Lincolnshire Voice

Thanks to Annette Rose Smith for passing this email on, that everyone should read:

As part of the Churchmouse Campanologist series on leftist thought, it's important to look at the Fabian Society, founded in London in 1884. Pictured is their famous stained glass window.

Keep this window in mind as you read the rest of the post. The top banner says Remould it nearer to the heart's desire. The crest near the centre reads Pray devoutly, hammer stoutly.

Another well-recognised Fabian symbol is that of an angry turtle underneath which is a banner that reads, When I strike, I strike hard.

The Society derives its name from the Roman general Fabius, who fought lengthy battles of attrition and harrassment in order to break his enemies, most notably the formidable Hannibal. The Fabians hoped to spread clean and simple living. They were not, however, clean-living or religious people. Among them were free thinkers and the first sexologists. Margaret Sanger had incredible intimate encounters with the Fabians she met. She also learned how to use non-threatening language and slow motion to push her Planned Parenthood forward. Even the name she chose for her abortion-eugenics organisation has the whiff of the Fabians about it.

The Fabians were elitists. They had scant regard for servants, factory workers or the poor. Their plan was to control these people through societal measures and programmes, such as eugenics. The goal, as in General Fabius's strategy, was to break people down bit by bit and engineer their behaviour without them being conscious of it. They called this societal plan the Third Way. If that sounds familiar, it is because former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair used it in the 1990s. People found this term quite novel, but it was simply Fabianism.

Fabians, of course, must have had a good laugh. After all, they founded the Labour Party (1900) a few years after they founded the world-renowned London School of Economics (LSE) in 1895. They have had extensive input into British thought for some time. They were also instrumental in influencing in shaping the goals of the United Nations. Have a look at the Fabian Society Archive Online, hosted by ­ the London School of Economics.

The Third Way, mentioned in the previous paragraph, is another term for communitarianism. Yes, when Blair was PM, there were countless articles in the international press asking if the Third Way really was communitarianism. And, if so, how grand it would be. It seemed as if we would all be one big global family from our neighbourhoods to faraway countries. That's not what it means, however. In order to succeed, communitarianism relies on a network of local institutions, no doubt including churches to patrol and police personal behaviour. Everyone becomes part of a collective, whether they like it or not. Individualism goes out the window for the greater good of society. This includes the way we raise our families, spend our leisure time and work. Work is a big part of it, but we'll get to that in a minute. Of course, the Fabians, Tony Blair and the rest of the elites wouldn't have to follow those rules. We would be there to serve them.

Of course, you may not realise how Fabianism is creeping into your life. You're working too many hours and are too tired at the weekends to have what 20th century social commentator Thorstein Veblen called idle curiosity. Believe me, it's no accident you're working that long and hard. It's part of the plan. You end up too tired to care. As long as you have a bit of telly and a beer to relax you at the end of the day, that's all you need. Fabianism, like the theories of the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci, affects not only the British, but everyone. The turtle may move slowly, but when it strikes, it strikes hard. By then, it may be too late to resist.

Incidentally, how many Britons are aware how much some notable MPs from all three main parties loathe the English? Centurean2's Weblog has done some research and uncovered newspaper links, not all of which are on the Internet. Have a look at these quotes:

From Labour MPs:

Jack Straw (English): The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent. (yes we are when the likes of you take our constitution away, Ed!)

John Prescott (Welsh): There is no such nationality as English.

Gordon Brown (Scottish): the Nations & Regions of Britain where regions refers to England

From Conservative MPs:

David Cameron (English current Prime Minister): I'll take on the sour Little Englanders, I'll fight them all the way. (Ok chump, when you are ready, Ed!)

William Hague (English current Foreign Secretary): English Nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism.

From a Liberal Democrat MP:

Charles Kennedy (Scottish): Said that breaking England up into EU Regions is good because it is calling into question the idea of England itself.

Bringing England down is akin to bringing the Catholic Church down. It would be a fantastic victory over 50m+ people, chipping away at their heritage until the final stroke of the axe. This is an example of Fabian tactics in action.

And then, of course, we have MPs and Lords who were avowed Marxist-Leninists before they got serious about politics. Again, from Centurean2s post:

Lord Peter Mandelson (former First Secretary of State and Labour Supremo) ¡ª from his BBC biography:
Mr Mandelson was born into a Labour family, his grandfather was a Labour Cabinet minister Herbert Morrison but he rebelled and joined the Young Communist League after Labour supported the United States intervention in Vietnam. It was during this period that he attracted the well-documented attention of the MI5 intelligence service.

