Posted in: PayPal Dispute | Comments OffI advertised a nearly new pair of ghd flat iron straighteners, took pictures of them they were hardly used in excellent condition, with the hologram, box, case etc. I sold them last Thursday for $150 and posted them off to the … Continue reading
PayPal Complaints @ December 4, 2013
Posted in: White Power | Comments Off
Online security is important, and while “internet privacy” may be the great oxymoron of the decade, there ARE a few things you can do to sorta, possibly, hopefully, maybe slow down an incompetent NSA agent or zit-faced teenager – but don’t count on it.
The first thing would be the TOR Project. Per the description on their website, “Tor is free software and an open network that helps you defend against traffic analysis, a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security.” I have used this myself and while the connection runs very slow, it’s helpful to see websites like http://whatismyipaddress.com/ report back a false location of your present whereabouts.
If you don’t like TOR, there are many free proxies like glypessl which hide your IP address and attempt to provide some internet anonymity.
There are a couple of ways to talk or send messages privately such as PrivNote (messages that “self-destruct” after being read) and a couple of chat options which I have not yet used (see http://www.joconationalist.com/tools-to-send-private-messages/ for more info on these).
Another option is to use the free e-mail service Hushmail which encrypts e-mail sent between Hushmail users, and also allows for a strong passphrase to be used which is more secure than a standard password.
Speaking of passwords, the American Nazi Party’s “Outreach” blog has an excellent post about that which I strongly encourage you to read: Password Security
Now on to a few other things which I’ll run through quickly. Some of you might want an easy way to download YouTube videos, either for your own personal collection or to use clips to make your own videos. I have found “FLVto YouTube Downloader” to be an excellent option for this. You can download multiple videos simultaneously, and in a variety of formats (.mp4, .wmv etc.).
If you want to send someone a file that is too large for regular e-mail (like a video, or zipped .pdf book collection), you can use TempSend. Per the website’s description, “TempSend.com is the simplest way to share files! Uploads and downloads are completely anonymous. By default, links stay active for 24 hours with unlimited downloads. Just upload your file and we provide you with a download link to share.”
Now for antivirus programs. If you browse online you will find plenty of varying opinions regarding antivirus software. What I personally recommend (all for free) are the trio of programs Avast, Malwarebytes, and Spywareblaster. If you’re willing and able to shell out cash for an antivirus, you could use Norton 360 in place of Avast (McAfee sucks, never use it). Avast is a full, active, antivirus program that gets great reviews and is easy to use. Malwarebytes works only when you open the program but detects and gets rid of many viruses that normal antivirus programs struggle with. Spywareblaster works by blocking certain cookies and malicious websites so as to prevent an infection.
There are MANY other useful tools available besides what I have listed here, and if you have anything you have used and would recommend please share it in the comments of this post and ‘ll check it out and update this page.
Axl Hess @ December 4, 2013
Posted in: PayPal Holding Funds | Comments OffI tried getting a PayPal prepaid card but I needed all this stuff like my social and when I was does there was an error saying I have to be 18 so I had to called them and fax all … Continue reading
PayPal Complaints @ December 3, 2013
Posted in: Uncategorized | Comments OffImagine a pregnant British national journeying to Italy for a few months, falling ill, having her baby forcibly delivered by caesarian section and then being put up for mandatory adoption. She has no say, and her family's wishes back in the UK are not even sought. Her British passport would no longer guarantee "in the name of Her Majesty" that the woman may "pass freely without let or hindrance" or that she may be granted "such assistance and protection as may be necessary". Because that "assistance and protection" would be that which is deemed necessary by the Italian State. And the Italian State views the woman and her child not as British nationals, but as citizens of the EU. So all that archaic 'Britannic Majesty' nonsense can safely be set aside: EU citizenship trumps historic rights and national liberties.
That must be how Essex social workers viewed the Italian woman who had to endure this very treatment in the UK. According to a a senior judge in Milan, the woman’s treatment constituted an unprecedented "act of extreme violence" (adding that it could not never happened in Italy). Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, said: "At first blush this is dystopian science fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares that those responsible will struggle to defend in courts of law and decency."
