A Gawker piece, dated August 21, separates the facts from the myths generated by overheated blogging about Rothschild’s controlled- opposition mouthpiece Assange:

“The latest Wikileaks farce came to a head this weekend, with Julian Assange thundering from a balcony at the London Ecuadorian embassy that Obama must end the “witch hunt,” against Wikileaks. That Assange is holed up in the embassy after seeking asylum in Ecuador to avoid two-year-old Swedish rape and sexual molestation accusations, not a U.S. government investigation, proved no obstacle: His supporters are now seized by one of their periodic spasms of delusional op-ed writing, blogging and tweeting in the hopes of throwing up a screen of bullshit thick enough to hide the fact that this is a very straightforward case of a dude allegedly being a sex creep—not a shadowy conspiracy against a free speech champion.

The charge is being led this time by the filmmakers Michael Moore and Oliver Stone. They argue in a Times op-ed today that Assange’s Ecuadorian asylum bid is an important struggle for “global free speech” instead of a struggle by Julian Assange to not go to jail for rape. Moore has thankfully backed off of his most offensive argument, that what Assange is accused of is not really rape, as he claimed to the BBC back in December of 2010 after donating $20,000 to Assange’s bail fund. (In fact one of Assange’s two accusers claims Assange forcibly held her down while having sex with her; the other claims she woke to find him having sex with her without a condom.)

Moore and Stone concede that the allegations should be “thoroughly investigated”; but then argue that the attempt to extradite Assange to Sweden in order to investigate them is a secret ploy to send him to the U.S. to face trial for Wikileaks’ classified diplomatic cable release. “Taken together, the British and Swedish governments’ actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden,” they write.

But every one of their points in support of a dark Swedish-U.S.-U.K. conspiracy is false, having been debunked in earlier posts by New Statesman writer and lawyer David Allen Green, and the British lawyer Anya Palmer. The facts show that there is nothing more to the case than Swedish prosecutors trying to get Assange to face justice.

First: Moore and Stone toss out the old chestnut that “Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime.” Assange hasn’t even been charged, so why are the Swedes pursuing him so aggressively? It must be because the CIA has secreted Swedish lawmakers’ families to black sites and won’t release them until they get Assange.

But the argument that Assange “hasn’t even been charged,” is based on a meaningless technicality: Assange has not been formally charged because in Swedish criminal cases nobody is charged until very late in an investigation, unlike in the U.S. and Britain where charges are filed early on. Assange high-tailed it out of Sweden before the investigation reached the point of a formal charge—which is why they want him back.

The UK Supreme Court made this point in turning down Assange’s request to appeal his extradition, per Anya Palmer:

“Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.

Assange has effectively been charged, then, in the sense we think of it in the U.S and Britain.

Moore and Stone then go on to suggest that Sweden should just interview Assange in London.

Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador’s embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused.

But Assange isn’t wanted simply for an interview—he’s wanted for a criminal prosecution. The Swedish prosecutor told the UK Supreme Court that she plans on filing an indictment against Assange directly after the interview, unless he says anything “which [undermines] my present view.” After the likely event of charges being filed, Swedish law dictates that a trial must happen within two weeks. As Palmer writes, “It is difficult to see how this could happen if the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge.”

Moore and Stone also ask why Sweden doesn’t guarantee Assange won’t be extradited to the U.S. Even if they did this, it would be meaningless, as David Allen Green points out:

By asking for this ‘guarantee’, Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law.

Finally, Moore and Stone’s entire argument rests on the false premise that it’s easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from Britain “because of treaty and other considerations.”

This is an easy claim to make since few people will bother to read boring treaties to see it’s true. (Even the Times’ opinion section editors, apparently.) But it wouldn’t be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden to the U.S.: it would be harder. Treaty law says the U.S. would need permission from both the UK and Sweden if Assange were to be extradited from Sweden to the U.S., as opposed to simply the British permission they’d need when he’s in England, according to David Allen Green.

And anyway, why would they need to send Assange to Sweden first, when the UK has shown it’s more than willing to send criminals to the U.S?

“In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom,” writes Green.

