22 September 2013

NOTICE TO READERS

For new Broad Oak posts on this topic, please go to the main page (see picture link on right), and then click on the relevant topic label listed there.

This page is developing as a non-posting resource. Over time, we will be adding links to blogs and sites, for those who like to research in depth or be kept up to date with news.

Thanks, and see you on the Broad Oak main page:  http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.co.uk/

(Pic source)
 

19 September 2013

Albert Burgess: Loyalty vs. Treason 2

Winston Churchill said in 1938, "This country breeds a type of man who is very well educated and highly intelligent, who think they know best. They can't help themselves: they always commit treason."

Such a man was Edward Heath. He thought he knew what was best for this ancient Kingdom. He was wrong, of course. Traitors are never right. Heath as an Englishman and as Privy Councillor had an absolute duty of loyalty to this Kingdom.

So what did he do?

Edward Heath was tasked by McMillan to carry out negotiations for the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community, for entirely the wrong reason De Gaulle said "non".

When he became Prime Minister Heath was determined to take us into the EEC at any cost. Sir Con O'Neil, our chief negotiator, was told not to negotiate but to accept whatever the French offered. Sir Con O'Neil coined the phrase "Swallow it whole, swallow it now".

The laws which prevented our membership of the EEC had already been removed: the Act of Provisors was repealed in the Criminal Law Revision Act 1948, and the Act of Praemunire was repealed in the Criminal Law Act 1967. The way was now clear for Heath to commit high treason.

But how did he go about it? The first thing he did was to contact a man named Norman Redaway who worked at the Foreign Office in a department called the Information Research Department, which during the Second World War was known as the Office of Strategic Services. Redaway was a spook. Heath asked him if he could change the mind of the British people and Redaway said he could do that. He needed help and he got it from a man named Anthony Royle.

Did Heath know what he was doing? The answer is yes, he sought advice from Lord Kilmuir the Lord Chancellor. His advice is in this letter*:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-079.pdf
(N.B. This document is no longer on the Parliamentary website at that address!)

They set up a conspiracy designed to subvert the English Constitution, which is the major crime of sedition, and at this level of sedition an act of high treason. And to hand this Kingdom lock, stock and barrel to a foreign power the EEC was the major crime of high treason.

But how to do it? First, organized breakfast meetings at the Connaught Hotel in London; these meetings were attended by Government Ministers, MPs, the British Council for the European Movement and top people from ITV, the BBC and the national newspapers. At these meetings the media people were persuaded to remove all their front line anti-EEC reporters and to replace them with pro-EEC reporters.

They set up a department in a back room of Chatham House where five people wrote thousands of letters all purporting to come from people like you and me, every letter saying what a great idea this EEC was; but the IRD did not have a facility to distribute them, so they were distributed to the central offices of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties and the British Council for the European Movement. They got them signed and sent to the letters pages of the news outlets. By this method they completely skewed the public’s perception of what was best for the Kingdom and themselves and their families.

Heath also asked the Foreign office what effect joining the EEC would have on Britain. They told him it would mean surrendering powers to govern to a foreign power, and taking on foreign laws.

So both Lord Kilmuir and the foreign office knew it would mean surrendering powers to govern to a foreign power, Lord Kilmuir saying this had never been done. Of course it had not, because to do that is treason. The Foreign Office went so far as to say, "It is important for our politicians to get positions of authority in the European Parliament, ready for the day it takes over.”

The rest, as they say, is history, Heath is dead; others are not. Our job now must be to reverse this ongoing treason by putting on trial the surviving members of Heath’s machine. In order to do that, check our website: www.acasefortreason.org.uk.
________________________
* Slightly edited copy of the text - from here - is as follows (apologies for the odd line breaks, caused by pasting from pdf):

RESEARCH PAPER 10/79

Appendix 2 Letter to Edward Heath from Lord Kilmuir, December 1960

I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty [...]
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three
ways:-Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the
Community; The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to
those organs; Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming
subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.


(a) The position of Parliament

It is clear from the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of
Ministers could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force)
make regulations which would be binding on use even against our wishes, and which would
in fact become for us part of the law of the land. There are two ways in which this
requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgment on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North America Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada; in this respect
Parliament here has in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would
have, pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.


It would in theory be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would
give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate
organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive
delegation of powers, even in wartime, that we have experienced and I do not think there is
any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons.


Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the
relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that
entry into the Community would be irrevocable; we should have therefore to accept a
position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in
practice to abrogate the Statute of Westminster. In short, Parliament would have to transfer to
the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of
legislating over the whole of a very important field.


(b) Treaty-making Powers

The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent
fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties, such as GATT and O.E.E.C.,
restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as
detrimental to our sovereignty that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make
tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the Council or the
Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an
entirely different proposition. There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the
exercise of sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by use of obligations under our
treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession
of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on
an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation
to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us
very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no
precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of Parliamentary supremacy would
necessarily be involved: as you know, although the treaty-making power is vested in the
Crown, Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law
or the imposition of taxation (to take only two examples), and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.


