FEB FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018 - (1994 -Official Website - FEB-PT1-2018 )-- FEB FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018              FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW- HOME PAGE-2018

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY.

*

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

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

 

 

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018

 

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

 

Knights Templar admitted back to inner sanctum of monotheism after 711-year hiatus

 

For the first time since Friday, October 13th, 1307, the Knights Templar have been invited back into the inner sanctum of monotheism, according to Templar and P2 Freemason lodge sources.  So, a 711-year-old injustice, one that gave rise to the superstition of Friday the 13th being unlucky, is finally being addressed.  This is just another sign that we are experiencing events that can only be described as biblical.  Remember that in February of 2016, the Roman and Russian churches ended their thousand-year schism.  Will the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian schisms be next to end?  Maybe we will find out soon.

Anyway, now the Templars will be merging with the Knights of Malta, and this will “provide access for the Templars to the Vatican itself,” according to Andrew Heim, of the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, aka the Templars.  Furthermore, the Templars will be given “access to the inner sanctum of the Abrahamic religions, seen with the access afforded to the Vatican and to the Holy Land.  In addition, this inner sanctum will include access to the controversial Prieure de Sion made popular by Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code…” says Heim.
http://www.chevaliersfideles.com/international-news-2018

This event is just the latest sign of a fundamental change of direction for Western civilization away from war and toward peace and development, according to these sources.  If all goes well, trillions of dollars will soon be made available to both pay off debt of the U.S. government and the private sector, as well as finance a massive campaign to end poverty, stop environmental destruction, and turn the planet earth into the paradise it is meant to be, the sources say.  This is now being talked about in public by Western leaders and reported on in the corporate media.  Remember, you read it here first.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/18/us-japan-india-australia-mull-alternative-to-chinas-belt-and-road.html

The earth alliance fighting to free humanity from Babylonian debt slavery is also winning on multiple fronts, with senior satanic cabalists dying, disappearing, or losing power at an accelerating pace.  CIA sources are now confirming, for example, that Jacob Rothschild …
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

Any intel on Jared Rand?

 

Ben:

Would you have any intel on Jared Rand?

He says there is a “bad RV” and a “good RV,” and that the bad RV is the cryptocurrency, which is the cabal’s new fiat currency.  They will assure everyone it is gold-backed and “rescue” us from all the others.  (The recent warnings from the BIS against cryptocurrency feel like a cabal deception.)

The good RV is the gold-backed new currency.

Jared Rand is new on the scene and has all the positive off-world helpers’ projections well organized, as well as the spiritual themes put out by the likes of Wilcock and Goode.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
–DS


DS,
All I can say is that we are tired of waiting for things to happen, so we are working on starting a gold-backed cryptocurrency.  And we like to think we are the good guys.
–BF

Bad Guys into Good Guys?

 

Dear Ben:

I heard in your talk with Robert David Steele that you think we should pay the bad guys off and change things to turn the bad guys (NWO mafia) into good guys.

I guess you don’t realize these bad guys are not Human–they have Human bodies and a Reptilian soul.  I’m sure of this although I can’t prove it, but my work is at http://www.icheckyoursoul.com.

I have a God-given ability to read souls by the use of a pendulum, and almost everyone that has used my services agrees with my findings.

These Bad Guys are polarized evil and their souls come from the Draconian Reptilians, so they almost can’t change!  If we were to pay them off and take them out of power, so to speak, what’s to stop them from continuing funding their evil corporations and keep up chemtrails, GMOs, vaccines, Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030, wars, and many other evil activities.

These Reptilian-soul people will not stop, and they intend to have just them in the ruling class and everyone else be a worker/slave.  We must take these evil people out of our society while we still can.  What say you?

A Long Time Subscriber


My view is that the true criminals will face justice, but the ones who went along because it was a choice of “either go along or die” should be allowed truth and reconciliation.
–BF

 

Daily Mail

COMMENT

Anything but stupid-

the

Brains for Brexit

FROM sneering 'comedians' on dreary BBC panel shows to professional europhiles like Tony Blair and Nick Clegg, Remainers love to trumpet what they see as their intellectual superiority over those who support

BREXIT.

They characterise working class

LEAVE

voters as either

STUPID or GULLIBLE

to understand the issues at stake

or so bigoted that all they care about is keeping out foreigners. And prominent

BREXITEERS

-especially if they also happen to be Tory, such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are derided as Little Englanders, liars and fantasists.

But the latest group to join the pro-Leave camp is set to expose these patronising claims for the palpable fiction they are. Calling itself

Briefings for Brexit

it comprises around 40 leading academics in fields including economics, law, history, philosophy, science and politics, plus several diplomatic experts, a Labour peer and a former head of M16.

They have come out of the shadows because they are sick of Leave supporters being dismissed as idiots

 and

 ' the whole tide of propaganda about how awful everything was going to be'

In a calm, dispassionate manner they hope to redress the balance and demonstrate that, far from being evidence of stupidity, wanting to

LEAVE THE EU

is the best and most rational choice.

Worryingly, they say many more like-minded academics would have joined them , but because the university establishment is overwhelmingly pro-Remain, they were afraid their careers would be blighted. What a chilling indictment of our higher education institutions. Instead of encouraging

 FREE EXPRESSION

THEY CRUSH IT.

But it's clear the Remainers have lost the argument. Only yesterday a survey showed most UK companies now believe that contrary to the dire warnings of PROJECT FEAR,

BREXIT

will boost the economy.

Isn't it time the doom-mongers stopped

TALKING BRITAIN DOWN?

The  truth is that 17.4million people

VOTED TO LEAVE THE EU

not because they're

STUPID

But because they no longer want to be shackled to a

DECAYING, UNDEMOCRATIC BEHEMOTH

INCAPABLE OF REFORMING ITSELF

 

 

[CHANGES OF STYLE AND FORM OF TEXT ARE OURS!]

FEBRUARY 19, 2018

H.F.1482

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.

 

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

 

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

Financial mega-battle to escalate in late February, early March

 

The secret battle for the planet earth is entering a critical phase over the coming weeks, especially in the realm of finance, where an epic three-way battle is raging, multiple sources agree.  In this battle, cryptocurrencies and the Chinese yuan are fighting each other, as well as fighting to replace the current privately-owned Western central bank petrodollar, Euro, and Japanese yen-based system.

In the biggest move, the gauntlet has been cast by the Chinese as they challenge the U.S. petrodollar, with the formal announcement of a March 26th start for gold-backed-yuan oil futures trading.  Asian secret society sources say the Year of the Dog, which is just starting, usually brings volatility (in this case presumably in the financial markets) before things settle down into a new normal as the year progresses.  This means the Chinese are ready for financial war once they return from their lunar new year’s holiday this week and next.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-09/china-ends-25-year-wait-as-yuan-oil-futures-set-to-start-trading

This Chinese move against the petrodollar coincides with a Russian threat to withdraw from the Western-controlled SWIFT international payments system.  A CIA source in Asia says he was informed by his Russian counterparts that if Russia starts trade without using the international SWIFT trading accounts and completely switches over to the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), “there will be at least a dozen other nations that make this switch within days.”

https://www.rt.com/business/418665-russia-banks-ready-shut-swift/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-14/russian-deputy-pm-our-banks-are-prepare-survive-without-swift?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29

Meanwhile, a Canadian Secret Intelligence Service agent notes that “Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev of Russia is also the CEO of the Russian Federation, licensed to operate out of London.  So if the order is given to move away from the SWIFT system, the U.S. dollar simply dies and we will see huge inflation.”  What he means by this is that the London financial district, and by implication the 2.4 billion-member British Commonwealth, will join the Russians and Chinese in ditching the U.S. dollar.

There is also a big push to replace the petrodollar with a gold-backed cryptocurrency that could rival the Chinese yuan for influence, according to Russian, CIA, Pentagon, Japanese government, and other sources involved in this project, which we discuss in further detail below.

These developments are probably why senior members of the P2 Freemason lodge, the controllers of the existing dollar/euro/yen system, contacted the White Dragon Society (WDS) last week to sue for peace.  There will be more about these discussions with the P2 below.

Also last week, former CIA agent and founder of the Marine Intelligence Division (the folks who recently raided CIA Headquarters) Robert David Steele showed up in Japan last week to meet with WDS members.
http://robertdavidsteele.com

Remember, the top generals in the Trump regime, including Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, were all Marine generals, so the timing of Steele’s arrival in Japan can be no coincidence.

In Japan, Steele met with members of Asian secret societies, senior right-wing power brokers, members of the Japanese royal family, and others.  The discussions focused on…
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

What should young people do to prepare themselves?

Hello there, Mister Benjamin!

I’ve been contemplating whether or not to trouble you with something relatively unimportant at the moment;  however, seeing that you take time to answer questions you get by email and even use them to educate others, I decided to ask a question or two of my own.

What sort of skills should young people learn to secure their place in the post-reset society?  Which languages?  Should they focus on IT (artificial intelligence, possibly)?  Should they relocate, or will the state borders be abolished?  Is there anything else you would consider beneficial to know?  In general, what sort of advice would you give the young?

Thanks in advance and keep up the great work!
–S


Hi S,
My general advice to young people is to spend at least a year living in a totally different country and culture and learn a different language.  Doing so will expand your mind and your horizons.

Otherwise, my advice is to follow your heart and do and learn things that you are interested in and passionate about.  Do not learn a boring, mind-numbing skill just because you think you might earn money from it.

The other important thing is to learn self-discipline.  When I was young I made lists of things to do and then crossed them off one by one as they got done.  After a while, I started doing things automatically even without the list.

Remember, you only have one life, so live it well.  Good luck.
–BF

Question about new world government

 

Dear Benjamin,

Since some time I am an interested reader of your website.

But today I was shocked about the last posted blog about this new world government.

It sounds like the New World Order (NWO) …and this is most scaring for me.

What is your comment about this?

And, what about the negotiations last weekend between the bloodlines and the WDS?

With kind regards,
WM from Germany


Hello,

First of all, please understand that I report what is happening in the world, not what I wish were happening.

Having said that, I am very much against a New World Order-style centralized fascist world government.

However, we do need a minimum set of rules, such as exist in any town or village, to make sure we take care of the planet we all share and to make sure international criminals (like rogue corporations) cannot invade countries and steal resources with impunity.
–BF

A comment on one of your recent articles – dated Feb. 6th, 2018

 

Dear Benjamin,

Although I am NOT one of your subscribers (I wish I could be), I am definitely one of your faithful readers.  And occasionally I post in Facebook groups articles of interest that originated from your blog.

May I put here in writing, for the record, my response to the article on the technological deal with the Nazis which was posted on your blog a few days ago.

Here is my personal response to it:

According to a few sources (Benjamin Fulford’s blog is one of them), the Nazis in Antarctica and in Patagonia (Argentina) are negotiating a “Peace Deal” with the U.S. in which they will give humanity their advanced technology and we will let them return to humanity and join the Earth family.  I attach here an article by Dr Michael Salla from today (not attached).

But before you get into it, let me state the following:

  1. The Third Reich sold humanity to the Dracos in return for technological help and joint warlike expeditions with THE DARK FLEET of the Dracos inside and outside the solar system.  In return, the Dracos got many millions of human slaves and human meat for consumption.  Yes.  My relatives were among them.  They also got an access to high power positions in government, finance, health regulation, the industrial arms complex, and NASA with the help of the Paperclip Project.
  2. One of the technologies given to the Nazis by the Dracos was LIFE-EXTENDING TECHNOLOGIES.  This means that it could be that some of the most evil people on planet Earth are still alive today.
  3. Project Paperclip is responsible for the slow degeneration of the U.S Republic—the making of the FDA into a Big Pharma puppet, and the slow genocide of humanity by Big Pharma.  It is also responsible for some horrendous projects involving millions of innocent children, in experiments that are related to “Time Portals,” Mylab, Super-Soldiers, etc.
  4. The programs of “Handlers & Silent Killers,” the rise of the pedophilia all over the world as a tool for controlling the world governments—all of this came out of Project Paperclip.
  5. Are we going to let the grandchildren of those who committed these heinous crimes come back as if they are clean and good and merciful, unlike their forefathers?  And how do we know that they are NOT the original criminals inside younger bodies?
  6. Are we going to allow ourselves to be bribed again, and exchange the future of humanity with some Nazi technology?
  7. Are we going to say, “Thank you so very much, and now we will forgive you for selling planet Earth to the Dracos”?
  8. Those who may have made this deal (if indeed it was made) could well be clones of the originals (!) or even reptilians in a human-like costume;  i.e looking like human beings but in fact being Reptilians.
  9. NEVER AGAIN!
    —————————

The above is my personal view on the matter.  Thank you for finding the time to read it.

With respect and appreciation of your courage and work for the betterment of humanity,
—AHZ


Dear AHZ,

Thank you for your views.  When Dr. Michael Salla came to Japan, they had a bunch of North Korean goons prevent me from meeting with or talking to him.

I stand by the view that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Repeating something endlessly, a la Joseph Goebbels, does not make it true.  I have countless tales of Draco-Reptilians, etc. but have yet to see an ounce of real proof.

As a journalist I must deal with firsthand information and things that can be proven true in a court of law.  Most of the alien stuff does not pass that test.  Clearly, at the very least we are under some sort of quarantine because I do not see aliens walking around the streets.

In any case, as far as the Nazis are concerned, rest assured that any and all criminal and unethical activity is being ripped out, root and branch.
—BF

Social Media Accounts

Are you on social media?  I found some websites/social media accounts claiming to represent Benjamin or the White Dragon Society, are they real?

The following are the only social media accounts associated with Benjamin and the WDS.  Please note that in the case of trouble with BenjaminFulford.net, one or more of the below accounts will be used to communicate with readers.

Steemit: @benjaminfulford

Twitter: @RealBenFulford

Facebook: Benjamin Fulford: White Dragon Society  (run by volunteers)

Twitter: @generalmilan  (WDS Financial Technology Team)

All other accounts/websites are not directly associated with Benjamin or the WDS.  From Benjamin: “Any White Dragon Society website is an agency trap.  Tell people to stay away, we only recruit face to face.  We trust nothing digital.”

{ HIGHLIGHTING OF TEXT IS OURS!]

H.F.1481

 
LITTLEJOHN

We need a fearless leader to deliver

BREXIT

- Nigel Farage:

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN believes the former Ukip leader should be an integral part of the process after campaigning for so long

Farage’s career should — repeat should — have ended in triumph. After all, he went into politics with just one aim and succeeded spectacularly

Enoch Powell said famously that all political careers end in failure. Nigel Farage should have proved him wrong.

Farage’s career should — repeat should — have ended in triumph. After all, he went into politics with just one aim and succeeded spectacularly.

Up to a point.

The magnificent Leave victory in 2016 was a vindication of Farage’s virtually single-handed campaign to get Britain out of the EU.

Yes, others can also take credit. But Farage was the figurehead, often a lone voice in the wilderness. 

No one had to endure the vilification and violence directed at Farage as he took his message around the country year after year, well before Call Me Dave finally buckled and gave the people a long-overdue referendum.

Fifteen years ago, when I was presenting a nightly show on Sky News, I was about the only broadcaster who would give him a regular platform. The mainstream media treated him as a pariah — at best a circus act, at worst a neo-Nazi. 

This was around the time that New Labour was almost unanimously agreed to have established a 1,000-year reich and opposition to our glorious future as a European statelet was considered futile.

Aside from a few principled players in the Conservative Party — former leader and one-time Maastricht rebel Iain Duncan Smith prominent among them — the political establishment wholeheartedly embraced the EU project. 

But Farage kept banging away, making mischief in Brussels, where he’d managed to get himself elected as an MEP and used his position to ridicule the pompous panjandrums running the show.

Who can forget his wonderful denunciation of the ridiculous Herman Van Rompuy, self-styled former European ‘president’?

‘You have the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk . . . Who are you? I’d never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever heard of you.

‘I would like to ask you, President, who voted for you . . . oh, I know democracy’s not popular with you lot, and what mechanism do the people of Europe have to remove you?

‘Is this European democracy? You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states — perhaps that’s because you come from Belgium, which of course is pretty much a non-country . . .

‘Sir, you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and I can say with confidence that I speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying: We don’t know you, we don’t want you, and the sooner you’re put out to grass, the better.’

The Westminster bubble was horrified. How dare this upstart show such a lack of respect to our European masters? But out in the suburbs and the shires, and on the rundown council estates in the North of England, millions of decent British citizens gave a silent cheer.

Call Me Dave dismissed Farage’s Ukip as a collection of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. It was a cruel caricature, but partly accurate. Ukip’s annual conference certainly resembles a roomful of Hyacinth Buckets and men who model themselves on the Major in Fawlty Towers.

But Ukip was on a roll — and by now Farage was a ubiquitous presence in radio and TV studios, even if he was often only there as an Aunt Sally, to be shouted at by self-righteous presenters and panellists alike.

Yet Farage stood up to the verbal slings and arrows, and to the nasty physical abuse he frequently had to endure. Cigarette in one hand, pint of best in the other, he kept on plugging away.

In the 2015 General Election, Ukip polled almost four million votes, a large chunk of them in former Labour strongholds in the North, which felt ignored and abandoned and had suffered the greatest impact from mass immigration.

Farage’s ‘fruitcakes’ didn’t make a parliamentary breakthrough but they delivered the Tories their first Commons majority since 1992, simply by denying Labour seats they had taken for granted.

Now, Cameron feared, they were coming for the Tories, so he panicked and promised a referendum on EU membership. 

Say what you like about Call Me Dave, but this was his greatest gift to the people of Britain, an opportunity we seized, asserting our sovereignty and overturning the decades-old project of submerging our country into an anti-democratic United States of Europe.

 

To paraphrase Monty Python’s parrot sketch, Ukip is an ex-party, it has ceased to be

Cameron’s gamble backfired. He resigned immediately and is now reduced to scraping a living on the international lecture circuit, essentially a political end-of-the-pier show.

Next week, he’s playing a small town theatre in Florida, but has sold fewer seats than its current production, Million Dollar Quartet, a jukebox musical featuring hits by Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins and Jerry Lee Lewis.

In the States, where they value national independence, Farage is a folk hero, a bigger draw than our former Prime Minister.

And yet.

OK, so the referendum wouldn’t have been won without Boris, Gove and the brave career politicians who dared to defy the Establishment stitch-up. But without Farage, there would have been no referendum, nor would there have been any Brexit.

What kind of Brexit, if any, remains to be seen. Which, presumably, is why Farage is now muttering about making a comeback as part of a Ukip Mark II.

The corpse of the old Ukip is still twitching, but without Farage it’s nothing. The party’s on its third post-Farage leader, no one you’ve ever heard of, and he’s on the way out over a few incendiary tweets sent by some dopey bird half his age he’s got himself hooked up with. I can’t be bothered to go into details, because it’s a waste of time.

To paraphrase Monty Python’s parrot sketch, Ukip is an ex-party, it has ceased to be.

One of the reasons Ukip imploded was because those four million voters returned to the two main parties, both of which made manifesto promises to implement Brexit in full, yet now seem hell-bent on either reneging or watering it down so far it becomes meaningless.

So I understand and share Farage’s concern. As I’ve said all along, the fix has been in since the result of the referendum was announced. The political class have stolen our biggest vote in history for anything and made it all about them — not the people they are paid to serve.

Frankly, I don’t trust any of them to deliver the Brexit we voted for. If the vast majority of MPs had their way, they’d stop the whole process in its tracks today. When Theresa May succeeded Call Me Dave, she should have established a grand cross-party coalition to negotiate our departure, including heroic Labour figures such as Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey.

But the central player should have been Farage, a man who knows his way around Brussels and scares the EU to death.

He’d never have put up with the contemptuous treatment being meted out to Britain by Michel Barnier and his ‘damp-rag, low-grade bank clerk’ bureaucrats.

Instead, we’re stuck with Mother Theresa, who spent the referendum hiding behind the sofa and still won’t say whether she’d vote Leave if it was held today.

Her new de facto deputy, David Lidington, is a full-on federast, already speculating we could rejoin the EU at some stage. Rejoin? We haven’t even left yet — and never will, other than in name only, if the political establishment prevails.

Even David Davis seems to have gone native and Boris has been banished to the outer darkness, certainly when it comes to Brexit. In what kind of Fred Karno government is the Foreign Secretary excluded from the biggest foreign policy issue facing the country in modern history?

Never mind Boris, though. Mrs May should be making plans for Nigel, bringing him into the fold, allowing him to be an integral part of the very Brexit process for which he has campaigned so long, so hard and so selflessly.

He doesn’t need a knighthood, or a sinecure in the Lords — each of which would have been a traditional reward for his service to this country. Given the fuss over Mrs Thatcher’s memorial, I suppose a statue in Parliament Square is out of the question, too.

But what is beyond doubt is that, after Thatcher, Farage is the most influential, most significant British political figure since Churchill — much more so than the Westminster pygmies and time-servers who treat him with unwarranted disdain.

Ukip, the party he led, may be sleeping with the fishes, but if there is any justice, Farage’s career deserves to end in triumph.

Let’s hope Enoch was wrong.

 


Read more:   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5300489/We-need-fearless-leader-deliver-Brexit-Nigel-Farage.html#ixzz55RBjzeYS

 

H.F.1460

 

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.

*

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.1335

 

Remainer Ex-Treasury minister says Brexit is NOT the biggest challenge facing Britain and the economy will do BETTER than expected this year

  • Lord O'Neill admits he did not expect the economy to be 'so robust' after Brexit

  • Predicts that growth for the UK will be upgraded as the global economy surges

  • Former Treasury minister says Brexit not biggest challenge facing the country

Lord O'Neill, who served under George Osborne and previously warned of serious damage from cutting ties with the EU, said he still believed it was a 'weird thing for the UK to impose on itself'

A former Treasury minister today admitted that he was wrong about how 'robust' the UK economy would be in the face of Brexit.

Lord O'Neill, who served under George Osborne and previously warned of serious damage from cutting ties with the EU, said he still believed it was a 'weird thing for the UK to impose on itself'.

But he said Brexit was not the biggest challenge facing Britain, and he now believed the economy would perform better than expected over the coming years, helped by strong growth in China and the US.

The comments, in an interview with the BBC ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, will be seized on by Brexiteers as another nail in the coffin of 'Project Fear' pushed by ministers during the referendum.

The dire predictions of a housing crash and recession in the immediate aftermath of the historic vote have not materialised.

Lord O'Neil - who as a senior executive at Goldman Sachs coined the term BRICs to refer to Brazil, Russia, India and China - acknowledged that his views could be seen as having changed. 

'I'm almost embarrassed to admit that it might sound like that,' he told Radio 4's Today programme. 

'Because of course, in principle, I share the views of many that Brexit is a really weird thing for the UK to impose on itself from an economic perspective.' 

However, Lord O'Neill said he had felt for a while that 'as important as Brexit is, it isn't the most important thing facing Britain's future'.

Lord O'Neill highlighted worldwide growth, boosting productivity and driving the economy outside of London as more important to the UK's prospects.

Saying he believed UK growth would be upgraded for the next couple of years, Lord O'Neill said: 'I certainly wouldn't have thought the UK economy would be as robust as it currently seems.'

'That is because some parts of the country, led by the North West (of England), are actually doing way better than people seem to realise or appreciate.

'As well as this crucial fact, the rest of the world is also doing way better than many people would have thought a year ago, so it makes it easier for the UK.'

 

Lord O'Neill served in the Treasury under George Osborne, regarded by Eurosceptics as the architect of 'Project Fear' during the EU referendum

Lord O'Neill pointed to a recent assessment by Cambridge Econometrics for Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, which suggested growth across the UK could be on average 3 per cent lower by 2030 than it would have been without Brexit.

'If that's the worst that Brexit will deliver, then I wouldn't worry about it,' he said.

'Now, my own view is if we go for a really hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit, we'll probably suffer more than that 3 per cent.

'But if it is only 3 per cent, what's going on with the rest of the world - helping us - and with productivity improving, that will easily dwarf a 3 per cent hit over 13 years, easily.'

He added: 'Brexiteers are going to be like the cat with the cream. They're like "there you go, told you so", which of course is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, there are claims that Brussels is trying to force Britain into a 'soft' Brexit by refusing to agree a trade deal for the City of London.

European Council president Donald Tusk is said to be orchestrating a high-risk 'forgive and forget' strategy to encourage the UK to change course.

At the same time the EU is taking a hard line on a potential deal to highlight the consequences of leaving the bloc. 

Both Mr Tusk and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker issued messages last week suggesting they would welcome the UK back into the EU in future.

 

European Council president Donald Tusk (pictured with Theresa May in December) is said to be orchestrating a high-risk strategy to force a 'soft' Brexit

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5296901/Ex-minister-says-Brexit-NOT-biggest-challenge-UK.html#ixzz55fKFAM97
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

H.F.1461

 
 

News for DAILY MAIL-UK pays worst state pension in the developed world

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension in the developed world with a basic payout of £122.30 a week

  • The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West 
  • Former pensions minister Ros Altmann warned the situation could get worse 
  • Government projections suggest that for those now under 30 the age when they can claim a state pension will have to be raised to 70 

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension of any country in the developed world, analysis has found.