Julian Assange’s sex crimes case has nothing to do with free speech, or Wikileaks. Swedish prosecutors are not handling this case differently because it’s Julian Assange. In fact slavish supporters like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are the ones holding Assange to a different standard, one where it’s OK to bend and break international law to aid an accused rapist’s flight from justice, as long as he embarrassed the U.S. government once.”

As the incidence of police violence increases, one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to document things.

Not just in writing, but on tape.

In some states, it is illegal to tape a conversation without giving notice to the other person.

However, it would be advisable to take that with a pinch of salt. It’s always better to have tapes.

If you have tapes from beginning to end, of course, you’re bullet proof. A cheap camcorder is enough to keep you sleeping peacefully. That, and plenty of friends in high places, whom you keep regularly informed.

It doesn’t mean they might not try bullets anyway, but it does mean that any such caper will result in international headlines and footsteps right up to their doors.

I mean, not every cop can be bought off even at the highest levels.

And when that begins, see the rats jumping ship themselves and throwing each other over board.

Ron Paul investments at OpenSecrets.org:

“In 2009 Paul’s net worth is approximately $5,064,000. He ranks 77th richest in the US Congress.  The three mining corporations in which Ron Paul is most heavily invested, Barrick Gold, Anglogold Ashanti Ltd
and Newmont Mining, [Lila: all bankster related companies] are incidentally among those that have reportedly done the most harm to workers and the environment of the world.  They number as perhaps the worst among the worst.

________________________________________________________

Agnico-Eagle Mines $100,001 to $250,000

Anglogold Ashanti Ltd $250,001 to $500,000
According to Forbes AngloGold Ashanti was accused in 2007 in Colombia for “murders of trade union and community leaders who opposed the company’s activities in the region”. The company disclosed itself in 2006 or in 2007 unacceptable safety performance in its platinum mines. Safety measures were taken.[10]
In January 2011, AngloGold Ashanti was named the world’s “Most Irresponsible Company” at the Public Eye Awards, hosted by the Berne Declaration and Greenpeace in Davos, Switzerland. The nominating organisation, WACAM (Wassa Association of Communities Affected by Mining), catalogued the company’s history of “gross human rights violations and environmental problems.”

Apollo Gold Corp $1,001 to $15,000

Barrick Gold $100,001 to $250,000
In April and May 2008, indigenous leaders from four countries opposing large-scale gold mining on their lands described the adverse impacts of Barrick Gold Corporation. These leaders spoke of Barrick Gold’s tactics in “suppressing dissident voices, dividing communities, and manipulating local and national politics”. They also related stories about “lack of free, prior and informed consent for local people”.

Coeur D’Alene Mines $1,001 to $15,000
El Dorado Gold $50,001 to $100,000
Goldcorp Inc $500,001 to $1,000,000
Metalline Mining $1,001 to $15,000

Newmont Mining $250,001 to $500,000
Newmont Mining  (NEM.N) halted work at its giant Yanacocha gold mine on Monday after protesters blocked an access road and torched eight pieces of earth-moving equipment, prompting the company to ask Peru’s government to intervene. The mine, partly owned by Peruvian precious metals miner Buenaventura BVN1.N, said the drastic measure to suspend work was taken to ensure the safety of its employees.The latest flare-up could test leftist President Ollanta Humala, who took office in July promising to calm conflicts between rural communities and companies. The conflicts have threatened to delay some 200 mining and oil projects nationwide.

In August 2004, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment filed a US $133.6 million civil lawsuit against Newmont, claiming the company’s Minahasa Raya mine contaminated local fish stocks, causing serious illness and death for nearby villagers. Indonesia is a G-20 nation and the fourth most populous nation in the world at 230 million people. It is comprised of over 17,000 islands”

Rudy Giuliani is calling Ron Paul a kook today.

Had Dr. Paul actually championed 9/11 Truth and the evidence showing insider fore-knowledge and complicity,  he could have rebutted immediately and to sensational effect by pointing out how Giuliani was actually a key enable of 9/11, which is the real reason why he is attacking any critic of the War On Terror, as this piece at HuffPo shows:

“Lawrence O’Donnell condemned Rudy Giuliani on his Tuesday show, calling the former New York mayor an “ego-driven” “fraud” and saying that his actions made 9/11 worse than it could have been.

