Making a mockery of themselves

Making a mockery of themselves

Georgie Porgie's puddings and pies are certainly making a few ripples. With what the media have variously labelled a "pie tax" (Daily Mail) and a "pastry tax" (Independent and Sun), he doesn't even have to kiss the girls to make them cry. He just charges them 20 percent VAT.

But, as with the postal charges, the MSM simply doesn't get the EU dimension, failing to detect that the anomalies on hot food charging had to be dealt with, because of an ECJ judgement that could cost him billions if not addressed.

At the heart of this tax grab is the VAT Sixth Directive, and - on the face of it - the crucial issue is the requirement that: "The standard rate of [VAT] shall be fixed by each Member State as a percentage of the taxable amount and shall be the same for the supply of goods and for the supply of services …".

The member states, says the Directive, may also apply either one or two reduced rates, at not less than five percent (or zero in the case of the UK), to some specific categories of goods and services, which may include foodstuffs and latterly restaurant services.

Enter Manfred Bog who, back in 1994 was running three mobile snack bars. After a series of disputes with the German tax authorities, Bog in 2006 fixed upon one particular issue, that 70 percent of his sales were being assessed for standard rate of VAT, while the remainder only attracted the lower rate of five percent.

The German authorities here were arguing that the larger proportion of the food sold was consumed "on the premises" (i.e., under a shelter provided by Bog) and, therefore, the trade was a "service" rather than the supply of goods – thus attracting the higher rate of VAT.

We should not detain ourselves with the finding of the German financial court, the Bundesfinanzhof. Down that path lies madness. Suffice to say that the case was joined by others, including a firm called CinemaxX, arguing the toss about popcorn sales. Again, the service/supply of goods argument was in the cooking pot. And then there was Mr Lohmeyer, with his snack stalls and a swinging grill, plus – of course - Fleischerei Nier. Don't even go there.

Cutting to the chase on this bundle of cases, the judgement on 10 March last year ruled that the supply of food or meals freshly prepared for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars or in cinema foyers is a supply of goods rather than service – as long as the supply of services preceding and accompanying the supply of the food were not predominant.

Ostensibly, this did not apply to the UK – or so HMRC said at the time. Yet the Fish Fryers Federation and others disagreed, because the essence of the ECJ judgement was that they were supplying goods (as in foodstuffs), not services. And as the UK zero rates food, they were thus salivating at the prospect of a mega-refund.

"Ahah!", said HMRC batting away such insolence. The fish fryers are caught either way. Their tax category - devised uniquely by the UK - includes "hot take-away food" and well as catering services. It matters not whether it is food or service, VAT still applies, regardless of Bog.

And there gripped the cold, mindless jaws of the VAT Sixth Directive, of which the ECJ had so cruelly reminded us. To their horror, HMRC have confronted their worst nightmare. If the fish fryers are selling hot food rather than services, and have to charge VAT on it, so does everybody else who sells hot food.

That is what the Sixth Directive says: you can't charge different rates of VAT on the same goods. If a member state charges VAT on some hot take-away foods, it must charge the same rate of VAT on all hot take-away foods. They must, therefore, all be charged at zero rate or the standard (higher) rate. And, of course, Georgie opted for the higher rate, taking in the (hot) puddings and pies.

The rest, as they say, is history, except that the media is still blissfully unaware of the background – as indeed are the MPs who were questioning little Georgie Porgie at the Treasury Committee yesterday.

Instead of picking up the EU link - and the fact that Georgie had no option under EU but to go for all or nothing - they sought to ridicule the tax on the basis that enforcement would be impossible. In the form of Labour's John Mann (pictured), they joshed Georgie for not having been to a pie shop recently, (even if he has kissed plenty of girls). Then, smirked Mann, a pie at 20°C, when the ambient is 22°C as it was then, would be VAT-free. But if the ambient dropped to 19°C, the same pie would cost 20 percent more.

Then it was Georgie's turn. Wiping the sneer from his face, he put the MPs in their place. "The way we operate with companies and large retail chains", says Georgie, "is that we don't do a check on every product sold". Instead, he says, "We come to an agreement with a company, a sensible arrangement between the Inland Revenue and the company, about what proportion of their products are sold hot".

If the MPs had any grasp of the real world, they would have known this – but they don't. And nor do they know anything about the dead hand of the EU in all this. So they mock Georgie - but in so doing, they make a mockery of themselves, and the institution of parliament.

This is not Georgie's law. It is alien law, interpreted by alien judges – and our trivial, tittering representatives don't even notice. And we haven't even started on the media – trivia is what they do. As for the people? They launch a Facebook campaign urging the Government to rethink the plans.

Wow! That will really scare the EU commission.
http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/making-mockery-of-themselves.html

Agenda 21 on Steroids

Here is the article from http://ppjg.me/2012/03/14/agenda-21-on-steroids/
Agenda 21 on SteroidsMarch 14, 2012 by onephoenix <http://ppjg.me/author/onephoenix/>

<http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ppjg-48156.jpg> Debbie Coffey
Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved. ____________________________________________________________
<http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trojhorse_dees1.jpg> The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development is Agenda 21 on steroids. If you take the word “Environment” out of the title (which seems to be thrown in to placate you), and call this the International Covenant on Development, you will more clearly see the intent of this manifesto.

The Covenant is intended to become a binding Global Treaty and the template for international law. International attorneys have been hammering this out for about 16 years. The 4th draft was issued in 2010.

