and the phony "War on Terror." They might be surprised to learn that the Star of David featured on the Israeli flag is an occult symbol and was never a Jewish symbol in the Old Testament; that most Israeli leaders, like American Presidents, are Freemasons; and that the new Israeli Supreme Court is loaded with Masonic symbolism, and is located along Satanic "ley" lines. Financed and designed by the Rothschilds, it is the court of the New World Order. The B'nai B'rith-ADL is probably active in your city. It approaches local schools, private companies, and professional associations offering indoctrination in "diversity" and "hate crimes." It trains the local police in political crimes. "Hate" is anything or anyone that interferes with the world government agenda, partly listed on the ADL website (appropriately in the left column).

The B'nai B'rith is part of the Masonic Scottish Rite Order established in 1843. It's militant arm, the "Anti Defamation League" (ADL) was formed in 1913, the same year as the US Federal Reserve. According to "The Ugly Truth About the ADL" (1992) by the Executive Intelligence Review, the B'nai B'rith has always played a leading role in returning the US to the Masonic control of the British "Crown" (a.k.a The New World Order.)

"Not only is the ADL emphatically not a Jewish civil rights lobby; the ADL and its parent agency B'nai B'rith have been from their inception, arms of the British secret intelligence services and secret societies that are sworn enemies of the United States. The B'nai B'rith and the ADL have used their nominal Jewishness to conceal their actual allegiance and agenda." (Ugly Truth,p.3) The B'nai B'rith/ Scottish Rite was instrumental in starting the Ku Klux Klan and causing the US Civil War, which destroyed the flower of American manhood. A B'nai B'rith leader, Simon Wolf, was a Confederate spy and was implicated in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the first of many such coup d'etats (i.e. the assassinations of Presidents Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy.) The book goes on to detail ADL links to organized crime, drugs and prostitution, domestic spying, the purchase of the US Congress and the removal of Christianity from public institutions. It says the ADL fought Texas legislation to prosecute satanic ritual crimes and lost numerous libel suits for defaming critics as "anti-Semites."


As I have said, the mainspring of the New World Order is the private central bankers' need to translate their unlimited financial power, derived from their control of your government's credit, into permanent world institutions of political and social control. Millions of non-Jews and a disproportionate number of Jews have sold their souls to these Lucifer-loving bankers. Led by the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, the banking cartel is behind the Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war and the phony "War on Terror. They are behind the B'nai B'rith-ADL. Take their "Diversity" program for example.You cannot work for a large corporation or government today without receiving this insulting Stalinist indoctrination which tells us how to behave. A measure of the Masonic control of Western society is that "Diversity" was never debated or put to a vote. It became the official ideology as if by magic.

Particularly distasteful is the ADL's "early childhood initiative" which targets 3-5 year-olds for indoctrination. They hide behind a smokescreen of platitudes but the net effect is that youngsters of European origin do not learn pride in their national or cultural heritage. The ADL boasts that 375,000 teachers and 12 million students have participated in these programs. In the workplace, "Diversity" discriminates against Europeans, and particularly white heterosexual males by favoring women, coloreds and homosexuals. People are chosen on the basis of this political profile instead of their competence, which would be truly non-discriminatory and fair, not-to-mention efficient. The purpose is to fragment society and destabilize the family so there is no coherent basis for resistance to world government. At the same time, the ADL actively promotes Zionist education and consciousness, including free trips to Israel for Jewish youth. Thus Jews are indoctrinated to promote the Masonic agenda and to take the fall when the time comes.


Recently President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran told a student conference "Israel must be wiped off the map." He then joined a million-strong demonstration shouting "Death to Israel, Death to America" and recalled three ambassadors who apologized for his original statement. It is inconceivable that he would play into the Zionist hand by making such a rash statement, right on cue, unless he was also controlled by the Illuminati (i.e. the highest rank of Freemasonry.) The stated goal of the Illuminati is to foment a Third World War between the "political Zionists and the leaders of the Islamic world." Presumably Iran backed by Russia and China would face off against Israel, the US and the UK.

Albert Pike, the Head of the Scottish Rite in the 19th Century, continued: "The [third] war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other." The rest of the world will be drawn in. "Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion..." At this point they will be constrained to accept the Luciferian one-world government. See " Countdown to World War Three"

Thus we are all pawns in a diabolical game from which no one, certainly not Jews or Israelis, will emerge victorious. We need to unite to resist those who lead us into this deadly trap. The B'nai B'rith-ADL doesn't represent Jews. It represents Freemasonry, which casts a morbid spell over the Anglo-American establishment and plots the demise of Western Civilization.

Rothschilds,Churchill and "The Final Solution" 29 Oct 2005

The Rothschilds,Churchill and "The Final Solution"
A view of the Rothschild's involvement in World War II and the founding of Israel
By Clifford Shack

According to accepted history, Adolf Hitler masterminded the Holocaust. Sorry, although this story was presented with much is just not true. Adolf Hitler was a frontman for the House of Rothschild. So too was his adversary Winston Churchill. So too was Josef Stalin (Sorry but Stalin's Rothschild affiliations will not be covered here) The historic irony is that when all the facts are known, it is more likely that Winston Churchill had more of a hand in masterminding the Holocaust than Hitler. This should sound outrageous…by design. A great deal of effort went into hiding the fact that World War II was a phony war engineered by the Global elitists, among them men like Churchill. Winston Churchill once said: "In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

To a war planner like Churchill, war-time begins many years before the actual physical war occurs. It begins as a thought in the mind of a man. Then the thought is discreetly shared with like-minded men. From there it gains momentum and is committed to implementation. Then the plan is meticulously devised and worked out over years by skillful and experienced planners, detail by detail. At every step, the truth is carefully attended by a "bodyguard of lies". It is well known among those who have seriously studied the subject of war, that wars, being very expensive, have had to been financed by a special group of bankers called "International bankers". The greatest among these bankers is the House of Rothschild, which has been quietly exerting its financial and political power over world events from well behind the scenes for over two hundred years. The influence and importance of this awesome multinational banking dynasty cannot be overstated. Up until 1914, even accepted history admits that it was easily the biggest bank in the world. However, after 1914, the fallacy of its dwindling influence and importance has been perpetuated to distance it from the carnage that was to occur in the world with the onset of the World Wars. To begin to penetrate "the bodyguard of lies", surrounding the Rothschild-Churchill connection and their role as Holocaust planners, we must turn to Churchill's remarkable tie to the London branch of the House of Rothschild. Of the two politicians of the post-Disraeli era to whom the Rothschilds were probably closest, one was a relative through marriage, Rosebery. The other was Randolph Churchill- the father of Winston Churchill. To say that Randolph had a close relationship to Nathaniel Rothschild, the head of the London house, is really somewhat of an understatement. So too would the word intimate. It was said that Randolph Churchill had an "excessive intimacy" with the Rothschilds, specifically with "Natty". Lady Salisbury, the wife of the Tory Prime Minister, Lord Robert Cecil , "launched out against Randolph who communicated everything to Natty Rothschild". According to the official Rothschild biographer, Niall Ferguson: "The evidence of an excessively close relationship seems compelling, especially in view of the precariousness of Churchill's personal finances. As is now well known- though his earlier biographers suppressed the fact- he died owing the London house "the astonishing sum of £66,902,"

It was observed that"[Randolph] Churchill and Natty Rothschild seem[ed] to conduct the business of the empire in great measure together..." Although Rothschild was a banker, it should be noted that for the first time, a Rothschild was engaged in politics as a vocation for its own sake...Nevertheless, he did spend most of the working day at his offices at New Court; and as a banker his primary concern was with foreign policy. The motive of haute finance was gain; to attain it, it was necessary to keep in with the governments whose end was power and conquest. There was no government on earth that satisfied the Rothschilds appetite for gain more than Britain. As could be seen by the relationship between Randolph Churchill and Natty Rothschild, the interests of Britain and Rothschild were so intertwined that they could be considered inseparable. As Rothschildian foreign policy was interconnected with British foreign policy, both would rely on a strong Royal Navy. Foreign policy and naval policy were most intimately connected. As one statesman of the times summed it up: "The smaller our naval power, the more difficult our foreign policy. If our naval power dropped to such a point that we were in an inferior position in home waters, our foreign policy would be impossible... We should have to give way on every diplomatic question, and no self-respecting Empire could hold together... the weaker our Navy is, the more difficult foreign policy becomes; the stronger our Navy is, the easier foreign policy becomes. That is really the intimate connection between the two. No naval issue would affect Britain's foreign policy more than the crucial debate whether or not the Royal Navy Fleet should be converted from coal propulsion to oil. The outcome of this technical decision among British policy makers would have astonishing and far-reaching effects.

The advantages of oil were clear...The benefits would be faster speed and greater efficiency and maneuverability. The problem was that oil (at that time) didn't grow in Britain, and the majority of the admirals, therefore, felt more secure depending on native Welsh coal, and insisted on continuing to do so. This reluctance was unacceptable to the House of Rothschild, and schemes were underway to surmount these feelings, as oil was already known to be the future energy of the world. Oil was not only superior to coal, but the French branch of the Rothschilds were, together with the Rockefellers, supreme rulers of the oil business having entered into a world cartel with Standard Oil, now Exxon. Oil revenues would be an important source to the financial power base of these global elitists as they pursued their dreams of world conquest. Britain would be manipulated to give up its native fuel supply and rely on an energy source half way around the world. Squeamish admirals be damned! The British people themselves would be another obstacle. They were reluctant to pay for any new military spending, wishing to keep the national budget focused on domestic issues. The idea of bringing the Royal Navy into the industrial age would have to take a back seat. It was a classic guns or butter debate. "Is Britain going to surrender her maritime supremacy to provide old-age pensions?" the Daily Express declaimed. The people of Britain would have their modern navy and they would pay for it as well. Rothschild-manipulated international events would make sure of that.

Natty Rothschild was a keen proponent of increases in the strength of the Royal Navy. "The strengthening of the Navy is always popular amongst all classes," he assured his French relatives in 1908 - a year he spoke publicly in favor of building eight dreadnought battleships at a large meeting at the Guildhall. There is no doubt that the Rothschilds had their own economic interests in the rearmament. In 1888 the London house issued shares worth £225,000 for the Naval Construction and Armaments Company. Natty had grasped early on the importance of increased naval construction. He remained an enthusiast for naval construction even when it was obvious that the costs were likely to lead to higher taxes. [If late-nineteenth-century imperialism had its "military-industrial complex" the Rothschilds were unquestionably part of it. ] The modernization of the British Royal Navy would be accomplished by the classic problem-reaction-solution ploy. In classic balance of power style, Germany would commence a naval build up. The British people would think nothing of this, as peace existed between the two countries. The whole scene would change when a German warship threatened British interests. An international crisis naturally develops. The people are guided to think that there really is an international problem. To calm their fears they are sold on the idea of modernizing the Royal Navy rather than funding all sorts of domestic issues. This is precisely what happened. The late nineteenth century saw the beginning of a German naval build-up. Then, on July 1,1911, in the middle of the guns and butter debate, Kaiser Wilhelm, a Rothschild frontman, sent a gunboat called the Panther steaming into the harbor at Agadir, on the Atlantic coast of Morocco. This was a direct challenge to British global positions. By sheer coincidence, immediately after the Agadir crisis, Rothschild protÊgÊ Winston Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. As First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill vowed to do everything he could to prepare Britain militarily for the "inescapable day of reckoning". His charge was to ensure that the Royal Navy, the symbol and very embodiment of Britain's imperial power, was to meet the German "challenge" on the high seas. According to Daniel Yergin's Pulitzer prize winning book, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power: "One of the most important and contentious questions he faced was seemingly technical in nature, but would in fact have vast implications for the twentieth century. The issue was whether to convert the British Navy to oil for its power source, in place of coal, which was the traditional fuel. Many thought that such a conversion was pure folly, for it meant that the Navy could no longer rely on safe, secure Welsh coal, but rather would have to depend on distant and insecure oil supplies from Persia, as Iran was then known. Churchill said, "To commit the Navy irrevocably to oil was indeed 'to take arms against a sea of troubles,' "

But the strategic benefits- greater speed and more efficient use of manpower-were so obvious to him that he did not dally. He decided that Britain would have to base its "naval supremacy upon oil" and, thereupon, committed himself, with all his driving energy and enthusiasm, to achieving that objective. There was no choice-in Churchill's words, "Mastery itself was the prize of the venture." It was this very "sea of troubles" that would occupy Churchill throughout his long political career. Of course he was to have the support of the British government and the Rothschilds with their vast and furtive financial and political connections. The "sea of troubles" that faced Churchill, was the seemingly impossible task of securing permanent and safe oil supplies. This "sea", like the world of oil itself, could be divided into three. The "upstream" comprises exploration and production. The "midstream" are the tankers and pipelines and transportation routes that carry crude oil to refineries. The "downstream" includes refining, marketing, and distribution. The first task was to secure the "upstream". On June 17, 1914, Churchill introduced a bill proposing that the British government invest in an oil company. With a vote of 254 to 18, the British government acquired 51 per cent of Anglo-Persian. Anglo-Persian, however, was not to be Britain's sole supplier of oil as Churchill stated to Parliament in 1913,"On no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route and on no one field must we be dependent. Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety, and variety alone." By the summer of 1914, the British Navy was fully committed to oil and the British government had assumed the role of Anglo-Persian's majority stockholder. Oil, for the first time, but certainly not the last, had become an instrument of national policy, a strategic commodity second to none. To meet the necessity of securing foreign sources of oil, puppet regimes would be established in countries like Persia, later to be named Iran. To meet Churchill's call for variety, the oil of Mesopotamia would be secured as well, although not as easily as Persia. To achieve this aim, the Ottoman Empire would first have to be dismantled. Before that could happen it would have to be conquered. This task would be accomplished by the keepers of the Concert of Europe-the House of Rothschild. The global elitist device that achieved this objective was World War I. During World War I, Churchill was in charge of the Dardanelle campaign aimed at taking Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire. For a variety of reasons, history views his campaign as a failure. In reality, however it was a crowning success for the war planners. For not only did the Dardanelle campaign spell the beginning for the end of the Ottoman empire, but the feigned bungling of the operation set in motion a series of orchestrated events that would empower the Turks to execute the Armenian genocide. Eliminating the Armenian presence in the Baku oil region eliminated the ethnic conflict between the region's Moslem majority which actually interrupted the oil production in 1905, when the oil fields were set ablaze.

With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the huge oil fields of Mesopotamia came under British control. To the victor belong the spoils. Mesopotamia would be divided into a newly designed integrated region whose chief function would be a safe and secure energy supply system. This system would be comprised of new states, carefully designed in a balance of power fashion to insure steady flow of the precious oil beneath the ground. Designed by the global elite, these new states were named Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. Puppet-kings would be installed, and they would be manipulated by British agents such as T.E.Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), and St. John Philby. With the "upstream" "troubles" managed and in place in the new Middle East, the "sea of troubles" surrounding the "midstream" would have to be addressed... Although Winston Churchill had stressed to Parliament," on no one route...must we be dependent", it was obvious that the Suez Canal was clearly the only practical tanker route from the Middle East oil fields to Europe. Of course, there was the route around the cape of Africa, but that was a dismally long, arduous and expensive alternate route. Not to mention the fact that the longer the route, the greater the threat for potential attack during wartime. The short Suez Canal route would be much simpler and of course cheaper to protect. Securing the Suez Canal region from threat would be the next focus of the global elitists. Churchill would not take a back seat. A quiet yet urgent concern with the Suez Canal region was the fact that the Suez Canal company was granted a concession scheduled to run out in 1968, at which time the 100 year-old lease would run out and the Canal 's ownership would revert back into Egyptian control. Egypt would have the power of life and death over Britain and the rest of Europe should that occur without security measures put into place to prevent that catastrophe. The Rothschilds had been quietly working on this particular dilemma since the canal was acquired by Britain (with their money). Baron Edmond de Rothschild, the oil expert within the French branch of the Rothschilds had spearheaded the effort to establish a puppet colony friendly to Western European interests. It was intended to play a vital role in a security system for the soon-to-emerge Middle East slated to replace the failing Ottoman Empire. The Rothschild's progress would be careful, slow and calculated. Too slow, however, for the one person who would come to threaten the entire operation. Theodor Hertzl forced his way onto the world stage. He was the Paris correspondent for the Vienna newspaper Neue Freie Presse. He covered the sensational Dreyfus affair, where a French Jew named Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused of selling military secrets to the Germans. The furor of anti-Semitism that the case sparked compelled Hertzl to formulate a solution to the Jewish homeland problem. He reasoned that if the Jews could be reunited in a land that they could call their own, then they would not have to be subjected to the sort of treatment that they have been forced to endure throughout the ages.

Hertzl's famous political pamphlet, "The Jewish State", originally took the form of a letter directed to the Rothschilds. His intention was to appeal to the noble sensibilities of the most powerful family the Jewish people have ever produced during their Diaspora. Although Albert Rothschild of the Vienna branch refused to meet with Hertzl, he did gain audiences with Baron Edmond de Rothschild and Lord Natty of the Paris and London houses, respectively. The impact of these meetings would have a devastating impact on the destiny of the Jews of Europe.To gain a more thorough understanding of the Hertzlian threat to Rothschild plans for a safe and secure Suez oil corridor,click here. At the time of Hertzl's death, Rothschild's protÊgÊ, Winston Churchill, was on a swift and deliberate career path preparing him for his role in the Rothschildian response to the prospect of massive unrestricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. By 1905, he became Undersecretary to the Colonial Office. The Colonial Secretary, Lord Elgin, had shown Churchill all documents and let him join all policy discussions. In 1906, while at the Colonial Office, Churchill was one of the first political figures to recognize the principle of a Jewish homeland. Indeed, at a time of division between Jewish groups on whether to settle in Palestine or East Africa, Churchill saw that "Jerusalem must be the ultimate goal. When it will be achieved it is vain to prophesy: but that it will some day be achieved is one of the few certainties of the future." That is what he wrote in 1908, to one of his Manchester constituents, but the phrase was deleted in the final draft of his letter. On February 14, 1910, Churchill, the "young man in a hurry", was appointed home secretary. He was merely thirty-five. Among his responsibilities were national security, England's police force, law and order, and immigration. In 1911, after the Agadir incident he would become First Lord of the Admiralty, where he would commit the Royal Navy to oil. Ten years later diplomats from Whitehall would quietly divide up the Middle East in a muffled version of their nineteenth-century scramble for African possessions. France would get Syria and Lebanon; Persia (Iran) would come under "British protection"; and Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine came within Britain's sphere of influence, providing the Empire with a direct overland route between imperial troops in Egypt and the oil rich Persian Gulf region.