Alistair Darling (outgoing Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer) from the London Evening Standard:
Darling attended the University of Aberdeen and earned a Bachelor of Laws. In 1977, Darling was a supporter of the International Marxist Group, part of the Trotskyist Fourth International.

Alan Johnson (former Labour Home Secretary) from his New Statesman biography:
Johnson, currently Home Secretary, is quoted as saying: I wasn't a Trot, he insists. I was more CPGB [Communist Party of Great Britain]. I did consider myself to be a Marxist I read more chapters of Das Kapital than Harold Wilson.

John Reid (one time Labour Minister of Defence, Home Secretary and Northern Ireland Secretary) from a letter to the Guardian:
I have known John Reid as a Communist, as a member of the Scottish Labour party and now as a general in the New Labour Army. His march across this ideological battlefield has been seamless with not a hint of embarrassment. But John is an able person, one of the most able in New Labour's high command. They put him up to deliver the message. And they are right, he is a very capable, articulate figure, said George Galloway, the Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin.

All these chaps come across beautifully on television and radio, believe me, which is why I (once again!) advise you to be very careful in researching political candidates new and incumbent no matter where you live.

Then, there's what the everyday chap thinks. A poster on Political Betting Mr Jones did a great job of summing it all up (excerpted below) when discussing the upcoming Labour Party leadership contest. Incidentally, Zanu (as in Zanu PF) refers colloquially to New Labour, as in Zanu Labour:

There are broadly four lefts in decreasing order of importance:

1) Nomenklatura left
The growth of the welfare state followed by all the big state offshoots over the years has created a whole caste of public sector middle class who administer and support the system ranging from BBC millionaires to quango bosses. This group's economic self-interest is tied up in the big state and they do very well out of it.

2) Zanu left
Identity politics. Comprised of two sections.
a) Identity groups acting in the self-interest of their identity group: feminists­, gay rights activists, ethnic minority groups­ etc.

b) White Zanus who are a kind of inverted Nazi with a genocidal hatred of their own people. Obviously they don't want to take out this hatred on their own immediate kith and kin so they work on the genocide of working class people as a substitute.

3) Union left
-Old Labour. Supposedly looking after the interests of yer actual workers -­ Main purpose is to keep the union bosses in sun bed money. Secondary purpose defend public sector.

4) Socialist left
Myriad strandlets of ideological obsessives. Mostly exist outside Labour nowadays. Almost no significance within Labour except as an echo. Original good version was poisoned by Marxists and Fabians who ended up as the New Piggies in (1). Only way back would be to go back to libertarian, mutual aid, co-op type roots.

The Blairites represent (1).
The Brownites are more (3).
The Zanu left is now bigger than the Union left in numbers but not cash.
A lot of people are a mixture of more than one group.

[David Miliband] perceived as (1)
[Ed] Balls perceived more as (3)
[Ed Miliband] is also perceived more as (3)­ Liable to take support off Balls imo (which i assume was [Lord Mandelson's] idea but could be wrong).
[Andy] Burnham seen as (1) and liable to hurt DM i'd have thought unless he has other ideas where to position himself.
[Diane Abbott] seen more as a mixture of (2) and (4)

Finally, let us not forget the UK's teachers, who are steeped in leftist theory and praxis (practice). These is one quote in the same Political Betting thread cited above and a few more from another thread. Posters discuss teachers from the 1980s to the present (priceless quotes hope they don't mind my borrowing them):

Mr Jones: We had a teacher who spent all his lessons teaching us about Marxism but no one took any notice because he was a hippy. More rabid lefties in schools than in the Labour party.

Robusticus: It was only years after Thatcherism that I realized that people like Heseltine and Ken Clark were supposedly moderate Tories. When I was at school, the lefty teachers treated these people as ideological soul mates of Hitler.

James Kelly: you might not entirely approve of the jig a teacher performed for me in the school library upon hearing that Mrs Thatcher had just resigned? In fact, the most sober political analysis I heard that whole day was from a schoolgirl who groaned and said oh no, that means­ the Tories will win the [next] election. Tragically, spot on.

Robusticus: Teachers wearing CND badges­ posters in the foyer calling for the boycott of the Murdoch papers, you name it.

Simon: My housemate, who is a newly qualified teacher (and a Tory) was asked by some of her students how she had voted. Apparently one of the other staff members had told them to ask all their teachers that question because if they had voted Labour they would be proud and admit it, if they refused to answer it was because their teacher was an evil Tory and too ashamed to admit it. So yes, there is (even on the anecdotal level) evidence of a left-wing bias within the teaching profession.

