The Real Situation, And the URGENCY to defend our country
1. It is Illegal to have a Referendum on whether we should stay in the EU or leave it. The Sovereignty of the UK is not for anyone to give away or to take - CORRECT!
2. We are still Legally a Sovereign country, it is the fault of the people that we are perceived to be otherwise - CORRECT!
3. The UK governments successively since 1972 – have Illegally and Treasonously given Illegal control of the UK to Brussels, and they have signed six Illegal EU Treaties on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II - CORRECT!
4. Nobody holds a gun to the Queen’s head, she has had six EU Treaties signed on her behalf, and is the only Queen to have broken her ‘Coronation Oath’. Queen Elizabeth II is wholly complicit in the Illegal and Treasonous handing-over of the UK to a Foreign-Power - CORRECT!
5. Queen Elizabeth II is the final fail-safe against Criminal Governments, yet – she has failed for 40yrs to remove successive Treasonous Politicians from power - CORRECT!
6. Queen Elizabeth II – is in-fact not a Queen, and has officially been a Criminal and a Traitor since having the 1st EU Treaty signed on her behalf - ALSO CORRECT!
7. Remember what happened in Northern Ireland. The Irish voted against membership of the EU in an official Referendum. The EU then forced a second Referendum, for which they poured-in tons of money – to sway the voters to choose membership. The EU acted wholly illegally by doing this, and there is evidence that the ballot-boxes and the balloting system were tampered with. Do you think that the EU will allow the British people to have a fair vote? - CORRECT - THEY WON'T!
8. If a Referendum on our membership of the EU takes place, then the British people are admitting that the Sovereignty of the UK is disposable (which it is not!), and this will be used against every Patriot of England and the UK - CORRECT!
9. Every one of today’s Politicians are Traitors - as they are all complicit. They are ALL guilty of Treason for playing their part in the betrayal of the UK and its people. If they are not fully active Traitors – then they are guilty of Treason - by knowing that Treason is being committed - and not saying that it is being committed, not reporting Treason, or for not doing anything about it - CORRECT!
10. The Police, Lawyers and Judges are also complicit in the Illegal control of the UK by a Foreign-Power, that being Brussels - AGAIN, CORRECT! (WELL SPOTTED!)
11. The Criminals of ‘Common Purpose’ are the glue that binds the Traitors of the UK – and coordinates their operatives in the take-over of the UK and its people, by a Foreign and Illegal Power - CAN'T ARGUE WITH THAT!
12. The UK is infested with Traitors and Collaborators. Do you really think that a Referendum will be allowed to work? Do you think that the EU would not keep having Referendums until it gets the result it wants? Do you think that the EU would use fair means to win? Do you think that they don’t have oodles more money than the anti-EU – to force a vote in favour of membership? - CORRECT!
13. Do you think that Cameron would allow a Referendum – and had already gone back on his word when he was elected Prime-Minister, and he said that it was no longer possible to have a referendum after the Lisbon-Treaty was signed by the last country? - NO AND YES....IN THAT ORDER. HE DID SAY THAT.
14. What happened about the campaign for 1,000,000 Lawful Rebels by the ‘British Constitution Group’? I was part of that! It didn’t even get off the ground! - NO IDEA!
15. The British Constitution was made – by the people and - for the people! It is only ‘The People’ who can save our country from Foreign Rule! - TRUE!
16. Did we have a Referendum on whether to declare War on Germany? NO! Because we did not want to be ruled by a Foreign country and it wasn’t up for debate anyway! So why the hell are we thinking about it now? - IN 1939 WE WERE GOVERNED BY PATRIOTS. THIS LOT HAVE BEEN OUT-FLANKED AND OUT-WITTED BY THE NWO.
17. Our United Kingdom is under attack, from the inside out. Politicians, Councillors, the Police, Lawyers, Judges, ‘Common Purpose’ and even the Queen – are in on it - CORRECT!
18. Why is it that so many English and British people feel that we are not at war? Poison can kill more people than guns & bombs, and that poison is running through our Towns and Cities like a tsunami, it has infected and affected more people than you can imagine APATHY AND COMPLACENCY RUN ON CONTENTMENT - CORRIE, FOOTBALL, FOOD IN SHOPS AND PETROL IN THE PUMPS...AND NO SIGN THAT IT WON'T BE - THERE'S THE SKILL IN THE DECEPTION!
19. How many pro-EU people do you know? And how many do you know that won’t say – one way or the other? Those that don’t say are actually pro-EU, because if they were not – then they would be proud to say that they are anti-EU! If people you know (even friends and family) do not say that they are anti-EU, then beware, for- they may be the friends of your enemies. Don’t confide in them!!!! - MOST WON'T LISTEN!
20. We do not want a Civil War (which would be very bad for all of us!), but neither do we want to be totally controlled by a Foreign-Power. Or to be classed as hardened criminals – because we are against Tyranny and Oppression. We do not want to be persecuted for being against the darkness of souls, or the overriding of goodness - why not? The very existence of our nation is at stake! What bigger reason does one need?
21. If Tyranny and Oppression becomes the victor in the United Kingdom, then – we all lose to the power of EVIL - meaning Islam? Because that's what it will be!
22. The Criminals in charge and running the UK – are going about their Treachery almost totally uninhibited. Time to put them in their place, either behind bars for life or dangling on the gallows - many have said this...and for many years!
23. The EU and the Government want us to believe that we still have a Democracy, - and the people are falling for it. They know that if we believe that there is a Democracy, and that we still have a say in how the country is run, then we will put all our eggs in one basket. It is not only the general public who are putting all their eggs in one basket! It is all of the anti-EU Party’s, and all of the anti-EU organisations! - not sure what you are getting at, here.
GET OF YOUR BUTTS AND ON YOUR FEET, YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU! GUNS ARE NOT NEEDED, JUST METTLE! ...and you will be locked up and charged with affray!
DON’T BE A DISGRACE TO ALL THE BRAVE MEN THAT DIED FOR YOUR FREEDOMS! - there are several ways "to kill a cat", without firing the gun at yourself!
DON’T LET TRAITORS GET AWAY WITH HANDING-OVER YOUR COUNTRY ON A PLATE! - .....Agreed, but how do we do that? They don't listen.
DON’T LET TRAITORS TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS – AND WITH ONLY A WHIMPER FROM YOU! - it has been an almighty scream - not a whimper! They still refuse to listen, or act "on our behalf". I am not sure if they realise quite what they are doing, but they are backing themselves into a corner and lining up the nation for a revolution - which, as you say, is not wanted!
TAKE YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR RIGHTS AND YOUR FREEDOMS BACK. - be only too delighted to do that!
Politicians won’t help you; neither will the Police, Lawyers, Judges or the Queen. Why would they? They are part of the problem!
So:
IT’S UP TO YOU!
Forget letters and emails to Politicians, the Queen etc. Unless you want to give your enemies even more time than you already have. And, forget a Referendum!
I CALL FOR ALL DEFENDERS OF ENGLAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM, DEFENDERS OF THE ‘BRITISH CONSTITUTION’ AND ‘ENGLISH COMMON LAW’, DEFENDERS OF THE ‘ANGLICAN CHURCH’, DEFENDERS OF THE ENGLISH AND BRITISH RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, TO JOIN TOGETHER IN THE REAL WORLD – NOT JUST THE INTERNET, AND TO STAND SIDE-BY-SIDE AND TO ACT (PHYSICALLY) TO INHIBIT, HARASS, DISRUPT, AND TO MAKE THE DAILY ROUTINES OF ENGLAND AND THE UK’S INTERNAL ENEMIES – UNCOMFORTABLE. - Right! Agreed, so far.
NB. I DO NOT CALL FOR ‘CIVIL WAR’, NOR DO I CALL FOR VIOLENCE OR ANY UNDUE STRESS TO BE PLACED ON THE FAMILIES OR RELATIONS OF THOSE WHO WORK AGAINST US - OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND OUR COUNTRY. no, that's quite right and proper - although...they DO support those "who are against us". Remember that.
ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS – UNITE AND STAND TOGETHER PHYSICALLY. JUST SHOW OUR ENEMIES THE MAGNITUDE OF OUR RESOLUTION AND ENGLISH/BRITISH PATRIOTISM. - RIGHT - NO PROBLEM!
THEY WILL NOT ATTACK AN UNARMED ARMY - WANT A BET? SEEN A TV LATELY? - EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY ILLEGALLY ARM THEMSELVES AGAINST YOU, BECAUSE – ANY OVERWHELMINGLY BODILY AND PEACEFUL FORCE CAN OVERPOWER THEM, AND BY CAUSING INJURY OR DEATH TO ONE SINGLE ACTIVIST – THEY WOULD SUFFER THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF REAL ENGLISH JUSTICE, IN A REAL ENGLISH COURT OF LAW. - NO, THEY WOULDN'T - THE LAW AND JUDGES ARE IN ON IT!
THERE IS NO GREATER FEAR THAN THE FEAR-OF-FEAR. HESITATE TO SAVE YOUR COUNTRY – AND YOU LOSE ALL!
IT IS NO GOOD – BEING GOOD – AND NOT SHOWING IT. IF YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE GOOD – AND DON’T SHOW IT, THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE BAD, AND ARE LIKELY TO BE PERCEIVED AND TREATED AS BEING SO.
HOW MANY OF US WILL STAND AGAINST TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION? - My last count was about 400 tops! HOW MANY WILL KNEEL BEFORE IT? - Probably a few of those 400.
WHICH ARE YOU?