(c) Independence of the Courts

There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law
(even in a limited field) to another court and – as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’ to
accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered
in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that
the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal
which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.


Of these three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in
my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that, as a matter
of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I
am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of the objections to them.
But those objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to
gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the
Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on. Having said
this, I would emphasise once again that, although these constitutional consideration must be
given their full weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for
one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the
long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifice
of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being
called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.


http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-079.pdf

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

17 September 2013

Removal of Royal veto and a fishy smell from Fowey

There is worried comment doing the rounds of the internet as people have had their attention drawn to the wording of the proposed House of Lords Bill 15:

“A BILL TO Amend the Sovereign Grant Act 2011; to amend the succession to the title of the Duke of Cornwall; to re-distribute the Duchy of Cornwall’s estate; and to remove the requirement for a Parliament to obtain Queen’s or Prince’s consent to consideration of bills passing through Parliament.”[1]
The last part would remove Royal veto over a Bill’s progress rather than Royal Assent, but it looks like a further power grab by Parliament of the kind that Albert Burgess outlined in his lucid historical conspectus this morning[2].

It’s quite an assault on the Prince of Wales. Who’s behind it, and why?
The Bill is sponsored by Lord Berkeley, a hereditary Baron who was returned to the Lords as a Life Peer after the House was reformed under New Labour. He was a Labour Whip and spokesperson for Transport prior to the 1997 General Election.[3]

He is well-qualified to speak on transportation. Here are some of his offices mentioned in the House of Lords’ interests:
Chairman, Rail Freight Group
Board Member, European Rail Freight Association
President, Aviation Environment Federation
President, United Kingdom Marine Pilots Association
President, Road Danger Reduction Forum
Vice President, Cycling Touring Club

Road, rail, air, sea… quite a list. The marine interest goes a little bit further:

Trustee, Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) (sustainability of the marine ecosystem)

and…

Harbour Commissioner, Fowey Harbour Authority, Cornwall

That last is interesting. Lord Berkeley lives in Polruan (see note 3), near the mouth of the river Fowey. He will not be far from various interests of the Prince of Wales, who as Duke of Cornwall

“owns freehold about three-fifths of the Cornish foreshore and the 'fundus', or bed, of navigable rivers and has right of wreck on all ships wrecked on Cornish shores, including those afloat offshore.”[4]


Land and shore holdings of the Duchy of Cornwall


This land ownership also used to include Fowey Harbour, but “the Harbour Commissioners own the fundus and foreshore purchasing from the Duchy of Cornwall in 1933.”[5]

So Fowey is not directly beholden to the Prince and it would seem that there is little opportunity for a direct conflict of interests.
But the maritime angle has a little more to it than that. In 2011, Lord Berkeley launched another Bill, the Marine Navigation Bill[6], which aimed to make or amend provisions for pilots, lighthouses and harbour authorities. This Bill would have affected the Prince’s interests and so James Whittle, Clerk to the Lords, wrote to Lord Berkeley on 6 September 2011[7]to alert him to the need to approach Clarence House for the Prince’s consent. The Bill never made it.

In the Spring of 2013, the noble Lord called for a “radical overhaul” of the Duchy and said “he wanted to see all money generated by the estate go towards Cornish people and not the heir to the throne,”[8]so setting the common man against the Crown in a manner reminiscent of what Albert Burgess has told us of Asquith’s tour round Britain. It’s been some time since a socialist was so keen to see the people have control over their own money.
Could it be that there is a short-sighted and destructive element of personal pique in this new, constitutionally significant initiative?


All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

"The British Government has committed treason."

Albert Burgess makes the case that in 1972, the British Government committed treason and sedition when it took Britain into the EEC. Our continued membership, he says, is against the British people's Constitutional freedoms and rights. His website is here: http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/
_____________________________________

Loyalty vs. Treason

What bench marks do we have to help us decide between Loyalty and Treason? What is it to be loyal to one’s country or to betray one’s country?


In the United Kingdom we have a Parliamentary democracy headed by the King or Queen.


How does Parliament work?


Parliament is made up of three things:


  • The House of Commons in which our elected representatives sit;
  • The House of Lords in which the Lords Spiritual (the Bishops) and the Lords Temporal (the Barons) sit;
  • The King or Queen, who sits in the House of Lords, being the top Baron in the Kingdom.
It has become convention since 1420 for the House of Commons to start legislation, which then goes to the House of Lords, who vet the legislation, accept it, reject it or send it back to the House of Commons with recommendations for how it should be amended. If it passes through both Houses it is then put before the King for the Royal assent. If and only if it gets the assent from the King can it become law.

The King is born of the Common Law: he is part hereditary, part elected. The King has advisors who were originally the important men in the Kingdom; these developed into the Saxon Witan and the Witan into a Parliament as we now know it. This is how it should work.

The different types of law

The oldest is the common law, which started out as a set of rules to allow people to live together in harmony.


