- (1994 - EDP Official Website - OCTOBER - PT3-2019 )--
OCT H 1 2
3 4 5  6

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019      MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019          MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2019      

  MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2019          MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME--2019

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK .

FREEDOM-UNITY.

*

A MONTH TO REMEMBER

RECLAIMING

 AFTER 46 YEARS WITHIN HITLER'S PLANNED SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION

 OUR

 ENGLISH FREEDOM-CONSTITUTION AND

COUNTRY.

 

MARCH 29, 2019

VICTORY

FOR

 ENGLISH FREEDOM DAY.

*

 ONE SHOULD ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN WALES AND SCOTLAND PREFERRED TO REMAIN AS SLAVES WITHIN HITLER'S SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

IN OR OUT OF THE EU THE ENGLISH PEOPLE PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THEIR NEIGHBOURS PARTICULARLY IN SCOTLAND WHERE THEY STILL RECEIVE A HIGHER PER CAPITA FIGURE , AS IT HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS.

A UNITED BRITISH ISLES IS A BOUNTY FOR EVERYONE IN OUR SHARED ISLAND HOME

FOR  SECURITY-TRADE-PROSPERITY AND PEACE.

LET US UNITE AND THE WORLD WILL SEE US AT OUR BEST.

OUR SHARED HISTORY AND SACRIFICE IS OUR STRENGTH AND PURPOSE.

H.F.1773

*

 

 
 OCTOBER 22,2019
 

  1. ANDREW PIERCE

     

     

     

     

     

    Ugly truth about

     

     

     

    WHY MPs DON'T WANT

     

     

     

    TO GIVE YOU A

     

 

 

 

SAY

 

 

ON

 

 BREXIT

 

OCTOBER 22,2019

 

Since the last General Election, 51 MPs have swapped parties and for reasons of

COWARDNESS

or

STUBBORN ARROGANCE

have refused

 to take the honourable path by resigning from the Commons and fighting a by-election under their new colours.

Indeed, we have witnessed the biggest number of Mps switch sides since the turmoil over Irish Home Rule in 1886. Some Mps, such as Chuka Umunna and Heidi Allen have changed parties more than once.

Perhaps it's not surprising, therefore, that with so many MPs thus dodging voters, the majority in the Commons won't accede to the Government's wishes of having a

GENERAL ELECTION.

For the truth is that if they were honest with themselves, MP's ought to have only one choice: Accept Borris Johnsons EU exit deal or face voters in a general election and account for

THEIR FAILURE TO DELIVER

BREXIT...

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

 

...The SNP has another reason for pressing for an early election. A

 

trial is scheduled in January 2020 of Alex Salmond the party's  former

 

leader.

 

 

He's accused of two counts of attempted rape, among other allegations.

 

Salmond has strenuously denied all the claims against him but the

 

.

party fears the effect of any

 

 

bad publicity

 

As for the Lib Dems, since Jo Swinson became leader, the party has

 

hardened its anti-Brexit stance from supporting a second referendum

 

to wanting to revoke Article 50-in other words,

 

 

cancelling

 

 

BREXIT.
 

Realistically, the only way this could happen is if the

Lib Dems

get a parliamentary majority -and the only way of possibly achieving

that pipe-dream is a general election.

True, the Lib Dems have been buoyed by the defection of six Mps from

Labour and the Tories taking a total to 18.

But, pollsters say the likelihood of a LIb Dem government  is just

5 per cent

This is is why, despite all their noisy rhetoric, Swinson

and her Lib Dems are pushing hard for a

SECOND REFERENDUM

as the best way to halt

BREXIT.

Also, rather than support Jeremy Corbyn as the head

, of a caretaker government, the Lib Dems would

prefer a vote of confidence in the Tories that

might lead directly to an election.

All in all, a politically motivated and cowardly coalition

of MPs are doing everything in their power to

HALT

BREXIT

-and 

prevent

  a

GENERAL ELECTION

 

*  *  *

FULL ARTICLE

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7602285/ANDREW-PIERCE-party...

 

22/10/2019 · Ugly truth about why MPs don’t want to give you a say: ANDREW PIERCE on party-switchers dodging voters to cling on to their seats By Andrew Pierce for the Daily Mail.

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

OCTOBER 22, 2019

H.F.1913

 

 

*

[A WARNING IN OCTOBER,2019]

 

*

 

BETRAYAL!

 

Now foreign firms are set to keep their lucrative rights to fish in UK waters after

 Brexit
  • British fishermen accused ministers of another Brexit betrayal over fishing rights
  • Large foreign firms are set to keep their lucrative rights to fish in UK waters
  • Currently, about 40 per cent of England's fishing quota is caught by foreign firms

By Daniel Martin for the Daily Mail

 April 18, 2018

e-mail

389

View
comments

British fishermen accused ministers of another Brexit betrayal last night after it emerged that large foreign firms were set to keep their lucrative rights to fish in our coastal waters.

A draft of the Fisheries White Paper leaked to the BBC, suggests the existing quota regime may not be significantly reformed after the UK's departure from the European Union next year.

At present, around 40 per cent of England's fishing quota is caught by foreign-owned vessels – one Dutch firm alone controls two-thirds of the quota for North Sea herring.

The leaked paper suggests this will not change after Brexit, meaning that small-scale British fishermen will be unable to boost their struggling businesses, as they had hoped, with rights to a significantly larger quota.
 

British fishermen accused ministers of another Brexit betrayal last night after it emerged that large foreign firms were set to keep their lucrative rights to fish in England's coastal waters

It follows the Mail's revelation at the weekend that the Foreign Office has handed £75million worth of fishing licences in the South Atlantic to companies from Norway, Chile and New Zealand, while two firms based in the Falkland Islands – a British overseas territory – had their applications rejected.

Critics said it made a mockery of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson's pledge to take back control of British waters after we leave the EU. 

Last night, Tory MP Andrew Rosindell said: 'Getting back control of our seas and fishing grounds is one of the key reasons for voting to leave the EU and therefore the Common Fisheries Policy. That has to happen. Our fishermen will expect nothing less, and I trust the Prime Minister to deliver it.'

Jerry Percy, from the New Under Ten Fishermen's Association, the trade body for small fishing boats (classed as under 10m), warned there would be dire consequences if the UK's quota was not shifted from big to small fishing firms. He said: 'It'll be lost jobs, lost boats. It'll be lost local fishing landings. It'll be lost culture, lost tradition.'

Hastings fisherman Paul Joy said that leaving the EU was only part of the battle, and what needed to change was the quota system. 'We've got an industry that's dying on its feet because what fish there is in the system is already allocated to the wrong sectors,' he said. 'More quota needs to go to the small boat sector, without any doubt.

 

 

leaked draft of the Fisheries White Paper suggests the existing quota regime may not be significantly reformed after the UK's departure from the European Union next year

'If we win our battle with Brexit, that's one thing. Then it's how we share out the quota – sharing out the spoils of war.' 

Foreign firms own so much of the quota because, over the years, struggling local fishermen have sold their allocations to make ends meet.

Emma Cardwell, researcher at Lancaster University, said: 'They would buy from fishing boats going out of business or fishing boats looking to make money by selling their right to fish.'

A spokesman for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: 'The under-10m fleet plays an important part in our fishing industry and our coastal communities. Leaving the EU gives us the opportunity to design a new domestic fishing policy – one which is in the best interests of all sections of the fishing fleet and which allows our industry to thrive.'

Under current rules, foreign vessels registered in the UK are able to fish using the UK's quota if they make at least 50 per cent of their landings in UK ports, have at least 50 per cent of their crew normally resident in UK coastal areas, or spend 50 per cent of their operating expenditure in the UK. 


 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5627741/Foreign-firms-set-lucrative-rights-fish-UK-waters-Brexit.html#ixzz5DJMuIYwH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | D

 

 

*  *  *

 

 April 18, 2018

 

 

Boris Johnson accused of betraying UK fisherman after foreign firms ...

 

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Boris-Johnson-accused-betraying-UK-fisherman-foreign-firms-given-75million-licences.html

13 Apr 2018 ... Boris Johnson was accused of betraying UK fishermen by handing lucrative
licences to foreign firms from Norway, Chile and New Zealand while two ...
Tensions over post-Brexit fishing rights were highlighted last month when former
Ukip leader Nigel Farage joined protesters opposed to the transition deal ...

 

 

 

  

 

H.F.1536

 

*

 
WHY I LOATHE  BRUSSELS

 
 
 

 

They steal our fish, squander our cash and treat our views with contempt. For decades Labour's Grimsby

 MP Austin Mitchell passionately campaigned against the

E U.

On the second anniversary of the referendum, his cri de coeur will cheer the

HEART OF EVERY BREXITEER.

 

Why I loathe Brussels: They steal our fish, squander our cash and treat our views with contempt, writes AUSTIN MITCHELL

By Austin Mitchell For The Daily Mail

 June 23, 2018

 

513

View
comments

 

Austin Mitchell was a backbench Labour MP for 40 years before stepping down in 2015. 

A self-confessed maverick who refused to toe the party line, he has always been fiercely opposed to Britain remaining in the EU. 

Here, on the second anniversary of the EU referendum, he delivers a powerful and timely reminder of why Brexit must be seen through.

 

My long-held and passionate attitude to the European Union is summed up in four words — three of which are ‘the European Union’, preceded by a commonly used four- letter verb of exhortation that the Oxford English Dictionary describes as ‘vulgar’.

I’ve always been a Eurosceptic, ever since I first stumbled across the Common Market, as the EU then called itself, in 1962. I was 28, Yorkshire born and bred, and, with my doctorate from Oxford, was teaching history at a university in New Zealand. A colleague gave a lecture on the Common Market — and, to my horror, he endorsed it as ‘a good thing’.

Incredible. Almost blasphemy. Britain led the Commonwealth. New Zealand, rich in dairy products, was its antipodean farm. Europe was there for us to defeat in war. How could an Englishman be so daft?

 

Austin Mitchell campaigning for fishermen in 1978. He was a backbench Labour MP for 40 years before stepping down in 2015

Fortunately General De Gaulle, the French president, agreed with me and dismissed British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s efforts to join a club he should never have applied for in the first place.

I was further comforted when a succession of British politicians came out to New Zealand to assure us that if Britain did join this alien institution then, scout’s honour, New Zealand’s access to the British market would be protected. The old relationship would carry on.

They lied. Albion can be perfidious and was particularly so when it betrayed New Zealand by joining in 1973 — egged on by Tory prime minister Ted Heath, who was so eager to get us into Europe that he did so on less than favourable terms. We were asking to be clobbered and duly were.

I was back in Britain and had switched jobs to become a journalist and a presenter on regional television when two years later Harold Wilson, the new Labour PM, called for a referendum to endorse or reject that decision. 

I voted ‘No’. But two-thirds of the country said ‘Yes’. We were staying in.

I was far from convinced this was the right decision, and my hostility increased when in 1977 I was elected Labour MP for Grimsby.

The town’s fishing industry had been ruined when the Europeans cunningly declared the seas around Britain common waters and gave other members, even landlocked Luxembourg, equal access. 

As a result, we got only a small proportion of our own fish.

I formed a Save Britain’s Fish campaign, which attracted support from all over the country.

Tory MP Edwina Currie pointed out that: ‘You don’t want to save Britain’s fish. You just want to eat them.’ Which was true, but far better for us to eat them than have them gobbled by undeserving Europeans who took our jobs and the processing industry with them.

 

Tory MP Edwina Currie pointed out that: ‘You don’t want to save Britain’s fish. You just want to eat them’

There was more to my scepticism about Europe than a lingering desire to catch our own fish, however. 

I believed then, and still do now, that the nation state is not only the best but the only way of advancing the cause of the people while maintaining their democratic control of the process.

There is nothing the EU can do for us that we can’t do better for ourselves. Europe is too big, amorphous, divided and powerless. 

It’s not a democracy but a plutocracy with a rootless bureaucracy, always pursuing an ever-closer union the people don’t want, yet never able to reach it.

As a concept it is a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense, a mirage.

The trouble was that the EU couldn’t break away from its original purpose of protecting French agriculture and boosting German industry. 

With these two states dominating, Europe embarked on a journey where few wanted to go, to an ever-closer union only the Brussels bureaucrats sought, imposing policies without democratic consent and ever prepared to overrule the people for their own good.

My basic reason for opposing membership was economic. The European Union drained Britain of jobs, money, demand and growth. 

It became a brake on our economy, not an accelerator. 

Being a deal between the interests of Germany, which needed a bigger market for its manufacturing, and France, which wanted agricultural protection for its food, the EU didn’t suit Britain, a net agricultural importer with a less modern and less well-invested industry.

The basis of British trade had been buying cheap food, particularly from Commonwealth countries, and sending them our manufactured goods in return.

That stopped after we joined. The Common Agricultural Policy required us to buy France’s more expensive food. Costs went up and every family of four lost £20 a week.

Meanwhile, Labour’s policy to boost jobs in the regions had to be scrapped because it was against the rules. What had been a surplus in our trade with Europe before we went in became a steadily growing deficit.

Our membership contributions — in effect, our payments for being damaged — went up year by year, siphoning off money to Europe, particularly to the powerful German economy, which generated ever-bigger surpluses at the expense of everyone else and particularly us.

To cap all this, Europe’s fast growth, which enthusiasts had claimed Britain would hitch up to, slowed substantially.

That’s why in my successful campaign in the 1979 General Election, I stood on a soapbox outside the Bird’s Eye frozen fish factory in Grimsby to denounce Brussels. And I’ve been doing so as vigorously as I can ever since.

But I’ve increasingly found myself out on a limb in a political class inexorably drawn to Brussels.

Europe is very attractive for those who don’t like Britain. 

For the liberal intellectuals and many of our elite, who saw themselves as cosmopolitan rather than nationalist, Europe was nicer than their brutal, xenophobic compatriots. 

Those suffering in Britain — the unions, local government and the Labour Party — came to love the beguiling hopes Europe held out for them.

They didn’t see that it had no ability to help lame dogs over stiles and that its handouts were really the nation’s own money coming back, but with the EU’s heavy costs deducted.

My views remained unchanged as the Common Market marched on, grandiosing into the European Community, then the European Union.

Major Labour figures from Roy Jenkins to Peter Mandelson went off to Brussels and found a bigger and better stage to strut on.

 

Brussels came up with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, to set in stone rates of exchange between the various European currencies. Tory Prime Minister John Major took us in briefly. It was a disaster

There, people actually listened to them rather than dismissing them out of hand. They came back to proclaim Europe’s benefits. 

Then Brussels came up with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, to set in stone rates of exchange between the various European currencies.

Tory Prime Minister John Major took us in briefly. It was a disaster. The whole system collapsed and Britain was humiliatingly forced out.

We sceptics heaved a sigh of relief, forgetting the propensity of dogs to return to their own vomit.

Instead of backing off, the EU went for an even stronger monetary union by creating the common currency, the euro.

Unable to get electoral support for ever-closer union, the EU bureaucracy tried to smuggle it in through the back door. 

A common currency, they hoped, would lead to convergence and develop the central institutions necessary to manage it.

By now Tony Blair was in Downing Street with his New Labour re-make. It wasn’t a respray job on the old jalopy but a total re-engineering.

Daft as a Liberal when it came to anything that would demonstrate his Euro-enthusiasm, he was passionately in favour of a single European currency.

Not understanding economics, he didn’t realise that Britain would be shackled by a fixed, and inevitably overvalued, exchange rate, with consequences ruinous for our weaker economy.

Fortunately, Gordon Brown, his Chancellor, saw the dangers and managed to think up five tests, failure in any of which would deny entry until the time was ripe. Which in my view it never would be.

Britain stayed out of the euro, thank heaven, leaving us peripheral to the Eurozone, the EU’s great adventure into the clouds. 

The Eurocrats persisted with monetary union, even though it forces deflation on weaker and less competitive partners. 

Britain would have been one of these if we had been foolish enough to join in.

Brussels showered money on the weaker European economies, then crippled them with unsustainable and unrepayable debt, as the Germans refused to underwrite it. Any grudging help went to save the banks, not the individual nation.

Increasingly the EU was losing its shine. Unemployment was high, with a quarter of its young people out of work.

Germany built up huge economic surpluses, which it didn’t spend or recycle to the less successful economies. 

To manage the euro, the EU needed the economic institutions of the nation state, but the Germans couldn’t accept that.

The EU could only move forward by greater federalism to create ‘ever-closer union’ but the members didn’t want this straitjacket. It was hit by the refugee crisis and couldn’t agree on what to do about it.

 

By now Tony Blair was in Downing Street with his New Labour re-make. It wasn’t a respray job on the old jalopy but a total re-engineering

It could possibly have conciliated British public opinion by delivering benefits to Britain, whose EU membership costs were spiralling all the time. 

But it wouldn’t and didn’t. It was deadlocked: rudderless and dominated by Mrs Merkel, the most cautious politician in Europe.

Yet still Britain clung to the edge of this rickety raft.

The public were told to be happy with this developing disaster, and a Euro-enthusiastic Tory-led coalition government did nothing about it.

That is, until an overconfident David Cameron buckled to pressure in his own party and announced that he would solve his party problems by renegotiating improved terms for our membership, to be endorsed by a referendum.

 

He asked Brussels for changes to make the EU more acceptable in Britain. He got nothing worth having but still embarked on what he confidently assumed would be an easy victory.

The battle of Brexit was a thrill for me. I had stood down from Parliament by the time of the referendum. I was into my 70s and had been an MP for nigh on 40 years.

Suddenly I was in demand again. 

As one of the few survivors of that rare breed, the Labour Eurosceptic, I was hauled into debates to provide a balance to overconfident Euro-enthusiasts who couldn’t believe anyone would be insane enough to want to leave the Franco-German condominium.

It was the best fun I’d had for years. It was marvellous to harangue large audiences who were with me, for a change, rather than sitting there in stony-faced silence as Labour audiences had.

Even more wonderfully, the campaign ended in triumph. To the amazement of Cameron and the rest of Britain’s elite, he lost. The British electorate, two-thirds of whom had voted to stay in 1975, had changed its mind.

Victory was a strange new phenomenon. It had never happened to me before. I was as euphoric as any politician is ever allowed to be.

What happened, though, was in fact a peasants’ revolt rather than a triumph for my arguments.

 

The people, angered by cuts, stagnant living standards, de-industrialisation and austerity, used this unaccustomed power to express their unhappiness not just at Europe but at three decades of neo-liberal politics and globalisation which had done little or nothing for them.

The educated and the liberal middle classes had come to identify with Europe as part of their privileged way of life, and supported a union that they saw as the symbol of enlightened internationalism and civilised (ie their own) values. 

The less well-off, the less educated and the people who’d been left behind felt differently.

Britain’s elite were shocked by the nation’s rejection of their wisdom and advice. George Orwell once remarked that ‘England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality’. 

That remained true of the liberal intellectuals, who’d given up on Britain and saw Europe as the future.

For the people to reject the EU just showed how irredeemable the British were.

It was, as they saw it, a surrender to racism, xenophobia, insularity and everything liberal intellectuals dislike in their own people.

On the other hand, Eurosceptics like me saw the vote as the result of a 40-year learning experience.

For me, the referendum result was the turning point I’d hoped for since 1979. The people had achieved what the politicians had failed to do. 

It’s a shame it took so long and that so much damage was done before it came. Winning is rare in the political game. But it’s nice.

It has not, though, led to any belated acclaim coming my way. After the referendum, invitations to speak dried up as if I’d been a personal friend of Jimmy Savile. 

The Guardian lost every article I sent them (as it had before, but now without explanation or reply).

The BBC, which had used me as a tame Brexiteer throughout the campaign, once it was over immediately replaced me with a Muslim to keep up their other diversity targets.

As for what lies ahead of us, the EU’s intransigence and the weakness of an insecure Government in negotiating are making withdrawal messy and difficult. 

The Remainers don’t help. 

They denounce the vote as the result of fear, ignorance, even Russian deceit, and have unleashed another, even bigger tide of fear about the consequences.

They do everything they can to discredit the British case for withdrawal, to shackle, soften and weaken the Government’s negotiating position and to collude with the EU to resist it, in the hope that eventually the people will give up their foolishness and stay, unhappily or not, in the promised land.

The Brexiteers, in contrast, can only wait and see, hoping for a good outcome which can’t emerge until negotiations end.

The British Government has been weakened by its second election and Remain’s long rearguard action.

The EU Commission, struggling to keep its rickety show on the road and facing unmanageable difficulties in Eastern Europe and Italy, wants to punish Britain pour décourager les autres.

These are the symptoms of an impossible negotiation. I fear that the account by the former Greek minister of finance, Yanis Varoufakis, of the way the EU crushed his country’s aspirations may well be an omen of what’s to come.

Intransigence, delay and simple bloody-mindedness were their weapons — and clearly still are.

Those who believe they have a divine right to rule don’t give up easily. Nor must we.

  • Extracted from Confessions Of A Political Maverick by Austin Mitchell, to be published by Biteback on July 3 at £20. © Austin Mitchell 2018. To order a copy for £15 (25% discount), call 0844 571 0640 or go tomailshop.co.uk/books. P&P is free on orders over £15. Offer available until July 9, 2018.

 

*  *  *

 June 23, 2018

 

H.F.1583

 

 

*

 

 

 

[A

 

 

CONSTITUTIONAL

 

BETRAYAL]

 

 

BY ANDREW ROBERTS

 

HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR

 

 

'The prestige we have lost as a country needs to be

 

considered as a

 

 major national catastrophe'

 

 

 

THE humiliation that has befallen the United Kingdom over the past three years and four months as a direct result of the refusal of our political class to respect the EU refendum of

 

JUNE 2016

 

needs  to be investigated by an

 

OFFICIAL COMMITEE of INQUIRY

 

 

For there will be undoubtedly be lessons to be learned about what went wrong with our brokebn politics. and how it can be fixed.

 

[The answer is that many of the trouble rousers had been in the job

 

TOO LONG

 

We have advocated that MPs

should

 

SERVE ONLY ONE TERM]

 

 

WE might even require changes to the

 

BRITISH CONSTITUTION

 

ensuring that it can be made fit for purpose once again, and that such a vicious period of

 

OPEN DEMOCRACY

 

 

Hatred is never repeated.

 

The prestige which we have lost as a country needs to be  considered in terms of a major national catastrophe, and we need to recognise

 

 

WHAT HAD HAPPENED

 

 

AND

 

 

WHY

 

 

Fortunately there is a good deal of precedent for such an

 

 

INQUIRY

 

Many such investigations have taken place - even after wars in

 

which we were victorious.

 

 

The Roebuck Inquiry into the Crimean War uncovered many

 

abuses and inefficieencies that led to important reforms of

 

VICTORIAN SOCIETY

 

especially in its

 

MILITARYand GOVERNMENT SPHERES...

 

 

...I suspect that the person who has most to fear from the

 

INQUIRY

 

,however, is not even Theresa May, but Jeremy corbyn. His time

 

in front of the committee's cameras will make great viewing as

 

he is taken step by step through every single Labour change in

 

policy, in nuance, in prediction. WE will all be shown with total clarity how at every turn

 

HE PUT AMBITION OVER PATRIOTISM

 

AND

 

OPPORTUNISM OVER PRINCIPLE

 

History shows again and again that countries that face

 

the horrible truths

 

about traumatic periods of their past emerge better able

 

to embrace reconciliation.

 

For that reason, the sooner the

 

COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY

 

sits once BREXIT is done

 

the BETTER.

 

IT HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO.

 

*

 

 

[Many MPs are Destroyers

 

 of our unique English

 

Constitution

 

instead of Defenders]

 

[This is an extensive and learned article  and we will endeavor to cover it over the oncoming weeks. In the meantime you can click

 

HERE!

 

 For the FULL ARTICLE or Below.]

 

*

 

 

ANDREW ROBERTS: Britain needs an official

 

 

inquiry

 

on

 

Brexit

 

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7592013/

 

 

ANDREW-

 

 

ROBERTS...

 

 

 

 

19 hours ago · ANDREW ROBERTS: Britain needs an official inquiry into how the elite turned Brexit into a national humiliation. By Andrew Roberts For The Mail On Sunday. Published: ... and we need …

{COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!}

OCTOBER 20,2019

H.F.1912

 

 

*

 

[HOW IT BEGAN]

 

TREASON

 

Conservative skulduggery

BACK in 1972 -Tories desert to EU camp

SHORT-TERM SELF-INTEREST EXPLOITED

The UK Accession Bill passed its Third reading on 13th July 1972 by a majority of 17.

Earlier, the debate on the Second reading had lasted for four days (16-19 February), with the Labour Party then officially committed to opposing the legislation. BUT, as happened with the Maastricht Bill two decades later, as Christopher Booker and Richard North observe, 'faced with the possible collapse of their Government, most of the Conservative 'anti-marketeers gritted their teeth' (treacherously, short-sighted and very foolishly -Ed.) 'and walked through the 'aye' lobby. Despite that, 15 Tories voted with the Opposition. TRAITOR

Edward Heath

 got his vote, but only by a water-thin margin:

309 to 301'.

*  *  *

 

IN 2018

 WE COULDN'T TRUST THE CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER IN 1972 AND IT APPEARS WE ALSO CANNOT TRUST A CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER IN 2018-THERESA MAY-BOTH WITHHELD VITAL LEGAL INFORMATION ON THE EU FROM MPs-WHICH AS IN THE PAST INDICATES A

COVER-UP.

 *  *  *

 

Tony Benn MP commented after the passage of the Third Reading that

 ‘it was a coup d’etat by a political class who did not believe in popular sovereignty’.

 

Actually, it was worse than that .\It was the start of a coup d’etat by installments’ by a corrupted political class initially led by two operatives-Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon,

 both of whom were recruited German agents  (like Lenin, Rasputin and Lavrentii Beria in the Soviet context, before them) who signed the UK Accession Treaty in exchange for corrupt payments.  Both lied to the British people; and the authors specifically identified one of Geoffrey Rippon’s worst lies, associated with the alienation of Britain’s fishing waters, the richest in the world.  Here it is worth citing the whole of the authors’ relevant paragraph:

 ‘Desperate to hide how much had been conceded[over fisheries], Geoffrey Rippon…said:

 ‘I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements [in the relevant context, allegedly beneficial to the British fisheries-Ed.]

 which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period’.  This claim drew fierce challenge from Dennis Healey and Peter Shore [later Lord Shore –further details on EDP bulletin board] both of whom suspected he was lying. 

 What neither had yet seen was the wording of the UK Accession Treaty, which MP’s would not be allowed to examine until after the treaty was signed a month later.  Only when this became available [and Heath and Rippon had accepted their bribes-Ed.]  was it clear that Rippon had told a blatant lie’. [Booker and North, op.cit., page 155]

 International Currency Review

 October 10-2005

 Notes and References:

 ‘Obituary of Sir Edward Heath, the Prime Minister who took Britain into the EEC and presided over constant turmoil at home’,

1. The Daily Telegraph, 18th July 2005.

This was probably the rudest obituary of a prominent UK statesman ever to have appeared in print.  Even so, it omitted any reference to Heath’s recruitment by German (Nazi) intelligence.   However , there are many [coded] references in this obituary, not least the three telling words:

‘He never married’, which observers accurately interpret as meaning that he was homosexual, and therefore an obvious recruitment/blackmail target.

 

2. The Daily Telegraph, 24th July 2005,

 

Christopher Booker (Column),

 

International Currency Review

 

JANUARY 6, 2019

 

A NO DEAL!

 

[A NO DEAL IS THE ONLY DEAL THAT HITLER'S SO-CALLED EU WILL RESPECT.  THOSE CALLING FOR ANY DEAL HAVE NO IDEA OF THE TRUE NATURE OF THE SATANIC BEAST THEY ARE DEALING WITH AFTER 46 YEARS.  IT'S DAYS ARE NUMBERED BECAUSE ONCE FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES CANNOT STEM THE NATURAL INSTINCT FOR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY FROM WITHIN.  THOSE CALLING FOR ANGELA MERKEL'S FRIEND THERESA MAY'S DEAL AT ANY PRICE ARE THE SAME PERSONS  WHO HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR SOULS TO A MONSTER STATE WHERE ONLY THE ELITE WILL PROSPER. THE MAN IN THE STREET IS IGNORED AND THAT IS WHY THERE ARE RIOTS ON THE STREETS OF MANY OF THE CAPTIVE PEOPLE'S WHO WERE DECEIVED BY THEIR NOW MASTERS. TRUE DEMOCRACY IS DEAD WITHIN HITLER'S BRAINCHILD AND IS REPLACED BY SUPPLE TOTALITARIANISM- ASK THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM IN CATALONIA AND NO DOUBT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE EU.]

 

*  *  *

 

H.F.1150

 

*
 

 

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Sing-song in the Commons sums

 

 

up how absurd our MPs have become Sing - song in the

 

 

Commons as Parliament was prorogued sums...

 

LAND

 OF

HOPELESS

TORIES

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7458221/amp/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Sing-song...

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Land of hopeless Tories! Sing-song in the Commons as Parliament was prorogued sums up how absurd our MPs have become Sing-song in the Commons as Parliament was prorogued sums ...

 

 

*

 

[The present political parties in Westminster cannot be trusted to protect our world respected

ENGLISH INHERITANCE

 OF A

FREE

INDEPENDENT NATION STATE

 

therefore there should be a patriotic lobby in Parliament to prevent the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of ENGLISHMEN"

 being ever again

AT RISK

by

TRAITORS WITHIN.]

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!].

 

 

 

 

SEPTEMBER 13,2019

 

 

H.F.2021

 

*

 

AS WE ARE NEARING

 OUR

INDEPENDENCE DAY

 DO NOT RETREAT YOUR HOUR

OF

LIBERTY

 IS

AT HAND!.

FEBRUARY 15,2019
 

A CALL TO ARMS.

The Leave camp need to be ready to

DEFEND

 their

VICTORY

to  live under

 

"The Rights and

Liberties"

of

ENGLISHMEN.

WE HAVE NO WISH TO SEE A REOCCURRENCE  OF THE BLOODY REVOLUTION  in 1642 IN EDGE HILL-WARWICKSHIRE

TO RETAIN

THE

Rights and Liberties of Englishmen'

 AND SUBSEQUENT  BATTLES AROUND THE COUNTRY.

THE REASON FOR A CALL TO ARMS IS BECAUSE MILLIONS OF THE FRIENDS OF FRAU MERKEL WILL NOT ACCEPT THE RETURN OF THEIR ONCE

FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND

AND WILL USE ALMOST ANY MEANS TO ENSLAVE THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS FOR EVER IN THE NOW INTENDED TRI-NATION SUPER-STATE OF GERMANY-FRANCE AND ITALY.

THE SHEER ARROGANCE OF THE SPONSORS OF HITLER'S WAR-TIME PLANNED SUPER-STATE IS NOW A REALITY.

THE GREATER NUMBER STILL SUPPORTING THE  BEAST OF BRUSSELS

-BRAIN-WASHED-MIND-BENDING PROPAGANDA-BETRAYERS OF THEIR SACRED INHERITANCE OF

MAGNA CARTA

 FOUGHT FOR FOR OVER 800 YEARS -SO SOUGHT FOR  AND PROTECTED IN ALMOST HALF THE WORLD.

IF IT HAS TO BE THEN WE MUST FIGHT AS WE ARE IN THE RIGHT AND CANNOT ACCEPT ANY COMPROMISE TO THAT OF THE RETURN OF OUR ONCE FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STARE.

TO SHOW THAT WE ARE READY THERE NEEDS TO BE RALLIES AROUND THE COUNTRY IN THOSE CROMWELLIAN BATTLE FIELDS OF THE

ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

IT IS AGAIN THE ROUNDHEADS AGAINST THE CAVALIERS

WILL YOU DO IT?

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

[BY A COINCIDENCE WE ONLY REALISED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DAY AFTER WE HAD COMPLETED OUR WORK.

JULY 4-

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

 

WHEN WILL WE CELIBRATE OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY?]

H. F. 824 FREEDOM NOW.

H.F.1800

*
AFTER 46 YEARS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE

 BEAST!

 IN BRUSSELS AND BERLIN .

OUR HISTORIC  ENGLISH SEA HIGHWAYS GIVEN AWAY BY THE TRAITOROUS EDWARD HEATH WILL BE RETURNED IN MARCH 2019.

'Ye mariners of England/that guard our native seas/Whose flag has braved a thousand years/The battle and the breeze'.

Thomas Campbell.(1777-1844) Ye Mariners of England

In September 1654 Cromwell summoned his first Parliament. The Speaker was  William Lenthall the greatest and most respected holder of that HIGH OFFICE during the English Civil War.

The Lord Protector said

"the main object in calling Parliament was that

"the ship of the commonwealth may be brought into a safe harbour."

 

 [Is not this our aim in our day?]

 

 [LETTER]

For the Honourable William Lenthall, Speaker of the Commons

House of Parliament: these,

Sir                                      Harborough, 14th June, 1645           

Being commanded by you to this service, I think myself bound to acquaint you with the good hand of God towards you and us.

