Celebrate
700 years of Constitutional Development in 2007- from Edward
I - the English Justinian
*
Celebrate
in 2007 the beginnings of our parliamentary representation 700
years ago, which we owe to the English Justinian -Edward I of
England –if King Tony will let you?
In
this year of 2005 we have been witness to a late revival of
the doggedness of many members of our Parliament in their contesting
the actions of the present dictatorship in the Mother of Parliaments.
Over the last
three decades many of us have seen the successive governments
of both complexions tie their colours to Treaties which have
virtually taken away from OUR Parliament the very rights and
liberties which had their beginnings those seven centuries ago.
But
for the rejection of the New European Constitution by France
and Holland this year the rail-roading
of the British people into the abomination of a United
States of Europe would no doubt have been precipitated
in order that the Elite can enjoy the rewards of
TREASON.
They
have no fear themselves that the oppressive laws, which we will
have to obey, will bother them because they
will be exempted from such trauma because of their special status.
As
with the USSR of the past select numbers enjoying the good-life
at the expense of the majority – may well be a million or two
because there will be many who would rather keep their job and
perks than decide to fight for their country’s hard won rights
and liberties from the past.
The
latest revelations of October 10 –2005
from
International Currency Review
Is the only INDEPENDENT
global journal specialising in international currency, financial
and economic issues with a geopolitical and intelligence dimension?
Published since 1969
it specialises today in exposing corruption in governance structures,
since corruption of governance and of the capitalist system
is swamping all other considerations.
The Journal is one of a series of intelligence sources
published by World Reports limited, details of which will be
found on:
www.worldreports.org
E-mail-cstory@worldreports.org
concerning
the Corruption-Treachery and
Skulduggery in the EU and the US which has been a
common feature over the past thirty years with its beginnings
in the UK with a ring of Traitors in Balliol College Oxford
Edward Heath
Geoffrey
Rippon
Roy Jenkins
who were uncovered by the Master of Balliol - [Lindsay] and who reported them to M15 before the Second World War – being Nazi agents which were controlled later
from the Nazi Geopolitical
centre in Dachau the location of the
Nazi concentration camp in Germany from 1943.
Until his death this year and his burial service in
Salisbury Cathedral the past prime minister
and parliamentarian Edward
Heath had been a Nazi agent for 60 years the longest
penetration in Intelligence history.
His co- conspirators were:
Roy Jenkins and Geoffrey Rippon.
[And no doubt others]
It is known that
Tony Blair
was
a protege of
Roy Jenkins
We have disclosed the above facts which are
a part of a much greater expose which we have detailed more
fully on our bulletin board in order to show the dangers which
have and still do threaten our Ancient parliamentary representation
which our people fought for and obtained from one of the greatest
kings of England –Edward I –The English Justinian and the constitutional
contribution of the French born supporter of Parliament- the
great Earl Simon de Montford.
Though the pressure for a decision on Europe has now receded
there is no time for complacency as the EU bandwagon is still
rolling along with more regulations-directives which the EU
Commission say they have a right to do because of past treaties
which we now learn were secured by FRAUD with the signatories to the Treaties
paid to sign with the funds from a Nazi slush fund provided
no doubt DVD and stored under the streets of Switzerland
by the:
Nazi Geopolitical
Centre in Dachau
which we are told though not financially supported by the
Chancellery of Germany
-they have their support.
[See EDP bulletin
board for more details –under International Currency Review]
We now hear that King Tony
intends to do away with the Shire
structure in England which as the Third Estate (Commons) so long ago its bedrock ‘of seventy-four knights of the shires which constituted
the original strength of our representative system.’
This is a further move by King Tony to destroy any evidence
of our past history and to enable him and his many cronies to
put forward disastrous policies for consideration in order to
destroy the cohesion of the opposition in order for him to claim
success.
But then he has no intention of permitting any Englishness
to exist in the desert he is planning for his greatest foe England
whereas thousands of millions of pounds have been handed to
Scotland and Wales in the evolution process in order for their
history and separateness to be encouraged.
We have lately had the revelations of our previous Ambassador to Washington Sir Christopher Meyer
who has given a
splendid picture of the antics of King Tony which explains
why our brave troops are in Iraq with 98
killed and hundreds wounded of which we hear nothing
of their numbers and suffering
of the many distressed families in the land.
We now learn
BUSH ‘double-crossed Blair over Iraq War
by
Tim Shipman-political
Correspondent
Daily Mail
Friday 25th November 2005
Tony Blair was ‘double-crossed’ by George Bush in the run-up
to the Iraq war, according to a former American diplomat.
Joe Wilson, whose wife was ‘outed’ as a CIA agent after criticising
the President’s case for war, claimed the Premier was duped
into believing the White House wanted action against Saddam
because of his supposed weapons of mass destruction.
In fact it just wanted rid of the Iraqi dictator, he said.
The view, from a man central to the efforts to find evidence
of Saddam’s weapons programme, has the power to damage Mr Blair
because it reinforces critics’ claims that he had little say
in the drift to war.
Mr Wilson said:
‘I watched the way that
the British built their case, and it was a disarmament case
as best I could see it. Mr
Blair came to the U.S when Bush was talking about regime change
and when he left Mr Bush started talking about disarmament as
the objective.
‘I think that Mr Blair really thought that
he was getting involved
in a disarmament campaign, which was all
to the good-I fully supported that.
‘I think at the end of the day he was double-crossed
by the regime change crowd in Washington. It looks like he was double-crossed and chose to go along
with it.’
Mr Wilson also criticised ‘weak’
and ‘exaggerated’ intelligence provided by British spies
(err! You don’t surely mean our own John Scarlett) that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Niger.
To the embarrassment of MI6, he made clear the CIA no longer
believes what Britain tells it.
Mr Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate the claim in 2002
and found it to be untrue.
He attacked Mr Bush for using it in his State of the
Union address in 2003.
Vice-president Dick Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis ‘Scooter’
Libby has resigned to fight charges that he leaked the name
of Mr Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, in retaliation.
Mr Wilson said George Tenet, who was then Mr Bush’s Director
Of Central Intelligence told the White House on three occasions
that ‘the evidence is weak and
we believe the British exaggerated the case’.
[Is that not so Mr John Scarlett?]
Mr Wilson added:
‘I believe the President and this administration had come
to a decision that it wanted to go to war with Iraq.
To return back to the late thirteenth and early years of the
fourteenth centuries and the subject of the Commemoration of the life and times of Edward I of England who
himself had troubles in wishing to fight a war abroad which
his baron’s considered to be unconstitutional -but to return
to the great Law-maker and his father’s major contribution to
the Constitution.
During the minority of his father Henry III when England was
run under a Regency - the doctrines of:
‘The King can do no wrong’
And
‘The responsibility of Ministers of the Crown’
was formed.
We hope the events of the past eight years will be sufficient
reasons for the majority of the loyal subjects of
Her Majesty
The Queen Elizabeth the Second
of
England
To support our petition to recognise the work of her great ancestor the English Justinian who made
possible the beginnings of our unique parliamentary democracy
700 years ago which has been under threat for over forty years
particularly over the last eight years in order that it can
be destroyed in order to conform with a Continental model which
was rejected those many years ago by a great Lord Chief
Justice of England- Sir John Fortescue, LORD CHANCELLOR who’s
final resting place is in The
Church Of St. Eadburgha –Ebrington -Gloucestershire.
which stands in a commanding position in one of the highest parts of the
village.
‘The
CHURCHYARD has many ancient
Yews
and tall dark trees sheltering a collection of headstones hoary
with lichen. Some date
back to the 17th century. There is a right-of-way
through the churchyard leading to the road to Chipping Campden’.
It
looks over a fertile vale to the hills of the Cotswold borderland.
Its short sturdy tower is a landmark for miles around which
depicts the England we all love-those who consider their constitutional
history unrivalled anywhere in the world for its accumulated
wisdom from the past in our Constitution and in the People who
will not let its principles be destroyed as is now happening
by the many disastrous encroachments whether houses or wind
farms into our precious picturesque landscape in many parts
of our country.
* *
DEC/05
[We
understand that we are in for a cold Winter and we wonder how
the much-praised value of wind power will perform when there
is little or no wind about. Even at other seasons of the year
the wind is not something, which will arrive because you have
the structure in place. Power
stations depend on fuel of whatever kind to work. Why should we ruin our countryside for a source of energy so spasmodic
and unreliable with its intrusive and irritating side-affects?
There
is however hope on the horizon with the latest developments
with clean coal technology in the USA with huge coal stocks
there and in the UK which at first sight appears to be an answer
to less dependence on nuclear energy]
*
We
now return to the 13th century with the help of the
great constitutional historian
Dr Stubbs
in
his own words in his
Constitutional
History of England
Vol II
*
As there were many types of town constitution existing at the
same time, so too there were many degrees of completeness of
functions.
Some
were almost independent republics, some mere country townships
that had reached the stage at which they compounded severally
for their ferm, but were in all other respects under the influence
of the sheriff and county court.
There
were, however, some points in which- London with sheriff and
a shire constitution and the county court still
reviewed or incorporated the town constitution.
In
matters of jurisdiction, the towns, however completely organised,
could not exclude the itinerant justices, whose
court being the shiremoot
involved the recognition of the sheriff.
Hence
in the general summons of the county court before those officers
in the boroughs were ordered to
send twelve burgers to represent the general body.
In
the measures for the conservation
of the peace, the sheriff had orders to enforce the
observance of watch and ward, to forbid tournaments and
other occasions of riot, and to examine into the observance
of the Assize of Arms, not only in the geldable or
open townships of the shires,
but in the cities and boroughs as well.
The details of the system were carried out by the local
officers; the great towns elected their own coroners, majors, bailiffs and constables, but
they were under the view of the
sheriff.
The military contingents of the towns, composed of
the men sworn under the Assize
of Arms, were also led by the sheriffs; these contributions
to the national force being, except in the case of a few large
towns, too small to form a separate organised body.
In
point of direct dealing with the crown, whether in the executive
measures resulting from reform, in fiscal negotiations, or in
transactions which took the form of fine or petition, every
town, as indeed every individual, had a distinct and recognised
right to act; and these points, which
serve in regard to the counties to show the corporate
unity of the community, and therefore require illustration
in relation to that point, need no further treatment here.
Under
these circumstances, we can imagine the Simon
de Montford and Edward I, when they determined to
call the town communities to their parliaments, may have hesitated
whether to treat them as part of the shire
communities or as independent bodies.
Earl
Simon adopted the latter course. Which was perhaps necessary
under the local divisions of the moment; as he summoned out
of the body of the baronage only those on whom he could rely,
so he selected the towns, which were to be represented, and
addressed his summons directly to the magistrates of those towns.
And
this plan was adopted by Edward I on the first occasions on
which he called the borough representatives together.
But
when the constitution took its final form, a form which was in thorough accordance with the growth of the national spirit
and system, it was found more convenient to treat
them as portions of the counties;
the writ for the election was directed to the sheriff,
and formal election of the borough members, as well as that
of knights of the shire,
was in many cases, if not generally, completed in the county court. Thus the inclusion of the boroughs in the national system was finally
completed in and through the same process by which the general
representation of the three estates was insured.
The
towns of England,
neither by themselves nor in conjunction with the shires,
ever attempted before the seventeenth century to act alone in
convention like the Scottish boroughs, or in confederation like
the German leagues.
The
commons had no separate assembly, answering to the convocation
of the clergy or the great council of the baronage.
In
1296, however,
Edward summoned representative burghers from the chief towns
to meet first at Bury and afterwards at Berwick to advise on
the new constitution of the latter town; and this plan may have
been occasionally adopted for other purposes.
We
have now to link together very succinctly the several cases
in which in the year 1295, the representative principle entered
into composition of the parliaments; the political causes and
other phenomena of which have been treated in the last chapter
[xiv].
From
the year 1215 onwards, in the total deficiency of historical
evidence, we can only conjecture that the national council,
when it contained members over and above those who were summoned
by special writ as barons, comprised such minor members of the
body of tenants –in-chief as found it convenient or necessary
to obey the general summons which was prescribed for the purpose
of granting special aids, by the fourteenth article of the [Magna
Carta] charter.
These
would be more or less numerous on occasion, but would have no
right or title to represent the commons; they attended simply
by virtue of their tenure.
When
Matthew Paris describes a parliament of 1246 as containing the
‘generalis universitas’ of the clergy and knighthood of the
kingdom, his words, suggestive as they are, cannot be safely
understood as implying representation.
The
year 1254 then is the first date at which the royal writs direct
the election and attendance
in parliament of two knights from each shire: the
occasion being the granting of an aid in money to be sent to
the king in Gascony, and the parliament being called by the
queen and the earl of Cornwall in the belief that, as the bishops
had refused to grant money without consulting the beneficed
clergy, the surest way to obtain it from the laity was to call
an assembly on which the promise of a renewal of the charters
would be likely to produce the effect desired.
There
is no reason to suppose that the counties were represented either
in the first parliament of 1258 or in the Oxford parliament
of the same year, or that the knights who brought up the complaints
of the shires to
the October parliament were elected as representatives of the
shires to the Oxford parliament were elected as representatives
to take part in that parliament, or that the ‘bacheleria,’ which
in 1259 took Edward for its spokesman, was the collective representation
of the shires.
The
provisionary government, which lasted from 1258 to 1264, restricted
rather than extended the limits of the taxing and deliberative
council.
In
the intervening struggle however both parties had recourse to
the system of representation:
In 1261 the baronial leaders summoned three knights of each shire to a conference
at S.Alban’s and the king retaliated by directing the same knights
to attend his parliament at Windsor.
In 1264, immediately after the battle of Lewes, Simon
summoned four knights of each
shire to a parliament at London, and in the December
of the same year he called together the famous assembly, to
which not only knights of the shire were summoned by writs addressed
to the sheriffs, but two discreet and lawful representatives
from the cities and boroughs were summoned by writs
addressed to the magistrates of the several communities.
It
is not impossible that Henry III, or earl Simon, may have summoned
representatives of the commons, when he summoned proctors for
the cathedral chapters, to parliament at Winchester, which was
to have been held in June 1265.
The
preamble to the statute of
Marlborough in 1267
states that the king had called to parliament the more discreet
men of the realm,
‘tam de majoribus quam de minoribus,’
The
discretion, which was the peculiar qualification of the knights of the shire, affording a presumption
that they were present.
In
1269, at a great court held for the translation of S. Edward the Confessor
[To remind you all that in November 2005 the exact location of the tomb of this
king has been believed to have been found in Westminster
Abbey] -
attended
by all the magnates, were present also the more powerful men
of the cities and boroughs; but when the ceremony was over,
the king proceeded to hold parliament with the barons, and the
citizens and burghers
can only be supposed to have been invited guests, such as attended,
by nomination of the sheriffs, at
the coronations and other great occasions.
[Further information on this particular matter can be
obtained from Dr Stubbs-Constitutional
History –details above.]
Other points of interest follow.
Edward I Inherited some
sound institutions.
In
an attempt to ascertain how far Edward really comprehended the
constitutional material on which he was working, and formed
his idea according to the capacity of that material, we can
scarcely avoid crediting him with measures, which he may have
inherited, or which may have been the work of his ministers.
Little
as can be said for Henry III himself, there was much vitality
and even administrative genius in the system of government during
his reign.
Local
institutions flourished, although the central government languished
under him. Some of his bad ministers were among the best lawyers
of the age.
Stephen
Segrave, the successor of Hubert de Burgh, was regarded by Bracton
as a judge of consummate authority; Robert Burnell and Walter
de Merton, old servants of Henry, left names scarcely less remarkable
in their line of work than those of Grosseteste and Cantilupe.
No
doubt these men had much to do with Edward’s early reforms. We can trace the removal of Burnell’s influence
in the more peremptory attitude of the king assumed after his
death, and the statesmanship of the latter years of the reign
is coloured by the faithful but less enlightened policy of Walter
Langton.
But
notwithstanding all this, the marks of Edward’s constitutional
policy is so distinct as to be accounted for by his own continual
intelligent supervision.
If
his policy had been only Burnell’s, it must have changed when
circumstances changed after Burnell’s death, as that of Henry
VIII changed when Cromwell succeeded Wolsey; but the removal
of the minister only sharpens the edge of the king’s zeal.
His
policy, whoever were his advisers, is uniform and progressive. That he was both well acquainted with the machinery
of administration and possessed
of constructive ability is shown by the constitutions, which
he drew up for Wales and Scotland:
Both bear the impress of his own hand.
The
statute of Wales
not only shows a determination closely to assimilate
that country to England in its institutions, to extend with no grudging hand the benefits
of good government to the conquered province, but also furnishes
an admirable view of the local administration top, which it
was intended to adapt it.
The constitution devised for Scotland
is an original attempt at blending the Scottish national system
as it then existed with the general administration of the empire,
an attempt which was completed four centuries later [Under Henry the Eighth]
A similar conclusion may be drawn from Edward’s legislation:
It is not the mere registration of unconnected amendments
forced on by the improvement of local knowledge, nor the innovating
design of a man who imagines himself to have a genius for law,
but an intelligent development of well-ascertained and accepted
principles, timed and formed by a policy of general government. So far, certainly Edward seems qualified to
originate a policy of design…’
Simon de Montford
To Leicester [Simon] alone of the barons can any constructive
genius be ascribed; and as we have seen, owing to the difficulty
of determining where his uncontrolled action begins and ends,
we cannot define his share in the successive schemes, which
he helped to sustain.
That he possessed both constructive power
and true zeal for justice cannot be denied.
That with all his popularity he understood the nation, or
they him, is much more questionable:
and hence his greatest work, the parliament of 1265,
wants that direct relation to the national system, which the
constitution of 1295 possesses.
In the aspect of a popular champion, the favourite of the
people and the clergy, Simon loses sight of the balance of the
constitution;
an alien, he is the foe of aliens;
owing his real importance to his English earldom, he all but banishes the
baronage from his councils.
He is the genius, the hero of romance, saved by his good faith
and righteous zeal…
*
Share of the clergy in the constitutional
growth
It is in the ranks of the clergy that we should naturally
look, considering the great men of the time, for a moderate
constructive policy. The thirteenth century is the golden age
of English churchmanship.
The age that produced one Simon among the earls, produced
among the bishops Stephen Langton, S.Edmund, Grosseteste , and
the Cantilupes. The Charter
of Runnymede [Magna Carta] was drawn under Langton’s
eye; Grosseteste was the friend and adviser of the constitutional
opposition.
Berksted, the Episcopal member of the electoral triumvirate,
was the pupil of S. Richard of Chichester:
S.Edmund of Canterbury was the adviser who compelled
the first banishment of aliens; S.Thomas of Cantilupe, the last
canonised Englishman, was chancellor of the baronial regency…
*
Sympathy of the people with the reforms.
If we ask, lastly, what was the share of the people, of the
commons, of their
leading members in town and shire,
our review of the history furnishes a distinct if not very circumstantial
answer. The action of the people is to some extent traceable
in the acts of the popular leader.
Simon de Montford possessed the confidence of the commons:
the knightly body threw itself into the arms of Edward
in 1259 when it was necessary to counteract the oligarchic policy
of the barons: the Londoners, the men of the Cinque Ports, the
citizens of the great towns, the Universities under the guidance
of the friars were constantly on
the side liberty.
But history has preserved no great names or programmes of
great design proceeding from the third estate…
Conclusion
Let then the honour be given where it is due. If the result is a compromise, it is one made between parties which by honesty and patriotism are entitled to make
with one another terms which do not give to each all that he
might ask; and justly so, for the subjects on which
the compromise turns, the relations of Church and State, land and commerce,
tenure and citizenship, homage and alliance, social freedom
and civil obligation, are matters on which different
ages and different nations have differed in theory, and on which
even statesman and philosophers have failed to come to a general
conclusion alike applicable to all Ages and Nations
As the
IDEAL OF GOOD GOVERNMENT
* * *
[Unfortunately
over the last eight years particularly under King Tony his idea
of compromise is to destroy everything before him that has any
link with the past.
It
matters not to him if in the process of dismantling centuries
of solid constitutional framework in his frantic fanaticism
in his desire to be his kind of good European? That he has and
is replacing the granite foundations of our great inheritance
with chalk structures which will fall and he wonders why he
is finding so much opposition to his unpatriotic and dishonest
and traitorous ambitions.]
* * *
[Font
altered-bolding & underlining used-comments
in
brackets]
DEC/05
*
FINALLY REMEMBER!!!
|
* DID
YOU KNOW?
The City
of London is governed by the Illuminati-Freemasons and they are governed
by their god Lucifer/Satan.
The Bank
of England owns the Central Banks established around the world, and this
is the real power of the modern British Empire.
One example is
the
United States
Federal
Reserve Bank
,
which is wholly owned by the Bank of England
and her subsidiaries. Thus the world has been enslaved by the
Illuminati-Free-Mason conspiracy which exacts her tribute through
interest on their various currencies.
"Historically all British military colonies with white populations such
as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were under the
authority of the Queen and her Government. Whereas all other brown
'slave' colonies such as India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Singapore, Hong
Kong, Gibraltar and the African nations were the private property of the
Crown, which is the separate board of the City of London. These colonies
were exploited for slave labor and trade, to make the cartels richer and
more powerful."
"The Crown" has nothing to do with the Queen. It is a private
corporation led by the Illuminati.
(See:
+(1)+(1)+(1)
AUGUST - 2010 |
*
|
THE PEOPLE
HAVE SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
*
Ditch the EU TREATY after
IRISH REJECTION
SAY
VOTERS
by
Daniel
Martin
Political
Reporter
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June
18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain
should drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of
its rejection in last week's
IRISH REFERENDUM'
The poll comes as the Tories launch a
last-ditch bid in the
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION
OF THE TREATY.
And
10,000 people
have signed a
PETITION
on the
DOWNING
STREET- WEBSITE
within the past few days
JUNE16-2008
, calling on the
GOVERNMENT
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T
YOU?]
Downing Street
website is
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
*
JUNE 18-2008
|
*
*
| |
|
|
| |
TIME FOR
DECISION-DECEMBER,2007
THE
BRITISH LEGACY-AUSTRALIA-CANADA-NEW ZEALAND-WHY THEY
MATTER.
*
The Act
of Settlement of 1701-WHY IT SHOULD CONCERN -YOU!
*
The
Common Law of ENGLAND is the LAW of
THE
COMMONWEALTH and AMERICA
*
The
Commonwealth Realms V The Constitution for Europe-
4-PARTS
*
MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN
*
YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.
WILL THIS
CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
BE THE
LAST IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
Will HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM
BECOMING A PROVINCE OF EUROPE.
OR
WILL THE QUEEN MAKE
IT PLAIN THAT OUR FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE IS
SACROSANCT BUT THAT IF THE PEOPLE WISH TO BECOME SLAVES
-THEN A REFERENDUM THERE MUST BE.
WE BELIEVE THAT NO
ENGLISHMAN SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER HE WISHES TO BE A
SLAVE OR FREE!
THIS CHRISTMAS WE
WILL FIND OUT IF OUR PROTECTOR OF THE
'Rights and Liberties'
of
Englishmen
Will keep by HER
SACRED OATH
or the MONARCHY be
nothing more than a THEME
PARK in the future
THIS IS THE TIME FOR
BLUNT SPEAKING AS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OUR UNIQUE
NATION STATE IS IN DIRE PERIL.
We are told on the BBC (Brussels Broadcasting Service)
at 11.30 pm on Saturday the 23rd December, 2007, that
the QUEEN now has a website which has footage of the
Royal Family in the past and that the QUEEN is NOT
'Stuck in the past'
Well! as far as many
patriotic subjects are concerned we need to remain in
the PAST when it concerns the protection of our
FREEDOM and COUNTRY.
Change we have had and
will continue to have but it must not threaten our very
WAY-OF-LIFE our Common Law of England and all which
makes our country the most unique parliamentary
democracy in the world.
THERE CAN BE NO
SURRENDER!
Should the Monarch fail to protect our inherited
RIGHTS and Liberties then we shall have to fight for a
REPUBLIC as happened in the 17th century because the
Monarch of the day ignored those very
'Rights and Liberties of
Englishmen' which will still survive in
the English Speaking World today in December 2007. How
can the MOTHER of PARLIAMENTS give away what is already
our and our children's INHERITANCE which cannot be
taken away by
PARLIAMENT or
the QUEEN.
If the above publicity exercise is
to be used to soften the impact to the population of the
BETRAYAL of their CONSTITUTION and COUNTRY then it would
be the greatest TREASON by a Monarch since James II who
sold our COUNTRY to the FRENCH for MONEY and RELIGION.
WE ASK WHAT PRICE ARE OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WORTH?
THEY ARE PRICELESS!
*
*
The Choice is
Yours!-but time is running out FAST!
6 months to be
EXACT!
*
THE EU
WE-AND THEM!
WE are to join THEM
THEY are not joining US
WE
have more to LOSE
THEY have more to GAIN
WE
have been clear of dictators from EUROPE for most of our
HISTORY
THEY have been cursed
with that abomination for most of their HISTORY and NOW!
*
Our Queen
and the EU Constitution
*
The Spirit
of England
by
Winston
Churchill
*
THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE
*
MESSAGE TO HER MAJESTY
QUEEN ELIZABETH THE II
*
We
now learn from the Daily Mail COMMENT on Christmas Eve
that the Queen's Speech will cover the catastrophic fall
in Values and Moral behaviour since the beginning of her
56 -year reign. This has been brought about by the
actions of HER MINISTERS and the greater number of those
in HER PARLIAMENT who have placed THEIR CONCERNS before
the INTERESTS of THE PEOPLE and NATION STATE.
As
for the fact that HER PEOPLE feel LOST that has been the
direct result of the actions of HER SUCCESSIVE
GOVERNMENTS and the TRAITOROUS POLITICIANS including
PRIME MINISTERS who have stealthily over the 56 years of
HER MAJESTY'S REIGN have almost achieved their aim of
ENSLAVING the PEOPLE to a FOREIGN POWER.
The
reason for the marked drop in the number viewing THE
QUEEN'S SPEECH is no doubt because the mass of people
have realised years ago that the MONARCH is powerless to
PROTECT their WAY-OF-LIFE and events up to now have
PROVED THEM CORRECT.
There is a well
know saying
'Nero fiddled
while Rome burned'
Is it the case on Christmas Day
2007 while the Monarch talks our Rights and Liberties
are being taken from us under our very noses?
Of course the QUEEN under HER
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE can only 'Advise and Warn'
HER MINISTERS but when the matter concerns the very LIFE
of an INDEPENDENT STATE we expect that HER MAJESTY
consider the arrangement to be AT AN END as it would
make a MOCKERY of the PRIME IMPORTANCE of the MONARCH to
protect our inherited Rights and Liberties which HER
MINISTERS are endeavouring TO GIVE AWAY.
We
as loyal subjects of the MONARCH who is the living
embodiment of OUR RIGHTS and LIBERTIES ask at this late
stage with only months to the eradication of a FREE
NATION STATE some veiled comments that HER MAJESTY will
PROTECT our RIGHTS and LIBERTIES.
As
for the MORAL tone of the NATION STATE at this most
crucial time in ENGLISH CONSTUTUTIONAL HISTORY this
matter should be left to CHURCH LEADERS who's
responsibility it is to CARE for their FLOCKS
particularly at this FESTIVAL of CHRISTMAS.
IF
HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH has not been pre-recorded we ask
HER MAJESTY to give those MILLIONS of HER subjects some
hope that their PROTECTOR has NOT FORGOTTEN THEM.
Should this APPEAL not be
answered we can at last confirm that the MONARCHY is
after all nothing more than a talking shop suitable for
YouTube and therefore nothing more than a
THEME PARK
*
Hear Tony Benn's comments
about the despotic and corrupt
EUROPEAN UNION
and the need for a
REFERENDUM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o
From a politician with
INTEGRITY and love of country who has for decades
witnessed the growth of the monstrous creature soon to
be a
UNITED STATES OF
EUROPE.
*
[All words/word underlined have a separate bulletin]
|
|
| |
|
|
*
*
*
13th October,2007
So You
Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU
CITIZENSHIP
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the
Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
-both
EUROPEAN and BRITISH
The extra tier of citizenship
was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many
cases knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN
should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN
CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to
provide those who have opted out with
BRITISH DOCUMENTATION
-only such as British (not EU)
passports, driving licences and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT APPLY to
those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN
CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN
UNTIL OCTOBER 08]
*
Let the people
speak!
www.makeitanissue.org.uk
*
www.noliberties.com
[Latest Addition - June07]
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an
OPPOSITION to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
GORDON BROWN WANTS
TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU?
HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ
*
67%
want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95%
of British people
want a REFERENDUM
*
PETITION
FOR A
REFERENDUM
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum
*
July 18-2007
ALSO
JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET
PROTEST
Readers can add their support to the growing
clamour for a REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up
to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/
The Petition reads as follows:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime
Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted
a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU
" CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of
nomenclature."
Deadline for the PETITION is 31st
January,2008
Eurofacts 27th July 2007.
*
'The
Spirit of England'
by
Winston Churchill
In London on St.George's Day
-1953
*
VOTE
-2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A
MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
THE QUESTION THAT
THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO
YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY
THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY
BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T
VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR
MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS
ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL
AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
*
Home
Rule
for
Scotland
WHY
NOT
HOME
RULE
for
ENGLAND
*
[All underlined words
have a separate bulletin]
| Elections in the British
One Party State
If you vote Conservative, Labour,
Lib-Dem, UKIP or the BNP, you'll be voting for the EU dictatorship.
All five party leaderships are EU controlled. That's why your vote
doesn't make a difference - all these five parties have the same
policies: the EU's policies.
The 17 most senior
politicians in the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties,
including Ken Clarke, Francis Maude, Cameron, William Hague, George
Osborne, Nick Clegg, Brown, David and Ed Milliband, Ed Balls, Peter
Mandleson are Bilderbergers, the 140 strong band of ultra senior
Freemasons who are bribed by the EU to build the EU dictatorship.
No Bilderberger, Freemason or Common Purpose graduate should ever
be allowed to hold public office.
UKIP and the BNP are honey traps to neutralise activists: UKIP is
riddled with Freemasons and Common Purpose like a cancer, and the
BNP controlled by the Edgar Griffin (father) and son Nick
Freemasonry family. The 350,000 freemasons and the 40,000 strong
Common Purpose Organisation are the (mostly unknowing) foot soldiers
of the EU in Britain. (Which makes the BNP the easiest party to
clean up - get rid of the Griffins, and put in a real anti-EU
leadership.)
For more
details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk
ADDED - MAY-2012 |
