Earthlinggb's Blog

SNP: The party of “Independence”. Altogether now: hahahahahahahaha

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on June 21, 2011

 

 

From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk; malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Subject: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:46:32 +0000

I thought I may as well send you two a copy of this too. If nothing else it may educate you.

An yes gentlemen, I am well aware of how “dangerous” all of this information is. That’s why you won’t listen – you have no “proverbials”.

Earthling.


From: Earthling
To: info@snp.org
Subject: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:13:22 +0000

Hello,

I started off putting together a highly detailed explanation on video for you but I’m afraid I felt it may be too much to “hit” you with for the moment so i have kept it as succinct and to the main points as possible. I believe it is detailed enough and more than adequate to capture your and your colleagues attention to issues you may have no idea about – not many people do unless they have taken the time I have (and others) to study it. I have studied this entire issue in depth and very widely over the course of almost 4 years since returning to the UK having spent 10 years as an expat in Asia.
I do not hold a PhD nor an MSC or MA in Finance, I just hold a humble degree in Physics and a University Diploma in Business Studies. I simply add that to ensure you I am no idiot! Meanwhile, you can rest assured that if Mr Salmond were presented this information by you, he would completely dismiss it and myself as ridiculous no matter whether what he is presented with is all verifiable fact which he cannot deny.
Please watch the video and then read through the detail of the attachments: All UK Parliament and House of Lords.
This entire “story” or “picture” is immense in its connotations but it is something which, unless the Scottish public and the world at large can grasp (it is simple but for some reason people cannot take it onboard), people like Alex Salmond, David Cameron, the EU bureaucrats, her majesty’s loyal opposition (if they were to get back in government) all our Chancellors (and I have called out Darling and Osborne on this as well as my local MP – they refuse to answer and/or evade) will continue this con on you, me, everyone including your own SNP colleagues who have to pay their taxes, their petrol, their heating, gas, electricity, mortgages etc etc. Sovereignty and Independence is a joke and the joke is on us.
Mr Salmond wants his little piece of the power within the EU. he simply does not wish to play second fiddle to a UK government. It is transparent when you understand what I have presented to you here. I want what you want and we all want but none of us shall have it unless we call these people to answer. To do that, it needs good intentioned, intelligent people to bring this into focus and call Salmond to account. There is simply no other way. So the question is whether people just wish to be part of a group, a “bandwagon” and toe the party line which SUGGESTS it is for the best interests of Scotland, or whether they wish to seriously work for the best interests of people. And remember, we have people dying due to these issues and this corruption.
I hope you will take this, understand it and share it. It is of fundamental importance and I, for one, despise being lied to. That is why I may occasionally use language which may offend but ask yourself, would you rather be offended by language or be lied to and offended by action which steals your wealth and freedom and makes a mockery of this so called “democracy”?
This is all just the “tip of the iceberg” regarding the information, evidence I can produce to back it all up but, in itself, it is clear anyhow. I would be keen, if the opportunity ever arose, to call Mr Salmond to account on every point made and so much more within a public forum so that the people of Scotland recognise how they are being told what they wish to hear but not the true, honest reality. That reality meaning that, effectively, nothing will improve for them “Independence” or not.
Thanks for listening.
Earthling

2nd November 1998 –

Lord SudeleyMy Lords, to what extent does the Minister recognise the problem of fractional reserve banking in this situation whereby banks lend out more than they have in the proportion of 10:1 of the reality? That situation would not exist if, as happened under the old thinking, banks were forbidden to lend money without taking a share of the risk.

 

 

§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the noble Lord is surprisingly modest. Many hedge funds, such as long-term capital management, lend out far more than a multiple of 10 of their reserves. It is a very real problem, which is referred to in detail in the Statement. We have to balance the risks, as do the investors concerned, of lending, investing or gambling, if you like, beyond the available reserves, against the undoubted benefits to the global economy of wider credit which have arisen over recent decades. It is a difficult balance to sustain.

 

 

§Lord GrenfellMy Lords, first, does my noble friend agree that although one welcomes the idea of precautionary credit lines, that idea is still far from being properly thought through? What happens if a country is accorded a credit line on the strength of good policy and those policies deteriorate after the credit line has been started? That would put the IMF in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I would not like to be in its place and to have to decide whether or not to withdraw the line of credit.

Secondly, I am not sure whether I heard an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the role of the World Bank and the new facility. I thought that we were trying to get away from the idea of having the World Bank issue liquidity and were trying to get it to maintain its position as a development financing agency. There seems to have been a change of heart.