We marched yesterday after the King, who went before us from Daventry to Harborough; and quartered about six miles from him.  This day we marched before him.  He drew out to meet us; both Armies engaged.  We, after three hours fight very doubtful, at last routed his Army; killed and took about 5000,-very many officers, but of what quality we yet know not.   We took also about 200 carriages, all he had; and all his guns, being 12 in number, whereof two were demi-cannon, two demi-culverins, and I think the rest sackers.  We pursued the Enemy from three miles short of Harborough to nine beyond, even to the sight of Leicester, whither the King fled.

Sir, this is none other but the hand of God; and to Him alone belongs the glory, wherein none are to share with Him.  The General served you with all faithfulness and honour: and the best commendation I can give him is, That I daresay he attributed all to God, and would rather perish than assume to himself. Which is an honest and a thriving way:-and yet as much for bravery may be given to him, in this action.  Sir, they are trusty; I beseech you, in the name of God, not to discourage them. I wish this action may beget thankfulness and humility in all that are concerned in it.  He that ventures his life for liberty of his country, I wish he trust God for the liberty of his conscience, and you for the liberty he fights for.  In this he rests, who is

Your most humble servant,

OLIVER CROMWELL

*

[Page 171-PART II FIRST CIVIL WAR-14th June 1645-LETTERSXXiX., NASEBY-OLIVER CROMWELL'S LETTERS AND SPEECHES by THOMAS CARLYLE-1888 ]

 

Is not this the wish of the majority in England in our day with regard to

BREXIT?

The dangerous and ironical situation we have faced in our day could have been avoided if Cromwell's "Fundamentals of the Constitution" -had been protected in law as with certain articles in

 Magna Carta.

What a previous Speaker of the House of Commons stated about the PROTECTION of the CONSTITUTION in the 1980's

 

The English People

 were betrayed by

 Parliament and the Monarchy.

TREASON

 

*

AND

ENGLAND'S

GREAT ESCAPE

 FROM

HITLER'S  FOURTH REICH

See also: eutruth.org.uk-Why we are leaving!-if you need a reminder?

*

AUGUST 21,2017

H.F.1285

*
 

 BROUGHT-FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER-2005

Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

 

SO WHY DIDN'T WE?

*

 

A further article from the ONLY sole INDEPENDENT world-wide respected International Currency Review under the heading:

 

*

 

*

CAN BRITAIN WITHHOLD ITS EC CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

PERTINENT LEGAL ADVICE BY LEOLIN PRICE, QUEEN’S COUNSEL

 

The following Legal Opinion was provided by the distinguished veteran constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price QC, in response to a request to consider the following questions:

1. )  Can ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of UK taxpayers’ money (i.e., of UK Government funds) by the European Commission and/or European Union; and

2. ) Can Britain withhold its contributions to the EC budget on the ground that UK taxpayers’ funds are being misused (embezzled, defrauded, misappropriated, misallocated, misrepresented, etc)? But in reality, these questions are themselves superfluous since, as exposed in this issue [of International Currency Review-Vol 30,4 dated October 10-2005, cstory@worldreports.org

 

  Britain’s EU membership was procured fraudulently, so that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Britain has every right to leave the EU unilaterally and to cease payment.

 

1.    I preface this Opinion by acknowledging that I am not aware of any precedent for the sort of proceedings in court against Ministers of the Crown, whether civil or criminal, which I am asked to consider.

2.                  But there are two relevant principles of English law to be borne firmly in mind: first, that the King (or Queen) can do no wrong [We must make it clear at the outset that this does not include King Tony-whatever he may think]; secondly, that every subject of the Queen is subject to the RULE OF LAW and equal before the law.  There is no special privilege or status for Ministers or other officers of the Crown.

 

They are vulnerable and ought to be answerable in our courts if something which they have done is not properly authorised by law, infringes the rights of individuals and causes damage.

3.There is also learning about when an officer of the Crown can plead, as a defence to a claim by someone who has suffered from some act of that officer, that what was done was an ‘Act of State’.  A British subject cannot sue the Queen (because the ‘Queen can do no wrong’); and if an act, of which a British subject complains of, is in civil law, a tort, the officer cannot assert that the act complained of was an act, which had been authorised by the Crown (in reality the Government).

 

The Act of State is not available to the officer in that situation.  He must, if he can, show that what was done was a lawful exercise of some power lawfully conferred by

Act of Parliament

Or

Otherwise:

 

See, for example, Johnson v Peglar [1921] 2AC 262.

 

4.)             But a somewhat different line of modern authority R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p Smedley [1985] AC657 recognises that a person – in ex p Smedley, a British taxpayer and elector – may have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring judicial review proceedings against Government authorities and Ministers.

 

·    Can Ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of taxpayers’ money (i.e. of UK Government funds) by the European union?

5.)             This is the first – and primary – question on which I am asked to advise [Leolin Price, Queen’s Counsel]

6.)             My answer is that our Courts will not recognise that any direct responsibility is imposed by Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the subsequent application, by the Commission of the European Communities Act or the EU, of our taxpayers’ money which is paid over in accordance with the established legal procedures for making our contributions to the European Union.

7.)             But the history and circumstances of fraud, at the centre of the European Union and in ‘Member States’, and the conspicuous failure of the Commission or the European Union to establish any proper (and obviously necessary) accountancy controls over what happens to the money which is provided by ‘Member States’, has produced a situation in which the British elector and taxpayer may reasonably consider that it is a failure of duty for the Government, Chancellor of the Chequer and treasury to go on handing over our money to what he may reasonably consider is an organisation which is incapable of doing and unwilling to do, anything effective about the corrupt and fraudulent diversion of EU funds.  The history of incapacity and unwillingness includes the following:

(1)    The resignation of the whole Commission upon its acknowledgement of collective responsibility for corruption and fraud.

(2)    In spite of that admission of collective responsibility, the continuation in office of all but one of the resigned Commissioners.

(3)    A continuing failure to establish a minimum of accounting controls over the Commission’s expenditure of money at the centre or within ‘Member States’

(4)    Failure by the Commission, in response to acknowledged and massive misuse of EU money, to establish any regime with a minimum of efficiency and designed in accordance with modern accountancy standards to monitor the expenditure of EU money and to minimise its misuse.

(5)    The apparent inability of the Commission to prevent, or reasonably to combat and control, the corrupt and fraudulent misuse of EU money, including contributions from the United Kingdom.

 

8.           Faced with that history, a UK elector and taxpayer could reasonably expect his Government to suspend, wholly or partly, the further contribution of money from the United Kingdom to the European Union in the continuing absence of proper EU accountancy and controls to combat and contain fraud and corruption and other misuse of EU money; and could reasonably expect English Courts to support his claim for such suspension.

9.           In the circumstances, and before the next instalment of the UK contribution to the EU is to be paid, a UK taxpayer could apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the making of the payment on the ground that no responsible Minister of Department of OUR Government could regard it as appropriate to pay over money without any reasonable expectation or even hope that the recipient EU institutions have made any reasonable arrangements to avoid its being, with other EU money, misused.  Experience, especially experience since the collective resignation of the Commission [in 1999], indicates that the money so contributed will be at serious risk of not being used for the purposes for which our Treaty obligations and our law require it to be contributed [sic].

10.  Will such judicial review proceed -ings be successful? The practical and realistic answer is that the [English] Courts will be reluctant to permit the review; but there is a presentable argument, and although there is no previous reported case which provides a precise precedent, it represents a logical development of what has been recognised in reported cases; and the continuing scandal about misuse of EU money provides ground for seriously contending that judicial review ought to be, and is, available to stop exposing UK money to the obvious risk of EU failure to avoid misuse.

11.      The withholding of Treaty-required contributions, which are at serious risk of not being properly used for Treaty purposes, is not-or arguably, is not- a breach of Treaty obligations. [Editor; However as is shown in this issue – of International Currency Review Vol 30,4 the treaty obligations themselves are not applicable,

since the

British Accession Treaty, and collective treaties, were signed for corrupt reward by agents of a Foreign Power.]

12.  The argument will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Crown servant, is a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it is a breach of the duties involved in that guardianship to pay over money which, in the hands of the recipient Commission and the EU, will be at such serious risk of misuse.  The First defence will be that the payment is required by our Treaty obligations and by Acts of Parliament; but the answer to that is that the Treaty obligations and Parliament provide authority for payment to support Treaty purposes and NOT to expose the money to established and substantial risk of misuse.

13.   An alternative form of proceedings might be criminal proceedings against the Chancellor for misuse of public money under his control.  The argument for this is that the payment is a serious breach of public duty:  it condones and encourages and facilitates the misuse, and the misuse is foreseeable.  Those instructing me may consider it worthwhile attempting such a criminal case; and it may be that the launching of such a criminal case will achieve judicial discussion of the public duty and its breach.  It is, nevertheless, my opinion that such criminal proceedings will not be successful.

14.      , The better choice of proceedings is judicial review.

 

19th October 2004.

Leolin Price CBE QC,

10 Old Square,

Lincoln’s Inn,

London.

  [Font altered-bolding & underling used-comments in brackets]

 

*         *          *

NOV/05

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 PATRIOT AND TRUTHSEEKER

 

 

  [BROUGHT FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER 2005.]

 

H.F.1295-FREEDOM IS OUR RIGHT!

*
If

BREXIT

 is such a disaster, how come Europe's firms have doubled their stake in the UK?

By Alex Brummer-CITY EDITOR

 

March 5,2019

 

ALEX BRUMMER: If Brexit is such a disaster, how come ... - Daily Mail

A VISITOR from Mars tuning into events in Britain in recent months would rightly be shocked by the political paralysis in Westminster, the calamitous state of the motor industry, and the mortal damage to immediate business confidence caused by Brexit uncertainty.

Yet while there clearly are difficulties, the nation is selling itself short if it believes that this is the only story.

One doesn't have to be a swivel-eyed Brexiteer to recognise that if one looks over the horizon, beyond Brexit, there is much about Britain to inspire confidence in the future. Not least the fact that it is still the most favoured nation among the 28 states of the European Union for direct investment from overseas.

Boost

What makes this even more remarkable is that many of those keeping faith in Britain are state-directed sovereign wealth funds, run, owned and managed by foreign countries.

 The world's largest sovereign wealth fund, Norway -worth around £740bn as a result of the country's oil and gas revenues-recently announced it would continue to invest, and even increase investment, in Britain over the next three decades. If ever there was a moral boost in these uncertain times, THIS IS IT.

In addition, even as Brussels negotiators are playing hard-ball with the May government and warning of the calamity of

NO DEAL

It's clear that European investors do not believe Brexit will have a wholly negative impact on Britain. New data this week shows that in the past 12 months, EU businesses ploughed a staggering £23.9bn into the UK in the shape of property deals, corporate acquisitions and buying stakes in UK firms.

The data, collected by an offshoot of the credit rating agency Standard & Poor's shows there are 553 separate purchases of assets and that investment was up from £16bn on the previous 12 months and £10.5bn in the same period of 2016-17.Overall, European businesses have more than doubled the sums they have invested in Britain in the last three years-which is hardly a vote of no confidence.

Neither sovereign wealth funds, nor, for that matter, firms based in EU countries have any political reason to be part of a 'Project Cheer', boosting the UK simply to make the public feel better about our momentous decision to

LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION.

All of the bodies involved are hard-nosed investors -and they clearly have faith in the long-term stability of Britain's democracy, the tremendous value to be found from investment in prime UK real estate (especially in the City of London), the excellent long-term returns to be gained from shares in Britain's privatised utilities and the  pre-eminence of research and innovation in the UK.

How ironic that this message of confidence in a post-Brexit future is being voiced not by our squabbling and largely Remain-supporting political class but by overseas investors such as Norway's fund talking with their wallets.

Norway, like the UK, has been an enormous beneficiary of the munificence of the North Sea in yielding oil and natural gas, which is still the bedrock of our energy supplies, despite the drive to be more green.

But whereas the UK allowed the free market to decide where the North Sea went -higher shares prices and dividends from oil companies boosted private pension funds, and the HMRC took its share to help finance the NHS and other public services  - Norway directed the vast majority into the sovereign wealth fund which since 1990 has accumulated some £750bn of assets for future generations.

Britain has been a destination of choice for Norway's wealth fund ever since its inception and the country holds stakes worth an astonishing £62bn - around 8 per cent of its total investments - in some of Britain's biggest enterprises. These include HSBC, which is the nation's most profitable and global bank, the largest oil company, BP and UK debt.

There is no greater compliment any foreign state can pay than to invest in the bonds, known inn the UK as gilt edged stock, issued by another company.

Far from being deterred by the turbulence caused by

BREXIT

funds like Norway's believe it presents an opportunity because it has had an impact on asset prices in the UK.

Shares in Britain's key FTSE100 companies have lagged behind those of their overseas counterparts. This is despite the fact that firms ranging from Jonnie Walker spirits company Diageo to British Airways owner International Airlines Group are still punching hugely above their weight in world terms.

Vibrant

The continued success of the City makes its skyscrapers a source of constant attention for overseas investors, from the Gulf States to greater China. Indeed, Britain is now the number one favoured location for investment by Beijing, which has put money into projects ranging from Hinckley Point, the new nuclear plant in Somerset, to Heathrow Airport

Brexit or not, Britain remains a major target for corporate and sovereign investors. My own conversations with those in charge of investment funds have revealed that a bigger worry than Brexit is the possibility of a government led by Jeremy Corbyn and his anointed Chancellor John McDonnell rushing to take valuable privately held assets, such as water companies back into public ownership.

Certainly, Brexit may have affected domestic business investment but it has had little impact on how other countries view our nation.

Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2017 the  value of direct foreign investment in the UK rose by £149bn. Our vibrant financial services sector, a pioneer in developing financial technology, pulled in an astonishing £385bn, up 19.5 per cent from 2016 - the year of the

REFERENDUM.

Among the sovereign wealth funds, along with Norway and China, those most attracted to the UK are the Gulf States of Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

The Qataris are in charge of the redevelopment of one of the most totemic buildings in central London, the former American Embassy in Grosvenor Square.

Magnet

They are also the biggest owner of shares in grocer J Sainsbury, with 22per cent of the stock, and in one of the pillars of the City, the London Stock Exchange, where it is the biggest shareholder with a 10.3per cent stake.

It is hardly surprising the Emir Sheikh Tamim has enjoyed accompanying the Queen in the parade down the racecourse at Royal Ascot.

There is little doubt sovereign investment funds from around the world, as well as some wealthy individual investors such as Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing, the owner of the nation's busiest port at Felixstowe, see Britain as the bargain basement of the world.

The 15 per cent devaluation of the pound since the referendum, together with the weakness of share prices, is a magnet for investors willing to look to the

 LONG TERM.

There is an obsession among UK and American investors about judging investments in shares and other assets by what is likely to happen over the next three months, let alone the next three or even 30 years.

How reassuring is it to know Britain has friends out there confident enough to ignore those who wail about impending disaster because of

BREXIT

-AND

INSTEAD SEE A LAND OF OPPORTUNITY.

*

By Alex Brummer-CITY EDITOR

 

March 5,2019

 

ALEX BRUMMER: If Brexit is such a disaster, how come ... - Daily Mail

*  *  *

 

H.F.1825

*

 

May 'doesn't see upside from BREXIT

[AS WE SUSPECTED FROM THE BEGINNING. HOW COULD AN AVID SUPPORTER OF THE EU  HAVE ACTED OTHERWISE?]

DAILY MAIL

 

SATURDAY, MARCH 2,2019

Nick Timothy-THERESA MAY'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF HAS CLAIMED SHE REGARDS BREXIT

AS

'DAMAGE LIMITATION'.

Nick Timothy, who lost his job over the Tories' disastrous election campaign of 2017, said she and mainly her ministers' struggle to see any economic upside to BREXIT.

He told the BBC:

They see it as a damage limitation exercise.

If you see it in nthat way inevitably you're not going to be prepared to take the steps that would enable you to fully realise the economic opportunities of

LEAVING.

In a separate interview with Channel 4 News, Mr Timothy said the UK had made4 mistakes in Brexit negotiations, including

 by

allowing the EU to determine the sequence of talks.

 

He said the Government should have spent money earlier on preparing for a

NO DEAL

 BREXIT

and should have been more 'robust' in pushing areas of UK advantage. 'Some of it is to do with negotiating style,' he said.

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

SATURDAY, MARCH 2,2019

*  *  *

[AND WHAT WE BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION

IN APRIL 2018]

 
 

TREASON

 

'Fellowship in treason is a bad ground of confidence'

EDMUND BURKE
comment image

See: 80 Comments

[WE were surprised a matter of some months ago when we saw the close warm greeting between Mrs May and Angela Merkel when they met to discuss BREXIT. WE expected that they would have kept at arms length ,at the time, that  a distance between them would have given more confidence to Brexiteers that the negotiations would not be a 'SELL OUT' which in some areas such as our Fishing Fields and the sovereignty of our sea lanes... we now have our suspicions. ]

APRIL 9,2018

As the picture above clearly shows it has been decades of association between Theresa May and  Frau Merkel who was a civil servant under the  Communist East German Government.  May's treasonous Cabinet plan appears to have all the hallmarks of the mindset of the German Chancellor.  May has admitted that she is in close contact with her once teen age friend so we should'nt be surprised if more bad news follows?

AUGUST 7,2018

HOW CAN YOU TRUST THEM

ONLY A CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP TO A TRUE BREXIT BELIEVER CAN ENSURE A CLEAN BREAK

FROM

HITLER'S

 PLANNED SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

OUR FUTURE PROSPERITY MUST BE IN OUR HANDS AS A FAMILY OF NATION STATES IN OUR OWN ISLAND HOME. IT IS A LEGACY FROM THE PAST THAT MUST BE HANDED INTACT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS-IT IS NOT OURS TO DISREGARD AS TRAITORS WITHIN IN OUR GOVERNMENT  AND CIVIL SERVICE DID SO IN 1970's . 

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN HANDED THE LEADERSHIP TO WINSTON CHURCHILL in 1940. SO LIKEWISE THERESA MAY SHOULD HAND THE LEADERSHIP IN 2018 TO A TRUE BREXITEER TO ENSURE THAT

JUSTICE IS DONE!

SEPTEMBER 6,2018

H.F.1525/1

 

H.F.1823

*
 

SUNDAY EXPRESS

 

 

Time we MPs started working for all of you

by Philip Davies
 

TORY MP

FOR SHIPLEY

MARCH 10-2019

ISN'T the House of Commons there to represent the people of the United Kingdom? It might seem a strange question but are MPs actually rtepresenting people on key issues?

Many MPs now seem to advocate representing the public on a politically correct tick box. Not a day goes by without someone mentioning the need to

 "represent/reflect the communities we serve"

Back in the real world, in terms of truly representing the people (rather than obsessing about someone's gender or skin colour) how are you feeling?

 Absolutely abysmally I'd say.

The most head-grabbing current example is Parliament's continuing mission to try to

frustate

BREXIT

We know the House of Commons is out of touch on

[HITLER'S]

EU.

Around 75 per cent of MPs voted for or campaigned for

REMAINING IN THE EU.

[A REMAINER PARLIAMENT]

However the [June 23-2016] result was that people voted to

LEAVE

and yet still many MPs seem to think they can cast aside public opinion like an old sweet rapping and carry on as they were before the public [their masters] came up with an answer

THEY DID NOT LIKE.

['THE BASTARDS'

AS  DAILY MAIL'S QUENTIN LETTS HAS RIGHTLY CALLED THEM. ]

We knew the EU would try to do that but shouldn't we expect better from our own MPS?

After all, they were telling voters this was a once in a lifetime chance to record

THEIR OPINION .

This does not sit comfortably with many MPs spending every waking hour

since

TRYING TO DISHONOUR THE RESULT

especially when most MPs elected since the referendum stood on a manifesto

 with a clear commitment to implement

BREXIT

YOU do not have to look far for another example of the chasm between

PARLIAMENT  and PEOPLE

The public's view on law and order compared to the Government's are chalk and cheese more police and want them on the streets

They want tougher action on criminals and tougher sentences for most crimes.

In a poll a few years ago asking views on a sentencing escalator (repeat offenders given increasing harsh sentences for committing the same crime again)

90 per cent of the public were in favour.

So, are we doing that?

NO

Not only are we not, this government is now touting the idea that there should be a presumption against short sentences-possibly six months or fewer. You might have thought, "Great, we shall now get longer sentences-Alas, no, Short sentences will be replaced by

NO SENTENCES AT ALL

It is a ludicrous suggestion yet, with all eyes on

BREXIT

It is genuinely being pursued by the

[SO-CALLED]

Ministry of Justice.

Never mind the public, just ask police officers what they think, then brace yourself...

IT IS HARD TO GET SENT TO PRISON AS IT IS: YOU EITHER HAVE TO COMMIT A REALLY SERIOUS CRIME OR OFFEND SOMANY TIMES THAT THERE'S NO OTHER OPTION. SOMEONE MANAGED TO BE CONVICTED OF

62 SHOPLIFTING OFFENCES

BEFORE FINALLY BEING SENT TO

 JAIL.

OFFENDERS SENTENCED TO SIX MONTHS OR FEWER LAST YEAR HAD RACKED UP AN AVERAGE OF

55 previous offences each.

THEY HAD also received an average of five community orders, which clearly didn't work.

Around 2000 knife offenders received six months or fewer. In a knife crime epidemic, who in their right minds would not want to see these offenders in prison. At least, while they are serving their sentences

THEY ARE NOT CONTINUING OFFENDING.

THEN, there's overseas aid. We spend more on that than on policing and double what we spend on our

[SO-CALLED]

JUSTICE BUDGET

This money is fixeds, ring-fenced and

WILL ONLY INCREASE

People do not generally share politicians' desire to waste money as if it is going out of fashion to make themselves feel better.

To add insult to injury, people then hear of billions spent on ridiculous projects or syphoned off by corrupt officials. This happens in a department whose mission is to spend as much as possible so there can be a luvvie hug when we hit a random target. As with the overseas aid cult, there's the religion of

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

which has a huge following in Parliament.

Many MPs are obsessed with tick boxes' so-called

POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION

They refuse to speak the truth for fear of upsetting minority groups and twist the facts to suit the agenda.

Heaven help anyone who challenges this cosy politically-correct concensus, I have tried.

Yet most people are fed up with political correctness. Hardly anyone identifies as a feminist. They just want men and women to be treated fairly and equally. But Parliament makes our laws and so politically correct tentacles spread.

These are key issues where Parliament is not representing our vies and I haven't even started on HS2. And we know manyMPS nthink of voters who do not share their Left-wing or Remain views.

Being out of sync with the

PUBLIC

should be of grave concern. For a democracy to work, people have to feel that thoswe in the Commons

SPEAK FOR THEM.

This isn't happening and MPs should fear the backlash that will come if this continues.

*  *  *

[Need we look elsewhere for the great problems we are experiencing at the present time to extract our once

FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE

FROM

HITLER'S PLAN

FOR

GERMANY TO DOMINATE

EUROPE

IN THE

PEACE]

 

*

THE PUBLIC

THEY WANT MORE POLICE AND WANT THEM ON THE STREETS.

PREVIOUS PRIME MINISTERS AND HOME SECRETARIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARNAGE ON THE STREETS TO DAY IN 2019.

 

[The EDP for decades has many bulletins showing how many important  public issues have and are still being ignored by successive governments. As the excellent article above has shown it is the dim-witted members of the House of Commons who have been there too long that has created this Mad Parliament feature. AS in Cromwell's Day the way to deal with the trash is to kick them out of Parliament. WE have advocated for decades that MPS should only SERVE THEIR COUNTRY for a TERM-at present 5 years. At present many MPs look on the job as for life which reflects in their arrogance and treasonable behaviour. The change will enable those who wish give up 5 years TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY instead of THEMSELVES  from across our society, to do so.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

*  *  *

SUNDAY EXPRESS

-Time we MPs started working for all of you

by Philip Davies
 

TORY MP

FOR SHIPLEY

*

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

MARCH 10,2019

*  *  *

[A REMINDER! FROM THE PAST]

OF A COUNTRY RIDDLED WITH TREASON]

The EU’s control structure in Britain

The following are all involved with building the EU dictatorship.  An estimate of the percentage of members involved with this agenda or its associated corruption is shown alongside. This is not an exhaustive list.

The Bilderbergers – Europe wide

A society of 140 top politicians and the powerful, whose main concern is building the EU police state:  96%. All our Prime Ministers since Ted Heath have been Bilderbergers.  This society has sufficient members within the leaderships of the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties, that it can choose the candidates who stand for leader. They threw Margaret Thatcher out and replaced her with a compliant Bilderberger, John Major. Tony Blair, David Cameron and Gordon Brown (who joined in 1991), are Bilderbergers and work for the EU, not for the voters they pretend to represent. That is why your vote makes no difference.

Britain is the target

Amongst its 27 nations, Britain is the main target. They know from our long history and two world wars the EU dictatorship cannot be built while there is a strong and freedom loving Britain on its doorstep. 

   For that reason the EU’s British sympathisers have been undermining us with scores of Frankfurt School subversion techniques since the 1950’s, including control of the media, the corruption of our courts, political correctness to prevent debate, undermining teachers and the family.

    That is why, for example, the French don’t implement many EU regulations, but in Britain our fifth column implements the lot, and gold plates them.

The Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst Intelligence department

Controls development of the EU. Set up by Adolf Hitler in 1942, who created the EU as the EEC in 1940.  Recruits British politicians including

EDWARD HEATH

 

Geoffrey Rippon and Roy Jenkins

, and major British newspapers for the EU.  Some of our top politicians are DVD assets now (possibly Milliband, Brown, Blair), we may not know who until their deaths.

The Conservative Party

The leadership: 75%. Penetrated by a pro-EU leadership since the 1960’s, the Conservative Party is the primary instrument of the European Union in Britain.  The Party founded Common Purpose in 1970, and created the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in 1992 as a honey trap to neutralise activists.   

    The Conservatives say at elections they will do something minor about the EU (eg. Cameron promised to leave the European People’s Party; he lied). They never do - its leaders are deeply dedicated to the EU; the likes of Cameron and Francis Maude would rather be in the EU than be in power, traitors to their nation and to Conservative voters.

Labour and the Lib Dems

Their leaderships (60%) have been EU controlled for 15 years. A vote for these three parties is a vote for the EU dictatorship. We have a one party state. Nigel Farage leader of UKIP and Nick Griffin of the BNP both work for the EU.

The Freemasons:

The top 10% of Britain’s 400,000 active freemasons.  Most freemasons would be horrified if they knew what their own leadership are up to, or what their real goals are. See http://www.bilde4rberger.org/masons.html

http://www.bilderberg,org/masons.html

 to find out.

(It is difficult to be promoted above the rank of sergeant in the police if you are not a freemason, slightly higher ranks in the Army, Royal Navy and RAF).

The Legal Profession:

Law Lords 80%, Lawyers as a whole: 65%.  British justice is now utterly corrupt. See our August issue. Law Lords refuse to enforce our long and written British Constitution, under which the EU is an illegal regime. They are themselves guilty of misprision of treason - the crime of refusing to act when they know treason has been committed.

Common Purpose:

The EU’s criminal local control organisation with 25,000 members: 60% involved. Many members think its all above board, and do not realise they have not been selected.

   Common Purpose

 

 

have penetrated the BBC, where four hundred of them control news and current affairs, our newspapers, council executives, the Church of England, the NHS which over 20 years they have deliberately destroyed from within, social services, our police and many more.  Common Purpose members control the Quango budget, £167 billion, and the NHS budget, £90 billion, ie about £210 billion, or 1/3 of our taxes.

 

Among all the above are about 30,000 dedicated British traitors sabotaging our nation, with 100,000 "useful idiots "implementing the EU’s corruption, and feeding off its gravy train. But there are 62 million of us; we need to shake off their disinformation, realise the truth, and kick them all out of office. To stop these 55,000 fraudsters, we need just 10,000 of you.

David Noakes.

http://eutruth,org.uk.

 

H.F.1828

 

 

*
 

We've suffered

47 years of

penal servitude

[IN HITLER'S PLANNED-EU]

 

COMMENTARY

By Jacob Rees-Mogg MP

GEOFFREY COX'S main task as he negotiates with the European Union is to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse or, as Rumpelstiltskin did the fairy tale, weave gold from straw.

It is not an easy task as the Government's negotiating hand has been undermined by those who never accepted the result of the referendum and think that they-with their preternatural powers -know best.

On the other hand, it is simple. The Attorney General needs to insert an end date into the treaty or something of equal legal force.

The Withdrawal Agreement is a rotten accord. It condemns the United Kingdom to at least 21 months of vassalage at a cost of £39billion,

Yet everything other than the backstop has an expiry date-after a certain point the nation's freedom and control would be restored.

After 47 years of penal servitude a final few months is tolerable. However, the backstop could last forever and would tie this country's hands in terms of

REGULATIONS

CUSTOMS

and the rulings of the

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE.

 in areas without a formal ability to leave.

'Leaving without an agreement is nothing to be frightened about'.

Although fewer areas of British life would be affected than is currently the case, in these departments there would be even less control as there is now.

There would also be the absurdity of replacing a treaty that can be revoked with two years' notice with one that is perpetual.

The Lisbon Treaty, the de facto constitution of the EU allows a member state to depart after giving two years notice. THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT contains no such provision.

There would seem some logic in saying to the EU

 "LET US COPY ARTICLE 50 and paste it into this agreement"

as then the backstop could be cancelled with fair notice and the position would be no worse than today.

If Geoffrey Cox could achieve this then his return to westminster would be a heroic one.

If this cannot be achieved then the default position is that the UK

LEAVES WITHOUT A DEAL.

Some MPs say that they could never agree to this but many   of them voted for the Article 50 Act that sets out the timetable and then stood on a Conservative manifesto WHICH STATED.

"NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL."

If such people were to use Parliamentary prestidigitation to delay, in the hope of preventing BREXIT, the honour and trustworthiness of politicians would fall to a new low. if honour and truth prevail instead then on march 29 there would be an opportunity to use the gains of departure for

THE NATION'S BENEFIT.

Leaving without an agreement is nothing to be frightened about. it opens the door to prosperity. the Chancellor ought to welcome it and use the £39billion, which would otherwise be

WASTED IN EUROPE.

It could be spent on projects that would help the country and taxpayers keep more of their own money which they would, on the whole spend more wisely than the Government spends it for them.

EU taxes that hit the least well off most, such as the requirement to put Vat on domestic fuel, should go, as could tarriffs on goods not produced in this country. Perhaps taxpayers may even want some of their money spent on more police to help reduce knife crime .

The EU, asd its Eurozone economies stagnate again, is jealous of this potential success and obdurate in negotiations. It constantly offers TOO LITTLE and asks TOO MUCH and has shown over the last two years why it is so important to

LEAVE.

If the Attorney General succeeds it is the EU that would benefit, the UK will gain as long as it is out of this failed system.

DAILY EXPRESS-We've suffered 47 years of penal servitude-Commentary by Jacob Rees MP

MARCH 10-2019

H.F.1816

*

 

 BROKEN PROMISE

The decision of the DAILY MAIL to no longer support

BREXIT

is analogous to a newspaper that supported

THE END OF SLAVERY

(and what are we in reality but slaves withi HITLER'S

so-called

 EUROPEAN UNION)

to no longer do so because their was a

CHANGE OF EDITOR

was not in keeping with ONE of THE watchfull responsibilities of

the

FOURTH ESTATE

of our

CONSTITUTION.

THE ISSUE IN BOTH INSTANCES IS ABOUT

FREEDOM

OF

PERSON and COUNTRY

 

What could be more important in the lives of a people with

MAGNA CARTA

PETITION OF RIGHT

HABEAS CORPU

TRIAL BY JURY...

IN ITS LONG ISLAND HISTORY IN THEIR ONCE

FREE INDEPENDENT  NATION STATE

OF

 
 ENGLAND

 IN OUR ISLAND HOME?

THANKFULLY , AT LEAST THE DAILY MAIL IS PERMITTING A SMALL BAND OF PATRIOTS TO CARRY ON THEIR ONCE CAMPAIGN  SUCH AS RICHARD LITTLEJOHN and others  who are UPHOLDING alone

OTHERS HAVE BROKEN

THE TRADITION OF A FREE PRESS AND AN IMPLIED PROMISE.

FREEDOM

'All we have of freedom-all we use or know - this our fathers bought for us, long and long ago.

Kipling. The Old Issue

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold.

Which Milton held.'

WORDSWORTH

*
 ENGLAND

All our past proclaims our future; Shakespeare's voice and Nelson's hand,

Milton's faith and Wordsworth's trust in this our chosen and chainless land,

Bear us witness; come the world

 [Hitler's EU]

against her

ENGLAND YET SHALL STAND.

SWINBURNE,

THERE IS STILL TIME FOR THE TRUE YEOMEN OF THE ENGLISH  SHIRES TO STAND STEADFAST TOGETHER   TO SAVE OUR PAST INHERITANCE AND RESECURE OUR FUTURE.

The so-called European Union is a BEAST of PREY sucking the entrails of its captive peoples in their once proud FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES now only provinces governed by an arrogant elite who are looking forward to their increased lordom within a gorging Super-state.  The example shown by their utter contempt for negotiation on BREXIT has shown the true colours of that suffocating and monstrous COLLECTIVE the ENEMY of its BONDED PEOPLES.

*

DECEMBER  8,2018

 

 STATEMENT OF THE

ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY

1994-2017

Over the past 20 years the EDP in our endeavour to SET ENGLAND FREE from the BEAST of BRUSSELS we  have had the assistance of a FREE PRESS as evidenced by the large number of articles which have appeared on our bulletin website since 2003.

In the main it has been the major contribution from the Daily Mail and it was only when that newspaper gave full backing to BREXIT that the future freedom of the English People and Nation was finally assured.

Regretfully, at the eleventh hour the Daily Mail changed its supportive policy on Brexit with the appointment of a new Editor. This manoeuvre is tantamount to those few occasions in our  past English history when in time of battle a traitorous ally either leaves the battlefield or changes sides.

*

'He is a freeman whom the truth makes free, and all are slaves beside.'

 WILLIAM COWPER(1731-1800) Eng. poet

'Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, these are principles that have guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.'

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826] 3rd President of US

 

 "All our past proclaims our future; Shakespeare's voice and Nelson's hand, Milton's faith and Wordsworth's trust in our chosen and chainless land. Bear witness; come the world against her.  

England yet shall stand".
 

JANUARY 9,2017

 

H.F.1084

 

hH.F.1770

 

*
MAR-

17

 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-

18

 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-

18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 		SEP 19

OCT-19

NOV-19

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links-

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

Multiculturalism As A Tool To Divide And Conquer: The Layman's ...-

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

IMMIGRATION-BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS  FOREIGN AID FILE
AFTER 46 YEARS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF BRUSSELS AND BERLIN .

OUR HISTORIC  ENGLISH SEA HIGHWAYS GIVEN AWAY BY THE TRAITOROUS EDWARD HEATH WILL BE RETURNED IN MARCH 2019.

'Ye mariners of England/that guard our native seas/Whose flag has braved a thousand years/The battle and the breeze'.

Thomas Campbell.(1777-1844) Ye Mariners of England

 

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

Via Benjamin Fulford, 3-10-19… “Top-level discussion between CIA and MI6 about the tip-top of Western power and what’s going on behind the scenes”

Posted on 2019/03/11 by
I

I was checking Benjamin’s website, and this showed up. I found it pretty fascinating, and felt drawn to post it. I believe the answers are from the MI6 person (British Intelligence) and the questions are from the CIA person. The parts about Bitcoin and blockchain may be related to the Quantum Financial System many have been talking about.

This is not the weekly report.

“[Q: explain the “World Future Planning Agency.”] A proposed new economic planning agency in peacetime as the Khazarian Mafia control matrix rapidly collapses. Similar to the Marshall Plan, but more like the Asian Economic Planning Agencies.

“[Q: Do you believe that you were recruited to solve the global currency and financial crisis whereabouts this financial reset is necessary?] Yes, I own the patents for the new quantum financial systems and single digital world currency unit which resolve the difficulties in the architecture of legacy systems.

“The new Quantum Financial System is designed in such a manner there could no repeat of the poor conduct by the international financial services industry. It is highly forensic in order to discourage bad behaviour… Blockchain is a brand name of a technology called Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT). It is not a currency; it is the technology embedded inside electronic currencies.

“[Q: comment on this statement: “The distributed ledger technology ends the Rothschild fiat monetary system and the dreaded New World Order.”] It has ended both already.

“Karen Hudes is a very disruptive person who has caused a great deal of damage to international diplomatic relations. Much of her work is confusing, to be polite.

“[Q: comment on this statement: N. Keenan is the trustee for the gold in Indonesia.] We have reason to believe Neil Keenan was assassinated. This has been verified by British military counterintelligence.

“[Q: Do you really think this will work out peacefully, knowing what you know?] The prediction is a peaceful transition, but the opposition may require limited military intervention around the world to break up the remaining obstacles.”

————————————————————-

 

H.F.1814

 

 

*

FULL ARTICLE Benjamin Fulford 2-18-19… “Bankrupt US government issues fake bonds in doomed attempt to keep afloat”

Posted on 2019/02/21 by
Here is the full weekly report from Ben.

“The bankrupt U.S. government in Washington, D.C. was able to pretend it did not go bankrupt last week by issuing fake bonds, but these will be blocked, according to Pentagon, Asian secret society, and European royal sources. In 2008, the Khazarian mafia puppet government in Washington, D.C. was able to avoid bankruptcy… and create $23 trillion out of thin air… That money has now run out.

“The Khazarian mob also murdered former top European CIA man Neil Keenan and tried to forge his identity in a failed attempt to get their hands on Indonesian gold… At the same time, the Khazarian mafia sent their fake Saudi Crown Prince to Pakistan last week with $20 billion in bribes in an attempt to buy security for their collapsing control of oil in the Middle East…

“The reason the clown prince went to Pakistan to seek protection was because the U.S. military is planning to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and let the Arabians once again choose a genuine Muslim as their leader, thus dooming many of the so-called Saudi royals…

“…multiple sources in the U.S. and Canada say Special Forces have been called into action in North America following the declaration of a national emergency last week by U.S. President Donald Trump. Pentagon sources say that with emergency powers, “Trump can now direct military operations in cities to remove false flag threats, arrest cabal and foreign agents, close overseas bases, get the Army Corps of Engineers to build a wall, order troops home, and bring military tribunals into the national conversation.”

“…Attorney General William Barr was sworn in before Trump declared the national emergency, in order to make mass arrests possible and to prepare for FISA declassification and “intel dumps,” the Pentagon sources say… Many of the “intel dumps” will be about the politicians and power brokers who are receiving huge bribes from the illegal drug industry, CIA sources say. Already, the drug lord El Chapo testified at his sentencing hearing that Hillary Clinton… and others received drug money from him.

“Similarly, Pope Francis “was forced to make a historic move in defrocking sex predator ex-Cardinal of D.C. Ted McCarrick, paving the way for more cardinals and bishops to face the same punishment”… The defrocking of McCarrick was related to the removal of top Vatican financier Cardinal Pell after he was found guilty last December of sexually abusing children…

“…the fascist and germ warfare-promoting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and his Iwasaki clan backers (Mitsubishi Group) will also face trial later in the proceedings, the sources say. As a reminder, Abe’s government was installed through election fraud after the Fukushima disaster. His government has been embezzling large sums of money that officially are being used for “cleaning up Fukushima”…

“…there is a huge fight going on behind the scenes as Japan prepares to install Crown Prince Naruhito as the new emperor on May 1st. One group is pushing to have North Korea’s Kim Jong Un installed as emperor, since he represents a part of the royal bloodline that never surrendered to foreign control… The imperial succession is sure to be a topic of intense discussion when Kim Jong Un and Trump meet in Vietnam on February 27 and 28.

“…an upcoming case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague that could upset the political foundations of the European Union… On February 19, the Council will submit a case to the ICJ claiming that “France has had no constitution since December 13th, 2007,” according to Council spokesperson Fabrice Dubourdieu… the Council will show that three departments (administrative regions) of France have been run without legal right or title since 1948, he says. “This… could trigger not only the regime change in France, but also the collapse of the EU (as we know it) for all sorts of legal reasons which I can develop if you like,” Dubourdieu claims.

“…the Khazarian mafia government of Israel, seeing that its 4th Reich Nazi backers are losing power, tried holding an emergency conference in Poland last week to drum up support for a war on Iran. They were also there to try to extort money from Poland, Polish Intelligence Agency sources say. The Polish government refused to hand over a penny…

“There is a lot more going on that we cannot write about yet because it could jeopardize ongoing operations. However, readers can rest assured that it involves really nice things for the people and living organisms of this planet. The meek are finally going to get their inheritance.”

—————————————————————————

Bankrupt US government issues fake bonds in doomed attempt to keep afloat
 By Benjamin Fulford, White Dragon Society, February 18, 2019
 

The bankrupt U.S. government in Washington, D.C. was able to pretend it did not go bankrupt last week by issuing fake bonds, but these will be blocked, according to Pentagon, Asian secret society, and European royal sources.

In 2008, the Khazarian mafia puppet government in Washington, D.C. was able to avoid bankruptcy by using 700 tons of gold to forge 750,000 tons worth of gold-backed bonds and create $23 trillion out of thin air, confirmed by CIA, Pentagon, MI6, and other sources. That money has now run out.

Now they are forging the identity of a murdered man, “Doctor” Zvonko Berdik-Albert (it is actually Count Albert) to try to do the same thing, this time using Chinese currency. A copy of the forgery can be seen below.
 Dr.A_Owen Lennon authority Bedford.pdf

The Khazarian mob also murdered former top European CIA man Neil Keenan and tried to forge his identity in a failed attempt to get their hands on Indonesian gold, according to CIA sources in Indonesia.

At the same time, the Khazarian mafia sent their fake Saudi Crown Prince to Pakistan last week with $20 billion in bribes in an attempt to buy security for their collapsing control of oil in the Middle East, Pentagon sources say. However, the Pakistanis were not fooled by the satan-worshiping Khazarian puppet pretending to be a Muslim, according to Ismaili (historical Hashashin or assassin) sources.

The reason the clown prince went to Pakistan to seek protection was because the U.S. military is planning to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and let the Arabians once again choose a genuine Muslim as their leader, thus dooming many of the so-called Saudi royals, Pentagon sources say.

Meanwhile, multiple sources in the U.S. and Canada say Special Forces have been called into action in North America following the declaration of a national emergency last week by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Pentagon sources say that with emergency powers, “Trump can now direct military operations in cities to remove false flag threats, arrest cabal and foreign agents, close…

…overseas bases, get the Army Corps of Engineers to build a wall, order troops home, and bring military tribunals into the national conversation.”

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Brock Long was fired and Attorney General William Barr was sworn in before Trump declared the national emergency, in order to make mass arrests possible and to prepare for FISA declassification and “intel dumps,” the Pentagon sources say. Brock Long was behind the fake hurricane crisis that was used to cover up the bankruptcy of the Puerto Rico operations of the Washington, D.C. Corporation.

Many of the “intel dumps” will be about the politicians and power brokers who are receiving huge bribes from the illegal drug industry, CIA sources say. Already, the drug lord El Chapo testified at his sentencing hearing that Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and others received drug money from him.
 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=117525 [Kp note: links to this 2 minute video; well worth the short listen.]

Similarly, Pope Francis “was forced to make a historic move in defrocking sex predator ex-Cardinal of D.C. Ted McCarrick, paving the way for more cardinals and bishops to face the same punishment,” the sources say. This was apparently the first time in the entire 2,000-year history of the Church that a cardinal has been defrocked, or “laicized.” McCarrick was a top power broker in Washington, D.C. who protected many high-level political criminals, the sources say. (Remember George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair going to see Pope “Maledict” to ask for protection after leaving power?)

The defrocking of McCarrick was related to the removal of top Vatican financier Cardinal Pell after he was found guilty last December of sexually abusing children, according to P2 freemason sources. Pell had been blocking the start of the new financial system, they say.

This is also connected to the formal request by the British government, sent to the Vatican via diplomatic channels, to investigate the Vatican’s role in the March 11, 2011 Fukushima mass murder, British MI6 sources say. The Fukushima criminal proceedings will start with charges being laid against Israeli security company Magna BSP and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the sources say.

However, the fascist and germ warfare-promoting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and his Iwasaki clan backers (Mitsubishi Group) will also face trial later in the proceedings, the sources say. As a reminder, Abe’s government was installed through election fraud after the Fukushima disaster. His government has been embezzling large sums of money that officially are being used for “cleaning up Fukushima,” according to Japanese right-wing sources. In addition, Abe’s mother is acting as a liaison with Japanese gangsters for handing out Tokyo Olympic-related slush funds, according to a Yamaguchi gumi syndicate insider.

The fact that the Russian government does not want to make a peace deal with Abe’s regime is a clear sign that they understand it is an illegitimate, criminal government, say Russian FSB sources.

The firing of Michael Greenberg as top Vatican/Mossad agent in Japan and the imminent arrest of murderer, drug dealer, and Barbara Bush cousin Richard Armitage will pave the way for the clean-up in Japan, say White Dragon Society sources in Japan.

That’s why there is a huge fight going on behind the scenes as Japan prepares to install Crown Prince Naruhito as the new emperor on May 1st. One group is pushing to have North Korea’s Kim Jong Un installed as emperor, since he represents a part of the royal bloodline that never surrendered to foreign control, Japanese imperial family sources say. Another group claims that Naoshi Onodera of the Southern imperial bloodline should be emperor, because Naruhito is not of imperial blood.
 https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_fulford153.htm

The imperial succession is sure to be a topic of intense discussion when Kim Jong Un and Trump meet in Vietnam on February 27 and 28. Pentagon sources say a public tribunal may be held to determine who the legitimate emperor should be.

There is also an upcoming case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague that could upset the political foundations of the European Union, according to officials of France’s National Transition Council. On February 19, the Council will submit a case to the ICJ claiming that “France has had no constitution since December 13th, 2007,” according to Council spokesperson Fabrice Dubourdieu. In addition, the Council will show that three departments (administrative regions) of France have been run without legal right or title since 1948, he says.

“This legal mess could trigger not only the regime change in France, but also the collapse of the EU (as we know it) for all sorts of legal reasons which I can develop if you like,” Dubourdieu claims. He adds that “We aren’t naïve; we know we are under full-time surveillance. The fact we are not prevented from acting means that higher people decided it was the right time to torch the EU 4th Reich legally.”

Meanwhile, the Khazarian mafia government of Israel, seeing that its 4th Reich Nazi backers are losing power, tried holding an emergency conference in Poland last week to drum up support for a war on Iran. They were also there to try to extort money from Poland, Polish Intelligence Agency sources say. The Polish government refused to hand over a penny and instead asked for the prosecution of European Council President Donald Tusk, the sources say. Tusk is a German agent who only pretended to be Polish and was involved in the murder of top Polish government officials, including its president, in 2010, they add.
 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-polish-president-lech-kaczynski-plane-crash-russia-poland-defence-minister-antoni-a8111831.html

Another sign the Khazarians are losing control came as “Israeli dual-citizen Rupert Murdoch’s surrogate, former Fox News anchor Heather Nauert, withdrew her name for consideration as UN Ambassador,” Pentagon sources say. The U.S. will soon have a UN ambassador who actually represents the U.S. and not Israel, Jewish CIA sources say.

There is a lot more going on that we cannot write about yet because it could jeopardize ongoing operations. However, readers can rest assured that it involves really nice things for the people and living organisms of this planet. The meek are finally going to get their inheritance.

About Kauilapele

I am a Spirit of Light working with energies on this planet on the Big Island of Hawai'i (for 15 years). My spiritual missions have taken me from the Big Island of Hawai'i to neighbor islands (Oahu, Kauai), as well as to Turtle Island (N. America), Peru (Cusco), Bolivia (Lake Titicaca), and Egypt (Gizeh, Saqqara, the Pyramids) (see my YouTube page).
Gallery | This entry was posted in apocalypse, cabal, new energies, partners in contrast and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

 

H.F.1806

*

JANUARY 23-BREXIT NOW-2017--   - (1994 -Official Website-MARCH- PT3-2019 ) -  JANUARY 23-BREXIT NOW-2017-PT1 -

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019

MONTH OF DELIVERANCE!

FROM THE -CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC -GODLESS-SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

*
 

WHY HE IS SO SORELY MISSED IN ENGLAND AND IN DEMOCRACIES WORLD WIDE

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND

by

WINSTON CHURCHILL

DEATH OF THE LAST GIANT - A DAY TO REMEMBER!

Winston+Churchill-

'We are a part of Europe

but not of it'...-

*

ALSO WISE WORDS

FROM

A Prime Minister in 1848

Over a Hundred and Sixty Four years ago a great patriotic Prime Minister - Foreign Secretary - Lord Palmerstone (Henry John Temple) - beloved by his People defined the principle of nationality as follows:

“ Providence meant mankind to be divided into separate nations, and for this purpose countries have been bounded by natural barriers, and races of men have been distinguished by separate languages, habits, manners, dispositions, and characters…” (1848)

 “…We have in the first place to say that the Business of an English Government, is to pursue that course of Foreign Policy which on the whole they may think right; and not to attempt the impossible task of at all times and upon all subjects doing that which is agreeable to all Foreign Governments. A man who in private life attempts to please everyone, invariably fails; and the Government of a great country would not be more successful in such an endeavour…

 . It must at times be an advantage to a foreign Prince…in the present state of the continent to visit England and to see with his own eyes, how Liberty may be combined with Loyalty, Freedom with public order, and how the Respect which is shown by the Crown for the Rights of the Subject and for the enactment of the Law produces corresponding Feelings on the Part of the People and inspires them with similar Respect for the Rights of the Crown and for the Laws which secure the Liberties and the Property of all , from the highest to the lowest in the Land. ”

[Of course the  MONARCHS  of ENGLAND since the 19th Century have been under the INFLUENCE of the ILLUMINATI.]

 

Winston Churchill warned the populace in the

1920's

 of the true facts of the ILLUMINATI who  have virtually ruled the world  since

 

WATERLOO

*

In the 1920's Winston Churchill mentioned the Jewish Bolsheviks the details a

 JEW WATCH

[As we have explained the social circles which Winston Churchill  was connected  with during his long life such as the Rothchilds and like-others were the Establishment existing at the time from the Disraeli era. It was an impossibility to ignore particularly as he wished to further his career.  Of course he was a strong and enthusiastic supporter of the BRITISH EMPIRE in its outer image and must have been aware of the true nature within.   Those that might criticize him should consider the circumstances of the time which have ameliorated somewhat over the past decades until the present day when there are at last changes afoot.]

 
 

A WARNING!

 FROM A PATRIOTIC PRIME MINISTER

BENJAMIN DISRAELI

IN

 1852

In the 19th Century, Benjamin Disraeli, [Beaconsfield] a baptised Jew,[Prime Minister of England-1868 ] proclaimed:

 

...the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes...The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property...The natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them.'
 

WE MUST NOT FORGET!

William Ewart Gladstone

 a great prime minister

 symbolised by his rolled  up sleeves-

 a man with the common touch.

Words of a great Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone, are much to the point:

 

‘’The finance of any country is ultimately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which English liberty has been gradually acquired. If the House of Commons by any possibility loses the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison. That powerful leverage has been what is commonly known as the power of the purse – the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure’’ (1891)

*

BENJAMIN FREEDMAN -

 A JEW

UNCOVERED TO THE WORLD IN 1961 IN WASHINGTON D.C. THE

 ZIONIST CONSPIRACY.

-HE SPENT HIS LIFE WARNING THE PEOPLE OF THE GREAT DANGER TO THEIR LIVES AND LIBERTY

JEW WATCH

[As we have stated elsewhere many JEWS world-wide do NOT! agree with the  NEW WORLD ORDER - ZIONIST MESSAGE.]

 JewsnotZionists

[THE FLAG ABOVE OF THE ANGLO-SAXONS THE TRUE FLAG OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE.

THE END OF THE ENGLISH

INTRODUCTION

HOW IT ALL BEGAN 

 HOW IT ALL FITS TOGETHER

THE RESULTANT LUNACIES

HOW WE ARE CONTROLLED

 WHERE FREEDOM IS VANISHING

*

[THE MAJORITY OF YOU DID NOTHING!]

 

 

ENGLAND

OUR

ENGLAND 

ALL ABOUT

FREEEDOM AND INDIVIDUALITY

 

 

 

WHERE IS OUR REFERENDUM DAVID CAMERON ON THE UNDEMOCRATIC SOVIETISED SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION?

 

NOVEMBER-2012

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2012

 

H.F.1330/1

 

 
 

THE TRUTH that BRUSSELS cannot BEAR: PEOPLE CRAVE NATIONAL IDENTITY.

By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail

 3 October 2017

What happened in Catalonia on Sunday was shaming and shocking in a modern European state. Spanish police bludgeoned and assaulted defenceless civilians who were simply trying to exercise their democratic right.

First and foremost, this is a terrible crisis for the wrong-headed, bully-boy government in Madrid. After the unedifying spectacle of police attacking blameless voters, the chances must surely have increased of Catalonia – Spain’s most prosperous region with some 7.5million inhabitants – seceding.

But it is also an enormous crisis for the European Union, which in recent weeks has said almost nothing as the Spanish authorities arrested officials arranging an independence referendum on behalf of the devolved Catalan government.

 

 

RELATED ARTICLES


 

One reason he did not do so in the case of Spain is that it is one of the most obedient pro-EU countries in Europe, which seldom defies the will of Brussels, or causes trouble for Juncker and his ilk.

But there is an even deeper reason for the Commission’s silence. The events in Catalonia challenge at a deep level its project for ever closer union, about which both Juncker and President Emmanuel Macron of France have ventilated in recent weeks.

For how can there be an amicable union between the EU’s nation states if some of those nations are themselves deeply divided and fractious, as is plainly the case with Catalonia and Spain?

Here is a region of largely Catalan-speaking people who regard themselves as culturally distinct. A sizeable proportion of them yearn to break free from Spain, even though Catalonia has been part of the country for hundreds of years.

Sunday’s vote illuminates a truth which Brussels cannot bear. There are many people in Europe for whom the atavistic call of identity counts far more than any exhortation about forging a European superstate

That, after all, was one of the main messages of Brexit – that the majority of voters in our own ancient nation resent the undemocratic control of Brussels, and have no wish to be sucked into a united Europe.

For Brussels, the example of Britain was bad enough, and it has set about trying to punish us for having had the effrontery to want to leave. In a sense, the demonstration of Catalan nationalism is even more alarming to the federalists because this show of independence is happening inside one of the EU’s nation states.

How is it possible, they wonder, for the pan-European project to proceed if some EU countries are in danger of fracturing? The terror in Brussels is that if Catalonia were allowed to break away, regions in other member states could follow suit. Instead of coalescing into an amorphous whole, some EU nations might fall apart.

Belgium, whose capital, Brussels, is the seat of EU expansionism, is divided. The Flemish-speaking region of Flanders, which constitutes about 60 per cent of the country’s population, is at daggers drawn with the French-speaking minority.

Many people in northern Italy long to be rid of the impoverished south, which is relatively unproductive and, in the view of northerners, consumes more than its fair share of government spending. The Right-wing Northern League has campaigned with some success for independence for the north, and imagines a separate country called Padania.

France faces an independence movement in the island of Corsica. Meanwhile the cohesion of Spain is threatened not just by free-spirited Catalans but also by militant Basques, part of whose territory lies in France.

Romania and Slovakia both have unhappy Hungarian minorities. Even in Poland’s region of Silesia, much of which used to be ruled by Germany until 1945, there are stirrings of an independence movement.

All over Europe apparently unified countries are harried by breakaway groups which have a strong sense of separate identity. If Catalonia were allowed to go it alone, who knows what might come next?
 

The problem for Brussels is that it is used to dealing with individual nation states but is powerless to intervene in unruly regions. That is why the Commission has remained so quiet in the case of Catalonia apart from expressing a few words of solidarity with Spain.

By the way, the British response has been regrettably supine. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson stressed his support for the Spanish government in a tweet. As the leading Brexiteer he should surely have been more critical of Madrid’s use of violence.

The Spanish government, it must be said, has behaved rashly and brutishly. Arguably some Catalan separatist political parties have been unwise in deliberately engineering a confrontation.

But given that the Catalan government had made numerous requests to hold a referendum on independence – after Spain’s constitutional court had controversially declared in 2010 that Catalonia was not a nation – what was it to do having been rebuffed time and time again? If it had possessed a modicum of good sense, the Spanish government would have allowed the referendum to go ahead. Had the vote been in favour of independence, it could have then questioned its legal status.

But to arrest Catalan officials, to close a large number of polling stations, and then to clobber innocent voters were acts of unbelievable stupidity as well as nastiness.

It passes understanding how the prime minister of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, can say that democracy has prevailed. The opposite is true.

Imagine if two or three years hence the Scottish National Party’s Nicola Sturgeon were to hold a referendum without the approval of Westminster – by no means an unthinkable eventuality.

In fact, her case would be much weaker than that of the Catalan government since there has already been one legal referendum in Scotland in 2014, which was said by the SNP leader Alex Salmond at the time to be the last for a generation.

Even so, it is inconceivable that a new unofficial referendum in Scotland would be met by the authorities in Westminster with police wielding batons and firing rubber bullets. Such a wild over-reaction would inevitably give a boost to Scottish nationalism – as, I have no doubt, the cause of Catalan nationalism will have benefited from Sunday’s onslaught.

The truth is that the Spanish state has a very restricted conception of democracy. We should know that already from its desire to shoehorn Gibraltar into Spain despite 99 per cent of its citizens having voted in a 2002 referendum to remain British.

God alone knows what will happen now in Catalonia. Unless the Spanish government agrees to an official referendum – an unlikely prospect – there will probably be deadlock. I am afraid there is also the possibility of more violence on both sides.

Justifying and supporting the Madrid government is the European Commission in all its absurdity, dreaming dreams of a union which the people of Europe do not want. It will do its utmost to ensure that Catalonia doesn’t interfere with its grandiose scheme.

Will Remainers look at Catalonia and reflect that we have a quieter and more civilised way of dealing with our differences in this country? I don’t know. What I do know is that every day I am ever more relieved that we are leaving this misguided club.
Full article
 


 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4942684/STEPHEN-GLOVER-truth-national-identity.html#ixzz4uYWX4q7V
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on

 

92

View
comments

 

H.F.1332 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU
 
 
 

[AT LONG! LONG! LAST!

- WE LEAVE

THE

CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC-GODLESS EU

 IN MARCH 2019.]

*

DAILY MAIL

-At last, Hammond's on board with

BREXIT

and the

REMOANERS are DEAD and BURIED

LEAVING THE EU

 IN

MARCH,2019

 

 

THE

DOMINIC

LAWSON

Column

 

By DOMINIC LAWSON

 

Finally, it’s sorted. Until yesterday, the anti-Brexiteers known as Remoaners had high hopes of Philip Hammond, the Chancellor.

His statement on The Andrew Marr Show last month that failure to reach an amicable deal with the EU ‘would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain’ was seen as an attack on his Brexiteer colleagues in the Cabinet (and, indeed, on the Prime Minister).

But yesterday he appeared as joint author of a newspaper article with the most adamantine Brexiteer in the Cabinet, the International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox. The two supposed foes declared that in March 2019, Britain would not just be leaving the EU but also ‘we will leave the Customs Union and be free to negotiate the best trade deals around the world as an independent, open, trading nation’.

Although the Cabinet Brexiteers were content with Hammond’s proposal that there should be a transition period after March 2019, pending a final settlement of the country’s arrangements with the EU, the Chancellor had given the impression he was bending to the demands of the CBI that Britain remain within the Customs Union during that unspecified period.

Blunder

This they regarded as a fatal blunder — and not just because they suspected the CBI (which had campaigned for Britain to give up sterling for the euro) of seeking to keep the UK in the EU ‘by the back door’.

As Shanker Singham, chairman of the special trade commission of the Legatum Institute (a group consulted regularly by the Government), warned last week: ‘The UK must be able to provide the clarity of being outside the Customs Union on Day 1 of Brexit.

If such clarity does not exist, then other countries will not think the UK is serious about executing an independent trade policy and they will quickly lose patience and move on.’...

...In any case, the nation has not changed its collective mind since the referendum in June 2016. If anything, views have hardened in the direction set by the result. A survey of 3,293 people published on Friday by the London School of Economics showed that even those who had voted ‘Remain’ would prefer the sort of Brexit deal the LSE’s team described as ‘hard’.

A total of 51.3 per cent of Remain voters backed a Brexit deal which delivered ‘full control’ over immigration and led to lower numbers of migrants from the EU. No fewer than 54.7 per cent of Remainers said that the UK should ‘pay nothing’ to the EU by means of a ‘divorce bill’.

And 52.2 per cent of Remainers told the LSE researchers that we should entirely free British law from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Unsurprisingly, a still higher proportion of self-identifying ‘Leave’ voters supported what the LSE termed

‘hard Brexit’.

Monstrous

This clearly disappointed the most voluble critic of the Brexiteers on the Tory parliamentary benches, Anna Soubry. In her own newspaper article yesterday, she lamented ‘a sense of resignation among most people who voted Remain that we have to “man up” and make the most of what we know will be a rotten Brexit’...

Full article


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4787508/At-Hammond-s-board-Brexit.html#ixzz4pkbL1fqi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

[ LAST MONTH AS PRISONERS OF THE

FOURTH REICH

THEN

TO REGAIN OUR ONCE FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND.]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

AUGUST 14, 2017

H.F.1281 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!
 

 

How Britain is ruled by patronising

 

 

B*#*@:rds

 by QUENTIN LETTS

Quentin Letts for the Daily Mail's recent articles

How Britain is ruled by patronising b*#*@rds: QUENTIN LETTS names the worst offenders among the People Who Know Best who never tire of telling us what to do and think

06/10/17 22:24

The government machine was used remorselessly to help

REMAIN

We were muck-spreadered with warnings of hideous consequences from Brexit. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was mobilised. His friend George Osborne (top left) was Chancellor and, so far as the two of them could see, Remain was bound to win, and Clever George would become prime minister before the next general election. From comedians to bishops (hard to say which of those two groups is funnier), fund managers to charity-sector tsars, Brexit was as pongy as a bad sardine. They did not just oppose it. They recoiled from it - including (also top to bottom, left to right): Amanda Abbington, Kwasi Kwarteng, Gary Lineker, Chris Martin, J, K, Rowling, James Corden and Keira Knightley

 

A rebellion has taken place in this country of ours, an uprising, a new Peasants’ Revolt. A real kick in the kidneys for Britain’s ruling elite.

Before the EU referendum in 2016, the electorate was told firmly what to do. A vote for Remain would be safe and strong, and woe betide the country if you were stupid enough to back Brexit. You know your duty, little ones, said the elite. Sod that, said the people.

In the greatest citadel-storming since the French Revolution, they chose to leave the obtrusive European Union.

But it was not a result that happened by accident. It was born of a weary truculence — a yeoman impatience with those who make up our smug, self-perpetuating, invisible Brahmin caste.

Before the EU referendum in 2016, the electorate was told firmly what to do. A vote for Remain would be safe and strong, and woe betide the country if you were stupid enough to back Brexit. You know your duty, little ones, said the elite. Sod that, said the people

The government machine was used remorselessly to help Remain. We were muck-spreadered with warnings of hideous consequences from Brexit. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was mobilised. His friend George Osborne was Chancellor and, so far as the two of them could see, Remain was bound to win, and Clever George would become prime minister before the next general election

For decades, Britons have been bossed about by a cadre of administrators and managers and pose-striking know-alls.

The old aristocracy having faded, in came a more furtive elite, driven by the desire to own minds, not acres, determined to control opinion and dictate our attitudes.

It was done on the sly, of course. They posed as liberals, and crouched behind ‘enlightened’ attitudes while imposing their views on a populace they claimed to esteem but more truthfully disdained.

 

Politicians, civil servants and lawyers used a language few could understand, while government was farmed out to agencies and quangos and privatised supply companies.

Cheap labour was imported, suppressing workers’ wages, because that was what globalised boss-cats at the international forums said was necessary.

Could we criticise immigration? Only if we wanted to be called racists and fruitcakes. The elite’s media munchkins had placed it on the top shelf, somewhere safe where it could not be touched.
 

At the gates to the Palace of Westminster I bumped into pro-Leave Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, a great bear of a man. ‘This is bigger than any general election result,’ he boomed

Against our will, children were exposed to sex education by schools more interested in dogma than declension. Sex crimes rocketed.

Sociologists said murderers must be released into the community. Re-offending rates rose.

Smokers were made to feel like criminals. Criminals were encouraged to sue their victims.

From every side came instruction as to what we must think: about diet, gender, sexuality, race, even the weather, with the TV forecasters telling us to put on sun cream and giving silly names to every incoming squall.

The entire System was at it, badgering us, belittling us, patting us on the head, putting us in our place.

Think this. Don’t think that. Inappropriate! Hate-crime!

From the Chief Medical Officer and her strictures about alcohol limits to railway announcements saying ‘do not become a victim of crime’, they treat us like toddlers.

Even the most docile beach donkey, by nature placid and reliable, if repeatedly kicked, will eventually refuse to co-operate. It will bare its teeth and walk in the other direction, pulling its tethers out of the sand.

So it has proved with the British voters.

Get off our backs, they said. Stop goading us. Stop being such patronising bastards.

The morning we discovered we’d break free from Europe was that unforgettable Friday, June 24, 2016.

Everywhere, celebrity luvvies hyperventilated. Actress Amanda Abbington (she was Dr Watson’s wife in Sherlock on the telly) messaged: ‘Watch the collapse begin. Dark days . . . Where can I move me and my children too (sic)? Where’s nice? Italy? Canada?’ They might have better grammar there, certainly. Keira Knightley was foul-mouthed. ‘Stop others f***ing with your future,’ she bleated in a message to yoof

I was in a pokey hotel bedroom in London’s Bloomsbury and awoke at daybreak as the television relayed the referendum results from around the country.

