Yemen: the next target of the CIA, and the next International Aid from the UK.

Britain is part of a worldwide conspiracy, the purpose of which is to install a New World Order, consisting of a World Government, from the rubble of the United Nations, operated by the Communist-Zionist-Talmudic global corporate elite bloodline families.

The US wants an Empire, just like the British Empire. It wants to control the world, to crush opposition to the envisaged New World Order. In practicable terms, controlling the "gateways" of the world, like, say, Gibraltar and Cyprus (as the UK does) controls the Mediterranean Sea, and the northern end of the Suez Canal, get it?

Yemen, when it was controlled by Britain, was known as "Aden".With Yemen in the grip of the US military and CIA/MOSSAD/MI6, all traffic between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, via the Suez Canal, is completely controlled.

And they are to be brought under the control of the Anglo US axis by all means necessary. 

In addition to adding new urgency and a fresh dose of hysteria to the flagging war on manufactured terror, the toner bomb plot has provided an excuse to rationalize the global reach of the CIA.

(...)

 “Allowing the U.S. military’s Special Operations Command units to operate under the CIA would give the U.S. greater leeway to strike at militants even without the explicit blessing of the Yemeni government,” or the American people who, as usual, remain woefully uninformed.

(...)

Exploiting the obviously contrived Yemen toner bomb plot (see Paul Watson’s article today) as an excuse to shift more operational control to an unaccountable CIA would reduce conflict between the CIA’s National Clandestine Service and the more clandestine parts of USSOCOM. It would also consolidate operations.

(...)

 We are told the Obama administration is behind the effort to put the CIA’s “elite U.S. hunter-killer teams that operate secretly” inside Yemen, but the effort transcends any perceived rule by the teleprompter reader in chief.

Infowars 1st Nov. 2010

 And:

According to the London Guardian, Awlaki is now the “prime suspect” in the cargo plane bomb plot. He is also fingered as the mastermind by BBC News, and the London Telegraph amongst others. The man who allegedly made the ink toner cartridges that were later claimed to be deadly explosive devices was Saudi Arabian-born Ibrahim Hassan Al Asiri. Al Asiri is “in regular contact in Yemen with radical cleric Anwar Awlaki,” reports the Daily Mail.

As we reported last month, every indication points to American-born cleric Awlaki being a double agent working for US intelligence. He has been involved in almost every terror plot over the last couple of years, from directing the underwear bomber, who was allowed to board the plane by order of the US State Department aided by a well-dressed man who got Abdulmutallab on the airliner despite the fact that he was on a terror watchlist and had no passport, to advising Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Authorities have engaged in a cover-up of what happened at Fort Hood after they ordered Private Lance Aviles to delete cell phone footage of the attack.

Infowars 1st Nov 2010 

And of course, once Yemeni society has been ruined by the covert CIA/MOSSA/MI6 terror campaign, the probable civil war sparked by both covert and direct warfare, we will need to "democratise" and "rebuild" Yemen.

A gathering in Riyadh next February was possibly "the last chance" to turn things around in Yemen, Mr Duncan said.

He warned that the country was at risk of sliding into "chaos", allowing al Qaida to flourish and present a security threat to the rest of the world.

In a speech to Chatham House in London, Mr Duncan said the cargo plane bomb plot demonstrated the need to tackle Yemen's problems on an international level.

"The lesson from other countries is that if we sit around and analyse a country on the edge of collapse for too long, by the time we decide to do anything about it, it's already too late," he said.

"That may be just where we are heading with Yemen."

Mr Duncan said Yemen was "high" on the coalition Government's agenda and of particular interest to the National Security Council.

"Yemen in collapse could lead to a litany of chaos - no water, no energy, no food, civil strife, al Qaida flourishing, increasing radicalisation, and a regional and international threat both to world energy supplies and to many nations' security," he said.

But he called for the international community to help tackle problems like poverty, disease and lack of education rather than wielding "a big stick".

"There are two ways Yemen's problems could be approached," he said.

"We can either address the underlying causes of poverty, grievance, joblessness and governance, or the international community could begin to start shouting and wave a big stick.

"For us in the coalition Government and (the Department for International Development), we are going to put development at the heart of an integrated approach for Yemen."

A ministerial meeting of the Friends of Yemen in the capital of neighbouring Saudi Arabia had the potential to be "a major turning point" for the country, he said.

"We don't have long. The next Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh is in February, only a few months away," he said.

"More than any other meeting before it, the Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh is possibly both a golden opportunity and the last chance there will be to address Yemen's problems before it is too late."

Mr Duncan added: "The next two months in the run-up to Riyadh are crucial, and the rhetoric we've all been hearing must now become reality."

 Independent (UK), Nov. 1st, 2010

There you go then. CIA creates the problem, the Yemenis react, he UN/NATO/Zio-Communists offer a solution. Another part of the jigsaw, placed into the great picture.

If I thought that this is just a good hard kicking for the Moslems, keep them in line etc, I wouldn't give a toss, as Islam is a viscous cruel and savage pagan religion, that, had it never existed, the world would not be any the less interesting. 

But this merely about control, on a scale unknown by man before. This is about changing the world, in the favour of the global ruling elites, who want to be the iron shod boot smashing us collectively in the face forever.  Islam stands in the way of this, as did Christianity at one time, and what the powerful cannot adapt to their purpose - like Christianity - they will destroy, as they are Islam presently.

Yes, the Tories will cut whatever services are to be left after the recent cuts, and shovel money into yet another black hole, in the Middle East, all on the orders of the City of London (Finance), Washington DC (Military) and the Vatican (Spiritual), all in the name of creating a New World Order.

Is that an Eye, all seeing, above the letter "I" ?

Scandal: Foreign Aid Budget is Twice as Much as British Higher Education Budget

Scandal: Foreign Aid Budget is Twice as Much as British Higher Education Budget

Evidence of the vicious anti-British nature of the Westminster parties has come with the “education budget cut” announced by the ConDem regime — which inadvertently revealed that the foreign aid budget is now twice as high as the higher education budget.

The shocking news was contained in the announcement by Chancellor George Osborne that the spending review cuts have meant that the higher education budget will be cut from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion by 2014.

As bad as that news is, a quick look at the “ring fenced” foreign aid budget reveals that even prior to the recession, more money was being put aside for foreign aid than for higher education.

A “revised spending budget” issued by the Department for International Development (DFID) in June 2009 showed that the foreign aid budget for 2009/10 was £6.8 billion and was set to rise to £7.7 billion in the 2010/11 financial year.

The DFID announcement has deliberately understated the figures, hiding the true cost with an administrative trick. The figures they announced are only the direct aid programme, and not the total cost, which is called the “Gross Public Expenditure on Development” (GPEX) – which adds nearly £2 billion each year to total DFID expenditure.

For example, the GPEX in 2007/08 amounted to £6.027 billion, of which £5.2 billion was direct aid. The GPEX for 2006/07 was £7.4 billion, of which £4.9 billion was direct aid, and the GPEX for 2005/06 was £6.6 billion, of which £4.4 billion was direct aid.

NPI, 23rd Oct. 2010

Foreign Aid is the organized theft of the financial strength of white, British people and it's transference to third world regimes for social, political and sexual engineering games under the auspices of the United Nations.

And they're getting away with it. 

It is Communism, and most people are so saturated by food additives, fluoride in the toothpaste, TV and printed media and sport, the scum that operate tis fraud don't even bother to justify or hide it. They thing you are SHEEPLE, that you are stupid and easily frightened.

Appears that, generally, they're right.





  

The story of Lord Northcliffe. The power of organized Jewery.

Sometimes truths are collated and served by less than salubrious people. This is one such case. However the saying "Where there's muck, there's Brass" is true. Hold your nose and read Mr. Strom's essay, which apparently is true.

Lord Northcliffe  was a victim of the Zionist establishment whose story deserves to be told, though it was covered up for decades. The lessons for us in his story are deep and profound.
 
by Kevin Alfred Strom (LINK to essay)

THE PRESS MAGNATE Alfred Harmsworth, later Britain’s Lord Northcliffe, once said: “News is what someone, somewhere is trying to suppress; the rest is just advertising.” Despite the fact that he was one of the most powerful men in what was then the British Empire, Northcliffe would eventually pay for that attitude with his life.

Northcliffe’s fall — from being one of the most powerful men in the world to being imprisoned as insane after which he quickly died — took only a few days. The trigger was his challenge to the Jewish power structure.

Northcliffe, who lived from 1865 to 1922, stood up to the political establishment of his time, damning Lord Kitchener during World War I when he was considered a war hero — and thereby engendering the hatred of millions and driving the circulation of his flagship paper down by some 80 per cent. He emerged victorious, just as he had in earlier decades when his business acumen and editorial skill had made him the outright owner of the two of the most widely read newspapers in Britain (and many other periodicals) and the majority proprietor of the then-leading newspaper in the world, The Times of London. Lord Northcliffe was possibly the earliest example of the modern press baron.

Northcliffe was a man who was a bit of a jingoistic nationalist — he took regrettable anti-German and anti-Boer positions, for example — and it is said that he would do almost anything to increase the circulation of the newspapers that he owned. Douglas Reed, in his interesting book The Controversy of Zion, writes “He was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in the causes he launched or espoused, but he was independent and unpurchasable. He somewhat resembled Mr. Randolph Hearst and Colonel Robert McCormick in America, which is to say that he would do many things to increase the circulation of his newspapers, but only within the limits of national interest; he would not peddle blasphemy, obscenity, libel or sedition. He could not be cowed and was a force in the land.”

Northcliffe, the son of an English barrister, was born Alfred Harmsworth near Dublin on the 15th of July 1865. With his brother Harold (later Lord Rothermere) he started the magazine Answers to Correspondents in 1888, which rapidly became a success with its question-and-answer format, selling over a million copies a week. He then founded a children’s newspaper, Comic Cuts, a woman’s magazine, Forget-Me-Nots, purchased the bankrupt Evening News and made it a success by modernizing it, and founded the revolutionary Daily Mail, which pioneered low-cost production, lavish use of illustrations, the smaller tabloid paper size, terse, fact-filled writing, sports and women’s sections, serial novels, and banner headlines. By the time of the Boer war, the paper sold a million copies a day. Harmsworth took what he considered a patriotic position, stating that the Mail stood for “the power, the supremacy and the greatness of the British Empire.”

The part-Jewish publisher Joseph Pulitzer was so impressed with Harmsworth’s talents that he hired him to edit the first edition of his brand new New York World on the first day of the twentieth century, which he did — using the tabloid (meaning compressed) size which he had pioneered and named, and which later become the dominant format for British newspapers.

One failure of Northcliffe was his launching of the first daily newspaper for women, the Daily Mirror, which did eventually become a success when he made it into a picture newspaper for both sexes. He took his losses and accepted his defeat with philosophy and humor, saying “Disaster may often be changed to triumph by alteration in tactics. The faculty of knowing when you are beaten is much more valuable than the faculty of thinking you are not beaten when you are. I had for many years a theory that a daily newspaper for women was in urgent request, and I started one. The belief cost me £100,000. I found out that I was beaten. Women don’t want a daily paper of their own. It was another instance of the failures made by a mere man in diagnosing women’s needs. Some people say that a woman never really knows what she wants. It is certain she knew what she didn’t want. She didn’t want the Daily Mirror.”

It was in 1905, the same year that he purchased The Times and the Sunday Observer, that his achievements were recognized by his being made Lord Northcliffe — at 40 the youngest-ever peer of the realm. [ http://tinyurl.com/2wfla ]

The First World War was a tragedy of bloodletting, destruction, and death for millions of the best young men of our European race on every side of the conflict — a tragedy from which we have still not yet recovered. Its origins are lost in obscure and shifting alliances, commercial jealousy, and the cynical ‘balance of power’ policy favored by the British Empire at the expense of pan-European interests. Its end was a farrago of madness in which avarice, revenge, crackpot ‘liberal’ nuttiness, and Zionism dominated. It is this last item — Zionism — with which we are — and Lord Northcliffe was — concerned.

