Earthlinggb's Blog

The Rothschild – D’Israeli jewish pact.

Posted in Political History, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 15, 2019

This is a post written some time ago now but I feel is extremely important to understand and appreciate how it is that the United Kingdom is where it is today. There is some stunning excerpts from Parliamentary debates which should have the reader’s jaw drop. The lies and deceptive practices we see today and which impact us all today, were well in operation 100+ years ago. And, again, it all stems from the same tribe of people.

Britain WAS a Christian nation until……

Two jews who set the course of corrupt British Government from the mid 1800s until we arrive at David Cameron, Gideon Osbourne and a Rothschild yacht experience with Mandy the Rothschild!

 

 

 

 

ROTHSCHILD

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (22 November 1808 – 3 June 1879) was a British banker and politician.

The son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Hanna Barent Cohen, he was a member of the prominent Rothschild family.

Baron Lionel de Rothschild and his family had “contributed during the Irish famine of 1847 … a sum far beyond the joint contributions of the Devonshires, and Herefords, Lansdownes, Fitzwilliams and Herberts, who annually drew so many times that amount from their Irish estates.”

In 1847 Lionel de Rothschild was first elected to the British House of Commons as one of four MPs for the City of London constituency. Jews were at that point still barred from sitting in the chamber due to the Christian oath required to be sworn in so Prime Minister Lord John Russell introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to remove the problem with the oath. In 1848, the bill was approved by the House of Commons but was twice rejected by the House of Lords. After being rejected again by the Upper House in 1849, Rothschild resigned his seat and stood again winning in a by-election in order to strengthen his claim.

In 1850, he entered the House of Commons to take his seat but refused to swear on a Christian Bible asking to use only the Old Testament. This was permitted but when omitting the words “upon the true faith of a Christian” from the oath he was required to leave.

In 1851 a new Jewish Disabilities Bill was defeated in the House of Lords. In the 1852 general election Rothschild was again elected but the next year the bill was again defeated in the upper house.

Finally, in 1858, the House of Lords agreed to a proposal to allow each house to decide its own oath. On 26 July 1858 de Rothschild took the oath with covered head, substituting “so help me, [using a Hebrew word for] God” for the ordinary form of oath, and thereupon took his seat as the first Jewish member of Parliament. He was re-elected in general elections in 1859 and 1865, but defeated in 1868; he was returned unopposed in a by-election in 1869 but defeated a second time in the general election in 1874.

Rothschild was proposed as a member of the House of Lords in 1868, but Queen Victoria refused to elevate him to this status. She denied that this was because Rothschild was a Jew. Instead the monarch claimed it was because of Rothschild’s business activities, but few believed her. In 1885 the Queen did raise Rothschild’s son Nathan to the peerage. Nathan Mayer de Rothschild became the first Jewish member of the House of Lords.

In 1836, Lionel de Rothschild married Baroness Charlotte von Rothschild (1819-1884), the daughter of Baron Carl Mayer Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of Naples. They had the following children:

1.Leonora (1837-1911)

2.Evelina (1839-1866)

3.Nathan Mayer (1840-1915)

4.Alfred Charles (1842-1918)

5.Leopold (1845-1917)

Nice incestuous relationship there then!

 

Lionel de Rothschild died in 1879 and his body was interred in the Willesden Jewish Cemetery in the North London suburb of Willesden.

 

OATHS OF JEWISH MEMBERS—BARON DE ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

 

HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc396-437396

§ On the Clerk proceeding to read the Order of the Day for resuming the Ad- 397 journed Debate on Sir R. Inglis’s Motion, with reference to the request of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild to be sworn on the Old Testament,

§MR. HENLEY said:  Before the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate is read, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask you this question—whether, to give a proper locus standi for the discussion of the important question which is about to be raised by the Amendment put upon the notices by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, it would not be expedient that some further question should be put

Baron Lionel De Rothschild being presented to the House of Commons

to Baron de Rothschild, one of the hon. Members for the city of London, in order to get upon the records of the House the fact that to take the oath in the way he has requested—the only answer he has yet made being, that he requests to be sworn upon the Old Testament—is binding upon his conscience, and the reason why he requires so to take it?

oaths-of-jewish-members-baron-de#S3V0113P0_18500729_HOC_30

It is as clear as daylight then, that Rothschild did NOT accept that the Christian and Jewish “God” is one and the same. IF he had argued that religion had no place in politics and that he would not swear on ANY “Holy Book” then that would present a different (and, perhaps, even acceptable) picture. But no, Rothschild demanded (and he eventually got) to swear upon the Old Testament (The “Torah”) and even IF so “binding upon his conscience”, it is clear that one’s conscience must be dealt with differently in the two books. This is unarguable logic. The question is: What IS this difference? Could it POSSIBLY include the following:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

 

 

D’ISRAELI

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS, (21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was a British Prime Minister, parliamentarian, Conservative statesman and literary figure. Starting from comparatively humble origins, he served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Although his father had him baptised to Anglicanism at age 12, he was nonetheless Britain’s first and thus far only Prime Minister who was born into a Jewish family—originally from Italy. He played an instrumental role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party after the Corn Laws schism of 1846.

Disraeli’s biographers believe he was descended from Italian Sephardic Jews. He claimed Portuguese ancestry, possibly referring to an earlier origin of his family heritage in Iberia prior to the expulsion of Jews in 1492. After this event many Jews emigrated, in two waves; some fled to the Muslim lands of the Ottoman Empire, but many also went to Christian Europe, first to northern Italy, then to the Netherlands, and later to England. One modern historian has seen him as essentially a marrano.

Disraeli turned towards literature after a personal financial disaster, motivated in part by a desperate need for money, and brought out his first novel, “Vivian Grey”, in 1826. Disraeli’s biographers agree that Vivian Grey was a thinly veiled re-telling of the affair of “The Representative” (a plagiarist then), and it proved very popular on its release, although it also caused much offence within the Tory literary world when Disraeli’s authorship was discovered. The book, initially anonymous, was purportedly written by a “man of fashion”, perhaps Ross M. Brown – someone who moved in high society. Disraeli, then just twenty-three, did not move in high society, and the numerous solecisms present in his otherwise brilliant and daring work made this painfully obvious. Reviewers were sharply critical on these grounds of both the author and the book. Furthermore, John Murray believed that Disraeli had caricatured him and abused his confidence–an accusation denied at the time, and by the official biography, although subsequent biographers (notably Blake) have sided with Murray.

Wyndham Lewis (7 October 1780 – 14 March 1838) was a British politician and a close associate of Benjamin Disraeli. Lewis married Mary Anne, daughter of John Evans, in 1816. They had no children. He died in March 1838, in London’s Mayfair, aged 57. His widow married Benjamin Disraeli in 1839 and was created Viscountess Beaconsfield in 1868.

So 1 year after his death, Benjamin Disraeli marries his widow? While Lewis was a close associate of Disraeli?….. Nice!

In 1839 he settled his private life by marrying Mary Anne Lewis, the rich widow of Wyndham Lewis, Disraeli’s erstwhile colleague at Maidstone. Mary Lewis was 12 years his senior, and their union was seen as being based on financial interests, but they came to cherish one another.

In 1847 a small political crisis occurred which removed Bentinck from the leadership and highlighted Disraeli’s differences with his own party. In the preceding general election, Lionel de Rothschild had been returned for the City of London. Ever since Catholic Emancipation, members of parliament were required to swear the oath “on the true faith of a Christian.” Rothschild, an unconverted Jew, could not do so and therefore could not take his seat. Lord John Russell, the Whig leader who had succeeded Peel as Prime Minister and like Rothschild a member for the City of London, introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to amend the oath and permit Jews to enter Parliament.

Disraeli spoke in favour of the measure, arguing that Christianity was “completed Judaism,” and asking of the House of Commons “Where is your Christianity if you do not believe in their Judaism?” While Disraeli did not argue that the Jews did the Christians a favour by killing Christ, as he had in Tancred and would in Lord George Bentinck, his speech was badly received by his own party, which along with the Anglican establishment was hostile to the bill. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and a friend of Disraeli’s, spoke strongly against the measure and implied that Russell was paying off the Jews for “helping” elect him. Every member of the future protectionist cabinet then in parliament (except Disraeli) voted against the measure. One member who was not, Lord John Manners, stood against Rothschild when the latter re-submitted himself for election in 1849. Bentinck, then still Conservative leader in the Commons, joined Disraeli in speaking and voting for the bill, although his own speech was a standard one of toleration.

In 1852, the primary responsibility of a mid-Victorian chancellor was to produce a Budget for the coming fiscal year. Disraeli, as Chancellor, proposed to reduce taxes on malt and tea (indirect taxation); additional revenue would come from an increase in the house tax. More controversially, Disraeli also proposed to alter the workings of the income tax (direct taxation) by “differentiating”–i.e., different rates would be levied on different types of income.

The establishment of the income tax on a permanent basis had been the subject of much inter-party discussion since the fall of Peel’s ministry in June of 1846. Since that time, no consensus had been yet been reached, and Disraeli was criticised for mixing up details over the different “schedules” of income. Disraeli’s proposal to extend the tax to Ireland gained him further enemies, and he was also hampered by an unexpected increase in defence expenditure, which was forced on him by Derby and Sir John Pakington (Secretary of State for War and the Colonies) (leading to his celebrated remark to John Bright about the “damned defences”). This, combined with bad timing and perceived inexperience led to the failure of the Budget and consequently the fall of the government on 17 December 1852.

With the fall of the government, Disraeli and the Conservatives returned to the opposition benches.

 

NEW WRIT FOR LONDON.

HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc162-82162

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that yesterday he took the liberty of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, under the provisions of what was commonly called “the Contractors’ Act,” Baron Rothschild had not vacated his seat for the City of London, by having entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service, and whether, consequently, a new writ ought not to issue for the City of London? His hon. and learned Friend then answered that, if the question were put to the House, not in a speculative, but in a practical form, he would give his 163 opinion upon it. He now rose for the purpose of bringing the matter before the House in a practical form, and he had, therefore, put a Motion to that effect on the paper. He might have moved that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, but that would have been a sneaking and cowardly course, entertaining as he did a strong conviction that, according to the common sense and literal construction of the Act of Parliament, Baron Rothschild had vacated his seat. The House would recollect when the Act in question passed, and the purposes for which it was designed. The Act passed in 1782, and was brought forward with the avowed object of promoting the freedom and independence of Parliament. When the Rockingham Administration came into office they took up that Bill, which had been before Parliament for two or three years, and gave it their warmest support on the principle that the House of Commons was getting day by day more corrupt and the people of this country were becoming more dissatisfied with it. He would not insult the memory of the Rockingham Administration by calling them “Administrative Reformers.” They were something more, for they were Parliamentary Reformers. They struck at the root of the evil, for they said that, if there were corruption in the State, it must be the fault of the House of Commons, and so far as they could remove that blot they would do it by reforming the House itself. That Administration contained among its Members Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Dunning, who had previously moved the well-known Resolution, that the power and influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He should show by the Act itself, and by the debates upon it, that it was the intention of those who framed the Act, and of the Parliament that passed it, that contractors of Government loans should vacate their seats in Parliament, and he contended that the case of Baron Rothschild came clearly within its meaning. The heading of the contract was— ‘The contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty’s Government, on or about the 20th day of April last, for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service.’ Now, the preamble of the Act said— ‘For further securing the freedom and independence of Parliament, be it enacted by 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 164 assembled, and by the authority Of the same, that, from and after the end of this present session of Parliament, any person who shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any person whatsoever in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement, or commission, made or entered into with, under, or from the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, or of the Navy or Victualling Office, or with the Master General or Board of Ordnance, or with any one or more of such Commissioners, or with any other person or persons whatsoever, for or on account of the public service; or shall knowingly and willingly furnish or provide, in pursuance of any such agreement, contract, or commission, which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad, or any wares or merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public, shall be incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons, during the time that he shall execute, hold, or enjoy any such contract, agreement, or commission, or any part or share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same.’ The Act also went on to say— ‘And if any person, disabled and declared incapable by this Act to be elected, shall, after the end of this present Session of Parliament, presume to sit or vote as a Member of the House of Commons, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of 500l. for every day in which he shall sit or vote in the said House to any person or persons who shall sue for, the same in any of His Majesty’s courts at Westminster.’ It was contended by some that Baron Rothschild, not being ineligible by reason of this contract at the time of his election, had not incurred the penalties of the Act, and that, because for other reasons he had not sat or voted in that House, he had not forfeited his seat on that account. But he apprehended that there were very few hon. Members who would maintain that opinion, because, supposing for an instant that fifty or sixty Members held contracts with the Government for twelve months’ duration, would the House say that they had not forfeited their seats because for that period they might abstain from sitting or voting in the House? The case of the Jewish question was a very different one. The hon. Member was incapable of sitting or voting in that House because he could not use the words “on the true faith of a Christian,” and in that case the House was not justified in issuing a writ. But the hon. Member stood in a very different position as a contractor. It was alleged by some that hon. Members might contract for money, although they could not enter into contracts with the Government for ships or provisions. When the Bill was 165 under discussion, it was at first proposed that contracts for loans should be excepted, but if hon. Members referred to the debates they would find that that proposal was scouted by the House. Mr. Fox said, he rejoiced to see that a new sprit of government seemed to be rising, and that a period was approaching when corruption would be banished from the Senate; and those who had the management of public affairs might safely trust to the merits of their measures for support, without having recourse to corruption. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not know whether the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) would be disposed to indorse that opinion. Mr. Fox moved that the exception in the Bill should be withdrawn, and that no contractor whatever should have a seat in Parliament. It was also contended that contracts for money were more dangerous than any other species of contract. The exception was withdrawn upon the understanding that a special Bill should be brought in for the purpose. No Bill, however, was brought in for the purpose, and the only Bill bearing at all upon the subject confirmed the view which he had now stated—the 48 Geo. III., chap. 1, wherein persons were exempted from losing their seats who entered into any contract with the Government for Exchequer Bills on behalf of the Bank of England. If they entered into such contracts on their own behalf, they were not exempted; so it was quite clear that Parliament, with its eyes open, had intended by the 22 Geo. III., chap. 45, that no contractors whatever should sit in Parliament. He could not possibly understand how there could be any doubt upon the subject, and, as Baron Rothschild by other circumstances had been prevented from sitting and voting in the House, he had incurred no penalties, and so far the loss to him would not be, and ought not to be, very great. He particularly wished it to be understood that he made this Motion entirely upon public grounds, and without any reference whatever to the Jewish question. For eight Sessions Baron Rothschild had been nominally a Member of the House of Commons, but the question of Jewish emancipation did not seem to have been much advanced thereby. A short time since he asked Her Majesty’s Government whether it was their intention to introduce a measure in the present Session for the removal of Jewish disabilities, and the answer he received was, that they had no such intention. The noble Lord the 166 Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had since addressed a letter to some of his constituents, in which he told them fairly it was a hopeless case, in consequence of the decisions which had been come to in the House of Lords, and he believed the noble Lord was perfectly right in forming that estimate of the position of the question. He believed the prejudice elsewhere was so great, and the indifference of the public out of doors was also so great, that during the present generation, at least, there was not the remotest chance of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion sitting in that House, so long as the House of Lords had any voice in the matter. Therefore Baron Rothschild had been thus long disabled, and the citizens of London had been deprived of their fourth Member. If three Members were quite enough for the City of London, let the House be told so, and let them give that Member to some other place. But this very disablement of Baron Rothschild had relieved him from any penalties with regard to this contract. What he said was, that from the moment a Member entered into a contract with the Government, not only was he disabled from sitting and voting, but his seat became vacant. He should be extremely glad to hear the opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen upon this subject, but he contended that, according to the honest and fair interpretation of the Act, it was quite clear there was a vacancy in the City of London at the present moment, and would so continue, as far as regarded Baron Rothschild, until the 18th of December next, when the contract ceased. Under these circumstances, therefore, ought not the House to issue a new writ? They did not want any peddling or quibbling opinions. He knew lawyers could make that opaque which was clear to all minds but their own, but he hoped that would not be the case on this occasion, and he appealed to the House to restore to the citizens of London the power of electing a forth representative by agreeing to the Motion he now proposed, that the Speaker be instructed to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the City of London.

MR. MILNER GIBSON  Sir, my difficulty is to make up my mind whether the disqualifying clauses are to stop with Baron Rothschild. He has admitted a great number of persons, possibly Members of this House, to have shares of this loan, to enjoy what the Act calls the “profits, benefits, and emoluments arising from the same.” Now, all these Members enjoy the “profits, benefits, and emoluments” arising from the loan, and, if I have taken a correct view of this Act, they are in jeopardy as well as Baron Rothschild, and it would be competent for him or any other hon. Member, if the House at once agrees 174 to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to find out some hon. Member upon this list and take the House by surprise to-morrow evening, and move that a new writ be issued for the borough or county which he represents. We must therefore be cautious in this matter. For myself, I confess I have no particular knowledge of the law. I have read the Act, and I understand from it that any person who enjoys any benefit arising from the loan, either directly by having contracted himself, or indirectly through another, is equally affected.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL  said, he wished the House to observe that it was dealing with a Statute which had not been enforced or applied for a long space of years. It was reasonable to suspect, therefore, some impediment or obstacle in the way of its application. If any Gentleman were bold enough to pledge himself to the opinion that the law had not been affected by any of our legislation subsequent to 1782, he might be competent to pronounce upon this question at once; but he (the Solicitor General) could not be so confident.

So, it becomes abundantly clear by this stage in the proceedings, that while there had been a long standing ACT (Law) regarding any “Contractors” (individuals loaning the government money) then being disallowed to hold a seat in the House as an MP or Lord, a vast number of them had done it with impunity. They broke the law! But it didn’t matter because it’s a BOYS CLUB. But then Rothschild comes along and he loans the government and they don’t like that (some of them at least). While Rothschild had not only, himself, provided the money but he ensured he had many other members involved which would make them speak for him AND it would make it far more difficult for the Parliament to act otherwise they’d be dismissing a great number of people – some very powerful no doubt. Furthermore, that would send a message to the public saying “We’re corrupt as hell”. Just like today!

Now THIS section is quite literally incredible. Benjamin D’Israeli, attempts to provide “cover” for Rothschild. Hard to believe he got away with this:

MR. DISRAELI  said, it appeared to him that a subject of this nature should be considered with great calmness, and that the House should not rashly adopt any course upon it without due deliberation. Now, what he felt was that they wanted that distinct proof which should be in the possession of the House, and which could be easily obtained, before they could come to a decision on a question of such consequenee. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that there could be no doubt that Baron Lionel de Rothschild had contracted with Her Majesty’s Government, and then he took up a contract, and pointed to it as containing that proof. But he (Mr. Disraeli) was not satisfied on this point; for if that was the only proof that the hon. Member for the City of London had entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government, the evidence was very imperfect, as the contract bore not the signature of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, but of N. M. Rothschild and Sons.

So D’Israeli argues that, because the contract did not have the Baron De Rothschild’s personal signature on it, it could not be considered a loan from Rothschild to the government EVEN THOUGH it was “N.M Rothschild & Sons”. In-Fing-credible! So perhaps it had a Rothschild stamp or perhaps it was signed by an officer of the company. The fact is ROTHSCHILD OWNED THE FCUKING COMPANY! It’s like suggesting every loan Goldman Sachs makes is signed by Lloyd Blankfein (and even then, Blankfein is just the CEO!).

This was OUTRAGEOUS “chutzpah” by D’Israeli. You can bet he was in on it.

Remember 16Million was one shitload of money back then! It was the equivalent of £billions today!

Also remember that Rothschild was the Trustee of D’Israeli’s Last will and Testament! So let’s just say they were “good friends”.

Now consider THIS little exchange:

 

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  said, that, as the Motion now stood, it stated that the contract had been entered into by Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, though there was nothing on the face of the contract to show that such was the case.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild did not in his presence sign this contract.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  I think the question just put to me is a proof of the inconvenience of discussing this question in its present form. I did not mean to state that it was not Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild who had virtually entered into this contract with the Government, but my remark merely applied to the wording of the Motion which states Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild entered into the contract with the Government, of which there was no evidence on the face of the contract.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  But that is no answer to my question. I put a direct and straightforward question, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel de Rothschild did not in his presence sign the contract in question.

§MR. DISRAELI  said, he objected to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbary, which, if it were sanctioned, would place it in the power of a Minister who wished to turn a Member out of his seat to get up and put a question, having previously agreed upon the answer which would be given by one of his supporters, and they all knew how ardent a supporter of the Government was the hon. Member 182 for Finsbury. The question put by him was most unconstitutional, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be justified in answering.

new-writ-for-london#S3V0139P0_18550626_HOC_52

At this point in time (1855) D’Israeli and the Conservatives were in opposition.

Disraeli was accused by William Ewart Gladstone of undermining Britain’s constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschilds.

William Gladstone

Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament’s consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.

Here are some exchanges in Parliament during that time. Make of them what you wish. I know what I make of them: Utter pish!

 

QUESTION.

HC Deb 28 February 1876 vol 227 cc1019-201019

§MR. BIGGAR  asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, or not, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the proposed payment to Messrs. Rothschild, one of which firm being also a Member of this House, of a commission of 2½ per cent. on the amount of the Suez Canal Purchase, brings the said Member within the provisions of the Act 22 Geo. 3, c. 45; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take on the subject?

§MR. DISRAELI  Sir, it does not appear to me that this Question ought to be addressed to Her Majesty’s Government, and I may say further, that on referring to the statute which the hon. Member has mentioned, I am doubtful whether it ought even to be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown. I read in that statute that which indicates that it is a question neither for the Government nor for the Law Officers, but one for Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. It says that any Member of this House offending under the circumstances referred to shall forfeit the sum of £500 for every day on which he sits or votes in this House to any person who shall sue for the same in any of Her Majesty’s Courts at Westminster. In these circumstances, as it appears to be open to any of Her Majesty’s subjects to sue for that penalty, I think it is not for the Government or for the Law Officers of the Crown to give any information 1020 on the subject, but for those who are directly interested in the question.

§SIR NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD  Sir, I hope the House will allow me to make a personal statement on this matter. I feel it my duty to declare that I am not a partner in the house of which my father is the head, either in London or Paris. I have no doubt that the House will accept that statement from me; but, if it is necessary, I am authorized by my father to say that the deed of partnership of the firm of Rothschild, both in London and on the Continent, can be inspected by any one whom this House may choose to appoint.

question#S3V0227P0_18760228_HOC_7

And this concerning the detail (and complete obfuscation) of the payment:

 

RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 21 February 1876 vol 227 cc562-661562

§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ Question again proposed, ‘That a sum, not exceeding £4,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to enable Her Majesty 563 to pay the Purchase Money of the Shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal, and the Expenses attendant thereon, which will come in course of payment during-the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876?’’

§MR. LOWE, in resuming the adjourned debate, remarked that the first question to be settled was, oddly enough, the nature of the transaction they were about to discuss. The matter might be thought to be perfectly clear, but there was really an amount of doubt about it which it was desirable to dispel, and which he would endeavour to explain. On the first night of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said— ‘We asked the house of Rothschild to purchase those shares on our engagement to ask the House of Commons to take them off their hands. It was a great risk.’ Now, if that were really the question which the House had to consider there would be a very great probability that the House, having carefully considered the matter, would think that that was a transaction which it was not called upon necessarily to ratify at all; because the house of Rothschild having made the purchase only on the faith that the Government would recommend the House of Commons to take the purchase off their hands, no money would have passed, and it would have been open to the House of Commons to consider the whole question as if no pledge had been given. But that was not the case, he was sorry to say. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in his statement, though the real facts of the case were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Properly speaking, the question was not of our taking the shares off Messrs. Rothschild’s hands, but of our having purchased the shares and borrowed money from Messrs. Rothschild to pay for them. That was a simple description of the transaction, and disposed of the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury on the first night of the Session, made no doubt from the erroneous view that no money had passed. So far from no money having passed, the fact was that £4,000,000 had been lent to the English Government on the faith that they would apply to Parliament for repayment, and that was an extremely different question from the question whether we were not bound to 564 take upon ourselves the purchase made by other persons even under the recommendation of the Government. Nor was it therefore true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was a great risk, because when money had been borrowed on behalf of the English Government—when they had had the money and actually spent it—the House of Commons would not be likely to say—” We have had the money and will not repay it.” This point, as the Committee would see, was not an unimportant one. He had now, singularly enough, to charge the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with inaccuracy—a circumstance so unlikely that it would require the strongest proof. In this case, however, he did not think there was any room for doubt. The right hon. Gentleman had moved for a Vote of £4,080,000, and that Vote was made up in this way—there was £3,976,582, the purchase money of the shares, and there was £99,414 for the commission of 2½ per cent to Messrs. Rothschild. Then there was about £4,000 for small expenses; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid these sums before the House as being the whole cost of the shares. So far, however, from that being the whole cost, the fact was that there had to be added a sum of £37,000; and for this reason, that the Messrs. Rothschild were not only to receive a commission of 2½per cent on the amount of the purchase, but were also to charge interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the £4,000,000 until the date of repayment. There was the difficulty. No doubt there was some misunderstanding here, for there were two accounts of what was to be done—one contained in the Treasury Minute, and the other in a letter written by Messrs. Rothschild themselves. In the Treasury Minute it was distinctly stated that the Messrs. Rothschild were to charge a commission of 21 per cent on the £4,000,000 which they undertook to provide, and also that they were to receive the interest of 5 per cent from the Khedive upon the amount advanced from the date of the advance until the date of repayment of such advance by Her Majesty’s Government. On the other hand, the Messrs. Rothschild, having been asked by the Secretary to the Treasury to state their terms in writing, gave a very different version of the affair. They write— 565‘It is also understood that we are to charge Her Majesty’s Government a commission of 2½ per cent upon the £4,000,000, and 5 per cent interest per annum until the date of repayment.’ So that it appeared from the Treasury Minute that this was to be paid by the Khedive, whereas according to Messrs. Rothschild’a Minute it was to be paid by the Government. Now, if it was worth while to write to Messrs. Rothschild to ask them to put their contract in form, one would have thought that it would have been worth while to ascertain who was right and who was wrong. That, however, did not appear to have been done, and so the matter remained in its present state. There was, however, no doubt about it. Of course Messrs. Rothschild’s letter was what they would be bound by and not the Treasury Minute, and it was the duty of the Government to pay them this 5 per cent, and they ought not to look for it from the Khedive. Of course, if the Khedive did pay it, it would really be we who would pay it all the same, because it would be intercepting money that was to come to us from the Khedive. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government to have made this sum for interest, whatever it happened to be, part of the Vote.

resolution-adjourned-debate#S3V0227P0_18760221_HOC_55

ONLY 135 years ago. That is like yesterday in terms of how this all works:

 

Lies, damned lies and corruption and it exists to this very day in another Conservative “BRITISH CHRISTIAN WITH JEWISH VALUES” Prime Minister and his sidekick, Gideon.

“Having jewish values are great Gideon, just keep well away from yachts would you? The public might just catch on!”

 “I worked for a prominent Jewish business leader for seven-and-a-half years, Michael Green… and in my downstairs loo, you’d see the proud gift I received after speaking at the 350th anniversary dinner, [a print] of Benjamin Disraeli’s house”

david-cameron-my-values-are-yours

So PLEASE, do not suggest, and try to dismiss the facts, that history from 135 years ago has no bearing on the present. The Rothschilds have been at the core of almost every privatisation and major British government policy ever since. Just do the reading to find out!

 

It is interesting to note that Gladstone once sent a letter to D’Israeli, the latter asking Gladstone to join the new government, where Gladstone states the following:

“I state these points fearlessly and without reserve, for you have yourself well reminded me that there is a Power beyond us that disposes of what we are and do, and I find the limits of choice in public life to be very narrow”.—W. E. Gladstone to Disraeli, 1858

What I find interesting about it is that, while one can consider that Gladstone is speaking of “God” as the “power beyond us”, he then goes on to state that the LIMITS in public life are “very narrow”. I just wonder who/what could possibly be imposing those limits?

 

Although born of Jewish parents, Disraeli was baptised in the Christian faith at the age of twelve, and remained an observant Anglican for the rest of his life. Adam Kirsch, in his biography of Disraeli, states that his Jewishness was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Much of the criticism of his policies was couched in anti-Semitic terms. He was depicted in some antisemitic political cartoons with a big nose and curly black hair, called “Shylock” and “abominable Jew,” and portrayed in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia. In response to an anti-Semitic comment made by Daniel O’Connell in the British parliament, Disraeli memorably defended his Jewishness with the statement, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon.” One apocryphal story states that Disraeli reconverted to Judaism on his deathbed.

 

Judaism’s Redefiner

By ANTHONY JULIUS   

Benjamin_Disraeli,_1st Earl_of_Beaconsfield

Published: January 23, 2009

Benjamin Disraeli was a novelist, a statesman and a professing, practicing Christian, but to understand him one also needs to know that he was born a Jew. It was in the working out of the implications of this bare fact that his literary and political career, as well as his confessional affiliation, are to be understood. Or this, at least, is what Adam Kirsch contends in “Benjamin Disraeli,” his contribution to the “Jewish Encounters” series. “Disraeli’s Jewishness,” Kirsch writes, was “the central fact about him.” It was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Does Kirsch, a contributor to The New Yorker and other publications, make good on his thesis?

For sure, he offers a rounded account of his subject. We learn that the proximate cause of Disraeli’s baptism was a quarrel his father had with his synagogue, that Disraeli himself had an incomplete education, that he was a novelist before he became a politician and was a politician for many years before he became a statesman. Kirsch acknowledges his political skills, his ability to outmaneuver his opponents (with Rothschild backing – it helps!), both by compromise and by an even greater radicalism, even his unattractive habit of identifying himself with the powerful instead of the powerless. Disraeli’s positions on the principal issues of the day are identified — his early opposition to free trade and his championing of the cause of empire, his criticism of Victorian utilitarianism and materialism, his defense of the established Church of England, his willingness to extend the franchise to defeat his liberal enemies and the eccentric grounds of his support for Jewish emancipation. All this can be obtained elsewhere, but Kirsch sets it out succinctly and authoritatively.

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

It was in relation to the first kind of anti-Semitism that Disraeli defined himself. He sought to arrive at a self-definition that made him immune from being regarded as contemptible. He invented a bogus pedigree for himself (out of Spain, from Venice) (similar to Obama’s “Hawaii” story?), and he talked up whenever he could the intellectual and social distinctions of the Jews as a whole. As part of this project, however, he inadvertently contributed to the emergence of the second kind of anti-Semitism.

Disraeli redefined Judaism as a matter of race rather than religion, and in his ­novels “Coningsby” (1844), “Sybil” (1845) and “Tancred” (1847), he celebrated occult Jewish power, always exercised behind the scenes, and always determinative. The mysterious Sidonia (who figures in all three novels), Kirsch correctly observes, “looks like nothing so much as an anti-­Semitic hate figure.” In “Coningsby,” Disraeli has Sidonia confide, “You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.” “Russian diplomacy,” he says, is “organized and principally carried on by Jews”; the “mighty revolution” that will come in Germany is “entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.” “The myth of Jewish superiority,” Kirsch writes, “which Disraeli had advanced to counter the fact of social inferiority, now interacted with the paranoid superstitions of anti-Semites to disastrous effect.”

There IS no “jewish superiority”, there is ONLY “Rothschild superiority” (in terms of financial wealth and that is all he needs).

Disraeli was himself the object of anti-Semitic attack in the late 1870s because he insisted that the British national interest lay in supporting the Ottoman Empire against its Christian minority communities. For this piece of “realist” international politics, he was abused as “a very Hebrew of Hebrews,” the “Jew Earl, Philo-Turkish Jew and Jew Premier,” and the “traitorous Jew,” the “haughty Jew” and the “abominable Jew.” He was a leader of the “Turkophile party,” its “most rabid element.” He was the premier of a “Jew government.” He was a wizard, a conjurer, a magician, an alchemist. He was a “man of the East,” an “Asiatic.” “For the past six years we have had an Asiatic ruler.” He was a “wandering Jew,” “sprung from a race of migratory Jews.” He was raised “amid a people for whose ideas and habits he has no sympathy and little respect.” He was a “sham Christian and a sham Englishman.” He was the “charioteer” of a “Juggernaut car,” dragging “the whole of Christendom” over the rights of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Most cartoons gave him an immense nose and curly black hair; he was represented as “our modern Shylock.” Many of the illustrations related him to the Devil (“the most authentic incarnation of the Evil One”). At least two portrayed him in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia, and in one of these his great adversary, the liberal politician Gladstone, is the distressed mother, arriving perhaps too late to save her child. And there was a note sounded for the first time, but to be repeated many times thereafter: the Jews want war, against the national interest.(and still do)

The anti-Semites of his day insisted that Disraeli was bogus in every respect but his identification with Jews and Judaism. A superficial reading of Kirsch’s book might conclude that its author agrees with this judgment. But that would be mistaken. First, because Kirsch shows that on the specifically political issues, Disraeli was promoting British interests, rather than anything that could be identified as a “Jewish” interest. And second, because Kirsch also demonstrates that Disraeli’s engagement with Jews and Judaism was an almost entirely literary affair. It was in his fiction, not in his political judgments, that he endeavored to counter “the myth of Jewish vulgarity and greed with an empowering myth of Jewish talent and influence.” “Disraeli’s imagination of Jewishness did what he needed it to,” Kirsch concludes. “It gave him the confidence to compete with the best-born men in England.”

Kirsch argues that the alternative career of Jewish leader was ever before Disraeli but that he did not want it. Though what Kirsch describes as “the dream” of Zionism had a “powerful allure” for Disraeli, “neither the conditions of Jewish life in Europe nor his own personality allowed Disraeli to play the role that would eventually fall to Theodor Herzl.” He imagined Judaism in ways that were psycho­logi­cally empowering, but paid little attention to the condition of actually existing Jewry. (As I keep saying, these people do not truly give a rat’s ass about average jews)

Disraeli was not a man who was easily discouraged. His strong desire to impress others led him in the unusual direction of provocativeness rather than ingratiation. He did not want to escape his English milieu, he wanted to triumph within it. He did indeed triumph, achieving everything in his life that he set out to achieve. It was an extraordinary career, one to which Kirsch, in this elegantly written book, does considerable justice.

Julius-t.html?pagewanted=2&ref=books

 

 

ALL FACT, ALL PARLIAMENTARY RECORD. BLATANT CORRUPTION, DECEPTION and LIES.

AND DAVID CAMERON CARRIES ON THOSE “VALUES” AS DID HIS PREDECESSORS BECAUSE THEY ALL BOW TO ROTHSCHILD AND HIS JEWISH MONEY!

Rothschild’s Iran-Iraq War

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Money, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, The illegal wars by earthling on April 9, 2014

Iran-Iraq War

HC Deb 11 July 1995 vol 263 c527W 527W
§Mr. Llew Smith To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his Chinese counterpart in regard to the provision of munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war by factories based in China but funded by N.M. Rothschild Bank. [32888]
§Mr. Arbuthnot [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am aware of no such discussions.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further reports his Department has received to indicate that British arms firms sold arms to Iran via Singapore during the Iran-Iraq arms embargo; if he will list those companies involved; and if he will make a statement. [29465]
§Mr. Freeman [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have, as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority, for its consideration.

Nice eh? To make sure they didn’t have any problems with British export licencing and to keep their name out of the Iran -Iraq war issue as far as possible, the Rothschilds sent arms (Chemical WMDs? Although it doesn’t matter what they were) to Iran/Iraq (probably both) from their globalists little outpost in China. And you think, when thinking about world geopolitics and wars, that it’s all to do with the west versus the east, the US or UK versus China or Russia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Chinese_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Listen and listen good! It’s a globalist V the rest of us issue. The globalists get the job they want done from anywhere on planet earth! That’s why they’re CALLED “GLOBALISTS” and that’s why Rockefeller speaks about “conspiring with others (internationalists as he calls himself and them) around the world”.

Meanwhile, here’s another Rothschild thing from Parliament archives:

Note how Tam Dalyell (and this goes for all other parliamentarians) shits himself at the idea of stating what he has stated outside of parliamentary privilege because he knows Rothschild would come after him in litigation. And you wonder why these guys keep their mouths shut most of the time? If Rothschild doesn’t know they shag babies then the Rothschilds will destroy them in court. NOT by necessarily winning but by the sheer knowledge they have the money to keep the case going on and on and bankrupting the other party.

 

 

Official Secrets Act (Prosecution Policy)

HC Deb 06 February 1987 vol 109 cc1291-8 1291
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter LLoyd.]

2.41 pm
§Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent 22 minutes of the previous debate on human rights deploying the same arguments as I anticipate he is likely to deploy in the Adjournment debate. Is it possible, in those circumstances, that those of us who were not able to make a speech on the Human Rights Bill because of the hon. Member for Linlithgow’s actions should be able to take part in the Adjournment debate and deploy some of the important arguments that we were seeking to deploy on the Human Rights Bill?
§Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I cannot rule or make a judgment on a hypothesis.
2.42 pm
§Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will be disappointed, because there is another, different aspect to the issue.
Charmingly, the Solicitor-General began his speech this morning with what he said was a platitude. I should like to start with a non-platitude. While not being his easiest parliamentary colleague, and, trying though he may find me from time to time, being over-inquisitive, I have had every courtesy from an approachable and forthcoming Attorney-General. It is no platitude to wish him a speedy return to full health.

I heard the Solicitor-General this morning and I thank him for attending the Adjournment debate. In my opinion, in the 1950s he was the most eloquent Oxford president ever to come to the Cambridge Union. He was extremely eloquent this morning.

May I say at the outset that I gave the Attorney-General a copy of my speech in relation to the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild and Mr. Bernard Sheldon on Monday, since it raises issues of byzantine difficulty and daunting delicacy, which should not be sprung out of the blue on any Minister. Knowing the Solicitor-General, I am sure that he will respond to this in the same spirit of considered seriousness.

The purpose of the first part of my speech is to give the Law Officers an opportunity to tell Parliament—these issues are ultra-party— what on earth they propose to do to clear up the Augean stables of inconsistency in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. The Law Officers will understand that my deep interest in these matters was born during the 11 days that I spent in the Old Bailey, in Mr. Justice Sir Anthony McCowan’s court, during the trial of Clive Ponting.

Why prosecute Clive Ponting and dither, understandably—I do not use that word in a pejorative sense—over prosecuting Victor Rothschild? Why send Sarah Tisdall to prison for months and do nothing about Bernard Sheldon, albeit he is approaching retirement, in relation to Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West? Why fail to prosecute Bernard Ingham for the selective leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter? It looks as if there is one prosecution policy for the influential, the famous and the distinguished and another prosecution policy for the more junior, hitherto less famous, civil servants.

1292 Compared with what Victor Rothschild set in train, with Peter Wright and Harry Chapman Pincher, anything that Clive Ponting put in my way melts into insignificance, in terms of national security, if not political embarrassment. There is an apparent inconsistency of policy, and it would be helpful to the House to know on what principles those discriminating practices are justified and on what basis discrimination is authorised by Ministers.

It is to the position of Lord Rothschild that I wish to refer. If, for the first time, I shelter under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, it is because Lord Rothschild can be a litigious man and, secondly, I do not think that what I am saying is to his discredit. I refer to 26 November—[Interruption.] Hon. Members had better wait and hear what I shall say. I refer to 26 November, when I asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to proceeding against …. Mr. Arthur Franks, formerly head of MI6, and …. Lord Rothschild for breach of confidence in relation to information on matters of state security given to authors. The Attorney-General replied: I am considering with the Director of Public Prosecutions the allegations made in respect of the two named individuals.”—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol 106, c. 268.]

I returned to the subject on 1 December 1986, and the Attorney-General said: The matter remains under consideration.” — [Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]

On 18 December 1986, I asked the Prime Minister whether she will now release Lord Rothschild from his obligations of confidentiality as a former member of the security services; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister replied: All present and former members of the security services owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. They may not make unauthorised disclosures of information acquired in their work. Any requests for authorised disclosure would be considered in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 613.]

Let me offer necessarily truncated points. First, in the 1930s, international Jewry, of which the Rothschilds were one of the leading families, were aghast at the anti-semitism that was then rampant in Germany. Secondly, Victor Rothschild may, as the author Douglas Sutherland suggests, have recruited Guy Burgess for a minor role in one of the Jewish intelligence services. Thirdly, as an understandably passionate anti-Fascist, Victor Rothschild may have had relations with Comintern agents. Talk of spying is jejune nonsense. Anyhow, a good agent is one who gets from foreign powers more than he gives.

Fourthly, the events of long ago fade into the past. Sleeping dogs from the 1930s and 1940s were rightly, in my view, allowed to lie. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. But in 1979, Britain gets a new species of Prime Minister. On 15 November 1979, the new Prime Minister makes a statement on Blunt, against advice, with the aplomb of a cow in a china shop. Sir Charles Cunningham tells me that Sir Anthony Blunt’s activities as an agent of both sides many years previously were fully known to successive permanent secretaries at the Home Office.

Fifthly, I believe that Lord Rothschild was extremely angry about the Prime Minister’s reaction on Sir Anthony Blunt. Some of us believe that Sir Anthony Blunt’s memoir, given to his brother, and now lodged in an institution in London, will reveal a complex story, part of which is that Sir Anthony Blunt was asked by a former member of the security forces whose name I have given to 1293 the Attorney-General, and by Guy Liddell, to help get Burgess and Maclean, by that time embarrassments both, out of the country.

Sixthly, in the summer of 1980, Lord Rothschild had the Prime Minister to his flat in Saint James’s. He is subsequently quoted in the press as saying: She does not understand intelligence matters.

Seventhly, Lord Rothschild then came to believe that his own reputation was at stake, especially after the Prime Minister’s statement on Sir Roger Hollis on 23 March 1981, which appears in the Official Report at column 1079. At his own expense, Lord Rothschild brought Peter Wright from Australia. He discussed with Wright certain material which appeared to constitute a contravention of section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. Section 7 states: Any person who attempts to commit any offence under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavours to persuade another person to commit an offence, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under the principal Act or this Act, shall be guilty of a felony or a misdemeanour or a summary offence according as the offence in question is a felony, a misdemeanour or a summary offence, and on conviction shall be liable to the same punishment, and to be proceeded against in the same manner, as if he had committed the offence. If the Attorney-General would decide to prosecute Lord Rothschild in open court, it would be possible to ask questions which are causing much public concern and which Lord Rothschild would then have to answer on oath. These are some of the questions that might be asked. First, how does Lord Rothschild explain his involvement with Sidgwick and Jackson over the Pincher-Wright book? While it is possible that Sidgwick and Jackson would consult Sir Arthur Franks about possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911, that would not explain Lord Rothschild’s involvement.

Secondly, why should Lord Rothschild expose himself by suggesting an unlawful enterprise to Mr. Wright, namely that he should breach the Official Secrets Act and then procure a writer, Mr. Pincher, to act as a channel for royalties?

Thirdly, why should Lord Rothschild fly Wright to London if, as has been suggested, all he needed was a testimonial to protect himself against suggestions that he had been a Soviet agent?

Fourthly, why pay Wright? Why introduce him to Harry Chapman Pincher? Why should Mr. Pincher pay him half the royalties?

Only by proceeding in open court on oath can obscurities be made less obscure. Only by proceedings in open court can there be an end to doubt and to the suspicion of discrimination.

I ask the Law Officers why they will or why they will not prosecute Victor Rothschild. If they decline to prosecute, apologies should be winging their way to Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting.

Even more clearly, the Law Officers owe Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting an explanation as to why they take no action against Mr. Bernard Sheldon for briefing Mr. Rupert Allason — alias Nigel West — who incidentally, and I do not intend to make much of this, is Conservative candidate for Torquay, for his books. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to enter the argument about Mr. Allason being Conservative candidate for Torquay.

If I am asked in general terms after my comments this morning about sources, part of my reply would be that 1294 there is an urgent need for an appeal body to which civil servants, policemen, service men or people in the intelligence services can go without jeopardising their careers if they believe that they have been abused. That is the official policy of the Labour party put down by the Cirencester and Tewkesbury amendment at the party conference at Bournemouth on the Sunday. I was interested to hear on the radio that Nigel West — alias Rupert Allason—said at 8.15 am on 5 February that he supported the idea of such an appeal body.

Finally, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I raised with the Leader of the House the question of the Interspace articles with regard to Zircon. The question was whether the knowledge of Zircon or Skynet IV was in the public print at least two years ago. The Leader of the House said that he would draw that matter to the attention of the Solicitor-General.

I will leave the matter there, because the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have a very serious interest in these matters.

2.54 pm
§The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew) I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind good wishes for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for his kind remarks about him, which are much appreciated. May I also thank him for his kind reference to me. I am grateful to him for having given the Law Officers advance notice of the contents of his speech, which was a helpful gesture. Even so, he made several allegations to which, as I shall explain, I shall be unable to respond.
The main theme of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was whether Lord Rothschild should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. On 17 December 1986, the police were requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate allegations that Lord Rothschild and Mr. Chapman Pincher had committed offences under the Official Secrets Act. The police investigation is continuing and no decision can be taken until the Director of Public Prosecutions is given the police report, which will then be sent to the Attorney-General, or to me if the Attorney-General has not yet returned to his duties.

In those circumstances, and in accordance with the normal practice of the Law Officers, I cannot comment, except to say that I am satisfied that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the police officers who are carrying out the investigations. As far as I can recollect, most, if not all, of the allegations formed part of the evidence given by Mr. Wright in the proceedings in Sydney and, as allegations, they are common knowledge.

I emphasise once again that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no discriminatory policy in considering cases submitted to him under the Official Secrets Act. Each case is considered openly upon exactly the same criteria, and there is no foundation for a claim that importance or seniority in rank provides a person who is under investigation with any advantage.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question today which is already the subject of a question on the Order Paper for priority written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It relates to the publishers of the Interspace newsletter in respect of an article or 1295 articles that might be considered to refer to the Zircon project. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter raised in the written question and which he has raised today will be the subject of consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, on having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter” — [Official Report, 23 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 451] —that matter being the one raised by the hon. Gentleman a considerable time ago relating to the Westland affair. I mention that in relation to the name which he mentioned today of Mr. Bernard Ingham. I do not recall that, in the copy of the speech which he furnished to the Attorney-General, he said that he would make allegations against Mr. Bernard Ingham to the extent that he has done today. The words that I have just uttered formed the basis of a statement on 23 January 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

In the context of remarks about the book, “A Matter of Trust” written by Mr. Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Bernard Sheldon, who is an official. He asks why the Attorney-General has not prosecuted Mr. Sheldon. The answer is simple and I trust that it is welcome. I am informed that there is no evidence at all to show that Mr. Sheldon has committed any offence under the Official Secrets Act. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Mr. Sheldon in connection with the recent searches of BBC premises. I am informed that neither that official nor the security service had any involvement at all in any decisions or actions relating to this matter. During the last debate the hon. Gentleman made allegations about my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and his Department in connection with the search of BBC premises. Having had no notice of the allegations made in that debate, perhaps I may be permitted to say that in his answer in another place on Wednesday 4 February my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate set out the circumstances in which the search warrants were applied for and granted.

I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation that the Crown Office, alarmed at the enormity of what it was being asked to do, made a direct or indirect approach to the Prime Minister’s office and that the Crown Office was told by the Prime Minister’s office to allow special branch officers to take everything and anything from BBC Scotland. I am informed that at no time was the Crown Office in communication with the Prime Minister’s office. I understand that yesterday the hon. Gentleman told my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he would not expect him to be in his place today for this debate. Therefore, I find the allegations made earlier today a little surprising.

§Mr. Dalyell That was simply because as a Scottish Member I know that it is difficult to be here on Friday.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that, and no doubt it is an explanation. When officials enter the public service they know that throughout their service they will be unable to speak in their own defence to answer criticism and that they must rely on their Ministers to do that for them, especially when 1296 criticism is unfounded. The hon. Gentleman thinks it justifiable to allege that named officials should be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. I have already repeated the Prime Minister’s words about Mr. Bernard Ingham and I should now like to say something about Mr. Bernard Sheldon.
The hon. Gentleman earlier made a speech about human rights, but has not provided a scrap of evidence to support his allegation about Mr. Sheldon. Either he has evidence, as The Independent reports him as claiming he has, in which case it is disgraceful that he has not provided it, or he has none, in which case it is disgraceful to allege an offence.

§Mr. Dalyell This is part of the problem and the reason why I said in my speech that it is of great urgency to institute some kind of appeal body to which civil servants, service men, intelligence officers or policemen who think that they are being maltreated can go without jeopardy to their careers. That is important and that is why I raised the subject at my party conference and was one of those who made it helpful to be the policy of the party.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew Civil servants must be defended by their Ministers when they have no means, at present at any rate, of speaking in their own defence. However, officials are entitled to rely on more than defence by their Ministers. They are entitled to expect that hon. Members, protected as they take pains to be by privilege, will treat officials fairly. I regret that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Ingham, both of whom have had careers of great dedication and distinction with successive Governments, have been unfairly treated in the Chamber.
§Mr. Dalyell Before the Solicitor-General sits down, may I remind him that I am talking about men of considerable power. I worked closely with the late Dame Evelyn Sharp and know how civil servants should properly be treated. The difficulty arises when civil servants become so powerful that they are not accountable in the normal sense of the word. That is why I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister’s press officer, saying that we were dealing with the most powerful “man” in British politics. Later several of the Solicitor-General’s colleagues vouchsafe to me—that I was quite right arid that he is the most powerful—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention. He cannot speak for a second time.
§ 3.5 pm

§Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Solicitor-General to speak?
§Mr. Dalyell Most certainly.
§The Solicitor-General Yes.
§Mr. Cash I am most grateful for an opportunity to speak. We have just had a debate on human rights in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a speech which stretched the procedures of the House. He has now made a series of apparently groundless allegations against certain people. I was not privy to that speech and I can only form a judgment on the basis of what he said. He said nothing specifically and he substantiated nothing with evidence.
1297 There are times when we have reason to be worried that the hon. Gentleman is as much interested in grabbing headlines as in getting at the truth. I suspect that that is true of what happened earlier this morning.

Campaigns such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an appeal body, which was apparently endorsed at the Labour party conference, raise central questions about the nature of authority and where it resides.

§Mr. Dalyell That is absolutely right.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman says that I am absolutely right, but I suspect that we disagree fundamentally about where the centre of gravity must remain.
Self regulation and the constraints that people impose on themselves to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities and, by contrast, the right to speak, are issues which go to the heart of the matter. We have become increasingly fed up — I am sure that is true for the country as well — with people who believe that their unsubstantiated opinions which appear in the media or here, and which are drawn from a fairly limited range of information, can be used to make assertions and inferences—

§Mr. Dalyell rose—
§Mr. Cash I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later. Such clashes of opinion ought to be resolved in the proper and normal way, which is within the framework of law prescribed by our procedures and Acts of Parliament. We are increasingly fed up with invasions of privilege.
§Mr. Dalyell The hon. Gentleman says that I have made unsubstantiated allegations. That was the type of speech which was made against me for 18 long months before the Old Bailey Clive Ponting trial substantiated everything that I had tried to say.
I named Colette Bow in the House and there was the matter of the Solicitor-General’s letter. Who has since been proved right about that? The Solicitor-General will not comment but, with regard to his letter, I was attacked time and again by Conservative Members, but who now thinks that I have been wrong?

1298
§Mr. Cash I have a straight and simple answer. If the hon. Gentleman was proved right in the courts before, he should make the unsubstantiated allegations that he made today outside the House and prove his point in the courts. That is my direct and simple answer to him. Will he reply to that?
§Mr. Dalyell If I go to a court of law and name names, people’s careers are in jeopardy — not mine, other people’s careers. I have to make a judgment whether what I have been told is the truth or not. From my inquiries in Scotland, I believe that every word that I am saying is true.
§Mr. Cash The record has to stand for itself. The only person’s reputation that will be harmed by what has been going on here this morning is the hon. Gentleman’s. I have offered the hon. Gentleman an opportunity, which he is not prepared to take up. If he thinks that making statements and allegations within the privilege of the House will enable him to be able to justify what he has to say, when what he is doing—because he knows perfectly well that everything he says will be splashed over the newspapers tomorrow — is not damaging people’s reputations when they cannot reply to him, then he is absolutely wrong and we are fed up with it and the way that he carries on.
§Mr. Dalyell If there is going to be anger, I am exceedingly angry about what was done in BBC Scotland, which was a wholly un-British thing to do. What happened in Glasgow was horrific. That was something that has never happened in Britain before. I have been here for nearly a quarter of a century and previous Prime Ministers — the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Mr. Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home—know that I have behaved impeccably towards them. This is a different kind of Government and a new species of Prime Minister. As a Member who has been here for a quarter of a century, I do not like it.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he is shielding himself behind the privileges of the House.
§The question having been proposed after half-past Two o’clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

§Adjourned at eleven minutes past Three o’clock.

 

Ever wondered why these sorts of people intermarry? Well, when you combine wealth you protect yourself enormously because those who would wish to attack you don’t dare because they know you can spend them into bankruptcy. Whereas, if you were to marry a pauper, you just have what YOU have and your spouse brings no further protection to the table. If you wish to maintain your class as the ruling class, you continue to marry within it.

Rothschilds 2 Rothschilds

 

Arms Exports

HC Deb 20 June 1995 vol 262 cc231-2W 231W
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was informed that British arms were being exported to Iran via Singapore; and if he will make a statement; [29463]
(2) when his Department received notice of allegations that BMARC was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran. [29474]

§Mr. Freeman In 1991 my Department was made aware of allegations to this effect as a result of evidence given to Trade and Industry Select Committee.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the types of military equipment exported to Iran via Singapore by the British firm BMARC. [29464]
§Mr. Freeman As stated by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 13 June 1995 at columns 595–606, there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of GAM B01 naval guns, spares and associated ammunition exported by BMARC could have been Iran. This type of equipment is fitted in many surface ships of the Royal Navy and other naval forces including the Singaporean navy.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department during the period of the Iran-Iraq arms embargo to permit British arms to be sold to Singapore. [29466]
§Mr. Freeman The Ministry of Defence receives frequent inquiries from British companies who are interested in exporting defence equipment to Singapore or other countries. We do not keep records of all such inquiries.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms exports sold to Singapore since 1980. [29467]
§Mr. Freeman It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal the value of defence exports to individual countries. However, the value of exports by geographic region is contained in table 1.11 of UK defence statistics.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has received that British arms exports are currently being sold to Iran through Singapore. [29468]232W
§Mr. Freeman It is not normally the practice of my Department to comment on intelligence reports. The possibility of British arms exports to Iran through Singapore, or other countries, is kept under regular review interdepartmentally and appropriate action taken.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the normal procedure undertaken by his Department following requests from the Department of Trade and Industry for information on British arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. [29469]
§Mr. Freeman The Department of Trade and Industry normally circulates export licence applications, to the FCO and MOD. Unless the exports concerned have already been the subject of MOD scrutiny they are normally circulated within MOD for the appropriate operational, security and intelligence assessments. A MOD view is then co-ordinated and sent back to the DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department adopts to prevent British arms from being sold to Iran; and if he will list the changes to these procedures in the last 10 years. [29471]
§Mr. Freeman All export licence applications are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the available evidence and our national and international policy commitments.
In the case of Iran, since December 1984, this has been undertaken by a Ministry of Defence working group and an interdepartmental committee, which includes representatives from FCO and DTI.

§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the duties of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the export procedures of British arms; [29472]
(2) what role the right hon. member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken) had in respect of the export of arms to Singapore while acting as Minister for Defence Procurement. [29473]

§Mr. Freeman The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has responsibility within MOD for, inter alia, promoting defence exports within Government policy. He also has ministerial responsibility in relation to the advice on exports his Department gives to the Department for Trade and Industry, as licensing authority.

 

Share amongst the Nation

Posted in Politics by earthling on February 19, 2013

For some reason, I completely overlooked a response I got from Nigel Farage’s office in the EU Parliament approximately 2 years ago.

I think it is VERY important that this be shared. It is also important to notice the PERCEPTION of individuals and how one individual’s perception (without giving one an opportunity to correct that perception) can go a long way to demonise an individual in the eyes of others.

If one simply chooses to take one’s PERCEPTION as a fact and then use that perception against another without giving the other recourse to correct a misperception (either purposefully conceived or otherwise) then that can lead to bad feeling, jail or even war between countries.

It is a lack of communication and/or willingness to listen to other opinions which can cause all of these things so very easily. You will see what I mean when you read the following:

 

His office's words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don't, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right. So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

His office’s words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.
The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don’t, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right.
So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

Subject: RE: Results from form on website…
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:13:50 +0200
From: nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu
To: Removed@hotmail.com
CC: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com

Dear Mr (Earthlinggb)
Thank you for your very pertinent questions, to which, however, in your closing “opinion”, you seem to assume certain answers.
The UKIP is opposed to the global politico-commercial cartel, in which the Rothschilds are prominent, and which underpins a number of supra-national organisations, notably the UNO and the EU.  If that cartel has undue influence on some members of UKIP, then I can only say that UKIP has its moles, traitors and agents provocateurs, just as you would expect in an anti-establishment party.  They expose themselves fairly regularly and we expel them as regularly.
UKIP is not “aligned with Zionist policy”.  We are in favour of democratic, sovereign nation-states, however, and are opposed to multiculturalism, which we see as a form of apartheid.  How this will play out in the Levant, with a minimum of bloodshed and loss of democratic structures, is not clear.
The written constitution of the UK consists of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and numerous statutes, which are now being over-ridden by a treacherous EU-élite, which has no justification whatever for its actions, and which has made a mockery, among much else, of the Coronation Oath.
The CFR, whose “shop-window” and recruiting-office is the annual Bilderberg-Meeting, must be seen as the epicentre of the conspiracy, of which the UK’s treacherous EU-élite is a part.  Throwing off the EU is therefore a key objective in opposing the formation of global, totalitarian government; but this is not something the public will readily understand – and does not need, at this stage, to understand – as long as the objective of dissolving the EU can be attained.  Moreover, as a poorly-funded, anti-establishment party, UKIP’s capacity to reach the public is severely limited.  We simply cannot afford, financially or tactically, to depart from our simple anti-EU message, at this time.
The face-book forum is too time-consuming to permit much dialogue.  I apologise, for example, concerning the ability of our correspondence-team, to answer your questions systematically.  We do not have the resources to do this, and Mr Farage has no time at all to answer general enquiries.  You won’t find any national party-leader who does.
Yours sincerely
Andrew S. Reed
Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels
www.ukip.org    www.ukipmeps.org

From: Fuller Annabelle [mailto:annabelle.fuller@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 June 2011 15:42
To: FARAGE Nigel
Subject: Fwd: Results from form on website…

This guy has been causing real problems on Nigel’s facebook page, being anti semitic and offensive. Can you check that Nigel is okay with me saying that given his comments on the facebook page he does not wish to interact with this person?

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Office of Nigel Farage <admin@nigelfaragemep.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Results from form on website…
To: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com===[Contact Nigel]===Name: Earthlinggb

Address: None of your business.

E-mail: Removed for privacy

Your Query: 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.

My opinion of you Nigel is you\’re a fraud and a cheap one to boot. It\’s easy to stand up in the EU Parliament (a controlled venue) and make theatrical speeches which are then posted on Youtube which make you out to be \”Spartacus\” (My God!) but it\’s a lot harder to answer questions in public on your Facebook page isn\’t it?

As for your comment about not intentionally ignoring comments on your page, it doesn\’t quite hold water when then you resort to deleting them and then deleting the questioner entirely so he can no longer post questions YOU don\’t like.

Van Rumpoy may have the appearance of a damp rag but you have one of a Double Glazing salesman. You\’re just as transparent!

BBC & MI5

Posted in "Terrorism", The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on December 15, 2011

The BBC and MI5. You tell people this and you even show them and, no matter, they STILL think you wear a “tinfoil hat”. The problem with such people is that is all they have as ammunition against what is plainly in their face and, if they were to allow themselves to acknowledge these things, they would become very ill at ease and, perhaps, would not be able to handle it.

The point is, the BBC is and always has been, what so many of us know: A “programmed” propaganda outfit of the establishment programming (in so many ways) what and how the British people and many over the world within the commonwealth and elsewhere, should think. Nevertheless, us Brits will still wave our little flags at a Royal family which is screwing us all to the wall. Even screwing the families of the very soldiers who, ignorantly, die for her, her establishment, their prized possessions (countries and corporations). Ahh if only the typical soldier had a brain huh?

BBC MI5

The Telegraph: BBC & MI5

TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?

While it is entirely undemocratic and answers to noone.

Tony Benn: Would have been Britain’s Ron Paul (perhaps even better).

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

The debate is beginning to get to the central question, which is not the details of how we handle the security services or the official secrecy, but the constitutional relationships that are changed by the legislation that is to come before us. I believe that I am expressing an anxiety that goes far beyond the party of which I am a member about the evidence that has come to light regarding the threats to freedom by those who were supposed to defend it. Therefore, I consider that the proposals made by the Government in the Prime Minister’s speech from the Throne are far from being evidence of liberation, and offer evidence of tightening up. We should look at that first.

There is no question whatsoever—I am not seeking to blame everybody in the security services—that there have been people working in high positions in MI5 and MI6, who have used the power vested in them under the so-called well-tried mechanisms of the Maxwell Fyfe directive to undermine political democracy in Britain.

Secondly, those people have done so outside any form of ministerial control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has been Home Secretary, and others in Governments of whom I have been a part have occupied that position, and I cannot believe that they knew what was going on. If they did not know what was going on, the Maxwell Fyfe directive was wholly ineffective in its operation—and I understand it is to be weakened in the new legislation.

Thirdly, when evidence of this behaviour came to light, far from the Government pursuing the law breakers for their law breaking, they pursued the man who described the law breaking for his description of it. A Government who purport to pursue a policy of law and order made no issue of the fact that in Mr. Peter Wright‘s book—after all, he was a serious and respected member of the intelligence services—he described crimes that were committed, and made no attempt to investigate those crimes or bring him to justice. His only offence was that he wrote about them.

Then, of course, we come up against the justification for their action, and that is where the constitutional areas become most important. Anyone who has read any of the histories on these matters will know that the security services do not feel in any way responsible to the Government of the day. They believe they are responsible to the Crown. They represent the Crown in order to deal with subversion. I shall try to define the Crown and subversion in a moment.

Two new elements have rightly been brought into the debate by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which must be put upon the record. First of all, the British security services are supervised completely by the American security services. I know that because I had responsibilities for many years for those areas that were a part of what was called the “special relationship”. The Americans control our security services, supervise them, lay down the rules under which they operate, and warn them against people whom they regard as unreliable in Britain, because that is the condition upon which the United States makes nuclear weapons available to us.

The second threat—rather more shadowy but none the less real—is that, within a federal Europe, it is the intention of the Commission that security would be seen as a federal function, in part because the internal frontiers will cease to matter, and the Community will have to tackle what it defines as subversion on a federal basis.

The methods used by the security services must be set out. There is widespread vetting not only of civil servants, but, of course, of those in defence industries. The Clerk of the House and all the officials of the House are vetted by the security services. This was revealed in evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges of which I am a member. That says a lot for the division between the legislature and the Executive, because the Executive vets the officials of the legislature. The BBC is vetted down to the level of anyone is involved in the preparation of current affairs or news. The research assistants of Members of Parliament are vetted. We know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who brought the matter to the House.

The security services penetrate other services and actions of our national life. I shall give three examples. Cecil King, who purported to be a newspaper proprietor or a manager, was an agent of MI5, as was Tom Driberg, a former chairman of the Labour party. Lord Rothschild, who, when I worked closely with him, I took to be an industrialist brought in to help our think tank, was actually working for MI5 throughout that period.

Massive telephone interception and the opening of letters occur. Charles II nationalised the Post Office in 1660 because he wanted to see what people were writing to one another. Therefore, the Home Secretary is carrying on a good tradition in trying to intercept postal and telephone services and to legalise it. The Home Secretary is the most appropriate person to be moving the Bill, because when I tried to make a speech in 1976 in a church in his constituency at Burford to celebrate the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get the grant for the Workers’ Educational Association withdrawn. He is therefore consistent in his opposition to dissent in any century by anybody.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

rose

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I have the correspondence.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

I remember inquiring 12 years ago why the taxpayers’ money was being used to help the right hon. Gentleman support the Levellers in Burford.

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

The right hon. Gentleman, with the sort of naivety that adds to his charm, confesses to the charge that I laid against him, that when he heard I was to speak at a church in Burford about the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to try to bring pressure to bear so as to withdraw a grant from the WEA that had invited me. He has confirmed my argument, and he is consistent. He does not believe in dissent in any century, including the present one.

The other area in which the security services have operated is in redefining subversion. There is no doubt that the phrase that became popular during the miners’ strike of “the enemy within” had been defined much earlier by the security services. The enemy within includes the trade union movement and many members of the Labour party and peace movement. That definition was undoubtedly one of the factors that led to the attempt to destroy Harold Wilson. In my opinion, it was also used, but for different reasons, to remove the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), because the security services thought that he was too weak.

The methods used by the security services include the collection of damaging information and fabricating misinformation—as with the forging of Ted Short‘s bank account, which was leaked to Chapman Pincher. So much for lifelong confidentiality, when the security services regularly use certain journalists to feed out damaging information to destroy people they do not like. One cannot overlook the fact that Peter Wright confirmed Anthony Nutting‘s claim that Sir Anthony Eden ordered the assassination of another head of state, President Nasser. Anthony Nutting confirmed on television what Wright had written.

The question one must now ask is, what safeguards will there be under the new Act? Supposing Ted Short, as Lord President, had appealed to discover whether his bank account had been forged, to whom would his appeal have gone? Would it have gone to the Cabinet? No. Would it have gone to the Prime Minister? No. It would have gone to a commissioner appointed for the purpose by a previous Government.

When Bruce Kent‘s telephone was tapped, what safeguards would have existed then? If he had written to whoever it may have been and asked, “Is my phone being tapped?”, the only answer he would have received was not whether his phone was being tapped but whether the security services were abusing their rights—and those rights are covered by warrant and by a commission. The victims do not know what is being done to them, and the perpetrators do not wish to make complaints that might reveal the crimes they are perpetrating. The exceptions are one or two people such as Clive Ponting and Cathy Massiter, who were moved by their consciences, to act.

I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not. The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.

Tony Benn Crown

I asked the Home Secretary whether Ministers, who, after all, are Crown servants, will be covered by the new rules. It will be difficult to bind the Prime Minister to lifelong confidentiality as Bernard Ingham, on her instruction, breaches it at 11 o’clock every morning for the benefit of selected lobby correspondents who never make clear what has gone on. Are we really saying that anyone who is elected to Parliament, who becomes a Minister and discovers things he believes that it is in the public interest should be made known, will be bound to confidentiality for life? Or will anybody else? I have cited Ministers as they are uniquely accountable to those who elect them.

The reality is that there is nothing different about security. In its proper sense, security is part of the country’s defence forces, and no one denies that the country needs defence forces. But contrast the way security is treated with the other parts of the defence forces. Every year Parliament debates defence policy, but it never debates security policy—I am not talking about security operations. Parliament never discusses the definition of a subversive person—which is currently based on a phrase written years ago by a civil servant for Lord Harris in the House of Lords. We have never discussed whether as a Parliament we believe that being a member of CND makes a person subversive. That was decided by the Ministry of Defence, which told Cathy Massiter to bug Bruce Kent.

Parliament debates defence policy and votes a budget for the country’s defence establishment. It does not know the budget of the security establishment. Parliament knows the Chiefs of the Defence Staff and can ask parliamentary questions about defence matters. The issue is only confused by those who say that we cannot be told about individual security operations. Of course nobody wants to know a rumour that a bomber is coming to London. We do not want a parliamentary question that leads to the Minister responsible replying, “We think that a bomber is staying at a Bayswater hotel.” That is not the point at issue. The question is whether a state within the state, employing people with no feeling of responsibility to the Government elected by the people of this country, can continue as it is.

The Government wish to conceal information because that suits their book. I dare say that all Governments will want to conceal information—[Interruption.] It is not my purpose to make a party point. I hope that hon. Members will give me some credit. I am trying to raise a matter that is of equal concern in all parts of the House and to every elector. It would not alter matters very much if my right hon. and hon. Friends were occupying the Government Benches and those of hon. Gentlemen were seated on the Opposition Benches. I am clear about that. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the record, they will find that, as a Cabinet Minister, I raised the same questions on the Labour party’s national executive and submitted a memorandum that warned of the dangers. That was 10 years ago.

When one considers that the Government sent in the police to remove the Zircon film, and the prosecutions of Tisdall and Ponting, one realises that the real conflict concerns both sides of the House and those who elect us. We have heard much about the oxygen of publicity for Sinn Fein. Democracy lives by the oxygen of information. If one cuts off the oxygen of information and releases instead the poisonous gas of secrecy, misinformation and news management, one destroys the basis on which this House safeguards our people. The House of Commons is the real guarantor of the liberties of the people, not those individuals in little offices who have their own ideas about who is subversive and who engage in bugging, blackmailing and in destroying the reputations of those whom they do not like.

Democracy’s second safeguard is conscience. There is no substitute in law, administrative action or court ruling for the person, be they man or woman, who says, “What is being done is wrong and I shall speak my mind and take the consequences.” If one removes the safeguard of conscience from people who, in the course of their work, may come across something they feel it would be in the public interest to divulge—whether one gaols them, punishes them, or makes them into public villains—they would only be doing what we told the Germans at the Nuremberg trials they should have done, which was to disregard unjust orders—[HON. MEMBERS: “No!”] Of course that is what the Nuremberg trials were all about.

Parliament must protect these principles. In many ways I share the view of the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Next week I shall have been here 38 years. I have never known a House of Commons that has been so craven in surrendering one of its rights after another—surrendering powers to the EEC, accepting 120 foreign bases, and now, in the name of security, handing over even greater powers to the Executive. If we do not stand up here and now it will be too late—

Mr Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I am approaching my last sentence.

We must make a stand here and now or we shall find that, in the name of freedom, we are surrendering our liberties.

WHO THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE? WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY? AND WHY ARE THEY IMMUNE TO LAW? 

BECAUSE ROTHSCHILD’S A JEW? AND THEREFORE, BRINGING CHARGES WOULD BE DEEMED ANTI-SEMITIC?

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

To ask the Attorney-General whether he is considering bringing any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising from the “Spycatcher” episode.

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

No, Sir.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he is not yet prosecuting Lord Rothschild?

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

My answer as to why no prosecution was being brought was given several months ago. To bring such a prosecution would not have been in conformity with the Attorney-General‘s published guidelines for prosecutors.

Mr Michael Fallon (Darlington)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that, even after yesterday’s outrage, the Opposition still do not support the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality of those who work in our security service in order to defend the country from terrorism and subversion?

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a certain ambivalence in the attitude of Opposition Members to that litigation. I venture to suggest that if we were not prepared to incur the cost of litigation to uphold the duty to which my hon. Friend has referred, the cost would very soon be more than money.

TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?

SO WHO THE HELL IS IT THAT ARE PROSECUTING US?

AN UNKNOWN, CENTRAL STATE WITHIN A STATE, SUBJECT TO NO-ONE AND SUBJECT TO NO PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY?

AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE WANTS TO DO WHAT? PROSECUTE WHO? FOR WHAT?

WHO IS PROSECUTING US?

As for this piece of absolute trash:

Sir John Morris (Aberavon)

I, too, wholeheartedly welcome the Attorney-General back to his place in the House.

What is the prime consideration in relation to prosecutions? Is it damage to national security, or is it political embarrassment? Does the Attorney-General maintain consistency in his approach to Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting and to others such as Mr. West, Mr. Pincher, Lord Rothschild and the security men who may have leaked information to those people? Has not section 2 of the Official Secrets Act been virtually put out to grass and replaced in practical terms as a damage limitation exercise by actions for breach of confidentiality?

Mr Michael Havers (Wimbledon)

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks. He used the word prosecutions, not for the first time during my questions. In fact, the proceedings in Australia are civil proceedings. There is no way in which we can prosecute under the Official Secrets Act in another country. With regard to the action in Australia, the principle has been brought out clearly today that it is the Government’s determination to establish that once a man joins a service in which he promises to keep secret for the rest of his life all that he finds, that principle should be upheld.

So you cannot prosecute in another Commonwealth country where the Queen is the Head of State? Her Majesty had her Governor General destroy the Government of Gough Whitlam in 1975!

So Her Majesty can do that but Her Majesty cannot prosecute in Australia, an individual who has broken the law relating to her Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? Didn’t we just say it is the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE?

Then if the CROWN can’t prosecute certain people then what sort of CROWN is this?

I’ll tell you what sort of CROWN it is: It is a CROWN, within which ROTHSCHILD plays a very significant part alongside his lackey Lizzie!

ORDER! ORDER!

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 14, 2011

DO NOT DARE SUGGEST OR IMPLY ANYTHING WHICH IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS AND THAT THE PUBLIC MAY DEMAND IS THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED!

But Investigated by whom? You can see clearly what the issue is – as can they – yet they refuse to allow such to be discussed. It is this “People elected (or not) to this house can do no wrong” ideology. It raises them above the law for it is not to be implied, nor discussed.

Guthrie: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; Officer of the Order of the Bitish Empire; Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order; Chief of the Defence Staff between 1997 and 2001 and Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, between 1994 and 1997; non-executive director of N M Rothschild & Sons, Colt Defense LLC, and Chairman (non-executive) of Siboney Ltd

You try working for both, a car manufacturer (as a buyer) and have a non executive directorship in a supplier to the car manufacturer who sells the latter parts. See how far you get!

We cannot allow this shit to go on! But, for some reason, we do.

You think this man made his money from being a good Military Officer?

Guthrie                                          Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour)Fundamentally, it is true that how much money we spend as a nation on defence is a big issue. We frame it in terms of a proportion of our gross domestic product or sometimes we talk about increasing expenditure in real terms. Whatever we do, there is an argument to be won with the public at large. For that reason, when we talk about the military covenant, we should think in those terms—of the public at large—rather than just in terms of the relationship between Ministers, the Government and service personnel.I want to add a mild note of criticism. People generally tend not to criticise the Royal British Legion and, on the whole, I do not either. I do think, however, that a touch of some aspects of its campaign over the military covenant has jumped into that space for criticism. It may have been done for good campaigning reasons, but it has jumped into that space where people have tended to view the campaign as a criticism of the Government. I find it slightly peculiar that the Royal British Legion put on events at party conferences, yet did not allow Ministers to speak on the grounds that it would be political. Why come to party political conferences? It seemed rather peculiar. The Royal British Legion’s campaign has largely been sound and appropriately delivered, but some aspects in the margins should be thought about again more critically before it launches into its next big campaign on whatever subject.Guthrie

Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour:

I would now like to say a few words about what I believe to have been disgraceful behaviour in the other place, which was co-ordinated and organised by the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. These are people who want to put themselves above politics, yet they will quite happily stand at the launch of a perfectly legitimate “Way Forward” Tory party document. I realise that Conservative Way Forward is more a Tory think-tank than an official party document, but it is preposterous in the extreme to think that former chiefs of staff can write a foreword to a political pamphlet and then try to pretend that they are above politics. That is a farce. Frankly, although I realise that they have a great deal to contribute—they are enormously talented and capable officers—if they want to put their political cards on the table, let them do it, but let us not shilly-shally about what their political sentiments are.

BlackBerrys are a miracle. I think I am right in saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am allowed to get some data on my BlackBerry as I am sitting here. I say that because this may not be a complete list. I do not think that General Guthrie mentioned the fact that he was a paid director of Colt Defence, Siboney Ltd, Sciens Capital, and Rothschild; or that Field Marshall Inge mentioned that he was a paid director of Aegis, which clearly has interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Sir Evelyn Rothschild

They are excellent companies, by the way, and I know that they will be very excited and pleased to see themselves referred to in this place today. Lord Boyce is a paid director of WS Atkins and of Vosper Thornycroft. I may be wrong, as I have just had a quick perusal of the Hansard from the other place. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the rules are and I doubt whether they have broken any of them. However, I will say that former chiefs of staff are probably earning more from their directorships than paid Members of this House and that if they do not want to declare those directorships and if they want to get politicised and personalised—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker)

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is one thing to refer to the qualifications and interests of Members of the other House, but he must be careful not to imply anything else when he makes these remarks.

Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour)

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that if they want to become personalised and politicised and to earn lots of money from interests that they do not declare before they make a speech, that will enormously devalue how they are perceived. That would be a great pity, as it would devalue their advice and their comments, which would be highly regrettable.

Hansard Text and video

Just have the balls to say it Eric: They’re on the take!

Come on folks. Stop letting these bastards take the piss out of you all. Make your voices heard.

Climate Change: Lord Rothschild will make it all go away!

Posted in "Climate Change" by earthling on December 14, 2011

DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD, IF SCOTLAND, ENGLAND, IRELAND AND WALES, SELL ALL OUR NATIONAL ASSETS TO YOU FOR YOUR EXPLOITATION AND CONTROL, WILL YOU PLEASE ENSURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOES NOT EFFECT THE BRITISH ISLES?

Jacob: YES MY SON.

Is Alex Salmond your man?

Jacob: YES MY SON.

 

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat)

Needless to say, I am delighted to participate in the debate, which highlights the success of the Lib Dem-led campaign to save our forests. Roseanna Cunningham showed excellent timing when she announced the U-turn on the morning of the upbeat Lib Dem conference, so I thank her for that.

As Sarah Boyack was correct to say, it is time to move on, and the Liberal Democrat amendment does so constructively. What we witnessed in the past few months was not about new inventive ideas to tackle climate change or being creative, although those terms were drummed into us; rather, a brazen and reckless attempt was made to undermine one of Scotland’s most valuable assets by selling it off to the highest bidder.

Throughout the discussion, the Government resorted to petty personalised attacks on the Liberal Democrat campaign and treated industry, individuals and organisations—indeed, anyone who disagreed with its so-called great proposal—with contempt. Mike Russell even accused others of being theatrical. Such an attitude from a minister is shocking and, considering the potential impacts of leasing on Scotland and the scale of what was proposed, it was sheer arrogance to assume that the proposal could be pushed through Parliament by piggybacking on the simplistic idea that it would solve all our climate change problems.

Throughout the debate in January, Mr Russell accused the Liberal Democrat contribution and response to the consultation of being “fact free”. He said:

“There is nothing so dishonourable as politicians who don’t do their homework while confidently trotting out wildly inaccurate statements for political benefit.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14498.]

In fact, the Liberal Democrat response has proven to be entirely accurate and has reflected the views of land-based organisations, tourism providers, foresters and wood processors at every stage. Those businesses have been in serious limbo since last November and, in January, 19 of the main wood processors sent the minister a letter stating exactly that. That limbo was due to the Government’s mad proposal and to the Tories, who did not stand up against it initially and made their U-turn only after their Scottish National Party masters. Mike Russell ignored everyone, decried their expertise and passed them off as scaremongers who did not do their homework—what arrogance and ignorance.

Throughout the debate, references were made to the Stern report, but nowhere in that document did Lord Stern conclude that 100,000 hectares of Scotland’s most commercially viable forests should be sold to the Rothschild banking group for a notional sum of up to £200 million for 75 years. In that same debate, Mike Russell pronounced in prophetic fashion:

“Although leasing is not a new idea, I believe that its time has come.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14497.]

Its time had come—its time to be buried with all the SNP’s other misguided flights of fancy.

Who would have thought that, within a month, Mr Russell would be removed from his minister’s position, obviously for flogging that dead horse? I welcome the new minister’s U-turn, even though Ms Cunningham had thought the leasing proposal a “cunning plan” in January. I am sincerely relieved that sense has prevailed: the decision has removed the guillotine of uncertainty that was hanging over rural communities, which can now invest for the future.

It is now time to move on. We have an opportunity to implement, under the Forestry Commission’s stewardship, sensible measures that will generate income for renewables, access, tourism and new tree planting and will guarantee the wood supply for our businesses. The Government should now concentrate on doing its best for Scotland through real and tangible measures to tackle climate change.

I move amendment S3M-3727.4, to insert at end:

“and further calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a comprehensive sustainable land-use strategy, taking into account the strategic economic, social and environmental impacts and benefits of forestry, agriculture, recreation and other land uses and setting out, where appropriate, the contribution each can make in dealing with the consequences of climate change.”

The Rothschild-Disraeli Jewish pact.

Posted in Political History, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 10, 2011

Two jews who set the course of corrupt British Government from the mid 1800s until we arrive at David Cameron, Gideon Osbourne and a Rothschild yacht experience with Mandy the Rothschild!

ROTHSCHILD

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (22 November 1808 – 3 June 1879) was a British banker and politician.

The son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Hanna Barent Cohen, he was a member of the prominent Rothschild family.

Baron Lionel de Rothschild and his family had “contributed during the Irish famine of 1847 … a sum far beyond the joint contributions of the Devonshires, and Herefords, Lansdownes, Fitzwilliams and Herberts, who annually drew so many times that amount from their Irish estates.”

In 1847 Lionel de Rothschild was first elected to the British House of Commons as one of four MPs for the City of London constituency. Jews were at that point still barred from sitting in the chamber due to the Christian oath required to be sworn in so Prime Minister Lord John Russell introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to remove the problem with the oath. In 1848, the bill was approved by the House of Commons but was twice rejected by the House of Lords. After being rejected again by the Upper House in 1849, Rothschild resigned his seat and stood again winning in a by-election in order to strengthen his claim.

In 1850, he entered the House of Commons to take his seat but refused to swear on a Christian Bible asking to use only the Old Testament. This was permitted but when omitting the words “upon the true faith of a Christian” from the oath he was required to leave.

In 1851 a new Jewish Disabilities Bill was defeated in the House of Lords. In the 1852 general election Rothschild was again elected but the next year the bill was again defeated in the upper house.

Finally, in 1858, the House of Lords agreed to a proposal to allow each house to decide its own oath. On 26 July 1858 de Rothschild took the oath with covered head, substituting “so help me, [using a Hebrew word for] God” for the ordinary form of oath, and thereupon took his seat as the first Jewish member of Parliament. He was re-elected in general elections in 1859 and 1865, but defeated in 1868; he was returned unopposed in a by-election in 1869 but defeated a second time in the general election in 1874.

Rothschild was proposed as a member of the House of Lords in 1868, but Queen Victoria refused to elevate him to this status. She denied that this was because Rothschild was a Jew. Instead the monarch claimed it was because of Rothschild’s business activities, but few believed her. In 1885 the Queen did raise Rothschild’s son Nathan to the peerage. Nathan Mayer de Rothschild became the first Jewish member of the House of Lords.

In 1836, Lionel de Rothschild married Baroness Charlotte von Rothschild (1819-1884), the daughter of Baron Carl Mayer Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of Naples. They had the following children:

1.Leonora (1837-1911)

2.Evelina (1839-1866)

3.Nathan Mayer (1840-1915)

4.Alfred Charles (1842-1918)

5.Leopold (1845-1917)

Nice incestuous relationship there then!

 

Lionel de Rothschild died in 1879 and his body was interred in the Willesden Jewish Cemetery in the North London suburb of Willesden.

 

OATHS OF JEWISH MEMBERS—BARON DE ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

 

HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc396-437396

§ On the Clerk proceeding to read the Order of the Day for resuming the Ad- 397 journed Debate on Sir R. Inglis’s Motion, with reference to the request of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild to be sworn on the Old Testament,

§MR. HENLEY said:  Before the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate is read, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask you this question—whether, to give a proper locus standi for the discussion of the important question which is about to be raised by the Amendment put upon the notices by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, it would not be expedient that some further question should be put

Baron Lionel De Rothschild being presented to the House of Commons

to Baron de Rothschild, one of the hon. Members for the city of London, in order to get upon the records of the House the fact that to take the oath in the way he has requested—the only answer he has yet made being, that he requests to be sworn upon the Old Testament—is binding upon his conscience, and the reason why he requires so to take it?

oaths-of-jewish-members-baron-de#S3V0113P0_18500729_HOC_30

It is as clear as daylight then, that Rothschild did NOT accept that the Christian and Jewish “God” is one and the same. IF he had argued that religion had no place in politics and that he would not swear on ANY “Holy Book” then that would present a different (and, perhaps, even acceptable) picture. But no, Rothschild demanded (and he eventually got) to swear upon the Old Testament (The “Torah”) and even IF so “binding upon his conscience”, it is clear that one’s conscience must be dealt with differently in the two books. This is unarguable logic. The question is: What IS this difference? Could it POSSIBLY include the following:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

 

 

D’ISRAELI

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS, (21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was a British Prime Minister, parliamentarian, Conservative statesman and literary figure. Starting from comparatively humble origins, he served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Although his father had him baptised to Anglicanism at age 12, he was nonetheless Britain’s first and thus far only Prime Minister who was born into a Jewish family—originally from Italy. He played an instrumental role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party after the Corn Laws schism of 1846.

Disraeli’s biographers believe he was descended from Italian Sephardic Jews. He claimed Portuguese ancestry, possibly referring to an earlier origin of his family heritage in Iberia prior to the expulsion of Jews in 1492. After this event many Jews emigrated, in two waves; some fled to the Muslim lands of the Ottoman Empire, but many also went to Christian Europe, first to northern Italy, then to the Netherlands, and later to England. One modern historian has seen him as essentially a marrano.

Disraeli turned towards literature after a personal financial disaster, motivated in part by a desperate need for money, and brought out his first novel, “Vivian Grey”, in 1826. Disraeli’s biographers agree that Vivian Grey was a thinly veiled re-telling of the affair of “The Representative” (a plagiarist then), and it proved very popular on its release, although it also caused much offence within the Tory literary world when Disraeli’s authorship was discovered. The book, initially anonymous, was purportedly written by a “man of fashion”, perhaps Ross M. Brown – someone who moved in high society. Disraeli, then just twenty-three, did not move in high society, and the numerous solecisms present in his otherwise brilliant and daring work made this painfully obvious. Reviewers were sharply critical on these grounds of both the author and the book. Furthermore, John Murray believed that Disraeli had caricatured him and abused his confidence–an accusation denied at the time, and by the official biography, although subsequent biographers (notably Blake) have sided with Murray.

Wyndham Lewis (7 October 1780 – 14 March 1838) was a British politician and a close associate of Benjamin Disraeli. Lewis married Mary Anne, daughter of John Evans, in 1816. They had no children. He died in March 1838, in London’s Mayfair, aged 57. His widow married Benjamin Disraeli in 1839 and was created Viscountess Beaconsfield in 1868.

So 1 year after his death, Benjamin Disraeli marries his widow? While Lewis was a close associate of Disraeli?….. Nice!

In 1839 he settled his private life by marrying Mary Anne Lewis, the rich widow of Wyndham Lewis, Disraeli’s erstwhile colleague at Maidstone. Mary Lewis was 12 years his senior, and their union was seen as being based on financial interests, but they came to cherish one another.

In 1847 a small political crisis occurred which removed Bentinck from the leadership and highlighted Disraeli’s differences with his own party. In the preceding general election, Lionel de Rothschild had been returned for the City of London. Ever since Catholic Emancipation, members of parliament were required to swear the oath “on the true faith of a Christian.” Rothschild, an unconverted Jew, could not do so and therefore could not take his seat. Lord John Russell, the Whig leader who had succeeded Peel as Prime Minister and like Rothschild a member for the City of London, introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to amend the oath and permit Jews to enter Parliament.

Disraeli spoke in favour of the measure, arguing that Christianity was “completed Judaism,” and asking of the House of Commons “Where is your Christianity if you do not believe in their Judaism?” While Disraeli did not argue that the Jews did the Christians a favour by killing Christ, as he had in Tancred and would in Lord George Bentinck, his speech was badly received by his own party, which along with the Anglican establishment was hostile to the bill. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and a friend of Disraeli’s, spoke strongly against the measure and implied that Russell was paying off the Jews for “helping” elect him. Every member of the future protectionist cabinet then in parliament (except Disraeli) voted against the measure. One member who was not, Lord John Manners, stood against Rothschild when the latter re-submitted himself for election in 1849. Bentinck, then still Conservative leader in the Commons, joined Disraeli in speaking and voting for the bill, although his own speech was a standard one of toleration.

In 1852, the primary responsibility of a mid-Victorian chancellor was to produce a Budget for the coming fiscal year. Disraeli, as Chancellor, proposed to reduce taxes on malt and tea (indirect taxation); additional revenue would come from an increase in the house tax. More controversially, Disraeli also proposed to alter the workings of the income tax (direct taxation) by “differentiating”–i.e., different rates would be levied on different types of income.

The establishment of the income tax on a permanent basis had been the subject of much inter-party discussion since the fall of Peel’s ministry in June of 1846. Since that time, no consensus had been yet been reached, and Disraeli was criticised for mixing up details over the different “schedules” of income. Disraeli’s proposal to extend the tax to Ireland gained him further enemies, and he was also hampered by an unexpected increase in defence expenditure, which was forced on him by Derby and Sir John Pakington (Secretary of State for War and the Colonies) (leading to his celebrated remark to John Bright about the “damned defences”). This, combined with bad timing and perceived inexperience led to the failure of the Budget and consequently the fall of the government on 17 December 1852.

With the fall of the government, Disraeli and the Conservatives returned to the opposition benches.

 

NEW WRIT FOR LONDON.

HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc162-82162

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that yesterday he took the liberty of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, under the provisions of what was commonly called “the Contractors’ Act,” Baron Rothschild had not vacated his seat for the City of London, by having entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service, and whether, consequently, a new writ ought not to issue for the City of London? His hon. and learned Friend then answered that, if the question were put to the House, not in a speculative, but in a practical form, he would give his 163 opinion upon it. He now rose for the purpose of bringing the matter before the House in a practical form, and he had, therefore, put a Motion to that effect on the paper. He might have moved that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, but that would have been a sneaking and cowardly course, entertaining as he did a strong conviction that, according to the common sense and literal construction of the Act of Parliament, Baron Rothschild had vacated his seat. The House would recollect when the Act in question passed, and the purposes for which it was designed. The Act passed in 1782, and was brought forward with the avowed object of promoting the freedom and independence of Parliament. When the Rockingham Administration came into office they took up that Bill, which had been before Parliament for two or three years, and gave it their warmest support on the principle that the House of Commons was getting day by day more corrupt and the people of this country were becoming more dissatisfied with it. He would not insult the memory of the Rockingham Administration by calling them “Administrative Reformers.” They were something more, for they were Parliamentary Reformers. They struck at the root of the evil, for they said that, if there were corruption in the State, it must be the fault of the House of Commons, and so far as they could remove that blot they would do it by reforming the House itself. That Administration contained among its Members Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Dunning, who had previously moved the well-known Resolution, that the power and influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He should show by the Act itself, and by the debates upon it, that it was the intention of those who framed the Act, and of the Parliament that passed it, that contractors of Government loans should vacate their seats in Parliament, and he contended that the case of Baron Rothschild came clearly within its meaning. The heading of the contract was— ‘The contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty’s Government, on or about the 20th day of April last, for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service.’ Now, the preamble of the Act said— ‘For further securing the freedom and independence of Parliament, be it enacted by 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 164 assembled, and by the authority Of the same, that, from and after the end of this present session of Parliament, any person who shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any person whatsoever in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement, or commission, made or entered into with, under, or from the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, or of the Navy or Victualling Office, or with the Master General or Board of Ordnance, or with any one or more of such Commissioners, or with any other person or persons whatsoever, for or on account of the public service; or shall knowingly and willingly furnish or provide, in pursuance of any such agreement, contract, or commission, which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad, or any wares or merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public, shall be incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons, during the time that he shall execute, hold, or enjoy any such contract, agreement, or commission, or any part or share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same.’ The Act also went on to say— ‘And if any person, disabled and declared incapable by this Act to be elected, shall, after the end of this present Session of Parliament, presume to sit or vote as a Member of the House of Commons, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of 500l. for every day in which he shall sit or vote in the said House to any person or persons who shall sue for, the same in any of His Majesty’s courts at Westminster.’ It was contended by some that Baron Rothschild, not being ineligible by reason of this contract at the time of his election, had not incurred the penalties of the Act, and that, because for other reasons he had not sat or voted in that House, he had not forfeited his seat on that account. But he apprehended that there were very few hon. Members who would maintain that opinion, because, supposing for an instant that fifty or sixty Members held contracts with the Government for twelve months’ duration, would the House say that they had not forfeited their seats because for that period they might abstain from sitting or voting in the House? The case of the Jewish question was a very different one. The hon. Member was incapable of sitting or voting in that House because he could not use the words “on the true faith of a Christian,” and in that case the House was not justified in issuing a writ. But the hon. Member stood in a very different position as a contractor. It was alleged by some that hon. Members might contract for money, although they could not enter into contracts with the Government for ships or provisions. When the Bill was 165 under discussion, it was at first proposed that contracts for loans should be excepted, but if hon. Members referred to the debates they would find that that proposal was scouted by the House. Mr. Fox said, he rejoiced to see that a new sprit of government seemed to be rising, and that a period was approaching when corruption would be banished from the Senate; and those who had the management of public affairs might safely trust to the merits of their measures for support, without having recourse to corruption. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not know whether the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) would be disposed to indorse that opinion. Mr. Fox moved that the exception in the Bill should be withdrawn, and that no contractor whatever should have a seat in Parliament. It was also contended that contracts for money were more dangerous than any other species of contract. The exception was withdrawn upon the understanding that a special Bill should be brought in for the purpose. No Bill, however, was brought in for the purpose, and the only Bill bearing at all upon the subject confirmed the view which he had now stated—the 48 Geo. III., chap. 1, wherein persons were exempted from losing their seats who entered into any contract with the Government for Exchequer Bills on behalf of the Bank of England. If they entered into such contracts on their own behalf, they were not exempted; so it was quite clear that Parliament, with its eyes open, had intended by the 22 Geo. III., chap. 45, that no contractors whatever should sit in Parliament. He could not possibly understand how there could be any doubt upon the subject, and, as Baron Rothschild by other circumstances had been prevented from sitting and voting in the House, he had incurred no penalties, and so far the loss to him would not be, and ought not to be, very great. He particularly wished it to be understood that he made this Motion entirely upon public grounds, and without any reference whatever to the Jewish question. For eight Sessions Baron Rothschild had been nominally a Member of the House of Commons, but the question of Jewish emancipation did not seem to have been much advanced thereby. A short time since he asked Her Majesty’s Government whether it was their intention to introduce a measure in the present Session for the removal of Jewish disabilities, and the answer he received was, that they had no such intention. The noble Lord the 166 Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had since addressed a letter to some of his constituents, in which he told them fairly it was a hopeless case, in consequence of the decisions which had been come to in the House of Lords, and he believed the noble Lord was perfectly right in forming that estimate of the position of the question. He believed the prejudice elsewhere was so great, and the indifference of the public out of doors was also so great, that during the present generation, at least, there was not the remotest chance of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion sitting in that House, so long as the House of Lords had any voice in the matter. Therefore Baron Rothschild had been thus long disabled, and the citizens of London had been deprived of their fourth Member. If three Members were quite enough for the City of London, let the House be told so, and let them give that Member to some other place. But this very disablement of Baron Rothschild had relieved him from any penalties with regard to this contract. What he said was, that from the moment a Member entered into a contract with the Government, not only was he disabled from sitting and voting, but his seat became vacant. He should be extremely glad to hear the opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen upon this subject, but he contended that, according to the honest and fair interpretation of the Act, it was quite clear there was a vacancy in the City of London at the present moment, and would so continue, as far as regarded Baron Rothschild, until the 18th of December next, when the contract ceased. Under these circumstances, therefore, ought not the House to issue a new writ? They did not want any peddling or quibbling opinions. He knew lawyers could make that opaque which was clear to all minds but their own, but he hoped that would not be the case on this occasion, and he appealed to the House to restore to the citizens of London the power of electing a forth representative by agreeing to the Motion he now proposed, that the Speaker be instructed to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the City of London.

MR. MILNER GIBSON  Sir, my difficulty is to make up my mind whether the disqualifying clauses are to stop with Baron Rothschild. He has admitted a great number of persons, possibly Members of this House, to have shares of this loan, to enjoy what the Act calls the “profits, benefits, and emoluments arising from the same.” Now, all these Members enjoy the “profits, benefits, and emoluments” arising from the loan, and, if I have taken a correct view of this Act, they are in jeopardy as well as Baron Rothschild, and it would be competent for him or any other hon. Member, if the House at once agrees 174 to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to find out some hon. Member upon this list and take the House by surprise to-morrow evening, and move that a new writ be issued for the borough or county which he represents. We must therefore be cautious in this matter. For myself, I confess I have no particular knowledge of the law. I have read the Act, and I understand from it that any person who enjoys any benefit arising from the loan, either directly by having contracted himself, or indirectly through another, is equally affected.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL  said, he wished the House to observe that it was dealing with a Statute which had not been enforced or applied for a long space of years. It was reasonable to suspect, therefore, some impediment or obstacle in the way of its application. If any Gentleman were bold enough to pledge himself to the opinion that the law had not been affected by any of our legislation subsequent to 1782, he might be competent to pronounce upon this question at once; but he (the Solicitor General) could not be so confident.

So, it becomes abundantly clear by this stage in the proceedings, that while there had been a long standing ACT (Law) regarding any “Contractors” (individuals loaning the government money) then being disallowed to hold a seat in the House as an MP or Lord, a vast number of them had done it with impunity. They broke the law! But it didn’t matter because it’s a BOYS CLUB. But then Rothschild comes along and he loans the government and they don’t like that (some of them at least). While Rothschild had not only, himself, provided the money but he ensured he had many other members involved which would make them speak for him AND it would make it far more difficult for the Parliament to act otherwise they’d be dismissing a great number of people – some very powerful no doubt. Furthermore, that would send a message to the public saying “We’re corrupt as hell”. Just like today!

Now THIS section is quite literally incredible. Benjamin D’Israeli, attempts to provide “cover” for Rothschild. Hard to believe he got away with this:

MR. DISRAELI  said, it appeared to him that a subject of this nature should be considered with great calmness, and that the House should not rashly adopt any course upon it without due deliberation. Now, what he felt was that they wanted that distinct proof which should be in the possession of the House, and which could be easily obtained, before they could come to a decision on a question of such consequenee. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that there could be no doubt that Baron Lionel de Rothschild had contracted with Her Majesty’s Government, and then he took up a contract, and pointed to it as containing that proof. But he (Mr. Disraeli) was not satisfied on this point; for if that was the only proof that the hon. Member for the City of London had entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government, the evidence was very imperfect, as the contract bore not the signature of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, but of N. M. Rothschild and Sons.

So D’Israeli argues that, because the contract did not have the Baron De Rothschild’s personal signature on it, it could not be considered a loan from Rothschild to the government EVEN THOUGH it was “N.M Rothschild & Sons”. In-Fing-credible! So perhaps it had a Rothschild stamp or perhaps it was signed by an officer of the company. The fact is ROTHSCHILD OWNED THE FCUKING COMPANY! It’s like suggesting every loan Goldman Sachs makes is signed by Lloyd Blankfein (and even then, Blankfein is just the CEO!).

This was OUTRAGEOUS “chutzpah” by D’Israeli. You can bet he was in on it.

Remember 16Million was one shitload of money back then! It was the equivalent of £billions today!

Also remember that Rothschild was the Trustee of D’Israeli’s Last will and Testament! So let’s just say they were “good friends”.

Now consider THIS little exchange:

 

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  said, that, as the Motion now stood, it stated that the contract had been entered into by Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, though there was nothing on the face of the contract to show that such was the case.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild did not in his presence sign this contract.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  I think the question just put to me is a proof of the inconvenience of discussing this question in its present form. I did not mean to state that it was not Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild who had virtually entered into this contract with the Government, but my remark merely applied to the wording of the Motion which states Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild entered into the contract with the Government, of which there was no evidence on the face of the contract.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  But that is no answer to my question. I put a direct and straightforward question, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel de Rothschild did not in his presence sign the contract in question.

§MR. DISRAELI  said, he objected to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbary, which, if it were sanctioned, would place it in the power of a Minister who wished to turn a Member out of his seat to get up and put a question, having previously agreed upon the answer which would be given by one of his supporters, and they all knew how ardent a supporter of the Government was the hon. Member 182 for Finsbury. The question put by him was most unconstitutional, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be justified in answering.

new-writ-for-london#S3V0139P0_18550626_HOC_52

At this point in time (1855) D’Israeli and the Conservatives were in opposition.

Disraeli was accused by William Ewart Gladstone of undermining Britain’s constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschilds.

William Gladstone

Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament’s consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.

Here are some exchanges in Parliament during that time. Make of them what you wish. I know what I make of them: Utter pish!

 

QUESTION.

HC Deb 28 February 1876 vol 227 cc1019-201019

§MR. BIGGAR  asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, or not, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the proposed payment to Messrs. Rothschild, one of which firm being also a Member of this House, of a commission of 2½ per cent. on the amount of the Suez Canal Purchase, brings the said Member within the provisions of the Act 22 Geo. 3, c. 45; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take on the subject?

§MR. DISRAELI  Sir, it does not appear to me that this Question ought to be addressed to Her Majesty’s Government, and I may say further, that on referring to the statute which the hon. Member has mentioned, I am doubtful whether it ought even to be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown. I read in that statute that which indicates that it is a question neither for the Government nor for the Law Officers, but one for Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. It says that any Member of this House offending under the circumstances referred to shall forfeit the sum of £500 for every day on which he sits or votes in this House to any person who shall sue for the same in any of Her Majesty’s Courts at Westminster. In these circumstances, as it appears to be open to any of Her Majesty’s subjects to sue for that penalty, I think it is not for the Government or for the Law Officers of the Crown to give any information 1020 on the subject, but for those who are directly interested in the question.

§SIR NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD  Sir, I hope the House will allow me to make a personal statement on this matter. I feel it my duty to declare that I am not a partner in the house of which my father is the head, either in London or Paris. I have no doubt that the House will accept that statement from me; but, if it is necessary, I am authorized by my father to say that the deed of partnership of the firm of Rothschild, both in London and on the Continent, can be inspected by any one whom this House may choose to appoint.

question#S3V0227P0_18760228_HOC_7

And this concerning the detail (and complete obfuscation) of the payment:

 

RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 21 February 1876 vol 227 cc562-661562

§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ Question again proposed, ‘That a sum, not exceeding £4,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to enable Her Majesty 563 to pay the Purchase Money of the Shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal, and the Expenses attendant thereon, which will come in course of payment during-the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876?’’

§MR. LOWE, in resuming the adjourned debate, remarked that the first question to be settled was, oddly enough, the nature of the transaction they were about to discuss. The matter might be thought to be perfectly clear, but there was really an amount of doubt about it which it was desirable to dispel, and which he would endeavour to explain. On the first night of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said— ‘We asked the house of Rothschild to purchase those shares on our engagement to ask the House of Commons to take them off their hands. It was a great risk.’ Now, if that were really the question which the House had to consider there would be a very great probability that the House, having carefully considered the matter, would think that that was a transaction which it was not called upon necessarily to ratify at all; because the house of Rothschild having made the purchase only on the faith that the Government would recommend the House of Commons to take the purchase off their hands, no money would have passed, and it would have been open to the House of Commons to consider the whole question as if no pledge had been given. But that was not the case, he was sorry to say. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in his statement, though the real facts of the case were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Properly speaking, the question was not of our taking the shares off Messrs. Rothschild’s hands, but of our having purchased the shares and borrowed money from Messrs. Rothschild to pay for them. That was a simple description of the transaction, and disposed of the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury on the first night of the Session, made no doubt from the erroneous view that no money had passed. So far from no money having passed, the fact was that £4,000,000 had been lent to the English Government on the faith that they would apply to Parliament for repayment, and that was an extremely different question from the question whether we were not bound to 564 take upon ourselves the purchase made by other persons even under the recommendation of the Government. Nor was it therefore true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was a great risk, because when money had been borrowed on behalf of the English Government—when they had had the money and actually spent it—the House of Commons would not be likely to say—” We have had the money and will not repay it.” This point, as the Committee would see, was not an unimportant one. He had now, singularly enough, to charge the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with inaccuracy—a circumstance so unlikely that it would require the strongest proof. In this case, however, he did not think there was any room for doubt. The right hon. Gentleman had moved for a Vote of £4,080,000, and that Vote was made up in this way—there was £3,976,582, the purchase money of the shares, and there was £99,414 for the commission of 2½ per cent to Messrs. Rothschild. Then there was about £4,000 for small expenses; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid these sums before the House as being the whole cost of the shares. So far, however, from that being the whole cost, the fact was that there had to be added a sum of £37,000; and for this reason, that the Messrs. Rothschild were not only to receive a commission of 2½per cent on the amount of the purchase, but were also to charge interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the £4,000,000 until the date of repayment. There was the difficulty. No doubt there was some misunderstanding here, for there were two accounts of what was to be done—one contained in the Treasury Minute, and the other in a letter written by Messrs. Rothschild themselves. In the Treasury Minute it was distinctly stated that the Messrs. Rothschild were to charge a commission of 21 per cent on the £4,000,000 which they undertook to provide, and also that they were to receive the interest of 5 per cent from the Khedive upon the amount advanced from the date of the advance until the date of repayment of such advance by Her Majesty’s Government. On the other hand, the Messrs. Rothschild, having been asked by the Secretary to the Treasury to state their terms in writing, gave a very different version of the affair. They write— 565‘It is also understood that we are to charge Her Majesty’s Government a commission of 2½ per cent upon the £4,000,000, and 5 per cent interest per annum until the date of repayment.’ So that it appeared from the Treasury Minute that this was to be paid by the Khedive, whereas according to Messrs. Rothschild’a Minute it was to be paid by the Government. Now, if it was worth while to write to Messrs. Rothschild to ask them to put their contract in form, one would have thought that it would have been worth while to ascertain who was right and who was wrong. That, however, did not appear to have been done, and so the matter remained in its present state. There was, however, no doubt about it. Of course Messrs. Rothschild’s letter was what they would be bound by and not the Treasury Minute, and it was the duty of the Government to pay them this 5 per cent, and they ought not to look for it from the Khedive. Of course, if the Khedive did pay it, it would really be we who would pay it all the same, because it would be intercepting money that was to come to us from the Khedive. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government to have made this sum for interest, whatever it happened to be, part of the Vote.

resolution-adjourned-debate#S3V0227P0_18760221_HOC_55

ONLY 135 years ago. That is like yesterday in terms of how this all works:

 

Lies, damned lies and corruption and it exists to this very day in another Conservative “BRITISH CHRISTIAN WITH JEWISH VALUES” Prime Minister and his sidekick, Gideon.

"Having jewish values are great Gideon, just keep well away from yachts would you? The public might just catch on!"

 “I worked for a prominent Jewish business leader for seven-and-a-half years, Michael Green… and in my downstairs loo, you’d see the proud gift I received after speaking at the 350th anniversary dinner, [a print] of Benjamin Disraeli’s house”

david-cameron-my-values-are-yours

So PLEASE, do not suggest, and try to dismiss the facts, that history from 135 years ago has no bearing on the present. The Rothschilds have been at the core of almost every privatisation and major British government policy ever since. Just do the reading to find out!

It is interesting to note that Gladstone once sent a letter to D’Israeli, the latter asking Gladstone to join the new government, where Gladstone states the following:

“I state these points fearlessly and without reserve, for you have yourself well reminded me that there is a Power beyond us that disposes of what we are and do, and I find the limits of choice in public life to be very narrow”.—W. E. Gladstone to Disraeli, 1858

What I find interesting about it is that, while one can consider that Gladstone is speaking of “God” as the “power beyond us”, he then goes on to state that the LIMITS in public life are “very narrow”. I just wonder who/what could possibly be imposing those limits?

Although born of Jewish parents, Disraeli was baptised in the Christian faith at the age of twelve, and remained an observant Anglican for the rest of his life. Adam Kirsch, in his biography of Disraeli, states that his Jewishness was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Much of the criticism of his policies was couched in anti-Semitic terms. He was depicted in some antisemitic political cartoons with a big nose and curly black hair, called “Shylock” and “abominable Jew,” and portrayed in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia. In response to an anti-Semitic comment made by Daniel O’Connell in the British parliament, Disraeli memorably defended his Jewishness with the statement, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon.” One apocryphal story states that Disraeli reconverted to Judaism on his deathbed.

 

Judaism’s Redefiner

By ANTHONY JULIUS   

Benjamin_Disraeli,_1st Earl_of_Beaconsfield

Published: January 23, 2009

Benjamin Disraeli was a novelist, a statesman and a professing, practicing Christian, but to understand him one also needs to know that he was born a Jew. It was in the working out of the implications of this bare fact that his literary and political career, as well as his confessional affiliation, are to be understood. Or this, at least, is what Adam Kirsch contends in “Benjamin Disraeli,” his contribution to the “Jewish Encounters” series. “Disraeli’s Jewishness,” Kirsch writes, was “the central fact about him.” It was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Does Kirsch, a contributor to The New Yorker and other publications, make good on his thesis?

For sure, he offers a rounded account of his subject. We learn that the proximate cause of Disraeli’s baptism was a quarrel his father had with his synagogue, that Disraeli himself had an incomplete education, that he was a novelist before he became a politician and was a politician for many years before he became a statesman. Kirsch acknowledges his political skills, his ability to outmaneuver his opponents (with Rothschild backing – it helps!), both by compromise and by an even greater radicalism, even his unattractive habit of identifying himself with the powerful instead of the powerless. Disraeli’s positions on the principal issues of the day are identified — his early opposition to free trade and his championing of the cause of empire, his criticism of Victorian utilitarianism and materialism, his defense of the established Church of England, his willingness to extend the franchise to defeat his liberal enemies and the eccentric grounds of his support for Jewish emancipation. All this can be obtained elsewhere, but Kirsch sets it out succinctly and authoritatively.

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

It was in relation to the first kind of anti-Semitism that Disraeli defined himself. He sought to arrive at a self-definition that made him immune from being regarded as contemptible. He invented a bogus pedigree for himself (out of Spain, from Venice) (similar to Obama’s “Hawaii” story?), and he talked up whenever he could the intellectual and social distinctions of the Jews as a whole. As part of this project, however, he inadvertently contributed to the emergence of the second kind of anti-Semitism.

Disraeli redefined Judaism as a matter of race rather than religion, and in his ­novels “Coningsby” (1844), “Sybil” (1845) and “Tancred” (1847), he celebrated occult Jewish power, always exercised behind the scenes, and always determinative. The mysterious Sidonia (who figures in all three novels), Kirsch correctly observes, “looks like nothing so much as an anti-­Semitic hate figure.” In “Coningsby,” Disraeli has Sidonia confide, “You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.” “Russian diplomacy,” he says, is “organized and principally carried on by Jews”; the “mighty revolution” that will come in Germany is “entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.” “The myth of Jewish superiority,” Kirsch writes, “which Disraeli had advanced to counter the fact of social inferiority, now interacted with the paranoid superstitions of anti-Semites to disastrous effect.”

There IS no “jewish superiority”, there is ONLY “Rothschild superiority” (in terms of financial wealth and that is all he needs).

Disraeli was himself the object of anti-Semitic attack in the late 1870s because he insisted that the British national interest lay in supporting the Ottoman Empire against its Christian minority communities. For this piece of “realist” international politics, he was abused as “a very Hebrew of Hebrews,” the “Jew Earl, Philo-Turkish Jew and Jew Premier,” and the “traitorous Jew,” the “haughty Jew” and the “abominable Jew.” He was a leader of the “Turkophile party,” its “most rabid element.” He was the premier of a “Jew government.” He was a wizard, a conjurer, a magician, an alchemist. He was a “man of the East,” an “Asiatic.” “For the past six years we have had an Asiatic ruler.” He was a “wandering Jew,” “sprung from a race of migratory Jews.” He was raised “amid a people for whose ideas and habits he has no sympathy and little respect.” He was a “sham Christian and a sham Englishman.” He was the “charioteer” of a “Juggernaut car,” dragging “the whole of Christendom” over the rights of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Most cartoons gave him an immense nose and curly black hair; he was represented as “our modern Shylock.” Many of the illustrations related him to the Devil (“the most authentic incarnation of the Evil One”). At least two portrayed him in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia, and in one of these his great adversary, the liberal politician Gladstone, is the distressed mother, arriving perhaps too late to save her child. And there was a note sounded for the first time, but to be repeated many times thereafter: the Jews want war, against the national interest.(and still do)

The anti-Semites of his day insisted that Disraeli was bogus in every respect but his identification with Jews and Judaism. A superficial reading of Kirsch’s book might conclude that its author agrees with this judgment. But that would be mistaken. First, because Kirsch shows that on the specifically political issues, Disraeli was promoting British interests, rather than anything that could be identified as a “Jewish” interest. And second, because Kirsch also demonstrates that Disraeli’s engagement with Jews and Judaism was an almost entirely literary affair. It was in his fiction, not in his political judgments, that he endeavored to counter “the myth of Jewish vulgarity and greed with an empowering myth of Jewish talent and influence.” “Disraeli’s imagination of Jewishness did what he needed it to,” Kirsch concludes. “It gave him the confidence to compete with the best-born men in England.”

Kirsch argues that the alternative career of Jewish leader was ever before Disraeli but that he did not want it. Though what Kirsch describes as “the dream” of Zionism had a “powerful allure” for Disraeli, “neither the conditions of Jewish life in Europe nor his own personality allowed Disraeli to play the role that would eventually fall to Theodor Herzl.” He imagined Judaism in ways that were psycho­logi­cally empowering, but paid little attention to the condition of actually existing Jewry. (As I keep saying, these people do not truly give a rat’s ass about average jews)

Disraeli was not a man who was easily discouraged. His strong desire to impress others led him in the unusual direction of provocativeness rather than ingratiation. He did not want to escape his English milieu, he wanted to triumph within it. He did indeed triumph, achieving everything in his life that he set out to achieve. It was an extraordinary career, one to which Kirsch, in this elegantly written book, does considerable justice.

Julius-t.html?pagewanted=2&ref=books

ALL FACT, ALL PARLIAMENTARY RECORD. BLATANT CORRUPTION, DECEPTION and LIES.

AND DAVID CAMERON CARRIES ON THOSE “VALUES” AS DID HIS PREDECESSORS BECAUSE THEY ALL BOW TO ROTHSCHILD AND HIS JEWISH MONEY!

The Queen/Crown: The quiet Dictator!

Posted in Law, Political History, Uncategorized by earthling on December 4, 2011

The Bitch of Buckingham!

An Overview Of The Whitlam Dismissal

A Vice-Regal Sacking

On Tuesday November 11th, 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Mr Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and appointed Mr Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister.

The dismissal was the most dramatic event in the history of the Australian federation. For the first time, an unelected vice-regal representative had removed from office a government which commanded a majority in the House of Representatives. (equivalent to the UK’s House of Commons)

Now, let’s consider the Governor General’s role and responsibilities/authority:

The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative in Australia at federal/national level of the Australian monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II). He or she exercises the supreme executive power of the Commonwealth. The functions and roles of the Governor-General include appointing ambassadors, ministers and judges, giving Royal Assent to legislation, issuing writs for elections and bestowing honours. The Governor-General is President of the Federal Executive Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. All these things are done and all these posts are held under the authority of the Australian Constitution. Further, the Governor-General acts as vice-regal representative to the Australian Capital Territory.

The Constitution provides that a “Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth . . .” The Constitution grants the Governor-General a wide range of powers, but in practice he or she follows the conventions of the Westminster system and (with rare exceptions) acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia or other ministers. Even in the appointment of the prime minister, the Governor-General rarely exercises any discretion, usually appointing the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties in the House of Representatives.

Interestingly, then, in the 1975 case, the Governor General DID NOT keep to convention nor the Constitution and did NOT listen to the advice of the Prime Minsister – which demonstrates what utter shit this is! They keep to convention as long as it pleases Her Majesty! Who ELSE has the power to change the way the Constitution is interpreted by a Governor General who is not meant to have such power? And neither does it fall to Garfield Barwick. These men acted upon the instruction of a higher power! A power that the British people fail and refuse to acknowledge!

A Double Dissolution election was held on December 13th, 1975, at which the Whitlam Government was soundly defeated.

The dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government was the culmination of a series of dramatic events which began in October, 1975 with the refusal by the Senate to pass the government’s budget bills.


Out of the Wilderness

The Labor Government had been elected on 2 December 1972 after 23 years of Liberal/Country Party coalition rule. The ALP slogan, “It’s Time”, seemed to capture the mood of the nation, although the ALP’s margin of victory was relatively slim.

Gough Whitlam

Whitlamwas the first of the new-style Labor leaders. He had been elected to Federal Parliament in 1952, became Deputy Leader in 1960 and Leader in 1967. He had experienced early success in a number of by-elections and had won 17 seats at the 1969 election to take Labor close to victory.

Whitlam took office determined to implement a wide-ranging program of reforms. Such was his devotion to his “program” that Whitlam and his deputy, Lance Barnard, ran a two-man government between December 5-19, 1972, after which the full ministry took office.

[So Whitlam was a reformist: Something the Monarchy just can’t allow to happen. His ideas were entirely contrary to the Constitution and, therefore, the Monarchy. He seems to have believed in government by the people for the people – far too dangerous an idea for Liz and her crew]


Gair Affair

Following an attempt by Whitlam to appoint the former leader of the Democratic Labor Party, Senator Vince Gair, as Ambassador to Ireland, the Opposition Leader, Bill Snedden, threatened to force an election by blocking Supply in the Senate. Whitlam responded by calling a double dissolution election for 18 May 1974 at which the government was returned.

[What is “blocking supply? Well it is very simple but one needs to read and understand the following:

A “Money Bill” is a Supply bill. The Hose of Lords (or, in this case, Senate) is by convention, AND by Constitution, disallowed from REJECTING a Money Bill.

In the Westminster system (and, colloquially, in the United States), a money bill or supply bill is a bill that solely concerns taxation or government spending (also known as appropriation of money), as opposed to changes in public law.

It is often a constitutional convention that the upper house (Senate or House of Lords) may not block supply. There is often another requirement that non-money bill type clauses may not be attached to a money bill.

Loss of supply in the lower house (House of Commons or House of Representatives) is conventionally considered to be an expression of the house’s loss of confidence in the government resulting in the government’s fall.

Now, bear in mind that the Gough Whitlam Government had both a majority in the House of Representatives AND the Senate! There was NO “loss of confidence” in this case whatsoever.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides that the House of Lords may not delay a money bill more than a month. It is at the discretion of the Speaker of the House of Commons to certify which bills are money bills, and his decision is final and is not subject to challenge. Section 1(2) of the Act states:

A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, the National Loans Fund or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions “taxation,” “public money,” and “loan” respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.

In Australia’s case in 1975, Fraser’s Opposition rejected supply; they merely refused to consider the Bills which meant that no vote was ever taken.

The wording of the Australian Constitution on their actions is interesting. The Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, thought that the Senate had the power to do what it did. It did not! But do you seriously believe that Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice, would not know this?  Having been briefed in many of Australia’s defining constitutional cases (e.g., the Airlines case, and the Bank Nationalisation case), he was knighted in 1953. Knighted in 1953 by Her Majesty – think about that. A Knight does NOT work against his Crown!

From Wikipedia:

“During the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, he controversially advised Governor-General Sir John Kerr on the constitutional legality of dismissing a prime minister who declined to advise an election when unable to obtain passage of supply. This was significant, because Barwick and Gough Whitlam, whose government Kerr dismissed, had a history of antipathy dating from the mid-1950s.”

Barwick’s Awards:

Garfield Barwick

In June 1953, he was made a Knight Bachelor, “in recognition of service to the Public service”.

In 1964 he was appointed a Privy Counsellor.

In January 1965 he was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG), honouring his contribution as Chief Justice of the High Court.

In June 1981 he was appointed a Knight of the Order of Australia (AK), “in recognition of service to the Australian Parliament, government and the law”.

{Meanwhile, as an aside, recognise what a bastard “the law” is when it can free 12 and murder 1:

A famous example of Barwick’s astute advocacy involved thirteen Malaysians sentenced to death who appealed to the Privy Council. Twelve retained Barwick, who duly found a technical deficiency in the arrest warrants and secured their freedom. The last, whose counsel was not so thorough, was executed.

The man was executed because he did not choose the right counsel! It’s not law, it’s how well you can argue it!}

But the wording of the Constitution on this point is very interesting. Section 53 which deals with this supposed power does say, expressly, that the Senate may not amend any proposed taxation or appropriation bills. As was his way, Barwick read this to mean that the Senate could do everything else but it could not amend the legislation.

Barwick’s reading of the Constitution is therefore at odds with what the Constitution actually says. Why would a Constitution remove a particular power from the Senate but, according to Barwick, provide it with as many practical alternatives of achieving the same end as malicious minds can invent? Who needs the power to amend if an Opposition controlled Senate can hold an elected government penniless until they agree to its amendments?

If we look at what the Australian founding fathers intended, we find that section 53 incorporates, quite succinctly, the traditional understanding of the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in respect of appropriations and taxation bills. The following passage from Wikipedia states the practice accurately:

Even before the passage of the Parliament Acts, the Commons possessed pre-eminence in cases of financial matters. By ancient custom, the House of Lords may not introduce a bill relating to taxation or supply, nor amend a bill so as to insert a provision relating to taxation or Supply, nor amend a Supply Bill in any way.

This convention, which vests the power of the purse in the popularly elected chamber, was, like the convention that the monarch only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, incorporated implicitly into the Australian Constitution by their Founding Fathers. Both conventions had been long recognised and adhered to in the United Kingdom at the time of the Constitution’s drafting. We may suppose that the conventions were so well known at the time, that it was not considered necessary by those men, that anything more than a general statement of principle was needed. It was, after all, such a reasonable and practical way of acknowledging the source of the government’s power in the people. Barwick and the Liberal Opposition thought differently. They thought differently because they were instructed to think differently in this case. The BITCH of Buckingham Palace wields her power subtly and quietly through her Knights.

Now compare with the United States:

 United States

While the United States of America is not a parliamentary democracy, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all bills raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with British constitutional practice; by convention, appropriation bills (bills that spend money) also originate in the House. Unlike in most Westminster systems, there are no limits on the Senate’s ability to amend revenue bills or any requirement for the Senate to approve such bills within a certain timeframe.

We will come back to this United States situation in a moment when we introduce Evelyn Rothschild into the equation.


Changing the Senate Numbers

Despite this, the Senate continued to frustrate the government, resulting in the first and only Joint Sitting of the Parliament, allowed for under Section 57 of the Constitution.

Following the appointment of the government’s Senate leader and Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, to the High Court bench in February 1975, the Liberal government of New South Wales, under Premier Tom Lewis, refused to follow convention and appoint a Labor replacement for Murphy in the Senate. The independent Mayor of Albury, Cleaver Bunton, was appointed instead. On his departure from parliament, Lewis was permitted by Queen Elizabeth II, on the Governor’s recommendation, to continue to use the title “The Honourable”.

Following the death of Queensland Labor Senator Bert Milliner, the Country Party Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, also refused to appoint a Labor replacement, opting instead to appoint Albert Patrick Field.

Bjeke-Petersen’s uncompromising conservatism (including his role within the downfall of the Whitlam federal government), his political longevity, and his leadership of a government that, in its later years, was revealed to be institutionally corrupt, made him one of the best-known and most controversial political figures of 20th century Australia. An ironic feature of his government was that while Premier Bjelke-Petersen relentlessly preached the maintenance of law and order as a reason to suppress political opposition, a number of senior government figures, including a Police Commissioner he appointed, were subsequently jailed for corruption.

Ma’am, you make your appointments and choose your friends well!


Now, the following is a very interesting and telling point wrt the reasons of why Whitlam was under attack by the establishment:

Overseas Loans Affair

The Loans Affair, also called the Khemlani Affair, is the name given to the political scandal involving the Whitlam Government of Australia in 1975, in which it was accused of attempting to borrow money illegally from Middle Eastern countries by bypassing standard procedure as dictated by the Australian Treasury.

Note, however, the following re the Australian Treasury:

Treasury’s independence:

Treasurer Wayne Swan has previously called Henry an independent economic regulator, similar to the governor of the Reserve Bank. When asked after the 2009 Budget about Treasury’s independence, Henry replied:

Strictly of course we’re not. The Treasury Department is a department of state. It is part of the executive government. It works to the government of the day, whatever the political persuasion of the government of the day. And so in that sense of course the Treasury is not independent from government and it can never behave as if it is independent from government. But there’s another sense in which it does have a degree of independence and that is that the Treasury conducts its analysis without government interference. It’s up to the government of the day to decide whether to accept that analysis or whether to reject that analysis.
ABC Radio, Tuesday, 19 May 2009
“Bypassing Standard procedure” then? Or just rejecting the Treasury’s analysis?

The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, Treasurer Dr. Jim Cairns, and others, were prime identities in the scandal.

The Whitlam Government attempted to raise a loan of approximately US$4 billion. The money was intended to be used to fund a number of natural resource and energy projects, including construction of a natural gas pipeline, the electrification of interstate railways and a uranium enrichment plant.

Tirath Khemlani (1920 – 1991) played a pivotal role. He was employed by Dalamal and Sons, a London-based commodity-trading firm.

The raising of foreign loans for the Australian Government at the time required the authorisation by the Loans Council. It was common knowledge that funds were usually borrowed from European banks or financiers. Connor’s attempt to secure the loan was unusual for several reasons:

  1. The size of the loan was extremely large for the time.
  2. When a project of this scale and cost is undertaken, governments often attract foreign investment and ultimately form a business partnership, whereby the foreign investor would retain partial ownership and/or rights over the resources once the project is complete. (So there is an insight as to how the bankers take control and in this case, the zionist west was not going to allow cheap Islamic money gain leverage in any shape or form in a western and commonwealth nation). However, this option was rejected by Connor who was renowned for his desire to have Australian resources controlled and owned by Australians.
  3. The Minister for Minerals and Energy was raising the loan independent of Treasury. (Can’t have that now can we?)
  4. Rather than attempting to raise the loan from US financiers, Connor attempted to raise the loan from Arab financiers, with Khemlani acting as the intermediary. There are unconfirmed reports that Arab financiers offered lower interest rates on governmental loans than US Banks/financiers. The Middle East at the time was awash with “petro-dollars”, as the price of oil quadrupled between 1973 and 1974

Connor was duly authorised to raise loans through Khemlani in late 1974. Between December 1974 and May 1975, Khemlani sent regular telexes to Connor advising that he was close to securing the loan.

However, the loan never eventuated and, in May 1975, Whitlam sought to secure the loan through a major US investment bank (name undisclosed). As part of the loan procedure, this bank imposed an obligation on the Australian Government to cease all other loan raising activities pertaining to this loan and accordingly, on 20 May 1975, Connor’s loan-raising authority was formally revoked.

A special one-day sitting of the House of Representatives was held on 9 July 1975, during which the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam tabled the documents containing evidence about the loan and sought to defend his government’s position.

Beset by economic difficulties at the time and the negative political impact which the Loans Affair conjured, the Whitlam Government was very vulnerable to further assaults on its credibility. Gough Whitlam was prompted to sack Dr. Cairns from his cabinet.

Although Rex Connor’s authority to seek an overseas loan was withdrawn following leaking of the scandal, he continued to liaise with Khemlani. The Herald Newspaper based in Melbourne published documents confirming this and Connor was forced to resign from the cabinet. He was replaced by the future Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

[Note: The Melbourne Herald was owned by Sir Keith Murdoch, father of Rupert Murdoch. The latter then took over ownership in 1987]

Rupert Murdoch: His father, Sir Keith Murdoch, owned Melbourne Herald,

The Melbourne Herald newspaper journalist Peter Game tracked down Khemlani in mid-late 1975 and following an interview, he broke the story that ultimately opened up the Loans Affair. When Connor directly denied Khemlani’s version of events, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Khemlani flew to Australia in October 1975 and provided Peter Game with telexes sent to him from Connor that refuted Connor’s denial.

On 13 October 1975, Khemlani provided a statutory declaration and a copy of the incriminating telexes sent from Connor’s office, a copy of which was forwarded to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Upon receiving the documents, Whitlam dismissed Rex Connor from his government for misleading parliament. In his letter of dismissal, date 14 October 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam wrote: “Yesterday I received from solicitors a copy of a statutory declaration signed by Mr Khemlani and copies of a number of telex messages between office Mr Khemlani’s office in London and the office of the Minister for Energy. In my judgment these messages did constitute “communications of substance” between the Minister and Mr Khemlani.”

The loans affair embarrassed the Whitlam government and exposed it to claims of impropriety. The Malcolm Fraser-led Opposition used its numbers in the Senate to block the government’s budget legislation in an attempt to force an early general election, citing the loans affair as an example of ‘extraordinary and reprehensible’ circumstances. Whitlam refused, and this led to the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

The Loans Affair was dramatised in the 1983 ABC miniseries called “The Dismissal”.

We can’t have a western government accepting “unacceptable” Islamic financing now can we? You get your loans from the Zionists and no-one else do you hear? Otherwise non-usury may just catch on in the West! So we get our Zionist press to break open the scandal and then we have our Knights in the Senate and judiciary turn the screws even in opposition to what the Constitution says because it doesn’t matter what it says as long as you do what you’ve meant to do.

After the resignation of Rex Connor in October 1975, the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, announced that the Senate would defer passage of the Supply Bills until Whitlam called an election. Whitlam refused. There followed three weeks of constitutional crisis as the parties confronted each other in Parliament and the country.


Constitutional and Political Issues

The crisis raised a number of crucial questions about Australian democracy and centred on a disagreement between Whitlam and Fraser over the rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Whitlam asserted the primacy of the House of Representatives and his right to govern so long as he retained a majority there, whereas Fraser claimed that a government denied Supply by the Senate should resign. This was a fundamental dispute about how we choose Governments. The conflict also highlighted the importance of constitutional conventions in the Australian system.


Kerr & Barwick

The Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, took an active interest in the crisis, talking to both Fraser and Whitlam at various points during the period following October 15. At one point, Fraser offered to pass Supply, provided an election was called by the middle of 1976.

It is now known that Kerr sought the advice of Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of the High Court. Barwick and Kerr met on Sunday 9 November and Barwick endorsed Kerr’s decision in writing the next day.


Remembrance Day

On November 11, 1975, Whitlam proposed calling an immediate half-Senate election, but the Governor-General rejected this advice and instead dismissed Whitlam from office. Later, Kerr issued a statement of reasons for the dismissal.

Fraser was offered a commission as caretaker Prime Minister which he accepted, and immediately sought a double dissolution election for 13 December. In the meantime, the Senate passed the Supply Bills, with the Labor senators unaware that their government had been dismissed. The House passed several motions of confidence in the Whitlam Government and instructed the Speaker, Gordon Scholes, to relay this to Kerr. The Governor-General refused to see the Speaker until after he had dissolved the Parliament. Scholes subsequently wrote to the Queen and received a letter in which the Queen indicated there was no place for her involvement in an Australian political conflict.

The Bitch of Buckingham Palace suggests she has no involvement while the letter is written to her because the people writing it KNOW it is HER government and HER Constitution! But she can’t be recognised for what she truly is now can she? Yet it is all so obvious to a 10 year old child!

At the ensuing election, Fraser’s conservative coalition was resoundingly elected.


Aftermath

The dismissal remains a controversial subject in Australian history. It is central to any understanding of the current debate about becoming a republic. The constitutional and political effects of the Dismissal remain of importance to anyone interested in Australian politics. OR ANY POLITICS WHERE THE BITCH IS INVOLVED!

The main players in the Dismissal have experienced different fates. Sir John Kerr’s Australia Day Address on 26 January 1976 belied the crisis about to beset him. After a drunken performance at the 1977 Melbourne Cup winner’s presentation, he was forced by public outrage to relinquish an appointment as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. He lived in England for some years and died on 7 April 1991. Even in death, he remained controversial, the parliamentary condolences provoking a spirited intervention from Paul Keating.

Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister for seven and a quarter years, before losing an early election in 1983. Ostracised by many in the Liberal Party during the 1980s for failing to capitalise on his majorities in both houses of parliament, he was rehabilitated in the public mind during the 1990s. He campaigned against racism and media monopolies, supported an Australian republic and acted as Chairman of Care Australia. HOW IRONIC THAT FRASER THEN WENT ON TO SUPPORT A REPUBLIC!

Gough Whitlam retired from Parliament in 1978, following another massive election defeat in 1977. Ironically, he was appointed by the Hawke government as Ambassador to UNESCO in the early 1980s. When he turned 80, even Prime Minister John Howard issued a congratulatory press release.

Whitlam published an account of his years in office in 1985, calling it simply “The Whitlam Government”. Named a “living national treasure” in 1997, “Abiding Interests” is a recent publication.

Now, back to the US Senate and it’s Constitutional place.

The US Senate is filled with Lawyers top to bottom. Members of the BAR. And THIS man knows what that means. Just listen to his first response (and the veiled threat):

Now why is this piece of shit so confident? And why does he snigger at the fact the Senate is the more powerful? (and why is it so?) And if it doesn’t go through then there will be consequences which he says we will have to learn from?

Then we have this from House Representative Brad Sherman:

Now who do you think OWNS you America? Do you REALLY believe in your “Democracy”? Well you’d be right because a democracy is the worst thing you or anyone could have. Your Founding Fathers knew this but you’ve forgotten why!

ROTHSCHILD AND THE CROWN OWNS YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

LOOK UP AND RESEARCH FOX ROTHSCHILD AND LOOK UP AND RESEARCH THE TREATY OF 1783.

“It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc……”

Prince Elector of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?

text.html

I suggest you read it and recognise that America was simply granted privileges. You do not negotiate a peace agreement if you win a war. YOU dictate terms!

Your Federal Government is in Washington D.C. for a reason and your Federal Government and Federal Reserve are owned by Globalists (primarily British/Israel/European) and your Armed Forces do THEIR will – nothing at all to do with keeping YOU safe! The same goes for the British Armed Forces. THEY take oaths to a Crown which they think is the Queen and that the Queen gives a shit about the people of the UK.

As Kissinger said: “Dumb and stupid animals used in foreign policy”.

Israel: The Contrarian Agenda

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Uncategorized by earthling on November 26, 2011

The following totally scrambles the existing thinking in both mainstream AND alternative media as I see it. I have not read or seen anything which suggests what you are about to read. Therefore, I take all responsibility – right or wrong – for the following analysis.

Lord Jacob “Israel” Rothschild

The Globalist agenda is a very immense one and while I have attacked and criticised Zionism (ad nauseum) over a period of time, I’ll also be the first to state that it is Israel which the globalists now wish to destroy in one way or another. While most of you will consider Zionism = Globalism in many ways, it is and it is not.

Zionism is a tool of the globalists. Nothing more, nothing less. Zionism is a political ideology and movement which is built upon a false association with judaism. It purports to be the ultimate wish and ideology of there being a jewish homeland and that that is its aim. It is NOT its aim.

So Zionism is a tool just as capitalism, fabianism, Nazism, comunism and fascism are tools. As you well know, each of these “isms” are constructed and then, at the right time, destroyed by the globalists. The globalist money builds them and the same money destroys them.

Now remember: Israel and Zionism are Rothschild constructs – entirely. Rothschild is head zionist and head globalist. What comes first for the Rothschilds?

Answer: The Rothschilds!

The Rothschilds bought the Suez canal for the British government in the 1800s (or you could put it this way: The British government bought the Suez canal and was loaned the money for it BY the Rothschilds). In effect and as is historical fact, the Rothschilds then controlled both the Suez AND the British government. Very little has changed since.

Benjamin D’Israeli was British PM at the time and when he died, who then was trustee of D’Israeli’s will and testament? Answer: Lord Rothschild. But that’s by the by.

During the 1800s and early 1900s, the globalists (headed by Rothschild) did not have an adequate grasp on the middle east and its riches, its resources, land etc. However, by 1948, the Rothschilds had finally achieved the promise of a “land for the jews” called Israel which the British government, via the Balfour Declaration (which the government had never intended, it would seem, to be a remit to create a jewish only state but simply to be a concession to Rothschild that his “beloved jews” (not at all actually the true interest of the Rothschilds but a very useful tool nevertheless) would SHARE the state (a British mandate) with the Palestinian people. Well, times move on as do the machinations of the globalists like Rothschild so that we now have this “Mad dog” state (their own words by Moshe Dyan) called Israel.

Why did Rothschild and the globalists (helped by a Zionist organisation, some of whom may well have believed that Rothschild’s plan was to have a safe haven for jews) want an “Israel” in the Middle East? Because they then had a “beach-head” from which to attack the region they had otherwise failed to bring under their control.

So, the establishment of Israel (by way of terrorist acts against the very government who handed them their “safe haven” in the desert) provided a means to an end and a first step for the domination of the region. How was such domination achieved?

Easily.

This “race” which we shall refer to as “jews” but who never originated from this land and neither was this land ever called “Israel” but was, in part, Canaan, at the time of Jesus and before – the Israelites were simply one of many tribes in the region and Israel himself (the Tribe OF Israel) was a man called Jacob (so the story goes) – have been persecuted over centuries by so many different races, creeds, cultures and nationalities (the question is why? Let’s be blunt, if you are sacked from a great number of jobs, the likelihood is that the problem lies with you right? think about it) that, to have the “race” in the centre of the Middle East (entirely Muslim) is like throwing a single christian into a den of Lions. Perhaps a poor analogy however, because one would always support the christian since he is both the underdog and it suggests the muslim world of Arabs are like a pack of animals – but then that is precisely what Rothschild would capitalise on. That ideology.

The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[30] According to the Hebrew Bible the name “Israel” was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; “struggle with God”[31]) after he successfully wrestled with an angel of God.[32] Jacob’s twelve sons became the ancestors of the Israelites, also known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Children of Israel. Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan but were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations until Moses, a great-great grandson of Jacob,[33] led the Israelites back into Canaan in the “Exodus“. The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word “Israel” is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE).[34]

The area is also known as the Holy Land, being holy for all Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá’í Faith. Prior to the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence, the whole region was known by various other names including Southern Syria, Syria Palestina, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Iudaea Province, Coele-Syria, Retjenu, Canaan and, particularly, Palestine.

Now, what happens when you have what is promoted as a judeo-christian nation which is purportedly the “only democratic nation in the region” (translation: the only fully controlled and owned globalist state in the region) while that state actually takes an aggressive stance toward its neighbours from day one while bleating that “if we don’t stand up for ourselves the Arab/Muslims will slaughter us”. Yet, had they shared Palestine with the Palestinians and lived in peace (and as we know, terrorism of the King David Hotel and other atrocities around that time is not the way to settle peacefully with one’s neighbours AND hosts), there would have been no wish on the part of their neighbours – the muslim world – to feel this way. Again, we must ask ourselves who is at fault here when jews or “jews” have been thrown out of almost every nation they have used as a host in history (while isn’t that a fact? They have had HOST nations a little like, one could say, the movie “Alien” where the human body acted as a HOST for the Alien embryo). How does one destroy a nation or a culture or movement? By planting “aliens” with agendas into the nation. By setting up oneself within a host and eating away from the inside. If you have different hosts in different lands and you wish to destroy them all then one good way would be by setting up a “diaspora” now wouldn’t it?

Diaspora definition: any group migration or flight from a country or region. Synonyms: dispersion, dissemination, migration, displacement, scattering.

Interestingly: “Spore” definition: A usually one-celled reproductive body that can grow into a new organism without uniting with another cell. Spores are haploid (having only a single set of chromosomes). Fungi, algae, seedless plants, and certain protozoans reproduce asexually by spores.

Now, remember, I am not speaking here of an everyday, ignorant jew – ignorant of the agenda of a zionist movement which is wholly controlled by globalist interests and who have NO interest, nor similarity, to an everyday jew (just like the everyday, ignorant Brit or American who have zero in common with the British or American wealth establishment and who are globalists themselves or pawns thereof). So PLEASE understand this and do not be so willfully ignorant as to, once again, read this quickly, pick up what you want from it and scream “anti semite”. Or, by all means do so – I couldn’t give a rats arse if you are willfully ignorant!

So then Rothschild and the globalists have their “beach-head”, Israel, within the Islamic region of the world and they use the tool of “persecution throughout the ages” and the tool of “the Holocaust” (nothing to do with Arabs by the way) and “democracy” and all that good stuff to create the myth of “poor little Israel” while “poor little Israel” has nuclear weapons which have never been admitted to the UN security council while that same body – controlled by the same globalists, Rockefeller this time – demands every other country in the region and elsewhere to declare their nuclear weapons and/or refrain from developing them – the hypocrisy is absolutely stunning isn’t it?). Therefore, every move Israel makes is one of defence even when it is the agressor. The western mainstream media owned by the globalists ensures that the ignorant mass of conditioned western population, swallow the story they’re given while Israel is acting precisely as the globalists want – to shake up the region.

Over time – after the 2nd world war – the globalists further consolidate their position in the Middle East by way of their technology and capability in finding and then drilling for oil via their oil and gas multinationals. The IMF does its bit to leverage entry for western conglomerates (globalist interests) into the region using bribery and outright corruption to increase the region’s debt but the region is still under the ultimate control of non western orientated leaders and establishment.

Then comes 9/11.

Netanyahu: “Good for Israel”. No buddy, you may have thought so at the time (but I doubt it because I’m sure you know the globalist plan) but you’re going to find out that it was the worst thing for the PEOPLE of Israel even though you, as a state, played a formidable part in it.

You see, while your Zionist neocons like Wolfowitz, Perle, Donald Rumsfeld etc wrote your PNAC document wherein you state:

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

and

 “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”

[ And please note that the “What we require” and references to the “United States” are all actually translatable to “We” and “United States” being “Globalist interests” and nothing to do with the United States people at all – the US (and UK/NATO) military is ALL globalist controlled]

And you THINK that is beneficial to jewish/Israeli interests, you are terribly wrong.

So while Ehud Barak and Richard Perle are shouting for the Western nations (Christians doing the dirty work of the “jews”/Zionists once more) to attack a long list of nations in the Middle East on the very day of 9/11 on British TV (funnily enough all those same nations we are picking off one by one up to the present day)…..

Watch and listen from 7.20 onwards:

…. the culmination of all of this leads to a VERY different outcome for Israel which has not yet (but will) revealed itself.

When the magician does his magic trick through slight of hand, you are watching his left hand while his right is doing the REAL job!

Let me explain:

Israel refuses to tell US its Iran intentions

Israel has refused to reassure President Barack Obama that it would warn him in advance of any pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, raising fears that it may be planning a go-it-alone attack as early as next summer. (that is Summer 2012)

The US leader was rebuffed last month when he demanded private guarantees that   no strike would go ahead without White House notification, suggesting Israelno longer plans to “seek Washington’s permission”, sources said. The disclosure, made by insiders briefed on a top-secret meeting between America’s most senior defence chief and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s hawkish prime minister, comes amid concerns that Iran’s continuing progress towards nuclear weapons capability means the Jewish state has all but lost hope for a diplomatic solution.

On Tuesday, UN weapons inspectors released their most damning report to date   into Iran’s nuclear activities,   saying for the first time that the Islamic republic appeared to be building   a nuclear weapon. It was with that grave possiblity in mind that Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, flew into Israel last month on what was ostensibly a routine trip.

Officially, his brief was restricted to the Middle East peace process, but the most important part of his mission was a private meeting with Mr Netanyahu and the defence minister, Ehud Barak. Once all but a handful of trusted staff had left the room, Mr Panetta conveyed an urgent message from Barack Obama. The president, Mr Panetta said, wanted an unshakable guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations without first seeking Washington’s clearance.

The two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States.

“They did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent, but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington’s permission, or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway,” one said.

An Israeli attack could probably manage at most a dozen targets, using more than 100 F-15 and F-16 aircraft.

But not everyone is so sure. Mr Obama’s willingness to take on Iran militarily is openly questioned in Israel. And while many Israelis do not believe Iran has any intention of actually firing a nuclear missile at them, the the key question is whether their prime minister is one of them.

In Mr Netanyahu’s eyes, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is another “Hitler” whose aim is to complete what the Holocaust failed to do by wiping out the Jewish race.

“People outside Israel don’t understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making,” said Mr Bergman, the military analyst. “At the end of the day, this policy of  ‘never again’ would dictate Israel’s behaviour when intelligence comes through that Iran has come close to a bomb.”

Israel-refuses-to-tell-US-its-Iran-intentions.html

Now, let us, at this point, correct the proven mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s words regarding “Wiping Israel off the map”. He did not ever say this. He stated that the Zionist regime (NOT Israel or the Israeli people) should disappear from the pages of history. ENTIRELY different words and intent from that which the Israeli, American and British mainstream media and press would have us all believe – but then it is the globalists who own them so it is what we have come to expect from our media whores.

Further, Israelis have every right to believe that Iran would not attack them. For what reason would Iran wish to attack? Let’s forget this old worn out “tactic” of “Because they hate us for our freedoms” – WHAT freedoms? Who feels free in ANY country these days under this Orwellian nightmare called Globalism? The Israelis themselves, I am sure, just like us Brits or Americans hardly feel “free”. We are not! We are controlled by a UN based upon a legal system oppressing us through our registration of birth (but that’s the subject of another blog you can read).

Israel themselves have nukes! Do the countries of the Middle East and their people live in constant fear that Israel would nuke them? (let’s ignore for a moment the fact that, with zionist hawks like Netanyahu at the helm, they probably would). Do the nations of the world all live in constant fear that the US or UK or any of the other nations with nukes are going to nuke them tomorrow or any day soon? Then WHY does the Israeli regime think Iran would? (even IF Iran were developing nukes which has, as yet never been proven while Iran says it is for nuclear energy). Is it that “persecution complex” which follows them everywhere at large again? Well by the sound of the above – “People outside Israel don’t understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making,”  – it probably is!

Imagine a PARANOID, rabid dog (or “Mad dog”) with nuclear weapons! Now THAT scares the hell out of me more than Mahmoud Achmadinejad!

So, what we have here is an Israeli regime suggesting they may well make a pre-emptive strike upon Iran in or around Summer 2012. Would that be to the globalists’ liking? I say yes. Very definitely so. Yet, from reading the above article and others, it would seem it is not to Obama’s liking now wouldn’t it? And yet we know that Obama is a globalist puppet so that doesn’t make sense does it?

Herr Rockefeller

Well yes it does. Because while the world believes that the US and UK etc are big Israeli buddies (and I have suggested this myself on the face of it in blogs and videos while I also recognise the bigger “game” in all of this), they are not. They are “buddies” (more like paid servants) of the Rothschild and Rockefeller globalists. Yes Rothschild owns/controls Israel BUT he sees it as simply another pawn in the game. Rothschild doesn’t give a damn about people whoever they are whatever nationality, religion or race. Rothschild doesn’t give a damn about the ideology of an Israeli state for Jews except it has been of great use up until now. NOW, however, it is past its “sell by” date. It’s usefulness as a regime in the middle east has come to a stop.

Why? Well, because, since 9/11 what has happened? The globalists have now directly taken up real estate in the region. They have Iraq and they now have Libya and, of course, Afghanistan. The globalists now control Israel and three other far more sizeable nations in the region. Israel is actually no longer needed AND, in fact, is somewhat of a problem for them because what the globalist plan is, is the total unification of the Arab muslim world under Islam with all states having the globalist (“western”) puppet regimes. However, the muslim nations/people do not want this “Mad dog” jewish nation biting at their heels and they wish to feel they are in charge of their own destiny. The Arab League and the Muslim Brotherhood (entirely globalist controlled) will have them believe they have achieved it while, quietly, the puppets will be singing the globalist tune (it was NEVER the western tune because the globalists are not interested in the ideas of east and west but simply globalism and one world government – the world is seen as their oyster NOT a country or region).

So HERE is the crux of the matter:

If and when Israel decide to make a pre-emptive strike on Iran (or perhaps another nation) – and Netanyahu is very probably well in step with the globalist aspirations to the point he and his cronies would be happy to sacrifice Israel for the agenda – the US globalist controlled Armed Forces (perhaps along with the UK and EU and NATO) would crush Israel.

I mentioned the Wolfowitz’s and Perles earlier. These nerds are lackeys in the scheme of things. They are useful idiots. Perhaps they actually believe they are having the western nations carry out Israel’s dirty work for Israel’s benefit or perhaps they ARE smarter than that, I don’t know. What I am 99% convinced of however is that while these guys strategise, there is a level above them who strategise on the “Grand Chessboard”. These individuals are the Kissingers and the Brzezinskis.

Now why does Obama seem reticient to attack Iran while also trying to be diplomatic and friendly with Israel? In fact, one would consider him to be very friendly with Israel since he is funded by Goldman Sachs and Rothschild picked etc. But Goldman and Rothschild are NOT concerned with Israel but with globalism. THEIR “Zionism” is not the zionism of the many jews who have bought into the story and ideology of a “homeland for the jews”. The Zionists allowed and consciously wished for the deaths and persecutions of the jews in WW2 and they got it. They wanted it because they wanted sufficient jewish blood to be spilled to give them a strong case to create the jewish homeland in Israel. But it was NEVER for the purpose of having a jewish homeland. It was for the purpose of having that globalist “beach-head” in the region to agitate while the globalists made their further plans.

Why did the Zionist organisation smuggle Nazis into Palestine near the end of the war? Smuggling Nazis into the homeland for the jews? Come on! Use your head!

YES THEY DID!

Zionist Organisation smuggling Nazis into Palestine

So, as said earlier, high above the Wolfowitz and Perle neocons are the Kissingers and Brzezinskis. Now, Brzezinski wrote his book “The Grand Chessboard” in 1997 – 3 years before the neocons wrote their PNAC document suggesting a new Pearl Harbor would be useful to drum up Americans support for imperial wars by the American military (on behalf of the globalists who Brzezinski works for) and this is what HE said in it:

“…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Now let’s put the PNAC and Brzezinski quotes side by side:

“…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” PNAC

“…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” BRZEZINSKI

Zbigniew isn’t a jew yeah yeah yeah he’s a metal guru!

Now, by all means, look up the source document and book for each of these quotes and read in full context. You will see it changes nothing. Both of these groups/people knew what had to be done and they did it. If you wish to believe in coincidences like this then you might like a book I would recommend: Fables and Fairy stories by Hans Christian Andersen! Be careful though. It contains adult content suitable only for those 8 years and older!

But where is your evidence Earthling regarding the idea that the globalists (via the American/UK/NATO forces) would consider taking out Israel?

Here:  zbig-brzezinski-obama-administration-should-tell-israel-us-will-attack-israeli-jets-if-they-try-to-a

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

“We are not exactly impotent little babies,” Brzezinski said. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.”

And, from what I have read extensively about the modus operandi of the globalists plus having read “The Grand Chessboard” in entirety by Brzezinski and recognising whose payroll he is on and whose orders he takes (Rockefeller’s), I can see exactly that the grand scheme in this is to remove any and all Israeli threat to the Middle East (either destroying in totality the state called Israel or simply removing the zionist/jewish homeland ideology of it and its regime) and uniting the Islamic republics under a strong central core (which I believe may well be Iran) with globalist puppet leaders in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt etc etc etc. Such a region – wholly controlled by globalist interests – then “making amends” with the west and becoming “friends” and turning on the major “enemy” of the globalists: China. That is the intention. That is the globalist agenda. Taming China and Asia and then creating the One world government under globalist/banking control. The western nations already succumbed centuries ago. Parts of Asia already have such as Singapore and the Philippines (also Australia). Africa will be off limits to China resource-wise once the Middle East and the west make their “pact”. We can see Italy and Greece being run now by trilateralist central bankers. My only question is Russia. They are still very much influenced by the “Zionist”/”jewish” west but it is questionable by how much. Putin for instance doesn’t seem too enamoured by Rothschild.

So Israel the upshot is: You are a pawn and while you see the sabre rattling by the US and the west against Iran, the real target is you!

 

While here’s one last little quirk to think about:

Do you remember earlier the Telegraph report suggesting perhaps a strike by Israel in the Summer of 2012?

Just so happens that’s Zion Olympics!

And David Cameron has stated he is going to have surface to air missiles at the ready to defend against what? Terrorists? I mean there are terrorists and there are terrorists right?

surface-air-missiles-olympic-games-214629358.html

“Come on down to London and enjoy the 2012 Zion Olympics. 1000 FBI agents, Mossad agents – this is the Olympics to end all olympics! It’s the MOTHER (fcuker) of all olympics! We even have Surface to Air missiles ready for launch against …… what? More hijacked planes? The Royal Airforce can’t send up intercepts to hijacked passenger aircraft? You think the men in caves have got hold of a nuke? Perhaps one you lost David? 😉

Christ lads! Whatever you do, don’t try to set any new world records for javelin or discus throwing otherwise you may just set off something else if you throw them to high and far: You may set off World War 3 and end up with not a new world record but a NEW WORLD ORDER!

BE WARNED!

 

 

 

BILDERBERG: OUTED!

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The illegal wars by earthling on October 4, 2011

BILDERBERG: You’re finished! The problem remains however that the people behind you aren’t… yet!

Your David Rockefellers, Tony Blairs, Gideon Osbornes, Ken Clarkes, every last one of you TREASONOUS BASTARDS who have attended this organisation’s meetings for the last 60 years and pushed through the agenda (via your working groups of the RIIA, CFR, Trilateral Commission etc etc) of destroying national sovereignty, planning and executing wars worldwide, crashing the financial system for your benefit and colluding in crimes against humanity, are finished. It is time for the people to lock you all up for life. And in our language life MEANS life!

Gerard Batten MEP in EU Parliament. He’s slow though because the UK treasury has admitted through a FOI request that, indeed, policy IS discussed (therefore made) in Bilderberg meetings. Why he doesn’t just come right out and say it is beyond me!

Now, you “Detectives” out there in your airy fairy land of just doing as you’re told by a bunch of black robe wearing judicial twats and who spend your days scouring over something pathetic which pales in any significance yet is for the purpose of exposing the REAL crimes such as this – why don’t you do a job which reflects the supposed nature of your position and investigate REAL criminals? Oh but DAMN I keep forgetting it is the real criminals who control the system which you protect and that pays your wages to scour the hard drives of people like me now isn’t it? So, in fact, you’re the criminals’ protective unit. You’re the “Mafia police” in essence. Yet you expect us, the public to trust you to keep law and order? Who’s “law” and who’s “Order”?

And you know the sad thing Detective Manchester? You all seem to be doing it believing you’re doing the right thing while the very system you protect is destroying the wealth and the safety of all your own – your mother, your father, your sister, brother, cousins, friends etc. Look in the mirror bud and work it out!

Here’s a little starter for 10 for you. See how bright you are to pick up on this and do your own investigation shall we? Or is it too big and you’d rather just have an easy life behind that desk picking on the little guy? The little guy who, in fact, is the equivalent of you and yours. You just don’t get it do you Detective?

“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is
now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial
meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the
new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis
evolving around the Cold War. ”

Asia Times May 2003:  EE22Ak03.html

“As if an ever expanding war were not bad enough, the economic outlook
presented to the gathered plutocrats, was even grimmer since it was not overlaid
with the blustering confidence of the Washington war party. In contrast to the
geopolitical experts, who all seemed intoxicated by the omnipotence of the
U.S.military machine, the economic experts — including James Wolfensohn,
President of the World Bank, Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, and, of course Buffet himself — all emphasized the impotence of
monetary and fiscal policy after the collapse of one of the great speculative
bubbles of all time.

“To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America
and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property
markets……..”

London Times Sept 2002:  http://www.nogw.com/articles/rothchildmeeting.html

Now, think logically detective. How could these reports POSSIBLY have been made up as any kind of propaganda? They were YEARS before this so called “out of the blue” crash while the wars around the middle east have all come to pass as have so many others. So WHO had the “crystal ball” Detective? The reporters? Or the people in that Bilderberg meeting? It’s GOT to be one of the two right? So I’ll leave it up to the detective capabilities of the Scottish detectives themselves to figure it out. After all, by god you can “detect” me for having a bit of a ‘conflict of words’ with an alleged jew on a messageboard. Is that the best detective work you can do Detectives? 🙂 We should all sleep safe and sound in our beds thenin the comfort of knowing our detectives can detect a little spat on a messageboard and get stright into action huh? Keeping the world free of corruption and crime I see! hahahaha. It’s hilarious, sorry detective but it really is! 😉

Meanwhile, you just need to read a few things dating back into the 90s and you will see the “genesis” of all of this being prepared by Zionist neocons and Obama’s own mentor.

So here’s dear old Lord Chancellor Ken. Proven lying bastard by yours truly simply taking his words and comparing them to the reality and the words of the UK treasury. Can’t get ANY FCUKING SIMPLER than that now can we “Detective”?

But Detective, you’re not allowed to have a political opinion! That’s out of your remit! You’re forbidden from holding one and, therefore, you are simply controlled by the very people you should be enforcing the law upon! Have you ever looked up not only International law but British law regarding war crimes? If you did you would readily see that the British government (Tony Blair and now Cameron for two examples) are 100% guilty of warcrimes. Where’s the handcuffs Detective? ….. Nowhere. And you know why? Because YOU are one controlled lackey who is disallowed from intefering in politics when it is the politicians themselves who are destroying this country from the inside and out. You’re IMPOTENT man and while you steal my property, I actually feel sorry for you! You’re BLIND.

And here you have an outright confession of guilt – yes Mr Detective guilt because to state as is stated is admitting an all out attack on the sovereignty of nations. Not by tanks (unless you’re a Libya or Iraq etc) but by financial WMDs and the bribery of politicians to take the money and then legislate in your favour opposing the constitutional basis of the nation(s).

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Read again SLOWLY Detective! He says OTHERS characterize him as conspiring with others but he then states in pure hubris that he pleads guilty AND he’s proud of it!

Are you fcuking thick Detective?

If the Council as a body has stood for anything these 75 years, it has been for American internationalism based on American interests. If the Council has had influence during this period, it has derived from individual members taking the varied and often conflicting fare of Council meetings and publications to a wider American audience. From Foreign Affairs articles by W.E.B. DuBois and George F. Kennan to books by Henry A. Kissinger and Stanley Hoffmann, the Council’s role has been to find the best minds and leaders, bring them together with other Council members, and provide forum and stage.

Leslie H. Gelb

President,

Council on Foreign Relations

foreword.html

Now did that say “British public interests”? No it didn’t. How fcuking clear does this have to be for you “Detectives”??

As for our War criminal extraordinaire, Tony Blair, well who do you think this guy Rockefeller is talking about when he describes himself as an internationalist and CONSPIRING with others to bring about an integrated world political and economic structure (World Government in other words run by banks and corporations and that just means purely for THEIR profit)? Well here’s an example:

Evelyn and Lynn Forester De Rothschild

And who was it that ensured our resident war criminal (who is now still being protected by you lot using OUR taxpayers money because he’s afraid the taxpayers may want his blood for the shedding of theirs due to his lies – ironic isn’t it?) got his cushy job at JP Morgan at $2M/year while it is now mainstream that Blair was in Libya during his No.10 tenancy doing deals FOR JP Morgan?

[The VERY SAME oligarch who was involved in the Rothschild/Gideon Osbourne yacht scandal just a couple of years ago! Deripaska, the Rothschild goon! Isn’t it funny how Rothschild is in on the game with the very same faces influencing (and bribing) Blair, Mandelson, Osbourne – it doesn’t matter who or what side of the political fence they are because politics is the sham to display to the unread and uneducated:  Libyan-link-oligarch-funded-Blair-initiative.html

Behind the scenes you see on the telly and in the press, all these political whores work for the same masters and are rewarded for it. While you “Detectives” haven’t a fcuking clue!]

It was the fcuking Rothschilds. Yes those same scum who own and control and first funded the set up of the zionist state of Israel. Our Tony, of course, then becomes also the Middle Easy PEACE envoy! You couldn’t make this shit up Mr Detective!!

“The event is being arranged by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who hosts
influential gatherings for London’s elite. Those invited include at least seven
billionaires with a combined wealth of more than £25billion.

Invitations to Downing Street were given to tycoons willing to donate more
than $25,000 (£13,000) to the Tate gallery. Organisers of the event, American
Patrons of Tate, which Lady Rothschild chairs, claimed the No 10 evening is part
of wider fundraising efforts for the gallery, and that the main event will be a
dinner in Manhattan, which will not be attended by the Blairs.”

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

The coincidences eh? Now here’s another one:

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank

General Charles Ronald Llewelyn Guthrie, Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, GCB, LVO, OBE, DL, KCSG, KM, KCJCO (born 17 November 1938) was Chief of the Defence Staff between 1997 and 2001 and Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, between 1994 and 1997.

He is a cross bench member of the House of Lords. He was created a life peer as Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, of Craigiebank in the City of Dundee, after retiring as Chief of the Defence Staff. He was one of the several retired Chiefs of Defence Staff who spoke out in the House of Lords about the risk to servicemen facing liability for their actions before the International Criminal Court, particularly in respect to the invasion of Iraq. He has been appointed Colonel of the Life Guards and Gold Stick-in-Waiting to Her Majesty the Queen.

A Roman Catholic convert, he is a Knight of Malta and Patron of the Cardinal Hume Centre.

Guthrie was criticised in 2008 by George Monbiot for an alleged lack of understanding of international law. Monbiot based his argument on Guthrie’s September 2002 advocacy of an invasion of Iraq and subsequent comments, in which he appeared to support launching “surprise wars”, something forbidden by the United Nations charter.

And here’s the rub:

He is a non-executive director of N M Rothschild & Sons, Ashley Gardens Block 2 Ltd and Colt Defense LLC, (section21.aspx) and Chairman (non-executive) of Siboney Ltd.

Extract from Guthrie’s comments in Parliament re the Iraq war which he fully supported:

“I ask the Minister to answer two questions that he has already been posed. First, when I was Chief of the Defence Staff, I was assured that it was unthinkable for British service men and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court. Can the Minister assure the House that that is still so?

Secondly, can the Government give serious consideration to the British Armed Forces, like the French forces, opting out of their commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights? Many of us feel that we should, in view of our experiences in Iraq.”

Obvious then that he is well aware of the breaking of International law – something he had to support for his boss Rothschild to have Blair and the British military support the imperialistic aims of the internationalists such as Rothschild and Rockefeller.

Excerpt from George Monbiot’s article in the Guardian:

Let me dwell for a moment on what Guthrie said, for he appears to advocate that we retain the right to commit war crimes. States in dispute with each other, the UN charter says, must first seek to solve their differences by “peaceful means” (article 33). If these fail, they should refer the matter to the security council (article 37), which decides what measures should be taken (article 39). Taking the enemy by surprise is a useful tactic in battle, and encounters can be won only if commanders are able to make decisions quickly. But either Guthrie does not understand the difference between a battle and a war – which is unlikely in view of his 44 years of service – or he does not understand the most basic point in international law. Launching a surprise war is forbidden by the charter.

It has become fashionable to scoff at these rules and to dismiss those who support them as pedants and prigs, but they are all that stand between us and the greatest crimes in history. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”. The tribunal’s charter placed “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression” at the top of the list of war crimes.

If Britain’s most prominent retired general does not understand this, it can only be because he has never been forced to understand it. In September 2002, he argued in the Lords that “the time is approaching when we may have to join the US in operations against Iraq … Strike soon, and the threat will be less and easier to handle. If the UN route fails, I support the second option.” No one in the chamber warned him that he was proposing the supreme international crime. In another Lords debate, Guthrie argued that it was “unthinkable for British servicemen and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court”, regardless of what they might have done. He demanded a guarantee from the government that this would not be allowed to happen, and proposed that the British forces should be allowed to opt out of the European convention on human rights. The grey heads murmured their agreement.

constitution.iraq

International law is clear as day. While look at another “coincidence”. Guthrie argued in the house of Lords FOR the strike on Iraq in Septemeber 2002. Now re-check the Times article above regarding the meeting at Rothschild’s Waddington Manor – just so happens it was September 2002! How very predictable!

Now let’s take a look at Colt Defence shall we? Of which Guthrie is a non executive Director:

Customers.aspx

They supply just about the entire world with weapons so who is it we’re fighting? Martians? Otherwise it would appear they sell weapons to anyone and any one of these countries could stage an attack on any other, ignoring for a moment that they will be using the arms to kill their own people then Guthrie and crew say “hey you can’t do that! We sold those weapons to you to shoot pigeons!” (but then I suppose the World Wildlife Fund would be up in arms about that eh Philip?)

“Selecting the weapon that will equip a country’s Armed Forces is a crucial process with strong military and political implications; the best and most combat-proven weapon in the world should therefore be chosen. The example established by the U.S. Armed Forces and the armed forces of more than 90 other nations around the world confirms that Colt weapons significantly increase the field readiness as well as the operational, tactical and strategic capabilities of any country’s Armed Forces.”

“Prior to joining the company, Mr. Flaherty was a Managing Director in the equity capital markets origination business at Banc of America Securities LLC. Prior to joining Banc of America Securities in 2001, Mr. Flaherty was an investment banker at Credit Suisse First Boston.”

An investment banker no less and not only any old one but a Credit Suisse one! And who controls Credit Suisse? None other than dear old David Rockefeller! Now, do you think any and all wars might just be VERY lucrative for old Guthrie and the Rothschilds/Rockefellers of this world?

Now DEAR Detective. All I’m doing is researching and posting my findings online. If some unknown cyber personality then cries wolf and feigns offence while being quite happy to goad people (and there are many more) to be blunt with the little self proclaimed “jew” while he, like you, does not understand the historical and existing impact of zionism on the world INCLUDING the negative impact on the everyday TRUE jew, then that ain’t MY fault Mister!

So, if it’s your wish to continue to sieze MY property – not yours and not the British judiciary’s or the British Government’s – while you act as a protector of liars, thieves and war criminals in your ignorance, then I suggest you check the law. Your actions are both, enabling the ongoing cover up of war crimes and treason, and as a party to such, you are liable and effectively committing the crime of Misprision of Treason.

We urge all civilians to go to New Scotland yard, or their local police station to report UK war criminals, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lawson and around 250 MPs who are all WAR CRIMINALS
For more information and assistance please see
http://makingwarshistory.org
Also
http://taxrebellion.org
And
http://bsnews.info/

Kellogg–Briand Pact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact

Nuremberg Trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

List of war crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes

• The Genocide Convention, 1948.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
• The Nuremberg Principles, 1950.
• The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
• The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.

But hey, Detective, there may be an answer as to why you’re pissing me about rather than investigate all of this. You see, Zionist Israel can do whatever the hell it wants it seems and when David Cameron professes himself a zionist then what do you expect huh? He even changes British law in the face of International law JUST FOR THEM! Get it? Is it SINKING IN YET?

In the UK the  judicial system allowed private parties and individuals to present their  own evidence of war crimes before a magistrate who could then, if he or  she felt the case was strong enough, issue a warrant for the suspect’s  arrest. Consequently, in 2005 retired Israeli General Doron Almog only  escaped arrest by skulking in his plane before being flown back to  Israel, while in 2009 Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni cancelled her trip rather than face arrest. Other senior Israeli figures simply chose to stay away from Britain.

