The Constitution

THE CONSITUTIOTHE CONSTITUTION

The UK has a Constitution that was set-up over a thousand years ago and started by King Alfred the Great who was born in 841. He hard a life fighting against the Danes but gave unswerving loyalty to the Crown. In 871 he became the King of Wessex and soon had to contend with fighting the Vikings. He defeated the Vikings and established his kingdom. He protected his kingdom with fortified towns, built a strong navy to defeat the Vikings at sea and started the concept of 'national service'. Half of all the men were in arms whilst the other half were working the land and then he would reverse it and have the men swap-over. That way all men were able to fight when called on to do so.

Alfred created a set of laws which he called 'The Dome' made up of all the best laws of each of the smaller kingdoms he ruled over. These laws were approved by the people. When the country became united under Alfred's grandson Athelstan, Alfred's law was maintained as the law for the whole kingdom.

At that time the Roman Catholic Church was the major Christian church and it was ruled by the pope. The pope believed that he had the right to make or break kings and establish archbishops to act for him in Christian countries. Alfred begged to differ! Her would not be told by the pope who should or shouldn't be his archbishop. Alfred sent the pope's choice back to Rome saying that: 'he was elected King by the English and would do what was in their best interest'.

Over the course of history various incidents happened that threatened the security of this nation and its people. Some were threats from within the Kingdom and some without. This is a simplified order of the creation of our Constitution.

841 The birth of Alfred the Great who went on to produce The Legal Codes of Alfred
1066 William the Conqueror defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. William chose to maintain the laws that Alfred had set-up
1100 Charter of Liberties. Henry I believed he could rule by divine right. However the Barons forced him to issue the Charter of Liberties which was a restatement of Alfred's Laws.
1215 Magna Carta. In 1213 King John was a very bad King. He used foreign mercenaries to suppress the people. (This is what would happen if David Cameron privatised the police force.) He also enraged the Barons and fearful for his own life handed England over to the Papal Legate and then was given it back to rule as a vassal king to the Pope for a payment of 1000 marks a year. The Barons and thousands of Freemen of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta which again was a restatement of Alfred's Laws. This Charta can only be undone by the 'Estates of England which comprises of the King, the Barons and the Freeman of England meeting again.
1351 The Statute of Treason, Provisors and Praemunire. These were anti-papal laws issued by King Edward III designed to keep foreign interference out of England. (This law was violated when Edward Heath signed the UK up to the EEC.)
1392 Statute of Paemunire (Illegally repealed in 1967 therefore allowing the Government by placing the Courts under the dominion of the European Courts.)
1559 The Act of Supremacy. This act contained an Oath, part of which states, 'No Foreign Prince, Person, State or Potentate, Hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm'.
1628 Petition of Right. This was presented to King Charles I and stated that they wanted his assurance that he would preserve their rights as a restatement of Alfred's Laws. This annoyed the King and he said that they should take his 'royal word' on it. Parliament would have none of this.
1641 The Grand Remonstrance. This was a request to get King Charles I to rule according to the law. He refused and was then tried for treason and executed. James II attempted to re-Catholicise the country and was told by Parliament that he was acting illegally. In retaliation he dissolved parliament and when the pressure was on he escaped to France.

This left England without a King.
1689 The Bill of Rights. This came about when the crown was offered to William and Mary. Since it was necessary to call a Parliament and since the rightful King had fled to France, all the politicians, the Lords etc. met in a 'Convention'. This convention produced the 'Declaration of Rights' a restatement of Alfred's Laws, which William and Mary had to accept if they wanted the Crown. This they accepted and then the 'Declaration of Rights' was passed into the 'Bill of Rights' which subsequently bound all future Parliaments for all time. It must be noted that the only reason this important Bill could bind all future Parliaments was because it was the Parliament was made up of the people's representatives. The will of the people is supreme over Parliament and the sovereign. Until such a time as the representatives of the people meet and change the 1689 Bill of Rights, this Bill remains law.

Any violation to the Constitution is Treason.

 

Breaking News!

