http://www.bilderberg.org/masons.htm#nutshell

What would have had to have happened for the McCollum Memo to prove that FDR knew at least the day before ?

You haven’t said anything about Helen E. Hamman’s character. Do you have a record of her being a liar in anything ?

When you find the time to dig around to find an answer to my last point, you may put it on this forum, i can wait.

There are three questions here. I ask that in your reply you answer all three.

A fine lesson in history and very interesting indeed. They say that history repeats itself. Well, where do we find another JOHN WILKES ?

We could certainly find 15,000 protestors – if they knew what was happening.

A lot of people do – but — most people don’t.

Scaremongering, and using other unethical tactics which severely limited

Parliamentary debate, the New Labour Government — with the connivance of the hierarchies of the other major Parties — pushed through the most dangerous Bill in the history of Britain.

Strikingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler‘s Enabling Act which allowed him to legally set up a dictatorship, the Civil Contingencies Act is a flat-out Dictatorship Act.

MPs did nothing to protect British democracy and civil rights. Many Peers denounced the “absolute power“ granted by the Bill, but did nothing. Lord Lucas even warned,

“We are signing our death warrant as a democracy“, but what did this accomplish?.

The unconscionable Civil Contingencies Act, believe it or not:
* allows the Government ministers to call for a State of Emergency for almost any reason under the sun
* allows the Government, under the Emergency, to make, amend or repeal Acts of

Parliament as if It were Parliament and Crown — the powers of an absolute dictatorship

[Hitler‘s Enabling Act, article 2: “Laws decided by the Government of the Reich may deviate from the provisions of the constitution.“ Blair‘s Enabling Act, clause 22 (3): “Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by exercise of the Royal Prerogative.“; and may (clause 22, 3, j) “disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment“.]
— would therefore allow by decree the surrender of the British nation to the European

Union empire; approval for GM food and crops; privatisation of pensions and the NHS, unlimited immigration, etc.

* allows the ordering of any individual to do, or not do, almost anything demanded by the Government

* allows the confiscation or destruction of property without compensation (including farm animals and pets, bank accounts and stock, anything you own (“property“)

* allows the banning of people meeting together (based on other legislation, this may mean a gathering of more than 2 persons)

* allows the prohibition of movement, or can compel movement (can keep you confined to your house, or force you out of it)

* allows the cutting off of communication between you and others

* allows a prison sentence for “failing to comply“ with any order (and do not forget here the confiscation-of-property-without-compensation threat)

* allows the deployment of the Army

As the Earl of Onslow said in Parliament, this legislation is unnecessary, for emergencies can be handled with current laws. No-one dreamt of such a Hitlerian Bill during World War I, World War II, and the Northern Ireland Troubles. Only the New Labour Government (that persistently lied about Iraq and waged a war of aggression there) has done it.

There has been a corrosion of the moral fabric of British government — MPs, Peers, Judiciary.

The Citizens of Great Britain must become informed, and politically activated, to understand and devotedly oppose the immense dangers the United Kingdom faces from Without (the EU empire) and from Within.

REPEAL the extremely dangerous,
democracy-extinguishing
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT
(enacted 18th November 2004)

AND WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW TONY THE BLAIR TO ROAM

The current power base in government has long, long deep roots my friends and that is where our difficulty lays, for to get to the bottom of them is going to take some very seriously harsh gardening, that is if we truly wish to rid Britain of this evil infestation once and for all time.

How far back can we go, well plenty of intrigue down through the centuries, after all King John was part of what we could call anti corruption power plot uprising. And I love uprising against corruption in high office such as this one which produced our beloved Magna Carta.

Take the case of a lovable rakish rouge John Wilkes, the son of Israel Wilkes, a malt distiller, born on 17th October 1725. In 1762, the new king, George III, arranged for his close friend, the Earl of Bute, to become prime minister. This decision upset a large number of MPs who considered Bute to be incompetent. John Wilkes became Bute’s leading critic in the House of Commons. In June 1762 Wilkes established The North Briton, (We have the UK Column) a newspaper that severely attacked the king and his Prime Minister.

After one article that appeared on 23rd April 1763, George III and his ministers decided to prosecute Wilkes for seditious libel. He was arrested but at a court hearing the Lord Chief Justice ruled that as an MP, Wilkes was protected by privilege from arrest on a charge of libel. His discharge was greeted with great popular acclaim and Wilkes left the court as a champion of liberty.