O’Donnell was reacting to an interview Giuliani gave to the Associated Press in which he said that 9/11 was “so far beyond what we’d contemplated.”

“it certainly was beyond anything Rudy Giuliani had contemplated,” O’Donnell began. He accused Giuliani of making “the worst tactical decision in the history of the city of New York” by ordering the city’s emergency command center to be placed in the World Trade Center over the objections of police and other officials.

[Lila: Intentionally?]

O’Donnell said Giuliani had made this decision because the Twin Towers were closer to the City Hall press corps, and so would provide him with more photo opportunities. He also vehemently criticized the faulty fire department radios which failed to alert hundreds of firefighters that the towers were collapsing.

“Despite the painful truth of these details, which show Rudy Giuliani to have been an ego-driven incompetent in dealing with the threat of terrorism in New York City … most of the media will continue to portray him as one of the heroes of 9/11,” O’Donnell concluded. “Know this: there is no more fraudulent public image in our politics.”

Patrick Buchanan:

“The GOP used to be united on a traditionalist view of social and moral issues. Now, not only the Log Cabin Club, but libertarians and some moderate Republicans are receptive to the idea of homosexual marriage. And the ticket of Romney-Ryan accepts abortion in the case of incest or rape.

Once the principled position is yielded, where do we draw the line? At what point does constant accommodation cause True Believers to depart?”

Answer:

True believers shouldn’t look to politics to see their positions enacted.

They will have to limit their preferences to their immediate family.

The point is there’s a new religion in town, eco-feminism.  Traditional Christianity (or anything else) is the out of favor heresy.

Christians should migrate. Russia seems a good idea, given the reactions of people there to punk provocation.

Catholics will have to learn to compromise with Orthodoxy, but compared to what they compromise with here, that would be a cinch.

Of course, Buchanan’s issues are mistaken.  Gay marriage isn’t a problem. In the context, it’s a solution.

What’s a problem is treating sex as a consumer item among many, an appetite no different from eating or drinking.

Changing that would need a dismantling of corporate culture.

Something tells me no one at LRC is too keen on that.

Here’s why libertarianism is not convincing to ordinary people. Dozens of libertarian sites like to quote old chestnuts like “You can’t fool an honest man,” or refer to “victimology” and blame the victim as someone who had it coming. I beg to differ. Here’s one example why conmen who try to justify fraud by blaming the victim are only proving themselves to be sociopaths:

“Violet Christensen is 90-years-old and lives alone in her home in Minnesota with a telephone. That’s about all the information the out-of-country phone scammers needed to get to work on her.

According to Christensen’s daughter Vickie Popovich, 60, her mom suffers from mild dementia. She is able to continue to live alone only because Popovich brings over meals and checks on her mom at least five times a day. Popovich quit her job several years ago to devote herself to taking care of her mother and her in-laws and by all accounts, she’s on top of things. She pays their bills, makes sure they take their medicines on time, are well-fed, their homes kept clean and orderly and that they never miss a medical appointment or an opportunity to socialize at church or with other friends.

Yet even she was surprised by the small window of opportunity that opened wide enough for her mother to come within a hair of losing everything in a phone scam. All it took was a few hours and the skill to convince an elderly woman that she was sufficiently competent to take care of updating a file herself and that she shouldn’t “burden” her daughter with such a small problem. Talk about hitting the right trigger points.

Popovich learned of the phone scam when she made her regular 4 p.m. call to her mother. Popovich was cooking dinner and called to let Christensen know that she’d be bringing over some spaghetti for her at around 5 p.m. But the daughter sensed that her mom was a little distressed and asked her what was going on.

“She said, ‘Oh, I’ve just been dealing with these people on the phone all day,’ and my heart sank,” said Popovich. Popovich immediately asked “WHAT people?”