Then i woke up...soddit. :*(

Change of Oath for elected Police Commissioners. 17.11.2012

I have been trying to find out when exactly did the Government asked Her Majesty if they could change the Oath of Allegiance for the elected Police Commissioners? When was this debated in Parliament? And when was the vote taken in Parliament? So far, I have drawn a blank. I have failed to find any changes to the Oath on the Royal Web-site.
I am aware the Government alone cannot change the Oath of Allegiance, for that would be contrary to the Oaths of Allegiance they make themselves. In fact all MP’s and Members of Government so swear allegiance to the British Crown before they may take up their seats in parliament even though the people have freely elected them.
The oath for the proposed elected Police Commissioners HAD TO BE CHANGED because the position of “elected Police Commissioners” is open to the members of the European Union and of course, none would want to swear allegiance to the British Crown. I find it difficult to accept a person from France, Spain, Greece Italy or Germany for instance wanting to become an elected Police Commissioner here in the United Kingdom never mind any British person here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voting FOR a foreigner to take up the position, which makes it all the harder to understand exactly WHY there would be a need for the change of the Oath to the British Crown. I have the feeling also that the (real British) Police would go on strike if a foreigner became an elected Police Commissioner. (Want a bet?) When would the next time to change the Oath come about-until there is no such need because temporary MP’s whose sworn and true allegiance to the British Crown is now no more? Completely gone and replaced by an Oath to the European Union perhaps? There was absolutely no need to change the Oath for elected Police Commissioners at all, if only British people had been allowed to put themselves forward.
The position is also open to members of the Commonwealth, who we regard as “family” for they have been constant and true friends that came to our side and fought along-side our forces in the last war. Greater love has no man that is prepared to lay down their lives for their fellow-man. Our Queen is also their Queen along with Allegiance to the Crown so there was absolutely no need to change the Oath of Allegiance for any member of the Commonwealth. However, I do understand that some wish to withdraw from the Commonwealth now that it is changing somewhat since Mr Cameron and Mr Hague attended that last Commonwealth meeting and required members to sign an “agreement” etc. Considering the Commonwealth has existed for many years, why change anything now?
As MP’s step forward in the House of Commons to place their hand on the Bible and swear the Oath, that Oath ends with the words , "ACCORDING TO LAW". This is the Executive ECHOING the Queen's own Coronation Oath. There are TWO OATHS operative here, to protect the nation and the people. The Queen's oath, and the oath of her Executive to her. They are interlocking oaths to respect the RULE OF LAW at all times.
All members of the Police Force here in the UK swear allegiance to the British Crown. Why then change the OATH for an elected Police Commissioner?
All members of the British Police Force swear the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. The elected Police Commissioner Oath. I....."do solemnly and sincerely promise that I will serve all the people of Police Force Area in the office of Police and Crime Commissioner without fear or favour". Yet these elected people will be in a position where those in the Police Service, swear allegiance to the British Crown which indicates that they are part of a British service, yet the elected Police Commissioner has the right to dismiss a British serving Police Officer-no matter how high the rank or how many years service he/she has served, and how many years they has served to get to any high rank, and whose sworn allegiance is where it should be TO THE BRITSIH CROWN.
For a British Government changing the true Oath of Allegiance to the very Crown many have given their lives for to protect and keep their British way of life, is an absolute betrayal of all the people here in the United Kingdom. All this at the whim of foreigners in the EU that want complete control of this our Country. The changing of the Oath for the elected Police Commissioners to allow foreigners to such a high rank on the instructions of the EU through the EU’s Localism Act, (The latter also on the Council of Europe’s page) when their solemn Oath of Allegiance prevents exactly that happening is –well words cannot describe for me, for I and my husband went through the last WAR to prevent anything like this ever happening here in the United Kingdom again. I believe it all may end in yet another war, and if none in Government can see the unrest on the continent of Europe they surely will be woken up one day to find they have no country left to protect.
The Oath of Allegiance was changed for the proposed elected Police Commissioners because ANYONE FROM ANY OF THE EU MEMBER STATES COULD ALSO APPLY TO BECOME AN ELECTED POLICE COMMISSIONER here in the UK. That is why government had to get rid of the Police Authorities and replace the with elected Police Commissioners. All in the EU Localism Act eagerly put through by Prime Minister Cameron. Will he get rid of the word “ELECTED” one day and just APPOINT”?
In all the advertisements re elected Police Commissioners not once was this explained. For in NOT making that clear to the people of this Country before the recent election of PCC's, the coalition Government really did let the people down, they betrayed the people they are supposed to serve. Even our MP’s and Government’s sworn allegiance is to the British Crown and they alone could not, I suggest, lawfully change the Oath of Allegiance because THEIR sworn Oath that they make before they may take up their seats in the House of Commons does not allow it. They made up a kind of pledge yet it is indeed listed as an “OATH”, yet the term "Police Commissioner" indicates that they are part of a British Police Service particularly as they apparently have the right to dismiss a high ranking serving British Police Officer.
The Papers today have been reporting about the lack of “DEMOCRACY” for so FEW people bothering to go and elect from those names that are on ballot papers.
The only way anyone could “have a say against these proposals”, could either stay away-which many did- or like myself, go to vote by placing a great CROSS from corner to corner of the ballot paper, in biro rather than in the pencil provided. This was “democracy” at its best. The people had no other way but to stay away, yet such is that lack of DEMCRACY our Government and many in the press didn’t even recognise it.
From the Home Office site, Police and Crime Commissioners to swear an oath of impartiality
The elected Police Commissioner Oath. The full oath: Full Name and Place do solemnly and sincerely promise that I will serve all the people of Police Force Area in the office of Police and Crime Commissioner without fear or favour. I will act with integrity and diligence in my role and, to the best of my ability, will execute the duties of my office to ensure that the police are able to cut crime and protect the public. I will give a voice to the public, especially victims of crime and work with other services to ensure the safety of the community and effective criminal justice. I will take all steps within my power to ensure transparency of my decisions, so that I may be properly held to account by the public. I will not seek to influence or prevent any lawful and reasonable investigation or arrest, nor encourage any police action save that which is lawful and justified within the bounds of this office.
****************************
The Police Officer’s oath. "I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."
They deliberately leave out the Oath to our Monarch, the Queen. So ANYONE from any Country may become an elected Police Commissioner in the United Kingdom.
Whether the proposed change re the Oath of Allegiance thought up for elected Police Commissioners is unlawful, for the true Oath is lodged in various Constitutional Documents one of which is the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. The Oath of Allegiance has its origins in the Magna Carta, signed on 15 June 1215. I leave that to the Experts or High Courts in the United Kingdom.
Did the Queen give her approval to this casting aside the Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown for elected Police Commissioners? I simply do not know.
Under oaths of allegiance, in various long standing constitutional Documents makes very clear that this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power “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.” Yet British Government are implementing EU orders that all of us here in the United Kingdom have to obey-at least until we are set free one way or another, from foreign rule. Also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the Bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”. This law and its Oath are not subject to Parliament because they were given to Parliament by the People whose WILL is supreme over Parliament. This means Parliament may not allow any part of the aforementioned Oath to be breached side-stepped or ignored. This Bill of Rights precludes and effectively forbids Parliament from passing any Bill contrary to our Common law Constitution and questionable also, is the like of the European Communities Act 1972. The Treaty of Rome or any other European legislation which gives them any say at all in the governance of the UK. It also precludes Parliament from passing any laws contrary to the spirit of this Bill of Rights.

 

Anne Palmer. JP (Retired).

Click here: Elections and Voting for Police and Crime Commissioner Elections 2012 | Reading Borough Council

Britain has never been part of the EU

In 1972, Edward Heath signed the European Communities Act knowingly betraying the British people into European rule. His was an act of outright High Treason and his government thus became an unlawful assembly. Governments cannot bind successors. Though each successive government had the opportunity to rectify his treachery, none did. Each thus became an unlawful assembly also. In 1992, John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty knowingly and wilfully stripping Her Majesty of Her Sovereignty, Honour and Style and rendering her and her subjects mere “citizens” of Europe. His act was ultra vires and one of outright High Treason. No law can result from treasonous acts, much less unlawful assemblies. It is struck down by our Common Law. Every statute, EU treaty, diktat and influence since 1972 is consequently null and void. Britain has therefore never been part of the EU and our British law stands as it was before the 1972 Act. In consequence, those who affirm and uphold EU law, diktat or influence are openly treasonous and liable to prosecution.

Believe no more lies!

 

 

The Daily Telegraph revealed that Lady Ashton, the EU foreign minister, has signalled to Paris that she could help defeat Britain over the HQ if France could win other allies, an alliance that has now been sealed among the five countries.The "Weimar group"! Link Below..

PCCs: Civil/military working together and why they could not explain to the public what PCCs are for, because they are part of the strategy of EU defence and regional plans for it, starting with integration of welfare between Military and Police (we know how these things progress) supposedly on a local level but answerable to the EU/UN, of course they do not want us to know this..

Localism really means regional Globalism. Can you see it taking shape yet?

As the Venusberg 2004 document is so long I took the liberty of putting 'civil' in the find box (f+ctrl) and came up with the following items to clarify important points taking shape:

A European Defence Strategy: Bertelsmann Foundation, remember, this is the 2004 plan for the future:

The security of the Union and that of its friends and allies requires a holistic, strategic civil-military vision that combines achievable means and ends.....
...it would meld into a single conceptual framework national, civil and military, as well as offensive and defensive security and defence efforts.........

The EUSC would be responsible for both military and civilian security........

The developing civil/military structures within the EU Military Staff..........

Gendarmerie, Guardia Civil and Carabinieri-type forces that can bridge the gap between combat soldiering and policing will be essential for the reconstruction of societies..........

integrated into overall EU civil-military crisis management planning and co-ordinated through the EU crisis management system...............

The EU Satellite Interpretation Centre at Torrejon will become an invaluable support for the command chain.........
build on existing public-private partnerships in both the civil and defence sectors.........
development of democratically-accountable armed forces under the EU banner;..........
Rapid deployment of troops either in support of EU homeland security
civil and military resourcesand capabilities into an effective, transnational holistic security whole........................
 
The EUSC would bedesigned to balance operational effectiveness with political legitimacy and
would be responsible for both the military and civilian security.................
a strong civil-military training component, such as that employed by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP)........................
2000, “The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of
the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide.”.......It was decided - long ago!
 
Read further German reports an see the future....
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/04139.pdf

From Poland:

Supporters of the EU argue that the European integration
process may be successful and irreversible if it is extended to
encompass security and defence issues.

http://www.pism.pl/zalaczniki/Digest_1_Ryszard_Zieba.pdf
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edcountries/countrygermany.htmhttp://csis.org/files/publication/100518_European_Defense_Trends.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9683539/Pressure-on-Cameron-to-block-EU-army-HQ-plans.html

Quote: from accused at Nurenburg trial.." Next time you won't see us coming"!

We are not and never have been lawfully members of the EU

From this report it seems that the Irish, Patrick O'Flynn and the Welsh, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard think we should leave the EU. It would seem they have no understanding of our Constitution which is perhaps understandable, but presumably Roger Bootle is English and he clearly has no understanding of it either.

What they all fail to grasp is that we are not and never have been lawfully members of the EU simply because constitutional constraint forbids the surrender of our national sovereignty and to act in contravention of constitutional constraint is Treason. A referendum on whether or not we should leave would be inviting the people to act with complicity in an act of treason against themselves.

It is simply amazing just how ignorant and naive people of the media are. See below: "In fact, we joined the EU willingly, but with our eyes shut," Just who is Mr Bootle referring to as "we"? If he is referring to the British people on what does he base his statement? 'We' were never asked or consulted because the government knew full well what the answer would have been.

The treacherous Conservatives took us into the then EEC, (the Europaisch Wirtschafts Gemeinshaft) on a 'might is right' basis and lied to the people in Parliament (perjury) to cover the Treason and get the unlawful and consequently ultra viros ECA 1972 passed.

" It is one thing to give up sovereignty to a body which is honest, efficient and prosperous;" No mention or recognition you notice that surrendering our sovereignty was an act of Treason, or that by so doing it ended the monarchy as there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is not sovereign. Or that it surrendered the supremacy of the Crown that is supreme or it is but nothing and as Parliament drew its legitimacy from the Crown it ended the legitimacy of Parliament rendering it an unlawful assembly.

Perhaps due to ancestry and disposition Mr Bootle only sees the situation from the standpoint of economics and no one can deny the importance of that aspect, but the self autonomy of the nation relies not on economics and politics but on the laws which protect and sustain national sovereignty, laws which were broken and totally ignored by acts of treason which were not only sanctioned by the person of the monarch whom the people had elected in 1953 to ensure their protection but who subsequently honoured the traitors. In short, national sovereignty means complete self autonomy, to surrender that sovereignty in an act of national capitulation is to surrender the national purse which is not in the gift of any government without the specific and express permission of the people. Never the less, this is what the Queen and her Conservative government did in 1972 and that was plain theft.

We do not need and according to law may not have a referendum to further compound the existing Treason. All that is needed is an honest body to recognise and uphold our laws and lawful sovereignty. It is here that our greatest difficulty lies, for this is a duty entrusted to the Monarch but clearly that trust has been broken. There can be no doubt that our system of constitutional monarchy has totally failed. If we are to survive as a nation state we must now either dismiss the Monarch and elect another, or find a different system which in view of recent events is long overdue.