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE BEHIND YOUR DESK WRITING YOUR DISAPPROVAL, OR WILL YOU HONOUR OUR WAR-DEAD; THE ONES WHO GAVE YOU YOUR COMFORT AND YOUR FREEDOMS, BUT NOT SO THAT YOU COULD GIVE THEM AWAY, AND NOT DEFEND THEM. WOULD THEY BE SITTING BEHIND A DESK RIGHT NOW? THE HELL THEY WOULD! I think you are now just trying to make us feel uncomfortable with our efforts - it is now the same situation, or world, that it was on those days. Things are vastly different in most areas of life. As I said - previously, we were governed by "good men and true" - now we are not! The "good men and true" conscripted us to fight a common enemy - this lot have "done a Chamberlain"! The two situations cannot be accurately compared, in this instance.
WOULD THEY SURRENDER TO A FOREIGN RULER? HOW LONG WOULD THEY SUFFER A TREASONOUS POLITICIAN OR A TREASONOUS GOVERNMENT? ANSWER: ABOUT AS LONG AS IT WOULD TAKE TO AIM AND PULL THE TRIGGER!!!! Agreed - but you overlook the fact that these days, only the criminals have guns, or access to them....and the police, of course - who will then simply shoot us - "in the name of law and order and protecting the public"!! (NO INCITEMENT BY ME TO VIOLENCE INTENDED!).
MAYBE YOU THINK THAT THERE WILL BE A SUDDEN UPRISING OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND THAT IT ISN’T NECESSARY TO DO ANYTHING YOURSELF. BUT, WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN UNCONTROLLED UPRISING? (SEE EGYPT AND LIBYA)
IF YOU WERE NOT A PART OF A CONTROLLED UPRISING, HOW COULD YOU CLASS YOURSELF AS A DEFENDER OF OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND OF OUR COUNTRY? - WELL MANY ARE ALREADY DOING THAT AND THEY ARE NOT "PART OF A CONTROLLED UPRISING". A CONTROLLED UPRISING IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT MATTER ENTIRELY. THAT IS REVOLUTION. NOT CONTROLLED IS ANARCHY AND THE NEW AND ARMED EURO-GENDARMERIE WOULD BE BROUGHT IN IMMEDIATELY - "TO HELP"! THEY WOULD NOT LEAVE -THE REASON QUOTED WOULD BE "IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY - IN CASE IT ERUPTS AGAIN!"
TALK IS CHEAP – AND IT IS PLENTIFUL, BUT REAL PATRIOTISM IS JUDGED BY ONES ACTIONS, NOT BY WORDS!- CAN'T AGREE THIS, SORRY!
Note: These are the words of Michael Stuckey, Swindon, Wiltshire.
The above words are not intended to incite violence or any breaking of English Common Law, nor do they condone any undue discomfort to those who are not Traitors or Collaborators or anyone not complicit in the Illegal, Treasonous and Criminal control of the UK and its people.
Note: The above is in my opinion - a good representation of the situation in the UK, although it may not be wholly correct. The above is not a statement of fact, but is mainly or wholly – likely to be true (in my opinion).
FINAL WORDS:
DON’T BE FOOLED THAT WE ARE NOT IN DEEP S**T. EVEN THOUGH MANY OF US SMELL THE STENCH OF TREASON, TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION – AND FEEL THE UNPLEASANT WARMTH OF ITS DEVOURING, WE ARE STILL COMFORTED BY THE APPARENT NORMALITY IN OUR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES. THIS RELATIVE COMFORT IS ABSOLUTELY MISLEADING, AND ANY FEELING OF - LACK OF URGENCY WILL ONLY ASSIST IN OUR DOWNFALL.
Friday, 4 March 2011
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
The 2011 Census By Albert Burgess
We are shortly to be asked to fill in a census form, the information coming out about the intrusive questions this form requires answers too are entirely unacceptable to any right thinking subjects of Her Majesty’s.We now have information that this census originates in the European Union. Under English Constitutional Law we are not required to complete this census for reasons supplied below. In 1351 King Edward I brought in his Act of Praemunire. King Edwards’s subjects were being drawn out of the realm to be tried in foreign courts, Laws were being imposed in England by foreign powers, and Bishops were being ordered by Rome to excommunicate his subjects. King Edward I considered these things to be an affront to his honour as King of England. The Acts of Praemunire 1351 and 1392 make these things High Treason against the Kinds Honour, Bishops and others who committed a Praemunire risked property limbs and life. In 1559 Queen Elizabeth I passed the Act of Supremacy, This Act made this great Queen the supreme authority for the Church in England and all laws. This Act contains an oath still in use today it is sworn by every privy councillor’s i.e. an adviser to the Queen, but can also be sworn by us as citizens of the UK. The oath is as follows. I [ Insert your name] Do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queens Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm and of all her Highness’ dominions and countries as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authority’s, and do promise that henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queens Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminanences, privileges and authority’s granted or belonging to the Queens Highness, her heirs and successors or united or annexed to the imperial Crown of this realm: so help me God and by the contents of this book, [this book being the Bible] and that it may be also enacted, That if any such archbishop, bishop, or other ecclesiastical officer or minister or any of the said temporal judges, justicularies or other lay officer or minister shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take or receive the said oath, then he so refusing shall forfeit and lose only during his life all and every ecclesiastical and spiritual promotion, benefice and office, and every temporal and lay promotion and office, which he hath solely at the time of such refusal made; and that the whole title, interest and incumbency in every promotion, benefice and other office as against such person so refusing during his life shall clearly cease and be void as though the party so refusing were dead.This is taken from Statutes and Constitutional Documents 1558-1625 published by Prothero 1913. The Bill of Rights 1689 has an abbreviated form of this same oath.The Acts of Praemunire 1351/92, Supremacy 1559, and the Bill of Rights 1689 are major English Constitutional laws which we break at out peril. King Edward I, King Richard II, AND Queen Elizabeth I, and King William III felt the actions which amount to a Praemunire were affronts to their honour as Kings and Queens of England. Is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II not also being subjected to an affront to her honour as Queen of England? Is her Crown less important than these earlier Kings and Queens? Her Majesty’s Kingdom has been invaded by a foreign power the European Union which with the connivance of members of our own parliament aiding and abetting this invasion and occupation of the United Kingdom. Foul and Base Traitors all.I call upon all true Englishmen and Women to refuse to complete this census as it is an affront to Her Majesty’s honour as the true Queen of England. I call upon all true English men and women to defend Her Majesty’s Honour as the only supreme governor of England.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
The EU ban on old-fashioned light bulbs sparks entrepreneur's ruse to sell them | Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1345898/The-EU-ban-old-fashioned-light-bulbs-sparks-entrepreneurs-ruse-sell-them.html
I shall be disobeying this ban, there is no way i'm having mercury in my home. I've already been taken ill with the last lot of 'eco' bulbs i put in and had to swiftly remove them, i will never put them in my house again.
I have renounced EU citizenship along with a million others (c/o Queen and PM) so i'd like to see what they say if i get to court over this bullying.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Why we are no longer a Sovereign nation - by Bob Lomas.
Six simple facts that explain the reasons behind the unacceptable state of this nation as it enters 2011.
Six simple facts that explain the reasons behind the unacceptable state of this nation as it enters 2011.
1. Sovereignty means complete self autonomy.
2. Sovereignty is indivisible and therefore cannot be shared.
3. There can be no sovereign head of state in a nation that is no longer sovereign.
4. When in 1972 the Sovereign Head of State, the national administration and legislature surrendered the sovereignty of the British people to the sovereignty of a foreign political power known then as the European Community and now the European Union of the Regions, by accepting the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome, the Queen ceased to be Constitutional Sovereign Monarch, there being no provision in the Treaty of Rome for such an office, thus the system of British monarchy was ended, there being no other form of monarchy recognised in this country.
5. It is inconceivable that the Queen as Sovereign Head of State and official Governor of the nation, her ministers, advisors and Privy Councillors did not understand the terms, conditions and the principle of the Treaty of Rome, particularly as they have also accepted the terms and conditions of subsequent European Union treaties over a period of forty three years.
6. By accepting the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome the Queen and Parliament agreed to abandon the legitimate constraints of the British Constitution and so dismissed themselves from office, thus Parliament became an unlawful assembly and as such the ratification of the signing up to the Treaty of Rome by the European Communities Act 1972 had no lawful standing or legitimacy in British law what so ever .
The Magna Carta Society.
Sunday, 7 November 2010
From: guy leven-torres
Now Do You Get It?
!!!!EURABIA!!!!
Wot? Woossaat?
Guy Leven-Torres
1st November 2010
I really do despair! What is wrong with people? Dear God how many times do I have to state that there is no 'dialogue' with Islam! PERIOD.
How many times do I have to 'prove' that the EU itself is simply a 'Trojan Horse' for the 'Project', a planned 'superpower' stretching from John O'Groats to Baghdad, ruled by 'Sharia'. The present 'EU' is already in a state of subjugation to Islam and Arabia. This is not simply because politicians are scared but desire it, or hope to control, as originally planned the Islamic World as a counter balance to the USA and Russia. Reality is though that the Arabs control the EU.
The EU is funding Palestinian jihad against the West and Israel by giving 800,000,000 Euros to them, which they use to buy weapons smuggled in by sea, often in the guise of 'relief aid'. Last week, Nigeria seized an Iranian ship with missiles en route to Palestine via Egypt. This happens frequently.
Today the papers revealed that our wonderful EU has set up an 'External Diplomatic Service' across the globe, with British embassies expected to shut. Most interestingly from our point of view, EU 'diplomats' in Arab-Moslem countries vastly outnumber their colleagues in other lands like South America. In Turkey for example, the EU has an embassy of diplomats in number greater than the USA they despise so much. It is the same in almost every Islamic country!