The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West – worth just 29 per cent of average earnings – and last night former pensions minister Ros Altmann warned the situation could get even worse.

Government projections suggest that for those now under 30 the age when they can claim a state pension will have to be raised to 70, while future payments could be cut even further to avoid needing massive hikes in national insurance, Baroness Altmann said.

 

Britain pays retirees the worst state pension of any country in the developed world, analysis has found

The league table revealing Britain's pension shame was compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which analyses the world's industrialised nations. 

Out of all the countries compared, Britain comes bottom – even behind poorer nations such as Chile, Poland and Mexico.

While the UK's state pension is worth just 29 per cent of average earnings, in France the equivalent figure is 74.5 per cent. 

Germany's state pension is worth 50.5 per cent of average earnings, while in the USA it is 49.1 per cent. 

The most generous state pension in the world is in the Netherlands, where the payments are slightly higher than average earnings.

 

The basic payout of £122.30 a week is the least generous in the West – worth just 29 per cent of average earnings. File photo

Baroness Altmann warned that despite a recent overhaul to the pension system, payments will need to be cut further to avoid massive tax rises in future to pay for it. 

She said: 'We are one of the world's leading economies, but our support for the oldest in society is not fit for purpose.

'In April 2016, major reforms to the UK state pension were supposed to have made the system affordable for the future, reducing its generosity. Beyond the 2030s, the new state pension will be lower than the old system for most people and the lowest paid, predominantly women, will lose significantly from the new system.

'Despite this, the Government has been advised that the costs of paying state pensions will soar so much over the next 20 years and beyond that further cuts could be required.'

From later this year the state pension age for women will rise from 63 to match men at 65, and will reach 66 for both by 2020.

Baroness Ros Altmann (pictured) warned that despite a recent overhaul to the pension system, payments will need to be cut further to avoid massive tax rises in future to pay for it

The Government's economic forecasters, the Actuary's Department, believes it will become 70 in the 2050s and 71 in the 2060s.

This would mean that anyone aged 30 or below now will not get their state pension until they are 70, while those under 20 will have to wait until they are 71.

Baroness Altmann added: 'The Government actuary believes that just funding the UK's exceptionally low state pension will require reducing payments in future or dramatic tax rises. Policymakers face difficult decisions and are also likely to need to increase the state pension age further.'

The former pensions minister called on the Government to do more to address the crisis, including making private pensions more attractive so that more people are willing to pay a portion of their wages into their own fund.

'To avoid burdening younger generations with significant tax rises, it is vital that more is done to boost private pension saving,' she added. 'Auto-enrolment is a good start, but the pensions industry needs to attract more customers to pay more into their pensions.' 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5379521/Britain-pays-retirees-worst-state-pension.html#ixzz56thYQdgc
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[IT IS IRONIC THAT IT WAS THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WHICH INTRODUCED THE STATE PENSION  OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO BY WINSTON CHURCHILL YET AS SHOWN ABOVE IT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY BOTH THE MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES TO THE PRESENT LEVEL AS THE POOREST PENSIONERS OF THE 24 DEVELOPED NATIONS WITH A PERCENTAGE OF THE AVERAGE WAGE OF 29PER CENT-WHEREAS THE TOP NATION NETHERLANDS PAYS 100.6 %. WITH THE CITY MILE BEING BAILED OUT WITH 50 BILLION OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY.]

-A GREEDY SQUARE MILE AND PARSIMONIOUS STATE PENSION YET OUR OVERSEAS AID IS SQUANDERED AND WASTED WITH THE CHARITIES IN THE MAIN GAUGING THEMSELVES WITH HIGH LIVING-AND NOW WE HEAR EVEN PROSTITUTION IS CONSIDERED A PERK OF THE JOB.  THERE APPEARS NO ADEQUATE OVERSIGHT OF CHARITIES TO ENSURE THAT CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE FOR THE TRUE NEEDY NOT FOR FUN AND GAMES AND TERRORISTS OR HIGH LIVING OF THOSE RECEIVING THE TAXPAYERS HARD EARNED REMUNERATION WHILE MANY OF THE CONTRIBUTORS ARE IN GREAT PAIN AND MANY DYING WHICH COULD BE GREATLY REDUCED IF CHARITY BEGAN AT HOME.  TO BOAST OF BEING THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO OVERSEAS AID WHILE A GREAT NUMBER OF OUR CITIZENS ARE SUFFERING IN ORDER THAT THE UK'S POSITION AS TOP OF THE FOREIGN AID LIST IS MAINTAINED.

HOW IS IT THAT THE OTHER 23 NATIONS CAN PROVIDE A HIGHER STATE PENSION? WHAT IS PREVENTING WESTMINSTER FROM BRINGING OUR STATE PENSION UP TO AT LEAST THE AVERAGE OF THOSE ON THE LIST BELOW WHICH CONTAINS MANY NATIONS WHICH CAN HARDLY BE  CONSIDERED RICH COMPARED TO THE UK. IS IT THAT IN THOSE COUNTRIES THE PEOPLE ARE

 PUT FIRST! - NOT LAST?

THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE FEEDING OFF THE PUBLIC PURSE WITH THEIR OBSCENE RATES OF SALARY AND GOLDEN PENSION-POSSIBLY SO LONG AS THEY ARE COMFORTABLE THEY HAVE NO THOUGHT FOR THOSE WHO PAID FOR THEIR LAVISH LIFESTYLE?

PAYOUT AS PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE WAGE
Netherlands   -  100.6%

Portugal        -   94.9%

Italy             -  93.2%

Austria         -  91.8%

Spain             -  81.8%

Denmark        -  80.2%

France            -  74.5%

Belgium          -  66.1%

Finland         -  65%

Czech Republic-60%

Sweden         -  54.9%

Canada          -  53.4%

OECD average=62.9

 

Germany    -    50.5%

USA            -    49.1%

Norway      -    48.8%

Switzerland    -    44.9%

New Zealand   -  43.2%

Australia     -    42.6%

Ireland        -   42.3%

Chile         -     40.1%

Japan           -  40%

Poland       -      38.6%

Mexico         -     29.6%

UK  -  29%

Source-OECD

[We are constantly told that millions of people may never be house buyers because their salaries have not kept up with the costs of buying a HOME of their OWN. There is now as Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81) stated in his time in another context 'a nation of two peoples'.]

 

 

H.F.1478

 
 

 

 

Oxfam's scandal is no surprise. Dutch journalist, Linda Polman, gave chapter and verse on the behaviour in aid charities, including their use of child prostitutes

The only surprise is that it has come as a surprise. I refer to the revelation that senior aid workers for Oxfam in earthquake-ravaged Haiti had indulged in orgies with prostitutes (some of them, allegedly, children).

Nor should it have come as a surprise that Oxfam’s bosses gently eased out those involved but told no one — not the Charities Commission, nor the Department for International Development (which hands it well over £30 million of taxpayers’ money a year) — that the man in charge of its Haiti operations, Roland van Hauwermeiren, had used his organisational skills to set up what were described, disgustingly, as ‘young meat barbecues’.

In an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Development (DfID), Penny Mordaunt, asked about what amounted to a cover-up, declared: ‘I don’t know what Oxfam’s motivation was for behaving in this way.’

Really? Unless she is shatteringly naïve, it must be obvious to Ms Mordaunt why Oxfam told no one exactly why its most senior man on the ground in Haiti and a number of his colleagues had been ‘let go’.

Scandal

It was for the same reason that in the 1980s both the Catholic and Anglican Churches had covered up sexual abuse by their own clerics. They wanted to protect the reputation of their organisations — and that was much more important to them than honesty.

But Oxfam brushed its scandal under a carpet of euphemisms and dissembling as recently as 2011: it is far from historic.

And in Oxfam’s case, it is also about money. You might think the charitable world is gentle. In reality, the big charities are in a ferocious competition with each other to persuade governments and individual donors that they are the most deserving recipients.

 

Pictured: Roland van Hauwermeiren, 68, who admitted to having sex with vulnerable prostitutes at his Oxfam villa

They call themselves ‘the humanitarian community’ but they are as unscrupulous as any commercial business when it comes to competing for the public’s cash.

I got an inkling of this after a friend who ran a charity told me she had been about to sign a contract with a printing firm for thousands of leaflets, when the printer called to say that the deal was off ... because he also printed leaflets for a much larger charity in the same field, and it had told him that if he did a deal with her, then it would take its business elsewhere.

In fact, such charities often behave much worse than profit-making enterprises, because they believe that everything they do is sanctified by being in a noble cause.

This is not the only reason why I say that the revelations about Oxfam should have come as no surprise. A brave and brilliant Dutch journalist, Linda Polman, gave chapter and verse on the scandalous behaviour in aid charities, including their use of child prostitutes, in her remarkable book, War Games: The Story Of Aid And War In Modern Times, published in 2010.

 

Chief executive Mark Goldring (pictured) apologised on behalf of the organisation

Polman, who had been based in a number of African countries, wrote: ‘The humanitarian aid community that travels to war-torn crisis-riven countries feels no embarrassment about looking like an international jet-set on holiday.

‘Its Land Cruisers can be found triple-parked outside the restaurants, bars and discos of war-ravaged towns and cities every evening. Wherever aid workers go, prostitution instantly soars.

‘I’ve often seen bar stools occupied by white agronomists, millennium-objective experts or gender-studies consultants with local teenage girls in their laps.

‘I’ve known aid workers who cared for child soldiers and war orphans by day and relaxed by night in the arms of child prostitutes.’

Polman was interviewed by the Left-wing newspaper, The Observer, the year her book came out.

When its interviewer put it to her that ‘it’s neither shocking nor sinister that humanitarians are also human: they also need to relax after work, sometimes in a bar’, she retorted ferociously: ‘I think it’s shocking and sinister if aid workers engage in child prostitution... I do know of cases where aid organisations knew that employees were engaged in this and they decided to smother the case.’

This, presumably, included Oxfam.

My advice to Ms Mordaunt is to use a minuscule proportion of her generous budget to pay Polman to come here to play a role in any Did investigation.

Excesses

The Dutchwoman clearly knows more than the civil servants in Whitehall, none of whom, I’d wager, have anything like her experience of what really goes on outside the sanitised and self-serving reports of sanctimonious aid organisations.

This is a much more important matter than just the personal excesses of aid executives, who spend more in an African bar in one night than the individuals working in it could earn in a month.

If the international aid business were a fabulous success, lifting millions out of poverty and bringing peace and harmony where none existed before, then, frankly, it would deserve our indulgence.

But it isn’t, and it doesn’t.

Polman’s wider charge is that billions of pounds in international aid budgets have been wildly misspent, vacuumed up by government kleptocrats or local fixers in the recipient countries.

Here is what she witnessed in Liberia: ‘Medical INGOS [international non-government organisations] had arranged for a batch of wheelchairs to be flown in to ease the suffering of local war invalids.

 

Three Oxfam employees were allowed to resign and four were sacked for gross misconduct after an internal investigation found some workers had used prostitutes in the war-torn region (file photo)

‘The chairs turned up in the streets of Monrovia [the capital] modified into ice-cream carts and mobile shops. Vendors who had nothing wrong with their legs were using the chairs, while amputees and cripples were dragging themselves on their hands and knees on the filthy streets.

‘Local government workers had distributed the wheelchairs among their own kith and kin, who in turn had rented them out to small-time entrepreneurs.’

This illuminates a vital point. It is not aid that will transform the living standards of those in the most impoverished nations, but the elimination of corruption and the opening of trade with the developed world. In other words, full participation in the market economy.

It is precisely this which has already lifted billions out of poverty.

But that is the opposite of Oxfam’s philosophy. In recent years it has delivered a starkly anti-capitalist message, suggesting that all that is required is for more tax to be paid by high-earning people in this country … to be given to Oxfam to spend.

Waste

Yet the British people have already been co-opted to an extraordinary extent by the Oxfam agenda, as a result of legislation passed during the period of the previous Coalition government.

We are now committed to spending the equivalent of 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product on international aid — over and above whatever individuals choose to pay in the form of charitable donations (in which the British are already among the most generous in the world).

This commitment — which amounts now to £13.5 billion a year — actually encourages waste, as the civil servants’ principal target is not so much absolute need, but the (vast) amount to spend.

And we have hugely increased the amount going out in so-called ‘multilateral aid’ — which means our own government can’t even control how British taxpayers’ money is spent.

In September, when Hurricane Irma laid waste to British Overseas Territories such as Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands, it emerged that we couldn’t direct any of our aid budget to assisting those made homeless because international rules decreed these territories were ‘too rich’ to be allowed as recipients.

Yet still Ms Mordaunt insisted yesterday that our aid budget of £13.5 billion — and growing — can be justified in its entirety.

She told Andrew Marr that it made ‘Britain more prosperous’, and that it ‘alleviated pressure on the NHS’.

I would have thought a better way of alleviating pressure on the NHS — and on the social care budget which our oldest and most disabled depend upon — would be for that money to go directly to them.

The problem is that Ms Mordaunt has to pretend that her entire budget ‘could not be better spent in the national interest’: statute, absurdly, now decrees it would be illegal for her to reduce it below 0.7 per cent of GDP, no matter how badly it is being spent.

So don’t expect Oxfam to be detached from the taxpayers’ teat.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5379183/Dominic-Lawson-Oxfam-Haiti-prostitute-scandal.html#ixzz573XgPZxu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

[TO PUT IT BLUNTLY -IT IS A BLOODY DISGRACE TO ALL FAIR-MINDED PEOPLE AND THE SOONER THIS SORDID - WASTEFUL MATTER IS DEALT WITH AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL WITH COMMON SENSE AND ENERGETIC ACTION WILL SANITY RE -ESTABLISH ITSELF FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE TAXPAYER AND THOSE DESERVING AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES AT HOME RECEIVE MORE FINANCIAL SUPPORT SO LONG DEPRIVED WHILE THE FOREIGN AID BUDGET BECAME A PERSONAL OBSESSION OF NO 10 AND A WASTEFUL ABSCESS AT THE HEART OF OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM AS REVEALED TIME AND TIME AGAIN OVER THE PAST YEARS. THE SOONER IT IS DRASTICALLY REDUCED AND PROPERLY REGULATED THE BETTER THOSE WHO URGENTLY NEED OUR HELP WILL RECEIVE SUPPORT WHICH WILL SUPPLEMENT THE ALREADY LONG ESTABLISHED SUBSTANTIAL PERSONAL GENEROSITY OF OUR ISLAND PEOPLE.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

FEBRUARY 11,2018

H F 1480

 
Judge:

Free Press is our birthright.

By  Rebecca Camber

 DAILY MAIL - Crime correspondent

 

A FORMER Lord Chief Justice described the Press as a 'constitutional necessity' yesterday as he warned about the erosion of court reporting.

Igor Judge, head of the judiciary from 2008 to 2013, said liberty of the Press was a

'birthright of every citizen'

but warned newspapers will not survive on

'charity and goodwill'.

Expressing his 'unequivocal and wholehearted support for the industry, he said action must be taken to

Safeguard the future of the Press.

Lord Judge spoke at a seminar hosted by the Society of Editors into the state of court reporting which has declined nationally by around

40 per cent in recent years

He said:

'In a country governed by the

RULE OF LAW

the independence of the Press is a constitutional necessity.

The peer added; 

"The liberty of the Press is the birthright of the Briton, and is justly esteemed the firmest bulwark of the liberties of this country."

- so said John Wilks in 1762

and the statement still carries an echoing resonance.

'The liberty of the Press is the birthright of every citizen, that is the community as a whole... I am not sure this principle is sufficiently understood. The better it is understood the more every citizen would be dedicated to upholding it.'

Lord Judge spoke out as MPs are due to vote in the next couple of months on tighter media controls which the Prime Minister has warned will undermine a

FREE PRESS .

He said: 'If we do not buy our newspapers, we cannot expect them to survive on

GOOD WILL and CHARITY...

It looks as though something of a crunch is coming.

'The print media is no longer prosperous...that is to the detriment of the community they serve.'

Former culture secretary John Whittingdale suggested social media giants should subsidise court recording as thre already use content from local newspapers.

The Tory Mp said Google and Facebook' are the bigest providers of news yet they don't employ a single reporter-what they do is take content which is produced by journalists working across the media... so my view it is very much in the interests of Google and Facebook to support local journalism.'

*  *  *

'Let it be impressed upon your minds, let it be instilled into your children, that the liberty of the press is the palladium of all the civil., political, and religious rights.'-

Junius. (Unknown political write.)

The press is not only free, it is powerful. That power is ours. It is the proudest that man can enjoy. It was not granted by monarchs; it was not gained for us by aristocracies; but it sprang from the people, and, with an immortal instinct, it has always worked for the people.-

DISRAELI, Benjamin.

An enslaved press is doubly fatal; it not only takes away the true light, for in that case we might stand still, but it sets up a false one that decoys us to our destruction.-

COLTON, Calab

*

[IT is no surprise that so many members of Parliament wish to destroy our FREE PRESS or even CONTROL IT! when one considers how many members have been exposed as LIARS and CHEATS ,and THIEVES of the PUBLIC PURSE-No wonder they want their REVENGE because the FREE PRESS was TOO FREE for their liking.']

*  *  *

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

JANUARY 19,2018

H.F.1453

 

LITTLEJOHN

 

Let's have another referendum - on scrapping the House of Lords:

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN says he reckons a lot more than

 17.4 million would vote

 to kill off the Upper House

Freedom of speech is under renewed attack, this time from unelected members of the House of Lords. They have hijacked a bill designed to update Britain's data protection laws to launch an outrageous attempt to shackle the Press.

By a slim majority, peers voted this week to compel newspapers who refuse to sign up for state regulation to pay the legal costs of anyone who brings a complaint against them, regardless of merit.

If they succeed, the financial implications could force some smaller, local papers out of business. It would give carte blanche to crooks and fraudsters to bring actions seeking to gag national newspaper investigations into their nefarious activities, secure in the knowledge that even if they lost it wouldn't cost them a penny.

This is precisely the clause which Parliament threw out last year in relation to vexatious libel claims. Now the Lords are trying to smuggle it in under the guise of data protection.

They are also looking to resurrect the second stage of the ludicrous Leveson Inquiry into the Press, which everyone thought was dead and buried.

The last one was little more than a show trial and most of the parallel criminal cases brought against innocent journalists collapsed ignominiously when they came before a jury.

 

The House of Lords has hijacked a bill designed to update Britain's data protection laws to launch an outrageous attempt to shackle the Press

None of that has deterred their Lordships from straining to get the circus back on the road. For once, the chamber was packed to the gunnels. Normally, the Lords resembles the bridge of the Mary Celeste, save for a few old sweats slumbering away on the well-upholstered leather benches.

Like many of their colleagues in the Commons, some peers are still smarting from newspaper exposures of wrongdoing by members of the Upper Chamber — everything from expenses fiddling, to coke-snorting and consorting with whores.

So they have seized their chance for revenge by using the Data Protection Bill to punish the Press — a purpose for which it was never designed.

Matthew Hancock, the new Culture Secretary, has promised to resist the Lords and overturn the amendments when the Bill comes back to the Commons.

But with the Government's wafer-thin, DUP-bolstered majority, there is a danger some Tory Brexit saboteurs — who have had a well-deserved hammering in newspapers including the Mail — may vote with Labour and the Lib Dems, who are both committed to stifling free speech.

I'm always wary of writing about the Press, because it can appear to be special pleading. But this isn't newspaper navel-gazing, it goes to the heart of what passes for our democracy.

Unelected peers, along with the opposition parties, are trying to bring the Press under the control of a new state regulator, bankrolled by ex-Formula 1 boss Max Mosley — who has been seeking his revenge on Fleet Street ever since the now-defunct News of the World exposed him for taking part in military-themed S&M orgies with prostitutes.

The regulator, called Impress, is stuffed with embittered failed journalists, Left-wing lobbyists and professional Press-haters.

This is the rabble that a majority of peers and a significant number of MPs think should have the final say in what you read in your daily newspapers.

 

Unelected peers, along with the opposition parties, are trying to bring the Press under the control of a new state regulator

No self-respecting publication of note has signed up for Impress, preferring to submit voluntarily to an independent regulatory body called IPSO, chaired by a distinguished and scrupulously impartial former Appeal Court judge, who has the power to order front-page corrections and impose fines of up to £1 million.

That clearly isn't good enough for some politicians, who want to control what appears in the Press, largely to spare themselves embarrassment.

Many of them in the Remain camp, especially, blame the Daily Mail and other publications for 'poisoning' the minds of gullible readers and tricking them into voting Leave. Their contempt for the newspaper-buying public knows no bounds.

Freedom of the Press is under unprecedented pressure, not just from politicians, but from self-appointed bigots trying to bully companies into withdrawing advertising from publications of which they disapprove. Virgin Trains' decision to stop selling the Mail is just the latest pathetic piece of politically motivated posturing aimed at appeasing those who want to silence every single opinion they disagree with.

But there's a much bigger picture here.

This isn't just about Press freedom, it's about the way in which we are governed. What the political class still haven't grasped properly about the Brexit vote is that it wasn't just a rejection of the EU, it was a vote of no confidence in the whole rotten shower of them.

It's bad enough when MPs seek to thwart the will of the people. But when unelected peers try to do the same, it's a coup against democracy.

Remoaners in the House of Lords are pledging to stop

Brexit

by any means possible. Where do these pampered, pompous poltroons get the idea that they have a divine right to sabotage

 a clear decision taken by 17.4 million people — the largest number ever to vote for anything in Britain?

Remoaners in the House of Lords are pledging to stop Brexit by any means possible, writes Richard Littlejohn 

We voted to free ourselves from an unelected, unaccountable government in Europe. Why should we now have our future decided by an unelected, unaccountable second chamber at home?

The effrontery of peers such as the absurd Andrew Adonis, a self-important quangocrat who has never been elected to anything in his life, is staggering.

So, too, Cheerful Charlie Falconer, one of the architects of this week's Lords offensive against the Press. He owes his entire political career to the fact that he was once Tony Blair's flatmate.

In 1999, when Blair got rid of the hereditaries, there were 610 members of the Lords. Today, there are 800 of them. The crusty old aristos have been replaced by a pretty unsavoury collection of political placemen, has-beens, never-wases, PR spivs and party donors.

An ermine robe is a reward for failure. The Lib Dems may have only 12 MPs (just eight in England) as a result of being roundly rejected at the ballot box. But they've got more than 100 peers in the Lords — all of whom are pledged to overturn the Brexit vote.

They can claim £300 a day tax free simply for turning up, which is about all most of them can be bothered to do.

There are plenty of well-documented examples of noble lords clocking in, claiming their allowance, and then clocking straight out again.

Two of them served jail time for fraud as a result of the expenses scandal. No wonder the Lords want to punish the newspapers which exposed them.

Brexit, when we finally get round to it, has given us the opportunity to forge a brand-new future, to liberate the way this country is governed, to make politicians properly accountable to the people who pay their wages.

Maybe we should begin with a referendum on abolishing the House of Lords once and for all.

If that were to happen, I'd wager that many more than 17.4 million would vote to kill it off. And not before time. It is an anachronism which no longer serves any useful purpose.

Until now, reform of the Lords has always been hampered by the fact that no one seems to be able to decide what should replace it.

Who cares?

Why replace it with anything, especially as these days the courts seem to have assumed the function of the second chamber?

With any luck, in attempting to defy the will of the people over Brexit and cynically seeking to shackle freedom of speech,

these arrogant Lords might just have signed their own death warrant.

*  *  *
 

I love, I love, I love my little calendar girls 

Call me male, pale and stale, but that picture of Theresa May and her new female whips at No 10 reminded me of the cast of the movie Calendar Girls, starring Celia Imrie, about the Rylstone and District branch of the Women's Institute.

I can't wait for the calendar, girls.

*Call me male, pale and stale, but that picture of Theresa May and her new female whips at No 10 reminded me of the cast of the movie Calendar Girls

 

Actress Celia Imrie (pictured) posing in her famous scene from the 2003 film Calendar Girls

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5260945/Lets-referendum-scrapping-House-Lords.html#ixzz5441IEpiC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

 

'Let it be impressed upon your minds, let it be instilled into your children that the liberty of the press is the palladium of all civil, political, and religious rights.'-

Junius

*

The press is not only free, it is powerful. That power is ours. It is the proudest that man can enjoy.  It was not granted by monarchs; it was not gained for us by aristocracies; but it sprang from the people

[YOU!]

and with an immortal instinct, it has always worked for the people.-Disraeli.

[DON'T LET THE  UNREPRESENTATIVE   HOUSE OF LORDS GET THEIR WAY.]

ITS YOUR FREE PRESS

DON'T LOSE IT!]

The Labour man Party manifesto of 1935 called for the abolition of the House of Lords but in 1945 no such proposal was evident.

[The answer as many have voiced over the years is for a representative House of Lords selected for their already proven ability in other spheres of life and not those who's only interest is the need of a daily cash machine to encourage them  to

SERVE THEIR COUNTRY.]

[COMMENTS ARE OURS!]

 

JANUARY 12,2018

 

H.F.1436

 
[URGENT NOTICE!]

Energy giants 'bully their customers into getting smart meters': Firms accused of flouting trading laws by telling families devices are a legal requirement

[AND SAVING IS EXPECTED TO BE ONLY  £11 A YEAR

  • Households have been bombarded with texts, emails, letters and phone calls 
  • Citizens Advice reports a stream of complaints from harassed customers 
  • Letter from one supplier said: ‘We have legal requirement to change your meter’

[BUT THEY DON'T]

Energy giants were last night accused of flouting trading laws by pressuring homeowners into getting smart meters.

Families are being told the digital devices are a legal requirement when they are not. Trading standards chiefs have told power firms that misleading customers in this way is a breach of consumer laws.

Households have been bombarded with texts, emails, letters and phone calls telling them they need a smart meter.

 

Families are being told the digital devices are a legal requirement when they are not

Citizens Advice reports a stream of complaints from harassed customers. One said: ‘These are obviously bullying tactics. You’d think you have no choice.’

A letter sent out by one supplier said: ‘We have a legal requirement to change your meter.’ In other cases engineers are dispatched even when the householder has repeatedly declined.

The £11billion cost for the roll-out is being passed on to customers through bills – at a cost of around £300 for every UK household. Yet those who have them installed are expected to save only £11 a year.

They're not telling families the truth 

Alfred Kaelin says he was bullied for months to get a smart meter. 

The 79-year-old retired chemist said he received three or four letters – two of them just days apart – prompting him to have one installed.

One letter to him was titled: ‘Reminder: we need to change your meter.’

It then read: ‘Your electricity meter is an old model that we need to replace with our free self-reading smart meter.’ 

Another said: ‘Reminder: your meter is being phased out.’

None of the letters explained that customers did not have to agree. 

Mr Kaelin, who lives with his wife Patricia in Pinner, north-west London, said: ‘I’m just ignoring the letters as I don’t want a smart meter.

‘But these are obviously bullying tactics. They are not letting customers have the true facts by failing to make it clear you don’t have to have one. 

If you didn’t know they were optional you’d think you have no choice.’

Michael Coote, from Norfolk, said he received a similar letter last year, even though his meter was only four months old. 

‘The letter was frightening and bullying,’ said the 74-year-old retired electrical engineer.

 

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has written to Energy UK, which represents big suppliers, to raise concerns about the way firms are marketing the meters.

It warns they may be breaking regulations drawn up in 2008 to protect consumers from unfair trading if they create the false impression that customers have no choice but to switch.

‘Firms are getting more and more aggressive in the way they are marketing smart meters to customers,’ said the institute’s Steve Playle. ‘This letter is a shot across the bows. We will take further action if complaints continue to come in.’

 

Alfred Kaelin who lives with his wife Patricia in Pinner, north-west London, says he was bullied for months to get a smart meter

Baroness Altmann, former pensions minister, said it was unacceptable for energy firms to mislead people and inflict ‘unnecessary hassle’. She added: ‘There should be proper penalties in place for firms which behave aggressively and break the rules.’

Victoria MacGregor, director of energy at Citizens Advice, said: ‘Smart meters are not compulsory and customers shouldn’t feel pressured to have one installed.

‘We appreciate suppliers are under pressure to install more meters but they have a responsibility to act reasonably toward their customers and not to use misleading or aggressive sales practices.’

Smart meters are controversial because their internet connectivity may make them vulnerable to being hacked by criminals or even foreign powers. There have also been reports that they interfere with other household devices such as baby monitors, while some studies suggest they make little difference to energy efficiency.

Why gadgets' critics aren't convinced 

  • Privacy campaigners warn smart meters give firms access to a ‘honeypot’ of data that tells them when customers are at home and where and how they use power.
  • Experts fear suppliers could use this information to introduce surge pricing at peak times, hiking bills for families and making it harder to shop around.
  • Others fear the meter data could be used by hackers, burglars and even marketing companies.
  • Nearly a third of householders may not be able get a smart meter because they live in a rural area with poor mobile phone signal or have the wrong type of property.
  • There are also claims that the meters are a fire hazard when they have been poorly fitted by engineers.

Power firms said the devices would help customers cut bills by showing them how much they were using – in terms of pounds and pence. They were supposed to reduce the average household’s gas and electricity costs by £26 a year.

But the Government has revised that down to just £11 because the cost of the nationwide installation of the devices has accelerated past £11billion. Eight million have been installed in homes and firms – under pressure from the Government. One in five homes has one fitted.

Mark Todd of the comparison site Energyhelpline said the Government had bungled the roll-out by doing it too quickly.

A spokesman for the energy watchdog Ofgem said: ‘It is not compulsory to have a smart meter installed – consumers have a right to decline them and suppliers must not mislead consumers.

‘Ofgem is working with suppliers offering smart meter installations to make sure their communications are transparent and accurate. They are allowed to use pre-booked appointments to install a meter, however customers can cancel or re-arrange these appointments.’ A spokesman for Energy UK said the body was in contact with trading standards chiefs.

He added: ‘Energy companies will be adopting various methods of communication with their customers to increase engagement and enable as many people as possible to experience the benefits smart meters bring.’

Robert Cheesewright, of Smart Energy GB, the independent group set up to oversee the smart meter programme, said: ‘The roll-out will benefit everyone by bringing down energy bills, upgrading our national grid and delivering savings of £6billion to the British economy by 2030.’ 

 


Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5323315/Energy-giants-bully-customers-getting-smart-meters.html#ixzz55aVSLId9
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

JANUARY 29,2018

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!

 

H.F.1459

S

 

[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

 

 

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

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

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).

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

*

[14 MONTHS

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!

 
 

 

[IT HAD TO HAPPEN!

-'WE ARE AFTER ALL AN INSULAR  ISLAND PEOPLE']

 

*

 

Even Remainers now back a

'hard' Brexit:

 Most Brits ... - Daily Mail

 

. Even Remainers now back a 'hard' Brexit: Most Brits want to regain full control ...
By Claire Ellicott for the Daily Mail and Kate Ferguson For Mailonline ... a straight
choice between that and no deal, with 58 per cent backing it.

 

Most Brits want to regain full control of our borders and to become free of meddling EU judges, survey reveals

  • Most polled want the UK to become free of EU judges and full border control 

  • Two thirds said they would prefer 'no deal' rather than a soft Brexit, poll found

  • Findings boost for Theresa May who says no deal is better than a bad deal

Most Remain voters now back a Brexit that gives Britain a clean break from the EU and control back of our borders, a major study has found.

Many of those who voted to stay in the European Union also now believe the country should only pay a small ‘divorce bill’ and stop EU judges ruling over the UK.

The results are a major boost for Theresa May’s Brexit stategy - and suggest diehard Remainers, such as Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable and former prime minister Tony Blair, have overestimated support for backtracking on Brexit. 

Full artical


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782712/Most-Brits-hard-Brexit-new-survey-finds.html#ixzz4pXWhGZDU
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

 

 FREEDOM!

 

.'..We cannot, I fear, falsify the pedigree of the fierce people, and persuade them that they are not sprung from a nation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates.  The language in which they would hear you tell them this tale would detect the imposition; your speech would betray you

'An Englishman is the unfittest person on earth, to argue another Englishman into slavery'.

*

EDMUND BURKE

 

Conciliation with America-speech House of Commons

March 22,1775

 

*

1+2+3

+4+5+6+7+8+9+10

Soul of England

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 12-2017

H.F.1277 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 

It's time to bring our puffed up lawyers down a peg or two!

 

 

 

Fluttering flunkeys and more horsehair than the Derby... after watching the Lord Chancellor's OTT swearing in, QUENTIN LETTS says it's time to bring our lawyers down a peg or two

David Gauke arrives for his swearing-in ceremony at the Royal Courts of Justice

Just after breakfast yesterday, bystanders in a central London side street witnessed a vignette which said much about modern Britain.

A motorcade of top-spec Range Rovers screeched to a halt, blue lights flashing.

To the fluttering of flunkeys, and while traffic behind was left to stew, an ornately costumed, middle-aged white gent alighted. He wore shapely black tights, buckled shoes, a gold-woven cloak, frilly ruff and the sort of white gloves favoured by snooker referees.

Accompanied by similarly attired aides, this Elizabethan figure processed 20 yards down the pavement before ducking into a side entrance of the Royal Courts of Justice, to be greeted clubbily by two ageing jurists in full-bottomed wigs.

Little-known Cabinet minister David Gauke had arrived for his swearing-in as Lord Chancellor.

The curlicued Courts of Justice are often compared to a cathedral. And it was in booklined, twinkly-lit Court Four, a veritable chapel of the Law, that the swearing-in was to occur.

Magnificoes had gathered. Eighteen High Court judges wore high wigs and red gowns. The district judges were marked out by dinky blue collar tags. A green sash identified the president of the Law Society.

Look, there was the chairman of the English and Welsh Bar and a smattering of Supreme Court judges (mufti for them — they’re too continental to wear wigs). 

Leaders of the legal regulatory bodies were on parade, as was the retired Lord Chief Justice, one John Thomas, a ruby-faced fellow of peppery temper, now a peer.

Soon entered the Judges of Appeal in their black and gold finery and yet more wigs — we had more horsehair than the paddock before the Epsom Derby. The atmosphere in the room was one of comradely ease, for they all seemed to know one another, a burble of patrician gossip rising slowly to the clerestory window.

Finally, Mr Gauke’s procession arrived, led by a chap in the sort of kepi favoured by ticket collectors on the Orient Express and accompanied by yet more judges including beady-eyed Lady Hale, head of the Supreme Court. Brenda the Battleaxe tossed her grey hair from side to side, a char flicking her mop.

Lord Chancellor David Gauke (left) poses for a photo with Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett of Cwmgiedd (centre) and Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton (right)

The Queen’s Remembrancer, Barbara Fontaine, wore a black tricorn hat worthy of HMS Pinafore. Attorney General Jeremy Wright and Solicitor General Robert Buckland — bar Mr Gauke, the only publicly elected figures on the floor — wore wigs so long and pendulous, they resembled floppy-eared basset hounds. Sir Brian Leveson (of newspaper-regulation infamy and now in charge of criminal justice), glanced furtively at the Press seats.

‘All rise!’ came an orderly’s clipped command. Rise we did for the concept once revered as the Majesty of the Law.

When a Foreign or Home or Trade Secretary takes office, there is sparse to-do. When a Secretary of State for the Environment arrives on the job, rabbits from Watership Down do not file from their burrows to raise furry paws of acclamation. Nor is there even a formal swearing-in of our Prime Ministers. A brief, private chat with the monarch (and perhaps a glass of gin, depending on the hour) is all a new PM receives.

Yet the lawyers consider themselves a class apart. I almost said they consider themselves above the Law.

The current Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, admitted that yesterday’s ceremony was created comparatively recently.

As for the current Lord Chancellor’s oath, it was, for all yesterday’s veneer of tradition, minted only in 2005, back when Blairite lawyers ran the Government.

If the Lord Chancellor must make an oath, should it not pledge its primary duty to the citizens of the land rather than to our rarefied, richly rewarded judges?

The office of Lord Chancellor dates to at least the Norman Conquest and its incumbent was once regarded as a mighty power in the kingdom. Occupants have included Thomas a Becket, Thomas Wolsey and Sir Thomas More. Even in the 20th century, Lord Chancellors were parliamentarians of the first rank, men such as the mercurial F. E. Smith, Nuremberg prosecutor David Maxwell-Fyfe and eccentric Tory Quintin Hogg. They brought to the arid Law the grapeshot of popular oratory and an awareness of the democratic imperative.

But then Tony Blair decided that the Lord Chancellorship did not sit with European human rights rules, which held that one person could not be a minister and a legislator and a judge.

Blair’s attempt to scrap the historic office ended in farcical failure but he did dilute the position and some of the recent holders have been sub-par. I was interested to hear yesterday’s oath because I recalled the parliamentary debates in 2005 when the Blairites were at their tinkering.

A certain John Bercow, then a mere backbench MP, complained that the new wording was ‘pompous windbaggery’. For such a pompous windbag as Bercow, now Commons Speaker, to say that, it must be a humdinger. Sure enough, the oath is quite a mouthful, so much so that Mr Gauke slightly fluffed it and had to be prompted by an official. He was required three times to say his full name and ‘solemnly and sincerely and truly declare’ certain things.

The first two times, in flowery terms, he declared allegiance to the Queen. The third time he said he would look after lawyers. ‘I will,’ he intoned, ‘respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts.’

Mr Gauke chose atheistically to affirm his oath. Is the Law its own Church? It is noteworthy that the 2005 oath singles out the judiciary for special protection

In former centuries, the Lord Chancellor’s oath was less specific in its duty to protect lawyers and their incomes. It used to say ‘I will do right to all Manner of People after the Laws and Usages of this Realm without Fear or Favour, Affection or ill will. So help me God.’ As we can see, ‘all Manner of People’ has been dropped. So too, yesterday, was ‘God’.

Mr Gauke chose atheistically to affirm his oath. Is the Law its own Church? It is noteworthy that the 2005 oath singles out the judiciary for special protection.

Forget ‘without fear of favour’. This is in-built, oath-insulated privilege for the people who make a living out of the Law. Time and again at yesterday’s ceremony, amid all the ersatz ceremonial, as various dignitaries held forth in almost sepulchral speeches, we heard it said that the judiciary and the legal sector must, must, must be protected by the Lord Chancellor. Nothing less would ensure the rule of Law.

Back when murderous medieval barons roamed the land, one can understand why judges needed a muscular protector at the top of the country’s counsels. Nowadays, is it so vital? Are our judges frail flowers, likely to be crushed by any criticism from outside?

Is it not the case that the Law is now the most powerful estate in the land, quite out-boxing former rivals the Monarchy, the Church, landowners and the Press?

Far from the judiciary needing protection from other people, might it not be the people who need protection from an increasingly over-zealous, over-intrusive legal sector? Are some lawyers, with their farming of human rights law (and the current controversy over parole) not undermining public faith in our courts? There should be nothing innately worshipful about lawyers.

The Law belongs to us all and there is nothing to prevent any citizen from representing him or herself in court (inadvisable though it might be, so complex have the lawyers made the laws).

David Gauke pictured at Downing Street

Why, then, are lawyers singled out for special protection in the Lord Chancellor’s oath?

Mr Gauke is the first solicitor to become Lord Chancellor. His four immediate predecessors (Chris Grayling, Michael Gove, Liz Truss and David Lidington) were not lawyers and this occasioned much clucking and tutting in legal circles, for scriveners often look down their beaks at non-legal minds.

There is a little-disguised sense of triumph that, for the first time since 2012 (when that most agreeably Europhile of lawyers, Ken Clarke, stepped down), they have one of their own back in ‘their’ ministry.

And yet again one must demur. It is not ‘their’ ministry. A ministry belongs to the Crown and, thereby, to the People — you could almost say ‘all Manner of People’. But I had better watch my step, for the Mail got into terrible trouble with the Establishment when it called three senior judges ‘enemies of the people’ after they ruled that Theresa May had to get parliamentary approval for Brexit.

That decision, which even some Supreme Court judges felt was wrong, gravely weakened the Government’s hand as we negotiate our departure from the EU.

It certainly sparked widespread fury among the democratic majority who voted Leave.

The then Lord Chancellor, Miss Truss, was castigated by lawyers for not leaping more assiduously to the judges’ defence — as she was bound to do by that oath they had written for her.

But was she perhaps not holding to an older concept of duty towards the wider populace? The judges seemed to want to ignore the democratic reality of the referendum.

The sketch writer in me loved yesterday’s swearing-in ceremony. I am a sucker for ceremonial.

But if the Lord Chancellor must make an oath, should it not pledge its primary duty to the citizens of the land rather than to our rarefied, richly rewarded judges?

Would that not be a surer way of ensuring lasting respect for the Law which is so vital to our country’s stability?

 


Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5286837/Lord-Chancellors-swearing-OTT-says-Quentin-Letts.html#ixzz556TjPXln

Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

'We should never create by law what can be accomplished by morality.'-

Montesquieu

*

'A multitude of laws in a country is a great number of physicians, a sign of weakness and malady.'-

VOLTAIRE

*

'Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.'-

GOLDSMITH.

*

'Laws can discover sin, but not remove it.'-

MILTON

*

'Laws are always unstable unless they are founded on the manners of a nation; and manners are the only durable and resisting power in a people.'-

 De Tocqueville

'Our profession is good if practised in the spirit of it; it is damnable fraud and iniquity when its true spirit is supplied by a spirit of mischief-making and money getting.- The love of fame is extinguished; every ardent wish for knowledge repressed; conscience put in jeopardy, and the best feelings of the heart indurated by the mean, money-catching, abominable practises, which cover with disgrace some practitioners of law,'-

Daniel Webster.-(1758-1852) Am. statesman-lawyer-orator.

IS THIS NOT SO IN 2018 BRITAIN?

 

H.F.1451

 

VANDALISM!

 

 

The Lake District's

greatest champion says plans to cross this glorious valley with zip wires are

AN ABOMINATION

By Melvyn Bragg

Plans to criss-cross reservoir with wires abomination | Daily Mail .

says plans to
criss-cross this glorious valley with zip wires is an abomination .... From that
feeling grew an understanding which spread around the world, that we could
feed off nature not only for our daily bread, but for other inner riches.

 

Vandalism! The Lake District's greatest champion MELVYN BRAGG says plans to criss-cross this glorious valley with zip wires is an abomination

Short of striding over the fells yourself, the best way to experience and understand the joy of the Lake District is through the writing of Alfred Wainwright, a man who knew the area better than anybody.

In his final book before his death in 1991, he wrote about the redevelopment of Thirlmere reservoir 130 years ago: ‘Manchester Corporation and the Forestry Commission have been the greatest predators in Lakeland over the past century.

‘They were not welcome intruders, both being strongly opposed by conservationists and lovers of the district. They have done much to destroy the original character of the scenery, and done little to enhance its natural charm.

 

Short of striding over the fells yourself, the best way to experience and understand the joy of the Lake District is through the writing of Alfred Wainwright, a man who knew the area better than anybody 

‘Enough has been more than enough. But it must be conceded that a hundred years of maturity have added a new attractiveness to the Thirlmere valley, best appreciated when viewed from a distance. In the case of Thirlmere, all is forgiven.’

In this characteristically blunt assessment, Wainwright is conveying two things: first, that as it stands the Thirlmere reservoir is just about perfect; and second, that he was profoundly suspicious of those who sought to ‘improve’ his beloved Lakes by importing new ideas into an ancient landscape.

 

What on earth, then, would he make of the latest proposals to criss-cross Thirlmere reservoir with eight zip wire rides? 

What on earth, then, would he make of the latest proposals to criss-cross the lake with eight zip wire rides? I’d wager he wouldn’t be at the front of the queue to have the first aerial ride across.

My view is that the developers behind the plan must be stopped from turning this idyllic corner of England into a funfair. Whatever next, a merry-go-round on the top of Helvellyn, dodgems between Buttermere and Crummock Water, and a coconut shy on top of the highest mountain in England?

If they manage to force on us the idea that the Lake District is in need of flashy ‘attractions’, then we will lose the area as it has been treasured, nurtured and used for over two centuries.

The biggest threat comes from Treetop Trek. This is the outdoors adventure company behind efforts to build eight of the longest zip wire rides in the UK right across the majestic Thirlmere reservoir. Thankfully, a last-minute objection lodged by Natural England citing the ‘significant adverse effect’ on the area may yet save us from this monstrosity.

We can only hope something similar happens at Honister Slate Mine. There, the owners have lodged a third bid to build a zip wire after being rejected by the Lake District National Park Authority in 2011 and 2013.

 

My view is that the developers behind the plan must be stopped from turning this idyllic corner of England into a funfair (above, Thirlmere reservoir) 

Why this obsession with trying to enhance the appeal of the Lake District? It is already the second greatest visitor attraction in England. It is garlanded with international awards for its beauty and its natural values. Above all, it is a place where tranquillity of mind and body can be sought and found.

Equally for young people, rock-climbing, kayaking and other sports have been, and continue to be, a magnetic attraction without benefit of any funfair intrusions.

It is not too strong to say that the Lake District is facing an act of vandalism. We have been quite good at vandalism in this country. 

Henry VIII vandalised what were thought of as some of the most beautiful and extraordinary monasteries in Europe. 

 

Whatever next, a merry-go-round on the top of Helvellyn, dodgems between Buttermere and Crummock Water, and a coconut shy on top of the highest mountain in England?

 

We can only hope something similar happens at Honister Slate Mine (above). There, the owners have lodged a third bid to build a zip wire after being rejected by the Lake District National Park Authority in 2011 and 2013 

Councillors in the 20th century vandalised town and city centres — such as Newcastle, hugely praised by John Betjeman — which showed the magnificence of Victorian civic architecture and if left alone would themselves have become world attractions by now.

If you take all that matters out of the Lake District, then it ceases to be the quietly spectacular place which gives it such lustre and satisfaction to so many people of all ages. We do not need to be teased into the Lake District by methods more suitable to seaside resorts. I loved going to the seaside as a child, especially to Blackpool and Morecambe just down the road from the Lakes.

It is not too strong to say that the Lake District is facing an act of vandalism 

But there’s a sort of madness in saying that the Lake District has to take on their nature. It has its own nature.

Tranquillity is more valued now than ever. Millions of us over the years have found deep and resonating satisfaction among the 300 fells (or hills); the majesty of Derwentwater, Windermere and Ullswater; the countless meres and tarns; the stunning waterfalls, just one of the Lake District’s endless geological marvels.

As Coleridge said over 200 years ago, to walk up any fell is to see a new prospect every few yards.

 
 

If you take all that matters out of the Lake District, then it ceases to be the quietly spectacular place which gives it such lustre and satisfaction to so many people of all ages

It is here that we see the work of farmers over centuries with their great network of stone walls. They, together with generous landowners, have put a human shape on what was thought 300 years ago to be a savage wilderness.

And yet it is not by any means the bustling Toytown these developers want to make it. I have been on walks on bank holidays and met no more than two or three other ramblers.

I can look over valleys which stretch towards the sea and seem empty, save for a few cottages and perhaps a church which indicate the life which has so long sustained this place.

Over 200 years ago, thanks largely to Wordsworth, it came into the drawing rooms of Bath and London, and into the imagination of poets in other parts of Europe as a place which stood for a new idea, a radical fresh understanding of who we were.

It was in the Lake District —alongside one or two other places in Europe — that the idea was developed that nature was not an enemy to be fought or something like a slave to be worked to death, but a force that we could feel if we listened closely enough.

From that feeling grew an understanding which spread around the world, that we could feed off nature not only for our daily bread, but for other inner riches.

In four short lines, Wordsworth put forward this new philosophy:

One impulse from a vernal wood

May teach you more of man

Of moral evil and of good

Than all the sages can.

In short, to be in accord with nature was a way towards a better, finer life.

And when I’m up there roaming around, I see kids clambering over rocks or chattering their way down the streets of little villages, or rowing across lakes.

Zip wires and all the fun of the fair might bring to some a bit of temporary excitement, but it would absolutely destroy for most of us the unique peacefulness of this place.

It is full of infinite small charms, pathways, scarcely trodden valleys. And it also has an undoubted magnificence which anyone with a heart thrills to.

I remember cycling to the Lake District from nearby Wigton, where I grew up, with a couple of pals when I was about 14, and being taken with it immediately. We swam in the freezing Bassenthwaite Lake and tried to make a fire with damp sticks.

 

I can look over valleys which stretch towards the sea and seem empty, save for a few cottages and perhaps a church which indicate the life which has so long sustained this place

We were unaware that three poets laureate had been guests in a modest house in the woods beside that lake. We had no idea the vikings had come here and that there had been the cell of a miracle-making hermit called Bega, whose presence long ago is marked by a small Church.

We did not know that once that lake had been linked with Derwentwater a few miles down the valley to make one vast lakeland holding. And that nearby the idea of rambling for pleasure had developed among factory workers, intellectuals and poets who saw it as an inspiration and a sanctuary.

Why on earth should we let commercial wreckers spoil it? 

Soon afterwards, we started going round the youth hostels, tried to climb in the spot where the sport of mountaineering was invented and got to know this English masterpiece of freedom.

It had its own language once. I have a dictionary of Cumbrian words which is full and fat. Many of them have drifted into disuse, but still you can hear the dialect in the core of the Lake District

One more thing. Wherever you walk in the Lakes people say ‘Hello’. They are pleased to be there. They are pleased that other people are there. They feel it is theirs to go through at the natural pace of human kind — on foot.

Above all, they feel safe in the undisturbed peace of it all. A sense of quietness and dignity which reaches back tens of thousands of years. They come in their millions and love the Lake District as it is.

Why on earth should we let commercial wreckers spoil it?

 

 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5282113/Pans-criss-cross-reservoir-wires-abomination.html#ixzz55DmEcBJi
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter |
DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

'Not rural sights alone, but rural sounds, exhilarate the spirit, and restore the tone of languid nature.'-

Cowper

'God  made the country, and man made the town.- What wonder, then, that health and virtue should most abound, and least be threatened in the fields and groves.'-

Cowper

In those vernal seasons of the year when the air is calm and pleasant, it were an injury and sullenness against nature not to go out and see her riches, and partake in her rejoicing with heaven and earth.-

MILTON

*  *  *

 

H.F.1455

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-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

JULY 30-2016

*

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!

WHERE'S THEIR SENSE OF DUTY?

 

NNot since WW2 has there been a greater need for politicians to pull together. Fat chance when they're so lacking in PUBLIC SPIRIT says

Daily Mail: 2017-07-11 - WHERE'S THEIR SENSE OF DUTY?

 

 

WHATEVER you think of our vote to leave the EU there is no doubt that we face some of the most critical months in our nation's modern history.

Most observers, whether Leavers or Remainers, agree that extricating ourselves from

BRUSSELS

and charting a newly

INDEPENDENT COURSE

will be

A COLOSSAL CHALLENGE,

YOU MAY HAVE  HOPED, THEREFORE , THAT OUR NATION'S POLITICIANS WOULD HAVE RISEN TO THE MOMENT, PUTTING ASIDE PETTY DIFFERENCES AND COMING TOGETHER IN THE

NATIONAL INTEREST.

What better sign that we are all

PATRIOTS.

and that, like our forefathers,

WE STAND OR FALL AS ONE

UNITED KINGDOM?...

 

 

Bickering

 Then , after Mrs May invited rival parties yesterday to 'come forward with your own views and ideas about how we can tackle these challenges as a country', the Labour leadership reacted with precisely the seriousness and maturity we have come to expect from Mr Corbyn and his cronies-which is to say, none at all...

Patriot

Under Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, the Labour Party has given itself over completely to an increasingly strident politics of moral posturing, its litany of hysterical complaints leavened only with the ruinously expensive bribery of voters too young to remember the

CHAOS OF THE SEVENTIES

It says a great deal about the historical illiteracy of Mr Corbyn's supporters that they like to present their hero as Clement Attlee's heir. In fact, they could not be more different.

Attlee

was above all a

PATRIOT,

a man who put country ahead of party. He would have regarded Mr Corbyn and his allies with with

UTTER CONTEMPT.

Like so many men of his generation, Atlee had worn his country's uniform and seen action at first hand, in his case, on the hellish desert front of Mesopotamia in World War I.

And like Churchill, his great rival and colleague, he knew national solidarity meant far more than petty partisanship.

  But there was something even deeper than the shared

SACRIFICE OF WAR

Neither MacDonald nor Baldwin had seen action, but both saw POLITICS as a kind of

NATIONAL SERVICE.

They had grown up in an era when collective duty meant more than

 INDIVIDUAL AMBITION

and when there was no greater honour than to devote yourself to

KING AND COUNTRY.

One anecdote says it all.

In 1921, horrified at the huge rise in Britain's debt during the World War I, Baldwin secretly donated a fifth of his fortune-a staggering £150,000, worth £6  million today-to the Treasury.

He wrote a letter anonymously to The Times, appealing to the wealthy classes

to tax themselves  and help reduce the

WAR DEBT

saying he wanted to show

' love of country than love of money'

he volunteered 20% of the value of his estate. It was only many years  later that the correspondent was identified as Baldwin.

 

*

Sneer

And he took that attitude into Westminster. Love of country mattered more than love of office, the lust for power or even the ties of party.

Could you imagine many of today's politicians doing that? Can you imagine, say ,George Osborne, donating his inherited wallpaper millions to pay  towards our crippling annual deficit? No, me neither.

The irony is that almost the only modern frontline politician with Baldwin's sense of duty is our Prime Minister. And it says a great deal about our times that Mrs May's reticence and quiet decency are treated as handicaps, when previous generations would have seen them as virtues.

Not even Mrs May's greatest admirers would claim her past few months have been a triumph, and her time in Downing Street may now be numbered in weeks rather than years. Even so, I suspect history books will be kinder to the Prime Minister than the snobs, pygmies and hypocrites who love to sneer at her.

The tragedy, however, is that Britain is drifting towards a shambolic exit from the EU and a wretched beginning to our new journey as a

INDEPENDENT TRADING NATION.

Not since World War II has there been greater cause for our politicians to pull together an the

NATIONAL INTEREST.

The tragedy is that never in living memory have they fallen so depressingly short of the standards we deserve.

[COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY

UNITY INSTEAD OF CHAOS]

DECISION

Once in every man and nation comes the moment to decide'

In the strife of Truth with Falsehood for the good or evil side.

J. R. LOWELL, The present crisis.

*

 

OPPORTUNITY

There is a tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

SHAKESPEARE.

*

FREEDOM

All we have of freedom-all we use and know-

This our fathers bought for us, long long ago.

KIPLING

*

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 [soon] chainless land.

Bear us witness; come the world against her,

England yet shall stand.

SWINBURNE . England.

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED

JULY 11-2017

 

 

 

H.F.1252 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

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.

 

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 BritAIN 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


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

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.

'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

 

 DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

FEBRUARY 2, 2017

 

AT LAST, IT IS ALL CLEAR FOR

 BREXIT'S

LIFT-OFF

 

YESTERDAY  was a HISTORIC DAY for OUR COUNTRY. BY a RESOUNDING MAJORITY of 384, the COMMONS swept away [our  past 45 years of tutelage within an undemocratic-unaccountable-unbearable-corrupt-expensive- strait-jacket Europe.]

 

THIS was a historic day for our country. At 7.30pm yesterday by a resounding majority of 384, the Commons swept away the last serious obstacle to freeing Britain from the chains that have bound us to an unelected, unaccountable Brussels for 45 YEARS.

True, we can still expect dirty tricks from the 114 who, to their shame, voted  against implementing the

PEOPLE'S WILL.

Of these , this newspaper will not waste ink on cursing SNP members, whose fantasies of SCOTLAND as an independent EU nation state gave them a spurious excuse for defying the UK majority.

AS for the rest, no criticism is too harsh for those Labour MPs who represent solidly Brexiteer constituencies, but voted to

REMAIN.

They deserve everything coming to them at the next election.

So, too, do the creeps who in 2015 backed the call for a binding referendum, but voted last night against implementing its result.

Among these, none can beat the monstrous hypocrisy of

NICK CLEGG

-that flip-flopping representative of the moneyed elite, suckled on the [thirsty] breast of Brussels.

IN 2008, it was he who led demands for an in/out referendum on Europe (as we demonstrate on the opposite page-

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H F 1101-AT LONG LAST-FREEDOM AWAITS! 

 

Cancer shame as UK survival rates lag behind the rest of the world: Demand for action to close 'appalling' gulf with other countries

 

  • Largest study of cancer survival ever puts UK towards bottom of global league
  • Study, published in The Lancet journal, analysed records of 37.5million patients
  • The pancreatic cancer survival rate in the US is nearly twice as high as in the UK 

 

 

Thousands of British cancer patients are dying early because NHS survival rates are trailing behind the rest of the world, a report has found.

The largest study of cancer survival ever conducted puts the UK towards the bottom of global league tables for several common cancers.

Health charities last night called for urgent action to close the 'appalling' and 'unacceptable' gulf with other nations, blaming slow diagnosis and poor treatment.

 

The study, published in The Lancet medical journal, analysed the records of 37.5million patients with 18 of the most common cancers, comparing survival rates for 71 countries (stock image)

While British cancer survival has improved slightly over the past 20 years, the country is being left behind by huge advances in other countries.

The study, published in The Lancet medical journal, analysed the records of 37.5million patients with 18 of the most common cancers, comparing survival rates for 71 countries.

The UK falls in the bottom half of the league table for seven cancers and only comes in the top ten for two. For years campaigners have warned that British survival rates are way behind those in Europe and the US, and studies suggest 10,000 deaths could be prevented each year if the UK merely hit the European average.

But the analysis shows Britain is also left trailing by developing nations such as Jordan, Puerto Rico, Algeria and Ecuador.

The data, from 2010 to 2014, shows that only 6.8 per cent of British pancreatic cancer patients survive for five years after diagnosis, putting the UK 47th out of the 56 countries that had full data for that cancer.

The pancreatic cancer survival rate in the US is nearly twice as high, at 11.5 per cent. But the UK is also surpassed by Latvia, South Africa and Argentina. For stomach cancer the UK comes 46th out of 60 countries, with only 20.7 per cent surviving five years, worse than Romania, Turkey and Malaysia.

 

d for ovarian cancer, which affects 7,400 British women a year, the UK comes 45th out of 59, with only 36.2 per cent surviving five years. Some countries achieve nearly double this survival rate.

Katherine Taylor, chief executive of Ovarian Cancer Action, said: 'This study highlights how appalling ovarian cancer survival rates are in the UK. Women deserve better. We need earlier detection and better treatments and we need them now.'

The study shows survival rates have slowly improved over recent years – but in other countries they have sped ahead.

For myeloid cancers, survival rates over the past 15 years have increased by 6.4 percentage points in Britain, but have risen by 17 points in the Czech Republic and 27 points in Sweden.

For oesophageal cancer, UK survival increased by 4.2 points, compared with 8.3 in Japan and 12.7 in Korea. Researcher Professor Michel Coleman, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the NHS has seen improvements in breast and rectal cancer survival – but money needs to be spent to see the same elsewhere.

'The proportion of GDP spent on healthcare is lower than other countries,' he said. 'We need to increase the spending on health services and stabilise the NHS rather than reorganising it every six months.'

He said he was particularly worried about pancreatic cancer rates, adding: 'Greater international efforts are needed to understand the risk factors for this rapidly lethal cancer and to improve prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment.'

 

While British cancer survival has improved slightly over the past 20 years, the country is being left behind by huge advances in other countries (stock image)

Anna Jewell, director of operations at Pancreatic Cancer UK, said: 'It's simply unacceptable that people's chances of surviving this disease beyond five years is still so low, and has improved so little when compared to the progress achieved in other cancers.'

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'Cancer is a priority for this Government and survival rates are at a record high – around 7,000 people are alive today who would not have been had mortality rates stayed the same as in 2010.

'We know there is more to do, and NHS England is implementing the recommendations of the independent Cancer Taskforce to save a further 30,000 lives a year by 2020.'

The NHS stressed that the study uses data collected before a new cancer strategy was launched in 2015.

An NHS England spokesman said: 'Figures show that cancer survival is now at an all-time high in England, as a result of better access to screening, funding for effective new treatments and diagnostics and continued action to reduce smoking.'

Read more: 332489/Cancer-shame-UK-survival-rates-lag-rest-world.html#ixzz56bxRcJWh
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*  *  *

  [WE ASK WHY ARE WE STILL SEEING CHARITY ADVERTS ON OUR SCREENS OF CALLS FOR WATER AND OTHER ESSENTIAL NEEDS WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE BILLIONS CONTRIBUTED BY BRITAIN AND OTHER NATIONS IS STILL NOT SOLVING THIS TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCE. OBVIOUSLY AS WE KNOW AT HOME IT IS THE WASTAGE OF VALUABLE RESOURCES ON DANCING GIRLS AND WHATEVER. THE BRITISH PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE FIRST CALL ON AID AS THERE IS ENOUGH LEFT WITH OTHER OUTSIDE CONTRIBUTIONS IF USED SENSIBLY FOR THE REST OF THE POOR IN THE WORLD. LET'S GET OUR PEOPLE WELL AND NOT USE AID AS A COMPETITION AND ALL WILL BENEFIT AT HOME AND ABROAD. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT APART FROM DEFENCE IS THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE IN THEIR SOON TO BE RETURNED CENTURIES LONG WORLD RENOWNED DEMOCRACY.]

H.F.1467-

Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RECLAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANCE.]

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!

 

 

A MATTER OF TREASON

The behaviour of our politicians over the past thirty-five years has confirmed the dangers of one-party rule which was warned of over two millennium ago . The greatest danger we face is from within BY THE TREASONABLE ACTIONS of many of our politicians and judges who should know better and those close to our sovereign Queen Elizabeth II the PRIVY COUNSELLORS of the REALM.
 
Before we proceed we will state the oaths taken by our Privy Counsellors to the Queen and also to the European Union. We are at a loss to understand how it is possible to take the oath to Queen and Country and yet still take the oath to the EU.
 
CONFLICT OF DUTIES AND LOYALTIES
 

THE UNITED KINGDOM
 

THE OATH OF A PRIVY COUNSELLOR

 
'You do swear by Almighty God to be true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person. Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be removed, treated, and debated in Council, faithly and truly declare your Mind and Opinion. According to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will in your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminence's, and Authorities, granted to her Majesty, annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. SO HELP ME GOD. '
 
THE EUROPEAN UNION
 

The OATH SWORN BY COMMISSIONERS - BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
 
'I solemnly undertake to perform my duties in complete independence in the general interest of the Communities in carrying out my duties neither to seek nor to take instructions from my government or body, to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties. I formally note the undertaking of each member state to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their task. I further undertake to respect both during and after my term of office the obligations arising therefrom and in particular the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits. '
 

Our Constitution was only safe so long as our Representatives were persons of INTEGRITY unfortunately it is clear that any person owning allegiance to Her Majesty could not in all honesty sign the oath to the European Union. We have therefore in our midst many TRAITORS to her Majesty and to the people of these Islands. We hope one day to have these Traitors tried by a SUPREME Constitutional Court when England one day will return to being a FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE of a Greater Britain. It is only a few decades ago when the last TRAITOR in England was" hanged by the neck until he was dead ". I t is our opinion that the actions of those who knowingly gave away the

 " Rights and Liberties "

of the English People

should suffer the maximum sentence prescribed by law, in memory of those millions of our people who gave their lives for their country, even in the last few weeks.
 
We will list every person that has had a hand in traitorously betraying this country in a TRAITORS GALLERY and see that these names are known by the people of this country. We ask anyone who is aware of anyone who has taken an Oath to let us know for inclusion in our list.
 
OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO THE FOLLOWING WORDS WERE SPOKEN BY A GREAT SENATOR OF ROME .
 
" A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the TRAITOR moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the TRAITOR appears no TRAITOR; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A MURDERER IS LESS TO BE FEARED".
 
CICERO ,
Marcus Tullius (106-43 B.C. ) Rom. Orator

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

 

Boris's plan to divert EU cash to NHS 'is being thwarted | Daily Mail ...

Boris demands £5bn for NHS from EU: Foreign Secretary will tell PM at Cabinet meeting to hand £100million-a-week Brexit dividend to health service

  • Mr Johhnson will make the case for handing NHS an extra £100 million a week
  • He is said to have the backing of a string of ministers, including Michael Gove
  • His campaign to leave the EU promised billions in extra funding for the NHS 
  • He has raised the issue with Theresa May in private on several occasions since the 2016 referendum

Boris Johnson will use today's meeting of the Cabinet to demand using the 'Brexit dividend' to give the NHS a £5billion annual cash injection.

The Foreign Secretary is said to have the backing for the move from a string of ministers, including Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Chris Grayling and international development secretary Penny Mordaunt.

Mr Johnson, whose campaign to leave the EU promised billions of pounds in extra funding for the NHS, has raised the issue with Theresa May in private on several occasions since the 2016 referendum.

But the move is being resisted by Downing Street and the Treasury. 

Mr Johnson's plans to give the health service £100 million a week are being delayed to prevent him claiming a political victory, friends of the Foreign Secretary have warned. 

One source said it would be 'premature' to start spending a Brexit dividend which has not yet been finalised.

Scroll down for video 

 

Plans to give the NHS a fresh cash injection are being delayed to prevent Boris Johnson (pictured) claiming a political victory, friends of the Foreign Secretary have warned

The PM's chief of staff Gavin Barwell is said to have told Tory MPs there is no point trying to compete with Labour on health, where the Tories trail heavily in the polls.

One ally of Mr Johnson last night claimed some ministers were reluctant to link extra cash for the NHS to Brexit because they believed it would hand Mr Johnson 'a win'.

'We are delivering Brexit and we are going to have to give the NHS more money before the next election, whatever happens,' he said.

'Why not link the two and deliver on the promises made to leave voters? The only reason not to is to deny Boris a win.'

Another ally of the Foreign Secretary said he would continue to make the argument for more money for the NHS 'until it happens'.

'Boris believes that if the Tories are going to beat Corbyn at the next election they must make the NHS a top priority and deliver new funding,' the source said.

 

Mr Johnson has raised the issue with Theresa May (pictured) in private on several occasions since the 2016 referendum

'Every poll conducted shows the NHS is top of swing voter concerns and every expert says it needs more money - the Cabinet will have to act and the sooner the better.

'This isn't about the referendum - it's about delivering on the number one concern for the public and beating Corbyn at the next election.

'Boris has a track record of winning and knows the Tories simply cannot afford to concede the NHS to Labour - which is why he will continue to make this argument until it happens.'

Former Tory vice-chairman Robert Halfon said it would be 'madness' to short-change the NHS for political reasons.

He added: 'There's an umbilical cord between the British public and the NHS. They want a government that puts the NHS first and foremost.'

 

 Mr Johnson will use today's meeting of the Cabinet to make the case for using the 'Brexit dividend' to hand the NHS an extra £100 million a week

During the referendum, Mr Johnson famously campaigned in a red bus emblazoned with a slogan suggesting Brexit would release up to £350 million a week to spend on domestic priorities like the NHS.

One Cabinet rival said it was 'not our job to keep Boris's promises for him'.

And a Whitehall source said it was too early to start allocating cash from a Brexit dividend that had yet to be agreed.

'It is premature,' he said. 'Boris has given quite a few figures on this - £350 million a week, £438 million and now £100 million. Once we have an idea of the figure we will be saving we will set out what we will do with it.

 

During the referendum, Mr Johnson famously campaigned in a red bus emblazoned with a slogan suggesting Brexit would release up to £350 million a week to spend on the NHS

In the meantime, we are already getting on with giving the NHS more money – such as the £2.8 billion announced in the Budget.'

Meanwhile, Tory grandee Sir Nicholas Soames yesterday became the latest senior figure to urge No 10 to embrace a more radical agenda.

Sir Nicholas branded the government's agenda 'dull, dull, dull' and called for a 'brave and bold' approach.

He added: 'It really won't be enough to get people to vote against (Corbyn). They must have really sound reasons to vote Conservative. We really need to get on with this.'

Last week, former planning minister Nick Boles said the government 'constantly disappoints' because of 'timidity and lack of ambition'.

 

 

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5300329/Boriss-plan-divert-EU-cash-NHS-thwarted.html#ixzz55lBv4s2Z
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

H.F.1457

 

 

KILLERS
BETRAY ISLAM AND ALL MUSLIMS

COMMENTARY by Dr Taj Hargey

DIRECTOR OF THE MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL CENTRE OF OXFORD

*

DAILY MAIL, Friday, January 9, 2015

 

THere

 

THERE has understandably been revulsion and outrage across the world at the massacre in Paris, one of the darkest atrocities perpetuated in France for decades. All right-minded people will join  unequivocally in condemnation of this barbarous pitiless act

Our response must be one of resolution in defence of liberty and freedom of expression, two of the central foundations of our democratic society. There can be no compromise with the twisted extremist ideology that inspired this slaughter.

LikLike all Islamic fanatics, the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo killings loathe the liberal values of open ,pluralistic societies.  Driven by their wilfully perverted misinterpretation of the MUSLIM FAITH, they want to establish theocratic, authoritarian rule across WESTERN EUROPE, complete with all the instruments of dogmatic oppression, including the compulsory wearing of the face veil for Muslin women.

European authorities must not give in to this blackmail, imposed through the barrel of a Kalashnikov or the shell of a suicide bomb. The principles of freedom must be upheld for all citizens including Muslims.

For the truth is that there is nothing remotely Islamic about all this murderous fundermentalism. The true tradition of the Muslim religion is one of

TOLERANCE and RESPECT for OTHERS.

 When the Prophet Mohammed moved from Mecca in 622AD to establish the first Islamic State, he did not set up a sectarian Caliphate like today's violent thugs in Al Qaeda and ISIS demand. On the contrary, in the Charter of Medina he created a multicultural, multifaith society where the rights of everyone, Muslims , Jews, Christians or pagans were upheld.

So the idea, so popular among the zealots, of Islamic supremacy under

SHARIA LAW

has absolutely no basis in either the Koran or the earliest biography of the Prophet.

Just as false is the belief that the Koran provides some sort of justification for the Charlie Hebdo murders, on the grounds that the satiracal magazine has consistently published derogatory images about Islam.

THIS IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE

As a devote Muslim, I have been deeply offended by some of the vulgar material in Charlie Hebdo. Indeed, it has often seemed the magazine went bout of its way to be gratuitously childishly provocative. But I would defend without reservation the magazine's right to publish such stuff.

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

MUSLIMS who want to avoid being offended don't have to buy the magazine or read it. In our open society, we cannot allow one group to impose censorship in the name of protecting

THEIR FAITH

from any ridicule, mockery or even criticism.

As they left the scene of the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo office on Wednesday, the assailants shouted

'Allahu Akabar'

(God is the greatest.)

and 'the Prophet Mohammed has been avenged'. But this is another warping of theology.

NOWHERE does the KORAN sanction taking any human life in the name of defending the Prophet's reputation.  A host of verses, like Chapter 109, verse 6, or chapter 10, verse 99, actually set out the need to defend

FREEDOM of RELIGION.

According to the Muslim scripture, no one has the right to deny other people-whether they are Christian, humani9st or even atheist-their beliefs. Similarly, the

CHARTER of MEDINA

lays down the right of all citizens to be

FREE and EQUAL.

So, contrary to all the vicious despotic propaganda from ISIS and Al Qaeda, respect for essential liberties is at the crux of

ISLAM.

The supposed 'crimes' of blasphemy and apostasy have  been invented by the

RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS

to justify their jihadism and have no basis in

TRUE ISLAM.

That is highlighted by two key incidents in the life of the Prophet, who called on his followers to ignore the ridicule and contempt on him.  In Chapter 74, verse 11, responding to complaints that he had been labelled 'crazy' and 'a sorcerer' the Koran reveals that God will ultimately deal with all those who mock him. It is not for us on Earth to decide their fate.

In the same vein , when Mohammed first put forward the revelations he received from God that would constitute the

KORAN

one of the renowned poets of the time, Musaylimah, became vexed at Mohammed's growing power.  He therefore claimed that his own poems had been inspired by divine revelations and that he and Mohammed should work together to rule the nascent Muslim community.

Mohammed's followers were appalled at this effrontery and urged the Prophet to take action.  But Mohammed merely said:

'Let him be. He is just a liar. Ignore him.'

So,' Musaylimah, the Liar'  is the name history remembers him by -profound theological proof that the Prophet felt distain, not blood-soaked vengeance, was the correct response to mockery.

 That should have been the reaction of all Muslims to even the most provocative Charlie Hebdo cartoons.  The Prophet does not need to be protected by self-proclaimed zealots.

 God will protect his reputation.

Indeed, it is an offence against Islam to assume the role of religious defender, with the arbitrary power of life and death against declared enemies of the faith.

 

There is not the slightest theological vindication for that kind of savagely arrogant conduct in Islam, all life is sacred and no one has the right to end it in the name of the deity or to take the

LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS.

 Filled with HATRED, the Charlie Hebdo KILLERS took it on themselves to act as

JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONERS.

  When Muslims are finally able to move away from clerically-manipulated theocracy and return to the uncorrupted divine text of the religion, they will clearly see through all the horrific posturing of the jihadi militants. . .

 

uslims will then be able  to embrace the Koran's pristine vision, with its emphasis on

INCLUSIVENESS -PLURALISM- PEACEFUL

co-existence and mutual respect.

This  is the message that will be preached at our mosque in Oxford. And it presents a far more appealing world that the terrifying, macho sectarianism the crazed zealots want to inflict upon us all,

*  *  *

 

 

 

WE ARE TOLD THAT ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF PROFESSED MUSLIMS ARE UNTRUE TO THE TEACHING OF THE PROPHET SO WHY HAVEN'T THE GREATER NUMBER OF  TRUE MUSLIMS NOT TAKEN EFFECTIVE ACTION TO DESTROY THE IMPOSTORS OF THE MUSLIM FAITH. 

 AS GHANDI SHOWED MOST EFFECTIVELY THAT NON-VIOLENT ACTION CAN BE MOST SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING AN OBJECTIVE SUCH AS FREEDOM>  SO WHY DO TRUE MUSLIMS NOT ARISE AND COVER THE COMMUNITIES THEY LIVE IN FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE IMPOSTORS OF THEIR TRUE RELIGION>

OVER THE YEARS MANY CLERICS SUCH AS DR TAJ HARGEY HAVE VOICED THEIR CONCERNS AT THE LACK OF ACTION BY TRUE MUSLIMS AND IT IS THAT VERY FAILURE WHICH IS BAFFLING THE ONCE SETTLED PEOPLES OF THOSE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITIES>

TO MANY PEOPLE IT IS AS IF THEY ARE MORE INTERESTED TO ACHIEVE AN ISLAMIC STATE RATHER THAN INTEGRATE INTO THEIR NEW ONCE SETTLED LANDS.

TO STAND BY AND ALLOW  THE  NAME OF ISLAM TO BE USED IN THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS  MUST SURELY BE UNWORTHY OF ANY TRUE RELIGION .

JANUARY  20-2018

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS-CAPS ARE OURS!]

DAILY MAIL, Friday, January 9, 2015

H.F.1445

We British Muslims have got to speak OUT!

by

Dr Taj Hargey-Director of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford.

THERE is nothing in ISLAM that CAN JUSTIFY the taking of an INNOCENT LIFE,  NOTHING that CAN CONDONE what MURDEROUS ISLAMIC STATE FANATICS have DONE in its NAME. This GANG of CRIMINALS has brought OUR FAITH into GRAVE DISPUTE and BESMIRCHED its HONOUR.

Muslim leaders must act before it is

TO LATE!

We must demonstrate that this horrendous slaughter in Paris was not sanctioned by us or perpetuated with our blessing.  And we must prove to young impressionable Muslims that

WE DO NOT CONDONE THIS CARNAGE

The French Muslim community should have acked morwe assertively already. They should be marching in the streets, chanting

' NOT IN MY NAME!

,NOT IN THE NAME OF ISLAM

But instead, there is an eerie

SILENCE

They are doing nothing tangible to oppose the

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY

from

SAUDI ARABIA

and which sadly has infected

EUROPEAN ISLAM

In Great britain, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Islamic Society of Britain should be bussing in Muslims from SCotland, Wal;es, all over the United Kingdom to

PROTEST in our CAPITAL

at what happened. They should be organising a mass

NOT in our NAME'

March of all Muslims, irrespective of sect or denomination, condemning IS unreservedly for all it stands for.

A tiny rally in

TRAFALGAR SQUARE

on Saturday night  is not good enough. Prominent Muslim organisations need to

SPEARHEAD the FIGHT

against

IS

and the ugliness and intolerance

THAT IT REPRESENTS.

[TO BE CONTINED]

*

We British Muslims have got to speak out, says DR TAJ HARGEY  

By Dr Taj Hargey For The Daily Mail - November 16th 2015, 1:31:58 am

 

 

 

Daily Mail, Monday, November 16, 2015

 

H F 621/1

 

How and Why Was WWI Planned and Prolonged

Mujahid Kamran

August 1, 2017

The history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war. Had the truth become known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic.”

Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

The Planners and the Plan

The First World War did not just happen. There is undeniable evidence that the war was planned by the international-banker controlled British oligarchy almost two decades before it broke out (see e.g. [1-3]). In their outstanding book Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor have established beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the First World War was planned by a tiny group of members of the British oligarchy including Nathaniel Rothschild [1].

King Edward VII

While building upon what was first revealed by the late Professor Carrol Quigley, they have not only provided detailed evidence in favor of this thesis, but have also revealed the astonishing role of the British monarch, King Edward VII, in secretly building alliances against Germany. They have provided ample evidence that the playboy King, much disliked by his mother Queen Victoria, went along with the secret group that had, in the first place, planned this horrific war.

The secret group of people, whose existence was first revealed by Professor Carrol Quigley, thus putting his own life in danger, decided to work behind the scenes with the utmost secrecy. The revelations of Professor Quigley were based on documents provided by the Secret Elite, as they are referred to sometimes. The documents were provided for the purpose of writing a sanitized history.

The goal of the Secret Elite was the expansion of the British empire to the total exclusion of other powers.

This cabal was extremely wealthy. Cecil Rhodes, who, with Rothschild help, had amassed a huge fortune in South Africa, first discussed his plans with Nathaniel Rothschild in February 1890 in the presence of a few members of the British oligarchy.

In 1891 a five-member secret group comprising Cecil Rhodes, Nathaniel Rothschild, William Stead, Lord Esher and Alfred Milner became, unknown to anyone else, the core group that decided to steer the world towards a war aimed at the destruction of Germany. They called themselves the Society of the Elect. Around themselves they built, as if in a concentric circle, The Association of Helpers, eminent men, who did not know of the Society of the Elect. Other men were gradually involved in the plan but they were not aware of the separate existence of the five-member core. Together, these men steered and controlled the course of British foreign policy, unknown to the Parliament, the people, the Cabinet, and others who were constitutionally relevant.

These men represented a new phenomenon on the world stage – the money kings, who held no office and yet had real power to decide the fate of nations. When Rhodes died at age 48, he left all his money to these men for the sole purpose of extending the British empire over the entire globe. Secrecy was of utmost importance to this group.

The destruction of Germany, the Secret Elite knew, would entail enormous bloodshed. They also knew that Britain could not do it alone. It needed the strength of the Russian and French armies to achieve that end.

Russian soldiers WW1

And maybe the Secret Elite wanted Russia and France to shed their own and German blood for them. But France had been a traditional enemy of the British and vice versa whereas Russia and Britain had vied for the control of the Black Sea and the annexation of Constantinople i.e. Istanbul. There was rivalry between Russia and Britain regarding the Russian urge southwards and eastwards to warm waters, seaports that could function round the year. In the south lay the “jewel” of the British empire – India.

Despite these rivalries the Secret Elite was determined to befriend and woo both France and Russia because it considered Germany the most potent threat to the existence of the British empire. Germany was not fully aware of this heinous plan aimed at its utter destruction. And Russia and France, both were trapped by the Secret Elite. In fact, the Secret Elite succeeded not only in destroying Germany, they also destroyed Russia, and by prolonging the war, destroyed the Ottoman as well as the Austro-Hungarian empires. Britain, in the end, did not really benefit. The Zionists did – the Illuminati Zionist bankers emerged as the real force on the world stage. The Milners and the Eshers and Balfours, and all others became powerless eventually and faded away.

The Rothschilds have continued into the 21st century enhancing their power and wealth with every major bloodshed. They and their illuminati banking brethren were the real beneficiaries. The Christian West was the real loser. And so were the Muslims.

It is well known among historians that Queen Victoria disapproved of her son’s womanizing and kept his royal stipend at a minimum while she was in power. The expenses of the womanizing of King Edward VII, when he was a playboy Prince of Wales, were borne by the Rothschilds and by Sir Ernest Cassel, both bankers of German-Jewish extraction. When he came to power Edward VII was keen to oblige his patrons who, apparently, wanted to destroy the emerging German nation. And, in any case he was under the impression that the destruction of Germany would pave the way for a global British Empire – it was to be his empire.

The Zionist/Illuminati international bankers had other plans. King Edward VII was the architect of the Entente Cordiale of 1904. His image as a playboy concealed the fact that he was traveling all over Europe to build alliances against Germany, while Germany never suspected that traditional enemies like England and France could or would become friends.

Docherty and Macgregor also describe the infiltration of the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office of Great Britain by agents of the group that had planned the First World War. They were able to control the officers of both government departments. They also controlled the War Office as well as the highly important and secret Committee of Imperial Defense. The Group had influence in both parties. Their policy of destroying Germany not only transcended party politics, it also went beyond which party was in power – it transcended governments.

The Parliaments and the prime ministers came and went without knowing that a tiny cabal was planning and relentlessly driving Britain to total war with Germany.

*

Cover up and Fabricated History

Docherty and Macgregor have further revealed that (p 5, ref. [1]):

The Secret Elite dictated the writing and teaching of history, from the ivory towers of the academia down to the smallest of schools. They carefully controlled the publication of official government papers, the selection of documents for inclusion in the official version of the history of the First World War, and refused access to any evidence that might betray their covert existence. Incriminating documents were burned, removed from official records, shredded, falsified, or deliberately rewritten, so that what remained for historians was carefully selected material.”

Docherty and Macgregor point out (their book was published in 2013) that even “To this day researchers are denied access to certain First World War documents because the Secret Elite had much to fear from the truth, as do those who have succeeded them.” Why such a vehement cover up that even a century later the British authorities do not grant access to certain documents pertaining to the first World War? They want to maintain the myth of German culpability and their innocence, whereas the reality is the reverse of what establishment history portrays. The truth will shift the onus of responsibility to the shoulders of the Secret Elite and of every other consequence that followed: the Second World War, Bank of International Settlements, IMF, World Bank, the U.N., Israel, the Korean and Vietnam wars, continuing wars in the Middle East, right up to the dangerous situation today. They have lied to generations and rather than let the truth be known they have chosen and attempted to perpetuate the lie worldwide and for all times.

They can do so because the international illuminati-Zionist bankers are all powerful and control the American and British governments. Israel is a Rothschild fiefdom, a source of perpetual war and a possible eventual Armageddon. The academia is, by and large, part of this cover up and that is very sad, to say the least. Any historian in a university who challenges the establishment version will be ostracized, if not thrown out of his job. Nick Kollerstrom had to lose his job despite the fact that he is an outstanding academic. One of his colleagues, whom he had known for years, was so angry that he told Kollerstrom that he wanted to hit him with his racket!

Guido Preparata was ostracized for his outstanding book Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Built the Third Reich, and had to quit his job, leave the U.S., and even give up his research career for some time. It is therefore significant that Docherty and Macgregor, though British (both are Scottish) do not work for any British university. They, therefore, cannot be thrown out of their jobs.

On the surface of it, the strategic aim behind the instigated and covertly planned World War I was to destroy both Germany and Russia and thereby kill the possibility of emergence of a dominant Eurasian power, or a powerful coalition of Eurasian countries, that could threaten the British Empire. The initial group, the Circle of the Elect, appeared to have, as its aim, the establishment of a worldwide British Empire. It only included one banker, Nathaniel Rothschild. With hindsight, the evolution of global affairs indicates without any doubt that the Zionists (Communism and Zionism sprouted from the same Illuminati “tribe” and had a common origin) were the real beneficiaries and the deeper instigators of this war.

The world today is headed towards a global slave state controlled by the Illuminati cum Zionist international bankers. The Bolshevik Revolution was led and controlled by “atheistic Jews” (to use Churchill’s phrase) most of whom came from outside Russia and both Lloyd David George and President Wilson were stooges of the Zionists. Today both, the U.S. and the U.K., are completely controlled by the Zionist cum Illuminati international bankers.

However, other deeper aims of the international bankers were to weaken Christianity through widespread death and destruction of Christian life and property, to weaken European governments by exhaustively bleeding them and bringing them under deep debt bondage, to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution, to facilitate the creation of Israel and the establishment of a supra-national organization through which to set up a One World Government under their ruthless and absolute control (The New World Order). The international bankers were simultaneously Zionists and Freemasons/Illuminati.

A photo of the 1914 Christmas Truce illustrates how the British and Germans had no antipathy until it was created by propaganda and the war itself

*

Building Japan, Bruising and then Wooing Russia after Sabotaging a Russo German Treaty

It was the Secret Elite that was behind the strategy to build Japan’s navy that was then used to destroy the Russian fleet that traveled around the world to confront the Japanese navy. The Russian fleet was utterly destroyed in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 and the small island nation managed to inflict a humiliating defeat on a giant. This was part of the strategy of the Secret Elite to curtail Russia’s ambitions in the Far East and to bruise and weaken her. Ships for the Japanese navy were quietly built in the shipyards of Britain. On the one hand, the Rothschilds in London secretly provided loans to Japan, while on the other the Rothschilds in France provided loans worth 400 million francs to the Russian government to build the 6365 miles long trans-Siberian railway (p 86, ref. [1]). The Russians had expressed their gratitude to the Rothschilds when the czar decorated Alfonso de Rothschild of Paris with Grand Cross. The London Rothschilds made double profits because the armament industry which manufactured battleships for the Japanese navy were partly owned by the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds had the greatest shares in Vickers armament. Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 92, 93 ref [1]):

Manipulators at the heart of the Secret Elite, like Esher, facilitated meetings held on Rothschild premises to help the Japanese financial envoy, Takahashi Korekiyo, raise their war chest. While banks with strong links to the Rothschilds were prepared to raise funds for Japan quite openly, the Rothschilds had to tread carefully because of their immense Russian investments, not least in the Baku oilfields. They were also very aware of the political repercussions that might ensue for Russian Jews who bore the harsh brunt of czarist anti-Semitism. That changed once the war was over. The London and Paris Rothschilds negotiated a further £48 million issue to help Japanese recovery. At every turn the war profits flowed back to the Secret Elite.”

It was Japan that attacked the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, a Chinese port that was functional all year round and had been leased to Russia. Although Japan issued a declaration of war on Feb 8, 1904, its navy attacked the Russian fleet three hours before the ultimatum was delivered to the Russian government.

In order to go to war with Germany the Secret Elite took four decisions. These are summarized by Docherty and Macgregor in the following words (pp 73,74, ref. [1]):

Foreign policy had to be sustained no matter what political party was in office; the British Army needed a complete overhaul to make it fit for the purpose; the Royal Navy had to maintain all its historic advantages; the general public had to be turned against Germany.”

The British public did not want to go to war with Germany and therefore a secretly driven but powerful propaganda campaign against Germany was launched in order to poison the minds of the public. The Belgian ambassador apparently noticed by 1903 that jingoism was on the rise in Britain and people were turning against Germany. He wrote to his government that this was merely because of jealousy. Docherty and Macgregor point out that the ambassador did not know that secret manipulation behind the scenes had resulted in this attitude.

The Secret Elite worked relentlessly using the vast Rhodes fortune at its disposal to buy politicians and men of influence in all countries that were relevant. One of the men in their pocket was Alexander Islovsky, who served them loyally to the immense detriment of Russia, Europe and the Christian West. Kaiser Wilhelm had made a brilliant move in 1905 – he wanted to have an agreement between Russia and Germany that would have averted the war by forming a defensive alliance.

The Kaiser and the Czar secretly met and signed an agreement on July 24, 1905 at Bjorko Finland, whereby if any one of the countries was attacked by a European power the other shall come to its aid. However, when the czar returned to Russia the agents of the Secret Elite as well as a bribed press opposed the ratification of the treaty. Actually no one knew of the contents of the treaty until the Czar confided in is his foreign minister Count Lansdorff who betrayed the secret to King Edward VII.

The Czar was in need of money after the Russo-Japanese war in which Russia suffered heavy material and human losses. He therefore needed loans and the Rothschilds in Paris were far richer than any Berlin banks. The Secret Elite threatened to block the much needed loans. This was crucial and the Czar backed off despite having signed the proposed treaty. This treaty, had it gone through, would have averted the planned world war. This caused the Kaiser immense pain and he wrote to the Czar (p 95 ref. [1]): “We joined hands and signed before God who heard our vows.” This mistake by the Czar was to cost Russia and Germany dearly during World War I.

Having sabotaged the Russo-German alliance the Secret Elite then used King Edward VII to woo Russia. The King invited the Russian navy to Britain and the British public was softened towards Russia through a media campaign. The Secret Elite managed to lure and trap Russia by a false promise of allowing Russia to control Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Black Sea Straits. A Russia that had been mauled militarily, that was in dire financial straits, and that was presented with a dangling Constantinople carrot succumbed and fell in the trap. An Anglo-Russian Convention was signed on 31 August 1907. Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 95,96 ref. [1]):

The Secret Elite was prepared to use any nation as cat’s-paw and Russia became the victim of British trickery, manipulated into a different treaty that was designed not to protect her or the peace of Europe but to enable the Secret Elite to destroy Germany. . . It was yet another secret deal hidden from Parliament and the people. . .

By such deceptions, lies, bribery and manipulations, the brutal and absolutely ruthless and utterly shameless Secret Elite proceeded to steer and goad nations to a path of unprecedented bloodshed in which Christian, and to a lesser extent Muslim blood was shed. The beneficiaries were the satanic illuminati international bankers and their brethren. Their determination to destroy Germany masked a deep and malevolent desire for a conflagration that would burn Christian Europe to ashes with tens of millions of casualties. That was their goal and they drew the deepest delight and satisfaction by turning men into savage animals.

The Myth of Belgian Neutrality

When World War I began the British public had been exposed to false propaganda for a long time. Two issues on which their mind had been falsely influenced were Belgian neutrality and German militarism. Facts were the opposite of what people were led to believe. As for Belgian neutrality, it was utterly untrue. Belgium was not only not neutral it had had close military links with Britain since 1905 when Britain offered to send “4 cavalry brigades, 2 armored corps, and a division of mounted infantry” to Belgium (p 106, ref. [1]). At that time nobody outside the close knit Secret Elite know of, or suspected, possible war with Germany.

Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 106, 107ref. [1]): “Britain’s military link with Belgium was one of the closes guarded secrets, even within privileged circles.” General Grierson, who was director of military operations was present at a secret 1905 meeting along with Lord Roberts, PM Balfour, Admiral Fisher and the head of naval intelligence, where a decision to take forward joint military planning with France and Belgium was taken. This was so secret that it was agreed that “the minutes would not be printed or circulated without special permission from the prime minister.” Docherty and MacGregor write further (p 107, ref. [1]):

Documents found in the Belgian secret archives by the Germans after they had occupied Brussels disclosed that the chief of the Belgian general staff, Major General Ducarne, held a series of meetings with the British military attache’ over action to be taken by British, French and Belgian armies against Germany in event of war. A fully elaborated plan detailed the landing and transportation of British forces, which were actually called ‘allied armies’, and in a series of meetings they discussed the allocation of Belgian officers and interpreters to the British Army and crucial details on the care and ‘accommodation of the wounded of the allied armies.’”

The British allowed Belgium to annex Congo Free State in return for a “secret agreement that was in everything but name an alliance. King Leopold II sold Belgian neutrality for African rubber and minerals.” Thus Belgium bargained away her neutral status and in return entered into a deep and hidden relationship with Britain against Germany. Docherty and Macgregor point out that here too King Edward VII played a hidden but important role because the King of Belgium was a cousin of Queen Victoria and was very fond of her. So much for Belgian neutrality that became a rallying cry to war for the misled and deliberately misinformed British public. The technique of using the media to control the public mindset continues to date and entails an incredible cost in terms of loss of human life and property.

The Myth of German Militarism

As for German militarism, Docherty and Macgregor have provided irrefutable data that clearly establishes that Britain was spending far more secretly on arming itself compared to Germany. In reality it was British militarism but the cunning and, in a sense, deep characterlessness of the Secret Elite, which hoodwinked everyone and which worked outside and in contradiction with the constitution, and which lied to and shamelessly deceived everyone, created the opposite impression. When the Liberal leader Campbell-Bannerman won a landslide victory in 1906, the Liberals were committed to peace.

Edward Grey and Haldane were committed to war and along with other members of the Secret Elite, steering the country towards war. Cabinet was never informed of this, nor was the prime minister. The crafted biographies of men like Haldane contain lies and are unreliable. And if one reads Docherty and Macgregor they have exposed the lies in Haldane’s biography and private notes. In fact, there is evidence that Campbell-Bannerman was kept in the dark about the military contacts with other countries. His untimely death in 1908 relieved the Secret Elite of the pressure for a peaceful world! In fact, the Secret Elite were very worried soon afterwards, because in 1910, their key patron King Edward VII died at age 68, while the Liberals were still in power.

False propaganda about German military preparations was carried out at the behest of the Secret Elite in the British media. As Docherty and Macgregor put it (pp 134, 135, ref. [1])

From the beginning of the twentieth century, the Secret Elite indulged in a frenzy of rumor and half-truths, of raw propaganda and lies, to create the myth of a great naval race. The story widely accepted, even by many anti-war Liberals, was that Germany was preparing a massive fleet of warships to attack and destroy the British navy before unleashing a military invasion on the east coast of England or the Firth of Forth in Scotland. It was the stuff of conspiracy novels. But it worked. The British people swallowed the lie that militarism had run amok in Germany and the ‘fact’ that it was seeking world domination through military superiority. Militarism in the United Kingdom was of God, but in Germany of the Devil, and had to be crushed before it crushed them.”

These authors are quick to point out that when Germany was defeated and all their prewar records became available to the Allies, not a shred of evidence in favor of such secret plans to invade Britain were discovered. They point out that the statistics were thoroughly abused by an “almighty alliance of armaments manufacturers, political rhetoric, and newspaper propaganda” that conjured a frightening image of a German naval armada and the German will to dominate the world.

Rothschild and Ernest Cassel, who paid for the lechery of King Edward VII when he was a playboy Prince of Wales, were major owners of the largest armament factory Vickers. They point out that in the decade prior to war the British naval expenditure was £351.9 million whereas the German naval expenditure was £185.2 million, i.e. almost half of the British expenditure. Similarly, the Allies, i.e., the Triple Entente spent £675.88 million on warships in that same decade whereas Germany and Austro-Hungary spent £235.9 million, almost a third of what the Entente had spent, on their navies in the same period.

Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff (R) lead Germany as virtual military dictators from mid-1916 to the end of the war

The German army was 7,61000 strong, the French and Russian armies had, respectively, 794,000 and 1.845 million personnel. So, where is the evidence of German militarism running amok? Who was running amok? Who was spending far more than the Germans? This lie of German military buildup has been perpetuated by establishment historians when the numbers speak out for themselves. The establishment historians should be ashamed at propagating lies and holding the so-called nonexistent German militarism responsible for the war. They have lied to, and continue to lie to their own people as well as the whole world. What a shame! The Germans should stand up with their heads high. They did not lie or deceive.

The sanitized history taught worldwide seems to hold Germany as the aggressor. This is utterly untrue as established by Docherty and Macgregor. Preparata also states in his fascinating book (published 2005) (p 14 of ref [3]):

“From the beginning Britain was the aggressor, not Germany.”

The Russian ambassador to France Isvolsky, who was an agent of the Secret Elite, sent a telegram to Moscow on August 1, 1914 (p 320, ref. [1]):

The French War Minister informed me, in hearty high spirits, that the Government have firmly decided on war, and begged me to endorse the hope of the French General Staff that all efforts will be directed against Germany…”

Germany did not order mobilization until 24 hours later! The Kaiser had sent a message to the Russian czar asking that Russia stop her military movements on her borders. The Kaiser waited for 24 hours without any reply before ordering mobilization. Docherty and Macgregor correctly observe that Germany was the last of the European powers to order mobilization. Does that indicate that Germany wanted war? It only indicates that Germany did her best to avoid war.

A detailed study of the interactions between the British leaders and the Germans and others during July and the first days of August reveals clearly that the British leaders were shamelessly lying to the Germans and deceiving them. Their conduct had descended to the level of common criminals and crooks.

The Germans conducted themselves with integrity and a degree of innocence. The Secret Elite had also advised the Russians and the French to mobilize to attack, but not actually attack Germany, because the British public would never support the aggressor in a European war. They wanted Germany, as Docherty and Macgregor put it, to “swallow the bait.” Britain had trapped Germany into a war, in collusion with Russia and France. Docherty and Macgregor write (p 321, ref. [1]):

What else could Germany have done? She was provoked into a struggle for life and death. It was a stark choice: await certain destruction or strike out to defend herself. Kaiser Wilhelm had exposed his country to grave danger and almost lost one precious advantage Germany had by delaying countermeasures to Russian mobilization in the forlorn hope of peace.”

When Germany declared war against France on August 3, 1914, the French Under-Secretary of State, Abel Ferry, noted in his diary (ref. [3], p 24):

The web was spun and Germany entered it like a great buzzing fly.”

The Illuminati international bankers and other secret society members of the British oligarchy had colluded together for a destruction of Christian Europe. Only the Zionist international bankers and their fellow “tribesmen” saw this outcome clearly – they had planned for it and the non-banking oligarchy was used. The lie parroted in standard history books that Germany bore the responsibility of the war is an utter and shameful lie. The responsibility of the war rested with the Secret Elite controlled British leadership.

Western Front WW1 British soldier

Zionism and the American Involvement

Almost two months before war broke out, on May 29, 1914, the Rothschild agent Col. House, who handled and controlled President Wilson, had written to him:

Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany.”

It is well known that Col. Edward Mandel House was a Rothschild agent as was his father. Col. House played a diabolical role in prolonging World War I, and in dragging the U.S. into the World War. It is important to understand how influential he was with President Wilson. President Wilson had once referred to him as his alter ego. In his seminal book, that has sold over five million copies since it was first published, Gary Allen states [4]:

“Colonel” House was front man for the international banking fraternity. He manipulated President Wilson like a puppet. Wilson called him “my alter ego.” House played a major role in creating the Federal Reserve System, passing the graduated income tax and getting America into WWI. House’s influence over Wilson is an example that in the world of super-politics the real rulers are not always the ones the public sees.

Col. House represents a new phenomenon – the emergence of “advisors” to the U.S. President who do not hold any formal office, are unelected, and are intimately tied to the international banking families, apart from being members of secret societies. These advisors hold the president of the United States “captive.” In his profound book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed, a Times (London) correspondent in Central Europe right up to the beginning of WW II, mentions that four men held President Wilson captive – Col. House, Rabi Stephen Wise, Justice Brandeis and Bernard Baruch. Reed states [5]:

Thus three out of the four men around President Wilson were Jews and all three, at one time or the other, played leading parts in the re-segregation of the Jews through Zionism and its Palestinian ambition ….

Such was the grouping around a captive president as the American Republic moved towards involvement in the First World War, and such was the cause which was to be pursued through him and his country’s involvement. After his election Mr. House took over his correspondence, arranged whom he should see or not receive, told cabinet officers what they were to say or not to say, and so on.

In order to understand how and why the preplanned WWI was prolonged it is important to know who influenced or controlled the elected leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. and what were the aims of these controllers. It is also important to know that Justice Louis Brandeis had founded a secret society by the name Parushim, for promoting Zionism in U.S.A. The initiate was asked to accept the following oath at a secret initiation ceremony [6] :

You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life – dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion. Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation… It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.

Rabi Stephen Wise was on board regarding Parushim and, almost certainly, Bernard Baruch was also on board. Bernard Baruch’s connection with the international bankers is well known. It is also important to point out that the international bankers had planned World War I to, among other things, promote the Zionist cause. As Douglas Reed, using information provided in Chaim Weizmann’s book Trial and Error, stated in his book Far and Wide [7]:

The First World War began in 1914; long-memoried readers may recall that it appeared to be concerned with such matters as the rape of Belgium, ending Prussian militarism, and making the world safe for democracy. At its start Baron Edmond de Rothschild told Dr. Weizmann that it would spread to the Middle East, where things of great significance to Political Zionism would occur.

How did Edmond de Rothschild know right at the beginning of the war that the war would spread to the Middle East where things will work out to the great advantage of Political Zionism? He could only know this if it was planned that way and if he was one of the planners. And, as we will see, this was one of the reasons why World War I was deliberately prolonged.

Prolonging the War

The war was prolonged through several tactics. Firstly, all overtures of peace from the side of the Germans, and later the Ottomans, were defeated by agents of the international bankers. Secondly when Germans ran short of food, the deception named Belgian Relief Commission was set up by the international bankers through their front men, by which food was supplied to Germany and the German army, under guise of food supplies to Belgium, so that the German army could keep on fighting. Thirdly Germans were supplied with vital chemicals, metals, and other war materials by Allied Big Business, to enable them to keep fighting. Finally, wherever the Allied rulers seemed to resist the expansion of the war into the Middle East, they were eliminated politically, and if need be physically. They were then replaced by agents of the international banking cabal.

Sabotage of German Peace Offers of February 1915 and December 1916

A lone French soldier in a wet trench

Early in the war, on November 3, 1914, Britain declared the North Sea a theater of war. It blockaded ports of neutral countries illegally. On February 3, 1915, i.e. three months later, the Germans announced a counter blockade. They announced that with effect from February 18, 1915, the entire English channel along with territorial waters of Britain and Ireland would be considered a war zone. One must appreciate the fact that the Germans waited for three months before announcing a counter blockade. They were within their rights to do so.

However simultaneously, in February 1915, the Germans approached James W. Gerard, the U.S. ambassador in Germany, and expressed their desire to end the war. The German authorities wanted the ambassador to convey their desire for peace to President Wilson. They were however utterly unaware that President Wilson was a captive of the “advisors” installed around him by the international bankers. This German overture for peace is not something that is mentioned in textbooks but it has been mentioned by James W. Gerard in autobiography My First Eighty Three Years in America.

The response from Washington was most astonishing. Instead of commenting on the German proposal for peace, the White House directed the ambassador to communicate with Col. House instead of the President of U.S.A.! Dr. Stanley Montieth quotes from ambassador Gerard’s biography [8]:

In addition to the cable which I had already received informing me that Colonel House was “fully commissioned to act” he himself reminded me of my duty in his February 16 postscript. In his own handwriting these were the words from House. “The President has just repeated to me your cablegram to him and says he has asked you to communicate directly with me in future . . .” All authority, therefore had been vested in Colonel House direct, the President ceased to be even a conduit of communications. . . . He, who had never been appointed to any position, and who had never been passed by the Senate, was “fully instructed and commissioned” to act in the most grave situation. I have never ceased to wonder how he had managed to attain such power and influence.

One may notice that the German counter blockade was to begin on February 18, and the Germans communicated their desire for peace before that date as Colonel House’s handwritten postscript was dated February 16th. So it appears that the Germans expected that since the counter blockade represented an increased and new level of hostility, the Americans would be concerned to defuse the situation. They had no idea that Wilson was a stooge, a puppet in the hands of those who had planned a long war.

And one may recall that although the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated as late as June 28, 1914, Col. House had, a month earlier, on May 29th, communicated to Wilson the arrangement that as soon as England indicated, France and Russia would pounce on Germany. So Colonel House wanted a long war, and destruction of both Germany and Russia, in accordance with the desire of the Zionist international bankers. Therefore, the ambassador never heard anything from Col. House about the peace proposal of February 1915. The peace proposal was sabotaged by Col. House.

Realizing that Col. House was in control of Wilson the Germans made another overture of peace in December 1916. This has been revealed by historian Leon Degrelle [9]. He mentions that on December 12, 1916, German officials expressed a desire for peace and talks with their adversaries. He also writes that Germans expressed the hope that Col. House would persuade the Allies. The freemason Col. House ruled out peace and thus helped sabotage the second peace initiative within the same year. The Germans did not know that Col. House had played an important role in precipitating the First World War by secretly entering into a secret agreement with Britain, well before Wilson’s re-election, that the U.S. would join the war, on the side of the Allies. Degrelle further writes [9]:

On December 18, 1916, U.S. ambassador to Britain, Walter H. Page, relayed a peace offer to the Allies from Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. On January 9, 1917, Prime Minister Lloyd George quickly repudiated the offering and declared that Britain would fight to the victory, which possibly prompted the Germans to re-initiate submarine warfare. Ambassador Page, in touch with President Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing, defended British policies. This was William Jenning Bryan’s resignation, after he described Britain’s collapsing financial situation and the need for America’s neutrality.

If the war had ended in 1916 million of lives could have been saved and destruction and devastation of numerous cities avoided. But the international bankers had planned a long war. It is important to note that, according to writer Juri Lina, who had access to records of numerous important Masonic lodges, Lloyd George was a Freemason, a Masonic Grand Master, and a Jew, whose real name was David Levi-Lowitt [10]. His connections with international bankers are very well known and he was installed in power as a result of an intrigue with the object of promoting the Zionist cause, as will be described later.

The picture of dead men among trees is a censored photo that was banned from publication by the French government. Those are dead Frenchmen mowed down by German guns during the Battle of the Frontiers in August/September 1914.

*

“Belgian Relief”

The next betrayal perpetrated by the international bankers took place in the form of the deception called Belgian Relief Commission. One finds many eulogized discussions about the work of this Commission. On the face of it this Commission was set up to supply food to the Belgian population. We quote below the typical version of the Belgian Relief Commission. It has been taken from an article by Elena S. Danielson that appeared in The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, (edited by Anne Cipriano Venzon) [11]:

Herbert Hoover founded the Commission for Relief in Belgium (CRB) in London in October 1914 as a private organization to provide food for German-occupied Belgium. Belgium’s attempts at resistance to German military demands at the outbreak of the Great War had aroused much popular sympathy in England and the United States. A densely populated, industrialized country, Belgium depended on imports for three-quarters of its normal food supply. When the German Army began to requisition local foodstuffs and the British blockade cut off imported sources, 7 million Belgians faced severe hunger as the winter of 1914-1915 approached. When the American ambassador in London, Walter Hines Page, met with Belgian representatives, they concluded that Herbert Hoover was the best choice to administer some emergency relief action. The comprehensiveness of the program, however, was the result of Hoover’s personal determination to feed the entire nation.

But the real function, to which the Belgian Relief Commission was diverted, was hideous. Once Britain blockaded Germany, and the Germans were starved for food, the Belgian Relief Commission became a cover for sending food supplies to the German Army so that the German Army could keep on fighting. It may be useful to remember that Walter Hines Page was in the pay of Rothschilds. In his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve Eustace Mullins writes [12]:

The U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Walter Hines Page, complained that he could not afford the position, and was given twenty-five thousand dollars a year spending money by Cleveland H. Dodge, president of the National City Bank. H.L. Mencken openly accused Page in 1916 of being a British agent, which was unfair. Page was merely a bankers’ agent.

The “City” banks were always owned by the Rothschilds. Mullins writes [13]:

The Belgian Relief Commission was organized by Emile Francqui, director of a large Belgian bank, Societe Generale, and a London mining promoter, an American named Herbert Hoover, who had been associated with Francqui in a number of scandals which had become celebrated court cases, notably the Kaiping Coal Company scandal in China, said to have set off the Boxer Rebellion, which had as its goal the expulsion of all foreign businessmen from China. Hoover had been barred from dealing on the London Stock Exchange because of one judgment against him, and his associate, Stanley Rowe, had been sent to prison for ten years. With this background, Hoover was called an ideal choice for a career in humanitarian work.

Further the truth about Hoover is given in the following words [14]:

Hoover had also carried out a number of mining operations in various parts of the world as a secret agent for the Rothschilds, and had been rewarded with a directorship on one of the principal Rothschild enterprises, the Rio Tinto Mines in Spain and Bolivia.

It may also be useful to remember that [15]:

Wilson’s academic career was financed by gifts from Cleveland H. Dodge, director of National City bank and Moses Taylor Payne, grandson and heir of the founder of the National City Bank. Wilson then signed an agreement not to go to any other college.

Please note that the same Cleveland Dodge was the financier of both, Ambassador Walter Hines Page, and President Wilson. Dodge was working for the Rothschilds. The first person to expose the hideous reality about the Belgian Relief Commission was a British nurse named Edith Cavell who was running a hospital in Belgium at the time. In his book Secrets of the Federal Reserve, first published in 1951, Eustace Mullins wrote about this [16]:

Franqui and Hoover threw themselves into the seemingly impossible task of provisioning Germany during World War I. Their success was noted in Nordeutsche Allegmeine Zeitung, March 13, 1915, which noted that large quantities of food were now arriving from Belgium by rail. Schmoller’s Yearbook for Legislation, Administration and Political Economy for 1916 shows that one billion pounds of meat, one and a half billion pounds of bread, and one hundred and twenty one million pounds of butter had been shipped from Belgium to Germany in that year.

Mullins then narrates the story of Edith Cavell (Ibid pp 72, 73):

A patriotic British woman who had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith Cavell, wrote to Nursing Mirror in London, April 15, 1915, complaining that “Belgian Relief” supplies were being shipped to Germany to feed the German army. The Germans considered Miss Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no attention to her, but the British intelligence service in London was appalled by Miss Cavell’s discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a spy. Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence, and partner of Kuhn Loeb Company, feared that the continuance of war was at stake, and secretly notified the Germans that Miss Cavell must be executed. The Germans reluctantly arrested her and charged her with aiding prisoners of war to escape. The usual penalty for this offence was three months imprisonment, but the Germans bowed to Sir William Wiseman’s demands, and shot Edith Cavell, thus creating one of the principal martyrs of the First World War.

It is to be noted that after the war Sir William Wiseman settled in the United States and became one of the directors of the Kuhn Loeb & Co. This was his reward for having helped prolong the war. It may be noted that the head of the German secret service was Max Warburg, another international banker, whose brother Paul Warburg had emigrated to the U.S. in 1902 and was instrumental, in 1913, in having the Federal Reserve Act passed. Paul Warburg was a partner in Kuhn Loeb & Co. The deeply hidden international banking connections are fairly obvious to anyone who cares to find out.

Thus the “Belgian Relief” was used to prolong the war. Had the war ended in February 1915 there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution (instigated and bankrolled by the international bankers) and the war would not have been extended to the Middle East. But the plan of the bankers who instigated the war was to prolong the war as long as possible and to fulfill, as far as possible, their targets (as revealed at the outset of the war by Edmond de Rothschild to Weizmann).

Zionists Sabotage a Separate Peace Possibility with the Ottomans

The Zionists defeated another opportunity of securing peace with the Ottoman Empire in May 1917. It was in May 1917 that the U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing received a report that the Ottomans were tired of war and a separate peace with Britain could be secured thereby isolating Germany. But the Zionists did not want to keep the Ottoman Empire intact – they wanted its complete destruction so that they could secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine from the rubble of the Ottoman Empire. The Zionists got wind of the plan when President Wilson assigned Henry J. Morgenthau the duty of contacting the Ottomans. Henry J. Morgenthau had once been the U.S. ambassador in Turkey. Morgenthau was himself Jewish and he therefore decided to take Felix Frankfurter with him.

As Alison Weir writes in her book [17], Felix Frankfurter was a “paid political lobbyist and lieutenant” of Justice Louis Brandeis. Now Justice Brandeis was a highly unscrupulous individual when it came to his political purposes – he could go to any length to achieve these. It is the same Justice Brandeis who had set up the secret society Parushim for promoting Zionism in U.S. clandestinely, as mentioned previously. He was also one of the four men who held President Wilson captive.

If the Ottomans had made a separate peace with Britain, the Ottoman Empire would have survived intact and there would be no room for Israel. Alison Weir states [18]:

Felix Frankfurter became part of the delegation and ultimately persuaded the delegation’s leader, former Ambassador Henry J. Morgenthau, to abandon the effort. U.S. State Department officials considered that Zionists had worked to scuttle this potentially peace-making mission and were unhappy about it. Zionists often construed such displeasure at their actions as evidence of American diplomats’ ‘anti-Semitism’.

Thus the Zionists, controlled by the international bankers, “killed” still another opportunity for peace which could have saved millions of lives.

Two Russian soldiers stand in front of a ruined building in NE Turkey and look at the remains of Armenians killed by the Turks, part of the 1.5 million Armenians killed during WW1 by the Turks.

*

Intrigue in Britain to Open Up a Front in Palestine

In his deep book, Douglas Reed, narrates [19]:

Opposition to Zionism developed from another source. In the highest places still stood men who thought only of national duty and winning the war. They would not condone “hatred” of a military ally or espouse a wasteful “sideshow” in Palestine. These men were Mr. Herbert Asquith (Prime Minister), Lord Kitchener (Secretary for War), Sir Douglas Haig (who became Commander-in-Chief in France), and Sir William Robertson (Chief-of-Staff in France, later of Chief of the Imperial Staff).

How did the Zionists get rid of this highest level opposition to opening up a front in Palestine? They decided to get rid of the Prime Minister and Lord Kitchener. It is almost unknown to the world that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually a Zionist coup in which the funding and support came from international bankers. The Zionist international bankers were mortal enemies of Russia because of the allegiance of the royal family to Christianity. Researchers have dug out this little known aspect of World War I. This aspect reveals the profound, utterly ruthless and absolutely single-minded pursuit of the goal of world domination by the international bankers. Reed describes how the Zionists were able to eliminate Lord Kitchener. He writes [20]:

Lord Kitchener was sent to Russia by Mr. Asquith in June 1916. The cruiser Hampshire, and Lord Kitchener in it, vanished. Good authorities concur that he was one man who might have sustained Russia. A formidable obstacle, both to the world-revolution there and to the Zionist enterprise, disappeared. Probably Zionism could not have been foisted upon the West, had he lived.

The silent and sinister physical elimination of Lord Kitchener has also been consigned to oblivion through controlled history writing. Had Kitchener managed to salvage Russia the Zionist enterprise would have been almost permanently thwarted. That is why he had to be eliminated. In an overall view of things the elimination of Lord Kitchener was vital for the survival of the Zionist enterprise and fits a pattern of intrigue in which assassinations and installation of puppet politicians was crucial. World War I was triggered by an assassination and prolonged by various tactics including the elimination of Lord Kitchener.

The elimination of Prime Minister Asquith has been looked into by Cornelius. He writes [21]:

Herbert Asquith, who had been prime minister since 1908, had begun, reluctantly, to consider a negotiated peace, but negotiations with the Zionists, through Weizmann and Balfour, provided another option for Britain, although not for Asquith. That option was the possibility of a formal, but secret, alliance between the Zionists and the Monarchy, whereby the British Monarchy would undertake to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine and the Zionists would undertake to help bring America into the war on the side of the Allies, this assuring an Allied victory. An agreement with a British government would certainly be necessary, but British governments come and go, and a commitment from something less ephemeral than a British government would have been required by the Zionists. It is proposed that such an agreement took place. There seems to be no way to date it accurately but it seems likely to have occurred sometime around in October 1916.

Cornelius writes further:

In early December 1916, a political crisis, probably engineered, occurred in Britain, and Herbert Asquith, was forced to resign. The denouement came on Dec. 6, 1916. That afternoon King George V summoned several prominent political figures, including Balfour and Lloyd David, to a conference at Buckingham Palace. Later that same evening, Balfour received a small political delegation, which proposed that the difficult situation could be resolved with Lloyd George as prime minister, provided Balfour would agree to accept the position of foreign minister, which he did.

The Zionists thus eliminated Asquith, who did not wish to open a front in the Middle East for furtherance of the Zionist ambitions there. In his place they installed Lloyd David George, a Zionist, a Freemason and a man who worked for the international bankers. This was an odd situation – Balfour, who had been a Prime Minister from 1902 – 1905, had agreed to work as Foreign Minister of a far junior politician.

What concerns were so pressing that made Lord Balfour accept a junior position? Lord Balfour had long been inducted in the larger Secret Elite circle and was simply carrying out what the Secret Elite wanted him to do as part of their plans. It could only be the pressure of the Zionist international bankers with reference to the opening up of a military front in the Middle East and establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Lest anyone has any doubts about who steered the policy when Lloyd David George became Prime Minister, it would be sufficient to look at the following statement in A.N. Field’s 1936 book, All These Things, in which he quotes a passage from the French book La Mystification des Peuples Allies authored by Andre Cheradame [22]:

For some years a group of financiers whose families, for the most part, are of German-Jewish origin, has assumed control of political power and exerts a predominant influence over Mr. Lloyd George. The Monds, the Sassoons, Rufus Isaacs those known as the representatives of the international banking interests, dominate Old England, own its newspapers, and control its elections. The close solidarity existing between Mr. Lloyd George and Jewish high finance is easily shown by the brief biographical sketches of some of the influential personages by whom he is surrounded . . . Each of the names represents not only an individual, but also a veritable tribe and head of immense financial interests.

So the international bankers assumed control of the British government at the highest level by eliminating Prime Minister Asquith and Lord Kitchener, the former politically and the latter physically. Docherty and Macgregor have pointed out that the Secret Elite “identified and nurtured malleable politicians” across Europe and at home. They write (p 170, ref. [1]):

Lloyd George’s love of good life and his insatiable sexual appetite rendered him vulnerable. His career could have ended several times over had the Secret Elite chosen to destroy him. Instead, they protected his reputation, defending him against damaging allegations and saved his career.”

Since 1910 Lloyd George had been in the “pocket of the Secret Elite.” What happened when Lloyd George became Prime Minister? This is best described by Douglas Reed who has rendered an invaluable service to mankind by writing his last book. He writes [23]:

The simultaneous triumph of Bolshevism in Moscow and Zionism in London in the same week of 1917 were only in appearance distinct events. The identity of the original source has been shown in an earlier chapter, and the hidden men who promoted Zionism through the Western governments also supported the world-revolution. The two forces fulfilled correlative tenets of the ancient Law: “Pull down and destroy . . . rule over all nations”; the one destroyed in the East and the other secretly ruled in the West.

Reed further narrates that after the assumption of power by Lloyd David George the cabinet began pressing the army for opening up a front in the Middle East. The armed forces resisted this strategically senseless pressure. But the change of government had been wrought by the international bankers, the Rothschilds, only for one purpose, the purpose of promoting the cause of political Zionism, as revealed at the outset of war by Edmond de Rothschild to Weizmann. John Reed quotes Sir William Robertson (emphasis in original) [24]:

Up to December 1916, operations beyond the Suez Canal were purely defensive in principle, the government and General Staff alike . . . recognizing the paramount importance of the struggle in Europe in need of give the armies there the utmost support. This unanimity between ministers and the soldiers did not obtain after the premiership changed hands . . . The fundamental difference of opinion was particularly obtrusive in the case of Palestine . . . The General Staff put the requirements at three additional divisions and these could only be obtained from the armies on the Western Front . . . The General Staff said the project would prove a great source of embarrassment and injure our prospects of success in France . . . These conclusions were disappointing to Ministers, who wished to see Palestine occupied at once, but they could not be refuted . . .

This clearly shows that there was a difference of opinion between the government and the General Staff regarding the issue of sending British troops to occupy Palestine. Sir William Robertson was one of the four men, mentioned previously by Reed, who held British interests supreme and stood in the way of the expansion of war into Palestine.

Shipment of War- and Food-materials to Germany Despite Blockade

The international bankers, who also controlled Big Business, were able to prolong the war by supplying much needed materials, such as chemicals, copper, zinc, etc., as well as food to Germany through neutral countries, thereby helping Germany to fight longer. The major neutral countries were Denmark, Norway Sweden, and Netherlands. Finland was also part of the chain of nations supplying materials to the Germans. This is another little known aspect of World War I (and also World War II). This policy of trading with the enemy to make profits and to prolong the war was also utilized in the Second World War.

It is not that sentient and patriotic journalists and analysts were unable to fathom the international-bankers’ intrigue at that time – rather it was the overall control of media, and of book publishing, that has made it possible for the international bankers to deceive generations with controlled information and sanitized history which omits their hideous role. The story was brought out by journalists and analysts in England during the course of World War I, and subsequently by Admiral M.W.W.P. Consett, who was posted as naval attaché in Denmark during the war. Scandinavia was, of course, a traditional “listening post for warring nations.” In the year 1923 Consett wrote a book with a very interesting title, The Triumph of Unarmed Forces (1914-1918). Consett writes [25]:

Our trade with Scandinavia was conducted and justified on the accepted security of guarantees that Germany should not benefit by it: here it is sufficient to say that the security was worthless.

As he writes in a previous paragraph (p x):

But from the very beginning goods poured into Germany from Scandinavia, and for over two years Scandinavia received from the British Empire and the Allied countries, stocks which, together with those from neutral countries, exceeded all previous quantities and literally saved Germany from starvation.

Consett has given several tables that indicate that the amount of various items that were imported into Germany during the period 1913-1917. Please note that war broke out in August 1914. The total food imported into Germany from Sweden in the years 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 was, respectively (in metric tons): 252 128, 262376, 561,234, 620,756, and 315,205 (Appendix VI, p 298). Please note that food imports from Sweden in 1917 were more than food imports from that country in 1913. The food items covered in these figures are “meat of all sorts, fish, dairy produce, eggs, lard, margarine.” The food items do not include “vegetable oils, beer, fish, oil, bone fat, coffee, tea, cocoa, horses, syrup and glucose, fruit, vegetables.” This was despite the naval blockade imposed by Britain. The corresponding figures for Denmark follow a similar pattern. No wonder a Danish naval officer wrote (p 295 of Consett’s book) to his British counterparts:

I cannot help saying to you how much we Danish naval officers sympathize with you in having to live as you do amongst these people who are making fortunes in supplying your enemies with food when the officers and men of the Navy to which you belong are risking their lives in trying to blockade your enemies.

The story of Germany acquiring other items – much needed coal, vital lubricants, metals such as zinc, copper, nickel, etc. arrived at German ports through Scandinavian countries. The details have been provided by Consett in various chapters of his book. For instance on p 180 of his book, Consett quotes the U.S. ambassador James W. Gerard as having recorded the following his diary [26]:

Probably the greatest need of Germany is lubricating oil for machines.”

And yet lubricating oil did reach Germany from Scandinavian countries, as described by Consett. In fact Consett mentions that Ludendorff admitted:

Lubricants provided us with some of our greatest problems . . .

Similarly, other materials needed for explosives also arrived in Germany from Denmark and Holland despite the blockade. That the laxity in the blockade was intentional will become evident shortly. Consett states [27]:

These oils and fats, both vegetable and animal, are used in normal times principally for food, soap, candles, lubricants and fuel; but in war time their importance is much enhanced on account of the glycerin which they contain.

Glycerin is used in explosives and in 1915 Germany had discovered a process for extracting glycerin from sugar. This secret process was revealed only after the war. So important is glycerin that during the war the British Army collected all scraps of meat carefully in the British war zone, so that the fat could be used for extraction of glycerin.

That the British government was complicit in allowing vital materials to be shipped to Germany is evident from the following, which was revealed by Arnold White, a British journalist. In a packed meeting held at the Queen’s Hall London on March 4, 1917, Arnold White was speaker. According to A.N. Field, Arnold White [28]:

. . . referred at length to the mysterious way in which Britain had allowed an extension of Norwegian territorial waters from the customary three miles accepted internationally to a four-mile limit. This extra mile allowed great American ships to slip through immune Norwegian waters with 10,000-ton cargoes of ore to Germany. He had enquired into this matter and he found that the political heads understood nothing of significance of the extension of Norwegian territorial waters to which Britain had consented. Those who instigated it, in Mr. White’s opinion, knew exactly what it meant. But for that extension he added, “it would have been impossible for the great American ships to have carried 100,000 tons of ores last year into Germany.

What is difficult to understand about such matters that the politicians could not understand? One is reminded of the famous line by Upton Sinclair:

It is difficult to make a man understand when his salary depends upon not understanding it.

It is quite clear that the British government allowed the extension of Norwegian territorial waters deliberately. The politicians were working for the international bankers, led by the Rothschilds. The government of David Lloyd George had been installed in power by them through intrigue, and possibly murder of Lord Kitchener that may have been made to look like drowning or disappearance of the cruiser Hampshire, to further their own Zionist interests. According to A.N. Field:

. . . Mr. Lloyd George had been among other things solicitor to the Zionist organization in England. In December 1916, Mr. Lloyd George succeeded Mr. Asquith as Prime Minister, holding office until October 1922. Throughout the greater part of his career Mr. Lloyd George had close Jewish associations, and the pronounced Jewish complexion of the Lloyd George Ministries was more than once subject of Press comment in Britain.

Nine days later, on March 13, 1917, questions were asked in the House of Commons regarding the extension of territorial waters of Norway. The answer was that the government would do nothing about it.

The March 4, 1917 meeting had been organized by Dr. Ellis Powell, editor of the London Financial News. In this meeting Dr. Powell pointed out to the mysterious continuation of the activities of international bankers in Britain. This meeting was one of a series of meetings addressed by Dr. Powell and others, who had been agitating for exposing the “Hidden Hand” that was in control of Britain, and was betraying British interests. In fact, in 1917, Arnold White had written a book with title The Hidden Hand. The “Hidden Hand” was none other than the international bankers. The banks being run by bankers of German-Jewish origin in Britain were involved in activities that needed investigation. A resolution was passed at the March 4, 1917 meeting by all those present, numbering several thousand. They unanimously demanded closure of German banks in London. Field writes further [29]:

In seconding the resolution Dr. Ellis Powell, while seconding the resolution declared that German banks in the city were part of a vast organization of betrayal. The great outstanding fact of the war-time Hidden Hand agitation is that whenever it came to mention names and specific instances the names were mainly Jewish.

The Russian revolution is relevant to WW1 – this 1919 poster was printed by the White Russians and depicts Trotsky as an evil Jew. Bottom right are Asiatic soldiers of the Red army executing a European Russian

In his speeches Dr. Powell had attacked Jacob Schiff by name as being behind activities that went against British interests. Schiff was the owner of the Kuhn Loeb & Co, who had also bankrolled the Bolshevik movement. Jacob Schiff was born in the same house where the founder of the Rothschild family was born. Dr. Powell also mentioned Schroder, a naturalized British citizen, a banker of German-Jewish extraction, as well as others.

It is therefore quite clear that the international bankers were behind all major attempts at prolonging the war. They not only surrounded the British Prime Minister and the U.S. President, but all surrounded the German Chancellor. They were all Zionists and Freemasons.

It is important to keep track of the dates because this enables a better overall comprehension of what was going on. The German peace proposals of February 1915 and December 1916 were sabotaged.

It was in December 1916 that Asquith was toppled, it was in February 1917 that the Russian Czar abdicated, it was in April 1917 that the U.S.A. entered the war, it was during, and soon after May 1917, that the Ottoman peace possibility was destroyed by the Zionists, it was in October 1917, that the agents of the international bankers, the Bolsheviks, took over Russia and it was in November 1917, that the Balfour Declaration, addressed to Baron Rothschild, was formally issued.

All these events were manipulated by Zionist international bankers and their Illuminati controlled freemasonic brethren who had planned and intrigued on a global scale for a very long time. These epochal victories of the Illuminati Zionist international bankers have since dictated the course of history right up to today.

The global turmoil is a continuation of the Zionist thrust for seizing world power and they have come very close to their target with the destruction of U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and the ongoing destruction of Syria, and with clouds over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan. “Pull down and destroy . . . rule over all nations”! The United States of America and the United Kingdom are the biggest tools in the hands of international bankers. Despite their profound strengths these two countries have, on account of their control by Zionist and Illuminati international bankers, become the greatest threat to the very survival of the human species at this point in time.

Henry Makow Ph.D., himself Jewish, and full of anger at the anti-mankind policies of the Zionist international bankers, sums up World War I [30]:

As mysteriously as it began, the war ended. In Dec. 1918, the German Empire suddenly “collapsed.” You can guess what happened. The banksters had achieved their aims and shut off the spigot. (Hence, the natural sense of betrayal felt in Germany, exacerbated by the onerous reparations dictated by the banksters at Versailles.)

What were the banksters’ aims? The Old Order was destroyed. Four empires (Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman) lay in ruins.

The banksters had set up their Bolshevik go-fers in Russia. (They sponsor many “revolutionary” movements as a way to eventually control all property themselves.) They ensured that Palestine would become a “Jewish” state under their control. Israel would be a perennial source of new conflict.

But more important, thanks to bloodbaths such as Verdun (800,000 dead), the optimistic spirit of Christian Western Civilization, Faith in Man and God, were dealt a mortal blow. The flower of the new generation was slaughtered. (See “The Testament of Youth” by Vera Brittain for a moving first-hand account.)”

Almost forty million humans died in World War I [31].

REFERENCES and NOTES

[1] Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor: Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War; Mainstream Publishers, 2013

[2] Carol White: The New Dark Ages Conspiracy: Britain’s Plot to Destroy Civilization; The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Co, 1980

[3] Guido G. Preparata: Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich, Pluto Press 2005, p 24.

[4] Gary Allen: None Dare Call It Conspiracy, first published 1971; 2013 edition published by Dauphin Publications Inc., p 52.

[5] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, Bridger House Publishers Inc. 2012, p 242; emphasis added.

The story of Douglas Reed illustrates how the international bankers and their agents suppress truth and promote a sanitized history. In a book Far and Wide, Douglas Reed had dared to put the American History in its true European context. Ivor Benson writes in the Preface to The Controversy of Zion:

In Europe during the war years immediately before and after World War II the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone’s lips; his books were being sold by scores of thousand, and he was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of readers and admirers. Former London Times correspondent in Central Europe, he won great fame with books like Insanity Fair, Disgrace Abounding, Lest We Regret, Somewhere South of Suez, Far and Wide, and several others, each amplifying a hundredfold the scope available to him as one of the world’s leading foreign correspondents.

The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone; indeed the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of the times found some confirmation after what happened to him at the height of his powers.

After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers’ doors closed to him, and those books already published liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and “lost”, never to be replaced.”

This is how knowledge of history is controlled, distorted and even fabricated by the One World cabal of international bankers.

[6] Sarah SchmidtThe Parushim: A Secret Episode in American Zionist History;

American Jewish Historical Quarterly, Sep 1975-Jun 1976; 65. l – 4; AJHS Journal pg. 121.

[7] Douglas Reed: Far and Wide; first printed 1951; Angriff Pr June 1, 1981; part 2, chapter 2.

[8] Dr. Stanley Montieth: Brotherhood of Darkness, Bible Belt Publishing, Oklahoma City, U.S.A., 2000, p 65.

[9] Leon Degrelle: Hitler: Born at Versailles, Vol I, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, California, 1992, p 255 – 259; cited by Deanna Spingola: The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power, Trafford Publishing 2012, pp 622, 923

[10] Juri Lina: Architects of Deception, Referent Publishing 2004, chapter 7.

[11] See http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=commission-for-relief-in-belgium-1914-1930-cr.xml

[12] Eustace Mullins: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection; first published 1951; the 1991 edition by Bridger House publishing, p 83.

[13] Ibid, pp 69, 70.

[14] Ibid p 72.

[15] Eustace Mullins: The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism, published by Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization, 1985

[16] Ref 11, p 72

[17] Alison Weir: Against Our Better Judgment: the hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel; 2014, p 9.

[18] Ibid p 22.

[19] Ref. 5, p 247.

[20] Ibid p 248.

[21] John Cornelius: The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration; Washington Report on Middle East Affairs;

http://www.wrmea.org/2005-november/special-report-the-hidden-history-of-the-balfour-declaration.html

[22] A.N. Field: All These Things, 1936, p 82.

[23] Ref 5, p 272

[24] Ref 5, p 252

[25] M.W.W.P. Consett: Triumph of Unarmed Forces (1914-1918), Williams and Norgate, London, 1923; p xi.

[26] Ibid p 180.

[27] Ibid p 167.

[28] Ref. 22, p 42.

[29] Ref. 22, p 42.

[30] Henry Makow : Bankers Extended WWI By Three Years; revised and reposted December 1, 2007, http://www.henrymakow.com/001583.html

[31] Ref. 15.

*

Related Posts:



 
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

 
Posted by on August 1, 2017, With 1863 Reads Filed under Of Interest, World War I (1914-1918). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
 

 
 

aceBook Comments

8 Responses to "How and Why WWI Was Planned and Prolonged

AUGUST 1-2017

H.F.1269

 

HOME

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM? THAT IS YOUR CHOICE

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail-June 27,2008]

DEMOCRACY and freedom. It is a fine sounding phrase-rarely off the lips of President Bush as he blunders around the Middle East.

Why do we readily accept that democracy and freedom are natural partners? There is scant historical evidence for it. Often it is a case of

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM: even DEMOCRACY versus FREEDOM.

Consider two examples.  the United States is the only country to have banned alcohol by public demand. Contrast this with Hong Kong. Until shortly before being handed back by

BRITAIN to BEIJING

 it had

NO DEMOCRACY

at all: It was ruled by a colonial governor. Yet enjoyed enviable freedom with one of the least intrusive governments -and flourished wonderfully.

Our own experience also has much to tell us.

BEING A DEMOCRACY HAS NOT PROMOTED PERSONAL LIBERTY.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

More than

3000

 NEW OFFENCES

have been created since 1997, and officialdom revels in nearly

300 POWERS OF ENTRY.

Much of this is due to the

EUROPEAN UNION

whose

DIRECTIVES

are rarely scrutinised, let alone debated , by our supposedly democratic representatives.

WHAT we may SAY, WRITE or DO, or whom WE EMPLOY has been increasingly limited. The Government has passed legislation which can make assisting your son's football team

AN OFFENCE.

Another side of our

'democracy'

demonstrates painfully how the public will is constantly flouted. Take the brazen example of voters being

PROMISED REFERENDUM

on

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES

resulting from the

LISBON TREATY

The unscrupulous machinery of government has been deployed to

FRUSTRATE THE PUBLIC WILL.

I am not making a party point.

FOR OVER 40 YEARS, GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN RESISTING AN OVERWHELMING PUBLIC DEMAND FOR CURBS ON

IMMIGRATION.

especially from the

NEW COMMONWEALTH.

 While successive governments have made a show of meeting public demand, they have, quite consciously

REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT

throwing occasional tit-bits to the voters in the hope

THAT THIS WILL KEEP THEM QUIET.

Consider, also, the strong public demand for

CRIMINALS TO BE PROPERLY PUNISHED.

Successive governments, including Mrs Thatcher's have come under the sway of the

'PRISON REFORM'

people -with the result that

CRIMINALS RECEIVE VERY MODEST SENTENCES.

What is more, if they serve a sentence at all, it is in the softest conditions.

IF LYING ON YOUR BED AND WATCHING TV FOR A FEW MONTHS IS THE WORST THAT THE LAW WILL INFLICT

(and that's if you are even caught)

then

CRIME IS WORTH THE RISK

AND

PUBLIC OUTRAGE IS IGNORED.

The explanation is quite logical. Politicians are typically driven by

TWO THINGS.

THE FIRST is the PURSUIT OF POWER

the most exciting thing in the world, or even some say, the first.  If this urge is not there when they start their political careers

THEN IT SOON TAKES OVER.

THEIR SECOND MOTIVATION -to give our politicians their due - is the DESIRE FOR REFORM, IMPROVE the condition of the PEOPLE.

But the catch here is that most politicians

 THINK THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE FAR BETTER THAN THEMSELVES.

THEY FORM AN ELITE

WHICH LISTENS TO

OTHER ELITES

Or perhaps, since the word elite sounds flattering, we should say

THEY FORM A CASTE.

 

Politicians do not wake each morning wondering whether they are meeting the public will.  They turn to the media to learn what is said about them in newspapers and on the radio by other members of the

NATIONAL ELITE

- the selectorate, the clattering classes, the scribblers, the intellectually fashionable, call them what you will.

 

For elites to be out of touch is not unusual, even inevitable. The desire to be 'in' with the 'right' people is common with politicians; their weakness is for approval (and fame).

Of course, there is one moment when public opinion cannot be ignored -and that is at an

ELECTION

As Rousseau observed, voters are truly free

ONLY

 ON

ELECTION DAY.

But , by then, all the issues are jumbled up, and the voter finds himself choosing between

TWO COMPLEX and CONFUSING MENUS.

And while it is clearly advantageous for a party to offer the public

WHAT IT WANTS, the fact that both main parties say MUCH THE SAME THING..

-and make similar insincere

PROMISES

makes a mockery of any claim to be driven by

PUBLIC WILL.

 

BUT  the ALTERNATIVE to our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM politicians say in horror, would be GOVERNMENT by REFERENDUMS. With 'horror' because it would take power from THEM and give it to THE PEOPLE.

BUT WHY NOT?

The Swiss have made a suburb success of it. Referendums are required on national and local issues if enough voters petition for them and they often do. As a result, the Federal Government, like  the local CANTON administrations, proceeds with CAUTION in case its plans are overturned by a PUBLIC VOTE. . .

To acknowledge that our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, which has developed over the centuries, NO LONGER WORKS -MAY BE PAINFUL. But if you put that to a REFERENDUM,

MOST VOTERS WOULD HEARTILY AGREE.

 

*

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

 

Ten EU truths we must tell the public
 

 *

HOME

[brought forward from June-2008

AUGUST-2008

*

[ 'IN JANUARY 2018 we can look back over 10 years and see that the situation with regard to many matters mentioned above has got progressively WORSE! Whether it is IMMIGRATION-POLICING-LAWS...The only GOOD NEWS is that we are only just over a year away from leaving the monstrous soon to be containment camp know as the EU SUPER-STATE a plan of ADOLF-HITLER in 1940 for GERMANY to dominate Europe in the PEACE .]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

[brought forward from June-2008

H.F.1449

 

 

Boris's plan to divert EU cash to NHS 'is being thwarted | Daily Mail ...

Boris demands £5bn for NHS from EU: Foreign Secretary will tell PM at Cabinet meeting to hand £100million-a-week Brexit dividend to health service

  • Mr Johhnson will make the case for handing NHS an extra £100 million a week
  • He is said to have the backing of a string of ministers, including Michael Gove
  • His campaign to leave the EU promised billions in extra funding for the NHS 
  • He has raised the issue with Theresa May in private on several occasions since the 2016 referendum

Boris Johnson will use today's meeting of the Cabinet to demand using the 'Brexit dividend' to give the NHS a £5billion annual cash injection.

The Foreign Secretary is said to have the backing for the move from a string of ministers, including Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, Chris Grayling and international development secretary Penny Mordaunt.

Mr Johnson, whose campaign to leave the EU promised billions of pounds in extra funding for the NHS, has raised the issue with Theresa May in private on several occasions since the 2016 referendum.

But the move is being resisted by Downing Street and the Treasury. 

Mr Johnson's plans to give the health service £100 million a week are being delayed to prevent him claiming a political victory, friends of the Foreign Secretary have warned. 

One source said it would be 'premature' to start spending a Brexit dividend which has not yet been finalised.

Scroll down for video 

 

Plans to give the NHS a fresh cash injection are being delayed to prevent Boris Johnson (pictured) claiming a political victory, friends of the Foreign Secretary have warned

The PM's chief of staff Gavin Barwell is said to have told Tory MPs there is no point trying to compete with Labour on health, where the Tories trail heavily in the polls.

One ally of Mr Johnson last night claimed some ministers were reluctant to link extra cash for the NHS to Brexit because they believed it would hand Mr Johnson 'a win'.

'We are delivering Brexit and we are going to have to give the NHS more money before the next election, whatever happens,' he said.

'Why not link the two and deliver on the promises made to leave voters? The only reason not to is to deny Boris a win.'

Another ally of the Foreign Secretary said he would continue to make the argument for more money for the NHS 'until it happens'.

'Boris believes that if the Tories are going to beat Corbyn at the next election they must make the NHS a top priority and deliver new funding,' the source said.

 

Mr Johnson has raised the issue with Theresa May (pictured) in private on several occasions since the 2016 referendum

'Every poll conducted shows the NHS is top of swing voter concerns and every expert says it needs more money - the Cabinet will have to act and the sooner the better.

'This isn't about the referendum - it's about delivering on the number one concern for the public and beating Corbyn at the next election.

'Boris has a track record of winning and knows the Tories simply cannot afford to concede the NHS to Labour - which is why he will continue to make this argument until it happens.'

Former Tory vice-chairman Robert Halfon said it would be 'madness' to short-change the NHS for political reasons.

He added: 'There's an umbilical cord between the British public and the NHS. They want a government that puts the NHS first and foremost.'

 

 Mr Johnson will use today's meeting of the Cabinet to make the case for using the 'Brexit dividend' to hand the NHS an extra £100 million a week

During the referendum, Mr Johnson famously campaigned in a red bus emblazoned with a slogan suggesting Brexit would release up to £350 million a week to spend on domestic priorities like the NHS.

One Cabinet rival said it was 'not our job to keep Boris's promises for him'.

And a Whitehall source said it was too early to start allocating cash from a Brexit dividend that had yet to be agreed.

'It is premature,' he said. 'Boris has given quite a few figures on this - £350 million a week, £438 million and now £100 million. Once we have an idea of the figure we will be saving we will set out what we will do with it.

 

During the referendum, Mr Johnson famously campaigned in a red bus emblazoned with a slogan suggesting Brexit would release up to £350 million a week to spend on the NHS

In the meantime, we are already getting on with giving the NHS more money – such as the £2.8 billion announced in the Budget.'

Meanwhile, Tory grandee Sir Nicholas Soames yesterday became the latest senior figure to urge No 10 to embrace a more radical agenda.

Sir Nicholas branded the government's agenda 'dull, dull, dull' and called for a 'brave and bold' approach.

He added: 'It really won't be enough to get people to vote against (Corbyn). They must have really sound reasons to vote Conservative. We really need to get on with this.'

Last week, former planning minister Nick Boles said the government 'constantly disappoints' because of 'timidity and lack of ambition'.

 

 

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5300329/Boriss-plan-divert-EU-cash-NHS-thwarted.html#ixzz55lBv4s2Z
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter |
DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

H.F.1457

 

DAILY  MAIL
COMMENT
 

OCTOBER 28-2017

THE STATE GROWS LIKE JAPANESE KNOTWEED

 

 

WHATEVER his many shortcomings as Chancellor, George Osborne

GOT ONE THING RIGHT.

To his credit, he made steady progress slimming down the

BLOATED BUREAUCRACY

and rebalancing the economy to give wealth-creating firms a chance.

True, he should have cut more swiftly when he had voters' full support after the shock of the

FINANCIAL CRISIS.

But he left a leaner

STATE

with private businesses creating

FOUR JOBS for every one shed from the PUBLIC PAYROLL.

So how depressing that figures unearthed by the Mail show the

NUMBER of CIVIL SERVANTS rising SHARPLY for the FIRST TIME in SEVEN YEARS.

Across Whitehall, there are now

390,000 OFFICIALS

-up 2 per cent on last year. The biggest growth

(Surprise, Surprise!)

was at the

FOREIGN AID DEPARTMENT

where numbers have swollen by

39 PER CENT

since

2010

Meanwhile, figures this week show

PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS

still earn

£70 a week

more than their counterparts in

PRIVATE BUSINESS

That's even before their

GOLD-PLATED PENSIONS

are taken into account.

So much for the shroud waving unions who demand an end to

STATE PAY RESTRAINT.

 

IF BRITAIN IS TO FLOURISH AFTER

BREXIT.

IT'S VITAL THAT THE BURDEN OF THE STATE IS REDUCED. CHANCELLOR PHILIP HAMMOND, TAKE NOTE

*  *  *

 

About-turn on

BREXIT

WAS it only last week when the boss of Goldman  Sachs - the world's most rapacious and amoral bank and a cheer leader for

Project Fear-

hinted at plans to shift European operations from London to Frankfurt because of Brexit

What a different note his economists struck yesterday, when they grudgingly acknowledged this country's 'resilient' response to

 BREXIT

suggesting that prospects  in general look bright.

Nor is Goldman Sachs alone in seeing the light. Yesterday, UBS juddered into reverse over its plans to slash 1,000 City jobs, as its boss admitted relocations are looking 'more and more unlikely'.

Other banks, too-including J P Morgan-have back-peddled on their threat to move jobs from London, whose status as the wourld's leading financial centre looks increasingly assured

Meanwhile, British Airways has issued a blunt rebuttal of Mr Hammond's ludicrous claim that all flights in and out of Britain could be grounded the day after Brexit.

Confident of a deal, the airline points out 900 million fliers ca year benefit fro Europe's open skies. Brussels would be certifiably mad to put so much commerce at risk.

It may be too much to hope Remoaners in POLITICS and the MEDIA, will open their eyes to what's happening on the Continent, where NATIONALISM and SEPARATION are tearing the EU apart (witness yesterday's frightening scenes in CATALONIA).

But with business brimming with confidence in post-BREXIT BRITAIN, can't they at least silence their bellyaching-and

STOP TALKING THE COUNTRY DOWN?

*

FULL ARTICLE

*  *  *

[We have added the under mentioned hot topic as might be of interest in seeing how matters have fared in 60 years?]

Salaries in Public and Private employment

THE INTELLIGENT MAN'S GUIDE TO THE POST-WAR WORLD by G.D.H.COLE-VICTOR GOLLANCZ  LTD-1947

This indeed, is the greatest difficulty in the way of to and fro movement between the public services and private business, especially in view of the much higher levels of payment at or near the top in profit-seeking business. It can hardly be dealt with at all completely except by an assimilation of salaries in the two fields, though a closer supervision of private business by the State is bound to involve much more movement between them. Accordingly, the assimilation is a matter of great importance. In practice, the high wartime levels of direct taxation on large incomes has have considerably reduced the differences; and to the extent of their retention the size of the problem will be permanently reduced. It will, however, continue to exist until it is faced directly.

 

Up to a point, it must be faced as soon as the State takes over any substantial number of industries or services hitherto in private hands.  There will have to be salary-scales for these socialised services, and they will have to be related to the scales existing in private industry if the State is to get and keep the best men. Probably., many of the best men will be ready to serve the State for somewhat less money (with somewhat greater security) than they could command in profit-making employment. But the differences must not be too great, and accordingly, at the top, socialised industries will have to pay higher salaries than are at present paid to leading Civil Servants. This will certainly react in time on Civil Service salary scales; and a new adjustment will gradually be reached ,with rewards in both public and private employment corresponding to the incentives needed in the new Socialist, or semi-Socialist, form of industrial society.

1947

 

OCTOBER 28-2017  

H.F.1374

 

DAILY MAIL

 

 

-RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

 

 

Theresa May should forget the magazine interviews and get on with

BREXIT

 

Don't relax Theresa...

JUST DO IT!

[FOR

ENGLAND.]

 

 

EXTRACT

...BUT far from putting Brexit at the top of her agenda, she's been behaving as if she won a GENERAL ELECTION.

Policies contained in the last Tory manifesto have been jettisoned and others introduced.

She appointed a fellow REMAINER , Philip Hammond, as Chancellor even though he thought our economic future would be better off within the EU. Judging by his Autumn Statement, the fears of those of us who think we can't depend on Ay and Hammond delivering a clean break

MAY BE JUSTIFIED.

 The essentially positive reaction to his budget measures baffled me. Here was a Conservative targeting key Tory voters-PENSIONERS, people who have invested in BUY to LET, and the SELF EMPLOYED.  Not to mention letting rip the nation's CRIPPLING DEBT and adopting LABOUR POLICY on EXECUTIVE PAY RESTRAINT'.

The GREED of some FAT CATS is an undeniable DISGRACE.

[But it is those revolving door GREED of CIVIL SERVANTS and others in QUANGOS and elsewhere which we believe should be first on the TARGET LIST.]

-but since when has it been Tory policy to interfere in the salary structures of PRIVATE COMPANIES?

Despite the inevitable stories from the Boys in the Bubble about 'tensions' between No 10 and No 11, Mother Theresa must have signed off on the STATEMENT.  Meanwhile the pair of them seem  to take an inordinate delight in belittling

BORIS JOHNSON

WHO LED THE

LEAVE CAMPAIGN

AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY

Parallels have been drawn between BREXIT and Donald TRUMP'S victory in the STATES. the difference is:

TRUMP really is setting about draining the swamp in WASHINGTON. as he puts it, and ushering in a NEW ORDER.

In BRITAIN, the LOSERS are STILL in the DRIVING SEAT.

With the notable exceptions of Call Me Dave and Boy George, the political establishment HOLDS SWAY

AS Nigel Farage pointed out last week, all they've done is rearrange some of the

DECKCHAIRS.

Mrs May might be mistress of all she surveys right now

BUT

SHE'S THERE ON TRUST

And, judging by her interview at the weekend-which bordered on hubris-for a women who claims that

BREXIT

keeps her awake at night, she does seem to be enjoying HERSELF

rather more than is seemly.

*

 

[AS WE HAVE SAID ON MANY OCCASIONS SINCE JUNE 23-2016

 DO IT!

 

Full article

[IT WILL BE THANKS TO THE CONTINUOUS VOICE OF  RICHARD LITTLEJOHN AND MANY OTHER PATRIOTS IN THE FREE PRESS AND ELSEWHERE THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE PROMISE OF PARLIAMENT THAT THE VOTE FOR

A FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND

 BE HONOURED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND NOT BECOME A FRUITLESS EXPEDITION BY TURNCOATS AND TRAITOROUS TIMEWASTERS. HISTORY IS IN THE MAKING AND THOSE WHO BETRAY THE TRUST LAID AT THEIR DOOR  BY THEIR DOUBLE-FACED ACTIONS WILL BE FOR EVER IN THE ANNALS OF ENGLISH FREEDOM BE CAST AS PERFIDIOUS -PRETENTIOUS TRAITORS.]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

NOVEMBER 29-2016

 

H. F. 1040 BREXIT NOW

 

 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

*

AND IN ALMOST 3 YEARS WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

THE GANG OF THREE OR IS IT NOW TWO HAVE NO INTEREST IN ALLOWING OTHERS TO TREAD ON THEIR TERRITORY AND THIS TELLS YOU THAT DEMOCRACY IS DYING NOT EXPANDING IN ENGLAND THE HOME OF MAGNA CARTA  AND THE PETITION OF RIGHT!

JANUARY 30,2018

 

H.F.1388

 

 

 

 
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.

 

 

 

HOME

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM? THAT IS YOUR CHOICE

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail-June 27,2008]

DEMOCRACY and freedom. It is a fine sounding phrase-rarely off the lips of President Bush as he blunders around the Middle East.

Why do we readily accept that democracy and freedom are natural partners? There is scant historical evidence for it. Often it is a case of

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM: even DEMOCRACY versus FREEDOM.

Consider two examples.  the United States is the only country to have banned alcohol by public demand. Contrast this with Hong Kong. Until shortly before being handed back by

BRITAIN to BEIJING

 it had

NO DEMOCRACY

at all: It was ruled by a colonial governor. Yet enjoyed enviable freedom with one of the least intrusive governments -and flourished wonderfully.

Our own experience also has much to tell us.

BEING A DEMOCRACY HAS NOT PROMOTED PERSONAL LIBERTY.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

More than

3000

 NEW OFFENCES

have been created since 1997, and officialdom revels in nearly

300 POWERS OF ENTRY.

Much of this is due to the

EUROPEAN UNION

whose

DIRECTIVES

are rarely scrutinised, let alone debated , by our supposedly democratic representatives.

WHAT we may SAY, WRITE or DO, or whom WE EMPLOY has been increasingly limited. The Government has passed legislation which can make assisting your son's football team

AN OFFENCE.

Another side of our

'democracy'

demonstrates painfully how the public will is constantly flouted. Take the brazen example of voters being

PROMISED REFERENDUM

on

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES

resulting from the

LISBON TREATY

The unscrupulous machinery of government has been deployed to

FRUSTRATE THE PUBLIC WILL.

I am not making a party point.

FOR OVER 40 YEARS, GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN RESISTING AN OVERWHELMING PUBLIC DEMAND FOR CURBS ON

IMMIGRATION.

especially from the

NEW COMMONWEALTH.

 While successive governments have made a show of meeting public demand, they have, quite consciously

REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT

throwing occasional tit-bits to the voters in the hope

THAT THIS WILL KEEP THEM QUIET.

Consider, also, the strong public demand for

CRIMINALS TO BE PROPERLY PUNISHED.

Successive governments, including Mrs Thatcher's have come under the sway of the

'PRISON REFORM'

people -with the result that

CRIMINALS RECEIVE VERY MODEST SENTENCES.

What is more, if they serve a sentence at all, it is in the softest conditions.

IF LYING ON YOUR BED AND WATCHING TV FOR A FEW MONTHS IS THE WORST THAT THE LAW WILL INFLICT

(and that's if you are even caught)

then

CRIME IS WORTH THE RISK

AND

PUBLIC OUTRAGE IS IGNORED.

The explanation is quite logical. Politicians are typically driven by

TWO THINGS.

THE FIRST is the PURSUIT OF POWER

the most exciting thing in the world, or even some say, the first.  If this urge is not there when they start their political careers

THEN IT SOON TAKES OVER.

THEIR SECOND MOTIVATION -to give our politicians their due - is the DESIRE FOR REFORM, IMPROVE the condition of the PEOPLE.

But the catch here is that most politicians

 THINK THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE FAR BETTER THAN THEMSELVES.

THEY FORM AN ELITE

WHICH LISTENS TO

OTHER ELITES

Or perhaps, since the word elite sounds flattering, we should say

THEY FORM A CASTE.

 

Politicians do not wake each morning wondering whether they are meeting the public will.  They turn to the media to learn what is said about them in newspapers and on the radio by other members of the

NATIONAL ELITE

- the selectorate, the clattering classes, the scribblers, the intellectually fashionable, call them what you will.

 

For elites to be out of touch is not unusual, even inevitable. The desire to be 'in' with the 'right' people is common with politicians; their weakness is for approval (and fame).

Of course, there is one moment when public opinion cannot be ignored -and that is at an

ELECTION

As Rousseau observed, voters are truly free

ONLY

 ON

ELECTION DAY.

But , by then, all the issues are jumbled up, and the voter finds himself choosing between

TWO COMPLEX and CONFUSING MENUS.

And while it is clearly advantageous for a party to offer the public

WHAT IT WANTS, the fact that both main parties say MUCH THE SAME THING..

-and make similar insincere

PROMISES

makes a mockery of any claim to be driven by

PUBLIC WILL.

 

BUT  the ALTERNATIVE to our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM politicians say in horror, would be GOVERNMENT by REFERENDUMS. With 'horror' because it would take power from THEM and give it to THE PEOPLE.

BUT WHY NOT?

The Swiss have made a suburb success of it. Referendums are required on national and local issues if enough voters petition for them and they often do. As a result, the Federal Government, like  the local CANTON administrations, proceeds with CAUTION in case its plans are overturned by a PUBLIC VOTE. . .

To acknowledge that our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, which has developed over the centuries, NO LONGER WORKS -MAY BE PAINFUL. But if you put that to a REFERENDUM,

MOST VOTERS WOULD HEARTILY AGREE.

 

*

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

 

Ten EU truths we must tell the public
 

 *

HOME

[brought forward from June-2008

AUGUST-2008

*

[ 'IN JANUARY 2018 we can look back over 10 years and see that the situation with regard to many matters mentioned above has got progressively WORSE! Whether it is IMMIGRATION-POLICING-LAWS...The only GOOD NEWS is that we are only just over a year away from leaving the monstrous soon to be containment camp know as the EU SUPER-STATE a plan of ADOLF-HITLER in 1940 for GERMANY to dominate Europe in the PEACE .]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

[brought forward from June-2008

H.F.1449

 

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.

 

The Spirit of England - Churchill in London -

St George’s Day-1953.

 

*

 

An excerpt from Sir Winston Churchill’s broadcast speech to the Honourable Artillery Company, given in London 40 years ago-

on St. George’s Day,

 

*

THIS ENGLAND

Publication -Spring-1993.

 

 

‘It is twenty years since I had to speak on the toast of

 

ENGLAND

 

And

on

St. George’s Day.

 

Twenty years - it’s a long time and a lot has happened, but in those bygone days I did try to see what would have happened if St. George had lived twenty years ago, and really it does apply very much to what might happen if he lived today.

 

I said St. George would arrive in Cappadocia accompanied not by a horse but by Secretary of State. He would be armed not with a lance but with several flexible formulas.

 

He would, of course, be welcomed by the local branch of the League of Nations Union - or I ought to alter that to be correct and say the United Nations Union.

 

He would propose a conference with the dragon - a Round Table Conference - no doubt it would be so much more convenient for the dragon’s tail.

 

He would make a Trade Agreement with the Dragon. He would loan the dragon a lot of money. The maiden’s release would be referred to Geneva (it would now be to New York), the dragon observing all his rights meanwhile. Finally, the dragon would be photographed with St, George.

 

Now, I do not think there’s anything very wrong with this passage although twenty years have passed, but there are a few things I would like to mention about

 

ENGLAND

 

I’m not boasting but I would like to say that here no one questions the fairness of our

 

Courts of Law and Justice.

 

We have our own way of life that is so. Here no one thinks of persecuting a man on account of his religion or his race.

 

Here everyone, except the criminals, looks on the policeman as the friend and servant of the public.

 

Here we provide for poverty and misfortune with more compassion, in spite of all our burdens, than any other country.

Here we assert the rights of the citizen against the

 

STATE

 

-       criticize the

-        

-    GOVERNMENT of the DAY

 

-without failing in our duty to the

 

Crown

 

- or our LOYALTY to the

 

QUEEN.

 

If I’m not detaining you too long there are two points I would like to make.

 

One is our weakness.

 

Our weakness is that there are always a certain number of English people who wake up every morning -very brainy they are -they wake up and they look all round the fields and they think

 

‘NOW WHAT IS THERE THAT BELONGS TO OUR COUNTRY THAT WE CAN GIVE AWAY?’

 

[Reminds us of Tony Blair and his cronies and adherents around the country in local government and the business community in 2006. and the indecent haste of Gordon Brown to ratify the Lisbon Treaty in June 2008 in order to prove to the German/Franco bloc that he is a good european.]

 

or

 

‘WHAT IS THERE WE CAN FIND THAT HAS MADE OUR COUNTRY GREAT THAT WE CAN PULL DOWN?’

 

[Ditto -above -of course!]

 

Well, that is the question they ask themselves and THAT IS OUR WEAKNESS - they are very brainy and they have done us a great deal of harm.

 

[Ditto- as above - of course!]

 

On the other hand,

 

ENGLAND

 

-has a quality which no-one should overlook.

 

ENGLAND

 

-like Nature, never draws a line without smudging it.

 

We lack the sharp logic of some other countries whom in other ways we greatly admire - in our climate, the atmosphere is veiled, there are none of these sharp presentations, an although we have our differences they do not divide us as they do in nearly all the other countries of the WORLD.

 

There is a great underlying spirit of neighbourliness and there is without doubt a strong sense of

 

NATIONAL UNITY and LIFE

 

-       Which, though it doesn’t help us in the small matters with which we have to deal from day to day, may well be our Salvation in our troubles.

 

‘NOTHING CAN SAVE ENGLAND IF SHE WILL NOT SAVE HERSELF’

 

[That means each one of YOU in 2006 and in June 2008]

 

If we lose

FAITH in OURSELVES,

in our

 capacity to guide and govern,

if we lose

our will to live,

then indeed

our story is told.

 

If, while on all sides foreign nations are every day asserting a more aggressive and militant nationalism by arms and trade - if we remain paralysed by our own theoretical doctrines or plunged in the stupor of after-war exhaustion, all that the croakers predict will come true and

 

OUR RUIN WILL BE CERTAIN AND FINAL.

 

But why should we break up the solid structure of British power founded upon so much, kindliness, and FREEDOM?

 

Why should we break it up for dreams which may some day come true but now are only dreams, or it may be nightmares?

 

We ought as a nation and Empire -you won’t mind my mentioning that WORD? I didn’t get shouted down when I said it twenty years ago tonight -Empire, we might, we ought, to weather any storm that blows at least as well as any other existing system of human government.

 

We are at once more experienced and more truly united than any other people in the world.

 

It may well be, I say, that the most glorious chapters of our history are yet to be written. Indeed, the very problems and dangers that encompass us in our country ought to make English man and women of this generation glad to be here at such a time.

 

We ought to rejoice at the responsibilities with which destiny has honoured us and be proud that we the guardians of our country in an age when her life is a stake.

 

I have lived, since then, to see

 

OUR COUNTRY

 

-accomplish, achieve her

 

FINEST HOUR

 

-and I have no doubt that if the

 

SPIRIT OF ENGLAND

-continues, there is no reason at all why twenty years hence someone may not stand at the table of this ancient company and speak in the sense of pride and hope in which I have ventured to address you tonight.

 

* * *

 

[Sadly -the twenty years later in 1972 with the connivance of the many members of

YOUR PARLIAMENT

of ALL parties and many in the business community the 1972 Act of Accession to the EU -then falsely described as the EEC -European Economic Community came into being.

 

There are still politicians alive today in 2006 who betrayed their country and a distinguished few including Tony Benn who tried to get the people to see through the LIES and DECEIT which led eventually in 2005 to the almost absorption of ENGLAND and her sister nation-states into the

 

Despotic and Totalitarian Police State

 

calling itself

 

The United States of Europe.

 

It was the French and Dutch voters who saved ENGLAND in 2005 as our Prime Minister signed twenty fives times the Treaty in Rome which called for the Slavery of a People who had failed to remember the words of their greatest Prime Minister

Winston Churchill in 1953]

 

‘Nothing can save England if she WILL NOT save herself’.

 

* * *

 

THE TRUTH IN VERSE

 

of

 

Strasbourg and Brussels

(With apologies to Sweet Molly Malone)

by

 

John Culerwell

 

 

‘In Brussels’ fair city where the EU sits so pretty,

 

I first set my eyes on the European clone.

 

And she wielded some powers that used to be ours

 

Til we tossed them away with the Treaty of Rome.

 

She is a great sponger and sure to no wonder,

 

Her colleagues are all just the same.

 

They all wield those powers that used to be ours

 

Before we got timid and tame.

 

It’s hard to describe them without being rude,

 

Red tape is the product they freely extrude,

 

By the edicts they issue fair trade is afflicted

 

And poor nations’ prospects severely restricted.

 

On the fat of the land lives the Eurocrat Band

 

And the Gravy train runs at full steam.

 

Not for them the poor food of an African’s bread.

 

The Clones live on the honey and cream.

They can only be sacked for blowing the gaff

 

And telling the world the accounts are

naff.

 

But they regulate this then subsidise that

 

The handouts they hand out are financed by VAT.

 

Where Hitler has failed, the Clones have prevailed

 

With the help of our legislators

 

By these deeds of disgrace our MPs have lost face

 

And can only be thought of as TRAITORS

They seek to enslave us (ONLY UKIP CAN SAVE US)

 

It’s all a set part of the Eurocrats aim.

 

They are parasites ALL and they’ve got us in thrall

 

And don’t know the meaning of SHAME.

 

The Clones, we abhor them, we didn’t vote for them

 

If they think they are wanted the answer is NO!

 

But due to their muscles in Strasbourg and BRUSSELS

 

They thrive, they thrive-O.

 

*

obtained from:

 

Eurofacts

April 7-2006-04-07

Vol 11 No 13.

 

08456 120 175

info@junepress.com

 

*

 

Daily Mail

COMMENT

 

[FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2006]

 

*

 

WHY Brussels won’t take NO for an answer

 

IN the very week that reveals more evidence of the cynicism and persistent illegality at the [ROTTEN] heart of the EU, Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson - who should concentrate on promoting FREE TRADE in a scandalously protectionist EU - pushes for a NEW CONSTITUTION that would hand BRUSSELS more power.

 

You thought Europe’s INPERIAL ambitions were DEAD?

 

THINK AGAIN.

 

Ever since French and Dutch voters threw out the CONSTITUTION, Eurocrats have been busily introducing key elements of the DOCUMENT by the BACK DOOR.

 

A European Public Prosecutor…

 

a DEFENCE AGENCY…

 

a CHARTER of FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS…

 

a FOREIGN MINISTER…

 

all these and MORE ate being foisted on us anyway.

 

DEMOCRACY?

 

WHO CARES?

 

 

NOW Mr Mandelson [Meddlesome] wants to go the whole hog.

 

He says NATION STATES must SURRENDER even MORE SOVEREIGNTY for the sake of an expanding EU, and of course he speaks for BRUSSELS.

 

But examine the sorry reality behind his grandiose vision.

 

FRAUD is RAMPANT

 

THE MONSTROSITY of the COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

CONTINUES

 

And this week

 

EUROPE’S supposedly FREE MARKET is again exposed as a

SICK JOKE

 

Twenty years ago, this country passed the SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT, as part of a European -wide initiative to TEAR DOWN barriers to TRADE.

 

A GREAT IDEA

in

THEORY

 

[which could have been achieved by all Nation States out of a DESPOTIC and TOTALITARIAN EU -with Britain giving the LEAD?]

 

BUT in practice it is a FIASCO, with most of our ‘partners’ outrageously flouting the LAW (to the disadvantage of Britain, which generally abides by the rules).

 

NOT ONLY have Member States -notably FRANCE, GERMANY, SPAIN and ITALY -rigged their ENERGY MARKETS to frustrate FOREIGN COMPETITION, but also they and others have consistently

 

BROKEN THE RULES

 

on everything from

 

State Airlines to Telecoms.

 

NOW the [EU] COMMISSION reveals the SCALE of the LAW-BREAKING with a blizzard of actions against 17 members) including Britain, for a technical infringement [they HAD TO get us in the net with the true offenders]

BUT WILL ANYTHING CHANGE?

 

[

  General de Gaulle   knew of our DIFFERENCES and vetoed our ENTRY to the then EEC and since a number of ex-COMMISSIONERS of the EU have said the same about how we would be the right example of conduct in the EU. What a waste of 34 years and the BILLIONS of POUNDS we have spent on a Fool’s errand because of the

 

Nazi TRAITORS- Edward Heath  -Roy Jenkins and Geoffrey Rippon and countless others then and since and still today now within our midst.]

 

FRANCE isn’t suddenly going to abandon the protectionism it has got away with for years.

 

NEITHER WILL THE OTHERS.

 

The habit of cheating is ingrained in an EU that is institutionally dysfunctional, corrupt and remote.

AND AS ALWAYS THE OPINIONS OF ORDINARY VOTERS MATTER NOT A JOT.

 

* * *

[We believe that the ONLY WAY to get us out of the mess of the EU would be for a CAMPAIGN for every voter to wear conspicuously a EMBLEM of their love of FREEDOM out of the EU and the others to wear chains from their mobiles or wherever so everyone will know who is for FREEDOM and who for SLAVERY.

Until there is a positive identification of the opponents within our community the GOVERNMENT can always say that it is only a FRINGE element involved. It is time to put aside OUR NATURAL RESERVE and not be afraid to wear a

 

BADGE of FREEDOM

 

We realise that in history even in our own country over 700 years ago wearing of insignia of a people led to evacuation of the Jews from ENGLAND until their return under Cromwell.

 

Under the Nazi Regime we are all aware of the millions of Jews and many others who were murdered during the 2nd World War

 

THEIR INSIGNIA BROUGHT DEATH

 

BUT

 

OUR INSIGNIA WILL BRING FREEDOM

 

Unless we put the issue above a PARTY and make it ONE of each INDIVIDUAL making a CHOICE for either

 

SLAVERY

 

or

 

FREEDOM

 

This way it will be impossible for the likes of Nice-Guy Dave and his close buddy Tony and their ilk to denigrate those who wish to be

 FREE

 Who will make a stand with others -together of what ever political persuasion or none? If we lost a relative many of us would wear a black armband or sombre clothing. Surely the possible total lose of

 

ONE’S COUNTRY and FREEDOM

 

demands some identification by each who no longer wishes to stand by and see the

 

"Rights and Liberties"

 

of

OUR INHERITENCE

lost

FOREVER.

*

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

APRIL/06

[Amended version in 2008- to take account of events in June 2008]

HOME

H.F.1448

 
 
 
 

 HEALTH SLOT!

Cancer shame as UK survival rates lag behind the rest of the world: Demand for action to close 'appalling' gulf with other countries

 

  • Largest study of cancer survival ever puts UK towards bottom of global league
  • Study, published in The Lancet journal, analysed records of 37.5million patients
  • The pancreatic cancer survival rate in the US is nearly twice as high as in the UK 

 

 

Thousands of British cancer patients are dying early because NHS survival rates are trailing behind the rest of the world, a report has found.

The largest study of cancer survival ever conducted puts the UK towards the bottom of global league tables for several common cancers.

Health charities last night called for urgent action to close the 'appalling' and 'unacceptable' gulf with other nations, blaming slow diagnosis and poor treatment.

 

The study, published in The Lancet medical journal, analysed the records of 37.5million patients with 18 of the most common cancers, comparing survival rates for 71 countries (stock image)

While British cancer survival has improved slightly over the past 20 years, the country is being left behind by huge advances in other countries.

The study, published in The Lancet medical journal, analysed the records of 37.5million patients with 18 of the most common cancers, comparing survival rates for 71 countries.

The UK falls in the bottom half of the league table for seven cancers and only comes in the top ten for two. For years campaigners have warned that British survival rates are way behind those in Europe and the US, and studies suggest 10,000 deaths could be prevented each year if the UK merely hit the European average.

But the analysis shows Britain is also left trailing by developing nations such as Jordan, Puerto Rico, Algeria and Ecuador.

 

 

 

 

he data, from 2010 to 2014, shows that only 6.8 per cent of British pancreatic cancer patients survive for five years after diagnosis, putting the UK 47th out of the 56 countries that had full data for that cancer.

The pancreatic cancer survival rate in the US is nearly twice as high, at 11.5 per cent. But the UK is also surpassed by Latvia, South Africa and Argentina. For stomach cancer the UK comes 46th out of 60 countries, with only 20.7 per cent surviving five years, worse than Romania, Turkey and Malaysia.

 

d for ovarian cancer, which affects 7,400 British women a year, the UK comes 45th out of 59, with only 36.2 per cent surviving five years. Some countries achieve nearly double this survival rate.

Katherine Taylor, chief executive of Ovarian Cancer Action, said: 'This study highlights how appalling ovarian cancer survival rates are in the UK. Women deserve better. We need earlier detection and better treatments and we need them now.'

The study shows survival rates have slowly improved over recent years – but in other countries they have sped ahead.

For myeloid cancers, survival rates over the past 15 years have increased by 6.4 percentage points in Britain, but have risen by 17 points in the Czech Republic and 27 points in Sweden.

For oesophageal cancer, UK survival increased by 4.2 points, compared with 8.3 in Japan and 12.7 in Korea. Researcher Professor Michel Coleman, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the NHS has seen improvements in breast and rectal cancer survival – but money needs to be spent to see the same elsewhere.

'The proportion of GDP spent on healthcare is lower than other countries,' he said. 'We need to increase the spending on health services and stabilise the NHS rather than reorganising it every six months.'

He said he was particularly worried about pancreatic cancer rates, adding: 'Greater international efforts are needed to understand the risk factors for this rapidly lethal cancer and to improve prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment.'

 

While British cancer survival has improved slightly over the past 20 years, the country is being left behind by huge advances in other countries (stock image)

Anna Jewell, director of operations at Pancreatic Cancer UK, said: 'It's simply unacceptable that people's chances of surviving this disease beyond five years is still so low, and has improved so little when compared to the progress achieved in other cancers.'

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'Cancer is a priority for this Government and survival rates are at a record high – around 7,000 people are alive today who would not have been had mortality rates stayed the same as in 2010.

'We know there is more to do, and NHS England is implementing the recommendations of the independent Cancer Taskforce to save a further 30,000 lives a year by 2020.'

The NHS stressed that the study uses data collected before a new cancer strategy was launched in 2015.

An NHS England spokesman said: 'Figures show that cancer survival is now at an all-time high in England, as a result of better access to screening, funding for effective new treatments and diagnostics and continued action to reduce smoking.'

 

Read more: 332489/Cancer-shame-UK-survival-rates-lag-rest-world.html#ixzz56bxRcJWh
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*  *  *

 

 

 

  [WE ASK WHY ARE WE STILL SEEING CHARITY ADVERTS ON OUR SCREENS OF CALLS FOR WATER AND OTHER ESSENTIAL NEEDS WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE BILLIONS CONTRIBUTED BY BRITAIN AND OTHER NATIONS IS STILL NOT SOLVING THIS TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCE. OBVIOUSLY AS WE KNOW AT HOME IT IS THE WASTAGE OF VALUABLE RESOURCES ON DANCING GIRLS AND WHATEVER. THE BRITISH PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE FIRST CALL ON AID AS THERE IS ENOUGH LEFT WITH OTHER OUTSIDE CONTRIBUTIONS IF USED SENSIBLY FOR THE REST OF THE POOR IN THE WORLD. LET'S GET OUR PEOPLE WELL AND NOT USE AID AS A COMPETITION AND ALL WILL BENEFIT AT HOME AND ABROAD. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT APART FROM DEFENCE IS THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE IN THEIR SOON TO BE RETURNED WORLD RENOWNED DEMOCRACY.]

 

H.F.1467-

 
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

 

 

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018-

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018

 FEB-FREEDOM NOW-NEW- HOME PAGE-2018

THIS IS:

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018

 

MAGNA CARTA