Big Brother database to record the lives of all children
By JANE MERRICK, Daily MailLast updated at 10:51am on 27th June 2006

The home life of every child in the country is to be recorded on a national database in the ultimate intrusion of the nanny state, it has emerged.

Computer records holding details of school performance, diet and even whether their parents provide a 'positive role model' for 12 million children will be held by the Government.

Police, social workers, teachers and doctors will have access to the database and have powers to flag up 'concerns' where children are not meeting criteria laid down by the state.

The 'children's index', which will cost the taxpayer £224 million, will even monitor whether youngsters are eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, whether they go to church or are struggling to get good marks at school.

One assessment records whether a pre-school child is in day care - suggesting that those who are looked after by their mothers at home are not conforming to the state ideal.

Critics said the plan would sideline on an unprecedented scale the rights of parents to bring up their children in the way they see fit and amount to a 'bar-coding' of youngsters.

They questioned how the Government knew better than parents on the correct way to bring up a child, and warned that it would deter decent families from seeking help for fear of being branded at risk.

It could take just two warning flags on a child's file to trigger an investigation.

The Government handed itself sweeping powers in the 2004 Children Act to record basic information of all children in England and Wales, based on information from the register of births and child benefit.

The Act followed the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie - whose neglect by her aunt and her boyfriend was missed by social workers.

Section 12 of the act limits information to name, address, date of birth, gender, a unique id, contact details of parent or carer, school, GP practice and other practioners dealing with the child.

But the Government wants to extend the records to include detailed assessments of a child's life.

Ministers insist it will act as an early warning system to highlight children at risk.

The database has already been piloted in 12 local authorities and the Government plans to make it nationwide from next year.

It will try to introduce a regulation in Parliament in the autumn - allowing it to become law with barely any scrutiny by MPs.

Civil liberties and children's campaigners are to hold a conference at the London School of Economics on Tuesday to highlight their concerns.

Terri Dowty, director of children's rights group Arch, said: 'Who is bringing children up? Are parents effectively nannies for the state's children or are children born to families and the state just helps families when they ask for it?'

Dr Eileen Munro, an expert in child protection at the LSE, said: 'The authority of parents is being eroded because the children's services, health education and social care are being asked to intervene.

'On the whole parents are the greatest source of safety and welfare that any child has.'

Jonathan Bamford, the Assistant Information Commissioner which polices access to information, said there was no justification for keeping check on 12 million children when only a small proportion were at risk.

He said: 'When you are looking for a needle in a haystack, is it necessary to keep building bigger haystacks?

'The cause for concern indicator against a child's record is expressed in very broad language. For example, it could be cause for concern that a child is not progressing well towards his or her French GCSE.'

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'We are heading towards a situation in which an entire generation of kids won't know what privacy is, as though we are preparing them for prison rather than life in a free society. It is time to ask ourselves why we sacrifice the privacy of our children first.'

Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts said: 'We are going to have bar-coded babies. This project is going to cost £224m over the three years to 2008 with subsequent operating costs of £41m a year. Would it not be better to focus this money on families in real need?'

A Department for Education spokesman said: 'We need to ensure that professionals work across service boundaries for the benefit of children. 'Our proposals balance the need to do everything we can to improve children's life chances whilst ensuring strong safeguards to make sure that information stored is minimal, secure and used appropriately.

'Parents and young people will be able to ask to see their data and make amendments and will retain full rights under the Data Protection Act.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=3926...

CCTV conspiracy mania is a very middle-class disorder


Paranoid speculation on imaginary surveillance abuses betrays a moral blindness when real social injustice abounds

Polly Toynbee
Tuesday November 7, 2006
The Guardian

The world is a dangerous place. A heating globe threatens drought, war and mass migration. Terrorists may blow up proliferating nuclear power stations. Ministers are preparing for a 1918-style flu pandemic.

So on a scale of threats to Our Way of Life, where would you place CCTV and speed cameras, electronic health records, DNA storage or ID cards that carry the same information as passports? Most people are not in a delirium of alarm about the Big Brother potential of any of these. Mori finds that about 80% of people support the idea of ID cards (though only 39% think the government will introduce them smoothly, which is another matter). As for CCTV, when Mori asks local communities what would make their areas safer, street cameras always come in the top three. It's easy to see why: people on an estate I know say CCTV helped transform the only local shopping street, which had been rife with drugs and prostitution.

Article continues
Most journalists know those green-ink letters from psychotics begging you to investigate dark forces who have inserted a chip into their skulls as they slept or put microphones in their walls. It is no use urging them to listen to their psychiatrists, or telling them this is a common delusion with a medical cause and sometimes a cure: they just accuse you of joining the great conspiracy. It takes a delusion of some grandeur to imagine that an all-seeing eye really cares what you are up to every minute of the day. But it's one that seems to be shared by the vociferous campaigners against "the surveillance society".

ID cards is the issue these fears coalesce around. Tony Blair made a robust defence of them yesterday at his monthly press conference, claiming they would curb illegal immigration, crime, terrorism, identity fraud and NHS tourism. Biometrics has to be introduced for passports anyway and the additional cost of ID cards carrying the same information is, he claims, small. Now all of that may be doubtful - when the cards are ready Blair will be long gone but criminals, terrorists and traffickers may be well ahead of the technology. The money might be better spent in myriad other ways, but the threat to fundamental civil liberties somehow eludes me.

It is the job of the information commissioner to make his presence known from time to time, so last week he called for a public debate. We are waking up to the surveillance state, he said. Projecting forwards to 2016, he launched a report from the Surveillance Studies Network suggesting shoppers will be scanned, their clothes recognised by secret tags. Cars linked to satnavs will have mileage automatically debited while police monitor their speeds. Health and psychometric tests will determine who employers hire. Older people will be watched in their homes so relatives won't need to visit so often.

Some of these scenarios are scary, but have nothing to do with surveillance. People failing to visit elderly relatives is sad, but hardly the fault of cameras. Employers already use daft and dangerous psychometric tests and can access too much information, but employment laws are what is needed to protect employment rights. As for drivers in peril for speeding, or congestion-charged for mileage, that's all to the good. And if Tesco knows what I buy, I am having trouble frightening myself. Certainly, the accuracy of information is vital - everyone needs the right to check and amend their records. But the chance of errors will be lessened, not increased, as technology advances.

What about the DNA data bank? In principle, it is no more alarming than a more effective fingerprint database. If the objection is that thousands of the innocent have been logged, then why shouldn't everyone be on it? The gain in criminal detection is already clear; if there are fears then laws can protect against particular abuses.

If - a big if - the medical records system ever works, it would be a huge blessing: lost records cause frequent chaos. Everyone will see and correct their records transparently, choose to opt out of some information-sharing and hide parts of their record. Unauthorised access will leave identifiable footprints. The new children's register is no threat either. The shocking discovery after the Victoria Climbié case that so many agencies had raised the alarm, but none knew about the others, makes it essential that concern is flagged up, with contact details of the person registering concern, but no details included for wider scrutiny.

Big Brother is the malevolent use of surveillance by a wicked state. But for as long as the state remains democratic we can decide what use is made of it and how we are protected from possible abuses. To refuse to use technology for fear of some monstrous future government is paranoid. Those opposed to the assembling of data are mainly from the anti-state, individualistic right. There is a sad lack of voices to praise the benign state these days. Politicians are too mistrusted and civil-service unions too self-interested, so who else speaks up for the collective good of government?

Conspiracy-theory, bad-state rhetoric has become the received opinion. The press fulminating against ID cards has less scruple about its own monstrous intrusions on privacy. The same Sunday Times that ran Rod Liddle's rant against surveillance also carried a shocking gossip-column item - a journalist had rummaged through David Miliband's rubbish bin looking at his papers. Press intrusion does a great deal more damage than our much scrutinised state.

Surveillance conspiracy mania is a symptom of something else - the wish for the middle classes to be victims too. This is a middle-class obsession by those who are least likely to be surveyed. There is some decadence in paranoid speculation about imaginary abuses when real social injustice is all around. Why aren't people as angry about the galloping inequality in living standards between the 30% who will never own homes and the overpaid at the top who are fuelling property prices? Social mobility has come to a halt, crushed by this new era of mega-greed. Liberty is taking priority over equality, because it can arouse pleasing middle-class angst.

There are real threats to some civil liberties - imprisonment without trial, acceptance of torture - but CCTV and ID cards are not among them. There is a moral blindness in pouring out so much righteous indignation over potential minor infractions against liberty while largely ignoring gross inequality.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/08/D8L91NV00.html

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.

Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld. The development occurred one day after midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House, and possibly the Senate, as well. Surveys of voters at polling places said opposition to the war was a significant contributor to the Democratic victory.

