April 30, 2010

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 12:15 pm


  1. WOW! Speak of the devil … I have just come accross this:

    21 April 2010 8:28 AMConnect the euro-dots: Clegg, Alexander…CIA? My colleague Richard Waghorne has a strong piece in the Mail today, giving details of how Nick Clegg has tried to airbrush his history as a lobbyist from his official CV. Clegg has had ties to several of the secretive Brussels influence-peddlers, those EU lobbying firms that schmooze their way through the eurocrats, suggesting — and apparently even drafting — euro-laws that give Brussels more power to benefit their corporate clients.
    Of course, the European Commission does not insist these lobbyists even register. There’s a register, but it’s not compulsory. So we have no idea of which of Clegg’s former colleagues is pushing for favours for which industry. We do know however that when Clegg was a partner with euro-lobbyist GPlus, the company was representing the interests of the shadowy Russian energy giant Gazprom. So, one of the names absent from Clegg’s CV is Putin. But also Colonel Gaddafi. See Richard’s piece for details.
    What interests me, though, is that, of all the Clegg people who have also been lobbyists, his chief of staff Danny Alexander is the former director of communications with the European Movement. This outfit works against government by sovereign national parliaments, and for EU centralised government.
    It is the oldest of the European lobbying outfits. And its roots lie in millions of post-war dollars pumped in by the American secret service.
    The US intelligence operations established something called the American Committee on United Europe (ACUE). Christopher Booker and Richard North give details in their book, ‘The Great Deception.’ The ACUE was used to provide secret CIA money to promote ‘the State Department’s obsession with a united Europe.’ The money went to a range of people and organisations working towards European integration, but the ‘major beneficiary’ was the European Movement — the same outfit for which Clegg’s chief of staff later worked.
    A researcher at Georgetown University in Washington — the top university for producing foreign service high-flyers — discovered ten years ago that the total pumped into the European Movement between 1949 and 1960 was $4m. Those were very big bucks in the 1950s. The CIA millions amounted to half to two-thirds of the Movement’s income.
    Looks like Clegg’s chief of staff was working for an outfit with a flawed pedigree.

    April 21, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (18)
    Share this article: Digg itDel.icio.usRedditNewsvineNowpublicStumbleUponFacebookMySpaceFarkComments You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
    Strangely I shuddered more at watching Nick Clegg than the BNP broadcast, although I admit the broadcast was amateurish and embarrasing at times (notice the photo of Churchill behind Griffin?). Let’s face it, Clegg is all style. If you listen to what he actually says (“big change”,” real change”,” a real alternative”) you wonder what he stands for. Then you learn that he wants more EU integration, to abolish the £, an amnesty for ilegal immigrants and the total ignoring of the budget deficit. Then you despair at the electorate for boosting his poll ratings (or at least I do; you may well be a LibDem voter).
    Posted by: Kenomeat | 28/04/2010 at 10:31 PM
    I’m still shuddering somewhat as a result of watching the BNP election broadcast (on BBC!) last night.
    I seldom watch commercial TV – never a fan of all those ruddy adverts that destroy the few decent programmes like Morse and Frost, or cricket on Channel 5 – but, what with all the Sky, and other non-BBC channels, seekers of ‘news’ have plenty of other options. Fortunately, or sadly, depending on how one sees things, we are spared the Right Wing-Nut stuff that pours out in the States…
    Caught your item in the Telegraph today, much in line with many others on that column, but always good for morale to have a say in these dark days.