 

 

§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend’s second question first. If I gave any suggestion in an answer that we were proposing a change in the role of the World Bank, I did so mistakenly. I do not think that I did so. There have been questions on that point, but I was not conscious of indicating that we expected the World Bank to develop its role in that direction. I think that I gave the same answer when we debated the European Central Bank.

With regard to lines of credit, I do not underestimate the difficulty of dealing with a country which changes its policies once a line of credit is available. The very fact that lines of credit will be followed up by further financing and that that further financing is contingent on continuing with policies which will have to be satisfactory to the IMF is some satisfaction against the kind of dangers that my noble friend fears.

26th January 1999 –

Lord Sudeley

My Lords, the proper way to tackle the question of this debate would be the eradication of usury in its old sense of lending money without taking a share of the risk. However, instead of that, we really need to go back to the Moslem system of banks entering into business partnerships. The case against usury has been well represented by the Christian Council of Monetary Justice, meetings of which in the other place are chaired by the honourable Member for Great Grimsby and also by the Federation of Small Businesses. I am very conscious about how many parliamentarians shy away from opposition to usury because it is so embedded in our system. So this evening I shall ask for less.

The parties which are exceptionally informative on the subject of this debate would, I believe, be the Independent Banking Advisory Service, the Bankruptcy Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and two academics, Prem Sikka and Professor Christer of the University of Salford. In considering the problem posed by the debate we need to be mindful of the view of the Independent Banking Advisory Service that 30 per cent. of business failures would not have occurred during the last recession if banks had not been in a hurry to get their money back. The Bank of England’s quarterly report on small business statistics dated December 1998 reflects the fact that business failures rose by more than 6.2 per cent. last year. We also need to have regard to the lack of sufficient bank regulation. The ombudsman is concerned only with small cases and the Financial Services Authority will not comment on individual cases.

The report in the Daily Mail on 20th January headed, “Beware On Demand Bank Loans” was largely concerned with the case of Lloyd’s Bank versus Heritage Plc—distributing household wares to major superstores—in which the courts upheld that “on demand” means immediate repayment. Here lies the problem. The British Bankers Association is not collecting information about on demand loans in the belief that they are rare. On the contrary, the Independent Banking Advisory Service finds that the number of such loans is growing.

942In repaying a loan it is crucial that a debtor should have sufficient time so that his assets can be sold at a comfortable pace to fetch their proper value. Otherwise, the assets go for a decimated value. The proper role of the investigatory accountant, therefore, is to ensure that that should not happen. He should be acting as a debtor’s physician and not as his mortician.

Why is that not happening? It is because of the conflict of interest with which this debate is concerned where the investigatory accountant is appointed a receiver and so has a vested interest from the initial investigation, thereby knowing the lucrative fee income available. There is also the problem and foul practice of collusion with outside parties waiting in the wings to acquire the debtor’s assets at under-value. Hard though it may be to prove collusion, the opportunity is there. I hope, therefore, that Parliament will be sufficiently sagacious to judge that it is.

In conclusion, this debate is concerned with the questionable methods by which banks pursue many small debtors who would otherwise survive. But which party is chiefly in debt? Obviously the banks themselves, with a fraction in reserve, lending fraudulently way beyond their resources. I thought that the proportion was 10:1 but, when repeating the Statement on international finance on 2nd November, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, inform the House that, with hedge funding, that proportion is much higher.

4th November 1999 –

Lord SudeleyMy Lords, there are three submissions in this report opposed to usury in its old sense of “lending money at no risk”. Drawing on those submissions and on other sources—there is a large literature on the subject—perhaps I may paint with a broad brush what is wrong with usury and the banks creating money out of nothing, and what we should do about it.

There is no doubt that banks should not finance business enterprises with loans where they charge interest. Instead, they should enter into partnership agreements, where, as in Islamic banking, the business risk is shared equally between entrepreneurs and financiers.

The use of bank credit consists—as I shall explain in a moment—not only of loans but of the creation of additional money. Money is cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged. Treated in that way as a commodity, money loses its value and stability as a medium of exchange. Money should therefore be a record of transactions for real goods and services. The fact that the medium-of exchange function of money is not adequately met is indicated by the growing emergence of local, LETS, private, Air Miles, and barter trade credit currencies.

How has money been cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged? The ancestors of the present banking industry in Tudor times were the goldsmiths, who realised that not all the gold plate and bullion deposited with them would be withdrawn at the same time. They therefore invented the audacious and fraudulent trick of issuing promissory notes, which are the origin of our present bank notes, to represent an excess of what they really had.

That policy of lending out more than one has was continued by the banks with their system of fractional reserve, sometimes given as a proportion of 10 to one, but hedge funding is really far higher. We see that at two levels: national and private debt. The mechanism of national debt is quite simple. It involved the assumption of debt by the Government to obtain additional revenue to cover annual shortfall in taxation. Therefore, to pay for the war against Louis XIV, the Bank of England was chartered in 1694 and started out in the business of lending out several times over the money that it held in reserves, all at interest.

Such lending at a prudent rate took a quantum leap with World War I. It was extended further to pay for World War II, and in the United States of America it took an even greater quantum leap to pay for the Vietnam War. Therefore, by 1971, it became unbridgeable, and at a rate of growth beyond control. President Nixon had no choice but to cancel the right of the Government to exchange dollars for gold, which removed the gap altogether.

The level of private debt escalated in a similar fashion. During the 10 years from 1980, consumer debt rose from £11 billion to £43 billion, while mortgage borrowing increased more than five-fold.

1069What are the bad effects of all this? There is no doubt that usury intensifies business cycles. Bank lending enabled share prices to rise to unsustainable levels in 1929; the Depression followed. Over-availability of credit caused a massive increase in house prices, followed by a dramatic fall in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In recession, interest acts as a fixed cost outside the company’s control, unlike share dividends. The higher its debt-equity ratio, the worse are the implications.

The basic cause of inflation, then, must be the banks’ use of fractional reserve in lending out more than they have. To reduce inflation, governments put up interest rates, which increases the profits made by the banks and encourages them to lend out more. Meanwhile, the high interest rates lead to a decline of economic activity because they increase production costs.

What is the way to curb the evils of usury which I have just described? The only way in particular to stop inflation is to stop banks from creating credit. The supply of money should be removed from banks and should be assumed by governments, who should issue it on a debt-free basis. Such a view is supported by five disparate quarters: the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in the debate which he introduced to this House in 1985, Disraeli, the Vatican under Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, the Tsars of Russia in the last century, who prevented the setting up of a privately owned central bank, and, above all, Abraham Lincoln, who said that governments should create, issue, and circulate all currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of governments and the buying power of consumers.

By adopting those principles, the taxpayer would be saved immense sums of interest. Lincoln’s greenbacks were generally popular, and their existence let the genie out of the bottle with the public becoming accustomed to government-issued, debt-free money. The year after Lincoln’s assassination, Congress set to work at the bidding of the European central banking interests to retire the greenbacks from circulation and to ensure the reinstitution of a privately owned central bank under the usurers’ control.

During the history of the United States, the money power has gone back and forth between Congress and some privately owned central bank. The American people fought off four privately owned central banks before succumbing to a fifth privately owned central bank, at that time essential, owing to the period of weakness during the Civil War.

The founding fathers of the United States knew the evils of a privately owned central bank. They had seen how the Bank of England ran up the British national debt to such an extent that Parliament was forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies, leading to their loss following, the American Revolution.

I now conclude. Once the fundamental decision is taken to prevent sterling from being debt-based, the Commonwealth could act as the right monetary union to use sterling debt-free as a genuine alternative to the dollar and the euro.

1070

The Crown is profiting from your misery! Fuel bills anyone?

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Political History by earthling on June 3, 2011

Petroleum (Production) Act 1934

1934 CHAPTER 36

An Act to vest in the Crown the property in petroleum and natural gas within Great Britain and to make provision with respect to the searching and boring for and getting of petroleum and natural gas, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

[12th July 1934.]

Be it enactedby the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1Vesting of property in petroleum in His Majesty

(1)The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty, and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to petroleum which at the commencement of this Act, may lawfully be gotten under a licence in force under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1918, being a licence specified in the Schedule to this Act, so long as that licence remains in force.

(2)For the purpose of this Act the expression ” petroleum ” includes any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition in strata, but does not include coal or bituminous shales or other stratified, deposits from which oil can be extracted by destructive distillation.

2Licences to search for and get petroleum

(1)The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, shall have power to grant to such persons as they think fit licences to search and bore for and get petroleum.

(2)Any such licence shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise) as the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Board of Trade think fit.

(3)The Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after granting a licence under this section, publish notice of the fact in the London Gazette stating the name of the licensee and the situation of the area in respect of which the licence has been granted, and, if the said area or any part thereof is in Scotland, the Board shall also publish the said notice in the Edinburgh Gazette.