President Bush was expected to announce Rumsfeld's departure and Gates' nomination at an afternoon news conference. Administration officials notified congressional officials in advance.

In the days leading up to the election, Bush said he wanted Rumsfeld to stay on as defense chief until the end of Bush's second term.

Chilling haul of handed in for Jessie firearm amnesty
Last updated at 22:00pm on 9th November 2006


Top guns: Manchester Police revealed 430 weapons were handed in along with over 2,500 rounds of ammunition

A frightening haul of guns, rifles and crossbows containing enough firepower to supply a small army has been handed over to police following the gangland murder of schoolboy Jessie James.

It includes hunting rifles, a MAC-10 machine gun, pistols and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

But what is even more terrifying is that, until several weeks ago, these weapons were sitting in British homes and carried by homegrown criminals.

The arsenal can only be displayed today after the weapons were handed over to police. During an amnesty lasting less than a month, officers from Greater Manchester Police collected 430 guns and a staggering 2,500 rounds of ammunition.

Among the weapons collected was a MAC 10 machine pistol. Dubbed the 'spray and pray gun, it fires at the rate of 1,200 rounds a minute and is popular for 'drive-by' shootings by gangsters. Others collected included guns disguised as cigarette lighters and a particularly terrifying home-made four-barrelled sawn-off shotgun.

But, despite the shocking figures, which equate to more than 12 weapons being surrendered every day and lead many to wonder how many more guns are on our streets, the amnesty was hailed a success by senior officers.

It was launched after the murder of 15-year-old Jessie James - who was shot dead in a hail of bullets in Manchester's Moss Side district in September. The guns were displayed at a police station near Manchester yesterday.

Assistant Chief Constable Dave Jones said: 'We are really pleased with the response to this campaign.

"From the outset of this campaign we always said that if we only had one gun handed in, then it would be a success. It would be one less that could be used in a crime or could injure or even take another innocent young life. We've had over 400 handed in, which has taken over 400 guns off our streets and made them a safer place to be."

Jessie - described as "respectful and polite" - was shot three times with a semi-automatic handgun on 9 September. Detectives said he had nothing to do with gang culture and was simply in the "wrong place at the wrong time".

He is the youngest fatality of the Moss Side gang wars since innocent Benji Stanley, 14, was shot dead in January 1993. The month-long amnesty ran from October 2 to October 31.

Mr Jones said: "Of these weapons recovered, 264 were air weapons, BB guns and replica guns. These types of weapons can seriously injure people, cause damage to property or, particularly in the case of replicas, look so much like the real thing, they can terrorise individuals and communities."

Apart from weapons of historic interest or those that officers believe may have been used in a crime, the complete haul of firearms and ammunition recovered will now be destroyed. Gun crime has nearly doubled in the last ten years. In 1997, there were 12,805 offences. This had risen to 24,094 by 2004.

Since the collapse of the former Soviet bloc and the civil wars that raged in the Balkans, guns have flooded Europe's black markets. Many have made their way to the UK.

There is also a booming market in converting replica and air-based weapons into fully functioning guns.

Labour banned handguns after coming to power in 1997. But critics have said that the underworld trade in illegal weapons has continued to flourish with some prices at an all time low.

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415544&in_p...

(Emphasis mine)

During an amnesty lasting less than a month, officers from Greater Manchester Police collected 430 guns and a staggering 2,500 rounds of ammunition.

Gun crime has nearly doubled in the last ten years. In 1997, there were 12,805 offences. This had risen to 24,094 by 2004.  Labour banned handguns after coming to power in 1997. But critics have said that the underworld trade in illegal weapons has continued to flourish with some prices at an all time low.

"What has been most encouraging is the type and variety of weapons handed in, which has included 44 real guns."

There is also a booming market in converting replica and air-based weapons into fully functioning guns.

These types of weapons can seriously injure people.

But what is even more terrifying is that, until several weeks ago, these weapons were sitting in British homes and carried by homegrown criminals.

Woman charged under anti-terror laws
Thu Nov 9, 2006 7:52 PM GMT148
Email This Article | Print This Article | RSS
[-] Text [+]

LONDON (Reuters) - Police on Thursday charged a woman on terrorism-related offences for possession of a computer hard drive loaded with operating manuals for guns, poisons, mines and munitions.

Police said the charges against the woman were connected with the arrest last month of a man caught at Heathrow airport in possession of a night vision scope and a poisons handbook.

Police said among the items on the hard drive found in her possession were the Al Qaeda Manual, The Terrorists Handbook, The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook, a manual for a Dragunov sniper rifle, The Firearms and RPG Handbook, a manual for a 9mm pistol and a manual on how to win hand to hand fighting.

She will appear at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on Friday.

Police said the case followed the charges filed against 29-year-old Sohail Anjum Qureshi on November 1 after his arrest at Heathrow airport with the night vision scope and a computer hard drive also containing the Mujahideen Poisons Handbook.

Police sources said at the time their investigation covered possible terrorist acts outside the country, and was not believed to have been linked to any other probes.

Britain has been on a high state of alert since August when police said they had disrupted a plot to blow up several U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic using liquid explosives.

Democrat Control Means Hate Bill Will Pass

Rev. Ted Pike
Rense.com
Wednesday, November 15, 2006

For the past eight years, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has tried unsuccessfully to pass its Orwellian federal "anti-hate" bill. It has failed largely for one reason: Republican control of Congress.

Repeatedly, Republican opponents of their hate bill, such as Rep. Roy Blunt and Sen. Bill Frist have been able, with Republican congressional backing, to block passage.

With Democrats now in control, such freedom-saving clout no longer exists. ADL's federal thought crimes bill, "The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act," will be reintroduced soon after January 1. Since no Democrat in Congress has ever voted against the hate bill, it will pass. Pres. Bush has said he will sign a "modified" hate bill. If he does, free speech in America will quickly come to an end.

Unless, that is, there arises an upheaval of protest from the American people. How can that happen? Answer: Alternative right-wing talk radio has helped make it happen before; it can do so again.

Spreading Net of Thought Crime Laws

Today, from Canada to California, to Europe and Australia, ADL-inspired "thought crime" laws are stripping nations of free speech. In Canada and many European countries, it is a crime punishable by heavy fines and even imprisonment to make use of the internet to criticize federally protected groups, such as homosexuals and Muslims.

A top Canadian "hate laws" senior policy advisor recently described the power of her country's "speech crime" tribunal courts: "The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body. It can force a web to shut down or risk a $10,000 fine--$20,000 in extreme cases. If one ignores the Tribunal, one can be tried in federal court for contempt, and risk a 9-month jail sentence for a first-time offense." (Karen Izzard, quoted in Jewish Tribune, Sept. 21, 2006)

English-Turkish cyber-hate expert Prof. Yaman Akdeniz, speaking at a B'nai B'rith conference on how to end dissent on the net, rejoices that David Irving is behind bars. He said "continental European countries such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Hungary, Austria and Belgium have strong anti-hate laws, which have resulted in the imprisonment of hate-mongers. In Holland, 657 websites were removed. And in Germany, more than 700 hate websites were shut down." (ibid)

In England, two men who publicly described Islam as a "wicked faith" were indicted under Britain's anti-hate law and are fighting to avoid seven years in prison. The ADL-influenced British hate law stipulates that truth cannot be admitted as evidence in court. Only the complaints by members of specially protected groups who say their feelings have been hurt will be allowed. David Irving languishes in an Austrian prison primarily because he was forbidden to bring truth to the court in his defense.

NPN Helped Hold Back Hate Laws

Congressional Republicans have played a decisive role in keeping hate laws from similarly binding America. But there is another factor: the consistent resistance and education provided over the last 27 years by the National Prayer Network. Here is a brief history of NPN's role and my part as its director.

In 1988, after ADL held its definitive Hofstra conference on "verbal violence," I realized ADL wanted jurisdiction over all hate crimes definitions, education, enforcement, and statistics gathering for the federal government. They intended to seize control through passage of their Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990. I responded by creating a powerful brochure, "Will Hate Laws Make You a Lawbreaker?" which NPN sent to many thousands of key opinionmakers.

Ultimately, we failed. Congress passed the act and ADL now dominates the federal hate crimes agenda all the way down to every local police precinct in America.

Also, during the 1990s, ADL persuaded about 46 states to adopt some version of its "Model Hate Crimes Statute." These are backup "sleeper" state hate laws that can be used by ADL in lieu of a federal hate law, which is their ultimate dream.

Where were the New Right watchdogs during the 10-year period when ADL created a federal hate crimes agenda and made hate crimes law for most states? There was no organized consistent opposition apart from some excellent research on the danger of hate laws done by Robert L. Knight. This was used in sporadic alerts by New Right organizations including Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, and the efforts of Dr. D. James Kennedy, who was pivotal in publicizing Knight's research to help defeat a federal hate bill in 2000 (See, "How Dr. D. James Kennedy Helped Save Free Speech").

Sounding the Alarm

In 2000, my wife Alynn and I produced an 80-minute video documentary, Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians. With much documentation provided by Canadian free speech leader Paul Fromm and a stellar review from Michael Collins Piper of the American Free Press newspaper, many thousands of this groundbreaking video circulated throughout America and the world.

Also, hand writing every address, NPN sent 12,500 copies of my brochure to every state legislator and virtually every member of Congress, plus about eight of each of their key legislative staffers.

Yes, these were small beginnings. But at last, a consistent educational program against hate laws was underway.

Not a moment too soon! In the spring of 2002, ADL expected easy passage of its hate bill by the Senate. Yet Jim Tucker of American Free Press told me that when he attended the National Press Club at that time, reporters were abuzz with how much unusually educated protest against hate laws was bombarding members of Congress.

Emboldened by the public outcry, a handful of spirited Republican senators demanded discussion of the bill on the floor of the Senate. That's the last thing Tom Daschle and the ADL wanted. They shelved the bill for the year.

Taking to the Airwaves

In the spring of 2004 NPN and the religious right were shocked to learn ADL had quickly and quietly passed its hate bill by a vote of 65-33 in the Senate.

I was desperate to defeat the hate bill, but how? The only glimmer of hope was in burgeoning alternative talk radio. For a week, I phoned 1,400 talk radio stations in America, gleaning the names of about 350 Christian conservative talk show hosts. I sent them our hate laws brochure and an offer of a free video. Only five responded.

Then I heard of popular talk show host Pastor Ernie Sanders. He shared my burden and allowed me to speak on his program many times to alert his vast listening audience. The late Dr. David Wolfe soon did the same on the Genesis radio network, as did Bill Brumbaugh of First Amendment Radio. During the summer of 2004, as the hate bill was headed for conference, many other talk show hosts allowed me to speak. A wave of angry protest assaulted Congress. Result: Again, House Republicans, under Rep. Roy Blunt, encouraged defeat of the hate bill on Oct. 8, 2004.

ADL Goes Berserk

What happened next is still beyond belief. ADL was enraged by our defeat of their cherished thought crimes bill. On Sunday, Oct. 10, through their National Executive Board member, Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham, they arrested 11 Christians peacefully evangelizing at a large gay pride rally in downtown Philadelphia. One of the charges against the Christians was the "hate crime" of criticizing homosexuals. Total possible penalties: 47 years in prison and $90,000 fines each. (See, "Eleven Christians Jailed For Criticizing Homosexuality")

Realizing God had given ADL into our hands, I took the offensive on dozens of national radio talk shows, some with Michael Marcavage, head of the "Philly 11." He and his lawyers were also extensively interviewed. Some New Right organizations, such as Concerned Women for America and WorldNetDaily, alerted millions. Despite silence from the mainstream media, we were able to trumpet news of this outrage to the entire astonished world.

International indignation against Abraham and the corrupt Philly government became so great that Abraham (herself soon the defendant in a wrongful arrest and imprisonment suit) was glad to allow a fair-minded judge and jury to drop the case against the Christians.

In my opinion, ADL's rash action against the "Philly 11" was the greatest blunder in their 89-year history. It allowed me, in the next year and half, to speak on nearly 200 talk shows. For the first time, millions of Americans were made aware of how ADL has silenced free speech in Canada and desires the same stranglehold in America.

Incredibly, however, most of the largest Christian conservative organizations gave minimum, or very belated, exposure to what happened in Philadelphia. To this hour, they have failed to provide any long-term education on the threat of thought crimes legislation.

Threat of Hate Bill Returns

Although we defeated the hate bill twice, the House in the fall of 2004 made recommendation by a nonbinding vote of 213 to 186 in favor of the hate bill. The next time the hate bill came to the House for a vote, it would surely pass. That's exactly what happened.

In October 2005, after only 45 minutes of discussion, the House passed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as a rider on a Republican-generated bill to protect children from pedophiles.

The blitzkrieg speed of the bill's passage deeply shocked evangelicals and conservatives. They thought House Republicans would never allow it to happen. Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America sputtered that passage was "inexplicable." If she and other evangelical leaders had listened to my warnings over the past year, they would have known passage was not surprising at all, but predicted.

The New Right quickly mobilized. It encouraged millions of Christians and conservatives to protest with calls to their senators and Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader. Impressive as was this response, I knew it could not win. The battle would be decided in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where, hopelessly, it seemed, Republicans against the hate bill were outnumbered 10-8.

On at least 50 talk shows, the most important of which were those with Jeff Rense, I instructed hundreds of thousands of patriots to do what few had ever asked before: Come to www.truthtellers.org for a complete list of the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Countless patriots, eager to save freedom, called protesting the hate bills.

Having saturated Judiciary for two weeks, I then posted the names of all 100 Senators, and again a vast number of patriots called each one.

In short, between an outpouring of calls generated by the New Right and myself-and a divinely imposed madness on the part of Sen. Kennedy, sponsor of the hate bill who gave up support of the bill in Judiciary at the last minute-the hate bill was defeated. (See, "Federal Hate Bill Virtually Dead ")

Hate Bill Still a Threat

Yet, contrary to what most believed, the hate bill was not dead. Sen. Kennedy still had power to revive it on the floor of the Senate-reattaching it to the children's bill just as soon as Sen. Frist brought this much-needed legislation before the Senate.

As a result, Frist (unbeknownst to supporters of the children's bill, such as Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and John Walsh of America's Most Wanted) would not let the children's bill onto the floor of the Senate. He would not allow Kennedy the opportunity to stand to his feet and demand reattachment of his hate bill to the children's legislation. Frist knew that if Kennedy got that opportunity, the Senate, having voted overwhelmingly 65-33 for the hate bill the previous spring, would certainly support Kennedy and pass it.

This standoff of Senate titans continued through the fall and then the winter session of Congress. Supporters of the children's bill, like Kathie Lee Gifford, O'Reilly and Walsh, unaware of the real reason for its delay, began making angry demands that Frist get the children's bill moving. Frist was mum concerning his real reasons for delay and wouldn't budge. He knew the extreme danger and power of Kennedy to pass the hate bill if the children's bill came before the Senate.

Finally, as tension was becoming almost explosive, I sent out my e-alert explaining to the nation that the only reason the children's bill was bottled up was because of Kennedy's determination to have his hate bill attached to it.

Less than two days later, O'Reilly exploded on Fox News, furiously accusing Kennedy of the obstructionism which I had described. Tens of thousands of calls flooded Kennedy's office. I also generated many thousands to all members of the Senate, opposing the hate bill. When Kennedy publicly announced his abandonment of attempts to pass the hate bill, I knew we had witnessed another mighty deliverance from God.

A Dangerous Time

Humanly speaking, these victories were primarily made possible because of the presence and integrity of Sen. Bill Frist and core Republicans in leadership of Congress.

Frist is now gone as Senate majority leader, replaced by no other than Sen. Harry Reid, co-sponsor with Kennedy of the Senate version of the hate bill. Similarly, House majority leader Nancy Pelosi is another long-term hate bill supporter, a pipeline from San Francisco gay activism. Such liberals and ADL lackeys are as determined to pass the hate bill as Frist was to impede it.

Now, with more than enough votes from Democrats and turncoat Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that ADL's dream legislation will be approved and move America toward a Big Brother police state.

Considering the lack of focus and inattention of the New Right and Christian evangelicals in opposing hate crimes laws, we cannot count on them to provide an offensive proactive program of resistance. Yes, they will react eventually but only at the last moment. Their stop-gap response will almost certainly be too little, too late.

Alternative talk radio, especially the Genesis and Republic networks, speaks to hundreds of thousands of focused activists. It still holds the brightest possibility, in my opinion, for another deliverance.

That is, if the talk show hosts will put me on the air. The reason I have dwelt at length on the record of myself and NPN is not to boast. Rather, it is to remind talk show hosts of my unique ability to explain the background and danger of hate laws and to generate effective protest to Congress.

It's true, especially of late, that I have had to become very critical of Jewish activism, Talmudic Judaism, and Israel. Some talk hosts may say, "I can't put Ted Pike on-ADL will make trouble and I'll lose stations!"

The truth is, talk show hosts, if you don't put me on and let me fight for your free speech, soon you'll lose not just a few stations-you'll lose everything.

With Republicans out of power, Congress must be besieged with protest as never before. With this in mind, the issue is not, "Do I dare put Ted Pike on the air?" Instead, the issue is, "Do I dare not to?"