At first blush?
This is the 'Court of Protection' we're talking about.
A secret court that meets behind closed doors to determine what happens to those who are deemed incapable of making decisions on their own behalf. The court can nullify a marriage without the consent of both parties (yes, really), and determine which parent gets which child with what visitation rights (if any at all), with draconian restrictions on all media reporting. And this court can also apparently force a foreign citizen to have an invasive medical procedure and seize her child against her will - because she is not foreign at all: she is an EU citizen.
This didn't take place last week: it occurred 15 months ago, and has only recently come to light.
His Grace wrote about these secret courts three years ago. Nothing has changed. Except that the wider world is gradually becoming more aware of them. He wrote back then:
There is a tendency, developed or made more palpable over the past 50 years, that our children are first and foremost a state acquisition. The belief has perhaps been in greater evidence nowhere more than in the state education system, with its national curriculum designed to inculcate whatever values a passing government stipulates, and teachers trained in accordance with a prescriptive code which none dare abjure and no headteacher dare repudiate, lest they fall foul of the Gestapo at Ofsted. Any parental assertions of ownership, as with homeschooling, are increasingly viewed with suspicion, with such parents made subject to a level of monitoring usually reserved for suspected paedophiles. And the absurd belief that a parent ought to be informed about their child’s acquisition of contraception or their 14-year-old daughter’s application for an abortion is viewed as an unacceptable incursion into the child's 'right' to privacy, of which the state is now the self-appointed guardian.It is clearly time for all European states to reclaim their children - and, indeed, their adults - from the foreign courts of their EU partners. And there is obviously only one way to achieve that. In the meantime, secret courts have no place in the modern liberal democratic state. They can lead to manifest injustice, and must be abolished
...We see here a perfect example of the systematic abuse of state power. If the mother speaks out, she risks prosecution and faces the certainty of losing her child forever to fostering or adoption. Every instinct for natural justice wants to name the woman and assist her, yet the local authority bullies, in partnership with inept social workers and private adoption agencies, would exploit the transgression and submit it as evidence that they and they alone are acting in the best interests of the welfare of the child.
Ultimately, of course, it is the rights of the child which are violated. His or her right to a family life is subsumed to the state’s definition of what that life ought to consist. The social workers are no longer pastoral, caring or compassionate: they have become agents of the state, programmed to implement social legislation in accordance with the demands of the state.
The Marxist-Stalinist ideology persists.
..It is a topsy-turvy world indeed in which we are obliged to grant prisoners their ‘right’ to vote; in which we may not deport convicted foreign-nationals because of their ‘right’ to a family life or their ‘right’ not to be tortured in their own country. And yet a British mother who has been convicted of nothing has her child forcibly removed by the state and is then denied natural justice and all means of legal redress because of the labyrinthine bureaucracy of an evil system intent on nothing but its own survival.
...Questions must certainly be asked in Parliament about this crypto-Soviet madness. The Family Courts are out of control and a law unto themselves. It is time for us to reclaim our children from all forms of state oppression.
Archbishop Cranmer @ December 3, 2013
Posted in: PayPal Dispute | Comments OffI received a $2700 payment through PayPal for a local transaction (no shipping). I request PayPay transfer the money to my Bank, they did. I transfer the money to my checking account. A day later PayPal emails me and tells … Continue reading
PayPal Complaints @ December 2, 2013
Posted in: Uncategorized | Comments Off
The Church of England's Pilling Report on human sexuality has (finally) been published.
Whatever it says in very bold type in a very prominent foreword, the media will spin this as bigotry over progress; the triumph of dinosaur conservatism over enlightened liberalism; or simply another slap in the face for gays. In fact, it is an intelligent, sensitive and informed pastoral document which merits rather more scrutiny and contemplation than most will give it. All the proposals and recommendations it contains are not the official position of the Church of England unless and until they are endorsed by a vote of the General Synod.
But that won't stop the hysterical cries of bigotry or further anti-Anglican pronouncements of 'caving in' from the Telegraph (which will be made irrespective of Pilling's conclusions).
The full Report may be read HERE. In summary (His Grace's emphasis):
..the Archbishops commented that the report "is a substantial document proposing a process of facilitated conversations in the Church of England over a period of perhaps two years. The document offers findings and recommendations to form part of that process of facilitated conversations. It is not a new policy statement from the Church of England."Should the House of Bishops be minded in due course to make any changes to the Church of England's official position on human sexuality, it will need to ensure that Synod is given an opportunity to debate these matters before anything is implemented. Given the Synod’s resolution of 1987, which stated unequivocally that adultery, fornication and homosexual acts are to be met with “a call to repentance”, it is not easy to see how any shift will be made unless the General Synod is going to be socially engineered by age and/or gender quotas to become "more representative".
Noting that "the issues with which the Report grapples are difficult and divisive" the Archbishops recognise Sir Joseph's Pilling's comment that 'disagreements have been explored in the warmth of a shared faith'. The Archbishops continue "Our prayer is that the process of reflection that will now be needed in the Church of England, shaped by the House of Bishops and the College, will be characterised by a similar spirit."
Commissioned by the House of Bishops of the Church of England in January 2012, the working group included the bishops of Gloucester, Birkenhead, Fulham and Warwick. The group invited three advisers to join in the work. They were: Professor Robert Song, The Ven Rachel Treweek and the Revd Dr Jessica Martin.
The report considers the rapidly changing context within which the group undertook its work. It examines the available data about the views of the public in our country over time. The report considers homophobia, evidence from science, from scripture and from theologians. During their work, members of the group not only gathered evidence from many experts, groups and individuals but also met a number of gay and lesbian people, often in their homes, to listen to their experiences and insights.
The report offers 18 recommendations. The first recommendation is intended to set the context for the report as a whole. It warmly welcomes and affirms the presence and ministry within the church of gay and lesbian people both lay and ordained.
Three recommendations look at the report's proposal for 'facilitated conversations', across the Church of England and in dialogue with the Anglican Communion and other churches, so that Christians who disagree deeply about the meaning of scripture on questions of sexuality, and on the demands of living in holiness for gay and lesbian people, should understand each other's concerns more clearly and seek to hear each other as authentic Christian disciples.
Further recommendations call on the church to combat homophobia whenever and wherever it is found, and to repent of the lack of welcome and acceptance extended to homosexual people in the past.
The recommendations do not propose any change in the church's teaching on sexual conduct. They do propose that clergy, with the agreement of their Church Council, should be able to offer appropriate services to mark a faithful same sex relationship. The group does not propose an authorised liturgy for this purpose but understands the proposed provision to be a pastoral accommodation which does not entail any change to what the church teaches. No member of the clergy, or parish, would be required to offer such services and it could not extend to solemnising same sex marriages without major changes to the law.
The report notes that the church's teaching on sexuality is in tension with contemporary social attitudes, not only for gay and lesbian Christians, but for straight Christians too. In relation to candidates for ministry, it recommends that whether someone is married, single or in a civil partnership should have no bearing on the assurances sought from them that they intend to order their lives consistently with the teaching of the Church on sexual conduct.
The report includes a 'dissenting statement' from the Bishop of Birkenhead who found himself unable to support all the recommendations made by the group as a whole. The main part of the report is supported and signed by all the other members of the group, including the advisers.
The House of Bishops will discuss the report for the first time in December 2013, and it will be further debated by the College of Bishops in January 2014.
The Pilling Report simply offers findings and recommendations for the Church of England to consider. The group is to be commended for the theological depth of its research and the sociological sensitivity of its expression.
Importantly, the Liturgical Commission is not to be charged with the development of new same-sex marriage liturgy. No concession is being made to the possibility of providing a service for gay or lesbian couples, and this will no doubt greatly offend many.
Last week, the Prime Minister praised the Church of England for its shift on women bishops, which, he said, was necessary "to ensure its place as a modern Church in touch with our society".
Today he will be decrying that same church as being otiose and out of touch. But the Body of Christ does not exist to please the Prime Minister all of the time.
Archbishop Cranmer @ November 28, 2013
Posted in: White Power | Comments Off
The Poll I conducted on this website starting about two months ago is now closed, and I got some good responses and comments to that post. To start off, 39 of the 219 votes went towards Lack of Character in White ‘men’ as the main problem with this “movement.” One commenter said:
I have to say that the lack of character in White men is the root cause that leads to the other problems listed. The overall quality of our people is at an all time low. Therefore, it’s not a surprise that the Movement is in a sad state. CHARACTER is what makes good men, and good men can speak well to other good men and bring them to the cause, and from there organizing and mobilizing can take place.
Right now movement orgs. are desperate for people to fill the ranks and pay dues. Leadership doesn’t expect much from rank and file, and vice versa. Consequently, very little get accomplished and here we are in 2013, spinning our wheels as usual.
I agree with what this person said with the exception of “Leadership doesn’t expect much from rank and file, and vice versa,” at least as far as the American Nazi Party (ANP) goes. However that statement is certainly true in regards to other organizations. The ANP does expect activism from its Members and Official Supporters, for example requesting able-bodied Supporters to fill out and send in an “Activity Report” each month describing their various outreach efforts.
Another commenter added:
The reason I support the party is because I care about the white working class AND the direction America is going under this Judeo-Capitalist attack. I have an interest in doing my part and getting my name on a ballot – sadly this piss poor MOVEMENT is all about a bunch of dysfunctional’s screaming “White Power” and disgracing the Swastika, and the People see that and think were nothing but a bunch of idiots… to go along with all the lies they already have learned about us.
The image problem American National-Socialists have is definitely an issue, and something the ANP has been working to correct simply by behaving as National-Socialists should behave: like decent, working class men and women who are considerate of others, not rude or obnoxious, not criminals and so on. False-front groups like the “NSM” have damaged the image of National-Socialism more than the jewish media has, and that’s a sad fact.
Another comment was posted that is too long to re-post here but worth a look as the commenter makes some interesting points.
For further information about the problems with this “movement” and the actions that need to be taken to correct these failures, please listen to the recent audio recording below:
Axl Hess @ November 27, 2013
Posted in: PayPal Fraud | Comments OffHi there , I recently purchased a child’s 14 day ultimate disney ticket for Florida on 30 June at a cost of £205 English pounds off a registered ebay business seller with lots of sales and decent feedback .the ticket … Continue reading
PayPal Complaints @ November 26, 2013
Posted in: Uncategorized | Comments OffArizona "Don't Tread On Me" 5 foot x 3 foot Flag
Catalog Feed @ November 26, 2013
Posted in: Uncategorized | Comments Off
Last week, UKIP's Lord Pearson of Rannoch raised a question in the House of Lords: "To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the basis for the statement by the Prime Minister on 3 June that 'There is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror'." He explained:
“But there is a problem within Islam—from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it.Baroness Warsi was having none of this ignorant islamophobic racist bigotry:
Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.
At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don’t admit it. This has two effects. First, those with that view think we are weak and that gives them strength.
Second, those within Islam—and the good news is there are many—who actually know this problem exists and want to do something about it, lose heart”.
Those are not my words but those of Tony Blair, after the Islamist murder last summer of Drummer Rigby—the same Tony Blair who, as Prime Minister, dismantled our borders to,“rub the noses of the right in diversity”.We must be grateful that his subsequent experience as our Middle East envoy has taught him something about the reality of modern Islam, and that he had the courage to say what he did. In these few minutes, I want to talk about some of that reality.
Islam does not enjoy the separation of powers that we take for granted in our liberal, western democracies. Islam’s Sharia law is a legal, political and religious system all in one, which takes its authority solely from the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah, as interpreted by its religious clerics, collectively known as the ulema.
Our Muslim friends tell us that the jihadists are a misguided minority who misinterpret the Koran and the holy texts. They point to verses such as Surah 2, verse 256, in which Muhammad commands that there shall be no compulsion in religion, and to other verses of peace. There are millions of Muslims who live their lives guided by those verses, and many thousands who have been murdered by their violent co-religionists.
