Google Chrome' access to all your data on all websites visited

I'm acutely aware of Google Chrome's privacy issues, but still use Chrome in some circumstances (when privacy isn't an issue) because it's fast.

Given that much of the written word is not in English, I sought an addon for Chrome (as well as for Firefox, IE, Safari, Opera, etc.).

But, look what this addon, Chrome and probably all browsers and exentions/addons can access:

• Your data on all websites
• Your browsing history

YOUR DATA, ON ALL WEBSITES? 

To be sold on, no doubt. I hope it's as innocuous as some believe it to be but I'm inclined to predict that this will be (if it is not already) a feed into government databases - perhaps ultimately a UN database.

Be aware!

EU: surveillance and the indifference of MEPs

Alarmed by the EU's latest intrusion into our privacy via INDECT, I wrote to my MEPs as follows:

I would urge you to please put your names to the “Written Declaration on INDECT (intelligent information system supporting observation, searching and detection for security of citizens in urban
environment)”.

The Declaration clearly calls on the Commission to uphold its obligation to "safeguard civil liberties", expresses "concern about function creep, the possible impact on fundamental rights and the danger that researched technologies or collected information are used by public actors or third parties" and demands that the Commission "define a clear and strict mandate for the research goal, the application and the end users of INDECT".

The text of the written declaration can be found here:

http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/files/wd-82.2010.doc

I look forward to receiving your assurance that you will back this declaration.

One of my MEPs, Conservative Marina Yannakoudakis, with no hint of wishing to represent her 'constituents' (and why should she?), replied:

Thank you for writing to me regarding INDECT.

INDECT is a revolutionary technology that enables criminals to be tracked in both virtual and real situations. It is especially useful for tracking those looking up child pornography and trafficking in human organs, both of which are areas in which I am heavily involved, in preventing. I will therefore being signing the Written Declaration on INDECT.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me.

This is what passes for representation in the EU by the Conservatives?

Bankers will have toys removed but get away Scott free with their booty?

In response to Sir John Vickers's announcement that banks are likely to be divided into investment and retail arms, Nick Clegg (on Andrew Marr) stated in his typically pious way that this should never happen again (replete with indignant Lib Dem pose).

In effect, Clegg is saying:

Bankers: Sorry we've just fleeced you (just kidding). We're not going to pay you back for devaluing your savings, increasing your taxes (which we don't pay), destroying your small businesses, decreasing your services and generally, massively decreasing your standard of living.

And we're not going to pay for our deeds, in money terms or freedom terms; we'll keep our well-heeled lifestyles, thank you.

And Clegg is OK with that, presumably. He and the government are about to find out that the hacked off, impoverished public is not.

The Euro: Chaos, discord and misery for millions, says Farage

Farage to Hungary: Meet your new Soviet overlords

Property rights and the freedom to choose

In response to James Delingpole's exceedingly well-argued article, anthonyhaverstock produced this rather excellent reply, with which I fully agree.

Property rights are absolute and non negotiable, and the state has no business legislating over and instructing private landlords who they must deal with.

People today conflate the meaning of 'open to the public' with 'owned by the public'; just because a hotel is 'open to the public' this does not confer any rights of access to individuals who are members of the public. It simply communicates that the landlord is willing to have you as a tenant subject to his terms, whatever they may be.

If a landlord is forced to serve someone who he would rather not, the state is turning him into a slave, and furthermore, is stealing the use of his property. This is unacceptable to all moral people, as unacceptable as discrimination itself.

That being said, "discrimination," in the sense of choosing favorably or unfavorably in accordance with whatever criteria a person may employ, is an integral part of freedom of choice, and hence of a free society. But of course in the free market any such discrimination is costly, and will have to be paid for by the property owner concerned.

Suppose, for example, that someone in a free society is a landlord of a house or a block of houses. He could simply charge the free market rent and let it go at that. But then there are risks; he may choose to discriminate against renting to couples with young children, figuring that there is substantial risk of defacing his property. On the other hand, he may well choose to charge extra rent to compensate for the higher risk, so that the free-market rent for such families will tend to be higher than otherwise. This, in fact, will happen in most cases on the free market. But what of personal, rather than strictly economic, "discrimination" by the landlord? Suppose, for example, that the landlord is a great admirer of six-foot Swedish-Americans, and decides to rent his apartments only to families of such a group. In the free society it would be fully in his right to do so, but he would clearly suffer a large monetary loss as a result. For this means that he would have to turn away tenant after tenant in an endless quest for very tall Swedish-Americans. While this may be considered an extreme example, the effect is exactly the same, though differing in degree, for any sort of personal discrimination in the marketplace. If, for example, the landlord dislikes redheads and determines not to rent his apartments to them, he will suffer losses, although not as severely as in the first example.

In any case, anytime anyone practices such "discrimination" in the free market, he must bear the costs, either of losing profits or of losing services as a consumer. If a consumer decides to boycott goods sold by people he does not like, whether the dislike is justified or not, he then will go without goods or services which he otherwise would have purchased.

All property owners, then, in a free society, would set down the rules for use of, or admission to, their property. The more rigorous the rules the fewer the people who will engage in such use, and the property owner will then have to balance rigor of admission as against loss of income. A landlord might "discriminate," for example, by insisting, as George Pullman did in his "company town" in Illinois in the late nineteenth century, that all his tenants appear at all times dressed in jacket and tie; he might do so, but it is doubtful that many tenants would elect to move into or remain in such a building or development and the landlord would suffer severe losses.

The principle that property is administered by its owners also provides the rebuttal to a standard argument for government intervention in the economy. The argument holds that "after all, the government sets down traffic rules — red and green lights, driving on the right-hand side, maximum speed limits, etc. Surely everyone must admit that traffic would degenerate into chaos if not for such rules. Therefore, why should government not intervene in the rest of the economy as well?" The fallacy here is not that traffic should be regulated; of course such rules are necessary. But the crucial point is that such rules will always be laid down by whoever owns and therefore administers the roads. Government has been laying down traffic rules because it is the government that has always owned and therefore run the streets and roads; in a libertarian society of private ownership the private owners would lay down the rules for the use of their roads.

China Mobile Execution Buses and Body Organ Black Market

Amid the media's frenetic attempt to get us to like China, let's remind ourselves of how awful this regime really is. How its people are chattels (a notion which has become familiar to Britons) and whose lives are worthless unless their organs can be sold to the highest bidder.

Bilious Clinton, Obama and even Our Dear Leader wax lyrical over China.

Would you want to live in a world like this? Because that's where we're headed.

Group-think and the devaluation of individualismNewsnight interviewed three students on the rioting which as been prevalent of late. These students have been brought up by the Labour government. They are the products of it. So naturally, you'd expect the Cambridge student to be vilified by the other two. As he was. Not for what he was saying, but because he was a Cambridge student. One of the students lambasted the government's stance on individuality - as if it were a dastardly thing. Do they realise what they are saying here? To give into group-think is to denounce the value of individual opinion. To denounce the value of individual opinion is to denounce thought. Assuming the above is true, what makes those students think that we want to hear their opinions?

Newsnight interviewed three students on the rioting which as been prevalent of late. These students have been brought up by the Labour government. They are the products of it. So naturally, you'd expect the Cambridge student to be vilified by the other two. As he was. Not for what he was saying, but because he was a Cambridge student.

One of the students lambasted the government's stance on individuality - as if it were a dastardly thing.

Do they realise what they are saying here? To give in to group-think is to denounce the value of individual opinion. To denounce the value of individual opinion is to denounce thought.

Assuming the above is true, what makes those students think that we want to hear their opinions?

PS: A Blogger gremlin appears to have hijacked the formatting of this post. Heaven only knows why the post is repeated - first in title font!

Swiss banker spills the beans to Wikileaks

Meanwhile, the FT reports that the whistleblower was found guilty of divulging banking secrets!

A Zurich court ruled on Wednesday that Rudolf Elmer, the Swiss self styled private banking “whistleblower”, was guilty of coercion and breaching bank secrecy, fining him SFr7,200 ($7,517).

Mr Elmer, a former employee of Bank Julius Baer, one of Switzerland’s leading private banks, this week made headlines after giving WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange two CDs of what he claimed were details of secret bank accounts held by unspecified politicians and other international figures.

Is it any wonder that the banksters always win, when it is illegal to whistle-blow?

Cameron's "Big Society = the EU's "Citizen Initiative"?

Am I missing something here? Did the HoC meet on a SATURDAY to discuss the EU's "Citizen's Initiative"? In particular, EU document 8399/10?

And does Cameron's "Big Society" equate to a British version of the EU's Citizen Initiative?

If so on the second question, isn't it becoming crystal clear that the 'main' parties' policies are derived, in some way, from the EU? And if so, what is the point of voting?

Joan Veon, deceased - lest we forget

Joan Veon, scholar of UN affairs, died last year of that most extraordarily libertarian disease - cancer.

Here's one of her great videos, which provides a window into her research on the UN's usurpation of the sovereignty of nation states and into its overall design of global domination.

Included in this design is "public private partnerships" and the proliferation of QUANGOs.

Does that sound familar?

I mention this particular aspect of her video because it happens to be something close to the hearts of Blair, Brown and now, Cameron.

It is step on the road to fascism, or corporatism, or state capitalism - whatever you want to call it.

It is the road to serfdom on which we are embarked.

Veon had a left-wing bias and was an ardent Christian, but don't let that put you off her message - her research is extensive.

Map of bird and fish deaths worldwide: causes

Before the current episode of bird and fish deaths shown on the map, Andrea Silverthorne wrote in her final paper in Environmental Ethics at St Thomas University, that widespread bird and fish deaths were:

"clearly attributable to methane oxidation to formaldehyde. It cause acidosis, which burns the lining of the blood vessels and damages organs feigning trauma. Formaldehyde turns to formic acid in the body which is naturally occurring, but massive amounts kills you. As in any other acidic reaction, once it reacts, there is little trace of it left."

Read her report in full (PDF)

Isn't it remarkable that most of these occurrences are in the West? Might that be because the West is more likely to report these incidents, or because of what the West is engaged in?

5000+ Black Birds 500+ Black Birds Dozens of Black Birds 100,000 Drum Fish Tens of Thousands - Fish Thousands of Fish Thousands of Fish Dozens of fish Fish 50 - 100 Birds - Jackdaws Penguins 24 birds - H5N1 flu 100 Pelicans 300+ Doves 70 Bats 100 Tons of Fish Hundreds of Snapper 10 Tons of fish Hundreds of fish Thousands of fish Hundreds of Fish Hundreds of Fish Scores of Fish Hundreds of Fish 150 Tons of Red Tilapias Thousands of Fish Scores of dead fish Several Manatees Hundreds of Starfish, Jellyfish 200 Birds

'Climate change': BBC versus the sane world

"The debate about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) rages within the blogosphere, but not in the U.K. mainstream media, which is led by the leftwing newspaper The Guardian and the BBC.

In Britain the BBC wields more power to shape public opinion than any other organisation over any other nation on earth. Moreover, the BBC invariably takes its cue on the big issues from The Guardian, from which it stands accused of adopting its political outlook.

Consequently the BBC has relentlessly promoted one side of the argument whilst suppressing the other, with catastrophic consequences for the nation's governance.

There is however a significant fact-based scientific consensus that argues against the theory that man has had, or is having, any significant impact on the climate.

These scientists cite the fact that past rises in global temperate predated the atmospheric rises in CO2; that the past rises in CO2 were actually a product of temperature rise, not their cause; and that the temperature rises were actually a product of increased solar activity.

It is, however, a side of the debate that the BBC refuses to air, contrary to its lawful obligations.

This short video introduces the BBC's style of reporting the warming debate, followed by a selection of clips featuring renowned scientists whom the BBC freezes out, delivering the arguments that the BBC refuses to air.

The final four minutes introduces a major story of Press criminality, which for the last thirteen years the BBC and the rest of the media have suppressed, illustrating the foolishness of forming ones views on any controversial issue from reporting by The Guardian, or the BBC, or, indeed, any mainstream British news organisation."

Brave New World: Perfect children of the future?

We are to be offered pre-conception testing, to allow us to prevent our offspring from inheriting 'harmful' genes, we're told. Presumably, this will facilitate the emergence of a more perfect society. One where we get to choose physical, emotional and mental the characteristics of our children, perhaps.

Apparently, "‘pre-conception’ testing for a small number of conditions is already done in some schools in Australia and Canada".

Are the parents of these students approached for their consent? Do they even know this is going on? Are they nuts to allow this?

If this treatment gains acceptance, what might the future bring?

First, we're offered an expensive kit, which helps to pay for R&D. And hey, we have the makings of a DNA database, which can be sold to - or co-opted by the State, at any time.

Second, it's offered on the NHS, thus guaranteeing the pharmaceuticals an income and free access to a steady stream of guinea pigs patients. Not to mention DNA test stock.

Third, pre-conception testing becomes prevalent and thence, is deemed to be a "right", as the DNA-tweaked offspring are deemed to be superior (even though  long-term studies into DNA manipulation will not have been done and hence, we'll be unaware of unintended consequences).

Fourth, screening/filtering becomes mandatory, for the sake of the cheeeldren (^TM Leg-Iron). Those who reject such treatment are considered to be selfish, or child abusers. Possibly even anti-State, depending on what sort of government we have at the time.

Perhaps some will be denied the right to have children.

Who knows. This could be the start of the Brave New World.

Quote of the day

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion

— when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing

— when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors

— when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you

— when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice

— you may know that your society is doomed

Ayn Rand

Gabrielle Giffords Only Subscribed To Two You Tube Channels - One Of Them Was Jared Loughner's!

  

I discovered something about Gabrielle Giffords' shooting last night and I don't know about you, but to my mind it stinks to high heaven!

 

This is my original post which is followed by a rather disturbing update.......

  

So the Lefties put it all down to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement - how typically opportunistic of them to use this as a means for their New World Order muppets to call for the disarming of American citizens, (prior to their impending enslavement),  closely followed by the same calls in the UK and the rest of the EU, no doubt, (makes the job easier, you see), they never ever change!

    

SPOT THE NUTTER

Let me blow that "theory" into tiny little pieces without needing to say very much to do so!

This is a screenshot of Congresswoman Giffords' You Tube channel.......

  

If you look just above, you'll see that she only subscribes to two channels, one of which is Classitup 10.

  

Now I wonder who that could be? Let's see, shall we, and  please do check out his reading material.......

  

I also believe that in the video what he was trying to say was
"In a few days you WILL know I'm conscience dreaming!"
 
    So - this guy is a total nutter - what a surprise! 

  
And what are the chances of him being yet another NWO patsy?

  

I REST MY CASE!

Related articles

• Violent Rhetoric On Sarah Palin From New York Times Journalist, Charles Blow: (pajamasmedia.com)
• Staffer: Palin Rhetoric Not to Blame for Attack (cbsnews.com)
• In The New York daily News, S.E. Cupp Writes: Sarah Palin is not to blame for shooting of Gabrielle... (pajamasmedia.com)

  

Curiouser And Curiouser

 

From the comments on this post.......

And sure as shooting.......

  

SOMEONE IS TIDYING UP LOOSE ENDS!

 

Quote of the day

“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. ”

Edward Gibbon

It doesn't matter who you vote for: the EU government gets in. Vote UKIP

John Ward notes that the Coalition is falling from grace. Indeed so. Perhaps the electorate is waking up to the fact that it doesn't matter who you vote for, the EU government gets in.

All three main parties support corporatism and are themselves supported by corporatism.

The EU being corporatism personified, our only hope is to leave the EU.

It will be a cold day in hell before the 3 parties support small businesses rather than merely paying lip-service to the notion.

While I can understand voters voting for Cons or Dems to keep Labour out, it is precisely this propensity which brought us a ConDem government.

If we want change, knowing that we will not get it from the main three, we need to have the courage to vote for any party/independent which is not one of the main 3.

My preference is UKIP and I believe that this preference is growing.

Many argue that UKIP would be incapable of forming a credible government even were it to obtain the required number of votes to do so.

The reality is that UKIP, were it to win seats, might well become "kingmaker" supplanting the Dems.

Surely, this would be preferable to the EU-skewed configuration we now have in Parliament.

Monsanto: India's famine

Today, Boris Johnson posts an article on India's onion crisis. Amusing, until you dig a bit deeper. He says:

Why are onions so expensive in India? Because agriculture is the last unreformed part of the economy, creaking with middlemen and inefficiency.

Might he mean that India's farming community has not yet been sufficiently savaged by GM terminator seeds?

Here's a brief history of India's farmers and a sneak peek into what's going to happen next.

Monsanto sells India GM terminator seeds, promising boosted harvests with no weeds. The crops that result are less viable than the indigenous crops grown before and their seeds are infertile - they won't grow. But no longer can farmers return to growing their indigenous crops because the GM crops have overwhelmed them and they won't grow on the farms any more.

So next season the farmers have no choice but to buy more of Monsanto's seeds, because nothing else will grow now. But Monsanto has increased the price of seeds and the farmers have no choice but to pay. Crops start to fail at a greater rate, year by year, as seed prices rise.

Farmers go bankrupt and migrate to live in cities, in poverty, their lifestyles devastated.

Now India has a food production crisis. But guess what? Monsanto has a solution. It will bestow its blessings on India by setting up massive agribusinesses. For efficiency, you understand.

The remaining peasant farmers find their indigenous crops overrun by Monsanto terminator seed crops, blown in by the wind. Monsanto threatens to prosecute the farmers for growing its patented seeds without permission or payment.

Peasant farming ceases. Monsanto takes over.

Monsanto now has complete control of the nation's food.

One country down.

Next.



The World According to Monsanto:



Update:I posted a similar comment on the DT - which was deleted by over-zealous censors.

US government to lower fluoride in water due to toxicity

The federal government is recommending changing the amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in 50 years.

The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency are proposing the change because of an increase in fluorosis -- a condition that causes spotting and streaking on children's teeth.

Read more

Dr. Paul Connett*, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, gives a damning interview on the history of water fluoridation, the collusion of major industries to put certified toxic waste into your drinking water, and why government health authorities refuse to conduct scientific studies into the dangers of fluoridation. After watching this video, you will never look at tap water the same way again.

Connett describes how he initially thought people who opposed fluoridation were “a bunch of whackos,” before conducting his own research which found that sodium fluoride was a toxic substance that contributed to a wide array of health defects. Heavy industry is barred from dumping this toxic waste into the sea by international law, but being able to sell it enables them to remove its hazardous characteristic and it becomes a product, explains Connett, polluting not only our water supply but also toothpaste and thousands of different foods.

Connett provides a detail run down of the many health problems caused by fluoride consumption, including dental fluorosis, which the Centers For Disease Control just recently announced was a problem for 41 per cent of children aged 12-15 in the United States, clearly indicating that children are being over-exposed to fluoride and that this is affecting other tissues and organs in the body, including bone disorders, a problem also wreaking havoc amongst adults in the United States as one in three now suffer from arthritis, which again is being caused by a build-up of toxic fluoride in the body. Connett also points to fluoride’s connection with thyroid disorders.



Read more

* Dr Connett is an expert on waste disposal, namely zero waste and sustainability and as such, advises governments around the world. A quick In internet search reveals the reach of this man.

Express campaigns to leave EU: publication out today

The Daily Express is alone in the MSM in actively campaigning to leave the EU.

Today, it publishes a 20-page special to "Get Britain out of the EU".

Please visit the Express to boost its traffic - and thereby express your thanks for its valiant efforts.

You might want to print off a few copies and leave them in doctors' waiting rooms, staff rooms at work, on trains or other public places.

Hat tip: Douglas Carswell and ConHome

Related:

• EU orders UK trawlers to dump 1m tons of fish

Global warming hits Japan: how the Japanese cope with snow

LibDem polls only 2% above UKIP: Might UKIP be kingmaker?

"The YouGov survey put Nick Clegg's party on seven per cent, a fall from the 23 per cent backing they got at the general election. Labour is on 43 per cent, with the Tories on 39 per cent."

ConHome crunches the numbers and surmises that were the LibDems and the Cons to join forces, Labour would win. Given that UKIP polled 5%, what if the Tories were to join forces with UKIP?  Might not the whole be greater than the sum of the parts?

Eurospin and the Euro bailout crisis

John Redwood spotted Lagarde's* BS spin on Newsnight last night and correctly noted that

"She might have shown greater wisdom by declining to comment at all. A defence few believe is no defence."

Incredibly, Osborne holds her in high regard.

Her stance is typical of Europhiles, most of whom are collectivists and to whom the markets are deemed to be an aberration that must be regulated and controlled.

Either she and her ilk don't understand markets or they want to undermine them in the public's consciousness so as to roll in (further) the anti-market, anti-capitalist state-regulated state 'capitalism' - or corporatism.

That she thinks it is possible and given her pecking order in the EU, tells us much about the EU's intended direction of travel. Not for her, economic freedom for EU citizens.

To dismiss her remarks as those of a barking, spinning loony, is to take your eye off the ball.

We need to watch that space carefully.

Osborne's strong language in the FT is probably indicative of the uphill battle he perceives that the UK faces against the lefties/fascists in the EU. To me, it indicates that we are in real danger of seeing London's supreme position in the financial markets being whittled away by those countries which covet its position. Namely, France and Germany.

* Christine Lagarde is France's Finance Minister and Bilderberg attendee.

Enforced organ donation?

The organ business is a multi-billion pound business.  The Gorgon tried to institute the "opt-out" scheme, which was roundly rejected by the public.

Now the ConDems are at it - ostensibly only affecting new drivers. But should the scheme be put into effect, that will change to include all of us, over time.

For instance, the government might require that we retake our drivers' licenses every 10 years. Or we might be required to retake the test after receiving a prescription for glasses, or some other medical condition.

It seems clear that the powers that be (EU and UN, probably) want our organs, one way or another.

A DT letter writer describes the problem:

SIR – When applying for a driver’s licence, we are to be obliged to answer a question about organ donations (Letters, January 3) with “Yes I would like to register”, “I do not want to answer this question now”, or “I am already registered”.

But there will not be an option of “No”. This is a manipulative move towards compulsion or an opt-out system.

Already, “consent” for organ donations is not informed on at least three grounds. First, there is no explanation of the harvesting procedure.

Secondly, there is no definition of death, which for transplant purposes is very different from the common understanding, and continues to be contested internationally.

Thirdly, there is no opportunity to insist on full anaesthesia for when a donor is “dead” but is still responsive.

This deception of an altruistic public has continued for more than 30 years and the organ donation system now moves further away from properly informed consent.

Dr David J. Hill
Dr David W. Evans
Nicholas Blyth
Huntingdon

Perhaps we should carry cards on us which explicitly state that under no circumstances do we want our organs donated, regardless of what NHS paperwork might or might not state.

Related:

• Organ trafficking, eugenics and corruption: meet our new EU 'partners'

Plato's Cave: illusions

In Plato's "The Republic", Socrates describes a scene from the cave, whereby a group of people have lived chained to the wall in a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall.

The people watch shadows projected on the wall by objects passing in front of a fire behind them. They begin to ascribe forms to these shadows.

According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not constitutive of reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

The shadows are an illusion of reality for the cave-dwellers.

Socrates next asks Glaucon to consider the condition of this philospher who returns to the cave after his awakening:

"Wouldn't he remember his first home, what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow prisoners, and consider himself happy and them pitiable? And wouldn't he disdain whatever honors, praises, and prizes were awarded there to the ones who guessed best which shadows followed which? Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? Wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn't they kill him?"