Changing our system might not be as radical or difficult as it might initially seem. In principle this nation has always been a republic, a republic being a country in which the people hold the supreme power over their governors. This principle was clearly asserted in the Magna Carta and again in the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights 1688/9 in which the concept of the monarch's rule by divine right was ended once and for all and the role of the monarch established as that of official Governor of the nation (ref. Coronation Oath Act 1688) and to whom the government would be subordinate by oath. In effect the monarch became what is now known as a president. In order to keep usurpers from muscling in on the office they retained the practice of the nations leader having the role for life and the eligibility of that role being restricted to one family.

All that is fine but it depends very much on personal integrity and sense of honour. In those times all people were religious and were more God fearing than they are today and sacred oaths were more respected. This has changed with social evolution and therefore such concepts cannot be relied upon. It is essential therefore that other means must now be devised to ensure the integrity of those in whom we place our trust and better means introduced to remove from office any who fail in their statutory and lawful obligations of office; just as did our ancestors the Celts many centuries ago. As it happens no one would have to be charged with the removal of the Queen as she abdicated her office when she was a willing party to the surrender of the supremacy of the Crown. It should be well remembered that this nation is not the Monarch, nor its government or parliament, it is the British people and their historic common law constitution, as it has so been down through the many centuries regardless of monarchs, dictators and pretenders.

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.

Barack Obama: A History of Communism

Barack Obama: A History of Communism

http://hackwilson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/barack-obama-history-of-communism.html

Hack Wilson
May 16, 2012

Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961, to a Communist mother. Ann Dunham was known as a radical leftist from childhood who hated Christianity, questioned the merits of capitalism, and asked, "What's so bad about Communism?"
Ann Dunham's father, Stanley Dunham, was also a Communist who enrolled Ann in a Communist sympathizing middle school and took the family to a Communist sympathizing church in the 1950s. The FBI had compiled a file on Grandpa Dunham because of his red activities.
While young Barack Obama was being raised by his grandparents in Hawaii during his teen years, Grandpa Dunham introduced Barack to staunch Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis is described by Obama in his book "Dreams from My Father" as a mentor he could always look to for answers. Davis was was a member of the Communist Party, a poet who routinely praised the Soviets in his writings, a pedophile, and a hater of Christianity and America. Communist Grandpa was good friends with Davis.
In college, Obama writes in his own words in "Dreams from My Father" that he sought out Marxist professors.
Dr. John Drew, who said he knew Obama while at Occidental College, stated that Obama was a staunch Marxist-Leninist while in college. Drew, a self admitted Marxist himself, called Obama "a Marxist revolutionary", recalling that Obama routinely stated "there's going to be a revolution."
While at Colombia University in New York, Obama dated a girl named Genevieve Cook, who worked as a teacher at the Communist run 'Brooklyn Friends School'.
During the 1990s, Obama was said to have attended several events by the Communist "New Party", whose goal was to infiltrate the Democratic Party and move it further left towards Communist goals. Obama received their endorsement in 1996 while running for the Illinois state senate.
In 1998, Barack Obama sat on a panel for a Chicago play praising Communist Saul Alinsky.
Obama worked with and became close friends with self admitted Marxist revolutionary and terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn while in Chicago. The political career of Barack Obama was started with a kick off party in Ayers's Chicago home.
At the Ayers home party, Obama was praised by predecessor Alice Palmer. Years before, Palmer had chosen young Obama to be her successor. Alice Palmer was an avid Communist who had previously attended Communist events in the Soviet Union, as well as writing for the CPUSA publication 'People's Weekly World.' She was also a member of a Communist front group called "US Peace Council".
Also attending at the Ayers home was Dr. Quentin Young, a long time friend of Obama. Young was a member of the Young Communist League in Chicago in the 1930s, and involved in various Communist groups up until the 1980s.
In 2004, Barack Obama campaigned for and endorsed Congressman Danny Davis, once saying "he shares our values." Coincidentally, Davis was also a member of the Communist 'New Party' and was filmed as recently as 2012 receiving awards from the Communist Party of the USA.
In 2008, The Communist Party of the United States actively campaigned for Barack Obama in the presidential race.
In 2008, following Obama's victory in the Democratic caucus in Iowa, Frank Chapman, also a member of CPUSA's front group "US Peace Council" wrote a glowing praise for Obama in People's Weekly World. In it he described how Obama's victory would "usher in a new era of struggle", much in the way Marx intended.
During the campaign in 2008, self proclaimed Communist Mike Klonsky was given a "social justice" blog on the official Obama campaign website. Klonsky was and is an avid Communist who previously visited Communist China in 1971 and was involved in multiple Communist-Leninist organizations throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Also a close friend of Bill Ayers, Klonsky's groups were funded to a sum of nearly 2 million dollars by Obama and Ayers through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Obama's car and manufacturing czar, John Bloom, stated in 2009 that "we kind of agree with Mao" and that "the free market is nonsense."
Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned in 2009 when he was exposed on the national level for his Marxist views and radical Communist activities. Jones said in 2005, "I was a Communist."
Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, also resigned in 2009 over a controversy surrounding her comments that Mao was her favorite philosopher who "I turn to most". Dunn also quoted Mao during her career ending speech.
In 2009, it was also reported that a seemingly harmless Christmas ornament on the Obama White House Christmas tree featured, of all people, Mao.
In 2009, Obama appointed Carol Browner as his energy czar. Browner was previously a commissioner for the international Communist-lite group Socialist International.
Obama's science czar, John Holdren, worked for The Bulletin of Nuclear Sciences, which also employed several communists. Holdren, among other things, supports the idea of forced abortions and mass sterilization to quell rising populations.
In 2010, Obama appointed Communist Donald Berwick as the head of Medicare and Medicaid.
The 2012 Obama reelection campaign decided to use the traditional Communist term "Forward" as their official slogan. The term "forward" is rooted in Communist propaganda lore in European Communist organizations including Karl Marx's newspaper, as well as Soviet Russia and Communist China throughout the 1900s.
Also in 2012, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) has officially endorsed Obama again.
Not to be outdone, Obama's long time political adviser, David Axelrod, also has ties to Communists, being influenced and funded by Communist Party members during his college years in Chicago.
Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett's father in law, Vernon Jarrett, coincidentally worked with Obama's old childhood Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis during the 1940s in various Communist organizations.
But wait, this is all coincidence right? You see, many write off accusations of Obama being a Communist as "radical" or extreme. But in reality, calling Barack Obama a Communist really makes a lot of sense if you look at his history, his beliefs, and those he surrounds himself with.

3 words: CONNECT THE DOTS.

Just another Democrat? I think not.

Proposed elected British Police Commissioners 29.10.2012

 

Enclosed article regarding the proposed “Elected Police Commissioners.”

I believe without doubt that the proposal to elect Police Commissioners as suggested

is not in keeping with our long standing Common Law Constitution and now is not

the time to introduce yet another layer of extra Governance on top of the very

expensive layer of Governance brought about through the Localism Act setting up

Regions in ENGLAND at this particular time, for those too will add greatly

to the costs for this Country’s Governance. As far the European Union is concerned,

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are already classed as Regions of a federal

state.

My main and deep concern is the proposed Oath, which is not in keeping

with our Constitution and completely contrary to what is indeed laid out very

carefully in our Common Law Constitution by which our Country is governed.

Many have paid a high price to keep our very own Constitution, and for the sake of all

those that paid the supreme sacrifice with their lives, so it must continue and be

honoured to do so.

From a debate in Hansard 14th May 2012 it reads "The oath that we (That sit in Parliament) all take at the commencement of each Parliament is a solemn promise made to Parliament to show allegiance to the monarch as part of our constitutional arrangement. It is the product of a constitutional settlement and it already provides a constitutional lock on allegiance to the monarch".

It goes on ="

A summary of "The Parliamentary Oath" research paper produced by the House of Commons in 2000 states that,

"even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons, or be raised to the House of Lords, without taking this Oath of Allegiance to the ruling monarch, and to her heirs, and successors. However, there would be nothing to prevent a Parliamentary majority debating a republic or from seeking to renegotiate the constitutional settlement since freedom of speech is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689".

Proposed elected British Police Commissioners 29.10.2012
One of the unique characteristics of the police service in this country is that police officers are servants of the Crown—they are not servants of this Government, the previous Government, or the future Government. That gives them a unique constitutional position. Unlike teachers and other public servants, police officers are not employees. As servants of the Crown, they have more in common with members of the armed forces than with any other group of public servants. It is important to have an oath that retains that unique nature of the police service.
Anyone who is not prepared to swear an oath that they will serve the Queen, as do other police constables, should automatically exclude themselves from entry to the police service and as a candidate for an elected POLICE Commissioner. There may be a category of people who may like to join the police service but are not prepared to swear the oath, that being so, they should not be allowed to join the Police Service or
put themselves forward for an elected Police Commissioner.

The British Police Service should be made up of British people. We are first and foremost British citizens and although the Maastricht Treaty allegedly made us EU citizens, it was gleefully made clear that, even the Queen is a Citizen of Europe, no doubt had our Queen been the first Queen Elizabeth, they might have left that House of Commons minus the intellectual part of their body. To most of the people in the United Kingdom, we are all indeed subjects of the British Crown, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Should citizens of other countries who owe their duty of citizenship or allegiance to another Head of State or nation state not be prepared to swear such an Oath of Allegiance, then they would not be fit to serve our Queen and Country as ANY member of our Police Force or as an elected Police Commissioner. First and foremost an elected Police Commissioner should have served time in the British Police Force.

The wording of the proposed oath, on which Buckingham Palace may well have been fully consulted, enables all police officers to swear to serve the Queen but avoids citizens of other countries having to swear a constitutional oath that they could not make. I remind all in our Government and Parliament that the people have never had the opportunity to have their say on any EU Treaty before it has been ratified. Yet because of the EU Treaties the people are expected to welcome foreigners into our British Police Service and in top jobs with enormous pay, at a time when so many here in the UK are out of work, yet more of our money, billions of British pounds are still going to an organisation that want even more? There are plenty of people here in the United Kingdom that wants jobs without doubt those jobs should go to subjects of the Crown for the Police Service is indeed Her Majesty’s Police Force.

What is the point in recruiting foreigners if they cannot swear their allegiance to the wearer of the British Crown? We do not want to change that, nor do we want a two-tier system of oaths whereby police officers who are British citizens swear one oath and foreigners are allowed to join and not so swear? Haven’t any of you any idea why so many fought and gave their lives for all of YOU in the last World War?

Why has the phrase, ''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen'' been removed? Is that because the phrase might stick in the craw of some foreign policeman or a republican? Or is our Queen no longer “Sovereign?” To appoint a person as an elected Police Commissioner in Britain, that has never been in the Police and might even be from another Country is absolute vandalism of this Country’s Constitution and a deep unforgivable betrayal of the people of this Country and their Monarch by those we have elected in good faith.

Perhaps I should remind Members of Parliament that no new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta 1215/1297 and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government’s own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that important message very clear. What Parliament does however, Parliament can undo.
Parliament states “no parliament can bind its successors” and most certainly what recent Parliaments have done, may be undone but not those long established Constitutional Common law documents. For instance once EU Treaties have been accepted and ratified not one tiny word can be altered. Why then should any of you think you may alter long established parts of our Common law Constitution? Likewise neither Magna Carta 1215/1297 nor the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 may be altered, that is why they have lasted so long and why we fought two World Wars to keep and why those that lost those wars now have new written Constitutions. I quote from the Government’s own paper, “it is arguable that the European Communities Act 1972 is “semi-entrenched”. For as long as the UK remains a member of the European Union, that Act cannot be repealed”.

Perhaps not explained or brought to Members attention, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 holds the Oath of Allegiance to which British Governments and the rest of us swear to the Crown. Violation of that Oath is the very essence of treason. Both of these remain in full and no alteration may be made , thus the Oath of Allegiance may not be changed for the very reason between you, you have tried to alter to allow foreigners take their place where none should be allowed. Article 9 from the Bill of Rights, was used in recent memory by MP’s re protection of Members’ rights of free speech in Parliament.

All the people have to do is remember their solemn Oath of Allegiance is to the Crown, to protect and be true to the wearer of that Crown. The people do their Duty when and if the time comes when they are conscripted to go into battle to save the Crown, this Country and all in it from being taken over by foreign rule. We cannot expect foreigners to fight for us can we? Please note “All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present parliament and shall stand remaine and be the law of this realm forever”

Is anyone going to tell the 60/70 million people of this Country that they have no Constitution? That it has been, unbeknown to them, destroyed/over-ridden? If that is the case, tell the people NOW. Most certainly tell Her Majesty and then tell the rest of her Majesty’s Commonwealth? Tell the Judiciary who sit in front of the Royal Coat of Arms? When was it repealed exactly? Was it as long ago as 1972? Was it when the Queen too was made a citizen of Europe? Did it end in the ratification of “Lisbon”?
Did a temporary British Government destroy our Constitution, our whole way of life for deeper integration into a European Union the vast majority of people do not want?

The debates that all three major Political Parties have had over the years, the mind boggling debates in order to destroy our national Police Force in order to “fit in” with EU Legislation that has taken place over the years, never once setting out a referendum to see if the people agree to any of this, but just expect them to vote and PAY towards foreigners eventually taking up a post that a British experienced person could do, is sheer betrayal. To deliberately try to change our ancient Common Law Constitution that many before you have died, fighting to keep this Country free from foreign rule, to even rob our Monarch of today and all that may follow the title, ''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen'' should bring shame upon you all. If none can swear their total true and faithful allegiance to the wearer of the British Crown none should be recruited at all.

No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta 1215/1297, which pre-dates Parliament, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689, which came into force when Parliament was suspended. They are foundational statutes and remain in force, it being null and void to repeal them. Not explained fully to the people, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 still upholds the Oath of Allegiance to which British Governments and the rest of us so swear to the Crown. Violation of that Oath is the very essence of treason. It is indeed the greatest betrayal of all. None more so that those in Parliament that so swear before they may take up their seats in that Parliament even though the people have freely elected them. So be it and long may it remain so, for many have given their lives to keep is ever thus. We certainly do not want, nor can we have a two-tier system of oaths whereby police officers and Elected Police Commissioners who are British citizens swear one oath and others swear another. Our Constitution does not permit it. What is proposed by those that have so sworn their solemn Oaths that are proposing a changed Oath for elected Police Commissioners, that from reading may well be a foreigner, is unlawful and absolutely contrary to our Constitution and Oaths of Allegiance to our Sovereign Lady, our Queen.

Under your oaths of allegiance, in various long standing constitutional Documents makes very clear that this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power “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.” Also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the Bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”. This law and its Oath are not subject to Parliament because they were given to Parliament by the People whose WILL is supreme over Parliament. This means Parliament may not allow any part of the aforementioned Oath to be breached side-stepped or ignored. This Bill of Rights precludes and effectively forbids Parliament from passing any Bill contrary to our Common law Constitution and questionable also is the like of the European Communities Act 1972. the Treaty of Rome or any other European legislation which gives them any say at all in the governance of England. It also precludes Parliament from passing any laws contrary to the spirit of this Bill of Rights. The implied repeal of our great statutes has been a cheat upon the people – they will be unforgiving when the truth is fully told.

It is indeed time to leave the European Union. Anne Palmer. JP (Retired).

