DID ELIZABETH WINDSOR CONSPIRE TO END BRITAIN?

DID ELIZABETH WINDSOR CONSPIRE TO END BRITAIN ?

(too old to reply)

Have we been sold out at the very top ?

The following article from Bob Lomas, Chairman and founder of the Magna Carta Society, is a disturbing discussion of the role of Elizabeth Windsor in the slow but unrelenting surrender of Britain to the Franco-German Axis, which raises very serious questions indeed about her conduct over the last 30 years.

In 1972 it might have seemed important to engage with the EEC and seek to control the re-emergence of Germany.
And it might have been argued then that we needed privileged access to the European market, over which they were building malicious and exclusive control.

That both of these objectives have failed miserably - and that we have lost much and gained nothing - as we predicted then and have since been repeatedly proved correct - puts a different light on the matter today, as it has done, and beyond question, for a very long time.

But if she was playing a "long card" reluctantly to gain some hoped for benefits then, why did she see fit to make Heath and the EU fifth columnist, Sainsbury, members of the Order of the Garter, which is in her own gift ?

This article makes stunning accusations about the role of the Windsors and is worth reading right through to the end.

Note especially that the EEC was designed originally by the Nazis in 1942 - and the chilling claim by Elizabeth Windsor in her Paris speech that she and France had agreed to combine their political and economic futures !!!

Alignment with France might be seen as a counter weight to the now re-arming Germany - but I do not think that the British electorate has, or ever would, agree to the surrender of our political or economic independence to a malicious enemy like France - or that such a move is necessary to control Germany. It looks far more like a back door sell out to the "EU" - the most dangerous enemy of the Anglo-American alliance and the only guarantee of our impendence - to say nothing of our liberty and democracy - which it has underpinned for all of the last 60 years.

Readers must make up their own minds about the arguments put forward by Bob Lomas in this article, but in the absence of any meaningful response to the 100's of thousands of letters, petitions and representations made to the Palace over the last 30 years, all of which have been met with stone walling, prevarication and vague side stepping, his arguments are powerful and must be considered.

Please take the time to read it right through ......


2005, THE END OF A NATION.

The Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft, ( The European Economic Community ), was drawn up in Berlin in 1942. It was the plan for the uniting of Europe into one Reich of regions on the German Lander system once Germany had won the war.

In 1945 Germany lost her challenge to establish the Thousand Year Reich by force of arms , but quickly engaged in a new initiative to realise her dream, this time utilising her more subtle skills, intrigue, duplicity and deceit, skills the Germanic people have excelled at for centuries. By 1951 Germany had established the European Coal and Steel Community. In 1957 the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft was resurrected, slightly restructured but basically the same in principle, under The Treaties of Rome. The Reich was again emerging as Germany's WW II allies and sympathisers, Spain, Italy and much of France fell back into line behind her.

Despite the Allies virtual annihilation of Germany, the spirit of the Reich had once more risen like the Phoenix from the ashes as it did following the Great War, and just as she ignored the Treaty of Versailles in the 1920/30s, Germany is re-arming on an escalating scale, in total defiance of the constraints imposed by the Allies in 1945. At present Germany has a standing army of 300,000, she has retained national service and so has as many again in reserve, these include fighter pilots which she has been training in numbers far exceeding her defence needs for over twenty five years. Germany is developing a new super tank and U-Boats, and shows every indication that she is developing nuclear weapons.

(Our intelligence is that Germany already had them. W)

German politicians are now openly stating their intention to become a major military power in the world.

In 1972 Queen Elizabeth II, who the British people had elected to be the official Governor and political leader of the nation, used her position to surrender the supremacy of her office as Sovereign Head of State, the supremacy of the peoples laws and the supremacy of the peoples sovereignty to the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft. It is not without significance that the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft when resurrected was referred to internationally as the European Economic Community, arguably for the same reasons that the name of the Royal family was changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.

In 1972 the Queen gave Royal Assent to the European Communities Act, which agreed to the surrender of the peoples sovereignty and the supremacy of their laws to the Community. The Queen then commanded her plenipotentiaries, Heath, Hurd and Ripon to go to Brussels to sign the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome on her behalf, for which she later honoured them. As the Treaty of Rome is very clear in its design to do away with the nation states of Europe, and the principle that national law will always be subordinate to Community law, the Queen could not have used her authority to sanction this action of capitulation, for by so doing she would have exceeded her lawful authority.

Never the less, the Queen used her position to surrender her governance of the nation to an unelected and unaccountable foreign power, a third party bearing no allegiance to the Crown or the British people. Parliament could not have undertaken this action on its own, for had it attempted so to do those involved would have instantly become subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848, under which it is an offence to engage in, even to discuss, any action which might endanger or disrupt the Constitution. There can be no doubt that the Queen knew exactly what she was doing, for there had been much discussion in both Houses on the issues involved going back to the mid 1960s, and the Queen would have been kept fully informed on all such discussions.

As Constitutional Head of State the Queen would also have been fully aware of our principle constitutional documents, especially the Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Supremacy 1559, which states: "...all usurped and foreign power and authority...may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm...no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate...shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege...within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm for ever."

Over the past thirty years the Queen has upheld her decision of 1972 by giving her Royal Assent to the subsequent European treaties, in particular the Treaty of Maastricht which purports to make the Queen a citizen of the EU, as was announced in the house of Commons by Prime Minister Major, a statement which under normal circumstances would have been considered treasonous. Just as Heath was not impeached for his treasonous actions, or his committing perjury in the House of Commons in 1972, Major was not impeached for his statement, which must raise the question, is the Queen still Monarch and Governor of this nation, for clearly no one can be both Monarch and citizen at the same time.

When in 1972 the Queen surrendered the supremacy of her office to the EU, her action was in effect her abdication of office, there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is no longer sovereign, and no official governor in a nation that is no longer self governing. This being so, it suggests that the Queen has for the past thirty years engaged in a sham, a charade to give the impression that nothing has changed, while all the time  Parliament, acting as an administration for the EU, has been preparing for the eventual destruction of all that we are as a nation state. It must not be over looked that according to the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 the Monarch is the Governor of the nation, and that the government formed from a political party of the peoples choice is subordinate to the Governor who retains the power of governance on the peoples behalf, thus the people retain the supreme power in the land.

It is the obligation of the Monarch, being the physical embodiment of the peoples sovereignty, to uphold the peoples power in Parliament by exercising the power of veto vested in her by the people at the time of her Coronation. With the Monarch removed, be it by her abdication, deposition or mediatisation, the people have no means of exercising their sovereign supremacy over a despotic and dictatorial Parliament, and this it seems is the present situation. Clearly we now have a subjected and politicised judiciary, which openly claims in the courts that Parliament is above and beyond the constraint of the law, ignoring its own oaths of allegiance and the Coronation Oath.

It is upon the office of the Monarch therefore that the whole structure of our Constitution and rule of law hinges. Under the present and prevailing circumstances we must seriously consider the position of the Queen according to available evidence. The question arising is, in 1972 was the Queen deposed, mediatised or did she abdicate? Bearing in mind that the Queen took a solemn oath to govern us according to our laws and customs, which essentially would mean upholding and maintaining our Constitution and the supremacy of our laws, the Queen could not have lawfully acted as she has done over the past thirty years were she still Monarch, during which time it is claimed she has given legitimacy to Acts of Parliament which are not only illegitimate according to our laws but subject to the Treason Acts, most pertinently the Civil Contingencies Act, which gives the government the right to suspend all our constitutional rights and liberties.

It does not seem likely or feasible that the Queen was forcibly deposed or mediatised by Parliament, or some conspiratorial force within Parliament, for at the time of her Coronation we the people vested in her enormous powers to enable her to protect us from a despotic Parliament. These powers include her right to dismiss her ministers and dissolve Parliament,
and to ensure she has the backing to so act we made her Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces which takes an oath of allegiance to her and her alone, making it completely separate from Parliament.

From the available evidence therefore it would seem that in 1972 the Queen abdicated of her own free will, and since that time has acted complicitly with unlawful Parliaments to destroy us as a nation state in the process of building the new Reich under the Trojan Horse disguise of the EU. Although this may seem totally inconceivable, the truth of it may be found in two of the Queen's recent speeches. In her Paris speech the Queen stated that she and France had agreed to combine their political and economic futures.

The Queen used the word "we", but she could not have been speaking for the British people who have left her in no doubt that the majority wish to leave the EU, and she is fully aware that we did not have any say in whether or not we wished to join it in the first place.

In her more recent State Opening of Parliament speech, the Queen stated that her government would be preparing for a referendum on whether or not we should accept the EU constitution which if accepted would completely and irrevocably destroy the supremacy of our laws, the very laws she swore to uphold in the sight of God. As any action that might disrupt the Constitution would be subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848, the Queen was saying that she and her government will be acting complicitly in an act of treason against the state, and that the people are to be invited to participate in an act of treason against themselves.

Should there be any doubt about it, one must consider this, the words of the EU Constitution - Article (I-10) are ground breaking because of the first two words:

"The Constitution and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States".

Winston Churchill once spoke of the British Empire and the Commonwealth lasting for a thousand years. It did not. Hitler spoke of the thousand year Reich, which was most unlikely. We as a nation have lasted for a thousand years, but unless we can now clarify and expose the present true position of the Queen, and bring to heel our unlawful and duplicitous Parliament, short of civil unrest possibly leading to civil war, this nation is unlikely to last another decade as a nation state.

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society. December 2004.

The Fourth Reich is here

The Fourth Reich is here - without a shot being fired

The arsenal of fear must almost be nearly exhausted. Those daring to vote to leave the EU will inflict on Britain collapsing house prices (according to George Osborne and Christine Lagarde of the IMF, who should worry about the EU’s unemployment-soaked economies); a “technical” recession (Mark Carney, a “technical” Irish-Canadian with a long record of error, who for this disgraceful political interference should be kicked back to Ottawa); and, of course, the Third World War (Mr Cameron). It’s clearly a Corporal Jones moment for the Remainers, though any cries of “don’t panic” come far too late: they are manifestly drowning in it.  Anyway, two can play at this game. What must we fear if we stay? Not merely relentless uncontrolled immigration (and the lies told about it), putting such burdens on our schools, hospitals and infrastructure that UK citizens suffer, but the inevitability of our nation’s destiny being increasingly subject to the wishes of foreigners whom we don’t elect. I am not talking about the amorphous idea of “Brussels”: I’m talking about Germany.

Five years ago I wrote a piece referring to the control Angela Merkel exerted over Europe as “the Fourth Reich”. I was accused of a horrible breach of taste. However, when one looks at German power today one realises that, when I wrote, she had hardly even started. The key to German success is this: it participates in a weak currency (whose value would collapse without it) enabling its exports to sell far more cheaply than had it retained the Deutschmark. Therefore, it continues to grow in economic strength relative to its partners – including us – but especially those in the eurozone, notably France and Italy, who would benefit greatly from restoring the Franc and the Lira.

Any net exporter in the EU – which we are most certainly not, given our £24bn trade gap with our partners in the first three months of 2016 – also benefits hugely from the vast and incomprehensible welter of EU regulations on products and employment law, which keep external competitors at arm’s length and pile costs on them if they wish access to the single market. Germany is so rich, and getting richer at the expense not least of its partners, that it can afford to pretend globalisation isn’t happening. We are not so fortunate, and leaving the EU to avoid all these regulations and take proper advantage of the wider world is not the least reason why we must vote to get out.

If we stay in we are going to suffer immense collateral damage from two crises that the Germans will precipitate. First, there will be one in the eurozone. My friend Dr Savvas Savouri, chief economist at the leading investment business Toscafund, predicts a “detonation of devaluations around the periphery of the eurozone” in his latest briefing to clients. So incapable are non-eurozone countries such as Hungary, Romania or Poland of competing with the German-dictated economic model that devaluation and the instability that will bring are their only options. So anyone who thinks our staying in the EU is like buying a ticket to a place of permanent prosperity wants his or her head examined.

Worse for Britain, Dr Savouri predicts Germany’s economy “will not come off lightly”, not least because its clients and customers will find its goods suddenly more expensive. And when Germany starts to struggle, God help the rest of the EU: because when the German chequebook closes, economies it is shoring up – such as Greece’s – will be on their own. And Greece’s economy is one-eleventh the size of France’s, which is a basket-case, and cannot go on as it is.

Dr Savouri also points out that if we stay in the EU there will be huge costs for us from all this chaos, despite being out of the eurozone. “Having renewed our vows to remain in the EU 'through sickness and in health’ we will be required to contribute to funding the fiscal efforts being applied to our ever more sickly EU partners,” he writes. The costs will be huge, and once we have committed ourselves to remain we will be forced to join the communal effort to save ailing partners. He calls it “the EU’s version of a Rooseveltian New Deal.”

He also argues that such a wave of economic hardship will propel more impoverished Europeans across open borders into the UK: and don’t forget what Iain Duncan Smith disclosed last week, that Mr Cameron deleted a passage about controlling immigration from a speech he made because he was told it would upset the Germans. That is the reality of our relationship with the EU: if we choose to stay in, the Germans will ensure that we become ever more obedient to their policies – so stand by for their next project, Turkey’s admission to the EU, and all that would entail.

It was not just deeply offensive, but ironic, that Mr Cameron should last week have evoked the idea of another world war in his latest intelligence-insulting act of hysteria aimed at making us vote to stay in the EU. It is not just that our fathers and grandfathers fought in two world wars to allow Britain the right to continue to rule itself, rather than to be ruled by Germans: Mr Cameron plainly won’t admit that German domination of the EU means it has conquered without war, and signing up to the EU is signing up to the Fourth Reich.

Ask the Greeks if you think I exaggerate: Germany runs Europe without firing a shot. It forces far weaker partners to stay in a currency zone that is crippling them, and uses its economic muscle to dictate immigration and other key policies. And if you believe the Germans won’t take a UK vote to stay in as a signal to continue and intensify their control over the EU, and to make us help pay for its baleful effects, then you aren’t paying attention. It’s not war we should fear, but what the Germans do in peace.

===============================================================

Christina 

=

An unlawful referendum

COMMENT:-    Please distribute this widely, as it seems most of the British people are still blissfully unaware that they are no longer British Subjects but citizens of the EU and as such committed to  the demands, constraints and obligations of that citizenship.  BL.

AN UNLAWFUL REFERENDUM.

Very shortly the British people will be voting in an unlawful referendum, unlawful because our national sovereignty is the birth right of generations yet unborn just as it was ours and therefore not in the gift of any one generation to decide whether or not they wish to return to being a free sovereign people of self political determination, or remain a satellite state subordinate to the German based European political empire.

The majority will be so doing without the slightest understanding of the issues involved and the consequences and potential perils of their actions, because just as it was in 1972 when the then Conservative government, acting without mandate or regard for due lawful procedure, took the nation into the then EEC by hiding from the people the factual implications under the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome.  

Prior to that now historic  treachery in 1972 the people were led to believe that the issue was one of economics and that national sovereignty would not be effected and today’s Conservative government is virtually peddling   the same dishonest and deceitful lie, all be it they are now simply smothering the issue of national sovereignty with a great play on the claimed but totally hypothetical advantages of being permanently subordinate to an unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic foreign political power.

Most importantly the essential issue of this coming  referendum is not about politics or economics, it is about national sovereignty and freedom, the most highly valued thing known to man and for which mankind has time and again been prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend and secure. 

Little wonder the people are divided on the issue which is one of utter confusion as it was deliberately planned so to be. Also as planned, if the people were to be informed of the truth behind our present unlawful governance it would doubtless be met with utter disbelief for such circumstances are expected to be found in third world countries, not in the land of Christian principles and honest integrity, presided over by an elected sovereign monarch and the mother of all parliaments. 

The sad truth is that in 1972 a parliamentary political coups by the Conservative party deposed the office of the monarch, dismissed the people’s common law constitution and surrendered the supremacy of the Crown, together with the people’s law and the nation’s sovereignty to a foreign political power.

As things presently stand the economies of the world are in a state of flux which does not make for any form of monetary or political stability and the EU is no exception, yet our politicians and a number of very wealthy international speculators are attempting to persuade us to risk a thousand years of constitutional stability by placing ourselves permanently under the dictate of unelected foreign bureaucrats,  whose nations histories have never experienced democracy as we understand it - and all in the pursuit of financial speculation.

Important though the issues of trade and investment are, man does not live by bread alone, there are other important aspects and issues that are essential to social cohesion and political stability, such as principle, integrity, truth, transparency and fairness; our ancient word ‘fair’ which summarises all that we are as a people,  has no equivalent in any other language.  It is these social assets we have in our national disposition and from which our democracy is sustained and gives lead and example to the civilised world, a far greater value than the handful of silver for which our politicians would sell our lawful rights and freedome.

For the past half century the British people have been deceived, lied to and denied the truth of their inalienable common law rights and liberties. Before 1972 we had a thousand year old written common law constitution that summarised, represented, expressed and upheld all that we were as a nation state and upon which our system of law was based. 

Under the terms, principle and demands of the Treaty of Rome this had to be ignored, buried, forgotten and banished from the nation’s education curriculum's, it being the antitheses of the code  Napoleon on which European law is based, not least on such issues as the presumption of innocence and trial by one’s peers in the form of a jury.

Not surprisingly very few people, including politicians, understand what the Treaty of Rome is all about. The principle and objective of the Treaty of Rome, based on the German High Command document Europaisch Whitshaftsgemeinshaft 1942, is to realise the planned destruction of the nation states of Europe by the eradication  of the principle of national sovereignty. 

Prior to the Conservative government signing up to the Treaty of Rome in 1972 there was deceitful and misleading propaganda proffered by that government that we would not be losing but would be sharing our sovereignty, despite sovereignty being absolute and indivisible. In reality our national sovereignty was surrendered and replaced by the political sovereignty of the EEC. Before the surrender we were a constitutional monarchy, this was ended along with the monarchy for there is no provision in the Treaty of Rome for a constitutional monarchy.

Clearly the monarch had either abdicated, or been treasonously deposed, as there can be no sovereign monarch in a country that is no longer sovereign. Under the Coronation Oath Act 1688 the monarch was also the official Governor of the nation with extensive powers of governance as vested in the monarch by the people at the time of the coronation. 

The government of the day was no more than a delegated authority with no powers of its own, its only powers being those loaned to it by the people for its temporary duration and was mounted by the monarch on the people’s behalf for a strictly limited period. The power of governance remained with the monarch and through the monarch to the people, the monarch and the people being as one, as established and proclaimed in a marriage, as part of the  Coronation ceremony. 

In summery, before 1972 this nation was not about Parliament and the people, it was about the people and their elected monarch, Parliament being no more than a temporarily  appointed national administration and legislature;

a national servant.

With the unlawful dissolution of the monarchy and the surrender of the supremacy of the Crown, in accord with the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome, Parliament, which formerly drew its legitimacy from the Crown became an illegitimate and therefore unlawful assembly and has remained so since 1972. 

The abdication of the monarch was later officially confirmed when following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, again by a Conservative government, the then Conservative prime minister John Major announced in the House of Commons that all British people had been officially made citizens of the EU including the Queen, the implication being that all, including the Queen were bound by the demands, obligations and restrictions of that foreign citizenship. 

Had John Major not been correct he would have been ‘imagining the death of the monarch’ and so subject to charges of treason under the Treason Felony Act 1848 but no action was taken against him. 

Also, clearly no one could be both monarch and citizen at the same time.  By his statement John Major was also making sure that everyone fully understood that they were NO LONGER BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Unlawful though this coming referendum is, as it invites the British people to engage in an act of treason against themselves, it could at least give expression to those wishing to return to being British subjects and once more under lawful governance.

To those who will be voting......

If you wish to return to being a British subject.

If you wish to have the Crown and the monarchy reinstated.

If you wish to return to lawful governance  and the rule of law administered through a legitimate national parliament.

If you wish to see a return to the lawful recognition of our ancient Common Law Constitution.

If you wish to ensure your descendants grow up and live in a free and sovereign country of self political determination, there is only one way to vote and that is, for this nation to leave the politically chaotic and financially corrupt European Union. 

Do so with a will and be mindful of the hundreds of thousands of foreign immigrants surreptitiously brought here to vote against you, and the hundreds of thousands of those born here of foreign immigrants, who have no historic affinity with this country, be it politically or spiritually. 

Digest the facts that are hereby laid out  and check them out for yourself, should you have a mind to and should you be of a spiritual belief, pray that the sword of truth and enlightenment does ultimately prevail.  

Bob Lomas.

While Britain slumbers on

WHILE BRITAIN SLUMBERS ON

Britain’s sovereignty was given away in 1972 by Edward Heath in the most grievous act of treason in British history.  Diligently pursuing his treachery, every following parliament has been an unlawful assembly unqualified to legally govern.  This means that every Act and EU Treaty since 1972 is null and void as treason has no authority in law.

Putting foreign political agenda before sworn allegiance, British politicians have since the 70’s overseen the silent removal of Britain’s industry, fishing grounds, democracy, culture, rights and freedoms and replaced them with political correctness, unstoppable immigration, growing unrest and overlooked foreign cultural domination.  Our world class legal system, police and armed forces have been wilfully decimated and billions of our money squandered to prop up the ruinous EU.

  We are told blatant lies of beneficial EU membership and why giving up our country is good for us while the EU controls our media to lull us into false belief in the failing totalitarian disaster unfolding in Europe.  Once IN, our NHS will be killed off and our savings taken at will to plug exponential EU debt.  Yet millions of British lives were lost in two world wars to save and protect us from these things.

From birth, the law demands a strict duty of allegiance from every British subject.  That means YOU.  But do not think that voting in the EU referendum will resolve anything as it will likely reflect EU intention, not yours.  “If voting made any difference, we wouldn't do it”, Peter Mandelson once said.  In 2015 the nation voted UKIP.]  We got Cameron. 

 While Britain slumbers on, only when the nation becomes ANGRY can it be saved.  And time is now very short indeed.  

It’s up to you.

Rex Poulton