    Posted by: Tom | 27/04/2010 at 11:18 AM
    Ten minutes into the BBC 6 o’clock news and still no mention of any party except the big 3. There was a fleeting mention of Plaid Cymru but that’s because the leaders were campaigning in Wales and in any case Welsh and Scottish nationalism is acceptable because they are basically socialist. 14 minutes in and the Ulster Unionists and Respect have just been mentioned but that’s because they’ve just launched their manifestos. Still no mention of UKIP or the BNP.
    17 minutes in and Labour, Tory and Lib Dem must have each been mentioned at least 20 times each. Still no mention of UKIP or the BNP. They’ve now moved on to other news. I’m sure you understand what I’m getting at. As far as BBC News is concerned anti-EU parties simply don’t exist. So how can you expect the likes of UKIP to compete on a level playing field.
    Despite all this, and remember UKIP came second in last year’s Euro elections, you’re right; I did expect better.
    Posted by: kenomeat | 26/04/2010 at 06:24 PM
    The problem in your theory is the opinion polls.
    Of those who indicate that they will vote, currently some 34% appear to support the Tory Party, and the other two parties seem to account for another 60% or so, that’s a total of around 90%.
    If, as you appear to claim, the ‘majority’ support the policies of either UKIP or the BNP, where the hell are they? I realize the above figures only includes those who intend to vote, but it’s not as if either of the two Right Wing parties’ policies are
    unknown. The BNP, I understand, have c.340 candidates, which together with UKIP, means that there are possibly alternatives to the ‘big three’ in well over half of all elections being held. Either the anti-EU brigade have given up, or there are not anywhere near as many as you think.
    Posted by: Tom | 25/04/2010 at 11:39 AM
    I think the BNP may have a point. After all, if it wasn’t for the main stream media Clegg would still be a relative unknown and far behind in the polls. Replace Clegg with Griffin or Farage in the debates and they would be getting poll ratings in the high 20’s as well.
    I repeat what I’ve said before; if we have a choice between three social democratic parties then we effectively live in a one party state.
    Posted by: kenomeat | 24/04/2010 at 09:50 PM
    I suspect the celebrations of St George’s Day have been low key this year, what with the BNP high-jacking the flag and wearing suits of armour at their manifesto launch…
    Just to make clear, what I said was that the blogs seemed to be full of ‘claims’ that the majority are in favour of ‘right wing’ policies – I believe the BNP claim that the vast majority would support their policies if it were not for the BBC. So the sudden surge for the Liberals, if it turns into votes, might make such claims more a case of wishful thinking. All will be revealed on May 7th.
    Personally, I reckon the British are, in the main, more concerned about their jobs, all those things that I have previously listed as being clearly in the hands of our own lords and masters, the weather, the World Cup, TV soaps etc, etc.
    Most wouldn’t even know what sovereignty is, let alone losing it…

    Posted by: Tom | 24/04/2010 at 11:42 AM
    Not certain I understand your comment.
    This article refers to America’s financial involvement in Europe some fifty years back, though I’m certain they still believe the concept of a ‘united’ Europe makes sense.
    They certainly stuck their nose in over Suez, and to a certain extent in the problems of Ireland. What is it that concerns you?
    Posted by: Tom | 24/04/2010 at 11:17 AM
    Why can’t the Americans keep their noses out of our business,maybe one day we can return the favour,and I bet they won’t like it.
    Posted by: Karl | 23/04/2010 at 10:55 PM
    Happy St George’s Day.
    As you’ve been trawling through various on-line newspaper politics blogs (I’ve occasionally posted in the Telegraph and the Express as well as various websites) you have said that the majority appear to be supporting traditional conservatism. Could it be that, with honourable exceptions (such as your goodself) the majority of readers who are actually interested in politics are naturally right of centre thinking people? Those who are not interested in politics vote for style rather than substance; hence the popularity of Clegg. It’s just a theory.
    By the way, if you agee to have a look at the following websites:”EU Referendum”, “Cranmer”, “Autonomous Mind” and “Your Freedom and Ours” I promise to look at the Guardian and the Independent. You will have to Google them as I don’t know how to do those fancy links. They are well written and thoughtful rather than hysterical.
    Posted by: kenomeat | 23/04/2010 at 07:38 PM
    Despite the best efforts of proponents of conspiracy theories, spokepersons for the BNP, Nigel Farage,and others who shall remain nameless, I do try my very best to keep an open mind on the subject of the EU. I have even popped into the European Movement’s site now that I know such a body exists…
    My present thinking is that one side needs to be less hysterical, and the other more explanatory.
    The current polls possibly surprise many politcal observers. Having flicked in and out of numerous bloogsites in recent months, I was starting to wonder if all the claims that the ‘majority’ wanted old-style conservative policies – out of Europe, capital punishment, an end to all forms of immigration, etc – actually carried some substance. And what happens? Support for the centre-progressives in the shape of nice Mr Clegg suddenly steams into sight. As that well-known journalist of the Right keeps telling us: “You couldn’t make it up!”