The secret US lobbyists behind Police and Crime Commissioner election

The secret US lobbyists behind Police and Crime Commissioner election

Controversial police candidate's video

However, it can now be revealed that it has been run by a team from a US-based neo-conservative think tank, the Fund for the New American Century, funded in part by a variety of corporate donors with an interest in public-sector privatisation.
The entire campaign team resigned yesterday within hours of being contacted by The Sunday Telegraph.
Lincolnshire may have been chosen because the county’s police are already “outsourcing” pioneers.
The troubled firm G4S has recently taken over key functions at the force, including its custody suites, central control room and firearms licensing department. G4S also plans a new central police station in a village outside Lincoln, with the existing city centre station closed and sold for housing.
After G4S’s security failures at the Olympics, Mr Barrett strongly backed the company, saying that the Lincolnshire deal was “working well.” He attacked his rival candidates, who suggested cancelling the deal, for making “bankrupt promises” and “playing politics”.
Investigation of Mr Barrett’s campaign website reveals that it is registered to a New York and Washington-based “political action committee”, MatthewPAC, part of The Fund for the New American Century, whose website says it is “dedicated to building America’s future by supporting candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation”.
The fund is expanding in Europe and is advertising for a UK-based “assistant to the executive chairman” on a salary of up to £55,000.
Mr Barrett’s campaign has also advertised for staff, speaking of the “sophisticated and wide-ranging support available from our US and UK-based consultants”.
The Sunday Telegraph has established that Matthew de Unger Brown, Mr Barrett’s “special adviser”, campaign manager and press spokesman until yesterday, is also chairman of the Fund for the New American Century.
“We support Republican candidates. It is a centre-Right organisation,” Mr de Unger Brown said. “I don’t think that neo-con would be an unfair description.”
One of Mr Barrett’s opponents in the election, David Bowles, another independent and former chief executive of Lincolnshire county council, said: “It is a very slick campaign but it appears that Mervyn is no more than a puppet.
"Every time I have tried to contact him, the response has always come back from Matthew and every time I’ve tried to meet him it’s been Matthew I’ve met instead.”
Mr Bowles claimed that last week Mr de Unger Brown asked to meet him to discuss the possibility of an electoral deal, with Mr Barrett becoming his deputy.
“Matthew told me that the funding for Mervyn’s campaign was coming from people with an interest in police sector privatisation,” Mr Bowles said.
“I was told that any deal including Mervyn would be conditional on that funding continuing, and I made it clear that I was not prepared to accept a penny.”
Mr de Unger Brown said that his organisation was also backing other Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) candidates elsewhere in England, Mr Bowles added.
Directly elected PCCs, one for each force area outside London, were part of one of the Government’s flagship policing reforms, intended to “sweep away” police bureaucracy and “give people real control” over their force.
The commissioners, paid up to £100,000 a year, will replace unelected police authorities and control police budgets and strategy, though “operational matters” will remain in the hands of the local chief constable.
Some analysts have long feared that a low turnout in the November 15 elections could hand “Trojan horse” candidates power and control over policing with only a few thousand votes. The Electoral Reform Society warned last month that the poll could become a farce, with turnout of just 18.5 per cent.
Mr de Unger Brown said last night: “The Fund for the New American Century takes, both in the UK and the US, funding from a variety of corporate donors.
“Mervyn Barrett for PCC has not taken — directly — any money from organisations that have any interest in commissioning outsourced services.” He refused to deny that money had been supplied via the fund.
Mr de Unger Brown said his campaign would comply with all disclosure requirements of electoral law, but under a loophole in Electoral Commission rules, independent candidates do not have to publish details of their donors until after the election. He declined to say which companies were providing funding, but said the campaign envisaged spending almost £100,000 by polling day.
A few hours after being contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Mr de Unger Brown and his campaign team resigned.
Shortly after announcing his candidacy, Companies House records show, Mr Barrett established a new company, Trinity Advisory Ltd, based at his home.
It is not clear what the purpose of the company is or what advice Mr Barrett is offering and no accounts have yet been filed.
G4S said that it had not funded any PCC campaign.
Critics of the PCC elections have raised fears over the democratic accountability of candidates elected on very small turnouts.
“The focus on turnout could make us miss a real opportunity to debate the liberal consensus on how to tackle crime,” said Sam Chapman, a former police officer and unsuccessful candidate for the Conservative PCC nomination in Lancashire.
“There are police and other interests who don’t want PCCs and want to make this election unsuccessful. Some of the Government’s decisions have played into their hands.”
During the passage of the legislation, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which represents chief constables, pushed hard for drastic restrictions on candidates. Any conviction for a criminal offence carrying a potential prison sentence is a bar to standing, even if the person was not themselves imprisoned and even if they were a juvenile at the time.
One of the best-known figures to consider standing, the Falklands war hero Simon Weston, fell foul of the rule.
In the mid-1970s, as a 14-year-old, Mr Weston, who is now 51, was fined £30 and put on probation for riding in a stolen car, though he did not know it was stolen. Another well-qualified candidate, Bob Ashford, a former senior executive in the youth justice system, was forced out because of a minor conviction in 1966, when he was 13.
Other rules include a strict residential qualification which bars many potential candidates, such as the broadcaster Nick Ross, who do not live in the county where they want to stand.
The depth of the candidate problem is shown by the fact that virtually the only prominent figure left in the race is Lord Prescott, who is standing in Humberside, one of 41 police forces in England and Wales to be holding elections. “Some of the candidates are quite good,” said Mr Chapman. “But some are mediocre placemen, councillors and police authority members who are being very conventional.”
So what? many voters may say: policing should be left to the police. But with the scandal of Hillsborough fresh in the mind — and five chief constables, in the last six months alone, sacked, suspended, forced to resign or placed under investigation — it appears hard to believe that police leadership cannot be improved.
“The police have essentially been unreformed for a long time and chief constables are used to doing what they want,” said Mr Chapman.
“The pity of these elections is that there could have been a real debate about crime and policing, but we haven’t got it yet.”

UN's Green plot to destroy the middle class, end industrialization, is unfolding now

From: DONALD HANK

Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:52 PM

Subject: Fw: UN's Green plot to destroy the middle class, end industrialization, is unfolding now

Think about it. The "green" elitists who salivate over world domination have said it themselves. They want to depopulate the planet and redistribute wealth (we used to call that communism. You may still call it that).

Do you think they could get away with it? Silly question. Look around you:

Around a half-dozen of Obama's pet "green" companies, starting with Solyndra, have gone belly up. They were propped up with tax payer money, which went into the pockets of Obama supporters.

Wealth redistribution is a red herring. The Soviet Union didn't practice it. Instead, it took ALL property from everyone and every entity and gave it to the government, which KEPT it, rather than redistributing it.
That is what is happening now, but chances are you are sleeping through it.
Look, major US banks were once enjoined under the CRA to lend to the "underserved communities," ie, minorities. Slick talking Keynesians now claim that this law made little difference. They don't want you to notice that the law was not intended to be enforced, for the most part, but rather to provide an incentive to all banks to engage in the reckless practice of lending mortgages to people with no downpayment or even identification.
It was an implicit promise that the government (via the working staff tax payer) would bail out banks that failed, as a result of this veiled incentive. It was a recipe for disaster, a disaster that became manifest in 2007.
Note that the target group, the poor, got little or nothing. Typically they were evicted from the cheaply purchased homes. The banksters and their cronies in government took the spoils. That is the equivalent of the Soviet Union's taking all property and keeping it rather than redistributing it. See?
Then there is Europe. Wealth redistribution there follows the same broad pattern. Pretending to "help" poor Greece and Spain, the eurozone pays billions to the bankers and keeps their own treasury full. Little or none is lent to business startups.
Spain is a typical example of a "green" disaster, the model that Obama has followed. It follows Agenda 21 to a t.
Prime Minister Zapatero embarked on an ambitious green jobs program. After this had been in place for some time, he hired researchers at the King Carlos University to find out how "successful" it was. Result: each "green" job (typically not permanent) cost the government 800,000 euros and 2.5 private sector jobs.
Like Obama, he filled the country with immigrants who also helped take jobs from the nationals. Likewise, the EU is filling Europe with immigrants who do not assimilate and who soak up billions in social assistance, for a net benefit of less than zero. Greece did the same, until the crash.
The final cost to Zapatero: he lost his job and was replaced by a man who is now helpless to undo the damage (could this be Romney's fate if he is elected?).
The impoverishment of Spain and Greece are not out of keeping with the UN's depopulation and wealth redistribution Agenda 21. They fit it like a glove.
If enough people could see through this thinly veiled stealth project intended to destroy the middle class, de-industrialize first world economies and funnel wealth into a growing central government, it wouldn't happen. Once the people catch on to the plot, there can be no more of the mandatory ingredient stealth.
Therefore, our task is to research this plot and its stealthy implementation, understand it and spread the word.

The article below is a contribution to that understanding.

Everything depends on your understanding this. (OK, we understand - now what? - Stan)

Don Hank

UN's "Virtuous Green Path" Leads Straight To Mass-Death

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
October 17, 2012

All arms of the scientific dictatorship appear to move in unison. As of late we hear repeated calls for de-industrialization of the developed world by the global elite. In addition an attempt is being made by the elite to integrate so-called "population issues" into other issues such as poverty, "climate change" and other phantoms of doom necessary to fulfill the ancient eugenic utopia. With the objective of plunging mankind into a new agrarian age, and depopulating the planet while they're at it, the global elite have set up a broad approach which self-described ecosocioeconomist professor Ignacy Sachs has euphemistically dubbed a "virtuous green path", more commonly known as Agenda 21.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world environmental dictatorship. As professor Sachs states in his paper:

"To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span."

In his paper The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure "population stabilization":

"In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient."

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of current events as they unfold, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a "virtuous green world". The professor:

"The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development."

"(.) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.", the professor states.

"The bolder the steps taken in the near future", Sachs asserts, "the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income."

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

"The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades."

In the second sub-chapter "The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment", professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is "Social Sustainability":

"The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots."

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in "The North" (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations ("The South and The East"). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls "Economic Sustainability": "made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment."

The third dimension described by the professor is "Ecological Sustainability" which, among other things, limits "the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;"

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of "defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies."

Dimension 4: "Spatial Sustainability":

"directed at achieving a more balanced rural-urban configuration and a better territorial distribution of human settlements and economic activities (.)".

The fifth and last dimension described in the UN policy paper is "Cultural Sustainability": "looking for the endogenous roots of the modernization processes, seeking change within cultural continuity, translating the normative concept of ecodevelopment into a plurality of local, ecosystem-specific, culture-specific and site-specific solutions."

But to realize such a dramatic new direction for the world, Sachs once again stresses the importance of incremental implementation. A matter of boiling the frog slowly as opposed to throwing the poor animal into a boiling-hot cooking pan:

"Even if we know where we want to get, the operational question is how do we proceed to put humankind on the virtuous path of genuine development, socially responsible and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give considerable attention to the formulation of transition strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21."

Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the wealth accumulated by the "North" in order to create a completely "balanced" world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore, Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the middle-class phase by phase:

"To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment."

Then Sachs plunges into his most shocking statement:

"However, the single most important reason to consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient."

Sachs argues that "an accelerated programme of social and economic development of the rural areas should be the utmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme."Who or what is to coordinate all this, according to Sachs, and how exactly is the UN to take control?

"The solutions", says Sachs, "can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral arrangements." These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure "at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts."

Over time, gradually, these taxes should increase:

"Starting the operation with a one per ten thousand tax and increasing it so as to reach one per thousand in ten to twenty years seems a fairly realistic proposal, the more so that the scheme creates an interesting market for the private enterprises involved in R and D."

Reading all this, the question as to what entity should take charge is not difficult to answer. Sachs:

"In order to generate maximum synergies between the national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global perspective.(.). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a central place in the UN system."

This almost literally echoes the recent call by a group of scientists for the 2012 UN Earth Summit to create "a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level."

The "fair representation" Sachs is talking about is of course only a pretext to get everybody on board. As the "Danish Text", drafted for the Copenhagen conference in late 2009, clearly illustrates, the IMF and World Bank will always have final say in the construction of any international system.

The other, more sinister element of Agenda 21 is of course the concerted effort on the part of the global elite, through multilateral treaties and regulations, to not only control the populations of the world but to cull them.

Jurriaan Maessen's blog is Explosivereports.com

Similar/Related Articles

1. The Ultimate Euphemism: UN Calls Its Blueprint For Mass Death A "Virtuous Green Path"
2. Unelected European "Green" Commissioner Says Markets Must be Governed
3. 1991 UN Policy Paper Describes Exact Purpose and Trajectory of Current Copenhagen Treaty
4. UN Policy Paper Describes Incremental Steps Toward World Government
5. Green Madness: $205,075 spent to 'Translocate' One Shrub from Path of Stimulus Project
6. Agenda 21 Behind The Green Mask of Death
7. The "Green" Agenda Is All About Mass-Sacrifice
8. State Seizes Property Under 'Green' Zoning Laws, Terrorizes Man To Death
9. Two children should be limit, says green guru
10. Melinda Gates: Worrying About Population Control "Has Led To Much Suffering And Death"
11. Revolt Against Vaccines Leads to Mass Exodus From Texas Colleges
12. Obama Mind Control Offensive Straight Out of UNESCO Eugenics Playbook