What more can one say? We just need to be discerning about what we support. We also need to have open lines of communication with our children concerning these matters.

There have been some excellent Keiser reports of late and we would like you to watch this episode if you haven't already seen it. You will see/hear that the private bank known as the Bank of England is to print another £50 billion taking their quantitative easing up to a collosal £325 billion. You will also hear how our pensioners are becoming "permanently poorer" (in servitude) as their pensions decrease. Just think what we, as a nation could do with £325 billion if we were to take back control of our own money supply and to put our constitution back in place, making sure the House of Commons, Lords and the Monarchy act on behalf of we the people!

In the second half you will hear about the continued destruction of Greece and it's people. Note 100,000 people were on the streets of Greece (Athens I believe) the other day as they have had enough.

Whilst some would say it is treasonous to say anything untowards the Queen, it is the duty of every Englishman to expose Treason no matter where it leads to. The Queen has committed Treason by allowing EU Treaties to pass, that go against the English Constitution and her own Coronation Oath which was for the interests of the people. Some believe she is being controlled by other powerful forces and has been controlled since childhood and now knows no better, which may be proven in time and us mere mortals are not privy to secretive meetings of the highest order. Her Majesty has been notified of these issues and is duty bound to act, although some believe Her Majesty's post is not getting through to her. If Enoch Powell were alive today what would he be saying and doing? - he did warn us of "downright evil intent" and the spread of communism.

In the interests of free speech we publish this guest article by Mike Stuckey. We leave it to you to decide whether you agree with it or not.

The Renewing of the ‘Coronation Oath’, and an Englishman’s defence of his Land

So, the Head of Traitors is going to renew her ‘Coronation Oath’ is she? Well, you can be assured that it won’t be the same as the first one. It will be altered to save her skin!! There would be no point in renewing it otherwise. The wording will make it obvious to those of us who know her to be a Traitor – that it is an attempt to exonerate her, and to make it very difficult or impossible to hold her to account. Unfortunately, the new Oath will be seen by the general public (who do not know/believe QE2 to be a Traitor) as an enforcement of her position, and recognition of her great work.

I believe this to be a reaction to our claims of her Treason!!! And/or a way to keep the ‘Head of Traitors’ in her Monarchal position – so as to protect the Traitors under her (in Government!). As I have said before, if the Queen’s Treason is side-lined – then those Traitors who are obviously of lower status will escape prosecution. This move is further proof of QE2’s and her Government’s Treason!!!

It is however - possible that the Oath won’t be altered. Just renewing the Oath would serve to strengthen her position and her following. It would also make it more difficult to enlighten the public to her four decades of committing Treason, and by renewing the Oath it would restart her commitments from a point after the illegal and unlawful EU Treaties have been signed on her behalf. This would appear to cancel out any breaking of the previous Oath. In effect, the Traitor known as Queen Elizabeth II would have a clean slate, and would not be breaking the renewed/altered Oath.

Whichever happens, it is going to protect the ‘Head of Traitor’s (QE2) and all those Traitors in Government - now, and the four decades worth of Treasonous Politicians back to 1972.

This is the result of procrastination and the great reluctance to show even minimal courage in the defence of England/the UK and our Rights and Freedoms. You can expect more moves like this – which will make it more and more difficult to enlighten the public and to get them on our side (as if it were not hard enough as it stands).

Dictatorships and Traitors don’t go by our rules or have our values. They will use every trick in the book, and most of them won’t be from a good book. They also have the upper-hand, because we let them have it! It is time to fight the battle on a field that isn’t strewn with egg-shell’s!! And it is time to stop acting like Lawyers and Writer’s – and to start acting like REAL Patriot’s who will not tolerate Treachery for one moment, and will terminate Treasonous activities within OUR Land forthwith.

If you think – by staying within the bounds of the unlawful authorities corrupted and distorted laws - which are implemented by oppressive pro-EU Dictatorship Operatives,

that you will somehow regain control of the UK, take back lost freedoms and re-establish your Rights according to the ‘British Constitution’; then think again!

If you get close to their boundaries – they will just extend them (with more unlawful laws).

Any laws that go against Patriots are illegal and unlawful, so don’t waste our time by confining yourselves within them. You will never win if you play on their terms!!!!

There are only two sides in this War. There is no middle-ground, so why do you want to tread so carefully? They are our enemies. They don’t want to listen to you or read your e-mails/letters (except to deride you, or to assess the next move to further inhibit Patriotism). Never before in History have Traitors had it so good! They are living like King’s Queen’s! Literally in one case! And they are promoting a different kind of Queen (the limp-wristed kind!). Treasonous Queen’s and Queer’s; what kind of England is that???

How do I think we should proceed? Well, certainly not by continuing to flog dead horses – that’s for sure! “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always have what you’ve always had”.

If you want to tread on egg-shell’s – then I’m sure you will be invited to every EU Dictatorship anniversary party, and receive an annual pat on the back. Otherwise a bit of lateral-thinking and independent thought will work wonders! If you find that you are unable to do these two things, then you are in ‘The Box’! But I wouldn’t stay in it if I were you! It’s full of slaves!

Mike Stuckey.

By Valentina Pop

BRUSSELS - German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said transferring more powers to EU institutions rather than increasing the size of the eurozone's future bail-out fund is the way to overcome the euro crisis.

"We have said right from the start that we want to stand up for the euro, but what we don't want is a situation where we are forced to promise something that we will not be able to fulfil," Merkel said Wednesday (25 January) in the opening speech of the World Economic Forum, an informal gathering of leaders and business magnates held every year in Davos, a Swiss mountain resort.

Merkel resisted calls made by the International Monetary Fund and the Italian Prime Minister to increase contributions to the European Stability Mechanism, set to come into force in July with a firepower of €500 billion and aimed at lowering the borrowing costs of large euro-economies such as Italy and Spain.

“Some say that it has to be double the size, then if that’s not big enough, others will say it has to be three times as big,” she said.

“If Germany, as the representative of all European countries, promises something that can’t be kept in the event of a harsh attack by the markets, then Europe would have a wide-open flank."

Instead, her solution is more 'integration', by transferring more powers from a national level to EU institutions such as the European Court of Justice, so that the continent is “turned into a Europe that works.”

"We have taken some steps closer to a fiscal union, but we can get faster, gain speed and become more decisive," she added, in reference to the inter-governmental treaty on fiscal discipline currently being negotiated among 26 member states, except Britain.

She made similar remarks in an interview published earlier that day in five major newspapers from different EU countries, including The Guardian:

"We will only be able to strengthen our common currency if we co-ordinate our policies more closely and are prepared to gradually give up more powers to the EU. If we make loads of promises about debt reduction and sound budgeting, those need to be things that can be enforced or brought to court in the future. The point of the fiscal compact, after all, is to make it possible to check on those commitments. That means giving our [European] institutions more monitoring rights – and more bite."

Merkel also warned in that same interview that "amid all the billions in financial assistance and rescue packages, we Germans also need to watch that we don't run out of steam. After all, our capacities aren't infinite, and overstretching ourselves wouldn't help us or the EU as a whole."

She is expected, however, to budge on the issue in March, when EU leaders meet to discuss potentially increasing the fund. In the past, she had also steadfastly ruled out any further contributions to bail-outs or the establishment of the permanent ESM, only to give in after painful negotiations - a tactic which has been criticised both at home and abroad.

No more Merkozy?

Meanwhile, her ranking as the de facto supremo of Europe has been highlighted by the plethora of top European politicians and financiers she received in Berlin ahead of an EU summit taking place in Brussels on 30 January.

The leaders of Portugal, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Italy and IMF chief Christine Lagarde all visited Merkel in the past few days, with Spain's Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy set to do the same on Thursday.

"It's not even Merkozy anymore, it's just Merkel now," one senior EU diplomat noted, in reference to the Franco-German tandem named after Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.

The French president is struggling to regain voters' confidence ahead of the April presidential elections amid high unemployment rates and a downgrade of France's top credit rating by Standard & Poor's.

http://euobserver.com/19/115022

Thanks to Pete Lucas for the following:

He could just as easily be talking about the UK, but it's refreshing to know that ever more people are standing up against the corrupt Bilderberger, One World Order regimes, that threaten to enslave us. But what we have here running the show is far more evil than Obama would ever know how to be, for here, not only do our leaders (Blair, Cameron etc) have the presidents of Third World Country's sentenced to death by kangaroo courts and, in the case of Gaddafi, tortured to death, they lay the country's open for genocide to be committed by then walking away allowing tribalism to rule. This is brought about by ignorance of the Third World and its customs, but ignorance is no excuse for murder, genocide and the rape of a peoples country which will shortly include our own unless we the people put a stop to it.

There will be retribution, but now watch this!

Pete.

More and more people like well known american actor Jon Voight are speaking out. Well said that man.

Below is a letter I have sent today to Lincolnshire Police regarding Nick Clegg MP. Feel free to copy this and distribute far and wide, preferably sending your own version to your local Police Station.

06th February 2012

Police Headquarters
PO Box 999
Lincoln
LN5 7PH

Dear Sirs

Ref: English Constitution, Deputy Prime Minister and High Treason

On Sunday 5th February I watched a recorded tv programme of BBC Parliament from the 1st February showing the annual session with the Deputy Prime Minister – Nick Clegg MP. One of the main topics of this session was regarding the House of Lords Reform, basically turning it into an elected senate.

I may not be an expert on the English Constitution, but what I do know is that our mostly written constitution consists of a tri-partite agreement in that the House of Commons suggest laws, the entirely separate House of Lords (supposed to be consisting of the Hereditary Peers) approves or declines new legislation and advises the Sovereign Queen who can then use the Royal Prerogative to give her assent – in the interests of the people, as per the coronation oath. It is NOT under any circumstances down to any government to change the House of Lords.

During this debate, both Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Crickhowell of Powys informed Nick Clegg MP that the government should ask the people in a referendum (as per the constitution). Nick Clegg MP, after much spiel about democracy, said the government had NO intention of doing this. I therefore conclude that Nick Clegg MP is subverting the English constitution and should be immediately arrested and tried for High Treason.

I shouldn’t need to explain, (but I will anyway), that now you have received this letter outlining this very serious crime of Treason (worse than any murder), you must do your duty of upholding the law and our historic constitution that was put there to protect the people.

Whilst these crimes have been carried out for many decades, it is now the time to put this right. Failure to investigate this will leave you liable to the charge of Misprision of Treason.

I look forward to receiving a reply of your intended actions as these issues are not going to go away.

Yours Faithfully

Michael Clayton

CC. Stephen Phillips MP QC + all other Lincolnshire MP’s (email)
Lord Norton of Louth (email)
Lord Crickhowell of Powys (email)
Worldwide web

Note: It is my belief that the two Lords were saying to Clegg that only the people can change the constitution. The use of referendums is not necessarily the best idea as they are corrupted these days due to incessant propaganda from mainstream media, as the 2nd Irish EU vote demonstrates. Michael Clayton

Guest article by Albert Burgess

The Rape of the English Constitution

Before we start this article, it is first necessary for a short explanation of the history of the English legal system as regards to the origins and value of our law.

Our laws come in two basic sorts, those within memory and those outside living memory. Any law older than 1189, when King Richard I (the Lionheart) came to the Throne, is said to be before time of memory (Sir Edward Coke 1628). Any law after this time is said to be made within memory. Prior to 1189, we have knowledge of these laws from before time of memory mainly from the history books and other writers and we call these laws the Common Law or the Custom and Practice of England. Custom is any law which has been in use since times of Greatest Antiquity, with the approval of the people. These laws gain their authority because they are the Custom of the English people. Parliament has no authority to repeal these laws, only the people collectively can do so because it is by the authority of the people that they have been in use for so long. These common laws are the main and original source of our English freedoms. These common laws themselves come under two headings, Those Anglo Saxon laws of King Edward the Confessor, (Alfred’s Law) and those laws from the time of King William I or the Conqueror, 1066 and King Richard I or the Lionheart 1189. For the most part, King William I kept the laws of King Edward the Confessor adding just a few dealing with the preservation of the peace and military matters.

Most of these ancient laws, because they protect our rights and freedoms, are constitutional in spirit. But from time to time, because England has not always had good Kings, we the people have had to restrain the king and force him to reissue these old laws again. King William II, also known as William Rufus, tried to ignore the rule of law, he was killed in a hunting accident, shot through the heart by an arrow which history tells us glanced off a tree. King Henry I was forced to issue his Charter of Liberties in 1100. King John, an evil man, was forced to sign The GREAT CHARTER or Magna Charter in 1215. This was a reissue of the Charter of Liberties 1100. King Stephen was forced to issue his charter 1135, a reissue of the laws of King Edward the Confessor. In 1327, King Edward II was deposed and murdered. In 1628, King Charles I was given the Petition of Right, a demand we be ruled according to our laws. In 1641 he was given the Grand Remonstrance, which he also ignored, so in 1649 we removed his head. In 1688, King James II was ruling outside the law and was forced to flee the country for his life. King William III issued the Bill of Rights 1689, a reissue of our rights and freedoms as guaranteed by our English Common Law. It was not as Parliament claims, a restriction on the authority of the King which remained unchanged. The Charter of Liberties 1100, Magna Charter 1215, the Petition of Rights 1628, and the Bill of Rights 1689 are Major Constitutional Laws which, with the Common Law and Custom, are Higher Law. All higher law is beyond the reach of parliament. Add to these the Acts of Provisors and Praemunire 1351, the 1351 Treason Act, and the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and we have the English Constitution.

England has been the victim of black bloody rape and rape of the worst kind.

Before you can commit rape you need a victim. In this case the victim is English higher law, Common and Constitutional law. How, you ask, can you rape a law? Rape, after all, is a violent crime, or is it always violent? Today we have rape by the use of drugs, not just violence, rape can also be by lies and deceit such as a promise made with no intention of keeping your word. In our case, we are talking of the rape of higher law by deception.

Next, we need to know which higher laws have been raped by deception. First, our forefathers set up Parliament a tri-partite agreement. The House of Commons originate law, the House of Lords accepts, amends or rejects that law and, if accepted, it then goes to the King for the Royal Assent, or not, depending whether the King believes it to be in the best interests of his subjects and the country. Parliament itself is made up by the elected representatives from the boroughs, the House of Lords is made up of the Hereditary Peerage, the Lords Spiritual advise on whether the law conforms to Christian values, and the Law Lords who are Life Peers and sit in the House of Lords in their judicial capacity advise on the legality of proposed legislation. Every Lord is a Peer of the realm and has a letters patent which gives his title and job description which is that he is to sit in the House of Peers and scrutinise legislation on the King’s behalf to ensure that only the legislation which benefits the subject and the country is approved, and to thus act as an advisor to the King.

The legal position of the King.

Kings of England are both hereditary and elected. This means that if the people believe the eldest son of the King is unsuitable to hold this high office, they can and will elect someone they feel to be more suitable to the role of King. This is why, at the Coronation of a new King, a Knight in full armour will ride into Westminster Abbey and throw a gauntlet on the ground and say something like, “Are there any foul and base traitors here who dispute the right of this Prince to be King, If there are, step outside and a time and place will be assigned for us to dispute this in battle.”

Once the King has been anointed and crowned, by custom he is the supreme governor of England. This is why he must give or refuse the Royal Assent. This has always been the case ever since King Alfred the Great refused the authority of the Pope to interfere in his Kingdom, making Alfred supreme governor both of the country and the church. This was put on a semi-formal basis by King Edward III when he issued his Act of Provisors 1351 which makes it an act of high treason to dispose of any English asset to a foreign owner, and his Act of Praemunire 1351 which makes it an act of high treason to impose any foreign law into his Kingdom, for his subjects to be drawn out of his Kingdom to be tried in a foreign court, and for any of his Bishops to excommunicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope. This was put on a formal basis by King Henry VIII when he issued his Act of Supremacy of 1534, and it was repeated by Queen Elizabeth I in her Act of Supremacy of 1559.

This rape started after the restoration of King Charles II. Charles had just been handed his father’s throne, and was somewhat indebted to the House of Commons so he did not argue when the Commons told the Lords they could not originate a bill or amend a money bill. The Upper House resisted this for some time but eventually gave way; there is nothing in the English Constitution which allows this assault on the powers of the House of Lords. As a direct result of this 1666 nonsense, the House of Lords accepted that they would not amend a money bill. After the death of Queen Anne in 1714, we inherited a King. King George I did not speak English so, unlike every King or Queen who went before, he did not attend Parliament or Cabinet Meetings. This allowed the politicians a free run. George I signed everything put before him, not knowing what he was signing. King George II was told he should not attend Parliament and Cabinet Meetings by government. This was both unconstitutional and an act of treason by restraining the King from carrying out his constitutional role to supervise legislation, and he spent his life complaining that his ministers were kings in his kingdom. George III fought a twenty year battle with the House of Commons as to where sovereignty lay, with him as the Anointed King, or with the House of Commons. After a speech by Pitt the elder in which he said “instead of the arbitrary power of a Stuart King we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of the Commons. If this be true what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as where it is exercised by a number of tyrants, My Lords, this is not the fact, this is not the constitution, we have a law of parliament. We have a statute book and the Bill of Rights.”

The King won the vote in the Commons. It was decided that sovereignty lay with the King. This is the legal, constitutional position today. Indeed, that has always been the case. Parliament tells us that the last time the Royal assent was refused was in 1707 by Queen Anne over the militia act. This is untrue. Queen Victoria refused the assent to a bill on homosexuality because it referred to lesbians. She did not believe women would engage in these deviant practices, the bill received the assent only after all references to lesbians had been removed. Queen Victoria also refused bills by putting them on one side and saying the Queen will consider it, and from then it was never seen again. As a result of believing that they could not amend a money bill, the House of Lords rejected the 1909 budget; this made the Prime Minister Asquith present to the House of Lords a bill to prevent them rejecting a bill. When the Lords said they would not give it the assent, Asquith threatened them he would put 500 new peers into the House who would vote it out of existence. Faced with this threat, the Lords caved in and gave it their assent.

Asquith presented the Parliament Act to King Edward VII. King Edward refused the assent on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects by altering the constitutional role of the House of Lords and restricting them from carrying out the job of rejecting bad legislation. King Edward VII said Asquith would have to go to the country. Asquith went around the country telling the electorate that those nasty Lords would not let them have a pension, when in fact the Lords said nothing of the sort. The reason for rejecting the budget was that the extra tax imposed upon the working man would be more than he could afford on top of the tax he was already paying. Asquith was re-elected and King Edward VII DIED of an illness. When King George V came to the Throne, he was told by a government minister that he would keep all of his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a government minister. King George V was never due to be king. He had an older brother, Prince Edward, who died of pneumonia. Edward was betrothed to Princess May of Tech. In spite of her name she was an English Princess. May however, was in love with his younger brother Prince George, George also loved May. The death of Prince Edward left the way clear for them to marry. The point is that Prince Edward, as heir to the Throne, would have been taught in depth about the English Constitution. Prince George’s constitutional education would not have been more than rudimentary as he was unlikely to need the knowledge. So when a government minister told him he could not use his prerogatives he was unlikely to believe he was being told anything but the truth, when actually he had just been the victim of an act of high treason. Particularly, as he had just lost his father and in all probability was not thinking too straight. King Edward VIII would have been told the same thing, government by now having neutered both the King and the House of Lords. Edward was, in the end, not King for very long due to being forced illegally to abdicate, The English Constitution and Common Law having no mechanism for changing a King otherwise than by his death. His successor, his younger brother the Duke of York afterwards King George VI , like his father, would not have spent a great deal of time learning the Constitution. His daughter Princess Elizabeth was taught from the age of 12 to 22 years of age by one Henry Marten, a Fabian, and we know The Fabian Society want to destroy all that is good in this Kingdom. So an impressionable young girl was placed in the hands of the anti-Christ; someone we would consider to be a traitor. In the Criminal Law Revision Act 1948, the Labour Government repealed the Act of Provisors thus clearing the way for the wholesale selling of our English assets to foreign buyers who have closed down our manufacturing and fishing industries. In the Criminal Law Act 1967, the Labour Government repealed the Act of Premunire, clearing the way for foreign law to be imposed upon this country to our great discomfort, and the European arrest warrant. The rest, as they say, is history with the King and the House of Lords the victims of acts of treason which prevent them fulfilling their role as protectors of the people, and with a House of Commons with far more traitors and crooks than any conventional company could employ and hope to survive. This United Kingdom, this England is well down the road to extinction. Each and every time our ministers sign an EU Treaty, they are handing more and more of this country’s sovereignty to a foreign power the EU a clear act of high treason.

Guest article by Mike Stuckey

...except moan. You should all know by now that letters and e-mails are being ignored by MP's and the Queen. There are not enough united anti-EU activists, and I use the term 'activists' very loosely, to be of any concern to the unlawful authorities.

We are already living under a Dictatorship, and Traitors and Collaborators have had a hold on the UK and its people for decades now. So, how is it that so many think that merely informing the public will release us and the UK from the EU bondage and rid us of betrayers? There is a multitude of informers, but those who would rid us of the rot are few and far between. Are you not simply informing those who will inform others? where will that get us? Unless those of mettle are to be found and energised - the unlawful authorities have nothing to worry about. Do you see signs of worry in MP's? Is there increased protection for MP's and the Queen who are hardened Traitors? Is 'Common Purpose' disbanding?
Have you heard of any pro-EU officials being harassed or inhibited?
The answer is NO!
Why?
Because we are all talk! and all talk will not get things DONE!
Quote: "The courage of ones convictions". As I say "Doers do, and Talkers don't".
How can we expect others to do what we will not?
Age and infirmity are no excuse when your country is unlawfully controlled by a foreign power, and Traitors and Collaborators are rife. The older ones of us are in the know, and it is our duty to organise a Lawful Rebellion - for the good of all. Patriots don't get old. The love of ones country never ages or dies. And freedom is not just for the young.

You don't need to stop the talk, but if that's all you are prepared to do, then don't be surprised at the continued slip into subservience and the refusal of others to do more than talk, and when it is blatantly obvious that the gurgling - is the sound of the last remnants of our country going down the plug-hole - then remember these words "I told you so".

We were given brain's to think, and bodies to put those thoughts into action. And I have to point-out again that actions - in this case, need to be more than letters and e-mails and meetings etc.
I know that there are those of you who are waiting for the Euro to totally fail, and those who say that it is inevitable that the EU fails because it is not workable. Are you so confident that the EU will fail that you would do nothing and wait to the very last - when it will be too late to properly ACT? Or would you not dare to risk losing your country and your freedoms?

You must ACT. There are many reasons I can give you - why you should ACT now. It is an easy decision for those who have courage, but - for those of faint heart it is an easier decision to merely continue sending letters and e-mails.

If you don't know how to actively inhibit Traitors and Collaborators - then ask me how. If you know - then get to it. This scum have to be scared so that they will cease their activities. It does not involve threats or the intimidation of their families. The Traitors and Collaborators just need to feel uncomfortable and be aware that we know who and what they are (backed-up by a physical presence to show that we are more than just talk). They should then seriously consider the continuation of their Treasonous activities. There are many other ways, and also ways to indirectly make things uncomfortable for them.

Regards,
Mike Stuckey.

NB. This is a circular and is intended to stir some of us into proper action. Some recipients know the necessity for REAL action - and this e-mail is not (wholly) intended for them. It is not meant to offend, but it is meant to be taken seriously.

The socialists aim, (see a portion below) and they are well ahead of schedule....

Reprinted from political ad in the Western Australian Sunday Times, December 3, 1995

In 1944, Democratic U.S. Congressman Samuel Pettengill warned America that socialists would endeavour to have the U.S. spend itself into bankruptcy, with a view to making citizens totally dependent on a centralized government, and now it is 2011 (2012!) and it is all but done.

Pettengill detailed TEN POINTS of the socialist manifesto that would destroy free government. Almost 50 years later, down under in Australia, it is disturbing to reflect on Pettengill’s 10 points.

1) People must be made to feel their utter helplessness and their inability to solve their own problems. While in this state of mind, there is held up before them a benign and all-wise leader to whom they MUST look to the cure for all their ills.

2) The principle of local self-government must be WIPED OUT, so that this leader or group in control can have all the political power readily at hand.

3) Constitutional guarantees must be swept aside. This accomplished in part by RIDICULING them as outmoded and an obstruction to progress.

4) Public faith in the legal profession and respect for the courts must be undermined. The law making body must be intimidated and from time to time rebuked, so as to prevent the development of public confidence in it. (so this is why the give a slap on the hand for bad crimes, it makes people loose faith in the law)

5) Economically, the people must be ground down by high taxes, which under one pretext or another they are called upon to pay. Thus they are brought to a common level and all income above a meager living is taken from them. In this manner, economic independence is kept to a minimum.

6) A great public debt must be built so the citizens can never escape its burden, making government the virtual receiver for the entire nation.

7) A general distrust of private business and industry must be kept alive so the public may not begin to rely on its own resources.

8) Government bureaus are set up to control practically every phase of the citizen’s lives.

9) The education of the youth of the nation is taken under CONTROL so that all may be indoctrinated at an early age with a spirit of submission to the system.

10) To supplement and fortify all the foregoing, there is kept up a steady stream of GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA designed to extol all who bow the knee and to vilify those who dare raise a voice of dissent.

Gorbachev said many years ago after communism had supposedly been destroyed that, “Communism has not finished as some in the west would say, all we have done is change our tactics”. (I once wrote in a leaflet that "there is a veil of communism reigning over us" - over 4000 were distributed by just a handful of patriots, Ed)

Unfortunately, socialism is similar to communism..

This should be shown to every man, woman and young adult whether they are in America or elsewhere. We have to wake up to the fact that the left wing socialist party has the same policies world wide, doesn't anyone find that strange, not what the people want in their area, but a world wide, their ideology, not necessary ours.. ..

Socialism is the political strategy that believes the State should have total control of all key resource producing industries and control of the market in order to promote social and economic equality. In a socialistic environment the government makes all the decisions and has total control of the resources and people to ensure equal of distribution of the resources to all. So you work hard and give half of it to others who can't or don't want to work.
--------------------------------------------------

So what about here in the uk?

This picture shows "call me Dave" with a Demos sign just in front. For those unaware Demos is a marxist thinktank, so yes cabbage patch cameron is part of this problem. Also note the term "progressive" which is basically another term for marxism.

People from Lincolnshire should also be aware that Demos are linked in with the many changes in our former local institutions via common purpose, Lincolnshire Assembly etc.

Those clued up on symbology will recognise the all-seeing eye in the letter O and the 5 pointed pentacle star in the letter D of the Demos logo.