Then there is constitutional law. This in large measure is a confirmation of the rules of the common law by the King and by a charter. Such constitutional laws are the Charter of Liberties 1100, Magna Carta 1215, the Petition of Right 1628, and the 1689 Bill of Rights.


Finally, there is statute law. There is a great deal of misunderstanding of statute law. Parliament itself was born of the common law and the common law gave Parliament the right to clarify the common law and as society developed and the common law was unable to supply a remedy, to make law by statute to provide a new remedy. Statute law is real law, but only as long as the statute complies with the spirit of the common law, which can be very basically described as “do no harm”.


What are loyalty and treason?


Loyalty to the King and the Kingdom is a duty imposed on us all in exchange for the protection afforded to us by the King.


Treason is a breach of our duty of loyalty to the King or the Kingdom.


It is important to understand these things if we are going to understand what follows.


The growth of the power of the Commons


Since 1420 when the House of Commons demanded and got the right to initiate all legislation, the Commons has been on a power grab.


In 1609 the Commons wrote to the House of Lords describing themselves as the Knights, Burgess's and Barons, of the High Court of Parliament. The House of Lords replied saying that under no circumstances world they accept the Commons as Barons of Parliament and without the Lords they were no court at all.


In 1667 the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill. A ten-year row ensued but in 1677 the Lords agreed not to amend money bills. This had far-reaching and unforeseen consequences, consequences which have had devastating effects on the Kingdom.


In 1909 the government of Asquith put forward a budget which promised the common man a pension. The House of Lords looked at this and believing they could not amend a money bill, and realising the extra tax needed to fund this pension was more than the common man could afford on top of the taxes they already paid, they rejected the budget.


Asquith told the Lords he was putting a bill forward to prevent the Lords from rejecting a bill. The Lords said they would reject it, but Asquith said he would put 500 new lords into the Upper House and they would vote for its abolition. The Lords caved in.


The bill was put before King Edward VII who rejected it on the grounds that it removed a protection from his subjects and it was unconstitutional. The King ordered Asquith to go to the country.


Asquith and his ministers went around the country telling everyone those horrible Lords would not let the working man have a pension. The Lords felt it was beneath them to out their side. Asquith was re-elected and the 1911 Parliament was passed into law, King Edward saying when he opened Parliament that the only reason he was putting this forward was because his ministers told him he must.


This was the end of Parliament as a democratic body. It placed the House of Commons in the position of being able to do anything it wanted to without any restraint.


The removal of legal safeguards against foreign power


As a result the House of Commons were able to repeal laws like the 1351 Statute of Provisors, which prevented the disposal of English assets to a foreign owner, and the 1351 Act of Praemunire, which forbade the importation of any foreign law into England or for any of his Bishops to excommunicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope, or for any of his subjects to be drawn out of England to be tried in foreign courts. These two major laws were designed to protect the Kingdom.


Edward Heath, the EEC, treason and sedition


It was the removal of these two ancient laws which allowed Edward Heath to put through his 1972 European Communities Act. When Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome he surrendered our fishing grounds, a very valuable English asset to the EEC; and on that day we imported more law than we had made for ourselves in the previous 700 years: some 2,000 extra laws in one day.


Edward Heath had a duty of Loyalty to Her Majesty and he had taken the oath of a Privy Councillor in which he swore to uphold and defend all Her Majesty's Rights, Privileges, Pre-eminences, and Prerogatives. When he put through the 1972 EEC Act he knew he was surrendering this Kingdom to foreign rule, entirely contrary to the oaths he had taken. Edward Heath had committed high treason against Her Majesty, contrary to the 1351 Treason Act, and high treason against the people of England and the English Constitution.


Every European treaty since has surrendered more powers to govern to a foreign power. Joining the European Union has been an act of high treason against the Queen and people of this United Kingdom by those in government.


By doing this Edward Heath had imagined the death of Her Majesty as a Sovereign Queen, which is high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. He had also subverted the English Constitution, the major crime of Sedition at Common Law and at this level of sedition and act of high treason against the English Constitution and Her Majesty’s subjects.
 
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

15 September 2013

The limits to protest



A couple of weeks ago I was arguing that we should deplore the increasing isolation of our rulers and suggesting that it could be a justification for other kinds of feedback to them.

The video above (from LiveLeak) is one: former general David Petraeus, going to lecture at the City University of New York, is being pursued by a shouting mob of students protesting his involvement in the Iraq war.

How far should this go, and for how long? At what point will viewers feel that the protestors no longer represent a voiceless cohort of the population and are then acting unreasonably, or rather too self-righteously? Should the students be allowed to continue in "every class", as they threaten?

If Simon Wiesenthal could pursue Nazi war criminals without  a time limit, should others feel empowered to hound those that they consider unpunished wrongdoers?

Is "it was all a long time ago" a sufficient excuse?

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

14 September 2013

"Western secret services connived at the Syrian gas attack" - Voltaire Network

Why so few women victims? Why were the dead children not pictured with grieving parents? How were atrocity videos made before the events allegedly occurred?