Christensen told her that she had gotten a call from a very nice man who said Medicare needed to update her file or she would lose her benefits on Monday. When Christensen told him that her daughter “handles all that for me,” he told her how it was something she was “capable” of handling herself, that he knew she was a “very capable” woman — repeating it over and over in a trusting manner. He also said it wouldn’t be right to “burden” her overworked daughter with this, something so easy for Christensen to do by herself.

“They knew precisely what to say to her,” Popovich said. The information the caller requested included her bank account and routing numbers, her Social Security number, address and other information that would allow identity theft and a withdrawal of Christensen’s funds.

Popovich turned off the spaghetti pot and raced over to her mother’s. On a pad near the phone, she found account numbers and personal information scribbled in her mother’s handwriting. A check of the caller ID on the phone showed the same number had phoned nine times in two hours. Popovich surmises that her mother took the first call and then went to retrieve the information for the scammer, who called back to get it. She transposed numbers once or twice on the pad, which led the scammer to keep calling her back.

Popovich called the bank immediately and closed her mother’s accounts.

“I caught it in time,” she said, “I was up to midnight making calls and working online” to mitigate the damages, she said. She has since enrolled her mother in various programs that freeze your accounts at the first sign of suspicious activity and monitor your credit reports automatically. She reported the incident to the sheriff’s department, primarily so that if suspicious activity was determined later on she would have proof that confidential information had been solicited unlawfully.

But what the sheriff told her was disturbing: Don’t expect anyone to get caught here and don’t be surprised if there are more attempts to scam your mother.

The elderly are ripe targets, he said. The call her mother got was most likely random. Scammers make hundreds of calls listening for an elderly voice to answer; when one does, the scammers turn the phone over to a confidence artist to seal the deal. Popovich changed her mother’s phone to an unlisted number. “It probably won’t matter, but I felt I had to do something.

“I stood up in church and told about what happened. I was shocked but at least six other people came up and said they had had elderly friends and relatives with similar stories,” Popovich said. In a few cases, the scammers pretended they were the senior’s grandchild stranded on spring break, robbed and left with no money to get home. Can Granddad please wire some money?

The most disturbing element for Popovich? “They made my mother feel like she was doing such a good job by answering all these questions by herself. They exploited her worries about dependency and fed into her fears of not being able to manage her life any more. It’s despicable.”

1.  Adam Kokesh was banned from the Ron Paul Festival. That’s the REAL Ron Paul festival. Even though Paul has endorsed Kokesh.  Maybe it was the video Kokesh circulated (I posted it) speculating that Benton was under the dire influence of Trygve Olson and that Ron Paul (maybe) also approved.

Kokesh always struck me as an odd libertarian hero, or titan, or whatever they’re calling them these days. But he was popular and brought some passion to all those deadly dull hair-splittings between the faithful  interspersed between shrieks of “evil statist war-monger” emerging from the primal jungle around Auburn.

2.  EPJ posted a video of Peter Schiff reading a Benton text advising him to stay away from the P.A.U.L festival That’s the one run by Paul supporters, for Paul, although Paul didn’t endorse it.  Apparently, this is a low self-esteem fan club that doesn’t mind their hero dissing them left and right, so long as they can take darshan from a distance.

Inexplicable cult-worship among so called free-thinkers (see also Rothbardianism….opposite but equal to Randianism, file under COLLECTIVIST ANTHROPOLOGY AMONG FREE THINKING EURO-AMERICAN TRIBALS

3. Schiff asks EPJ to remove it and Wenzel refuses, claiming it’s public domain. Actually, as a pro-IP guy, he should rethink that. Schiff didn’t authorize anyone to take the picture or circulate it. It’s his image, it was a private conversation, and the photographer was boorish, even if, under current law, not acting illegally.  It would be great, if, as in more progressive countries on privacy,  you needed someone’s permission to create imagery from their body or face.  It should be. Your body and face are yours. They are not public domain just because you walked outside. But that’s how barbaric people are.

Not only that, Schiff explicitly asked for the video not to be posted. He’s also a colleague and friend. But what does Wenzel do? Go ahead and post it.

Libertarians are nice people. But don’t tell me they’re clever. They’re not. Not one has a consistent logically tight philosophy, even though they all claim to be the most rigorous minds on the planet.  It’s all emotion. Just read the comments.

All abuse and name-calling and knee-jerk reactions. Must be the testosterone.

The left is a good deal smarter. Just more evil. The campaign proved it. It was one of the most inept I’ve seen.

4. All this making Jesse Benton out as the villain is highly disingenuous. It’s true that Paul didn’t explicitly endorse Romney himself. But listen closely to his words. There is some ambiguity, at least in the videos I have seen. In any case, you don’t get to run a campaign where your staffers are always doing things that oppose your positions, without either firing them or taking part of the blame for the fall out. Or else, the obvious conclusion is that you’re just playing a deep game to keep yourself above the fray, but are quite hip to what’s going on.

5.  If this doesn’t once and for all prove the worthlessness of time and money spent on politics to you, you are hopeless. Any of those kids following the campaign could have built a small business with the energy spent on Paul.  The whole thing was a bad example.

6. I was disappointed that LRC spun all the way, instead of being honest about what happened.

It’s all very well to say you can fill a stadium. But with all the stadiums you filled, you could not accomplish one political goal. Not one. Not a single solitary goal.

If it’s that difficult, then why did you even bother? And why keep at it, with P.A.U.L.?

It sounds desperate.

Personally, I’m waiting for the Non-Paul Libertarians to open doors.

There’ll be a chance for change when that happens.  True religion is inside you. That’s what Jesus said.  True religion is shown in deeds, not dogmas.

Same goes for freedom lovers.  True freedom isn’t what libertarian cult you espouse or which rally you’re attending. It’s economic freedom. It’s good personal networks that support your actions. It’s knowledge.

I’d rather spend my time that way, than interacting with thousands of people who aren’t even on the same page about what they want or how to get it.

Update: I read Diana Johnstone’s piece at Counter Punch describing the provocative nature of Pussy Riot.(h/t Daniel McAdams)

Well, no disagreement there. But the piece as a whole was a disappointment and misrepresented a couple of things.

No. 1. While Johnstone called out Avaaz (behind the Anna Hazare trojan horse in India) correctly, as well as other rights organization, she promoted Assange uncritically. What’s the difference, pray tell?

It’s only because Avaaz is more from the liberal side of things. Assange is on the left and Johnstone is on the left.

The far let, like the far right, has taken to Julian in the most craven way, even though his claims are patently fraudulent and misleading.

Two. Johnstone’s whole tone was awfully patronizing toward Russians, Orthodoxy and Slavophiles, who apparently need the instruction of the West to understand the place of “wisdom” which the West has reached. Ir’s apparently uncontroversial that everyone in the world must follow the western model, not their own.

In the third place, the Orthodox leaders were not condemning the sexual practices of the young women. They were condemning their PUBLIC infractions against private property and the dignity of others.

Fourthly, the West has no special “wisdom” about morality that every other nation should swallow. Westerners indeed could learn a great deal from cultures they believe to be inferior to them. Technological superiority does not make you morally superior in any way. As the primary seat of globalism (along with the UK and Israel), Western cultures carry the infection of imperialism much more than other cultures, inspite of the other failings of those cultures. Westerners need to show some humility about that and some repentance.

Russians have their unique problems, so have the West.So have all cultures.

The commentary showed the incredible level of smugness present among even enlightened activists in the West.

Their reference point is always themselves as the omega point of the universe. They simply do not try to evaluate something in its own terms.  Others do not show this failing nearly as much.

Such insularity is not only morally offensive, it is a serious failure of rationality.

Finally, the West is plain wrong about sex (I mean the left, that rules academia). The results are apparent to everyone, even in the West.  Sexual disease, gender wars, destroyed marriages, and increasing dependence on government. The sturdy American women of the nineteenth century would be insulted by the whining drivel coming out of the left today.

At Veterans Today, a fascinating take on what’s real behind the Assange circus in London (at the Ecuadorian embassy):

“Have you ever asked yourself why the founder of WikiLeaks always reaches the front pages of our daily and international newspapers and yet this unknown entity (Andrea Davison) has little or no coverage!!

You may be surprised to learn that in the real sense what Ms Davison knows far outweighs the out of date garbage that comes from Julian Assange!!

Ms Davison had an incredible amount of very secretive documents in her possession that had the potential to put many ex and current Prime Ministers in prison for life and in some case many other very senior MP’s and members of the House of Lords so I again keep asking the same question why is the world’s media ignoring Ms Davison?

I would now like to continue in exposing exactly what this woman knew as proof that our government and the opposition certainly are making sure that the media does not get hold of this story.

Here is more information that Ms Davison herself produced and published in her own words with the title:

MI5 DESTROY THE BLAIR BROWN IRAQ DEFENCE ARE THEY NOW WAR CRIMINALS – Jul 20, 2010:

Former head of MI5 in her evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry showed Tony Blair’s evidence that “Toppling Saddan Hussein helped make Britain safe from terrorists” was false.

In her testimony she said, what every intelligence service in the world knew, that Iraqwas no threat and did not have the capability to use WMD’s. Whilst she did not say that Saddam had mobile biological weapons units in the southern marshes it was revealed in a memo to John Gieve, Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, in March 2002, that Saddam was not likely to use chemical or biological weapons unless “he felt the survival of his regime was in doubt”.

Britain and the USA supplied Iraqwith a military industrial base which included the facility to produce chemical and biological weapons and deliver them. Britain supplied large amounts of VX gas and the tech transfer which resulted in a bio engineered flu virus transposed with a biotoxin. Following Desert Storm much was transported to Sudan, Iran and Libya.

The intelligence reports from around the world did not suit Tony Blair’s agenda and he made war on Iraq causing the radicalization of British Muslims and thereby increasing the threat of home grown terrorism Just as the intelligence reports he chose to ignore warned. Some of those reports were written by former arms investigator and intelligence agent Andrea Davison.

Manningham-Buller also said Iraq had posed little threat before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, and insisted there was no evidence of a link between former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. “There was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection and that was the judgment, I might say, of the CIA,” she told the inquiry. “It was not a judgment that found favour with some parts of the American machine.”

Former head of M15 Eliza Manningham-Buller revealed that there was such a surge of warnings of home-grown terrorist threats after the invasion of Iraq that MI5 asked for – and got – a 100 per cent increase in its budget. Baroness Manningham-Buller, who was director general of MI5 in 2002-07, told the Chilcot panel that MI5 started receiving a “substantially” higher volume of reports that young British Muslims being drawn to al-Qa’ida.

As reported she told the inquiry: “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people – a few among a generation – who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam.” She added: “Arguably we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi Jihad so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before.”

Her words are in stark contrast to the claim that Mr Blair made in front of the same inquiry on the 29 January this year “If I am asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better, with Saddam and his two sons out of office and out of power, I believe indeed we are. “It was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office, and I do genuinely believe that the world is safer as a result.”

Sir Menzies Campbell, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, added: “I should be astonished if Mr Blair were to return to give further evidence, but questions will remain as to what it was which prompted him to disregard the reservations of officials and their advice. If only Britain had been as well served by its politicians as it was by Eliza Manningham-Buller then we would never have got ourselves into the illegal mess of Iraq.”

Only 16 days before Blair gave evidence to the Inquiry documents were seized by Derby Police from Andrea Davison proving that the Government knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq at the time of the second Iraq War, along with Intelligence reports which would have ended Tony Blair’s and Gordon Brown’s carefully laid tissue of lies

Ken Livingstone, who was Mayor of London at the time of the 7 July bombings, said: “Eliza Manningham-Buller’s evidence is a damning indictment of a foreign policy that not only significantly enhanced the risk of terrorist attacks in London but gave al-Qa’ida the opening to operate in Iraq too.”

Evidence showed that a year before British troops went into Iraq, Elize sent the Home Office a memo which – though phrased in official language – demolished the idea that Saddam Hussein’s regime represented a credible terrorist threat to theUK. The memo went on: “We assess that Iraqi capability to mount attacks in the UKis currently limited.”

Lady Manningham-Buller also hinted at disagreement between Blair’s office and MI5 over the dossier that the Prime Minister presented to Parliament in September 2002, to prepare public opinion for the likelihood of war.

“We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence to it and we refused because we didn’t think it was reliable,” she said.

Andrea Davison has repeatedly asked the Home Office for the Return of her documents and Intelligence reports from the Derby Police in order to present them to the Iraq enquiry without success. Why the new Government want to keep them hidden is a mystery yet to be revealed.
They both ended up seeking political asylum in this building – The Ecuador Embassy in London

As I told you all in my last article Ms Andrea Davison has far more to offer than the CIA conman Julian Assange so why isn’t the world media interested in this scoop and more to the point just what does this women know that the British Government does not want you to know?

To prove that the information I printed is authentic I will now show you some very sensitive letters letter that Ms Davison herself released into the public domain before she was gagged and forced to take down her webpage…….you will see extremely confidential letters that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that all that she did was known to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the current PM David Cameron who between them not only carried out breaches under the Nuclear Explosions Act but she herself and her journalistic puppet, Pete Sawyer, could both have breached the Official Secrets Act!!

This story is truly a major scoop but the current Zionist controlled world media refuses to print it and those in high places continue to evade prison!!

Here are a sequence of letters that show communications between Ms. Davison and the Prime Minister and other very senior MP’s and member of the House of Lords which clearly reveal that the current Chilcot Inquiry will be a total cover-up and the star witness – Ms Davison was never called to give her evidence…….not to mention the fact that three nuclear weapons went missing and were allowed to be sold on the black market………many of the above received back handers from that fraudulent deal including our current PM who received £17.8 million for his party and another £1 million went to Tony Blair….not forgetting many other of the political elite who also got a slice of the cake!!

I will also mention other names such as Sir Ken Warren and Peter Lilley MP who employed Ms Davison and Dr. David Kelly who suffered the ultimate sacrifice in being assassinated simply because he knew too much!!!

Here are the letters in sequence of date order…….note the items seized during the police raid as highlighted in the letter to Gordon Brown the PM at the time and also note the reference made to the DTI which obviously implicates Sir Ken Warren and Peter Lilley to name but a few of those involved:

One can clearly see political interference into the case being mounted by the Derbyshire Police which they ignored and continued to put Ms Davison on trial to which she was found guilty of 27 charges…….

However, she did not attend the Mold Crown Court and so the police issued a bench warrant for her arrest…….she eventually turned up in the Ecuador Embassy in London and is currently seeking political asylum with Julian Assange as her roommate!!

The question remains will the Police or government ask the embassy to release her so that she can continue to give her vital evidence at the yet to be revealed Chilcot Inquiry……….obviously not as that would be the downfall of not only ex Prime Ministers but also the current PM and possible many members of the Government.

One should also mention in closing the fact that Ms Davison and her journalistic friend, Pete Sawyer could possibly also be charged under the official secrets act for holding and sharing official secrets and then in their publication on Ms Davison’s own blog and also in articles published by Mr. Sawyer himself that could be considered as highly sensitive!!

Mr. Sawyer had the audacity to tell Gordon and I that the reason he was attending the Royal Courts of Justice was to make sure we never printed such articles as this one……..Sorry Mr Sayer you failed on that point……also this so called journalist had the audacity to wait outside the court and take photographs of Gordon and I…………this gave me no option but to also film him which upset him deeply and he responded by almost poking his telephoto lens up my nostril……all to no avail!!!

Stayed tuned for more juicy government cover-ups and if you want to learn more you can go to the US Republic Broadcasting Network and listen to Paul Drockton and I in our own show……you can find this also on the link on this page……happy listening!!”

Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 30/7/2012

Comment:

Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“It was granted to me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience: how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel.

In the surfeit of power I was a murderer and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments.

It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good.

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts….

That is why I turn back to the years of my imprisonment and say, sometimes to the astonishment of those about me: “Bless you, prison!” I…have served enough time there. I nourished my soul there, and I say without hesitation: “Bless you, prison, for having been in my life!”

(The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956, Vol. 2, 615-617)