A Place to Stand

A letter of mine in today's Herald (Thurs)
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/36813.htm
Also published with my grammer improved by the Scotsman
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=369752005

Dear Sir,
The words of the judge in the Birmingham Vote Fraud trial cannot be ignored particularly in present circumstances. He said that the evidence was "overwhelming", that " There are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated", that "Frauds of this magnitude require a considerable degree of organisation and manpower, not to mention supervision and co-ordination. It would be unthinkable for them to be the work of a few hothead activists", & of Prescott's reforms which made fraud possible on this scale that this was "positive assistance to fraud "...... "Short of writing 'Steal Me' on the envelopes, it is hard to see what more could be done to ensure their coming into the wrong hands".

We are going into an election for which 7 million postal ballots have been issued. It is likely the total Labour vote will be under 9 million (1/3rd of the 59% who voted last time). The possibilities are obvious. Fraud in Birmingham has been enormously more obvious & equally importantly, one sided, than anything that happened in the Ukraine. The Electoral Reform society says "We do not believe electoral fraud is confined to Birmingham" & it is likely they are correct which makes this election potentially the most antidemocratic since 1832.

It is now the duty of the leaders of all other parties to seek a judicial review establishing, as a minimum, that postal ballots should be counted separately & announced separately & that in any case where the result changes because of posted votes that person not be considered "duly elected" until a thorough police investigation of a random selection of posted votes has been made.
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig

This was also sent to a number of southern newspapers yesterday morning but have not been used. I made a couple of phrasing errors which I have corrected here - that's what comes of writing in a hurry.

I see the Birmingham Lib Dem chief is going to court on this. The country owes him a enormous debt for his refusal to let this go - "for evil to triumph all that is required is for good men to do nothing". Let us hope that the opposition parties strongly support him.

According to the Independent & a certain but not overwhelming number of reports here has been massive deliberate voting fraud in Birmingham by the Labour party (or at least by large numbers of members in a very open way without any honest members of the party or it's leadership noticing).

Labour knew when they set up the system that handing out postal votes like confetti was, in the judge's words, an invitation to fraud.

A Judge has delivered a devastating indictment of the postal voting system championed by ministers as he found six Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud. He said checks against corruption were "hopelessly insecure" and accused the Government of being in denial about the risks to democracy.

Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an electoral commissioner in Birmingham, found "overwhelming" evidence of fraud in last year's city council elections that would "disgrace a banana republic". The elections, where several Labour candidates bucked the trend to win, were dogged by claims of intimidation, bribery, "vote-buying', impersonation and even the creation of a "vote-forging factory".

&

Mr Mawrey said: "Bordesley Green and Aston were not isolated incidents but part of a Birmingham-wide campaign by the Labour Party to try, by bogus postal votes, to counter the adverse effect of the Iraq war on its electoral fortunes."

The judge said Government claims that guards against vote-rigging were in place revealed a "state not simply of complacency but of denial". He said: "There are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated."

Mr Mawrey said rules allowing voting slips to be sent to addresses other than those on the electoral register gave "positive assistance to fraud", and was scathing that they were posted in identifiable envelopes. He said: "Short of writing 'Steal Me' on the envelopes, it is hard to see what more could be done to ensure their coming into the wrong hands.

Frauds of this magnitude require a considerable degree of organisation and manpower, not to mention supervision and co-ordination. It would be unthinkable for them to be the work of a few hothead activists, working behind the backs of the candidates and their party."

This is saying that Labour deliberately set up a system for fraud & that it is "unthinkable" that the party knew what they were doing in Birmingham.

There are just under 7 million postal votes being sent out. Last time "The total electorate was 44,401,238 of whom 26,366,992 voted - a turnout of 59.38%" so even if Labour get 1/3rd of the vote it will only be about 9 million tops. Worse - assuming fraud will be concentrated in key marginals which seems likely Labour hardly need any ambulant voters at all.

Postal voting is also subject to the perfectly legal fraud of getting people to register in marginals (the Tories did that with overseas voters years ago) & of "helping" those in Homes to fill in their forms - imagine even an honest social worker helping a gaga pensioner who wants to vote any party that wants to "send the darkies home".