See this article by Thierry Meyssan:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article180221.html

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

12 September 2013

EU vs UK: an email to Mr Christopher Booker at the Sunday Telegraph

Dear Mr Booker

I should be very grateful for your, or your contacts', opinions re the authority of the EU over the UK. My MP, John Hemming, emailed me (22.03.2011) to say this, and I don't know how right he is:

"The EU has no power over parliament. In fact the Lisbon Treaty included a change for a provision to leave the EU. Parliament can simply refuse to incorporate EU law and in my view should be a bit more critical.

"People also get confused between the EU and the Council of Europe."

Is this correct? And if so, isn't Parliament the problem, rather than the EU?

Yours sincerely

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

The Last Post

Newsnight tells us the Royal Mail is set to be privatised. Look at our bus services, our rail, our medicine, our education - making a mint for a few is bound to make services better for everyone.

I've never voted for Labour. Not when it was run by a narcissistic psychopath, nor afterwards by a Stalinist depressive. I can't vote for a party led by a gobbling Marxist-lecturer's-son hereditary-leader sixth-form-debater Tweedledum or his simmeringly resentful Dee brother.

But how can a supposedly fragile Coalition be so bold? It must be the recklessness of despair. Après leurs, le déluge.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

11 September 2013

My Long Walk To Freedom

Almost five years have passed since I cracked open an eyelid and looked at the world anew.

I live in Scotland, in a wee village where not much has changed for decades. Crime is almost non-existent, my two sons received a goodish education, my wife works full-time, and I continue to use the village to launch my visits to Africa and beyond. Life was good, all were happy and all were feeling relatively secure.

In late 2005 I learnt about the impending smoking ban which was slated to kick off on March 26th 2006. I was incensed. I was outraged. I knew the damage it would bring to the hospitality industry, so I read, and I read, and I read. I studied the proposed law and I was stunned at how easy it was to get an abomination like this through Holyrood. The law was flawed. In fact, according to a QC I know in Edinburgh, it contained five major flaws and two minor flaws. He was, he said, quite happy to launch a Judicial Review to overturn the law but he also said he needed 250 thousand pounds to achieve it. Game over. It was, in fact, game over for nearly 12,000 pubs and clubs. They still shut down at a phenomenal rate.

In 2008 I discovered the Freeman Movement and I was enthralled. The principles were sound, the theory was sound, so I threw myself at reading statute after statute. My head was bursting with a million facts and I was now on the warpath. I was an enemy of the state. This was okay, because the state was always my enemy. They hate me. They hate you too. If you doubt that, take a brief look at the many thousands of things they do not do in our name.

Later on I started reading Magna Carta (1215 as well as 1297) and I knew the answers lay within. MC1215 is unique. It is a Treaty between the King and his people. It was for all time, and it could not be amended, repealed, rewritten, or undone in any way. This Treaty was not created by parliament-it was written and enacted 50 years before the first English parliament was even born. De Montfort and his early parliamentarians only got started in 1265-and as MC1215 was not created by them, they, and successive governments, had/have no right to fiddle with it. As far as I am concerned, the document is lawfully extant. Every word of it.

In June 2008 I entered Lawful Rebellion. I invoked Article 61, as is my right as an Englishman, although the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish also have the same right: Barons from all four corners of what is now the UK came together to add their autographs to this world-changing Treaty. This Treaty serves us all. In 2001 a Barons Committee was formed following the horrendous House of Lords Act 1999. Some 70 Peers entered Lawful Rebellion and advised Mrs Windsor accordingly. I did the same thing using a series of Affidavits between June and September of 2008. In essence, I am no longer beholden to any statute bearing Mrs Windsors name, nor am I obliged to obey any of her agents, or indeed, anyone who has sworn an Oath of Allegiance to her. My allegiance is to the Barons Committee. I am not alone in this. Some 800,000 people in Britain have sent the same documents, and made the same oath: to distrain and distress Mrs Windsor and her agents until redress is obtained.

I have been distraining and distressing like billy-oh ever since.

It is not a comfortable life, seeking confrontation with the state at every turn, but I enjoy it. I have learnt to say "No", forcefully, politely, and often. It may surprise you to learn just how powerful this word is.

One of my tasks (part of the distraining and distressing thing) is to withhold taxes as often as I can. So when I got a demand from HMRC for 5K 'owed' to them in Corporation Tax I thought I would try my new found skill. They sent me letter after letter, demand after demand and threat after threat. It went on for a while and in order to stay in honour (very important in law) I continuously made them a "Conditional Agreement To Pay". This staved off court action because I never said I would not pay, just that I needed them to answer a few simple questions before I did so.

I ended up writing to their Solicitors Office when they were handed the problem. It took me three letters to remove their interest in me completely. What voodoo did I use? Which particular words threw them into a tailspin?

Just these:

"Please prove that I, Captain James Ranty*, a living, breathing man, owe you a single penny".

*my nom de guerre

The letters stopped. The demands stopped. The threats stopped. Everything stopped. I have not heard a word since 2009.

As daft as it sounds, the words 'human being' do not appear in any tax statutes. Not once. The word 'person' appears hundreds of times, I grant you, but I am not a person. Their definition of person is: "corporation sole, limited company, or legal fiction".

I am none of those and I am therefore not obliged to pay tax. That, plus my obligations as a Lawful Rebel, put me way beyond their reach. To date, I have withheld over 15K in taxes and fines.

The courts are very different. I have not had a good outcome there. I am not a habitual criminal, by the way, but I did decide to treat a speeding 'offence' a little differently than most. I refused to complete the Notice of Intended Prosecution form. It allowed me only to plead guilty and that is not right. Not according to the Bill of Rights 1689 or the Scottish version, Claim of Right 1689. There is a maxim that states "A man cannot be hanged by his own evidence" (I have paraphrased) and I told the courts this. They did the only thing they could do: they ignored me, and kept sending policemen to my home. They got short shrift as well, but I eventually ended up in magistrates court and I was 'awarded' 9 points. 3 for speeding, and 6 for not hanging myself.

Along the way I learnt many things, including:

1. Mrs Windsor abdicated in 1972 when she gave Assent to the European Communities Act.
2. Because of that, every police officer acts unlawfully, as does every court in the land.
3. Parliament is both an illegal and an unlawful gathering.
4. We have been bankrupt since the Napoleonic Wars.
5. America remains a British colony, and still pays taxes to Mrs Windsor.
6. Washington DC is NOT part of the USA.
7. The City of London is NOT part of the UK.
8. ALL law comes from the Vatican, this includes Islamic and Judean Law.
9. The Vatican owns every living being on the planet-See Unam Sanctam of 1302.
10. We are all dead-See the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666.
11. Our money is worthless. It is fiat currency, and operates only on faith.
12. Banknotes are promissory notes. According to the Bill of Exchange Act of 1882 I can also create promissory notes. So can you.

I could go on, but I have discovered that the only way to know a thing, is to research it for yourself. Some of this stuff seems utterly unbelievable at first glance, but that is mostly because we have been misled by corrupt governments for hundreds of years. Most of them have no idea how deep the rabbit hole is, and I think that very, very few of the proles (myself included) have no real idea either.

Like it or not, we are cash cows. We will be milked until we squeal. Looking around me, at Generation Meh, it will be quite some time before the Establishment hears any significant noise from us. They have a Black Belt, Fifth Dan, in the Art of Distraction.

To wrap up, consider this:

In what world would the master/servant relationship be reversed and condoned? In ours, of course.

We pay these public servants to run the country. No more, and no less. They lie, cheat and steal from us on a daily basis. They take our money and waste it in new and disturbing ways. We pay THEM yet we stand looking sheepish as they punish US. We pay our policemen and women to kick the crap out of us. We pay them so well, and protect them so well that they have killed almost 1,800 of us in the last nine years and guess how many were prosecuted for wrongful death? None. Not one. Those 1,800 who died after coming into contact with the police? Just coincidence. Nothing more.

Our taxes pay for bombs and bullets which are rained down on innocent brown men, women and children in foreign climes. We are supporting massacres with our tax dollars, in direct contravention of the laws which came after the Nuremberg Trials, and in direct contravention of the Terrorism Act of 2006. Their own statutes tell us that anyone sponsoring illegal wars and insurrections is as guilty as those prosecuting them. And yet we pay.

We pay because we feel we cannot refuse. If we do, they promise to send burly men to come and haul us off to the courts. They don't. I am living proof of that.

One definition of slavery is doing work for no recompense coupled with the threat of force if you do not comply. Every single employer is enslaved. Every single employer collects your tax from source for absolutely no reward. Slavery never ended. They just introduced a new subtlety.

It isn't all about money. It is essentially about freedom. Freedom from thuggish police, from inept, greedy, self-serving politicians, freedom to shop in a large town or city without being captured on video more than 300 times in a three hour visit, freedom to travel the highways and byways without let, hindrance or charge. This right was granted to all in the Bor/CoR 1688/9. The freedom to live, rather than merely exist. The freedom to ignore a snooping, tracking, eavesdropping, nannying government.

In short, I want to be left alone. The very moment they leave me in peace, I will stop being a pain in the arse.

Captain Ranty.

PS-If I were you, I would disbelieve every word in this piece. I would click my way around the interwebs in an effort to locate some the facts mentioned here. I would question everything, and I would default to my number one priority, which is to follow the money. Do that, and you should find yourself wondering how the hell you were deceived for so long. Good luck and Godspeed.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

9 September 2013

Arctic freeze, Greenland melt

David Rose writes again in the Mail on Sunday, reporting a 60% increase in North Polar ice cover. Ha ha! That's one in the eye for all you global warming experts, etc.

On the other hand, Professor Jason Box continues his Dark Snow researches in Greenland and finds that the melting continues as predicted. About half of it, he thinks, is down to reduced albedo [index of light reflection] because of a soot layer from the burning of fossil fuel and forest, but there are other factors, too, including a secondary partial-melt effect that causes ice crystals to become more rounded.

And Rose's article ignores regional variation in air temperature, even within Greenland. "Heat transport into the Arctic bypassed Greenland to its east. Svalbard [an archipelago in the North Norway region] has had a warm summer."

Meltfactor blog: http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=1222

Greenland had a record warm episode in July (not due to the North Atlantic airstream), but then there was fresh snowfall in the south that brightened the surface more than usual; yet in the northwest the albedo was unusually low.

Journalists, whichever side you take (should you be taking sides?): it's just not that simple. And the polar ice cap cover is only one of a wide range of measures being assessed and discussed in the climate change debate.

I don't suppose Rose is likely to listen - he's doing too well out of incompletely-researched contrarianism. Unfortunately, he's writing in the most-read newspaper in the UK.

He's not the only professional side-taker: look at Matt Ridley, the self-styled "rational optimist", whose home farm promotes organic and traditional farming while the lord of the manor makes a reputation by telling the world that there's nothing much to worry about. Seems like Greenland isn't the only place where it blows hot and cold.

"How they are related" footnote:*

"Environment Secretary Owen Paterson’s wife, Rose, is the sister of Viscount Matt Ridley."

Paterson is the Minister currently championing biodiversity offsetting so the developers can have a clear run at the land they want to build on.

Just so you know.

*Even more interestingly, this information appears to have been recently edited out of the Wikipedia entry, but the same fact appears in this Mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346246/Why-did-Tories-change-tune-GM-food-We-expose-secret-summit-slick-lobbyists-bio-tech-giants-seduced-willing-Ministers.html

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

8 September 2013

Order for the Service of Holy Communication

Collect from the Revised Book of Common Interaction (2013):

ALMIGHTY GOVERNMENT, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Special Advisers, Public Relations and News Media, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name…
Cum privilegio gubernatorum
________________________

http://gizmodo.com/the-nsa-can-crack-almost-any-type-of-encryption-1258954266

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-how-to-remain-secure-surveillance

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/06/nsa-breaks-encryption-here-we-go-again-there-is-nobody-and-nothing-they-have-not-tapped/

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

3 September 2013

The war for the Mediterranean


Simplified version of the Hereford Mappa Mundi (c. 1300). Picture source: Atlantis Maps.com
CNN reports that the number of refugees from the Syrian civil war now exceeds 2 million. Yet Classicfm radio news this morning says that people are showing some reluctance to give money to charities working in that area. I can understand why, since I fear we've already been paying involuntarily through our taxes to create and inflame this disaster.

The US certainly has, according to Barry Ritholtz, for the last 6 or 7 years. But I suspect that the UK, ever keen to show that it still has a real pair, not Neuticles, has been assisting, as it did with the clandestine insertion of an SAS unit into Libya to help oust Gaddafi. The Syrian government has admitted responsibility for shooting down a Turkish warplane it says was violating its airspace, but denies firing an artillery shell into Turkey and rebels in Damascus have allegedly confessed that they were the ones who let off the chemical bomb that nearly precipitated direct US military intervention.

I think history will judge that Secretary of State John "we know" Kerry's reputation is now toast, but it hasn't dissuaded him from a hawkish insistence that Obama can go ahead even if the Congressional vote goes against him. And we now hear that the ruthlessly ambitious and pseudo-affable Mayor of London is proposing a second vote in Parliament so MPs can be given the chance to get it right this time.

Those who set a fire cannot be certain of controlling its spread. Burning round the eastern Mediterranean, the flames could tickle other countries too, as Russia becomes involved in the new Great Game. The same tactics that have destabilised the Arab Street could be used against nations on the northern coast of the Middle Sea, which have been suffering as a result of the overbearing rule of the EU and the predations of international banking. Greece for example, with its high youth unemployment, history of internecine strife and 8,500 miles of coastline, might be a tempting target for subversion and infiltration.

You can lose power through overreaching. I used to have a postwar edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and one of its articles traced the roots of the Reformation to the attempt by mediaeval Popes to maintain and strengthen their control while Western countries settled down and their kings grew stronger. Is the US risking upsetting the balance of power by trying to secure the Levant?

Conversely, the collapse of the Soviet Union has allowed Russia to get a better grip on its affairs and its developing energy resources are giving it something to bargain with rather than invade. (She also has a very promising agricultural position: 117 people per km2 of arable land, versus 179 for the US and - dangerous, this - 1,077 for the UK.) The potential economic power is seen in control of gas supplies to Northern Europe, but also perhaps in the events that led to the fall of Greek Premier Kostas Karamanlis in 2008 - he was negotiating with Russia for their South Stream gas pipeline, a rival to the EU/US Nabucco line. There are even allegations of an assassination plot against Karamanlis and foreign threats against the Greek government.

It doesn't take much to drop a country into chaos. It's said that a satphone and $20,000 can get you an African armed revolutionary movement. A organized minority can overthrow and seize a nation. For example, in the Soviet Union of 1986 only 10% were in the Communist Party, of which more than half were industrial workers and farmers; in pre-Purge 1933, maybe 2.5%; in 1918 just after the Revolution, a mere 200,000 members or one-fifth of one per cent.

In Greece, the average electoral turnout for the Communist KKE has been over 6% since 2000, and back in 1958 it was 24%. The average of c. 470,00 votes (not that voting means much to Communists, and some of the most dangerous will stay in cover) represents around 5% of the population aged over 15. The KKE vote halved between May and June last year (from 536,072 to 277,122) and one has to wonder whether there may be some foreign support for some of the alternative parties; but Greeks are quite capable of quarrelling without the help of outsiders. The point is that the politics there are volatile, and there are lots of hormonal youngsters to recruit for one cause or another.

Not that Greece is the only southern European country ripe for trouble. Think of Italy and Spain; and the Balkans. A direct confrontation between major global players seems unlikely, at this stage; but goodness knows what is going on in the world of Spy vs. Spy. And it's not only the US Sixth Fleet aiming to "keep the peace" in the Eastern Med: Russia is reported to be sending a missile cruiser and an anti-submarine ship.

Russia still has only one port that is ice-free all year round, and that is on the Baltic and separated from the Mother Country by the land of three other nations. But she controls land joining the Caspian and Black Sea, and has ethnic Slavic connections with Bulgaria, Macedonia and even currently Turkified Slavs in Anatolia. Oh, for free naval passage through the Hellespont and a base in Alexandroupoli, or even Thessaloniki.

The sides are getting too close to each other. A little less car use and turning down the central heating a bit might save us from unintended consequences in a very perilous game in the centre of the world.

UPDATE (3 Sep 2013): Steve Quayle says the plan is to use Syria to break Russia's plans for gas exports in the region (htp: Autonomous Mind).

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

1 September 2013

Delingpole in love


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y
 
Professional contrarian James Delingpole has taken a look into the mad, staring eyes of Ayn Rand and fallen head over heels:

I’m now half way through Atlas Shrugged and I’m loving almost every moment. But Ayn Rand isn’t someone you read for pleasure, I’m beginning to realise. She’s someone you read so you can underline sentences and scrawl in the margins ‘Yes’, ‘God that is so TRUE!’ and ‘YES!!!’

It's a coup de foudre: as he admits, he's only halfway through the book. The intemperate marginalia suggest a loss of balance.

Discounting for a moment the possibility that he's gushing annoyingly because it might increase his chances of another booking for Any Questions?, I have to wonder why it's necessary to counter one extreme with another. Is the only answer to Communism, Objectivism? If all that matters is opposites, would Mein Kampf do just as well? After all, Rand appears to have been very taken with the triumph of the superior person's will.

I recall a Conservative election advert - was it as early as 1979, or would it have been in the Eighties? - where the voter's choice was represented as being either Tory or Labour, and nothing in between: the Liberals were symbolised by a contemptible little boneshaker of a car rattling down the centre line and meeting a noisy end round the corner, with only a hubcap rolling back into view. On the other hand, I also remember the first time I tried punting: you head towards a holly bush on the left, correct hard and find yourself making straight for some thicket on the right. Very clever of the ad firm (the Saatchis?) to persuade us that dualism is the only way.

Words, phrases, images can be intoxicating and misleading. We translate reality into our code system and then stick to the translation - think of our false memories of places and events, and Alistair Campbell's subordination of fact to "narrative".

One has to distrust stirring prose that divides us into camps: shale frackers vs "hard-left, deep-green pressure groups", "wealth creators" vs "looters". One can see that fracking may give us a few years' opportunity to reform the ergonomics of our economy, without either believing that the boom will last for a century or that we will all be poisoned and our homes disappear into sinkholes. Similarly, one can value the contribution of entrepreneurs without seeing everyone else as a bloodsucker.

But maybe Delingpole is just doing a Matt Ridley. Maybe he's not really nuts, just crazy like a fox, dressing up in whatever meretricious opinion will scandalise. After all, as Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

On the other hand, instead of throwing sticks of TNT around in the attempt to get attention, you could try taking your coat off and work up a sweat, digging for the truth.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

Media bias? Syria, chemical weapons and napalm

There is some confusion in media reporting on Syria, and I wonder whether it is deliberate. BBC News at Ten talked about chemical weapons a couple of nights ago, and then screened an on-the-ground report (no longer available on BBC iPlayer) showing the burn victims of an air attack on a school:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b038zlbl/BBC_News_at_Ten_29_08_2013/


Trouble is, the wounds look like the effects of napalm, a mixture of petrol and gel that sticks to you as it burns. As it was invented in 1943 it was obviously not proscribed by the Geneva Protocol of 1925, nor is it banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention, which took effect in 1997.