Sadly on 15 September this means of potentially achieving justice was revoked. In response to Israeli protests the UK government chose to change its laws rather than see Israelis arrested. In a move condemned by Amnesty International, the UK  government amended the law on universal jurisdiction so that in future  only the Director of Public Prosecutions can authorize the arrest of a  suspected war criminal (“Tories make life easier for war criminals,” Liberal Conspiracy, 30 March 2011).

Contradictory grounds

Oddly, the UK  government defended its decision on two contradictory grounds. The  first reason it put forward is that the evidence used to secure the  arrests stands little chance bringing about “a realistic prospect  of conviction.”

This is disingenuous, to say the least. As Geoffrey Robertson, a UN appeals judge, states: “The change in the law has nothing to do — as the UK claims — with ensuring that cases proceed on solid evidence. No district judge would issue an arrest warrant lightly (“DPP may get veto power over arrest warrants for war crime suspects,” The Guardian,  22 July 2010).” Secondly, the reason for the arrest is so the suspect  cannot flee while further evidence is being gathered. Indeed, this is a  common way for domestic investigations to proceed.

The other equally disingenuous reason the UK gave for the change in the law is that arresting suspected war criminals may endanger the non-existent peace process.

This absurd view was advanced by UK  Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, who decried the previous law because  it constituted a risk to “our ability to help in conflict resolution or  to pursue a coherent foreign policy.”

Indeed, claiming that the previously granted arrest warrants had been politically motivated, UK  Foreign Secretary William Hague declared, “We cannot have a position  where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country.”

However, the UK’s  retreat from the implementation of universal jurisdiction is not a lone  example of the power of the Israel lobby to affect states’ domestic  legislation. A similar shameful episode ensued when Ariel Sharon was  indicted before the Belgian courts, in that instance not just Israel but also the United States brought pressure to bear, Donald Rumsfeld going as far as to threaten to move NATO headquarters from Belgium.

Which raises the question, if enforcing international humanitarian law is a threat to peace, then why do we have it?

?p=3954

And from the Guardian:

change-universal-jurisdiction-law

You see Detective… these people aren’t jews they are Zionist Nazis! They are the jews’ nemesis and USE the “jewishness” to create a “shield” around themselves by bringing up the fcuking holocaust for the 2o trillionth time! While they then also evade the charge of racism as they set up a JEWISH ONLY EU Parliament!!

Jewish EU Parliament: 50141

Try THAT if you’re Christian or Muslim!

But the fact is they use this “jewish oppression” tactic over and over while, if you look at who is, in fact, manipulating and controlling all of this, these people ARE NOT oppressed. THEY are the oppressors! And neither are they JEWISH they are ZIONIST first and foremost! They’d slit a jewish throat as quickly as they’d slit yours or mine! You DON’T HAVE THE POWER to create your very own EU PARLIAMENT (contrary to any and all other accepted norms of racial equality, anti-xenophobia and political correctness) UNLESS you have money, influence and power! To suggest these people are oppressed is absolutely ridiculous! Ever heard of “A wolf in sheep’s clothing”? Ask Tony our war criminal. He knows being a Fabian!

Is all this information fcuking with your little brain Detective? Can’t process it? Is that the problem?

Be a good lad Detective. Return the almost £2grand worth of euipment you stole from me for your masters while neither you nor probably them have the slightest clue what the big picture is! After all, you’re not allowed to get involved in politics therefore you’re disallowed to catch the real fcuking criminals!

The biggest crimes of the century against humanity and all you can do is scour hard drives of a bloke who knows it.

Fcuk your idea of “law” mate. The “law” IS an ass! A very corrupt one at that!

New York City Police Foundation — New York

JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York
City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the
foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen
security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops,
as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD’s main data center.

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie
Dimon a note expressing “profound gratitude” for the company’s donation.

“These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe,” Dimon
said. “We’re incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know
how much we value their hard work.”

Then LEARN Detective!…..

James Dimon is the chairman & CEO for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Bailout Company), a director at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a corporate fund board member for the Kennedy Center, a director at the Partnership for New York City, a director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and a director at Catalyst (think tank).

Now look up the letter “D” in the CFR list of membership and what do you get?

gX?_DAWSON_HORACE_G%20JR

And look up “D” in the Trilateral list of membership:

hF.html

Well would you credit it? Not only does wee Jamie come up on both BUT you also have Evelyn’s wifey Lynn come up on the CFR list.

Now ISN’T it a small world full of nothing but JUST coincidences?

To keep who safe exactly? Answer: JP Morgan, Tony Blair, Bilderberg etc etc etc

You’re bought and paid for Detective! That’s “law” for you!

Get yourself brains detectives! “That’s not a criminal conspiracy that’s just coincidence and democracy in action!”

My lilly white ARSE!

An addendum for our American cousins who read their Constitution. Here’s a man saying he supports what the Tea Party have done to HAVE Americans read their Constitution while he is a liar, a fake and breaks the Logan Act (look up your Logan Act too).

He doesn’t like to even acknowledge the word BILDERBERG. Wake the hell up America!

But I guess just as you never heeded the warnings regarding the Kenyan you’ll not heed this one either will you? They own BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum you slow minded idiots! On BOTH SIDES of the Atlantic!

Islamic fundamentalism (Wahhabism) created by Zionists! (Update)

Posted in Political History by earthling on August 3, 2011

Recently released documents by the US Dept of Defense have now supported the information in a previously blog written approx 2 years ago regarding the founding of the Wahabi sect of Islam and the relationship between the Al Saud family and jewish roots. The US Dept of Defense have culled a number of Iraqi intelligence documents from 2002.

Document:  wahhabi.pdf

Original blog:  407

Time and again, the information which has previously been condemned as “ridiculous” and “Conspiracy theory” is proven to be factual.

I only wonder why all of this is finding its way out into the public domain.

I have stated many times that, having read Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard” it is clear to me that the west is no longer (and perhaps never was except for when it was of use) interested in the state of Israel. The true nature of the west’s gameplan is to have a united Middle East and that United Middle East (and Africa) – the Muslim world in total in fact – to be led by a strong leader who will be in the pocket of the west. They are never going to achieve this by retaining a zionist threat in the shape of the state of Israel. They will, therefore, sacrifice Israel and have a strong Muslim leader to unite the region instead. This muslim leader COULD be Ahmadinejad (or another Iranian figure) or it may be a grouping of leaders all under western control. To eliminate Israel however, also means eliminating the Saudi support of Israel – Wahhabism. We may yet see the downfall of the Al Saud family.

Personally, I would like to see the Muslim world wake up to this while I would not want to have a muslim take over of the west. The people of Islam and the people of the west need to destroy both sets of leadership through knowledge and intelligence. Only then will we have peace.

We can live harmoniously with the two cultures which, at their root, have the principle of “Non usury” in common. It is a simple fact that the jewish religion (and the zionists who now control it from a political standpoint) has no issue with usury while it is the most disgusting form of a Crime on Humanity that you can think of. After all, the entire planet is in financial turmoil right now entirely due to it.

It MUST be eradicated.

I still think how telling it is that the names given for 9/11 were, for the most part, Saudi nationals. It would make a great deal of sense considering 9/11 was carried out by Israeli interests.

Alan Greenspan: Insider Trader – Criminal

Posted in Finance, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on June 6, 2011

Time and time and TIME AGAIN, all I ever hear or read from mainstream media about us bloggers when we point at facts and figures, people and politics, Banks and bastards is “Conspiracy theorists”!

THEN, later – it can be weeks, months or years (and sometimes even decades) the facts and the info is displayed for all to see by mainstream as if it is something new that they never knew while people like myself, continuously, call these people in the media up and say “Here’s a story” but they NEVER wish to cover it. They NEVER ring you back. They just listen and then say “thanks very much” and disappear back into their cozy little routine as if you have disturbed them. No matter it might be the biggest scoop of their entire fucking lives. They don’t have the cajonas to write it! They are controlled little prats who have the audacity to call themselves “journalists”!

Ok rant over!

What’s just been published by Forbes on 1st June 2011 as if it is something “new”? As if it is ONLY fact when the mainstream dogs of dogma print it. Do you hear the mainstream being called “Conspiracy theorists” when they eventually publish? No! And you know why? Because they ONLY publish when their Editor says “go” and he only says “go” when the owners are happy for it to “go” and the owners are only happy for it to “go” when the establishment want it to. DO YOU SERIOUSLY STILL THINK THAT ROTHSCHILD AGENT, JULIAN ASSANGE, IS NOT GIVEN THE ALL CLEAR BEFORE HE “LEAKS”? If so you’re ignorant and naive!

?utm_source=allactivity&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=20110601

So, the entire US Congress and Senate are free to make their fortune off Insider trading. Well let me go back in time a little and copy an old blog regarding Alan Greenspan (no he’s not a congressman or a senator but he’s the VERY PERSON who, with 18 years as head of the Federal Reserve, CREATED the conditions and advised Congress and Senate on precisely the legislation they pushed through regarding fiscal and economic policy in the United States!).

From my blog dated 7th October 2009 titled “An orchestrated crisis (Part 1):

Now, you say, what an extremely fortunate and intelligent bunch of men these are who make fortunes while YOU die! “They’re just good at what they do and are lucky I guess so you can’t put them in jail for that can you?”

Well you can! Why?

Here’s why:

NEW YORK, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ — Paulson & Co. (Bloomberg: 573991Z US)Inc., a New York-based investment management firm, today announced itsretention of Dr. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board,
as a member of its advisory board. Dr. Greenspan will provide ongoing adviceto Paulson’s investment management team by sharing his perspective on issues affecting the financial markets.
Dr. Greenspan served as Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board for 18 years, from 1987 until 2006 over four presidential administrations — those of President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President William Clinton and President George W. Bush.

idUS136083+15-Jan-2008+PRN20080115

ALAN GREENSPAN: Presided over every aspect of the American monetary system (and to an extent worldwide) for 18 years. He understood the markets inside out. He knew what was wrong and what was right. What was going to balloon and what was going to bust. He dictated policy (for his owners that is). He walks into Paulson & Co in Jan 2008 and says “SHORT THE SUBPRIMES” and that is EXACTLY what Paulson did.

PURE INSIDER TRADING AT THE TOP OF THE TREE. THAT is why!! They are a Financial Mafia!! Will you please get this in your heads!

Need MORE proof? Then what about this little gem from Sept 2002:

rothchildmeeting.html

“He said that while everyone was drinking the best wines in the world, they were confronted with “three interconnected traumas” by those speaking: The Middle East, The collapse of shares, and the prospect of a global economic depression.”

and

“As if an ever expanding war were not bad enough, the economic outlook presented to the gathered plutocrats, was even grimmer since it was not overlaid with the blustering confidence of the Washington war party. In contrast to the geopolitical experts, who all seemed intoxicated by the omnipotence of the U.S.military machine, the economic experts — including James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, Paul Volcker the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and, of course Buffet himself — all emphasized the impotence of monetary and fiscal policy after the collapse of one of the great speculative bubbles of all time.

“To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property markets……..”

So, SIX FULL YEARS BEFORE THE CRASH these people KNEW! How? ………… THINK about it! It doesn’t NEED much thought!

Then, in May 2003:

EE22AK03.html

“An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.”

While Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown are on record saying they had no clue even as late as 2008. Well Ken Clarke was there in 2003 at the Bilderberg meeting AND he’s a Steering Committee member! So you’re telling me that the little creep didn’t nudge either of the other two we were going to hit a big issue???

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID IF YOU SAY YOU CAN’T SEE THIS SHIT!

Or do you think Walmart sell the same crystal balls?

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY FOLKS.

Make NO mistake. The ONLY reason these people are getting away with this is because it is our leaders who are getting richer along with them by being part of it. And THEY make the laws.

Those who are exposed such as Bernie Madoff are simply lambs to the slaughter. The ones who have been stupid or stepped on someone else’s toes.

Wake up to this coz this ISN’T BULLSHIT I’m talking here. This is, as they say, “In your face”

Enough people wake up and listen and we could hang these criminals, and the traitors who collaborate with them in our government, by the neck.

Apologies for the language but I do not take kindly to getting screwed!

Now to ADD to these FACTS – as I also said in that blog, George Soros is NOT the greatest investor and neither is Warren Buffet. They are INSIDERS and they are TOLD what is going to go up and what is going to go down due to various factors.

Listen to Max Keiser talk with Alex Jones (King of the American “Conspiracy theorist” camp):

A GLOBAL MAFIA is precisely what these people are.

Now listen to this (a video relating to Julian Assange but covers the Rothschild law firm of 500+ lawyers all over America and all interested in very specific types of law relating to Federal and Corporate law):

To the MAINSTREAM MEDIA: How bloody IMPOTENT are you people? You get your salaries but those who shut you up screw you through taxes, inflation etc as much as they screw anyone else. One day, you or your family members may just not be in as sweet a position as you so when your kid (if you’re not too fucking selfish to have them that is) comes to you and says “Hey dad, why didn’t you print this stuff way back when it would have been useful?” just tell them it straight:
“I’m a selfish bastard and was just thinking of me!”
 As for the rest of you dozy twats out there who still refuse to see the elephant(s) – and by now there’s a herd of them – in the living room: You deserve what’s coming at ya!
One last thing: If you don’t think Blair and Brown and Cameron and Osbourne and Mandelson and Clarke are not ALSO doing this over here then, again, you’re one naive prick! Because I’m telling you, they are!
22 ARLINGTON STREET, LONDON. Look it up!

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…..

National debt = ZERO: Austerity unnecessary.

Posted in Finance, Politics by earthling on April 16, 2011

But our CORRUPT British government (ALL PARTIES) DO NOT WANT THIS and will NOT tell the British people the big con whereby your wealth – and the country’s as a whole – is being stolen from underneath our noses while these parasites, which includes our monarchy, feed from you by filling you up with debt then allowing the Banks to burst the bubble and call in the loans/debt.

Britain, just as the Federal Reserve is fleecing the American public so too is the Bank of England fleecing you. And our governments play along because, as you may have noticed, those who are in government are very well taken care of financially.

PLEASE, for your own sakes and for the sake of us all: WAKE THE HELL UP!

I have since personally received a copy of Henry Kerby’s transcript of this EDM from the PARLIAMENTARY ARCHIVIST.

THIS is why our country (and I may add ALL other countries’ sovereignty is going down the plughole and our debt is ever increasing and shall never end. THIS is why we have an UNNECESSARY AUSTERITY: Because the POLITICIANS will NOT issue our own currency debt free. I hate to add this but it is just fact: Adolf Hitler was NOT the instigator of WW2. He worked out the problem and the problem was Private controlled Bankers (the MAJORITY of them jewish because ONLY the jewish religion from centuries past allowed USURY and the British Christians in the 1600s then adopted it when the christian religion had always denounced it) who created the money out of thin air and loaned at interest. They are PARASITES and very few people understand this.

Who REALLY instigated WW2 and why? (and WHY are they doing such again today?):   jews-declare-war.htm

Many people will NOT like this idea but it is NOT an idea. It is FACT!

Notice it was all well before 1939 and why? Because Hitler was not playing ball and was issuing his OWN currency! WHO writes History? The victors do! THAT’S why you don’t get the truth in your history books at schools people!

The entire nations of the world are in debt. Every single one of them (you can find the figures through googling easily enough). Now just stop and think in very simple terms (BECAUSE THIS IS VERY VERY SIMPLE): If YOUR family was the only family on earth but was still in debt, WHO would your family be in debt to? Who COULD it be? The answer: No-one!

Now apply that to the fact that EVERY nation on earth is in debt. For EVERY debtor there is a CREDITOR. Who has sovereignty? WHO is in control? The CREDITOR is.

So if EVERY nation is in debt (which they are) then WHO, ultimately, is the creditor? The ENTIRE HUMAN FAMILY is in debt! To who?

To the Private Central Bankers. THAT is why we all have austerity and why countries like Greece and Portugal and Ireland and even us, the UK, are selling off assets. Because our politicians are in bed getting their kickbacks from the legislation they adopt in favour of the banks! It’s not your local high street bank we’re talking about here. It is the entire banking system controlled by the IMF and Central Banks. The WHO is who is behind them? Well we KNOW who!

Captain Henry Kerby MP: UK Parliament Hansards 1965:

1. The UK government DO NOT WISH TO eliminate the National Debt. It has NEVER been their intention!

2. “No”. Could this be ANY clearer for you?

3.  Captain Henry Kerby’s Early Day Motion dated 22nd December 1964.

Ask yourself a VERY simple question: Why would the British Government NOT wish to pay off the National Debt?

A Motion to Restore the Power of the Issue of Money to the Crown

This article appeared in Prosperity, October 2001

By Captain Henry Kerby MP

On the 22nd December, 1964, Captain Henry Kerby, MP, placed the following Motion before the House of Commons.

It was an “Early Day Motion” and so it was never debated and, consequently, does not appear in Hansard. It is, however, published in the Early Day Motion records and we have a copy of it here at Prosperity.

The House of Commons Public Information Office Factsheet on Early Day Motions states that an “Early Day Motion” is the “colloquial term for a notice of motion given by a Member for which no date has been fixed for debate” and where “in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no prospect of these motions ever being debated. Their modern existence is due to Members wishing to put on record their opinion on a subject and canvass support for it from fellow Members. They do this by inviting, actively or passively, other members to endorse the proposed motion.” However, even if 250-300 Members might endorse it, “the lack of prospect of the motion being debated remains much the same.”

Below we reprint the full text of Captain Kerby’s Early Day Motion, titled as below, and his comments — unpublished in the official record — follow.

THE EMISSION OF ALL THE MEANS OF EXCHANGE

That this House considers that the continued issue of all the means of exchange – be they coin, bank-notes or credit, largely passed on by cheques – by private firms as an interest-bearing debt against the public should cease forthwith; that the Sovereign power and duty of issuing money in all forms should be returned to the Crown, then to be put into circulation free of all debt and interest obligations, as a public service, not a private opportunity of profit and control for no tangible returns to the British people; and that the volume of money be controlled so as to maintain stable prices:

That the nationalization of the Bank of England did nothing to solve this problem as the bank only serves a subsidiary purpose and almost all money is still created out of nothing by mere book entry by private banks:

That the aims of those who want to assure private property and free enterprise, as well as those who want to protect the British people from unfair exploitation, would both be best served by restoring the power of issuing money to Her Majesty The Queen, in accordance with ancient tradition and law, as is also demanded by the American Constitution, which gives the right of issue solely to Congress, so as to assure the State and Nation the benefits of that emission and relieve them of the immense and growing burdens of a parasitical National and private debt; and to make certain that control passes to the taxed and is taken out of the hands of the present hidden and unlawful beneficiaries of taxation, much of the proceeds of which they collect as interest on all money and immense debts:

And therefore this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to introduce the required legislation, to assert the proper sovereignty of The Queen in Council in this most important of all sovereign functions, to assure unprecedented prosperity with true sovereignty and liberty.

Captain Kerby’s comments:

It is not generally understood that for many centuries, in Britain and in almost all other civilized countries, the power and duty of coinage, i.e. of the issue of money in all forms – coin, notes and book-entry credit passed on by cheque, etc. – was vested solely in the Crown or State. For this reason the tradition still persists of putting the Sovereign’s portrait on the coinage, though in fact since the end of the 17th century, the reign of William and Mary, by far the greatest part of all the effective means of exchange are issued by private bankers out of nothing by mere book entry, to be lent at interest to the State and to private borrowers. Thus real power passed from the State to the private bankers.

There is ample evidence from many independent sources to prove that most of the means of exchange in modern conditions originate with bankers. In America it is aptly called “fractional reserve banking,” meaning that if you have a pound in cash in the till you can issue ten or twenty times more in the form of “credit” on the books, which is mostly circulated by cheques.

Not a few Heads of Central Banks of Issue have stated the facts at public enquiries or in the press, including the chief of the Canadian Bank of Issue, also Mr. Marriner Eccles — at one time in parallel position in the U.S. Federal Reserve — and the late Mr. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chairman of the Midland Bank. They and many others confirmed that it is the function of banks to create money out of nothing and lend it out.

The “Report of the (New Zealand) Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking and Credit Systems,” 1956, states in part; Para. 164: Creation of Money by the Trading Banks: “The fact that a large proportion of our money supply comes into existence as a result of the operations of the trading banks obviously disturbed many witnesses …”

This evidence is paralleled by that given in 1960 to the Radcliffe Committee in London. We quote from the evidence given by the Bank of England, Vol. 1, Memoranda of Evidence; p.9. 4. The Control of Bank Credit in the United Kingdom:

2. “Because an entry in the books of a bank has come to be generally acceptable in the place of cash it is possible for the banks to create the equivalent of cash (i.e. credit). Thus a bank may pay for a security purchased from a customer merely by making an entry in its books to the credit of that customer’s account: or it may make an advance by means of a similar entry. In either case, an increase in its deposits will occur.”

In the United States of America, the Constitution clearly provides in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 5, that only Congress shall have the power to coin (issue) money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin (rate of exchange). Yet obviously this constitutional provision has been completely ignored in practice almost since American independence. In the United Kingdom, too, the spirit of the old laws and traditions has been circumvented.

Yet this is no mere academic matter, but a question of supreme importance, affecting the Sovereignty and very existence of the State and country. It has been said that there should be no taxation without representation, yet private financiers can issue “imaginary” money out of nothing by mere book entry and lend it at interest, they acquire the profit of issue and of interest gratis, at the cost of the whole community. This is taxation in the fullest sense, accompanied not by the representation of the taxed, but by the complete power of the true tax collector, who is the ruler. The basic truth of no taxation without representation is turned upside down and inside out.

It follows that the power of Parliament in general, and especially with regard to Money is non-existent, and all true sovereignty is in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money and determine its value and distribution. If even the State borrows from them, having abandoned its own powers of coinage (emission) to private financiers, how can that State claim to be truly sovereign? The real basis of the power of the money-creators and money-lenders lies in the fact that few know the truth about this financial “hidden hand.”

Conservatives with knowledge and long historical memories will recall that the original Tories were Jacobites. Today this question does not apply to the Crown as Her Majesty enjoys the loyalty of all Her subjects. But the spirit of the old Jacobites expressed a sounder understanding of the functions of the Crown as fount of Sovereignty, to be exercised with Counsellors. In the context of that conception it was natural that the power of monetary emission should belong to the Sovereign, and long experience has shewn that that proposition was sound.

On the other hand the old Whigs were the proponents of “Dutch Finance,” of the issue of the means of exchange as an interest-bearing debt by private bankers, and of the domination of the State by High Finance, not the Sovereign in Council, the King and people. With the decline of Liberalism in Great Britain it might be thought that Socialist Labour is the heir of that tradition.

It is the claim of Socialist leaders that theirs is not the Party of the Big Money Men. The test is this: will Labour understand that the “nationalization” of the power of coinage (emission) is the supreme necessity? And not the confiscation of the fruits of many peoples’ labour and invention.

If the Socialist Party does not pass this test and continues to protect parasitical finance, if only by its silence, then it will lay itself open to an attack which it could never repulse, however long it may postpone the show-down.

Here, then, are some basic propositions which should be known to all, and which are behind the intentions of the Motion:

1. All the means of exchange, with the exception of a very small fraction (coin) are created in the books of private banks when they lend to the State and private borrowers. Conversely, when a loan or overdraft is repaid there is less money in circulation.

2. Even notes and coin come into circulation only in exchange for book entry purchases of Treasury Bills by banks, and thus are virtually issued by the bankers.[For a fuller description on how notes and coins come into circulation, see April 2000 Prosperity]

3. It follows that those who have the power to “create” out of nothing all the money in each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total power over all States, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and so on. Therefore the powers of Parliament are largely ephemeral.

4. It is essential that the issue of money be as needed by the whole nation and hence free from private or political influence. Consequently it is essential that the Queen in Council should resume the power and duty of monetary emission. If new money is spent (not lent) into circulation, taxes could be reduced to a small fraction of their present and growing burden and the National Debt will gradually disappear.

5. Banks should only be able to lend moneys they have earned or borrowed. Their other functions would remain.

6. With the release from the debt and tax burden and with the issue of money in accordance with the needs of exchange, the country would experience unexampled and lasting prosperity, with no slumps and unemployment. Financial principles and policies would be open and broadly understood: instead of being Master, Money would become a public servant.

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?