Do you think they are there to simply sunbathe and dream of camels and harems? No they are there to facilitate the establishment of Eurabia via the highly secretive EAD 'parliamentary associations'. Look up PAEAC too!
'EAD' stands for European-Arab 'Dialogue'. One of its primary purposes, even laid out in its foundation documents, is to 'facilitate a fusion of cultures' in Europe and the Moslem world' including overseeing 'harmonisation of Mediterranean- Southern and Northern laws and legal codes'. That for the dimwitted means 'Sharia'. Indeed we are already living under it!
Why do you think Geert Wilders is on trial, along with others for criticism of Islam and Mohammed? Criticism of Islam is forbidden in Sharia. It is haram or shirk. Mr Wilders, Mr Griffin and the rest disobeyed Sharia law.
Why do you think Moslems are hardly ever arrested? Because they are duty bound to spread Islam and jihad. This is Sharia too. Police have been ordered to quote 'Leave them alone!' They leave them alone not through fear or appeasement, although I grant this may be a 'factor' but because they cannot arrest Moslems who are literally not breaking the law by demanding our national laws be replaced by 'EuroSharia' but in demanding our deaths too. Both are legal under Sharia. What we are seeing daily is the steady establishment of 'Sharia' across Europe. I am amazed that Police Officers have not grasped what is happening and demanding, why they are being instructed to enforce foreign laws.
My own investigations have revealed, beyond reasonable doubt, a well planned 'phase in' of 'laws', gradually filtered into our daily lives through copious legislation, so designed to micromanage our lives, thoughts, words, actions that will fully condition us to accept the final implementation of sharia, in Europe.
I have not told you any of this until now, because I had hoped, people would have guessed what I have been trying to 'hint' at for the last five years but nobody it seems has understood. The failure is obviously my fault, so I apologise for not making it clearer.
Now do you fully comprehend what is planned for us all!
EURABIA! You are living in it!
I am an historian, please accept that I do know my job inside out! I know what to look for! Rome did exactly the same- a graded process of assimilation and I have often pointed out the close parallels between Roman methodology and Islamic. They are almost identical- 'Citizens' or Umah at the top with peregrini-dhimmi at the bottom paying tax to the overlords. Rome was a benign culture and civilisation- Islam is not! I do not even regard it on good scholarly grounds as a civilisation in fact but a 'primitivisation'.
I urge you all to read 'Eurabia' by Bat Ye'or. I fully concur with her findings too! People pathetically talk about avoiding confrontation and 'doing it through the ballot box'. I don't wish to be impolitic but really, do you believe this after all the nonsense and behaviour the so called 'democratic' EU that has ignored its own laws and demanded new 'refereneda' until it gets the 'required answer'? There are only two states that behaved like this in recent times- the USSR and Third Reich. They are not interested in 'democracy'. They despise it! They use it against us!
The Tory party is just a ploy like all the others, as are certain 'nationalist' parties. We have been screwed plain and simple. This is going to lead to trouble-big trouble unless we come together. I am not advocating violence- just the opposite in fact. I have seen civil war- I do not wish to see it again thankyou and only we can prevent it. The EDL are a start but there are not enough of them!
The whole of the EU and its daughter 'Scheherazade' Eurabia is a Gaullist- Nazi plot planned after 1945. We are now seeing it come to life in its final form. I have read and seen the original documents too. Academics like me do that sort of thing you know. It is our job believe it or not!
Coooooooo! Hark at 'im?
I wish people would for a change. I am getting fed up with the complete lack of fidelity and courage in those whose duty it is to act.....
Sorry to be so harsh but a few' home truths' were necessary.
Guy
Thursday, 8 April 2010
If they'd said
new posting on Ashley Mote's Britannia Rules website)
And Now They Want to be Re-Elected???
Would Nu-Labour have won the 1997 election – for all the faults of the Major government at the time – if Blair/Brown had said their real agenda was to multiple the public debt tenfold, to the point where it was out of control? And then do nothing about it?
If they had said they aimed to reduce the UK from the 7th most competitive country in the global market to 13th? Reduce the 4th most lightly taxed country to the 84th? Reduce the 4th least regulated country to the 86th?
If they had said they intended to turn the UK into a multicultural country by abandoning our border controls? That they would allow a near 50% increase in immigrants from Africa, and over half a million more people from Europe to take up residence in the UK?
That they would encourage immigrants to introduce their own standards, laws and life-styles, and ignore those of the country providing them with a new home?
That they would support immigrant families with the resources of the welfare state – housing, income, health services, free education? Allow the least well-educated, and those most ignorant of the British way of life, to become the fastest-growing community in the country?
They would provide that group with all the protection of British law, including changing the law to accommodate them, and asking nothing by way of commitment to the British way of life in return?
That they would victimize true-Brits who stood in the way, by creating laws to make difficult, or even forbid, criticism or opposition to these profound changes?
That they would, in effect, create a form of dual or parallel citizenship in which the members of one ethnic group in the UK could gain preferential treatment by the state to the disadvantage of the majority who were paying for their benefits?
That they would turn Britain into a nanny-state in which the government assumed the right to control almost every aspect of the lives of those who elected them?
That they would seize the right to snoop on everyone – and encourage neighbour to snoop on neighbour?
And now, as Brown seeks re-election, Blair’s successor tells us the tax man will be empowered by law to open our mail even before it reaches us.
And where has all this got us?
Over the last thirteen years Nu-Labour has created 5000 new crimes at the rate of one every day.
It has passed over 500 new Acts of Parliament, six on immigration, eight on terrorism, 12 on education, 11 on health and social care, and 25 on criminal justice. Many of them were enacted simply to comply with new EU directives.
Another 40,000 EU regulations passed into UK law without a single one of them ever being debated in the House. They were all nodded through by Statutory Instrument, because the EU forbids amendments.
And that’s before we get to all the wishy-washy grand new ideas Nu-Labour repetitively rolled out as policy, and later either forgot or diluted.
The latest – free care for the elderly – has no timetable, no budget, no detailed planning and no hope of becoming law.
It is just another vague, utterly unrealistic carrot to attract voters who are naive or foolish enough to believe this bunch of crooks.
And then we come to the money…
What a legacy they leave us, after squandering the golden economic scenario they inherited from the Tories in 1997.
(Just for the record this is the third time in my lifetime Labour has left office with the economy in a shambles. The claim is valid : successive generations never learn, and people who refuse to learn from history are condemned to make the same mistakes over and over again.)
The most serious economic crisis in half a century, if not ever, has been brought on by profligate spending on bloated public services which lacked clarity of purpose, lacked effective managerial control and which more often than not failed to deliver.
Are our hospitals any better for the billions spent on them in the last 13 years. No they are not. Are our schools any better? No. Are the police doing a better job? I don’t think so.
Because what matters far more than throwing money at a problem is ensuring that it is then used effectively. Worse, Nu-Labour’s abysmal ignorance of resource management is compounded by its obsession with endless targets which add layers of useless bureaucracy, absorb time and effort for no benefit, remove any clarity of purpose, and weight down and mis-direct the efforts of capable people trying to do the job they were hired to do.
No wonder public debt is out of control. It was out of control even before the financial crisis hit us.
Total state debt will be over a trillion pounds before we know it, and may even exceed the UK’s total gross annual income for the first time ever within a few years, unless we make draconian cuts. They are needed fast and need to go deep.
Alternatively we end up monetizing the debt and raging inflation then kicks in to diminish its true worth.
Slashing public spending to the bone would not be difficult.
We all know about the billions sent to Brussels, and the hundreds of billions wasted by British industry and commerce on compliance. That could be saved overnight by telling the EU that we will be good neighbours, trade with them, but only on our terms.
The message is simple enough : they have to understand they cannot be masters in someone else’s house.
Back home, think of the money being squandered on many hundreds of quangos and the tens of thousands of people they employ. Between the lot of them they contribute almost nothing but trouble and aggravation to the people they are supposed to serve.
Think of the sheer numbers of incompetent employees at every level of the civil service. We have all encountered them and their pedantic questions and paperwork.
They may be civil servants but they rarely display any understanding of the word ‘civil’, and usually do not regard themselves as providing a service. We are usually left with the impression that, if they can create trouble and cause inconvenience, that is what they will do.
Then there is the cost of administering our labyrinthine tax system. Why not, as Kit Malthouse argued in The Times this week, abolish the lot and just use a higher level of VAT, or a new sales tax, to collect all taxation, subject only to nil rates on essentials. He is right. And I’ve been saying it for years.
Suddenly, there are tens of thousands of officials and accountants re-deployed into the private sector, many involved in new businesses. Vast amounts of management time and huge compliance costs are saved by every business in the country. Investment in new enterprises and in established businesses erupts.
The explosion of free enterprise, new jobs, new wealth-creation and new exports would transform our economy in no time. We all become winners, including the exchequer.
Such a nuclear change in our tax system would also turn the UK into the biggest off-shore tax haven of modern times, and force fiscal discipline on the governments of many other profligate countries. That, after all, is the supreme public-interest benefit of all tax havens. (No wonder Blair/Brown never told you that.)
Back here on earth, however, we still see money wasted on enforcing the nanny state, including millions spent on adverts on TV - to discourage smoking, on the radio to encourage people to apply for a new driving licence when they reach 70, in the media extolling the common sense virtue of not throwing good food away.
What business is it of government to waste our taxes on adverts like that? What happened to personal responsibility?
And why do we British taxpayers have to finance thousands of foreign students from Europe, and elsewhere, taking places at our universities, while our own children are deprived of higher education?
Last year nearly 120,000 students from the EU countries alone were educated in the UK at our expense, while 120,000 of our own children missed out.
We are now told we need another 20,000 new primary schools to educate young children.
But we are not reproducing ourselves fast enough to fill the places we have already.
Every one of those schools is needed to educate the children of immigrants.
Meanwhile, despite the UK spending nearly £90 billion on education this year (80% more than when Labour took office), there is absolutely no sign of the children already in school being educated properly, taught self-disciple, self-worth, self-reliance, or – for that matter – any British constitutional history.
Instead we continue to produce tens of thousands of ill-educated youngsters who are almost unemployable, and take their frustration out on the community that has failed to raise them properly.
Even if we started to sort out that problem it would take two generations to correct it, as we wait for those already on the streets to grow older.
Then there’s the EU, now set on a new mischief. Its latest lunacy is a threat to use the Lisbon Treaty to create a new form of economic government from Frankfurt, run by the Germans and the French, which would seize control of the City of London and the UK’s global financial services markets.
And what does our crass, certifiably insane government do about it? Absolutely nothing – because it knows it cannot, and is terrified to admit it.
Instead, it has the unbelievable audacity to ask us to vote them back into government.
If it wasn’t so catastrophically tragic, it might almost be funny.
And Now They Want to be Re-Elected???
Would Nu-Labour have won the 1997 election – for all the faults of the Major government at the time – if Blair/Brown had said their real agenda was to multiple the public debt tenfold, to the point where it was out of control? And then do nothing about it?
If they had said they aimed to reduce the UK from the 7th most competitive country in the global market to 13th? Reduce the 4th most lightly taxed country to the 84th? Reduce the 4th least regulated country to the 86th?
If they had said they intended to turn the UK into a multicultural country by abandoning our border controls? That they would allow a near 50% increase in immigrants from Africa, and over half a million more people from Europe to take up residence in the UK?
That they would encourage immigrants to introduce their own standards, laws and life-styles, and ignore those of the country providing them with a new home?
That they would support immigrant families with the resources of the welfare state – housing, income, health services, free education? Allow the least well-educated, and those most ignorant of the British way of life, to become the fastest-growing community in the country?
They would provide that group with all the protection of British law, including changing the law to accommodate them, and asking nothing by way of commitment to the British way of life in return?
That they would victimize true-Brits who stood in the way, by creating laws to make difficult, or even forbid, criticism or opposition to these profound changes?
That they would, in effect, create a form of dual or parallel citizenship in which the members of one ethnic group in the UK could gain preferential treatment by the state to the disadvantage of the majority who were paying for their benefits?
That they would turn Britain into a nanny-state in which the government assumed the right to control almost every aspect of the lives of those who elected them?
That they would seize the right to snoop on everyone – and encourage neighbour to snoop on neighbour?
And now, as Brown seeks re-election, Blair’s successor tells us the tax man will be empowered by law to open our mail even before it reaches us.
And where has all this got us?
Over the last thirteen years Nu-Labour has created 5000 new crimes at the rate of one every day.
It has passed over 500 new Acts of Parliament, six on immigration, eight on terrorism, 12 on education, 11 on health and social care, and 25 on criminal justice. Many of them were enacted simply to comply with new EU directives.
Another 40,000 EU regulations passed into UK law without a single one of them ever being debated in the House. They were all nodded through by Statutory Instrument, because the EU forbids amendments.
And that’s before we get to all the wishy-washy grand new ideas Nu-Labour repetitively rolled out as policy, and later either forgot or diluted.
The latest – free care for the elderly – has no timetable, no budget, no detailed planning and no hope of becoming law.
It is just another vague, utterly unrealistic carrot to attract voters who are naive or foolish enough to believe this bunch of crooks.
And then we come to the money…
What a legacy they leave us, after squandering the golden economic scenario they inherited from the Tories in 1997.
(Just for the record this is the third time in my lifetime Labour has left office with the economy in a shambles. The claim is valid : successive generations never learn, and people who refuse to learn from history are condemned to make the same mistakes over and over again.)
The most serious economic crisis in half a century, if not ever, has been brought on by profligate spending on bloated public services which lacked clarity of purpose, lacked effective managerial control and which more often than not failed to deliver.
Are our hospitals any better for the billions spent on them in the last 13 years. No they are not. Are our schools any better? No. Are the police doing a better job? I don’t think so.
Because what matters far more than throwing money at a problem is ensuring that it is then used effectively. Worse, Nu-Labour’s abysmal ignorance of resource management is compounded by its obsession with endless targets which add layers of useless bureaucracy, absorb time and effort for no benefit, remove any clarity of purpose, and weight down and mis-direct the efforts of capable people trying to do the job they were hired to do.
No wonder public debt is out of control. It was out of control even before the financial crisis hit us.
Total state debt will be over a trillion pounds before we know it, and may even exceed the UK’s total gross annual income for the first time ever within a few years, unless we make draconian cuts. They are needed fast and need to go deep.
Alternatively we end up monetizing the debt and raging inflation then kicks in to diminish its true worth.
Slashing public spending to the bone would not be difficult.
We all know about the billions sent to Brussels, and the hundreds of billions wasted by British industry and commerce on compliance. That could be saved overnight by telling the EU that we will be good neighbours, trade with them, but only on our terms.
The message is simple enough : they have to understand they cannot be masters in someone else’s house.
Back home, think of the money being squandered on many hundreds of quangos and the tens of thousands of people they employ. Between the lot of them they contribute almost nothing but trouble and aggravation to the people they are supposed to serve.
Think of the sheer numbers of incompetent employees at every level of the civil service. We have all encountered them and their pedantic questions and paperwork.
They may be civil servants but they rarely display any understanding of the word ‘civil’, and usually do not regard themselves as providing a service. We are usually left with the impression that, if they can create trouble and cause inconvenience, that is what they will do.
Then there is the cost of administering our labyrinthine tax system. Why not, as Kit Malthouse argued in The Times this week, abolish the lot and just use a higher level of VAT, or a new sales tax, to collect all taxation, subject only to nil rates on essentials. He is right. And I’ve been saying it for years.
Suddenly, there are tens of thousands of officials and accountants re-deployed into the private sector, many involved in new businesses. Vast amounts of management time and huge compliance costs are saved by every business in the country. Investment in new enterprises and in established businesses erupts.
The explosion of free enterprise, new jobs, new wealth-creation and new exports would transform our economy in no time. We all become winners, including the exchequer.
Such a nuclear change in our tax system would also turn the UK into the biggest off-shore tax haven of modern times, and force fiscal discipline on the governments of many other profligate countries. That, after all, is the supreme public-interest benefit of all tax havens. (No wonder Blair/Brown never told you that.)
Back here on earth, however, we still see money wasted on enforcing the nanny state, including millions spent on adverts on TV - to discourage smoking, on the radio to encourage people to apply for a new driving licence when they reach 70, in the media extolling the common sense virtue of not throwing good food away.
What business is it of government to waste our taxes on adverts like that? What happened to personal responsibility?
And why do we British taxpayers have to finance thousands of foreign students from Europe, and elsewhere, taking places at our universities, while our own children are deprived of higher education?
Last year nearly 120,000 students from the EU countries alone were educated in the UK at our expense, while 120,000 of our own children missed out.
We are now told we need another 20,000 new primary schools to educate young children.
But we are not reproducing ourselves fast enough to fill the places we have already.
Every one of those schools is needed to educate the children of immigrants.
Meanwhile, despite the UK spending nearly £90 billion on education this year (80% more than when Labour took office), there is absolutely no sign of the children already in school being educated properly, taught self-disciple, self-worth, self-reliance, or – for that matter – any British constitutional history.
Instead we continue to produce tens of thousands of ill-educated youngsters who are almost unemployable, and take their frustration out on the community that has failed to raise them properly.
Even if we started to sort out that problem it would take two generations to correct it, as we wait for those already on the streets to grow older.
Then there’s the EU, now set on a new mischief. Its latest lunacy is a threat to use the Lisbon Treaty to create a new form of economic government from Frankfurt, run by the Germans and the French, which would seize control of the City of London and the UK’s global financial services markets.
And what does our crass, certifiably insane government do about it? Absolutely nothing – because it knows it cannot, and is terrified to admit it.
Instead, it has the unbelievable audacity to ask us to vote them back into government.
If it wasn’t so catastrophically tragic, it might almost be funny.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Labour’s Climate Change Act: A Conspiracy to Defraud
Labour’s Climate Change Act: A Conspiracy to Defraud
6.4.10
The revelation that the Government’s Climate Change Act will cost the taxpayer up to £18.3 billion per year between now and 2050, together with its sanitising “enquiry” into the Climate Studies Unit (CSU) scandal, proves that it is working hand-in-glove with the United Nations (UN) towards their “global governance” objectives. The British National Party recently revealed the UN’s covert plans for their “Green World Order” and “global governance”, terms widely interpreted as euphemisms for global government. These plans call for the transfer of some $54 trillion in the form of green taxes from the world’s richest nations to the poorest between now and 2050, and the establishment of global governmental political structures. A huge problem for the UN has been the discrediting of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the damaging accusations following the publication of controversial emails from Britain’s government-backed CSU.
This is because the science underpinning the UN’s project is almost entirely based on the “findings” of the IPCC and bodies such as the CSU. The UN has set up a supposedly “independent” enquiry into its IPCC. This will be conducted by an organisation largely comprising individuals and organisations known to be “man-made” global warming advocates; suggesting that the exercise is little more than a whitewash. Similarly, the recent Government enquiry into the CSU — which blatantly avoided the real issues — has largely exonerated it from any criticism; this was as entirely necessary as it was predictable.
Now details of the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament have been revealed. According to Labour’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the Climate Change Act (2008) is set to cost the British taxpayer up to £18 billion per annum between now and the UN project’s implementation target date of 2050 That works out at over £700 per year in unnecessary taxation for every household in the country, to combat non-existent “man-made” global warming. As part of this Marxist “redistribution of wealth” between rich and poor nations, punitive regulations came into force last week in the form of new road tax rules which will force the owners of larger “CO2 producing” vehicles to pay even more tax. In addition, the DECC has introduced its Carbon Reduction Scheme (CRS) which requires, by law, Britain’s 30,000 largest energy users to register with the Environment Agency. Not only does the act of registration involve the payment of an “administration” fee to the Government from every user but it also requires the applicant to conduct an expensive evaluation to quantify its “carbon-footprint”.
All this so that they can be taxed at £12 per year for every ton of CO2 they produce.
It is also envisaged that, in time, not only will the Government increase the tax payable per tonne, but also the number of registered users through a lowering of the “qualifying threshold” requirement, as measured in tonnes of CO2 created per year. Furthermore, in order to administer this totally unnecessary scheme, the Government intends to hire thousands of officials to check up on registered users to ensure they have not underestimated their CO2 output and hence their tax liability. Heavy fines will be imposed on “cheats.” As many of these licensed users will be energy producers, manufactures, farmers and supermarkets, there can be little doubt that these costs will be passed to the consumer. To add insult to injury, this development comes hard on the news that the Government has contributed to green carbon-credits, said to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds, being paid by Western nations to India’s giant TATA Corporation — so that it can build that
country’s largest coal-burning power station at Mundra, in Gujarat province. It is claimed that the plant will generate 26 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year — far more than any British plant. Like everything else associated with Labour, the Climate Change Act is just another excuse to de-industrialise Britain and rip-off the British taxpayer in the furtherance of its and the UN’s globalist projects.
Are going to allow this con to continue?
6.4.10
The revelation that the Government’s Climate Change Act will cost the taxpayer up to £18.3 billion per year between now and 2050, together with its sanitising “enquiry” into the Climate Studies Unit (CSU) scandal, proves that it is working hand-in-glove with the United Nations (UN) towards their “global governance” objectives. The British National Party recently revealed the UN’s covert plans for their “Green World Order” and “global governance”, terms widely interpreted as euphemisms for global government. These plans call for the transfer of some $54 trillion in the form of green taxes from the world’s richest nations to the poorest between now and 2050, and the establishment of global governmental political structures. A huge problem for the UN has been the discrediting of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the damaging accusations following the publication of controversial emails from Britain’s government-backed CSU.
This is because the science underpinning the UN’s project is almost entirely based on the “findings” of the IPCC and bodies such as the CSU. The UN has set up a supposedly “independent” enquiry into its IPCC. This will be conducted by an organisation largely comprising individuals and organisations known to be “man-made” global warming advocates; suggesting that the exercise is little more than a whitewash. Similarly, the recent Government enquiry into the CSU — which blatantly avoided the real issues — has largely exonerated it from any criticism; this was as entirely necessary as it was predictable.
Now details of the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament have been revealed. According to Labour’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the Climate Change Act (2008) is set to cost the British taxpayer up to £18 billion per annum between now and the UN project’s implementation target date of 2050 That works out at over £700 per year in unnecessary taxation for every household in the country, to combat non-existent “man-made” global warming. As part of this Marxist “redistribution of wealth” between rich and poor nations, punitive regulations came into force last week in the form of new road tax rules which will force the owners of larger “CO2 producing” vehicles to pay even more tax. In addition, the DECC has introduced its Carbon Reduction Scheme (CRS) which requires, by law, Britain’s 30,000 largest energy users to register with the Environment Agency. Not only does the act of registration involve the payment of an “administration” fee to the Government from every user but it also requires the applicant to conduct an expensive evaluation to quantify its “carbon-footprint”.
All this so that they can be taxed at £12 per year for every ton of CO2 they produce.
It is also envisaged that, in time, not only will the Government increase the tax payable per tonne, but also the number of registered users through a lowering of the “qualifying threshold” requirement, as measured in tonnes of CO2 created per year. Furthermore, in order to administer this totally unnecessary scheme, the Government intends to hire thousands of officials to check up on registered users to ensure they have not underestimated their CO2 output and hence their tax liability. Heavy fines will be imposed on “cheats.” As many of these licensed users will be energy producers, manufactures, farmers and supermarkets, there can be little doubt that these costs will be passed to the consumer. To add insult to injury, this development comes hard on the news that the Government has contributed to green carbon-credits, said to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds, being paid by Western nations to India’s giant TATA Corporation — so that it can build that
country’s largest coal-burning power station at Mundra, in Gujarat province. It is claimed that the plant will generate 26 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year — far more than any British plant. Like everything else associated with Labour, the Climate Change Act is just another excuse to de-industrialise Britain and rip-off the British taxpayer in the furtherance of its and the UN’s globalist projects.
Are going to allow this con to continue?
Friday, 11 December 2009
A dangerous deception
Copenhagen - a dangerous deception?
By Nathan Allonby
Submitted for publication on Information Clearing House www.informationclearinghouse.info
Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the Copenhagen treaty? As an environmentalist, for decades, I have wanted action to stop the destruction of the planet. Why am I so unhappy now that, finally, it is proposed something should be done?
It’s because it’s phoney. We can‘t believe any of it - we can‘t believe the people, the leaders - we can‘t believe in their good faith; we can’t believe in the solution they are offering; we can‘t believe they have identified the right problem; we can‘t believe the science that supports it; we can‘t believe they can be trusted with the new powers they demand; we can‘t believe they won‘t make things worse instead of better; we can’t believe this isn’t just an excuse for yet more corporate looting; we can‘t believe in the phoney cheerleading, or that there is real public support for any of this.
Yes, it’s true that the science behind the claims has been exposed, but that is the least of the issues. It is, however, deeply symptomatic of everything that’s wrong.
If you think you are going to get anywhere by arguing about science, then think again. This is no longer about reason - it’s about feelings and adrenaline.
There is a well-orchestrated chorus, cheering for Copenhagen. Lots of attractive, young people, are shouting in the street.
Copenhagen is claimed to be about justice; about redistribution of wealth, from rich to poor; about protecting the planet; about protecting the future. Copenhagen is claimed to be about saving people's lives, indeed saving the whole of humanity.
The Copenhagen treaty is seen to be a good thing, with good objectives, desirable regardless of whether climate change is real,
whether it is man-made, or whatever. When the cause is just, the science doesn't matter.
There is no debate - we have entered a situation where no rational debate is possible. This is a very dangerous situation for democracy.
The Copenhagen treaty will overturn the very concepts of democracy, national self-government and the right of self-determination. The Copenhagen treaty will overturn traditional democracy and bring in a new trans-national process of decision-making, with authority over large areas of public policy, with no democratic control or accountability, in a system to be controlled by the very people that have been responsible for serial wars, economic exploitation and famines.
There should be an outcry, but instead this is being greeted with fanfares. Why is this?
We could mention that, for years, our leaders have talked about encouraging these demonstrations, in support of government action. Governments capable of organising colour revolutions in hostile nations would have no problem organising pro-government rallies in their own home-towns.
More than half the UK population doesn't believe the official story of man-made global warming. But you wouldn’t think that, to look at newspaper coverage, or "protests" on climate change.
It all feels so unreal - it is unreal. What this situation needs is a healthy dose of realism.
Here is the message that needs to be put across to Copenhagen activists.Firstly
, if you are looking for a solution, do you go to the people who made the problem? If you wanted economic and social justice, would you go to be people who have carefully installed a rapacious system of exploitation? If you wanted to protect the environment, would you go to the people who systematically dismantled environmental protection, to make greater profits? In short, how will it fix the system to give these failed leaders more power, by creating a new world authority, run by them, with no elections, no democratic accountability, no checks and balances? Wouldn't that make things worse, not better?
Secondly
, at every democratic election, these people let you down, and did something different, often opposite, to what they
promised. Why would you trust them now? Isn't it more reasonable to expect them to disappoint you again?
How does it feel to be duped, time after time? Do you really want to invite this again, only this time on a disastrously larger scale?
Thirdly
, look at the current plans our global leaders - what they plan is the opposite of what they say.
The Copenhagen treaty is supposed to provide money and investment to provide new lifestyles for people displaced "by climate change".
Most population displacement worldwide is not due to climate change, but due to engineered events - such as government action (land seizure, grant of mining rights, special economic zones, etc.), financial policies and war. In most of these events, the West is implicated, even the wars (Congo is a good example).
Around the world, billions of people will be displaced from sustainable lifestyles, that have endured for thousands of years, to be forced into urban slums, living in indescribable squalor, to work in sweatshops. They will be forced from zero-impact lifestyles into dependency on mineral fuel and scarce resources. In India alone, at least 400 million people - roughly equivalent to the population of Europe - will be displaced from farming into urban slums. This is planned and engineered, not the by-product of natural forces, such as climate change. Our world leaders plan this, to force these innocent victims to work in service to the Western economy, to fuel global economic growth.
"Aid" to Third World nations - who does it help? Do the people who live sustainable lifestyles need financial investment? No –
they need to be left alone. They haven't needed investment for thousands of years - that's what 'sustainable' means. Is it lack of investment that threatens indigenous people around the world? Or is it the investment itself that threatens to displace them - the new dams, roads and development projects? Is this investment actually creating the infrastructure of exploitation? Is it helping to build the slums and sweatshops into which its victims will be forced?
Fourthly
, we know that Copenhagen will actually create a whole new multi-trillion $ economy in trading carbon credits - money
that will ultimately come from us.
We have already had leaks of the world leaders' bad faith - from the G20 conference - they plan to turn aid into exploitation, and
to use their new powers to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
Now we have the leak of the so-called Danish text, which will permanently enforce inequality between rich and poor nations, and freeze developing nations out of decision-making power.
Fifthly
, we have seen how international bodies work already. How many environmentalists think the WTO has been a good
thing? So why ask for more of the same? Governments hide behind such bodies and use them as the opportunity to "launder" policies - at WTO meetings, our governments can press, unseen and unreported, for policies that would be unacceptable to their voters at home, but go back and pretend "It's not our fault, the WTO forced us to do it".
Finally
, this is time to ask, what have we learned about democracy? Have we learned anything from all the mistakes we made
in the past? Have we learned anything from all the leaders who lied to us? Do we want to trust our leaders with unlimited power, and ask no questions, or have we learned we tie them down with checks and balances, and force them to make specific commitments?
Let's look at the things we want, and ask whether we could achieve them without trans-national government. (Some of these issues were discussed in an earlier article)
We already want lower fuel consumption - we don't want high fuel bills - we want better insulated homes. We want old people to be able to afford to keep warm, to get help to insulate their homes, so they don't freeze in the winter. Hey, we can already have that, with home insulation grants! Do we need world government to solve this?
We want cars that can do 200 miles per gallon, instead of 30 mpg. Hey, we could already do that! Engineers kept on bringing cars like that to motor shows, but the car companies didn't want to sell them. Now we own the car companies, via bail-out, we could insist they build the cars we really want.
We want the money from higher fuel bills, instead of going into record corporate profits, to go into investment in alternative energy technology, to reduce dependence on oil. Hey, we could do that, without world government! We need a windfall tax on energy profits, combined with a tax-break on investment in renewable-energy.
There is every reason to be concerned about our planet: - destruction of the rainforests, the oceans dying, breaks in our food chain, toxic pollution, exhaustion of resources, extinction of species, the disappearance of songbirds. These are the real issues that lie behind the activists’ concern about global warming. Man’s impact on the planet is real and undeniable - action is needed. In the eyes, hearts and minds of activists, global warming is the issue that encapsulates and symbolises all the others. They feel that action on global warming will lead to action on all those other issues. But they are wrong - those activists should notice how global warming has pushed all other issues aside, out of discussion. Copenhagen doesn’t address any of the other, arguably more real, issues. Action on global warming could end up as a substitute, displacing action on every other problem.
To a large extent, we have to blame the environmental campaign organisations for their lack of focus, in failing to promote attainable, specific, realistic solutions. Instead, they have led us, directly and indirectly, into the arms of Copenhagen, a broad, indiscriminate and, ultimately, a false solution - a deception. This is exactly the type of chimera or mirage that real campaigners should have warned us against, instead of cheering on.
We don't need Copenhagen - we need to master our existing democracies, to make our politicians deliver the policies we really want. We need to bring our politicians to heel, not give them more power. The Copenhagen treaty will make it less likely we will get what we really want - that should be the message for all environmental activists.
__._,_.___
By Nathan Allonby
Submitted for publication on Information Clearing House www.informationclearinghouse.info
Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the Copenhagen treaty? As an environmentalist, for decades, I have wanted action to stop the destruction of the planet. Why am I so unhappy now that, finally, it is proposed something should be done?
It’s because it’s phoney. We can‘t believe any of it - we can‘t believe the people, the leaders - we can‘t believe in their good faith; we can’t believe in the solution they are offering; we can‘t believe they have identified the right problem; we can‘t believe the science that supports it; we can‘t believe they can be trusted with the new powers they demand; we can‘t believe they won‘t make things worse instead of better; we can’t believe this isn’t just an excuse for yet more corporate looting; we can‘t believe in the phoney cheerleading, or that there is real public support for any of this.
Yes, it’s true that the science behind the claims has been exposed, but that is the least of the issues. It is, however, deeply symptomatic of everything that’s wrong.
If you think you are going to get anywhere by arguing about science, then think again. This is no longer about reason - it’s about feelings and adrenaline.
There is a well-orchestrated chorus, cheering for Copenhagen. Lots of attractive, young people, are shouting in the street.
Copenhagen is claimed to be about justice; about redistribution of wealth, from rich to poor; about protecting the planet; about protecting the future. Copenhagen is claimed to be about saving people's lives, indeed saving the whole of humanity.
The Copenhagen treaty is seen to be a good thing, with good objectives, desirable regardless of whether climate change is real,
whether it is man-made, or whatever. When the cause is just, the science doesn't matter.
There is no debate - we have entered a situation where no rational debate is possible. This is a very dangerous situation for democracy.
The Copenhagen treaty will overturn the very concepts of democracy, national self-government and the right of self-determination. The Copenhagen treaty will overturn traditional democracy and bring in a new trans-national process of decision-making, with authority over large areas of public policy, with no democratic control or accountability, in a system to be controlled by the very people that have been responsible for serial wars, economic exploitation and famines.
There should be an outcry, but instead this is being greeted with fanfares. Why is this?
We could mention that, for years, our leaders have talked about encouraging these demonstrations, in support of government action. Governments capable of organising colour revolutions in hostile nations would have no problem organising pro-government rallies in their own home-towns.
More than half the UK population doesn't believe the official story of man-made global warming. But you wouldn’t think that, to look at newspaper coverage, or "protests" on climate change.
It all feels so unreal - it is unreal. What this situation needs is a healthy dose of realism.
Here is the message that needs to be put across to Copenhagen activists.Firstly
, if you are looking for a solution, do you go to the people who made the problem? If you wanted economic and social justice, would you go to be people who have carefully installed a rapacious system of exploitation? If you wanted to protect the environment, would you go to the people who systematically dismantled environmental protection, to make greater profits? In short, how will it fix the system to give these failed leaders more power, by creating a new world authority, run by them, with no elections, no democratic accountability, no checks and balances? Wouldn't that make things worse, not better?
Secondly
, at every democratic election, these people let you down, and did something different, often opposite, to what they
promised. Why would you trust them now? Isn't it more reasonable to expect them to disappoint you again?
How does it feel to be duped, time after time? Do you really want to invite this again, only this time on a disastrously larger scale?
Thirdly
, look at the current plans our global leaders - what they plan is the opposite of what they say.
The Copenhagen treaty is supposed to provide money and investment to provide new lifestyles for people displaced "by climate change".
Most population displacement worldwide is not due to climate change, but due to engineered events - such as government action (land seizure, grant of mining rights, special economic zones, etc.), financial policies and war. In most of these events, the West is implicated, even the wars (Congo is a good example).
Around the world, billions of people will be displaced from sustainable lifestyles, that have endured for thousands of years, to be forced into urban slums, living in indescribable squalor, to work in sweatshops. They will be forced from zero-impact lifestyles into dependency on mineral fuel and scarce resources. In India alone, at least 400 million people - roughly equivalent to the population of Europe - will be displaced from farming into urban slums. This is planned and engineered, not the by-product of natural forces, such as climate change. Our world leaders plan this, to force these innocent victims to work in service to the Western economy, to fuel global economic growth.
"Aid" to Third World nations - who does it help? Do the people who live sustainable lifestyles need financial investment? No –
they need to be left alone. They haven't needed investment for thousands of years - that's what 'sustainable' means. Is it lack of investment that threatens indigenous people around the world? Or is it the investment itself that threatens to displace them - the new dams, roads and development projects? Is this investment actually creating the infrastructure of exploitation? Is it helping to build the slums and sweatshops into which its victims will be forced?
Fourthly
, we know that Copenhagen will actually create a whole new multi-trillion $ economy in trading carbon credits - money
that will ultimately come from us.
We have already had leaks of the world leaders' bad faith - from the G20 conference - they plan to turn aid into exploitation, and
to use their new powers to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
Now we have the leak of the so-called Danish text, which will permanently enforce inequality between rich and poor nations, and freeze developing nations out of decision-making power.
Fifthly
, we have seen how international bodies work already. How many environmentalists think the WTO has been a good
thing? So why ask for more of the same? Governments hide behind such bodies and use them as the opportunity to "launder" policies - at WTO meetings, our governments can press, unseen and unreported, for policies that would be unacceptable to their voters at home, but go back and pretend "It's not our fault, the WTO forced us to do it".
Finally
, this is time to ask, what have we learned about democracy? Have we learned anything from all the mistakes we made
in the past? Have we learned anything from all the leaders who lied to us? Do we want to trust our leaders with unlimited power, and ask no questions, or have we learned we tie them down with checks and balances, and force them to make specific commitments?
Let's look at the things we want, and ask whether we could achieve them without trans-national government. (Some of these issues were discussed in an earlier article)
We already want lower fuel consumption - we don't want high fuel bills - we want better insulated homes. We want old people to be able to afford to keep warm, to get help to insulate their homes, so they don't freeze in the winter. Hey, we can already have that, with home insulation grants! Do we need world government to solve this?
We want cars that can do 200 miles per gallon, instead of 30 mpg. Hey, we could already do that! Engineers kept on bringing cars like that to motor shows, but the car companies didn't want to sell them. Now we own the car companies, via bail-out, we could insist they build the cars we really want.
We want the money from higher fuel bills, instead of going into record corporate profits, to go into investment in alternative energy technology, to reduce dependence on oil. Hey, we could do that, without world government! We need a windfall tax on energy profits, combined with a tax-break on investment in renewable-energy.
There is every reason to be concerned about our planet: - destruction of the rainforests, the oceans dying, breaks in our food chain, toxic pollution, exhaustion of resources, extinction of species, the disappearance of songbirds. These are the real issues that lie behind the activists’ concern about global warming. Man’s impact on the planet is real and undeniable - action is needed. In the eyes, hearts and minds of activists, global warming is the issue that encapsulates and symbolises all the others. They feel that action on global warming will lead to action on all those other issues. But they are wrong - those activists should notice how global warming has pushed all other issues aside, out of discussion. Copenhagen doesn’t address any of the other, arguably more real, issues. Action on global warming could end up as a substitute, displacing action on every other problem.
To a large extent, we have to blame the environmental campaign organisations for their lack of focus, in failing to promote attainable, specific, realistic solutions. Instead, they have led us, directly and indirectly, into the arms of Copenhagen, a broad, indiscriminate and, ultimately, a false solution - a deception. This is exactly the type of chimera or mirage that real campaigners should have warned us against, instead of cheering on.
We don't need Copenhagen - we need to master our existing democracies, to make our politicians deliver the policies we really want. We need to bring our politicians to heel, not give them more power. The Copenhagen treaty will make it less likely we will get what we really want - that should be the message for all environmental activists.
__._,_.___
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Miseocracy
Miseocracy
Guy Leven-Torres
29th November 2009
The Telegraph, my favourite newspaper wrote of the crooks and fraudsters who lay behind Climate-Gate, who now are complacently denying any criminal behaviour even in the face of hard forensic evidence and cold hard fact. Like I have have always said, the Left do not know Right from Wrong.
"This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude." Prof Jones, who has refused to quit despite calls even from within the green movement, said last week in a statement issued through University of East Anglia, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues." He suggested the theft of emails and publication first on a Russian server was "a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks".
He added: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
As I also said, watch out for an attempt to smear the hackers who managed to enter into the hallowed halls of Climate Deceit in East Anglia. What these ‘academics’ have done is in scholarly terms appalling and disgusting- the damage to real scholarship real and lasting, especially in the minds of an already ignorant apathetic public, now highly suspicious of a Scientific caucus seemingly populated and controlled by lunatics, who think not eating a sausage a day will ‘Save the Planet’ or that we all become ‘Vegans’- indeed the stuff of insanity that even twenty years ago, would have more credibility in an acute ward for the dangerously insane than a ‘respectable’ academic Department worthy of the name.
Now with the upsurge in religious extremism and especially ‘Last Days’ scenarios as the Mob screams for blood, led on by religious faith demagogues and rabble rousers from white supremacy fanatics, ‘Born Again’ cranks, to their fellow clowns in the likes of Anjem Choudary, science will become the new Witch to be hunted by the forming Inquisition and Scientist Finder generals of The Popular People’s Front of Untruth and Ignorance, as public anger grows- and it has only just started- followed of course by the bureaucrats and politicians, already mired in expenses fraud and worse seeing the rising wrath, will jump on the political bandwagon and try to take over from the likes of Lord Pearson and the rest of us who have for years been warning what was afoot. However, it was not Science and God that caused all this but corrupt lying criminals masquerading as ‘academics’.
I am impressed with UKIP’s new leader Lord Rannock of Pearson who has exposed this whole rotten edifice and confirmed what most of the informed knew, or suspected was going on. However a very strong word of caution- I know the Left inside out and why they hate us. So far they ignore us or at least try to, when not abusing us all as racists etc! However, things are changing. Things will become unpleasant beacuse they will not go quietly, without a fight and use of nasty tactics, even utilising Police and other agencies to maintain their grip.
Meanwhile UKIP have done themselves a great favour, by selecting the above as new leader- a man who shoulders the Truth- unafraid to speak out on controversial subjects, for fear of causing offence to minorities. He is now saying things and warning people about matters I presented to my local UKIP man years ago but who told me I was ‘scary’and simply ignored, what I had to show after all my research. In the face of such danger, the life saving Truth was suppressed for fear of alienating voters. I do not dislike the man and he is doing well locally where I live but he and his kind, have allowed the enemy to further its aims and establish its grip to the point, it now feels it can blithely ignore the growing public anger. The populace are not children and not as ignorant as some believe, that they need to be protected from ‘scary’ people like me. Forewarned– Forearmed my old C.O. used to say! I am just the unfortunate Messenger.
The necessity of knowing what kind of enemy we face and its strength allows one to defend with a fair chance of Reality- appeasement and hiding the ‘scary’ Truth and even abusing those like us, that have laboured for years to alert and save the siutaion is no excuse. Churchill was abused terribly, even by his own side who knew the reality of Hitler and the Nazi threat. Thank God Churchill gained friends within the elite, who covertly helped him to get the Truth out! Lord Pearson is a worthy leader who invited Geert Wilders to show his film ‘Fitna, about the Islamist threat. He has also spoken on film of the dangers of Islamisation, stating on Canadian TV and other Media that ‘Britain has 18 months’ to prevent the final victory of Islam in the UK.
I know that others in UKIP also tried in vain to get their views across, one of whom a very brave and incredibly well informed-educated astute man is suffering from cancer. I hope when he sees the news it will ease his pain somewhat! Lord Pearson is a man who will have my vote in the next election as he should yours! He tells the truth as does Nick Griffin who should also be getting a lot more credit. I may not like some of his policies but by God the man has courage! The hounding of the BNP by the elite is an absolute disgrace, as is the deliberate attempt to destroy UKIP by fining it for fraud and even imprisoning its MEPs on trumped up charges- all activities familiar in the Third Reich and USSR.
The title of this post is 'Miseocracy' from the Classical Greek for ‘hate’. The current elite hate Humanity and wish to reduce not just western economies and their wealth to harvest and enrich themselves from, while stearing some of the illicit takings towards ‘Third World’ dupes who in fact have the most to fear from these creeps and their murderous schemes but also to reduce their populations to a class of serfs in the Global Feudal System in which the elite will be a new caste of god, aided and abetted by their beauracratic Byzantine orders of lesser ‘nobility’ like the crooks who faked the Climate models above. Don’t they just love titles?
I have termed this New Age Global Elite, ‘The NAGE’ and invented the term Nagism in order to describe it and its octupus like features. It is in fact very much like Nazism, in that it uses bureaucratic terror and endless officialdom to thwart public dissent and rebellion. Indeed there were many states within states in the 3rd Reich, the most dangerous being the SS State of one ex-chicken farmer, turned bureaucrat, Heinrich Himmler whose name even today inspires fear and loathing across the globe. People that met him before and during his rise to power, described him as a ‘dapper almost feminine innocuous inoffensive figure, more bespectacled clerk than rising politician. Well mannered and the epitome of German respectability!’ Today we have just had our own ‘dapper almost feminine innocuous inoffensive figure, more bespectacled clerk than rising politician’ foisted upon us in the name of Van Rumpuy, that even his own sister calls ‘a clown’.
I am not laughing and neither should you! Van Rumpuy was chosen simply because his disarming appearance and character- a seeming nonentity- is exactly the quality of being that Hitler saw in Himmler.
Guy
Guy Leven-Torres
29th November 2009
The Telegraph, my favourite newspaper wrote of the crooks and fraudsters who lay behind Climate-Gate, who now are complacently denying any criminal behaviour even in the face of hard forensic evidence and cold hard fact. Like I have have always said, the Left do not know Right from Wrong.
"This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude." Prof Jones, who has refused to quit despite calls even from within the green movement, said last week in a statement issued through University of East Anglia, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues." He suggested the theft of emails and publication first on a Russian server was "a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks".
He added: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
As I also said, watch out for an attempt to smear the hackers who managed to enter into the hallowed halls of Climate Deceit in East Anglia. What these ‘academics’ have done is in scholarly terms appalling and disgusting- the damage to real scholarship real and lasting, especially in the minds of an already ignorant apathetic public, now highly suspicious of a Scientific caucus seemingly populated and controlled by lunatics, who think not eating a sausage a day will ‘Save the Planet’ or that we all become ‘Vegans’- indeed the stuff of insanity that even twenty years ago, would have more credibility in an acute ward for the dangerously insane than a ‘respectable’ academic Department worthy of the name.
Now with the upsurge in religious extremism and especially ‘Last Days’ scenarios as the Mob screams for blood, led on by religious faith demagogues and rabble rousers from white supremacy fanatics, ‘Born Again’ cranks, to their fellow clowns in the likes of Anjem Choudary, science will become the new Witch to be hunted by the forming Inquisition and Scientist Finder generals of The Popular People’s Front of Untruth and Ignorance, as public anger grows- and it has only just started- followed of course by the bureaucrats and politicians, already mired in expenses fraud and worse seeing the rising wrath, will jump on the political bandwagon and try to take over from the likes of Lord Pearson and the rest of us who have for years been warning what was afoot. However, it was not Science and God that caused all this but corrupt lying criminals masquerading as ‘academics’.
I am impressed with UKIP’s new leader Lord Rannock of Pearson who has exposed this whole rotten edifice and confirmed what most of the informed knew, or suspected was going on. However a very strong word of caution- I know the Left inside out and why they hate us. So far they ignore us or at least try to, when not abusing us all as racists etc! However, things are changing. Things will become unpleasant beacuse they will not go quietly, without a fight and use of nasty tactics, even utilising Police and other agencies to maintain their grip.
Meanwhile UKIP have done themselves a great favour, by selecting the above as new leader- a man who shoulders the Truth- unafraid to speak out on controversial subjects, for fear of causing offence to minorities. He is now saying things and warning people about matters I presented to my local UKIP man years ago but who told me I was ‘scary’and simply ignored, what I had to show after all my research. In the face of such danger, the life saving Truth was suppressed for fear of alienating voters. I do not dislike the man and he is doing well locally where I live but he and his kind, have allowed the enemy to further its aims and establish its grip to the point, it now feels it can blithely ignore the growing public anger. The populace are not children and not as ignorant as some believe, that they need to be protected from ‘scary’ people like me. Forewarned– Forearmed my old C.O. used to say! I am just the unfortunate Messenger.
The necessity of knowing what kind of enemy we face and its strength allows one to defend with a fair chance of Reality- appeasement and hiding the ‘scary’ Truth and even abusing those like us, that have laboured for years to alert and save the siutaion is no excuse. Churchill was abused terribly, even by his own side who knew the reality of Hitler and the Nazi threat. Thank God Churchill gained friends within the elite, who covertly helped him to get the Truth out! Lord Pearson is a worthy leader who invited Geert Wilders to show his film ‘Fitna, about the Islamist threat. He has also spoken on film of the dangers of Islamisation, stating on Canadian TV and other Media that ‘Britain has 18 months’ to prevent the final victory of Islam in the UK.
I know that others in UKIP also tried in vain to get their views across, one of whom a very brave and incredibly well informed-educated astute man is suffering from cancer. I hope when he sees the news it will ease his pain somewhat! Lord Pearson is a man who will have my vote in the next election as he should yours! He tells the truth as does Nick Griffin who should also be getting a lot more credit. I may not like some of his policies but by God the man has courage! The hounding of the BNP by the elite is an absolute disgrace, as is the deliberate attempt to destroy UKIP by fining it for fraud and even imprisoning its MEPs on trumped up charges- all activities familiar in the Third Reich and USSR.
The title of this post is 'Miseocracy' from the Classical Greek for ‘hate’. The current elite hate Humanity and wish to reduce not just western economies and their wealth to harvest and enrich themselves from, while stearing some of the illicit takings towards ‘Third World’ dupes who in fact have the most to fear from these creeps and their murderous schemes but also to reduce their populations to a class of serfs in the Global Feudal System in which the elite will be a new caste of god, aided and abetted by their beauracratic Byzantine orders of lesser ‘nobility’ like the crooks who faked the Climate models above. Don’t they just love titles?
I have termed this New Age Global Elite, ‘The NAGE’ and invented the term Nagism in order to describe it and its octupus like features. It is in fact very much like Nazism, in that it uses bureaucratic terror and endless officialdom to thwart public dissent and rebellion. Indeed there were many states within states in the 3rd Reich, the most dangerous being the SS State of one ex-chicken farmer, turned bureaucrat, Heinrich Himmler whose name even today inspires fear and loathing across the globe. People that met him before and during his rise to power, described him as a ‘dapper almost feminine innocuous inoffensive figure, more bespectacled clerk than rising politician. Well mannered and the epitome of German respectability!’ Today we have just had our own ‘dapper almost feminine innocuous inoffensive figure, more bespectacled clerk than rising politician’ foisted upon us in the name of Van Rumpuy, that even his own sister calls ‘a clown’.
I am not laughing and neither should you! Van Rumpuy was chosen simply because his disarming appearance and character- a seeming nonentity- is exactly the quality of being that Hitler saw in Himmler.
Guy
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Salute to Denmark
Politicians wake up too late to their errors
Why the hell didn't they listen to our warnings?
*************************************************************************************
SALUTE to Denmark .. This could very well happen here on our Continent...
Susan MacAllen is a contributing editor for (FamilySecurityMatters.org)
Salute the Danish Flag - it's a Symbol of Western Freedom By Susan MacAllen
In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark . But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants.
The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.< The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.
Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?
By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.
An article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecast, accurately, that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:
'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.'
'Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.'
'Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.'
'Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem .'
'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a
not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.'
It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and Canada: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who, as a teenager, had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.
In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe . (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)
If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test .
You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship.
You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.
You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.
In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system, as it existed, was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration'.
'The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said.
A large thorn in the side of Denmark's Imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,' Hvilshoj says, 'There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.'
Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical Imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark.
The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.
Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.
And meanwhile, Canadians clamour for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history ..we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own..
Why the hell didn't they listen to our warnings?
*************************************************************************************
SALUTE to Denmark .. This could very well happen here on our Continent...
Susan MacAllen is a contributing editor for (FamilySecurityMatters.org)
Salute the Danish Flag - it's a Symbol of Western Freedom By Susan MacAllen
In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark . But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants.
The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.< The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.
Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?
By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.
An article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecast, accurately, that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:
'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.'
'Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.'
'Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.'
'Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem .'
'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a
not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.'
It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and Canada: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who, as a teenager, had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.
In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe . (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)
If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test .
You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship.
You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.
You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.
In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system, as it existed, was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration'.
'The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said.
A large thorn in the side of Denmark's Imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,' Hvilshoj says, 'There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.'
Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical Imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark.
The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.
Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.
And meanwhile, Canadians clamour for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history ..we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own..
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
ONE OF THE BEST EXPLANATIONS OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
From a teacher in the Nashville area
"We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream"
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and
some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have
an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech
and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students
should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and
Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because
he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class
a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone
applauded and he sat down. Now it was Olivia's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give
you ice cream." Then she sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more, but she did not have to.
A discussion followed. Questions were asked, like "How did she plan to
pay for the ice cream?" She wasn't sure. "Would her parents buy it
or would the class pay for it." She didn't know. What's more, the class
really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. It didn't mean that Olivia was bad, or that it was wrong to want ice cream.
The fact remained, however, that Jamie was forgotten and Olivia won by
a landslide. Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he essentially offered ice cream
and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. WE THE PEOPLE
wanted ice cream! The other 48 percent know they're going to have to
feed the cow and clean up the mess." Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone --- that
they have not first taken away from someone else.
History Lesson
The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - they've had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can't compete with private sector FedExp and UPS services.
Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71 years to get it right; it is broke..
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked to better the poor at all.Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as the models for all
US health care.
AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out ...and it still continues to run at a loss!
This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working. It's been used to increase the size of governments across
America and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Added to that is the fact that our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have already increased 400% in the last six months!!
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 ....after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies! And dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that still is not yet paying them what was promised.
So .....with a perfect 100% failure rate, and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any well-informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America's health care system - - 17% of our economy?
Maybe ....no, CERTAINLY ....each and every one of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant governmental record before the elections in 2010. Then help to remove from office those idiots on BOTH sides of the aisle who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future! If we do not succeed in turning this government around, the USA will be Socialistic by 2016.
From a teacher in the Nashville area
"We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream"
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and
some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have
an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech
and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students
should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and
Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because
he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class
a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone
applauded and he sat down. Now it was Olivia's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give
you ice cream." Then she sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more, but she did not have to.
A discussion followed. Questions were asked, like "How did she plan to
pay for the ice cream?" She wasn't sure. "Would her parents buy it
or would the class pay for it." She didn't know. What's more, the class
really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. It didn't mean that Olivia was bad, or that it was wrong to want ice cream.
The fact remained, however, that Jamie was forgotten and Olivia won by
a landslide. Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he essentially offered ice cream
and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. WE THE PEOPLE
wanted ice cream! The other 48 percent know they're going to have to
feed the cow and clean up the mess." Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone --- that
they have not first taken away from someone else.
History Lesson
The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - they've had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can't compete with private sector FedExp and UPS services.
Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71 years to get it right; it is broke..
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked to better the poor at all.Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as the models for all
US health care.
AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out ...and it still continues to run at a loss!
This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working. It's been used to increase the size of governments across
America and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Added to that is the fact that our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have already increased 400% in the last six months!!
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 ....after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies! And dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that still is not yet paying them what was promised.
So .....with a perfect 100% failure rate, and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any well-informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America's health care system - - 17% of our economy?
Maybe ....no, CERTAINLY ....each and every one of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant governmental record before the elections in 2010. Then help to remove from office those idiots on BOTH sides of the aisle who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future! If we do not succeed in turning this government around, the USA will be Socialistic by 2016.
Monday, 3 August 2009
How the elite control your mind
How the Elite control your mind & your life
"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England in 1919 [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." - Barry Goldwater
Have you ever thought something is wrong? Have you ever thought you were being lied to by your politicians, government, teachers? Have you ever thought you were being manipulated by the television? Have you ever wondered about how the world really works? Have you ever caught the media in a lie? Do you want to know how money really works? Have you ever wondered what the elite of this world believe & where they are taking us? Here you will have an opportunity to at least start to find the true nature of the world & how we have been misled & deceived at every level.
The Globalist Agenda represents a plan to bring all of Earth's inhabitants under the control of a single, global state. There is a small, but powerful group of individuals who are the architects & instigators behind the formation & implementation of this "New World Order". Using their influence through international organisations such as the World Bank, the IMF, the CFR, the United Nations & NATO, the objective of these internationalists is nothing less than the subjugation of everyone on the planet to a one world government. Under the guise of keeping us all safe with anti-terrorist laws, citizens will lose their civil liberties preventing any dissent against Big Brother. The purpose of this website is to first provide a concise base of knowledge explaining the historical origins & mechanisms of the "one-world government" plan, & second, to provide avenues of resistance & methodologies for survival within the Chaos purposely imposed within this plot to enslave all of humanity.
"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words & money." - Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in "Foreign Affairs", July/August 1995.
What would you do if you knew all the things we know, would you stand up for truth, or would you turn away too? And then what if you saw all of the things that's wrong would you stand tall & strong or would you turn & walk away? - Musician Paris from his song "What Would You Do?" featuring Pink
“We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 17th February, 1950
- (from Neil Gilmour)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)