According to a defector from the Jewish power structure of the time, Benjamin Freedman, Britain was on the verge of losing that war in 1917, when the Zionist Jews made a proposal to the British government. Britain could yet win this war, the Zionists argued, if America could be brought into the conflict on Britain’s side. With their already-substantial control of the American press, and with their tight circle of ‘advisors’ around President Wilson (who was beholden to them because of indiscreet letters in their possession which he had written to a woman not his wife), the Zionists made a good case that they could deliver what they promised. But there was a price to be paid. The British Empire was at that time administering the small Middle Eastern territory of Palestine, populated mainly by Palestinian Arabs and Christians and with only a small minority of Jews. The Zionist Jews coveted that territory — which later became Israel when their land-grab came to fruition — and their price for bringing American soldiers to die in Flanders fields was a declaration from Britain that the Empire favored the establishment of a Jewish state there. The price was paid. Lord Milner and Foreign Minister Balfour drafted the Balfour Declaration — and the puppeteers pulled the strings on crackpot Wilson and America went to war to “make the world safe for democracy’ and to “end war,” proving that many Americans had had their brains turned to mush long before the advent of television.

The scholar Revilo Oliver has stated that Milner’s interest in supporting the Zionists, apart from the immediate objective of winning the war, was in removing as many Jews as possible from Britain, and giving them their own country thousands of miles away seemed as good a way of doing that as any. Similar motives animated Balfour, as I stated on this program last year:

“…Balfour’s naiveté [is] in this case, a stand-in and symbol of White naiveté in general. The Jews wanted a policy statement from the then-dominant world power, the British Empire, and they got it and used it to the hilt, not hesitating to kill Britons when it suited them, as in the Zionist bombing of the King David Hotel, and while other Jews were, especially after World War II, doing everything in their power to undermine the status of the White nations including Britain. The Zionist entity has outlasted the British Empire which gave it birth, though Little Britain is still of some assistance in some projects, like the murder of Iraqis, currently being undertaken by the self-styled masters of the world. What’s really interesting about Balfour, who gave the Jews their foothold in Palestine, was that he didn’t particularly like Jews — and that he was a racialist. Like Adolf Hitler later, Balfour was enamoured of the idea of the Jews leaving Europe to found their own state elsewhere. Both men negotiated with Zionist Jews to effect that end. Hitler offered them Madagascar in 1938. In 1903, while he was Prime Minister, Balfour offered them Uganda. In debates on the Alien Act of 1905, Balfour sought to cut off Jewish immigration into Britain. Balfour openly admitted in 1914 (to leading Zionist Chaim Weizmann, no less) that he shared the extreme anti-Jewish sentiments of Cosima Wagner. Balfour [even] spoke against Jewish immigration in the House of Commons.”

After the war, Lord Northcliffe became alarmed by Zionist ambitions and Jewish power. In 1920, he publicized the book that has been banned and furiously denounced by the Jews perhaps more than any other, the famous Protocols of Zion, which purports to be notes taken at a meeting of Jews sometime during the nineteenth century, detailing a plan for world domination through intrigues, deception, and terror. I have already published my criticism of the Protocols elsewhere, but suffice it to say here that, although the book is unlikely to be what it claims to be — an actual record of an actual meeting — and though it clearly was created by a polemicist with a religious bias (witness its barbs directed at Darwin and Nietzsche, for example), its insights into the Jewish mentality and Jewish techniques are insightful and its tracing (before 1905!) of many of the paths that would be taken by the Jewish establishment in the last century are amazing.

Northcliffe probably saw the Protocols much as I see them, and decided they deserved to be seen and investigated by the British people. Accordingly he saw to it that significant parts of them were published in the most prestigious newspaper in the country, The Times, of which he was the principal owner, under the title ‘The Jewish Peril, a Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry.’ He did not declare the Protocols to be true, but rather called for a full investigation to discover whether or not they were true. He stated that “an impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable … are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?”