    Posted by: Tom | 23/04/2010 at 09:37 AM
    Stick to womens pages,fashion and gossip.You are out of your depth.Brian Butler Dudley
    Posted by: Brian Butler | 21/04/2010 at 07:37 PM
    harry fredericks
    “.. . are so intertwined it is very difficult to seperate the US from Germany in even domestic US matters. The conclusions are obvious”
    I often think the great difficulty with conspiracy theories, as I suspect this is, is that people will make them far more complicated than necessary.
    As my dictionary does not include ‘metabridge’, and I have no idea what the DVD is, I have to say ‘the conclusions’ are not perhaps as obvious as you suggest. If you would care to explain it all in terms that the average reader could understand, the debate might well continue…
    Posted by: Tom | 21/04/2010 at 07:04 PM
    I’ve got a copy of “The Great Deception” (why are you not surprised!) if you want to read it. Wish I knew how to get it to you. You might actually change your mind on the EU.
    Posted by: kenomeat | 21/04/2010 at 06:53 PM
    Will G
    I don’t think Mary Ellen, nor most of the posters on her blog, would care to defend the Conservatives’ record with reference to the EU. It’s a case of “a plague on all their houses”. Most of us wouldn’t support the new progressive Tories at all. I, and I’m sure many others, are solidly behind UKIP.
    As for this being the UK’s worst newspaper I’m sure you would feel a lot more embarrassed being seen reading the Sun or the Star (I’d be more embarrassed being seen with the Guardian!).
    Posted by: kenomeat | 21/04/2010 at 06:48 PM
    This explains why Clegg is against ID-cards for British citizens but pro the EU’s Stokholm project which would impose a compulsory electronic ID-card on ALL EU “citizens” !
    I think the word I am looking for is…hypocrite.
    Posted by: Johannes | 21/04/2010 at 02:22 PM
    This Smearathon is dated, instead of constantly slating Labour, Lib Dems and anyone else, how about you guys argue why the Conservatives are better? Oh Your Not? Oh. because their policies are rubbish? I see!
    Complete and utter dibble from the UK’s Worst Newspaper
    Posted by: Will Griffiths | 21/04/2010 at 11:40 AM
    There is more Ms synon. The Euro “Project” insofar as the metabridge of intelligence agencies supported its growth was primarily a DVD operation. In Germany the DVD/CIA relationship was very close. Still is in fact on most ops. Insofar as the DVD, Dachau, is the outgrowth of the former Abwehr it would suggest that Cleggie and his cohorts are rather more german operatives than CIA/American. Though German and US intelligence are so intertwined it is very difficult to seperate the US from Germany in even domestic US matters. The conclusions are obvious.
    Posted by: harry fredericks | 21/04/2010 at 11:02 AM
    I have not read the ‘Great Deception’, but perhaps the most interesting point in this article is the question of why the US State Department displayed an obsession with the idea of an united Europe.
    In terms of $4m, it sounds a lot of money, but I would suggest it was peanuts compared to the amount pumped into Europe following WW2 and the huge cost of maintaining US forces in Europe for several decades. Was there a long term view that the sooner Europe was strong enough – and united enough – to take care of itself, the sooner the costs could transfer to european taxpayers? After the enormous lessons of two WWs, the likelihood of America, even in present times, working against the concept of an united Europe, seems pretty remote.
    Some might say they should stay out of ‘our’ business, forgetting that if they hadn’t made it their business for much of the last century, Europe might well be part of a 1000-year reich.
    Posted by: Tom | 21/04/2010 at 10:53 AM
    Verify your CommentPreviewing your CommentPosted by: |

    This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

    Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
    Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment
    The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
    As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
    Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

    Post a commentComments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

    Email Address: (Not displayed with comment.)


    Remember personal info?


    Enter search term: Search Advanced Search Euroseptic blog
    What is RSS?
    All our RSS feeds
    READ OUR OTHER POLITICAL BLOGS Recent PostsThe smile on the face of the crocodile
    Connect the euro-dots: Clegg, Alexander…CIA?
    A weird conspiracy in Athens…?
    Kennedy, Nixon, my ex-big-boss and that debate
    The EU is battle-ready: crampons, thermals and gettin’ down
    The £2bn propaganda eurocrats colonise YouTube
    Reasons to love the Italians, part 87
    ‘Mon pays, l’Europe.’ Not likely, mate.
    Barack Hussein Obama and Indonesia: there’s no place like home
    ‘Lagarde correct: Germany is crushing Europe’
    ArchivesApril 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    LinksOpen Europe
    Brussels Journal
    Bruges Group
    Daniel Hannan MEP
    The European Voice
    EU Referendum
    Chronicles Magazine
    Taki’s Magazine
    Financial Times Brussels blog
    EU Online (portal of all EU Institutions)
    The Economist Charlemagne column
    Institute of Economic Affairs
    Centre for European Reform
    Boulton & Co
    Comment Central
    Conservative Home
    Guido Fawkes
    HM Treasury
    Iain Dale
    Nick Robinson’s Newslog
    Parliament Live TV
    Paul Waugh
    Play Political
    Political Betting
    Politics Home
    Adam Smith
    Red Box
    Register of Members’ Interests
    Stephen Pollard
    The Spectator’s Coffee House
    Three Line Whip
    UK Polling Report
    10 Downing Street
    The Daily Mail is not responsible for the content of external sites

    Comment by Zoompad — April 30, 2010 @ 12:26 pm | Reply

  2. Very interesting about Anna Span and Cleggy, isn’t it? Another interesting fact is what the Lib Dems decided as party policy during the 2004 Lib Dem party conference, concerning lowering the age that young people can get access or take part in pornography.

    And we thought the Lib Dems were the nice party? Dream on, suckers!

    Comment by Zoompad — April 30, 2010 @ 12:21 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: