NASA Rocked By Climate Rebellion

NASA Rocked By Climate Rebellion

CCNet 11 April 2012The Climate Policy Network NASA Rocked By Climate RebellionAstronauts Condemn Nasa's Global Warming Advocacy In an unprecedented slap at NASA˙s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists--including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center--claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world˙s top space agency. Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency˛refrain from including unproven remarks supporting global warming in the media. The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program. -- The Washington Examiner, 10 April 2012 In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from (NASA˙s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled, they wrote. -- The Washington Examiner, 10 April 2012 We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA˙s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA˙s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA˙s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. ˆ Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.

The second person to walk on the moon said that setting up habitation on the surface of the red planet was a "wonderful objective" for humanity. But while trying to spread the word about the possibilities of space, Dr Buzz Aldrin said he was sceptical of climate change theories. "I think the climate has been changing for billions of years," he said. "If it's warming now, it may cool off later. I'm not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. "I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it." --Richard Alleyne, The Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2009 As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a "consensus" that humans are causing global warming in when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. "Consensus", as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the "global warming scare" is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. --Moonwalker Harrison Schmitt, 14 November 2008
One of the strategies climate alarmists now use in their attempt to gain acceptance for an unproven hypothesis is semantics. They have usurped a term that has been used and accepted by everyone for millennia: "climate change." Yes, the climate has been changing forever, sometimes up and sometimes down, and life on our planet has been adjusting to those changes for billions of years, with varying degrees of success. Those interested in the truth about human-caused global warming should not just accept the opinions of others (including mine); they should look at the historical data themselves. We can either adjust to the climate as it changes, as we have always done, or we can adjust after wasting billions " no, trillions " of df dollars in a hopeless attempt to control the temperature of the Earth. "-Walter Cunningham, astronaut, Apollo VII,Houston Chronicle, 20 July 2011

Magna Carta, British Constitution

                                                                               V

European Union

Britain’s MPs have betrayed the People over four decades. For years they have given vital powers to the European Union without consulting the Electorate.Today Britain no longer controls its own; Law-making, Trade and Public spending.In effect, The Queen has become a political prisoner to the European Union.

I submit this is an accurate view of the serious constitutional position that the United Kingdom finds itself in after 40 years of political deception.

In outline –

There is the question of betrayal in terms of constitutional illegality.

• The two systems of law and government that are in contention over Britain’s membership of the European Union – a factor that has never been faced since Britain joined the (then) EEC in 1973.
• The Supremacy of Parliament –‘The Queen-in-Parliament’, (Monarch, Lords and Commons) has been fatally compromised by our membership of the European Union.
• The monies of the Crown are being drained away to fraud and corruption in the EU.
• This constitutional impasse has resulted in our Westminster Parliament becoming almost impotent. The Queen is subject to alien powers – a political prisoner to the EU – and this in her Diamond Jubilee Year

For the past 40 years I have been involved in this struggle for the truth over Europe in writing articles and speaking, being involved in 1972 in a bid to seek audience with The Queen about the ratification of the European legislation and in 2003 being part of a legal team going to the High Court in London seeking judicial review on the question of the (then prospective) EU Constitutional Treaty, which was refused on Appeal. I have also known some very brave people during this time, two of whom who were assassinated. They were key people during the 1970s and 1980s when the full thrust towards getting us into the European Project and keeping us there was dominant in Parliament. One was Ross McWhirter of The Guinness Book of Records fame (on November 27 1975). The other was the Rev. Robert Bradford, MP for South Belfast (on November 14 1981). A lot of people other than the IRA would have wanted to see these two men stopped.

Ross McWhirter used to talk about the over-mighty subjects in Government who took the law into their own hands by prerogative power. Of them he said you only have to ask two questions, “by what authority and what date?” The rule of law requires that no executive Act may be performed unless the performer can point to the due authority to do it and Ross appeared before the Court of Appeal on June 30 1972, on the basis that the executive Act of the granting of the Full Powers for the signing of the Treaty of Accession of January 22 1972, to the Treaty of Rome – the physical act of signing the Treaty – were acts which were unlawful.

The famous late Lord Denning, who was Master of the Rolls, said years after Ross was assassinated to his twin brother, the late Norris McWhirter, “your brother pressed us harder than anyone.” More is the pity that we do not have someone of Denning’s calibre in the Judiciary today. Since the beginning of constitutional history when one great nation in particular, i.e. ancient Israel, was first constituted under law circa 1500 BC, there have been two systems of government in contention with each other. The Covenant System which aspires to a higher authority than Man (one does not necessarily have to be religious to accept this) and the Dictatorial System under the Will of the State or the authority of Man.

The Covenant System is our system of government. It originated in Jerusalem and came to Britain via Greece. It gave birth to English Common Law which King Alfred codified in the 9^th century and which law was largely incorporated into Magna Carta 1215 (in force 1297) and our parliamentary system of constitutional government. This is a unique heritage as it has been our gift to the Free World upon which the parliaments in the great Dominions and the republic of the United States of America have been founded. This great company of free democratic nations in the world is basically one people at law – a force for stability in the world.

The Dictatorial System under the Will of the State originated in ancient Babylon and came to Continental Europe via Rome. It gave birth to Roman Civil Law which found expression in dictatorships and revolutions, in particular the French Revolution of 1789. Most of the nations of Continental Europe after World War II had new constitutions and it is the basic dichotomy, or division, between our English Common Law and the European Civil Law that has never been faced in this whole issue of Europe. The Treaty of Rome was designed around the temporary co-operation between France and Germany and Britain is lying on this bed which does not and never will fit, no matter how much deception goes on – of which there has been a very great deal.

Our Constitution is not a codified constitution contained within a single document. It is based on the Common Law established by very especial statutes, which in some cases predate our 700 year-old Parliament and in all cases remain above it in respect of prerogative acts or acts of those in power.

What we have are great Statutes of the Realm upon which our constitutional liberties are founded and which because they have never been repealed remain in force and are in conflict with all European legislation since 1972. Constitutionally there should never be a conflict with existing statutes in force. That is not the position today. Our democratic constitution rules that the sovereignty of parliament is returned to the people intact every five years. This has not been possible since 1972.

Never before in the 700-year-old history of Parliament at Westminster have we signed away to alien bodies the authority to govern us and make binding laws affecting our sovereignty as we have done to the European Union. The ‘project’ in Europe has not been international, but supranational, with the openly admitted agenda in Europe to create a federal United States of Europe.

Therefore, it is my submission that what has been going on in Government over the past 40 years has been illegal in that it has been contrary to the Constitution of this country. The Judiciary is increasingly compromised by this situation, I believe they know it and have mounting concern, but no one is willing to say that ‘the Queen has no clothes?’ They need to consider again the words of Sir Thomas Fuller, Attorney General of the 18^th century, who said in the very famous words, “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

The assumption since 1911 and in particular since 1972 is that Parliament can pass any legislation whatsoever. The expectation that the Crown and the Judiciary should accept and implement it to the detriment of the people and their ancient liberties is false. The notion that all Acts made by Parliament are supreme and can contradict our Common Law and Statute Law still in force is a fallacy. It is a maxim of the Common Law that no Parliament can bind its successors. “Acts derogatory to the power of subsequent Parliaments bind not.” (Blackstones Commentaries 14^th Ed p 160; whereas it was established in 1932 that "No Parliament may bind its successors" (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation IKB 733).

The position of every Government since we joined, the then Common Market is that we have ‘loaned’ our sovereignty, condoned by the (myopic) view of the judiciary, that implied repeal of our great statutes has taken place in respect of European legislation and that we can take back our sovereignty whenever we want.

I submit this is in effect a cheat, for the European treaties have never included an end clause – they are forever. They are binding future Parliaments and increasingly so day by day. The Queen has been what is termed at law, ‘deceived in her grant’ – or led into an unconstitutional position by her Ministers and advisers.

On March 20 2012, to mark The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed Her Majesty in Westminster Hall by saying she was a ‘kaleidoscope Queen of a kaleidoscope country.’ Fragmenting Britain’s sovereignty with the EU is not a pretty kaleidoscopic vision. It is confusion and far worse – it is a betrayal of the Queen’s most solemn Coronation Oath, made before Almighty God in Westminster Abbey (anointed and seated on ‘Jacob’s Pillow’) on June 2 1953, to uphold the ‘laws and customs’ of the Realm. By no stretch of the imagination does this include the laws and customs emanating from Brussels and Strasbourg, supported by hidden financial corruption.

My submission is that it was not possible to ‘loan’ our sovereignty without repealing the great statutes of the Realm, like Magna Carta 1215/1297, which predates Parliament, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688-89, when Parliament was suspended (making it null and void to repeal them – especially Clause 61 of Magna Carta). Also the Coronation Oath 1953, which brings to spiritual life the Covenant System, is a constitutionally required statute of the realm. The European legislation since the European Communities Act 1972, when we accepted the Treaty of Rome already in place since March 25, 1957, has acted like a ratchet moving in one direction of ‘ever closer union’ – which has been the key phrase of the European Project.

The people were not told they were joining a political union in 1973. They were deceived by the late Conservative leader Edward Heath when he said before the EEC Referendum of June 5, 1975 that “There is no question of eroding any national sovereignty; there is no blueprint for a federal Europe. There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say are completely unjustified.” Thirty-seven years later in 2012 we see that this was a lie. Sir Edward Heath admitted as much in 1989 by remarking that ‘the project was always political.’

Anyone who is in their 56^th year has not had an opportunity to vote on whether or not they want their great nation and constitution, with its recognized ‘Mother of Parliaments’ in the Free World, to be merged with the alien system of government on the Continent.

Some 80% of our governmental decisions are now under the direct control of Brussels, and other remaining areas, like our economy, are under the surveillance of the EU. Our constitution has been undermined which is treason (R v Thistlewood 1820 "to destroy the constitution of the country" is an act of treason).

This despite the fact, that for the past 17 years, the accounts in the EU have not been passed for audit. Financial corruption is rife running at £6.3 billion per annum, mainly through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which takes up two-thirds of the annual EU budget and was €140 billion (£117 billion) in 2011. Billions go to racketeering and to the Mafia, which legally cannot be challenged as a fraud on the taxpayer until Parliament repeals or amends the ECA 1972.

The EU costs Britain some £50 million every single day. For 2010, Britain’s combined annual direct and indirect costs of EU membership were £77billion, while our accumulated trade deficit with EU member states since 1973 stands at £438billion. Initial comment has also been made that “hidden away in the 2012 budget statistics was Chancellor Osborne’s admission that the UK now gives the EU £33 billion a year.”

The Prime Minister’s official title is the ‘First Lord of the Treasury’ (still to be seen on the letter-plate of 10 Downing Street) and as such he is directly responsible for the continuing loss of many billions of pounds of the Queen’s monies to EU corruption. He and Parliament are accountable to this continuing fraud upon the nation.

We have evidence from the German Justice Ministry that over 80% of German Federal Law forms the basis of EU Directives which number some 30,000 together with over 100,000 EU laws called the Acquis Communautaire which is placing a very heavy cost on all member countries – estimated at 4% of our Gross National Product.

Under the criminal justice system proposed by Brussels, known as Corpus Juris, Britain’s historic freedoms and liberties are to be ended in the name of a new “efficient” Europe. It is no exaggeration to say that, if implemented, the UK – without Habeas Corpus and trial by jury – would in all reality become a police state. One of our late great parliamentarians (Enoch Powell) said he never thought we would give up the authority of our Courts and another (Tony Benn) said what has happened since 1972 is a slow coup d’etat – they were from opposite sides of the political spectrum. With the Treaty of Lisbon, in force since Dec 1, 2009, the coup de grace is not far off. Our country which until World War II had the finest system of freedoms and justice on earth, could, if this process continues, cease to exist in any meaningful way. Short of a collapse with the euro (now very possible) and a general disintegration of the EU (also quite possible), future generations may have to fight their way out of the EU.

In the UK there is a distinct separation of powers between those who make Law (i.e. Parliament) and those who investigate crimes and institute prosecution proceedings (i.e. The Police) those who administer Justice (i.e. the Judiciary and legal profession) and those who decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent (i.e. lay magistrates and independent juries). Not so with the Continent, where all law enforcement powers – investigation, prosecution, conduct of the trial, verdict and sentencing – are vested in the hands of the same professional brotherhood.

The European Arrest Warrant, since 2004, has resulted in hundreds of British citizens being taken off by instant extradition to be incarcerated in squalid European jails without harmonizing protections across the EU. This is indefensible and a constitutional outrage, being against every safeguard of our hard fought for freedoms over centuries. British citizens, often in trivial cases and in retrospect, are being taken from their home, family, language and legal system to face months or years awaiting trial in a foreign jail without a basic case being tested in a local court. It was brought in without any debate in either House of our once sovereign Westminster Parliament.

It was on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo (South of Brussels, June 18, 1815), on June 18, 2003, that the House of Lords were to debate an Extradition Bill (GC 287), yet they were made aware that an EU-USA Extradition Agreement/Treaty had already been made, in secret. In fact in the sitting of June 3, 2003, Antonio Vitorino was telling the EU Parliament; “This assessment has been made taking due account of the fact that this is, as the president mentioned, the very first Union agreement in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, and it will be an historical precedent.”

Worse still, something more sinister is in prospect. Under the added article 188R of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is quite clear that Europol /Eurogendarmerie, or foreign troops, can enter Britain fully armed with immunity from prosecution and will have immunity from prosecution in our county. Furthermore, it was confirmed on March 13, 2012, that police across the EU are to be given open access to the UK’s national DNA database. Forces in every member state will be able to check crime scene samples against millions of profiles held in the UK. This could lead to thousands more Britons facing extradition. It is one of 130 EU justice measures which ministers will have to decide whether to

adopt by the end of 2014. The UK DNA database contains five million profiles.

This includes one million of innocent people (though a law due to come into force in 2012 will mean, of those not convicted, only the details of those suspected of serious offences of sex or violence will be retained, for a maximum of five years). The potential for creating one EU police state undoubtedly begins by building an EU-wide DNA database.

The Common Law, built up over centuries, protects the freedom of the individual against coercion by the state whereas the continental system, based upon the Civil Law, or Code Napoleon, is specifically designed to ensure the supremacy of the state over the individual. What hope do we have for the future?

History is definitely on our side. The very wonderful thing about our history is the way we fight the over-mighty subjects – that is the golden thread of British history. During the last three months of 1659 when the country was in a growing state of anger, as the country is today – remembering that the Restoration was in 1660. There was one man who was a leader, General Monk. He was a man of Devon, but there was a quite magic about him. He was oddly enough a general in Cromwell’s army having been a Cavalier rather that a Roundhead.

In those months he received, often in the middle of the night, emissaries from all sorts of people and interests in the country: various leaders of the realm, the mercantile classes, the mayors of various boroughs, guilds (forerunners of trade unions), other military units, the peerage, the Church. All sorts of organizations came to this man and said, “will you shake off the shackles?” And there was a terrific urge to speak out the truth, and nobody mentioned the words “Charles Stuart.”

And yet the nation knew exactly what was wanted and things moved incredibly fast. And I believe there will be a second Restoration in this country, because, it is in the heart and will of the people of this country – the great people of this country – that this should be so. Having looked for a turn of the tide for 40 years, I now begin to see it happening. I believe the new generation of young people will soon take up the Cause to regain their ancient freedoms. If they do not, the consequences could afflict generations of their descendants to come. In Diamond Jubilee Year it is time that Britain experienced a great jubilee release from the yoke of a Rome-centred European bondage.

Michael A Clark,

April 6, 2012 (Declaration of Arbroath, April 6, 1320)

Making you sick in order to sell you a cure

Making you sick in order to sell you a cure

That's really the truth of the matter: Making you sick to sell you a cure.

That's been the fact for quite some time, only most people don't have a clue.

Excerpt: —————————— The meeting at the Royal Society was called after two science journals agreed in December to hold off publishing two papers on the bird flu experiments because they were thought to contain information too dangerous for public consumption. The journals were asked to do so by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, a committee of scientists that advises the U.S. government about federally funded research, such as these experiments.

That committee changed its mind last week after a closer examination of old and new data provided by Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier, who heads a research team at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam. The journals, Nature and Science, say they plan to publish the papers soon.
 A few details of Fouchier’s experiment were released last month, allaying some fears about its hazards. Kawaoka revealed an even fuller version of his work here Tuesday, further defusing worries. Numerous listeners, however, said it is only a matter of time before the question of whether to publish the results of “dual-use research” — research that could be used for good or bad purposes — comes up again.
Normally, bird flu is hard for people to catch. It requires close contact with sick birds and almost never passes from person to person. The ease of transmission is mostly determined by the structure of one protein, hemagglutinin. Kawaoka wanted to find out what mutations in that protein’s gene might make the virus more contagious in people.
He put a bird flu hemagglutinin gene into the 2009 pandemic “swine flu” virus and by various methods induced four mutations in it. The final bug was easily passed between ferrets, unlike viruses containing a “wild” bird flu hemagglutinin gene. But the engineered virus didn’t kill the animals and didn’t even make them as sick as the swine flu virus. The infections were also easily stopped with the drug Tamiflu. —————————— http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/controversial-bird-flu-experiments-produced-no-killer-virus-scientists-say/2012/04/03/gIQAFBV7tS_story.html

How's that for being 'in your face'? Now they're telling us =openly= what they plan, and nothing is being done to arrest them and put them on trial for conspiracy to cause intentional harm and death.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
~ Thomas Jefferson 1796

More than Fifty reasons to leave the EU

We joined the EU (EEC) in 1972. After 38 years inside we now know:

1. The European Union’s six constitutional treaties build a three tier politburo dictatorship.

2. The EU has the laws of a police state - which are being increasingly enforced.

3. The EU's 120,000 regulations will bring us a soviet style command economy and abject poverty.

4. Unelected EU dictators will control the nuclear weapons of former nations of Britain and France.

5. The EU's illegal six treaties will compel us to hand over all our armed forces to the EU.

6. Our armed forces and police have been told they will swear a new oath to the EU, or be fired.

7. The EU’s 120,000 regulations will rigidly control our personal lives - more than any nation in history.

8. EU regulations now cost us £100 billion a year. (Better Regulation Commission annual report 2005)

9. When enforced, those illegal regulations will destroy most of our 4.5 million small businesses.

10. Up to 13.5 million will be unemployed after EU regulations close small businesses.

11. The 120,000 regulations will make us subject to continual arrest (SOCPA 2005).

12. There are now 3,095 "Crimes against the EU state" on the British statute book.

13. The EU’s Constitutional treaties replaced the British Constitution on 1^st January 2009.

14. The independent nation of Britain was finally abolished by the Lisbon Treaty on 1^st Jan 2009.

15. EU Bilderbergers control our parties: Ken Clarke, Maude, Cameron, Millibands, Mandelson, Clegg

16. The EU's Road Pricing and then ID chips will keep the state informed of our exact position.

17. Huge taxes/fines by the EU's Road Pricing, Congestion Charging and global warming policies.

18. The EU Regionalisation Plan will abolish Englfand and our 48 counties in favour of 9 EU regions.

19. The 9 EU regions will report direct to Brussels, not to Westminster, which will be defunct.

20. The EU Regionalisation Plan will abolish our 19,579 councillors.

21. British common law mainly replaced by EU corpus Juris by 1992. Government is now above the law.

22 Police have shot 30 innocent people dead since 1992 and have not been successfully prosecuted.

23. 1,100 deaths in police custody since 1992 and no successful prosecutions.

24. Police Shoot to Kill policy now in force; illegal under British common law, OK under EU corpus juris.

25. EU conceived in Germany from 22nd June 1940 as the EEC - speech by Hermann Goering.

26. First EEC conference Berlin University 1942, 13 nation summit Berlin 1943 run by von Ribbentrop

27. After fall of Germany, the Germans switched the EU from a Nazi to a communist basis in 1946.

28. Hitler's Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst Intelligence Department (DVD) still controls EU development.

29. Edward Heath, Geoffrey Rippon, Roy Jenkins recruited by the DVD in 1958 as saboteurs.

30. DVD has arranged finance to put pro-EU ownerships into British newspaper groups.

31. EU has been sabotaging Britain with German Frankfurt School techniques since the 1950's.

32. The EU's main subversive organisations in Britain are senior Freemasonry and Common Purpose

33 The EU's Common Purpose (CP) has trained 40,000 local leaders for "the post democratic era"

34. CP controls the NHS, and is wrecking it with Frankfurt subversion techniques (eg continual change).

35. Common Purpose has 400 staff inside the BBC censoring out anti-EU news and and current affairs.

36. Common Purpose has staff in hundreds of local newspapers censoring out anti-EU news

37. Common Purpose is transferring power from councillors to the unelected council executives.

38. Common Purpose has built the EU gravy trains inside local and national government.

39 CP and Freemasonry snatch 4,500 children a year from good parents for forced adoption.

40. CP has built most of Britain's 8,500 quangos costing us £167 billion pa (Cabinet Office 2007 figs)

41. These quangos bribe compliant, pro EU local officials and businessmen with £150,000+ salaries.

42. All our judges are now Freemasons, which is why British justice and our courts are utterly corrupt.

43. The EU is corrupt and cannot account for 95% of its expenditure (yes, ninety five % lost)

44. The EU has over 200,000 offshore bank accounts from which it pays bribes.

45. We now lose £45 billion a year trading with the EU. Outside, we had an even balance of payments.

46. EU Constitution is similar to the Soviet. And EU Commissioners similar to Soviet Politburo members.

47. The EU parliament is a sham with no power - just like the old Soviet parliament.

48. The leadership of the Conservative Party has been controlled by EU Bilderbergers since the 1960's.

49. The Labour and Lib Dem leaderships EU controlled for 20 years - that's why your vote doesn't count.

50. The Amsterdam Treaty 1997 gave the EU control of our immigration, now running at 2.6 million pa.

51. Our infrastructure can't cope with the 10 million immigrants the EU has let in since 1997.

52. 380,000 highly qualified British emigrate annually to escape from the EU and its overcrowding.

53. The EU and their Bilderbergers have moved 50,000 pro-EU people, freemasons and CP up into all positions of power over 40 years. You don’t progress in British government unless you are pro-EU.

You can stop the EU with the campaigns at http://eutruth.org.uk/campaigns.pdf. You can do it.

Sent to 1335 newspaper editors, reporters and newsdesks across UK

From: "R"

Hi, All

The following has been sent to 1335 newspaper editors, reporters and newsdesks across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Kind regards

Rex

____________________________________________________________________________________

Sir,

David Cameron has been warned that he risks imprisonment unless he upholds EU law. Having solemnly sworn his parliamentary oath of allegiance to the Queen, the British people and to Britain, he fails to comprehend his much greater risk of imprisonment for contravening British law.

Our Constitutional Law includes Magna Carta 1215, the 1351 Treason Act, the Act of Supremacy 1559, The Petition of Rights 1628, Habeas Corpus 1679, The Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights 1689 and all further Custom and Common Law in Britain not included in these documents.

Under these, Edward Heath’s knowing and wilful signing of Britain's control over to Europe in the pretence of a “common market agreement” (the European Communities Act 1972) was illegal. Official documentary evidence can be found at the website “A Case For Treason” / “The Evidence Files”. All subsequent governments’ actions have therefore also been illegal so Britain does not need an EU referendum as we have never actually been part of the European Union. Our membership was always null and void.

All those who have acted with disloyalty, betrayal, deception and sheer treachery against our country should be prosecuted. Try reading “British Constitution / Treason / Documents” at the website “We Are Angry”.

__._,_.___

Making a mockery of themselves

Making a mockery of themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda 21 on Steroids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who wrote the Covenant?

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

The United States of America is a UN Member State.

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

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

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

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

RIO + 20

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

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

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

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

Caliphate Conference Seeks to Islamize Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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