Wilkes after a spell recovering from and injury in France returned to attacking the king and his government and stood as Radical candidate for Middlesex. After being elected Wilkes was arrested and taken to King’s Bench Prison. For the next fortnight a large crowd assembled at St. George’s Field, a large open space by the prison. On 10th May, 1768 a crowd of around 15,000 arrived outside the prison. The crowd chanted ‘Wilkes and Liberty’, ‘No Liberty, No King’, and ‘Damn the King! Damn the Government! Damn the Justices!’. Fearing that the crowd would attempt to rescue Wilkes, the troops opened fire killing seven people. Anger at the Massacre of St. George’s Fields led to disturbances all over London.

On 8th June Wilkes was found guilty of libel and sentenced to 22 months imprisonment and fined £1,000. Wilkes was also expelled from the House of Commons but in February, March and April, 1769, he was three times re-elected for Middlesex, but on all three occasions the decision was overturned by Parliament. In May the House of Commons voted that Colonel Henry Luttrell, the defeated candidate at Middlesex, should be accepted as the MP. John Horne Tooke and other supporters of Wilkes formed the Bill of Rights Society. At first the society concentrated on forcing Parliament to accept the will of the Middlesex electorate, however, the organisation eventually adopted a radical programme of parliamentary reform.

John Wilkes was released from prison in April 1770. Still banned from the House of Commons, Wilkes joined the campaign for the freedom of the press. In February, 1771, the House of Commons attempted to prevent several London newspapers from publishing reports of its debates. Wilkes decided to challenge this decision and the government reacted by ordering the arrest of two of his printers. A large crowd soon surrounded the House of Commons and afraid of what would happen, the government ordered the release of the two men and abandoned attempts to prevent the publication of reports of its debates.

In 1774 John Wilkes was elected Lord Mayor of London. He was also elected to represent Middlesex in the House of Commons. Wilkes campaigned for religious toleration and on 21st March, 1776, he introduced the first motion for parliamentary reform. Wilkes called for the redistribution of seats from the small corrupt boroughs to the fast growing industrial areas such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield.

Although not a supporter of universal suffrage, Wilkes argued, as I do, that working men should have a share in the power to make laws.

You have to give it to old John Wilkes, there are few men ready and willing to stand up and be counted for what they believe in–he was one.

Take a browse through his famous essay Number 45 which outraged George III, and resulted in his arrest for seditious libel under a general warrant (in which the crime but not the criminal was named), and landed forty-nine other people in jail. The arrests incited Wilkes to bring a counter-suit against his arrestors for trespass, forcing the courts to examine the legality of Wilkes’ seizure as a member of the House of Commons. The court vindicated Wilkes but more importantly the incident signalled a “momentous shift in the locus of power in government from the privileged to the masses.” Colonists idealized the radical Wilkes as their champion of liberty whose cause celebre demonstrated to their great satisfaction that the British government was all too eager to curtail freedom of the press and the people’s lawful rights.

“The King’s Speech has always been considered by the legislature, and by the public at large, as the Speech of the Minister. It has regularly, at the beginning of every session of parliament, been referred by both houses to the consideration of a committee, and has been generally canvassed with the utmost freedom, when the minister of the crown has been obnoxious to the nation. The ministers of this free country, conscious of the undoubted privileges of so spirited a people, and with the terrors of parliament before their eyes, have ever been cautious, no less with regard to the matter, than to the expressions of speeches, which they have advised the sovereign to make from the throne, at the opening of each session. They well knew that an honest house of parliament, true to their trust, could not fail to detect the fallacious arts, or to remonstrate against the daring acts of violence committed by any minister. The speech at the close of the session has ever been considered as the most secure method of promulgating the favourite court-creed among the vulgar; because the parliament, which is the constitutional guardian of the liberties of the people, has in this case no opportunity of remonstrating, or of impeaching any wicked servant of the crown.

This week has given the public the most abandoned instance of ministerial effrontery ever attempted to be imposed on mankind. The minister’s speech of last Tuesday is not to be paralleled in the annals of this country. I am in doubt, whether the imposition is greater on the sovereign or on the nation. Every friend of his country must lament that a prince of so many great and amiable qualities, whom England truly reveres, can be brought to give the sanction of his sacred name to the most odious measures, and to the most unjustifiable public declarations, from a throne ever renowned for truth, honour, and unsullied virtue.