Queenie is screwing you and you refuse to listen!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

International Law Reports.

Perhaps it does require spelling out:

The Queen owns the seabed – see the Daily Mail article – she does.
The Queen owns mineral rights all across the country AND beneath HER seabed.
The petroleum (oil) in the ground and in the seabed is vested in the sovereign – Just like the seabed is owned by the Queen (and she profits from it) the oil pumped out of her owned seabed (the UK Continental shelf) is licensed and she will profit from it. She effectively then owns the oil rights because no-one can touch her seabed unless she allows.
Now, think why our oil is all exported and we import all our requirements.
If she were to allow the use of her oil (our oil) within the UK, we would have no problems when the price of oil spiked now would we?
BUT – and here’s the BIG BUT – her “Majesty” would lose the profits within an international market where,as things stand, “her” oil can be sold to the most profitable markets.
Who benefits from that? The British people?

OH NO!!

And THAT is why we export our oil rather than use it for our own consumption!

Meanwhile:

The Crown not only owns the seabed, minerals an oil within it but the Crown also owns the Nuclear industry.

“The British Nuclear Company and all its property, rights and liabilities shall remain wholly owned by the Crown”.

british-national-nuclear-corporation#S6CV0150P0_19890405_HOC_354

Your fuel bills are going through the roof and the Crown owns and controls it all!

QUEEN BITCH ONCE MORE. Profits from exporting oil from HER seabed WHILE she demands her government to promote green tech and windfarms in the UK and, AGAIN, only built on her seabed so she profits from that too.

Our Queen is a CON ARTIST!

HOW CLOSE TO UNDER YOUR NOSE DOES THIS HAVE TO BE BEFORE THE BLOODY PENNY DROPS? THESE ARE PARLIAMENTARY FACTS! 

More…..

THE QUEEN, UKIP, NIGEL FARAGE, LORD PEARSON & THE EU

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on May 31, 2011

We have a corrupt Monarch who has now just released comments to the media that she believes she may be the last monarch of the United Kingdom. She cites concern regarding the potential for a Scottish referendum voting for total Scottish Independence – which, it must be added, is a joke and a lie on the Scottish people since there is NO independence while a nation is controlled by Private Banking interests through affiliation with the IMF and while, just as today all laws adopted in Scotland and the UK as a whole, are originating from our new Big Brother state, the EU, the same shall continue when Scotland simply becomes another small state like Ireland. The split up of the United Kingdom has been a long time coming and has been a necessity for the EU to take full control over this powerful, relatively rich and patriotic nation – but the Queen has known for decades this day was coming (since 1972 when we joined the EEC if not well before) ad the writing was firmly on the wall 20 years later in 1992 with the Maastricht treaty. The fact is that the Monarch has never been sovereign for decades. The even sadder fact is, she knows it and she has worked hand in hand with the agenda because it is precisely what she wishes for.

So now, your (and my) “Queen” is softening the UK public up to accept the reality of the EU. To all those Royalists and those who have scoffed at those of us who have said you no longer HAVE a real Queen or Monarchy while you waved your flags and bought your mugs and got all patriotic and teary eyed at the Royal Weddings, rather than BUY your mug don’t you FEEL like one?

She broke her Coronation Oath from the minute she stood up from the throne having been given her Crown!

 

 

182540.html

 

 

So you believe that the Royals are “concerned” about this beloved United Kingdom of theirs splitting up into nice easier swallowed chunks by the EU do you? You think Salmond’s rhetoric and the step by step approach to devolution over the years since, strangely, we joined the EEC in 1972, is al just “coincidence” do you? Are you SO blind to be unable to recognise you’ve been had and your blindness and unwillingness to listen to those who you believe are just “anti monarchists” and therefore, unpatriotic (when in fact is more precisely the opposite but we see what the Queen and Her Majesty’s Government have been doing these last few decades) STILL will have you remain in denial.

Yes Charlie, the Royals and Salmond clearly look as if they are serious foes! He’s been doing the job of suckering the Scots into the pathetic “Bannockburn” mentality for years and all for his and their benefit and the ultimate benefit of the EU. And Scots (and the entire UK as a whole) are seriously dumbed down enough to just not get it. Too proud perhaps to admit they’ve been screwed by people they trusted so they say nothing, do nothing and allow the screws to get tighter.

Imbeciles!

 

Alex-Salmond-and-the-Prince-of-Wales-are-old-chums.html

 

 

So then on to this group of people called UKIP and, particularly, their “Leaders” Farage and Pearson. Let’s look at political rhetoric and the “Pied Piper” effect it has on the blind followers who watch the antics of Farage on his Youtube EU Parliament rants as opposed to the actual facts of the matter and the LAW of the land which, if UKIP were serious in their intent to have the UK OUT of the EU, they would have attacked the core issue and the establishment powers with this a LONG time ago but refuse to do so.

You see, it’s not just Salmond who plays a Pied Piper for Scots but Farage and UKIP do a fairly decent job in a kind of reverse fashion on the English. Yet you are ALL being “had”.

 

 

The questions which would not only shake UKIP but shake the entire system. Question is: Do you wish to use and pursue them with power? Ask yourself “How much AM I really wanting to change this country and eradicate the lies and the corrupt?” Your call.

Questions:

1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?

2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?

3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.

4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.

5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?
7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?
8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?
9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?
10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?
11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?
12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.

13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?

14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.

Rothschild… China, White Phosphorous, Iran and Iraq

Posted in Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on February 26, 2011

MP Lazarowicz has been advised time and time again about the Rothschild influence yet has simply refused to accept what is in front of his eyes written in black and white by the UK Parliament.

From: Earthling
To: mark.lazarowicz.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: Coming soon… to the UK.
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Dear Mark,

Don’t say I didn’t warn you Mark. Your government of today know it. They’re getting ready for it.
But while all of your colleagues keep your mouths shut to keep in line with the party, this is what you are allowing to build up.
Because you’re allowing yourselves to be bullied. You’re all weak. Just a fact Mark. You’ve lost your individuality. You’re no longer “Mark Lazarowicz” you’re “Mark Lazarowicz Labour MP”. And you and your MP colleagues feel so proud and better and above everyone else – that’s why you feel no need to reply to points which are facts and you cannot argue.
I could be wrong but I sense you picking up on all of this while it’s just too hard and too dangerous for you in your position to speak out. But don’t worry. Your weakness will be more than made up for by those who will. The unfortunate thing is – when they look to you they will ask what your modus operandi was. The answer: “To keep my job”. FAR more important than doing your job isn’t it?
You’re not going to like Britain soon Mark. I don’t like it now but then I “see” it whereas you don’t. You wish to believe it’s all going to blow over.
You’re so very very wrong. Having said that, I hope I’m wrong but I’ve seen this coming for years now. I’ve educated myself immensely to see the how’s and the why’s.

Wisconsin Capitol Building: The Police join the protestors.
breaking-wisconsin-police-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol

We have Police in the UK Mark who are beginning to listen too. We don’t want a mini civil war now do we? Or would the bankers profit from it? 😉

I’m just trying to get through to you Mark. When the questions are put nicely I get nothing in return or I get the BULLSHIT responses you know I just got from an evasive treasury. When someone is faced by people who show them no respect, then those people tend to be offered no respect. It’s not a preference but straight, blunt talking is needed and it’s going to be needed even more unless you people get your fingers out of your collective posteriors.

As for the attachments. Just to give you a flavour (hardly exhaustive) of the Rot of the Rothschilds which has crept in over the last couple of centuries – and never let up – while they have “advised” (and I use that term advisedly) the government on all the major sell offs of our industry. A to Z. I haven’t even touched on the Motor industry. So while all the developing world is doing great – investment, GDP growth etc BECAUSE they have basic industry – the UK has zero. Oh EXCEPT for perhaps TWO things – TWO guesses what they are Mark? ….. BANKING and???……….. ARMAMENTS/DEFENCE/WHITE PHOSPHOROUS/ DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS to sell to Iran and Iraq and every other dictatorship Rothschild can do business with.

Is it getting clearer Mr Lazarowicz?

I wait in hope Mark to hear from a man not a mouse.

Regards,
Earthling

PS: As for the mousy quiet Darling (another weak willed Scot just doing as he’s told – but the pay is good) who has refused to answer the questions I put to him also. Isn’t this a rather interesting little statement he made a number of years ago in the commons:

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The reason why we ask him to be brief is that we know that he can make his arguments extremely well briefly, which he does time and again——and I say that not only because he happens to be one of my next-door neighbours in an Edinburgh constituency.
The debate has been extremely useful. On few occasions that I have witnessed in the eight years I have been a Member has the House spent so much time discussing directly problems which affect so many of our constituents, and also a problem that is fundamental to the future development of the economy.
There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the principle of venture capital trusts. We all agree that it is desirable, and from time to time necessary, to use fiscal incentives to ensure that investments are made in the sectors where we need it.
The difference between us is threefold. First, we believe that the Government need to consider other sectors, which have been mentioned on both sides of the House. Secondly, we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that, if one gives a tax incentive, one does not end up subsidising undesirable behaviour, such as the behaviour that occurred when the business expansion scheme was set up. In that respect, too, there was common ground on both sides of the House. The difference between the two sides is that those who support the Government do not appear to accept that there is a case for ensuring that there should be safeguards in relation to venture capital trusts.
I suppose that the third difference between us is that we believe that the Government have given fiscal incentives in undesirable ways, such as the business
417
expansion scheme, but the Government will not accept that the taxpayer’s money has thereby been poured down the drain. I shall perhaps discuss that later.
7.15 pm
The Minister appeared reluctant to accept that there is no difference of principle between us, so we should perhaps not spend too much time trying to make differences where none exist. Perhaps British industry as a whole will welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the principle of encouraging investment in what is known as the investment gap, which has been identified by almost every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate.
However, I took exception when the Minister said that because no one was focusing on granny farms, as he put it, that was all right. In support of his proposition, he cited the fact that Rothschild’s supported the Government. What a surprise—Rothschild’s supports the Government. I am sure that a bank such as Rothschild’s, which has no fewer than 14 times been the recipient of public largesse, either as an adviser to the Government or as an underwriter of its flotation schemes, should say, “Well done the Government for coming up with that scheme.”
Indeed, as my hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, if venture capitalists do take great care in assessing the risks and evaluating the projects before them, it is scarcely surprising that the Chancellor hardly sat down after his Budget statement before our old chums at Rothschild’s announced that they were going to set up a venture capital trust. They could not have known what was in the Budget, could they? How on earth would they know what a surefire bet it was—unless, of course, they had the amazing foresight of the noble Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare?How could Rothschild’s say so confidently that it was going to set up a venture capital trust unless it had made an evaluation of the type of tax breaks available and knew that, no matter what the risk, no matter what venture it backed, it was guaranteed to obtain a suitable return?
I do not think that the Minister can rely on Rothschild’s for support, therefore, and I believe that both he and Conservative Members generally, today of all days, would do well to be very quiet about Rothschild’s and the Conservative party, for reasons that people outside and inside the House will understand.
The main subject to which successive hon. Members drew attention was the funding gap between quoted companies and small businesses, many of which are funded by family money or by bank overdraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) said, that is starting to change; nevertheless, there is obviously a funding gap and we welcome the fact that the Government are tackling it.
I want to take up an argument that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made about property. I think that we all accept that if inflation remains low—a big “if’—obviously property will not be the kind of bet that it was in the past 30 or 40 years. However, in my travels around the City of London I have been surprised how many people tell me that they are getting back into property again. We all remember the property collapses of the 1970s, the late 1980s and the early 1990s; yet people are getting back into property because it is regarded as a major asset in a portfolio.

But no, indeed, Alistair has no idea what I’m talking about when I put those questions to him now does he?
Would you care to comment Mark? No, I guess not.

Attachments:










I hope that gives a fairly decent summary to you all regarding Rothschild TOTAL influence on the UK government (along with their “Friends of Israel lobby) which you can consider having watched the following Channel 4 programme “Dispatches” Nov 16 2009:
article23997.htm

While you may then consider the following Rothschild “ADVICE” to the UK government:
article6814923.ece

While you may also consider the following Rothschild/Mandelson/Osbourne threesome:
YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THESE JEWS GIDEON! THEY DESTROY GOVERNMENTS NEVERMIND LITTLE WEEDS LIKE YOU!

George-Osborne-warned-stop-rubbishing-Rothschild-or-youre-finished.html

While you ALSO may consider this. Mandelson and Blair dine with the Rothschilds and Gaddafi:
Lord-Peter-Mandelson-spends-weekend-with-Colonel-Gaddafis-son-Saif.html

And this…. Mandelson is, in fact, very likely a Rothschild…..

Mandelsons-family-history–claim-uncrowned-King-Poland.html

While Hannah Rothschild calls him “The REAL PM”! 😉

From the Independent 24th October 2010:

And finally, you may wish to understand why our dearly departed ex PM Blair gets along so well and becomes so rich while being picked up by J.P. Morgan (another Rothschild front bank):

Blair-invites-billionaires-exclusive-No-10-party.html

Who arranged the entire thing for him? Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild, old Evelyn’s bit of fluff!

IS THE FOG LIFTING? IS IT NOW AS CLEAR AS A PLATE GLASS WINDOW FOR YOU?