...if Islam justified terror, we would not have seen the out-and-out condemnation of this brutal murder by the British Muslim community.And she swatted away Lord Pearson's superficial theology with an authoritative appeal to The West Wing:
After that attack, we saw the Ramadhan Foundation, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Christian Muslim Forum, MINAB, the Al-Khoei Foundation, the British Muslim Forum, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, the Karima Institute, the Islamic Forum of Europe and many, many others come out and say, “Not in our name”. They were united with the country in grief and horror at what happened on a London street. I wholeheartedly support this clear and unequivocal condemnation.
President Bartlet: “I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination”.And the Noble Baroness concluded:
The TV presenter: “I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does”.
President Bartlet: “Yes it does. Leviticus 18:22. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?”. While thinking about that, can I ask you another question? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?”.
I could not make this point more clearly. These texts from the Old Testament could so easily be manipulated to cause mischief and indeed have been manipulated in the past. But being religious means making choices and understanding the central values of your faith. It also means considering the context in which that faith was formed.
As many noble Lords have said in this debate Islam, like all world religions, neither supports, nor advocates, nor condones terrorism. I am saying that the values of al-Qaeda and like-minded terrorists are not only contrary to what we as a country stand for, they are a distortion of the Islamic tradition itself. Al-Qaeda’s ideology is fundamentally at odds with both classical and contemporary Islamic jurisprudence. That is why the majority of Muslims across the globe reject their ideology.But Lord Pearson of Rannoch was irked:
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she has not answered the two questions that I put to her. I believe that I am in order to repeat them.. Will the noble Baroness answer the two questions I put to her?And the Noble Baroness waffled on:
Everyone in this house knows Muslims in British life—doctors, engineers, scientists, journalists, MPs, teachers, business people, local councillors and so on...And on and on..
An exasperated Lord Pearson intervened:
With respect, that does not answer the question. The question I put to the noble Baroness was about the persecution of Christians, to which she so bravely referred in Georgetown last Friday. Is it or is it not mostly the work of the jihadists? That was the question I put to her.And so she did:
It was mostly the work of extremists who do not follow any faith, as far as I am concerned.So, those who burn down churches, blow people up or cut their heads off while quoting the Qur'an, declaiming "Allahu Akbar" and invoking the name of Mohammed are not Muslims at all: they are really followers of no faith: they are secularists or humanist atheists; buddies of Professor Dawkins.
This is the socio-religio-political depth of understanding of the UK’s first ever Minister for Faith and Communities. She says it is her job "to ensure that freedom of religion and belief remains at the top of the Government’s agenda both at home and internationally". But while doing that, there can be no scrutiny of the virulent salafi-wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam, for, to her, that is not Islam at all. And even to mention the possibility that it might be invites allegations of bigotry. These 'extremists' are simply not true Muslims and are completely ignorant of the real Islam.
And yet.. and yet..
At a Muslim Peace Conference in Norway (yes, a peace conference in Europe), when asked if the Muslims in attendance agreed that adulterous women ought to be stoned, the speaker praises Allah that all the men's hands were raised. His Grace says "men's hands", for there appears to be no gender diversity at this gathering. Unless, of course, the women were in the basement. When asked if they believed in the strict separation of men and women, all hands again were raised (except the bloke on the front line, whom the speaker ignores). This video is not of a group of 'extremists', but ordinary believers in a run-of-the-mill expression of moderate Islam.
These ordinary, everyday moderate Muslims want sharia law in their country; not secular democracy and human rights. The moderate and enlightened speaker mocks the media portrayal of their beliefs as 'extreme'. One wonders, if they had been asked, whether all hands would have been raised to affirm the death penalty for apostasy. Surely, if stoning women for adultery is considered just, then hanging for apostasy or blasphemy is a fortiori the will of Allah. And it is a very small step indeed from that belief to burning down the odd church and beheading the occasional kafir.
But these are not Muslims. They do not follow any faith.
As far as Baroness Warsi is concerned.
Archbishop Cranmer @ November 25, 2013