I’d expected the technocracy was going to win. It always did, didn’t it? The experts had said defeat for Remain was unthinkable. Treasury officials, opinion pollsters and almost the entire diplomatic corps idly presumed Remain would win.

But it hadn’t.

Our dominating elite of parliamentarians, lobbyists, bankers, artists, political theorists, clergy, academics and sterile aesthetes was about to take a massive custard pie smack in the face.

So many well-connected people had scoffed at Brexit. They had belittled anyone who suggested it could occur.

But there it was, happening before our eyes as the BBC’s presenter, David Dimbleby, announced: ‘The British people have spoken and the answer is “we’re out!”.’

The cold print of the referendum ballot papers had merely asked voters if they wanted to stay in the EU. This result was the crystallisation of something bigger.

It was the eruption of a long-building resentment at being bossed around by an opaque snootocracy, by affluent fixers and the People Who Know Best.
 

James Corden, who left Britain to present a TV show in California, transmitted from across the water: ‘I’m so sorry to the youth of Britain. I feel you’ve been let down today. x’

In my hotel room on that Independence Dawn last year, I felt a giddying rush of patriotic pride. The apple-cart had been overturned.

This was not just a public rejection of the EU. It was an act of thrilling dissent. Our arrogant elite, after years of self-enriching condescension, had been whupped.

More than a year on, I still can’t get out of my head how unrelenting the campaign was for Remain to win the popular vote.

For months before the referendum, the System did its best to engineer things in favour of the EU.

Cabinet Brexiteers were silenced. Civil servants were told to hide sensitive EU material from Eurosceptic ministers.

The government machine was used remorselessly to help Remain. We were muck-spreadered with warnings of hideous consequences from Brexit. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was mobilised.

His friend George Osborne was Chancellor and, so far as the two of them could see, Remain was bound to win, and Clever George would become prime minister before the next general election.

Carney, a Canadian but bound to the status quo here by instinct and career, predicted Brexit would cause sterling to collapse, growth to stall and unemployment to rise.

From comedians to bishops (hard to say which of those two groups is funnier), fund managers to charity-sector tsars, Brexit was as pongy as a bad sardine. They did not just oppose it. They recoiled from it.

The reaction was not simply intellectual or even political. It was rooted in taste, aesth- etics, manners.

Let your future son-in-law have tombstone teeth, the clothes sense of Ken Dodd and a string of shoplifting offences to his name, but pray God Almighty he be not a Brexiteer.

We no longer have widowed duchesses who clutch their dewlaps in horror when they hear the word ‘serviette’, but Brexit had the same effect on managerial and technocratic types.

My wife, a sweet and liberal-minded soul, casually mentioned to a princeling of the Church of England that she intended to vote Leave. He gasped: ‘How could you?’ He might have been less aghast had she admitted to witchcraft.
 

From J. K. Rowling came: ‘I don’t think I’ve ever wanted magic more’

Fashionable ‘opinion leaders’ and pliable industrialists were pressed to the Remain cause to build the idea that superior people — good people — were of one accord. They crouched down beside the voters, looked them very gravely in the eye and told the boys and girls that Mummy and Daddy would be really, really sad if Remain did not win the referendum.

Opinion pollsters said Remain would win, and in the last week of the campaign the Cameroons started to strut.

Two days before the referendum, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, la-di-dah Leftist and one-time owner of the most perfect villa in Italy, opined that the result was in the bag. The headline over her article read: ‘On Friday I’ll get my country back. Britain will vote Remain’.

But the voters came to a different conclusion. They decided that those prominent Remain supporters were only in it for themselves, chasing either business contracts or honours.

The Leavers were the ones who reclaimed their country. On the morning after the referendum, I headed from my hotel to work in a taxi whose driver was cock-a-hoop at the Leave vote. At the gates to the Palace of Westminster I bumped into pro-Leave Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, a great bear of a man. ‘This is bigger than any general election result,’ he boomed. He was right. General elections are elections for Parliament. The referendum was an election against Parliament, in spite of Parliament.

Abraham Lincoln once spoke of ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’. We had drifted towards ‘government of the people, by the Parliament, for the Parliament and its fleas’.

The Establishment reacted with petulant disbelief.

Tony Blair called it ‘a foolish excursion into populism’. The then Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, 46, normally a sunny fellow, was ‘angry that today we wake to a deeply divided country’. Would he have said the same if the scores had gone the other way?

Everywhere, celebrity luvvies hyperventilated.

Actress Amanda Abbington (she was Dr Watson’s wife in Sherlock on the telly) messaged: ‘Watch the collapse begin. Dark days . . . Where can I move me and my children too (sic)? Where’s nice? Italy? Canada?’ They might have better grammar there, certainly. 

Keira Knightley was foul-mouthed. ‘Stop others f***ing with your future,’ she bleated in a message to yoof. James Corden, who left Britain to present a TV show in California, transmitted from across the water: ‘I’m so sorry to the youth of Britain. I feel you’ve been let down today. x.’

From J. K. Rowling came: ‘I don’t think I’ve ever wanted magic more.’ TV presenter and sometime footballer Gary Lineker asked: ‘What have we gone and done?’

The mood at Glastonbury pop festival was funereal. Coldplay’s Chris Martin saw ‘the collapse of a country’. Damon Albarn wore a black armband.

Marianne Faithfull, famous because decades earlier she was supposed to have done something filthy with a Mars Bar and Mick Jagger, said: ‘We are back to where it used to be, the Right-wing racist Little England. Those dreadful people, they’ve always been there.’

TV presenter and sometime footballer Gary Lineker asked: ‘What have we gone and done?’ The mood at Glastonbury pop festival was funereal. Coldplay’s Chris Martin saw ‘the collapse of a country’

Emma Thompson, mother, director, writer, actress, intellectual, citizen, was, naturally, appalled by Brexit. She said she felt more European than English and she regarded Ukip’s Nigel Farage as a ‘white nationalist’.

Where that left the many non-white Leave voters and non-white Ukip supporters, it was hard to say.

The Remain camp united atheists and the modern Church of England, with former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and arch-atheist Richard Dawkins deploring the result. Science bod Dawkins, who has made a study of natural selection, raged that the voters had been ‘ill-informed’ and ‘ignorant’. Personally, I blame evolution.

Another secularist, A. C. Grayling, wrote to MPs demanding that they reject the will of the people who, said Grayling, had voted on the basis of ‘demagoguery and sentiment’.

Too many voters were merely ‘System One’ thinkers, he argued — i.e. they acted chiefly on impulse and could be ‘captured by slogans’, unlike ‘System Two’ thinkers who made more considered, logical judgments.

Shades here, of the Greek philosopher Plato, who regarded democracy as rule by the rabble and proposed the creation of elite ‘Guardians’ or ‘Philosopher Kings’ who could be selected in youth and trained to rule.

Plato’s thinking is most clearly seen today in the French grandes écoles that train the cadre of Brussels Eurocrats who propose and draft EU treaties.

Tony Blair made a speech calling on people to ‘rise up against’ ... er, themselves, basically.

Time and again it was argued by anti-Brexiteers that Leave voters did not understand the vastness of their decision.

The elite was indignant and fearful — and that only made many Leave voters all the more certain they had made the right decision.

In their appalling condescension, what all these furious anti-Brexiteers ignored were people such as a Derbyshire factory worker called Stuart Carrington and the other 17,410,741 men and women who had voted to Leave.

Stuart had also been on my mind that anxious night as we waited for the referendum result. He was my brother-in-law. (Well, as good as. He and my wife’s sister Nicky were not formally married but they had been together years.)

Fifty-four-year-old Stuart’s health had become a worry in recent months. Out of character, he took time off work. Stuart’s machine, capable of the most intricate measurements, checked parts for aircraft jet engines.

He was proud of his work, just as he was proud of Nicky, her two sons and their flat. But he knew all that was coming to an end.

The doctors initially told him he had a low-threat cancer but they changed their prognosis. That week we were told he was dying.

Yet on referendum day morning, moving with difficulty, he had managed to get himself to his local polling station in the Spital district of Chesterfield, to vote for the last time.

A gaunt figure, he leaned heavily on the stubby pencil while casting his vote. Job done, he carefully dropped his ballot into the box, thanked the officials, winced a little and made slowly for the door.

A keen supporter of Leave — and normally a Labour man, his dad having been a miner — Stuart had been determined to vote and he had bloody well managed it.

I kept thinking of stoical, taciturn Stuart.

Those northern men don’t always say much but by God they make their mark. Stuart was not a showy person. He did not consider himself important, not in the way we normally use that term.

Not back then. Maybe things are a little different now. Maybe, with Brexit, the balance of power has shifted a little.

Maybe, but I wouldn’t bank on it.

As I will show in the rest of this series based on my new book, the patronising bastards are everywhere, lording it over the plebs, putting us in our place, waving their entitlement in our face, telling us what to think and what to do.

And not just over Brexit but on every issue under the sun.

And the biggest ‘bastard’ of them all, at the very top of my list of patricians treating the rest of us with contempt? I’ll reveal his identity on Monday.

Adapted from Patronising Bastards: How The Elites Betrayed Britain, by Quentin Letts, published by Constable on October 12 at £16.99. © Quentin Letts 2017. To order a copy for £13.59 (offer valid to October 14, 2017) visit www.mailshop.co.uk/books or call 0844 571 0640. P&P is free on orders over £15.


 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4957180/Britain-s-ruled-patronising-b-rds-says-QUENTIN-LETTS.html#ixzz4uqBaZlGZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on

 

H.F.1338 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT A SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU.

 

WE HEAR THAT 80% OF CONSERVATIVE MPs ARE COMMITTED FRIENDS OF ISRAEL- DAILY MAIL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9,2017.

 WE HAVE ASKED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS OVER THE PAST WHY OUR GOVERNMENTS WERE NOT

FRIENDS OF ENGLAND

BECAUSE IT HAS TAKEN 45 YEARS SINCE WE VOTED NO! IN 1975 FOR THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WHO LIED ABOUT OUR TRUE COMMITMENT TO HITLER'S PLAN DOMINANCE OF EUROPE IN THE PEACE.

TO HAVE A REFERENDUM AND ONLY WHEN THE ELITE TORIES THOUGHT IT WOULD GO THEIR WAY TO A DEEPER ENMESHMENT INTO THE EU SUPER-STATE. THEY MISJUDGED THE TRUE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND-AS IT WAS SHE WHO SAVED THE UNION.

WE CAN HOPE NO BETTER WITH THE LABOUR PARTY WITH THEIR FRIENDS OF ISRAEL BODY THOUGH DECRIED MUCH LATELY IS STILL IN ACTION . ALAS! THE TRUE LABOUR PARTY OF THE SHIRES DIED DECADES AGO AS WITNESSED BY THE HUGE BREXIT VOTE.

OUR SUPPOSED CLOSEST ALLY THE USA WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN OUR ENTERING THE EU TO GIVE GERMANY A HAND .IT IS COMPLETELY UNDER THE ISRAELI LOBBY-HAS BEEN FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS.

AS WE HAVE STATED OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD ENDEAVOUR TO BE ON FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH ALL GOVERNMENTS -AS

WINSTON CHURCHILL

HAD STATED MOST VOCIFEROUSLY IN THE PAST:

 JAW JAW NOT WAR WAR!

News for DAILY MAIL-OUT OF THE SHADOWS THE POWERFUL FIXER BEHIND HER DOWNFALL by Andrew Pierce


Daily Mail
Andrew Pierce profiles the influential Lord Polak
Daily Mail - 13 hours ago
Out of the shadows, the powerful fixer behind Priti Patel's downfall: ANDREW
PIERCE profiles ... By Andrew Pierce for the Daily Mail ... He was also with her in
the two further undisclosed meetings in New York and Parliament 
 

 

[As on many other occasions over the past decades when we have shown details of Israeli intelligence and the connection with F O I . we have received many visits from their obedient servants who do not hide their NATIONAL identity.

 But this is ENGLAND

and such individuals should know their place and do their work without waving their FLAG!-MI5 need to keep them in place or is there nothing they can do-or must it be as CS1 WHERE ISRAEL REIGNS?]

 

 

JEW WATCH

 

 

 

H.F.1373 FRIENDS TO ALL- BUT COMMITTED TO NONE!

 

[A STERN WARNING FROM THE PAST]

A Jewish Defector Warns America

Introductory Note:

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us—his warning to the West—is more urgent than ever before. — K.A.S.

 

Benjamin Freedman Speaks:

Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.

What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.

Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply—and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that—seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and—I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make—they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that—I don't know how many here remember it—the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.

I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into—if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into—that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.

Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.

That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers—the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."

It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."

Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers—and the press was filled with their statements—that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema 'Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.

And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.

The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?

In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "Made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "Made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth.

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.

For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.

What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.

Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.

What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as "Jews." I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as "so-called Jews," because I know what they are). The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves "Jews", were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe—so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith—either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call "Jews".

There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."

But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in AD620, and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today "Jews".

Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore—you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you. That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.

Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

 

Benjamin H Freedman A Jewish Defector Warns America 1 of 9 ...

 

 

H.F.1249

 
 
 

 UK voting system' ignores will of millions'

by

Daniel Martin for the Daily Mail -Chief Political Correspondent-JUNE 2-2015.

 

BRITAIN'S voting system is 'archaic' and divisive' and does not represent the will of millions, a pressure group has argued. The Electoral Reform Society, which has campaigned for proportional representation for 130 years, claimed last month's General Election was the most disproportionate ever.  It said UKIP would have WON up to 80 seats using the type of PR used in many European nations, while the GREENS would have got 20.  UKIP and the GREENS received 5MILLION VOTES, but under the FIRST-PAST-THE-POST system ended up with ONE MP each.  An E R S-commissioned survey said under PR the TORIES would have seen their tally of MPs fall  by almost 100 while  LABOUR would have gone down 24...

[MONTHLY BULLETIN CHART UNTIL REFERENDUM ON EU -LATEST MAY 2017 -AT FOOT OF PAGE!    ASAP!  

SEE HERE!   ]

 

JUNE 2-2015

H.F.1388

David Cameron

 asked Daily Mail owner to sack

Paul Dacre over Brexit

 

 THE GUARDIAN

https://www.theguardian.com/...

 
David Cameron asked Lord Rothermere if Dacre could ‘cut him some slack’, a source told Newsnight. Photograph: Robin Jerstad/Rex/Shutterstock
David Cameron pressed the owner of the Daily Mail to sack his avowedly pro-Brexit editor, Paul Dacre, in the run-up to last year’s EU referendum.

A source indicated that Lord Rothermere, whose family owns the newspaper, told Dacre that the then-prime minister had suggested he sack him, in a story that was first reported by the BBC’s Newsnight programme.

The Mail was one of the most vociferous voices for Britain to leave the EU before the 23 June referendum.

Dacre and Cameron met at the PM’s Downing Street flat on 2 February 2016, the day after Cameron’s planned new deal with the EU to ward off Brexit was announced.

There Cameron asked Dacre to “cut him some slack”, but was rebuffed - although the account has been denied by a spokesman for Cameron.

Early the following month, Dacre was told by a “Westminster source” that Cameron had sought to persuade Rothermere – who inherited French nationality, along with the newspaper, from his father for tax reasons – to sack him, making the editor “incandescent” and all the more determined to push for Brexit.

It was only in July, after the referendum, that Rothermere personally told his editor of the pressure from Cameron.
 

A spokesman for Rothermere refused to deny the story. The spokesman said: “Over the years, Lord Rothermere has been leant on by more than one prime minister to remove Associated Newspapers’ editors but, as he told Lord Justice Leveson on oath, he does not interfere with the editorial policies of his papers.”

Dacre said in a statement: “For 25 years, I have been given the freedom to edit the Mail on behalf of its readers without interference from Jonathan Rothermere or his father. It has been a great joy and privilege.”

A spokesman for Cameron said: “It is wrong to suggest that David Cameron believed he could determine who edits the Daily Mail. It is a matter of public record that he made the case that it was wrong for newspapers to argue that we give up our membership of the EU.

“He made this argument privately to the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, and its proprietor, Lord Rothermere.”

 
Topics

 

H.F.1820

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM APRIL-2007

 

WHEN WILL WE LEARN TO STOP APPEASING TERROR

*

COMMENTARY

by

Melanie Phillips

[Daily Mail -April-2007]

 

The ending of the Al Qaeda fertiliser bomb plot trial has posed crucial questions about the competence of

MI5

In particular, the assurances we were given after the 7/7 bombings, that the perpetrators had been unknown to the

SECURITY SERVICE

-have been shown to be utterly false.

 

Disturbingly as that is by itself, the case also raises yet more pressing questions about whether Britain is even now acting effectively enough against the threat to this country from

ISLAMIST TERRORISM.

The fact is that Al Qaeda now sees Britain as both its principal target and its principal recruiting ground. By its own admission, MI5 is monitoring no fewer than 200 terrorist networks, 1,600 identified individual terrorists and 30 known terrorist plots. It says British Muslims are being indoctrinated with horrifying speed, and more terrorists are being recruited every day.

IN TRUTH, as our leading counter-terrorist police officer, Peter Clarke, said last night, this country is facing  a terrorist threat of a nature and scale it has simply

NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

This terrorism is part of a

GLOBAL HOLY WAR

-and the dreadful thing is that it is recruiting British -born boys as its foot-soldiers against their own fellow citizens.

 

When my book

LONDONISTAN

was published a year ago, my claim that we were in a state of denial about the unprecedented emergency we were facing from home-grown terrorism and extremism was dismissed in some quarters as unwarranted alarmism.

SINCE THEN

-public opinion has shifted. Many have realized that what I wrote was if anything, an understatement of the

TRUE POSITION.

BUT

-our official class is still failing to

TAKE ACTION

-that was necessary to

DEFEAT THIS THREAT

to our

WHOLE WAY OF LIFE

Certainly, it is now aware of the enormous scale of the

TERROR THREAT

But it is still fighting with

BOTH HANDS

tied behind its back. In particular, the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-continues to make effective anti-terror policy almost

IMPOSSIBLE.

 

ONLY last week , the Government was prevented from deporting two Libyan terrorist suspects, even though they came here illegally are deemed to pose a serious threat to our lives, because our judges have said no one can be sent anywhere that might not uphold their

HUMAN RIGHTS.

The Government was originally begged by our

SECURITY SERVICES

-not to pass the 1998 Human Rights Act precisely because of the danger it would pose to

NATIONAL SECURITY

-by tying us in such knots. Ministers merely dismissed their concerns.

NOW

-the same

SECURITY SERVICES

-face the nightmare that Islamist terrorists will obtain a nuclear or other dirty bomb to use against

BRITAIN

-with a

HUNAN RIGHTS LAW

-that makes it more difficult to thwart such a terrible

OUTCOME

*

 

[The solution lies with the Government who must repeal the

1998 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

and articles in the British led -

1951 Human Convention of Human Rights

they will of course prevaricate and laud the advantages of the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-until they were under attack for their illegal war in Iraq.

Any articles which a Government wished to retain could be legislated for in Parliament.]

 

Even worse than this, ministers seem to have no idea about the need to attack the ideology driving all this.

It is simply not enough to flush out the terrorist cells, vital though that clearly is. We have to defeat the ideas driving some British Muslims to commit these acts in the first place.

The Government has started paying lip-service to this. It has spoken against extremism of the

Muslim Council of  Britain

-and is encouraging a wider range of truly moderate Muslims to speak up. And a few more extremists are being arrested.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS STILL APPEASING RADICALISM.

*

[It reminds one of the typical duo police investigators of the past where one was the softy and the other the hard man. So long as they achieved their objective it had a purpose. The moderate Muslims of course as their more militant brothers and sisters provided they balance their approach will achieve their aim of a future

MUSLIM STATE RELIGION

in

ENGLAND

And their greatest helper is the Blair Government with their illegal war in Iraq which has allowed the discontented Muslim youth who have enjoyed the benefits of the diversity and human rights agenda to put their faith to the test in combating the invaders of a Muslim State.]

 It has become a cliché to say that  most British Muslims are

MODERATE

-Certainly, most of them undoubtedly would have no truck with terrorism or violence and encouragingly a growing number are speaking out against

ISLAMIST EXTREMISM.

But extremist views are not confined to a few rogue elements. Opinion polls suggest that more than

 100,000

-of our Muslim citizens think the July 2005 attacks in London were justified.

A report by the Policy Exchange think-tank revealed that around one third of British Muslims thought that if Muslims left the FAITH, they should be killed; and 37 per cent of 16-to-24-year olds wanted to live in

BRITAIN

UNDER

SHARIA rather than ENGLISH LAW

[Well as we have explained before the fault is down to those who allowed the immigration in such large numbers from Muslim countries. Were they so naive not to realise that Muslims take their FAITH most seriously and they do not compromise -why should they. They were accepted into Britain and that included their right to worship in their own way.  A knowledge of the history of the Islamic World should have given governments caution about extending citizenship to their peoples in such large numbers. But they are here and we can only hope that a firm but just policy will lead to integration and tolerance of the faiths of all who share our island home. BUT it should be understood that our past and future are coupled with our

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE.

THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS MUST FIND THEIR HOME ELSEWHERE. ]

 

*

These numbers subscribing to such extremist views are deeply disturbing. They swell the sea in which terrorism swims.

If this tide is to be held back Islamist extremism in Britain must be stopped and British values reasserted and stoutly upheld. To defeat such extremism, we have to make it abundantly clear that we will not give an inch to those who want to

DESTROY OUR VALUES.

But we appear instead to be doing nothing to stop the spread of radical Islamism. Indeed, in a myriad different ways we are giving out the lethal message that we have nether the will nor the courage to

DEFEND OUR WAY OF LIFE.

British Muslims are being recruited in large numbers to terror because next to nothing is being done

TO STOP IT

[Well!- an immediate pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan may stem the flow because that is why the recruiting sergeants are so successful but unless this happens immediately then the flow becomes a flood.]

Last January, a Channel Four television Dispatches programme revealed that at certain mosques which were assumed to be more

moderate and which were even prominent in talking to other faiths, material was being preached and disseminated advocating such horrors as the murder of homosexuals, the beating of women and hatred of

CHRISTIANS and JEWS.

Despite the Prime Minister's promise to outlaw the radical group Hizb ut Tahrir (which believes Britain should be an Islamic State), the Government refuses to do so.

YET, Ed Husain, an extremely brave former radical who has recanted, chillingly documents in his new book

THE ISLAMIST

-the enormous influence of this group in telling countless British Muslims its duty to wage holy war, and that Muslims have a corresponding duty

TO BE PREPARED.

-to launch attacks on Britain

FROM WITHIN

 

Not only are we failing to halt the spread of such lethal extremist views, we are also failing to hold the line for

OUR OWN VALUES.

Above all else, we should absolutely refuse to countenance the spread of

SHARIA LAW

-which is not only inimical to our own deepest principles but aims to

SUPPLANT OUR OWN LAWS.

Yet we are turning a blind-eye to the steady Sharia-isation

SHARIA-ISATION

OF

OUR COUNTRY.

We have ignored the development of informal parallel SHARIA jurisdictions, enforced by SHARIA courts, in areas heavily populated by Muslims.

We have turned a blind eye to the polygamous marriages they sanction in Britain but now give extra welfare benefits to husbands settling here with

MULTIPLE WIVES

-even though bigamy is a

CRIME

Despite the fact that thousands of Muslim women are terrorised by the threat of

'Honour killings'

only a few of these horrific cases result in prosecutions - because our police are terrified of being accused of

'racism'

IF THEY PURSUE THEM.

 

Now Gordon Brown has said Britain should become the centre of global Islamic banking. But this is heavily backed by Saudi Arabia which will use it to further its objective of Islamising

THE WEST.

- and may even provide a cover for the financing of further terror.

This craven appeasement of extremism gives Islamists the unmistakable message

THAT BRITAIN IS THEIRS

-for the taking.

Thus truly moderate Muslims

ARE BETRAYED

-and all of us are put in infinitely

GREATER DANGER

-not just from

TERRORISM

-but from a

CULTURE

that still seems to be

SLEEPWALKING TO OBLIVION.

*          *          *

 

[As we have intimated in the past the mistakes were made from the very beginning by our politicians not noting the  different religious  customs which would make full

INTEGRATION IMPOSSIBLE

As a nation which had one of the largest

EMPIRES

-the world has ever seen - with a population of a quarter of the globe under our guidance.

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE

that such ignorance could have been shown to the difficulties in which large scale immigration from certain places would bring us to our present day problems and dangers.

IMMIGRATION

should be controlled with the realisation that certain immigrants are by their inability to

INTEGRATE and comply with our LAWS

-be asked to accept their responsibility of citizenship before being allowed to settle here.

For the people who from all corners of the world who have decided to make our country their home and integrate and obey our laws it is imperative that those who have no intention to comply should be refused citizenship -there can be no exceptions as in our country everyone who ever they are under the same

RULE OF LAW

to have it any other way lies the path to disorder and anarchy.]

*

LONDONISTAN

published by

Gibson Square

£8.99

 

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

 

*

 

All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

[Daily Mail -April-2007]

 

H.F.1246

 
 

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-July-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-July-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

BREXIT

BUT NOT OUT OF THE EU FOR 2/3 YEARS. IT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. ALL EU TREATIES WERE OBTAINED BY BRIBERY AND TREASON  AND FRAUD WHICH

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW PART 1-2016SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW-2016

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW
 

PLEASE  NOTE: WE HAVE IN ADVANCE GIVEN BELOW THE BULLETIN FOR EACH MONTH FOR THE NEXT 30 MONTHS WHICH YOU CAN ENTER-IT WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER MONTHS FROM THE PAST AND THAT AVAILABLE AT THE SPECIFIED TIME.  WE ARE MAKING THIS ARRANGEMENT AS WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE AN EXIT DATE FROM THE EU. AS YOU ARE AWARE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE IN OCTOBER 2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AVAILABLE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BRING THE EXIT FROM THE EU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT NOW THAT BREXIT IS SOON TO BE ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT THE DAY OF OUR DELIVERANCE WILL SOON BE AT HAND AND THE RETURN OF OUR INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND TOGETHER WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING NATION STATES OF WALES-SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN ISLAND.

MAY GOD GRANT US A SPEEDY EXIT FROM THE SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC -MAMMOTH MONSTROSITY OF THE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 
 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

      9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA
LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND
SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND
100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

 THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

MOST EVERYTHING WHICH IS PRECIOUS IN OUR CIVILISATION HAS COME FROM SMALL INDEPENDENT NATION STATES

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

*

 THE DOWNFALL

OF

A ONCE DECLARED

 IRON LADY

AND

HER ARDENT AND PASSIONATE PROMISE

 IN 2016

 

'BETTER A

NO DEAL

THAN

A BAD DEAL'

*

'BREXIT MEANS BREXIT'

*

'TO LEAVE

THE EU

ON

MARCH 29,2019'

AS we had previously stated

COMPROMISE

should never be considered

when the return of our ancient freedoms given away by a so-called

 CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT

IN

 1972

to be reclaimed in

March 2019

in answer to a people's vote in a

REFERENDUM

 in

JUNE 2O16

 

when an overwhelming

17.4 MILLION PATRIOTS

VOTED FOR THE RETURN OF THEIR ONCE

FREE COUNTRY

FROM THE CRUMBLING CONFIDENCE TRICK

calling itself the

EUROPEAN UNION

soon to be a

SUPERSTATE

*

 

'Trust not him that has broken faith.'

SHAKESPEARE

*
 Could the European elections herald the end of the EU - Eurosceptic parties all across the EU look like doing well!.... - Daily Express

https://www.express.co.uk/.../expresscomment/.../european-election-2019-vote-end-eu-comment-ross-clark
‎
 *
 AGITATION
Agitation prevents rebellion, keeps the peace, and secures progress. Every step she gains is gained forever. Muskets are the weapons of animals. Agitation is the atmosphere of the brains.-
Wendell Phillips. Am.orator

*
 Eurosceptics are fighting for the return of freedoms once secured by MAGNA CARTA and the PETITION of RIGHT.
 

 

 

Benjamin Fulford 5-27-19… “As Theresa May loses battle of Britain,

 West Coast oligarchs sue for peace”

Posted on 2019/05/27 by

New weekly report from Ben. All I will add here is that this one is extremely fascinating. Suggest “holding on to hat”, if wearing one.

“The forced resignation of British Prime Minister (and Hitler daughter) Theresa May marked a decisive turning point in the battle for the planet Earth, multiple sources agree. Already, her resignation has forced high-tech oligarchs Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk to seek peace negotiations with the White Dragon Society (WDS), according to P2 Freemason sources.

“…U.S. President Donald Trump has spent the Memorial Day weekend in Japan, in part to avoid assassination as moves begin to end the long political deadlock in Washington, D.C., Pentagon and Japanese right-wing sources say.

“…why the resignation of May is crucial to breaking the political deadlock… in 2016 the Rockefeller / Clinton oligarchs asked their Rothschild counterparts in the UK to circumvent U.S. law in order to spy on Trump and concoct the Russiagate scandal to impeach him. May’s resignation means the British Nazi…-allied oligarchs who fought against Trump are now all being purged from the British military / intelligence / political power structure, according to British royal family sources. This purge will be accompanied by a similar purge in the U.S.”

As Theresa May loses battle of Britain, West Coast oligarchs sue for peace
 By Benjamin Fulford, White Dragon Society, May 27, 2019

The forced resignation of British Prime Minister (and Hitler daughter) Theresa May marked a decisive turning point in the battle for the planet Earth, multiple sources agree. Already, her resignation has forced high-tech oligarchs Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk to seek peace negotiations with the White Dragon Society (WDS), according to P2 Freemason sources.

May 27, 2019

 

H.F.1853/1

 

 

 

 

H.F.1849

 

*

[A REMINDER OF A SOLEMN PROMISE!]

 

FROM JANUARY 18,2017

 

A NATION STATE HAS BEEN REBORN

 

ON the momentous day Theresa May said Britain WILL quit the single market, she put Cameron's feeble negotiations to shame with an ultimatum to Brussels that the UK will 'walk away from a bad deal-and make the EU pay' 
  • STEEL OF THE NEW
  • IRON LADY
    •
  • The PM is hopeful of an EU-UK trade deal because of mutual economic interests 
  • She said Europe not making a deal with Britian would be 'calamitous self-harm'
  • It was confirmed that we will be leaving the single market and customs union
  • But the EU's chief negotiator called her show of defiance counter-productive
  • Her speech was criticised by the Lib Dems as Labour fought on how to respond 
  • Sterling rose 2.8 per cent against the Dollar and 1.8 per cent against the Euro

By James Slack Political Editor For The Daily Mail



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130034/Theresa-s-Brexit-speech-puts-Cameron-shame.html#ixzz4W7pxZPm9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*

Brexit will let us rediscover role as trading power | Daily Mail Online

Theresa May's Brexit speech puts Cameron to shame | Daily Mail ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Commons and Lords get ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Full reports and analysis

 

A great nation is reborn: Quitting will let us rediscover our role as a ...

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Europe split over May's ...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170118/281625305003771
Europe split over May's vision – but even Tusk calls it 'realistic'. Daily ... News -
From Mario Ledwith in Brussels and John Stevens in London.
 

*

POINT BY POINT, HER BLUEPRINT TO FREE BRITAIN FROM BRUSSELS
THERESA May delighted Eurosceptics yesterday with an ambitious road map for BREXIT. The PM extended the hand of friendship to the EU but threatened to walk away if BRUSSELS tried to impose a punitive deal. Jack DOYLE sets out her 12 objectives and analyses her chances of success.

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will provide certainty where we can. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after BREXIT, as they did before. And the Government will put the final deal to a vote in both houses of Parliament.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By keeping in place-at least initially-all EU laws, Mrs May will provide a degree of continuity and confidence for business. However, as she freely admits she cannot control the outcome of the negotiations. Parliament is highly likely to approve any deal because the alternative will be a chaotic BREXIT.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

  WHAT SHE SAID

We will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Because we will not truly left the EU if we are not in control of our own laws

CAN SHE DELIVER

 Adopting the 'take back control' slogan of the Leave campaign, Mrs May repeated her promise to end rule by EU rule and judges in Luxembourg and restore power to Parliament and domestic courts. Without this there is no Brexit. A firm red line

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

  WHAT SHE SAID

A stronger Britain demands that we strengthen the precious union between the four nations of the UK.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By consulting devolved administrations, Mrs May is seeking to reassure voters in the nations of the UK which didn't vote for Brexit that she is listening to their concerns, and avoid Nicola Sturgeon calling for a second independence vote.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

  WHAT SHE SAID

WE will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration system.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Both countries want to maintain the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without opening a back door into Britain. Likely to mean UK border checks at Irish ports and airports.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: BREXIT must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver

CAN SHE DELIVER

Ending free movement is a  RED LINE, but Mrs May left open when it will end, what system will replace it and details of any transition deal. The PM wants highly skilled EU migrants, doctors and nurses, but will she compromise on unskilled migrants to get a better trade deal

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

  

WHAT SHE SAID

We  want to guarantee the right of EU citizens who are already living here in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Likely to agreed early on, as long as the EU doesn't want to haggle. Last year Mrs May offered to settle on the rights of three million EU nationals in the UK, and 1.2million Brits on the continent in advance of formals talks- but Angela Merkel refused.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

 *		 7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

Not only will the government protect the rights of workers' set out in European legislation, we will build on them.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May is determined to at least preserve protections for workers on low and middle incomes-many of whom voted for BREXIT. Could come under threat if there is no deal., and Britain slashes taxes and regulation to attract business.

