ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK

FREEDOM-UNITY.

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

MAY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2017

 

 

[A REMINDER! )

OF A COUNTRY RIDDLED WITH TREASON]

The EU’s control structure in Britain

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

The Bilderbergers – Europe wide

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

Britain is the target

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

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

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

The Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst Intelligence department

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

EDWARD HEATH

 

Geoffrey Rippon and Roy Jenkins

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

The Conservative Party

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

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

Labour and the Lib Dems

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

The Freemasons:

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

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

 to find out.

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

The Legal Profession:

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

Common Purpose:

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

   Common Purpose

 

 

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

 

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

David Noakes.

http://eutruth,org.uk.

The Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst Intelligence department

*

[OUR ONLY DELIVERER FROM THE MULTIPLE TRAITORS WITHIN NOW DEPENDS ON A VICARS DAUGHTER-MAY GOD! -  HELP HIS SERVANT TO  DEFEND OUR FREEDOM - CHURCH - CONSTITUTION - AND COUNTRY.

*

It was stated in 1942 by Earnest Barker- Honorary Fellow of Merton College, Oxford and of Peterhouse, Cambridge in REFLECTIONS on GOVERNMENT.

'...expect a period of Wars of Economics in the future, analogous to the old Wars of Religion in the past.'

[Looking back since the early 1900's one can categorise almost all WARS as ECONOMIC particularly those in the Middle East in recent times. The growing power of the GLOBALISTS are using GOVERNMENTS to advance their fortunes using POLITICS to undermine NATION STATES for their own illicit purposes.]

 

MAY ,2017

 

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

JANUARY 23-BREXIT NOW-2017--       - (1994 -Official Website-APRIL-2018 ) -   JANUARY 23-BREXIT NOW-2017-PT1 -

 

MAY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2017

 TO RETURN TO:- PART 1   &  PART 2

[ALL NEW INFORMATION FROM APRIL 8-2017 YOU WILL FIND TOWARDS THE END OF THE PAGE.]

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

BREXIT

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

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

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 IRELAND.

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


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

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

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

 

*

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

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

 

WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*
7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

 WHAT SHE SAID

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

CAN SHE DELIVER

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

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

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

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

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

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

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW

 
 

 DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

FEBRUARY 2, 2017

 

AT LAST, IT IS ALL CLEAR FOR

 BREXIT'S

LIFT-OFF

 

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

 

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

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

PEOPLE'S WILL.

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

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

REMAIN.

They deserve everything coming to them at the next election.

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

Among these, none can beat the monstrous hypocrisy of

NICK CLEGG

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

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

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H F 1101-AT LONG LAST-FREEDOM AWAITS! 

 

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

 

 

Daily Mail

 

 

SATURDAY

 ESSAY

by

Christopher Booker

 

 

APRIL 8,2017

UTTTER CRAZINESS

 

 

 

UTTER CRAZINESS says Christopher Booker

 

*

 

 

 From killer diesel fumes to ruinous floods ... This, says
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER, is the great folly of our age. By
Christopher Booker

What a parable for our times the great diesel scandal has been, as councils vie to see which can devise the heaviest taxes on nearly half the cars in Britain because they are powered by nasty, polluting diesel.

This week, it was announced many diesel drivers will soon have to pay fully £24 a day to drive into Central London, while 35 towns across the country are thinking of following suit. Already some councils charge up to £90 more for a permit to park a diesel car.

The roots of this debacle go back to the heyday of Tony Blair’s government, when his chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, became obsessed with the need to fight global warming.

Although he was an expert in ‘surface chemistry’ — roughly speaking, the study of what happens when, for example, a liquid meets a gas — King had no qualifications in climate science.

On one occasion he famously told an environmental audit committee of MPs that the world was warming so dangerously fast that, by the end of this century, the only continent on earth left habitable would be Antarctica.

His light-bulb moment came when he learned that diesel emits less CO2 than petrol. What a brilliant way it would be to save the planet, he thought, to manipulate the tax system to encourage motorists to make the switch — which millions did.

And here we are 15 years later, being told that, as an unexpected side-effect, more than ten million diesel vehicles on Britain’s roads are chucking out so much nitrogen oxide and other toxic pollutants they are being linked to 12,000 premature deaths a year.

This is only the latest in a seemingly endless flow of examples of supposedly ‘green’ government schemes which, one after another, turn out to have been standing common sense on its head, at a cost which is rocketing up by billions of pounds a year.

There may be other competitors for the title of the greatest scandal in Britain today, but this is so crazy that it is time we all woke up to how damagingly mad it has become.

Nine years ago, MPs voted almost unanimously for then Labour minister Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act, thus making Britain the only country in the world committed by law to cut its ‘carbon emissions’ by 80 per cent in just 40 years.

Not one of those politicians bothered to wonder how in practice such an absurdly ambitious target could be met: which is why we have since seen successive governments thrashing about trying to adopt one dotty ‘green’ scheme after another.

Last week, I was asked in conversation: ‘Why is it that almost all these green schemes seem to end up as a fiasco?’ To which I replied: ‘You’ve only got one word wrong there. You can leave out the word “almost”.’

The truth is that every single green scheme the politicians have fallen for has proved to be a total fiasco: failing to achieve any of the results claimed for them and costing us more billions with every year that passes.

Consider the scandal of Drax in Yorkshire, until recently the largest, cleanest, most efficient coal-fired power station in Europe.

Now, thanks to an annual half-a-billion pounds of public subsidy, Drax has been switching from burning coal to millions of tons a year of wood pellets.

Absurdly, these are shipped 3,500 miles to Britain from the U.S., where vast acreages of virgin forest are being felled, supposedly to be replaced with new trees that will eventually soak up all the CO2 emitted by burning them.

Unfortunately, a bright spark has just pointed out in a report for a respected think-tank that it could take a replacement tree hundreds of years to grow to maturity — which would be far too long to have any supposed effect on any climate change. (It should be noted that the former coalition energy minister Chris Huhne, having been released from prison for perverting the course of justice over speeding points, became the European chairman of a firm called Zilkha Biomass, which makes

Biomass, which makes its money supplying wood pellets from North America to Europe.)

The bottom line is that a new report has just confirmed that, far from reducing its CO2 footprint, Drax is now emitting more than it did when it was only burning coal.

Meanwhile, why is Northern Ireland going through its worst political crisis since the end of the Troubles? Because of the collapse of its power-sharing government over another green scheme, the Renewable Heat Incentive.

When businesses discovered that for every £100 they paid for wood chips to heat their offices, warehouses and factories, UK taxpayers would pay them £160 in subsidies, not surprisingly they kept their boilers running round the clock as if there were no tomorrow.

When it was discovered that, by 2020, we will have paid those businesses £1 billion — even to heat buildings left empty for years — this created such a scandal that it brought down the government.

That example made headlines, but the same is happening quietly in the rest of the country, too, where owners of large houses openly boast that they are running their boilers flat out, even in summer, to cash in on the racket which gives them a 60 per cent profit on every £1 they spend on wood chips.

Some of that wood is now coming from clearing priceless ancient woodlands, such as a National Trust estate in Cheshire which the charity plans to turn back into open heathland.

Another scandal created under the same scheme is the way canny developers are plonking down large industrial installations called ‘anaerobic digesters’ in the middle of the English countryside, to turn huge quantities of crops into small quantities of methane for the national gas grid.

Official figures show that, thanks to subsidies costing us more than £200 million a year, 131,000 acres of maize are now being grown to feed the anaerobic digesters, on land formerly used for food crops...


 

AND A GREAT DEAL MORE!

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 

GREEN INITIATIVES

 

 

 

 

Green initiatives are disasters says Christopher Booker | Daily Mail ...

 

 diesel drivers will soon have to pay
fully £24 a day to drive into Central London, ..... Utter madness.

 

APRIL 8,2017

 

H.F.1164 BREXIT FREEDOM WILL SOON BE OURS! IF WE REMAIN WATCHFUL AND STEADFAST!

DAILY MAIL

PETER OBORNE

 

 

by PETER OBORNE: Theresa May is at risk of copying Blair's poodle ...

 

 

 

Why I don't share Foreign Office hawks joy over US missile attack

 

 

EXTRACT

 

Ever since the start of the terrible Syrian conflict six years ago, the British Government has wanted Western military intervention to help get rid of President Bashar al Assad.

But this policy seemed to have failed. Assad appeared close to winning the war, as Trump acknowledged last week when his Press secretary said that Assad staying was a ‘political reality that we have to accept’.

 

Tuesday - Attack - Village - Khan - Sheikhoun

But then came Tuesday’s dreadful chemical attack on the village of Khan Sheikhoun in north-west Syria.

Instantly, the British and American governments blamed Assad for the horror, and within 72 hours the U.S. launched a revenge missile assault on the airbase from which the chemical attack was believed to have been launched.

 

Exultation - Whitehall - Turnaround - Events - Volte-face

The exultation in Whitehall at this turnaround of events is all the greater because it marks such an extraordinary volte-face by Donald Trump. For it is less than three months since he took office and pledged non-intervention in Syria.

In order to counsel Trump’s White House team about the folly of this course, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson went to Washington to lobby them.

 

Attempt - Time - Trump - Need - Intervention

That attempt may have been fruitless at the time but Trump has now, it seems, been converted to supporting the need for military intervention.

Unfortunately, I cannot share the British Government’s elation, which evokes the mood in No 10 on the eve of the Iraq war in 2003 — with Theresa May now at risk of copying the poodle-like subservience Tony Blair showed to the then U.S. President George W Bush.

 

Blair - War - Assurances - Motive - Dictator

Back then, Blair took us to war on the assurances that it was being done with the noble motive of getting rid of the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, who posed a threat to world peace.

We were told that Western intelligence services (including MI6) had irrefutable evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, which he was ready...

 

Excerpt) Read more at: Mail Online

 

PASSPORT ROW AND WHY THE ELITE LOST.

 

REMOANERS stepped up their mockery of THEresa May lasT week.

They ridiculed suggestions that she approved plans for the post-Brexit return of blue

BRITISH PASSPORTS

of the type we used before the introduction of the widely hated burgundy  european union passports.

Such sneers may make those on the LIBERAL LEFT feel smugley BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES but they PROVE how

OUT OF TOUCH THEY ARE with the LIVES of MOST BRITISH PEOPLE.

Of course, BLUE PASSPORTS may have no tangible significance but they SYMBOLISE such

FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES as NATIONAL IDENTITY and HISTORY.

THE FAILURE Of REMOANERS to UNDERSTAND why such  things MATTER explains a LOT as to

WHY THEY LOST the REFERENDUM last JUNE 23-2016.

*

 

*  *  *

[ FOR MANY YEARS PAST THE FOREIGN OFFICE HAS LIVED UP TO IT'S NAME AS IT IS NOT IN TRUTH THE OFFICE OF BRITISH AND OVERSEAS AFFAIRS BUT AN

ENEMY WITHIN!

BECAUSE IT IS INDEED A

FOREIGN OFFICE!]

*

A Prime Minister in 1848

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Full article

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

APRIL 8-2017

 

DAILY MAIL

 

Greedy. Arrogant Amoral.

 So what a disgrace bankers

STILL

haven't been punished.

DAILY MAIL- By Alex Brummer - City Editor-

Greedy.Arrogant.Amoral.-So what a disgrace bankers STILL haven't BEEN PUNISHED.

APRIL 11,2017

 

To the accompaniment of the finest wines and a rack of lamb, Barclays chairman John McFarlane and chief executive Jes Staley entertained senior financial journalists at the swanky Morton’s club in London.

Amid this bonhomie ten days ago — which began with a jokey welcome speech and upbeat report from the Barclays bosses — there was no hint whatsoever that another major financial scandal involving the bank was about to be exposed.

But then, perhaps, that’s no surprise since arrogant insouciance has been the trademark attitude of the banking industry over recent years, alongside an appalling sense of entitlement.

But now we know Barclays was facing two very worrying problems. First, the chief executive was being investigated by financial regulators for the serious offence of trying to unmask a whistleblower who had raised issues about a senior executive

CRIMINAL

 
 

And then there was Barclays’ alleged complicity in the case, revealed yesterday, in which Bank of England and government officials have been accused of putting ‘serious pressure’ on Barclays staff to rig interest rates on the Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) which crucially sets the cost of global borrowing.

Both these cases call into grave question the ethics behind the bank’s practices.

As a result, Barclays is being investigated by the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority over how Staley (hired from New York’s J.P. Morgan investment bank to restore Barclays’ reputation and prosperity) used his bank’s security team and federal officials in the U.S. to track down the whistleblower.

This drama follows a period of internal tension among Barclays executives that had been ratcheted up in the wake of the controversial recruitment by Staley of former colleagues from J.P. Morgan and Wall Street for the most lucrative jobs at the bank.

Now this dirty business has been made public, Barclays’ board says it will censure Staley and will impose a ‘significant cut’ to his bonus.

This could not have come at a worse time for Barclays and — more importantly — for public trust in Britain’s banking system, which has already been hugely damaged by a series of scandals.

Nearly a decade after the financial crisis erupted, the UK’s banks are still embroiled in a series of criminal, legal and regulatory cases which clearly suggest they still have a culture of dishonesty and incompetence.

Against this shabby background — with countless examples of unscrupulous behaviour (much of it undoubtedly illegal) — I find it astounding there have been so few criminal cases brought against those responsible.

 

Instead of chief executives or chairmen facing charges, it has been only minor figures who have been brought to account — such as a UBS trader found guilty of manipulating Libor rates.

No senior executive or board member has been brought before the courts on either side of the Atlantic.

And if this serial rule-breaking and attempted cover-ups of scandals were not damaging enough, we have witnessed the shameful way banks have encouraged Britain’s personal debt mountain to mushroom through lax lending policies on credit cards and loans.

This threatens to turn Britain’s current economic boom into bust.

Credit card debt has risen to its highest level in 11 years.

British families owe a total of £67.5 billion on credit cards — cynically enticed to run up huge debts through unsolicited increases in their spending limits and the use of so-called ‘teaser’ zero interest deals that specifically target poor families and encourage them to borrow more than they can afford.

Wherever you look, there seems to be a serious question mark over the integrity of the banking industry.

For example, there is deep disquiet over Lloyds, whose former and current senior management are under investigation over what they knew about fraudulent activity at their branch in Reading.

In February, six bankers were jailed for ripping off small business customers to the tune of £245 million.

Consistently, Lloyds bosses have claimed they were unaware of the criminal behaviour of its staff. But as well as devastating customers of the branch, the fraud is expected to cost Lloyds investors £250 million in likely compensation payments.

The truth is senior Lloyds executives knew of the scam as long ago as 2008 but were anxious, it has since been revealed, ‘not to disclose’ the cost to investors. They wanted to cover it up.

Also, Lloyds’ reluctance to pay compensation to victims of the Reading crime until forced to do so is a damning indictment of a bank whose chief executive, Antonio Horta Osorio, is struggling to recover his reputation after being exposed for having an extra-marital liaison with a woman while attending a conference.

FIXING

Meanwhile, at Britain’s largest bank, HSBC, its annual report revealed 37 separate legal cases over business lapses — ranging from money-laundering to charges of trying to win the favour of the Chinese authorities by hiring senior local officials’ children.

As for Barclays, there can be fewer charges that are more serious than the accusation of working with the Bank of England and the former Labour government to lower interest rates.

Thanks to BBC journalists, we now have evidence that Barclays, claiming it was acting on the authority of the Bank of England, deliberately set about fixing the Libor interest rate during the peak of the financial crisis.

Barclays is also mired in a whole series of other major legal cases.

The Serious Fraud Office is deep into a long investigation into whether the bank paid unlawful commissions to Middle East investors from Qatar when it raised almost £12 billion of new capital during the credit crunch in 2008.

On another front, Barclays’ boss Staley is fighting the U.S. Justice Department, which wants to levy a multi-billion fine on the bank over its handling of securities based on so-called sub- prime mortgages.

Ruthless

These are the vast quantities of loans made by banks to U.S. homeowners who could never pay them back — a scandal that was at the root of the world financial crisis.

As for Staley’s deeply embarrassing formal reprimand and bonus-cut after breaking rules over the whistleblower, the board argues that its chief executive was simply acting in the best interest of the bank.

However, I find it extraordinary that a banker of Staley’s experience and seniority felt it was acceptable to intervene in such a case, particularly considering that whistleblowing is officially recognised as one of the most important means by which banks are able to protect their values and the trust of the public.

After the humiliation of bank collapses and subsequent bail-outs by taxpayers, the British people had hoped that our financial institutions had learned their lesson.

A new regulatory regime was put in place designed to end the greed, arrogance, amorality and shoddy business methods that precipitated the worst financial crisis for 80 years and which has cost every man, woman and child in this country an estimated £20,000.

But, sadly, the latest series of scandals shows how little has really changed and how ruthless bankers are still holding the British economy and financial stability to ransom.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4400044/ALEX-BRUMMER-Bankers-haven-t-punished.html#ixzz4e2gjf7Xz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

[We have stated many times over the past decade that

'Small is beautiful'

Whether it is in personal needs-small population-smaller quantity of legislation -law etc... and by chance  a few days ago we came across again the  above everyday proverb by

E. F. Schumacher, 1973.

'Schumacher's thesis is that mankind  is being distorted by the worship of economic growth and needs to adjust its thinking to survive. The phrase is now used in a wider context as an axiom that sheer size of a corporation, building .etc) is not in itself automatically a good thing.'

Those who are intoxicated by GREED for WEALTH whether in the BANKS or in PUBLIC SERVICE and elsewhere increase the cost of living of the common man-the TAXPAYER! and puts the monetary stability of the country in great danger. As with personal DEBT so with PUBLIC DEBT accountability is the order of the day and unless this happens the lives of many will become not worth living. The GOVERNMENT should ensure that they show the way by reducing the QUANGOS and exorbitant salaries on the PUBLIC PURSE.

It is AS another proverb explains

'To FEATHER one's (own) nest'

To look after one's own interests, especially by accumulating financial assets, the implication being that GREED, SELFISHNESS, or DISHONESTY is INVOLVED.'

 and we have seen examples from some of those who recently left the political scene after the

BREXIT VICTORY!

*

APRIL 11,2017

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H.F.1167 BREXIT FREEDOM IS YOURS - IF YOU FIGHT FOR IT!

 

 BROUGHT FORWARD FROM DECEMBER-2013 and again in 2014 and in May 2016

 

AN EASTER MESSAGE

IN

2017

[At another time of loss of faith and great unrest in our world a message from 1943 while our country and others were years into the battle to FREE EUROPE from TOTALITARIAN STATES we are in December 2013 facing the rise of HITLER'S DREAM of that year of a EUROPEAN UNION from SPAIN to the URALS. The writer of the following work had suggested that after the war there should be a EUROPEAN FEDERATION but alongside of ENGLAND and HER NEIGHBOURING NATION STATES with the COMMONWEALTH as a separate sphere of influence in the World together with the NEW WORLD-the USA and others in the world at large. With the growing realization that since that time there has been a continuing advance of the  SECULAR as opposed to the SPIRITUAL cement of SOCIETY and its tragic consequences for our country and the rest of MANKIND.]

 

' We have seen European civilizations owed its origin neither to racial unity nor to political organisations but to the spiritual forces which united Romans and barbarians in the new society of Christendom.  but that society was not limited in principle to the particular society of peoples of which it was actually composed.  It was in principle a universal society, based on the unity and brotherhood of mankind and corresponding on the temporal plane to the new idea of humanity which transcended all divisions of race and class,

"in which there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian not Scythian, bond or free, but Christ is all and in all."

If this faith is still alive in the world today [1943-and we can ask the same question in December 2013 and again in 2014 and in May 2016] it is no less valid as a spiritual basis of world order , as it was in the past for the making of Europe; in fact, it is only in a world order that the Christian social idea of spiritual universalism and the world vocation of Christianity have formed the background of Christian social ethics.

 [Not the ILLUMINATI /NEW WORLD ORDER /BANKSTERS which have existed for thousands of years but the present particular SATANIC ORDER which had its origins in Bavaria over 200 hundred years ago] 

  Thus Christians have a twofold responsibility and mission in the present crisis.  In the first place they are the heirs of the old European tradition and the guardian of the spiritual principle from which Europe derived its being.

There is nothing in the European past that has not been formed or conditioned by Christian influences, and even the heresiarchs and revolutionaries are not excepted since they have often been inspired by an exaggerated and one-sided devotion to some particular element in the common tradition.  And in the second place Christians have a new responsibility and mission to the new world society that Europe has created in spite of itself by its scientific achievements and its colonial and economic expansion.  This world society is still formless, a chaos in which the forces of destruction [even in 2013 and in 2014 and in 2016] alone seem active.  It does not possess in itself any principle of order or spiritual power which is capable of giving organic form or unity.  Any attempt to organise the world by military or economic power divorced from spiritual vision is doomed to failure, because it ignores the deepest and most vital factors in the problem and if these psychological and spiritual forces are neglected they are apt to reassert themselves in a destructive and passionate revolt such as that which destroyed the Weimer republic and the international system of the League of Nations.

It is therefore impossible to dismiss the claims of Christianity as irrelevant to the problem of international order, for the demonic powers which have entered the empty house of secular civilisations are not to be exorcised by the economist or the politician: religion is the only power that can meet the forces of destruction on equal terms and save mankind from its spiritual enemies.

The world mission of Christianity is based on its conception of a spiritual society which transcends all states and cultures and is the final gaol of humanity.  Wherever Christianity exists there survives a seed of unity, a principle of spiritual order, which cannot be destroyed by war or the conflict of economic interests or the failure of political organisation.  No doubt it will be said that the Christian Church does not in fact perform this function and that Christians are too few, too weak and too poor in intellectual and spiritual qualities to influence the course of history.  But the same might have been  said of the  Jews in the age of the prophets or of the Christians themselves under the Roman Empire.

" You see your vocation, brethren," wrote St. Paul, " that not many wise men according to the flesh, not many of the powerful, not many of the noble called." It is  of the very nature of Christianity not to depend on human means, not to trust in " the arm of the flesh," not to judge events by human or secular standards. The one thing that it demands is faith, and lack of FAITH is the only thing that can DEFEAT the DIVINE PURPOSE.

[CHRISTOPHER DAWSON=The Judgment of Nations-1943]

ADDED-NOVEMBER-2014

[Individuality is a Christian concept of a thoughtful responsible caring human being and is not to liking of those with ambitions of POWER who wish to enslave their PEOPLE!   In order to achieve this satanic plan, politicians in many countries with a Christian ethic, have chosen to disregard their inheritance ,in order to obtain greater control of their population and that is WHY!  in Europe the Nazi-inspired plan of 194O's - of a COLLECTIVE-SOVIETISED-SATANIC-UNDEMOCRATIC EUROPEAN UNION which came into being with the Treaty of Rome in 1957.  And in 1972, against the advice of the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir, the then prime minister Edward Heath lied to the PEOPLE! as he admitted just before his death in 2005, when it was also revealed, that he had been a Nazi Spy  for over 60 years, as in 1938 he and others in Balliol College Oxford Spy-ring, were reported to MI5 by the Master of Balliol College  Oxford -Mr A. D. LINDSAY, LL. D.]

 

*

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

DECEMBER-2013 and again in 2014 and in May 2016

MARCH-2017

 

HF 101

 

EU fatcats want BRITAIN to help fund their £166,000 gold-plated pensions for decades to come

 

  • Brussels expects Britain to fund its £55 billion pension pot for decades to come
  • It would give the average EU official £59,000 and the top officials £166,000
  • The average Brussels pension payout is more than twice the UK average salary 
  • Theresa May would face intense criticism from MPs if she agrees to foot the bill 

 

According to analysts, Brussels could demand between £4.4 billion and £5.7 billion from the UK for its pension pot during Brexit negotiations.

Theresa May would face intense criticism if she agrees to foot the bill for lining the pockets of thousands including a string of Remain-supporting British peers.

At £59,000, the average Brussels pension payout is more than twice the UK average salary.

And it is almost three times the average income of £21,800 for a retired household in the UK at the end of last year.

About 1,730 Britons are among the 22,000 retired EU officials currently benefiting from the scheme – which cost EU taxpayers £1.3 billion in 2015 – including high-ranking British politicians. One of the most generously rewarded is former Labour leader Lord Kinnock, who draws an estimated £87,800 every year from his role as vice president of the European Commission.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4524310/EU-want-Britain-fund-166-000-pensions.html#ixzz4hthOtx6Q
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

 

[TYPICAL EU MINDSET- SIMPLE!-THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT FIRST AND LATER LET THE FUTURE DEAL WITH IT! - IT IS A BANKRUPT SCENARIO KEPT GOING BY THE FEW  MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS AND ONLY WHEN ONE LEAVES THE EU -ONLY THEN DOES REALITY REAR ITS HEAD. THE FIRMER UK IS IN ITS STANCE NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO BLACKMAIL AND PAY ONLY WHAT  IS RIGHT IN LAW AND WITH THIS IN MIND THE MORE CHANCE THAT OTHER MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS WILL LEAVE THE WASTEFUL- EXPENSIVE- ELITIST -UNDEMOCRAIC-UNACCOUNTABLE CLUB.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1200 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

Is Europe committing suicide?

Controversial book claims elites in UK and the Continent

are encouraging mass immigration because

they've lost faith in historic

Christian values

Is Europe committing suicide? Controversial book claims

elites in UK and the Continent are encouraging mass immigration

because they've lost faith in historic Christian values 

Journalist Douglas Murray writes in his new book 

The Strange Death Of Europe that our political leaders have

knowingly colluded in the ‘mass movement

of peoples into Europe’.

 

  A couple of days ago, I saw TV footage of the outspoken Labour MP Jess Phillips on the campaign trail, seeking re-election in her suburban Birmingham constituency.

She was asked which issues voters mentioned most often on the doorstep. Ms Phillips did not miss a beat.

Immigration comes up...’ she said thoughtfully. And then, as if remembering herself, she started talking about bin collections instead.

It was, I thought, an enormously revealing moment. For there is no issue so potentially dangerous as immigration. Many people have intense feelings about it, and many feel unable to raise them publicly.

Even in private, self-consciously tolerant people discuss immigration very tentatively, if at all.

The shadow of Enoch Powell — the Birmingham-born Tory who was cast into the wilderness after his controversial speech in 1968 about ‘rivers of blood’ (a phrase he never actually used) — still hangs over the debate.

A few years ago, I was at a lunch in London, sitting next to the former editor of a national newspaper and the editor of one of Britain’s best-known magazines, both of them highly educated and liberal-minded people. The subject turned to immigration.

‘It’s gone much too far,’ one said. ‘You’re quite right,’ said the other, ‘but of course you can’t say so.’

The journalist Douglas Murray has no such qualms. Best known for his acerbic columns in the Spectator magazine and his prize-winning book on the Bloody Sunday inquiry, he has just hurled a literary hand grenade into the debate about immigration and identity in today’s Europe.

Indeed, the opening lines of his new book, The Strange Death Of Europe, could hardly be more incendiary.

‘Europe is committing suicide,’ Murray writes. ‘Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide... As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.’

The causes, he thinks, are twofold. First, our political leaders have knowingly colluded in the ‘mass movement of peoples into Europe’, filling ‘cold and rainy northern towns’ with ‘people dressed for the foothills of Pakistan or the sandstorms of Arabia’.

Second, he believes Europe’s intellectual and cultural elites, including those in Britain, have ‘lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy’. Crippled with guilt, obsessed with atoning for the sins of empire, they have lost sight of the historic Christian values that their people expect them to defend.

As a result of their deluded utopianism, Murray thinks, Europe is ceasing to be Europe. Indeed, he believes that European culture as generations have understood it — the culture of Michelangelo and Mozart, Shakespeare and Goethe, Dickens and Wagner — is doomed.

‘Instead of remaining a home for the European peoples,’ he writes, ‘we have decided to become a “utopia” only in the original Greek sense of the word: to become “no place”.’

You will not be surprised to hear that Murray’s book has gone down badly with the bien-pensant types at The Guardian, whose reviewer described it as ‘gentrified xenophobia’ and a ‘slightly posher’ version of ‘naked racism’.

In its way, that verdict tells you all you need to know about the intellectual blinkers of the liberal intelligentsia.

I opened Murray’s book this week with slight scepticism, and I still think he overdoes the apocalyptic negativity.

Even so, at the risk of being accused of xenophobia by The Guardian — which would admittedly put me in crowded company — I believe he has penetrated closer to the heart of our current discontents than legions of liberal academics.

For one thing, it is refreshing to get some honesty about the historically unprecedented nature of immigration into Europe in the past 70 years.

In case you need reminding, the figures for Britain alone are simply mind-boggling.

Between 1997 and 2010, for example, the last Labour government allowed a staggering 2.2 million people to settle in this country, the equivalent of two Birminghams.

Under David Cameron, the Tories promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Yet the latest figures show that annual net migration is about 273,000, roughly a city the size of Hull arriving every year.

It is worth noting, by the way, that mass immigration has always been immensely unpopular. When I wrote a history of Britain in the Sixties, I could hardly fail to notice that even back then, at least seven out of ten people were dead against it, as shown by the deluge of approving letters that greeted Enoch Powell’s supposedly toxic speech.

Maybe his admirers were wrong; maybe they weren’t. But whatever your own view of immigration, there has never been an issue on which the political class has so consistently gone against the wishes of the British people.

At this point in the argument, your standard liberal academic would typically interject to insist that Britain has always been a nation of immigrants. We all come from somewhere else anyway, they say, we are all mongrels, so how dare we close the gates to a few more?

But as Douglas Murray shows, this is a shameless rewriting of our past. For most of our history, we have never been a nation of immigrants. Even the most famous influx in our history, the Norman Conquest, involved a tiny population transfer, the equivalent of no more than 5 per cent or so.

As much as the BBC and other news organisations like to pretend that Britain has always been a beacon of diversity, the plain fact is that until the mid-20th century the massive, overwhelming majority of the people who lived here had been born here. Look at photo after photo from late Victorian London and the uniformly pale faces stare back at you.

The arrival of the French Huguenots in the 1680s, often cited by apostles of diversity, involved about 50,000 people, all of whom were white and Christian.

And although the Irish migrants who arrived in the 19th century faced more than their fair share of prejudice, our islands’ interlinked histories meant they were far from complete outsiders.

Liberal-minded types often find this embarrassing. Either they try to rewrite our history, relentlessly playing up the presence of tiny minorities of Africans and Asians, or they peddle a caricature of pre-Fifties Britain as a grey, boring place, which desperately needed an injection of immigrant colour.

This is not just a British hang-up. As Murray writes, European liberals love to paint their own societies as ‘slightly boring or staid places’. They write as if ‘there is a hole at the heart of Europe which needs filling and without which we would otherwise be poorer’.

(By the way, this is something they would never dream of saying about countries such as Bhutan or Burkina Faso. Nobody ever suggests that what these unforgivably monoracial countries need is an influx of migrants from Surrey.)

As a superbly damning example, Murray gives us the views of the impeccably liberal Fredrik Reinfeldt, Sweden’s Prime Minister between 2006 and 2014, who enjoyed the dubious reputation of being the ‘Scandinavian David Cameron’. He was a passionate advocate of mass immigration. Swedish people, he once said, were ‘boring’, while national borders were ‘fictional’ constructs.

And in a perfect illustration of what Murray sees as the European elite’s chronic self-flagellation, Mr Reinfeldt even declared that ‘only barbarism is genuinely Swedish. All further development has been brought from outside’. 

This would have come as a shock to the Swedish playwright August Strindberg, the film director Ingmar Bergman and the members of Abba, not to mention their countrymen who invented the seatbelt and the pacemaker.

In any case, the results of Mr Reinfeldt’s liberal utopianism have been staggering. With just 10 million people, Sweden has taken in more refugees per capita than any other country. In 2015 alone, it accepted 180,000 incomers — more than the population of all but the three largest Swedish cities.

In recent months, the relationship between immigration and crime in Sweden has become hugely controversial. This is thanks largely to Donald Trump’s comments about ‘riots’ in Sweden based on a report on Fox News, which blamed an alleged breakdown in law and order in the country on an influx of migrants over the past 20 years.

But as Murray suggests, the really telling story is surely the rise of the far-Right Sweden Democrats — a nationalistic, anti-immigrant party that has come from nowhere to lead the opinion polls for the past two years. And this not in Thirties Germany but in 21st-century Sweden, ostensibly one of the most contented, tolerant and egalitarian societies on Earth!

It would, I think, be unforgivably lazy to blame this on the supposed racism of the great unwashed, as liberal intellectuals love to do.

In fact, almost every indicator shows that old-fashioned, poisonous prejudice has virtually died out, not just here in Britain, but across much of Western Europe.

Whatever The Guardian might think, Murray himself is not racist. Indeed, he writes movingly about the plight of the thousands of refugees who have paid up to $1,500 (£1,150) each to travel on dangerous boats across the Mediterranean. As he remarks, any decent person should want to help them, not to ‘push them back into the sea’.

His own approach, by the way, would be for European countries to invest in holding centres in North Africa and to grant refugees asylum for a limited period only.

Whether this would work is impossible to say. But could it really be worse than the free-for-all of the past few years?

But I suspect his trenchant dismissal of all those naive liberal pieties will strike a chord with people in every corner of our political landscape. He pours scorn, for example, on the argument that immigration has magically made us a more tolerant society.

A survey of attitudes to homosexuality in 2015 found that just 16 per cent of people outside London thought it was morally wrong. The figure in London was 29 per cent, reflecting the much higher concentration of conservative Muslims.

Indeed, that conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and British tolerance is a sadly familiar story, from the death threats to the author Salman Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses to the horrific murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby by two Islamist converts.

Murray should have made it clearer, I think, that the vast majority of British Muslims are decent, peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Even so, he is absolutely right to argue that, for far too long, our political and cultural elites have been so afraid of being called racist that they have allowed Islamic extremists to fester unchecked.

[The point that has not been mentioned is that with such a large Muslim population in England - approximately 3 million plus with a birth rate of 4-1 and in a generation it will have the numbers to plan for their ISLAMIC STATE with complete SHARIA LAW and all that it entails.]

Yet even now, the European political elite are desperate to silence their critics. Indeed, two stories from Murray’s book genuinely shocked me.

The first comes from September 2015, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly asked Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg what he was doing to stop people criticising her open-door migration policy on his site. ‘Are you working on this?’ she asked him — and he said that he was.

My shock was twofold: that she felt entitled to ask him to shut down her critics, and that he meekly said he was doing it.

The second also comes from Germany. A month later, in the small city of Kassel, 800 migrants were due to arrive under Mrs Merkel’s scheme, so the authorities held a public meeting.

But when residents began to voice their concerns, the district president, Walter Lubcke, spoke up. Admitting immigrants, he said, was the German way. Anybody who did not agree, he added, was ‘free to leave Germany’.

This is outrageous, I think, not just because it is so arrogant, but because it is so counter-productive. For the past 50 years, the European political elite have been telling the people that they are wrong.

When the voters refuse to listen, the elite merely take that as proof that they need another dose of diversity to break their resistance once and for all. And so the dialogue of the deaf goes on.

Whether this really marks the end of European civilisation, as Murray claims, is a matter of opinion. I think he is far too pessimistic, although if I lived somewhere like the concrete Parisian suburb of Saint-Denis, a crime-ridden ghetto with a heavily North African Muslim population, I might think differently.

What is certain, though, is that we need caustic, but honest, voices like his if we are ever going to have a genuine debate about all this.

For by shouting down and silencing the Douglas Murrays of this world, the bien-pensant liberals are merely handing yet more ammunition to the strutting demagogues of the extreme Right.

I cannot think of a more foolish and dangerous approach. After all, we have seen that story before. We all know how it ends.

FULL ARTICLE

 



Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4524218/Book-claims-elites-UK-encouraging-mass-immigration.html#ixzz4huS0fXXZ
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H.F.1201 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
 

SIGNIFICANT

SELECTIONS FROM THE WEB

MAY-2017

*

What's Really Behind Assault on Tesla Factory "Safety?"

Fronts representing big-oil and big-auto are spearheading a widening PR campaign targeting electric car manufacturer and alternative energy company Tesla. 
May 26, 2017 (LocalOrg) - Alternative energy company Tesla which includes US-based electric car development and production, battery production, and now also includes residential solar panel and battery systems previously under SolarCity, represents a simultaneous threat to several cornerstones of Western corporate-financier monopolies.
 


Openly seeking to replace big-oil and big-auto, it was only a matter of time before Tesla's co-founder, CEO, and product architect Elon Musk attracted the negative attention of both of these deeply rooted and corrupt industries.

The genuine enthusiasm for Tesla and its products versus the paid-for media campaign to obstruct or even reverse Tesla's influence on energy and transportation has been a see-sawing battle unfolding just beneath the surface.

More recently, attempts to further complicate Tesla's US-based manufacturing facility in California have been spearheaded by the United Automobile Workers (UAW), an organization that attempts to pass itself off as a labor union.

Part of this campaign has included several "investigations" carried out by both the corporate media and various organizations like Worksafe - an opaque organization claiming to advocate workplace safety - which recently published a report regarding worker safety at Tesla's California factory. The report was widely promoted across the corporate media in what appears to be a concerted attempt to single out and undermine Tesla.


 

Attempts to ascertain Worksafe's affiliations and funding yielded only an ambiguous disclosure on its website stating:
 
Worksafe is allied with a advocacy groups, scientists and academic experts, unions and labor activists, diverse working communities, like nail salon technicians and car wash workers, environmentalists, legal aid programs - and you.
That UAW featured Worksafe's report prominently on the front of its website gives us clues to just which "unions" Worksafe is "allied with." It appears to be part of a wider campaign by UAW to create a "union" at Tesla, described in a Bloomberg article titled, "Tesla Workers' Union Push Gets UAW Support at California Plant," which states:
 
The United Auto Workers has sent organizers to help employees organize Tesla Inc.’s electric-car plant, a move that -- if successful -- would give the union the presence it’s long sought beyond legacy U.S. automakers’ factories. 

A group of Tesla workers have contacted the union to seek assistance organizing, and the UAW is in discussion with them, Dennis Williams, the union’s president, told reporters during a roundtable Thursday in Detroit. He said union organizers have received complaints about long hours and potentially unsafe conditions at Tesla’s plant in Fremont, California.
 

UAW is a Wall Street Trojan Horse Disguised as a Labor Rights Advocate 

While UAW poses as a labor union, in reality, UAW is nothing of the sort.

It is an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) affiliate, with AFL-CIO representing perhaps the most successful Wall Street-devised attempt to date to infiltrate, co-opt, and commandeer legitimate labor unions and movements not only in the United States, but through funding and association with the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED), all across the entire planet.

A more in-depth example of this can be examined via Democracy Now's 2005 report, "
Unholy Alliance? The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela," and specific mention of the UAW within NED programs can be found on NED's own webpages for Russia and Asia.


 
 

US Policymakers Openly Plot Against Venezuela

May 24, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The US media has been paying increasing attention to the unfolding crisis in the South American nation of Venezuela. As the US media has done elsewhere, it is attempting to portray the unfolding crisis as a result of a corrupt dictatorship fighting against a "pro-democracy" opposition. 

 
In reality, it is simply a repeat of US-driven regime change aimed at toppling Venezuela's independent state institutions and replacing them with institutions created by and for US special interests. 

 
The "opposition" is comprised of US-backed political parties and US-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) many of which are listed on the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website.

The UK Independent in a 2016 article titled, "Venezuela accuses US of plotting coup as Washington warns of 'imminent collapse'," would even admit:
...observers of the region point out that the US has a long history of seeking to interfere in the politics of Venezuela, as well as elsewhere in Latin America. 
In addition to supporting those who ousted Mr Chavez in 2002, the US poured hundreds of thousands of dollars to his opponents via the so-called National Endowment for Democracy.
To understand America's actual role amid Venezuela's unfolding crisis, one must read policy papers produced by organizations called "think tanks" which devise and promote US policy. 

 
The Brookings Institution is a Fortune 500-funded policy think tank. It is populated by policymakers who represent the collective ambitions of some of the world's most powerful corporate-financier interests including big-oil, defense, agricultural monopolies, pharmaceutical corporations, media interests, and more. 

 
Image: Just some of the Brookings Institution's corporate-financier sponsors.

 
Brookings and think tanks similar to it, have regularly produced policy and media guidelines later disseminated across the Western media and Western legislatures through public relations firms and lobbyists. Think tanks are where the real agenda of the West is agreed upon and promoted from.

 
A recent piece featured upon the Brookings Institution's website titled, "Venezuela: A path out of crisis," lays out a 5-point plan toward escalating Venezuela's already precarious situation (emphasis added): 
1. The United States could expand its assistance to countries that until now have been dependent on Venezuelan oil, as a means to decrease regional support for and dependence on the Maduro government.

2. The United States could increase monetary assistance to credible civil society organizations and nongovernmental organizations able to deliver food and medicines to Venezuelans. By doing so, the United States should make clear that international pressure aims to support democracy, not punish the Venezuelan people.

3. The United States could support efforts by the opposition in Venezuela to build an “off-ramp” that would split moderate elements of the government away from hardliners, encouraging the former to acquiesce to a transition to democracy by lowering their costs of exiting government.

4. The United States could coordinate with international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to offer financial incentives for holding free and fair elections in 2018, and for the opposition to unify and compete in those elections. Such coordination would also involve developing and publicizing a credible plan to restart Venezuela’s economy.

5. As a last resort, the United States could consider raising economic costs to the government through an expanded sanctions regime that aims to limit Venezuelan earnings from oil exports and block further financing. This policy is risky, given that the Maduro government would be able to more credibly shift blame for the economic crisis onto the United States, and should be accompanied by well-publicized efforts to deliver humanitarian aid through credible civil society and nongovernmental organizations.
It is a prescription for further economic isolation, US-funded political subversion, and with its reference to "a transition to democracy," an oblique call for regime change.


 
 

Independent Journalists Reveal America's Sinister War in Syria

 

May 24, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Syria is not experiencing a "civil war." It is being targeted by both proxy and direct military force organized by the United States and its allies for the explicit purpose of dividing and destroying yet another Middle Eastern nation.
 

Worse than that, the United States is employing tactics to transform Syria's heterogeneous multi-ethnic and religious communities into segregated ghettos, and using this as a means of dividing and conquering the nation and even the region.

The US is also widely employing the abhorrent tactics of socioeconomic, psychological, and armed terrorism to break the Syrian people completely and absolutely.

Unlike in Libya and Iraq, however, US plans in Syria have been confounded. And because of this, ample time has elapsed for independent journalists to travel to, record, and report what is actually transpiring versus the intentional, malicious, and continuous lies told by the West's mainstream media.

One of these journalists is Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire, whose recent trip to Syria had him cross paths and interview others frequently visiting and sharing their experiences and findings from the besieged nation.

The picture painted is one that cannot be ignored.

For those who have already decided to believe the Western media based on "activist accounts," the accounts provided during
a recent audio interview published by 21st Century Wire is at least as equally compelling. However, for those who truly desire to discover the truth, critical thought and additional research will reveal the latter to be telling a truth consistently and intentionally obfuscated by the Western media.

Imperialism's Fingerprints: Weaponized Ethnic-Segregation

In an interview with British journalist Tom Duggan, the process of terrorists from internationally designated terror organizations like Jabhat Al Nusra and the so-called "Islamic State" targeting communities along sectarian lines is described. While the Western media has confirmed the sectarian nature of the ongoing conflict, what
Duggan and Henningsen's accounts reveal is that Syria was multi-ethnic, with communities enjoying integration and diversity based first on being Syrian, then based on their respective religious and ethnic identities, long before the conflict began.

Intermarriage and sociopolitical exchanges were common before the conflict, and only since 2011 has ethnic and religious tensions begun to expose fault lines within communities based solely on fear created and perpetuated by foreign-backed terrorist organizations like Al Nusra and the Islamic State.

 

Pointed out was the fact that both US foreign policy regarding Syria and Al Nusra and the Islamic State's goals, both aim to see a Syria divided along sectarian lines.

While Al Nusra and the Islamic State attempt to cut Syria's sectarian-diverse communities up literally with bullets and blades, the US has repeatedly presented multiple maps over several years of Syria divided into sectarian-based micro-states - effectively eliminating Syria as a functioning and unified nation-state. While the US omits the "secret ingredient" to make its fictional maps a reality, it is demonstrably clear that terrorist organizations are the ones on the ground attempting to draw these new maps.

Libya - besieged, divided, and destroyed by US-led NATO aggression in 2011 - has suffered a similar fate and currently exists as a cautionary example of what may become of Syria should US plans succeed. Libya will no longer contest US special interests geopolitically or otherwise in its current form as a failed, divided, and destroyed state.

The premeditated and systematic nature of this attempted division and destruction of Syria matches verbatim the tactics employed for centuries by the British Empire - and before that - the Roman Empire.

It is a fundamental tactic not of humanitarian-motivated interventionists, but of imperialists. The crass nature of these tactics - simultaneously promoted by the West and designated terrorist organizations - explains why the Western media has attempted to portray Syria as ethnically and religiously divided before the conflict began, rather than as a process of intentional division and destruction unfolding as part of US foreign policy.

Similar tactics have been employed in Iraq as well, with much greater success. And even as far as
Thailand in Southeast Asia, the groundwork is being laid for similar tactics to be employed to divide and weaken states targeted by Washington for regime change - highlighting the global nature of America's neo-imperial proclivities.


 
 

UK Government Harbored Terrorists Linked to Manchester Blast for Decades

UK Proscribed terrorist organization, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), maintains large presence in Manchester area and is now being linked to recent blast. 
May 24, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - As suspected and as was the case in virtually all recent terror attacks carried out in Europe - including both in France and Belgium - the suspect involved in the recent Manchester blast which killed 22 and injured scores more was previously known to British security and intelligence agencies.

 

The Telegraph in its article, "Salman Abedi named as the Manchester suicide bomber - what we know about him," would report:
 
Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.
While initial reports attempted to craft a narrative focused on a a "lone wolf" attacker who organized and executed the blast himself, the nature of the improvised explosive device used and the details of the attack revealed what was certainly an operation carried out by someone who either acquired militant experience through direct contact with a terrorist organization, or was directed by a terrorist organization with extensive experience.

A Thriving Terrorist Community in the Midst of Manchester 

The same Telegraph article would also admit (emphasis added):
 
A group of Gaddafi dissidents, who were members of the outlawed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), lived within close proximity to Abedi in Whalley Range.

Among them was Abd al-Baset Azzouz, a father-of-four from Manchester, who left Britain to run a terrorist network in Libya overseen by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of al-Qaeda. 

Azzouz, 48, an expert bomb-maker, was accused of running an al-Qaeda network in eastern Libya. The Telegraph reported in 2014 that Azzouz had 200 to 300 militants under his control and was an expert in bomb-making. 

Another member of the Libyan community in Manchester, Salah Aboaoba told Channel 4 news in 2011 that he had been fund raising for LIFG while in the city. Aboaoba had claimed he had raised funds at Didsbury mosque, the same mosque attended by Abedi.
Thus, the required experience for the recent Manchester attack exists in abundance within the community's Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) members.

LIFG is in fact a proscribed terrorist group listed as such by the United Kingdom's government in 2005, and still appears upon its list of "
Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations," found on the government's own website.

The accompanying government
list (PDF) states explicitly regarding LIFG that:
 
The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi.
Thus, astoundingly, according to the Telegraph, a thriving community of listed terrorists exists knowingly in the midst of the British public, without any intervention by the UK government, security, or intelligence agencies - with members regularly travelling abroad and participating in armed conflict and terrorist activities before apparently returning home - not only without being incarcerated, but apparently also without even being closely monitored.

LIFG also appears on the US State Department's
list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Astoundingly, it appears under a section titled, "Delisted Foreign Terrorist Organizations," and indicates that it was removed as recently as 2015.

Elsewhere
on the US State Department's website, is a 2012 report where LIFG is described:
 
On November 3, 2007, [Al Qaeda (AQ)] leader Ayman al-Zawahiri announced a formal merger between AQ and LIFG. However, on July 3, 2009, LIFG members in the United Kingdom released a statement formally disavowing any association with AQ.
The report also makes mention of LIFG's role in US-led NATO regime change operations in Libya in 2011 (emphasis added):
 
In early 2011, in the wake of the Libyan revolution and the fall of Qadhafi, LIFG members created the LIFG successor group, the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change (LIMC), and became one of many rebel groups united under the umbrella of the opposition leadership known as the Transitional National Council. Former LIFG emir and LIMC leader Abdel Hakim Bil-Hajj was appointed the Libyan Transitional Council's Tripoli military commander during the Libyan uprisings and has denied any link between his group and AQ.
Indeed, a literal senior Al Qaeda-affiliate leader would head the regime put into power by US-led military operations - which included British forces.

 

Not only this, but prominent US politicians would even travel to Libya to personally offer support to Bil-Hajj (also spelled Belhaj). In one notorious image, US Senator John McCain is seen shaking hands with and offering a gift to the terrorist leader in the wake of the Libyan government's collapse.

The US State Department's report regarding LIFG ends with information about its "area of operation," claiming (emphasis added):
 
Since the late 1990s, many members have fled to southwest Asia, and European countries, particularly the UK.
For the residents of Manchester, the British government appears to have categorically failed to inform them of the threat living openly in their midst. While the British population is divided and distracted with a more general strategy of tension focused on Islam, Muslims, and Islamophobia, the very specific threat of US-UK sanctioned terrorists living and operating within British communities is overlooked by the public.

 
 

US Strike on Syrian Forces: The Scramble for Post-Islamic State Syria

May 22, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The recent strike on a Syrian military convoy within Syrian territory by US military forces represents another incremental escalation by Washington within the region, and another example of American unilateral military aggression worldwide.
 

The tactical scope of the attack was relatively limited, but strategically, the stakes particularly along Syria's territorial boundaries have been raised significantly.

Regarding the attack, US geopolitical analysts appear unanimous regarding the rhyme and reason behind it.

Foreign Policy magazine in a recent article claimed that the strike "showed American commanders are willing to use force to maintain de facto safe zones in the country’s east." The article also attempts to claim these "safe zones" are being used to stand up forces to fight the Islamic State.


In reality, the Islamic State was a creation of the US and its regional allies and meant specifically to "isolate the Syrian regime," according to a 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency report.

Considering this, the Islamic State's presence in Syria and narratives depicting US efforts as being aimed at fighting the terrorist front are simply being used as rhetorical cover for the more obvious and original purpose of US intervention, regime change in Damascus.

By attacking Syrian forces and asserting US control over Syrian territory, Washington is attempting to permanently "isolate" Damascus even further.

The Atlantic was even more specific in its analysis.

It's article, "
The Scramble for Post-ISIS Syria Has Officially Begun," states clearly:
 
[The strikes] sent a message that the area around the base—al-Tanf in southeastern Syria, near the borders with Iraq and Jordan—was an “American sphere of influence and area of operations.”
The article also claimed:
 
Just as Assad and Iran look to be winning the ground war in Syria, the U.S. and its Syrian opposition partners in the south have intensified their own anti-ISIS activities, exerting more and more of an influence and presence in the south.

Of course, if "Assad and Iran" are poised to win the ground war in Syria, that includes the defeat of the Islamic State, which in theory would mean Washington should be augmenting Damascus and Tehran's efforts, not impeding them with military strikes that not only tactically setback forces fighting the Islamic State and other extremist groups, but also raises the risk of a wider regional war between Washington, Damascus, Tehran and even Moscow that would create more extremism, not less.

US is Using the Islamic State as a Pretext for Regime Change 

In reality, however, Washington is not interested in defeating the Islamic State, but rather using the terrorist front's existence in Syria as a pretext for the incremental expansion of both its military presence in Syria and its use of military force directly against the government in Damascus where indirect methods (including the use of the Islamic State itself) have failed to topple it.


 
 
 
 
PETER OBORNE

ON POLITICS AND POWER

 

[A MATTER OF FACT!]

 

Why MI6 Must share the blame for the Jihadis in our midst

 

 

 

 

News for DAILY MAIL-PETER OBORNE

 

-WHY MI6 MUST SHARE THE BLAME FOR THE

 JIHADIS IN OUR MIDST

 

 

Traditionally, among Britain’s intelligence services, there was a clear hierarchy.

MI6, otherwise known as the Secret Intelligence Service, was foremost. Its staff — mostly privately educated and considered charismatic yet smooth operators, were rated much higher than their socially inferior counterparts in MI5, the domestic intelligence service.

This categorisation was, of course, an over-simplification, and, thankfully, much has changed in the 25 years since I first began working as a political journalist at Westminster.

Inevitably, this week’s terrorist massacre in Manchester has put the spotlight on the work of both MI6 and MI5 in their role to protect the British people from those who wish to do us harm and who want to destroy our way of life.

The attack at Manchester Arena, pictured, has put the spotlight on the work of MI6 and MI5 in protecting the British people, writes Peter Oborne

The attack at Manchester Arena, pictured, has put the spotlight on the work of MI6 and MI5 in protecting the British people, writes Peter Oborne

Indeed, it is hard to praise too highly the work of MI5 in trying to keep the country safe — particularly in the face of the current threat from Islamist terrorists.

But, on the other hand, I am deeply worried about the performance of MI6.

The organisation’s roots go back to the early 1900s when the government was increasingly concerned about the threat to the British Empire posed by Germany. 

Its first chief, Sir Mansfield Cumming, was known as ‘C’ because of the letter he used for initialling documents.

More recently, MI6 was led during the Blair years by Sir Richard Dearlove and his successor, Sir John Scarlett.

Notoriously, Scarlett compiled the dossier on Saddam Hussein’s so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’ — which, though subsequently proved to be false, gave Blair the justification he wanted to persuade MPs that Britain should invade Iraq.

Under Scarlett, MI6 failed in its duty to warn the Government of the potential pitfalls of its foreign policy actions. 

For his part, previously, Dearlove had been disgracefully suborned by Blair. 

He let his and MI6’s independence be fatally compromised and allowed his organisation to become a propaganda tool for the Labour PM’s clique of war-mongerers.

Britain and the West have paid a huge price for the calamitous misjudgments of Scarlett and Dearlove. 

Former MI6 head Sir John Scarlett, pictured, compiled the dossier on Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction' which proved to be false. Under his leadership, MI6 'failed in its duty to warn the Government of the potential pitfalls of its foreign policy actions'

Former MI6 head Sir John Scarlett, pictured, compiled the dossier on Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction' which proved to be false. Under his leadership, MI6 'failed in its duty to warn the Government of the potential pitfalls of its foreign policy actions'

The two spy agency bosses were both singled out for withering criticism in the Chilcot Report which investigated the circumstances of the run-up to the war and highlighted a litany of flawed information that MI6 had supplied.

Significantly, the then head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, said the invasion of Iraq had substantially increased the terror threat to the UK.

I believe that MI6 has failed to learn the lessons from this debacle. Above all, it has made very serious mistakes that have endangered this country’s security.

Often with the connivance of MI6, during the early years of the Syrian War, hundreds of British citizens were allowed to travel abroad to join jihadist organisations. 

The reason MI6 certainly approved such involvement was because spy chiefs had taken it upon themselves to meddle in the internal affairs of Middle East countries.

In the case of Syria, they wanted to get as much help as possible in their mission to topple the Syrian president Bashir al-Assad.

There was a similar policy towards Libya. British citizens — it has been reported this week that among them was the father of the Manchester suicide-bomber — were undoubtedly encouraged to travel to the north African country to fight in the civil war there to get rid of Gaddafi.

Indeed, research by the Middle East Eye website has revealed the extent to which the British authorities, I believe with the encouragement of MI6, released terror suspects in this country from control orders which had previously been imposed on them in order to restrain their movements and stop them from using the internet.

Duly, these people were free to join terror groups in the Middle East and North Africa — organisations with links to Al Qaeda and other terror outfits. 

Of course, as well as being enemies of al-Assad and Gaddafi, these groups were also enemies of the West.

So, while MI5 officers were working day and night to prevent Islamist terrorists inflicting carnage on British streets, MI6 officers were complicit in creating a generation of British-born jihadis who are prepared to do anything, and kill anyone — even young children — in their efforts to destroy this country. 

This brings us directly to the Manchester suicide-bomber.

Along with his father and brother, Salman Abedi fought as a 16-year-old in the Libyan civil war. There have been reports, too, that he received military training in Syria.

There is every reason to speculate that his evil handiwork at the Manchester Arena on Monday night was in part a direct consequence of MI6’s meddling.

There is every reason to speculate that Salman Abedi's (pictured) evil handiwork at the Manchester Arena on Monday night was in part a direct consequence of MI6’s meddling in Middle Eastern and north African affairs

There is every reason to speculate that Salman Abedi's (pictured) evil handiwork at the Manchester Arena on Monday night was in part a direct consequence of MI6’s meddling in Middle Eastern and north African affairs

The organisation is open to the charge that it placed what it perceived to be British foreign policy objectives ahead of the safety of British citizens.

Meanwhile, others in government have serious questions to answer. For example, on whose advice was it that the Home Office lifted the control orders on suspected jihadists? 

And why were repeated warnings about Abedi to the police via an anti-terrorist hotline ignored?

The official reason is that MI5 has been woefully overstretched, having to deal with managing 500 investigations into suspected terrorists, involving as many as 23,000 ‘subjects of interest’.

What is certainly true is that the police and MI5 have not been helped by the rogue activities of some of their foreign intelligence partners in MI6.

It is worth pointing out that I’m not the only one perturbed by such behaviour within MI6, which has traditionally been licensed by the government to break the law and carry out illicit acts, on the assumption that it always acts in the British national interest.

Former MI6 officer Alastair Crooke, who worked for the service for 30 years and who has vast experience in the Middle East and Afghanistan, is concerned that some of its operators are not working in the national interest.

He told me: ‘It is not right that, on one hand, domestic police services are straining every sinew to protect our societies by fighting terrorism, while, on the other hand, elements in our and America’s security services have been arming and training jihadists and colluding in terrorism.’

The worry — and it is a profound one — is that if Britain’s two intelligence agencies are working at cross purposes, we will never be able to make our streets safe from terrorists.

 

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4546934/PETER-OBORNE-MI6-share-blame-jihadis.html#ixzz4iHgN1Ftd
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Full article

 

 

[HAVING SHOWN NUMEROUS ARTICLES OVER THE PAST DECADES FROM THE DAILY MAIL OF THE DISASTROUS WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST BROUGHT ABOUT BY BLAIR AND BUSH WITH CAMERON  AND ONLY PREVENTED BY PARLIAMENT OF EXTENDING IT TO SYRIA. THOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THAT OUR SPECIAL FORCES ARE THERE.   WE REMEMBER THE DEATH OF THE COURAGEOUS DAVID KELLY-A MURDER FOR WHICH CULPRITS HAVE STILL TO BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.   BRITISH AND US GOVERNMENT FOREIGN POLICY SINCE THE FIRST WORLD WAR IN THEIR THIRST FOR OIL AND INFLUENCE HAS BROUGHT  GREAT DESTRUCTION AND CHAOS TO THE REGION WITH THE CONSEQUENT EXODUS INTO EUROPE AND THE UK.     THE FAULT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS WHO APPEAR IN HOCK TO THE GLOBALISTS FACTION WHO ONLY CONSIDER THEMSELVES WITH THEIR INSATIABLE GREED WHICH WILL MORE THAN LIKELY BRING ABOUT A THIRD WORLD WAR.]

IRAQ WAR FILE

More!

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

MAY 27-2017

H.F.1203 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
 

The old guard simply refuses to hand over the financial system so it will have to be replaced

The old guard that hijacked the world’s financial system is stubbornly refusing to cede control over the process of creating dollars, euros and yen to the people of the planet earth. This was evident when Rothschild lawyer and Mossad agent Michael Greenberg visited the Japanese Emperor last week to demand unlimited funds for him and his fellow Khazarian gangsters, according to sources close to the Emperor. Greenberg also claimed to be representing Henry Kissinger who is now back, together with Greenberg, on the high priority target list of known genocidal criminals.

The Emperor was furious at Greenberg and blamed him and his slaves, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Finance Minister Taro Aso, for blocking the release of funds meant for the people of the planet, the sources added.

This means that in order to start a new age and liberate the planet, a two pronged attack will be needed. One will be to continue to eliminate old guard genocidal leaders one by one until the Khazarian mob finally surrenders. The other will be to continue to build an alternative financial system, based on gold, crypto-currencies and non-Khazarian currencies until the old system withers at the vine and drops into the compost heap of history. This two pronged attack is already fully under way.

The big question mark now, though, is what to make of Pope Francis. Forensic research has shown that most of the so-called world leaders we see on our TV screens and in public are controlled by the P2 Freemason lodge via the Vatican bank and a network of professional assassins. In other words most world leaders, when offered a choice between silver (a bribe) and lead (a bullet), have taken the Vatican bank silver.

Pope Francis, who has incredible secret power at his disposal, has, on the one hand, been purging the Vatican of pedophiles and saying and doing nice things but, on the other hand, he has failed to change the system at a fundamental level by doing such things as declaring a real jubilee (cancellation of all debt etc.).

Which brings us to finally deal with some information we have had for a long time but were not sure what to make of, and that is the fact Francis has openly said his god is Lucifer.

https://newsgru.com/lucifer-is-god-declared-by-pope-francis/

What is the role of the Luciferians as US President Donald Trump, the nominal head of the Western military industrial complex, carries out his tour of the top monotheistic holy spots, Arabia (notice he was not allowed into Mecca), Jerusalem and Rome? The question is, is Trump on a trip to try to save the old regime (Lucifer?) or is he aiming for something more historic, like initiating the dawn of a golden age?

Pentagon sources say that while Trump was in Saudi Arabia this past weekend, apart from making a $350 billion arms deal, he

.

This post is only viewable for paid members please register your account to view full text.
If you registerd,please login.

 

 

 

Posted by benjamin
May 22, 2017

 

H.F.1206.

A NEW BEGINNING!

ON

JUNE 8 -2017

WITH

BREXIT

FOR THE FUTURE!

THE NATION'S MAIN CONCERN SHOULD BE THAT ALL POLITICAL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE COMING GENERAL ELECTION TO SHUT UP! AND ADMIT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RIGHT! ABOUT A GREAT DEAL  OVER THE LAST 45 YEARS-NO DOUBT LONGER .  THE GRAVE ERRORS HAVE OCCURRED ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. IT IS TIME FOR A NEW START!  IT IS THE FUTURE THAT MATTERS FOR EVERYONE! THE NEED IN OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF A HEALTHY OPPOSITION AND STRONG GOVERNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL IS BEYOND DOUBT - FORGET THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST AND PLAN FOR A GREAT FUTURE AS OTHERS AROUND THE WORLD EXPECT OF US. A STRONG VIBRANT ECONOMY-A SENSIBLE  FRIENDLY FOREIGN POLICY AND A UNIQUE PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WITH A RECOVERED AND EMBEDDED CHRISTIAN ETHIC WHICH THE WORLD  SHOULD EXPECT OF US.

THE WORLD AS WE ALL KNOW  IS CHANGING AS MANY OF YOU ARE NOW AWARE WITH A NEW DEAL FOR MANKIND WITH A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR A MORE PEACEFUL AND HAPPY WORLD FOR ALL ITS INHABITANTS.

BREXIT MUST SUCCEED !

VOTE TO ENSURE IT'S

SUCCESS

ON

JUNE 8-2017

*

'To climb steep hills requires slow pace at first.'

Shakespeare.

 

'The first beginnings; look to the budding mischief before it has time to ripen to maturity.-'

 SHAKESPEARE

*

'Any man may make a mistake, but none but a fool will continue in it-

CICERO

 

'No man ever became great or good except through many and great mistakes.'-

GLADSTONE

*

FOR ALL WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY PARTICULARLY THOSE INVOLVED WITH THE PRESENT POLITICAL SCENE

A BOOK IN WAR-TIME (1942)

REFLECTIONS

ON

GOVERNMENT

(DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

(INTERNAL DIFFICULTIES OF DEMOCRACY)

 BY

EARNEST BARKER

Honorary Fellow of Merton College, Oxford and of Peterhouse, Cambridge-O.U.P.

 A REMINDER OF THE REALITIES OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE NEED FOR ALL PARTICIPATING  -  TO BE OBJECTIVE AND HONEST!

FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL!

*

'With in mind Greece the birthplace of Democracy and Christianity the message of Hope!

'That learning is most requisite which unlearns evil.'

Antisthenes

Gr. philosopher. 444-365 B.C.

*

 

MAY 29-2017

 

H.F.1207 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER.

 
A FREE PRESS!

It's finest expression had already been given in

MILTON'S

AREOPAGITICA.

Milton boldly proclaimed two principles of profound importance.

One was the immunity of the religious life from political regulation. The other was that doctrine which has been the strength of the best thought of individualism from his day to the present, to wit that the well-being of society requires the natural diversity of its members, and that coercive uniformity of morals and manners would spell the ruin and degradation of any people.

*

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

More!

 

 

 

 

 
THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

*

A BETRAYAL OF OUR PAST OVER 50 YEARS

 (1959-2016)

 

 

 

THE SPIRIT OF A PEOPLE

THE FIRST TASK of any politics that could be really scientific was to relate authority to its principle source, to show its dependence on the whole social fabric, the customs and traditions, the modes of thought and the standards of life that prevail among a people.  ...the work of Montesquieu.   He really sought to understand society, to show the influence of underlying  conditions ,climatic, geographical, economic, to show that custom and institutions neither are made nor can be changed by fiat, to show that there is in every people a spirit of character which their law must reveal

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise.  He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

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

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

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

 

H.F. 1325.

 
 
 A MATTER OF FACT!

On October 11-2017 15 months after the PEOPLE had voted to LEAVE the EU  the Daily Mail in its COMMENT column stated the FOLLOWING:

'YES, the Mail would have preferred a quicker and cleaner BREXIT but how foolish of Eurosceptic MPs to kick up a fuss about the planned TWO-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD. After 45 years of subjection to EUROPEAN JUDGES, another couple will be a mere blink in HISTORY'S EYE. The great thing is that BREXIT is GOING AHEAD and barring REMOANER'S TREACHERY, SEPARATION WILL BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.'

STATEMENT!

[We and no doubt the majority who voted to LEAVE the EU, knowing the following true facts will no doubt NOT AGREE! with that COMMENT.

 What is FORGOTTEN is the MANNER in which the PEOPLE were DECEIVED by the TORY GOVERNMENT in 1972 and the LEGAL consequences of THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS as clearly indicated in numerous BULLETINS on our EDP website over the past 12 years. To call our DEPARTURE from the EU  a DIVORCE is a PERVERSION of the FACTS!  - A MARRIAGE if we are to call it THAT is INVALID if its DOCUMENTATION is  FALSE or obtained by BRIBERY and /or FRAUD.

  NO-MARRIAGE-NO CONTRACT-NO COMPENSATION

FOR THE EU TO EXPECT A GOLDEN HANDSHAKE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO REWARD THEM FOR THE WICKED; ATROCIOUS; DREADFUL; INFAMOUS; OUTRAGEOUS; PERVERSE; SINISTER; VILLAINOUS; EVIL; CONDUCT OF MANY POLITICIANS WITHIN THE EU, SOME AS MENTIONED BELOW.

*

 

Below we have shown details of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other relevant information which will clearly show that the UK could EXIT THE EU in MONTHS NOT YEARS. Obviously, there has been a COVER-UP of MAJOR PROPORTIONS by the POLITICAL CLASS in GENERAL because how can one explain the SILENCE! even FROM our FREE PRESS the FOURTH ESTATE in the land which we look too to PROTECT OUR  over a thousand year ENGLISH  RIGHTS  and LIBERTIES . Possibly the reason could be that there would be a REVOLUTION if the PEOPLE knew the TRUE FACTS?

 Added OCTOBER 11-2017

IN JULY 2016 AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL BREXIT VOTE WE ARE TOLD BY OUR NEW PRIME MINISTER MRS MAY THAT IT COULD BE YEARS BEFORE WE ARE FREE OF THE CORRUPT-_COLLECTIVIST- UNDEMOCRATIC EU WHICH DEVOURS MILLIONS OF OUR NEEDED POUNDS EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 

OUR MESSAGE TO FRAU MERKEL AND HER ROBBER BAND

IS

'GO TO HELL'

BUT

MRS MAY APPEARS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MESSAGE EVEN THOUGH HER OWN WORDS WERE

"BREXIT MEANS BREXIT.

The following article was put on our website in October,2005 shortly after we received this most revealing information from

CHRISTOPHER STORY

 WHO GAVE HIS LIFE

FOR

TRUTH AND PATRIOTISM

 

FROM

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY REVIEW-

SEPTEMBER-2005

*

 

EUROPEAN PAYROLA SYSTEM

 

THE BUDGET FOR THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION WAS $5.0 BILLION

 

An account held by Credit Suisse in Zurich, labelled the ‘SBC’ Charcol Account, held a total of some $470 billion when last reviewed by sources.  These funds were originally derived from Nazi funds and assets, are routinely used to pay top politicians and officials to sign successive European Collective treaties- the latest being the so-called ‘European Constitution’.

The budget set aside from the ‘SBC’Charcol Account and to be distributed from the Credit Suisse disbursement account for the latest ‘update’ of the ‘rolling  European Collective Treaty’ was $5.0billion- $2.5 billion being payable in Euros to the participants from the 25 EU countries.

On the finalisation of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which framed the text of the Treaty, and a further $2.5 billion payable in Euros on ratification.  This tranche is currently the subject of much dissension.

For each national cadre of key negotiator, therefore, the total set aside  was $100 million per tranche.  The chief negotiators of each EU country, plus selected officials were each to be paid from the national pot of $ 100 million, whish equates to roughly $75 million per corrupted European Union country.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was allegedly initially offered $50 million.  being an extremely wealthy man, he departed for the weekend in question in July 2004, following conclusion of the IGC, having indicated to those concerned that he was insulted by such a figure, and that $100million would be nearer the mark.  In the event, following an allowance for his wife, he was allegedly paid $75 million, according to sources.

Tony Blair allegedly received $75 million, which was paid into an offshore bank account held in Belize, the former British Honduras.  There, official eyebrows were naturally raised at the Central bank of Belize, where we notice that all of a sudden, the official reserves of foreign exchange jumped from $49.72 million in February 2005, to $164.53 million in March [2005]

Since the corrupt payment ‘due’ at the completion of the IGC will have been remitted in or about July 2004, this may suggest that the funds have subsequently (in March 2005) been taken into the foreign exchange reserves of the local central bank, so that their actual ownership can be disguised, a ‘new form’ of money-laundering: through a central bank!

 

WE ARE RELIABLY ADVISED THAT THIS CORRUPT PAYOLA SYSTEM IS THE NORM.

 

This means that the European Union’s Treaties

 are null and void,

as they have been obtained by fraud. 

 

That applies to the original EU Accession Treaty signed on behalf of the UK Government by [Nazi] agents Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon, agents of German intelligence, who were both recruited at Balliol College Oxford as discussed in this analysis.

 

It applies also to the Maastricht Treaty, signed by

 

John Major

 

Who allegedly received at least one corrupt payment for his services.  And it applies to the latest fiasco of the EU Collective.

 

THESE CORRUPT PAYOLA PAYMENTS

ARE ‘NON-REFUNDABLE’.

 

The second tranches of  $100 Million per country for the [New European Constitution] new treaty are payable on ratification, but following their referenda, the Netherlands and France cannot ratify.

 

*          *

International Currency Review

 

(Vol 30- No 4)

*

 

 

www.worldreports.org

 

*          *          *

 

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used –comments

in brackets]

 

OCT/05

 

THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the

Law of Treaties

there are two key provisions which authorize a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice:

WHERE corruption has been demonstrated in respect of procuring the

TREATY

in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation.

AS the next section will show, 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.

2. Where there has been a material change of circumstances.

 

A material change of circumstances has surfaced into daylight, to begin with, following the death of Sir Edward Heath. It has been revealed that he was an agent for a foreign power, accepted corrupt payments 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

As even more disturbing material change of circumstances has arisen as a consequence of the bombing of the London Underground and a bus , which took place on 7th July 2005, and the attempted explosions perpetuated two weeks later. We understand that the situation is so serious that the Civil Contingencies Secretariat has been in the process of drafting, or has drafted, legislation providing for the British Government to abrogate its putative international treaty [sic] 'obligations' towards the European Union.

ARE YOU STILL THERE MR HAGUE?

This development reflects the knowledge in certain UK intelligence circles that the attacks amounted to an

ACT of WAR

against the United Kingdom, and that the foreign powers behind this activity are ultimately controlled by the DVD from Dachau -( the same area of the World War II notorious concentration camp) which is the successor organization to the Abwehr, Nazi Germany's main external intelligence administration.

It was the Abwehr that first established , as a means of undermining British influence in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, from which ALL subsequent Islamic terror groups, without exception, originate. Al Qaeda, a descendant ultimately of the German-founded

Muslim Brotherhood,

is a controlled cut-out operation of international intelligence.

The Nazi regime and its Stalinist dialectical counterpart, were both Black Illuminati regimes. The Al Qaeda operation is an extension of the Black tradition, and is ultimately controlled, like the IRA (until very recently) by the DVD out of Dachau.

near Munich

For confirmation of the above and further information consult our bulletin board or contact

E-mail: cstory@ worldreports.org

Website:

www.worldreports.org

*

The European Union Collective:
Enemy of Its Member States

OCTOBER-2005

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 PATRIOT AND TRUTHSEEKER

2010

 

H.F.1335/1-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU

 

 

 

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

APRIL-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2017

 TO RETURN TO:- PART 1   &  PART 2

TOP OF PAGE