A despotic minister will always endeavour to dazzle his prince with high-flown ideas of the prerogative and honour of the crown, which the minister will make a parade of firmly maintaining. I wish as much as any man in the kingdom to see the honour of the crown maintained in a manner truly becoming Royalty. I lament to see it sunk even to prostitution. What a shame was it to see the security of this country in point of military force, complimented away, contrary to the opinion of Royalty itself, and sacrificed to the prejudices and to the ignorance of a set of people, the most unfit, from every consideration, to be consulted on a matter relative to the security of the house of Hanover!

The King of England is only the first magistrate of this country; but is invested by the law with the whole executive power. He is, however, responsible to his people for the due execution of the royal functions, in the choice of ministers, and totally equal with the meanest of his subjects in his particular duty”.

Sounds to me as if very little has changed in almost 250 years, except perhaps we have all lost the strength of John Wilkes, to challenge the powerful forces and to see our challenge through to the better end.

John Wilkes also had the charisma to inspire people to support his cause, which of course was their cause, and to rise in revolt to support him.

Armed with a Brand New Constitution for the benefit all people of this country. One “irrevocably” etched in stone, I know what I could do with a supportive crowd of 15,000 who chanted ‘Wilkes and Liberty’, ‘No Liberty, No King’, and ‘Damn the King! Damn the Government! Damn the Justices!’.

Some say this is what the government of Britain today wants to see happen in order that they can counter attack and subdue. I don’t think so, as my intelligence throughout Britain seems to be telling me that the whole country appears to be on the verge of a serious backlash against this government, and the political system that is the source of so much misery to many, and if they were, like in Wilkes’ day prepared to open fire on protestors, I believe that would spark the whole nation into an open revolt.

You will!

Tom, the only people who can save our democracy are people like you and us. Don’t expect a solution to fall from Heaven. So, if you, or anyone else, want to help this organisation do what needs to be done, contact me! We can give you plenty to do.

If you don’t want to work with us, then find some more suitable group. But don’t just sit there hoping!

SOMEONE has to save our democracy ! Who will come to our rescue ?

Otherwise, we all face deprivation, subjugation, perhaps even annihilation !

Sorry to be all doom and gloom, but that appears to be the outlook.

I already gave you a reason, several times. There are some people on this planet who wish to sully FDR’s name for the reasons I have already referred to several times. I’m not going to say it again.

I don’t see any evidence that you are interested in fact, actually. Merely opinion and second hand hearsay.

The McCollum memo proves nothing. Did Kennedy use a false flag operation as an excuse to attack Cuba? No? Why not? He was handed the Operation Northwoods document from the Joint Chiefs, after all. He must have acted on it, no? By your thinking, every memo ever submitted to a President (which this one wasn’t, not directly) is acted upon, which is clearly nonsense.

As for your last point, I don’t have time to dig that out now. But if you are really interested, send me your email address and I’ll get it to you in due course.

Whats done is done and in the past, and there is nowt we can do about that as all the people involved are probably long dead!

Our job is is to right the wrongs of here and now.

Look back to my earlier references about the McCollum Memo and you will notice that you avoided in your responses mentioning it by name, but you do mention Mr Smith in your last.

And you have absolutely no grounds for impugning the motives of his daughter as there is not the slightest reason to do so. Give me a reason to doubt Helen E. Hamman’s character ?

Do you have a record of her being a liar in anything ?

As for my belief that this or that happened, i am only interested in facts as best as they can be determined and subject to revision should formerly unknown facts come to light.

What’s your evidence for this ? : I would also point out that, actually, people were beginning to support going to war because of the losses in the Atlantic, . . .

It is clear that you absolutely believe that Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen so that the US would get into the war. Nothing I can say will change that belief.

But I would point out that both the examples you cite, are no more than hearsay. Now, if Mr Smith had written of his conversation with FDR in a diary, then that would be fairly heavyweight evidence. In the meantime, we only have second hand information, and I can’t know of the true motivations of the daughter.

I would also point out that, actually, people were beginning to support going to war because of the losses in the Atlantic, so really, FDR didn’t need to do what has been alleged.

History is much more complex than pointing at the word of one person or another and saying “look, that proves that!”

A conspiracy around Pearl Harbour is not proven, and on balance, looking at the broader picture of what FDR did, and who he did it to, it seems to me that this is a stitch up intended to keep people from looking at what he did do for the USA.

In yesterday’s New York Daily news, columnist Juan Gonzalez wrote, and he’s bang on the money, “Congress should remember what Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a Democratic Majority did during the Great Depression … Roosevelt didn’t cave in to Wall Street. He wasn’t going to be rushed into some shotgun solution. On his second day in the White House, he closed all banks so the government could have time to review their finances. He called Congress into emergency session, and secured more than a dozen new laws regulating banks, providing federal subsidies to farmers, emergency relief for local governments and for homeowners facing foreclosure. Roosevelt’s response changed America for the better. Whatever Congress does in the next few days, it should not reward the very people who created this mess.”

FDR has never been forgiven for this by the big bankers. You should bear that in mind when looking at the evidence of his complicity at Pearl Harbour.

The `The Day of Infamy` address was set to go the previous day and FDR had no knowledge of it until after the attack had taken place is what you are saying ? Yes or no is the essential black or white question here. Yes, he did know. No, he didn’t know. Which, Mr Editor ?

Or the Director of the War Service for the Red Cross being told by FDR of the imminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and to make preparations. Is Don C Smith’s daughter telling the truth ? Yes or no, Mr Editor ? A black and white question again.

When you’re evaluating this kind of thing, it’s very easy to see things in black and white. It’s never so simple.

Look, Roosevelt represented the US Constitution. He worked through the constitution to regenerate the US economy after 1929, and the worked through the constitution during WWII, and when he forced Bretton Woods on the world’s financial elites.

The financial elites have been working hard, ever since, to:

- destroy his memory, because they don’t want another leader of his ilk
- reverse the financial regulation he put in place

For example, listen to this, a Radio 4 presentation on a coup attempt in 1933, led by Prescott Bush and others, who “believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.”

The tradition of Prescott Bush lives on to this day, as I’m sure you are well aware. For example, in yesterday’s NY Times, David Brooks commented on the Paulson bailout, “If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used:  Progressive Corporatism.  We’re not entering a phase in which government stands back and lets the chips fall.  We’re not entering an era when the government pounds the powerful on behalf of the people.  We’re entering an era of the educated establishment, in which government acts to create a stable–and often oligarchic–framework for capitalist endeavor.”

King later commented on his own website, “Progressive corporatism–I guess it goes down easier than liberal fascism.”

Roosevelt represented a thread in US society which is anti-oligarchic, anti-empire. The oligarchs running this world today continue to sully his name. There’s no money to be made doing things his way..

You say to me,”I ask you again not to apply the standards of the Bush administration and other corrupt, treasonous governments that have ill served America with that of FDR, who was the quintessential American hero on every level and to be quite frank I think you should be ashamed of yourself for impugning his memory in this way”.

I find this at http://www.fpp.co.uk:80/History/PearlHarbor/WashTimes010601.html

~Of note, Mr. Borgquist draws attention to a “major historical error” based on the typed text of the first draft of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” speech.

Mr. Borgquist says the text was drafted by a State Department team led by former Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle between 8:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. — after the first 13 parts of the 14-part Japanese reply to the American ultimatum had been intercepted, decoded, and delivered on Saturday night, Dec. 6, 1941.

The attack came on Dec. 7.

That supports Mr. Borgquist’s earlier argument, published in 1999 by Naval History Magazine, That the attack on Pearl Harbor was no surprise at all. He wrote that Helen E. Hamman, the daughter of Don C. Smith, who directed the War Service for the Red Cross before World War II, wrote a letter to President Clinton revealing a conversation she had with her dad:

“Shortly before the attack in 1941, President Roosevelt called him to the White House for a meeting concerning a top-secret matter. At this meeting, the president advised my father that his intelligence staff had informed him of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor, by the Japanese.
“He anticipated many casualties and much loss; he instructed my father to send workers and supplies to a holding area. When he protested to the president, President Roosevelt told him that the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attack[ed] within their own borders. . . .

“He followed the orders of his president and spent many years contemplating this action, which he considered ethically and morally wrong.”

We’ll wait and see if the Bush White House talks to Mr. Borgquist and fellow Pearl Harbor presenters at today’s conference before making the decision on whether to elevate Gen. Short and Adm. Kimmel, as their families have requested and Congress proposed in the fiscal year 2001 defense authorization bill. ~

So John, FDR’s loyalties were not to the American people at all as he presided over the slaughter of 405,000 fine young American men for – you tell me ?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago:

1. Truth.
2. Morale.

If we can destroy the legacy and intentions of the best of our historical leaders, what hope is there for us today?