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. This should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services. But I want to make it clear. It cannot mean membership of the single market

CAN SHE DELIVER

The crux of the negotiation. Britain will leave the single market, and with it EU laws and free movement. Instead Mrs May wants a tariff-free trade and customs agreement to stop goods being held up at ports. She ruled out ' vast contributions' to the EU budget, and the only money going to Brussels will be for particular programmes and agencies like Europol. Her huge gamble is to threaten to walk away if the EU attempts to punish Britain

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

A global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries outside the EU too. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants deals with non-EU countries including the US. That would be impossible from inside the customs union, which imposes a uniform tariff on all non-EU countries. It would also make trade Secretary Liam Fox's job redundant.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting -edge research and innovation. So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Unlikely to be an obstacle to any deal. Much collaboration between academics takes place outside formal EU structures and will continue unimpeded.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

  WHAT SHE SAID

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a deadly terrorist threat, and the dangers presented by hostile states.  All of us share interests and values in common, values we want to see projected around the world.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Security and intelligence cooperation and defence cooperation cannot be a formal bargaining chip, but without making it one, Mrs May reminds EU allies of Britain's importance as an ally in fighting terrorism and important status as a military power.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

  WHAT SHE SAID

It is in no one's interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the European Union.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants tranitional arrangements to smooth the process of leaving the EU with specific deals on budget contributions, immigration, trade and customs lasting different periods of time. Securing this as well as securing a final deal within two years is a huge task.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

[THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD THAT OTHER EU MEMBER STATES WILL BE GREATLY ENCOURAGED BY BREXIT TO LEAVE THAT SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHICH SHOULD MAKE A NUMBER OF EU STATES TO CO-OPERATE FULLY WITH THE UK OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR UNFRIENDLY ATTITUDE AT A LATER DATE.

AS THE GREAT PRIME MINISTER - WILLIAM PITT -  (1759-1806) ANNOUNCED IN NOVEMBER 9-1805 SHORTLY AFTER  NELSON'S VICTORY OVER THE FRENCH AND SPANISH FLEETS AT TRAFALGAR.

S'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

The blueprint of a Free and Prosperous United Kingdom should be the blueprint of a future Free Europe and the world at large. Our past still lives in the hearts of FREE PEOPLES everywhere and soon we will rejoin that sacred past which we left over 43 years ago because of traitorous politicians and others who couldn't see the dangers ,for the gross lies and deceit in their path.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW
Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RELAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANC.]

Faced with the possible imposition (illegally) of a E. U. Constitution this  article contemplating our own U.K. Constitution (English Constitution), is especially topical.

J. Bingley

Constitutional Principles of Power and Remedy.

The Constitution is specifically intended, indeed designed to limit the powers of the state with respect to the people. The Constitution sets a standard upon which the performance of governance may be measured and contested and to provide remedy if abused.

The whole constitution originates its authority from

COMMON LAW

Supremacy resides in the

LAW and PEOPLE

NOT THE

CROWN or PARLIAMENT.

It is a matter of constitutional principle and legal fact that,

THE LAW IS SUPREME

The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrary power. Integral with this, is the system of jury trial. It places the power of law enforcement in the

HANDS of the PEOPLE.

This the most vital safeguard against DESPOTISM.

The English Constitution's function is to

PROTECT the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

 of ENGLISHMEN".

These are the 'BIRTHRIGHT' of the PEOPLE'

[In 2016 one can see how successive governments have by gradualism watered down these rights with even attempts to replace jury trial by trial by judge only on the grounds of speed and saving resources. The people in the main have been, amiss in not being vigilant to the protection of THEIR CONSTITUTION. In just a few weeks on the 23 June,2016 they have a choice whether to vote to leave the EU and regain THEIR LAW-THEIR CONSTITUTION-THEIR FREE COUNTRY. or REMAIN in an ALIEN COLLECTIVIST AND CORRUPT UNDEMOCRATIC EU with NO PROTECTION of MAGNA CARTA of 1215 and BILL OF RIGHTS of 1688 and NO ENGLISHMAN'S ' RIGHTS and LIBERTIES' to be passed on to FUTURE GENERATIONS.]

The fundamental rights and liberties are listed in the preamble of the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 which declares that  the oath is taken for the purpose of

" Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties"

It is a contract with the people which makes it the permanent duty of the CROWN, and the CROWN in both GOVERNMENT and PARLIAMENT.

This contracts the Monarch to govern only according to the STATUTE, COMMON LAW, and the CUSTOM and to 'CAUSE LAW and JUSTICE with MERCY to be used in all JUDGEMENTS'.

All power of governance is vested in the CROWN.

The two Houses of Parliament may upon their concurrence offer bills for ROYAL ASSENT.

A BILL is not ENACTED until it has been authorised by the SOVEREIGN POWER.

Whilst the enacting power (a royal prerogative) of Royal Assent is entirely vested with the monarch it is contracted ONLY TO BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  This is a limitation and essential safeguard to protect the people from any over mighty governance  [such as Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's NEW LABOUR and since DAVE'S PARTY]

 It was used  to defeat the Divine Right of Kings; a claim of absolute power by the Stuart monarchs.  The OATH ascertains the SUPREMACY of the LAW, not the supremacy of CROWN or of PARLIAMENT.

There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

The Coronation contract is of the Crown owing allegiance to the Constitution. The PEOPLE give ALLEGIANCE to the CROWN.

Here is a system of mutual protection for there is a constitutional interdependence.

The MAGNA CARTA

made provision for the PEOPLE to use ANY MEANS including FORCE if the CROWN is found to be in BREACH.

[THE CROWN IS IN BREACH!]

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY...

That which constitutionally binds the Monarch is a restriction upon Her Majesty, Her Government and all Parliamentary power.  The Monarch may do no wrong, but should she refuse by her negative power( the right to withhold assent) to

'LET WRONG BE DONE.'

[Millions of patriots have been waiting over four decades for:-

'Right to be Done!']

Sir William Blackstone confirms this. Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which COMPLIES with the CONSTITUTION.  Plainly NO MONARCH is FREE to ASSENT to ADVICE that CONFLICTS with the CONSTITUTION in FORCE.

There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. [such as the EU]

 There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new   conflicting enactment.

 There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal.

 We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly through the misapplication of party politics.

 Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law.  The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy be upheld and used  in all judgements. This is the trust sand the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under OATH and at LAW, bound to provide REMEDY. Where there are RIGHTS there are REMEDIES. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and DUTY to the CONSTITUTION.

A fixed and certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of the Constitution.

WE MUST RECLAIM OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW FROM THE SUPPOSED DIVINE RIGHT OF OUR POLITICIANS.

John Bingley-AUGUST 2003

*

[We ask how did it come to pass that the JUDICIARY did not PROTECT the CONSTITUTION from the illegal actions of PARLIAMENT and the Crown with the disclosures in 2001 under the 30 year rule from the Public Record Office at

 KEW-LONDON

 which revealed the CONSPIRACY of the FOREIGN OFFICE to prevent the PEOPLE from hearing the TRUTH of their TREACHERY and BETRAYAL. Under the 1969 THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION on the  LAW of TREATIES  there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of pro curing the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

". Where there has been a material change of circumstances. A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight (September 2005), to begin with, following the death of

Edward Heath.

. It has been revealed that he was an agent of a foreign power (NAZI-GERMANY-since 1938), accepted corrupt payment for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them-and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

[Massive payouts were given to the signatories of the  EEC which in reality was in effect the road to the corrupt-collectivist-undemocratic

FEDERAL STATE of the EUROPEAN UNION.]

*

[THE QUEEN FAILED IN HER SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIQUE WORLD RENOWNED FREE PARLIAMENTARY INHERITANCE

AND APART FROM SIGNING ILLEGALLY 6 EU TREATIES CONTRARY TO HER CORONATION OATH-IN 1998 SIGNED TONY BLAIR'S SECRET AMENDMENT BILL  FOR TREASON FROM THE DEATH PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE-OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH HAD REASONS  FOR FEARING A FUTURE IMPEACHMENT BY PARLIAMENT.

 

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 
 

THE TRUTH that BRUSSELS cannot BEAR: PEOPLE CRAVE NATIONAL IDENTITY.

By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail

 3 October 2017

What happened in Catalonia on Sunday was shaming and shocking in a modern European state. Spanish police bludgeoned and assaulted defenceless civilians who were simply trying to exercise their democratic right.

First and foremost, this is a terrible crisis for the wrong-headed, bully-boy government in Madrid. After the unedifying spectacle of police attacking blameless voters, the chances must surely have increased of Catalonia – Spain’s most prosperous region with some 7.5million inhabitants – seceding.

But it is also an enormous crisis for the European Union, which in recent weeks has said almost nothing as the Spanish authorities arrested officials arranging an independence referendum on behalf of the devolved Catalan government.

 

 

RELATED ARTICLES


 

One reason he did not do so in the case of Spain is that it is one of the most obedient pro-EU countries in Europe, which seldom defies the will of Brussels, or causes trouble for Juncker and his ilk.

But there is an even deeper reason for the Commission’s silence. The events in Catalonia challenge at a deep level its project for ever closer union, about which both Juncker and President Emmanuel Macron of France have ventilated in recent weeks.

For how can there be an amicable union between the EU’s nation states if some of those nations are themselves deeply divided and fractious, as is plainly the case with Catalonia and Spain?

Here is a region of largely Catalan-speaking people who regard themselves as culturally distinct. A sizeable proportion of them yearn to break free from Spain, even though Catalonia has been part of the country for hundreds of years.

Sunday’s vote illuminates a truth which Brussels cannot bear. There are many people in Europe for whom the atavistic call of identity counts far more than any exhortation about forging a European superstate

That, after all, was one of the main messages of Brexit – that the majority of voters in our own ancient nation resent the undemocratic control of Brussels, and have no wish to be sucked into a united Europe.

For Brussels, the example of Britain was bad enough, and it has set about trying to punish us for having had the effrontery to want to leave. In a sense, the demonstration of Catalan nationalism is even more alarming to the federalists because this show of independence is happening inside one of the EU’s nation states.

How is it possible, they wonder, for the pan-European project to proceed if some EU countries are in danger of fracturing? The terror in Brussels is that if Catalonia were allowed to break away, regions in other member states could follow suit. Instead of coalescing into an amorphous whole, some EU nations might fall apart.

Belgium, whose capital, Brussels, is the seat of EU expansionism, is divided. The Flemish-speaking region of Flanders, which constitutes about 60 per cent of the country’s population, is at daggers drawn with the French-speaking minority.

Many people in northern Italy long to be rid of the impoverished south, which is relatively unproductive and, in the view of northerners, consumes more than its fair share of government spending. The Right-wing Northern League has campaigned with some success for independence for the north, and imagines a separate country called Padania.

France faces an independence movement in the island of Corsica. Meanwhile the cohesion of Spain is threatened not just by free-spirited Catalans but also by militant Basques, part of whose territory lies in France.

Romania and Slovakia both have unhappy Hungarian minorities. Even in Poland’s region of Silesia, much of which used to be ruled by Germany until 1945, there are stirrings of an independence movement.

All over Europe apparently unified countries are harried by breakaway groups which have a strong sense of separate identity. If Catalonia were allowed to go it alone, who knows what might come next?
 

The problem for Brussels is that it is used to dealing with individual nation states but is powerless to intervene in unruly regions. That is why the Commission has remained so quiet in the case of Catalonia apart from expressing a few words of solidarity with Spain.

By the way, the British response has been regrettably supine. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson stressed his support for the Spanish government in a tweet. As the leading Brexiteer he should surely have been more critical of Madrid’s use of violence.

The Spanish government, it must be said, has behaved rashly and brutishly. Arguably some Catalan separatist political parties have been unwise in deliberately engineering a confrontation.

But given that the Catalan government had made numerous requests to hold a referendum on independence – after Spain’s constitutional court had controversially declared in 2010 that Catalonia was not a nation – what was it to do having been rebuffed time and time again? If it had possessed a modicum of good sense, the Spanish government would have allowed the referendum to go ahead. Had the vote been in favour of independence, it could have then questioned its legal status.

But to arrest Catalan officials, to close a large number of polling stations, and then to clobber innocent voters were acts of unbelievable stupidity as well as nastiness.

It passes understanding how the prime minister of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, can say that democracy has prevailed. The opposite is true.

Imagine if two or three years hence the Scottish National Party’s Nicola Sturgeon were to hold a referendum without the approval of Westminster – by no means an unthinkable eventuality.

In fact, her case would be much weaker than that of the Catalan government since there has already been one legal referendum in Scotland in 2014, which was said by the SNP leader Alex Salmond at the time to be the last for a generation.

Even so, it is inconceivable that a new unofficial referendum in Scotland would be met by the authorities in Westminster with police wielding batons and firing rubber bullets. Such a wild over-reaction would inevitably give a boost to Scottish nationalism – as, I have no doubt, the cause of Catalan nationalism will have benefited from Sunday’s onslaught.

The truth is that the Spanish state has a very restricted conception of democracy. We should know that already from its desire to shoehorn Gibraltar into Spain despite 99 per cent of its citizens having voted in a 2002 referendum to remain British.

God alone knows what will happen now in Catalonia. Unless the Spanish government agrees to an official referendum – an unlikely prospect – there will probably be deadlock. I am afraid there is also the possibility of more violence on both sides.

Justifying and supporting the Madrid government is the European Commission in all its absurdity, dreaming dreams of a union which the people of Europe do not want. It will do its utmost to ensure that Catalonia doesn’t interfere with its grandiose scheme.

Will Remainers look at Catalonia and reflect that we have a quieter and more civilised way of dealing with our differences in this country? I don’t know. What I do know is that every day I am ever more relieved that we are leaving this misguided club.
Full article
 


 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4942684/STEPHEN-GLOVER-truth-national-identity.html#ixzz4uYWX4q7V
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on

 

92

View
comments

 

H.F.1332 BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU
 

A REMINDER!-IF YOU NEED IT!

101 REASONS FOR LEAVING THE EU

 

PART 1

 

We wish to express our indebtedness and gratitude to those who in books and articles have sought to alert the Nation to its Danger, and whose observations are reflected or summarised here: in particular,

 

Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter

for Treason at Maastricht

 

Adrian Hilton for The Principality and Power of Europe

 

Lindsay Jenkins for The Last Days of Britain

And

 

For the late Lord Shore of Stepney’s

Separate Ways

 

Copies of this booklet can be obtained from the Publishers -Priced £1.20 incl p&p

 

St Mathew Publishing Ltd

24 Geldart St.

Cambridge

Tel: 01223 504871 Fax: 01223 512304

 

*

 

1. hush up

 

Cabinet papers pre - 1970 show the Heath government to have had full knowledge of the EEC being a long -term plan for the unitary European State with its own Currency; but the facts were suppressed by this and succeeding governments with the Deliberate intention of keeping the Nation in the dark

 

1.         ‘surrenders of sovereignty’’

 

On 14th December 1960 the Lord Chancellor,

Lord Kilmuir,

Britain’s senior legal officer, warned Edward Heath of the implications of signing the Treaty of Rome:

‘’ To satisfy the requirements of the treaty, Parliament could enact legislation which would give automatic force of Law to any existing or future regulations made by… the Community…It is clear that the Council of Ministers could make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes… It is the first step on the road, which leads… to the federal state… I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones…these objections ought to be brought out into the open.

 

2.         ‘end of Britain’’

 

That the consequences of membership had been realised by some at Westminster about this time is apparent from a speech in 1962 by Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour party, who rightly identifying ‘’ the desire of those, who created the European Community, for a political federation. That is what they mean, that is what they offer’’, added that this would bring about the end of Britain as an independent [Nation State]…the end of a thousand years of history.

 

3.         the big lie

 

Edward Heath’s 1971 White Paper on joining the EEC deceived Parliament and the People with its false statements that’’ there is no question of any erosion of essential sovereignty’’, and that Britain’s Sovereignty would somehow be ‘’enlarged’’ by ‘sharing’’

 

4.         ministry of propaganda

 

Between 1970 and 1972 the Heath Government directed a secret propaganda offensive, known as the Connaught Breakfasts, in which Cabinet Ministers, Foreign Heads of Department, civil servants, media managers and journalists, in conjunction with the European Movement, carried on TV, radio and newspaper campaign to swing round strongly opposed public opinion to acceptance of the EEC, public money being used in the process.

 

5.         unconstitutional…1

 

The 1972 Act which took Britain into the EEC was in breach of the Constitution, in that the Government allowed no prior consultation of the electorate by special General Election or Referendum, as is required under the Constitution for Parliamentary measures involving Constitutional Change, the precedents being those of 1831/2 and 1910.

 

 

7. unconstitutional…2

 

By passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament unconstitutionally attempted to renounce its legal Sovereignty, so as to make the British People subject to enactments of outside agencies, and ending its own ability to put into effect the expressed wishes of the Electorate.

 

8. unconstitutional…3

 

In doing so, it deliberately and wrongfully denied the, ultimate Sovereignty of the People, of which Parliament is Constitutionally both Servant and Defender and which at the end of each Parliament’s term is returned to its Possessors.

 

9.                     unconstitutional…4

 

It is the Corner Stone of the Constitution that no Parliament is or can be bound by enactments of its predecessors; but the Act of 1972 unconstitutionally purported (Section 2.4) to be mandatory upon all succeeding Parliaments.

   

10.               unconstitutional…5

  

The Act of 1972 is unconstitutional in the wider respect that falsehood and deception was employed to secure its enactment, contrary not only to the spirit of the Constitution but of all procedure whatsoever.

 

11. test case

 

The Metric Martyrs’ appeal against their conviction is based on the fact that the 1985 Imperial Weights &Measures Act, which permits trading in pounds and ounces, constitutionally takes precedence over the earlier Act of 1972 which made us members of the EU; and it is thus a test case not only between British and EU law, but of whether the 1972 Act can have abrogated the Constitution.

 

12.indestructible

 

Any supposition that the Act in some sense annulled the Constitution is untenable, since (apart from the 1972 Act itself being unconstitutional both in its content and process of enactment) the unique unwritten British Constitution is not law, but essentially an honoured undertaking and consensus in those who have created and live under it as to the proper conduct of Parliamentary affairs, and thus incapable of being set aside by legal means.

 

13. … twilight hour?

 

By subjecting the British people to decrees other than the laws enacted by their own legislature, the Act contravened the undertaking in the Coronation Oath ‘’ to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs’’; the provisions of the treason Act 1795, against engaging in actions ‘’tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution’’ of the United Kingdom, and those of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 condemning ant who attempt to ‘’ deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom’’; and the Privy Councillor's Oath ‘’ To bear faith and allegiance to the Crown and defend its jurisdiction and power against all foreign…persons…or states.’’

 

14. royal commoner

 

Allegiance to H.M. the Queen is in effect allegiance to Brussels, since through the Queen’s EU citizenship and accountability in her own courts to superior EU law, Her Majesty has vassal status, and an Oath of Allegiance to her now stands’ subject to the Commission’s tolerance’’ so long as she and her Nation do not show themselves disloyal to the sovereignty of the European Union.

 

 

15. unconstitutionality

 

The chief reason for the Labour government’s calling a Referendum in 1975 was the unconstitutionality of the European Communities

 

16. bizarre

A retrospective Referendum upon an Act of Parliament was without precedent in British history, and partook of the nature of inertia salesmanship, especially since accompanied by the dispatching of government literature to every household with the disinformation that the Act had been purely a free trade agreement, and urging a ‘Yes’ vote; a species of official activity also without precedent, and just as questionable.

 

17. the great divide

Britain’s becoming and remaining a member of the EU, and the methods employed to his end, resulted from the emergence of what Lord Goodhart memorably described as ‘’ a political establishment’’ with purposes disturbingly opposed to the wish of the electorate; his book ‘Full-Hearted Consent (1976) ironically gaining its title from Mr Heath’s assurance during the 1970 General Election campaign that, if there were a future possibility of entering the EEC, no government would take their nation into it’’ without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the People.

 

18. vote as EU please

 

The political establishment’s continuing activities have brought about a new situation, new to British politics, in which the widespread public hostility to the EU’s increasing encroachments is denied party political expression, the policies of the major parties all being favourable to membership.

 

19. polling days

 

In a nationwide MORI opinion poll carried out on behalf of the British Democracy Campaign 15-21 March, 2001, in which 1805 adult respondents were questioned face to face in their homes, 52% of these offered an opinion declared themselves in favour of leaving the EU now, 71% wanted a Referendum on continued membership, and 75% considered that the British people had not received sufficient information on the implications of the EU.

 

20. mobile goalposts

 

Through the deeper irregularity of its plan to proceed by stealth through a series of treaties until the European State was a fait accompli before its populations had come to realise what was going on, the EU has developed into a concept and institution far other than what was voted on in 1975 Referendum, and so without democratic validation in this as in other countries.

 

 

21. undemocratic

 

The European Union is an unrepresentative and authoritarian institution, by virtue of the fact that the members of the legislative (Council of Ministers) and its executive (Commission) are not directly elected by and responsible to the voters of a EU constituency.

 

22. non-accountable

 

The EU Council of Ministers is composed of the non-dismissible nominees of the governments of member states, who are thus removed from democratic accountability.

 

23. horse-trading

 

Britain’s voice in the Council is one amongst many; and policy decisions, as the outcome of conflict of interests and pressures resolved by bargaining, by no means necessarily correspond to Britain’s needs and the wishes of its electorate.

 

24. cabal

 

The Council, more strictly the legislative body, and the Commission, which with its executive roll also issues legislative proposals, both meet in secret; and since the fifty or so persons who compose the two have not been elected to European government functions, and in carrying them out are accountable to no-one, they constitutes, not a legislative, but a ruling oligarchy.

 

25. big brothers

 

Though the EU Commission are unelected appointees without democratic mandate or accountability, they have power to impose directives and regulations by by-passing the legislatures of democratic states.

 

26. the parliament: authority

 

Whereas the British Cabinet is constitutionally answerable to Parliament in Westminster, where a government defeat on a motion of no confidence involves a Dissolution and General Election, the European Union’s Parliament, so called, is entirely without such control over the Commission, which is effectively the EU Cabinet.

 

27. the parliament: finance

 

From its earlier days to the present, what has been confirmed the Westminster Parliament’s power has been its direction of finance; but the EU Parliament is without a corresponding capacity?

 

28. the parliament: legislation

 

Unlike all the other parliaments in the Western tradition, the EU Parliament is unable to legislate, its functions being merely to review and agree measures drawn up by the Commission, and thereby to have virtually no legislative role.

 

29 the parliament veto

 

Nor does the Parliament have a final veto over Commission regulations and directives, since through the procedure euphemistically named ‘’Conciliation’’, the Commission can at its will override any negative vote.

 

30. façade

 

The word ‘’Parliament’’ is thus a misnomer for what is little more than a rubber-stamp or puppet agency; but the democratic election of its members creates the dangerous illusion of democracy being at work, in what is in essence an authoritarian regime.

 

31.      inferior government

 

Through its membership of the EU, Britain is being subjected to a species of non-representative, non-democratic, authoritarian government far inferior to that which prevailed at Westminster until 1973, and having features reminiscent of the dictatorial systems which flourished on the continent of Europe in the not very distant past.

 

32.      12-star chamber?

 

The European Court of Justice, whose members are appointed by the various governments, is the supreme arbiter on EU law, with power to overrule the laws of member states; but being charged under the Treaty of Rome with ensuring that provisions of all the EU treaties, and the principle of ‘’ever closer union’’, are observed, and in its own words devoted to ‘’overcoming the resistance of national governments to European integration’’, it is politically predisposed and active in a manner incompatible with judicial impartiality.

 

33.      moot points

 

EU treaties and regulations are generally cast in such obscure language that all wishing to be sure where they stand will be forced to go to the European Court of Justice: so that it will become an absolute source of political authority, and the European State be unassailably dominant over the former nations now its provinces.

 

34.      EU rules OK

 

EU law, as conveyed by the treaties, regulations and directives, and decrees and rulings of the European Court, are accepted by British courts as taking precedence over national law, the ECJ having declared that ‘’Every national court must apply Community law in its entirety and must accordingly set aside any provision of national law which may conflict with it, whether prior or subsequent to this Community rule’’ (ECR 629 at 643,644).

 

35.      ‘’tidal wave’’

 

The result is that the British Statute and Common law are being superseded, and law-making has become primarily the prerogative of the European Union, which has been described by a British judge as ‘’a bold new source of law’’, and whose legislation, according to the late Lord Denning, a former Master of the Rolls, is no longer’’ an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries of England’’, but’’ now like a tidal wave bringing down sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses, to the dismay of us all’’ (quoted in the Times, 1st April 1996).

 

 

 

36. corpus juris

 

In place of existing laws in the member countries, there will have been instituted under the European State the Corpus Juris, a body of law largely in accordance with continental legal systems, deriving from three main sources: the Corpus Juris Civilis of the Roman Emperor Justinian, Inquisition law, and the Code Napoleon

 

37. euro state prosecutor

 

Corpus Juris is to be administered by the European State Prosecutor, and operate through European courts and trans-national police and the courts and police forces of member states, so combining police and prosecution into one entity

 

38. continental menu

 

Judicial procedure is to be as already in practice on the Continent, the European State Prosecutor having responsibility for investigation, arrest, committal to trial, presentation of the prosecution case in court, judgment and imposition of sentence, trial taking place before an inquisitorial judge and two professional assessors: the State, in effect, both judge and jury.

 

39. … innocent? Prove it!

 

Also as on the Continent, the concept of presumed innocence will disappear, and it will become the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence to the court, contrary to the position under English law, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and the accused is innocent unless and until proved guilty.

 

40.                   goodbye, Habeas Corpus

 

Corpus Juris will quash the right of Habeas Corpus, instituted in 1215 by Magna Carta  (article 39), by which it is granted in perpetuity to all subjects of the monarch that no-one should suffer the loss of liberty without evidence warranting his further detention being established in a court hearing, normally within 48 hours of his arrest.

 

41. farewell, trial by jury

 

Corpus Juris will similarly abolish the right of trial by jury, whose beginnings date from as early as 1166 in the reign of Henry 11, through which the question of a person’s innocence or guilt is determined by twelve of his peers, not by the judiciary, a practice which, because of a jury’s freedom to acquit a person technically guilty under an unjust decree, ensures that laws made by the state are always acceptable to the people, and that government pressure upon, or corruption of, the judiciary shall never be able to affect the impartial administration of justice.

 

42. ‘ the test of civilisation’’

 

In a Minute to the Home Secretary of 21st November, 1943, Winston Churchill observed: ‘’The great principles of Habeas Corpus and trial by jury… are the supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary individuals against the State… The power of the executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to law for an indefinite period, is in the highest decree odious, and is the foundation for all totalitarian governments… Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy. This is really the test of civilisation.’’

 

 

* * *

 

 

43. above the law

 

The European State’s judicial system involves the introduction of forces of armed police, whether members of Europol or of the paramilitary European border police in process of formation, enjoying diplomatic immunity from arrest, and thus above the law; unlike British police, who, while charged with enforcement of the, remain ordinary members of the public, themselves subject to the laws they uphold

 

44. clear enough

 

The reasons for the European State police’s immunity from the law have never been explained, though the parallel with the police forces of authoritarian regimes is manifest

 

45. just the start

 

Eurojust, the provisional EU public prosecution agency, which is closely linked to Europol, already has autonomous, non-accountable power to initiate investigations in every state of the European Union, Europol being able to order surveillance of any British person by letters, E-mail or ‘phone tapping, and to acquire upon demand secret intelligence from British security agencies M15 and M16.

 

46. affront

 

The concepts, provisions and methods of the judicial system of the emerging European State are legally and ethically inferior to the system of British justice admired throughout the world for its humanity and impartiality: and if ever instituted in Britain, would be a regressive and affronting imposition.

 

47. Euro Army

 

The future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), founded upon the predominant military power of the United States, which has for more than half a century secured and maintained Europe’s peace, is now threatened by the European State’s establishing an Army of its own, dubbed the Rapid Reaction Force, upon the pretext that it will facilitate military operations in which NATO does not wish to take part.

48. pretext

 

Since arrangements already exist within NATO for the EU to take military action without NATO’s participation, but using its facilities, assets, transport and intelligence, the reasons for setting up a European Army can only be to confirm the emerging Statehood of the EU, and lessen the commitment of the United States to Europe’s security: so jeopardising NATO’s continuing role, and thereby the peace of Europe.

 

 

49. escape of cat

 

Helmut Kohl’s statement that ‘’ a united Europe without a common defence is, in the long run, not feasible’’ (Independence, CIB, January 2000,p1) would seem to apply regarding the first; and that of Jacques Chirac, ‘’The object of a European defence identity is to contain the United States’’ (cited by Michael Fabricant, MP, House of Commons, 29th March 2000), with respect to the second.

* *

 

DESPOTISM is:

 

[‘ Everything by the EU- but nothing by YOU ’]

 * * *

 (50 - More Reasons in Part 2.)

 Or you may order a booklet from:

 

St Mathew Publishing Ltd

24 Geldart St. Cambridge

CB1 2lX

 

Tel: 01223 504871 or Fax: 01223 512304

2004

CLICK FOR PART 2

 

H.F.1288-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT!
 DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Surely this means they can't stop BREXIT NOW

Last night's resounding 372 Commons majority calling on ministers to trigger BREXIT before the end of March 2017 must surely put the matter beyond doubt.

 Indeed, it would be perverse in the extreme if the

SUPREME COURT

were to rule that the timing of

 

 WITHDRAWAL

 

must go back to

 PARLIAMENT

giving diehard

BREMOANERS

and unelected PEERS a chance to  SABOTAGE a POLICY backed by

17.4 MILLION VOTERS.

As the COURT'S PRESIDENT LORD NEUBERGER put it before last night's vote, with studied understatement:

'It would be a bit surprising if the

REFERENDUM ACT

 and

REFERENDUM

HAD NO EFFECT IN LAW.'

Acutely, he added that the average person would think it 'a bit odd' if his court ruled that an

ACT of PARLIAMENT

was needed to trigger

BREXIT

after both Houses had, in his own words, 'ceded authority to the

PEOPLE'

Fingers crossed, his fellow judges may yet come to the same conclusion'

Indeed the real mystery is how 89 MPs had the appalling arrogance to dismiss the

PUBLIC'S VERDICT

by voting against the

GOVERNMENT

LAST NIGHT.

True, with their pretensions to independence-and a

REMAIN MAJORITY NORTH OF THE BORDER

-it is perhaps understandable that

51 SCOTTISH NATIONALIST MP REFUSED TO RESPECT VOTERS' DEMAND FOR

 BREXIT.

BUT as for the rest, who sit for ENGLISH and WELSH constituencies, how can they look their ELECTORATE

in the eye after after delivering such an

INSULT to DEMOCRACY?

Significantly, they include

FIVE of the NINE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

Since there is nothing remotely LIBERAL or DEMOCRATIC about THEM, isn't it high time

THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME?

Full article

*  *  *

 

 

[We have no need to remind our neighbours on our Northern border  of their history in their tireless struggle for INDEPENDENCE . It cannot be denied that it is the characteristic of the majority of the settled population in our shared island home. We have ourselves stated decades ago for the INDEPENDENCE of the FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES of BRITAIN under an ISLAND COUNCIL- A SUPREME ASSEMBLY of the ISLAND PEOPLE so we understand as no doubt the majority of people in our land of the natural desire to be a FREE PEOPLE.  What we cannot understand ,is why the SCOTTISH PEOPLE were so anxious  to be an INDEPENDENT NATION again YET decide to give up that which a referendum would give them and  instead  vote to become a captive PROVINCE of the SOVIETISED (Frau Merkel was born in East Germany )UNDEMOCRATIC EU. Below we show a section of an article which we placed on an article by Simon Heffer dealing with Scottish affairs at the time.

in November 2006

[IN ORDER TO HONOUR OUR NORTHERN NEIGHBOURS AND OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR WISH FOR INDEPENDENCE SOMETHING THE MAJORITY OF THE ENGLISH UNDERSTAND WE STATE HERE

FROM THE

Arbroath Manifesto

sent by the

Nobles and Commons of Scotland

to the

Pope

in

1320

 

'We fight not for glory nor for wealth nor for honour but for the freedom which no good man will surrender but with his life.'

*

DECEMBER 8-2016

[BUT ironically when it came to the REFERENDUM in June 2016 the majority of voters in Scotland preferred to remain slaves within Hitler's war-time plan of a so -called European Union. The love of FREEDOM appears to have been replaced by the love of exchanging the financial assistance from England-higher per head of population than in the rest of the UK  for that of the disintegrating - undemocratic-unrepresentative-wasteful and costly-soon to be a SUPER-STATE.

AS for their  wish to become an INDEPENDENT NATION STATE the greater majority o on this side of the border wished them well decades ago. The EDP proposed at its inseption the there should be a FAMILY of INDEPENDENT NATION STATES of THE UK with an ISLAND COUNCIL.] 

SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?

 

*

 

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

H.F.1050 BREXIT NOW

 

 

 

Revealed:

The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU

*

 

By Adam Lebor
Last updated at 10:30 PM on 09th May 2009

 

 

The paper is aged and fragile, the typewritten letters slowly fading. But US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 is as chilling now as the day it was written in November 1944.

The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for 's post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis' return to power and work for a 'strong German empire'. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

 

Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with I. G. Farben

Plotters: SS chief Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with Nazi-backed company I. G. Farben

The three-page, closely typed report, marked 'Secret', copied to British officials and sent by air pouch to Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State, detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany's economy by sending money through Switzerland.

They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again.

The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire - but not just German.

The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intelligence files, was the inspiration for my thriller The Budapest Protocol.

The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, during the election campaign for the first president of . The European Union superstate is revealed as a front for a sinister conspiracy, one rooted in the last days of the Second World War.

But as I researched and wrote the novel, I realised that some of the Red House Report had become fact.

Nazi Germany did export massive amounts of capital through neutral countries. German businesses did set up a network of front companies abroad. The German economy did soon recover after 1945.

The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.

Is it possible that the Fourth Reich those Nazi industrialists foresaw has, in some part at least, come to pass?

The Red House Report was written by a French spy who was at the meeting in Strasbourg in 1944 - and it paints an extraordinary picture.

The industrialists gathered at the Maison Rouge Hotel waited expectantly as SS Obergruppenfuhrer Dr Scheid began the meeting. Scheid held one of the highest ranks in the SS, equivalent to Lieutenant General. He cut an imposing figure in his tailored grey-green uniform and high, peaked cap with silver braiding. Guards were posted outside and the room had been searched for microphones.

 

Auschwitz

Death camp: Auschwitz, where tens of thousands of slave labourers died working in a factory run by German firm I. G. Farben

There was a sharp intake of breath as he began to speak. German industry must realise that the war cannot be won, he declared. 'It must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign.' Such defeatist talk was treasonous - enough to earn a visit to the Gestapo's cellars, followed by a one-way trip to a concentration camp.

But Scheid had been given special licence to speak the truth – the future of the Reich was at stake. He ordered the industrialists to 'make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion'.

The industrialists were to borrow substantial sums from foreign countries after the war.

They were especially to exploit the finances of those German firms that had already been used as fronts for economic penetration abroad, said Scheid, citing the American partners of the steel giant Krupp as well as Zeiss, Leica and the Hamburg-America Line shipping company.

But as most of the industrialists left the meeting, a handful were beckoned into another smaller gathering, presided over by Dr Bosse of the Armaments Ministry. There were secrets to be shared with the elite of the elite.

Bosse explained how, even though the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was lost, resistance against the Allies would continue until a guarantee of German unity could be obtained. He then laid out the secret three-stage strategy for the Fourth Reich.

In stage one, the industrialists were to 'prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go underground as a Maquis', using the term for the French resistance.

Stage two would see the government allocating large sums to German industrialists to establish a 'secure post-war foundation in foreign countries', while 'existing financial reserves must be placed at the disposal of the party so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat'.

In stage three, German businesses would set up a 'sleeper' network of agents abroad through front companies, which were to be covers for military research and intelligence, until the Nazis returned to power.

'The existence of these is to be known only by very few people in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party,' Bosse announced.

'Each office will have a liaison agent with the party. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to re-establish its control over Germany, the industrialists will be paid for their effort and co-operation by concessions and orders.'

 

Enlarge   The 1944 Red House Report

Extraordinary revelations: The 1944 Red House Report, detailing 'plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity'

The exported funds were to be channelled through two banks in Zurich, or via agencies in Switzerland which bought property in Switzerland for German concerns, for a five per cent commission.

The Nazis had been covertly sending funds through neutral countries for years.

Swiss banks, in particular the Swiss National Bank, accepted gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries. They accepted assets and property titles taken from Jewish businessmen in Germany and occupied countries, and supplied the foreign currency that the Nazis needed to buy vital war materials.

Swiss economic collaboration with the Nazis had been closely monitored by Allied intelligence.

The Red House Report's author notes: 'Previously, exports of capital by German industrialists to neutral countries had to be accomplished rather surreptitiously and by means of special influence.

'Now the Nazi Party stands behind the industrialists and urges them to save themselves by getting funds outside Germany and at the same time advance the party's plans for its post-war operations.'

The order to export foreign capital was technically illegal in Nazi Germany, but by the summer of 1944 the law did not matter.

More than two months after D-Day, the Nazis were being squeezed by the Allies from the west and the Soviets from the east. Hitler had been badly wounded in an assassination attempt. The Nazi leadership was nervous, fractious and quarrelling.

During the war years the SS had built up a gigantic economic empire, based on plunder and murder, and they planned to keep it.

A meeting such as that at the Maison Rouge would need the protection of the SS, according to Dr Adam Tooze of Cambridge University, author of Wages of Destruction: The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy.

He says: 'By 1944 any discussion of post-war planning was banned. It was extremely dangerous to do that in public. But the SS was thinking in the long-term. If you are trying to establish a workable coalition after the war, the only safe place to do it is under the auspices of the apparatus of terror.'

Shrewd SS leaders such as Otto Ohlendorf were already thinking ahead.

As commander of Einsatzgruppe D, which operated on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1942, Ohlendorf was responsible for the murder of 90,000 men, women and children.

A highly educated, intelligent lawyer and economist, Ohlendorf showed great concern for the psychological welfare of his extermination squad's gunmen: he ordered that several of them should fire simultaneously at their victims, so as to avoid any feelings of personal responsibility.

By the winter of 1943 he was transferred to the Ministry of Economics. Ohlendorf's ostensible job was focusing on export trade, but his real priority was preserving the SS's massive pan-European economic empire after Germany's defeat.

Ohlendorf, who was later hanged at Nuremberg, took particular interest in the work of a German economist called Ludwig Erhard. Erhard had written a lengthy manuscript on the transition to a post-war economy after Germany's defeat. This was dangerous, especially as his name had been mentioned in connection with resistance groups.

But Ohlendorf, who was also chief of the SD, the Nazi domestic security service, protected Erhard as he agreed with his views on stabilising the post-war German economy. Ohlendorf himself was protected by Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS.

Ohlendorf and Erhard feared a bout of hyper-inflation, such as the one that had destroyed the German economy in the Twenties. Such a catastrophe would render the SS's economic empire almost worthless.

The two men agreed that the post-war priority was rapid monetary stabilisation through a stable currency unit, but they realised this would have to be enforced by a friendly occupying power, as no post-war German state would have enough legitimacy to introduce a currency that would have any value.

That unit would become the Deutschmark, which was introduced in 1948. It was an astonishing success and it kick-started the German economy. With a stable currency, Germany was once again an attractive trading partner.

The German industrial conglomerates could rapidly rebuild their economic empires across Europe.

War had been extraordinarily profitable for the German economy. By 1948 - despite six years of conflict, Allied bombing and post-war reparations payments - the capital stock of assets such as equipment and buildings was larger than in 1936, thanks mainly to the armaments boom.

Erhard pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism - the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body.

Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organisation, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today.

But before the common market could be set up, the Nazi industrialists had to be pardoned, and Nazi bankers and officials reintegrated. In 1957, John J. McCloy, the American High Commissioner for Germany, issued an amnesty for industrialists convicted of war crimes.

The two most powerful Nazi industrialists, Alfried Krupp of Krupp Industries and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group eventually owned a 40 per cent stake in Daimler-Benz, were released from prison after serving barely three years.

Krupp and Flick had been central figures in the Nazi economy. Their companies used slave labourers like cattle, to be worked to death.

The Krupp company soon became one of Europe's leading industrial combines.

The Flick Group also quickly built up a new pan-European business empire. Friedrich Flick remained unrepentant about his wartime record and refused to pay a single Deutschmark in compensation until his death in July 1972 at the age of 90, when he left a fortune of more than $1billion, the equivalent of £400million at the time.

'For many leading industrial figures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pursuing German national interests after the defeat of Hitler,' says historian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jewish former slave labourers.

'The continuity of the economy of Germany and the economies of post-war Europe is striking. Some of the leading figures in the Nazi economy became leading builders of the European Union.'

Numerous household names had exploited slave and forced labourers including BMW, Siemens and Volkswagen, which produced munitions and the V1 rocket.

Slave labour was an integral part of the Nazi war machine. Many concentration camps were attached to dedicated factories where company officials worked hand-in-hand with the SS officers overseeing the camps.

Like Krupp and Flick, Hermann Abs, post-war Germany's most powerful banker, had prospered in the Third Reich. Dapper, elegant and diplomatic, Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest bank, in 1937. As the Nazi empire expanded, Deutsche Bank enthusiastically 'Aryanised' Austrian and Czechoslovak banks that were owned by Jews.

By 1942, Abs held 40 directorships, a quarter of which were in countries occupied by the Nazis. Many of these Aryanised companies used slave labour and by 1943 Deutsche Bank's wealth had quadrupled.

Abs also sat on the supervisory board of I.G. Farben, as Deutsche Bank's representative. I.G. Farben was one of Nazi Germany's most powerful companies, formed out of a union of BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and subsidiaries in the Twenties.

It was so deeply entwined with the SS and the Nazis that it ran its own slave labour camp at Auschwitz, known as Auschwitz III, where tens of thousands of Jews and other prisoners died producing artificial rubber.

When they could work no longer, or were verbraucht (used up) in the Nazis' chilling term, they were moved to Birkenau. There they were gassed using Zyklon B, the patent for which was owned by I.G. Farben.

But like all good businessmen, I.G. Farben's bosses hedged their bets.

During the war the company had financed Ludwig Erhard's research. After the war, 24 I.G. Farben executives were indicted for war crimes over Auschwitz III - but only twelve of the 24 were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms ranging from one-and-a-half to eight years. I.G. Farben got away with mass murder.

Abs was one of the most important figures in Germany's post-war reconstruction. It was largely thanks to him that, just as the Red House Report exhorted, a 'strong German empire' was indeed rebuilt, one which formed the basis of today's European Union.

Abs was put in charge of allocating Marshall Aid - reconstruction funds - to German industry. By 1948 he was effectively managing Germany's economic recovery.

Crucially, Abs was also a member of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union.

Its members included industrialists and financiers and it developed policies that are strikingly familiar today - on monetary integration and common transport, energy and welfare systems.

When Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of West Germany, took power in 1949, Abs was his most important financial adviser.

Behind the scenes Abs was working hard for Deutsche Bank to be allowed to reconstitute itself after decentralisation. In 1957 he succeeded and he returned to his former employer.

That same year the six members of the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Economic Community. The treaty further liberalised trade and established increasingly powerful supranational institutions including the European Parliament and European Commission.

Like Abs, Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany's first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.

But the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe - was built on mass murder. The number of slave and forced labourers who died while employed by German companies in the Nazi era was

 2,700,000.

Some sporadic compensation payments were made but German industry agreed a conclusive, global settlement only in 2000, with a £3billion compensation fund. There was no admission of legal liability and the individual compensation was paltry.

A slave labourer would receive 15,000 Deutschmarks (about £5,000), a forced labourer 5,000 (about £1,600). Any claimant accepting the deal had to undertake not to launch any further legal action.

To put this sum of money into perspective, in 2001 Volkswagen alone made profits of £1.8billion.

Next month, 27 European Union member states vote in the biggest transnational election in history. Europe now enjoys peace and stability. Germany is a democracy, once again home to a substantial Jewish community. The Holocaust is seared into national memory.

But the Red House Report is a bridge from a sunny present to a dark past. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, once said: 'In 50 years' time nobody will think of nation states.'

For now, the nation state endures. But these three typewritten pages are a reminder that today's drive towards a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich - an economic rather than military imperium.

• The Budapest Protocol, Adam LeBor's thriller inspired by the Red House Report, is published by Reportage Press.

 

Places:

,

Print this article Print this article

Read later Read later

Email to a friend Email to a friend

 

 

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

*

 

*

[ Prime Minister Edward Heath was a NAZI SPY for over 60 years to his death in 2005 before which he publicly admitted that he had lied to the people when he said there would be no loss of sovereignty. His fellow traitors were Roy Jenkins and Geoffrey Rippon who were reported to MI5 in 1938 by the Master Lindsay of Balliol College Oxford . Harold MacMillian before him was exposed by intelligence sources 13 years earlier in 1957 as an agent of the German Abwehr.     

This country has been served by many traitors since that day as a look at the list of members of the

and that is not a complete list because of the great difficulty of obtaining the names of those who belong to such a secretive body.  But we know that Gordon Brown- Ed Balls on the Labour side and Kenneth Clarke and George Osborne the Shadow Chancellor on the Tory side. The Liberal Democrats have their David Steel and no doubt many others. The Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King is also on the list and this man has charge of our of the future financial  health of our nation. And we must not forget our greatest despot Tony Blair.

www.worldreports.org.uk

[We have hundreds of Bulletins on the European Union listed below

*

[Each underlined word has a separate bulletin]

 

H.F.1290

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

 
Menu
 
 
2018-01-01

Happy New Year: Hundreds of top Khazarian mobsters, including the Bush family, renditioned to Gitmo

By  White Dragon Society  3 Comments
 

In a historic moment of poetic justice, most of the U.S.-based top perpetrators of the fake “war on terror” have now themselves been renditioned to the U.S. Navy camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Pentagon sources say.  “The Rothschild assets George Soros, Peter Munk, Peter Sutherland, the Bushes, the Podestas, and many others may have been airlifted to Gitmo for military tribunals, as the Department of Defense spends $500M to upgrade the prison and send more military police and Marines,” the sources say.

In one of many signs of just how historic the new American revolution is, “30 congressmen will not be returning in the new year,” the Pentagon sources say.  CIA sources also confirm that former U.S. President Bill Clinton, hoping for a plea bargain, is spilling the beans on people like former CIA head John Brennan, top U.S. Mossad agent Rahm Emmanuel, former Vice President Dick Cheney, and many others.

Furthemore, as U.S. President Donald Trump proclaims Janaury 2018 to be “Anti-Slavery Month,”
 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-proclaims-january-2018-national-slavery-human-trafficking-prevention-month/

… human trafficking centers around the world are being raided and shut down.  In Saudi Arabia, 3,000 child sex slaves have been freed, according to Russian FSB sources.  In the U.S., “there was a power outage on December 27th at the “pedo heaven Disneyland,” as the place was raided by special forces fighting human slavers, the Pentagon sources say.  In apparently connected events, Washington Post heir Bill Graham and Jordan Feldstein, the brother of the actor Jonah Hill, died last week, the sources point out.

Another move was that Julian Assange “was extracted from the Ecuadorian Embassy to take down the cabal, and he may be pardoned along with Mike Flynn,” the sources add.

Also, “On Christmas day, Delta Force raided a mansion owned by former President Barack Obama in …
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

 
2017-12-25

Merry Christmas:  The 13 “Illuminati” bloodline families sue for peace

By  White Dragon Society  280 Comments

 

Peace on earth and goodwill to all (and not just men, but all life forms) is looking like a realistic goal for 2018 now that the 13 “Illuminati” * bloodline families, seeing their ancient rule of planet Earth collapsing, are suing for peace.  Last week a representative of the G7 (Germany, the U.K., the corporate U.S., Japan, Italy, France, and Canada) met with a representative of the White Dragon Society (WDS) to discuss peace terms, according to a WDS member who was present at the meeting.  The G7, of course, is the political front for the 13 bloodline families.  There can be no doubt that this meeting was made possible by people inside the military-industrial complex acting in the spirit of Jesus Christ, and for this we wish them all “a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.”

The bloodline offer to negotiate peace is directly connected to the state of emergency that was declared last week by USA President Donald Trump.  If you have not seen it yet, please read the historic document in the link below.
 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/text-letter-president-congress-united-states-6/

“After Hanukkah, Trump declared a state of emergency and signed an executive order on December 20th freezing the assets of those accused of human rights abuses and corruption, a catch-all to bankrupt the Bushes, Clintons, Soros, Obama, the Cabal, and the global Jewish mafia,” was how a Pentagon source summed up the situation.

“The national emergency allows Trump to seize assets and unleash the military to carry out mass arrests and adjudicate via military tribunals, effectively imposing martial law,” the source continues.

The Pentagon source also sent a copy of this photograph with the explanation, “Trump wears purple when unveiling his national security strategy on December 18th in a victory lap over the Soros/Hillary purple revolution, and drinks water with both hands to simulate handcuffs.”

Clearly reacting to this situation, the representative of the bloodlines set the meeting for December 23rd, the birthday of the Japanese Emperor, and claimed to be a representative of the Imperial family as well as the G7.  The representative, who acted as if he was negotiating a surrender, said the bloodlines want to keep existing nation-states and institutions as they are, but…
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

 
2017-12-22

Letter to the Editor – Experimental Quantum Anti-Gravity Successfully Replicated

By  White Dragon Society  17 Comments
 

I would like to let you know that my anti-gravity experiments have been successfully replicated by the Aerospace Engineering Department at the New Sciences & Technologies Faculty of the University of Tehran in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have developed complete quantum anti-gravity hypothesis with direct testable predictions that are simple, clear, easy, and inexpensive.

As you know, present-day quantum gravity theories suffer from too many mathematical space dimensions, and from too few conclusive experimental results.

My hypothesis is simple, clear, and subject to easy empirical verification.  I offer clear explanation of the principles of quantum gravity, and also precisely describe how to perform simple and inexpensive experiments to verify it.

In order to clearly understand quantum anti-gravity, please follow these 8 steps:

  1. Start from this brief overview — Quantum Gravity in a Nutshell
  2. The theoretical basis for quantum gravity are the Abraham’s equations of the Abraham-Minkowski controversy, and their empirical counterpart — the Abraham force
  3. To understand how the Biefeld-Brown effect works, you need to be clear where B-B vectors point — “up” or “down”
  4. The Biefeld-Brown effect is an instance of the Abraham force.
  6. Study the section about gyroscope’s anomalous effect.
  8. Please, study all the material on THE BOYD BUSHMAN EFFECT page in order to appreciate the potential complex magnetic fields have for shaping quantum gravity interactions.
  9. Now, you are ready to read the short introduction to quantum gravity.
  10. Perform two simple experiments for empirical verification.

The following are the 10 “mysteries” that my hypothesis sheds new light upon:

  1. The main prediction of my hypothesis (2016) is that anti-hydrogen will anti-gravitate.
  2. Gravitational waves mystery.
  3. EmDrive mystery.
  4. Solar mystery.
  5. Mass mystery.
  6. Bicycle mystery.
  7. Propeller  mystery.
  8. Cloud mystery.
  9. Pioneer mystery.
  10. Missing mystery.

I have designed 4 progressively more complex experiments, and we have successfully performed one of them, the one of medium difficulty, which constitutes:

The empirical discovery of hitherto unknown physical interaction between angular momentum of a spinning gyroscope and Earth’s magnetic and electric fields.

To perform this experiment, we need a gyroscope with a vertical support, and magnetic and electric shielding cages.

According to my hypothesis, there will be a measurable time difference between a freely spinning gyroscope inside, and outside the cages.  A gyroscope freely spinning inside both cages will come to rest in less time than when spinning outside them.

The experiment was performed successfully and was recorded in the following two videos:

To have a clear idea what is involved in the experiment, please take a closer look at the above two videos first.

For the experiment, we used the following small and light gyroscope at 10,000 rpm:

It would be much better to use a heavier gyro, because the heavier the gyro, the stronger the effect, at the same rate of rpm.

The value of angular velocity (rpm) is important only insofar as to generate sufficient angular momentum to allow the gyro to spin freely for a longer time before it comes to rest.

The objective of the experiment was to obtain two values of the gyro’s run time:

  • Outside the shielding;
  • Inside the shielding.

In my experiment, the two sample values are, respectively:

  • 55.54 seconds
  • 51.87 seconds

There was a 3.67 second difference, which amounts to 6.6%.  The time difference is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of electrostatic shielding of the Faraday cage. Applying the magnetic shielding in addition to the electric one would further increase the time difference.

As you can see in the video, it is important that the gyro is elevated by means of a vertical support.  Ideally, gyro should start spinning as close to a vertical position as possible, and also be able to pass lower, while still spinning, than its horizontal position.

The reason for this effect is that the gyroscope inside the cages will be spinning in reduced strength of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields, which in turn reduces the strength of the Biefeld-Brown effect acting upon it.

The gyroscope outside the cages, spinning in the undiminished strength of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields, is subject to the full influence of the Biefeld-Brown effect that causes the gyroscope to resist Earth’s gravity pull, which happens to be none other than pure natural antigravity effect.

OBJECTIONS

  • All conductors, like the brass gyro, exhibit an effective diamagnetism when they experience a changing magnetic field.  The Lorentz force on electrons causes them to circulate around forming eddy currents.  The eddy currents then produce an induced magnetic field that opposes the applied field and resist the conductor’s motion.

—  That is true for both, the gyro spinning inside and outside the Faraday cage in Earth’s magnetic field.  It does not make any difference.

  • But the gyro’s induced magnetic field will generate eddy currents in the Faraday cage and the resultant magnetic field will slow down gyro’s spin (magnetic breaking), and hence the whole effect.  It is like dropping a magnet down a copper pipe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFFL8TDt2Q

—   The analogy in the video applies, but only in principle.  Spinning brass gyro is not a strong neodymium magnet, and if, in principle, it generates any magnetic field, it is so weak that it will not even affect a needle of a compass.  As opposed to the copper pipe in the video, the enamel-coated copper mesh Faraday cage has much larger diameter (the inverse-square law), so it is enough to drop a strong neodymium magnet down the Faraday cage to see how much it would slow down, if at all.  As you can see in the above video, even few empty slits in the copper pipe greatly weaken the eddy currents, this being the reason for using enamel-coated copper mesh.  Diamagnetic materials, like brass, or copper, have a relative magnetic permeability that is less than or equal to 1, and therefore a magnetic susceptibility less than or equal to 0, since susceptibility is defined as χv=μv−1.  This means that diamagnetic materials, in principle, are repelled by magnetic fields.  However, since diamagnetism is such a weak property, its effects are not observable in everyday life.  Moreover, there is a big difference between Faraday cage made of solid copper, and one made of enamel-coated copper mesh.  The magnetic field induced in the gyro is weak, because Earth’s magnetic field is weak, so whatever little eddy currents could be induced by the gyro in solid copper Faraday cage will become irrelevant in the enamel-coated copper mesh Faraday cage, as you can see in the following two videos:

Even though it is true that the experiment, in principle, is open to influences from various phenomena, including the Carnegie curve, the overall result is clearly well beyond being attributed exclusively to these other phenomena.

To completely eliminate above objections, magnetic shielding needs to be applied in addition to the Faraday cage, and the gyro should be custom-made from a material which does not allow for eddy currents to flow in it.

Naturally,  I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me regarding the theoretical foundations as well as replication of the experiment.

With respect and much gratitude,  I am
Sincerely yours,

 
2017-12-18

U.S. troops deploy worldwide with 10,000 sealed indictments to take down Khazarian mob

By  White Dragon Society  338 Comments
U.S. President Donald Trump spent the weekend at Camp David with his top generals to map out the exact strategy for decapitating the Khazarian mafia worldwide, say Pentagon sources.  “The Atlanta airport was shut down, while the Department of Defense refused to disclose the locations of 44,000 U.S. troops who may be involved in terminating the cabal worldwide,” a senior Pentagon source said.  There are now close to 10,000 sealed indictments as more and more of the Khazarian criminals give up evidence on their colleagues, the sources say.

There are also many extra-judicial killings going on.  “The liberal sanctuary city mayor of San Francisco, Edwin Lee, dropped dead after an illegal alien was found not guilty in the murder of Kate Steinle even after his confession,” one source notes.  “Lee’s death is a message to the Democrats and sanctuary city mayors like Rahm Emmanuel of Chicago and Bill De Blasio of New York City,” the source warns.

The Khazarian mob is also killing off lots of people.  In Japan, two former executives of Toshiba, Atsutoshi Nishida and Taizo Nishimura, suddenly died in the past two months because they were about to provide evidence about the March 11, 2011 Fukushima tsunami and nuclear terror attack against Japan, according to sources close to the royal family.

This attack was carried out by henchmen of the Rockefeller family, whose members include Hillary and Bill Clinton, the sources say.  The Rockellers, in turn, were taking orders from the fascist P2 Freemason lodge, they say.  The Rockefeller family, by the way, has elected Mel Rockefeller, the son of Nelson Rockefeller, as the new family head, these sources added.

In Canada, Barry Sherman, owner of the Canadian pharmaceutical giant Apotex, was found hanging dead alongside his wife Honey by the family’s indoor pool.  According to CIA sources, Sherman was …
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

 

H.F.1430

 

 ENGLAND

A MONOCULTURE

- TOLERANT-A CLEAR IDENTITY-A OLD COUNTRY-A SENSE OF CONTINUITY

-NOT MULTICULTURAL.

*

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Wednesday, June 7,2006

*

 Britain is an old country and our ways deserve respect.

by

Simon Heffer

 There are few things more enjoyable than when a Leftie admits, or pretends to admit, he was wrong.

 We saw it a year ago when Trevor Phillips, commissioner-in-chief of the Commission for racial Equality, said that

MULTICULTURLISM

 -had not been a huge success, and that those from other cultures who came here were better off learning to be British.

 

[‘When in Rome do as the Romans do’ so those fortunate to find a home in England need to concentrate on English culture and those who go West or North of the border will soon get to know how to integrate with the local scene.

We have a Queen of England -We have a Church of England- just about so long as the Man of many Faiths does not get his way. We have English Law -just about, and so many things of English origin and practice that we would be repeating ourselves to declare an interest.

 

[The term British we leave as an overall label to embrace England as a partner with the other sister nation states in our island home and we hope one day our neighbours will come to the realisation that their interests should also include the interests of the People of England who by the way are getting quite fed-up with the way they pay the lion’s share of their increased benefits without the right to have their solely English issues raised in OUR House of Commons the concern of English MPs ONLY. ]

  

To Continue:

 I think [Trevor Phillips] he was sincere. I am less sure about Gordon Brown, who bores about Britishness almost daily.

It is a sort of thing that allows a socialist such as Mr Brown to fake some point of contact with conservative-minded patriots.

 It is also his way of trying to hide the fact that his own party’s policies have split up the United Kingdom and made his position, as a Scot sitting for a Scottish seat who wants to be Prime Minister mostly of

ENGLAND

-somewhat precarious.

Not all the Left has, however twigged that

MULTICULTURLISM

-is rather last century.

Someone of whom I hoped we had heard the last, the former

Archbishop of Canterbury-Lord Carey

-made a predictable intervention in this debate from beyond the grave last weekend.

 

He proclaimed that the Coronation of our next monarch must be an “interfaith” event. The ceremony must, he added, “have “very significant changes”, so that it is “inclusive” of other religions in Britain.

 

Lord Carey clearly has in mind what Private Eye would term a “Rocky Horror” coronation service. Never mind your archbishops, or even your Christians, your imams, your rabbis, ayatollahs, your assorted holy men and other diverse priests, layers -on-hands and speakers-in-tongues: in accordance with the professions of religious belief on the 2001 census forms, I expect to see a few Jedi knights in the sanctuary, while devotees of Ras Tafari smoke ganja at the high altar. And, as one of the realm’s noisiest atheists, I hope for a part in the proceedings, too, that I might feel “included”.

 

Having long regarded the Church of England as many people regard EastEnders, I have steeled myself not to intrude in its private grief, but to lament the largely self-inflicted decline of this great institution. Though it has, to my great spiritual regret, nothing to offer me personally, I can appreciate not merely the potential it has to succour and strengthen millions of believers, but also its role in

OUR CULTURE

OUR CONSTITUTION

OUR NATION

 

At the heart of this remains the great legacy of the

 

REFORMATION

  -that the

Monarch

 

is Supreme Governor

of the

Church of England.

-which is the Established Church of this Realm.

 

As the 37th of the 39 Articles (“on the Civil Magistrates”) puts it,

 

“the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this

Realm of England.

 

Quite right: and were we to update that Article as we fetishistically seek to update everything else, we might also add that no mullahs, rabbi, Jedi or Rastafarian has any jurisdiction here.

 

However, intrude into the Church’s grief we now must: for Lord Carey’s successor on the throne of St Augustine, Dr Rowan Williams, who in many regards seems even more to inhabit the wilder shores of the theology than Lord Carey, is having none of this nonsense.

 

He has picked up on the threat issued by our probable next monarch, the Prince of Wales, in 1994 about how (in that very “ last century” spirit) the Prince wanted to be

 

“Defender of Faiths”

 

Some of us boring old pedants saw the stupidity of this at the time. It is not in a King’s job description to defend “faiths”, and cannot be unless the whole constitutional arrangement that binds Church and State is unravelled.

 

More to the point, the notion of defending “faiths” imposes the King on secular legal matters -for the practising of faiths other than that of the Established Church is defended in fact by various Acts of Parliament- in which he has no place.

 

Although one has never been entirely sure that the Prince of Wales has fully grasped this point, he is NOT a politician; and few things these days are more political than the right to profess assorted faiths that NOT traditional to this country.

 

Dr Williams said of the Prince in 2003 that “Unless something really radical happens with the Constitution, he is, like it or not,

 

Defender of the Faith

 

-and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind that he does not have with other communities”.

 

THAT IS SELF-EVIDENTLY THE CASE.

 

Of course, were our Queen to emulate her late mother (and I fervently hope she does) there will be no Coronation for another 20 or so years.

 

Perhaps the needless vandalism of

 

OUR CONSTITUTION

 

-will have been completed by then.

 

Perhaps there will be a different heir to the throne [Prince William]. Perhaps the moon will be made of green cheese. Until such times as these things happen, Dr William’s view must prevail, and his predecessor would be best advised to keep his bizarre views to himself.

 

For the Coronation Service, religious though it be, is about more than religion.

 

When the time comes, only a relatively small section of our people (and by no means just Christians, let alone Anglicans) would savour the religious significance of the EVENT.

 

For the rest of us, the symbolism will transcend the religious. Some will see the CONSTITUTIONAL point, and realise how the traditional form of words and practices provides us with a Monarch who will carry on business as usual.

 

For most of those watching the their plasma screens, however, the day will be about a sense of familiar NATIONAL IDENTITY

-embodied, however much or little they realise it, in the person of the

NEW SOVEREIGN.

 

Now, Lord Carey might argue that altering the service to “include” Shias, Sunnis, Hindus, Zoroastrians and Jehovah’s Witnesses would not altar that symbolism:

 

But he would be WRONG!

 

It is not only that too many of our people have seen newsreels of the last Coronation 53 years ago, and therefore have a fixed cultural idea of what it is supposed to be. It is about the NEW MONARCH, and the CEREMONY of CORONATION of which he is the heart, fitting in with what his people understand, implicitly or explicitly, about THEMSELVES, and the NATION of which they are A PART.

 

It is Trevor Philip’s point writ large: -it is about a country being given its cultural stability partly by

HISTORY and TRADITION

-and about people buying into that when they choose to become A PART of the COUNTRY.

 

That is what inclusiveness means: It is how countries as diverse as France and America both do things. It is about having a template of Frenchness or American-ness, and welcoming people into that civilisation and THOSE humane values by asking them to participate in them. We still, despite the attempts of such VANDALS as LORD CAREY, have a core CULTURE in this COUNTRY.

 

Christianity and the expectation that Christianity will, for historic reasons prevail and be accepted as prevalent, are central to that CULTURE. And a few events in the nation’s life symbolise such an understanding more than the traditional coronation service.

 

The next CORONATION will be a formal renewal of

OUR WAY OF LIFE

And

OUR VALUES.

 

It will formally recognise not only the legitimacy of the MONARCH in the eyes of GOD and the BRITISH constitution, but also of the identification of the vast majority of his subjects with the process of doing so. For that reason above all others it must be clear, comprehensible and in keeping with public expectations of such an event.

 

WE ARE NOT A MULTICUTURAL SOCIETY

 

WE ARE A MONOCULTURAL ONE -TOLERANT OF OTHER CULTURES.

 

AND WHOSE CLEAR IDENTITY IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PEOPLE - IF NOT BY THEIR LEADERS.

 

WE ARE AN OLD COUNTRY WITH A STRONG SENSE OF CONTINUITY.

 

AND ANYONE WHO TRIFLES WITH SUCH MANIFESTATIONS OF OUR ANTIQUITY AND STABILITY DOES SO AT HIS PERIL.

 

* * *

[Font altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOLLOWS

*

BRITISH CONSTITUTION

BY HENRY LORD BROUGHAM F.R.S.

MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FRANCE

MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF NAPLES

1844

 

GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND

 

CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND

 

Before we commence with extracts from the above we need to investigate the term British and what it meant in 1908 and the confusion that has arisen since the devolution has occurred in Scotland in their Scottish Parliament and the Assembly in Wales.

 

To assist us in this regard we have the brilliant Constitutional History of England (1908) by the learned Professor F.W Maitland an authority of world renown.

*

 

Nationality and Domicile

 

In speaking of king and parliament we are no longer speaking of what in strictness of language are merely English institutions; the parliament represents the United Kingdom, and king and parliament have supreme legislative power over territories which lie in every quarter of the globe.

 

Of this parliament we must speak.

 

Below it there are many institutions, some of which are specifically Scottish, Irish, Canadian, Australian, Indian; for example the judicial systems of England, Ireland and Scotland are distinct from each other, though at the supreme point they unite in the House of Lords.

 

It is of great importance to distinguish those institutions which like the kingship and the parliament are (we can hardly avoid the term) imperial institutions, from those which like the

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

-are specifically English, and I strongly advise you not to use the words England and English when you mean what is larger than England and more than English.

 

When we have dealt with the institutions, which have power over all the British dominions, we shall, being Englishmen in an English university, deal with some purely English institutions the High Court of Justice, not with the Scottish Court of Sessions -but let us keep this distinction firmly in our minds; if we are Englishmen, we are subjects of a sovereign whose power extends over millions and millions of men who are not English. [1908]

 

Let me illustrate this by a further remark. There are two conceptions, which are of great importance to students of international law:

 

-the one nationality, the other domicile.

 

Now there is no such thing as English nationality, and there is no such thing as British domicile. [1908]

The Englishman, the Scot, the Irishman, the Canadian, and the Australian -all of these have a nationality in common. [1908]

 

If there be a war between the United Kingdom and a foreign power, say France, all of them are enemies of the French, any of them who side with the French are traitors. [1908]

 

But there is no such thing as British domicile -

Because there is no one system of private law common to all the British dominions; a man is domiciled in England or Scotland or New Zealand, and to a very large extent the law under which he lives varies with his place of domicile.

 

If I abandon my English domicile, and become domiciled in Scotland, this will have important legal results for me, but my nationality remains what it was. So by England let us mean England, a land, which consists of fifty-two counties [1908]

 

We have included the above extracts from

The

 

CONSTITUTIONAL

HISTORY

OF

ENGLAND

 

by

 

F.W MAITLAND [1908]

 

-to show the destruction of the British Constitution over the past 75 years and particularly in the last nine years under Blairdom has shown that the title of British has led to much confusion as the foundation of that concept has now been undermined with the Englishman having to pretend that there is in fact a British Constitution when we have a Scottish Parliament and an Assembly in Wales no doubt in time to be a parliament.

 

The term BRITISH should ONLY be used when it concerns ALL the nation States within our island home -such as with Defence as virtually all other matters have been handed over to the other national bodies in Scotland and Wales.

 

Let us hear no more about Britishness but more about Englishness-Scottishness and Welshness because that is the situation we find ourselves in 2006.

To return to Britishness in our shared island there needs to be a return of an

English Parliament.

Only then will the term British regain its true meaning.

To continue:

BRITISH CONSTITUTION

BY

LORD BROUGHAM

*

CHAPTER VIII

 THE National Resistance was not only, n point of Historical fact, the cause of the Revolutionary settlement, it was the main foundation of that settlement; the structure of the government was made to rest upon the people’s

Right of Resistance

[Even in 2006]

-as upon its cornerstone; and it is of incalculable importance that this never should be lost sight of.

But it is of equal importance that we should ever bear in mind how essential to the preservation of the CONSTITUTION, thus established and secured, this principle of RESISTANCE is; how necessary both for the governors and the governed it ever must be to regard the recourse to that extremity as always possible -an extremity, no doubt, and to be cautiously embraced as such, but still a remedy within the people’s reach; a protection to which they CAN and WILL resort as often as their rulers make such a recourse necessary for self-defence.

 

[DO YOU UNDERSTAND

TONY BLAIR?]

 

The whole history of the CONSTITUTION, which we have been occupied, in tracing from the earliest ages, abounds with proofs how easily absolute power may be exercised, [AS in 2006] and the RIGHTS of the people best secured by LAW be trampled upon, while the theory of a FREE GOVERNMENT remains unaltered. [AS in 2006] and all institutions framed for the CONTROL of the EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [AS in 2006] and all the LAWS designed for the protection of the subject, continue as entire as at the moment they were first founded by the struggles of the PEOPLE, and cemented by their labour or their BLOOD.

The thirty renewals of

MAGNA CARTA

-the constant and almost unresisted invasions of the exclusive right of PARLIAMENT to levy taxes by the Plantagenet Princes of the House of York -the base subserviency of the PARLIAMENT [AS in 2006] to the vindictive measures of parties, alternately successful, during the troubled times of the Lancaster line -the yet more vile submission to the same body to the first Tudors -their suffering arbitrary power to regain its pitch after it had been extirpated in the seventeenth century -the frightful lesson of distrust in Parliament, and in the institutions and all laws , taught by the ease with which Charles II [AS with Tony Blair in 2006] governed almost without control, at the very period fixed upon by our best writers as tat of the Constitution’s greatest theoretical perfection-and , above all, the very narrow escape which this country had of absolute Monarchy, by the happy accident of James II choosing to assail the religion of the people before he had destroyed their liberty, and making the Church his enemy instead of using it as his willing and potent ally against all civil liberty- these are such passages in the history of our government as may well teach us to distrust all mere STATUTORY securities; to remember that JUDGES, PARLIAMENTS, and MINISTERS, as well as KINGS, are frail men, the sport of sordid propensities, or vain fears, or factious passions; and that the people never can be safe without a constant determination to resist unto death as often as their

RIGHTS are INVADED.

The main security which our institutions afford, and that which will always render a recourse to the

RIGHT of RESISTANCE

 

-less needful, must ever consist in the pure constitution of Parliament-the extended basis of our popular representation. This is the great improvement, which it had received since the REVOLUTION…

 

In 1831 and 1832 the Parliamentary constitution was placed upon a wider and more secure basis; and although much yet remains to be accomplished before we can justly affirm that all classes are duly represented in Parliament, assuredly we are no longer exposed to the same risks of seeing LIBERTIES destroyed, and the same hazard of having to protect ourselves by resistance; nor can any one now deny that the democratic principle enters largely into the frame of our MIXED MONARCHY

 

This great change is much more than sufficient to counterbalance all the increase of influence that as been acquired by the CROWN since the REVOLUTION, including the vexations which unavoidably attend the administration of our fiscal laws for the collection and protection of a vast revenue, and the creation of a numerous and important body. Always averse to struggle under the worst oppressions, and always the sure ally of power- I mean the vast and wealthy body of public creditors, whose security is bound up with the existing order of things.

 

The great virtue of the

 

CONSTITUTION of ENGLAND

 

-is the purity in which it recognises and establishes the fundamental principle of all mixed governments; that the supreme power of the STATE being invested in SEVERAL BODIES, the consent of each is required to the performance of any legislative act; and that no change can be made in the laws, nor any addition to them nor any act done affecting their lives, liberties, or property of the people, without the full and deliberate assent of each of the ruling powers.

 

The ruling powers are three:

 

The Sovereign

 

The Lords

 

The Commons

 

-of whom the Lords represent themselves only, unless in so far as the Prelates may be supposed to represent the Clergy; and the Scotch Peers to represent, by election of parliament, and the Irish, by election for life, the peerages of Scotland and Ireland respectively; the Commons represent their constituents, by whom they are for each parliament elected [1844].

If it should seem an exception to the fundamental principle now laid down that the CROWN has the power of making

 

PEACE and WAR

 

-and of entering into treaties with foreign states, operations, by which the welfare of the subject may be most materially affected, it is equally true that NO WAR can possibly be continued without the support of both Houses of Parliament; and that no peace concluded, or treaty made, can be binding, so as to affect any interests of the people, without subsequent approval in PARLIAMENT.

 

The Sovereign, [PRIME MINISTER] therefore, never can enter into any war, or pursue negotiation, without a positive certainty that the Parliament will assent to it and support the necessary operations, whether of hostility or of commercial regulations; and thus the only effect of this prerogative is to give due vigour and authority to the action of the Government in its intercourse with foreign powers and its care of the

NATIONAL DEFENCE.

 

[In 2005] the CROWN or in other words the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom [no longer united -by the way] signed twenty-five times the TREATY of ROME for Britain to become part of a

UNITED STATES OF EUROPE

-without the consent of the electorate who had been promised a

 

REFERENDUM

 

- on the constitutional issue raised but no date was given to enable the People to decide their future in EUROPE.

 

So we had Tony Blair signing a Treaty which had not received the consent of Parliament because of the obvious condition of a Referendum had not been satisfied.

IF THIS IS NOT TYRANNY

 

WHAT IS?

 

The following extracts are from the

 

PREFACE

 

of the

BRITISH CONSTITUION

 

By

 

HENRY, LORD BROUGHAM F.R.S.

[1844]

 

GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND

 

…It is quite impossible to understand accurately the principles of that Constitution without studying its history in all times; and an attentive examination of that history is fruitful of most important practical truths for the government of men’s conduct in the present day.

 

It shows that is country alone of the European states has in all ages possessed the great benefit of a Legislature distinct from the Executive Government, the

 

Sovereign of ENGLAND

 

-never having at any period had the power of making general laws. But it likewise shows most clearly that this or any other institution

can give little security to the liberties of the people, - little obstruction to the maladministration of public affairs.

 

The lesson taught by the history of our Constitution in all ages, is that unless the people continue watchful over their rights and their own interests, the best constructed system of polity can afford them no shelter from oppression, no safeguard against the mismanagement of their concerns.

 

It may be very wrong to say that forms of Government are of no importance, and that the best system is the one best administered.

 

But it is assuredly a truth to which all History bears testimony, that the chief advantage of free institutions is there enabling men to obtain wise and an honest administration of their affairs; that the frame of Government approaches to perfection in proportion as it helps those that live under it to watch the conduct of their rulers, aiding them when right, checking them when wrong; and, above all, that no

 

CONSTITUTION

 

-however excellent, can supersede the necessity or dispense with the duty of constant vigilance.

 *

[In every Revolution there are those that decide on the crucial issues but there are many who leave the contesting to others but are themselves pleased to obtain the fruit of the victory without the toil and hardship that brings it about.

 

It is the same today in JUNE 2006 as it was in the civil war of the seventeenth century when those passionate about their country and claimed their just rights and liberties while parts of England were a neutral zone.]

WHICH PARTY ARE YOU?

ARE YOU A LOOKER ON?

ARE YOU CONTESTING?]

 

* * *

 

MULTICULTURLISM

 

IMMIGRATION FILE

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

JUNE/06

H.F.1472--BROUGHT FORWARD FROM JUNE 2006
 

  JUDGE FOR YOURSELF IF ANY REAL PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE 2003

All information here is an amalgamation of the :  

 ENGLAND MATTERS FILE   IRAQ FILE    EU FILE

 

  
 

OVER 1000  BULLETINS ON THIS MAIN BULLETIN BOARD

  
 

 October 2003 to January 2007 ONLY

  
  01/07  
 

 LET the CHRISTMAS MESSAGE ring out WHILE you still CAN by Michael Nazir Ali

  
     
  1]  WHAT IF Britain HADN'T joined the EUROPEAN UNION - by Christopher Booker  
  2]   EVEN PRISONERS ARE BETTER OFF THAN OUR  TROOPS -  COMMENTARY by GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE  
  3]  CHRISTIAN Students SUE in GAY RIGHTS ROW.  
  4]  JUST4p A WEEK-THAT is the BENEFIT of migrant workers BRING TO EACH PERSON  in the UK.  
  6]  EVERY 20minutes - SOMEBODY quits NEW LABOUR.  
  7]  Gordon Brown as Prime Minister of ENGLAND and WHY it is  THE MAN and NOT his  his NATIONALITY THAT MATTERS  
  8]  OUR 1500 year history has shown many great DEFENDERS of ENGLISH FREEDOM were FOREIGNERS and some of our greatest betrayers   as TODAY where  born in ENGLAND.  
  9] From beyond the grave Robin Cook who resigned over the Iraq War taunts BLAIR on IRAQ.  
  10]  A  DISUNITED  KINGDOM  
  11]  SOLD DOWN THE RIVER- by EU DIRECTIVE  96/50/EU  
  12]  HOW MANY MORE CAN BRITAIN TAKE? by Sir Andrew Green MigrationWatch  
  13]  It's the Scots who have betrayed the UNION -so vote for the SNP-by Simon Heffer.  
  14]   Council Tax will soar if Britain loses Safety Ruling -from EU  
  15]   WHY NO QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AFTER REAL RACISM REVEALED IN MOSQUES IN HOME COUNTIES AND IN REST OF THE COUNTRY- IT IS TIME FOR PARLIAMENT TO ACT!- THEY HAVE BEEN WARNED BEFORE BUT THEY WOULD RATHER LOOK FOR SO-_CALLED RACISM IN THE BRITISH PEOPLE AT LARGE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WISH TO OFFEND MINORITIES BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR VOTE -SECURITY COMES SECOND IF AT ALL  
  16]   A reminder from the past -THE MAKING OF LONDONISTAN -by Daily Mail reporter Melanie Phillips -back in May,2006 -But ignored as usual as too difficult to handle by the HOME OFFICE who prosecute Christians because they were UNTIL NOW too docile to fight back.  
  17]  TO have a FULL-TIME MOTHER is the BEST MEDICINE a MOTHER can GIVE  A CHILD  
  18]  Blair's 'gatekeeper' held over honours 'cover up'- Angus MacNeil -SNP who made the complaint re 'Cash for Peerages' said:' Water is now lapping around Blair's neck.' -possibly the EU Directive 96/50/EU is a contributory cause?  
  19]   SYSTEMATIC BRAINWASHING OF MUSLIMS BY THEIR LEADERS IS COMMON PLACE-THEY  ARE REPEATING THE HATRED OF THE INFIDEL THAT IS TAUGHT IN EVERY ISLAMIC COUNTRY.  
  20]   TO CONDEMN Jade Goody for being a racist bigot is like CONDEMNING Adolf Hitler BECAUSE HE WAS A BAD PAINTER  
  21]   Blair and his aides face new police quiz on the 'CASH for Honours' Scandal.  

H.F.741
 
A FREE PRESS!

It's finest expression had already been given in

MILTON'S

AREOPAGITICA.

Milton boldly proclaimed two principles of profound importance.

One was the immunity of the religious life from political regulation. The other was that doctrine which has been the strength of the best thought of individualism from his day to the present, to wit that the well-being of society requires the natural diversity of its members, and that coercive uniformity of morals and manners would spell the ruin and degradation of any people.

*

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

More!

 

 

 

 
 
THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

*

A BETRAYAL OF OUR PAST OVER 50 YEARS

 (1959-2016)

 

 

 
THE SPIRIT OF A PEOPLE

THE FIRST TASK of any politics that could be really scientific was to relate authority to its principle source, to show its dependence on the whole social fabric, the customs and traditions, the modes of thought and the standards of life that prevail among a people.  ...the work of Montesquieu.   He really sought to understand society, to show the influence of underlying  conditions ,climatic, geographical, economic, to show that custom and institutions neither are made nor can be changed by fiat, to show that there is in every people a spirit of character which their law must reveal

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 
 

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise.  He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

A Freedom, which cannot be abused, is not worth having.

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

[Fonts altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

H.F. 1325.

 

NEW AGE

OF

 INTOLERANCE

 

A.N. WILSON on the new dark age of intolerance: You must believe in gay marriage, you can't question abortion and as for transgender rights...

By A.n. Wilson For The Daily Mail

 September 30- 2017

The great French writer Voltaire famously said: 'I disapprove of what you say and would defend to the death your right to say it'. In this way, he encapsulated what it meant to be an enlightened human being — someone prepared to consider all points of view.

But in recent years the principle of freedom of speech, sacred since Voltaire's 18th century, has been lost, and this is surely one of the most sinister features of our times. It is as if we are entering a new Dark Age of Intolerance.

The irony is that this intolerance has come about as a result of what were initially good intentions. One of the things which makes me happy as I grow older is the thought that during my lifetime we have all tried to become a kinder society.

When I was a boy and a young man, for example, racist jokes were the norm on radio and TV. Now they would be unthinkable. Mockery of homosexuals, and the equation of being gay with being limp-wristed and camp, were absolute norms of comedy when I was growing up. Now no longer.

Such jokes have gone the way of boarding-houses which used to put 'NO BLACKS. NO DOGS. NO IRISH in the window'. Obviously, all civilised people feel pleased by this.

But somehow those initial good intentions — to be kinder to and more tolerant of others — have morphed into a political correctness that has had the very opposite effect.

Two notorious recent examples of this concerned the treatment of a Christian baker in Northern Ireland, and some Christian bed and breakfast owners in Berkshire. The baker had not wanted to make a wedding cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The B&B owners had refused to let a gay couple share the same room in their establishment. In each case they were successfully sued for unlawful discrimination.

Now, a gay activist would no doubt say this was a good thing, arguing that the baker and bed and breakfast owners' behaviour was comparable to the racism of the past. Yet this is surely getting things wholly out of proportion.

The baker was not persecuting homosexuals, as Hitler did. He was not saying they should be put in prison, as all Home Secretaries in Britain did until the Sixties. He was merely saying that, as a Christian, he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that two chaps tying the knot were doing something rather different, which is contrary to traditional Christian teaching.

Whatever you think about this matter, the Northern Irish baker and the B&B couple were merely holding on to Christian beliefs.

I don't happen to share their views myself, and think that if two people are rash enough to promise to live together for the rest of their lives, good luck to them, whether they are gay, straight, trans or anything else. But surely you can understand both sides of this dilemma, can't you?

Well, the answer, more and more in our intolerant society, is 'No'. My concern here is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, transgender rights, our colonial history, or any of the other emotive issues that are subject to endless debate in the modern age.

It is about freedom of thought and speech; freedom to disagree in a liberal society; freedom to have thoughts which are different from the current orthodoxy.

What began as our very decent desire not to be nasty to those of a different ethnicity, or sexual proclivity, from ourselves, has turned into a world as intolerant as monkish Christianity in the days of the Dark Ages, when any freedom of thought is questioned.

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems during the General Election, was asked repeatedly about his views on gay marriage. As a fairly old-fashioned Christian, he did not believe it was possible — marriage should be between a man and a woman.

As the leader of a modern political party, he knew that it would be political death to admit this. He was finally forced to resign.

This was a signal to the world that if you want to succeed in modern politics, it is simply not allowed to hold views which, until a very short time ago, were the consensus among the great majority of people in the Western world.

I use the words 'not allowed' advisedly. What is sinister about living in the new Dark Ages, however, is that it is by no means clear who is doing the allowing and not allowing. In Mao's China, it was obvious: thought crimes were ideas which contradicted the supreme leader.

In Britain today, however, it seems an army of self-appointed censors — from internet trolls to angry students, lobby groups, town hall officials, craven politicians and lawyers and Establishment figures, as well as a host of other sanctimonious and often bilious busy-bodies — have taken it upon themselves to police what we can and cannot think or say.

Not believing in abortion, like not believing in gay marriage, is now, unquestionably, a thought crime. It was hardly surprising that the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said he did not believe in abortion, because he is a man of conviction as well as a Roman Catholic, and this is the teaching of his Church. Yet his view was treated with incredulity and disdain by everyone from trolls and women's groups to the higher echelons of the political Establishment.

As in the case of abortion, debate is no longer allowed on transgender issues. There was a BBC2 Horizon Programme last Tuesday night called Being Transgender. The close-up shots of transgender surgery in a Californian hospital will not easily leave the mind.

We met a number of nice people who had decided for one reason or another that they were not the gender which they had once supposed. They were all undergoing some form of transformative medical treatment, either taking hormones or having surgery.

What made the programme strange as a piece of journalism was the fact that it did not contain one dissenting voice. Not one psychiatrist or doctor who said they doubted the wisdom of some of these procedures, especially in the very young.

Still less was there anyone like the redoubtable feminist and academic Dr Germaine Greer who once expressed her view that a man did not become a woman just because he had undergone transgender surgery — and was, as a result, decried from the rooftops with everything from petitions launched to stop her from speaking at university campuses to death threats.

Dr Greer had also been bold enough to say 'a great many women' shared her view, which is obviously true — a great many women do not think that transgender people have really changed sex. What has changed is that it is no longer permitted to say so.

A friend of mine who likes bathing in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath in London says that at least one person now uses the female changing rooms who is obviously in a stage of transition from man to woman, and is simply a hairy man wearing lipstick.

However uncomfortable this makes the women feel, they know that they cannot say anything.

There was an ugly incident lately at Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, which used to be the place where anyone could go and stand on a soap-box and hold any opinion they liked.

Speakers' Corner was a symbol of British Freedom of Speech. As a schoolboy, I had a Jewish friend whose grandfather used to take us there to listen to people proclaiming that the earth was flat, preachers praising Hitler, Stalin, and others saying whatever they liked. It was the freedom to do so, said the old man who had escaped Hitler's Germany, which made the very air of Britain so refreshing to him.

What would he have thought had he witnessed the scene earlier this month at Speakers' Corner when a 60-year-old woman called Maria was smacked in the face, allegedly by a transgender fanatic, while listening to a talk on planned reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. Reforms which would allow men to 'self-identify' as female, and enter women's changing rooms or refuges unchallenged.

For Maria, as for the intimidated women of Hampstead swimming pool, and for Germaine Greer, it is by no means clear that transgender people have changed their sex.

Transgender activists have labelled women like Maria TERFS — Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. When news of the assault on her reached the internet — ie instantaneously — the trolls began baying, like the bloodthirsty mob during the guillotine-executions of the French Revolution. 'Burn in a fire, TERF'. 'I want to f*** some TERFS up, they are no better than fascists'.

The use of the word 'fascist' is commonplace in our new Dark Age for anyone with whom you happen to disagree. You hear it all the time in the Brexit arguments which rage all around us and which I dread. As it happens, I voted Remain. But I do not regard Brexiteers as 'fascists', and many of their arguments — wanting to reclaim the power to make our own laws and control our own borders — are evidently sensible.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Remainers say that Brexiteers are fascists. As a matter of historical fact, many of the keenest supporters of a united European superstate were actual fascists.

The only British politician who campaigned on the ticket of Europe A Nation during the Fifties was Sir Oswald Mosley who was leader of the British Union of Fascists. But then, today's PC censors don't let facts get in their way of bigotry.

Branding anyone you disagree with a fascist; hitting people in the face; tweeting and blogging abuse behind the cowardly anonymity of the internet — these are the ugly weapons used to stifle any sort of debate. And it is often in the very places where ideas should be exchanged and examined that the bigotry is at its worst: our universities.

This week on the Radio 4's Today programme, we heard James Caspian, a quietly-spoken, kindly psychotherapist, describing what has become a cause celebre at Bath Spa University.

He has been working for some years with people who for one reason or another have begun the process of gender-transition, and then come to regret it.

Caspian is evidently not a judgmental man. He wanted to write a thesis on this subject from a sympathetic and dispassionate point of view.

What makes people feel so uncomfortable with their own apparent gender that they wish to undergo painful and invasive surgery to change it? What makes people then come to reassess their first idea? These are surely legitimate questions about a subject many of us can't quite comprehend.

I have two friends who started out as men, and decided in mid-life that they were really women, or wanted to become women, which is what they have done. I do not really understand what has happened to them, even though they have tried to explain it to me.

Surely a man like James Caspian, who has worked with transgender men and women, should be encouraged by a university to explain this area of medicine or psychology?

But no. The university, having initially approved of his idea for a thesis, then turned down his application. 'The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media, and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university,' he told Radio 4 listeners. 'They also added it's better not to offend people.'

This is all of a piece with students at Oxford wanting to pull down the statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes from his old college, Oriel, on the grounds that he was racist.

Rather than having a reasoned debate weighing the evils of racist colonialism against Rhodes's benevolence, the student at the forefront of the movement — who had actually accepted a £40,000 Rhodes scholarship funded by the fortune the colonialist gave to Oxford — wanted to pull down the statue.

This is the same attitude of mind as that which led monks in the Dark Ages to destroy the statues of pagan gods and goddesses, or the Taliban to do the same to age-old Buddhist artefacts.

Reason, debate, seeing more than one side to an argument, surely these are the foundations of all that has fashioned the great values of the West since the Enlightenment started in the 18th century with an explosion of new ideas in science, philosophy, literature, and modern rational thought that ushered in the Age of Reason.

Realising that human actions and ideas are often mixtures of good and bad — isn't this what it means to have a grown-up mind? Surely we should be allowed to discuss matters without being accused of thought crime?

In universities, as at Speakers' Corner and in the public at large, there used to be the robust sense that sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us. Now, the 'hurt-feelings' card is regularly played to stifle any debate.

Little by little, we are allowing the Dark Ages of intolerance to come again. We should not be letting this happen.

We should be able to say: 'We disapprove of your views — on Europe, on Transgender Issues, on Islam, on absolutely anything, but we defend to the death your right to express them'.


 

Full article

 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4935418/A-N-WILSON-new-dark-age-intolerance.html#ixzz4uAFieZ6T
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[COMMENTS-HIGHLIGHTING - ARE OURS!]

 

SEPTEMBER 30-2017

H.F.1329

 

WHY I WANT

OUT OF THE EU

 

I want out because I fear that our

NATIONAL IDENTITY

OUR WAY OF LIFE

and tradition of liberal democracy are under

THREAT

from the EU's rules on the

FREE MOVEMENT of PEOPLE

and its

INSANE

HUMAN RIGHTS REGIME

I WANT OUT

because I believe that

BRUSSEL'S

attempts to impose

UNIFORMITY

on hugely diverse peoples are holding economies back, destroying livelihoods and breeding dangerous ill-feelings between

NATIONS.

I WANT OUT

so that we can regain the right to elect those who make our laws-and to

DISMISS THEM IF THEY FAIL US

I'm sick of seeing my country infantilised by an

UNSACKABLE NANNY STATE.

IN A WORD

I WANT OUT BECAUSE I WANT

BRITAIN

[ENGLAND]

TO BE FREE

*

Tom Utley for the Daily Mail

[We couldn't have put it better-Thank you!- Tom Utley.

TOM UTLEY: Oh dear. Is the fact my wife was a bus ... - Daily Mail-Friday, June 3,2016l

 

H.F.805
 
 

[AT LONG! LONG! LAST!

- WE LEAVE

THE

CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC-GODLESS EU

 IN MARCH 2019.]

*

DAILY MAIL

-At last, Hammond's on board with

BREXIT

and the

REMOANERS are DEAD and BURIED

LEAVING THE EU

 IN

MARCH,2019

 

 

THE

DOMINIC

LAWSON

Column

 

By DOMINIC LAWSON

 

Finally, it’s sorted. Until yesterday, the anti-Brexiteers known as Remoaners had high hopes of Philip Hammond, the Chancellor.

His statement on The Andrew Marr Show last month that failure to reach an amicable deal with the EU ‘would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain’ was seen as an attack on his Brexiteer colleagues in the Cabinet (and, indeed, on the Prime Minister).

But yesterday he appeared as joint author of a newspaper article with the most adamantine Brexiteer in the Cabinet, the International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox. The two supposed foes declared that in March 2019, Britain would not just be leaving the EU but also ‘we will leave the Customs Union and be free to negotiate the best trade deals around the world as an independent, open, trading nation’.

Although the Cabinet Brexiteers were content with Hammond’s proposal that there should be a transition period after March 2019, pending a final settlement of the country’s arrangements with the EU, the Chancellor had given the impression he was bending to the demands of the CBI that Britain remain within the Customs Union during that unspecified period.

Blunder

This they regarded as a fatal blunder — and not just because they suspected the CBI (which had campaigned for Britain to give up sterling for the euro) of seeking to keep the UK in the EU ‘by the back door’.

As Shanker Singham, chairman of the special trade commission of the Legatum Institute (a group consulted regularly by the Government), warned last week: ‘The UK must be able to provide the clarity of being outside the Customs Union on Day 1 of Brexit.

If such clarity does not exist, then other countries will not think the UK is serious about executing an independent trade policy and they will quickly lose patience and move on.’...

...In any case, the nation has not changed its collective mind since the referendum in June 2016. If anything, views have hardened in the direction set by the result. A survey of 3,293 people published on Friday by the London School of Economics showed that even those who had voted ‘Remain’ would prefer the sort of Brexit deal the LSE’s team described as ‘hard’.

A total of 51.3 per cent of Remain voters backed a Brexit deal which delivered ‘full control’ over immigration and led to lower numbers of migrants from the EU. No fewer than 54.7 per cent of Remainers said that the UK should ‘pay nothing’ to the EU by means of a ‘divorce bill’.

And 52.2 per cent of Remainers told the LSE researchers that we should entirely free British law from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Unsurprisingly, a still higher proportion of self-identifying ‘Leave’ voters supported what the LSE termed

‘hard Brexit’.

Monstrous

This clearly disappointed the most voluble critic of the Brexiteers on the Tory parliamentary benches, Anna Soubry. In her own newspaper article yesterday, she lamented ‘a sense of resignation among most people who voted Remain that we have to “man up” and make the most of what we know will be a rotten Brexit’...

Full article


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4787508/At-Hammond-s-board-Brexit.html#ixzz4pkbL1fqi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

[ LAST MONTH AS PRISONERS OF THE

FOURTH REICH

THEN

TO REGAIN OUR ONCE FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND.]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

AUGUST 14, 2017

H.F.1281 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2008

DEPRESSION OVER THE BRITISH ISLES

Letter to:

 

Eurofacts journal -28th March,2008

 

Dear Sir,

There are so many depressing aspects of our membership of the European Union.

During the debate on the Lisbon Treaty, I have not heard any reference by MPs to his or her Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, and defence by only a few of our inviolate

 Declaration of Rights

and our

Constitution

The people within Great Britain became united on previous occasions against attempts by force of arms by power-hungry Continental politicians

TO RULE EUROPE

What is extraordinary is that since then, peaceful attempts by a political elite to unite people throughout Europe have had the opposite effect and we are now faced by deep divisions in our society and a rumbling discontent.

Much of that discontent stems directly from concealment of the reasons for ever-deepening

CENTRALISATION OF POWER

within the heart of the EU, who is behind it all, the consequences and costs, accompanied by our growing incapacity to

GOVERN OUR OWN COUNTRY

AND

MAKE OUR OWN LAWS

The mistake was made many years ago if not at the outset of the European project:  That peoples of

DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEMS

HISTORY

CUSTOMS

and

LANGUAGES

could somehow be forced into co-habitation willingly and freely, and that somehow all people whatever their backgrounds could all be turned into EU citizens loyal to an EU flag

ANTHEM

and

EU PASSPORT.

It was supremely foolish from the outset being led into a Common Market whilst concealing that this would lead to a supranational political expansion

WITHOUT THE PEOPLE BEING ASKED THEIR CONSENT

Such foolishness still persists today inside our

PARLIAMENT

with a wall of resentment building  from British people with this Lisbon Treaty being bulldozed through Parliament, with complete disregard for the views of the

BRITISH PEOPLE

and our

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I watch and listen to MPs squirming to make any distinctions between the

EU CONSTITUTION

and the

LISBON TREATY

with the majority of MPs voting to reject even the safeguards to be added to the Act to protect us against future EU excesses and abuse whilst not bothering to listen to debates. I think of them twisting ropes from which they are likely to hang themselves at the next general election for breaking their promises to their constituents.

[It is more than likely that there will not be any further general elections for the MPs to worry about as the EU will foreclose as quickly as possible as soon as the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by all member-states.  The attitude of the majority of our so-call representatives confirms our view.]

A day of reckoning will come upon them. It would be as well for them to begin to study job vacancies. If they are not attentive to debates of national importance they do not deserve to be in Parliament. The Iraq war, the Lisbon Treaty and refusal to hold a referendum will seal the fate of New Labour and certain other Mps.

It is because of betrayal by political parties throughout my life that I remain an

INDEPENDENT

 

GEORGE WEST

Leicestershire

*

[It is more than likely that there will not be any further general elections for the MPs to worry about as the EU will foreclose as quickly as possible as soon as the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by all member-states.  The loyal EU occupants of the House will be well rewarded from EU funds and that is why they are not the least concerned about future elections.  The traitorous attitude of the majority of our so-called representatives confirms our view.]

*

MPs' loyalty is NOW to the EU

Dear Sir,

Un-remarked by the media, the final Commons division on March 5th related to the proposed New Clause 9 -an amendment to protect the legal

SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT

Shockingly, only 48 MPs could be bothered to vote for this amendment, while 380 voted against it

Although those 380 MPs swore the

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

before they took their seats, they have now shown that their primary loyalty is not to this country and its people, but to the EU

Dr D R COOPER

Berkshire.

*

*

 

[NO SURPRISE HERE!]

[April 23rd is also the birthday of our greatest poet William Shakespeare and his words on his love of country are banned by the politically-correct and pro-EU fanatics and many others of which regrettably there are a great number:

'Be just and fear not; let all the ends thou aimest at , be thy country's , thy God's, and truth's'

The greater number of our politicians and a great many others have no idea what we are talking about and that is why we are only month's away from losing OUR CONSTITUTION -OUR COUNTRY and OUR

RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

of

Englishmen

*

The emblem of the lions on our national standard of

ENGLAND

should be replaced by sheep because that is what the world must truly see before their eyes. A once great people reduced to a laughing stock because of their feeble attempts to save THEIR COUNTRY while many people's around the world are fighting bravely even with their lives for their LIBERTY whether in TIBET and in dozens of countries where other downtrodden people are fighting to protect THEIR OWN.]

*

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

[Each underlined word has a separate bulletin to view]

*

Revealed after his death that EDWARD HEATH: An AGENT of the NAZI international and traitor to his country since 1942 - possibly earlier

*

Foreign Powers direct our GOVERNMENT by PAYOUTS

*

A TRAITOR -FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY

*

THE term DVD stands for DEUTSCHE VERTEIDIGUNGS or German Defence Agency or Secret Service.

*

Nazi Traitor Edward Heath left £5million to his own charity-His Home.

*

GERMANY  as STRONGMAN OF EUROPE-A GERMANISED EMPIRE in the MAKING.

*

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

MARCH 29-2008

*

H.F.1793
 

EUROPEAN UNION Q & A

1]  EUROFACTS -   THE REALITY BEHIND THE EU

2]   WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EU

3]   THE TRUTH OF A FEDERAL EUROPE-PARTS1-4

4]   THE 1701 ACT OF SETTLEMENT-WHY IT SHOULD  CONCERN YOU!

5[    THE BRITISH LEGACY -CANADA-AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND

6]    COMMONWEALTH REALMS VERSUS THE NEW CONSTITUTION  OF EUROPE

7]   OUR BASIC LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS SURRENDERED TO A FOREIGN POWER

8]   MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN

9]   OUR QUEEN AND EU CONSTITUTION

10] VALERY GISCARD'ESTAING -WHY HE IS CALLED X

11]  THE ROTTEN HEART OF EUROPE by BERNARD CONNOLLY

12]   'I SAY WE MUST NOT JOIN EUROPE'-FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY-(1962)

13]  PREVIOUS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SAYS WE MUST RETAIN OUR ANCIENT CONSTITUTION

14] THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS THE  LAW OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES.

15]  A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION - CONSPIRATORS NAMED (1993)

16]   WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTINENT

17]    COST of EU to UK-£4.8billion = 40 DISTRICT HOSPITALS-EQUIPPED -_STAFFED-AND FUNDED.

18]   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON ABOUT THE EURO.

19]     200 MORE REASONS TO WHY TO REJECT THE EURO AND THE EU

20]     100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU

21]    THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

22]    UK CONTRIBUTION TO BRUSSELS: BIG INCREASE IN 2005

23]   EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE

24]    BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENTS SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL

25]    FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENTS BY PAYOUTS

26]    SIGNS OF AN EU POLICE STATE

27]    NINETY-NINE COUNTRIES HAVE FREE TRADE WITH THE EU-WITHOUT PAYING A CENT TO BRUSSELS.

28]    IT IS TIME TO CONSIDER OURSELVES-IN A COMMONWEALTH FREE TRADE AREA

29]   BRITAIN MUST LEAVE THE EU AS UN SHOW BEST AREA FOR EXPANSION WILL BE USA/ANGLO-SAXON SPHERE

30]    WAVE GOODBYE TO THE EU AND MAKE EUROPE A BETTER PLACE   

31]    LORD STODDART PINS DOWN BLAIR GOVERNMENT ON COST OF EU -JUNE 2007.

32]    BRITISH VOTERS MUST GET A SAY ON NEW EU TREATY-[JUNE-2007]

33]    BLAIR'S LAST TREACHEROUS ACT. THE 60,000 DOLLAR QUESTION IS WHAT WILL MR BROWN DO?-JUNE-2007]

34]   GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU?

35]  HITLER'S PRECEDENT PROVIDED THE MODEL FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION-1930-2007

36]  SAVE YOUR ENGLAND! - SAY NO! TO REGIONS
 

37]   NAZI INTERNATIONAL IN 2007-CLOSER TO YOUR HOME THAN YOU THINK  

38]    A WARNING FROM JAN-2005-TO PRESERVE THE NATION-STATES OF EUROPE-VOTE 'NO' TO THE NEW EU CONSTITUTION (D.T.)

39]    SO WHY DON'T WE LEAVE THE EU. (D.M.)

40]  IF Gordon Brown forces this EU TREATYon us, you can kiss goodbye to DEMOCRACY by Christopher Booker-- D.M. August-2007

41] David Cameron at last is converted to TRUE CONSERVATIVE policy on LAW and ORDER -while a Past Tory Prime Minister is hoping to SAVE YOUR COUNTRY-DO YOU BELIEVE THEM?

42] sO yOU aRE sTILL nOT iNTERESTED iN tHE THREAT TO YOUR FREEDOM and COUNTRY. In OCTOBER 2007 YOUR COMMONS  COULD RATIFY THE NEW TREATY TURNING THE EU INTO A STATE AT WHICH TIME YOUR COUNTRY WILL NO LONGER EXIST - STILL INTERESTED WE HOPE SO!

43]WHY OUR TRAITOROUS PRO-EU MP'S WANT THE BEST OF TWO WORLDS.

44]     WHY SWITZERLAND REJECTS EU MEMBERSHIP-A LESSON FOR ENGLAND

[For hundreds of bulletins about the EU]

 

*

 H.F.1794

 

The Death of the EU might have been exaggerated – but the Danger of the Death of British Democracy can hardly be overstated.

 

Daily Mail

Monday, May 30, 2005

The Melanie Phillips

Column

 

This vote reveals the lies at the heart of the European Project.

 

Like the demise of Mark Twain, rumours of the death of the European Union have been greatly exaggerated. The implication of yesterday’s French referendum on the EU Constitution were amply summed up in advance by Luxembourg’s Jean-Claude Juncker the current EU President, when he declared that if the French said ‘oui’, European integration would proceed, and if they said ‘non’, European integration would proceed [So there!]

 

That’s what the EU means by ‘consulting the people’.  That’s why France’s President Chirac threatened that if the French voted no, they would be made to vote again until they said yes.

 

No doubt such a fate will also befall the Dutch if they vote ‘nee’ in their own referendum on Wednesday on Wednesday [ They did as we now all know] unless the do so by an overwhelming majority [Ditto].

 

In any event, this whole crisis has been more about political momentum than any possible real change in direction.

 

Imposed

 

For regardless of the constitution, the reality is that the countries of the EU are already the helpless captives of an all-encompassing, anti-democratic bureaucracy with a life of its own.

 

Much of the constitution was always going to be imposed upon us anyway through the seemingly endless wrinkles in the existing EU treaties.  Indeed, the creation of an EU diplomatic service and the harmonisation of criminal justice are already on the way.

 

In other words, nothing so trivial as the will of the people would ever be allowed to derail the EU project, which has come to define the world view for a whole class of politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers who have governed the nations of Europe for a generation.

 

Nevertheless, the French referendum campaign dramatically exposed the profound faultlines and contradictions at the heart of the EU project.  The passions unleashed by the constitution relate not just to the treaty itself but, much more fundamentally, to the European dream.

 

Millions of European voters have grasped that the EU project is a swindle.  It was sold to them on the false prospectus that it would bring prosperity.  Instead they find their countries are crippled by economic sclerosis.

 

The problem, however, is that many do not understand why this has happened.  Many French voters who voted ‘non’ did so for the wrong reasons.  They believed that the constitution would foist upon them Anglo-Saxon market disciplines and expose them to the chill winds of competition from foreign companies and workers.

 

Ironically, this position is the diametric opposite of the British ‘no’ voters, who rightly fear that further integration with Europe would destroy our economic advantage and leave us crippled.

 

What even the French ‘non’ voters don’t seem to grasp is that the whole of the EU edifice rests on a set of fantasy foundations.  The first is the premise that the nation-states of Europe have common interests.

 

In fact, they have rather more irreconcilable social, political and cultural differences –and their economic interests lie in being in competition with each other, the very thing the EU is in business to stifle.

 

The second great myth is that the EU can be a rival global power to the US.     –the social welfare state versus the unbridled free market.

 

Euro-fanatics are so wrapped up in this infantile hostility that they have failed to notice that the world has moved on.

 

India and China are fast becoming major competitors; the developing markets are in Asia and the Far East; and newcomers to the EU from Eastern Europe are American economic wannabes.

 

The last thing they want to do is emulate stagnant, high-employment economies such as in Germany where voter revolt has caused beleaguered Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder to advance the date of the general election.

 

The third fantasy is that the nation-state is the cause of war and only the supra-national EU has kept the peace in Europe since World War II.

 

Violent

 

This is the most dangerous rubbish of all.  Peace in Europe was guaranteed by NATO and the Atlantic alliance.  Indeed, it is when self-government is suppressed and national identity threatened that people turn violent.

 

In those circumstances, they would also be far less keen to fight against an enemy threatening their freedom –because they would no longer have any significant freedom to defend.

 

As the MEP Daniel Hannon has argued, the main threat to freedom comes from the supra-national tyrannies –communism, Nazism, Islamic totalitarianism –to which only the nation-state can offer any proper defence. 

 

Yet the EU is fundamentally hostile to the very idea of the nation state.  Not only is it emasculating national powers, but its erosion of national borders has encouraged the mass movement of peoples across the continent, the very thing fuelling the pan-European voter revolt.

 

The French are the driving force behind the European supra-national ideal.  Yet when faced with the inevitable consequences –the arrival of millions of foreigners who threaten not only French jobs but the French national identity –they don’t like it.

 

The wholly erroneous belief that the nation state is a recipe for war and that, instead a supra-national government should impose laws and values to which everyone signs up and which will spread harmony and good will in place of conflict, is precisely what is embodied in the EU constitution.

 

Its extension of EU powers would take away what remains of our ability to govern ourselves.  It would deprive us of control over:

 

Finance,

 

Foreign policy,

 

Defence,

 

Taxation,

 

Social security,

 

Criminal justice,

 

Immigration and a host of other policies.

 

The wholesale transfer of power to a brand new pseudo-state would reduce Parliament to the status of Westminster regional council.  As such, it sounds a death knell for democracy.

*

 

Hysterical

 

This has never worried the French because the EU is quintessently a French project.  France has always been in the driving seat, telling other states what to do and rigging the EU rules to suit itself.  Other countries also do not share these concerns because they have a shaky historical attachment to democracy and liberty.

 

This is why the objections to the constitution by the British people are so very different and so very emphatic.  Despite the lies that have been told about the constitution being merely a ‘tidying up exercise –a comic counterpoint to President Chirac’s hysterical claims that a ‘no’ vote would destroy the EU – the British understand that what is at stake is our unique culture of:

 

Liberty,

 

Independence

 

Democracy.

 

A great fissure in the world has opened up between those who believe in the nation state and those who believe it must be superseded by supra-national institutions, which do away with a nation’s identity expressed through its own laws and values.

 

The EU constitution represents a great leap forward in that rolling revolution.  But whatever the final fate of that particular treaty, the fanatical and corrupt elite that drives the EU onwards will not give up.

 

Through bullying, lies and intimidation, they will continue to deprive us of our ancient liberties, slice by salami slice.

 

However the political aftermath of the French and Dutch votes plays out in the short term in Britain and in Europe, the fact remains that the UK now needs to have a full and frank debate about its place in a European Union that presents such a clear threat to our constitutional traditions and national identity.

 

The death of the EU might have been exaggerated –but the danger of the death of British democracy can hardly be overstated.

 

*          *          *

 

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

JUNE/05

 

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2005

H.F.1043

 

 

DAILY MAIL

Democracy?

 No, Britain's now a judicial-dictatorship and it's time for

REVOLUTION

-writes-

RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN

 

EXTRACT

...We may kid ourselves that we live in a democracy, but the reality is that we are ultimately governed by a

JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP, ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE

with its power base in

STRASBOURG.

Its bad enough when government policy is

RE-WRITTEN by

UNELECTED JURISTS

from countries such as the former SOVIET satellite states.wiyth no distinguished history of respect for genuine human rights.

But increasingly, British judges are flexing their muscles, too. Lord Neuberger, president of

BRITAIN'S SUPREME COURT

-a typical Blairite, European-style institution- has admitted that the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

has given the courts a blank cheque to

MAKE UP LAWS AS THEY GO ALONG...

More!

 

*

A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

[THE EXCELLENT AND TIMELY ARTICLE ABOVE SHOWS IN DETAIL THE DANGERS TO OUR ONCE FREE DEMOCRACY AND THE WILLINGNESS OF THE TRAITOROUS JUDICIARY TO FORGET THE ILLEGALITIES AND CORRUPTION THAT AROSE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1972 ACCESSION TREATY WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST 1973 AND SUBSEQUENT TREATIES WHICH ARE ILLEGAL UNDER THE

1969 VIENNA  TREATY ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

 WHICH MAKES ALL SUCH TREATIES NULL AND VOID. THE ATTITUDE OF OUR JUDGES IS SHOWN IN THE MANNER OF THE SCALES OF JUSTICE-THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES TO THE TRUTH. IN OUR LONG HISTORY THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAPPENED TO SUCH TRAITORS AND HOPEFULLY THE DAY WILL DAWN WHEN THEY AND OTHERS WHO HAVE SOILED THE ONCE GOOD NAME OF ENGLAND WILL RECEIVE THEIR JUST AND RIGHT PUNISHMENT. ]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 13-2014

H. F. 8

 
 
 
 

A REMINDER!

WHAT YOU ARE ESCAPING FROM SINCE TRAITORS IN YOUR PARLIAMENT SIGNED YOUR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND

AWAY IN

1972

AND IN LATER TREATIES UNTIL YOU SPOKE YOUR MIND ON

 JUNE 23-2016

 A DATE IN HISTORY WHICH WILL BE ALWAYS REMEMBERED

BY ALL TRUE ENGLISHMEN.

 

*  *  *

HOW IT CAME ABOUT!

Mr Macmillan and 1961

Mr Heath and 1970

Mrs Thatcher and 1985

From Major to Blair, Maastricht to Nice

The Price We Have PAid

 

*  *  *

 

H.F.1100 FREEDOM AWAITS
 
NEW SERIES

*

WHY WE VOTED TO LEAVE

THE

UNDEMOCRATIC-UNACCOUNTABLE-COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-WASTEFUL-GODLESS

SO-CALLED

EUROPEAN UNION

[WE WILL SELECT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AUTHORITIVE SOURCES CONCERNING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE EU TREATIES AND THOSE WHO LIED FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND POWER AND OTHER SUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION COLLECTED OVER THE 20 YEARS SINCE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE AFTER STANDING FOR ELECTION IN THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION AND THE 1999 EUROPEAN ELECTION. MANY WHO VOTED TO REMAIN IN THE EU WOULD SURELY HAVE RECONSIDERED IF THEY HAD BEEN DISINTERESTED OBSERVERS-DECIDING ON THE FACTS AND PUTTING NATIONAL INTERESTS  OF FREEDOM  and NATIONHOOD OUTLINED IN MAGNA CARTA AND OTHER PRIZED DOCUMENTS HELD IN TRUST-SACRED HEIRLOOMS - FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, BEFORE THEIR OWN COMFORT ZONE.  FORTUNATELY, THE GODS, WERE WITH ENGLAND-AND THE SOON RETURN OF

 A FREE LAND AND FREE PEOPLE.

OUR ENSLAVEMENT IN 1972 INTO HITLER'S PLAN FOR GERMAN EXPANSION AND POWER IN PEACE-TIME EUROPE WILL SOON BE AT AN END. AS A UNITED PEOPLE IT WILL BE SOONER THAN LATER. LET US WORK TOGETHER AS  AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER ONCE FREE PEOPLES WITHIN THE CAPTIVE EU WHO WILL SURELY FOLLOW. IF THE SHIP IS NOT ON AN EVEN KEEL IT CANNOT HELP OTHERS WHO WILL NEED OUR STURDY STEADY HAND.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

William Pitt.

 [Speech, 9th Nov, after Nelson's VICTORY at THE Battle of Trafalgar-with the destruction of the French and Spanish Fleets-Oct 21-1805]

MARCH 1-2017

 
A FAMILIAR WARNING FROM HISTORY - WE MUST NOT IGNORE!

'It is quite true that, in my opinion the waters which we have to navigate are likely to be stormy, and that the anti-social ferments within the nation are unusually malignant. But just a a healthy body generates anti-toxins to combat any virulent infection, so our nation

ENGLAND

 may be vigorous enough to neutralize the poisons which now threaten our civilization with death. Nothing but good can be done by calling attention to perils which really exist, and which may easily escape due attention amid the bottomless insincerity of modern politics and political journalism.

DANGERS OF PREDICTION

However , the dangers of prediction have been so often illustrated that those who are naturally disposed to optimism may be excused for rejecting the anticipations of coming CALAMITY, which  are now  [as in 2016/7] widely felt, though not so often expressed.

In the Victorian age we had  our profits of woe [and doom], who vociferated warnings about "shooting Niagara" when the country was more prosperous than it had ever been before. [As yet again in 2016/7].

Even on the morrow of our victory in 1815, " as soon as Waterloo was fought," says Sir Walter Besant, "the continental professors, historians, and others began with one accord to prophesy the approaching downfall of Great Britain," which they liked to compare with Carthage.

They emphasised the condition of Ireland, the decay of trade, our huge debt, our wasteful expenditure, our corrupting poor laws, the ignorance and drunkenness of the masses. Nor was this pessimistic forecast confined to our jealous neighbours.  In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent as follows:

" Distress and misery are no longer limited to one portion of the Empire, and under their irresistible pressure the commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests are rapidly sinking.   We can ,Sir no longer support out of our dilapidated resources the overwhelming load of taxation.  Our grievances are the natural result of rash and ruinous wars, unjustly commenced and pertinaciously persisted in, where no rational object was to be attained; of immense subsidies to foreign Powers to defend their own territories  or to commit aggressions on those of our neighbours;  of a delusive paper currency; of an unconstitutional and unprecedented military force in time of peace;   of the unexampled and increasing magnitude of the Civil List ;  of the enormous sums paid for unmerited pensions and sinecures;   and of a long course of the most lavish and improvident expenditure of the public money throughout every branch of Government."

In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent with the above statement.

Sounds familiar in 2017-Don't you think?

 

[EPILOGUE-William Ralph Inge -Dean of St Pauls ENGLAND-1938] -(1860-1954)

 

We endorse the final paragraph which states:

 

" I have laid bare my hopes and fears for the country I love.  This much I can avow, that never, even when the storm clouds appear blackest, have I been tempted to wish that I was other than an Englishman."

*

[We appear to have learned NOTHING! since this speech  in 1816 as the multiple evils are still with us today August 6, 2011. The reason is OBVIOUS! because the SAME! once invisible GLOBAL CONSPIRATORS are  STILL in CHARGE! and  are now in the OPEN!

If the ECONOMY has a DISEASE and FAILS to take the CORRECT MEDICINE then the END RESULT is OBVIOUS.

TOTAL CHAOS!

*

WHY DO WE TRUST THESES DISCREDITED DOOM-MONGERS?

By Alex Brummer - City Editor-Daily Mail-Monday, August 8,2011

 

 [EXTRACT]

...and the answer is that the CREDIT RATING AGENCIES are now seen as the ONLY arbiters prepared to spell out just how SERIOUS the GLOBAL DEBT CRISIS really IS.... After all, the very same AGENCIES were still providing the US. energy company ENRON with TOP RATING up to THREE DAYS before IT COLLAPSED in the world's BIGGEST INDUSTRIAL BANKRUPTCY...  They also gave a CLEAN BILL of HEALTH to FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC -semi-official, but privately owned U. S bodies set up to expand the HOME OWNERSHIP and the availability of MORTGAGES-despite WARNINGS from the LEGENDARY American investor -WARREN BUFFETT -THAT they were BROKE... S&P's downgrade may look like a poke in the eye for the UNITED STATES. But with luck, it could in the end DAMAGE the FUTURE CREDIBILITY of the CREDIT-RATING AGENCIES - they are in MORE URGENT NEED of REFORM than AMERICA.

 

 

THE AMERICAN DREAM IS OVER!

 

h

 

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS almost BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/ ****    REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****    THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****       FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/  ****   A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?     **** GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER/  ****    A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES?/  ****   THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/  ****   GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND/ ****   50 YEARS OF SURRENDER***AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED.

DAVID CAMERON'S PLAN TO CLAW BACK POWERS FROM EU ARE DOOMED SAYS EU CHIEF IN OCTOBER-2013

*

THE HISTORY OF THE SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION

***

HITLER'S+PLAN+FOR+A+

GERMAN+CONTROLLED

+EUROPEAN+UNION

***

TREASON

***

 

 

 

ENGLAND

 

 Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****.OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE ENGLISH WITH OTHER GERMANIC TRIBES CAME TO BRITAIN OVER YEARS AGO - THE STREAM OF TEUTONIC INFLUENCE  HAS DECIDED THE FUTURE OF EUROPE****THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****   WHY OUR ENGLISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IS UNIQUE IN EUROPE AND THE WORLD****.ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY / ****  THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED? **** ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/**** ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ONSHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY****NAZI SPY RING REVEALED BY THE MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE IN 1938 . IT INCLUDED THE LATE EX PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH AND MINISTERS GEOFFREY RIPPON AND ROY JENKINS.* * * *AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****   EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

 

‘THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION’****

OUR CONSTITUTION OF OVER A THOUSAND YEARS – WHY DOES BLAIR MEAN TO DESTROY IT?****

OUR DISCREDITED DEMOCRACY OR IRAQ DICTATORSHIP****OUR LOYALTY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY?****Liberties of Parliament- Birthright of Subjects of England.****LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR****New England’s Tears for Old England’s fears?****The House of Commons has a need of members dedicated to their Country-not time wasters.****English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died****CABINET GOVERNMENT IS NOW A DICTATORSHIP****MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE CROWN****THE FINAL BETRAYAL - Part 1-5****House of Lords legal Whistleblower – Speaks Out in Defence of OUR  Law & Constitution****SAY ‘NO’ TO EUROPE! – SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON****The Rotten Heart of Europe - by Bernard Connolly-Part 1-5****THE CLUB IS MIGHTIER THAN THE HANDBAG****WHY you should Vote at Elections to protect YOUR Democracy****The sole legitimate function of Government- is to Protect The Rights of its Citizens****So You Thought You Were Free****A DREAM TO REMEMBER- NEW LABOUR POLICY -2004?****NO SUPPORT IN HOUSE OF LORDS FOR INQUIRY INTO EU BY TORY WHIP**** Could England Survive Outside The EU?  -YES!****COST OF DEVOLUTION –N’IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES LONDON +BRUSSELS****European Arrest Warrant – What Price Our Freedom Now?****Government Obsession With Spending Itself out of Trouble**** Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution****OUR UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM= BREEDS TREASON -
BETRAYAL OF COUNTRY****Impeachment of Ministers of the Crown – Why Now?****New European Constitution – Concessions Fudge.****The Judiciary – A Defence of English Freedom?****New European Constitution – A ‘Bridge’ Too Far?**** Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty****OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY****  Scottish Independence – Have No need of Union flag and Anthem****Misuse of Prerogative Powers by Tony Blair****A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAME  PARTS 1-5****

 

 

H.F.1099 FREEDOM AWAITS
NEW SERIES

*

WHY WE VOTED TO LEAVE

THE

UNDEMOCRATIC-UNACCOUNTABLE-COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-WASTEFUL-GODLESS

SO-CALLED

EUROPEAN UNION

[WE WILL SELECT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AUTHORITIVE SOURCES CONCERNING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE EU TREATIES AND THOSE WHO LIED FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND POWER AND OTHER SUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION COLLECTED OVER THE 20 YEARS SINCE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE AFTER STANDING FOR ELECTION IN THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION AND THE 1999 EUROPEAN ELECTION. MANY WHO VOTED TO REMAIN IN THE EU WOULD SURELY HAVE RECONSIDERED IF THEY HAD BEEN DISINTERESTED OBSERVERS-DECIDING ON THE FACTS AND PUTTING NATIONAL INTERESTS  OF FREEDOM  and NATIONHOOD OUTLINED IN MAGNA CARTA AND OTHER PRIZED DOCUMENTS HELD IN TRUST-SACRED HEIRLOOMS - FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, BEFORE THEIR OWN COMFORT ZONE.  FORTUNATELY, THE GODS, WERE WITH ENGLAND-AND THE SOON RETURN OF

 A FREE LAND AND FREE PEOPLE.

OUR ENSLAVEMENT IN 1972 INTO HITLER'S PLAN FOR GERMAN EXPANSION AND POWER IN PEACE-TIME EUROPE WILL SOON BE AT AN END. AS A UNITED PEOPLE IT WILL BE SOONER THAN LATER. LET US WORK TOGETHER AS  AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER ONCE FREE PEOPLES WITHIN THE CAPTIVE EU WHO WILL SURELY FOLLOW. IF THE SHIP IS NOT ON AN EVEN KEEL IT CANNOT HELP OTHERS WHO WILL NEED OUR STURDY STEADY HAND.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

William Pitt.

 [Speech, 9th Nov, after Nelson's VICTORY at THE Battle of Trafalgar-with the destruction of the French and Spanish Fleets-Oct 21-1805]

MARCH 1-2017

 
A FAMILIAR WARNING FROM HISTORY - WE MUST NOT IGNORE!

'It is quite true that, in my opinion the waters which we have to navigate are likely to be stormy, and that the anti-social ferments within the nation are unusually malignant. But just a a healthy body generates anti-toxins to combat any virulent infection, so our nation

ENGLAND

 may be vigorous enough to neutralize the poisons which now threaten our civilization with death. Nothing but good can be done by calling attention to perils which really exist, and which may easily escape due attention amid the bottomless insincerity of modern politics and political journalism.

DANGERS OF PREDICTION

However , the dangers of prediction have been so often illustrated that those who are naturally disposed to optimism may be excused for rejecting the anticipations of coming CALAMITY, which  are now  [as in 2016/7] widely felt, though not so often expressed.

In the Victorian age we had  our profits of woe [and doom], who vociferated warnings about "shooting Niagara" when the country was more prosperous than it had ever been before. [As yet again in 2016/7].

Even on the morrow of our victory in 1815, " as soon as Waterloo was fought," says Sir Walter Besant, "the continental professors, historians, and others began with one accord to prophesy the approaching downfall of Great Britain," which they liked to compare with Carthage.

They emphasised the condition of Ireland, the decay of trade, our huge debt, our wasteful expenditure, our corrupting poor laws, the ignorance and drunkenness of the masses. Nor was this pessimistic forecast confined to our jealous neighbours.  In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent as follows:

" Distress and misery are no longer limited to one portion of the Empire, and under their irresistible pressure the commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests are rapidly sinking.   We can ,Sir no longer support out of our dilapidated resources the overwhelming load of taxation.  Our grievances are the natural result of rash and ruinous wars, unjustly commenced and pertinaciously persisted in, where no rational object was to be attained; of immense subsidies to foreign Powers to defend their own territories  or to commit aggressions on those of our neighbours;  of a delusive paper currency; of an unconstitutional and unprecedented military force in time of peace;   of the unexampled and increasing magnitude of the Civil List ;  of the enormous sums paid for unmerited pensions and sinecures;   and of a long course of the most lavish and improvident expenditure of the public money throughout every branch of Government."

In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent with the above statement.

Sounds familiar in 2017-Don't you think?

 

[EPILOGUE-William Ralph Inge -Dean of St Pauls ENGLAND-1938] -(1860-1954)

 

We endorse the final paragraph which states:

 

" I have laid bare my hopes and fears for the country I love.  This much I can avow, that never, even when the storm clouds appear blackest, have I been tempted to wish that I was other than an Englishman."

*

[We appear to have learned NOTHING! since this speech  in 1816 as the multiple evils are still with us today August 6, 2011. The reason is OBVIOUS! because the SAME! once invisible GLOBAL CONSPIRATORS are  STILL in CHARGE! and  are now in the OPEN!

If the ECONOMY has a DISEASE and FAILS to take the CORRECT MEDICINE then the END RESULT is OBVIOUS.

TOTAL CHAOS!

*

WHY DO WE TRUST THESES DISCREDITED DOOM-MONGERS?

By Alex Brummer - City Editor-Daily Mail-Monday, August 8,2011

 

 [EXTRACT]

...and the answer is that the CREDIT RATING AGENCIES are now seen as the ONLY arbiters prepared to spell out just how SERIOUS the GLOBAL DEBT CRISIS really IS.... After all, the very same AGENCIES were still providing the US. energy company ENRON with TOP RATING up to THREE DAYS before IT COLLAPSED in the world's BIGGEST INDUSTRIAL BANKRUPTCY...  They also gave a CLEAN BILL of HEALTH to FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC -semi-official, but privately owned U. S bodies set up to expand the HOME OWNERSHIP and the availability of MORTGAGES-despite WARNINGS from the LEGENDARY American investor -WARREN BUFFETT -THAT they were BROKE... S&P's downgrade may look like a poke in the eye for the UNITED STATES. But with luck, it could in the end DAMAGE the FUTURE CREDIBILITY of the CREDIT-RATING AGENCIES - they are in MORE URGENT NEED of REFORM than AMERICA.

 

 

THE AMERICAN DREAM IS OVER!

 

h

 

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS almost BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/ ****    REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****    THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****       FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/  ****   A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?     **** GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER/  ****    A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES?/  ****   THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/  ****   GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND/ ****   50 YEARS OF SURRENDER***AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED.

DAVID CAMERON'S PLAN TO CLAW BACK POWERS FROM EU ARE DOOMED SAYS EU CHIEF IN OCTOBER-2013

*

THE HISTORY OF THE SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION

***

HITLER'S+PLAN+FOR+A+

GERMAN+CONTROLLED

+EUROPEAN+UNION

***

TREASON

***

 

 

 

ENGLAND

 

 Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****.OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE ENGLISH WITH OTHER GERMANIC TRIBES CAME TO BRITAIN OVER YEARS AGO - THE STREAM OF TEUTONIC INFLUENCE  HAS DECIDED THE FUTURE OF EUROPE****THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****   WHY OUR ENGLISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IS UNIQUE IN EUROPE AND THE WORLD****.ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY / ****  THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED? **** ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/**** ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ONSHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY****NAZI SPY RING REVEALED BY THE MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE IN 1938 . IT INCLUDED THE LATE EX PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH AND MINISTERS GEOFFREY RIPPON AND ROY JENKINS.* * * *AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****   EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

 

‘THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION’****

OUR CONSTITUTION OF OVER A THOUSAND YEARS – WHY DOES BLAIR MEAN TO DESTROY IT?****

OUR DISCREDITED DEMOCRACY OR IRAQ DICTATORSHIP****OUR LOYALTY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY?****Liberties of Parliament- Birthright of Subjects of England.****LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR****New England’s Tears for Old England’s fears?****The House of Commons has a need of members dedicated to their Country-not time wasters.****English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died****CABINET GOVERNMENT IS NOW A DICTATORSHIP****MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE CROWN****THE FINAL BETRAYAL - Part 1-5****House of Lords legal Whistleblower – Speaks Out in Defence of OUR  Law & Constitution****SAY ‘NO’ TO EUROPE! – SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON****The Rotten Heart of Europe - by Bernard Connolly-Part 1-5****THE CLUB IS MIGHTIER THAN THE HANDBAG****WHY you should Vote at Elections to protect YOUR Democracy****The sole legitimate function of Government- is to Protect The Rights of its Citizens****So You Thought You Were Free****A DREAM TO REMEMBER- NEW LABOUR POLICY -2004?****NO SUPPORT IN HOUSE OF LORDS FOR INQUIRY INTO EU BY TORY WHIP**** Could England Survive Outside The EU?  -YES!****COST OF DEVOLUTION –N’IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES LONDON +BRUSSELS****European Arrest Warrant – What Price Our Freedom Now?****Government Obsession With Spending Itself out of Trouble**** Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution****OUR UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM= BREEDS TREASON -
BETRAYAL OF COUNTRY****Impeachment of Ministers of the Crown – Why Now?****New European Constitution – Concessions Fudge.****The Judiciary – A Defence of English Freedom?****New European Constitution – A ‘Bridge’ Too Far?**** Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty****OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY****  Scottish Independence – Have No need of Union flag and Anthem****Misuse of Prerogative Powers by Tony Blair****A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAME  PARTS 1-5****

 

 

H.F.1099 FREEDOM AWAITS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 		SEP 19

OCT-19

NOV-19
 

 

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME--2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME PAGE 2--2019

 

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012