In 1922, Northcliffe asked the editor of The Times, Wickham Steed, to travel to Palestine to investigate the real nature of the Zionist project there, feeling sure that Steed, once he saw how a tiny and foreign Jewish minority was determined to use every foul means to dispossess the Palestinians, would make a 180 degree turn and stop supporting Chaim Weizmann and the other Zionists as he had theretofore. In this Northcliffe miscalculated badly, for the Zionist hold on Steed (the exact nature of which deserves further investigation) was so strong that Steed openly refused to act upon any of the requests of the man who was the majority owner of the paper and who was therefore his employer! Steed would not go to Palestine; Steed would not publish an article critical of Balfour’s attitude toward Zionism when asked to do so; and, when Northcliffe himself went to Palestine, Steed would not even publish Northcliffe’s own dispatches from that troubled land. Who was protecting Steed? Who and what was motivating Steed? These questions became even more important later that year. Douglas Reed wrote:

Then in 1922 Lord Northcliffe visited Palestine, accompanied by a journalist, Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries (whose subsequent book, Palestine: The Reality, remains the classic work of reference for that period). This was a combination of a different sort from that formed by the editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian, who wrote their leading articles about Palestine in England and in consultation with the Zionist chieftain, Dr. Weizmann. Lord Northcliffe, on the spot, reached the same conclusion as all other impartial investigators, and wrote, “In my opinion we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and own it … The Jews seemed to be under the impression that all England was devoted to the one cause of Zionism, enthusiastic for it in fact; and I told them that this was not so and to be careful that they do not tire out our people by secret importation of arms to fight 700,000 Arabs … There will be trouble in Palestine . . . people dare not tell the Jews the truth here. They have had some from me.”

The articles by Jeffries and Northcliffe didn’t get published in The Times, but they did see the light of day in Northcliffe’s other papers, greatly alarming the Zionists, who needed the acquiescence of the British people for their land-grab to succeed.

Things started happening very fast for Lord Northcliffe soon thereafter. On February 26th, 1922, he returned from Palestine. On March 2d, he strongly criticized Steed at an editorial conference, expecting to precipitate his resignation. To Northcliffe’s amazement, Steed did not resign but decided to consult an attorney “to secure a lawyer’s opinion on the degree of provocation necessary to constitute unlawful dismissal.” Then, Steed says, he consulted Northcliffe’s own legal advisor who supposedly stated that Lord Northcliffe was “abnormal”, “incapable of business” and, judging from his appearance, “unlikely to live long” and who therefore advised the editor “to continue in his post.” On March 31st, Steed went to see Northcliffe in France and upon returning started spreading the story — even telling a director of the paper — that Northcliffe was “going mad.”

Douglas Reed himself worked with Northcliffe a few weeks later and reports he saw nothing at all indicating illness, madness, or abnormality of any kind. Reed also states that a very sane and sober Northcliffe informed him that someone was trying to kill him. Reed tells us:

The suggestion of madness thus was put out by an editor whom Lord Northcliffe desired to remove and the impressions of others therefore are obviously relevant. On May 3, 1922 Lord Northcliffe attended a farewell luncheon in London for a retiring editor of one of his papers and “was in fine form.” On May 11, 1922 he made “an excellent and effective speech” to the Empire Press Union and “most people who had thought him ‘abnormal’ believed they were mistaken.” A few days later Lord Northcliffe telegraphed instructions to the Managing Director of The Times to arrange for the editor’s resignation. This Managing Director saw nothing “abnormal” in such an instruction and was not “in the least anxious about Northcliffe’s health.” Another director, who then saw him, “considered him to have quite as good a life risk as his own”: he “noticed nothing unusual in Northcliffe’s manner or appearance” (May 24, 1922).

On June 11th, Steed met Northcliffe again in France and Northcliffe bluntly told him that he, Northcliffe, would now assume editorship of The Times. The next day, Steed, Northcliffe, and the entire entourage were aboard a train bound for Evian-les-Bains. Unknown to Northcliffe, a doctor (whose name has not been revealed to this day) was secreted aboard the train by Steed, and somehow Northcliffe was manipulated into his custody. When the train arrived in Switzerland another unnamed physician (described years later only as “a brilliant French nerve specialist”) was summoned and declared Northcliffe “insane.” Immediately Steed telegraphed the ‘news’ to London and ordered The Times to disregard and not to publish any communications from its primary owner. On June 13th, Steed returned to London. On June 18th, Northcliffe was back in London, too, but in custody and totally removed from all control of or communication with his far-flung enterprises. Even his telephone lines were cut. Police were posted at the offices of The Times to prevent his entering should he reach them. He never did.