With the oil regions secured, the next task was insuring that it would remain that way. Under the guise of a Jewish homeland, the British would establish a military-oriented security state loyal to the West. This colony would be the keystone of the entire Middle East security system. The very survival of this colony, however, was potentially threatened by the uncontrolled influx of massive European Jewish immigration into the region. Such ethnic calamity would threaten the entire Middle East energy supply. Only by eliminating the reservoir of potential immigrants could the integrity of the colony be preserved. Once a pre-determined immigration quota was satisfied, strict laws would be put into place sealing any further admission into the small land. Once these laws were in place, a great operation would be put into motion to exterminate the remaining potential immigrants. This operation would be known as the Holocaust. Late in 1920, Churchill told Lloyd George that he wanted to move to another cabinet post. On February 14, 1921, Churchill was appointed Colonial Secretary. When he took over the Colonial Office, the Balfour declaration was part of his legacy. The declaration, promulgated in 1917 when Arthur Balfour was foreign secretary, was actually formulated by the Rothschilds for the Rothschilds. The text was prepared by Leo Amery, assistant secretary to the War Cabinet. Amery worked under the Rothschild frontman, Lord Milner, who was a member of the inner War Cabinet. The declaration was addressed to Natty Rothschild's son, Walter. It proclaimed that the British government favored "the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of that object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Winston Churchill's commitment to the Rothschild-sponsored Jewish state in Palestine was "absolute". He understood the security role it would play in the emerging oil region. As Colonial secretary he was in a position to oversee the most important aspect to the project- immigration. The problem would be more complicated than controlling the pace and numbers of people entering the colony. Quality immigrants would be a crucial concern, hence strict discrimination, would be a guiding force in the immigration process. On May 31, 1921, Churchill reported to the cabinet of Arab complaints and the "current accounts of the inferior quality of recent Jewish immigrants." More than anything else it was the "quality" issue surrounding Jewish immigration into Palestine that would determine the necessity of the Holocaust. Those concerned with the success of the colonization process could stem the tides, but they couldn't change the masses of negative human material confronting them. Within the Jewish community, the two groups which gave the Rothschilds most concern, according to Ferguson, were nouveaux riches -Jewish bankers and businessmen who had made their fortune more recently than the Rothschilds-and, perhaps more important, Ostjuden: the much more numerous Jews of Eastern Europe (principally though not exclusively from the Russian empire), 2.5 million of whom migrated westwards after the pogroms sparked off by the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 and the new discriminatory laws introduced the following year. The new poor were at least as great a source of embarrassment as the nouveaux riches. Forwarding a letter on the subject of German anti-Semitism, Natty told Disraeli in 1880 regarding the causes of Jewish persecution:

"There are also a great many other reasons…among them the constant influx of Polish Russian and Roumanian Jews who arrive in a state of starvation and are socialists until they become rich." According to this revealing statement we can see that poor Jews, rich Jews, and all the Jews in between were a source of concern to the Rothschilds. As socialism would be the tool by which the super rich would control the masses, Jews active in independent socialism, would be obstacles to this scheme. In short, the elimination of the European Jewish community was necessary for a variety of reasons. During the debate of the Alien Act of 1905, Natty Rothschild argued that such legislation "would certainly affect deserving and hard-working men, whose impecunious position on their arrival would be no criterion of their incapacity to attain independence." His son Walter echoed this view." Great Britain," he argued, "should be the refuge for the oppressed and unjustly ill-treated people of other nations so long as they were decent and hard-working." The Rothschilds could not lend their sympathy to those immigrants who were not "deserving, decent or hard-working". The undeserving, indecent, and lazy people would be obstacles to all future Rothschild schemes. Whether it was the establishment of a Jewish military colony in Palestine, or the United States of Europe, there was no room for masses of miserably poor, unproductive "useless eaters", with strange customs and behavior designed to separate, not assimilate. The elimination of the Jews of Europe was essential to the success of the New World Order. The Rothschildian operation known today as the Holocaust, would be carried out from the top down with utter stealth, employing all of the experience, agencies and connections at the disposal of the vast banking empire. Employing the talents and efforts of frontmen like Churchill, Hitler, Pacelli (Pius XII), Roosevelt and Stalin, these feigned axis-allied-neutral camps, would all be invisibly linked together by a super-secret Rothschildian supranational intelligence network. This network, the best kept secret of the twentieth century, virtually orchestrated World War II from start to finish. Not the least of the aims of this Jewish intelligence web was, ironically, the destruction of the European Jewish masses, thus insuring the success of the state of Israel and its role within the security system of the Middle East oil region.

To be continued...

Give the law back to women? 25 Oct 2005

During the last USA presidential election, John Kerry frequently delivered the applause line, that if he came to office he would "Give the law back to women". From the look on the presidential aspirant's face he did not have a clue what that meant and as the camera's panned around the audience most of them seemed similarly nonplused.

So what does it mean, 'give the law back to women"? By implication such a statement suggests that the law was once, perhaps recently, something women owned primarily if not absolutely and was somehow lost or taken away from them and is soon to be given back. This of course begs the question(s), taken away when, how and by whom? The idea that the law was taken from women as a gendered class is not surprisingly the view of radical neo marxist feminist academics and their cultural elite camp followers. Most of those who advocate such a view have chosen a lesbian lifestyle.

Moreover, such an ideological position offers the Marxist twin central themes of victimhood (the law had been taken away as well as obligation free dutiless entitlement) the law must be given back and others are morally bound to deliver it. Accordingly it is into the dark and hate filled recesses of feminist/Marxist ideology we must turn in an effort to understand how the applause line "give the law back to women" has such resonance with the vocal lesbian feminist elite.

Feminist ideology argues that women are really the natural leaders and true dispensers of pure justice and this was so in ancient hunter gatherer societies which, the feminists claim, were all matriarchal. The evidence the feminists rely upon to put forward such a theory (which the femi faithful accept as ironclad fact) ranges from the fanciful to the tenuous to the absurd. For example, it is alleged by feminists that ancient Eurasian societies may have primarily worshipped the moon which was named as a women (the sun was a male god). This they claim is evidence that all religious ceremonies would have been presided over by women priest who in ancient societies would have also acted in the capacity of village chief. Men were hunters and sperm donors, nothing more.

To bolster this view feminists allege the present day African bush plains tribes also worship the moon and allegedly maintain matriarchal societies. Finally and where the true Marxist propaganda agenda becomes clearer. Feminists maintain that as society moved gradually from hunter-gatherer to sedentary pastoralist (particularly after the end of the last ice age) then ownership of land and personal property became central to daily human existence. It was at this time, feminists allege, when private property came into existence that women not only lost prime position in societies hierarchies but also had the law taken from them by men. Accordingly, if society ceases all forms of private ownership then women will be returned to their rightful place at the apex of society and men can once again exist to do the grunt work and donate sperm in a great neo marxist paradise. The law will have then been "given back" to women.

Does such insane femi claptrap deserve a response? Probably not but lets do it anyway. Hunter gatherer societies whether today or in ancient times would, by necessity, have adjusted to the local or regional circumstances in the context of geography and climate in which they were located. Plains dwellers would have hunted meat on the hoof with a vast area of grazing and migratory patterns of movement. Jungle dwellers by contrast hunt animals with a much narrower range of movement and similarly rely on a higher proportion of food gathered which is also less seasonal and more abundant.

Accordingly, plains dwellers required the exclusively fittest males hunting parties to be away from the village for many days at a time. Injury or death would have inevitably been a frequent occurrence. In the low season the male hunting party could have been away for weeks at a time tracking what scarce game their may have been. As it is today, the prime hunting males would have had time for a few days much needed rest and dehydration before heading off gain to fund more game to feed the village. It is hardly surprising therefore that women played a more significant day to day role in the administering of the village given that most able and fit males were rarely around. That such a logistical necessity as a way of life should be strangled into somehow representing matriarchy or a matriarchal social paradise is fanciful indeed.

Moreover, the feminist argument of a hunter-gatherer matriarchy studiously ignores that all hunter gatherer societies where long hunting trips are not required (i.e non plains dwelling) are without doubt patriarchal. Examples of this are the Australian Aborigine, all Asian hunter gatherer societies, African and South American jungle hunter gatherers and so on. The invocation of the female moon god as being evidence of women high priests and therefore a matriarchy stretches credulity to breaking point. Many societies have female gods or religious icons (the Virgin Mary as one) including the ancient Sumerians, Greeks, Egyptians and Romans. None of these societies could be described as matriarchal.

It is heartening to know that the phrase " give the law back to women" is neo marxist code for a return to a hunter-gatherer society where private property is outlawed and the matriarchy reigns supreme.

The next politician you hear uttering and supporting such drivel ... remember to cast your vote accordingly.

Commentary from DG

Feminists trip up on man tax 25 Oct 2005

Spare a thought for Swedish feminists whose newly formed party is disintegrating after hardliners presented a manifesto advocating a "man tax", the abolition of marriage and the creation of "gender-neutral" names.

Sweden already boasts one of the highest levels of female participation in the workplace and some observers questioned the need for a feminist party in a country whose women account for half the seats in parliament. When it was founded six months ago, polls showed that a quarter of voters would consider supporting Feminist Initiative in elections next year because of rising domestic violence against women and higher salaries for men.

That goodwill seems to have faded after the party's recent founding congress, however, when radicals such as Tiina Rosenberg, a professor of gender studies, appeared to have secured control of the agenda. The resulting platform included proposals for abolishing marriage and changing the law to let people who undergo sex change operations legally alter their names. The party called also for the creation of more "gender-neutral" names such as "Robin" or "Norva" that could apply to a boy or a girl. At present parents must choose names from an official list for boys or girls.

Rosenberg resigned from the governing board after complaining of an "anti-feminist backlash" and insulting personal attacks in the Swedish media, where she was ridiculed as part of the "lunatic left". Gudrun Schyman, another founding member of the party, came to her defence last week. "The reason for this campaign against her is that she's a lesbian," she said. "The attacks against her are homophobic." A former Swedish Communist party leader and author of erotic verse, Schyman once demonstrated her sense of fun by posing naked for a newspaper behind a red umbrella. But conservative male politicians do not find her amusing.

She advocates what she calls a "man tax to cover the cost of violence against women in the home" but has stopped short of endorsing the opinions of Ireen von Wachenfeldt, who until recently ran one of Sweden's largest state shelters for battered women. In a recent television documentary called The Gender War, she proclaimed: "Men are animals." The documentary noted that the shelter had printed excerpts of an extremist American feminist manifesto called Scum, which stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men. In it, women are urged to "destroy the male sex" and seize the chance made possible by science of giving birth only to females.

The spectacle of militant feminism reaching into Sweden's official institutions provoked a political scandal in which Wachenfeldt was forced to resign from her job at the shelter. Since then the traditional Swedish belief in the need for organising politics, business and even one's private life to make it as sexually equal as possible seems to have come under threat. In new opinion polls only 1.3% of voters said they would vote for the feminist party.,,2089-1838453,00.html

The Voices Of Reason Are Speaking Out 25 Oct 2005

At Last,The Voices Of Reason Are Speaking Out .
by George Rolph.

There is no doubt that we are living in a very damaged society here in the UK and beyond. Angry voices are heard everywhere. Pensioners living in or near poverty are angry and calling for help. Fathers, distraught at being removed from their children in secret family court hearings and trial by opinion instead of evidence, are furious and taking to the streets in ever increasing numbers. Men's groups, livid at the way men are being portrayed as evil, stupid and incompetent by the media, are threatening revolt. Our streets flood with angry, out of control and directionless children. Female violence is on the rise. Abortion rates are soaring. Sexually transmitted diseases found in the young are climbing steadily.

The gap between the rich and poor widens daily. The family is disintegrating and divorce rates are growing steadily. Violence in schools is nearly out of control. Politicians are viewed with suspicion in all quarters of our society and are seen as setting themselves beyond the law. The contempt for the police grows with each new report of officers being let off the hook when they kill innocent people or commit other crimes. Genuine fear is mounting at the authoritarian stance of the government and the increasing use of state power on ordinary citizens, manipulation of the legal system and the frightening of the judiciary.

Rampant greed, sexual immorality, violence, fear of walking our own streets and gun crimes, all feed the fear that ordinary people live with every day. Add the apparently constant threat of terror attacks and the picture of Britain today is that of an impending, complete social and moral breakdown. A persistant trend has surfaced in the midst of this bleak picture that seems to some to be iconic of why we remain in this mess. Whenever a voice of reason speaks out and attempts to point to the causes of our decline, other angry and strident voices are raised to shout the voice of reason down. A perfect example of this has surfaced recently in an excellent article in the Observer newspaper.

The article, by Mark Townsend published on Sunday October 16th 2005, opens with the words, "Britain's high rate of teenage pregnancies is a principal factor in the cause of violent crime, according to a controversial report by a leading criminologist." The first word that ought to leap off the page at us as we read this sentence is the word, "controversial." Why is a report stating what most people regard as common sense regarded as controversial? People know that when teenagers, with little or no real life experience have children, far too many of them will fail to bring up their children with the values, discipline and wisdom imparted to them that society requires in order to remain stable.

Too many children brought up in this way will bring about a society that exactly mirrors the one described above. There is however, a class of "professional" that disagrees with this simple analysis of the people and seems always to raise it's voice against that common sense. These "professionals" have been the dominating voices in our society since the early 1960's and their contribution to our decline exactly mirrors that decline. Common sense has now become so devalued it is regarded by many as controversial. The Observer article continues, "Speaking before the launch of one of the largest ever studies into violence, its author George Hosking said that parents under 16 were contributing to 'a cycle' of aggression that meant people were 25 times more likely to be a victim of violence than 50 years ago. His comments were denounced by many as demonising young parents.

Hosking referred to evidence that a person's propensity to violence is determined by the age of three. He said that teenage parents can lack 'emotional maturity' and misjudged attempts at discipline could lead to their children developing violent tendencies. A strong, healthy relationship between parents and babies is vital to reducing aggression, he said. 'More and more children are being born to younger parents who have no reference to draw on in how to handle a baby,' said Hosking, a clinical criminologist and chief executive of the Wave Trust, a charity dedicated to tackling the root causes of violence and which this week will unveil its nine-year study into the issue.

He added: 'Lower emotional maturity, lower emotional reserves and experience or maturity that people can draw on as parents play a role. People treated particularly badly under the age of three were more likely to go on and abuse as adults. Early intervention is required to stop a cycle of violence from developing.' Despite government attempts to tackle teenage pregnancies, Britain still has one of the highest rates in Europe. Latest figures reveal that the rate of under-16-year-old pregnancies in England and Wales has increased.",6903,1593326,00.html

Most reasonable people already know these things to be facts and they know the problem does not stop at 16 year olds One does not reach 16 and suddenly become a good parent. So who are these people that the article refers to as the, "many?" "His comments were denounced by many as demonising young parents" Listen now to the voice of the "professional" we have all been far too often seduced by. From the same article we read this:

"Catherine Evans of the Brook Centre said: 'There is a real risk of demonising teenage parents who are doing their very best for their children. They need support rather than being undermined or criticised. Teenage parents themselves are likely to have fewer educational opportunities and that is likely to have a knock-on effect on the outcomes of their children, but I am not aware of any evidence on the effects of teenage pregnancies.'" This is emotive language is filled with terms such as "demonising," "undermined", "support" and "criticised." Words designed to stifle any and all critical analysis of the single mother syndrome that is plaguing our society and contributing so much to our decline. These are the words of the professional, 'mummy' classes, that have shaped our thinking for far too long. Words such as these tend to silence those who wish to try and halt the tide of our own demise and bring the real truth to light and the public consciousness. They are the words of the left wing political mummy state and they have done incalculable damage to our way of life for over forty years and, as a society, need to begin to resist these voices and let common sense rule us again.

In the Bible, St. Paul referred to the devil coming as an, "Angel of light." He is warning that our enemies can come to us disguised as our friends. Today's disguised "friends" are always warning us that we must not offend anyone. To do so, by being critical of their behaviour, is painted as somehow destroying the freedom of the individual. The problem is that we are not just individuals, we are also a society. Society cannot function as a community of individuals all going their own way. It has to function as a group, led by common aims and by pulling together. If it does not, then it crumbles and falls and anarchy replaces the common will of the people. That is the direction our societies in the west are heading and we have to toughen up our attitudes and begin to think about restoring the common values and morality so blatantly missing from our society. That means we have to begin again to be critical of those, who willfully and stupidly, urge us all to abandon the will of the many in favour of the desires of the few.

Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, commentating on the studies findings said: "'It certainly could be a factor. It shows the importance of addressing the high rates of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies that we have in this country.'" These are the real voices of reason we should all be listening too and there are a growing number of them. Studies from all over the western world have shown again and again that marriage is the safest and most stable environment for children to grow up in. Yet, for more than forty years, we have been seduced by "friendly" voices that are anti father, anti marriage, anti men, anti family. Why then are we shocked when none of these groups lives up to our expectations of them? Perhaps we have all been "demonising" the wrong people for the last forty years and it is time to silence the voices of those who advocate the destruction of our families in such "reasonable" and "friendly" and "professional" sounding voices?

George Rolph.
October 2005

Texas Lottery and the Bush presidency 25 Oct 2005

Miers was player in Texas Lottery coverup
By Jerome Corsi, Ph.D [Co-Author of UNFIT FOR COMMAND]

Larry Litwin was fired in 1997 as executive director of the Texas Lottery Commission because then-Governor George Bush wanted an investigation into possible criminal political-influence buying squashed, and then-commissioner Harriet Miers, a Bush appointee, complied with his wishes and terminated him – that is the story Litwin is prepared to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Litwin's concerns over corruption in the agency he directed involved GTECH, the Rhode Island company that operated the lottery, prominent Texas lobbyists on GTECH's payroll, and a laundry list of Texas politicians – Democrat and Republican. Those details and the facts surrounding his firing will be offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee as soon as GTECH delivers a letter to committee staff releasing him from a 1998 gag order negotiated to end his wrongful termination federal lawsuit against GTECH.

WND has learned Littwin's testimony will disclose bi-partisan corruption, with money changing hands in a political influence buying scheme that spread Texas lottery money around widely, to Democrats and Republicans alike. Sources say Littwin's testimony will put new light on the over $160,000 in payments the Bush gubernatorial campaigns made to Harriet Miers' Locke Liddell law firm, including the $19,000 she was paid in 1995 to act as Bush's personal emissary in a mission to make sure Ben Barnes kept the lid on George Bush's explanation of preferential treatment he received when getting into the Texas Air National Guard ahead of a long list of other applicants.

New York resident Larry Littwin's story begins on June 9, 1997, when\ he was hired by the Texas Lottery Commission, largely due to his extensive career with Control Data and its then-subsidiary Automated Wagering International. The honeymoon was short-lived, however. Littwin's problems with the Lottery Commission began in earnest three months later, when in September he wrote three memos ordering a thorough search for political campaign contributions that may have been made by GTECH to a comprehensive list of Texas legislators and state officials. His search stretched back to 1989, two years before the Texas Legislature voted in the lottery.

Littwin had reason to be suspicious. In January 1997, federal prosecutors in New Jersey had released a pre-sentencing report in the criminal conviction of J. David Smith, GTECH's national sales manager, which mentioned former Texas Lt. Governor and GTECH lobbyist Ben Barnes as having been involved in a criminal kickback scheme that involved paying over $500,000 to a Kentucky company owned by Smith's wife. In September 1997, Littwin wanted to investigate those charges and determine how deeply the corruption reached into Texas politics. Prior to his indictment in New Jersey, J. David Smith bragged he had bribed some ten Texas legislators to secure their votes when the lottery bill was before the Legislature. Lottery Commission chairperson Miers assured the Austin American-Statesman these charges against Barnes would be investigated. WND can find no record of any investigation actually undertaken, despite the accusations of criminal activity.

On June 18, 1997, just days after Littwin was hired, Texas Attorney General Dan Morales ruled that the Texas Lottery Commission could no longer keep secret the details of a $23 million severance agreement Barnes had with GTECH. Barnes' contract had been terminated by an embarrassed GTECH following release of the federal prosecutor's pre-sentencing report linking Barnes to Smith's criminal schemes.

Barnes' pay-out rocked Texas. The newest member of the Lottery Commission, former Texas Supreme Court Justice John Hill told the Austin American-Statesman he was jolted by the amount: "When I was first given an approximate calculation of the amounts being paid to buy up this contract, I was shocked. And I'm still shocked. If they can afford to pay out millions of dollars for services they are not going to receive, it raises the question of whether they have other situations where they are not being prudent with their money."

Once more, Harriet Miers promised an investigation, telling the newspaper, "We found the amount a highly significant number, and it's one of the matters that continues to be under inquiry by the commission." Again, WND can find no record of any such investigation being undertaken by the Texas Lottery Commission, or by any Texas law enforcement unit. This was not the first time Hill and Miers spoke with one voice. In 1999, Miers' Dallas law firm, Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, merged with Judge John Hill's Houston firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, to form Locke, Liddell & Sapp. Judge Hill appeared in Washington last week as one of the Texas former Supreme Court Justices brought to the Capitol to buttress Harriet Miers' troubled nomination.

Commissioners Hill and Miers were desperate to calm the public uproar. Littwin had applied for the Texas lottery job on a whim. He and his wife were vacationing in California when they saw the Texas Lottery Commission's quarter-page job notice in USA Today. On his wife's encouragement, Littwin applied, rethinking his decision to retire. The Lottery Commission contacted him immediately, arranging to fly him to Texas as soon as possible. After meeting with him at a hotel, the three Texas Lottery Commissioners voted on the spot, hiring him the same day, even though there were nearly 700 applicants for the position. Littwin had made clear he worked for a GTECH competitor and the first thing he planned to do was open the GTECH contract to competitive bid. Having competed against GTECH, Littwin knew the firm threw money around to buy political influence, often with little regard for legal niceties. Littwin was offered an annual salary of $100,000. Asked to start immediately, he moved his residence into a hotel. As it turned out, his five month stay as Texas Lottery executive director was so short he never had time to buy a permanent home and move his wife to Texas to join him.

When Littwin first assumed his director duties, Lottery chairperson Miers was publicly supportive of his efforts, including decision to conduct a broad investigation to determine how many more Texas politicians had been swayed by GTECH money. On September 18, 1997, three months after Litwin began, the Dallas Morning News reported Miers saying she believed "he [Littwin] is doing the right thing for the right reason." She confirmed to the newspaper that lottery security officials had been dispatched to investigate some 30 current and former state officials, including former Democratic Governor Ann Richards and Comptroller John Sharp, who was planning to run in the next gubernatorial election.

The next day, September 19, 1997, everything changed. The Morning News reported a political landscape in turmoil over Littwin's investigations. Even Governor Bush weighed in with vociferous objections, calling Littwin's investigation "overzealous." Karen Hughes, the governor's spokesperson, argued the New Yorker just did not understand how things were done in Texas. "He [Governor Bush] hopes that this was a situation of someone who was new to Texas being overzealous in trying to inform himself about the history of the lottery," Ms. Hughes told the newspaper. "If it was an attempt in any way to embarrass or intimidate key members of the Legislature or the executive branch, then Governor Bush strongly objects."

Commissioners Hill and Miers were soon on the same page with Governor Bush, determined to stop Littwin. The Morning News reported Hill had only learned about Littwin's investigation in an executive session where the three commissioners ordered Littwin to stop. "The truth is none of us knew anything about this until it was reported to us in executive session," Judge Hill told the newspaper. "We made our position clear. I'm sure [the investigation's findings] won't be reported." Two days later, on September 21, 1997, the Morning News, still pursuing the story, quoted an increasingly agitated Governor Bush. "I don't think any of us understand what [Littwin] was doing," Bush told the paper. "If in fact he was gathering data to try to embarrass a member of the House or Senate or the executive branch, it's inappropriate behavior. I just don't understand what was going on there, and I don't think anybody does yet. I think that will be clarified by the commission."

On October 2, 1997, Lottery Commissioners Miers and Hill told the Dallas paper they had not approved the records search Mr. Littwin had undertaken. In the same article, Littwin defended himself: "Specifically, in the exercise of due diligence with provisions of our vendor contracts, I felt this research and review was important in order to determine if any financial contributions had been made by GTECH." On Wednesday, October 29, 1997, the Lottery Commission met and ended the controversy, voting to fire Littwin, less than five months after his sudden hiring. On February 20, 1998, the Morning News reported Linda Cloud, Littwin's replacement, had decided to end competitive bidding for the GTECH contract, even though lower priced bids were then on the table.

A WND search of Texas Lottery Commission documents has failed to find the internal memos Littwin wrote in September 1997 to launch his investigation of political influence buying. The Senate Judiciary Committee, armed with subpoena powers, may have better success surfacing those documents, as well as any additional internal records which surround the controversy. Federal Election Committee records show Ben Barnes is a generous contributor to many Democratic Party campaigns, with recent contributions to Judiciary Committee members Kennedy, Leahy, and Schumer, as well as to Democratic presidential hopefuls, Senators Kerry and Clinton. A full investigation into Miers' record as lottery commissioner will most likely require the Senate Judiciary Committee to issue a subpoena to Barnes as well as to Littwin.

WND has been told Senate Judiciary Committee attorneys have held discussions with Littwin, as well as with GTECH, and are making plans for Littwin to appear before staff in preparation for public testimony. A subpoena for Litwin to appear before staff could be issued as soon as Thursday this week. WND has also been told Littwin's testimony offers the possibility of opening new investigations and generating new indictments. An examination of the record gives lie to the claim Miers "cleaned up the Texas lottery scandals." In 1995, when Governor Bush first appointed Miers as chairperson of the Lottery Commission, J. David Smith and Ben Barnes were busy buying influence in Texas for GTECH below the radar screen. The "scandal" blew up when the federal prosecutors in New Jersey published pre-sentencing recommendations in J. David Smith's criminal conviction, a report that openly pointed an accusing finger at Ben Barnes. When Harriet Miers left the commission in 2000, anticipating she would be awarded a position in the White House should George Bush win the presidency, GTECH still had the Texas contract and all investigations of political-influence buying in GTECH's Texas lottery contract had been effectively squashed. That may all change once Larry Littwin begins testifying. As cautioned before, Larry Littwin may turn out to be George Bush's John Dean.

In Watergate, it took one "third-rate burglary" to open the investigation that brought down Nixon as his second term was beginning and Vietnam was playing to defeat. George W. Bush's second term is still in its first year and we are yet struggling in Iraq. The comparison is painful. In nominating Harriet Miers, President Bush has managed to re-open, on a national stage, the Texas lottery scandals and the National Guard controversy. Before it is finished, we may be examining how lotteries buy political influence in America today, as well as replaying the debate over Vietnam that characterized much of the 2004 presidential campaign.

It's time for the President to withdraw this dreadful nomination or, if politics dictate, Harriet Miers to withdraw herself from consideration, so we might avoid another long, painful, and needless examination of old matters that probably would be better off never exhumed.

Rumsfeld profits From Avian Flu Hoax 25 Oct 2005

Finally, the pieces of the puzzle start to add up. Last week, President Bush sought to instill panic in this country by telling us a minimum of 200,000 people will die from the avian flu pandemic but it could be as bad as 2 million deaths in this country alone. This hoax is then used to justify the immediate purchase of 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a worthless drug that in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but only decreases the amount of days one is sick and can actually contribute to the virus having more lethal mutations.

So the U.S. placed an order for 20 million doses of this worthless drug at a price of $100 per dose. That comes to a staggering $2 billion. We are being told that Roche manufactures Tamiflu and, in yesterday's New York Times, they were battling whether or not they would allow generic drug companies to help increase their production. But if you dig further you will find that a drug was actually developed by a company called Gilead that 10 years ago gave Roche the exclusive rights to market and sell Tamiflu. Ahh, The Plot Thickens...

If you read the link below from Gilead, you'll discover Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was made the chairman of Gilead in 1997. Since Rumsfeld holds major portions of stock in Gilead, he will handsomely profit from the scare tactics of the government that is being used to justify the purchase of $2 billion of Tamiflu. For more on the nonsense of the avian flu hoax, you'll want to review my post from yesterday.

Gilead Sciences Inc.

Impeach Bush 25 Oct 2005

IMPEACH BUSH AND ENTER THE "GUESS HOW MANY INDICTMENTS" POOL As always we feature the action link first, this one to call for the impeachment of George Bush

There is a storm of historic proportions headed for the United States, one that will make Hurricane Wilma (also en route) look like a small splash in the pond by comparison. It's been building and gathering strength in the increasingly hot waters of the Special Counsel's office for almost two years, and in a matter of days it may lay waste to the entire political infrastructure of Washington, D.C., from one end to the other.

We start with the understanding that the crime of the century (so far) has taken place in Iraq. Lies and forged evidence duped the American people into waging preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us -- all for the cynical and greedy purpose of enriching a handful of the Bush administration's closest cronies. In the process, over 100,000 people have been senselessly murdered and maimed, including many thousands of our own service people. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been looted from the treasuries of two countries, mostly our own. Even worse, many believe that the attack of 9/11 was not only foreseen by the inner circle of our government, but that orders for a deliberate "stand-down" allowed it to occur. Why? So that the horrific resulting tragedy would justify all that followed.

The magnitude of these crimes is so monumental that their perpetrators were obsessed with suppressing any evidence of it. They ruthlessly smeared all critics, purging and intimidating any dissenting voices. For them the treasonous acts of exposing (and thereby destroying) one of our most critical intelligence assets (a front company secretly working to prevent the spread of WMD), were just another day's collateral damage. Having lied successfully for so long, having corrupted their mainstream corporate media lap dogs, and having made eunuchs of many in the "opposition" party, they considered themselves unassailable. Such arrogance has seldom been equaled.

What they did not count on was Patrick Fitzgerald. The letter which appointed him as Special Counsel granted to him the "authority of the Attorney General . . . independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department." Careful to confirm the extent of his mandate, he further inquired and was advised that "[It] is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted . . ."

"Plenary" means "absolute and unqualified." In a word, Fitzgerald has all the power of the attorney general, the top law enforcement officer of the federal government himself, to pursue the facts wherever they may lead. It therefore appears he now possesses his own authority, and cannot be legally removed from his position, even by Bush. He has his own operating budget too, direct from the GAO.

For the criminal purposes of the Bush administration, Patrick Fitzgerald is their worst nightmare come true. He is a career prosecutor with a reputation for being not only "frighteningly" brilliant but fearless, and with a driving passion for determining the truth, their most mortal enemy. Indeed, the fastest way to get Fitzgerald's fur up is to try to lie to him as a witness. See, he's a workaholic already, and liars just make him work harder. And if you've committed a federal crime like maybe . . . oh gee, maybe like perjury . . . says an old attorney friend, "Pat Fitzgerald's gonna get ya." Oh, and did we mention that he always goes for the person at the top of the conspiracy? For those who are still trying to get their minds around the possible indictment of Rove and Libby, now a near certainty, consider that no one in the Bush camp is capable of telling the truth under any circumstances. As for Bush himself, one of his Harvard Business School professors said that Dubya was "famous" in his class for being a "pathological" liar. Bush has known all along who the leakers were, and he's been lying all along. Fitzgerald interviewed Bush for over an hour, and it's unlikely that he told the truth in any respect. Bad move, George. Fitzie don't play that.

But wait, you say; that interview wasn't under oath. Try telling that to Martha Stewart who just got out of prison from her conviction for deceiving an investigator. Likewise with Dick Cheney. Even if two of his bag men had not cut deals with Fitzgerald already. And as for those who did testify untruthfully to the grand jury under oath, ask Li'l Kim what heinous lie she told to keep her in federal prison for a year. All she did was deny that she knew somebody that she did, in fact, know. So let's put it together. We have a president who seems unable to tell the truth. We have an independent prosecutor of immaculate integrity who will not tolerate a lie. The INESCAPABLE conclusion is that Bush will be indicted, along with each and every member of his administration who participated in this. There has been talk on the web of 22 indictments. Rove and Libby -- (that's two), add two for Hannah and Wurmser (already cooperating but not given immunity), plus Bush and Cheney -- that gets us up to six . . . why don't we just say conservatively for the purposes of the pool . . . that 12 people will be indicted.

Besides perjury (and false statements), Fitzgerald has conspiracy and obstruction of justice to pick from as well, and those are just a couple of the technical crimes. Remember that he has the authority to pursue this investigation wherever it leads, and he is driven to do just that. He was born for this. Among other things, he requested from the Italian authorities the files on the forging of the Niger documents themselves. That was what Joe Wilson's trip was all about. And why they were so compelled to "out" his wife in the first place in their clumsy attempt to discredit him. What do you think the chances are that the most zealous prosecutor they could have appointed won't get to the bottom of that one, too? He may even expose what really happened on 9/11. Wouldn't that be the "coup de grace"?

So what happens next? What happens if Bush tries to preemptively pardon everyone, INCLUDING himself? Even Nixon wasn't that shameless. But don't put it past Bush to trigger the greatest constitutional crisis of all time. There are a couple of wrinkles involved here, beyond even the public outroar that would result. The constitution states that the president has the power to pardon "except in Cases of Impeachment." That's why it is important that you act now to demand the impeachment of Bush for all the high crimes and misdemeanors that he has committed already. In the end it may be the only way to restrain him.


If Bush tries to pardon himself AND cling to power, expect winds of historic intensity for change. And in the center of it all there will be a vacuum of power. For those politicians who have shown no courage so far, this will be their last chance! Don't be surprised to see the conspirators running to Roberts, their latest crony appointment, to try to find a way out. And eternal shame on any member of the senate who lets that one slide without demanding each and every document that could help reveal the truth.
or to get no more simply email to

Divorce and anti-male culture 25 Oct 2005



Men generally, and particularly divorced fathers, are the most discriminated against group in today's America. They are the victims of an out of control, unusually vicious legal and regulatory system rivaling the Jim Crow laws against blacks of the Old South. The media supports the persecution of men by portraying them unfavorably. Today's movies reflect today's stridently anti-male culture. Male leads are usually depicted as emotionally broken men who are often substance abusers. Directly, or implicitly, they abuse their wives, or girlfriends, and neglect their children. When they live alone, their homes are dirty, unkempt hovels unfit for human habitation. Unlike the usual female lead, men usually have blue collar dead end jobs in which they barely function properly. Often there is a kind hearted boss who cuts them plenty of slack when they fail to appear for work, make mistakes, or intentionally screw up. When the man is a professional, he's usually portrayed as a crook or evil doer out to harm anyone who stands in his way.

Against the backdrop of such lurid and unfair depictions of men, it's easy to understand the legal structures feminists constructed over the past 30 years to deprive men of equal protection under the law. Under the color ridiculously false assertion women are an oppressed minority, men become fair game for every kind of imaginable excuse for discriminatory treatment. Women get preferential admissions to the best colleges and professional schools. As physician from a very modest income family, I now wonder today whether with an almost straight A average and high MCAT scores I could get into the state medical school I attended in the 1960s. Back then there was no affirmative action. Admission was solely predicated on grades and the MCAT. I had so little money my only chance for a medical education was to attend a SUNY medical school where the tuition for low income students was $200 annually.

The worst abuses occur in the divorce courts where men are presumed to be the bad guys. Unless a man has significant financial and emotional resources, he's likely to lose his children, become financially ruined, and get thrown out of the family home. Worse yet he loses his due process rights when accused of spousal abuse which today can simply amount to woman cooking up a story she "afraid" of being abused. Most states today require the man be automatically jailed and post bond to gain release. Prior to incarceration they have no right to confront their accusers, present evidence, or obtain a jury trial. Put another way women have equal rights but men are subjected to Nazi or Soviet style summary judgments. George Orwell's comment "some people are more equal than others" aptly applies to men's plight in today's America. For American men today divorce is the royal road to financial ruin. With federal government subsidizing state child support collections based upon the percentage of the recovery, child support levels are set at ruinous levels. Accumulated debts can never be reduced or discharged in bankruptcy. Millions of men become paupers condemned to live hand to mouth with no hope of every regaining financial stability. Add to that the loss of their children, it's no wonder the suicide and mental illness rate amongst divorced fathers is so high.

I don't think over time a democracy like ours can survive with almost half the population potential victims of totalitarian abuse. Something's got to give. I believe unless major reforms occur some distraught, angry, unbalanced, heartbroken, impoverished divorced fathers will resort to terrorism. The media hushes such things up because to say out loud a terrorist incident occurred because a legal injustice, the government would be forced to act. Heaven forbid mainstream politicians get off their knees and stop licking the soles of the feminists' Manolo Blahniks . That's why last January's Los Angeles intentional train derailment in which 11 people were killed by an agitated young father who lost his children, and a livable income, wasn't reported as terrorism. Wouldn't take much for a WMD to destroy an American city taking millions of lives in the catastrophe.

Because I fear for America's future I've very reluctantly decided to set aside the quiet, very pleasant life I enjoy in California to "test the waters" for a presidential race in 2008. I've never sought public office before. Think I'm much like our Founding Fathers who left their farms, businesses, and intellectual pursuits later in life to serve America in her hour of need. Life's comforts aside, I'm in my mid-60s so I'm sacrificing much of what's left of the quarter of my life.

It's a fair question to ask why anyone would take a untried novice candidate like me seriously. The short answer is Americans are particularly very rattled by the collapse of the family and the unaffordability of middle class family life. I believe I can put together WITHOUT HAVING TO COMPROMISE MY PROGRAMS BY MOVING TO CENTER OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM a winning plurality of men generally, divorced men and their new spouses and heartbroken relatives, social conservatives, exhausted working mothers who'd like to spend more time with their families, sensible seniors who fear the consequences of today's collapsing families, and young adults who yearn for a normal family life. There'd be no point to my turning to center to win the White House. I want to change things rather simply be a caretaker for the same old same bankrupt social policies which are destroying the American family. For that there are plenty of professional politicians who've spent their entire lives chasing the presidency by playing it safe.

I also believe voters across the political spectrum will immediately see me as an ordinary, honest, quite frank, middle class person who's only agenda is the nation's best interests. I seek power very reluctantly, and once my work is done would like nothing more than to return to my pleasant home and wonderful, very colorful garden in the Oakland hills, and hang out with my children and grandchildren. I have a broad policy reform agenda involving economic and military issues, but today I'll address how a Klein Administration would deal with divorce and its aftermath. My primary goal would be to dismantle the DIVORCE INDUSTRY by appointing an HHS secretary fully and unreservedly committed to my policy objectives. My legislative and regulatory agenda would be:

In federally subsidized family court proceeding shall be conducted so that each party have equal rights. Sunset the HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the policy and enforcement engine for the destruction of the American family. By regulation, or if necessary by legislation, mandate a 50-50 physical custody presumption for states to continue to receive funding for family programs. The 50-50 presumption would be retroactive so old cases could be reopened.

Repeal the Bradley Amendment so child support debt can be reduced or eliminated. Amend the bankruptcy laws so child support and alimony debt could be discharged. Either through regulation, or if necessary with new legislation, mandate no one can be jailed in abuse case without trial unless in good faith the arresting officer certifies under penalty of perjury there is a clear and present danger to the complaining spouse. I would instruct my attorney general to aggressively criminally prosecute as a civil rights felony violation knowingly filing false domestic violence complaints resulting in an improper incarceration.

Child support orders would have to take into account the maintenance of non-custodial parent's standard of living. My HHS secretary will issue regulations to strictly enforce this policy. Multiple willful violations of a non-custodial parent's visitation rights would automatically shift custody, terminate the current child support obligation, and erase prior unpaid child support debt. I came to the fathers' right movement only several months ago by way of my broader concerns about how federal family policy perversely destroys marriage, breaks the hearts of children, and undermines middle class family life generally.

I was completely unaware of the vicious regulatory and legal abuse of divorced fathers. Naïve at first I thought the administration was unaware of the Nazi-like system which systematically destroys fathers. After bringing the situation to the attention of a very senior GOP party official, I spoke with Assistant HHS Secretary Wade Horn who runs ACF, and later met for almost 2 hours with his then chief deputy when on a business trip to Washington. They made it very clear there'd be no policy changes.

As I mulled over what I learned from these contacts, I realized why the fathers rights movement has basically gotten nowhere seeking reform at the state level. With regards to family law and child support the states are essentially string puppets controlled by the federal government. The states are utter moral midgets on family stability policy. Rather than cut spending, or heaven forbid raise taxes, they've become addicted to federal subsidies and casino gambling taxes to balance their budgets off the misery and suffering of parents and children. Hence the only solution for fathers rights issues is to take political power by electing a true reformer to the White House.

I'm testing the waters for a presidential run. I don't come to this with the Heinz or Kennedy family fortune behind me. Money is the mother's milk of politics. Unless I'm convinced I've got the financial support I just can't make the race. Divorced fathers are often financially pinched. But $5 from a substantial number of America's 25 million divorced fathers puts me up at bat in the bottom of 9th, three runs down, and the bases loaded. I'll be swinging for the fences.

God bless you all. Take care and God's speed.

Challenging systematic destruction of families 25 Oct 2005

Phyllis Schlafly, defender

The Washington Times' fine tribute to Phyllis Schlafly contains one major omission: her work today ("Conservatives' first lady sparked pro-family effort," Page 1, Oct. 7). Not only did her leadership not end with the Equal Rights Amendment, but her current campaign may turn out to be among her most critical. Sadly, we seem to have learned little. Mrs. Schlafly is now heroically challenging the systematic destruction of families in the nation's family courts. This hidden abuse is the logical culmination of what many call the "totalitarian" tendencies of organized feminism but which few fully understand or confront. "Feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution," she writes. "Feminists made divorce a major component of women's liberation."

Yet even today, Mrs. Schlafly meets resistance — and not only from the left. Some conservative politicians have swallowed the poisonous feminist propaganda about the evil male and the necessity for massive government action against him. Avoiding political risk, they posture as champions of "women and children" by demanding measures against "domestic violence" and "deadbeat dads," even when no scientific data indicate that these problems are anything other than creations of the government. "There is a deafening silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the federal government's business," writes Mrs. Schlafly.

These feminist programs actually destroy families and create the very problems they claim to be solving. For example, the Violence Against Women Act, a destructive "hate-crime" law that violates both families and constitutional rights and funds extremist lobbying, has just passed both houses of Congress with little opposition. The one prominent exception was Mrs. Schlafly. She is also almost alone in calling for a re-evaluation of "no-fault" divorce and for shared parenting laws to discourage the use of children as weapons. Rather than repeat the very mistakes it chronicles, The Times would pay a higher tribute to Phyllis Schlafly by emulating her courage and taking the lead in breaking the news blackout that pervades not only the liberal media but too much of the conservative press as well.

American Coalition for Fathers and Children

Anti-terror powers risk turning people against police 23 Oct 2005

Anti-terror powers risk turning people against the police(surprise surprise) As if UK citizens  respect the  police just now?

Anti-terror powers could hit police

Increased use of anti-terror powers risk turning people against the police, ministers have been warned. Many more people are being stopped and searched since the suicide bomb attacks in London on July 7, a BBC survey reveals. Over half the forces that responded said more people had been stopped in the past three months than the previous year Officers do not have to demonstrate "reasonable suspicion" to carry out a search under the Terrorism Act 2000.

When Walter Wolfgang tried to re-enter the Labour Party conference he was detained under Section 44 of the Act. Sussex police accept it was a mistake but critics say the BBC's findings suggest it is being widely misused. Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, said: "These powers should be used sparingly and be intelligence-led.

"If the numbers of searches continue to increase at this rate it will create tensions in communities, and could turn the public against the police." Eighteen out of the 43 police forces in England and Wales provided recent figures for stop and searches. Some forces like Cumbria and Devon and Cornwall have not used the powers at all while others have seen massive increases. In Hampshire, home to many military bases, officers stopped more than 4,400 pedestrians and vehicles since July 7 compared with just 700 in 2003-4. On Humberside there were just four searches in 2003-4 but police have carried out 1,830 in the past three months.

Boy used for crime by mother 23 Oct 2005

The family of a burglary victim is horrified a woman used a young child to break into a house and steal cash and jewellery.

Tony Margaritis warned others to watch out for the woman who cased his mother house in Mulgrave, then pushed the primary school-aged boy through a window to let her in.

A builder at a house next door saw her loitering and later saw her push the child through a back window. He did not report it as he thought there was a feasible explanation. "That kid should have been at school, not breaking into houses," Mr Margaritis said.,5478,16994553%255E2862,00.html

Advocates battle over fees 23 Oct 2005

Advocates' leaders face rebellion over deal with Executive on fees

IT IS the legal equivalent of a bar-room brawl. Scotland's top criminal lawyers are set to oust their own leaders because of anger over a controversial new deal on fees. Derek Ogg and Paul McBride are the two Queen's Counsel on the powerful advocates' committee, which has been negotiating with the Scottish Executive on charges made for representing clients in court.

But McBride, vice-chairman of the Faculty of Advocates' Criminal Bar Association (FACBA), is likely to be voted out when his position comes up for election next month because of dissatisfaction over the progress of the deal. Ogg, the FACBA chairman, has already told colleagues that he does not intend to seek re-election. Being voted out of office is regarded as highly unusual in the Faculty of Advocates, where senior office bearers are usually able to retain their posts for several years before eventually deciding themselves to stand down. Acting in his own defence, McBride said that the fees deal has not yet been finally agreed and that the talks have involved more advocates than simply himself and Ogg.

The anger among members of the criminal Bar follows negotiations with the Executive after legal aid fees claimed by lawyers in Scotland more than doubled between 1990 and 2000, from £59m to £127m. South of the Border, a similar deal cutting fees caused chaos in English courts when barristers went on strike and appeal hearings ground to a halt. So far, Scotland has avoided similar action, but advocates have claimed that the new pay scales will not reward them adequately for dealing with complex cases. Ultimately, they claim, no-one will be prepared to act in criminal defence cases.

The issue is likely to come to a head at the annual general meeting of FACBA next month, at which elections for the senior positions of chairman and vice-chairman will be held. Although the posts are often uncontested, sources within the Scottish Bar say it is likely that disgruntled advocates will stand for election because of unhappiness over the deal agreed with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Executive. The sources believe that Ogg and McBride, who are members of the Faculty's Fees and Legal Aid Committee involved in the negotiations, failed to hammer out an adequate deal. A senior Faculty of Advocates insider said: "There are a lot of members of faculty who are so unhappy that they think those at the top should go, and there are some looking for a person to stand for election.

"The view is that those negotiating didn't get the deal that the members were looking for. "Of course, parts of it are fine, and we welcome much of it. But the fees for a lot of pretty involved tasks are just too low to make them worthwhile." The Faculty insider added that the fee changes had coincided with a host of other developments in the Scottish legal landscape, which had slashed advocates' incomes. These include the recent Bonomy reforms, which attempted to streamline the Scottish court system by cutting the number of preliminary hearings and avoiding the need for some cases to reach court.

In addition, changes in the sentencing powers of sheriffs mean that far more cases go to sheriff courts - where the accused is represented by a solicitor - rather than to the advocate-dominated high courts. As there will be less cases for advocates to handle as a result, it represents a further squeeze on their incomes. A spokesman for the Faculty of Advocates said: "The Faculty is involved in continuous discussions with the Executive and Scottish Legal Aid Board, which we hope will reach a satisfactory conclusion." But McBride declared that while he realised some of his colleagues were unhappy with the new fees, scapegoating himself and Ogg was premature and misguided.

He said: "The important thing for everyone to remember is that the negotiations are not over and that they are still on-going, and what has been agreed is very positive. "It is strange that the disgruntled are focusing on Derek Ogg and myself. The negotiations are being carried out by the Faculty's Fees and Legal Aid Committee, which contains many other members of the Bar in addition to the two of us. "Anyone is, of course, very welcome to stand for election, but I cannot see a change in personnel making any difference to the on-going talks."

Police probe US ‘torture flights’to Scotland 23 Oct 2005

SCOTTISH police are to launch an investigation into CIA “torture flights” which fly in and out of Glasgow and Prestwick airports, ferrying kidnapped war on terror suspects around the world.The police action is a result of last week’s disturbing investigation by the Sunday Herald into the so-called “extraordinary rendition flights”, which see suspects kidnapped overseas by the CIA, drugged and then flown to “friendly” states, such as Egypt, Uzbekistan and Morocco, where they are tortured on behalf of British and American intelligence. Following our reports , the Green Party wrote to the chief constable of Strathclyde Police, Sir William Rae, asking for a full inquiry into the torture flights. A police spokesperson confirmed that the force would now launch an investigation. Last week, we revealed that the British government was to be sued by human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith for complicity in the torture of his client Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi.

Also exposed was the fact that international human rights experts and lawyers believe the UK is breaking the Geneva Conventions by collaborating with the USA on the transit of the flights through Britain. Further, the UK allows British airports to be used for refuelling by the CIA’s jets ferrying suspects around the world. Glasgow and Prestwick airports are the two most favoured CIA stop-overs. Chris Ballance, the Green Party MSP who represents the Prestwick area, said he lodged the complaint with Strathclyde Police after reading the Sunday Herald’s investigation because it appeared that “Scotland is complicit in these gross acts of torture”.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said : “Once these planes land on British soil, they have no immunity. If they touch down at a civilian airport they are under civilian jurisdiction. This would allow the police to do their job fully and to board the plane and question those on board.” Beyond saying that an investigation would take place, Strathclyde Police said it could not comment on how the inquiry would proceed. The CIA refused categorically to comment. One CIA official merely laughed when told that Scottish police were to investigate.

Third Reich mindset running the UK 23 Oct 2005

Commons vote brings Big Brother Britain a step closer
Soon we will all be carrying the card

THE largest database in the western world is now one step nearer — whether we like it or not. On Tuesday, almost unnoticed amid the Tory leadership vote, the Government’s Identity Cards Bill was passed by the Commons despite a Labour rebellion. Only the House of Lords can now prevent it becoming law. So what, you might say. Only those with something to hide have anything to fear from ID cards.

Will you be quite as happy as Home Secretary Charles Clarke to carry a national ID card? That is unless you worry about having to queue for hours to have fingerprints taken at a designated time and place. Unless you don’t want to be fined up to £2500 if you fail to attend. Unless it bothers you to have to pay at least £93 for the privilege — and then pay that again 10 years later.


Unless you’re troubled by the prospect of every purchase over £100, every hospital visit, every move you make being recorded forever on the proposed National Identity Register. It may also concern you that a senior security expert at the world’s largest software company says the scheme could mean confidential data falling into the hands of criminals. Are you a bit more worried ? The opponents of the Bill certainly are. Phil Booth is the national co-ordinator of the campaign group No2ID and he says the devil in this Bill is most certainly in the detail. He’s convinced that the idea of ID cards initially being voluntary is nonsense. “It is an utterly spurious notion,” he says. “They will be compulsory from the outset. If you want to travel abroad then you will need to be on the national register — there is no opt-out. That doesn’t sound like a voluntary scheme to me. “Anyone whose job requires a criminal records check, such as teachers or social workers, will have to be registered. “The power to designate other documents as requiring registration on the national database are contained within this Bill. “For example, it is probable that anyone applying for a new driving licence will have to be on the register.


“This is a very, very dangerous Bill because of the dozens of powers it gives to the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. We are giving him control of our identities.” The process of being put on the register is also fraught with problems. “Every single person will have to line up at a state centre and be registered,” says Phil Booth. “Everyone will have to be fingerprinted like a criminal, will have their irises scanned, will have to tell them every address they have stayed at. If you don’t turn up you can be fined up to £2500. “It will also be incumbent on people to inform the Government of changes in their details, for example when they change addresses. They won’t come to you — you will have to tell them. “If you fail to do so then you’ll be fined up to £1000 for every piece of information you fail to disclose. There are more than 50 categories on the register. “Our daily movements will also be monitored. For example, according to information in a Regulatory Impact Assessment from the Home Office, shop transactions will be deemed low, medium or high risk. “A purchase over £100 — say a weekly family shop — would be rated medium risk. That would mean showing your ID card and mean your purchases would be logged on the database.”


So what other information will be held? The Bill isn’t specific — it gives the Home Secretary the right to include “registrable facts” which he deems to be in the public interest. Just what those will be, only time will tell. Matthew Taylor, the Lib-Dem MP for Truro and St Austell, is a leading opponent of the Bill and says everything from bank loans to video loans will be held. “This Bill gives the Government powers to gather information and we just don’t know how it will be used. “There is little doubt, for example, that private businesses will demand to use it. Banks, credit card companies, insurance firms will all want your ID number before doing business with you.  “It’s not optional in any meaningful way. Only a very small number of people will be able to avoid this. It will give the Government the ability to tell where you are every day and for no great purpose.” Mr Taylor has little time for the Government’s argument that ID cards will be a tool against fraud or terrorism.  “On the contrary it provides the opportunity for a massive increase in fraud. Forty million people will be forced to register with little more than a couple of paper documents, and criminals will be able to create false identities very easily. “As for defeating terrorism, in the US and Spain — at 9/11 and Madrid — the terrorists all had valid ID cards. If anything, this will lull people into a false sense of security.”


He is supported in this by Jerry Fishenden, senior security expert at Microsoft, who says the Government’s plans are technically flawed and that the National Identity Register could lead to “huge potential breaches”. Mr Taylor also argues that the proposed technology simply doesn’t work very well. “It’s bad enough that people will be forced to travel to a centre to be fingerprinted and have their iris scanned then charged for the privilege. “Worse still, that technology might not recognise you if you age, get your hair cut or have brown eyes (a glitch that has been shown up in the system). If your card is rejected then basically you won’t be able to use anything and will need to get another.” Unless this Bill is toppled by the House of Lords, Big Brother will not only be watching you, he will be recording everything you do and charging you for it.

Vital to security?

THE GOVERNMENT maintains the introduction of ID cards is vital for national and personal security. A Home Office spokesman said the scheme would help, “disrupt the use of false and multiple identities by organised criminals and those involved in terrorist activity, tackle illegal working and immigration abuse, enable easier access to services for those entitled to them, help protect people from identity fraud and theft, ensure British citizens are able to continue to travel freely as international requirements for secure biometric identity documents develop.” Home Secretary Charles Clarke said, “Being able to prove who we are is a fundamental requirement in modern societies, for example when we travel, apply for a job, open a bank account or apply for benefits. “In future, the recording of biometrics, such as fingerprints, iris patterns or facial image means that we will have a much stronger way of linking identity to the person. A national ID card will be a robust, secure way to establish that identities are real, not fabricated.”

That will be £93 please

HOW MUCH is all this going to cost us? No-one, the Government included, has any real idea.  Official estimates say it will cost the country £5.84 billion over 10 years but two independent surveys put the cost at £12-19 billion. The Government says the ID card itself will cost individuals £93 if taken along with a passport — and this will need to be renewed every 10 years. However, the true unit cost of that package is £290 and the remainder will be passed on to us in other ways, perhaps through increased council taxes.

Wedded to the State 22 Oct 2005

By Stephen Baskerville

Writing recently in National Review Online , Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), describes the huge social costs of family breakdown and the benefits to children and society of marriage. He also points out that his agency spends $46 billion each year on programs "the need for [which] is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages." He rightly argues that we need to address this costly "family breakdown" problem.

In fact, one could look beyond his Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and even HHS and make a similar point about virtually all programs for law enforcement, substance abuse, and school performance.

Indeed, his argument demonstrates more than that the runaway growth in domestic government spending is attributable to family breakdown. It is also an acknowledgement that the federal government and its hangers-on have a clear self-interest in broken families. ACF and the half-trillion dollar HHS generally constitute a massive in-house lobby of social workers, psychotherapists, lawyers and others who are not so candid as Dr. Horn about how they depend upon a steady supply of fatherless and troubled children to justify their huge consumption of tax dollars – dollars that in turn subsidize and increase the number of such children.

The fact that Dr. Horn has a tiger by the tail may explain why, as remedy, he can offer only palliatives in the form of yet another government program, this time state-sponsored psychotherapy: "Through marriage education, healthy conflict-resolution skills can be taught." In what Christina Sommers and Sally Satel have called in their book title, One Nation Under Therapy , does anyone really believe that our multi-billion dollar family crisis is due to a lack of communication workshops and anger-management classes? And do we really want the federal government defining (and potentially re-defining) the terms of marriage?

The smorgasbord of programs Dr. Horn lists is more than a response to broken families; it is a major cause of broken families. Before we initiate new federal programs, we ought to remember the first rule of public policy intervention, which is to first examine the effect of existing programs to see if adjusting them may correct the problem. Could our current public programs and policies be contributing to the family breakdown problem, and, if so, how can we alter them to yield better results?

Dr. Horn provides a good example of how a federal program can be altered to become much more socially productive. Our welfare system used to be a major direct cause of family breakdown or non-formation. We used to pay poor mothers not to marry or work. With welfare reform, we changed that system to allow them to marry and no longer pay them not to work. As he notes, this change in the system has been a huge success. Our welfare rolls have decreased, and child poverty has declined.

Similar political courage will be needed to address the other known public programs and policies that are undermining marriage. These include:

(1) The states have failed, since the 1960's, to treat marriage as a real contract.

Currently anyone who wants out of a marriage can unilaterally end it without penalty. This is not what was intended when marriage laws were changed in the 1970's. "No fault" divorce was to be allowed only when both parties agreed to it. This would have made marriage more like a real contract, with less interference by the state in the matter of its ending. Instead, marriage has become a non-contract, with no protection for those who invest in it.

(2) Paternalistic "family" courts and new laws have seriously undermined fatherhood.

There has long been a huge bias in divorce courts to grant custody of children to mothers. As this bias threatened to diminish, feminists pushed through the Violence Against Women Act , which makes it easy for any mother considering divorce to toss the father out of his own home and claim the family assets, including the children, simply by accusing him of domestic violence. No evidence or formal charge is required, and domestic "violence" need not even be violent. Shared parenting provisions would end this winner-take-all lottery.

(3) Federally funded state child support systems set excessive awards and penalize non-payment harshly, even when the circumstances for non-payment are clearly outside the control of the payer.

Child support awards are so high that the children have become a profit center for middle class divorcing moms – an additional financial incentive for them to divorce. As Kimberly Folse and Hugo Varela-Alvarez write in the Journal of Socio-Economics, "Strong enforcement…may… lead to the unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood of divorce." Yet in a striking slight-of-hand, disbursements under the "healthy marriage" mantra have actually gone less to counseling than to child support enforcement.

Is it any surprise that divorce in families with children is almost entirely instituted by the moms? But young men have gotten the message and are increasingly avoiding marriage and avoiding having children inside or outside of marriage. These men are scolded for their lack of "commitment" by the National Marriage Project, whose interpretation Dr. Horn is using to formulate policy. But no man in his right mind would start a family today if he understood how the federal government subsidizes the stealing of his children and his own incarceration for an assortment of newfangled gender "crimes" they make it impossible for him not to commit.

Exhorting people to marry is pointless so long as marriage is a bate-and-switch carrying financial rewards for those who break it. People will simply not invest in a worthless investment, no matter how much you preach at them. If marriage was a worthwhile investment, we would see more of it.

Stephen Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. The views expressed are his own.

Secret tracking codes in laser printers cracked 21 Oct 2005

Big brother does dot-to-dot

The pages that are printed by your colour laser printer may include tiny dots, almost invisible to the naked eye. The dots form a code that can be read by the US Secret Service, ostensibly to track down counterfeiters. Now, for the first time, the code has been cracked.

The Secret Service has admitted before that the tracking information is part of a deal struck with selected colour laser printer manufacturers – including Xerox, Canon and many others. If a colour laser printer is used to forge a document and agents get sight of the document, the codes can be read. However, the full nature of the private information encoded in each document was not previously known.

"We've found that the dots from at least one line of printers encode the date and time your document was printed, as well as the serial number of the printer," said EFF Staff Technologist Seth David Schoen.

You can see the dots on colour prints from machines made by Xerox, Canon, and other manufacturers. The dots are yellow, less than one millimetre in diameter, and are typically repeated over each page of a document. In order to see the pattern, you need a blue light, a magnifying glass or a microscope. But once you've cracked the pattern, you may be able to trace the owner of a printer that produced a suspicious document.

The major manufacturers tend to say little about the issue on record. When investigating the issue earlier this year for Issue 12 of OUT-LAW Magazine, a typical response was: "Epson is cooperating closely with industry groups and the relevant authorities in each country to prevent counterfeiters use [sic] its products in illegal activities. However, due to the sensitive nature of this issue we are unable to comment about the exact measures that are being taken."

With a serial number, a supplier can identify its customer – although it may not expect to receive such requests. OUT-LAW spoke to, the UK's leading online retailer of computing and technology products. Spokesperson Louise Derbyshire said the company was unaware that printers left their fingerprints on each printed page. She acknowledged, however, " uses serial numbers to track products as they move through our warehouse and are shipped to customers". So, if required, "we could trace the delivery address."

EFF and its partners began its project to break the printer code with the Xerox DocuColor line. Researchers Schoen, EFF intern Robert Lee, and volunteers Patrick Murphy and Joel Alwen compared dots from test pages sent in by EFF supporters, noting similarities and differences in their arrangement, and then found a simple way to read the pattern.

"So far, we've only broken the code for Xerox DocuColor printers," said Schoen. "But we believe that other models from other manufacturers include the same personally identifiable information in their tracking dots."

Xerox previously admitted that it provided these tracking dots to the US Government, but indicated that only the Secret Service had the ability to read the code. The Secret Service maintains that it only uses the information for criminal counterfeit investigations. However, there are no laws to prevent the Government from abusing this information, according to the EFF.

"Underground democracy movements that produce political or religious pamphlets and flyers, like the Russian samizdat of the 1980s, will always need the anonymity of simple paper documents, but this technology makes it easier for governments to find dissenters," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien. "Even worse, it shows how the government and private industry make backroom deals to weaken our privacy by compromising everyday equipment like printers. The logical next question is: what other deals have been or are being made to ensure that our technology rats on us?"

Men get wise on sperm donation 21 Oct 2005

Federal government seeks sperm donations: no experience needed

………….Already, there's a shortage in Canada of sperm for artificial insemination and clinics have been forced to import from the United States.


Maybe the word is getting out that being a sperm donor makes a man an identifiable Father and legally liable for child support when the infertile couple or gay marriage breaks up. There are now so many documented horror stories of sperm donors being slapped with ‘child support’ for a child they know nothing of. Sperm donation is now libelous. (Funny how egg donors do not get slapped with ‘child support’ and remain not liable - misandric discrimination?)

CSM has been saying all along that the anti-male zealots in government have been successfully reducing the role of men to the level of sperm donors through misandric legislation over the past two decades. Well, looks like men are waking up to this and are not going to be jerked around any longer. Bravo on a job not well done.

William Levy
Ethics Committee


By Tom DeWeese

“If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear from these surveillance policies in the Patriot Act.” There it was - the one line that is continually uttered by those who are determined to turn America into the society of Big Brother. It’s the one line that will instantly bring out my own urge to kill anyone who has said it. My patience has run paper thin for such short-sighted, quivering, knee-jerk reactionaries who are willing to sacrifice our precious liberties for some false sense of momentary security.

Now, during a radio interview on the subject, sitting in my office on the opposite end of the telephone, I heard it said by my host. I had been feeling the frustration growing throughout the interview as he dismissed my fears of an all­seeing, controlling government that can invade my own home without a search warrant or even a court order issued by a real judge. To him it was perfectly fine to pat down little old ladies and children in airports, while those fitting the profile of a terrorist could walk by, protected by political correctness. It’s OK that all of our personal lives, our bank accounts, records of books we’ve read and videos we’ve rented could be searched. And above all, to him, the greatest idea yet devised for protecting freedom in this nation was the creation of a national ID card. “Now,” he said, “we can control who comes in to this nation, where they go and who they are dealing with.” “And if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear!”

I lost it.“Have you any idea what living under a national ID card will be like? Have you given it the slightest thought beyond your own selfish, primal fear of some unstated threat,” I shouted into the telephone and over the airways. “Well, I spend a majority of my time looking into this issue and let me tell you what I’ve found to be true. And then, you tell me if this will be a nation you want to live in.” It was surprising to me that my host let me talk at this point. Perhaps the murderous tone in my voice warned him to stay quiet. Nevertheless, he let me continue.

“The Real ID bill that has just passed Congress and will establish a national ID card within the next 18 months will transform all state motor vehicle departments into agents of the federal government. They have now been told to install a high tech computer chip into every single drivers license in every single state. That chip will be used to carry either a finger print or voice print. It will be used to track almost every single transaction made by every single American, including buying guns, using credit cards, buying gas, getting on an airplane or a train.”

“Oh, yes,” I said, “I know what you’re going to say next. Your ilk always says it. “So what. If that keeps me safe, it’s OK.” “Well,” I continued, “consider how those ID cards will be used. Without one, you won’t be able to get on a plane or a train. You will be denied all government services. You will not be able to open a bank account. You will be literally shut out or American society.”

“And all the time the federal government has been passing this law mandating a national ID card ­ it vigorously denies it is doing it. It’s not mandatory, they tell us. It’s all voluntary. It’s just that without the approved card you can’t use government services. Why have they lied?” Perhaps it’s because Congress knows full well that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to being boxed in like this.”

“But still you say, if you haven’t done anything wrong, so what.” “Well,” I shouted, “I’ll tell you so what.” “Once this system is set up, you as an American no longer have control of your life. That will now fall under the whim of any government official or bureaucrat that controls the data in your file.” “Do you know how much information currently in government data files is incorrect,” I asked. Then I answered my own question; “Over 25 percent. Underpaid, undereducated government employees are paid to input information into massive data banks. They make mistakes.” “Have you ever tried to get credit, only to find a mistake on your credit report,” I asked. “Have you ever tried to fix it? Now take that experience and consider what happens when such mistakes block you from accessing your checking account so you can’t buy groceries. Consider what might happen if a mistake puts a false arrest warrant under your name. How do you prove you’re the wrong guy? How do you get it fixed? Now you have no money, no driver’s license. No ability to travel. You are completely cut out of society. What do you do now?”

“And to make it even worse”, I said, really warming up to the subject, “what would happen if you actually made someone in the government mad at you and that person had the power to mess with your records? What if things that are legal now are illegal in the future? It happens. Governments change. New laws are made. Drugs were once legal in this country and they aren’t now. Guns are now ­ but may not be in the future. It used to be perfectly legal to protect your private property from trespassers. It isn’t now. Do you ever pay cash for something so that the transaction isn’t recorded? They are out to stop that. Laws change. Now tell me, if the laws change and you are tied to a national ID and total government surveillance, how long until you suddenly have something to hide from an all seeing government?” “Will you be so smug then?”

“And,” I finally concluded, “the sorriest part of your eagerness to abandon liberty for a chance to be safe from the big bad terrorists… none of these intrusions into American life will do a bloody thing to protect you. Within five minutes of the issuing of a government national ID card there will be counterfeits on the streets and a black market emerging to see them to any pirate, illegal immigrant or terrorist in need. So we will lose our freedoms for nothing.”

Finally, I took a breath. There was silence on the other end of the phone. Dead air time. I felt this interview had come to an end, so I just finished by saying, “if that’s the kind of nation you want to live in, there are plenty of totalitarian societies which can provide you with all the sadomasochistic torment you desire to satisfy your need for pain and control. Please leave America for the rest of us who want to be free.” “As for you, this interview is over.”

Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist, grassroots think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA. The Center maintains an Internet site at

Tom DeWeese American Policy Center 50-A South Third St. (Suite #1) Warrenton, VA 20186 (540) 342-8911

Three children killed by mother 21 Oct 2005

Police called to help father of drowned children

Alameda - The father of three children whose mother is accused of throwing them into San Francisco Bay was so distraught when he learned what happened that police took him into protective custody, fearing for his safety.

The 29-year-old Oakland resident was visiting a friend at the Islander Motel on Central Avenue when he received a call Wednesday night to tell him that the three children - ages 16 months, 2 and 6 - were missing in the waters off Pier 7 near the Ferry Building in San Francisco. "He said, 'I just got a call on my cell phone that my wife killed the kids,'" Alameda police Lt. Bob Cranford said. The body of one child was recovered Wednesday night. Crews were still searching for the other children Thursday.

Patrol officers were sent to the motel after police received a 911 call at 8:02 p.m., reporting that the children's father was having a panic attack. Officers said they found him outside, crying uncontrollably. Investigators declined to disclose the man's name, saying they wanted to protect his privacy. "It's tragic what has happened," Cranford said. "He has enough grief in his life."

Officers brought the man to the police station on Oak Street because they said he was threatening to kill himself. He was later released to his mother and other family members. San Francisco police identified the mother of the three children as Lashaun Harris, 23, of Oakland. Harris was arrested Wednesday night on three counts of murder and three counts of assault on a child with great bodily injury. According to news reports, Harris has schizophrenia and was living at an Oakland shelter.

A witness called 911 after seeing her throw the children into the water about 5:30 p.m., said San Francisco police spokeswoman Maria Orpoeza. The body of Taronta Greely, Jr., 2, was recovered about five hours later near Crissy Field and the St. Francis Yacht Club, about two miles from the pier. The U.S. Coast Guard was still searching for Trayshaun Greely, 6, and 16-month-old Joshua Greely on Thursday afternoon.

Coast Guard spokeswoman Sabrina Arrayan said a helicopter and four Coast Guard vessels, including an 87-foot patrol boat and two 25-foot boats, were searching the Bay. "We're still actively searching for the two persons in the water," Arrayan said. The search area includes the waters near the Golden Gate Bridge and Hunters Point, and stretches as far as the Berkeley Marina, Arrayan said.

The Fathers’ War 19 Oct 2005

The Fathers’ War

They serve their country and lose their children
By Stephen Baskerville

While our country focuses on the war abroad, many of our soldiers fight personal battles here at home—or more accurately, can’t fight. They are losing their families and getting little help from an administration that claims to “support the troops” while doing nothing to protect the parental rights of the fathers it sent into combat. All the services are facing a severe drop in recruitment, and additional recruiters, stepped-up advertising, and bigger bonuses have not reversed the trend. The media points to the war itself, but the shortfall also coincides with a dramatic rise in military divorces, which the Army reports have nearly doubled since 2001. “We’ve seen nothing like this before,” says Col. Glen Bloomstrom, a chaplain who oversees family-support programs. “It indicates the amount of stress on couples, on families, as the Army conducts the global war on terrorism.” It indicates much more than stress. “There most certainly is a relationship between current recruiting problems and an increase in military divorces,” says Capt. Gene Thomas Gomulka, a retired Navy chaplain and writer on military marriage.

Muffled by feminist orthodoxy, the Army and media are not disclosing the facts behind these divorces or publicizing the threat they pose to preparedness. The important points are these: the divorces are almost all initiated by wives, the servicemen usually lose their children—which for many is their main incentive for serving their country—and finally, they often become liable to criminal prosecution for child support that is impossible for them to pay. Laws protecting active-duty servicemen against legal actions are ignored by family courts. Deployed servicemen have virtually no protection against unilaterally initiated divorce proceedings that permanently separate them from their children without any show of wrongdoing. Child kidnapping laws likewise do not protect them from having their children relocated, even to foreign countries, while they cannot be present to defend their parental rights. When they return, they have no necessary right to see their children—and can be arrested for trying to do so—who often join the ranks of the permanently fatherless.

The Lansing State Journal recently reported on Joe McNeilly, a National Guardsman who “would still have his son if he hadn’t been deployed,” according to Maj. Dawn Dancer, public-affairs officer for the Michigan National Guard. Invoking the correct legal buzzwords, the mother and her lawyer claimed he lost custody not because of his deployment but because of his “parenting skills.” Yet his parenting skills were clearly defined in terms of his deployment. The court attested that it stripped him of custody because his wife was the “day-to-day caretaker and decision maker in the child’s life” while McNeilly was deployed. His alleged parental deficiencies also proceeded apparently from his duties as a soldier. “My client is making sure to turn off the TV when the news reports deaths in Iraq,” the mother’s lawyer said, “and (McNeilly) was engaging in behaviors that brought fear.” In other words, he was fighting a war. Even more astounding, vicariously divorced servicemen can be criminally prosecuted for child-support arrearages that are almost impossible not to accrue while they are on duty. Reservists are hit particularly hard because their child-support burdens are based on their civilian pay and do not decrease when their income decreases. Because reservists are often mobilized with little notice, few get modifications before they leave, and modifications are almost never granted anyway. They cannot get relief when they return because federal law prohibits retroactive reductions for any reason. Once arrearages reach $5,000, the soldier becomes a felon and subject to imprisonment.

Further, states assess interest and penalties on arrearages, which may accrue because of human or computer errors. These too cannot be forgiven, so parents who fall behind for reasons beyond their control can never have these debts erased. Because state agencies are federally subsidized based on how much they collect, they have a powerful incentive not to reduce burdens, to extract every penny they can find, and to make “errors.” Deployed soldiers are also targeted by women who falsely designate them as the fathers of their newborns. “The military provides a steady, easily garnished income as well as medical care,” says Carnell Smith of Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. It is difficult to contest paternity while fighting a war thousands of miles away. Spouses have other financial incentives to divorce military personnel. A serviceman must complete 20 years of active service to qualify for retirement pay. A woman married to the man for one day may claim a portion of the pension for life, without regard to fault or need, simply by filing for divorce. As David Usher points out in Men’s News Daily, there is no limit on how many times a woman can do this. (Men have done it too.) None of this is hypothetical. Many veterans face such hardships now:

• “Gary,” an 18-year veteran with an unblemished military and civilian record, was stripped of his child by a California court while deployed in Afghanistan as a Navy SEAL, according to Fox News. Columnist Glenn Sacks reports that he is now being bankrupted by child support and legal fees.

• Bobby Sherrill, a father of two from Parkton, North Carolina, was held hostage in Iraq for nearly five months. The night he returned from the Persian Gulf he was arrested for failing to pay $1,425 in child support while captive.

• While serving in Iraq, Taron James was ordered to pay support for a child he knew could not be his, and DNA tests confirmed his claim. The district attorney and Los Angeles County Child Support Services nevertheless seized his tax refund annually, blocked him from renewing his notary-public license—which caused him to lose his job—ruined his credit, blocked him from obtaining a passport, and forced him to drop out of college.

These are not aberrations. They proceed from the ideologically and bureaucratically driven logic of the custody-support industry, which depends for its justification on removing children and criminalizing the fathers. The Army’s response has been to spend millions on therapeutic gimmicks in a futile effort to reduce the divorces: counseling services, support groups, romantic getaways, even advice to single soldiers on how to pick partners wisely. “Our hope is to change the culture,” says Bloomstrom, who also adopts civilian-sector jargon. “Initially there’s a stigma about any program to do with relationships. We need to teach that there’s nothing wrong with preventive maintenance for marriage.”

The Army is burying its head in the sand. We can only hope that communications workshops and cultural understanding are not the approach they take to opponents in the field. They do so in this case because the threat is not Islamic radicals but feminist radicals. Those affected see through the obfuscation. “This is outrageous,” said Kathy Moakler, deputy director of government relations of the National Military Family Association. “It’s a scary precedent to set, charging the parent with abandonment because he was deployed.”

Obviously these men have not abandoned their children. Yet what justifies criminal penalties, if it is not to catch those who have? If these fathers are being stripped of their children and criminalized through no fault of their own, why should we assume that others are being treated any less unjustly? This points to the larger issue, since the obvious injustices to soldiers, sailors, and airmen are simply the logical next step from what has been inflicted on others for years. The dysfunctional effects on military efficiency are also paralleled elsewhere in society. The flight of men from the military strikingly parallels the flight of men from marriage, with its attendant drop in birth rates, that has come to preoccupy policymakers up to the level of president. Men are staying away from both institutions for the same reasons: for many they have become a ticket to jail. The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University reports a continued drop in the marriage rate. They too ignore the criminal penalties that men can incur when they marry, instead urging therapy and formulaically excoriating men for their lack of “commitment.” Citing the Rutgers study, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Wade Horn promotes federal marriage programs inculcating “conflict-resolution skills.”

Men do not risk their lives, fight, and die for a country that is an abstraction. They fight and die for their families and homes and freedom, all of which are being taken away by the courts. “Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life for [in Afghanistan],” “Gary” tells Sacks. “I went to fight for freedom but what freedom and what rights mean anything if a man doesn’t have the right to be a father to his own child?” Gordon Dollar was a reservist for 16 years in the National Guard and Naval Reserves. “I have friends that are very motivated and dedicated people, Frogmen/SEALS, Green Berets, and Rangers, and they were getting out too,” he tells Usher. “I think people who served this country are feeling betrayed by it, and see no point in serving it.” California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has just signed legislation protecting military personnel in custody and child-support cases. Missouri is the only other state to protect reservists on active duty by requiring automatic adjustments in their child support. More states need to act.

Federally, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which protects deployed military persons from other civil suits, should be amended to include specifically the actions of divorce courts and child-support bureaucracies. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, designed to prevent parental kidnappings, could also be modified to protect service personnel whose children are snatched away. Finally, Congress should repeal the infamous Bradley Amendment, so that judges can exercise reasonable discretion to modify child-support debts downward as well as upward in cases in patent injustice. It is ironic that, as we defend a questionable military policy with patriotic appeals to support the troops who must execute it, we allow the breakdown of traditional morality and the erosion of ancient legal protections for the family to ruin those same troops once they return home. This undermines not only the military, of course, but also the patriotic appeals. But even more, in the long run it also undermines our national defense. It would be difficult to find a single policy that so simultaneously weakens the nation within and without. What we are seeing here is only one vindication of now forgotten prophecies from critics like G.K. Chesterton that easy divorce would destroy not only the family but civilization itself. Yet as the prediction is fulfilled before our eyes, our leaders obfuscate it with clichés and psychobabble. The much-belabored parallel with Rome is irresistible. External threats are successfully withstood until the internal moral decay that accompanies the breakdown of republican freedom and virtue. For Islamists who regard the West as a morally and sexually decadent culture, the prospect must be encouraging.  

Stephen Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children

High street legal shake-up hailed 17 Oct 2005

Shoppers will be able to get legal advice as easily as "buying a tin of beans", under government plans. The so-called "Tesco law" will allow businesses, such as supermarkets, to own and run legal firms. A White Paper outlining the government's plans will also strip the legal profession of power to handle complaints against its members. Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, says he is to fast-track moves to regulate "ambulance chasing" law firms.

'A better deal'

Bridget Prentice, minister for the Department of Constitutional Affairs, said: "I don't see why consumers should not be able to get legal services as easily as they can buy a tin of beans." A new independent body, the Office for Legal Complaints, will be set up to carry out investigations of barristers and solicitors.

The contents of the White Paper is based on recommendations made by Sir David Clementi, former deputy governor of the Bank of England.

It is extremely heartening that the White Paper puts consumers at the heart of the reforms Steve Brooker
National Consumer Council

But ministers have gone further than those proposals by saying lawyers should be able to set up firms with other professionals, such as surveyors and accountants. "Our proposals will ensure that consumers get a better deal," said Lord Falconer.

"We need to reform the legal services market to put consumers first. People can be confident where they do have a complaint against a lawyer, then it will be looked at independently and not by other lawyers. "We hope that over time it will change the ethos of the way lawyers operate."

Strict tests

Under the plans, a Legal Services Board will replace the current "maze" of regulators. The Law Society and the Bar Council - the professional bodies of solicitors and barristers in England and Wales - will be allowed to remain as regulators if the Legal Services Board is satisfied with the quality of their service. The "Tesco law" plans will mean non lawyers can own and run law firms for the first time.

However, there will be strict tests to ensure they are fit to operate - addressing concerns that opening up the market will allow criminals and other undesirables to set themselves up as law firms. Lawyers could face fines of up to £20,000 from the Office for Legal Complaints under the plans - a significantly higher sum than current limits.


In 2004-5 the Law Society made an average award of £406 for complaints, compared with £428 from the Bar Council. Consumer group Which? said the plans were "a great victory for consumers".

Steve Brooker, of the National Consumer Council, said: "It is extremely heartening that the White Paper puts consumers at the heart of the reforms. It deserves a big welcome." But Kevin Martin, president of the Law Society, said if the government was serious about "light touch regulation" it would be "better for regulatory powers to be vested" in the Law Society, Bar Council and the Institute for Legal Executives.

Lawyers fighting in public 16 Oct 2005

Lawyers fighting in public as McLetchie and Dailly are both lawyers

McLetchie expenses 'misclaimed'
David McLetchie has come under pressure over his expenses

The Scottish Conservative leader charged the Scottish Parliament for travelling to his party conference in the south of England, it has emerged. The parliamentary body confirmed that David McLetchie misclaimed for a return flight to Bournemouth in 2002 and another trip to Selkirk in 2003. The two journeys were unrelated to his parliamentary duties.

But Mr McLetchie insisted he had done nothing untoward and according to officials he has repaid the £250 sum. A Scottish Conservative spokesman said: "Administrative errors resulted in these invoices being incorrectly settled from David McLetchie's allowances.

Full disclosure

"When David himself became aware of these errors, he contacted the allowances office and immediately reimbursed the parliament in full." Earlier this week, the Scottish Parliament published the full details of Mr McLetchie's travel expenses over the last five years after the Freedom of Information Commissioner ruled that they should be disclosed. The document provided details of taxi claims which confirmed speculation about regular trips he took from Holyrood to the Edinburgh legal firm where the Edinburgh Pentlands MSP worked at the time. Many thousands of pounds worth of them don't have any details attached

Mr McLetchie said these trips were legitimate because he carried out parliamentary business from his firm's offices. After reading the document, BBC Scotland political correspondent Glenn Campbell said: "You learn a number of things including the taxi journeys that David McLetchie has made over those years. "Many thousands of pounds worth of them don't have any details attached. They are largely unexplained. He hasn't said where he was going or why.

"We're looking at a couple of claims over that period that basically he wasn't entitled to make. "But what perhaps is equally interesting is having put down those journeys the parliament was happy to pay them on the nod."

Independent investigation

According to the parliament, Mr McLetchie spotted these errors in March 2005, just after some of the details of his travel expenses were made public in a freedom of information request. The rules governing MSPs' expenses have since been tightened. But Govan Law Centre solicitor, Mike Dailly, has called on Audit Scotland to launch an investigation. No-one has the foggiest idea whether these expense claims are proper or improper

Mike Dailly Govan Law Centre

"What I've said to the auditor general is that McLetchie must produce details of what he has claimed for," he said. "As matters stand there is £5,000 unaccounted for, this is public money. "He has not indicated on his expenses form the purposes of the journeys that were incurred, the details, the start and end point.

"No-one has the foggiest idea whether these expense claims are proper or improper." He added that if Mr McLetchie was unable produce details he should repay the money claimed.

Fascist state terror network traumatising children 16 Oct 2005

First Minister Herr Jack McConnell and Chief Constable Herr William Rae heading the fascist state terror network against children

Dawn asylum raids 'will continue'

Protesters have called for an end to dawn raids on asylum seekers

The Home Office has refused to stop carrying out dawn raids to remove failed asylum seekers from Scotland. Immigration Minister Tony McNulty has defended the tactics used, despite widespread condemnation - including protests by executive ministers. There was an outcry when the Vucaj family were taken from their home in Glasgow last month in a dawn raid. But the Home Office is fighting back, with Mr McNulty accusing critics of using "intemperate" language. The Vucaj family had lived in Glasgow for five years before being deported to Albania.


Actor Peter Mullan and human rights campaigner Robina Qureshi are fighting for their return to Scotland. Communities Minister Malcolm Chisholm has described the family's treatment as "totally unnecessary, heavy-handed and over the top". Scotland's Children's Commissioner, Professor Kathleen Marshall, claimed that dawn raids on failed asylum seekers were "traumatising children and families".

Improving procedures

But in an interview for the BBC's Politics Show, Mr McNulty flatly rejected the commissioner's claims that the raids were inhumane. First Minister Jack McConnell has called for social workers to be consulted on future removals, but Mr McNulty insisted that this already happens. He said the Home Office was happy to talk about improving procedures but would not rule out using dawn raids.


THEY could be walking the streets of Sweden, Italy, Albania, Indonesia or Pakistan. They are kidnapped in broad daylight, hooded, drugged, shackled and placed on a jet operated by the CIA. When they wake they find themselves in a country such as Morocco, Egypt or Uzbekistan – where torture is the currency of the interrogation room. The CIA hand the captive to the local secret police, and the prisoner disappears off the face of the Earth. If they are lucky, they will emerge a few years later in a cage in Guantanamo Bay, broken by beatings, rape and electrocution ... if they are unlucky, they are never seen again.America’s “extraordinary rendition” programme targets suspected Islamic terrorists, captures and delivers them to US-friendly nations which are quite happy to use torture to get the information the US wants for the war on terror.

The programme is reviled by human rights groups around the world, but the UK is a keen supporter. Since 9/11, the CIA’s 33-strong fleet of planes, which is used to fly its human cargo of alleged terrorist captives around the globe, has stopped off for refuelling and other logistical support at UK airports on no less than 210 occasions.

Nearly 20 British airports have been used, with Prestwick and Glasgow the favoured destinations. Prestwick has received 75 CIA rendition flights and Glasgow 74. Other airports used include Luton, Heathrow, Gatwick and Belfast.

Other countries aren’t as co-operative. Italy has issued arrest warrants for 19 CIA agents who kidnapped a muslim cleric in Milan in 2003 and took him to Egypt, and Sweden is outraged at kidnappings in its jurisdiction. The UN is investigating how renditions, and other tactics in the war on terror, breach international human rights legislation. President George Bush says renditions are entirely legal and that rendered suspects are not tortured, despite the fact that his own State Department says Uzbekistan, Egypt and Morocco are among countries that routinely abuse human rights and use torture.

COVER UP of evidence of ancient Egypt in the Grand Canyon 16 Oct 2005

Canyonitis: Seeing evidence of ancient Egypt in the Grand Canyon

Is there, within the Grand Canyon, an enigmatic system of tunnels that is evidence of an ancient Egyptian voyage to America? Is it all bogus? Or is the truth most likely somewhere in between? Philip Coppens

On April 5, 1909, a front page story in the Arizona Gazette reported on an archaeological expedition in the heart of the Grand Canyon funded by the Smithsonian Institute, which had resulted in the discovery of Egyptian artefacts. April 5 is close to April 1 – but then not quite… so perhaps the story could be true? Nothing since has been heard of this discovery. Today, over five million tourists visit the Grand Canyon each year. You would thus expect that if anything was hidden in the canyons, it would thus since long have been uncovered. However, most tourists only spend around 3 hours of time at the canyon, usually visiting the legendary South Rim view around mile 89, where most of the best and oldest tourist facilities are located. Furthermore, some have said that the entire discovery has since become the centre of a major cover-up, apparently in an effort to maintain the old status quo, which is that the ancient Egyptians never ventured outside of the tranquil waters of the river Nile.

The original story goes that the team found an underground network of tunnels, high above the Colorado River, containing various ancient artefacts, statues and even mummies. A major discovery, no doubt about it. Impossible to slip off the archaeological radar. Still, the Smithsonian Institute will report it has no records on the subject. So what happened? To find out, there is only one guide: the article itself. Though the article was anonymous, it did identify some of the archaeologists involved: “under the direction of Prof. S. A. Jordan", with Smithsonian-backed adventurer G. E. Kinkaid, who then relates his findings. But the story gets weirder when the Smithsonian stated that it had no Kinkaid or Jordan on record. In one enquiry from 2000, the institution replied: “The Smithsonian Institution has received many questions about an article in the April 5, 1909 Phoenix Gazette about G. E. Kincaid and his discovery of a 'great underground citadel' in the Grand Canyon, hewn by an ancient race 'of oriental origin, possibly from Egypt.' […] The Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology, has searched its files without finding any mention of a Professor Jordan, Kincaid, or a lost Egyptian civilization in Arizona. Nevertheless, the story continues to be repeated in books and articles.” There is room for a cover-up, of course, as some have argued. The files do not necessarily have to set within that department’s and the reference to the Phoenix Gazette rather than Arizona Gazette could be a simple error, or an escape valve that is so often present in official replies engineered to debunk. Stories like “the CIA Division X has no record” often means that Division Y is the one who has that record.

So, there is no Professor Jordan, and Kinkaid himself was more than difficult to pin down. However, on March 12 of the same year, the Gazette had reported on an earlier phase of Kincaid's adventure: “G. E. Kincaid Reaches Yuma.” Here, Kinkaid is identified as being from “Lewiston, Idaho”; he “arrived in Yuma after a trip from Green River, Wyoming, down the entire course of the Colorado River. He is the second man to make this journey and came alone in a small skiff, stopping at his pleasure to investigate the surrounding country. He left Green River in October having a small covered boat with oars, and carrying a fine camera, with which he secured over 700 views of the river and canyons which were unsurpassed. Mr. Kincaid says one of the most interesting features of the trip was passing through the sluiceways at Laguna dam. He made this perilous passage with only the loss of an oar." The account is factual enough and seems to just that: fact. The article concludes: "Some interesting archaeological discoveries were unearthed and altogether the trip was of such interest that he will repeat it next winter in the company of friends." Less than a month later, the same newspaper seemed to continue their story where they had left it off: Kinkaid was now talking about his “interesting archaeological discoveries”, which consisted out of a series of tunnels and passages with a cross chamber near the entrance, containing a statue: "The idol almost resembles Buddha, though the scientists are not certain as to what religious worship it represents. Taking into consideration everything found thus far, it is possible that this worship most resembles the ancient people of Tibet." He also stated that he had found an unknown gray metal, resembling platinum, as well as tiny carved heads, scattered on the floor. Urns bore "mysterious hieroglyphics, the key to which the Smithsonian Institute hopes yet to discover." In another room he found mummies: "Some of the mummies are covered with clay, and all are wrapped in a bark fabric." Again, the account is quite factual. Idols “resemble” Buddha, rather than “are” Buddha. The worship “resembles” that of Tibet, not “is”… Kinkaid is trying to use analogies to explain his discovery. It is the anonymous author of the article who makes the connection with ancient Egypt and lets his mind float to one of the biggest discoveries of all time. Still, the newspaper apparently never followed up the story.

Though the Smithsonian involvement is therefore either proof of a cover-up (as some have claimed) or they are telling the truth, this does not mean that the entire story is a hoax, or that the newspaper fabricated the story. “Kinkaid” may have existed, and may have inflated his credentials. Alternatively, he may have made the entire thing up. It may be a hoax, but by whom?

The newspaper reported rather factually about it. It may have been their hoax, in an effort to sell more papers, but if so, you would expect to hear more about it, including announcements like “more to come in the following edition”, whetting the public’s appetite.

The anonymous author may have fabricated the story, as he perhaps could not fill the entire newspaper. Perhaps… Which leaves Kinkaid. In his first account, we read how he stated that he has made archaeological discoveries, but these seem to have occurred all on his own. Furthermore, it is clear that he has made numerous photographs. We need to stress that the discovery of the underground network occurred before the first story was written. In fact, it appears that the discovery was made roughly four to six months prior the article. But in the second story, we learn Kinkaid apparently did not travel alone, but was helped by a professor from the Smithsonian. Also, it seems he did not make any photograph of his discovery. Though he claims that the access was very difficult, you would expect Kinkaid to have made some photographs of the general area. In the Phoenix (Arizona) Gazette article of April 5, 1909 it is stated that Kinkaid "brought the story" of the "underground citadel" "to the city" (Phoenix and the Gazette) "yesterday" (April 4, 1909) after having "discovered" the site "several months ago". It is clear that as far as the newspaper was involved, they were reporting on recent information. But why Kinkaid had not included his discovery in his original account, back in March, is more enigmatic. Even though the newspaper may have wanted to wait to run it, it is clear that the delay is entirely Kinkaid’s.

With no traces of Kinkaid, though, did he actually exist? Jack Andrews has underlined that Kinkaid may have been a real person. In the newspaper report, Kinkaid mentions that he was “looking for mineral”: "I was journeying down the Colorado river in a boat, alone, looking for mineral." The Canyon was a known source of minerals, including copper. But, in 1908, the year of Kinkaid’s expedition, President Theodore Roosevelt had made the Canyon in a National Forest, closing it for any mining or prospecting activity. Andrews has furthermore shown that the area in which he had allegedly found the cave was a well-known area for prospecting. So he could be real… even though perhaps the newspaper got his name wrong… A spelling mistake could send any researcher off the right track, resulting in the conclusion that a person did not exist. So, what about the cave? It is a fact that the Canyon has many holes and caves, most of which are discovered by hikers. A clear favourite for an Egyptian connection is the area around Ninety-four Mile Creek and Trinity Creek has sites with names like Isis Temple, Tower of Set, Tower of Ra, Horus Temple, Osiris Temple, etc. In the Haunted Canyon area are such names as the Cheops Pyramid, the Buddha Cloister, Buddha Temple, Manu Temple and Shiva Temple. One book, Ancient Secret of The Flower of Life (Vol. II, page 302), claims that two backpackers, on their way to Isis Temple, found a pyramid, made from the native rock. Once at Isis Temple, they claimed to have seen several cave entrances. They stated that the cave entrances were at a height of 800 feet, and the two climbed up, hoping to get into what looked like the most promising cave. But instead they found it had been sealed off with rocks. They felt the entrance was man made and that there was a 6 foot circular pattern hewn into the ceiling.

It is unknown whether this is an actual discovery, or more “talk”. Irrelevant, Isis Temple is more than 40 miles from the location given in the newspaper article. Furthermore, it is but one of numerous buttes in the Grand Canyon named after ancient Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, Chinese and Nordic gods and goddesses. The origin of the rather esoteric naming is nearly as mysterious as the canyon itself, and has given rise to more than a little speculation as to what early explorers may have found there. But it may also be a perfect memory of its time, when there was a major fascination with all things Egyptian-Indian. Stanton Cave, a well-known cave containing ancient Indian artefacts, inside the Grand Canyon Jack Andrews claims that he has known “of this [Kinkaid’s] location since 1972. I have held the secret since then.” In June 2001, he felt it was “the proper time to reveal the location.” But he later adds that he has never discovered the “physical location” of this claim. From his argument, it seems as if he has “seen” the site in a dream or vision, but has never set foot inside it. However, using Kinkaid’s scant information about the site, “forty-two miles up the river from the El Tovar Crystal canyon...” This is not very precise. Andrews believes that the cave is in a deep river gorge, known as Marble Canyon, which is accessible “by either arriving there in a boat or float trip, or on foot from the rim of the Little Colorado river gorge, on the Navajo reservation.” Andrews spells out some other options, all which seem quite manageable to get there… but not necessarily inside the cave. Kinkaid wrote that "the entrance is 1,486 feet down the sheer canyon wall." Definitely not for the faint-hearted, and the question is how Kinkaid himself succeeded in the task. Andrews concludes: “I think the "cave" described in the headline story of the Arizona Gazette, April 5, 1909 and its fantastic underground installation was, and still may be, located above an approximate six mile stretch of the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, at the border of Marble Canyon and the Navajo Nation above an area near Kwagunt Rapids.” Is it possible that it remains to be discovered? One ranger said that "that area of the park is very remote and to this day [2000], our knowledge of the area is rather slim, and quite frankly, it is not an area we patrol regularly […] the area is seldom visited."

Though sceptics have given Andrews a lot of slack, others have just run wildly with the story. It is one thing to interpret the Smithsonian’s denial as evidence of a cover-up, what David Icke made of the story is quite another thing. In The Biggest Secret, he writes – verbatim: "In 1909 a subterranean city which was built with the presicion of the Great Pyramid was found by G. E. Hincaid near the Grand Canyon in Arizona. It was big enough to accomidate 50,000 people and mumified bodies found were of oriental or possibly Egyptian origin, according to the expedition leader Professor S. A. Jordan. My own resaerch suggests that it is from another dimension, the lower fourth dimension, that the reptilian control and manipulation is primarily orchestrated." The story continues to grow and grow, now harbouring a sizeable population. But Icke then adds his own “research”, using the story as “evidence” for his reptilian control claims. So, where does this leave us? Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle of this controversy. With so many caves, some must contain something. Kinkaid never said it was Egyptian – he just made comparisons. It could simply have been native… The first culture to occupy the valley were the Anasazi, who entered the region around 500 AD, hunting small game as well as raising corn and squash for their livelihood. By 1000 AD, their culture had advanced to the point where they had begun to develop their own distinctive pottery style, advanced agricultural methods, and a unique form of dwelling known as the "pueblo".

From Mankind’s most ancient past, we have favoured burials in caves. Furthermore, many cultures have made caves in sheer cliff faces, specifically if they are facing towards the setting sun, into highly sacred sites, often cemeteries. Examples of this exist in the French Pyrenees, but whether it is the Cretan canyon known as the Valley of the Dead or the African Dogon, it is a common denominator that caves in cliffs were favoured, since remote antiquity. Why should the Grand Canyon be any different? And if not, then it is entirely possible that human remains were found… and perhaps continue to be found. But rather than Egyptian or Tibetan in origin, I would argue that they are most likely remnants of the Anasazi. Anasazi groups, widely scattered across the southern Colorado Plateau and the upper Rio Grande drainage, defined their similarities – and their differences – largely in terms of their multi-storied, multi-room pueblo "Great Houses" or "cliff dwellings". It is what tied them together, even though the individual groups themselves often bore more differences than similarities. The site is indeed close to a Navajo centre, which are one of the living descendants of the Anasazi, which means “ancient ones” in Navajo. In the Canyon de Chelly is the so-called Mummy Cave, the last known occupied Anasazi site in the area. Situated in a large, protected alcove about 300 feet above the canyon floor, the two adjacent caves harbour the remnants of a multi-storied dwelling consisting of around 55 rooms and four ceremonial circular structures, or kivas, possibly dating back to 1050. It was for the two ancient bodies found entombed at this site that an early Smithsonian expedition named the canyon, "del Muerto" — "of the Dead" in Spanish. Here, we therefore have something that is virtually identical to what Kinkaid alleges: a cave, in a cliff, with a complex series of rooms, containing mummies… even the Smithsonian is involved. The one major difference is that this site is known, whereas Kinkaid’s isn’t. But what Mummy Cave equally proves, is that there is no need for Tibetans or Egyptians, but that the local Anasazi are most likely its occupants… if it existed… and why not ? Mummy Cave may look very different from what we imagine Kinkaid was describing… But with so little known about Kinkaid… Though this story may or may not be reality, examples such as Mummy Cave have since proven that Kinkaid’s story may not be as important as many believe it is. Even if Kinkaid and Jordan were real people, the sensationalist flavourings of the report are all due to the anonymous author. And even if he was reporting truthfully, within the current climate, we can imagine why people could have easily mistaken an ancient culture with a local Indian culture. It is merely because the Indians were believed to have no level of sophistication whatsoever that almost de facto, the site had to be “Old World”… In the 21st century, we know better.


Mysteries of Immense Rich Cavern being brought to light Jordan is enthused Remarkable finds indicate ancient people migrated from Orient The latest news of the progress of the explorations of what is now regarded by scientists as not only the oldest archaeological discovery in the United States, but one of the most valuable in the world, which was mentioned some time ago in the Gazette, was brought to the city yesterday by G.E. Kinkaid, the explorer who found the great underground citadel of the Grand Canyon during a trip from Green River, Wyoming, down the Colorado, in a wooden boat, to Yuma, several months ago. According to the story related to the Gazette by Mr. Kinkaid, the archaeologists of the Smithsonian Institute, which is financing the expeditions, have made discoveries which almost conclusively prove that the race which inhabited this mysterious cavern, hewn in solid rock by human hands, was of oriental origin, possibly from Egypt, tracing back to Ramses. If their theories are borne out by the translation of the tablets engraved with hieroglyphics, the mystery of the prehistoric peoples of North America, their ancient arts, who they were and whence they came, will be solved. Egypt and the Nile, and Arizona and the Colorado will be linked by a historical chain running back to ages which staggers the wildest fancy of the fictionist.

A Thorough Examination

Under the direction of Prof. S. A. Jordan, the Smithsonian Institute is now prosecuting the most thorough explorations, which will be continued until the last link in the chain is forged. Nearly a mile underground, about 1480 feet below the surface, the long main passage has been delved into, to find another mammoth chamber from which radiates scores of passageways, like the spokes of a wheel. Several hundred rooms have been discovered, reached by passageways running from the main passage, one of them having been explored for 854 feet and another 634 feet. The recent finds include articles which have never been known as native to this country, and doubtless they had their origin in the orient. War weapons, copper instruments, sharp-edged and hard as steel, indicate the high state of civilization reached by these strange people. So interested have the scientists become that preparations are being made to equip the camp for extensive studies, and the force will be increased to thirty or forty persons. Mr. Kinkaid's Report Mr. Kinkaid was the first white child born in Idaho and has been an explorer and hunter all his life, thirty years having been in the service of the Smithsonian Institute. Even briefly recounted, his history sounds fabulous, almost grotesque. "First, I would impress that the cavern is nearly inaccessible. The entrance is 1,486 feet down the sheer canyon wall. It is located on government land and no visitor will be allowed there under penalty of trespass. The scientists wish to work unmolested, without fear of archaeological discoveries being disturbed by curio or relic hunters. A trip there would be fruitless, and the visitor would be sent on his way. The story of how I found the cavern has been related, but in a paragraph: I was journeying down the Colorado river in a boat, alone, looking for mineral. Some forty-two miles up the river from the El Tovar Crystal canyon, I saw on the east wall, stains in the sedimentary formation about 2,000 feet above the river bed. There was no trail to this point, but I finally reached it with great difficulty. Above a shelf which hid it from view from the river, was the mouth of the cave. There are steps leading from this entrance some thirty yards to what was, at the time the cavern was inhabited, the level of the river. When I saw the chisel marks on the wall inside the entrance, I became interested, securing my gun and went in. During that trip I went back several hundred feet along the main passage till I came to the crypt in which I discovered the mummies. One of these I stood up and photographed by flashlight. I gathered a number of relics, which I carried down the Colorado to Yuma, from whence I shipped them to Washington with details of the discovery. Following this, the explorations were undertaken.

The Passages

"The main passageway is about 12 feet wide, narrowing to nine feet toward the farther end. About 57 feet from the entrance, the first side-passages branch off to the right and left, along which, on both sides, are a number of rooms about the size of ordinary living rooms of today, though some are 30 by 40 feet square. These are entered by oval-shaped doors and are ventilated by round air spaces through the walls into the passages. The walls are about three feet six inches in thickness. The passages are chiselled or hewn as straight as could be laid out by an engineer. The ceilings of many of the rooms converge to a center. The side-passages near the entrance run at a sharp angle from the main hall, but toward the rear they gradually reach a right angle in direction.

The Shrine

"Over a hundred feet from the entrance is the cross-hall, several hundred feet long, in which are found the idol, or image, of the people's god, sitting cross-legged, with a lotus flower or lily in each hand. The cast of the face is oriental, and the carving this cavern. The idol almost resembles Buddha, though the scientists are not certain as to what religious worship it represents. Taking into consideration everything found thus far, it is possible that this worship most resembles the ancient people of Tibet. Surrounding this idol are smaller images, some very beautiful in form; others crooked-necked and distorted shapes, symbolical, probably, of good and evil. There are two large cactus with protruding arms, one on each side of the dais on which the god squats. All this is carved out of hard rock resembling marble. In the opposite corner of this cross-hall were found tools of all descriptions, made of copper. These people undoubtedly knew the lost art of hardening this metal, which has been sought by chemicals for centuries without result. On a bench running around the workroom was some charcoal and other material probably used in the process. There is also slag and stuff similar to matte, showing that these ancients smelted ores, but so far no trace of where or how this was done has been discovered, nor the origin of the ore. "Among the other finds are vases or urns and cups of copper and gold, made very artistic in design. The pottery work includes enamelled ware and glazed vessels. Another passageway leads to granaries such as are found in the oriental temples. They contain seeds of various kinds. One very large storehouse has not yet been entered, as it is twelve feet high and can be reached only from above. Two copper hooks extend on the edge, which indicates that some sort of ladder was attached. These granaries are rounded, as the materials of which they are constructed, I think, is a very hard cement. A gray metal is also found in this cavern, which puzzles the scientists, for its identity has not been established. It resembles platinum. Strewn promiscuously over the floor everywhere are what people call "cats eyes”, a yellow stone of no great value. Each one is engraved with the head of the Malay type.

The Hieroglyphics

"On all the urns, or walls over doorways, and tablets of stone which were found by the image are the mysterious hieroglyphics, the key to which the Smithsonian Institute hopes yet to discover. The engraving on the tables probably has something to do with the religion of the people. Similar hieroglyphics have been found in southern Arizona. Among the pictorial writings, only two animals are found. One is of prehistoric type.

The Crypt

"The tomb or crypt in which the mummies were found is one of the largest of the chambers, the walls slanting back at an angle of about 35 degrees. On these are tiers of mummies, each one occupying a separate hewn shelf. At the head of each is a small bench, on which is found copper cups and pieces of broken swords. Some of the mummies are covered with clay, and all are wrapped in a bark fabric. The urns or cups on the lower tiers are crude, while as the higher shelves are reached, the urns are finer in design, showing a later stage of civilization. It is worthy of note that all the mummies examined so far have proved to be male, no children or females being buried here. This leads to the belief that this exterior section was the warriors' barracks. "Among the discoveries no bones of animals have been found, no skins, no clothing, no bedding. Many of the rooms are bare but for water vessels. One room, about 40 by 700 feet, was probably the main dining hall, for cooking utensils are found here. What these people lived on is a problem, though it is presumed that they came south in the winter and farmed in the valleys, going back north in the summer. Upwards of 50,000 people could have lived in the caverns comfortably. One theory is that the present Indian tribes found in Arizona are descendants of the serfs or slaves of the people which inhabited the cave. Undoubtedly a good many thousands of years before the Christian era, a people lived here which reached a high stage of civilization. The chronology of human history is full of gaps. Professor Jordan is much enthused over the discoveries and believes that the find will prove of incalculable value in archaeological work. "One thing I have not spoken of, may be of interest. There is one chamber of the passageway to which is not ventilated, and when we approached it a deadly, snaky smell struck us. Our light would not penetrate the gloom, and until stronger ones are available we will not know what the chamber contains. Some say snakes, but other boo-hoo this idea and think it may contain a deadly gas or chemicals used by the ancients. No sounds are heard, but it smells snaky just the same. The whole underground installation gives one of shaky nerves the creeps. The gloom is like a weight on one's shoulders, and our flashlights and candles only make the darkness blacker. Imagination can revel in conjectures and ungodly daydreams back through the ages that have elapsed till the mind reels dizzily in space.”


America's Founders worried that the government they created might someday grow too powerful, and begin to pass laws which would violate the rights of the very people it was intended to protect: ordinary, peaceful, productive folks. But they kept an "ace in the hole", a trump card they believed citizens could use to hold this new, experimental government in check. That ace was the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers.

How a jury can restrain a government? The key is that juries can say "no" to bad laws and to arbitrary and unjust prosecutions. It's true! The Founders realized that the temptations of power and corruption would eventually prove to be too much for any of the three branches of our government to resist, let alone check and balance the other branches. They knew that government "of, by and for the people" meant that the people would every so often have to roll up their sleeves and exert their authority, to act as the final check and balance on the whole system. Since law is the main tool by which a government exerts its control, trusting juries of ordinary citizens to veto the use of bad law was the logical choice.

So they provided for trial by jury--once in the Constitution, and twice more in the Bill of Rights. In those days, it was part of the definition of the word "jury" that its members could judge the law as well as the evidence, and the judge would often remind them of this power. For example, if jurors found the law to be unjust or misapplied, or that the defendant's rights had been violated in bringing the him or her to trial, they would acquit for those reasons, despite good evidence. In addition to veto power, our common law legal traditions also provide that if a jury decides to acquit, its decision is final. A verdict of "not guilty" cannot be overturned, nor can the judge harass the jurors for voting for acquittal, or punish them for voting their consciences, even after making them swear to follow the law as given by the judge! And jurors may be asked, but cannot be obliged, to explain their verdicts. These principles were subject to contention for centuries in England and the British Empire as citizen jurors fought to assert their rights against the power interests of the crown.

In 1670, William Penn was arrested in London for preaching a Quaker sermon, which broke a law establishing the Church of England as the only legal church. His jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to convict him, despite being held for days without food, water, tobacco or toilet facilities -- and then fined. The most defiant four of them refused to pay the fine and were then put in prison for nine weeks. The highest court of England, upon releasing them, both acknowledged and established that trial jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Recognition of our freedoms of religion, peaceable assembly and speech thus all trace to the exercise of jury power, wielded by a jury unintimidated by government judges. In colonial America, the sedition trial of John Peter Zenger established another landmark case. Zenger, a publisher, was arrested for printing news critical of the Royal Governor of New York Colony and his cronies, accusing them of corruption. His accusations were all true, but the court informed his jury that under the law, "...truth is no defense". "Philadelphia lawyer" Andrew Hamilton then told the jurors the story of William Penn, and argued that as judges of the merits of the law, they should not in good conscience convict Zenger of violating such a bad law. The jurors agreed. Zenger was acquitted in about fifteen minutes, and his case spawned recognition of our right to a free press.

Cases like these therefore were part of the political heritage of the Founders, which may explain why they so appreciated jury power. John Adams said it so well in 1771 that the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) put his words on a coffee mug: "It is not only...[the juror's] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, writing in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794, concluded: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy". President Thomas Jefferson in 1789 told Thomas Paine: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." And Noah Webster, who wrote his original 1828 dictionary in order to preserve the integrity of the language of the Constitution, defined "petty jury" as "...consisting usually of twelve men [who]...attend courts to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions".

A detailed historical analysis of jury veto power, also called jury nullification of law, appeared in the Yale Law Review in 1964. It held that "The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge's instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted." However, during the next century, judges began chipping away at this vital and fundamental right of free citizens, thereby transferring citizen power to themselves. The biggest "chip" or usurpation took place in 1895, when in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., a bitterly split decision by our Supreme Court held that failure of the judge to remind the jurors of their powers was not a basis for mistrial or appeal. That was the green light for trial judges to go mum on the topic, and they did. That is why very few lawyers or law professors, only some judges, and practically no school teachers know about jury veto power: it's "not part of the curriculum". Few history books give juries the credit they're due -- for stopping the Salem witch trials, for overturning slavery in state after state before the Civil War, and for ending Prohibition -- all by refusing to convict because they thought the law itself was wrong.

These days, trial by jury often doesn't accomplish all that it should. And the usurpation continues: trial judges now falsely tell jurors that their only job is to decide if the "facts" are sufficient to convict, and that if so, they "should" or "must" convict. Defense attorneys can face contempt of court charges if they urge jurors to acquit if they think the law is unconstitutional or unjust. And self-defenders are usually stopped and rebuked if they even mention their motives, or why they disagree with the law, to the jury. Yet to this day, trial jurors retain the right to veto, or "nullify" bad laws, though they are rarely told this by the courts. Prosecutors and judges try to exclude people from serving on juries who admit knowing they can judge the law, or who have doubts about the justice of the law. This destroys the protections jurors were supposed to be able to invoke on behalf of fellow citizens against unjust prosecutions: how can our right to a trial by an impartial jury be met if those with any qualms about the law are excluded from serving?

The fact is, it cannot. Jury selection has degenerated into a jury-stacking contest between the attorneys and judge involved. And then, if those who survive the selection process bring in a verdict that the community does not like, who gets the blame? Worse, after enough verdicts have disappointed or angered enough people, the politicians move in for the kill, arguing that the "jury system needs reform". By that they mean stripping even more power from the jury, using juries in fewer and fewer kinds of cases, allowing verdicts to be reached by a super-majority instead of a unanimous vote, replacing ordinary citizens with government-licensed professional jurors, etc. Beware! All such reforms will lead only to a still more powerful government, and a less powerful citizenry. Justice would come to mean whatever the government says it means, and the people would be left with no peaceful method of controlling government tyranny.

  Quotations and Comments on Fully Informed Juries  

An Essay On Trial By Jury By Lysander Spooner (1852)

Feminist programs destroy families 15 Oct 2005

    The Washington Times' fine tribute to Phyllis Schlafly contains one major omission: her work today ("Conservatives' first lady sparked pro-family effort," Page 1, Oct. 7). Not only did her leadership not end with the Equal Rights Amendment, but her current campaign may turn out to be among her most critical. Sadly, we seem to have learned little.     Mrs. Schlafly is now heroically challenging the systematic destruction of families in the nation's family courts. This hidden abuse is the logical culmination of what many call the "totalitarian" tendencies of organized feminism but which few fully understand or confront. "Feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution," she writes. "Feminists made divorce a major component of women's liberation."    

Yet even today, Mrs. Schlafly meets resistance — and not only from the left. Some conservative politicians have swallowed the poisonous feminist propaganda about the evil male and the necessity for massive government action against him.

    Avoiding political risk, they posture as champions of "women and children" by demanding measures against "domestic violence" and "deadbeat dads," even when no scientific data indicate that these problems are anything other than creations of the government.     "There is a deafening silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the federal government's business," writes Mrs. Schlafly.

    These feminist programs actually destroy families and create the very problems they claim to be solving. For example, the Violence Against Women Act, a destructive "hate-crime" law that violates both families and constitutional rights and funds extremist lobbying, has just passed both houses of Congress with little opposition. The one prominent exception was Mrs. Schlafly.     She is also almost alone in calling for a re-evaluation of "no-fault" divorce and for shared parenting laws to discourage the use of children as weapons.     Rather than repeat the very mistakes it chronicles, The Times would pay a higher tribute to Phyllis Schlafly by emulating her courage and taking the lead in breaking the news blackout that pervades not only the liberal media but too much of the conservative press as well.  

    American Coalition for Fathers and Children Washington


NJ Superior Court Judge Convicted of Child Sex Crimes

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stephen W. Thompson, who travelled to Russia to have sex with a teenage boy, was convicted by a federal jury last week on a charge of sexual exploitation of children.

The judge also produced a videotape of sex with a minor and then transported that videotape back to the United States. Judge Thompson is associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group which promotes sexual relations between adult men and children. NAMBLA is currently represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The full article can be read at:

Violence Against the Constitution 12 Oct 2005

By Professor Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

Tyrants and totalitarians never lack excuses for new forms of tyranny, and they are usually good ones: "necessity," "public safety," "the poor" – these have been standard throughout history. With the rise of feminism, the rationale has become, "It’s for the children" – or sometimes, "women and children."

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), currently up for renewal, is possibly the most totalitarian measure ever passed by the Congress. Every jurisdiction has criminal statutes punishing violent assault. So why do we need a law punishing assaults specifically "against women"? Why must it be a federal law, for which no constitutional authority exists? And why is $4 billion in taxpayers’ money required to outlaw something that is already against the law? The answer, as usual, is power – power for those who promise to protect us against yet another new danger.

It is politically hazardous for politicians to question any measure marketed for women and children. But no evidence indicates any problem of violence specifically against women. A virtually unanimous body of research has demonstrated that domestic violence is perpetrated by both sexes in roughly equal measures. So what is the real agenda behind this bill?

First, it politicizes criminal justice and redefines crime according to feminist ideology. Similar to "hate crimes" laws, criminals are designated not by their deeds but by their gender. As the act’s title makes clear, only women qualify as victims. Violence against men is permissible. Both genders are equal, but one is more equal than the other.

Supporters like Senator Joseph Biden hem and haw that, despite the name, VAWA applies to both sexes. Yet they adamantly oppose explicitly gender-inclusive language. This is self-refuting, like the joke about the bad restaurant where the food is inedible and the portions are too small.

The "crimes" too are defined not by their statutory illegality but by ideology. VAWA allows men to be arrested and prosecuted for "violence" that is not violent: "name-calling and constant criticizing, insulting, and belittling the victim," "blaming the victim for everything," "ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing the victim's needs."

VAWA also funds political advocacy. It creates programs to "educate" (the old Maoist euphemism for indoctrinate) police, prosecutors, judges, and other officials in feminist ideology, so they will administer not equal justice but feminist justice.

VAWA circumvents the Bill of Rights. Criminal assault charges require due process of law, but labeling something "domestic violence" allows officials to ignore constitutional protections: the presumption of innocence is cast aside; hearsay evidence is admissible; no jury trial is required; the accused cannot face their accusers; even forced confessions are permissible. These are the methods being used in the burgeoning system of feminist "domestic violence courts" that are created for no reason other than to bypass civil liberties protections and railroad men into jail.

Further, VAWA mandates "restraining orders" that do not punish criminals for illegal acts but prohibit law-abiding citizens from otherwise legal ones. Judges can simply legislate new crimes on the spot. But they are only crimes for some people, who can then be arrested for doing what no law prohibits and what others may do.

Finally, VAWA destroys families and leaves children fatherless by providing weapons for divorce and custody battles. It is common knowledge among legal practitioners that trumped-up accusations are rampant and even encouraged in divorce courts . "The number of women attending seminars [on divorce by bar associations] who smugly – indeed boastfully – announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!" astonished author Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal. "To add amazement to my astonishment, the lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants." The feminists' own literature reveals the true agenda. A special issue of Mother Jones magazine ostensibly on domestic violence is devoted, from the first paragraph, largely to securing child custody.

A chorus of opposition to VAWA has arisen. Heads of major pro-family organizations have written Congress warning of the dangers and urging changes. Yet the juggernaut rolls on, promoted from the inside by judges and civil servants who are supposed to be apolitical but whose lobbying is financed by VAWA itself.

VAWA represents the dangerous acceptance of extremist ideology by the mainstream. As recently as 1999, Mother Jones published a reasonably balanced report on the gender breakdown of domestic violence. By contrast, the recent issue is a screed, a vicious hate campaign by an extremist sect that abandons all pretence of objectivity and accuracy – and which, astoundingly, is being implemented by the US Congress.

Stephen Baskerville holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and teaches political science at Howard University in Washington, DC. In January 2004 he became President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

Deafening silence on legal complaints 12 Oct 2005

THE main Holyrood opposition parties are proving curiously equivocal on the controversial issue of how best to deal with complaints about Scotland's 10,000 lawyers. As the Law Society of Scotland has noted, the Scottish Executive's May consultation paper on the subject has attracted 500 responses – a number second only to its paper on banning smoking in public. When pressed, however, neither the SNP nor the Tories appeared keen to opine in detail on the subject.

Kenny MacAskill MSP, shadow justice minister, did offer a written statement that the argument for reform is "overwhelming", and that the status quo is "untenable". But when asked to state which – if any – of the proposed reforms to a much-criticised system of self-regulation he would support, the SNP minister did not respond. These options include removing ultimate control over the resolution of complaints about lawyers from governing bodies, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.

Margaret Mitchell MSP, the Tories' deputy justice spokeswoman, was even less forthcoming. "I don't pretend to be an expert" on this issue, she told The Herald, advising us to talk to justice spokeswoman Annabel Goldie instead. Goldie had not responded by press time. Kenny MacAskill LLB was a partner in an Edinburgh law firm until 2000. Margaret Mitchell LLB acquired a diploma in legal practice but decided to go into politics instead. Mitchell is a justice of the peace. Annabel Goldie LLB was, and is, listed on the law society's website as a solicitor at Donaldson, Alexander, Russell & Haddow in Glasgow.

The SNP's John Swinney is the one senior opposition politician to have actively campaigned for a more independent complaints-handling system. Politics graduate Swinney is neither a qualified solicitor nor a member of the Law Society of Scotland.



JAILED peer Mike Watson has had an emotional first prison visit from his wife Clare. She was said to be relieved after the meeting in the main visiting area of Edinburgh's Saughton jail.

Watson is sharing a cell with a 24year-old serving a three-year term for assault and robbery. Clare, 31, saw Watson, 56, on Friday - the day after he was jailed. She had been worried about his condition but left the jail happier after Watson kept up a brave face. A friend said: "The visit went well. It gave both Clare and Mike comfort. She has been phenomenally upset but is trying to take this in her stride.

"Mike is getting to grips with what has happened and now that she has seen that, she feels more reassured. "Mike is settling in well. He will want to be part of that community. "Now they both just have to get on with it. The former Labour MSP and MP was jailed for 16 months for fireraising at a plush Edinburgh hotel.

Clare has moved from the couple's marital home in Glasgow's Cathcart, back to the south of England, where she is originally from and where she is due to start a new job. Friends say she will travel back for further visits and that Watson will not seek a transfer to a prison nearer his wife's new home. A source added: "Once Mike is released, he will join her there."

His cell-mate, from Edinburgh, has a history of violence and has served seven months. He was picked by prison chiefs to share with Watson because he has remained trouble-free since being jailed. Meanwhile, an MP at the centre of a sex allegations has left his wife after 27 years of marriage.

Jim Sheridan, 52, told his wife Jean, 50, their marriage was over in a phone call from Parliament to his home in Erskine, Renfrewshire. Sheridan, MP for West Renfrewshire since 2001, could not be contacted for comment yesterday. Three years ago, he and friend Anne Picking, who represents East Lothian, denied having an affair

Nationalists claim police spying 12 Oct 2005


A LEADING Nationalist accused police yesterday of spying on the SNP to sabotage the campaign for independence. South of Scotland MSP Christine Grahame demanded an investigation after discovering Special Branch officers at seven police forces could have secret files on the Nats. Ms Grahame cited the Freedom of Information Act to demand the forces own up if they hold information on the SNP.

She said: "It appears all but one of Scotland's Special Branch offices have files on the SNP." Only Fife Constabulary said it had no files on the party. A Scottish Executive spokesman refused to comment on the claims and said they were "an operational matter for police

Why are Scottish politicians so blind to injustice? 12 Oct 2005

Your Letters Ruth Wishart's commentary on the not-so-casual racism of the British authorities in their dealings with refugees is correct (September 26). It also reveals the impotency and hypocrisy of a Scottish Parliament in not mounting any significant challenge to the institutionally racist and brutal treatment of brave, decent families. She is right to highlight the campaign by pupils and teachers of Drumchapel High and the wider community against these inhuman and brutal removals. The energy, humanity and solidarity of the Drumchapel community in defence of these families and individuals stand in stark contrast to the lack of moral commitment and political action displayed by our so-called leaders. Does the emperor – or the first minister – have any clothes?

Hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on policy development and publicity, plus a number of significant and comfortable careers, in advancing initiatives on fighting racism, sectarianism, poverty under the banner of social cohesion and inclusion. It is easy for politicians to denounce the ignorance that underpins much of the anti-social behaviour in Scottish society, even if they pretend to understand less the conditions that give rise to such behaviour, such as the growing gap between rich and poor and the significant rise in child poverty. Yet, when action is taken by those closest to victims of state brutality to campaign and act in defence of their friends, the political establishment is paralysed and mumbles incoherently and purposelessly about protocol in a dismissive and patronising manner. Why are Scottish politicians blind to the injustice of Dungavel and the dawn raids in the face of the evidence and eloquence of their own citizens? See citizenship, see inclusion, see respect? See the Scottish Parliament? Shame! Hugh Donnelly, 8 Duncan Avenue, Glasgow.

Overwhelming support for end to self-regulation by lawyers 11 Oct 2005

Overwhelming support for end to self-regulation by lawyers

MORE than 90% of respondents to the Scottish Executive's consultation on legal complaints-handling want to see the nation's 10,000 lawyers stripped of rights to police themselves, The Herald can reveal. Fewer than 15 of the 280-plus and organisations to make their views known back retention of the current system, which essentially confers ultimate control over the resolution of complaints about lawyers to governing bodies the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. Of that smaller number, almost all come either from law firms or from individuals otherwise connected with the Law Society.

The consultation pits various "big beasts" of Scottish commercial life in opposition. Competition watchdog the Office of Fair Trading stands alongside consumer bodies Which? and the government-backed Scottish Consumer Council in calling for an end to self-regulation. The minority on the other side of the fence number among them some of Scotland's biggest law firms, including Maclay Murray & Spens and its senior partner, Michael Walker. Other firms to have mounted a stout defence of the society's role include Blackadders and Glasgow outfit Mitchells Roberton.

Maclays' Walker echoes the society's view that the sharp rise in complaints about lawyers and the handling of these complaints is symptomatic of a change in culture – "someone has to be blamed if something goes wrong" – rather than evidence of falling standards. He adds: "Complaints made against the profession in Scotland are, and have always been, taken seriously … I believe that the public is served well. While I would have no problem with some tinkering around the edges, I do believe that what we have at the moment is not broken." The OFT's view could hardly be more different. "We agree with the executive's view … that the complaints-handling system needs to be more independent and seen to be more independent," writes Grahame Horgan. "It is difficult to envisage any arrangement where the professional bodies continue to handle the majority of complaints which would ensure public confidence."

It was Horgan who masterminded the 2001 report into the legal professions south of the border which gave rise to the Clementi report, set to usher in a far-reaching shake-up of the regulatory system in England and Wales. For Scotland, the regulator favours the most radical of the executive's four options: an independent complaints-handling body with a lay chair and a lay majority, with all members to be appointed by the executive. Since 2001, the Financial Services Authority has had an interest in this issue since taking control of the regulation of investment business conducted by Scottish lawyers – including the controversial area of alleged endowment misselling. The FSA points to the benefits of a "single gateway" to handle all complaints, possibly backed by increased powers for the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman.

"The benefits of a 'single gateway' would appear to be considerable in terms of clarity, the assistance of an independent watchdog, as well as progress and timely resolution of complaints," declares the FSA. "The ombudsman could build on its experience and reputation and move into a complaints regulatory role with increased powers." One observation which Scots law firms are unlikely to warm to is the suggestion that they should underwrite the cost of a reformed system – on the basis that the Financial Services Ombudsman is funded by financial services firms and not the taxpayer. "Firms would pay a proportionate share of the costs based on the size of their business, and also a fixed fee per case, therefore firms who have more complaints referred to the ombudsman would also pay more," the FSA suggests. "There would be a financial incentive for firms to resolve complaints properly themselves and, more widely, the legal profession as a whole may put pressure on poorly performing firms to improve their standards." Some of the law firms to respond take a rather different tack. They want complainants to be forced to pay a deposit which would be lost should the complaint fail. This, they believe, would deter the vexatious "green ink" tendency.

In a similar vein, Dunblane law firm McLean & Stewart slams the consultation exercise as a precursor to further bureaucracy with which smaller Scottish law firms in particular will struggle to cope. "It is with an increasing sense of desperation and fatalism that we view this latest attack on professional integrity," senior partner James Lees tells Cathy Jamieson, justice minister. "We are a small rural practice whose very survival, in these days of large, urban-based, multi-specialist practices, depends upon the personal service that we provide. The traditional care which it had been the duty of legal practices small or large to provide is becoming increasingly forced into second place by the bureaucratic requirements being imposed by yourself and your colleagues in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. "These are becoming a very grave problem for smaller practices such as ourselves. Frankly, we have believed for some time that there is a 'hidden agenda' to drive smaller firms out of business, to enable the executive to control the activities of legal practices confined to larger units in the larger urban areas of Scotland."

Fatalism in another guise comes in the response of Glasgow firm Faulds Gibson Kennedy. Partner Ewan Kennedy, a general practice solicitor in Glasgow for the last 35 years, reckons the game is up for unfettered self-regulation – regardless of the effectiveness of the current system. "We are far past the stage at which it could be seriously argued that the functions of the law society should remain unchanged," he observes. "I believe most rank-and-file lawyers accept this. It is certainly the virtually unanimous view of lay people. "Splitting the (regulatory and representative) functions of the society would remove for all time the in-built statutory conflict of interest in the society's constitution and the consequent public perception that the present system is not impartial."