The western powers made enormous efforts to get Ukraine to rerun their election when there was very limited evidence of fraud. I have written before on their failure to be interested in fraud in Croatia (& Bosnia). If, as seems likely, the UK election is to be run on much more fraudulent terms, I somehow doubt Mr Bush will be demanding a recount.

I had this published in the Scotsman on 1st April. The bits marked <> were edited (it was quite a long letter) but I think readers here should see the whole thing. I believe there is some genuine movement going on:

< The report on the SNP's policy of cutting corporation tax to kick-start economic growth (Mon front-page & Tues. 29th) by > Professor Midwinter is misinformed.

The case that all the SNP's policies, specifically independence & the concomitant use of oil revenues, could cost 10 billion is arguable either way. However it is unreasonable to use this figure in an argument about cutting corporation tax < & rates >. As he states later since our total corporation tax receipts are 2.1 billion a cut of 1/3rd would be 700 million. Scottish Enterprise already costs us 500 million, for less obvious effect & Holyrood has regularly had an underspend of 500 million. This is therefore clearly affordable.

The argument over whether independence <, requiring the SNP to win both a Parliamentary & referendum majority, is feasible > is a different issue. < As has happened in Quebec,> it is quite possible the SNP could become the leading party < in government > without persuading the electorate to secede.

The Professor is also in error in saying that Ireland's growth preceded the tax cut. Ireland decided on reform in 1989, including cutting business taxes & instituted it within a year. They immediately came out of stagflation. It is true that in face of this success they repeatedly cut corporation tax < further > to it's present level of 12.5% (& that the rate of growth further increased), which is what he is referring to in saying that some tax cuts came after success, but the initial cut came first - the relationship between reform & success is so close that it is not reasonable to deny that the one led to the other. Independence & EU membership, < which are > sometimes credited with responsibility for Ireland's achievement, both came decades earlier & immigration (actually the return of generations of emmigrants), not surprisingly, followed growth.

A point he misses is that the lesson the SNP have learnt from Ireland is twofold. Not just cutting business taxes but also cutting regulation. < It is understandable but unfortunate that Holyrood has made it's presence felt more by increasing regulation than by cutting it. The former is easy for government to do while the latter requires considerable self examination, but for the sake of the nation our MSPs must do it.>

Turning round our economy cannot be done purely by writing a cheque but it can be done by a government willing to make the effort, which includes writing that cheque & backing it. Since each per cent increase in growth means a continuing extra billion of national wealth each & every year the gains to be made exceed the cost many times over. < I may be accused of naivety but > I do not believe < that, with this visible example,> the Scots electorate are either to stupid or to shortsighted to understand this.

There is a very interesting report here on why Ireland's economy is growing.

The authors of the study, Eric Verhulst, Paul Vreymans and Willy De Wit, have performed a multi‑regression analysis, trying to establish the relative weights of 25 possible causes of growth differences, including age structures, education levels, inflation, number of annual working hours, interest rates, the ratio between direct and indirect taxes, the size of the public deficit, the impact of the accession to the EU etc. etc.. The most striking conclusion was that 93% of the differences between growth performances could be explained by govern­ment spending and tax levels.

In 1985, the Irish economy was in a shambles. It was facing excessive budgets deficits and minimal growth. Its GNP p.c. amounted to only 65% of the Belgian level. In addition, Irish unemployment stood at 17% against 10% for Belgium. Until 1985 both countries followed similar Keynesian policies of deficit spending. In 1983 Belgian public spending even exceed­ed 50% of GNP.

I must admit I doubt if economics has reached such a degree of scientific certainty that it is possible to justify saying 93% rather than merely 90%+ of the effect is because of Ireland's fully reproducible economic programme. On the other hand if it was only 20% it would still be well worth running the country competently (as opposed to the present method).

Some prat wrote to the Herald to tell them off for being anti-catholic. I was so annoyed by the phrase about "turning the guns on other religions" that I wrote this & put in the references so they would know it was true & open source. They didn't publish it tho' they did do a couple of less confrontational responses.

Dear Sir,
Your correspondent Neil McDermott, in taking the Herald to task for it's alleged anti-catholic stance asks "do the guns ever get turned on other religions".

In October 1990 at the start of the Yugoslav wars, his Holiness, as leader of the Knights of Malta, gave an unsecured interest free loan of $2 billion to the Croatian Nazi leader Franjo Tudjman "not to buy guns with" despite the fact that Tudjman was on record as saying that "genocide is commanded by the word of the Almighty to spread the one true faith". In April 1999 members of Caritas were caught smuggling over 1,000 mortars "stolen" from a NATO base together with a number of antiaircraft missiles to the KLA, an organisation which at the time openly boasted of genocide.

Since the Herald made no criticism of his Holiness for those actions perhaps Mr McDermott might wish to reconsider his rather inapt phraseology.
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig

References:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/carr/carr.html

October 4, 1990, when, even though still a part of Yugoslavia, Croatia was covertly provided with a US$2-Billion interest free loan, repayable in full after 10 years and a day. The loan was provided by the Ordre Souverain of Militaire de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem, Chevaliers-Hospitaliers de Malte. This ancient Order of Roman Catholic Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem was based in Malta during the Christian Crusades against the Islamic forces in Jerusalem. Today, the headquarters building of the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem is located at 61 Via Nizza in Rome from where these modern Catholic Knights wield the influential power of high finance.


http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-2004-11-15.html
CARITAS CAUGHT SMUGGLING NATO WEAPONRY TO THE KLA

On April 12 1999, a huge haul of arms and ammunition, destined for the KLA, was found in the Italian port of Ancona aboard trucks leased by Caritas. The cargo had officially been declared as a German Caritas humanitarian aid shipment for Kosovo refugees. The trucks were loaded at the Caritas center in Sarajevo. The customs officials, who searched the trucks, found 30 tons of war material, including anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, rocket
launchers and machine guns.

Most of the arms were of Russian or East European origin (these certainly came from East Germany and were available to the German Secret Services following the fall of communist East Germany - ed), but many bore NATO markings. More than 1,000 mortars said to have been stolen from a NATO arsenal in Germany were found onboard the trucks. There was some legitimate humanitarian aid onboard the trucks, but it was of poor quality, much of the food had already passed its expiration date.

Italian customs officials arrested three drivers, Robert Buellesbach, Sead Klakar, and Drasco Kovacevic. The Italian authorities claimed that Buellesbach had links to German intelligence. On that basis one could speculate that he's the one who stole the mortars from the German NATO base.

The 15-meter-long trucks had been rebuilt to transport illegal cargo. One truck was fitted with a double floor, while another one had a secret closet behind the driver's cabin big enough for six people. The Italian authorities said that the arms were destined for a training camp of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in Scutari in northern Albania. The name of the consignee on the export documents, was one Father Luciano Augustino, a parish priest in Scutari.

General Alberto D'Amico, the military commander in charge of customs for the region that includes Ancona, confirmed claims by Italian security sources that it was impossible that British and American intelligence could have been unaware of the smuggling. A NATO spokesman said that while the Alliance had no contact with the KLA, "Some individual countries which are member countries of NATO may have some contacts. Of course that is not a guarantee that such things are not happening, smuggling and so on."

Caritas denied that it had any role in the arms smuggling. It issued a statement saying, "These trucks are not from Caritas, even if the logo (on the trucks) is the same."

CONCLUSION

The trucks were leased by Caritas, and loaded at the Caritas center in Sarajevo, and were supposed to believe Caritas when it says that it had nothing to do with this? Just like we are supposed to believe that somebody managed to walk onto a German NATO installation and steal over 1,000 mortars? The conclusion is obvious. The Vatican was using its Caritas charity to provide a cover for NATO, or at least German, arms smuggling to the KLA. They may also have provided Iran, the world's leading terrorist state, with the same cover in Bosnia when Omerbasic led the Caritas convoy to Vitez.

If there is any truth to the Christian religion, or perhaps even if he believes there is, then that obscene genocidal nazi piece of filth John Paul II is about to BURN IN HELL. Unfortunately I doubt if there is.

When Tudjman & later Izetbegovic died the war crimes tribunal immediately announced that they had been just about to arrest them for war crimes. I suspect His Holiness is to big to touch even post mortem but he is as responsible for the genocide in Yugoslavia as either of them.

Still he is about to join the Blessed Aloysius Stepinac, a man he himself beatified for recruiting catholic priests to run extermination camps in WW2.