The Covenant is about control of development, and social engineering, by the United Nations. Remember, the United Nations is a trade organization funded by money from corporations, organizations and associations funded by corporations, and foreign governments.

The Covenant states it focuses on “social and economic pillars.”
In the Covenant’s footnotes, it refers to the constitutions of Brazil, India, Namibia, and even the Islamic Republic of Iran. But this manifesto doesn’t adhere to the U.S. Constitution. If the Covenant is adapted by the United States, it will be the end of our Constitution and our rights.

The Covenant has 79 Articles <http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=83&menu=45> .

The Covenant claims control of “areas beyond national jurisdiction, high seas and outer space.” (Article 3) The stated reasoning for this declaration of control of everything is because the global environment is a “common concern.”

The Covenant demands laws and regulations that “integrate” international law for ALL forms of physical planning. (Article 41) This includes town and country planning, ALL infrastructure (including highways, railways, waterways, dams, harbors, etc.), aquifers, drainage basins, coastal and marine areas and “any other areas constituting biological units.” It covers allocation of municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry and other uses. It even “encourages” parties to limit their subsidization of private enterprises, including agricultural subsidies.The Covenant covers everything.In Article 34, “TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT,” (the operative word being trade), “sets out the duty to cooperate and establish and maintain an international economic system” with global rules of trade. The Covenant defines “duty” as a legal obligation. What do you think an “international economic system” is?
The Covenant is issued by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and the ICEL (International Council on Environmental Law).The IUCN
On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…”Agenda 21, the United Nations action plan, is cited throughout the Covenant. Agenda 21’s OBJECTIVE is communally and collectively owned and managed land. This is communism.

U.S. agencies that are members of IUCN are: U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies are also on the White House Rural Council.

The Covenant
1) The Covenant is to remain a “living document” until it is adapted. (A “living document” can change at any time.)
2) The Covenant is intended to be a MINIMUM set of obligations.(Article 64)
3) The Covenant states “No reservations may be made to this covenant.”

(Article 76) (This means you can’t opt out of anything.)
4) The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be the Depository of this treaty (Article 78) (So who do you think will be running this show?)Also in the Covenant:Article 11 – This is about eradication of poverty. Sounds nice, but when this document, or Agenda 21 (which it cites) brings up “equity” or directing social and economic needs in an “equitable manner,” this is communism.

Article 16 – This is about consumption and production patterns (think Smart Meters being installed on your homes and offices) and the “importance and power” of multilateral development banks and “regional” economic integration organizations. This ties into Article 28, which requires surveillance (again, think Smart Meters being installed on your homes and offices), and management of processes and activities, but as of yet, “no specific rules to identify or evaluate” this. (Hold your breath for the 5th Draft.)

Article 29 – Is about “harmonization” and anything that can “help eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade.”

Article 30 (p.99) – Humans are defined as “organisms,” and as if this weren’t funny enough, it is followed by “Control” should “involve limiting the increase in numbers and spread of the organism by appropriate elimination, removal or other measures.”

Article 33 – This is about providing for long term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity” of the environment.

Article 36 – This is about Military and Hostile Activities. (Does the US have to ask permission from the UN to declare war?)

Article 39 – This is about management plans for harvestable transboundary biological resources, which would establish quotas and seasons for permissible taking. (Who gives this permission?)

Part VIII. – IMPLEMENTATION AND COOPERATION – stresses the importance of implementation of ALL obligations of the Covenant and the principal of general international law, including procedural obligations.

These “procedural obligations” are:
Article 67 – Parties submit periodic reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the measures they have adopted, progress made, and difficulties encountered in implementing their obligations under this Covenant.
(Like from pesky Americans who fight for their Constitution.)

Article 69 – Settlement of disputes – to be submitted to either an arbitral tribunal, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or to judicial settlement, including the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Article 70 – Review Conference. Secretary-General of the UN convenes a conference every 5 years to review implementation of the Covenant.

Article 71 – If you want to amend any part of this Covenant, you have to submit it to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(What about our Congress? Will there be anything left for them to do? Will they lose their jobs?)

Article 43 – This obligates parties to cooperate in the formulation of international rules and standards, which is called “harmonization.”

Article 48 – This is about biotechnology, and requires sharing the “benefits,” defined as research and development results, royalties, access and transfer of technologies.

Article 63 – Parties are encouraged to become parties of treaties furthering the objective of this Covenant. (This means the UN is going to shove the Covenant down your throats one way or another.)

Who wrote the Covenant?

The Covenant was launched at the UN Congress on Public International Law in 1995. The Second Edition was presented to UN Member States at the 54th UN General Assembly. The Third Edition was presented to UN Member states at the 59th UN General Assembly. The 4th Edition (this one) was presented to UN member states at the 65th UN General Assembly.

The United States of America is a UN Member State.

Contributors to (writers of) the Covenant include the “Secretariat,” many international lawyers and U.S. professors from: Cornell University, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, and University of the Pacific.

Also, Daniel B. Magraw, who was Assoc. General Council for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2006, Mr. McGraw was listed as President and CEO of the Center for Environmental Law (one of the organizations issuing this Covenant), as a past Director of the International Law Office of the EPA (1992-2001), as Director of Lightbridge Corp., a provider of nuclear energy, and as a new member of the Board of Directors of Thorium Power, a nuclear energy company.

Other contributors were Nicholas Yost of the big international law firm Sonnenshein, Nath & Rosenthal (which represents WalMart, Sears, and Sony, to name a few), the Hastings Center and Arthur Westing of Westing Associates in Environment, Security and Education.
Since these contributors are professors and lawyers, you’d assume they’ve read our Constitution and might’ve noticed how the Covenant conflicts with our Constitution and our rights.

After 4 drafts, all of the words and ideas in the Covenant have been very carefully crafted. The words “must” and “shall” are directives. The Covenant uses terms like exclusive economic zones, buffer zones, interconnected corridors, and the word regional. Pay attention to the words region, regionalism and ecoregion. Regionalism is one way Agenda 21 is already being implemented in this country. Regionalism separates you from city, county and state government, where you (for now) still have a voice in your government.

RIO + 20

In June 2012, there will be a United Nations Conference called Rio + 20. We must make sure our government doesn’t become a party to, or “partner” or participate in any way, with the implementation of the Draft Environmental Covenant on Environment and Development.

Authors note: Many thanks to excellent researcher/writer Nicole Johnson for bringing the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development to our attention.
To learn more:www.democratsagainstunagenda21.org <http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.org> www.morphcity.com<http://www.morphcity.com> the PPJ Gazette
SOURCES:
The Covenant: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=83&menu=45

or http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf

Agenda 21: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
http://www.un.org/en/members/
http://people.forbes.com/profile/daniel-b-magraw/79742
http://www.caprep.com/b1006011.htm
http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.html
http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/memberstates.html
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/social_policy/sp_about/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/rural-council/members

Caliphate Conference Seeks to Islamize Europe

, U.S. by Soeren Kern February 21, 2012

The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process -- currently backed by the Obama administration -- is to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

A Muslim fundamentalist group is organizing a conference focused on turning Austria and other European countries into Islamic states.

The "Caliphate Conference 2012" will be held on March 10 in the Austrian town of Vösendorf, situated just south of Vienna. The main theme of the event will be "The Caliphate: The State Model of the Future."

The conference is being organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir [Party of Liberation], a pan-Islamic extremist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic state, or caliphate, ruled by Islamic Sharia law.

Hizb ut-Tahrir -- which is banned in many countries, including Germany, but is free to operate in Austria -- is virulently opposed to Western capitalism and democracy and seeks to extend the future caliphate to Europe and the United States.

According to a promotional video (in German) for the conference, "the Islamic Caliphate is the only social and political system that has the right solutions to the political, social and economic problems of humanity."

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned from holding a similar conference in Belgium that had been scheduled for March 4. The group also organized a Caliphate Conference in Amsterdam last July, 2011, and well as a year earlier in Chicago in June, 2010.

Analysts say the open nature of the conference in Vienna indicates that Hizb ut-Tahrir is enhancing its recruiting efforts among European Muslims.

According to Steven Emerson, a leading authority on Islamic extremist networks, Hizb ut-Tahrir is emulating the three-stage process by which Muslims established the first Islamic caliphate after the death of the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed, in the year 632.

During the first stage, Hizb ut-Tahrir builds a party by cultivating a small number of supporters to engage in recruitment and propaganda. In the second stage (which Hizb ut-Tahrir is now entering in Europe and the United States), the group educates Muslims in order to recruit a larger group of people to join Hizb ut-Tahrir and support its revolution. Finally, having won the support of Muslims, Hizb ut-Tahrir moves to establish a Sharia-ruled Islamic government.

While Muslims are busy working to Islamize the West from within, they simultaneously insist that Westerners should not be allowed to criticize these efforts.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim countries that purports to be the collective voice of the Muslim world, sponsored an anti-Islamophobia symposium in Brussels on February 15 and 16, 2012.

The first-of-its-kind event was entitled "Smearing Islam and Muslims in the Media," and was "aimed at establishing information mechanisms to face up to the slanderous campaigns against Islam in the media."

The workshop was part of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." (Analysis of the OIC's war on free speech can be found here and here.)

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

However, the HRC resolution -- as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 -- remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.

The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Following the Obama Administration's lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit.

Up until now, the European Union has kept the OIC initiative at arms-length. But Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, says the EU's recent offer to host the meeting represents a "qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia," according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC's official news and propaganda organ.

According to the IINA, "The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular, in a manner different from that in the US, which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from its previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter 'defamation of religions' in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations."

The IINA report continues: "Officials in the Cultural Affairs Department of the OIC said that the European Union's offer to host the third meeting (the first was in Istanbul in July, and the second in Washington, DC last December) is considered a promising new possibility of solving this problem. The 'Istanbul Process' will have an added momentum by holding the meeting in Europe, which is more affected by the phenomenon of Islamophobia and hostility towards Islam."

According to the OIC, the anti-Islamophobia workshop in February was of "particular importance" as it was held only weeks before the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva from February 27 to March 23, during which time Resolution 16/18 will come to a second vote.

In September 2011, an OIC organ called the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IESCO), organized a seminar in Brussels on "how to deal with stereotypical images of Islam in European television programs."

The seminar was designed to help European journalists "identify characteristics of stereotypes about Islam in European television programs, highlight the dangers of defamation of religions, and clarify the distinction between freedom of expression and the right to cultural difference, the commitment to the Islamic cultural identity and the struggle against racism and hatred."

In her latest book titled "Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate," Bat Ye'or, a leading scholar on Islam in the West, writes that the OIC is essentially a "would-be universal caliphate" which exercises significant power through the European Union, the United Nations and other international organizations.

Ye'or describes an OIC strategy manual, "Strategy of Islamic Cultural Action in the West," in which the OIC asserts that "Muslim immigrant communities in Europe are part of the Islamic nation." The document goes on to recommend "a series of steps to prevent the integration and assimilation of Muslims into European culture."

According to Ye'or, "The caliphate is alive and growing within Europe…It has advanced through the denial of dangers and the obfuscating of history. It has moved forward on gilded carpets in the corridors of dialogue, the network of the Alliances and partnerships, in the corruption of its leaders, intellectuals and NGOs, particularly at the United Nations."

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

A Darkening Age- The Libertarian Reign Of Terror

Subject:	The UK Gulag
Date:	Sun, 11 Mar 2012 06:13:38 +0000
From:	Guy Leven-Torres <senorburrito@hotmail.co.uk>
To:	<senorburrito@hotmail.co.uk>

A Darkening Age- The Libertarian Reign Of Terror- 'You Will Be Free (To Sin), Or We Will Persecute/Prosecute You!'

Guy Leven-Torres


11^th March 2012

Britain is now statistically a totalitarian ruled nation ranking behind countries like Brazil but just above China but below Russia. The United States is now just above us. We are at 47 while it ranks at 45. Sweden ranked by the UN and Daily Mail as the best country to live in, is ranked 53. Norway is ranked 41. These statistics will never be revealed in any of the State controlled media papers, TV, radio or journals that today pass for Britain's 'free press'. The report I have been shown was compiled by a private think tank of traditional real libertarians, more than aware of the true state of Islamifying Europe. Totalitarian states begin at rank 32. It doesn't say much for the governments of the world. Iran ranked 184, Saudi Arabia 182, Turkey 63.

However, given that our e.mails are routinely monitored, our phones bugged, and cameras across the length and breadth of the land that photograph and film us via CCTV on average 20/40 times a day and more, the United Kingdom now ranks as a totalitarian state with more personal information collected and collated upon the individual than any other country in the world, who is spied and filmed upon more so than in North Korea or Red China, we are indeed a totalitarian state. The 'liberal' despots in charge with their endless quotas demanding equality this and equality that, have effectively turned Britain into an open air Gulag UK. They don't need to imprison us behind walls and bars yet- it will come sooner rather than later- but nobody escapes the all seeing eyes, hidden and seen of the all powerful 'Open Society' state. We are to be model for the rest of Europe and even the globe from what I have been informed. We know nothing about 'them', the state watchers, many of them private employees of huge corporations but they know everything about you- believe me. I saw this demonstrated in the last few days. I also received this reply to my attempt to philosophically answer why 'same sex marriage' is an oxymoron, since marriage between a man and woman was one of nature's self-evident truths or tautology.

'You are not allowed to write opinions like this, even if you claim they are 'philosophical' or 'academic'- They are not. They are a hate crime. I will not warn you again and the consequences next time maybe severe for you. I am sure your wife and children would not like to see you jailed? Behave yourself and accept the way the world is today and you cannot change it. I say this to you Guy, as a concerned human being and I know how ill you are, being banged up would probably finish you both physically and mentally having a criminal record as well, if you continue to write controversial material. I know how much you guard your reputation.'

I had to read the reply several times to take in the content. The writer was a state official. I had been reported to by an annoyed reader. This is not the first time but what struck me was the 'nice human concern' for my safety and freedom. This is where we are at in the UK today- a country wherein a state employee can feel it his duty to warn me about my writings. I have received e.mails from police officers before and in one case I circulated it. I have also been told only recently by a nurse of all people charged with my treatment, much the same as the busy body above said this evening. The message seems to me most sinister in its 'caring for your safety' aspect. How the hell did we arrive at such a pass? Whatever happened to Voltaire's- attributed maxim 'Sir I may not agree with what you say but by God I will defend your right to say it unto death'?

Most people know my utter contempt and openly expressed hatred of these creatures and the fact I will refuse come what may, as I have done for nigh on seven and more years now to be cowed or intimidated by them. I now live in a state of constant low level fear, expressed by a numb feeling of unease in my gut expecting e.mails like the above, or the knock at the door. Both have happened to me. Despite this my strong sense of injustice and bloody mindedness overcomes my fear. I simply cannot live like this. I must be free. I would rather die than submit to this shameful condition. Somebody accused me if being a coward the other day since I 'should learn to live with it like everybody else'. Am I a coward perhaps? Should I 'bravely' shut up and suffer in silence like the rest?My wife thinks I should as do others close to me, I must admit. They worry about me but I simply cannot betray my sense of self respect and conscience. Is this selfish perhaps?

Today I read of brave Norman Scarth fleeing to Austria. I know of at least two others who have fallen foul of the liberal despots that lord it over us and long to micro manage our daily lives. Never did I think it possible that I would end up living in a British Gulag. Since Breivik assisted the elite by his murderous actions, the daily atmosphere in the UK and across Europe is increasingly Soviet or Nazi like. What is even more appalling is that the British and other European populations, have not only succumbed to this Reign of Liberal Terror but who actually collaborate with it enthusiastically. Well sorts the men from the mice. I hate rodents. the same thing happened overnight in Nazi Germany- everybody became a good Jew hating Nazi, even Jews.

I find the very idea that some other human being or 'creature'- a being the same as myself, in most physical and mental respects and supposedly equal before the law, should dictate not only what I am allowed to say but also to think absolutely disgusting. No other word than 'disgusting' describes my feelings towards such creatures. What unspeakable arrogance but as I keep trying to educate people to accept we are ruled by people and groups who are in many cases, perhaps most certifiably insane by any required medical standard, or with serious dysfunctional sociopathic personality disorders and indeed dangerous to all humanity that to myself, even if not to you, betray the amoral and lunatic attitudes of people who should be locked away for their safety and ours. And please do not, as some have in the past point out that 'You are being like them since you want to incarcerate them in the same way!' This is an amoral equivalence that does not stand scrutiny and what is so appalling, is the complete lack of critical thinking among even those charged with doing so, their opinions replaced by the self-serving and banal.

My reply is that as eccentric as I might be like a lot in my profession, even idiosyncratic, I do not wish to legalise gay marriage, import wholesale migrant or racial minorities, impose sharia and Islam onto a formerly Christian land, or wish to do away with the native British population in a slow genocide, hand over the UK and its culture to a European Communist regime, bring in child sex, steal children for paedophile gangs in the ruling elite, rob public monies, bankrupt banks and UK industries or try to force my views on others with menaces like the creep above did to me this evening. In short people are quite at liberty to tell me what they think, to dislike and disagree with me, tell me to go away but nobody has the right to tell me what I am allowed to think, speak and write.

Our media, those like the 'London Broadcasting' or 'London's Big Conversation' are totally controlled now by the state- believe me when I tell you this. The above radio talk show was once a beacon of free speech but is today nothing but a modern version of Volkischer Beobachter, the old Hitlerite Party journal. Get your name mentioned in that rag in the 1930s after Hitler came to power and one had to run like hell, before the SA and Gestapo came to beat you up or worse.

For the last eight months since the idiot Breivik butchered 80 young Norwegians and others, LBC has gone through the hour to hour daily exercise of questioning every aspect of 'racism', 'homophobia', 'Islamophobia', making out that anybody that expresses any concern or dislike of homosexuals, Moslems, blacks or any one of a hundred favoured minority rent-a-causes of our multicultural 'libertarian' jailers, is Public Enemy Number One to be exposed, ridiculed and killed by mob fury on sight. It has reached the point where every caller is pro-homo, pro-Moslem, pro-ethnic minority, anti-smoking, pro-vegan, this and that and if a brave soul does call in with an opposing view, he or she soon realises that they are the token scapegoat for the interviewer to abuse and cow his audience into permitted state sanctioned thought and speech. The station is now a parody of its former self, like all the rest and utterly predictable in the use of its state speak and politically correct views. Only this evening I heard a native cockney speaker from East London try to express his views, his stuttered words drowned out by the abuse and ridicule of the shameless presenter. The cockney bravely tried to make his point as he was condemned as a 'racist', the palpable fear ever so clear in his voice. I long desisted in calling into such shows. One presenter even threatened a caller with reportage to the Met police.

This is Britain 2012- a open air Gulag.........

Guy

Below the Liberal Song Of Freedom 'And You Will Be Free!'

http://www.youtube.com/v/SkV1ZbU7eqs&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1

GLOBAL TAKEOVER:
WHY WE ARE FOREWARNED… BUT STILL TAKE NO ACTION

A general awareness of some, if not all, of the seventeen strategies of
globalisation has permeated the bulk of the Australian population and so the
critical factor of forewarning is no longer the issue it was five years ago. We are
faced now with a much more serious issue: response diffusion.

Response diffusion is the nurtured product of two hundred years of intense
propagandisation by the coalition of bankers, aristocrats, media-owners and
other architects of re-feudalisation (which, philosophically speaking, is what this is
really all about). Knowing full well that you cannot fool all of the people all of the
time, the globalists sowed seeds of distraction and energy dispersal in the form of
reactive and institutionalised salvation. The most obvious of these are: redefining
political language, constitutions, bills of rights, insurrection, alternative media,
leadership forums, law reform, electoral reform, and political parties.

 Exploiting dubious definitions of democracy, various optional and
preferential systems of voting were devised which ensure that a
tweedledum/tweedledee two party system prevails, thereby denying all
citizens access to policy formulation. Monopolisation of the media replaced
candidate door-knocking which, prior to 1973, stimulated at least minimal
voter influence on politicians.

 Redefining democracy, away from that which was so well understood by
Thucydides, the Irish Monks, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, and Lord
Acton (government by the people); and replacing this with the
understanding that electing a politician to do our thinking for us is the same
thing, was probably the most pivotal strategic achievement by the global
elitists.

 Many people see constitutions as the answer, the penny never dropping
that no constitution contains the world democracy; not very surprising
considering that globalists edited every constitution ever written. Likewise,
bill-of-rights enthusiasts rarely comprehend that the US version was a
massive ooops when it was realised that the crucial words of Thomas Paine
(from The Rights of Man) had been removed from the American
Constitution prior to ratification. The 27 amendments were prevented from
containing he critical clauses.

 Insurrection has always been a globalist fear, but with the population
disarmed this is without potential in Australia.

 As to the various legal reforms, lawyers are always in place to castrate such
efforts; and in fact to use these to further alienate private ownership or
citizen's rights, as we saw with Aboriginal land rights. It should be noted
that those Aborigines who had always lived on their spirit-sourced land
have actually experienced cultural and social destruction at a more rapid
rate than those who were not so fortunate; yet preventing this was the
rationale for land rights in the first place. Once again, lawyers intervened
(ie the Law Reform Commission and Land Councils). The single act that
would have genuinely empowered Aborigines, engaging all consultation in
their own languages, has been adamantly refused for 224 years.

We have massively underestimated the organisational extensiveness and
creativity of the globalists. We should have just presumed that any obvious
weapon placed at our disposal will somehow be used against us. But there
is a single exception... the Internet. This was not anticipated, and as a
vehicle to accumulate people power, expression of which is what the
globalists really fear, it is now realised by the globalists that we must be
disarmed. We have perhaps one or two years before the Internet is closed
to us forever, so this prospect should create some urgency. We do not
have the luxury of strategies that will take longer than one year to
implement.

Another factor is that the international situation that so preoccupies many
of us, is irrelevant to Australian redemption. Why? Because we live in the
only country in the world that is potentially self-sufficient; which means we
can walk away from all trade and international banks; which means that we
are impervious to attack by trade embargoes and sanctions; and to
financial strangulation. As to military punishment: which since 1946 has
already been meted out to 44 nations who dared to be non-compliant,
Australia is the world's most difficult country to successfully attack and
occupy. Not only is it a logistical nightmare for any invader, we are host to
the US/NATO spy and navigation satellite relay bases, which can be taken
over at will and used to run aircraft-carriers aground, to make aircraft fall
out of the sky, and to make missiles boomerang.

In other words, the only thing stopping us Australians from saving our
country is our own timidity and indecisiveness.

Having said that, there must be a single first action we can take that:

1. Will be widely supported by the national electorate;
2. That will create instant enabling and investment wealth;
3. That will disarm the international enemy;
4. That costs nothing to launch;
5. That can be implemented within a year.

That we all do not know this already illustrates just how successful the enemy has been in sowing discord and confusion. We are all waving different banners and charging in disparate directions. Yet the means of defeating the enemy has been in front of our noses all along... a unanimous national demand that all Australian manufacturing and domestic food production be protected from unfair foreign competition.

In other words, Bring Back Tariffs. This means revoking the unmandated secret
treaties that purportedly tied us to the Lima Agreement, the WTO, the WB, all
FTAs, the IMF, and more recently, to the Rothschild-owned Bank for International
Settlements.

Restoring tariffs will immediately recreate our manufacturing sector and return
Australian foods to our tables. Manufacturing will re-create the three million full
time jobs lost to tariff removal, and will quickly create at least two million more.

Our second move should be to dissolve the Oil Price Parity Agreement and fuel
tax, which would reduce bowser prices to 12 cents per litre (or 25 cents, if Lyndon LaRouche is correct). Meanwhile, manufacturers will move swiftly to making gas-fuelled motors. The effect of this will be to create among the world's lowest industry and food production overheads, and knock $100 off each family's
domestic budget.

Obviously, this new expression of people power would lead to the breakup of the media monopoly, grocery duopoly, major political parties, and then to all the
reforms that the electorate supports, but the very first enabling move must be to
Bring Back Tariffs. Our most recent survey of the national demographic (July
2010) shows that 86% of Australians already support the restoration of tariffs, so
what are we waiting for?

Tony Ryan

An illusion

 

 

From: annette rose smith <annette-rose-smith@hotmail.co.uk>

Date: 4 March 2012 12:21:20 GMT

Subject: FW: [MRG] Fwd: Fw: illusion

1 IT’S AN ILLUSION Members of parliament are in fact, ”DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION” which will keep heading in the same direction no matter who is elected. POLITICS: Pertaining to POLICY, or the ADMINISTRATION of the GOVERNMENT. POLICY: A plan or course of action, as of a GOVERNMENT, POLITICAL PARTY or CORPORATION- a WRITTEN CONTRACT or a CERTIFICATE of INSURANC ACTS of PARLIAMENT become STATUTES; PRIMARY LEGISLATION which in turn are ENACTED and ENFORCED by STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS; SECONDARY LEGISLATION. COUNCIL TAX is a STATUTORY INSTRUMENT ENACTED on 1st April 1993 under its PRIMARY LEGISLATION the LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992. STATUTORY: Created, defined or relating to a STATUTE; conforming to a statute. INSTRUMENT: A WRITTEN LEGAL document such as a CONTRACT, lease, deed will or bond. SOCIETY: the SOCIALLY DOMINANT members of a community, a SOCIETY is a number of PERSONS united together by mutual CONSENT, in order to deliberate, determine and act jointly for some COMMON PURPOSE. CONTRACT: an agreement between two or more PERSONS that CREATES or MODIFIES an existing RELATIONSHIP. OFFER, CONSIDERATION and ACCEPTANCE must exist for a CONTRACT to be made. CONSTITUTION; The fundamental RULES, written or unwritten that establishes the CHARACTER of a GOVERNMENT by defining the basic principles to which a SOCIETY must CONFORM. You were not given a choice if you wanted to join this SOCIETY; it was made for you at a time when you could not express a choice. STATUTE: A LEGISLATIVE RULE of SOCIETY given the FORCE of law by the CONSENT of the GOVERNED, a RULE, as of a CORPORATION. STATUTES are not LAWS From the neuter of Latin: STATUS: The LEGAL CHARACTER or condition of a PERSON or thing. It is totally imaginary, not real. UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION The UNITED KINGDOM is a CORPORATION and has employees. The employees are not just civil servants but everyone, if you have a N.I. number you too are an employee of this CORPORATION. 2 COMPANY POLICY of this CORPORATION requires you, as an EMPLOYEE to pay TAX and follow all the LEGISLATIVE RULES of that CORPORATION in this case STATUTES. As in any COMPANY, if you break the RULES you will be DISCIPLINED under that COMPANYS LEGISLATION. The POLICE of the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION are all COMPANYS too, run for PROFIT. As CORPORATE POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS their job is to ENFORCE the RULES of the CORPORATION. The COURTS of the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION are all COMPANYS too, if you break the RULES they will invite (SUMMONS) you to their place of business to discuss your punishment, except they are not inviting YOU, you have been deceived into thinking that its YOU they’re inviting. Even the highest COURT in the land (THE HOUSE OF LORDS) is a CORPORATION. The POLICEMAN and the CORPORATE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER The POLICE MAN (HUMAN BEING) has a duty under COMMON LAW to serve and protect and uphold the COMMON LAW. The POLICE OFFICER (FICTION) is a CORPORATE EMPLOYEE a REVENUE COLLECTOR who ENFORCES STATUTES. You are in COMMON LAW JURISDICTION this means that no CIVIL LAW STATUTE applies unless you CONSENT to it. POLICE are a COMPANY which exists to make PROFIT. They PROFIT from you by enforcing STATUTES on you, not LAWS, POLICY. LEGALESE A language can be created and used by a SOCIETY; a CORPORATION can be such a SOCIETY. LEGALESE is such a language, it is English but some words have VERY different meanings... LEGALESE is the language of the LAW SOCIETY. Example; MUST is synonymous with MAY (if someone from a CORPORATION says “you MUST” they are actually giving you a choice, because they can’t force you, they are not allowed to because it’s not LAW it’s only POLICY). Example; SUMMONS is synonymous with INVITATION. When you get a SUMMONS from a COURT of supposedly LAW you are actually being INVITED to a CORPORATE place of business to discuss how much money you are going to give that CORPORATE place of business. Example; UNDERSTAND is synonymous with STAND UNDER. If I say “do you UNDERSTAND” and you reply “yes” that means you have given me authority over you. It’s as simple as that. 3 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. Also traded as MAGISTRATES COURTS, every one of them is a CORPORATION running for PROFIT. If you go to COURT (CORPORATE place of BUSINESS) you are asked immediately for your NAME, they even presume to know who you are and will ask as such... MR SMITH? -- MR is the title of something with LEGAL PERSONALLITY (STATUS) You were named by your parents but they didn’t call you MR John Smith. If you reply “yes” to the NAME you have agreed to REPRESENT the FICTIONAL ENTITY with LEGALPERSONALLITY i.e. Mr JOHN SMITH/ Mr Smith A man cannot be acted on by STATUTES, nor can a woman, a flesh and blood human being, STATUTES only apply to the FICTIONAL ENTITY with a LEGAL PERSONALLITY. Every TITLE in this land is a FICTION e.g. Mr, LORD, REV etc because it doesn’t apply to a flesh and blood human being, it is the LEGAL STATUS. NATURAL or COMMON LAW applies to you, inherent LAW. You know inherently what is right or wrong. COMMERCIAL POLICY (UCC), CIVIL POLICY and POLITICAL POLICY apply to the FICTION but they need the flesh and blood human being to REPRESENT it because the LEGAL PERSONALLITY does not exist. A COMPANY exists only because a piece of paper says it does but it’s not REAL. COMMON LAW vs. STATUTE RULES/POLICY The only basic principles that any people of any nation need to adhere to are those of NATURAL LAW which are mirrored in COMMON LAW – Never cause HARM or LOSS. This covers every eventuality. COMMON LAW applies to a man or a woman. STATUTE RULES apply to the PERSON only when the man or woman CONSENTS to REPRESENT the PERSON CONSENT can be given by IN-ACTION as well as ACTION. Within COMMON LAW exists the word JUSTICE within STATUTE RULES you will just receive SUMMARY JUDGEMENT- you broke the RULES of the CONTRACT- you lose. You are a man or a woman, you have a PERSON you exist NATURALLY, and you are subject to COMMON LAW JURISDICTION. (JURIS-of law. DICTION-the use of words) you were created by god, nature the divine whatever..... You must never cause another HARM or LOSS or commit FRAUD. You have free and unlimited ability to CONTRACT and settle debt in private under COMMERCIAL LAW. You have been labelled through deception with a fictitious entity the all caps NAME on your birth certificate. 4 The fictitious you was created by GOVERNMENT. The fictional entity is subject to CIVIL POLICY (TAX etc) under STATUTE. The fictitious entity does business in the public and is controlled by CIVIL LAW and CORPORATE COURTS. WHAT IS A PERSON They are inviting a PERSON created by the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION. Your PERSON was created when your birth was REGISTERED and is evidenced by your BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Man created GOVERNMENT which in turn created PERSONS. Your PERSON is not you; it is a LEGAL FICTION which you are falsely identifying with because you have been deceived massively. You don’t get to say what its RIGHTS and DUTIES are, the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION does but it has to MISLEAD into doing so by DECEPTION. DEFINE PERSON Includes natural PERSON, FIRM. CO-PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY or CORPORATION- LEGAL PERSONALLITY (Defining a word with the same word is failing to define anything) PERSON is defined as a FICTION in black’s law 3rd edition. THE CREATION OF A PERSON When you were born your mother/father SUBMITTED a BIRTH CERTIFICATE REGISTRATION APPLICATION FORM In the FORMULATION of any LIMITED COMPANY/CORPORATION there is always a CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION to create its LEGAL PERSONALLITY. Your fictional PERSON known as Mr, Mrs or Ms is created by the same means SUBMIT A REGISTRATION APPLICATION When you SUBMIT you are bending to another’s will. When you REGISTER you are handing over LEGAL TITLE of what you are REGISTERING to whoever you are REGISTERING it to, you are REGISTERING to ACKNOWLEDGING or TRANSFERRING the AUTHORITY to another by this PROCESS. When you APPLY, which means to beg, the assumption is made that you know exactly what you are begging for by whom or what you are APPLYING to and you know exactly what you are willing to give up for it, and most of the time you VOLUNTEERED your APPLICATION and you were not forced to APPLY. BIRTH CERTIFICATE. How the PERSON is created as a “BONDED SLAVE” You get a CERTIFIED COPY you don’t get the ORIGINAL. NAME of the PERSON being created- CAPITALISED SURNAME is a FICTION 5 NAME of PERSON father/mother CAPITALISED SURNAMES is the INFORMANT, they have the QUALIFICATION needed to be able to INFORM on the child being born. At the bottom of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a DECLARATION, a declaration is in COMMON LAW (a sworn oath of a man or woman) a DECLARATION from a man or woman to prove a man or woman was PRESENT to REPRESENT the PERSON needed to create the new PERSONS LEGAL PERSONALLITY. Then you REGISTER the BIRTH CERTIFICATE to a CORPORATION the GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE. REGISTRATION AND YOUR CHILDREN To this day REGISTRATION still means the same thing i.e. the TRANSFER of LEGAL TITLE to the body you have REGISTERED it with. As you have seen the worst possible way that this process could have been abused is in the REGISTRATION of BIRTHS A simple show of how your child no longer belongs to you is this; mandatory vaccinations, mandatory schooling, holidaying the children when they say you can and not before.....they tell you how to manage their PROPERTY and if you don’t do it their way their APPOINTED GUARDIANS take your children away: the SOCIAL SERVICES PLC a CORPORATION. You have no claim whatsoever to your children because you’ve been duped. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS Could the GOVERNMENT take your car away and crush it LAWFULLY if you actually owned it? It would be totally UNLAWFUL so in the process of REGISTERING your vehicle they dupe you into handing over LEGAL TITLE of that vehicle (ownership) and you get a V5 DOCUMENT as the REGISTERED KEEPER (a PERMISSION to use it as long as it is used in ACCORDANCE with all their RULES) If they did not dupe you into this the very ACT of taking and crushing your PROPERTY would be a CRIME in COMMON LAW. Also by REGISTERING it you, as STATED AGREE to ABIDE by their RULES and do so in their SOCIETY, this is how they LEVY the fuel DUTY, road TAX, MOT REQUIREMENT. You then REGISTER it to another CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT also traded as DVLA. PLEASE REMEMBER When you REGISTER something, anything, you give up ownership of it and instead you get a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, this is worthless and this is why you own nothing not even your children, house, car etc. FIXED PENALTY NOTICES issued by CORPORATIONS 6 So why are there so many FIXED PENALTY NOTICES being given for the most ludicrous reasons? Parking in a place a CORPORATION deems you can’t. Speed cameras’, not completing a SORN the list is endless, but what are these NOTICES in the real world being ISSUED by these CORPORATIONS which never stop dreaming up reasons for PENALISING you. PENALISED by way of FORFIET: (something surrendered or subject to surrender as a punishment for a breach of CONTRACT) FPN: An OFFER to accept an ADHESION CONTRACT. ADHESION CONTRACT: A type of CONTRACT a LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT between two PARTIES to do a certain thing in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the CONTRACT primarily to his, her or its advantage. A NOTICE is not a BILL, a NOTICE is not a DEMAND, and A NOTICE is nothing more than an OFFER to discuss the CONTRACT the OFFERER is trying to force upon your PERSON. This is simply a tool for REVENUE COLLECTION. The true reason why these FPNs are forced upon your PERSON is simply to maintain the ILLUSION that they have control over your LIFE, FORTUNE, and FREEDOM because you FEAR their ability to take away from you something you deem valuable. LAWFUL REBELLION Peacefully resist all claims against your PERSON by refusing to CONSENT to the CORPORATIONS POLICY Always ask when stopped by a POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICER “Am I OBLIGED to answer your questions” “Under what AUTHORITY and what LAW are you ACTING” if they say to you “Its under this or that LAW” and you can prove its only an ACT or STATUTE, remind them that “failure to differentiate between a STATUTE and LAW is GROSS NEGLIGENCE which is equivalent to the COMMON LAW CRIME of FRAUD. This applies to anyone who tries to enforce a STATUTE upon you no matter who they are. YOU ARE A MAN/WOMAN IN LAWFUL REBELLION YOU ARE NOT A PERSON You are a man or a woman you are not a PERSON The legal world is the same as your PERSON it is a FICTION an ILLUSION that does not exist in the REAL WORLD That is why the CORPORATE EMPLOYEES must get the man or woman to REPRESENT the PERSON before a contract can be formed. They will ask you your NAME and ADDRESS and if you give it to them they will have JOINDER There is no LAW saying you have to give your NAME and ADDRESS, if you do give it to them you have said “yes I am the PERSON Remember, there is no JUSTICE in this country only SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, for every COURT, even the highest in the land is a FOR PROFIT CORPORATION which is part of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION. http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/11/02/the-lawful-rebellion-guide-part-1/ http://northetruth.ning.com/ http://scottishsovereignsontheland.ning.com Visit N.E.T at: http://northetruth.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network