- (1994 -Official Website - FEBRUARY-PT 5- 2019 )-

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019         FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019         FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2019         

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

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-PAGE 2-2019

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY.

*

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 19999-Speech -1000's of Links-

IMMIGRATION-

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

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

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS  FOREIGN AID FILE
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

 

*

HE ARGUED THAT:
 
By its nature, the duty of allegiance is in law "unalienable and perpetual". This language, from Foster`s Crown Cases (1743-1761), was quoted with approval at the trial of Sir Roger Casement in 1917. Casement had been arrested near Tralee, County Kerry, in1916, having been landed from a German U-boat to foment Irish defection. Allegiance was similarly defined at the capital trial of the supercilious Nazi wartime broadcaster, William ' Lord Haw-Haw' Joyce (1906-1946)
 
For the purposes of allegiance, foreign states are deemed either to be "in actual hostility", as in the case of Argentina in 1982,or "in amity", as in the case at present of the other European Union states. However, the condition of hostility or amity in no way disposes of the essential exclusiveness of perpetual and unalienable allegiance. No man can serve two sovereigns. When, therefore the late Sir John Fiennes (1911-1996) cunningly drafted the European Communities Bill, in 1972, and when on 17 October 1972, his unamended Bill became an Act subordinating British law to European law, there was wrought nothing less than the greatest constitutional revolution in Parliament's seven and a half centuries of existence. It was furthermore done without even a schedule of consequential repeals.
 
The politicians of the day, many of them unwittingly, voted to launch the nation on a path of "ever closer[ European] union" which could only lead to the United Kingdom becoming a subordinate offshore province of the United States of Europe. Those who engineered Britain's adherence to the
 
Treaties of Rome and of Maastricht, probably never even had Section 3 of thee Treason Felony Act 1848 drawn to their attention. In it , condemnation is incurred: "If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or dispose our most gracious Lady the Queen. . . from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom. . ."
 
Indicted and convicted offenders against this unrepealed law are subject to imprisonment "for the term of his or her natural life". Yet not a finger was lifted even when, on 7 February 1992, two Privy Counsellors, Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude, signed the Maastricht Treaty which , at a stroke, brought our Monarch under suzerainty of the European Union.
 
The Queen was thereby rendered subject to past and future judgments of the Court of the European Communities in Luxembourg, from which there is no appeal and which was thereby confirmed in authority over her Courts in which she was previously arraignable.
 
Article 8 of the Treaty of Maastricht which imposed all-embracing compulsory European citizenship on the Queen and all her United Kingdom subjects, without their express consent, did so " subject to the duties imposed thereby". These duties are undefined and are thus both unknown and unknowable. One of them is however perhaps discernable since the Maastricht Treaty left unamended Article 192 of the Treaty of Rome. This reads:
 
"Decisions of the Council or of the Commission which impose a pecuniary obligation on persons other than states shall be enforceable."
 
Since "pecuniary obligations" clearly includes taxation, and "perhaps other than states" must include the new recipients of compulsory European citizenship, we have here the legal authorization of a reserve power to levy new taxation from Brussels on each and every citizen of the 15 EU countries.
 
Of al the magical and mysterious processes involved in Britain's political integration with Europe, initiated by Macmillan and engineered by Heath from 31 July 1961 to17 October 1972, none is more remarkable than the absence of a single measure repealing any part of any of the four great Constitutional Statutes - Magna Carta of Edward 1, the Petition of Right(1627), the Bill of Rights (1688 ) and the Act of Settlement (1700). Perhaps Sir John Fiennes relied upon the doctrine of implied repeal, but certainly the electorate would have regarded express repeal as offending against the principle that nothing but their own demerit can deprive natural born subjects of their peculiar privileges, called their birthright, as enshrined in these hitherto durable constitutional bulwarks.
 
In Vauxhall Estates v. Liverpool Corporation 1932, it was established in law that "no Parliament may bind its successors" However, Article Q of the timeless Maastricht Treaty said that the Treaty "is concluded for an unlimited period" and it conveyed no right or mechanism for secession. It is nonetheless arguable that what one Parliament has done , that same or some succeeding Parliament can undo. In Blackburn v.Attorney General 1983, Lord Justice Megarry, in his judgment declared:
 
"As a matter of law, the Courts of England recognize Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence."
 
From the European Court of Luxembourg in 1972, the very year in which Parliament, at least temporarily, voted away its sovereignty in such large measure, came an unappealable judgment on the Treaty of Rome:
 
"The treaty entails a definitive limitation of the sovereign rights of member states against which no provisions of municipal law whatever their nature can be involved."
 
It was in reference to this Court that Sir Patrick Neill QC, former Warden of All Soul`s College, Oxford, coined the maxim; " A court with a mission is a menace; a supreme Court with a mission is a tyranny." The phrase was incorporated into the recent Euro-sceptic speech by the Home Secretary. (1996)
 
Those who see the erosion of British self -government (in defence of the 1,250,000 Britons died in the first half of this century) as emanating from the single Oxford college of Balliol, will be dubbed ' conspiracy theorists'. But the precise legal definition of a conspiracy is that it is an agreement between two or more people, unrelated in marriage, to behave in a manner that will automatically constitute an offence by at least one of them, though mens rea (guilty mind) is required by at least two co-conspirators. There is nothing theoretical about the way in which the Privy Counsellor's oath, which enjoined two Balliol educated Prime Ministers, Macmillan and Heath. And the first British President of the European Commission in Brussels (Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, also a Balliol man!):
 
"To bear faith bear faith and allegiance to the Crown and to defend its jurisdiction and powers against all foreign . . . persons . . . or states."
 
has been breached by these men.
 
What is further demoralizing is that no less than six subsequent Privy Counsellor's, following the precedent of Lord Jenkins in 1975, have each made a solemn declaration before the Luxembourg Court as European Commissioners:
 
"To perform my duties in complete independence in the general interest of the communities; in carrying out my duties".
 
This conflict of solemn undertaking can only mildly be described as duplicitous.
 
Unconstitutionality in the headlong dash to create the new European Super state is hardly confined to Britain. The Dutch draftsmen of the Maastricht Treaty included a stipulation in Article R that each and every country must ratify it "according to its own constitution requirements". Having got it ` wrong' the first time, Denmark's second referendum raised several studiously unanswered constitutional questions . No case was , however, more stark than the case of Germany herself. She has a unique Federal Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, with nine judges sitting in Karksruhe to guard their Constitution.
The creation of the European Union and Britain's continued self-governance was dependent on the verdict of this Court for , on 11 October 1993 , Germany's instrument of ratification was still undeposited in Rome. Without this twelfth and last document (the other 11 EU countries having ratified the Maastricht Treaty) the EU could not come into being. It transpired however that the terms approved by this supreme German national Court to permit ratification, were miles wide of the terms of the Treaty already signed by the German Government and the eleven other nations.
For instance, the Court declared:
 
"Article F does not empower the (European) Union to procure the financial means or other means it deems necessary to fulfill its purposes."
 
Yet that is precisely what Article F does say in the following words:
 
" The Union shall provide itself with the resources necessary to attain its objectives and carry out its policies."
 
Following a question in the House of Lords, Baroness Chalker, Minister of State in the Foreign Office, confirmed that indeed the European Union "can obtain financial resources to attain the Union's objectives."
 
In another area the Karksruhe Court calmly took for Germany an negotiated opt-out from the European Monetary Union (EMU) - something for which both Denmark and the United Kingdom had to negotiate by special protocol prior to signing. Both the Governors of the Bank of England and the Danish Central Bank have confirmed that there was and is no opt-out provision for Germany in the Treaty. The fact that the terms and conditions of the Maastricht Treaty, as approved by their Constitutional Court, simply do not exist. Hence Germany's rapid ratification was in clear breach of Article R of the Treaty itself. Since its ratification was invalid, the Maastricht Treaty itself has no proper legal standing.
 
Though earlier this year (1996) our Foreign Office made a legal assessment of the Treaty, it has not publicly disclosed the obvious and only conclusion. Perhaps we are waiting either until the going gets rougher or some wealthily corporation litigates to prove that some swingeing Brussels penalty is in fact unenforceable.
 
No sovereign state can survive without the concepts of allegiance and of breaches of allegiance being treasonable.
 
Can a European Super state survive without such internal defences? The answer must assuredly be that where solidarity is more, rather than less, fragile and tenuous, the as yet unfamiliar concept of Euro-treason will eventually be vigorously advanced. There does not appear to be any ready instrument for enforcement at the moment (1996) it is not however hard to predict that the draconian powers of the Luxembourg Court will soon bring the concept of Euro-treason into focus. We are told that the Europol is intended for apprehending cross-border criminals within the Union. But the beef crisis, the United Kingdom was about to acquiesce in its creation. Perhaps a fortuitous blow for freedom has been struck and magazine articles such as this will be safe from a Europol for a little longer.
Bully for beef!
 

 
From The Freedom Association www.tfa.net
 
2003

Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE ENGLISH WITH OTHER GERMANIC TRIBES CAME TO BRITAIN OVER YEARS AGO - THE STREAM OF TEUTONIIC INFLUENCE  HAS DECIDED THE FUTURE OF EUROPE****THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****    ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY /**** THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED? ****    ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/**** ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ON SHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY****EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****  THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 


 B.15

H.F.1804

*

 

 

['BULLY FOR THEM!']

 

[UKIP REVENGE]

 

*

 

Mail On Sunday | Daily Mail Online

by John Stevens Deputy Political Editor.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/index.html
Tory Remainers warn of 'purple Momentum' infiltrating party [UKIP]

PRO-REMAIN Tory MPs said last night the party was being taken over by former UKIP members amid fresh infighting over

BREXIT

 

Former mministers Nick Boles and Anna Soubry said a 'purple Momentum' was gaining control of some local Conservative associations and leaving their sitting MPs facing the

THREAT OF DESELECTION.

It came as Theresa May was warned that a dozen ministers will resign by the end of the month unless she agrees to pospone Brexit to prevent a

NO DEAL scenario.

Miss Soubry yesterday said the Conservative Party was 'broken' as the Prime Minister struggles to reconcile the warring factions. The former business minister who has been campaigning for a second referendum said even MPs loyal to Mrs May were facing the prospect  of being unseated because of the  arrival of hundreds of ex-Ukip supporters in their constituency association

[BLOODY GOOD SHOW]

They are now in control of the associations. We have got a "purple Momentum", I'm not exaggerating,' she told the BBC

[Brussels Broadcasting Contractor]

'I spoke to a colleague of mine and he was telling me that he is now being threatened with deselection because he

VOTED FOR THE PRIME MINISTER'S DEAL.

[THE SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVE PARTY HAVE FORGOTTEN THE MEANING OF THE PARTY NAME WHICH IS TO

CONSERVE

AND NOT DESTROY OUR FREEDOM-UNIQUE CONSTITUTION AND COUNTRY.]

TO BE CONTINUED.

FULL ARTICLE

*

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS.]

FEBRUARY 16,2019

 

H.F.1802

*

A REMINDER TO THOSE WHO STILL KOW-TOW TO

 BRUSSELS AND BERLIN

 

'...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

 

 

 The

 I was accused of being racist, I knew political correctness had gone MAD

 

 

Political correctness had gone mad, writes TREVOR ... - Daily Mail

 
 

EXTRACT

A FEW weeks ago I observed that Barack Obama's iconic status as the first African-American US President should not obscure his mixed political record

For that, I was accused by one Radio 4 commentator of peddling a 'racist narrative

As a black man and former chairman of the

EQUALITY and HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

you might think I would be surprised to face a charge of

RACISM

but I was not.

For at a time when this country is crying out for frank discussion on issues such as race and sexuality, debate is being closed down because those who find offence in everything cry

RACIST or SEXIST.

The result - as I argue tonight in a TV programe -is that our

POLITICAL and CULTURAL ELITE

 seem unable to speak plainly about things that concern many citizens .

While our rulers seem to have all the time in the world to debate who should use the lavatory (in deference to the transgender lobby), they dismiss anxieties about

OVERCROWDED SCHOOLS

 DOCTORS SURGERIES

as merely a bigoted dislike of migrants.

HOW HAS THIS COME ABOUT?

[To follow]

Hounded...

Tyranny...

Hapless...

 

 

 

 

Full article

 

Multiculturalism is no longer right for Britain

[Mr Phillips has known for many years that MULTICULTURALISM WAS NEVER RIGHT FOR BRITAIN and in fact NOT  RIGHT

ANYWHERE.]

 

 

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

('the creation of a common mind') is a Soviet concept: 'Political correctness' means the exact reverse of what it says: It means that lies, or an 'imposed truth', supplant the objective truth' the exact reverse of what it says: it means that lies, or an 'imposed truth' supplant the objective truth. 'Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism' states, in an essay entitled 'Marxism-Leninism as a Philosophy and a WorldOutlook', that'...in deciding other affairs [sic], methods of public influence, the influence of public opinion will be utilised'. In a collectivised society, 'the Communist man...[is] distinguished by conscious collectivism and deep concern for the common good'; but the issues which preoccupy him are those imposed upon his controlled and easily manipulated mind by 'political correctness'.  In his closing remarks to the 28th CPSU Congress on 13th July 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev said that the restructured' CPSU would become a truly vanguard party whose power lies not in giving orders but in influencing people's minds'.

THE EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

BY

CHRISTOPHER STORY

[WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF BULLETINS ON OUR WEBSITE SINCE 2005 DETAILING THE WORK OF THE ABOVE

A

TRUTH SEEKER AND PATRIOT

*

THE EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE

ENEMY OF ITS MEMBER STATES BY CHRISTOPHER STORY -

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

*

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

FEBRUARY 23, 2017

H F 1130 FREEDOM NOW

 

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

IMMIGRATION-ARCHIVE- EU FILE

 

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

*  *  *

 

The Balfour Declaration [1916] : Time to say sorry. Time we made amends.

By Stuart Littlewood on July 22, 2017

by Stuart Littlewood

 

In a letter to a local newspaper about Brexit and the way prime minister Theresa May is handling it, I happened to mention in passing the Balfour Declaration, criticising her plans to celebrate the centenary “with pride” and invite Israel’s PM Netanyahu to the fun. This drew a sharp response from someone spouting the usual Israeli propaganda ‘facts’ and saying my attitude harmed the Jewish community worldwide.

The Balfour Declaration is a deadly serious subject. It is a cause of great horror and grief, of justifiable international anger, and a matter for profound regret. This is a right time and proper time for debate. Let’s focus on it for the next few months because justice groups are urging the British Government to mark the Balfour Declaration centenary by saying sorry.

Mrs May could do some real good here. She could, at a stroke, help quell the destructive turmoil in the Middle East and begin repair to Britain’s tattered prestige. She could even open new trade routes into Islamic markets, vitally important as we leave the EU.

By eating a little humble pie and apologising on our behalf for 100 years of agony inflicted on lovely people in a lovely part of the world Mrs May could take a giant step for mankind on the world stage. She has between now and November to do it. Will she?

No, she’ll be celebrating Balfour in style with the Israeli prime minister and not giving a toss about the people Britain wronged.

Which is shocking when a UN report recently branded Israel an apartheid regime. It’s even more regrettable considering the desperate cry for help from the National Coalition of Christian Organizations in Palestine in an open letter to the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement, signed by over 30 organisations in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Here’s an extract: “We are still suffering from 100 years of injustice and oppression that were inflicted on the Palestinian people beginning with the unlawful Balfour declaration… followed by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza and the fragmentation of our people and our land through policies of isolation and confiscation, and the building of Jewish-only settlements and the Apartheid Wall…”

Mrs May needs a jolt.

When I enquired whether the Balfour Declaration is taught in our schools I was told ‘no’. So what exactly is it?

Arthur Balfour, British foreign secretary in 1917, penned a letter to the most senior Jew in England, Lord Rothschild – pledging the Government’s “best endeavours” to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Balfour also wrote: “We do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.”

It amounted to a betrayal of our Arab allies in WW1. Many in Parliament objected, including Lord Sydenham who remarked: “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 when the Great Powers carved up the territorial spoils of war a Zionist delegation produced Balfour’s promissory note. It planted a powder-keg in the Middle East and the fuse was now lit. Britain accepted the mandate responsibility for Palestine and eventually in 1947 the Great Powers pushed the United Nations into partitioning the territory, again without consulting those who lived there.

So what made Balfour do it? The more you delve, the more incredible the answers to those unaware of the growing influence of worldwide Zionism. Support for the movement and its ambition to create a New Israel was quite fashionable in the corridors of power around the time of WW1. The story I find compelling is that, while Britain struggled desperately against German U-boat successes and ammunition shortages, the Zionist power-brokers of Germany and Eastern Europe consulted with their opposite numbers in America and decided, given their grip on money and media, they could bring the US into the war against Germany and its Ottoman ally if Britain were to promise them Palestine for a Jewish homeland afterwards.

Balfour was a Zionist convert (as were many others including prime minister David Lloyd-George) and in the right position. The proposition was put to Britain in 1916. The Zionists delivered. The US entered the war. In the meantime immigrant Polish-Zionist chemist Chaim Weizmann offered a solution to the production of enough acetone, a critical ingredient in cordite for artillery shells, to satisfy the war effort. He demanded the same promise. Balfour handed them their ‘receipt’ in November 1917 even though Palestine was not, and never could be, Britain’s to give away.

‘Name of the game: erasing Palestine’

Balfour had inserted into his ‘declaration’ that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing and non-Jewish communities….” on the insistence of the only Jew in the British Cabinet, Lord Montague, who was anti-Zionist and opposed the deal. But this safeguard was jettisoned as soon as Britain lost control of events.

Not content with the territory allocated to them under the UN Partition Plan the Israelis declared statehood ignoring all boundaries. Their ‘Plan Dalet’ offensive, begun beforehand, had seized much Arab-designated land at gunpoint.  Jewish militia – the Irgun, Haganah, Palmach and Lehi – raided towns and villages forcing inhabitants to flee. Numerous attrocities were committed including the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (headquarters of the British administration) in 1946 murdering 91, and the massacres at Deir Yassin and Lydda in 1948.

Today Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the Old City, and has Gaza in a stranglehold so pitiless as to have caused a long-term humanitarian crisis and irreparable environmental damage. For nearly 70 years millions of dispossessed Palestinians and their families have languished in refugee camps, and those who remain in their homeland – Christian and Muslim alike – live a miserable life under brutal military occupation.

The situation stands as a monumental stain on the flag of the United Nations, which hasn’t the backbone to take action. And the continuing repercussions throughout the Holy Land should concern all true Christians and Muslims especially regular churchgoers like Mrs May.

Miko Peled, the son of an Israeli general and a former soldier in the Israeli army – and now an important figure in the struggle for justice – confirms what many have been saying for years: “The name of the game: erasing Palestine, getting rid of the people and de-Arabizing the country… By 1993 the Israelis had achieved their mission to make the conquest of the West Bank irreversible…. That is when Israel said, OK, we’ll begin negotiations…”

My critic in the local newspaper called Hamas terrorists. Peled describes the Israeli army, in which he served, as “one of the best trained and best equipped and best fed terrorist organisations in the world.” Take your pick. But Hamas’ political wing is not proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK.

The accusation that criticising the Israeli regime harms Jewish communities is unacceptable. There are many admirable Jewish groups vehemently campaigning against Israel’s crimes. One-time Israeli Military Intelligence chief Yehoshafat Harkabi warned that Jews throughout the world would pay the price of Israel’s misconduct. So the problem appears to be ‘family’ matter between Jews everywhere.

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 July 22, 2017, With 1416 Reads Filed under Government & Politics. 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.
 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

JULY 22-2017

FaceBook Comments

H.F.1261.-JULY 22,2017

*  *  *

[There is a well-known phrase:

'People's are not evil ONLY individuals are evil.'

We have no hatred for the Israeli people  of whom many of them at home and abroad in the USA and around the world hate ZIONISM and its brutal and destructive agenda. It thrives on WAR and EXPLOITATION and they are pushing ahead for a WAR against IRAN.

Unfortunately for the English people their traitorous PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON and many others in WESTMINSTER and in the country are the very SERVANTS of that hateful dogma which is leading towards a ONE-WORLD CORPORATISM/GOVERNMENT which apart from an ELITE and SLAVES there will be no place on PLANET EARTH for the majority of MANKIND.   As we have already mentioned about the SURPRISE ATTACK by ATTACK HELICOPTERS accompanied by a POLICE HELICOPTER on our property during the recent  PARLIAMENTARY RECESS.   WE understand that the FOREIGN Minister and BILDERBERGER William Hague is responsible for the Security Service MI6 and GCHQ -  possibly he could explain why the intrusive and noisy operation took place above a quiet country village at NOON on a Sunday.    Now we know why we received those visitors possibly from a USA BASE in the UK.  The WAR in LIBYA was but a stepping stone to the remaining non-ROTHCHILD CENTRAL BANKS countries who will fall in the very near future.       We have been WARNING for a few years for you to NOT!  vote for  the BILDERBERGERS the SERVANTS of the ILLUMINATI/ZIONISM who CONTROL the GOVERNMENT and so-called OPPOSITION parties at WESTMINSTER and  have no love for NATION STATES particularly those such as ENGLAND who still has some FREEDOM but that is now under THREAT as witnessed by the introduction of the CONTINENTAL SYSTEM of Corpus Juris into our

JewsnotZionists

*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-/

David-Cameron-doesn't-understand-Conservative-party.

[Well we are sure the majority of the population must feel the same way.  NO SUBSTANCE!-NO CONSERVATIVE and certainly NO STATESMAN but PR THROUGH AND THROUGH, and apart from a few politicians deserving such a term over the past 100 years the pick since the Second World War brings us but a few which are too obvious for us to note . We have to look to the Victorian Age to compare how so much that is now wrong with our society:

'Between 1871 and 1875 our birth-rate reached its highest point, round about 35 per thousand, and the United Kingdom population, which had been 27 million in 1851, rose in the next thirty years to nearly 35 millions.   In much the same period they invested over £1000 million overseas, while 2.[5] million British subjects migrated to the British Colonies and the United States.   The tonnage cleared in our ports grew from less than 15 millions to nearly 60 , almost one-third of the world's sea-going ships were British.   In 1850 exports were valued at £197millions but at £297 millions in 1874, imports rising even more from £100 millions to £370 millions , while at the last date the total foreign trade of Britain and her Colonies equalled that of France, Germany, Italy, and the United States all rolled together.   Except for the Crimea, ,the country was engaged in no major war .  Much that had been tentative  in the Empire of 1850 was made solid; Canada was confederated, Australian self-government determined, in India the mutiny was suppressed and government transferred to the Crown.   Memorable things were done for the life  of the mother State.   Universities were opened and reformed, the modern civil service created, education made universal, the parliamentary electorate doubled, the courts of law modenized, trade unions given their full status, and the position of women revolutionized.  As for the achievements of the spirit, in the years between Wordsworth death in 1850 and Carlyle's in 1881, a  great body of immortal British literature and thought was made:  by Tennyson, Browning, and Ruskin; Dickens, Thackery , and George Elliot; Newman and Mathew Arnold;  Macauly,  Mill, and T. H .Green, Darwin, Huxley , and Tyndall; Bagehot, Henry Maine, and Herbert Spencer; J. R .Green, [Lord} Acton and Froude; Meridith, Thomas Hardy, and William Morris; Westcott, Lightfoot, and Martineau; Clerk Maxwell and F.H.Bradley.'

-A HISTORY OF ENGLAND-by Keith Feiling-1948

[As many more people are now aware that since the 50's secret meetings of the BILDERBERGERS in the BILDERBERGER HOTEL in the Netherlands began with the aim of the destruction of the nation state to be replaced by a ONE-WORLD/CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT. It is no coincidence that the main-players on the political scene in England are these same traitors who meet in secret to discuss their satanic plans while attempting to be representatives of the people . As we have mentioned so many times how can these same individuals serve two masters-either the PEOPLE or the ILLUMINATI not BOTH.  But as shown above the PRESS and MEDIA in the main refuse to highlight this destructive subversive and traitorous element in our PARLIAMENT and the population at large appears not to be interested that their country is now ruled SERVANTS of a FOREIGN POWER.]

CLICKStartpage

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

real-tough-men-in-america-and-israel-are-against

-an-attack-on-iran.

*

[GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ENDEAVOUR BE ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH ALL FOREIGN POWERS BUT IT  IS NOT HEALTHY IN A DEMOCRACY THAT  THERE IS UNDUE INFLUENCE IN  RESPECT OF LOBBYING OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO'S PRIME OCCUPATION IS TO REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND NOT FOREIGN DOMAINS OF WHICH WE MAY HAVE REASON  TO CENSOR OR EVEN TO ENTER INTO CONFLICT.  IN A DIVISION IN THE HOUSE WHERE DOES THEIR LOYALTY LAY -TO ENGLAND OR ISRAEL- OR  TO WHOSOEVER?  IN VIEW OF THE CENTURIES ZIONIST HOLD ON THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION AND NO DOUBT OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS AROUND THE WORLD IT MAY USE POWER TO FURTHER ITS OWN AGENDA AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF FREE NATION STATES. AS FAR AS WE ARE AWARE THERE IS NO 'FRIENDS OF ENGLAND'

LOBBY GROUP IN PARLIAMENT LOOKING AFTER THE INTERESTS OF THE  ENGLISH PEOPLE.  IF THERE HAD BEEN IN THE 1970'S OUR COUNTRY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO A FOREIGN POWER -OUR ENEMY IN TWO WORLD WARS-

GERMANY.

ADDED JULY 28,2018

AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE EU WITHIN 6 MONTHS. NOT STILL IN AFTER 2 YEARS WITH AN EXIT DATE OF MARCH 29,2009.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

OCTOBER 21,2017

H.F.1355

*  *  *

 

Conservative Friends of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Conservative Friends of Israel, abbreviated to CFI, is a British parliamentary group affiliated to the Conservative Party, which is dedicated to strengthening business, cultural and political ties between the United Kingdom and Israel. CFI is an unincorporated association. It also seeks to strengthen ties between the British Conservative Party and the Israeli Likud party.

It was founded in 1974 by Conservative MP for Bury and Radcliffe, Michael Fidler. It is currently chaired by Stuart Polak. The Parliamentary Chairman is James Arbuthnot, the Parliamentary President is Baroness Shephard of Northwold. The Vice Chairmen are John Butterfill and James Clappison, the Secretary is David Amess, the Officers are Alistair Burt, Lee Scott, and Theresa Villiers, and the Chairman of CFI Europe is Timothy Kirkhope.

In 1995 Conservative politician Robert Rhodes James called it "the largest organisation in Western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel".[1]

By 2009, according to the Channel 4 documentary Dispatches – Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, around 80% of Conservative MPs were members of the CFI.[2] In 2013, Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator called CFI “by far Britain’s most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group”. The same is true of AIPAC in the US.”[3]

 

 

Activities[edit]

The group's 2005 strategy identified the following areas of activity: supporting Israel, promoting the British Conservative Party, fighting terrorism, combating anti-semitism, and promoting peace in the Middle East.[4] According to their website, "over two thirds" of Conservative MPs were members of Conservative Friends of Israel in 2006.[5] In 2007 the Political Director stated it had over 2000 members and registered supporters.[6] In 2009, at least half of the shadow cabinet were members of the group according to a Dispatches documentary.[7]

Their website states the opinion that it is one of the fastest growing political lobby groups in the UK.[8] According to the Dispatches documentary, between 2006 and 2009 the CFI funded more than 30 Conservative parliamentary candidates to visit Israel.[7]

In 2012 CFI reconstituted itself as a private company limited by guarantee.[9]

CFI annual business lunch[edit]

David Cameron, then newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, addressed the CFI annual business lunch on 30 January 2006, whose audience included half of the Conservative Parliamentary Party. As part of his speech, he stated "I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party. Israel is a democracy, a strong and proud democracy, in a region that is, we hope, making its first steps in that direction."[10]

Former Conservative party leaders Iain Duncan Smith[11] and Michael Howard[12] have addressed the CFI lunch.

The British Pakistani MP Sajid Javid has also made business lunch speeches which have been positively received by the CFI, the Jewish Chronicle even reporting Javid as a future Prime Minister.[13]

Donations[edit]

The Dispatches documentary claimed members of the group and their companies have donated over £10 million to the Conservative party between 2001 and 2009. The group called this figure "deeply flawed" saying that they have only donated £30,000 between 2004 and 2009 but that members of the group have undoubtedly made their own donations to the party. Dispatches described the CFI as "beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups".[2][7]

Members of CFI[edit]

According to the CFI website 80% of Tory MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel.[14]

In alphabetical order, members of Conservative Friends of Israel include:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Peter Oborne (12 December 2012). "The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 8 January 2013. 
  2. ^ a b Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, Channel 4, Monday 16 November 2009
  3. ^ Peter Oborne, Iran nuclear deal: ill-informed friends of Israel are refusing to face facts, Daily Telegraph, 27 November 2013, accessed 10 August 2015
  4. ^ CFI INFORMED Magazine, Second Edition (PDF), Conservative Friends of Israel, February 2007, p. 3, retrieved 29 May 2008 [dead link]
  5. ^ Conservative Friends of Israel – About Us
  6. ^ Robert Halfon (27 September 2007). "Introducing the CFI". ConservativeHome. Retrieved 20 August 2012. 
  7. ^ a b c Black, Ian (16 November 2009). "Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 16 November 2009. 
  8. ^ Conservative Friends of Israel web site
  9. ^ "Companies House WebCHeck - CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS OF ISRAEL LIMITED". Companies House. Company No. 08114952. Archived from the original on 29 December 2008. Retrieved 8 January 2013. 
  10. ^ CFI INFORMED Weekly Briefing (PDF), Conservative Friends of Israel, 3 February 2006, retrieved 25 May 2006 [dead link]
  11. ^ Duncan Smith: Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists, Conservatives.com, 10 December 2001
  12. ^ "Howard Speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel, at the Savoy Hotel, London". Conservatives.com. 6 December 2004. Archived from the original on 12 December 2004. 
  13. ^ http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/94117/muslim-tory-mp-after-britain-israel-best
  14. ^ a b "About CFI". Conservative Friends of Israel. Retrieved 5 August 2014. 
  15. ^ "Ministers "will change" war crimes arrest law". Jewish Chronicle. 8 July 2010. 
  16. ^ "Altrincham and Sale West: Election 2010". Jewish Chronicle. 29 April 2010. 
  17. ^ "UK: Evangelical Christian appointed new UK Middle East Minister". The Muslim News. 15 May 2010. Archived from the original on 22 March 2012. Retrieved 5 August 2014. 
  18. ^ "British MPs furious after Israel President Shimon Peres accuses the English of being anti-semitic". Daily Mail. UK. 1 August 2010. 
  19. ^ a b "Cameron's Cabinet: Who are they?". Retrieved 15 May 2011. 
  20. ^ "Mike's Biography". Retrieved 15 May 2011. 
  21. ^ "William Hague's Schmooze With The Jewish News". Totally Jewish. 25 March 2010. 
  22. ^ a b "Ministers lose seats in the East". East Anglia Daily Times. 7 May 2010. 
  23. ^ Black, Ian (16 November 2009). "Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims". The Guardian. London. 
  24. ^ "About Conservative Friends of Israel". cfoi.co.uk. Retrieved 22 September 2011. 
  25. ^ "Eric Pickles to lead MPs’ delegation to Israel". Jewish Chronicle. July 24, 2015. 
  26. ^ "Rifkind elected as Kensington MP". Jewish Chronicle. 7 May 2010. 
  27. ^ Sloan, Alaistair. "Ed Miliband will back Israel". Middle East Monitor. Retrieved 13 April 2015. 

External links[edit]

 

[GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ENDEAVOUR BE ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH ALL FOREIGN POWERS BUT IT  IS NOT HEALTHY IN A DEMOCRACY THAT  THERE IS UNDUE INFLUENCE IN  RESPECT OF LOBBYING OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO'S PRIME OCCUPATION IS TO REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND NOT FOREIGN DOMAINS OF WHICH WE MAY HAVE REASON  TO CENSOR OR EVEN TO ENTER INTO CONFLICT.  IN A DIVISION IN THE HOUSE WHERE DOES THEIR LOYALTY LAY -TO ENGLAND OR ISRAEL- OR  TO WHOSOEVER?  IN VIEW OF THE CENTURIES ZIONIST HOLD ON THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION AND NO DOUBT OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS AROUND THE WORLD IT MAY USE POWER TO FURTHER ITS OWN AGENDA AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF FREE NATION STATES. AS FAR AS WE ARE AWARE THERE IS NO 'FRIENDS OF ENGLAND' LOBBY GROUP IN PARLIAMENT LOOKING AFTER THE INTERESTS OF THE  ENGLISH PEOPLE.  IF THERE HAD BEEN IN THE 1970'S OUR COUNTRY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO A FOREIGN POWER -OUR ENEMY IN TWO WORLD WARS-GERMANY.

ADDED JULY 28,2018

AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE EU WITHIN 6 MONTHS. NOT STILL IN AFTER 2 YEARS WITH AN EXIT DATE OF MARCH 29,2009.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

OCTOBER 21,2017

H.F.1355

*  *  *

VIGILANCE IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY!

*

 QUOTE 684 of 900

ABOUT THE PROTOCOLS

Jewish objectives as outlined in Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:

1) Banish God from the heavens and Christianity from the earth.

2) Allow no private ownership of property or business.

3) Abolish marriage, family and home. Encourage sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, and fornication.

4) Completely destroy the sovereignty of all nations and every feeling or expression of patriotism.

5) Establish a one-world government through which the Luciferian Illuminati elite can rule the world. All other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose.

6) Take the education of children completely away from the parents. Cunningly and subtly lead the people thinking that compulsory school attendance laws are absolutely necessary to prevent illiteracy and to prepare children for better positions and life's responsibilities. Then after the children are forced to attend the schools get control of normal schools and teacher's colleges and also the writing and selection of all text books.

7) Take all prayer and Bible instruction out of the schools and introduce pornography, vulgarity, and courses in sex. If we can make one generation of any nation immoral and sexy, we can take that nation.

8) Completely destroy every thought of patriotism, national sovereignty, individualism, and a private competitive enterprise system.

9) Circulate vulgar, pornographic literature and pictures and encourage the unrestricted sale and general use of alcoholic beverage and drugs to weaken and corrupt the youth.

10) Foment, precipitate and finance large scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt the nations and thereby force them into a one-world government.

11) Secretly infiltrate and control colleges, universities, labor unions, political parties, churches, patriotic organizations, and governments. These are direct quotes from their own writings (The Conflict of the Ages, by Clemens Gaebelein pp. 100-102).

12) The creation of a World Government.

KGB CHART NOW TO DESTROY A PEOPLE AND NATION

More!

  

 

H.F.741

*  *  *

("IN MY VIEW BOTH THE BURKA AND NIQAB SHOULD BE

 

BANNED

 

 AS THEY HAVE BEEN IN FRANCE AND BELGIUM AND ELSEWHERE."

by

Dr Taj Hargey-

Director of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, and Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation)

Diversity should not trump right to a happy foster home | Daily Mail ...

 

...

Tuesday, August 29,2017

An

An obsession with diversity should NEVER trump a child's right to a happy foster home

The social services industry prides itself on its cultural sensitivity, especially when it comes to fostering and adoption.

Respect for background and identity is meant to be central to the process of finding a home for a vulnerable child.

But that ideal has utterly broken down in the case that emerged yesterday, in which it was reported that a five-year-old girl from a white Christian family was placed by Tower Hamlets council in London in two successive Muslim households.

Much to the child’s distress — as logged in confidential local authority reports seen by The Times — neither family seems to have shown much respect or understanding for her upbringing or faith.

One supervisor is reported to have described her sobbing as she begged not to go back to the carer’s home because

‘they don’t speak English’.

A necklace with a crucifix was apparently taken from her and she was told to learn Arabic. She was also told that ‘Christmas and Easter are stupid’ and ‘European women are stupid and alcoholic’. 

When, on a visit to her birth mother, she was given her favourite dish of spaghetti carbonara to take back to her foster home, she was banned from eating it because it contained bacon.

Compounding what must have been this child’s sense of alienation, her first carer, with whom she spent four months, is said to have worn the niqab — a face veil — when outside the family home.

In the second and current placement, her carer wore the all-enveloping burka and fully concealed her face in public.

(In my view, this is a garment that should have no place in British society. Both the burka and niqab should be banned, as they have been in France, Belgium and elsewhere.)

It is absolutely right that MPs demand an inquiry into this appalling example of forced cultural convergence.

Social services bosses love to prattle about human rights, but the treatment of this little girl represents a denial of her most basic rights.

If the reports are correct, she has been plunged into an unfamiliar environment of language, creed and dress code, where her carers make plain they have little time for her family or heritage.

To a young child, of course, such words mean little — but we can imagine her confusion and anxiety at the apparent hostility towards her background, the dismissive description of its women and its ancient festivals.

And let’s not forget that she is likely to have been traumatised already by difficult family circumstances.

This is yet another case in which the dogma of liberal political correctness appears to have triumphed over common sense. How else could one even begin to rationalise placing this child in strict Muslim households?

Here is what should happen now. The girl should be removed immediately from her current foster parents to a more appropriate placement. Then the social workers and their line managers who made this insensitive decision should be named, shamed and dismissed.

Alienation...

*

Poisonous...

*

Tolerance...

*

Full article

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4831638/Diversity-not-trump-right-happy-foster-home.html#ixzz4r8xRffzN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

 

 

IMMIGRATION FILE

*

ENGLAND A MONOCULTURE-TOLERANT -NOT MULTICULTURE

*

THE MAKING OF LONDONISTAN

*

THE VEIL-THE CROSS-A VITAL DEBATE over the HEART and SOUL of OUR NATION.

*

WHY WE MUST BE FIRM WITH MUSLIM EXTREMISTS AND WHY CITIZENSHIP MEANS FULL INTEGRATION.

*

TONY BLAIR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND

WHY WE MUST BE FIRM WITH MUSLIM EXTREMISTS AND WHY CITIZENSHIP MEANS FULL INTEGRATION.

 

H.F.1289

*  *  *

 

ENGLAND A MONOCULTURE

- TOLERANT-A CLEAR IDENTITY-A OLD COUNTRY-A SENSE OF CONTINUITY

-NOT MULTICULTURAL.

*

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Wednesday, June 7,2006

*

 Britain is an old country and our ways deserve respect.

by

Simon Heffer

 There are few things more enjoyable than when a Leftie admits, or pretends to admit, he was wrong.

 We saw it a year ago when Trevor Phillips, commissioner-in-chief of the Commission for racial Equality, said that

MULTICULTURLISM

 -had not been a huge success, and that those from other cultures who came here were better off learning to be British.

 

[‘When in Rome do as the Romans do’ so those fortunate to find a home in England need to concentrate on English culture and those who go West or North of the border will soon get to know how to integrate with the local scene.

We have a Queen of England -We have a Church of England- just about so long as the Man of many Faiths does not get his way. We have English Law -just about, and so many things of English origin and practice that we would be repeating ourselves to declare an interest.

 

[The term British we leave as an overall label to embrace England as a partner with the other sister nation states in our island home and we hope one day our neighbours will come to the realisation that their interests should also include the interests of the People of England who by the way are getting quite fed-up with the way they pay the lion’s share of their increased benefits without the right to have their solely English issues raised in OUR House of Commons the concern of English MPs ONLY. ]

  

To Continue:

 I think [Trevor Phillips] he was sincere. I am less sure about Gordon Brown, who bores about Britishness almost daily.

It is a sort of thing that allows a socialist such as Mr Brown to fake some point of contact with conservative-minded patriots.

 It is also his way of trying to hide the fact that his own party’s policies have split up the United Kingdom and made his position, as a Scot sitting for a Scottish seat who wants to be Prime Minister mostly of

ENGLAND

-somewhat precarious.

Not all the Left has, however twigged that

MULTICULTURLISM

-is rather last century.

Someone of whom I hoped we had heard the last, the former

Archbishop of Canterbury-Lord Carey

-made a predictable intervention in this debate from beyond the grave last weekend.

 

He proclaimed that the Coronation of our next monarch must be an “interfaith” event. The ceremony must, he added, “have “very significant changes”, so that it is “inclusive” of other religions in Britain.

 

Lord Carey clearly has in mind what Private Eye would term a “Rocky Horror” coronation service. Never mind your archbishops, or even your Christians, your imams, your rabbis, ayatollahs, your assorted holy men and other diverse priests, layers -on-hands and speakers-in-tongues: in accordance with the professions of religious belief on the 2001 census forms, I expect to see a few Jedi knights in the sanctuary, while devotees of Ras Tafari smoke ganja at the high altar. And, as one of the realm’s noisiest atheists, I hope for a part in the proceedings, too, that I might feel “included”.

 

Having long regarded the Church of England as many people regard EastEnders, I have steeled myself not to intrude in its private grief, but to lament the largely self-inflicted decline of this great institution. Though it has, to my great spiritual regret, nothing to offer me personally, I can appreciate not merely the potential it has to succour and strengthen millions of believers, but also its role in

OUR CULTURE

OUR CONSTITUTION

OUR NATION

 

At the heart of this remains the great legacy of the

 

REFORMATION

  -that the

Monarch

 

is Supreme Governor

of the

Church of England.

-which is the Established Church of this Realm.

 

As the 37th of the 39 Articles (“on the Civil Magistrates”) puts it,

 

“the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this

Realm of England.

 

Quite right: and were we to update that Article as we fetishistically seek to update everything else, we might also add that no mullahs, rabbi, Jedi or Rastafarian has any jurisdiction here.

 

However, intrude into the Church’s grief we now must: for Lord Carey’s successor on the throne of St Augustine, Dr Rowan Williams, who in many regards seems even more to inhabit the wilder shores of the theology than Lord Carey, is having none of this nonsense.

 

He has picked up on the threat issued by our probable next monarch, the Prince of Wales, in 1994 about how (in that very “ last century” spirit) the Prince wanted to be

 

“Defender of Faiths”

 

Some of us boring old pedants saw the stupidity of this at the time. It is not in a King’s job description to defend “faiths”, and cannot be unless the whole constitutional arrangement that binds Church and State is unravelled.

 

More to the point, the notion of defending “faiths” imposes the King on secular legal matters -for the practising of faiths other than that of the Established Church is defended in fact by various Acts of Parliament- in which he has no place.

 

Although one has never been entirely sure that the Prince of Wales has fully grasped this point, he is NOT a politician; and few things these days are more political than the right to profess assorted faiths that NOT traditional to this country.

 

Dr Williams said of the Prince in 2003 that “Unless something really radical happens with the Constitution, he is, like it or not,

 

Defender of the Faith

 

-and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind that he does not have with other communities”.

 

THAT IS SELF-EVIDENTLY THE CASE.

 

Of course, were our Queen to emulate her late mother (and I fervently hope she does) there will be no Coronation for another 20 or so years.

 

Perhaps the needless vandalism of

 

OUR CONSTITUTION

 

-will have been completed by then.

 

Perhaps there will be a different heir to the throne [Prince William]. Perhaps the moon will be made of green cheese. Until such times as these things happen, Dr William’s view must prevail, and his predecessor would be best advised to keep his bizarre views to himself.

 

For the Coronation Service, religious though it be, is about more than religion.

 

When the time comes, only a relatively small section of our people (and by no means just Christians, let alone Anglicans) would savour the religious significance of the EVENT.

 

For the rest of us, the symbolism will transcend the religious. Some will see the CONSTITUTIONAL point, and realise how the traditional form of words and practices provides us with a Monarch who will carry on business as usual.

 

For most of those watching the their plasma screens, however, the day will be about a sense of familiar NATIONAL IDENTITY

-embodied, however much or little they realise it, in the person of the

NEW SOVEREIGN.

 

Now, Lord Carey might argue that altering the service to “include” Shias, Sunnis, Hindus, Zoroastrians and Jehovah’s Witnesses would not altar that symbolism:

 

But he would be WRONG!

 

It is not only that too many of our people have seen newsreels of the last Coronation 53 years ago, and therefore have a fixed cultural idea of what it is supposed to be. It is about the NEW MONARCH, and the CEREMONY of CORONATION of which he is the heart, fitting in with what his people understand, implicitly or explicitly, about THEMSELVES, and the NATION of which they are A PART.

 

It is Trevor Philip’s point writ large: -it is about a country being given its cultural stability partly by

HISTORY and TRADITION

-and about people buying into that when they choose to become A PART of the COUNTRY.

 

That is what inclusiveness means: It is how countries as diverse as France and America both do things. It is about having a template of Frenchness or American-ness, and welcoming people into that civilisation and THOSE humane values by asking them to participate in them. We still, despite the attempts of such VANDALS as LORD CAREY, have a core CULTURE in this COUNTRY.

 

Christianity and the expectation that Christianity will, for historic reasons prevail and be accepted as prevalent, are central to that CULTURE. And a few events in the nation’s life symbolise such an understanding more than the traditional coronation service.

 

The next CORONATION will be a formal renewal of

OUR WAY OF LIFE

And

OUR VALUES.

 

It will formally recognise not only the legitimacy of the MONARCH in the eyes of GOD and the BRITISH constitution, but also of the identification of the vast majority of his subjects with the process of doing so. For that reason above all others it must be clear, comprehensible and in keeping with public expectations of such an event.

 

WE ARE NOT A MULTICUTURAL SOCIETY

 

WE ARE A MONOCULTURAL ONE -TOLERANT OF OTHER CULTURES.

 

AND WHOSE CLEAR IDENTITY IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PEOPLE - IF NOT BY THEIR LEADERS.

 

WE ARE AN OLD COUNTRY WITH A STRONG SENSE OF CONTINUITY.

 

AND ANYONE WHO TRIFLES WITH SUCH MANIFESTATIONS OF OUR ANTIQUITY AND STABILITY DOES SO AT HIS PERIL.

 

* * *

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

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOLLOWS

*

BRITISH CONSTITUTION

BY HENRY LORD BROUGHAM F.R.S.

MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FRANCE

MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF NAPLES

1844

 

GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND

 

CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND

 

Before we commence with extracts from the above we need to investigate the term British and what it meant in 1908 and the confusion that has arisen since the devolution has occurred in Scotland in their Scottish Parliament and the Assembly in Wales.

 

To assist us in this regard we have the brilliant Constitutional History of England (1908) by the learned Professor F.W Maitland an authority of world renown.

*

 

Nationality and Domicile

 

In speaking of king and parliament we are no longer speaking of what in strictness of language are merely English institutions; the parliament represents the United Kingdom, and king and parliament have supreme legislative power over territories which lie in every quarter of the globe.

 

Of this parliament we must speak.

 

Below it there are many institutions, some of which are specifically Scottish, Irish, Canadian, Australian, Indian; for example the judicial systems of England, Ireland and Scotland are distinct from each other, though at the supreme point they unite in the House of Lords.

 

It is of great importance to distinguish those institutions which like the kingship and the parliament are (we can hardly avoid the term) imperial institutions, from those which like the

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

-are specifically English, and I strongly advise you not to use the words England and English when you mean what is larger than England and more than English.

 

When we have dealt with the institutions, which have power over all the British dominions, we shall, being Englishmen in an English university, deal with some purely English institutions the High Court of Justice, not with the Scottish Court of Sessions -but let us keep this distinction firmly in our minds; if we are Englishmen, we are subjects of a sovereign whose power extends over millions and millions of men who are not English. [1908]

 

Let me illustrate this by a further remark. There are two conceptions, which are of great importance to students of international law:

 

-the one nationality, the other domicile.

 

Now there is no such thing as English nationality, and there is no such thing as British domicile. [1908]

The Englishman, the Scot, the Irishman, the Canadian, and the Australian -all of these have a nationality in common. [1908]

 

If there be a war between the United Kingdom and a foreign power, say France, all of them are enemies of the French, any of them who side with the French are traitors. [1908]

 

But there is no such thing as British domicile -

Because there is no one system of private law common to all the British dominions; a man is domiciled in England or Scotland or New Zealand, and to a very large extent the law under which he lives varies with his place of domicile.

 

If I abandon my English domicile, and become domiciled in Scotland, this will have important legal results for me, but my nationality remains what it was. So by England let us mean England, a land, which consists of fifty-two counties [1908]

 

We have included the above extracts from

The

 

CONSTITUTIONAL

HISTORY

OF

ENGLAND

 

by

 

F.W MAITLAND [1908]

 

-to show the destruction of the British Constitution over the past 75 years and particularly in the last nine years under Blairdom has shown that the title of British has led to much confusion as the foundation of that concept has now been undermined with the Englishman having to pretend that there is in fact a British Constitution when we have a Scottish Parliament and an Assembly in Wales no doubt in time to be a parliament.

 

The term BRITISH should ONLY be used when it concerns ALL the nation States within our island home -such as with Defence as virtually all other matters have been handed over to the other national bodies in Scotland and Wales.

 

Let us hear no more about Britishness but more about Englishness-Scottishness and Welshness because that is the situation we find ourselves in 2006.

To return to Britishness in our shared island there needs to be a return of an

English Parliament.

Only then will the term British regain its true meaning.

To continue:

BRITISH CONSTITUTION

BY

LORD BROUGHAM

*

CHAPTER VIII

 THE National Resistance was not only, n point of Historical fact, the cause of the Revolutionary settlement, it was the main foundation of that settlement; the structure of the government was made to rest upon the people’s

Right of Resistance

[Even in 2006]

-as upon its cornerstone; and it is of incalculable importance that this never should be lost sight of.

But it is of equal importance that we should ever bear in mind how essential to the preservation of the CONSTITUTION, thus established and secured, this principle of RESISTANCE is; how necessary both for the governors and the governed it ever must be to regard the recourse to that extremity as always possible -an extremity, no doubt, and to be cautiously embraced as such, but still a remedy within the people’s reach; a protection to which they CAN and WILL resort as often as their rulers make such a recourse necessary for self-defence.

 

[DO YOU UNDERSTAND

TONY BLAIR?]

 

The whole history of the CONSTITUTION, which we have been occupied, in tracing from the earliest ages, abounds with proofs how easily absolute power may be exercised, [AS in 2006] and the RIGHTS of the people best secured by LAW be trampled upon, while the theory of a FREE GOVERNMENT remains unaltered. [AS in 2006] and all institutions framed for the CONTROL of the EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [AS in 2006] and all the LAWS designed for the protection of the subject, continue as entire as at the moment they were first founded by the struggles of the PEOPLE, and cemented by their labour or their BLOOD.

The thirty renewals of

MAGNA CARTA

-the constant and almost unresisted invasions of the exclusive right of PARLIAMENT to levy taxes by the Plantagenet Princes of the House of York -the base subserviency of the PARLIAMENT [AS in 2006] to the vindictive measures of parties, alternately successful, during the troubled times of the Lancaster line -the yet more vile submission to the same body to the first Tudors -their suffering arbitrary power to regain its pitch after it had been extirpated in the seventeenth century -the frightful lesson of distrust in Parliament, and in the institutions and all laws , taught by the ease with which Charles II [AS with Tony Blair in 2006] governed almost without control, at the very period fixed upon by our best writers as tat of the Constitution’s greatest theoretical perfection-and , above all, the very narrow escape which this country had of absolute Monarchy, by the happy accident of James II choosing to assail the religion of the people before he had destroyed their liberty, and making the Church his enemy instead of using it as his willing and potent ally against all civil liberty- these are such passages in the history of our government as may well teach us to distrust all mere STATUTORY securities; to remember that JUDGES, PARLIAMENTS, and MINISTERS, as well as KINGS, are frail men, the sport of sordid propensities, or vain fears, or factious passions; and that the people never can be safe without a constant determination to resist unto death as often as their

RIGHTS are INVADED.

The main security which our institutions afford, and that which will always render a recourse to the

RIGHT of RESISTANCE

 

-less needful, must ever consist in the pure constitution of Parliament-the extended basis of our popular representation. This is the great improvement, which it had received since the REVOLUTION…

 

In 1831 and 1832 the Parliamentary constitution was placed upon a wider and more secure basis; and although much yet remains to be accomplished before we can justly affirm that all classes are duly represented in Parliament, assuredly we are no longer exposed to the same risks of seeing LIBERTIES destroyed, and the same hazard of having to protect ourselves by resistance; nor can any one now deny that the democratic principle enters largely into the frame of our MIXED MONARCHY

 

This great change is much more than sufficient to counterbalance all the increase of influence that as been acquired by the CROWN since the REVOLUTION, including the vexations which unavoidably attend the administration of our fiscal laws for the collection and protection of a vast revenue, and the creation of a numerous and important body. Always averse to struggle under the worst oppressions, and always the sure ally of power- I mean the vast and wealthy body of public creditors, whose security is bound up with the existing order of things.

 

The great virtue of the

 

CONSTITUTION of ENGLAND

 

-is the purity in which it recognises and establishes the fundamental principle of all mixed governments; that the supreme power of the STATE being invested in SEVERAL BODIES, the consent of each is required to the performance of any legislative act; and that no change can be made in the laws, nor any addition to them nor any act done affecting their lives, liberties, or property of the people, without the full and deliberate assent of each of the ruling powers.

 

The ruling powers are three:

 

The Sovereign

 

The Lords

 

The Commons

 

-of whom the Lords represent themselves only, unless in so far as the Prelates may be supposed to represent the Clergy; and the Scotch Peers to represent, by election of parliament, and the Irish, by election for life, the peerages of Scotland and Ireland respectively; the Commons represent their constituents, by whom they are for each parliament elected [1844].

If it should seem an exception to the fundamental principle now laid down that the CROWN has the power of making

 

PEACE and WAR

 

-and of entering into treaties with foreign states, operations, by which the welfare of the subject may be most materially affected, it is equally true that NO WAR can possibly be continued without the support of both Houses of Parliament; and that no peace concluded, or treaty made, can be binding, so as to affect any interests of the people, without subsequent approval in PARLIAMENT.

 

The Sovereign, [PRIME MINISTER] therefore, never can enter into any war, or pursue negotiation, without a positive certainty that the Parliament will assent to it and support the necessary operations, whether of hostility or of commercial regulations; and thus the only effect of this prerogative is to give due vigour and authority to the action of the Government in its intercourse with foreign powers and its care of the

NATIONAL DEFENCE.

 

[In 2005] the CROWN or in other words the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom [no longer united -by the way] signed twenty-five times the TREATY of ROME for Britain to become part of a

UNITED STATES OF EUROPE

-without the consent of the electorate who had been promised a

 

REFERENDUM

 

- on the constitutional issue raised but no date was given to enable the People to decide their future in EUROPE.

 

So we had Tony Blair signing a Treaty which had not received the consent of Parliament because of the obvious condition of a Referendum had not been satisfied.

IF THIS IS NOT TYRANNY

 

WHAT IS?

 

The following extracts are from the

 

PREFACE

 

of the

BRITISH CONSTITUION

 

By

 

HENRY, LORD BROUGHAM F.R.S.

[1844]

 

GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND

 

…It is quite impossible to understand accurately the principles of that Constitution without studying its history in all times; and an attentive examination of that history is fruitful of most important practical truths for the government of men’s conduct in the present day.

 

It shows that is country alone of the European states has in all ages possessed the great benefit of a Legislature distinct from the Executive Government, the

 

Sovereign of ENGLAND

 

-never having at any period had the power of making general laws. But it likewise shows most clearly that this or any other institution

can give little security to the liberties of the people, - little obstruction to the maladministration of public affairs.

 

The lesson taught by the history of our Constitution in all ages, is that unless the people continue watchful over their rights and their own interests, the best constructed system of polity can afford them no shelter from oppression, no safeguard against the mismanagement of their concerns.

 

It may be very wrong to say that forms of Government are of no importance, and that the best system is the one best administered.

 

But it is assuredly a truth to which all History bears testimony, that the chief advantage of free institutions is there enabling men to obtain wise and an honest administration of their affairs; that the frame of Government approaches to perfection in proportion as it helps those that live under it to watch the conduct of their rulers, aiding them when right, checking them when wrong; and, above all, that no

 

CONSTITUTION

 

-however excellent, can supersede the necessity or dispense with the duty of constant vigilance.

 *

[In every Revolution there are those that decide on the crucial issues but there are many who leave the contesting to others but are themselves pleased to obtain the fruit of the victory without the toil and hardship that brings it about.

 

It is the same today in JUNE 2006 as it was in the civil war of the seventeenth century when those passionate about their country and claimed their just rights and liberties while parts of England were a neutral zone.]

WHICH PARTY ARE YOU?

ARE YOU A LOOKER ON?

ARE YOU CONTESTING?

 

* * *

 

MULTICULTURLISM

 

IMMIGRATION FILE

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

JUNE/06

H.F.1472--BROUGHT FORWARD FROM JUNE 2006

*  *  *

 

 
Letters to the Daily Mail-BREXIT SPECIAL, -Monday,November 19,2018 

 

Time to show some moral fibre

How many of those like me who participated in World War 11 would have chosen to capitulate in the way the Prime Minister has in her Brexit negotiations with the EU

I will be 96 this week and am housebound, but my life wasn't always like this . At 17, in early 1940, I joined the RAF ,serving in Bomber Command at RAF Brize Norton and also at Bletchley  Park. Posted to the Air Ministry in London. I was bombed out and 15 girls in my billet died. My husband was a wireless operator and rear gunner, who returned home from he two-year siege of Malta, weighing five stone. We had determination, pride and above all, moral fibre.

I feel that the once-proud UK has been asset stripped, ground down and told what to do by unelected bureaucrats in Europe. I knew exactly what I wanted from the referendum

TO LEAVE THE EU

I fear for the generations that follow me because the EU seems to want nothing more that to become a FEDERAL STATE.

WHY CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT SHOW SOME MORAL FIBRE?

I AM SO ASHAMED OF THEM ALL

 

Letters to the Daily Mail-BREXIT SPECIAL, -Monday, November 19,2018

R M Wangford -SUFFOLK

[AS a pensioner couple of 87 and 89 we can understand the feelings of the above patriots and only a few days ago we watched the film the DARKEST HOUR. There was a sequence in the film when Winston Churchill was being driven in London after getting so much opposition to his plans from pro German-peace faction and suddenly when his vehicle stopped at a road junction near a tube station he suddenly without notice left the vehicle  in the vicinity of a underground railway station in London and entered it and went on to the platform where the many travellers recognised him. When a tube train arrived he entered the train and was soon in conversation with all the occupants of his carriage to the point that he conversed with everyone getting their names and there feelings about fighting the war and they without exception said the war must be fought vigorously and valiantly until VICTORY.  Later when he addressed members of the Cabinet he mentioned the names of those patriots and related their feelings of solidarity with their Prime Minister.  The climax of the film was as the to the end with Winston's speech before the HOUSE which included towards the end with:

We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. we shall fight them in the hills; we shall never surrender.-Winston Churchill.

By this time the once quiet Opposition benches suddenly joined the Government benches and  broke into a stirring clammour of support with hundreds of order papers being thrown into the air with gusto. The House was united for WAR and Churchill had won.]

Today, the feelings of the above patriotic pensioners show how our country after 46 years within Hitler's so-called EU how millions of our once proud patriots are now fellow - travellers of the

UNDEMOCRATIC-UNREPRESENTATIVE - CORRUPT - COSTLY-EU

SOON TO BE A

SUPER-STATE]

 

 

H.F.1424/3

 
 
 

EU QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

There are over 1000 Bulletins on the EU in our

BULLETIN FILE and EU FILE

 CLICK FOR TOP TOPICS

JUNE -2009

1]     EUROFACTS -   THE REALITY BEHIND THE EU

2]     WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EU ?

3]     THE TRUTH OF A FEDERAL EUROPE-PARTS1-4

4]     THE 1701 ACT OF SETTLEMENT-WHY IT SHOULD  CONCERN YOU!

5[      THE BRITISH LEGACY -CANADA-AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND

6]      COMMONWEALTH REALMS VERSUS THE NEW CONSTITUTION  OF EUROPE

7]     OUR BASIC LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS SURRENDERED TO A FOREIGN POWER

8]      MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN

9]       OUR QUEEN AND EU CONSTITUTION

10]    VALERY GISCARD'ESTAING -WHY HE IS CALLED X

11]    THE ROTTEN HEART OF EUROPE by BERNARD CONNOLLY

12]   'I SAY WE MUST NOT JOIN EUROPE'-FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY-(1962)

13]    PREVIOUS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SAYS WE MUST RETAIN OUR ANCIENT CONSTITUTION

14]    THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS THE  LAW OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES.

15]    A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION - CONSPIRATORS NAMED (1993)

 WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTINENT

17]    COST of EU to UK-£4.8billion = 40 DISTRICT HOSPITALS-EQUIPPED -_STAFFED-AND FUNDED.

18]    WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON ABOUT THE EURO.

19]     200 MORE REASONS TO WHY TO REJECT THE EURO AND THE EU

20]    100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU-PT1          100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU-PT2

21]    THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

22]    UK CONTRIBUTION TO BRUSSELS: BIG INCREASE IN 2005

23]   EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE

24]    BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENTS SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL

25]    FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENTS BY PAYOUTS

26]    SIGNS OF AN EU POLICE STATE

27]    NINETY-NINE COUNTRIES HAVE FREE TRADE WITH THE EU-WITHOUT PAYING A CENT TO BRUSSELS.

28]    IT IS TIME TO CONSIDER OURSELVES-IN A COMMONWEALTH FREE TRADE AREA

29]   BRITAIN MUST LEAVE THE EU AS UN SHOW BEST AREA FOR EXPANSION WILL BE USA/ANGLO-SAXON SPHERE

30]    WAVE GOODBYE TO THE EU AND MAKE EUROPE A BETTER PLACE   

31]    LORD STODDART PINS DOWN BLAIR GOVERNMENT ON COST OF EU -JUNE 2007.

32]    BRITISH VOTERS MUST GET A SAY ON NEW EU TREATY-[JUNE-2007] -NOT MUCH LUCK HERE!

33]    ALMOST 50% OF EU BUDGET SPENT ON CAP FATCATS

34]    SO WHY DON'T WE LEAVE THE EU

35]    WHY BRITISH BUSINESS IS TURNING AGAINST THE EU

36]    BRITISH CONSTITUTION-IDENTITY AND VALUES

37]    MODERN DILEMA IN POLITICS-TWEEDLEDEE AND TWEEDLEDUM.

38]    LETTER FROM LORD KILMUIR TO TED HEATH WITH TRUE FACTS OF EU

39]  

 

 

 INTERVIEW WITH RUSSIAN DISSIDENT WHO WARNED OF EU DICTATORSHIP

40]   The Truth About A Federal Europe - Part I

41]   Cost of EU to UK - £4,811 million in 2003= 40 District Hospitals equipped and staffed and funded.

42]  CAN THE 1972 ACCESSION TREATY TO THE EU BE REPEALED?

43]  Neil Kinnock in glover - but failed to stop the Shadow of graft over EU’s £68bn spending.

44]  Now the EU wants a single Foreign Office to replace Nation-States Embassies.

45]   How the EU takes over Nation-States.

46]  A Fabian Europhile of 1947 supported Independent Nation-States and the Rule of Law

47]     The New European Constitution - Part 1

48]  12-Point Summary of EU Constitution continued - Part 2

49]  The New European Constitution - Part 1

50]  An Englishman’s checklist to how Pro-EU faction in ALL Parties is overturning our Ancient Constitution.

51]   Britain takes over as biggest contributor to the EU Budget

52]  Neil Kinnock sacked honest Auditor because of refusal to sign off questionable EU Accounts.

53]    General De Gaulle acclaims British national institutions back in 1960.

54]    Brussels scams can let an MEP fiddle £60,000 a year.

55]  The European Constitution - Questions and Answers - A Plain Man’s Guide - Part 1

56]    The European Constitution - Questions and Answers - A Plain Man’s Guide - Part 2

57]    Europe and a conspiracy of Silence.

58]    Ninety-nine countries will soon have Free Trade with EU -without paying a cent to Brussels.

59]   Britain must leave the EU as UN show best area for expansion will be USA-Anglo.Saxon sphere.

60]  82 million Germans have no say as MP’s back EU Constitution.

61]    The EU big brother policy reaches back over two millennium.

62]     Europe: It’s the modern version of the white man’s burden.

63]    E U COUNCIL OF MINISTERS.

64]    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

65]    German - Nazi - Geopolitical Centre established in Madrid in 1943 by Heinrich Himmler.

66]     What were the Dark Actors Playing Games, which the patriot Dr David Kelly referred?

67]    DEMOCRACY IS A DIALECTICAL FARCE BECAUSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES CALL THE SHOTS NOT SO-CALLED DEMOCRACIES.

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

69]     EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE.

70]     NAZI TRAITOR EDWARD HEATH LEFT £5 MILLION TO HIS OWN CHARITY-HIS HOME.

71]      WHY NO TREATY LIMITING EU POWERS

72]     THE E.U.’S VERY OWN AESOPIAN LANGUAGE.

73]    WHAT IF ENGLAND HADN'T JOINED THE EU

74]    67% WANT POWERS RETURNED FROM EU

75]   WILL IRELAND SAVE EUROPE FROM ITSELF?

76]   WHY EU REGIONAL POLICY WILL DESTROY THE NATION STATE

77]     EMPIRES HAVE GONE AND MOST PEOPLE LIVE IN NATION STATES.

78 THE FINAL BETRAYAL- WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 2008 

79]    WHY THE QUEEN MUST STAND UP TO BLAIR-NOW BROWN-SHE DIDN'T - BUT SOLD US TO THE EU80] 

80]     Almost everything ,which is precious in our civilisation, has come from small States

81]     THE EU BIG BROTHER POLICY REACHES BACK OVER TWO MILLENNIUM

82]     THE EURO A DOOMED CURRENCY

83]      GERMANY AS STRONG MAN OF EUROPE

84]     BRITAIN AND EUROPE-THE CULTURE OF DECEIT

85]     NAZI INTERNATIONAL IN 2007

86]     A BETTER WAY FORWARD TOGETHER IN EUROPE-OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNIOn

87]      A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND

88]     TO CONTROL OUR COURTS AND BORDERS IS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL EUROSCEPTIC STRATEGY.
89]     BLACK OPERATIONS AND TRICKERY BIND UK TO EU
90]     HITLER-HAUSHOFER AND GEORGE KENNON-PENTAGON PLANS IDENTICAL
91]     Oh Boyo - Family on Brussels gravy train cost TAXPAYER £34 million and RISING!
92]     NAZI TRAITOR EDWARD HEATH LEFT £5 MILLION TO HIS OWN CHARITY-HIS HOME.

93]      WHY DID THEY WANT BRITAIN IN EUROPE -  IN 1963
94]       Lies and The Betrayal of Britain
95]        Be Warned - The lies of 1975 still haunt us
96]      THe Strange Case of the Werner Report
97]      1972 EU Communities Act
98]        Further 200 Reasons why to Reject the Euro and E
99]      New elite threatens EU project admits Lib-Dem Peer
100]     The secretive Bilderberger Group will destroy True Democracy
101]     BBC EUROPHILE BIAS-UPDATE-by LORD PEARSON

102]     How ‘a good European’ turned into a eurosceptic whistle-blower

103]     HITLER'S PRECEDENT PROVIDED THE MODEL FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION-1930-2007
104]     IF Gordon Brown forces this EU TREATY on us, you can kiss goodbye to DEMOCRACY  -HE DID!
105]     FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE THE FUTURE OF WORLD TRADE
106]     Twelve Mighty Reasons why you must say 'No' to the EU

107]     How much does it cost the UK in the EU
108]     THE FREEDOM TAKING EU MONSTER MAY YET FALL
109]      IF MONETARY UNION GOES-EUROPEAN PROJECT IS UNDERMINED
110]      THE MAKING OF LONDONISTAN
111]      YOU CAN'T SEPARATE POLITICS AND MORALS
112]      IRAQ SOCIETY DESCENDING INTO CIVIL WAR BETWEEN SUNNIS - SHI-ITES AND KURDS
113]         TONY BLAIR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND
 

www.eutruth.org.uk

  

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM JUNE-2009

H. F .11 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!
 

[A MATTER OF FACT!]

[A LIBERAL PEER SHOULD REMEMBER]
Did you know there is a worldwide semi-secret war against white people. It started in 1923, in every country that has mostly white people, or used to have mostly white people, they are immigrating people from other races as fast as they can get away with it. They are encouraging whites to marry someone from a different race. They are also lowering the financial conditions so that the whites that do marry and used to do well, don’t want to have children or not many, because of financial conditions.
 

The white people on Earth came from Mars and were quickly genetically changed by the 8th Density about 66,000 years ago so they can mate with any Human and Earth would have one people. This was done so we would all get along better and one race wouldn’t become dominant wipe out the other races that moved here. The black Africans started here and so far 5 other races immigrated here and the whites were 2nd last, the Oriental Asians were last about 63,000 years ago and the 8th Density treated them the same, it wasn’t the Andromeda Council, like I was told last week.
 

White people are unique, we are the only ones who commonly have different eye and hair color and on average are less evil and more spiritual than the other races, except about the same as the Oriental Asians, but this has a little bit to do with the living conditions the last 300 years, all races have good & bad people. It is commonly said in the main stream media that the whites are an evil race and want to go to war with everyone, after all they pretty much wiped out the natives in North and South America and then brought slaves here.
Well this isn’t quite right, Columbus, Cortez and Pizarro were all Illuminati and didn’t have Human souls, they had the Reptilian lower soul, with little empathy for others.

The slaves were bought here on Jewish ships, most of the Jewish ship owners were Illuminati also. There were also white slaves (mostly Irish) and about 7,000 black slave owners in the USA. Less than 1 in 1,000 white people owned slaves and were constantly programmed that blacks were inferior from authorities, so the non slave owning whites would accept it.

The non slave owning Whites hated slavery, because they were forced by law to help capture run away slaves with no compensation and it was extremely hard to get a high paying job, with slaves doing a lot of work for free.

All the wars are started by and run by the Illuminati and Elite Jews. To many Whites are brainwashed to go along with the program, by the main stream media Which is all owned by the Jews or Illuminati.
 

Are you getting the picture, stop reading for a few seconds and see if you can figure it out. If there is no spiritual revolution, the brown dwarf star doesn’t come near the sun and damage Earth and the Illuminati and Elite Jews win, everyone else will become a worker/slaves. Whites won’t be allowed to marry or if they do they won’t be allowed to have children or if they do the paedophiles will take them. The only whites will be Illuminati or Jews and they will be in the ruling class, unelected and can’t be taken out of power.

 If you don’t want this future wake people up and help the spiritual revolution happen, become more spiritual. I think it’s going to happen and it’s called the Golden Age, it’s a wake up and win situation, but I think we’re going to get some wake up help. Even if your not White don’t accept that Whites should be wiped out, I certainly wouldn’t accept that Blacks should be wiped out or any other race. The only people I would accept being wiped out is the super evil ones. There will be a delightful place for everyone of every race in the Golden Age.
http://www.icheckyoursoul.com/

Searches related to EntriesSAVE OUR SOULS

what is the soul made of

afflict your souls in the bible

what is a person's soul

what is the soul of man

afflict your soul means

what is the soul according to the bible

afflict your soul kjv

what does it mean to afflict your soul in hebrew

H.F.1424/2

  
 
 

Illuminati

The story starts about 45,000 years ago. There was a planet in an orbit closer to the sun than Jupiter. Many call this planet Maldek, Mars was it’s largest moon. The Reptilian people that lived there were very violent and negative. They went to war with the people that lived on Mars. They were greater in number, but the Martians had better technology. These people refused to quit attacking the peaceful Martians. So the Martians devised a plan to seriously damage Maldek, making it impossible for these people to stay there and get the war over. The weapon they used, turned out to be to strong and blew up Maldek, scattering pieces all over our solar system, making the asteroid belt, new moons for some of the outer planets and comets in the far reaches of our solar system.

About 8,000 of these Reptilian people were in large space ships and survived. So they decided to go live in our moon and kick out the few Draconians that lived there. The Reptilians (Draconians) soon returned in force. So they had to leave in a hurry, while their ships were being blasted and crash landed in Antarctica, which at that time was in a tropical area. Now they soon no longer had space flight, because of the Draconian continued attacks. They had trouble living on Earth as their bodies didn’t agree with Earth’s elements. Humanity had just came out of cataclysms caused by Maldek blowing up, so they were few in number and lost their technology and now were sort of primitive.

These people captured some Humans and using genetics made hybrids of themselves, so they could live on Earth. They made 2 kinds of hybrids, one kind was very similar to and could mate with Humanity. The other kind was different and had elongated heads and became the ruling class and could not mate with Humanity. There are still some of these left, although they stay secret. Within 2,000 years the brown dwarf star, came through our solar system as it does every 3,557 years. Earth was hit hard and had a devastating pole shift, making the south pole in about the center of Antarctica as it is today.

Most all of the people on Earth died as there was a flash freeze in the new polar areas, killing a lot of animals too. So the Reptilian-Mammal hybrid people that were similar to Humanity lived with and bred with Humanity. When one of their females had children, the children would get one of their souls, regardless of who the father is. These people, the Illuminati today can tell each other apart from Humanity, but Humanity can’t seem to tell that they have different souls. They arranged to put each other into positions of power, like kings and queens and still hold these positions today. Although with the invention of the internet and spreading of knowledge, they are starting to lose control.

With them in power, we have war, central banks, shortages and other forms of suffering. Because of them we live in a negative world. In 2021 our 3rd cycle will finish and positive soul groups get to move up to the 2nd realm, 5th dimension (4th density). We are in the 1st realm, 4th dimension (3rd density) now. So we must get the Illuminati out of power and turn positive, to move up to 4th density. A soul can either go through 1 cycle of 3rd or 4th density (or some of both) and make ascension to 5th density (12th dimension on Earth). If we get in 4th density life improves, our bodies will be a little better and matter a little different, the biggest change is another component of time. Many of us will gain some telepathy and see a wider range of the spectrum and other improvements.

Searches related to EntriesSAVE OUR SOULS

what is the soul made of

afflict your souls in the bible

what is a person's soul

what is the soul of man

afflict your soul means

what is the soul according to the bible

afflict your soul kjv

what does it mean to afflict your soul in hebrew

 

FEBRUARY 5-2016

H.F.1424/2S

 

 

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

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

BREXIT

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

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

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

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

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW
 

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

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

 

 

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

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 
 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

      9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA
LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND
SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND
100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

 THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

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

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

 

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

By James Slack Political Editor For The Daily Mail



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

 

*

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

*

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

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

  WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

  WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

  WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

  

WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

 *		 7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

  WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

  WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

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

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

'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! 

 

 
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!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

 
 

 
 
 
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.

 

 

 
 
 
 

ENGLAND
  ENGLAND'S DAY-23RD APRIL-ENGLAND'S DAY
  Understanding Easter- a part of our Christian cultural force which has made us what we are.
   Our Christian Festival of Easter which many know so little and some none.
  CHRISTIANITY IS MORE THAN A RELIGION
  THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE BACKBONE OF CHRISTIANITY
  WHY WE MUST REMAIN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY
 

English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died
 

How Two Patriots died while in the service of their country - Part 1
 

 How Two Patriots died while in the service of their country - Part 2
 

 How Two Patriots died while in the service of their country - Part 3
 

How Two Patriots died while in the service of their country - Part 4
 

 How Two Patriots died while in the service of their country - Part 5
 

The Lives and Reputation of our Ancient Island’s Defenders of Freedom now at greater Risk - Part 1
 

The Lives and Reputation of our Ancient Island’s Defenders of Freedom now at greater Risk - Part 2
 

The Lives and Reputation of our Ancient Island’s Defenders of Freedom now at greater Risk - Part 3
 

Christianity, The People, and Ethics - Part 1
 

Christianity, The People, and Ethics - Part 2
 

Alfred –Christian King of the English - Part 1
 

Alfred -Christian King of the English - Part 2
 

 Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty
 

A Defence of Christianity by a once militant agnostic - Part 1.
 

 Dangers of a supreme parliament.
 

 Who CARES about MORALITY?
 

A Christian Parliamentarian speaks on a range of issues - Part 1.
 

A Christian Parliamentarian speaks on a range of issues - Part 2.
 

 A Christian Parliamentarian speaks on a range of issues - Part 3.
 

A Christian Parliamentarian speaks on a range of issues - Part 4.
 

 A Christian Parliamentarian speaks on a range of issues - Part 5.
 

Freedom of Speech-A Freedom, which cannot be abused - is not worth having.
 

Our Past is embedded in our national consciousness-It asks were we came from and who we are.
 

An Englishman’s checklist to how Pro-EU faction in ALL Parties is overturning our Ancient Constitution.
 

Blairland has almost destroyed the Family Values in its quest for supposed Equality.
 

Two loving parents are more important than good teachers.
 

Celebrate 700 years of Constitutional Development in 2007- from Edward 1 the English Justinian.
 

IMMIGRATION-THE BETRAYAL OF BRICK LANE BY MULTICULTURALISM INSTEAD OF INTEGRATION
 

 The Common Law Of England -Its Heritage and Importance to Parliamentary Democracy Today.
 

Home Rule For Scotland WHY NOT Home Rule For ENGLAND

 

NOR SHALL MY SWORD - THE REINVENTION OF ENGLAND
 

Robocop or Dixon of Dock Green -Millions of Pensioners will choose the latter. The true eyes and ears and friend of the Community.
 

THOUGHTS ON ST. GEORGE's DAY-FREEDOM
 

THE ENEMY EVERYWHERE
 

THOUSANDS OF ENGLISH/BRITISH CITIZENS
REJECTING EU CITIZENSHIP-
WHY DON'T YOU?
 

Free trade agreement.s are the future of world trade
 

THE VEIL – THE CROSS –A VITAL DEBATE over the HEART and SOUL of OUR NATION.
 

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
 

ENGLAND'S PLACE IN THE UNION
 

THE MAKING OF LONDONISTAN

  
 

ENGLAND A MONOCULTURE - TOLERANT-A CLEAR IDENTITY-A OLD COUNTRY-A SENSE OF CONTINUIT- -NOT MULTICULTURAL.
 

Commonwealth Realms v The Constitution for Europe-PT 1- 4
 

DECLARATION OF RESISTANCE
 

 Free Speech - Religious Opinion
 

NO WHERE ELSE flies the White Ensign on top of its tower but the village with the Nelson Touch - As we would EXPECT.
   
   
   
  H.F.1244
 
 
 
 

 
 
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

 

 

 

- (1994 -Official Website - FEBRUARY-PT 5- 2019 )-

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019         FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019         FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2019         

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

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-PAGE 2-2019

*

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

 

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 5-2018