On that same day, with Northcliffe out of circulation and his powerful voice of protest silenced, the League of Nations voted to reconfirm the ‘British Mandate’ in Palestine, which had mutated into a ‘mandate’ to install the Zionists in power there by violence and fraud.

On August 14th, 1922 Lord Northcliffe died, supposedly the cause of death being “ulcerative endocarditis.” None of the story of his alleged insanity or confinement was known to the public at the time. It was concealed for thirty years, eventually coming out in the Official History of The Times and, in greater detail in Reed’s The Controversy of Zion.

When Northcliffe died, he left in his will three month’s salary to each of his 6,000 employees, a total of 533,000 pounds — a huge sum in today’s inflated currency. The story of Northcliffe’s challenge to the Zionists deserves more study, as does the continuation of that challenge by Northcliffe’s brother Harold, Lord Rothermere. Rothermere eventually came to the conclusion that Jewish power needed to be defeated for the good of Europe, and that Britain’s best interest lay in support of the other European nations which had begun the fight.

Lord Rothermere wrote in the Daily Mail for the 10th of July, 1933:

I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful detractors of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia. They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call “Nazi atrocities” which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.

The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministers only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew.

[ http://tinyurl.com/ypbsf ]

Rothermere died — some say of a broken heart — shortly after the second great Jew-instigated fratricidal European bloodbath began in 1939.

The life and death of Lord Northcliffe have left us many lessons. Chief among those lessons is this: The enemy with whom we deal has no honor and no concept whatsoever of a fair fight, whether in a shooting war or in the war of ideas. Dealing with them as we would deal with an opponent of our own race, observing the conventions of civility and fairness and an honorable contest — and expecting the same from them, will be fatal every time. What we can expect from them is a stab in the back; poisoning; paid betrayers; lies, lies, and more lies in every direction one turns, lies so thick that they multiply faster than one can respond to them; and destruction of a million innocent lives if it gets them one inch closer to their inhuman goals.

MPs sell out the good, decent people for the criminal scum. Again.

Prison reform campaigners welcomed ministers' partial concession yesterday to allow some prisoners the right to vote before next year's local elections.

Amid reports that Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is examining which criminals should be allowed the right to vote, No 10 said it would be "unfortunate" if a blanket ban was lifted entirely.
But the Prime Minister's spokesman stressed the government would have to take into account a number of ongoing court cases on the issue as it examines a way forward.
European judges have previously ruled that Britain's outright ban on prisoner voting is unlawful under human rights laws, and the previous Labour government launched a consultation on the matter but failed to change the law.
Mr Clegg is reportedly looking at which prisoners might be allowed to cast a ballot to head off a collision with the Council of Europe which has given Britain three months to comply.
Asked if the Prime Minister felt there was a "moral imperative" to change the current situation his official spokesman said: "He would think that a lot of people in the country would find this difficult to understand, but we will have to take into account what the courts say."
Prison Reform Trust director Juliet Lyon said it was time to "overturn the outdated and counterproductive ban" on prisoners voting.
"Foot-dragging will no longer be tolerated by the Council of Europe," she noted.
"People in prison, with the exception of those proportionately punished for electoral fraud, must be enfranchised in time for the elections in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the local elections in 2011."
The issue threatens to further expose tensions within the coalition - the Tories have previously argued that the ban should remain in place while the Lib-Dems have argued for change.

MPs make concessions on lifting prison vote ban / Britain / Home - Morning Star

So rapists, child killers, human traffickers, drug barons, rapists, pedophiles, murderers and the generally depraved are to be handed the vote.

The government is beyond contempt.

The Dangers & Side Effects of Aspartame

Transcript PDF file download here

9/11, 2001, how the British media saw it.

Sky News, first reports: 





BBC World, and BBC! (domestic service),  first reports:




ITN News, early reports: