Elections Are A ScamAs in every election we’re now being bombarded with propaganda about how “your vote makes a difference” and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians are supposedly servants of “the people” and the government an instrument of the general populace. This version is a myth. It does not matter who is elected because the way the system is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want, not what “the people” want. Elected representatives are figureheads. Politicians’ rhetoric may change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that “the people” control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government policy. If a party wins the elections but implements policies that go against the interests of big business then profits will go down and businesses & investors will withdraw their investments. This capital flight will cause the economy to crash. If the ruling party does not change its policies to appease big business then they’ll lose the next elections due to the bad economy. In practice most parties change their policies to appease the corporate elite in order to avoid losing power. This is not merely theoretical, it has happened repeatedly. It happened in India a few months ago. The left, lead by the Congress party, won the elections, leading to a coalition government with the Congress party and the Communist party. This caused the stock market to crash because investors feared a change in economic policy that would hurt their profits. Sonia Ghandi, who was originally going to be the next Prime Minister, chose not to take the position and the new government was forced to adopt policies virtually identical to the previous government. Their rhetoric is different, but policy is basically the same. Usually the mere threat of capital flight is enough to keep potentially recalcitrant politicians in line (although most politicians never even consider policies that conflict with the corporate elite/state bureaucracy). For example, Bill Clinton won election on a mildly liberal reformist platform. Once in office he was forced to abandon his campaign promises because if he continued them the bond market wouldn’t react well and the economy would go down the tubes. Clinton’s famous statement to his advisers upon realizing this was, “You mean to tell me that the success of my program and my reelection hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?” He was thus forced to abandon his program before it even started, instead implementing one virtually identical to Republican proposals. He complained to his aides:
In theory the government might be able to combat this by nationalizing industry but neither the Democrats nor Republicans (or most prominent third parties) are willing to do this. Even if they were, the Supreme Court would strike it down. If some way were found to get around this then the CIA and/or Pentagon would overthrow the government in a coup (or through less dramatic means). The CIA has overthrown many governments for nationalizing industry, or even just implementing policies not sufficiently favorable to US corporations, including Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Greece, the Congo and many others. Doing the same on their home turf would be a piece of cake. Once elected representatives are isolated from the general public but surrounded by bureaucrats and other politicians. They therefore have a tendency to see things from the perspective of politicians and bureaucrats, rather than from the perspective of the general public from which they are isolated, and are much more susceptible to pressure from government bureaucracies. Elected representatives’ dependency on the state bureaucracy for information makes them very susceptible to manipulation by the bureaucracies they are officially in charge of. For example, in the late ‘50s the CIA secured approval to launch an uprising in Indonesia by feeding a series of increasingly alarmist reports to their superiors in the National Security Council, who otherwise might have shot the proposed uprising down. This shows how government agencies (especially secretive ones) can pressure politicians and influence policy in preferred directions. This is enhanced by the fact that individual politicians come and go but the bureaucrats are permanent, which makes it easier for bureaucrats to manipulate information and ensures that politicians have less experience with such manipulation. Because the state bureaucracy is permanent while politicians are transitory state bureaucracies tend to accrue more power than elected representatives. State bureaucracies can also manipulate the political process by leaking damaging information about politicians they don’t like or by harassing parties or movements they don’t like (such as COINTELPRO or the recent harassment of anti-war activists by the FBI). This gives an advantage to politicians favorable to the interests of the state bureaucracy. State bureaucracies, especially the military and intelligence services, have a considerable degree of autonomy from elected representatives and so aren’t truly controlled by those representatives. When New Zealand intelligence began secretly participating in Echelon, an international electronic spying system, New Zealand’s Prime Minister didn’t even know about it. Most of the CIA’s covert actions (including coups) were done without Congressional approval and some, like CIA participation in Ghana’s 1966 coup, didn’t even have Presidential approval. Entire wars have been fought in secret, including Russia 1918-1920, Laos 1965-1973 and Cambodia 1970-1975. When Congress cut off funding for the Contras (US-backed terrorists in Nicaragua) in the mid-80s the CIA (and other parts of the state bureaucracy) just kept doing it in secret, disregarding Congress’s wishes. The Pentagon can’t even produce auditable books and regularly “loses” billions of dollars every year. Auditors for the Office of Management and Budget found that “unsubstantiated balance adjustments” for financial year 2000 totaled 1.1 trillion dollars. In other words, elected politicians (and especially congress) have no real control over Pentagon spending. The whole process of Congressional hearings and budgetary oversight is just an elaborate charade – they appropriate money and the Pentagon spends it however it wants to. Plus there’s the “black budget” whose contents are kept secret, allowing the national security establishment to effectively do whatever they want with it. All of this puts many state bureaucracies (especially the military and intelligence services) beyond effective control of elected representatives, let alone the general public. Their secrecy, manipulation of budgets and complexity (there are too many bureaucrats for representatives to effectively keep track of them all) gives government bureaucracies a considerable degree of autonomy. They go off and do whatever they want, either keeping things secret from elected politicians or pressuring them into going along with it. What a politician says to win an election and what he actually does in office are two very different things; politicians regularly break their promises. This is not just a fluke but the outcome of the way the system is set up. Bush the second said he wouldn’t engage in “nation-building” (taking other countries over) during the 2000 election campaign but has done it several times. He also claimed to support a balanced budget, but obviously abandoned that. Clinton advocated universal health care during the 1992 election campaign but there were more people without health insurance when he left office than when he took office. Bush the first said, “read my lips – no new taxes!” while running for office but raised taxes anyway. Reagan promised to shrink government but he drastically expanded the military-industrial complex and ran up huge deficits. Rather than shrinking government, he reoriented it to make it more favorable to the rich. Carter promised to make human rights the “soul of our foreign policy” but funded genocide in East Timor and backed brutal dictators in Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere. During the 1964 elections leftists were encouraged by Democrats to vote for Johnson because Goldwater, his Republican opponent, was a fanatical warmonger who would escalate US involvement in Vietnam. Johnson won, and immediately proceeded to escalate US involvement in Vietnam. FDR promised to maintain a balanced budget and restrain government spending but did the exact opposite. Wilson won reelection in 1916 on the slogan “he kept us out of war” but then lied us into World War One. Hoover pledged to abolish poverty in 1928 but instead saw it skyrocket. In the 1974 Canadian elections the Liberals criticized Tory plans to introduce wage and price controls but, shortly after winning office, implemented wage and price controls. In 1993 the Liberals promised to abolish the Goods and Service Tax but reneged on that after getting power. The British Liberal party promised to cut military spending during the 1906 elections but, after winning, went back on that promise in order to wage an arms race with Germany. In 1945 the British Labor party promised to set up a ministry of housing but abandoned it after winning the election. According to the official version when leftists get elected to office we should always (or almost always) get leftist policies and vice versa when rightists get elected to office but this is not the case. The German Green party was originally pacifist and was founded on an anti-nuclear power position. They gained power in a coalition government in the late 1990s but abandoned their program, effectively delaying the end of nuclear power in Germany until the nuclear industry wanted to end it and supported military intervention during the Kosovo war. Lula, the current president of Brazil, originally ran on an anti-corporate and anti-IMF platform but is now cooperating with the IMF (although his rhetoric, but not his policies, are sometimes critical of it) and he’s just as favorable towards corporate power as his predecessor. The socialist/social democratic/labor parties in Europe were originally revolutionary Marxist parties aiming to establish a communist society. As they won elections and gained power they increasingly abandoned this goal and became ordinary capitalist parties. At first they continued to mouth Marxist rhetoric while pushing reformist policies, but eventually even Marxist rhetoric was abandoned. Prior to world war one they declared their opposition to any kind of inter-imperialist world war on the grounds that workers should not kill each other in order to benefit their capitalist masters. When world war one broke out all but two parties (the Bolsheviks and US Socialist party – neither of whom had gained much power through elections) abandoned this stance and supported their own government in a wave of patriotic fervor. Today they’re pushing through Reagan/Clinton-style deregulation and “free market reforms,” dismantling the very welfare states they formerly advocated. The most liberal American president in the last 30 years was Richard Nixon, a Republican whose personal beliefs and rhetoric were quite conservative. He created the environmental protection agency, established diplomatic relations with China, (eventually) withdrew from Vietnam, ended the draft, supported affirmative action, proposed a minimum income and imposed price controls. Every president since Nixon – including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – has been more conservative. In the US & UK Ronald Reagan & Margaret Thatcher implemented far right policies that attacked the social safety net and benefited big business in the name of the “free market.” During the same time period in Australia and West Europe the supposedly left-wing parties (labor/social democrats/socialists) held power and implemented the same “free market” policies. Clinton & Blair from the supposedly left-wing parties (Democrat & Labor) later defeated Reagan & Thatcher’s successors but once in office continued the same “free market” policies as their predecessors. This refutes all the nonsense about how “your vote makes a difference.” Politicians are required to implement the same policies (what the elite want) even if it conflicts with their campaign promises no matter who is elected. Elected representatives are figureheads. That’s why there are so many examples of people getting elected and then doing the opposite of what they promised. Electing different people to power is not an effective way to change policy. In practice, politicians differ only in the lies they tell to get in power. Once in power their policies are the same given the same situation, although the rhetoric and symbolism used to justify those policies may change greatly. Changes in policy direction are due to changes in the situation, not who is elected to office. Most major changes in policy do not coincide with new people getting in office; they coincide with changes in the situation. When the Great Depression started the US government responded with Keynesian state interventions in the economy designed to resuscitate the economy and prevent growing population movements (caused by the depression) from bringing about revolution. This actually began under Hoover, who did more in this area than any previous President, even though these policies are usually attributed to the next President, FDR. In the mid-twentieth century welfare states expanded in most Western societies as a way of preventing the then large revolutionary socialist movements from overthrowing the government (welfare programs can make the poor less likely to rebel since they are better off and because it makes the state seem more benevolent). The welfare state was in the elites’ interests because it was a way to prevent revolution and decrease unrest, which helped them gain and keep power & profit. The state bureaucracy will sometimes nationalize a limited amount of industry under these conditions, as a way of preventing revolution and also of keeping capitalism going (selling unprofitable industries to the government can be a useful way for businesses & investors to recoup loses during a depression). In the later twentieth century these revolutionary movements declined and the welfare state was gradually dismantled. It was no longer in the interests of the elite to maintain a welfare state because the threat of unrest & revolution was no longer there to justify the costs. In the US this started not under Reagan, as liberals usually claim, but in the later part of Carter’s term with deregulation and other small attacks on the welfare state. Carter also initiated other policies liberals blame Reagan for, including support for the Contras, Pol Pot, Afghan Mujahadeen and Saddam Hussein. This dismantling of the welfare state and general move to the right has continued under every subsequent President regardless of which party was in power. In the US, during Nixon’s term, there were a number of growing left-wing movements and spreading revolutionary ideology that threatened to overthrow the government. Had he not done things like end the draft, withdraw from Vietnam and implement other liberal reforms there was a real possibility that socialist revolution would erupt and even if it didn’t there would have been greater unrest which would likely outweigh the cost of his reforms. Although elections do not secure popular control over the state, they do help secure state control over the populace. Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state authority. It creates the illusion that “the people” control the state, thereby masking elite rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. This is why even totalitarian states like Russia under Stalin had elections. Embedded within all electoral campaigns is the myth that “the people” control the state through voting. This is implied & assumed by all election campaigns because it if wasn’t true then the campaign for that candidate would be pointless. This is why governments and corporations today are generally supportive of elections or at least do not question them. Government schools usually promote the importance of voting, teaching the official view that citizens control the state via elections, and some corporations (like MTV) even run commercials encouraging people to vote. It is in the interests of governments and corporations to promote voting because they serve to legitimize the system and reduce unrest. In addition, elections can help neutralize resistance movements by getting disgruntled individuals to channel their efforts into the election, instead of more effective means of resistance. Since electoral campaigns are an ineffective means of changing policy, all the labor and resources put into election campaigns are wasted. Potential rebellion is thus diverted into a dead end where it will not hurt the system. Boycotting elections doesn’t necessarily change things, but participating in elections (and especially in election campaigns) changes things for the worse by legitimizing the state and wasting resources. A vote for anyone is a vote for capitalist “democracy” and to strengthen the state. Some Democrats try to guilt leftists into voting for their candidate(s) by arguing that oppressed peoples – the poor, people of color (POC) – vote for their candidate and so you should therefore do the same. The most obvious problem with this is that most oppressed people don’t vote. You’re more likely to vote the richer and whiter you are. So by their logic you shouldn’t be voting because most poor/POC don’t vote. This argument is also based on a logical fallacy. Just because someone is poor/non-white doesn’t mean everything they believe is correct. Most believe in god and during periods in the past Leninism was quite popular among sections of the poor/POC. It does not follow from this that either idea is true. Just because oppression is wrong does not mean that everything an oppressed person believes is true. Some leftists argue that having Democrats in power is better because they will be more responsive to leftist pressure than Republicans. This argument was widely used in 1992 to justify voting for Bill Clinton but the conservative policies implemented by his presidency, which were basically a continuation of the first Bush’s policies, disprove this argument. To continue believing it after Clinton is to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality. Influence actually goes the other way around: having a Democrat in office makes the left more likely to believe the president’s lies and go along with his policies than if a Republican were in office doing the same thing. Clinton was able to gut welfare, something Reagan wanted to do but couldn’t, because he was able to co-opt other Democrats into going along with it. Had a Republican done the same many more would have opposed it. When Clinton attacked Yugoslavia & bombed Iraq the response from the left was quite small, but when Bush attacked Iraq the left formed a much larger movement against it. Many leftists (erroneously) think that a Democrat is preferable to a Republican and so are willing to give a Democrat the benefit of the doubt, and therefore are more likely to believe their lies, but will be much more skeptical of a Republican even if he does the same thing. In addition, electing a Democrat can ruin left-wing movements if they support that candidate. Once in power that Democrat will have to do the same thing a Republican would under the same circumstances. This can cause leftists who supported the Democrats to become disillusioned and drop out – allowing the right to advance even further. Some claim that the year 2000 “election”/coup shows that “every vote counts” but it actually shows the opposite. The Supreme Court decided who became president, not the voters. Gore would be president today if you went by what the voters wanted (and he would be doing the same thing Bush is doing). Actual power lies with big business and the state bureaucracy, elected representatives must do what these institutions want. If they do not obey these institutions pressure on them will mount and various disciplinary mechanisms (such as capital flight) will come into play to force them to do so. Ultimately they will be removed from office (through elections, coups, or other means) if they continue to disobey these institutions. The White House and Congress don’t really make the decisions, Wall Street and the Pentagon do. Who wins the election makes no difference (with rare exceptions) because all politicians must do what the elite want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they control the state. |
http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/voting.html
See: Non-Voting Archive
Interested readers might also enjoy the following —How and Why International Bankers Make War
“The Great Madness” by Scott Nearing
“War is the Health of the State” by Randolph Bourne
“War and the Intellectuals” by Randolph Bourne
Our Enemy, the State by Albert Jay Nock
The Warfare State – A Brief Synopsis
Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State
Waco and the Bipartisan Police State
The Antifederalists Were Right
Fascism: Clarifying a Political Concept
Visit Bigeye’s Federal Reserve educational archive
http://www.thenewtruth.org.uk/
REALLY EXCELLENT SITE-SHOULD INTEREST ALL UK FOLK …..THE ROTHSHILDS PUPPETS— FABIANS MANDY THIS WEEK— BLAIR IN JULY SWANNING AROUND ON THEIR MASTERS LUXURY VILLA AND YACHT IN GREECE…………LOL- THE LABOUR PARTY VEHICLE FOR FABIAN POWER- TO ENSLAVE THE POPULATION HANDING OVER ALL YOU HAVE TO THE FABIAN BANKERS!
Here’s a great site…
http://www.thenewtruth.org.uk/
NAIVETY, DENIAL AND FEAR – LAMBS TO THE SLAUGHTER
These are people who, if nothing is done, are going to have to live out their entire lives in a control system so ruthless and all-consuming that even the very concept of ‘freedom’ will be lost to the human psyche. They don’t even bother to check if the information could be true. “I haven`t heard it so it must be crazy”.
You could call them ‘stupid’ or ‘idiots’, and they do a wonderful impression of both, I grant you. But what they really are is programmed robots – programmed people that cannot compute beyond their software.
There is no conscious thought at work and so, even when the Orwellian state is looking them in the eye, they can’t see it. More than that, they ridicule those who can.
What do you mean a hurricane is coming? You are craz … ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Don`t be these people, do yourself a favour…
World Trade Centre 7- This Is An Orange…
This just goes from bad to worse then worse
‘Rothschild Puppet’ MANDELSON ‘TO QUIT AS A PEER’ IN PLOT TO FIGHT FOR LEADERSHIP
3-aug-09 – LABOUR plotters hope to get Lord Mandelson back into the House of Commons so that he can fight a party leadership contest, it emerged yesterday.
Allies of Tony Blair believe that a proposed change in the law to allow life peers to quit can be speeded through within months, enabling Lord Mandelson to leave the House of Lords and stand for election as an MP.
That would make it a realistic possibility for him to stand for leader if (WHEN) Mr Brown was ousted or stepped down following a Labour defeat. Unbelievable – How DUMBED DOWN is the UK Public???
(Unelected & Twice Disgraced) Lord Mandelson’s empire:
July 23, 2009 – Lord Mandelson, who also holds the title of First Secretary of State, (an invented post) has an input on policy on everything from swine flu to the Olympics, climate change to Afghanistan.
He is a member of 80 per cent of the 43 Cabinet committees and subcommittees, sitting on more than either the Prime Minister, the Chancellor or the Foreign Secretary.
These include areas such as health, immigration, trade, Africa, crime, flood planning.
The full committee list was published by No 10 on Tuesday and is an indicator of Lord Mandelson’s influence across government. READ THE FULL LIST HERE
All this? From an unelected Disgrace who should not be allowed ANY public position at all? WHY? Why do you think?
The Global Warming Hoax
July 20, 2009 – Isn’t it interesting how all our problems seem to be global these days. A global war on terrorism, a global economic crisis, the need for a global currency, global trade, global health concerns, global warming, etc.
It’s almost as if someone is pushing for a one-world government, with a one-world monetary system, a one-world police force, a one-world set of rules and a population of obedient worker bees to keep the whole economic engine going at full throttle.
Except for the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, Pindar, powerful international bankers, Skull and Bones, global elitist power brokers, the Military-Industrial Complex, the CIA, the KGB, the Federal Reserve, the international Communist conspiracy, the Knights of Malta, the Club of Rome, the 13 ruling families of the Illuminati (Rothschild, Bruce, Cavendish, De Medici, Hanover, Hapsburg, Krupp, Plantagenet, Rockefeller, Romanov, Sinclair, Warburg, Windsor) and the ghost of Adam Weishaupt, I can’t imagine who would have a motive to create a one-world government and slither their way to the top of the pyramid of power to rule the world.
Global problems, such as global warming, require global solutions.
However, global warming is a myth, perpetrated by various factions that seek to control planet Earth and carried out by the fools who fall for such blatant nonsense.
READ THE REST HERE FOR MORE OF THIS: ‘That’s correct — it will cost $100 trillion to alter the global climate by one degree over a period of 667 years.’
Fiscal ruin of the Western world beckons
For a glimpse of what awaits Britain, Europe, and America as budget deficits spiral to war-time levels, look at what is happening to the Irish welfare state…
HERE – DON`T SAY YOU DID NOT KNOW
Lord Mandelson’s empire: 35 Cabinet committee posts
The extent of the Business Secretary Lord Mandelson’s influence over the Government became clear when it was disclosed that he is a member of 35 Cabinet committees.
By Murray Wardrop
Published: 7:00AM BST 22 Jul 2009
Lord Mandelson, who also holds the title of First Secretary of State, has an input on policy on everything from swine flu to the Olympics, climate change to Afghanistan.
He is a member of 80 per cent of the 43 Cabinet committees and subcommittees, sitting on more than either the Prime Minister, the Chancellor or the Foreign Secretary.
Related Articles
-
Labour boosted by £4.6m tax rebate
-
Peter Mandelson warns Post Office row is harming Labour
-
From ridicule to respect: is Lord Mandelson single-handedly keeping Labour together?
-
Gordon Brown to face new threat over Royal Mail privatisation plans
-
Gordon Brown: My wife has not resigned
-
MPs’ expenses: how Brown and his Cabinet exploit expenses system
These include areas such as health, immigration, trade, Africa, crime, flood planning, and food.
The full committee list was published by No 10 on Tuesday and is an indicator of Lord Mandelson’s influence across government.
Together with his unofficial role as a daily adviser to Gordon Brown and his huge Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the peer’s new roles mean that he is deputy prime minister in all but name.
The extent of his role in the Government is underlined by the fact that he is expected to share a significant amount of the day-to-day burden of running the country during the Commons summer recess.
The level of influence wielded by the peer stands in contrast to that of John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, who never attended more than 17 Cabinet committees.
Eric Pickles, the Conservative Party’s chairman, said: “It is quite obvious that Peter Mandelson is the real unelected prime minister pulling the strings from No 10.
“He is Gordon Brown’s political life support machine, keeping the plotters at bay. He sadly typifies the Prime Minister’s unhealthy reliance on unelected officials.”
Mr Brown brought Lord Mandelson back into the Cabinet last October, making him a life peer after a period of exile in Brussels as EU trade commissioner.
A No 10 spokesman said Lord Mandelson’s position in government covered a broad range of issues and his membership on the cabinet committees reflected that.
Lord Mandelson sits on the following Cabinet committees: NO WONDER IT’S ALL IN A FLAMING MESS!!
- National Economic Council
- Better Regulation
- Democratic Renewal Council
- Domestic Policy Council (which he deputy chairs)
- Domestic Affairs
- Borders and Migration
- Communities and Equalities
- Food
- Families, Children and Young People
- Health and Wellbeing
- Justice and Crime
- Local Government and the Regions (which he chairs)
- Public Engagement and the Delivery of Services
- Life Chances
- Talent and Enterprise
- Economic Development
- Environment and Energy
- Housing, Planning and Regeneration Floods and more floods
- Olympic and Paralympic Games Billions wasted
- Productivity, Skills and Employment Pretend jobs-pretend degrees.
- Constitution -we already have an excellent one- you Fabians can’ accept.
- National Security, International Relations and Development Security- Close the borders.
- Europe Bollocks to Brussels-it’s Illegal
- Overseas and Defence Nationalism stuff overseas.
- Africa …more NWO money
- Afghanistan and Pakistan Unicol gas and oil- OBAMA wants to bomb Pakistan
- Trade …….Trade what.
- Protective Security and Resilience
- Public Services and Public Expenditure CUTS CUTS CUTS AND MORE CUTS
- Public Sector Pay and Pensions Strikes.
- Pandemic Influenza Planning There is NO Pandemic
- Post Office Network (which he chairs]European directive- Post Offices will close!!
- Flood planning handing growing food over to foreigners the Eumed expansionism.
- PM’s ad hoc Committee on International Climate Change Natural money can’t stop it the climate changing-daft lying bats.
- PM’s ad hoc International Climate Change Negotiations How to fleece the public this means.
pandemic my arse- when thousands nay millions die- thats a pandemic!
Illegal war, now UK screws it`s injured cannon fodder
July 27, 2009 – The government will this week launch an attempt to deny soldiers crippled in battle full compensation for their injuries.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) will go to the Court of Appeal on Tuesday to try to slash the compensation awarded to two injured soldiers by up to 70%. If the government wins, it will fuel the mounting disquiet over the relatively paltry payments some soldiers are receiving for lifelong injuries.
The legal action comes as British troops are suffering their heaviest casualties since the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan in 2001. READ THE REST
Yesterday a soldier from the 40th Regiment Royal Artillery became the 20th to die this month, and the 189th overall.
‘Seen the recent TV campaign to get the cannon fodder to join up?’
‘Even the real dunces should know better… ‘EXACTLY!!
MPs ignore public anger and give themselves £9,000 expenses deal by stealth
July 28, 2009 – MPs have ignored public anger over the expenses system by quietly introducing new rules which allow them to claim up to £9,125 a year without producing any receipts.
The Daily Telegraph can disclose that MPs have devised a new scheme allowing them to claim a £25-a-night “subsistence” allowance when staying away from their designated main home.
The controversial payments for MPs have been approved despite widespread outrage at unjustified expense claims following the disclosures made by this newspaper.
The allowance, which is almost double the previous £4,800-a-year limit for unreceipted claims, is paid on top of expenses for mortgage interest, rent, council tax and utility bills.
It has been approved without any public announcement or debate in Parliament as MPs leave for their summer holidays. READ THE REST
NOTHING CHANGES EH? WHY? Because the sheep sleep…
Useless Alan Johnson shows off new ID card
You will pay £30 for it, thats on top of the 5.1Billion (so far) this useless shit has cost you in taxes!
The final design for the card was unveiled by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, yesterday. (?!)
Last month, the Home Office announced that the public would never be forced to hold a card, while a plan to make 20,000 airport workers carry them was dropped after union opposition.
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said that the scheme remained a “colossal waste of money that achieves nothing”. He added: “A designer piece of plastic is not going to combat identity fraud, crime or terrorism. This intrusive scheme should be scrapped immediately.”
Think you`re alone? That you must be the only one who knows that this step towards the police state is bo**ocks?
WRONG!
Read the comments here (scroll down)
TRUE- IT WON’T BE FORCED- IF YOU DON’T WANT TO CLAIM ANY BENEFITS-GET NHS TREATMENT-USE A BANK-BUY A HOME- GET A JOB- EDUCATION-ETC ETC ETC–Oh DEAR IT IS COMPULSARY!!
Help Rumsfeld’s shares- don’t worry abour your kids- help the UK Government use up it’s soon to expire tamiflu stocks.
Tamiflu causes sickness and nightmares in children, study finds
More than half of children taking the swine flu drug Tamiflu experience side-effects such as nausea and nightmares, research suggests. FROM THE TIMES
August 2, 09 – An estimated 150,000 people with flu symptoms were prescribed the drug through a new hotline and website last week, according to figures revealed yesterday.
Tamiflu by the way is NOT a vaccine!
Studies of children attending three schools in London and one in the South West showed that 51-53 per cent had one or more side-effects from the medication, which is offered to everyone in England with swine flu symptoms.
The very thin end of a massive wedge. Greece has just approved plans to vaccinate their whole population, with no exceptions. google ‘Jane Burgermeister’ and read what’s going on…
MEANWHILE – Swiss army stockpiles “swine flu” vaccines in preparation for mass forced vaccination
The army in Switzerland is starting to stockpile “swine flu” vaccines as it gears up for a mass forced vaccination of the Swiss population in autumn, according to a report in the Basler Zeitung.
The Swiss army today received the first shipment of a total of 16 million doses of vaccines as well as needles in readiness for mass forced vaccination of the entire population using two doses.
Westminster’s thieving is nothing compared to what they’re doing in Brussels
3-aug-09 - In Britain, we’ve been shocked by the avarice, dishonesty and greed of our Westminster MPs. But they are mere amateurs compared to those we’ve elected to the European Parliament.
Typical Westminster MPs will cost us around £250,000 each a year in salary, pension and of course a wide range of generous and flexible expenses. From this, they can comfortably pocket at least £50,000 a year tax free by employing family members and through skillful manipulation of the expenses system. This probably feels like a tidy sum to many readers, but must seem like small beer to our Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).
The biggest pot of money MEPs can dip into is for employing staff. This is worth up to £184,000 per MEP per year. You could employ quite a few people for this amount. However, many MEPs have one secretary and at most one or two usually poorly-paid researchers. Some even band together to save money by sharing researchers and secretaries. Yet most still manage to claim much of their allowance. Where this money goes is one of life’s great mysteries. The European Parliament’s auditors recently looked at how a selection of MEPs used their assistants’ allowances and found ‘major irregularities’ in about ninety per cent of the cases they reviewed. Basically most MEPs are stealing our money. But as our MEPs have voted to prevent us ever seeing this report, we’ll never know exactly what happens to our cash. READ THIS FANTASTIC REPORT