Wikipedia says its "use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 1980" but, sorry as I am that anyone at all should suffer, I have to wonder what these "schoolchildren" were doing that might have prompted an air strike. If a teenager is firing bullets and RPGs, is he a civilian?

And although the horrible injuries seem perfectly genuine, there was a slightly stagey feel to the BBC clip, as I have noted before. As with those Middle Eastern demonstrators who hold up placards written in English, one gets the impression that people there are learning how to play to the Western cameras; they're far from stupid, and propaganda is an important element in modern warfare.

By the way, the same Wiki article notes that although Protocol III to the CCW restricts the use of all incendiary weapons, the US itself has not signed that part. The US made enthusiastic and terrible use of napalm in Vietnam, sometimes adding white phosphorus to the mixture so that it continued to burn to the bone even if the victim dived into water.

So, is it merely age-related daftness that made me conflate the banned use of "chemical weapons" with a possibly legal possible napalm attack on possibly innocent civilians, or was the BBC "nudging" us into support for military action against the Syrian government? The news media have form in angling coverage - remember the 1992 pic of Bosnian Muslims apparently caged behind barbed wire? There were real atrocities in that conflict, but surely the news media, who are our ears and eyes on the wider world, have for that reason a special duty to be carefully truthful, unbiased and critical, and to give us context as well as image; I don't feel we've had that.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

31 August 2013

Syria: how did your MP vote?

See the Ayes and Noes (for Division Number 70) here in Hansard. (I tried to transcribe the lists but computers, you know.)

Sadly, as Autonomous Mind says, you can't necessarily read any good motive into a No vote; and the vote in the Commons nowhere near reflects the split in public opinion. All this has achieved is to highlight the disconnect between the electorate and their supposed representatives. However, I on this occasion I see an Aye vote as a slightly less ambiguous demerit.

And just as US Congress first voted the right way on the $700 billion bailout, and was then bullied by Paulson & Co. into voting again his way, I shouldn't wonder if Parliament has another go at this issue from another direction, perhaps after Obama sends in the drones.

And as for John Kerry's "proof" of Assad's guilt re chemical weapons, here's a pregnant snippet from John Ward:
At the website of French weekly Valeurs Actuelles, an interesting message from a threader mentions the arrest by the Turkish authorities on the 30th May 2013 of a dozen members of Al Nosra ( close to Al Qaida)*. The same also reports on a dispatch from Agence France Press regarding the recent seizure of ” a great quantity of gas masks” in South East Lebanon; According to an anonymous source these masks were to be delivered in Syria.

* Caught with, the threader says ("Jean Billet", 23:53), two kilos of Sarin.
____________________
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

30 August 2013

A radical government without support is a dictatorship



And so David Cameron becomes the first PM in over two centuries to fail to carry the House with him on war action. He gets little sympathy from Max Hastings, who is still seething over being prevented from having an interview with a British general on the ground that "there has been far too much military leaking to the media".

But it's not just Cameron who is displaying premature signs of the autocrat. Michael Gove appears to think that bovine party loyalty trumps the will and interest of the country he has a temporary part in governing: it is reported that he "had to be restrained by colleagues" as he repeatedly yelled "disgrace" at Conservative and LibDem MPs who voted against bombing Syria.

The UN inspectors' report on the alleged use of chemical weapons is not yet due and it is far from certain that the Syrian government is responsible for the attack that is supposed to form the pretext for another terrible Western military adventure. The allegation is hardly credible: how, knowing that it would trigger direct intervention by the USA, is Assad supposed to have believed launching a gas attack would serve his best interest, and even if he had thought that, why on earth bomb a school?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b038zlbl/BBC_News_at_Ten_29_08_2013/
The sight of the wounded, some of them being trucked in from somewhere, is certainly horrible, but just as Othello's demand for "ocular proof" is used against him, it is still difficult to determine causes and agents. In a TV world, even those in developing countries have learned how to present a story to the news media. Let's not forget that aside from the conflicting personal and political ambitions in the now war-torn country of Syria, we have vehemently differing religious views, even within Islam: its Prophet himself said that there would be 72 factions, and only one would be right.

In the midst of this information fog, we're told Gove "did not join colleagues in calling for MPs to vote on military action, saying he believed the appropriate response should be decided by the Prime Minister." Soldiers, who have to kill and die, are not so gung-ho. Hastings quotes a letter in yesterday's Times newspaper from General Sir Michael Rose:

"... the invasion of Iraq, initiated by Bush and supported so zealously by Blair, triggered the unravelling of the status quo in the Middle East, resulting in so much misery and death."

This is the same Michael Gove who is charged with directing the education of the young and during the brief reign of this minority government is nevertheless hurrying through radical change, and (I suspect) using Ofsted as his battering-ram to denigrate schools in areas of social deprivation and force their conversion into "academies". He and his colleagues remind me of the episode of "Bottom" in which Adrian Edmondson proposes to break into the off-licence and drink as much as they can before the police arrive.

This is a controlling government that is out of control, and the sooner it goes, the better.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy