Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Obama to Close Guantanamo

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Obama to act early on Guantanamo: "Barack Obama will issue an executive order within days of entering the White House to close the Guantanamo detention centre, senior advisers have confirmed."

I am delighted to hear that.

This came as a good and refreshing news after I read about the press conference of *&(@#*^Bush that made me fall off of my chair of incredulity.

Anonymous Pulls CoS Book Out of Shop

UN is selling Co$-PR. UPDATE: LOL NOT ANYMORE (at least online) - Why We Protest | Activism Forum

Anonymous found out that the UN shop was selling what is probably a CoS front group book, "Youth for Human Right" . Flood of calls and email to put it down, which the UN does, at least online.

My question is- isn't that a free speech abuse?

What would be the reason to ask then to put it down?

Everybody on WWP of course automatically agrees that this is bad bad bad, but I have not seen what is the argument for it.

If a Christian group publishes a book dealing with Human Rights, should it be banned too?

The UN shop website has in fact very few items.

One of it is entitled "1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World".

Is it OK for this book to be sold and not the Human Right one of the CoS? Why?

What about if the Muslim book would be called "1001 Inventions: L. Ron Hubbard Heritage in Our World"?

What if another book they sell, "Doing Business 2008" was published by Wise, another CoS front group? Would it be reason enough to make a scandal and ask the UN shop to pull it out right away?

I am only pondering...

Relate blog entry: R-Youth4HumanRight-

Daily Mail Possible Cause for Article Pull Down

I reported recently that the Daily Mail article about Jett's death was pulled off the net.

Glosslip now claims this was after threat from the CoS.

While this is, of course, very probable, what bothers me is that only Glosslip, itself a gossip rag not better than the Daily Mail, is the only one reporting it so far. I would like to see better confirmation of this before really reporting it as news.

More Tory Christman Lying Justifications

(Magoo addressing the criticism from her Youtube channel):

ToryMagoo44 (17 hours ago)

I have said and I'll continue to say C of S demanded that *I* get OFF of my medication, all of it, for Epilepsy, in 1972 when they told me I was "Unqualified" for the Sea Org while on *any* medication. My MOTHER--which I've said, over and over, saved my life, and helped me get back on my medication.
Still no sign about the fact that this unqualified staff was corrected by Hubbard himself. She was ordered off, her mother saved her, bla bla bla... Telling the truth while lying her teeth out because she omits the rest of the story.
I STILL fought C of S for 30 y e a r s re medication+auditing.
Reading this you would think she was forbidden to take her medication in 1972 and that she fought the CoS over it, while still being prevented from taking her medication, for 30 years until she won... A very very very very far cry from the truth, which is that the order was reversed in 1972 and she was allowed until the end to go online while on her medication.

She tries to justify the criticism, but in doing so she just lies even more.
Don't try to change history for your PR---it won't work, ever. Start doing right things, vs. all the wrong.
Best to all,
Who is changing history? Just read her affidavit and compare it with what she is telling to the press and in her video. All of what she is NOT telling is what makes it a lie.

These kinds of justification from her only manage to dig her more into the ground than she already is.

ToryMagoo44 (16 hours ago)

I explain it, you alter it, and then call me a liar. I've explained it.......in detail...and although on my medication (thanks to my Mother)...I did fight C of S for 30 years "in".
This is an answer to a post she deleted! She says "you alter it" but she deletes the post she replies to! This is not just censorship, it also prevents people from making their own mind as to whether what she says about alteration is true or not.

I have seen the post in question and of course there was no alteration. It said basically what I say in my blog. The source is her own affidavit! In her own words! And of course she has not explained it at all, only managed to lie more. Check this blog entry for her "explanation". It just is yet another lie. And like for the poster to which she reply now, she also deleted the post of the person to whom she made her lying explanation, and banned him as well, after which, knowing he is blocked and knowing he cannot answer, she writes:""you deny it? SAY IT HERE".
In 1989 a 15 year old kid ("ETHICS") told me:
That began another fight. In 1990's I went to the Freewinds to see my husband, again treated like a leper, not allowed on the ship until they "Checked" re my medication. Try as you may, the truth is quite simple:Medical Abuse.

This is what Tory calls "Medical Abuse": her perception that people checking to make sure there will not be problem with her medication is treating her like leper.

ToryMagoo44 (2 hours ago)

I was ORDERED To stop taking my medication in 1972, when I was old I had to before I could be in the Sea Org.
(My comments are here indented)

Magoo still forgets to say that this order was canceled by Hubbard himself. From her affidavit:

"I was writing Hubbard. He wrote me back and informed me I was not a Freeloader and that was incorrect. I needed to pay for the 2 courses I had then taken and "continue getting auditing in the HGC and we will see you up the line""
In 1979, after finishing OT 3, I was again, given a "Program" to get off of my medication.
I ended up nearly dead in Morton Plant Hospital, with Status Epileptus (multiple seizures).
Magoo forgets to say that is was her own decision. The CoS may have given her a program to help her in what was her own decision to try and get off her med. You read the above without knowing this fact and you think the CoS again ordered her to get off her medication. She is telling the truth while lying because she omits vital facts. From her affidavit:

"So if I were to achieve OT, I would be done with Seizures, one would think. [...] After attesting to OT 3, I once again tried to get off of my medication"
In 1989, I paid via my Mother-in-law $100,000 to do OT 4-8 (this was my "Inheritance".
She was OT 8, and wanted to "See your wins while alive".
On my routing form to get onto OT 4, I was sent to "Ethics".
There, a 16 year old Italian Kid (possibly 18 but VERY young), looked into my "Ethics folder", looked at me like I was disgusting, and said:
I knew it had to do with my medication, and this began my fight. My memory is just fine re all of this.
Yes, I fought ALL Of the Top Tech Executive.
Originally the Director of Processing said:
"All of your earlier handles of your medication have been suppressive. We will fix it".
However, after hours of "Set ups"
They AGAIN told me, "You have to get off of all medication". I insisted they send my folders up to RTC, as I KNEW they were wrong. Finally, after one month, the Senior C/S wrote a "Policy" saying IF someone had tried to get off of their medication, and their Dr. Still said they should take it (as mine had), they should be Ok'd. This was a 30 year fight, and ALL those who are d e a d are proof that your "Tech" doesn't work!
My best,
Magoo finally slowly and painfully coming up with the truth, after being prodded on her channel by posters which initially she just deleted and banned without addressing the question and after coming up with "explanations" that are just more lies.

Even though she continues to give the impression that she had to fight until 1989 before being allowed to take her medication.

So she finally admits: "the Senior C/S wrote a "Policy" saying IF someone had tried to get off of their medication, and their Dr. Still said they should take it (as mine had), they should be Ok'd"

Is Magoo saying anything about this policy in her video or in the press? A policy that says people are OK to be online even if they are under medication? No! She tells the press that the CoS prevents people to take their medication and suggest there are hundreds or thousands of victims, which is a total twisting of the facts knowing that such a policy exist.

The policy dates back to 1989! That's exactly 20 years ago! Magoo knows first hand that this policy exists. And yet, she present her case as if this policy did not exist at all!

Something else you may find interesting. The Doctor who insisted that she should not be taken off her meds was a Scientologist himself!

Censorship at WhyWeProtest.net?

You will remember that, among many other things, enturbulation.org admins were involved in editing posts against the knowledge and consent of the posters, and that they also had an SP list of people towards whom they would run a "miserable user" script.

Now I find something fishy at WhyWeProtest.net too.

Some time ago, a poster there made a post asking if anybody knew about the high ranking ex-member who let a commentary on my blog, and which I blogged about here.

The URL for that post used to be "http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/high-ranking-defector-speaks-out-36057/"

However, if you now click on that URl, you will get to another post.

The original post can still be found with a different URL:


The claim made in the original post, that "It's a repost of Ask the Scientologist: Scientology's Leader, Miscavige, Is a Failure from August 2nd. " is false. These are two different posts, even if the style is similar.

Apparently, the two threads were "merged", whatever this means.

A poster pointed quite rightly :"This is a new story/blog and has nothing to do with the OP of the thread it was merged with. Unmerge plox? "

But the admin disagrees: "Disregard plox. Thread was reported for merging, didn't read it thoroughly but the OPs are similar. Unmerged."

I too found the post of August 2 and mentioned it in my post, but Thoughful, the author of the comment, claimed the post he made as a comment on my blog in December was the first one.

Even if the August 2 post was from him also, why merge the two just because they are similar? Why prevent people from reading the second one and redirect to the first one instead?

It's illogical, and it also is a form of censorship. They are preventing people to read the two posts, that, even though the style is similar, contain different information.

Critics are also notorious for not liking to link to my web site, and this may also be a further form of disguised censorship.

There is no reason to "merge" the two posts just because the style is similar, especially since this is not a merge but simply redirecting the original URL to the other post.

Anonymous should really "unmerge" them.